reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @GUnderground_TV
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing a new episode of Going Underground featuring ex–US State Department adviser James Carden. We discuss whether Trump’s NATO-Russia pivot in Ukraine will escalate war or bring peace, the actual goals of Europe’s elites and US neocons, and what lies are told to Trump about the proxy war’s true state.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Ukraine🇺🇦 Proxy War: Europe’s Elites & US Neocons Want the DISSOLUTION of Russia🇷🇺 — Ex-State Department Official James Carden Will Trump’s pivot to the NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine result in an escalation of the war or peace? What are the actual goals of Europe’s leaders and US neocons in the war against Russia? What lies are being told to Trump about the state of the Ukraine proxy war? All this and more on this episode with James Carden, Ex-Asvisor to the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission at the US State Department.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Rattansi opens by linking NATO’s 77th annual summit to ongoing wars, saying NATO weaponry is used in Gaza and Lebanon, in Bandar Abbas in Iran, and in a proxy war against Russia. He also claims NATO leaders and President Trump want expanded conflict, while NATO member populations face hardship. Rattansi speaks with James Carden, editor of the Realist Review and senior advisor to the American Committee for U.S.-Russian Accord.
Carden says Trump publicly scolded NATO at the start of the summit for not supporting the American war against Iran, including a threat to cut off trade with Spain. He argues that behind closed-door sessions Trump aligned with a neoconservative agenda, citing claims about offering Ukraine “licenses to build Patriot missiles,” and comparing the second Trump administration to the “third term for Bush-Cheney.” Carden says Trump’s approach at the summit reflects continuity with post-9/11-era policy.
Rattansi asks whether Trump’s fear of nuclear war should translate into different action, contrasting him with Biden and Obama. Carden responds that Trump’s prior actions contradict his alleged fear, listing withdrawal from the 1987 INF Treaty, the ripping up of the Open Skies Treaty, and non-renewal of New START. He says Trump has come under influence of American neoconservative lobbying and frames this as support for endless war in Ukraine and the Middle East, including decisions to continue striking Iran and to walk away from an MOU.
Rattansi raises concerns about legacy and a possible pivot away from neocons. Carden says that continuing to fund the Ukraine war and provide Patriot missile-related support signals no end to the conflict and argues the advisors around Trump are not serious about ending the war or engaging Russia diplomatically. He says Zelensky is “walking away quite happy” from the Ankara summit.
On reports that Ukraine’s drone campaign signals success and strikes deep into Russia, Carden says for every Ukrainian drone strike inside Russia, Russia responds with a missile, and he claims Ukrainians are suffering far more. He says the headlines do not change the balance of forces on the ground and criticizes the mainstream narrative that Ukraine is “a drone away from victory,” adding that Trump lacks people telling him the truth.
Rattansi asks what neocons and Western elites want. Carden says many want “a resounding defeat of Russia,” dissolution of Russia, and regime change, asserting that European elites object to diplomacy and call advocates for settlement “puppets of the Kremlin.” He says Trump and those around him are “squarely in that camp.”
Rattansi asks whether Russia shares blame for not imposing “fierce red lines,” and for Finland hosting nuclear weapons. Carden says Russia likely made mistakes after the 2014 Maidan coup, including trusting the Minsk process; he cites Angela Merkel’s later revelation that Minsk was used to buy time for Ukraine to build defenses and military. He describes the war as reminiscent of World War I with drones, making it difficult for either side to break through, and frames the options for Zelensky and Putin as continuing to waste lives or seeking settlement, adding that he says alternatives to war exist but have not been pursued due to pressure from Washington and Brussels.
Asked about Washington’s “deep state,” Carden says the views he describes are “pretty uniform,” calling Landau and Colby outliers. He claims Trump relies on neoconservative influence, including Mark Thiessen and Jared Kushner, and says the national security advisor and secretary of state are hardline neoconservatives, naming Marco Rubio. He argues the window for responsible action is closing as U.S. primary politics approaches, with calls to “double down” because both parties believe the war is winnable for Ukraine.
During the follow-up, Rattansi questions whether Trump could pivot after U.S. midterms, and whether he might end the war or stop U.S. funds to Zelensky. Carden doubts a political turn like Reagan’s, saying Trump would need different people and a narrower conception of American interests, asserting the Donbass has “nothing to do with the United States” and that Crimea, Donbass, or access to the Sea of Azov do not affect American strategic interests.
Rattansi asks about leverage for diplomacy and claims about possible propaganda “false flags.” Carden says the United States must leverage NATO, arguing that threatening to turn off funding or walk away would create leverage, while simply following European preferences leaves none.
On energy impacts from wars in West Asia, Carden links energy prices to midterm politics, saying Trump must choose between continuing the war against Iran on behalf of Netanyahu and risking midterms due to oil prices, or prioritizing his constituents’ well-being. He speculates that if populations replace European governments, negotiation might become possible.
Rattansi asks whether Trump might leave NATO. Carden says it is “mostly an act,” suggesting Trump could try to distance the U.S. from NATO only if he brought in ideological allies, but he argues major changes are unlikely given appointments and staffing.
Rattansi shifts back to West Asia, asking what this means for the region given Kushner and Rubio connections to Israeli-linked sources. Carden says the U.S.-Iran conflict should not be treated in isolation, identifying Israel’s “drive for greater Israel” as the “true driver,” tying it to Gaza, removal of Palestinians from the West Bank and southern Lebanon. He says progress between the U.S. and Iran will not occur until that project is addressed, and rejects the claim that Iran sought nuclear weapons, citing the Ayatollah’s fatwa against such weapons.
Finally, Rattansi asks whether the site of Syria’s former al-Qaeda leader Jelani (given as “Jelani of Syria”) with Trump suggests Democrats’ political situation. Carden says Hillary Clinton may go for the presidency in 2028, citing a “very weak” field, her remaining control and influence in the Democratic Party, and the idea that none of the Democrats he spoke to think Gavin Newsom has a chance. He says Clinton has money, influence, and goodwill, and if she becomes the candidate it would likely produce “regime change wars” that depose leaders such as Assad and replace them with radical Islamists like Jelani.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshin Rattansi, and welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE as neighboring Iran mourned under U.S. bombardment. While NATO held its 77th annual summit, its weaponry was used for genocides in Gaza and Lebanon and bombing fish markets in Iran's Bandar Abbas across the Gulf from this Dubai studio, let alone for bombing Russia in a proxy war that has lasted longer than World War I. This is moving in the right direction, according to glorified Trump servant and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who said NATO was also willing to play a role against Iran, the absurdly described defensive alliance that bills itself as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, mass murders nowhere near the North Atlantic. It met in Turkey, bordering the countries targeted by NATO nations, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Turkey itself has been hit during Trump's unprovoked war of aggression against Iran, which this week held the largest funeral ceremonies in human history. And as it faces NATO's Greece in a military standoff in the Aegean, It's all not enough, though, for NATO boss and bankroller Trump, though. He wants to invade NATO's Denmark and sanction NATO's Spain, while the NATO vassals want wars on the largest country in the world, Russia, and the richest country in the world by PPP, China. This is 105 million people across NATO countries don't even know if they can eat tonight. 170 million don't know if they have somewhere to sleep tonight. Joining me again from Orleans, Massachusetts, is a former advisor to the State Department U.S.-Russia Presidential Commission. He's now editor of the Realist Review and a board member member and senior advisor to the American Committee for U.S.-Russian Accord, James Carden. James, thanks for coming back on Going Underground. Let's just kick off with your assessment of this summit. I mean, it appeared the Americans unhappy that the European, Western European powers weren't supporting war here in West Asia. And those vassals were annoyed at Trump because he wasn't giving his full commitment to bombing Russia.
Speaker 1: Well, I think in typical Trump fashion, what Trump said publicly differed greatly from what Trump said privately. So the first day of the summit, Trump arrived and publicly scolded the alliance for not supporting the American war against Iran. He publicly threatened to cut off all trade with Spain. Spain, of course, is a special concern of Israel because Spain has been so outspoken against the genocide in Gaza. But once the closed door sessions got underway, Mr. Trump fell in line with the neoconservative agenda and offered, for instance, Ukraine licenses to build Patriot missiles and the like. So Trump talks tough in public. and makes his alliance partners nervous. And then behind closed doors, it's all the same stuff. It's no different from Obama or Biden or even George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In some ways, the second Trump administration is really the third term for Bush-Cheney. And so that's, I think, what we are seeing play out at the summit.
Speaker 0: Yeah, he even seemed to be saying things about security guarantees for Ukraine, that people automatically drew parallels with Article 5 of the NATO treaty. But I mean, for all that, do you not think that when he gets back home, he understands the threat of large-scale nuclear conflagration much better than Biden or Obama, who didn't seem to care whatsoever about arming Ukraine to attack within Russia? Trump has repeatedly said he's frightened by nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war.
Speaker 1: Well, if he's frightened by it, his policy actions do not reflect that. After all, he was the president who ripped up the 1987 landmark INF Treaty between the United States and Russia. In his first term, he ripped up the Open Skies Treaty. He decided not to renew New START. So, no, and I think that if he was so concerned about the threat of nuclear war, he would have done a lot more to try to end the conflict in Ukraine than he has. I think it's very clear at this point that he's come under the influence of the American neoconservative lobby that wants endless war in Ukraine and endless war in the Middle East. And I think his policies reflect that. After all, at the summit, he announced that he was tired of the, he was going to walk away from the MOU, was going to continue to strike Iran. So this is a president who has absolutely walked away from his America first or make America great again foreign policy agenda. And now it's the same old stuff that we've been seeing since at least 9-11.
Speaker 0: But then if catastrophic defeat in West Asia arguably can be more expected because of the power of the Israel lobby and so on and his donors, surely he would be thinking about legacy, in which case the pivot to the war in Europe would mean he would try and seek some kind of peace in the opposition to the neocons who want the end of the Russian Federation?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I don't see that because if you're going to continue to fund the Ukraine war and you're going to hand them access to the blueprints to build Patriot missiles, that isn't really signaling an end to the conflict. And in fact, the advisors that he now has around him aren't serious about ending the war. They aren't serious about engaging the Russians in diplomacy. So, no, I think that basically Zelensky is walking away quite happy from the Ankara summit.
Speaker 0: Yeah, and they keep talking about they perhaps helped to persuade Trump by saying, look, Zelensky's use of drones is signaling great success on the part of the Ukrainian forces. What did you make of that?
Speaker 1: Well, that seems to be the narrative right now, is that the Ukrainians have the wind at their back, that their drone war is wildly successful, that they are indeed striking deep within Russian territory. They're hitting energy infrastructure and the like. But the fact of the matter is, is that for every Ukrainian drone strike within Russia, Russia responds not with a drone, but with a missile. And so, again, the... The Ukrainians are suffering far more in this war than the Russians are. So the Ukrainians are making headlines right now with some spectacular drone incursions deep into Russian territory. But that doesn't change the balance of forces on the ground. This is a losing proposition for them ultimately. But Trump seems to be buying in to the mainstream narrative that the Ukrainians... are just a drone away from victory. I don't think that's the case. But unfortunately, Donald Trump doesn't have people around him who are telling him the truth.
Speaker 0: Yeah, and the propaganda media repeating what Mark Rutte is saying, that it's one drone away from peace. I mean, we had the former British defense minister, Tobias Elwood, on this program, making a rare appearance. And he didn't... Even when I said dialogue could be useful... as a way of ending this terrible war that's killed so many people, he immediately almost called it a Kremlin talking point. What is it that these neocons in Washington, let alone the entire elite classes of Western Europe, what do they actually want?
Speaker 1: They want a resounding defeat of Russia. They want, actually, a lot of them want to see the dissolution. of Russia as a country, and they want regime change. They would be very happy to see Putin gone, and I think that's the ultimate goal of a lot of these Europeans and neoconservatives. You're right, the European elite led by Merce and the soon-to-be-departed Starmer and Macron are absolutely every bit as... war-hungry as our neoconservatives. Any hint of diplomacy, any hint of a settlement, they are the first people to stand up and object and call it appeasement and call people who are advocating for an end to this thing to call them puppets of the Kremlin. I think that that's wrong, and I think that that's dangerous, and I think, unfortunately, Donald Trump and the people around him are squarely in that camp.
Speaker 0: Is Russia to blame partly for not imposing fierce red lines? I mean, we now hear that Finland, of all places, is going to host nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: I think that the Russians could have done things differently over the past. What is it now? 12 years. I think that it was probably a mistake. Since the coup in 2014. Since the 2014 Maidan coup, I think that they probably should have acted sooner in retrospect. But Putin put his trust in the Minsk process. And that, I think, in retrospect, from the standpoint of Russian security interests, was probably a mistake. Because the Minsk process, as later revealed by the former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, simply failed. was used to buy time for the Ukrainians to build up their defenses, to build up their military. And so what you have now is a war that is quite reminiscent to the First World War with the additional horror of drones. And it makes it very difficult for either side to break through on the ground. So the choice that both Zelensky and Putin face are either to continue to waste the lives of their young people on the ground in this war or to find some way towards a settlement. And I think that there are reasonable alternatives to war that ought to be pursued. But they haven't been pursued because of the pressure that Washington and Brussels has put to bear on Kiev so far.
Speaker 0: And you think there's no one that shares this analysis? I mean, you're an advisor in the State Department. I know that you've been talking about Christopher Landau and Hegsett's policy under Secretary Elbridge Colby. Are these the kinds of ideas that perhaps may be emanating from some corners of the so-called deep state in Washington, or is it pretty uniform? No, we can win this. We can end Russia.
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty uniform. I think that Landau... who's the Deputy Secretary of State, and Colby, who's the Undersecretary for Policy at the Pentagon, are outliers in this administration. And they're outliers because they're sensible people. I think that Trump is relying on people, outside advisors, like the neoconservative opinion columnist at the Washington Post named Mark Thiessen, who was an advisor to Bush Cheney. I think that Trump relies on far too heavily on his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is basically an agent of Israeli influence in the United States. So I think that Trump has surrounded himself with really bad people. And let's not forget, his national security advisor is a hardline neoconservative who also happens to be his secretary of state, who also then happens to be Landau's boss, who is Marco Rubio. And Rubio, presumably, may well be the Republican nominee for president in 2028. So the window for responsible action with regard to the war in Russia and Ukraine is closing by the day. Once you get into the primary season here in the United States, you're going to have calls from the Democratic Party and from the Republican Party to double down. because they've fooled themselves into thinking that this thing is winnable for Mr. Zelensky and the Ukrainians. And ultimately, it is not.
Speaker 0: James Carden, we'll stop you there. More from the former U.S. State Department advisor to the U.S.-Russia Presidential Commission after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former advisor to the U.S. State Department's U.S.-Russia Presidential Commission, James Carden. James, you were expressing pessimism about Trump's clear inability to get rid of the influence of the neocons. But I think you also noted that Reagan was unpopular in the first couple of years of his presidency and turned it around. You just see no light here at the end of the tunnel that he may realize after his defeat of the midterms. that if he's not impeached, that he has a chance to recover his reputation because it's obviously not popular with the American people, these Clintonite policies of Trump's. You see no possibility that he might try and end the war in Ukraine and just stop funds from the American people going to Zelensky, dictator Zelensky?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, a couple of things. The first thing with regard to the midterms, I'm not entirely convinced, and I could very well be wrong because my crystal ball is about as bad as everybody else's, but I'm not entirely convinced that there will be a Democratic sweep in November. You should never underestimate Donald Trump when it comes to American politics. Can he turn it around in his last two years in the way that Reagan did? I have my doubts. Again, you should never rule him out. But in order for him to do that, he is going to have to surround himself with better people. He's going to have to surround himself with people who understand the world and who have a different view of the world. And more importantly, have a different, narrower, more narrow conception of American interests. It is not in the American interest. to fund a war over basically who gets to govern the Donbass. The Donbass has nothing to do with the United States. There's no strategic interest there whatsoever. It doesn't matter to the United States.
Speaker 0: Well, Trump tries to spell it, of course, by talking about minerals of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Right, which is, of course, a load of nonsense. And, you know, it isn't in the American interest. It doesn't affect the American interest as to who controls or who does not control, say, Crimea or who has access to the Sea of Azov. You know, I grew up a child of the late Cold War. I don't remember Americans being overly concerned that the Soviet Union controlled Crimea or the Donbass or, for that matter, Western Ukraine. We did in Britain, I'll tell you that, James. Well, yes, you have the Churchill hangover in Britain, which affects British politics to this day. And I think that's unfortunate. So no, if Trump is going to turn it around, he's going to need new blood. Could that happen? Absolutely, it could happen. I'm very pessimistic that it will happen. Because I think if Washington is going to affect a change between Russia and Ukraine, we are going to need partners in Europe. But European elites, as we've discussed, seem absolutely unwilling and unable to bring themselves to negotiate with the other side. So if there's no room for negotiation, what do you have? You have stalemate and you have more war. And I think that that's basically... that's what's going to happen over the next couple of years.
Speaker 0: I mean, on the other hand, if there was some kind of dialogue and some kind of real peace process, would Germany and Britain in any case sabotage it with the so-called false flags? Claims that, for instance, you know, the Bucha massacre, and we've seen so many wars since 1945. catalyzed by freak events that turned out later to be not what they were, what they seemed at first sight, to try and engage publics into being passionate about a war they had no business in? To me, it's a question of leverage.
Speaker 1: I don't think that a Germany under this person, Merce, who seems to me to be actually crazy, is going to be a good force. I think that the United States has to leverage NATO. And I think that once we threaten to turn off the funding or we threaten to walk away, then we'll have some leverage over them. But if we continue to do like we keep doing, which is to say one thing and then do whatever the Europeans want, we have no leverage. And so, you know, they're going to keep on acting. You know, they're going to keep playing the hawk. And I think that that's a mistake.
Speaker 0: But, you know, time will tell. I mean, it's terrible, of course, the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, the increased violence again in West Asia because of the Trump-Nanyau war on Iran. But one effect of that, knock-on effect of that, is the increase in... crisis for energy and the shortages of energy affecting billions of people around the planet. Does that affect the Ukraine war too, as these Western European powers, I presume you meant Merz was crazy because Germany's cut itself off from its main energy supplier after its, well, is it the CIA that destroyed the Nord Stream pipeline? Does the West Asia war impact on the war in Europe as Western European nations become more reliant on Russian energy, even if through a shadow fleet?
Speaker 1: Well, perhaps if the populations in these countries begin to overthrow these governments, right? So if Merce is replaced by, say, AFD, or if Le Pen's party in France comes to power, or if reform comes to power.
Speaker 0: If she doesn't go to jail, of course.
Speaker 1: Well, of course, right. Well, they're also, you know, I'm sure that the Germans will outlaw. AFD in due course, you know, it's really going to be up to those populations, those people to decide what course those governments ultimately take and how much pain they're willing to take. Because, you know, I think that one of the things that we have to keep in mind is that energy prices are going to play a key role in the midterms. And so Trump needs to make a decision. Is he going to keep on with this war against Iran on behalf of his friend Netanyahu and then suffer in the midterms because oil prices are out of control? Or is he going to prioritize the well-being of his own constituents? I think that's a very open question. He's actually said publicly that he isn't really interested in helping the American consumer. Well, if that's the case, then perhaps he should be ready for a major defeat in November. But again, you can never really tell what he's going to do because I think part of the problem is that he himself doesn't really know what he's going to do.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I mean, John Bolton, who I think made a settlement eventually, he's been on this show a number of times, famously said he believes the person who last spoke to him. In which case, I mean, do you think that it's possible that... that he might leave NATO before the end of his term, as he suggested many times. And at the summit, he obviously seemed dissatisfied by NATO, although you kind of said that it's all an act.
Speaker 1: I think it's mostly an act. I think that if he brought in some new people, if he brought in like a Steve Bannon type of person, or if he mended ties with Tucker Carlson, then somehow, you know, Carlson, you know, became a close trusted advisor again, then you might see Trump try to distance the US from NATO. But I just don't think that that's going to happen because Trump's record is actually one of providing jobs and opportunities and platforms to people who are very much ideologically in sync with people like John Bolton. Again, if you have a Secretary of State and National Security Advisor like Marco Rubio, and basically a very stupid person like Pete Hegseth as your Secretary of Defense, you're not going to see any major changes in American policy. You're just going to see the same old thing.
Speaker 0: And what does it mean for this region? I'm speaking to you from West Asia because you talked about Kushner being an agent of a foreign power and Marco Rubio clearly who has been his political career financed by Israeli-linked sources. Does it just mean ramping up the war regardless of the energy costs that, as you reminded us, Trump says on camera he didn't plan? mind their impact on the American consumer, the inflation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right. I mean, I think when we talk about the U.S.-Iran war, and I'm not suggesting that you just did this, but I think generally speaking, it's a mistake to speak about that war in isolation from its true driver. And the true driver, I believe, of the U.S.-Persian conflict is Israel's drive for greater Israel. And so the war is inextricably tied to Netanyahu's project, not only of genocide in Gaza, but in his project to remove the Palestinians from the West Bank and from southern Lebanon. Until that is addressed, there will be no progress between the U.S. and Iran.
Speaker 0: And do you think that's understood within the State Department? I should say, of course, the State Department, your ambassador in Israel, said as much. Well, I assume that it is. I don't know what goes on there anymore.
Speaker 1: And I certainly have very little faith in the people who Trump has appointed to handle West Asia policy. But yes, I mean, I think that that's very clear that this project, this war has nothing to do with the shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz or the totally fictitious idea that the Iranians were this close to, you know, getting themselves a nuke and turning it on Israel. It has everything to do with Iran's support for the regional proxies that were standing in the way of greater Israel. So whenever Trump says that, you know, this war is about, you know, the Iranians can't ever have a nuclear weapon. Well, no kidding. And they weren't on their way to getting one. And they weren't on their way to getting one because the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader, who they just murdered, issued a fatwa against such weapons.
Speaker 0: Well, just finally, sorry, Peter, we're running out of time. I've just got to ask you whether the site of Jelani of Syria, former head of al-Qaeda with Trump this week, might have reminded people of the Democrats in the White House. You believe that Hillary Clinton's races may not be over in this environment that you've painted in this interview, that she may well go for the presidency in 2028.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would not be surprised because if you look at the field, it's very, very weak. And she and her husband still are very much partly in control of the party. The party is basically controlled by three factions, the Clintons, the Obamas, and Nancy Pelosi. None of the Democrats want Harris to run again. No Democrat that I've spoken to in Washington thinks that Gavin Newsom is real. or has a chance. So I would not be surprised if she steps in. They have the money, they have the influence, and she has a lot of goodwill still within the party. And so if that does happen, then what you will see are more of these regime change wars that depose people like Assad and bring radical Islamists such as Jelani, into power. James Carden, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO and Asian wars of aggression. We'll be back on Monday with a former senior Pentagon official who advised Pacific Air Force commanders and U.S. Space Command. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media if it's not censored in your country and head to our channel, Going Underground TV on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Monday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing the new episode of Going Underground with former UK Defence Minister Tobias Ellwood. He says Trump won nothing in Iran and criticizes Netanyahu’s endless wars, then asks why Britain keeps backing the Ukraine proxy war over diplomacy, what the global order means as more of the Global South turns to BRICS, and whether Western Europe is isolated as the US retreats while Russia and China build multipolarity.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Ex-UK Defence Minister Tobias Ellwood Says Trump Won NOTHING in Iran, SLAMS Netanyahu's Endless Wars Why is Britain still committed to continuing the Ukraine proxy war instead of favouring diplomacy? What now for the global order as more of the global south align with BRICS? Is Western Europe isolated as the US🇺🇸 retreats from Europe, while Russia🇷🇺 and China🇨🇳 build a multipolar order? What’s the view of Trump’s failed war on Iran in Britain? All this and more with @Tobias_Ellwood, former UK🇬🇧 Defence Minister and author of ‘Ten Ways To Stop World War 3’.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Ratansi opens Going Underground ahead of an annual two-day NATO summit starting tomorrow, hosted this year by Tehkir, broadcast from the UAE. He says NATO member the United Kingdom is being represented by Prime Minister Starmer, who was forced to quit after deception surrounding his top diplomat in Washington and “child rapist, Jeffrey Epstein.” Ratansi links Starmer’s leadership to Britain’s crisis: more than 2.5 million people needing emergency food parcels, 12 million unable to afford heating, nearly one in four children in deprivation, and real-terms public healthcare funding cut by more than a quarter since 2010. He adds that Starmer will be joined by other NATO leaders “not favored at home,” citing opinion polling.
Ratansi contrasts NATO’s economic footprint—he says NATO nations represent less than a third of global GDP by PPP—against BRICS at 41% including Russia, Iran, China, and the UAE. He claims NATO’s agenda is militarization, spending billions to fight China and Russia through Ukraine, and arming wars on Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. He then introduces Tobias Elwood, described as former chairman of the UK Defence Select Committee and former UK Minister and Defence Minister, author of Ten Steps to Prevent World War III.
In discussing why Britain cannot keep a prime minister for a full five-year term, Elwood says it is “a reflection of where politics has gone,” arguing social media and impatience for fast results fuel early challenges to a leader’s place. He says MPs increasingly look at poll ratings and believe they “could probably do better with somebody else,” which he describes as unusual compared with the past.
Ratansi broadens the point, saying unfavorable ratings are high across Western Europe for leaders including Starmer, Macron, Germany’s MERT, and Maloney. Elwood responds that while Western leaders face tough times—global fragmentation, Russia and China working closer, America disengaging—there is a key difference: those leaders are not being “churned out” halfway through office. He says domestic change under a successor like Andy Burnham would be possible but foreign-policy change likely would not be.
On Iran and Trump’s use of Diego Garcia for bombing, Elwood says it was right to challenge Trump’s actions initially and describes the outcome as leaving Iran “arguably more empowered” than before. He frames Britain’s role as supporting the international order associated with the Atlantic Charter and says Trump has “thrown all that out the window,” favoring U.S. interests over international organizations. Elwood addresses the relationship with the CIA and MI6 and the Five Eyes trust, and says the question is whether relations “click back into place” after Trump or whether a new era of U.S. disengagement has begun. He argues Trump is trying to leave Europe “to our own devices,” pushing Europe to work together more closely.
Elwood also discusses Israel/Gaza: he says the West has “turned a blind eye” and has not stood up to Israel or pursued a two-state solution, and warns that expanding settlements makes a two-state outcome increasingly unlikely. On RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, he says it was “used as part of understanding the intelligence” after Hamas’s attack and for controlling the environment afterward, while saying Britain should have “done far, far more” in advocating a clearer strategy and standing up to Netanyahu. He distinguishes support for Israel’s right to exist from criticism of Netanyahu’s decisions and says arms policy would need U.S. involvement to influence Israel’s actions. He says Trump is the only country he believes can stand up to Netanyahu in the way needed, referencing Trump’s comments about not destroying entire residential blocks when targeting Hezbollah.
Ratansi shifts to Russia, saying the UAE treats Russia as a “strategic partner” after MBZ’s Moscow visit. Elwood says this reflects fragmentation of global order and alliances of convenience as leaders choose partners based on perceived momentum and resources. He connects this to “a rival global order” led by China supported by Russia and argues the world is splintering into competing systems, forcing countries to choose between the dollar and RMB, GPS and other alternatives, and between trade routes.
Asked why Britain supports Ukraine, Elwood argues that Putin’s invasion of another European country should be opposed and compares it to “1937 politics,” saying deterrence and standing up to a bully are necessary because Russia would not stop if it succeeded. He rejects the idea of inviting Russia’s advance due to British weakness and says Russia attacks Britain through cyber attacks, undersea cable threats, and other means rather than conventional warfare. He argues dialogue with Russia risks appeasement, warning it could allow Putin to rearm, regroup, and advance.
In the closing exchange, Ratansi challenges Elwood with claims about military spending and timing; Elwood rejects the conclusion and says “that’s daft.” The interview ends with further disagreement, including Elwood stating he cannot accept that Putin “was wrong to invade Ukraine,” and Ratansi’s final remarks conclude the episode.
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: I'm Afshin Ratansi. Welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE, ahead of the annual two-day NATO summit that is starting tomorrow, hosted this year by Tehkir. NATO member the United Kingdom is being represented this year by a prime minister forced to quit after deception surrounding his top diplomat in Washington and child rapist, Jeffrey Epstein. He leaves office in a country where now more than 2.5 million need emergency food parcels to eat, and with 12 million unable to afford heating. Nearly one in four children in Britain now lives in deprivation. Since 2010, in real terms, public health care funding has had to be slashed by more than a quarter. Over 3 p.m., Starmer will be joined by equally unpopular NATO counterparts, not favored at home, according to opinion polling. Meanwhile, ahead of the summit, tens of millions will gather in Tehran to pay respects to the late Abdullah Khabani, assassinated by Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, whose Tomahawk missiles also slaughtered 168 schoolgirls on the same day. NATO nations now represent less than a third of global GDP by PPP, compared to, say, the 41% of BRICS. That includes Russia, Iran, China, and the UAE. For NATO, the agenda is militarization and ever more billions to fight China and Russia through Ukraine, as well as arming wars on Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. Joining me now from London is the former chairman of the UK Defence Select Committee, former UK Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, and former UK Defence Minister. Lieutenant Colonel, the Right Honourable Tobias Elwood's latest book is Ten Steps to Prevent World War III, and it's out later this week. Tobias Elwood, thank you so much for coming on Going Underground. Let's just begin with Starmer, and as I was saying, how he's not alone in being unpopular at home. Just can you explain to our international audience? I mean, we know the Epstein scandal helped to bring him down. Why can Britain not have a prime minister for a full five-year term?
Speaker 0: Well, great to see you. This is a big question that I think we're asking ourselves because this isn't usually how we do business. There's normally confidence in a prime minister, indeed in a government, to see out the parliamentary term for a good five years. I think it's a reflection of of where politics has gone, how fickle it is, how fickle the nation is in wanting results so quickly. Social media fuels this, of course, but there's an impatience that if you're in there just even just two years and you don't get good results, then people start to question whether you should stay in office. And of course, I can't complain about this because I came from a government where we had a churn of prime minister, we got through four or five. And I say this with some sadness, that this is currently where Britain is.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not just Britain. In fairness, it's not just Britain. I mean, the figures for Starmer are 72% unfavorable. Macron, 78% unfavorable. Germany's MERT, 80% unfavorable. Maloney, 55% unfavorable. It's all across Western Europe.
Speaker 0: But the difference I would say is that they're not, churning out there, throwing out their leaders, their premiers, halfway through office. times are tough now. And we've entered a new era of insecurity. Global order itself has started starting to fragment. We've got Russia and China working closer together. America disengaging. Where is our world going? And economically, of course, this is a very testing time, whether it's Iran and what's going on there, whether it's COVID that hit us too, whether it was the financial crisis going back there. There's been a series of testing events. which means that economically, these are difficult times. Now, if the nation itself, the people then get frustrated, clearly they're going to express that in the popularity of whoever is prime minister at the time. What is different is that MPs themselves then look at the poll ratings and say, I think we could probably do better with somebody else. And that is very, very unusual. That's I think, a different phase that we've gone into from a British perspective. I don't think, from an international perspective, you're going to see much change with Andy Burnham coming in compared with Keir Starmer. Domestically, probably yes. But certainly from a foreign policy perspective, I don't think you're going to see much change at all.
Speaker 1: Do you think... If you were still defense minister, would you have supported Starmer's decision to prevent Trump using Diego Garcia for the bombing of Iran?
Speaker 0: I think it was right initially to challenge what on earth Trump was trying to do and succeed with Iran, given the fact that when you looked at the detail, it's very clear now, there was no strategy. A utility of military might on a massive scale But ultimately, we now see Iran arguably more empowered than they were before America charged in. And that's the sort of questions that Britain is good at raising. You know, the D-Day landings, should we go to Calais? No, not a good idea. We whisper in the president's ear, Let's do Normandy. It makes sense. And that is the role that Britain has played. This is this relationship that we've had for decades now of working with our closest security ally, propping up and supporting the very international order that came from what we call the Atlantic Charter, this agreement in the middle of the war to say, we actually need to uphold international laws and we will work together on that. Where it comes to Donald Trump, is of course he's thrown all that out the window. He's decided, I'm not interested in these international organizations, I'm going to look after America, and I am going to use military might if it serves my interest, even if I'm not sure where it will go. And that's the dilemma we now face today. How can you persuade... Dilemma or is it broken?
Speaker 1: Dilemma or is it broken? I mean, presumably the CIA didn't tell their MI6 counterparts they were about to assassinate Ayatollah Khamenei.
Speaker 0: The CIA is another discussion, I think, because many of them, we share information, the Five Eyes community that you may be familiar with, with Canada and New Zealand, Australia and so forth. Something very, very important to us in sharing that, the level of trust there is second to none. So it is with some sadness that we are unsure where our relationship with Donald Trump goes. And there is a question mark. Does it click back into place once he departs office? Or have we moved into a new era of disengagement with America? Because certainly what Donald Trump is trying to do, as we see, is actually separate interest on Europe, on support for Europe as well, and leave us to our own devices. And that's something that we are having to work more closely with our European allies in a way that we've not done for many, many years. Once Europe Trump had decided to go in. Once we were at war with Iran, it was in all our interest to actually make that work. As Middle East minister for a number of years, it always saddened me that we'd not done enough to stand up to Iran, that it had such a toxic influence across the Middle East through its proxies and what it was actually doing, and it got away with it. And so there is a little bit of me that actually understands why Trump has been frustrated. Successive American presidents have had to deal with Iran since 1979. Here we have a president willing to cross the line, but then doesn't have a plan.
Speaker 1: In fairness, Trump did answer that, didn't he? Because he said, oh, after he won the war against Iran, then the British offered help. He wasn't interested in it. He's not won any war with Iran.
Speaker 0: I'm afraid the regime... is still there. The long-range missiles are still operational. So are the shahads and so forth. And as we know, and you know better than me, it's got absolute control over the Straits of Hormuz. And the consequence of that is that you've actually emboldened this regime. In fact, I'd argue the regime's worse because you've got the IRCG now taking on power in Iran as well. The sadness is the Iranian people that were told, promised, get ready to rise up against their own regime. And they've now been massacred on a scale. Thousands have been killed because of what's actually happened. So this has not gone well. It's had consequences in America to the oil, gas prices and so forth, but also to Trump's political stock. But he's not going to change. And I fear Cuba. Cuba will be the next place that will be on his target list. Okay.
Speaker 1: I mean, actually, before we get to Gaza, I should just say I've got a sneak copy of that book you've just written. Do you want to tell me about it? And you say in the book, nukes deter invasions. So based on what your book says, clearly Iran should have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 0: Well, in my respect, that's exactly why. you've got a country such as Iran wanting nuclear weapons in order to provide that deterrence itself. But you only go down that road if you think there's a threat from somewhere else. Well, there is. The U.S. Exactly. And the same way with Ukraine, you add nuclear weapons that are now wanting to very much pursue or return to being a nuclear power in order to push back Putin and what Russia is doing. But I think you've summarized rather simply what I've written. What's fallen away are any sense of treaties and so forth that actually control this environment and have faith in our global order, which then encourages individual nations to then pursue nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the role that the British played in what Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia calls the genocide in Gaza?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm very saddened that, again, where this has rolled out, Donald Trump has pursued An agenda along with... Well, it's Joe Biden. It was Joe Biden events. Explain that. The genocide in Gaza. Yes, I mean, over a long period of time, you can absolutely say that it's not just Joe Biden, but the West itself has turned a blind eye, not being able to stand up to Israel, Netanyahu, but also to pursue a pragmatic solution that takes us more to a two-state place. And that, I fear, when you go to Israel now and the carving up of the new settlements and so forth, it becomes another distant possibility simply because where the West Bank now is, and then you add Gaza to it, which has diminished in size too, and we are in a very dangerous place.
Speaker 1: But as defense minister, what do you think of, former defense minister, what do you think about RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus being used for that genocide?
Speaker 0: I think we were very careful, but it wasn't used for the genocide. It was actually used as part of understanding the intelligence that was being used to understand what Hamas was doing and to control the environment after that barbaric attack by Hamas. We can, I think, but I hear where you're coming from. I do believe Britain should have done far, far more in... advocating a clear strategy, a direction of travel, and standing up to Prime Minister Netanyahu and what he's done particularly in the post the 7th of October in where Gaza is going. There was an agreement that made it very clear Hamas should have no further role in the governance of Gaza, but they're clearly still in charge. And that means the whole prospect of getting any form of advance of the politics that will end the security becomes very, very difficult indeed.
Speaker 1: Would you end arms to Israel, British arms to Israel, if you were defense minister?
Speaker 0: I don't think anything can be done without the Americans on board as well. But it has to be used as a tool to influence what Israel is doing. From my perspective, I should distinguish between Israel and the prime minister, by the way. I made this really, really clear because many of us advocate and 100% support Israel's right to exist. This is a difficult neighborhood. This is a democracy. But what Netanyahu has done in promoting war for the sake of war not just in Gaza, but also in Lebanon as well, has been deeply unhelpful and has actually moved us into a more insecure place. The one country that can stand up to this, of course, is Donald Trump. I was amazed when he actually came out with a comment to say, when you're going after Hezbollah, you don't need to take out the entire block of flats to remove one person.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it took Trump to say that. And of course, it's considered an apartheid state by most people in the world. So... Yeah. I'm not sure whether you're saying yes or no to British films.
Speaker 0: But I will say that obviously... I'm saying Britain on its own, simply saying something, would be just done from a symbolic perspective. If you want to influence... Well, Spain did, for instance, and Ireland did. Yeah. Well, again, Ireland doing this, Ireland can then pat themselves on the back and say, this is where we are. If you actually want to affect behavior on the ground, then it's not making grand statements, is that behind the discussions, the back channels, the conversations we should be having with America to say you need to influence, you're the one country that can influence what Netanyahu is doing, get on with it. Because where this is going is actually dangerous for not just the Middle East, but the wider region.
Speaker 1: Tobias Elwood, I'll stop you there. More from the former UK Defence Minister after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former chair of the UK Defense Committee and former UK Minister for the Middle East, Lieutenant Colonel, the Right Honorable Tobias Elwood. We were speaking about how nuclear weapons work within the calculus of geopolitics. I'm going to ask you about Gaza. I mean, clearly in the headlines here in the Middle East every day of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, it hasn't stopped despite the ceasefire. What do you think of... say how the UAE doesn't seem to respect your opinion about Russia as a pariah nation. I mean, Vladimir Putin, who I should say, a U.S. National Endowment for Democracy poll said the recent polls show him at 79% support by the Russian people. What do you make of the fact that MBZ was in Moscow recently in January, a state visit, and the UAE explicitly calls Russia a strategic partner? not a trade partner.
Speaker 0: I think it's a reflection of, again, of how fragmented our global order is, is that leaders are choosing alliances which are suitable for the moment. and working behind the scenes to create strength to survive, in fact. And the fact that you've got Putin being able to court leaders in this way shows an absence of clarity as to what the Middle East stands for, what the West stands for as well. Everybody is looking to see which way the wind blows. terms. And if Putin looks like he's on the up, that he's surviving, that China has got his back, then you will see what we would assume to be our own allies courting these individuals. They have assets from minerals to energy supplies in order for even countries like Saudi Arabia, to survive and thrive. And that is the Celtic world, I'm afraid, that we've now entered. But is it actually chaos? I wrote this book to make it very, very clear just how alliances are very different as to what they were before. People are being very, I think, more... cleverer, if you like, about choosing who they're going to operate with. And it could be on a very, very short-term basis indeed.
Speaker 1: But is it actually that chaotic? Or is Western Europe, and I delineated the unpopularity of their leaders in Western Europe, as contrasted with, say, Vladimir Putin, is it not chaotic at all? Is it just Western Europe that is now isolated in the whole of the world? Something that may really be highlighted by the BRICS summit coming up in Delhi this when Iran, Russia, China, let alone Brazil and India, will all be talking on the UAE. It's just Western Europe, isn't it, that are fighting this war through Ukraine against Russia?
Speaker 0: I wouldn't agree with that. But you do highlight the fact that there is a risk averseness of the West in dealing with this. We should have put out the fire in Ukraine earlier. some time ago, but there are these relationships, these alliances of convenience. You're right, the BRICS is advancing, challenging the G7 in the same way that the Shanghai Corporation Organization and the One Belt, One Road is challenging the United Nations Security Council and indeed the World Trade Organization. There is a rival global order being pursued by China, supported by Russia, and that goes to the heart of the book that you very kindly touched on that I didn't focus on. Our world is splintering into two, and countries are forced to look one way or another, or race bets, or try and play both sides. And in many cases, they can't. They're going to have to choose. Do I continue using the dollar as the second currency, or do I have to lean on the RMB? Do I choose GPS, or do I have to move over to the beta? Do I lean into doing trade with China and Belt and Road, or can I stick with the West? And that, for me, is the slide to a very, very dangerous place, which without necessary off-ramps and redesigning our global order, you could easily lead to I'm afraid, the splintering into East-West and the Global South, as I say, being torn as to which way they face.
Speaker 1: Do you think the United States has made its position clear? I mean, Trump said in a tweet famously that Zelensky was a dictator without elections, that in Ukrainian polls, the only thing he was good at was playing Biden like a fiddle. And that basically, I mean, we saw just recently terror attacks in Monaco. that French reports suggest are coming from the Ukrainian secret services. Why is Britain supporting Ukraine?
Speaker 0: Well, very, very clear. You have a dictator that's invaded another country in Europe. Look, I just said Trump said Zelensky is a dictator because obviously he's... You asked me the question as to why we are supporting Ukraine. I'll come on to what Trump is doing. Putin is clearly not a dictator, is he? He's elected. I'm afraid he's elected, but the votes are rigged. There isn't an opposition anymore. They've been removed. Many of them have been thrown out of windows.
Speaker 1: But it's the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy that says he has 79% approval rating. At the moment, it's gone down a bit.
Speaker 0: We're going to fundamentally disagree on this. Putin, I'm afraid from the Western perspective, is not seen as a democratic leader in the true Western sense. I'm sorry, but there is not an opposition party that can actually stand up. There's a huge opposition party.
Speaker 1: The Communist Party came second in the elections. And some are saying that Putin is...
Speaker 0: I'm sorry you're speaking this way because you're actually playing in to the Putin... What do you make of the opposition?
Speaker 1: What do you make of the main opposition in Russia, which claims that Putin is a weak leader and that now is the time to ramp up the firepower against the NATO nations that are arming Ukraine?
Speaker 0: And to make it clear... Because the first part of that sentence suggests... and absolutely appeases people like you to say, look, we've got an opposition. And the second bit plays exactly into what Putin wants to say. Let's just move back to the bigger picture, which is far more important. You've got a nation, whether you call him the leader dictator or not, that's invaded another country. Now, there's two things that you can do. You could roll over and have your tummy tickled and then just accept it and say, well, it's a strong country. We do nothing about it. Or you can stand up to that bully. This is 1937 politics. all over again, I'm afraid. And I'm sorry that you speak the way that you do, because from a European perspective, Russia would not stop with Ukraine if it could succeed in taking Ukraine. It would march further. Putin's absolute strategy to break up NATO, to make sure that the West is fragmented, and to expand Putin's influence one way or another, whether it's by actual territorial gain or simply by economic influence across the Eastern Europe. And that has significant impact on European security. So why are we standing up for Ukraine? It's very, very clear. The war would not stop there if we didn't.
Speaker 1: Okay, on that point, on that point, on that specific point, I mean, I should say there's no evidence for a lot of what you were saying there. On that specific point, the debate in Britain is specifically about a defence budget not being good enough to defend Britain until 2030. So based on what you just said, Does that mean that the Russians should invade now because Britain is so weak? I mean, if you want us to believe what you just said just now, obviously the British Army, what, military spending of Britain is around $90 billion. Russia's is $190 billion. They have 1,500 tanks. There's plans for Britain's tanks at 140 billion. inadequate numbers of shells in Britain, unpublished, 7 million shells Russia has. Now's the time for Russia to invade Britain.
Speaker 0: No, that's daft. I'm sorry, we need to raise the level of this debate. Really, we really do. No, no, but I don't know this. Let me make my point. You said Russia wants to attack Western Europe. No, Eastern Europe and go beyond Ukraine. OK, make it very, very clear. Russia is already at war with Britain, but not in the way that you describe. OK, firstly, the 150 tanks, we don't have enough. But that's why we're part of NATO, because collectively we are stronger than Russia if we have the political will. But Russia every day is attacking Britain through cyber attacks. We had one against Lander and Jaguar. It costs that company over a billion pounds. Every day, our undersea cables are under threat. There's no public evidence of that. Why not have dialogue with Russia? Please come to Britain, and I'll be glad to show you the evidence as to what's going on. But why not? Why is Britain to economically harm us and so political discord? It's different to the conventional warfare that you're trying to steer the conversation around. But Britain is attacking Russia. And that's why warfare is changed.
Speaker 1: Britain is attacking Russia through Ukraine. So you'd expect Russia to respond.
Speaker 0: In fact, a lot of critics of Putin say... Are you saying that's wrong? Are you saying that's wrong that we don't support a country that has been in... No, I'm saying expect retaliation.
Speaker 1: I'm saying expect retaliation if you fund drones and if MI6 is on the ground being used to attack Russia, Russian Federation loan. Obviously, retaliation is to be expected. Yeah, but you're now making my point. But why not have dialogue? Why is there a lack of dialogue between London and Moscow? There's clearly dialogue between Washington and Moscow and Beijing and Moscow and every other part. What is wrong with Western Europe in that there's no dialogue between Western European capitals and Moscow?
Speaker 0: Because for the moment, Where would dialogue lead you? It would lead you to some form of appeasement with Russia to say you can have a fifth of Ukraine and giving space for Putin to rearm, regroup, and advance its mission. And that's the danger that we face. And I'm really saddened, I have to say, to hear that you somehow advocate that we should agree in some form to what Putin is trying to achieve. You're right to point to the fact that Donald Trump has washed his hands of this and is taking no responsibility to support our global order. He's making deals with
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously Putin says he is trying to achieve the safety of the people of the Donbass. We can't litigate over the origins of the war. The Donbass is his country.
Speaker 0: That's not his country. That's not his country. So in the same way...
Speaker 1: But then you see no parallel then between British invasions with Iraq, of Libya, involvement in Syria, in Afghanistan, in all these different countries. and what Russia is doing, if you accepted your view that Russia has invaded the Donbass?
Speaker 0: No, I would question, and I would have to take each one of those individually, I would question the value of what we did in every one of those places. In many situations, we've made the country worse. We've taken it into a worse place. Some people do justify what happened in Afghanistan, but again, in the same spirit of what happened in Vietnam, or indeed in Iran, There was no strategic plan, no political direction of travel as to where things would go. But Putin has a strategic plan. Under the Taliban, did allow an attack on the United States, and therefore there was retaliation. But then where do you go after that? It got into a complete mess. So I don't dispute... the fact that the West's track record on this is not good. That doesn't justify, though, in any sense, the Putin charging into Ukraine. And I'm sorry you can't tell me, you know, you can't say those words, Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I'm just interviewing.
Speaker 0: I'm just interviewing. I don't have to take... But if you did say it, then I was... It's a line of questioning. I'm not working in Britain. You sound like you're on the... Sorry to say this, but you sound like you're on the payroll for the Kremlin. And that is very worrying indeed.
Speaker 1: Well, Tobias Elwood, thank you. Thank you. Lieutenant Colonel Tobias Elwood, we'll have to continue the debate on a future going underground. That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new show. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel, GoingUndergroundTV on Rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m bringing a SPECIAL 4th of July Independence Day episode of Going Underground with Dennis Kucinich. He slams the integration of US and Israeli militaries, arguing it increases the risk of war. We ask if the US-Iran MoU is already dead, what this poses to America’s national security, and how the working classes fare as more money is spent on war abroad.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
SPECIAL EPISODE: 4th of July US🇺🇸 Independence Day Edition of Going Underground Dennis Kucinich SLAMS Integration of US & Israeli Military, Says it INCREASES RISK OF WAR Is the US-Iran MoU already dead? What threat does the integration of the US and Israeli military pose for America’s national security? What is the state of the working classes in the US as more money is spent on war abroad? All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with @Dennis_Kucinich, veteran Congressman and former Mayor of Cleveland, Ohio.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Rattansi, broadcasting from the UAE, marks the U.S. 250th anniversary of independence and argues that the United States, once resisting British rule, has become an expansive empire through military power—maintaining over 800 bases and spending trillions on wars—while facing severe national debt and domestic hardship, including reliance on food stamps. He frames U.S. politics as shaped by special interests and describes American foreign policy under a neoconservative approach as producing mass killing and chaos across multiple conflicts, culminating in what he calls a catastrophic failure against Iran. He then brings in veteran U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich from Cleveland, Ohio.
Kucinich says he celebrates July 4th for the founding principles tied to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and contrasts that ideal with “where we are now.” On war powers, he argues Congress should “cut off funds” to stop wars, noting Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war, and saying Congress is not ready to do that. Rattansi links this to impeachment, raising reports of Donald Trump’s personal enrichment and stating polls suggest many Americans want impeachment. Kucinich argues Democrats will not aim to remove Trump because impeachment is not guaranteed to succeed without a two-thirds Senate vote and because Democrats would rather keep Trump as an opponent than confront J.D. Vance as president, predicting that partisan politics will prevent impeachment.
Rattansi then asks about a National Defense Authorization Act-related integration of U.S. and Israeli militaries. Kucinich reacts that while America is sovereign, integrating another nation’s military creates a merger that increases the risk of war and does not serve American interests. He says the proposal grants Israel access to an entire $1.5 trillion annual U.S. defense budget through top-level direction of assets and resources, calling it against U.S. interests and unconstitutional. He adds that the issue is delayed and will be revisited after House procedural changes, and he cites concerns including Israel’s record and arrest warrants discussed via the International Criminal Court. He rejects the idea of operating U.S. military with Israel as a matter of interest.
Rattansi contrasts Washington’s opposition to permanent alliances with claims from Mike Huckabee linking Israel to America’s existence, and Kucinich says the U.S. should prioritize its own destiny and interests without “foreign entanglements.” He argues Israel-driven guidance of U.S. resources pushes the country away from the founders’ warnings and says Israel was instrumental in pushing Trump toward attacking Iran with disastrous effects, which he says he opposed vocally. On Netanyahu as “George III”-like influence, Kucinich reiterates that the journey from independence from Great Britain should not end in “thrall” to another country, and he argues joint military arrangements violate constitutional requirements for commander-in-chief control and treaty-related Senate processes.
Rattansi asks whether J.D. Vance’s remarks align with this idea, and Kucinich cites Vance as aiming to end the Iran war while arguing Vance is attacked by neoconservatives. He describes Trump as “betwixt and between,” with Israeli interests prevailing alongside a desire to resolve the conflict, and he attributes Trump’s actions to political and economic pressures (oil, gas, inflation, and Republican fortunes). He also raises that Democrats remain hardwired on Russia-related escalation, and contrasts this with his hope for de-escalation.
On reports that Trump told Zelensky “fire on Moscow,” Kucinich says he would not base foreign policy on offhand remarks, while suggesting possible motives tied to pulling Europe deeper into conflict. He says the U.S. should de-escalate in Ukraine, counseling England, France, and Germany not to prepare attacks on Russia, emphasizing the risk of a wider war. He argues an Iran-related memorandum of understanding lacks validity because its terms have been nullified and because steps such as unfreezing funds are not happening. He frames diplomacy as requiring readiness to use force when a “gun” is put on the table, and says he rejects that approach, advocating human unity and peace.
Kucinich rejects the idea that Iran, Russia, or other countries are weak, describing resilience and criticizing Western media for not going deep into events that might evoke sympathy. He links broader conflict dynamics to U.S. financial fragility, mentioning bond-market fragility, heavy debt, and the lack of “endless resources,” and he argues Trump does not want to accelerate conflicts between Russia and Ukraine. He also suggests Europe’s dependence increases when it is pressured to spend more.
Finally, Kucinich assesses the American working class, citing rising housing costs, real inflation, educational loans, student rebellion, shifts within the Democratic Party, and political toppling of mainstream Democrats on economic and Israel-related issues. He says people’s savings are exhausted, 401(k)s face risk due to market games, and Social Security is discussed as something that could be cut. He concludes that war is a “loser,” arguing only arms-makers profit while everyone else loses.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshin Rattansi. Welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE. Today, some Americans will wave their flags and fire up the barbecues for the 250th anniversary of their independence from Britain. The republic that defeated British tyranny has become a globe-spanning empire in its own right. Over 800 military bases and trillions squandered on endless wars, while it sinks deeper into a national debt nearing $40 trillion, with $42 million at home relying on food stamps to afford to eat. This is the so-called land of the free, where the government has been bought and paid for by special interests, above all the pro-Israel lobby that writes the checks, vets the candidates, and polices what constitutes acceptable speech. The neoconservative foreign policy of American exceptionalism has delivered nothing but mass killing and chaos across Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Palestine. And this July the 4th, especially pertinent in its roll call of military defeats since Korea, is its catastrophic failure against Iran. Today Iran begins funeral ceremonies for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, killed with members of his family by Trump on the opening day of the U.S.-Israeli strikes that slaughtered thousands of civilians, including more than 100 schoolchildren in Minab. Iran's devastating retaliation and the costs inflicted on Washington have exposed the limits of American power and to some signal the beginning of the end of U.S. empire. Joining me again from Cleveland, Ohio, is veteran U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who has spent his entire political career, including two presidential runs, exposing and confronting the military-industrial complex. Thank you so much, Dennis. Happy July the 4th. for coming back on Going Underground. Let's get straight to the war powers legislation failing in Congress to stop the wars on Iran. How would you characterize this 250th birthday of the United States, along with the warnings of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, John Quincy Adams? I have a whole list here, but you probably know them by heart.
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, happy 4th of July. And I celebrate it because of my connection with those four founding principles that guarantee life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that connect us with a dream of real independence, where people have their liberties protected. That's the America that I not just identify with, but I fight for. It's not where we are now, as you recognize. Now, let's get to the War Powers Act. Frankly, what I would do is just cut off funds. Because you could argue about whether the president is going to be subject to what Congress wants in terms of Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution, which gives Congress the power to declare war. Bottom line is, cut off the funds. But they're not ready to do that.
Speaker 0: Think about that. Yeah, that kind of neatly leads me into the articles of impeachment. I mean, on this show, I think I've said it, that after the midterms, one would, especially if the Senate, actually only if the Senate goes Democrat, in the midterms, Trump would be impeached. You brought 35 articles of impeachment against Bush when you were in Congress in 2008, let alone your impeachment articles against Dick Cheney. But I mean... Surely, I mean, there's now information coming out about personal enrichment of Donald Trump. You, though, say that Democrats don't want impeachment of Trump for their own partisan political reasons.
Speaker 1: Well, Trump is, at this point, is the Democrats' ticket to taking the White House in 2028, or so many Democrats think. And so if he is impeached and removed... And it's not guaranteed he'd be removed because the Senate, you need two-thirds vote. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that happens, then J.D. Vance becomes president. And he's much tougher to defeat if he becomes president as opposed to being a Republican candidate. So I think the Democrats are going to continue to attack Trump and, you know, for all the reasons that... We're familiar. And at the same time, I doubt very seriously that they'll make an attempt to knock him out of office.
Speaker 0: Even though opinion polls show a majority of the American people, I know the American people get forgotten on this July 4th and beyond and before it. Even the majority of the American people, even though they want him impeached, that doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: Then I have a vote. Let's get real. I mean, this is a... This is a... constitutional process where the House of Representatives has to vote articles of impeachment that are similar to an indictment and where the trial is held in the Senate and you need two-thirds votes to convict on any single article and then the president is removed. I don't think that's going to happen. I think, and the reason why it won't happen is partisan politics because the Democrats would much rather hold Trump out there as a a person to attack than to have to confront J.D. Vance, who might be a lot tougher to go after as president.
Speaker 0: So axiomatic in that is that Trump is hated by the American people. You have to come on this autumn then, around the midterms, and we can argue about that. But while all of that may be in the background, a congressman paid up by Israel, busy on the National Defense Authorization Act, not quite in time for today's Independence Day. integration of the U.S. military with the military of Israel's. What was your reaction when you heard about this?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, there's a couple of things. First of all, America is a sovereign nation still. And if we bring another nation into, we integrate that nation into our military, and it basically is being operated by both countries at the highest level of of technology, you've created a merger. That merger does not serve the interests of the American people. It increases the risk of war. We know full well that Israel has embarked on a Zionist project of expansionism, which on the map includes Turkey and Egypt, as well as the areas that are now under attack. People talk about the United States giving $4 billion a year for Israel's military. Well, with this proposal, Israel would have access to the entire $1.5 trillion annual budget of the United States in terms of being in a position to direct assets and resources at the top level. It really is against the interest of the United States, and frankly, it's unconstitutional. Now, you know, what's a constitution among friends, right? So if this issue passes, and it's been delayed right now because of some broilings in the House of Representatives over the inclusion of still another bill with the National Defense Authorization Act, you know, this is almost too much information, but the rule went down, which enables a bill to go to the floor The rule went down. The Speaker sent everyone home. In a couple weeks, the House will revisit this issue. But it is an active issue. It is a great concern. And given Israel's record and the fact that there are arrest warrants at the International Criminal Court for some of their leaders, and supposedly others will be issued for other of their leaders, And the IDF has shown a level of cruelty that has not been seen since World War II with respect to the activities of Nazi Germany that were committed against the Jews, which is astonishing when you think about it.
Speaker 0: So, yeah, should we be operating our military with them?
Speaker 1: No, not at all. It's not in their interest.
Speaker 0: Yeah, in fairness, on the ICC, there's also an act, of course, that enables the United States to invade Holland militarily if they indict an American citizen. So I'm not sure how the ICC is that important. But I mean, let's just go to the July 4th quotes that I mentioned earlier. George Washington, it's our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. 1796 in his farewell address. But on the other hand, We have your present ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, saying without Israel, without the Jewish foundation, there would not be America. So think about that on July the 4th. What do you make about the fact that Mike Huckabee is saying things like that and said, are you not aware that our founders wanted to put as the seal of America the parting of the Red Sea?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I know Ambassador Huckabee very well. And there's a lot about him that I like as a person. But he and he's not the only one. And others in the U.S. government have such a fierce dedication to Israel. And, you know, that would be fine except for one thing. Our first concern must always be the United States of America. You want to help another country, have sympathy for another country? That's one thing. But to... direct our resources to have our policy guided by that other country goes right back to what you quoted George Washington saying. And it goes back to others who said, beware foreign entanglements. You know, the United States must pursue its own destiny and its own interests absent from having visible or invisible hands. They're trying to push it in the direction of more war. We know that Israel was instrumental in pushing President Trump into attacking Iran to disastrous effect. So it's not in our interest to do that. Not at all. And I've vocally opposed it.
Speaker 0: And we'll continue to do that. I mean, does it... Does it shock you? You've always campaigned about campaign finance reform. So this is different to Eisenhower's military-industrial complex. This is Netanyahu as George III, basically. I mean, Israel is in that much control over U.S. foreign policy.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it's an interesting parallel that you've raised here. Because our Declaration of Independence, which we celebrate today, July the 4th, was a declaration of independence from Great Britain. And it's my belief that we haven't traveled 250 years in this long journey to end up in this thrall of another country, in this case Israel. And if it was any other country, frankly, if they wanted a joint, wanted a merger of with any other country, France, Germany, the UK, on and on and on. I would oppose it because this has to do with our Constitution, where the commander-in-chief has to have total control over the military. It has to do with our Constitution, where the Senate has to... There's a treaty process. This is done by... And the Senate... plays a role in it, in going over a treaty. What they've done is create a treaty-like situation, put it in legislation. Can't do that. It's unconstitutional. So, yeah, I mean, this is really a danger constitutionally. It's a danger militarily. It's a danger for national security. It's a danger for our sovereignty. It is a danger.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I mean, the entangling alliances with none, Jefferson, in the inaugural address, I think, 1801 is what you were referring to there. But do you think, in a way, you heard reflections of that in comments by J.D. Vance, who sent out onto Podia to explain the war on Iran to the American people when he said, just because something's good for Israel doesn't mean it's good for the United States.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a reductionism that I think we can go along with. And this is why Vance could prove to be very formidable in 2028, because keep in mind that while I hope that matters will be settled with Iran and we get out of this war, which is a nightmare, and I just want to say while I'm on this program that how heartbroken I was and continue to be over what happened on February 28th to those children who were in the school in Manab in Iran and who were killed by these missile attacks. That is a stain on our country's conscience that still needs to be reckoned with. And the deaths of the other leaders in Iran. This war has to end, but... Vance is trying to do what he can, apparently, to try to end it. He's coming under attack from the neoconservative wing.
Speaker 0: It's not that Vance will rule by any means. We'll return to this in part two. I'll just stop you there. More from the veteran U.S. congressman and former presidential candidate after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with veteran U.S. Congressman and former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Dennis, I interrupted you in part one when you were talking about J.D. Vance and the nuances of how he plays this catastrophic war against Iran.
Speaker 1: Well, Vance understands that it's imperative to bring this to an end. I think Trump does too, by the way. But Trump seems to... be betwixt and between. He's got Israeli interest prevailing on him. He wants it in the war because the price of oil goes up, the price of gas goes up, inflation goes up, and the fortunes of the Republican Party go down in November. So he sent Vance there to, even though the negotiations are not happening right now, but he sent Vance there on a mission to try to see if he could figure out a way to resolve this. On the other hand, you have Marco Rubio, who is, as Secretary of State, has been very clear about not just his support for Israel, but his determination to continue to push back against any concessions whatsoever to Iran. And I just want to make one other point. Maybe this can go and bring us into a broader discussion here geopolitically. And that is, I am astonished the degree to which among Democrats, the issue of Russia still exists. And it's pretty hardwired at this point in the party. So if the Democrats were to take the Congress or take the presidency in 2028, you still have this pull towards escalating You know, with Russia over Ukraine. I don't think Trump wants to do that, by the way. I'm sure he doesn't.
Speaker 0: What did you make of those remarks that were reported about Trump telling Zelensky, fire on Moscow, basically?
Speaker 1: Trump sends out dozens of tweets some days. And, you know, he's garrulous, I guess would be the word. He likes to talk. He likes to say things. And I would not bet my foreign policy on an offhanded remark by President Trump. On the other hand, he could have been saying that because he wants to cause Europe to get deeper enmeshed in the conflict so as to put itself from a very precarious position financially as well as militarily. And that could somehow work out to the advantage of the United States. We're at a level of politics here where what is unseen is more significant than what is seen. I'm hopeful that we can end this conflict in Iran, stop the war, no further escalation, end it, come to terms with Iran on one hand, and that we can play a role in winding down the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Speaker 0: On the practical concerns there, we were just talking about the NDAA. If Israel is in so much control, controls your Congress, and has people in his cabinet, his ambassador to the UN, his head of the CIA, has Rubio, the Secretary of State, do you think Iran is making a mistake in thinking this MOU has any validity whatsoever?
Speaker 1: Well, the MOU doesn't have any validity at this point because everything in it has been basically nullified. I mean, it's one thing to talk about it. The other thing is, do you stand by it when you have to make a move and say, okay, here's our move. We're going to unfreeze your funds, for example. Here's some money as a good faith gesture. That's not happening. So, you know... Is Iran being weak? No, my gosh. I mean, Iran has experience with the United States and negotiations. And, you know, the U.S., directly or indirectly, has seen some of Iran's negotiators disappear, get murdered. Who did it? I don't know. But, you know, the fact that, you know, maybe Israel.
Speaker 0: Trump explicitly threatened to kill the ones for this MOU, just ahead of the Versailles signing.
