TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Around 10 days after 9/11, I met with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called me in and informed me that we were going to war with Iraq. When I asked why, he didn't have a clear answer. There was no evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. It seemed like they didn't know what else to do, so they decided to go to war. A few weeks later, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq, and he showed me a memo stating that we planned to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The Middle East's oil resources have attracted great power involvement, and there has always been a belief that we could use force in the region.

In The Dharma Jews, Mustafa Turan writes that the founder of Wahhabism, Abdul Wahhab Ibrahim al Shamari, is a descendant of Dharma from Turkey. Wahhab’s grandfather Suleiman was actually named Shulman from the Turkish community of Bursa; after being expelled for practicing sorcery in Damascus, he fled to Egypt and fathered Wahhab. This claim is echoed in The Origins of the Saudi Wahhabis by Rifat Salim Kabar. It appears that much of the Saudi family has Jewish ancestry. According to the Wahhabi movement, the truth and roots by Abdul Wahhab Ibrahim al Shamari, Ibrahim Saud descends from Mordecai bin Ibrahim bin Mushi, a Jew from Basra. Abdul Wahab himself claims that in 1943, then Saudi ambassador Abdullah bin Ebrahim al Mufaddel paid 35,000 jinni to forge a family tree connecting them to the prophet Muhammad. These claims are not verified. But considering the controversial role Wahhabism plays in Islam, along with intel documents released from the Department of Defense, a report in 2002 shows that the Iraqi government was aware of the Wahhabist activity to undermine Islam.

The documentary presents a sweeping narrative that the modern era’s wars and security state are driven by deliberate, government-sponsored manipulation—false flag operations and orchestrated crises designed to terrify populations, justify expanded power, and secure global hegemony. It threads together historical examples, contemporary incidents, and testimonies to argue that the public has been misled by official narratives and that truth is being hidden behind “specters of fear.” False flag origins and early precedents - The program defines false flag operations as covert actions designed to appear as if carried out by other actors, with a long focus on the use of terror as a pretext for political ends. - Adolf Hitler’s regime is cited as a classic example: Reichstag fire in 1933, with a patsy framed for the blaze, enabling new laws that consolidated power. The film emphasizes the crisis as a vehicle to drift toward dictatorship and aggression. - The 1953 Iran coup is described as a CIA-MI6 operation (Operation Ajax) that overthrew Mohammad Mossaddegh after his nationalization of oil, with Western intelligence allegedly admitting to terror attacks and propaganda against Mossaddegh. The narrative stresses the role of MI6 and the CIA in orchestrating fear and regime change, and the long-term consequences of SAVAK and imperial influence. - Operation Gladio is presented as an umbrella for Western intelligence-led bombings in Europe (Italy, NATO states) designed to be blamed on leftists; Bologna’s 1980 bombing is highlighted as an instance where officials later spoke of Gladio’s civilian targeting. - The Gulf of Tonkin incident is recounted as a staged pretext to escalate U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, with declassified accounts and tapes cited to show manipulated intelligence and the subsequent Tonkin Resolution enabling mass casualties. Cold War and postwar covert operations - The film cites Northwoods, a proposed plan to hijack aircraft and blame others to justify war with Cuba; it notes that President Johnson pursued some operational concepts in that vein, linking them to defense planning in the era. - The USS Liberty incident is recounted with claims of an Israeli attack that was allowed to proceed despite clear identification of the ship, and subsequent suppression of details. The narrative includes interviews with figures who allege political orders to sink the ship and to blame it on Egypt. - The 1964 Tonkin incident, the 1967-1968 war moves, and covert operations across the globe are woven into a larger claim that Western powers have repeatedly manufactured or exploited external threats to justify expansion and intervention. 7/7 and London: a modern false flag argument - The film pivots to the July 7, 2005 London bombings, arguing MI6 involvement and suggesting that Al Qaeda links were contrived or manipulated. It points to Madrid’s 2004 bombings as a precursor, noting that officials later admitted Al Qaeda had limited or no connection in some cases. - It presents testimony about MI6 involvement with operatives associated with or acting as assets, including claims about a mastermind linked to MI6 and the protection of a suspect (Aswat) by British intelligence. - The documentary emphasizes anomalies in the official narrative: a single bus diverted to Tavistock Square, eyewitness inconsistencies about the bomber, and post-event claims about surveillance footage and MO incongruities. It asserts evidence of cover-ups, whistleblowers, and political calculations aimed at maintaining fear and martial-law-like measures. - It frames the London attacks as a tool to bolster Tony Blair’s political standing, allow the passage of restrictive laws, and justify overseas military campaigns, while alleging a broader pattern of Western governments staging terror to secure interests. 9/11 and the “inside job” thesis - The centerpiece is a claim that 9/11 was an inside job, with expert and lay testimonies questioning the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, Building 7, and the presence of alternative explanations (thermite, controlled demolition). - The film cites declassified and public materials (Northwoods-like concepts; cited White House memos about luring Saddam into a war through staged actions; investigations into the Pentagon frames) to argue that the government manipulated intelligence and public opinion to justify the Iraq War. - It features a roster of notable figures—former MI5/MI6 whistleblowers, CIA veterans, and academics—who challenge the official 9/11 account, including references to Operation Northwoods, the PNAC document, and analyses suggesting a “false flag” justification for imperial aims. - Charlie Sheen’s public remarks are highlighted as a turning point in mainstream attention to alternative theories, followed by media coverage of new 9/11 footage and debates about Building 7, the Pentagon frames, and thermite evidence. - The documentary cites physicists and engineers who question official explanations, citing molten metal, traces of thermite, and expert analyses of the WTC collapse as signs of demolition rather than collapse from fire alone. Surveillance, civil liberties, and the information war - A recurring claim is that the modern battle is largely informational: psychological warfare, public relations, and control of the narrative are seen as the dominant form of warfare, with public opinion manipulation described as the real battlefield. - Edward Bernays is invoked as the architect of modern propaganda, with quotes about shaping masses and an “invisible government” pulling the strings—an “unseen mechanism” that governs democratic societies. - The film argues that fear and threats are used to erode civil liberties: expanded surveillance, identity cards, free-speech restrictions, and the use of homeland-security rhetoric to suppress dissent, including zones for demonstrations and media suppression in multiple democracies. - It mentions whistleblowers from MI5/MI6 who claim funding of extremist groups and complicity in covert actions, and it frames journalists and activists as agents of influence or targets of state pressure when challenging official narratives. Iraq, oil, and empire - Pentagon and White House documents are cited to claim that post-9/11 strategy sought to counter regional threats and secure access to oil resources, with basing and long-term occupation framed as part of a broader plan for permanent military presence and regional control. - The film argues that the “war on terror” is a pretext for a broader imperial project: redrawing borders, destabilizing regions to facilitate resource control, and exploiting crises to profit defense contractors. - It contends that the “new world order” seeks to keep populations under surveillance and compliance, with public narratives constructed around fear of terrorism and the need for security measures that erode cherished liberties. Closing call - The speakers urge viewers to uncover motive (qui bono), question official stories, and resist the expansion of government power through fear and manipulation. - They advocate for independent inquiry, whistleblowing, and public accountability to stop what they call an ongoing cycle of manufactured crises used to justify a global empire and a police-state governance model. Note: The summary mirrors the documentary’s asserted claims, statements, and testimonies as presented, without endorsing their veracity.

