Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🇺🇸 Twenty-five years after 9/11, foreign policy scholar Stephen Wertheim says Washington internalized only one narrow lesson: “Don’t do long, intensive regime-change wars to build other nations into democracies.” Short wars remain acceptable. As does regime change without democracy-building. The broader U.S. interventionist system has stayed intact, with 40,000–50,000... show more

Drop Site

478,927 subscribers

20,309 views • 22 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology Education News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

4 Comments

Drop Site22 days ago

Full:

Anne Boylon22 days ago

'into democracies?! Is ISIS controlled Syria a democracy? Is Libya, where one can go to buy slaves in open markets a democracy? The countries the US of Genocides destroys never even faintly resemble democracies.

Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft22 days ago

This would be a great time for Trump to keep his promises

Vox Ethica22 days ago

53 years after rogue USA's CIA engineered coup d'état in Chile. Democratically elected President Salvador Allende killed; general Pinochet bloody 17 years dictatorship backed by the USA. Latin America's 9/11. That's what Latin America remembers.

Related Videos

🇺🇸 After 9/11, Americans were told the enemy hated them because they were free. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern says the Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board reached a very different conclusion: the anger was driven by U.S. policy in the Middle East, not American freedoms. “Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies.” That distinction mattered because the official slogan helped sell decades of war, surveillance, occupation, and regime-change politics as a defense of civilization itself. Ray McGovern

🇺🇸 After 9/11, Americans were told the enemy hated them because they were free. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern says the Pentagon’s own Defense Science Board reached a very different conclusion: the anger was driven by U.S. policy in the Middle East, not American freedoms. “Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies.” That distinction mattered because the official slogan helped sell decades of war, surveillance, occupation, and regime-change politics as a defense of civilization itself. Ray McGovern

Mario Nawfal

79,627 views • 3 months ago

.David Sacks explains how his distrust of the U.S. foreign policy establishment grew from the numerous lies, $8 trillion spent, and millions killed in Middle Eastern wars over the last two decades: "They lied us into the Iraq War. The war did nothing to improve American security. We destabilized the Middle East. We turned Iraq into an Iranian proxy state. The destabilization created a huge refugee problem that spilled over into Syria, which is another intervention that we bungled. We got in Afghanistan initially motivated by the fact that they supported Al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11, but then we stayed there in an open-ended occupation for 20 years, and the entire time we were told that we were winning and the country was being transformed into a democracy and everything turned out to be a lie. All of these foreign interventions in the middle east cost us $8 trillion, and the number of deaths is staggering. Almost a million direct deaths from all the wars we launched, and I've seen excess mortality numbers as high as 5 million. We unleashed staggering death and destruction. So, I don't know how you can live through the past twenty years without rethinking American foreign policy. Not recognizing that American foreign policy has been overly activist and overly interventionist. It's totally backfired on us and blown up in our faces. The sad thing is the same people that got us involved in that foreign policy are still there. It's the foreign policy establishment. There's been very little accountability for all of those people. In fact, most of them have moved to the Democratic party. They are really comfortable with the idea of state power."

.David Sacks explains how his distrust of the U.S. foreign policy establishment grew from the numerous lies, $8 trillion spent, and millions killed in Middle Eastern wars over the last two decades: "They lied us into the Iraq War. The war did nothing to improve American security. We destabilized the Middle East. We turned Iraq into an Iranian proxy state. The destabilization created a huge refugee problem that spilled over into Syria, which is another intervention that we bungled. We got in Afghanistan initially motivated by the fact that they supported Al Qaeda, which attacked us on 9/11, but then we stayed there in an open-ended occupation for 20 years, and the entire time we were told that we were winning and the country was being transformed into a democracy and everything turned out to be a lie. All of these foreign interventions in the middle east cost us $8 trillion, and the number of deaths is staggering. Almost a million direct deaths from all the wars we launched, and I've seen excess mortality numbers as high as 5 million. We unleashed staggering death and destruction. So, I don't know how you can live through the past twenty years without rethinking American foreign policy. Not recognizing that American foreign policy has been overly activist and overly interventionist. It's totally backfired on us and blown up in our faces. The sad thing is the same people that got us involved in that foreign policy are still there. It's the foreign policy establishment. There's been very little accountability for all of those people. In fact, most of them have moved to the Democratic party. They are really comfortable with the idea of state power."

KanekoaTheGreat

602,024 views • 3 years ago

Former US🇺🇸 Treasury Official: 9/11 was the US’ new ‘Pearl Harbour’ moment to fight wars in the Middle East to establish GREATER ISRAEL over the last 25 years.’ ‘It was during the George W. Bush administration, that we were hearing about the need to destroy seven countries in the Middle East in five years. 9/11 became the new Pearl Harbour for launching the American intervention in the Middle East on behalf of Greater Israel. American troops and American money was used to destroy Libya, Iraq, Syria and turn them into dysfunctional countries. There’s no functioning state there. We now see that Israel has the United States at work on Iran and Israel has again renewed its attacks on Lebanon. So the agenda is very much real, it’s very much in operation. Washington has been fighting the Greater Israel cause for Netanyahu, for the first quarter of the 21st century. We’ve been at war for 25 years.’ -Prof. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Treasury Secretary for Economic Policy, speaking to us on Going Underground