Speaker 1: You know, this is part of the nightmare of a transformation in diplomacy. from actually people talking to each other or just putting a gun on the table and say, let's talk. I think when you put that gun on the table, you have to be prepared to use it. And it's been used too many times in our approach in the United States to dealing with other nations. And it's an approach that I totally reject because we have failed to advance the science of human relations here. And I'm not talking theoretically. When you travel the world and you meet with people, People are so much alike the world over. Yes, we have different nationalities and religions and customs and languages, but there's still a possibility of human unity and some basic issues that relate to peace. And we're not seeing that right now. And that's one of the reasons why I ran for president twice before, because I see another possibility in a world where war does not become a constant factor, where we achieve strength through peace, not peace through strength of a $1.5 trillion annual military budget.
Speaker 0: But it may be unethical, but at least this July 4th, there is some transparency there. And that automatically creates questions like, are Iran and Russia, let alone China, being weak, given the gangsterism of the United States foreign policy is on open display?
Speaker 1: No, no, no. I mean, you know, today... Iran's proven that it has resilience. Russia has demonstrated resilience and patience. I mean, you know, I mentioned Anab a moment ago. You know, think of Stalabilsk in Luhansk province, where those students at the dormitory were killed in that drone strike. It's horrible. I mean, it's a tragedy for the world, not just, you know, for the people in the Oblast. And for Russia. Is there reporting of it in the United States?
Speaker 0: Any reporting of it? Civilians being killed by American weapons in Russia?
Speaker 1: Let's face it. Let's face it. The Western media generally is not going very deep into anything that might evoke sympathy for Iran or Russia or any other country. I mean, this is part of an agenda, which I reject, and I feel very strongly about. that the U.S. must, and the Trump administration has an opportunity here, to play a role in de-escalating the situation in Ukraine, not in escalating it, and in counseling England, France, and Great Britain, France, and Germany. Don't go thinking about an attack. And even, let me just state this, Afshin, if you look at the If I was sitting as an official in the Kremlin and I looked at what was happening in Europe right now, where these dark discussions about preparing for an attack on Russia, preparing for war on Russia, you know, I'd be thinking, well, maybe this is time to play the Slovakia card, you know, and looking at that gap there. you know, along the border in the Baltics. You know, we have to be careful that we are not instrumental in triggering a wider war. And it could happen. And that's why I counsel repeatedly diplomacy, de-escalation, find a way to resolve these differences without escalating a war that, let's face it, always has the potential to spin out of control.
Speaker 0: It could have happened by the time this is being broadcast on July the 4th. There have been reports of opposition to Vladimir Putin in his own country for being not as responsive to the terror attacks on Russia. I mean, you seem to be suggesting that Trump himself doesn't want to go to war himself. with Russia, but then those people around him, what do you think Marco Rubio wants to do and John Ratcliffe and other members of his cabinet? You, of course, were chief of staff to RFK Jr. I know he's the health secretary. Presumably, he wouldn't want a full-scale war with Russia.
Speaker 1: Well, as his campaign manager, I always advocated for peace and for peaceful relations. That doesn't mean you're just going to put your chin forward and ask somebody to hit you, but In this case, I don't think Donald Trump wants to be instrumental in stirring up...
Speaker 0: Even if it's a pivot from Iran, the failure and the defeat in Iran, would that not be a pivot?
Speaker 1: Look, the U.S. bond market right now is very fragile. People are moving money out of U.S. investments. there's a danger. The U.S. is not in great financial shape. You mentioned a $40 trillion budget deficit, or $40 trillion in debt, national debt. We don't have endless resources here. I mean, if you look at, there's a lot of similarities between conditions in Russia and the United States, for example. You know, people worry about economic instability, the cost of living, the You know, what the war costs, the U.S. is already in, the Iraq war could run up a trillion dollars in total costs. People here worry about their personal safety. You know, we're worried about our constitution, the digital infrastructure that may compromise our privacy and our, you know, these are things that are common in nations. I don't think that Donald Trump wants to accelerate a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Now, it doesn't mean that he has a soft spot in his heart for Europe. As we know, one of the first things that J.D. Vance did when he became vice president was lecture the European community on what he saw was its weakness. And they've been coaxing them to spend more money on defense, but that actually makes them more reliant on the United States and not less reliant. So there's economic factors here. Bottom line, though, I do not believe that Trump has any interest in moving forward with assisting Europe. And Europe, by the way, right now, land, air, sea, access to ordinance, organization, coalescing, they're not that strong.
Speaker 0: No, it's being enabled by the United States and Trump, which is the point. Let's just finally and very briefly, since it is July 4th, just tell me your assessment of the condition of the American working classes amidst all of this? They must be bombarded by your media, as you implied earlier, Paramount, Skydance, CNN, CBS, massive mergers of your propaganda networks. What is the condition this July for the American working classes to gain that peaceful world you want?
Speaker 1: The cost of housing has gone up. Inflation has taken a real hold. People have massive educational loans. Young people are rebelling on that. There's shifts going on in the Democratic Party. Because of that, people are toppling mainstream Democratic figures in congressional elections on economic issues and also on the issue of Israel. Americans are concerned. They're concerned about the future. People's savings have been exhausted. Their 401ks are sometimes at risk because of games in the marketplace. Social Security is always being bandied about as something they could cut resources. I mean, see, these are people throughout the world have economic concerns. America is no different. That's why we cannot keep going into war. War is a loser. The only people who make money in war are the people who make the weapons. Everyone else loses. Dennis Kucinich, happy July 4th.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Sure. That's it for this show. Condolences, of course, to all those of you bereaved or affected by Washington's wars of aggression. We're back on Monday to ask Britain's former defense minister why he thinks a UK that just lost its prime minister over Jeffrey Epstein can defeat Britain. the Russian Federation. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media. If it's not sense 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’m sharing the new episode of Going Underground where Max Blumenthal explains why Trump’s MoU with Iran will fail, how Israel plans to sabotage it, what Israel will do next after a failed war, and how liberal NGOs helped set up the US-Israeli war on Iran.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Max Blumenthal Reveals Why Trump’s MoU with Iran Will FAIL and What Israel Will Do Next He tells us: -How Israel plans to sabotage the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding -What are Israel’s next moves after the failed war on Iran -How the liberal NGO class laid the groundwork for the US-Israeli war on Iran All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with @MaxBlumenthal, Editor in Chief of The Grayzone
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Ratansi opens by saying J.D. Vance recently met Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi in Switzerland after what he describes as “capitulation” in the Trump-Netanyahu war in Iran, ahead of additional treaties signed in Versailles. Ratansi also says Israel continues to violate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with continued civilian slaughter in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, while other NATO nations allegedly continue funding the war on Russia through Ukraine. He frames Trump and Netanyahu as facing political jeopardy ahead of U.S. midterms and October quasi-elections on occupied land.
Max Blumenthal responds to incoming Mossad chief Roman Goffman, discussing David Barnea’s prior stance that Israel will destroy Iran’s governance regardless of the MOU. Blumenthal describes what he calls Barnea’s failure: Kurdish groups allegedly backed by the U.S. (Komale and PJAK) under U.S. air cover to invade Iran and spark a mass uprising along ethnic lines, which he says went nowhere because the Kurdish groups could not advance without U.S. firepower and because U.S. firepower was described as brittle against Iran’s anti-aircraft capabilities. Blumenthal says Iran allegedly obtained Russian technology that cut off Starlink, and he says Naftali Bennett, leading the Israeli opposition, complained that Netanyahu eliminated special intelligence programs to fund Starlink for potential regime-change “chaos agents,” while Bennett pushed for more Starlink. He says Israel cannot act without U.S. firepower and the U.S. would not commit the men and material needed to break Iran’s deterrence. Blumenthal adds that he expects further efforts resembling the same approach, and says any attempt to unravel the MOU or the deal would focus on Lebanon—where he says the Lebanon “file” is mentioned multiple times in the MOU—along with escalation there and targeting the United States through proxies such as AIPAC, paid influencers, or other means.
Ratansi then asks how liberal NGOs, media, and Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch could have “fertilized the field” for war growth, referencing protests inside Iran. Blumenthal ties the riots and subsequent war dynamics to what he calls the “liberal NGO class” and the Democratic Party, and he describes the timeline as beginning January 7–8 with protests in marketplaces that he says were transformed into violent regime-change riots. He describes large-scale killings, attacks on mosques, burning of government buildings, and police stations, and he says Amnesty International held protests in Europe calling for intervention or harsher sanctions. He claims Amnesty’s figures (including 40,000) were a hoax and attributes the numbers to monarchist elements tied to Reza Pahlavi, and says the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) narrative has parallels he links to Yugoslavia. Blumenthal says outside intelligence forces guided the unrest, and he references alleged U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant claims that the U.S. manipulated Iranian currency to cause a currency crisis and fan the flames, which he says ultimately failed because the Iranian government defended itself. He further connects these events to a sequence of conflicts including a “12-day war” and an “Operation Epstein-Fury,” which he says began with the assassination of Iran’s leadership, including its Ayatollah on February 28. He argues Democrats and the Biden administration set conditions by supporting Israel’s escalation in southern Lebanon in October 2024 instead of pushing a ceasefire in Gaza, and he cites Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and Amos Hochstein. Blumenthal also says Amos Hochstein declared in a CNN interview that the Biden administration was preparing to support an assault on Iran, with the alleged issue being Trump’s execution.
Ratansi later asks whether capital forces and capitalism are a choke point. Blumenthal responds by arguing the MOU will fail and Iran could close maritime routes, including closing Bab al-Mandeb to affect commodities and energy prices. He says the U.S. cannot force outcomes because of an oligarchy and an “Israel lobby” exploiting campaign-finance openings, but that the Strait of Hormuz remains closed due to Iran’s deterrence doctrine. He also mentions Donald Trump firing the top Iran expert at the National Security Council after comments by Laura Loomer, and he says that expert warned that attacking Iran would lead to closing the Strait of Hormuz. Blumenthal claims the Zionist movement faces “hard rocks of reality” tied to capitalist classes sensing consequences through gas prices.
Blumenthal says the likely U.S. side effect is more repression of dissident movements, citing a 100-year sentence for anarchists involved in an incident outside an ICE facility in Texas and DHS designations. He says U.S. public mass protests are absent but that disgust with Trump and Israel has become a major election issue, with candidates campaigning against AIPAC and some AIPAC-sponsored figures losing primaries. He says Zionist lobbying is in “panic mode,” with remaining tools described as bombing, censorship, and criminalizing opponents.
He then discusses donors and leverage, saying Israel has proxies in Congress and that he believes Trump feels used and cannot find an exit ramp. He says JD Vance’s situation could be favorable because the American public wants the war to end but not Trump to be the one blamed. Blumenthal references claims about assassination plots allegedly used to push Trump toward authorizing Operation Epstein-Fury, describing alleged figures within FBI-linked plots and an alleged Pakistani national Asif Murshid. He adds another alleged attempt to frame Butler, Pennsylvania as an Iran-linked plot, and he describes Mike Waltz as a key figure he says tried to convince Trump Iran directed an attempted lone-wolf killing. He claims this framing involved pushes by figures including Benjamin Netanyahu and Nikki Haley.
Ratansi asks about prospects for a third party based on a new MAGA base including Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and others. Blumenthal says Tucker Carlson has said he is leaving the Republican Party and that a third party started by Carlson would likely kneecap a Vance successor, but that Tucker’s leverage over Vance could function as a restraint on future wars. He says other expelled Republican figures such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey could join a coalition, while on the left the DSA is making itself a faction within the Democratic Party and the Green Party is denied ballot access through mechanisms he links to the Democratic Party.
Finally, Ratansi asks whether Trump will pivot toward Ukraine or Russia. Blumenthal says Trump needs a win and might pivot to Cuba, and he says pivoting to Russia would be disastrous and increase chances of escalations, describing the national security state as addicted to war and using drone warfare learned through the Ukraine conflict as profitable and as a laboratory. He says if Trump pivots toward peace he would collide with that national security state. He ends by saying he thinks there is an increasing chance of a NATO state—probably in the Baltics—being attacked as a staging base for attacks on Russia and on Russian critical infrastructure.
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: I'm Afshin Ratansi. Welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world. From the UAE, a week since Trump's vice president, J.D. Vance, trudged to Switzerland to capitulate defeat in the Trump-Netanyahu war in Iran as he met with Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. All that before Trump signed the surrender in Versailles, where another treaty was signed yesterday. back in 1919. And all this as Israel continues to violate the so-called Memorandum of Understanding, continuing slaughter of civilians in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. The other nations of NATO, which didn't openly take part in the war in Iran, meanwhile, continue to pour their people's money into the war on Russia through Ukraine. As for beleaguered Trump, he's left to defend himself from the algae of the White House reflecting pool and the World Cup. The political careers of both him and Netanyahu are seen by some as over, ahead of midterms in the USA and quasi-elections on occupied land in October. Joining me again from Washington, D.C., is one of the world's greatest journalists. He's editor-in-chief of The Grey Zone, who co-produced and featured in the recent documentary Uncaptured Jews in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He's the best-selling author of The 51-Day War, Ruin and Resistance in Gaza, and The Management of Savagery. Max Blumenthal. Max, thanks so much for coming back on Going Underground. Let's get straight to the outgoing chief of Mossad, David Barnea. He said, regardless of the MOU, Israel will destroy Iran's governance. I'm not sure, destroy Iran's civilization. How can we expect his successor, Roman Goffman, to sabotage this memorandum of understanding?
Speaker 0: Well, Roman Goffman has pledged to hone the understanding various Iran cells that the Mossad set up, that Barnea set up in the Mossad and to build on what Barnea managed to do, which was a complete failure and one of actually the biggest botched intelligence operations of the year, if not in the last several years, which is to have Kurdish proxies who were poorly trained, poorly organized, Kurdish groups backed by the U.S. like Komale and PJAK to invade Iran under U.S. air cover and then instigate a mass uprising in which Iran would come apart at its ethnic seams. It was an absurd proposal. I remember it being announced basically through CNN and it went nowhere. I mean, these Kurdish groups can't advance. And they can't do anything without US firepower. And US firepower itself proved to be extremely brittle and susceptible to Iran's anti-aircraft ambush systems. So I don't know what they're going to try to do except more of the same, which begins with sponsoring regime change rioters. But how can they communicate with one another if they don't have Starlink, Naftali Bennett, who's leading the Israeli opposition? as a more genocidal opposition than Netanyahu has been as leader, complained that Netanyahu had eliminated special intelligence programs to fund Starlink for potential regime change chaos agents. And he had been pushing for more and more Starlink. So the problem was that Iran obtained Russian technology to cut Starlink off. So I don't really hear any new ideas from them, except- Invade Turkey? Well, that's next on the chopping block. But first, they have to get through Iran, and they haven't been able to do it. And the fact is, Israel cannot do anything without US firepower, and the US was not willing to commit the amount of men and material to do what Israel needed. They were completely unable to break Iran's deterrence, and they also proved susceptible to Iran's counterattack. So- But what's going on with the Mossad is certainly they're learning some lessons there. And they are actually golfmen. His rhetoric is all about justifying his bureaucratic priorities and his paycheck and getting money from the Israeli state and from us, their ultimate paymasters in the United States. It's not really about a real plan of action. And if there is anything they're going to do to unravel the MOU and the deal, it's going to be either targeting the resistance in the Lebanese population, the Shia population of Lebanon, because the Lebanon file, Iran refuses to close the Lebanon file. Lebanon is mentioned three times at the top of the MOU. So they're going to focus on Lebanon, continue to seek to escalate in Lebanon. And they're going to target us here in the United States, as we've seen through their various proxies, whether it's AIPAC or the influencers they pay, or through some other more nefarious means.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you mentioned the protests earlier on in what you just said. Everyone is saying, you know, Trump was wrong to bomb Iran. But all the liberal media, so-called liberal media in NATO nations, were full of coverage of those protests as if, I mean, as far as I understand it, the divide in Iran today is between those who support the memorandum of understanding and those who want a much tougher response to belligerence from NATO nations. But how do the NGOs like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the media themselves, how did they fertilize the field upon which this war grew?
Speaker 0: I mean, were it not for the liberal NGO class and the Democratic Party, Operation Epic Fury, or what I call Epstein Fury, would not have been possible. 40,000 killed, by the way, is the figure that was widely reported by the Iranian government. Well, I've seen it go up to 100,000. Soon, I imagine it could be at 6 million. But this all began on January 7th and 8th in... Iran, there were some protests in marketplaces, which were soon exploited and transformed into violent regime change riots in which hundreds of police officers, unarmed Basij guards were killed. Many bystanders were killed. Many mosques were openly bombed and set ablaze. Shia shrines across Iran, entire government buildings were burned, police stations. And all along, the liberal NGO class from the human rights industrial complex of Human Rights Watch, which is basically George Soros' pet project, or Amnesty International, were declaring that tens of thousands were being slaughtered and pushing the responsibility to protect doctrine, essentially calling for some kind of military response. Amnesty International held protests in Europe calling for some kind of intervention or at least harsher sanctions. This is what helped the Guardian and this shady character Deepa Parent, who we exposed as a former Indian fashion blogger who had never been to Iran, did not speak Farsi, was pushing the number of 40,000, which was a hoax number, 40,000 dead, concocted by monarchist elements close to the crown prince Reza Pahlavi, the self-proclaimed crown prince. And so they were pushing the same responsibility to protect narrative that we've seen going back to Yugoslavia. And they did not expect a war. I was saying all along that this was being guided by outside powerful foreign intelligence forces, including the Mossad. And the Mossad has since confirmed that they were actively on the ground Scott Besant, the US Treasury Secretary, has said that the US manipulated Iranian currency in order to cause a currency crisis and fan the flames of these riots. But they ultimately failed. The Iranian government and the Islamic Republic defended itself. And it saw the writing on the wall that this was a bridge between the 12-day war, June 2025, and Operation Epstein-Fury, which began with the assassination of the murder of Iran's leadership, including its Ayatollah on February 28th. I was saying that all along. I was saying it in appearances on Piers Morgan, where I was set up, sandwiched between five monarchist fanatics and a former Israeli war criminal. They set me up to sandbag me, but everything I said there proved right. And now we can look back at who is responsible for these phony numbers, for this entire R2P narrative. It was the liberal, NGO class. And then beyond that action, the Democrats, the Biden administration set the stage for this when they supported Israel's escalation in Lebanon, in southern Lebanon in October 2024, when they could have been pushing a ceasefire in Gaza. Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, and the envoy to Lebanon who was actually born in Israel and served in the IDF, Amos Hochstein, Loved what Israel was doing to Hezbollah so much at that time that they did not push for a ceasefire. And this is what led to the various true promise operations, allowing Israel to continue to escalate and funding it, providing it with all the bombs it needed. Amos Hochstein more recently in an interview, I believe with CNN this March, declared that actually the Biden administration was preparing to support an assault on Iran and But their problem was only with Trump's execution of the attack, the clumsy execution, not the attack itself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we'll get to the need for a third party in your country in a moment, perhaps. But you were in Iran shortly before these wars began. And would it be true to say that it's not just the powerful Iranian military, but it's the forces of capital themselves that that actually trump what you've called the Zionist logic. Ultimately, the effect of what Iran was doing was hurting capitalism. And that's the real choke point for any movement like Zionism that seeks to suppress human rights and human values.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I mean, right now, Brent Crude's at 75 a barrel. It's the dip. 75 should not be the dip. But yeah, if you're watching now, you probably want to buy the dip because we're right now in the midst of an unprecedented energy shock. I'm not a financial expert or financial genius. I'm not exactly breaking the bank here. But I think I can see the writing on the wall, which is that the MOU will fail for a variety of reasons. And I don't see the Strait of Hormuz necessarily coming open. Iran can always also go ahead and close the Bab al-Mandeb. which would massively affect international commodities and energy prices.
Speaker 1: Because the United States isn't powerful enough to take on the Israel lobby? I mean, surely there's a chance of peace.
Speaker 0: And Netanyahu could realize he's beaten. I mean, it's the brass tacks. We have a fake sort of inverted totalitarian system called oligarchy in the United States, which the Israel lobby is easily able to exploit. It exploits all these openings because campaign finance in the US is unregulated. So they can spend $30 million or $23 million against a single member of Congress in a sparsely populated suburban and rural district in Kentucky, referring to Thomas Massey. What they can't get open is the Strait of Hormuz because Iran's deterrence doctrine is wise. And they had prepared for this for decades with fastboats, with mobile mines, with drones, very cheap drones. Of course, we know about Iran's ballistic missiles. But they understood that the U.S. could destroy its conventional navy and that they could still prevent shipping from getting through. And so the U.S. and Israel had not prepared for that. In fact, the Trump administration fired the top Iran expert at the National Security Council Because Laura Loomer, the demented MAGA influencer, described him as disloyal to Donald Trump. He was the senior most figure in the NSC warning that if Iran were attacked, the first thing it would do is close the Strait of Hormuz. So now the Zionist movement and lobby that is responsible for this war through think tanks, like the Foundation for the Destruction of Democracies, I mean, the Defense of Democracies, they are running up against the hard rocks of reality. And it's a cold, hard reality that the capitalist class actually can perceive and which the working class experiences through staggering gas prices, which make it hard for them to get to work or drive their Ubers. And the only group in the world that exists outside this reality are Zionists who are willing to see more schoolgirls slaughtered and to send the global economy spiraling and to cause an energy shock like we haven't seen for decades in order to defend their psychotic little apartheid project in occupied Palestine.
Speaker 1: Max Momentola, I'll stop you there. More from the editor of The Grey Zone after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the editor of The Gray Zone, Max Blumenthal. Max, at the end of part one, you were implying the power of America's working classes, actually, in terms of their power over the Zionist project and the Israel lobby, because they found inflation intolerable because of the straightforwardness. Are we going to see a resurgent American working class as another side effect of this Epstein war?
Speaker 0: I think we might. I think we're more likely to see more repression. of dissident movements in the United States. That's what this 100-year sentence for anarchists who attempted some havoc outside an ICE facility in Texas signals. That's what the Department of Homeland Security's designation of anti-capitalist as terrorists signals. The entire invocation of the term narco-terrorist to imply anyone across the Americas who opposes U.S. hegemony really is an indication of the fear within the Trump administration and the stock price of Palantir. Palantir's entire business model is based on a society in which large swaths of the population become restive become sort of like Palestinians. And Palantir applies a sophisticated Israeli solution writ large to the global population, selling that to any government. Most recent buyer would have been Keir Starmer's UK, will provide them with solutions. So there's a deep fear right now. Right now, the US public is not in the streets. There's a sense of disgust with Donald Trump, which is another reason, by the way, why the MOU is likely to fail is that Donald Trump is the salesman. And he's so widely hated that most Americans actually oppose it, even as they oppose the Iran war. But there aren't mass protests in the street. What you have is midterms coming up and public disgust with the way things are, which is why the Democrats are also pivoting. And there's public disgust. For the first time in my life, Israel's become a major issue in elections. And you see candidates across the country campaigning against AIPAC. They're afraid to go directly against Israel or to call for the dissolution of the apartheid system through sanctions and boycotts. Or what I think would be another responsible move, which is a military intervention to save the genocide-stricken Palestinians of Gaza. But they're campaigning against AIPAC for the first time, and it's paying dividends. As we've seen in two major congressional primaries, three congressional primaries in New York, the AIPAC-sponsored chairman of the Hispanic caucus was just defeated by an unknown figure who was recently at Columbia University. The heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, Dan Goldman, was just defeated by 30 points by a Jewish legislator, Brad Lander, who previously was a liberal Zionist, And now he's sort of taken up the mantle of non or anti-Zionism because it's in vogue. So this really shows the movement of parts of the American public, particularly those who are more politically engaged, politically educated, like those moving into Brooklyn and Queens with higher educational degrees. And it's actually shaking the establishment and the Zionist movement And its lobbying tentacles are in panic mode because they don't have any soft power left. All they have to apply is bombing, censorship, and criminalizing those who oppose them, who increasingly are speaking to the hearts and minds of the American public in a bipartisan fashion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, even... Trump was funded, of course, by Miriam Adelson, maybe $200 million. But his biggest donors are Elon Musk and Timothy Mellon. I mean, why does he have to do what Miriam Adelson tells him to do? Anyway, Adelson, in her paper, Israel Ayum, of course, infamously, there's an article there telling him what a failure Trump is.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, it wasn't by Miriam Adelson, but it was by one of her proxies. And she's sending a message there. Well, Miriam Adelson has a lot of proxies in Congress, too, and she's helped sponsor the career of Marco Rubio, as Donald Trump once famously observed before Donald Trump was sponsored by Miriam Adelson. There's a lot of leverage, and I also think there are psychological components that we might not understand to the sway that Israel has held over Donald Trump, although the spell appears to be breaking because Donald Trump saw their ultimate plan play out at his expense, and now he feels used and he can't find an exit ramp. And he may be so, I mean, he should be the salesman of the MOU, but he's become so unpopular as the result of this failed war that he's had to send J.D. Vance, his likely successor out to either pay the cost of the failure of the MOU or to reap the benefits. And right now, I'd say it's actually a pretty good moment for J.D. Vance because the American public wants this war to end. They just don't want Trump to be the one.
Speaker 1: Having said that, I mean, I know Harry Ben Menashe was on this show the other day, the source of Cy Hersh's The Samson Option, and said that Trump's life is in danger. Perhaps I should have asked him whether it's actually J.D. Vance's life that is more in danger. Trump isn't important enough to kill.
Speaker 0: Well, we saw the, what was his name, Ben Sabti, the former Persian spokesman for the IDF, declare that America needs a new Pearl Harbor to understand what the stakes are. This is in response to JD Vance, you know, gallivanting around the globe, negotiating via Pakistan with Iran. We can kind of get a sense of how Israel and the Zionist movement will respond with its back against the wall. And it's very disturbing. I've written extensively about how assassination plots were actually used and exploited by Israeli intelligence and Israeli cutouts in Trump's inner circle to push Donald Trump to the final decision to authorize Operation Epic Fury on February 28th. There were a series of plots partly cooked up by the FBI and one figure I refer to as a Pakistani national named Asif Murshid, who was accused of seeking to assassinate Trump on behalf of the IRGC. And Trump believed that these plots were real. There was also an attempt to spin the assassination attempt at Butler, Pennsylvania during the height of Donald Trump's comeback campaign as an Iranian plot. And the key figure attempting to convince Trump that Iran had directed this sort of lone wolf figure, Thomas Matthew Crooks, to kill him, who was from the area, was Mike Waltz, who was a member of Congress, who was on the commission to investigate Butler, whose entire career had been funded by figures like Miriam Adelson, and who's now technically the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., but his main job is to defend Israel. So imagine just for a second if Thomas Matthew Crooks had actually scored a hit on Donald Trump as Secret Service agents basically stood by before a local heroic butler police officer first took him down or got him off his mark. Imagine what would have happened. You had Mike Waltz and Benjamin Netanyahu himself explicitly pushing the idea that Iran was behind this plot to kill Donald Trump. And you had Nikki Haley who is now at an endowed fellowship, endowed by a longtime Zionist lobbyist, who was a tool of the Israel lobby, waiting in the wings. Nikki Haley comes in, blames Butler on Iran, and pushes for a war with Iran at that moment, as Netanyahu is agitating for a war.
Speaker 1: Except that, of course, it would have been J.D. Vance that took over, that perhaps would have taken over, although Butler was before. Anyway, Candace Owen has been talking a lot about all of this, especially about Butler. What are the prospects of a third party with the likes of this new MAGA base, Friends of Charlie Cook, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owen, Megyn Kelly? Is there a third party going to be created now?
Speaker 0: Well, Tucker Carlson has now said that he's leaving the Republican Party. He said this recently in a podcast interview. I don't know what that means. I haven't really been able to ask him what it means. And any third party started by Tucker Carlson will necessarily kneecap the Republican successor to Donald Trump, who would presumably be J.D. Vance, because I don't think the Republican base will support a Latino in Marco Rubio, someone who is responsible for TPS legislation, which helped allow many migrants to gain residency in the US. I mean, you would assume it's J.D. Vance. Tucker Carlson will not go against J.D. Vance. They've been friendly for many years. Tucker's son worked under J.D. Vance until he was pushed out by the Israel lobby. But this gives Tucker a lot of leverage over J.D. Vance, and it provides a threat if Vance is not the restrainer that he's portrayed himself as on future U.S. wars, and this includes Ukraine. Then you have Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massey, two of the most credible figures pushed out of the Republican Party who have a lot of cachet among the conservative base who could potentially join this kind of coalition. So I think there's a real credible threat there. And meanwhile, on the left, what you have is the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, making themselves a faction within the Democratic Party with no credible threat from the outside and the Green Party basically being denied ballot access through the anti-democratic legal mechanisms instituted by the so-called Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: We're definitely going to have you on as these new alignments continue. Just finally, do you think Trump is going to pivot to Ukraine? I know his daughter was in the news because... She was causing anti-American fury in Albania over an island. But is Trump going to pivot to Russia and in a way that the neocons would like?
Speaker 0: Donald Trump needs a win right now, so he might pivot to Cuba. Donald Trump pivoting to Russia would be disastrous and would increase the chances.
Speaker 1: I mean, pivoting could mean he's... Pro-peace as well, not just pro the dictator Zelensky, as he's called him.
Speaker 0: Yeah, no, either way, it will be disastrous for Donald Trump because it would place him in another... If he pivots towards peace, it places him on a collision course with the national security state that is addicted to this war and that believes it's successful through the drone attacks that we've seen on Moscow's petroleum infrastructure, strikes deep inside Russia, not only in Belgorod and kind of border areas, but inside Moscow. And they're learning lessons. They're using this war as a laboratory for the perfection of drone warfare and asymmetrical warfare. They're also, this war has become profitable.
Speaker 1: So if you're saying he won't get the peace deal,
Speaker 0: Will Russia seek to end it much quicker, do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't know if you were advising the Russian government whether there was a better way of ending this conflict as it drags on.
Speaker 0: I think because of Trump's failure and his betrayal of this campaign promise, which I think led a not insignificant number of people who wouldn't have voted for Trump to vote for him, there's an increasing chance of a NATO state, probably in the Baltics, which has been used as a staging base for attacks on Russia, including attacks on Russian critical infrastructure, to be attacked as a result of this. Max Blumenthal, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks a lot, Afshin. That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new show. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media if it's not censored in your country. And head to our channel, GoingUndergroundTV on Rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing a new episode of Going Underground: Afshin Rattansi challenges former Lockheed Martin executive Robert Harward over failed regime change in Iran, propaganda around Operation Epic Fury, and the Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ ‘The US LACKS THE POWER TO DEFEAT IRAN’ Afshin Rattansi Challenges Ex-Deputy CENTCOM Commander Robert Harward @afshinrattansi challenges the former Lockheed Martin Executive on: -Failed regime change in Iran -The propaganda narratives that manufactured consent for Operation Epic Fury -The Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Ratansi, broadcasting from the UAE, frames the week’s developments as a U.S. defeat and describes an Iran-related deal: Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, restore oil exports, and receive sanctions waivers and unfrozen funds, with final terms to be negotiated later. Ratansi references an Israeli newspaper owned by Miriam Adelson’s family network and contrasts celebratory U.S. wartime rhetoric with a list of wars and interventions that Ratansi says did not defend the American homeland and instead served U.S. elites and the military-industrial complex.
Ratansi then interviews retired U.S. Navy SEAL Vice Admiral Robert Harwood, a former CENTCOM Deputy Commander and ex-Chief Executive of Lockheed Martin Middle East, who is Executive Vice President of Shield AI’s international operations and involved in Iran policy.
Harwood discusses the role of a national security advisor, emphasizing the process of advising the president by turning objectives into policy options and aligning interagency inputs, describing how he previously declined the job when approached under President Trump’s team while remaining “on your bench” to support policies he liked.
On whether the U.S. should return to bombing Iran if Iran violates the memorandum of understanding (MOU), Harwood argues Iran has historically not complied with demands unless it received what it wanted. He says the IAEA’s access was not “unfettered” access “we require or need,” and adds that some activities may occur outside what the IAEA and Iran intend to show. He asserts Iran’s behavior should be inspected as negotiations continue and that Iran does not intend to comply with the president’s objectives.
Ratansi challenges Harwood on whether the war is causing growing support in Iran for nuclear weapons to deter Israel. Harwood responds by saying he disputes that claim, stating he thinks the Iranian population wants peace, stability, and economic benefits. He argues the Iranian government prioritizes economy and daily survival concerns and that nuclear weapons function as an instrument of power for the current government, while Iranian people focus on wellbeing, freedom of choice, and avoiding being murdered. He also links Iranian protests to the idea that people are focused on the regime.
Ratansi asks Harwood about competing claims regarding Israeli involvement in Iranian protests and the accuracy of figures. Harwood says verifying information is difficult because the regime controls intelligence and information and that statistics are hard to confirm. He emphasizes what he calls irrefutable evidence of murders, and argues Iran has carried out attacks beyond its immediate region, including missile and drone attacks affecting the UAE, while also stating accountability has not been held consistently. He says President Trump held Iran accountable and argues for accountability across countries affected.
Ratansi pivots to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states making deals with Iran, including Oman’s arrangement for sharing the Strait of Hormuz. Harwood says the GCC’s approach reflects instability in U.S. policy driven by election cycles, while GCC governments remain stable. He argues GCC states accommodate Iran because they cannot trust the United States to deliver consistent long-term outcomes.
Discussing Ukraine, Ratansi references Harwood’s “February plan” as calling for security guarantees and asks whether the U.S. should risk nuclear confrontation by backing Ukraine. Harwood argues the situation in Ukraine is different from hypothetical comparisons, emphasizing Russia’s invasion and the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine, plus violation of sovereign integrity. He states Ukraine’s ability to hold off major powers is demonstrated by use of drones and long-range systems and argues Russia invaded and chose to reinforce territorial gains during the campaign.
Ratansi continues to press whether Harwood would advise continuing the war rather than pursuing peace talks, deterrence, and detente. Harwood clarifies that a national security advisor’s role is to take a president’s objectives and present pros, cons, and interagency limitations to support those objectives, while the president decides.
In response to the final framing that Harwood would want renewed bombing of Iran if the MOU is broken and would pour resources into Ukraine, Harwood says he did not say that. He argues for focusing on political, military, and financial tools of national power—especially “financial strangulation of Iran”—to enhance objectives and force compliance, maintaining leverage through policy and capabilities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshin Ratansi. Welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE, where U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio scrambled this week after another U.S. defeat under the U.S.-Israel surrender. Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz, restore oil exports and receive sanctions waivers and unfrozen funds. Final terms to be negotiated later. An Israeli newspaper owned by one of Trump's billionaire bankrollers, Miriam Adelson, said, you could have been the greatest president of all, but you failed. Adelson's paper accused Trump of signing a surrender agreement in Versailles, and all this ahead of America's 250th birthday next week. The speeches will gush about brave soldiers who are victorious, but one struggles to name a single war which the United States has won. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia. Those are just some of the proxy wars and interventions that arguably had nothing to do with defending the American homeland. They only serve the drive of U.S. elites for global dominance and the military industrial complex, killing, wounding or displacing hundreds of millions all around the world. Yet today's guest insists the U.S. must deal with Iran through force, that no amount of negotiating can resolve its issues with Tehran. Joining me now from Bucharest is retired US Navy SEAL Vice Admiral Robert Harwood, former CENTCOM Deputy Commander and ex-Chief Executive of Lockheed Martin Middle East. He's now Executive Vice President of Shield AI, running its international operations here in the UAE and Iran policy. Project Advisor at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. Vice Admiral, I think you're speaking to me from the embassy there. Before we get to the important issues of today, I just want you to quickly take us back. You were here running Lockheed Martin in the UAE, refused to replace Mike Flynn, who has been on this show as Trump's National Security Advisor. And presumably, if you were the National Security Advisor now, you'd be supporting the Memorandum of Understanding. over the Iran war?
Speaker 1: Well, again, if you're the national security advisor, your job is to advise and help the president implement his policies. When I was at the National Security Council under President Bush, that was our job. We had the best from the interagency, the Treasury, Justice, CIA, Office of Secretary of Defense. We had all those people interagency team members on the National Security Council. So we would take the president's objectives, turn that into policies and present options to the president. And that's what the National Security Advisor does. So when you said I would be supporting the MOU, I would be supporting the policies of the president of the United States and helping outline the pros and cons and all the options associated with the options and objectives he's trying to achieve. So that's what the National Security Advisor does.
Speaker 0: I mean, I know Mike Flynn has written extensively about the pressures, political pressures that were on him as National Security Advisor. Why didn't you take the job, though? Would you take the job now? I understand it's now, is it Rubio who's acting National Security Advisor?
Speaker 1: Well, you've raised a great issue today, Steve. As you know, the president somewhat stood down at least the National Security Advisor position. That no longer exists. He gave that responsibility to the Secretary of State. And in that, he also downsized the scale of the National Security Council. So it has a lot less capacity than it used to have. I do believe where we are now, especially on this Iran issue, that whole government approach lining up the options, how you're going to implement this policy, much less ensure it stays effective as really needed. So I do think it's appropriate to have a national security advisor outside of State Department, outside of any agency, who then draws the best from all those government agencies, the pros and cons, to align with the president's objectives to get the right policies. At the time when the president asked me to do the job, I was in a very unique position in my life and stuff going on. And I wrote him a letter. I told him Mr. President, it was an honor we'd be proud, but the time was not right for me. But I remain on your bench because I like the policies he's implemented so far. And I remain in that position today. If I can serve and help, I'd be willing to do that.
Speaker 0: He hasn't called you, though. No, no one's called me. You're in the U.S. Embassy there in Bucharest. So I suppose I have to ask you, if Iran violates the MOU, Do you believe, and I kind of hinted at this in my introduction, you believe that the United States should return to bombing Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, all I believe, and I know because I've seen this, and as you all knew, I grew up in Iran. I saw what Iran was before the Islamic Revolution came to power in 1979. And I've watched this government change. people called a regime ever since. And they've never held to their word. They've never complied with anything unless they got what they wanted out. I believe we're in the same situation now. I'll be very surprised. Well, the IAEA said they did.
Speaker 0: The IAEA said that they did.
Speaker 1: Oh, that's debatable, too. We watched the IAEA. They... Yeah, and I think you've seen former National Security Advisor Josh Bolton talk about this recently. The IAEA was in Iran. They had access sometimes, but it wasn't the unfettered access we require or need. And so they have their own agendas as well at play here. But back to the point where I do not believe at the end of the day that Iran intends to comply with any of the demands or objectives the president's looking. And I think throughout their history, they validated and proved that. Well, the IAEA may say they met their objectives. They could tell how much material they had. They knew the number of cascades, everything the Iranians allowed them to see. But as we know from intel, there were a lot of things going outside of the purview the IAEA and the Iranians intended that way. So I think that same behavior should be inspected as we move forward in these negotiations and anything the Iranians will do going forward.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I should say John Bolton is another person who's been on this show, another national security advisor of Donald Trump's. But as regards nuclear enrichment then, you don't believe that one side effect of this war has been a growing population, part of the population in Iran, that now says Iran must have nuclear weapons to balance Israel's nuclear weapons. If you were national security advisor in Iran, in Tehran, to the Iranian government, you would be advising the enrichment, presumably.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm going to challenge that comment. I don't think the population of Iran supports this. The population of Iran wants some peace, stability, and some economic benefits where they have not had that for decades. But I do think the government that's currently, and I mean, when I say the government, it's really not.
Speaker 0: But Vice Admiral, why wouldn't the people want a deterrence?
Speaker 1: Because their governments fail them in the basics. You know, their economy, what it costs to eat, what it costs to pay for power, what it costs to war, that's what they're focused on first. The nuclear weapon and a deterrent for the people is irrelevant to their standard of living and taking care of their families and have some modicum of freedom, at least to make choices. And if they object to the government not to be murdered for it, that's what I think the bulk of Iranians. So when you talk about the nuclear program, that's an instrument of power for the current government of Iran. I don't think the people see that as a priority at all. I think their well-being is their highest priority.
Speaker 0: But life expectancy in Iran is 76 and a half. That's I don't know how many years longer than Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky. I mean, we're talking here about the largest car manufacturer, car manufacturing country in the Middle East, right? Iran, global top 10 steel producer ahead of Italy. I've lived in Iran and I don't recognize the Iran. I mean, I recognize that there are some in Iran that support the MOU. And I would imagine that a lot of young people feel now is the time to have nuclear weapons so that their lives can't be threatened again the way they were by Donald Trump. I mean, let's not forget it has the largest Jewish community as well in the Middle East. And Trump, the Trump Netanyahu bombing...
Speaker 1: It did have the largest Jewish...
Speaker 0: Besides Israel, I should say.
Speaker 1: It did have the largest Jewish...
Speaker 0: It has the largest... Well, today it has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East. And Israel bombed its synagogue in Tehran.
Speaker 1: That Jewish population, and again, I'm not current with the numbers, but the whole time I was there, it's always had a very large Jewish community. And I do, as you said, the largest one outside of Israel in the Middle East. I don't know if that's true today. I know it was historically true. And again, I'll go back, regardless of the religion, I think the people of Iran- It is true today. Are more focused on their standard of livings, being able to take care of their families, and being able to live a life they want to live. I think that's the number one concern amongst Iranian people. And the industry, as you have all talked to, have always been there. When I was there, it was the pay kind, so I don't know what the car there is producing today. But it's a very educated, hardworking population that we have more in common with anyone else. But I still think their focus is not the nuclear weapon because they don't think. It's the regime. that poses and will dictate to them how they live. And you see that with the protests, especially in January, that they took several cities in Iran, and yet no one came to their assistance, and then they were all murdered on the street.
Speaker 0: What did you make of Israeli claims that they were actually behind those protests? And actually, the numbers... 40,000. Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister of Israel, was on this program last week saying 40,000, and I challenged him on that figure. Was it a CIA program for Kurds to send weapons into Iran, which has also been said by Trump administration figures? And was Israel behind the protests, as Israel maintains? Well, again, let's go back to
Speaker 1: your main question here. And this is part of the issue. Finding truth in Iran because the regime controls all the apparatus of intelligence and information is hard to verify. And there are networks certain countries have to extract and get as much information as possible. And today, the internet's back on, so I would think that flow of it. But don't forget, for numerous times, all information has been controlled by the regime. So you're right. To get the facts behind some of these statistics is a challenge. But what is irrefutable is the murders, that they have killed tens of thousands. And let's go back history, and this is the part that's so challenging to me. We know they have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans throughout their regime. They've killed Emiratis. They've killed Saudis. with their missiles attacks. And I'm not talking about the war now. I'm talking about years ago. I was in UAE when Iran conducted its first drone and missile attacks in the country. And this was a year or two. It killed several people, hit their airports. So it's been a consistent, aggressive attacks by Iran on people and countries outside of their purview that they wanted to influence. And no one has held them accountable. President Trump came to the table and held them accountable. And at the end of the day, I think it's that accountability everyone's looking for. The Iranians, the Emiratis, the Saudis, the Qataris, and the Americans. And I think that's long overdue.
Speaker 0: Vice Admiral, I'll stop you there. More from the former CENTCOM Deputy Commander after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the retired US Navy SEAL and former CENTCOM Deputy Commander, Vice Admiral Robert Harwood. Vice Admiral, you were talking about GCC countries being attacked by Iran over many years. Of course, where we stand now is that GCC countries are making deals with Iran. They recognize the geographical proximity and reality of the situation. Oman has made a deal over the Strait of Hormuz, the sharing of it, the 21 nautical miles on both sides. What exactly, who decides that the existing government of Iran has lost its legitimacy? Obviously, all the GCC countries refuse to allow the United States to launch attacks from their land, and they all maintain relations with Iran.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's because of our policies. One thing that has been very clear to me as I've watched our process and our governments, we have elections every four years. In fact, every two years with midterms. So our policies change quicker than the moon rises, so to speak. And they've seen this Saudi UAE Qatar where we've worked deals and had accommodations. Election happens and we flip and go the other way where they their governments are very stable and go decades in the same position.
Speaker 0: Yeah, but they recognize the government of Iran. They don't seek regime change in Iran. Only the United States and Israel is seeking that. So Washington somehow has the right to decide what Iranian government is acceptable.
Speaker 1: Let me challenge you on that. They know the United States has the power to act and support them, but they can't trust and believe in the government because there's inconsistency in our policies. They know they face existential threats from Iran. And so since they cannot depend on the United States, they have to accommodate Iran.
Speaker 0: But the existential threat is by virtue of them having the U.S. bases. Isn't it? And as for the United States, it doesn't have the military power to defeat. It doesn't have the power to defeat Iran, clearly. I mean, a $2 trillion Navy that you've worked most of your life in cannot secure the sea lanes in the Gulf. It cannot secure them.
Speaker 1: Again, I'm going to disagree with you. It's not a matter of we cannot, it's if we will or not. And that's where the political wealth We can do all of those things if we have the political will to do that. And President Trump finally acted that decades to show Iran we can do that. And yet he stopped short of the end state. If he were to achieve that end state of regime change, to have an Iran that is at peace with its Arab neighbors, at peace with Israel, and became prosperous, they would all be in support. But they cannot support that policy if they don't know, let me finish, if they don't know that the United States is not going to see it through, that we don't have the consistent political will to deliver that end state.
Speaker 0: I mean, Israel clearly doesn't like Iran because it has allies in Lebanon and around the region. But why doesn't the United States make friends with the largest car manufacturer, the largest steel manufacturer, one of the largest iron producers in the world, Iran, 90 million people. Iran has previously worked with the United States, most famously during Iran-Contra, trying to overthrow the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. I'm not calling for that, but why doesn't the United States make friends with Iran? Iran is not anti-American.
Speaker 1: Iran has made it clear from its inception of the Islamic State That revolution, that the defeat and destruction of Israel, the defeat and destruction of the United States and the West.
Speaker 0: Well, that can't be true because they were working with Israel in the 1980s, weren't they? That's clearly not true that Iran is against Israel. Israel was helping. Israel was helping Iran in the war against the U.S.-backed Saddam Hussein. Israel was working with Iran.
Speaker 1: Let me go back to that. Let me make it very clear again. When the regime came to power, and don't forget, the first nine years of their existence, they were at war with Iraq. So they had not made, and that gave them time to consolidate their power in turn to Iran. And so during those years and in the early stage, it was unclear. After that, when they had consolidated power and wanted to enhance their nationalistic objective, Israel Israel and the United States became their number one objective. They've said that in everything they do, and they've taken all the actions ever since to include support of their surrogates, such as Hezbollah. So again, I don't think the current regime, and I'll be specific, the IRGC can be accommodated. If you had a different government, that renounce the principles and programs of the Islamic revolution, which is, I think, the end state, then you could be at peace. You could work together. But with those policies and programs in hand, you'll never get there.
Speaker 0: Well, the rest of the world is trading clearly with Iran. It's a member of BRICS like the UAE. Let's turn to Ukraine. Your February plan calls for ironclad U.S. security guarantees from Russia. I have to put the thought experiment to you. If Russia openly backed and changed the government of Mexico with Russian officials court discussing which opposition leaders should be running Mexico, then armed it, promised Mexico in return a military alliance, and then armed the killing of communities in Mexico that were from the United States, you'd think that Washington would just say, That's all fine. I wouldn't see that as a threat because that's how Russia sees it, clearly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I find that very hypothetical, that situation with Mexico. This is a much different situation. You had Russia come into Ukraine, invade Ukraine, and there are currently about 400,000 Russian troops in Ukraine. They're not going anywhere. They've taken and they intend to keep Ukrainian soil. So they've violated the sovereign integrity of Ukraine. And the Ukrainian people find that completely unacceptable, as do we and I think most NATO.
Speaker 0: How do you mean the Ukrainian people? Trump called him a dictator. That's why he's not having elections, Mr. Zelensky. Trump famously said he's a dictator. He refuses to have elections. his very low poll ratings in Ukrainian polls. The only thing he was good at was playing Biden like a fiddle, a dictator without elections. So what do you mean, the Ukrainian? Most of the Ukrainian people have left Ukraine anyway.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say most of them have, but yeah, sure, people have left their war zone, but not most of them. They've committed to the fight. They've lost a lot of their good soldiers. I've been in Ukraine and see how they're suffering and the price they're paying. But they're going to see this thing through. And I think really more importantly, I think a lesson for all of us, you've seen two countries, Ukraine with no air power and Iran with no air power, able to hold off two of the premier superpowers in the world, Russia and Iran.
Speaker 0: Well, Russia in fairness says it hasn't gone anywhere. full throttle, as you know, into Ukraine, because it doesn't want to kill its brothers and sisters. So you seriously think that your February plan for guarantees, I don't know, like Article 5 guarantees, you believe that the USA should risk nuclear confrontation by backing Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Again, I'm opposed to any course of action, which would take us to the brink of- Well, wouldn't that take it? Well, that would do it. It would trigger a U.S. military response. You said- No, again, you're making an assumption there. And again, this conflict's been going on for several years now, and we've had not just that precipice, but it illustrates the scope of the industrial complex, the weaponry, and the manpower it takes to sustain this effort for And that's a challenge for Russia. And they're paying a high price for it. Ukraine has been able to use drones, missiles, long-range drones. Wait, so you think Russia can lose this war? Again, I'm not going to say who loses. Everyone loses at the end of the day because of a life's loss, the damage done. But again, Russia invaded Ukraine. Let's not forget that that's how this all started, and that's the focus here.
Speaker 0: No, I think that's what I was alluding to in the Mexico hypothetical. They didn't start the war, did they? We know the Victoria-Newland phone call. We know the coup in 2014. We know that people in the MAGA movement upon which Trump draws his support realized that this was due to NATO expansion. You must know that, Vice Admiral. And Russia didn't suddenly want to expand the largest country on earth. They don't need more land in Russia.
Speaker 1: Well, if you make that analogy, which I don't think is appropriate, but I think is something to consider. Of course, Ukraine, all the nations that broke away from Russia after the Gorbachev era, sought to become part of NATO. to enhance and protect their own sovereignty. Not with the help of the CIA? Not with the help of... Again, I find that hypothetical. That's the cause, what really put Putin over the line of why he went in. But don't forget, we watched them line up their troops. We watched them line up their forces. And then the red question, would they go on? And Putin made that decision to invade. That's undeniable. We all lived that and watched that very closely, and he's been reinforcing and building that four-stroke, taking as much land as he can during that campaign. I think that's irrefutable at every step. Now, the reasons why he did that, we'll never know unless he tells us, and he may tell us a political cause. Well, it's not just him.
Speaker 0: It's not just him. He has an opposition in Russia that wanted him to go in much earlier. clearly, to the NATO provocations, in response to the NATO provocations. But you still stand by the idea that Trump, if you were his national security advisor, you'd be advising that this war should continue rather than peace talks, an end at the lines of control, and detente, and perhaps strategic arms limitation with Russia, given that nuclear weapons are clearly... Once again, let me clarify the role of the national security advisor.
Speaker 1: You're not necessarily there to advise President Trump. I think President Trump knows what he wants to do very clearly. So your job is to take his objectives, turn that into policy, present the pros and cons, and how the whole of government, the interagency, can support those efforts. He makes those decisions. So your advice as a national security is predicated on his objectives, what the interagency can do, both the pros and cons and limitations. Okay, all right.
Speaker 0: Point taken, but just very finally and very briefly. So basically, not as the NSA, but as Vice Admiral, you'd be wanting Trump now to revert back to bombing Iran if it breaks the MOU and back to pouring American tax dollars and weapons to Zelensky to attack Moscow.
Speaker 1: You know, I did not say that. And again, but what I do think is important to these all tools of national power, political, military, and financial. And I think the biggest tool the president has because of the blockade is the financial strangulation of Iran. And so I would be very focused on understanding the closing concept, maintaining that financial pressure to enhance our objectives and force Iran to comply along with all the other military options. And I would ensure we maintain all the leverage we can through our policies and capabilities to do that to support the president's objectives.
Speaker 0: Vice Admiral Robert Howard, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Good to be with you.
Speaker 0: And that's it for the show. I'll continue. Condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Monday with the editor of The Grey Zone, Max Blumenthal, who was in Iran before Trump and Netanyahu killed Ayatollah Khamenei and members of his family. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel, GoingUndergroundTV on Rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Monday.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨OPERATION GLADIO: The international syndicate eliminating leaders from Patrice Lumumba, to Muammar Gaddafi, to control the world’s resources ‘Muammar Gaddafi cared about Libyans and he cared about Africans in general. And what happened to him? Well, he was assassinated because he dared to defy the central banking system and rely on gold in his own oil. The same thing is true in Venezuela🇻🇪 today. When you become nationalistic and you want to use your resources to enrich your people, you get killed, you get overthrown. They do it with these Gladio networks and the intelligence agencies and they deploy them. We did it in the Congo to Lumumba, he simply wanted to use the uranium…to enrich his own people. What happened to him next? He was murdered. He was murdered by Operation Gladio elements. Every leader that stands up for their country is a target from this international syndicate that wants to control all the world’s resources.’ -@ColonelTowner discusses Operation Gladio and how it still operates. If you missed the interview, you can catch it on RT today or watch it below 👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion argues that Western European support for Ukraine in a war with Russia reflects elite efforts to control their own populations rather than protect countries from Soviet or Russian influence. Corruption in Zelensky’s Ukraine is cited as an example of how elites maintain control.
The speakers claim that leaders who prioritize nationalism—using national resources to enrich their people—are targeted. Libya is presented as an example: Muammar Gaddafi is described as caring about Libyans and Africans generally, but being assassinated for defying the central banking system and relying on gold in connection with oil. Venezuela is described as having a similar pattern, where nationalistic resource-use leads to being killed or overthrown.
The transcript then links these outcomes to “Gladio networks” and intelligence agencies that allegedly deploy against such leaders. Patrice Lumumba is offered as a historical case. In the early 1960s, after the Congo’s first freedom from Belgium and Lumumba’s election as prime minister, Lumumba is said to have sought a deal to provide the United States with Congo uranium previously directed to Belgium, while using the portion that would have gone to Belgium to enrich Congolese society. The claim continues that President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice President Richard Nixon would not meet with him, but the secretary of state did, rejecting the request to bypass Belgium.
According to the account, the refusal meant the Congo would receive “the same arrangement” as before, described as essentially nothing for building schools and hospitals. Lumumba is said to have refused to honor that deal and to have indicated that the Soviet Union would be interested in the uranium, after which he was murdered.
The transcript attributes Lumumba’s killing to “Operation Gladio Elements” controlled by Otto Skorzeny, identified as a Nazi, working under Reinhard Gehlen’s German intelligence and the BND. The speakers conclude that any prime minister or president who “stands up for their country” is portrayed as a target of an international syndicate seeking control of the world’s resources.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For people who can't comprehend why Western European populations are backing this suicidal war on Russia through Ukraine, I think you tweeted about the corruption, latest corruption scandal in Zelensky's Ukraine. It's because these elites can continue to control their population. They're not to protect the countries from the Soviet Union or from Russia. They're to protect the societies themselves. from being democratic.
Speaker 1: Correct, or nationalistic. If you care about your own country, Libya is probably one of the best examples. Omar Gaddafi cared about Libyans. And he cared about Africans in general. And what happened to him? Well, he was assassinated because he dared to defy the central banking system and rely on gold in his own oil. The same thing is true in Venezuela today. When you become nationalistic and you want to use your resources to enrich your people, you get killed. you get overthrown. And how do they do that? They do it with these Gladio networks and the intelligence agencies, and they deploy them. We did it in the Congo to Lumumba. He simply, he wanted to use the uranium. At the time, the Congo was the world's largest source of uranium, okay? It's post-World War II. early 1960s. They have the first time they're free from colonial empire in Belgium, and they elect him as prime minister. Well, he came to the United States and said, hey, I want to give you all of our uranium, as was the deal with Belgium, but I want to use the part that had gone to the Belgium government to enrich our own people. And the President at the time, Eisenhower, would not meet with him. The vice president, Richard Nixon, would not meet with him. He met with the secretary of state and they told him no. They said, you cannot cut out Belgium. So you're not gonna have any money to build a school. You're not gonna have any money to build your hospitals. You're going to get the same arrangement that you got before, which was basically nothing. And Patrice Lumumba said, forget it. Then I'm not going to honor that deal. And I'm sure the Soviet Union would be interested in uranium. And what happened to him next? He was murdered. He was murdered by Operation Gladio Elements that Otto Skorzeny controlled, who was a Nazi. Everyone knows that name. Under Reinhard Galen's German intelligence, the BND. And so every... Prime Minister, President that stands up for their country is a target from this international syndicate that wants to control all the world's resources.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing a bombshel EPISODE of Going Underground: ex-Israeli intel officer Ari Ben-Menashe says Trump’s life is in danger after Trump signed an MOU with Iran, explains Israel’s next move, and warns another USS Liberty–style event may happen.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨BOMBSHELL EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Trump’s LIFE is in DANGER from Israel After Deal with Iran—Ex Israeli Intelligence Officer Ari Ben-Menashe He tells us: -Why Donald Trump’s life is under threat from Israel after he signed the Memorandum of Understanding with Iran -What Israel’s next move is -Why another USS Liberty-style event is likely All this and more on this must-see episode of Going Underground
Video Transcript AI Summary
The anniversary of Operation Barbarossa is cited as context for contemporary events. The discussion claims that prior U.S. and allied support for genocide in Gaza and related meetings, including Genocide 7 in Evian, echoes Barbarossa-era history. It also alleges that the U.S. is pledging more weapons for the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev. A U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding is described as emerging amid the aftermath of Trump’s “failure to defeat Iran.”
Afshin Ratansi introduces Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who previously served as a key source for Seymour Hersh’s work on Israel’s nuclear arsenal. The conversation centers on whether Netanyahu could release Epstein-filed damaging material about Trump if a deal is reached, and on the idea that Trump’s personal life may be in danger because of the Israeli lobby and Israeli elements in the U.S.
Ari Ben-Menashe argues that Donald Trump did “the right thing” by trying to get the U.S. out of Middle East entanglements with Iran. He traces attempted U.S.-Iran deals back to President Clinton’s 2000 meeting with President Khatami, and he claims that Ehud Barak and others sabotaged that deal using Epstein-linked actions. He further says Israelis tried to sabotage deals made with the Iranians and wanted their own deal directly, without the U.S.
The discussion describes Israel’s historical relationship with Iran, including arms provided to Iran against Saddam Hussein, and Prime Minister Begin’s bombing of Saddam’s nuclear reactor given by France, plus the use of Iranian territory for landings. It claims Israel is now seeking an independent relationship with the Iranians because Trump wants out of dealing with Iran.
Ben-Menashe states that Prime Minister Netanyahu had contact with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying Ahmadinejad met Israeli representatives in Zimbabwe between April 22–23, 2010, and that Netanyahu maintained contact through a Hasidic sect in Jerusalem called Ritori Kartek. He says the Israelis used this channel for direct contact with the Iranian government without Arab or American intermediaries, and he claims Israel initially wanted to help Ahmadinejad take over Iran’s government.
The conversation shifts to risk. Ratansi asks how dangerous the deal is for Trump personally. Ben-Menashe says Trump’s life is in danger, attributing it to Israelis and other people inside the United States, linked to the Israeli lobby, and says this is due to the deal made with the Iranians.
The segment then addresses what the deal achieves for Iran, with Ben-Menashe saying Iran’s main priorities are money and sanctions, and that nuclear issues “don’t matter” to Iran at this stage. Ratansi asks why Lebanon is included in the equation; Ben-Menashe responds by referencing Israelis out of Lebanon and discusses how Syria’s inability to remove Hezbollah is tied to control over Lebanon, plus talk of an Alawite state.
Later, Ratansi asks about Trump’s comments regarding Jalani, an al-Qaeda leader in Damascus, and how this relates to removing Hezbollah. Ben-Menashe replies that the current Syrian government cannot remove Hezbollah unless it takes over all of Lebanon, and he claims Israelis would not allow it. Ben-Menashe also says Netanyahu wants to leave the Iranian and Lebanese files aside and start a war in Yemen, including potential moves involving Somaliland across the Bab al-Mandeb straits, and warns of possible confrontation between Israeli and American interests due to U.S. troops in Somalia and Israeli involvement in Somaliland.
The conversation ends with Ben-Menashe saying Trump will likely pivot from Iran to Russia and Ukraine, and that Netanyahu may try to sabotage an American Ukraine-related effort to keep Trump occupied and out of the way.
Full Transcript
Speaker 2: I'm Afshin Ratansi, and welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE. Today marks the anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's catastrophic 1941 attempt to defeat Russia. Future President Harry Truman said the U.S. should let the Germans and Soviets kill as many as possible. And Russia's victory was indeed at a great cost, given the Nazis were aided by Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil of New Jersey. Washington's vassal Genocide 7 meeting in Evian last week, on the heels of its support for genocide in Gaza, echoes Barbarossa history today. They are pledging ever more weapons for the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev. It comes as a U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding emerges from West Asian ashes and Trump's spectacular failure to defeat Iran. Trump went to war because of a corrupt Netanyahu and Israeli lobbyists like Miriam Adelson, slaughtering 168 schoolgirls on the openings day in February. A slew of MAGA-based figures like Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and others have all expressed dismay at the power of the Israeli lobby in destroying the Trump presidency. It's been called the Epstein War after Zionist child trafficking rapist Jeffrey Epstein, who was introduced to Israeli intelligence by Robert Maxwell, who used to employ today's guest. Joining me again from Montreal is Ari Ben-Menashe, who worked in Israel's military intelligence directorate, Amman, and was a key source for Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option on Israel's nuclear arsenal. Ari, thanks so much for coming back. Ongoing underground. I better start. I mean, we don't know whether J.D. Vance or Trump turned up in Switzerland, whether Netanyahu started bombing Lebanon again, Gaza, maybe even Iran. The question to you is, of course, given the viral segments of our last interview ongoing underground, whether, as you said in the last interview, if their deal is reached, Netanyahu will release Epstein-filed damaging material on Trump and whether you think that's about to happen.
Speaker 1: Well, Donald Trump did the right thing for America under the circumstances. The circumstances were many mistakes made by U.S. presidents over Iran and the Middle East. Yes. So Donald Trump tried to get the United States out of the Middle East and out of its trouble with Iran. Yes. That's the right thing to do for the U.S. Okay. I want to go through history here. The first attempted real deal with the Iranians was actually attempted by President Clinton going back to 2000, the year 2000. He met President Khatami in Mirabel Airport, north of Montreal, and They worked out a deal between them. And as a matter of fact, on March 17, 2000, Madeleine Albright made a speech at the American Iranian Council apologizing to the Iranian people for America overthrowing an elected president. in 1952 in Iran and bringing the Shah back. Mossadegh, 53. And she made that speech publicly, but Ehud Barak and company sabotaged that deal by using Epstein and company against Mr. Clinton. And if you remember, Clinton already came out of an impeachment process because...
Speaker 2: I mean, there was some sort of peace process, but suddenly the Monica Lewinsky story destroyed his presidency.
Speaker 1: That's right. But Clinton understood that he has to make a deal with the Iranians in order to stabilize the... Middle East. Then there was Barack Obama. We all know the story. Okay. But the Israelis, on the other hand, tried to sabotage any deal made with the Iranians, trying to outdo the Iranians in the Middle East. But they wanted their own deal with the Iranians. directly without the United States. Israel. Israel did, yes. They wanted their own deal with the Iranians, I repeat myself.
Speaker 2: I mean, sorry to interrupt, Ari. I think it's important to show, because I think I know where you're going, the context that Iran has had relations with Israel in the past, notoriously under Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra scandal, when Israel and Iran
Speaker 1: Hold on, hold on. Israel, as you said, Israel had a relationship with the Iranians for all its existence, including 10 years of the Khomeini regime, yes? And the Israelis were providing arms to Iran to fight Saddam Hussein. If that was... If... People remember that. And Prime Minister Begin at the time bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor that was given to him by the French. That's history. And used Iranian territory for landing aircraft if necessary.
Speaker 0: The Israelis are now, right now, understanding that in order to stay relevant, they will need to deal with Iran.
Speaker 1: This goes to say, and their contact actually is somebody that is seen as an extremist. Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was president of Iran in 2010.
Speaker 0: President Ahmadinejad, actually his meeting, I'll tell you right now, April 22, April 23, was in Zimbabwe.
Speaker 1: And he met some Israeli representatives. And he actually said that he's interested in a deal with Israel directly, without the Americans. He met Israelis in Zimbabwe on April 2010, between 22 and 23 April. He said that. And ever since, Netanyahu was in touch with him in one form or the other through a Hasidic sect in Jerusalem called the Ritori Kartek. They were the ones that also originally put the Begin government in touch with Ayatollah Khomeini when he was still in Paris. There's a whole history of a relationship between the sect and the Iranian government.
Speaker 2: Because Natura Carter believes in a free Palestine and for theological and ethical issues, that Jewish sect believe in a free Palestine and justice for Palestinians.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct. But the Israelis used them. direct contact with the Iranian government without using the Arab friends or the Americans or any other mediators. They're using them because they have a very close relationship with Ahmadinejad. And according to my understanding, the first war between Israel and The Israelis, Mr. Netanyahu, wanted to help Mr. Ahmadinejad take over the government in Iran.
Speaker 2: I should just say, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been on this show. I've interviewed him a number of times. We will ask him about this. But he is not... I mean, he was kind of out of favor with Khamenei before he was murdered by Donald Trump a few months ago. So I don't know whether this is... I mean... You know about Israeli intelligence. I don't know whether Israeli intelligence are making a mistake with who their interlocutor is. Has they made the mistake about not comprehending the straightforwardness? Sorry.
Speaker 1: The Israelis did not understand who they would be dealing with after they killed that many Iranian leaders in Israel. the first war, or they killed them, or the Americans killed them, whomever killed them. The new group do not have a relationship with Israel, but the Israelis now are starting to understand that they better try to get to get an independent relationship with the Iranians. They're starting to understand that in order to stay relevant and safe. Because Donald Trump wants out of the Middle East, out of dealing with the Iranians. He basically made a deal. He gave them everything they wanted just to get out and open the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaker 2: What was your reaction? to that decision and actually, perhaps more importantly, why someone like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina could tweet that he was for the deal because the ultimate goal is for Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia, of course, which called out the genocide as a genocide in Gaza.
Speaker 0: Well, I think the deal is a good deal for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: And the United States in general, it's pulling out of the mistakes that Donald Trump and others made. They're pulling them out of the war with Iran. I think it's a good deal.
Speaker 2: But as I said at the beginning, And that viral clip of our conversation last time. I mean, how in danger is Trump personally, even if it is a good deal for Trump on one level?
Speaker 1: How dangerous is it for him personally?
Speaker 2: I mean, clearly you feel that there are the Israeli deep state. I'm not sure whether that's the phrase. There are elements in the Israeli deep state that want to put his life in danger now.
Speaker 1: I believe Donald Trump is in danger from the Israelis and other people inside the United States. That's correct. And the Israeli lobby and some Israeli elements in the United States. Yes, I do believe that. And this is due to the deal he made with the Iranians.
Speaker 2: Hariba Menashe, I'll stop you there. More from the former Israeli military intelligence officer after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former Israeli military intelligence officer and author of Prophets of War inside the secret U.S.-Israeli arms network, Hariba Menashe. Harry, at the end of part one, we were speaking of the danger that Trump personally faces after talking up this deal. Trump said Netanyahu has a problem getting excited. I don't think I've heard a U.S. president insulting a Israeli premier like that, especially when he's being bankrolled by them. What is the nature of this danger? You must have heard that the MAGA base president People like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, they all feel deeply suspicious about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, seen as perhaps a future GOP president. Who knows? What is the power of the lobby to endanger Donald Trump? And does that mean you kind of salute his courage for overcoming the billions and billions of dollars and pressure that he must have felt as he came to terms with the power of Iran?
Speaker 0: I think his life is in danger. I really do. You're asking what type of danger he's in? I'm saying I think his life is in danger. And do you think he knows that? Of course he does. But for...
Speaker 1: You know, the president of the United States, believe it or not, this president did the right thing. Get the United States out of entanglement with Iran and have a normal relationship with Iran. That's what he's trying to do. I know he paid them a lot of money. Probably Qatar paid quite a bit of money just to get to the MOU, to the Iranians. Because Iranians, they don't care about the nuclear issue. They care about money.
Speaker 0: They do. And that's all they wanted out of this deal. And they got it.
Speaker 1: And they sort of released Donald Trump by opening the Strait of Hormuz and so on and so forth. The shipping and maybe the the U.S. economy and the oil prices will go down, and they did go down in the last few days.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, obviously, Iran has suffered hugely over, despite they have the largest mall in the world, but they've suffered hugely, and the money is an important part of the deal. But then you said Trump's life is in danger.
Speaker 1: It's not only the, sorry, I'm going to interrupt you. For the Iranians, the only part of the deal that is important right now is the money and the sanctions. Yeah. And the rest doesn't matter. Nuclear stuff or so on and so forth. And they don't even care about the Israelis and Gaza.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm sure the Iranian government would deny that, as they would deny how they did introduce Lebanon into the equation. They didn't need to put Lebanon into that. Why do you think they put Lebanon into the equation then for the deal?
Speaker 1: Are there Israelis out of Lebanon, even though they put it there?
Speaker 2: Obviously, by the time people are watching this, you may be tragically vindicated even more about it. But does that mean that the lobby, if Trump survives, is dead to some extent? I mean, if we look at the people, I think last time we didn't speak about some of the DOJ revelations that have since been coming out. I mean, his Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, hundreds of times mentioned in the Epstein files, went to the island. RFK Jr., we now know, flew on the Epstein place twice. The new head of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Walsh, went to an Epstein-linked event in St. Barts.
Speaker 1: Trump was brave enough to rise above this. One of the people that dared him and said, you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize if you do a deal with the Iranians, in spite of the Israelis, and what the consequences may be. I'm not defending him, but in this context, Okay, he did the right thing for Trump and for the United States to get out of the Iranian entanglement. But of course, he made the mistake of going into the war in the first place, but that's a different story.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, so you think he saw from a real estate agent viewpoint that 2 billion in famine if fertilizer shortages were to continue. We don't know how many front-loaded or back-loaded price increases have downed the line because of the closure over the past few months. You think that's what he saw as more important than the Israeli lobby, more important than the Epstein files, more important than Miriam Adelson?
Speaker 1: For once, for once, he did the right thing for the United States and for himself. But You have to remember he also corrected his own mistake of going into the war in the first place.
Speaker 0: But now Iran can wield the Strait of Hormuz whenever he likes.
Speaker 1: Well, that's something that he had to take into account, but he's taking his chances. And if the United States becomes real friendly with the Iranians, like it was for many years. Maybe the Iranians won't close the straits anymore, depending on the relationship that develops between the United States and the Iranians. And maybe also there will be a relationship between Iran
Speaker 0: that will develop between the Iranians and the Israelis, a separate relationship.
Speaker 1: Because I believe at this point the Israelis are finding out that talking to the Iranians might be a good idea.
Speaker 0: And the Iranians probably think the same.
Speaker 1: We have to remember they had a long relationship with each other. Can I stop you here just one moment and say that the Israelis must have a relationship with a very high level Iranian personality because of the amount of intelligence, accurate intelligence they have about Iran. It's very difficult to collect this information without having that very high-level person that they're talking to them or reporting to them.
Speaker 2: Killing Ali Larrajani, killing Tawheed Khamenei and so many other senior leadership.
Speaker 1: Ali Larrajani... would have been a difficult target without knowledge of where he was.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it certainly surprised me. So, does that mean Netanyahu goes to jail before the October elections in Israel? Or does Netanyahu try and start bombing Yemen again and breaking up the Saudi deal with Yemen?
Speaker 1: Now, Netanyahu wants to leave the Iranian file aside wants to leave the Lebanese file aside, and he wants to start a war in Yemen just to keep the war going, a war going. He just opened relations with Somaliland. His government is the first government that recognized Somaliland as an independent country that broke off from Somalia. Yes. And they're opening the base there. The president of Somaliland just visited Israel. And they gave him the highest honors possible. And Somaliland is just across the straits from Yemen.
Speaker 2: The Bab al-Mandeb straits. Another crucial waterway.
Speaker 1: That's right. And there are rumors that he wants to start a war with the Houthis. And direct war with the Houthis. Well, if he doesn't have any more people to fight in the Middle East, they'll fight. Oh, well, Yemen is sort of in the Middle East. They'll fight the Houthis.
Speaker 2: We're running out of time. We don't know how the United States will react to that because, again, the Bab al-Mandeb is as crucial, arguably, as the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaker 1: You have to remember that The United States has troops in Somalia. And then if the Israelis have troops in Somaliland, this is going to be a confrontation between Israeli and American interests.
Speaker 0: A direct confrontation.
Speaker 1: U.S. has liberty again.
Speaker 0: Another U.S. has a liberty. Yes, correct.
Speaker 2: I want to get on to Palestine and what's been happening there, of course. But what was your reaction when Trump started talking about Jalani, the al-Qaeda leader in Damascus? Supposedly, it's his job to get rid of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Can we take it that Lebanese civilians should sleep a bit better after this deal?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I don't think that the current Syrian government can get rid of Hezbollah. I don't think so. Unless they take over all of Lebanon. And I doubt that the Israelis will allow the Syrians to do that. There'll be competition over who's going to take over Lebanon first. And there's even talk about creating an Alawite state in the north of Lebanon, meaning members of the old regime breaking off an area of Syria into an Alawite or a Syrian or a Shiite enclave in Syria.
Speaker 2: And I should just say, for Trump himself, you think he's going to pivot to Ukraine, where he's going to be what? Wyckoff and Kushner, these Israeli assets, are all going to be negotiating on his behalf with Putin's people. You think he's going to pivot to the war in Europe? That's what Trump is going to do.
Speaker 1: Well, in my opinion, opinion, he'll be busy with the Iranians for another few days, and then he will probably pivot to Russia and Ukraine, yes. And then Netanyahu will be busy trying to sabotage the American deal and get his own deal with the Iranians.
Speaker 2: Will he try and sabotage the Ukraine deal?
Speaker 1: I'm talking about Iran. Sure. The Ukraine deal, he might try to sabotage it for a reason, meaning trying to get Trump out of the way.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO Nation Wars of Aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new show. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media if it's not censored in your country and head to our channel, GoingUndergroundTV on Rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing a new episode of Going Underground featuring former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, who condemns the Israeli government’s sponsorship of Jewish terrorism in occupied Palestine. We discuss what the US-Iran memorandum to end the war means for Israel, whether Netanyahu’s premiership is nearing its end, the likelihood of a war on Yemen, and Israel’s future amid record global backlash.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Ex-Israeli PM Ehud Olmert SLAMS Israeli Govt-Sponsored JEWISH TERRORISM in Occupied Palestine -What does the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding to end the war mean for Israel? -Is Benjamin Netanyahu's time as Prime Minister up? -Will Netanyahu start a war on Yemen? -What is Israel's future as it faces record levels of global blacklash? All this and more with the former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, on this episode of Going Underground.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Ratansi, host of *Going Underground* from the UAE, marks UN-recognized World Refugee Day amid reports that more than 1.2 million Lebanese have been displaced, 3.2 million Iranians have been displaced inside Iran, nearly 1 million Iraqis are displaced, and 5.5 million Syrians are displaced, in part due to attacks by the US and Israel. He references the killing of 168 schoolgirls in Iran by US Tomahawk missiles and says Donald Trump claims he has a deal after a war in West Asia, amid repeated attacks on Dubai. Ratansi also says Trump has criticized Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah and notes that Saudi Arabia called Israel’s actions a genocide, while Trump mocks Netanyahu as “someone who gets a little excited.” Ratansi then introduces Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking from Tel Aviv.
Olmert says Netanyahu’s greatest failure in influencing Trump began earlier than 2026, when Netanyahu helped persuade Trump in 2018 to withdraw from the Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran. Olmert claims that after the US withdrawal, Iran rapidly enriched uranium to 60%, bringing Iran “close to the possibility of building an atomic bomb,” creating “almost inevitable circumstances” for a military attack in February 2026. He says that after four months, the outcome returned the parties to where they started: an agreement between the US and Iran after Strait of Hormuz disruptions, which he describes as possibly weaker than the earlier Obama agreement. Olmert says the prior deal included a 300 billion dollar compensation fund for Iran’s losses and that the new agreement lacks elements relating to ballistic missiles and “the chain of regime” in Iran. He argues the attack did not clearly justify the cause of the war.
Ratansi contests a “40,000” estimate Olmert cited about deaths in Iran. Olmert says he never counted victims in the streets of Iran, but maintains that many thousands were massacred and that the country looked unified against Iran. Ratansi challenges Olmert’s view of Iran as a dictatorship; Olmert denies Western-propaganda framing and says he spoke about Israeli policies in harsh terms while also pointing to the initial war trigger, saying a massacre was perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October 2023 in Israeli homes.
On Jewish terrorism in the West Bank, Olmert says Jewish terrorism is perpetrated by thousands of Israeli settlers, supported by higher authorities, involving police cooperation and some army units, while the Israeli Secret Service fails to prevent attacks. He says he speaks explicitly against it and calls it “ethnic cleansing” and “crime against humanity,” coordinated, financed, and supported by higher authorities.
Ratansi asks why Olmert criticizes Israel’s invasion of the West Bank given Lebanon events and past references to Qana and other civilian deaths. Olmert says he criticized Israel when it started a ground operation in south Lebanon in March of this year and argues it was not needed and would not help Israel’s security. He frames Hezbollah as a terrorist organization acting against Israel and says Israel attacks Hezbollah because Hezbollah is “terrorist, violent, murderous,” coordinated and equipped with Iranian backing. He rejects the idea of a “linkage” in the Lebanon memorandum and says he favors negotiations with the Lebanese government and joint disarmament of Hezbollah with the Lebanese army after a political agreement.
Ratansi raises Trump comments about Al-Qaeda-linked figures dealing with Hezbollah rather than Israel; Olmert says he smiled at the remark and argues Syria’s track record in Lebanon is not something he can trust. He says he did not support Al-Qaeda or ISIS and argues that Israel should seek political contact with Syria’s president, hoping for restraint and possible security or peace arrangements.
Ratansi asks about what Netanyahu should do next after Iran; Olmert calls for Netanyahu’s resignation as soon as possible, saying Netanyahu’s strategies failed from day one and contributed to Israel’s failure regarding Hamas and 7 October 2023. He says he hopes Netanyahu will not open a new front in Yemen.
On Gaza, Olmert distinguishes war crimes from genocide, stating he admitted war crimes were committed but says there was no policy of genocide and no genocide perpetrated. He compares this to the 2008–2009 Karslid operation, saying children were not being aimed at or purposely targeted and that the operation was “inevitable.” He recounts that he helped lead disengagement from Gaza by dismantling settlements and pulling out completely in 2004–2005.
Ratansi asks whether Trump is in danger due to an Iran deal; Olmert says he is focused on defeating the Israeli government and urges that Americans decide the US president. He says the US-Iran agreement means Israel will not continue attacks on Iran, and he hopes Netanyahu will not rest easy and will be defeated in October elections. Olmert says with a new Israeli government after elections, rhetoric would change toward compassion, peace, negotiations, and a two-state solution, and that this could improve the world community’s attitude toward Israel.
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: I'm Afshin Ratansi, and welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE on UN-recognized World Refugee Day, particularly poignant this year as over 1.2 million Lebanese have been displaced, 3.2 million Iranians have been displaced inside Iran because of US-Israeli attacks. Plus, there's almost 1 million Iraqis currently displaced and 5.5 million Syrians, countries habitually bombed by the US and Israel. And that's not to mention those who couldn't become refugees. The 168 schoolgirls massacred in Iran by US Tomahawk missiles that Trump says is still being investigated. But Trump is claiming now that he's got a deal after his catastrophic war of choice in West Asia that has seen Dubai here in the UAE repeatedly attacked. And Trump has been calling out Israel for its attacks on Hezbollah. This as Israel's global reputation has arguably never been lower after its destruction of Gaza and continued UK-U.S.-EU armed antics in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia called what Israel did a genocide. Trump calls Netanyahu someone who gets a little excited. In the end, Iran proved that it could have a weapon that could kill more than some nuclear weapons, 12 nautical miles of the Strait of Hormuz, through which billions all around the world depend on for energy, medical equipment, and food. Joining me again from Tel Aviv is Netanyahu's predecessor, former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert. Former Prime Minister, thanks for coming back on Going Underground. I better start, actually, by just asking you what you think your successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, achieved by persuading Trump into this war. What has Israel gained and what did Netanyahu gain?
Speaker 0: Well, I think that what I can say about Netanyahu is that the greatest failure in influencing Trump started much earlier, not in 2026 when he convinced, possibly convinced Trump to jointly attack Iran. but when he convinced Trump in 2018 to withdraw from the then signed agreement between President Obama and the Iranians about the nuclear program of Iran. Because what happened is that until then, it is now obvious, we know it as a matter of fact, that Iran didn't enrich uranium since they signed the agreement with Obama. And when America withdrew from that agreement, they started rapidly to enrich uranium up to the level of 60%, which brought them quite close to the possibility of building an atomic bomb. And that has, in a way, created the almost inevitable circumstances to launch this military attack in February of 26. And the bottom line after this attack four months process is that we came back to where it started. There is an agreement between America and Iran after a long period of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which caused serious economic damage to the international community. And we are with an agreement perhaps weaker than the one that was signed by President Obama. Is it? And I think so. I don't remember that President Obama promised to build up a fund of $300 billion to compensate Iran for the losses of the war, the damage caused to Iran by the war. And I don't know what is the difference in terms of inspecting and supervising the nuclear program other than what was until then. The Obama agreement was also based on the supervision and inspection of the nuclear program by the IAEA, the International Atomic Agency in Vienna. And that's more or less what they agreed now. There is nothing about the ballistic missiles. There is nothing about, of course, the chain of regime in Iran. So actually, we are back into square one. And the question is then not whether the Iranians deserve a punishment. They definitely deserve the punishment. They are brutal murderers and killers, fundamentalists, extremists. There's no question about it. And they killed 40,000 perhaps more of the Iranians, their own citizens, in the streets of the main cities of Iran prior to this war. So I don't have any... mercy for the Iranians. But the question is not what is the interest of Iran. The question is whether or not this military attack made any difference that justified the cause of this war. And I'm not certain about that, to put it mildly.
Speaker 1: Of course, that 40,000 figure hugely disputed. And in fact, Don't you think what Netanyahu succeeded in doing, especially hot on the heels of the genocide in Gaza, the whole world now looks to try and see if Israel needs to be disarmed of its nuclear weapons?
Speaker 0: Well, I don't know about that. What does it have to do with Gaza? No one argues that there was any unauthorized weapons used in Gaza. The question is whether there was genocide or not. And you know, you read My articles, I don't agree that there was a policy of genocide. I criticized the Israeli government and I admitted without any hesitation that war crimes were committed, perpetrated, but there was no part of policy and there was not something that was determined and was guided and was directed by the Israeli government or by the high command of the Israeli army. It happened, regrettably, and this is not something that we can ignore. And this is something about... Again, I listened to the introduction you made. While I criticized the Israeli government, perhaps in more harsh terms than anyone in a similar position to mine ever did to the Israeli government, to the state of Israel, not just in Israel, but across the world, at the same time, I think it should be remembered that how the war started in the first place, with a massacre perpetrated against innocent Israelis in their homes.
Speaker 1: You don't believe that was a PSYOP conjured up by Israeli intelligence and a propaganda maneuver? Because that's usually been used over the past, I don't know, 50 years.
Speaker 0: What do you want to say? Using a fake massacre as a precedent for intervention. I don't understand. Do you want to say that there was not a massacre perpetrated by Hamas on the 7th of October, 2023.
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry, I was talking about the 40,000 figure you just used for the killing of Iranians.
Speaker 0: I don't know. I never counted the number of victims in the streets of Iran. But do you argue that there were thousands of Iranians massacred, murdered by the leadership of that country in the streets of the main cities? I don't know. All I know is the country looked very unified against... 40,000.
Speaker 1: The country fought and looked very unified and supportive of their government in all regions of Iran for their government after it was attacked.
Speaker 0: Do you deny the fact that Iran is a dictatorship in a tight military control in no way that any person in Iran is free to speak up against the government? this is what, a creation of Western propaganda?
Speaker 1: Well, I should say I lived in Iran for a year and I spoke up against the government all the time. So I think there's a huge debate going on in there. And actually, that's the point, isn't it? Isn't Israel under the spotlight for its lack of democratic freedoms for its Arab populations? You yourself, in the latest article that you just referenced, talk about Jewish terrorism. Can you just justify that comment for a start? Because I know that as a British journalist, if I was to use that phrase, I would be called an anti-Semite. Why are you calling out Jewish terrorism under your successor Netanyahu being experienced by Arabs?
Speaker 0: There is Jewish terrorism in the territories of the West Bank perpetrated by thousands of Israeli settlers and supported, unfortunately, by the higher authorities, both in the territories and in the government. Police is not helpful. On the contrary, it's cooperating sometimes with these settlers. And even there are some army units. And the Israeli Secret Service is not doing its job in trying to prevent these events. And I speak up in the most explicit manner against it. I criticize it. And I blame the government for responsibility, the prime minister and the entire government for allowing it to happen. And I say in the most explicit manner, this is ethnic cleansing and crime against humanity, perpetrated and supported and financed and coordinated by the higher authorities of the government. And I'm against it. And many thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Israelis are against it. The Israeli voice is not the voice of Ben-Gurion, Smotrich and Netanyahu. The voice of many Israelis, which I hope will be expressed in the most powerful manner in the coming elections in October, is the voice of opposition, is the voice of compassion, is the voice of peace, is the voice which is absolutely committed to fight against this terrible terrorism perpetrated by Jews in the territories.
Speaker 1: You know, Ben-Gavir Smotrich and Netanyahu are probably going to go, what were you doing in Lebanon? What was the Qana bombing? 57 civilians, 37 children, 1,100 Lebanese civilians killed in 2006. Why are you insulting them for the invasion of the West Bank?
Speaker 0: I don't know. Look, first of all, first of all, again, I don't feel that I am in a position to apologize for anything on behalf of the Israeli government. I criticized the Israeli government when the Israeli government started the ground operation in the south of Lebanon in March of this year. On the spot, immediately, first minute, I said, we don't need it. It is not going to be helpful to the security of the state of Israel. And we have to stop it. However, I suggested you, you are in a different position than mine. I know that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization which has been acting timelessly from time immemorial against Israel violently, attacking Israeli settlements and townships across the border without any territorial dispute that there is between Israel and Lebanon in the first place. And this is a terrorist organization which holds a tribe the situation in Lebanon against the government position. The government is absolutely against it trying to disarm Hezbollah. So I don't think that the Israeli reaction is appropriate. I don't think that it is helpful in serving the Israeli security needs in Lebanon. But why Israel attacks Hezbollah? We attack Hezbollah because Hezbollah is a terrorist, violent, murderous
Speaker 1: So if you were prime minister today, you wouldn't have allowed the linkage of Lebanon that exists in the memorandum of understanding that has been signed?
Speaker 0: No, I don't think that there should be a linkage. I am in favor. I think that that should have been the main effort of President Trump. And I hope it will be, by the way. I still hope it will be. That there will be negotiations going on between Israel and the Lebanese government to try and work out a political arrangement, a political settlement between Israel and Lebanon that will bring peace, and that then Israel and the Lebanese army jointly, in coordination, within the framework of a political agreement signed between these two countries, will do everything possible in order to disarm Hezbollah, which is an enemy of Lebanon. But the answer... to the danger of Hezbollah and the murderous activities of Hezbollah, coordinated, inspired, financed, and equipped by Iran, is not a ground operation in the south of Lebanon. That's my position. I spelled it out in the most powerful manner for a long period of time, and I haven't changed my mind, but this is not in order to somehow acquiesce or ignore the murderous nature of Hezbollah and its contribution on a daily basis for the killing of Israelis.
Speaker 1: Okay, former prime minister, I'll stop you there. More from the former prime minister of Israel after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Forward, Prime Minister, we were talking about linkage of Lebanon in the agreement between Iran and the United States. I mean, if you were advising the IRGC right now, I mean, some would say that, of course, Hezbollah was a reaction to Israeli violations of Lebanese territory, and also...
Speaker 0: When? When exactly? this reaction started. Israel occupies part of Lebanon. Israel occupies Lebanon illegally.
Speaker 1: Israel occupies Lebanon illegally. Right now.
Speaker 0: The Sheba farms. Israel evacuated from Lebanon in the year 2000.
Speaker 1: What's the Sheba farms then?
Speaker 0: Pardon? What are the Sheba farms? Look, the first time in modern period that Israel completely acted according to the UN resolution 425, which drew the borderline, is in 2000. Since then, according to the UN resolutions, we don't occupy one inch of territory of Lebanon. Well, the Sheba farms are in Lebanon. But I don't think that too much... Excuse me. I'm in the middle of the sentence. They claim of Lebanon that the Sheba farms are part of Lebanon... was not accepted by the United Nations. And we followed the United Nations Resolution 425 precisely on the dot. So there may be a problem here, but it has to be coordinated through the UN Security Council and through Syria, because according to the UN resolution, the Shiba farms are not part of Lebanon. I'm sorry. Well, certainly that's not what Lebanese people probably think. Actually, since we're talking about Lebanon there, what did you make of Trump saying... It doesn't make a difference.
Speaker 1: What did you make of Trump saying that the former head of Al-Qaeda in Syria should deal with Hezbollah, not Israel?
Speaker 0: Look, I have the privilege that I don't have to argue with...
Speaker 1: Your genuine reaction, former prime minister. I mean, did you smile when you heard it? What was your reaction?
Speaker 0: I smiled, yes. I smiled. I smiled. Although, I'll tell you one thing. The ISIS forces, which make now part of the government of Syria, and certainly Ashara Joulani is a former ISIS guy, they don't like the Shiites in Lebanon. So maybe because of their history of hatred and confrontation with the Shiites in Lebanon, they may be motivated to act against Hezbollah. But I'm not certain that the track record of Syria in dealing with Lebanon is something that we can trust and rely upon. And I'm not sure that President Trump is fully comprehensively knowledgeable of the history of the relations between Syria and Hezbollah. Syria was very much in assistance with Hezbollah for many years.
Speaker 1: Do you think Israel crossed a line when it supported al-Qaeda and ISIS to overthrow the government of Syria?
Speaker 0: Well, we didn't support al-Qaeda, we didn't support ISIS.
Speaker 1: We have the famous pictures of Netanyahu and the ISIS fighters on the Golan Heights.
Speaker 0: Come on, I don't know about that. The former ISIS fighters, which are now the government of Syria, and the president of Syria presently, who is a former ISIS, is welcomed in the Oval Office in the White House. So I think that he should complain to the Americans and not to the fact that once they are the government, I am in favor now of making a political contact between Israel and the president of Syria. What do you want? That we will continue forever fighting with Syria? Now that they are recognized as the leaders of Syria, Now that they have replaced the murderer, Ashad, we hope that they will become more restrained and more cooperative and possibly also maybe will reach an agreement with Israel for a security agreement and possibly also for peace between Israel and Syria.
Speaker 1: So your honest appraisal of Jolani is that he is a reformed character and you support that as a former prime minister?
Speaker 0: I don't know. I hope so. I don't know. I'm not now privy to all the intelligence. What do you give his chances? What do you give his chances? I would have given him chances, yes. I would have given him chances. The president of the United States of America, who is they? consent of the international community, invites the president of Syria to the Oval Office and calls him a friend and supports Syria and changes the attitude of the United States and possibly also of European countries to the Syrian government, present Syrian government, I think we should take part in this process rather than continue the fight in this step.
Speaker 1: You never favored a military war on Iran. You didn't believe that was a strategic idea that was viable. What do you expect Netanyahu to do now? Will he just go to prison before the October election?
Speaker 0: What will Netanyahu do? I hope he will resign as soon as possible. The sooner he resigns, the better for Israel. I don't think that he takes care. for the real, genuine security interests of the state of Israel, I think that his strategies failed completely from day one. I think that he was responsible for the total absent-mindedness attitude of Israel to the possible threat of Hamas in the first place, which caused a total failure in dealing with the 7th of October, 2023. But why would he resign if he's going to go to jail for corruption if he resigns? I don't know about that. I don't know about it. For me, the most important thing is that he will resign and there will be another government. The rest will be taken care of by the proper authorities.
Speaker 1: You don't believe that he's going to start a second front in the Bab el-Mandeb Straits in Yemen, restart that war as another war, because wars keep him in office?
Speaker 0: I hope he will not. And I believe that if he will do that, if he will try to do that, that the security... establishment and the parties in Israel will not cooperate and that the resistance and the opposition of the Israeli public opinion will prevent it.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were fine with what happened in Gaza. I mean, you've said war crimes, not genocide. I should say that the great Holocaust scholar at Brown University, Professor Omer Bartov, has told us it was a genocide. What was different?
Speaker 0: I don't have to agree with everything that Professor Omer Bartov states. I'm fully aware of what he says. The difference between him and me is that I'm here and I have a closer and perhaps a better look at the events and the political circumstances of these events. And while I criticize and I have admitted and I criticize publicly in Israel and outside of Israel war crimes that were committed in Gaza, I say again, There was not a policy of genocide. There was no genocide perpetrated. There were war crimes, regrettable war crimes, which we are responsible for. And this is bad enough. We don't have to blow it out of its reality. There was no genocide. There was not a policy of genocide.
Speaker 1: Well, Smotrich, Ben-Gavir and Netanyahu might ask you then, well, what's the difference between what they did And what you did in Karslid when 300 children were killed over 22 days in 2008-2009, you're criticizing them for war crimes. Aren't you a war criminal?
Speaker 0: They don't ask me. Because there was a big difference. You wouldn't say, I hope you don't say, maybe you want to hint at it, but you don't say that there was any policy of killing children in Gaza in Karslid operation. Karslid operation was inevitable.
Speaker 1: 300 children killed.
Speaker 0: For years. No, of course, there was no one aiming at children or purposely trying to kill children or acting in a way that may have inevitably led into it. It happened, unfortunately, and these things sometimes happen in a war, unfortunately. I will remind you that I was the spearhead of the Israeli government policy in 2004 or 2005. as a vice prime minister of Sharon, to disengage completely from Gaza. We dismantled the Israeli settlements, we pulled out completely from Gaza, outside of Gaza completely. And the reaction of Hamas was the day after the Israeli withdrawal completely from Gaza, they started to shoot rockets against Israeli settlements across the border, where civilians were living across the border.
Speaker 1: So no regrets about Kars' lead. We're coming to an end. Harry Ben Menashe, the source for Cy Hersh's The Samson Option, told us, on an interview we're going to be broadcasting on Monday's show, he said Trump is in danger because he is signing this deal with Iran in grave opposition to his donors, to people in power within the United States, let alone Russia. in Netanyahu's government. Do you think Trump is in danger because he signed an agreement that appears to leave Iran more powerful than it was before the war?
Speaker 0: I'm investing most of my energies and time to defeat the Israeli government in Israel. It's tough enough and big enough and time-consuming enough and energy enough to deal with. Leave me alone with America. Let the Americans decide who the president will be.
Speaker 1: Yes, but there was a joint Israeli-U.S. operation on Iran, and Israel could never have mounted an attack.
Speaker 0: It's over now. It's over now. There is an agreement between America and Iran, and Israel will not, I believe, I hope, will not continue any attacks on Iran. And it's over.
Speaker 1: But former Prime Minister, you've been an observer of Netanyahu for decades. Do you think Netanyahu will just rest easy and realize that Trump has superseded him over this war?
Speaker 0: As I said, I hope he will not rest easy. I hope he will resign. And I hope that if he will not resign, he will be defeated in the coming election so that he will be out. But he's running in October, he says. And leave us alone. Pardon? He says he's running in October. Yeah, he's running in October, but we are still democracy. And I'm sure that the majority of Israelis will never forgive him for his failures and for his policy of polarization, which has divided the Israelis like we never were.
Speaker 1: And I hope that we will... Were they that divided? I mean, just finally, the support for the war from Israelis, according to Paul, was good. But around the world, 36 countries, latest poll from Pew Research, unfavorable view of Israel. A kind of hatred of Israel has emerged under this Netanyahu prime ministership, your successor.
Speaker 0: Why do you argue with me? Do you think Israel will recover? I'm not Netanyahu. It's a reputation. I'm Olmert. I criticize the Israeli government just as much as perhaps some of the countries you have mentioned are doing it. So I'm against the policies of this government. And I thought already in January of 24, January of 24, I wrote an article calling for the cessation of the violent actions in Gaza because I thought that we have done enough in response to the terrible massacre perpetrated by Hamas at that time. So I understand the...
Speaker 1: But will Israel recover any semblance of its old reputation in NATO countries?
Speaker 0: I hope so. I hope that with a new government in Israel, after the elections, there is a likelihood... that the entire attitude and policies of the Israeli government will be different. The rhetoric that will come from Jerusalem will be entirely different. It will not be Ben-Vir's or Smotrich's or Netanyahu's, for that matter, but a different rhetoric of compassion and of peace and negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians towards a comprehensive political solution on the basis of two states. This is what we need, and this is what I believe will change the attitude of the world community to the state of Israel.
Speaker 1: Former Prime Minister, thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: And that's it for the show. Our condolences to all those of you who have been displaced by NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Monday with an exclusive interview with the former Israeli military intelligence official who was the source for Cy Hersh's, the Samson option, and who claims Trump's life is now in danger after the signing of the U.S.-Iran deal. Until then, keep in touch via 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.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
Muammar Gaddafi: "NATO is expanding towards Russia. To reach the gas, oil, coal and iron owned by Russia. To occupy Russia." https://t.co/3dpP7ixy4X
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 says people asked why “they” are crawling toward Russia like “the Atlasians,” explaining that the aim is to reach Russia’s oil, gas, coal, and iron to occupy it. He says this is “very clear,” adding that the Russians told him at the highest levels: “We, of course, know this goal.”
He states that the goal is to occupy Russia’s oil and gas and its coal and iron mines, and that these mines contain gold in Russia’s Caucasus region, which is not available “with them.” He says the Russians consider this intentional and emphasizes that the response should be taken seriously.
He also claims that Atlasians may occupy Libya and could even be able to take it all, unless there is national protection. He then argues that the Arab world has military power and that attacks should be understood as attacks on all Arabs: the alleged aggression toward Libya, Lebanon, and Mauritania are presented as aggression against “all Arabs.”
He urges Arabs not to “do like America,” saying America does not kill itself, and he describes the concept that America has its own fleets, “word promises,” aid, and “bribes,” leading to actions during a time he mentions as linked to the Soviet Union’s day and the period after it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: هم قالوا ليش يزحفوا نحو روسيا مثل الأطلسيين ماشي نحو روسيا نحو روسيا الوصول إلى البترول والغاز والفحم والحديد متاع روسيا لإحتلالها هذه واضحة جداً والروس متكلمين معايا على أعلى مستويات وقايلين احنا يا رانا عارفين هذا الهدف قال عارفين احنا هدفهم شنو هو احتلال البترول والغاز والفحم والحديد هذه المناجم فيها الذهب اللي موجود في روسيا في القوقاز هو مش موجود عندهم عارفين يحتلوها والله لازم تأخذوا باكم بجد في عهد موجودا يحيي ولا بعد يلا من الله الكلمة داية مسجلة موجودة إذا شئ حذف الأطلسي يجري يحتل ليبيا وممكن يستشهدوا كلها ألا إذا كان فيه حماية قومية ثم العربي كله عنده قوة عسكرية الاعتداء لليبيا اعتداء لكل عرب الاعتداء للمبنان اعتداء لكل عرب الاعتداء لموليتاني اعتداء لكل عرب ما تعملوا زي أمريكا أمريكا لا تقتل في نفسها بنفسها المقصودين أن أمريكا تبع في نفسها أساطيل طواعد مساعدات رشوة جلوس في دخلت ساعة مستعادة أمريكا في الهار ضيما عن نهار الاتحاد السوبيتي
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss with Prof. Steve Keen a new episode of Going Underground on Iran: why famine and financial crisis are unavoidable if the Strait of Hormuz is closed, the risk of Israel using the “Samson Option,” why financial markets ignore the economic damage, and the real reasons behind the Trump–Netanyahu war on Iran.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Iran: FAMINE & Financial Crisis UNAVOIDABLE From Strait of Hormuz Closure (Prof. Steve Keen) What is the risk of Israel resorting to the Samson Option? Why are the financial markets ignorant about the economic damage caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz? What were the real reasons for this economically disastrous Trump-Netanyahu war on Iran? We discuss all this and more with @ProfSteveKeen on this episode of Going Underground
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Ratansi hosts Steve Keen, honorary professor at University College London and author of *The New Economics Manifesto*, discussing how the war context around Iran, Israel, and broader Western actions could lead to famine and economic collapse. Keen argues that modern agriculture depends heavily on chemical fertilizers derived from oil feedstock, specifically nitrogenous fertilizers and phosphate-based fertilizers produced via the Haber-Bosch process and related oil-based inputs. He claims about 30% of the world’s fertilizer passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and that disruption to petroleum-based fertilizer supply would sharply reduce the planet’s food carrying capacity—from about 8.5 billion people down to between 1 and 2 billion—leaving famine “scattered all over the planet.”
Keen connects this to military decisions, stating that leaders who authorize war lack knowledge of how production and resource flows work. He says intelligence at lower levels may not reach top decision-makers, leading to war actions without understanding reliance on fertilizer supply routes and the Strait’s vulnerability because it is only 21 miles wide. He also proposes that political leaders may be driven by blackmail and insider dirt, referencing Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad involvement. Keen contends that governments support the war even as the public appears opposed, suggesting political credibility concerns tied to potential exposure.
Ratansi asks about timing and commodity markets not reflecting physical reality, referencing warnings that India could face famine within two to three months. Keen rejects the idea that financial markets efficiently price impending events, arguing instead that finance professionals largely guess what other speculators will do and have limited awareness of physical production constraints. He cites claims from a Twitter discussion and examples such as not recognizing shortages of physical inputs needed for industrial processes beyond fuel, including sulfuric acid and helium.
Keen further compares the expected crisis to 2008, saying governments can create money but money creation does not create goods and services. He argues the 2008 crisis was driven by credit expansion and then contraction (private debt growth turning from plus to minus in demand), whereas the current situation involves potential crushing of output capacity due to reduced oil supplies and other physical inputs. He predicts a financial crisis arising because people cannot service debt if goods cannot be produced and cash flows dry up—rather than from an earlier credit boom turning sharply.
When asked which countries would survive, Keen says those with greater self-sufficiency and buffer stocks would fare better, contrasting globalization and comparative advantage with the risk of disrupted supply flows. He points to China having about 1.5 years of grain reserve, while he claims the UK relies on imports for at least 40% (possibly up to 70%) of food and is therefore described as unable to feed itself. He links price controls to preventing starvation of the poor and potential social breakdown.
In the interview’s second segment, Ratansi asks how Jeffrey Epstein’s “ghost” and Netanyahu are implicated. Keen portrays Netanyahu as “peak blame,” asserting Netanyahu talked Trump into the war and that Trump’s decisions may reflect blackmail and/or narcissistic grandiosity. Ratansi asks about Trump allegedly enriching himself through market trading around announcements. Keen says he does not know Trump directly buys and sells, but cites work by Ed Conway identifying large petroleum-market sales or purchases shortly before Trump announcements, implying insider knowledge about announcements that can move markets and enable personal profit.
The discussion includes nuclear deterrence and scenarios for war outcomes. Keen supports the relevance of mutually assured destruction, describing it as a restraint against invasion. He outlines five scenarios: the U.S. using nuclear weapons; Iran destroying the Gulf; Iran disabling Dimona and the Israeli nuclear program; Iran getting nuclear weapons; and the Samson directive, where Israel targets the rest of the world with nuclear weapons. He says the worst outcome is the Samson directive and argues he is hoping preparedness and intelligence enable Iran to neutralize Israel’s nuclear weapons. Keen says he does not think the U.S. will use nuclear weapons, attributing restraint to Trump’s aversion to public humiliation. He describes social media, blackouts, and information control as amplifying “the first victim of war,” truth, and says he cannot know whether Israel will follow the Samson directive.
Finally, Ratansi asks why Western Europe is doubling down against Russia amid food-famine risk and West Asia war. Keen says the behavior is hard to understand and argues that Europe lacks raw material inputs and should cooperate with Russia rather than escalate conflict. He frames the Ukrainian conflict as tied to NATO expansion and broken promises, and he argues economic inequality in Western European nations could fuel fascism, suggesting elites blame outsiders for domestic economic failures and that this pattern resembles the conditions that fostered Nazism.
Full Transcript
Speaker 1: I'm Afshin Ratansi, and welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE. Today is the day a town famous for bottled water hosts the Genocide 7, the G7, for a summit of leaders giving diplomatic and military cover to Israeli genocides in Lebanon and Gaza and the American war on Iran. 20,000 were left without water in Iran after Trump bombed Iranian reservoirs. Hated at home in attendance in Evian will be the likes of Trump, Starmer, Macron, Mertz, and Ukraine dictator Zelensky. But also coming this year will be India's Modi, South Korea's Lee, Egypt's El-Sisi, and Brazil's Lula, who's been on this show after he was released from prison. That's all amidst warnings of a global economic catastrophe because of the Trump-Netanyahu-Epstein war on Iran. But while the so-called mainstream media are telling you to worry about filling your car and the price of your next foreign holiday, they seem not to know of an impending global famine that may starve 2 billion people on this planet. That's according to an economist known for correctly predicting the 2008 Western economic crisis. He's honorary professor at University College London, Steve Keen, author of the New Economics Manifesto. And he joins me again from Thailand's capital, Bangkok. Professor Keen, thanks so much for coming back on Going Underground. There's a bit of blurriness, I think a connection issue from this end, but you predicted the 2008 Western economic financial crisis. Now you're forecasting... And we can ignore and lay to one side the repeated truce socials from Trump that the Strait of Hormuz is open and under the control of the United States. You're predicting the possibility of two billion people facing famine. How have Trump and Netanyahu got the world to its greatest catastrophe in history?
Speaker 0: Well, it's mainly because everybody who is not actually directly involved in production these days has really no idea of how production occurs. And that certainly applies in agriculture. So the extent to which we're relied upon chemical fertilizers derived from oil feedstock is extremely high. And if the absence of the Haber-Bosch process and the process for producing both nitrogenous fertilizers and phosphate-based fertilizers without the oil, you can't produce them. And 30% of the world's fertilizer passes through the state of hormones, roughly speaking. Now, without the fertilizer in general, the carrying capacity of the planet falls from about 8.5 billion people, which is how many people we have right now, down to between 1 and 2 billion. So that's the extent to which we're reliant upon petroleum-based fertilizers for food output. If you lose 30%, of the fertilizer that the planet relies upon. At the extreme, that implies that something at the order of only 6 billion people can be supported by our food systems, from the current 8.5 to 9 billion people we're supporting. Now, there is some buffer inside there in terms of 30% of food roughly is wasted, but the extent to which we rely upon a continuous flow of petroleum-based fertilizers cannot be cannot be overestimated. And if we have a disruption to the supply of those fertilizers, anywhere from 10, 20 million people through to the ludicrous scale, I have to admit, of 2 billion, that's the potential range of disaster. I hope it's down the low end, but there's certainly no way I think we're going to avoid famines scattered all over the planet caused by this war. So people who are Buddhists, who are a Taoist, Christian, they're all going to be exposed to a war which they have no part in and which there might be thousands of, you know, up to 10,000 kilometers away. So this is a war in which the collateral damage occurs outside the region of the war itself and to citizens who have absolutely no part in the war, whereas collateral damage normally means civilians get killed in the combat zone. It's civilians outside the combat zone that are going to die because of this war.
Speaker 1: There are hints of it, of course, already, and we'll return to the economics. But I'm going to ask you then, what do you think are the profound structural reasons why so-called mainstream media in the NATO nations, giving the diplomatic and military cover for the Trump-Netanyahu war, what are the reasons that they're hiding this from the public and their publics?
Speaker 0: I think partly they don't know. I mean, if you're... you always have specialists working in places like the CIA who research things like the military structure of Iran and would have known that it broke itself into a 31-headed Hydra to handle a decapitation attack. But you get to the top levels, people like Hegseth and Trump, who are surrounded by a bunch of yes-men as advisors. The information that the intelligence workers at the lower levels of the system, does not get through at all. So they go and bomb Iran without realizing that 30% of the world's fertilizer passes through that strait. They bomb it without realizing that Iran was prepared to block the strait. And of course, since it's only 21 miles wide, it's extremely easy to block the flow of resources through that channel. Now, people who make the decision to go to war lack the knowledge to know that the war shouldn't be fought in the first instance. And I think... That's partly why it happened. There's a sheer ignorance that these problems would result. Otherwise, I can only think that it's the whole Epstein argument that whether it's Epstein directly or it's Mossad through Epstein has got dirt on all these political figures and they're towing the line to avoid having dirt published about them in the media, which would undermine and destroy their credibility and possibly get them arrested. That's about the only reason that I can think of where so many governments support the war, while the public are opposed to the war. And of course, the governments are supporting Israel when the public now seems to be a large majority in favor of Palestinians.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I might return to Jeffrey Epstein in a moment. But I mean, let's look at the time scales here. You said at the beginning of April, India would face famine within two to three months. I don't know whether that's why Modi might turn up at the Evian G7 summit to ask Trump what on earth he's doing. Where are we at as regards the time scales? Because we've been covering on Going Underground how often the paper and physical prices of commodities are not correlating correctly at the moment. The market prices of things, the signals don't seem to be getting through to the markets. I mean, would you revise that?
Speaker 0: prediction that you gave in april of two to three months before i think we should i think we should revise our opinions of people in the finance markets because economic theory tells you that markets are efficient that markets price and all potential opportunities and this has become part of the way the aura we give for finance markets that they've got some prescience they can see what's coming that is complete nonsense uh the people working in the finance markets are basically trying to guess what other speculators are likely to do the extent to which they pay attention to the real world is quite minimal. And I was involved in a Twitter space not too long ago where about five other people who claim to be experts on finance were talking about the impact of the war. Not one of them had any awareness of the physical damage to the production system of the planet being done by the closure of the strait. They thought petrol would get more expensive. They didn't realize that we're not going to get sulfuric acid for so many industrial processes, that helium comes out of there. All these physical elements of production are issues that people working in the finance sector have no knowledge of. So they get caught up in their own... Do you think it's a class issue?
Speaker 1: No one wants to dirty their hands. They don't understand the productive process.
Speaker 0: Is it a class issue? They do not understand it. It is ridiculous. So that is the case. again comes back to economic theory, which is based on a whole range of myths about how production occurs. So conventional economic theory argues that if you combine what they call technology or total factor productivity with labor and capital, you get output at the other side. They have no inputs from the natural world in terms of their production theory. Now, I've pointed out the floor on that about eight years ago with a little quip of saying that labor, that energy is a corpse, while capital, that energy is a sculpture. So if you don't have energies and input, you can't produce anything. Now, you'd think that would be something which is common knowledge to economists. But in fact, their mental model of how the economy operates leaves out the need for physical inputs from the natural world at all, especially energy. So they're completely ignorant. about how the system functions. And therefore, they're not pre-warned about the dangers of cutting off the supply of physical goods through the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaker 1: And the central bankers and politicians are those who would have criticized you when you forecast the 2008 economic crisis, presumably, based on similar core principles. Of course, they still think that because, I mean, the reverberations of that crisis are still ongoing. They think that printing money will sort things out. Price controls, I suppose, embattled if by the time this program is broadcast, Keir Starmer is still Prime Minister of Britain, has already announced possible price controls of bread, milk and eggs. So they presumably believe that they can borrow the money, print the money and somehow cope with the escalating price increases due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaker 0: Well, the government can create money. This is one element, again, that mainstream economics is wrong about. The government has capacity to create money. And to do that, it has to spend more than it brings back in taxation. Now, even there, they think that's a bad thing. But in fact, that's how the government creates money. But creating money doesn't create goods and services. And this is where this crisis differs from what happens back in 2008. Because in the global financial crisis, you had financial credit, the growth in private debt every year, which adds to aggregate demand and income, hitting extremely high levels. In America's case, 15% of GDP additional demand came out of credit. And then when the credit, when people stopped borrowing money and were trying to repay their debt or were going bankrupt, it went from plus 15% to minus five. That's what caused the crisis. GDP itself was affected after the event. This time around, you don't have the same level of credit-based demand anymore. We're still carrying a large amount of private debt as an aftermath of the global financial crisis. So America peaked at about 170% its ratio of private debt to GDP. Now it's about 140%. Now that's sustainable with the current level of economic demand coming through. So people are servicing their interest payments out of the turnover of goods and services. What's going to happen this time is up to 10% of that turnover could be crushed by the reduction in oil supplies, the reduction in sulfur dioxide, helium, all these things. The inability to produce goods and services will mean that people can no longer service their debt levels out of the cash flow of their businesses because the cash flow will decrease dry up because the goods won't even be there. So I do expect a financial crisis coming out of this, but not caused by the financial sector. Instead, this time it's the destruction of the capacity to produce output. That'll mean people can't service their debts anymore, and therefore they'll fall for that reason, rather because of excessive credit going from positive to negative.
Speaker 1: And so what, the countries that will survive will be the ones that are most independent? I don't know, Cuba, Iran itself, Eritrea. North Korea? Are the countries that are most going to survive this kind of shock the ones that are most self-sufficient?
Speaker 0: Yes, and this is a complete change to the focus on globalization. Everything in mainstream economics is about how you should specialize on what you're good at and not produce things which can be made more cheaply by other countries. So globalization, comparative advantage, that's been the dominant theme for the last 50 years. But what that assumes is that you're going to continue having the flow of those goods and services to enable you to produce output. Now, what we're showing here is that that is no longer a given. People used to say, when you had people arguing against renewable energy, they'd say, well, the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Well, now we can also say the Strait of Hormuz doesn't always flow. So suddenly when that suppliers cut out you no longer have the capacity to produce goods and services anymore the countries which are more self-sufficient more likely to survive this and the of the ultimate example there of course is china because if we do have a famine coming out of and we will have famines coming out of this process the only way you can survive those famines is to have buffer stocks now most of the west has almost no buffer stocks of food china apparently has one and a half years of grain in reserve So they can go for one and a half years without getting grain supplies from the rest of the world and still feed their population. The UK, at the other extreme, has imports at least 40% of its food, possibly 70% because they described some so-called domestic production is made with English ingredients and foreign ingredients as well. England is going to be massively unable to feed itself, which is why I'm actually, I'm quite pleased that Starmer's talking about price controls, because if you don't have price controls, then it means the poor starve. And if that happens, then your social system breaks down.
Speaker 1: Professor Spielke, and I'll stop you there. More from the author of the new economics manifesto after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the author of the New Economics Manifesto and honorary professor at UCL, Steve Keen. Professor Keen, in part one, we did briefly mention the dreaded name Jeffrey Epstein. Given what we were talking about as regards global famine and two billion possibly facing it because of what Trump and Netanyahu have done, I mean, we now know from the New York Times, of all places, that Mossad has apparently been bugging Witkoff, Elbridge Colby, the top Pentagon policy official, and Michael Domino. How to blame is Jeffrey Epstein's ghost, as it were, and Netanyahu for what the entire world is now facing?
Speaker 0: Well, definitely Netanyahu is, I think, peak blame because this is a war that he talked Trump into. And there have been 30 years of prime ministers, of presidents before Trump, who heard that same pitch and turned it down. Now, Trump, who claims to be the great negotiator, fell for that pitch, whether that's because it's dirt that Moss had and that Netanyahu have on Trump, and of course we know he's in the Epstein files more than virtually anybody else, whether it's the blackmail that led to it happening or his own sense of grandiosity, believing that he could start a war and end it in a few days. It's hard to say, but I think both factors are there. I'm almost certain blackmail is involved in the decisions of top political leaders, including Trump, and it's almost certain that his stupidity his ridiculous belief that he can end wars after starting them in the first place and get a Nobel Prize for it. A combination of stupidity and blackmail, I think, are the only way we can explain how this war came about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, people can watch our interview with former Israeli intelligence agent official Arabian Menashe, who talked of the blackmail as regards Epstein. But you've been talking about, even before the Strait of Hormuz situation, about the personal enrichment of the oligarchs that run the United States. It's your contention that Trump himself is using every moment to buy and sell on the markets to enrich himself, his family, and the oligarchs that run the U.S.?
Speaker 0: I don't know that it's Trump doing the buying and selling, but you'd see the work done by Ed Conway trying to identify those volumes of sales, particularly on petroleum markets, before and after announcements. And 15 minutes before most of the announcements that Trump has made, whether there's wars back on again or we're best about to sign peace agreements, there are huge volumes of sales or purchases. It'll be people taking advantage, knowing which way the market is likely to be moved by the next announcement by Trump 15 minutes beforehand. That's documented. It's in Ed Conroy's work on Sky News. This implies that there is insider trading going on in some sense, knowing what the announcements are going to be, knowing when they're going to occur, and 15 minutes before positioning themselves to make a personal profit out of it. We'll only find out in the aftermath of this whole thing.
Speaker 1: catastrophe just how extreme that was but i think it's almost certainly this is a elaborate pump and dump scheme designed to look like it's a foreign foreign policy and i suppose he has a has a bunker and um yeah ed conway on sky news i suppose so-called mainstream media uh in nato countries often hates trump for being trump and often can be quite good uh sometimes despite its uh support, arguable, Sky News's arguable support during the genocide for the genocide. So given this picture that we're painting in this episode of Going Underground, I mean, it seems like an odd question to ask, but do you think Iran is being irresponsible in not having developed nuclear weapons to have a deterrent? Yes, yes.
Speaker 0: Yes, I mean, you'll see great memes around the world about why are you attacking Iran? It's because they might develop nuclear weapons. Why don't you attack North Korea? Because they have nuclear weapons. In some ways, the insurance against being invaded by America is the potential for nuclear retaliation. That was the whole idea of mutually assured destruction in the old Cold War days. And I do think that without mutually assured destruction, we might well have had localised wars on a grander scale after World War II than we actually did have. So I think MAD worked. And then with the argument that we have a post-confrontation world between the Soviet Union and America, the Soviet Union and Ukraine dismantled their nuclear defence deterrence and, bang, we get war again in Ukraine. So in some ways, as awful as it appears, countries have the capacity to threaten nuclear retaliation. They're likely to be attacked by America. So the fact that the previous leader had a fatwa against developing nuclear weapons might be why Iran got invaded this time around or got attacked.
Speaker 1: And that feeds into your five scenarios of how this war will end. Maybe you can just very briefly go through those quick five scenarios.
Speaker 0: Well, the worst would be if Israel decides it's losing categorically and executes what's called the Samson directive, that they decide to hit the rest of the world with nuclear weapons. That is the absolute worst outcome. My hope is that the level of preparedness that Iran had for this conflict has taken virtually everybody by surprise. the fact that they have broken themselves into a state-based, a province-based military structure rather than a national-based one, meaning they've got 31 separate control centres, they have 31 different groups producing weapons, having them stored in very, very hard-to-hit bunkers, using their mountain terrain extremely effectively as well to hide where their bases are. It appears that they... may also, if they have that level of intelligence to fight back a conventional attack, I simply hope they've got the capacity to use weapons that can take out Israel's nuclear weapons. I just hope that they do. Because the last thing we want to see is the Samson Directive, and the best prevention of that may be the Iranians already having developed a strategy to take out those weapons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Samson Doctrine exposed by a friend of the show, Sy Hersh, famously. I should just quickly say the five scenarios. You said the U.S. could use nuclear weapons. Iran destroys the Gulf, the Samson Doctrine. Iran disables Dimona and the Israeli nuclear program. And Iran gets nuclear weapons, which is what we just said. What do you think is the most likely at the moment at the time of this interview?
Speaker 0: I don't think America's going to use nuclear weapons, and this comes down to Trump's personality again, because being a severe case of narcissistic personality disorder, the last thing they can cope with is public humiliation. So if he actually thought about using nuclear weapons, what would stop him is the thought of the humiliation that he would then be regarded as the greatest mass murderer in human history. I think that will stop him actually using nuclear weapons. If Iran continues fighting back as effectively as it is right now, and Israel fears that it's going to be wiped out by the Iranians having far more defensive capability and far more aggressive capability than apparently the top American commands or the Israeli commands thought they had, That's what worries me. Is Israel going for the Samson directive? I really can't say which way it's going to go. The classic story about the first victim of war being truth is amplified a hundredfold now by social media and by the extent to which there are blackouts and attempts to control what we see happening. coming through is coverage of the conflict. So I simply can't know, but I'm hoping that the outcome is that Israel's nuclear weapons get destroyed because the whole cause of the catastrophes in the Middle East in the last 50 or 60 years has been the asymmetric power of Israel versus its Arab and Persian opponents in that region. If that asymmetry is removed, then we might get some form of stability in the Middle East. What I really hope is that the Arab nations, the Muslim nations that are all part of this conflict, decide to do what the Christians did several hundred years ago, and that's cease fighting each other. If we go back 300 years or 400 years, you have these forms of conflicts occurring in Europe between so-called Christian nations, Catholic versus Protestant. I know there's much more to it than Shiite versus Sunni, but the fact that the Sunni side of the Muslim religion sided with America supposedly is a defense against the power of the Shiite Persian country, and that's failed. I hope that makes those countries realize they really should come together with their the people that they're closer to, which would mean that would become a Muslim part of the world in general and keep the Americans out because the true troublemakers in the Middle East have always been the Americans and the Israelis.
Speaker 1: Well, let's turn to Europe since the G7 or Genocide 7, as I called them, our meeting in Evian this week. For all the criticisms we've been making about Trump, at least... At least he seems to have understood that Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other country on Earth. What have you made of EU powers and my country, Britain, doubling down against Russia, let alone the context of what you were talking about, the two billion facing famine and the war in West Asia? What possible strategic direction is Western Europe heading?
Speaker 0: It's extremely hard to understand the behavior because we're trying to work out some way in which what the leaders are doing is a strategic reaction to the circumstance they're in. I just don't think that cuts the mustard. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of imagination, but the extent to which Israel has tried to control the political attitudes towards itself from countries in the rest of the world I expect there's dirt on all of these major political leaders, and that's why they're making the decisions they are. It's not based on insensible...
Speaker 1: Even vis-à-vis Russia.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I know. Russia, it is so... I mean, people... We're trying to make sense of a senseless world. And if you were going to be strategic about this, you would say, well, Russia... has specialized in being a producer of raw materials. Europe doesn't have the raw material inputs. It needs them. It should be cooperating with Russia. Instead, they're expending the conflict. And of course, the whole Ukrainian conflict goes well before the invasion, the Russia's own invasion, which I saw as a mistake on the scale it made the invasion. I expected Putin to take over Donbass, not to try to wipe out Kiev in the first few weeks of the conflict. So NATO is provoking that behavior all the way through. NATO promised Ukraine, you know, it's promised so many countries that it would not expand its range eastward. And it has done that expansion of the range. So Russia's response was, you know, they've had European invasions before. They're saying, don't tread any further. You're NATO concerned doing it. That's what leads to the Ukraine war. But you would hope that that ancient, sense of military-based conflict would finally be removed from our political system by the interdependencies that now exist between countries like Russia with a large energy supply, Europe with a large need for energy. Instead, these conflicts occur, and I just shake my head. Again, I said I can't make sense of it unless I imagine that people have got some metaphorical gun at their heads. That means that that's why they're making the decisions they do, not that those decisions make any sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, critics of Putin include those who say that he should have gone in 2014 after the coup, of course. Well, very briefly and finally, do you think then the rising inequality that will continue in these Western European nations will give rise to fascism and G7 nations will see that rise in fascism as they become more unequal and their oligarch classes continue to drive them into war?
Speaker 0: I'm afraid I do. And of course, These decisions is turning people against the outsider, blaming the outsider for the situation that's going wrong inside the country. This is a common element. Again, that was the original of Nazism. You blame the Jews for the problems of Germany. This tendency back to fascism seems to occur when we have massive economic inequality and the economic system functioning badly for the people at the bottom of the the social totem pole, the response of the elite is to say it's all the fault of the foreigner. And that then seems to lead to the growth of fascist-type behavior. So yes, I'm afraid I see a continuing tendency towards fascism.
Speaker 1: Professor Keane, thank you.
Speaker 0: You're welcome.
Speaker 1: That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new show. Until then, you can keep in touch via all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel, GoingUndergroundTV on Rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m joined by Prof. Theodore Postol to explain why the US and Israel may fail to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, why nuclear use is a real risk, how quickly Iran could make a weapon, and more on Going Underground.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Prof. Theodore Postol Explains Why Israel Could Use NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the War on Iran Why will the US & Israel fail to destroy Iran’s nuclear program? Why is the risk of Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran a real threat? How quickly could Iran make a nuclear weapon if needed? All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with Prof. Theodore Postol, former Chief of Naval Operations Adviser at the Pentagon.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Rattansi introduces claims of renewed U.S. and Israeli bombardment of Iran amid ongoing violence in Gaza and Lebanon, including the assertion that Trump bombed southern Hormuzgan province leaving 20,000 Iranians without water. He says Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran a year earlier during negotiations, striking military and nuclear facilities and killing senior commanders, nuclear scientists, and their families. Rattansi further says Tehran responded with missile waves, whose impact is “heavily censored,” and that days later the U.S. entered the war by striking Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles, after which Trump declared Iran’s nuclear program “obliterated.” This year, Rattansi alleges that Washington and Tel Aviv used “so-called imminent threat” and peace negotiations as a pretext to kill Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei and family members, and to kill 168 elementary schoolgirls, while Iran still retains a “massive stockpile” of enriched uranium and could produce 10–20 nuclear weapons in days.
Rattansi asks Professor Ted Postol, a nuclear weapons and missile defense expert, whether the U.S. has a sustainable strategic position. Postol says the U.S. does not have such a position and argues Trump is constrained by domestic politics and pressured by an Israeli lobby with outsized influence and major financial power affecting U.S. and Congressional actions.
Rattansi questions contradictions between Pentagon/CENTCOM self-defense framing and Trump rhetoric about “destroying” and even threatening to destroy Oman if it does not behave. Postol responds that the operation is not defensive, is a war of choice initiated with Israel, and from Iran’s perspective is a war of survival and existential protection against U.S. and Israeli aims to destroy Iranian civilization. He emphasizes that Iranian resistance would be driven by survival rather than U.S. internal politics.
On war gaming and nuclear strike planning, Postol says military officers are servants of the Constitution, reserved about limits of military action, and that if Trump ordered nuclear weapons use, there is a real chance people would refuse due to nuclear weapons being in a special category.
Asked about claims that Iran’s nuclear knowledge could be removed, Postol says knowledge cannot be erased and that even killing experts would not stop a program because societies have large numbers of capable people; he gives an analogy to Russia under Stalin, describing how reconstitution occurred after large purges. He also argues Israel lacks a chance of successfully stopping Iran via this approach.
Rattansi asks why Iran would not declare it has nuclear warheads and delivery mechanisms. Postol answers that doing so would be bad for Iran and could provoke neighbors into developing nuclear weapons, reducing Iran’s security. He describes an Iranian strategy of preparing capability without crossing the line, including enriching 60% uranium hexafluoride to 90%, converting it to uranium metal, and using deep underground facilities; he states this could be achieved in weeks or months, potentially even in weeks, based on available centrifuge capability and setup.
When discussing Trump’s fear of nuclear weapons, Postol says he is more comfortable with Trump being afraid of nuclear weapons and argues Iran is not the main source of nuclear instability—Israel is—asserting Israeli leadership has been pushing toward escalation despite military limits. He claims Iran’s ballistic missiles are more capable than initially seen, are hard to intercept, have larger warheads, greater accuracy, and are backed by large numbers, alongside drones and air defense misuse.
On ballistic missile defense effectiveness, Postol disputes claims about Patriot performance and says air defenses have almost no capability against ballistic missiles. He also addresses regional nuclear risks: for Bushehr, he says a catastrophic meltdown could spread radioactivity depending on weather and winds, potentially reaching Dubai under some conditions. For Zaporizhzhia, he says if plants are shut down for a period of weeks, residual core energy is small enough that loss of cooling would not necessarily lead to major release; if operating, there is danger. On Dimona, he suspects the reactor is shut down; if shut down long enough, plutonium production could be lost, and severe core damage would likely not cause major radioactive release unless near and affected by wind. He warns that if Israel believed it had no choice but to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, Iran would respond differently, using underground facilities to convert 60% enriched uranium hexafluoride to nuclear weapons in potentially weeks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshin Rattansi, and welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE, which reportedly sought to defuse tensions with Tehran through direct talks amidst renewed U.S. aerial bombardment of Iran, let alone Iranian strikes, as the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, supported by Britain, the U.S., and EU, continues. 20,000 Iranians were left without water after Trump bombed southern Hormuzgan province in Iran. It was a year ago today Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran while negotiations were still underway, striking military and nuclear facilities and killing senior commanders, nuclear scientists and their families. Tehran responded with waves of missiles attacks on Israel, the full impact of which is still heavily censored. Days later, on June the 22nd, the U.S. entered the war on Israel's side, striking the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites with B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles, with Donald Trump subsequently declaring Iran's nuclear program obliterated. This year, citing a so-called imminent threat, Washington and Tel Aviv again used the ruse of peace negotiations to launch a war of aggression, killing Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and members of his family, as well as slaughtering 168 elementary schoolgirls. At the time of this episode, Iran retains its massive stockpile of enriched uranium, and according to our guest, it could produce between 10 and 20 nuclear weapons in a matter of days, while U.S.-Israeli threats, ultimatums, and military actions bring the world closer to thermonuclear. catastrophe. Joining me again is Professor Ted Postel, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT. He served as a scientific advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon and is one of the world's foremost experts on nuclear weapons, missile defense and ballistic missile technology. He joins me now from Omaha, Nebraska. Professor Postol, thanks so much for coming back on the show. By the time this is being broadcast, we don't know what Trump has either posted on Truth Social or what he has destroyed. But I suppose the obvious initial question to you, who's been a senior advisor at the Pentagon, does the U.S. have a sustainable strategic position in this war?
Speaker 1: Oh, no, not at all. And it's amazing to me the lack of ability on the part of President Trump to somehow recognize his situation and act accordingly. Nobody should misunderstand what I'm about to say as in any way support for Trump, but he has maneuvered himself into a situation where the domestic political environment in the united states is uh is constraining him to a great degree it would require a great deal of courage and independence on his part to do the right thing which of course is to back away from this whole process but he's under a lot of pressure from the israeli lobby in the united states which has extraordinary outsized uh influence on both the president and the American Congress. This lobby has large amounts of money. The American political system has been damaged severely by the uncontrolled ability of special interests to provide money to elected members of Congress and to the different political parties. engage in retribution against anybody who stands up against them. And this is a very, very powerful domestically driven force, which has actually led to many Americans like myself, for example, being extremely angry that our political leadership is more likely to do something that is what the Israelis want rather than what's in the best interest, the security interest of the United States, not to mention the rest of the world. So we have a big problem here in the United States with the influence of this Israeli lobby.
Speaker 0: I said you were at the Pentagon. What did you think of the seeming dissonance between the way the Pentagon at CENTCOM was saying that these were self-defensive strikes? I mean, it was absurd, but it was very different from what we were hearing from Trump and technically the head of the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, who said, we want to destroy, well, echoing the kind of rhetoric of destroying a civilization. I have to say, I mean, I was speaking to you from Dubai. Oman, just up the road, Trump said he'd destroy the whole of Oman if necessary. If they didn't behave like everybody else, we'll have to blow them up, he said.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm afraid, I speak incidentally as an American critic, I love my country and I want to see my country do the right thing. But I'm afraid that the American government masks its malevolent goals by talking about supporting democracy, defending itself. There's nothing defensive about this whole operation. We started it with the Israelis. And this was a war of choice, not a war of defense. From the Iranian point of view, this is a war of survival. And this is something that many people who are trying to understand this, you know, the dynamics of this war, should keep very high in their perceptual analysis of what's going on. You should keep in mind that from the point of view of the Iranians, and I mean all Iranians, people who are opposed to their country, Governments would like to change their government, as well as people who are supporters of the current government. This is a war of existential survival. They are dealing with two countries, United States and Israel, who have made it clear that they want to destroy Iranian civilization. That's their objective. So this is a war of survival. This has nothing to do This has nothing to do with your internal politics. If you're in a country, it's your country, and you are seeing an adversary who aims to destroy your country, to destroy your civilization, if need be, you are going to fight, and you're going to fight very seriously.
Speaker 0: But surely they'd war game this in. You personally have been involved in war gaming at the Pentagon, specifically, obviously, over nuclear strikes. I mean, would they not be sitting at the Pentagon right now thinking there'd be some people on that side acting as that side saying exactly what you've just been saying?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if you're talking to the military officers, which I have been fortunate enough to work closely with when I was at the Pentagon... whatever their political views are, and they do have their own political views, if you get to know people well, you learn about them, they are servants of the American Constitution. And they are mostly concerned with not doing harm to the United States and also providing military capabilities when it's needed. And that means that they are very reserved about, they understand the limits, the soldiers I know at least, understand the limits of what military activities can do. And I'd be surprised if many of them are for this. So I think if Trump ordered, for example, to use nuclear weapons, I can't say for sure, but I think there's a real chance that people will say no. I mean, thank God the American system has a military that has been trained and is dedicated to supporting the Constitution of the United States.
Speaker 0: We've seen, though, historically where that's gone gruesomely awry, to say the least. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, no question. I'm one of the harshest critics of the military when these things happen and when they cover it up, which also happens. But I think if you talk to people about their ethical standards, if it comes up against a choice of doing something that could be overtly lead to the destruction or terrible damage to the United States, I think almost all military officers will not do it. And I think using nuclear weapons is one of those things. It's in a very special category. If you tell them to attack a ship in the Caribbean in an unjustified criminal attack on a ship that, you know, without warning, like has been happening, for example, some people will do it. Although we did have the commander in the Caribbean ultimately resign from his position. He did eventually stand up.
Speaker 0: Of course, there are reports now that some of those strikes that Trump ordered hit purported human trafficking victims in the Caribbean. But anyway, I want to get back to Iran, Professor Postol. Again and again, Trump just keeps on talking about the fact that the impetus for all of this is for peace because he doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. You've said that actually there is no way of getting Iran to get rid of the potential for them to be able to have nuclear weapons because they have knowledge.
Speaker 1: Well, they have more than knowledge. I have knowledge, but I can't build a nuclear weapon. Because I don't have capability. I don't have equipment. And the extraordinary cadres of individuals who have special expertise. It's one thing for me to describe how an enrichment centrifuge works and describe the physics of it. It's another thing to build one. You need cadres of technical experts, really high-level professional engineers. Was Trump killing them all?
Speaker 0: Trump is bombing the universities, the schools of science, the elementary schools.
Speaker 1: There have got to be tens of thousands, if not more, of these people. I mean, you can't erase cultural capability. All societies have vast numbers of people who are extraordinarily capable, some of whom are in positions where they're working at it, and some of whom are in positions in subordinate positions who can take over if someone else is killed. Think of, look at Russia under Stalin. This murderous leader, he killed over 90% of the absolute top military leadership of Russia before Nazi Germany attacked Russia. He eliminated his highest level military officers. And very quickly, the Russian military reconstituted itself at great cost, of course, because Operation Barbarossa killed an enormous number of Russians. And all of these people who are great leaders in the military at the top levels of the Russian military came out from the lower ranks. You have people with great talent everywhere. And when you have a society that's under threat, all of a sudden political differences become irrelevant. Your society is under threat and you do what you need to do to protect your country. That's what happens. And you can't kill everyone. You know, you'd have to kill tens of thousands of people. You don't even know who these people are. So if you have people, you know, modifying and running these centrifuges and you kill them, There'll be others who come believe them, who have been mentored by them, who have been around, who have studied. There's no way to kill enough of them to stop the program. This is just a bizarre approach, not to mention ethical. Yeah, so I don't think the Israelis have had, has any chance of working. And it's just a brutal... immoral strategy, which unfortunately has been the way Israel has conducted itself over the last few years. I mean, maybe earlier than that if you're anti-Zionist, but certainly in the most recent years, certainly in the last five or ten years, especially with Gaza, the Israelis have been totally out of control. They have a a messianic group of people who would have been brutal 5,000 years ago, according to the culture then, living now, who somehow think that there should be something like a greater Israel, whatever that means.
Speaker 0: Professor Postel, I have to stop you there. Differing views on that Stalin history, I should add. But I'll have to stop you there. We've had a few connection issues. More from the Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former scientific advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon, Professor Ted Postol. Professor Postol, we were talking about how it's a myth and everyone in Congress and in the White House should understand it, that Iran can remove the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons. But I've got to ask you, why doesn't Iran just say it has nuclear warheads and delivery mechanisms? Wouldn't that just end the war?
Speaker 1: No. First of all, I think it would be a very bad thing for the Iranians to do this. And in fact, I think the Iranians understand this. This is one of the many reasons why I have been rather impressed by how cleverly and thought out the Iranian strategy, both political and military, has been. What Iran does not want to do is provoke its neighbors, like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, some of the Gulf states, the GCC states, into fighting. getting nuclear weapons or developing nuclear weapons programs because Iran's security would be greatly reduced if it was surrounded by nuclear-armed states. So what the Iranians very cleverly have devised as a strategy is to bring themselves to a point where they can obtain nuclear weapons if they choose to. In other words, relatively quickly. but not step across the line. How quickly? How quickly? Well, it's hard to know without exact details, but certainly to build a few nuclear weapons from what they have initially, you could imagine it being done in weeks or months easily, and maybe even in weeks. They have the 60% enriched weapons uranium hexafluoride. What they have to do is enrich it to 90%. That takes almost no time given the centrifuges they have, maybe a week. Then they have to convert the uranium hexafluoride, which is a special material. It looks like it's a gas a lot of the time and sometimes a solid that looks like a salt. You have to convert it to uranium metal. You have to get the fluorine out of it. That's straightforward. It's a straightforward process. And that could take literally, again, a few days even if they're set up to do it. And you would expect them to have the equipment set up. If I were in their position, I always try to put myself in the position of an adversary. And if I were advising an Ayatollah and I were asked and in a position to advise them, I would say, let's not do it. Let's be prepared to do it. Let's find a really deep underground facility or several of them, all of which, each one of which are capable of doing the job. Set them up. We don't need a lot of equipment given what we already have. So we already have the equipment. We set them up so they're ready to go. And we don't do it though. And we just let people know that we don't want to do it, in fact.
Speaker 0: You don't think some of your research is being used by Netanyahu as leverage over Trump? Because Trump keeps on appearing to be horrified by the prospect of the imminence of a nuclear threat when, of course, the Iranian government has repeatedly said on theological grounds because of the previous fatwa, it won't have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: Well, I think I'm glad that Trump is horrified and afraid of nuclear weapons. That makes me... more comfortable with him rather than, there's very little uncomfortable with regard to this man. But the fact that he's extremely afraid of nuclear weapons is good. And so, for example, Cy Hersh's recent discussion, which in fairness to Cy, he was careful to say it was more of a muse of Trump rather than a serious statement. At least he indicated that it appeared to be not as serious, you know, that he was just talking, you know, freely at the moment. It's very clear that Trump is extremely afraid of nuclear weapons. And I'm sure he would be advised if he thought about using them, that this would open a box that none of us want to see opened. And because the Iranians could proceed to build nuclear weapons. I do not think Iran is the big nuclear threat, is the big nuclear instability in the Middle East. Israel is. You have a leadership in Israel that is willing to push their country into a situation with their own military leadership. Their own military leadership is telling them. There are reports of this now. Their own military leadership is telling Netanyahu, we are on the ropes. We cannot do any more. We are, you know, we are at the limit of what we can do. We're losing soldiers at the high rate. We're a small country. We cannot sustain taking the, you know, taking these territories and holding, you know, they have to hold these territories too because you're not, you're dealing with hostile populations. And they are on the, at the limit of what they can do. This is not, they shouldn't have been there. They shouldn't have been put there by their leadership. That was Netanyahu's fault and the military didn't stand up to him. So it's in some sense their responsibility as well. But Israel is on the line. And now if things escalate, which I'm afraid they're likely to do, the survival of Israel could eventually come into question. And the amount of damage that the Iranians are in a position to do to Israel is enormous. The capabilities of their ballistic missiles are extraordinarily greater than what we initially saw. Even in the June 2025 war, I was estimating, based on data I had collected, that the Iranians could do... Significant but modest damage to Tel Aviv if the war escalated. Well, I was wrong. Because there was a whole generation of newer, more capable missiles that are impossible, I want to underscore impossible, to intercept. They are not close to being subject to intercept. And they have bigger warheads that are more destructive. And... Iran has large numbers of them, and they're more accurate, which means that they can focus them doing more heavy damage on targets that are more valuable to the Israelis. Then there are the drones, and the air defenses have been foolishly used against ballistic missiles. The air defenses have almost no capability against ballistic missiles. We should have another short program, if you're up for it.
Speaker 0: You're an expert. You're an expert on the Patriot missile, showing the complete lack of effectiveness of the Patriot missile system. I have to say, FADs have done quite well here against the drones, which I think is the point.
Speaker 1: No, no, the FADs have not done well.
Speaker 0: Well, something's protecting us here in Dubai, but because we're running out of time, I've got to just ask you, I mean, given that Going Underground is now broadcast from Dubai, what will the effect of the Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran, if that's continuing to be attacked by Israeli and U.S. projectiles, what happens to the Gulf, given your expertise in nuclear projects?
Speaker 1: nuclear... Well, I mean, if you had a meltdown of the, you know, a catastrophic meltdown of Bushehr, it would, you know, cause radioactivity over a very large area. It would depend, of course, on the weather conditions, how these materials spread. How would Dubai be hit?
Speaker 0: Because Dubai is not being hit at all badly, given it's been the target of most of the projectiles outside of Iran and Israel.
Speaker 1: I... I could do an analysis of that, but I haven't done it, so I don't want to make any statements. But certainly, under specialized conditions, Dubai could receive some levels of radioactivity if the weather... It depends on the wind. If the wind carries it in the direction of Dubai, I don't... My guess... I want to underscore it as a guess because I haven't studied this yet. I mean, if you come back and ask me to study it now... talk to you again about it, I will. But my guess is that radioactively could reach Dubai if you had the right or the wrong, depending on your point of view, wind directions.
Speaker 0: Hopefully not. As I said, we're under a time constraint here. I wanted to ask what you thought was the impact of Iranian strikes on Dimona as well, but I suppose I better just move to Zaporizhia because it's the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. and repeatedly British, European Union, American-armed Kiev has been, I mean, in the past few days, it's been attacking IAEA repairmen who are trying to repair the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. What are the dangers as regards Kiev's attacks on that?
Speaker 1: Well, if the plants have been shut down, which I think is the situation in Zaporizhzhia, I may not be correct on that. You may need to correct me on that. But if the plants are shut down, And in particular, if they've been shut down for a little while, a little while could be several weeks, then the amount of residual energy in the core is small enough that they won't melt down further if they lose cooling. There'll be a damage to the core, but there won't necessarily be a loss of radioactive material. And that's important because... The reactor may be, in effect, destroyed as a unit for producing power, but it may not be a source for releasing large amounts of radioactivity. And my understanding, which may not be correct, I want to underscore, I haven't looked into this, is that the Zapparicia reactors are shut down, that they're not operating, they're not providing power. But if they are, there is a danger.
Speaker 0: That's the situation. Well, just finally, on that topic of, as you said and explained elegantly about the existential nature of this war as regarded by in Tehran, what will be the impact of an Iranian attack with the missiles you described on Dimona and the Israeli nuclear program? What will happen to Jerusalem?
Speaker 1: Well, I suspect that the reactor is not running. I don't know, but I suspect it's been shut down. And if it's been shut down long enough, they could lose the facility for production of plutonium, which is what it's really for. But if it's been shut down long enough, the radioactive release from any severe damage to the protective shelter around the reactor core would probably not result in a significant radioactive release. Maybe if you were near the facility, you know, within miles of it and the wind were blowing your way, you might get a release that you might want to evacuate the population. But I don't think it would be a vast result if the Israelis have shut down the reactor, and they should have shut this down. If I were in Israel and I was advising, of course, you don't know, I mean, advising Netanyahu may be worthless.
Speaker 0: And there's the Samson doctrine as well.
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, I think that's my concern, is that if the Israelis come to a point where they feel that they have no choice but to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, then we're in a different world because the Iranians will respond differently. And they have the underground facilities to convert their non-nuclear reserve of 60% enriched uranium hexafluoride to nuclear weapons. As you said.
Speaker 0: Potentially in weeks. Professor Postol, thank you. Many thanks again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry to have gone on too long.
Speaker 0: No, never. Thanks, Ted Postol. And that's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Monday with an economist predicting that two billion face famine because of what Trump and Netanyahu have done. Until then, keep in touch via 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 shared a new episode of Going Underground with Chen Weihua. He argues the US is the destroyer of the global order and underestimated China’s power, and discusses whether Iran, Venezuela, and Gaza signal Washington’s coming war on China and the state of US soft power.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Chen Weihua: The US🇺🇸 is the DESTROYER of the Global Order, the US Underestimated CHINA’S🇨🇳 POWER Does China's leadership see the war on Iran and regime change in Venezuela as part of Washington's coming war on China? How did the US underestimate the power of China? What is the state of US soft power after Iran, Venezuela, and Gaza? All this and more with @chenweihua, China Daily's former EU Bureau Chief.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashin Ratnayake introduces the show from the UAE amid renewed escalation in the US–Israeli war on Iran and IAEA discussions about radiation leaks in Europe after NATO nations bombed Europe’s biggest nuclear power station. He frames the context as “a hundred days” since Washington and Tel Aviv, backed by Britain, killed Iran’s leader Ayatollah Khamenei and members of his family, and after, in his account, the mass killing of 168 schoolgirls at an elementary school in “Menab” using tomahawk missiles. He adds claims of years of genocide in Gaza and upcoming EU/US/UK armed invasion of Lebanon. He says Iran’s strategic partner China is central to energy passing through the Strait of Hormuz and highlights China’s role in talks at last week’s Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia, held after British-guided Ukrainian drone attacks and NATO nation armed massacres.
Ratnayake argues the upcoming “G7” meeting will be dominated by “unpopular vassal state officials” bowing to Trump, and contrasts it with China, which he says hosted Vladimir Putin and will not attend. He brings on Chen Huibiao, described as the former EU Bureau chief and chief Washington correspondent for China Daily, joining from Shanghai.
Chen says he has not retired from journalism, continuing a weekly column for China Daily and writing commentary for Chinese overseas media while traveling. Responding to Ratnayake’s framing of the “100 days” and EU/UK involvement, Chen describes global reactions as shocking worldwide and says UN member states have “lost hearts and minds” due to actions he attributes to the US and allies, including Venezuela’s president Maduro being “kidnapped,” Israel’s aggression against Iran, threats to invade Cuba, trade wars, and quitting multilateral institutions and treaties. Chen characterizes the US as the “destructor” of the global order and says Israel is “one of the most hated country in the world.”
On “soft power,” Chen recalls Professor Joseph Nye’s ideas and says the decline in US soft power would be different from Nye’s earlier view, citing international polls and declining global standing of the US and its allies. He says Europe and other allies are visiting China while being coerced and manipulated by Washington against China, but adds that leaders are “awakening.”
Chen describes China’s approach as refusing to return to Cold War-style confrontation and says it trades across countries regardless of political system or ideology. He gives an example of a Dutch Navy “freedom navigation” in the South China Sea as a provocation China considers tied to its territory, while still not cutting trade. He contrasts this with a claim that Western media portrays China as seeking to invade Western Europe.
When Ratnayake asks whether wars on Iran and Venezuela are really part of a war on China, Chen says US and Israel aggression target Iran and Venezuela while China has had relations with Iran and Cuba. He argues China does not believe in a military solution and says political and diplomatic settlement is the way to lasting peace. He says China would not send more arms or armies because it would mean more destruction, jeopardize the Middle East and global economy, and threaten Chinese and Asian economies.
Chen further argues that countries hosting US bases become “casualties” of “reckless US aggression,” asserting that GCC leaders would not have wanted bases to be used in strikes. He says China needs resources imported into China but reiterates that China does not accept a military-protection logic for those sources. He emphasizes China’s national rejuvenation goals and says war would derail them by harming economies.
On trade and sanctions, Chen says the US underestimates China’s power and notes that China has become more powerful in economy and technology, including renewable EVs. He says China relies on global trade and simultaneously expands the domestic market under “dual circulation.” He also points to rare earths as important to the US military supply chain.
Regarding Xi Jinping–Trump relations, Chen says relations have been “positive so far,” citing “constructive relationship of strategic stability,” communication exchanges including a maritime/military consultation in Hawaii, and agreements to establish trade and investment councils.
Finally, Chen dismisses the significance of the G7 compared with broader multipolar forums like the G20 and BRICS, arguing that the G7’s performance and double standards—especially regarding Gaza—have exposed hypocrisy and reduced trust, including Germany’s failure to win a UN Security Council seat attributed to its stance on Gaza.
Full Transcript
I'm Ashin Ratnayake, and welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE, amidst renewed escalation in the US-Israeli war on Iran and the IAEA talking about radiation leaks in Europe after de facto NATO nation bombing of Europe's biggest nuclear power station. It's now a hundred days since Washington and Tel Aviv, armed by Britain. In the EU, launched the Epstein war, killing Iran's leader Ayatollah Khamenei and members of his family, as well as massacring one hundred sixty eight schoolgirls at an elementary school with tomahawk missiles. This after years of genocide in Gaza and ahead of the EU, US, UK armed invasion of Lebanon. Iran's strategic partner, China, the world's largest economy by PPP, is the largest single consumer of energy passing through the Strait of Hormuz, and China was central to discussions at last week's Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia. Held after British guided Ukrainian drone attacks and NATO nation armed massacres of students and bus passengers, Sveif in Russia dwarfs the so called G7 summit in France next week, where unpopular vassal state officials will bow to Trump and a dying Epstein class empire. China, which just hosted Vladimir Putin, will not be represented there as G7 minus Trump genuflects to Kiev puppet Zelensky, whose strings are pulled by neo Nazis. Joining me now from Shanghai is the former EU Bureau chief and chief Washington correspondent for China Daily, Chen Huia. Thank you so much, Chen, for coming on Going Underground at at last. I-- Before I get to the questions, I gotta ask you about yourself. Retired journalist doesn't make sense, 'cause no journalist ever retires, but you've returned home. Yes, I mean, I agree with you. I'm still actually writing a weekly column, which I've been doing for the last almost eighteen years for China Daily, but I'm still, you know, doing comment on world affairs for Chinese overseas media. So I'm I'm, I'm, but I'm spending so much more time traveling across my own country and elsewhere too, yeah. So it's much more fun. You can probably do a whole TV- series about how China has changed while you've been roaming as a foreign correspondent. But let's get to hundred days then, since Trump ordered the murder of Ali Khamenei, members of his family, and, of course, all those schoolgirls in, in Menab. EU defense politicians are meeting in Cyprus where the British RAF were involved in facilitating the genocide in Gaza. How does Washington power look then from where you're sitting in Shanghai, as Chinese people maybe? Looking at the media there about the NATO travails in Lebanon, Gaza, Palestine as they bleed and as the war in Iran continues. Well, obviously it's a shocking not just to the Chinese, I mean but people all over the world. I mean, if you just look at how Germany lose the bid trying to be a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, you know, it failed largely because of its stance on Gaza, right? I mean, the UN- States too, I think has lost hearts and minds all over the world because of its sort of the kidnapping of Venezuela pre-president Maduro, its aggression with Israel against Iran, and it's threatened to sort of invade Cuba so and it goes on and on, I mean, the trade war and sort of the old not just Against China, but all over the world and the quitting of so many international multilateral institutions and treaties. So the world is unraveling and because the US used to claim to be the creator of the global order, the system, now it's obviously the destructor of the global order. I mean, even in the increasingly absurd Financial Times, which I know you comment on in your Twitter column as it were, it says "Epstein class label turns into battle cry across the US political landscape." They associate US hegemonic power, their deep state, with a human child, human trafficker. You, you believe soft power? We actually did one of Professor Joseph Nye's last interviews here on Going Underground. And Howard Power, they're both bleeding from the dying empire. Well, I mean, the US has a lot, so I just mentioned the Big Lea, I actually know Professor Joseph Nye when, yeah, I mean, unfortunately he passed away, but you know, I, I talked to him multiple times when I was stationed in New York and Washington, D.C. And but, you know, even when he visited Shanghai, I mean, many years ago, and so I think the US I mean, he always like to talk about how much more US soft power and how much more US has a soft power vis-a-vis China. But I think if he speak again today, I mean, he would have a very different comment on the fast decline US soft power because if you look at the international poll, I mean Israel is the One of the most hated country in the world. I mean, the US global standing is declining. I mean, people, I mean, even, I mean, just look at even the US allies, I mean, Europe, for example, Canada, I mean, which they threatened to treat as a fifty-first state. I mean those leaders are visiting China. I mean, it's obviously they were coerced by the US administration. I mean, they were, many of them, I would- I would say the sort of the puppet states in a, a certain way. I mean, they're being manipulated by the Washington for a long time against China. I mean, especially in the last few years. But now they are Sort of awakening up, you have Mark Carney talking, you know, about the rupture of middle power, all these things. So the world is changing, obviously. I mean more people are awakening, and they're awakening to the lies those Western nations told for years repeatedly using their propaganda, you know, smear in China, painting China as a threat to the world, but if you just- Look at what happened in the world in the last couple of years. I mean, it's not China, it's the United States, it's Israel, I mean, it's the G7, it's the NATO, it's the Western power claim to be the international community. Yeah, Mark Carney, of course former Bank of England, England governor, who under his stewardship gold was stolen from Venezuela. But then these people are going to meet Xi Jinping. What do you think she is saying to these world leaders? And BZED was there recently, the UAE, more targeted than any other country except Iran and Israel in the war here in West Asia. What does she tell these leaders about continuing US pressure? And hegemonic burning embers, as it were, because the countries aren't you mentioned Carney, I suppose, as the Spanish leader, not all countries are leaving their neocon beliefs behind. Well, I think you're right. I mean, they are still much closer, I would say, to Washington probably than to Beijing. I mean and because it's not going to change, I mean, dramatically overnight, but it's changing, I mean, that's, that's very important. I mean, but China's you know, philosophy, obviously China is, for example, is the largest trading partner of a hundred twenty countries, something, a hundred thirty maybe, anyway. I mean, China is doing trade with all sorts of country, regardless of the differences of political system cultural ideology, you know, it's not like the Cold War years I mean, we we were divided into different, the confrontation of political blocs China refused to go back to the new Cold War. I mean, that's why we, you know, even we dislike, I mean, we some, we disagree with some country for example- For example the Dutch Navy just conducted a reckless sort of a freedom navigation in the South China Sea, I mean, which China obviously consider our territory, it's it's a provocation to China. But still, I mean, we-- doesn't mean we should cut a hundred percent of the trade with the Netherlands. And so it's not the Cold War, I mean, China today believe you know, a world which, you know- So country could live have a peaceful coexistence despite their differences, sometimes quite sharp diff-differences, is much better than the Cold War we experienced decades ago. The Dutch? What were they trying to do? Take Macau? I hadn't seen that. yeah, but amidst all of that, we have, like in the New York Times, "Europe edges closer to trade war with China," and not a day goes by without breaking news on corporate so-called mainstream media in NATO nations that China is somehow trying to invade Western Europe. What do you think about the thesis that the war, the kidnapping of Maduro, the assassinations of Ayatollah Khamenei and the bombing of Iran. These weren't really wars on Venezuela or Iran at all. They were really part of the war on China. That is the target. Well, I heard that saying. I mean, there were those sorts of saying, obviously. I mean, if you look at the bilateral relationship, I mean, China has had a good relation with, with, with with Iran, with Cuba. I mean, we-- That's why, I mean, Chinese government, I mean, I don't speak for the government, but I would like to know, no, no, sure, that is, you may observe. But ob- But I suppose as an observer, what's interesting is To say the Chinese government is being far too lax about realizing that it is actually worse than the Cold War, these are military activities targeting Beijing and the Communist Party in the same way as during the Cold War, the attacks were on Moscow and Beijing. Well, I would say, I mean, it's not a surprise, I mean, someone in Washington whether in the government or in the Congress or, you know, the China hawks, they always want to Provoked or targeted China in various way. I mean, it's not news whether through trade or they try to provoke in the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea, you know, or elsewhere. But, you know the reality is, I mean okay, we-- The Chinese government has expressed it very clearly. I mean, we are in-- you know, we condemn all those sort of US Israeli aggression. Yeah against Iran and and the US capping and military attack against Venezuela and the threat against Cuba. If you read the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, he said, made the same repeat, but it's all, but it's all words from Wang Yi's spokesperson, isn't it? Venezuela's gone, Syria has gone everywhere that China has alliances, strategic alliances with and relationships with is being targeted and quite apart from the economic sanctions, I mean, I should say my country, Britain, you can't even get a Huawei phone. I wanna say this, I mean, because I, I already mentioned, because China don't look at the world like in the 1960s, the 70s, when we were in the two confrontational political blocs, you know, and China don't believe there is a military solution to any of this conflicts. I mean, it's the US aggression, Israeli aggression, because we believe fundamentally the, the political and diplomatic settlement is the way, the right way to permanent peace, and that's why China has been calling for dialogue, diplomatic, political solution. Because I, I know, I mean, some people would say, "Oh, how about China? Maybe even..." You know, I, you certainly- You remember the Korean War and the Vietnam War, China was, were very much involved, obviously. I mean, sending army, I mean, we-- But it's not the years of Vietnam War and Korean War anymore. I mean, I mentioned it's not the Cold War years. I mean, we believe if China gets send more arms or even armies, it's not gonna solve the problem, it's just going to mean more destruction in Iran and the region, the whole Middle East. Where are you? You are located you're going to be destroyed. I mean, it's the global economy is going to be jeopardized and Chinese economy too will be threatened. I mean, many of the Asian economies. I'll just stop you there, Chen Weiwei, I'll just stop you there. More from the veteran China Daily journalist after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former EU bureau chief and chief Washington correspondent for China Daily, Chen Huibiao. Chen, I interrupted you in part one when you were explaining why military opposition to US hegemonic and Israeli hegemonic power isn't the answer. But don't you think that that was kind of the view of Putin after the 2014 coup in Kiev, in Ukraine, that somehow there could be- Diplomatic means to combat the NATO expansion, and Putin waited too late to realize what exactly NATO had up their sleeves. In the same way, the three hundred bases around China as well as all these geopolitical situations, like, I know it's not loads of China's energy supplies, but it's fourteen percent from Iran, four percent from Venezuela, it's, it's cutting away at it, let alone the economic sanctions. Which they can't really do 'cause they desperately need rare earth minerals and the products China produces. Well, if you ask the country in the region because you are based there, I think they would give probably the same answer. They don't want China to join, to escalate the, the fighting because, you know God forbid, because we are just talking about Chinese probably supplying arms or, but if China was really running to a direct- The confrontation with the United States, or, you know, there will be a direct confrontation, for example, between Russia and the United States, it will be World War III, and it will be the destruction of humanity and the global economy. So it's exciting for some people to talk about acting on impulse, but I think as a responsible leader, you know government leader, I mean, a government of one point four billion people, a fifth of humanity You don't act on the interest of one person or three person, but you know, the one point four billion people. I mean, the Chinese interest- Yeah, but they, but they need those reso- They do need the resources that are being imported into China. I don't know, maybe you can tell me whether Shandong's refineries are still receiving oil from, from Iran despite the Strait of Hormuz closure to NATO nation vessels. Oh, yeah. the people of China need these resources, and you're saying China refuses to militarily protect- Protect the sources that are helping China become so wealthy and powerful. no, no, I mean, because okay, so many countries depend on the Middle East for oil. Do you think they should all send armies or weapons there? No. I mean, China, as I mentioned, don't believe there's a military solution. Also, you know, China's big goal is national rejuvenation. If you read, China has this twenty- The thirty-five goal of National Development or twenty forty-nine, which is the centennial of the founding of the People's Republic of China, so that's the big goal of China. We won't let such a military conflict to derail the big goal of national rejuvenation. Besides, I mentioned already, I mean, war isn't a solution, will not help. I mean, it's only going to make it worse for this Middle East The crisis, I mean, just remember where the neighbor country, the oil facility were all hit. I mean, it's going to take one year, two years, some even longer to recover, and so that's gonna be a hit on Chinese economy, and the Japanese economy, the South Korean economy, Thailand economy, so everyone's economy, European's economy. So I think everyone is in jeopardy. So that's why we want desperately to find, push the United States States and Israel and Iran to find a diplomatic, political settlement for lasting peace. Many of the countries you just mentioned, of course, host US bases, quite apart from the US bases in Western Europe. it's your understanding that any country that hosts a US military base-- I'm speaking to a country that hosts one, of course many of the GCC countries do. Any, any country hosting a US base makes itself a target of the United States, of, of these- United States' enemies. Yeah, I mean, obviously, I mean, I think from where you are, I mean, the country probably realized that hosting US bases was supposed to help put defense help defend them, but, but it serves the opposite purposes. They actually became the casualties, you know, of a reckless US aggression. I mean, so you actually have Israel have this I don't, but you don't have I don't in UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, you know, Kuwait. We have a quite good one actually, have, have quite a good one here, but but, but generally you see that I mean, in fact, there are voices in the United States saying that they should reduce their troop presence, 'cause of course they have tens of thousands of soldiers in Europe as well as the bases here in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain Qatar And yeah, but country obviously now realize have a second thought that hosting US military bases may not that be a great idea because it just dragged them into this unnecessary war because they wouldn't be targeted by Iran if the US didn't launch, for example, military strike from the, these bases. Which of course, the, the GCC leaders didn't want to happen in the first place. On, on the threats against China, I mean, you're a keen reader of all this Propaganda media in NATO nations. On the one side, people were trying to pull apart Xi Jinping from Putin. She told Trump, "Putin might regret his war with Ukraine." Front page of the Financial Times a complete lie. No, I think that's a complete lie. Yeah, that's already being dismissed by Trump himself, obviously. Yeah. So, I mean, the lies are everywhere. What about whether it's exaggerated that China needs foreign markets to survive? Five as an economic superpower has that been over exaggerated? In fact, is China struggling to create enough goods for its own domestic market and would that change the calculus about NATO nations believing sanctions are so powerful against Chinese goods? I mean, if you look at the, you know, Trump two point zero, I mean, first year tariff war against China, I mean, honestly, the US has underest-- estimated China's power. I mean, after like eight, nine years, right, the Trump one point zero went, you know China is now much more powerful than eight years ago in terms of economy, technology, in most, you know, renewable EV, so just- Even the military power. So I think yes China is the biggest trading partner of a hundred twenty countries. China need global trade. China is beneficiary of globalization. So we do trade with all countries you know, regardless you know, of differences. But that doesn't mean, I mean China-- But you heard this dual circulation policy. So China is making great efforts in expanding the domestic market especially- stimulating the domestic consumption, I don't know much to be done, but that doesn't mean China can't survive with the foreign market. But we still want to grow open global economy, you know, where country can do free trade. I mean, that's still China's mindset that we don't want anyone. I mean, we-- That's why we've been investing in infrastructure, for example, from Africa to Latin America, in Asia, because we want to build this- Connectivity, connectivity for what? To improve the living standards and like, well-being of local people, but also it's going to be good for international trade. Yeah, and we know how the propaganda media treats China making friends with all those global countries. Of course, China then has a kind of trump card, no pun intended, in the sense that it has the rare earth minerals that the US military rely on. what's your characterization of what Xi Jinping told- Trump when any hint of a threat was against China. I mean, China can just instantly turn off the US military, can't it? Well, I think the, the two leaders have quite actually positive relations so far. If you look at Trump's comment on President Xi, it's, "Oh, good, right?" I mean And I, I would say, I mean, because the conclusion of the latest Trump visit is sort of the two agreed to build so-called constructive relationship of strategic stability. I mean, of course much to be defined in detail, I would say, I mean, but obviously both sides realize the free fall as we experienced the last few years serves no one's purpose. Neither side likes that. So we need a- Sort of a stability. I mean, at least we're not going to go into direct military confrontation. That's why you have you know, the two country held a military maritime you know, military consultation in Hawaii just a few days ago. So that's a very positive sign if you just if you remember all these communication exchanges being cut off, I mean, the last few years. so and they agreed to it's- Established so-called trade council, investment council to manage sort of the differences in bilateral economic and trade ties. So all these are positive signs. Of honestly, I mean, the expectation isn't that high if we-- if we recall, I mean, what the relationship was like eight years ago or nine years ago under under President Obama, which I actually happened to station, be stationed in Washington during In those eight years, I criticized Obama's policy on China, but if you look back, it's almost like honeymoon for US-China relationships. And just finally, should anyone care about the G7 in Vienna compared to what's happening in the real world, as, as it were, as those G7 politicians will no doubt be talking about China representing the greatest threat to world security? No, just ignore them. I return, I'm a columnist too, so I, I, I return many columns over the years saying that G7 is outdated. I mean, because it's more relevant to talk to the G20, obviously. And we have the BRICS, I mean, the emerging economy so in twenty, fifty years, they are going to be more powerful. I mean, they are already more powerful economically in In PPP terms than the G7. So the global south I mean is rising, the world is becoming more multipolar, so the G7 most of them form a colonial power, I mean. So, I mean, their, their behavior, their performance in Gaza, obviously, their double standards, their hypocrisy has been fully exposed. So I, I think they have lost completely trust. It's not just the United States Lost trust. I mentioned Germany lost the, the bid at the United Nations Security Council as a non-permanent member today simply because it was on the wrong side of history on Gaza, you know, when it continued to supply weapons with the United States to Israel to slaughter Palestinian women and children. Weiwei, Chen Weiwei. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's it for the show. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new show. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel Going Underground TV on Rumble dot com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Saturday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m watching Going Underground’s season premiere: Prof. Steve Hanke on the economic disaster as the Strait of Hormuz stays shut. He asks why Russia benefits, how soon oil prices could spike, and what Europe should do amid deeper decline.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨SEASON PREMIERE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ IRAN’S KNOCKOUT BLOW: Prof. Steve Hanke on Looming Economic Disaster as Strait of Hormuz Stays Shut Why is Russia🇷🇺 an economic winner each day the Strait of Hormuz remains shut? How long do we have left before oil prices skyrocket? What advice does he have for Europe, which faces even deeper economic decline? All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with Prof. @steve_hanke
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshin Ratanji introduces a new season of Going Underground amid war in West Asia, describing millions of displaced people and ongoing conflicts involving the United States, Iran, and UK-US-EU backed Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Palestine. He says the show is broadcasting from a UAE where OPEC is “de facto compromised,” and references participation in the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia, noting about 20,000 attendees from 100 countries despite NATO attacks on Saint Petersburg. He claims represented countries include the UAE, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and the United States “for the first time in nearly a decade,” and asserts that NATO-aligned media will not highlight Moscow’s role against the Nazis.
Ratanji argues that Russia is benefiting from war-related disruptions tied to Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, stating that higher prices result from commodities being “plugged up in the Gulf.” He links Russia’s export windfalls to strong demand and says Russia produces key stranded commodities, listing oil, fertilizers (while claiming Russia held back fertilizer export), helium, and aluminum. He also points to a stronger ruble and claims it helps anchor inflation and inflation expectations in Russia, while grumbling in Moscow is said to reflect a fiscal deficit increase due to fewer rubles per dollar earned.
He asks Professor Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University about the “Strait remains closed equals Russia remains…” claim and about differences between physical and paper oil prices. Hanke explains that the physical market refers to commodities delivered today or within a week, while the paper market refers to commodities delivered later, creating a timing difference. He says spot/near-month prices in the physical market are much higher than prices for delivery in two to four months. He attributes the futures dislocation to oil being “bottled up” and not delivered, leading to international demand exceeding current supply, with inventories being run down. He predicts inventories will reach very low critical levels by the end of July or early August, after which “the price will zoom up again,” and he says buyers of futures for August delivery today would profit if August prices rise when delivery arrives.
When Ratanji asks about on-the-ground correlations versus WTI/Brent indicators, Hanke says shortages in specific markets drive physical prices higher when ships arrive and unload, and that “you have to think physical” for physical commodities.
Ratanji then challenges European leaders regarding proposed price controls on milk, bread, and eggs. Hanke responds that the first step is to remove sanctions on Russia, arguing sanctions never work and backfire with unintended negative consequences. He claims Germany has been “hollowed out” and says European energy prices are highest in Germany, contrasting this with a scenario where Germany imports Russian oil and gas. Hanke also says projected growth for Germany in 2026 is almost identical to Russia’s, both around “half a percent per year.”
Hanke argues that pressure should be applied to wind down the war against Iran and open the Strait, claiming the United States and Israel shut the Strait down and miscalculated, while Iran can control it. He says the Strait will likely remain closed and functionally inoperable for quite some time, and describes an “Ali strategy” analogy, saying Iran has absorbed “pound-pounding” and made a “knockout blow” through control of the Strait.
He further ties commodity price damage to affordability crises and predicts revisions down for global forecasts, stating the Strait remaining closed is his baseline and that increased sanctions on Russia will slow down both Russia and Europe via blowback. He adds that perceptions shift in the global south and BRICS: the United States’ scores are said to have fallen to “minus eleven,” while China’s are said to be “plus seven.” He says the United States’ centrality to the world capital market prevents a complete pivot away from it, but that a marginal pivot is occurring.
In response to Ratanji’s question about NATO nations’ “boomerang policies” and militarism, Hanke says since COVID there has been movement toward protectionism, interventionism, and militarism. He argues militarism is a “waste of money,” stating that producing drones destroys rather than builds or enhances human capital, and he asks whether militarism has ever done anything positive for an economy.
Full Transcript
I'm Afshin Ratanji and welcome to a brand new season of Going Underground, amidst brutal war in West Asia, millions have been displaced as the American war in Iran and the UK-US-EU armed Israeli wars on Lebanon and Palestine continue. We're broadcasting all around the world from a UAE free of a de facto compromised OPEC and which has been participating. Participating this week at one of the world's largest annual economic events, the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum. Today is the final day of the forum in Russia, where around twenty thousand from one hundred countries arrived despite NATO armed attacks on Saint Petersburg. Countries represented include the UAE, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and the United States for the first time in nearly a decade, and perhaps it's ironic that while today NATO propaganda media will be celebrating eighty-two years since the D-Day landings in France, their fake- Journalists won't refer to the decisive role of Moscow in success against the Nazis. Right now, Russia is one of the few nations accumulating windfall revenue from the Epstein war in Iran, but for billions in the global south, let alone the catastrophic economic basket cases of Western Europe, Trump has catalyzed unpredictable Tehran control of the Strait of Hormuz. Already unstable countries like the UK are set to introduce price controls for bread, eggs, and milk as they send billions to the dictatorship. In Ukraine, Professor Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University is one of America's best known monetary economists. He has advised not only the UAE government and its Financial Advisory Council, but many governments all around the world. He actually advised the UAE to leave OPEC. His most recent book is Making Money Work: How to Rewrite the Rules of Our Financial System, and he joins me again from Baltimore, in Maryland. Thank you so much, Professor, for coming back on going underground. I'll get to eggs later, because commodities is gonna be part of this show, isn't it? I mean, Putin and Saudi, UAE minis-- Saudi ministers, UAE ministers, China's vice president Han Zheng, they were all in Saint Petersburg at the International Economic Summit amidst this devastating war in West Asia. You tweeted in capital letters, "Strait remains closed equals Russia remains..." Is a big winner. Why? Well, the, the commodities that are all plugged up in the Gulf right now are, are in short supply and the price is going up, and it happens that Russia produces some of those key commodities that are plugged up in the Gulf. One of them happens to be oil, but also fertilizers, also helium, also aluminum. And, and, et, et, et cetera. So as those prices go up, of course, that's beneficial to Russia with its exporting, and, and to some extent even having some of the sanctions lifted at least temporarily on Russian exports, believe it or not. So, so the quantities of exports for those items with the exception of fertilizer, because Russia did hold back the export of fertilizer, but the the other commodities are actually increasing the quantities that they're exporting, and they're exporting those at higher prices. So, so they're a winner in that sense. And, and, and, and just look what-- you can see this in all kinds of telltale signs, one being the fact that the ruble's pretty strong right now. Yeah, I mean of course that- Of course, that, that, that, that there, there's a little grumbling about that with the fiscal authorities in Moscow, because that increase in the value of the ruble versus the US dollar means that for every dollars worth of oil or commodities that you're selling, you, you get fewer rubles per dollar, so the fiscal deficit i-increases a little bit as a result of that strong ruble. But the strong ruble, by the way, is, is also an important factor in anchoring inflation and inflation expectations in Russia. The, the central bank's been doing a pretty good job. They've, they've slowed down the money supply growth, and as a result, the inflation's come down. I think my Yankee's golden growth rate, consistent with Russia's four percent inflation target, is, is around A little over eight percent, and now they've got their growth rate down to about little, little over eleven percent, but they've been, they've been cranking it down, and as a result, the inflation rate, the official rate is about five point six percent, which is a little over the target, but it's coming down, not up. And, and the strong ruble helps that, of course. Yeah, NATO propaganda media, of course, had it both ways, so that when the ruble was sliding this was a disaster for Russia, and now it's rising, it's also a disaster for Russia. they'll search through the statistics in any way they can. But then, why is it, do you think, that the prices seem so different on the markets compared to what you were laying out there about commodities stranded in the Strait of Hormuz? What, what are the-- What's the difference between paper and physical? Because oil prices were supposed to go to two hundred dollars a barrel when Iran retaliated. Well, the, the, the, the physical market, think, think of the physical market as the price for commodities that are delivered, i-i-i-today, or, or, or let's say in a week, and, and the paper market is the price for those commodities that will be delivered sometime in the future. So, so there's a timing difference. the, the main thing when you're looking at the prices of physicals versus paper is, is the timing aspect. For near-term delivery or almost immediate delivery, you're talking about physical, and, and all, all things out in the future, you're talking about paper. But even two month and three month futures, Brent doesn't seem to have increased that much, even amid, say, the attacks on Kuwait Airport in the past few days. Oh, oh, yeah, well, if, if, if you, if you look at the, the prices over the duration of contracts that are available, the, the so-called spot price, e-e-even, even in the paper market for the, for the near-month delivery is much, much higher than for delivery in two months or three months or four months. And, and I think basically the, the market's just got things wrong in, in the sense, the physical market doesn't, because that, that is for physical delivery you know, cash on the barrelhead, so to speak. But I think the futures market has, is, is just not anticipating things correctly, because what's going on with oil, you have all this oil bottled up And, and not being delivered. And, and, and as a result of that, the demand for oil internationally is greater than the supply that's coming into the market right now, and that gap between demand and supply is being filled by running inventories down. So inventories of oil are going down, down, and, and, and hitting, in some countries, almost rock bottom. For most countries, on, on average, I think by the end of July, early August, we'll hit very low critical levels of oil inventories, and when that happens Afshin, the price will zoom up again. And, and you'll find out that those people who purchase- Purchased futures contracts for delivery in August, for example, will, will make out like bandits because they, they will have purchased the thing for August delivery today at a price that will be lower than I think the price will be in August when they actually have to deliver. This isn't investment advice to going underground viewers, but I should also ask you then, what's behind the dislocation between anecdotal evidence that the price per barrel seems way in excess of the world market quoted WTI commodity indicator or the Brent commodity indicator? How do these correlate with prices here on the ground? I was speaking to you not very far from the street of rumors. Well a-again, but w- there, there are indeed shortages in, in particular markets, and, and those in those markets when, when the, when the ship arrives and they start unloading, the, the price is, the, whatever it happens to be, that's the physical, and, and, and it is, it's much higher than on these paper markets. So we-- that, that's, that's the, the key to the thing is and, and you have to think physical. We're talking about physical commodities here. So, so the real value today of oil physically delivered is, is higher than it is in these futures contracts that are specified for later delivery. Obviously that that, that kind of analysis is gonna have been heard at the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum. British and EU advisors are busy mass killing actually Russians, students and, and bus passengers, fewer than those that were killed in, in Iran, the hundred and sixty-eight young schoolgirls killed by Trump in Iran. What would you advise European leaders specifically? I mean, you've obviously advised US presidents in the past in this environment of higher co-commodity prices, given that some are saying, obviously the need now is to subsidize milk, bread, and eggs, one of your favorite commodities, I understand. Well yes, as, as we were talking before we went on air, I, the, the, the first commodities I ever traded were with my grandfather, and they happened to be eggs, seventy-three years ago. And, and, and the reason for that is that my grandfather had a big egg operation in the state of Iowa, and you would collect the eggs, grade the eggs, store the eggs, wait, wait until, until you had a, a big semi full of eggs to ship back to New York or Boston, and that would take time, and maybe if he didn't wanna take the price risk While he was collecting, grading, and storing and so forth before he actually shipped those things, and, and by the way, physically sold them, when they were delivered in New York, he would sell the eggs forward with a futures contract for eggs that existed on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange at the time. So, so that, that's what's called hedging. And, and the, the original purpose of, the original purpose of futures before it became more associated with gambling. But the fact is, someone like Zakia Starmer in London is saying, "Forget all of that, forget your futures market, forget the entire market the government has to step in to keep egg prices stable." Oh, yeah, they- Absolutely. Star- Starmer has, has ta-lifted a page out of the Marx and Engels and the Communist Manu-Manifesto. They're, they're even starting to ma- Nationalized companies like British Steel. So, so they're, they're turning back the page basically that, that, that was turned by Thatcher when Thatcher started the big privatization movement and got Britain going again. Now the government's taking things back, they're, they're nationalizing things, they wanna impose price controls, and by the way, a-all of this is extremely unpopular, you know? Harmer is, is, as we know, a big Russia fob. His popularity is twenty-three percent right now. So you're, you're asking about in general, European leaders, what, what would my advice be in general, given the geopolitical situation we're in? And, and, and as it relates to Europe, of course, it's all centered around Russia and Ukraine. What's going on in Ukraine? And right now, you have Starmer at twenty-three percent, Mertz is really in the tank in Germany at sixteen percent popularity, and Macron is exactly where Starmer is, twenty-three percent. So, so you have Russia-fueled Starmer, Russia-fueled Mertz, kind of Russia-fueled White Macron, he's a little bit all over the place, but they all jump in and they want a sanction. We'll get, we'll get back to this, we'll get back to this part, to Professor Steve Hanke. I'll stop you there. More from the John Hopkins applied economics professor after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with Johns Hopkins applied economics professor and former senior economist under US President Ronald Reagan, Professor Steve Hanke. Professor, I, I was interrupting you as you were describing you know, it's only one reading of Marx to nationalize everything. I mean, what would your advice be to European leaders that have sanctioned themselves when it comes to the price of living, the cost of living? I, I mean, obviously you oppose the price controls that are proposed for milk, bread, and eggs. Well, step, step number one is that I, I would remove the sanctions on Russia. This, this is, this is Been something that, that sanctions never work, by the way. There, there, there's a, a huge amount of research in academic literature on sanctions, and sanctions never accomplish what they are intended to accomplish, and they usually end up backfiring and creating all kinds of unintended negative consequences, and the sanctions on Russia clearly are in that category. If you, if you look, for example, at Germany, the, and the, it's just been completely hollowed out, and the high-highest energy prices in Europe now are in Germany. So if the sanctions were removed and they were importing energy oil and gas from Russia, they'd be in a lot better shape than they're in right now, and, and that holds true throughout Eu-Europe, the, the whole Eurozone. But if you look at Germany actually, the projected growth rate for 2026 in Germany is almost identical to what it is in Ru- for Russia, both very low, by the way. We're, we're talking about a growth rate of now the new projections for both Russia and Germany haven't coming in at, at about a half a percent per year, which is more or less flatline, but, but The, the, my point is, wh-why, why are-- is the growth rate so low in Germany? It's so low because of, of many things, but one big thing, big thing is, is the sanctions. So one of, one piece of advice would be to remove the sanctions as fast as possible. The, the other advice would be to put as much pressure as they possibly can, which they don't have much leverage over the United States United States and Israel to, to wind things up in, in the war against Iran and, and, and open up the, the Strait. A- actually, think about it this way, what, where were we before the United States and Israel attacked and, and waged war against Iran? We had, we had the Strait of Hormuz was open. Nothing was bottled up. We, we didn't have all these negative price consequences associated with, with shutting down the Strait. And, and let's get the causal relationship here. The causal relationship, who, who shut the Strait down? The United States and Israel shut it down. They, they were the ones that engaged in a war of choice against Iran, and it turns out they miscalculated tremendously and, and didn't realize that the Iranians could, in fact, control the Strait, which they're doing, and I think they will continue to do it, and I also think that unfortunately, the Strait will probably remain closed and functionally inoperable for quite some time. I don't, my base This line case is that the Strait will be, continue to be shut for quite some time. Why have you compared Iran to Muhammad Ali with respect to the George Foreman fight? I, I understand Well, the, the, the main reason for that is that the, the, the, remember the Muhammad Ali strategy was that Foreman was a, a, a formidable foe, a huge guy, and Ali's strategy was to stay against the ropes and, and basically let Foreman exhausted himself and Ali absorbed the punches by being on the ropes, so Ali absorbed all the punches. And finally landed the knockout blow when Fawzi was basically exhausted, and that's the strategy fundamentally that the Iranians have used. They've taken a tremendous pound-pounding by the United States and Israel but they have basically- Swung and made a knockout blow with the control of the Strait. That's the key to the whole thing. Because the longer this goes on, we're talking about commodity prices, the, the damage that these higher prices are inflicting are, are increasing with each passing day, and that's why you talk about the UK ha-having this affordability crisis and price controls coming in. United States, the, the, the, here the, the key is of course the, the pain being inflicted on the United States and, and the political pain being inflicted on Trump and His allies in the Republican Party, and we have an election coming up, a by-election in November, that's right around the corner, and it's not looking very good for Trump and his allies precisely because of the price blowback coming out of the Gulf. So he, he's, he's, he's gotta get out of there as fast as he possibly can to save his political hide. But the problem is, you've got three players in the game: Iran, the United States, and Israel, and Israel doesn't wanna get out. They, they wanna go up the escalation ladder. They don't, they don't wanna get out. So if I'm gonna ask you about the-- If I'm gonna ask you about the global economy to-- for the rest of twenty twenty-six, I mean, already forty-three million who can't eat tonight in your country without the help of federal assistance and the SNAP program, if we're-- they're facing wage collapse in Western Europe and affordability crises Do we have to divide it into two? Are there two worlds here, those that are pro-NATO and are gonna be suffering, and those that are gonna come to their own deals with Iran? Iran obviously already has links to China and Russia and the Global South and BRICS, of course. Well, I, I think this, this segues into the economic forum meeting in, in Moscow that's that's that you mentioned earlier, and, and, and that's all really about the geopolitics of pivoting away from the United States. And, and, and pivoting towards as, as you would put it, the global south in general. Now, that pivot just happens at the margin. The, the important point is that the pivot is occurring, but it's, it's always just at the margin. The, the, the big elephant in the room is the United States. The world's capital market is in the United States, and, and you can't disentangle yourself completely From it. So the idea that you're gonna just flip a switch and everybody's gonna go to the global south and BRICS and all this is, is nonsense. It's not gonna happen. But at the, at the margin It can happen, and as a result it, it, it, it, it, it, it changes things and, and things are- So what do you, so what are you, yeah, exactly. So what are you forecasting? And I don't know Kevin Warsh, the new boss of the Fed, I don't know how he factors into this as Trump will want him to ease money supply. So what, what is your forecast then for the global economy? Well, my, my forecast, the, the, in terms of the global Baseline is that the strait will remain closed for the foreseeable future and, and there'll be revisions down. We, we won't see the growth that We are seeing in these forecasts right now, I think the forecasts are a little bit too rosy right now. So the, the Strait is one thing, and what happens in the Ukraine is another thing, because the, the Europeans are dead set on increasing the sanctions against Russia, and if they increase the sanctions, it will not only slow down things in Russia, but slow down things in Europe because of the blowback effect. So, so it's, I think all the revisions are a-going, going to be, end up going down, and the, and the pivot, by the way, is, is taking place because you, you know, if you look at the International Perceptions Index, we-- the US a year and a half ago had, had positive scores, always had positive scores, now they're minus eleven. Minus eleven. China was always negative, and it's plus seven. So, so the switch-- This, this is what happens when these per-- You know, the Trump, Trump, and, and, and the sanctioners have really Performed a masterclass on how to make enemies. That's what's going on. So you, you-- they've made a lot of enemies in, in, in, in the global south and in the BRICS countries, and, and what's going on in Moscow, they're, they're trying to rally the troops. In the global south, in the BRICS, and make the pivot. Well, just finally, I don't know how much the one and a half trillion IPO for SpaceX in the past twenty-four hours is militaristic, but can you just finally understand then why NATO nations introducing boomerang policies think Keynesian militarism is the only way out and that manufacturing missiles and mortar shells is the only way? they have as a, by way of a response, as they try to seemingly destroy their own economies. Yes, well, we, we, we have actually since COVID, we've, we've moved towards protectionism, interventionism, and militarism, all of those things. And, and militarism is, is, is blatantly a complete waste of money because if you, if you produce a drone, what, what does a drone actually produce? You're not, you're not investing in a, in a person and training a person, a human, you're not enhancing human capital that's gonna produce something in the future, and you're not building a factory that's gonna produce something and produce in the future. You're producing a drone. Now, what does a drone produce? A, a drone only destroys things. That's, that's what we have with- Which then have to be rebuilt, which increases GDP. If, if, if the, if the, if, if that's the way you're counting, which I don't think is a very, a very wise and prudent way to be counting. This is, there, there are two ways to run a bad, a, a, a, a country badly. One is with incompetence, and, and Two is with the embrace of ill-founded and misguided policies, and I think, I think we have a large dose of incompetence, and we have a large dose of the embrace of foolhardy and foolish policies, and militarism is a big one. Name one case where, where militarism ever did anything positive for an economy? Quite apart from the death, Professor Steve Hanke. Thank you so much. Thank you. Very good, very good to be with you again. That's it for the show. We'll be back on Monday for the perspective from Shanghai on the Trump, Netanyahu, Epstein war in West Asia. China is Iran's biggest energy customer and is the world's largest economy by PPP. Meanwhile, you can keep in touch via all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel, going underground tv on Rumble dot com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Monday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing a new episode of Going Underground featuring Prof. Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor at Oxford. He argues that the Trump-Netanyahu war on Iran is the 21st century’s most unjustified and foolish war—questioning why Iran isn’t an existential threat, why Israel ignores global opinion, and how mainstream media enabled consent for Israel’s crimes.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Prof. Avi Shlaim: Trump-Netanyahu War on Iran is the 21st Century's MOST UNJUSTIFIED & FOOLISH WAR Why is Iran NOT an existential threat to Israel? Why does Israel feel empowered to ignore global public opinion, which is increasingly against Israel? What has been the role of the mainstream media in enabling and manufacturing consent for Israel's crimes? All this and more with Prof. Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor at the University of Oxford.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutanski speaks from the UAE, referencing the Nakba anniversary (1948), ongoing Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and claims that NATO capitals provide money, weapons, and diplomatic protection for these actions, with Washington treating Israeli impunity as a cornerstone of foreign policy. He also notes G7 finance ministers meeting in Paris and asks about the Trump Netanyahu war on Iran, including questions about its justification and motivations.
Avi Schleim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, says the Trump Netanyahu war on Iran is “unjustified, senseless, and foolish,” calling it unlawful and stating there was no Security Council resolution mandating war and no imminent threat from Iran to Israel or America. He argues the war was a decision by Trump and Netanyahu, with Netanyahu as the real architect, alleging Netanyahu dragged America into the conflict. Schleim connects the war’s consequences to suffering inflicted not only in Iran but also in Lebanon, alongside continued Gaza genocide and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. He describes Israel as damaging America, America’s Gulf allies, international economy, and international law by dragging the U.S. into war.
Rutanski asks whether it is really about Netanyahu given claims that 93% of Israeli Jews supported bombing Iran. Schleim replies that it is not just Netanyahu, stating Israeli society has moved right for 25 years since the second Intifada, becoming more overtly racist, with growing influence of religious Zionism on foreign policy. He says war is easier to sell than peace because peacemaking requires concessions, while attacking enemies is more popular. Schleim argues Netanyahu persuades the Israeli public that Iran poses an existential threat, which he rejects, citing claims that Iran has not attacked neighbors, has signed the nonproliferation treaty and submitted to international inspection, while Israel has not signed it and refuses international inspection; he also contrasts Iran renouncing nuclear weapons with Israel’s alleged possession of about 200 nuclear warheads.
Rutanski asks whether Israel cares about reputational damage. Schleim says Israel cares mainly about American support, describing it as unconditional and therefore without consequences for Israel’s actions, including genocide in Gaza and intensified settler violence in the West Bank. He states that American backing has affected ceasefire interpretation and says Israel has devastated Lebanon—destroying whole villages in southern Lebanon, displacing 1,100,000 Lebanese refugees, and bombing civilian neighborhoods in Beirut, while targeting journalists and damaging hospitals and ambulances. He frames these actions as applying the Gaza “playbook” in southern Lebanon with immunity as long as the U.S. supports Israel.
Rutanski cites polls showing disapproval among U.S. voters of Netanyahu and belief by many that Israel is committing genocide. Schleim argues a disconnect exists between Western governments and the public, saying people can see genocide “livestream” and that Gaza has been made uninhabitable. He says Western foreign policy will take time to catch up but trends are toward increased criticism of Israel, including within the U.S. among younger Jewish people. He adds that criticism is spreading to Republicans who he says are turning against Trump over Israel.
Rutanski then asks Schleim about Britain’s role. Schleim says he is “absolutely appalled” by British complicity, citing a book by Peter Urban and describing actions including arms sales, intelligence flights over Gaza, and offering British bases in Cyprus and the UK for Israeli Air Force and U.S. supply for the Gaza war effort. He claims Britain has legal duties under the 1948 Genocide Convention to stop arms sales, stop buying Israeli military technology, and suspend the trade agreement, which he says Britain denies due to refusing to accept that Israel is committing genocide.
Rutanski asks why European countries are involved. Schleim answers by arguing the claim is questionable and stating the main supporter is America. He says European support since 1948 was influenced by Holocaust guilt and by perceptions of Israel as an island of democracy in the 1950s, later describing Israel as widely viewed now as authoritarian, racist, and apartheid, and arguing Israel has made itself an international pariah through occupation, oppression, constant violence, and never-ending war.
Rutanski mentions repression in the UK and asks whether those in power want to preserve support for Israel. Schleim says there is a powerful Israel lobby in Britain across both Conservative and Labour parties, and adds Germany’s repression is linked to Holocaust guilt. He discusses Palestine Action being designated as a terrorist organization, saying supporting it can lead to prison sentences of up to 14 years, while also describing a judicial review that found the prescription unlawful, followed by a government appeal. He then describes being asked to postpone a guest lecture at Liverpool Hope University, citing complaints from the local Jewish community about his presence on campus, which he says limited his academic freedom. He also claims mainstream media and the BBC fail to report Palestinian narratives, alleges BBC presenters are instructed to stop interviewees when genocide is mentioned, says he has not been interviewed on the BBC for two and a half years, and references his book “Genocide in Gaza,” which he says includes quotations from Israeli leaders.
The show ends with condolences mentioned by Rutanski for those bereaved or affected by “NATO nation wars of aggression,” including Gaza and the mass killing in the Donbas, and announces a new season starting June 6.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutanski, and welcome to another season finale of Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from The UAE amidst US Israeli wars in this region. And on the week of Russian president Vladimir Putin's scheduled meeting with China's Xi Jinping in Beijing following the recent Trump Xi summit, Just days ago marked the anniversary of the Nakba of nineteen forty eight, the catastrophe that saw more than 700,000 Palestinians violently driven from their homes to create Zionist entity, Israel. Palestinians who remained were stripped of equal rights and are subjected to a system of oppression that persists to this day. The process of dispossession, occupation, and siege through the decades is enforced not only by Israeli military power, but by the money, weapons, and diplomatic protection of NATO nation capitals. Above all, Washington, where successive administrations have treated Israeli impunity as a cornerstone of US foreign policy.
G seven finance ministers who must know about their nation's complicity in the Gaza genocide meet in Paris today. Does Trump understand that his bombing of Iran weakens The USA, that the millions killed, wounded, or displaced by attacking Iran and Lebanon will be remembered, that he is hastening a multipolar world as witnessed by Iranian, Chinese, Russian, and UAE officials gathering in Delhi in the past few days. Did Trump commit to war with Iran because of Epstein blackmail? Joining me now is someone who just calls Trump Netanyahu's poodle. Avi Schleim has been awarded the British Academy's medal for lifetime achievement, and he's the Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford.
Professor Schleim, thank you so much for coming back on going underground. It's been a terrible couple of years since you were last on. I should say the papers in The UAE are full of headlines like Israeli strikes killed 380 since Lebanon cease fire. That goes on. And, of course, I mean, even the Financial Times is saying Israel plans to speed up its slow annexation of the West Bank.
I don't know what would be slow and what would be fast for the Financial Times. Billions affected by those pushed into hardship by the higher prices, let alone genocides in Lebanon and Gaza. How do you characterize the Trump Netanyahu war on Iran?
Speaker 1: The Trump Netanyahu war on Iran is the one of the most unjustified, senseless, and foolish wars of the twenty first century. There was absolutely no reason to go to war. This is an unlawful war. There was no Security Council resolution that mandated a war on Iran. There was no imminent threat from Iran to either Israel or America.
So it was a decision taken by these two leaders to launch an attack on Iran. And the dominant personality here is Netanyahu. He's the junior partner, but he's the real architect of this war. He succeeded in dragging America into the war on Iran. And remember that Netanyahu was first elected as prime minister in 1996.
For the last thirty years, Netanyahu has been demonizing Iran and calling for a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. But no American president until Trump was stupid enough to fall for it. Now Trump went along with this plan by Netanyahu, and we have seen the consequences. It's been a war that is caused immense damage and destruction, inflicted a a lot of suffering on civilians, and not just in Iran, but on Lebanon as well. And at the same time, Israel continues the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.
So what we are seeing is an Israeli success in dragging America into a war, which is damaging to America, damaging to America's Gulf allies, hugely damaging to the international economy, and undermines international law. I'll get on to the Americans, ordinary people in The United States not supporting it, but away from the individuals. And, of
Speaker 0: course, your histories are about structures. The Israeli Democracy Institute polled 93% of Israeli Jews in favor of bombing Iran, and that was a majority even after the slaughter of the 168 school girls in Minab. Perhaps that wasn't covered in the Israeli media. Is it not really just about Netanyahu, is it? It given 93% of Israeli Jews supported bombing Iran.
Speaker 1: No. It's not just about Netanyahu. The whole of Israeli society has been moving to the right steadily for the last twenty five years since the second Intifada. Israel has become more right wing, more overtly racist, and there's been a growing impact of religious Zionism on Israeli foreign policy. In general, it's much easier to persuade the Israeli public to go to war, to attack the enemy than to make peace because peacemaking involves making concessions, whereas going to war is always more popular.
And Netanyahu has been very successful in persuading the Israeli public that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. That's what he keeps repeating, and that's what Israeli bill believe. That's why this high level of a high degree of support for the war. But Netanyahu is wrong. Iran is not an existential threat to Israel.
Just look at the records. Iran has never attacked any of its neighbors. Israel's keep attacking its neighbors left, right, and and center, and now it's attacked not a neighbor, but Iran itself. Iran signed the nonproliferation treaty. Israel has refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty.
Iran submitted to international inspection of its nuclear program. Israeli Israel refuses to admit any international inspection of its army or its nuclear let alone its nuclear program. Iran has renounced the wish of producing nuclear weapons, whereas Israel has in the region of 200 nuclear warheads. So to sum up, Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel. It's Israel which poses an existential threat to Iran.
Speaker 0: Albeit it might have might have arguably changed since the bombing began. I mean, do you think Israel cares much about the reputational damage around the world of attacking, the, Islamic Republic? I mean, obviously, The United States may do, or does Israel feel this is all part of a greater Israel project as spoken about by Mike Huckabee, The US ambassador to Israel? The next steps of invading Saudi Arabia, Iraq, where you were born, Turkey, Egypt? Israel really doesn't care about public opinion or its
Speaker 1: reputation. Israel cares about one thing, and that is American support. And so far, Israel has enjoyed unqualified American support, which takes the form of military aid and diplomatic protection, the use of the American veto at the Security Council. So the problem with American support for Israel is that it is unconditional. Israel can do whatever it likes, and there is no price to pay.
That's the problem. American support for Israel is unconditional. That means, in practical terms, that Israel can commit genocide in Gaza and not suffer any consequences. Israel can and has been intensifying settler violence and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. There are no consequences for Israel.
Israel America signed a ceasefire with Iran, and Israel's claims that the ceasefire doesn't apply to Lebanon. Whereas the Iranians say, yes. The ceasefire agreement applies to Lebanon, but Israel has Trump's support for its view that the ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon. So what we have seen recently is that Israel completely devastating Lebanon. And it's not just in this fight against Hezbollah.
It's been destroying whole villages in Southern Lebanon, and it has caused the the displacement of 1,100,000 Lebanese who have just be who have become refugees. And at the same time, Israel bombs relentlessly civilian neighborhoods in Beirut. It targets journalists, and it has inflicted a lot of damage on hospitals and on the ambulances and the health care in Southern Lebanon. So what Israel is doing in the shadow of the ceasefire with Iran is to apply the playbook of Gaza to Southern Lebanon and destroying the whole of Southern Lebanon. And it does this with complete immunity as long as America supports Israel.
Speaker 0: Did you ever think, though, that you'd hear of polls like I think the latest one is 59% in Pew of United States voters disapproving of Netanyahu. Half of voters said Israel was committing genocide in the famous Quinnipiac University poll, unlike where you were speaking to me from, actually. In Britain, only, about half were even opposed to Israeli's actions in Gaza. Why do you think, The United States has understood, what you've been, talking about for decades?
Speaker 1: Because Israel has overplayed its hand both in Gaza and on the West Bank, but especially in relation to Iran. And Israel denies that it is committing genocide in Gaza. But Americans, like everyone else, can see genocide livestream night after night on the television screens. People also see that Israel is not going just after Hamas or Hezbollah, that it is deliberately, intentionally inflicting a lot of harm and and suffering on civilians. Israel has made Gaza completely inhabitable.
Is Audrey, there is a disconnect between Western governments and the public. The public realizes what Israel is doing, and there's been a massive shift of opinion against Israel and anger against Israel and the corresponding sympathy and support for the Palestinian cause. It will take some time for Western foreign policy to catch up with public opinion, but that is the trend. Western governments will become more and more critical of Israel, and we are seeing this in America. It's not only Democrats who are critical of Israel.
It's now MAGA, make America great again. The Republicans who are turning against Trump and saying, we thought it was about making America great again, but this is all about making Israel great again. So American public opinion is shifting very dramatically against Israel, including Jewish opinion. Jews in America, particularly the younger generation, are increasingly outspoken in their criticism of Israel. They call for the end of occupation, and they want to uphold the human rights of the Palestinians.
Speaker 0: Professor Abishlang, I'll just have to stop you there. More from the Emeritus Professor of International Relations the University of Oxford after this spring. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, professor Avi Schleien. Professor, you were talking to me in part one about how it'll take some time for, the generation to change and for the people's, views of Israel to change government policy in those countries that have been arming the genocides.
We were talking about The United States and how American opinion is certainly showing up in polls is turning. You didn't mention your country, Britain, our country. So Kyr Stalmer famously said I'm not sure whether not sure whether he's still prime minister by the time of this broadcast. You he said, Israel had the right to cut off food, water, and electricity. Quote, Israel must have that, does have the right to defend itself.
And, of course, the British have been involved via Cyprus. The RAF base, they've been involved with the Gaza genocide. Now what what does that make you feel there in Oxford that that British complicity?
Speaker 1: I'm absolutely appalled by British complicity in the destruction of Gaza. And there is a new book, a very good book by Peter Urban called complicity Britain's role in the destruction of Gaza. And this has taken the form of arms sales to Israel, intelligence flights over Gaza, the over 700 British intelligence flight over Gaza, and the offer of British bases in Cyprus and in The United Kingdom for both the Israeli Air Force and the Americans to supply the war effort in Gaza. So Britain has been an active partner in committing genocide in Gaza. It is absolutely appalling.
And Stalmer once described himself as an unconditional Zionist. No politician should be an unconditional supporter of anything. And he is a human rights lawyer. He should make British support for Israel conditional Israel respecting human rights, Palestinian human rights, and international law. But also, signed the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.
So Britain since since Israel is committing genocide, Britain has a legal duty a legal duty to stop all arms sales to Israel, to stop buying Israeli military Israeli technology, and to spend to suspend the trade agreement with Israel. Britain has all these obligations under the convention, but it by it denies that Israel is committing genocide, and therefore, it doesn't think it has to do all the things that it is required to do.
Speaker 0: Why why is it why is it the European countries that have been so closely involved with the genocide of this century? I mean, Germany supplying the, frigates off the coast of Gaza, the French BNP Paribas bank, helping the financing of the genocide, Italy continuing to send weapons. Why is it European nations that have been so involved in the genocide and supporting Israel?
Speaker 1: Well, I I would question that claim because it's America which is the main supporter of Israel. I mean, besides
Speaker 0: The United States.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Then the European support for Israel from the beginning, from 1948, was at least partly influenced by a sense of guilt towards because of the Holocaust. And when Israel was established, no other country in the world has received as much international sympathy and support as Israel has done. And that was for two reasons.
One is a feeling of guilt towards the annihilation of European Jewry here in the heartland of Christian Europe. And the other reason is that Israel was perceived as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. In the nineteen fifties, Israel was an iconic state of justice, liberalism, freedom, democracy. But Israel has gone on a journey in the other direction, and today, it's very widely regarded as an authoritarian state, a racist state, an apartheid state. But it is Israel it's not just that people suddenly change their opinion of Israel.
Israel by its actions, by its occupation, by its oppression of the Palestinians, by its constant violence and never ending war, Israel has made itself an international pariah.
Speaker 0: I mean, no one gets into trouble, dare I say it, here in The UAE for calling out a genocide in Gaza. There have been protest movements in Britain, like Palestine action. I think even today, you you face fourteen years up to fourteen years in prison or something for wearing a T shirt. The European Legal Support Center Index of Repression has documented 964 incidents of repression against students, academics, writers, and teachers between 2019 and 2025. Is that the governing guilt people in power in European countries and in Britain wanting to keep that support, desperately hold on to that support for Israel?
What why are they doing this, those in power?
Speaker 1: Because there is a very powerful Israel lobby in Britain as there is in America. But in Britain, the Israel lobby doesn't operate as openly as it does in America, but it is very, very powerful in both main parties, both in the conservative party and in the Labour Party. It wields a lot of influence. In Germany, it's still the sense of guilt over the holocaust that makes Germany the most repressive European government when it comes to pro Palestinian suppressing pro Palestinian protest. And in Britain, the government has made terrible mistakes because of its blind support for Israel.
One example you just mentioned, it prescribed it prescribed Palestine action. Palestine action is a group of young idealistic people who believe in direct action because the government isn't listening to them. So they attack Israeli arms factories in Britain in order to stop Israel from committing genocide in in Gaza. But this government has turned Palestine action, we designated it as a terrorist organization. And if you support Palestine action today, you can get a prison sentence of up to fourteen years.
But the good news is that there was a judicial review. The court the high court decided that the prescription of Palestine action is unlawful, but it gave the government the chance to appeal, and now there is an appeal by the government.
Speaker 0: And they're appealing. They're appealing with the I you know, I don't wanna get you into trouble, professor, for even talking about the case because that is the level of repression as I understand it in Britain. I mean, just remind us. I don't know how you look back on it. What happened to you at, Livable Hope University?
Do you accept that, there were reasons for, shutting down your distinguished, lecture at the university? Because somehow when your words echo out in a lecture room, they are dangerous.
Speaker 1: I was invited to give a guest lecture at the Hopeful Hope University, and I was going to talk about my autobiography, three words, memoirs of an Arab Jew. And most of it was going to be about the early part about our life in Baghdad as Arab Jews. And the local Jewish community complained to the university authorities that my presence on campus would make them feel unsafe and that there was a security issue. So the university authorities asked me not to cancel, but to postpone my visit. And I replied immediately that there is no way I would ever go to Liverpool what I call Liverpool Hopeless University because there was no issue of security.
The only issue was that local Jews didn't like my views about Israel. And this was an imprisonment of my academic freedom and freedom of expression, and I wasn't prepared to put up with any limits and any infringement of my right to speak my mind about this or any other issue. I mean, what what does it say,
Speaker 0: really, about the fact that you could be accused of endangering Jews as a Jew in in in Britain? Has has genocide been normalized by the upper classes in Britain? I mean, here in West Asia, as I said, Saudi Arabia called it out as a genocide. In The United States, professor Omar Bartov, he's been on this show. Genocide school have called it a genocide in Britain on your BBC where I used to work once.
You're not allowed to say the word. The government censor is against the word. What does it say about the state of Britain that you could
Speaker 1: be seen as someone endangering Jews? It says that the mainstream media in Britain completely fails to report the Palestinian narrative about this conflict. It only reports the Israeli narrative with all the lies and all the distortions and all the propaganda. And the BBC is particularly horrendous in its lack of partiality and objectivity, in always giving Israel the benefit of the doubt, in always giving Israeli spokespeople more space time, in not listening to Palestinians. And also, BBC presenters are instructed whenever an interviewee mentions genocide to stop them and say, it hasn't been decided.
And I haven't been interviewed on the BBC once in the last two and a half years because they know my views, and they don't like my views. But I insist that Israel is guilty of genocide. And my last book is called genocide in Gaza. It is this book, genocide in Gaza, Israel's long war on Palestine. And in this book, there are six pages of quotations from Israeli leaders which are plainly genocidal.
So there is no doubt at all that there is both the rhetoric of genocide and also the actual actions on the ground which are genocidal. So Israel has been conducting a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians.
Speaker 0: But that's right.
Speaker 1: Something curious has happened.
Speaker 0: Professor Hariksheim, we're out of time, but thank you once again.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And that's it
Speaker 0: for our final show of this season. Our continued condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by today's NATO nation wars of aggression, including, of course, the Gaza genocide and the mass killing in the Donbas. We'll be back from a brand new with a brand new season on Saturday, June 6. Until then, keep in touch for all our social media. It's not censored in your country, now to our channel going underground TV on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of going underground.
See you soon.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing a new episode of Going Underground featuring Prof. Zhang Weiwei, Director of Fudan University’s China Institute and former translator for Deng Xiaoping. We discuss the Trump-Xi summit, how China has outsmarted US efforts to choke Beijing’s oil via Iran and Venezuela, and how Beijing views the Trump administration’s actions across the global south.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Trump-Xi Summit: ‘China🇨🇳 is WINNING the Competition Against the USA🇺🇸’—Prof. Zhang Weiwei How has China outsmarted the US's attempts to choke off Beijing's oil supplies via Iran & Venezuela? How does Beijing view the Trump Administration as it unleashes death and destruction across the global south? Why does China see itself as winning the competition against the United States? All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with Prof. Zhang Weiwei, Director of Fudan University’s China Institute and former Translator for Chinese Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshun Rutansi speaks with Professor Zhang Weiwei, director of the China Institute at Fudan University, who has translated for Chinese paramount leaders including Deng Xiaoping. Rutansi frames the discussion around Trump’s visit to China amid the Israel-Iran war context and events including officials meeting in Delhi and a reported Saudi initiative for a West Asian aggression pact with Iran ahead of Putin’s and Xi Jinping’s scheduled meeting in Beijing.
Rutansi asks whether Chinese officials understand that Xi Jinping is meeting a U.S. president responsible for attacking one of China’s key energy trading partners. Zhang says many Chinese prefer Trump over Harris for being “slightly more honest,” and contrasts Trump’s “decent respect” for big powers such as Russia and China with perceived hypocrisy from Biden and Harris. He argues that China should manage damage through dialogue given U.S.-China as the two largest economies and military powers.
Rutansi raises historical memory, arguing that the U.S. deliberately prevented China from buying grain during Mao’s famine and imposed a naval blockade of food. Zhang responds that, during the Cold War, although no “hot wars” occurred between the U.S. and Soviet Union, China faced the Korean War and the Vietnam War as direct military confrontation with the U.S., and that China remembers the U.S. drawing lessons from those conflicts and that China would fight back if “red lines” were crossed.
On claims that Trump is “destroying China while smiling” and attacking China’s energy supplies, Zhang says operations tied to Venezuela and Iran are aimed at controlling oil China needs. He says Venezuela represents less than 3% of China’s total oil imports, so it “will not affect” China’s oil supply, while the Iran situation is “more serious” and is treated as a mistake from which China can benefit due to long-term energy planning pursued for about two decades. Zhang says China’s energy dependency on foreign supply is at maximum 15%, and outlines China’s current energy mix: about 52% from coal described as “processed green coal,” 20% from renewables, and the rest from traditional oil and gas, with roughly 70% of those fuels from foreign sources. He lists diversified oil supply routes including lines from Russia, Central Asia, and Myanmar, and highlights a railway connection between China and Iran as “hugely important for Iran.” Rutansi asks whether this railway was bombed as part of a U.S.-Israeli campaign; Zhang says the U.S. “really dare[s]” not to damage it overall and that on the whole it is still moving.
Zhang links U.S. efforts to containment with previous trade and tech wars starting in 2018, saying they “failed completely,” and cites an ASPI report comparing critical high-tech technologies where he claims China beats the U.S. in 57 of 64. He argues China’s position is that the Strait of Hormuz should remain open and places responsibility for the crisis’s consequences on U.S. and Israeli military action, while also saying China has “strategic partner” relations with Iran and Gulf states and hopes for reconciliation between Iran and the Gulf States.
In part two, Rutansi asks why China was not hosting or acting as intermediary in negotiations and whether China spoke through Pakistan. Zhang says China prefers “behind the scene, low key” approaches. Rutansi then addresses claims that China could use rare earths as leverage and asks why China exports rare earths to the U.S. Zhang says China has exercised stricter control over rare earth exports to the U.S. since the previous year, stating that for a one-year period there would be no rare earths for military purposes, and that China can exercise this control during negotiations.
Rutansi asks whether China will reduce exposure to U.S. treasury markets; Zhang says China-U.S. trade relations are normal overall, but that Trump’s trade war led to a sharp drop, and describes China’s “socialist market economy” as driven by private and public enterprises. He rejects “moralistic perspective” as the main lens, stating that China follows international law and Chinese law, condemns aggression, and applies sanctions through the United Nations if necessary.
Rutansi criticizes propaganda narratives and asks about the U.N. General Assembly president Annalina Beerbok calling Xi Jinping a dictator, asking whether that makes things difficult for China and the U.N. Zhang argues the issue lies in EU politics and what he calls low caliber of EU, U.S., and NATO leadership, and says he predicted that without political reform, worse leaders would be elected.
On whether working classes in NATO countries will see through propaganda that China is the enemy, Zhang says opinion surveys show China’s impression improving gradually in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and in the West, especially among young people, attributing this in part to widespread use of Chinese hardware and software. He also explains that American and other foreign companies invested in China because of profits, and says the trade war and tech war drove high-tech firms to consolidate business interests in China; he mentions Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, and says Boeing has not been purchased in nine years while Boeing’s CEO is now in China.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshun Rutansi, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from The UAE amidst the devastating Trump Netanyahu war in West Asia after Iranian, Russian, Chinese, and UAE officials met in Delhi for a brick summit that followed a Trump appearance in China. And there was a reported Saudi initiative for a West Asian on aggression pact with Iran, and all that ahead of next week's scheduled Putin Xi Jinping meeting in Beijing. Millions have been killed, wounded, or displaced by Trump's Netanyahu Epstein war. Billions may have been affected for years to come after its impact on supply chains. But is that what Xi Jinping told Trump?
Did she tell Trump to stop being Netanyahu's poodle and to start worrying more about the nearly 40,000,000, almost the population of Yemen, Iraq, or Afghanistan that cannot eat tonight in The USA without government handouts. Joining me again from Shanghai is the director of the China Institute at Shanghai's Fudan University. He's translated for China's paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, whose policies contributed to lifting more people out of poverty than any other leader in world history. Professor Zhang, thank you so much for, coming back on Going Underground after after a long time. But let's get straight to, the, Trump visit, I suppose.
I mean, you translated, as I said, for, important leaders, in China. I mean, do you think that party officials understand that Xi Jinping is meeting a president of The United States that is responsible for attacking one of China's most important energy trading partners?
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Well, let's look at Donald Trump in at least the way most Chinese feel about him. You know, back in, say, last year when the election was still going on between him and Harris, I was interviewed by your colleague in RT. She asked me a very candid question. For most Chinese, which leader you would prefer?
Donald Trump or Harris? I said, to be honest, most Chinese slightly, you know, prefer Donald Trump because he was slightly more honest than Harris. And because Biden and her team, from a Chinese point of view, were the drivers of the current revolution were very hypocritical. And Donald Trump somehow, you know, he I remember chairman Mao once said, you know, he liked the right win in The United States because they talk things in a more candid way. And in all fairness, despite all the problems or huge problems created by Donald Trump and so many damage to the world, to Middle East, to different countries, Yet he has showed decent respect for big powers like Russia and China.
He has showed decent respect for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and for Chinese leader Xi Jinping. And so we have to treat the issue more in a more sophisticated way. I think at least, you know, we try to control the damage. And after all, being the two largest economy and two largest military powers in the world, so if China, United States can talk to each other, it's a good thing for the whole world, I think.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, you know, obviously, things have changed a lot since Mao. And one has to ask, do you think the new generation, the new cadre of Communist Party officials remember how The United States deliberately prevented China from buying grain during the famine so that China could feed its population? You don't get the impression sometimes from Chinese media that they've forgotten what The United States did under chairman Mao. They imposed a naval blockade of food against Mao's China.
You don't see in Chinese media a Well as if they've forgotten what The United States did to China?
Speaker 1: No. No. The other way around. Actually, you know, during the Cold War, the year of Chairman Mao and Soviet Union, in fact, you know, there were no hot wars between The Soviet Union and The United States. It's cold war era, yet China fought two hot wars, largest scale military confrontation with United States directly.
The Korean War in nineteen fifties and the Vietnam War in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies. Both involving larger scale direct military confrontation between China and United States. So China remember that. We think United States has drawn some lessons from this military confrontation with China. As I said, you know, even when China was a 100 times weaker than today, we were determined to fight back if you cross red lines.
This is very clear. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, you'd said Trump had transparency on his side. Of course, there are many in the global South that thought that Trump wasn't merely Netanyahu's poodle over the war on Iran. The whole project of Trump is to destroy China. That's why he's looking as if he's so polite with Xi Jinping on the red carpet because he kidnaps Maduro and Celia Flores in Venezuela, a big a good partner with China. He attacks China's energy supplies by the war on Iran.
And, of course, in Syria, China lost many investments. Yeah. All of the policies are really focused on destroying China while smiling and and giving China that respect that you spoke of.
Speaker 1: You are right. In one way or another, or in many ways, I would say. You know? For instance, this attack, Venezuela, the illegal arrest of Munduru, president of Venezuela, this is, as you said, somehow against China. You know, it's the one to control the oil China needs.
Same with this attack on Iran, the military operation against Iran. It's also aimed at, you know, in a way controlling Iran's oil reserves. Now for China, you know, Iran's largest trading power, largest investor in Iran, and also the larger purchaser of Iranian oil. So all this technically are accurate. Yet the point is China is not afraid of this.
For Venezuela, we condemn this fiercely, seriously, yet it will not affect China's oil water supply because it represents a very small percentage, less than 3% of the total oil imports. And for Iran, it's more serious as it's a huge mistake from day one we realized. So as an article in Economy said, the Chinese philosophy is, you know, when your enemy, your opponent is making a serious mistake, so let him continue. This is a sarcastic way to say it because China has a long term planning for its energy strategy. China began to pursue this energy strategy since about two decades ago.
As a result, today China's energy dependency on foreign supply is at maximum 15%, one five. As a result, China can cope with this crisis, but so far it's okay. Unlike other countries in Asia or in Europe, China is at this particular moment, 52% energy comes from coal, but it's already processed green coal. It's with new technologies. And 20% from renewable energies, from green electricity and power, and then the rest from traditional oil and gas.
Of this part, around 70% from foreign sources. Yet we have developed different ways of oil supply, northern line from Russia, western line from Central Asia, and the southern line from Myanmar, etcetera. So now the supply diversified. We also have this very importantly railway connection between China and Iran. It's hugely important for Iran.
Speaker 0: Do you think that's sorry to interrupt. Do you think that's why that railway was bombed as part of The United States Israeli campaign?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think United States really dare to, you know, damage this railway. There could be, you know, one or two particular accidents by Israeli bombing or by whatever. But on the whole, it's still moving. No problem. Problem is fixed because we have all kinds of way to deal with United States.
As you know, United States started this trade war with China in 2018. They failed completely. They started tech war with China, failed again completely. Because it started with banning computer chips to China. Now a Chinese producer of China's largest export item is computer chips.
It's that's the case. We'll compare That's
Speaker 0: China including Taiwan. Clearly. China including Taiwan.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. No. It's in Taiwan, Chinese Mainland.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, until the I mean, while we should
Speaker 1: go together.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Together with, you know, if you include Taiwanese I
Speaker 1: said that back in 2018, I said that we should award a gold medal to Donald Trump for his starting this tech war. We knew we have the capacity to catch up with The United States and do better in The United States. If you look at the latest ASPI, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, ASPI's report comparing high-tech, critical technology between China and United States. The report reveals that out of the 64 most critical technologies, China beats United States in 57. So China is winning this competition if there is a competition.
Speaker 0: And while it imports, I should just ask before we get to the brig, is it your understanding that actually the Strait Of Hormuz has been open for China even as NATO countries have been talking about it being closed?
Speaker 1: Well, China's position is very clear. We should make this Strait open. But we have to know the cause of this whole crisis is the war, the military action taken by The United States and Israel. They are responsible for this event and its consequences. So this is very clear cut.
At the same time, China is on extremely good terms with all these countries, Iran and The Gulf States. We're very they are all strategic partners. So we really, from the bottom of our heart, hope for good relations, reconciliations between Iran and The Gulf States. And I I don't want to say, you know, I remember another article in Economy said, you know, particular war launched by United States and Israel could be a gift from United States to China. This is exaggerated.
China also suffered a bit from this. But on the other hand, China believed that we should always do whatever is good in the interest of humanity, in the interest of Chinese people and people of the world.
Speaker 0: Professor Zhang Weiwei, I'll stop you there. More from the director of the China Institute at Fudan University after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former translator for Chinese paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, amongst others, professor Zhang Weiwei. Professor Zhang, I think there's a bit more interference as we came back into part two.
Obviously, the Americans using, up all that Chinese, Internet. I should say here in Dubai, we have a we have a headline here. Hormuz crisis cast a shadow over Trump Xi meeting in China. At the end of part one, you were speaking about how China has good relations with all GCC countries and with Iran. Why do you think China didn't host or wasn't the intermediary and Pakistan was?
Or was China talking through Pakistan as the negotiations such as they were occurring between the Americans and the Iranians and the Israelis?
Speaker 1: Well, Chinese approach is had to do with Chinese cultural traditions. We're not, you know, just opposite to the style of Donald Trump. We prefer a bit, you know, behind the scene, low key, and not on spotlight yet get many things done.
Speaker 0: I mean, one question is, and it was raised as in the American press, the Sulzburg and New York Times, China could use rare earths as a cudgel. Now that raises a few questions because isn't the point that The United States couldn't have been bombing Tehran and Iran without the rare earths that are needed for their military equipment? Why is China exporting rare earths to The United States in the first place?
Speaker 1: No. China has adopted this already policies on proper management of rare earth. At this particular moment since the last year, sometime last year, China has exercised stricter control over the export of rare earth to United States. It had to do with trade war and tech war. And China said no railroads for US military, military establishments.
So this will be, I forget the exact month, sometime three or four months to go, it's for one year. So during this period of time there will be no real earth for military purpose. And then next to your negotiation, we'll see. But China now can exercise this kind of control. That's important.
So China's not only It's a process of learning. Well,
Speaker 0: I think I think everyone realized everyone realized that The United States was invading a lot of countries over the past few decades since 1945. China was enabling it arguably not only through the export of rare earths for its military, but also obviously buying, US treasury bills. The United States can't fight its wars if it told the American taxpayer to pay for them. So, will we see fewer and fewer, exposure to the US treasury market from China, in the coming years?
Speaker 1: Well, I think, you know, China, United States have normal trade relations because we think United States has a major power and it has on the whole trade good trade relations with China for so many years. Yet since Donald Trump launched a trade war against China, there was a sharp drop. This is because China is a socialist market economy. It's not just the government said we ban everything and it will fall into shape. No, it's driven by a very dynamic private enterprises, public enterprises that makes Chinese economy prosperous.
We're seeing this is a model that China has pursued. So far it's on the whole good for Chinese economy, which is also very important
Speaker 0: to Yeah. But there there's a moral dimension to this as well, isn't there? I mean, if there are going to be shortages of fuel in for the ordinary Chinese worker because of the war on Iran. It'll be ironic that the war was paid for by Chinese ownership of American debt and Chinese exporting of rare earth materials with which to bomb Iran.
Speaker 1: No. Basically, we follow very clear rules. You know? First is international law and also the Chinese law and Chinese legal system. So we cannot always look at everything from a moralistic perspective.
So in many cases, business is business. It's driven by private enterprises in China, in other countries, etc. Yet the moral principle is that we abide by United Nations Charter. We shall condemn if it's an act of aggression. If it is necessary to apply sanctions, we'll do this through United Nations and we'll do it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You mentioned the United Nations there. Amongst all the killing, thousands killed, of course, in the bombing of Lebanon and the bombing of Iran, there is some humor, dare I say it. I mean, it's the propaganda against China. You mentioned the United Nations.
What do you think of the president of the United Nations General Assembly, the ex German Green Party's, Annalina Beerbok? She's on the record as saying Xi Jinping is a dictator. Is that gonna make difficult things difficult for China or the United Nations, which anyway has been harshly criticized for its performance during the genocide in Gaza, of course? What what do you make of the new president of the No.
Speaker 1: This problem is with the this is the problem with the EU politics. You know, if you look at the caliber of the EU leaders, including this UN chair or presidency, whatever, the quality of the EU leadership, the quality of American leadership, the quality of NATO leadership, I must say in honesty, you know, it's low, very low. And you could not envy this kind of political system. As I said long time ago, exactly fifteen years ago this time, I debated with professor Fukuyama. He said China needs political reform.
I said both China and United States need political reform, but you need more political reform. I predicted that time. I said, if you do not carry out substantial political reforms, I'm sorry. You're gonna elect a leader worse off than George w Bush. You know, it turned out to be true, you know, many people say.
I said this exact fifteen years ago.
Speaker 0: Well, it's not a problem for the very rich and the oligarchs, arguably. In fact, that may be a question to point to you. I mean No. Seeing that the levels of poverty and inequality in NATO nations Mhmm. You don't believe the oligarchs want to bring China down to The United States level, whereas I said at the beginning of the show, 40,000,000 cannot eat tonight.
And the oligarchs have chosen, China now as a way to, reduce China to the levels that NATO is through Keynesian militarism on their part as they fight China?
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Mhmm. Well, in fact, you know, the Chinese approach is what I call long termism. As I said, with regard to this unipolar world order, the so called rule based international system, the Chinese approach is critical. This system has a lot of problems.
Yet there are certain aspects which we can make use of for the benefit of the Chinese people, for the benefit of the international community. So we I call China as a reformer. I describe Russia as a revolutionary because with this controversial war over Ukraine. And I understand the reason. I I also claim, you know, if only this NATO expansion, say, stop after four three or four rounds of expansion, then the war could not have happened.
Yet they continue with the fifth expansion, then the war occurred. So NATO is mainly to blame. But despite controversy over this particular war, I think the Russia's position that we want to change this unipolar world order. This is really understood and even appreciated by many countries in the world, including many many Chinese. Yeah.
So I said that Russia is revolutionary. China is a reformer of the old system, but we both try to work out a better system than what it it is what we have now.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Of course, there's some critics of Putin that say he's not revolutionary enough, but it has to be said that whether you're revolutionary or Agree. Whether you're revolutionary or a reformer, it doesn't make any difference when you're when it comes to the NATO nation press. I'm sure it makes you laugh. Oh.
The danger of a much bolder China. In fact, I think they used the word danger in the New York Times with China as a kind of synonym. What China lacks makes it dangerous. Audacious plot unveils possible spying by China. On the day Trump was being fated by the Chinese, a Fox News crew, a Murdoch Fox News crew, was complaining about the fact they'd illegally parked their car and, had been caught for it and was blaming it on surveillance cameras.
And can we expect, the peoples of NATO nations, the working classes of those NATO nations to see past all through this propaganda? And do you believe the media, the art, the publishing industry, the music industry Yeah. All elements of culture in those countries will understand that China is not the enemy?
Speaker 1: In fact, you know, interestingly, over the past few years, what you have observed is the if you look at the credible opinion survey, opinion surveys by credible institutions, people's impression of China is gradually better and better than the impression of The United States. This already happened in Southeast Asia, Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. Now if you look at the latest Gallup surveys, this is also happening within the West natal countries, natal member countries. So people's opinion about China, especially among the young people, become more and more positive, more positive than ever before. For one reason because everyone uses Chinese hardware, software, Chinese whatever made in China.
Speaker 0: Well on actually on that point on that point, Yeah. And I have to say, I mean, of course, my country, Saketa Starmah, is in deep trouble. The m I six people said sure. M I six said the single's greatest priority for m I six, authoritarian state, death trends, traps, political coercion. It's all about Xinjiang and Tibet according to the foreign secretary.
All of that, and at the same time, all those tech titans of Silicon Valley, the oligarchs of The United States, were all with Trump on the plane. Why do you think they're there given why are they there given I mean, in Britain, Huawei is banned. In the European Union, they're banning Chinese companies. Yeah. What are they actually there for if you have a technological infrastructure and corporate industry, are they there to compete?
Are they there to take lessons? What what what was Elon Musk doing there and Tim Cook? Yeah.
Speaker 1: You know, China pursues an open door policy since four decades, almost five decades ago since Chairman Deng Xiaoping came into power. So it's open to foreign trade and foreign investment. So thousands of American companies, Apple, Tesla, and Microsoft, all invest in China. So they have their business interests in China. The problem with this rise of Donald Trump and mega movement had to do with the American political system because these companies have made huge profits in the Chinese market.
Chinese workers, you know, have also gained a bit, but not as much as these owners of these companies. They may have 90% or 85% of all the profits. Yet domestically, their way of distribution is so poor, is so in favor of the super rich oligarchies, whatever, as a result of this rise of the mega. Now with this trade war and tech war against China and on the losing side for The United States, many of these high-tech companies want to come to China to try to at least keep the last part or whatever share of their business interests in China. They want to consolidate this interest in China.
For instance, China has not purchased any Boeings over the past nine years. So Boeing's CEO is now in China. Tesla also, you know.
Speaker 0: So Do you think a bit pointless?
Speaker 1: Consolidate. Yep.
Speaker 0: Bit pointless? Nvidia as well? Bit pointless of them all coming there?
Speaker 1: Well, because I haven't found any there is perhaps some deals during this visit by Donald Trump in China.
Speaker 0: Well, we'll to end it
Speaker 1: And I think China will.
Speaker 0: We'll have to end it there, professor Zhang. Professor Zhang Weiwei, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: And that's it for the show. We'll be back on Monday for a season finale with professor Avi Schleim amidst genocides in Gaza and Lebanon, one of, Israel's new historians. He's one of the world's greatest Jewish scholars, de facto banned in the media of NATO nations, arming The US Israeli wars on West Asia. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media if it's not censored in your country, and head to our channel, Going Underground TV on rumble.com, to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Monday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss Iran’s strategy, the Greater Israel plan as an existential threat to Arabs and Muslims, and whether Israel would use nuclear weapons against Iran with Prof. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Treasury Secretary for Economic Policy.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ US & Israel HUMILIATED by Iran, Greater Israel Plan MUST be Confronted—Prof. Paul Craig Roberts Why has Iran made a strategic miscalculation? Why must the Greater Israel plan be seen as an existential threat by the Arab & Muslim world? Will Israel use its nuclear weapons against Iran? All this and more with Prof. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Treasury Secretary for Economic Policy.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashton Rutanski hosts Going Underground from a region tensioned by ongoing missiles and drone attacks and the wider aftermath of what he describes as the Trump-era wars in the Middle East. He notes that Xi Jinping canceled and rescheduled a meeting with Trump in Beijing, shortly after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met Wang Yi, with China and Russia blocking UN Security Council efforts to condemn Iran's actions in the Strait of Hormuz and China directing its companies to ignore Washington’s oil sanctions on Tehran. Rutanski frames the current sanctions as part of a long tradition of U.S. sanctions and cites figures from The Lancet Health Journal on deaths linked to those sanctions. He then introduces Paul Craig Roberts, former US assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy under Reagan and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Roberts argues that if Iran had prevailed in the Gaza conflict, the outcome could have reshaped world events, claiming Iran could have “pummeled the American bases and Israel into a surrender” if not for a ceasefire. He says the ceasefire was a mistake that prevented solidifying a victory and criticizes negotiations as ineffective against hegemonic powers like the United States and Israel, which he characterizes as pursuing greater Israel and broader regional hegemony. He suggests that negotiating with such powers is pointless when their aim is existential, and he contends that Iranian taktics were good but the strategic plan was flawed.
Rutanski asks about media and political rhetoric, including allegations that Japan’s Financial Times (as a stand-in for Western media) reports Iran warning the U.S. not to enter the Hormuz Strait and to launch drones at the UAE. Roberts reiterates his view that negotiations with hegemonic powers are futile when those powers deny others’ right to exist, and stresses that the broader issue is the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel. He asserts that Arab and Muslim states have never confronted this agenda and argues that Iran should use its position to raise the Greater Israel issue as a matter of diplomacy and regional sovereignty, rather than focusing solely on uranium enrichment or coastal control.
The discussion turns to Neoconservatism and American policy history. Roberts recalls the Iran-Contra affair as an early neoconservative moment, and cites Norman Podhoretz’s call for “the elimination of seven countries in five years” (Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon). He contends that U.S. policy has long aimed to reshape the Middle East in support of Greater Israel, with ongoing Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Western support for Israel.
Regarding Trump, Roberts dismisses Trump’s statements as nonsensical and references an official U.S. State Department document claiming that the United States attacked Iran “at the request of Israel.” He criticizes mainstream journalism and suggests much reporting has become aligned with official narratives, while noting that Iran’s strategic posture should be to confront the Zionist agenda rather than to engage in other points of negotiation.
The conversation touches on Vladimir Putin and Ukraine, arguing that Putin’s long-running war has widened and become increasingly dangerous; Roberts criticizes Putin for not seizing opportunities and notes that the broader regional conflict is expanding into NATO airspace, which could destabilize regimes in the region. The program closes with Roberts emphasizing the need for the Muslim world to frame its negotiations around the Greater Israel issue and for internal Israeli politics to reflect on the Zionist agenda, then signs off with condolences for those affected by NATO-era wars and invites viewers to continue watching on Going Underground.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashton Rutanski. Welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from a UAE that has been under Iranian missile and drone attacks since the Trump killing of Iran's leaders in February. Millions have now been killed, wounded, or displaced since the Trump Netanyahu wars on Lebanon and Iran began. But this Thursday, Chinese president Xi Jinping has a canceled and rescheduled meeting with Trump in Beijing that's due. That's just a week after Iranian foreign minister Abbasar Gagchi met China's Wang Yi, who again condemned US Israeli attacks on Tehran as illegitimate.
China, along with Russia, has blocked efforts at the UN Security Council to condemn Iran's actions in the Strait Of Hormuz. Beijing has instructed its companies not to comply with Washington's latest sanctions on oil trade with Tehran. Those sanctions come after decades of Washington sanctions that the British Lancet Health Journal famously calculated to have killed thirty eight million people between 1971 and 2025. This time, it is The US's NATO vassal states that are facing economic catastrophe as they struggle to cope with the Trump Netanyahu war petrochemical shock combined with siphoning what's left of their wealth to Ukrainian dictator Zelensky. Joining me again from Florida is the former US assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy under Ronald Reagan and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, professor Paul Craig Roberts.
Paul, so good to see you after, so long. Let's, get straight to it and, just ask, after the Gaza genocide, the assassination of Iran's leaders, decades of sanctions on Iran, why do you believe that Iran, aside from any, hot war or ceasefire right now that's happening, has catastrophically failed to take advantage of strategic advantage here.
Speaker 1: Well, if the Iranians prevailed in the war, I think it's greatly changed events, future events in the world because the Iranians proved they could stand up to an Israeli American attack. And I believe the Iranians prevailed. I think it's unfortunate they agreed to the ceasefire because I believe they could have pummeled the American bases and Israel into a surrender. And this of course would have been the completion of their victory. So it's always a mistake to stop just short of solidifying a victory, and they had every sign of one.
So I think that that decision, which went back on their vow not to agree to a ceasefire, was a mistake. It shows the tendency to always try to minimize force by negotiations. That doesn't work against hegemonic powers like The United States, which insists on its hegemony over the world. And it doesn't work on hegemonic powers like Israel, which has its doctrine of a greater Israel, an assertion of hegemony over the entire Middle East or East Asia, East Asia or West Asia as they call it these days. So when you're confronted with hegemonic demands, negotiations are pointless because there's nothing to negotiate other than your own surrender.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, there's a bit of interference apparently. I don't know whether it's the drones over Dubai because of course The UAE has been attacked more than any other country. I mean, Iran to that to what you just said, some Iranian leaders would say, no. We recognize it's a hegemonic power.
And, headlines like this in the, Japanese propaganda sheet, the Financial Times, Iran warns US not to enter Hormuz Strait and launch its drones at UAE. Iran would say, no. We look at what we've been doing with the Hormuz Strait. We have tactically understood the battlefield, and we are reacting in kind and fully understanding of the importance of a lack of restraint when it comes to fighting a hegemonic power.
Speaker 1: Well, they may say that. But once again, how do you negotiate with a hegemonic power, particularly the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel? Because it doesn't recognize your right to exist. And so you're in a position of negotiating with countries that simply are determined on your determination. If your right to exist isn't accepted, what do you negotiate?
So I think you're right that the Iranians were very good on tactics and they dropped the ball strategically.
Speaker 0: When you were in the Reagan administration, can you remember openly the Israelis talking like this of a greater Israel? I mean, politicians, The US ambassador to Israel famously, actually talking openly about de facto invading Saudi Arabia, let alone taking over Lebanon and parts of Iraq?
Speaker 1: Well, was a formative days of the American neoconservatives worming their way into policy positions in the government. You may remember the Iran Contra controversy. This was a neoconservative event. It was later during the George W. Bush administration that we were hearing about the need to destroy seven countries in five years.
The call went out from the editor of the American Jewish magazine commentary. The editor's name was Norman Pod Horitz, and he called for the elimination of seven countries in five years. Of course, was Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon. And this became part of the neoconservative agenda in The United States. And in fact, the events of nineeleven when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked, this became the new Pearl Harbor for launching the American intervention in The Middle East in behalf of Greater Israel.
So the American troops and American money was used to destroy Libya, Iraq, Syria, and turn them into What would you say they are?
Speaker 0: They're
Speaker 1: dysfunctional countries. They're not There's no functioning state there. And I think this is the And we now see that Israel has The United States at work on Iran. And Israel has again renewed its attacks on Lebanon. So the agenda is very much real.
It's very much in operation. The United States, or we should say Washington, has been fighting the greater Israel calls Netanyahu for the first quarter of the twenty first century.
Speaker 0: We've been
Speaker 1: war for twenty five years.
Speaker 0: What did you make of Trump openly denying what you just said and protesting that it was nothing to do with Netanyahu, his decision to assassinate Khanai and begin bombing Tehran, and of course kill all those school girls in Manabe. It was Trump's decision.
Speaker 1: I make the same of it as I do of everything he says. It's nonsensical. We have from the legal adviser of the United States Department of State, a document seeking to justify The United States attack on Iran. And he opens the document with the statement that The United States attacked Iran at the request of Israel. That's the official document.
I have provided a link to it on my website and recent articles.
Speaker 0: And when when you're when you were an associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, you gotta tell me what you think of that Murdoch paper today. So that link would have been on the front cover, and the document would have been reproduced. Why is it your old paper now parrots? I think Axios is a infamous agency to aid certain people in making money out of the dead in this region.
Speaker 1: In The United States, all of the traditional journalists or the legacy journalism, it no longer exists. These people are now known as prostitutes, a short for press prostitutes. They repeat and support official narratives. And so to extent journalism exists, it's offshore or it's in the alternative media and the internet. So it doesn't much matter what Trump says.
I mean, he says all kinds of things. They don't make any sense, do they? I mean, he claims that he's totally destroyed Iran and yet Iran controls the strait. The American ships don't dare go near. Trump is enamored with his power and the power of The United States, and he's delusional about it.
If you will remember, just as this war was announced, Trump said it'd be over in three days. Well, it wasn't over in three days. It may not be over now. But certainly the expectations of Trump and that now you were completely wrong. And they suffered the humiliation.
And Iran, I think, saved both Netanyahu and Trump by agreeing to a ceasefire.
Speaker 0: You Iran could, I mean, you've criticized Iranian strategy for accepting the ceasefire. But do you think Iran's stature would have been greater if it had preempted all of this and intervened to prevent the Gaza genocide and shown leadership that way, way ahead of the June war?
Speaker 1: Well, that's the question for the whole Middle East, not just for Iran. You see, my view is that the Muslim world, particularly the Arabs, but also the Iranians, they have never confronted Israel or the United Nations or Washington with the Israeli agenda, the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel. They should have been asking for decades, what are you talking about Greater Israel? You're saying we don't have a right to exist. Are you determined to destroy all of the countries in the Middle East in order to exercise your hegemony, your claim.
They've never raised this question. In my view, the Iranians would take advantage of their semi victory in this conflict, and start raising this question. Because it affects the remaining Arab states. I mean, what Arab states remain? Saudi Arabia and Lebanon.
The rest of them have been destroyed. And then of course we have the Muslims in Iran and in Turkey. But as you know that recently,
Speaker 0: the to war go to part two for the rest of it. Professor Paul Craig Roberts, I'll stop you there. More from the former US assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy and former associate editor of The Wall Street Journal after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with professor Paul Craig Roberts, former US assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
I interrupted you, Paul, when you were talking about how Iran should globally encourage people to understand the greater Israel project. But I suppose through all that and your criticisms of Iranian strategy in this war, I mean, isn't the danger here that, of course, the only real nuclear state in West Asia is Israel, and the danger here is that Netanyahu could detonate a nuclear weapon over Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, that is a possibility. But, of course, you know, in a way, the Iranians have a nuclear weapon. They could hit Demona. If if the as they did.
Speaker 0: They showed you. But they don't have a nuclear weapon yet, the Iranians. But But I suppose they don't need one to hit Demona.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But what I'm saying is they don't need one because the Iranian nuclear weapon is sitting right there in Demona. All they have to do is hit it with their ballistic missiles, which they can do. And then you have a nuclear explosion in Israel, and radiation all over the place. And you know of course, Israel is a tiny, tiny country.
Iran is huge. Iran is as large as Western Europe. Israel is tiny, it doesn't take much to destroy a small country.
Speaker 0: Yeah, but it's obviously very difficult because the West Bank would be affected, Jerusalem would be affected, and holy sites.
Speaker 1: Well, they're gonna be effective also if Israel uses nukes all around. So I I think that the constraints on the use of nuclear weapons are powerful. They haven't been used since 1945. And I think that the country that uses them, that lets the genie out of the bottle, would be damned and destroyed by the world. Because if Israel uses the nukes or Trump, The cork is out of the bottle, the genie's loose.
Now anyone can use them. And that can come back on The United States and Israel. There's a limit in my view to how much the Russians and the Chinese will put up with. Apparently, they'll put up with a lot to avoid conflict, but there is a limit. And when that If that limit is approached, that's when we have the real war.
So my view is for the Iranians to win this attack on them in order to show that you can stand up to Israel and The United States. I don't understand why the Arabs haven't taken unified action before. Last February, the former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett came to The United States to address the annual conference of American Jewish organizations, the Israel lobby. And he said, this is a direct quote, Turkey is the next Iran. Well, at the time he expected the Iranians to fall to the American Israeli attack.
But you can see they clearly have an agenda of aggression. And to sit there and be knocked off one by one by one, never organizing, never presenting a common front. This is nonsensical. And so this is why I say the Muslim world has never understood or confronted the Zionist agenda of Greater Israel. That should be the issue for negotiation.
Not whether or not Iran can enrich uranium or control its coastal waterways. The issue should be this agenda of Greater Israel. It implies the lack of sovereignty of all the Muslim countries. Maybe even their non existence as states. It's hard for me to describe what exactly is the state of government today in Libya, in Iraq, in Syria.
In what sense is there an organized state? So that's the kind of argument that I think needs to be under discussion. Arab the Muslim world should raise this, the United Nations and say, look, this is professed aggression against us by Israel. And we know that The United States or Washington acts in behalf of Israel. We've seen it over and over.
We it was The United States that provided the weapons and the diplomatic cover for the genocide in Gaza. So we are threatened with the termination. This is a declared policy of war against us. This is the issue that the United Nations has to address. So they haven't done that.
It would be of great propaganda value for the Iranians. If it got into Israeli politics, not everyone in Israel is a Zionist. And not all of the Israelis are Zionists. Netanyahu's party has a low support, 25%. He has to rule with coalitions.
And so we see now previous prime ministers forming a coalition to challenge elections this fall in Israel. And they feel strong to do that because of the outcome so far of the attack on Iran. It has not been successful for Israel. Israel suffered a lot of damage and had to ask for a ceasefire. So this has made Netanyahu vulnerable.
And so if the whole question of the Zionist agenda became an issue inside Israeli politics, it's possible a government could form that would understand that that agenda is unrealistic.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well The
Speaker 1: area is too big to be ruled by Israel.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And you've advocated that you've advocated that Israeli opposition should be involved in any US Israeli Iran talks. I just wanted to ask about another genie out the bottle besides nuclear weapons. I mean, you were the you served a president who was the subject of an assassination attempt. And and we're not advocating this when we talk about it, but surprised that Iran hasn't retaliated to the assassination of its leaders by assassinating I mean, Trump believes that the one of the assassinations or maybe both he was given intel about was somehow connected to Iran.
Iran denies that. Surprised Iran hasn't assassinated Miriam Adelson or members of the Israeli lobby in The United States?
Speaker 1: No, I don't think that's the Iranian the Iranian way. That that would be dishonorable. I think the Iranians would regard that as dishonorable and ineffective. What effect did the American and Israeli assassination of so many Iranian leaders have? Apparently none.
The Iranians still prevailed. They stood against The United States. They stood against The US Israeli attack and won the conflict. Yeah. It's Running running Trying to find a way out.
He can't find a way out that he can't that he can call victory.
Speaker 0: Running out of time, Paul. Trump Running out of time, Paul. But, of course, yeah, and martyrdom is indeed part of elements of theology there. Just finally, as regards your criticism of Iranians not taking advantage of what they have. Similarly, you criticized Putin for not taking advantage of what he has.
I mean, you draw a parallel of the pointlessness of negotiating over Ukraine with the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Yes. Putin's never ending war has expanded greatly. And now the Iranians are using an airspace of NATO countries such as Poland to attack Russia. And these attacks are expanding. And so by letting the war go on forever, it widens.
And the wider it gets, the more dangerous it becomes. So this was a strategic blunder on the part of Putin. And it's now recognized as such increasingly inside Russia herself. Former generals are speaking out, Talk shows are speaking out. And so it could end up destabilizing Putin.
Speaker 0: But you don't have any sympathy for those who feel that reticence is something in a nuclear armed world that all nations have to show to a degree given the stakes are so high.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think that's important. But it's also important if countries are not sharing that retinas, that you stand up for yourself or they keep pushing until you are forced to respond. And the longer it goes on, the worse the response has to be. It's kinda like the argument that everyone made about Chamberlain not standing up to Hitler. Sooner or later, it gets out of control and that I think it's the situation that Putin has brought about and worsened.
How much further can Putin back up? How many times can he turn the other cheek? How many times can he ignore his own red lines before he finally has to respond? That's the issue that needs to be examined.
Speaker 0: Professor Paul Craig Roberts, thank you.
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 0: that's it for the show. Continued condolences to all those bereaved by today's NATO Nation Wars of Aggression. We'll be back on Saturday. 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 how Trump is powerless to end the Ukraine proxy war and why Europe has become Russia's principal adversary, in a Victory Day special with Dr. Dmitri Trenin of Russia’s Foreign and Defence Policy Council.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Trump is POWERLESS to End Ukraine🇺🇦 Proxy War, Europe is Russia’s🇷🇺 PRINCIPAL ADVERSARY—Dr. Dmitri Trenin How much longer will the Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine last? Why has Trump failed to end the war? Why has Europe become Russia's principal adversary? All this and more on this Victory Day special episode of Going Underground with Dr. Dmitri Trenin, member of Russia’s Foreign and Defence Policy Council.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshun Rataty opens Going Underground from the UAE as Russia marks Victory Day and asserts Russia’s contribution to international peace by defeating fascism and Nazism, while noting the UAE has intercepted missiles and drones aimed by Iran. He claims millions have been killed, wounded, or displaced by the Trump-Netanyahu wars on Iran and Lebanon, and accuses Western Europe of perpetuating lies about the Soviet contribution to World War II in schools and universities. He suggests Trump triangulated over the deaths of Iranian schoolgirls, referencing Miriam Adelson and the midterms, and notes a long phone call with Putin, with Putin allegedly not revealing how war and rising oil prices aid the Russian economy. He mentions Britain and the EU continuing to fund Zelensky, and that Trump may have congratulated Russia on Victory Day.
Dmitry Trenin, former director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and member of Russia’s Foreign and Defense Policy Council, joins from Moscow. He calls Victory Day the most important date on the Russian calendar and says Europe is Russia’s principal adversary for the first time since 1945, framing the Ukraine war as a proxy war with Europe in the front line. He cautions that victory will be a long process, not simply a return to the post‑Cold War era, and that Russia’s triumph will be “against those elements in Ukraine that are branded Nazi,” while European elites have portrayed Russia as a bogeyman for ulterior motives.
The host challenges the notion of a narrow window of opportunity under a Trump presidency, suggesting Trump would provide more arms to Ukraine. Trenin responds that Russia’s war is restrained and that Kyiv and Donbas share similar populations, framing the conflict as driven by Western manipulation. They discuss eight years of Donetsk and Lugansk separatist resistance, Ukrainian operations, and Russian support, noting the Western European countries have shouldered substantial costs to arm and support Kyiv, with the United States still providing substantial aid even as Trump’s involvement wanes.
The discussion touches on Western Europe’s economic strain and militarization as a means to consolidate the EU, while Trenin argues that the United States is guided by a deep state more than any single president, asserting Trump proposed a peace framework in August 2025 that Putin agreed to, but Washington did not press European leaders to accept, indicating limited impact of Trump’s direct influence on the war’s course.
They discuss Putin’s planned visit to Beijing, timed independently of Trump’s visit, and reflect on US-China relations. Trenin suggests China is hardening its stance against the United States and that Moscow does not fear deals between Xi and Trump at Russia’s expense. They also consider Armenia’s balancing act between Russia and the EU, noting Armenia’s heavy Russian trade yet Western-leaning political leadership.
The program closes with well-wishes for Victory Day, acknowledging ongoing NATO-related conflicts and promising further coverage of US wars in West Asia. The closing credits invite viewers to watch on rumble and social media.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshun Rataty. Welcome to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world as Russia celebrates its victory day and its contribution to international peace by defeating the forces of fascism and Nazism. We're broadcasting from a UAE that has meanwhile this week been intercepting missiles and drones targeted by Iran. Millions have been killed, wounded, or displaced by the Trump Netanyahu wars on Iran and Lebanon. Just as lies about the Soviet contribution to victory in World War two continue in the history books, universities, and schools of Western Europe, there are lies about the Trump Netanyahu war in this region.
All week, it was difficult to ascertain how Trump was triangulating de facto over the dead bodies of 168 schoolgirls in Iran between his paymistress Miriam Adelson, November's midterm US election disaster, and his upcoming visit to China. NATO propaganda media repeated lies about how open the Strait Of Hormuz was when, of course, it has been open since Trump assassinated Iran's leaders only to those Iran allows through its waters. Trump did have a long phone call with Putin and may have called today to congratulate Russia on victory day, Perhaps but Putin won't let on how the war and spike in oil prices aided the Russian economy. That's, of course, as the so called military operation special military operation drags on and Britain and the EU, amidst economic catastrophe, continue to pour money and weapons to dictator Zelensky. Joining me now from Moscow again is former lieutenant colonel in the Soviet and Russian armed forces, doctor Dmitry Trenin, who is on Russia's Foreign and Defense Policy Council.
Dmitry, thanks so much for coming back on. Before we get to the war in this region, the war in Europe, I should just say the Venice Biennale started, and, a headline struck me in, the propaganda media of, NATO nations is the from the Financial Times. Russia's return to Venice risks rendering Biennale irrelevant. So even the idea of Russian artists exhibiting in Western Europe is seen as somehow sinful. On victory day, what does that make you think about how the Soviet Union freed Western Europe and how Western Europe sees Russia today?
Speaker 1: Well, actually, it's close. It's it's perhaps the most important date in the Russian calendar. But today, rather than oh, let's say, of course, you we we mark the anniversary and we think about the people who fought and gave their lives for their country, for the liberation of other nations. But one thought is very, very concerning. For the first time I would say this year, you have to admit that it is Europe again that is Russia's principal adversary of the day.
This was not the case since 1945, since the defeat of Hitler Germany. But today, Russia is at war again. And this is not simply a war between Russia and Ukraine. It is a war between Russia and the West, a proxy war from the Western side, but a very direct war from the Russian side. And for the first time in that war, it is Europe that is that is in the first ranks of those who are our adversaries today.
It's a chilling thought, and it gives you pause when you celebrate because it's a celebration that is linked to very serious and very troubling thoughts about the future.
Speaker 0: Except it's not a small British oligarch elite that support the Nazis. Now it's Britain supporting the Nazis in Ukraine, of course, which leads us to the question, I mean, when is the victory day gonna happen against the proxy forces in Ukraine? When when when is Russia going to celebrate that?
Speaker 1: Well, it's a very different war from the war of nineteen forty one, forty five. And I think it would be wrong to simply lay over the memories the current war, compare it one on one with the memories of the past. It's a different war and victory means something else than it meant in 1945. So I think that today, in today's terms, the the principal goals of Russia's policies and the principal goals of the special military operation will take, I would say, a long time to accomplish. It means that although the operation itself in a limited form will succeed, I'm pretty sure that victory will be ours.
But beyond that, Russia will face a hostile Europe. It will face elements within Ukraine that will be outside of Russian control, that will try to do as much harm to Russia as they can. So it's going to be a long slog. It's a long war that Russia is waging today. And it's not like next year or in two years' time, there'll be peace and Russians and Europeans will celebrate together as they did for a long time after the end of the Cold War, is going to take so much more time.
And it will take so much more effort on our side to reach the goal and to achieve victory. But as I said, victory will be ours, but it doesn't mean that it will be victory over Europe or over Ukraine. It will be a victory against those elements in Ukraine that are branded Nazi, meaning ultranationalist and and ideological descendants of Hitlerism. And those forces in Europe, primarily among the elites that have built Russia into bogeyman again, and that used the Russia threat for their own ulterior motives.
Speaker 0: But isn't the point that Russia is failing to capitalize on the chaos of a Trump presidency and after Trump will come, back to normal, the the deep state, so called, in The United States that, created the conditions for the proxy war in the first place and will be, pouring ever more weapons than even Trump has been. Trump obviously has been giving satellite guidance. And Russia is clearly failing in this window of the Trump presidency before his, perhaps, impeachment after the midterms.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know about Russia Russia failing to use this window of opportunity. I would I would disagree that there was or that there is a window of opportunity. Trump
Speaker 0: Not necessarily through negotiations, which are clearly appearing to be pointless, but through military means.
Speaker 1: Well, through military means, I I think this is my my own conclusion. I think that the Russian way of war, certainly the Russian way of of waging this particular war is extremely restrained. And reasons for that, Ukraine's long bill has long been considered, you know, part of the bigger Russian nation. Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities. People on the battlefield on the Ukrainian side look most of them look the same as the people on the Russian side.
If you listen to what the prisoners of war are saying, the way they are saying things. So it's to to many Russians, including those who are among the decision makers, These people are misguided. They are being used by the West in the West's very long battle, very long war against Russia starting maybe in the eighteenth century or maybe in the seventeenth century or maybe even earlier than that. Some people point to the sixteenth century as the first war between Russia and Europe, the Livon the so called Livonian War. So Yeah.
But I mean,
Speaker 0: on on the restraint issue. On the I mean, yeah. I mean, I was taught at school not about the 27,000,000 that gave gave their lives for the fight against Nazism. I was taught about the Crimean War when I went to school. So as regards restraint, I mean, on Mondays going underground, we're speaking to a former US treasury official who says, you don't show restraint against a hegemonic power.
And the same criticism can be leveled against Iran as it can be against Putin and his conduct of this war. Restraint is what gives the opponent their advantage.
Speaker 1: Well, I think this war, you would you would appreciate that this war did not was not called a war and didn't was not started as a war. It was started as a special operation. Let's say, more of a political operation on steroids with the military essentially backing the internal Ukrainian forces toppling the regime that came to power due to a coup in 2014. So this was something that very soon was exposed as wishful thinking. And after even after that, the war was fought with only a fraction of the Russian military forces.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The rest during the restraint period, people were dying in Luhansk and Donetsk.
Speaker 1: That's true. I mean, they were dying during the eight years of neither war nor peace. After the coup in in Kiev in 2014, the Republics Of Dundas, the Lugansk and the Donetsk Republics held a referendum. They declared independence. And of course, this this was met with military force sent by Kyiv.
And then for eight years, Donetsk and Lugansk held out against the forces of Kyiv with Russian support.
Speaker 0: Right. Well, without going through the history
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 0: All over and all over again, isn't the fact that Russia is not winning the SMO? And in fact, the reason why it appears to be winning is because of the defeats by The United States and the vassal powers in Western Europe keep cascading around the world, whether it be The US defeat against Iran and the complete economic catastrophes that have been caused by themselves in the European Union and in Britain. It's not so much Russia winning. It's the failure of the opponents as they repeat repeated strategies that fail.
Speaker 1: Well, their strategies failed at the Middle East. If you look at the the at the Ukrainian theater, I think they managed to muster their resources. I'm talking first of all about the Europeans, and they managed to put up a very significant force on the Ukrainian side, arm them, guide them, give them everything that they need from intel to to weapons to to production facilities for their drones and and stuff like that. So I would say that although Russia moved forward on the battlefield, although slowly and incrementally on the Ukrainian side, there was a major spike in primarily European involvement in the war. Mister Trump has reduced America's involvement, but even then, The United States still provides Ukraine with a lot of with with with a lot of assistance in in in various fields, and that discounts.
I think Russia certainly could have could have destroyed lots of very important targets in Ukraine, but Kyiv is still very much a normal city. So you do not compare Kyiv to Beirut or Tehran or to one of the other cities that have been targets of US, NATO, Israeli attacks.
Speaker 0: Dmitry Dranen. I'll just have to stop you there more from a member of Russia's Foreign and Defense Policy Council after this break. Welcome back to going underground. I'm still here with the former director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and now member of Russia's foreign and defense policy council, doctor Dmitry Trenin. Dmitry, I interrupted you as you were describing how thanks to Western Europe bankrupting itself, it's managed to subsidize Kyiv.
Speaker 1: Yes. They actually have been doing that at at at a huge expense to themselves. But they see this Russia threat as or what they call the Russia threat as extremely useful in their own attempt to consolidate the European Union, crumbling as it was before the war. They managed to try to relaunch their economies by through militarization. And they're trying above all to keep themselves in power.
Speaker 0: Yeah, exactly. On that point.
Speaker 1: On that actually fairly fairly successful on all those three counts.
Speaker 0: But on that point, and going back to what I was talking about in part one about a window, won't that get worse? As the economies of Western Europe get worse and worse, and as they divorce themselves from The United States, will they see their only root out, those in power, the powerful elites that run, I would call it a totalitarian Western Europe without freedom of speech, the only way out is more war with Russia. And, again, that means Russia is losing the strategic window before the midterms to act.
Speaker 1: Well, I again, I don't think that there is such a big window, and I don't think that it that it actually exists. The United States is not so much does not so much operate on the orders given by Donald Trump. As you yourself point out, The United States is ruled by the deep state, and that deep state has been there for a long time and will be there after Donald Trump leaves the White House. So Donald Trump is not all that essential for the fate of of the for the for the for fate of the outcome of the war, for the for the fate of this confrontation. Let me tell you this.
Donald Trump allegedly, maybe not allegedly, that there's been a lot of confirmation, but Donald Trump came up with a proposal back in August 2025 on how to end the Ukraine war. And president Putin agreed to use that proposal as a basis for peace settlement. And since then, since August, mister Trump has not been able to lean hard on the Europeans or to order the Ukrainian client of The United States to accept the proposal agreed upon notionally between Washington and Moscow. And this tells you how significant Donald Trump is to the conduct of the war, to the to the outcome of the war. The war continues without Donald Trump's very active participation.
Speaker 0: I'm not sure what they must have spoken about for ninety minutes then when they spoke on the phone, Trump and Putin. And afterwards, Trump said, I'd much rather have been involved with ending the war with Ukraine. I said, before you help me out, I want to end your war as regards Putin's suggestion that Russia should be part of the negotiations over ending the war with on Iran.
Speaker 1: Well, it's so it's so easy. I mean, he could have he could have prevailed. And I think that the leverage that the president of The United States has over the leaders, so called leaders of Europe is is enough to make them agree to something that the president of The United States has has managed to win the backing of of the president of Russia. He could have ordered Zelensky to follow what what Trump, his principal benefactor, his principal backer, has already agreed with Putin. And yet this is not happening.
It means that the president of The United States is essentially powerless to insist on something that is of central importance to ending this conflict.
Speaker 0: I mean, certainly, Putin appears to believe the Trump Xi visit that at the time of this recording is still on later next week. How do you characterize why Putin might want to visit just after the Trump Xi scheduled meeting in Beijing?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that Putin's visit dates have been agreed well before the the rescheduling of the Trump visit to Beijing. Trump was originally supposed to be there I think in March. And Putin's visit was timed originally to happen after Victory Day in Russia. So in the second half of May, that was that that is the time that is often used, the time slot often used for Russian visits to Beijing. So there's no coincidence there.
I don't think there's any any reason to believe that somehow the the visit by Trump to Beijing and the visit by Putin are connected, or that the two visits are connected to help end the Ukraine war. I don't think that there's much of a connection, frankly.
Speaker 0: I mean, of course, in the propaganda press of The United States, the Salzburg and New York Times, they're all over it. Trump and Xi face a Nixon Mao moment. I think it wasn't long ago they were talking about a reverse Nixon and that Trump was getting closer to Putin. What do you think fears are in government circles in Moscow about any deals between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump, perhaps at Russia's expense?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think that there are any fears at this point. Of course, Russians are watching US China relations very closely just as the Chinese are watching Russian American relations very closely, which is a normal thing. You you should pay attention to these things because they can matter to you. But my understanding is that the Chinese are increasingly becoming aware of the nature of their conflict with The United States, And that the the idea that somehow that conflict could be averted, that the compromise could be reached, that China can win an equal treatment from The United States, these things are fading. And I think that the new tendency in China is to take a much tougher attitude toward The United States, not hoping for a nice compromise that people were very much expecting during the Hu Jintao Hu Jintao era in China just before he Xi Jinping came to power in the early twenty tens.
So I don't think that people in Moscow are fretting very much about what happens when when Trump visits China and sits down with and discusses the world.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Clearly, they dismissed the threat of sanctions from Trump over Iran very quickly indeed. But then, of course, could that mean that Trump caves in to China and makes a deal perhaps over Taiwan? Who knows? And Trump himself has a limited shelf life.
This allows US China relations to progress whilst whilst the war the proxy war on Russia through Ukraine continues.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that it's it's very likely that Trump would want to have some kind of a of a pause in the conflict with with China. He cannot handle a widening conflict and or an intensifying conflict with China even at the time when relations between Russia and the West are deteriorating very fast. But you again, you mentioned that Trump may be just months away from an attempted impeachment in Washington. And Trump, again, Trump is in the middle is at the midpoint in his second presidency. And whatever happens at the polls in November is going to be less relevant to setting US foreign policy as well as domestic policy than he is even now.
So an agreement with Trump may be not worth that much. And I think that the Chinese are also looking beyond Trump today. What happens after not only after November 26, but November 28 when Trump will will finally I mean, he may he may have to end his presidential career earlier. Who knows? But that's the ultimate date.
And you need to look to to look ahead, and you have to look beyond Trump. I think he may may have spent much of his political force until this present moment, and the debacle in Iran or with Iran may cost him dearly in the remaining two years. Yeah. And we know that that deep state doesn't like China.
Speaker 0: I mean, one could see it this victory day as if Russia's lost, say, Venezuela to a certain extent. It lost Syria. And in Armenia, there was a conference in the past few days. Zelensky was there. Mark Ruta car Mark Carney was there, the man that at the Bank of England stole some Venezuelan gold, I think, Ursula von der Leyen.
And what did you make of this happening in the Caucasus, South Caucasus? What's what does that say about Russian influence?
Speaker 1: Well, Russian influence certainly exists, but Russia is not using it very much. Armenia today depends enormously on the Russian trade. Out of the entire trade turnover of Armenia, half of it is with the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. And let's say 90% or close to 90% of that is Armenia's trade with Russia. Armenia has the Armenian leadership has come up with with an idea of, if you like, sitting on two chairs at the same time, they are benefiting hugely.
Their GDP is growing very fast. They're benefiting hugely on its trade with Russia. But politically, they want to side with the European Union. And Pashinyan, the prime minister for a long time has been very closely associated with pro Western forces and, you know, NGOs close to Soros and the like. So it's it's not that we have only now discovered that he is taking Armenia away from Russia.
Again, Russia is not the Soviet Union, not only in size or in the or in the its influence around the world, its philosophy. Its political philosophy is different. Okay.
Speaker 0: Dmitry, Alas, we're out of
Speaker 1: building an empire. We're out
Speaker 0: of time, Alas, but happy Victory Day. Thank you, Dmitry Trennan. Thank you. You're welcome. That's it for the show.
Our condolences to those of you bereaved by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Monday for more continuing coverage of US wars on West Asia with an official in the Reagan administration who has nothing but condemnation for Trump's wars of aggression. Until then, keep in touch via 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 explore the chances of renewed hostilities and a US ground invasion of Iran, the long-term impact on US hegemonic power after a war with Iran, and why the US urgently needs to divorce itself from Israel. All this on my episode with David Pyne (AmericaFirstCon), Deputy Director of National Operations for the Taskforce on National & Homeland Security.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ ‘ISRAELI VASSAL’ Trump Fighting A WAR OF LIES Against Iran for GREATER ISRAEL Project- David Pyne What is the likelihood of resumed hostilities and a US ground invasion of Iran? What will be the long-term effects on US hegemonic power after the disastrous war on Iran is over? Why does the US urgently need to divorce itself from Israel? All this and more on this episode with David Pyne (@AmericaFirstCon), Deputy Director of National Operations of the Taskforce on National & Homeland Security.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ash Shneuratansky opens Going Underground Broadcasting from outside OPEC after a Strait of Hormuz catastrophe, linking it to US-Israeli aggression. He notes Kent State’s 56th anniversary and cites the toll of US-led actions against Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, claiming up to 20,000,000 killed, wounded, displaced, or chemically contaminated in the region. He argues that a US president elected on ending forever wars looks set for a military defeat, with “millions” killed or displaced by the Trump-Netanyahu wars on Lebanon and Iran, and cites poll figures: 66% de facto disapproval of Trump and 90% of Congress (per Reuters, Ipsos, and Gallup). He mentions potential future interventions in Somalia and Cuba. He welcomes David Pine, deputy executive director of the US Task Force on National and Homeland Security, former consultant to the US Missile Defense Agency and former adviser to Vivek Ramaswamy’s 2024 presidential campaign.
Speaker 1, David Pine, agrees that Trump started this war and blockade after UK, US, EU actions in Gaza, stating Trump was briefed by Netanyahu in the White House on February 11 and persuaded to fight for the Greater Israel Project; he claims only Pete Hegseth supported the war in cabinet, others saw it as a mistake. Trump denies this on Truth Social. Pine says Trump’s statements about the war in Iran are lies, giving examples like claiming the war was won in early March and Iran’s military destroyed 100%, arguing internal White House debate was chaotic and JD Vance opposed the war behind the scenes.
Shneuratansky asks if fear of a Carter-like situation with Iran prevents Trump from following Netanyahu's ground invasion orders, given the risk of hundreds or thousands of US casualties and Iranian anti-ship and drone capabilities. Pine says bombing could resume, but a ground invasion is unlikely;Trump seeks a face-saving exit and is pushing maximalist peace terms on Iran. He suggests Trump behaves as an Israeli vassal but has some independence, and notes rising oil prices to about $124 a barrel.
Shneuratansky asks about world leaders’ quiet response and how the war affects the US reputation in the Gulf. Pine says the Gulf states blame the US-Israel-led aggression; Iran had not attacked the US directly since 1979, aside from responses to US actions. He claims pre-war warnings about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz materialized, and asserts 13 of 19 US bases in the region were destroyed or made unusable, costing billions to rebuild. He attributes base losses to Iran’s missiles and drones and criticizes US drone defense and base protection priorities.
On the White House incident at the correspondents’ dinner, Pine discusses conspiracy theories about a staged event, noting low security, a flawed response, absence of firings within DHS or Secret Service, and the possibility that bullets are unaccounted for. He mentions 70% of Americans believing it was staged.
In discussing costs and accountability, Pine argues for cutting security assistance to Israel, calling Iran a manufactured enemy like Russia, and asserts Trump is principally to blame for starting the war. He envisions closer GCC ties and a hemispheric pivot for the US, pulling back from Europe and the Middle East, and questions the US role as a global power.
Pine comments on Tulsi Gabbard’s status, JD Vance’s continued leadership role, and the possibility of new alliances with GCC states. He references JD Vance’s stance against both Venezuela and Iran actions, his negotiations with Iran before Netanyahu vetoed a deal, and Tulsi Gabbard’s sidelining from war policy discussions. The program ends with a prospect of addressing the November elections and a call for continued discourse.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ash Shneuratansky, and welcome back to Going Underground Broadcasting. All around the world from The UAE now outside of OPEC in the wake of a Strait Of Hormuz catastrophe triggered by US Israeli aggression in this region. If you're wondering why there isn't more popular protest against Trump's wars, well, it was fifty six years ago today that US National Guard troops opened fire on unarmed students at Kent State. Today, the massacre is better known for the Neil Youngsong, Ohio about dissent against US wars on Vietnam, Lao, and Cambodia. The USA, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand would kill, wound, displace, make refugees of, or chemically contaminate up to 20,000,000.
Today, another US president elected on promises to end forever wars looks set for another military defeat. Millions have been killed, wounded, or displaced by the Trump Netanyahu wars on Lebanon and Iran. Billions put into hardship by higher prices for food and medicine. 66% de facto disapprove of Trump and 90% of congress according to Reuters, Ipsos, and Gallup polls. And this comes ahead of Trump interventions in Somalia and Cuba.
Joining me again from Salt Lake City, Utah is David Pine, deputy executive director of the US task force on national and homeland security. He is a former consultant to the US missile defense agency and former foreign policy adviser to Vivek Ramaswamy's twenty twenty four presidential campaign. David, thanks so much for coming back on again. You know, you're a Trump supporter from the beginning. You've supported Trump through the years.
I mean, is it your understanding, and this has all happened since you last been on going underground, that Trump started this war and there's this blockade because after The UK, US, EU armed genocide in Gaza, that's what Netanyahu wanted?
Speaker 1: Yes. It's great to be back on your show. Yes, I think that's exactly right. President Trump reportedly was briefed by Netanyahu in the Situation Room at the White House on February 11, and persuaded to fight this war on behalf of the Greater Israel Project. The only person in in the cabinet that supported it was Pete Hegseth, secretary of war.
He was very bullish about it. Everyone else thought it was it was a complete mistake.
Speaker 0: I should just say, of course, Trump has denied this explicitly on Truth Social. I mean, some said he was protesting too much. And what did you think about his deliberate and avowed denial?
Speaker 1: Well, think, president everything president Trump has said about this war in in Iran has been a lie, essentially. I mean, he he, you know, I've never seen, even you know, during the Cold War, you know, there were, you know, Soviet propaganda was far more truthful than what he's been saying about about the war in Iran. And so I think this war is a war of lies. I think that, you know, President Trump has said the war was won in early March. He said that, you know, Iran's military was 100% destroyed in terms of their military capability, you know, I think on March 11.
So he keeps saying things that simply aren't true, and I think that's true about the Iraq war debate internally in the White House, which reportedly was, you know, it was very chaotic. And JD Vance, you know, to his credit, you know, stuck by his America first principles and strongly opposed the war behind the scenes, and he's paid a price for it in terms of being sidelined on war policy issues ever since.
Speaker 0: Although, I guess he could have resigned, but I wanna get on to JD Vance in a second. Of course, the war might have already got even worse at the behest of and at the demands of Netanyahu. The question is, do you feel that his fear of a Carter like situation, when, Iran shot down a US warplane means that he's too terrified now to take Netanyahu's orders about any kind of ground invasion, albeit one might have started by the time this is being broadcast? Do you do you think that really holds in his brain, Trump's brain?
Speaker 1: I think it does. Yeah. I think president Trump is terrified about, you know, US military troops coming back, you know, by the hundreds or thousands in body bags from a US ground invasion of Iran, would be sure to fail. Certainly we could take control of some Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf, but those troops could quickly become hostages to Iranian artillery fire, you know, missile drone fire, we wouldn't be able to sail ships in the Persian Gulf without those ships being sunk by Iranian anti ship missiles, cruise missiles, you know anti ship ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, and that's really the reason I think that The US has maintained its carrier, you know, the USS Abraham Lincoln a thousand, you know, for the most part a thousand kilometers from Iran that that could be avoided. But, yeah, I think the chances of president Trump pursuing a ground invasion of Iran are are very slim at this point.
I think bombing strikes could certainly resume, but I think he really wants to get out of this war, and he's searching for an exit, a face saving exit. He's just not willing to accept Iran's peace terms at this point. He's and he's trying to push his own maximalist peace terms on Iran.
Speaker 0: But what if Netanyahu says no, you have to keep marching on?
Speaker 1: Well, think Trump, you know, I think Trump is behaving as an Israeli vassal, almost an Israeli public president. But, you know, he still retains some degree of, you know, independence, I think, from Israel because he's really already, you know, he's really done, you know, he's fought this war for Israel already. So I think that, you know, Israel has already achieved a lot of its war aims. We've killed 50 top Iranian leaders, we've degraded their military anywhere from 30 to 50% across you know multiple categories, certainly far from the 100% that that Trump has stated. But I think that I think that he's gonna do ultimately what he feels is is best for for him, and not necessarily for The United States because he's proven that he will not put America first anymore.
He's putting America last and Israel first. But he's gonna he's gonna see those poll numbers, you know, that are 33 or 34% approval. He sees that the Republican Party's chances of retaining control of the House or the Senate are, you know, dissipating with every day that this war continues, and he sees the economic pain that US citizens are suffering from, you know, rising oil prices where oil prices have increased I think to around $124.
Speaker 0: Why do you think world why do you think world leaders haven't been more vocal? I mean, we weren't flyers on the wall for his long conversation with Vladimir Putin. We weren't there for the conversations that must have taken place between GCC country leaders. What do you think the war has done to The United States' reputation in this region? Do you think people are blaming Iran or people are blaming The United States?
Speaker 1: Well, think a lot of people, especially in the Gulf countries, are probably blaming The United States because this is a war that The US and Israel started. Iran had not conducted any direct attacks against The United States really since it came, the Islamist regime came to power in 1979, except in direct response to US attacks on Iran. So you know, clearly The US and Israel are the aggressors in this war, and you know, all the consequences that have taken place are exactly what Iran threatened to do before the war in terms of shutting down the, you know, the Strait Of Hormuz, as well as attacking our Goukard Gulf allies. So I do think that the truth coming out. We live in an age where, an information age, where that, you know, it's very difficult to, you know, conceal these kind of truths and oppressive Trump is rightly getting the plane.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I mean, there's a casualty figure being bandied around of four 100 US service people who have been injured. What what is your understanding of not only the casualties, but the extent of the damage to The US bases in this region?
Speaker 1: Well we've heard that about 13 US, out of 19 US military bases in the region have been destroyed or rendered unusable, I think that's likely accurate. So the cost to rebuild those would run into several billion, if not tens of billions of dollars, and that would take years to rebuild.
Speaker 0: I mean, how could that have happened? I mean, you know, a lot of people now saying they have a newfound respect for General Kane, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I mean, that's 13 bases destroyed and rendered unusable. Aren't you shocked?
Speaker 1: I'm not shocked at all. I mean, those bases were located, you know, pretty close to Iran. Iran is is a tremendous, you know, it's it's essentially a missile regional power, even superpower. They have a vast number of missiles, likely a greater number of missiles even than The United States has in terms of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and heavy combat drones. Certainly The US has a lot of light to medium, shorter range drones.
We have superiority over Iran in that area, but you know, they have some of the best combat, large combat drones in the world, and they were able to, you know, destroy some of our bases using using combat drones because The US, you know, drone defense capabilities are, you know, not what they should have been, And The US prioritized air missile defense for Israel rather than than our Gulf allies. So we we showed that The US military guarantee over our Gulf allies was really, you know, very shoddy and and unreliable.
Speaker 0: I mean, maybe the media had other issues to contend with rather than what you were trying to drive home there. I mean, Trump plays down possible attempt on his life. Interrupting all the talk of Iran, of course, recently has been that incident at the White House correspondent's dinner. What did you what did you make of it? Of course, there was conspiracies that Israel was involved as there are continuing to this day about Israel being involved in the assassination of John F.
Kennedy. But what what was that incident? It's as if assassination attempts on your president can be every other month, it seems.
Speaker 1: Well, what was most surprising to me was the security was not, you know, a high level security event as it should have been. The Department of Homeland Security should have designated as such, the Director of the Secret Service should have done so as well. This was reportedly very low security. We had President Trump, the Vice President, the First Lady, and probably around six to eight, you know, senior cabinet secretaries that were there. If all of those you know US leaders had been killed, the acting president of The United States would be a 92 year old senator Chuck Grassley from, he was the senate president pro tem, So I think that the crazy thing is we don't see anyone fired.
There's no one, you know, the Department of Homeland Security secretary should be fired. Susie Wiles, chief of staff, reportedly she has some kind of direct control over the Secret Service. She should be fired. The chief of the of the Secret Service.
Speaker 0: Well, Trump Trump would say, well, they saved his life, didn't they? Because they stopped him.
Speaker 1: Well, and that's the thing is, you know, it's seemingly possible, you know, there's increasing circumstantial evidence that indicates that this could be a staged event. Essentially, you know, yes, the shooter was a far left domestic violent extremist, but there's, you know, a growing controversy whether he even fired a shot, know, we saw in the camera, you know, running past the magnetometer and secret service agents, but it's the acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is saying that they can't find the bullets, to me indicating that he didn't fire any bullets. He may have fired one shotgun round, or he may not have fired anything at all. So you know, what Trump shooter would not fire shots? You know, he could have opened up, he opened fire on the Secret Service agents to, you know, take them out and get through the ballroom, but he apparently didn't, may not have taken any shots at all.
So it doesn't really seem like a serious attempt on the president's life. We saw them laughing at the press conference as if you know it was all a big joke, nothing really happened. We heard Caroline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, say that shots will be fired in the room just minutes before that.
Speaker 0: It was joke.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well it did seem like a joke, but you know, I've never heard those terms used in that, you know, in the sense of political barbs being used. I've heard that it's been used, you know, occasionally. And then, you know, Fox News correspondent said that she was told by Caroline Levin's husband that she needed to be safe, You know, she you know, she really needed to take serious precautions for her own personal safety, and and just all just all these these things have have led to conspiracies which, you know, caused 70% of Americans to believe that this in fact was a staged assassination attempt.
Speaker 0: David Bynon, I'll stop you there. More from the deputy executive director of the US Task Force on National and Homeland Security after this break. Welcome back to going underground. I'm still here with David Pine, former consultant to the US Missile Defense Agency in 2024, presidential campaign former foreign policy adviser. David, we were talking about all the various conspiracy theories as regards the alleged assassination attempt on, Donald Trump's life.
I mean, aside from that, and, you know, things always happen when there's a gun and a president around, The New York Times here says the price tag of this war is incalculable. Regardless of, how media reporting can change very quickly in the midst of a war. We don't really know well, we know from HEX that 1 and half trillion is needed more for the Pentagon. I mean, do you blame Netanyahu again for the cost to the American taxpayer and the American people for this? I mean, do you think The US people are gonna want their money back from Israel for this?
Speaker 1: Well, think the smartest thing we could do, I think that this war more than any other has shown extreme necessity of The United States cutting off all security assistance from Israel to Israel. I think that you know, it's been said that we need to divorce ourselves from Israel. I think that's true. I think we need to end our alliance with Israel. I think if The US were a bona fide neutral power in the region, you know, with regards to the ongoing Israeli Iran military disputes, I think we get accomplished a lot more.
You know, Iran, much like Russia, is essentially a manufactured enemy. I mean, they did take our embassy staff hostage, you know, was forty seven years ago, but you know, that's essentially the pretext for fighting the war over. They, you know, bombed our embassy, they took our hostages hostages at our embassy in Tehran. They they bombed the Marine barracks in 1983. These are things that that happened many decades ago.
They're not reasonable justifications for us to be fighting this war. But ultimately I think that President Trump is principally to blame, not Benjamin Netanyahu because he is after all the president of The United States, one of the top three nuclear superpowers in the world, and he should show a degree of independence from Netanyahu and put America first, but instead he chose to put Israel first and America America's national security last by starting this regional war of aggression against Iran.
Speaker 0: So how could new alliances emerge in the wake of this war if a president was actually gonna untie itself to Israel first? What? There'd be greater cooperation and geostrategic alliances with the GCC countries in the region rather than Israel?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think The US, it is in our national interest to have, you know, closer ties with the GCC countries. I don't think that needs to be military bases, certainly you know, before the Gulf War of nineteen ninety and ninety one with the US invasion of Iraq in response to their invasion of Kuwait, we had a base in Diego Garcia but we had no permanent military presence in the region. We would sail you know, the fifth fleet near the Persian Gulf, but had no, know, US Army bases or even a naval base in Bahrain. So I think that's really the ideal. For me it's, you know, The US national security strategy that was issued in December 2025 and our national defense strategy of January 2026 called for The US to essentially pull out of Europe and The Middle East to a large extent, not completely.
But I think that's really the ideal is that we focus on returning to being a hemispheric superpower rather than a global superpower, and I think if The US pulled our forces out of the Eurasian supercontinent, we would see the tensions between The US and Russia and China really recede, certainly with Iran. I mean Iran is, you know, isn't gonna be threatening us if we don't have military bases in the region. The reason that we started this war reportedly is because we knew that Israel was going to attack Iran, that was you know, Israel was was an imminent threat, not Iran, and that you know, we've, President Trump felt that Iran would make good on its threats to attack US military bases. But instead of simply saying that The US would stay neutral to ensure that that our bases weren't attacked, he decided to ensure our bases would be attacked by going to war.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But you're speaking like a Joe Biden supporter there, I'm afraid. You believed genocidal blinken when he said all of that, that Biden had been told the same and so great was Joe Biden that somehow he had assured Israel he wouldn't come to the aid of Israel for retaliation from Iran. Did that story strike you as as true that somehow Biden is tougher than Trump?
Speaker 1: Well, I think Biden is tougher with Netanyahu, certainly. I mean, there was I think some kind of temporary suspension of US bombs to
Speaker 0: Very limited. Was when the genocide happened.
Speaker 1: Very limited. Yes. Very extremely limited. So I think that Biden was weak too, but you know reportedly Netanyahu gave the hard sell to to Bush, Obama, and Biden, and every single one of them, and even Trump during his first term refused to go to war with Iran as Netanyahu demanded. So really you know Trump likes to say he was the was the only president to take action against Iran.
I would say he's the he was the weakest president because he was the only one to cave to Netanyahu and appease Netanyahu in this way by starting this illegal war of aggression, which is a great the first great power war we fought essentially since the Korean War.
Speaker 0: That's not
Speaker 1: one of them.
Speaker 0: So he's reneged on his promise campaign promises by going into a war in The Middle East. And I suppose you mentioned the manufactured enemy of Iran, the manufactured enemy of Russia. Veterans NATO. I I don't think in the Sulzberger, New York Times, we'd ever see doubts about the importance of NATO emerge. But ironically, after the Trump Putin call, it seems as if Ukraine has been taken off the table, and Trump isn't as strongly focused on the war in Europe and the need for a rapprochement with Russia.
Is that another side effect of this terrible war?
Speaker 1: I think it is. You know, since the war began, president Trump has referred to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a clown. He's, you know, has talked about, you know, Ukraine is being militarily defeated. I don't know if he meant to say that. He may have tried to speak about Iran when he stated that during his White House press briefing, but he said Ukraine is defeated.
So, you know, that is really think, off its radar. I think The US is continuing to to sell arms to NATO countries to you know, on behalf of Ukraine. So I think that's
Speaker 0: He does from time to time mention NATO, though, disparagingly, but no real aim to I mean, he did I suppose in response to Mertz's comments that Iran has humiliated The United States raised this idea of withdrawing tens of thousands of American occupying troops from Germany.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that's that's a real possibility. Secretary Rubio and other neocons in and out of the Trump administration that are considered Trump insiders have raised that exact point. Some have even said that we could withdraw from NATO and kind of, you know, forge some kind of alliance with Eastern European countries that are more compliant with Trump's directives and wishes. But ultimately, you know, none of those countries came to aid in this war of aggression against Iran, and Trump's pretty miffed about that, and he asked her to withdraw from NATO.
Ultimately, I don't think that's going to happen, I think it's going to be exactly what you said, we're going to close some bases in France, Italy, Spain, and other countries where that have denied us basing rights or, you know, overflight rights for our warplanes, you know, traveling back and forth to the Iran theater of war.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No no bases in France. I'm sure any French viewers will say, will be the first to say. But I suppose then one one element here is that you mentioned Eastern European countries because it's it's getting late. JD Vance went over to Hungary.
Hungary went down after lots of EU alleged interventions. Bulgaria, it's true, perhaps a more compliant. America's top diplomat kept clear of Iran crisis. That's the Financial Times talking about secretary of state Rubio. Not sure he's really in the clear.
You were mentioning JD Vance at the beginning of this program. Do you fear for his safety given his clear that he appears to be the clearest opponent of the Trump Netanyahu policy, although he hasn't resigned or anything, nor is Tulsi Gabbard.
Speaker 1: Well, unfortunately, I've heard that Tulsi Gabbard is is has been told that she has to resign by the November elections. So, you know, that just shows the defeat of America First, you know, forces within the White House. Vice President J. D. Vance of course is constitutionally protected, he can't be fired, he's you know, he's an independent office holder who was independently elected, but I do not fear for his safety.
I think that he certainly has been sidelined in matters of war policy because he principle, you know, he opposed both the Astro Maduro, The US war against Venezuela, as well as both strikes on Iran. So he has remained true to his principles, although he has been placed in the uncomfortable position of defending Trump's war in Iran, but he is notably, you know, believed by by Iranian leaders to be the only, you know, credible voice of of reason and, you know, someone who's honorable and trustworthy within the Trump administration, and so he was asked to lead negotiations with Iran on April 11, and he made some, you know, a lot of leeway. The US and Iran actually came pretty close to negotiating a deal before Netanyahu essentially vetoed it over the issue of enrichment and Trump ordered Vance to come home amid negotiations.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So I mean, I suppose I'm gonna ask you where you're hearing that about Tulsi Gabbard, was a key opponent of Middle East West Asian wars, and what you would what advice you would give to the director of national intelligence at the moment? What, just hang on till November and have no impact whatsoever? And why are you forgiving J. D.
Vance for not resigning?
Speaker 1: Well, don't think it's in his interest to resign. I think it's imperative that he remains within the administration as the only really surviving voice, you know, besides Sosie Gabbard of, you know, for America, the America First Agenda that President Trump ran on. So I don't fault him for that. Certainly I think he could be more vocal in his criticism against, you know, Trump's war in Iran. With regards to Tulsi Gabbard, I don't think those rumors have been officially confirmed.
I've read them online from multiple sources. I'm hoping they're not true. I think Tulsi Gabbard is is a, you know, a key voice for reason within the administration. The problem is that since, you know, President Trump decided to go full neocon in June with his Operation Midnight's Hammer Strikes in Iran, she really has been sidelined from all war policy discussions. We were told when she was confirmed by the Senate that she would be briefing the president personally every day with the presidential daily briefing, and there's no evidence at all that that ever occurred.
I think it's CI director John Ratcliffe has been been doing that instead, and he is he's a very hard hardcore Israel first neo con. So that's that's very unfortunate.
Speaker 0: David Pine, thank you. Thank you. 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.
Until then, keep in touch via all our social media if it's not censored in your country, and head to our channel, going underground TV on rumble.com, to watch new and old episodes of going underground. See you sadly.
reSee.it AI Summary
I highlight the new Going Underground episode featuring Wes Bryant, former Pentagon Chief of Civilian Harm Assessments. Bryant slams the Trump administration’s reckless bombing of civilians and questions how War Secretary Pete Hegseth enacts policies tolerating more civilian fatalities. I ask why Trump and Hegseth revel in death and destruction in Iran and why the U.S. military follows their orders.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ War on Iran: Pentagon Whistleblower Wes Bryant SLAMS Trump Administration’s RECKLESS Bombing of Civilians How has War Secretary Pete Hegseth deliberately enacted a policy of tolerating more civilian fatalities? What is behind Trump's and Hegseth's revelling in death and destruction in Iran? Why is the US military following Hegseth's 'immoral, unconstitutional, and illegal' orders? All this and more on this episode with @WesJBryant, Former Pentagon Chief of Civilian Harm Assessments.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutanski hosts Going Underground, outlining a global swirl of recent events: Odessa massacre anniversary, Ukraine, oil politics with UAE withdrawing from OPEC+, Trump signaling troop withdrawal from Europe, and a broader context of US and allied military actions. The broadcast features a guest: Master Sergeant Wes Bryant, a former chief of the Pentagon’s civilian harm mitigation and response effort and the first head of its civilian protection center of excellence (PTEC). Bryant discusses his twenty-year career as a JTAC (Joint Terminal Attack Controller), coordinating on-the-ground targeting and calling in air strikes, while conducting civilian harm mitigation and collateral damage analysis to minimize civilian casualties.
Key explanations from Bryant:
- JTAC role: JTAC stands for Joint Terminal Attack Controller, formerly Forward Air Controller. JTACs coordinate and call in air strikes, oversee intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for targeting, and conduct civilian harm mitigation to avoid civilian casualties.
- Bryant’s background: Spanned conventional and special operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, later initiating and operating strike cells against ISIS across Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Bryant describes the Pentagon’s civilian protection efforts:
- Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Effort (CHMRE) was authorized during the Trump administration and later codified into law under Secretary Lloyd Austin in the Biden administration, establishing the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence at the Pentagon and a broader network across the US government.
- The aim of the Center was to sustain and improve protection of civilians and reduce civilian harm in military operations, reflecting past failures and successes in the war on terror.
Reactions to leadership and policy shifts:
- Bryant asserts that Pete Hegseth, who later led the Pentagon, pursued a transition toward a view of “wokeness” and restrictive engagement rules, leading to the dissolution of the civilian protection center and a shift toward “lethality” and greater civilian harm tolerance. He claims Hegseth’s rhetoric and policy direction contributed to a more permissive environment for strikes with increased civilian casualties.
- He contends that this shift correlates with intensified operations in Iran and broader Middle East conflicts, including alleged recklessness and negligence in targeting in places like Yemen and the Caribbean/Pacific, and a failure to adequately account for civilian harm.
Views on war conduct and accountability:
- Bryant rejects claims that Trump’s inflammatory statements on social media are solely negotiation tactics; he argues that Trump’s actions—such as threats to bomb energy infrastructure and bridges in Iran, including a strike on a bridge—indicate intent that could amount to war crimes and reflect a disregard for civilian harm.
- He criticizes the current approach to civilian protection, arguing that even if some actions are framed as “fog of war,” Iran-related operations involve months of target vetting from secure rear offices, with a lack of on-the-ground risk in contrast to battlefield fog of war. He asserts this marks a departure from past standards and raises concerns about willful recklessness or negligence as potential war crimes.
Iran/Israel/Gaza context and analysis:
- Bryant argues that many civilian casualties in Gaza and Iran reflect a broader policy environment influenced by a fusion of extremist ideologies within Trump’s and Netanyahu’s camps, including revisionist Zionism and white Christian nationalism. He claims the administration is aligned with Israel due to these ideological underpinnings, impacting the US approach to Iran and Gaza.
- He suggests that US weapons are often used in ways that violate international law or US best practices, and he envisions a role for civilian protection mechanisms to monitor end-use of weapons, though such monitoring faced challenges in State Department capacity.
Concluding remarks:
- The discussion touches on incidents such as the Kunduz hospital strike and calls into question the balance between strategic aims and civilian protection. Bryant emphasizes a concern that the current leadership under Hagseth lacks accountability, contrasting it with earlier attempts to implement civilian harm mitigation within the Pentagon.
- The program closes with Bryant’s assertion of concern over the ongoing use of anti-tank/anti-personnel mines and their open-area deployment, suggesting potential violations of international law.
Bryant’s interview highlights: the role of JTACs in targeting, the rise and fall of the Pentagon’s civilian protection center, and perceived shifts in US military policy that Bryant attributes to Pete Hegseth and related leadership, framed within broader debates over civilian harm, international law, and the ethics of US interventions in the Middle East.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutanski. Welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world on the anniversary of the Odessa massacre when neo Nazi Ukrainians burned trade unionists alive. We're broadcasting from a UAE that this week withdrew from OPEC plus, no longer binding itself by output quotas in an increasingly volatile world where oil is weaponized. This in a week where US president Donald Trump signaled withdrawal of US troops from Europe and survived a third assassination attempt just ahead of his ex FBI boss nemesis, James Comey, being indicted for trying to kill him. And then there was, of course, a visit to DC from mister Keir Starmer's latest mystery to Washington, not Epstein's friend Peter Mandelson this time.
Instead, it was the brother of Epstein friend of prince Andrew, king Charles the third. He was sent to Trump to persuade him into more war on Russia, but was in vain as afterwards Trump and Putin had a ninety minute phone call. But, anyway, Trump hasn't finished with his war of aggression yet. His Netanyahu's wars on Iran and Lebanon have killed perhaps 3,000 civilians, though millions have been displaced. And the wars began with a targeted strike on an elementary school that killed 168 school girls.
The Pentagon is apparently still investigating that atrocity, but then Pentagon boss Pete Hegseth from Fox News TV weeks after Trump appointed him, shut down the US department dedicated to mitigating and investigating US killing of civilians. The first ever branch chief of civilian harm assessments in that department is Pentagon whistleblower and retired master sergeant Wes Bryant. He spent twenty years in the US Air Force, and he joins me now from Raleigh in North Carolina. Thank you so much, master sergeant, for coming on going underground. We don't even know whether there's been a ground invasion in the intervening period when this is being recorded and being broadcast.
So before we get on to the whistleblowing in Pentagon, just remind us. You you were twenty years in the air force, and you're a JTAC. Explain what a JTAC is and how, in a sense, that helps you to understand what we're learning through media reports, through intelligence reports about how this Trump, Netanyahu war is going. I mean, JTACs call in US airstrikes and are in effect responsible for every bomb.
Speaker 1: Brad, that's a good question. You know, the acronym JTAC, it stands for Joint Terminal Attack Controller. And really, it's what used to be called Forward Air Controller, which makes a little more more sense to the layperson. Right? So, you know, we're the people on the ground coordinating and calling in air strikes, all manners of air power, you know, the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance that goes into targeting, developing targeting, and prosecuting that targeting, and then conducting what we call civilian harm mitigation, collateral damage analysis, to avoid, you know, killing civilians, to avoid causing undue collateral damage.
And so, you know, my twenty year career through the War on Terror spanned both attaching to conventional and special operations teams on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then initiating and starting and operating strike cells against ISIS later in my career, targeting and hunting and targeting ISIS across Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Speaker 0: I mean, I'll explore
Speaker 1: And so
Speaker 0: I'll of those later.
Speaker 1: Into my job at the Pentagon. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'll explore some of those later if I may. But, I mean, it's clear Trump set up a department for civilian protection. He always says he's the peace president. And as far as I understand it, yeah, I I know you've explained it on on numerous media outlets.
We always like to be be exclusive here. I mean, just explain very briefly what happened to the the unit that Trump set up, the Pentagon Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, and how you were there and how PTEC said didn't didn't like it.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, I wouldn't say so much that Trump set it up. I'm not even sure how much visibility he had on it. But, you know, during the first Trump administration, then Secretary of Defense Esper, you know, he authorized the initiation of this effort. It was called the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Effort.
And then later under the Biden administration, Secretary Austin then codified this into law under Congress. And what that set up was civilian protection center of excellence at the Pentagon, and then established a broader network of personnel across the US government. And really the the crux of it was, you know, yes, the US military does pay attention to mitigating civilian harm, to lessening civilian casualties and collateral damage, but through the war on terror, we had a lot of successes and a lot of failures. And and, you know, the impetus was let's create something that looks at really sustains and improves. How can we be better at this?
How can we do better going forward? And and that's what this enterprise was.
Speaker 0: And I suppose you'd say Ptex said knew what was to come when he started to shut it down. I should say that, yeah, the the center of excellence was it came later after the initial initiative by the first Trump administration. Hegsart Right. Arguably knew what was to come with this attack on Iran. Millions now killed, wounded, or displaced.
So many displaced, of course, in Lebanon. You can see why he would want to shut it down and sack people like you?
Speaker 1: Right. I mean, we've seen the rhetoric from the start. I mean, from January 20, the day of the inauguration, there was paperwork, internal paperwork in the Pentagon. You know, I whistleblow on this. Going up to senior levels calling for the dissolution.
You know, this was this was people on Hegsef's transition team, people aligned with Hegsef's vision already, that were looking at, you know, the civilian protection effort as one of those woke efforts that needs needs dissolved. And of course we see the rhetoric from Hegsef on, you know, this reveling in death and destruction and lethality, you know, on so called wokeness and stupid rules of engagement, you know, disregard for Geneva Conventions and just the law of war. And so it's it's just not surprising at all that, you know, our program and everything it was doing was one of the casualties. And you know, let's fast forward. Well, let's look at this whole year, and the use of the illegal and criminal use of military force under Hag Seth, and then going into the Iran war where that's just been amplified.
Speaker 0: You can't agree with supporters of Trump that when he puts out on Truth Social, a whole civilization will die tonight, and open the straight, you crazy or you'll be living in hell. These statements by the president, your president, are a means of complex three d chess negotiation rather than an intent to mass kill civilians.
Speaker 1: I don't agree at all because we've seen over the years, and especially this last year, Trump will carry out things that he says, things that he puts out on social media, and that he says to the media and in public statements. You know, he had already warned about bombing the entire energy infrastructure, bombing every bridge in Iran, and began, you know, efforts toward that end. I mean, we the US military bombed a huge bridge in Iran that really didn't even the the military use was debatable. Right? And so these are all war crimes.
This is stating intent for for a war crime. And you know, even if, we'll say, we'll play devil's advocate, these were somehow some kind of negotiation methods, right? Methods of pressure. What does that say about who America is? Like what America stands for, right?
That's what I would go back to. And then what does that say to the Iranian people? Where, you know, one of the many reasons offered for going into Iran was to liberate the oppressed Iranian people. You know, we have not cared about the civilian population, and saying that we're gonna destroy the entire civilization, you know, really doesn't show any regard for the Even people.
Speaker 0: In The UAE press here, Trump escalates Hormuz crisis with shoot and kill order. I mean, shoot shoot and kill order isn't usually the language coming from NATO nation powers even if they actually do have that as a as a strategy. You called the the mass slaughter of 168 elementary school girls in Iran. You you've called and I think people are saying it's a triple tap strike. You said that it's not it was not because of the fog of war.
I should say they are investigating. Pete Exet's department, the Pentagon, are investigating.
Speaker 1: Correct. You know, we've seen we have seen an incredible departure just in the standards and practices for targeting, for strike operations, for mitigating civilian harm. An incredible departure in this last year in every operation that's been conducted. We'll take the Yemen operation last year. Hundreds of civilian casualties still haven't been accounted for by the US military or spoken to.
Let's take the illegal boat strikes in The Caribbean and The Pacific. I mean, we we are committing summary execution there. And now in the Iran war, you know, we're starting to look like in the way we carry out strike operations, you know. So at at a very minimum recklessly, we're starting to look like a a microcosm of how Israel conducts its operations. You know, the Menom strike is just one of what's been documented by human rights organizations of, you know, on order of at least a couple 100 at this point, civilian harm incidents, killings of civilians, bombings of hospitals, schools, police stations, civilian infrastructure, even cultural sites But
Speaker 0: in a negligence or premeditated? Because because negligence gives Pete Exeter the way out. The he can't be prosecuted for war crimes as if anyone cares about war crime prosecutions anyway after the Gaza genocide. But is it negligent?
Speaker 1: Say, you know, there's there's a thing in international law called willful recklessness, which, you know, Israel also falls under in its operations in Gaza and and elsewhere, where, you know, if you display recklessness and negligence as a pattern, that can also be a war crime. Even if you are not so called intentionally going out and targeting all these civilians and civilian infrastructure. Right? And so we have at the very least, we have a negligence, we have a recklessness and targeting. And I believe, you know, the culture that Hegseth is proliferating, and what he's directing, is he's directing these massive amounts of strikes, which leads to recklessness.
He's no doubt directing a higher tolerance for civilian casualties. Now these are things that he's likely not going to disclose, and it's probably being done verbally, you know, within classified communications channels. But he can direct these things as the Secretary of Defense. And you know, all the evidence I see is that's what's going on. That's the precedent that he's setting, and this is the guidance that he's giving to the force.
And somehow our senior military leadership, you know, is bending the knee and carrying out any order that Hagsef is directing. You know? No matter how illegal, unconstitutional, or unethical, or or immoral. We'll go back to the Banaab school strike, know. I've heard over and over again him responding, you know, combatively.
Look at these hearings he's been in this week, combatively to our US Representatives and to media about how so called precise The US is, and nobody's better at protecting civilians and the innocent. I would argue that, well, if we were that good, we wouldn't have just completely negligently dropped a bomb on hundreds of young or missiles on hundreds of young schoolgirls in Iran, and then on top of that not accounted for it or even apologized. You know, really our operations in this past year, our our use of lethal force, and our failure to protect civilians and mitigate civilian harm, especially in Iran right now, we're on par with Russia. Right? And I would I would ask the secretary if I were in front of him, tell me what other military out there in the world is bombing hundreds of schoolchildren right now when when you're claiming that we're so called the best military in the world at protecting civilians.
Speaker 0: Well, Russia would of course deny anything as bad as The United States at all. But where's Bryant? I'll stop you More from the former head again chief of civilian home after this break. Welcome back to going underground. I'm still here with Pete Hegseth's former Pentagon chief of civilian arm, master sergeant Wes Bryant.
Master sergeant, know, you were talking about Pete Hegseth in part one and his role. Of course, one could say, who's Pete Hegseth bending the knee to? Because former actually, the present British ambassador to The United States, the first one, obviously, went after the Jeffrey Epstein allegations. US special relationship is probably Israel, says envoy in leaked remarks. Is it your understanding that basically Pete Hegseth is taking his orders from Netanyahu?
Speaker 1: You know, I'd say not as much Hegseth, but but Trump, you know, who Hegseth serves. But, you know, the two of them are are really in line ideologically. They're both cut from the same extremist cloth. And I I'd say, really, Pete Hegseth seems to be even more extreme, you know, horrifyingly than than even Trump himself.
Speaker 0: Does Pete Hegseth have a problem with Muslims?
Speaker 1: I believe so. Absolutely. You know, I think it's not covered enough in especially in major media and Western media. This kind of this extremist form of Jewish Zionism, and this that exists, you know, in Israel and by Israel and the Israeli government. Right?
And by these far right Israel supporters. And then this far right wing Christian nationalism that exists predominantly within MAGA circles, right? And there's this there's this fusing right now of these ideologies where no matter what, you know, that we are going to or the US government and The US Military by extension is going to team and join with Israel. I mean, I'm convinced Israel Netanyahu could drop a nuclear weapon on Gaza, on Palestine, and this administration would still fully support Netanyahu, the Netanyahu government and Israel. And so that's an incredible aspect here to consider.
As well, all of the foreign policy, you know, all of the global intervention, especially the intervention in the Middle East that we're witnessing right now, is based in large part by this ideology of revisionist Zionism and Christian white Christian nationalism. Know? I firmly believe where Iran, even operating in the same, much the same manner as it has in the past decades, but were it filled with, you know, white Christians or white Judeo Christians, we would not have this approach whatsoever. Just like in Gaza, you know, where Palestine filled with white Judeo Christians. This administration of course, and to be fair, the last administration would have immediately been calling genocide, right?
And then, you know, look at even our national defense strategy. I mean, white nationalism is baked into that. It's talking about the greatest threat being being basically ethnic, you know, non Judeo Christian immigration into Europe. I mean, it's right there for all of us to see, and it's in all of their rhetoric
Speaker 0: Was your perspective shared? Was your perspective shared by other people who worked in your unit in Pete Heckert's Pentagon? Oh, I mean, absolutely. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of people, I'll say still remaining in the Pentagon and across the entire Department of Defense that share the views that I'm relaying here that are completely mortified horrified and ashamed at what's happening within our military, at Pete Hegseth as the secretary of defense. Yeah. But what
Speaker 0: conduct sergeant, what puzzles me what puzzles me here is that that you mentioned Lloyd Austin earlier because that was when the department really took shape even if Trump initiated it. And Lloyd Austin oversees it. I don't know what your opinion of him is. And, I mean, he was bombarding Iraq and Syria for Al Qaeda, it's been alleged, because, of course, he was supporting those elements against the Assad government there. He was sending weapons intelligence, giving diplomatic cover for the Gaza genocide.
And and yet your department was working. The colleagues you mentioned are all there. And yet what happened to the protection of civilians under Lloyd Austin?
Speaker 1: Right. That's that is a fantastic point. And you know, when I was recruited into the Center of Excellence, or I was recruited into the Pentagon in 2024, that was kind of in the height of my activism regarding the war in Gaza. You know, I was compiling reports to the senate. Was I was How
Speaker 0: do you get the job? Mean, they know your background. They know that you've seen the impact of these post nine eleven wars. Wouldn't they have expected you to be an unruly employee at the Pentagon?
Speaker 1: Correct. You you know, that shows the difference between the Biden administration and this administration. Right? Where the Pentagon and even, you know, the Biden administration themselves are just fine hiring someone that's just been dissenting against them, just been speaking out against their policies, right, the last week, and then hires them into the Pentagon as an expert to advise, right, to make programs for protecting civilians better. That that is the difference.
There were a lot of problems with what the Biden administration was doing with the use of lethal military force as well, but specifically with support to Israel and Gaza. It, you know, and
Speaker 0: I mean, a lot of problems. They started the the lynching missions. Does it not show but is it not what you just said? Is it in fact that Lloyd Austin was a Raytheon director understands reputational management. Were you not being employed as a sort of patsy to be able to improve the PR for the Pentagon while he and the Biden Genocide Joe, as he's known, were mass killing in Gaza?
Speaker 1: You know, I can see that that point and that accusation. I don't think so at all. Let let's take the civilian harm mitigation and response action plan was primarily toward improving DOD operation US military operations. That's what we're there for. But an underlying goal of all of us at the center I mean, we were already collaborating with our partners at the Department of State who are charged with reviewing war crimes allegations in the use of US military weaponry in Gaza.
Right? They weren't doing it. They were overloaded, and they weren't doing a great job at it at it.
Speaker 0: I mean, don't think I don't think any of us have any faith in Anthony Blinken, clearly.
Speaker 1: Right. And you know, one of our underlying missions, one of the things we were working toward was to eventually become advisers for the monitoring of end use of US military weapons. Because really there was no one at Department of State that could do what we were doing, that could bring to the table our expertise. And to be able to really present to Congress and the president, and say, look, Israel or whatever said country is using our weapons out of accordance with international law, outside of what we would call US best practices, and this is why we need to stop funneling arms to them. These were goals that we had at the Center of Excellence as well, and no one was stopping us from that.
I will add, you know. Things weren't perfect, but when I, by any means, we still had a genocide, yes, being supported and supplied under the Biden administration. But we at least had mechanisms in place that may have been able to work toward preventing what we see now in the use of US military force Yeah. Right. And preventing things like the Gaza and genocide.
Speaker 0: I mean, I I don't have the Genocide and Gaza. I don't I don't have the Pete Exet tattoos of crusaders, honestly. But surely, the fact is that was never gonna happen, what you're saying. And Pete Hegg said, one of the refreshing things about Trump is transparency, for all the, millions killed, wounded, or dis displaced by these terrible wars on Lebanon and Iran in the past few weeks. And surely, one can understand that first to go should be a civilian harm, civilian protection center given that the world knows the wars that The United States has been involved in since 1945, let alone post nine eleven.
Is isn't it more important to do that? I mean, I know what affected you was this was this terrible strike on the Kunduz Hospital in Afghanistan in October 2015. Seventy two killed or wounded. Isn't your fear that a department like that that center for of excellence might might have been used for reputational management in such a strike?
Speaker 1: You know, that's always a fear. And there was an aspect of reputational management in a sense. You know, to be able to show the American people and really the globe that here we're holding ourselves accountable. That was absolutely one aspect. But because look at what's happening now.
You know, HEGSEF holds Well, they don't care. Is accountable to no one. Right?
Speaker 0: But they don't care, and they say it.
Speaker 1: Right. Exactly. And so there there is an aspect of that. But I'll I can tell you that internally, you know, regardless of what Secretary Austin's actual intent with this was, or even the Biden administration's, internally with all of the people that were doing the work inside the Pentagon and across the US military, the greater military apparatus, I mean, the goal was to be better and better at protecting civilians, protecting the innocent at war, and we're making a lot of great strides toward that end.
Speaker 0: It just reminds, Zach, you were seventy nine killed or wounded when you called in those strikes on Afghanistan, and what you learned from that.
Speaker 1: You're talking about the twenty fifteen Confused
Speaker 0: Hospital strike.
Speaker 1: Doctors Without Borders strike, right? Right, well that was JSAT was actually deployed to the Syria theater at that time, you know, members from my home station unit were involved in that operation, so I'm I'm I'm quite well versed. And you know, you mentioned fog of war earlier, you know. That was actually a case of fog of war. I mean, there were there were a lot of, you know, fundamental mistakes made both in planning and execution.
But when when we say fog of war, know, you had multiple elements of US special forces, of Afghan special operations forces maneuvering on a battlefield. They have been in firefight after firefight for three days, and then they came up on another area, one element was taking fire. The controller that controlled the strikes was was not with that particular element, they didn't have any US forces with them. That element misidentified where they were taking fire from, so did the aircraft. So you had all of these elements going on, and that is what leads to the fog of war.
You know, you have ground forces on the ground at risk actively taking fire, right, and all of these moving dynamic elements. You know, fog of war is not what we see in in the this deliberate remote strike campaign in Iran, where you have targeting teams have months to prepare their targets. There's no US forces or partner forces or allied on the ground actively in danger, actively in fights, or taking fire from anyone. And you have literally months to prepare to vet and validate these targets to verify that what you're hitting is is a valid military target under international law and and US law, and that it's void of civilians. And you're doing this from largely, right, from cushy offices back in the rear with all the technological apparatus that we have at our disposal.
There's no fog of war there. What's We're
Speaker 0: running out of we're running out of time. And of course, that's why Iranians clearly believe a 168 elementary school girls were slaughtered on purpose. And just finally, I I'm British, so I'd have to mention King Charles' visit to DC, of course. No mention of his anti landmine campaigning late wife, Princess Diana. Though we do hear that American BLU 91 mine laying warplanes are being used by the Trump Netanyahu coalition against Iran.
What's your understanding about the impact and future impact of this laying of land mines?
Speaker 1: Right. I've done, you know, some analysis and investigations into the the dropping of these would be aerial delivered anti tank and anti personnel mines. And you know, what I've seen, I've identified these bomb lights as US made of course. Still not completely verified because I believe largely the reporting comes from the Iran regime. But if so, concerning.
Because, you know, where I saw them dropped, the pictures that I've seen, being dropped in open areas and adjacent to or in civilian areas, that's not the intended use, actually, of our of these subunitions, and that's not the legal use per international law or our US law of armed conflict.
Speaker 0: Master sergeant Wes Bryant, thank you.
Speaker 1: Appreciate you having me.
Speaker 0: That's it for the show. Condolences to any of you bereaved by today's NATO nation wars of aggression. We'll be back on Monday for more continuing coverage of US wars on West Asia with a former Pentagon official who is now a US national and homeland security official. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media. If it's not censored in your country, head to our channel, going underground TV on normal.com to watch new and old episodes of going underground.
See you Monday.
reSee.it AI Summary
In this Going Underground episode, I talk with Victor Gao about why 2026 marks the end of Pax Americana, whether war or peace is inevitable between the US and China, and Beijing's view of the Middle East crisis unleashed by the US and Israel.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ Victor Gao on Iran: The END of Pax-Americana is Here, US🇺🇸 Would Exit War with China🇨🇳 a NET LOSER Why does 2026 mark the end of Pax Americana? Is war or peace inevitable between the US and China? What is Beijing’s view of the Middle East crisis unleashed by the US and Israel? All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with Victor Gao, President of the Center for China and Globalisation.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashton Rifenski opens Going Underground from the UAE, referencing Antonio Gramsci and the idea of hegemony, and frames the day as one where the UN Security Council discusses maritime security in the context of what he describes as calls by Donald Trump that have “destroyed” that security, highlighting the Strait of Hormuz as half Iranian and half Omani owned and the broader global impact on prices for fuel, medicine, and food. He notes a visit by a “vassal state king” to Trump and contrasts it with the anticipated visit of Trump to the country with the largest economy by PPP powered by Iranian and Russian energy, suggesting that when Trump meets Xi Jinping, the U.S. life expectancy gap with Shanghai will be evident.
Victor Gao, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, joins from Beijing. Rifenski asks about a Financial Times headline claiming Tehran deployed a Chinese satellite to target U.S. bases in the Middle East and about U.S. claims that foreign entities, principally based in China, are engaged in deliberate industrial-scale campaigns, questioning whether China is supplying weapons to Iran.
Gao responds by challenging the Financial Times’ premise, asserting that the UK paper is “owned by Japanese interests” and that China provides commercial satellite services openly available for international cooperation. He contends that China can engage in “commercial normal satellite services with any country,” including Iran, and says targeting versus weapons are distinct issues. He reiterates China’s position that it does not supply weapons to any country at war, and notes that China calls for an immediate end to the war and supports the UN Charter and international law, mentioning that the UN Secretary-General described the war as an aggression by the United States and Israel against Iran.
Rifenski presses Gao on why China wouldn’t supply arms to Iran despite Iran’s energy ties with China. Gao emphasizes Iran’s capability to defend its sovereignty and notes no specific requests have been made by Iran for Chinese military aid, asserting China’s opposition to any allegation of arming Iran. He adds that Iran has demonstrated drones, missiles, and long-range capabilities, and states that China supports ending the war rather than escalating it.
The discussion then shifts to whether China should have hosted negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. Gao notes Trump’s recent acknowledgment of China’s role in nudging Iran and the U.S. toward talks, highlighting Beijing’s diplomatic outreach via Wang Yi to over 20 foreign ministers to de-escalate. He mentions Pakistan as an intermediary and argues that China has sought a positive role, possibly facilitating or supplementing Pakistan’s efforts, while acknowledging uncertainty over Israel’s willingness to support a peace deal. Gao insists China’s commitment is to end the war and achieve peace.
Rifenski and Gao discuss the broader implications of U.S.-China relations, the perception that the war is a test of U.S. strength, and the notion that China views a war with the United States as unwinnable for the U.S. He asserts that China aims to avoid headlined confrontations and prefers behind-the-scenes diplomacy, contrasting China’s approach with Western narratives.
Gao argues that the global economy would suffer from U.S. aggression and asserts that the so-called Pax Americana is ending, accelerated by Trump’s policies. He notes China’s decreasing holdings of U.S. Treasuries and suggests the yuan’s growing role in international trade, predicting yuan settlement could rise from about 2.5-3% to 25-30% in the long term as more oil trades settle in renminbi.
The interview closes with Gao offering advice to GCC countries, stressing that China’s involvement has historically led to peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, while U.S. and Israeli involvement has led to hostility. He urges Middle Eastern actors to engage with China as a defender of free trade and peace, and to consider cooperation with China after the war to foster long-term regional stability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashton Rifenski. Welcome back to Going Underground. On the day, Antonio Gramsci, from whom we inherit the refined geopolitical words hegemony and block, was de facto killed by Mussolini. We are broadcasting all around the world from The UAE, the Gulf country most targeted in Trump's war on Iran and Lebanon for Netanyahu, a war that could end US hegemonic power. Millions killed, wounded, or displaced in this region, and billions pushed into hardship even before The US military defeat have marked the war so far.
Sorely, today, the UN Security Council will be debating maritime security, which, of course, Donald Trump has destroyed. The Strait Of Hormuz, half owned by Iran and Oman, has made the war Netanyahu wanted truly global as prices of everything from fuel to medicine to food will now be hurting everyone, not just those aligned to criminal NATO actions. While a vassal state king is scheduled to pay homage to Trump today from a country whose prime minister is mired in Epstein child abuse, Washington ambassadorial scandals, there is another more important visit coming up, not Sakir Starmers, latest envoy to Washington, but the visit of Trump himself to the capital of the country with the largest economy on Earth by PPP powered by Iranian and Russian energy. When Trump meets Xi Jinping, though, he probably won't know that in his country, Americans in the poorest US counties die twenty years sooner than in Shanghai. So appalling is US life expectancy.
Joining me now is the vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, chairman of the China Energy Security Institute, chair professor at Sichao University. Victor Gao translated for China's paramount leader, and he joins me now from Beijing. Victor, thanks so much for coming back on Going Underground after, five years it's been. I was, gonna, talk straight about Iran. The Financial Times, for instance, to name one newspaper.
Tehran deploys Chinese satellite to target US bases across the Middle East. That kind of headline came as the executive office of the president, Donald Trump's being the president, said the United States government has information indicating foreign entities principally based in China are engaged in deliberate industrial scale campaigns. Is China supplying weapons to Iran?
Speaker 1: First of all, allow me to remind your global audience that Financial Times of The, UK now is owned by Japanese interests. I will not be surprised if you see Japanese fingerprints in such sensational allegations. Allow me to also to mention China has tremendous amount of commercial satellite services, many of which are open to international cooperation. And it will not be surprising if any country in the world, including Iran, may have signed up for satellite services by China. This is completely normal, absolutely legal, nothing illegal, nothing illicit, nothing to be hidden from.
So I hope the editors of Financial Times will wake up and free themselves from potential Japanese insidious influence and tell the truth to the world. China is a major satellite service provider, and China can absolutely engage in commercial normal satellite services with any country in the world, any country under the sun, period. Well, targeting is one thing. Then Trump said that, The US had seized a ship that, quote, had some things on it that were, quote, not very nice, a gift from China. So in that case, it's not the satellite targeting.
Speaker 0: It's the actual weapons. What did you make of of that? And, actually, what did you make of Beijing as foreign ministry spokesman, saying it's a China's a responsible major country, but seeming to walk back the idea that China is supplying arms to a country Iran, which after all does supply a lot of energy to China.
Speaker 1: First of all, I completely trust the statement from the Chinese government through its foreign ministry, and I understand the Chinese position is that China does not supply weapon to any country at war, especially, for example, at war in this particular case between United States and Israel on the one hand.
Speaker 0: Why why not given that China and Iran are friends? So much of the energy fueling the Chinese economic miracle has been from Iran. Why don't you supply weapons to your friends?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, from day one when the war broke out on February 28, China's position has been consistent. China calls for an immediate end to this war, and China applauds and very much is opposed to a war of aggression. And you may recall the secretary general of the United Nations, mister Gutierrez, called this war launched by The United States and Israel against Iran as a war of aggression, And China calls for defending the United Nations Charter, defending international law, prohibiting wars of aggression against any member of the United Nations, including Iran. So I think China's support to Iran has been unequivocal, very explicit, and this is the reason why Iran has been expressing thanks to the very strong and consistent Chinese support. Now whether China wants to sell weapons to any other country, a country at war, that is a decision only up to China to decide.