Bretton Woods emerged during wartime when the United States leveraged its position to shape a new monetary system centered on the US dollar. At the Bretton Woods Conference, 44 states signed off on a treaty that bound postwar nations to using the dollar as the principal currency for world settlements, with the dollar fixed to gold at 35 dollars per ounce. This Gold-vanilla dollar standard created confidence that every dollar was worth a specific amount of gold, effectively anchoring global finance to gold and supporting widespread use of the dollar. The arrangement worked reasonably well for a period, but the United States’ domestic and foreign actions—driven by frequent wars and large domestic spending—made fiscal conditions unstable. By the 1970s, the US was engaged in Vietnam and expanding welfare, Medicare, and other social reforms alongside massive infrastructure spending, which generated substantial debt. As debt grew, other countries questioned the productivity of that spending and began to worry about accumulating more debt. France, Italy, Germany, and Britain sought gold in exchange for surplus dollars. The US sometimes accepted, but not uniformly; notably, the governor of the German Bundesbank committed never to ask for gold again, while other nations pressed for gold or alternatives. The system’s stability eroded as countries contemplated how to avoid reliance on the dollar. In 1971, Richard Nixon unilaterally suspended the exchange of dollars for gold, after weekend discussions with advisers, effectively ending the gold convertibility of the dollar and establishing fiat currencies not fixed to gold or to the dollar. The transition produced a volatile period with few established foreign exchange mechanisms, leaving the world in a more unsettled monetary environment. To stabilize the system, Henry Kissinger and Treasury officials pursued a new anchor by tying the dollar to a globally demanded commodity: oil. The idea was that oil would create sustained demand for the dollar. Following this, the United States and allied nations promoted the policy that oil would be sold in dollars, and many Middle Eastern producers aligned with this arrangement. Leaders of some oil-producing countries faced severe consequences for resisting the dollar-based system: for example, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi sought to sell oil in currencies other than the dollar and faced significant repercussions, including their deaths and the occupation of oilfields by American forces when necessary. This dollar-oil linkage functioned as a mechanism to stabilize the post-gold monetary order but drew increasing criticism for coercive and violent measures to maintain the system, contributing to growing global interest in moving away from dollar dependence.

No country can be truly democratic or independent without control over its own currency. The people, not unelected bankers, should have the power to determine the value and control of their currency through the democratic process. Paper money needs to be backed by a hard asset to maintain its credibility. Countries are forced to borrow US dollars because oil must be paid for in this currency. Consequently, they pay interest to the private owners of the US Federal Reserve, including US citizens themselves. Any threat to the petrodollar, like the creation of the euro, is fiercely opposed. Wars are not fought for democracy and freedom, but rather to protect the private bankers who control the world's printing press. It is time to hold these central bankers accountable for the financial hardships and bloodshed they cause.

After 9/11, a general informed me that the decision to go to war with Iraq was made without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. Later, a memo revealed plans to attack 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq. Iran's involvement in Iraq is seen as a response to US presence. The possibility of a military confrontation with Iran is looming due to US actions. Saudi Arabia is funding Sunni groups to counter Iranian influence, potentially including groups with ties to Al Qaeda. The consequences of a premature US withdrawal from Iraq could lead to increased Sunni extremism, supported by Saudi Arabia, to combat Shia influence.

- Speaker 0: Since Israel began strikes on Gaza after Hamas’ surprise attack on October 7, it has targeted residential buildings. The UN says nearly 200,000 structures have been destroyed or damaged. With so many fleeing attacks, Palestinians packed into makeshift shelters, many of them UN run schools, but they were not safe. More than 1,000 schools have been bombed, and Israel has destroyed most of Gaza's hospitals, including Al Shifa, where more than 400 Palestinians were killed in a raid in March 2024. - Speaker 1: We make the best weapons in the world, and we’ve got a lot of them. And we’ve given a lot to Israel, frankly. And I mean, Bibi would call me so many times, can you get me this weapon, that weapon, that weapon. Some of them I never heard of, baby, and I made them. But we’d get them here, wouldn’t we? And they are the best. They are the best. And you but you used them well. It also takes people that know how to use them, and you obviously used them very well. But so many that Israel became strong and powerful, which ultimately led to peace. That’s what led to peace. So as we celebrate today, let us remember how this nightmare of depravity and death all began. - Speaker 2: In 1948, when the land of Palestine was officially stolen and given to a group of rabid Zionists who murdered over 10,000 Palestinians. This crime against humanity was decided as early as 1917 with the Balfour Declaration, the British Crown, and Lord Rothschild of the Rothschild banking dynasty, otherwise known as the Bank of England, who when it’s all said and done, will have control over hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Palestinian oil and gas reserves. As Michael Roverero famously said, all wars are bankers’ wars. According to Benjamin Franklin, the primary catalyst for the American Revolution was the Bank of England’s Currency Act. After the revolution, a value based economy with no interest being paid to any central bank was created. But it didn’t last long. The first bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 and favored foreign stockholders over Americans. The charter ended in January 1811 followed by the war of eighteen twelve and the establishment of the second bank of the United States in 1816, which gave more power to the Bank of England. Andrew Jackson successfully killed the bank’s renewal and shortly after became the first US president targeted for assassination when Richard Lawrence drew pistols on him outside The US capital, but misfired. Laws were passed in the early eighteen sixties for the US government to issue its own currency in a value based economy as opposed to the debt based system imposed by central banks. According to an 1864 edition of the London Times, this would have made America the wealthiest nation of the world. The article warned that if a government creates its own money, it will be without debt. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world and therefore must be destroyed. In 1865, president Lincoln was assassinated, and the economy was quickly phased back to the central bank’s debt enslavement model. In 1913, the tyrannical Federal Reserve Bank and federal income tax was born. The two world wars brought Germany under the heel of the central banking cartel. Western banking institutions financed the Bolshevik revolution. In 2000, Iraq stopped selling its oil and Federal Reserve notes. In 2003, Iraq was illegally invaded by The United States and dollar based oil sales were reinstated. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi’s gold dinar currency was making the nation rich. In 2011, The US invaded and reverted Libya’s oil sales to dollars. The Bank for International Settlements recently proposed efforts under the guise of anti money laundering that would provide scores to tokens and digital wallets including stablecoins. Digital ID, social credit scores, and a carbon tax is what the bankers are up to now. And everything else is a distraction. Today’s war is mostly psychological, and it’s being waged upon you. Greg Reese reporting. The Reiss report is now fully funded by my Substack subscribers. Subscribe today and support my work at gregreiss.substack.com.

Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis and Speaker 1 (Galloway) discuss domestic and international political currents surrounding Donald Trump, Iran tensions, and the Ukraine conflict, weighing consequences, risks, and strategic realities. Epstein and distraction debate: - Davis argues Trump is not convincing anyone to divert attention from the Epstein files, noting a core supportive base that defends him regardless of accusations. He observes a faction around Trump’s inner circle (Todd Blanche, etc.) pushing to move on and deny accountability, while impeachment remains the legislative route to any justice in the United States. - Davis emphasizes a dynamic where a loyal core persists, but that base is “leaking” and may erode as evidence and claims mount. The potential for impeachment remains a central, if unlikely, pathway to accountability given Republican control of the House and Senate. - He notes Trump’s domestic and international actions could fuel a “blue wave” for Republicans, but insists the public’s perception of the economy and released (and unreleased) files could undermine support. There is skepticism about whether the core will accept the unfolding disclosures. War with Iran and the wag-the-dog concern: - The discussion touches on whether Trump’s mobilization and rhetoric are intended to distract (a wag-the-dog scenario) or whether diplomacy could prevail. Davis cautions that few feel reassured by the prospect of a limited air-dominant campaign without ground troops, describing it as a gamble with “nearly no chance of success” and potential for significant strategic and credibility damage. - Galloway counters that some Trump advisers advocate diplomacy, while others press for hardline action. He notes the domestic political pressure to strike and questions the plan for post-regime-change Iran, citing Secretary of State testimony indicating uncertainty about what would follow a successful removal of the Ayatollah. - Both acknowledge the risk of severe economic and regional instability: the destruction of oil infrastructure, closure of straits, and cascading repercussions in Europe and globally, with Iran’s proxies potentially exacerbating conflict. Iraq, post-conflict planning, and economic stakes: - The conversation revisits the 2003 Iraq War, highlighting the lack of a credible plan for post-regime outcomes and the possibility of unleashing broader regional upheaval, including ISIS and Al Qaeda resurgence. - They stress the economic carnage that could accompany any conflict: the potential for an “economic nuclear winter” in the West and in Europe, with oil and gas disruptions and a collapse of allied economies, especially if adversaries fight to the last. Ukraine track and Russia’s leverage: - On Ukraine, Davis notes the discrepancy between public statements by political figures (e.g., Mark Rutte’s coalition-building claims) and battlefield realities: Russia continues to gain ground while Ukraine’s military resources lag. - Russia reiterates demilitarization and denazification terms; Western pivot toward terms favorable to Moscow appears uncertain but possibly underway due to growing recognition of Russia’s gains. - Davis suggests President Trump’s private ultimatum rhetoric to Zelensky—about deadlines for negotiations or withdrawal—reflects a broader sense that Russia has effectively won the war, with Ukraine bearing substantial losses. - The overall assessment is that, regardless of whether Trump acts, Russia’s victory in Ukraine appears likely to redefine the regional balance, with the total costs and consequences of any Western intervention remaining unclear.

In 2000, Iraq switched from trading oil in US dollars to euros, leading to tensions with the US. After 9/11, the US falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Today, the US is at odds with Russia and China for not using US dollars for oil. The speaker predicts a future conflict in Ukraine, warning of lies to justify war. They caution against media manipulation and urge vigilance.

