正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍: "𝐈 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐈𝐒𝐑𝐀𝐄𝐋 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐎𝐍" Victor Davis Hanson just laid out the most airtight strategic case for American support of Israel you'll hear — and it has nothing to do with theology, lobbying, or "Christian Zionism." He opens with a disarming admission: "𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵... 𝘢 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘡𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘐 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺." Hanson grew up on a farm in rural California and didn't meet a Jewish person until he was 18 years old at UC Santa Cruz. No hidden agenda. No tribal loyalty. Just cold strategy. His first exhibit: the 2012 joint missile defense program with Poland and the Czech Republic. It wasn't built to stop Russia's 7,000 nuclear warheads — it was designed to shield 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. NATO understood that Tehran was hell-bent on a nuclear weapon and Europe was within range of its advancing missile program. That's how seriously the West took the Iranian threat — before Israel ever entered the conversation. Then Barack Obama traded it away. Caught on a hot mic telling Dmitry Medvedev he'd be "𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦" if Putin gave him "𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦" before the election. Both kept the bargain — Putin held off, Obama got re-elected, and Europe's shield against Iran got scrapped. Continental security, surrendered for domestic political convenience. Hanson's broader point is devastating. Iran didn't become America's enemy because of Israel. Iran became America's enemy because 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 k!𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬. The 1979 embassy seizure. The 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing that took 𝟐𝟒𝟏 American lives. The shaped charges — explosively formed penetrators — that Iran funneled to Shia militias in Iraq. The Pentagon's own revised assessment puts the toll at 𝟔𝟎𝟑 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 k!lled by Iran-backed forces in Iraq alone — one in every six American combat d∗aths in that war (Pentagon, 2019 revised estimate). None of that had anything to do with Israel. That was Iran waging war on America directly. Then comes the democracy argument. The United States consistently aligns with consensual governments — NATO, Japan, South Korea, Australia. Israel is the only fully democratic government in a region of 𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, Shia and Sunni, Iranian and Arab, that share no such tradition. It has natural strategic affinities with the United States that, as Hanson puts it, "𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 7 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘴." And here's where VDH drops the hammer on the hypocrisy. The U.S. sends $𝟏.𝟑 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 a year to Egypt (State Department). Over $𝟏.𝟕 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 a year to Jordan (Congressional Research Service). We provide military assistance to Erdogan's Turkey — a NATO member that still 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐂𝐲𝐩𝐫𝐮𝐬 and is far from consensual. Nobody marches in the streets over any of that. But military aid to the one democracy in the Middle East that shares our exact enemies? Suddenly it's controversial. "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭," Hanson concludes, "𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵." 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫.show more

M.A. Rothman

93,396 subscribers

136,475 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

This is the most important monologue Tucker Carlson has ever made. The United States is engaged in this conflict with Iran simply because Bibi Netanyahu and the state government of Israel forced our hand. Secretary of State Marco Rubio let this slip also, revealing this truth. Israel made the decision to topple the Ayatollah to initiate regime change in Iran. This has been a primary objective for Bibi Netanyahu for this entire political career. Israel made the decision to do this, whether the United States was involved or not. America, and Trump, was then left with three choices, and this is where things get interesting: 1) We involve ourselves to moderate the conflict, make sure Israel doesn't get out of hand, and protect American assets (people and resources) in the region. 2) We say no, America will not be involved. Israel topples the regime, and puts American assets at risk without any US moderation. Threat of escalation throughout entire region (WWIII) and loss of American assets a likely outcome. ...and here is the last option Tucker mentions which no one ever considered. Why? We'll get to that... 3) We completely oppose Israel moving on Iran. We tell them that if they do it, they'll be cut off. We end the American and Israeli alliance, and regime change doesn't happen in Iran. The last US president to pursue this third option opposing the interests of Israel? John F Kennedy. He never got to see it through, because he was killed. Lyndon B. Johnson took over and allowed Israel to continue building it's nuclear program Kennedy opposed. Why is option three not considered? Zionism. Too many within American politics and government believe that America can never turn on Israel because then they would be cursed by God. This is the problem with Zionism, and why it has real, serious implications on whether prudent decisions are made in America's best interests when it comes to the nation state of Israel. Finally, Bibi knows the influence and pressure Trump is under from Zionists within our government and media, and he leveraged that influence to get us involved in this conflict with Iran.

This is the most important monologue Tucker Carlson has ever made. The United States is engaged in this conflict with Iran simply because Bibi Netanyahu and the state government of Israel forced our hand. Secretary of State Marco Rubio let this slip also, revealing this truth. Israel made the decision to topple the Ayatollah to initiate regime change in Iran. This has been a primary objective for Bibi Netanyahu for this entire political career. Israel made the decision to do this, whether the United States was involved or not. America, and Trump, was then left with three choices, and this is where things get interesting: 1) We involve ourselves to moderate the conflict, make sure Israel doesn't get out of hand, and protect American assets (people and resources) in the region. 2) We say no, America will not be involved. Israel topples the regime, and puts American assets at risk without any US moderation. Threat of escalation throughout entire region (WWIII) and loss of American assets a likely outcome. ...and here is the last option Tucker mentions which no one ever considered. Why? We'll get to that... 3) We completely oppose Israel moving on Iran. We tell them that if they do it, they'll be cut off. We end the American and Israeli alliance, and regime change doesn't happen in Iran. The last US president to pursue this third option opposing the interests of Israel? John F Kennedy. He never got to see it through, because he was killed. Lyndon B. Johnson took over and allowed Israel to continue building it's nuclear program Kennedy opposed. Why is option three not considered? Zionism. Too many within American politics and government believe that America can never turn on Israel because then they would be cursed by God. This is the problem with Zionism, and why it has real, serious implications on whether prudent decisions are made in America's best interests when it comes to the nation state of Israel. Finally, Bibi knows the influence and pressure Trump is under from Zionists within our government and media, and he leveraged that influence to get us involved in this conflict with Iran.

Zach Costello

186,368 次观看 • 6 个月前

𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗦𝗔𝗬𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗧𝗢𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗗𝗟𝗬 𝗧𝗢 𝗦𝗔𝗬 "I support Israel for one reason. It is in the interest of my country." No sentiment. No religion. No guilt. Pure American national interest. And then he backs it up with a story most people have completely forgotten. In 2012, the U.S. was building a joint missile defense system with Poland and the Czech Republic. You might think that was about Russia. It wasn't. 𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻. NATO was terrified. Unlike the U.S., Europe sat within range of Iran's growing missile program. And Iran was hell-bent on going nuclear. Then Obama got caught on a hot mic telling Medvedev to give him "space" until after his reelection — and he'd be "flexible" on missile defense. Translation: 𝘩𝘦'𝘥 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘶𝘱. Putin didn't invade. Obama got reelected. And the missile defense program disappeared. Europe lost its Iran shield because of a backroom deal between an American president and a Russian strongman. Here's the fact that never gets mentioned in polite company: 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 k!lled 𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀 — 𝗶𝗳 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 — 𝗮𝘀 𝗜-𝗦-𝗜-𝗦 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹-𝗤𝗮𝗲𝗱𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱. Through proxies, through IEDs in Iraq, through H-z-b and its global terror network. Iran is not a regional nuisance. It is America's most persistent state-level enemy. Supporting Israel isn't about sentiment. It's about keeping the one stable, capable, battle-tested ally in the region standing between American interests and the regime in Tehran. 𝗩𝗗𝗛 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘂𝗽. 𝗛𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵.

𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗢𝗡 𝗦𝗔𝗬𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗠𝗢𝗦𝗧 𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗡𝗦 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗧𝗢𝗢 𝗖𝗢𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗗𝗟𝗬 𝗧𝗢 𝗦𝗔𝗬 "I support Israel for one reason. It is in the interest of my country." No sentiment. No religion. No guilt. Pure American national interest. And then he backs it up with a story most people have completely forgotten. In 2012, the U.S. was building a joint missile defense system with Poland and the Czech Republic. You might think that was about Russia. It wasn't. 𝗜𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻. NATO was terrified. Unlike the U.S., Europe sat within range of Iran's growing missile program. And Iran was hell-bent on going nuclear. Then Obama got caught on a hot mic telling Medvedev to give him "space" until after his reelection — and he'd be "flexible" on missile defense. Translation: 𝘩𝘦'𝘥 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘶𝘱. Putin didn't invade. Obama got reelected. And the missile defense program disappeared. Europe lost its Iran shield because of a backroom deal between an American president and a Russian strongman. Here's the fact that never gets mentioned in polite company: 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗮𝘀 k!lled 𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘀 — 𝗶𝗳 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 — 𝗮𝘀 𝗜-𝗦-𝗜-𝗦 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹-𝗤𝗮𝗲𝗱𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱. Through proxies, through IEDs in Iraq, through H-z-b and its global terror network. Iran is not a regional nuisance. It is America's most persistent state-level enemy. Supporting Israel isn't about sentiment. It's about keeping the one stable, capable, battle-tested ally in the region standing between American interests and the regime in Tehran. 𝗩𝗗𝗛 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘂𝗽. 𝗛𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵.

M.A. Rothman

164,678 次观看 • 5 个月前

🔎OF INTEREST Thomas Massie: "The real reason that we conducted those [2025] strikes on Iran is because they were building up enough conventional missiles, not nuclear missiles...[to] overwhelm Israel's missile defense" "It was a calculation made by Israel" "then [there was] a decision to assist them in the task of reducing those inventories" "I think what happened is a few months later there was more intelligence and Israel and the United States... decided... 'Oh, we didn't actually deplete enough conventional missiles... to eliminate the threat of Iran completely from Israel" This clip of Massie (Thomas Massie) is taken from an interview with James Patrick (James Patrick) posted to YouTube on May 21, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "The war with Iran serves a strategic purpose, but not for the United States, it's for Israel. Last summer, when, you know, there was the strikes that lasted very briefly, the public argument was that we were taking out their nuclear capability. And then we declared that we had obliterated it and set them back years. "But merely six months later, it was necessary again to obliterate their nuclear capability, or so we were told. That argument's getting old. "The real reason that we conducted those strikes on Iran is because they were building up enough conventional missiles, not nuclear missiles, but conventional missiles. Israel had calculated, and perhaps our own intelligence, that they could overwhelm Israel's missile defense, by just shooting them, by mere production, mass production of these missiles. "It was, I believe it was an effort to reduce the stockpiles of conventional medium-range missiles in Iran so that they couldn't overwhelm Israel. It was a calculation made by Israel and then a decision to assist them in the task of reducing those inventories. "And I think what happened is a few months later there was more intelligence and Israel and the United States realized they hadn't really, the nuclear capability notwithstanding, maybe it's still buried in a mountain somewhere, and they just have to dig it out from the first bombing. "But that, notwithstanding, I think what they decided was, 'Oh, we didn't actually deplete enough conventional missiles, conventional, with conventional warheads and medium-range to eliminate the threat of Iran completely from Israel."

🔎OF INTEREST Thomas Massie: "The real reason that we conducted those [2025] strikes on Iran is because they were building up enough conventional missiles, not nuclear missiles...[to] overwhelm Israel's missile defense" "It was a calculation made by Israel" "then [there was] a decision to assist them in the task of reducing those inventories" "I think what happened is a few months later there was more intelligence and Israel and the United States... decided... 'Oh, we didn't actually deplete enough conventional missiles... to eliminate the threat of Iran completely from Israel" This clip of Massie (Thomas Massie) is taken from an interview with James Patrick (James Patrick) posted to YouTube on May 21, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip---------------- "The war with Iran serves a strategic purpose, but not for the United States, it's for Israel. Last summer, when, you know, there was the strikes that lasted very briefly, the public argument was that we were taking out their nuclear capability. And then we declared that we had obliterated it and set them back years. "But merely six months later, it was necessary again to obliterate their nuclear capability, or so we were told. That argument's getting old. "The real reason that we conducted those strikes on Iran is because they were building up enough conventional missiles, not nuclear missiles, but conventional missiles. Israel had calculated, and perhaps our own intelligence, that they could overwhelm Israel's missile defense, by just shooting them, by mere production, mass production of these missiles. "It was, I believe it was an effort to reduce the stockpiles of conventional medium-range missiles in Iran so that they couldn't overwhelm Israel. It was a calculation made by Israel and then a decision to assist them in the task of reducing those inventories. "And I think what happened is a few months later there was more intelligence and Israel and the United States realized they hadn't really, the nuclear capability notwithstanding, maybe it's still buried in a mountain somewhere, and they just have to dig it out from the first bombing. "But that, notwithstanding, I think what they decided was, 'Oh, we didn't actually deplete enough conventional missiles, conventional, with conventional warheads and medium-range to eliminate the threat of Iran completely from Israel."

Sense Receptor

33,783 次观看 • 3 个月前

Jeffrey Sachs: We fought trillions of dollars worth of wars at the behest of the Israel Lobby, at the behest of Netanyahu. Netanyahu was the great cheerleader for the Iraq War. He was the great cheerleader for overthrowing Syria. He’s been the cheerleader for a war with Iran that he’s just desperate to have this coming week, and I mean it literally. Where is Western civilization when Israel is massacring tens of thousands of people before our eyes, blowing up the housing, the hospitals, the clinics, the infrastructure of Gaza, then, now bombing indiscriminately Beirut—in fact, all parts of Lebanon—they were just bombing the port of Tyre, and Netanyahu’s talking about expanding the war to Iran. Of course, he can’t do it other than the United States getting into a war with Iran which would be a complete disaster—and a disaster for Israel—though it’s the one that Netanyahu is egging on. It is a pervasive view around the world that I am hearing every single day that there are no Western values because we see a genocide unfolding in Gaza, we see absolutely zero will of the US government to reign in what Israel is doing, though everything that Israel is doing depends on the US bombs, the US weapon systems, the US financing. This is a US operation being carried out by Israel but with complete complicity by the United States and silence by Europe. This is now the common parlance around the world. I’m asked all the time, ‘What is your government doing? How can it stand by when Israel is committing these crimes?’ It’s an amazing question. It’s so stark. It’s such a profound failure of American politics that it is like this. Netanyahu has been leading the United States into disaster after disaster after disaster. And he still shows up to Congress—which takes money from the Israel Lobby—and he gets 50 standing ovations. After the Iraq war, after all the wars that he has led us into, the massive debts that he has caused, the massive loss of life that he’s caused, the increasing instability that he’s caused, he gets applause in the US Congress because they are simply on the take.