Former US🇺🇸 Treasury Official: 9/11 was the US’ new ‘Pearl Harbour’ moment to fight wars in the Middle East to establish GREATER ISRAEL over the last 25 years.’ ‘It was during the George W. Bush administration, that we were hearing about the need to destroy seven countries in the Middle East in five years. 9/11 became the new Pearl Harbour for launching the American intervention in the Middle East on behalf of Greater Israel. American troops and American money was used to destroy Libya, Iraq, Syria and turn them into dysfunctional countries. There’s no functioning state there. We now see that Israel has the United States at work on Iran and Israel has again renewed its attacks on Lebanon. So the agenda is very much real, it’s very much in operation. Washington has been fighting the Greater Israel cause for Netanyahu, for the first quarter of the 21st century. We’ve been at war for 25 years.’ -Prof. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Treasury Secretary for Economic Policy, speaking to us on Going Underground

Afshin Rattansi

27,427 views • 3 months ago

Former US🇺🇸 Treasury Official: 9/11 was the US’ new ‘Pearl Harbour’ moment to fight wars in the Middle East to establish GREATER ISRAEL over the last 25 years.’ ‘It was during the George W. Bush administration, that we were hearing about the need to destroy seven countries in the Middle East in five years. 9/11 became the new Pearl Harbour for launching the American intervention in the Middle East on behalf of Greater Israel. American troops and American money was used to destroy Libya, Iraq, Syria and turn them into dysfunctional countries. There’s no functioning state there. We now see that Israel has the United States at work on Iran and Israel has again renewed its attacks on Lebanon. So the agenda is very much real, it’s very much in operation. Washington has been fighting the Greater Israel cause for Netanyahu, for the first quarter of the 21st century. We’ve been at war for 25 years.’ -Prof. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Treasury Secretary for Economic Policy, on Going Underground

Former US🇺🇸 Treasury Official: 9/11 was the US’ new ‘Pearl Harbour’ moment to fight wars in the Middle East to establish GREATER ISRAEL over the last 25 years.’ ‘It was during the George W. Bush administration, that we were hearing about the need to destroy seven countries in the Middle East in five years. 9/11 became the new Pearl Harbour for launching the American intervention in the Middle East on behalf of Greater Israel. American troops and American money was used to destroy Libya, Iraq, Syria and turn them into dysfunctional countries. There’s no functioning state there. We now see that Israel has the United States at work on Iran and Israel has again renewed its attacks on Lebanon. So the agenda is very much real, it’s very much in operation. Washington has been fighting the Greater Israel cause for Netanyahu, for the first quarter of the 21st century. We’ve been at war for 25 years.’ -Prof. Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Treasury Secretary for Economic Policy, on Going Underground

Going Underground

23,456 views • 2 months ago

⭕️ In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller argues that past U.S. interventions (coups and regime-change efforts) had been too altruistic: “For years the United States has been sending military to the Middle East to die in deserts to build them parliaments. To try to build them democracies. To try to get them more oil.” Under Trump, Miller says, that will not be the case. In a broad defense of U.S. military power and imperialism, he added: “The future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology,” linking that idea to a post-World War II period when, in his telling, the West began “apologizing and grovelling and begging.” PS: “Nation-building” was never the goal in the U.S. interventions he cites. In the Middle East, U.S. dismantled states (Iraq, Libya), empowered militias and warlords (Afghanistan), and then exited when costs rose.

⭕️ In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller argues that past U.S. interventions (coups and regime-change efforts) had been too altruistic: “For years the United States has been sending military to the Middle East to die in deserts to build them parliaments. To try to build them democracies. To try to get them more oil.” Under Trump, Miller says, that will not be the case. In a broad defense of U.S. military power and imperialism, he added: “The future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology,” linking that idea to a post-World War II period when, in his telling, the West began “apologizing and grovelling and begging.” PS: “Nation-building” was never the goal in the U.S. interventions he cites. In the Middle East, U.S. dismantled states (Iraq, Libya), empowered militias and warlords (Afghanistan), and then exited when costs rose.

Drop Site

54,702 views • 8 months ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷🇮🇱 The Iran war exposed something nobody wants to admit: the U.S. and Israel were never after the same thing. Auron MacIntyre says Washington wanted Iran without a bomb. Israel wanted the regime gone. Two different wars, and the gap kept boxing Trump in. "A nuclear weapon is sovereignty. It's the ability to leverage against the American empire." Iran watched Gaddafi hand his over and get toppled. North Korea kept theirs and got talks. The lesson writes itself. Auron doesn't think anyone forces Iran off a weapon short of an invasion. The only real lever left is letting it back into the global economy so it has no reason to go its own way. Auron MacIntyre

🇺🇸🇮🇷🇮🇱 The Iran war exposed something nobody wants to admit: the U.S. and Israel were never after the same thing. Auron MacIntyre says Washington wanted Iran without a bomb. Israel wanted the regime gone. Two different wars, and the gap kept boxing Trump in. "A nuclear weapon is sovereignty. It's the ability to leverage against the American empire." Iran watched Gaddafi hand his over and get toppled. North Korea kept theirs and got talks. The lesson writes itself. Auron doesn't think anyone forces Iran off a weapon short of an invasion. The only real lever left is letting it back into the global economy so it has no reason to go its own way. Auron MacIntyre

Mario Nawfal

36,504 views • 3 months ago

🚨 Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi: Talks with the U.S. “no longer on the table” In a new interview, Iran’s foreign minister made several key claims: • Iran says negotiations with the U.S. are unlikely after what it calls a “bitter experience.” • Araghchi claims Washington promised it had no intention to attack Iran, then did so anyway. • He says the U.S. and Israel expected rapid regime change within days, but “failed.” • According to him, Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities remain intact. • Tehran says it is prepared to continue missile attacks for as long as necessary. Araghchi also warned Gulf states: If they take measures to protect their facilities, Iran claims it has an even greater right to respond and defend itself. Iran’s official line: “This war was imposed on us. We are defending ourselves.” Stay connected, follow Mossad Commentary.

🚨 Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi: Talks with the U.S. “no longer on the table” In a new interview, Iran’s foreign minister made several key claims: • Iran says negotiations with the U.S. are unlikely after what it calls a “bitter experience.” • Araghchi claims Washington promised it had no intention to attack Iran, then did so anyway. • He says the U.S. and Israel expected rapid regime change within days, but “failed.” • According to him, Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities remain intact. • Tehran says it is prepared to continue missile attacks for as long as necessary. Araghchi also warned Gulf states: If they take measures to protect their facilities, Iran claims it has an even greater right to respond and defend itself. Iran’s official line: “This war was imposed on us. We are defending ourselves.” Stay connected, follow Mossad Commentary.

Mossad Commentary

26,540 views • 6 months ago

After 9/11, George Bush and Dick Cheney sent America’s sons and daughters - people my age - to die in the Middle East and racked up $7TN in debt for pointless wars that hurt this country. No-win wars that cost trillions, killed millions & made corrupt politicians billions. They passed the Patriot Act, violated the Constitution & weaponized the justice system. 20 years later later, the Taliban is still in charge in Afghanistan. 20 years later, it’s a hostile anti-American regime running Iraq. And now 20 years later, it’s Dick Cheney 2.0 trying to reclaim the GOP again. That’s the real choice we face in this primary: do you want to rack up trillions more in debt & send our sons and daughters to die fighting someone else’s war in places like Ukraine and the Middle East? As a father, my obligation is to my family - period. And as the next President, my sole obligation will be to the American people - period. Now is our moment for choosing. We can choose the past. Or we can choose the future.

After 9/11, George Bush and Dick Cheney sent America’s sons and daughters - people my age - to die in the Middle East and racked up $7TN in debt for pointless wars that hurt this country. No-win wars that cost trillions, killed millions & made corrupt politicians billions. They passed the Patriot Act, violated the Constitution & weaponized the justice system. 20 years later later, the Taliban is still in charge in Afghanistan. 20 years later, it’s a hostile anti-American regime running Iraq. And now 20 years later, it’s Dick Cheney 2.0 trying to reclaim the GOP again. That’s the real choice we face in this primary: do you want to rack up trillions more in debt & send our sons and daughters to die fighting someone else’s war in places like Ukraine and the Middle East? As a father, my obligation is to my family - period. And as the next President, my sole obligation will be to the American people - period. Now is our moment for choosing. We can choose the past. Or we can choose the future.

Vivek Ramaswamy

373,989 views • 2 years ago

After 9/11, George Bush and Dick Cheney sent America’s sons and daughters - people my age - to die in the Middle East and racked up $7TN in debt for pointless wars that hurt this country. No-win wars that cost trillions, killed millions & made corrupt politicians billions. They passed the Patriot Act, violated the Constitution & weaponized the justice system. 20 years later later, the Taliban is still in charge in Afghanistan. 20 years later, it’s a hostile anti-American regime running Iraq. And now 20 years later, it’s Dick Cheney 2.0 trying to reclaim the GOP again. That’s the real choice we face in this primary: do you want to rack up trillions more in debt & send our sons and daughters to die fighting someone else’s war in places like Ukraine and the Middle East? As a father, my obligation is to my family - period. And as the next President, my sole obligation will be to the American people - period. Now is our moment for choosing. We can choose the past. Or we can choose the future.

After 9/11, George Bush and Dick Cheney sent America’s sons and daughters - people my age - to die in the Middle East and racked up $7TN in debt for pointless wars that hurt this country. No-win wars that cost trillions, killed millions & made corrupt politicians billions. They passed the Patriot Act, violated the Constitution & weaponized the justice system. 20 years later later, the Taliban is still in charge in Afghanistan. 20 years later, it’s a hostile anti-American regime running Iraq. And now 20 years later, it’s Dick Cheney 2.0 trying to reclaim the GOP again. That’s the real choice we face in this primary: do you want to rack up trillions more in debt & send our sons and daughters to die fighting someone else’s war in places like Ukraine and the Middle East? As a father, my obligation is to my family - period. And as the next President, my sole obligation will be to the American people - period. Now is our moment for choosing. We can choose the past. Or we can choose the future.

Vivek Ramaswamy

584,485 views • 2 years ago

🔍Tucker Carlson just dropped a bombshell on who really pushed for Iran regime change. Tucker Carlson (Tucker Carlson) reveals that powerful non‑Israeli actors pushed aggressively for a U.S. regime‑change war with Iran — including the Murdoch family, who “called the president… multiple times a day over months” urging military action. Carlson says they used Fox News, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal to “push for this regime change war…They push for it as strongly as anybody.” That's not to say he doesn't also detail the intrusion of Israeli interests into the Trump decision-making process. And its not just Israeli leaders, but also Americans who are highly influenced by - and some paid by - Israel, who are putting enormous pressure on the president, frequently advocating policies that are directly antithetical to American interests. This should alarm every American. The hidden forces shaping U.S. strategy in the Middle East conflict risk triggering a dangerous backlash. creating a dangerous moment where Americans may conclude “the system doesn’t work… somebody else is running it… why don’t we just burn it down?” This isn’t just media influence — it’s a national security crisis shaping the Iran war and U.S. strategy in the Middle East. 👉 Watch the full clip — the stakes for U.S. foreign policy couldn’t be higher: 🏷️#TuckerCarlson #IranWar #Murdoch #DeepState #USForeignPolicy #MiddleEastConflict #RegimeChange #DanielDavisDeepDive #MediaInfluence #AmericaFirst #ForeignPolicy #WarMachine

