➡ The article discusses the potential nuclear threat from Iran, suggesting that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a defensive strategy against potential aggression from the United States. It highlights that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are seen as a deterrent, not an offensive tool. The article also criticizes the U.S. government’s approach, suggesting that it is not genuinely seeking peace but rather trying to appear diplomatic while preparing for conflict. Lastly, it suggests that Iran is using this time to strengthen its defenses, similar to the ‘porcupine approach’ seen in Ukraine.

➡ The article discusses the complex political and military situation in the Middle East, focusing on the roles of the U.S., Israel, and Iran. It suggests that the U.S. uses countries like Israel as proxies in conflicts, and that Iran is trying to avoid becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan. The article also mentions the ongoing war in Yemen and the military limitations of the U.S. Finally, it speculates on the possibility of regime change in Iran and the potential consequences of such an action.

➡ The article discusses the potential for conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, with the possibility of a nuclear strike being used. It highlights the U.S.’s history of considering nuclear weapons in past conflicts and the potential for Israel to provoke a situation with Iran. The article also discusses the U.S.’s military
strategy, including the use of standoff strikes and the challenges of being involved in multiple conflicts. Lastly, it questions the U.S.’s economic motives in the region, suggesting it could be about oil, dominance, or other evolving interests.

➡ The U.S. is heavily involved in the Middle East to prevent the region from exporting large amounts of hydrocarbons to China, which could boost China’s growth. This is part of a broader strategy to maintain U.S. dominance and prevent a balanced power structure among nations. The U.S. is particularly focused on Iran due to its role in this growing multipolar world. Russia and China support Iran as they understand that if Iran is destabilized, it would make it more challenging for the remaining players.

These think tanks funded by unelected corporate financier interests. This is where US Foreign and domestic policy comes from. In this paper, they are talking about pinning responsibility for any war that starts on Iran and falling short of that, pinning it on Israel. They are carefully positioning Israel to be this unhinged bad guy. No matter what they do, it wasn’t us. Propose a deal so great that when we sabotage it, people will be convinced that it was Iran who brought it upon themselves. Who in their right mind would make a deal with someone who they baselessly walked away from the last deal? So it’s not Iran trying to take over the region.

It is Iran trying to avoid becoming the next Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya. There’s a long list of nations the US has lied about, invaded, destroyed, and remain destroyed to this day. Read the policy papers. It is all so indefensible when you read their own words and you see the real reasons they are doing this. World War three is already happening. This is a house of cars and it is in the process of collapsing right now. You’re going to see an economic crash the likes of which we’ve never seen. All right, folks, Canadian prepper here. Today we’re joined by Brian Berletic, a geopolitical analyst with a deep understanding of military strategy and global affairs.

He’s got a background as a former US Marine and the founder of the New Atlas YouTube channel. There’ll be a link in the description. Brian’s insights, I find them to be very informed, incisive and unfiltered, cutting straight to the heart of current events. And also a dissident voice in the space, in a space which is increasingly monotone as we get closer and closer to the proverbial day X. So, Brian, I was recently watching a podcast that you had done with another influencer and you were talking about the negotiations that are going on right now. Because a lot rides on this, be they negotiations in Russia with Wit cough.

He seems to be the center of all of this, or Iran or even China to an extent, with these imaginary people that Trump is talking to over there. So I think maybe it’s best to start with Iran because it seems as though that’s where something is fomenting. And you brought something to my attention that I’ve been referencing a lot in my daily updates. And it’s this Brookings institute paper from June 2009 called which Path to Persia? And in that paper, one of the strategies that they propose is to try to get the United States to play the good cop and Keep Iran occupied while Israel attacks.

And then, you know, the US can act as a third party, even though they’re the ones that provide all the weapons and the funding and all this stuff. But maybe you can talk a little bit about this and how that factors into the negotiations and where we’re at and what you’re seeing with that whole process. Well, first of all, thank you so much for having me on. And in regards to this 2009 Brookings Institution paper, it’s so important for people who are following the situation with Iran to look into these policy papers. The US Presides over a global empire, whether you want to call it an empire or not.

