TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

During my time at the CIA, I was responsible for briefing the press and circulating disinformation. Disinformation is not necessarily a lie, but rather a half truth. We would select influential journalists and provide them with information that we wanted to convey to the American public. We targeted respected journalists like Robert Chaplin, Kais Beach, Bud Merrick, Malcolm Brown, and Maynard Parker. I would cultivate their trust by sharing valid information and then slip in the data we wanted to spread, which may not have been true. We would also create an environment where journalists couldn't fact-check by briefing diplomats who would confirm our false information. Personally, I am opposed to these disinformation activities as they serve no useful purpose for the CIA.

I'm here to ask Anderson Cooper about Operation Mockingbird and the CIA's influence on mainstream media. A German reporter claimed the CIA bribed and extorted him to publish stories. Why is there a pro-government slant in Western media, like biased coverage of Putin and Assad compared to Saudi Arabia? Cooper is surrounded by security, preventing conversation on important issues like government manipulation of news. Is he avoiding the question because of his CIA past during college? A prominent German journalist recently revealed that the CIA is still manipulating the media, writing scripts for them. The media is just another branch of the government, a mouthpiece for propaganda, unable to face real questions. Cooper is hiding behind his security.

Speaker 0 raises the question of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, referencing a past discussion with former Tel Aviv CIA chief of station Susan Miller and noting a reminder about Iran-Contra. They ask why the CIA would be intimately involved with drug trafficking, and mention Candace Owens discussing it in relation to the Charlie Kirk assassination. Speaker 1 answers that trafficking in drugs allows the CIA to get closer to the targets they want to reach. They point to a popular Netflix series, Narcos, which follows the hunt for Pablo Escobar, the Cali cartel, and other major cartels. They claim that, in the show, and in real life, every time the Drug Enforcement Administration gets close to its primary target, the CIA station chief steps in and ruins the investigation. They state that this happens because the CIA doesn’t care about drugs. Speaker 1 continues that the CIA cares about terrorism and communism, implying there are always some other bigger ideological concerns. Therefore, the CIA is “perfectly happy” to allow cocaine to flood into the United States in the 1980s during the Iran-Contra period, just as it was “perfectly happy” to allow Afghanistan to provide 93% of the world’s heroin once the United States began its occupation of Afghanistan.

Speaker 0: Did you see evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between Donald Trump and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: I saw information intelligence that was worthy of investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not such cooperation of conclusion was taking place. Speaker 0: That doesn't help us a lot. What was the nature of the information? Speaker 1: As I said, mister Gowdy, I think this committee now has access to the type of information that I'm alluding to here. It's classified and I'm happy to talk about it in classified session. Speaker 0: And that would have been directly between the candidate and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: That's not what I said. I'm not going to talk about any individual's But Speaker 0: that was my question.

There are functions of the CIA that include running secret wars and disseminating propaganda to influence people's minds, a major function that overlaps with information gathering. You have contact with a journalist; you will give him true stories and you’ll get information from him, and you will also give him false stories. You also work on human vulnerabilities to recruit journalists as agents to control what they do, so you don’t have to set them up by deception. You can tell them to plant stories on a schedule. Concrete evidence of using the press this way was highlighted by the church committee in 1975, and later by Woodward and Bernstein in Rolling Stone, noting that about 400 journalists cooperated with the CIA to consciously introduce stories in the press. A concrete example from Angola: one third of the staff was propaganda. There were propagandists around the world, principally in London, Kinshasa, and Zambia. They would take stories they wrote and put them in the Zambia Times, then pull them out and send them to a journalist on payroll in Europe. But the cover story was that the journalist had gotten them from his stringer in Lusaka who had gotten them from the Zambia Times, and after that point, the journalists, Reuters, and AFP, the management was not witting of it. The contact man in Europe was used to pump dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists, but there was not a single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw false propaganda to create an illusion of communists, you know, eating babies for breakfast.

The CIA allegedly had 400 leading journalists in the U.S. as part of Operation Mockingbird, an illegal operation to compromise American journalism. Carl Bernstein published a list in 1973 naming these journalists who secretly worked for the CIA from prominent publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times. Many editors and publishers had security agreements with the CIA and acted as assets. The CIA is purportedly the biggest funder of journalism globally, spending $10 billion annually through USAID. It allegedly owns influential newspapers and magazines worldwide. The Smith Bond Act prohibits the CIA from propagandizing to Americans.

I was concerned that planted stories meant for foreign audiences were being circulated and believed here at home. This would mean that the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through another country. We are looking into this very carefully. We do have people who submit pieces to American journals. I think that getting into the details of whether we have people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks should be handled in a closed session. By 1954, relationships with the CIA had been established at CBS. I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them. We will evaluate the information we have, and we will include any evidence of wrongdoing in our final report and make recommendations. Whether we name the news organizations in our final report remains to be decided.

Planted stories intended for foreign countries were circulated in the US, raising concerns about CIA manipulation of news. CIA involvement with American journals and TV networks was discussed, with details kept confidential. CBS had contacts with the CIA, and the investigation will assess any wrongdoing. The use of CIA sources by reporters was considered acceptable in the past but requires caution now due to public scrutiny.

The discussion revolves around the CIA and allegations of withholding information from Trump. A reporter questions an individual about their statements regarding CIA operations and their employment status. The individual denies making certain claims and avoids confirming their top-secret clearance. Despite being confronted with video evidence, they maintain that everything is speculation and refuse to provide clear answers about their role at the CIA or any connections to a Chinese Mission Center. The reporter emphasizes the importance of the story regarding intelligence agencies being potentially weaponized for political purposes. The individual expresses frustration about being followed and insists they cannot disclose specific information. The interaction highlights the tension between the reporter's inquiries and the individual's evasive responses.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

The transcript centers on Amjed Fassisi, a CIA contractor who works with Deloitte and, at times, within the CIA’s China Mission Center on cyber operations. He describes a career path that includes time at the CIA starting in 2008, a stint at the NSA for two years, then a return to the CIA in 2011, where he managed about 80 cybersecurity practitioners and later helped stand up a threat program inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Fassisi asserts that he holds a high-level clearance (top secret/SCIs) and that his role involves cross-agency work across the enterprise, though he does not disclose specific details. Key, repeated claims attributed to Fassisi: - The higher-ups in the intelligence community, including CIA directors Gina Haspel and Mike Pompeo, and the upper echelons of their staffs, colluded to withhold information from sitting President Donald Trump. Fassisi states, “We kept information from him,” and later explains “the executive staff” (the director and subordinates) were involved. - Fassisi contends that the CIA and other agencies monitored Trump and his inner circle, using human sources and surveillance. He mentions that Trump could be targeted or spied on, including claims that he would “call Vladimir Putin and tell him” secrets, and that “the intelligence agencies thought that president Trump was a, quote, fucking dumbass and would disclose information.” - He asserts that information about Trump’s activities was intentionally withheld from him by the intelligence community, and that this withholding involved high-level officials who would not share details with the president. - Fassisi suggests that the intelligence community engaged in surveillance of Trump and his team using methods such as human intelligence rather than only wiretaps, and that the FBI, NSA, and other agencies were involved, with implications that FISA-related processes were used to monitor Trump. - He asserts distrust and lack of information-sharing among agencies, stating “the NSA and CIA don’t share information” and describing internal fragmentation and territoriality between agencies as a problem. - Fassisi alleges that there was a broader pattern of weaponizing the CIA and collaborating with foreign partners to influence or monitor Trump associates, referencing the broader narrative around Trump and Russia and implying ongoing monitoring of Trump’s activities post-presidency as well. - He makes broad allegations about Israel and other allies, asserting distrust and claiming Israel “steals intelligence” from the U.S.; he frames relations with allies as fraught and unreliable. - Fassisi describes the reporting by Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi as validated by his claims, and positions the ongoing investigation as exposing corruption within the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice, with a narrative that information was hidden from the public and from Trump. Supporting context around the interview: - The exchange includes tense moments where Fassisi is shown a CIA badge and discusses his role; the interviewer questions the plausibility and provenance of his claims, pressing for documentation or proof, while Fassisi provides limited responses about his clearance, division (China Mission Center), and contractor status. - The segment also includes editorial framing by the presenter, interjecting with external commentary and promotional content not directly related to Fassisi’s assertions. The interviewer promises follow-up coverage and frames Fassisi’s statements as part of a broader whistleblower narrative. - Throughout, the content repeatedly emphasizes claims of withheld information from Trump, surveillance of Trump and his associates, inter-agency distrust, and internal CIA culture, without providing verifiable documentation within the interview itself.

Director Deutch and Congressman Julian Dixon are interrupted by audience members as they discuss allegations of CIA and agency involvement in drug activities. A former Los Angeles Police narcotics detective, Mike Rupert, asserts that the agency has dealt drugs across the country for a long time. He directs his comments to Director Deutch and references specific agency operations named Amadeus, Pegasus, and Watchtower. Rupert states that he has Watchtower documents that are heavily redacted by the agency, and that he was personally exposed to CIA operations and recruited by CIA personnel in the late 1970s to help protect agency drug operations in the United States. He asks, in the context of the IG’s investigations and Fred Hitz’s work, whether, if evidence of severely criminal activity is found and it is classified, the classification will be used to hide the crime or to tell the American people the truth. The moderator then defers to Director Deutch to speak first and then to Congressman Dixon. A speaker on the panel (Speaker 2) suggests that if there is information about CIA illegal activity in drugs, it should be brought to the Los Angeles Police Department, the inspector general, or to a congressperson. The moderator emphasizes that the audience wants to hear the answer. Another speaker (Speaker 3) adds that if information turns up wrongdoing, the proper recourse is to bring those responsible to justice. Congressman Julian Dixon expresses appreciation for the visit. He thanks the attendee and acknowledges the interest in discussion, inviting the guest to provide information privately or through the committee staff so it can be contacted that evening. A staff member (Speaker 3) asks for the information to be handed up so it can be seen by all. Rupert identifies himself for the record as Mike Rupert, with the spelling of his name given, and notes that he brought this information out eighteen years ago, was shot at, and forced out of the LAPD, and has been on the record for eighteen years. He offers to provide Congress with anything he has. The exchange ends with the acknowledgment of Rupert’s statement and an expression of thanks from Congressman Dixon.

Speaker 1 discusses the possibility of a CIA conspiracy to remove them from office, citing CIA's advanced knowledge of the break-in and their dissatisfaction with the agency. They express a belief that the CIA feared them due to plans to reform the organization. While unsure about a conspiracy, they suggest it would be an intriguing topic for investigative reporting. They doubt the CIA would resort to eliminating those who expose their operations in the present day.

The CIA has admitted to having operatives embedded in major media outlets to influence stories for their benefit. Reports indicate that they have relationships with reporters from various national news organizations, persuading them to alter or withhold stories that could threaten national security. Evidence from the Pike Committee revealed that 42 CIA employees were placed in key media centers, often as national security reporters. A Time Life board member remarked that journalists are merely taking dictation from powerful entities, indicating a loss of journalistic integrity. Some reporters have shared experiences of their stories being spiked by editors, and payments to these operatives were made discreetly, often without proper reporting to tax authorities.

Speaker 0 pressed whether federal agents or assets were present on January 5 and 6, whether they agitated to enter the Capitol, and whether any did. Speaker 1 refused to comment on an ongoing investigation, saying, 'I'm not gonna violate this norm of the rule of law. I'm not gonna comment on an investigation that's ongoing.' He later said, 'I don't know the answer to that question' when asked how many agents or assets were involved or if any entered the Capitol. The discussion moved to confidential human sources (CHS). Speaker 2 said, 'Our report will include the information in that regard,' but noted it is 'in draft form' and not yet through classification review. On release timing, he said it would be 'in the next couple of months' but may not come before the election. He stated CHS protocols should be followed, and four years into the process, delays.

The conversation centers on the Seth Rich murder and its alleged connection to WikiLeaks and the 2016 DNC email controversy. An FBI forensic report purportedly found that Rich contacted WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and Rich allegedly provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10, but his wallet, phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later, showing top DNC officials discussing ways to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, which contributed to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair and the DNC’s top three officials. Speaker 1 questions whether there is an “October surprise” and whether material is being held. Speaker 2 of the Helix group states that they do not sit on material and emphasizes that whistleblowers take significant risks; they note Rich’s murder as an example of high stakes and risk to sources, asserting that sources seek anonymity with them. When Speaker 1 asks if Rich was a source, Speaker 2 declines to comment but says they are investigating what happened to Rich and are concerned about it, though no conclusion has been reached. Speaker 3 argues that Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and asserts that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders; he notes that Rich was aware of this and was involved as it happened, with Donald Brazil also involved. He describes Rich as idealistic and patriotic, and recounts his murder after leaking information to WikiLeaks, insisting that this is not a conspiracy theory but a fact-based concern. He challenges others to acknowledge the alleged corruption within the Democratic party and suggests that those who ignore the facts are engaging in denial. He also critiques media portrayals and online accusations about his own credibility. Speaker 4 discusses Assange and WikiLeaks, criticizing the idea of a conspiracy theory and labeling Assange as a key figure who exposed corruption. He mentions that Assange now “works for Russia” and questions the Ecuadorian embassy situation, describing it as heavily manipulated by interests around Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He connects the Seth Rich disclosures to broader allegations of a coordinated effort to undermine Clinton and her circle, while acknowledging that some related claims may be questionable. Speaker 6 notes that hacking of the DNC and the role of CrowdStrike remain controversial and points to the subsequent murder of Rich as a focal point for questions that have not been fully explored by the media. Speaker 7 echoes concerns about the timeline, the FBI’s involvement, and past inquiries that were not pursued, emphasizing a sense that the case and the broader narrative around the DNC emails have been inadequately examined. Speaker 8 presents a long, conspiratorial narrative alleging that on 11/01/2016 Hillary and Bill Clinton orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-option of key institutions, while a countercoup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated to undermine Hillary and the Clinton machine. The speaker claims a silent countercoup across the Internet, led by members of the intelligence community, to stop the Clintons from gaining power and ensure Obama leaves without pardon, framing the moment as a major transitional event and a second American revolution conducted without guns.

The speaker mentions having spoken with whistleblowers and an informant who provided valuable information. However, they express difficulty in locating the informant and hope that they are still available. The whistleblower is described as credible. When questioned about the informant's whereabouts, the speaker clarifies that they are hopeful of finding them. They explain that informants in the spy business tend to avoid being seen frequently or being in the public eye.

The discussion centers on concerns that planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back and be circulated in the United States, potentially allowing the CIA to manipulate U.S. news by channeling it through a foreign country. There is emphasis on looking at this very carefully. Questions were raised about whether any people paid by the CIA contribute to major American journals or to television networks. One speaker notes that some individuals submit pieces to American journals, and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who work for television networks. The response indicates that this is a level of detail better addressed in executive session. It is stated that at CBS, the CIA had contacted the organization, and that by the time the head of the news and public affairs operation was appointed in 1954, “the ships had been established,” and he was told about them and asked to carry on with them. Regarding final reporting, there is a commitment to evaluate all the detailed information and to include any evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety in the final report and to make recommendations. The question is raised again about whether there are people paid by the CIA contributing to national news services such as AP and UPI, with the response again preferring to handle those details in executive session. When asked whether the new organization’s final report would be named, the speaker indicates that this remains to be decided. It is asserted that correspondents at that time were allowed to make use of CIA agent chiefs of station and other CIA executive staff as sources of information useful in their assessments of world conditions. The question is asked whether this continues today. The response acknowledges that it probably does for a reporter, but notes that due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter would need to be much more circumspect now, and must be careful not to be viewed with considerable disfavor by the public.

We are reporting from the heart of the campus that sparked a global student movement for Palestine. We’re seeing right now, Chris, we’re trapped in a dorm room. There are 10 white PDs barricading the doors, and we’re not allowed to leave. What started off as a protest against genocide at an elite Ivy League university was met with a military-style operation to suppress it. We need to find a way to get some spare medication. So when Columbia University sent the NYPD on the campus, they were willing to deploy violent militarized police to maintain their active investment in genocide. This is not about students expressing ideas. It is about a change in tactics that presents a concern and a normalization and mainstreaming of rhetoric. And I’m not just talking about language. I’m now talking about tactics, and that’s what shifted our response yesterday. But a normalization and mainstreaming of rhetoric associated with terrorism has now become pretty common on college campuses. Right? You see people wearing headbands associated with foreign terrorist organizations. This happened in October when you had a viral TikTok reissuing Osama bin Laden’s 2002 letter to America. So that’s a larger concern. It’s separate from what happened yesterday, but they’re related. Speaker 3 asks what was found: basically, NYPD changed the way it did business after the attacks of September Eleventh. It not only changed the way it did business, it created a very deep connection with the CIA. They started to build these intelligence programs that infiltrated Muslim communities in ways that, if the federal government did it, would totally go against rules designed to protect civil liberties. And they did it with an unusual partnership with the CIA. A very senior CIA officer was dispatched by CIA Director George Tenet to be his personal representative to the NYPD and help create these intelligence gathering programs, directing and supervising the intelligence gathering, and that relationship continues today. Speaker 3 notes: Recently, the CIA sent one of its most senior undercover officers to work out of 1 Police Plaza in New York as a covert officer. So we’re talking about former CIA agents now working within the New York Police Department. Well, they’re current CIA; they’re on CIA payroll. They’re on the CIA payroll, working with the NYPD, traveling abroad, and using intelligence in conjunction with the NYPD. Speaker 2 describes one element: there is a program called the demographics program. Officers described it as mapping the human terrain of the city. They placed undercover officers, ethnic officers inside Middle Eastern neighborhoods to blend in and look for things that are suspicious. That could be something as simple as who’s looking at radical books in a bookstore or who’s watching Al Jazeera and perhaps applauds at a report about an IED in Iraq, and that could be enough to get you into a report at the NYPD. They also have informants called mosque crawlers who go to the mosque as the eyes and ears for the NYPD. The FBI places informants in mosques with a criterion of specific information related to criminal activity, while the NYPD reportedly does not have that bar and says they follow leads; but those involved with the mosque crawler program say they’re there as eyes and ears.

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

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

Speaker 1 discusses government interference in news coverage at CBS, citing pressure from political officials to shape stories. They mention feeling pressure from employers to withhold stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 suggests a policy where officials must submit objections in writing rather than through phone calls. They express concern about intelligence agencies violating rights without sufficient oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their input. Translation: Speaker 1 talks about government influence on news coverage at CBS, highlighting pressure from political officials to manipulate stories. They mention feeling pressured by employers to hold back stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 proposes a policy where officials must submit objections in writing instead of through phone calls. They express worry about intelligence agencies violating rights without proper oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their insights.

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