Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

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...

MichaelARothman's profile picture

M.A. Rothman

92,182 subscribers

164,678 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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.
8:30

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.

M.A. Rothman

136,475 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan just signed a mutual defense pact in Mecca. They didn't name a target. They didn't have to. Within hours, Iran did it for them. Officials and clerics mocked the agreement, then promised "the roar of our missiles" would reach every signatory. That's not the reaction of a country with nothing to hide. That's a regime recognizing itself in the room! The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement is simple: an attack on one is an attack on all. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman hosted Erdogan and Sharif. Three of the region's most capable militaries - one of them nuclear - now stand behind each other. A Turkish official called it "purely defensive." No specific target. Open to other regional states. That's the language of deterrence, not aggression. Iran didn't need an invitation to reveal itself. It did that on its own - with missile threats, minutes after the ink dried. Riyadh built a shield. Tehran just explained why it's necessary.
1:51

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan just signed a mutual defense pact in Mecca. They didn't name a target. They didn't have to. Within hours, Iran did it for them. Officials and clerics mocked the agreement, then promised "the roar of our missiles" would reach every signatory. That's not the reaction of a country with nothing to hide. That's a regime recognizing itself in the room! The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement is simple: an attack on one is an attack on all. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman hosted Erdogan and Sharif. Three of the region's most capable militaries - one of them nuclear - now stand behind each other. A Turkish official called it "purely defensive." No specific target. Open to other regional states. That's the language of deterrence, not aggression. Iran didn't need an invitation to reveal itself. It did that on its own - with missile threats, minutes after the ink dried. Riyadh built a shield. Tehran just explained why it's necessary.

𝐌𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢

73,744 просмотров • 14 дней назад

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

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

Going Underground

39,275 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

🇮🇱 🇮🇷 Israel may be forced to act alone against Iran: Israel Hayom, a prominent Israeli newspaper often aligned with government views published an article today that was interesting. The article argues that any U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement must explicitly limit Iran's ballistic missile production, stockpiling and capabilities. Failing to take necessary measures would leave Israel vulnerable to an existential threat posed by Iran's missiles, which can transport nuclear warheads if Iran moves forward with its program, regardless of any nuclear constraints. In the event that a new deal fails to address missiles, Israel would be left with no option but to unilaterally attack Iranian missile facilities or related infrastructure to neutralize the threat, even without U.S. assistance. I see it as unlikely that the U.S. and Iran will come to an agreement in the negotiations. I usually don't focus so much on what is conveyed through the media but more on what reinforcements the U.S. is sending to the region. Given that, it is obvious that the U.S. is preparing for war.
0:22

🇮🇱 🇮🇷 Israel may be forced to act alone against Iran: Israel Hayom, a prominent Israeli newspaper often aligned with government views published an article today that was interesting. The article argues that any U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement must explicitly limit Iran's ballistic missile production, stockpiling and capabilities. Failing to take necessary measures would leave Israel vulnerable to an existential threat posed by Iran's missiles, which can transport nuclear warheads if Iran moves forward with its program, regardless of any nuclear constraints. In the event that a new deal fails to address missiles, Israel would be left with no option but to unilaterally attack Iranian missile facilities or related infrastructure to neutralize the threat, even without U.S. assistance. I see it as unlikely that the U.S. and Iran will come to an agreement in the negotiations. I usually don't focus so much on what is conveyed through the media but more on what reinforcements the U.S. is sending to the region. Given that, it is obvious that the U.S. is preparing for war.

WORLD AT WAR

24,074 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

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.
3:14

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 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

⚡️“Russia has successfully tested the Burevestnik, an unlimited-range cruise missile with a nuclear propulsion system. This is a unique weapon that no one else in the world has. Moreover, I remember perfectly well when we announced that we were developing such a weapon; some highly qualified specialists told me that, while it was a good goal, it was unrealizable in the foreseeable future. Now, however, the decisive tests have been completed. The trials were conducted on 21 October. The missile flew for more that 14 hours and covered a distance of 14 thousand kilometers and this is not its limit. The technical characteristics of the Burevestnik generally allow it to be used with guaranteed accuracy against highly protected targets at any range. In addition, during the flight, the missile performed all the specified vertical and horizontal maneuvers, demonstrating its high capability to evade missile and air defense systems.” - President Putin
3:06

⚡️“Russia has successfully tested the Burevestnik, an unlimited-range cruise missile with a nuclear propulsion system. This is a unique weapon that no one else in the world has. Moreover, I remember perfectly well when we announced that we were developing such a weapon; some highly qualified specialists told me that, while it was a good goal, it was unrealizable in the foreseeable future. Now, however, the decisive tests have been completed. The trials were conducted on 21 October. The missile flew for more that 14 hours and covered a distance of 14 thousand kilometers and this is not its limit. The technical characteristics of the Burevestnik generally allow it to be used with guaranteed accuracy against highly protected targets at any range. In addition, during the flight, the missile performed all the specified vertical and horizontal maneuvers, demonstrating its high capability to evade missile and air defense systems.” - President Putin

🇷🇺Russia is not Enemy

14,100 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Iran just canceled peace talks because Israel kept bombing Lebanon while the ink was still drying on the MOU I sat down with Professor Foad Izadi from Tehran University and he didn't sugarcoat a single thing Khamenei's statement on the deal, the one everyone's been debating, his read is that the leader didn't want this agreement and the president had to personally guarantee it would protect Iranian interests Iran's position is very simple: ceasefire in Lebanon first, then negotiations, not the other way around The Strait of Hormuz stays closed as leverage, and the professor thinks opening it before seeing real action was a mistake Trump justified Iran's ballistic missile program, Israel Hayom called him a traitor, and the professor still doesn't trust any of it His reasoning: the US left the 2015 deal, Congress is already working with Netanyahu to kill this one, and Trump tweeted about not giving Iran a dime 5 hours after signing His odds on another war between the U.S. and Iran before Trump's term ends: 55 to 65% Is the MOU a genuine reset or just America buying time before round 3? فواد ایزدی Foad Izadi
31:46

Iran just canceled peace talks because Israel kept bombing Lebanon while the ink was still drying on the MOU I sat down with Professor Foad Izadi from Tehran University and he didn't sugarcoat a single thing Khamenei's statement on the deal, the one everyone's been debating, his read is that the leader didn't want this agreement and the president had to personally guarantee it would protect Iranian interests Iran's position is very simple: ceasefire in Lebanon first, then negotiations, not the other way around The Strait of Hormuz stays closed as leverage, and the professor thinks opening it before seeing real action was a mistake Trump justified Iran's ballistic missile program, Israel Hayom called him a traitor, and the professor still doesn't trust any of it His reasoning: the US left the 2015 deal, Congress is already working with Netanyahu to kill this one, and Trump tweeted about not giving Iran a dime 5 hours after signing His odds on another war between the U.S. and Iran before Trump's term ends: 55 to 65% Is the MOU a genuine reset or just America buying time before round 3? فواد ایزدی Foad Izadi

Mario Nawfal

261,119 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Military and political analyst Elijah Magnier says the clearest sign the U.S lost the Iran war is that nobody is talking about Tehran's nuclear program anymore; they're fighting over the Strait of Hormuz. America went into this focused on Iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missiles, and regional proxies. Now Trump is arguing about who gets to control Hormuz, and Elijah thinks that tells you everything about how badly the original strategy failed. Iran's missile programme is still operational, its nuclear programme has been pushed into future negotiations, and its regional proxies remain part of Tehran's strategic calculations. Yet Washington's attention is now almost entirely consumed by a source of Iranian leverage that barely existed before the war: Hormuz. Elijah says Iran has effectively pulled off a strategic sleight of hand. For years, the world obsessed over Tehran's nuclear programme while Iran quietly built an enormous missile arsenal. Those missiles eventually gave Iran the ability to absorb American and Israeli attacks and continue retaliating across the region. Now he thinks they're doing it again. Everyone is staring at the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran is rebuilding missiles, maintaining its regional relationships, and buying time on the nuclear issue. Trump even briefly proposed charging ships a 20% fee to pass through the Strait. That lasted barely 24 hours before he replaced it with demands for massive Gulf investment in America. To Elijah, the whole episode exposed something much deeper. Washington says this is about freedom of navigation. But Trump accused Iran of monetizing Hormuz, then immediately tried to monetize it himself. Suddenly, the argument wasn't whether the Strait should be used as leverage; it was who gets to control it and collect the money, and Iran jumped on the contradiction immediately. Elijah's argument is that Trump has trapped himself. He entered the war determined to strip Iran of its leverage, but instead, he's handed Tehran a weapon it didn't have before. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺
51:13

Military and political analyst Elijah Magnier says the clearest sign the U.S lost the Iran war is that nobody is talking about Tehran's nuclear program anymore; they're fighting over the Strait of Hormuz. America went into this focused on Iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missiles, and regional proxies. Now Trump is arguing about who gets to control Hormuz, and Elijah thinks that tells you everything about how badly the original strategy failed. Iran's missile programme is still operational, its nuclear programme has been pushed into future negotiations, and its regional proxies remain part of Tehran's strategic calculations. Yet Washington's attention is now almost entirely consumed by a source of Iranian leverage that barely existed before the war: Hormuz. Elijah says Iran has effectively pulled off a strategic sleight of hand. For years, the world obsessed over Tehran's nuclear programme while Iran quietly built an enormous missile arsenal. Those missiles eventually gave Iran the ability to absorb American and Israeli attacks and continue retaliating across the region. Now he thinks they're doing it again. Everyone is staring at the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran is rebuilding missiles, maintaining its regional relationships, and buying time on the nuclear issue. Trump even briefly proposed charging ships a 20% fee to pass through the Strait. That lasted barely 24 hours before he replaced it with demands for massive Gulf investment in America. To Elijah, the whole episode exposed something much deeper. Washington says this is about freedom of navigation. But Trump accused Iran of monetizing Hormuz, then immediately tried to monetize it himself. Suddenly, the argument wasn't whether the Strait should be used as leverage; it was who gets to control it and collect the money, and Iran jumped on the contradiction immediately. Elijah's argument is that Trump has trapped himself. He entered the war determined to strip Iran of its leverage, but instead, he's handed Tehran a weapon it didn't have before. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺

Mario Nawfal

317,382 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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.
2:56

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 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

One of the most astonishing attempts at projecting grandiose delusions I’ve ever seen—“so [Obama] tried to bribe them to make a deal… 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing…” Trump bribed Iran with $324 billion. And got nothing for it. “And the main thing is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. They fully agreed to that with strong policing powers, and they won't have nuclear weapons, which is what I was all about, because they probably would have used it if they had it. So we had two big moments when they terminated the JCPOA, that was the Obama deal, the Barrack Hussein Obama deal, and when I terminated that, it was very important because it was a road to a nuclear weapon. It was a horrible deal for the United States. It was a deal where billions of dollars was given to Iran. It was a deal where 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing 7, well, not a 7, 7, 57, I guess, right? But it was put on a big, beautiful Boeing 757. They needed a Boeing 747 to be honest with you, because it was a lot of cash. 1.7 billion was taken out of the banks and given to Iran, and on top of that, tens of billions of dollars was made. So they tried to bribe them to make a deal that didn't work. It never works. And that we lived on a great job, and hopefully it's going to be a good relationship, and we're going to get along. And if we don't, we go back to where we started, but I don't know if it's going to be necessary. The Iran deal that we made is going to bring a lot of success to the world, because the oil was really plugged up there for a while. They would call me on occasion, "See, come on, please. Let's go." The oil prices. But the oil is coming way down.”
1:39

One of the most astonishing attempts at projecting grandiose delusions I’ve ever seen—“so [Obama] tried to bribe them to make a deal… 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing…” Trump bribed Iran with $324 billion. And got nothing for it. “And the main thing is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. They fully agreed to that with strong policing powers, and they won't have nuclear weapons, which is what I was all about, because they probably would have used it if they had it. So we had two big moments when they terminated the JCPOA, that was the Obama deal, the Barrack Hussein Obama deal, and when I terminated that, it was very important because it was a road to a nuclear weapon. It was a horrible deal for the United States. It was a deal where billions of dollars was given to Iran. It was a deal where 1.7 billion in cash was put on a Boeing 7, well, not a 7, 7, 57, I guess, right? But it was put on a big, beautiful Boeing 757. They needed a Boeing 747 to be honest with you, because it was a lot of cash. 1.7 billion was taken out of the banks and given to Iran, and on top of that, tens of billions of dollars was made. So they tried to bribe them to make a deal that didn't work. It never works. And that we lived on a great job, and hopefully it's going to be a good relationship, and we're going to get along. And if we don't, we go back to where we started, but I don't know if it's going to be necessary. The Iran deal that we made is going to bring a lot of success to the world, because the oil was really plugged up there for a while. They would call me on occasion, "See, come on, please. Let's go." The oil prices. But the oil is coming way down.”

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

31,475 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 Scott Jennings just delivered a DEVASTATING reality check to the CNN panel about why NATO should care about the Iran conflict. The Democrats on the panel hated every second of Scott Jennings exposing the ugly reality of the relationship. JENNINGS: “You know why NATO should care about this?” “It was just a couple of weeks ago that we learned that Iran has ballistic missile capabilities that can reach most of Europe.” “On top of that, does no one else here find it agitating that we spend billions and trillions of dollars over decades.” “We have U.S. Troops stationed in all these bases with all these allies.” “And then when we decide that we need to do something that is in our national security interest, you have supposed friends of the United States saying you can’t use these bases.” “We’re not going to permit this. We’re not going to help you on that.” “It is AGITATING. It is agitating.” “But bottom line, why doesn’t Europe look at this ballistic missile threat a little more seriously?” “That’s what I wonder.”
0:42

🚨 Scott Jennings just delivered a DEVASTATING reality check to the CNN panel about why NATO should care about the Iran conflict. The Democrats on the panel hated every second of Scott Jennings exposing the ugly reality of the relationship. JENNINGS: “You know why NATO should care about this?” “It was just a couple of weeks ago that we learned that Iran has ballistic missile capabilities that can reach most of Europe.” “On top of that, does no one else here find it agitating that we spend billions and trillions of dollars over decades.” “We have U.S. Troops stationed in all these bases with all these allies.” “And then when we decide that we need to do something that is in our national security interest, you have supposed friends of the United States saying you can’t use these bases.” “We’re not going to permit this. We’re not going to help you on that.” “It is AGITATING. It is agitating.” “But bottom line, why doesn’t Europe look at this ballistic missile threat a little more seriously?” “That’s what I wonder.”

Overton

64,602 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗢𝗡: 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗠𝗣 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗟𝗗 Victor Davis Hanson — one of the greatest military historians alive — laid out exactly why what Trump just did in Iran isn't just a military victory. It's a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. His argument is simple: 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗿𝗶𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻. No Iran means no money for H-z-b, no money for H-m-s, no money for the Houthis. China loses its proxy in the Middle East. Russia already lost Syria. Now it loses Iran. North Korea, Russia, and China have been supplying Iran with drones and missiles. That pipeline is now severed. And without Iranian petrodollars flowing to terror proxies across the region, Israel can finish the job at its ease. But Hanson zooms out further. This isn't haphazard. Trump is methodically dismantling the entire axis — Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝗮𝗹: breaking up the China-Russia-North Korea nexus that has been the source of global instability for decades. And the message to Beijing is unmistakable: 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗔𝗳𝗴𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻. This is a new military. One that doesn't do DEI briefings and drag shows on base. One that delivers results. Peace through strength isn't a bumper sticker. It's a track record. 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁.
1:11

𝗩𝗜𝗖𝗧𝗢𝗥 𝗗𝗔𝗩𝗜𝗦 𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗢𝗡: 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗠𝗣 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗟𝗗 Victor Davis Hanson — one of the greatest military historians alive — laid out exactly why what Trump just did in Iran isn't just a military victory. It's a 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. His argument is simple: 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗿𝗶𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻. No Iran means no money for H-z-b, no money for H-m-s, no money for the Houthis. China loses its proxy in the Middle East. Russia already lost Syria. Now it loses Iran. North Korea, Russia, and China have been supplying Iran with drones and missiles. That pipeline is now severed. And without Iranian petrodollars flowing to terror proxies across the region, Israel can finish the job at its ease. But Hanson zooms out further. This isn't haphazard. Trump is methodically dismantling the entire axis — Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝗮𝗹: breaking up the China-Russia-North Korea nexus that has been the source of global instability for decades. And the message to Beijing is unmistakable: 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗔𝗳𝗴𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻. This is a new military. One that doesn't do DEI briefings and drag shows on base. One that delivers results. Peace through strength isn't a bumper sticker. It's a track record. 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁.

M.A. Rothman

978,718 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

🔎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."
1:56

🔎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 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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.
1:00

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 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Iran has proposed a deal to the U.S. to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the war, while deferring nuclear talks to a later stage. President Trump has summoned a Situation Room meeting today to decide Washington’s response. Why accepting this deal by the U.S. would be a defeat for the United States and a big victory for Iran, let’s understand in simple language: The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war, and it will be open after the war once peace is restored. Then what was the objective of this war? This will remain a big question. The initial objectives of the U.S. and Israel were regime change, seizing enriched uranium, and destroying Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile programs. Have they achieved any of these? No. Rather, after this deal, the Islamic regime will intensify its nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs without hesitation because they now know the weakness of the United States. Postponing discussions on the nuclear program indirectly means that Iran is not going to stop. What are the future repercussions of this deal? Many independent journalists have reported that the current IRGC chief, Ahmad Wahidi, has ordered an intensification of the nuclear weapons development program. After a few months or years, Iran may have a nuclear bomb. Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, neither the United States nor any other country will be able to save Israel. The Islamic regime has the intent but not the capability to target the U.S. mainland; the day they gain that capability, they will target the U.S. mainland. In short, we can say that this is a trap for the U.S.
1:02

Iran has proposed a deal to the U.S. to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end the war, while deferring nuclear talks to a later stage. President Trump has summoned a Situation Room meeting today to decide Washington’s response. Why accepting this deal by the U.S. would be a defeat for the United States and a big victory for Iran, let’s understand in simple language: The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war, and it will be open after the war once peace is restored. Then what was the objective of this war? This will remain a big question. The initial objectives of the U.S. and Israel were regime change, seizing enriched uranium, and destroying Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile programs. Have they achieved any of these? No. Rather, after this deal, the Islamic regime will intensify its nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs without hesitation because they now know the weakness of the United States. Postponing discussions on the nuclear program indirectly means that Iran is not going to stop. What are the future repercussions of this deal? Many independent journalists have reported that the current IRGC chief, Ahmad Wahidi, has ordered an intensification of the nuclear weapons development program. After a few months or years, Iran may have a nuclear bomb. Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, neither the United States nor any other country will be able to save Israel. The Islamic regime has the intent but not the capability to target the U.S. mainland; the day they gain that capability, they will target the U.S. mainland. In short, we can say that this is a trap for the U.S.

Baba Banaras™

36,866 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Iran war, day 101! Recall USS Liberty Trump says his deal will cause oil prices to collapse! Remembering USS Liberty! -59 years ago, the kosher terror state slaughtered 34 American sailers and wounded 171 more on USS Liberty -the kosher state lied and claimed they thought it was an Egyptian ship -LBJ covered it up even after an Israeli pilot admitted they struck a US ship. -The US muzzled the Liberty witnesses -to this day the U.S. government hasn’t held the kosher state properly accountable despite their genocide of American soldiers. What does the USS Liberty terror attack tell the world? -if any other country had done this, the U.S. goes to war. Eg. Vietnam -if only cowardly vets stood up for their own who were murdered by Israel. -instead most of them defend Israel and they’ll instantly lace up their boots and fight wars for Israel, murder civilians, steal oil and gold, and protect opium crops. -this is the epitome of betrayal, treason, and cowardice! Instead of holding Israel accountable, trump supports Israel so they can murder levantines, Arabs and Iranians. Trump picked a side! Trump claims he is close to a deal, as usual! -WSJ says Israel has halted its attacks on Iran but will continue its operations against Hezbollah in the south. -Iran says Lebanon and Palestine are redlines. -NETANYAHU tells his lackey Trump that Hezbollah remains a target irrespective of any deal. -Netanyahu won’t respect Iran's word about not attacking Lebanon again, so expect Iranian missile attack again. -A senior Israeli official warns that a full return to intense hostilities with Iran could come within days, speaking to Channel 14. Israel remains on heightened defensive and offensive readiness until further notice.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ As per trump’s bs deal according to Iran: DC made a change to the draft MOU, and this is unacceptable! - Any violation of the ceasefire will affect negotiations -Iran will not be lenient in dealing with it - No agreement can be reached if Iran’s frozen funds are not released and sanctions are not lifted. - Stability and security in the region can only be achieved through a real deterrence mechanism against aggressions. Sure yeah, a deal! Trump has declared victory on Iran more than 8x but what did he achieve? -Iran retains its missile and nuclear programs -Iran controls the SOH -Iran charges $2 million yuan per ship -Iran is undermining the petro dollar -Iran retains its military, navy and Air Force -Iran hasn’t ceded one inch of land -Iran openly exports its oil in the face of Trump’s blockade. What does the FT say about Netanyahu's grandiose Iran strategy? -War with Iran was a 30-year dream for Netanyahu -it's going badly wrong! -Iran is still standing, still firing missiles at Israel. -Hezbollah is shelling northern Israel and fighting Israeli troops in Lebanon. -Israel remains entirely dependent on antiquated US weapons and air defenses -the peace deal Trump is pursuing would leave Iran in a stronger financial position with a residual nuclear capability -Iran's closure of the SOH has handed Tehran a powerful new lever. What has the kosher military analyst "Yossi Yehoshua" said to Channel 15 Hebrew News? This round with Iran ends with damaging Israeli deterrence, which is being assessed in comparison to the previous situation. -Iran again exposed israel’s inferior weapons, ADS, and inability to deter What did Israeli media "Israel Hayom": say on the terror attack on the southern suburb of Beirut? The attack was coordinated with DC and Rubio convinced Trump to support "Israel" to respond to Iran! -Trump caught lying again when claiming the US had nothing to do with the attacks. What did "Haaretz" say on the failed attempt to renew high-intensity war with Iran and renew attacks in Lebanon? The aim was to disrupt elections and possibly cancel them! -Netanyahu is down in the polls -he needs a war to duck a loss -Trump and co are all for helping their boss
0:47

Iran war, day 101! Recall USS Liberty Trump says his deal will cause oil prices to collapse! Remembering USS Liberty! -59 years ago, the kosher terror state slaughtered 34 American sailers and wounded 171 more on USS Liberty -the kosher state lied and claimed they thought it was an Egyptian ship -LBJ covered it up even after an Israeli pilot admitted they struck a US ship. -The US muzzled the Liberty witnesses -to this day the U.S. government hasn’t held the kosher state properly accountable despite their genocide of American soldiers. What does the USS Liberty terror attack tell the world? -if any other country had done this, the U.S. goes to war. Eg. Vietnam -if only cowardly vets stood up for their own who were murdered by Israel. -instead most of them defend Israel and they’ll instantly lace up their boots and fight wars for Israel, murder civilians, steal oil and gold, and protect opium crops. -this is the epitome of betrayal, treason, and cowardice! Instead of holding Israel accountable, trump supports Israel so they can murder levantines, Arabs and Iranians. Trump picked a side! Trump claims he is close to a deal, as usual! -WSJ says Israel has halted its attacks on Iran but will continue its operations against Hezbollah in the south. -Iran says Lebanon and Palestine are redlines. -NETANYAHU tells his lackey Trump that Hezbollah remains a target irrespective of any deal. -Netanyahu won’t respect Iran's word about not attacking Lebanon again, so expect Iranian missile attack again. -A senior Israeli official warns that a full return to intense hostilities with Iran could come within days, speaking to Channel 14. Israel remains on heightened defensive and offensive readiness until further notice.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ As per trump’s bs deal according to Iran: DC made a change to the draft MOU, and this is unacceptable! - Any violation of the ceasefire will affect negotiations -Iran will not be lenient in dealing with it - No agreement can be reached if Iran’s frozen funds are not released and sanctions are not lifted. - Stability and security in the region can only be achieved through a real deterrence mechanism against aggressions. Sure yeah, a deal! Trump has declared victory on Iran more than 8x but what did he achieve? -Iran retains its missile and nuclear programs -Iran controls the SOH -Iran charges $2 million yuan per ship -Iran is undermining the petro dollar -Iran retains its military, navy and Air Force -Iran hasn’t ceded one inch of land -Iran openly exports its oil in the face of Trump’s blockade. What does the FT say about Netanyahu's grandiose Iran strategy? -War with Iran was a 30-year dream for Netanyahu -it's going badly wrong! -Iran is still standing, still firing missiles at Israel. -Hezbollah is shelling northern Israel and fighting Israeli troops in Lebanon. -Israel remains entirely dependent on antiquated US weapons and air defenses -the peace deal Trump is pursuing would leave Iran in a stronger financial position with a residual nuclear capability -Iran's closure of the SOH has handed Tehran a powerful new lever. What has the kosher military analyst "Yossi Yehoshua" said to Channel 15 Hebrew News? This round with Iran ends with damaging Israeli deterrence, which is being assessed in comparison to the previous situation. -Iran again exposed israel’s inferior weapons, ADS, and inability to deter What did Israeli media "Israel Hayom": say on the terror attack on the southern suburb of Beirut? The attack was coordinated with DC and Rubio convinced Trump to support "Israel" to respond to Iran! -Trump caught lying again when claiming the US had nothing to do with the attacks. What did "Haaretz" say on the failed attempt to renew high-intensity war with Iran and renew attacks in Lebanon? The aim was to disrupt elections and possibly cancel them! -Netanyahu is down in the polls -he needs a war to duck a loss -Trump and co are all for helping their boss

Truth_teller 🇷🇺

33,690 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Iran named a missile after the man America killed. And it's now flying at American bases. Meet the HAJ QASEM. Named after IRGC General Qasem Soleimani — assassinated by a U.S. drone strike in January 2020. The most powerful Iranian military commander in a generation. His death radicalized an ENTIRE generation of IRGC officers. 5 years later, the missile carrying his name is hitting targets across the Middle East. 💀 500 kg high-explosive warhead 💀 Range: 1,400 km — hits Israel, every U.S. base in the Gulf, all of Saudi Arabia 💀 SOLID FUEL — launches in minutes with zero warning 💀 Liquid-fueled missiles need hours of visible fueling — satellites detect them 💀 Solid-fueled? By the time you see it, it's already in the air 💀 Precision-guided — Iran's MOST accurate ballistic missile ⚠️ This is the missile Iran upgraded to AFTER studying 10 days of U.S. air defenses ⚠️ Solid fuel = no fueling trucks = no satellite warning = no preemptive strike ⚠️ 1,400 km range = launched from deep inside Iranian territory, where U.S. bombs haven't reached ⚠️ Named after a martyr = this missile was built for ONE purpose: revenge They killed Soleimani and thought it was over. Iran spent 5 years building a weapon in his name. A weapon designed specifically to hit the bases of the people who killed him. The symbolism was never meant to be subtle. And tonight Trump just threatened "Death, Fire, and Fury" on the same country launching these missiles. A missile named after revenge. A president threatening annihilation. And no off-ramp in sight. Prepare accordingly. 🚨🚨🚨
0:27

Iran named a missile after the man America killed. And it's now flying at American bases. Meet the HAJ QASEM. Named after IRGC General Qasem Soleimani — assassinated by a U.S. drone strike in January 2020. The most powerful Iranian military commander in a generation. His death radicalized an ENTIRE generation of IRGC officers. 5 years later, the missile carrying his name is hitting targets across the Middle East. 💀 500 kg high-explosive warhead 💀 Range: 1,400 km — hits Israel, every U.S. base in the Gulf, all of Saudi Arabia 💀 SOLID FUEL — launches in minutes with zero warning 💀 Liquid-fueled missiles need hours of visible fueling — satellites detect them 💀 Solid-fueled? By the time you see it, it's already in the air 💀 Precision-guided — Iran's MOST accurate ballistic missile ⚠️ This is the missile Iran upgraded to AFTER studying 10 days of U.S. air defenses ⚠️ Solid fuel = no fueling trucks = no satellite warning = no preemptive strike ⚠️ 1,400 km range = launched from deep inside Iranian territory, where U.S. bombs haven't reached ⚠️ Named after a martyr = this missile was built for ONE purpose: revenge They killed Soleimani and thought it was over. Iran spent 5 years building a weapon in his name. A weapon designed specifically to hit the bases of the people who killed him. The symbolism was never meant to be subtle. And tonight Trump just threatened "Death, Fire, and Fury" on the same country launching these missiles. A missile named after revenge. A president threatening annihilation. And no off-ramp in sight. Prepare accordingly. 🚨🚨🚨

JinWoo Kim, IQ 289

11,307 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад