reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The deep state's open support for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS) is shocking, especially given their role in the Syrian conflict. Despite claiming to oppose Al Qaeda, the U.S. has provided support to groups aligned with them in Syria, raising questions about the rationale behind such actions. There are concerns about backing the wrong factions, with evidence suggesting that U.S. weapons may have ended up with ISIS. Former officials have indicated that the Obama administration ignored warnings about ISIS's rise, and even John Kerry acknowledged the situation's escalation. Historical parallels are drawn to past U.S. support for Mujahideen in Afghanistan, highlighting the long-term consequences of such interventions. The narrative emphasizes the complexity and contradictions in U.S. foreign policy regarding jihadist groups.

Significant human rights violations against Christians have occurred in both Sunni and Shia controlled areas in Syria, which has a 10% Christian population. The situation could worsen, especially with Bashar al-Assad's regime having killed hundreds of thousands, but he is now gone. The Iranian influence in the region is declining, with key proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Assad no longer in power. Turkey is making incursions into Northern Syria, while Israel maintains control over the Golan Heights, preventing terrorist threats. The Syrian government has weakened, leading to a power struggle among various factions, including the Kurds. The collapse of the Russian-Iranian alliance in Syria highlights their internal weaknesses. President Biden noted that neither Russia nor Iran can effectively support a regime in Syria anymore, which reflects their diminished capabilities. Overall, while the situation remains complex, the decline of these powers could be seen as a positive development.

The CIA supported ISIS and Al-Qaeda to create a Salafist entity between Syria and Iraq. Erdogan is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and he has always tried to corrupt the Palestinian cause. He never sent a single bullet to Gaza or the West Bank. Netanyahu has succeeded in raising the black flags of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Damascus. The Palestinians have suffered a strategic defeat and are isolated. Iran and Syria were supporting the West Bank, but now the West Bank is in a much more difficult position. Israel lost in Gaza and Lebanon, but after what Erdogan has done, the equation has changed. There's a holocaust going on in Gaza, and the Israeli regime's actions have to be remembered.

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.”

Excitement surrounds the recent toppling of Assad in Syria, but the situation is concerning. The group that ousted him, Hayat Tahir al Sham, is led by Abu Mohammed Al Julani, a former Al Qaeda leader. After being imprisoned in Iraq, Julani was sent to Syria to establish Jabhat al Nusra. He later distanced himself from ISIS, aiming to create an Islamic state in Syria rather than a global caliphate. His rule in Idlib resembles that of the Taliban, with accusations of silencing dissent and imposing strict laws. Julani's original name is Ahmed Hussein Alshara, and he seeks to liberate a broader region known as al Sham, including Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. Turkey's Erdogan supports the rebels, posing a new threat as he aims to lead Sunni Muslims against Western civilization. Under this new regime, minorities, particularly Christians and Kurds, may face persecution.

Senator Kelly questioned Colonel Gabbard about her past statements regarding U.S. support for terrorist groups in Syria, referencing her claims that the U.S. was aiding Al Qaeda while attempting to overthrow the Assad regime. Gabbard expressed her shock at learning about President Obama's programs that armed groups aligned with Al Qaeda, highlighting the consequences of regime change wars in the Middle East. She noted that, while she does not support the Assad regime, the current leadership in Syria consists of Islamist extremists who persecute religious minorities. Gabbard emphasized the importance of Americans knowing that their government was supporting Al Qaeda, asserting that this should be unacceptable.

Al Qaeda has acted as a proxy force for the U.S. in Syria, working alongside ISIS to achieve American objectives. Since the war began in 2011, the U.S. has supported Al Qaeda, providing them with weapons through covert operations. The goal has been to overthrow the Syrian government, employing ruthless tactics to starve and freeze the civilian population, exacerbated by severe sanctions. Medical supplies were cut off, leading to preventable deaths. An explosion in Lebanon, which devastated the economy, is suspected to have been orchestrated to further harm Syria. The U.S. has manipulated global media narratives to obscure these actions, presenting them as altruistic. Throughout, there has been a disturbing campaign of sexual violence against women and children, facilitated by the chaos of war, highlighting the extreme cruelty inflicted on the Syrian people in pursuit of geopolitical goals.

I was shocked to learn that President Obama had programs to overthrow the Syrian regime. The CIA's Timber Sycamore program armed Al Qaeda to start another regime change war in the Middle East. The DOD's train and equip program spent over half a billion dollars training "moderate rebels" who were actually aligned with Al Qaeda. Regime change wars in Syria, like in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, risk the rise of Islamist extremists like Al Qaeda. We now have an Islamist extremist in charge of Syria who celebrated the 9/11 attack and is persecuting religious minorities like Christians. Every American deserves to know if our government supported our enemy, Al Qaeda.

We allied with Al Qaeda and ISIS, using them against the Syrian government. Terrorists from 100 countries joined them, engaging in organized rape and creating slave markets. They were allowed to kill husbands, own wives and children, and rape widows and young children. This led to a horrific campaign of violence and exploitation in Syria.

Wanna get on to Ukraine. But, given that Israel is signaling it doesn't like the, Al Qaeda operative, Jelani in Damascus, and we know Tulsi Gabbard is something of an expert on Syria because she exposed the lies and the, phony war in Syria when The United States was supporting the ISIS and Al Qaeda rebels there. How do you and Trump has been very brave arguably saying, he's not gonna, start sending loads of money like Britain is to Tchelani. There's still thousands of American troops, though, in Syria. What is American Syrian policy Syria policy? America's policy towards Syria is basically Israel's policy. And what The United States was bent on doing was wrecking Syria and keeping it wrecked. That's the Israeli objective here. This is what the Israelis wanna do with Iran. They don't simply wanna do away with Iran's nuclear capability. They surely do wanna do that, but they wanna wreck Iran. They wanna turn Iran into Syria. And what the Israelis are doing in Syria is going to great lengths to make sure that Syria remains, a dysfunctional state. They don't want Syria to become, a formidable adversary. They want it to remain broken. And, of course, The United States will support the Israelis in that regard. So, of course, the Israelis are not gonna allow the Americans to give huge amounts of aid to Jalani so that he can produce a viable Syrian state because that's not Israeli policy. Just look at what they're doing in Iran. I mean, excuse me, what they're doing in Lebanon. It's a similar situation.

Israel is saying it will continue to stay in Lebanon, even though Speaker 0 says this is not part of the memorandum of understanding. Speaker 0 describes recent actions in southern Lebanon, saying Israel used a massive explosive to destroy a southern Lebanese town. Speaker 0 claims Israel is now saying there was a 200 meter long tunnel that “we had to blow it up,” and notes that this is described as one of the largest non-nuclear bombs used in modern history, with “astounding” images. Speaker 0 asks what the bomb could have been and what it indicates militarily. Speaker 1 responds that the device looks similar to the “mother of all bombs” (MOAB) and suspects it is a fueled air explosive, described as very powerful, possibly in a very large version. Speaker 1 says people online speculate it is a tactical nuclear weapon, but Speaker 1 states there is no evidence and says they lack access to data collection that could confirm radiation detection. Speaker 1 concludes that, from where they sit, it appears to involve a lot of fuel or explosive and is very devastating, while emphasizing a separate point about political messaging and troop morale. Speaker 1 says Benjamin Netanyahu is telling people, “we’re there, we’re staying, we’re not leaving,” and that listeners must listen to Netanyahu and believe him “from his vantage point.” Speaker 1 says Netanyahu spoke to a gathering of officers who had been fighting in southern Lebanon, encouraging them by telling them they had done great things and that they were “roaring ahead.” Speaker 1 says the officers’ reaction in the room was “very similar to Sersky,” describing heads down, no response, exhaustion, worn-out conditions, heavy losses, and doubt that Netanyahu would achieve what he said they would achieve. Speaker 1 also claims the war with Iran is not over, just as the war in Ukraine is not over, and predicts a shift in emphasis from the Persian Gulf region (the Gulf of Oman) toward Syria, Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon to do damage to Iran. Speaker 1 says the approach includes “going to the Kurds,” hoping they help against the Iranians, trying to enlist support of Islamist “murderers and killers” in Syria under the command of Mr. Erdogan, and “bribing him” to go along while he “murders Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs in Gaza.” Speaker 1 further claims the United States or its allies have “bribed and essentially bought the government of Lebanon,” which “effectively said we'll cede southern Lebanon to the Israelis.” Speaker 1 adds that northern Iraq and Syria are being watched for offensive action against the Iranians. Speaker 1 states the MOU “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on,” and says if Iran hasn’t figured that out, then they are not the “smart people.” Speaker 1 finishes by stating that, instead of responding to weekend attacks, Iran should have waited until Monday morning and “tanked the markets.”

The discussion begins with the speakers commenting on timing and then shifting to updates on ongoing U.S. strikes against Iran and the regional spillover. Multiple reports are cited (CNN, PBS) saying the strikes are expected to continue for a while, described as punishment and not proportionate retaliation. The speakers also mention reported strikes on locations including Bandar Abbas, “Sirik as always,” and Kashim, and say there have been two rounds of strikes so far. They reference unconfirmed reports of power outages in Kuwait and Bahrain and note conflicting claims about whether outages are occurring. They connect the strikes to a broader maritime confrontation, describing Iran’s earlier attacks on three ships (a Qatari LNG tanker that was “empty,” the Saudi one, and another ship today with unknown details) and discuss whether U.S. attacks could affect Israel’s actions against Hezbollah. Alongside the Iran strikes, the speakers say there was an airstrike in South Lebanon. One speaker suggests flares and shelling on the Ali al-Tahrir Hill in Lebanon, saying it is a strategic position contested between Israel and Hezbollah. A major theme is escalation and retaliation. One speaker predicts Iran will “take out” Muwaffak al-Saudi Air Base, repeatedly strike air bases if planes launched from Prince Saud Air Base or if sorties came from Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Force Base, and also attack air bases in Israel. They further discuss the possibility of escalation beyond bases, including sinking a ship in the Strait of Hormuz instead of only striking military assets. They emphasize Iran’s stated maritime protocols, saying vessels must file requests to Iranian authorities to transit in designated lanes, and they argue the U.S. has encouraged noncompliance and then struck. The conversation addresses strategic rationale from the American side, with one speaker saying there is “no thinking” and framing the action as a show of strength rather than a strategic plan. They also discuss how the timing coincides with funeral celebrations and argue this could make Iranian responses less limited. They state that Israel appears to be escalating strikes in Lebanon on multiple fronts, including air activity over Beirut and suburbs, and that renewed shelling on Ali al-Tahrir Hill coincides with U.S. strikes on Iran. Iran’s domestic and diplomatic messaging is also covered. The speakers say Iran’s foreign ministry condemned Washington’s move to reimpose a ban on Iranian oil sales, calling it a clear breach of Article 10 of the “war-ending MOU,” holding the U.S. responsible for consequences, and warning it will take measures to protect its interests and national security. They also state that the U.S. is being accused of repeatedly violating the June 18 MOU over the past 20 days directly and via Israeli actions in Lebanon. Power outages are revisited. Kuwait’s statement is summarized as involving several electricity transmission lines going out of service, with emergency teams activated to restore electricity and determine the cause. The speakers connect the timing of outages in Kuwait and Bahrain to the Iran strikes, suggesting possibilities including cyber sabotage, while noting the Iran side reportedly said there were no reports of missiles flying out of Iran and no alerts in Bahrain. The transcript then shifts to Turkey and NATO-related developments and their intersection with U.S.-Israel relations. The speakers discuss Trump’s meeting with Erdogan and Netanyahu’s activity in Haifa, including Netanyahu’s remarks opposing the sale of F-35 aircraft to Turkey and framing it as affecting regional power balance. They mention Trump praising Erdogan, removing CAATSA sanctions tied to Turkey’s S-400 purchase, and discussing a possible reversal of a ban on Turkey’s ability to purchase F-35s. They cite a New York Times account that Trump is expected to tell Erdogan about restoring conditions for Turkey to buy F-35 stealth fighter jets, reversing the ban imposed in 2019 after Turkey was thrown out of the program for buying S-400 systems. They say the concern is that S-400 systems could collect data on F-35s, compromising stealth capabilities, and that Congress could oppose the change. Later, the speakers discuss Syria and the new Syrian leader Al-Shara. The debate centers on whether Al-Shara is integrating factions and bringing peace versus allowing or failing to stop atrocities, with one speaker arguing that leaders must punish those responsible and asking why commanders were not hauled in for atrocities. The other speaker argues there is “no alternative,” warns the alternatives could be worse (fragmentation resembling Libya or Yemen), and highlights claims about Al-Shara’s acceptance of Kurds into the Syrian government and an attempt to prevent attacks that could give Israel justification to strike Syria. They also mention explosions in Syria (including around the hotel of President Macron) and concerns about threats to Al-Shara from multiple external and internal actors. The conversation returns to U.S. actions and oil strategy. It includes figures about U.S. strategic petroleum reserve stocks falling by 6.2 million barrels to 319 million barrels (lowest ever, per the discussion) and argues this relates to the Strait of Hormuz dispute. They discuss whether either side will fold, and they reiterate that they believe the U.S. is violating parts of the MOU rather than offering concessions. Finally, the transcript mentions reports about a U.S. strike that hit a school in Iran, described as Minab School, with CNN reporting senior U.S. commanders approved the strike despite warnings that intelligence on targets was outdated (over 10 years old). The speakers describe it as one of the worst civilian casualty incidents in recent U.S. military history and say an investigation is ongoing. The session concludes with ongoing expectations of further retaliation, including predictions about whether strikes will stay limited to Bahrain and Kuwait or broaden, and a closing acknowledgment that the U.S. strikes are being described as ended while discussing the likelihood of further responses.

The speaker claims that recent events in Syria are the culmination of a 30-year effort by Israel, led by Netanyahu, to reshape the Middle East. This effort, detailed in a 1996 document called "Clean Break," aims for a "greater Israel" by dismantling governments that support Palestinians. The speaker references a plan for "seven wars in five years" presented to General Wesley Clark after 9/11, listing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan as targets. The speaker asserts that the U.S., influenced by the "Israel lobby," has been carrying out this plan, with Obama initiating the Syrian war in 2011 via Operation Timber Sycamore. The speaker says Netanyahu views any support for Palestinian groups as a threat to Israel's control over Palestine, motivating the need to destroy opposing governments. Greater Israel encompasses the annexation of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. The speaker alleges that the U.S. has funded and armed Israel, leading to geopolitical isolation and endless war in the Middle East. The speaker says the U.S. blocked a Syrian peace agreement in 2012 because it demanded Assad's immediate removal. The speaker concludes that the New York Times and mainstream media avoid historical context to give a "free hand" to the security state. The speaker fears the next target is Iran, potentially leading to World War III, and urges President Trump to change course.

In the conversation, Syed Mohammed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, addresses multiple interwoven geopolitical issues, centering on Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the broader strategic rivalry with the United States and its allies. Syria and ISIS release - Marandi asserts that the Damascus regime, described as al-Qaeda/ISIS-aligned factions, would not tolerate Kurdish forces backed by the United States. He notes prior violence against Alawites, Christians, and Druze as context for the current disturbing images from Syria. - He argues the United States is not a reliable partner for its allies, pointing to past episodes such as Obama’s refusal to support Arbil when ISIS threatened the Kurdish government, and Soleimani’s rapid military response to save the city. - He states that ISIS prisoners have been released in Syria, implying that thousands of ISIS members are now free and could destabilize Syria and possibly Iraq. He emphasizes that both Jolani (an ISIS-linked figure) and the Kurdish groups in northeast Syria are allied to the United States, making it unclear who released the prisoners but suggesting that those actors are aligned with the U.S. - The broader implication is that the release increases instability in Syria and potentially across the region. Border security and spillover fears - The discussion turns to Iraq’s border with Syria, with Marandi weighing whether U.S.-backed jihadist forces might spill into Iraq or Lebanon. He suggests a likelihood that ISIS/Al-Qaeda remnants could be used to pressure Lebanon and Iraq to prevent closer Iranian influence. - He notes that Iran’s potential responses could include its missile and drone capabilities, should security worsen on a front involving its allies in Lebanon and Iraq; however, Iran currently refrains from large-scale involvement in Syria but would consider action if threats to Iran or its allies escalate. Regime change, fragmentation, and U.S.-Israel aims - The conversation shifts to Iran post-riots, with questions about U.S./Israel strategies for regime change. Marandi contends the plan is to destabilize and fragment Iran, not to establish a unified post-regime scenario. - He cites alleged Israeli and Western involvement in organizing riots as evidence of a broader conspiracy to create chaos and justify military action. He claims Mossad and other intelligence agencies were on the ground, and public statements from former CIA officials acknowledged Israeli involvement. - He describes the riot phase as highly organized, with foreign funding (including Bitcoin), online recruitment, and careful targeting of police and infrastructure. He portrays the protests as initially legitimate grievances that devolved into violent chaos fueled by external coordination, with widespread destruction and deaths, including the killing of police officers. - In contrast, he highlights large pro-government demonstrations, especially a national day of demonstrations that he says showed widespread popular support for the Islamic Republic and condemnation of rioters. He points to extensive media coverage highlighting peaceful protests, while arguing that the riot narrative dominated Western coverage. Internal Iranian dynamics and public opinion - Marandi emphasizes the fragmentation among Iranian opposition groups: MEK, monarchists, Takfiri remnants near the Pakistan border, and Kurdish separatists, all of whom he asserts lack credible popular support. - He argues that even if the regime were at risk, fragmentation would prevent any single faction from stabilizing the country post-regime change. He suggests this aligns with his view of broader Israeli aims to weaken and fragment Iran and neighboring states, as seen in Syria and Iraq. Military capability and deterrence - He asserts Iran’s substantial missile and drone capabilities and asserts that Iran could defend allies in Lebanon and Iraq if needed. He notes Iran’s long-term preparedness against U.S. threats, including underground bases and extensive drone/missile stocks. - He contends that if war occurred, it would have wide regional and global economic consequences, potentially destabilizing oil markets and prompting broader geopolitical upheaval. He argues that U.S. restraint may be influenced by the risk of a global economic meltdown. Russia, China, and Starlink - Regarding technological assistance for countering communications, he mentions rumors of Russian or Chinese involvement in aiding Iran's internet disruption and Starlink-related issues, acknowledging uncertainty but highlighting a growing trilateral closeness among Iran, Russia, and China in the face of U.S. pressure. media narratives and leadership - He criticizes Western media for portraying protests as peaceful, while Israeli claims and cyber/disinformation around the events are presented as demonstrations of foreign involvement. He maintains that internal Iranian unity—visible in large-scale demonstrations—contrasts with the portrayal of a fractured nation. - He closes by suggesting that while some European leaders may align with U.S. policies, the overall strategic outlook remains uncertain, with a warning that Trump’s approach could escalate tensions rather than yield stability.

Rania Khalek discusses Lebanon’s situation, saying the Lebanese government “effectively abandoned” the southern territory and “handed it over to Israel,” calling the signed deal “utterly shocking” and “submissive.” She argues the agreement forfeits Lebanon’s right to pursue legal cases against Israel for violations of international law and “constant war crimes,” cements Israeli occupation of the South, allows Israel to bomb whenever it “feels threatened,” and conditions any Israeli withdrawal on Lebanon colluding with the Israelis and Americans to conduct a civil war against Hezbollah in the South. Khalek says even people who are anti-resistance are alarmed, with questions about whether the government was blackmailed and how the deal could be worse than the Oslo Accords. She links the timing and rush of the agreement to earlier developments: after a memorandum of understanding and an Iranian-American meeting, she describes a “deconfliction cell” in Lebanon involving Iranians to enforce an Israeli ceasefire and “ultimate withdrawal.” She says the Lebanese anti-resistance camp “freaked out” because it would be a win for Hezbollah, Iran, and Lebanon. She claims Marco Rubio stepped in, working with Israelis and Lebanese Zionists in Washington to undermine the American-Iranian framework spearheaded by J.D. Vance. Addressing Lebanon’s internal sectarian structure, George notes the state is built on sectarian divisions, reserved parliamentary seats, and constitutional arrangements. Khalek responds that the deal is “politically untenable” and “can’t actually work,” arguing even the Lebanese army would not agree to go to war with Hezbollah or disarm them as demanded, warning this could lead to dangerous split or civil strife within the army. She cites polling distinctions, saying that in Lebanon, supporting disarming Hezbollah is not the same as supporting Israel, and that the majority sees Israel as the main enemy while also recognizing the Lebanese army cannot defend Lebanon. Khalek argues the deal creates extreme polarization by giving the pretense of Lebanese approval to a US and Israeli plan, allowing US and Israeli actors to claim legitimacy to the Iranians. She says the people who signed away Lebanon lack popular support and are in power due to American and Saudi installation after what she describes as a Hezbollah defeat in 2024, predicting opposition could lead to uprising and civil strife. She also says Israel could not disarm Hezbollah, and that Israel’s experience shows Hezbollah’s strength and continued supply and intelligence sharing with the US. She adds that in Iran, the speaker of parliament, Ghalibaf, told Nabi Bidi, the Lebanese parliament speaker and Shia leader, insisting on a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal, setting up “contradiction” between the Israeli-U.S. plan and Iran’s position. She frames the outcome as depending on whether the Trump administration recognizes it has lost its war and chooses to change course. In a later exchange, George raises Trump’s public threats to unleash al-Qaeda from Syria against Lebanon. Khalek says this has not gone down well due to prior Syrian occupation of Lebanon and al-Qaeda’s invasion during the ISIS era, when Lebanese forces and Hezbollah cooperated to push them out and when “Jolani” (described as Ahmed al-Shara, then al-Nusra leader) led those forces. She says obstacles prevent a Syrian move: Shara is focused on stabilizing Syria’s post-regime change situation, disciplining and killing minorities, and he answers to Turkey. Khalek claims Turkey would not greenlight a Syrian invasion weakening Hezbollah in a way that could allow Israel to target Turkey next. She also points to an agreement clause internationalizing Hezbollah disarmament by saying it would receive help from Arab countries without specifying which, suggesting that if Turkey or Saudi Arabia changed their position later, the stipulation could be used to justify an Arab, including Syrian, intervention. She concludes it is unlikely to happen soon.

The discussion centers on what the speakers describe as a systematic massacre of Christians in Syria, along with violence against other minority communities. They claim churches and monasteries have been targeted, with Christian villages and others like Alawite villages set on fire and attacked, and note fires seen from miles away. They argue the Syrian government is not stopping the violence and is instead embracing the new leadership described as an ISIS terrorist, citing a photo of the leader at the United Nations with a “clean kept beard and hair gel.” They assert Christians are protest­ing in the streets, saying they are “soldiers of Christ,” while saying Christians are “sitting targets” without help. Professor Joshua Landis, of Syria Comment and the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, explains the shift in Syria’s power dynamics. He recounts that in 2011, the Nusra Front emerged as a Syrian branch of Al Qaeda, formed with US support to the opposition against Assad. He notes that in December, nine months prior, the head of Al Qaeda reportedly swept into Damascus, took over, and “became president,” with the United States lifting sanctions and embracing him to sign a peace agreement with Israel. Landis emphasizes the minorities in Syria—Alawites (about 12%), Druze (3%), Kurds in the north—are terrified as a “Sunni supremacist” and fundamentalist regime takes power and treats minorities with disdain. He cites massacres against minorities: 17,000 Alawites killed in March, nearly 2,000 Druze killed in July, and ongoing violence. He also highlights Christian persecution, mentioning the Mar Elias church bombing in June that killed 30 parishioners and wounded over 50; the church was burned, and he notes conflicting claims about the bomber’s affiliations. He adds that Washington has lifted sanctions and encouraged the new president, while not compelling moves toward democracy or decentralization to protect minorities. The hosts question why Western media and governments remain largely silent, noting a lack of coverage by Trump or major outlets, and remark that the situation parallels civil wars in Iraq and Lebanon where minorities suffered as states collapsed. Landis argues that after the overthrow of regimes like Saddam Hussein’s, Christians in Iraq were reduced from about 3% to nearly none, due to civil strife and the rise of extremist movements, with Christians often facing persecution and forced jizya. The conversation turns to broader regional stakes, including concern that Kurdish allies, who helped defeat ISIS, may be abandoned as US troops draw down, leaving Kurdish populations vulnerable. The host urges viewers to share the segment with government representatives to demand attention to the plight of Christians in the Middle East. The discussion closes with Landis reaffirming the gravity of the situation and the absence of strong Western political will to intervene.

There's a massacre in Syria targeting the Druze community; they are silencing us. The Syrian president was an ex ISIS terrorist on the wanted list, aiming to rid Syria of minorities, including Christians and Druze, calling us Kafar. The media says Israel attacked Damascus and is defending itself, but the claim is Bedouin attacked the Druze and the Druze defend themselves. We are being massacred by supposed ex-jihadist from the government army. Without Israel's protection, we would have been wiped out. They are stealing our phones, making false videos and posts, pretending to be Druze, and creating false propaganda while killing elderly and children. Neighboring cities are poisoning the water. Many are on the run. Please spread the word; lives are at stake.

There were significant human rights violations against Christians in Syria, in both Sunni and Shia controlled areas. The potential for things to get worse is there, but the upside is that the Iranian crescent is dead, meaning the Iranian regime is in real trouble because their biggest proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Assad are gone, and Shia influence is waning. Turkey is encroaching on Northern Syria to create a buffer zone, while Israel controls the Golan Heights and has moved into a buffer zone at Mount Hermon. The Syrian government has abdicated to a rebel alliance. Russia and Iran are weak, as evidenced by the collapse of their alliance in Syria, indicative of their interior weakness. This is a direct result of blows Ukraine and Israel delivered. Net net, this is probably a good thing, but there are no great things in the Middle East.

Debate focused on ongoing uncertainty around Iran, the status of any ceasefire, and the MOU’s ability to withstand clashes. One speaker said the situation is less about Israel than about Trump “dragging himself into war,” arguing the MOU was designed to fail because Trump negotiated a “pause to the war, it’s not peace.” They pointed to contradictions between MOU language and subsequent actions in Lebanon, and described how Iran’s leverage centers on control of the Strait of Hormuz to limit global shipping and impact the economy. The speaker said the MOU’s text assigns responsibility to Iran to set up a mechanism, yet the U.S. chose to send ships through the Omani-controlled part of the strait, leading Iran to fire at those ships to assert control. They then said Trump used the attack as an excuse to declare the ceasefire over, reimposing sanctions on Iranian oil exports and threatening additional strikes on Iranian infrastructure. The conversation also addressed who bombed Iran the previous day. One participant suggested Bahrain and Kuwait, while noting the information is publicly available but unclear and reportedly kept discreet; they also floated the possibility of involvement by the Americas. Turning to Syria and Hezbollah, the discussion asked whether Trump might move against Hezbollah and whether Trump, Erdogan, and F-35s are connected. The speaker argued that, even if Al-Sharaa is in power partly due to Israel, Al-Sharaa has reasons not to help against Hezbollah, including Israel’s prior bombing and destruction of Syria’s military assets. They also described an alleged humiliation involving Trump bragging at a NATO summit in Turkey, including references to recognizing Israel’s theft of the Golan, which the speaker said is personally humiliating for Al-Sharaa given Al-Sharaa’s name and origins. The debate shifted to terminology such as “terrorist” and “terrorist groups,” with one speaker referencing a historical State Department document that described Syria cooperating with the U.S. against Al-Qaeda while a “problem” was that Assad did not take action against Hezbollah and Palestinian groups fighting Israeli occupation. They connected regime change spending to installing a former Al-Qaeda leader. Regarding the MOU, one participant argued it may not be dead and that the current situation could be “bickering” over a key clause related to Iran not controlling the Strait of Hormuz versus American efforts to extract a concession. They said escalation risks exist, but argued the U.S. and Trump cannot afford a full-blown war. The other speaker outlined three options: full-blown war (unlikely), a U.S.-Iran peace deal (not seen as likely under Trump), or Trump walking away—requiring an eventual concession related to Hormuz. They added that each week brings flare-ups and threats to civilian infrastructure, while Iran’s missile capacity could target Gulf state infrastructure. A CNN report was cited claiming satellite images show Iran rebuilding the Talekhan II nuclear site in Parchin, with the roof’s holes allegedly fixed after being previously covered with sand by Iranian military engineers. The speaker tied this to the MOU’s nuclear language, quoting: “Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program,” and described the clause as vague. Finally, the discussion covered the NATO summit in Ankara and whether Trump’s closeness to Erdogan relates to F-35 approvals amid Israel-Turkey tensions. One speaker argued Israel needs enemies, suggested Israeli political rhetoric may be bluster, and said if Trump wants F-35 sales to Turkey, Israel would not be able to block it. The conversation ended with Lebanon, where one speaker said Lebanon is “pretty screwed” and linked the outcome to occupation and land theft policies, arguing Hezbollah’s support in Lebanon will persist because it has a sizable parliamentary bloc and a strong base of support, despite the population paying a huge cost.

In 2016, President Assad told me they changed citizenship laws due to children of Syrian women impregnated by terrorists. The new law allowed these children to have Syrian citizenship instead of being sent to their ISIS fathers. This highlights the cruelty of war and the inhumanity imposed on people for political gain, like overthrowing governments or seizing resources. This policy is evident in the current administration's stance against Russia.

For the past decade, foreign powers have sought to destroy Syria. "Israel wants to reclaim Southern Syria, Turkey wants to reclaim Northern Syria, and the Persian Gulf states want a secure route for a natural gas pipeline to Europe." The "American Empire" seeks to destroy any nation that fails to open its economy to Western corporations. The preferred method... "to destroy a nation by agitating and arming minority groups while sending thousands of foreign mercenaries" and "funded by foreign intelligence agencies via massive arms smuggling that supplied billions of dollars in weapons to so called rebels." "American weaponry included expensive shoulder fired surface to air missiles and large anti tank weapons, like the American TOW system." By the end of 2,015, the Syrian government had lost control of most of its territory. "Russia announced that any aircraft that bombed Syrian forces would be shot down." "Israel expanded its Druze militias in Southern Syria" and "American aircrafts and artillery supported Kurdish forces" into Eastern Syria. "The White Helmets" were "founded in 2013 by a British ex military officer" and "funded to the tune of $100,000,000 by The US, UK, and Europe"—they "purport to be rescuing civilians" yet "no one in Eastern Aleppo has heard of them." "The covert war on Syria killed over 400,000 people and pushed 5,000,000 refugees." "Seven years has been a disaster under Obama" with "CIA and Saudi Arabia together" fueling a "proxy war" that brought ISIS; get out. The plot to destroy Syria failed as it reconquered most of its territory.

If you're on Twitter, be warned: gruesome videos from Syria are circulating, a result of CIA intervention and tax dollars funding "moderate rebels." These rebels are now attacking minority communities that Bashar al-Assad used to protect. Figures like Barry Weiss, John Bolton, the Bushes, Obama, and Hillary Clinton bear responsibility, as this was their CIA project under the Obama administration, aimed at turning Syria into another Libya. They achieved their goal: a failed state with torture and human sacrifice. This could have been prevented, as past interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya failed. The situation worsened after Trump's election. Biden gave the green light before Trump took office. The CIA approached Trump in 2016 to overthrow Assad, but he refused. The corporate media and establishment are also culpable in this disaster.