TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In May, every Middle Eastern leader the speaker met was eager to do business with American tech firms and with America. Susie Weil, the speaker's chief of staff, was present. The speaker claimed it's hard to believe how thrilled the leaders were to meet them. Weil was recently voted the most powerful woman in the world and the speaker thinks she might be the most powerful person in the world. The speaker also stated that Weil could "take out a country with a mere phone call."

Let me also give a very special thanks to someone who truly loves Israel. In fact, loves it so much that my daughter converted. My daughter converted. Ivanka's here. And, Bibi, you do know this was not in the cards for me. They have a great marriage and they're they get along great. They're best friends. They have a very special relationship. Jared has been so helpful. He he really did something very special. He established the Abraham Accords with a group of very wonderful people. I like calling it the Avraham Accords because people that right? Avraham. It's so cool. It's so much sort of nicer. You know, the Abraham versus the Avraham. I just don't wanna sound too sanctimonious when I do it. So, you know, I sort of split it up. This will keep everybody happy.

The speakers welcomed various leaders, including the Senate Democratic Leader, Senate Republican Leader, Speaker of the House, Secretary of State, Vice President, and President of the United States. The Prime Minister of Israel was also welcomed back to the APEC stage. The speaker emphasized the unique alliance between Israel and the United States, stating that US support for Israel is and should remain bipartisan. They described Israel as a strategic ally and emphasized the unbreakable friendship between the two nations. It was asserted that America is safer when it stands with Israel, and that caring about American security necessitates caring about Israel's security. The speaker concluded by saying that America and Israel need support more than ever, and offered blessings for both nations.

Speaker 0 asked Charlie about fun dance parties in Jerusalem after his speech. They discussed Israelis being great dancers and a strong ally. Charlie agreed, calling Israel a great country.

Speaker 1 frames his connection to Israel: 'For two thousand years, we were a stateless people. And now we have a country of our own, defended by all the brave men and women of the IDF.' He highlights Israel's tech scene: 'after Silicon Valley, there's an area it hurts Herzliya has probably got more startups than any other place other than Silicon Valley in Northern California.' He notes Oracle's Israeli ties: 'we have two CEOs at Oracle' and 'Safra Katz, and she was born in Israel.' He asserts support: 'So again, we love the country of Israel, and we'll do everything we can to support the country of Israel.' Regarding Gaza criticism, he says: 'it's a difficult situation,' but adds that 'the Israeli army did everything they could to minimize civilian casualties' and that they've 'done a much better job than a lot of other armies all over the world throughout history.'

Saudi Arabia's wealthy individuals have established the Saudi PIF, a sovereign wealth fund, allowing them to make extravagant investments in sports. They recently signed Karim Benzema for a staggering $643 million contract in the Saudi Football League. Additionally, they attempted to lure Leon Alvesque with nearly $1 billion for a 2-year contract. The Saudis even created their own golf tour, the live tour, and enticed PGA players with guaranteed money, causing controversy. Eventually, they merged with the Lid tour and sold the majority of their stakes to the BIA. In summary, Saudi Arabia now holds significant ownership in various sports ventures.

Speaker 0 describes a dynamic of collaboration and tension around Iran, noting that the Israelis are “very American” and that they could have shouting matches in meetings over whose idea is best, but then go have lunch and remain amicable. He emphasizes that Israelis are good allies that the U.S. needs to protect, and asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda “worked closely together in Iraq. And Syria.” Speaker 1 adds that in Syria the aim was to overthrow Assad. Speaker 0 explains that there were times when covert action findings allowed meetings to talk to the “quote, unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down, as CIA officers. Speaker 1 observes that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS (Daesh), but implies the CIA’s cooperation with ISIS and Al Qaeda lowers that problem. Speaker 0 argues that if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them, to work on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, the U.S. would have played that role side by side with diplomats and other involved countries, and he wouldn’t be surprised if that were happening; he calls it possibly hopeful. Speaker 1 notes that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda, and now that stance has changed. The speaker concludes with the reversal of priorities: “Now we have to go to Als ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.”