Jeffrey Sachs: We fought trillions of dollars worth of wars at the behest of the Israel Lobby, at the behest of Netanyahu. Netanyahu was the great cheerleader for the Iraq War. He was the great cheerleader for overthrowing Syria. He’s been the cheerleader for a war with Iran that he’s just desperate to have this coming week, and I mean it literally. Where is Western civilization when Israel is massacring tens of thousands of people before our eyes, blowing up the housing, the hospitals, the clinics, the infrastructure of Gaza, then, now bombing indiscriminately Beirut—in fact, all parts of Lebanon—they were just bombing the port of Tyre, and Netanyahu’s talking about expanding the war to Iran. Of course, he can’t do it other than the United States getting into a war with Iran which would be a complete disaster—and a disaster for Israel—though it’s the one that Netanyahu is egging on. It is a pervasive view around the world that I am hearing every single day that there are no Western values because we see a genocide unfolding in Gaza, we see absolutely zero will of the US government to reign in what Israel is doing, though everything that Israel is doing depends on the US bombs, the US weapon systems, the US financing. This is a US operation being carried out by Israel but with complete complicity by the United States and silence by Europe. This is now the common parlance around the world. I’m asked all the time, ‘What is your government doing? How can it stand by when Israel is committing these crimes?’ It’s an amazing question. It’s so stark. It’s such a profound failure of American politics that it is like this. Netanyahu has been leading the United States into disaster after disaster after disaster. And he still shows up to Congress—which takes money from the Israel Lobby—and he gets 50 standing ovations. After the Iraq war, after all the wars that he has led us into, the massive debts that he has caused, the massive loss of life that he’s caused, the increasing instability that he’s caused, he gets applause in the US Congress because they are simply on the take.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

504,093 次观看 • 1 年前

𝐕𝐃𝐇: 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐀 𝐇𝐀𝐋𝐅 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐘. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐀 𝐖𝐎𝐍'𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋 𝐘𝐎𝐔. Victor Davis Hanson just did what no one in legacy media will do. He looked at the Iran war empirically. The verdict isn't close. Iran — 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, the largest military power in the Middle East by every measure, feared by the Gulf monarchies and Europeans alike — has just suffered one of the most lopsided asymmetric defeats in modern history. Hanson: "𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘢𝘳, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵." The scorecard: Iran has lost 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — possibly 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 — in a half-century of investment in missiles, drones, submarines, and capital ships. Gone. Their command and control is "𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳." Nobody — not the theocracy, not the IRGC, not the political class, not the army — knows who's actually in charge. They're afraid of each other. They're afraid to look soft. And they're afraid that cutting a deal means "𝘸𝘦'𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦'𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦." Meanwhile, the American left spent one day calling Trump a warmonger and a "𝘏𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦." The next day, after he announced negotiations, they called him a "𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘰" — a Neville Chamberlain, a Jimmy Carter. Hanson nailed the pathology. They don't analyze the war empirically. They analyze it politically. In his words, Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol "𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱." 𝟏𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 are in that theater right now. Risking their lives to make sure Iran never puts a nuclear-tipped missile on Tel Aviv, London, or eventually Chicago. And half the political class is 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 because of who's in the Oval Office. Read that again. And the losers don't stop at Tehran. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚: no more Venezuela. No more Latin America. No more Middle East. Assad is gone. The drone pipeline with Iran is severed. Bogged down in Ukraine, bleeding over a million and a half casualties. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚: took 80 percent of all Iranian oil. That pipeline is now contingent on the United States. And Beijing just watched America broadcast to the world that it's about to mass-produce a half-million to a million drones. Any fantasy of crossing 110 nautical miles to take Taiwan just got a lot more expensive. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, in Hanson's words, is "𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳." We asked them for bases and airspace. That was it. Spain closed its embassy in Israel — "𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘚𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵." France wouldn't let us use its airpower or clean up H-z-b in Lebanon, its own post-colonial responsibility. Italy wouldn't let our bombers land in Sicily. The United Kingdom — the nation that built the Royal Navy — "𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘳" to protect its own base in Cyprus. Turkey, a NATO member, is openly siding with Iran and threatening a NATO partner, Israel. Hanson's verdict: "𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖, 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺." Going forward, the United States will pick and choose which NATO members are actually worth the alliance. The rest are "𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦." And the Strait of Hormuz? The left spent two weeks shrieking that closure would end the world. Reality: it carries 𝟐𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 of world oil, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝟖𝟎. The Saudis are expanding their Red Sea pipeline. The Emirates are expanding theirs. A pipeline across the desert through Jordan to Haifa is on the table. Within a few years, the Gulf "𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯." Their leverage becomes their liability. If the war ends in two or three weeks, Hanson estimates seven months to economic recovery. Then comes the realization. Iran is not threatening the Middle East. Iran has no ballistic missile threat. Iran has no immediate path to a nuclear weapon. Iran has no military. Its command and control is wiped out. Its population is stewing. "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘭." Not the next day. Not the next month. But within months — or within two years, like the Soviet Union — regime change. This war was fought on Western American terms. No Fallujah. No house-to-house in Taji. No villages in Afghanistan where you can't tell friend from enemy. The asymmetry — by design — was total. The 24-hour news cycle will keep shrieking. The Democrat-media borg will keep cycling through whichever narrative hurts Trump most that morning. But the map has already been redrawn. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬.

𝐕𝐃𝐇: 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐀 𝐇𝐀𝐋𝐅 𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐃𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐑𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐘. 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐀 𝐖𝐎𝐍'𝐓 𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋 𝐘𝐎𝐔. Victor Davis Hanson just did what no one in legacy media will do. He looked at the Iran war empirically. The verdict isn't close. Iran — 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, the largest military power in the Middle East by every measure, feared by the Gulf monarchies and Europeans alike — has just suffered one of the most lopsided asymmetric defeats in modern history. Hanson: "𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘢𝘳, 𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵." The scorecard: Iran has lost 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 — possibly 𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 — in a half-century of investment in missiles, drones, submarines, and capital ships. Gone. Their command and control is "𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘳." Nobody — not the theocracy, not the IRGC, not the political class, not the army — knows who's actually in charge. They're afraid of each other. They're afraid to look soft. And they're afraid that cutting a deal means "𝘸𝘦'𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦'𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦." Meanwhile, the American left spent one day calling Trump a warmonger and a "𝘏𝘪𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦." The next day, after he announced negotiations, they called him a "𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘰" — a Neville Chamberlain, a Jimmy Carter. Hanson nailed the pathology. They don't analyze the war empirically. They analyze it politically. In his words, Tom Friedman and Bill Kristol "𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘋𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘥 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱." 𝟏𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 are in that theater right now. Risking their lives to make sure Iran never puts a nuclear-tipped missile on Tel Aviv, London, or eventually Chicago. And half the political class is 𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 because of who's in the Oval Office. Read that again. And the losers don't stop at Tehran. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚: no more Venezuela. No more Latin America. No more Middle East. Assad is gone. The drone pipeline with Iran is severed. Bogged down in Ukraine, bleeding over a million and a half casualties. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚: took 80 percent of all Iranian oil. That pipeline is now contingent on the United States. And Beijing just watched America broadcast to the world that it's about to mass-produce a half-million to a million drones. Any fantasy of crossing 110 nautical miles to take Taiwan just got a lot more expensive. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, in Hanson's words, is "𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘳." We asked them for bases and airspace. That was it. Spain closed its embassy in Israel — "𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘚𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵." France wouldn't let us use its airpower or clean up H-z-b in Lebanon, its own post-colonial responsibility. Italy wouldn't let our bombers land in Sicily. The United Kingdom — the nation that built the Royal Navy — "𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘳" to protect its own base in Cyprus. Turkey, a NATO member, is openly siding with Iran and threatening a NATO partner, Israel. Hanson's verdict: "𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘕𝘈𝘛𝘖, 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺." Going forward, the United States will pick and choose which NATO members are actually worth the alliance. The rest are "𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘦." And the Strait of Hormuz? The left spent two weeks shrieking that closure would end the world. Reality: it carries 𝟐𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 of world oil, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝟖𝟎. The Saudis are expanding their Red Sea pipeline. The Emirates are expanding theirs. A pipeline across the desert through Jordan to Haifa is on the table. Within a few years, the Gulf "𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯." Their leverage becomes their liability. If the war ends in two or three weeks, Hanson estimates seven months to economic recovery. Then comes the realization. Iran is not threatening the Middle East. Iran has no ballistic missile threat. Iran has no immediate path to a nuclear weapon. Iran has no military. Its command and control is wiped out. Its population is stewing. "𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘯 𝘞𝘢𝘭𝘭." Not the next day. Not the next month. But within months — or within two years, like the Soviet Union — regime change. This war was fought on Western American terms. No Fallujah. No house-to-house in Taji. No villages in Afghanistan where you can't tell friend from enemy. The asymmetry — by design — was total. The 24-hour news cycle will keep shrieking. The Democrat-media borg will keep cycling through whichever narrative hurts Trump most that morning. But the map has already been redrawn. 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝. 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐝. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬.

M.A. Rothman

190,641 次观看 • 4 个月前

Dear Frens… 🐸 This is why I cannot get on board with America going to war with Iran, on behalf of Israel, “our greatest ally”. Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb since the early 1990s. These claims have been voiced repeatedly over the years, with notable statements from Israeli officials, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in 1992, 1995, 2002, 2009, 2012, 2018, and 2019, among others. For instance, in 1995, In his 1995 book Fighting Terrorism, Netanyahu warned that Iran was a few years from assembling a nuclear weapon. This timeline spans over three decades. 🔴 ADDITIONALLY, I cannot ignore the infamous "7 Years, Five Wars, ‘Clean Break’ Strategy” that General Wesley Clark told us about, directed by Israel post 9/11. • Barack Obama Ordered the CIA to Overthrow Assad (Syria), part of a 7 Year “Clean Break” Strategy, Directed by Israel • Why would Obama want to overthrow Assad (Syria)? —— because Israel has run American Foreign Policy in the Middle East over the Last 30+ Years. —— Netenyahu wants to create a “Greater Israel” • Syria was in no way a threat to the United States, but was deemed a threat by Israel, because Netenyahu wants to rule over all of Palestine. • The only war that hasn’t happened yet, that is on Israel’s hit-list, is Iran…. —— Look how eager Netenyahu, the MSM, and certain shady US Politicians have been to go to war with Iran… • 10 days after 9/11, one of the Generals called him in and said we’ve made the decision to go to war with Iraq. —— I said why? He said…. I don’t know. He said, I guess they don’t know what else to do. • “Weeks later, I asked are we still going to war with Iraq? “ —— “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years.” (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran) IRAN is the last country left in that plan. I’m sorry… I once fell for the need to go to war with Iraq because Netanyahu and George Bush said they had WMD’s… which they never found. I will not fall for that again. Jeffrey Sachs Clip General Wesley Clark Clip

Dear Frens… 🐸 This is why I cannot get on board with America going to war with Iran, on behalf of Israel, “our greatest ally”. Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb since the early 1990s. These claims have been voiced repeatedly over the years, with notable statements from Israeli officials, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in 1992, 1995, 2002, 2009, 2012, 2018, and 2019, among others. For instance, in 1995, In his 1995 book Fighting Terrorism, Netanyahu warned that Iran was a few years from assembling a nuclear weapon. This timeline spans over three decades. 🔴 ADDITIONALLY, I cannot ignore the infamous "7 Years, Five Wars, ‘Clean Break’ Strategy” that General Wesley Clark told us about, directed by Israel post 9/11. • Barack Obama Ordered the CIA to Overthrow Assad (Syria), part of a 7 Year “Clean Break” Strategy, Directed by Israel • Why would Obama want to overthrow Assad (Syria)? —— because Israel has run American Foreign Policy in the Middle East over the Last 30+ Years. —— Netenyahu wants to create a “Greater Israel” • Syria was in no way a threat to the United States, but was deemed a threat by Israel, because Netenyahu wants to rule over all of Palestine. • The only war that hasn’t happened yet, that is on Israel’s hit-list, is Iran…. —— Look how eager Netenyahu, the MSM, and certain shady US Politicians have been to go to war with Iran… • 10 days after 9/11, one of the Generals called him in and said we’ve made the decision to go to war with Iraq. —— I said why? He said…. I don’t know. He said, I guess they don’t know what else to do. • “Weeks later, I asked are we still going to war with Iraq? “ —— “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years.” (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran) IRAN is the last country left in that plan. I’m sorry… I once fell for the need to go to war with Iraq because Netanyahu and George Bush said they had WMD’s… which they never found. I will not fall for that again. Jeffrey Sachs Clip General Wesley Clark Clip

MJTruthUltra

92,057 次观看 • 1 年前

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: "We have a deep state. The CIA is the main continuation agency of that deep state and it carries a basic foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States since 1945 was to destroy the Soviet Union and then, after 1991, to try to do the same with Russia and if not destroy it to fundamentally weaken it. In the case of the Middle East, there is a list General Wesley Clark provided that Israel, Netanyahu and his U.S. backers set out already in the 1990s. It said our job is to overthrow all of those governments, and we've been at that for more than 20 years... It started with Iraq. The list named Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Somalia. Now I want people to understand the United States or its proxies have launched wars in six of those seven countries. That was a list agreed in 2001 based on a list from 1996 when Netanyahu came into office. His theory was Israel needs to be able to do what it wants to dominate the Palestinian people. So we need to overthrow all governments that support the Palestinians, especially that support them in militancy through Hamas or Hezbollah or other units Rather than negotiating with the Palestinians so that there's a Palestinian state, we will overthrow seven countries. Now that's what has happened. There's one left on that list, that's Iran... It's six out of seven right now."

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: "We have a deep state. The CIA is the main continuation agency of that deep state and it carries a basic foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United States since 1945 was to destroy the Soviet Union and then, after 1991, to try to do the same with Russia and if not destroy it to fundamentally weaken it. In the case of the Middle East, there is a list General Wesley Clark provided that Israel, Netanyahu and his U.S. backers set out already in the 1990s. It said our job is to overthrow all of those governments, and we've been at that for more than 20 years... It started with Iraq. The list named Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Somalia. Now I want people to understand the United States or its proxies have launched wars in six of those seven countries. That was a list agreed in 2001 based on a list from 1996 when Netanyahu came into office. His theory was Israel needs to be able to do what it wants to dominate the Palestinian people. So we need to overthrow all governments that support the Palestinians, especially that support them in militancy through Hamas or Hezbollah or other units Rather than negotiating with the Palestinians so that there's a Palestinian state, we will overthrow seven countries. Now that's what has happened. There's one left on that list, that's Iran... It's six out of seven right now."

COMBATE |🇵🇷

233,151 次观看 • 1 年前

The media hall monitors will be sorely vexed tonight: CBS's Tony Dokoupil lays out a partial timeline of Iranian hostilities, and (CORRECTLY) cites the 1979 hostage taking as the start of Iran's war against the United States. A refreshing alternative to the mindless parroting of the Dems' dopey "war of choice" narrative. TONY DOKOUPIL: If you're looking for an origin point of this current war, don't look to the earliest hours of this Saturday. Look back to November 4, 1979. That was the day Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, capturing 52 Americans and parading them in blindfolds for the whole world to see. WALTER CRONKITE: A new and daring element was disclosed today in the Iran crisis. DOKOUPIL: For the next 444 days they were held captive, the tally kept nightly by Walter Cronkite. Finally, the hostages were released but that wasn't the end of the story either. Far more bloodshed was to come. In 1983, 241 U.S. service members were killed in their barracks by an Iran-backed suicide bomber in Beirut. Americans can argue, and they are, over whether this is a war of necessity. But what's clear from the history is that the fuse of this explosion is 50 years long. And has included the loss of thousands of American and Iranian lives. Every president since Carter has tried to end this conflict. In 2015, President Barack Obama announced a deal to stall Iran's nuclear ambitions, a deal that President Trump replaced with a campaign of maximum pressure, and now military might. DONALD TRUMP: Today the United States military continues to carry out large-scale combat operations in Iran, to eliminate the grave threats posed to America by this terrible terrorist regime. Tony: That history is why the president’s allies in Congress say he hasn’t started a war with Iran- he is finishing one.

The media hall monitors will be sorely vexed tonight: CBS's Tony Dokoupil lays out a partial timeline of Iranian hostilities, and (CORRECTLY) cites the 1979 hostage taking as the start of Iran's war against the United States. A refreshing alternative to the mindless parroting of the Dems' dopey "war of choice" narrative. TONY DOKOUPIL: If you're looking for an origin point of this current war, don't look to the earliest hours of this Saturday. Look back to November 4, 1979. That was the day Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, capturing 52 Americans and parading them in blindfolds for the whole world to see. WALTER CRONKITE: A new and daring element was disclosed today in the Iran crisis. DOKOUPIL: For the next 444 days they were held captive, the tally kept nightly by Walter Cronkite. Finally, the hostages were released but that wasn't the end of the story either. Far more bloodshed was to come. In 1983, 241 U.S. service members were killed in their barracks by an Iran-backed suicide bomber in Beirut. Americans can argue, and they are, over whether this is a war of necessity. But what's clear from the history is that the fuse of this explosion is 50 years long. And has included the loss of thousands of American and Iranian lives. Every president since Carter has tried to end this conflict. In 2015, President Barack Obama announced a deal to stall Iran's nuclear ambitions, a deal that President Trump replaced with a campaign of maximum pressure, and now military might. DONALD TRUMP: Today the United States military continues to carry out large-scale combat operations in Iran, to eliminate the grave threats posed to America by this terrible terrorist regime. Tony: That history is why the president’s allies in Congress say he hasn’t started a war with Iran- he is finishing one.

Jorge Bonilla

99,573 次观看 • 6 个月前

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👇

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨’LAWLESS war on Iran showed the further DECLINE OF US🇺🇸 EMPIRE.’ —Retired US Air Force Lt. Col. William J. Astore ‘I see this as another sign that my country, the United States, is in further decline. And we see this because of the enormous amount of money that we are expending on the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex. I thought $1 trillion for the Pentagon was obscene, but now we’re talking about $1.5 trillion, another $500 billion more in the next fiscal year. And one of the ways that we’re justifying that is of course this war with Iran, which there was no reason for. Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States, certainly no existential threat. From the Iranian perspective, it’s nuclear-armed Israel and nuclear-armed America that poses a potential existential threat. So the long-term consequences of this, well, to be determined. But for me, it’s witnessing the decline of the American empire and the decline of democracy in my country. And it deeply saddens me to see this because this war against Iran is another unconstitutional war. It’s a lawless war.’ Watch the full interview in the quoted post below 👇

🚨’LAWLESS war on Iran showed the further DECLINE OF US🇺🇸 EMPIRE.’ —Retired US Air Force Lt. Col. William J. Astore ‘I see this as another sign that my country, the United States, is in further decline. And we see this because of the enormous amount of money that we are expending on the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex. I thought $1 trillion for the Pentagon was obscene, but now we’re talking about $1.5 trillion, another $500 billion more in the next fiscal year. And one of the ways that we’re justifying that is of course this war with Iran, which there was no reason for. Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States, certainly no existential threat. From the Iranian perspective, it’s nuclear-armed Israel and nuclear-armed America that poses a potential existential threat. So the long-term consequences of this, well, to be determined. But for me, it’s witnessing the decline of the American empire and the decline of democracy in my country. And it deeply saddens me to see this because this war against Iran is another unconstitutional war. It’s a lawless war.’ Watch the full interview in the quoted post below 👇

Going Underground

28,623 次观看 • 4 个月前

The Trump administration signing a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia while simultaneously fighting a war, which they claim is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is peak Western hypocrisy. What’s really going on here is the US government is serving the interests of capital as this multi-billion-dollar deal establishes a framework for American corporations and billionaires to get rich off developing Saudi Arabia’s nuclear infrastructure. So why can Saudi Arabia (and Israel) have nukes but Iran can’t? Because Iran is one of the only countries in the region that actually resists US imperialism and Israeli genocide. It’s also important to point out that Iran was not close to obtaining a nuke. That’s just the lie they used to sell this war, which is also the same lie they used to sell the Iraq war. Now here’s most ironic part of all of this: If you actually want peace in the region (and world) then Iran should have a nuclear weapon because it is the only thing that will deter the United States and Israel from waging endless wars in the Middle East to steal oil and land as they have been doing for decades now.

The Trump administration signing a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia while simultaneously fighting a war, which they claim is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is peak Western hypocrisy. What’s really going on here is the US government is serving the interests of capital as this multi-billion-dollar deal establishes a framework for American corporations and billionaires to get rich off developing Saudi Arabia’s nuclear infrastructure. So why can Saudi Arabia (and Israel) have nukes but Iran can’t? Because Iran is one of the only countries in the region that actually resists US imperialism and Israeli genocide. It’s also important to point out that Iran was not close to obtaining a nuke. That’s just the lie they used to sell this war, which is also the same lie they used to sell the Iraq war. Now here’s most ironic part of all of this: If you actually want peace in the region (and world) then Iran should have a nuclear weapon because it is the only thing that will deter the United States and Israel from waging endless wars in the Middle East to steal oil and land as they have been doing for decades now.

Power to the People ☭🕊

15,939 次观看 • 1 个月前

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.

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 次观看 • 8 个月前

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

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 次观看 • 3 个月前

There’s a narrative circulating that Israel dragged the United States into war with Iran, that this is Israel’s war. That claim is not just wrong, it completely misunderands what the entire conflict is all about. Let me explain. For decades, every American president, Republican and Democrat, has said the exact same thing, The Islamic regime in Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. And yet Iran continued enriching uranium while simultaneously building one of the largest ballistic missile arsenals in the region. So you have to ask a simple question, Why would an oil-rich country need both highly enriched uranium and long-range ballistic missile systems capable of delivering warheads across continents? Those two programs together tell you exactly what the regime has been preparing for. During recent negotiations, Iran acknowledged that it had enough enriched uranium for eleven nuclear bombs. At the same time, it refused to dismantle its enrichment program and continued expanding its missile and drone capabilities. In other words, Iran was not backing down. Over the past few years, Iran has embedded itself deeply into China’s strategic architecture. Iran became China’s backdoor to the Middle East. China now buys the vast majority of Iran’s oil exports, effectively keeping the regime alive. In return, Iran has become a strategic foothold for Chinese power projection, positioned at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important energy checkpoints in the world. What we’re witnessing here is something much larger, an emerging alliance between authoritarian powers and Islamist regimes that share a common goal of weakening the Western world order. Some people call it the Red Green alliance. This is about the West. This is about the United States, Europe, Israel, places that are not perfect but are built on democratic values and basic human rights versus regimes that openly reject those principles. This conflict did not start because of Israel. It started because the Islamic Republic of Iran decided to threaten the US, the Gulf States, Israel, the entire Middle East, and the rest of the free world.

There’s a narrative circulating that Israel dragged the United States into war with Iran, that this is Israel’s war. That claim is not just wrong, it completely misunderands what the entire conflict is all about. Let me explain. For decades, every American president, Republican and Democrat, has said the exact same thing, The Islamic regime in Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. And yet Iran continued enriching uranium while simultaneously building one of the largest ballistic missile arsenals in the region. So you have to ask a simple question, Why would an oil-rich country need both highly enriched uranium and long-range ballistic missile systems capable of delivering warheads across continents? Those two programs together tell you exactly what the regime has been preparing for. During recent negotiations, Iran acknowledged that it had enough enriched uranium for eleven nuclear bombs. At the same time, it refused to dismantle its enrichment program and continued expanding its missile and drone capabilities. In other words, Iran was not backing down. Over the past few years, Iran has embedded itself deeply into China’s strategic architecture. Iran became China’s backdoor to the Middle East. China now buys the vast majority of Iran’s oil exports, effectively keeping the regime alive. In return, Iran has become a strategic foothold for Chinese power projection, positioned at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important energy checkpoints in the world. What we’re witnessing here is something much larger, an emerging alliance between authoritarian powers and Islamist regimes that share a common goal of weakening the Western world order. Some people call it the Red Green alliance. This is about the West. This is about the United States, Europe, Israel, places that are not perfect but are built on democratic values and basic human rights versus regimes that openly reject those principles. This conflict did not start because of Israel. It started because the Islamic Republic of Iran decided to threaten the US, the Gulf States, Israel, the entire Middle East, and the rest of the free world.

Noa Tishby

22,091 次观看 • 6 个月前

Trump has done a complete 180 on everything he claimed to stand for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s scared, manipulated, acting on his own, or all of the above the outcome is the same. He has betrayed every principle and every single person who helped put him in power. The very people who carried him to where he is. He turned on them. Not just domestically, but internationally, look at the way he treated Orban. He forgets that Viktor Orban was a lone voice in Europe supporting him when everyone else was laughing at him and calling him a crazy orange man. Europeans hated him. Orban was his main supporter in Europe and the way he has treated Orban is just ugly, nothing more. Now he’s cozy with people like Lindsey Graham to the point where Graham is arranging meetings between him and people like the President of Finland. Let that sink in. He can scream ''I’m MAGA they are not,'' like a five-year old, but the truth is MAGA was never built by him, it was built around him. And now he’s completely betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. He’s insulted allies, betrayed partners and escalated tensions with adversaries burning bridges in every direction. And now, here we are again, he’s starting to echo the same tired neocon narrative we've heard for years ''Russia, Russia, Russia.'' It may not be as blatant yet, but give it a few weeks and we’ll be right back to blaming Russia for everything. What makes it even more crazy is that he himself was once the target of the entire Russiagate saga. I’ve seen stupidity before but this is on another level. This isn’t just more of the same, it’s something entirely new. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the government is a reflection of the people. And right now, we have a narcissism problem in this country. We rank at the top when it comes to that disorder. What’s the core trait of a narcissist? Look at Donald Trump a textbook case. No empathy. Someone dies, and there’s no weight to it. His comment after Charles' death was disgusting. He talks about bombing people with this disturbing sense of excitement ‘we bomb the hell out of them’ like it’s a performance. The worst part is how easily this situation could have been handled. Ayatollah was old and sick he only had a few years left. There was a real opportunity for a deal. Trump blew it when he started bombing Iran in the middle of the negotiations. Twice! We keep ignoring reality. Israel is one of the most cunning and deceptive countries in the world. This is a state that secretly developed nuclear weapons and hid them from its own so-called ‘closest ally,’ the United States. This is a country that has spied on U.S. offices, blamed others for its actions and has has killed American soldiers and journalists. If we were honest and actually calculated which country has caused more harm to U.S. interests Iran or Israel, Israel would likely be far ahead. That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. Iran didn’t just become an enemy out of nowhere. We played a major role in creating that hostility from overthrowing Mossadegh to installing the Shah, whose regime imprisoned and brutalized its own people and we supported and backed him knowing he was a dictator. Now we have the audacity to tell Iranian people that they should get rid of their dictator and we can help by bombing them. You can't make this shit up! Are you kidding me? And there are still idiots who actually buy this. Iran has largely operated from a defensive position ever since. We label them terrorists, but from their perspective, they’ve been preparing for survival building regional influence and proxy networks because they fear exactly what history suggests, that they could be targeted next with bombs or even a nuke! In 2007, Wesley Clark said that the Pentagon had a plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. We ended up doing much of that, one by one. Well, guess what, if I’m Iran, watching this and hearing a high-ranking Pentagon official say my country is on that list, and then I see each country on that list get taken down one by one, who here wouldn’t at least think about building a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes? When you know one of the biggest and strongest militaries in the world is planning to invade you someday, and they’re openly talking about it, what would you do? All of you geniuses who think Iran is the problem, honestly, which one of you wouldn’t consider building a bomb in that situation? And that’s without even getting into the role of countries like Israel and the influence they may have on pushing the United States toward these actions. If your argument is that Iran has a dictatorial regime, then you are a hypocritl. The United States installed a dictator in Iran themselves and overthrew a democratic leader and even after that the CIA said they had no problem with Ayatollah, in fact they said it would be 'good for us'.Then they got caught selling weapons to Iran. If the argument is - 'they’re building a nuclear weapon,' then the obvious question is: why? Why would they feel the need to? Maybe it has something to do with Wesley Clark, Iraq and many more?!.. So let’s be real, anyone who says Iran has no right to want a nuclear weapon is either being dishonest or just flat out stupid. Do I want them to have a nuke? No. But do they feel justified in wanting one? Absolutely! Put yourself in their position. You know the history you know what the CIA did to your country. Then you hear a high-level figure like Wesley Clark talk about a plan to take out seven countries in five years, including yours. You watch those countries get hit one after another and you are no position to stand against the US and actually win that war without taking great amount of casualties. What conclusion are you supposed to draw from that? At that point, it’s not crazy it's strategic! Any country in that situation would start thinking exactly about that, I know I would have if I was in that situation. Wouldn’t you? It’s not hard to understand why a country might see nuclear capability as a deterrent when it feels threatened by stronger military powers and some absolutely psychotic states like Israel. And let’s be realistic, Iran would never use a nuke against the United States, any use of nuclear weapons against us would mean their complete annihilation. Iran is many things but it’s not that suicidal, they don’t want to end their existence, they want their country to endure. The question is which country then would they use the nukes if they are ever put in that position? There’s only one country and that’s Israel not the US and Honestly I do not see how is that my problem at all? Do you? I mean it maybe Miriam Adelson's problem but it's not my problem. Most of Iran’s hostile actions came after the U.S. helped overthrow its government and backed a dictator for decades! So this narrative that Iran has been hostile to the us needs seriously clarification to why? Any regime would be hostile to you when you overthrow their democratic leader and instal a dictator that makes people miserable. After the revolution, Iran became openly hostile to the U.S for A REASON! The reason is the CIA and the corporate America nothing else.

Trump has done a complete 180 on everything he claimed to stand for. It doesn’t matter whether he’s scared, manipulated, acting on his own, or all of the above the outcome is the same. He has betrayed every principle and every single person who helped put him in power. The very people who carried him to where he is. He turned on them. Not just domestically, but internationally, look at the way he treated Orban. He forgets that Viktor Orban was a lone voice in Europe supporting him when everyone else was laughing at him and calling him a crazy orange man. Europeans hated him. Orban was his main supporter in Europe and the way he has treated Orban is just ugly, nothing more. Now he’s cozy with people like Lindsey Graham to the point where Graham is arranging meetings between him and people like the President of Finland. Let that sink in. He can scream ''I’m MAGA they are not,'' like a five-year old, but the truth is MAGA was never built by him, it was built around him. And now he’s completely betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. He’s insulted allies, betrayed partners and escalated tensions with adversaries burning bridges in every direction. And now, here we are again, he’s starting to echo the same tired neocon narrative we've heard for years ''Russia, Russia, Russia.'' It may not be as blatant yet, but give it a few weeks and we’ll be right back to blaming Russia for everything. What makes it even more crazy is that he himself was once the target of the entire Russiagate saga. I’ve seen stupidity before but this is on another level. This isn’t just more of the same, it’s something entirely new. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the government is a reflection of the people. And right now, we have a narcissism problem in this country. We rank at the top when it comes to that disorder. What’s the core trait of a narcissist? Look at Donald Trump a textbook case. No empathy. Someone dies, and there’s no weight to it. His comment after Charles' death was disgusting. He talks about bombing people with this disturbing sense of excitement ‘we bomb the hell out of them’ like it’s a performance. The worst part is how easily this situation could have been handled. Ayatollah was old and sick he only had a few years left. There was a real opportunity for a deal. Trump blew it when he started bombing Iran in the middle of the negotiations. Twice! We keep ignoring reality. Israel is one of the most cunning and deceptive countries in the world. This is a state that secretly developed nuclear weapons and hid them from its own so-called ‘closest ally,’ the United States. This is a country that has spied on U.S. offices, blamed others for its actions and has has killed American soldiers and journalists. If we were honest and actually calculated which country has caused more harm to U.S. interests Iran or Israel, Israel would likely be far ahead. That’s not opinion, that’s a fact. Iran didn’t just become an enemy out of nowhere. We played a major role in creating that hostility from overthrowing Mossadegh to installing the Shah, whose regime imprisoned and brutalized its own people and we supported and backed him knowing he was a dictator. Now we have the audacity to tell Iranian people that they should get rid of their dictator and we can help by bombing them. You can't make this shit up! Are you kidding me? And there are still idiots who actually buy this. Iran has largely operated from a defensive position ever since. We label them terrorists, but from their perspective, they’ve been preparing for survival building regional influence and proxy networks because they fear exactly what history suggests, that they could be targeted next with bombs or even a nuke! In 2007, Wesley Clark said that the Pentagon had a plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. We ended up doing much of that, one by one. Well, guess what, if I’m Iran, watching this and hearing a high-ranking Pentagon official say my country is on that list, and then I see each country on that list get taken down one by one, who here wouldn’t at least think about building a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes? When you know one of the biggest and strongest militaries in the world is planning to invade you someday, and they’re openly talking about it, what would you do? All of you geniuses who think Iran is the problem, honestly, which one of you wouldn’t consider building a bomb in that situation? And that’s without even getting into the role of countries like Israel and the influence they may have on pushing the United States toward these actions. If your argument is that Iran has a dictatorial regime, then you are a hypocritl. The United States installed a dictator in Iran themselves and overthrew a democratic leader and even after that the CIA said they had no problem with Ayatollah, in fact they said it would be 'good for us'.Then they got caught selling weapons to Iran. If the argument is - 'they’re building a nuclear weapon,' then the obvious question is: why? Why would they feel the need to? Maybe it has something to do with Wesley Clark, Iraq and many more?!.. So let’s be real, anyone who says Iran has no right to want a nuclear weapon is either being dishonest or just flat out stupid. Do I want them to have a nuke? No. But do they feel justified in wanting one? Absolutely! Put yourself in their position. You know the history you know what the CIA did to your country. Then you hear a high-level figure like Wesley Clark talk about a plan to take out seven countries in five years, including yours. You watch those countries get hit one after another and you are no position to stand against the US and actually win that war without taking great amount of casualties. What conclusion are you supposed to draw from that? At that point, it’s not crazy it's strategic! Any country in that situation would start thinking exactly about that, I know I would have if I was in that situation. Wouldn’t you? It’s not hard to understand why a country might see nuclear capability as a deterrent when it feels threatened by stronger military powers and some absolutely psychotic states like Israel. And let’s be realistic, Iran would never use a nuke against the United States, any use of nuclear weapons against us would mean their complete annihilation. Iran is many things but it’s not that suicidal, they don’t want to end their existence, they want their country to endure. The question is which country then would they use the nukes if they are ever put in that position? There’s only one country and that’s Israel not the US and Honestly I do not see how is that my problem at all? Do you? I mean it maybe Miriam Adelson's problem but it's not my problem. Most of Iran’s hostile actions came after the U.S. helped overthrow its government and backed a dictator for decades! So this narrative that Iran has been hostile to the us needs seriously clarification to why? Any regime would be hostile to you when you overthrow their democratic leader and instal a dictator that makes people miserable. After the revolution, Iran became openly hostile to the U.S for A REASON! The reason is the CIA and the corporate America nothing else.

ELIZABETH LANE

34,350 次观看 • 5 个月前

I can’t believe it, CBS News is reporting the unfiltered truth about Iran “If you're looking for an origin point of this current war, don't look to the earliest hours of this Saturday. Look back to November 4th, 1979. That was the day Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S embassy in Tehran, capturing 52 Americans and parading them in blindfolds for the whole world to see A new and daring element was disclosed today in the Iran crisis. For the next 444 days, they were held captive. The tally kept nightly by Walter Cronkite. Finally, the hostages were released, but that wasn't the end of the story. In 1983, 241 U.S service members were killed in their barracks by an Iran-backed suicide bomber in Beirut. Americans can argue whether this is a war of necessity, but what's clear from the history is that the fuse of this explosion is 50 years long and has included the loss of thousands of American and Iranian lives. Every president since Jimmy Carter has tried to end this conflict. In 2015, president Barack Obama announced a deal to stall Iran's nuclear ambitions, a deal that President Trump replaced with a campaign of maximum pressure, and now military might. Today the United States military continues to carry out large-scale combat operations in Iran to eliminate the grave threats posed to America by this terrible terrorist regime. That history is why the president's allies in Congress say he hasn't started a war with Iran. He's finishing one.”

I can’t believe it, CBS News is reporting the unfiltered truth about Iran “If you're looking for an origin point of this current war, don't look to the earliest hours of this Saturday. Look back to November 4th, 1979. That was the day Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S embassy in Tehran, capturing 52 Americans and parading them in blindfolds for the whole world to see A new and daring element was disclosed today in the Iran crisis. For the next 444 days, they were held captive. The tally kept nightly by Walter Cronkite. Finally, the hostages were released, but that wasn't the end of the story. In 1983, 241 U.S service members were killed in their barracks by an Iran-backed suicide bomber in Beirut. Americans can argue whether this is a war of necessity, but what's clear from the history is that the fuse of this explosion is 50 years long and has included the loss of thousands of American and Iranian lives. Every president since Jimmy Carter has tried to end this conflict. In 2015, president Barack Obama announced a deal to stall Iran's nuclear ambitions, a deal that President Trump replaced with a campaign of maximum pressure, and now military might. Today the United States military continues to carry out large-scale combat operations in Iran to eliminate the grave threats posed to America by this terrible terrorist regime. That history is why the president's allies in Congress say he hasn't started a war with Iran. He's finishing one.”

Wall Street Apes

512,942 次观看 • 6 个月前

🚨 THE U.S.-IRAN MEMORANDUM MAY BE A PAUSE — NOT PEACE 🚨 The memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran is unlikely to end the conflict permanently. Because the war against Iran was never only about nuclear policy or regional security. It was about reshaping Iran itself: weakening it, fragmenting it, gaining leverage over its energy resources, and ultimately controlling the Strait of Hormuz. Had that project succeeded, Israel would have emerged with enormous military, political, and economic leverage across West Asia. Every country hesitant to join the Abraham Accords would have faced growing pressure to enter an Israeli-led regional order. That is why I see this as a high-stakes, zero-sum struggle for the Israeli Zionist establishment. A memorandum can pause open warfare, but it cannot erase Israeli strategic ambitions, intelligence operations, psychological warfare, and regional competition that produced the conflict in the first place. I do not believe Iran is naive about this either. The war has shown that Tehran plans for worst-case scenarios, and I expect Iranian officials to assume that another phase of confrontation remains possible, potentially after the U.S. midterm elections, depending on political developments in Washington. For now, the conflict may be on the shelf, but it is not over.

🚨 THE U.S.-IRAN MEMORANDUM MAY BE A PAUSE — NOT PEACE 🚨 The memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran is unlikely to end the conflict permanently. Because the war against Iran was never only about nuclear policy or regional security. It was about reshaping Iran itself: weakening it, fragmenting it, gaining leverage over its energy resources, and ultimately controlling the Strait of Hormuz. Had that project succeeded, Israel would have emerged with enormous military, political, and economic leverage across West Asia. Every country hesitant to join the Abraham Accords would have faced growing pressure to enter an Israeli-led regional order. That is why I see this as a high-stakes, zero-sum struggle for the Israeli Zionist establishment. A memorandum can pause open warfare, but it cannot erase Israeli strategic ambitions, intelligence operations, psychological warfare, and regional competition that produced the conflict in the first place. I do not believe Iran is naive about this either. The war has shown that Tehran plans for worst-case scenarios, and I expect Iranian officials to assume that another phase of confrontation remains possible, potentially after the U.S. midterm elections, depending on political developments in Washington. For now, the conflict may be on the shelf, but it is not over.

Kevork Almassian

16,152 次观看 • 2 个月前