What you're paying there when you go and
fill up your tank is the Israel premium.
You're paying the Israel premium there. You're paying
for this ore,
directly.
Welcome to the Last American Vagabond. I have
Robert in the case joining me to discuss
pretty much just what's going on with the
Iran war, the legalities from The United States
perspective and the world, and one particular document
released on the second by the White House
that goes through the history
of
in particular, Iranian, they claim, attacks on Americans
or really just the terrorist attacks of Iran
on Americans around the world. And I thought
it was important to go through this,
like, you know, detailed oriented and discuss whether
this was true, whether there's nuance to the
conversation, and, of course, whether this is being
used dishonestly to try to drive support for
an illegal war. So, Robert, how are you
today? It's always a pleasure to have you
on the show. It's been a while since
we've, you know, talked. You've been writing a
lot, you know, articles for TLAB, but we
we haven't done the usual interviews we have
in the past. So it's good to have
you on because we gotta get back to
it. Because as you know, I mean, for
those listening as well, if you haven't watched
watched his work, Robert has some insight in
these conversations that I feel most people just
either are afraid to point out or just
don't have in general. So how are you
today, brother?
I'm doing great. Thanks for having me back.
And, yeah, it's good to be in conversation,
rather than just the articles.
Yep. Yep. Looks like we got a little
bit of a,
feed issue there. So just bear that in
mind for the time difference. There'll be a
little delay on a on the on the
video there.
So, basically, the point today in general was,
you know, to get into the the the
the specifics of whether or not the claims
they're making are actually true. But in general,
let's just start out with, you know
you know, what points jump out at you?
Right? Like, in regard to the Iran war
in this part of it, I guess, you
know, where is there anything that jumps out
at you that you think is important to
discuss before we get into that that that
people may wanna hear that you've been following?
You know? Because there's so many angles to
this. The illegality of the war, the the,
you know, whether or not the appropriate measures
were used. I mean, declaration of war, War
Powers Act, whether or not there was an
imminent threat, whether or not this is justified
based on previous actions. You know? So is
there anything else that jumps into your mind
that you wanna start with before we get
into that?
Well, I think the international
order as we've known it for some time
or at least the
image that was presented to us has completely
collapsed,
in on itself,
not only because of the genocide in Gaza
for two years and the inability
of the so called international community, the United
Nations, and all of the, legal,
bodies,
that are supposed to safeguard the world from
genocide and these sorts of horrific war crimes
that we saw,
were, of course,
not capable of stopping what we saw in
Gaza. But then as well with the Trump
administration
advancing its,
so called border peace through,
its UN Security Council resolution
in,
November, I believe, of last year,
that passed,
through the Security Council.
And this
so called board of peace was an attempt
to replace the United Nations altogether,
as well as
a nation building exercise in the Gaza Strip.
So,
that being said, and then combining that with
the fact
that The US Israeli attack on Iran was
clearly a violation of the UN charter,
and yet
the UN
secretary general
was not even capable of calling it out
for what it was.
And and I think there's a lot of
parallels in terms of the illegality
of this attack,
when it comes to the illegal invasion of
Iraq. But
what we've seen is that The United States
didn't even bother trying to go to the
UN Security Council for a resolution
this time like they did,
for the Iraq war. They tried
to get authorization,
and they did get a resolution passed against
Iraq.
They didn't try this this time. They didn't
even care. They've just
swept aside the United Nations and international law.
So I I think the whole
argument and and the framing
of international law, I think, has become irrelevant
in in many ways. We just look at
the battlefield, and we've now entered the era
of the lore of the jungle.
So I I think that's important to note
as we're looking at everything that's going on,
and The US has made a terrible mistake
for itself. This is a war for Israel
very, very clearly,
and there's nothing that The United States gains
at all. I mean, it it,
degrades
its power projection,
the the power projection of the US military.
It degrades it in terms of its soft
power. It degrades it in terms of its
not only its Gulf relations,
but its international relations as a whole.
And and, ultimately,
the United States military is sort of getting
embarrassed right now by a country that everybody
was saying was a regime that's on its
last legs and is about to collapse and
its people hate it. And, you know, it's
so incapable
of doing anything,
against the great power of The United States,
and yet it's taking on The US and
the Israelis
and throwing punches in every single direction
and willing to take on anyone else who
wants to join in in that coalition,
and it's holding its own. And As you
I've as you've often pointed out over the
years that if it were to come to
this point that this is what we would
be not not necessarily over the years that
you knew that they would be able to
succeed in fighting it off, but that this
would be the outcome, that it wouldn't be
some over and done thing. And a lot
of other people who are not partisan or,
you know, blinded by the expertise of the
state department's perspective of Iran. Right? Did they
just understand the reality that this is clear,
I think. You know? And, I mean, I
I really appreciate your work over the years
for that very reason because it opens your
eyes to a different perspective because what else
do we have to look to? Because it's
also not, I don't think, wise to trust
what the Iranian government says about itself. Right?
It's about understanding the the middle ground. And
I'll point out, by the way, what you
said there, which is very important for people
to hear
from that you meant you know, I believe
you're talking about the government and the military,
which is what you highlighted,
hurting itself. But as most Americans may take
that as one thing. Like, Americans
don't benefit from this. Right? This is not
America first. But as he's highlighting, the US
government doesn't benefit from this. So you can
argue a world you can see a world
in which the government might take action that
it benefits from at our expense. Oh, I
what I really won't be able to hear
in that is that they're taking action at
its expense and our expense for a foreign
power. I don't I don't know how. And,
I mean, I don't even need to say
that next part seeing as how it seems
the bit the main conversation at even the
mainstream level is starting to grapple with whether
Israel controls US policy. Kinda crazy that we're
here. Just on a side note, that, you
know, that that's actually being discussed for how
long this has been broken down with facts.
You know? Any thoughts on that? No. I
I I completely agree with you.
To have these sort of conversations that we're
having right now,
you know, we were, you know, labeled as,
you know, conspiracy theorists and crazy people for
discussing all of these ideas.
But now this is the mainstream discourse because
everybody's been exposed to it. And and that's
one,
I wouldn't say amazing thing.
Trying to search for the word here. I
I find it amazing. I'm baffled that it
happened
even though the facts. I would say that
the fact that this all came from Gaza
and the suffering of Gaza, this tiny little
strip of land,
right, with a population just over 2,000,000,
that
it was Gaza that collapsed
this entire deck of cards
and exposed the whole system.
I I think that
is something that
should be noted,
in the history books, and and and everyone
should
recognize that that the struggle of the people
of Gaza, their steadfastness
enduring the genocide that they have,
has opened everyone's eyes. If it wasn't for
Gaza,
we wouldn't be here in terms of the
way that people are now viewing the world.
And everyone is now looking at,
the Israelis, looking at the US government for
what they are,
and and they're calling them out. And and
this is happening
on a scale that we quite frankly could
not have predicted, and people are saying things
quite frankly that surprised me, that shocked me.
People who are,
let's say,
accepted in the mainstream,
discourse in in the corporate media now even.
Some people are coming out and saying things.
Even the conversations that we're having now have
dramatically shifted,
and that is because of Gaza and the
sacrifice of Gaza and the steadfastness of its
people.
So I would say that it all originates
from that tiny little strip of land,
and that population there of just over 2,000,000
have changed the
the entire planet's perception
on global politics, on the way their governments
function,
and open people's eyes. And I I do
think it's,
it's it's a major shift. It's a an
an insane
shift.
And and now the fact that there's a
lot more people open to, listening to the
conversations like we're having now.
Yeah. Exactly. And then, you know, with the
Palestinian people, right, the the the suffering and
the strife and the, you know, the decades,
you know, I mean, if you can go
beyond even just Israel, but, you know, the
the long term suffering and the strife of
fighting this and having the arguments always be,
you know, like, like, even even recently, the
art just, you know, somehow to capitulate as
opposed to stand up for what's yours, You
know, to just get out of the way
instead of stand in your land. Well, they're,
you know, while they're bombing you, it's like,
why don't you just flee to Egypt? Because
this is our land. You know? Like and
and the fact that that's been going on
for so much longer than post October 7,
you're right. And I hope that that really
does end up being not just a a
footnote, but the story that the Palestinians and
what they put themselves through are why we're
here. You know? And and there's other parts
to be pointed to, but that is it's
a powerful point. And and to show the
the determination, you know, the steadfast like, the
choice
to fight that in the midst of an
insurmountable force. You know, I think that's kind
of a good point of where the world
is at right now, you know, and it's
even though it can feel that way and
even maybe, it's still important to stand up
and fight back. And before we move on
to the the document, I wanna point one
more thing out you mentioned about the UN.
I made this point just the other day
that I or it might have been yesterday.
It's so obvious this and it's actually a
good point before we frame the kind of
long term lie about what Iran is, and
that's not to say good guy, bad guy.
It's just to highlight that they've been misrepresented
for what they've been doing and that ultimately,
Iran has consistently gone to the UN in
multiple examples, including, I believe it was February
of of
of of this year saying,
if they bomb,
we will bomb these locations. It's on a
it's a UN document. It's it's on the
record. I'm sure you've seen it. And so
the point is, one, that means that they
clearly knew that they would bomb these locations.
They're now trying to claim more of the
rational response even though it's a legal response
to their attack, but also that it shows
you they weren't planning attack. Because, clearly, they're
going, look. If you attack us, we're gonna
respond, which clearly is not what you would
do if you're planning a surprise attack. You
know? But the point is they went to
the UN. Is that what a terrorist organization
does? When did the as you pointed out,
did The US or Israel go to the
UN before they no. Just it's only so
much you can truly ignore. You know? It's
just it's it's incredible. And that larger point,
I'm so glad people are starting to see
this.
So I have a a post that I
saw. Actually, I originally saw Zachary Foster share
this. Here's what he was sharing, and he
did a little side by side breakdown of
the comparison, and you'll see why that's relevant
in a second. It's, basically an identical document
to what was originally posted
in 06/19/2025
by the
Foundation
for demence excuse me, for defense of democracies,
which as they highlight both is essentially a
cutout at Israeli intelligence. You can decide for
yourself. I happen to agree with the overwhelming
influence on most of these think tanks, this
one in in particular. And so what Steven
here says, the most definitive White House statement
purporting to justify The US
Israel US war on Iran, which was from
03/02/2026,
statement entitled the Iran's regime decades of terrorism
against American citizens. Here's the document from the
White House.
He says, a after a brief editorial opening,
the article lists 44 incidents with a total
of nine hundred ninety two US deaths, which
we should address that in general before we
get into this about the comparison to, like,
like, bee stings in a year. You know
what I mean? Like, the amount we're talking
about. Also, the fact that every one of
these people now have casually said thousands of
Americans saying inward that's you know? Well, let's
talk about that before we get going. The
source of the data wasn't given. Where did
it come from? He points out that it's
this document. Now what's what and it's actually
prepared by a former APAC member, which all
of that may mean nothing to you. The
point for me, and I think it does
matter, is whether these things are accurate. Right?
So before we get into the document and
going down the list they have, it's an
interesting point.
Right? The the the information about what we've
been hearing and how often we hear from
all of them, thousands. Trump even casually said
maybe even millions in a press conference just
the other day. Thousands of Americans. So before
we get into that, can can you break
down for people listening what that number comes
from? Like, the general sentiment of where those
thousands were supposedly killed in the bulk they
reference in the, you know, Iraq conversation.
Well, first of all, to address the foundation
for defensive Democracies,
they,
along with the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy,
which are both ultra Zionist fintechs. And if
you look on the Quincy Institute for Responsible
Statecrafts,
they have,
a project that tracks the transparency
of the think tanks in Washington DC, and
both of them rank,
the lowest of the low because they take
dark money.
And it's
recognized
that they are essentially cutouts connected
to the APAC lobby,
and they were the cheerleaders for the Iraq
war.
So again, yet again,
going into another regime change war, another forever
war,
you know, continuing the
war on terror
as it was called. Right. We're seeing that
the White House again is citing these exact
same think tanks,
as its justification
and their data.
And so to go through them, I mean,
we could pull them up and and and
go through each and every single one of
them. But in essence,
what they're arguing is all of Iran's allies
and and groups that are roughly connected to
them and every single death since,
1979,
is somehow the responsibility
of the Iranian government,
of, you know, US deaths.
And just not, you know, caring to add
any context into anything at all,
and blaming them from, for everything from, you
know, roadside bombs in Iraq to Hamas,
attacks
in occupied Palestine to Hezbollah
and a variety of other,
attacks.
It's it's utterly ridiculous. And you'll hear, by
the way, it's
important that you pointed out. It's like, what
09/1996
they're saying. And Pardon me then. Events of
tomorrow.
So,
you know, you'll hear that talking point that
these, you know,
Israel first pro Trump people are putting thousands
of Americans. And what they've done there
is they're lazy, and they've just said, well,
every single roadside bomb and every single US
soldier that was killed in Iraq during the
Iraq war was Iran's fault, which is ridiculous
on the face of it. Right. And And
that's that's kinda what I was getting at
in that opening. So there we'll we'll go
through in a second is not every single
one because the lot of them kinda can
be grouped together, but the general kind of
long list of what they're claiming. But what
what the the the bulk, as far as
I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong,
as you just highlighted, comes from, like, the
in the illegal invasion of Iraq and specifically
the the being, like, fought off by the
Iran elements, which are some elements of just,
like, what we can get into, like, the
PMU and and what that really is, whether
proxy,
ally, whatever, but then specifically Iran elements that
were there with Soleimani in fighting off that
illegal invasion. And so
for anyone to frame
to which I mean, is anybody out there
listening actually of the mind that that wasn't
an illegal invasion? Do we pretend there were
weapons of mass destruction? Like, it's obvious. We
know that was illegal. And yet at the
same time, people could acknowledge that somehow still
wanna make the case that them fighting off
that illegal invasion was now a terrorist act.
And I think that's what it largely stems
to stems back to. And then we can
get into, like, the, you know, three killed
here from Hamas, whatever. But would you agree
that that's the bulk of it? And then
the those roadside bombing point too, is that,
like, the general sentiment?
It's it like, from what I've seen
on that list,
it's
just, oh, like, groups that Iran
either has a relationship with or some of
the cases don't have a relationship and have
never had a relationship with,
or possibly could have been involved in funding
or are open allies with and, as part
of its,
access of resistances is called.
Everything that was ever done by any of
those groups was,
automatically Iran's fault and as if it was
ordered by Iran.
I I mean, it's just ridiculous. We can
get into the list and and we can
go through everything, and and and I can
address every single point they're gonna bring up.
Yeah. You know?
So the the point the the what I
was just trying to get at is the
interesting point that it's something that they continue
to cycle through even though it's more scattered
than what they're really trying to suggest as
you're highlighting. And then back to the the,
post about '9 or 92, really just what
he framed it as, and we'll get into
the actual list itself. You know, it's important
to think about that, that it's it may
seem a small thing to some people, you
know, that you can casually just refer to
thousands of Americans. But one thing it shows
you is that they're being fast and loose
with the number of people that they claim
is sacred to defend. You know, the we
have to honor their sacrifice, but then you
kinda just blithely just, you know, thousands, even
though that's not the reality. Based on the
numbers they provide, that's 992.
So you don't even reach a thousand. And
then and that's not to diminish the fact
that they were killed. And we can get
into the reality of what they thought they
were fighting for. But then you can compare
it to just about anything, like, very benign
things that take place in the country or
over the so let's take the same time
frame from '79 forward
and the amount of things that, you know,
like like I've jokingly said, bee stings
wildly outnumber what they're pointing to. So it
just it's a it's it's meant to make
you feel like we're under attack and these
people are targeting you, but by any any
metric,
it in fact shows the opposite. And I
just think that's really important to think about.
So let's go through their list.
For nearly a half century, the Islamic Republic
of Iran, the world's okay. Let's just start
with that. Because I just it's it's amazing
to me that with even what they show
you, we they can still make this argument.
The world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
So do you find that to be an
accurate framing? And and if not, why?
I mean, it it's it's ridiculous. Like, they're
the leading,
state sponsor of terrorism.
I mean, did they,
fund,
Al Qaeda and all of the splinter groups
across the region
and in,
Africa
and across the world? Do you know? Like,
a a dash, ISIS,
did they fund them? These are the most
well known. Right. Well, just in case people
don't know, the answer is no unequivocally. So
that's that's what he was getting at right
there. They are not. And we'll get into
that part in a second as well. The
ideological overlap, the, you know, the ISIS point,
I think, is the most insulting even as
we can see ISIS attack Iran when Israel
starts criticizing them. But then somehow, and they're
the group we're told is the leading group,
the big terrorism, but then they fight each
other, but they're still the state leading sponsor.
It just it's it's it it doesn't make
any sense. You know? I I recently saw
Rubio and others try to kind of or
Higgseth as well, try to kind of broaden
this out to, well, they're a state sponsor
of terrorism. Why? Well, the leading because they
take the money they make from their oil
resources that, by the way, The US has
been sanctioning to then build tunnels and weapons
and like, what do you think about that
claim? That first of all, that they are
using the the resources that are being suppressed
by the US government to build what other
countries seem to use, but why that would
make them the state sponsor of terrorism. Like,
just I don't know. It it just seems
like it's on its face ridiculous, but I'm
trying to engage with it like it makes
like, it's a real argument, so we're not
just dismissing it. But, you know, what do
you think?
Well,
who does Iran back? Iran backs Hezbollah in
Lebanon.
It backs the palace all of the Palestinian
resistance groups, whether they're Islamic groups, Marxist groups,
nationalist groups. They back them all. They they
provide them all with,
funding,
logistical support, etcetera.
And they also back Ansarullah in Yemen,
and they back
the
Hashd al Shaabi
or the PMU
in Iraq.
These are all legitimate allies that have their
own grievances within their own borders or either
in Yemen's case in Sana'a, they have a
government that this is the government of Yemen.
Two thirds of the military
are, were
sided with them immediately
when they took over in 2015.
So that that's a government there. It's not
internationally recognized,
but the so called internationally
recognized government
in Yemen
is a bunch of Saudi stooges
that literally put together
a new government in exile
out of the Ritz Carlton Hotel in in
in Saudi Arabia,
and have no legitimacy
whatsoever. They're a bunch of gangsters. They've allied
themselves historically with forces fought on the side
of Al Qaeda and Daish, ISIS inside of,
Yemen. So
let's let's look at that. Oh, well, Iran,
has backed Hezbollah.
Well, Hezbollah is an organic
resistance movement which grew out of Lebanon
after the Israeli invasion in 1982
when Israel killed around 20,000
Lebanese and Palestinians. And then when the Palestinian
resistance, by the way, were pushed out, they
agreed to leave Lebanon.
Israel then used its fascist militia allies, which
were proxies,
and there these were hardened killers to massacre
thousands and thousands of Palestinian refugees
in refugee camps when they didn't have anyone
to protect them,
and they also killed the Shia in South
Lebanon as well. And Israel then occupied South
Lebanon. And by the way, the when we're
talking about the Shia in South Lebanon,
prior to this, during the era in the
seventies and and and before the Israeli invasion,
the Shia were not actually,
always hostile
to the Israelis per se. This is the
poorest population inside of Lebanon,
and it's also a population that they for
a long time, and this is goes into
the history of Lebanon now, that population, a
lot of them historically didn't really like that
the PLO was inside of Lebanon. They they
viewed it as a state within a state,
and and they had some grievances against them.
And so they weren't actually
they definitely weren't combative,
towards the Israelis at that point. But then
the Israelis occupied them. The Israelis murdered them.
The Israelis brutalized them. They destroyed their homes.
They took their their fathers and their sons
as political prisoners, and they tortured them. And
so then you had Hezbollah, which formed out
of the occupation
of South Lebanon and out of the invasion
and the mass murder of tens of thousands
of people. And, yes,
Iran did back them. The IRGC did back
them, and they have an affinity towards them
because they're of the same religious group. But
Hezbollah are an organic resistance movement inside of
Lebanon. They're the biggest political party inside of
Lebanon. They have social movements and and a
a political wing and also a military wing,
and they're the only people capable of defending
the country quite frankly. The Lebanese army is
is a glorified security force.
This all being said, that's who Iran backs,
and that's why they back them. Because even
for Iran strategically when it's backing all of
these allies, and that's just looking at Hezbollah
alone. When it's backing these allies to fight
against occupation
and to expel and and it's arming them,
and and it's providing them with support, It's
doing that for a variety of reasons. You
can say it's ideological. You can say it's
a moral reason. You can make those arguments.
But even if you're just looking at it
from an Iranian defense
point of view, since '9, since 1979,
the Iranian government
has been under sanctions. It has been constantly
threatened by The United States, and so it
needs to develop these allies as a protective
shield for itself in the region. That's just
the reality.
They have military bases surrounding them, and they
have threats coming from every single direction. They've
been placed under sanctions
for their entire existence of this government, and
then not even two years into the new
government after the people of Iran overthrew their
dictator, the Shah,
who's a US installed puppet installed by the
CIA.
Not even two years into that government, they
couldn't even settle down.
Then The United States backed Saddam Hussein to
launch a war of aggression and invasion which
lasted for around eight years
and killed
around 500,000
Iranians.
That this is
the none nobody gets told this. Nobody knows
this. Nobody knows about the overthrow
of the first democratically
elected
leader in 1953
by the MI six and and the CIA,
who, by the way, it's important to note
when we talk about a coup,
the way that they did it is they
funded
and fueled through the CIA and MI six.
They fueled
protests
against Hamid,
Mosaddegh.
Yeah.
They fueled these pro like we saw in,
in earlier this year with these riots and
these attacks.
Again, they they're doing the same thing now
as they did back in 1953
because
the country had a democratically elected leader, and
he wanted to nationalize the oil. He wanted
to take that the oil for himself,
and he didn't want to align himself. So
they installed this shop. The people overthrown the
shop, and then immediately,
under sanction, invasion of their country, hundreds of
thousands of people dead. And at the very
end
of the Iran Iraq war, after we've seen
that this was the last year of the
Iran Iraq war,
The United States,
Navy
shoot down a civilian
airliner and kill over 270
Iranian civilians
in
in the Gulf Of Hormuz.
Right. And so they never apologized for that
either. Right. So And Reagan famously says, I'll
never apologize for the American for for the
for America, I think he said, the way
he framed it. Yeah. Keep going. This is
this is the the problem is when you're
like, woah. Iran backs this group, and it
backs Hamas, and it backs Islamic Jihad, and
it backs the PFLP,
and, the other groups in Palestine.
Yeah. They're fighting within the borders of occupied
Palestine to liberate their country.
Hezbollah
is fighting to liberate Lebanese territory and to
protect Lebanon. The PMU, when it started backing
the PMU and and helped found them,
it did it
in response to an ISIS
invasion,
which had taken over large swaths of Iraq.
People don't know this because they have this
weird fantasy,
depiction of what happened with the defeat of
ISIS in Iraq. The United States did not
defeat ISIS in Iraq. The Iraqis defeated,
the ISIS occupation. It was a brutal, bloody
battle, and and no one should have any,
illusions about it. There were many, many bloody,
events which took place. And I'm not saying
that there weren't bad things that happened during,
this time. That would be incorrect to say.
There were horrible things that happened in Iraq,
during this time. But those the PMU were
formed. And by the way, they had, Christian
groups involved, Sunni groups involved. Obviously, the majority
were,
Shia.
But not all of them were, you know,
technically on the Iranian payroll and stuff. They
were fighting to defend their country.
So Iran threw its weight behind them, and
they were the ground force whereas The US
came in with the air force later,
and obviously did some special forces operation
and some ground operations. But the majority of
the ground fight against ISIS was done by
the PMU. And, again, just from a defensive
point of view for the Iranians, they're looking
at this and go, well, if ISIS takes
over Iraq, we're in big trouble, and they
don't want that. So, again, it makes sense
from a defensive,
point of view for the Iranians to do
this. And, again, it's it's a force which
in Iraq protects the country from being take
taken over by these hostile forces.
In Yemen, we just went through it in,
what happened in Yemen. Again, another
US backed
dictator
in the country,
and the people in Yemen
underwent an uprising.
And they overthrew the government,
the the regime there. The Ansar al Law,
they came in later popularly known in the
western corporate media as the Houthis, the Houthi
rebels to delegitimize
them.
But they came in and
it they they took over Sana'a.
And there was a revolution
before this,
and there were there were massive protests on
the streets and people including many,
the majority of the armed forces
sided with Ansar Allah when they took over.
And again, it was about sovereignty. I'm not
here to advocate and say, hey. Everything about
Ansar Allah is perfect and the people of
Yemen should choose them as their government. No.
That's not for me to decide. That's the
people of Yemen. And all of these other
countries, it's up to them.
It's it's their countries. They should decide. However,
to simply
say, well, Iran backs all these terrorist,
groups and regimes, and the PMU are part
of their,
a part of the Iraqi security apparatus.
Like, it's just all of this is just
so incredibly ridiculous.
And and if you look at each case
by case, on a case by case basis
and you look into it, every single time
you can make sense of it. You don't
need to agree with it, but you can
make sense of it. But
backs has the law, and I'm like
like, I I mean, it's just stupid. Like,
it's it's it's ridiculous, quite frankly. It is.
And what and when it comes down to
the point that if, like, you like, from
the origin point, PMU, for example, which, again,
I made this point, like, up until not
that long ago, the US government was funding
Iraq, which was then funding the PMU or
arming and then acting like that's an it
just doesn't this is your point. It's a
logical when you look at the actual information
that's not being surface level put out. But
the point is from the from and that's
not the origin point. But from ultimately the
point where, you know, just when they start
calling them terrorists forward, you can highlight that
the only real argument is that they are
backed by, like, Iran proxy, which is why
they're terrorists. And then any kind of action
they're used, like, when the PMU responds against
the US government for illegal actions in Iraq,
they call it a terrorist act. My point
is that there's a lot of things they
point to that you can there's no like,
like you said, with Hezbollah defending
domestically. They're not lashing out and trying to
overtake countries. They're responding to attacks for to
on Southern Lebanon, for example, which we're seeing
with with Israel or any number of these
points we could make. You know? I think
it's so obvious to see the one-sided arguments
there. But as you rightly pointed out, this
is not about good guy, bad guy. We're
trying to show the facts, the truth. And
if you can understand that they're misrepresenting these
groups, and maybe you still think they're doing
bad things. In fact, I think any power
structure could eventually or maybe doing exactly the
same thing, but that they are misrepresenting it.
And what does that mean? If they are
this evil terrorist organization, why would they have
to lie about what they're doing? You know?
And so I wanna get into the point
about the proxy thing before we go further
on the list. And I know we actually
do have limited time today, so I wanna
make sure we get into it. But this
is I just I've always enjoyed talking with
you about this stuff, Robert. And and so
real quickly, last point on this. It's I
think this is kinda cut to the to
the cuts to the quick of what we're
getting at, proxies.
So what you highlighted there, you your quick
point there. I forget what the group name
was, but you said Israel was basically using
their proxy in that in that discussion. But
then we high then you highlighted the allies
of Hezbollah.
Yeah. You know, any number of the groups
we're talking about that are allied and even
gain support and and weapons and and funding
from their allies just like the US government
does to other countries in the world that
we don't call them proxies. Right? So what's
the difference in your mind? Why would Hezbollah
not be considered a proxy of Iran and
then any number of groups we can point
to that we could you know, the elements
the Israel and US are using would be
called proxies. What's what's your mind that you're
Go ahead. What is someone that,
immigrates
from,
let's say, Nigeria to The United States called
an immigrant,
but someone that would immigrate from The United
States to Nigeria called an expat.
It it's like, again, this is just it's
propagandistic
framing,
and and and it's it's honestly it's,
American exceptionalism
to an extent.
And and this is
when you want to frame the world in
terms of goodies and baddies, which is Trump's,
Trump's rhetoric,
in in essence. This, is
the way that he presents the world in
goodies and baddies, right, in the most basic,
way of presenting
international politics, then this is what you do.
You know? The the bad guys, they're regimes.
They're not countries. They're not governments. They're regimes.
Iran can't be viewed as a government that
you know,
for instance,
lately, there was an interview, I forget how
long ago,
with,
professor Mohammed Morandi. He was on,
Piers Morgan. And Piers Morgan asked him, can
you condemn your regime?
