reSee.it - Related Video Feed

When the Soviet Union ended, the U.S. believed it could do as it wanted, leading to wars in the Middle East, Serbia, and Africa. Europe, lacking a foreign policy, has shown only American loyalty. It's time for European officials to lead with a European foreign policy. The war in Ukraine is ending. Putin's intention was to negotiate neutrality. Ukraine walked away from a near agreement because the U.S. told them to. I advised Ukraine to be neutral, echoing Kissinger's warning: "To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." The U.S. viewed NATO enlargement as its right, ignoring Russian concerns. This project, dating back to the 90s, aimed to neutralize Russia. Trump and Putin will likely agree to end the war, regardless of Europe's warmongering.

Shortly after 9/11, a general told me about the decision to go to war with Iraq, even without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. The rationale seemed to be that military force was the go-to solution. Weeks later, I learned of a plan to "take out seven countries in five years," starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. I worked with every Israeli prime minister from Yitzhak Shamir forward. It would have been fantastic to own the Twin Towers. After 9/11, I was very lucky that Governor Spitzer helped me collect $4.5 billion in insurance money. There was a decision to pull the building and watch it collapse. Post 9/11, Iraq, Iran, and Libya were racing to develop nuclear weapons. Action was needed, and the first regime was the Taliban. The next step? Military action should happen first against Iraq.

In this conversation, Brian Berletic discusses the current collision between the United States’ global strategy and a rising multipolar world, arguing that U.S. policy is driven by corporate-financier interests and a desire to preserve unipolar primacy, regardless of the costs to others. - Structural dynamics and multipolar resistance - The host notes a shift from optimism about Trump’s “America First” rhetoric toward an assessment that U.S. strategy aims to restore hegemony and broad, repeated wars, even as a multipolar world emerges. - Berletic agrees that the crisis is structural: the U.S. system is driven by large corporate-financier interests prioritizing expansion of profit and power. He cites Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy papers, particularly The Path to Persia, as documenting a long-running plan to manage Iran via a sequence of options designed to be used in synergy to topple Iran, with Syria serving as a staging ground for broader conflict. - He argues the policy framework has guided decisions across administrations, turning policy papers into bills and war plans, with corporate media selling these as American interests. This, he says, leaves little room for genuine opposition because political power is financed by corporate interests. - Iran, Syria, and the Middle East as a springboard to a global confrontation - Berletic traces the current Iran crisis to the 2009 Brookings paper’s emphasis on air corridors and using Israel to provoke a war, placing blame on Israel as a proxy mechanism while the U.S. cleanses the region of access points for striking Iran directly. - He asserts the Arab Spring (2011) was designed to encircle Iran and move toward Moscow and Beijing, with Iran as the final target. The U.S. and its allies allegedly used policy papers to push tactical steps—weakening Russia via Ukraine, exploiting Syria, and leveraging Iran as a fulcrum for broader restraint against Eurasian powers. - The aim, he argues, is to prevent a rising China by destabilizing Iran and, simultaneously, strangling energy exports that feed China’s growth. He claims the United States has imposed a global maritime oil blockade on China through coordinated strikes and pressure on oil-rich states, while China pursues energy independence via Belt and Road, coal-to-liquids, and growing imports from Russia. - The role of diplomacy, escalation, and Netanyahu’s proxy - On diplomacy, Berletic says the U.S. has no genuine interest in peace; diplomacy is used to pretext war, creating appearances of reasonable engagement while advancing the continuity of a warlike agenda. He references the Witch Path to Persia as describing diplomacy as a pretext for regime change. - He emphasizes that Russia and China are not credibly negotiating with the U.S., viewing Western diplomacy as theater designed to degrade multipolar powers. Iran, he adds, may be buying time but also reacting to U.S. pressure, while Arab states and Israel are portrayed as proxies with limited autonomy. - The discussion also covers how Israel serves as a disposable proxy to advance U.S. goals, including potential use of nuclear weapons, with Trump allegedly signaling a post-facto defense of Israel in any such scenario. - The Iran conflict, its dynamics, and potential trajectory - The war in Iran is described as a phased aggression, beginning with the consulate attack and escalating into economic and missile-strike campaigns. Berletic notes Iran’s resilient command-and-control and ongoing missile launches, suggesting the U.S. and its allies are attempting to bankrupt Iran while degrading its military capabilities. - He highlights the strain on U.S. munitions inventories, particularly anti-missile interceptors and long-range weapons, due to simultaneous operations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential confrontations with China. He warns that the war’s logistics are being stretched to the breaking point, risking a broader blowback. - The discussion points to potential escalation vectors: shutting Hormuz, targeting civilian infrastructure, and possibly using proxies (including within the Gulf states and Yemen) to choke off energy flows. Berletic cautions that the U.S. could resort to more drastic steps, including leveraging Israel for off-world actions, while maintaining that multipolar actors (Russia, China, Iran) would resist. - Capabilities, resources, and the potential duration - The host notes China’s energy-mobility strategies and the Western dependency on rare earth minerals (e.g., gallium) mostly produced in China, emphasizing how U.S. war aims rely on leveraging allies and global supply chains that are not easily sustained. - Berletic argues the U.S. does not plan for permanent victory but for control, and that multipolar powers are growing faster than the United States can destroy them. He suggests an inflection point will come when multipolarism outruns U.S. capacity, though the outcome remains precarious due to nuclear risk and global economic shocks. - Outlook and final reflections - The interlocutors reiterate that the war is part of a broader structural battle between unipolar U.S. dominance and a rising multipolar order anchored by Eurasian powers. They stress the need to awaken broader publics to the reality of multipolarism and to pursue a more balanced world order, warning that the current trajectory risks global economic harm and dangerous escalation.

There's been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran. I think it's, very likely because, Netanyahu, is absolutely intent, and he has been intent for nearly thirty years. It's been part of Netanyahu's policy to pull The United States into repeated wars. Clean Break is a very strange but very clear statement of what has trapped The United States for nearly thirty years. Clean Break says, well, Israel's never going to compromise with its Palestinian Arab population in its midst and in the Palestinian lands. and it's going to control or expel or kill or ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. what he meant was The United States will go to war for us. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war. The United States has funded, armed, and diplomatically supported all of this.

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.

According to the transcript, a Pentagon officer revealed a memo detailing a plan to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in 5 years," starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. This plan was allegedly conceived by a group including Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, linked to the Project for a New American Century. A document written a year before 9/11 acknowledged that transforming America into tomorrow's dominant force would be a long process, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." Some senators and others have described 9/11 as a "second Pearl Harbor" or "the country's Pearl Harbor." The Project for a New American Century urged the US to abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty, establish more permanent US military bases abroad, pursue regime change as a goal of foreign wars, and act as a global constabulary unburdened by the UN. The speaker believes the US should be a strong force for peace, justice, and global cooperation.

Regarding the war in Syria, the CIA was tasked by Obama to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. This operation, known as Timber Sycamore, barely received coverage in the New York Times. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based on phony pretenses. Focus groups were conducted to determine how to sell the war to the American people, using fear as a tactic. This war originated from Netanyahu's theory since 1995 that toppling governments supporting Hamas and Hezbollah (Iraq, Syria, and Iran) was necessary. He has been trying to get the US to fight Iran. He has gotten the US into endless wars because of his power in US politics. Therefore, the narrative of democracy versus dictatorship is not sensible.

Checklist: - Identify the core timeline and security-related turning points shaping Russia–US/West relations. - Preserve the sequence of events and the key claims as stated. - Exclude filler, repetition, and off-topic discussion. - Highlight unique or surprising assertions without adding new judgments. - Translate only if needed; here, keep as original English. Putin was not anti-American or anti-West when he came to power; he wanted normal relations. Even then this did not set things on an inevitable course, but the real changes that put things in a disastrous course were on the security side. First, the expansion of NATO, then the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, seventy eight straight days of some harebrained, terrible scheme of Madeleine Albright, to break apart Serbia, which was Russia's ally, and create Kosovo and put the largest NATO military base, Bundesliga, in Kosovo to cover Southeast Europe. Putin watched that. He didn't like that at all. Then came 9/11, and Putin said, okay. We wanna cooperate with you. We can help. We also face insurgencies. We don't we don't like this. The US more or less brushed Russia off at that point. In 02/2002, The US did something even more provocative and profound, which was to abandon the anti ballistic missile treaty. This for Russia was a first class security disaster, because the ABM treaty was viewed as a protection against The US nuclear first strike, and this was viewed in an incredibly harsh way by Russia, and it is a massive danger. Then immediately in 2003 came the Iraq invasion over Russia's absolute objections over the UN Security Council, absolute objections. Then in 2004 came a NATO enlargement to seven more countries, including the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, including two Black Sea countries, Bulgaria and Romania, and including two Balkans countries, Slovakia and Slovenia. So by 02/2007, then the the temperature was up to here, and president Putin gave at the Munich Security Conference a very strong message. Stop this. Stop this. You are pressing right up against our red lines. Do not go further. And then famously, in 02/2008, The US announced a policy that had actually been adopted fourteen years earlier, but it made it public, which was the demand that NATO would enlarge to Ukraine and to Georgia in the Caucasus. And this for Russia was unbelievable. Now Russia would be surrounded by NATO in the Black Sea region. And European leaders at the time called me privately. What is your president doing? This is so reckless, so provocative. By the way, many of these same leaders now are completely mum. We love The United States. This has nothing to do with NATO. This war, of course, it's about NATO. The whole thing is about NATO. It's always been about NATO. And this was true in 02/2008. And then quickly to bring the story up to date, in 02/2011, again, these neocons doubled down. We're gonna overthrow Syria, where Russia happens to have a a naval base. We're going to overthrow Libya, where Russia has an ally. And we then took steps and in 2014 overthrew the government of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, on 02/22/2014. This was a coup in which The US played a significant role. Sad to say, I saw some of it with my own eyes, which I did not wanna see, but I did see some of it with my own eyes. The US was up to its neck in that coup. And of course, the Russians knew it. They even did us a favor of intercepting Victoria Nuland's phone call with the The US ambassador to Ukraine, Jeffrey Piot, who's now a senior state department official. Victoria Nuland's my colleague at Columbia University, unbelievably.

War with Iran would be World War Three because Iran is not alone. While peace with Russia is possible, so is nuclear war, which is made more likely by war with Iran. The speaker believes those pushing for war with Iran do not understand this, but are following the "Clean Break 1996" plan and the "Seven Wars in Five Years" plan from 1991, which the speaker says has been Netanyahu's focus. The speaker considers Netanyahu a dangerous and delusional person who has involved the U.S. in six disastrous wars and is trying to start another. The speaker claims the U.S. is engaging in war on Israel's behalf throughout the Middle East, and that none of these wars have been for American national security, but are "Netanyahu's wars."

According to the speaker, regime change in Syria is part of Netanyahu's 30-year war to remake the Middle East, a disaster that continues. Referencing Wesley Clark, the speaker claims the neocons and Israelis planned seven wars in five years to remake the Middle East, listing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan as targets. The speaker alleges this plan originated with Netanyahu's "Clean Break" strategy in 1996, aiming for a "greater Israel" by dismantling governments supporting Palestinians. They claim the U.S., on behalf of Israel, has engaged in six of these wars, with Iran potentially being the seventh. The speaker states that Obama initiated the Syrian war in 2011, with Hillary Clinton declaring "Assad must go." They cite an IMF report praising Syria's economic growth before the conflict, arguing it posed no threat to the U.S. The speaker claims Netanyahu views any support for Palestinians as a threat to his vision of "greater Israel," encompassing annexed territories and potentially land from the Nile to the Euphrates, achieved through war rather than diplomacy. Obama's Operation Timber Sycamore allegedly involved the CIA working with Turkey and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Assad.

The speaker claims that recent events in Syria are the culmination of a 30-year effort by Israel, led by Netanyahu, to reshape the Middle East. This effort, detailed in a 1996 document called "Clean Break," aims for a "greater Israel" by dismantling governments that support Palestinians. The speaker references a plan for "seven wars in five years" presented to General Wesley Clark after 9/11, listing Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan as targets. The speaker asserts that the U.S., influenced by the "Israel lobby," has been carrying out this plan, with Obama initiating the Syrian war in 2011 via Operation Timber Sycamore. The speaker says Netanyahu views any support for Palestinian groups as a threat to Israel's control over Palestine, motivating the need to destroy opposing governments. Greater Israel encompasses the annexation of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. The speaker alleges that the U.S. has funded and armed Israel, leading to geopolitical isolation and endless war in the Middle East. The speaker says the U.S. blocked a Syrian peace agreement in 2012 because it demanded Assad's immediate removal. The speaker concludes that the New York Times and mainstream media avoid historical context to give a "free hand" to the security state. The speaker fears the next target is Iran, potentially leading to World War III, and urges President Trump to change course.

Remy and Scott trace US foreign policy from the Cold War to today. They describe a bipolar postwar order, the Soviet collapse in 1991, and a shift to American global hegemony embodied in a 1990s planning doctrine (the Wolfowitz framework) that argued the US would not allow any rival to challenge its military dominance. They argue that NATO expansion and strategic thinking by Brzezinski, Kissinger, and Rand sought to keep Russia weak and China contained, with attempts to split Moscow from Beijing. In Ukraine, they contend Washington pushed for expanded interoperability and weapons flows, while Minsk agreements were not implemented. In the Middle East, the US backed Saddam against Iran, supported Israel, maintained bases in Saudi Arabia, and helped arm Afghanistan’s mujahideen—later associated with Al Qaeda—while the Carter Doctrine asserted Persian Gulf supremacy. They also highlight the long arc of US involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and broader Middle East conflicts as interconnected with these strategic aims.

Putin's intention in the war wasn't to take over Ukraine, but to keep NATO, meaning the United States, off Russia's border. After the Soviet Union's end in 1991, an agreement stated NATO wouldn't move eastward, but the US decided to expand NATO eastward, formally deciding in 1994 to include Ukraine and Georgia. NATO enlargement began in 1999, upsetting Russia. By 2008, the US pushed for NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, which Russia protested, drawing a parallel to a hypothetical military base on the US border. In 2014, the US actively worked to overthrow Yanukovych. Putin's intention was to force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality, which initially occurred, but Ukraine withdrew from the agreement, reportedly due to US influence. The US aimed to isolate Russia by controlling the Black Sea, viewing it as a proxy war, while the consequences included significant Ukrainian casualties.

Around 10 days after 9/11, I met with Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called me and informed me that we were going to war with Iraq, even though there was no evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The decision was made because they didn't know what else to do about terrorism. A few weeks later, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq, and I was told that the plan was even bigger. The Secretary of Defense had a memo outlining a strategy to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The presence of oil in the Middle East has always attracted great power involvement, and there has been a belief that force can be used to intervene in the region.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that this is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way it is commonly framed. The speaker references 1990, stating that on 02/09/1990 James Baker III told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward if Germany unified, and that Gorbachev agreed, ending World War II. The speaker asserts that the US then cheated starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine, marking the rise of the neocons and identifying Clinton as the first agent of this. NATO expansion began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, at which point Russia did not see a direct threat. The speaker notes the US-led bombing of Serbia in 1999 as problematic, describing it as NATO bombing Belgrade for seventy-eight straight days to break the country apart, which Russia did not like. Putin became president, and the Russians initially tolerated and complained but were largely subdued. The speaker claims Putin started out pro-European and pro-American, even suggesting joining NATO when there was some mutual respect. After 9/11 and the Afghan conflict, Russia supported the effort to root out terror. Two decisive actions are highlighted: in 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, described as perhaps the most decisive event rarely discussed in this context. This led to the US placing missile systems in Eastern Europe, which Russia views as a direct threat. The speaker mentions a soft regime change operation in Ukraine in 2004-2005, followed by Yanukovych winning the election in 2009 and becoming president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. This calmed tensions because the US was pushing NATO, while Ukrainian public opinion reportedly did not want NATO membership, citing a divided country between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians and a desire to stay away from certain conflicts. In 02/22/2014, the United States allegedly participated in the overthrow of Yanukovych, described as a typical US regime change operation. The Russians supposedly intercepted a call between Victoria Nuland (then at the State Department, now at Columbia University) and Jeffrey Piot, the US ambassador to Ukraine, discussing who would be in the next government. The speaker asserts that after these events, the US said NATO would enlarge, while Putin repeatedly warned to stop, noting that promises were made not to enlarge NATO. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia are listed as having joined NATO in 2004, before the broader enlargement. The speaker accuses the US of rejecting the basic idea of not expanding NATO to Russia’s border while placing missile systems after breaking a treaty, including walking out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. On 12/15/2021, Putin allegedly proposed a draft Russia-US security agreement with no NATO enlargement, which the speaker says he communicated to the White House, urging negotiations to avoid war. The speaker claims Jake Sullivan asserted an open-door policy for NATO enlargement, calling it “bullshit,” and asserts that they refused negotiations, leading to the special military operation, with Zelensky offering neutrality and Western leaders pushing Ukraine to fight, resulting in “600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians.”

After 9/11, General Wesley Clark, former head of NATO, visited the Pentagon and was shown a memo outlining a plan to attack seven countries in five years. The memo specified that the countries to be targeted were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. According to the speaker, wars have been initiated in six of these seven countries, including Syria.

Extremely clearly. 'Do you think there's been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran? I think it's very likely because Netanyahu is absolutely intent, and he has been intent for nearly thirty years.' Netanyahu back in 1996 with American political advisers, actually came up with a a document, called Clean Break. 'There's just one footnote to that. When, Netanyahu said that we will go to war, what he meant was The United States will go to war for us.' 'So Netanyahu has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war.' 'This has its roots in Netanyahu's doctrine, which is, we will control all of Palestine.' 'We will overthrow the governments that support the militancy against Israel's control over Palestine.'

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the central thesis and each major supporting claim presented. - Retain the core facts, assertions, and conclusions verbatim as they appear, avoiding interpretation. - Emphasize unique or surprising elements (e.g., specific alleged identifiers, dates, documents, and individuals linked to the claims). - Exclude repetitive passages, filler, and off-topic tangents; compress dialogues into concise narrative statements. - Translate none (English transcript) and avoid adding evaluative judgments about truth or falsity. - Keep the total word count within the 805–1007 word range. The video presents a broad, interconnected set of claims asserting that the official 9/11 narrative is a conspiracy orchestrated largely by Israeli intelligence and allied actors, with far-reaching consequences for U.S. policy and global affairs. It weaves together allegations about Osama bin Laden, Mossad, high-level politicians, media, and geopolitical design to argue that 9/11 was used to justify wars, reshape the Middle East, and advance a “Greater Israel” project. Key claims about Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 narrative - The official narrative of nine/eleven is described as a conspiracy theory. Vice President Dick Cheney is cited as admitting in 2006 that there was no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11, and that “nobody has evidence to support the official narrative.” - The speakers insist that Osama bin Laden’s involvement was never proven; they deny having evidence tying him to the attacks and critique a 2001 video in which Osama purportedly accepts responsibility, arguing visual discrepancies (nose shape, weight, jewelry, and the sign­ing hand) suggest fabrication. - The FBI’s Osama bin Laden “most wanted” poster allegedly contains no reference to September 11 charges, and Rex Toome of the muckraker group claims there is no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks. A federal judge is later described as approving the dismissal of all criminal charges against Bin Laden. Iscursion into the 9/11 event and alleged foreknowledge - The program claims Mossad warned the U.S. about a major attack before 9/11, citing an officer and reports of Mossad representatives in the U.S. prior to the event. - It recounts the arrest of five Israelis in New Jersey who were filming and celebrating the first tower’s destruction; they allegedly worked for Mossad-front Urban Moving Systems, and some workers were identified as Mossad agents. The group’s activity is described as part of an intelligence-gathering operation, with later confirmation by CIA and FBI figures that some of the men had Mossad ties. - The narrative asserts that Israelis had advanced knowledge and provided specific warnings; it cites Benjamin Netanyahu’s pre- and post-9/11 statements, as well as quotes that militant Islam would bring down the World Trade Center, and claims Netanyahu and Trump authored works predicting or discussing such attacks long before 9/11. - It alleges that the anthrax letters connected to the 9/11 aftermath involved Israeli operatives, including four Israelis living next to the man connected with the Florida letters, and that the letters contained anti-Israel death-language, while the FBI later attributed the letters to an American scientist with pro-Israel affiliations. Political figures, neoconservatism, and the drive to war - The program argues that Netanyahu and various neoconservatives (as named in the discussion) planned and advocated for a broader U.S. war agenda as early as the late 1990s, including regime change in Iraq and broader Middle East interventions, with explicit ties made to the Project for the New American Century and its 1998 “Bombing Iraq isn’t enough” framing. - It features claims about dual loyalty and Jewish influence, asserting that many leading policymakers and pundits involved in U.S. foreign policy are Jewish and that this shaped policy toward Israel’s benefits, including the claim that Israel influenced or controlled aspects of U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran. - The “Greater Israel” concept is linked to the Oded Yinon plan, Herzl’s writings, and the idea of reorganizing the region by breaking up Arab states, with oil interests cited as a motivation. Genie's Energy and a network including Rothschild family ties are invoked to claim Israeli ownership or control of oil resources in Iraq, Syria, and the Golan Heights, framing these as strategic outcomes of the 9/11 era. - Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are described as deeply connected to Jewish finance and Israeli influence, with Jared Kushner’s role as a peace broker framed within a broader context of empire-building for Israeli interests. Oil, geopolitics, and the aftermath of regime change - The narrative asserts that post-9/11 interventions aimed to destabilize Iraq and Syria to access oil and realign regional power, portraying sanctions, occupation, and regime-change policy as instruments serving Israeli strategic aims. - It ties Kurdish independence movements and oil deals to Israeli and Western interests, alleging long-standing ties between Netanyahu and Kurdish leaders, with Kurdish autonomy seen as a strategic jab at Arab states. - The program describes Iran as a major target for destabilization, arguing that Israel seeks to partition Syria and Iraq into smaller, pro-Israel states, and presents discussions about a balkanized Middle East as strategic policy. Other claims and incidents linked to the broader thesis - The USS Liberty attack of 1967 is presented as a confirmed Israeli attack against an American ship, with survivors alleging intentional action, cover-up, and political complicity. - The Patriot Act is connected to Mossad through individuals connected to the act’s authorship and implementation, with claims about dual loyalties within U.S. security apparatuses and adjacent networks. - The program asserts that mainstream media and major financial backers (including Adelson and Rothschilds) have funded political figures who advance Israeli interests, and that American policy toward gun control and censorship efforts is influenced by these dynamics. - A closing emphasis recaps the asserted pattern: 9/11 as a false flag to justify wars, the rise of a Greater Israel project, and the ongoing manipulation of U.S. foreign policy by a network of Israeli political and economic power brokers, with Trump’s administration continuing these aims. The documentary concludes by urging viewers to share the information and become more active in challenging what it characterizes as a coordinated, pro-Israel manipulation of Western policy. It repeatedly circles back to the central claim: nine/eleven was a Mossad operation designed to destabilize the Middle East, empower Israeli geopolitical aims, and reshape global power structures through war and regime change.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify the central thesis: a long-running NATO-led effort to seize Eurasia and extract trillions in resources. - Track the causal chain: expansion, energy leverage (gas diplomacy), privatization, and Western financial interests. - Note key actors and mechanisms: NATO, State Department, DOD; Chevron, Shell, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, BlackRock; Soros; Burisma; Naftagas. - Capture the main examples and evidence: Russia’s resource base ($5,000,000,000,000); S-400 systems; Ukraine’s resources cited by Lindsey Graham ($12,400,000,000,000); specific deals and privatization moves. - Highlight the geographic scope and implicated states. - Emphasize the claimed fragility of the plan and the pivotal role of Trump’s neutrality or peace deal. - Preserve direct claims and numerical figures as stated, without adding qualifiers. - Keep within 385–482 words; translate if needed. Summary: This account argues there has long been a “foreign policy blob operation” to seize Eurasia, led by NATO and major Western policymakers, with Russia’s vast resources at the center. It asserts Russia “has by far the most natural resources of any other country on Earth” (cited as $5,000,000,000,000 in resources) and notes that ex-Soviet satellite states surrounding Russia have been drawn into Western economic and security entanglements since 1990. The narrative links NATO expansion to a broader political and economic project, culminating in a struggle over Europe’s gas economy as Putin reasserted influence through gas diplomacy in 2002–2006, the Georgia conflicts, and frictions with Baltic and Balkan states. This is presented as part of a broader effort to end Russia’s military capacity and to leverage Russia as a backstop to Western aims, including Syria (where Russia’s S-400 air defense blocked US air raids) and various African conflicts the US opposed. A striking claim is attributed to Lindsey Graham: “Even if you don’t care about democracy in Ukraine, the fact is they sit on $12,400,000,000,000 of natural resources,” implying readiness to defend Ukraine to access those resources, though the speaker contends that the assets ultimately enrich investors rather than Ukrainians. The analysis contends that moving into these countries makes them political and economic vassals controlled by American and allied firms, with Ukrainian gas giant Naftagas feeding Burisma; Chevron signed a $10,000,000,000 deal with Naftagas before the 2014 coup, and Shell also signed a $10,000,000,000 deal. George Soros is described as driving privatization to US investors, so pipelines and much of Ukraine’s economy benefit investors in Washington and London rather than citizens. The “game,” it claims, spans Germany, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, with the objective of bringing trillions to firms like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, BlackRock, and other multinationals and insiders. The plan’s fragility is emphasized: Russia persists, regime-change efforts (Navalny, Pussy Riot) failed, and escalation is difficult. The critical lever, the speaker argues, would be for Trump to remain neutral. If Trump negotiates peace and recognizes the Donbas as is, while accepting the 2014 Crimea referendum, the war ends and hundreds of billions in anticipated windfall profits for Wall Street and London bankers are undermined, thereby derailing the drive to seize trillions in Eurasia.

"This discussion will teach you everything you need to know about US foreign policy over the last seven decades and how we got to where we are today, how we got to a war in Ukraine, an ongoing war in Gaza, The US bombing Iran, a war in Lebanon, and in the last two decades, a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and just death and destruction across The Middle East." "They were allied with The US against Iran. That includes Al Qaeda." "The defense planning guidance for 1994" ended up being known as the Wolfowitz doctrine: "America will not allow for any power or combination of regional powers anywhere in the world to challenge our military dominance over the planet, and we'll go to war with them first to prevent that from happening." "The purpose of NATO is to keep America in, Germany down, and the Soviets out." Rand Corporation’s "Extending Russia" study warned about "calibration of the amount of weapons that we're pouring in," and CIA officers said "the calibration is off." "Minsk one and Minsk two"; "the Americans in Kyiv refused to implement the thing." "Al Qaeda, nine eleven, the probably America's worst enemy now in our generation, was allied with The US." "Bases in Saudi from which to bomb and blockade Iraq." "Saddam Hussein… ally to The US against Iran." "Iran, even after the revolution, was not an ally of Israel, but Israel was supplying weapons to Iran after the revolution, and that was through The US."

Putin's intention in the war was to force Zelensky to negotiate—Neutrality. "The idea was to keep NATO. And what is NATO? It's The United States off of Russia's border. No more, no less." When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, an agreement was made that NATO will not move one inch eastward, but "the decision was taken formally in 1994 when president Clinton signed off on NATO enlargement to the East, all the way to Ukraine and into Georgia." Enlargement continued: 1999 (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic); 2004 (Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia). Putin said "stop" in 02/2007; in 02/2008, "The United States jammed down Europe's throat enlargement of NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia." 02/2010, Yanukovych neutrality; US overthrow in 2014; Minsk accords; "autonomy for the Russian speaking regions" in the East. "Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, The United States reserves the right to put missile systems wherever it wants." The war started; "Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement" because "The United States told them to." It's the pure proxy war; and "a million Ukrainians have died or been severely"

The speaker states the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, not deter conflict, and that the US will invade countries. An officer from the joint staff informed him the US was going to attack Iraq, but didn't know why, and that Saddam wasn't tied to 9/11. Later, the same officer showed the speaker a memo from the Secretary of Defense's office stating the US would attack and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The speaker claims the country was taken over by people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld from the Project for a New American Century, who wanted to destabilize the Middle East and make it under US control. Their document, written before 9/11, acknowledged transformation would be a long process.