TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Glenn: Welcome back. We’re joined by professor Syed Mohammed Marandi, from Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Thank you for coming back. Marandi: Hi, Glenn. Thank you. It shows how much I like your show because I went through a lot of trouble to get online. Glenn: I appreciate it. Regarding the riots in Iran, Tehran included, it seems every time there’s a buildup to regime change or invasion, the script follows a pattern: first destabilize with sanctions and an information war, then build on public grievances and instigate violent protests. You announce the intention to help locals in their aspirations for freedom, with rhetoric reduced to a binary: either you don’t care about the protesters or you support sanctions or intervention. After a coup or invasion, the US and its allies have a zero-sum geopolitical interest and power interest, not altruism. The result, from the Arab Spring onward, is that the country to be liberated is destroyed. Iranian protests are an internal issue, but once international, geopolitics intrudes. How do you assess the situation on the ground in Tehran, domestic grievances, and the geopolitical component? Marandi: Western media and think tanks periodically declare Iran on the verge of collapse, but the state has popular support and a strong constitutional adherence. Currency suddenly fell—perhaps 30–50% in a brief period—and was managed from abroad, with pressure from the US and Western allies on currency-exchange places. Peaceful protests in Tehran and other cities followed mainly by business people whose shops were threatened by rising prices; if the currency isn’t stabilized, they’d go out of business. Protests continued into day two, with larger crowds in some cities. Then infiltration occurred: small, well-disciplined groups began to riot. Over the past days, over 100 officers were murdered, some beheaded or burned alive, some police faces smashed. A nurse in a clinic was burned alive in the top floor; ambulances and fire engines were burned; a Red Crescent worker was killed. Western media claims “protesters” and ignores footage. Across the country today, demonstrations in support of the Islamic Republic and the constitution were large—city by city like Isfahan, Tabriz, Ahvaz, Mashhad, Tehran. The crowd in Tehran was among the largest ever. Despite rioters, millions showed up in demonstrations across the country. The Iranian state’s media is outspent by a global Persian-language media empire in the West, with billions spent on online campaigns, bot armies, and networks. Yet millions demonstrated in support of the state. People can see the footage themselves. The internet was shut down to coordinate rioters across groups including ISIS-related elements, monarchists, and Kurdish groups. The rioters’ coordination collapsed when the internet went down. The regime’s supporters remain, and demonstrations in Tehran and across Iran show broad, diverse perspectives, all affirming support for the constitution and the state. Glenn: I’ve seen pro-government marches here as well; they’re huge, though not always covered in Europe. Marandi: There’s a narrative control to label the government illegitimate to topple it. The rhetoric claims Iranians are freedom-loving, yet those who claim to support them have bombs and blood. Pompeo’s tweet suggesting Mossad agents among protesters, and Mossad’s Persian-language statements, indicate foreign interference. The internet blackout aimed to prevent coordination among rioters; footage shows violent acts—two men burned in a mosque, a nurse burned in a clinic, ambulances and public buses destroyed. The “millions on the streets” claim is contradicted by the actuality of coordination via foreign paymasters. Glenn: Trump claimed Iran had fallen and would negotiate; is this about a new nuclear deal, stalled or about missiles and Iran’s regional support? What are Washington’s aims? Marandi: No one contacted him; his claim about the second-largest city falling is baseless. His ignorance shows inchoate knowledge of ground realities. Trump’s past statements about surrendering Iran suggest aims aligned with the Israeli regime’s goals: a broken West Asia and North Africa, fragmentation of states, and meddling across the region. Erdogan’s miscalculation—allying with Israel and Qatar—empowered Israeli policy at the expense of Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and Iran. The “woman, life, freedom” protests were initially fueled by Western narratives; BBC Persian and other outlets spread misinformation about Massa Amini, which was later corrected, but the cycle repeats. The West uses propaganda to push riots; Iran’s endurance of sanctions and propaganda demonstrates broad legitimacy for the Islamic Republic even amid external pressure. The demonstrations today show support for the state, the constitution, and Iran’s policies while denouncing the US, the Israeli regime, and their supporters. AOC’s stance and Trump’s stance reflect a uniparty tendency toward empire preservation. Glenn: Regarding potential war, Lindsey Graham floated strikes; how likely is war? Marandi: The currency manipulation aimed to justify instability for war. The CIA, Mossad, and others would seek to justify strikes, but Iran is prepared for war. If the US attacks, Iran may strike back; the population that stood with the state could unite in the face of aggression. Iran’s capabilities include underground drone and missile bases, short- to medium-range missiles, more easily moved than long-range missiles. Iran could devastate US installations if attacked. If war occurs, Iran could retaliate in the Persian Gulf and beyond, potentially impacting global economies. If the US begins, Iran could respond decisively, targeting American interests abroad and in the region. The Zionists allegedly favor war for their regional aims, regardless of Western consequences. Glenn: Professor Malandy, thank you for traveling and for the discussion. Marandi: Always a pleasure, Glenn.