And it's like,
you want someone to just get on there
and just condemn a random fact about their
government. It's like, it's a country. People have
problems
with the policies of their government. The reality
is here that as much as I'm opposed
to
the American government,
the Canadian government, the British government, whatever,
right, and I have so many criticisms of
them,
if suddenly
a foreign power was invading and bombing my
damn neighborhood and killing children,
right, and then talking about all these stupid
excuses,
right, as to why it's doing that and
pushing propaganda,
I'm gonna stand there and go, no. If
they were backing terrorist groups
to run through the streets and to burn
down businesses
and attack churches
and and just run amok,
would I be in support of that?
Absolutely not. That's not something I would back,
and this is just somebody who is a,
you know, a dissident. I don't like the
policies of these governments. I have so many
criticisms like you do. But, again, would you
back your country being,
you know, plagued with these crazy religious fundamentalists
that are given all this money by, I
don't know, Russian intelligence or Chinese intelligence or
whatever it would be. Like, you wouldn't. It
it's just obvious, but we have to present
our enemies
with, their their our chosen enemies
as being not human. Their governments are are
uniquely
evil. Their systems are evil. Their religions are
evil. Their culture is evil. Everything about them
is different to us, and they're not. They're
just not. And a lot of people see
for this nonsense. They do. Unfortunately,
most people don't have the knowledge
specifically about West Asia
to be able to elaborate. So when they're
asked to condemn Hezbollah
and Hanaz
and, on Sarala in Yemen as terrorists, they
just call them terrorists. Oh, yeah. Yeah. The
terrorists. Or they just call they condemn the
Iranian regime. Oh, yeah. I hate the Iranian
regime. It's like, can you tell me anything
about it? Do you know anything about the
way that the government functions? Do you know
about the different political camps? Do you know
about the history? Do you have any idea
about you don't, but people are pressured
into
accepting
the,
the framing of the conversation.
And that's what they do is they they
they want to create a certain framing in
a box. And if you're outside of that,
you're crazy, you're a conspiracy theorist, you're an
anti semite, you're whatever it is. And
this box is just propagandistic
nonsense. It's and and in in of itself,
it is inherently racist
crap, orientalist
crap, which is there. And I'm not using
those words. A lot of people throw these
words racist and orientalist
around a lot. I definitely should. Like, anti
semitism is run around a lot. I use
them with purpose here because these
this framing specifically is there, and that box
is there in order to trick you and
dupe you into
hating people that you would never hate if
you met them. And you would never hate
their culture if you went over there, and
you would probably think it's beautiful if you
went and visited Iran. If you went to,
Palestine and and and you were to walk
the streets and see the hospitality
of the people and the beauty of the
land and what they've built, you wouldn't hate
the Palestinians. You would hate the Iranians. You
wouldn't hate the Iraqis or anyone else. You
wouldn't, but you're supposed to view them as
this unique evil. I suppose this is a
bit of a rant here, but then, again,
it's just old manufacturing
consent. That's all it is.
And you it appears more of an example,
you know, and, like you're saying, and then
if you don't
give them that concession, right, where, yes, yes,
they're bad, but let me explain why they're
not what you think. Well, maybe we maybe
not everyone agrees that they're as evil as
you're saying. And the point is you're not
allowed inside that inner conversation. You don't get
that upper echelon, you know, Piers Morgan. You
know? That that's the whole point. And and
and maybe some of them do have that
opinion. You know? Yes. Hamas is a terrorist
organization, but this is why this is not
true about this. But it's not accurate, and
you're right to frame it that way because
that's just not the truth about the nuanced
reality of the groups. But you can like
you said, we I we could both point
out things that we argue are crimes, even
rightly point out things that happen October 7,
which should be criticized, but it's not the
same thing. And I think it's important to
see how that kind of, you know, same
thing with politicians, you know, where you have
to kind of give them that to be
able to get inside the circle until you
compromise yourself. You know? Now to back to
the proxy point and one more thing before
we get into the list, you know, I
think it's really important to see that you
highlighted from the Iranian perspective. You know? Like,
it's a really important point there. We're glad
you outlined that. And so from Iran, you
know, yes, they're protesting. There are real protests.
There have been plenty of times that they
end up co opting. And it's very clear
as the unions even pointed out once it
turned into these armed mass people that they
told you they were arming. But the point
is that Iranians do want the you know,
as you often point out and do have
influence on government action that has changed because
of it. But then when you have act
people come in and start bombing hospitals and
schools, they they even if it's in the
interest of what they claim they want, that's
not what they the way they want it
or how they want this to go, and
so they speak up and criticize it. The
analogy I make is if Republicans are trying
to let's say they're the insurgent force trying
to take over the Democrat led government, and
all of a sudden their Republican leader starts
bombing their Republican locations
to get that done, why would they be
like, yeah. You know, it doesn't make sense.
And that's what it's it's only in the
world from the dehumanized outside perspective where that
even and that's not what's real on the
ground. And you can easily prove this. You
know? And to back to the proxy point,
what I was simply saying, and I I
what you were saying, I think, is really
important,
is that it comes down to whether they're
controlled or not. And I think that's what
a proxy means. If they're literally like an
extension of the government. So the US government
literally
manufactures a group of fake people or a
fake
organization that are, you know, packed with CIA,
for example. That's a proxy. It's not really
the organization, whereas you have organizations that are
simply allies of other groups. Now it's for
everybody out there to decide whether you think
that line is crossed or not. But the
important thing is to realize that a lot
of these groups are, in my mind, not
proxies, but simply allies versus something else. And
that's really important what we're gonna get into
next.
So on this,
one thing is, first, I think as you
already mentioned, let's not forget. And I my
you'll be surprised, I think, at least I'd
like to hope, how well informed my audience
is about operation Ajax and 53 forward and
now what the seventy nine revolution really was.
And as you highlighted, we're talking about an
illegal revel an illegal coup d'etat.
Very well documented at this point. Mosaddegh was,
as you pointed out, I mean, I I
often point this out when I talk about
it. I can't speak to what his mind
was, but the the discussion of him argued
that he was very pro democracy, had pictures
of himself next to Liberty Bell, was all
about trying to emulate these different cultures. But
I understand he just didn't wanna bow to
the interests of the foreign powers at the
expense of Iranians. So they got rid of
him and put someone in place that was
willing to bow to the elitist oligarch kind
of upper echelon. You know? And so it's
I think whether people agree with that framing
or not, it's an illegal coup d'etat that
I think went against what the Iranian people
want, and even Rock will tell you that.
Dramatically bad for the vast majority of Iranians
other than that upper circle. So then we
come to 1979.
So you have the revolution. Now as you
often pointed out, that's doesn't mean it all
went in the direction of what even all
the Iranian people wanted or whether it was
more kind of a overreaction
in a religious sense to what Americans brought
in. Right? But, ultimately, regardless, it was the
will of the people to push this away
and ultimately then went in the direction of
more, you know, like, you've talked about the
hijab point and how a lot of people
saw it more of a response to what
the West was doing. All that aside,
'79 forward,
in the midst of this aftermath,
Iranian students, and this is from the White
House post, backed the regime backed by the
regime, and you can speak to whether you
think that's even the case, seized the US
embassy in Tehran taking 66 American hostages in
a four hundred and forty four day standoff.
This is one of the most frequently cited
points to why Iran's a terrorist organization apparently
or why they're killing Americans or just frothing
in the mouth to get it done. So
what's your understanding of that basic situation?
Well, the people like, this is a the
the revolution was fresh at this
point. And so it was students that did
this, and is it backed by the regime.
And it's like the the government ended up
taking control of the situation and, of course,
endorsed their actions eventually. But,
this was an organic reaction
because the people
wanted
the Shah to be returned back to Iran.
They wanted him to be punished for all
of his crimes,
and he was a bloody and brutal dictator.
And this is something that everyone misses. They
they share these stupid black and white photos
of, oh, look. There were women in bikinis
and everything. It's like, do you do you
really know what the majority of Iranians were
living like? Do you know what it was
like? They they had literally Americans as like
settlers in their own gated communities there inside
of the country next to slums.
The population
were poor.
The population oh, women and women's rights. Yeah.
Did you know what happened when the Islamic
revolution came along? Yeah. Women became overwhelmed
overwhelmingly educated. They finally could have access to
an education
and higher education,
and they excelled in every field you can
imagine. And by every single metric,
they,
life or the conditions of life, the quality
and the indicators,
of life improved for them. Now you can
argue about certain Islamic rulings, how they're,
implemented.
Many Iranians have problems with this, and they
have had problems with this. And back in
2022,
after the Messehamini
protests, which, of course,
foreign forces hijacked them, and you have the
women life freedom,
you know, banner put up, which, of course,
was promoted by Saudi Arabia. Women life freedom,
women's rights and feminism
brought to you by the Kingdom Of Saudi
Arabia, which just gave the women women the
right to drive cars. But regardless,
when it comes to the system, there there
has been many changes since 2022.
And and that reflects the fact that the
government does respond to people. It does.
Now that takes a lot of struggle, and
the Iranian people have struggled for those changes,
and they've bled for those changes.
And it's their right to do that, and
the and it's their country, and they should
have that right to say, hey. We want
this or we don't want this because, again,
it is their country,
not ours. We have no
business telling them what they should do. But
back then,
with the,
the hostage crisis,
they went into that embassy, and that's how
we found out about 1953.
Because the students went in, they took over
that embassy. They were shredding all those documents.
They brought them.
They they took these shredded documents, put them
together, and they found out, wow.
They found out so many different things because
it was the head of the CIA operations
Right. For the region.
So
so they found out a lot. And if
you you look at the way that the
Iranian government dealt with that situation, they released
all of the black
hostages, and they released all of the women
hostages,
on humanitarian
grounds,
because they said that African Americans have struggled
and been oppressed, and women, of course, like,
it's humanitarian. We're not gonna go we're not
gonna keep women. Right? And they kept the
rest of them. And and The US ordered
a a botched,
special forces raid,
which was a catastrophe
inside of the country to retrieve them. And,
again, it's like the country's placed under sanctions.
The United States is harboring the Shah. Eventually,
where did the Shah die? The the Shah
died in exile in Egypt. And then, like,
these cultists,
these weirdos,
that, you know, a lot of them live
in in the West who are Iranian
and Iranian diaspora people. They go over to
the the shrine of, the Shah and and,
you know, I don't know,
say prayers for him or what. I guess
not prayers because they hate Muslims so much
and they hate Islam, and they deny the
reality of their country,
and their history
as well. But the funny thing is that
the Shah was actually a practicing Muslim.
Right. Right. Islam so much.
It's so ridiculously
inconsistent. And, you know but, even to the
point of them why does it even make
sense that these people would go and and
pray and, I guess, praise the Shah at
his altar? It wasn't I mean, unless you
were in this upper elitist inner circle, which
would then mean you weren't representative of the
Iranian people, then, you know, you wouldn't feel
that way. So it's I my mind is
either people who do very much represent that
that illegitimate position or just doing it because
they're being influenced today, like, Marie, what is
it, Marina Job and and all, you know,
all these US state department funded people claiming
it was Iranian activism. And you could look
that up as well. It's documented on their
own websites that they get funding from the
US Department of State. They don't want to
even admit that the revolution was popular. They
don't want to admit that. And the reality
was it was millions and millions of people
who were it was a process that took
years. You know? People suffered greatly. People were
disappeared
by the internal security,
forces
Mhmm. And tortured to death.
Start with an s. What was it called
again?
I'm from the
The the Savak, I think. Yes. There it
is. Yeah.
And and other,
as well, like, of course, there were other
ways of,
taking them and and seizing them and and
killing them and executing them. And they followed
them,
in some cases
overseas to to murder them. There is people,
that are significant in the history of the
Iranian revolution and the lead up to it,
like Ali Shariati,
who we won't get into right now, but,
there's a lot of speculation that he was
assassinated
in The United Kingdom.
Some people say that he died due to
health complications,
but he was tortured,
by
the, Shah's forces,
and and later fled. But,
what we should know is that there were
millions and millions of people, and this was
a very long drawn out process inside of
Iran, which involved all elements of the society
who went on general strikes, who did everything
in their power
to collapse the Shah's pro US, pro Israeli
regime.
And so
when that happened, there were forces like, for
instance, the communist forces,
and Islamic Marxist forces,
and, you know, as many of them were
not happy about the direction that the revolution
went in.
And and there were different groups that splintered
off, and then you have, like, these terrorist
cults like the MEK, which
splintered off and even sided with Saddam Hussein
during the Iraq war. The Iran Iraq. Government
broadly supports and is, in fact, one of
the groups that many of the current US
administration wants to be in power when this
might change. Just that's important to think about.
Yeah. And they were targeting it as a
terrorist organization until taken off by was it
Clinton, I think? But I forget. And I
mean, this is a deeply unpopular organization. Like,
look. There are these psychopaths
who are very vocal in the Iranian diaspora
who are they're mentally ill. Look. They're just
mentally ill people. They they they are not
coherent. They have no grasp of the history
at all, and they
subscribe to cultist ideology,
where they basically worship,
whether it's the MEK or or the Shah,
worship of,
Riza Pavlovino,
who's just an Israeli stooge. I mean, this
this is I I I honestly believe this.
If
Reza Pahlavi, if his father was around,
the Shah was around,
and and he saw the way he was
behaving, he would execute his own son.
And and that I I'm I'm I honestly
think that's what he would do. He'd probably
execute it.
It's just the that that's honestly knowing that
I know about the history, that's probably what
he would do.
But
this,
but just to to finish on this point,
these people do not represent
the bulk of the Iranian public. And if
you speak to a lot of Iranians, and
I know many, many, many Iranians inside and
outside,
You have people who are more on the
side of opposing, very critical, but sort of
see themselves in the middle. They don't like
the way the system is. They have so
many criticisms
of it. Right? And they can tell you,
you know, they can be talking to you
all night about how much they hate this,
that, and the other inside of their country.
And and that probably is, like, a very
big portion of the Iranian population. They're they're
like that. Very Just like in The United
States.
Just like in United States.
Exactly.
Exactly. Like The United like every other country
you can imagine.
And most countries are like this. And then
there is a loyal base of supporters. We're
talking about a population that is over 92,000,000
people. There is probably around 20 to 30,000,000,
it's estimated, who are, like, loyal. Right? And
this is in large part because that government
is a religious government,
and so it has a religious leadership.
And so for them, this is like a
a,
something that is spiritual.
You know? It's like Catholics with the pope
in a way that they owe allegiance to
the pope. It's the same thing. What Trump's
trying to create in this country, and I
think it's an extension of, like, basically the
idea. And I I think that this again,
it comes down to what peoples want for
their country, and I think that always has
to be acknowledged, and it's up for them
to decide. Same with Americans, same with same
with Israelis.
But it's worth noting that in any one
of them, including with Iran, which is some
of the criticisms, it can be used to
manipulate the population. And I think that's what
Zionism is doing to his population. I think
that's what Trump is trying to create. And
the reason I'm saying that is because I
I see it as a dishonest use. Now
the same I'm sure people would have the
same criticism, but what matters to me is
whether people who, not just Iranians, but rather
people who practice the same religion, believe what
they're doing is in line with that religion.
I don't believe that's an even remotely close
I mean, how can we look at a
genocide or any act of war or bombing
a school full of children and pretend like
that in lines with what they're they practice.
Now say again, same criticism if we apply
to Iran, but, again, if you come down
to, like, the nuclear war argument, they lie
about these things. They are if you look
at the evidence, it does back up there's
a fatwa and they have not done it.
You know, it it again, it's I want
everyone to look into these things for themselves
and come to their own conclusions, but I
think that's a good way to look at
the difference of how it's applied and how
it's I mean, even the point about Zionism,
again, it doesn't we're going to get into
this part of it, but it is a
misrepresentation
of it. It's a bastardization
of it versus
another framing of it. You know? It's we're
thinking about that, and I think it's like
a weaponization of it if you get what
I'm saying.
Yeah. No. I I I
the the conversation
when we're talking about Iran
and, you know, my expertise obviously, I'm an
analyst, and I cover West Asia. My expertise
is in, like,
The Levant, Sham. Right? That's where my specific
expertise is. But I know a decent amount
about Iran, Iranian history.
And as somebody that actually knows about Iran
Mhmm. Right? And I'm not saying I'm I
I know them the most, and I'm I'm
an expert, you know, and I can be
compared to other voices,
on Iran. I'm not saying that.
There are many people that are more educated.
However,
when I'm just looking at the conversations that
are had in the West and amongst some
of these
psychopaths,
you know, who call themselves
Iranians,
who, you know, parade around the,
old Iranian monarchist flag,
not knowing that, you know, the symbology on
it is, Right. Goes back to Ali,
and it's actually religious, but regardless.
When I look at these conversations
and the thirty thousand killed protesters in the
40,000, and then it's 80, then it's a
120.
You know, like, why not say 2,000,000,000
protesters were killed in fifteen minutes? Why not?
It's just as lunatic. It's just as crazy.
All of this talk about the regime and
it's so evil and it's proxies
and,
and all the nonsense they spout. We're living
in a different reality
that they live in their own parallel universe
where there's a there's an imaginary
Iran
and a real Iran, which is a country
with problems. Yes. It has its own system
of government, and it has its own people
who should be the ones to decide their
fate. And here we are in the West
talking about how bad they are. And if
you don't agree with that, look, I don't
agree with I I personally I didn't like
Saddam Hussein.
I don't like I still I the
there's nothing
that you can really defend about. I don't
think he's a defendable
character. I think he did horrible things in
Iraq. But
was it right for The United States to
go in and invade Iraq and and which
led to the deaths of a million people
or to impose sanctions on Iraq, which starved
to death and and led to the deaths,
because of lack of medicine, all of that,
of hundreds of thousands of children. No. And
it doesn't matter what I think about Saddam
Hussein. I'm not Iraqi. And even if I
am Iraqi and I'm on the outside,
who am I to go and on television
and advocate for the bombing of a country
I no longer live in? It's it's so
ridiculous.
I agree. And and and a better way
to, you know, to say is is did
it actually benefit the country? Did it achieve
what they were trying to accomplish? And and
or the real question, were they even trying
to? And I that's a different conversation, but
I think we cannot and the history shows
you today they were not. But either way,
the hypothetical point is,
Assad Saddam Hussein wasn't a good guy, and,
clearly, that's why the US government worked with
him. But the point is that they took
him out
and destroyed the country for the purposes of
what they claim they're trying to accomplish. Apply
the same logic to Iran. Is it even
if you think they're the worst group, is
it going to benefit the country to let
this group who clearly is going to sell
it out as best they can for their
own benefit at the expense of everybody, is
it going to benefit the people? And we
know that's not the case, but I I
know we do I I know how much
time you have left. Let's let's come back
to the list since we let's kinda finish
with the the break, the overview.
How much time do you have left right
now? Oh, we can keep going for a
little bit, and, I should be good for,
a little bit. I don't know, about fifteen
minutes or so. You go.
Give me some
So this and, this I really want to
show you really quickly just because you had
talked about this. And I guarantee there are
people out there that are just probably just
dismissed what you were saying about this event.
And just I'm not the Grok saying it
makes it true. I always point it out.
In fact, I'll go over in my next
show, I'm gonna go over a very interesting
point about how Grok is clearly being programmed
to be subjective, to be to infer and
assume. And I get why that might be
the case with, like, conversational point, but it
is not in the interest of facts and
information, and it's used manipulatively. Different point, we'll
get back to that in the next show.
But that's all said that it's a tool.
And it's oftenly it's often
wrong or deliberately misinforming, but it's still a
tool, and it's important to reach the certain
people who may think that this may be
more aligned with their personal partisan perspective. And
I think that's why, you know, it's worth
thinking of it that way. Now in regard
to the,
hostage situation, exactly what you highlighted.
Deep anti American sentiment had built over decades
due to US support for the Shah's authoritarian
regime, including the CIA backed coup. Many Iranians
viewed The US as responsible for the repression
and corruption and, ultimately, their their values they
pushed on them. The immediate trigger was the
Carter administration's decision to allow him to be
exiled to get treatment in New York, as
you highlighted. Rumors of the potential coup to
reinstall him after that. That's interesting too. I
didn't know that. Like, they thought it might
be put back in after that, which spoke
to why they were acting the way they
were. '79, November 4, the group of students,
end ended up, taking 66 American hostages. As
you said, they did, in fact, let go
women, African Americans. And the main point for
me is the students demanded the Shah be
extradited for trial. I mean, just think about
the claim. These are monster terrorists who wanna
kill Americans for no reason, but they didn't
kill any Americans and let some of them
go, and then they wanted trial and process.
And officials, wanted a US apology
for the,
and for what happened and the release of
frozen assets Two, you could even overlap that
with the Obama point and how often this
is the case. But the end result, diplomatic
negotiations were stalled. Economic sanctions were imposed, including
freezing their money, which, you know, it's it
they took more vicious action.
Military rescue attempt, as you said, went wrong.
Negotiations ended up where, ultimately, they were given
concessions, give some money back, but it hurt
US relations with Iran. Going forward, 52 hostages
released. In fact, not a single person was
killed. And I think that's so incredible to
me that we can frame that as something
like, how here's a better question. How was
that even included
in this list of
Americans being killed? Or, I guess, just terrorism
against Americans is how they're framing it. But
it's mostly about ahead. Go ahead. But it's
just look. It's just ridiculous. It's the big
propaganda,
story, you know, and and and it's often
used. And and look at the the rest
of these on the list. I mean, look.
Ron backed Hezbollah. It's like Right. Which we
covered. Yeah. Like, as we looked at, like,
Hezbollah and and, like, and even some of
these cases, like, the idea that,
this was a wrong one. It's just so
ridiculous. Like,
but I I won't, I suppose,
get into the Hezbollah attack on, US military
personnel. But, again, we're looking
at
sorry. Go ahead. It's okay. Like I said,
there's a little delay. But before we move
past it, the the so we addressed the
point that Hizbull like, so first of all,
as you already addressed, these are not just
Iran. That's how they're trying to frame it
that anything Hizbull is involved with is therefore
Iran did it. That's not the reality of
this. So that alone is ridiculous to just
blot to include anything they did. But then
to the point, I want I want your
opinion, and we won't go through every one
of them. But let's just say 1983.
Right? So it says that Hezbollah killed 241
Americans,
and it was a truck bombing at the
at a compound in Beirut. Now I I
don't you may I don't know if you're
familiar with the exact event, but in your
mind, is that something Hezbollah might have done?
And and I I would argue that there's
a lot of what's going on? Go ahead.
Yeah. I I don't think there's any doubt,
of their involvement.
I mean, this is in the early,
stages of of Hizbullah as well. Like, Hizbullah,
I think, officially announced itself in 1985.
But this is the sort of early phases
of the organization.
And so when we're looking at these events,
we're looking like, at the end of the
day, The United States
was a belligerent
occupying force to these people. Exactly. This That's
the group. That's what that watched and then
exactly.
And and 20,000
people had just been slaughtered
inside
of Lebanon, and the capital
was besieged.
And that's the key context to this. It
didn't come out of nowhere like, oh, hey.
These crazy people, Hezbollah, they just popped up
out of nowhere, drove a truck into it,
you know, and killed all of this, these
and, again, they're military personnel
in a foreign country. Like Exactly. When do
you see them going over and killing and
targeting American civilians?
Like, where are where are the Hezbollah?
Where do they target American civilians? Where where
do you have any evidence evidence of it
of them going into an a foreign country
in a western country and and killing people
there?
There's always like these weird things that they
say and they cite.
Right. Well, here's a good way to frame
it for somebody who's an American. Right? So
hypothetically, we're talking about is Mexico seizes control
of Texas. And then while that's happening,
Republicans
decide to try to stop them, and they
bomb it they bomb military personnel who is
occupying illegally Texas. Is to any Republican out
there, would you see that as a terrorist
act as the Republican? You probably would not.
You you know, I always love this point
that somebody else I think it was Dave
who made this in the past. And you
know what? They probably yell something about god
when they did it. Compare that to the
idea of what they call terrorism and religious,
you know, religious extremism. It's just it's important
to think of it like that. And so
but regardless, yes. It the the story is
that they killed American servicemen.
But does it make a difference to you
out there if these were American servicemen, which
we know were illegally occupying Beirut and this
was a force that was fighting back? You
know, it's the same point from Haman. They're
illegally occupied.
And at this point, I don't believe that
was the case. Well, I don't when was
the Geneva Convention for Fort Geneva Convention? I
forget the year. But the point was today,
the legally occupied
illegally occupied territories have the right to arm
resistance.
So alone, that would address that point. You
know? Mhmm. And and so if you go
down the list here, like, look, there's Hezbollah,
which we we've got into. But if you
look at down the list here, you've got
Hamas. There's a Hamas suicide bomber in 1995
there, I believe, that you're looking at. It's
like, okay.
Like, do you really like, anyone that has
any knowledge
to try and claim
that Iran
is behind
Hamas suicide bombings
is insane.
It's just stupid.
Especially today with how much information is not
And they're providing it occupying. Like and again,
there's, like, there's cases. I think we looked
at one earlier, and it's like, oh, you
know, they they killed, like, an American yeah.
Here's the one. What?
Iran backed terrorist killed an American Israeli dual
citizen and wounded another American in the West
Bank. And if you look at what that
attack is, they're Israeli settlers.
They're settlers.
Like, literally illegal settlers. Yeah. They might have
American passports,
but you know what? Israeli settlers,
many of them with this, with, with American
passports
have killed
American Palestinians
in the West Bank, and The US doesn't
care, and it does nothing, and it never
talks about it. Just brushes it under the
rug like it's nothing. And these are these
people themselves talking about terrorists or religious fundamentalists.
These people are religious fundamentalist,
ideologues. They they Not the worst thing that
we could do today. Psychotic
people. But if somebody that's been attacked by
them personally, I've been attacked by them.
Like, I I know for a fact that
these are fundamentalist
extremists.
So,
like, the idea
oh, well, there's an there's someone of an
American citizen who again it's like context here.
Was this American citizen serving in the military
and in a foreign country committing an occupation
or invading a foreign like, or was this
person an illegal
settler who probably lived in a heavily armed
gated facility guarded by an army that's illegally
there against international law and stealing someone else's
land and then was kidnapped or killed by
the people that they're robbing? Like, I mean,
it's just it's so dumb. And from the
foundation for defensive democracies, it's just it's to
be expected. It's just to be that. Right?
That's the whole point is that this is
being this was something posted in in 2025
by a group clearly influenced by Israeli intelligence
that now the US government, the White House
just parrots, like, literally puts out the exact
same list to justify this. So, clearly, this
is this is reactive. You know? And the
point before, as I highlighted the article you
put up, that that this right now, the
religious extremism
coming out of the Zionist elements and some
of the settlers are the worst I've ever
seen are are, you know, one of the
worst examples of that in the world today.
And that's a that's really important to understand.
And that that's even alongside the groups, which,
by the way, we should understand are very
much
being funded, armed, and and and basically, you
know, in many ways, conducted or or or
operated,
ISIS and Al Qaeda. And I actually just
went over this again recently in a in
a show about the idea that ISIS and
Al Qaeda were very much created by The
United States. It's an open secret. We should
all know that you and I have talked
about this before. Mhmm. But to to go
back to the list,
one of the things that was in here
interesting is, you know, because right we know
of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It that represent
that exists in Hamas, but it this is
the Islamic Jihad. So on that one, we
haven't talked about. And I know we have
limited time just briefly. Like, so this is
1995.
Islamic jihad terrorists killed eight people, including one
American citizen in Gaza. So was that at
the time the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or was
that something that changed? And do you think
that represents Iran?
It doesn't represent
Iran. But, look, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, again, they
like to frame all of these groups as
being,
you know, creations. And Islamic Jihad in in
specific, they try and claim that it's a
creation
of Iran, and that's just not correct.
It was formed really in the, like, late
nineteen seventies.
It started committing armed operations before Hamas, by
the way, because there was sort of a
competition between them and Hamas that
had arisen in the Gaza Strip where they
emerged. And and Islamic Jihad,
emerged as sort of the
group that had a lot more support amongst
the
poorer population in the Gaza Strip. Whereas Hamas,
obviously, it expanded later,
and especially for its charitable work, and it
became a much bigger organization because of its
social programs,
and the Islamic civil society sector that it
set up.
But,
with Islamic Jihad,
what they did is they sort of were
the pioneers of Islamic,
style resistance. Because before that in the Gaza
Strip, it was all,
nationalist, but really mainly the strongest power forces
there were, communist groups in the Gaza Strip.
And so when they failed,
people were looking for a sort of new
ideology or doctrine. And so many of those
people
that were formerly part
of Fata or even,
or, even,
the PFLP and other groups ended up joining
Islamic Jihad. And what they would do is
literally, they were this they were poor. They
would get their hands on a grenade and
just throw it into an Israeli military camp
or just,
open fire. And very, very rarely did they
ever even kill any Israeli soldiers.
Mhmm. And there was a big clash before
the first Intifada
that they pulled off, and all of the
Islamic Shahad fighters were killed,
which was sort of just right before the
Intifada, which was a nonviolent uprising and which
was when Hamas emerged,
because Hamas before was, like, the social Islamic
organization,
called the Mujama.
But Islamic Jihad used to sort of fight
back and forth with, the Mujama people because
Mujama at that time, which later became Hamas,
were were against armed resistance altogether. They believe
that you have to first unite the Muslim
so the Muslim body, and then afterwards, when
everyone's perfect Muslims then you can fight.
I I still argue that there's opening right
there for influence, the funding we've talked about,
but I know it's not the same as
complete control. But I do feel like there
was an influence there from that element that
that ultimately did drive them in a direction
to become more that of the thing that
could be used to justify certain responses. We
have to get into all that. We we've
talked about it many times, and I I
think your opinion is the the best I've
heard on it. You know, that's more nuanced,
but I find that interesting. Yeah. Hamas and
so much you had is separate, so they're
a separate group. Yeah. And How much you
had specifically.
Yeah.
Hamas so the Mujama,
which was active in the seventies and the
eighties,
so they were officially given approval by the
Israeli occupying authorities,
and they even got some funding given to
them. And, again, the reason why they got
given this funding and the approval to operate
was because at the start, they did a
lot of look. They did a lot of
good work. They founded things like the Islamic,
university
in the Gaza Strip.
The Islamic the Islamic civil sect,
civil societies,
sector is,
was better, than anything else that, was on
offer. It really developed, and and they did
a lot for the people, a lot of
charity and stuff like this. But this
organization
was against violence against the Israelis.
Some of their activists
would go into the streets and attack people
for not being conservative enough, for drinking alcohol,
for not dressing a certain way, stuff like
this. And the Israelis, quite frankly, didn't mind
that. They would like that. They they they
like people that are like that. Right? Whereas
if you look at Islamic Jihad,
Islamic Jihad from the start was fighting. And
so from the start, they wanted to hunt
them down and kill them. They didn't give
them any authorization or anything like that.
But then in the mid nineteen eighties,
the Mujama set up
something which was called a masjid, which was
the security apparatus,
which they then formed
for this organization.
And so they suddenly started arming themselves.
And so when that happened, and this is
where people like Yahya Sinwar
and,
the founder of Umujama and then Hamas,
Ahmed Yacine
started getting in trouble with the Israeli authorities.
They started arresting them and torturing them and
going after their people.
And from that point on,
that's when they started to form real serious
arm cells.
Up until the point of the Intifada
in 1987,
they they they took this seriously, and they
formed,
the
Al
Qasan
Brigade
in,
later,
officially.
But,
they had this sort of security apparatus and
those fighters by 1988.
And, really, they didn't get going until the
nineteen nineties, like,
to be honest, like, in terms of a
serious military organization.
At that point, Israel was hunting them down
and murdering them, and,
there's a there's a lot to go into
there. The reason why I I talked about
Islamic Jihad
and Hamas, though,
was because
to show you that they're not simply organizations
that and and and the and and another
point here to this is
the, they didn't start getting funding,
from, Iran until the nineteen nineties until the
early nineteen nineties. That's when Iran started backing
them. So the whole idea and concept that
these groups were like, you know, Iranian proxies
that
created in the Gaza Strip. No. Like, the
reason why I'm telling you all of this
stuff and going into this whole,
you know, rabbit hole here and and and
elaborating on this and and rambling a little
bit is just to
that these groups were functioning in a society
completely separate to Iran, and they had their
own disputes and everything
way before Iran came in and provided them
funding.
And the reason they got this backing from
Iran was because their leaders were exiled by
the Israelis. They were imprisoned and then exiled
to Lebanon, and that's where they started getting
those connections with Iran. So
and that's an important thing to know. Like,
again, it it goes against the notion of
proxies and all of this. No. These are
organic movements.
These are organic movements. You can love them.
You can hate them. You you can have
lots of criticisms of them. You can have
barely any. It doesn't matter, but they're not
proxies. They're just not. And it's That's the
the point today. Right? There's a lot of
different things to get into, but the real
and, you know, and like you just said,
it doesn't mean that we have to think
they're the best or either you can still
think they're terrorist organizations, but it's just not
what they're claiming. And the allegations they're trying
to lay at their feet, in many cases,
are whole cloth lies. So let last couple
minutes, let's just finish down the list, and,
ultimately, if it jumps out to you that
you wanna make sure you discuss, let me
know. But, you know, it just continues. I
mean, 90% of these, if not more, are
Iran backed something. Iran backed Hezbollah, Iran backed
Hamas, which we just went over how these
are not. The well, I guess,
you could the the point I make is
that when they say Iran backed and very
clearly I mean, even,
yeah, I mean, they're they're literally talking about
proxies. Like, that's the way they're framing it,
but Iran backed is not necessarily incorrect. But
it is when we know the way they're
trying to make the case. That's what I'm
just trying to make clear, but, ultimately, they're
not proxies. But the overall that these were
attacks carried out by Hezbollah or Hamas or
Jihad, and that's not Iran doing that. But
the all the point is, Kenzie, it jumps
out to me So Okay. Go ahead.
Sorry. Sorry to interrupt. But if you go
down there, it says in 2001,
2002 that there is an attack carried out
by the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Okay? Mhmm.
Now
the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades were, essentially created
by Yasser Arafat.
Arafat was not backed by,
Iran. Iran was not the one backing these
groups,
at that time. I I mean, it's so
like, again and and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades,
by the way,
were from the secular Fatah group. They're not
an Islamic group. Right? They might have been
Muslims, but they're they're not an Islamic group.
That's not their ideology like Hamas and Jihad
and some of the others. Like, there's many
different ones which emerged afterwards,
which now exist today. But the Al Aqsa
Martyrs Brigade were affiliated with,
specifically as well during the days of, Yasser
Arafat,
to fight against the Israelis. So
I again, it's it's
it's stupid. Like, it's just dumb. Yeah. But
I I I wanted to note that because
I saw it there, and I was like,
okay. Like, let's
one on this because this is a secular
group, which, again, this is just nonsense. Like,
Iran is not responsible for a group that
was fighting on behalf of Arafat. You know?
I was just laughing about this the other
day that it's, you know that's why I
was saying, like, in the beginning. You know?
It's some of these things are so self
evident, like, just so, like, objectively not the
gay that it's like it's I find it
hard to engage with them like we take
it seriously. You know? If we but we
it's important to do it for those that
may we don't wanna look like we're being,
you know, derisive or that we're just dismissing
things. We are. We're going to the evidence.
That's the point. But, you know, these things
it's it is absurd to make these allegations,
and I was saying this about a lot
of things. In fact, one of them was
the idea that you can, without question,
show how ISIS and Al Qaeda were not
just by a byproduct
allowed to be created, but were created and
actually stoked and actions were taken by the
US government and and Israel in many cases
to literally you know? These are not questionable.
So it's frustrating that we have to keep
acting like it's a nuance depending you know?
Or like you said, you know, well, they're
all this, but let's talk about the facts.
It's like, you know, don't throw them the
fake phones. Address the facts. That's all that
matters. And one of them, like, that's why
I'm saying this, Al Qaeda suicide bombs. You
know? It it's it's ridiculous that we even
take seriously
that by the way, these groups, ISIS in
particular, that has I like I just pointed
out over 2025,
suddenly attacks
Iran and then takes credit for it, yet
they're still the state sponsor of terrorism, and
it happens to be right when Israel's criticizing
them. You know, it's just it's embarrassing that
we can't take it if it it take
see what that is. But whether or not
you think it's tied to something else,
Iran is not connected to Al Qaeda and
ISIS. It's not ideologically. Like, it it these
are these are Sunni ultimate groups. Like, these
are not it doesn't make any sense, but
it works for people who don't understand even
what that is or why the Shiite Sunni
conversation is very important for Israel's religious war,
or what they're really trying to do. But
it's just, you know, same kind of point.
It it all doesn't make much sense, but
a Moss backed,
Iran backed popular resistance committees. I'm not I'm
not sure, you know, any reference to that.
Then the main point
okay. Right. And so the main point so
same point then. January 20, January 2007, a
dozen men affiliated with the IRGC.
Kuds Force kills five US soldiers. Now this
is where we start to get into what
I think is interesting where we're talking about,
in many cases, you know, action like Iraq
overlaps, Syria overlaps. We're talking about situations where
you're, you know, PMU
responding to illegal actions from these occupying forces.
And so whether you're talking about a tangential
group or that whether it's around or not,
they're just responding to a legal occupation. There's
really no way to see these as anything
other than misrepresentations.
This one's different. Former FBI agent happens to
disappear in Iran, likely dying in his run
of print. Do you know anything about that
one?
Likely.
That I personally
don't actually hadn't heard of that before, to
be honest with you.
I don't know why I missed that. Like,
I should know about that, but I don't
know why I don't know about this. Like
I I I hadn't some it's not something
that was on our radar either, really, according
to state department officials, which right there should
be a red flag, was never publicly seen
or heard from again. Well, okay. So by
that very point then, we don't know what
happened.
Exactly. So why is he on your list?
Right. Well, that was at least one of
these. So, I mean, we can remove one
from them. Right. But so we're on back
to Moss, ran back to Moss, ran back
and this is this is Kath Khadib Hezbollah.
Right? So it's the same it's what the
Iraqi groups. Right?
Yeah. So now we're getting into the groups
which were formed after, like,
Qatar e Hezbollah is,
part of the PMU.
Right. Right. And and, again, like, now look
at these attacks here. It's like, oh, well,
there there's a 101
a 109 troops that suffered traumatic brain injuries
because you assassinated
a run's top general, and then they retaliated.
They're like
Literally. Like, this is legal response. And and
and, again, like we're dealing with today well,
actually, Soleimani was a little different since they
bombed him in Iraq. But today, you know,
is US is bombing in Iran. So Iran
would have every legal right to respond and
bomb The United States, and I don't want
that to happen. But they're not doing that.
That's restraint. And so in this case, you
know, it's the same kind of idea. They
were bombed. They were attacked illegally. In fact,
the most disgusting part of that, as you
know, was they invited him under the guise
of diplomacy. And as I understand it, the
only reason he wanted him to come to
Iraq to kill him was because they still
were arguing they could use the 2,002
AUMF. And it was destabilizing
Iraq by being there, and so they murdered
him. That's that was I under that's the
logic I believe they were trying to operate
under. But they murdered him. And so they
responded
and bombed The US base in Iraq. And
they claimed that was, you know, terrorism, I
guess, 02/2020,
same indicated Iranian regime was considering a plot
to assassinate South
okay. Like, US intelligence says,
Iran rocket killed American citizen in Iraqi Kurdistan.
You know? And, again, we're not talking about
Iranian rockets right there. We're talking about the
PMU.
Mhmm. I mean, any number of examples. Are
IRGC orchestrated the killing of American citizen in
Baghdad? You know, these some of these, I'm
not,
I don't the exact instances, but Iranian officer
charged with orchestrating murder of US citizen Iraq.
You know? My argument was if you go
through this information, you'll likely Let's bring in
Emily Harding. Find out that, you know, this
is coming from something The US is claiming,
but is Iran capable of killing something through
you know? Yes. And, also, this is any
legal occupation of Iraq. You know, we all
of these abuses have already been discussed, you
know, or rather justifications.
I'm just trying to hurry up. Jump in
if you if you have any thoughts.
No. And all of this is, like, if
you compare it to the amount of Iranians
that have been killed in the region, in
their own region, and over their own airspace
by the Israelis.
It doesn't compare,
by by the Americans. Sorry.
The the US military has caused way more
death and destruction to the Iranian people.
And and so it's just ridiculous. And there
have been assassinations
carried out by The United States and the
Israelis inside of Iran for decades now. It's
it's so
ridiculous, these arguments. And then look at it.
Like,
it's good that we've gone for this list
because they're just clutching at straws.
You know? It's like the fact that they
put Al Qaeda
on there
and
they,
put all the Iran's response, not even killing
Americans, injuring. Right? Because they didn't admit any
deaths. Right? So injuring Americans with a a
retaliatory
strike on a US base,
you know, they're clutching at straws, and they
can't produce this thousands number
even when they're clutching at straws.
Right.
Which I think just demonstrates how ridiculous
this argument is that they put out. And
like we're like, we were talking about earlier,
they live in this parallel universe.
You know? And the Iran that they're talking
about is not the real Iran that exists.
That's Right. You know? At least for most
of their propaganda in the world or really
just most propaganda from any country. But just
to to wrap up in general, you know,
now we're in the realm of of what
we've been dealing with, you know, where we
were talking about where this has been the
posture has been obvious. Trump can't stop telling
you how he needs to remove Iran, his
last administration now. And so they clearly recognize
that they're under threat just like they knew
this was gonna come, and that's why they
warned if you do it, we're gonna respond
this way. You know? And and we didn't
get into it because that's the point today,
but the evidence is undeniably clear based on
their own statements that there was no imminent
threat. And so they this is all illegal
regardless, but they're now citing these responses. You
know? June 2025, Iran backed militias attacked at
least three bases. You know? And this is
stuff that's responding to what they're doing in
the area. Twelve day war forward, even the
most recent examples, which they could tack on
in regard to anything that's happening. And, you
know, it's obviously
about
their
justifiable
responses to what The US and Israel are
doing in the world. I mean, this is
this is not about taking sides. It's about
the legality. It's the reality of international law.
It's the reality of what The US and
Israel have always been doing in my experience.
And if you wanna criticize like we have
today in some ways what Iran does in
their country or what they do in their
foreign policy, then go at it. That's not
the same point as recognizing The US is
lying about what they're doing. And I just
think that has to matter. I thought that
list needed to be broken down because right
now, they're using this argument to, I
mean, really, I think, create another forever, never
ending ongoing kind of Middle East discussion. You
know? And I'm very worried about that. Then,
you know, any final thoughts? And I'll just
kinda rattle off some some points here on
the, on the screen for people to see,
you know, with what we're dealing with right
now in regard to the ground forces. And,
anyway, go ahead. Any any last thoughts?
No. I just say that, obviously, this war
does not serve US interests. I think the
Israelis,
ultimately, they're willing to drag down The US
economy.
They're willing to destroy The US if it's
going to come to that,
and and and the presidency
of of Donald Trump at that. And, also,
I I think their aim is to degrade
the Persian Gulf states
to
degrade the Iranian economy
by going after civilian targets, by going after
its infrastructure,
and then hoping that they survive at the
end of this.
So that then,
in essence, what they've done is they've created
the,
the conditions
where in the future, the Iranian government might
be weaker, and there might be more chance
for a regime change effort using their own
proxies
on the ground to do it.
Like we saw a similar,
scenario in Syria. I don't believe this will
work personally.
I think all of this death and destruction
is ultimately going to result in a loss
for the United States military
and a loss for the Israelis. But that's
what they're trying to do, and they're very
desperate, and they have been since October 7.
They believe that if they can't
crush Iran
and they can't
achieve their greater Israel project,
then they won't exist in the long term.
And I believe that that assessment is actually
correct
because in terms of what they deem as
existing
as as Israel,
greater Israel,
that can't exist
in the long term. It just won't.
Now they could've they had an opportunity
to be able to exist and to have
their place secured in the region,
but they chose not to do
the so called two state solution, which I
thought was terrible solution for the Palestinian people.
It's not fair at all to them. However,
the Palestinian
leadership at the time would have taken it.
It's very clear. And then they could have
been integrated into the whole region. Everyone would
have accepted them. Everyone signed on to that.
The Arab Peace Initiative, you can look up
the Arab Peace Initiative.
They had
the chance, and they didn't want it. So
now Americans are gonna die.
You're gonna pay
a lot more to fill up your tank,
and there's gonna be inflation. And and you're
what you're paying there when you go and
fill up your tank is the Israel premium.
You're paying the Israel premium there. You're paying
for this war,
directly.
And so
that's that's where things stand right now. It's
it's sad, but, unfortunately, you know, there is
not even people on the street in opposition
to this. That could change because
it's going to personally affect them Right. Going
forward. So it could change. But,
again, like, this is a terrible decision,
on the part of The US leadership, And
it just demonstrates that the this Trump administration
is completely captured by the Israel lobby.
Completely captured. Has no mind of its own.
It just serves Israel's interests.
Yep. And I, you know, and I think
the world and especially The US
population is is is coming to terms with
that. And that doesn't mean it's, you know,
it's not something that is you know, it
something that we can overcome like anything else
as much as it may seem insurmountable.
And I'll also add to finish that this
is something that's now being jumped on as
a last ditch effort, in my opinion, to
justify why Trump somehow is always, you know,
like, the the very point of being controlled
by Israel is now being floated as why
he's not responsible.
But at the same time, that it turns
out that he is only doing this at
his own expense to fight for us from
within the broken system. Glenn Beck is genuinely
arguing that he's he always knew this would
happen. He knew Israel controlled the democrats.
Right? So he worked his way in in
order to to
to control what he could.
And I'm just it's just this evidence free
blind
self serving assumption to just give yourself like,
right now, there's so many people that are
starting to see that they were not what
they said they were. And then you get
a Glendek that gives them something that goes,
oh, they can go, oh, thank god. I
knew I was right. Score ignore everything else.
It turns out I really was right. Trump
was really sacrificing for us. Just be smarter
than that, guys. It's quite obvious this is
not what this this is not what you
were promised and every everything they're doing other
than this is showing that as well. I'm
just glad it's happening. So thank you again,
Robert, for for joining us. We can do
this more often, and I'll leave you with
a clip from Patrick Clausen that I think
is always important. So as always, everybody out
there question everything. Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant. I frankly think that crisis initiation
is really tough,
and it's very hard for me to see
how The United States,
president can get us to war with Iran.
Which leads me to conclude that if, in
fact, compromise is not coming,
that the traditional way of America gets to
war is what would be best for US
interests.
Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted
to get us into World War two, as
David mentioned. You may recall we had to
wait for Pearl Harbor.
Some people might think mister Wilson wanted to
get us into World War one. You may
recall he had to wait for the Lusitania
episode.
Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted
to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall
we had to wait for the Gulf Of
Tonkin episode.
We didn't go to war with Spain until
the USS,
until the Maine exploded.
And may I point out that mister Lincoln
did not feel he could call out the
Federal Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which
is why he ordered the commander at Fort
Sumter to do exactly that thing which the
South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.
So, if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna
compromise,
it would be best if somebody else started
the war.
But I would just like to suggest that,
one can combine other means of pressure with
sanctions.
I mentioned that explosion,
on August 17.
We could step up the pressure.
I mean, look people, Iranian submarines periodically go
down. Someday one of them might not come
up. Who would know why?
We can do a variety of things if
we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not
advocating that, but I'm just
suggesting that,
it it it it's this is not a
a either or proposition of, you know, it's
just sanctions has to has to succeed or
other things.
We are in the game
of using covert means against the Iranians.
We we could get nastier of that.