reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on the U.S. military buildup in the Middle East amid tensions with Iran and the broader regional dynamics driving the potential conflict. Key points include: - Military posture and numbers: The 82nd Airborne Division and 5,000 U.S. Marines are traveling to the region, with CENTCOM confirming roughly 50,000 U.S. troops already there. President Biden previously acknowledged that American forces were “sitting ducks” and that an attack was imminent. The hosts note that ground forces are arriving by Friday, with the Marine Expeditionary Unit from the Pacific on station soon, and reference a pattern of rapid escalation around Fridays into Saturdays in past conflicts. - Public reaction and political stance: Representative Nancy Mace says she will not support troops on the ground in Iran, even after briefing. The panel questions what powers she or others have to restrict presidential war powers, noting a perception that both parties are in lockstep on war funding. - Open-source intelligence on deployments: There is a reported flow of special operations elements—Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, Task Force 160, 75th Ranger Regiment—into or toward the Middle East, with multiple flights of SEACEs and C-17s observed in the last 48 hours. The discussion emphasizes the significance of such ground-force movements and their possible outcomes. - Iranian messaging and claims: An IRGC spokesman claimed that if the American public knew the true casualties, there would be outrage, and that “all American bases in the region have effectively been destroyed,” with American soldiers “hiding in locations adjacent to these locations and they are basically being hunted down.” - Expert analysis on negotiations and off-ramps: Doctor Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute argues that an off-ramp would require behind-the-scenes talks and cautions that the 15-point plan reportedly leaked to the Israeli press is not a basis for serious negotiation. He suggests a diplomacy path could involve sanctions relief and restricted military actions, but warns the public leaks risk undermining negotiations. - Israel’s role and objectives: Parsi states that Israel has aimed to sabotage negotiations and that Netanyahu’s objectives differ from U.S. aims. He suggests Israel desires a prolonged war to degrade Iran, while Trump’s objective may be to declare victory and withdraw. The panel discusses how Israeli influence and regional actions (Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon) relate to U.S. strategy and regional stability. - Saudi Arabia and other regional players: New York Times reporting indicates Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman privately lobbied Trump to keep the conflict going and even push for boots on the ground. The Saudi position is described as complex, with the foreign ministry potentially opposing war tones while MBS may have privately supported escalating the conflict. The guests discuss whether Saudi wealth is tied to the petrodollar and how a potential Iranian escalation could impact the region economically and politically. - Iran’s potential targets and escalatory capacity: Iran could retaliate against UAE and Bahrain, which are closely linked to the Abraham Accords and Israel. Iran’s capacity to strike urban centers and critical infrastructures in the Gulf region is acknowledged, and the discussion underscores the risk of significant disruption to desalination plants and strategic assets. - Propaganda and public perception: Iran released a viral video portraying global victims of U.S. and Israeli actions; the panel notes the messaging is aimed at shaping U.S. domestic opinion and demonstrates the intensity of propaganda on both sides during war. - Two emphasized “truths” (from Parsi): first, there has been a misperception about the efficiency of Iran’s missiles due to media censorship and selective reporting; second, U.S. and Israeli interests in the region have diverged, calling for a reassessment of national interest over coalition pressures. - Additional context: The conversation touches on U.S. military readiness, enrollment trends, and the broader historical pattern of wars shaped by executive decisions and external influences, including pressure from regional powers. The discussion ends with thanks to Dr. Parsi and an invitation for future conversations.

This video discusses the role of private central banks in causing wars and conflicts around the world. It argues that all wars are ultimately fought for the benefit of these banks, as they seek to control nations and their economies. The video provides historical examples, such as the American Revolution and World War II, to support this claim. It also highlights the dangers of private central banking and calls for a return to state-issued currencies. The video concludes by urging people to recognize the true cause of wars and to stand against private central banks.

This video discusses the role of private central banks in causing wars and conflicts throughout history. It argues that all wars are ultimately fought for the benefit of these banks, as they seek to control nations and their economies. The video highlights examples such as the American Revolution, the World Wars, and more recent conflicts in the Middle East. It suggests that the true cause of these wars is the predatory nature of private central banking, which enslaves nations and their people through debt. The video concludes by calling for the abolishment of private central banking and a return to state-issued currencies.

President Trump states he doesn't want war with Iran, but the speaker claims this is untrue. The speaker asserts that Trump actually does want war with Iran because it aligns with the desires of Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu, Al Qaeda, Bolton, Haley, and other neocons and neolibs. The speaker concludes that Trump prioritizes the desires of these entities over the interests of America.

This video discusses different perspectives on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The speaker highlights the width and speed of military jets, suggesting that the military could have intervened sooner during recent events. They argue that the wars in the region are orchestrated by those in power to maintain control and create division. The speaker questions the allocation of funds to Israel and Iran, suggesting that the money could be better used for rebuilding and helping the people. They emphasize the importance of seeing through the manipulation and division, urging unity to bring about change. The speaker concludes by encouraging viewers to seek the truth and unite as one people.

The speaker argues that pushing for war with Iran is a dangerous delusion. They claim: “That’s all you gotta do is just push a button, give an order, and bam. Iran will be blown up.” They challenge the audience to understand how combat power works and to see that many war advocates are “singing from the same sheet of music.” The speaker names several individuals as examples of this chorus: Rebecca Hendrix, Victoria Coates, Rebecca Grant, Mike Pompeo, General Jack Keane, and Senator Lindsey Graham, indicating that all of these figures promote a similar line of thinking about provoking a war with Iran. The central claim is that these hawkish voices believe one can “do this massive armada” and that Iran cannot respond effectively. The speaker insists that such views are incorrect, stating that Iran can and would “make life incredibly difficult and kill many Israelis.” They note the explicit claims by Iran that they would attack and kill targets and people in Israel, and attack Americans and kill Americans through bases throughout the region. The speaker emphasizes that if the advocacy for war succeeds in provoking Iran, “you’re gonna get a lot of Israelis killed and a lot of Americans killed.” The speaker also acknowledges uncertainty about Iran’s precise calculations, noting that Iran’s claims about what they would do may be posturing or may reflect a real intent to respond, but that the speaker cannot predict which. They argue that Iran may choose not to act if it believes retaliation would be excessive or counterproductive, but if Iran does move as it has said it would, the consequences would be severe for Israelis and Americans. In summary, the speaker condemns the assumption that a war with Iran can be conducted unilaterally or without severe retaliatory consequences, warning that the consequences could include significant loss of life among Israelis and Americans if Iran follows through on its stated intentions. The dialogue frames the issue as a critique of a pervasive pro-war chorus and underscores the potential human cost of such policy.

In this video, the speaker discusses the USS Liberty incident in 1967, where Israel attacked an unarmed American spy ship. They highlight that the attack was intended to sink the ship and blame it on Egypt, potentially leading to a nuclear war. The speaker also mentions General Wesley Clark's claim that the US planned to invade seven Middle Eastern countries in five years, starting with Iraq. They attribute this plan to the Ynon Plan, an Israeli strategy for dividing the region into smaller states. The speaker emphasizes the chaos and fragmentation in the Middle East and suggests that the media manipulates public perception. They also mention key figures in the Pentagon with Israeli connections. The video concludes with concerns about the possibility of war with Iran.

The speaker claims the Syrian war narrative is false, stating Obama ordered the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore, the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker asserts it was based on phony pretenses and that focus groups were used to determine how to sell the war to the American public. They claim the war originated from Netanyahu's theory that toppling Iraq, Syria, and Iran was the only way to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. The speaker accuses Netanyahu of pushing the US into endless wars and still trying to instigate a war with Iran. They dismiss the idea of "democracy versus dictatorship" as sensible terms.

In this video, the speaker claims that all wars in the US have been fake, referring to the manipulation and strategizing that leads to war. He highlights the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, a think tank with influential members like Henry Kissinger and Condoleezza Rice, who have served in various presidential administrations. The speaker emphasizes that American interests in the Middle East, rather than spreading democracy or freedom, drive these wars. He discusses historical examples of false flag events that led to wars, such as Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The speaker concludes that if Iran doesn't compromise, someone else should initiate the war, following the pattern of previous conflicts.

The speaker discusses the United States' involvement in various countries, claiming that 9/11 was used as a pretext for war. They argue that the US is on the brink of war with Russia in Syria, despite having no interest in the country. The speaker believes that the War on Terror is a deception to wage war against independent nations, with Israel being the driving force behind it. They assert that 9/11 was a false flag operation to justify the war. The speaker also criticizes the enormous cost and lack of public resistance to the War on Terror. They conclude by questioning the purpose of American involvement in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Rogue regimes like Iraq and Iran are arming themselves with dangerous weapons, posing a global threat. Israel's influence over the US Congress is criticized for leading to unnecessary wars. The speaker urges Americans to take control of their government. The ruling class profits from war and exploitation, while the working class suffers. The call to action is to unite against oppression and create a better world. Military personnel are urged to question orders that support harmful agendas. The focus is on building a better future by moving away from past mistakes. Collaboration is essential for success in challenging the status quo. Translation: The video discusses the dangers of rogue regimes arming themselves and criticizes Israel's influence over US politics. It calls for people to unite against oppression and create a better world. Military personnel are urged to question orders that support harmful agendas. The focus is on building a better future by moving away from past mistakes. Collaboration is essential for success in challenging the status quo.

This video claims that the ongoing conflict between the US, NATO, and Russia is an American war against Russia and Europe. The speaker suggests that the objective of the neocons is to deindustrialize Europe and make it subservient to the US. They warn that if the current tactics fail, the situation could escalate dangerously. The speaker cites examples of Libya and Iraq to support their argument, claiming that NATO has not historically promoted peace and security.

The speaker argues that the United States became bogged down in Iraq due to an insurgency, and that this prevented a planned progression to a subsequent war in Syria, which the speaker claims was due to happen already twenty years prior. The speaker asserts that what began in 2011, under Barack Obama, led to the destabilization of Assad, and claims that this process was directed by Obama through the CIA with the aim of overthrowing Assad. According to the speaker, the motive behind overthrowing Assad lies in a belief that Israel has controlled American foreign policy in the Middle East for thirty years. The speaker contends that there exists an Israel lobby and references a “clean break” strategy, describing a plan for seven wars in five years. The speaker asserts that this plan has been pursued, with the claim that madness has been carried out, though the public is not informed about the details. The speaker states that one can observe the progression step by step. The central narrative presented is that the United States has engaged in a sequence of conflicts driven by a long-standing policy framework linked to Israeli influence, rather than purely American strategic consideration. The speaker maintains that six of the seven planned wars have been carried out, implying that the Syria intervention and other Middle East engagements are components of a broader, premeditated sequence. The assertion implies a deliberate, long-term strategy rather than reactive policy, and it emphasizes a disconnect between the government's actions and public awareness. Key claims repeated throughout include: the US became entangled in Iraq due to an insurgency; this prevented advancement to a Syria-focused campaign; the Syria upheaval traces back to 2011 and is connected to Obama via CIA involvement aimed at overthrowing Assad; Israel’s influence over American Middle East policy has shaped these decisions; there exists a “clean break strategy” with a plan for seven wars in five years; and that six of the seven wars have been executed while the public remains uninformed about the full rationale and sequence. The speaker presents these points as a coherent, long-running policy rather than isolated incidents, emphasizing the stealth and orchestrated nature of the actions.

The speaker claims the Syrian war narrative is false, stating Obama ordered the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore. Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker asserts it was based on "phony pretenses." They claim focus groups were used to determine how to "sell" the war to the American public. The speaker attributes the Iraq war to Netanyahu, who allegedly believed toppling Iraq, Syria, and Iran was the only way to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. They state Netanyahu has been trying to get the U.S. to fight Iran and has influenced U.S. politics to achieve his goals, resulting in "endless wars." The speaker concludes that the terms "democracy versus dictatorship" are not sensible.

The speaker claims the war in Syria began with Obama tasking the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore, the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker asserts it was based on phony pretenses and that focus groups were conducted to determine how to sell the war to the American people. They claim the war originated with Netanyahu, who believed toppling Iraq, Syria, and Iran was the only way to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. The speaker accuses Netanyahu of continually trying to instigate a war with Iran and characterizes him as responsible for involving the U.S. in endless wars. They conclude that the concepts of "democracy versus dictatorship" are not sensible terms.

In this video, a man discusses the hidden agenda of major tax exempt foundations in the United States. He mentions that in 1908, the Carnegie trustees raised the question of whether there is a more effective means than war to alter the life of a people, and they concluded that there isn't. In 1999, they discussed how to involve the United States in a war, and their answer was to control the state department by taking over the diplomatic machinery. The man also mentions that there were objections to this plan based on accusations of antisemitism, but he dismisses them as untrue.

The discussion centers on the ongoing tensions with Iran, the potential for American military involvement, and the role of media and ideology in shaping public perception. The speakers express a critical view of how the situation is being managed and portrayed. Key points about the Iran situation: - President Trump publicly claimed “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but the panel notes Israel’s public interest in a broader outcome, specifically regime change in Iran, which would require boots on the ground rather than air strikes. - It is argued that air strikes alone cannot achieve regime change; the Israeli military, even with about 170,000 active-duty soldiers plus reservists, would need American boots on the ground to accomplish such aims against a larger Iranian army. - Senators, including Richard Blumenthal, warned about the risk to American lives in potentially deploying ground troops in Iran, citing a path toward American ground forces. - The new National Defense Authorization Act renewal could lead to an involuntary draft by year’s end, a concern raised by Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute who argues it treats citizens as owned by the government. - There is tension between Trump’s public push for a quick end to conflict and Netanyahu’s government talking about a larger, more prolonged objective in the region, including a potential demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza’s situation. - Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini issued a televised statement threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz until the United States begs and vowing vengeance for martyrs, signaling that the conflict could continue or escalate beyond initial claims of victory. - The panel highlights potential escalation, including the possibility of nuclear weapons discussion by Trump and concerns about who controls the war, given factions within Iran and differing US-Israeli goals. Tucker Carlson’s analysis and warnings: - Carlson is presented as having warned that a war with Iran would be hard due to Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal aimed at US bases and allies’ infrastructure, and that it would push Iran closer to China and Russia, potentially undermining the US. - Carlson emphasizes the lack of a clear, publicly articulated endgame or exit strategy for the war, arguing that diplomacy has deteriorated and that the US appears discredited in its ability to negotiate peace. - He discusses the governance of Israel and the idea that some Israeli leaders advocate for extreme measures, referencing “Amalek” language used by Netanyahu to describe enemies, which Carlson characterizes as dangerous and incompatible with Western civilization’s values. - Carlson argues that American interests and Israeli strategic aims diverge, and questions why Israel is the partner with decision-making authority in such a conflict. He notes the US’s reliance on Israel for intelligence (with Israel translating SIGINT) and suggests that Israel’s endgame may be to erode American influence in the region. - He also suggests the war is being used to advance a broader political and ideological project, including America’s pivot away from foreign entanglements; he asserts that certain power centers in the US and in media and defense circles benefit from perpetual conflict. - Carlson discusses the moral framework around targeting and civilian casualties, asserting that there is concern over the ethical implications of autonomous targeting and the potential for AI to play a role in warfare decisions. - He notes the possibility that AI involvement in targeting decisions exists in other conflicts, though in the Iran situation, he mentions that a human pressed play in the specific case of an attack (the school near an Iranian base), while coordinates may have come from other sources, possibly shared by Israel. - Carlson discusses media dynamics, describing mainstream outlets as “embedded” with the defense establishment and questioning why there isn’t a robust public discussion about the war’s endgame, exit ramps, or the true costs of war. Media, propaganda, and public discourse: - The panel critiques media coverage as lacking skepticism, with anchors and outlets seemingly aligned with the administration’s war narratives, raising concerns about “access journalism” and the absence of tough questions about goals, timelines, and consequences. - Carlson and participants discuss the use of propaganda—historically, Disney and the Treasury Department in World War II as examples—arguing that today’s propaganda around Iran relies on pop culture and entertainment to normalize or justify intervention without clear justification to the public. - They argue that contemporary media often fails to examine the ethics and consequences of war or to question the necessity and legitimacy of continuing conflict, suggesting a broader risk of technology-enabled control over public opinion and civil discourse. White House dynamics and internal debate: - The guests discuss the possibility of internal disagreement within the White House, noting that while some senior figures had reservations, external pressure, particularly from Netanyahu, may have pushed the administration toward action. - They touch on the strategic ambiguity surrounding US forces in the region, noting that while large-scale ground invasion is unlikely, special forces and other assets may be deployed, with civilian and military costs disproportionately affecting American families. - The conversation also explores concerns about civil liberties, surveillance, and the potential for centralized control of information and warfare technologies to influence domestic politics and social cohesion. Overall, the dialogue presents a multifaceted critique of the handling and propulsion of a potential Iran conflict, emphasizing the risk of escalatory dynamics, the clash of strategic goals between the US and Israel, concerns about democratic consent and media accountability, and the ethical implications of modern warfare technology.

President Trump states he doesn't want war with Iran, but the speaker claims this is untrue. The speaker asserts that Trump actually does want war with Iran because it aligns with the desires of Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu, Al Qaeda, Bolton, Haley, and other neocons and neolibs. The speaker concludes that Trump prioritizes the desires of these entities over the interests of America.

This video discusses the role of private central banks in causing wars and conflicts throughout history. It argues that all wars are ultimately fought for the benefit of these banks, as they seek to control nations and their economies. The video highlights examples such as the American Revolution, the World Wars, and more recent conflicts in the Middle East. It suggests that the true cause of these wars is the desire of private central banks to maintain their power and wealth. The video concludes by calling for the abolishment of private central banking and a return to state-issued currencies.

The speaker claims the war in Syria began with Obama tasking the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore, which was the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker states the US used phony pretenses and focus groups to sell the war to the American people. They claim Netanyahu wanted the war to topple governments supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, specifically Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The speaker accuses Netanyahu of pushing the US into endless wars and still trying to get the US to fight Iran. They conclude that the terms "democracy versus dictatorship" are not sensible.

The speaker claims the war in Syria began with Obama tasking the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore, which was the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker asserts it was based on phony pretenses and that focus groups were used to determine how to sell the war to the American people. They claim the war originated with Netanyahu, who believed toppling Iraq, Syria, and Iran would eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. The speaker accuses Netanyahu of pushing the U.S. into endless wars and trying to instigate a war with Iran. They conclude that the concepts of "democracy versus dictatorship" are not sensible terms.

"Here's something you're never taught in school. Here in the good old US Of A, all of your wars have been fake." The video centers on the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an American think tank established in 1985, whose mission is "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in The Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them." Its board includes Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearl, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, James Woolsey. The speaker notes: "crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very hard for me to see how The United States, president can get us to war with Iran." He adds: "The traditional way that America gets to war is what's best for US interests." He cites alleged false flags: "False flag." Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, Gulf Of Tonkin, Maine, Fort Sumter. "If the Iranians aren't gonna compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war." "This is how America goes to war." "One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions." "We could step up the pressure." "They're in the game of doing that to everybody." "We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians." "We could get nastier with that." "you don't know when World War three is gonna break out, but when it does, you'll know why."

Speaker 0 argues that Freemasons, the New World Order, Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the North American Union, martial law, military checkpoints, US concentration camps, and a one world government will come to Americans unless action is taken now. The time is here; act now, America, before it's too late. Speaker 1 defines false flag operations as a distract-and-unify tactic for the government to push a hidden agenda. Globalization, control of oil, and suspension of civil liberties are used to gain more control, with fear being the game. He urges liberals, conservatives, and independents to join together as Americans and make their voices heard. He claims attackers want people split and distracted, and warns of an escalated attempt by the administration to scare the public into thinking Iran is a threat. He cautions to look for another false flag operation to justify fighting Iran, and to check for other mock drills occurring during the same time as real events; citing the nine-eleven attacks and the London bombings as examples where similar exercises happened the day of the attacks. He asks questions, demands answers, and asks who benefits. He asserts there is no interest in creating a stable environment in Iraq. He states the Pentagon has lost track of guns and ammunition and questions whose hands they fall into, arguing that disorder and chaos are being sought as distractions, with the conflict expected to last years. He predicts continued bases in Iraq under the pretext of security and national interest, and repeats the question: who benefits? Speaker 2 notes that in 2005 ExxonMobil achieved a record profit of $35,000,000,000, and an economist estimated that $7,000,000,000 of that amount was due to market conditions created by the war. Speaker 1 continues that under the pretext of security and fear of being attacked, the government will suspend freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and protection from illegal searches and seizures; they will ask law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns and to bear arms; they will establish martial law with the army policing the citizens, which is described as illegal. Speaker 3 adds that fear of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks on US territory might trigger drastic measures. NFL News 12 Jeff Bell reports that clergy would help the government with their biggest problem, which is "us." Speaker 1 repeats: remember, ask yourself, who benefits? Speaker 3 reiterates that their biggest problem is "us," not external enemies, and that those who follow the markets see increasing housing foreclosures and banks calling in loans. People who couldn’t afford loans would have houses bought back by those who built them for pennies on the dollar. This would allow a small elite to regain control, weaken the dollar, realize a North American union, and establish a broader global economy. The repeated question remains: who benefits? Speaker 2 concludes with the confession: “The truth is, I hope I'm wrong.”

"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This is an American think tank out of Washington DC. It was established in 1985, and it says the mission statement of the institute, quote, is to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in The Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them. Not about what's right and wrong over there. It's just whatever secures the American interests over in The Middle East, and we all know what those interests are. You've got Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearl, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, James Woolsey. It's a fun crowd. And it doesn't matter which president you think you're voting for. It's gonna change everything. People that have been part of this particular think tank have served senior positions in the administrations of every president this country has had since George h w Bush. Some of you may have seen this video, but again, considering the things that are going on right now, it's very it's more relevant now than it's ever been. So we're gonna go ahead and watch this, and I just wanna say upfront, you're gonna wanna have to make yourself resist the urge to punch your screen because you're gonna wanna punch this guy." "crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very hard for me to see how The United States, president can get us to war with Iran." "He just said that. You aren't hearing things he literally said. Crisis initiation's tough, and how's The United States president gonna get to war with Iran? Because wars don't just happen. They make the war." "The traditional way that America goes to war is what's best for the interests." "Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War two, as David mentioned. You may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. False flag." "Some people might think that mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War one. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. False flag." "Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall he had to wait for the Gulf Of Tonkin episode. Total false flag." "We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS until the Maine exploded. Probably also a false flag." "May I point out that mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. Also a false flag." "Do you see a pattern here?" "So if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war." "Period." "If the Iranians don't compromise, it would be best if someone started this war because that is how America goes to war." "One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17. We could step up the pressure." "We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We we could get nastier with that." "This is how America goes to war. You don't know when World War three is gonna break out, but when it does, you'll know why."