Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🔥 Scott Ritter makes a claim that, if true, reframes everything… According to Ritter, Trump’s last-minute decision not to trigger an attack on Iran was not hesitation, but a deliberate move to dismantle a long-prepared regime-change operation involving Mossad, the CIA, and the usual neocon war hawks. The way...

LauraAboli_X's profile picture

Laura Aboli Official

67,336 subscribers

1,201,198 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikBildungWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🇮🇱🇮🇷 RITTER: “ISRAEL’S ATTACK GUARANTEED REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN WON’T HAPPEN” Scott Ritter: "On regime change in Iran: I had the opportunity to speak to President Raisi in September… he said [the 2022 uprising] was the greatest threat to Iran since the Iran-Iraq war. It became a virtual civil war… but they were able to overcome it. I don't believe that Iran is susceptible to the kind of outside regime change forces that it was vulnerable to in 2023. As for [Reza Pahlavi]: He’s a paid puppet of Israel; he has support from MI6 and the CIA. But if he stepped foot on the ground in Iran, he would be ripped apart from head to toe. He has no support whatsoever amongst the mainstream. He is a descendant of Reza Shah Pahlavi… there is no love in Iran for Reza Shah Pahlavi."
4:35

🇮🇱🇮🇷 RITTER: “ISRAEL’S ATTACK GUARANTEED REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN WON’T HAPPEN” Scott Ritter: "On regime change in Iran: I had the opportunity to speak to President Raisi in September… he said [the 2022 uprising] was the greatest threat to Iran since the Iran-Iraq war. It became a virtual civil war… but they were able to overcome it. I don't believe that Iran is susceptible to the kind of outside regime change forces that it was vulnerable to in 2023. As for [Reza Pahlavi]: He’s a paid puppet of Israel; he has support from MI6 and the CIA. But if he stepped foot on the ground in Iran, he would be ripped apart from head to toe. He has no support whatsoever amongst the mainstream. He is a descendant of Reza Shah Pahlavi… there is no love in Iran for Reza Shah Pahlavi."

Mario Nawfal

668,109 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

NEW: Witkoff praises Trump’s precision on Iran—“He knows EXACTLY when to push the button and when to pull out.” Special Envoy Steve Witkoff says President Trump’s strategy on Iran was deliberate, disciplined, and completely misunderstood by many. “So many people had it wrong about the president.” “He had an objective. He wouldn’t have entered [the] 12-day war without that objective.” “The objective was to eliminate enrichment in Iran and weaponization capability on the part of Iran—and he achieved his objective.” “It was never going to be a forever war. It was never going to be a war just for war’s sake.” “It was a war to achieve an objective that I think most Americans should be very, very satisfied with.” And then came the line that says it all: “I can tell you that I was in those discussions. I watched our Commander in Chief.” “He’s got this uncanny ability to understand EXACTLY when to push the button and when to pull out.” “He achieved his objective—and that was the end of it.”
0:52

NEW: Witkoff praises Trump’s precision on Iran—“He knows EXACTLY when to push the button and when to pull out.” Special Envoy Steve Witkoff says President Trump’s strategy on Iran was deliberate, disciplined, and completely misunderstood by many. “So many people had it wrong about the president.” “He had an objective. He wouldn’t have entered [the] 12-day war without that objective.” “The objective was to eliminate enrichment in Iran and weaponization capability on the part of Iran—and he achieved his objective.” “It was never going to be a forever war. It was never going to be a war just for war’s sake.” “It was a war to achieve an objective that I think most Americans should be very, very satisfied with.” And then came the line that says it all: “I can tell you that I was in those discussions. I watched our Commander in Chief.” “He’s got this uncanny ability to understand EXACTLY when to push the button and when to pull out.” “He achieved his objective—and that was the end of it.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

52,125 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🇮🇱🇺🇸Ex-CIA Larry Johnson says Trump was manipulated into believing it was a good idea to start the war with Iran. Mossad told Trump 80% of Iranians would rise up against the regime with a little encouragement. They didn't. They never were going to. "It was a lie. But it became the truth, what was believed."
6:04

🇮🇱🇺🇸Ex-CIA Larry Johnson says Trump was manipulated into believing it was a good idea to start the war with Iran. Mossad told Trump 80% of Iranians would rise up against the regime with a little encouragement. They didn't. They never were going to. "It was a lie. But it became the truth, what was believed."