The video argues that a “new world order” is unfolding in real time, signaling the start of a “great reset.” The host points to events from the past Friday as evidence: 3,000,000 Epstein files released, the biggest one-day drop in the history of the precious metals market, and a large arbitrage developing among Chinese, London, and US precious metals markets. Gold is described as the indicator that a full-blown reset is upon us, with attention drawn to pathways like the US’s approach to Iran and the Epstein files, while claiming a broader resetting dynamic is at work. Context for the moment centers on Friday’s nomination of Kevin Warsh (referred to as Kevin Walsh in the transcript) as the new Fed chairman. The host notes baggage around Warsh, including his appearance in Epstein files, but emphasizes his views: Warsh “hates stimulus money,” “hates quantitative easing,” and “voted against it,” believing it pushes inflation higher. He is said to have shifted on interest rates, from believing higher interest rates were good for the dollar to a different stance, and he allegedly favors slashing the Fed’s balance sheet to lower rates. The implication is that the nomination marks a shift toward a new dollar era and a shift away from a strong USD, which the host frames as a response to concerns about the US owning precious metals and controlling energy markets. The host ties these changes to a new petrodollar era, arguing that the United States, now the largest producer of oil and natural gas, has moved the petrodollar structure away from Saudi Arabia and toward the US. This trifecta—new dollar policy from the Fed, a drop in the precious metals market driven by speculators, and US control over energy policy—constitutes a “reset.” The video asserts that the traditional petrodollar system, once led by OPEC, has shifted, reducing outside leverage over Washington in energy matters. The host also claims a debate over foreign influence in the Middle East and calls for ending involvement in regional wars and bringing troops home, while criticizing mainstream outlets and certain political figures. Four main points are then presented as the crux of the reset: 1) Trump desires a weaker US dollar and is pursuing greater domestic manufacturing to compete with China and India, including the aim to export more and import less; the host frames this as a deliberate strategic shift rather than inflationary debasement. 2) The end of the Fed’s independence, with a collaboration era between the Treasury and the Fed, led by figures like Scott Pissent and Warsh, suggesting much lower interest rates and a shift of debt ownership back to American hands, with foreigners potentially selling US Treasuries. 3) Energy wars are emerging, with the US drilling and producing more oil and natural gas than Russia and Saudi Arabia combined, changing the energy dynamic with China, which remains a large importer of oil and vulnerable to such shifts. 4) Sustaining public support for volatility, with Trump’s team allegedly aiming to declare a housing emergency to lower rates, discourage Wall Street from buying single-family homes, implement tariff dividends to Americans, deliver veterans’ checks, and lower inflation and gas prices in the lead-up to midterms. The host contrasts reactions within the Trump-supporting and anti-Trump camps, asserting the reset is underway regardless of opinion. A sponsor segment then pivots to copper, arguing that copper demand is surging due to global competition for materials, and highlighting Giant Mining Corporation (ticker: BFGFF) as a primary copper idea tied to the Majuba Hill Copper Project in Nevada, noting its favorable infrastructure, past production, and strategic importance to American copper independence. The segment cites executive actions and tariff movements, including a 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products effective August 1, 2025, positioning copper as central to the new industrial reality. The host reiterates Giant Mining as the foremost copper idea and invites viewers to conduct their own research.

Syria had a surplus of wheat before the war, but we wanted to create famine by taking it away. We also seized oil and gas fields to disrupt transportation and freeze the population during winter. Despite our efforts, the resilient Syrian people resisted against overwhelming military force for over a decade. To regain control, the US imposed harsh CAESAR sanctions on Syria.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced that Iraq would sell oil in euros instead of dollars, leading to the US invasion in 2003. Similarly, Venezuela's plan to sell oil for euros in 2002 resulted in a failed coup backed by the US. Despite having the largest oil reserves, Venezuela is now one of the poorest economies. Libya, with the largest oil reserves in Africa, also faced consequences when Muammar Gaddafi suggested selling oil for gold instead of dollars. NATO intervened in Libya, leading to Gaddafi's execution. These countries wanted to break away from using the dollar for oil payments, but faced the wrath of America.

