reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Domestic propaganda campaign that occurred in The United States before the invasion began. The story centers on a young Kuwaiti woman named Naira. On 10/10/1990, the 15 year old girl gave riveting testimony before Congress about the horrors inside Kuwait after Iraq invaded. Nayirah's testimony was rebroadcast across the country and marked a turning point in public opinion on going to war. President George H. W. Bush repeatedly cited her claims. They had kids in incubators, and they were thrown out of the incubators so that Kuwait could be systematically dismantled. Three months after Nayyra testified, President George H. W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq. But it turned out Nayyra's claims weren't true. It also turned out Nayyra was not just any Kuwaiti teenager. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to The United States, Saad Nasir al Sabah.

I briefed the press as an analyst and interrogator for the CIA, circulating disinformation to influence public opinion. I targeted influential journalists like Robert Chaplin and Kais Beach, planting false information to support US interests in Vietnam. I would also mislead reporters by briefing diplomats to provide false confirmation. Despite my involvement, I now oppose these propaganda tactics, believing they serve no purpose for the CIA.

Iraqi soldiers committed atrocities during Desert Storm, including pulling out fingernails and using electric shock. The story of babies being left to die after their incubators were taken was a hoax. The Gulf War was sold to the public by portraying Saddam Hussein as another Hitler. The war led to the deaths of many Iraqis, including children and the elderly, both during the conflict and due to sanctions. The propaganda surrounding the war, including fake claims about Saddam's weapons program, had lasting consequences, such as the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and the rise of Osama Bin Laden.

Witness Naira, a young girl from Kuwait, shares her harrowing experience during the Iraqi invasion. She recounts how she and her family were in Kuwait for a summer vacation when the invasion occurred. Naira witnessed the Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators at a hospital and leaving them to die on the floor. She also describes the destruction and torture inflicted by the Iraqis on her country and its people. Naira and her friends distributed pamphlets condemning the invasion but were warned of potential danger. Despite the horrors she has witnessed, Naira remains determined to rebuild Kuwait. The committee expresses shock at the inhumanity and calls for international action to free Kuwait from this aggression.

In the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War, letters were sent to allies and Arab states urging them to withdraw their support for the coalition with the United States.

The speaker recalls a conversation where a general informed him that the decision to go to war with Iraq had been made without any evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The general mentioned that the military's only solution to dealing with terrorists was to take down governments. Later, the speaker learned about a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq. The video then mentions military operations in Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. It concludes by mentioning the investigation into the misuse of intelligence information and the speaker's belief that evidence points to wrongdoing.

The transcript discusses a video claimed to show an Iranian woman detained during the January protests, arguing the video is fake and produced by an AI company. It states the video is a product of Generative AI for Good, an Israeli impact company that develops AI-powered initiatives to amplify silenced voices, with one initiative focusing on sexual violence against women. The woman’s face is said to have been changed with AI to protect her identity, but the entire scene—bookshelf, curtains, samovar, and the creators—offers no information about where the testimony came from. The narrative within the video is said to be disturbing to many because, beyond the AI fabrication, the woman repeats nationalistic tropes that depict non-Persians as aggressors, and it claims without evidence that thousands of protesters, including children, were subjected to severe sexual violence in January. The speaker notes there are real victims of state and sexual violence, but questions why stories are made up and why now. Anthropologists are cited, stating that depicting oriental women as helpless victims in need of rescue is a powerful propaganda tool in political strategy and modern warfare. This portrayal is said to be designed to appeal specifically to Western white audiences, which allegedly influences global attention toward what Iranian women wear and Iran’s hijab laws rather than substantive equal rights issues. The transcript links this dynamic to the Iran’s woman life freedom movement, suggesting it went viral and drew foreigners worldwide to focus on slogans and visible symbols. The transcript then references former U.S. President Donald Trump, noting that he shared photos of eight Iranian women who were allegedly about to be executed and saved by his intervention. It adds that Iran’s judiciary denied these claims. It also states that the images have been altered to the point of debate over whether they are entirely AI-generated or simply retouched to appear more appealing—featuring young, attractive, hijab-free, mostly blonde women. The final observation asserts that thousands of people are in Iranian prisons, but in a war of bombs and narratives, some have discovered that if you can’t identify a perfect victim, you can create one.

Two testimonies reveal unimaginable cruelty and atrocities that occurred in Kuwait. One involves a fake nurse, Neira, who was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. She was coached by a PR firm to sell the war to Americans. The other testimony involves the propaganda used to manipulate public opinion and support for the war. On November 29, 1990, the UN issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait. The operation, called Desert Storm, began on January 16, 1991. The French Minister of Defense resigned on January 29, 1991. The exact number of civilian casualties from the month and a half of bombings remains unknown, with estimates ranging from a few thousand to sixty thousand Iraqis killed.

- The discussion begins with concern about the quality of Speaker 1’s internet connection for recorded YouTube work. Speaker 1 explains that their neighborhood has a monopolist limiting updates to local software/hardware, and says their own Starlink setup is going up, with 20+ or ~30 satellites already online and deploying quickly. Speaker 1 then jokes about sponsoring revolutions abroad, noting France and the UK should be ready. - The conversation shifts to international developments, focusing on the “Iran war” and later Ukraine/Russia, and then on Trump’s visit to China. - Speaker 1 describes alleged details from Trump’s China visit: Tajikistan’s president was visiting the same day, and during Trump’s arrival only part of the route’s flags were reportedly changed from Tajik to US flags. Speaker 1 frames this as a “soft insult.” - On Xi Jinping meeting Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin at airports/tarmacs, Speaker 1 says some claims are not true and emphasizes protocol and past examples: in prior meetings (Xi and Putin; Trump arriving previously), Xi reportedly met Putin at the tarmac, sat down with the top down, and drove into the city. Speaker 1 also says that in Trump’s last China arrival, Trump reportedly had Xi waiting. - Speaker 1 assesses the Xi–Trump meeting as unprepared compared with highly structured US-style or adversarial-country meetings. They describe how security teams, working diplomats, document preparation, possible joint statements, and agenda negotiation are typically handled before leaders meet. Speaker 1 compares this to earlier dynamics seen in Anchorage (with Trump allegedly seeking speed for a PR/picture moment). - The thread links the China visit to energy leverage involving Iran and Venezuela. Speaker 1 says Venezuela’s capacity is limited (around 800,000 barrels/day) and that significantly expanding it takes time and large investment. Speaker 1 argues US refining limitations matter: US refineries were set up for heavier sour crude (described as “viscous” and “sour” due to sulfur) and the US has not built a new refinery in over 30 years, citing bureaucracy and environmental laws as reasons companies left. - Speaker 1 elaborates on why the US cannot easily expand refining quickly, citing high insurance costs for factory work and related regulatory burdens, leading factories to move elsewhere. - Speaker 0 asks whether Trump intended a different sequence: Speaker 1 says the initial idea was to seek earlier wins and use Venezuela and Iran concessions to gain leverage, but the meeting reportedly came with Trump facing weaker leverage and needing help on Iran. - Taiwan discussions: Speaker 1 says reunification preferences exist among the Taiwanese opposition party that met Xi in China, with Taiwan described as the “Republic of China” and some groups categorized as seeking reconquest/reunification. Speaker 1 discusses why supplying Taiwan for conflict is difficult across open water and notes past US War College war-game conclusions that China would win if the US fleet intervened between China and Taiwan, while US strategy (as described) aims to make invasion costly rather than “winning.” - Proxy-war framing: Speaker 1 describes Ukraine and Iran/Yemen conflict patterns as proxy dynamics, referencing Marco Rubio’s admission that one war is a proxy war. - Iran supply/blockade claims: Speaker 1 says Iran is supplied via multiple routes—ports on the Caspian connected through Russian ports, and a rail line through Pakistan to China—plus other smaller export/storage options. Speaker 1 argues Iran’s weakness has historically included refining and diesel shortages, comparing it to the US importing refined product because it cannot refine enough to meet demand. - Venezuela capacity and US-advantaged/refinery/infrastructure problems are revisited, including discussion of reserves being held in gold in the US, social spending reductions of reinvestment, and US confiscation/export restrictions on equipment replacement, leading to worn-out infrastructure and the lack of “quick fixes.” - Straits of Hormuz and alleged “fee” idea: Speaker 0 cites a White House statement that China agreed to buy American oil to diversify from Hormuz and that Iran should not charge a fee for the Straits of Hormuz. Speaker 1 responds that Iran does not charge China fees (as stated by Speaker 1), then argues China’s commitments would only be clear if China confirms them, and compares this to past statements where purchases were claimed without matching agreements. - Speaker 1 argues sanctions can be moved/bypassed by the US government, not lifted by it, and says only US Congress can remove sanctions. Speaker 1 also claims the US continues buying sanctioned Russian products, while Europeans are criticized for accepting costly resell markups. - Speaker 1 also argues Hormuz isn’t treated as international waters in their view, and that Oman involvement matters, including claims about Oman not installing tollbooths and Iran striking ships—contrasted with the idea that a long-term/perpetual fee would open global choke-point “can of worms.” - Broader geopolitical framing: Speaker 1 says the “global system” is effectively gone, arguing the US helped build it and then killed it when it no longer served US interest, citing examples like the WTO and the strategic focus on controlling key choke points. Speaker 1 contrasts sea routes with Eurasia land connectivity and high-speed rail, linking this to belt-and-road connectivity. - Back to Iran: Speaker 0 asks whether China is pressuring Iran to concede or offering Trump political support with words. Speaker 1 says China prefers status quo and would prefer an end to war without weakening American stockpiles; Speaker 1 also says Iran’s ceasefire is not a full ceasefire and that both sides continue actions. - US military capacity and escalation: Speaker 1 argues that if Trump restarts the war, missile production is “null and void” at scale, and US manufacturing/industrial ramp-up would take years, citing the “missile production is null and void” point and the difficulty of rapid industry re-shoring due to state regulations. Speaker 1 discusses rare earths as a limiting factor in a different way—refining/processing capacity rather than shortage of elements—then argues chemical/electrolysis processing is expensive, energy intensive, and environmentally complex, often causing multi-year delays similar to refineries. - Soft-power indicators from Xi’s alleged absence and flag changes are used to explain Chinese behavior toward Trump, contrasted with prior high-level airport greetings and seating/handshake optics. Speaker 1 compares seating arrangements and perceived humiliation in European/Serbia contexts as a recurring pattern of power display. - Iran-war outcome speculation: Speaker 0 proposes a 50/50 scenario: continuation of conflict with Israeli strikes (and Iran mirroring strikes in the Gulf) versus Trump walking away. Speaker 1 says Israelis are driving outcomes and that APAC donors and money make turning away difficult, arguing Trump wants out but is constrained. Speaker 1 also says Iran and even Saudis/Kuwaitis reportedly would prefer US withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. - US military withdrawal and logistics: Speaker 1 says the US fifth fleet has left, its forward headquarters is moving to Israel, and damage estimates/repair costs are discussed. Speaker 1 argues the US is drawn into a genocide-perception dynamic once bases/equipment and US involvement are present. - Historical Iraq/Kuwait/Persian Gulf narrative: Speaker 0 asks why the US wanted Saddam to invade Kuwait. Speaker 1 asserts the US wanted Iraq to enter the Persian Gulf and become positioned for broader US presence, describing US backing for conflicts involving Iran and chemical weapons channels, and claiming Kuwait engaged in slant drilling stealing Iraqi oil. Speaker 1 says the US/Soviet coalition dynamics allowed the Gulf buildup and entry point into the region. - Final escalation discussion and regional future: Speaker 0 asks whether Trump will walk away or get trapped into escalation for a “win.” Speaker 1 says Israel’s influence over the US is expected to decline, claims generational shifts among American Jews/Christians and anti-Israel demonstrations, and argues Iran and the Gulf could reshape into new blocks with improved Gulf-Iran relations if stability is prioritized. - The conversation ends with debate over perceived misconceptions about Iran’s treatment of minorities and religious/political representation, plus discussion contrasting Iran with Saudi Arabia in terms of women’s legal status and religious policing, followed by a plan to do a future live recording using appropriate software.

A witness named Nayira testified about her experience in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion. She and her mother were there for a vacation when the invasion occurred. Nayira witnessed the Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die. She also described the destruction and torture inflicted by the Iraqis on the Kuwaiti people. Nayira emphasized the need to remove Saddam Hussein and rebuild Kuwait. The chairman expressed gratitude to all the witnesses for their testimonies, stating that the inhumanity and brutality described were unprecedented. He called for international action to free Kuwait from aggression and brutality.

From Iranian AI Lego animation videos to the official White House account uploading this clip of, quote, operation epic fury, The US's name for its war on Iran. Since the joint US Israel war on Iran began in February, hundreds have been killed. Another front is happening, the battle online. Iran's LEGO diss tracks are targeting the American public with mentions of Epstein, the Me Too movement and Pointless Wars. And official Iranian embassy X accounts are sharing commentary and memes while the White House uploaded this, quote, justice the American way clip. You can't conceive of what I'm capable of. Finishing this fight. Yeah. I'm thinking thinking I'm on back. I'm here to fight for truth and justice in the American way. Ben Stiller, who co wrote at one of the clips used by the White House tweeted, quote, hey, White House. Please remove the Tropic Thunder While Ceylon Dorr, the White House deputy communication director, retweeted this clip with the caption. Wake up, daddy son. Both sides are using memes to score political points, filtering serious policy through Internet culture. But propaganda isn't new in war. We've seen it in Russia, Ukraine, Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. And we've seen it in this war. Fake AI generated clips widely shared online. The Pentagon, which is the headquarters of the US Department of Defense, for example has been working with Hollywood since the 1940s and some movies like Ironman one and two were a collab with the Defense Department or music videos like Katy Perry's twenty twelve quote clip on how she found herself when she joined the army was also kebab created to normalize, shape public opinion and glorify war. Iran is also no stranger to propaganda. During the Iran Iraq war, state media glorified the military cause so effectively that hundreds of thousands of children volunteered and were put on the frontlines. States have long tried to make sacrifice appealing and today messages appear as memes online. This time however they're not asking you to join, they're asking you to laugh and pick a side. Every victim screaming in the dark. Iran got you on the play. Which raises the question, is the meme driven version being used to distract from critical reporting, undermine opponents messaging, and reinforce government policy.

In 1990, Iraq attacked Kuwait, leading to a split opinion among the US public on whether to engage in a land war. However, support for war increased dramatically after a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl testified before a congressional committee. She claimed that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of incubators, causing them to die. This testimony was later revealed to be false, as the girl was coached by a PR firm. The US and Kuwait had engaged in a $10 million campaign of deception. This incident highlights the use of fake organizations, false documents, and disinformation to achieve geopolitical goals.

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.

Intel agencies have a significant influence on television broadcasts, Facebook, and Google. Many anchors, including a national security reporter, act as mouthpieces for the Pentagon and the CIA, knowingly spreading lies. This is a common practice, even at CNN. These reporters read government propaganda from intel agencies, and it's frustrating and offensive, regardless of whether one agrees with the lies or not. For instance, when the CIA and Pentagon claimed that Bashar al Assad used poison gas, there was no evidence to support it. Despite this, many people were killed in response.

Two testimonies reveal unimaginable cruelty. Interviews show the atrocities that occurred in Kuwait. It wasn't the nurses, but the daughter of the Washington ambassador. This is a prime example of the lies spread during that time. The alleged massacre of Kuwaiti babies never happened, but everyone believed it. Neira, a 15-year-old fake nurse and the ambassador's daughter, was coached by PR firm Ilan Nolton. Her mission was to sell the war to Americans, costing over ten million dollars.

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 Iraq War, the speaker asserts it was based on "phony pretenses." Focus groups were allegedly used to determine how to "sell" the war to the American public. The speaker claims Netanyahu advocated for toppling governments supporting Hamas and Hezbollah (Iraq, Syria, and Iran) since 1995 and is still trying to get the US to fight Iran. The speaker concludes that the democracy versus dictatorship framing is not sensible.

During the Gulf War, a story emerged that Iraqi soldiers had taken babies out of incubators in Kuwait and left them to die. This story was widely reported and used to justify the war. However, investigations later revealed that the story was a complete hoax. The witness who testified to this atrocity was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and she was coached by a PR firm hired to sell the war. The PR campaign, costing millions of dollars, manipulated public opinion and influenced the decision to go to war. This highlights the power of propaganda and the dangers of misinformation in shaping public perception and policy.

Speaker 0 recounts the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait: "Took incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor. That was horrifying." After leaving the hospital, he and friends distributed flyers condemning the Iraqi invasion "until we were warned we might be killed if the Iraqi saw us." He states, "The Iraqis have destroyed everything in Kuwait"—"They stripped the supermarkets of food, the pharmacies of medicine, the factories of medical surprise supplies, ransacked their houses and tortured neighbors and friends." He describes torture of a friend who "is 22, but he looked as though he could have been an old man," including "dunked his head into a swimming pool until he almost drowned," "pulled out his fingernails and applied electric shock to sensitive private parts of his body." If a soldier is found dead, "they burned to the ground all the houses in in the general vicinity." They were forced to hide; "Kuwait is our mother and then they are our father." "I'm glad I'm 15, old enough to remember Kuwait before Saddam Hussein destroyed it, and young enough to rebuild it." The mayor thanks witnesses and notes eight years of hearings on human rights abuses.

We are in an image war where media shows images of crying mothers with a plastic baby, making it seem like a dead baby. But there are also real children dying, and you are well aware of that. There are real children dying naturally, civilian victims everywhere, and naturally, it is regrettable. We must mourn all civilian victims who are victims of war. It is important to remember that they are victims and justice should quickly analyze this.

- The discussion opens with claims that President Trump says “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but Israel allegedly wants the war to destroy Iran’s entire government structure, requiring boots on the ground for regime change. It’s argued that air strikes cannot achieve regime change and that Israel’s relatively small army would need U.S. ground forces, given Iran’s larger conventional force, to accomplish its objectives. - Senator Richard Blumenthal is cited as warning about American lives potentially being at risk from deploying ground troops in Iran, following a private White House briefing. - The new National Defense Authorization Act is described as renewing the involuntary draft; by year’s end, an involuntary draft could take place in the United States, pending full congressional approval. Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute is described as expressing strong concern, arguing the draft would treat the government as owning citizens’ bodies, a stance attributed to him as supporting a view that “presumption is that the government owns you.” - The conversation contrasts Trump’s public desire to end the war quickly with Netanyahu’s government, which reportedly envisions a much larger military objective in the region, including a demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza, and a broader aim to remove Hezbollah. The implication is that the United States and Israel may not share the same endgame. - Tucker Carlson is introduced as a guest to discuss these issues and offer predictions about consequences for the American people, including energy disruption, economic impacts, and shifts in U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf. - Carlson responds that he would not credit himself with prescience, but notes predictable consequences: disruption to global energy supplies, effects on the U.S. economy, potential loss of U.S. bases in the Gulf, and a shrinking American empire. He suggests that the war’s true goal may be to weaken the United States and withdraw from the Middle East; he questions whether diplomacy remains viable given the current trajectory. - Carlson discusses Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini’s communique, highlighting threats to shut Hormuz “forever,” vows to avenge martyrs, and calls for all U.S. bases in the region to be closed. He notes that Tehran asserts it will target American bases while claiming it is not an enemy of surrounding countries, though bombs affect neighbors as well. - The exchange notes Trump’s remarks about possibly using nuclear weapons, and Carlson explains Iran’s internal factions, suggesting some seek negotiated settlements while others push for sustained conflict. Carlson emphasizes that Israel’s leadership may be pushing escalation in ways that diverge from U.S. interests and warns about the dangers of a joint operation with Israel, which would blur U.S. sovereignty in war decisions. - A discussion on the use of a term Amalek is explored: Carlson’s guest explains Amalek from the Old Testament as enemies of the Jewish people, with a historical biblical command to annihilate Amalek, including women and children, which the guest notes Christianity rejects; Netanyahu has used the term repeatedly in the conflict context, which Carlson characterizes as alarming and barbaric. - The guests debate how much influence is exerted in the White House, with Carlson noting limited direct advocacy for war among principal policymakers and attributing decisive pressure largely to Netanyahu’s threats. They question why Israel, a client state of the U.S., is allowed to dictate war steps, especially given the strategic importance of Hormuz and American assets in the region. - They discuss the ethical drift in U.S. policy, likening it to adopting the ethics of the Israeli government, and criticize the idea of targeting family members or civilians as a military strategy. They contrast Western civilization’s emphasis on individual moral responsibility with perceived tribal rationales. - The conversation touches on the potential rise of AI-assisted targeting or autonomous weapons: Carlson’s guest confirms that in some conflicts, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off, though in the discussed case a human did press play on the attack. The coordinates and data sources for strikes are scrutinized, with suspicion cast on whether Israel supplied SIGINT or coordinates. - The guests warn about the broader societal impact of war on civil liberties, mentioning the increasing surveillance and the risk that technology could be used to suppress dissent or control the population. They discuss how war accelerates social change and potentially normalizes drastic actions or internal coercion. - The media’s role in selling the war is criticized as “propaganda,” with examples of government messaging and pop culture campaigns (including a White House-supported video game-like portrayal of U.S. military power). They debate whether propaganda can be effective without a clear, articulated rationale for war and without public buy-in. - They question the behavior of mainstream outlets and “access journalism,” arguing that reporters often avoid tough questions about how the war ends, the timetable, and the off-ramps, instead reinforcing government narratives. - In closing, Carlson and his co-hosts reflect on the political division surrounding the war, the erosion of trust in media, and the possibility of rebuilding a coalition of ordinary Americans who want effective governance without perpetual conflict or degradation of civil liberties. Carlson emphasizes a longing for a politics centered on improving lives rather than escalating war. - The segment ends with Carlson’s continued critique of media dynamics, the moral implications of the war, and a call for more transparent discussion about the true aims and consequences of extended military engagement in the region.

Alex Kraner and Glenn discuss the Iran ceasefire and the market's reaction, along with broader geopolitical dynamics and historical patterns around war and finance. - On the ceasefire and markets: Alex argues that reading optimism from markets is unreliable, noting that markets can remain irrational for longer than a person can stay solvent. He was surprised by the ceasefire and authored a newsletter piece suggesting the peace was unlikely to hold and that the probability of lasting peace was near zero. He observed the ceasefire narrative already fraying as he finished his article. He emphasizes that the ultimate incentive for war is the conquest of collateral: Iran’s vast natural-resource wealth (estimated at about $35 trillion) could become collateral for Western banking interests. He contends that war is driven by a desire to secure new money-like collateral to prevent systemic collapse caused by fiat money expansion and liquidity injections. - Narrative and hypocrisy in war discourse: Glenn notes how narratives about values, feminism, or democracy are used to sell wars. Alex adds that wars are often sold by demonizing the other side, citing examples from past interventions (Syria, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Milosevic, Allende, Ortega, Chavez, Maduro, Castro) to illustrate a recurring pattern of manufactured villains and “slaying dragons” to justify action. He also cites Afghanistan as an example where Western intervention harmed women’s rights and long-term outcomes (mass malnutrition and stunting among children) despite rhetoric about protecting women. - Lebanon and the ceasefire framework: They discuss whether Lebanon was included in the ceasefire framework as communicated by the Pakistani prime minister and why Israel then attacked Lebanon. Alex argues the U.S. may be posturing to present the ceasefire as a U.S.-led result, while Iran shaped the negotiation terms. He also suggests the U.S. was already preparing for broader action, including ground invasion plans and troop movements. - U.S. strategic posture and global ambitions: They consider whether Trump’s administration genuinely sought to retreat from global policing or if transition plans were undermined by the Iran decision. Alex recalls a shift in 2019 where Trump reportedly resisted war against Iran, then changed course on 28 February, risking severe consequences. He argues Europe may bear more hardship from the conflict, with the U.S. potentially cushioning its own impact, while Europe could face stagflation, currency pressures, and social unrest. - European exposure and dollar dynamics: Glenn notes hedge funds betting against European stocks and asks how Europe will fare if the ceasefire holds but the damage persists. Alex describes Europe as cornered: cutting off Russian energy while maintaining vulnerability due to limited alternative supplies (Qatar/US), and the potential fragility of dollar liquidity for European banks. He warns that swap lines could be withdrawn, threatening the euro and triggering inflationary crises. He cites Eurostat data showing high living-cost pressures and suggests social revolts or civil unrest could emerge across Europe. He forecasts a possible major war against Russia as a political stabilization tactic. - Global realignment and multipolarity: They foresee massive fracturing in the Middle East and Europe, leading to a multipolar global order. The United States could retreat to its own hemisphere and rethink its monetary system, with the banking oligarchy remaining a central lever of power. They discuss Gulf states’ vulnerability to Western policy and consider whether Saudi Arabia, among others, will fare better or worse depending on access to U.S. dollars and geopolitical alignments. Alex argues that the broader strategy aims to reconfigure Eurasia by weakening or fragmenting Iran, Russia, and China in sequence, using proxy wars, regime-change efforts, and economic coercion. - Long-run structural shift: The conversation concludes with the assertion that the current dynamics reflect a persistent pattern: Western powers leveraging financial and military instruments to secure strategic advantages, while portraying their actions as defending democracy and rights. They reiterate that the overarching driver remains financial hegemony and control of collateral, with the war system persistently extending into Eurasia through interconnected corridors, ports, and infrastructure projects. The dialogue ends with the claim that wars are driven by banking and financial interests rather than purely ideological aims.

In the past, false information has been used to manipulate public opinion for war. In 1990, a girl claimed she saw babies killed in Kuwait, but it was a lie. Her father was Kuwait's ambassador. A similar tactic was used by Colin Powell, who falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, leading to a US invasion and many Iraqi deaths. This raises the question of whether similar misinformation is being used in the case of Ukraine.

A viral video of a nurse denouncing a Hamas occupation in the Al Shifa Hospital in Gaza. The publication sharing this video was shared mostly by pro Israeli accounts since November 11 and has accumulated over 1,500,000 views. In the video, she denounces what she says is the Hamas occupation of this hospital as she accuses Hamas of stealing the hospital's food, medicine and fuel; you can hear explosions in the background and a five year old boy without morphine. ECAD facts concluded this video is a fake and that it is staged or as you call it crisis acting. Audio analysis found that all of the explosions in the video sound exactly the same; an identical pattern. Pronunciation errors in Arabic were noted. Hannah Abubtul has been wrongly identified as the creator of this video. Bottom line: don't believe all you see online.