And just as if you were building a house on a plot of land, you would never do it without blueprints. You would never build a global empire without blueprints. And these policy papers, are those blueprints. Everything in this policy paper, written all the way back in 2009, you can see how they’ve gone down the list and they’ve checked each one off. They’ve, they’ve done every single recommendation in this paper. And that that is common with so many of these policy papers that myself and many others are trying to highlight and bring to the public’s attention. And these are publicly available.

This, this wasn’t leaked. It is on Birkins official website. You can download it for free and read it. So I highly recommend that people do so. And in this paper, they are talking about the need for the US to appear to be pursuing diplomacy and pinning responsibility for any war that starts on Iran and falling short of that, pinning it on Israel. Israel is there as a forward operating base for the U.S. and before the U.S. the British Empire. This was the whole reason it was created in the first place. And so in the paper, it explicitly talks about we’re going to propose a deal to Iran.

It’s a deal so great that when we sabotage it and blame it on Iran, we can convince the world. They’re very frank with their language in this paper. Shockingly so, I think for people who read it. And when we start this war, people will be, they will be convinced that it was Iran who brought it upon themselves. And they also talk about the possibility that they could launch strikes against Iran. And they admit this all throughout the paper. Iran does not want war with the US or even with Israel. They might take these strikes and refuse to retaliate.

And that was written all the way back in 2009. And we can see fast forward to recent years, Israel first struck a Iranian Consulate in Syria and Iran responded in a very measured and restrained way. Yes, there were unprecedented missile attacks on Israel, but they picked targets, military targets. And even those military targets, they were very restrained in the way they responded. Then Israel carried out its own standoff missile strike on Iran. And again, Iran responded with very restrained counter strikes, if you want to call it that. And this is echoed in the paper. They said this is what Iran would do.

They don’t want war and they will do everything. They will go. Just short of doing something that could provoke a wider war, because they don’t want a wider war. And so the US Is playing this game where they’re trying to provoke Iran. And short of that, create a pretext, even a false pretext, like they did with the invasion of Iraq, create a false pretext they could use to pursue. Ultimately, what they want with Iran is regime change. They want to exercise control over the entire region. Iran and its allies are nations with independent foreign policies, and they exert influence over the region that chafes against American hegemony over the region.

At the end of the day, we just have to ask ourselves, why is the US in that region in the first place is on the other side of the planet. It is none of America’s business. If any nation in the Middle east was attempting to influence the U.S. the way the U.S. is influencing that region, Americans would not accept it, nor should they. Why do we expect people in the Middle east to accept American control or influence over their homes, their regions of the planet? Yeah, that’s. That’s fascinating stuff to know that. That’s out there for everybody to see.

So what was the reason that they provide in this paper for why they need to intervene in Iran if they don’t even want a war? It seems contradictory. It is. Well, all throughout the paper they talk about the need to protect American interests, not necessarily America itself. So when you read these papers, they, they admit nations like Russia, China, Iran, they fall far short of being able to threaten America’s actual territory. What they claim they threaten instead are what they call American interests. But what are American interests that are not within America’s own borders? It means things the US Is interested in that are in somebody else’s borders, somebody else’s borders, their resources, waterways that are thousands and thousands of miles away from US shores.

These are Americans interests. This is what America feels entitled to help themselves to. And these nations are impeding their access to these things that do not belong to them. And so this is how they draw up and attempt to justify these type of conflicts. And I would say the US if they could carry out regime change in Iran without war, they would prefer that. But ultimately, and we know this just looking at America’s track record just in the 21st century alone, they are more than willing to wage proxy war and then just direct war to achieve regime change when necessary.

Yeah, this son of the Shah character seemed to present himself in a very timely manner and started gaining more exposure on social media, perhaps only incidentally, but it seems like that was part of the plan. Now, do you believe that there is a legitimate nuclear threat in Iran, or is that just being used as a casus belli? Because there is an argument to be made with respect to, like, the 60% nuclear enrichment. Is that something that Iran is doing for negotiation leverage? Because, you know, I was talking to some nuclear physicists over the weekend, and they’re like, yeah, you really don’t need that for a nuclear power plant.

So the only thing we can think of that you might need it for is outside of some really specialized nuclear research, would be a nuclear weapon or to keep you within shooting distance of that. What are your thoughts on the legitimacy of the nuclear threat from Iran? Well, it’s a very important question. And I would say looking at Iran and what the United States has done on one side in Iraq, where the US still militarily occupies the country, and how it destroyed and occupied for two decades Afghanistan, Both of these countries border Iran. And the US has been very open from Bush Jr all the way up until now.

This desire to bomb Iran itself, carry out regime change in Iran itself. So in many ways, if Iran was not attempting to pursue nuclear weapons, I think that would be irrational. That would be insane. So I think, and I mean, even when, you know, with Iraq, there was proven to be no WMDs there and they still went in. So this is why I almost think that this is just superficial, these talks. And this is just exactly playing out, like you said in the which Path to Persia paper. Yes, there’s. There’s another important paper that I highly recommend people read.

It was also published in 2009. Absolutely everything in that paper, if you read it today, you would, you would swear could have been written this week. It’s called Dangerous but Not Omnipotent. And this is by Durand Corporation, which is another very influential think tank. These. These think tanks funded by unelected corporate financier interests. This is where US Foreign and domestic policy comes from. And all throughout that paper, they admit that, number one, Iran does, does not actually want nuclear weapons. If possible, they would just like you say, within shooting range of achieving a new obtaining a nuclear weapon, but not quite obtaining it.

Just that alone, Iran hopes, could serve as a deterrent. And all throughout the paper they admit if Iran had nuclear weapons, it would only be as a deterrent. They would not seek to use it offensively. They simply want it as a deterrence. And they, they even admit all throughout the paper what the US has been doing all around Iranian borders and even within Iranian borders to destabilize and overthrow the country. They admit that it would be the elite forces would maintain control over these weapons. They claim in this paper that Iran already has biological and chemical weapons that it has never used, had many opportunities to use them, but they have never used them.

And they have these long range ballistic missiles that they, they do not use offensively. They only use it in retaliation to strikes on Iran itself, threats to Iran itself. And so what the paper is admitting is exactly what you’re saying. Iran is not, is not a nuclear threat. The threat of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is the same threat that North Korea having nuclear weapons poses to the United States. It impedes American impunity in these regions of the world US shouldn’t be involved in in the first place. So we look at North Korea, they have nuclear weapons.

They have the ability to deliver them with ballistic missiles. Have they? No. But what, what have these nuclear weapons forced the US to do? Give North Korea space, respect their sovereignty, and remain uninvolved in their internal political affairs, which is what Americans would want. And this is what everybody else around the world wants. And so this is why Iran is pursuing this. And again, as the paper lays out, they would prefer not even to have nuclear weapons. It’s a necessity because the US has forced them to pursue these weapons. And if we know this, do the Iranian intelligence do? Are they aware of this? Do you think that they’re being strung along? Yes, yes, of course.

And I would say, remember the first nuclear deal proposed by the Obama administration, which again was in the Brookings paper. They said, we will make this deal, we will sabotage it, and we will blame it on Iran, which is then exactly what they did, that it was introduced by the Obama administration and then it was deliberately walked away from unilaterally under the Trump administration. So there’s this continuity of agenda. Obama and Trump appear opposed to one another politically in terms of carrying out U.S. policy. They, they served their role perfectly as per that paper. And I warned people before it was even signed that that was what would happen.

People didn’t want to believe it. They want to believe in peace, which I can’t blame them for. But the, again, the blueprint showed that they were working on something entirely different. And so Iran, I think they knew this, but it afforded them time, it allowed them to buy time, it got some sanction relief, which they really needed, allowed them to kick the can down, even as the US Also is trying to kick the can down the road toward a point in the future where they can launch their war. Iran is trying to do the same thing, except to prevent or deter a war.

All right, guys, so, as some of you know, Canadian Prepper is a fully independent channel. We don’t have sponsors, and we’re beholden to nobody. You can help support us by supporting yourself by gearing up@canadianpreparedness.com I know that in an emergency, having the right gear can make all the difference. This is why I’ve tested and curated the best preparedness products on the market, so that you can be confident and ready for whatever comes your way. Now, back to the video. Yeah, because Iran right now is in a position where they’re trying to fortify themselves, it would seem almost like the, what do they call it in Ukraine, the porcupine approach, where they’re trying to make it so that it’s not feasible to have a military solution.

And it seems as though their strategy is just to continue to build more underground tunnels and more ICBMs and continue to, you know, bolster their, their defensive industry. And that’s what they’re losing. They’re using this time for. But I would presume that this, these think tanks would also account for that. So I guess just a couple questions about this, like, do you think Trump legitimately wants peace? And do you think that, I mean, what do you think the next step of this? Because they’re talking now about technical teams and that they’re about to make a deal.

And I mean, we kind of heard that all with, with Witkoff in Russia for the last few months, and nothing seems to have come of that. Do you think that there is a legitimate opposition to going to war with IRAN in the U.S. government? No, not in the U.S. government. I think plenty of ordinary Americans want to see the U.S. withdraw back to the U.S. where its focus should be rebuild the U.S. as is absolutely necessary, but inside the U.S. government itself? No. And unfortunately, the. The reason why, because the same unelected corporate financier interests that are funding these think tanks and devising these policies, they are the same ones that exercise control over Everyone on both sides of the aisle in Washington.

And if you look at what President Trump is doing right now, his administration and these talks, all it is is a redux of what was spelled out explicitly in that Brookings paper back in 2009. And it’s because the United States is running out of time. The rest of the world is catching up. The playing field is leveling out. And so though President Trump was the one who, it was his role to play to sabotage the first Iran nuclear deal, here he is offering another one who in their right mind would make a deal with someone who unilaterally, baselessly walked away from the last deal.

So, no, again, this is the US Wanting to appear to pursue diplomacy, just like the US Is doing with Russia over Ukraine, just like the US Is attempting to appear to do with China over the tariffs right now. And so when things escalate, they can blame the other side for what is ultimately a conflict they themselves want and have been preparing for for decades. And so if, if you look at the, the talks right now, President Trump just appointed Michael Anton, who previously served in Trump’s first administration, but also under Bush Jr. During his presidential administration, and, and then in between, he worked for BlackRock.

So a lot of people think or hope that President Trump is some sort of counterweight to what they call the deep state, again, these unelected corporate financier interests. But he’s drawing people from this deep state to be in his administration. Michael Anton repeated all of the weapons of mass destruction lies that were used to sell the invasion and occupation of Iraq during the Bush Jr. Administration. I have old documents from the U.S. justice Department where he’s claiming Iraq has or was attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. We all know these were deliberate lies now. And so these are the people President Trump is bringing in for these talks.

Does anyone believe that he has suddenly pivoted toward a position of genuine peace and isn’t just playing his role in, again, a redux of this whole process? And so is Israel’s role in this. Their job is to provoke. So what is their next move as these, and I know you don’t have a crystal ball, but their next move after these technical talks continue to succeed, what do you think happens there? I mean, there’s so much else going on in the region in Syria and fires that are still kind of festering in, in Lebanon and, of course, Gaza.

And it looks like the American troops from Syria are moving into northern Iraq now, which is kind of weird. You know, what, if anything, is Israel actually going to do, like, cannot they do anything? And this is, you know, going back to the question of is there any practical military solution from, you know, the U. S And Israel’s point of view when they can’t even defeat the Houthis? I mean, planes are falling off of aircraft carriers because they have to double back because, you know, they’re worried about getting shot at. I mean, one would think, and I’m no rocket scientist, but one would suspect that a massive mountainous country like IR which is dug in like an Alabama tick, as Jesse Ventura would say, would probably be breaking off a bit more than they can chew.

Yes, well, the whole point of having a proxy is you set them off against an enemy, whether they can succeed or not, because everything that transpires will be entirely at their expense. And any benefit that is derived is the United States benefit. So this is the reason they have proxies like Israel, like Ukraine, like their fashion the island province of Taiwan into the Philippines. Sacrificial lambs, basically. Exactly. Exactly. And if you look at Israel and the last several decades, they’ve been at constant war. And could you imagine if this country actually pursued a policy of peace and prosperity within its borders and with its neighbors where they would be today? Because they’ve already achieved a lot despite being used as a US Proxy.

So they are already at war with Hezboll in southern Lebanon. They played a key role along with Turkey and the Persian Gulf states, overthrowing the government in Syria. Again, that Brookings paper says Syria, eliminating Syria one way or another. This is a prerequisite to isolating Iran and then attacking Iran and achieving regime change there next. And the US Itself is basically waging war on Yemen. Ansar Allah, which many people refer to as the Houthis, and you just mentioned this aircraft carrier, this US Aircraft carrier taking evasive maneuvers. And I believe it’s an F18 warplane slid off the deck.

So they say, yes. Well, I mean, this. This is interesting because CNN was reporting this often. These are claims made by Ansar Allah themselves. And. And you’re. You have to ask yourself, is this true? And there’s no evidence, so we’ll just have to wait and see. But when CNN starts reporting it, that’s. That’s Western media admitting this. And so there’s there. And. And to your point about the US Struggling against Yemen, they have these drones that they’re using to fly over, observe targets, guide in standoff strikes because Ansar Allah has capable air defenses that are preventing U.S.

warplanes from just flying over, establishing air superiority and just bombing at will. They have to carry out these standoff strikes which are less effective than if you just had air superiority and could bomb at will. And so a lot of this is adding up to demonstrate America’s serious military limitations. Earlier I talked about the playing field being leveled. This is what I’m talking about, where even Ansar Allah, which obviously is getting help from Yemen. And again, that Rand corporation paper from 2009 talks about how Iran is responding asymmetrically. They know they cannot fight the United States and win if the US Was determined an all out invasion of Iran the way they did Iraq.

So they created asymmetrical ways of defending against this to keep the US At a distance. The US and its proxies, including Israel. And so this is, this is the situation that we see in, in the Middle east right now. That’s not Iran trying to take over the region. It is Iran trying to use the means that it has available to them to, to avoid becoming the next Iraq or the next Afghanistan or the next Syria, Libya. There’s a long list of nations the US has lied about, invaded, destroyed and remain destroyed to this day. And so this is what they’re doing.

And Israel’s role in all of this is, yes, a provocateur also to keep Iran’s allies pinned down. So Hezbollah is, is fighting for its existence right now in Lebanon because of this, this role Israel is playing. Israel has occupied a larger percentage of Syrian territory and if you look on the map, it’s right along the border with Lebanon. There’s the Litany river that every time Israel does incursions into Lebanon to try to root out Hezbollah, they’re always trying to reach the Latani river, but it’s impossible because of the terrain. So now they are just c circumventing it in Syria.

And perhaps the next operation they carry out, they will do a flanking maneuver where they’ll just cut across at the Latani river or somewhere near there. And so you can see how they’re setting the stage. Each step they take may seem disconnected when the Western media presents it. But if you zoom out and you look at this strategically, you can see how they’re putting the pieces on the game board and they are, are incrementally trying to isolate, contain Iran’s allies and then Iran itself. So that’s, that’s where we see our find ourselves in the region today.

So it seems short of some masterful decapitation strike or regime change, which they’ve tried on many occasions and failed. Mind you, the Ayatollah is getting up there in age and when he goes, who knows who’s going to replace him and, and what the, the shift in politics and theocracy will be at that time. But short of that, there really is no military solution unless like you say, the United States commits to an all out invasion. Which of course would require years of preparation, I would presume to bring the military up to the numbers needed. I mean this posturing with six strategic bombers, what is that, is that real or is that, is that solely for the purpose of Yemen? And if it is just for Yemen.

And going back to my original question, I mean, what could they possibly be thinking? We know we have to give credit where credit is due. The, the pager attack in any other sane universe would be called a terrorist attack. That was, I mean that was masterful in terms of a maneuver. It was a, a clear cut decapitation strike. And well, maybe not just that in combination with the, you know, entombing Nasrallah. But short of that, I don’t see what military solution they could possibly be considering here unless it’s just to be in a perpetual morass in the Middle East.

But you bring up a very good point. Look at what Israel did, obviously with US support in every single way. Look at what they did to Hezbollah. I would say that the PA attack was actually targeting mainly that because people think of Hezbollah as like some just giant terrorist organization is actually a state within a state inside Lebanon. They have a huge civilian part of the organization that just runs, administers local areas, overseeing everything from hospitals to garbage collection, power, fixing roads. And so many of these pagers were held by people within that civilian wing of the organization.

But, but your point is still valid. Look at what Israel did on, on every level to attack, at, undermine and even decapitate the leadership of Hezbollah. And yet has Hezbollah is still there and it’s still a viable military organization that Israel is still arraying itself against, it’s still carrying out strikes against. How long can Hezbollah sustain this? I don’t know. I’m, you know, I don’t have the numbers in front of me. That’s impossible to tell. But they have sustained setbacks like this in the past and they appear to be sustaining these, these setbacks that were delivered to them right now.

And Ansar Allah is another example. Look at how extensively the US has waged war against Yemen. They started with a regime change operation in 2011 as part of the so called Arab Spring. And then they wage a multi year proxy war against them through Saudi Arabia, the US was doing everything except flying the planes and dropping the bombs themselves. They were giving Saudi Arabia these, these weapons. They were picking the targets. They had U.S. special Forces on the ground in Yemen operating and they still didn’t achieve what they set out to do. At the end of the day, what they’re trying to do, if they’re trying to prepare the battlefield for some sort of regime change operation, they don’t know when everything will be prepared and ready.

But they just keep whittling away. As they whittle away, these organizations themselves are not sitting idly by, they are also reacting. And so they have these plans for regime change in Iran and to wear out and isolate them from their allies, but they’re also reacting. And so this is why we see it continuing on and on and on. They have these plans to overthrow the Iranian government, but of course the Iranian government is responding and defending itself against it. So it is very hard to see where all of this goes. But the one thing that I would warn against is that say a bombing campaign against Iran by the US or Israel wouldn’t necessarily be designed to completely wipe out the Iranian government.

But what it could do is deliver a severe blow to its economy, strike at and destroy its ballistic missile program, things like this that would severely set Iran back because it’s all about adding weight to the scale, hoping that eventually it’ll tip in your favor. This is what they’re doing, do you think? I mean there’s the obvious nuclear question here because the U. S had changed their nuclear doctrine not too long ago, right around the time when I believe the first bill was passed by Lindsey Graham and his partner in crime Blumenthal I think was proposed, not sure if I think it was House Resolution 559 and it was all about how if you know, an attack against Israel is attack against the USA and even if we suspect that Iran laying the groundwork when nobody was really paying attention for what they’re preparing now.

And then you add on top of that the alteration of the nuclear doctrine which states that we can use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear state if we feel there is some, I’m not sure the exact wording, but something probably to the effect of if it’s an existential threat towards us or our allies and so does Trump or would they have the political capital seeing what they’ve done in Gaza, myself personally, it doesn’t seem like a huge stretch knowing how apathetic people are to the Middle Eastern plight that they would do it. And all they need is like an event, but they need some kind of event, it seems.

And not to put on the tinfoil hat too early in the conversation, but you know, there’s that, that possibility that there’s a false flag event or maybe it’s even real. Maybe it’s something that Israel provokes and Iran has to do something, which of course is used as a rationalization for the utilization of nuclear weapons. You know, we just hear nukes, nukes, nukes. What is your view on all that? That it’s an important question. It’s something we have to, I think we should worry about. Obviously the United States has nuclear weapons. It’s the only state in human history to use nuclear weapons against another state twice.

And if you look in the historical documents, the US Admits itself that they considered using nuclear weapons during the Korean War. There was a cross strait crisis with China. They considered using nuclear weapons during the Vietnam War. And even as recently as Afghanistan there were, there was talks about using nuclear weapons against Afghanistan, which didn’t even have a standing army. So I think it’s a serious threat we have to consider. But also remember, Israel has nuclear weapons or at least everyone suspects that they do. And again, this is how perfect Israel fits into this entire plan.

The US has positioned them as a, as a bad guy that doesn’t listen to them and just unilateral is there trying to sabotage these peace talks when we know these peace talks are all theater to begin with. And so they are, they are openly and very carefully positioning Israel to just be this, this unhinged bad guy no matter what they do. It wasn’t us. They did it on their own. We told them not to and they did it anyway. And we have no control over them. This is the narrative that they’re trying to cement into the minds of people on all sides of, of, of the political spectrum.

And so could the US pursue these talks? And then could Israel or, or someone provoke something with Iran or, or pretend that Iran did something and use that as justification for an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran? I don’t know. So that’s something we have to worry about and keep an eye on and, and always keep in mind because that is a, that is a possibility. And when you read these policy papers, maybe for some people they’re skeptical, but read the policy papers, how frank they are when they use words like goad. We have to goad Iran into this.

We don’t, but we don’t want it to be too obvious because then the game wouldn’t work. They use language like this in the policy paper. And when you hear that and you look at the people who wrote it and you see how deeply involved they are in the political process producing policy for the US and then you see what the US is actually doing and what it has done to other nations, it all starts to add up. And, and it’s frightening because they are so ruthless and it is all so indefensible when you read their own words and you see the real reasons they are doing this.

So this is, this is a, this is a legitimate fear. I don’t think it’s, I don’t think it’s outlandish to worry about the US or Israel using nuclear weapons against Iran. Our nation, they admit in their policy papers, does not want war with either nation. That’s crazy. And you’re a military guy and I don’t know how much you know about the Air Force, so if you don’t have an answer to this question, that’s fine. But seeing as they’re shooting down these drones, can they, is there a reason why they need the strategic stealth B2 bombers there or can’t they do that job with like the B52s or the, the less than stealthy bombers? Like if it’s just Yemen we’re talking about, do they actually need that level of technology to fight the, the MNEs or the Houthis? I should say yes.

Well, see the, the ability to shoot down these drones. These drones have something like a 40 or 50,000foot ceiling. So yeah, if you’re able to shoot them down, that means you have something more than these man portable air defense systems that you see a lot, a lot of non state actors or, or I would say less developed nations employing this means they have real air defense capabilities. If they can reach those drones, they could reach an F35 for example. So this is why the United States has been carrying out standoff strikes. This is where you stay out of range of potential air defense systems.

You fire missiles at targets in the country. They’re using these drones to pick these targets and guide munitions to them. But you will not fly your F35 even though they’re supposed to be stealth or stealthy. You never fly them over out of fear that they could be shot down. Imagine if just one F35 was shot down by Ansar Allah, what that would do to America’s image. A lot of what the United States does is it really based on actual capabilities. It’s the illusion of invincibility that the US has cultivated over decades. So that is a concern for them.

But then Even with a B2 bomber, what happens if the unthinkable happens and they somehow manage to take out one of those? This is something the US has to sit there and balance. This is why they’re, they’re, they’re, they’re playing this game with standoff strikes which are much less effective, not really sustainable. It’s, it’s not like Gaza. In Gaza, there’s no air defense systems and Israel just flies over bombs, whatever they want, with whatever bombs they have and want to use for the US they have to use very limited long range precision guided weapons that they don’t manufacture in nearly enough quantities for this conflict alone, let alone all the other conflicts they’re either in the middle of or are preparing for.

So this is a huge problem the US has. They are involved in too many conflicts. The military capabilities of their opponents, these, these countries that they are targeting continue to increase. And as that happens, it, it takes that, that disparity the US Used to enjoy and it just narrows it and narrows it. And in some cases disparity is growing, but in favor of say Russia or China and then of course these, these nations that Russia and China are assisting. So one has to ask, you know, when looking at the bigger picture in terms of economics even, why is the United States still there? Obviously it’s to do with the oil and the Saudis and the petrodollar.

But even that Trump is claiming that he wants to move away from with, you know, developing the shale reserves and which of course are kind of kept subdued by the low oil prices of protecting the Saudis. So even though there’s a natural gas component of that too, which we could talk about because there’s some interesting news with respect to liquid natural gas carriers owned by the Chinese today that Trump, somebody brought to his attention. But, but what is the, you know, what is the economic motive at this point and is this still the same? Is it just to protect the oil and their interests in the region, or are the interests evolving or is it just so that they can have dominance over the region? Is that really what the end game is here, just to get rid of the Persians? Yes, well, it’s a combination of factors, but if you zoom out now, let’s just say the United States doesn’t need hydrocarbons at all from the Middle East.

If they leave the region alone, it’s allowed to develop. There is peace and stability. They’re going to export huge amounts of hydrocarbons to China, which is exactly what the US doesn’t want. So this is why they’re so hugely invested, especially in toppling Iran. If they can topple the government there and cut hydrocarbons off from there or even just destabilize the whole region, they don’t even have to succeed, just destabilize it. Prevent hydrocarbons or even reduced hydrocarbons flowing from the region to the Chinese economy. This is what drives everything the US does. In every policy paper, especially more recent ones, all they talk about is the rise of China.

This, this desperate need to stop their growth to resubordinate them to the collective west and the United States specifically, which is unrealistic, doesn’t make any sense logically. Why the United States, which represents 4, 4.5% of the global population, thinks it should dominate the other 96% of the population doesn’t make any sense at all. But this is what is stuck in their mind. This is what you see. The common thread through all of these policy papers is not necessarily the Middle East. It’s the role the Middle east plays in helping the growth of China. And China’s growth is helping the rise and the development of all of these other nations.

I’m here, based in Southeast Asia, here in Thailand. I’ve watched over the last 20 plus years, I’ve been here almost my entire adult life. I’ve watched it transform and it is because of the rise of China. I’ve watched even remote places here in Thailand develop because of the rise of China. And this was something that simply wasn’t possible when the west still had huge amounts of control over the region. So it’s all interlinked. It is not necessarily just Iran that the US is focused on. It’s the role Iran plays in this growing multipolar world. The US does not want to exist.

It is not a war necessarily against Iran or China or Russia. It’s a war against multipolarism and a balance of power among nations. The US wants to maintain hegemony. Russia understands that if the US succeeded in toppling Iran, it would make the US more powerful. There’s many reasons for Russia to assist Iran. There’s many reasons for China to assist Iran. They realize if any one of these players is taking off the board, it’ll make it more difficult for everyone who is left. The best way to support this channel is to support yourself by gearing up@canadianpreparedness.com where you’ll find high quality survival gear at the best prices.

No junk and no gimmicks. Use discount code, preppinggear for 10% off. Don’t forget the strong survive, but the prepared thrive stay safe.
[tr:tra].

See more of Canadian Prepper on their Public Channel and the MPN Canadian Prepper channel.