On elite campuses, there is a significant influence from certain groups that promote controversial ideas. A Berkeley professor argued that it is crucial to view Hamas and Hezbollah as progressive social movements on the left. It is worth noting that this professor, Judith Butler, is a lesbian. The speaker points out the hypocrisy of these movements, as they condemn gendering someone as a human rights abuse but openly call for the murder of Jews. This ideology is deemed disgusting and unacceptable.

Israel and Zionism are condemned, along with anyone associated with them. The speaker expresses anger towards Arab kingdoms and the West. They criticize the hypocrisy of those who wouldn't eat animal food but allow others to suffer. The speaker deems them genocidal and hypocritical.

White liberals are criticized for supporting Palestine despite the mistreatment of queer individuals there. The speaker highlights the violence faced by queer people in Palestine, including being dragged behind trucks or receiving long prison sentences. They mention Iran's involvement in supporting Palestine, which follows laws that kill gay people. The speaker points out the irony of Tel Aviv, Israel, hosting the world's largest pride festival while queer individuals are oppressed in Palestine. They express frustration with American gays who support Palestine, considering it an embarrassment.

Iranians are showing support for the Jewish community and Israelis, clarifying that it is the Islamic regime in Iran, not the Iranian people, that funds Hamas and Hezbollah. They emphasize that Iranians have historically supported Jews. They call for Western countries, specifically Canada, to recognize the Islamic regime as a terrorist organization and listen to Iranians' requests. They highlight that Iranians in Canada, funded by the regime, are not being held accountable. The conflict in the Middle East is described as a war between Hamas, funded by the Iranian regime, and Israelis, including Iranians within Iran. They stress that the Iranian people are fighting against their own regime and ask for understanding that the regime's actions do not represent all Iranians.

The speaker claims the West is complicit in crimes against journalists and supports the Israeli regime, with any criticism being minimal and for show. They assert the West is aligned with a "Holocaust in Gaza," "genocidal strikes in Lebanon," and support for ISIS and Al Qaeda. The speaker also alleges Western aggression and war against the Iranian people.

Progressives and academics who criticize Israel as an outpost of Western civilization need to understand that Western civilization has given us the liberal values they claim to adore. The woke movement is not about ideas, as they support Hamas, which oppresses women and lacks laws against sexual harassment, spousal rape, domestic violence, homophobia, and honor killings. Liberals should reconsider standing with such a regime. It's important to note that Gaza's situation is not comparable to India or Kenya's colonization, and the partitioning of the region was not decided by Jews.

The speaker criticizes the Hamas Charter, comparing it to conspiracy theories found on far-right platforms like 4chan. They argue that Hamas should be seen as a far-right fascist organization, but the left struggles to condemn it due to their association of the Palestinian cause with anti-imperialism. This confusion prevents them from acknowledging Hamas as a fascistic group.

During a hearing, a speaker criticizes the Biden administration for aligning with radical leftist groups and accuses them of treating women poorly. They also express concern about the administration's plan to give $100 million to Gaza, which they believe will support Hamas terrorism. The speaker then questions the influence of Iran on the administration's policy towards Iran, highlighting connections between senior officials and the Iranian regime. Another speaker, an Iranian American, expresses disappointment with the officials implicated in the Iran Experts initiative, as they downplayed the Iranian people's desire for reform and regime change. They emphasize that protesting is not just a cultural phenomenon but a reflection of the frustrations of Iranians seeking change.

Am I the only one that feels like we're watching the exact same strategy used by Zoran Mamdami that we saw in the Islamic revolution in 1979? Where have I seen anti capitalist feminist driving the agenda for revolution before? This is what Iranian women looked like before the Islamic revolution. I wonder if these feminist women here in The United States are worried about the same thing happening to them that happened to feminists in Iran after the Islamic revolution. Because you can pull up a whole bunch of photos where the women who supported the Ayatollah in their anti capitalist Islamic revolution ended up looking like this afterwards. that is straight up racism by policy. So I wonder if we'll be able to get a before and after of this.

Speaker: False as provided; transcript translation and summary below. Summary: The speaker asserts that racists and Zionist supremacists today aim to end the Palestinian people and, at the same time, all Arab and Muslim peoples. They claim these groups have sown an ideology of hate and racism for 75 years with Western support. The speaker warns that this ideology is more dangerous than Nazism, beginning with the Palestinian people through extermination, genocide, bombs, and atomic weapons, and then targeting all Arab peoples and all Muslims. They add that Christians and Catholics would be next. The message calls to stop the genocide in time and halt what they describe as the Zionist genocide against the beloved Palestinian people.

The speaker criticizes the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by President Obama, the European Union, the British Foreign Office, and later Boris Johnson, describing the regime as an appalling evil that has maintained a theocratic, barbarous rule for fifty years. They address the brave protesters in Tehran and elsewhere fighting to regain their freedoms, and declare: long live the revolution. They also say they pray for the Persian people.

In this passage, the speaker contrasts the situation of women in America with that in Iran, recounting a dramatic shift that occurred after 1979. The speaker asserts that in America, women are allowed to dress, go to school, work, and marry whomever they like. By contrast, Iran “used to be like this too before they were taken over by radical Islamists in 1979,” but after 1979, under what the speaker describes as the “sick leadership of these terrorists,” women are treated “like dogs.” The speaker details a series of severe restrictions and injustices faced by Iranian women. Women are claimed to be forced to cover every part of their body, except their eyes. They are said to be prohibited from leaving home unless accompanied by a male escort. The speaker asserts that women are not allowed to obtain an education or hold a job. They are allegedly subjected to compulsory restrictions on marriage, including being forced to marry at a very young age, pointing to instances as young as six years old. Additional accusations are made, including claims that pedophilia and inbreeding are rampant within the society described, and that women are fortunate if they are even allowed to drive a vehicle. The speaker then shifts to a political criticism, referencing an assertion about a United States congresswoman “from one of these third world Muslim countries” who is married to her brother, and uses this as a rhetorical device to question where Democrat colleagues who claim to be feminists are in response to these alleged conditions. Throughout, the speaker uses stark, condemnatory language to depict the regime governing Iran as oppressively restricting women’s rights and autonomy, contrasting it with perceived freedoms in the United States. The argument hinges on the juxtaposition of pre- and post-1979 Iran and on a series of explicit accusations about gender-based repression, control over women’s bodies and movements, and the legal and social norms surrounding marriage and education. The speaker also employs a provocative question aimed at a specific political audience, urging accountability from those who identify as feminists within the opposing party.

Iranian woman expresses frustration at the lack of support for Iranian people facing oppression by the Islamic Republic. She questions the sudden defense of Iran's right to defend itself, highlighting past atrocities committed by the regime. She emphasizes that Iranians desire peace, not war with Israel, and condemns those who support the Islamic Republic's aggressive actions. She pleads for others to understand the distinction between the Iranian people and the oppressive regime, urging them to stop endangering Iranian lives.

The speaker criticizes the response of the "woke left" to the recent terror attack in Israel, accusing them of supporting the murder, rape, and torture of innocent civilians. They argue that the left has turned a blind eye to the actions of Hamas and effectively supported their goals. The speaker believes that calling for a ceasefire demonstrates ignorance of the Middle East's history and politics and a lack of empathy for the threat faced by Jews and Israel. They claim that Hamas wants to wipe out all Jews and that the war in Israel is everyone's war. The speaker also criticizes those in Britain who march in support of Palestine, calling it an assault on the values of democracy and tolerance.

The speaker claims the actions of the Iranian Armed Forces demonstrate their dedication, strength, resilience, and courage. Conversely, they assert the Israeli regime is barbaric and evil, having no problem murdering families and recording it. The speaker states Zionism is extraordinary because they murder in front of cameras, as seen in Gaza for twenty-one months. They believe Zionists are a menace to humanity and are fine with people seeing images of dead children.

Speaker 0 asks how to weed out Muslims in a country that despises you and means you harm without vilifying or persecuting those who are fine and part of the social fabric. Speaker 1 responds by highlighting that Arab states have taken a strong stance against the Muslim Brotherhood and asks why the West hasn’t. The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt and in many Gulf states (not Qatar), and there is a reason: they know how dangerous this organization is, that it doesn’t represent peace-loving Muslims who simply want to practice their religion and not impose a perverted version of jihad. Speaker 1 asserts that the Muslim Brotherhood is not pro-Muslim; it is an organization providing cover for terrorism that disproportionately impacts Muslims, especially in the Arab world. He emphasizes that the biggest victims of terrorism are the people of the Middle East, the majority of whom are Muslims, and urges people to educate themselves about what’s really happening on this front before it’s too late. Speaker 0 then asks why Europe is failing and has massively open borders, taking people from regimes where terrorism is life-threatening. Speaker 1 answers with a single word: subversion. He claims this is most evident in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, stating that the way the war and the conflict are presented in international media is not an accurate reflection of what’s happening on the ground. He believes many Palestinians would share that sentiment. He contends that what’s happening in Gaza is not how it’s reported, because narratives are shaped to present a certain story, a process he attributes to Al Jazeera. He questions who runs Al Jazeera and asserts it is state-run by Qatar, and says they have been a chief sponsor of a “laundered ideology” presenting Palestinian victimhood even if some stories are fabricated. He claims Al Jazeera has falsified stories during the Gaza war. Speaker 1 concludes that when people push back against Islamism, they’re accused of conspiracy or exaggeration, but the speaker argues that there is a conspiracy to undermine the West. He acknowledges that it may seem crazy to say so, but asserts that such a conspiracy is exactly what is happening. He identifies this as the fundamental ideology of Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Shia side, and says this is something that must be spoken out against to educate the general public.

The speaker expresses skepticism about Islamophobia Awareness Month, arguing that "Islamophobia" is a cynical weapon used by Islamists and leftists to censor truths about Islam. They believe the term is used to portray a "fascist ideology" as a victim. They claim many Muslims have "special needs" due to double standards and that Islamic doctrine is incompatible with Western values, citing its views on freedom, women, gay people, and non-Muslims. The speaker asserts that Islam's arrival in the West has not enriched society but has instead brought division and mistrust. They state that there are fewer attacks on Muslims than by Muslims on gay people and Jews, and that some Muslim immigrants have made Jews and gays feel unsafe in Europe. The speaker suggests Muslims should admit their religion is the problem, as it preaches universal Islamic domination, hatred, and violence. They compare Islamophobia to Naziphobia and argue that Muslims are a pushy minority who become oppressors when in the majority. The speaker concludes that the word Islamophobia should be abandoned and replaced with something like "hatred and violence in the Koran awareness month."

The speaker expresses concern about the support given to Israel, fearing it may lead to nuclear war. They accuse Israel of mistreating Palestinians, including stealing their belongings and harming children. The speaker claims to have evidence of these actions. They also criticize Arab governments for their involvement and suggest that the chaos is being used to establish a dictatorial police state.

The speaker highlights that the mass protests worldwide are not just about supporting Palestinians but also about hating Jews. They provide an example of a protester in London who suggests that the West should give a place in Germany to Israeli Zionists and compares them to Hitler. The speaker sarcastically thanks the protester for clarifying that when they say "Zionist," they actually mean Jews.

The speaker claims the West would condemn Iran if it struck an Israeli TV channel, while blaming Iran when Israel allegedly assaulted Iran and killed innocent civilians. According to the speaker, Western statements condemned Iran, despite the alleged Israeli aggression being without justification, and asserted Israel's right to defend itself. The speaker believes the West has created a dystopian world and the global South no longer respects the West, viewing it as morally inferior and lacking a moral compass. The speaker asserts that people in the West are increasingly recognizing this reality of Western elites.

The speaker criticizes Hamas supporters, accusing them of celebrating the violence in Israel. They question the lack of evidence for the alleged atrocities and argue that supporting Hamas is supporting murderers and rapists. They also claim that those who advocate for human rights are being manipulated by Hamas, who do not share the same values. The speaker urges people to support Israel and warns that the West will be targeted next.

It takes mental contortion to go from chanting "women live freedom" to defending the Islamic Republic, the regime that killed Massah Amini. Waving Palestinian flags, Western leftists, Arab Islamists, ideologues, and opportunists gather under slogans stolen from the dead, ignoring the suffering of Iranians. The regime is a brutal patriarchal theocracy seeking nuclear weapons for a messianic apocalypse, standing with China and Russia as a colonial empire. Supporting this regime in the name of human rights is a perverse inversion of morality. Those who mistake this regime for a victim share its hatred for Jews, loathing for the West, and contempt for liberty. They are willing to erase Iranian suffering to preserve their ideology built on envy, resentment, and the blood of innocence. Neo-Nazis pose as anti-colonial environmentalists, feminists kneel for patriarchs, and LGBT activists march with Islamists. The only honorable thing to do is to name this pestilence, and let hatred be a badge of honor.