Mario Nawfal

58,524 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Scott Ritter explains how foreign intelligence agencies tried to trigger regime change in Iran by hijacking protests and using Starlink to coordinate covert cells. Iran tracked and shut down Starlink communications, rolled up the networks, and stopped the plan before airstrikes.
4:33

Scott Ritter explains how foreign intelligence agencies tried to trigger regime change in Iran by hijacking protests and using Starlink to coordinate covert cells. Iran tracked and shut down Starlink communications, rolled up the networks, and stopped the plan before airstrikes.

The Resonance

43,451 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Israeli-British Historian Prof. Avi Shlaim: ‘The Trump-Netanyahu war on Iran is one of the most UNJUSTIFIED, SENSELESS and FOOLISH wars of the 21st century. There was absolutely no reason to go to war. This is an unlawful war. There was no Security Council resolution that mandated a war on Iran. There was no imminent threat from Iran to either Israel or America. So it was a decision taken by these two leaders to launch an attack on Iran. And the dominant personality here is Netanyahu. He’s the junior partner, but he’s the real architect of this war. He succeeded in dragging America into the war on Iran. And remember that Netanyahu was first elected as prime minister in 1996. For the last 30 years, Netanyahu has been demonising Iran and calling for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But no American president until Trump was stupid enough to fall for it. Now, Trump went along with this plan by Netanyahu, and we have seen the consequences. It’s been a war that has caused immense damage and destruction, inflicted a lot of suffering on civilians, and not just in Iran, but on Lebanon as well. And at the same time, Israel continues the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. So what we are seeing is an Israeli success in dragging America into a war which is damaging to America, damaging to America’s Gulf allies, hugely damaging to the international economy, and undermines international law.’ -Prof. Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇
3:06

Israeli-British Historian Prof. Avi Shlaim: ‘The Trump-Netanyahu war on Iran is one of the most UNJUSTIFIED, SENSELESS and FOOLISH wars of the 21st century. There was absolutely no reason to go to war. This is an unlawful war. There was no Security Council resolution that mandated a war on Iran. There was no imminent threat from Iran to either Israel or America. So it was a decision taken by these two leaders to launch an attack on Iran. And the dominant personality here is Netanyahu. He’s the junior partner, but he’s the real architect of this war. He succeeded in dragging America into the war on Iran. And remember that Netanyahu was first elected as prime minister in 1996. For the last 30 years, Netanyahu has been demonising Iran and calling for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But no American president until Trump was stupid enough to fall for it. Now, Trump went along with this plan by Netanyahu, and we have seen the consequences. It’s been a war that has caused immense damage and destruction, inflicted a lot of suffering on civilians, and not just in Iran, but on Lebanon as well. And at the same time, Israel continues the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. So what we are seeing is an Israeli success in dragging America into a war which is damaging to America, damaging to America’s Gulf allies, hugely damaging to the international economy, and undermines international law.’ -Prof. Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford Watch the full interview in the quoted post below👇

Going Underground

32,717 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

This is verifiable proof that all Democrats showed with their email release is that Epstein was an intelligence operation targeting President Trump. Let's break it down: - Democrats just released an email claiming Trump spent time with an Epstein victim and redacted the victim’s name to imply wrongdoing. - The unredacted version shows it was Virginia Roberts, who exposed Epstein’s network, and stated under oath that Trump never touched her and always treated her with respect. - Trump was the one who banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after learning what he was doing. - Trump told the FBI about Epstein and helped prosecutors take him down in 2008. What did Democrats actually prove with this email? Epstein and his network were worried because Trump wasn’t part of their operation. They didn’t expose President Trump, they exposed the truth: Epstein was being used by intelligence to blackmail the powerful, and Trump was the one man they couldn’t control.
8:38

This is verifiable proof that all Democrats showed with their email release is that Epstein was an intelligence operation targeting President Trump. Let's break it down: - Democrats just released an email claiming Trump spent time with an Epstein victim and redacted the victim’s name to imply wrongdoing. - The unredacted version shows it was Virginia Roberts, who exposed Epstein’s network, and stated under oath that Trump never touched her and always treated her with respect. - Trump was the one who banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after learning what he was doing. - Trump told the FBI about Epstein and helped prosecutors take him down in 2008. What did Democrats actually prove with this email? Epstein and his network were worried because Trump wasn’t part of their operation. They didn’t expose President Trump, they exposed the truth: Epstein was being used by intelligence to blackmail the powerful, and Trump was the one man they couldn’t control.

Benny Johnson

481,307 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

America missed the window of opportunity. It’s too late’ — Scott Ritter Former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter says Israel’s regime-change gamble in Iran is falling apart — and that’s why Tel Aviv is “panicking.” “Israel just lost the lion’s share of its assets,” Ritter said, arguing that Israel had been banking on a US strike to turn unrest into a decisive “big move.” If Trump doesn’t attack, "Israel won’t be able to do this again” — because the moment they were waiting for has passed, he emphasized.
2:25

America missed the window of opportunity. It’s too late’ — Scott Ritter Former US Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter says Israel’s regime-change gamble in Iran is falling apart — and that’s why Tel Aviv is “panicking.” “Israel just lost the lion’s share of its assets,” Ritter said, arguing that Israel had been banking on a US strike to turn unrest into a decisive “big move.” If Trump doesn’t attack, "Israel won’t be able to do this again” — because the moment they were waiting for has passed, he emphasized.

Sprinter Press

40,499 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

President Trump has always had two objectives in this war with Iran: 1) Stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. 2) Control the Strait of Hormuz (which until now was controlled by Iran and Oman). Trump wants to control these different choke points around the world. It's important to keep in mind these two goals when analyzing the final terms of this deal, because we have to remember that Trump's goals were always different than the forever war neocon goals. There are neocons in our country and in the Middle East who want this war to drag on for decades because they profit off of it. They want a John Bolton-style complete annihilation of Iran. That was never President Trump. I want you to analyze this military operation based on whether or not Trump achieved the goals that he set out to achieve. Even the freedom of the Iranian people was never the primary goal. That's not why he staged this military operation. So when we do get the details of this MOU with Iran, remember what President Trump's two objectives were. My guess is that you will see both of those goals have been accomplished.
1:28

President Trump has always had two objectives in this war with Iran: 1) Stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. 2) Control the Strait of Hormuz (which until now was controlled by Iran and Oman). Trump wants to control these different choke points around the world. It's important to keep in mind these two goals when analyzing the final terms of this deal, because we have to remember that Trump's goals were always different than the forever war neocon goals. There are neocons in our country and in the Middle East who want this war to drag on for decades because they profit off of it. They want a John Bolton-style complete annihilation of Iran. That was never President Trump. I want you to analyze this military operation based on whether or not Trump achieved the goals that he set out to achieve. Even the freedom of the Iranian people was never the primary goal. That's not why he staged this military operation. So when we do get the details of this MOU with Iran, remember what President Trump's two objectives were. My guess is that you will see both of those goals have been accomplished.

Liz Wheeler

35,825 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

Israeli-British Historian Prof. Avi Shlaim: ‘The Trump-Netanyahu war on Iran is one of the most UNJUSTIFIED, SENSELESS and FOOLISH wars of the 21st century. There was absolutely no reason to go to war. This is an unlawful war. There was no Security Council resolution that mandated a war on Iran. There was no imminent threat from Iran to either Israel or America. So it was a decision taken by these two leaders to launch an attack on Iran. And the dominant personality here is Netanyahu. He’s the junior partner, but he’s the real architect of this war. He succeeded in dragging America into the war on Iran. And remember that Netanyahu was first elected as prime minister in 1996. For the last 30 years, Netanyahu has been demonising Iran and calling for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But no American president until Trump was stupid enough to fall for it. Now, Trump went along with this plan by Netanyahu, and we have seen the consequences. It’s been a war that has caused immense damage and destruction, inflicted a lot of suffering on civilians, and not just in Iran, but on Lebanon as well. And at the same time, Israel continues the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. So what we are seeing is an Israeli success in dragging America into a war which is damaging to America, damaging to America’s Gulf allies, hugely damaging to the international economy, and undermines international law.’ -Prof. Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, on Going Underground
3:06

Israeli-British Historian Prof. Avi Shlaim: ‘The Trump-Netanyahu war on Iran is one of the most UNJUSTIFIED, SENSELESS and FOOLISH wars of the 21st century. There was absolutely no reason to go to war. This is an unlawful war. There was no Security Council resolution that mandated a war on Iran. There was no imminent threat from Iran to either Israel or America. So it was a decision taken by these two leaders to launch an attack on Iran. And the dominant personality here is Netanyahu. He’s the junior partner, but he’s the real architect of this war. He succeeded in dragging America into the war on Iran. And remember that Netanyahu was first elected as prime minister in 1996. For the last 30 years, Netanyahu has been demonising Iran and calling for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But no American president until Trump was stupid enough to fall for it. Now, Trump went along with this plan by Netanyahu, and we have seen the consequences. It’s been a war that has caused immense damage and destruction, inflicted a lot of suffering on civilians, and not just in Iran, but on Lebanon as well. And at the same time, Israel continues the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. So what we are seeing is an Israeli success in dragging America into a war which is damaging to America, damaging to America’s Gulf allies, hugely damaging to the international economy, and undermines international law.’ -Prof. Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, on Going Underground

Going Underground

21,901 Aufrufe • vor 27 Tagen

🇺🇸🇮🇱🇮🇷 U.S. WILL LEAD THE IRAN WAR, BUT IT WASN’T TRUMP’S IDEA, IT WAS ISRAEL’S Iranian analyst Trita Parsi says Trump was persuaded by Netanyahu on Dec 29 to lead the strikes on Iran, well before the protests escalated to where they are today. The reason was never about the protestors. "My expectation was that Israel would push for war and get the U.S. to support it, not lead it. But what happened is the opposite. Trump was convinced at Mar-a-Lago to take the lead. It’s being framed as his war now. But it wasn’t his idea. The protests have nothing to do with this. In fact, they might have delayed it. The plan was already made on December 29 at the White House. The justification is protests, but the real issue is missiles. This war is about finishing what wasn’t finished last June." Trita Parsi
5:39

🇺🇸🇮🇱🇮🇷 U.S. WILL LEAD THE IRAN WAR, BUT IT WASN’T TRUMP’S IDEA, IT WAS ISRAEL’S Iranian analyst Trita Parsi says Trump was persuaded by Netanyahu on Dec 29 to lead the strikes on Iran, well before the protests escalated to where they are today. The reason was never about the protestors. "My expectation was that Israel would push for war and get the U.S. to support it, not lead it. But what happened is the opposite. Trump was convinced at Mar-a-Lago to take the lead. It’s being framed as his war now. But it wasn’t his idea. The protests have nothing to do with this. In fact, they might have delayed it. The plan was already made on December 29 at the White House. The justification is protests, but the real issue is missiles. This war is about finishing what wasn’t finished last June." Trita Parsi

Mario Nawfal

96,742 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert: ‘With the US-Iran agreement, we are back to SQUARE ONE.’ ‘What I can say about Netanyahu is that the greatest failure in influencing Trump started much earlier. Not in 2026 when he possibly convinced Trump to jointly attack Iran, but when he convinced Trump in 2018 to withdraw from the then-signed agreement between President Obama and the Iranians about the nuclear program of Iran. Because what happened is that until then, Iran didn’t enrich uranium since they signed the agreement with Obama. And when America withdrew from that agreement, they started rapidly to enrich uranium up to the level of 60%, which brought them quite close to the possibility of building an atomic bomb. And that has, in a way, created the almost inevitable circumstances to launch this military attack on February of 26th. And the bottom line after this four month process is that we came back to where it started. There is an agreement between America and Iran, after a long period of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which caused serious economic damage to the international community. And we are with an agreement perhaps weaker than the one that was signed by President Obama. I don’t remember that President Obama promised to build up a fund of $300 billion to compensate Iran for the losses of the war, and I don’t know what is the difference in terms of inspecting and supervising the nuclear program other than what was until then. The Obama agreement was also based on the supervision and inspection of the nuclear program by the IAEA, the International Atomic Agency in Vienna. And that’s more or less what they agreed. Now, there is nothing about the ballistic missiles. There is nothing about, of course, the change of regime in Iran. So, actually we are back into square one.’ —Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert joins us for Saturday’s episode of Going Underground Don’t miss it, follow our Rumble channel👇
3:03

Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert: ‘With the US-Iran agreement, we are back to SQUARE ONE.’ ‘What I can say about Netanyahu is that the greatest failure in influencing Trump started much earlier. Not in 2026 when he possibly convinced Trump to jointly attack Iran, but when he convinced Trump in 2018 to withdraw from the then-signed agreement between President Obama and the Iranians about the nuclear program of Iran. Because what happened is that until then, Iran didn’t enrich uranium since they signed the agreement with Obama. And when America withdrew from that agreement, they started rapidly to enrich uranium up to the level of 60%, which brought them quite close to the possibility of building an atomic bomb. And that has, in a way, created the almost inevitable circumstances to launch this military attack on February of 26th. And the bottom line after this four month process is that we came back to where it started. There is an agreement between America and Iran, after a long period of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which caused serious economic damage to the international community. And we are with an agreement perhaps weaker than the one that was signed by President Obama. I don’t remember that President Obama promised to build up a fund of $300 billion to compensate Iran for the losses of the war, and I don’t know what is the difference in terms of inspecting and supervising the nuclear program other than what was until then. The Obama agreement was also based on the supervision and inspection of the nuclear program by the IAEA, the International Atomic Agency in Vienna. And that’s more or less what they agreed. Now, there is nothing about the ballistic missiles. There is nothing about, of course, the change of regime in Iran. So, actually we are back into square one.’ —Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert joins us for Saturday’s episode of Going Underground Don’t miss it, follow our Rumble channel👇

Going Underground

39,275 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday walked back his comments that the United States attacked Iran because of Israel, saying the U.S. strikes "had to happen anyway." "The president made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ability to conduct these attacks," Rubio told reporters on Tuesday. "This was a question of timing of why this had to happen as a joint operation," he added. "Not the question of the intent." On Monday, Rubio said the U.S. "proactively" hit Iran "in a defensive way" to prevent American casualties because the Trump administration believed an Israeli attack was imminent and that Iran "would immediately come after us" in retaliation. "Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it, but this had to happen no matter what," he said Monday.
2:51

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday walked back his comments that the United States attacked Iran because of Israel, saying the U.S. strikes "had to happen anyway." "The president made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ability to conduct these attacks," Rubio told reporters on Tuesday. "This was a question of timing of why this had to happen as a joint operation," he added. "Not the question of the intent." On Monday, Rubio said the U.S. "proactively" hit Iran "in a defensive way" to prevent American casualties because the Trump administration believed an Israeli attack was imminent and that Iran "would immediately come after us" in retaliation. "Obviously, we were aware of Israeli intentions and understood what that would mean for us, and we had to be prepared to act as a result of it, but this had to happen no matter what," he said Monday.

PBS News

13,865 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗢'𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗬: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗠𝗣 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗞𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗕𝗘𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗖𝗞 𝗜𝗥𝗔𝗡 There are facts surrounding Operation Epic Fury that most people either don't know or are choosing to ignore because they don't fit a preferred narrative. Bill O'Reilly laid them out this week, and they matter regardless of where you stand on the war. Fact one: the United States destroyed approximately 75% of Iran's nuclear capacity in the Israeli strikes last June. Not all of it. Seventy-five percent. Other labs were working on the same program that were not destroyed. Fact two: by February 2026, U.S. intelligence determined Iran was weeks away from enriching enough uranium to produce a low-level nuclear device — one that could be handed off to a proxy. Trump received that intel. Fact three: Israel and other intelligence sources then informed Trump that the entire mullah leadership would be gathered in one location at one time. A window that would not last. Fact four: this came on the heels of six weeks of negotiations in which Iran delivered a clear message to American representatives in Geneva. They were not going to stop. They gave Witkoff and the American team the middle finger in the final meeting. Fact five — and this is the one that reframes everything. O'Reilly spoke to Trump privately, one on one, by phone, one week before the strikes were launched. His description: the entire conversation was about making a deal. Trump did not want to use military force. They discussed multiple pathways — including O'Reilly's own idea of using Beijing as leverage over Iran. Trump was still looking for an exit from confrontation. Then Iran walked out of Geneva. Then the intelligence came in about the leadership gathering. Then the decision was made. This is not the portrait of a president who campaigned on peace and secretly wanted war. This is a president who pursued every diplomatic option available, received intelligence that the threat was imminent and the window was closing, and made the call. You can disagree with that call. But you cannot honestly claim it was made recklessly or eagerly — not with this timeline in hand. 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀. 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗺.
3:55

𝗕𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗢'𝗥𝗘𝗜𝗟𝗟𝗬: 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗠𝗣 𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗞𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗕𝗘𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗘 𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗖𝗞 𝗜𝗥𝗔𝗡 There are facts surrounding Operation Epic Fury that most people either don't know or are choosing to ignore because they don't fit a preferred narrative. Bill O'Reilly laid them out this week, and they matter regardless of where you stand on the war. Fact one: the United States destroyed approximately 75% of Iran's nuclear capacity in the Israeli strikes last June. Not all of it. Seventy-five percent. Other labs were working on the same program that were not destroyed. Fact two: by February 2026, U.S. intelligence determined Iran was weeks away from enriching enough uranium to produce a low-level nuclear device — one that could be handed off to a proxy. Trump received that intel. Fact three: Israel and other intelligence sources then informed Trump that the entire mullah leadership would be gathered in one location at one time. A window that would not last. Fact four: this came on the heels of six weeks of negotiations in which Iran delivered a clear message to American representatives in Geneva. They were not going to stop. They gave Witkoff and the American team the middle finger in the final meeting. Fact five — and this is the one that reframes everything. O'Reilly spoke to Trump privately, one on one, by phone, one week before the strikes were launched. His description: the entire conversation was about making a deal. Trump did not want to use military force. They discussed multiple pathways — including O'Reilly's own idea of using Beijing as leverage over Iran. Trump was still looking for an exit from confrontation. Then Iran walked out of Geneva. Then the intelligence came in about the leadership gathering. Then the decision was made. This is not the portrait of a president who campaigned on peace and secretly wanted war. This is a president who pursued every diplomatic option available, received intelligence that the threat was imminent and the window was closing, and made the call. You can disagree with that call. But you cannot honestly claim it was made recklessly or eagerly — not with this timeline in hand. 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀. 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗺.

M.A. Rothman

115,274 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Asked why he made the decision to take out Nicolás Maduro, President Trump laid it out plainly. “It just was the right time to do it. We had to do it because it’s a war. We’re losing 300,000 people a year.” Trump then revealed new details from the raid. He said Maduro was holed up in what was essentially a fortress. “He was in a house that was more like a fortress than a house. It had steel doors, it had what they call a safety space where it’s, you know, solid steel all around.” Maduro tried to reach that reinforced area as the operation unfolded. “He didn’t get that space closed. He was trying to get into it, but he got bum rushed so fast that he didn’t get into that.” The U.S. military was prepared for anything. “We were prepared. We had, you know, massive blow torches and everything else that you need to get through that steel, but we didn’t need it.” “He didn’t make it to that area of the house.”
1:54

Asked why he made the decision to take out Nicolás Maduro, President Trump laid it out plainly. “It just was the right time to do it. We had to do it because it’s a war. We’re losing 300,000 people a year.” Trump then revealed new details from the raid. He said Maduro was holed up in what was essentially a fortress. “He was in a house that was more like a fortress than a house. It had steel doors, it had what they call a safety space where it’s, you know, solid steel all around.” Maduro tried to reach that reinforced area as the operation unfolded. “He didn’t get that space closed. He was trying to get into it, but he got bum rushed so fast that he didn’t get into that.” The U.S. military was prepared for anything. “We were prepared. We had, you know, massive blow torches and everything else that you need to get through that steel, but we didn’t need it.” “He didn’t make it to that area of the house.”

Overton

553,628 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

The last time an American administration actively worked to replace a regime in the Middle East was at Iran’s back door. In 2003, the U.S. invasion of Iraq ended with the arrest—and eventual hanging—of Saddam Hussein. Absurdly, that war helped Iran twice over. First, the West, in what can only be described in hindsight as strategic folly, eliminated Tehran’s most dangerous regional enemy—one that had been draining Iran’s blood, money, and resources for decades. Freed from that pressure, Iran could refocus its full attention on confronting what it calls the “little devil” and the “big devil.” Second, the chaos and trauma unleashed by regime change in Iraq turned the very concept into a taboo. How far off the agenda is it? Just last Tuesday—in the press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu—Donald Trump explicitly said that regime change in Iran is not the objective. But was that statement genuine—or misdirection? Iran did not take Trump seriously when he gave it 60 days to negotiate, warning that on day 61 Israel would strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. They ignored that warning. Yesterday, Trump issued another warning: if the regime kills protesters, the United States will respond. The regime did not listen. Protesters were killed. The question now is whether Iran will listen the third time. If it does, we may be witnessing the early stages of a historic shift in the Middle East. Trump has referenced Iran twice in this context—and in both cases, his words were backed by action: the strike at Fordow and the elimination of Qassem Soleimani. Trump is signalling. I believe there is a clear link between the attempted change of government in Venezuela and the possibility of change in Tehran. Let it be so.
1:30

The last time an American administration actively worked to replace a regime in the Middle East was at Iran’s back door. In 2003, the U.S. invasion of Iraq ended with the arrest—and eventual hanging—of Saddam Hussein. Absurdly, that war helped Iran twice over. First, the West, in what can only be described in hindsight as strategic folly, eliminated Tehran’s most dangerous regional enemy—one that had been draining Iran’s blood, money, and resources for decades. Freed from that pressure, Iran could refocus its full attention on confronting what it calls the “little devil” and the “big devil.” Second, the chaos and trauma unleashed by regime change in Iraq turned the very concept into a taboo. How far off the agenda is it? Just last Tuesday—in the press conference with Benjamin Netanyahu—Donald Trump explicitly said that regime change in Iran is not the objective. But was that statement genuine—or misdirection? Iran did not take Trump seriously when he gave it 60 days to negotiate, warning that on day 61 Israel would strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. They ignored that warning. Yesterday, Trump issued another warning: if the regime kills protesters, the United States will respond. The regime did not listen. Protesters were killed. The question now is whether Iran will listen the third time. If it does, we may be witnessing the early stages of a historic shift in the Middle East. Trump has referenced Iran twice in this context—and in both cases, his words were backed by action: the strike at Fordow and the elimination of Qassem Soleimani. Trump is signalling. I believe there is a clear link between the attempted change of government in Venezuela and the possibility of change in Tehran. Let it be so.

Amit Segal

17,445 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Interviewer: What changed with Donald Trump? When he first came to power after his election, he was very firm, very tough, about ending the war. Then afterward, he retreated, giving Netanyahu space to do what he wanted. But recently, we have seen this shift. Palestinian-American informal mediator Bishara Bahbsh: I think Netanyahu convinced the president that he needed more time to finish the mission in Gaza militarily—to destroy Hamas. He kept persuading the president to extend the time. But recently the president said: ‘Enough. You’re playing me.’ Not exactly in those words—he used an even harsher phrase. I won’t repeat the exact wording—it was more obscene. But it was along the lines of ‘You’re screwing with me.’ Trump cannot stand the idea that someone thinks he is being fooled. So he confronted Netanyahu. During Netanyahu’s visit to the White House last week, and later phone calls, the president reached his limit. And when his patience snapped, Hamas’s diplomatic response came at exactly the right moment. He took it and went with it. Interviewer: “Was Netanyahu surprised by Trump’s reaction?” Bahbah: “One hundred percent, yes. They were stunned. The Israelis had no immediate reaction because they didn’t expect it. They tried to spin it as if they weren’t losing, but Netanyahu ended up publicly saying that Trump’s offer met all of Israel’s requirements for a ceasefire and for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Interviewer: “I’ve been trying to get from you what exactly Trump said to Netanyahu. You said it was almost obscene?” Bahbah: “Yes. Trump used a vulgar word toward Netanyahu. Closer to an ‘F-word’ in that context. Exactly so.”
1:10

Interviewer: What changed with Donald Trump? When he first came to power after his election, he was very firm, very tough, about ending the war. Then afterward, he retreated, giving Netanyahu space to do what he wanted. But recently, we have seen this shift. Palestinian-American informal mediator Bishara Bahbsh: I think Netanyahu convinced the president that he needed more time to finish the mission in Gaza militarily—to destroy Hamas. He kept persuading the president to extend the time. But recently the president said: ‘Enough. You’re playing me.’ Not exactly in those words—he used an even harsher phrase. I won’t repeat the exact wording—it was more obscene. But it was along the lines of ‘You’re screwing with me.’ Trump cannot stand the idea that someone thinks he is being fooled. So he confronted Netanyahu. During Netanyahu’s visit to the White House last week, and later phone calls, the president reached his limit. And when his patience snapped, Hamas’s diplomatic response came at exactly the right moment. He took it and went with it. Interviewer: “Was Netanyahu surprised by Trump’s reaction?” Bahbah: “One hundred percent, yes. They were stunned. The Israelis had no immediate reaction because they didn’t expect it. They tried to spin it as if they weren’t losing, but Netanyahu ended up publicly saying that Trump’s offer met all of Israel’s requirements for a ceasefire and for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Interviewer: “I’ve been trying to get from you what exactly Trump said to Netanyahu. You said it was almost obscene?” Bahbah: “Yes. Trump used a vulgar word toward Netanyahu. Closer to an ‘F-word’ in that context. Exactly so.”

Drop Site

17,590 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

NEW: The attack on Iran was 8 months in the making, President Trump allegedly was recently pretending to oppose the attack to catch Iran off guard, according to Axios. The outlet reports that Israel wanted Iran to put their guard down so Iranians on their target list wouldn’t move to new locations. According to Netanyahu's team, the report that Trump called for Israel not to attack in a call on Monday was just a cover and the call was actually about coordinating the attack. Trump has since responded to the attacks on Iran on Truth Social, saying he gave Iran a chance and they didn’t listen. Video: OSINTdefender
0:26

NEW: The attack on Iran was 8 months in the making, President Trump allegedly was recently pretending to oppose the attack to catch Iran off guard, according to Axios. The outlet reports that Israel wanted Iran to put their guard down so Iranians on their target list wouldn’t move to new locations. According to Netanyahu's team, the report that Trump called for Israel not to attack in a call on Monday was just a cover and the call was actually about coordinating the attack. Trump has since responded to the attacks on Iran on Truth Social, saying he gave Iran a chance and they didn’t listen. Video: OSINTdefender

Collin Rugg

611,056 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

TREASONOUS CONSPIRACY AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP Last year, DNI Tulsi Gabbard laid out the Prosecution case against Obama: President Obama directed that a National Security Council meeting be called to talk about Russia, that the report that came out of that meeting was filled with tasks that were delivered by James Clapper's assistant to John Brennan and to other elements of the intelligence community. John Brennan was the head of the CIA at the time, all saying per the President's direction, per the President's order. And very specifically, they were tasked to create an intelligence assessment that detailed how Moscow tried to influence the election. Not if, but how. And this was the beginning of this manufactured Intelligence Assessment where they knowingly wrote things in this assessment that were false. And they knew they were false. They knew that they were basing it on discredited intelligence or documents like the Steele Dossier that was politically motivated and that they knew was false. And this was how they came up with the Russia Hoax that was then weaponized and used to try to delegitimize the president, President Trump, and to try to ultimately enact this years-long coup throughout his entire four years of his first administration.
1:17

TREASONOUS CONSPIRACY AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP Last year, DNI Tulsi Gabbard laid out the Prosecution case against Obama: President Obama directed that a National Security Council meeting be called to talk about Russia, that the report that came out of that meeting was filled with tasks that were delivered by James Clapper's assistant to John Brennan and to other elements of the intelligence community. John Brennan was the head of the CIA at the time, all saying per the President's direction, per the President's order. And very specifically, they were tasked to create an intelligence assessment that detailed how Moscow tried to influence the election. Not if, but how. And this was the beginning of this manufactured Intelligence Assessment where they knowingly wrote things in this assessment that were false. And they knew they were false. They knew that they were basing it on discredited intelligence or documents like the Steele Dossier that was politically motivated and that they knew was false. And this was how they came up with the Russia Hoax that was then weaponized and used to try to delegitimize the president, President Trump, and to try to ultimately enact this years-long coup throughout his entire four years of his first administration.

Svetlana Lokhova

68,072 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

"We were at a situation where Iran felt like they had all the leverage and there was nothing we could do about it." Since America found itself in an unwinnable situation, Trump had to convince Iran that he was crazy enough to nuke them.
4:26

"We were at a situation where Iran felt like they had all the leverage and there was nothing we could do about it." Since America found itself in an unwinnable situation, Trump had to convince Iran that he was crazy enough to nuke them.

Fuentes Updates

86,251 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🚨 President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday that he was not pressured by Israel into launching the war on Iran. In a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, he said Israel didn’t "force his hand." “If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand,” he said. Trump offered a new explanation for the strike today, claiming Iran was preparing a preemptive strike: "It was my opinion that they were going to attack first... If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that". His comments seemed aimed at walking back the statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the U.S. joined the attack primarily because it knew Israel was already proceeding with its own strikes.
3:25

🚨 President Donald Trump claimed on Tuesday that he was not pressured by Israel into launching the war on Iran. In a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, he said Israel didn’t "force his hand." “If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand,” he said. Trump offered a new explanation for the strike today, claiming Iran was preparing a preemptive strike: "It was my opinion that they were going to attack first... If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that". His comments seemed aimed at walking back the statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the U.S. joined the attack primarily because it knew Israel was already proceeding with its own strikes.

Drop Site

28,308 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten