“A 100-Year History of U.S. Meddling, Coups, and Wars in the Middle East”.

This lecture is a great source of information, but as always, I don’t agree with everything he says. He provides valuable insights that can broaden people’s understanding of the world. However, when it comes to current events, he doesn’t seem to grasp them well. For example, he believes the PiS government in Poland were Nazis and that Putin is a Nazi – views that make it hard to take his perspective on present-day issues seriously. He also holds some ideologically liberal views that I personally find misguided or even stupid. That said, he still offers a strong historical perspective, especially regarding the history of the Middle East. I’ll share the most important parts of the transcript along with my comments.

2:17

“The Eisenhower Doctrine establishes a priority that comes before addressing communism: to dismantle the French and British Empires. Consider this for a moment: the primary goal is to undermine the empires of two nations that were our allies. Our second priority is to prevent pan-Arabism from succeeding and to stop the Arabs from unifying into a single state. Only after these objectives are addressed do we focus on combating communism.”

3:01

“The Spanish-American War was the United States’ debut on the world stage. The US entered, easily defeated Spain, and essentially announced its arrival as a significant power by defeating a European state. In World War I, the United States played an important role, entering late in the war and being seen as a hero, but it wasn’t yet clear that it would become the superpower it eventually did. World War II then happened, leaving Europe in ruins with immense destruction. The United States realized that even while playing the game of rivalry with the Russians, the world had become hegemonic, with the US as the sole true superpower. The Soviet Union, in some ways, was a paper tiger. Therefore, Eisenhower wanted to reframe the world and create a certain order. He shifted from Truman’s idea of isolating the Soviet Union to a strategy of replacing the British and French Empires and establishing the US as the new, sole superpower.”

9:20

“There was funding for the Aswan Dam coming from the United States and Great Britain. Nasser goes to the United States and asks if they will still fund their half. The United States, through Eisenhower, says no; if the British aren’t funding their half, they won’t fund theirs. So, that ends funding for the Aswan High Dam. Egypt is too poor to build it on its own, so Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal so that the revenue from the canal will then fund the dam. When that happens, the United Kingdom and France attack Egypt. I’m sorry, Israel attacks Egypt first. Israel attacks Egypt, including dropping paratroopers into the Sinai. The hope was that the Egyptian military would be lured across the Suez Canal into the Sinai to defend it from Israel. Nasser doesn’t fall for the bait. The French goal was then to capture the Suez Canal and trap the Egyptian Army on the wrong side. Because Nasser doesn’t fall for the bait, the French and British, when they do finally invade, aren’t fighting any Egyptian military force; they are just grabbing territory, and Egypt isn’t resisting, it’s allowing this to happen. Eisenhower steps in on Egypt’s side. So here you have the United Kingdom and France, friends and allies of the United States, two NATO members, and then Israel, attacking a state that has had relations with a communist country, in this case Czechoslovakia. Eisenhower is taking Egypt’s side, intervening on Egypt’s behalf, going to the United Nations, getting a United Nations force to go to the Sinai, and humiliating and shaming the British. In that particular instance, if Eisenhower’s real fear was the expansion of Soviet influence in the Middle East, he might not have taken Egypt’s side; he might have gone in a different direction.

Another example is what happens in 1958. It just seems like there are these years where a lot of things happen all at once, and then there are periods where a little bit is happening here and there, and then all of a sudden there’s another year where a lot of things happen at once. 1958 is one of those years. Egypt and Syria unify. Sudan gets independence from Egypt, so it’s like going in two different directions at the same time. Iraq is in the middle of a revolution where they’re overthrowing their monarchy, and Iraq is saying that it is planning, on the other side of this, to probably join the United Arab Republic and join Egypt and Syria. Iraq is also saying that it wants to annex Kuwait in 1958, so there is a lot going on all of a sudden. Eisenhower sends in the Marine Corps, and they invade Lebanon. If the Eisenhower Doctrine was about defending against invasion, who got invaded? What was the invasion? Nobody invaded Syria, nobody invaded Iraq. There was no reason to invade Lebanon. His excuse was that they were trying to prevent a civil war, but there was no civil war there. There was a political struggle happening in Lebanon, but it wasn’t a civil war. There was a movement in Lebanon to possibly also join Egypt and Syria, just like in Iraq. But what I think he was really doing was a show of force: if you do this, bad things will happen; we’ll literally invade your country. Also, he dropped the threat that he was willing to invade Iraq and even nuke Iraq in the event that Iraq did invade Kuwait. Then, as if to make things weirder, in the Iraqi Revolution, the Socialists were poised to take over, and they do take over Parliament. So what Eisenhower does is, instead of backing the monarchists, instead of backing the Socialists, he backs the Communists. The CIA is sending the Communists money, and the reason is because he believes, and rightly so, that the Communists, if they are powerful enough, will prevent Iraq from joining the United Arab Republic. Well, if his priority is stopping communism, why would he back the Communists? In the end, it works, and Iraq doesn’t join. Then, three years later, the United Arab Republic implodes, and Syria declares its independence. So, in 1958, he sort of just shows his hand; he shows what his priorities are. His priorities are to prevent the United Arab Republic from forming, and he’s willing to work with Communists to make that happen.”

These parts are great, especially in relation to my recent posts about the theory that the British or the British Crown control the U.S. and them being responsible for all of America’s wrongdoing – which some people actually believe. By showing that the U.S. actively destroyed European empires in order to take over global control from them, it becomes clear that the whole idea of the British or the Crown secretly controlling the U.S. is completely nonsensical. The U.S. is responsible for its own actions. Its goal was to dismantle and replace European empires, while also preventing the Middle East from forming its own empire by carving the region into pieces.

Yes, the British had similar goals, but the U.S. wasn’t acting on behalf of the British – they just happened to share the same objectives. These two goals – undermining European empires and suppressing potential Middle Eastern unity – took precedence over fighting communism, which I find quite ironic. So, during the Cold War, the main objective wasn’t really to defeat communism, but rather to eliminate the European empires, take control from them, and block any rise of a unified Middle Eastern power.

This all makes sense and completely contradicts the official narrative. People like to say that the U.S. is wonderful and all the wrongdoing can be blamed on those pesky, evil British – but that’s just nonsense and shows a lack of understanding. The same goes for the claim that communism was a British invention and the ultimate evil that the noble, freedom-loving U.S. fought against. In reality, communists often went against British interests, and the U.S. even supported communists at times when it served their goals, especially when it hurt the British.

All of this historical analysis should make it clear that the idea of the British controlling everything, and communism being their invention and tool, is simply absurd.

25:38

“Okay, so there are a couple of things going on. One of them is oil. They knew there was oil there, and the reason they knew is because the English had been really fretting about this. The English did have an oil company; it was Shell. Now, here’s the really weird thing about Shell: Shell actually started off as an antique dealership and somehow slowly morphed into an oil company. The Dutch bought Shell, so the company became Royal Dutch Shell. When that happened, the Dutch ended up with 51% of the company, and the British ended up with 49%. This was around the 1880s.

The British had already concluded that oil was the new coal, that it was the future. They believed they needed to have their own oil resources because, at some point, oil was going to replace coal. You have to remember that the British Empire was a naval empire; everything was based on ships. So, if they were going to have oil-powered ships and didn’t have access to oil, their empire was finished. They were freaking out when Royal Dutch bought Shell.

There was really only one other major oil corporation on the planet at the time, and it was Standard Oil, which, of course, belonged to the United States. So basically, there were these two big oil companies, and the British didn’t own either one. However, the British had a great relationship with the Netherlands and the United States, so it wasn’t like they were owned by two rival states. It wasn’t like France and Germany owned the oil companies. It’s just that the British were concerned about what might happen down the road.

So, the British decided they had to have their own oil resource. The way they looked for oil back then was by walking and looking for black shale or black sandstone, a porous rock that acts like a sponge. If it’s sitting on top of an oil field, it will literally suck the oil into it and turn black. Because there was so much oil on the planet at the time, you could literally step in a puddle of oil, and that would be a big indication that there was oil. When the United States found oil in Pennsylvania, they found it at a place called Oil Creek—a big hint. The creek got its name because it was cutting through the oil field, and oil floats, so there was this sheen of oil on top.

Finding oil mostly involved keeping your eyes open. But the problem is the planet is huge. Even though the British Empire owned a giant chunk of it, the idea of sending out armies of people to look at their feet across the whole planet seemed daunting. So, the British decided to do something really extraordinary: read history books and look for conversations about oil. They found those conversations about oil in the Middle East. A thousand years ago, cities there lit up their streets at night using oil. The Roman Empire in the seventh and eighth centuries used flamethrowers with petroleum to fight the Arabs. At one point, Arab armies carried around glass balls with a wick and oil inside, lighting them and throwing them like little hand grenades.

The British knew there was oil; they just didn’t know where. So, they moved in and grabbed Kuwait. By this point, the British already had a presence in the Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf) in the United Arab Emirates, where they created the Trucial Coast. They had also established a relationship with Oman. So, grabbing Kuwait in 1899 was just taking a chunk of land away from the Ottoman Empire and creating a base with the idea of looking for oil in southern Iraq or Iran.

They made a deal with the Persian government, and the deal was amazing: they got an 86% concession. Normally, a 50/50 split is common. But the rulers of Iran were, how should we say, into opium and perhaps not very high in IQ, more eager to get British opium than to advance their country. So, the British got this amazing concession from them, which began to shape how they thought about the Middle East.

They found oil; the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which became BP) found oil in Persia (now Iran) in 1908. Shortly after getting the concession, they found it. Not long after finding it in Iran, the Ottoman Empire found it in what is today Northern Iraq. The British were eager to get a deal with the Ottoman Empire for that oil, but the Ottomans decided that Germany was their future and made a deal with them. The British then thought that the Ottoman Empire needed to be destroyed and that Germany couldn’t have this oil or this kind of access to it. The reason was simply that they were worried the German Navy would eventually eclipse the British Navy. The British and Germans were in an arms race. Every time the Germans built a ship, the British would build two, forcing the Germans to build another to try to counter the two British ships, which would then force the British to build two new ones. They were bankrupting each other. It was inevitable that both economies were going to collapse, which is one of the reasons why World War I had to happen. They had to resolve the arms race. The British came out on top. There was nothing inherently wrong or evil about what the Germans did any more than what the British or French did in World War I; they were all acting in their own interests as powerful states.”

This part was very informative to me because I don’t know much about the real history of World War I. I know the official story, but I know it’s all nonsense. I’ve focused mostly on World War II, since that was the war that created the world order we live in today. As I studied it, I realized that the official narrative of World War II is completely false, and the true story is something very different. So, knowing that the official story of World War II is a lie, I figured the same must be true for World War I.

However, I didn’t want to spend too much time on World War I because I had limited time and I was more interested in understanding World War II and how it shaped our present reality. That’s why I know the true story of World War II but not of World War I.

This lecture opened my eyes, especially regarding the role of oil in history. As the speaker points out, the British understood early on that oil would become the new coal, and that global power would depend on controlling it. When the Ottoman Empire – which controlled much of the territory rich in oil – decided to ally with Germany, the British couldn’t allow their main competitor to gain access to such crucial resources.

So, the war had to happen: to stop the Ottoman Empire from strengthening Germany and to destroy the Ottoman Empire to ensure that the British could take control of the oil-rich regions. Without intervention, Germany’s alliance with the Ottomans would have given it the oil and resources needed to control the world.

In truth, World War I was about oil – and that actually makes a lot of sense. It’s something I hadn’t known or even considered before.

34:27

“Before that Arab state existed, before World War I was resolved, they were sitting down and talking about how they were going to carve up the Middle East. When they made the plan, there was still a Russian Empire. So, Greece, the Italian Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, and the French Empire were going to be the participants in this giant carve-up event. One piece that needed to be carved up was the Ottoman Empire. They were going to leave a piece behind that would become Turkey, but they were going to give a big piece to Italy in the South, the Antalya area. In the West, Izmir was going to go to Greece, so the Greeks were going to have the western shore of what is today Turkey. The French were going to end up with Syria, Lebanon, and what is today Iraq. The English were only going to take what is today Palestine, Israel, and Jordan. The reason why the British were okay with that is that the French would then get the oil that was in Iraq, because the British were planning to get the oil that was in Iran. The Russian Empire was going to invade Iran, take the northern half, and the British Empire was going to invade and take the southern half, which would get them access to oil they could feel secure with.

However, during World War I, the Russians decided to go communist, had the Bolshevik Revolution, and declared that they no longer had imperialist aspirations and wouldn’t work with capitalists anymore. The British Empire realized that if there was no Russia to invade Iran from the north, there was no way the British could manage Iran by themselves; they needed to divide and conquer, they couldn’t do it just by conquering. So, the British backstabbed the French and took Iraq. They were like, “You know, we’re sorry, but we need to secure our oil fields; you guys just have to figure it out on your own.”

Why did the French just agree to that? The French were in such awful shape at the end of World War I. The British Empire was the hegemonic superpower; France was in the number two slot. I think at that point, the French were just grateful that the British were willing to even cut them in, because the French had nothing to do with the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. It was the Arab Uprising. The British did do the invasion at Gallipoli, but the Turks won there. It’s okay, though, because the British were using Australians, and nobody loves Australians, so, you know… it’s amazing that the British are like that, but they are. It’s really amazing. In any case, I think the French were just happy to have anything at that point. They were grateful. Also, they would eventually figure out, though it was too late for them, that there is oil in Northern Syria. It was nothing like what was in Iraq, so they were probably hoping they’d find something.”

 

This part is another great example and explanation of why the British were not behind the Communist Revolution. I’ve argued before that it was Germany and the Americans who were behind the Communist Revolution, with the purpose of closing the Eastern Front – since both Germany and the U.S. benefited from that outcome. Closing the Eastern Front went against British interests, but what I didn’t realize until now is that it actually went even more against British interests, as explained in this fragment.

I already understood that the Communist Revolution hurt Britain by eliminating its ally, Tsarist Russia. But I didn’t know that the British had a plan to attack and divide Iran – then known as Persia – together with Tsarist Russia. That makes the idea that the British were behind the Communist Revolution even more absurd, because it shows that it directly undermined their own strategic plans.

This new information only strengthens my view that it was the Germans and Americans, not the British, who were responsible for supporting the Communist Revolution.

51:15

“The British approached the Russians and proposed joint intervention to overthrow the government and restore the monarchy. This is what they did. Mossadegh, knowing that the British would do this again to Iran’s second attempt at becoming a democracy (or rather, a republic, using the word in its more accurate sense), took preemptive action. Before nationalizing the oil company, his first move was to expel the British Embassy, recognizing it as the likely launchpad for a coup. He severed relations with the British and then nationalized the oil company.

The British immediately went to President Truman, saying they couldn’t overthrow the Iranian government because their assets had been expelled, but suggested that Truman could use the CIA, fresh from their actions in Syria, to do the same in Iran. Truman refused.

Then, in 1952, as Eisenhower was running for president, the British didn’t even wait for him to win the election (though his victory was widely expected). Before he even took office, they approached him and asked if, once president, he would overthrow the government of Iran for them. Eisenhower agreed.

Later, without delving into the specifics of how Kermit Roosevelt orchestrated the overthrow of Mossadegh’s government, when it was done, the British assumed things would return to the status quo. However, Eisenhower had to explain to them that the US was replacing them as the dominant power. They could still have a presence in Iran, but Iran was now within the American sphere of influence.”

Here we have another example showing that it wasn’t the British or the British Crown controlling the U.S., but rather the U.S. working to undermine and eventually take over the British Empire for itself. The U.S. acted in its own self-interest as an imperial power – not as a tool of the British Empire, as some people claim.

Yes, the British were also an evil empire, but the wrongdoing of the U.S. is not the fault of the “pesky evil British.” The U.S. is itself an empire – just as evil, if not more so, than the British. I hope that points like this will help open people’s eyes.

I really don’t understand how anyone can believe the U.S. was or is a force for good, or that all of its evil actions were somehow done on behalf of the British. In my opinion, that view is just stupid. It’s not the British or the British Crown controlling the U.S. – it’s actually the reverse. After dismantling the British Empire and taking control, the British effectively became a tool of the U.S. empire.

1:15:14

“It’s difficult to say definitively what the United States knew about Israel’s attack. The situation is clouded in mystery.

One particularly disturbing event that occurred was the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, a US Navy ship, off the coast of Sinai. The Israeli forces not only attacked and severely damaged the ship, ultimately sinking it, but also reportedly strafed the lifeboats and shot at sailors in the water. There was even an account of an Israeli boat ramming a lifeboat to throw sailors into the water. This aggressive action against a US vessel has always seemed highly unusual and has led some to speculate that it might have been a deliberate act to signal to the United States that Israel would act unilaterally, regardless of US wishes.

However, it’s also possible that the Johnson administration was aware of Israel’s intentions and tacitly approved of them. While eyewitness accounts are always subject to scrutiny, there were reports from Egypt of US aircraft flying over Egyptian territory during the war, attacking Egyptian airfields. While there isn’t conclusive evidence to confirm US involvement in these attacks, the US did have an aircraft carrier in the area, making it a possibility.

Ultimately, whether the United States was fully aware of and supported Israel’s attack is unclear. It remains a point of speculation. If I were to venture a guess, I would lean towards the idea that the United States was likely aware and perhaps even quietly supportive of Israel’s actions, possibly believing it aligned with their broader strategic interests in the region at that time.”

This part shows that the author does not fully understand more recent events. Almost all U.S. wars have been initiated through false flag operations, as explained in the short video I shared earlier:

From the Civil War all the way to the Iraq War, nearly every major U.S. conflict started with a false flag. Examples include:

• Fort Sumter (Civil War)
• USS Maine (Spanish-American War)
• RMS Lusitania (World War I)
• Pearl Harbor (World War II)
• Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam War)
• 9/11 (Afghanistan and Iraq Wars)

I’m not entirely sure how the Korean War started – maybe it was the only war not provoked by the U.S. – but for example, the First Gulf War (Iraq) was triggered by Kuwait stealing Iraqi oil. I don’t believe a small country like Kuwait would take such a risk unless it had backing and security guarantees from the U.S., so it’s likely the U.S. provoked the first Iraq war through Kuwait.

Afghanistan and the second Iraq war were consequences of 9/11, which was itself another false flag, just like the earlier ones. Yes, Pearl Harbor was indeed attacked by Japan, but the U.S. provoked it by freezing Japanese assets and knew an attack was coming. They allowed it to happen and didn’t inform the Pearl Harbor base, ensuring it could later be used to mobilize public support – just like previous false flag events. Conveniently (or rather, suspiciously), all U.S. aircraft carriers were away from Pearl Harbor during the attack – obviously, because they already knew that carriers were the key to naval warfare, and they protected them while letting outdated battleships be destroyed.

Now, I don’t know if the author is aware of all these false flag operations, but that could explain why he doesn’t understand the USS Liberty incident. What he fails to mention is that the Israeli planes which attacked the USS Liberty were repainted with Egyptian markings – because this was yet another false flag operation, though a failed one. Israel intended to blame the attack on Egypt, which would have justified the U.S. entering the war on Israel’s side. If the U.S. could have blamed Egypt for the attack on the USS Liberty, public support for joining the war would have followed. But this particular false flag failed.

When you understand the long pattern of U.S. false flag operations, the USS Liberty incident becomes easier to explain – something the author clearly doesn’t grasp.

1:37:23

“The Iran-Iraq war has complex origins and a significant impact. Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq during a period of chaos similar to Syria’s. Iraq had a revolution in 1958, and Abd al-Karim Qasim became Prime Minister. Qasim was hesitant about joining the United Arab Republic, trying to balance different interests, partly due to advice from his Soviet and CIA contacts who urged him not to join, promising support if he remained independent. However, in 1963, five years after taking power, the CIA orchestrated his assassination. This highlights the importance of carefully choosing allies.

Following Qasim’s murder, Iraq plunged into further instability with numerous coups. By the mid-1970s, Iraq had a relatively stable government with Saddam Hussein as the second-in-command. By 1978, he had become the de facto ruler. In that same year, the CIA provided him with a list of Iraqis they disliked, reportedly around 800 names (though this number should be verified). Without any specific instructions, Saddam Hussein had these individuals arrested, subjected to mass trials (sometimes 30 at a time), found guilty, and many were hanged live on television. This brutal efficiency impressed the CIA, who saw him as a reliable partner. He then officially became the ruler of Iraq around the time Reagan came to power in the US.

Reagan’s rise to power, like Nixon’s, involved outside interference from a foreign state. Nixon, during the Paris Peace Accords aimed at ending the Vietnam War in November 1968 (Saigon fell in 1975), approached President Thieu of South Vietnam. Nixon offered direct financial and military support if Thieu would withdraw from the peace talks, knowing that a peace agreement before the election would hinder his chances of winning. Thieu accepted the bribes, withdrew, and Nixon won the election.

Reagan used a similar tactic. After the Iranian Revolution, a group of students stormed the US Embassy, seeking documents proving CIA involvement in the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh. This was a major international crisis for the new Islamic Republic. They began negotiating with the students for the release of the roughly 50 CIA operatives who remained in the embassy (others had left, while the operatives were shredding documents – Tehran was a key CIA hub for Asia). The students captured the shredded documents, pieced them back together with help from children at nearby schools, and obtained irrefutable proof of US interference in 1953, including details of Kermit Roosevelt’s actions and funding. The students demanded an apology, which the US refused. Consequently, they refused to release the CIA operatives.

As it became clear that a deal for the hostages’ release was imminent, individuals from Reagan’s campaign contacted Ruhollah Khomeini’s son and other influential figures, reportedly offering suitcases full of money to delay the release until after the election. They feared a pre-election release would boost Carter’s chances of winning. Carter, unaware of this interference, worked until noon on Reagan’s inauguration day to secure the hostages’ release. The hostages were indeed released shortly after Reagan’s inauguration, fulfilling the alleged deal.

With Reagan as President, the US essentially told Saddam Hussein they wanted to harm Iran and the Islamic Republic. Rationally, Iran could have been a valuable trading partner and was strategically located. However, driven perhaps by animosity towards Muslim fundamentalists or a desire for revenge, the US encouraged Iraq to attack Iran. The argument presented was that the Khuzestan province in southwestern Iran, and the coast down to the Strait of Hormuz, had an Arab majority and should be part of an Arab state, specifically Iraq. Saddam Hussein, relying on faulty US intelligence, which claimed the Iranian military was weakened by purges of generals and colonels, went along with the plan.

The US predicted a swift Iraqi victory, but the Iranian military did not disintegrate. The conflict turned into a catastrophic eight-year war, resulting in the deaths of at least a million people (estimates range up to double that), with roughly three-quarters of a million Iranians and a quarter of a million Iraqis killed. The war achieved nothing but death, destruction, and economic devastation for both nations.”

I don’t know much about the Iraq-Iran War, except for the fact that Hussein started his career working for the CIA, and that the U.S. supplied chemical weapons to Iraq to use against Iran.

1:45:20

“Following the Iran-Iraq War, in 1989, both Iran and Iraq approached the OPEC states for assistance in their post-war recovery. Saudi Arabia, playing a central role, proposed that each OPEC state would reduce their oil production, allowing Iran and Iraq to increase their production by the same amount. This would maintain the overall oil supply and price while giving Iran and Iraq a larger market share and the extra revenue needed for rebuilding. This plan was initially agreed upon.

However, Kuwait began to flood the oil market, causing prices to plummet and negating the benefits for Iran and Iraq. Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of intentionally doing this and brought in a UN team to investigate. The UN team discovered that Kuwait was indeed stealing Iraqi oil through excessive pumping from border oil fields and slant drilling into Iraqi territory, then flooding the market with this stolen oil, driving down prices.

Saddam Hussein then met with April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq, explaining the situation, including the UN findings, and stating his intention to attack and annex Kuwait, citing historical claims that Kuwait was part of the Basra province of the Ottoman Empire. Glaspie responded that what happens between Arab states was of no concern to the United States. Saddam Hussein interpreted this as a green light.

Iraq subsequently attacked Kuwait. Initially, George H.W. Bush stated he saw no issue, but after consulting his team, including Margaret Thatcher during a meeting in Aspen, his stance changed dramatically. He condemned Saddam Hussein as a “Hitler,” and Operation Desert Shield and then Operation Desert Storm were launched.

While the invasion of Kuwait was undoubtedly wrong, the subsequent response of utterly devastating Iraq through extensive bombing, destroying its infrastructure, and crippling the country was also disproportionate and likely unnecessary for the liberation of Kuwait. An international coalition, including forces from Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, France, Britain, and the United States, had assembled. Saddam Hussein’s forces would have been unable to prevent the military recapture of Kuwait.

The month-long bombing campaign the US unleashed on Iraq lacked a clear, justifiable explanation beyond simply testing weapon systems and inflicting massive casualties. The scale of destruction shocked and horrified the world, appearing excessive for the stated goal of liberating Kuwait.”

This is something I’ve mentioned before, and something not many people are aware of: Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq, which is why Iraq attacked Kuwait. I don’t believe that a small country like Kuwait would have been foolish enough to do this on its own – no one is that naïve. I’m almost certain Kuwait was acting under orders from the U.S., and that they had received a security guarantee from the U.S. at the same time.

Meanwhile, the U.S. also gave Iraq security assurances and even a green light to invade Kuwait – only to later use that invasion as justification to destroy Iraq. It’s another part of history that hardly anyone knows about, but it’s crucial for understanding how these events unfolded.

1:49:51

“In the aftermath of the first Gulf War, President George H.W. Bush announced that once Iraq eliminated its weapons of mass destruction, it would be reintegrated into the international community. The Iraqis, misunderstanding the specifics, took their chemical weapons to various desert locations and destroyed them in August 1991, about six months after the war ended. They believed this fulfilled the requirement.

However, the UN weapons inspection regime arrived. Firstly, chemical weapons are classified as terror weapons, not weapons of mass destruction in the same category as nuclear and biological weapons. While their use causes horrific deaths, the actual number of fatalities historically is surprisingly low. Secondly, conventional weapons can also be used to inflict mass casualties, as seen in the firebombing of Dresden during World War II.

Regardless of the terminology, the UN inspection team inquired about the warheads. Iraq claimed they had none, but the UN produced records, provided by the United States during the Iran-Iraq War, detailing the delivery of VX, sarin gas, mustard gas, and nerve gas warheads, complete with serial numbers for every rocket. The inspection team insisted on verifying these serial numbers. The Iraqis protested, stating they had blown up the weapons. The UN team demanded to see the detonation sites to sift through the sand for the metal serial number tags.

By 1998, Scott Ritter, a former US Marine leading the inspection team, confirmed that they had found 98% of the serial numbers. Furthermore, the shelf life of these weapons had expired. However, with Bill Clinton embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he ordered the UN inspection team to leave Iraq so he could bomb the country, creating a distraction (a “Wag the Dog” scenario). Saddam Hussein, feeling betrayed as he believed Iraq had complied, refused to allow the weapons inspection team to return.

In 2002, George W. Bush threatened war, leading Saddam Hussein to allow the weapons inspection team back in to avoid being bombed. Despite this, Iraq was invaded in 2003 for weapons that Scott Ritter had largely accounted for. The remaining 2% of unaccounted serial numbers could reasonably be attributed to melting or fragmentation during the destruction process. Ritter’s findings strongly suggested Iraq no longer possessed these weapons.

The decision to invade Iraq a second time may be linked to the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservatives who had been advocating for regime change in Iraq since 1998, even writing letters to President Clinton. These individuals later became part of the George W. Bush administration. Their plan allegedly involved invading and conquering Iraq, turning it into a US base of operations, and then proceeding to invade or destabilize Syria and Iran. The long-term goal purportedly included backstabbing Saudi Arabia, invading and conquering Egypt, thereby encircling and securing Israel, and redrawing the region’s borders to create further divisions, ultimately establishing a US imperial foothold in the Middle East. The US military’s designation of the Middle East as CENTCOM (Central Command) reflected this mentality.

However, the Iraq War turned into a disaster for the United States, similar to Vietnam and Afghanistan, resulting in humiliation and disgrace. The loss of life and the damage to the global economy were also catastrophic.”

This part is important because the second Iraq War touches on something I recently heard on The Duran, with which I disagree. I’ve heard several times that neocons originated in Europe, but in my opinion, that’s not accurate – and the second Iraq War actually proves the opposite. It was one of the last signs of European independence and clearly shows that neocon ideology didn’t come from Europe but was imported from the United States. In fact, someone in one of the videos I watched previously even mentioned that the second Iraq War marked one of the final moments of European independence, after which American neocons took full control over Europe.

First, we need to highlight the fact that both France and Germany opposed the war. Now, if neocons had originated in Europe, how come two of its most influential countries stood firmly against it? Neocons originated in the U.S., with figures like “the Lord of Darkness himself, one Dick Cheney,” as he was fittingly called by the YouTube channel Eyes Wide Open – not in Europe.

There’s also a lesser-known but important detail: Saddam Hussein had a plan to start trading oil in euros instead of U.S. dollars.

Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro

A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar – ‘the currency of the enemy’ – for the more multilateral euro.

At first, I thought this might have been one of the reasons behind the Iraq War – and it still could be – but now I see it in a slightly different light. It seems more like a plea to Europe, which at the time was still independent, to protect Iraq from the U.S. Saddam’s offer to create a “petro-euro” alternative to the petro-dollar could be seen as an attempt to give Europe an economic incentive to stand against U.S. intervention. So maybe his move to trade oil in euros wasn’t just to spite the U.S., but a desperate attempt to secure European support.

In any case, this situation makes it clear that Europe was not the birthplace of neocon ideology. Quite the opposite – neocons was something Europe rejected at that time. When the U.S. was already being ruled by neocons like Dick Cheney, Europe remained independent, not yet infected by this ideology. That proves Europe was not the source of the neocon agenda, but rather the place where this toxic ideology was later imported – like economic neoliberalism, which also started in the U.S. and was brought into Europe, often via the British, who act as America’s tool for influencing the continent.

So it’s not just about those “pesky evil British” – it’s the U.S. Empire itself that’s responsible. The British have become a kind of cancer in Europe, serving U.S. interests and helping to implant these ideologies. Now we have figures like Trump, who might be described as a “half-neocon,” but that doesn’t change the fact that Europe used to be normal. The neocons we see in Europe today were put in place by American neocons – just like they did with neoliberal economics.

Thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end of my post. And, as always…

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or we will all be screwed. God bless you all.

“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.”

— Albert Einstein

“Unlike the masses, intellectuals have a taste for rationality and interest in facts. Their critical habit of mind makes them resistant to the kind of propaganda that works so well on the majority. Among the masses „instinct is supreme, and from instinct comes faith…”

― Aldous Huxley

“He is a slave with a semblance of liberty which is worse than the most cruel slavery”

— George Orwell