The Invisible Enemy. A war with no sides. The world is not how you view it.
Israel armed the enemy it now fights. The real reason for America's strikes is bigger than you can imagine. For decades, a clear blueprint has guided Israel's approach to the Middle East.
The creation of a dominant Jewish state encompassing vastly expanded territory, referred to as Greater Israel, by weakening, fragmenting, and neutralizing surrounding Arab states. This vision is not fringe speculation. It is articulated in explicit policy documents and public revelations spanning from the 1980s to the post-9-11 era.
The foundational text is Oded Yinan's 1982 article, A Strategy for Israel, in the 1980s. Yinan, a former Israeli Foreign Ministry official, argued that Israel's survival required the dissolution of existing Arab states into smaller, ethnically, and religiously divided husks of their former nations. He described Egypt as a corpse to be dismembered, Jordan as ripe for Palestinian takeover, Iraq as a prime target for internal religious and tribal fragmentation, for fomenting division and hostility among Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish groups, Syria as vulnerable to ethnic breakup, and Lebanon already in chaos as a model to be followed.
The goal was to transform the region into a collection of weak mini-states unable to challenge Israel, allowing it to emerge as the unchallenged regional superpower with new borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. This line of thinking was formalized for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 with the policy paper, A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, drafted by a study group led by Jewish-American neocons like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wormser, and others with the project for the New American Century, PNAC. Think about that for a moment.
American government officials from the Bush administration writing policy for an Israeli Prime Minister. Ask yourself, where does their loyalty belong? And who were they really working for? America? Or Israel? Written for Netanyahu as he assumed office, the report urged Israel to abandon the Oslo peace process, reject land-for-peace formulas, and instead pursue aggressive regime change policies against hostile neighbors starting with Syria and Iraq, while cultivating alliances with Jordan and Turkey. It emphasized preemptive military action and leveraging U.S. support to reshape the region in Israel's favor.
Four years later, in September 2000, the same PNAC network produced a second major policy document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. This report advocated for sustained American global military dominance with emphasis on expanding a long-term U.S. force posture in the Middle East. It called for a broad revolution in military affairs where they blatantly said, quote, The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.
Take a moment to consider the chronology here. Both of these foundational papers, the 1996 A Clean Break Strategy, written directly for Netanyahu, and the 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report were produced before the attacks of September 11. The entire sequence of wars, beginning with Iraq, had already been written on paper years earlier.
The same group of neocons then followed up the year before 9-11 with a call for a profound and revolutionary transformation of U.S. military posture in the Middle East, ostensibly fighting Israel's enemies for them. A transformation, they noted, would likely proceed slowly unless accelerated by a major catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor. The Iraq War and the wars that followed were already planned before 9-11.
The implications and connections outlined above extend far deeper than the scope of this article permits. But if you wish to pursue the thread further, take some time to examine the documented activities and circumstances surrounding urban moving systems, the dancing Israelis, and the family history of Michael Chertoff, who set them free. The most public revelation came from retired U.S. General Wesley Clark in 2007.
Clark recounted being shown a classified Pentagon memo shortly after 9-11, outlining plans to take out seven countries in five years Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing it off with Iran. The sequence closely mirrored the Yanan and Clean Break frameworks. Dismantle Arab-slash-Muslim states one by one, culminating in Iran as the final obstacle to unchallenged Israeli dominance in the Middle East.
Despite this aggressive roadmap, Israel has a documented history of arming or indirectly supporting terrorist groups and adversaries it publicly condemns. It is well known the CIA and MA6 orchestrated the coup that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the country's oil industry and consolidated absolute power into the hands of the Shah. The Shah then became one of Israel's primary oil suppliers, while entering a 50-50 joint venture with Israel in the Eilat Ashkelon trans-Israeli pipeline.
He also maintained discreet Israeli military and intelligence ties, with Mossadegh helping to establish and train Iran's SAVAK secret police. After decades in power, the Shah publicly criticized the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, and his usefulness had run its course. He was overthrown just three years later.
How convenient. After the Islamic Revolution, Israel nationalized Iran's 50% stake in the Eilat Ashkelon pipeline company, taking 100% of the profits ever since. Just one year after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, even before the Iran-Contra affair, Israel heavily armed Iran, supplying them with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, with the stated justification to prevent an Iraqi victory that could threaten Israel.
Israel has also tolerated, funded, or armed terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS factions, Mujahedin networks linked to Al-Qaeda, and even Hamas, initially cultivated as a counterweight to secular PLO. Always with a stated justification, of course, these actions follow a classic divide and rule pattern. Arm one enemy to weaken another, then manage the resulting chaos.
Adding even more layers to this apparent contradiction is the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, formerly known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, finalized in 2015. Under the deal, Iran was permitted to retain its uranium enrichment program and infrastructure, including the ability to stockpile and import hundreds of tons of natural uranium while the agreement was in force. The deal included explicit sunset clauses that began expiring after 10 to 15 years, meaning many of the most restrictive limits on centrifuge numbers, enrichment levels, capped at 3.67% for the duration, and stockpile sizes would automatically lift, allowing Iran to legally resume advanced enrichment and potentially race toward weapons-grade material without violating the agreement.
Additionally, the JCPOA delivered massive sanction relief, estimated in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars over time, freeing up Iranian oil revenues and frozen assets that could be redirected toward any priority the regime chose. Compounding the financial windfall was the 2016 delivery of $1.7 billion in cash, euros, Swiss francs, and other currencies physically stacked on wooden pallets, as a settlement of a pre-1979 arms deal debt. This cash component was explained away because banking sanctions made wire transfers impossible.
But Obama literally had the presidential authority to temporarily override sanctions and wire the money directly, which he had already done before. The only reason cash would have been sent instead is because it would be impossible to audit and trace where it ultimately went. Couldn't the funds return in the form of political donations or massive donations to institutes and foundations? This all coincided precisely with the release of American hostages, a mere cover, EU sanction relief, and the implementation of the JCPOA itself.
To make matters worse, the Iran deal was kept from Congress and placed at the highest level of classification, meaning a U.S. senator could not review the deal, but other foreign powers could. Top of all this, Iran also received uranium through the Uranium One scandal. Uranium One, a Canadian company with mining rights in the U.S., was sold to Rosatom, Russia's state-owned atomic energy corporation.
The deal required approvals from U.S. agencies under the Obama administration, including the State Department, then led by Hillary Clinton. During the approval process, the Clinton Foundation received donations from individuals and entities linked to Uranium One and Rosatom. All of this happened under the Obama administration.
These provisions stand in stark contrast to President Obama's simultaneous record of providing Israel with more military aid than any previous American president, a level of support that continued and was later surpassed under Biden, widely known to be a senile puppet of Obama. Obama is the one who raised annual aid to Israel to $3.8 billion a year. Obama's chief of staff during this period was Rahm Emanuel, the son of a former Irgun fighter, the Irgun being the Zionist paramilitary Jewish terrorist organization active in the 1940s that was later absorbed into the IDF.
This creates a profound surface-level contradiction. An administration that publicly positioned itself as restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomacy was simultaneously empowering Iran with natural uranium access, future breakout pathways via sunset clauses, and billions in sanctions relief and cash, all while extending unprecedented military backing to Israel and placing a direct descendant of Irgun lineage at the center of White House decision-making. The optics of Obama functioning as a pro-Iran asset versus the greatest friend Israel has ever had in terms of aid become difficult to reconcile without a deeper framework, one which considers that public alliances and enmities are largely false theater and really controlled by the same hidden power structure.
This framework would see the same hidden hand enabled Iran's nuclear proliferation by laundering it through the Obama administration, which was portrayed as a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Iran asset, thereby keeping its hands clean. Yet despite all of this Machiavellian scheming, Iran does possess weapons-usable material today. As of the IAEA's last verification, Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60%.
At 60%, this is highly enriched uranium, classified by both the IAEA and Department of Energy as direct use for nuclear explosives. Physics modeling shows as little as 40 to 60 kilograms of 60% uranium metal can produce crude implosion designs like Hiroshima's Little Boy. Too big to fit on a missile, but mobile enough that it could be delivered with a storage container.
Part-1 [fist 50% of 25 minutes]
The Invisible Enemy. A war with no sides. The world is not how you view it.
Israel armed the enemy it now fights. The real reason for America's strikes is bigger than you can imagine. For decades, a clear blueprint has guided Israel's approach to the Middle East.
The creation of a dominant Jewish state encompassing vastly expanded territory, referred to as Greater Israel, by weakening, fragmenting, and neutralizing surrounding Arab states. This vision is not fringe speculation. It is articulated in explicit policy documents and public revelations spanning from the 1980s to the post-9-11 era.
The foundational text is Oded Yinan's 1982 article, A Strategy for Israel, in the 1980s. Yinan, a former Israeli Foreign Ministry official, argued that Israel's survival required the dissolution of existing Arab states into smaller, ethnically, and religiously divided husks of their former nations. He described Egypt as a corpse to be dismembered, Jordan as ripe for Palestinian takeover, Iraq as a prime target for internal religious and tribal fragmentation, for fomenting division and hostility among Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish groups, Syria as vulnerable to ethnic breakup, and Lebanon already in chaos as a model to be followed.
The goal was to transform the region into a collection of weak mini-states unable to challenge Israel, allowing it to emerge as the unchallenged regional superpower with new borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. This line of thinking was formalized for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996 with the policy paper, A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, drafted by a study group led by Jewish-American neocons like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wormser, and others with the project for the New American Century, PNAC. Think about that for a moment.
American government officials from the Bush administration writing policy for an Israeli Prime Minister. Ask yourself, where does their loyalty belong? And who were they really working for? America? Or Israel? Written for Netanyahu as he assumed office, the report urged Israel to abandon the Oslo peace process, reject land-for-peace formulas, and instead pursue aggressive regime change policies against hostile neighbors starting with Syria and Iraq, while cultivating alliances with Jordan and Turkey. It emphasized preemptive military action and leveraging U.S. support to reshape the region in Israel's favor.
Four years later, in September 2000, the same PNAC network produced a second major policy document titled Rebuilding America's Defenses, Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century. This report advocated for sustained American global military dominance with emphasis on expanding a long-term U.S. force posture in the Middle East. It called for a broad revolution in military affairs where they blatantly said, quote, The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor.
Take a moment to consider the chronology here. Both of these foundational papers, the 1996 A Clean Break Strategy, written directly for Netanyahu, and the 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report were produced before the attacks of September 11. The entire sequence of wars, beginning with Iraq, had already been written on paper years earlier.
The same group of neocons then followed up the year before 9-11 with a call for a profound and revolutionary transformation of U.S. military posture in the Middle East, ostensibly fighting Israel's enemies for them. A transformation, they noted, would likely proceed slowly unless accelerated by a major catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor. The Iraq War and the wars that followed were already planned before 9-11.
The implications and connections outlined above extend far deeper than the scope of this article permits. But if you wish to pursue the thread further, take some time to examine the documented activities and circumstances surrounding urban moving systems, the dancing Israelis, and the family history of Michael Chertoff, who set them free. The most public revelation came from retired U.S. General Wesley Clark in 2007.
Clark recounted being shown a classified Pentagon memo shortly after 9-11, outlining plans to take out seven countries in five years Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing it off with Iran. The sequence closely mirrored the Yanan and Clean Break frameworks. Dismantle Arab-slash-Muslim states one by one, culminating in Iran as the final obstacle to unchallenged Israeli dominance in the Middle East.
Despite this aggressive roadmap, Israel has a documented history of arming or indirectly supporting terrorist groups and adversaries it publicly condemns. It is well known the CIA and MA6 orchestrated the coup that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the country's oil industry and consolidated absolute power into the hands of the Shah. The Shah then became one of Israel's primary oil suppliers, while entering a 50-50 joint venture with Israel in the Eilat Ashkelon trans-Israeli pipeline.
He also maintained discreet Israeli military and intelligence ties, with Mossadegh helping to establish and train Iran's SAVAK secret police. After decades in power, the Shah publicly criticized the influence of the Jewish lobby in the US with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, and his usefulness had run its course. He was overthrown just three years later.
How convenient. After the Islamic Revolution, Israel nationalized Iran's 50% stake in the Eilat Ashkelon pipeline company, taking 100% of the profits ever since. Just one year after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, even before the Iran-Contra affair, Israel heavily armed Iran, supplying them with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, with the stated justification to prevent an Iraqi victory that could threaten Israel.
Israel has also tolerated, funded, or armed terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS factions, Mujahedin networks linked to Al-Qaeda, and even Hamas, initially cultivated as a counterweight to secular PLO. Always with a stated justification, of course, these actions follow a classic divide and rule pattern. Arm one enemy to weaken another, then manage the resulting chaos.
Adding even more layers to this apparent contradiction is the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, formerly known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, finalized in 2015. Under the deal, Iran was permitted to retain its uranium enrichment program and infrastructure, including the ability to stockpile and import hundreds of tons of natural uranium while the agreement was in force. The deal included explicit sunset clauses that began expiring after 10 to 15 years, meaning many of the most restrictive limits on centrifuge numbers, enrichment levels, capped at 3.67% for the duration, and stockpile sizes would automatically lift, allowing Iran to legally resume advanced enrichment and potentially race toward weapons-grade material without violating the agreement.
Additionally, the JCPOA delivered massive sanction relief, estimated in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars over time, freeing up Iranian oil revenues and frozen assets that could be redirected toward any priority the regime chose. Compounding the financial windfall was the 2016 delivery of $1.7 billion in cash, euros, Swiss francs, and other currencies physically stacked on wooden pallets, as a settlement of a pre-1979 arms deal debt. This cash component was explained away because banking sanctions made wire transfers impossible.
But Obama literally had the presidential authority to temporarily override sanctions and wire the money directly, which he had already done before. The only reason cash would have been sent instead is because it would be impossible to audit and trace where it ultimately went. Couldn't the funds return in the form of political donations or massive donations to institutes and foundations? This all coincided precisely with the release of American hostages, a mere cover, EU sanction relief, and the implementation of the JCPOA itself.
To make matters worse, the Iran deal was kept from Congress and placed at the highest level of classification, meaning a U.S. senator could not review the deal, but other foreign powers could. Top of all this, Iran also received uranium through the Uranium One scandal. Uranium One, a Canadian company with mining rights in the U.S., was sold to Rosatom, Russia's state-owned atomic energy corporation.
The deal required approvals from U.S. agencies under the Obama administration, including the State Department, then led by Hillary Clinton. During the approval process, the Clinton Foundation received donations from individuals and entities linked to Uranium One and Rosatom. All of this happened under the Obama administration.
These provisions stand in stark contrast to President Obama's simultaneous record of providing Israel with more military aid than any previous American president, a level of support that continued and was later surpassed under Biden, widely known to be a senile puppet of Obama. Obama is the one who raised annual aid to Israel to $3.8 billion a year. Obama's chief of staff during this period was Rahm Emanuel, the son of a former Irgun fighter, the Irgun being the Zionist paramilitary Jewish terrorist organization active in the 1940s that was later absorbed into the IDF.
This creates a profound surface-level contradiction. An administration that publicly positioned itself as restraining Iran's nuclear ambitions through diplomacy was simultaneously empowering Iran with natural uranium access, future breakout pathways via sunset clauses, and billions in sanctions relief and cash, all while extending unprecedented military backing to Israel and placing a direct descendant of Irgun lineage at the center of White House decision-making. The optics of Obama functioning as a pro-Iran asset versus the greatest friend Israel has ever had in terms of aid become difficult to reconcile without a deeper framework, one which considers that public alliances and enmities are largely false theater and really controlled by the same hidden power structure.
This framework would see the same hidden hand enabled Iran's nuclear proliferation by laundering it through the Obama administration, which was portrayed as a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Iran asset, thereby keeping its hands clean. Yet despite all of this Machiavellian scheming, Iran does possess weapons-usable material today. As of the IAEA's last verification, Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 60%.
At 60%, this is highly enriched uranium, classified by both the IAEA and Department of Energy as direct use for nuclear explosives. Physics modeling shows as little as 40 to 60 kilograms of 60% uranium metal can produce crude implosion designs like Hiroshima's Little Boy. Too big to fit on a missile, but mobile enough that it could be delivered with a storage container.