Here's the News: Another War In Middle East Has Started?!
Never let a good crisis get in the way of an opportunity. As tensions escalate in the Middle East, is President Biden and neo-cons from both sides seizing upon the deaths of troops in Jordan to justify escalation against Iran? --💙Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportWATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble: https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumbleVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-StoreFollow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
No, here's the fucking news!
Hello there you Awakening Wanderers, thanks for joining us on our voyage to truth and freedom.
You've got Republican politicians telling you, we've got to have a war with Iran.
You've got the President saying, we've got to respond to these three deaths.
You're being told from every conceivable angle that there's an inevitability of war with Iran.
Yet when people are directly asked, should there be a war with Iran, they seem to deny it.
This morning, the Biden administration vowing to take all necessary action.
It's necessary.
After an unmanned drone strike sent, it said, by Iran-backed militant groups.
President Biden yesterday leading a moment of silence and promising an American response.
We had a tough day last night in the Middle East.
Even that sentence isn't good.
We had a tough day last night in the Middle East and may I say that I find it rather appalling when politicians hold public silences when it's their actions and decisions that have led to their tragic deaths of those service personnel and that his subsequent actions will likely lead to the deaths of more service personnel. If you're going to have a moment of
silence, this should be a moment of reflection where we look at our aims and our objectives
and our politics and the decisions that we make and the consequences of escalating war and
tension. Not just, "Here's a minute of silence. Now let's carry on ensuring that loads of
people don't necessarily die."
"We lost three brave soldiers in an attack on our base. And we shall not smile."
Some people might question why there are 45,000 American service personnel stationed in the
Some people might be curious as to why 1 million people in that region have died in the last decade or so as a result of US interventionism in that region.
And who might be responsible for that?
Let me say this again.
It's Not in America.
It's over somewhere else, the Middle East.
There's 45,000, a small town's worth of service personnel.
And sometimes, occasionally, those people die, which I think is wrong and appalling.
I also would like to make clear that I think the people who serve in the military are extremely brave and ought be honoured.
And I also think they ought be led better and decisions ought be made that don't escalate the likelihood of their unnecessary deaths.
With America already locked in an escalating confrontation with the Houthis in Yemen over the group's continued attacks on global shipping.
Ah, those Houthis there at it again.
Yes, it's the Houthis that you'd never heard of before, all over your news cycle, getting Lindsey Graham into a frenzy, saying something like, we have to kill all Houthis, otherwise we can't look ourselves in the mirror and say, there is Lindsey Graham.
Now Republicans demanding a more forceful response from the US.
Senator Lindsey Graham writing, I am calling on the Biden administration to strike targets of significance inside Iran.
Hit Iran now.
Hit them hard.
I find it kind of personally appalling that people that operate in institutions of bureaucracy are willing to use the language of war so casually when so seldom are they directly affected by the consequences of that language.
But at least we're 100% certain that Iran are definitely involved and it's not essentially a guess, a hunch, a suspicion, a whiff, a convenient assumption that Iran are involved.
This is the press secretary of the Pentagon publicly admitting they don't even know if it's anything to do with Iran.
Just to follow up, you said Iran was behind the attack.
What does that mean?
Have you seen evidence of...
Good bit of journalism there.
the world.
that Iran funds these groups like Qatar Hezbollah and other groups that have
attacked our forces but I don't have more to share on as a general matter
yes in general it's the sort of thing that Iran might do if that kind of
general assumption were made in cultural life it would be referred to as racism
you can't just generalize like that Well, when it comes to wars, we can.
Not saying stuff, though.
Don't you dare generalise with stuff you say.
What about people you bomb?
Oh yeah, yeah, generalise with that.
Just generalise away, really.
Now, many progressive folk might condemn Marjorie Taylor Greene as a harpy, a hysteric, a lunatic, an extremist.
Here is Marjorie Taylor Greene saying, you shouldn't have wars, which seems to me to be a sensible thing to say.
What I have to say to Lindsey Graham and others that are just madly calling for war is they sound psychotic.
Absolutely psychotic.
War is very serious and if the President is planning to go to war with Iran, he needs to come to Congress and ask permission and this is something that Congress has to give approval for.
Lunatic Marjorie Taylor Greene there saying that Congress should be consulted before embarking on war.
I mean, I think it's part of the Constitution.
Now, that rational, sensible, heroic politician Nancy Pelosi claiming that anyone protesting against war is a Putin-apologist.
See how it works?
Marjorie Taylor Greene, she's crazy.
Nancy Pelosi, she's a hero.
Glass ceiling smashing, yeah!
First female speaker of the house!
What have you got to say, first female speaker of the house?
Well, anyone protesting against war, yeah, yeah, is a hero, is part of the civil rights movement that led to even the opportunities that you're enjoying.
Oh no, I'm saying they're liars and that they're funded by Putin.
Oh.
For them to call for a ceasefire is Mr. Putin's message.
Mr. Putin's message.
Make no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see.
Same thing with Ukraine.
It's about Putin's message.
I think some of these protesters are spontaneous and organic and sincere.
Some I think are connected to Russia.
She may have the delicate features of a cartoon mouse, but she has the cruel heart of a tyrant.
And I say that having looked at this for a long time now.
Do you think some of these protests are Russian plants?
Do you see how the legacy media participates in the construction of myths while simultaneously saying you've got to watch independent media?
They're always purveying conspiracy theories.
So you're saying that these protests are made up of Russian plants?
How about asking, have you got any evidence for this?
Wait a second, you're making some pretty outrageous claims there, Nancy Pelosi.
Also, where the hell have you got these hundreds of millions from when you earn a couple of hundred grand a year?
Instead of that, just tee up an opportunity for Nancy Pelosi to convey propaganda.
These are plants I think some financing should be investigated.
And I want to ask the FBI to investigate that.
If anyone's finances should be investigated, it's Nancy Pelosi's.
And Paul Pelosi's.
Although, no, they're entirely separate, aren't they?
Nancy Pelosi's over here, earning 200 grand a year, and then there's Paul Pelosi, curiously and coincidentally, investing in big tech companies.
And Nancy Pelosi, though, they've got something to talk about at home, but not in an unprofessional way, because she actually regulates big tech companies.
So it's good, it's good for the small talk, but they don't let it get involved in the business strategy.
Or their love life.
Tucker Carlson, who's consistently anti-war, posted this on X, quite a succinct response to the dogs of war and their hawkish proclamations.
Now though, because we don't want to associate too heavily, right kids, with a right-wing extremist like Tucker Carlson and his right-wing advocacy for peace and harmony, so let's get some perspectives from those other right-wing fascists at World Socialist Organization.
And you'll note how frequently you agree with everything they're saying, almost as if there's this weird new movement at the center of global politics that's not really right or left in the conventional sense, but I don't know, totalitarian?
Calls for President Joe Biden to take direct military action against Iran are ratcheting up following this weekend's drone attack in Jordan that killed three U.S.
service members and wounded over 30 others.
The United States can and must respond to this brazen attack, said Democrat Senator Mark Warner in a post on X. This attack on U.S.
and coalition troops in Jordan, our steadfast regional partner...
Colonised it!
You bloody how dare you!
It's extraordinary really the normalisation of colonisation.
Again, my support for individuals that are brave enough to serve in the army.
Boundless.
But the exploitation and rhetoric around this and the obvious attempt to exploit an opportunity to go to war, which I would say probably is part of a broader project that includes profiteering and projects of dominion, are considered to be an insult to the bravery of those people who have lost their lives.
I support President Biden in a deliberate and proportionate response, added Senator Ben Cardin, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Go democracy, guys.
Some Republican hawks, many of whom are longtime advocates of regime change, who have been calling for an aggressive response against Iran since October 7th, went a step further, calling for a direct confrontation with Iran.
The only answer to these attacks Must be devastating military retaliation against Iran's terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East, added Senator Tom Cotton.
This is a really peculiar moment, actually, because they're saying terrorist forces in Iran, but like almost the definition of terrorism previously was that it was separate from a sovereign state, i.e.
oh, ISIS, they're terrorists, Al-Qaeda.
They're terrorists.
IRA, even.
They're terrorists.
If it's directly connected to Iran, then you can't have both.
Either they're terrorists or they're Iranian forces.
Not Iranian terrorist forces.
You can't have all of it.
Iranian terrorist COVID Kanye Wests are attacking our troops!
The Biden administration claimed the attacks were carried out by Kataib Hezbollah, a militia group the US asserts is backed by Iran.
Iran has denied any links to the attacks.
Now we get into some interesting, bigger picture geopolitical facts.
More than 45,000 troops are deployed in the Middle East associated with decades of US wars throughout the region that have collectively killed over 1 million people.
Would it be sensible to divorce this attack and this escalation, even the current war in Gaza and all events in the Middle East, from this fact?
There are 45,000 troops stationed there and a million people have been killed in that region.
Would you say that's relevant or irrelevant?
The legacy media will tell you that's irrelevant.
They won't report on it, they won't responsibly explain it, they won't investigate it.
They'll just sort of go, oh, you know, Houthis now is the problem and let's escalate tensions.
To me, these are relevant details.
The attack on US troops deployed on the other side of the world is being used to justify long-planned military escalations.
Long-planned.
Over the past two months, US imperialism has provoked regional war in the Middle East, having already launched multiple attacks on Iraq, Syria, And Yemen.
And Yemen, that actually sounds like a real country.
Now the US military is threatening to directly attack Iran, which would engulf the entire region in a bloodbath.
Nice.
The Biden administration is playing with fire, creating the conditions for a catastrophe.
It has systematically provided funding, logistical support and political cover for Israel's war in Gaza.
Knowing full well that this would provoke retaliation against US forces deployed throughout the region whose deaths would be used as a pretense for further military escalation.
Many people at the beginning of this conflict said it is a volatile situation and would likely lead to further conflict and those people are now looking like they were accurate in their appraisal as events appear to be becoming More conflagratory and more intense, I would say.
In response to all criticism of its provocative actions, the Biden administration has responded
by declaring that it has no intention of waging war against the countries it is militarily
encircling.
Stop militarily encircling them then?
Oh no no, we militarily encircle people as part of a dance of love, and it's one of
our proudest traditions.
Asked repeatedly at Monday's press briefing whether the US government is actively considering potential attacks inside Iran, White House National Security Spokesman John Kirby repeatedly replied, we are not looking for a war with Iran.
Huh, but this is sort of a war, isn't it?
Notably on January 12th, Kirby used the exact same language with regard to Yemen, declaring, We're not interested in a war with Yemen.
And yet the United States has carried out dozens of missile strikes inside Yemen over the past three weeks, on over half a dozen separate days.
Funny way of showing you're not interested in a war, And as a further declaration of our peaceful intentions, here's some missiles!
Here's some attacks!
Here's a wedding ruined!
Bloody hell.
I'm glad they don't want a war if this is what they do to achieve peace.
It seems the best predictor of what country the US military will illegally bomb next is the one the US government declares it has absolutely no intention to wage war against.
The most ridiculous version of this argument was presented in a White House press briefing on January the 16th.
Let's have a listen to that now.
And then just going back to something you said about the Houthis, how we're not looking to expand this conflict, How do you square that with the mission of degrading their capabilities?
I mean, how is that not expanding this conflict?
Yeah, how is bombing someone not sort of a war?
Oh, this is friendly bombing, kindly bombing, love bombs, bath bombs!
So on the second question, I mean, by It's a very simple equation.
It can't be that simple because I think bombing is an act of war.
It's at best going to be Orwellian doublespeak and potentially absolute nonsense.
And I can only assume that these people either think we're stupid or don't think very much at all about anything.
By removing military capability from the hookies, We are making it harder for them to conduct these attacks.
These attacks have been escalatory.
These attacks have been dangerous.
These attacks have affected merchant shipping in the Red Sea, one of the most important international waterways around the world.
We're just doing this to help the international waterways, in a sense.
Consider us to be like...
Coast guards, in a way, just ensuring that the waterways are protected.
Oh no, look, there's a heron, an ibis.
We must look after the precious marshland.
It's extraordinary that we're invited to accept that an escalation of military action is the best way to get to peace.
This is the curious logic of the tyrant, and it's more obvious when you see something like Stalin adorned with medals and a mad mustache say out loud and outright, if you knew what I know, then you'd do what I tell you.
But I haven't got time to explain all this to you.
But let me tell you this.
If we didn't kill all these people, more people would die down the line.
So it's off to the gulags for them.
That's essentially what's being said here by John Kirby with none of Joe Stalin's panache or Georgian chutzpah, is that if the hoofies are not killed, things are going to get worse.
They're going to escalate their attacks on these vital shipping lanes and marshlands and precious little reed warblers.
They simply have to step in.
But it seems to me that what's more likely is there's an agenda in the Middle East, that there's long been an agenda in the Middle East, that's why there's 45,000 troops stationed there, that's why a million people have been killed there, that's why your legacy media is advocating for war, that's why Nancy Pelosi's not being asked any difficult questions, that's why dear old lazy old sloppy old Well, sopiorific, dozy Joe Biden is having a minute's silence and saying there must be retaliation and reaction because it's part of a broader plan.
Now, I know geopolitics is complicated, but what is plain and simple and obvious is that there are imperialist projects that relate to the military-industrial complex, American expansionism, and a general agenda of total global control.
So you, I suppose, have to ask yourself, what is this?
Is the military-industrial complex just responding to random stimuli and arbitrary events, or is this part of a concerted effort?
Just, you know, cast your mind back.
Have you ever heard anywhere people saying there's a long-term project to go to war with Iran?
Has that ever come up as part of the new American century?
Was it one of the things that was supposed to be in the boxes that Trump took out of the White House?
Just use your memory!
Well, that's literally the plot of Minority Report.
they could use it. That is by definition taking the tensions down, you're taking the ability
for them to conduct these attacks off the table. Well that's literally the plot of Minority Report.
In this Orwellian language any US attack on military forces of any country is an act of
de-escalation and if the United States military were to attempt to destroy China and Russia's
military capacity by attacking all of their bases with nuclear weapons that would be the
most de-escalatory act of all.
Seems like an extreme statement, but based on the logic that we've just heard, that's actually what is being proposed.
By destroying them, we're making things better down the line.
In fact, actually, people do literally use that argument about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
Whole Japan would never have surrendered The kindest thing we could have done was to bomb them into oblivion.
And in fact, you know, Japan built back better.
I like that phrase, built back better.
The absurd verbal gymnastics are an attempt to cover up the White House's far-reaching plans for military escalation from the American population, which overwhelmingly opposes further US military intervention in the Middle East.
Yeah, like increasingly I think people don't want to be in a war in some far away place.
Say if your family are in the services or you yourself are in the services, don't you think, well, shouldn't we be doing stuff that's really connected to our purpose as a nation and as a people and as a tribe?
Like, you know, we could be domestically dealing with stuff, we could be preventing threats.
All of these assumptions that also lead to imperial goals and financial goals being met Oh, probably they're going to do this and then they'll do that, so your sons and daughters should get out there and die.
That doesn't seem like something that's very popular anymore, so they have to keep presenting it to us as somehow necessary, inevitable, beyond our choice.
We cannot allow this to happen.
Look at all the rhetoric at the beginning of this article.
Democrats and Republicans united together against your children's lives.
Asked on Tuesday why the White House has not informed the American people about its war plans or sought consent from Congress, Which you'd think are two pretty important ideas.
We're just going to, firstly, before we do anything, tell the American people and then have the due process of Congress.
They didn't bother with any of that.
Kirby bristled at the suggestion, declaring the Commander-in-Chief is not looking at polling or considering the electoral calendar.
The United States seized upon Hamas's October 7th attack on Israel to immediately surge troops, warships and aircraft into the Middle East in what the U.S.
Navy's news publication called the largest mass of U.S.
ships in the region in decades.
This massive military build-up was intended to be used In exactly the way it has been, to carry out a widening series of military attacks throughout the region, aimed at reorganising the Middle East and the US domination.
So once that fleet of ships is out there, it seems that it's possible, and they know that the legacy media will support this, that you just subsequently look, for instance, and go, Aha!
See?
All these incidents in the region?
We'll probably have to go to war with them.
But it is, in fact, perhaps, an act of provocation, even to take all of those warships into that region.
Could it be argued?
Use that simple philosophical trick of imagining it reversed.
If Iran had a bunch of ships in the Gulf of Mexico, do you imagine that people would be opening ice cream stands up on the beach for them?
Or do you think that there could be some conflict in the region?
In less than 10 days after the October 7th attacks, the WSWS warned, the dispatch of an armada of over a dozen warships to the Middle East is not simply to threaten Hamas, which has no navy.
The United States is preparing for a much broader conflict in the Middle East, including war with Iran.
Since then, the United States has bombed Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
Yeah, but just because they've bombed Iraq, Syria and Yemen and Hamas doesn't have a navy, don't see that as a strategic move.
I mean, don't imagine that there must have been a conversation somewhere within the admiralty, military-industrial complex and pentagons and the conglomeration of those organisations where people said, right, look, we're taking all those warships, it's obviously going to be seen as an act of provocation, but given that we've got this plan to escalate tensions with Iran anyway, There hasn't been no conversations, have there?
And we already know that the American people haven't been consulted, you know because you are them, and Congress hasn't been approached because it's listed there.
So by this reckoning, and even by Marjorie Taylor Greene's analysis, this is not a legal escalation.
What they have to do is go, oh shit, we've got all these Ship's here, thank God, because these provocative oofy bastards are lunatics.
Look at what they're doing now!
Oh my God, I could barely finish my propaganda without a hoofy catapulting me in the side of the head.
They have to now provide the justification.
You know how this works.
Problem-crisis-solution.
That's the phrase that we've become familiar with.
They exploit these crises continually to fulfill an agenda that was already desired.
The US sees the conflict that has now erupted in the Middle East as a critical component of its existential struggle with Russia and China.
Significantly, the United States, in the words of a recent article in Foreign Affairs, has taken note of China's expanding relationship with Middle Eastern states.
In particular, Beijing's effort to broker a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
So China of China, the monsters that they are, bring about peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
What the hell are you doing over there bringing about peace in that region?
We've got a lot of money tied up in that region.
Shut your bloody mouths and let there be escalating tensions, which we can exploit for profit.
On Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, a man who has publicly admitted that he's
been provoking Putin into war with Ukraine, in a meeting with Secretary of State Antony
Blinken obliterated any dividing line between NATO's war against Russia and the US conflict
with Iran and China, declaring "a Russian victory would embolden Iran, North Korea and
China.
That matters for Europe's security and it matters for America's security."
It's interesting how these facts are narrativised.
I suppose the complexity of modern politics and perhaps God, even the life of an individual,
mean that to a degree we're all narrativising reality, making sets of assumptions, certainly
the Pentagon are making assumptions.
But the idea that the war between Ukraine and Russia has to be perpetuated, otherwise
China are like "Oh, hello there, what's going on here?"
By that reckoning, the defeat by Vietnam of the United States during the 1970s would have caused more problems than it inevitably did.
The lesson of that conflict was not, we always have to win wars.
It was, stop starting wars in countries that are none of your business.
That's a lesson, at least, that we could investigate.
The global war that has now been provoked by US imperialism and its allies in London, Berlin and Paris is part of a global counter-revolution in which the imperialist powers are seeking to re-establish direct control over their former colonies.
At the same time, US imperialism, beset by massive internal social contradictions, is attempting to channel these internal tensions towards an external enemy.
These wars also create the framework for continuous attacks on democratic rights and an effort to delegitimize domestic political opposition.
In fact, war does do a lot of jobs, doesn't it?
It creates opportunities for revenue and it generates the opportunities to crush dissent at home, plainly.
I would imagine that over the coming years, if indeed these conflicts do escalate, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, if it sees the conscription of UK troops, as has been suggested through our legacy media in our country, if we see escalating tensions in the Middle East and even hostility between the US and China, Think of what reality is like. Well, I'll give you an idea
Taken literally from George Orwell. We're in this state of perpetual war and perpetual fear
Authoritarianism seems more and more necessary and understandable
We've already seen in the last couple of years that a significant number of people will just stay indoors if told
to do so Not necessarily because they're docile and compliant. I'm
not suggesting that actually I'm saying that a lot of people if we're told there's a
social project that we should all be participating in from a position of like love and general
goodwill will comply and there's nothing like constantly Escalating fear and threats of death and apocalypse and Armageddon
to make people more obedient In fact, that's obviously part of the general dynamic. We're
being encouraged to participate in we've got no choice.
They're doing this They're doing that
but when you look just briefly some of the strategic decisions that are being made when you just use your memory
to To recollect, hold on, haven't they been talking about war with Iran for ages and ages now?
Haven't I heard that?
New American Century, the boxes that Trump took out.
Then you start to get a different picture.
Who benefits from this situation?
What interests want this war to happen?
Who will likely suffer, both financially, emotionally, and most significantly, of course, will experience loss of life of themselves and their loved ones.
It won't be bloody senators.
Lindsey Graham ain't gonna go there.
Let's go, is he?
He'll use the hawkish rhetoric of war, but he will not use an M16.
So what I would suggest is that we remain united in our opposition to escalating conflict and demand that diplomatic solutions are sought.
And it's a ridiculous demand, really, because we don't have the institutions or personnel in place to seek those kind of conclusions, because this is not an aberration within the system, this is the system doing what it's supposed to do.
Generate conflicts that generate profit and solicit compliance at home.
But that's just what I think.
More important than any of that, if you can, please, stay free.