China, I think, believes Iran still has enough wherewithal to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. And I don't think there is being any specific request from Iran for Chinese military help. And this is the reality. So I'm firmly opposed to any allegation that China is supplying weapons to Iran. Iran is fully capable of defending itself because it keeps demonstrating and surprising many countries by the kind of weapons, either drones or missiles or even missiles with a range of up to 4,000 kilometers and all kinds of warheads that they can carry.
And I think Iran is on its way to successfully defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity regardless of the massive amount of losses, including loss of life that The United States and Israel have inflicted on Iran. So let's be very specific as to why what we are talking about. Iran has not requested for any military aid from China, and China does not supply a weapon to a country at war.
Speaker 0: No one, of course, expects Western Europe to be involved in any international negotiations. They're suffering their own economic catastrophes at home. But do you not think China missed a trick in not hosting the negotiations between the Americans and the Iranians? I know China has good relations with Pakistan, but why are the negotiations not in Beijing?
Speaker 1: First of all, I think it is important to know that president Trump, about two weeks ago, specifically thanked China for the positive role China played to bring Iran and The United States to the negotiation table. Now this is quite extraordinary because president Trump not only give all the credit to himself. Now what China has done is amazing because Chinese government has specifically mentioned that the Chinese foreign minister, his excellency Wang Yi, have called up to more than 20 foreign ministers from 20 different countries and kept working very closely with them, try to urge for peace and de escalation and ending the war. And as you mentioned, China and Pakistan are ironclad brothers and sisters. We trust each other tremendously.
I would not be surprised if China has played some role through the intermediary role played by Pakistan, and Pakistan has, you know, kind of a very much of a confidence of The United States on the one hand and Iran on the other hand, and China and Iran support each other without any reservation in terms of many major international issues. So it's very obvious that China has played very positive role, and I believe we'll continue to play a very positive role to end this war and try to achieve peace rather than countries going to each other, the jugular, or endless wars. Now whether China will be able to play more role, greater role, absolutely. I personally hope China will assist or help or even supplement or whatever you may think about the role that Pakistan is playing or even jointly play this role of intermediary with Pakistan or even, for example, play a more positive role than Pakistan is playing to make sure that the war between The United States and Iran will end. Now whether Israel will be able to support this peace deal between The United States and Iran, that's another thing.
Whether prime minister Netanyahu will have all the wrong incentive to sabotage the peace negotiation between The United States and Iran. That's another thing we need to be on our full alert. However, don't doubt China's commitment to do whatever it can to make sure that the war between The United States and Iran end, and the sooner, the better. Normally, China plays such a role behind the closed door or behind the veils, for example, so that you do not see very much how much China has been doing. China does not grab the headlight or try to grab grab any credit for itself, etcetera.
For China, diplomacy should be done very much behind the scene without grabbing the headlines rather than you'll capture the headline on the minute by minute basis.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: But this is the
Speaker 0: But you don't think the don't think there is any dissent within the communist party in China about the fact that Trump is gonna be visiting scheduled visit. The previous one was postponed. Visiting Beijing, and the world knows that Trump oversaw the mass killing of those schoolgirls in Minab in Southern Iran. Do you think do you think China should be hosting a meeting with the man who was responsible for ordering the killing of all those elementary
Speaker 1: schoolgirls? Well, all the crimes committed in Iran against the government and the people, the country of Iran are very obvious. It's well recorded. That's absolutely a very important point to make. Now on the other hand, China US relations being the most important bilateral relations in the world, and the fact that China and United States both very much value the head to the head of state to head of state meetings between China and The United States is also well recorded.
Further, the proposed state visit by president Trump of The United States to China has been prepared since day one of president Trump's second presidency on 01/20/2025. It has been continuously arranged and rearranged, restructured throughout the year of 2025, and it was originally scheduled for March and the April. It did not have anything to do with that
Speaker 0: war Russia. Some say the war is the war on China. We we had this the chief of staff at the US state department, the former chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, on this program, the colonel, and he said this is not a war in Iran, really. It's really a war on China.
Speaker 1: Well, he may have whatever he has to say, whether he speaks the truth, whether whatever he say will be generally taken as the truth. That's another thing. Let me tell you one thing and hopefully through your to your global audience. United States may want to have a war with China one way or another, direct war, indirect war, proxy war, conventional war, unconventional war, tariff war, trade war, you name it. It's well recorded.
The point which matters now is that China refuses to be engaged in a war, any kind of war with The United States. And China believes whatever war the United States wants to engage with China, United States will not win without suffering major losses. So it's not worthwhile for the United States even to think about having a war of any kind with China or even going to engage with China in a war. That's why I proposed my theory of inevitability of peace between China and The United States. I hope that retired officer of The United States will realize what I'm saying now and acknowledge the fact that The United States, by engaging China in any kind of war, will not walk out of the war as a net winner.
It will be a loser. How much it will lose? You ask the Pentagon how much China will be able to stand and defend its fundamental interest and
Speaker 0: how much I'll stop you there. More from the vice president of the Center for China and Globalization after this spring. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, Victor Gao. Victor, you were telling me in part one about your hopes for the inevitability of peace.
You know, the Sulzberger family's New York Times said blockade jeopardizes hopes of thaw with Beijing. This is relating to the blockade of Iranian oil in the Strait Of Hormuz. If, as I said in part one about Larry Wilkerson saying it was a war on China, You don't believe the kidnapping of, Venezuela's Maduro was also an implicit attack on China? These are all tentacle moves aimed at destroying Chinese, power, globally. And China, meanwhile, is set to roll out the red carpet for Trump.
You don't see any disparity here?
Speaker 1: No. I do not see anything like that. First of all, China attaches great importance to the state visit by president Trump to China, originally scheduled for March, now scheduled for the May. That's number one. Number two is that I hope all of us will realize that China US relations, much bigger dimension than either the US war of aggression against Venezuela or the ongoing war of aggression against Iraq.
Basically, China and The United States, their bilateral relations are so important that if China US relations get derailed, do you know what will be the consequence? There may be armageddon in the world. Mankind will be dragged into an endless war. Therefore, everyone in this world should hope that China and The United States will manage their bilateral relations in such a way that they will both and the world will in both will enjoy the inevitability of peace between China and United States. And I'm personally opposed to anyone in this world who wants to agitate for war between China and The United States.
Therefore, from the Chinese perspective, we look at the world as a whole, and an important part is, of course, Venezuela and the war of aggression they suffered from The United States. Of course, the world has an important part. That is Iran and its six thousand years of civilization, and the war inflicted upon it, a war of aggression inflicted by The United States and Iran. But on the other hand, I believe the majority of mankind will agree with me. China US relations are so important that we need to make sure that these bilateral relations do not get derailed by anything The United States is doing.
Isn't the concern in the past.
Speaker 0: The concern here, Victor, that the genocide in Gaza, the war in Iran, the kidnapping of Maduro, in effect, they were financed by China because China owns those treasury bills keeping The US economy afloat. We should blame China for the genocide. Is that not a factor in the hallowed halls in Beijing? Do they not see it that way that now is the time, specifically when The United States is perceived as weak around the world after its defeat against Iran, to get rid of all that US all the UST bills?
Speaker 1: Well, I hope you will be more philosophical, and I do believe you will have all the wisdom you deserve. But on the other hand, allow me to mention one thing. Whatever president Trump and the US government are doing right now, launching war after war, you know, against Venezuela, against Vietnam, against Iran, or even against Cuba, or try to take over Greenland or take over Canada, etcetera. All these things are not making America greater again. As a matter of fact, they just serve the opposite, purpose.
They will actually make The United States much weaker. I would say if history looks back at the year 2026, they may mark the year 2026 as the beginning of the end of axe Americana. Why? Because America is disregarding international law, trampling on the United Nations charter, thinking about Yeah.
Speaker 0: But it's all paid for because of the Chinese treasury bills.
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. I don't think so. I think China wants to make sure that the Chinese foreign currency reserve can be well invested, and investing in the US treasury is one of the ways to deploy Chinese foreign currency reserve. China used to be the largest treasury bondholder and consistently and continuously reduced its US treasury bond holding. And this is also a fact well recorded.
And in the future, I think China will continue to decrease its US treasury bond
Speaker 0: holding. Now is the time to make a sharper reduction? As you say, it's no longer the largest holder of treasury bills. But do you think now is the chance and and create the BRICS currency with the with the money?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, this will be a decision only for the Chinese government to decide, you know, whether they want to reduce or significantly reduce or completely wipe out the Chinese holding of the US treasury bond, no one else can decide. Only the Chinese government will decide. That's a very important point. Secondly, China also cares about the financial integrity of the global financial market as a whole. And, for example, if The United States financial market tanks, it's absolutely bad for The United States.
That's without a doubt. But it's also bad for the international economy, international financial integrity. So from the Chinese perspective, being very philosophical for thousands of years, the Chinese mind is always being very philosophical. We want to do the right thing even though if doing the right thing, the opposite side will benefit. And we do not want to do the wrong thing even if doing the wrong thing will make the opposite side or the hostile side suffer if, for example, mankind will suffer more.
So I think you are talking about an equilibrium, and the Chinese equilibrium is always don't do unto others what you do not want others do unto you. And we want to make sure that the world will gain by peace and the world will gain by opposing aggression. That's why China is really raising its voice to the top pitch by condemning wars of aggression. And I hope mankind will realize that the so called Pax Americana is coming to an end, accelerated by president Trump and his government by launching war after war against other countries. And China has become a fierce defender of world peace, a major champion of defending international free trade.
So I hope mankind will have functions and judgment to say which country is doing the right thing. And in this particular case, it's The United States which is doing the right wrong thing. And China's doing the right thing. United States is doing the wrong thing. That's the most important point.
Speaker 0: Sometimes history suddenly speeds up, of course. Do you think that Chinese ministries understood that the petro yuan would be created so quickly as a a name even in NATO nation, so called mainstream media. And you think the deep state in The United States is relaxed about the amount of oil now being traded in yuan rather than the petrodollar, which is so needed in The US equities market?
Speaker 1: First of all, personally, I do believe more and more oil will be traded in yuan. Why? Because China is the largest importer. China imports oil from many countries including from Russia and Iran, Venezuela before, and many other countries, Saudi Arabia, of course. So China is well diversified in doing this oil trade with multiple countries.
Number two is that more and more countries are shying away from dollar, and they want to look for a currency with greater stability, greater trustworthiness, and also trust. Just trust. You need to have a currency which commands trust. I think under president Trump, The United States has become the biggest source of uncertainty, unpredictability, and unreliability in the world, and that will brush off on the US dollar. I will not be surprised.
And many other countries, with their own decency in mind and also their common sense, they may want to say, well, comparing US dollar versus the Chinese yuan, which country behind it is more trustworthy, more reliable, more predictable? Absolutely. In the world of today, China is much more trustworthy, certain, predictable, reliable than The United States. So the decision will be normal. Don't be surprised if more countries exporting oil to China will receive renminbi payment.
And don't be surprised if China will work with them, cooperate with them to create many platforms of investing the renminbi or using renminbi as the reserve, for example. I would say right now, the Chinese yuan only accounts for about 2.5 to 3% international trade and settlement. I will be not I will not be surprised if in the coming years, the Chinese yuan in terms of its percentage in international payment, settlement, and reserve and investment will increase minimum by tenfold, reaching about 25% to 30%. Now this is not accelerated by China. This will be the result of momentum being generated in the world of today.
Just finally. Everyone in the world today.
Speaker 0: Just finally. That's quite that's quite a figure, and that'll certainly thrill the CIA, that number that you just told me. But just finally, Victor, you were an adviser to Saudi Aramco once. How would you advise GCC countries to navigate the current conflict as as it presages a new geopolitical framework as you've outlined?
Speaker 1: Well, I pride my relations with the Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia as well as with many other Middle Eastern countries. I have several points to offer as advice. First of all, when China was involved with Iran and Saudi Arabia, they shook hands. They ended their decades, if not hundreds of years, of hostility against each other. When The United States and Israel get involved between Iran and Saudi Arabia, they fire shot at each other.
They became hostile again. So I hope Iran on the one hand, Saudi Arabia, all the other Middle East and Arab countries on the other hand will know that when China is involved, you get peace. When The United States and Israel get involved, you will get hostility, war, confrontation, destruction. So the choice is very obvious. I hope all my friends highly regarded by me in Saudi Arabia will listen to me, treat China as a major source of defending free trade.
And I hope when the dust ends for this war of aggression against Iran, the Iranians and the Arabs will shake hand again, preferably with Chinese intervention and mediation, and they may they may cement their friendship and cooperation for decades and centuries to come because it will be suicidal for the Arabs who believe in Muslim, although they believe in many of them believe in Sunni Muslim, and the Iranians who are Muslims, even though they believe in Shi'a version of Muslim, get at each other's. It will be much better if they can recognize each other, respect each other, shake each other's hand, and engage in cooperation with each other rather than as some other countries are leading them in the wrong direction, being hostile with each other, trying to destroy each other, get to each other's jaguar. That will not be a better Muslim world at large. That will not be the better Middle East. Viktigal, thank you.
Thank you very much for having me.
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 more continuing coverage of The US wars on West Asia. 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 Saturday.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨💵Peter Schiff: Sanctions on Russia🇷🇺 marked the beginning of the end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency “I was very critical at the time of the Biden sanctions against Russia, and I said that would come back to bite the US because I knew how critical the dollar’s reserve currency status was to propping up the US economy. I said that Biden just sent a very loud message, a warning to the world that they need to get rid of their dollars, that they could be the next Russia. If they do something that the United States doesn’t like, they’ve got that weapon. And so why would you want to enable the United States with a weapon to use against you? So I said this is going to result in a lot of selling of US dollars and US Treasuries. And that’s exactly what happened. The reason that gold is over $3300 an ounce is because central banks are getting rid of their dollars. And one of the reasons that the yield on US Treasuries just hit a new multi-year high and continues to rise is because we don’t have all the foreign buyers that Biden scared away. I think we’ve already established the precedent that the dollar is not sacrosanct. And if you’re a nation and you have US dollars, you have US Treasuries and you own them in good faith in that you would trust that they would be a reserve asset, a neutral reserve asset. We’ve already established a precedent that that’s not the case, that we can yank the rug out from under you whenever we want. So I think regardless of what Trump does now, if I was in China or any of these countries, especially China, because, you know, we vilify China, we say China’s our enemy. Okay, well, if China’s our enemy, why the hell do they want to leave themselves vulnerable by owning all of our bonds? And it’s not just Treasuries that they own. They own mortgage-backed securities. They have a tremendous amount of dollar-denominated assets, so I would be completely divesting as quickly as I could.” -@PeterSchiff on Going Underground
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss a new Going Underground episode: GREATER ISRAEL as regional hegemony, Türkiye as Israel’s NEXT TARGET (Daniel Levy). I ask: What is Israel's plan for unrivaled regional hegemony? How is Israel using the US despite Washington’s decline? How does Israel view multipolarity and US empire decline?
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ GREATER ISRAEL is About Regional HEGEMONY, Türkiye🇹🇷 is Israel’s NEXT TARGET (Ex-Israeli Peace Negotiator Daniel Levy) -What is Israel's plan for unrivalled regional hegemony? -How is Israel using the US to achieve its Greater Israel objectives despite Washington’s decline? -How does Israel view the rise of the multipolar world and decline of the US empire?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshan Rutansi introduces Going Underground from Dubai, noting a century since the San Remo conference and the subsequent carving up of West Asia, Palestine under British mandate, the 1948 establishment of Israel, the Nakba, and current dynamics: Israel’s land grabs in the occupied West Bank, genocidal actions in Gaza, and an expanding military footprint, alongside U.S. military defeats since 1945 in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, adding Iran to the list.
Daniel Levy, a veteran Israeli peace negotiator, president of The US Middle East Project, joins from London. Rutansi frames Netanyahu’s Israel as associated with genocide in Gaza, attempts to destroy Iranian civilization via Trump, and cites Israeli defense minister Katz calling for the elimination of an entire family, with a green light from the United States. She asks Levy about a broader aim: replacing Iran and Saudi Arabia as superpowers in West Asia.
Levy challenges the normative acceptance of Katz’s rhetoric, noting that while some view Israel’s expansion as territorial, the broader project is about extending hard power hegemony. He argues that Israel seeks to create a regional environment where surrounding states are collapsed, chaotic, or easily co-opted by Israel. He contends the war aims to weaken Gulf States to push them toward reliance on American power, and that Netanyahu has spoken about Israel becoming a global superpower, including corridors for Gulf oil to market via Israel’s ports.
Rutansi reminds of the GCC’s report that airspace was not provided for U.S. and Israeli warplanes and returns to the question of whether this signals a broader strategy. Levy notes that U.S. ambassador Mike Huckabee’s remarks reflect a greater Israel concept extending beyond Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Levy discusses Turkey (Turkiye) as a potential target, citing Naftali Bennett and the idea of isolating Turkey to allow further actions. He emphasizes Israel’s transparency about its aims, and explains that regional states are reacting with concern, recognizing Israel as a destabilizing geopolitical actor due to its expansive agenda.
Rutansi asks whether Netanyahu “wins” despite domestic scrutiny, referencing a New York Times piece implying Netanyahu’s victory. Levy says this reflects a shift: while expansion continues, there is continuity in policy, and a notable change is that Israel now operates in a highly fluid geopolitical moment. He argues that Israel sees a window of opportunity in an era of waning American primacy and seeks to exploit it before restraints reassert themselves. He describes a new elite, more religious nationalist ideology, and leadership within the military aligned with this agenda, contributing to a more aggressive posture.
Levy stresses that the impunity following Gaza dampened domestic backlash enough for policymakers to pursue more aggressive actions, including pursuing confrontation with Iran. They discuss whether Iran’s strategy—strikes against GCC bases—will lead to nuclear considerations; Levy questions whether Israel can deter or be contained in a multipolar world and raises concerns about a WMD-free West Asia. He notes debates about whether Israel could threaten with nuclear weapons or whether a broader push toward nonproliferation and regional disarmament is likely.
They examine American public opinion shifting toward Palestinians, the potential impact on U.S. policy, and whether Israel’s increasing independence from American support could hasten a regional alignment or escalation. They touch on Gulf diplomacy with Iran, UAE–Iran talks, and Israel’s potential reaction if Trump’s administration backs away from a hard line against Iran. Levy concludes by highlighting whether a reinvention of Zionism is possible or whether Israel’s current project may be unsustainable, given shifting regional dynamics and domestic political constraints.
The program signs off with condolences to victims of NATO-nation wars and promises part two to continue the discussion.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshan Rutansi, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting. All around the world from Dubai, we're in a region with millions killed, wounded, or displaced, and in a world where billions have been pushed into hardship despite the defeats of Trump and Netanyahu and their wars on Lebanon and Iran. This week marks more than a century since the San Remo conference when in the aftermath of World War one, European powers formalized the carve up of West Asia building on the secret Sykes Picot agreement. Palestine fell under British mandate, setting in motion a chain of events culminating in 1948 when David Ben Gurion declared the establishment of Israel, triggering the Nakba, the mass displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Today, that history is still being written with Israel's continued land grabs in the occupied West Bank, its relentless genocide in Gaza, and its expanding military footprint across the region.
All this amidst another catastrophic loss for its benefactor, The USA, which, after losing from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan, now adds Iran to its monumental chain of military defeats since 1945. Joining me is a veteran Israeli peace negotiator who served in the Israeli prime minister's office, president of The US Middle East project. Daniel Levy joins me again from London. Daniel, thank you so much for, coming back on. I mean, people understand all around the world that Netanyahu's Israel is associated with with genocide in Gaza, the attempt to destroy Iranian civilization through Trump.
But there's also and, actually, the defense minister of Israel, Kats, saying, first and foremost, the completion of the elimination of the Khamenei family is an is awaiting a green light from The United States. People understand all that, perhaps. But for you, there's something else, an attempt to replace Iran and Saudi Arabia as the superpowers of West Asia.
Speaker 1: That is an argument I I I am making, Ashiya. It's good to be back with you. And let's let's at least pause for a minute and say, no. It is not normal to talk like that, and it should not be accepted. That's defense minister Katz.
That's defense minister Katz talking about removing the rest of an entire family, not even attempting to to to draw this distinction that they sometimes like to pretend that that other members of the family were collateral damage, but it was legitimate to go after x. You know, saying openly, the whole family, following off the back of president Trump talking about wiping out a civilization. So we at least need to pause and say that is not normative, normal, or acceptable talk or behavior.
Speaker 0: And this is transparent.
Speaker 1: Well, yes, but I'm not gonna give them too many marks for transparency. What I have have argued is that we talk a lot about a project of greater Israel. Okay? And it's understandable that people normally attribute to that term territorial expansion. Settlement, it's something we've seen, of course, across the Palestinian territory.
It's something we now see with Israel expanding its borders, trying to take again a security zone in Southern Lebanon having done so for eighteen years and then withdrawn in 2000. We see that in Syria, even beyond the already illegally annexed Golan Heights. But what I'm suggesting is that that the notion of a greater Israel dominion, a project of domination in the region is not just about territory. It's about how far Israel can extend its hard power hegemony. And to do that, it wants to create a situation where it is surrounded by states that are either collapsed, chaotic, in the process of fragmenting and dismantling, and therefore cannot present any challenge to that hard power greater Israel project, all states which find themselves easily co opted by Israel because of vulnerabilities and dependencies that are brought into play often actively by Israel.
I don't wanna suggest Israel is the only country that has that has encouraged and played into the fragmentation that we're seeing in the region. But with Israel, it is a it is a a geopolitical strategy. And in that respect, what Israel has tried to achieve in this war by pulling The US into it because it couldn't do this unless it could deploy not only its own military, but the American military, and it hasn't succeeded. Let's just note that. But what Israel is trying to do is not some dream of regime change in Iran.
It doesn't really believe that. It's going for regime and state collapse. Chaos but then spills over. So that deals with Iran, and then the other thing you mentioned in that opening was Saudi. And so while some may say, look.
What an unfortunate byproduct, unpredictable perhaps, of this war, the attacks on The Gulf, the strip the strikes on The Gulf. This was eminently predictable. It had been broadcast in advance. That is where the American bases that are being used to attack Iran exist. And this is by design as far as the Israelis are concerned because part of the goal here is to weaken the Gulf States so that they look around and they say, you know, America couldn't deliver for us.
We may not all like it, but there is a major regional power here, and we are going to have to get on board with its project. Israel has talked openly about not only being a regional superpower, but in, Netanyahu said, becoming a global superpower. It's talked about corridors for transporting Gulf oil to market that would run through through to Israel, through to Israel's Mediterranean ports. So it is trying to create Gulf dependencies on Israel. I'm not saying it will succeed.
Speaker 0: Well, that's yeah. We'll get on to whether how one should ask. Whether any of this will succeed. I will return to the GCC, of course, which said that airspace wasn't provided for US and Israeli warplanes, but I will return to that. But then so what you're setting out there is part and of what The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said to Tucker Carlson in one sense.
And I suppose that included the greater Israel of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. And I know you've just and Egypt. And I know you've just been in Turkey. Do people what do people in Turkey think, a NATO member, think of this new great power in the region, let alone its territorial desires?
Speaker 1: So I think we have to distinguish between what Huckabee, who comes from an eschatological theological position of a greater Israel, which I think is beyond, well beyond the capacities and the planning of of of where the center of gravity is in Israel today and where it's ever likely to get to, by the way. Remember how small the country, the population is in Israel at
Speaker 0: the end. Saying that they don't even need to do a territory. They they can own Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: Precisely. That's what they are looking to do. And then you asked me about Turkiye, and it's it's we were just talking about, you know, do you get marks for transparency by openly acknowledging what you were trying to do in destroying that entire lineage, that family line. What's interesting here is how transparent Israel is being. Israeli officials, not just government, by the way.
Probably the most outspoken on this issue is the leader of the so called opposition, normally opposition in name only when it comes to these issues, Naftali Bennett in Israel, who's primed to perhaps be the next prime minister. He was briefly prime minister. When they talk about the next target being Turkiye, that part of what they're trying to do is to create an equation where Turkey, Turkiye will be isolated, and then Israel can go after Turkey. I'm not saying that's the military plan for the next five years, but that is what they are now putting on the agenda. And when you go and speak to government officials around the world, they will often say, we just had the Israelis in town, depending on where you are, of course.
We just had the Israelis in town. Wow. They were talking about Turkiyeh the same way they talked about Iran ten, twenty years ago. Now that is partly why, I think, not just Turkiye, but a whole host of states in the region are saying, woah. Wait a minute.
The most revanchist, radicalizing, destabilizing actor in the region today is Israel because it has this extremely overambitious agenda of how it wants to reshape the region. What Israel's betting is that even if that conversation is beginning to take place, the states of the region won't be able to come together to offer any kind of collective containment or deterrence of Israel, and therefore, that Israel will be able to advance this project. That's the that's the bet it is placing.
Speaker 0: And I suppose I should ask you. I mean, I know people watching this program, people who watch you on many different outlets may not may live in an echo chamber where people think it's a defeat for Netanyahu, the war in Iran. Here's the Schulzberger's newspaper owners owned New York Times. Any way you look at it, Netanyahu wins. That's seriously a full page in the New York Times this month.
Speaker 1: Netanyahu that an unpaid or a
Speaker 0: It's Is that an opinion? It is an opinion, but, you know, that's quite a platform for a huge piece about Netanyahu winning by a man called Mayra Va Zonstein. I've got to ask since you're an adviser in an Israeli prime minister's office. Does all of what you said about territorial not so much territorial, but superpower hegemonic activity. Is this a big shift in Israeli policy, the desire to inhabit, like, some parasite and then some to control them all the countries in West Asia?
So I think
Speaker 1: this does signify an important shift. Okay? I think there are threads of continuity in terms of expansionism. Okay? I think what we see vis a vis the Palestinians, the zero sum attempt to further displace, physically remove, is something that is over one with previous Israeli policy, but it's an intensification of those things.
What I think is relatively new here is that Israel has looked at this moment of great geopolitical fluidity when it feels that, like, everything is up for grabs. Right? We're in this state of global viscosity, if you like. What what will happen next? And it looks at this.
And while many states, especially America's allies, as we see the decline of The US, that's what I think we're witnessing. Many of America's allies are looking around and ducking and saying, how do we make sure we're not the collateral damage, that we're not too badly hit by this. Israel is looking around and saying, this is a moment of opportunity. Before the tectonic plates stop shifting and when things settle down again and when certain restraints will again be imposed, how far can we push this project? So I think that's we what's new is it's a new geopolitical reality.
I think Israel is looking at it and saying, you know what? Maybe America's done. And maybe our ability to get America to do our work is running out of time. We're less popular in The US. The US isn't the power it it once was.
There is not American primacy and preponderance despite the attempts to reassert that. We live in a multipolar world. Let's make use of this while we still can. Use it or lose it. So let's do as much as we can in this interregnum to create a new reality where we are stronger.
I think it's incredibly risky. I don't think you can understand it without going back and acknowledging Netanyahu's personal political dynamics. His court case is coming up for election. You can't understand it also unless you understand that Israel has gone on a certain journey, that you have a new elite. I'm not suggesting here there was a golden era under the old elite, but it was different.
There was a degree of acknowledgment of limitations, a degree of pragmatism, which didn't translate into justice or rights for Palestinians, etcetera. But it's not this project. So you have a new elite. You have more religious nationalist ideology fueling this, you now have heads of much of the military who come from that space
Speaker 0: Daniel
Speaker 1: and you have something really Daniel, sorry. Really important. We'll get back
Speaker 0: to this in part two. I'll stop you there. More from the former Israeli peace negotiator under Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak after this break. Welcome back to going underground. I'm still here with Daniel Levy, president of The US Middle East project and former Israeli peace negotiator under Israeli prime ministers Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak.
Daniel, I interrupted you in part one as you were talking about the different dynamics of power in Israeli leadership that are behind this greater Israel project beyond all imagination.
Speaker 1: And I I was just gonna finish with one thought, which is you you also can't understand the journey that it's gone on without a crucial additional component, which is the learned experience of getting away with stuff, the impunity. After everything that was done in Gaza, Israel looked around and said, wow. There are massive street protests. There are a lot of people really unhappy with us. We've never faced so much antagonism.
But you know what? The places where power resides, enough of them are still with us. We can get away with it. You know what? Why doesn't our next project be pulling America into a war with Iran?
So the empowering of this line of extremism, given the impunity, that's a crucial explanatory component here.
Speaker 0: Well, I suppose some might say that can't Israel just use its nuclear weapons to threaten countries in West Asia to create this vision that you've outlined. Of course, what you've just said is I mean, it's horrifying to think of how the genocide would have empowered all that. But having said all of that, do you think Iran is making a historic mistake than just relying on attacks on GCC countries, control of the Hormuz Strait, waiting for Trump to bring in all his warships. Do you think it needs to announce possession of nuclear weapons urgently to prevent what you're saying coming true? Well, there's a a couple of different
Speaker 1: things going on there. So first of all, Iran's leverage here has come from what it did on the whole news more than anything else, which does beg the question that even if Iran could make the case that American bases in those Gulf states was justification for what it did, that's the case it's making. Was that the right way to go given that there's a real question as to what added benefit Iran got from carrying out those states those strikes in the GCC. But stepping back from that, many people have asked, would this have happened if Iran had crossed that threshold? If Iran was like Israel, a nuclear armed state?
Iran, North Korea, compare and contrast how one situation has been approached compared to another situation. So there are there are different ways of coming at this. But why are we not asking the question? Where is the push for a WMD free West Asia? How have we allowed this situation to be normalized that Israel is a nuclear armed state?
You said couldn't Israel achieve this domination project just by threatening to use those weapons. It's not so simple. You use that weapon. It's it's a pretty big red line to cross. Only one country has done it, used a a WMD.
We all know what that is, The US and Japan. So if you threaten and you do it, you'd better be damn sure that no one else is able to come after you. There is a country that's now involved in in all of these talks which has a nuclear weapon, Pakistan. It's not part of what's considered the Middle East, North Africa, West Asia region, but it's a risky place for Israel to go. And if you make the threat and don't do it, then that threat appears to be a bit of an empty threat.
But the question for me is, coming out of this, when we eventually come out of it, you are either likely to see very serious exploration of going nuclear by several states in the region or a proper push for this to be a WMD free part of the world as it should be. That's again takes you back to whether Israel can be contained and deterred and put back in a box, which it has it has gotten out of with dramatic consequences so far afield.
Speaker 0: I mean, you said it's a five year plan perhaps. If you look at the American electoral cycle, then that might be a generation of Americans who have been educated by the old TikTok and social media to understand the Gaza genocide. Who knows? It might be too late. So don't you think?
Is there an impetus to speed things up? And in any case, is Trump starting to suffer a bit of a backlash, and he will, in any case, from the medium tail impact of the Strait Of Hormuz, let alone if he there are US casualties in any onset of actual hard war that emerges after this fake ceasefire. I mean, will the Trump administration be reacting to it by saying the Miriam Adelson money is worth it, or will there be signs in the Trump administration, let alone an administration in five years, that says, no. Israel isn't allowed to become this hegemonic power in West Asia.
Speaker 1: So there's a couple of things going on. There's the question of Israel standing in American public opinion. Right? In that respect, what you see appears to be quite dramatic. I mean, we've all seen this polling, the negatives, how people are more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel first time ever.
You look at the younger age demographic, and it's even more pronounced. On the Democrat side, it's basically done. The Democrat voting constituency has abandoned the traditional filialty and slavish devotion to Israel that the Biden administration and virtually all those that preceded it pursued on the Republican side. This is controversial all of a sudden. Israel first versus America first.
We see these wars inside MAGA. So that's one thing that's going on. Now the question is how, when, under what circumstances does that translate into a policy shift? Because we know the role that campaign finance plays in American politics, not just on the issue of Israel, whether it's big pharma or the gun lobby or the military industrial complex and certainly Israel as well. So it may be that some of the thinking in Israel is this is a blip.
We can get past this. We know how to manage our equities with America. We've been doing this for longer than you or I have been on this earth, Avshin. So they may be looking at it and saying, and look. Not everything is going against us.
Our friends, the Ellison family, for instance, are buying up not only legacy media, but also new media. You mentioned old TikTok. They've brought new America TikTok, so that's one of the things you were referring to. So they may think we've got this. They may, as I suggested, think, you know what?
Maybe we can't pull this back. But maybe one of the things we've done in this war is we've accelerated American decline to a place where we can create a regional alliance where we're not so reliant on America. I think that would be a very risky bet to place, but it's one that they perhaps are placing. So you have at the moment what feels like it could become at least a perfect storm that Israel is more dependent on The US, more controversial in The US and less able to pull opinion and politics in its direction, and more overstretched in its ambition. The second part of this very briefly
Speaker 0: I I should How is this playing out? Sorry. We're running out of time a bit, Daniel. But, I mean, on on that and what you were saying earlier about the GCC, I mean, here's Gulf News in Dubai saying Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nayyan, vice president, deputy prime minister, and chairman of the presidential court, discusses de escalation with Iran, parliament speaker. That's direct talks between UAE officials and Iranian leadership officials.
Doesn't seem to be going that well then at trying to drive this wedge and getting that oil pipeline route from Saudi to to Haifa, does it? How will Netanyahu react when things like that start to happen and when Trump perhaps turns away from him and doesn't give him the green light? You you drew our attention earlier to the corruption case for his own personal situation. Just finally, how will Netanyahu react if Trump says, no. You you shouldn't go further with Iran.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And there's the question of of how much longer Trump can keep going that America may be feeling less pain, but America's threshold for pain, certainly when it's economic and it translates into political, is is is significantly less than it is for for others. And this is where this question of how Netanyahu will respond is where it looks like Many of us maybe used to watch cartoons where the cartoon character goes off the edge of a cliff, and then they stay in motion until they look down, and then they've got nowhere to go. They can't go back. And it feels like Israel may be going on that journey, that it has it has simply gone too far.
The the question for many years, well, why isn't there an establishment inside Israel that's stopping this? And that's why I've tried to suggest that it's not just Netanyahu. The country has gone off on this sugar high of death and destruction that all that all that was built up for decades has now come into
Speaker 0: So would you unilaterally attack seventh. Even after Trump saying no?
Speaker 1: Well, I I you see here is where you bump into the reality that America has tremendous leverage over Israel. And so I think if America wants this to stop, just as it has in Lebanon said enough, although Israel is still physically inside Lebanese territory, it's it's still ceasefire Israeli style, which means you still kill the other side. But I think if America says stop, then Israel stops. But the question is, has Israel given itself an alternative path to pursue, or are we seeing that actual existing Zionism as practiced by the state of Israel has nowhere to go now? And either you radically rethink what is the future of the Israeli Jewish community, not in a regime of an ethno state, but as some kind of normal way of interacting with those in its midst, that is a very different future.
And it it's not clear to me that the project, the Zionist project, can reinvent itself.
Speaker 0: Daniel Levy, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
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 Monday with a former translator of China's paramount leader to ask what China's reaction to the war in Iran is now going to be. 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 ask how the disastrous war on Iran damaged US hegemony, whether the Israel lobby’s power is waning as Americans see Iran as a war for Israel, and why the pro-war establishment in both parties may be running out of time. All this with Jim Webb, USMC veteran and former RFK Jr. adviser.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ WAR ON IRAN: Washington’s Systemic Breakdown and Strategic FAILURE- James (Jim) Webb How has the US severely damaged its own hegemony and power with the disastrous war on Iran? Have we passed the peak of the Israel lobby's power as the American people increasingly see the war on Iran as a war for Israel? Why is time almost up for the pro-war political establishment of both the Democratic and Republican parties? All this and more with Jim Webb, USMC Veteran and former Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to RFK Jr.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground from Dubai, discussing the unfolding Trump-Netanyahu campaign against Iran and Lebanon, amid claims of a failed ceasefire and a chaotic US policy that could lead to peace talks or mass US casualties. The conversation centers on how US military operations were conducted with unclear objectives, the blockade of Hormuz, and broader questions about international alignments, domestic politics, and the integrity of US national security.
Key points and claims discussed
- James Webb, former senior foreign policy adviser to RFK Jr., discusses the conflict’s origins and the US military response:
- The Iran conflict is described as atypical for the US military, with a lack of contingencies for evolving events, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Webb contrasts this with the Iraq War era, noting that past conflicts saw hundreds of thousands of troops staged for various contingencies.
- He asserts the Strait of Hormuz closure is a significant, probable danger, and claims it was “the most probable and dangerous course of action” by the Iranian government, though later remarks acknowledge it was “closed for some.”
- Webb accuses the President of denying the risk of such a closure and asserts this has harmed the US’s reputation and economic partnerships, painting the war as one fought on behalf of another country; he notes this stance as anomalous and unpopular domestically.
- Assassination of Khamenei and Netanyahu’s involvement:
- Webb describes waking to news of the assassination attempt on Khamenei as indicative of an Israeli planning cycle, arguing that assassinating foreign leaders risks violating norms and has long-term strategic consequences.
- He claims the operation “bloody[s] the United States” and creates a blood feud between the US and Iran, undermining state-to-state negotiation dynamics.
- Netanyahu’s influence and possible foreign power infiltration:
- Webb questions what Netanyahu might have over Trump that resonates with MAGA voters, touching on theories involving foreign influence and the Epstein files, and suggesting long-standing efforts to cultivate influence within US politics.
- He describes a broader pattern of neoconservative and pro-war pressures predating the Iraq War and accuses various political actors of co-opting Congress and government for an ongoing Iran-focused agenda.
- Webb cites corruption in the US military procurement system and sanctions dynamics, noting cases where private-sector investments allegedly intersect with sanction decisions.
- War powers, legality, and governance:
- Webb emphasizes the constitutional requirement that Congress holds war powers (Article I, Section 8) and argues that the war with Iran did not follow proper processes or a legitimate declaration.
- He critiques the War Powers Resolution’s applicability in this context, suggesting the administration acted beyond its constitutional authority.
- RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and broader political dynamics:
- Webb says he resigned from the RFK Jr. campaign after RFK Jr. equivocated on IDF tactics in Gaza, arguing this demonstrated an external influence on policy. He notes Tulsi Gabbard as DNI and expresses hope she can influence decisions, while acknowledging restricted access to the White House.
- He believes there is bipartisan concern about the drift toward war and notes polling showing growing public wariness of foreign entanglements, including U.S.-Israel dynamics. He highlights potential shifts toward a more America-first foreign policy.
- Military hardware, strategy, and vulnerability:
- Webb discusses modern anti-ship and ballistic missile capabilities from Iran, Russia, and China, arguing US carriers require significant standoff distance and are vulnerable to advanced missiles, limiting traditional carrier-based operations.
- He mentions USS George H.W. Bush’s unusual movements and raises questions about naval readiness and procurement integrity, as well as unexplained incidents aboard ships (e.g., clogging sewage systems) used to illustrate perceived internal disruptions.
- Regional realignments and the petrodollar:
- Webb suggests that aggressive Middle East actions could push regional allies to rethink loyalties and alliances, with potential implications for the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency.
- He expresses cautious optimism that public sentiment toward “America first” and opposition to endless wars could drive political renewal, including a return to merit-based leadership and reduced foreign entanglements.
- Final reflections:
- Webb laments civilian casualties and school-targeting incidents, emphasizing the need for accountability and a reconsideration of strategic aims, while reiterating concern about the influence of powerful interests on national security decisions.
- The program closes with condolences to those affected by NATO-related conflicts and a tease of continued coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu war.
Note: The summary preserves the speakers’ names and quotes as presented, without adding external evaluation or commentary.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from Dubai amidst millions of civilians killed, wounded, or displaced in West Asia after Trump and Netanyahu began their strategic bombing campaign on Iran and Lebanon. This week, theoretically marked the end of Trump's so called ceasefire, but with US policy in shambles and lurching from one tactic to another. By the time you're watching this, there might either be a peace deal or all out war with mass US casualties. However, the war ends after Trump's failed blockade of the to unblock the. Billions will have been harmed by the inflation spiral hardship caused by that choke point.
James Webb, son of the Pentagon's navy boss, former senator Jim Webb senior, was senior foreign policy adviser to now Trump cabinet member Robert f Kennedy junior. He is an Iraq War Marine Corps veteran, and he joins me now from Navarre, Florida. Thank you so much, Jim, for coming on going underground. As I said, I mean, we don't know whether the talks properly started in Pakistan, whether Trump renewed the waiver on Iranian sanctions, and we don't know whether the US Navy has fired on Chinese vessels. But what is your hunch about how the US military performed and how it was able to take orders for a mission with no clear objectives in the first place, the Trump Netanyahu mission?
Speaker 1: Ashton, first of all, thanks for having me. It's an absolute pleasure to be here. So if we could start from the beginning and work our way up to what's going on right now, is that this this conflict with with Iran is something that's very atypical to the way the US military operates. You have to look no further than the lack of contingencies put in place for for all the various types of things which have happened in the last month or so, starting with the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz. If you go back to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the Gulf War in the early nineties, the military had staged hundreds of thousands of troops in place to cover different contingencies and to prepare for conflict.
Flash forward to where we are now, there is the The Strait is closed, and there's a very, very large large dataset that suggests that that was the most probable and dangerous course of action by the Iranian government.
Speaker 0: Closed for some. Closed for some, I should say.
Speaker 1: Closed for some. Yes. Closed for some. Closed closed to anybody who has has participated on the side of Israel in The United States. You know?
And that's that was something that the the president himself has denied as as something that he knew was gonna happen or was even talked about. And quite frankly, that's a bit farcical. And in doing such, he has harmed The US's reputation and economic partnerships around the world, and let alone showing the entire world that we have gone to war on behalf of another country, stated by his own cabinet members, Marco Rubio, and the Speaker of the House himself, which is very anomalous to to the way the US military and the US government operate. And it's very, very, very unpopular at home. Quite frankly, it's the least popular war in the history of of our country.
Speaker 0: I mean, clearly, something else that's anomalous. I don't know whether we believe everything in that. Zulzburg and New York Times report on the events leading up to the assassination of Khamenei and members of his family, including his grandchild. What did you, as a military man, make of the fact that Netanyahu was in the situation room, certainly during the planning of the assassination of Khamenei?
Speaker 1: So let me start with the assassination itself. I woke up early that Saturday morning on March 1, and looked over at my phone, as is customary these days, and saw the news, and was absolutely sick to my stomach. That is indicative of an Israeli planning cycle. That is not the way that the US military and the US government operated historically. And in fact, assassinating foreign leaders goes back to to violate the the sixteen forty eight Cree of Westphalia.
Yeah. Pardon me. It's I'm
Speaker 0: said that. There we know about the assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, of course, from the Kennedy administration.
Speaker 1: Correct. There've been there there've been attempts to do so. Right? Usually. Right.
And there's a you know, the there there are instances where we haven't played necessarily above board or have been in the background doing different things. But to open an entire war and campaign by killing the the Ayatollah is is so beyond the pale. We made a martyr out of him out of the gate. And, you know, it's very clear that there was an an Israeli move to effectively bloody The United States and draw us deeper into this conflict. Because when you do such a thing, you not only remove the ability to negotiate state to state, followed by the, you know, the the 12 or so officials who've been assassinated since then, but you create essentially a a blood feud between the two countries.
I mean, any country on Earth can have a problem with The United States and and seek to undermine, you know, our leadership or or insert themselves in the political process. But if someone were to come in here and assassinate the president and then brag about it, you would undoubtedly galvanize the population around the regime you're trying to remove. It's just common sense, and it's human nature.
Speaker 0: I mean, what do you think Netanyahu has on Trump that millions of MAGA voters don't, let alone Megyn Kelly and Trump supporter like Tucker Carlson, who you met recently, you were on his show, and Candace Owen and the like. What what does Netanyahu have on Trump?
Speaker 1: I wish I knew, quite frankly. I mean, it must be a lot. But more to the point, you know, there are the Epstein files that are out there. I'm sure there's something in there that incriminates not only him, but any number of members of Congress. This was a long standing operation that clearly sought to cultivate influence.
It has all the markings of foreign intelligence agencies on the inside. But there's another arch of this, which is the influence of money inside the American political system. I've worked inside the US government. I worked on the senate in the senate foreign relations committee for a number of years. And there has always been a push to have a war with Iran.
This this predates the invasion of Iraq. It it was considered, I I mean, the the holy grail of neoconservative foreign policy in The United States. So over time, they very clearly co opted any number of members of Congress and the government, and placed them in high places. And we're seeing the fruits of that right now, quite frankly.
Speaker 0: I mean, so that's the foreign agent element of it. I don't know whether you saw Correct. The I mean, it's out in the open. I mean, the Financial Times had Hagset's broker looked at buying into defense fund in lead up to Iran attack. I mean, given that you were an adviser on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is it not Mhmm.
I mean, if we take away the millions killed, wounded, or displaced, at least isn't it nice there's some transparency about the corruption?
Speaker 1: It'd be a lot nicer if there was action behind it. And what you're seeing is is unfortunately a systemic breakdown all across the board, whether it's members of this administration getting rich left and right. That was a big, big, big part of the blanketed sanctions around the world. There was a couple instances where you had a direct line between investments by people on the inside, such as relatives of the president to sanction countries. And then once deals were agreed to in the private sector, those sanctions were released.
And I believe Vietnam is actually a very, very clear example of that. But you have to trace another thread here. The entire system in The United States is being run over at at record pace. The war in Iran itself was unconstitutional. We have a very strict process in The US, which has been watered down over time, unfortunately, to go to war.
That power is vested exclusively in Congress. It's Article one, Section eight. They have the power to make war, and in Article two, the president has the task of being the commander in chief, or repelling sudden attack, not attacking. And even if you take a look at the war powers resolution, which allows the executive branch to make a common sense decision should there be the imminent threat of hostilities, they can launch an attack for defensive reasons in order to defend our forces or our interests overseas. That didn't apply here.
No.
Speaker 0: Not that any
Speaker 1: We had negotiations going on.
Speaker 0: Not that any president has really abided by that. And, of course, even Trump had to use this phrase imminent perhaps as a nod to what you were just saying, but no one believed it. I mean, do you see all of this as a natural evolution of the Israeli takeover then of US national security after how you personally saw RFK junior change from anti war to pro genocide in Gaza? I mean, is this just a natural evolution over the past few months that we've been witnessing?
Speaker 1: It's longer in the past few months. And witnessing that that's that's why I resigned from the RFK campaign, was when he went on TV and equivocated the IDF's tactics in Gaza to the way that me and my fellow marines fought in Iraq. It's completely untrue. And that's there's it's very clear on that angle in particular that he somehow was beholden to a power outside of his campaign due to the fact that his fundamental tenant, which is one of the reasons I joined, was de escalation in Ukraine and bringing a war to that end. He was a no new wars kinda guy just like president Trump.
This is very indicative of a I wouldn't say a complete Israeli takeover of the government, but their influence is far outweighed by the interests of the American people. And that sentiment is being reflected in polling across The US right now. The question we have here is, we make a change going forward politically?
Speaker 0: Is it your understanding that RFK junior is still in the cabinet and colonel Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, feel it's more important to be on the inside and therefore exert some pressure, or that they too have been co opted by a foreign power, Netanyahu, and the Israeli government?
Speaker 1: I I I can't speak to that specifically. I don't talk to either one of them on a daily basis or really even at all anymore. But what I can say is that someone like Tulsi Gabbard has a tremendous track record of being on the right side of things, and I think it's a good thing that she's there. Maybe there is a chance that she can, you know, help control the damage and help direct the ship. But what I do know is that access is very restricted in the White House to the president.
He has been walled off by certain interests who, in effect, have created an echo chamber of their ideas and how to do things. And that's very dangerous. And you really see it in the conduct of this war. Nobody that I know who has served in the military or is still serving in the military thought this a was a good idea, or b, that we're going about it the right way if we wanna win. It seems all very slapped together.
We're targeting the wrong things, and we don't have a justification. And we don't have a justification, you don't have a will to fight. The the evidence of that can be shown in the instances with the USS Ford out at sea, where they were sabotaging the range ship on the way to the Persian Gulf. And there's a number of reasons that could have happened. You know, they've been at sea for effectively a a record period of time, and I've
Speaker 0: I've been to for
Speaker 1: a while. Mean, go ahead.
Speaker 0: We don't know about the sourcing exactly. Just remind us. I mean, what a load they set fire to the laundry on the aircraft carrier.
Speaker 1: Well, it actually started before that. You know, the there's a big question about whether or not that was due to hostile fire or a bad product put out by our military industrial complex. But on the way back to the Mediterranean from Venezuela, these guys these guys, so to run this all the way back, they set out to sea a number of months ago, close to a year ago, and floated across the Atlantic into the Mediterranean to support operations off of Israel, and to help defend Israel and the region during the the Operation Midnight Hammer last June. They were then called back to America and participated in the raid which captured Maduro. They were overdue for a home visit at that point, but were once again ordered back to the Persian Gulf to support the buildup for what what turned out to be a war on Iran.
On the way there, there were numerous verified reports that the laundry system or not the laundry system, the sewage system, and the toilets onboard ship were being clogged by crew members left and right. Every time they cleared it, they would do it again. That is not something that I've I've experienced in the US military at all. You know, you you may not exactly be happy about being away from home, but you're not deliberately trying to undermine your own mission. That's a that's a step above.
Speaker 0: Jim Webb, I'll stop you there. More from the former senior foreign policy adviser to Robert f Kennedy junior after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with Robert f Kennedy junior's former senior foreign policy adviser James Webb. James, at the end of part one, you were talking about the strange stories emanating from one multibillion dollar aircraft carrier.
I understand USS George h w Bush is having to sail a long way around to get to the theater regardless of where the conflict stands at the time of this broadcast. I mean, is that because they understand the vulnerability of these massive I don't know how much it costs. A trillion dollars? The the USS George Many billions. Bush.
Do they see the US Navy as very vulnerable even against a country that, according to Trump, has been completely demilitarized?
Speaker 1: They do. So one thing to really put into the equation here are the advancements in drone technology and anti ship missile capabilities, really missile capabilities across the board. You've seen the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese have put a lot of money into the research and development of particularly anti ship missiles and ballistic missiles generally. I and the US Navy has taken note of that. And one thing that we do not have in our military right now is a consistent ability to defend against these types of systems.
So really the only way to be completely safe is to have what you call standoff distance. The tremendous amount of distance away from the shoreline where these can be launched, And it very much limits the operational capability of the planes coming off those carriers, because they're designed for a mission where they could get in a lot closer, and that's no longer possible. So it's I don't think it's exactly Iranian capabilities, but it would be the capabilities that they have passed off to say to Houthi and other other elements around the region that pose a threat to to our ships.
Speaker 0: And I suppose it's well known that there's a degree of corruption in the procurement military procurement system that matches perhaps the the corruption in congress. What does it actually mean then for the future of US national security that you can have anti war personnel like, well, the president before he was elected, RFK junior who you worked for, JD Vance, Tulsi Cabot. They can all be in the cabinet, and somehow they can all take orders from a foreign power, and only Joe Kent resigns. What what does that signal for the future of US national security? And I should say it's bipartisan because similar choices were taken during the Biden administration, obviously.
Speaker 1: Correct. I mean, you could actually go as far back as Barack Obama to take a look at that. He was an anti war candidate who promised to completely remove us from Iraq and to end the war in Afghanistan. You saw a partial withdrawal from Iraq, and then you saw a surge into Afghanistan under his under his administration. And it's a it's a very confusing thing for a voter, for a veteran such as myself, and for policy professionals who would really like to see a reorientation of our foreign policy away from force, and back to diplomacy where we build relationships and focus on trade.
So the the confusing thing would be to see the drift. And previously, what you had was an over rationalization of why this is happening. It's like, well, perhaps the rise of ISIS, you know, actually is a problem that needs to be taken care of. Maybe we can hammer the Taliban into submission, so and we trust this guy. You flash forward to today, a lot of people are very much taking note out in public.
The the American public has very much had enough of these wars of choice and wars of aggression. So moving forward, I think we're gonna hopefully see a changing of the guard inside both parties. If you look at the polling data, people my age and younger in particular are extremely negative about our relationship with Israel. They have never liked these wars. I mean, we've been the ones out there fighting.
And what ends up happening is when you have people like Joe Kent, who I have the utmost respect for, who finally get into you finally have a peer who gets into a position where he can make an impact, and then you see he's minimized. And then he is forced to resign and protest because he, with his expertise and his life experience, can't make an impact. You know, that's a it's a huge wake up call to everybody else. And I'm hoping that we are at a a fulcrum a where we can actually start applying, you know, that mindset and understand that we are being blocked out of a blocked out effectively through a glass ceiling, come together and and make a change.
Speaker 0: Joe Kent, of course, the former Trump head of counterterror who Trump then later said didn't know anything about the national security. But then that does that mean that even under the Trump administration, let alone in the next generation or the president after Trump, The US troops will leave this region, certainly. We don't know about, NATO. I mean, there are headlines about NATO struggling to survive even in so called mainstream media. There's The New York Times.
NATO struggles to survive. Trump directs anger at allies because they didn't jump in to assist. Are we gonna see the policies that you wanted enacted perhaps under a Kennedy presidency enacted? They will leave this region, the troops, and troops from Europe.
Speaker 1: We'll see. So there's there's both. There's the intentional, and then there's the unintentional consequences of how our president right now is acting. He could have very intentionally fulfilled his campaign promises, and I still hope he does because removing troops from the Middle East is a key component of the Iranian asks in these negotiations. And if he wants to have any kind of political viability heading into the midterms, it would be a very good move for him to withdraw our troops, and effectively in Trump style declare victory whether or not if that's actually the case.
The unintended consequences are how he's running around like a bull in a China shop, insulting our allies left and right. And NATO is actually preparing for a a future without us. If you go over to Asia, the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the Australians among other countries who are treated allies of The United States are struggling mightily economically due to his actions in The Middle East. And particularly the the blockade of the blockade in Hormuz, but Hormuz being effectively closed. You know, this impacts their their economies just in ways that the American population cannot comprehend.
We've got $5 or $6 gas here now. But when you're taking a look at a place like Australia where they only have a number of days before they have to ration their fuel, you know, this is gonna force their leadership and leaders around the region to take a different look about who they associate with in order to maintain the stability of their own societies. So could we see the intentional removal of US troops and a realignment? I would hope so. I would hope so, and it would be for the right reasons.
That we need to focus on other things, stop spending money, and stop launching worse choice. But should we continue on this continued trajectory, there may be an unintended consequence where we are left alone with the bag in our hand trying to figure out a way forward. And the ramifications of that could run all the way up to and include the US dollar no longer being the global currency, which would be catastrophic for for The United States and including the the future of my kids.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The petrodollar, of course, another dimension to this. But I know that you've described previously a kind of class system that is the power dynamic here. Just describe how it works that the rest of America, children of veterans on one side, and then these powerful oligarchs and the dynamic between them. Because, I mean, in a way, you've expressed in this interview a certain optimism about certain polling numbers that show The United States people do want America first.
They don't want Israel first. Mhmm. How does that class system work and function? And how is it that, you're hopeful that the ordinary American, the working classes of America can can get their country back?
Speaker 1: So first, I I have to state that I prefer to always look on the sunny side of life to quote Monty Python. You know, it's despite my own private cynicism about things. But the cast system we have here, or the class system, is unspoken. But it it shows up in the data. I'm a third generation in a row marine.
My family can trace their lineage fighting in American wars going back to French and Indian. It's what we do. We're citizen soldiers. It comes out of the American tradition of having a militia.
Speaker 0: You got to work for American royalty in fairness,
Speaker 1: Kennedy. I did. I did. I mean, my dad was, you know, my dad and my mom were the first college graduates on on, you know, out of our family. My dad's family's been here since the sixteen hundreds.
My mom's family came over from Eastern Europe at the turn of the twentieth century. So but they used the military to elevate themselves out, and really what you have with my dad and myself is what happens when you get a hillbilly an education. But the fact is is that you don't have the kids without the draft here, it's all voluntary, you don't have the kids of people who are in power or who are well moneyed at risk when they make these decisions. It's always somebody else's kids who go. And I spoke about this a little bit before through the Spectre of Joe Kent, and I think that's a really good way to take a look at it.
Where if you garner life experience, and you pay your dues, and you implement policy, and you have a brain, and you want to get into positions of power, you had better echo the sentiments of those on top. And not to throw a tremendous amount of shade at a guy like J. D. Vance, but you see exactly that with him. You know, he he is from the working class, but his perspectives are not as such.
And he seemed to abandon those along the way, and lo and behold he ends up vice president of The United States. What we need to have here is a full return to a meritocracy, where it's about what you do, about who you are as a human being, and about the fact that you represent the views of your fellow citizens. And without that, we can we can't have a truly functioning representative government in this United States. And I will say I'm optimistic for the first time in a long time, despite how badly things are going, that people are finally starting to really see that. A lot of people that I know voted for Trump.
But if you look at the data, the people who voted for Trump also voted for Obama. They want change. There is a number of white working class districts all over The United States that you can take a look at that voted for Bush, then Obama, and then Trump. Because they were tied into the initial messaging of no more foreign wars, and that America would be put first. And another important asterisk to put on that data is that encompasses all of the highest casualty counties in America from the global war on terrorism.
So the people want it. The question is, will we find a way to leverage people with experience coming up from those those classes, which is fully in the American tradition up to this point, and to step forward and once again lead this country?
Speaker 0: Well, just finally then, let's talk about the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Kane, four star general. I mean, you've compared the assassination of Khamenei to assassinating the Pope during Lent. And, of course, there's been no apology for the mass killing of schoolgirls at Benab School from The United States. What do you make of Dan Cain and how he manages to still be in position and doesn't feel that the orders he's taking from his commander in chief are not only illegal, but immoral? Well, I'd
Speaker 1: like to start with, you know, it's been US policy, at least during my experience up to and including my experience, which didn't end all that long ago, that when there is a an accident on the battlefield, you generally like, not generally. I was never around the deliberate killing of civilians ever. And I was I fought in some very violent violent areas to include Ramadi, Iraq at the height of the insurgency. And the like, bad things happen, and it pains any member of the military to see somebody who is caught in the middle of one of these conflicts have to pay for it. It's it's absolutely heartbreaking because they want nothing to do, generally speaking, with either side of it.
But the targeting of that girl's school and the lack of apology is absolutely abhorrent in in my opinion. It's it's beyond any type of logical, you know, thing that I could think of. And what you have on the back end of it is actually defiance about it. They they ignore it, and they they say, oh, well, bad things happen in war. But, you know, that does not build a rapport with anybody in the other country, nor does it around the world.
It's such a horrible example, and quite frankly, it stains the honor of the people who fight fight these wars. You know, my peers, who are who are all, to to my knowledge, very, very good people wanting to do the right thing on behalf of their country. Now one thing I hope with King is that that he is hoping once again, like Tulsi Gabbard, that he can manage this process to a conclusion. If you go back to some of the articles prior to the emergence of hostilities, a lot of his sentiments just somehow ended up in the media. Where and they were pretty negative, you know, speaking to in effect, how we don't want this war, and we're really probably not prepared to go fight it.
And that's a big statement, generally speaking. However, you know, it's I I I'm sure his conscience is pretty heavy right now, and he's probably weighing a couple different things. And really what it comes down to is, you know, whether or not he thinks him being in the room to to guide this into a position which does minimal harm to The United States and the soldiers out there doing it versus does he need to make a statement in order to bring this to a close? Because if he did resign over this, it would be a massive splash.
Speaker 0: Well, no no sign of him resigning yet. But Jim Webb, thank you. Not at all.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: That's it for the show. Our continuing 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 on Iran. 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 Going Underground episode, I argue the US is losing the war on Iran and that the US empire is in decline. I explore why Israel has become a threat to US national security, what’s next for the US empire, and Americans at home.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ US Losing the War on Iran Shows the US Empire is in DECLINE- Lt. Col. William J. Astore Why has Israel become a threat to US national security? Why is the US losing against Iran? What's next for the US empire, and Americans at home? All this and more on this episode of Going Underground with 20-year US Air Force Veteran Lt. Col. William J. Astore
Video Transcript AI Summary
Afshan Rutansky presents Going Underground from the UAE, noting that seven weeks into the US-Israel war in Iran, the region faces continuing conflict and hardship. She claims the war began with Trump and Netanyahu assassinating Iran’s leader and his family, leading to millions killed, wounded, or displaced in Iran and Lebanon, and global disruption of fuel and petrochemical supplies. She marks Iran’s National Army Day, noting a traditional military parade and speech, but says this year’s observance comes after the US threatened to destroy Iran’s civilization in one night, and after a claimed “fake” Trump blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. She asserts adversaries of the US government have gained through destruction of US power and preferential pricing, citing visits of regional leaders to China and Moscow following visits by UAE’s MBZ and the Malaysian king.
She introduces Bill Astoria (twenty-year US Air Force veteran, former professor of history, author of several works on militarism) from Yarmouth, Massachusetts, and asks why he says Iran has “won this war on Iran.” Astoria responds that while Iran may not have definitively won yet, the United States is losing the war because its stated rationales—regime change, nuclear threat elimination, destroying ballistic missiles—have not been achieved. He argues Iran is more unified and a bigger world player than before, while the US and Israel have failed to meet their war aims. He suggests long-term consequences indicate the United States is in decline, including unsustainable Pentagon spending (citing proposed rises to approximately $1.5 trillion plus $500 billion in the next fiscal year) and the war used to justify this expansion. From Iran’s perspective, he says, there is no imminent existential threat from Iran; rather, the existential threat is perceived to come from nuclear-armed Israel and America.
Rutansky raises a Financial Times headline about Goldman Sachs clients benefiting from Iran diversion and “military Keynesianism” returning as a driver for wealth, implying the defense budget primarily enriches the rich oligarchy. Astoria counters that the American public mainly experiences propaganda, noting a 50% budget increase framed as defense, and calls the Pentagon budget a department for perpetual war rather than true defense. He contends Trump’s rhetoric and actions reveal a shift toward imperial aims, and points to multiple operations in places like Venezuela, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Cuba, and Greenland. He also notes that diplomacy has been undermined by prior bombings and assassinations, reducing Iran’s trust in US negotiations.
The conversation touches on the notion that Trump’s antiwar appeal was undermined by a militarized approach; Astoria stresses that military Keynesianism will not revive America and may increase authoritarianism and domestic repression, including harsher homeland security measures and militarized policing. He asserts Trump is a culmination of a warrior mentality in US policy, and that the Pope’s recent rejection of the war represents a related moral stance.
Discussing Israel’s role, Astoria claims Israel poses a national security threat to the US in a nuanced way, suggesting Israeli influence over US foreign policy—particularly regarding Iraq, Iran, and the broader Middle East—casts doubt on whether Israel is a true friend to the United States. He argues the Ukraine war has faded from front-page coverage in US media, with continued support for Ukraine framed as necessary by American outlets.
Toward the end, the host asks about censorship and media control; Astoria agrees that censorship is increasing as the conflict persists, noting that mainstream coverage emphasizes antiseptic imagery while omitting civilian casualties. He predicts more suppression of antiwar voices as the public becomes more aware of the war’s costs. The program closes with thanks to Astoria and a note that future guests will include a former Iraq War veteran now advising Robert Kennedy Jr. and working in Trump’s cabinet.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Afshan Rutansky, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from a UAE, which has continued to promote peace and dialogue amidst The US Israeli war in Iran that began seven weeks ago today. It started when Trump and Netanyahu assassinated Iran's leader with his son and daughter-in-law and grandchild. It has now morphed into more than three million killed, wounded, or displaced Iranians and a further one and a quarter million killed, wounded, or displaced Lebanese. Billions have been pushed into hardship as supply of resources like fuel and the petrochemical chain have been globally strangled by Trump and Netanyahu. And today is Iran's National Army Day.
Traditionally, that means a military parade and speech from the president. This year, it comes days after the president of The United States threatened to destroy Iran's entire civilization in one night. And in a week of a fake Trump blockade of Iran along the Strait Of Hormuz that only NATO nation propaganda media believed was actually being enforced, the reality is, of course, that adversaries of the USA government have won through a combination of destruction of US power and preferential prices. Taiwanese politicians preceded the crown prince of Abu Dhabi for visits to China. Indonesia's president Subianto was in Moscow after this year's visits there by The UAE's MBZ and the King of Malaysia.
It seems that the best funded military in the world striking Iran more than 40,000 times together with the nuclear armed Israel that just committed genocide in Gaza was no match for 10,000 year old Iran. Joining me from Yarmouth in Massachusetts is twenty year US Air Force veteran, former professor of history at Pennsylvania College of Technology, and author of American Militarism on Steroids, the Military Industrial Complex, Unbounded, Uncontained, and Undemocratic, retired lieutenant colonel Bill Astoria. Thank you so much, colonel, for coming on going underground. As I said, it's Iran's army day today regardless of the possible escalation of Trump's blockade against de facto China, the Pakistani renewed negotiations. Why have you said that Iran has won this war on Iran?
Obviously, when people in the New York Times say that, Trump immediately tweets out his hatred of the relevant journalists. But why have you said Iran won? The war on Iran?
Speaker 1: Well, I right. Well, I'm not sure Iran has has won quite yet, but it certainly is the case that my country, The United States, has been losing this war. When you when you think about well, you know, part of the confusion with this war is that there were so many different rationales that my country put forward for this war, so many different reasons, whether it was regime change, the elimination of the nuclear threat from Iran, if it's just destroying ballistic missiles, and so on, and none of that has been accomplished. So the war aims that my country says are the reasons why we went to war, those have not been achieved in the slightest. Meanwhile, Iran itself is more unified than ever, and is a bigger world player now than it was before my country, along with Israel, attacked it.
So we don't know what's going to happen, obviously, in the immediate future. But right now, I'd say very much so that Iran is winning.
Speaker 0: And so as a historian, you see long term consequences for the actions of, Trump and Netanyahu, whatever happens.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. Right. I mean, it right now, we don't know what those long term reactions are. But I but I can say that I see this as another sign that my country, The United States, is in further decline. And we see this because of the enormous amount of money that we are expending on the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.
You know, I thought a trillion dollars for the Pentagon was obscene, But now we're talking about 1,500,000,000,000, another 500,000,000,000 more in the next fiscal year. And one of the ways that we're justifying that is, of course, this war with Iran, which there was no reason for it. Iran pulls no imminent threat to The United States. Certainly no existential threat. From the Iranian perspective, it's nuclear armed Israel and nuclear armed America that poses an excess a potential existential threat.
So the long term consequences of of this, well, to to be determined. But for me, it's witnessing the decline of the American empire and the decline of democracy in my country. And it and it deeply saddens me to see this because this war against Iran is another unconstitutional war. It's a lawless war.
Speaker 0: Yeah. If we put law to one side, alas, there's a headline here in the Financial Times, Goldman clients glad for Iran diversion. That's Goldman Sachs. Could you be seeing it wrongly in some in one way, which is this is actually business as usual? This is recycling.
The the military Keynesianism is back with a vengeance. What you were saying about a bloated defense budget is actually amazing for the rich oligarch class of your country, some of which will trickle down to the poor and the masses in your country. And this is actually business as usual, and it needed a kick start after the failed wars of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Speaker 1: What really trickles down to the American people is is unfortunately not not money, more on the lines of propaganda. So, yeah, in a way, it's it's business as usual, but it's war business that even more extreme. And so, you know, we're used to Pentagon budgets continuing to increase. But that increase has been, you know, maybe $40,000,000,000 here, maybe a 100,000,000,000, so anywhere from, like, five to 10%. Now we're talking about a 50% increase in America's military budget.
And this is a budget very much deployed for imperial purposes to dominate the world. It's not a defense budget. The one thing I'll give Trump and and Hagstad is at least they're honest about calling it the war department now, because that is exactly what it is. It's it's a department for perpetual war around the world. And we're seeing this right now, I mean, not just in Iran, but, I mean, I can't I've lost track of the number of countries that that that president Trump has struck in the last year or two, whether it's Venezuela, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen.
And now we're turning our attention to Cuba. He wants to dominate and seize Greenland. I mean, there's just no end to the appetite of the American empire.
Speaker 0: But then do you perceive there the the roots of how Trump has changed his opinion on eternal war then, elected, of course, as he was as a antiwar president, that now he realizes fully that, a combination of the petrodollar with this, military Keynesian idea of policy is the way to improve the fortunes of The United States as it lags behind China on on a on a international GDP, PPP scale.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, if he thinks that, he's exactly wrong. Because when he was running again for for the president, I think he he got a lot of support from people who are simply Americans who are tired of these wasteful, wanton, expensive, and disastrous wars. I mean, we need if if we're looking for American revival, so called military Keynesianism is not going to revive America at all. All it does is is increase the authoritarianism in our country, and also probably, at some point, going to generate blowback here in The United States.
I mean, we already see here in my country the expansion of homeland security, the execution of Americans in the streets just for exercising their constitutional right, to as freedom of speech. And, you know, this is just when when you see the way in which our our country has changed over the last twenty, twenty five years, you know, I I see, you know, militarized police. I see MRAPs, which were those big mine resistant armor protected vehicles developed for the Iraq war. Now they're police vehicles being used to intimidate Americans in the street. So not only are we exporting war abroad, we're bringing it home to our own streets.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: And you've written about the fact that this singling out of Trump as being a outlier is arguably not the right way to comprehend this situation. It was a long time coming, and Trump is merely one man in a long line of presidents that have overseen this.
Speaker 1: Oh, sure. Yeah. I mean, Trump Trump is the culmination, so to speak, of of this whole warrior mentality, the idea of military lethality as something that America, you know, should be proud of. Now I remember a time when America was known, at least to a certain extent, for democracy, diplomacy. Now we know from American history, you know, we have a lot of, you know, sad and tragic chapters in our past.
America has has been a country made by war. But nevertheless, you know, I think there were times, certainly during the Cold War, I'd like to think so, when I was serving in the US Air Force, where we were helping to maintain a certain amount of, democracy and freedom of speech and and rights of
Speaker 0: That's the great thing, though, isn't it? With Trump, we get the transparency rather than needing historians to say that even when you were in the Air Force, not all was the way we were being told about those wars.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. I true. I mean, Trump Trump is very scrutable. You know, he comes right out and and says he wants to eliminate the entire Iranian civilization, which is completely unhinged and reprehensible.
And I, you know, I was very glad to see recently that the pope of the has come out in the Catholic church here in The United States has said that this is an unjust war, and it needs to stop. And and, yeah, I was raised Roman Catholic. And often, the Roman Catholic church has been very careful not to take positions against wars. You know, it is really encouraging to me to see the pope speak so plainly and so bluntly that this we should be heading toward peace, not perpetual war.
Speaker 0: But, of course, vice president J. D. Vance ended up lecturing the pope bizarrely. And, of course, he is a Catholic.
Speaker 1: Right. But the but but JD Vance has no understanding of of Catholicism in the sense of you know, Vance was basically saying, hey hey, pope, you know, do not do not talk about war and morality. Well, what is the Catholic church for? I mean, we have we have a commandment against thou shalt not kill. You know, Jesus taught us to love thy neighbor.
He didn't teach us to go, you know, carpet bomb your neighbor or to or to assist Israel in a genocide in Gaza. You know, this is this is totally inconsistent with with with Catholicism and with Christianity and with Islam as well.
Speaker 0: Come to think of it, you mentioned Pete Hegseth a little earlier. I don't know whether you've sent your book American Militarism on Steroids to him to make him perhaps understand why the war hasn't gone along the lines he said it would at those Pentagon briefings?
Speaker 1: Right. Right. No. I I didn't send my my book to him. It's it's it's a good great idea.
I'm I'm not sure that Pete Hegseth is open to that kind of a reason. He's he's very much, in a way, stuffed shirt. You know? He he takes pride in his toughness as he perceives it. He sees a sort of military posturing in doing push ups, getting into, you know, tough physical shape.
This is something that Hegseth associates with with his vision of a of a lethal military. But that's not what military is for. I mean, at least the United States military, we are dedicated to defending, supporting The US constitution and and the laws of the land and the freedoms that that we enjoy as American citizens. And so the idea that that this is something advanced through lethality and warriors around the globe prosecuting wars, this this is completely nonsensical and antithetical to the ideas of the founders. I mean, here in America, we're celebrating our two hundred and fiftieth anniversary this year.
And all of this is about declaring our independence from the wars of kings like King George the third and fighting for the rights, you know, the idea of equal rights, even though obviously we didn't we didn't come up with the perfect constitution and the perfect country in 1776. Nevertheless, we were on the right track. And and now, you know, we're very much off that track.
Speaker 0: Colonel Miller's story, I'll stop you there. More from the twenty year US Air Force lieutenant colonel after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the twenty year US Air Force lieutenant colonel and former professor of history, colonel Villa Storey. Colonel, we were talking about Hegsept towards the end of part one.
I know he has his daily prayer meeting. Probably not the same god as Netanyahu's. Although Netanyahu isn't very religious, is he? Do you believe then that Israel is a greater national security threat to The USA right now than Russia, China, or Iran?
Speaker 1: Wow. Yeah. That's a that that's an interesting question. I I certainly think that Israel and the and the and the influence that it has in the United States government, and the way in which this war, with Iran is very much to a to a certain extent, I'd say to a large extent, orchestrated by Israel and Netanyahu. I would say Israel does pose threat to US national security.
I mean, not in not in the way that we think. Right? I mean, we tend to think as an American military officer, you tend to think of threats as a country attacking you. Right? So Russia has nuclear weapons.
Russia could conceivably attack The United States and wipe out most of our country with those nuclear weapons. We deter Russia with our own nuclear arsenal. And so in that sense, Russia, because they're sane people, as as Sting once saying as as Sting once saying, the Russians love their children too, you know, which is something he got into a lot of trouble in back in the nineteen eighties. You know, we can deter Russia. We can deter China in whatever threats those nations may pose.
But the Israeli threat is more subtle. It's it's more insidious in the sense that we see Israel, or at least many people see Israel, as as America's greatest ally. That Israel is friendly to The United States. Yet when you stop and think about the amount of influence that Israel exercises over US foreign policy, particularly in The Middle East, when you look at the Iraq war, when you look at the Iran war, and you see the extent to which these wars are being fought for Israeli imperatives, you know, then you have to sit back and you have to question, is Israel really a friend to The United States? And I would say that we here in The United States need to well, we need to look at that very closely.
Speaker 0: I mean, clearly polls show that there's greater and greater recognition by ordinary Americans that that is the that is the case. You mentioned Russia, actually. I mean, when this war is over and perhaps when the war in Cuba is over, who knows, how is it being covered, the Ukraine conflict, do you feel as perhaps the world turns back to the war in Europe after the ending of this war in West Asia? Do you think people have got a fair opinion and fair understanding of that war?
Speaker 1: Right. Right. Well, you know, it's it's funny. The the the war in in Ukraine has largely left the front page of of American media coverage. So, you know, I I take a look at my mainstream media sources.
And obviously, most of it's about the Iran war. The genocide in in I mean, just to say, you know, the genocide in Gaza has left our our mainstream media. It's left the front page. So I I hear very little about the Ukraine war now. The the basic coverage here in The United States is that Ukraine is holding its own against Russia, and that Ukraine continues to deserve the support, the military support and financial support of of The United States.
That is the message that that we we're getting here, at least in in the mainstream media.
Speaker 0: I suppose there might be a return to it afterwards. I was actually sort of getting at the root of why The United States was subsidizing the war in the first place to such an extent, billions and billions of dollars. As as Trump said when he was inaugurated, in fairness, Trump did start some kind of negotiation process. However however, it failed.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. Well, as as as Trump, you know, memorably boasted that if he was reelected, which he was, he was confident he could win he he could end the Russia Ukraine war in a day. Obviously, that that did not happen. And and that is, you know, the the the type of negotiations that we need to end the the Russia Ukraine war.
Well, it's very difficult for The United States to have any kind of significant role in them because we are obviously biased. We've been supporting Ukraine with weapons. Those weapons have have and intelligence. Those weapons have killed tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Russian troops. So how is Russia supposed to see us as any kind of a of a disinterested, you know, diplomat.
You know, they don't. You know? And so whatever efforts that Trump has put forward so far have completely failed. Just as our efforts with with Iran, you know, when you have our secretary of war, Hecsat saying that diplomacy is all about bombing, well, you can't have real diplomacy. You know, why should Iran trust The United States when we've already betrayed them twice with negotiations?
Speaker 0: Are you are you surprised about that? Go. Are you surprised that they have gone as far as trusting The United States for negotiations in Pakistan in the first place given their experience of previous negotiations ending with bombing and assassination.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, I don't I don't think they trust us at all. And I I wouldn't I wouldn't blame them. I mean, I don't I don't trust the news coming out of my my own government. So why should Iran trust, diplomats?
I I mean, we don't even send diplomats. We send Trump's, son-in-law, and we send a friend of Trump and a real estate developer. So we don't even rely on the professionals within our own state department. But I I think Iran is being prudent. You know, Iran is recognizes, I think, as sane people do, that that that diplomacy is better than a forever war of where, you know, tens and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people may end up dead.
What's so worrisome here is that, you know, we Americans and and our president, doesn't matter if it's Trump or previous presidents, they all talk about short wars. They all talk about mission accomplished moments. Oh, yes. The war will be over in in a few weeks, maybe a few months. I mean, we we heard the same kind of rhetoric in in during the Vietnam War that once we sent troops in 1965, that war would be over once American troops hit the ground.
Well, that war stretched for another ten years, and we ended up losing that war. So this is always the rhetoric. And what I worry about the Iran war is that, yes, we'd like to think the war will be over soon, but we also thought the Russia Ukraine war was going to be over in a matter of weeks or months. And now it's more than four years. I I, you know, perish the thought that the Iran War could last a year or two or three.
It would catapult the world into something like a great depression.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, the financial press is already I mean, given the IMF and World Bank are usually wrong in their forecast. Maybe it's good news, they said this week, but, global economic outlook darkens. It's all over the so called mainstream, corporate media of, NATO nations. Are you surprised there is a more organized opposition now to US policy given the, you know, the Strait Of Hormuz is capitalism's greatest choke point, And, basically, The United States has threatened it, has threatened everyone on Earth with their war.
Speaker 1: Right. Right. But I would expect to see more organized resistance as as the ripple effects from the from the closing of the strait, whether they be, you know, the lack of oil or the lack of fertilizer, inflation, you know, higher prices, and so on. I think you'll definitely witness that. I mean, I I suppose the the, one of the few reasons for optimism is that president Trump's always boasting about the performance of the stock, you know, the stock market under his watch.
So maybe if if stocks start to plummet again, you know, the president may come to his senses as a besotted capitalist and and actually, you know, commit to some real diplomacy. You know, we shall see.
Speaker 0: Maybe maybe some of those military stocks are indestructible, who knows, as the war continues. But I've gotta ask then about something else you might find optimistic is that over the years since you began writing on these matters and working on these matters, clearly, there is way more recognition amongst the American people of the arguments you've been making. This is an unpopular war across The United States and across all classes. Do you think the military industrial complex will, respond to failure in this war with more censorship and media censorship? Because clearly, the message of the military industrial complex is not getting through to the working classes of The United States anymore.
They are believing you over believing what Fox News says.
Speaker 1: Right. Yes. The short answer is yes. I think we're already seeing more censorship. You know, I I've written before about how Americans are kept isolated from the cost of war.
So what what we tend to see here when we turn on the news is is a lot of video game footage of war. You know, we don't see, you know, a 165, 175 slaughtered Iranian school girls. We don't see any coverage about that. What we see is is American Tomahawk missiles, or we see, you know, laser guided bombs or GPS guided bombs hitting their targets. And it's all an antiseptic video game.
But I think we're beginning to recognize that this war is just going to continue to to be a disaster for us. We're seeing it in the various cuts to domestic services here in The United States. Now whether or not, you know, that will galvanize some kind of an anti war or protest movement here in my country, that very much remains to be seen. But as you said, I think the response of the of the deep state or the military industrial complex is going to be more and more censorship.
Speaker 0: Colonel Astoria, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Afshan.
Speaker 0: That's it for the show. Our thoughts are with all those bereaved by the Israeli US war here in West Asia. On Monday, we'll be speaking to another Iraq war combat veteran who is senior adviser to Robert Kennedy junior now in Trump's cabinet. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media if it's not censored in your country, and head to our channel, going underground TV on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of going underground. See you Monday.
reSee.it AI Summary
I cover a new Going Underground episode with Avraham Burg about Iran, the US and Israel, Netanyahu’s perceived failures, whether he’ll drag Trump into war, keep wars alive to dodge prison, and how Israel’s attack on Iran could spur a regional nuclear arms race.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ IRAN WON AGAINST THE US & ISRAEL, Netanyahu is a FAILURE- Ex-Israeli Acting President Avraham Burg Will Netanyahu drag Trump back into the war on Iran? Will Netanyahu keep his wars raging to continue avoiding prison? How will Israel’s attack on Iran fuel nuclear armament across the region? All this and more on this episode with @Avrumburg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground, opening with a claim that Dubai was hit harder by Iranian retaliation than anywhere else in the region outside Israel, and noting this broadcast marks 73 years since the CIA’s MKUltra program. He frames the USA and what it represents as a malign influence, and argues the US propaganda system has failed to spin defeats in multiple wars, including the Iran conflict. He says the world recognizes Israel’s genocide in Gaza despite NATO attempts to shield it, and notes that US public opinion shows disapproval of Israel. Netanyahu is accused of tightly controlling the media and cracking down on protests.
Rutansi then welcomes Avram Berg (Israel’s former president, speaker in the Knesset, professor at NYU Abu Dhabi and Notre Dame Jerusalem) who speaks from Jerusalem. The discussion concentrates on the power dynamic between Netanyahu and Trump, and whether Netanyahu was surprised by Trump’s ceasefire declaration, plus how Netanyahu might retaliate if the ceasefire were sabotaged.
Speaker 1 (Avram Berg) characterizes the situation as highly serious and delicate. He suggests the war’s origins and triggers are unclear, describing a “divorce” in the relationship between Trump and Israel: Trump’s ceasefire move is seen as coordinated or at least not fully aligned with Israel. Berg notes Netanyahu has not publicly spoken yet, and might frame the ceasefire as coordinated with him, but he views the immediate outcome as neither side having real winners and sees Iran as having survived strongly. He suggests China is rising in the background.
Rutansi asks how secure Netanyahu is if the ceasefire persisted, recalling Israel’s aggressive actions in Lebanon after Trump’s ceasefire announcement and Trump’s retreat from conditions. Berg replies that politically, Israel has an election looming; the war was a strategic move for internal politics—Israelis rally around the government during wartime—yet Netanyahu may not gain politically from this round and could face backlash in upcoming elections. Berg also argues Netanyahu’s broader agenda—weakening Iran, disarming Hezbollah, and stopping Hamas—has failed across these fronts, leaving Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran still viable or intact.
The host probes whether Netanyahu needs a false flag or propaganda to counter what Trump’s supporters might claim. Berg distinguishes substance from rhetoric, noting Hezbollah in the north is a problem for Lebanon and Syria; Iran’s threat was real but not existential for Israel, and suggests diplomacy and balancing could have handled it better. Berg emphasizes that war without political settlement is wasteful and results in casualties across many sides.
Rutansi notes growing global hatred of Israel, while Berg refrains from embracing Hamas/Hezbollah as liberation movements, warning against falling into such narratives. Berg acknowledges global resentment of Israel but doubts a wholesale shift in allegiance toward Hamas or Hezbollah.
The host asks about Epstein-related intelligence rumors and Trump’s leverage. Berg dismisses Epstein-related conspiracy as gossip rather than serious political leverage, insisting on reasoning over sensationalism. He does acknowledge Epstein’s notoriety but rejects tying it to concrete policy influence.
When the discussion turns to nuclear weapons, Berg asserts Israel’s nuclear capability remains officially unacknowledged domestically, recounting past suppression of open debate on the topic. Berg argues that Iran’s perceived threats and regional rivalries push towards deterrence and urges a Middle East no-weapon agreement to reduce risk. He contends the broader regional security architecture must discourage all nuclear powers, including Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and neighboring states, with energy collaboration coupled with non-proliferation.
On whether Netanyahu would use a nuclear weapon to stay out of jail, Berg says no, arguing the strategic logic of nuclear use deters first use and that leaders know once a nuclear device is used, it invites retaliation. He views Netanyahu as unlikely to employ a nuclear weapon.
Rutansi closes, promising continued coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu-Iran dynamic, while Berg declines to dive into conspiracy theories, reiterating that discourse should be grounded in arguments, values, and policy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi, and welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting. All around the world from Dubai hit harder by Iranian retaliation than anywhere in the region outside Israel, at least at the time of this recording. Today is seventy three years since the CIA launched its covert mind control program, MK Ultra. And today, all the dreams of CIA chiefs lay in tatters as a whole world with a few criminal exceptions believes The USA and what it represents is a malign influence on the world. Its propaganda industry has previously been able to spin defeats in wars on Korea, Vietnam to Iraq and Yemen, but it can't spin its defeat in the war on Iran.
And if US empire is dying sped up after the thousands killed in Iran, then its agent Israel is in the crosshairs. The world recognizes Israel's genocide in Gaza despite all attempts by NATO leaders to disguise it. And The United States population, according to polls, does not like Israel. Propaganda is what Israelis are subjected to hourly. Netanyahu has succeeded in tightly controlling the media as he violently cracks down on protesters at home.
Joining me now from Jerusalem is Israel's former president professor Avram Berg was speaker in the Israeli Knesset. He teaches at NYU Abu Dhabi here in The UAE and at Notre Dame's Jerusalem campus. Professor, former acting president, thanks for coming on Going Underground. I mean, by the time this is being broadcast around the world, all sorts of things could have happened. The ceasefire that Trump so happily declared maybe in tatters.
But I suppose what we should really ask is what is the power relationship between Netanyahu and Trump? And was Netanyahu caught by surprise? And how would Netanyahu retaliate against Trump for suddenly declaring a end to hostilities, however brief it was?
Speaker 1: Well, I wish I had 10% of answers to all of your loaded questions. I mean, it is It's very very serious. It's it's a very delicate moment in the sense that at day one for this war that nobody really knows what were the real reasons, who triggered whom, who seduced whom, it looks like the couple is riding together towards a beautiful horizon, to use the language of the president. Now at the last day or at least the ceasefire of this round, it looks like a divorce. It's a divorce in which the husband, mister Trump, does not really pay attention to the needs and to the whines of his lover, Israel, and simply walked away and did whatever he likes without really consulting with Israel.
So the reaction is first Netanyahu, it is now something like twenty hours or I mean almost a day since the declaration of the ceasefire from Washington and Tehran, the Israelis did not yet hear from the Prime Minister. And it looks like he is looking for the right framing to say, I knew, I'm behind it, it's all coordinated with me. But this is all very, very hollow and very shallow. By the end of the day, when we finish this round in Iran and in the region, there are very few winners and very very exact losers. Israel is not a winner.
United States Of America is not a winner. Iran got it very strong but survived and therefore it won. And it looks to me like somewhere behind the mountains, China is rising.
Speaker 0: So I want to get on to that perhaps in a moment. But how secure then is Netanyahu, or would he be if the ceasefire continued? Clearly, he was able to slaughter so many in Lebanon in the hours after the Trump announcement of a ceasefire deal, Trump capitulating and going against what the Pakistani leaders were talking about, that Lebanon was part of the ceasefire deal. Trump retreated from that as he did loads of different issues. How secure is Netanyahu and his coalition?
Speaker 1: Secure you mean politically? Yeah. Politically, there is no issue. There are supposed to be elections by the end of the year here in Israel by the by the fall. And in a way, this war in the Gulf and this war with Iran was a competition between two end dates.
Trump had to end it and to finish it before it has an impact on the mid term elections. And therefore it should have been a very short exercise or or or a maneuver. And Netanyahu has to extend it as long as possible because he wants to go into elections in a state of war because Israelis when there is a state of war usually rally around the flag of the government and the flag of the prime minister. So the motivation of what is the role of the war for the internal politics was very difficult in American internal politics and the Israeli domestic one. It looks to me that as for now, Netanyahu did not profit a thing politically, internally, politically from this from this campaign.
Maybe lost a lot, and the next elections will show that the Israeli are fed up with both his manipulation, his tricks, his sticks, and his endurance. That's, if you ask me, the very last couple of months of his.
Speaker 0: So for him, the the motivator was to prevent him from going to prison for corruption charges, I suppose. So he is motivated to keep the war on Iran going as long as possible.
Speaker 1: It is a little bit more augmented than that. Yes he has a criminal trial that he has to attend as much as it tries to minimize it. It's very very strong and the case is mounting to something very very serious. He would like to come to the plea bargain or to the verdict, whenever will it come eventually, from the position of a Prime Minister. So yes, using the situation for his personal gain rather than for the collective good of the Israelis is almost his modus operandi, maybe even modus vivendia, I do not really know.
But it looks to me when you look at the three major missions he took upon himself and called each and every one of them a life mission, this is to bring Iran down, Iran with its nuclear threat and capabilities, to bring disarm disarm Hezbollah and obliterate Hamas. With all these three fronts, missions of his, he failed. Hamas is in place and regained power. Hezbollah was not obliterated a couple of months ago and is back to business and really harassing the northern part of Israel as well as Lebanon. And Iran survived this war.
So when you take all of this together with the mega projects that Netanyahu took upon himself, he is a failure. He is a failure and therefore I believe he will not be the next Prime Minister of Israel and he will have to face his own sentence very, very soon.
Speaker 0: So given all of that, if he needs American help to prolong any wars on Hamas, on Hezbollah, on Iran, I don't know how many other forces Israel has ranged against, Does he need a false flag essentially to counteract the propaganda from the truth socials of Donald Trump to try and push Trump back into war?
Speaker 1: Let's try to separate substance from hot air. Substance is that Hezbollah, the northern part of Israel, is a problem as an uncontrolled sub state militia is a problem for the Lebanese government, the way they say it, for the Israelis, and maybe even for the Syrians. I mean, the entire triangle of the Northern part of Israel should be troubled by existence and the kind of independence of Hezbollah and something is to be done about it. Iran was not, if you ask me, an existential threat to Israel. It was a real problem.
It was a real threat with the proxies and the fire and the fire built around Israel and the provocations all over The Gulf and all over the Middle East and and and and and and. It was not such an existential threat and could have been dealt differently by diplomacy, by agreements, by different equilibrium and balances. And last but not least, Hezbollah proved Hamas proved that 10/07/2023 that it is really very very very malicious and very criminal when it comes to their motivation to annihilate the state of Israel and to kill as many Israelis as possible. All these three are problems that Netanyahu believed. And unfortunately too many Israelis still believe that can be solved by muscles, by power, by military maneuvers without understanding the very ancient wisdom of war.
A war that does not have a next step which is political, which is agreement, which is a settlement, which is a kind of a no setting is a wasted war. And all the victims, be them Israelis or be them be them Lebanese or innocent Gaza people or innocent Iranian people are simply human sacrifice. It's a waste. It's a it's a shame.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And because of that, the whole world now hates Israel, and Hamas and Hezbollah are seen as liberation movements by a much wider section of the global population. Do you think there is
Speaker 1: I will not. I will I do not want I do not want to marry into this narrative. I understand the resentment that so many people around the world has against and towards Israel because I share the same resentment for my own government. But from here to go to fall in love with Hezbollah and Hamas, I'll say, hang on. Hold your horses.
Don't fall in love so easily.
Speaker 0: But they're seen as the only opponents on the ground fighting Israel. I mean, there any I would say Is there any recognition there of of what the Gaza genocide has meant for the future state of Israel, that it's not about the government of Israel per se that global opposition is
Speaker 1: to you? Unfortunately, no. Unfortunately, no. Unfortunately, a major part of the Israeli society, I do not know whether it's a majority or not a majority, but a major part of the Jewish element of the Israeli society either is indifferent to what happens to the poor Gaza people or justify it by any justification possible from October 7 and on. I say personally that the framing of so many Israelis is a wrong one.
Had a sense that whatever wrongs Israel did to the Palestinians from '48 and on, whatever wrongs we did, and we did a lot of it, does not justify the first step and the first atrocity performed by Hamas on October 7. And whatever atrocities and crimes against humanity done by Hamas to Israelis at that very horrific day does not justify Yes.
Speaker 0: But unfortunately, that's crimes
Speaker 1: the the war the war crimes that Israel performs ever since.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But more and more people around the world do not see it like that, and their hatred for Israel is so extreme. It's the other way. I mean, just to put this into perspective, just saying what you have been saying on this program so for so far makes you understand a bit of a target in Israel. How often are you on Israeli television to give your measured, as you see it, perspective on these recent events?
Speaker 1: First, I hear very carefully and very closely the criticism against Israel, but when I look at the politics of the world today, I'm not at all sure that this is such such a central political issue because the government in Italy, the government in Hungary, the government
Speaker 0: But we're talking about a genocide.
Speaker 1: No. Wait a second. You talk you said the majority of people do not like Israel, and unfortunately, vote governments that in a way support Israel. So the public opinion and the governments in the world are not the same. So let's be very clear about it.
Then you ask me how how much do I appear or how much my my views, mine and my friends' views are being expressed or or being being expressed at the Israeli media, I'll say not enough. Not enough. It's easier for a person like me to talk with you and then my remarks are being quoted back in Israel by the Israeli media rather than go directly to the media and say this is it. Nonetheless, whatever I publish in English or in French or in Italian, I publish in Hebrew. And I publish a lot and I write a lot and there is a support for it.
Is it yet a majority? The answer is no. But do I believe that the day will come very soon that the national strategy will change towards my direction? I've no doubt about it.
Speaker 0: Former Israeli president professor Avram Berg, I'll stop you there. More from the former acting president of Israel after this break. Welcome back to Going Underground. I'm still here with the former speaker of the Israeli Knesset and former acting president of Israel, professor Avrenberg. Professor, you were talking about a hopeful future out of this nightmare in Israel.
Can I just ask you what you thought of what many believe to be Epstein blackmail over Trump as regards the war in Iran and events in Gaza? How much credence do you give to the idea that Netanyahu is using Epstein propaganda, Epstein blackmail against Donald Trump to force him into foreign policy decisions?
Speaker 1: I love it as a gossip. I don't think it's a very serious stuff. And in Israel and the Israeli in a discourse, both the political and the general discourse, it's it's it's not an issue. It is not an issue. It's a dirty story.
And this Epstein guy and his collaborators, there were scums and he was a scum. He was a filthy human being. But is that a real political leverage of one against the other? Sounds to me far fetched in a very very good day. I do not live in a sphere of conspiracies and theories.
I live in a sphere of reasons and sphere of arguments and facts. And I don't like what my government is doing. I try to offer it an alternative reason, alternative logic. But to go beyond that about blackmail and pressures and files and this and that, leave it to the Americans. They love this stuff.
Speaker 0: But why it's interesting why it's interesting is, I mean, you're a former speaker at the Knesset, and you were a big supporter at the time. And I know you've changed your views now of the Oslo process. Mean, what was your reaction to the news and the revelations that Terjeord Larson received a $130,000 from Jeffrey Epstein? And when Epstein was killed or suicided in that cell in New York, beneficiaries of his will were the children of the Oslo agreement architect Thurge Rod Larsson. What was your reaction to that revelation?
Speaker 1: None. I tell you, I mean, I I love gossip. It's juicy. It is it's very makes like makes like life. But that
Speaker 0: handshake between Rabin and Arafat thirty three years ago was organized by someone whose children are benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein's money.
Speaker 1: Listen, I'm four thousand years Jew, okay? I'm a child and offspring of four thousand years of a civilization. You know how many conspiracies I have in mind? Can I tell you something Okay,
Speaker 0: no no, I understand the conspiracy theory allegation but why but what is the connection between the Oslo agreement, which you supported and which was a huge element of the history of the Palestine question? What on earth is the connection? I mean, why why I mean, and this is ongoing. It was just in the past couple of weeks that Larson's wife had to resign over the Epstein allegations
Speaker 1: I've not a diplomat. I mean, you can push you can push as much as you want. I'm not going this alley. I don't I don't walk this this street. Gave the guts money and did not get money?
Who paid whom? Who cares? We had an agreement discussed by negotiators, approved by the Knesset and by our parliament, voted by the public. I mean, what was behind if you know how many stories I can tell you about so many people? I can tell you about an airplane given to the American president by the somebody in The Gulf.
Is that the reason for something? No. It's stupid. It's ugly. It's not nice.
It's unethical. Is there a way I judge the Qataris or the Emiratis or or the Saudis and president Trump? The answer is no. I go for politics. Politics is about arguments.
It's about values. It's about positions. Not about gossip.
Speaker 0: Okay. I mean, should say that the chair of the Nobel Prize Committee, Thor Bjorn, is under investigation as well over Jeffrey Epstein allegations. I should I should also
Speaker 1: What can I what can I do? I mean, do you think that I'm in love with MBS for what it did to Khachugji? The answer is no.
Speaker 0: I'm not sure what the relevance of MBS. I don't know what the relevance there is.
Speaker 1: But will will that will that change my attitude toward the importance of MBS and Saudi Arabia to the well-being of the region? Not at all. It's so important. So you have story to every individual.
Speaker 0: This is the children of the Oslo agreement architect. Fine.
Speaker 1: Okay. So do something. Go to court.
Speaker 0: Alright.
Speaker 1: I give you the address of the next police station or travel to Norway. Issue a issue a complaint and call me later.
Speaker 0: Okay. I should just say the attorney general, obviously, Pam Bondi, has been fired. Many people believe that's also connected, so it's a very live issue. As regards to
Speaker 1: the war Not my not my monkey. Not my circus.
Speaker 0: And and you certainly knew nothing about Jeffrey Epstein?
Speaker 1: Didn't even know that he existed till stopped to exist.
Speaker 0: So let's get to what happens as regards nuclear weapons in the region. Is it now able to be talked about openly that Israel has nuclear weapons? It was only a couple of years ago I was doing interviews with, I don't know, Ehud Barak on this program, and I wouldn't be able to get an answer. Trump has admitted Israel has nuclear weapons. And I suppose I've got to ask, does the war mean that Iran, maybe, and other Gulf states, they are all going to have to get nuclear weapons?
Because Iran's Strait Of Hormuz shared with Oman is not enough. There is no deterrent for any country in this region unless it has nuclear weapons. And even if it does like Israel, it still gets attacked.
Speaker 1: In Israel, it is still not possible to talk openly about its nuclear capability. In 2013, I was one of the two people who led a seminar in Israel about calling for a Middle East clean and clear of weapons of mass destruction. And people issued complaints to the police against me and wanted to persecute me, etcetera, etcetera. And I said, stop denying. It's so stupid.
And even recently when I tried to publish a couple of articles about it, it was completely censored, over censored. Okay, that's a fact of life. But the argument of mine is much stronger than this. If I look at the reality of Iran, I don't like it, I don't sympathize with it, I have some so many issues with the regime and its philosophy. But if they want to protect themselves from all the real and the imagined enemies they have since Iraq up until today.
The only protect strategic protection they can have is North Korean one. Let's have a bomb and let's believe let let's make the world believe that we are loonies and nobody will deal with us. Nobody will no no nobody will try to address us. So I understand the motivation and unfortunately I feel that this later latest round between Israel, America, and Iran might accelerate their or intensify their motivation. The only and and once Iran will have it, Saudi Saudi Arabia must have it.
Then the Emiratis and the Qataris and the Egyptians and the this and that and to think that Pakistan is a mediator here, It's it's a very interesting gasoline to the fire. The only way to calm down this threat in the region is to have a Middle East, a region with no weapons or mass destruction to nobody, neither to the Iranians nor to the Israelis.
Speaker 0: But has Trump
Speaker 1: Should have.
Speaker 0: Has the Trump and the Yahweh war and let the genie out of the bottle in one sense? And I suppose I gotta ask you how fearful you were in the in the month or so. I mean, the war may already have started again. I mean, would a would a would a Koromshah missile at Demona destroy Al Aqsa Mosque, the most holy sites for Islam, Christianity, and Judaism?
Speaker 1: I'm not afraid though the two most important the two most repeated questions asked in the last forty days of this war, the first was how did Netanyahu trick Trump or trap Trump into this war? And the second is will Israel use a nuclear a nuclear bomb? How he tricked him is an issue for historians, political analysts, and psychologists. As for a potential or did we have a potential for a nuclear round here? I do not believe.
I don't think it is anywhere in in the cards so to say. Yet, if something would have happened to the mosque and Haram E Sharif, beside the fact that it might ignite the entire Muslim world against whomever is responsible, be it a missile from
Speaker 0: Yeah. But who would be responsible if it was attacked? In a sense, possessing the nuclear weapons is the responsibility.
Speaker 1: Wait. Wait. Wait a second. If it would have been a missile hit hitting the mosques from Iran, or will it be a provocation by Israeli right wing eschatological fanatics? It's the responsibility of Israel.
The Haram E Sharif is not just a place of worship and the third most important place in the Muslim faith. It is important for every human being around the world. If I want my holy places to be respected and the Christians want, I have to respect the Muslim ones. And I have to protect them because they are the the sovereignty of Israel as for now. And therefore, in a way in a way, any harm done to the Haram E Sharif is more dangerous in my from my point of view than any nuclear threat.
How can Iran still exist despite How Sorry?
Speaker 0: How how can the world disarm Israel of nuclear weapons then?
Speaker 1: It's not about disarming Israel. It's about the entire region.
Speaker 0: Well, no one else has nuclear weapons. It's just Israel that has them in this region. How can the world
Speaker 1: As for now
Speaker 0: disarm them?
Speaker 1: As for now as for now. But since you are an experienced and wise person and you have perspective, you know that what started now does not end with this two week ceasefire. That so many genius out of the bottle now. And the motivation for nuclear power without America because America or Trump will walk away like it ran away from so many other conflicts around the world in the last twenty some years. People will be motivated to have it.
So there should be both a regional setting and a global pressure to disable anybody who has a nuclear capability, war nuclear capability, not to have it. Whatever guarantees given to Iran, to the Saudis, to the Israelis, guarantees should be very, very solid, very, very strong. But with one bottom line, middle is clean and clear of weapons of mass destruction. Can we have nuclear capabilities and nuclear reactors for energy? Yes.
Should these nuclear energy centers be ran together by Israelis and Saudis and Iranians and Egyptians and and Emiratis and Gulf people? The answer is yes. The more cooperation we have on the peacetime nuclear capability, the less threat we have with the with the warheads.
Speaker 0: Well, obviously, there's no process at the moment, and Israel's not a member of the nonproliferation treaty. Just just to finally,
Speaker 1: I mean Pressure might work.
Speaker 0: Just finally, do you think Netanyahu would use nuclear weapons to stay out of jail for corruption? No way. No way. Why why do you say that?
Speaker 1: From the outside you can say, listen, the guy who is responsible for the slaughtering of so many tens of thousands of innocent Gaza and people, and for all of these malicious attacks in Lebanon and in Tehran, what's the problem for him to use a nuke? But the nuclear reason and the nuclear logic is different than conventional one. Every leader in the world, everyone who has this non conventional capability knows that the minute you take the bomb out of the arsenal, out of the bunker, and you use it, one day it will be used against you. There are swords you do not take out. And this is one of them.
And the this logic is still very compelling, very powerful in Israel despite the irresponsible rhetorics of some of the ministers, which are ashamed by themselves and embarrassment to me as an Israeli to say I have government ministers and cabinet ministers like that. But you ask me about Netanyahu. Netanyahu is not there, will not be there, and will never use it.
Speaker 0: Former acting president professor Avram Berg, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
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 then 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 Mishal Kanoo on UAE-Iran relations, whether US Gulf bases should be removed if targeted, the postwar outlook for UAE-Iran ties, and the war’s impact on GCC working classes. Tune in for insights from Mishal Kanoo, named one of Gulf Business’s Top 100 Powerful Arabs of 2025.
@GUnderground_TV - Going Underground
🚨NEW EPISODE OF GOING UNDERGROUND⚡️ UAE’s🇦🇪 Mishal Kanoo on Relations With Iran, US’s Gulf Bases, Iran’s Control of the Strait of Hormuz If the US’ bases in the Gulf are a target for Iran, should the bases be removed? What will relations between the UAE and Iran look like after this war? What has been the impact of the war on the working classes of GCC countries? We speak to @MishalKanoo, one of the UAE’s most influential businessmen and Gulf Business’s Top 100 Powerful Arabs of 2025 @KanooGroup_UAE
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ashwin Rutansi opens Going Underground from Dubai, noting that the UAE has been targeted by Iranian missiles and drones, and references former US President Trump’s threats to destroy Iran’s civilization. He frames the discussion around Iran’s targets in the region and broader regional dynamics, including BRICS’ influence and multipolarity, and mentions Iran’s enrichment moves and past statements by Ayatollahs on nuclear weapons. He previews a controversial claim from a participant: a plan “where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12:00 tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again,” followed by an acknowledgment that “we don’t want that to happen.” The host also notes the region’s strategic importance and asks what events mean for global scarcity in food and health care, as well as how Western media portrays Dubai.
In the interview segment, the guest is Michel Kanu, chairman of the Kanu Group, a major UAE business conglomerate with divisions including Kanu Travel, Logistics, Shipping, and Real Estate. Rutansi begins with a provocative line about the “dream” being over and asks how international propaganda portrays the UAE, especially Dubai. Kanu responds by describing Dubai’s resilience through prior shocks—the Gulf War, the 2008 financial crisis, 2014 oil-price shock—and attributes Dubai’s strength to its diverse population of over 200 nationalities who come to create opportunities. He emphasizes that the “magic of Dubai” lies in the people and their drive to make things work, rather than external perceptions.
The discussion then turns to why Dubai is perceived as a target and the motivations behind hostility toward the city. Kanu refrains from blaming particular actors, suggesting instead that envy and “sour grapes” from some media and observers exist, while noting that those who benefit most from Dubai’s success are its residents and international partners. He asserts that Dubai’s openness and tolerance extend to neighbors and stresses that prosperity for all neighbors reduces conflict. He recalls the region’s historical ties across the Gulf and argues that the UAE has historically balanced relations with Iran and other neighbors, even when the region’s leadership has shifted. He says Dubai “walks a tight rope” and wants all neighbors to prosper, insisting that antagonism from abroad is not in Dubai’s interest.
The host and Kanu discuss the impact of hosting US bases in the UAE, comparing it to other countries with foreign bases (Azerbaijan, Turkey, Japan), and the potential consequences for regional security. They debate whether the presence of bases makes GCC states targets and how to assess retaliation prospects given Iran’s population and geography.
On shipping and the Strait of Hormuz, the conversation covers whether passage must go through Iranian and Omani territories, with Kanu noting international maritime law but arguing the strait is a natural passage that should not be weaponized. They discuss how insurance costs and potential tolls could affect shipping, with traders weighing the economics of paying tolls against the value of cargoes. The possibility of a GCC reinsurance or state-backed insurance mechanism is raised, including ARIG, and whether a regional solution might emerge if traditional reinsurers refuse coverage.
Towards the end, Kanu reflects on Dubai’s real estate, acknowledging a period of rapid price growth that raised affordability concerns. He argues for sustainable growth that supports first-time buyers and long-term stability rather than short-term flips, expressing a desire for a balance between investor returns and housing for residents.
The interview closes with gratitude to Kanu and a pledge to continue geopolitical and investment coverage, with a note of sympathy for those affected by the Israeli-US conflict in West Asia.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ashwin Rutansi. Welcome back to Going Underground broadcasting all around the world from a Dubai and The UAE, which has been targeted the most by Iranian missiles and drones before Trump eventually chickened out of his threat to destroy Iran's 10,000 year old civilization.
Speaker 1: You said that very little is off limits in Iran as far as targeting, including power plants, bridges, you've mentioned those. Very little is off limits. Are there certain kinds of civilian targets, though? I'm thinking
Speaker 0: I don't wanna tell
Speaker 1: you that. That you I
Speaker 2: don't wanna tell you that. We have a
Speaker 3: we have a plan because of the power of our military where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12:00 tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again. I mean, demolition by 12:00, and it'll happen over a period of four hours if we wanted to. We don't want that to happen.
Speaker 0: This catastrophic war has seen thousands killed, more than a million displaced, and BRICS power in The Gulf consolidated despite Israeli attempts at the time of recording to restart the war, bombing the Belt And Road China Iran railway. This week's visit of a Taiwanese opposition leader to China emphasized the new multipolarity. It was today in twenty o six that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced enrichment of uranium. You can see our interview with him on our Rumble channel, but that was when Iran's Ayatollah opposed nuclear weapons. He has been killed by Trump, and the new Iranian leadership may well feel only a nuclear deterrent can now protect Iran from USA Israel Axis enemies.
What does it all mean for this region proven to be the most strategically important region on Earth? What happens here transforms global scarcity of food and health care everywhere? And will NATO nation propaganda media concede their fake news about the end of Dubai were lies? Joining me from here in Dubai is one of The UAE's most prominent businessmen. He's chairman of one of the largest business conglomerates in The UAE.
The Kanu Group includes Kanu Travel, Kanu Logistics, Kanu Shipping, and Kanu Real Estate to mention just a few of its divisions. Michel Kanu is also one of Gulf Business's top 100 powerful Arabs of 2025. Thank you so much, Michelle, for coming on Going Underground. I wanna get to the business dimension in a second, but I suppose I'm gonna be sarcastic at the top of this. The dream is over.
Dubai is finished. What have you thought about the headlines in the international, in the NATO nation propaganda media about the end of the place you've called home all your life?
Speaker 2: Well, this story has been played out several times, at least in my life my lifetime. I remember from the Gulf War to the collapse in 2008 or the financial market to 2014 collapse with the oil prices. It's it's been repeated again and again and again. And and Dubai has been quite resilient in terms of its ability to stand up and bounce back again. And I think this is has less to do with how people perceive Dubai and more of the people who are in Dubai.
We have over 200 nationalities here. Everyone is trying to make a life for for him or herself, help creating an opportunity for him or herself. And I think that in itself is the driving force that causes the energy for people to want to come here and just to make something work work for them. That, I think, is the magic of Dubai more than anything else.
Speaker 0: But I do know I mean, say nine eleven in New York. Around the world, there were headlines saying, you know, I love New York or whatever. The fact that Dubai is targeted the most, what exactly is behind this desire to destroy the reputation of it? Is it the reduced tax take in European countries? Those countries are jealous of Dubai.
They want to stop the tide of immigrants that are leaving their countries to make businesses here. Where do you place the impetus?
Speaker 2: I I can't put my finger on a particular reason for this. Everyone has his own reasons, and and some of them might be shallow and just really nasty. And some of them might actually believe that there is actually a a cause for Dubai to collapse. I can't I can't guess what's what's the reason that they have this feeling towards Dubai. All can say is that, remember, Dubai is not just made up made up of Arabs.
It's made up, as I said, of 200 nationalities. You have a huge contingency from India, from Pakistan, from The UK, from Egypt, from The Levant, from even from Iran.
Speaker 0: From Iran.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And from from yeah. And you also have from European countries and Central Asia and East Africa and West Africa. And they're coming here to live because there's there are chances for them to create and grow and do something with their lives. So I don't think that if Dubai collapses, that these people will be they will enjoy that that concept and idea.
You do have people who always have this concept of sour grapes. You know, the newspapers in The UK, in The UK, well, it used to be you get attacked from the left or you get attacked from the right. Either the the the Daily Mirror and the the Daily Mail attacked you, or The Guardian and the Observer attacked you for whatever reason. But when you get all of them attacking you, you you know you must be doing something right because there is something that's bothering them that they they are wanting there's this drive to want to see Dubai fail. And I cannot understand why because they are the beneficiaries.
No. I mean, not the newspapers, but the people from those different countries, they are the beneficiaries of Dubai's success. Dubai has succeeded because of all these people coming here, because of all these people adding to the flavor and the the taste of what makes Dubai, Dubai. So I really don't know why would you want to see Dubai collapse because it affect it will have an immediate effect back on your home country. Not you.
I mean, whoever the people are who are saying the negative things about Dubai. Of course, there is
Speaker 0: a perception amongst those who desire multipolarity and the new BRICS world, The UAE and Iran being the most recent members of BRICS, to claim that The UAE is just a pawn of The United States. And just explain the long history of relations with Iran and that, ironically, despite Iran targeting The UAE, The UAE has facilitated Iran over decades since the Iranian revolution.
Speaker 2: Well, we live in a neighborhood where there are people of different nationalities and different cultures. I can't choose my neighbors. I can't tell my neighbors, shoo and go away, and they can't tell me to shoo and go away. So I have to live with what whoever my neighbors are and however they they treat us. So for example, in terms of for The UAE and specifically for Dubai, it's playing a very walking a very tight rope.
We wanna make sure that everybody has is knows that he or she is welcome here. He or she can come and do things over here and and can make a life prosperous life for themselves here. We're not here necessarily to take away from our neighbors. In fact, one of the things that Dubai wants to see, and I can see that because from interacting with the different business people, interacting with the leadership over here, there is a desire to see our neighbors also prosper. Because if you have a beautiful mansion and your neighbor has a horrible mansion a horrible house, well, that's not it's normal for them to get angry and jealous, why do you have a wonderful mansion?
And they don't. And they will start casting stones and start affecting you and hurting you wherever you go out. However, if they have a mansion of their own, it doesn't have to be the same mansion as you have. It doesn't have to be as large or as big or whatever. If in fact, if they have a bigger mansion, even better, because then they will leave you alone.
So we want want all our neighbors to have their own mansion, their own idea of what their mansion is. When everyone prospers and everyone benefits, there is less likely to have conflict, envy, aggression towards one another. Iran if you look at the the Iran during the shah's time, and and then just just to give you a comparison, history historically, the Western Part Of The Gulf has always interacted with the Eastern Side Of The Gulf. In fact, to the point that if you look at the most of the people living on the Eastern Part Of The Iranian Coast, they are of Arab origin. And you do have a lot of people from citizens of The Gulf from Kuwait all the way to Oman who are of Iranian origin.
Because it was a natural trend progression for those peoples from both sides of The Gulf to interact with one another. This is again pre border, pre nation building, and all that stuff. My point is we've had always had good relationship even when, as I said, when you had the ultimate dictator of the region, which was the shah, even he did not have, even though he had complete dominance over the whole region, even he was not nasty enough to think I'm going to go out and beat up everyone Well, was an American department. Obviously. So presumably, he prevented.
I don't know because remember, those times in the seventies and eighties, we were not that significant to the Americans as of yet. We were not. So if he had wanted to do something, possibly I could have. But even he was a statesman and intelligent enough. And by the way, I'm not I'm not touting him over the current ones.
I'm not. I'm just telling you what had happened. Even he was smart enough to understand, you know what? These are my neighbors. I'm not gonna antagonize them.
I know who I am. I am the king. He used to call himself the Shah and Shah, which is the king of kings. I'm a king. I don't need to antagonize people.
I know who I am. The the the the ones who have to antagonize others usually are people who are unsure of themselves. This is why when you look at the leadership that happens in the in the at least in The UAE and from The Gulf, there isn't a requirement to antagonize others because I know who I am. I don't need to antagonize you to make you wrong But you can see
Speaker 0: from their point of view, and I think it's widely accepted, that The UAE hosting United States bases, even though The UAE, like Saudi Arabia, said on no account can they be used for attacks on Iran. The the hosting of bases makes GCC countries the targets when The United States is involved in military operations.
Speaker 2: Okay. Let let's if I accept that premise, and I do, then I should also extend the same thing to Azerbaijan who has Israeli base over there. And I should extend that to Turkey who has American bases over
Speaker 4: There was a hit
Speaker 0: on Azerbaijan, of course.
Speaker 2: And then they said, sorry. It was a mistake. And the same thing with Turkey. Oh, sorry. It's a mistake.
Speaker 0: It was a NATO
Speaker 2: country, after. And and because the the reason why the RHGC is attacking our part of the world is because they perceive us to be an easy target, I. E. Someone who's not gonna retaliate. And we're not gonna retaliate not because we can't.
There's a difference between not wanting to retaliate versus an inability to retaliate. But they know that if you're going to attack Turkey, Turkey is a proper army, proper military. They have the ability. They've been they've been skirmishing. They've been at war and skirm and with skirmishes both in Syria and in Iraq and and Azerbaijan, etcetera.
They have a proper army. It's a frightening thought for them because then they and they're close enough, the proximity, that they can walk into it. I mean, they have a military ability to walk into Iran. Azerbaijan is the same thing. Azerbaijan might not be the military superpower that people think, but Azerbaijan there are 15 approximately 15,000,000 Azaris living in Iran.
And if Azerbaijan was to walk in because they they felt they were attacked, Iran would have a major problem. This is why we are the ones who are the easy target in their heads in the ROGC. So the heads keep on hitting This this argument that is because of American bases. The American bases are there, but hello, the American ships, the American what do call them, frigates, American why are they attacking them? Or should I say, why are they making that a major target of this?
Why is it just our our part of the world where there is no much there isn't a retaliatory trajectory from our side towards them? It's because we know tomorrow, they're still gonna be our neighbors. And we still and we don't have an issue with the Iranian population. I don't wanna have a problem with them in the future. So when this the current rulers, if they cease to exist or they move on and somebody else takes over, I don't wanna have a history where we have been the attacker.
Speaker 0: Michelle Kanu, I'll stop you there. More from the chairman of the Kanu Group after this break. Welcome back to going underground. I'm still here with the chairman of the Kanu Group, one of the golf businesses top 100 powerful Arabs of 2025, Michelle Kanu. Michelle, you were explaining why Iran would strategically attack a city like Dubai in response to the Israeli American attacks on Iran.
But in which case, if one can understand why they do it, why host The US bases in the first place and make Dubai and Abu Dhabi a a target? Is that not a question that is now going to be asked?
Speaker 2: Well, I believe every sovereign country has a right to decide what it wants to do within its own territory. I'm I'm not in the I'm not in the political leadership. I'm not in part of the No.
Speaker 0: No. Just your perspective on the decision making.
Speaker 2: My my perspective, as I said, I'm I I see no reason why we we host different militaries over here from different parts of the world. It's a choice by the government saying we are allowing this to happen.
Speaker 0: But do you think they'll look again at they'll they'll look again at this?
Speaker 2: I don't I I don't know because at the at the end of the day, it's a sovereign decision. And whatever this the the ruler of the country decides is in the best interest of its of the country and its population, so so be it. The I don't I'm not allowed even assuming, god forbid, but if I was a ruler of a country and I had to choose, I can't go to somebody that's some other country and tell them, you can't have that, and you can't do this, and you can't Yeah.
Speaker 4: But it's a sovereign decision to remove
Speaker 0: your sovereignty. It's a debate we have in Britain, I should say, because there are thousands of British American soldiers in Britain as well, and it's a debate that is certainly being had in European countries as well.
Speaker 2: When sorry. So would would would I would that also apply to say for places like Japan? So Japan Japan has given up its military to The US to to do that. Now The US and and China have a problem. If tomorrow China and and Japan have a problem, would you be holding the Japanese leadership accountable for Precisely.
Precisely.
Speaker 0: And there's a huge Okinawa movement. But okay. Let's let's get to the effects arguably of having the base in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, which is the impact on business. I mean, you have a shipping division. What have you thought first of all, I suppose I should ask you, what have you thought about the reporting of the conflict?
And isn't it the case that the Strait Of Hormuz no ship or vessel can pass through the Strait Of Hormuz without going through Iranian territory?
Speaker 2: Well, no. It doesn't have to go through Iranian territory because there's there's a small part which is outside of the Well, no. Does. Outside of the Iranian territory. Sorry?
Speaker 0: It does. It has to go either through I mean, it has to go through Iranian and Omani territory because the strait is only 21 is it meters or miles or It
Speaker 2: it it yeah. Again, it will depend on how how far you because each country has what you call it a different way of judges what its territory ends. But
Speaker 0: No. Under international maritime law. The point is all your ships, everyone's ships has been going through Iranian and Omani territory for decades.
Speaker 2: Fine. Fine. Let's let's I will I'll take that argument ahead. I'll accept that argument, and I'll take it to the next next stage. Even if that's the case, this is last I checked, neither countries or any of the countries in there created the strait.
That was made by by God through the natural movements of of tectonic plates under. Neither country created it. So neither country has a right to it.
Speaker 0: No. But it's under international maritime law. You're around 12 miles. It's you own up to 12 miles off the coast.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm I'm no. No. I I know, but this is an international law. But I'm telling you in terms of in terms of ownership itself It's
Speaker 0: owned by Iran. Territory stops I
Speaker 2: mean, let's
Speaker 5: get to how has it affected the shipping?
Speaker 0: How has it affected the No. It it definitely is under you know, it's 12 miles of Omani and off the Iranian coast, and you have to go through a bit of Oman and a bit of Iran.
Speaker 2: I I know and I I know what you're and see what you're saying is is correct as far as legal laws are concerned. I'm talking about a natural thing. If no one created that. Sorry. None of the countries who are on the side of the either side of the water created that.
They happen to be there. So this is a natural pathway. This is a natural passage. It shouldn't be on anyone's control in such a manner that they can use it as a gateway. It's it's it's un it's okay.
I I like to say it's unfair. But this has been a tradition where everyone has been utilizing this for the longest time. It's only now when we're starting to want to utilize it or weaponize it, that we're starting to make issues out of it. It was not the case before. But now you we're creating we're weaponizing these things because it worked.
It benefits us, so we weaponize it. It didn't benefit us before because we couldn't enforce it, so we didn't weaponize it before.
Speaker 0: Well, Donald Trump agrees now that they can take tolls, at least at the time of this recording, the Iranian government to restore all the damaged infrastructure by The United States and Israel can use the tolls. So how will that toll, system? $2,000,000 a vessel? I'm not sure. It's all up for debate at the moment, and all these things are very nebulous.
How would it affect your company and shipping companies in this region?
Speaker 2: Well, a lot of the companies most of the the movement has stopped less to do with the attacks than to do with insurance because the insurance are saying, it's too expensive. We're not going to cover you. So if you wanna go through, go ahead, we're not gonna cover you. So that's that's the problem. So now if the insurance companies are happy to cover it, I think these a lot of the shipping shipping lines will look at it in terms of a prag business pragmatism.
I is it worth it to pay just to get my stuff back and forth? It becomes more expensive, I'm gonna have to pass it on of course, every the the shipping line will pass it on to the the end user, the end user will pass it on to the consumer, and so so on and so forth. It would depend on how they want to play this. Some might be very adamant, we're of gear, we're not touching this anymore. And some will say, you know what, I don't care.
It's worth it. $2,000,000 in relative to a ship that's carrying $100,000,000 is, you know, 2%. I'm not gonna die over it. I'm not gonna cry over it. It depends on each each each line, each each company, and how they want to look at this region.
If that becomes an enforceable thing, I don't know. I mean, in a in a previous hotel.
Speaker 0: In a previous life, I was a chief risk analyst at Lloyd's of London. Would you believe it is syndicate? I'm gonna ask you Yeah. Why is the GCC and do you think the GCC might create its own insurance scheme, reinsurance P and I club to insure ships in this region rather than relying on Lloyds of London or Swiss Re and Munich Re, given those insurers are clearly not going to sell policies to people transporting through the Strait?
Speaker 2: I I can't tell in the future what companies might set up. What will there be a reinsurer company? Could it be state,
Speaker 0: I mean, at a state level?
Speaker 2: GCC level? Possible. I mean, we have one called ARIG, but I don't know if they'll they cover this aspect or not. You have to speak to someone from Arig, a a r I g, which is a government backed there's several government backed reinsuring company. But whether they want to do this or cover this, I I don't know.
I I can't I can't talk on their behalf. Whether countries wanna do this because they think it's beneficial for them, you know, let's pay the small toll and make sure that at least the the passage is open, and we can we can get things through. I don't know. It's a very speculative question with a speculative answer, which I think is appropriate at this present time. Down the road, if it makes sense, if it makes financial sense, you will find people will be a lot of people will be first one to jump on board and say, yes.
This is something we wanna do. But I can't tell at this point. At at this present time, I can't tell.
Speaker 0: Now I know you also have a real estate division. I know we're both keen not to sound like we're propagandists for the region. But I mean, the twenty years in between on visiting here and living here, when I first lived here, I can see how different the working classes of The UAE are treated to how they were treated, say, twenty five years ago. And I suppose the only complaint would be, and it shows how well the working classes have risen here, is that people are having children, getting married, and then the high property prices have been a problem. What has been your take on the impact?
And I know thousands have been killed, of course, in this war, and we mustn't forget that. The impact on affordability of housing that's been catalyzed by Trump's war.
Speaker 2: Well, prior to that, the property prices have been going up at stratosphoric at a really high level. And the the rates of return year on year were really making it unaffordable for a lot of people. You had a lot of people who come in and look at it as either an investment or a flip. Now I'm not saying that that's wrong. I don't say that's right.
I'm just saying that this is something that this is something that people do. This is not unusual. And when an opportunity happens and you can raise the price and there's the and there are there's enough of a there are enough buyers who wanted to or renters who are willing to pay the price, good for you. But it does make the the property industry very hot. So a natural growth which would might have been a a five, seven, 10, whatever the case may be, again, depending on the the region, growth was supercharged to 25, 30%.
That's not a good it's not sustainable. I want to see growth. I re everyone who buys wants to see growth. I wanna see growth, but I wanna see growth at a sustainable level, which we which allows people to be able to buy the house that they can then live in, rather than just flip it as an investment. The more I can the more we have that, the more stability there will be in the economy.
I'm not necessarily, what you call it, happy to see supercharged prices, nor do I wanna see a collapse, which is what a lot of people are now saying, oh, this is gonna this is gonna happen. No. It's not gonna happen. Because you're gonna have the the those people, the new a new bunch of people who are unable to purchase or to rent in the past because the prices were so high. Now because it's it has come down to to a certain degree, they will be the ones who will who will able to fill that role.
So if I if I purchased something at a 100, x being any currency you like. If I purchased something at a 100, and in three years it's gone from a 100 to 200 x, as an investor, I'm really happy. If I'm going to rent it out to somebody, I'm gonna charge you really high prices, and the the rent rentee is not gonna be too happy. If on the other hand, went from a 100 to 130, 140, I'm still in the money. I should be happy.
But if I start from the 200 and I'll drop down to that, the 240, I'm sorry, 140, I won't be happy. I'm I'm I'm trying we we have to find a reasonable point where you have growth, where people are enjoying the benefits of it, but it also allows people to to have first time buyers coming in, new families coming in. They're the stability. They're the ones who are gonna cause stability in the economy, and you want that. Any economy wants that.
Michel Kanu, thank you. It's my pleasure, and thank you again. And I hope we will be talking we'll have another chance to talk when things are in a much better situation than it is today.
Speaker 0: And and more on the geopolitics as well as the investment advice. Michel Carter, thank you so much. Thank with the show. Our thoughts, of course, are with all those affected by the Israeli US war here in West Asia. Our war coverage will continue on Monday with Israel's former president and speaker of the Knesset.
Until then, keep in touch via all our social media if it's not centered in your country, and head to our channel, Going Underground TV on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground. See you Monday.
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