🔍Tucker Carlson just dropped a bombshell on who really pushed for Iran regime change. Tucker Carlson (Tucker Carlson) reveals that powerful non‑Israeli actors pushed aggressively for a U.S. regime‑change war with Iran — including the Murdoch family, who “called the president… multiple times a day over months” urging military action. Carlson says they used Fox News, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal to “push for this regime change war…They push for it as strongly as anybody.” That's not to say he doesn't also detail the intrusion of Israeli interests into the Trump decision-making process. And its not just Israeli leaders, but also Americans who are highly influenced by - and some paid by - Israel, who are putting enormous pressure on the president, frequently advocating policies that are directly antithetical to American interests. This should alarm every American. The hidden forces shaping U.S. strategy in the Middle East conflict risk triggering a dangerous backlash. creating a dangerous moment where Americans may conclude “the system doesn’t work… somebody else is running it… why don’t we just burn it down?” This isn’t just media influence — it’s a national security crisis shaping the Iran war and U.S. strategy in the Middle East. 👉 Watch the full clip — the stakes for U.S. foreign policy couldn’t be higher: 🏷️#TuckerCarlson #IranWar #Murdoch #DeepState #USForeignPolicy #MiddleEastConflict #RegimeChange #DanielDavisDeepDive #MediaInfluence #AmericaFirst #ForeignPolicy #WarMachine

Daniel Davis Deep Dive

44,515 views • 3 months ago

⚠️Joe Kent: U.S. Middle East policy is manufacturing the next wave of blowback. On the latest Daniel Davis Deep Dive, former NCTC director says Washington still has the institutional knowledge to change course from the disasterous and failed policies vis-a-vis the Iran war, but not the will. Joe Kent (Joe Kent) warns that Washington is ignoring the blowback from the Iran war — and that if the damage isn't checked doon, may one day have consequences reaching American streets. He points to early signs of retaliation, noting already in America “that guy with the Iran t‑shirt… killed some people” in Texas, and says most recent terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens have “cited our support for the Israelis… as part of the radicalization.” Continuing the wars against Iran, supporting actions against the Houthis in Yemen, the PMF in Iraq, and other regional targets does nothing to improve American national security, but continues to build up more hatred for our country and plants seeds of what could be future terrorism against our country. He argues U.S. actions are fueling recruitment for extremist groups, saying even Al‑Qaeda cited “our occupation of the Holy land” and “our support for the Israelis" - or the repressive regime of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - is not beneficial for America. And now, Kent warns, the Iran war has “radicalized so many people in Iran,” turning future threats into “an open question after this war and the way that we’ve conducted ourselves.” Watch the full clip. ▶️

⚠️Joe Kent: U.S. Middle East policy is manufacturing the next wave of blowback. On the latest Daniel Davis Deep Dive, former NCTC director says Washington still has the institutional knowledge to change course from the disasterous and failed policies vis-a-vis the Iran war, but not the will. Joe Kent (Joe Kent) warns that Washington is ignoring the blowback from the Iran war — and that if the damage isn't checked doon, may one day have consequences reaching American streets. He points to early signs of retaliation, noting already in America “that guy with the Iran t‑shirt… killed some people” in Texas, and says most recent terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens have “cited our support for the Israelis… as part of the radicalization.” Continuing the wars against Iran, supporting actions against the Houthis in Yemen, the PMF in Iraq, and other regional targets does nothing to improve American national security, but continues to build up more hatred for our country and plants seeds of what could be future terrorism against our country. He argues U.S. actions are fueling recruitment for extremist groups, saying even Al‑Qaeda cited “our occupation of the Holy land” and “our support for the Israelis" - or the repressive regime of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - is not beneficial for America. And now, Kent warns, the Iran war has “radicalized so many people in Iran,” turning future threats into “an open question after this war and the way that we’ve conducted ourselves.” Watch the full clip. ▶️

Daniel Davis Deep Dive

12,706 views • 17 days ago

🚨🇺🇸🇻🇪 FMR CIA OFFICER: HOW THE U.S. PLANS TO TOPPLE VENEZUELA’S MADURO The pattern is painfully familiar: Destabilize a regime. Push the narrative. Move the warships. And when it’s over, if it ever ends, leave a broken country behind. Some worry Venezuela may be next. In this interview, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou laid out how U.S. foreign policy keeps repeating the same fatal script, from Iraq to Libya to Afghanistan, and argues this time won’t be any different. Why a regime change? Influence, oil, and a system addicted to toppling governments it doesn't understand. We get into: •⁠ ⁠How regime change became America’s deadliest habit •⁠ ⁠⁠Why Venezuela’s “narco-state” label doesn’t stand up to the facts •⁠ ⁠⁠What naval deployments really mean — and when to take them seriously •⁠ ⁠Why U.S. planners always forget “Day Two” — the aftermath •⁠ ⁠What a real CIA coup would look like — and why it won't end with democracy And the question at the heart of it all: If the U.S. keeps failing at regime change, why does it keep trying? 00:56 — Venezuela enters the geopolitical spotlight alongside Iran, Russia-Ukraine, and China. 01:16 — U.S. naval movements suggest possible intent, yet Washington lacks a clear strategic upside. 02:20 — Sanctions redirect Venezuelan oil to China and India, weakening U.S. influence. 03:06 — China’s new Caribbean refinery shifts oil power dynamics and alarms Washington. 04:41 — Maduro previously offered Trump oil access, undermining the logic for regime change. 05:39 — The U.S. buildup may be a bluff aimed at pressuring Maduro to flee. 05:48 — Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico unanimously oppose U.S. intervention. 06:57 — U.S. foreign-policy tensions now spread to Latin America, not just Europe. 08:16 — Trump may reject amnesty because he “wants a scalp” to signal toughness on drugs. 09:22 — The U.S. excels at toppling governments but repeatedly fails at stabilizing them. 10:12 — Latin America still views past U.S. coups as recent, fueling deep distrust. 10:50 — Modern U.S. regime changes are largely unsuccessful and destabilizing. 13:14 — China’s fentanyl strategy mirrors CIA logic: weaken rivals through drug flows. 14:12 — U.S. concerns extend to oil, minerals, and Guyana’s massive new oil discovery. 17:24 — Opposition leader Maria Machado lacks real power; a military figure would likely take over. 21:46 — A full U.S. ground invasion is unlikely and lacks public support. 23:14 — Libya serves as caution: U.S. planners toppled a regime without a functioning postwar plan, resulting in years of civil war.

🚨🇺🇸🇻🇪 FMR CIA OFFICER: HOW THE U.S. PLANS TO TOPPLE VENEZUELA’S MADURO The pattern is painfully familiar: Destabilize a regime. Push the narrative. Move the warships. And when it’s over, if it ever ends, leave a broken country behind. Some worry Venezuela may be next. In this interview, CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou laid out how U.S. foreign policy keeps repeating the same fatal script, from Iraq to Libya to Afghanistan, and argues this time won’t be any different. Why a regime change? Influence, oil, and a system addicted to toppling governments it doesn't understand. We get into: •⁠ ⁠How regime change became America’s deadliest habit •⁠ ⁠⁠Why Venezuela’s “narco-state” label doesn’t stand up to the facts •⁠ ⁠⁠What naval deployments really mean — and when to take them seriously •⁠ ⁠Why U.S. planners always forget “Day Two” — the aftermath •⁠ ⁠What a real CIA coup would look like — and why it won't end with democracy And the question at the heart of it all: If the U.S. keeps failing at regime change, why does it keep trying? 00:56 — Venezuela enters the geopolitical spotlight alongside Iran, Russia-Ukraine, and China. 01:16 — U.S. naval movements suggest possible intent, yet Washington lacks a clear strategic upside. 02:20 — Sanctions redirect Venezuelan oil to China and India, weakening U.S. influence. 03:06 — China’s new Caribbean refinery shifts oil power dynamics and alarms Washington. 04:41 — Maduro previously offered Trump oil access, undermining the logic for regime change. 05:39 — The U.S. buildup may be a bluff aimed at pressuring Maduro to flee. 05:48 — Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico unanimously oppose U.S. intervention. 06:57 — U.S. foreign-policy tensions now spread to Latin America, not just Europe. 08:16 — Trump may reject amnesty because he “wants a scalp” to signal toughness on drugs. 09:22 — The U.S. excels at toppling governments but repeatedly fails at stabilizing them. 10:12 — Latin America still views past U.S. coups as recent, fueling deep distrust. 10:50 — Modern U.S. regime changes are largely unsuccessful and destabilizing. 13:14 — China’s fentanyl strategy mirrors CIA logic: weaken rivals through drug flows. 14:12 — U.S. concerns extend to oil, minerals, and Guyana’s massive new oil discovery. 17:24 — Opposition leader Maria Machado lacks real power; a military figure would likely take over. 21:46 — A full U.S. ground invasion is unlikely and lacks public support. 23:14 — Libya serves as caution: U.S. planners toppled a regime without a functioning postwar plan, resulting in years of civil war.

Mario Nawfal

2,041,801 views • 9 months ago

Twenty-five years ago, in the days after 9/11, Iranians filled Tehran's squares with candles for the American dead, watched by the same security forces that still oppress them today. While global news networks were broadcasting shocking footage of celebrations in the Middle East region, the people of Iran stood as a profound, solitary exception of human empathy for Americans. The regime chanted death. Our people offered light. Iranians and Americans have never been enemies. We share one common enemy: the Islamic fanaticism that murdered the 2,977, and that has held my country hostage for 47 years. We also share a fundamental common value: liberty. Liberty is the cornerstone on which America is built and what Iranians are fighting for today.

Twenty-five years ago, in the days after 9/11, Iranians filled Tehran's squares with candles for the American dead, watched by the same security forces that still oppress them today. While global news networks were broadcasting shocking footage of celebrations in the Middle East region, the people of Iran stood as a profound, solitary exception of human empathy for Americans. The regime chanted death. Our people offered light. Iranians and Americans have never been enemies. We share one common enemy: the Islamic fanaticism that murdered the 2,977, and that has held my country hostage for 47 years. We also share a fundamental common value: liberty. Liberty is the cornerstone on which America is built and what Iranians are fighting for today.

Reza Pahlavi

814,258 views • 18 days ago

$🇮🇷 EMERGENCY INTERVIEW: U.S. TO STRIKE IRAN - WHAT COMES NEXT It’s almost definite now, Trump is planning to strike Iran. The only question is: What’s his objective? Is it a complete regime change, or a Venezuela-like goal to replace the Supreme Leader with a more lenient member of the same regime? If it’s the former, then Iran, and the region, are in deep trouble. My guest today, Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, escaped Iran during the 1979 revolution, and his family has been targeted and jailed by both the current regime and the previous Monarchy. He breaks down the repercussions of a regime change, how Iran will retaliate to U.S. strikes, and the increasing risk of a civil was in the country. He also makes a very interesting point: Iran is at the mercy of Israeli ambitions (the destruction of the current regime and the country’s military capabilities) and American/Gulf ambitions (a stable regime with possibly a new leader more friendly to the West). I enjoyed this interview as Trita, an expert in the region, does not take sides. He’s very critical of the current regime, not a fan of the previous one, and thinks any American strikes on the country could have devastating consequences. We both agreed: The current regime is terrible, but a regime change may end up being worse if not executed properly and carefully. 03:25 – The protests in Iran were not the trigger for war planning; if anything, they delayed it. 04:02 – The original justification for attacking Iran came from Israeli concerns over missile threats, not internal unrest. 06:41 – The roots of Iran's current instability lie in sanctions that intentionally devastated the middle class. 09:16 – Some Iranians now view outside military intervention as the only path to regime change due to desperation. 11:32 – Gulf states are alarmed by Israeli aggression and fear instability from regime collapse, despite opposing Iran. 14:13 – A power vacuum in Iran could lead to civil war, refugee flows, and wider regional destabilization. 17:24 – Saudi, Turkey, and Pakistan may be quietly forming a bloc to counterbalance Israeli hegemony in the region. 20:11 – Iran’s fractured opposition lacks strength partly because sanctions crushed the middle class that fuels reform. 23:17 – Reza Pahlavi has grown closer to Israel, leading to division and backlash within the exile opposition. 25:07 – Monarchist support in Iran is hard to quantify—some chants back him, others reject him outright. 26:09 – Pahlavi says he wants democracy, but critics argue his conduct and followers cast doubt on that claim. 31:50 – Trita Parsi’s family fled Iran before the revolution; both the Shah and the Islamic Republic persecuted them. 34:24 – Iran’s internet blackout has cut off communications, and exact casualty numbers remain unclear. 37:10 – Hundreds of regime security forces have also been killed, suggesting an unprecedented level of resistance. 39:42 – Kurdish separatist groups may be exploiting the unrest, but aren't representative of the broader protest movement. 43:32 – Israel may see Iran’s total collapse as a strategic goal, even if it causes long-term regional chaos. 45:28 – Sanctions have historically made democratic transitions harder by weakening civil society more than regimes. 47:16 – US interests differ from Israel’s: Washington may want regime change, but not a failed or fragmented state. 50:23 – A Maduro-style solution could be attempted, but unlike Venezuela, the US has fewer internal contacts in Iran. 51:39 – Israel may push for not just regime change but destruction of Iran’s entire military infrastructure.$

🇮🇷 EMERGENCY INTERVIEW: U.S. TO STRIKE IRAN - WHAT COMES NEXT It’s almost definite now, Trump is planning to strike Iran. The only question is: What’s his objective? Is it a complete regime change, or a Venezuela-like goal to replace the Supreme Leader with a more lenient member of the same regime? If it’s the former, then Iran, and the region, are in deep trouble. My guest today, Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi, escaped Iran during the 1979 revolution, and his family has been targeted and jailed by both the current regime and the previous Monarchy. He breaks down the repercussions of a regime change, how Iran will retaliate to U.S. strikes, and the increasing risk of a civil was in the country. He also makes a very interesting point: Iran is at the mercy of Israeli ambitions (the destruction of the current regime and the country’s military capabilities) and American/Gulf ambitions (a stable regime with possibly a new leader more friendly to the West). I enjoyed this interview as Trita, an expert in the region, does not take sides. He’s very critical of the current regime, not a fan of the previous one, and thinks any American strikes on the country could have devastating consequences. We both agreed: The current regime is terrible, but a regime change may end up being worse if not executed properly and carefully. 03:25 – The protests in Iran were not the trigger for war planning; if anything, they delayed it. 04:02 – The original justification for attacking Iran came from Israeli concerns over missile threats, not internal unrest. 06:41 – The roots of Iran's current instability lie in sanctions that intentionally devastated the middle class. 09:16 – Some Iranians now view outside military intervention as the only path to regime change due to desperation. 11:32 – Gulf states are alarmed by Israeli aggression and fear instability from regime collapse, despite opposing Iran. 14:13 – A power vacuum in Iran could lead to civil war, refugee flows, and wider regional destabilization. 17:24 – Saudi, Turkey, and Pakistan may be quietly forming a bloc to counterbalance Israeli hegemony in the region. 20:11 – Iran’s fractured opposition lacks strength partly because sanctions crushed the middle class that fuels reform. 23:17 – Reza Pahlavi has grown closer to Israel, leading to division and backlash within the exile opposition. 25:07 – Monarchist support in Iran is hard to quantify—some chants back him, others reject him outright. 26:09 – Pahlavi says he wants democracy, but critics argue his conduct and followers cast doubt on that claim. 31:50 – Trita Parsi’s family fled Iran before the revolution; both the Shah and the Islamic Republic persecuted them. 34:24 – Iran’s internet blackout has cut off communications, and exact casualty numbers remain unclear. 37:10 – Hundreds of regime security forces have also been killed, suggesting an unprecedented level of resistance. 39:42 – Kurdish separatist groups may be exploiting the unrest, but aren't representative of the broader protest movement. 43:32 – Israel may see Iran’s total collapse as a strategic goal, even if it causes long-term regional chaos. 45:28 – Sanctions have historically made democratic transitions harder by weakening civil society more than regimes. 47:16 – US interests differ from Israel’s: Washington may want regime change, but not a failed or fragmented state. 50:23 – A Maduro-style solution could be attempted, but unlike Venezuela, the US has fewer internal contacts in Iran. 51:39 – Israel may push for not just regime change but destruction of Iran’s entire military infrastructure.

Mario Nawfal

3,979,356 views • 8 months ago

Professor PLO Lumumba asserts that the core issue the United States and Israel have with Iran is its demonstrated capacity to serve as the only country in the Middle East with dangerous deterrent against Tel Aviv. This was proven during the 12 - Day War, which revealed Iran’s missile capabilities and its ability to conduct strikes within Israel, alongside its advancing nuclear potential. According to Lumumba, this formidable autonomy is what they truly seek to dismantle. He argues that under the pretext of sympathizing with Iranian protesters, they disguise a long-standing imperial objective: the forceful removal of a regime that has resisted foreign domination since the 1979 revolution: a moment that humiliated American and Israeli power. In his view, this relentless campaign for regime change is not about democracy or human rights, but a colonial-minded pursuit to eliminate any independent threat and reassert hegemonic control over the region, a goal they have pursued without relent for decades.

Professor PLO Lumumba asserts that the core issue the United States and Israel have with Iran is its demonstrated capacity to serve as the only country in the Middle East with dangerous deterrent against Tel Aviv. This was proven during the 12 - Day War, which revealed Iran’s missile capabilities and its ability to conduct strikes within Israel, alongside its advancing nuclear potential. According to Lumumba, this formidable autonomy is what they truly seek to dismantle. He argues that under the pretext of sympathizing with Iranian protesters, they disguise a long-standing imperial objective: the forceful removal of a regime that has resisted foreign domination since the 1979 revolution: a moment that humiliated American and Israeli power. In his view, this relentless campaign for regime change is not about democracy or human rights, but a colonial-minded pursuit to eliminate any independent threat and reassert hegemonic control over the region, a goal they have pursued without relent for decades.

THEE ALFA HOUSE

21,181 views • 8 months ago

Joe Kent thinks Trump is turning into the president he promised America he would never be Trump didn't campaign on policing Lebanon, protecting shipping lanes for countries that refuse to protect themselves, or getting dragged back into another endless Middle East conflict. He campaigned for NO MORE WARS. The same foreign policy establishment that told America Iraq would be quick, Afghanistan would be worth it, Libya would become a democracy, and Ukraine could weaken Russia indefinitely is now telling Trump that one more push, one more deployment, one more round of pressure will finally solve Iran. Joe's warning is that he's heard this story before. He spent years inside the national security apparatus watching Washington promise that every new intervention would be the last one. It never was. Joe believes Trump knows the American people are exhausted, knows the Iran campaign failed to deliver the decisive victory many promised, and knows the country wants to move on. The problem, he argues, is that every time Trump tries to step back, the same forces pull him back in. The military offers another plan, the foreign policy establishment says victory is just one more strike away, and Israel argues the job isn't finished. That's the trap Joe kept coming back to. Not that Trump has changed, but that Washington is trying to change him. Because once you accept the logic that America has to stay just a little longer, spend just a little more, and escalate just one more time, you've already accepted the logic that kept the U.S. stuck in the Middle East for a generation. Joe Kent

Joe Kent thinks Trump is turning into the president he promised America he would never be Trump didn't campaign on policing Lebanon, protecting shipping lanes for countries that refuse to protect themselves, or getting dragged back into another endless Middle East conflict. He campaigned for NO MORE WARS. The same foreign policy establishment that told America Iraq would be quick, Afghanistan would be worth it, Libya would become a democracy, and Ukraine could weaken Russia indefinitely is now telling Trump that one more push, one more deployment, one more round of pressure will finally solve Iran. Joe's warning is that he's heard this story before. He spent years inside the national security apparatus watching Washington promise that every new intervention would be the last one. It never was. Joe believes Trump knows the American people are exhausted, knows the Iran campaign failed to deliver the decisive victory many promised, and knows the country wants to move on. The problem, he argues, is that every time Trump tries to step back, the same forces pull him back in. The military offers another plan, the foreign policy establishment says victory is just one more strike away, and Israel argues the job isn't finished. That's the trap Joe kept coming back to. Not that Trump has changed, but that Washington is trying to change him. Because once you accept the logic that America has to stay just a little longer, spend just a little more, and escalate just one more time, you've already accepted the logic that kept the U.S. stuck in the Middle East for a generation. Joe Kent

Mario Nawfal

258,906 views • 3 months ago

🇨🇳🇮🇷 China took over Iraq's oil after the American surge, and Washington's war is now handing it Iran the same way without a shot fired Two decades ago, while American troops surged into Iraq, Chinese petroleum engineers followed behind them. Today Iraqi oil runs on Chinese contracts. Peter Alexander, watching from Shanghai, expects Iran to be that story at a scale nobody has priced, because a regime whose only goal is survival will take the one partner that offers survival as a package: "overwhelming influence throughout the region without a single shot fired" The strain shows in one number. Oil in Shanghai now trades about $30 above Brent since the Saudi pipeline burned, and Beijing pays it without complaint, because certainty is the thing it buys. His advice for Washington is the hardest pill in the building. Stop pretending, treat China as a peer, and negotiate the next thirty years while there's still something to trade. Brandon Weichert

🇨🇳🇮🇷 China took over Iraq's oil after the American surge, and Washington's war is now handing it Iran the same way without a shot fired Two decades ago, while American troops surged into Iraq, Chinese petroleum engineers followed behind them. Today Iraqi oil runs on Chinese contracts. Peter Alexander, watching from Shanghai, expects Iran to be that story at a scale nobody has priced, because a regime whose only goal is survival will take the one partner that offers survival as a package: "overwhelming influence throughout the region without a single shot fired" The strain shows in one number. Oil in Shanghai now trades about $30 above Brent since the Saudi pipeline burned, and Beijing pays it without complaint, because certainty is the thing it buys. His advice for Washington is the hardest pill in the building. Stop pretending, treat China as a peer, and negotiate the next thirty years while there's still something to trade. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

262,368 views • 12 days ago

🚨🇮🇷EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: THE PRINCE OF IRAN VS. THE REGIME THAT DESTROYED HIS COUNTRY Before 1979, Iran was booming—one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, a U.S. ally, and a rising global power. Women had rights. The military was elite. The country was on track to become the Japan of the Middle East. Then, the revolution happened. Radical clerics seized power. The economy collapsed. Freedom vanished. Iran became a global pariah—funding terror, oppressing its people, and sinking into endless conflict. Now, after 45 years, the regime is weaker than ever. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi (Reza Pahlavi) reveals how Iran fell, and what it will take to finally bring down the Islamic Republic—before it’s too late. 02:08 – What was Iran really like before 1979? A nation on the rise, with a future that never came. 06:09 – How Iran went from a U.S. ally to one of the West’s greatest adversaries. 10:27 – "Iran should have been the South Korea of the Middle East—now it’s the North Korea." 12:32 – How did the country turn from a secular powerhouse into a theocratic dictatorship? 17:28 – "Why does the West still appease this regime? It has never worked." 19:06 – Did the Shah make fatal mistakes? Could history have taken a different path? 26:42 – Why have Iran’s protest movements failed? The key missing piece. 28:58 – The Iranian people are rediscovering their national identity—and the regime is terrified. 32:44 – Could a foreign power intervene? Should they? Who stands to gain? 36:06 – What would outside intervention look like? How far would it go? 40:16 – Could Iran strike a game-changing deal with the U.S. like Ukraine did? 49:43 – Has Reza Pahlavi had secret discussions about foreign support for Iranian protests? 57:03 – Why a free Iran wouldn’t just change the Middle East—it would change the world. 1:01:09 – Has Reza Pahlavi spoken to Russia and China about their support for the regime? 1:03:27 – If the U.S. and Russia become allies again, what does that mean for Iran? 1:06:14 – "This regime has devastated not just Iran, but the entire region." 1:09:54 – If the people wanted him to lead, would Reza Pahlavi step up? 1:13:25 – How close are Israel and Iran to all-out war? Is it inevitable? 1:20:56 – What does Reza Pahlavi think about Israel’s influence on global politics? 1:23:42 – If Pahlavi could sit with Trump and Putin, what would he tell them about Iran’s future?

🚨🇮🇷EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: THE PRINCE OF IRAN VS. THE REGIME THAT DESTROYED HIS COUNTRY Before 1979, Iran was booming—one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, a U.S. ally, and a rising global power. Women had rights. The military was elite. The country was on track to become the Japan of the Middle East. Then, the revolution happened. Radical clerics seized power. The economy collapsed. Freedom vanished. Iran became a global pariah—funding terror, oppressing its people, and sinking into endless conflict. Now, after 45 years, the regime is weaker than ever. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi (Reza Pahlavi) reveals how Iran fell, and what it will take to finally bring down the Islamic Republic—before it’s too late. 02:08 – What was Iran really like before 1979? A nation on the rise, with a future that never came. 06:09 – How Iran went from a U.S. ally to one of the West’s greatest adversaries. 10:27 – "Iran should have been the South Korea of the Middle East—now it’s the North Korea." 12:32 – How did the country turn from a secular powerhouse into a theocratic dictatorship? 17:28 – "Why does the West still appease this regime? It has never worked." 19:06 – Did the Shah make fatal mistakes? Could history have taken a different path? 26:42 – Why have Iran’s protest movements failed? The key missing piece. 28:58 – The Iranian people are rediscovering their national identity—and the regime is terrified. 32:44 – Could a foreign power intervene? Should they? Who stands to gain? 36:06 – What would outside intervention look like? How far would it go? 40:16 – Could Iran strike a game-changing deal with the U.S. like Ukraine did? 49:43 – Has Reza Pahlavi had secret discussions about foreign support for Iranian protests? 57:03 – Why a free Iran wouldn’t just change the Middle East—it would change the world. 1:01:09 – Has Reza Pahlavi spoken to Russia and China about their support for the regime? 1:03:27 – If the U.S. and Russia become allies again, what does that mean for Iran? 1:06:14 – "This regime has devastated not just Iran, but the entire region." 1:09:54 – If the people wanted him to lead, would Reza Pahlavi step up? 1:13:25 – How close are Israel and Iran to all-out war? Is it inevitable? 1:20:56 – What does Reza Pahlavi think about Israel’s influence on global politics? 1:23:42 – If Pahlavi could sit with Trump and Putin, what would he tell them about Iran’s future?

Mario Nawfal

3,639,544 views • 1 year ago