reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We contributed to the problem we're currently facing. When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we decided to help by training and arming Mujahideen fighters in Pakistan. This plan worked, and the Soviets eventually left Afghanistan. However, we then left these well-equipped and fanatical fighters behind, causing a messy situation. It's ironic that the same people we supported in the past are now our adversaries.

Scott Horton discusses the history of US involvement in Iran, starting with the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh and the reinstallation of the Shah. This action led to blowback, exemplified by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Nixon pressured the Shah to buy more US weapons, undermining his rule. The US initially tried working with Khomeini but later supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran, fearing the spread of Shiite fundamentalism. The US also supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to bait the Soviets into a costly war. The US gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Iran, fearing the influence of the Iranian revolution on Iraq's Shiite population. The US government facilitated Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US intervened to reinstall the Kuwaiti king, lying about Iraqi threats to Saudi Arabia. The US then betrayed the Shiite uprising in Iraq, fearing Iranian influence. The US supported Al Qaeda in conflicts like Bosnia and Kosovo, even as Al Qaeda attacked the US. Neoconservatives pushed for war with Iraq to benefit Israel, aiming to rebuild an oil pipeline to Haifa. The US then backed Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria to weaken Iran and its ally, Assad. Obama took Al Qaeda's side in Libya. The US has been fighting a proxy war against Russia. The US has a pattern of supporting Bin Ladenite suicide bombers. Trump bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, calling the Ayatollah's bluff. The US continues to prioritize foreign interests over domestic needs.

Peto Pete discusses the troubling situation in Syria, highlighting U.S. support for rebel groups, some of which are linked to Al Qaeda. He points out the contradiction of U.S. actions, as the Pentagon and CIA back opposing militias. The U.S. aims to assist in establishing a sovereign Syria and provide humanitarian relief after years of conflict under Assad. Despite these efforts, the situation may worsen, with the recent appointment of a new Syrian leader who was previously wanted by U.S. authorities. The narrative suggests a cycle of violence and instability continues, with little hope for change.

Recent events in Syria mark a culmination of a long-term strategy by Israel, particularly under Netanyahu, to reshape the Middle East. This effort began with the "Clean Break" strategy in 1996, aiming for a "Greater Israel" by destabilizing neighboring governments. The U.S. has been complicit in these actions, engaging in wars across multiple countries, including Iraq and Libya, under the guise of fighting terrorism. The narrative around Assad has shifted over the years, often driven by U.S. interests rather than genuine threats to national security. The ongoing conflicts serve the interests of the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby, leading to instability rather than peace. Future U.S. foreign policy must prioritize diplomacy and accountability to avoid further escalation, particularly regarding Iran and Russia.

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

I've looked into both Assad and the opposition, but the problem is we don't know who the opposition really is. They could be even worse than Assad. We supply them with weapons and resources, but we're essentially in the dark about who they are. Why are we involved in this conflict at all? Of course, getting rid of ISIS is important, but Assad seems like the lesser of two evils. We've backed the wrong side before, and it ended in disaster. Russia seems to support Assad, so maybe we should let them handle ISIS and let them fight it out.

In 2011, Obama suggested overthrowing Bashar al Assad, leading to years of war in Syria. The US attempted regime change, obstructing a UN peace agreement. Motives for overthrowing Assad remain unclear, possibly due to arrogance or financial interests. Similar actions in Libya resulted in chaos. These decisions lack transparency and have long-lasting consequences.

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

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

There is a significant conflict between Donald Trump, his adviser Steve Bannon, and U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA. This tension centers on Syria, where the CIA has invested heavily in efforts to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. Trump's campaign policy suggested cooperation with Assad and Russia to combat ISIS, which contradicts the CIA's objectives. This creates challenges for the CIA, as many of its personnel have built careers and alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey to support the overthrow of Assad.

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

In the 1980s, the United States supported the freedom fighters in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden. We funded them because we believed they hated the Russians more than us. However, once they defeated the Russians, they turned against us. This has been a recurring problem in our foreign policy, regardless of political party. We have seen these weapons come back to threaten Israel, and the support for Syrian rebels has also posed a threat. The War Caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, which was the official position of our State Department. It is clear that this strategy did not work out well.

Scott Horton discusses the history of US-Iran relations, starting with the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh and the reinstallation of the Shah. This action led to blowback, exemplified by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Nixon pressured the Shah to buy US weapons, undermining his rule. The US initially tried working with Khomeini but then soured after the hostage crisis, triggered by the Shah's admission into the US for cancer treatment at Rockefeller's request. The Carter Doctrine declared the Persian Gulf an American lake. Brzezinski sought to bait the Soviets into Afghanistan, leading to the Carter Doctrine to deter Soviet expansion into Iran, though he later admitted the Soviet threat to Iran was overstated. The US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, enabling his use of chemical weapons against Iranians. The US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, leading to the rise of Al Qaeda. The US gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait, then intervened to protect Saudi Arabia. The Clinton administration adopted a dual containment policy against Iraq and Iran, further fueling Al Qaeda's animosity. Bin Laden cited US support for Israel and bases in Saudi Arabia as key grievances. The US supported Al Qaeda in Chechnya and Bosnia, even as they attacked the US. Neoconservatives, many with Trotskyist backgrounds, advocated for war with Iraq to benefit Israel, aiming to rebuild an oil pipeline to Haifa. The US supported Al Qaeda-linked groups in Libya and Syria, leading to the rise of ISIS. Obama took Al Qaeda's side in Libya and then moved Gaddafi's arms to Al Qaeda in Syria. The US has been fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Libya became a key transit point for arms to Syrian rebels after the Arab Spring. A shipment intercepted off Lebanon contained machine guns and artillery, originating from Libya and passing through Turkey and Egypt. A 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report warned of a potential Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, which the U.S. ignored despite foreseeing the rise of ISIS. There were internal debates about supporting certain rebel groups, but policy decisions lacked clarity. President Obama initially opposed arming rebels but later provided limited support. General Flynn, who advocated for a different approach, was forced to retire in 2014. The discussion highlights the complexities of U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that actions have created more enemies than necessary, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Scott Horton discusses the history of US involvement in Iran, starting with the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh and the reinstallation of the Shah. This action led to blowback, exemplified by the 1979 Iranian revolution. Nixon pressured the Shah to buy US weapons, undermining his rule. The US initially tried working with Khomeini but later supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran, fearing the spread of Shiite revolution. The US supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, even enabling his use of chemical weapons. Simultaneously, the US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, leading to the rise of Al Qaeda. The US then intervened in Iraq after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but later abandoned the Shiite uprising. Clinton's administration adopted a dual containment policy against Iraq and Iran, further fueling anti-American sentiment. The speaker claims the neoconservative movement pushed for war with Iraq to benefit Israel, aiming to rebuild an oil pipeline to Haifa. The US supported Al Qaeda-linked groups in Libya and Syria, leading to the rise of ISIS. The speaker concludes that US foreign policy has been driven by the interests of foreign powers rather than American interests, advocating for a retrenchment of American power and a focus on domestic issues.

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

Russia initially resisted involvement in Syria, where the US supported Al Qaeda through covert operations. The CIA supplied weapons, including anti-tank and anti-air missiles, to Al Qaeda in Idlib province. The US used proxies like Al Qaeda and ISIS to overthrow Syria's government. In Aleppo, the Syrian Army, Hezbollah, and Iranian-backed troops were key players. Similar proxy tactics are seen in Ukraine.

Iran wants to take over Saudi Arabia by burning down the Saudi embassy. They claim the US created ISIS by supporting Mujahideen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. A high-level asset allegedly became president in 2008 to destroy the US from within. The president defunded the military and allegedly funded ISIS through covert operations. An ISIS commander in Pakistan confessed to receiving funds routed through the US to recruit fighters for Syria. The US government has been criticized for indirectly funding terrorist organizations. President Obama requested funds to train Iraqi soldiers and Syrian rebels to fight ISIS.

The discussion revolves around the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, and how it identifies itself in English. After inquiries, it was clarified that they refer to themselves as the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS). The conversation then shifts to the historical context of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, highlighting that the fighters being faced today were once supported by the U.S. during the Cold War to counter the Soviet Union. This strategy, backed by President Reagan and Congress, involved recruiting Mujahideen with the help of the Pakistani military, which ultimately contributed to the Soviet Union's collapse. The dialogue also touches on the controversial claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama played roles in the creation of ISIS, while emphasizing the importance of American influence in these geopolitical matters.

The war in Syria originated not from Bashar Al Assad, but from a decision in Washington in 02/2011 to overthrow Assad, a desire originating from Jerusalem and the Israeli government for over 25 years, with Netanyahu aiming to reshape the Middle East in Israel's image by overthrowing opposing governments. This aligned with the CIA and the U.S. government, leading to Operation Timber Sycamore, a program where the U.S. and regional countries trained rebels, including jihadists, to overthrow the Syrian regime. This resulted in chaos and 600,000 deaths. The CIA's goal in 02/2011 was for a jihad group to take power in Syria after being armed by the U.S. Peace in the region requires real diplomacy, not CIA operations, and an end to Israel's militarization of the Middle East. The Syrian war is one of six wars Israel has promoted, including in Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. In 02/2001, Wesley Clark was shown a Pentagon paper outlining a plan for seven wars in five years. The only war that hasn't occurred is a U.S. war with Iran.

Scott Horton discusses the history of US-Iran relations, starting with the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh and the reinstallation of the Shah. This action led to blowback, exemplified by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Nixon pressured the Shah to buy US weapons, undermining his rule. The US initially tried working with Ayatollah Khomeini, viewing him as reasonable. In 1979, David Rockefeller influenced Carter to allow the Shah into the US for cancer treatment, triggering the hostage crisis. Carter then announced the Carter Doctrine, asserting US dominance in the Persian Gulf. Brzezinski aimed to provoke Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, later feigning concern about Iran. The US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, even enabling his use of chemical weapons. The US also backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, leading to the rise of Al Qaeda. The US then intervened in the Gulf War to reinstate the Kuwaiti King. Clinton adopted a dual containment policy against Iraq and Iran, further fueling anti-American sentiment. Bin Laden cited US support for Israel and military presence in Saudi Arabia as key grievances. The US supported Al Qaeda in Chechnya and the Balkans, even as they attacked US interests. The neoconservative movement pushed for war in Iraq, aiming to reshape the region to benefit Israel. The US invasion of Iraq empowered Shiite groups and Iran, contrary to neocon plans. The US then backed Sunni extremists in Syria to counter Iranian influence, leading to the rise of ISIS. Obama then sided with Al Qaeda in Libya. The US has a history of supporting various factions in the Middle East, often with unintended consequences. The US has been fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. The US has a long history of interventionism, often driven by foreign interests rather than American interests. The US should normalize relations with Iran.

An early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton to John Podesta claims that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS. This is significant as it contradicts the narrative that only rogue individuals are involved. Analysts, including those from the U.S. government, have acknowledged some Saudi support for ISIS, but often downplay the government's role. During Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, she oversaw the largest arms deal in history with Saudi Arabia, totaling over $80 billion, and U.S. arms exports doubled. Notably, the same countries funding the Clinton Foundation were also linked to financing ISIS, highlighting a troubling connection.

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

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