ะ—ะฐะณั€ัƒะทะบะฐ ะฒะธะดะตะพ...

ะะต ัƒะดะฐะปะพััŒ ะทะฐะณั€ัƒะทะธั‚ัŒ ะฒะธะดะตะพ

ะะฐ ะณะปะฐะฒะฝัƒัŽ

๐—•๐—œ๐—Ÿ๐—Ÿ ๐—ข'๐—ฅ๐—˜๐—œ๐—Ÿ๐—Ÿ๐—ฌ: ๐—ช๐—›๐—”๐—ง ๐—ง๐—ฅ๐—จ๐— ๐—ฃ ๐—”๐—–๐—ง๐—จ๐—”๐—Ÿ๐—Ÿ๐—ฌ ๐—ž๐—ก๐—˜๐—ช ๐—•๐—˜๐—™๐—ข๐—ฅ๐—˜ ๐—›๐—˜ ๐—ฆ๐—ง๐—ฅ๐—จ๐—–๐—ž ๐—œ๐—ฅ๐—”๐—ก There are facts surrounding Operation Epic Fury that most people either don't know or are choosing to ignore because they don't fit a preferred narrative. Bill O'Reilly laid them out this week, and they matter regardless of where you...

MichaelARothman's profile picture

M.A. Rothman

93,614 subscribers

115,342 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 4 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

ะะพะฒะพัั‚ะธ ะธ ะฟะพะปะธั‚ะธะบะฐะžะฑั€ะฐะทะพะฒะฐะฝะธะต
LIVE

Anya Rossiโ€ข Live Now

Private livecam show

ะšะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะธ: 0

ะะตั‚ ะดะพัั‚ัƒะฟะฝั‹ั… ะบะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะตะฒ

ะ—ะดะตััŒ ะฟะพัะฒัั‚ัั ะบะพะผะผะตะฝั‚ะฐั€ะธะธ ะธะท ะพั€ะธะณะธะฝะฐะปัŒะฝะพะณะพ ะฟะพัั‚ะฐ

ะŸะพั…ะพะถะธะต ะฒะธะดะตะพ

President Donald Trump launched the operation against Iran because he had a "feeling based on fact" that the regime would soon attack the United States, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. "The president had a feeling, again, based on the fact that Iran was going to strike the United States, was going to strike our assets in the region, and he made a determination to launch Operation Epic Fury," Leavitt said Wednesday. "These decisions are not made in a vacuum," she later added. "They are made by the president's feeling that Iran was going to strike the United States and our assets in the region, and he was not going to sit back and watch that happen." Leavitt was responding to a question during a White House press briefing about the Trump administration's explanations for launching the war in Iran last week. Her comments come one day after Secretary of State Marco Rubio walked back his previous statements that the U.S. attacked Iran because of Israel. Rubio told reporters Tuesday on Capitol Hill that U.S. strikes on Iran "had to happen anyway."
3:38

President Donald Trump launched the operation against Iran because he had a "feeling based on fact" that the regime would soon attack the United States, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. "The president had a feeling, again, based on the fact that Iran was going to strike the United States, was going to strike our assets in the region, and he made a determination to launch Operation Epic Fury," Leavitt said Wednesday. "These decisions are not made in a vacuum," she later added. "They are made by the president's feeling that Iran was going to strike the United States and our assets in the region, and he was not going to sit back and watch that happen." Leavitt was responding to a question during a White House press briefing about the Trump administration's explanations for launching the war in Iran last week. Her comments come one day after Secretary of State Marco Rubio walked back his previous statements that the U.S. attacked Iran because of Israel. Rubio told reporters Tuesday on Capitol Hill that U.S. strikes on Iran "had to happen anyway."

PBS News

49,702 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 5 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

WATCH: Ben Ferguson blasts Democrat Connor Lamb after the multi-time failed Congressional candidate said Iran was not a threat. Then Lamb got pissed because Ferguson reminded him that Iran killed 1000 Americans. Lamb: "There was no threat to us, and they didn't have a nuclear bomb." Ferguson: "You don't think Iran is a threat?... I mean, they did kill more than a thousand American troops just when we were in Iraq. They've killed countless Americans in multiple attacks around the world. Hezbollah and Hamas, you're saying that's not a threat to the United States of America?" Lamb: "Don't use the memory of those people to try to claim that there was an imminent threat." Ferguson: "Iโ€™m not! You just said that a terrorist regime is not a threat to America!" Laura Coates jumps in to defend a flailing Lamb. Lamb: "Give me a break... You can't use the memory of dead Americans from the past to try to justify this response today, which is a disaster. Ferguson: "Who killed them? ... Who killed them? You should be able to answer this question. Who killed them? Iran killed Americans, Connor. And now youโ€™re acting as if their lives donโ€™t matter. You want to know why the President attacked? This is the number-one terrorist regime in the world that sponsors more terrorist attacks than any other country, and then you don't like the fact that I mention that Iran is responsible for one out of every six American lives that were killed in Iraq. That is a fact. The Biden administration admitted that, by the way. And then you act like that stat doesn't matter. That's the reason why Americans don't trust the Democrats on this issue of national security. That's why they voted for Donald Trump. Donald Trump has made it clear: he sees a threat to American soldiers, and there are hundreds of them that have been killed by the Iranian regime. He will go and protect and defend it."
2:11

WATCH: Ben Ferguson blasts Democrat Connor Lamb after the multi-time failed Congressional candidate said Iran was not a threat. Then Lamb got pissed because Ferguson reminded him that Iran killed 1000 Americans. Lamb: "There was no threat to us, and they didn't have a nuclear bomb." Ferguson: "You don't think Iran is a threat?... I mean, they did kill more than a thousand American troops just when we were in Iraq. They've killed countless Americans in multiple attacks around the world. Hezbollah and Hamas, you're saying that's not a threat to the United States of America?" Lamb: "Don't use the memory of those people to try to claim that there was an imminent threat." Ferguson: "Iโ€™m not! You just said that a terrorist regime is not a threat to America!" Laura Coates jumps in to defend a flailing Lamb. Lamb: "Give me a break... You can't use the memory of dead Americans from the past to try to justify this response today, which is a disaster. Ferguson: "Who killed them? ... Who killed them? You should be able to answer this question. Who killed them? Iran killed Americans, Connor. And now youโ€™re acting as if their lives donโ€™t matter. You want to know why the President attacked? This is the number-one terrorist regime in the world that sponsors more terrorist attacks than any other country, and then you don't like the fact that I mention that Iran is responsible for one out of every six American lives that were killed in Iraq. That is a fact. The Biden administration admitted that, by the way. And then you act like that stat doesn't matter. That's the reason why Americans don't trust the Democrats on this issue of national security. That's why they voted for Donald Trump. Donald Trump has made it clear: he sees a threat to American soldiers, and there are hundreds of them that have been killed by the Iranian regime. He will go and protect and defend it."

Steve Guest

23,488 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 5 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

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

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

Svetlana Lokhova

68,072 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 2 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

.Jason Rantz on Seattle Red calmly points out what was missing from the coverage of DNI Tulsi Gabbard's Senate testimony and masterfully explains the Trump administration's rationale for after Iran... "We're in a world of fact. I think Andrew McCabe's characterization of her answer goes very far from what she actually said. The question of whether or not something is imminent to the point where you're going to order military strikes is separate, and is the decision -- the sole decision maker there is the President. It's based on the intelligence that they're getting. And Tulsi Gabbard's point was we present the probabilities of what is a potential threat, and the President gets to decide with counsel whether or not he believes that it qualifies as imminent. To the point of what imminent means, it's not the same as what we all use this term. It started with the Bush doctrine. It expanded greatly under Obama, and they're basically arguing three main points, I think, for what imminent threat actually can be in this role: whether or not you have a window of opportunity -- and they had, obviously, a window of opportunity in this case, most of the people in Iran are no longer alive, the ability to go after someone who is in fact, or an organization or regime is a potential threat. Do they have the capabilities to threaten us? And the argument from the beginning wasn't solely about tomorrow, they can have nuclear capabilities. It was whether or not they were going to have the ballistic missile coverage to ensure that they can, in fact, cover their nuclear capability."
1:24

.Jason Rantz on Seattle Red calmly points out what was missing from the coverage of DNI Tulsi Gabbard's Senate testimony and masterfully explains the Trump administration's rationale for after Iran... "We're in a world of fact. I think Andrew McCabe's characterization of her answer goes very far from what she actually said. The question of whether or not something is imminent to the point where you're going to order military strikes is separate, and is the decision -- the sole decision maker there is the President. It's based on the intelligence that they're getting. And Tulsi Gabbard's point was we present the probabilities of what is a potential threat, and the President gets to decide with counsel whether or not he believes that it qualifies as imminent. To the point of what imminent means, it's not the same as what we all use this term. It started with the Bush doctrine. It expanded greatly under Obama, and they're basically arguing three main points, I think, for what imminent threat actually can be in this role: whether or not you have a window of opportunity -- and they had, obviously, a window of opportunity in this case, most of the people in Iran are no longer alive, the ability to go after someone who is in fact, or an organization or regime is a potential threat. Do they have the capabilities to threaten us? And the argument from the beginning wasn't solely about tomorrow, they can have nuclear capabilities. It was whether or not they were going to have the ballistic missile coverage to ensure that they can, in fact, cover their nuclear capability."

Curtis Houck

16,657 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 4 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Devin Nunes explains various charges that are likely to be brought against Comey and company "On Comey, the answer is for this, it's very specific, and it's over whether or not he lied on this one part. The larger part is whether or not you can bring a Grand Conspiracy case. And there's the law, which is, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, but there's also a term in there called misleading. And what a lot of these guys did is they made up things using intelligence that didn't exist, but acted like they knew something that actually wasn't there, and they lied and misled the American people. And by doing that, all the times they testified before Congress, the Senate, they lied over and over and again with this, oh, we've seen something, we can't tell you about it because it's classified. But what do we now know by everything that's been declassified is, is that they didn't have any intelligence on Russia colluding with Trump. In fact, the only intelligence that they had is that the Russians were very well aware of Clinton's plan. And they actually not only thought Clinton was going to win, but likely preferred that she would win. So going back to the cover up of her missing emails that, by the way, are still missing, they all got involved in this plan. They all got the FBI exercise. They were able to go spy on the Trump campaign. They were able to then get the Mueller witch hunt going, that then led to the Ukraine. Remember, that dies off, then you have the fake whistleblower and the Ukraine impeachment. I mean, that means a whole investigation in and of itself. We now know the latest information that happened on January 6th now with agents that were out there, the pipe bombs, all this other stuff that is, who broke the windows that I asked when I was in Congress, I really wanted to know that. But most importantly, Maria, who's the victim in this? The victim is President Trump and his family. They raided Mar-a-Lago. That's a problem and we need answers to that
1:58

Devin Nunes explains various charges that are likely to be brought against Comey and company "On Comey, the answer is for this, it's very specific, and it's over whether or not he lied on this one part. The larger part is whether or not you can bring a Grand Conspiracy case. And there's the law, which is, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, but there's also a term in there called misleading. And what a lot of these guys did is they made up things using intelligence that didn't exist, but acted like they knew something that actually wasn't there, and they lied and misled the American people. And by doing that, all the times they testified before Congress, the Senate, they lied over and over and again with this, oh, we've seen something, we can't tell you about it because it's classified. But what do we now know by everything that's been declassified is, is that they didn't have any intelligence on Russia colluding with Trump. In fact, the only intelligence that they had is that the Russians were very well aware of Clinton's plan. And they actually not only thought Clinton was going to win, but likely preferred that she would win. So going back to the cover up of her missing emails that, by the way, are still missing, they all got involved in this plan. They all got the FBI exercise. They were able to go spy on the Trump campaign. They were able to then get the Mueller witch hunt going, that then led to the Ukraine. Remember, that dies off, then you have the fake whistleblower and the Ukraine impeachment. I mean, that means a whole investigation in and of itself. We now know the latest information that happened on January 6th now with agents that were out there, the pipe bombs, all this other stuff that is, who broke the windows that I asked when I was in Congress, I really wanted to know that. But most importantly, Maria, who's the victim in this? The victim is President Trump and his family. They raided Mar-a-Lago. That's a problem and we need answers to that

Svetlana Lokhova

25,150 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 10 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Iran's 10-point proposal amid announcement on the ceasefire, Former Minister of State for External Affairs, MJ Akbar says, "I do not believe that a ceasefire could have been announced without a broad agreement on key factors. And obviously, Iran's nuclear program has to be one of the major factors, because if you don't have an agreement on that, then this is a hoax. But the point of fact is that one day before this war began, America and Iran had agreed, even on the language, which leaves the world perplexed as to what this war was about. Because over and over again, you say that the war is about nuclear weapons and Iran's potential. So if on the eve of the war, you had accepted an agreement in which Iran had also accepted America's language, then I think the war had to be an exercise in political hysteria, for purposes that are not fully comprehensible to the same world..."
7:23

#WATCH | Mumbai, Maharashtra: On Iran's 10-point proposal amid announcement on the ceasefire, Former Minister of State for External Affairs, MJ Akbar says, "I do not believe that a ceasefire could have been announced without a broad agreement on key factors. And obviously, Iran's nuclear program has to be one of the major factors, because if you don't have an agreement on that, then this is a hoax. But the point of fact is that one day before this war began, America and Iran had agreed, even on the language, which leaves the world perplexed as to what this war was about. Because over and over again, you say that the war is about nuclear weapons and Iran's potential. So if on the eve of the war, you had accepted an agreement in which Iran had also accepted America's language, then I think the war had to be an exercise in political hysteria, for purposes that are not fully comprehensible to the same world..."

ANI

15,240 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 4 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

WATCH: Secretary of State Rubio smacks down reporter for LYING about his statements from yesterday, falsely claiming he said Israel dragged the U.S. into war with Iran.... Reporter: โ€œYesterday, you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that that's why we needed to get involved. Today, the President said that โ€”โ€ Rubio: โ€œNo.โ€ Reporter: โ€œโ€” Iran was going to get strike [sic].โ€ Rubio: โ€œYeah, your statement is false. So, that's not what โ€” I was asked very specifically. Were you there yesterday?โ€ Reporter: โ€œYes, I asked a question.โ€ Rubio: โ€œOkay. No. Were you the one that โ€” because somebody asked me a question yesterday, did we go in because of Israel? And I said..., no, I told you this had to happen. Anyway, the President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made. The President systematically made a decision to systematically destroy this terrorist capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear on that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them. That's what I said yesterday. And you guys need to play it. If you're going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do, all right?โ€
1:09

WATCH: Secretary of State Rubio smacks down reporter for LYING about his statements from yesterday, falsely claiming he said Israel dragged the U.S. into war with Iran.... Reporter: โ€œYesterday, you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that that's why we needed to get involved. Today, the President said that โ€”โ€ Rubio: โ€œNo.โ€ Reporter: โ€œโ€” Iran was going to get strike [sic].โ€ Rubio: โ€œYeah, your statement is false. So, that's not what โ€” I was asked very specifically. Were you there yesterday?โ€ Reporter: โ€œYes, I asked a question.โ€ Rubio: โ€œOkay. No. Were you the one that โ€” because somebody asked me a question yesterday, did we go in because of Israel? And I said..., no, I told you this had to happen. Anyway, the President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made. The President systematically made a decision to systematically destroy this terrorist capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear on that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them. That's what I said yesterday. And you guys need to play it. If you're going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do, all right?โ€

Curtis Houck

15,505 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 5 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

This clip is EXTREMELY important to understand why Trump bombed Iranโ€™s nuclear facilities. Trump made a deal with King Salman and MBS to work together to bring peace to the Middle East. They all agreed that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and the US MIL were the only ones who could successfully do what we did with the B-2 bombers and our bunker busters. This was the plan all along. It was not just Israel who did not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, neither did the Saudis, Qatar, UAE, etc. Even Russia and China turned their backs on Iran and agreed to stand down while Trump neutralized their nuclear capabilities, which was actually Obamaโ€™s creation via the Iran Deal. This is also why the peace deal in the Middle East will not fail. Because the leaders of the region, and the entire Arab/Muslim world, already agreed that the fighting must stop. The deal was made long ago. We are just witnessing the rollout. Trump and MBS are allies in this global shadow war and game of thrones.
0:53

This clip is EXTREMELY important to understand why Trump bombed Iranโ€™s nuclear facilities. Trump made a deal with King Salman and MBS to work together to bring peace to the Middle East. They all agreed that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and the US MIL were the only ones who could successfully do what we did with the B-2 bombers and our bunker busters. This was the plan all along. It was not just Israel who did not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, neither did the Saudis, Qatar, UAE, etc. Even Russia and China turned their backs on Iran and agreed to stand down while Trump neutralized their nuclear capabilities, which was actually Obamaโ€™s creation via the Iran Deal. This is also why the peace deal in the Middle East will not fail. Because the leaders of the region, and the entire Arab/Muslim world, already agreed that the fighting must stop. The deal was made long ago. We are just witnessing the rollout. Trump and MBS are allies in this global shadow war and game of thrones.

Clandestine

315,047 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 8 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

๐Ÿšจ โ€ผ๏ธJohn Mearsheimer ๐Ÿšจ"FIRED "๐ŸšจDonald Trump No signs of quick end to US-Israel war on Iran First of all, this argument that, Iran is a great threat to stability in the Middle East, and a serious threat to the United States is nonsense. The greatest threat to stability in the Middle East is the United States, working closely together, with Israel. Iran has not started a war, in centuries as best I can tell. It's not a highly aggressive country. The country in the Middle East that aggressive is Israel. The country that has, committed genocide in Gaza is not Iran, it's Israel, and we were complicit. We meaning the United States is complicit in genocide. Twice, once last year in June of twenty twenty-five and again on February 28th of this year, the United States and Israel launched unprovoked attacks against Iran. So the idea that Iran is this great destabilizer in the Middle East is a myth that the United States and Israel purvey. The Israelis and the Americans are now doing to deal with this purported Iranian threat, what you see is we've taken measures that have made the situation much worse. In fact, one could argue that we are going to crash the international economy as a result of this war that Israel and the United States started. I would make the argument that we are on the edge of the precipice, in terms of the state of the world economy because of this war. This war shows no, signs of ending anytime soon, and already great damage has been done to the international economy, and more damage will be done the longer the war goes on. So this idea that, number one, Iran is a great threat to the United States is bogus, and number two, the idea that President Trump, and his friends in Israel are making, a safer and more stable Middle East is a ludicrous argument. In fact, what they're doing is they're putting the entire world, on the precipice of a disaster.
2:48

๐Ÿšจ โ€ผ๏ธJohn Mearsheimer ๐Ÿšจ"FIRED "๐ŸšจDonald Trump No signs of quick end to US-Israel war on Iran First of all, this argument that, Iran is a great threat to stability in the Middle East, and a serious threat to the United States is nonsense. The greatest threat to stability in the Middle East is the United States, working closely together, with Israel. Iran has not started a war, in centuries as best I can tell. It's not a highly aggressive country. The country in the Middle East that aggressive is Israel. The country that has, committed genocide in Gaza is not Iran, it's Israel, and we were complicit. We meaning the United States is complicit in genocide. Twice, once last year in June of twenty twenty-five and again on February 28th of this year, the United States and Israel launched unprovoked attacks against Iran. So the idea that Iran is this great destabilizer in the Middle East is a myth that the United States and Israel purvey. The Israelis and the Americans are now doing to deal with this purported Iranian threat, what you see is we've taken measures that have made the situation much worse. In fact, one could argue that we are going to crash the international economy as a result of this war that Israel and the United States started. I would make the argument that we are on the edge of the precipice, in terms of the state of the world economy because of this war. This war shows no, signs of ending anytime soon, and already great damage has been done to the international economy, and more damage will be done the longer the war goes on. So this idea that, number one, Iran is a great threat to the United States is bogus, and number two, the idea that President Trump, and his friends in Israel are making, a safer and more stable Middle East is a ludicrous argument. In fact, what they're doing is they're putting the entire world, on the precipice of a disaster.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

73,659 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 4 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

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

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

PBS News

13,865 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 5 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

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

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

Liz Wheeler

35,889 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะผะตััั† ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

BREAKING: HEGSETH SAYS IRAN WANTED TO KlLL TRUMP: โ€œWe've known for a long time that Iran had intentions of trying to kill Trump and other U.S. officials. While that was not the focus of the effort in fact, it was never raised by the President I ensured, and others ensured, that those who were responsible for that were eventually part of the target list.โ€
0:35

BREAKING: HEGSETH SAYS IRAN WANTED TO KlLL TRUMP: โ€œWe've known for a long time that Iran had intentions of trying to kill Trump and other U.S. officials. While that was not the focus of the effort in fact, it was never raised by the President I ensured, and others ensured, that those who were responsible for that were eventually part of the target list.โ€

Sulaiman Ahmed

67,456 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 5 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

January 3rd, 2017, three days BEFORE the release of the manufactured ICA alleging Russian hacking. Trump knew Obama was concocting the intelligence! Meanwhile, Maddow and Schumer were trying to preemptively build the Russia hacking narrative BEFORE the ICA was released! Just look at Schumer warning Trump that the Intel community is going to come after him, and then points to the narrative that we would not know about the Russian hacking if it were not for the Intelligence Community. All of it was a lie the entire time, and the Democrat elites and the MSM knew about it BEFORE hand, proving coordination. THEY WERE ALL IN ON IT! TREASON!
1:30

January 3rd, 2017, three days BEFORE the release of the manufactured ICA alleging Russian hacking. Trump knew Obama was concocting the intelligence! Meanwhile, Maddow and Schumer were trying to preemptively build the Russia hacking narrative BEFORE the ICA was released! Just look at Schumer warning Trump that the Intel community is going to come after him, and then points to the narrative that we would not know about the Russian hacking if it were not for the Intelligence Community. All of it was a lie the entire time, and the Democrat elites and the MSM knew about it BEFORE hand, proving coordination. THEY WERE ALL IN ON IT! TREASON!

Clandestine

330,234 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะณะพะด ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

My brother, I know you are so pro-Western that it is sometimes a waste of time trying to get you to see things logically because of that bias. But let me correct a few things you have got wrong for the benefit of your followers. The video below completely debunks your claim that America went in to deal with an Iranian nuclear threat in this war. The video below is from June 2025, when Donald Trump declared that he had obliterated Iranโ€™s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon forever using B2s to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. So tell us, was Donald Trump lying in 2025, or was he lying in 2026 when he started this reckless and pointless war? You cannot be telling the truth in both versions because the two claims do not sit together. You cannot say a threat was permanently destroyed and then later speak as if the same threat still justified further action. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Secondly, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which you are crediting to Trump, is not a result of American threats. It followed direct mediation by Pakistan. Pakistanโ€™s leadership, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, made an urgent diplomatic plea that helped de-escalate tensions and paved the way for the Strait to be reopened. I know it is very difficult for you to accept that a non-Western leader has managed to bring everyone to the table. To you, it must always be the threats by Donald Trump because of your pro-Western bias. That is why it is hard for you to acknowledge that a non-Western leader achieved something positive through diplomacy. This outcome had nothing to do with the threats you are talking about. It was the result of diplomatic engagement, not coercion, and that is a fact you are struggling to accept that a non-Western actor got a result. More importantly, the Strait of Hormuz was open to everyone, including America, before the war even began. So for you to now credit the war with โ€œopeningโ€ the Strait is a clear failure to analyse events and think critically. You cannot claim credit for restoring something that was never closed in the first place. What you are doing is rewriting a pre-existing reality to fit a political narrative. And the reason you keep doing this is because your well known pro-Western bias does not allow you to accept facts, even when they are plainly in front of you. One has to experience a total shutdown of critical thinking to refuse to accept that Iran has emerged from this conflict in a stronger strategic position than it was before. Before the war, Iran did not control the Strait of Hormuz, it did not charge ships passing through it, and it did not determine which countries could use it. It did not have that level of leverage. But today, its influence over that corridor has clearly increased as a direct consequence of the reckless decisions made by Donald Trump, heavily influenced by Benjamin Netanyahu. At the same time, Iran still retains its drone programme and its ballistic missile capability, both of which we were told would be destroyed. They have not been destroyed. We were also told there would be regime change. The regime remains intact and firmly in place. So let us deal with outcomes, not delusions. America set out objectives that included eliminating strategic capabilities and fundamentally weakening the Iranian state. Those objectives have not been achieved. Iran, on the other hand, had a far simpler objective, just survival. The regime remains in power, and in geopolitical terms, that alone constitutes success. Before the war Iran was under sanctions, those sanctions are now gone. You can argue all you want, but outcomes do not lie.
0:30

My brother, I know you are so pro-Western that it is sometimes a waste of time trying to get you to see things logically because of that bias. But let me correct a few things you have got wrong for the benefit of your followers. The video below completely debunks your claim that America went in to deal with an Iranian nuclear threat in this war. The video below is from June 2025, when Donald Trump declared that he had obliterated Iranโ€™s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon forever using B2s to bomb Iranian nuclear sites. So tell us, was Donald Trump lying in 2025, or was he lying in 2026 when he started this reckless and pointless war? You cannot be telling the truth in both versions because the two claims do not sit together. You cannot say a threat was permanently destroyed and then later speak as if the same threat still justified further action. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Secondly, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which you are crediting to Trump, is not a result of American threats. It followed direct mediation by Pakistan. Pakistanโ€™s leadership, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, made an urgent diplomatic plea that helped de-escalate tensions and paved the way for the Strait to be reopened. I know it is very difficult for you to accept that a non-Western leader has managed to bring everyone to the table. To you, it must always be the threats by Donald Trump because of your pro-Western bias. That is why it is hard for you to acknowledge that a non-Western leader achieved something positive through diplomacy. This outcome had nothing to do with the threats you are talking about. It was the result of diplomatic engagement, not coercion, and that is a fact you are struggling to accept that a non-Western actor got a result. More importantly, the Strait of Hormuz was open to everyone, including America, before the war even began. So for you to now credit the war with โ€œopeningโ€ the Strait is a clear failure to analyse events and think critically. You cannot claim credit for restoring something that was never closed in the first place. What you are doing is rewriting a pre-existing reality to fit a political narrative. And the reason you keep doing this is because your well known pro-Western bias does not allow you to accept facts, even when they are plainly in front of you. One has to experience a total shutdown of critical thinking to refuse to accept that Iran has emerged from this conflict in a stronger strategic position than it was before. Before the war, Iran did not control the Strait of Hormuz, it did not charge ships passing through it, and it did not determine which countries could use it. It did not have that level of leverage. But today, its influence over that corridor has clearly increased as a direct consequence of the reckless decisions made by Donald Trump, heavily influenced by Benjamin Netanyahu. At the same time, Iran still retains its drone programme and its ballistic missile capability, both of which we were told would be destroyed. They have not been destroyed. We were also told there would be regime change. The regime remains intact and firmly in place. So let us deal with outcomes, not delusions. America set out objectives that included eliminating strategic capabilities and fundamentally weakening the Iranian state. Those objectives have not been achieved. Iran, on the other hand, had a far simpler objective, just survival. The regime remains in power, and in geopolitical terms, that alone constitutes success. Before the war Iran was under sanctions, those sanctions are now gone. You can argue all you want, but outcomes do not lie.

Hopewell Chinโ€™ono

39,914 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 4 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert: โ€˜With the US-Iran agreement, we are back to SQUARE ONE.โ€™ โ€˜What I can say about Netanyahu is that the greatest failure in influencing Trump started much earlier. Not in 2026 when he possibly convinced Trump to jointly attack Iran, but when he convinced Trump in 2018 to withdraw from the then-signed agreement between President Obama and the Iranians about the nuclear program of Iran. Because what happened is that until then, Iran didnโ€™t enrich uranium since they signed the agreement with Obama. And when America withdrew from that agreement, they started rapidly to enrich uranium up to the level of 60%, which brought them quite close to the possibility of building an atomic bomb. And that has, in a way, created the almost inevitable circumstances to launch this military attack on February of 26th. And the bottom line after this four month process is that we came back to where it started. There is an agreement between America and Iran, after a long period of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which caused serious economic damage to the international community. And we are with an agreement perhaps weaker than the one that was signed by President Obama. I donโ€™t remember that President Obama promised to build up a fund of $300 billion to compensate Iran for the losses of the war, and I donโ€™t know what is the difference in terms of inspecting and supervising the nuclear program other than what was until then. The Obama agreement was also based on the supervision and inspection of the nuclear program by the IAEA, the International Atomic Agency in Vienna. And thatโ€™s more or less what they agreed. Now, there is nothing about the ballistic missiles. There is nothing about, of course, the change of regime in Iran. So, actually we are back into square one.โ€™ โ€”Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert joins us for Saturdayโ€™s episode of Going Underground Donโ€™t miss it, follow our Rumble channel๐Ÿ‘‡
3:03

Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert: โ€˜With the US-Iran agreement, we are back to SQUARE ONE.โ€™ โ€˜What I can say about Netanyahu is that the greatest failure in influencing Trump started much earlier. Not in 2026 when he possibly convinced Trump to jointly attack Iran, but when he convinced Trump in 2018 to withdraw from the then-signed agreement between President Obama and the Iranians about the nuclear program of Iran. Because what happened is that until then, Iran didnโ€™t enrich uranium since they signed the agreement with Obama. And when America withdrew from that agreement, they started rapidly to enrich uranium up to the level of 60%, which brought them quite close to the possibility of building an atomic bomb. And that has, in a way, created the almost inevitable circumstances to launch this military attack on February of 26th. And the bottom line after this four month process is that we came back to where it started. There is an agreement between America and Iran, after a long period of closing the Strait of Hormuz, which caused serious economic damage to the international community. And we are with an agreement perhaps weaker than the one that was signed by President Obama. I donโ€™t remember that President Obama promised to build up a fund of $300 billion to compensate Iran for the losses of the war, and I donโ€™t know what is the difference in terms of inspecting and supervising the nuclear program other than what was until then. The Obama agreement was also based on the supervision and inspection of the nuclear program by the IAEA, the International Atomic Agency in Vienna. And thatโ€™s more or less what they agreed. Now, there is nothing about the ballistic missiles. There is nothing about, of course, the change of regime in Iran. So, actually we are back into square one.โ€™ โ€”Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert joins us for Saturdayโ€™s episode of Going Underground Donโ€™t miss it, follow our Rumble channel๐Ÿ‘‡

Going Underground

39,275 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะผะตััั† ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

"Let's talk about the Epstein stuff. I thought it got real interesting when Elon put out that tweet. And then all of a sudden, a few weeks later, what I thought was really interesting to watch Trump take over Pam Bondi....When are we going to see the list? I mean, he wrote that, you know, in the campaign and then this potentially destroying his entire base by just dismissing it and closing the case." "Not one of our 18 intelligence agencies said that there was enriched uranium there. Now, I'm not a friend of Iran. I know Iran uses terrorist groups as proxies, but I thought it was interesting that not one of our 18 intelligence agencies said that Iran had enriched uranium at those facilities." Gavin Newsom
9:25

"Let's talk about the Epstein stuff. I thought it got real interesting when Elon put out that tweet. And then all of a sudden, a few weeks later, what I thought was really interesting to watch Trump take over Pam Bondi....When are we going to see the list? I mean, he wrote that, you know, in the campaign and then this potentially destroying his entire base by just dismissing it and closing the case." "Not one of our 18 intelligence agencies said that there was enriched uranium there. Now, I'm not a friend of Iran. I know Iran uses terrorist groups as proxies, but I thought it was interesting that not one of our 18 intelligence agencies said that Iran had enriched uranium at those facilities." Gavin Newsom

Shawn Ryan

177,929 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะณะพะด ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

Q: "In March, the ODNI released their threat assessment concluding Iran is not building a nuclear weapon...What new intelligence does the U.S. have since then?" Hegseth: "The president has made it very clear, he's looked at all of this, all of the intelligence, all of the information, and come to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat and was willing to take this precision. operation to neutralize that threat in order to advance American national interests."
1:13

Q: "In March, the ODNI released their threat assessment concluding Iran is not building a nuclear weapon...What new intelligence does the U.S. have since then?" Hegseth: "The president has made it very clear, he's looked at all of this, all of the intelligence, all of the information, and come to the conclusion that the Iranian nuclear program is a threat and was willing to take this precision. operation to neutralize that threat in order to advance American national interests."

The Bulwark

40,809 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 1 ะณะพะด ะฝะฐะทะฐะด

John Mearsheimer on October 7: โ€œItโ€™s consistent with international law for Hamas to want to break out of the concentration camp and engage with Israeli military forces in combat, which means theyโ€™re going to kill some of them. So the fact that they killed Israeli soldiers is not a case of murder. Now, there were clearly Israeli civilians who were murdered as well, but I would be willing to bet, in the final analysis, however, that Hamas did not murder many of those Israeli civilians. But be that as it may, whoever murdered those civilians committed a war crime. But I think most of the Israelis who were killed were either soldiers, who were legitimate targets, or they were civilians who were killed by the Israeli forces. I think you cannot underestimate how many Israelis were killed when all that [Israeli] firepower was brought to bear. And if you look at the pictures and you listen to what happened, itโ€™s clear that those Apache helicopters really wreaked havoc on everything that was down on the ground, and of course that included Israeli civilians. [...] Whatโ€™s also quite stunning about this whole issue is that no one talks about why there was a breakout. Nobody talks about the fact that this was a concentration camp and what was being done to the Palestinians was abhorrent. And of course there was going to be a breakout from that concentration camp at some point. [...] This is not to excuse the murder of civilians that took place at the hands of Palestinians, but the more you look in detail about what happened, the clearer it becomes that Israel bears a great deal of the responsibility for what happened that dayโ€. Full interview on the Katie Halper Show: Katie Halper
3:28

John Mearsheimer on October 7: โ€œItโ€™s consistent with international law for Hamas to want to break out of the concentration camp and engage with Israeli military forces in combat, which means theyโ€™re going to kill some of them. So the fact that they killed Israeli soldiers is not a case of murder. Now, there were clearly Israeli civilians who were murdered as well, but I would be willing to bet, in the final analysis, however, that Hamas did not murder many of those Israeli civilians. But be that as it may, whoever murdered those civilians committed a war crime. But I think most of the Israelis who were killed were either soldiers, who were legitimate targets, or they were civilians who were killed by the Israeli forces. I think you cannot underestimate how many Israelis were killed when all that [Israeli] firepower was brought to bear. And if you look at the pictures and you listen to what happened, itโ€™s clear that those Apache helicopters really wreaked havoc on everything that was down on the ground, and of course that included Israeli civilians. [...] Whatโ€™s also quite stunning about this whole issue is that no one talks about why there was a breakout. Nobody talks about the fact that this was a concentration camp and what was being done to the Palestinians was abhorrent. And of course there was going to be a breakout from that concentration camp at some point. [...] This is not to excuse the murder of civilians that took place at the hands of Palestinians, but the more you look in detail about what happened, the clearer it becomes that Israel bears a great deal of the responsibility for what happened that dayโ€. Full interview on the Katie Halper Show: Katie Halper

Thomas Fazi

385,280 ะฟั€ะพัะผะพั‚ั€ะพะฒ โ€ข 10 ะผะตััั†ะตะฒ ะฝะฐะทะฐะด