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...

1,201,338 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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 2 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, on Going Underground

Going Underground

22,956 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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 28 Tagen

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

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 6 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.”

Drop Site

17,590 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

REVEALED: Israeli spy agency Mossad sold Donald Trump a plot to instantly take out Iran—but it had one fatal flaw. And that one little mistake has put the United States firmly in the crosshairs of a war it cannot win—and is creating global panic over oil prices. . The top secret dossier, sold to the US by Mossad director David Barnea had a clear argument, that we can summarize as a four part narrative. One: A network of fake “Iranian NGOs” in the west would circulate a story that Iran had massacred 30,000 or more peaceful protesters, The story would be spread in order to manufacture consent for the west to launch a war against Iran. Two: The Americans would demand to have negotiations with the Iranians to distract them, by having them focusing on peace plans. Three: During this distraction, the US and Israeli air forces would then launch an attack that would take out the entire government of Iran, leaving all seats of power empty—including the peace negotiators. Four: Radical extreme opposition members in Iran, cultivated by Mossad, the CIA, and the NED, would then take control of the country—and install US puppet Reza Pahlavi as a proxy for Washington and Tel Aviv. . IT WORKED. AT FIRST And you know what? Every part of that plan worked perfectly. Except there was one key detail they had got wrong. And that brought the whole edifice crashing down. . ONE: DEMONIZING IRAN The story really starts in January. Mossad and the CIA worked with radical opposition members in Iran to launch a coup at the start of January in which armed men destroyed 700 shops, 305 ambulances and buses, 414 civil service buildings and 750 banks. [SEE VIDEO] They attacked 350 mosques, which is very strange for supposedly Muslim rioters– but they attacked not one synagogue. This was a major insurrection in which people on all sides lost their lives, with more than 3,000 dead after the coup was put down. But this armed coup was repackaged by fake NGOs in the west as a massacre of at least 30,000 peaceful protesters - or maybe 50,000 or 70,000 - by “the regime”. Mossad wanted the fake number to be more than the actual number of people the IDF killed in Gaza. This part worked perfectly. Here’s Time magazine [video] reporting that 30,000 died. Most of the western media supported this. Not one of them reported that the funding for these NGOs could be traced back to western political propaganda groups such as the NED, a CIA spin-off group. . TWO: FAKE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS Part Two of the plan also went better than they could have hoped for. The Americans not only successfully held "peace negotiations", but the Iranians actually made multiple concessions, giving Washington virtually everything it wanted. So the Americans could simply have proceeded with those and got what they wanted anyway. But the US and Israel decided to go ahead with Part Three anyway. (More 'fun'?) . THREE: KILLING GOVERNMENT LEADERS And you know what? That also worked perfectly, from beginning to end – in a surprise, unprovoked attack, the US and Israel killed not just the leader, but 40 members of the Iranian government. Now just imagine the outrage if any country took out the entire government of the UK or Germany or Canada or Australia. The world’s media would be writing editorials about it for years, literally years. . FOUR: THE PUPPET The Mossad-CIA plot was going exactly as planned. All they needed to do was achieve part four: the transfer of power to a US Juan Guaidó figure—a man already selected and waiting in the wings. The western media found supporters of the opposition in Iran to film expressing happiness, and tried to pretend that this was “all” the Iranians. But this was clearly not true. The vast majority of Iranians, including people involved in the violent protest of January, were horrified. . FATAL FLAW Now here’s where the fatal error showed up. Mossad’s plan failed to take into account one thing. There had been a change of attitude last year. Between June the 13th and the 24th of 2025, Israel attacked Iran, killing nuclear scientists, politicians and civilians, as well as members of the armed forces. That was also, clearly an illegal, unprovoked attack. No western leader cared—but the people of Iran, all the political parties, did care. They were outraged. Why are Israel and the United States allowed to just murder people in other countries and get away it? Support for the Iranian government rose dramatically. Mossad assumed that because their contacts, the extreme radical members of the opposition groups, still opposed the government, that many Iranians did. But that just was not true. The Iranians in general had become far more supportive of their government, and opposed to the US and Israel, than Mossad believed. . IRANIANS UNITED Donald Trump told the Iranian people that it was now over to you – signalling that part four should go ahead: a takeover by people allied to Washington and Tel Aviv. But it didn’t happen. So part four of the plan did not work. The Iranians drew together and fought back. Under United Nations law, they had full legal rights to respond to an illegal attack. They made defensive forays to take out the military bases around the gulf which were attacking them, and they closed the Strait of Hormuz. Trump was horrified and furious – not with the Iranians but with Netanyahu and Barnea, the Mossad chief. And this explains why he kept making contradictory statements – he kept saying things that implied the war would be over very quickly, as the original plan said, while also acknowledging that the opposite was true. Remember how he used the phrase “short term excursion”. He also said the war would last four days only. And he also said the war was “already over”. And so on. So we can see that the plan, as sold to him, was a quick in-and-out operation, just as it had been in Venezuela – so that was what he had in his head. . IF YOU SHOOT THE KING… Netanyahu, deeply embarrassed to have helped sell a war to Trump that had spiralled out of control, went into hiding—he was so deep undercover that rumours circulated that said he was dead. For Mossad and the CIA, the plot failed. There’s an ancient saying that all plotters know. “If you are going to shoot at the king, you better kill the king.” What the US and Israel did was shoot the leadership of Iran. But they failed to kill the leadership of Iran. So now they are in trouble. And you know what? I don’t think there is any sympathy for them.

Nury Vittachi

366,002 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Former Iranian political prisoner Kian Tajbakhsh shuts down an entire CNN panel with a blunt reality check. Abby Phillip and Ashley Allison were spiraling over whether the U.S. is actually at war with Iran. That’s when Tajbakhsh dropped an absolute truth bomb: “I think President Trump wants to finish a war that Iran started in 1979.” ALLISON: “Two days ago, yesterday, this morning, I was told we were not at war.” “Today in the press conference, Pete Hegseth says, end the war. Are we at war? Are we not at war? Do we want regime change or do we not?” TAJBAKHSH: “You know, I know this may sound controversial…but I think a lot of commentary is missing the big picture.” “To simplify it, I would put it this way.” “I don’t think it’s right to say that President Trump has started a war with Iran.” “I think President Trump wants to finish a war that Iran started in 1979, 47 years ago.” Then he shared a story from inside Iran: “These aren’t just words. Let me tell you an anecdote.” “In 2003, 2004 when I was there in Iran, working on projects at a very high level, I was talking with deputy ministers…going back and forth.” “I was in the foreign ministry in Tehran where I met someone very senior who was semi-sympathetic to the projects we were doing.” “But as I was leaving, he looked me in the eye and said, as an Iranian-American I want you to listen very carefully.” “He said we in this building…meaning the foreign ministry, meaning the government, meaning the regime…” “He said we believe we are at war with the United States.” “He said at that time it’s a cold war, but it’s a war nonetheless.” The panel hated hearing the truth from someone who had seen the regime up close and they immediately jumped on him.

Overton

411,004 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten