TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

We express sympathy for the victims of the Iran explosions, stating the US and Israel were not involved. No evidence supports these claims. Speculation on US involvement is deemed ridiculous due to lack of proof. The history of US actions in Iran is mentioned, but the current administration denies any involvement in the recent explosions.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the unfolding conflict with Iran, focusing on miscalculations, strategy, and potential trajectories. - Speaker 1 says the war is a major miscalculation, identifiable before it began. Signs were evident: movement of military equipment, force postures, and statements suggested that absent an eleventh-hour change by Trump, the plan was to use prepositioned forces and enablers for sustained combat. He notes this pattern matches previous experiences in which the U.S. saw a buildup as a precursor to war, citing Russia’s 2022 invasion and his own observations of earlier prepositioning, logistics, air support, refueling, and large-scale aviation assets (C-17s, C-5s, fighter jets, aircraft carriers). - He argues Iran’s leadership intended to pursue war rather than negotiation, pointing to what he calls a central missed opportunity: the Oman foreign minister’s Friday-night submissions to the Iranian negotiator offering zero reprocessing, stockpile reductions, and at least preliminary talks on long-range missiles and proxies. He asserts that if the Trump administration had accepted those terms, a ceasefire or settlement might have been possible; instead, he claims the next morning’s attack signaled that negotiations were never the aim. - Regarding U.S. objectives, Speaker 1 says the stated aims from Trump were unattainable given Iran’s resolve and the regime’s calculations that fighting a war with the U.S. is less risky than submitting to U.S. demands. He cites a New York Times report indicating Iran believed war with the U.S. was a viable risk, yet he notes Iran’s leadership now appears to be consolidating support at home and regionally after the Ayatollah’s assassination and the subsequent martyrdom of Qasem Soleimani’s successor in Iran’s internal narrative. - On battlefield dynamics, he emphasizes that Iran’s force deployment is not merely pressure but designed for use, with extensive underground facilities capable of withstanding sustained pressure. He forecasts continued high-intensity operations for a period, but warns the U.S. faces a tightening window: if the Iranian side holds firm and the U.S. cannot sustain supplies and missiles, the U.S. could reach a crisis point. - He discusses possible ceasefire dynamics and political reaction: Trump’s suggestion of a ceasefire could be “complete BS” if the Ayatollah’s position remains solid; the martyrdom and regional protests strengthen Iran’s stance. He expects continued escalation and a hardening of Iran’s demands, including sanctions relief or designation changes, should the conflict drag on. - On regional response, Speaker 1 notes that Iran has drawn regional actors into the conflict, with protests supporting Iran across Iraq, Pakistan, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. He says many Iranians—though opposed to the regime—are unlikely to embrace Israel or the United States as a path out of the crisis, given decades of antagonism and past betrayals by Western powers. - Regarding U.S. vulnerabilities, he says there are reports of U.S. casualties (three killed, five seriously wounded, others lightly wounded) though some figures are disputed; the public reporting may lag behind direct sources. He mentions possible gaps in air defense and the risk of shortages in interceptors as drones and missiles proliferate, warning that Iran could escalate if U.S. stocks are depleted. - Looking ahead, Speaker 1 argues the conflict is a battle of wills and a war of attrition. The U.S. attempted a “cheap” approach with naval and air power but no ground forces; Iran appears ready to continue long enough to force concessions. He warns the Iranian threat could extend to oil infrastructure and the broader economy if the United States or its regional partners target Iran’s energy sector, potentially broadening the conflict. - In sum, he characterizes Iran’s strategy as all-in, aiming to impose pain to compel a negotiated settlement unfavorable to the U.S., while the U.S. faces a narrowing margin to sustain supply chains, missiles, and air defenses as the conflict potentially drags on for weeks to months. He cautions that the escalation ladder remains with higher rungs available, including strikes on energy infrastructure, if the conflict widens.

Speaker 0: My first in person hint of something amiss came while I was flying for the US marines prior to Operation Desert Storm. In 1991, on my way to the Persian Gulf conflict, my squadron of 10 A-6E Intruder attack jets landed at Diego Garcia, a top secret US Navy base smack in the middle of the Indian Ocean. While The UK retained sovereignty of the tiny island, The United States controls the island's military base through a 1966 lease agreement and the majority of the personnel on the base are US Navy. I had already been briefed that no outside press was ever allowed at Diego. That immediately put my radar on high alert, wondering what I would find there. But after an uneventful landing, I was completely perplexed. There was nothing there, nothing I could see which of course only heightened my curiosity. Having read enough top secret intelligence briefs, I knew you didn't place a single runway airfield on a no press top secret status unless something at that location required a stringent security veil. The US naval support facility at Diego Garcia is a tiny airfield with a few hangars along the main runway, nothing more or at least that is the only visual I was presented with. While refueling my jet, was intrigued by a huge construction crane working nearby with its main cable going down deep into the ocean. I assumed it was being used to set concrete far down in the depths for future surface structures. I had no idea standing on a tarmac in 1991 only a few 100 feet below me was an active colossal spaceport for the German dark fleet and the American black navy. For those unfamiliar with military secret protocols, think deep black ops equals US black navy. The US black navy is an above top secret unit that supports ongoing space operations at the Diego deep underground military base, DUMB. The multi level deep underground military base was identified by whistleblower Tony Rodrigues as the same port his German space freighter, the Max von Low used as a hub for transporting materials to and from various planets in our solar system. The spaceport and Dummit Diego Garcia were also confirmed by a former black navy assassin during online interviews. The assassin's years working in the Dummit and spaceport at Diego corroborate in both time and description with Rodrigues' supply runs aboard the Max von Low at the Diego Complex. Tragically, Diego Garcia was also the final destination for Malaysian flight three seventy and its passengers and crew. This was confirmed not only by an SOS sent from the Diego Airfield by Philip Wood, a former IBM executive on the ill fated flight, but also verified by the navy assassin who witnessed the hasty disassembly of that jet on the tarmac at Diego Garcia. In addition, top secret National Reconnaissance Office NRO videos leaked online by a former navy lieutenant commander only days after the flight showed Malaysian three seven zero being tracked by two black ops US Reaper drones moments before its disappearance. To make this clear and simple for the non military reader, America's top intelligence services would not order the US air force to track a civilian Boeing seven seventy seven commercial jet with two ultra top secret surveillance platforms on its final flight unless they wanted someone or something on that jet. Period. On the flight were 20 American engineers of Chinese descent working for Freescale Corporation, a Texas based semiconductor firm. All had been coerced by the Chinese government to defect. Those employees carried American technology with them and were on their final leg to Beijing when the cabal struck. Assisted by America's top intelligence services, the cabal hijacked the flight ensuring that all the defectors, their American technology and the innocent passengers and crew were returned to the US Navy base at Diego Garcia in late two thousand fourteen when the MH three seventy cockpit voice transmissions had gone viral. I sat perplexed at home listening over and over. Being a former combat jet pilot, I was shocked that no investigators were calling out what was to me, a clear switch in the cockpit voice just after lift off. The deep Asian accent of copilot Hamid was suddenly no more, and the new voice that replaced it was undeniably American in accent and delivery and a man stuttered on the call sign of MH370 for the rest of the flight, yet nobody was noticing it. I knew then, without a doubt, the jet had been taken, that covert work had been completed and the post investigation was being controlled. To this day, you can listen to them online. Benjamin R Water's clearly American accented radio calls are first heard at 12:42 zero 5AM just after lift off and continue for the rest of the flight and those transmissions intrigued me for years until Ben was identified by tech experts investigating encrypted pings that somehow had never been decrypted. The hijacking and takeover of flight three seventy by a cabal hijacking crew began during initial taxi and culminated with both Asian pilots being executed only seconds after lift off by CIA operative and pilot Benjamin R Waters. The CIA ensured Ben's name was absent from the plane's manifest as well as absent from any early media coverage after the jet's disappearance. His name was only flagged after an international passenger audit cross referenced travel manifest with known personnel in US defense databases. According to the ticket logs, Ben booked his seat less than twelve hours before takeoff using an internal travel portal typically reserved for military contractors on discretionary assignments, then boarded using a fake Ukrainian passport. But the flaw in the cabal's plan came from their assumption that the satellite connected technology Ben wielded would be impossible to intercept. Ben's communications would remain encrypted. But fortunately for all of us, Ben's communications from the jet had now been identified and decrypted. Even when MH370 had no active WiFi and no satellite uplink accessible to passengers and the jet was presumed well beyond communication range, Ben's communications had pinged a nearby satellite and been recorded. Those burst style data packets sent up flags during the post disappearance investigation with tech experts across the globe. At first disregarded as satellite noise until experts realized, under scrutiny of the signal, that they were actual burst transmissions from an individual on the flight. The data transmissions attributed to Benjamin R Waters were unlike anything expected from a commercial aircraft in a total blackout, not formatted like casual data logs or cached GPS information. Instead, Ben's transmissions were a multi art file split into six fragments with each fragment encrypted. Ben was sending out bursts via satellite that cyber security experts identified as nested SHA-three hashing, a level of encryption consistent with military grade systems and all of this was discovered just as Ben's background check came through as a known CIA subcontractor and operative. Ben, it turns out, was interlinked. Think of technology embedded in the brain and then you're getting the picture. Ben was controlled by handlers via satellite link all the way from Virginia. His movements and communication had been deciphered and corroborated precisely in time and burst location with his American accented voice as the only person transmitting from the cockpit of mh three seventy once the flight became airborne.

The speaker believes the lack of American casualties on the aircraft led to a lack of drive to investigate the incident. A new investigation headed by Warren Nelson petered out. One individual admits the lack of a final report was exclusively their fault, citing being bogged down with another issue. Another speaker expresses sadness at the lack of responsibility taken for what happened, viewing the affair as a gigantic screw up. They find it interesting that no further action was taken after the preliminary investigation. They believe it was a tremendous mistake and that the situation should have been addressed as a giant blunder, holding people accountable, taking corrective action, and apologizing to the Iranians. Captain Rogers declined an interview but stated he would do the same thing again. He was awarded a Legion of Merit medal for his performance.

It is believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was not a pure case of mistaken identity. It's time for Israel and the U.S. government to provide the crew members and the American people with the facts of what happened and why the Liberty was attacked. Shortly before his death and burial at Arlington, Captain McGonagall sent an open letter to President Clinton calling for Israel to acknowledge publicly that its armed forces deliberately attacked the USS Liberty. McGonagall was a sailor's captain and a friend. Towards the end of his life, McGonagall confided in his old friend, the chief engineer.

Speaker 0 discusses the differing international reactions to airliner shootdowns. He notes that when the Korean airliner was shot down, there was significant moral outrage and a response in the United Nations. He compares this to 1978 or 1979, when Israel shot down a Libyan civilian aircraft for violating Israeli airspace, an incident for which President Nixon sent a wire to Qaddafi and to Sadat apologizing. He points out that there was no talk of bringing that incident to the United Nations, and that at a meeting of the International Pilots Associations, 102 nations voted to condemn Israel with four voting not to, and the American representative abstained. The abstention, he says, was because “we couldn't create an enemy there.” He then contrasts this with the Soviets shooting down an airliner, noting that the same situation would elicit moral outrage in the same circles, but that a difference exists: “we must insist that the Soviets have gotta be created as an enemy.” He argues that without portraying the Soviets as a major enemy, it would be difficult to secure appropriations for more arms. The discussion shifts to national security rhetoric. He acknowledges, perhaps reluctantly, that people talk about being tough and strong and that missiles have been released, including intermediate-range missiles, Pershing II, and plans for more Trident II missiles. He then asks what the Soviet response has been: the Soviets have placed cruise missiles into attack submarines and positioned more of them off the U.S. coast. He challenges the idea that this development increases national security, describing the situation as “a whole ballgame that I don't understand.”

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

The speaker acknowledges that all the failures and risks leading up to the tragedy were known beforehand. They mention the failure to prevent, plan, manage, and respond to the contingencies that arose that day. The speaker also mentions the failure to act quickly when the situation escalated. Viewers are questioning if someone should apologize for these oversights. The other speaker cannot say when apologies will be made but expresses heartbreak over the situation. They believe that as a society, we have neglected global warming and failed to prioritize important matters.

They claimed it was a plane, but the building exploded randomly. It's not a plane; that side just blew up after the first explosion. They don't know what they're saying. How could a plane have caused that? It happened too quickly. The building was fine before, then suddenly it exploded. How did that happen?

Speaker 0 questions: "You just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands on a tomahawk and bombed its own elementary school on the first day of the war, but you're the only person in your government saying this. Even your defense secretary wouldn't say that when he was asked, standing over your shoulder on Saturday. Why are you the only person saying this?" Speaker 1 responds: "Because I just don't know enough about it. I think it's something that I was told is under investigation, but Tomahawks are used by others, as you know. Numerous other nations have Tomahawks. They buy them from us. But I will certainly whatever the report shows, I'm willing to live with that report."

Flying the Star of David. "We thought they were coming there to help us. No. They were coming there to kill the rest of us and sink our ship." They fired five torpedoes at us, four missed by the grace of God. "One did hit, a little bit." Forward midships, 25 American sailors, marines, National Security Agency, CIA personnel were blown to bits in the blink of an eye. The torpedo lifted our ship out of the water, slammed it down, and stopped on the starboard side. We had "three life rafts left for a crew of 294 souls." They shot them all up; "When we put the life rafts over, they shot two out of the water and took one aboard their boat as a trophy of their kill. The Israelis did." They circled the ship, machine gunning anything that moved. They sent troop-carrying helicopters to finish this off, then left. "They couldn't sink us like they planned with the blessings of, our government, LBJ, from his government onto the Biden government, and all congresses in between have never lifted a finger to, to get an investigation." We've been hollering for fifty six years because they're afraid of fending their ally.

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

Multiple studies conducted by various US government agencies, including the Navy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, CIA, House, Senate, and NSA, have focused on the USS Liberty incident. Historian Richard Brownell states that these reports do not assign blame but highlight communication failures. However, the Liberty Veterans Association claims that the incident was not properly investigated. Secretary of State Dean Rusk expressed dissatisfaction with the Israeli explanation, and there is evidence suggesting that the attack was deliberate. The American Legion passed a resolution acknowledging that Israel knew the ship's identity, and the CIA director, the NSA director, and a congressional captain all support the notion that the attack was intentional. Despite this, the speaker questions why the incident, which occurred 52 years ago, remains a topic of obsession.

Our military leaders are great, but our involvement in the Middle East has given our military a bad reputation. Going into the Middle East was a horrible decision, the worst in our country's history. It has turned out to be a disaster, destroying the region and costing us billions of dollars and millions of lives. The situation is much worse now than it was 20 years ago. We should have just done a retribution strike for the World Trade Center and not gotten stuck in there like quicksand. Currently, there are reports of as many as 40,000 Americans affected.

In this exchange, Speaker 0 raises the issue of the USS Liberty attack in 1967, arguing that if truth matters, the Israeli government must be held accountable because the American flag was flying on that ship. Speaker 0 presses why, in a discussion of modern Israeli–American relations, Speaker 1 would deem the attack “irrelevant” to current ties. Speaker 1 responds that when assessing today’s relations, citing the 1967 attack as a basis for judgment is irrelevant—comparable to using evidence from World War II or 1776 to define present-day relations with Britain or Germany. He emphasizes that while the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, and that Israel paid reparations, the actual naval record indicates the incident was a mistaken and tragic event. He notes that those who reference the USS Liberty often do so to suggest Israel deliberately harmed America, and asks if that is Speaker 0’s broader point. Speaker 0 reiterates that truth requires accountability from the Israeli government, given the American flag on the ship. Speaker 1 points to the naval investigations, stating that multiple investigations exist and that the Israeli military at the time was flying Mirage planes and the USS Liberty was operating off-grid. He explains that the Israeli forces mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel and believed it was shelling Al-Arish, which was not true. He describes the sequence: the American flag was knocked down in the initial attack, the engagement lasted about ninety minutes, and once it became clear the vessel was American, the attack was halted and a ship was dispatched to assist the Liberty. He also notes there have been other unfortunate friendly-fire incidents in war, such as during the Gulf War when US forces killed British troops. Speaker 0 asks about the broader agenda behind raising the incident, suggesting that it is not limited to that specific event. Speaker 1 acknowledges the question but questions the motive and implies that it is not an appropriate basis for evaluating current U.S.–Israel relations. Speaker 0 asserts that there are ongoing problems in the relationship, but again emphasizes the six-decade-old incident as relevant to the discussion. Speaker 1 maintains that, in the same way that many histories exist, there are many countries and contexts, and reiterates that the question is not answered satisfactorily. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 indicating this will be the last question.

I'm Moneypenny and I'm British. I don't profess to understand the American legal system, though I know the British system fairly well. It is fairly harsh at the moment. But I know that if a high ranking, somebody who's been awarded a medal in the British military, who used to be a jet pilot, who used to work in the intel sector of the UK military, came to us and said he was aware of a misdemeanor, a crime involving the death of many people, and he had various evidence and other people that would corroborate that, that something could be done about it, it would be investigated. So this is where I'm stuck, and I want to appeal. Pam Bondi and maybe Cash Patel. If a member of the US military who used to be a pilot, who worked in sensitive intel, who had visited the Diego Garcia Military Base, who had a level of clearance such that he was free to explore that base, who was aware of the Black Navy and the operations that would require being signed in or read in at a very senior level. That individual to me sounds as though he would be somebody that would be taken seriously. So this is where I have a problem. This is where I don't understand. I do not understand how somebody of that caliber who has spoken out, who is recorded speaking out, giving evidence corroborating, giving names of other people. Who is able to tell us where a seven seventy seven airliner with two thirty nine souls on board went and who took it and how the whole operation took place down to the mechanics of it, the individuals that took part in it. Why isn't that information being taken seriously? Why isn't that information being investigated? We are talking about murder. I'm sorry to use that word. There are two thirty nine people, souls involved and probably thousands of friends, family and many, many interested parties over the past eleven years. Many people who have dedicated a lot of time to looking at this, myself included. There are videos that potentially are giving away some of the information about what happened. But the person who has those videos, a person called Ashton Forbes, has been given letters from the American military, American department saying in a matter of national security, they cannot confirm any of the detail. So now we have a decorated military veteran, a former jet pilot who flew into Diego Garcia, who was in Iraq, who has done a lot of very impressive military work on behalf of The United States, has spoken out, is on record. I will send you the video. Why? Why is nothing being done? Why is nobody investigating? I do not understand how The United States can overlook this because, frankly, I'm pretty angry. On behalf of all those people on board, predominantly Chinese and Malaysian people and all their friends and families, I demand that something is done about this. And I'm a nobody, and you don't have to listen to me. But I'm gonna put this on social media, and I'm gonna sit here and wait until somebody responds and gives a bloody good explanation as to why nobody is taking this seriously. Because frankly, it's inhumane, and I don't think the Trump administration, amongst anybody else, would allow something inhumane to take place. I hope you agree.

The French investigation into the incident has lasted for 2 years, but the findings remain unchanged from the initial 2 weeks. The official conclusion is that the driver was intoxicated, as stated on a plain white paper. Many people were frustrated with the investigation's lack of answers, creating a void where various speculations arose.

Speaker 0 asks whether military action against Iran is now off the table, and says they will watch and see what the process is, noting they were given a very good statement by people that are aware of what's going on.

They monitored the area before my speech, but nobody warned me about a man on the roof with a gun. People noticed him and even shouted, yet no action was taken. It was a mistake not to address the situation earlier.

We successfully completed the mission, but I will never forget how BB Netanyahu let us down. It was a terrible thing. The intelligence and actions of our opponents, potentially Iran, need to be addressed. They are smart and vicious, and everything they hear is being analyzed. We were disappointed by BB's attempt to take credit for our precise and magnificent job. They need to strengthen themselves up.

From the outset, one of the speakers says there was a sense that the official narrative about the day didn’t add up, expressing that many Americans feel they were being lied to. The major problem they identify with the assassination narrative includes inconsistencies and unanswered questions rather than acceptance of the official story. Speaker 1 recalls being told Charlie Kirk was shot and initially in critical condition, but notes that the video shows an exit wound and movement of Kirk’s shirt that suggests an impact nearby. With extensive experience around gunshot wounds, they say what they saw didn’t make sense. They reference the FBI’s announcement of a shooter and describe a separate incident involving a person on the roof who allegedly disassembled and reassembled a firearm, aligned a scope, fired a cold bore shot, moved to the roof, and then wrapped the rifle up. They mention texts from the shooter that didn’t sound like a typical 22-year-old and state that these observations raise questions. They say asking questions leads to being torn down or accused of holding conspiracy views, and they specify they aren’t claiming “Israel did it,” but insisting the questions about the event “don’t look good.” They raise specific questions: did the security team remove Charlie Kirk’s lapel mic after the incident and give it to someone else; what happened to the SIM card; did someone take the camera behind him; why was the crime scene contaminated and rebuilt. They admit they don’t know what is true but insist the questions deserve answers. They note that once they question, they’re labeled antisemitic, and they say they didn’t even bring up Israel. They emphasize the personal and national significance of the incident. Speaker 0 mentions a claim that Charlie Kirk was portrayed as Superman, with his body supposedly stopping the 30-odd-six bullet, and asks what would have happened if a 30-06 round hit him. Speaker 1 says it would likely blow his head off and leave remnants of the bullet, arguing that they don’t think such remnants have been found yet. They question why the chair and desk were moved and contend that a forensic expert could determine the shot’s origin, insisting they are simply asking questions. If those questions can be refuted, they would stop asking; but they claim they’re not getting any answers beyond “this is what happened” and being told to “shut up.” Speaker 0 adds that telling someone to be quiet amounts to labeling them antisemitic, and that when the trial comes, they will look like a fool. Speaker 1 says that’s a tactic of the left—when you call them out, they label you a name—and that the right is now doing the same to them.

The crash site of Flight 93 left people puzzled. When I arrived, all I saw was small debris and singed trees, not what you'd expect from a Boeing 757 crash. TV reporters couldn't identify anything, the pieces were so small. A photographer said it looked like just a hole in the ground. It was just a large crater with tiny bits of debris. The coroner described a 10-foot wide, 10-foot deep trough covered with dirt, nothing that screamed airplane. Even the editor in chief couldn't identify any airplane debris. The mayor of Shanksville was shocked, exclaiming, "There's no airplane. Is this it? Is this all?"

We were supposed to have a face-to-face briefing with the Secret Service snipers, but it never happened. There was no communication with the Secret Service until after the shooting, which was too late.

The speaker states that the attack on Liberty was not a pure case of mistaken identity and was not pure error. They argue that it’s time for the state of Israel and the United States government to provide the crew members of the Liberty and the American people with the facts of what happened and why it came about that the Liberty was their child thirty years ago to ready.