Speaker 0: Welcome to game plan. I'm Shivan Jan now. So far, there is only one winner in this war in West Asia, and that's Russia. Mind you, I'm not saying that this was acknowledged by the European Council president Antonio Costa. US Israeli strikes in West Asia, they have driven up the price of oil, strengthening the Kremlin's ability to fund its military campaign. Now in a sharp reversal from last year's policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy, US treasury secretary Scott Pessen said that The United States could unsanction other Russian oil to keep the flow of oil intact. And this is because the Strait Of Hormuz, the pivotal point from where this war is kind of converging, that is under complete Iranian control. Movement of ships has been blocked. Movement of oil has been blocked. It has shot up the oil prices, and the repercussions are being felt across the world at this point. Is the war proving to be a boon for Russia whose economy is dependent on energy exports? As the state of Hormuz gets blocked, Russia gets a free hand at selling its oil at rates that can be expounded without proper discounts as well. Is Putin the one winning in the war that US and Israel started against Iran? To discuss this with me on game plan is doctor Glenn Deesen, professor of international relations at the University of Southeastern Norway. Glenn, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thanks so much for joining me here. Trump and Putin, they held a call recently, the first time this year, and this was to discuss the discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran. What do you think they would have discussed, and what kind of a role can Putin be playing in the ongoing war? Speaker 1: Well, I assume some of the things to discuss was obviously the the the extent to which The US and Russia targets each other because one of the things that the American media has been complaining about is the likelihood that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran for targets, but of course this is what The United States been doing for years and continues to do, that is give the Ukrainians targets to hit Russia. So I think there's a necessity to begin to discuss is appropriate and again what happens behind these doors, I don't know. But also of course there has to be some scaling back of the energy sanctions against Russia to bring this, the energy prices under control. As you suggest, they are now very much out of control. But I think also the main thing they've discussed is how to bring this war to an end because I think it's perfectly clear now that this US attack on Iran was a terrible mistake, and it appears that Putin would be the the main middleman who would might be able to bring an end to this war. But, again, it depends what can be done as what the Iranians will demand may be more than what the Americans can deliver. Speaker 0: Glenn, as you mentioned, Putin could perhaps be the main person to bring peace in this war. Putin has the highest chance of acting as peacemaker in West Asia. Is there anyone other than Putin at this point who can bring? Because just look at the optics of it. US starts a war, and I think ten days into it, he needs to make a call to Vladimir Putin to discuss that same war. How does it look for The US? Speaker 1: Well, they don't care for this, of course, but that it's similar to what to what happened with the war against Syria. That is, if you remember, back at president Obama's time, he had set these red lines, he were gonna attack Syria. It was quite obvious that this would be a disaster. So he went to the Russian president and he was able to get a deal through and which essentially took Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So it was, you know, it it it is the reality or the optics of it isn't great given that The US has been fighting a proxy war for years against Russia, but but, know, at some point, you have to put the optics aside. Who who else would be in a position to help to negotiate this? I'm thinking, you know, perhaps China could be a middleman, but I think given that The United States, especially under the Trump administration, wants to improve bilateral ties with Russia, I I I think he's probably the best, yeah, the best bet. Speaker 0: Would it be fair to say that Putin is emerging as a winner in this ongoing West Asia war, which only seems to be expanding within the West Asian region? Speaker 1: Well, no. I think, yeah, to a large extent, I think that is correct because the energy prices are way up. The US have to scale back sanctions. The all the weapons which The US had intended to ship towards Ukraine to fight Russia is now being depleted. For European leaders, as you mentioned earlier on, to who aspire to prolong the war in Ukraine, this is an absolute disaster. And we'll see that countries that cut the energy ties or at least reduced energy ties with Russia at the best of American pressure, they of course have learned a lesson now as well that this was not a good idea that you don't necessarily put bet too much on a hegemon in decline, so countries who before paid discounts now may have to pay premium. We'll see that Iran, which I assume is getting some support from Russia sees this relationship improving dramatically. They're moving much closer, which is good for Russia because the Iranians always have some suspicions towards the Russians given well a long history they've had through the centuries of conflict. So all of this improves. You can also say that The Gulf States, the weakening of The Gulf States has also a big impact on weakening The U. S. Ability to restore its hegemony because what show what's obvious now is that the Gulf States are not getting protection instead they're becoming very vulnerable as frontline states and The US is no longer seen as that reliable. Well, if they're not going to bet their security on The United States anymore then they may not have that much pressure to sell their oil in dollars. You're not gonna have those recycled petrodollars coming back to The US, and suddenly the whole AI race with China looks a lot weaker as well. So I think across the board, a lot of things look good for Russia, but and there is a big but here, and that is I don't think that the Russians want this war nonetheless because the Russians, much like the Chinese, value stability and predictability. And what's happening in Iran now could again, if something would happen to Iran collapse, that would be a disaster for this Greater Eurasia initiative that is to integrate economies of Greater Eurasian Continent, but also this could spiral into a world war. So from this perspective, it's very dangerous and I don't doubt that the Russians therefore want to put an end to this war simply because I guess much like India, they don't want the Eurasian Continent to be too China centric, they would like to have many poles of power and this requires diversification. This means that the Russians need close ties with Iran, with India and other countries. So for the Americans to knock off Iran off the, you know, the chessboard, the greater Eurasian chessboard would be a disaster for the Russians. So, yes, I think they're prospering or benefiting from this, but they they do wanna put an end to it. Speaker 0: Understood. Glenn, let me just come to the Strait Of Hormuz. You know, the objectives of U. S. Behind starting this war, that has been questioned enough. Why did you start this war in the first place? Those are questions not just emerging, you know, globally. They're also emerging from inside The U. S. But if you look at what a win will actually look like for US, would it be the state of Hormuz? Like, which whoever controls the state of Hormuz is eventually who walks away as you know, walks away with the victory at this point because The US was looking for a change in regime. They mentioned it enough number of times. That hasn't happened and doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Is the state of Hormuz the winning factor now? Speaker 1: Well, I I I don't think any The US would be in a position to control this just given the geography. So The US obviously went into into this war with the objective of regime change. That was the goal. This was the decapitation strike, this was the hope of killing Khamenei and obviously it didn't work. I think it shouldn't have come as a surprise, but you know killing the leader of Iran only created more solidarity within the country. And also the idea that the whole armed forces would begin to disintegrate once they had been punished enough, also proven to be incorrect. So I think at the moment you see the American pivoting a bit. Some are talking about the Strait Of Moose that this should be a goal, others are saying you see a shift now towards saying well, actually what we really want to do is just degrade Iran's missile capabilities that they won't have this long range missiles. And again, you know, these are the kind of vague objectives which they can essentially declare victory today then because Iran has had many of its missiles destroyed. Also it launched a lot of its missiles at U. S. Targets which means that its missile stockpile has been reduced. So this should be a source of optimism when The U. S. Moves from this very hard line objective such as regime change and they shift in towards missiles, reducing the missile stockpiles or something like this. But the straight of our moves, I think, is beyond what what is reasonable. It's it will be too difficult. So I don't think they will But why push too hard on do Speaker 0: you feel it would be difficult if I were to just look at the bases that they have across West Asia? They have enough military might. Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, have their bases there. How difficult would it be to exert that military might over the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, controlling it just means the ability to shut it down. Many countries would have the ability to shut down this narrow strait. The problem is that no one benefits from it, that is the Gulf States are hurt, Iran is hurt from it, The US and the global economy is hurt. So it becomes an exercise in self harm. The reason why the Iranians are doing this, the ability to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz is because The US has the ability to inflict a mass amount of destruction. It can go after civilian infrastructure, it can well, look what they've done to Tehran. It looks like, well, just, you know, the chemical warfare there. You've seen in terms of going after his fuel depots. They're going after the water supplies in Iran. You you see all these things. This is what America can do. Iran doesn't have that ability. They can't hit The United States. What they can do is cause economic pain. So, yes, I think The US and many of the Gulf States can also shut down the Strait Of Our Moose, but but but that's not that's it doesn't have any purpose. It doesn't have any reasoning. Speaker 0: Can they eradicate the Iranian control over the Strait Of Hormuz? I'm not talking about shutting it down, but just get rid of the Iranians from there and they then decide who gets to control and when it has to be shut and when it has to be opened and remained and kept open and secured. Can The US exert that kind of military might over the state of Hormuz to control it? Speaker 1: Then one need us to control a massive amount of Iran's territory, which is a huge territory with populated by 90,000,000 people. So this seems very unlikely and if closing down the Strait Of Hormuz would depend on very sophisticated weapon systems, will be one thing. But this can be shut down with drones which can be manufactured in apartments. It can be also shut down with small naval drones that is this essentially drone operated small torpedoes. There's it doesn't require a lot of high technology which means that The US can't take out very key infrastructure to prevent Iran from shutting this down, to force it to open. But with very cheap and easy to make weapons, the Iranians can shut it down and it's simply too much territory, too large population for The United States to shut down the these capabilities. So at some point, they're have to make peace with the Iranians and make it make sure it's in Iran's interest to keep the Strait Of Hormuz open because it is in their interest. The problem now is that Iran faces an existential threat. That is The US now threatens to destroy not just the government, but also the country. As Trump tweeted, we we will make it impossible for Iran to even rebuild as a nation. And this is what regime change means. There is no replacement government. This means the disintegration and destruction of Iran, a massive civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So for them this is existential which is why they went to this great extent. They've never done this before because they never believed that they faced this kind of an existential threat. So if the war ends, the Iranians have no reason to shut this straight down. This is very horrible for them as well. So, no, I I don't think The US can control the straight or almost no one can control it completely because too many actors could shut it down. Speaker 0: Glenn, thanks so much for joining me here on game plan. Whether this war continues further, that only means and if it does, that's essentially what Iran is looking at because they're not capitulating. They're not giving up. They are taking a bad amount of beating. There's no doubt in that, but they are continuing with their counters nevertheless. And straight of hormones is their main play where they're exerting their pressure with whether it's mines, whether it's their own boats, whether it's their own military boats. Now energy experts have also warned that whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia's economy, that depends directly on how long it lasts. But there is little to suggest that Iran is willing to capitulate that what we just discussed. They're inviting U. S. To continue the war on the other hand. That's what the statements from Iran suggest that we're waiting. Come on, on. Now in the midst of this, Russia is emerging as the winner as we just discussed. How long this lasts? It doesn't seem to be in the favor of The U. S. We'll need to wait and watch twelfth day and running. They expected it to last for about four to five weeks, whether it goes the distance or even longer. Let's wait. That was Glenn Deeson joining me here on Game Plan. Speaker 1: Thanks, Yvonne.

Around 10 days after 9/11, I met with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called me and informed me that we were going to war with Iraq, even though there was no evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The decision was made because they didn't know what else to do about terrorism. A few weeks later, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq, and I was told that the plan was even bigger. The Secretary of Defense had a memo outlining a strategy to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The presence of oil in the Middle East has always attracted great power involvement, and there has been a belief that force can be used to intervene in the region.

In October 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, Arab oil-producing nations initiated an oil embargo against the US and Europe for their support of Israel. Oil prices quadrupled, causing fuel shortages and inflation. Saudi Arabia joined the embargo, cutting production and raising prices. Although Saudi Arabia didn't own more than 50% of Aramco at the time, the kingdom still controlled oil exports, forcing Aramco to cut production and raise prices. Saudi Arabia leveraged its sovereign authority to dictate oil exports, compelling Aramco to comply with production cuts. The oil price surge during the embargo resulted in substantial financial gains for Saudi Arabia and demonstrated its increasing control over its oil industry by 1974.

Syria had a significant wheat surplus before the war, and there were plans to seize this wheat to create famine. Additionally, oil and gas fields in northern Syria were targeted to disrupt transportation and harm the civilian population during harsh winters. The goal was to starve and freeze the Syrian people, but their resilience against overwhelming military force frustrated these efforts. To regain control, the US Congress imposed the CAESAR sanctions, which were among the most severe sanctions ever placed on a nation.

The transcript presents a sequence of claims about the origin of the petrodollar system and the role of U.S. leadership in shaping how oil is priced and traded globally. It asserts that the petrodollar was "actually a device invented by Kissinger and Nixon," attributing the concept to the efforts and ideas of two prominent U.S. officials, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon. It then references a specific historical event: a secret meeting between U.S. President Richard Nixon and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with Kissinger serving as Secretary of State and national security adviser. The meeting is said to have occurred aboard a battleship, the USS Quincy, and is described as one for which "very few records were kept." The transcript links this clandestine encounter to a broader strategic arrangement involving Saudi Arabia, implying that the purpose of the meeting was to secure the United States’ exclusive rights to develop oil from Saudi Arabia using U.S. dollars. According to the speaker, the underlying exchange was that Roosevelt promised the king of Saudi Arabia weapons and protection in return for the United States obtaining the exclusive right to develop Saudi oil using dollars. The consequence of this arrangement, as stated, is that oil would subsequently be priced in U.S. dollars. Furthermore, the text asserts that if other countries attempted to obtain oil without using dollars, those countries historically needed "more freedom in their lives," implying a link between currency choice for oil transactions and the level of political or economic freedom in those countries. In summary, the transcript presents a narrative in which the petrodollar system originated from a high-level U.S.-Saudi agreement tied to weaponry and defense guarantees, formalized through a secret meeting on the USS Quincy, and culminating in oil being priced and traded in U.S. dollars. It frames this development as a deliberate construct by Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, with a consequential condition that deviating from the dollar-based oil trade would relate to a demand for greater freedom in the countries involved.

The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 because Iraq started trading oil in euros instead of US dollars. After 9/11, the US claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and harbored terrorists, leading to the invasion. Currently, the US is facing potential conflicts with Russia and China for trading oil in currencies other than the dollar. The speaker warns of a possible future war in Ukraine orchestrated by the military-industrial complex, urging people to be wary of lies told to justify sending troops overseas. The speaker emphasizes the need to question media narratives and highlights the shift in US military focus from the Middle East to Eastern Europe.