MBS launched Vision 2030 to modernize Saudi Arabia's economy by reducing dependence on oil, especially Aramco. The plan focuses on investments in tourism, technology, and renewable energy. As part of Vision 2030, Saudi Aramco launched a partial IPO in 2019, selling a small portion of the company to raise funds for diversification. Aramco's IPO raised $25.6 billion, making it the largest IPO in history. The IPO also made Aramco the most valuable publicly traded company in the world.

Speaker 1 clarifies that they never said they would cut military aid to Israel. They believe that if the US-Israel relationship becomes so strong that Israel no longer needs aid, it would be a mark of success. They emphasize viewing the relationship as a friendship, not just a transaction. Speaker 1 aims to lead Israel into a new version of the Abraham Accords, involving countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. They also stress the importance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities. Speaker 1 prefers speaking authentically, even if others distort their words.

The speaker wants to honor the crown prince of Saudi Arabia because he believes the crown prince is the key person leading the Muslim world to support the state of Israel. The speaker claims that no other leader in the Muslim world has influenced decisions to move the Muslim world to support Israel more than this crown prince. The speaker states that he met with the crown prince and saw what was happening in the country under his leadership, which he found astonishing.

The renewal of the Jewish state is significant for us. For 2,000 years, we were stateless, and now we have Israel, defended by the brave IDF. Supporting those who protect our state is crucial, especially in challenging times. I have visited Israel, including the border, and have a strong emotional connection to the country and its people. In the high-tech sector, Israel has a thriving startup scene, particularly in Herzliya, second only to Silicon Valley. We've acquired several Israeli companies, and our CEO, Safra Katz, was born in Israel. Our commitment to supporting Israel remains strong.

I had a great meeting with Abbas, who I felt was very nice. After a brief meeting with Netanyahu, I realized he may not want to make a deal. I used to think Israelis were willing to do anything for peace, but now I see that may not be the case.

Speaker 0: My goal is to protect Israel and ensure its future. I want to be remembered as its protector. Speaker 1: Welcome, Mr. Prime Minister. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: We convinced Pfizer that they could benefit from our data, and our health system distributed it efficiently through our digital system. I spoke with Pfizer's CEO 21 times, not 70. I also spoke with other company heads. Personal leadership is crucial in ensuring vaccine stock and distribution. Israel can serve as a global test case to understand the efficacy of vaccination in reopening economies. We are taking calculated risks to move forward and many countries can learn from us.

Ehud: I don’t disagree with anything you said, and I don’t know who he trusts on these kinds of… Who the president really trusts. McDonough? The young guy. But he doesn’t—there was a Samantha Power—Power. No. The difference between who he trusts and who he likes. Larry Turner? She’s an idiot. I noticed that Obama listens to her. His door telephone is always open for her. He listens to her. He believes her instincts about politics, about who is against him, who is for him, what’s going around, who is hooking what from Chicago to the world. Ehud: But it’s like, do you think Richard Nixon ultimately cared what he listened to, what B. D. Luloso thought? Ehud: Listen to this: B. B. Robozo—Robozo was some kind of business, semi-corrupt business guy who was Richard Nixon’s best friend. And whenever Nixon went to Key Biscayne or California, B. B. Robozo was there. Nixon would spend a lot of time on B. B. Robozo’s boat. If B. B. Robozo wanted something, Nixon would stay. But I don’t think when Nixon was deciding what to do about open war, he was talking to B. B. Robozo. Ehud: Valerie Jarrett. So—in this regard, he’s probably alone, but he feels, compared to other leaders I happened to meet in the last decades, Obama impressed me as an extremely autonomous person. He feels good with himself, even when he’s alone in the home. I didn’t see in him what we know in Clinton or in Our Palace. There is anxiety, a need for love, for explicit expressions of love, there’s deep within their personality. I didn’t see anything of this in him. Obama: I’ve never seen that. Ehud: There’s lots of things to say. Bob Reich told me a story—Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor—he said Clinton would look at him in a cabinet meeting, and if Clinton looked annoyed or looked away, Clinton would call within two days: “How’s it going, Bob? What’s up? Is there something on your mind?” Obama wouldn’t call. He had lunch alone half the days. He didn’t schedule time to be alone. If he did some event where he spoke to a thousand people, they would give him a little rest time afterwards. He’s human, too. It’s the same: he wants to be with the people. It’s a source of strength in tough moments in politics, probably not the most effective way to mobilize people. Ehud: Another thing: President of the United States and you like to play golf. It’s a big asset. The President likes to play golf with his buddies—three guys: photographer, campaign guy, three buddies from Chicago. Most presidents played with members of Congress or business leaders; Obama is cerebral, and they gave him the nickname Black Jesus during the campaign. He has a sense of himself as not me, but he’s not like Clinton in that sense. Ehud: On Iran, the discussion turned to the possibility of surgical operations vs. broader war. The Pentagon developed subtle scalpels, more effective than ours. The goal is to delay the Iranian program by years, but the regime’s strategy is to defend its continuity, to build immunity—regime immunity—against intervention. The Iranians are like Pakistan and North Korea in wanting to avoid being toppled; they want to reach a rational capability that deters intervention. Ehud: The concern is time: for Israel, time is running out because Iran is expanding centrifuges, improving radars, and even GPS mines in the Strait of Hormuz. The regime’s calculation: they don’t have a timetable; they wait until they can secure immunity against external attempts. An election in Iran matters because it can delay or accelerate compromise, especially if the U.S. and partners are seen to be negotiating during an election year. Ehud: There was also discussion of the Arab world: Egypt is practical, not purely ideological. The leaders are practical—engineers who understand the need to feed tens of millions, to maintain tourism, the Suez Canal, and the canal economy. The argument was that US leverage matters; Europe is seen as constrained. The topic of how to engage with the moderate Sunni world to isolate Iran and support a regional security framework with the U.S., Europe, moderate Arab states, and Israel was raised. The aim would be to block fundamentalist terror, improve missile defense, and coordinate on Iran. Ehud: On Israel’s future, there was concern about a two-state approach versus a one-state reality. The Druze, Christians, and other minorities in Israel should be included, and there was advocacy for breaking the Orthodox rabbinate monopoly on marriage and conversions to Judaism to create a more open, plural society. The idea was to advance a plan that acknowledges borders, security, and regional cooperation, potentially with American guarantees. Ehud: The discussion touched on the possibility of a regional security system, with the moderate Arab world, and Israel as a focal point to manage security and block threats, which would help moderate Arab leaders justify engagement with Israel. The hope was that including the Palestinians and moving toward a regional framework would ease tensions and gain broader recognition. Ehud: The speakers reflected on the European economy: the Euro, German leadership, and the risk of “Southern Europe” becoming like Southern Italy—stable but with high unemployment and less dynamism. Germany’s role would be crucial in stabilizing Europe, but there was skepticism about rapid reforms. There was also commentary on Japan’s economic stance, with long-term bonds and potential inflation concerns; the risk of deflation versus inflation, and investor behavior in safe assets like US Treasuries. Ehud: In the financial world, there was talk about the “wall of money” entering markets, with deals in mining and private equity accelerating as rates stay low. There was speculation about who might pay for advisory services and how much compensation one could demand as a trusted adviser. Potential clients included sovereign wealth funds, private equity, and wealthy individuals who would value access to connections with prominent financiers and policymakers. Ehud: The conversation then shifted to Ehud’s post-government plans: he’s considering private equity, hedge funds, board roles, and advisory work. He discussed working with high-profile firms like Lookout (a cybersecurity firm), Palantir (Peter Thiel’s company), and Andreessen Horowitz, and he weighed the value of joining boards or advisory roles for significant compensation. There was talk of opportunities with Tony Blair and Panetta’s Foundation, and about leveraging relationships with influential figures like Petraeus and Panetta for strategic advisory roles. Ehud: The two discussed a potential collaboration involving a security-focused venture in which they would assemble a leadership team and pitch to sovereign wealth funds. They debated whether to pursue exclusive arrangements and how to structure compensation—whether high upfront fees or performance-based bonuses would be appropriate, given the urgency of opportunities and Ehud’s age. Ehud: There was talk of a German SPV structure to unlock value in suppressed German DACs, with a plan to acquire large German companies by taking minority stakes and reorganizing boards to bypass unions and passive shareholders. They described a Luxembourg or British Virgin Islands wrapper to enable financing and governance changes, and the goal of creating a management-driven, high-return vehicle akin to Berkshire Hathaway, with operational control over large assets. Ehud: They discussed approaching sovereign funds (Singapore, UAE, China) and state-owned investors to back restructured German companies, leveraging relationships within the German business world and the French/European regulatory environment. They explored the possibility of static, long-term advisory roles with leaders in global finance and industry, and using those platforms to drive value. Ehud: They also explored private-equity opportunities in other sectors—cybersecurity, infrastructure, mining, and even defense. They discussed the possibility of working with individuals like Klaus Kleinfeld (former Siemens exec, Alcoa head) and others to place Ehud into advisory or board roles, and whether to pursue roles that could yield immediate money while also enabling longer-term influence. Ehud: The conversation closed with practical steps: define concrete opportunities, gather numbers and returns, determine what the partners want (exclusivity, timeframe), and set a deadline for offers. They agreed to pursue a formal offer by March 14-20, with a final decision by April 1. They emphasized the need for crisp, precise positioning due to Ehud’s age, and to avoid overpromising. They planned to meet again, compare offers, and decide which path to take—whether with a security-focused outfit, a financial advisory role, or a combination of both. Ehud: The sense was that there are many opportunities for people with connections and credibility, and that the next few years could see rapid development in advisory services, sovereign wealth–backed deals, and strategic investments across defense, cybersecurity, and regional security. The overarching theme was leveraging decades of experience to match high-potential opportunities with the right partners, while navigating regulatory, geopolitical, and reputational considerations.

Joe Biden has received the most money from Israel in US history, both as a senator and during his presidential campaign in 2020. As a senator, he received over $4 million, and as a presidential candidate, he received almost $4 million. Another speaker believes that the $3 billion investment the US makes in Israel is justified and necessary for protecting American interests in the region.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

The speaker wants to honor the crown prince of Saudi Arabia because he believes the crown prince is the key person leading the Muslim world to support the state of Israel. The speaker claims that no other leader in the Muslim world has influenced decisions to move the Muslim world to support Israel more than the crown prince. The speaker states that he met with the crown prince and saw the country under his leadership.

Some allies that the U.S. works with and protects militarily are sending massive amounts of money to ISIS and Al Qaeda. When asked which countries are doing this, the speaker states, "You know who it is." The speaker then confirms that Saudi Arabia is one of the countries funding these groups, stating, "They're doing it. Everybody knows that." When asked about other countries involved, the speaker says there are others but declines to name them due to having relationships with people from those countries. The speaker asserts that "everybody knows that, and nobody says it."

I bought Trump's yacht, now called Kingdom Boat, and invested in X AI because I bet on Musk. To be energetic, you must love what you do and have the will, guts, and ability to perform. Kingdom Holding handles investments, Alwaleed Philanthropies covers charity, and my private office invests in other areas, including media and sports. Politics and business are intertwined, and you need political connections. I believe in the Saudi system and support the Crown Prince. The U.S. is polarized, but the world is generally moving positively. The U.S. is transitioning from being the sole dominating power. We need strong leadership, and Trump is a strong leader.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

Speaker 0: The discussion turns to how long you plan to stay in public life. Speaker 1: I don’t measure it by time, but by missions and tasks. I’m supported by a great majority of the people in the country, and that support comes despite foreign reporting. That is why I keep winning elections. When people say I might be a king, I respond that I’m not a king—I have to get elected, for God’s sake. I have great support at home: my wife is incredible, she’s a lioness; my two boys support me; and the people support me. Speaker 0: What do they support you for? Speaker 1: They want me to complete the quest for peace. They understand that I really liberated Israel’s economy from stagnant semi-socialism to become one of the most remarkable founts of creativity, innovation, and technology in the world. We have unbelievable technology today, and we now have an opportunity. Israel was a country with $17,000 per capita when I took over as foreign minister; I had a brief stint there. Today it’s going to cross $60,000 per capita. It’s still a way to go, but that’s a change that no country experienced because of the free market revolution that I introduced here. Speaker 0: There’s a sense of an upcoming revolution. Speaker 1: I see a much greater revolution coming. It’s here, it’s not coming; it’s already here. All the wondrous technologies we have—some of them are very frightening. I’ve talked to the leaders of AI in the world, and you ask yourself, there are so many blessings in this, but there could be a curse. The task is to challenge it, or to channel it into the blessings that Israel can give itself and the world. I think there’s another revolution coming, and I tend to steer it along with the achievement of a broader peace. These are two enormous tasks that I’d like to take on. And when history is within reach, you don’t step aside; you step forward. And that’s what I’m doing.

Speaker 0 discusses working with the Israelis, describing them as “very American” and noting that they could get into shouting matches during meetings over whose idea was best, followed by casual lunch and reconciliation. He emphasizes that Israel is a good ally that the U.S. needs to protect and support, and he asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda had worked closely together in Iraq and in Syria, and that there are times when covert action allowed meetings with the “quote unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down as CIA officers. Speaker 1 adds that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daesh, but there is less of a problem because the CIA worked with ISIS/Daesh and Al Qaeda. He suggests that if the CIA worked with them, it would be better to understand what they were doing, and if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, then this has been done in concert with diplomats and other countries involved. He indicates he wouldn’t be surprised if that was happening and would call it possibly hopeful. Speaker 0 continues by noting that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda. He states that Soleimani “was, and now it's switched,” implying a shift in perception or policy. The overarching theme is the idea of collaboration or coordination with hostile or extremist groups in pursuit of broader strategic objectives, including countering Iran, and the possibility that such collaborations could be framed as necessary or hopeful within a complex web of alliances and covert actions. Speaker 0 ends by reiterating the shift in stance: “Now we have to go to al ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.” This underscores a cyclical or ironic pivot in U.S. strategy, moving from partnering with certain adversaries against common threats to reengaging those same groups to counter another adversary. The dialogue presents a candid view of realpolitik, suggesting that relationships with seemingly incompatible actors and shifts in alliances occur as part of broader geopolitical objectives, with collaboration sometimes described as acceptable when it serves strategic goals, and public narratives sometimes contrasting with behind-the-scenes actions.

Speaker 0 says Israel's economy is "in really bad shape" with "the money leaving a country, the foreign investment not going into it," plus "the 40,000 plus businesses have closed" and "one of the four major ports in Israel going bankrupt," and "almost 35% decrease in imports and a similar decrease in exports in the last year." He adds a caveat: "how is Israel surviving?" The answer: "The United States loan guarantee." He states "The United States is a guarantor of Israeli debt" and notes that in the last thirteen months there's been "a 300 to maybe 300 or 400% increase in the amount of debt, the amount of bonds that Israel has issued." He asks who buys them; "these bonds, this debt is backed by The United States." He compares it to "getting a mortgage and having, Elon Musk, cosigning with us." He concludes that "The United States is gonna continue to back them financially and be that guarantor, be that cosigner for them going forward."

The speaker recalls decades of presidents promising action under heavy pressure, asserting that he did not yield to that pressure and kept his promise by officially recognizing the capital of Israel and moving the American embassy to Jerusalem. He credits this achievement as part of what he intended to fulfill in office. Turning to the Adelsons in the audience, he highlights Miriam Adelson and her husband, Sheldon Adelson, noting their frequent visits to the White House; he says they would come into the office and call him, suggesting they had more trips to the White House than anyone else he could think of. He contrasts Sheldon's aggressive personality with his own regard for him, stating that Sheldon was very aggressive but very supportive of him, and that, despite the occasional pushback, he valued their input. He acknowledges that Miriam and Sheldon were very responsible for much, including influencing him to consider the Golan Heights, which he characterizes as probably one of the greatest things to ever happen. The speaker then invites Miriam to stand, praising her: she loves the United States and Israel, and he notes that she loves this country. He emphasizes that Miriam and her husband are incredible people and expresses that they are dearly missed. He shares a moment when he asked Miriam what she loved more, the United States or Israel, and she refused to answer, implying that her love might be for Israel as well. He comments that perhaps that refusal indicates Israel, and he reinforces his affection for Miriam by saying, “We love you,” and thanking her for being there as a great honor. He closes by affirming Miriam as a wonderful woman and expressing gratitude for her presence, underscoring the admiration he holds for Miriam Adelson and the late Sheldon Adelson as influential supporters who played a significant role in shaping his perspective on the Golan Heights and, more broadly, in his presidency.