Jim Fetzer and Nick Kollerstrom analyze unverified reports of destroyed Ukrainian jets, arguing NATO drives the conflict while Trump's administration fails diplomatically. They critique Scott Ritter on the irrationality of a 70,000-troop Iran invasion and debunk the Artemis moon mission as a hoax involving actors and green screens. The discussion extends to conspiracy theories linking Netanyahu to 9/11, framing October 7th as a fabricated pretext for genocide against Semitic Palestinians, while asserting Christian Zionism fuels anti-Semitism and predicting potential nuclear escalation via the "Samson Option." [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Escalating Conflicts Without Sense00:15:25
Not just anybody younger so much younger than today i never needed anybody's help in any way but now these days are gone i'm not so self-assured now i find a gentle mind i've opened up the doors
Appreciate your being around.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Rod Deal, right here in Revolution Radio Studio B, this 24th day of April 2026, joined by my dear friend and colleague Nick Kohlerstrom from the UK.
We begin with a few stories.
Pleasure to have you here, Nick.
Begin with a few stories.
Russian hit key Ukrainian airfield.
Hello.
My name is Adam Ferrari, the Chief Executive Officer of Phoenix Energy.
I look forward to you joining us.
The Russians are so much in control of the situation.
This is military team.
On April 16, 2026, a claim surfaced that cuts straight through the narrative of Western air power in Ukraine.
Sergei Lebedev, a pro Russian underground coordinator operating in Mykolaiv, reported that during the night of April 15 to 16, Russian strikes hit Dolgantsevo airfield in central Ukraine.
His words were blunt.
Several F 16 and Mirage warplanes were completely destroyed.
If true, this wasn't just another strike, this was a direct hit on Ukraine's most valuable aviation assets, its newly acquired Western fighter fleet.
Dolgantsevo had quietly become a hub for Ukraine's transition to NATO standard airpower.
F 16 Fighting Falcons and French Mirage 2000s symbolized more than hardware, they represented a strategic shift, a shift meant to challenge Russian air superiority.
But according to this report, that shift was interrupted violently.
Tonight, we break this down step by step.
What exactly happened that night?
What weapons were used?
And more importantly, what does this reveal about the evolving balance between precision strike systems and high value air assets in modern warfare?
Because beneath the claims and counterclaims, one question lingers are even underground airbases still safe?
The timeline begins in the darkness between April 15 and 16.
According to Lebedev's account, Russian forces launched a coordinated strike targeting two airfields in Ukraine's Kurovgrad region.
The primary target, Dolgantsevo airfield, a secondary strike followed at Oleksandria.
At Dolgantsevo, the reported damage was severe.
Several F 16 Fighting Falcons and Mirage 2000 jets.
Aircraft that Ukraine had only recently begun integrating were allegedly destroyed either completely or beyond repair, not parked in the open, not exposed on runways, but stored underground.
Even more sensitive was the claim regarding personnel.
Lebedev stated that several foreign pilots were neutralized in the strike, though Ukrainian authorities classified this information, offering no confirmation or denial.
Then came the second destruction Alexandria airfield was also hit.
Reports claim more than 10 European supplied helicopters were destroyed.
Six Ukrainian pilots were confirmed neutralized, while any potential foreign instructor losses were again classified.
No satellite imagery, no independent verification, no Ukrainian confirmation.
And yet, the consistency across multiple outlets, all echoing the same source, has kept this story alive.
So, what exactly hit these targets?
The strike followed a pattern that has become increasingly familiar layered, coordinated.
We don't have to go into what hit the targets.
Go right ahead, my friend.
I think it's beautiful what the Russians are doing here.
Go ahead.
Yeah, right.
Well, we don't hear too much about this conflict, ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
But I think it's very disturbing the way the NATO nations are lining up for war with Russia.
They don't seem to understand the peace deal that Trump and Lavrov and Putin tried to negotiate.
In fact, I think they would have clinched the peace deal if it weren't sabotaged by the warmonger nations.
Basically, Germany, France, and Britain.
Mainly the UK.
We hear from people who were at the Madrid Security Conference recently.
They're all enthusing about the forthcoming war with Russia.
That the real dynamo of this war was British military intelligence.
This has always been pushing for war with Russia more than any other.
And I think that's an incredibly evil action of the UK.
Russia did everything it could earlier in this century to promote lasting peace in Europe by building the pipeline of.
Prosperity for natural gas and trying to settle the Ukraine, whole Ukraine problem with the Minsk Accords.
And these were just sabotaged and smashed because Europe wants war, which is kind of mad and unhinged and it guarantees its impoverishment.
Europe economically would be far better off if it would be friends with Russia and not with America.
Russia wants friendship and it supports it with natural gas and oil.
And there's very little rational sense in this apart from the love of war.
I mean, Russia is just securing these four eastern oblasts as little mini states in eastern Ukraine.
These are Russian states.
Citizens have been Russian for a thousand years.
They want a Russian way of life.
And because of the changes happening in Ukraine from 2014 onwards, they voted to become part of Russia.
That was their wish by huge majorities.
And Russia is just trying to consolidate that.
So it's not a war of aggression that Russia is fighting.
It was invited in by these little oblasts to defend them and protect them from mere obliteration.
That's what would have happened total extinction of their culture by Kiev.
Russia has been a long time doing it, but it's more or less secured those four states, like Luhansk and so on, Zaporizhia, and then Zaporizhia.
I can't remember the names of them.
It's more or less achieved those now.
So, as far as Russia is concerned, it's ready to stop the conflict because it's got those little mini states.
And Europe cannot and never will have them back again.
So, there's no point fighting.
Just to compliment what you're saying, Scott Ritter has observed that they're poking the bear, the Europeans and Finland and the Baltic states attacking Russia.
That Putin is being very emphatic, giving them final warnings.
Nick, this could lead to the obliteration of Europe effortlessly by Russia.
42 million lives could be lost virtually overnight.
It's insane.
It is insane, yeah.
What's going on there?
What is their mentality?
How have they lost their way?
Well, that's what everybody's wondering.
NATO and the Euro nations, all as if they're the past, nightmares of the past, they see war as some kind of answer.
And you get the most useless, worthless politicians getting to the top and working through fear to get control of their peoples, and they need the enemy image.
For example, in my country, in the UK, virtually all the political parties are advocating more expenditure on war.
And even the Green Party has now agreed that Russia is the enemy and we've got to support Ukraine, which is shocking.
I mean, the Green Party that I've been involved in was always anti war since it began.
And It's just a kind of mad frenzy of war.
And as you say, now drones are being sent into Russia from all sorts of countries.
That's why it doesn't want NATO on its doorstep.
And it doesn't make sense.
But the Euro politicians, they're just working very short sound bites and they're not expecting a resolution.
They don't really want a resolution.
This is the nightmare situation that we seem to be trapped in.
In a way, it's one man Zelensky is ruining Europe.
He's always calling for war, he's always calling for more and more billions of euros in aid, and he wants all the European nations to supply arms.
He's getting high powered arms from Germany.
I mean, I think Britain is sending thousands, if not tens of thousands, of drones to Ukraine, which are being used to infest Russia and attack Moscow and so on.
So, this is a Ongoing escalating conflicts which doesn't have any sense to it, yes.
I mean, that's that's the weird thing.
Yes, it's got to be some kind of perverted Zionist dogma driving it, you know, some dedication.
Here, some people say that, yeah, this is where Israel, uh, the Khazars came from, it's Ukraine, and they might want to go back there if you if Israel is obliterated, will they want to go back to uh.
That is a theory, but it's just a theory, Jim.
But certainly, top people, all top people around Zelensky, including himself.
Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew.
Continue, Nick.
Yeah, go ahead.
They are Jewish, aren't they?
All the money, financial supporters of Zelensky, the main people around him, are Jewish.
And that could tend to support what you just said.
So here we have Joe Kent on with Judge Napolitano.
I explained Iran poses no threat to the United States, never has.
Napolitano here for Judging Freedom.
Today is Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026.
My special guest today is Joe Kent, former Army Ranger, former CIA officer, former congressional candidate, former Republican, former head of counterterrorism for the Director of National Intelligence of the United States government.
Proud father of two boys, defender of personal freedom, believer that the Constitution means what it says, an exemplar of intellectual honesty and personal courage.
Joe, welcome here and thank you very much for your time.
Very good.
Let me get right to it.
How did you conclude, contrary to what President Trump has been saying for months, that Iran posed an imminent threat?
To the United States of America.
Well, thanks for having me.
And I reached that conclusion really just by looking at the data at hand.
From the time that President Trump came back into the Oval Office, the Iranians observed a very, very close and tightly held escalation ladder.
And you can observe this just by looking at the events that took place in that time.
We also had intelligence that reflected this as well, but intelligence can be faulty.
So I would encourage folks to look at the way the Iranians behaved.
When President Trump came back into office, the Iranians withheld their proxies from attacking our forces under the Biden administration because.
The Iranians didn't respect Biden.
They had attacked our troops over 200 times in Iraq and Syria and in Jordan.
President Trump came in.
Those attacks stopped.
The Iranians got right to the negotiating table with President Trump.
And this is because President Trump had a red line that was that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
The Iranian, the former Supreme Leader, the Iranians agreed under the former Supreme Leader's leadership and they had a fatwa, a religious decree that prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Now, my critics will say you can't trust an Iranian fatwa.
However, that fatwa held.
Since 2004.
So, if the Iranians wanted to have a nuclear weapon, they could have purchased one or they could have developed one long before President Trump was ever in the Oval Office.
And so the Iranians engaged in negotiations with us, and we were discussing the level of enrichment that would be tolerable, how that enrichment would be monitored, et cetera.
And that's when the Israelis came in and they used an influence campaign through official engagements with the Trump administration, but then also using their echo chamber with the media, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, et cetera.
To basically say that President Trump's red line wasn't what he had always said and what he still says it is that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, that it was zero enrichment, knowing that that was basically a poison pill for the Iranians.
The Iranians wanted to be able to continue to do some form of enrichment.
They viewed this as basically an insurance policy where they wouldn't go like Muammar Gaddafi did and say, hey, we're going to give up all capability because that would lead to the same results that Muammar Gaddafi got.
And they didn't want to go the route that Saddam Hussein in Iraq went and said, hey, maybe I have a nuclear weapon.
Maybe I'm going to develop a nuclear weapon because then they would get the same results.
So, they basically had a very pragmatic strategy of having the ability to enrich some enriched uranium, but not developing a nuclear weapon.
And this gave us lots of trade space in terms of a negotiation.
But that negotiation and that trade space, the potential for a deal was a direct threat to the Israelis.
So, I watched the Israelis come in, use this influence campaign to basically change U.S. policy, but then push the 12 day war.
And then, even after the 12 day war and Midnight Hammer, Midnight Hammer should have taken off the enrichment issue off the negotiating table because we took out the Iranian enrichment sites.
The Iranians immediately got right back to the negotiating table.
After Midnight Hammer.
But we saw the Israelis continue to want to push their goal of regime change.
And so for me, watching the Israelis be able to push our agenda, the Iranians observing a tight and closely observed escalation ladder, I knew that Israel didn't pose, I'm sorry, the Iranians didn't pose a direct threat to us.
Hijacking Government Policy00:10:15
Israel attacking Iran and going for regime change, that would have the Iranians strike us back, which is exactly what happened.
The Israelis basically came and said, we're going to do this attack.
And so the administration decided that we would do a preemptive attack knowing that the Iranians would attack us, which is basically what Secretary Rubio came out and said that we had to attack Iran because the Israelis were going to attack Iran.
So, therefore, the only imminent threat actually was from Israel, not actually from Iran.
So, Iran forced President Trump's hand.
Let me make sure I understand you correctly.
First, by lobbying him, and you can tell us who did the lobbying.
I think it was probably the prime minister and David Barnea, the director of Mossad.
And then by saying, We're going in anyway, so you better back us up.
If you don't back us up, they'll be held to pay.
Yeah, that's basically right.
I mean, the lobbying really took place on a broad spectrum.
The Israelis have great access to our government, both through official channels, through their intelligence services, through their diplomats, but then also, I would say, unofficial channels.
There's the donor network of sympathetic Americans who are sympathetic to the Israelis, but then also through the media, and that was very powerful.
So, what we would see on the official side was we would see the Israelis, their elected officials come in and engage directly with our officials, members of the cabinet, and say, hey, Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
We wouldn't see that reflected necessarily in the intelligence.
Because that intelligence just didn't simply exist.
And so the Israelis really wouldn't even try to contaminate the intelligence necessarily.
They would just circumvent the intelligence agencies.
This is why, in public testimony, you would see DNI Gabbard speak for the 18 intelligence agencies in the U.S. intelligence community and say Iran was not developing a nuclear weapon, Iran did not pose an imminent threat.
And then you would see John Ratcliffe contradict her and say, no, he believed that Iran posed an imminent threat.
John Ratcliffe was mouthing the Israeli line.
Yes, essentially.
I don't know where he got that intelligence from because it didn't exist within his own intelligence channels.
The 18 intelligence agencies had and maintained that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon.
And so Racklin would then come in and others as well would come in and they would say what the Israelis would say.
And then we'd see that echoed essentially in the media.
And so President Trump was kind of caught in this echo chamber, this echo chamber, this ecosystem of information where he would hear one thing through official channels and then he would hear it echoed.
Through the media as well.
So, Benjamin Netanyahu and then a whole assortment of Israeli officials, but then also sympathetic Americans in the media sphere, the think tank sphere, really helped move that red line and make a poison pill for any negotiations that we could have with Iranians.
And you see that to this day.
President Trump will continue to say, and I try to point it out as much as I can on my social media, when President Trump points out and says Iran can't have a nuclear weapon, that's when you start seeing the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, you start seeing Mark Levin get very nervous and they start screaming about zero enrichment, how we have to go get all the That the uranium dust that might be out there, because basically that creates a situation that always results in regime change.
Because it's almost impossible to go into a country like Iran and say that we've taken out all the highly enriched uranium, we've taken away any trace of uranium, because really then they can always come back and say, oh no, you missed some more here or there.
You may have bombed all the nuclear facilities, but it's buried down underground.
So you actually.
Yeah, yeah, Nick.
I'm really coming.
This guy's a real American hero.
It's wonderful what he's saying and tremendously courageous what he's done.
Yeah.
What he's pointing out is the way America has lost its respect all around the world by behaving as Israel's poodle, as if it's somehow controlled by Israel.
And it's a mystery.
Why does it have to do Israel's bidding and not serve its own interests?
This is the terrible tragedy the loss of sovereignty, of dual citizen, having dual citizen politicians around the president.
There should be no dual citizens whatsoever allowed.
In American politics, you know, it's a question of loyalty.
And these neocons, that's what they are, who work for another country, in a way, they're traitors.
They are traitors.
They do not have America's best interests at heart.
And they should be absolutely banned from politics and, in fact, prosecuted for sabotaging America's interest, working for a foreign nation.
I mean, I would say, Iran, speaking for my country, England, All it's done is supply petrol for cars to run for about 80 years.
We call it British petroleum, but it's Iranian oil.
Cars running on the streets because of oil from Iran.
And you might have thought there'd be some sort of gratitude for that.
Oh, no, no, Iran's the enemy.
And we're always looking for new enemies.
That's the terrible, evil culture which Britain and America share in common of looking for enemies and demonizing other cultures.
I mean, we should recognize Iran as a glorious ancient culture, maybe 4,000 years old at least.
It's got glorious architecture.
It's heartbreaking to think of the wonderful buildings that have been bombed by America.
It's got deep philosophy, wonderful poetry, beautiful women, and the whole culture is a very rich one.
And it's got the special characteristic of not having invaded or attacked another nation for the last 200 years.
It doesn't start wars.
And this is a very wonderful feature of that culture that actually the world needs.
We need very much guidance from a country that is able to not invade and understand the reason for not starting wars.
And we all know that Iran was the last on this list of seven countries.
It was plonked on Rumsfeld's desk a few weeks after 9 11.
Oh, yeah, these seven nations have to be taken out by top Israeli, you know, town-modern Zionists.
And somehow America had to go along with that list.
And that has absolutely, utterly wrecked the standing and respect of America throughout the world, I think.
And frankly, Nick, none of those nations on the list of seven represent a threat to the United States, not one of them.
And as you observe, Iran's not launched a war of aggression against any other state actually in 250 years, since 1775, where the Declaration of Independence was 1776.
Think about that, Americans.
Since a year before the Declaration of Independence, Iran has not attacked.
Aggressively, any other nation, but only defended itself.
Would that we had such a record?
Yeah, and Britain and America went in the mid 20th century and toppled the proper king of Iran, the Shah, Shah of Persia, and put in one more friendly who would give us the oil instead of just honestly buying the oil.
And so we kind of hijacked the government.
And that is the reason why, if you think they're rather anti American and anti British, they've got good historical reason to be.
Yeah, what you meant to say was in 1953, the CIA and MI6 overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mossadegh, and installed the Western friendly Shah, who ran a reign of terror with the Slovak until 1979 when the Iranian popular uprising overthrew and it became the Islamic Republic of today.
And as you say, Persian history goes back thousands of years, thousands of years.
This is a profound culture.
And yet, you have the President of the United States talking about destroying a whole civilization, Nick?
This is lunacy.
The man's stark raving mad.
Anyone who would make such an assertion has lost their confidence and has no warrant for leading any nation or any entity whatsoever.
In my judgment, the man is lost.
No.
Well, it's a question of America.
Can it stand by its own constitution?
This should be the most sacred thing for Americans.
You wonderful constitution you got, and that prohibits presidents from behaving like the kings of Europe.
The whole point of it was to stop the kings of Europe could say, Oh, that's right, I'm going to start a war, and it could order the army around.
And the point of the Constitution was to stop that, to separate the powers and have any war, it needed the Senate to approve of it.
So, how have we got to a situation where that doesn't have to happen, Jim?
Yes, yes.
Well, Nick is running out.
He's got 30 days he can do this kind of military intervention without congressional approval, but his time is up.
He's not going to get congressional approval.
It's a very nasty situation, Nick, and embarrassing.
And by the way, it looks as though Tulsi's going to be the next to go.
I felt when Joe stepped down, Tulsi ought to resign as well in protest because she'd been reporting consistently that Iran has no nuclear weapons, no nuclear weapon program.
It's not desiring or pursuing them.
There was a fatwa against it, as Joe explained.
Americans don't seem to get it through their thick heads.
Iran was never a threat to the United States.
So, what the hell are we doing?
Right.
Well, this is just American behaving like a ventriloquist dummy with Israel telling it what to say.
Free Speech in a Deaf World00:04:36
And we'll be right back after this break.
Right.
I'll just get a cup of tea, Jim.
You're listening to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
Are you angered by the injustices inflicted upon the innocents of the world?
Do you have a message you'd like to share?
Any knowledge you'd like to impart to those willing to learn?
Have you ever listened to our shows and thought, hey, I could do this, but you just don't know how to kickstart your hosting ambitions?