Peter Schiff discusses the economic dimension of the Iran war, arguing it will have negative implications for the U.S. and global economy. He notes the economy was weak before the war, citing February jobs data showing 92,000 lost jobs (the worst report in five years on the initial numbers) and later downward revisions indicating a larger October 2025 job loss. He says three of the last five monthly job reports show net losses, indicating a weakening labor market that will deteriorate due to the war. Inflationary pressures are already present, and he expects oil to rise toward $90 a barrel (up more than 60% so far in 2026). As a result, consumers face a weakening economy, job losses, and a higher cost of living. He also highlights the war’s cost and the likelihood that, if it lasts longer than anticipated, it will extend the period of volatility and expenditure. Schiff questions whether the war can achieve its stated objectives, suggesting that bombing alone may not produce regime change and that the ensuing vacuum could be filled by a regime more hostile to the United States. He warns that a ground campaign could entail substantial casualties on both sides and implies that a prolonged conflict could be economically and politically damaging. He argues wars are expensive and tend to fuel inflation through debt and money printing, describing the war as a net negative. Politically, he expects increased Republican losses in the midterms and a Democratic White House in 2028, which he views as detrimental to the U.S. economy due to a presumed shift toward more expansive socialist policies. Regarding whether war can serve as a distraction from domestic problems, Schiff allows the possibility but points out related risks: he notes Trump had accused Obama of starting a war with Iran to distract from domestic shortcomings and argues the current conflict could similarly divert attention from other problems. He contends that Trump’s tariffs and broader economic policies have been problematic, and he criticizes the administration’s handling of various policy areas, asserting that the war could undermine Trump’s previous anti-war stance and appeal. On regional dynamics and energy, Schiff emphasizes that Iran may target U.S. assets in neighboring countries, and missiles in the region could cause collateral damage and draw in other countries. He discusses potential spillovers, including possible alignment changes among regional powers and Russia and China, and raises the specter of a broader regional or even global confrontation. He criticizes the idea that the United States should be deeply engaged across multiple theaters and reiterates his preference for accountable congressional deliberation on war decisions. He argues that a wider conflict could involve escalation risks and that the U.S. finding itself bogged down and unable to achieve swift victory would damage its standing. Energy implications are highlighted: higher energy prices would burden consumers and limit spending elsewhere, with some winners (oil producers benefiting from higher prices) and many losers. Schiff notes Europe’s energy choices, political shifts toward restricting fossil fuels, and argues that energy costs will eventually impose political consequences in Europe. He also discusses the potential for the Gulf States to move away from the dollar as the petrodollar system faces stress, predicting that the war could hasten dedollarization and increased interest in gold. Gold and silver are discussed as price hedges: Schiff notes that gold and silver prices were not quickly dramatic in the immediate aftermath, with gold around $5,150–$5,300 and silver around $82–$83, but he remains bullish that prices will rise as the dollar declines and deficits expand. He predicts a substantial upside for precious metals and contends that the long-term trend toward dedollarization and greater gold ownership will intensify. He frames the war as a strategic and economic inflection point, with potential winners and losers, and argues that the overall effect on the world is negative, even if some actors profit.

The US may want the Strait of Hormuz blocked because it would hurt China and Europe. Europe relies on the Strait for 18% of its oil and 15% of its LNG after shifting away from Russia due to sanctions. A blockade would leave the US as Europe's only option. China relies on the Strait for nearly 50% of its oil and 12% of its LNG, but has alternatives like Russia, pipelines, land routes, and long-term deals. Therefore, Europe would suffer more than China from a blockade. The US purportedly wants this because Europe would lose its independence and become fully dependent on the US.

Professor Zhang argues that geopolitics is a game where players maximize their self-interest, with predictions built on game theory rather than ideology. For 2026, the central event is Trump’s state visit to China in April, and the US–China relationship is identified as the key uncertain variable, while Russia–Ukraine is considered settled and Europe–NATO–Russia largely forecastable. Zhang outlines the grand strategy behind current tensions: Trump supposedly aims to force a grand bargain with China by leveraging the destabilization of the Middle East and Western Hemisphere to push China into continuing to buy US dollars. He contends that since Nixon’s 1971 decision to float the dollar, the US has relied on two pillars—the petrodollar system and opening China to American technology and markets. As the US then ran deficits and engaged in Middle East wars, China sought to internationalize the yuan and reduce dependence on the dollar via instruments like the Shanghai gold exchange. This, in his view, destabilizes the dollar, prompting Trump to push China to maintain dollar demand by destabilizing oil supply routes and minerals for China’s EV, AI, and other sectors. By invading Venezuela and potentially destabilizing Iran, Trump allegedly aims to force China to rely more on Western Hemisphere oil, silver, gold, lithium, copper, etc., and thus buy more US Treasuries to support the dollar. The discussion then shifts to possible bifurcations: if the United States truly wants China to use the dollar, it would create trust and a predictable, rules-based order; yet current actions—such as cutting China off from semiconductors or “crushing its tech industry”—could push China away, making it more independent and less dependent on the dollar. The Venezuelan case is cited as evidence that the aim is to obstruct China rather than claim oil directly; it would rather block rival powers than simply seize resources. The two powers are described as codependent: China imports about three-quarters of its oil, with roughly 50% from the Middle East and 20% from Russia; China would face a long and costly transition to replace Russian oil entirely, including pipelines. China also has tools to push back, such as triggering instability in silver markets (where China dominates) or other commodities used for manufacturing, a dynamic described as mutually assured economic destruction if either side overplays. When asked how the US could simultaneously pursue trust and coercion, Zhang asserts it cannot have both; the US is described as a global hegemon that should treat China as an equal, but instead presses to subordinate China. This creates a “ladder over an abyss” metaphor: both sides must climb together, or both fall; overt coercion could push China toward a different strategic alignment, possibly toward Russia or a diversified energy portfolio. Zhang emphasizes the role of hubris and racism in US policy, rather than pure ideology, and says the US dollar’s strength is also its vulnerability. Looking at US domestic dynamics, Zhang predicts a potential US economic crisis could magnify political instability. He identifies three US fragilities: (1) AI-driven GDP components that may not generate enduring profits, as data centers consume vast resources and job loss looms; (2) over-financialization, including a speculative silver market and leverage in commodities; and (3) cryptocurrency de-coupled from real utility, with quantum easing allowing continued money printing. He argues these weaknesses could precipitate a fiscal crisis and civil conflict if not contained, potentially catalyzing a broader crisis of state legitimacy. In Europe, Zhang foresees militarization and a misguided pro-war stance despite domestic discontent, predicting irrational policies and a possible collapse of NATO’s existing framework. He forecasts intensified Europe–Russia tensions, including a possible endgame around Odessa, with NATO likely to be overwhelmed militarily, leading to civil unrest and a “slow death” for European cohesion over five to ten years. He contends Europe’s strategic autonomy is eroding under multiculturalist policies and internal polarization, undermining willingness to fight. Regarding the United States’ global posture, Zhang argues Washington is moving toward transactional empire-building—exploiting its vassals when advantageous and abandoning them when not—while projecting power from the Western Hemisphere as a core strategy. He argues that this approach will erode Europe’s relevance and provoke global backlash. Finally, Zhang returns to Iran: Trump’s push for regime change there is linked to leveraging support from Israel and influential backers, such as Adelson and Elon Musk, with the likely aim of a ground invasion. Yet the plausibility of a successful invasion is questionable, given Iran’s size and power, and Trump’s emphasis on optics over sustained policy. The main unknown is China’s response; factions within China differ on dependence on Russia versus diversified oil sources, and the April meeting will shape whether a grand bargain reduces conflict or merely preserves the empire’s decline. To conclude, the April China meeting is pivotal, with four scheduled meetings in 2026; a China–US deal could stabilize some tensions, but the underlying imperial collapse is expected to persist, fueling wars and confrontations worldwide regardless of occasional bargains.

The speaker argues that the war in Iraq resulted in an enormous, unrecoverable cost: “we spent $2,000,000,000,000, thousands of lives,” and that the outcome left the United States with nothing to show for it. The speaker contends that Iran is now taking over Iraq, describing it as having “the second largest oil reserves in the world,” and asserts that this outcome proves the involvement in Iraq was a mistake. The speaker states that George Bush made a mistake and that the United States “should have never been in Iraq,” claiming that the intervention destabilized the Middle East. Regarding accountability, the speaker questions whether Bush should be impeached and suggests a preference for letting the other party decide how to label the issue, saying, “So you still think he should be impeached? I think it's my turn, ain't it? You do whatever you want.” The speaker emphasizes a belief that those responsible “lied,” specifically about weapons of mass destruction, asserting, “They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Alright.” In sum, the speaker presents three core assertions: (1) the Iraq War was extraordinarily costly in financial terms and human lives, and produced no tangible gain; (2) the war destabilized the Middle East and empowered Iran to increase influence in Iraq, which the speaker frames as a mistaken outcome; and (3) the leaders claimed WMDs existed when they did not, asserting that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that those claims were knowingly false. The dialogue also touches on impeachment as a potential consequence for the leadership involved, framed through the speaker’s yes-or-no stance and interjections about accountability.

The discussion centers on the Venezuelan operation that resulted in the capture of Maduro and the broader implications for global power dynamics. Larry asserts that many aspects of Maduro’s kidnapping were “odd,” noting that Caracas possessed significant air defense systems, most of which were not activated, and that one security service leader was a full cooperator with the United States, facilitating U.S. entry and avoiding return fire. He describes the operation as not replacing the Maduro government but “hold off Maduro, get US control of the oil, and get China and Russia and Iran out.” The plan, he states, was not regime change; the regime remained in power, but Maduro was removed temporarily to pursue strategic objectives. In recounting the operation, Larry explains that Delta Force operators from Task Force 160 carried out the mission in full moonlight, which he says reduced the usual advantage of nighttime execution. He compares the Caracas action to a pre-planned, staged exercise at Otis Air Force Base decades earlier, suggesting the Caracas operation was similarly staged, with the United States not facing ground fire. He notes conflicting casualty reports—“32 Cubans were killed” versus “80 Venezuelans”—and emphasizes the cooperation with Venezuelan forces, with no replacement of the government. A key point concerns a potential stand-down order. Larry indicates that the anti-air defenses bought from Russia—S-300s and Buk missiles—were not disabled; rather, they were not activated due to a stand-down order. He proposes that an insider within Maduro’s security apparatus cooperated with the U.S., and he names the possibility of a particular senior commander but declines to identify him publicly. He also discusses a theory that interim president Delcy Rodríguez might have been involved in providing intelligence or cooperation, but he regards such claims as a diversion from the real participants. The discussion then turns to the political and strategic objectives behind capturing Maduro. Mario asks about why capture was pursued if regime change was not intended, and Larry responds that the plan was to “get US control of the oil” and to push out rivals like China, Russia, and Iran from influence in Venezuela. They discuss potential future actions if Rodríguez or other internal leaders do not cooperate, including the possibility of escalating through force or covert operations that could provoke U.S. casualties and thus justify greater U.S. troop involvement. They compare this to the Iraq 2003 invasion planning, noting a lack of long-term stabilization plans. The Monroe Doctrine is invoked and contrasted with a Dunno/“Dunrold” framing. Larry argues that the Monroe Doctrine was misinterpreted as a unilateral U.S. claim to the Western Hemisphere, calling current U.S. actions a blend of Polk and Teddy Roosevelt’s doctrine rather than a strict, modern application of Monroe. He asserts that Russia and China are building a new international order with India and Brazil, and that Trump’s rhetoric may accelerate multipolar alignment, particularly with BRICS members like Brazil. They discuss how U.S. actions could push countries toward cooperating with China and Russia, potentially eroding U.S. hegemony. Turning to Iran, the analysts discuss protests and foreign involvement. They contend that Iranian protests are largely manufactured or supported by Western intelligence, including Mossad and the CIA, highlighting sources like the NCIR/Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) as part of Western intelligence influence. They note that Iran has strengthened ties with Russia and China since September, reducing sanctions pressure and improving economic options. They contend that Iran’s leadership—Pozheskin’s regime—has shown signs of adapting to internal pressures, including firing an economic minister, while maintaining a posture of resilience against Western demands. They discuss the twelve-day war with Israel, arguing Iran recovered quickly and maintained a strong stance, with deep hypersonic capabilities and robust air defense. The speakers conclude by debating whether the U.S. could replicate Maduro’s capture in Iran or whether a regime change attempt there is feasible. They contend there are no existing U.S. networks in Iran comparable to those in Venezuela, making a similar operation unlikely. They reflect on U.S. leverage, the role of foreign backing for Iran, and the potential for Iran to leverage its growing ties with Russia and China to resist Western pressure. The conversation ends with mutual appreciation and a New Year closing note.