reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @GUnderground_TV
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss a new episode: War on Iran, US military used for Israel & Epstein class profits. Sgt. Brian McGinnis, arm broken dragging out of Congress protesting the US-Israel war on Iran, is running for US Senate in NC, opposing the US's wars of aggression.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ WAR ON IRAN: US Military Being Used for Israel & EPSTEIN CLASS’ Profits - Sgt. Brian McGinnis @BrianMcGinnisNC had his arm broken while being dragged out of Congress for protesting against the US-Israeli war on Iran. He is now running for the US Senate in North Carolina, facing the powerful Israel Lobby and running as a candidate opposed to the US's wars of aggression abroad.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground, opening with a broad claim about Iran, retaliation, and world events surrounding a US-Israeli military posture in the region. He notes that it is Easter Monday, with Iranians mourning the targeting of Iranian Christians by the USA and Iran’s Jewish community observing Passover. He references ongoing tensions, a looming deadline for actions like opening the Strait of Hormuz, and describes Iran as retaining “the world’s most powerful military” capabilities to choke world trade, while saying Trump’s leadership appears unstable and that “the dissembling of Trump has some in The USA wanting to invoke the twenty fifth amendment.” Rutansi frames Iran as potentially threatening regime-change in the USA, while asserting that in Iran, Supreme Leader Khamenei remains officially in charge. He contends that Trump’s unpopularity foreshadows Republican losses in Congress and situates a recent confrontation in which a combat veteran was forcibly removed from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing as part of broader anti-war sentiment.
The program transitions to the incident: an Iraq invasion-era US Marine Corps veteran, Sergeant Brian McGinnis, is shown being removed from a hearing, his arm broken during the confrontation. The veteran, who is running as a Green Party candidate for the US Senate in North Carolina, joins Rutansi by phone. McGinnis reports that his arm is “doing well” after treatment at George Washington University Hospital, and explains he cannot discuss the incident in detail due to legal charges, but asserts that his message about “troops for dying for another country, Israel, not The United States Of America” came through clearly.
McGinnis accuses U.S. leadership of being beholden to Israel and argues that the American people are waking up to that reality, contrasting a long-standing narrative with what he calls “the Gaza genocide” and Israel’s “greater Israel project.” He blames corporate donors and lobby groups, specifically APAC, for political decisions, insisting that his Green Party candidacy rejects “big money” and represents “the people.” He discusses public opinion in the United States, noting a shift toward unfavorable views of Israel, and links this to the influence of the military-industrial complex and media complicity.
On military conduct and media: McGinnis reflects on the mood among troops, acknowledging their training and obedience to orders, while criticizing the current use of the U.S. military “for nefarious reasons” and “the profiteering of the Epstein class.” He discusses how social media and digital connectivity expose soldiers to anti-war sentiments and suggests conscientious objection as an option. He recalls incidents from his own experience, including Camp Lejeune controversies, and remarks on the bombing of U.S. assets in Iraq and the West Bank’s humanitarian crises.
McGinnis condemns the West Bank occupation and settler violence, describing it as evidence of an “apartheid government” and detailing personal horror at Palestinian suffering. He criticizes Pentagon rhetoric that frames a war against Islam as a “holy war,” calling Pete Hegseth a propagandist who fails to gain the respect of true military figures. He references the USS Liberty incident to illustrate perceived deliberate misdirection by U.S. leadership in allied actions.
Regarding political and financial dynamics, McGinnis argues that war profits accrue to a small elite and that “APAC” and other pro-Israel interests shape policy, urging voters to reject two-party limitations. He cites Joe Kent’s resignation over concerns that the Iran war serves Israel’s interests and contrasts that with his own stance against “the Epstein class” profiting from bloodshed. He reiterates his commitment to a Green Party platform, asserting he can defeat Israeli money in North Carolina’s Senate race and condemning corporate donors.
In closing, Rutansi confirms the program’s direction and hints at continued coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu Iran war, inviting viewers to engage via social media and the program’s platform.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi. Welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting All around the world from Dubai, the main target of Iranian retaliation of a joint UK aided US Israeli military aggression in this region. It is Easter Monday where Iranians have been mourning the targeting of Iranian Christians by The USA, and it is Passover for Iran's Jewish community, the largest in West Asia outside in Israel under hourly retaliatory attack for its corruption and genocide. After more than a million now killed, wounded, or displaced by Epstein fury, Trump did have a deadline for today to open the Strait Of Hormuz, but news is moving at a pace set by the whimsy of Trump. And at the time of recording, Iran retains its superpower ability to choke world trade with the world's most powerful military, unable to defeat it.
The dissembling of Trump has some in The USA wanting to invoke the twenty fifth amendment to replace him. But in Iran, still officially led by Khamenei, has anyway arguably crafted regime change in The USA. Trump's unpopularity in polls looks set for regime change away from the Republicans in congress this autumn. It's in this context that in the past few weeks, a combat veteran bravely confronted those who far from supporting America first are merely servants of those whose mantra is Israel first. Here is the Iraq invasion US Marine Corps veteran being forcibly removed from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
His arm was broken during his exercising of his First Amendment rights.
Speaker 1: Israel is the reason for this war.
Speaker 2: America does not wanna fight this war for Israel. Come on. Let's go.
Speaker 1: America does not wanna send its sons and daughters to war for Israel. Your inability to name that shows you have left this as leaders. Out. This is wrong. No.
And nobody wants to fight for Israel. No one wants to fight for Israel. His hand. His hand. Oh, hand.
A sitting US senator just broke the hand of a marine. That
Speaker 0: was sergeant Brian McGinnis, Green Party candidate for the US senate who joins me now from North Carolina. Sergeant, thanks so much for coming on. I better ask before anything, how how is your arm? The
Speaker 2: arm is doing well. It's mended. I had great care at the George Washington University Hospital where the orthopedic team put me back together, and so I'm healing well. Thanks for asking.
Speaker 0: Well, so glad to, hear it. Yeah. Obviously, those pictures were beamed all around the world, your bravery, about it. You I know you can't talk about the, actual incident because of legal, concerns. Is that right?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I have to be careful about what I say about it. I'm still facing charges, and so I want to be careful about how I speak. But I do have a question. Could you understand what I said in the terms of your inability to name that, it shows your ineptness as leaders.
I've seen some people say I shows they accept this, but I'm just curious if my vocabulary came through there.
Speaker 0: I think everyone in the world heard you loud and clear, specifically about what you were talking about troops for dying for another country, Israel, not The United States Of America.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Exactly. And we've known that through the last twenty five years and the recent genocide in Gaza. You know, Israel's hell bent on it's you know, proliferating their land, their greater Israel project, and they are all in on trying to accomplish that, and they're using American military to execute their their mission.
Speaker 0: And it should be said that whereas, say, ten years ago or maybe during the Iraq war, which you fought in, it it would have been more controversial arguably. But polls show that the majority in The United States now has an unfavorable opinion of Israel.
Speaker 2: It shows that the American people are paying attention and it can connect the dots where our government simply refuses to because they're paid off by lobby groups such as APAC, the large military industrial complex. And so they aren't working for the people. They're working for large corporate donors. That's a big differentiation with me. We're we're running for the Green Party.
We do not accept big money, so we do represent the people.
Speaker 0: And of course, you were a soldier, so I gotta ask you what you might be feeling. I suppose this interview is being recorded before any ground troop invasion. So in a sense, it's the button pushers that are launching these missiles and and the air force. I mean, even the new so called New York Times says review shows new weapons hit school site. They're, of course, talking about the Minab girls school, primary school, girls aged five to 12, hundred and 60 eight of them.
We thought they had been incinerated and lacerated by titanium from a Tomahawk missile, but now there's some confusion about it. What do you think the mood is amongst the US military as they carry out Trump's mission in Iran and in this region?
Speaker 2: It's hard to speculate how the troops are feeling because they are in the military, and they are well trained and, you know, mentally prepared for carrying out orders that they've volunteered to to do. And so that's a whole different dynamic that they hold. Me as a twenty year removed veteran assimilated to the civilian world, I see the injustice now, how the the American military is being used for nefarious reasons, the profiteering of the the elites, the Epstein class. And therefore, what I what I was you know, what I participated in, was the occupation of Iraq from my personal experience, And knowing that that was all based upon lies of WMDs that were never found or or I I don't see any difference with what this war is being started with. It's being based on lies as well.
And they've and the American government have lied their way up to this point and are trying to, you know, they're threatening ground troops, and the escalation, the trajectory of this war is is has me very concerned. I don't limit it to beyond, nuclear weapons being used. The rhetoric used by our government officials, are so cocky and confident, I don't see how they can back back up. I pray they do, and I hope they find an off ramp to deescalate these things. I think, reigning in Israel is paramount in what America must do to bring deescalation.
And the and I'm very, very saddened and disgusted by our government's inability to, you know, claim its responsibility for the Gaza genocide over the last two and a half years, the lies they perpetrated to justify, Israel's genocide of the Palestinians, and they're and then taking it forward even further with this Iranian war. America has to face accountability. Israel must face accountability, and the people know this. But and so I hope that they capitulate to that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Of course. The propaganda system used to be so strong in The United States that the Americans ordinary Americans could never have known of a genocide in Gaza, say. But we know that social media, other avenues have managed to educate the American youth specifically about what was happening in Gaza supported by The United States, the European Union, Britain to to slaughter so many tens of thousands of people. How does it work in the military?
How do they keep the information from the military from understanding why they are it could be invading Iran, or it could be targeting schools and hospitals in Iran? When I was in
Speaker 2: the military from 2000 to 2004, the Internet was not as prolific as it is today. I've talked to plenty of people who are in the military since then, and there's a lot more, ability to connect with family members even when you're overseas. So I would imagine that there is also Internet access to access social media as well. I do understand the military is pretty tight in certain times to, you know, limits expose you know, limits leaking information that would be important to to to keep private. But I would think people are able to access social media, catch wind of cultural trends, and more of these anti war sentiments.
And so I I I wonder if that is having an effect in causing American troops to, question what we're doing, in Iran. I know there's conscientious objection as a policy within the American military, and I do do encourage people who do object, this war to use your right in that way, confidently and reach out and find an organization that could support you in those efforts.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You were in Camp Lejeune in in Iraq, had its fair share of scandals. Of course, the Mahmoudag detainee abuse scandal, Ilario Pantano. You probably know all those scandals. What does it feel like now to hear that the US embassy in Iraq has been bombed?
I think it's one of the biggest US embassies aboard in the world to hear about US assets being destroyed in the early days, in the first couple of weeks of the war as retaliation for the strikes on Iran. Devastating to hear, as well as devastating to know that I participated in the devastation of Iraq as a whole.
Speaker 2: Devastating to meet an Iraqi citizen at during my free and flotilla stint in Istanbul. This man was 30 years old, he looked at me in the eye and said, I'm tired. He's been active with emergency services. He's met ISIS who looked red haired, white skinned German family, and he assisted their young children, which is speaking to how ISIS is an international group, you know, recruited from all around to fill their ranks, and it is an artificial group that is falsely representing the large community of Muslims across the globe to show that they are extremists, a part of the propaganda tool. This this Iraqi man talked about his humanitarian efforts with trying to rebuild his community.
He had an art museum. He is connected with a large donor, and he uses those funds to build bathrooms in Gaza. He had already been active in Sudan, Southern Sudan, Northern Sudan, and making trips and bringing people who need medical attention back to, you know, hospitals in cities nearby. And so while I'm devastated that there's, know, violence affecting US infrastructure in Iraq, it begs the question, why are we there in the first place, and what, you know, what happened before this? And so this all has to be understood by everybody, and American people are smart enough to handle this.
It's just egregious that our government tries to hide all the the the large picture from us and tries to funnel us into to believing that these wars are justified.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and Israel, for its part, is involved in because this is a United States Israeli project, war in Iran. What's it felt like for you watching what's been happening in the West Bank where you have actually been after you retired as a soldier? What's it like learning of what Israel is doing to the West Bank? I mean, now you're safe in North Carolina.
It's tremendously troubling.
Speaker 2: It hurts. It drives me to do what I'm doing now. When I was in the West Bank, I I personally witnessed a lot of settler violence. You know, those settlers had security provided by their military. It is so apparent.
If anybody were to visit there, you could see the the apartheid government, the unjust fair unfair laws, the pain endured by the Palestinians, the impunity enjoyed by the Israelis and their settlers' youth, the sadness that these youth are being exploited to perpetrate violence and to harass and and and evacuate and ethnically cleanse the West Bank. So seeing it firsthand, seeing it through social media, painful pictures and videos of of children being killed, weeping families, children losing their their parents, Myself as a parent of four young children, when I lean into loving them and kissing them and caring for them, my heart can't help but picture and feel the loss of Palestinians who have had their children stolen from them, or to imagine my kids losing their children, at least losing their families.
Speaker 0: Sergeant Brian McGinniss, I'll just help you there. More from the US Marine Corps veteran and twenty twenty six US senate candidate after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with US Marine Corps veteran and Green Party candidate for the US Senate, sergeant Brian McGinnis. Sergeant, you were telling me about your feelings in on watching the devastation of the West Bank since Trump started bombing Tehran.
I mean, what do you feel when you watch Pete Hegseth, the putative head of the Pentagon who would have been your boss, I guess, if you'd still been in the marines? The way he describes being in the military and what war is like. For him, a holy war against Islam.
Speaker 2: I think he's a mouthpiece spreading propaganda, trying to capture the naivete of young youth that are very wise in the world and using a soul, narrative to emotionally encourage them or emotionally, push them towards fighting an unjust war. And, I I find it unacceptable. I don't think he has the respect of generals, true military types. I just think he's such a I I really don't have any respect
Speaker 0: for him whatsoever. Even though he, of course, was a veteran, veteran too.
Speaker 2: That's fine. There is good and bad people in every aspect of this world. You know, I'm a veteran. I'm an I'm not a saint. I will put myself forward in this in this cause, and and judge me how you will.
I will judge Pete Hagsteth as I will, and I don't think he is a good person.
Speaker 0: Well, there were certainly some investigations about his trades ahead of the decision to start bombing Iran, his financial trades. I know that Goldman Sachs, top Goldman Sachs executive actually said it's in the Feet here, Goldman clients glad for Iran diversion. I mean, that and obviously, thousands have been killed, a million displaced in Lebanon. What do you feel about the financial dimension to this war? Who's making the money out of the war?
Speaker 2: It saddens me that people are struggling in Lebanon and Gaza, in the West Bank, in Sudan, in Iran, in Congo, in Sudan. And it infuriates me that politicians like Hagsteth and everybody else profit off of it. It infuriates me. It is a dagger to know these people are suffering, and it's a twist to know that people are profiting off of it. And it it it it encouraged me, and it it motivates me to wanna get into politics myself and change this selfish, disgusting dynamic of our government of our American government officials.
Speaker 0: And what did you think when Joe Kent resigned saying in his letter, that's the former director of counterterror in the Trump administration, saying that this war in Iran was for Israel, Sympathies with him? I wholeheartedly appreciate his bravery instead
Speaker 2: of being up and stating that. To to disregard his statements as a 11 tour long term veteran, well accomplished, who has sacrificed and lost his wife to the cause. To question his character and question his statements against Donald Trump, a businessman, a part of the Epstein class is baffling to me. The American people, the globe should be able to make this decision make this a right decision and choose the right side on this one.
Speaker 0: I mean, Trump said he didn't know anything about security, actually, and that other commentators, I think, perhaps on the Murdoch Fox News, were saying these are antisemitic tropes.
Speaker 2: There is antisemitism in this world, and I'd never wish for Jews to ever be persecuted. I don't want anybody to per be persecuted. But Jews themselves know that antisemitism is being used to smear people just to avoid accountability for this Gaza genocide and try to avoid any accountability in the state of Israel is is at fault for all these horrible murders and death and and this proliferation of war just for land stealing. So I I want to just split that hair and know that Jews are being exploited, and they are speaking out against this. And those are the voices that we must, rally around and and and champion.
Speaker 0: I know you can't talk about the actual protest in congress specifics, but you did say that the corporate legacy media go to infinite lengths to project false narratives. What did you mean by that? Were you surprised by the way they I don't know whether you feel they twisted the coverage of the actual events and the dramatic visuals of Capitol Police of them breaking your arm in in congress.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm 44 years old. I've seen how stories get, expressed or told on the media, and and there's a lot of, ways you can change the meaning of things, and I just hope that my genuineness and, authenticity came through. I I'm serious about wanting the, soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen to not go into harm's way for, lies of the Epstein class, and that's why I spoke up. I am a veteran myself. I know the brutality of war and the random nature of its, of of its devastation.
And once it's enacted, there's no telling what it will destroy. And so it's a criminal it's criminal to employ the United States military for these lies, and that's that's why I'm speaking out. It's for humanity, and it's for it's the only thing it's for the right reasons, and that's what I hope people will believe, and, that will win out no matter what type of, slant they try to put on me. I know that senator Sheehy disingenuously said I hope he gets the help he needs without causing further violence. That was very disingenuous, and I hope to prove that I am not unhinged and I am a very reasonable and compassionate person that has serious concerns that's shared by millions of Americans, and we want our voices heard above our government at this time.
Speaker 0: And what would you say to Rupert Murdoch's journalist, the New York Post, of course, saying you broke your own arm. And what would you say to, I don't know,
Speaker 2: the people who work at CBS News now under the new Ellison regime of Zionism? I would say that that's a lie. I was resist I was holding my ground to speak my First Amendment right, and I hold my my my expression and my rights to do that very seriously as an American, especially as a combat veteran who's fought for this very, constitutional right. And so expressing myself is my right, and I did not purposely connect you know, stick my arm there to be stuck. My hand was stuck, and
Speaker 0: and their over aggressive measures or actions to pull me out of there was the cause for my arm to break. And and that's what I have to say to anybody in regards to to that. I mean, clearly, in Iraq, you probably never saw false flags. But given that The United States people are coming to your side as regards their views of how Israel dominates American foreign policy, How fearful should we be of false flags from Israel as they try to drag The United States further into wars in the Middle East and West Asia?
Speaker 2: I don't ever like to use the word fear, but I think we should have great concern and stay very aware and and recognize that there's a great chance there could be some false flag event to happen to wipe the American public of rational thinking, throw them into a fearful state. There I just used that word, but and just motivate them or push them into a war mentality. And so I think it's important that we use the evidence of the past. A great example is the USS Liberty. Just had the honor to listen to, staff sergeant Lockwood, who was a survivor from the USS Liberty, and spoke about the, horrible, attacks they were had and the, ignoring of their cries for help by the United States government in efforts to to take to take care of The US Israel allyship and to think that they sacrificed American sailors and marines' lives just for optics amongst two two allied countries, it shows the depravity of our leadership even at that time by the president Lyndon Johnson.
And and and it just it must be recognized that this evil takes place at the tops of our ranks, and we can't wait around to let the big media groups tell us what is. We have to make our own minds up and and and stand against these evil forces that have somehow found their ways at the top of our leadership, and we must not wait for their, permission, but just know in our hearts and trust our eyes and ears to know better. Trump has been indicted on many accounts of, you know, sexual predatorish behavior. We don't need convictions to prove he is a man of low character, of no character at all. Same with many others that invest in profit off of wars, and, had their own pockets.
So, American people are waking
Speaker 0: up, and we must be have initiative in standing up and saving our own country. That's the only way America's gonna survive this. And just finally, you're going for the senate seat for North Carolina in November. Many people expecting Trump to lose the senate, in which case he may well be impeached. Your opponents, Roy Cooper is a democrat, Michael Watley for the republicans.
I mean, Watley is receiving money from Israel supporting groups, Roy Cooper as well. How does that work? Just finally, very briefly, and can you defeat the Israeli money in the election you'll be facing for the seat in North Carolina to become the senator this autumn, this fall?
Speaker 2: I believe I will, and defeat is not an option. Mike Watley is receiving ironically less money from APEC than governor Cooper is. Governor Cooper is receiving 300,000. Mike Watley is either receiving 6,000 or 60,000. Either way, they have already shown that they are Israel first by accepting that money.
We all know that they'll their foreign policy will be led by APAC or by Israel. A Green Party member, like I stated before, we do not accept any money from any corporate donors or PAC money. And so that allows us to, serve the people. My opponent, governor Roy Cooper, has already denounced this resolution number one, which would mean America stopped funding Israel arm stopped arming Israel. And their demo the state demo Democratic Party has worked very hard to pass that bill, and he and the governor, Josh Stein, are already saying they will reject that.
So there's proof that the Democratic representative will not listen to his party. So I encourage those people to come to the Green Party and believe in me and the Republicans. I think we all know with having Trump endorse him, you're gonna get the you know what you're gonna get with him. So this is the time to be brave with your vote. Don't follow the narrative that you're throwing your vote away by voting third party.
We've known what the duopoly the Republicans and Democrats have brought us to into this mess. So why repeat that same step? They've they've lost their trust.
Speaker 0: So thank you so much, Sergeant Brian McGinnis. Yes, sir. Be safe. Thank you. That's it for our show.
Continued condolences to all those bereaved by today's NATO wars NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday for continuing coverage of the Trump Netanyahu war in Iran. Until then, keep in touch by all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel, going underground TV on rommel.com to watch new and old episodes of going underground. See you Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I join Afshin Rattansi on Going Underground as we challenge Joel Rubin on Iran, missiles and deterrence, whether this war was a disastrous choice or necessity, the fate of the petrodollar, and how the conflict shifts power for Russia and China.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ WAR ON IRAN: Afshin Rattansi Challenges Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joel Rubin Why does the US think Iran will accept giving up its missiles and having no deterrence? Was this war on Iran a disastrous war of choice, or necessity? Will this be the end of the petrodollar? How has this war empowered Russia🇷🇺 and China🇨🇳? All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with @JoelMartinRubin
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi introduces Going Underground from Dubai amid what he describes as a global economic calamity sparked by the Trump-Netanyahu war in Iran, noting widespread damage across the region and a shift of geopolitical power toward Beijing, with oil prices benefiting Russia. He frames the conflict as the defining military action of this century and a stress test for BRICS multipolarity, contrasting it with Washington’s desire to preserve empire since 1945. Joel Rubin, a former US deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs who helped negotiate the JCPOA and who has been involved in Democratic outreach, joins from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Rubin begins by acknowledging multiple possible outcomes but argues that the Iranian regime overplayed its hand, citing what he calls the regime’s slaughter of thousands of its own people in January and Iran’s missile strikes across nine Arab countries as evidence that the action taken was necessary, though not preferable. Rutansi counters by pointing to claims in the New York Times about Israeli involvement in organizing protests and notes the broader human toll. Rubin responds that Iranian leadership has a pattern of violence toward its own people during election protests, and he emphasizes that Iran’s actions extend beyond the nuclear issue to missiles and regional influence, including support for Hezbollah and Hamas.
The discussion moves to the JCPOA and diplomacy. Rubin argues that Iran had opportunities to reach a deal under both Trump and Biden, and that Tehran did not accept a diplomatic off-ramp, leading to the current confrontation. He asserts that there was no firm agreement in the talks, and he counters the idea that Oman, Britain, or other actors had secured a deal, while acknowledging the ongoing political debate about diplomacy and the role of the JCPOA. Rutansi presses on whether the existence of a nuclear agreement justified renewed aggression, noting the Nuremberg definition of crimes and asking why the United States would justify bombing Tehran. Rubin maintains that the diplomacy around the JCPOA did not produce a binding agreement and that Iran’s refusal to accept a deal, coupled with the slaughter of protesters, contributed to the current crisis.
They discuss Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missiles. Rubin reiterates that Iran’s nuclear program was a problem recognized by the international community and that its ballistic missile program posed a threat to global security, including the potential to reach Europe and the Dimona reactor in Israel. He clarifies that missiles were not part of the JCPOA, explaining that some in Washington advocate for strict missile constraints rather than complete prohibition, while emphasizing a desire for rules governing missiles to prevent unrestrained aggression. Rutansi challenges the idea of US defensiveness, asking why the United States should be able to threaten the region with missiles, and questions the broader legitimacy of US military actions.
They touch on broader political and economic issues, including corruption allegations targeting Iran’s leadership and open questions about how corruption might intersect with policy decisions. Rubin dismisses conspiracy framing and emphasizes accountability through the US legislative process, while acknowledging ongoing debates about corruption and its relevance to policy.
The program concludes with Rubin reflecting on the domestic political landscape in the United States, noting that public opinion on the war is deeply divided along party lines, with a strong opposition in the Democratic camp and broad support among Republicans. Rutansi notes plans for protests and questions the long-term implications for the petrodollar, oil pricing in yuan, and global economies, inviting Rubin to return for an update as the situation develops. The show closes with condolences to those affected by the conflicts and a prompt to follow updates on Going Underground.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting amidst the edge of a global economic calamity triggered by the Trump and Netanyahu war in Iran. We come to you from a Dubai, which has seen itself becoming one of the main targets of the war apart from military destruction of assets of Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Britain and The United States. Tomorrow was supposed to be a day that signaled global detente, the visit of Donald Trump to Beijing. Instead, Trump's war has seen massive geopolitical power transfer from Washington to Beijing as well as an oil price bonanza for Russia, now the largest economy in Europe by PPP GDP. Billions have been affected economically, and tens of thousands have been killed, wounded, or displaced so far.
It is the defining military action of this century, which will reverberate for decades. For BRICS multipolarity, it is seen as the death throes of US hegemony. For Hawkes in Washington, it's part of a multifaceted attempt to prevent the end of US empire that consolidated in 1945. Joel Rubin was US deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs when butcher of Libya Obama negotiated GCPOA nuclear talks with Iran. Under George w Bush, whose wars killed, wounded, or displaced tens of millions, He was a career state department officer.
He's also been Jewish outreach director to Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, and he writes the briefing book on Substack. He's in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Joel, thanks so much for coming on, Going Underground. Well, I better start by saying that by the time it's broadcast, Trump could have chickened out. He could have sent ground troops.
Israel could have used nuclear weapons. Having said all that, I mean, why do you support the war on Iran?
Speaker 1: Yeah. There's a lot of different outcomes there could we could envision. That's for sure. But I gotta tell you, the Iranian regime, the Islamic Republic, really overplayed their hand, and not just on a strategic level. They slaughtered thousands of their own people in January, and that's that's a bridge too far.
And what we're seeing now with where you are, for example, in UAE, the missiles coming in, raining in on nine Arab countries. Iran has attacked basically and bombed more countries in The Middle East in about three, four weeks than Israel has in seventy eight seventy seven years, I think it is now at this point. And so it's just too far. We can't trust where they were heading, and I think that the action was necessary. Not preferable, not ideal by any stretch, but this is what the Iranians were pushing for, and they've they have forplayed their hand.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, on the slaughtering of people, it has to be said that even the New York Times has been talking about how the Israelis were well in there organizing these demonstrations and protests. Obviously, they denied.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't I wouldn't buy into that. I I I I I you know, when you talk to Iranian Americans here, for example, who are deeply connected to the the people on the ground there and and have a lot of family members, I'm not hearing that kind of argument. I'm hearing that this is part of a pattern of the Iranian regime going back.
Speaker 0: Isn't that the problem you're talking to Iranian Americans is a bit like talking to Yeah.
Speaker 1: But no.
Speaker 0: But it's like talking to Iraqi dissidents during Saddam Hussein. They will exaggerate the situation.
Speaker 1: Arab Americans about about Israel Palestine. It's like talking to European Americans about NATO. We wanna know what's going on when people are connected and tied and have have networks in there. But, look, this wasn't the first time the Iranian regime slaughtered its own people. It didn't just happen for the first time in January.
Every single election period after those elections, when people protested the theft of the elections, the Basij came out and massacred people. So they did it again in January, and they did it by the tens of thousands.
Speaker 0: I should just say I I've lived in Iran during election periods, and I've never seen anything like that. But you said Iran has overthrown you you said it overplayed its hand. I mean, the Financial Times here says Chinese leaders seek strategic gains from quagmire in Iran. The another headline, again, from the same paper. I'm not biased to the Feet.
Difficult to get the press in Dubai because of the the mail maybe. Oil windfall gives Russia a $150,000,000 a day. I know it's costing The United States $2,000,000,000 a day. How have they overplayed their hand when the whole world is now suffering because of what Israel and The United States have done?
Speaker 1: Well, that because those are two separate issues. The the Chinese and the Russians trying to leverage a war in The United States. Then, of course, that's
Speaker 0: Russia didn't have to do anything. Russia didn't have to do
Speaker 1: anything. Well, would be blind neglect. Iran's entire nuclear infrastructure has been breaking the boundaries that they self said that they were going to observe. The same thing with their ballistic missile program as well, targeting Diego Garcia, which is twice the distance of what they had said just weeks before they have been testing missiles to to reach. So look.
The the they overplayed their hand because they had an opportunity to come to a deal with president Trump, But not just president Trump, with president Biden for four years. And I worked on the JCPOA as a an activist, a supporter of it, as well as in the administration and in president Obama's administration. And and by the way, I noticed how you called president Obama a butcher but aren't willing to call out the Iranian regime for butchering their own people. So I think that's unfortunate. No.
We can do a whole
Speaker 0: program about Libya, of course.
Speaker 1: But but but, you know, I I I think you gotta call a spade a spade there with the Islamic Republic and what it did to its own people. But what I will say on this, the Islamic Republic did not come back into the nuclear deal when they had the opportunity with president Biden many times. So that is a hot political topic as you know better than anybody in Washington. That was not an easy position for president Biden to take, and he got essentially pushed away. And then, again, more negotiations.
And the ask is still the same. That's what's so confounding at heart about this. And I will say that war is not a panacea. It's not. I'm not a neocon.
I don't believe that every single war is gonna lead to utopia. No. But what the Iranians are now still dealing with is the question. Do they want to give up their nuclear program to have peace? And that's what's again being put on the table.
Speaker 0: Okay. I mean, a couple of things there. You you said that I mean, if we assumed that what you were saying was correct and that Iran was slaughtering its own people, why does that give the right of The United States in any way possibly to stop bombing Tehran and kill its leader? You know that this is the supreme crime. The supreme international crime as defined at Nuremberg is what The United States has committed, the crime of aggression.
Speaker 1: I I would first of all, if you're gonna bring up Nuremberg, then we're gonna go down the whole other level of legal international law, and and I don't think the Islamic Republic could be
Speaker 0: But you're saying that they have the right to do it. But you back the war for two reasons. You back the for two reasons. Right? You back the war for two reasons.
You back it for the slaughter. You back it for the slaughter after the nuclear program. Right? It's the nuclear program.
Speaker 1: I And the am What I'm saying let me let me make sure because I wanna make sure I'm very clear. Iran overplayed his hand on the diplomacy. It went too far. The troops, the American military apparatus that was stationed outside of Iran for many weeks was part of that negotiation strategy or the Islamic Republic negotiators decided that they would not take what was being offered as a deal. And concurrent to that, they had just slaughtered their own people by the thousands, which to me implies lack of goodwill.
And that's the point. It was not an intervention to stop a slaughter, although, of course, there's a whole debate about responsibility to protect, and can we do that? And then there are people arguing cutting off aid to Israel to stop the Gaza war, you name it. But in this instance, what I'm lining it up with is this is a regime that not only did not take an opportunity for a diplomatic off ramp, but also demonstrated a violent capacity against its own people that led to what we can say as a a total breakdown and in this situation that we're in right now.
Speaker 0: Okay. So the main reason is the nuclear talks. In which case so you're saying we should dismiss the fact that Trump himself The the the remains on the original on the original JCPOA that you helped negotiate.
Speaker 1: Part of.
Speaker 0: Okay. But you you said the nuclear talks.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. Go ahead. That that I said the diplomacy. Now well
Speaker 0: Do you know the Omani foreign minister? The Omani foreign minister has been absolutely clear that the deal was on the table. Yeah. I The British, of all people, the British
Speaker 1: They were this close. They're always this close. I I don't I don't know if that's credible or not. I I'm not gonna say the Omani
Speaker 0: So you don't believe the Omani foreign minister. You don't believe the national security adviser, and you don't believe Joe kept the head of cat terror.
Speaker 1: I I I no. You're gonna put the the the argument that you want. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that there was no agreement made in those negotiations, and there may very well have been the Omani foreign minister who was the interlocutor. There was no direct talk in any heavy serious way.
And there are other look. Let's just be clear. The JCPOA and I see a lot of misinformation out there. And and a lot of people saying, well, Obama got this deal, the JCPOA, which I again supported. It was only focused on the nuclear program.
There's a variety of other aggressive militaristic hegemonic activity that Iran has been engaged in for decades, not in the missiles alone, but also, for example, creating malicious inside countries that it has no business creating them in and destabilizing those countries That's another point. In order to attack Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas.
Speaker 0: We can get on to that, but just try and focus in on one
Speaker 1: thing at a time. Those are all part of the full picture. Those are all part of the full picture. But, again, why the trigger? Look.
President Trump makes his own mind up, and he he decided that he was not, with his pressure, going to get an agreement on any of those issues, and that's why he took the action that he did.
Speaker 0: So clearly, the I mean, when I was living in Iran, I've got to say a lot of people were critical of the leader, Khamenei, who Trump killed because of his standing up front.
Speaker 1: Israelis I think Israelis killed him. I don't think The United States did.
Speaker 0: Okay. Doesn't really matter. Do they come in any family or Well, it does does it makes
Speaker 1: big difference.
Speaker 0: But but a lot of people were critical of him.
Speaker 1: Difference on who who did it.
Speaker 0: I mean, it was a joint operation as defined by the Pentagon. But I I just have to ask you because when when I was living there. When I was living there
Speaker 1: And you're not that's that's not accurate to do. I I joint operation does not mean that they targeted that The United States hit him.
Speaker 0: Why why does it matter?
Speaker 1: I just wanna Why
Speaker 0: does it matter to be a Netanyahu in trouble both be at the hangs
Speaker 1: for it. Incentives. There there there are different incentives for different actors, and you can't begin to tell me that the Iranians have been a passive pacifist country towards its
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. I'm not even getting no. Just hang on a second. Let's keep it to the nuclear weapons because that was your initial I mean, you was talking about the That's part of the picture.
Of alliance. Okay. But on the nuclear issue, it's clear that when I was living there and beyond that, there was a lot of criticism of the Iranian leadership from within Iran that Iran supported the fatwa of Khomeini that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons, and they should have nuclear weapons. Clearly, we haven't heard from we don't know whether he's alive, the successor, the other Khamenei. Trump has replaced Khamenei with Khamenei, whether he still backs up that fatwa.
Clear now that Iran
Speaker 1: Maybe worse.
Speaker 0: Iran's only choice now. And apart from the Strait Of Hormuz and all of these asymmetric strategies, it must get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible to counter the Well, glad brought up.
Speaker 1: I I'm really glad you brought that up because that's a great messaging point, and it's certainly one that I understand on a logical level. The also also the physical reality is that Iran hasn't enriched uranium since the June, and it it has less capacity today than it did in June. It hasn't basically enriched according to to some estimates out there for the first time in two decades. So I understand your point. It's a fair point.
The will, the desire, does that mean the possibility is there? I I would beg to differ that it's it's likely now. Like, there are people who make the argument, well, now because all your infrastructure is gone, it's likely you're gonna get a bond. That's like somebody buying up my house and say, well, now I really want a bigger house. So it's likely I'll get it because they did that, and now I can get a bigger one because of the insurance payout.
Well, maybe. Maybe not. And so I I understand the message. I I think the reality is is that the Islamic Republic spent billions of dollars on its nuclear program that was illicit, that was sanctioned by the world, sanctioned by the UN, that Russia, China, NATO, or or EU allies and partners, we all saw both parties, both g's and r's saw that as an ex extreme threat and danger to the Middle East in addition to our allies in The UAE, in Qatar, in Saudi, and and and the like, who, by the way, are none too happy with getting bombed by Iran unprovoked. And so that nuclear program was a problem, and the Iranians, the Fazua said they weren't building it fine.
That's what they said. Then why were they enriching up to 60%? What were they doing with up to up to a dozen bombs worth of material?
Speaker 0: Joel Rubin, I'll just stop you there. More from Obama's deputy assistant secretary of state after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with Obama's deputy assistant secretary of state, Joel Rubin. Joel, you were talking about, the nuances and complexities of what Iran's response was would should be arguably to to this current war as regards nuclear weapons.
Of course, other people in Iran may be saying, why is it a member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in the first place, which started the whole JCPOA thing ruling? If but perhaps it doesn't even need nuclear weapons. Can't it just use the Korem Shah Iranian missiles to attack the Dimona reactor? So far, it has shown that Israel has no protection over Dimona, the site of the nuclear weapons program in Israel. Should we be expecting Iran to target it?
Because Israel is defenseless.
Speaker 1: Of all, it it is Israel's shot down, I think, over 90% of the missiles that have come in. And Damona was hit, but Damona's a town. There's a facility in Damona, the town, that is nuclear to your point. Yes. That is the facility.
That was not hit. The town was hit. Civilians are actually being hit. What Iran almost hit the the old city, almost blew up the the the Dome Of The Rock. That would have been pretty bad.
Speaker 0: It's it's terrible. Civilian areas are getting hit all over, the GCC and in Iran.
Speaker 1: Not sure why they're and schools.
Speaker 0: Hospitals and schools as we know. No. But, specifically You're not gonna if you were advising the Iranians
Speaker 1: But the demono question. But let me get your demono point about the the nuclear. It's a fair point question. Right? They have ballistic missile capabilities.
They, meaning the Islamic Republic, and they have certainly shot a significant number. They did back in June. They have now in this in this war, they have demonstrated capacity to go further, even potentially up to Europe. This is why the international community at the United Nations has consistently identified their ballistic missile development as a threat and a problem for global security.
Speaker 0: The ballistic missile program wasn't on the JCPOA list at all. You weren't negotiating about that at all. And what so what do you want Iran to be? Completely defenseless? To have no deterrence at all?
Speaker 1: No. It's interesting. The the I I don't think that ultimately if there is an agreement that that to your point, it was not part of that KCPOA. There are people in Washington who think that there should be no ballistic missiles at all. I actually think that that's kind of an unrealistic idea for a nation state to have zero defense.
Right? I just don't buy it. But there should be rules and constraints, and they should be missiles that can't just do what we're doing now. What we're seeing now that is is Iran essentially bombing everybody. Right?
It's like unstrapped, and it's bombing all over the place to try to create pressure and political pressure. It is actually there are two there are two fronts for this war. Right? There's the on the ground military, and then there's the global opinion. And within that, you have the diplomatic pressure.
You have the economic pressure. That is part of the strategy for the missiles. But, ultimately, the missiles were not part of that nuclear arrangement, which is why president Trump, and I opposed his viewpoint, but it's why he did not like that nuclear deal. So it's it's another layer of complexity to this, and I think it has to be hashed out that they can't have Iran cannot have missiles. They can just threaten Europe overnight and and threaten all of the the Arab Gulf.
Speaker 0: But why should The United States have missiles that can threaten this region? I mean, who is gonna stop the you see, these are the questions being asked This is all around the world right now. Why what gives The United States the right to commit the supreme act war crimes all around the world one after another? I mean, it's usually defeated Well, I mean, Korea and Vietnam. But why?
And that's the question being asked. Is that not going to be the legacy of the war?
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna argue about every single war around the world. I'm not gonna talk about Russia and and Ukraine. I'm not gonna talk about Afghanistan and Russia and The United States and Gazelle and other wars and the the the genocides in Africa and the massive amounts of of people that have been killed in Syria, the 600,000 people. I'm I'm gonna talk about this war right now. And The United States, we have allies across there, Middle East and in Israel and in Turkey and in Azerbaijan.
All there. Those are allies. Right? Like, they're just allies. They're not clients.
They're allies, and they provide a variety of support to United States and wait to them. And they are at risk from Iran. They look at Iran. Iran within the Islamic Republic didn't just show up one day. It's been under the the the watch of the international community for decades as a threat to regional global security.
Speaker 0: And I I just don't think
Speaker 1: you should use the word international community. We didn't create this probably in there. This
Speaker 0: is I mean, there is there's another way there's another way of understanding it. And I think even so called mainstream media in the NATO nations are saying it is traders placed $580,000,000 in oil bets ahead of Trump's social media post. That's the post the other day, which Yeah. Trump said, look. Okay.
You're not gonna Iran, you're not going to do what I want you to do. In fact, over the past ten days and I news could have changed by now, but it was, like, forty eight hours to meet our demands, Trump said. Trump went Iran went no. Trump went five days of negotiations. No.
Trump said one month cease fire. Iran said no. Trump said we'll send US troops. Iran said come closer. But, anyway, what about the fact that people say all around the world, it's not even to do with Israel and Miriam Adelson's bankrolling of money?
It's just pure corruption. You live in a corrupt country, bankrolled by the military industrial complex and bankrolled by massive oil bets that can be done in this way, which ultimately will lead to the end of the petrodollar. It's all about money. I don't know. You obviously didn't make any the money on it because you didn't think he was gonna do it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm just a loyal civil servant to the American taxpayer when I served. Look. If you wanna talk about the the dynamics here in The United States and corruption, k, I'm happy to talk about that. I'm not gonna speculate those.
That's the motivator for this. I know again, I'm gonna go back to
Speaker 0: It was fifteen minutes before They the bets were
Speaker 1: put before
Speaker 0: Trump made the post
Speaker 1: on truth social.
Speaker 0: What do you think? What's your hunch?
Speaker 1: Why about that.
Speaker 0: But what's your hunch?
Speaker 1: What's my hunch? You you know, look. I can't get in the minds of people who are on polymarket. I don't like corruption. If there is, clearly and I think, hopefully, when the when we Democrats take the house, at least, there'll be investigations into questions about all these issues related to contracts and whatnot.
But I I don't I don't really I I don't play stock in conspiracy theory.
Speaker 0: So what was the so you really believe that the Omani foreign minister, the British national security adviser, they're all talking nonsense, and there was no deal on the table. And they had to do it because it's all about nuclear talks.
Speaker 1: I'm what I what I okay. Let's be very clear. What they said is what they said. That's fine. But I do not believe that there is a corruption angle that makes us decide that we are not going to listen to the Omanis or the British.
And what they said after the fact, and even maybe during it, may have been correct, may not have been correct. I don't know. I wasn't in the room, but I'll tell you who wasn't in the room, the Americans and Iranians together. And they were and and there was no deal, and there was no agreement. And this was not like some new thing, Ashin.
You know this. Nuclear negotiations started during the Bush administration. I mean, we're talking twenty years of negotiations, the the p three process, the later on, then president Obama and and and his process, and then even Trump with his maximum pressure a little off. But there were some talks and then Biden again. This has been a twenty year dynamic.
All of a sudden, if one person says, oh, look. There really was a deal. Call me skeptical. I won't actually see the deal. I don't necessarily believe that because one person there watching it says there was a deal, but nothing has been signed that that's accurate.
But to the question of corruption, look. We always have to root out corruption. I mean, I have a feeling that the Islamic Republic leaders are billionaires sitting on massive wealth that they've stolen from the Iranian people.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. So
Speaker 1: I'd love to look into that.
Speaker 0: So the Islamic Republic leaders are corrupt.
Speaker 1: Therefore doing around why are they doing what they're doing around the region? Who knows how much money they're pocketing? You know? Yeah. I'm not sure.
How much are they skimming off the oil sales?
Speaker 0: Sorry, Joel. I even if I I don't if that was true and your Iranian American friends are telling you it is, that wouldn't justify the corruption on the other side. So I don't see the relevance
Speaker 1: of it. It's just logic. Right? Like, maybe maybe they have a good war economy. I mean, who knows?
I I there there's a whole subject matter policy area in in Washington and around the world called terror finance. Terror finance is essentially tracking a list of money going to terrorist sources.
Speaker 0: But the world is thinking terror finance as in the finance of your government, as in personally the members of your government.
Speaker 1: Finance
Speaker 0: I tell you, you're a Democrat. Right?
Speaker 1: Paying for paying for groups to commit terrorist attacks against civilians, that's terror finance. How'd that money get there? Not through normal Wells Fargo wire transfers. I'm sure of that.
Speaker 0: Even John Stewart interrogating, I think it was a Biden person. You must have seen it the other day. He had how terror financing works in your country. The United States, when you were perhaps in government, who knows, was financing ISIS, Daesh, and Al Qaeda. Were you not?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's true. Right? Like, there there was you know, I not many. And I'll say, I don't know about my department, maybe some other agencies, but all that goes through an appropriations process and all that goes into the laws signed by the president, and all of that has oversight by congress.
That's what's different. And I I gotta tell you, you're bringing up the question of corruption. I understand why. Why not? But to me, it sounds like a conspiracy theory more than an actual point of policy.
Speaker 0: Okay. This is the most unpopular war in American history, as has been widely said. It's 27% on Reuters' Ipsos. That's That's hard to tell. Worse than the Vietnam war as it was ending in 1973.
Why do you think we haven't seen mass civil disobedience? And do you think do you think that will will it be the markets that stop Trump from continuing with this losing war, or will We are not so it be massive disobedience?
Speaker 1: At the risk of sounding academic about this, no one's not academic because war is death. The definition of war means people die, and that is a horrible, horrible way to spend our money. That's a horrible way for us to operate in the world. People should not die. We should not be looking for wars.
And we should not be supporting wars unless a threat is present. But I'll tell you, three to four weeks into a war, Vietnam was fifteen to twenty years. I served during the war in Iraq. I was in the senate as a Democrat fighting against the war in Iraq. I remember every day we're doing body counts of how many service members have been killed in Iraq.
That was a multiyear situation. We are several weeks in. I don't think the American people are mobilized to oppose in the way that you're asking, not only because of of the the shortness of time so far, but also a sense that this is not going to be a boots on the ground kind of military action that we've seen. Now if it is, then we I should come back in half a year and if it's that long and talk to you about this, what does that look like? But I I I think the American people and now let's get political here.
The Republican Party is 98% supportive of what's going on. The Democratic Party is 98% opposed to what's going on. The splitsville right now is such that it sort of creates a dynamic where the president has tremendous latitude. What he does with that, I think, will have a direct impact on the American public's reaction. But right now, we're gonna protest this weekend.
I'm sorry. We're gonna protest coming up at some point, and we have them every so several months called no kings, which is related to domestic policy. So it's not as if the American people aren't out there, and I assume this will be part of the language, but they're not interested in this this war.
Speaker 0: Sorry to interrupt, Joel. We want you on sooner than six months to tell you the way things are going. Just finally, very briefly finally, very briefly Yeah. How is The United States I mean, all those people, the ordinary American and The United States more generally gonna cope with the end of the petrodollar? I mean, oil is flowing freely in yuan.
Clearly, the rest of the world is gonna price in yuan. What happens to how The United States feels about itself?
Speaker 1: You're you're bringing up the Achilles heel of this this entire action. Something everybody's talking about. Look. I'll tell you. I I personally criticized deeply president Trump's moves to get rid of USAID.
They fired all of the energy staff at the State Department, the people who would have handled this issue and managed it much better. I heard yesterday on a discussion of $10 a gallon. This is bad. This is really bad. This is what hurts Americans, and it's what we pay as sanctions to more than anything.
And I think that's also why you're seeing flirting with an off ramp. Not there yet, but I think that that is also a very significant part of the way the American people view the relevance and and the the value of this military action.
Speaker 0: Joel Rubin, thank you.
Speaker 1: My pleasure.
Speaker 0: That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those bereaved by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday for continuing coverage of the Trump Netanyahu war in Iran. 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 normal.com to watch new and old episodes of going underground. See you Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss Iran’s escalation against the US and Israel amid bombardment, the risk of a nuclear WW3 if Iran escalates and Israel’s nukes, and whether Trump would deploy US boots on the ground in Iran, on Going Underground with WeTheBrandon.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ US-ISRAELI WAR ON IRAN: THE RISK OF A NUCLEAR THIRD WORLD WAR (Brandon Weichert) What has been Iran’s strategy of escalation against the US and Israel as it faces continued aerial bombardment? What are the risks of the war on Iran escalating to nuclear WW3 with Israel’s nukes? Will Donald Trump put US boots on the ground in Iran? All this and more on this episode og Going Underground with @WeTheBrandon
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashton Rutansi frames Going Underground’s fourth week of what he calls Epstein fury, ahead of a UN Security Council debate on the Middle East, noting that the US-Israeli war in West Asia has broadened from a regional clash into a disruption of livelihoods in NATO nations. He argues the conflict began as a US-Israeli sabotage attack leveraging Kushner and Wittkopf negotiations, but now threatens energy, food production, medicines, and chip supply, with Iran threats to Gulf infrastructure and desalination plants. He suggests the US president is more focused on Netanyahu-related pressure and Gulf money than on broader strategic consequences, including a possible end to a US presence in the Middle East and the political jeopardy of the GOP in November. He also mentions Trump’s controversial actions, including strikes and environmental damage in the Gulf, and consequences of attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.
Brandon Wykert, senior national security editor at 1945, described by Tucker Carlson as one of America’s most informed free-speaking voices, joins from Naples, Florida. He asserts that Netanyahu is pressuring Trump toward nuclear escalation, potentially the first use of nuclear weapons in battle since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wykert, author of The Shadow War, Iran’s Quest for Supremacy, and A Disaster of Our Own Making, clarifies that his work does not advocate war; rather, it sought a middle path between invasion and surrender, with the Abraham Accords now off the table.
Wykert characterizes Iran’s escalation as methodical and counter-punching rather than initiating new attacks. He says the US and Israel began hostilities on February 28 against the advice of the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff. He notes Iran escalated only after being attacked, emphasizing Iran’s graduated escalation and decentralized regime and command-and-control, with Tehran’s leadership leveraging economic attacks as a strategic tactic to exploit vulnerabilities in the US-led coalition. He argues Iran has studied American-Israeli modes of warfare and anticipated decapitation strikes, leading to a high-end insurgency linked to economic disruption, calibrated to inflict costs on the US and its partners.
On access to high-level sources, Wykert claims they “don’t take my calls” in the Trump administration, suggesting limited engagement and that his own views were not aligned with an invasion. He references political shifts within the administration, including Tulsi Gabbard’s remaining power and JD Vance’s role, and speculates about internal divisions that might preclude a more aggressive path.
The discussion turns to casualty figures, with Wykert disputing official counts and suggesting potential underreporting. He describes casualty management and media control as a strategy to avoid destabilizing the news cycle, calling it a “perception management” tactic. He raises concerns about false flag risks, pointing to historical events like Lavon and Tonkin as possible precedents, and predicts the possibility of a terrorist attack to rally American support for ground operations, though he doubts Iran would want to consolidate public support for a broader war.
The conversation touches on alleged CIA disinformation and targeted efforts against journalists like Tucker Carlson and Brandon himself, arguing that the intelligence community and allied Five Eyes networks may be pressuring narratives counter to what Wykert views as America’s best interests. He cites shifting White House statements on imminent Iranian nuclear threat, underscoring alleged inconsistencies.
Towards the end, Wykert praises Joe Kent, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned, describing him as honorable and stating that the administration’s course is dangerous and potentially unconstitutional. He asserts that the war may be serving Israeli interests and warns that the conflict risks a broader—perhaps strategic—realignment, with Putin potentially playing a mediating role and Russia and China ascending as the United States declines. He concludes that Iran seeks to “bloody” the US and Israel to deter future aggression, implying that a reduced American presence and negotiated off-ramp could emerge, reshaping the regional order.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashton Rutansi, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from Dubai, the main target after Israel, Lebanon, and Iran of The US Israeli war in West Asia. We enter the fourth week of so called Epstein fury ahead of tomorrow's forlorn UN Security Council debate on The Middle East. In a week's time, Trump was supposed to be in China. Not now. Trump's not going anywhere.
What began as a US Israeli sabotage attack exploiting Kushner, Wittkopf fake negotiations has turned into not just regional chaos here in West Asia, but slow motion destruction of the people's livelihoods in NATO nations. Not just energy, but all Trump's wars concomitant impacts annihilate the security of everything from food production to medicines to chip production. Here, we live under the threat of Iranian attacks on key Gulf infrastructure, including desalination plants that produce much of the water in this region. So far, it looks like The US president is more enthralled in Netanyahu blackmail and Miriam Adelson's money than billions in investment from The Gulf, the threat of the end of a US presence in The Middle East, and November's midterm wipeout of the GOP as Trump's base turns against him. That's all, let alone Trump's massacre of hundreds of young girls with a double tap Tomahawk strike and the environmental destruction of The Gulf as oil tankers are hit in the Strait Of Hormuz.
Tucker Carlson calls today's guest one of the most informed people in The United States who can speak freely about what is happening. Brandon Wykert worked in the US Congress and consulted for the US Air Force before becoming senior national security editor at 1945. He fears Netanyahu is pressuring Trump to go nuclear, meaning the first use of nuclear weapons in battle since nineteen forty five's Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The author of a disaster of our own making, how the West lost Ukraine, and The Shadow War, Iran's Quest for Supremacy, joins me now from Naples, Florida. Brandon, thanks so much for, coming on.
I think I know why the
Speaker 1: It's matter of me here.
Speaker 0: I know why the violin's in the background. I better preface I better preface the fact that your book, the shadow war Iran's quest for supremacy is certainly no fan of Iran. Normally, I think I'd be quite critical of some of it in there because you sound like a neocon to some. But let's get cut straight
Speaker 1: to the I would okay. I'd just correct you there. The reason I wrote that book was to write a third way between invasion and surrender, which was the Abraham Accords, and obviously, that's completely off the table now because we've completely gone off the deep end. I never was advocating war in that book.
Speaker 0: No. That's true. Exactly. You don't advocate for war in that book. But you have said, and you warned us all since the twelve day war, actually, that this war was coming.
Just how would you characterize Iran's escalation right now, the escalation strategy? Because I suppose that's what everyone's thinking about right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I would actually and, you know, again, as no supporter of the regime in Iran, I would tell you that the Iranians have been very methodical and actually judicious in the the escalation. They have not actually escalated on their own. They have always counterpunched. So the Americans and Israelis, as you noted, we initiated this fight on February 28 against the best judgment of the US military joint chiefs of staff.
The president wanted to do this because he was convinced this would be seventy two hours to ninety six hours, one and done, and then the people of Iran would overthrow, the the benighted regime. That did not happen, and now here we are three weeks in with no end in sight. The Iranians have escalated only after we or the Israelis have. You notice they didn't start attacking things like the oil refineries until after they really started getting hit when in those, target areas in Iran. And so what you're seeing is a very, graduated escalation program by the Iranian military.
Clearly, they have gamed this out for a long time. This has clearly been the game plan from the very beginning because the Iranians studied the American and Israeli ways of war, and they knew decapitation strikes would be coming in. So they decentralized their regime. They decentralized command and control capabilities. They went underground like Mao did during the Chinese Civil War or the North Vietnamese did during the Vietnam War.
They very adeptly created an insurgency, a high end insurgency profile for fighting the Americans and the Israelis, and now they're tethering it to economic, attacks, which is brilliant because they know that the Americans and Israelis are far more and the Arab states are far more exposed to economic disruptions in the aggregate than are the Iranians who have been sanctioned and, you know, contained for so long. It doesn't affect them the same way.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But you have high level sources. I know you can't tell us them in the Trump administration. Did you not phone them and tell them all this before that?
Speaker 1: They don't take my calls. They haven't taken my calls in a long time. They that's occasionally, they'll reach out to me, but, you know, I'm I was put on ice almost from the beginning. And the fear one of the theories among my friends is because I was not on board with an invasion strategy. I mean, I was supposed to be brought into the Pentagon for space policy, but they that didn't happen because I wasn't fully fledged committed to what you're seeing now.
This has clearly been on the books for a while, this war. But that's unfortunate too because
Speaker 0: They let they let JD Vance become vice president. Trump chose Tulsi Galloway as the director of national intelligence. That can't be true.
Speaker 1: Isolated the hell it is. They've isolated Tulsi quite effectively. But they still appointed her. And they yeah. But she has no real power.
She's basically hermetically sealed right now in her offices. And then JD JD is out there carrying water for the president, which I'm actually very surprised by, to be honest with you. I thought this would have been his moment to break out and start charting a course for what comes after president Trump because we're at that point now because the war has gone so badly for the Americans, and the economy is doing so badly right now. It's only gonna get worse that there's no way you noted this in your monologue. There's no way the GOP survives the midterms.
And if that happens, Democrats take power. They're gonna impeach Trump as soon as they get sworn in.
Speaker 0: I should just say we're recording this before either vice president J. D. Vance or the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, resign or leave leave office just just in case Right. That does happen. Right.
In your book, you said in your book, which was written obviously a long time before the current conflict, you said
Speaker 1: Back in 2021 was when the original manuscript ended. I've sent it in, so twenty twenty Twenty twenty
Speaker 0: one is when it came out. Said one misstep in its dealings with Iran could produce a nuclear Third World War. I mean, I don't know whether you're surprised that Trump seemed to, for the first time, concede that Israel has nuclear weapons and the Demonet program, which I you might wanna tell me about that because that's a first from the Americans. What what did you mean a nuclear Third World War there?
Speaker 1: Well, basically, what we're seeing here and I would also point out in that book, I predict the ten seven attacks. Not exactly, but, you know, I I was I I knew this was coming. The the Americans do not understand that for the Israelis, who they are very closely tethered to, the Israelis, this is an existential fight. The Israelis have convinced themselves this is a holocaust in waiting, and they have to prevent it. And therefore, they will go to whatever extremes they must do in order to end the the what they perceive to be as the threat from the Iranian regime.
And that includes if the chips are down and it's looking like Israel's not doing well right now, if the chips are down for Israel and America seems to be getting a little tepid about the war, not by much, but with some tepidness here, they're gonna start looking at potentially escalating in the nuclear domain. And I think they're not there yet, but I do think we're now in the real possibility phase where this down the line, if the war doesn't end soon, that's where this goes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. On the heels of Mordecai Venunu, the whistleblower, there was Seymour Hersh's book, The Samson Option. We actually had a source on who is Seymour Hersh's source, ex Israeli intel, Aribeben Menasha. And, of course, we went viral with that because he was saying that Trump is being blackmailed into this war by Netanyahu. What what did what did Trump mean when he told the Times of Israel the decision to end the war would be mutual?
What what does he mean by that? And is that a symptom of that?
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's be clear here. I I don't know for sure what they have on him if they have anything. I don't know. What I will tell you is even if this were totally above board, the fact of the matter is we now know that the decision to initiate hostilities while the president gave the order, the timeline was not his own. Marco Rubio and many other sources
Speaker 0: He's trying to rule The US. You're referring to Rubio saying that they
Speaker 1: had Rubio's statements. They they tried to roll it back a little bit, but the British government has also representatives from them over the last week have also said this was basically an Israeli timeline that we just followed. And so on some level, because we are so and this is the real problem here. Because The US Government, especially under Republicans, is so tethered to the Israeli agenda, we can't pull out even if we wanted to. Because let's just say Trump wakes up tomorrow and he tacos out.
Yeah. I'm done. I'm out. I've done everything I wanted to. The problem is that might actually put the Israelis into a use it or lose it mentality, and they'll start popping off the nukes.
And that is the concern here, I think, amongst some people in DC is that even if we wanted to quit, first of all, the Iranians aren't gonna necessarily let us quit right now. And second of all, our partners who we are basically in hock to, the Israelis, are not gonna want this to end.
Speaker 0: Now, obviously, information is key in any war. Well, I understand already John Ratcliffe, CIA, is involved in different programs. I mean, you you know, you're you're made even more famous, obviously, because of your appearance on Tucker Carlson, and Tucker Carlson is claiming that he is the subject of CIA investigation. That'd John Ratcliffe targeting him. What what's with the CIA artificial intelligence disinformation attacks?
Speaker 1: Well, as somebody who's been subjected to those disinformation attacks, I can only tell
Speaker 0: you have to explain them.
Speaker 1: Yep. It sounds like a conspiracy,
Speaker 0: of course. It does sound like a
Speaker 1: a Yep. Well, it is a conspiracy very,
Speaker 0: very technically.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It is real. The you see this on Twitter ever since the war began, these bot armies. You saw it during the Ukraine war. At least in my case, it's the bot army attacks.
It's clearly Langley and probably Israel. But, ultimately, they target journalists and public figures who have a high degree of knowledge and access who are sharing things that are counter to the narrative. And I think Tucker is I mean, this is not the first time he's been targeted by US intelligence famously during the Putin run up to his Putin interviews. So this is something that our intelligence community and and really the the nexus of five eyes, intelligence community plus Israel, they do to, people who are dissidents like myself, but also who have a high degree of currency, with the political class in DC. And Tucker's the same way on a much bigger level than I'll ever be.
But that's, I think, what's going on here is they're very concerned that people like me, people like Tucker, people like Joe Kent, former National Counterterrorism Center director, we're speaking out not because we're pro Iran, but because we're pro America. And it's very clear this war is not in America's best interest, and it's also very clear that the American government did not entirely execute this war on its own accord. In fact, you have this now where The US intelligence community has maintained Iran was not even actively producing nuclear weapons, which whether you agree with that or not, that obviously was never taken into account because you have Caroline Leavitt, the official White House spokeswoman, saying that the on one hand, the the the threat was imminent. The president's saying that he was eight to ten days away from nuclear breakout, and then Caroline, three days ago, four day a week ago says, you know, actually, it wasn't there was no imminent threat. Now again today or in the last week, she says, oh, no.
The threat was real. They can't get their story straight. And I think that's why you're seeing these these attacks on people like me and Tucker because our story is the truth, and we're we're telling it. And it's a straight line.
Speaker 0: Brandon Wycoe, I'll stop you there. More from the senior national security editor at ninety forty five after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the author of the shadow war, Iran's quest for supremacy, Brandon Wykert. Brandon, you were talking, at the end of part one about Trump's director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
He said, I cannot, in good conscience, support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. I think he's a friend of yours. What would you have to say about Joe Kent's resignation?
Speaker 1: I think I think Joe Kent is an honorable and incredible American. I think he's probably the most prominent war hero of the global war on terror years. Obviously, famously, not only did he sacrifice his time and effort over twenty five years, but he tragically lost his first wife, Shannon, in Syria, who was also an incredible patriot and American, and then her loss was significant both to the intelligence community and to our country and, obviously, to her children. So I think that Joe did. So Joe basically and I I haven't spoken to him since he resigned, so I don't have any, you know, special insight here.
But I believe that Joe had access to intelligence related to what was going on, and I think that he could read the tea leaves just based on his many years of experience, and he realized that the administration had committed itself to not only a bad course of action, but I would argue an unconstitutional action. And I think he's seeing where this could potentially go, likely go. I think we're talking seriously behind the scenes about putting ground forces or trying to put ground forces in the coastline of Iran. I think that there's of escalation. Clearly, the president no longer believes in his golden off ramp.
So I think Joe's looking around and hearing what he's hearing from the inside, and he's saying, I can't be a part of this. I've already lost my wife to something like this, and it's the same thing. And he says it better than I can in his resignation letter where clearly it's Israeli interests that are driving this. And you're hearing this, by the way, from multiple people now, many of whom, again, that are not pro Islamic Republic Of Iran. People like my friend Sam Faddis, who was a former many years long CIA case officer, actually trained Joe's wife, in in in counterterrorism methods.
So you hear this from actual national security professionals saying, we don't like the Iranian government, and we think they're at war with us, but there's a way to go about this. And what we're doing is the absolute wrong thing, and it will actually harm America at that strategic level. It will have very serious negative impacts for us and our children and the world economy, and we have to stop it. And that's what all of us are trying to do who actually know what's going on. The problem is Trump has surrounded himself with grifters and CPAC d listers, and all these guys just wanna get on Fox News and wanna get the gushing love of the president.
And that's what you're seeing now. He's not getting any inputs from people who actually know what's going on in the world to give him an off ramp to say this is a bad idea. This is the end of your presidency.
Speaker 0: Trump, for his part, said his own director of national counterterror, Joe Kent, after he resigned, I never knew anything about security.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think the president's comments were disgraceful, and I say this as a three time Trump supporter. I think he was disgraceful. I think that he should immediately walk back. He won't.
He should walk back those comments. And I think that everybody in the administration and the GOP who's attacking Joe, I think they need to remember that there's an entire community of national security professionals and veterans in this country who fought the global war on terror, and they're not gonna like what they're hearing because it's a pack of lies, and it's shameful.
Speaker 0: Well, antisemitism has become part of that project. It'll obviously be important to smear anyone who talks like Joe Kent as an anti Semite. Also, what'll be important for the ground invasion of Iran will be casualty figures so far. You've been saying that you don't really believe The United States official casualty figures of this war in Iran so far.
Speaker 1: No. I don't. I think everything this administration has said about this war is a disgusting lie. I think that it is, like I said, an unconstitutional action the way that we got into this. And I think that if they're lying about the they can't even figure out why they went into war.
They're not giving us the official reason. I think in this interview, you and I have gleaned that this is probably not in America's interest. This is in the foreign interest of Israel. If they're gonna do that, and they're gonna now risk a possible ground war in Iran, however, quote, unquote, limited, and we're gonna possibly risk letting Israel go off the chain and kack off a nuke somewhere, I can believe they're probably lying about those casualty rates. I hope I'm wrong.
I have a lot of friends in the military and a lot of connections to the US military. I I hope it's only 10 I think seven or 10 people so far they've officially said have been killed. Two hundred plus have been wounded. But, normally, when you have two hundred casualties in a situation like this, it's a matter of simple arithmetic and and statistics. You're gonna have more than 10 dead.
You at least 30 to 60.
Speaker 0: But how would that work? And The servicemen and women, their families in The United States, surely, would say they're
Speaker 1: they're relatives Normally, they put a, yeah. Normally, there's a media blackout. There's there are ways the defense department or the war department now, what a horrible name, that they they they go about sort of getting families to comply. And I'm not gonna get into all that here because I don't know if that's what's going on. But, usually, yes, there there is a way that the the DOD goes about making sure they have operational security over things like casualty figures.
It's it can't last forever, though, and that's another thing. I think what you're seeing is a very, sophisticated attempt to sort of slow walk, not to totally cover up, but to instead of at once or within a few weeks release all the the damage, assessments, They're just kind of cherry picking and slowly releasing. That way it doesn't drive the news cycle the way casualty figures, for instance, did in Vietnam. That's what they're trying. This is all a media management strategy.
It's a perception management issue, and the DOD is very good at that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You implied that the war department isn't a good name. I'm sorry. I'm I'm with Pete Hegseth on that name change. Arguably, many people are.
But I mean, also, the casualty. I mean, the the those casualty numbers, obviously, clearly are a part of the propaganda effort. But then, of course, we have to come to the issue of false flags because the American people are not with this war. No. You know, the Lavon Affair, USS Liberty, Northwood, Gulf Of Tonkin, famously.
I mean, what sort of false flag will be required to induce a induce a ground attack? Because clearly, even the slowest of walks is not gonna make the American people happy.
Speaker 1: Well, if you just go back to nine eleven, you go back to the Golf of Tonkin, you know, go go back to some of these these instances where
Speaker 0: We don't know nine eleven is a false flag in front
Speaker 1: of me. No. I know. And I was getting ready to correct my I was getting ready to correct myself. But but just say instances or events where there's clearly more going on than what we're officially told that trigger a wider response, kind of an emotional response, they're gonna they're gonna the risk is that there's a terrorist attack.
Either another 09:11 Michael Yann, who's a war correspondent, has said to me he thinks someone's gonna crack off a nuke somewhere in Texas, a dirty bomb. I don't know if it's gonna be like that. It could be like ten seven where it's sort of the sweeping run and gun series of terrorist attacks in the heartland. We've heard threat assessments in the last year indicating that could be a possibility, and they're gonna say it's Hezbollah or Hamas or something Iranian related. The fact of the matter is if and this gets back to what we talked about in the beginning.
The Iranians have such a very firm it's actually very impressive control over this escalation ladder. It wouldn't be in their best interest to do a tear a string of terrorist attacks right now in The US. Do they have the capability? Absolutely. They have the largest consulate outside of Iran is in Mexico City.
That's not because of all the Shiites that are living in Mexico. It's because they're probably conducting covert operations on a massive scale here in The United States.
Speaker 0: I'm not exactly sure of that, I've got to say. Mean, I should say I lived in the manner, far be it from I mean, I I remember the rubbish about Hezbollah on Margarita Island in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Let let me let me just complete the thought here, and I I and and then you can push back. But but my point here is I don't believe that the Iranians would be crazy or stupid enough to risk solidifying American public opinion behind the war because the Iranians are savvy enough to know there's nowhere near a majority of people who support this. And all the polls the president are being given, we now know Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, has basically been paying off any of the pollsters that would have done honest polling from the right. She's paid them off so that they don't do honest polling, and I'm not gonna name names because I don't wanna get sued. But I know that this has happened in the last eight months, and this was precisely for this moment.
So she's feeding the president bad polls, and then, also, you have the issue of it's not in Iran's interest to actually put the fear of Iran into the minds of the American people. It doesn't make any sense to do it right now. Iran is winning this thing at the strategic level, and they know it. So if there is a series of terrorist attacks, we have to really question, is it really because the Iranians are crazy, or is it because maybe there's other factors at play here, other intelligence services that want us to get more fully on board? There's an Israeli assessment floating around.
I saw it. Not gonna say how. There's an Israeli assessment floating around in the last two weeks where, basically, the the Israeli intelligence services concluded the only way to basically right this ship is for The US to land marines at some point along the Iranian coastline and to try to conduct sea control operations along the coastline. And the Israelis assessed that under current political conditions, the US administration will not commit to it. Now I think they might, but the Israelis don't believe it.
They think it's very questionable. And without that issue happening, without that happening, they don't believe they can, quote, win the war. So then that gets us into the theories of could it be a false flag on our way to trigger American support for a ground incursion.
Speaker 0: I mean, daily, what you're saying is catastrophic as regards future American captivity.
Speaker 1: Self inflicted wound. This is the greatest self inflicted wound since Vietnam, and it's also, by the way, the greatest self inflicted wound for Israel. This makes no sense. Furthermore, if you're living in the Arab countries, you're probably thinking of the Kissinger line that to be an enemy of America is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. I mean, just look around you, and this is all because The US and Israel decided to engage in an unconstitutional, probably illegitimate war against an enemy that we could have contained like we did to the Soviet Union without ever getting into a fight with.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, no no fundamental changes yet, but we are actually safe yet. We haven't been destroyed yet here.
Speaker 1: Well, that's good. I'm afraid for you guys.
Speaker 0: But but clearly, from Iran's point of view, they have to destroy The US Israeli threat forever. That's their avowed reason for their tactics at the moment, reflecting in a way what Israel is saying the other way. How can Iran how can Iran achieve that? How can they destroy the threat forever?
Speaker 1: Well, I think Pzezhakian, the president of Iran, has made a comment, and I'm gonna paraphrase now, so forgive me. But I think he said it to one of the Arab media outlets. He said that we we in Iran have to give the Americans such a bloody nose that they never try something like this again. Again, to me, that's not crazy. To me, that's a very realistic and graduated assessment of of how to go about deterring and stopping and deterring future attacks by The US and Israelis.
So what they're going to do is continue to increase the costs economically on The United States and its partners so much so that we basically buckle under the economic and therefore political strain, notably going into the midterms. And that basically forces us to to disengage, if not negotiate a full peace treaty, which I think, by the way, I think ultimately, if there is an off ramp, I think that we're going to use Putin, to negotiate as an intermediary, with with Trump and the the leadership of Iran if there is an off ramp to this thing. That it's not going to see the return of US power in The Middle East ever. It'll be a very diminished presence at best, and I think Israel will go back to being sort of a contained entity the way it was, you know, in the nineteen seventies and eighties, because the Arab states, they're never gonna wanna, you know, get close to Israel again, and they're gonna be looking for a third way. So I think, ultimately, it's not necessarily total destruction of Israel and The US unless things keep escalating.
I think the Iranian view is we just have to bloody them so much they know that if they ever try something like this again, it will put them into the Great Depression. And that's really and it's again, it's a very smart strategic outlook. And, we completely misread and misunderstood, and I would argue, probably I misunderstood as well when I wrote the book, the full the full threat of the of the region or the full the full view of the region.
Speaker 0: Just finally. And I should say that MAGA would would go for that reduced presence in West Asia. But just finally
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm all for it. It's just how it's happening.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 1: Like, Afghanistan. It's how it's happening. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Off the dead bodies of so many men, women, and children. But just finally then
Speaker 1: That's
Speaker 0: right. You mentioned a possible Putin summit to sort this all out. You are an expert on the the NATO proxy war in Russia through Ukraine as well. Russia has won the war in Ukraine as a side effect of this?
Speaker 1: They yeah. They they the only real winner geopolitically is Russia, and you're witnessing the collapse of American superpowerdom in real time. Not the rise of China to replace us. Oddly enough, at least for now, Russia's gonna be elevated by all of this. They're gonna benefit from high oil prices.
We've already removed the sanctions on Russian oil. They're gonna be galvanized. They will get everything up to Odessa. They're gonna dictate terms now. And, ultimately, ultimately, The United States is going to be a declining power from here on out, and Russia and China are in the ascendancy.
Speaker 0: Brandon Wykert, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 0: That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those bereaved by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday continuing coverage of the Trump Netanyahu war on Iran. 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.
reSee.it AI Summary
I gather Iran plans to raise costs on the US and partners, pushing economic/political strain into the midterms to force disengagement or a peace deal with Putin as intermediary. An off-ramp wouldn’t restore US power in the Middle East; Israel would be contained, and Arabs seek a third way. Escalation could drive a Great Depression for the US. Iran’s strategy is seen as smart, but we’ve misread it.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨IRAN’S STRATEGY AGAINST THE US & ISRAEL EXPLAINED ‘What they’re going to do is continue to increase the costs economically on the United States and its partners, so much so that we basically buckle under the economic and therefore political strain, notably going into the midterms. And that basically forces us to disengage, if not negotiate a full peace treaty. Which I think, by the way, if there is an off-ramp, I think that we’re going to use Putin to negotiate as an intermediary, with Trump and the leadership of Iran. If there is an off-ramp to this thing, it’s not going to see the return of US power in the Middle East ever. It’ll be a very diminished presence at best. And I think Israel will go back to being sort of a contained entity the way it was in the 1970s and 80s. Because the Arab states, they’re never going to want to get close to Israel again, and they’re going to be looking for a third way. So I think ultimately it’s not necessarily total destruction of Israel and the US unless things keep escalating. I think the Iranian view is: we just have to bloody them so much that they know if they ever try something like this again, it will put them into the Great Depression again. It’s a very smart strategic outlook, and we completely misread and misunderstood it.’ -Brandon Weichert, Senior National Security Editor at 19FortyFive and Author of ‘The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy’, joins us for Monday’s Going Underground Don’t miss it, follow our Rumble channel, link below in the replies 👇 @WeTheBrandon
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨JOE KENT, who resigned from the Trump Administration: ‘I will not in good conscience send young men and women off to die on foreign battlefields. We are at a critical juncture in the war in Iran; we need to let our leaders hear that we do not support this war.’ https://t.co/R5cea1qLuZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 describes a decision to follow conscience after twenty years in the military, mostly deployed to the Middle East. He explains that after multiple deployments he realized “we weren't there for the reasons that our government told us” and that there was no vital national interest in the current fight. He made a promise to himself about twenty years ago not to send young Americans off to die on foreign battlefields if he ever had a position of responsibility. When given that opportunity, he decided to resign, stating he did not want to send others to die in wars he believed were not in the nation’s interest.
Speaker 0 notes their Catholic faith and mentions recent comments by the Holy Father highlighting concerns for innocent civilians harmed by conflict, including the killing of Father Pierre in Lebanon. The question is asked whether faith community or religious leaders’ support has helped. Speaker 1 responds that the support has been huge and that the resignation gained more traction than he expected. He emphasizes that although the decision was not made lightly, faith helped him hear “God's voice” and guided him to take action, which made the act feel easy and liberating.
Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has hope for America. Speaker 1 affirms having a great deal of hope, calling this an exciting moment. He highlights the power of technology to connect like‑minded people and give them a voice, despite potential downsides. He notes the significant presence and enthusiasm of young people in the room, expressing optimism about the next generation.
Speaker 1 outlines what he believes must happen moving forward: during the midterm season and as the war progresses, people should be on their knees in prayer, then take action once upright. He argues that leaders must hear the public’s stance against this war and the lack of a vital national security interest, calling for the troops to come home and for efforts toward peace in the region. He asserts a desire to avoid “twenty plus more years of bloodletting” and urges people from all political parties to pressure representatives to oppose continued overseas wars.
Speaker 1 clarifies that he is not advocating pacifism; if the country is attacked or there is an imminent threat, actions will be taken. The core message is that the nation must not continue down the current path, and making this stance clear to leaders is essential to preserving hope.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This decision to follow your conscience, give us a little backstory. How did that happen?
Speaker 1: Without getting too much into detail, I just did a long form, podcast with with Tucker, kind of laid out the entire politics of of the issue. But look, after serving twenty years, mostly deployed to the Middle East, fighting the wars over there, and just seeing how our country had been lied to and brought down the wrong path in the in those wars and that we were getting sucked into another one and that the American people didn't have the full story and our country did not have a vital national interest in this current fight. I said, hey. I I, in good conscience, can't do this because that was a promise I made to myself probably twenty plus years ago when I was deployed to Iraq. Once I realized after my first couple deployments that we we weren't there for the reasons that our government told us we were there for, I said if it's ever my turn, if I'm ever an adult in this situation, I ever have a position of responsibility, I will not, in good conscience, send young men and women off to die on foreign battlefields.
Speaker 0: So we're Catholics here, I believe you're baptized Catholic. We saw just on Sunday and this is so great to see because people are like, why a Catholic champion or why here? The holy father, the vicar of Christ on Earth, has been so strong and outspoken in recent comments talking about what Catholics should be worried about, the innocent people that are being hurt through all this. We he mentioned the Catholic priest that was killed, Father Pierre, by an attack, in Lebanon. Does it help you to have other members of your faith community or religious leaders speaking up on your behalf?
Like, what's it been like to have that support from outside?
Speaker 1: It's it's been huge. I quite frankly didn't think when I submitted my resignation it would get the the traction or the the attention that you you talked about. But having the support from from friends, family, but really, I I I've been asked a couple times, was it a hard decision to make? And it's definitely a decision I didn't make lightly. I I put a lot of thought into it, and and I had been thinking about it for quite some time.
But having faith, I think I was able to hear god's voice. I was able to hear where I that I was exactly where I was supposed to be and it was my time to actually take action which made taking the action incredibly easy actually and actually made me feel very liberated and and like I'm in the right spot. So. Do
Speaker 0: you have hope for America? And if you do, why so?
Speaker 1: I I have a great deal of hope for America. I think this is a very exciting moment. I I I think the fact that we're seeing people who speak out on behalf of their faith or who are willing to speak truth to power and the fact that the people who support them are able to actually have a voice because of the technology, which obviously can be used for a lot of bad, but in the case of connecting like minded people and getting our word out, that technology is a very powerful weapon in our hand. And also the young people in this country, the young men, the young women, there are plenty here in this room, I was kind of overwhelmed when I got here tonight, especially by the young folks that came up and wanted to shake my hand. And so I have a lot of hope for the next generation.
I think as we head into this midterm season and just as this war advances in the next couple of weeks, I I think, like you said, in your open, the most important thing we can do is be on our knees and pray. But once we're up from our knees, we need to take action. Our leaders will hear us if we all speak out. We're at a critical juncture in the war in Iran. We need to let our leaders hear that we do not support this war.
We do not think there's a vital national security interest. We want to bring our troops home. We want to work towards peace in that region. We do not want twenty plus more years of bloodletting. And then as we head into this next election cycle, demand from everyone, from every political party, go to them, go to your representatives, and say I will not vote for you if you are going to vote for the continuation of these wars overseas.
And by no means, I don't expect anybody here to be some kind of a pacifist. If our country is attacked, we will attack. If there's an imminent attack, we will attack. If there's an actual threat, we will attack and we will fight that. However, we cannot continue to go down this path.
We have to make that clear to our leaders. That's what gives me hope.
reSee.it AI Summary
I host Going Underground with Afshin Rattansi, debating the Iran War with former CENTCOM Commander William Fallon. We examine the Minab girls' school bombing, how the US-Israel conflict might end, Trump's role amid opposition, and Israel's sway over US policy.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ WAR ON IRAN: Former CENTCOM Commander Challenged by Afshin Rattansi in HEATED INTERVIEW Why did the US bomb the girls' school in Minab, Iran? How does the US-Israeli war on Iran end? Why did Trump start this war with full knowledge of the public's opposition to it? What is Israel's power over US foreign policy? All this and more with the former Commander of CENTCOM, William Fallon, on this episode of Going Underground.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshuner Atansi hosts Going Underground, opening by noting two anniversaries: the 23rd anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq and the 15th anniversary of the NATO war on Libya, framing them as part of a broader US-led aggression in the region. He suggests the US war on Iran may be the empire’s biggest defeat, and argues Israeli-US carpet bombing has wounded the world’s poor via higher prices for transport, medicine, food, and housing. The Strait of Hormuz is highlighted as this war’s most notable weapon of mass destruction.
Admiral William Fallon, former commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), is introduced by Atansi from Alexandria, Virginia. Fallon discusses his memoir, Decisions, Discord, and Diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul, and comments on Trump’s description of the region-wide conflict as a short-term excursion, asserting in his view that “short term military action over prudent long term strategy” has been a recurring theme. He counters the characterization of “carpet bombing,” saying “there's no carpet bombing going on anywhere” and questions the notion of nuclear weapons as a plausible US option, suggesting that if a US weapon was used in the Iranian strike on a school, “it was a mistake” and that the school sat on the fence line of a military base, implying an inadvertent targeting outcome.
The host presses Fallon on a Tomahawk strike that reportedly hit a girls’ school in Minab, Iran, and whether the strike was targeted. Fallon maintains that the intent was to strike Iranian Navy or military-related activity to affect the Strait of Hormuz, and refuses to assign blame to deliberate civilian targeting. He notes that once fighting begins, many prior assumptions fall away, and emphasizes the need to think through potential outcomes before escalation. Atansi pushes back by pointing to civilian casualties in Lebanon and Iran, noting the deaths of 83 children in Israeli strikes and broader harm to civilians, urging consideration of the “collateral damage” that can shape conflicts. Fallon reiterates that civilians bear the brunt in most conflicts but asserts that the intention was to damage military targets.
Discussion then shifts to accountability for civilian casualties and the chain of responsibility, with Atansi asking whether the intelligence, legal, strike cell, field commander, or theater commander bears responsibility. Fallon suggests that in practice, decisions in international affairs lead to unforeseen consequences and that forethought is essential before beginning conflicts. He references media narratives and claims about the Esquire article undermining confidence in US leadership, noting that the NIE from 2007 reportedly concluded Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, but that Iran later expanded its program.
On oil and economic repercussions, Atansi mentions estimates of US costs in days of the conflict and claims about Europe and Asia’s economic impact, while Fallon questions the reliability of those figures. Fallon argues that while oil reserves were manipulated and sanctions were applied, the Strait of Hormuz remains challenged by strategic behavior but not fully severed, asserting that other oil movements continue outside the Gulf through sanctioned channels.
The host asks about domestic support for Trump’s war—“70% of Americans oppose Trump’s war”—to which Fallon casts doubt on poll accuracy and stresses that public opinion polls are reactive. He affirms that he would prefer not to have further wars and reiterates that Iran has engaged in malign activities historically, while Atansi counters by highlighting US alliances and alleged cooperation with extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, as a counterpoint to Fallon’s positions. Fallon rejects the notion that Israel controls CENTCOM, noting Israel was not part of CENTCOM during his tenure, and dismisses conspiracy claims about Israeli influence on US military policy.
The program closes with Fallon reiterating his position against further wars and acknowledging the complexity and longevity of Middle Eastern conflicts, thanking the host, and promoting his book, Decisions, Discord, and Diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshuner Atansi. Welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from a UAE intercepting wave upon wave of drones and ballistic missiles launched by Iran in retaliation for Epstein class US Israeli military. Aggression this week marks two anniversaries, the twenty third anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq that shattered the country and killed, wounded, or displaced tens of millions around the world, and it's the fifteenth anniversary of the NATO war on Libya that destroyed Africa's richest per capita country. Yet the US war on Iran may be US empire's biggest defeat worse than Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Yemen. Thousands have been killed already, and Israeli US carpet bombing has already wounded the world's poor through higher prices for everything from transport to medicine, food to housing.
The Strait Of Hormuz is this war's most notable weapon of mass destruction before Israel uses its nuclear weapons. Admiral William Fallon was commander of the US Atlantic Fleet in the Iraq War before eventually becoming the US military's commander of CENTCOM. He has highlighted CENTCOM as the place Washington could lose strategic balance in his new memoir, Decisions, Discord, and Diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul. He's in Alexandria, Virginia. Admiral, thanks so much for coming on.
We're not like Esquire on going underground. We might get on to how magazines get rid of top ranked US soldiers. But what did you feel when Trump characterized the war engulfing this region and the world as a short term excursion? In your book, Decisions, Discord, and Diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul, you talk about the prioritizing of short term military action over prudent long term strategy.
Speaker 1: First of all, I'd like to go back in the way that you characterized events today in your opening Sure. Analog there, I would disagree with several parts of it. But
Speaker 0: No, no, ahead.
Speaker 1: Back down later.
Speaker 0: Tell me which ones.
Speaker 1: So there's no carpet bombing going on anywhere. I don't think anybody, very few people would understand what that really means. I think that potential for nuclear weapons is nonsense from The US side. There'd be no no thought of that whatsoever, and just just on and on.
Speaker 0: Well, no. On occurred since you mentioned it, as you know, the Americans are now saying that the Tomahawk missile that hit the elementary school in Iran, killing a 160, a 180 young girls, was from The United States. And there are some reports that the intelligence used was that it was a grammar school. It was older daughters of Iranian military personnel, and they targeted it like how The United States targeted. Don't know Seymour Hirsch is a regular on this show.
Know, targeted like my lie was targeted.
Speaker 1: Well, take exception of that. Targeted is I think absolutely not what happened. If in fact it was a US weapon, it was a mistake. I took note of the fact that I've seen overhead pictures, satellite pictures, and this school unfortunately was right on the fence line of a military base. And I suspect there's no doubt in my mind that that military base was targeted, Whether the weapon, if it was US, went astray, mistargeted, don't know.
But that's one of the things I tried to bring out in my book is that once the shooting starts, lots of things that are assumptions prior to that go by the board.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I mean, new cleaning
Speaker 1: board is never really sure where things go, but when typically when the shooting begins, then people start reacting to one event or another. And as you point out some short term thinking now as there was back twenty some years ago for sure. And then as events start winding up in a conflict, the thinking becomes even shorter term because there's an action reaction kind of thing. And so all the all the more reason to really have try to think through potential outcomes before you pull the trigger and start these things.
Speaker 0: Yeah. In fact, you detail it in in the book. But I mean, you watch Pete Hegseth of the Pentagon the way he talked about the military campaign, and it sure sounded like carpet bombing in terms of its the generalities. And as you say, in the book, you talk about the profoundly negative consequences as a key factor in the failure in Afghanistan. And I should say, it's not just hundreds of children being killed in Iran.
I mean, grief and rage among rage amongst Lebanese for 83 children killed by Israeli strikes. There are so many children being killed in this. Given your experience Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's very unfortunate. But I gotta tell you, I spent quite a bit of time in Lebanon myself in some pretty tough days back in the eighties, and an awful lot of people. And it's typical in any conflict that the civilians typically bear the brunt in terms of numbers. Again, it's Sorry. I'm not taking
Speaker 0: this Have they not read your book?
Speaker 1: Give us some thought.
Speaker 0: Have you sent a copy of your book to the to Pete Heksef? Your your book is very explicit to the head of the Pentagon or the head of the war department as he likes to call it. Do you know of any senior personnel in the Trump administration who have read it given that it's clearly act as a I have no idea. To future US administrations about, as I say, the the the potential cost of strikes must be weighed against benefits. And, I mean, you know, the conceivable military gain, how could it of hitting that base and perhaps hitting the school in Iran, how could it outweigh the foreseeable risk to children and therefore the negative consequences for children?
Speaker 1: I think that's a proposition you're putting that's just not realistic at all. So when a conflict begins, nobody certainly from my experience on my side, even thinks about targeting schools, not alone other civilian targets. They're trying to get effects by attacking military or military related activities. And so I think that there's a tendency certainly in parts of the media to highlight these things. And they become kind of a story within a story.
They were unfortunate, no doubt about it, but I sincerely doubt that was the intention. The intention was most likely to inflict damage on the Iranian Navy, which right now is potentially, if there's anything left of it, trying to close the Strait Of Hormuz.
Speaker 0: Who bears responsibility for the mass slaughter of all those schoolchildren then? Because in your book, you emphasized the key role of the combatant commander at the interface of policy and operations. Is it the intelligence? Is it the lawyers? Is it the strike cell?
Is it the field commander, the theater commander, beat Hegseth? Who knows? Rubio, Trump?
Speaker 1: Who knows? And frankly, I don't think that's the important issue right now. The important issue is decisions that are taken in international affairs that end up resulting in conflicts are things that typically end up in consequences that are unforeseen, undesired, and it's the reason why in my experience you really need to give these things a lot of thought before they begin.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean you say unforeseen, but actually that Esquire article in the in the one of the sadder parts of your book, you talk about the Esquire article alone was just the last in a series of circumstances eroding the confidence of the president in in you. Although steadily pushing back on media conjecture, I think it'd be accurate to say that my public comments on the subject, this is about Iran, a possible war with Iran, were in line with utterances by my superiors in Washington. Further, The US national intelligence estimate issued in twenty o seven, because you're referring to that earlier one, regarding Iran's nuclear program concluded the country had halted its nuclear weapons program in twenty o three. I mean, is this history repeating itself to a certain extent, although without Joossie Gabbard not saying that the IAEA and the and the estimate of The US was that Iran isn't capable of having nuclear weapons?
Speaker 1: Who knows? I can't talk to what's going on now. I can only talk to the things that I experienced and went on in my time. And by the way, that NIE at the time, I believe was accurate. It was not accurate a couple of years later because Iran then cranked up its program.
And that's one of the key causes, I think, of this current conflict. How do you mean? Things happen.
Speaker 0: How do
Speaker 1: you mean? It's unfortunate. Well, it's from many statements that President Trump's made. He's still trying to eliminate the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons.
Speaker 0: So what was Tulsi Gabbard talking about when she said that there isn't a nuclear weapon?
Speaker 1: I have no idea. I don't I don't listen to her. I have no idea what she's talking about. Okay. And I don't think she's in a position to talk anymore, but that's another matter.
Speaker 0: Well, as regards process and given your given your, as you said, profoundly negative consequences of children, do you think Trump would have just better been better admitting that the girls school in Minab was hit by mistake rather than claiming Iran?
Speaker 1: I I don't know, but I'll tell you what. Let's get off the girls school. You know, you've been on this thing for ten minutes straight. That's an event that occurred. It's very unfortunate, but if you wanna talk about policy, don't we get into
Speaker 0: something The reason why the girls school is important is of course you yourself in the book, again and again show how it's exactly that kind of so called collateral damage that changes the course of military events and the entire war. And that why
Speaker 1: One the events that has an impact on the way things pan out.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, let's get to the cost of the war. The US burned through at least $6,000,000,000 in two days of the war. Although, the Financial Times here saying Europe and Asia
Speaker 1: Where did that come from?
Speaker 0: $6,000,000 in two days of the war was the estimate from the congressional committee?
Speaker 1: You got me, no idea.
Speaker 0: Okay, so The US It's conventional to me to see how they calculated
Speaker 1: any of that, but
Speaker 0: You're right. There's lots of misinformation, obviously, about a war in progress. Europe and Asia economies will take biggest war hit. Clearly, strategic oil reserves now being prepared because of the failure of The United States to secure the Strait Of Hormuz long predicted
Speaker 1: Wait a minute. What what are you talking about? What failure of The United States in the Strait?
Speaker 0: Well, Trump said he was gonna keep the Strait Of Hormuz open. He didn't foresee it being shut, did he, when he launched the war?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's shut to the extent that people are not using it.
Speaker 0: The Chinese It's shut in my and Russians are using it, think, Indians, but not any
Speaker 1: Well, they're they are, they're using it illegally because that oil has already been sanctioned. But so I look at some other things. The reality is that when this conflict began, the world was actually pretty much awash in oil. There were hundreds, if not thousands of tankers floating around the world with loaded with oil that are potentially of use to people, but a lot of that stuff was sanctioned precisely because the Russian war machine has been pumping it out and that's how it operates. That's how it funds the aggression in Ukraine.
And that's pretty unfortunate. So there's a lot of oil that's actually outside The Gulf right now. Yes, there's some inside, but you know, if you wanna take give it a shot, several tankers I understand have from sources I've
Speaker 0: heard have already made it out of
Speaker 1: The Gulf in the last couple of days. There's risk there, there's no doubt about it, but
Speaker 0: Admiral William Fallon? Just
Speaker 1: blaming the blockade of the straight on America, please. I've had it.
Speaker 0: Admiral William Fallon, I'll
Speaker 1: just stop you then more partial
Speaker 0: More more on decisions, discord, and diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul in a second. More from the former commander of US Central. Come on after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former commander of US Central Command and author of Decisions, Discord, and Diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul, Admiral William Fallon.
Admiral, you were talking about how, the media is exaggerating the oil lack of oil because of the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz, which you say isn't as closed as some would have it. Let's get to how how the American people are looking at this war because, again, your book emphasizes the importance of support at home for these foreign, as Trump would call it, short term excursions. Life expectancy in Iran under sanctions is more than ten years higher than Anacostia in Washington DC, and they have the Americans have spent billions, the American people. 70% of Americans oppose Trump's war. Does that mean that will have a bigger influence than any military activity in The Gulf on the ending of this war?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure where that information came from. I haven't
Speaker 0: seen Which information?
Speaker 1: A number like that at all, but
Speaker 0: Which information?
Speaker 1: I think
Speaker 0: what's gonna happen is Life expectancy is is Life higher in Iran. It's 76.5 than in Mississippi, 71.9 West Virginia, 72 Louisiana, 73. What's point?
Speaker 1: What's the point?
Speaker 0: That to raise the living standards of ordinary Americans, the Americans are pouring cash into these massive military adventures instead of the rejuvenation Many of the American
Speaker 1: things. There's a far greater percentage of the American budget that goes into domestic spending by far than military.
Speaker 0: But surely the money for this war could have been better spent on building The United States, the American Well,
Speaker 1: you'd like to spend next to nothing on war if you can help it and and spend it all on other things. But that's not the way the world is.
Speaker 0: I mean, fundamentally you support Trump's
Speaker 1: decisions on what they do. You support this war? I support stopping the aggression that Iran has been perpetrating on The US for forty some years, and on this region for decades. There's no doubt in my mind from having spent a lot of time there and working with friends and allies and neighbors in The Gulf, that Iran has perpetrated and tried to instigate trouble in many countries, particularly those in The Gulf. This has been going on for a long time.
There's little doubt that there have been heavily engaged in an attempt to produce nuclear weapons.
Speaker 0: But you believe that even though you
Speaker 1: striking their rest of the countries consistently.
Speaker 0: So long as it's with the IAA or the intelligence estimate, which is odd because of course when you were head of CENTCOM, you left because of that. But I mean as regards Iran's malign
Speaker 1: No. Influence That isn't why I left. You're here extrapolating bits and pieces and coming up with your own story, and I don't I don't buy it.
Speaker 0: No. I I was just meaning
Speaker 1: Don't buy it.
Speaker 0: In your own memoir you say the Esquire article, it eroded the satisfaction and confidence of President Bush in my service at SENCOLM. Iran policy was the focal point of the Barnett article and media commentary, but it was a red herring. So but the president anyway, far from that, you're talking about the malign influence of Iran. Let's get down to that. You can see that a genocide in Gaza, the genocide of our century which was helped by The United States and for it So to happen what started
Speaker 1: the event in Gaza? How did how did
Speaker 0: Gaza No. I'm I'm just saying can you look at it from the other way? From the lying influence of The United States No.
Speaker 1: No. I'm telling you to look the other way because you're giving a decidedly one angle point of view. You started out by saying basically blaming The US for all the trouble in the region for this conflict as if it just dropped off the moon somewhere and started to pound away Iran. In fact, Iran has been up to malign activities for many years, most of them aimed at The US, either directly or through surrogates. Iran has perpetrated unrest in country after country in the region and around the world.
Speaker 0: Who is fighting with Al Qaeda? Who is fighting with Al Qaeda? Who is fighting with Al Qaeda in this region? It was the Americans wasn't it? The United States.
Speaker 1: Among others, among many others.
Speaker 0: Well you can see what a malign If influence Al Qaeda you go back and
Speaker 1: look at what happened in 2001, Al Qaeda actually attacked The US at home.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But did but The United States continued to work with Al Qaeda far I have a I have the infamous memo here from Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, to Hillary Clinton. See last item Al Qaeda is on our side in Syria. The United States worked with Al Qaeda. Is that not a malign influence in this region?
The way you've just had it then, Iran and the people of this region have a right to attack The United States.
Speaker 1: Say that again?
Speaker 0: You just You to jump one the war on Iran. You said the reason for the war in Iran is that Iran has exerted a malign influence in this region. I've just Correct. Showed you evidence that The United States has been working with Al Qaeda. Does that not mean that Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't so I don't know where you pulled that out of, but I find it interesting that you are going around cherry picking This is the department of state. And pieces from things the world and trying to stitch them together into a mosaic that basically blames The US for all this trouble in The Middle East. And I reject that out of hand.
Speaker 0: That's wonderful blame for the thousands being killed in this region at the moment? Iran. Even though it's retaliating for Trump's attack.
Speaker 1: An interesting proposition. The problem is that this part of the world has been troubled for a long long time, for many centuries. Unfortunately, this continues. So people end up siding one side or another, but the reality is that Iran has been a very very bad influence in this area ever since the revolution. What happened in '79.
Speaker 0: What do you expect after this war if, as you say, you don't expect the messianic elements of Israeli and American society to use nuclear weapons in the sort of desire for Armageddon. How do you how do you expect this to finish? Because clearly the GCC Good had not
Speaker 1: question. Sorry? Good question. So again, once the shooting starts, you never know how it's gonna end. So for me it would be just conjecture.
But I suspect that at some point in time, as in every conflict, the opponents will decide they've had enough for one reason or another, and the thing will come to a halt. For how long? Don't know. So in a desire for perfect outcomes, leaders and others would like for things to be totally changed and either go back to they were the way before the event began or some other way that is unrealistic. Because the reality is that these are messy things, they have lots of tendrils, lots of connections.
Just look at The Gulf itself with the countries around The Gulf. I found when I was out there that there was just about universal concern among the other countries other than Iran about Iranian behavior. And in fact, most of the leaders of the countries when I would visit them would ask me to try to do something about Iran. Do they want me to do
Speaker 0: about Iran? Saudi You Arabia and The UAE, they banned their territory being used by United States military in the attack on Iran, and they refuse to cooperate in any way with the military operations against Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's pretty short lived because they're depending on a lot of defensive support even as we speak. So there's a People would love to have it both ways. They'd like to
Speaker 0: have their cake and eat
Speaker 1: it too. The reality is it's a very, very challenging part of the world. Relationships are fraught, they're complex. Often the actors, countries, or the individuals are being pulled several different ways simultaneously, and that's a reality with life.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, Mike Huckabee, you're The United States ambassador to Israel has clearly said he wants to take over parts of Saudi Arabia as part of his greater Israel plan, clearly. I got to ask you about the book and why you don't mention Israeli power over policy. Because, I mean, Larry Wilkerson, he's a friend of this show, the the chief of staff to
Speaker 1: I'll give you a quick answer. I'll give you a quick answer right now. Israel was not part of CENTCOM when I was there. It was outside the
Speaker 0: boundaries That was an alarm for an air raid. Admiral I should just say
Speaker 1: inside of CENTCOM without inviting more trouble. So
Speaker 0: Admiral, I should just say that was an alarm that was an alarm for an air raid here in Dubai, I should just say. But, yeah, I mean, Israel, obviously not a member of CENTCOM, but clearly, everyone talking about how Israel really controls the United States military,
Speaker 1: not Well, of I
Speaker 0: CENTCOM at all.
Speaker 1: That's that's another nonsensical term that certain people throw out. And It's what the chief
Speaker 0: of staff, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, the Secretary of State under the president you served, as commander of St.
Speaker 1: Combs told us. You can find, with billions of people in this world, you can find somebody to say just about anything you want if you look hard enough. Does that make it a reality? Not in my book.
Speaker 0: I mean, Trump was elected on no new wars, and he's taken The United States into another war against what all polling shows the American people want. Do you see
Speaker 1: this I as think that's an interesting proposition. So you know, Trump says a lot.
Speaker 0: It's not a proposition.
Speaker 1: He's always talking. Yeah. Your facts are a little different than my facts.
Speaker 0: So you think the American people do support the war and Trump has elected on more war policy?
Speaker 1: I don't public opinion polls are really, in my experience, kinda looking behind you. They're reactive to what's going on.
Speaker 0: Do you ever Do you feel what the are feel today? You know,
Speaker 1: here's the reality. I think most people don't want a war period. So it shouldn't be surprising whether it's here or in some other place that you would have people who are not interested or don't support wars. I got it. I spent a lifetime serving the military, been to too many wars, and I'd love to not have to do any more again.
But the reality is in this world, it's pretty messy. And unfortunately, you find yourself sometimes in positions you don't wanna be. But your proposition here is basically blaming The US for everything here and that's absolutely not true in my experience and opinion. Absolutely. So if wanna treat it fairly, then let's give credit of the malign kind where it's due, and there's a lot more than The US here.
Speaker 0: Admiral William J. Fowen. Thank you. That's it for the show. The, book, decisions, discord, and diplomacy from Cairo to Kabul is out now.
Our continued condolences to all those bereaved by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new episode. Until then, keep in touch by 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 Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
In this episode I explore Dubai's ground reality as Iranian missiles and drones strike the UAE, the GCC-US alliance's status after a destabilising war, BRICS' mediation, and the Abraham Accords post-Gaza/Israel wars. I consider chances for peace and negotiations with Mohammed Baharoon, Director General of Dubai Public Policy Research Center.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ ‘This is NOT OUR WAR’ UAE🇦🇪 Navigates Regional Crisis Amid US-Israel War on Iran (Mohammed Baharoon) What is the situation on the ground in Dubai as Iranian missiles and drones continue to target the UAE? What is the state of the GCC’s alliance with the US after it plunged the region into its most destabilising war yet? Why has BRICS disappointingly not stepped up yet to mediate the crisis? What is the state of the Abraham Accords following the Gaza genocide and Israel’s wars on Iran? Are there any chances for peace and negotiations? All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with @MABaharoon, the Director General of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center @bhuth_UAE
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashton Rutansi opens Going Underground from Dubai, arguing that the UAE has defended itself militarily in a conflict it did not start. He claims the US and Israel violated Article 2 of the UN Charter, with thousands killed or wounded in what he calls a war of aggression against Iran, including an assassination in Ramadan of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and his family. Iran reportedly retaliated with drone and missile attacks on US bases in West Asia. The UAE is said to have intercepted nearly every Iranian projectile with what is described as the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, and the country maintains that UAE territory is not and will not be used in any military operation against Iran. Rutansi also asserts that NATO-aligned mainstream media are attempting to besmirch Dubai’s reputation as a destination for hundreds of thousands of people.
He speaks with Mohammed Barun, director general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center, and former deputy director of Wahtani (the UAE’s national identity initiative) and former editor of Gulf Defense Magazine. Barun notes Gulf News headlines about “UAE stands united and resolute,” emergency air corridors, and fast-moving responses to flights and tourism disruptions. He discusses the UAE’s air defense response and the claim that missiles used against the US consulate were produced in the UAE, calling this a long-planned capability coming to fruition. Barun describes the UAE as feeling a surprising nonchalance about the attacks, noting that life in Dubai goes on with malls, restaurants, mosques, and the like, while first responders act quickly to distinguish fires and aid evacuees. He highlights the UAE’s efforts to extend hotel stays for stranded tourists and gradually reopen corridors to allow people to return home, viewing this as a testament to years of planning and resilience.
Rutansi raises questions about why international media and NATO voices target Dubai, suggesting the UAE did not allow US bases to be used, and asks whether there is envy over Dubai bearing the brunt of retaliation. Barun responds that the misrepresentation is not solely NATO-driven but reflects a broader pattern of media framing, noting this has occurred in 2008, 2020, and during COVID-19. He says the UAE’s response is not a function of NATO influence, and that the country’s experience shows the value of resilience and planning.
Rutansi and Barun discuss regional dynamics and the implications of the UAE not joining the war, contrasting UAE and Saudi positions with Qatar and Bahrain, which host US bases. Barun argues that most GCC states, including the UAE, maintain that the war is not their decision and that they did not choose this conflict. He suggests the UAE’s response seeks opportunities amid calamities and emphasizes the importance of Iranian and regional interests aligning for any future solution.
The conversation touches on tensions within BRICS, with Barun expressing disappointment that BRICS has not decisively helped stabilize the region, viewing the UN’s diplomacy as lacking and noting that the UAE and others have taken independent diplomatic steps. He questions whether a multipolar order could deliver security in the region. Barun concludes that negotiations may be transactional and focused on space for future talks rather than a comprehensive peace deal today, insisting that any solution must consider Iran’s 100,000,000 people and their aspirations.
The program ends with Barun thanking the host and urging safety, while Rutansi invites listeners to stay engaged and to follow Going Underground for updates.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashton Rutansi. Welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from a Dubai in The UAE that has been successfully defending itself militarily from a conflict it played no part in starting. At the end of last month, The US and Israel violated article two of the United Nations Charter, the supreme international crime as defined at the Nuremberg trials. Thousands have been killed or wounded since Trump and Netanyahu launched their war of aggression against Iran, including over 180 young girls just at a primary school in the south of the country. The Israeli American attack included an assassination in the month of Ramadan of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei along with his family.
Iran's retaliation came in the form of drone and missile attacks on every country in West Asia, their hosts US military bases. The UAE responded by successfully using what appears to be the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, intercepting nearly every Iranian projectile. And The UAE maintained that UAE territory is not and will not be used in any military operation against Iran. All this while NATO nation, so called mainstream media, spread misinformation to destroy the reputation of the city that hundreds of thousands of their citizens are emigrating to in droves, Dubai. Joining me from here in Dubai is the director general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center, a think tank that provides research analysis and policy recommendations to support decision makers in The UAE and the broader region.
Mohammed Barun was also the deputy director of Wahtani, The UAE's first initiative on national identity, and he's the former editor of the Gulf Defense Magazine. Mohammed, thanks so much for coming on Going Underground. You know, Gulf News here in Dubai had headlines like this in the past few days. UAE stands united and resolute emergency air corridors activated to handle 48 flower flights per hour. Some might think it's propaganda, but actually, we don't wanna be like an advert for Lockheed Martin.
But were you surprised that the THAAD system was so effective?
Speaker 1: Yeah. First of all, Afrin, thank you very much for having me with you here. And I think I was definitely pleasantly surprised. However, the surprise does not go only because of the, you know, effectiveness of of the air defense system. First of all, it was not only THAAD, it's a combination of a number of air defense systems, including one that is built here in The UAE.
And we have recently heard, you know, this White House spokesperson specifically say that the attack that has happened on the US consulate was defended with missiles produced here in The UAE. So that is something that has been in the making for years, and it just happened to happen that we use them today. We hope that we will never do that. What got me surprised really is how nonchalant it feels here. All of these attacks, the number of of missiles and drones that has been targeted to The UAE, that is actually more than all of the missiles that went to all of the other countries Iran has targeted.
Yet, we can drive outside. We go to the mall. We go to restaurants. We go to the mosque for prayer. So this is making us feel as if it is not happening.
And I think this is something that we need to credit even first respondents on the way they have been conducting. Fires have been distinguished at a very high speed. People's life is being facilitated, eased up. You know, tourists who've been stranded here in Dubai have got, you know, their bill for their hotel's extension picked up by the UAE government, and those corridors now being opened slowly to allow those stranded to go back home. So that's it.
I think that is in itself very impressive, and the the fact is not that we're only happy about it or proud about it. It just it's an amazement of how work of years and years of planning has now came out useful whenever it was needed.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Interesting. The UAE system didn't completely protect the consulate. It has to be said. But having said all of that, what have you thought about the international media's attempt?
Specifically, actually, it's in NATO countries, arguably, that have tried to besmirch the reputation of Dubai and not given a truthful view of what's happening in Dubai. For what reason? Why? Is it because The UAE didn't allow the Americans the use of the base? Well, we
Speaker 1: we could see malignant, you know, intent in there. However, I don't think this is in itself malignant as much as it is, as they call it, habit. We've seen this happening in 2008. We've seen it happening during 2020. And you must remember the time when, you know, the opening up of curfew in The UAE, resumption of life has been described as a what was the the term
Speaker 0: During COVID.
Speaker 1: Megaspreader of yes. During COVID. So it's it's not new. We're used to it. It has been
Speaker 0: But why? But why?
Speaker 1: I don't think it's NATO. But why? I don't think it's NATO. I think it's just a natural thing for a success story always to be targeted. And it it's absolutely, unfortunately, natural in in this time.
But, again, the most important thing is that it is not affecting us.
Speaker 0: On Saturday's show, we interviewed James Farnell. He's a captain who is the director of intelligence and information operations of the US Pacific Fleet. And when I said to him, look. The UAE, like Saudi Arabia, they said that The United States' bases could not be used on the soil of The United Arab Emirates, for instance. He seemed unaware of that.
He said, well, we kind of did use it, which I thought was quite surprising. Do you think there is a residual animosity because The UAE did not allow the bases here to be used for the attack on Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think it's only The UAE. I mean, this is a position that all of the GCC countries have most of the GCC countries have maintained. I mean, there is the exception of both Qatar and Bahrain who have bases that belong to The US. So it's pretty much US property and they don't have control over that. But the majority of Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Bahrain, not Paris, sorry, Saudi Arabia, And they've all maintained the same thing that they would not allow their their crown to be used.
I mean, not even GCC. I mean, you've heard Jordan say the same thing. It it is a position where this is not our war, and I think that is the the underlying message from everyone. We did not choose this war, and we are not part of it.
Speaker 0: Do you think there was an element of the envy going on as regards to why then it was Dubai that bore the brunt of the retaliation for The US and Israeli strikes. This is a Dubai and UAE, which is thought to be the equivalent in the Second World War, say, of Switzerland. Switzerland now a de facto NATO country, not neutral. Why on earth was Dubai targeted? And did that surprise you as well by an Iran who is considered a brotherly BRICS nation of The UAE's?
Speaker 1: It was a a big question for most analysts, frankly, because it was totally difficult to imagine why a country that has kept very good relationship with Iran despite the occupation of its islands, a country that, know, pretty much opposed the war, a country that tried and mediate would be a target, especially that this country is not part of the war and continuously said that we do not want to be part of that war. And I think my own assessment is that UAE, Dubai maybe was supposed to be the first domino in a domino effect. That was the easiest, most glass filled, you know, city, and the most polished, so smudging it with, you know, start of the domino effect where all of the GCC countries would use their own power, diplomatic, whatever, to stop the war, and that didn't happen. So the assistance was that we need that first domino to fall down, and it didn't until now.
Speaker 0: Poor intelligence then that Iran had on that. They didn't understand the air defenses of Dubai and The UAE then.
Speaker 1: Look. Anyone who looks at The UAE from outside or even Dubai, they would see shiny cities and and and, you know, towers and push people and and and and and nice luxury cars. That's that's the image. It doesn't suggest that this is, you know, a country that has resolve, that has, you know, ability to defend itself. And I think it it it is natural if you just look at the appearances of people and think that this is their quality.
But The UAE has been in in a number of of, you know, battles around the world, and I think more more than the battle battle experience, I think it's the planning. And I think it's a crucial element that allowed The UAE to regain its position very fast. It it was the first to rebound after 2008. It was the first to rebound after 2020 and during COVID. People forget that there was an extremely successful expo in The UAE during the most worrisome times in in in the world.
So that is the type of resolve people in The UAE have, and its leadership have.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I interviewed Sheikh Mohammed a number of times. I think twenty five years ago, he told me the island dispute itself was kind of manufactured to a certain extent. It appeared by powers that want conflict between Iran and The UAE. But then why is and it should be noted that Sheikh Mohammed was defense minister of The UAE when he was crown prince.
But why is it The UAE was speaking through Vladimir Putin with the Iranians in the early days of the war? What's your understanding of how negotiations are occurring to stop the onslaught and the military onslaught on The UAE, which as we both know, is nothing to do with starting this war apart from having a US base?
Speaker 1: Well, again, I think Iran possibly finds itself as disadvantage from a military point of view. The only way that it can pressure The US is by, you know, expanding the price of of war or the cost of war, and by attacking people who are nearer to that. I mean, remember that during the beginning of the campaign, the focus was on the longer range missiles. The type of Shahed drones that can be produced in a workshop if you want. Much cheaper, shorter range does not go all the way to Israel, but it can affect countries nearer to Iran.
And I think for them, that was a way of increasing the price of of of war on on The US, but also on everyone. I think right what we see in, you know, or what they have seen recently is targeting the energy infrastructure in the region. Again, that is targeted to raise the price of of oil, take the battle into the gas stations and into The US. We've seen this also with with gas prices, which also going to affect people in Europe, and and they're thinking maybe that is going to make people in Europe, you know, sort of either pressure or, you know, campaign for a diplomatic resolution of the war. Now the strange thing is that the Iranians come out and say, we do not want a diplomatic resolution of the but again, that's part of the provado that we see after the decapitation of Khamenei.
Speaker 0: Mohammed Varun, I'll stop you there. More from the director general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the director general of the Dubai Public Policy Research Center, Mohammed Baharoun. Mohammed, you were talking about, why Dubai might want to be targeted as far as strategic concerns, are, existing in, Tehran.
Of course, one question that does hover amongst this entire war is why did GCC countries trust The United States in the first place? I mean, the whole world was warned beforehand. The armada had been sent to the Gulf Region. Trump continually signaled it was going to happen. Do you not think it was clear that The United States will not allow countries to be neutral in this region, yet these countries desire to be neutral?
Speaker 1: The war decision is, again, not a decision that the countries of the GCC have taken. We have seen the buildup. We have very actively, you know, talked to the Iranians, supported an early solution for this true deal. We knew what was going to happen, but that doesn't mean that you're part of it. Now the trust of The US, I don't I don't think it's just a trust because of of the war.
There has been a relationship with The US that, you know, went on for over fifty years now in the region. It this is not new. It has its own ups and downs. We still remember the previous administration and its position towards Saudi Arabia, for instance, And we've also remembered the previous previous administration with president Obama and and and and the concept of, you know, free riders of of The US security umbrella. So these things are things that we know, part of a relationship that was ongoing, that has its own challenges.
I don't think it's complete trust, but also we have also been exercising our agency in in this care. And you could see that agency manifest itself, for instance, in in in the Gaza peace plan, which was not the original Trump plan, but it was something that has been formulated with a lot of input from from the region. So I don't think that we are today in the same position we used to be fifty years ago when it comes to The US partnership. And I think you might have heard this word partnership more often than alliances in in in the region because that is how we're looking at it. There is an equal partnership.
Now whether it's the, you know, war in in Gaza that we did not support, but we got burned by it as well. The war in in in in in in in Iran, the twelve days war and this current war, we did not opt for, but we were burned by as as well. These are decisions by The US, by Israel, not our decisions. However, I think our role right now is not to say that, look. I am going to be a part of this war or not going to be a part of this war.
I think our role right now is to look at the future and see how can we come out of this. And in The UAE fashion, I think we also in in the midst of of big calamities, look for opportunities. What are the new opportunities now that could happen? And I think that any solution that could come out of this, if it doesn't involve real benefit to Iran and Iranian people, it will not, know, succeed. This cannot be, you know, a defeat, a surrender, a humiliation of Iranian because, as you mentioned, 100,000,000 people in in in Iran, those cannot be ignored.
They have their own agency. They have their own aspirations. We need this to have our aspirations and their aspirations aligned.
Speaker 0: And just on Gaza, because you mentioned it, it didn't make any difference that The UAE joined the Abraham Accords and therefore would be a target for Iran because Saudi Arabia arguably was more volleyball in the sense that it called it out as a genocide. So people can't say it was because The UAE joined the Abraham Accord that it was targeted because every GCC country was targeted.
Speaker 1: Well, if it was about the Abraham Accord, then most of the attacks would be on Israel, not on anyone else. Before The UAE joined the Abrahamic Accords, Jordan had a peace plan. Before Jordan had a peace plan, Egypt has a peace plan. None of them are targeted. I think this is a fallacy, or maybe as you said before, this is part of the misinformation, the framing of of things, but I don't think this is reality.
Speaker 0: And it's clear that the enemies of the GCC would seek to divide The UAE from Saudi Arabia. That's been going on in the weeks ahead of this war. Clear that one I mean, thousands have been killed, course, in so many countries and, of course, especially around one side effect is definitely the unification of interest between Saudi Arabia and The UAE.
Speaker 1: Well, the unification of interest is has always been there, but again, these are national interests. And national interests among all countries can, you know, intersect or diverge. And I don't think that this is the the big problem of of diverging national interest or intersecting national interest. I think the main issue right now is that this is going to be about the whole security of the region, and the security of the region is matched into each other. We cannot be secure if Saudi Arabia is not.
Saudi Arabia cannot be secure if we are not. Oman cannot be secure if Bahrain is not, and vice versa. So again, there has been issues between Bahrain and Qatar that went all the way to the Court of Justice. But today, they are, you know, attacked, both of them by the same country. So again, mean, I can't say that everything that is happening is because of an extended power that is trying to either bring us together or take us apart.
There are things that we Israel
Speaker 0: is what we're about. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, there there is an interest, of course, if you would want to believe that the only, let's say, dynamics in the region is the dynamics of power. Dynamics of power means that either you get stronger or others gets weaker. So again but frankly, Saudi Arabia was very close to a deal or an understanding with with Israel. What made it fall around was not only the Gaza attack, but also the fact that Israel does not want to acknowledge or accept any future for the Palestinians and as a state. That was the the the the point.
We in The UAE through the Abrahamic Accords were trying to create this, you know, a reality where this is not a threat to to the Israelis. That's they've maintained they maintained this for for a long time that a Palestinian state is a threat to Israel. And our view was that, look, in an integrated situation where all of the countries don't fight each other over religion, and we are capable of being part of a wider network, then that will change the dynamics. Unfortunately it didn't. We were close to that, the Gaza attack sort of, you know, dismantled this, and brought Israel back to their muscle memory of of of fighting against all of the Arabs.
And I think that's where we're seeing this new approach of greater Israel where, you know We we all heard Michael
Speaker 0: Mike Huckabee. We all are wanting to occupy parts of Saudi Arabia. But then given that Qatar has been talking to Iran, UAE no doubt back channels with Iran and Saudi Arabia, what role has BRICS in this war? I mean, could there not be some sort of BRICS summit, or is this a failure of BRICS? Are those who are against multipolarity and nonalignment going to be saying, look.
The GCC countries failed and BRICS countries in this region with Iran, they failed at ensuring security, or will this be the spur for that multipolarity?
Speaker 1: Well, frankly, I've seen this is one of my personal disappointments, because I thought that this was the time when BRICS can show that it can have a role in stabilizing this the you know? I fully understand that BRICS started and wants to stay as as an economic forum rather than, you know, a political UN or, you know, a military alliance. But diplomacy is very important to maintain those those economic interests. And we haven't seen a BRICS country come together and say, yes. This is happening.
But now we have a role in trying and and and stop it. And I think I'm not saying that it will not happen. I'm just saying that I thought it will happen sooner. And I remember the time when countries have not taken the diplomatic initiative when the war between, you know, Russia and Ukraine started. And we've lost a lot of valuable time during that because people wanted to take a certain, you know, moral stand on on on this rather than say, regardless of where we stand morally on this, we will have to start engaging on stopping the war through diplomacy.
And that's why we've seen countries like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, you know, doing what no the UN was supposed to do, for instance. So I'm afraid that BRICS is finding itself in the same position UN found itself during the war between Ukraine and Russia.
Speaker 0: Well, it's clear what Trump thinks of BRICS. Simultaneously, though, if a dying empire as The United States sees itself, let alone others, if BRICS does become a greater part of the world, what if The United States hit the Boucher Reactor? We both live in Dubai. There are some estimates that radiation within a couple of days would hit Dubai. Do you think The United States would go as far as hit the Bushehr Nuclear Reactor in Iran where there are Russian personnel?
Speaker 1: Frankly, it's not only us who live in in in in the region. Americans live in Bahrain, and they live in Qatar.
Speaker 0: So They're they're evacuating them.
Speaker 1: Well, for now, they're evacuating civilians, but there are a lot of of, you know, interests that could not go away. So I doubt that this is something that The US will intend. If you've looked at The US strike on Iran, what was called the midnight hammer operation, that was a diplomatic operation. It actually ended the war that had started. So I I don't think that The US is is void of strategy.
I don't think this is an accurate description. It's just that one, we don't see that strategy today, and frankly, a lot of the Americans have been talking to share that they don't see a concrete strategy for this war either. I mean, military might is there, the political outcome or strategic outcome is not clear. Can the military might deliver a strategic outcome, or will it only deliver military outcome? Military outcome is clear.
I mean, there is open skies now for US and Israeli airplanes. They can bomb whatever they want. But is there a strategic outcome? Is it going to make Iran a better place? Is it going to make the region a better place?
This is the best the big question for us.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Clearly, the Americans you're talking to aren't the ones in the Trump inner circle arguably. But what about negotiations? I mean, do you think there is any way a country would ever negotiate with The United States now? And does the negotiating have to be done really between GCC states and Iran given that The United States is now infamous for negotiating mass killing amidst negotiating?
Speaker 1: Well, again, there is diplomatic negotiation and then there is economic negotiation described as the deal, which is transactional. I think transactional negotiations right now are possible, you know, more of a peace deal and for the future, I don't see elements that would support it right now. However, a transactional negotiation that leads to, you know, opening up space for those negotiations is what we need to focus on right now. So we're not gonna have a a big peace deal between US and and and Iran today, but we need to create the space for those discussions that is based on what is the future
Speaker 0: of Iran. Mohammed Bayron, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ashin, for having me here, and please keep safe.
Speaker 0: That's it for the show. Our thoughts are with all those affected by the West Asia war. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new episode. Until then, keep in touch by all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, you can head to our channel, Going Underground TV on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground.
See you Saturday.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
‘IT WOULD BE FINE IF THEY TOOK IT ALL’ US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee tells Tucker Carlson he has no objections to Israel taking over most of the Middle East, from the Euphrates to the Nile. First they came for the Palestinians, now everyone else is next. The US and Israel have shown in their official positions long ago that they don’t care for international law, and now they use religious fanaticism to justify even attacks on sovereign, established nations. If the nations in the US’ and Israel’s crosshairs continue to hope for salvation via international law and the ‘rules-based order’… The response will be laughter from Washington and Tel Aviv, followed by annihilation. The rules are for the rest, not for the West.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
‘At least 6 million have been killed in the CIA’s wars against the people of the third world in 40 years’ -Ex-CIA agent John Stockwell on the CIA’s imperial savage wars against the people of the global south https://t.co/Kyr0MwUJ5W
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes a long, forty-year conflict described as a Third World War waged by the CIA and the U.S. National Security Complex against people of the Third World, not the Soviets. He states that at least six million people have been killed in this war. He emphasizes that these are not Soviets and notes no parachuting into the Soviet Union to kill since 1954, when the Soviets developed the capability of dropping atomic weapons on the United States. He references CIA, Marine Corps, and three CIA Secret Wars.
He recalls his 1975 position as chief of the Angola task force within the National Security Council, describing it as the third CIA secret war he was part of. He mentions the National Security Act of 1947 creating the National Security Council, and the CIA being given a charter to perform duties and functions necessary to national security interests, with vague authority to protect sources and methods. He says, in the mid-80s, he coined the term the Third World War after realizing the U.S. was not attacking the Soviet Union but people in the Third World.
He characterizes the Third World War as the third bloodiest war in history, with operations conducted globally and a license to kill, smuggle drugs, and violate international law and principles of nations working together for a healthier and more peaceful world. He alleges the U.S. legal system was being converted to give the CIA control of society. He notes there is massive documentation of CIA secret wars, citing the Church Committee investigation of 1975, which found 900 major operations and 3,000 minor operations in the fourteen years prior. Extrapolating over the forty-plus years of CIA activity, he claims 3,000 major operations and over 10,000 minor operations, all allegedly illegal and disruptive to other societies, with many bloody and gory.
He asserts the CIA organized the overthrow of functioning constitutional democracies, created secret armies, and directed them to fight on multiple continents. He claims the agency encouraged ethnic minorities to rise up: the Mosquito Indians in Nicaragua, the Kurds in the Middle East, the Hmongs in Southeast Asia. He alleges death squads funded by the CIA, such as the Treasury Police in El Salvador, responsible for most of the 50,000 killed in the 1980s, and 70,000 before that. He describes orchestration by the CIA through secret teams and propaganda, leading to involvement in the Korean War and attacks on China from Quemoy and Matsu, Thailand, and Tibet. He notes drug trafficking, the Korean War resulting in about a million deaths, and the Vietnam War, with CIA involvement at every level, contributing to the creation of the Golden Triangle and the Golden Crescent, where heroin became a major outcome, with Air America aircraft shipping arms for allies and returning with heroin, and claims President Carter and Admiral Turner brag about the Afghanistan operation as the largest CIA secret war operation in history.
He concludes that the Golden Crescent remains the largest source of heroin today. He summarizes that the Third World War, waged by the CIA, the U.S. National Security Complex, and the military, has resulted in widespread devastation, especially in the Third World, as opposed to Europe where there is no equivalent destructive capability. He notes that those regions rarely have the means to hurt the U.S., questioning the motive of targeting those who cannot defend themselves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me just put it this way: The best heads that I coordinate with studying this thing, we count at least, minimum figure, 6,000,000 people who've been killed in this long forty year war that we've waged against people of the Third World. These are not Soviets. We have not been parachuting teams into the Soviet Union to kill and hurt and maim people. Especially not since 1954, when they developed actually a capability of dropping atomic weapons on The United States. CIA Marine Corps, three CIA Secret Wars.
I had a position in the National Security Council in 1975 as the chief of the Angola task force running the secret war in Angola. It was the third C. I. Secret war I was part of. The national security law, creating the National Security Council and the C.
I. As you know, was passed in 1947. The C. I. A.
Was given charter to perform such other duties and functions as might be necessary to the national security interests and given a vague authority to protect its sources and methods. And I think it was in the mid-80s that I coined this phrase the Third World War because in my research I realized that we were not attacking the Soviet Union and the C. I. Activities. We were attacking people in the Third World.
And I'm going to just quickly, in the interest of time, just give you a little sense of what that means, this Third World War. Basically, it's the third, I believe in terms of loss of life and human destruction, third bloodiest war in all of history. They undertake to run operations in every corner of the globe. They also undertook the license of operating just totally above and beyond U. S.
Laws. They had a license, if you will, to kill, but also they took that to a license to smuggle drugs, a license to do all kinds of things to other people in other societies in violation of international law, our law, and every principle of nations working together for a healthier and more peaceful world. Meanwhile, again, they battled to convert The U. S. Legal system in such a way that it would give them control of our society.
Now we have massive documentation of what they call the secret wars of the CIA. We don't have to guess or speculate. We had the Church Committee investigate them in 1975, gave us our first really in-depth, powerful look inside this structure. Senator Church said in the fourteen years before he did his investigation that he found they had run 900 major operations and 3,000 minuteor operations. If you extrapolate that over the forty odd years that we've had a CIA, you come up with 3,000 major operations and over 10,000 minuteor operations.
Every one of them illegal, every one of them disruptive of the lives and societies of other peoples, and many of them bloody and gory beyond comprehension almost. Extensively we manipulated and organized the overthrow of functioning constitutional democracies in other countries. We organized secret armies and directed them to fight in just about every continent in the world. We encouraged ethnic minorities to rise up and fight, people like the Mosquito Indians in Nicaragua, the Kurds in The Middle East, the Hmongs in Southeast Asia. We have organized and we still do and fund death squads in countries around the world, like the Treasury Police in El Salvador, which are responsible for most of the killing of the 50,000 people just in the eighties, and there were 70,000 before that.
An orchestration, CIs, secret teams, and propaganda led us directly into Korean War. We were attacking China from the islands, Quemoy, Matsu, Thailand, Tibet. A lot of drug trafficking involved in this, by the way, until eventually we convinced ourselves to fight the Chinese and Korean. We had the Korean War and a million people were killed. Same thing for the Vietnam War, and we have extensive documentation of how the CIA was involved at every level or the national security complex into manipulating the nation into the Vietnam War.
And we wound up creating the Golden Triangle in which the CIA, Air America airplanes, were flying in arms to our allies and flying back out with heroin. We launched the largest this is something that Jimmy Carter did, Admiral Turner brags about it the operation in Afghanistan. Biggest single operation, I'm told, in the history of the C. I. Secret wars.
And sure enough, very quickly we produced the Golden Crescent, which is still the largest source of heroin perhaps in the world today. Trying to summarize this Third World War that the C. I, the U. S. National Security Complex with the military all interwoven in it in many different ways has been waging.
Let me just put it this way: the best heads that I coordinate with studying this thing, we count at least, minimum figure, six million people who've been killed in this long forty year war that we've waged against the people of the Third World. These are not Soviets. We have not been parachuting teams into the Soviet Union to kill and hurt and maim people. Especially not since 1954, when they developed actually a capability of dropping atomic weapons on The United States. They aren't British, French, Swedes, Swiss, Belgians.
We don't do bloody gory operations in the countries of Europe. These are all people of the Third World. They're people of countries like The Congo, Vietnam, Kampuchea, Indonesia, Nicaragua, where conspicuously they nor their governments do not have the capability of doing any physical hurt to The US. They don't have ICBMs. They don't have armies or navies.
They could not hurt us if they wanted to. There has rarely been any evidence that they really wanted to. And that, in fact, is perhaps the whole point. If they had had ICBMs, we probably wouldn't have done the things to them for fear of retaliation. Cheap shots, if you will, killing people of other countries of the world who cannot defend themselves under the guise of secrecy and under the rubric of national security.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Former CIA Agent John Stockwell: "We pumped dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists...we didn't know of a single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure raw false propaganda to create an illusion of communists eating babies for breakfast." https://t.co/WtYVu7Svqk
Video Transcript AI Summary
There are functions of the CIA that include running secret wars and disseminating propaganda to influence people's minds, a major function that overlaps with information gathering. You have contact with a journalist; you will give him true stories and you’ll get information from him, and you will also give him false stories. You also work on human vulnerabilities to recruit journalists as agents to control what they do, so you don’t have to set them up by deception. You can tell them to plant stories on a schedule.
Concrete evidence of using the press this way was highlighted by the church committee in 1975, and later by Woodward and Bernstein in Rolling Stone, noting that about 400 journalists cooperated with the CIA to consciously introduce stories in the press.
A concrete example from Angola: one third of the staff was propaganda. There were propagandists around the world, principally in London, Kinshasa, and Zambia. They would take stories they wrote and put them in the Zambia Times, then pull them out and send them to a journalist on payroll in Europe. But the cover story was that the journalist had gotten them from his stringer in Lusaka who had gotten them from the Zambia Times, and after that point, the journalists, Reuters, and AFP, the management was not witting of it.
The contact man in Europe was used to pump dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists, but there was not a single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw false propaganda to create an illusion of communists, you know, eating babies for breakfast.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There are other functions, however, some of them more legitimate than others. One is to run secret wars. Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And, unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into the gathering of information. You you have contact with a journalist.
You will give him true stories. You'll get information from him. You'll also give him false stories. You also work on their human vulnerabilities to recruit them in a class extent to make them your agent so that you can control what they do so you don't have to set them up sort of you know by by putting one over on them. So you can say here plant this one next Tuesday.
Can you do this with responsible reporters? Yes. The church committee brought it out in 1975, and then Woodward and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. 400 journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business to consciously introduce the stories in the press. Well, give me a concrete example of how you use the press this way.
Well, for example, in my my war, the Angola war that I helped to manage, one third of my staff was propaganda. I had propagandists all over the world, principally in London, Kinshasa, and Zambia. We were we would take stories which we would write and put them in the Zambia Times, and then pull them out and send them to a journalist on our payroll in Europe. But his cover story, you see, would be that he would he'd gotten them from his stringer in Lusaka who had gotten them from the Zambia Times. But after that point, the journalists, Reuters, and AFP, the management was not witting of it.
Now our contact man in Europe was, and we pumped just just dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists, but we didn't know of one single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw, false propaganda to to create a an illusion of communists, you know, eating babies for brek
@afshinrattansi - Afshin Rattansi
During the so-called ‘Cold War’, the CIA planned to induce the failure of crops in Cuba🇨🇺 in order to sabotage the economy for a regime change effort against Fidel Castro. The US has done everything possible to sabotage and destroy the Cuban economy, and then it blames Cuba’s government for its economic problems. Since Cuba dared to resist and survive, now the US barbarically starves Cuba of fuel, leaving Cubans to suffer in economic misery as basic public services such as schools and hospitals struggle to operate. The CIA sabotage of Cuba is the same approach taken to other Latin American countries such as Chile🇨🇱 and Venezuela🇻🇪; infiltrate the country, make the economy scream, create the ripe conditions for a CIA-backed coup, and execute the plan. This is the CIA’s playbook for every nation that does not accept being a vassal state, and tries to resist the exploitation of their economy through US corporations.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨BRICS: US🇺🇸 BROKE ITS PROMISE to the world by weaponising the dollar, caused de-dollarisation itself! ‘Russia🇷🇺, meanwhile, didn’t voluntarily move away from the dollar. It was effectively deprived of it, so it started using its own currency and other currencies instead. And the point isn’t being “against the dollar.” It’s about not wanting to be ordered by someone else what you can and cannot do. This all started before Trump and continued under Biden. But Trump also contributed to it. So he can’t say, “don’t blame me, blame Biden.” The key issue is that the dollar, and SWIFT, started being used very explicitly as a weapon. Before that, it was presented as a public good, something available to everyone regardless of politics. That promise was broken.‘ -Dr. @panova_victoria of Russia’s BRICS Expert Council Watch the full interview in the quoted post, or watch it on Rumble, link below in the replies👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ironically, it’s happening organically outside of BRICS anyway. For example, Enbridge and Brazil trade with China 48% in non-dollar terms. Russia–China trade is 95% in rubles and renminbi. Russia also trades with India similarly. BRICS is not driving this alone; these are individual developments.
BRICS, a bit more than a decade ago, was the first to implement a framework agreement between them to move toward using national currencies more. It was still a time of less turbulence in the international scene, and the move was not for each country at once but addressed different pockets of activity. China, at that point, not only advanced this BRICS framework agreement but also struck agreements with 22 countries outside BRICS to use the renminbi. Russia did not abandon the dollar; it started using its own currency and other currencies as well. The aim was not to be against the dollar but to avoid being ordered by others about what they should or should not do.
This shift occurred before Trump, though Trump contributed to the trend as well; the speaker notes they cannot simply blame Biden. The era of dollar and SWIFT being used as a weapon began to become explicit. The claim is that the dollar was promoted as a public good available to everyone no matter what happened, and then that expectation was broken. Russia has faced the most sanctions, over 20,000 in total, and the speaker suggests there may be more to come. There is large pressure from the US on each country.
The UAE is mentioned as being cautious about moving too far, but each BRICS member now understands that this could be turned against them as well. That awareness is driving the direction toward greater use of national currencies and non-dollar transactions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But ironically, isn't it happening organically outside of BRICS anyway? So that, I mean, I saw
Speaker 1: You mean Enbridge, for example?
Speaker 0: And Brazil trade with China 48% is non dollar. Russia China, trade
Speaker 1: I think it's 95% in in in rubles and renminbi.
Speaker 0: And Russia trade with India similarly. But then, I mean,
Speaker 1: you mentioned is going. National currencies has been there, and BRICS But
Speaker 0: that's not BRICS running it. These are individual Well,
Speaker 1: know what? BRICS, it was a bit more than decade ago. BRICS was the first to do this framework agreement between them to move to using national currencies more. Because it was still not so turbulent, the international scene. It kind of went not for each country it was important.
It was put to their different pocket, further pocket. But China was the one who did not only this BRICS framework agreement, but also, I think at that point, they struck agreements with 22 countries, including outside BRICS, to use renminbi. Russia didn't go away from dollar. It was kind of deprived of it. So, it started using its own currency, started using other currencies, and we're not against the dollar, but we don't want to be ordered by whoever what we should do, what we cannot do.
And it was before Trump. It was Biden's administration. But in fact Trump as well, he contributed to that. So I don't think he can say, Oh, it's not don't blame me, blame Biden. But they started using dollar very explicitly, dollar and SWIFT, as a weapon.
Just claiming before this is a public good, this it it would be available for everybody no matter what happening. And then they broke the word. You said Russia is the most sanctioned. Yes. Over 20,000 sanctions altogether.
And I think it's not the end. We were already making fun of it because it's just okay. How much more yoga there can be? And, yeah, but it's a difficult topic. And it's also huge pressure coming from US on each of the countries.
And of course, I think UAE also would be cautious moving too much. But each of the BRICS members understands now that this could be turned against them as well. That's why they are moving this direction.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss with Dr. Victoria Panova in a new Going Underground episode: What now for BRICS in a US-dominated world, including Maduro’s kidnapping, the pace of BRICS’ alternative financial system, and how BRICS can defend itself from Trump.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ BRICS Must ‘STEP UP’ Otherwise Trump Will Pick off US’ Rivals One by One- Dr. Victoria Panova -What now for BRICS in a world where the US can kidnap Presidents such as Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela? -How far has BRICS' alternative financial system come? -How can BRICS defend itself from President Trump who sees BRICS as an anti-US bloc? We discuss all this and more with Dr. @panova_victoria of Russia's BRICS Expert Council
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground from Dubai, discussing the World Government Summit in the UAE, which brought together 6,000 attendees, 35 heads of state, ministers, and leaders from civil society, academia, and business. The conversation centers on BRICS, its role on the world stage, and tensions in the region amid US naval activity in the Gulf. Victoria Panova, head of BRICS Expert Council (Russia), vice director of HSE University, and Sherpa of the G20 advisory group for Russia, shares her impressions and analysis.
Panova’s first impression of the summit is the remarkable diversity and high level of organization, with attendees from various paths of life and countries, creating a vibrant environment for dialogue. She notes the forum’s focus on AI and technological challenges, even as regional security concerns linger behind the scenes due to US carrier presence and broader tensions in the region. She observes dual-use nature of AI and weapons and questions why security issues are not more openly addressed, pointing to the UN Security Council’s blockages and the existence of a “peace council” that is not fully formed.
Discussing BRICS members and expansion, Panova explains that UAE and Iran are among the newer members and emphasizes BRICS’ need to demonstrate capacity during “count times.” She outlines the original six invited countries and the current mix of members, partners, and invited states, noting Argentina’s initial interest and its later hesitation. The question of why Saudi Arabia is not a full member while UAE and Iran are is explained in terms of historical invitations, internal Brazilian debates, and consensus-based BRICS governance, which requires broad agreement rather than unilateral action.
Panova highlights the New Development Bank (NDB) as BRICS’ key financial instrument, distinguished by its lack of Western member states and absence of political conditionalities, although she acknowledges its current smaller scale and ongoing need for growth. Dilma Rousseff is noted as head of the NDB, with Putin’s influence cited in ensuring continuity of leadership. The discussion touches on Venezuela’s BRICS status, Maduro’s kidnapping incident, and the Brazilian veto influenced by internal Brazilian opinions and Mato Grosso considerations, with the BRICS civil council issuing a declaration in support of Maduro, though BRICS itself remains constrained by consensus requirements.
On global order and currency systems, Panova argues that BRICS aims to reduce dependence on the dollar, noting that non-dollar trade is already significant (e.g., Brazil-China trade where 48% is non-dollar, Russia-India trade using rubles and renminbi). She emphasizes that while the dirham in Dubai is pegged to the dollar, BRICS members seek to diversify payment systems and currencies, including potential BRICS digital currency discussions at the sherpa level, with the first sherpa meeting in February to set detailed priorities.
The dialogue also considers Donald Trump’s impact on BRICS. Panova suggests Trump’s stance against BRICS aligns with de-dollarization efforts and the pursuit of independent payment systems, although she acknowledges that Trump has used sanctions as bargaining leverage and that BRICS seeks to strengthen collective action rather than rely on any single country. The interview closes with expectations for India-hosted sherpas and the lead-up to the BRICS leaders’ summit, underscoring BRICS’ evolving role as a potential counterweight to Western-dominated institutions.
Overall, the discussion emphasizes BRICS’ pursuit of financial autonomy, diversified currencies, and enhanced global influence through structured diplomacy, expansion, and alternative development financing, set against ongoing regional security complexities and Western geopolitical pressures.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from Dubai and The UAE, which has just hosted one of the biggest summits of the year, its annual world government summit that welcomed dozens of world leaders, hundreds of ministers, CEOs, Nobel Prize laureates, and thousands of attendees. That's The UAE, which has continued hosting unprecedented trilateral talks between Russia, Ukraine, and The USA. The latest talks followed The UAE president Mohammed bin Zayed's official state visit to Moscow to meet with president Putin of Russia, the r in BRICS plus as The UAE catapults its growing influence on the world stage. Joining me here in the studio is a speaker at the World Government Summit in Dubai last week. Doctor Victoria Panova is head of the BRICS expert, council Russia, vice director of HSE University, and Sherpa of the g twenty advisory group, Russia's Women Twenty.
Victoria, thanks so much for being here in the studio for going underground. So 6,000 people, 35 heads of state, lots of ministers from competing interests. What what was your first impressions before I get to the impact of bricks on the guests at the World Government Summit?
Speaker 1: Well, first very first impression was like, oh my god. So many people all in one place, all from and you could see they're from very different paths of life and from many countries. And it's not strange that UAE is hosting such a diverse grouping of leaders from all over the world because people that were host hosted in the summit, they're not only heads of states as you mentioned, but they're also not only ministers, but they are leaders in their perspective areas, be it civil society, be it academia, business, etcetera. So and when I had this diversity, this plethora of different, you know, people and different opinions, ability to talk and make connections with them, but at the same time very well organized. Something that you don't see very fat very much in, you know, in at such big events because I've been to quite a few, and this is one of the best organized all over the world.
I can
Speaker 0: tell that. In your capacity as head of the BRICS expert council, there are enough of the global South to keep you traveling nonstop. What about I mean, obviously, the this year, the shadow of war in this region actually hung over it. I don't know. Were people probably not mentioning it on the podiums, but surely that shadow does hang over this region as The United States sends its huge carrier task forces to The Gulf?
Speaker 1: It definitely is maybe more behind the scenes than on the scenes. And, yeah, you know, that this forum was more devoted to AI, to the current technological challenges that people are facing.
Speaker 0: Ironically, being used for these weapons.
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. Yes. So it's a dual use, unfortunately. So but definitely but at the same time, you would think, how come this is not spoken out more?
Because, you know, there's there's so many things happening, And and it's not just their looming war in in the region. Right? Not only the Lincoln Abraham Lincoln coming over with their other carriers. Not only, you know, threats to shoot Iran, to bomb Iran. It's good that we're having some negotiations in Oman.
But the point is that people seem to be unhappy, but at the same not do much. And that is why we see, you know, for example, you know, the UN is not performing its task. Security council council is blocked. We have this peace council of Trump, which is I don't know. It's like an enterprise.
Speaker 0: That hasn't fully formed yet. I mean, just to be clear, as the head of the BRICS expert council, these are two BRICS members, UAE and Iran. Two of the newest members of the BRICS.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And well, I guess they will have to be more done by BRICS as well because BRICS has to demonstrate its capacity, just in things during count times, you know. Because, yeah, we have some yes. There are huge line of those who wanna join.
We have the newcomers. We have 10 countries plus Saudi Arabia in this invited country status. We have 10 partner countries.
Speaker 0: What how did that happen, by the way? So the where we are right now, it's a member of BRICS. Yeah. Why is Saudi Arabia not a member of BRICS and Iran is and UAE is?
Speaker 1: Well, there were initially six countries invited back into Johannesburg. Actually, there were more. Indonesia was invited back then, but it was not publicized as at that point, the previous jockey Djokovic, the previous president before Prabhova, he said that there will be elections soon. Indonesia will be able to make up its mind completely or claim what it wants only after the the elections. With a new leader, it would be right to do so.
So without Indonesia, it was six countries that were pronounced and they were invited. Among them, Saudi Arabia. Of course, the the ones that are now there, Emirates, Iran, Egypt, and Ethiopia. But we also had Argentina. We had Saudi Arabia.
Argentina with when Malay Kaim came immediately, turned it down, you know, he's like a second smaller version of Trump. You know what
Speaker 0: I Argentina where actually, that gets me neatly on to something slightly different because I wonder Argentina is the biggest recipient of World Bank a. Yeah. Yeah. I know the IMF has been pouring billions into into Zelensky's coffers. I wonder, did you manage to hook up, meet up with Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the IMF, and World Bank president Ajay Banga who were there?
I mean, not that the World Bank and IMF is as important as it might want to be.
Speaker 1: No. I didn't run into them, but definitely why the NDB rose with the BRICS is exactly because World Bank and IMF are not performing its task. And but we can say that a lot of job has to be done by BRICS as well because when we launched NDB, there was one thing that was like complementary
Speaker 0: to the World Bank.
Speaker 1: New Development Bank of BRICS.
Speaker 0: New. Yeah.
Speaker 1: New. So national was we're not one nation. Yeah. And then we launched contingency reserve arrangement, CRA, which is in a way an instrument to be similar to IMF, to give out bailout for, you know, when there are financial problems. And so quite a few it didn't start.
We had, like, seven testings so far. They they all were successful, but it didn't come to practice. And in fact, quite a few experts say that, well, CRA should have of bricks should have come to the rescue of Argentina because before it was swallowed by, you know, person like Millet, before it was swallowed by all their IMF, you know, policies that imposed on the country and actually eroded it further down. So
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's the important aspect, isn't it? I mean, we've had John Perkins on this show quite a few times, the IMF whistleblower Yeah. Who explained presumably how you're talking about an NDB is not gonna be anything like a torture bad cop, good cop system with the IMF and World Bank using death squads to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people in the global South, which is the No. Record of the IMF and World Bank.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's the point. But NDB's still too small. There's still a lot to be done. Well, its biggest achievement so far is that this is the only transnational bank that international one that doesn't have any western country inside.
It has only BRICS members. By the way, BRICS membership and NDB membership are not equal. You know that. It's a commercial bank, and it does work within the financial system that is imposed by the Bretton Woods Institutes. But at the same time, it doesn't have those political conditionalities that do ruin lives of people.
So this is a very important
Speaker 0: Dilma Rousseff one?
Speaker 1: Dilma Rousseff is now head in it. Yes.
Speaker 0: So she used to be president of Brazil.
Speaker 1: She she was president of Brazil, and this is her second term which was in fact, it was also suggestion from Vladimir Putin that she continues on the second term as it was Russia's turn to come into the bank in order to avoid whatever divergences that might rise, he suggested that Dilma continues to do her duties. This is an incredible
Speaker 0: I mean, the seriousness of BRICS, I think, to some was illuminated by the kidnapping of the president of Venezuela, Maduro, and his first lady, the first lady, Celia Flores, because wasn't it Brazil? Lula president Lula has been on this show. He hasn't been on since he he was on after he was let out of jail. Okay. Him voting against BRIC's membership for Venezuela, do you not think that allowed Trump to kidnap Maduro?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's an interesting interplay within Brazil. We talked a lot to our Brazilian colleagues back in during during the summit, before and after the summit. We formed we have this civil forums and civil council, BRICS civil council, which actually unites from all the BRICS countries big movements, NGOs, academias, etcetera. So from Brazil, there is this MST and CBREPASS and a number of other movements organizations that are uniting several million people. So they were all actually demonstrating against such a decision each and every word To veto Venezuela's membership.
It's it's a it's
Speaker 0: do it? Well And should Brazil be in BRICS? Well For that.
Speaker 1: Brazil should be in BRICS. But the point is I'm talking as a as a scholar, not to be, you know, suspected of intervening into anybody's affairs. But we do know that Brazil has different internal opinions, both of how to work with America, how to work with the BRICS. And Lula's position is not necessarily would be 100% the same of what, for example, people in Itamarachi, the MFA would have. And it's a kind of it's difficult to mix of different, you know, work and different approaches from, you know, all kinds of layers of society and different governmental structures.
And them acknowledging and saying that, yeah, we do not recognize Maduro as a legitimate leader. They were saying it out loud. And then there was this you remember there was territorial problem with their nearby state. So all this mix, although I know that from what I remember, Lula and Madura, they're quite good friends. So but all of that led to the Brazilian veto.
And, yes, it happened during Russia's presidency, but nothing yeah. It couldn't couldn't be done because BRICS is solely acting on their basis of consensus. It cannot be just everybody against them. Like, one person or one country against. It's turned down.
It's complete. So but, yeah, Brazil should be there. And we had other countries joining at least as partners. And well, I don't know what to what what what happens to Venezuela now. And I was surprised to tell you that first of all, there was not much harsh statements.
There were only some, and also I
Speaker 0: mean, the World Government Summit in Dubai in Dubai, there's a I've got the list here. Huge chart. Very complicated to understand Yeah. President of Ecuador, Daniel Naboa. I mean, we've had a prior president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, on this show.
Naboa, it's claimed, is a CIA asset. I don't know. Did you manage to ask him at the domana summit about Venezuela? Plenty of people who are accused of being vassal states of The United States supported the kidnapping.
Speaker 1: And the point is that nobody talks about it now. It's a complete silence in the international arena. That what bothers me the most. So it was an illegitimate action. We had in fact, we had this BRICS civil council.
We had a common declaration issued in in support of Maduro with the demand. But, I mean, we're just civil society. We couldn't do much. So it was just one voice in a man in the desert of silence. And this surprises me a lot because and in fact, it does undermine what BRICS is standing for.
So BRICS should be taking such issues, such difficult issues, and it should be having more to say on the things that where approaches can diverge, but it has to find a compromise and have to come up. Because if BRICS is not there to stand for the world order, it will be broken. Trump can deal with each one country one on one easily, including China. Maybe not easily, but still. But common potential of Brexit is the only one that allows for some joint action to be taken and stop stopping this gangster activities.
Speaker 0: Doctor Victoria Vanover, I'll stop you there. More from the head of the BRICS expert council, Russia, after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the head of the Bricks Expert Council, Russia, doctor Victoria Panova. Victoria, you were talking about the importance of BRICS and how important it is for any country, really, to be a part of BRICS at the moment.
Why do you believe that Trump is calling BRICS anti United States? I mean, bad advisers, incorrect intelligence, he's terrified of de dollarization? Why?
Speaker 1: Well, I think it's it's a bit of everything. If you I mean, if you look back into the early stages when the BRICS was just coming out to their world stage, it was taken not really seriously by the western countries, experts, governments. We're not talking much. If there was some article, whatever discussion, it was like, oh, they will kind of disappear very soon. But, you know, year after year it started consolidating, started offering its own solutions to the world, it started having more of its voice despite whatever differences because, yeah, we we are very different.
Look at India, China have still have differences among each other. The new members, Ethiopia and Egypt, they do have territorial disputes. UAE and Iran also not, like, on the best terms altogether. Nevertheless, there's some bigger goal that allowed for the group to stay together. And over the time, what they started taking it serious more seriously and trying to get one by one countries out there because there was more and more in this feeling that bricks are the threat.
Every time, everywhere we go, and we mean it. It's even within the group. We say we don't present any threat. We don't wanna kill anybody. We don't wanna put down any country.
We're not against the West. We're not anti West. We're just non West.
Speaker 0: And But isn't the point that NATO countries want to destroy BRICS countries in general?
Speaker 1: Obviously. So they
Speaker 0: want hasn't reacted well enough or speedily enough. I mean, when Russia responded to the NATO provocations on Ukraine, the sanctions on Russia, which Russia is the most sanctioned country in the world Yeah. Wasn't that the opportunity for BRICS to really start all the acting on all the scholarly papers and procedures and thoughts about what the future of BRICS might be, nothing seems to have really We
Speaker 1: had it. We had it was yet in 2013, it was Durban Summit, that we had created and institutionalized the BRICS Think Tank Council and Business Council. And that's where by the way, BTTC, I'm most member of that, we we were the ones who offered and and suggested the idea of the new development bank. And it came just two and a half years after we first discussed it in in the expert circle, it came to the bin. It was opened, fully opened.
All the just all the negotiations were
Speaker 0: Time amount of capital compared, obviously, to
Speaker 1: Yeah. Course, it's it's more about China, but China cannot impose its will in BRICS. This is important. That's why India is okay about it. That is why the rest of the country is okay about it.
So coming back, Trump now, it is a threat. They see something that brings their order down, which is which is not obedient to them as a threat. And it looks like and I I read this article by one of Russian experts, he said, well, Trump seems to hate all kinds of organizations. Paradoxically, he hates EU and NATO as well. He tries and of course
Speaker 0: He likes the CIA though.
Speaker 1: Well, he should. He should like his national, you know, teams and organizations that are subordinate to him. But the point is that when Bricks claims that they want to have an independent payment system, not necessarily the dollar rise. We're talking about using more national currencies. By the way, wasn't to SWIFT.
Also alternative to SWIFT, but also national currencies, digital currencies. It's it's just about having a way to trade independently, to interact independently, not to be supervised and be said who you can trade with, who can you you cannot. And of course, Trump understands that dollar has been the core, the very fundamental principle of American power. And of course, when a threat of bricks, which tries to offer there are at least five different projects that are discussed in different stages now to to suggest this payment system.
Speaker 0: But ironically, isn't it happening organically outside of bricks anyway? So that I mean, I I saw
Speaker 1: You mean Enbridge, for example?
Speaker 0: And Brazil trade with China, 48% is non dollar. Russia
Speaker 1: trade China, I think it's 95% in in in rubles and renminbi.
Speaker 0: And Russia trade with India similarly. But then, I mean,
Speaker 1: you is going. National currencies has been there, and BRICS But that's
Speaker 0: not BRICS running it. These are individual BRICS,
Speaker 1: it was a bit more than decade ago. BRICS was the first to do this framework agreement between them to move to using national currencies more. Because it was still not so turbulent, the international scene. It kind of went not for each country it was it was important. It was put to their different pocket, further pocket.
But China was the one who did not only this BRICS framework agreement, but also I think at that point they struck agreements with 22 countries, including outside BRICS to use renminbi. Russia didn't go away from dollar. It was kind of deprived of it. So it started using its own currency, started using other currencies, and we're against the dollar, but we don't want to be ordered by whoever what we should do, what we cannot do. And that's it's not it wasn't it was before Trump.
It was Biden's administration. But in fact, Trump as well, he he contributed to that. So I don't think he can say, oh, it's not don't blame me. Blame Biden. But they started using dollar very explicitly, dollar and SWIFT, as a weapon.
Just claiming before this is a public good, this it it would be available for everybody no matter what's happening. And then they broke the word. You said Russia is the most sanctioned. Yes. Over 20,000 sanctions altogether.
And I think it's not the end. We were already making fun of it because it's just okay. How much more there can be? And yeah. But it's a difficult topic.
And it's also huge pressure coming from US on each of the countries. And, course, I think UAE is also would be cautious moving too much. But each of the BRICS members understands now that this could be turned against them as well. That's why they are moving this direction.
Speaker 0: I mean, it's clear, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, you've seen Dubai. The amount of trade being done between all these countries, that's what everyone talks about.
Speaker 1: Then gaining more in in the international scene.
Speaker 0: It's Even though the dirham is pegged to the dollar, ironically. Yeah. So it's clear that it's not to do with the value of the currency. Yeah. It's to do with the methods of transmission
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: More. Okay. But then has Trump given up on his what did he say? He said any country aligning with BRICS, 10% additional tariffs. He said in July.
He's not gonna do 100%. He's Yeah. He was a 100, then it's 10%. He's clearly not The United States is no longer powerful enough as a country to do that. 10% unilateral sanctions in all BRICS countries and BRICS aligned countries.
Speaker 1: You know, he tries to use it as a weapon, and but he claims one thing and then he comes out it's kind of a bargaining position for him. So you remember he came to Modi saying it was last August, I believe. They say, okay. 25 extra percent of sanctions on you tariffs on you because you you get Russian
Speaker 0: India said they're not gonna buy any Russian oil. But then they continued
Speaker 1: to buy.
Speaker 0: And I mean, India just proposed a BRICS digital currency, and now they're suddenly not proposing it. Are they?
Speaker 1: Well, we still have to see because the very first Sherpa meeting will be only February, so it's still to come.
Speaker 0: And What exactly is that? It sounds like you're going up Mount Everest, right
Speaker 1: now. Well, before leaders meet, the biggest event of course is the summit when the leaders meet. But for them to meet, there has to be sherpas that are, I don't know, personal, very trusted
Speaker 0: Underpaid guides.
Speaker 1: Well, in this Where
Speaker 0: is case the bricks of it this year actually?
Speaker 1: This is India. Right. I'm not sure if it will be from what I know, India wants to diversify and offer different sites, not just Delhi, although Delhi's quite comfortable. But I remember they had a summit in Goa. It was in 2016.
It was a long way to go there, but kind of fun even for one day. But in any case, it's so Sherpas, when they meet, they prepare this agenda. They negotiate on all their projects and what will be in the final communique. So it's their job. And there India will be pronouncing its priorities.
They were pronounced once, but in a very general form at the UN meeting, BRiks UN meeting in September last but the more kind of detailed thing what India would be doing would be definitely at the first Sherpa meeting. And then we will see how it all goes, what what will the ministers be discussing, what will the other working groups, and what will come But
Speaker 0: ultimately, I mean, would you say, I mean, just finally coming to the end Yeah. The Trump has been a good thing for BRICS. It's a good The best thing could have been a Trump White House.
Speaker 1: Looks like it because he's helping to consolidate. Remember when when he wanted his Nobel Prize so much, this prize, and he talked to more than Call
Speaker 0: the war prize now because Yeah. It was Yeah. Literally given to much harder.
Speaker 1: But you remember he said that one of the eight conflicts he managed to regulate to settle was India Pakistani conflict. And Pakistan bowed and said, yes. We should nominate Trump. But when he talked to Modi about that, Modi was really furious. So it it had an opposite he had an opposite reaction than what was expected.
And when he tries to to pressure India the way he pressures Europe, I mean, it gives opposite effect. I mean, come on. Europe is no longer any significant actor. Sorry, but this is the case. Europe lost its its status of a center of power.
We have now China. We have Gulf countries. We have India. We have African countries. They have more agency and more status and more say in general among global South, global majority than than Europe.
And so what he can do pressuring Europe is not possible with either of the BRICS countries. You gave opposite effect. He consolidates us much more. So he's probably the best agent of BRICS, hired by them. I don't know how much was how much he was paid for that.
Speaker 0: He wins the prize. He wins the Bricks prize, doctor Victoria Panova. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure talking to you.
Speaker 0: That's it for the show. Of course, our continued condolences to those bereaved by this region's UK, US, EU armed genocide. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new episode. Until then, keep in touch by 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 Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss how the BRICS New Development Bank differs from the Western-dominated IMF and World Bank: no Western member, it works within Bretton Woods but without political conditionalities. Dr. Victoria Panova, head of Russia’s BRICS Expert Council, joins on Going Underground after the World Governments Summit in Dubai. Don’t miss it—follow our Rumble channel; scheduled livestream link:
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨How the BRICS New Development Bank is different from the Washington-dominated IMF and World Bank ‘The NDB’s biggest achievement so far is that this is the only international bank that doesn’t have any Western country inside. It has only BRICS members. It does work within the financial system imposed by the Bretton Woods institutions. But at the same time, it doesn’t have those political conditionalities that ruin people’s lives. So this is very important.’ -Dr. Victoria Panova, Head of Russia’s BRICS Expert Council, joins us on Monday’s Going Underground. She participated at the World Governments Summit in Dubai. Don’t miss it, follow our Rumble channel, link below in the replies👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion touches on the IMF, the World Bank, and BRICS institutions. The speaker notes they did not manage to meet Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF managing director, or Ajay Banga, the World Bank president, and questions the World Bank and IMF’s importance relative to BRICS. The point is made that the NDB’s rise alongside BRICS is precisely because the World Bank and IMF are not performing their tasks, and that BRICS also has substantial work to do. When the NDB was launched, it was described as complementary to the World Bank, a New to World Development Bank of BRICS—“New,” emphasizing national rather than a single nation identity.
In addition, the contingency reserve arrangement (CRA) is discussed as an instrument to be similar to the IMF, intended to provide bailout support during financial problems. The speaker mentions that several experts have conducted seven tests of the CRA so far, all successful, but it has not moved into practical use. There is a claim from experts that the BRICS CRA should have come to the rescue of Argentina, which allegedly faced pressures from IMF policies that eroded the country further. This is presented as a key aspect of the discussion.
A reference is made to John Perkins, described as the IMF whistleblower, who has discussed how the NDB would not operate as a “torture, bad cop, good cop” system alongside the IMF and World Bank, which allegedly historically used death squads to destroy livelihoods in the global South. The speaker echoes that sentiment by stating, “the NDB is not gonna be anything like a torture, bad cop, good cop system with the IMF and World Bank using death squads to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people in the global South, which is the record of the IMF and World Bank.” The claim emphasizes the NDB’s potential divergence from that pattern.
The NDB is described as still too small, with much work remaining. Its biggest achievement cited is that it is the only transnational international bank without any Western country as a member; it includes only BRICS members. It is noted that NDB membership is not equal to BRICS membership; it is a commercial bank that operates within the financial system established by the Bretton Woods Institutions, but it does not impose the political conditionalities that have been said to ruin lives.
Dilma Rousseff is identified as the head of the NDB, and it is clarified that she “was president of Brazil.” The discussion notes that this is her second term, which was, in fact, suggested by Vladimir Putin to continue in order to avoid divergences that might arise, with Putin suggesting that Dilma continue her duties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I wonder, did you manage to hook up, meet up with Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the IMF, and World Bank president Ajay Banga who were there? I mean, not that the World Bank and IMF is as important as it might want to be.
Speaker 1: No, I didn't run into them, but definitely why the NDB rose with the BRICS is exactly because World Bank and IMF are not performing its task. But we can say that a lot of job has to be done by BRICS as well. Because when we launched NDB, there was one thing that was, like, complementary New to World Development Bank of BRICS.
Speaker 0: New.
Speaker 1: Yeah. New. So national. We're not one nation. And then we launched contingency reserve arrangement, CRA, which is in a way an instrument to be similar to IMF, to give out bailout for, you know, when there are financial problems.
And so quite a few experts It didn't start. We had like seven testings so far. They all were successful, but it didn't come to practice. And in fact, quite a few experts say that, well, CRA should have of bricks should have come to the rescue of Argentina because before it was swallowed by, you know, a person like Mele, before it was swallowed by all their IMF, you know, policies that imposed on the country and actually eroded it further down. So
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's the important aspect, isn't it? I mean, we've had John Perkins on this show quite a few times, the IMF whistleblower Yeah. Who explained presumably how you're talking about an NDB is not gonna be anything like a torture, bad cop, good cop system with the IMF and World Bank using death squads to destroy the livelihoods of millions of people in the global South, which is the record of the IMF and World Bank.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's the point. But NDB is still too small. There's still a lot to be done. Well, its biggest achievement so far is that this is the only transnational bank that international one that doesn't have any western country inside.
It has only BRICS members. By the way, BRICS membership and NDB membership are not equal. You know that. It's a commercial bank and it does work within the financial system that is imposed by the Bretton Woods Institutes. But at the same time, it doesn't have those political conditionalities that do ruin lives of people.
So this is a very important Dilma Rousseff one? Dilma Rousseff is now head in it. Yes.
Speaker 0: So she to be president of Brazil.
Speaker 1: She she was president of Brazil. And this is her second term, which was in fact, it was also suggestion from Vladimir Putin that she continues on the second term as it was Russia's turn to come into the bank in order to avoid whatever divergences that might arise, he suggested that Dilma continues to do her duties.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Scheduled livestream link: https://rumble.com/v75gxd0-brics-must-step-up-otherwise-trump-will-pick-off-us-rivals-one-by-one-dr.-v.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨Former Israeli Intelligence Officer Ari Ben-Menashe: Netanyahu will SABOTAGE a US-Iran deal by releasing the most DAMAGING Epstein files ‘If there’s a real deal between the Americans and the Iranians and it’s going towards that, Netanyahu will try to sabotage it. One of the ways he’d sabotage it is by putting out Epstein material against US government officials, including Trump, and he’d put out new material not seen by the public. There are other officials, not just Trump.’ Watch the full interview in the quoted post, or watch it on Rumble, link below in the replies👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that pressure on Netanyahu to reveal real information could emerge if a real US-Iran deal is forming. They claim Netanyahu would sabotage such a deal by releasing Epstein material against US government officials, including Trump, introducing new material not previously public. The claim extends beyond Trump to other officials as well, with Howard Lutnick noting that there are additional officials involved. The overall point is that Netanyahu might undermine the negotiations by exposing sensitive material tied to multiple US officials.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What will pressure Netanyahu to release the real information that no one has at the moment? In my opinion, if there's a real deal between the Americans and the Iranians and it's going towards that, Netanyahu will try to sabotage it. One of the ways he would sabotage it is by putting out Epstein material against US government officials, including Trump, and he put it out there. New material that wasn't seen before in the in public. So it's not just Trump.
I know that Howard Lutnick has mentioned there are other officials. Not not just Trump. Other officials too. Yes. And he'll try to sabotage the whole negotiation and deal that this that would be that they're trying to make together.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss a bombshell Going Underground episode alleging Netanyahu blackmails Trump over Iran using Epstein files, exploring if Israel would use nuclear weapons against Iran and who’s behind the “Epstein is a Russian agent” narrative.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW MUST-WATCH EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Netanyahu BLACKMAILING Trump Over Iran Using Epstein Files- Ex-Israeli Intel Officer Ari Ben-Menashe -When will Israel use the most damaging Epstein Files against the Trump Administration? -Would Israel use nuclear weapons against Iran? -Who is behind the 'Epstein is a Russian agent' narrative? We discuss all this and more on this bombshell episode of Going Underground
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi opens from The UAE, noting the expiration of the nuclear arms treaty and highlighting global flashpoints: a USS Abraham Lincoln shot down an Iranian drone in the Gulf, ongoing talks among Witkoff, Arakashi, and Kushner in Oman, Russia–USA discussions in the UAE, the Rafa crossing between Gaza and Egypt amid continuing Palestinian violence, and Washington’s deployment of troops to Nigeria with 26 airstrikes in Somalia in January. He mentions the UK-backed assassination of Saif Gaddafi in Libya as an example of NATO’s impact on Africa, and notes BRICS’ alignment with Iran, China, and Russia against NATO actions. The discussion of who really controls NATO is framed around the 3,000,000 Epstein files, suggesting they reveal Zionist nuclear strategies and naming Ari Ben Menashe, an Israeli intelligence asset, as a figure connected to these issues.
Ari Ben Menashe joins from Montreal to discuss the Epstein materials and their potential impact on Trump. He says the Epstein files appear to be a distraction from broader world events, with some material out and some not, and asserts there is “nothing about Trump really in what they released recently,” calling it a distraction. He suggests Israelis hold sensitive information and might release it when threatened by Trump, implying Israeli influence over the DOJ’s handling of the material. Rutansi presses on whether the Times of Israel’ s focus on Trump being compromised by Israel and Jared Kushner is connected to Chabad Lubavitch, and Ben Menashe traces Epstein’s recruitment to Maxwell and Ehud Barak in the 1980s, alleging a broader network compromising American and other politicians.
The conversation touches Tony Blair’s alleged role in Gaza peace plans and the suggestion that Blair is a “wrong choice.” Ben Menashe recounts that Ehud Barak previously had an East Jerusalem office under Israeli control and notes changes in Israeli policy toward Hamas under Netanyahu. They discuss MI6’s involvement in a Libyan assassination and whether Epstein’s material implicates Putin or Russians, with Ben Menashe asserting that portraying Epstein as a Russian agent is a cover‑up linked to Israeli interests.
Rutansi and Ben Menashe discuss ongoing US–Iran talks, with expectations of an embassy exchange and sanctions relief, while Netanyahu might sabotage any real deal by releasing Epstein material against US officials. Ben Menashe asserts Trump would like a deal with the Iranians, a view tied to past efforts at ending hostilities in the region.
The dialogue covers Epstein’s network, alleged Israeli and MI6 involvement, and the role of Tony Blair and Qatar’s prime minister in the files. Ben Menashe describes Netanyahu as a “real problem” for the US and regional stability, and claims that Netanyahu could press a nuclear button if needed, illustrating the “Sampson Option” by Sy Hersh. They debate the possible collapse of Netanyahu’s leadership and the risk of a nuclear exchange in the region.
Toward the end, Rutansi asks about justice for women trafficked by Epstein, and Ben Menashe doubts that families will receive justice, predicting more noise rather than accountability. The program closes with a preview of reporting on the World Government Summit in Dubai and a promotion of Going Underground’s online channel.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from The UAE in a world without a nuclear strategic arms limitation treaty, which expired this week. Emblematic of the growing danger to life on Earth was this week's USS Abraham Lincoln warship shooting down an Iranian drone in The Gulf a 100 miles or so from this studio. The war may have begun by the time you are watching this, or Witkoff, Arakashi, Kushner talks in Oman may have postponed catastrophe. This is Russia USA talks here in The UAE continued to avert de facto nuclear conflict in Europe over Ukraine, at least even for show the Rafa crossing between Gaza and Egypt opened as the genocide continued in Palestine, but Washington deploying troops to Nigeria and carrying out 26 airstrikes in Somalia in January alone demonstrates the global nature of the conflict. The UK backed assassination of Saif Gaddafi in Libya, once Africa's richest per capita country before NATO nation destruction, was a testament this week to that.
BRICS, for its part, showed strength by Iran, China, and Russia this week, signing a comprehensive strategic pact against NATO aggression and economic warfare. Tying up everything is who really rules the NATO nations, and the latest 3,000,000 Epstein files gave us a glimpse of who does. What shapes NATO foreign policy was on display in the files of convicted rapist and Israeli intelligence asset, Jeffrey Epstein. Ari Ben Menashe worked in Israeli intelligence. He was cited by a friend of the show, Sy Hersh, in his book, The Samson Option, outlining Zionist nuclear suicide strategy.
He joins me once again from Montreal and Canada. Harry, so good to see you again. As I said, a war in this region may have already begun by the time this is being broadcast. Before we go on to perhaps more important issues, what effect do the 3,000,000 Epstein documents have on Trump himself given that that's what Trump's opponents were hoping for?
Speaker 1: The Epstein files seem to be a seem to be a distraction to everything else is happening in the world right now. And some of the some of the material is out, some isn't out. We really don't there's nothing about Trump really in what they released recently. Yes? And it's just a distraction right now.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, there there are elements of Trump in it, and of course new revelations are coming out every But nothing that would destroy his presidency instantaneously, I suppose.
Speaker 1: Correct. Correct. There's nothing there that will destroy his presidency. And in my opinion, the Israelis are holding some of the sensitive stuff, and they might let it out when they feel they're being threatened by Trump.
Speaker 0: So you think Israel is controlling the Department of Justice as regards the release of information then?
Speaker 1: I believe I believe the Israelis have quite a bit of information that that they can release that the Department of Justice doesn't want to release.
Speaker 0: Well, if Pam Bondi at the DOJ and, Kash Patel at the FBI are still there, obviously, we invite them on this program. They'll say it's, all their decision making. I mean, in fairness, the Times of Israel did this week note it had a FBI memo outlining a confidential human source about Trump being, quote, compromised by Israel, that Javed Kushner was at the center of this, and Chabad Lubavitch. I better remind our viewers, by the way, that because you met Jeffrey Epstein numerous times at the offices of the father of Ghislain Maxwell, Robert Maxwell, an Israeli asset.
Speaker 1: I I Robert Maxwell. That's right.
Speaker 0: What do you make of the times of Israel focusing in on that, that Trump was compromised by Israel and that Jared Kushner you might have to remind us who Chabad Lubovich is and that group within the Jewish community actually is.
Speaker 1: Well, Epstein was recruited by Maxwell and then by Ehud Barak who was director of military intelligence at the time, then prime minister. This goes back to the eighties. Yes. And then they started work compromising people and so on and so forth. And my understanding is they compromised quite a number of American politicians and other politicians as well.
Speaker 0: Which would explain the delay in getting this kind of information out in the first place.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah. I I actually I I
Speaker 0: I should also tell our viewers. I mean, you're working now with Samir Hulia, a Palestinian in Ramallah, as regards all these different types of peace plans at the moment. Obviously, Tony Blair's name has been cropping up as a new governor of Gaza under Trump's plans. There was something about Tony Blair in these latest files. Barack Ehud Barack, who you used to work for, he's work walked out on this show for an interview.
He's talking to Jeffrey Epstein, and Jeffrey Epstein is saying, Tony Blair has turned funny. I don't know if the money that Tony is getting is actually to Tony or to somebody else. He gets to pay some of the money to somebody else because I hear gigantic numbers given to Tony, 5,000,000 here, 10,000,000 here. Tony's not making 30,000,000 a year. And Barack says, but probably he gets the money and he leaves some of it to others, to some of the providers.
Any idea what Tony Blair what they're referring to as regards to Tony Blair? And what do you think about Tony Blair being named as part of the Gaza border for peace?
Speaker 1: What am I supposed to say about that other than it's a wrong choice? And Toldre Boulware used to work for the Israelis. He used to have an office in East Jerusalem, and it was under the finger of the Israelis for quite a while after he became prime minister, after he stepped down as prime minister. So I think Tony Blair is a wrong choice.
Speaker 0: And as regards the allegations you made that Jeffrey Epstein essentially was working for Israel, it's notable that in Britain, which struggles along economically as it pours its cash into the Ukraine war, noticeably, there's been a big scandal about the British ambassador Washington having to resign. He's actually been on this program, Peter Mandelson. And in parliament, Kirstjarma, who himself is funded by Israeli lobbyists, who is the prime minister of Britain, he said m I six vetted the appointment of Peter Mandelson, who has had to resign over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein Epstein. So why would m I six not have warned the prime minister that, as you can tell, Jeffrey Epstein was working for that that Peter Mandelson would be consorting with an Israeli agent.
Speaker 1: Knew What's that? They probably knew they should have known, I think, but they're working together. It's fine with Israelis.
Speaker 0: I mean, that's quite an allegation, of course, because MI six would say it's working for Britain. In this case, that would mean it would be working against the interests of the British in favor of the Israelis.
Speaker 1: And they may think that the interests of Britain and Israel is one and the same. They may think so.
Speaker 0: Well, that would mean m I six not working for the interest of the British people. I will return to m I six because sources have told us they were involved in an assassination in Libya in recent days. But you may have noticed, maybe even where you are in Canada, they're trying to pin Putin to blame for Jeffrey Epstein as regards the information that's come out these 3,000,000 documents. You contend that there is a Russian angle as well as an Israeli angle, but it's not exactly Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: No. Well, the Israelis did work with the Russians going back actually to Soviet days, going back to the eighties. Yes? And but this calling Epstein a Russian or a Soviet agent is nonsense. I mean They're trying to cover up.
It's a cover up. To cover up for you.
Speaker 0: Poland's prime minister Donald Dusk. He just said it is Russia. That, of course, is Poland that didn't enforce the ICC warrant on Netanyahu.
Speaker 1: Sure. Sure.
Speaker 0: I mean, I don't know which Maybe it's Yeah. Who's doing the cover up?
Speaker 1: I'm sure the Israelis are putting it out that he's a Russian agent. He was a Russian agent.
Speaker 0: And so it would be Israeli policy they'd be referring to. There's a conversation in the files where Epstein says, it's great if we have chaos everywhere in Africa, across The Middle East, so that no country can have any particular power dynamic that can threaten the existing power structures?
Speaker 1: Possibly. Yeah. The way he thought was to create chaos wherever he went. Why different reasons? Probably to protect Israel and the other other countries around in the West.
Speaker 0: And you're saying that Israel is hanging on to the worst dirt on Donald Trump. But then if Israel wanted to sabotage the Witkoff, Kushner, Ragshi talks in Oman, why not release all the dirt in one go before the talks even took place? Why why wait?
Speaker 1: I have no idea what's going to happen in the next few days. As you said, you don't know when the Israelis are going to react because they're very much against the talks between The US and Iran. And the talks should be simple. We will open an embassy in Tehran, we Americans. We Iranians will open an embassy in Washington.
You you Americans remove sanctions. We will behave, and we'll let things move on slowly to fix our relationship. When the word we will behave mean meaning we will do certain things that you you want us to do.
Speaker 0: Harry Bemanashi, I'll stop you there. More from the former Israeli intelligence officer after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with former Israeli intelligence officer and author of Prophets of War Inside the Secret US Israeli Arms Network, Ari Bemenashe. Ari, at the end of part one, we were talking about when Netanyahu may choose to release the real information on Trump.
I know that your old boss Ehud Barak and Epstein are in the latest tranche of files in 2016. Barak asking Epstein whether Trump wanted an interview on channel ten TV to compete with a Israeli channel two Clinton TV interview. What will pressure Netanyahu to release the real information that no one has at the moment?
Speaker 1: In my opinion, if there's a real deal between the Americans and the Iranians and it's going towards that, Netanyahu will try to sabotage it. One of the ways he'd sabotage it is by putting out Epstein material against US government officials, including Trump, and he put it out there. New material that wasn't seen before in the in public. So it's
Speaker 0: not just Trump. I know that Howard Lutnick has mentioned there
Speaker 1: are And not just
Speaker 0: officials?
Speaker 1: Not not just Trump. Other officials too. Yes. And he'll try to sabotage the whole negotiation and deal that this that would be that they're trying to make together. And I believe that president Trump really would like a deal with the Iranians.
President Trump tried to do this deal in at the end of his first term as president, but he was not reelected. He said that he will do the deal with Iran after I'm after the election, except the election came and went and it was not reelected. So this goes back quite a while that the America Trump and the Americans want to do a deal with the Iranians. They believe that this will bring peace to the Middle East.
Speaker 0: To which side is Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, on in this? Is he a mole for Netanyahu, or can't Trump just tell him or plead with him to tell Netanyahu don't release it and seek peace instead?
Speaker 1: I don't I don't think the real negotiations are happening in Oman. I don't think it's with these these people. I think I think it's happening in New York. And what was the outcome of I mean, if
Speaker 0: I there are papers in here in these files involving the Qatari prime minister, Hamid bin Jasim bin Jabbar al Thani. Ehud Barak actually walked off from this show when I was asking about how he facilitated funds to Hamas. In these files, Epstein is in contact with the Qatari prime minister. There's been no comment from the Qatari government to on on the file release. Is that because this is particularly sensitive, the role of Israel's role in supporting Hamas?
Speaker 1: Well, going back to speaking about Gaza. Yes. The Israelis supported Hamas in order to build up They were trying to bring stability together at the time. At the time, there was actually that was the policy then. But then at some point mister Netanyahu changed his mind and decided that he's gonna have to destroy the Palestinians.
There was a policy to support Hamas and build some sort of Palestinian entity, independent entity in Gaza. And as you may know, the PA was has been sanctioned by the US government, Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, yes. So the policy was to create an anti a Palestinian entity in Gaza. They allowed money. They allowed resources to go in.
But at some point, with the new government of mister Netanyahu, Gong I think things changed. They decided against it. Yes. There were negotiations with Hamas.
Speaker 0: And you don't see any way that Trump can get rid of Netanyahu? Trump, the elected leader of the country with the largest military on earth, with all these covert agencies that can be used to kidnap world leaders like Maduro and his first lady Celia Flores now in New York. There's nothing Trump can do to get rid of Netanyahu to avoid his fate.
Speaker 1: I really I can't say anything, but I I can't say anything about that. But it would be hard to get rid of Netanyahu. Yes. It would be hard for anybody to try to get rid of him unless unless he hasn't killed.
Speaker 0: But it's your contention that Trump wants to get rid of him?
Speaker 1: Yes. He yes. He does. Latonyahu has become a real problem for for The US and for other countries in The Middle East. That's right.
And for Israel as well. Most of the Israelis are are now against Mote D'Avil. And he's trying to stay in power because he knows what would happen if he's out of power. Even the Israeli president wasn't willing to give him a parted.
Speaker 0: And in the Samson option by Sy Hirsch, I mean, clearly Israel has this option to retaliate against a perceived enemy even if it's going to destroy Israel itself. So what would a war on Iran look like? There's a huge amount of military in this region. When Iran retaliates with its hypersonic missiles, what would you expect Israel to do?
Speaker 1: If in my opinion, if the Israelis use nuclear weapons against the Iranians, it would be the end of Israel the way we know it today.
Speaker 0: So they wouldn't use them? No. According to the Sampson option, they would use them nevertheless.
Speaker 1: They would use it nevertheless. Yes. They would. And they wouldn't think about the future. They would just use it.
Because we're dealing with a desperate group of people called the Israeli cabinet and government that want to stay in power and alive.
Speaker 0: And the Israeli nuclear weapon program, they don't have a second switch in Washington like the British nuclear weapons that require United States approval. Netanyahu can just press the button any time?
Speaker 1: I believe that Netanyahu and his group can press the button at any time.
Speaker 0: Yes. I'm sure in the Israeli cabinet, they'll be saying it never gets to that stage. They're often so successful at destroying their adversaries. They point to Syria, of course, and, the chaos ensuing chaos, that's continued in Iraq, and notably, of course, the chaos in in Libya. You worked with, general Haftar, I understand, who was a CIA asset.
What did you make of this assassination of Saif Gaddafi? Do you think and the Epstein files that were released, Epstein is talking about trying to get his hands on the sovereign wealth fund or proportions of it and said that Mossad and MI6 will know about the retrieving, stealing the money of the Libyan people.
Speaker 1: First of all, these monies were stolen already in the past. We won't get into detail right now. But about Saif Gaddafi, I believe that he was killed by or by Libyan elements because he was a threat to the Libyan government in the West. He wanted to take over the Western government in Libya, and it was real trouble for them. I don't think it had anything to do with anything else.
Speaker 0: You mean he would have won the elections?
Speaker 1: Yes. He was a popular fellow. I knew him. He was good. He was good.
Yes.
Speaker 0: And I I mean, of course, in the short amount of time we have left, don't really have time to talk about the oligarchs, Gates, Musk, Branson, all these people, the Rothschilds who Epstein says he represents. I suppose you believe that Prince Andrew, or is he called Andrew, the artist once known as Prince, he he was a linchpin of the Epstein Israeli operation to entrap all these oligarchs like Bill Gates.
Speaker 1: The way the way I believe it Andrew was the son of the queen. So when he would invite these rich people to come for whatever golf play golf with him or have parties with him or so on, they would all come running because he was the son of the queen. I called him the useful idiot for Epstein and the Israelis. Called he was a very useful idiot that brought all these people in to meet Epstein and whatever they did together.
Speaker 0: And just finally, while the genocide continues in Palestine, while the bombing of Somalia, of of Nigeria, of so many places, and the shadow of war in this region. Do you think the women who were trafficked by Epstein and his network supported by the Israelis, do you think any of the women's families, the survivors will ever get justice for what was done to them?
Speaker 1: Not the way it looks right now. No. No. I don't think anything's gonna happen other than just more how do what would we say? More and more noise.
Nothing else.
Speaker 0: And as for its impact on these elites, will they continue to meet their Israeli handlers, or will they think again? Or will it need the next tranche of 3,000,000 files which have not been released so far to persuade the elected politicians not to be working basically for the Israeli government and not their own people?
Speaker 1: I I I think it will take quite a bit more to persuade these people to stop working with the for the Israeli government. Yes. I don't think it's the end of it yet.
Speaker 0: Right now there are politicians doing what Epstein is doing was doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes.
Speaker 0: Aribe Armenacevi, thank you. That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to those suffering the impact of The US UK EU armed bombing of Gaza and the attempts on Iran. We'll be back on Monday to investigate this week's World Government Summit here in Dubai, where 35 heads of state and 500 ministers from a 150 governments around the world gathered under the shadow of US war. Until then, keep in touch by all our social media.
If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel, Going Underground TV on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of going underground. See you Monday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that former Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe says Israel would use nuclear weapons against Iran, which would spell the end of Israel as we know it. He calls the cabinet desperate to stay in power. He also discusses the Epstein Files, Israel’s blackmail of Western politicians, and a possible war on Iran. Don’t miss it—follow on X and our Rumble channel.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨Former Israeli Intelligence Officer Ari Ben-Menashe: Israel WOULD use nuclear weapons against Iran ‘If the Israelis use nuclear weapons against the Iranians, it would be the end of Israel the way we know it today. They wouldn’t think about the future. They would just use it, because we’re dealing with a desperate group of people called the Israeli cabinet and government that want to stay in power and alive.’ -Former Israeli Intelligence Officer Ari Ben-Menashe joins us for Saturday’s Going Underground to discuss the latest Epstein Files, Israel’s blackmail operation against Western politicians, and a possible war on Iran Don’t miss it, follow us on X and follow our Rumble channel, link below in the replies👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
- The discussion references the Samson option described by Sy Hirsch, noting that Israel supposedly has the option to retaliate against a perceived enemy even if it destroys Israel itself. The question posed is what a war on Iran would look like and how Israel would respond if Iran retaliated with hypersonic missiles.
- Speaker 1 asserts that if Israelis were to use nuclear weapons against the Iranians, it would be “the end of Israel the way we know it today.”
- Speaker 0 asks for clarification: “So they wouldn't use them?”
- Speaker 1 replies: “No. According to the Sampson option, they would use them nevertheless.” He adds that they would “use it nevertheless” and “wouldn't think about the future. They would just use it,” describing the decision as coming from “a desperate group of people” in the Israeli cabinet and government that “want to stay in power and alive.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And in the Samson option by Sy Hirsch, I mean clearly Israel has this option to retaliate against a perceived enemy even if it's going to destroy Israel itself. So what would a war on Iran look like? There's a huge amount of military in this region. When Iran retaliates with its hypersonic missiles, what would you expect Israel to do?
Speaker 1: In my opinion, if the Israelis use nuclear weapons against the Iranians, it would be the end of Israel the way we know it today.
Speaker 0: So they wouldn't use them? No. According to the Sampson option, they would use them nevertheless.
Speaker 1: They would use it nevertheless. Yes. They would. And they wouldn't think about the future. They would just use it.
Because we're dealing with a desperate group of people called the Israeli cabinet and government that want to stay in power and alive.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
‘Trump has been compromised by Israel.’ -The FBI https://t.co/XARv9iNoG6
reSee.it AI Summary
I can expand, verify, or reorganize this. I can group by region, summarize patterns, or provide citations. Tell me your preference.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
US military, CIA-backed coups and clandestine operations in foreign countries since WWII: 🇮🇷 Iran: 1946 🇨🇳 China: 1946-1949 🇬🇷 Greece: 1947-1949 🇮🇹 Italy: 1948 🇵🇭 Philippines: 1948-1954 🇰🇵 Korea: 1950-1953 🇮🇷 Iran: 1953 🇻🇳 Vietnam: 1954 🇬🇹 Guatemala: 1954 🇱🇧 Lebanon: 1958 🇵🇦 Panama: 1958 🇭🇹 Haiti: 1959 🇨🇩 Congo: 1960 🇻🇳 Vietnam: 1960-1964 🇨🇺 Cuba: 1961-1962 🇱🇦 Laos: 1962 🇪🇨 Ecuador: 1963 🇵🇦 Panama: 1964 🇧🇷 Brazil: 1964 🇻🇳 Vietnam: 1965-1975 🇮🇩 Indonesia: 1965 🇨🇩 Congo: 1965 🇩🇴 Dominican Republic: 1965 🇱🇦 Laos: 1965-1973 🇬🇭 Ghana: 1966 🇬🇹 Guatemala: 1966-1967 🇰🇭 Cambodia: 1969-1975 🇴🇲 Oman: 1970 🇱🇦 Laos: 1971-1973 🇨🇱 Chile: 1973 🇰🇭 Cambodia: 1975 🇦🇴 Angola: 1976-1992 🇮🇷 Iran: 1980 🇱🇾 Libya: 1981 🇸🇻 El Salvador: 1981-1992 🇳🇮 Nicaragua: 1981-1990 🇱🇧 Lebanon: 1982-1984 🇬🇩 Grenada: 1983 🇭🇳 Honduras: 1983-1989 🇮🇷 Iran: 1984 🇱🇾 Libya: 1986 🇧🇴 Bolivia: 1986, 2019 🇮🇷 Iran: 1987-1988 🇱🇾 Libya: 1989 🇵🇭 Philippines: 1989 🇵🇦 Panama: 1989-1990 🇱🇷 Liberia: 1990 🇮🇶 Iraq: 1990-1991 🇮🇶 Iraq: 1991-2003 🇭🇹 Haiti: 1991 🇸🇴 Somalia: 1992-1994 Yugoslavia: 1992-1994 🇧🇦 Bosnia: 1993-1995 🇭🇹 Haiti: 1994-1996 🇭🇷 Croatia: 1995 🇨🇩 Zaire (Congo): 1996-1997 🇱🇷 Liberia: 1997 🇸🇩 Sudan: 1998 🇦🇫 Afghanistan: 1998 Yugoslavia: 1999 🇲🇰 Macedonia: 2001 🇦🇫 Afghanistan: 2001-2021 🇻🇪 Venezuela: 2002 🇮🇶 Iraq: 2003-present 🇭🇹 Haiti: 2004 🇺🇦 Ukraine: 2004, 2013-present 🇵🇸 Palestine: 2006-2007 🇾🇪 Yemen: 2009-present 🇸🇾 Syria: 2005-2009, 2011-present 🇱🇾 Libya: 2011 🇵🇰 Pakistan: 2022 *note this is not even a full list
reSee.it AI Summary
I argue the US aims for rollback, not just containment, and shouldn’t be underestimated for ruthlessness despite liberal talk. In the early 90s I warned China that steady growth would spark fierce security competition and shock them with US ruthlessness.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Prof. John Mearsheimer explains why China🇨🇳 shouldn’t underestimate the ruthlessness of the United States🇺🇸 either: ‘The US is not simply containing China, we’re talking about a rollback strategy…you never want to underestimate how ruthless the United States is despite all the liberal rhetoric we use…in the early 90s I told the Chinese if you continue to grow economically, there’s going to be a fierce security competition and you’re going to be shocked at how ruthless the United States is.'
Video Transcript AI Summary
- The speaker asserts that the United States is not just containing China but is attempting a rollback of Chinese economic growth, arguing that military power is largely a function of economic power.
- They claim, “The United States… is a ruthless great power,” and that Americans are tough despite liberal rhetoric used to cover up ruthless behavior.
- The speaker recounts a late-1980s/early-1990s warning to China: if China continues to grow economically, there will be a fierce security competition, and China would be shocked by how ruthless the United States is.
- They state that China did not believe the warning at the time because the United States was treating China very well.
- The speaker explains the underlying mechanism: “the structure’s gonna change, and when we go from unipolarity to multipolarity, and you’re a peer competitor, we’re gonna think about you very differently than we think about you now.”
- They claim that this structural shift is exactly what is happening, with China moving toward being a peer competitor and the United States now treating China differently as a result.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We're actually trying to roll back Chinese economic growth. We wanna strangle Chinese economic growth, because we understand full well that military power is largely a function of economic power. So The United States, right, The United States is not simply containing China. We're talking about a rollback strategy. The United States, as many of you know, and probably many of you don't know, is a ruthless great power.
You never want to underestimate how ruthless The United States is. Despite all the liberal rhetoric that we use to cover up our ruthless behavior, we are tough customers, and the Chinese are finding that out now. In the early 1990s, when I told the Chinese, if you continue to grow economically, there's gonna be a fierce security competition, and you're gonna be shocked at how ruthless The United States is. They simply didn't believe me, because The United States was treating them very well at the time. I said, what you don't understand is that the structure's gonna change, and when the structure changes, when we go from unipolarity to multipolarity, and you're a peer competitor, we're gonna think about you very differently than we think about you now.
And that's exactly what's happening.
reSee.it AI Summary
Mainstream media in NATO countries underestimated our understanding of the events on October 7th, suggesting that Hamas alone was responsible for the destruction. Now, after independent outlets reported it earlier, they finally acknowledge the Hannibal Directive. This directive led to Israeli helicopter gunships indiscriminately targeting anything that moved, aimed at preventing hostages from being taken by Hamas for negotiations regarding Palestinian prisoners.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Mainstream media in NATO countries thought you were stupid enough to believe that Hamas, the militia of an open-air concentration camp with nothing but light arms, caused this level of destruction on October 7th Now, mainstream media, a year after independent media outlets reported it, have learned about the Hannibal Directive and only now report that Israeli helicopter gunships unloaded their bullets and rockets on anything that moved in a mass application of the directive to prevent Israelis being taken hostage by Hamas, who would then be used in hostage negotiations to free the thousands of Palestinian prisoners https://rumble.com/v5dw5tl-britain-is-the-us-lapdog-gaza-genocide-is-a-reflection-of-western-imperiali.html
‘Britain is the US’ LAPDOG, Gaza Genocide is a Reflection of Western Imperialism’ (Fiona Lali)
FOLLOW US ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://linktr.ee/goingundergroundtv On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Fiona Lali, the National Campaigns Coordinator of the UK Revolutionary Communist Part
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe we wouldn't have taken any action if it weren't for the Maidan coup. We accepted Russia's 1991 borders, but we never agreed to NATO's expansion or Ukraine joining NATO. It's crucial for Trump to grasp this before the summit with Putin, as it underpins the Ukraine proxy war.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Vladimir Putin: 'We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn't been for the Maidan coup. We had agreed to Russia's 1991 borders...but we never agreed to NATO's expansion and we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO' Trump must understand ahead of the summit with Putin that this is the root cause of the Ukraine proxy war
Video Transcript AI Summary
That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. It cost almost 5,000,000,000, but the political mistake was colossal. This could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea; we would have never considered lifting a finger if it hadn't been for bloody developments on Maidan. We agreed after the Soviet collapse that borders should be along the borders of former union republics, but we never agreed to NATO's expansion or that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without discussion. For decades we asked, don't do this. What triggered the latest events? Firstly, the Ukrainian leadership declared they would not implement the Minsk agreements. A year or so ago, former leaders of Germany and France said they signed the Minsk agreements but never intended to implement them; they led us by the nose.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that it cost a large sum of money, almost 5,000,000,000. But the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that?
All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea. We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan. Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of former unions' republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO's expansion, and moreover, we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO.
We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades, we kept asking, don't do this, don't do that. And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk agreements, which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014 in Minsk, where the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbas was set forth. But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials, and then president himself said that they don't like anything about the Minsk agreements.
In other words, they were not going to implement it. A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements, but they never intended to implement them. They simply led us by the nose.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Israel was behind the chemical weapons false flag in Syria to provoke Obama into war with Assad. I'm also concerned that if Israel stages a false flag attack on the USS Nimitz, it could result in the loss of 5,000 US soldiers. Full interview in the replies.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨Former Pentagon Official CMSGT Dennis Fritz: ‘I believe Israel conducted the chemical weapons false flag attack in Syria to get Obama to go to war against Assad.’ ‘If Israel conducts a false flag on the USS Nimitz with a ballistic missile attack, 5000 US soldiers could lose their lives.’ FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
Some members of the MAGA movement warning of the false flag, even suggesting that the USS Nimitz was sent out because it's its last voyage, as a sort of decoy. "How important is it to, for Trump and his close advisers to telegraph to the American people that if something happens, it may well be a false flag?" Citing history, "USS Liberty ... they tried to accuse the Egyptians for bombing it, but it's really Israelis that bomb that USS Liberty," and "they will perform a a false flag." "My red line will be chemical weapons introduced in Syria by the Assad government. ... Chemical weapon was introduced. I think that was Israel." "So I wouldn't be surprised. Now we openly say that, hey, it was a false flag." The talk warns that "if one of those carriers are hit, there's about 5,000 personnel on those carriers." They recall "4,500 military US military men and women were killed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed based on that lie"—"you can lose at one time up to 5,000 personnel on a carrier" if a ballistic missile hits it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. Some members of the MAGA movement warning of the false flag, even suggesting that the USS Nimitz was sent out because it's its last voyage, as a sort of decoy in that way. How important is it to, for Trump and his close advisers to telegraph to the American people that if something happens, it may well be a false flag? I mean, I know it sounds, you know, it sounds by definition conspiratorial, but we have the historical record to show false flags.
Speaker 1: I would just Chris, are you are you looking back at the USS Liberty who celebrated that about two weeks ago where we had a ship out there, I think it was the Mediterranean, and they tried to accuse the Egyptians for bombing it, but it's really Israelis that bomb that USS Liberty. So we have historical data that they will perform a a false flag. How about now this, don't know. I I can give you an assumption. How about when a president Obama said, hey.
My red line will be chemical weapons introduced in Syria by the Assad government. Well, guess what? Chemical weapon was introduced. I think that was Israel. It's just assumption and opinion on my part.
So I wouldn't be surprised. Now we openly say that, hey, it was a false flag. I I just don't know. Those surrounding Trump probably would not. But if you push Trump too hard and back him up in the corner, I think he would.
But we need to be on guard for that. And when you mentioned about the carrier being out there, you know, in my book that's over my shoulder that you mentioned, you know, what got me into this crusade crusade was the lies about the w and d, which the Pentagon and the government US government knew that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. Listen to me good. They knew, but they went to war based on lies. 4,500 military US military men and women were killed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed based on that lie.
Now if there's a false flag, let's say if one of those carriers are hit, there's about 5,000 personnel on those carriers. Listen to what I just said. 4,500 military people lost their lives in the Iraq war, including I'll never forget the Iraqis that lost their lives. But there's not enough little small boats to rescue all the sailors and marines off those carriers. And so Trump will be forced.
The the force will be so much against him. What's a false flag or not to retaliate? Because you can lose at one time up to 5,000 personnel on a carrier if a ballistic missile hit it.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared my observations about Mossad's influence in the Pentagon back in 2002. They managed to infiltrate the building without needing identification, gaining access to key officials like Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz. It was clear that they had significant sway within the Pentagon. I recall Donald Rumsfeld expressing frustration, stating that he felt Mossad was effectively running the building instead of him.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨🇺🇸Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: ‘I WATCHED MOSSAD TAKE OVER THE PENTAGON IN 2002’ ‘The Pentagon was infiltrated by Mossad. They did not need any identification to get through the river entrance to the building. They went upstairs to Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defence for Policy, the third most powerful man in the Defence Department. Occasionally they went to the second most powerful man, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, and they had run of the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, said to my boss one time ‘Hell, I don’t run my building, Mossad does!’ -Former Chief of Staff at the State Department Col. Lawrence Wilkerson on Going Underground
Video Transcript AI Summary
It is claimed that the Epstein business was heavily influenced by Mossad. The speaker asserts they witnessed Mossad take over the Pentagon in February 2002. According to the speaker, Mossad agents infiltrated the Pentagon without needing identification and had access to Douglas Fife, the undersecretary of defenses for policy, and occasionally Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense. The speaker relays that Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, allegedly stated that Mossad, not himself, ran the Pentagon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And it's unquestionable that the Epstein business was heavily influenced, let me put it that way, by Mossad. And so that's somehow emblematic on these huge geopolitical issues? Yes. I watched Mossad take over the Pentagon in 02/2002. The Pentagon was infiltrated by Mossad.
They did not need any identification to get through the river entrance to the building. They went upstairs to Douglas Fife, the undersecretary of defenses for policy, the third most powerful man in the defense department. Occasionally, they went to the second most powerful man, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, and they had run of the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, said to my boss one time, hell, I don't run my building. Mossad does.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
REMINDER: Col. Douglas Macgregor to Tucker Carlson: ‘The way Donald Trump handled Zelensky is the way he has got to handle Netanyahu, because if he doesn’t, Netanyahu will drag him into the abyss…because he wants this war with Iran🇮🇷 come hell or high water.’ https://t.co/3jTRqENEF2
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump was too gentle with Zelensky, and should handle Netanyahu the same way to prevent him from instigating a war in the Middle East, specifically a war with Iran and others. Netanyahu views the current situation as an opportunity to settle with everyone, claiming to be fighting on five or seven fronts, including Houthis, militias in Iraq and Syria, and Iran. He is allegedly trying to occupy Syria up to Damascus, a move that Erdogan opposes. The speaker believes that Turkey will eventually get involved to protect Damascus, one of the three great Islamic cities. This could create a structural problem since Turkey is a member of NATO, but the speaker doesn't think NATO matters anymore. The speaker believes what is happening will end everything we're accustomed to, including the rules-based order and global hegemony, forcing everyone in BRICS together.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And Zelensky, frankly, the way he was treated, I I think president Trump was far too gentle. I'm surprised that two giant secret service, agents did not come in, pick him up, and remove him from the office. But the way he handled Zelenskyy is the way he's got to handle Netanyahu. Because if he doesn't, Netanyahu will drag him into the abyss because he wants this war in The Middle East come hell or high water, and it's not in their interest. What war?
The war with Iran. The war with everybody. I mean, you've seen these settings where Netanyahu sits at the table, and he's got everybody around him in his cabinet. And he says, this is our opportunity to settle with everyone. We're fighting on five fronts.
No. We're fighting on seven fronts. And he starts ticking off, you know, everyone from the Houthis to, the militias in Iraq and Syria and now Iran and so If you look at the map today, he's trying to occupy Syria all the way up to the edge of Damascus. And Erdogan, who is a very clever but slippery character, has already said forget it. We're not gonna tolerate that in Southern Syria.
So he's he's pushing the envelope to the very edge. In Damascus, there are three great Islamic cities in the region. One is Cairo, the other is Jerusalem, and then Damascus. They're not going to surrender Damascus to the Israelis. So whatever happens, the Turks will eventually become involved.
They'll march in.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, that creates a a kind of structural problem because Turkey is a member of NATO.
Speaker 0: I don't think so because I don't think I don't think NATO matters.
Speaker 1: Maybe right.
Speaker 0: I don't think it has for a long time. What?
Speaker 1: Well, it matters in a material sense. We just use the name NATO to wage a war against Russia for three years that we lost. Yeah. So but that would be the end of NATO. Right?
Speaker 0: Well, what we're talking about will end everything that we're accustomed to, the rules based order, which just means our global hegemony in military and economic terms. Everyone in BRICS is now being forced together. We're forcing
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
‘There is no good Zionism. It’s a racist ideology. It’s a violent ideology. And don’t believe me, look at Palestine for the last 100 years.’ -Miko Peled, his grandfather signed Israel’s Declaration of Independence @mikopeled https://t.co/UCox5oCMGf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Zionism is portrayed as a racist and violent ideology, evidenced by the situation in Palestine over the past century. When Israel conducts military actions in Gaza, the Israeli public has the power to protest and stop it, yet they remain largely silent. The repeated elections in Israel yield the same leadership, reflecting a lack of accountability for the violence inflicted on Palestinians. The consequences of military actions, such as bombings in residential areas, are well understood, leading to civilian casualties. There is no justification for the actions taken against Palestinians, and the impact of these actions is felt even in Tel Aviv.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There is no good Zionism. It's a racist ideology. It's a violent ideology. And don't believe me? Look at Palestine the last hundred years.
That's Israel. There is no other 1. When Israel massacres thousands of people in Gaza, Israelis can stop it legally. You can have a hundred thousand Israelis on the streets. Nobody will get shot.
Where are they? Where are these Israelis? When did they ever cower? I mean, many. I don't mean 10 in Cheshire Al.
Everybody knows what happens when you're brought when you drop a 1 time bomb in a residential neighborhood. You don't have to be a genius. You know people will die. Israel is a democracy. Jews.
And who do they vote for? The same people over and over and over again. Does it matter if it's Gan Sotanyahu? There is nothing to justify, nothing to excuse what Israel does. Nothing to excuse the Zionist that have been doing in Palestine for a hundred years.
Nothing. When they bomb Gaza, you can hear it in Tel Aviv.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
‘Britain is the US’ LAPDOG, Gaza Genocide is a Reflection of Western Imperialism’ (Fiona Lali)
FOLLOW US ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://linktr.ee/goingundergroundtv On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Fiona Lali, the National Campaigns Coordinator of the UK Revolutionary Communist Part
rumble.com
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
@Megatron_ron https://rumble.com/v5yveb5-prof.-john-mearsheimer-on-the-fall-of-assad-syria-will-be-in-chaos-for-the-.html
Prof. John Mearsheimer on the Fall of Assad: Syria Will Be in CHAOS For the Forseeable Future
FOLLOW US ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://linktree.com/goingundergroundtv On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. He
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
In the CIA, democracy was secondary to our interests. If a government was elected but didn’t align with us, we disregarded it. Many democratically elected leaders, like Mossadegh and Allende, were overthrown when they didn’t cooperate. This pattern is undeniable.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
‘In the CIA, we didn’t give a hoot about democracy. It was fine if a government was elected and would cooperate with us, but if it didn’t, then democracy wouldn’t mean a thing to us’ -Former CIA Agent Philip Agee Democratically elected Presidents overthrown by the CIA: Mossadegh🇮🇷 Árbenz🇬🇹 Lumumba🇨🇩 Allende🇨🇱 Chavez🇻🇪 Goulart🇧🇷 Whitlam🇦🇺 Peron🇦🇷 To name a few…
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the CIA, democracy was secondary to cooperation. If a government was elected but did not align with our interests, democracy held no value. This perspective remains unchanged today.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In the CIA, we didn't give a hoot about democracy. I mean, it was fine if if a government was elected and would cooperate with us, but, if it didn't, then democracy didn't mean a thing to us. And I don't think it means a thing today.
reSee.it AI Summary
Vladimir Putin criticized Western elites, accusing them of greed and moral decay, suggesting they are like vampires consuming resources at the expense of others. He warned that their reign of excess is nearing its end.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
VLADIMIR PUTIN🇷🇺 ON WESTERN ELITES: ‘They’ve been stuffing their stomachs with human flesh and they’ve been stuffing their pockets with money, but they must realise this ball of vampires is about to end’
Video Transcript AI Summary
For centuries, the "golden billion" have lived off other peoples by exploiting Africa, Latin America, and Asia. This exploitation is remembered by common people, not just leaders. There's a strong desire in the West to freeze the current unfair state of international affairs. For centuries, they've been stuffing their stomachs with human flesh and their pockets with money. But this ball of vampires is about to end.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Many people in the world, they are looking at what's happening in our country, what's happening in our struggle for our interests, and here is an important thing. Why is it happening? Not because we are formally a BRICS member or we have some traditional relations with Africa which is also important as well but the gist of it is different the gist of it is that the so called golden billion for centuries, for 500 years, they have practically lived off of other peoples, They were ripping apart these poor peoples, poor nations of Africa. They exploited Latin America. They exploited the countries of Asia.
And of course, no one forgets this. And I have a feeling that it's not even about the leaders of this country. So even though it is a very important thing, but the common people of these countries to be truly independent, which is exacerbated by the fact that in the Western leads, There is a strong desire to freeze the current unfair state of things in International Affairs. For centuries, they've been stuffing their stomachs with human flesh and they've been stuffing their pockets with money, but they must realize that this ball of vampires is about to end.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
The US is OWNED By Israel, US Wars Have Turned Most Muslims Against Us- Dr. Michael Scheuer
FOLLOW US ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://linktr.ee/goingundergroundtv On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Dr. Michael Scheuer, Former Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station at the CIA, and Auth
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I revealed that the CIA, under Pompeo's direction, devised plans to kidnap and assassinate me while I was in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. They also targeted my family, assigning an asset to track my wife and seeking DNA from my infant son. This information comes from over 30 current and former US intelligence officials and is supported by records from a prosecution of involved CIA agents. The aggressive tactics used against me and my associates highlight the extent of transnational repression by powerful intelligence organizations.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨Julian Assange on how the CIA targeted his family: “It is now a matter of public record that under Pompeo's explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and assassinate me within the Ecuadorian embassy in London and authorized going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information. My wife and my infant son were also targeted. A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife, and instructions were given to obtain DNA from my 6-month-old son's nappy. This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former US intelligence officials speaking to the US press, which has been additionally corroborated by records seized in a prosecution brought against some of the CIA agents involved. The CIA's targeting of myself, my family, and my associates through aggressive, extrajudicial, and extraterritorial means provides a rare insight into how powerful intelligence organizations engage in transnational repression."
Video Transcript AI Summary
In March 2017, WikiLeaks exposed CIA spying on French political parties, French and German leaders, the European Central Bank, European Economics Ministries, and French industry. WikiLeaks also revealed the CIA's malware and virus production, supply chain subversion, and subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs, and iPhones.
CIA Director Pompeo then launched a campaign of retribution, allegedly drawing up plans to kidnap and assassinate Julian Assange within the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Pompeo also authorized going after Assange's European colleagues, subjecting them to theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information. Assange's wife and infant son were also targeted, with a CIA asset assigned to track his wife and instructions given to obtain DNA from his 6-month-old son's nappy. This information comes from the testimony of over 30 current and former US intelligence officials and corroborated by records seized in a prosecution against CIA agents involved.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By March 2017, WikiLeaks had exposed the CIA's infiltration of French political parties. It's spying on French and German leaders. It's spying on the European Central Bank, European Economics Ministries, and its standing orders to spy on French industry as a whole. We revealed the CIA's vast production of malware and viruses, its subversion of supply chains, its subversion of antivirus software, cars, smart TVs, and iPhones. CIA director Pompeo launched a campaign of retribution.
It is now a matter of public record that under Pompeo's explicit direction, the CIA drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate me within the Ecuadorian embassy in London and authorize going after my European colleagues, subjecting us to theft, hacking attacks, and the planting of false information. My wife and my infant son were also targeted. A CIA asset was permanently assigned to track my wife and instructions were given to obtain DNA from my 6 month old son's nappy. This is the testimony of more than 30 current and former US intelligence officials speaking to the US press, which has been additionally corroborated by record seized in a prosecution bought against some of the CIA agents involved. The CIA's targeting of myself, my family, and my associates through aggressive extrajudicial and extraterritorial means provides a rare insight into how powerful intelligence organizations engage in transnational repression.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Why Israel’s War in Gaza is EASILY a Genocide- Israeli-American Genocide Scholar Prof. Omer Bartov
FOLLOW US ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://linktr.ee/goingundergroundtv On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Omer Bartov, Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University. He disc
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir allegedly ordered army Lieutenants to shoot individuals, including women and children, approaching the border wall with Israel. The statement emphasizes the need to prevent security threats, referring to a past incident on October 7.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Israeli media reports Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir ordered army Lieutenants to shoot women and children who approach the border wall with Israel to try and escape the genocidal killing: 'There cannot be a situation in which children and women approach us from the wall. Anyone who approaches in order to harm security must receive a bullet, otherwise we will see October 7 again.' https://rumble.com/v4cgeob-cornel-west-biden-is-an-enabler-of-genocide-in-gaza-us-empire-is-in-decay-a.html
Cornel West: Biden is an Enabler of GENOCIDE in Gaza, US Empire is in Decay and Must Be DISMANTLED
FOLLOW US ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://linktr.ee/goingundergroundtv On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Independent US Presidential Candidate Prof. Cornel West. He discusses his electoral p
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Israeli officials have made controversial statements regarding Gaza, expressing intentions to target the strip and turn it into a deserted island. They argue that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and that the responsibility lies with the entire nation. Some officials have called for the expulsion of Gazans and the destruction of their homes. The statements also mention imposing a complete siege on Gaza, cutting off essential resources.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Genocidal quotes from Israeli officials: “We will turn Gaza into a deserted island. To the citizens of Gaza, I say. You must leave now. We will target each and every corner of the strip." -Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "There are no innocent civilians in Gaza...It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” -Israeli President Isaac Herzog "Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now, this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there." -Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked "We are now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba." -Avi Dichter, Minister of Agriculture and former Head of Shin Bet "Right now, one goal: Nakba. A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948" -Ariel Kallner, Member of the Knesset "Erase all of Gaza from the face of the earth. That the Gazan monsters will fly to the southern fence & try to enter Egyptian territory or they will die & their death will be evil." -Member of the Knesset and former Minister of Public Diplomacy Galit Distel Atbaryan -"We are fighting against human animals...we are imposing a complete siege on Gaza...there will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed.” -Defence Minister Yoav Gallant
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
'Democracy went out [after JFK's assassination], no American President after Kennedy was able to implement any changes inside the military or intelligence sector' -@TheOliverStone on GU, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated 60 years ago OTD https://rumble.com/v1syt4o-archive-oliver-stone-exposes-jfk-assassination-cover-up-jfk-revisited.html #JFK60
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video discusses the challenges faced by American presidents in implementing changes within the military and intelligence sectors. It highlights how President Kennedy's attempts to cut the CIA budget and make reforms were reversed by President Johnson. The only area where Kennedy's initiatives were not reversed was civil rights. Overall, the video emphasizes the difficulty presidents have faced in making significant changes in these sectors, with budgets remaining untouched and directives being reversed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a change, a change in our system. In a sense, the sense of democracy went out because after that Kennedy, no American president, not 1. And you can go down the list, was able to make implement any changes inside these the military sector of the economy or the intelligence sector, they they these 2 the agencies of government were untouchable, their budgets were never cut. Although Kennedy tried to cut the CIA budget, tried to shatter it into a 1000 pieces, his directives were reversed by Lyndon Johnson. Everything that Kennedy did except civil rights was reversed by Johnson, including aid for his progress for alliance, alliance for progress in South America, including his African initiatives, including his Indonesia initiatives, Johnson, a 180 degree u
ARCHIVE: Oliver Stone Exposes JFK Assassination Cover-Up (JFK Revisited)
On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to legendary film director Oliver Stone about his new film ‘JFK: Revisited: Through The Looking Glass’. He discusses JFK’s often over-looked campaigns fo
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Julian Assange, imprisoned in the UK, faces persecution for releasing the Collateral Murder video. It exposed the killing of Reuters journalists by a US Apache helicopter, while pilots laughed. The US seeks to extradite and imprison Assange for 175 years.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
As Julian Assange continues to remain imprisoned in the UK, a reminder of one of the reasons he is being persecuted: Wikileaks under Assange released the Collateral Murder video shows Reuters journalists, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen being gunned down by a US Apache helicopter. Several others were killed while the US pilots laughed. The US wants to extradite and imprison Julian Assange for 175 years.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: We engaged 8 individuals, got 2, still firing. Moving now. We got damaged. Clear. Trying to find targets. Hotel 26, Crazy Horse 18, we have 8 individuals with RPGs and AK 47. Move to location once Crazy Horse is done. Shoot. Thank you.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Claring. Here. Wednesday line. Let me know when you'd gathered for 2.
Line them all up. 202 traffic, 260. Zone. Come on. Fire.
I ride in. Thank you. 60. We need to move time now. Alright.
We just engaged all 8 individuals. And we got 2, where we're still firing. Got them. 26. This is 26.
We're moving. We got this. Oh, fuck. Sorry. I lost it.
Bypassing? Got damaged, Kyle. Alright. Alright. Alright.
You're clear. Alright. I'm just trying to find targets again. Master 6. Is it best Master 26?
Got a bunch of bodies laying there. Sorry. We got about 8 individuals. Yeah. We got 1 guy crawling around down 2, you know, we could definitely Hey.
You shoot. I'll talk. Hotel 26 crazy horse 18. Crazy horse 18. This is hotel 26, Owen.
Roger, currently Gauging approximately 8 individuals, AIA, RPGs, and AK 47. Cell two sixty, you need to move to that location once the crazy office is done and get pictures over. Two. Search on 20 and the location. 2 6 crazy horse 18.
Oh, yeah. That goes dead bastard. Nice. 26, crazy horse 18. Yes.
2, 3, change on 4 at this time. 0 2, 3, change on 4. Nice. Let's shoot. Thank you.
Hotel 26, crazy horse 18. Crazy.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
“The only innocent people that are in Gaza now are the 229 hostages…once they go back to Israel, we will bomb all the hospitals…and kill them all” The US, UK & EU have shown no opposition to genocidal rhetoric of Israeli officials, or the Israeli public. https://t.co/RKY6drbchX
Video Transcript AI Summary
In Gaza, there are currently 229 innocent hostages. Once they return to Israel, the plan is to attack Shifa hospital, all other hospitals, and the tunnels, killing everyone. It's important for the world to be aware of this, as Gaza believes it is now the center of attention.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The only innocent people that are in Gaza now are the 229 hostage that were taken. Once they will go back to Israel, we will call. Shifa hospital, all the hospitals, all the tunnels and kill them all. It's about time. The world knows that.
There's no argue about that. We are the center of the world now.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
“Israeli murderers are called commandos, Arab commandos are called terrorists. Contra killers are called freedom fighters. Well if crime fighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?” -Legendary US comedian George Carlin https://t.co/nsnHKNqVXZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Israeli murderers are labeled as commandos, while Arab commandos are labeled as terrorists. Similarly, Contra killers are referred to as freedom fighters. The speaker questions the terminology used, pondering what freedom fighters actually fight if crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fight fire.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Israeli murderers are called commandos. Arab commandos are called terrorists. Contra killers are called freedom fighters. Well, if crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Absolutely unprecedented: Even as the UK government threatens to crack down on pro-Palestine activists and protesters, the masses come out in support of Palestine on the streets of London amid Israel’s bombardment and siege of Gaza https://rumble.com/v3p445k-israel-and-the-us-are-in-a-conspiracy-to-ethnically-cleanse-palestinians-fr.html
Video Transcript AI Summary
Depriving children of food and water is unacceptable and a war crime. The root of the violence is the occupation, which imposes apartheid and oppression on an indigenous people. Palestinians want freedom and equal rights. The Western media needs to tell the truth about the horrors happening. We must demand a ceasefire, a humanitarian corridor for aid and medical supplies, electricity, and access to food and water. This is an emergency and a crisis that requires immediate action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Civilized nation on Earth would agree that depriving children of food and water is acceptable. I'm here because I'm a human being, and anyone with a conscience believes that a civilian population is exception, should never be punished in this way. It's collective punishment. It's a war crime. And unless we stop it, unless we get out there and say something, it's going to end up with 1,000 losing their lives.
Speaker 1: Can you put into words how you feel about the loss of life on both sides?
Speaker 0: Every life is precious. But the root of this violence is the occupation. It's not complicated. It's a settler colonial states imposing apartheid and oppression on an indigenous people. And that's wrong everywhere for anybody.
And it has to be true that all the Palestinians want is freedom, and we will support that in equal rights. And I stand up here. I'm so pleased to see so many of my, brothers and sisters with big hearts who know the truth. And the Western media has a duty now to tell the truth about what's happening, because I am seeing the worst horrors I could ever have imagined. I grew up in the shadow of the holocaust, and we he said never again, and that means never again for anyone.
And I beg your pardon. If they have a conscience, get out there and speak and demand your leaders speak.
Speaker 1: There seem to be, of course, deep divisions on either side, but you've come out today, and you were telling me earlier that this is about being a human, a fellow human being.
Speaker 0: I'm so thrilled to to be here among my brothers and sisters who can see the truth despite all the propaganda and the lies and the bias and the prejudice that we see in the Western media. It has been, quite frankly, a an appalling week.
Speaker 1: What would you like to see the UK government do now?
Speaker 0: They must demand a ceasefire. They must demand that Israel stop bombing children and stop burying them under rubble. They must demand a humanitarian corridor So aid and medical supplies can get in. They must demand they have electricity. They must demand that there is food and water.
This is a, this is an emergency now, a crisis, and people must rise to it.
Israel & the US are in a Conspiracy to ETHNICALLY CLEANSE Palestinians From Gaza-Mustafa Barghouti
FOLLOW ALL OF OUR PLATFORMS: https://linktr.ee/goingundergroundtv On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to the General Secretary and Co-founder of the Palestinian National Initiative and memb
rumble.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Biden's claim of verified images showing Hamas fighters beheading Israeli babies was refuted by the White House. US officials haven't seen or confirmed such pictures, clarifying that Biden relied on Israeli statements and media reports. This raises concerns about the President's credibility and the potential manipulation of public opinion to support Israel's harsh occupation and the ongoing suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Biden claimed last night that he had seen verified images of Hamas fighters beheading Israeli babies The White House later said US officials have not seen or confirmed pictures of atrocities in Israel, saying President Biden based his comments regarding beheaded children on Israeli statements and media reports. Open lies from the President of the United States to manufacture consent for Israel’s occupation to become even more brutal, and for the continuing destruction of Palestinian lives in Gaza?
Video Transcript AI Summary
I never expected to see confirmed images of terrorists beheading children, but there are countries in the region, including Arab nations, trying to provide assistance.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I never really thought that I would see and have confirmed pictures of terrorists beheading children. I never thought I'd ever anyway, I, but there are Countries in the region are trying to be of some help, including Arab nations trying to be of some help.