Or are you an established professional host, thwarted by censorship in other areas, seeking pastures new?
Contact us here at the world's number one free speech network, Revolution Radio.
We provide the platform.
The training and the airtime to any budding host wanting the chance to take those first talk show steps.
Established hosts can find a safe and secure home here, where their message can ring out loud and clear, unencumbered, free from sponsorship overreach.
Drop us a line via our email, support at revolution.radio, or head into our Discord server to say hello.
We'll take everything from there.
Revolution Radio, where hosting dreams become actualized reality.
Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support that has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
We need the support of the people.
It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the rear.
True.
With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
Revolution Radio Freedom Slips.com, the number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
Revolution Radio, every
Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern Time, on Studio B, for Momentary ZEN, with host, Zen Garcia, at Freedomslips.com, THE People Station.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and FreedomSlips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, FreedomSlips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Jim Fetzer with my special featured guest, Nick Ollerstrom from the UK.
Trump's Lack of Military Background00:05:52
You know, Nick, it's not just that Trump has no idea what he's doing.
He has no military background.
He doesn't understand Iran.
He was sold a bill of goods.
If they took out the leadership, there'd be a popular uprising, where we heard that story before.
Complete rubbish, as Joe Kent was explaining.
But he's fired a lot of generals, and now we have the Navy's secretary.
And it's got to be because they're telling him what he doesn't want to hear.
Yeah, a whole lot of top military generals have been fired by that buffoon, Hesketh, alcoholic buffoon.
And there's a sensational twist in the whole conflict now, which has really transformed the popular image.
And that is these Lego cartoons that Iran has started producing, which are totally brilliant.
And they take off Trump and they really express the viewpoint of Iran.
And get people to understand Iran's philosophy and character in a very brilliant manner.
They're so funny and they take off Trump, you know, and they show exactly what you just said of Trump, you know, not having much of a clue what he's doing.
And I think that is, in a way, it's transformed the battleground.
Everyone told me this was just part of getting older.
They were wrong.
And hang on.
Judge Napolitano, undeclared wars are commonplace.
Tragically, our government engaged.
The absence of plan.
From you and from your perceptions, did the American negotiators in Islamabad a week and a half ago negotiate on behalf of the United States or on behalf of Israel?
That's a loaded question, Judge.
I think we have to say that there was no negotiation because ultimately we had the Iranians that showed up with a Contingent of almost 70 people armed with all sorts of data, information, analyses, because they fully expected a negotiation to occur.
Instead, what they got was a team from the United States that presented Mr. Netanyahu's demands to them.
And they can't accept those demands.
And I think that's being made pretty clear.
And while there was some discussion about the enriched uranium, ultimately the outcome was simply no, we cannot conform to your expectations.
And our expectations are Mr. Netanyahu's expectations.
So, frankly, I think the answer is pretty.
Let me hesitate here.
I'm being told that the broadcast isn't going out over the Revolution Radio.
So, let me see what I can do about it.
If anything.
What, this broadcast now?
Yeah, yeah, or broadcast right now, Nick.
What, they stopped it?
I don't understand why that would be the case.
Could be something we said, Dajam.
No, no, I think it's not something we said, Nick, but very troubling, very troubling.
I've had this Studio B Connect problem before.
It's just I can't tell, you know, what's going on here.
Turn on camera.
Wow.
Okay.
Let me see.
Let me check my source and see if he can hear now.
Very, very unsettling.
Jocks.
Yeah, I mean, we'll have the video archive, but can you hear anything now?
Can you hear anything now?
Me, I can, yeah.
I can hear you.
Well, I mean, can you over the radio hear anything, Michael?
That's right.
Yeah.
Yeah, no, I gather.
And it may be sabotaged.
There's a certain party who's unhappy with me over residual issues of Sandy Hook.
So, you know, and they have the ability to do this.
Just shocks the shit it's happening now.
Okay.
Well, Mike, I'll have to see what I can do, my friend.
Thank you for letting me know.
Thank you for letting me know.
Bye now.
Are we on?
Nick, we're still recording.
We still have our show going on, but apparently it's not going out.
So we're just going to continue.
We're going to carry on.
We got Colonel McGregor with us.
Colonel McGregor on the Line00:15:03
With us.
Well, Colonel McGregor's on the.
I have him on the.
Yeah.
I mean, I think there's a wonderful hope.
I mean, normally I'm anti war, but I think there's a wonderful hope in this conflict Israel will be wiped out and they won't be able to recover.
I know.
The great Harper's.
It's clear we negotiated on behalf of Israel.
Here we go, Nick.
If Donald Trump comes to his senses and enters into some kind of an agreement, say along the lines of the JPCOA, which he condemned as a private citizen and literally ripped up in his first term, would Netanyahu try to wreck or disrupt such a peace plan so as to continue the war?
Because without it, He has no political ground on which to stand?
Well, I think Mr. Netanyahu regards this as an all or nothing proposition.
In his estimation, and I think in the estimation of the people that surround him, this is Israel's best shot at removing what Israel considers to be its most serious threat and, more important, its most serious obstacle to their domination of the entire region.
Now, why do they feel that way?
Because they have essentially.
Unconditional total control of U.S. military power in the region.
I think the CENTCOM commander, who's now Admiral Cooper, his predecessor was Kerrilla, these men have fallen all over themselves to ingratiate themselves with Mr. Netanyahu, understandably, since that's ultimately the man that is calling the shots in the region.
So I think Mr. Netanyahu's view is either I make this work, I realize the Greater Israel Project, it becomes real as a result of destroying Iran.
Or we in Israel are going to have a tough time surviving in the region.
And I think he's probably right because you can't call all of your neighbors subhuman or criminals and then expect to get along with them when the war stops.
That's his position.
So, yeah, I think he's in this to the bitter end and he's going to do whatever he can to obstruct any sort of arrangement that brings this conflict to a close.
Were you struck by the language chosen?
By Prime Minister Netanyahu, at a press conference after that negotiation was over, when he referred to Vice President Vance as reporting to him as other administration officials do daily.
Do you think that was just a turn of phrase or revealing something deeper that we should know about?
I think it was more likely a Freudian slip because remember, he went on to elaborate and say, Well, I hear from everyone in the government in Washington on a routine basis, practically every day, they all report.
I think he's telling you the truth.
And, you know, when he tells you the truth, you should pay attention because we don't hear the truth that often from him.
So on this particular occasion, I think he very definitely is telling you what's real.
Before the war began, most Americans probably had never heard of the Strait of Hormuz.
It was functioning properly and commercially.
Now, of course, it is the center of the conflagration here.
How could Pentagon planners?
Not have foreseen what would become of the Strait of Hormuz, how Iran would use it as a chokehold to resist American aggression?
Well, Judge, I don't know that they didn't realize that.
You know, I've got to go back 20 years, but if I go back 20 years, I can identify lots of plans connected with potential operations against Iran.
And all of those plans were written with an understanding that, first of all, If you were going to try and employ ground troops, you were probably on your way to the loony bin because the various routes of entry and points of invasion and so forth were troubled with mountain passes and lots of choke points, about 300 different points in time and space with bridges and so forth.
You had to give up on the notion of going into the country very far unless your only objective was to occupy Khuzestan, which was ultimately what Saddam Hussein tried to do.
Those are the oil fields.
But otherwise, everything revolved around targeting and trying to induce the Iranian government to comply.
But most of these plans were developed before there was the full realization of how profoundly warfare had changed.
I don't think a lot of people in the Pentagon or the Department of Defense and the planners at the top were completely aware of how lethal the connection would be between space based surveillance and the persistence surveillance that results.
And the instantaneous communication of targeting information to hundreds of different strike systems, manned and unmanned, all kinds of missiles, and the pinpoint accuracy with which they would be launched.
I just don't think people realize that they should have figured it out by watching what emerged in eastern Ukraine.
Go right ahead, Nick.
Go right ahead.
Well, what McGregor's alluding to is a tremendous, amazing change.
Comes basically from China.
The high tech satellite surveillance systems enabling these solid fuel Iranian missiles, solid fuel means they can be quickly brought out of caves and targeted and fired.
They travel thousands of miles and they can be given a pinpoint accuracy because of this assistance from China.
I think they've got the very high tech equipment, and that's how Iran is now winning this war.
With a quite new concept, nobody'd ever heard of it before.
And also on the maneuverability of the warheads, so they can dodge around and avoid all the anti ballistic missiles that Israel's got.
So, this is a powerful, an awesome combination of Iran fighting with Russian and Chinese backup.
And this is, in a way, it's BRICS fighting for its life and its existence.
America wants to destroy BRICS, which is the great new.
Alliance of Asia for a new multipolar world.
And in a way, that's what Iran is fighting for.
But also, I mean, so much depends on this conflict.
As I was saying earlier, is there a hope of Israel being wiped out?
Can the dream, the nightmare dream of Zion come to an end?
I mean, the world thought, oh, sorry for the Jews, poor Jews after World War II, let's give them a home.
And it turned out it's been a continual nightmare of exterminating the local residents of Palestine.
And there's no end to it, no end to the expansion that it wants.
It's official philosophy.
It's come from the Old Testament exterminate thy neighbor, steal his land, grab his gold.
And that is literally the official view of Israel.
You don't need to tell me how the depth of horror and evil that the Israeli army practices.
Sanctioning rape and torture in a way that is unheard of.
So I think the world is turning against Israel.
And I think there's a real prospect of, well, I would like to think of Israel being wiped out.
We just don't know.
I mean, the terrible power of Israel comes from Christians in America.
This is the kind of nightmare that we're trapped in.
I'd like your view on this.
50 million Americans, Christians, have been talked into believing.
That they, oh, God chose Israel, God gave Israel to the Jews.
This sort of nightmare interpretation of the Old Testament turns it into a real estate contract.
And this is still going on, isn't it?
American Christians think they've got to support Israel.
It's incoherent, Nick.
Rabbi Schneerson, for example, who many thought was the Messiah, the Jewish God returned to earth, said when asked that no, he couldn't be the Messiah because there's still Christians alive on earth.
Meaning, all the Christians on earth have to die before the Jewish God incarnate can return as a Mashiach.
I mean, and Christian Zionists support this?
I mean, it's like a schizophrenic or suicidal, self defeating attitude.
I mean, it is absolutely self defeating, absolutely self defeating, suicidal.
I mean, Galilee, where Jesus Christ's disciples live, that is southern Lebanon, right?
That's where they live.
That should be the Holy Land.
And are Christians bothered?
Well, when.
Israeli Jews invade that, they carpet bomb the place again and again.
Why don't Christians object to this?
Why do they think, oh, yeah, we've got to support them?
And this is the nightmare trap.
I think it only exists really in America, big time, of Christians thinking they want to support Israel.
It's not so much in other countries.
And so that is what keeps the whole thing going, really, the whole nightmare.
And, I mean, I don't know if we dare to hope that Iran can destroy it, but I think a lot of people are really hoping that, that there may come a time when Israel is so enfeebled that Hezbollah and the fighting forces of Arab countries around Israel can just move in and wipe it out, you know.
I mean, it's terrible to say that, but is that a prospect?
Nick, I think you're right.
I think you're right.
I love Colonel McGregor, of course.
He does so much good.
We have other stories to cover here, too, that complement what McGregor is saying.
For example, here's John Mearsheimer We're in a tough spot in the Middle East right now.
Prepare for worse.
Unbelievable.
Royal Paris Magic.
Nothing covers better and faster than number one root brand in the U.S. Spectrum is helping build America with 100% U.S.
It is a unique form of diplomacy.
There's no question about that.
Whether it makes any sense is another matter.
And I think it's quite clear it doesn't make any sense.
I mean, the bottom line here is that Trump needs.
An exit strategy.
He, he just has to put an end to this war, uh, sooner rather than later.
And the reason for that is that he has no military strategy that he can turn to that can allow him to win the war.
There's just no military option here.
As we've talked about before, if you go up the escalation ladder, uh, it's the Iranians who prevail, not, not the Americans.
So there's just no military option.
Furthermore, uh, The world economy is teetering, and the longer this goes on, the more damage that's going to be done to the world economy.
And by the way, if you do go up the escalation ladder, that'll really be another hammer blow to the world economy.
And this has political consequences inside the United States for President Trump, not to mention the fact that it has huge economic and social consequences for countries all over the world.
So he's under tremendous pressure to.
To come up with some sort of, uh, agreement with Iran, uh, that allows us to walk away from this.
The problem that he faces is that he's incompetent.
Uh, the administration is incompetent when it comes to diplomacy.
And the best example of this is a subject you and I have talked about ad nauseum, which is the Ukraine Russia war.
You want to remember that President Trump promised when he came into office that he was going to settle that war.
And in fact, he said that he might even settle it before he moves into the White House.
And he's made a complete hash of those diplomatic negotiations with the Russians.
It's really quite remarkable, as you have recorded in a whole slew of different interviews with a variety of people over the past year or so.
It's really quite amazing.
So, why would anyone expect him to be any more adept?
In negotiating with the Iranians, than he has been in negotiating with the Ukrainians and the Russians.
He's just not a good diplomat by any stretch of the imagination.
And to add to the trouble, he's got to deal with Israel and the Israel lobby.
And this is a very important issue, Glenn.
The fact is that the Israelis understand that up to this point in time, we've lost the war.
We, meaning the United States and Israel.
We had a set of goals going into the war, four main goals, as you know regime change.
getting rid of Iran's nuclear enrichment capability, getting rid of their long-range missiles, and getting them to stop supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
We failed on all counts.
And on top of that, as everybody knows, the Iranians, who did not control the Strait of Hormuz before February 28th and did not have a toll booth located in the middle of it, now control the Strait of Hormuz and have a toll booth.
Uh, located, uh, right there.
Existential Threats from Iran00:02:39
Uh, so the Iranians have won from an Israeli point of view.
This is a disastrous situation because the Israelis view Iran as an existential threat.
You and I can disagree with the Israelis, but that doesn't matter.
They think it's an existential threat.
And of course, the lobby here in the United States goes along with Israel no matter what.
So the end result is that Israel wants to continue the war.
It's just very important to understand that they want us to continue hammering away at Iran to try to beat them into submission.
And if we don't beat them into submission, well, we'll just destroy them.
Uh, do what we did in Gaza to Iran.
That's the Israeli view.
And that's the Israel lobby's view.
So if you think about the situation in Ukraine going back there, and then you think about the situation with regard to Iran, you see inept diplomacy on the part of the Trump administration in both cases.
But in the case of Iran, The situation's even worse because you've got Israel and the lobby leaning on him not to come up with a peace agreement that reflects what's happening in the war, which is another way of saying which reflects the fact that Iran has won.
So Trump is veering back and forth between two positions.
The more you practice chair Tai Chi, the more comfortable your body will feel.
It starts Monday, April 12th.
One, which is pushed forward by the economic crisis.
And the realities of what has happened in the actual fighting to work out some sort of deal.
He has powerful incentives because of the state of the world economy and because of what's happened in the fighting to cut a deal.
He understands he has no military option.
He understands we've effectively lost and he understands the damage that could be done to the world economy.
That tells him, let's cut a deal.
But on the other side, he has the Israelis.
And he has their minions here in the United States.
And they are powerful and they're honeycombed throughout the entire administration to put enormous pressure on him not to cut a deal and instead to play hardball with the Iranians.
So, what you see him doing is wavering back and forth between these two positions.
Nick, that's such a clear explanation of the situation.
I mean, it's.
Wavering Between Deal and Hardball00:03:44
This guy, John Mearsheimer, really, you know, he co authored the Israeli lobby book that became so sensational in the past.
Made him a big target, of course, for AIPAC and Israel.
But he's laying it out as clearly as it could be said.
I'm just in awe of how comprehensive.
Hey, Jim, if you can hear me, your sound is muted.
Just letting you know, Jim, your audio is muted.
The clips you're playing are coming through, but you are not coming through.
Okay, back to you.
Really, really, really.
See, and I don't know, I'm glad you're telling me, but I'm at a loss as to how I can fix it.
Oh, man.
Let me see.
Oh, there the video clips are coming through, but I'm not coming through.
We only need the audio.
We don't really need video output volume, output volume, input volume, output volume, voice settings, output device.
Maybe this will do it.
Maybe this will do it.
Meanwhile, we'll be right back with Nick Colerstrom.
Stand by.
Steve, go ahead.
No, no, no.
Give me some bottom lines.
Does David understand the situation?
But I think David just didn't understand that was information from years ago, years ago.
Holy shit.
Am I among them?
Okay.
Huh.
That kind of surprises me.
I mean, he's read a lot of my books.
Just good Christ Almighty.
Technical Issues During Recording00:03:13
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
I can call you back.
Yeah.
Well, it's not Division I. See if I can call you back in 30 minutes.
Thanks.
Nick, I'm kind of a bit of a loss here.
Are you still there, my friend?
Yeah.
Goodness.
There we are.
There we are.
I don't know what to say.
I'm just lost with the audio here.
And I'm not at all sure I'm even hearing.
Let me go back.
Well, should we call it off for now, Jim?
No, no.
We want to finish the show, Nick.
We'll have then an audio version of it, see?
And I'll post.
We'll have an audio version of our post.
It's just it won't be as complete as I would like.
Be an audio version of it, right?
No, I mean, there'll be a video version, right?
Wow, I just, damn.
Damn, let us just continue, Nick.
We're just going to continue.
Muddle on through.
Do what we can.
Here we have.
Any knowledge you'd like to impart to those willing to learn?
Have you ever listened to our shows and thought, hey, I could do this?
Still on the brain.
Or are you an established professional host?
Thwarted by censorship in other areas, seeking pastures new?
Contact us.
Jim, can we talk about the moon visit after this?
We provide the platform.
The training and the airtime to any budding host wanting the chance to take those first talk show steps.
Established hosts can find a safe and secure home here, where their message can ring out loud and clear, unencumbered, free from sponsorship overreach.
Drop us a line via our email, support at revolution.radio, or head into our Discord server to say hello.
We'll take everything from there.
Revolution Radio, where hosting dreams become actualized reality.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and FreedomSlips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, FreedomSlips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Mental Disintegration or Coup00:04:58
Well, Nick, go ahead and talk about Mearsheimer while we have the chance before we turn to our next clip, because we got Scott Ritter talking about 70,000 sign their death warrant if they're going to try to invade Iran.
Go right ahead.
Doesn't Mearsheimer do a brilliant job of laying it out?
Well, yeah, but it's as if there's two quite different Trumps.
There's the guy we originally knew who promised to end wars and make America great again, and everyone voted for him, and we thought this is a great new hope.
By the way, Wikipedia says he's six foot three high.
And now we get someone who can lie so easily.
I mean, he comes out of the Venezuelan affair as a liar, murderer, thief, and a pirate.
And he doesn't seem to have any kind of ethics about mass murdering other people and stealing their resources.
And is it the same person?
I mean, how can one person change so much?
I think this is what all the world is baffled by.
How much has he changed?
You're saying in height now he's like closer to six feet rather than six feet three?
Well, I think he's a bit less than six feet now.
Even shorter than six feet.
Well, you tell me, Jim.
But I mean, it might just be some weird psychological change.
Maybe some.
Well, can it be induced by blackmail?
Well, that's what people are wondering.
That's what people are wondering.
Yeah, tormented by his being a complete sex predator of little girls.
Um, that's what people are wondering, but it does seem very strange.
So, total a change, he's now a sort of total narcissist monster who is putting the whole world into danger.
And he wants a far larger military budget next year, he wants one and a half trillion dollars next year for war.
And that's a terrifying prospect of him.
And, and, and, Nick, that doesn't include the cost of the war with Iran, that's in addition to the cost of the war in Iran.
Well, let's hope some sort of collapse takes place before that.
I don't know what, but.
Yeah, I've been hoping he might resign for reasons of health, that that would be the most gracious way for him to, you know, exit the scene stage left.
Because, you know, the cabinet and Vance don't seem to have the balls to dump him by the 25th Amendment.
And we can't wait till impeachment because the world will have been totally destroyed by then.
So, I mean, I think that's.
The other option is a military coup, Nick.
I don't know if you heard there was a report last Saturday that Trump wanted to use the nuclear code.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, it was a measure, wasn't it?
And General Kane has said no, which suggests to me you could have the prospect of a military coup, but they're all going to be so beholden to the Constitution, they're going to be reluctant to do it.
But if they don't do it, the nation may go down in flames.
Yeah, well, that was shortly after he portrayed himself as Jesus Christ.
Yeah.
And people are really wondering is this.
Is this some kind of mental disintegration he's going through?
Yeah.
And as you say, it could be, it's not even the same guy and not the same physical person.
I read the Ben Fulford column for a kind of laugh.
He's a kind of, always got some utopian view of how things are going to turn out.
And that's what he always says.
He says the fake Trump.
I mean, I just don't know.
I don't have a view on that.
Do you?
I say ears are different.
You know, you tell by the ears and all that.
You don't have a view on that.
Sick.
I'm sorry.
I'm.
You don't have a.
Go ahead.
You don't have a view on whether this is the same Trump.
That.
My view has been the problem we have to deal with the guy in the office.
You know, he may very well be a different Trump.
I've speculated on that before.
The problem being we got the guy there who's being treated as Trump, or as a commander in chief, or as a president of the United States, and we got to deal with him.
Indeed, yeah.
Boys.
It's a bad situation.
Here we go.
Well, what's.
Listen to this.
Here we got Scott Ritter, who's so damn good, too.
I mean, I'm making.
This is the quickest way to clear out stuck poop.
I have to poop when it feels stuck.
Amphibious Assault Capabilities00:15:46
Two days ago on April 20th, disabled American veterans were zip tied by Capitol Police in the Cannon House office building rotunda.
They were holding red tulips.
They were standing at attention in military fatigues.
They were conducting a flag folding ceremony for the 13 American service members already dead in this war.
62 of them were arrested.
Some of them could barely walk.
And the government they served zip tied their hands and led them out one by one while they chanted, end the war on Iran.
I want you to hold that image in your mind for the next 20 minutes because everything I'm about to tell you about the 70,000 troops now being positioned for possible ground operations in Iran connects directly to what those veterans did on Monday.
They have been to war.
They know what it costs.
And they are telling you from the floor of the United States Capitol that what is being planned right now is not a mission.
It is a catastrophe.
Let me start with the numbers because the numbers are where everything begins and ends.
The United States currently has, as of today, April 22nd, approximately 4,500 Marines split between two Marine expeditionary units aboard four aging amphibious warships in the Arabian Sea.
The 82nd Airborne's 5,000 Troop Air Assault Brigade has been ordered to a forward position in the region.
Two ranger battalions, roughly 1,000 soldiers, and the Pentagon has been preparing mobilization orders for additional army divisions, each running 20,000 to 25,000 personnel.
Add it together and you are looking at a deployment force in the range of 70,000 troops positioned or being positioned for what officials are now describing to the Washington Post as weeks of ground operations in Iran.
I want to be very specific about what weeks of ground operations in Iran actually means in operational terms because the phrase is being used in Washington as though it describes a manageable limited military action, and it does not.
Let me tell you about Kotang Island first because nobody in this conversation ever mentions Kotang, and they should.
May 1975.
A Marine battalion was sent to retake a small island.
Intelligence assessed 30 to 50 poorly armed guerrillas defending it.
What they actually found when they arrived was 300 to 500 elite soldiers who had dug in, who waited under fire, who moved in disciplined coordination, and who proceeded to destroy most of the Marine helicopters attempting the assault.
We lost.
The Marines lost.
Most of the aircraft were shot down or destroyed.
We left three Marines on that beach.
The Khmer Rouge captured them after we withdrew.
They were executed.
That is what happens when you send Marines into an amphibious assault on a fortified island defended by people who knew you were coming and who have been preparing for exactly that scenario.
Now look at Karg Island.
Karg Island handles approximately 90% of Iranian oil export capacity.
It sits deep in the northern Persian Gulf, far from the Strait of Hormuz that the operation is supposedly designed to open.
The Pentagon plans, reported by the Washington Post, include raids on Karg, And coastal sites near the strait by special operations and conventional infantry.
Senator Lindsey Graham went on television and said, Take Carg Island, control its resources, let the regime starve.
I want to address Senator Graham directly.
The senator has never conducted an amphibious assault.
The senator has never planned an amphibious assault.
The senator has never been in a landing craft under fire.
He cited Iwo Jima as a model.
Iwo Jima cost 6,800 Marines killed and nearly 20,000 wounded to take eight square miles of volcanic rock.
The Marines who took it were the finest assault force ever assembled in modern warfare, trained specifically for that mission, supported by three weeks of naval bombardment, and they still nearly lost.
The senator is not qualified to cite Iwo Jima as a precedent for anything he is recommending.
And here is the specific military reality that makes Karg Island not just difficult but operationally irrational.
Even if American forces took Karg Island tomorrow, they cannot hold it.
The moment troops are on that island, Iranian drones and missiles begin targeting the position around the clock.
Supply ships attempting to reach the island get targeted, helicopters bringing reinforcements get targeted.
The logistics chain required to sustain a garrison on an island sitting inside the range of every Iranian missile system in the region simply cannot be maintained under that threat environment.
You take the island, you take casualties taking it, you take more casualties holding it, and then you cannot be resupplied, and then you have to withdraw.
And on the way out, you take more casualties, and the strait is still closed because taking Karg Island does not open the Strait of Hormuz.
The strait is closed by shore based missile systems, fast boats, mines, and coastal defense infrastructure that extends along hundreds of miles of Iranian coastline.
You do not neutralize that by holding an oil export terminal in the northern Gulf.
To actually open the strait through ground operations, you would need to land on the Iranian mainland.
Push 20 to 30 kilometers inland on a broad front and suppress the coastal defense systems embedded in that terrain.
The force required to do that is not 70,000 troops.
The planning I am aware of from my own professional experience with these scenarios puts the minimum viable invasion force at 200,000 to 250,000 troops, with a Marine Expeditionary Division of 25,000 to 30,000 leading the amphibious assault, followed by 150,000 Army soldiers securing the ground.
We are not deploying anything close to that.
We are deploying 70,000 troops into a theater.
That requires 250,000 just to begin the ground campaign, and we are sending them in on four aging amphibious ships against an adversary that has been preparing for exactly this invasion for decades.
The Iranians did not build 31 underground missile cities distributed across their territory because they expected a diplomatic solution.
They built them because they expected exactly this.
Because they expected a diplomatic solution.
They built them because they expected exactly this.
And those underground cities, those missile and drone production facilities buried in tunnels, Where no bunker buster bomb currently in the American inventory can reliably reach, are the reason that 54 days of airstrikes did not eliminate Iran's ability to fire missiles.
They are also the reason that a ground force of 70,000 is not a deterrent.
It is a target list.
Let me also address what Senator Chris Graham said, because it deserves to be examined precisely.
Graham said, make a few more weeks of this.
Take Karg Island, where you have all the resources to produce oil.
Control that island.
Let this regime starve at the end of its arm.
That sentence contains three distinct military errors.
First, Karg Island does not contain all the resources Iran needs to produce oil.
It contains export infrastructure.
Production happens onshore across multiple facilities.
Severing one export point disrupts the supply chain.
It does not stop production.
Iran has the ability to move oil export operations to other coastal locations.
Second, the phrase Ang Take Karg Island describes an amphibious assault against a fortified position inside Iranian defensive coverage as though it is a logistics problem.
It is not a logistics problem.
Sorry to interrupt.
But this is important.
The shooter who murdered my sweet little Daniel brought a highly.
It is a combat problem of the highest difficulty.
Third, the phrase, didn't let this regime starve, describes an outcome that requires holding the island under sustained Iranian missile and drone attack indefinitely.
No military force can be sustained on an island that size inside the range of Iranian coastal defense systems without a resupply chain that does not exist under those conditions.
Graham is not describing a military plan.
He is describing a movie scene.
And the difference between a movie scene and a military plan is measured in the number of people who come home in flag draped boxes.
Now, let me talk about the generals, because the veterans who got zipped.
Tide on Monday are asking a question that has a very specific and uncomfortable answer.
Where are the generals telling the president this cannot work?
I can tell you exactly where they are.
They are in the same place they have been for 30 years.
They are in meetings with defense contractors.
They are managing career trajectories that require political alignment at every promotion board.
They are producing yes answers to questions that require no answers because the system that creates American generals today does not reward the officer who tells a president the truth.
It rewards the officer who tells the president what the president wants to hear and then figures out how to execute it anyway.
General Berger, who commanded the Marine Corps in 2019, published his Commandant's Planning Guidance and said clearly that the traditional model of amphibious assault from large ship formations is no longer viable in an environment where adversaries have missiles that can reach the ships before they get close enough to launch the landing craft.
He said this in 2019.
He put it in writing.
And here we are in 2026, planning amphibious operations off Iran with four aging ships that any competent Iranian targeting cell can locate, track, and strike before a single Marine gets in the water.
Here's what President Trump said we achieved in 50 days of Operation Epic Fury.
He said we destroyed the Iranian Navy.
We destroyed the Iranian Air Force.
We destroyed their leaders.
We destroyed their air defenses.
Now, here is what happened two days after the ceasefire.
IRGC fast boats closed the Strait of Hormuz again.
IRGC fast boats fired on vessels attempting to transit.
Iran's foreign minister held press conferences.
Because the foreign minister is still alive, Iran's new supreme leader is governing.
Iran's missile production facilities are underground and intact.
And the planning option now on the table is to send 70,000 troops into the country whose military was supposedly destroyed.
You cannot hold both of those things as true simultaneously.
Either the strikes achieved what was claimed, in which case 70,000 ground troops are unnecessary because a broken adversary accepts terms without an invasion, or the strikes did not achieve what was claimed, in which case the people responsible for the planning that is now sending American soldiers into that environment owe the American public an honest accounting of what they actually knew versus what they said.
The officers who know this are not speaking.
Nick, he is so good.
All right, your thoughts, my friend.
Yeah, I hope this is the real Scott Ritter.
There's a lot of simulations.
Well, look, Nick, that was an AI version, I have no doubt, but everything you said appeared to be accurate and true.
All right, I'm glad you agreed, Jim.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, well, it's not certain they will do this in ground invasion.
This is just a theory, and all the military are telling Trump, don't do it.
Um, and and we and we're fairly fairly confident they will be obliterated, it'll be a catastrophic historic defeat for the American military if they do try and do this.
And a lot of people are seeing this as a turning point and end of the US empire that that's uh the US as the um you know settling disputes all around the world uh just by sending in the warships, it won't be able to do this any any longer.
It's discovering that the age of of of.
Of dominance using the great US warships may be over because they're so vulnerable.
This is what's happening.
This is what they're discovering now that the Iran missiles can, if not destroy, at least set on fire the ships sufficiently.
They have to withdraw from action.
Seems to me the Iranians are doing a very wise thing.
They're not actually sinking ships full of US Marines, which would provoke a forced Trump to a huge catastrophic response, but they are damaging them sufficiently.
They have to withdraw from the scene of action.
And I think that.
The Pentagon understands that this will happen if they try any such invasion plan.
So I'd say this is a terrific turning point we're at now.
I may be wrong that Trump can huff and puff about how he's going to destroy Iran, but he can't actually do it.
And the only way he could do it would be if he went up to start using nuclear weapons.
And it's actually rather mysterious that nobody, Israel or America, has used nuclear weapons so far.
In this conflict.
But the Iranians seem to have remarkable confidence that they can fight this war without the other side going nuclear, you know.
And I think we're all astonished by the brilliance and power of Iran's response to this invasion and the sheer number of, you know, high powered missiles it's accumulated.
It's been getting ready for this for decades and in a sensational manner.
It seems to be winning this conflict.
It's a bit too early to say at the moment, but that's what it looks like, isn't it?
Oh, Nick, I agree 100%.
They have shown military genius in repairing with their waves of ballistic missiles.
They now have well over 100 waves, and they used their old missiles early, which consumed the very expensive anti missiles of the Iron Dome and the David Sling and all that.
They used them up on their old missiles.
They kept their better.
They've never even used their best, Nick.
They still have better, bigger missiles.
They've never even fired in this conflict.
And I do believe.
I do believe they're going to be unwilling to relent until Israel gives up.
Israel is destroyed.
The United States, I mean, Trump is such a wishy washy here.
As Mearsheimer explained, he's virtually schizophrenic on this now.
He doesn't know what to do, he has no clue.
You know, we don't have the military to accomplish the task, and there have been other threats that if Iran were attacked with nukes, Other countries would attack Israel with nukes, and that includes Pakistan and it may be Russia too.
So, I think Israel's reluctant to use nukes on Iran, though I believe they have used them on the Houthis in Yemen, Nick.
I believe they have used them repeatedly on the Houthis.
Oh, right, right, right.
Well, yeah, well, let's hope so that there might be a hope for Palestine without the nation of Israel, which is.
It's a continual nightmare for the world.
And as Scott Ritter says, there's no realistic possibility of invading or taking this island.
Yes, well, let's pick up.
I'm such a fan of Scott Ritter.
We have Israel's casualties have at historical levels.
For the first time, the IDF lost 47 soldiers in five hours.
Nick, let's check this out.
Well, I think now I can see these are like PGA Torque caddies.
Hang on.
They do the heavy lifting.
Almost all large Iranian warships, Tehran continues to gain a landslide victory over the United States in the battle for the Strait of Hormuz.
Russian military experts emphasize that since the US imposed a naval blockade on all Iranian ports, 20 oil tankers associated with Iran have easily left the Persian Gulf and headed towards the Indian Ocean.
Furthermore, experts also noted that despite the naval blockade, 18 sanctioned Iranian oil tankers managed to safely enter the Strait of Hormuz and head to Iranian ports.
US Navy Blockade Failures00:03:56
All this indicates that the US Navy simply does not have enough warships to effectively blockade Iranian seaports and detain merchant vessels associated with the Islamic Republic.
In addition, the effectiveness of the naval blockade is affected by the distance from its own naval bases and the threat from Iranian anti ship missiles, forcing American warships to stay away from the Iranian coast.
Furthermore, it is also worth noting that the effectiveness of the U.S. Navy in the Middle East also suffers from the mental fatigue of American sailors and problems with their supply.
Unfortunately for the American sailors, the U.S. Central Command has so far been unable to resolve logistical issues, as a result of which the quality and quantity of food have significantly deteriorated on many American warships.
Stationed in the Middle East.
As for Iran, its so called mosquito fleet, consisting of thousands of small speedboats, has already proved its effectiveness in the Persian Gulf.
It is noteworthy that these Iranian boats operate in the Persian Gulf under the cover of coastal defense complexes.
These speedboats can attack enemy ships from multiple directions and even capture them with boarding teams.
By the way, since the beginning of the war, the United States has not been able to destroy even one such high speed Iranian boat.
Thus, Iran has once again proved that unconventional tactics and geographical factors make it possible to successfully resist even a much stronger opponent.
Meanwhile, the European Copernicus Sentinel 1 satellite has pictured 35 small high speed Iranian boats during their hunt in the Strait of Hormuz.
It is noteworthy that during this hunt, Iran also used the world's fastest military boat, Hadar 110, capable of speeds up to 110 knots or 203 km per hour.
It is noteworthy that these speed boats hunted for ships that tried to leave the Persian Gulf without permission from the IRGC.
It is reliably known that as a result of the actions of these speed boats, The IRGC did not allow 10 merchant ships to leave the Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, two container ships, MSC Francesca and Epaminandis, were even captured by the Iranians.
Later, the IRGC towed these container ships to Iranian seaports.
Thus, Iran has shown the United States that too can play the game of seizing merchant ships.
It is noteworthy that right after that, oil prices soared again.
At the moment, the price of one barrel of Brent crude oil is $99.
As for the Russian Urals brand oil, its price reached $100 per barrel.
By the way, commenting on Iran's seizure of two container ships, British journalists noted that the United States turned a blind eye to this incident.
According to them, the United States began to avoid provocations, turning a blind eye to Iran's aggressive actions.
British journalists claim that the United States currently has the weakest position.
Washington has completely exhausted all levers of pressure on Iran.
In this regard, the United States will react extremely sparingly, even to the most provocative and aggressive actions of Iran.
My friends, it is worth noting that Trump himself is also weakening the U.S. position with his strange and ill considered statements.
Let me remind you that two days ago, Donald Trump officially announced that Iran would participate in the second round of negotiations and agree to all the conditions of the United States.
Truth Breaking Official Positions00:03:47
At the same time, Trump threatened that if Tehran refuses, American bombs will start exploding in Iran again.
Moon landing hopes.
Thank you.
We're in.
Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
We'll be right back after this message.
And information never sleeps, never sleeps.
To Revolution Radio where truth breaks the spell and information never sleeps.
Join Revolution
Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary ZEN with host Zen Garcia at Freedomslips.com, THE People Station.
Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
But did you know that it was an inside job?
That Osama had nothing to do with it?
That the twin towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building?
Barry Jennings was there.
He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
The U.S. Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been there.
been a nuclear event.
Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
Don't let yourself be played.
Read American Nuked on 9-11, available at moonrockbooks.com.
Blown Open Moon Conspiracy00:10:15
That's moonrockbooks.com.
The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and FreedomSlips.com, its staff or affiliates.
You're listening to Revolution Radio, FreedomSlips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
Nick, I'm so pleased to have you here.
Yeah, this Artemis thing.
I mean, the best I can do is observe that there was a film spoof called Fly Me to the Moon that was, you know, showing how these things can be rigged.
And the spaceship, the rocket was Artemis.
So I think that was Artemis 1.
It's from this spoof movie, Fly Me to the Moon.
No, they're calling it Artemis 2.
They're rubbing it in our face, Nick.
I mean, this is just.
And of the four alleged astronauts, three of them were in films.
I mean, we don't know enough about this.
That's so crucial.
Yeah, go ahead, Nick.
Lay hard.
Especially Christina Koch, the woman, a Jewish lady.
She was in the Mad Max film Fury Road.
And people are trying to say, oh, that's a different Christina Koch.
Well, there's a movie website called Rotten Tomatoes that has.
Has an image of her and says where she came from, a date of birth where she comes from, in Michigan, California, Grand Rapids, and is clearly the same person.
Yeah.
So she's an actor and they totally look like actors.
Also, as Mathis points out, that they were in the late 40s or around about 50 years old.
They tried to conceal their ages, but he managed to work out where their ages were.
Christina Cogg was 47, and the other three were around 50.
Now, If it's a real astronaut, we're always told how fit and young they have to be and the terrific fitness training they go on, you know.
And these look like a bunch of, they look like about 50.
They look like they're grateful for being rescued from oblivion when they're past it at 50 years of age.
And they're given this fake moon video to do.
So they just lounge about in this pod for you see shots of them.
And that's all they do, really, isn't it?
Uh, they never say anything convincing to you when they talk, it's rehearsed patter.
There have been revelations like green screen shot where you can see they're suspended by wires, Nick.
I mean, it's all been blown open.
And they got one where there was product placement for some kind of funny peanut butter, and the jar was floating along so you could see the label clearly.
I mean, it's just absolutely good, yeah.
And you tell it, and you tell it, and then they show you the food they actually claim to have eaten, and that.
Peanut butter type stuff is what you spread on bread, but they weren't eating bread, they weren't eating anything you'd spread it on.
So, anyway, it just didn't make sense.
So, there was this picture which I think we've all seen of the four of them beaming.
All they do is grin, yeah.
All we've seen them do is grinning, thumbs up.
Oh, yeah.
And she is playing with a little teddy bear toy in zero gravity.
Oh, yeah.
And that's about all they do.
Okay, so you see a picture of the four of them beaming and laughing at the camera.
And hang on, this is supposed to be in the pod.
Who is holding the camera?
And then get this the camera pans away to the uh window, the porthole, right?
And right out the porthole, oh, there is planet Earth.
Oh, fancy that!
Yeah, um, so you see the sphere of planet Earth.
I mean, what a joke!
Uh, the Earth is so much larger in relation to the moon, Nick, that it ought to be covering the entire visual field.
I mean, it should be gigantic, and it always looks just like the moon looks.
It always looks just like the moon looks from Earth to colorize to become Earth.
I mean, it's just insulting.
It's insulting beyond words.
Okay, well, I'm just making the point about that they're looking at a camera which somebody must have been holding.
Somebody was telling them all to grin, grin, this horrible vacuous grins we get.
Yeah, okay, okay, so who's the additional astronaut holding the camera?
Yeah, Dick, of course.
And who then turns it away and looks through the porthole?
Oh, yeah, fancy that.
Planet Earth just happens to be there.
So that is just so fake.
I mean, what would you, supposing they were really going to the moon?
What would you expect them to do?
What would you like to hear from them, given they weren't going to land on the moon?
The one thing we'd all want to hear about, we've all been discussing much of our lives, is the radiation level.
What's it like going through the Van Allen radiation belt and at the peak sunspot maximum?
We're more or less at a sunspot maximum now.
So the Van Allen belts should be totally charged up with high energy solar plasma, highly electric, and they just got little thin aluminium or whatever pod that they're in, not much protection from radiation.
We would at least expect them to have some radiation meter or discuss it, you know.
What is the magnetic field like when you go through the Van Allen belts and you come out the other side, which they did?
They're then exposed to raw solar radiation.
And what is that like?
We never had any interest from them.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, in any scientific issue whatsoever, I didn't hear anything you would call science or interest in radiation at all.
And I think that is just so bogus.
Yeah, well, everything about it is bogus.
Everything about it is bogus.
They did have a rocket.
They did appear to have a rocket that actually took off, Nick.
I don't know what to make of that, but, you know, I think that's about as far as it goes.
About as far as it goes, yeah, yeah.
You know, the splashdown seemed very phony.
It had red rot wrapped with Chinese writing on it, Nick.
Right.
Chinese writing.
And they knew exactly where it was going to come down.
Was it off the coast of Florida?
I mean, If you've got that little pod supposedly hurtling towards Earth's atmosphere and then it's at 1,000 degrees centigrade burning up, I just don't believe that at all.
How can you steer a pod like that?
Or how can you avoid spinning round?
Or how can you direct it to a particular part of an ocean?
I wouldn't have thought you could do that from coming into Earth in that way.
So I feel that's.
You know, hard to believe, and as a lot of people have said, if it's a thousand degrees centigrade with the burning up heat coming into the atmosphere, uh, all this speed, how come there's no steam come seen when it hits the ocean?
Uh, that was another thing, yeah, yeah, good point, good point.
But but I'd like to come to the concept of going around the back of the moon, which is if they were really doing it, they would say to themselves, How can we show people this is real?
Uh, and one of the realest things they could possibly have done would be.
Around the back of the moon, okay.
Now, just let me explain the back of the moon is the part of the half that you never see from Earth, okay, right, right.
That's the back of now the dark side of the moon is opposite the Sun, which isn't the same thing, it's where there's no sunshine.
And when you get around the back of the moon, the Sun would have been at such a distance from the Earth that there would have been maybe one third or so, maybe a half of the back of the moon lit up by sunshine, okay.
So, you would see what's called the terminator boundary as they went across the back of the moon.
Be very dramatic, a terminator boundary between the light part of the moon, which lit up by the sun, and the dark part, which was in night.
And uh, they would have said that that would have been wow, how amazing!
Just look at that, we're in the back of the moon.
And wouldn't they have recorded it?
I mean, the whole idea is to take records, isn't it?
Where's the video recording of all this?
Yeah, right.
And uh, what would have been the amazing thing that happened when they went into the away from the sun into the dark side of the moon, around the back of the moon?
There would have been the Totally awesome experience.
They turn off the lights inside the cabin and they see that space is flooded with stars.
They would have seen far more stars than anybody ever sees on Earth.
Yes.
That would have been.
Ever, ever in world history seen, Nick.
You're absolutely right.
Right, right.
It would have been spectacular.
Yeah, it would have been spectacular.
And it's the one thing that we here on Earth would have liked to have been shown.
I mean, over the years, there's always caustic questions.
With the Apollo missions, oh, you didn't see any stars.
Oh, fancy that.
Oh, yeah, no stars.
And I feel it moderately credible that if you've got the sun shining on the moon or the light of the earth, there's too much brightness to see any stars.
So I can see that when you're on the bright side of the moon, maybe you don't see any stars.
There's too much light.
But when you're on the dark side, you're away from the sun, you would have had this spectacular experience of the night sky absolutely flooded with stars.
And that just was not there, was it?
Well, we didn't get any reports about that at all.
No, we didn't.
No, we didn't get that at all.
Tales of Deception and Brothers00:15:59
They just sit around inside the cabin playing with this little teddy bear thing.
And the coaches look out a porch hole and they say, Oh, wow, there's the earth.
Oh, fancy that.
And that's about all.
So I don't think there was anything at all, personally, I may be wrong, credible about experiencing space or doing anything memorable except sitting around in a cabin.
Yeah, it's just happy horseshit, Nick.
There's nothing real about this.
Really pathetic.
Nothing real.
No, no.
So, I mean, I would say it's done by actors.
Yeah, let me point out that three of them were actors, apart from Christina Koch.
The other two had both been in films, the other had produced a film.
So, three of the four were in the movie business.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And they're still in the movie business because this was a movie.
I still are now, yeah, yeah.
So I think that Americans should, yeah, there was an attempt to cover this up and deny this.
Excuse me, there's just someone at the door, Jim.
I just have to go.
Sure.
Nick, yeah, yep, yep, yep.
Let me pull up another.
Here's a story about Trump's fairy tales.
You may have heard of Grimm's fairy tales, some of which were made into Disney cartoons.
We all know Disney with its warm hearted endings and wicked witches we know won't win in the end.
The original stories by the Grimm brothers were quite different.
They were significantly darker, bloodier, more bizarre than the cartoon suggests.
Taken from various sources, the tales were written down by the brothers from the years 1800 till 1850 or so.
Nick, this is just about.
The Grimm Brothers fairy tales, and how, you know, we don't even get real versions of Grimm Brothers.
And then he's going on to talk about Trump's fairy tales just while you were handling the door.
You know, I just tossed that into the hat.
But, you know.
Well, Jim, I'll say that the Chinese really, really have got a moon project.
I believe the Chinese actually do what they say they're doing, and that they have got an ambitious and very exciting project of.
Developing a base on the moon, and I think in our lifetime we should see that.
Um, and and uh, so so I think something is happening.
Have the Chinese landed on the moon?
Nick, have they landed other than with an unmanned vehicle or probe?
No, no, they've done robots so far, but the point is that the robots are preparing stuff and building up stuff, uh, to be there when human Chinese uh land, you know.
Um, so I suggest that that is um.
That is really happening.
And I do believe in space exploration.
I think it's very exciting.
And I believe that it is possible, Jim.
Yeah.
Are you not convinced about that?
I'm not convinced about it.
Unmanned, I think, are perfectly feasible.
I don't believe manned are possible.
I think robotics is the solution.
So the Chinese are approaching it the right way, in my estimation.
And why is human.
Because of the Van Allen radiation belt.
Right, I see, yeah.
Right.
It could affect the Chinese just as much as it would affect Americans or anyone else.
So, I mean, you cannot overcome the Van Allen Belt.
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
And we have a number of reports, by the way, about how this idea of going to Mars and back is just ludicrous.
That would be impossible.
We can't even get back from the moon if we'd got there from the Apollo missions, Nick, and we didn't have the rocketry, the power, the these aren't little teeny tiny vehicles that are supposed to bring us back versus the monster rockets that go us up there.
I mean, how does that work?
But you've done a lot with them.
Well, I think that if there were a space program, it should just concentrate on going out through the Van Allen Belt and back again, perhaps sending monkeys out or humans just for a short time and try and get some realistic perspective as to whether you are correct and what kind of insulation is necessary.
At the moment, none of us know at all.
We're just given this comic show without any measures of radiation at all.
In fact, when I've tried to ask physics and science people what kind of radiation, how you measure it, you know, I don't think we'd even understand that.
What is measured as radiation?
But I feel it's a challenge that I feel there should be some way of overcoming it.
And part of the problem is that people just won't believe.
If Russians or Chinese say they're doing something in space, then they're really doing it.
But it's the Americans you can't believe, Nick.
The Russians and Chinese are credible.
It's like in the war, you know.
You can't believe the Israelis or the Americans, but you can believe the Iranians.
I mean, they're basically a very honest, honorable people.
Yeah, yeah.
They're non deceptive.
They make war by deception.
You cannot trust a single thing Israel does ever, ever.
No, you can't.
No, no, you can't.
No.
We have discussed many times, Jim, the central role of Israel in state fabricated terror that it always gets away with.
Nobody can be in politics and discuss the way Israel creates state fabricated terror.
That is the way they're this hidden power that they have an absolutely central role in the 9 11 event.
And as you once said to me, Benjamin Netanyahu might have been the mastermind behind that event.
Other people have said that.
It's quite possible he was.
And if America had pursued 9-11 truth properly, as it should have done, then we wouldn't be in this catastrophe we're in now.
America would realize that Israel is its enemy and not be manipulated by deception.
Once you get news outlets that are always deceptive and will say what Israel wants them to say, then basically you're totally screwed.
One thing I heard about Iran is that Jews are quite comfortable in Iran, you know.
And Netanyahu urged them to come to Israel and didn't want to.
They said, no, we're quite comfortable here.
And they've got a ceiling, a policy in Iran of Jews not getting into top positions, okay?
Yes.
Now, that was a traditional European policy, I believe, up to the time of Napoleon, of not letting Jews get into controlling positions, which I would say is quite essential for any civilization or culture to survive.
And I think there was a, in the East, there was Byzantium that lasted for a thousand years, Byzantine culture that had that policy of not letting Jews get up to top positions.
And I think that's a very sensible policy that, if I'm right, that's what I've heard that Iran has got.
Well, that was Hitler's policy too, right?
To remove Jews from financial and governmental positions.
I mean, that was.
Yeah, it was.
Yeah, yeah.
We didn't quite manage it.
But.
Yeah, yeah, that was indeed.
I'm glad you said that.
Yeah, yeah, that was his position.
And quiet Jews who'd lived in Germany since the beginning of the century just got on with their lives, they weren't disturbed, you know, that they could just get on with it.
Right, right, right.
And there is like the third largest Jewish community in the world living in Iran, I understand.
I mean, it's a huge community in peace.
In peace, yeah, yeah.
So I think there is a possible solution to how to get on with Jews.
Dear, I'm sorry.
That's.
Sorry, it's a kind of humorous concept.
That Iran might have the key to.
If you remember, about some years ago, 15, 20 years ago, they had a Holocaust conference, Holocaust Truth conference in Iran.
And they had a whole lot of top revisionists come along and discuss what had happened in the German labor camps, you know, how the Zyklon was used to kill bugs, not Jews.
And that was a conference.
And they had.
They used to say that is their national policy, that they accept this revisionist view.
Well, that's incredibly courageous.
That's the only country on earth that would do such a thing, you know.
Right, and it reflects their dedication to truth and principle and integrity and honesty and candor.
I mean, it's embarrassing, Nick, that we trash them.
I mean, I know some very good people who have bought into the idea that the Iranians are a bunch of barbarians who want to.
Kill everyone, and they're killing all their own people.
It's ridiculous.
It is, yeah.
I mean, what America put out, they put out the story of a big protest against the government earlier this year that was shot down and suppressed by the government.
And they said thousands or something were killed.
And then the truth came out on people like the Grey Zone with Max Blumenthal.
No, no, it wasn't that at all.
It was provocateurs, British and American.
Secret services and Mossad arming some hired, um, you know, anti government agents to shoot people.
The people were mainly police, mainly Iranian police who got shot.
And after that, the people of Iran came out literally in their millions, millions on the streets.
Okay, yeah, before the war, there'd been quite a lot of people sick and fed up with this, uh, Mullah's this, you know, Mullah's governing Iran.
Said, Oh, no, we don't want this religious group.
And as happens, it's quite understandable because of all the Turk sanctions on Iran, life was quite stressful.
There had been quite a lot of people in Iran against the government.
And when this started, they realized, oh, we've got to support the government under these circumstances.
And literally, after that provocation, higher provocation by outsiders, people came out by their millions in the streets to support the government.
And to this day, you hear it quoted.
At least I hear it quoted on the radio, which I unfortunately have to listen to in the morning, about Iran being, oh, a barbaric government.
Oh, they shoot their own people.
I mean, what utter crap.
And it's a story they keep getting away with.
If you remember, you know, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, oh, you know, oh, he bombs his own people.
Then Gaddafi, oh.
They use it against Assad, too.
Yeah, Assad, too.
Yeah, yeah.
It's a crappy story.
They have a playbook and they use it regardless.
The facts have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, thank goodness we have got some truthful websites, like, for example, Veterans Today.
I think that's quite good.
Veterans Today, The Grey Zone, and obviously RT, that will put out more an account of what happens, a more realistic account.
And so we have got access to truth if you want it, but you have to make an effort, and the mainstream media will give you these basically diabolical lies.
The lies that it gives you are always to justify the war.
It's always a war ratifying deception that it gives you.
Yes.
Absolutely right, Nick.
Absolutely right.
What must have been a sensational conference?
Has there been any other in the world?
I mean, most Holocaust investigators get pilloried and, if not literally strung up, they get censored or.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, I just keep quiet about that.
But I think.
In a sense, we've won the arguments.
If you talk to normal, intelligent, well informed people, you'll find they're skeptical about it, but they don't want to talk about it.
You know, there's nothing resembling a public event like there was in Iran all those years ago, which was universally condemned by all sorts of politicians and leaders around the world.
So, no.
And I don't think Iran would do that again.
I mean, I think Iran brought this, in a sense, they brought this conference on itself by talking about America as the great Satan, which I don't think they should have done.
Well, that was in the aftermath of, you know, over regaining control of the country in 79.
And then you got mistranslations about wiping Israel off the earth.
I mean, you know, it's all propaganda, Nick.
Well, it was, yeah, yeah.
They spin it, they spin it.
I mean, what they said was that they hoped Israel would fade from the pages of history.
Yeah, well, this regime will pass the regime, the Zionist regime, intelligence regime.
Yeah, yeah.
I think that's the kind of Israel was going to be wiped off the map.
But it may happen now.
It may actually happen now.
Yeah, yeah, mate.
Yeah, yeah.
Right.
Well, let's hope so.
I mean, look how Mearsharmer and others were saying Israel wants the war to continue.
They want the war to continue.
And it's because they think this is their last opportunity.
And, Nick, if they cannot win, if they're going down, what becomes of the Samson option?
Are we going to see the temple brought down?
Well, it's very strange that.
Yeah, what about Samson Option?
I mean, some people are telling me that nukes can't go off, but I think they can.
But it's very strange that they haven't.
Well, the maniacs, we thought with the fingers on the trigger, but by now somebody would have used it.
But anyway, let's hope they don't.
Yeah, so just have to wait and see.
Yeah.
But if it does get wiped off the map, let's hope we can have some.
Palestine government.
You know, the plans for revising Gaza were well worked out in advance of October 7th.
They had these very elaborate plans of what they're going to do there, all kinds of projects with Gaza before October 7th, which, of course, was just a fabricated event to justify the grossly disproportional slaughter of the whole people, the genocide.
Yeah.
Grotesque Inversion of Facts00:02:14
Yeah, I mean, these are the Semitic people.
They are Semites.
They are descendants, original descendants of Judea.
The nearest you've got to the people of Judea are in Palestine now.
And the Israeli settlers from Europe are colonialist, imperialist settlers.
They're not Semitic at all.
Right.
They're just coming.
It's a grotesque inversion of the fact.
Yeah.
And it fits propagandistically so beautifully, and all confirmed by DNA studies and everything else.
It's the Palestinians who are the Semites, the Israelis are not, which makes Israel the greatest practitioner of anti Semitism in the world today.
Well, it is.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm glad you said that.
And what's happening with their temple, Jim?
Are they going to.
I worry.
I worry.
I worry because they want to talk about the third.
You've even got Heg set talking about the third temple.
You know, I just fear what could happen here.
I think the risk is just terrific.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, the pressure comes from Christians who believe their horrible narratives of what never happened of this big empire, Greater Israel, which never existed, and the big Temple of Solomon, which never existed.
And they've got these horrible stories that they believe.
And that nourishes the state of Israel.
That supports it.
That is the problem.
Or I think it's very central to the problem.
Israel wouldn't be able to survive without all that Christian support.
Nick, it's glorious having you here, my friend.
Let me just add everyone, spend as much time with your family, your friend, the people you love and care about.
We do not know how much time we have left.
Use it wisely.
Support Revolution Radio, and God willing, we'll be back on Monday and we'll do it all over again.