➡ The article discusses the political dynamics between the U.S., Israel, Iran, and Ukraine. It suggests that the U.S. is divided in its support for Israel’s actions in Iran and that the U.S. may not come to the aid of other countries under the NATO treaty. The article also discusses the political situation in Ukraine, suggesting that Russia has won and that the U.S. and Russia want to make a deal. Lastly, it discusses President Trump’s dismissal of an assessment that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, suggesting this is destructive to the intelligence community.

➡ The article discusses the political and military tensions between the U.S., Iran, and Israel. It suggests that the U.S. intelligence community has consistently reported that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, despite political pressure. However, there are concerns that this information is being ignored or manipulated for political gain, potentially leading to unnecessary conflict. The article also discusses the personal stakes for political leaders, such as Netanyahu, who might be motivated to escalate conflict to avoid personal consequences.

➡ The text discusses theories about Trump’s knowledge and involvement in a potential conspiracy to mislead Iran. It suggests that Trump may not have been fully aware of the situation, and his reactions could have significant implications. The text also discusses the possibility of a false flag attack to provoke a war with Iran, and the role of media in shaping public opinion about such events. Lastly, it mentions the need to prevent things from escalating out of control.

Hello, my name is Edmond demarche. I’m the executive editor at the Trend Journal. It is my pleasure to introduce you to Ray McGovern, even though he really needs no introduction. Ray McGovern is a famed political and geopolitical analyst. He worked for 27 years at the CIA and he is one of the most, one of the great voices discussing Ukraine, Iran and, and the crises across the world. Ray, thank you for joining us. We appreciate it. You’re most welcome, Eddie. My first question to you, Ray. We’ll get right, right into it. Since the world seems like, you know, it’s on the brink at the moment.

We see what’s going on in Iran. We see Donald Trump even today saying that he speaks to Netanyahu daily and he encouraged him to keep on going, keep doing what he’s doing. This is from the White House. What do you think is going on between US Officials and Israeli officials? Is it a bad sign for Israel that the US hasn’t joined the fight yet? Well, not everyone believes in my take. And one has to acknowledge off the bat that we’re reduced to speculation. The more so since we have a very erratic, mercurial, unpredictable president. But the way I reconstruct things over the last week is that there was President Trump with his key advisers who had told him, you watch this.

We have neutered the Iranian defense systems and we got all kinds of agents. They’re going to blow things up in Iran. Watch this. When he went to bed on Thursday night, he was convinced that the Israelis had won. I mean, it was clear they had free reign, open skies over Iran. Well, just for the first eight hours, it turned out. Apparently those Iranians are real good at fixing things. But he didn’t know that. And so first thing, his reaction on Friday morning is excellent, excellent. And I know about this. Of course I did. I know everything.

His words. Well, then he found out, whoops, the rare defenses are back up. They shut down a couple of Israeli pilots. Doesn’t look like it’s going real well because all those sophisticated in quotes, air defense systems that you have given them, Patriots and all this other stuff, they don’t work against hypersonic missiles. And Iranian has scores of, maybe thousands of hypersonic missiles. So, Mr. President, maybe you ought to change your tune. That’s what he said. Well, I, I didn’t know anything about this before, you know, and so, so all the while, here are the Russians looking on at this, trying to figure out what to do.

And here’s Trump and Canada at a G. Well, it’s called G7 now. It used to be a G8 meeting all these major economic powers. Right. Well, why it’s G7? Because they kicked the Russians out in 2014 after they, the G7 overthrew the Ukrainian government in Kiev. And they expected the Russians to say, okay, well, all right, you know, they kicked them out. And what is the first thing that Trump, as a kind of unwelcome guess to the G6, he’s the seventh, right. He said, hey, you never should have kicked the Russians out. If you didn’t kick the Russians out, they’re probably reading a war in Ukraine.

And if I were president, of course there’d be no war in Ukraine. And these sanctions that you’re going to do. Forget about sanctions, Russians. You know, look, the sanctions hurt us more. We hurt us in the west. So. And besides, I can’t stay for dessert. I’m going back to talk to my national security people because we don’t know what to do about Israel and Iran. So he does that and what does he hear? Well, he hears all the situations change. Mr. President, we were going to advise you to jump in there and give Israel not only air defense support, but join the fray, for God’s sake.

Because the Russians, he looks like the air defense Iranians are really taking on a chin. Well, that’s not the case anymore, Mr. President, you should realize that Iran has 92 million people, Israel has maybe 10 million. And Iran has these missiles that, as I mentioned, hypersonic missiles. So, you know, they can last this thing for the duration. The Israelis are going to make. They’re already asking us for more patriots which don’t work. Patriot Advertisement they don’t work and we don’t have too many to spare. We stole some muscle. We had some in Ukraine. So Mr. President, over the longer haul, this is, this is what the Chinese call a no good end that’s going to happen here.

So we don’t advise anymore that you join the fray. So what happens today? We have Yapkov, the first deputy foreign Minister of Russia, speaking on the fringe of the economic or there’s a big financial meeting in St. Petersburg and he says, look, this is important, says because it’s just like the foreign minister, I think he will become, will replace Sergei Lavrov in another year or two. He’ll replace Lavrov as the, as foreign minister. Yeah, he’s a heavyweight and he’s been in the US for, for a long time. He knows which end is up. He says. This is today, earlier this morning.

Look, Israel strikes on Iran risk triggering a nuclear catastrophe. Okay, there’s a Russian offer to mediate, but nobody has pretty much taken that up that way. There’s one exception to that, Eddie. Trump has taken that up and he said, yeah, that’s a good thing. I’m good with that. Yeah, I’m good with that. Is Russia in a position to mediate? Well, it’s as good as any. It has decent relationship with Israel. Of course, it has a closer relationship with Iran now, but it’s been pretty. It’s been pretty impartial. It has condemned the Israeli attack. But. So there’s a process.

The Chinese also said, can we be helpful? Can we be. And the overarching reality here is that in strategic terms, the world has changed. There’s been a tectonic shift. It’s two against one. Russia and China against the United States. And when you add in India, when you add in Pakistan, Israel is no longer sacrosanct or able to say, well, I don’t really have anybody to challenge me. Israel does. Now, Pakistan, is it Pakistan busy with India? Well, yeah, of course. Pakistan, I know pretty well it can. Well, it can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Right. It could give a nuclear missile to Iran in extremis, or maybe two or three, and still contend with with India. So there’s a, There’s a nuclear aspect to this thing. The Russians, for the first time today, raised it at an authoritative level, namely deputy first deputy, foreign minister. And they’re trying to say, as. As was said here. Look, quote, Yakov, US Intervention here on the side of Israel would be a step that would radically destabilize the entire situation. That’s Rapkov. That’s him replying to these what he called, quote, speculative conjectural options that are being attributed to Trump.

Long story short, I think sanity is likely to prevail here because Trump now knows what the real situation is. Air defense systems are back up in Iran. They’re not effective in Israel. It’s not going to come out well for Netanyahu. But Russia, China, and the US all have in common. They don’t want Netanyahu to resort to the nuclear option, what these relatives call the Samson option. In other words, you’re losing, so you’re going to make everyone pay. You’re going to pull the temple down around you. Okay. How’s that possible? Well, you know, I used to think that that was sort of like, not likely, but this is a guy who’s already killed about 60,000 Palestinians in cold blood with cameras on, for God’s sake.

I don’t rule it out in extremists. I think he would play that card. And that’s the super, super thing that everybody’s worried about. Everybody’s sensible, namely the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, everyone. I mean, there would be fallout from that. There would be, I mean, like real fallout besides political fallout. So there’s a real priority to be given to that. That’s what Aryabkov warned about just a few hours ago. And I think if, if the mercurial Trump has any sense at all, he realized that he’d been ill advised. It was really a bad idea to clap and say, excellent.

And I knew all about it and I don’t know. So he’s gonna, he’s gonna shift the turn. And I hope that he comes down on the side of sanity. Although, again, this is speculative on my part. There’s no guarantee. The. You saw, even you mentioned before the G7 meeting and you saw the tension between Trump and Macron. It was playing out for everyone to see because Macron said that Trump left because he had to deal with the situation in the Middle East. Trump then responded that that’s not why he left. And then Macron comes out and he says, we shouldn’t be going for a regime change in Iran.

And so you see literally the fractures right now in the G7 and among these countries on what to do next with Iran. It was interesting because you saw also Mers from Germany. He came out and it seemed like he wanted a regime change in Iran. Siding with the U.S. well, I don’t want to say, I don’t know, it’s not US Policy, but appearing to side with some of what the goals are. What’s your take? Do you think that the west stands united in its support of what Israel’s doing right now in Iran? Or are these divisions going to be even more clear as we, as we go on? Well, Eddie, as you’ll remember, before Iraq, before the US and UK attacked Iraq back in 2003, George W.

Bush assembled a coalition of the willing, okay? Including, you know, including the Pacific Islands, Palo. Anyhow, there was some 50 of them, okay? Now, notably absent were two unwillings, little countries like Germany, like France, who knew damn well there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and didn’t want to get involved. Me. And so they opposed it. That’s why the Security Council would never bless what the US and the UK wanted to do. Okay? So now there’s a coalition of the brain dead, in my view. You know, these politicians bubble up to the top. They don’t have a clue about what’s going on in the world.

They’re just political hack. And the coalition of the brain data stormer, sometimes that poll Tusk and I mean, they don’t know they can’t possibly come to the aid of Ukraine. It’s very clear that Trump’s not going to do that anymore. Okay, so what do they think they can accomplish by this? So anyhow, this was sort of like a manifestation of how divided even among themselves the coalition of brain dead is and how Trump has said, look, call it G6 from now on. I’m out of here. By the time I have to skip dessert, I’m going back.

I mean, the divisions between the US and those coalitions, the brain dead. Well, I mean, that’s incredibly important. Can any of those countries depend on the US coming to their aid under Article 5 of the NATO treaty now? No, they can. I mean, it was a, it was a tentative thing way back when. So NATO has pretty much lost its, its verb or its, you know, its real potency when all those nations realize that Trump isn’t going to play their game anymore. And so meanwhile, these brain dead guys keep trying to play this other game, pretending that they can help Zelensky and, and, you know, it’s hard to feel sorry for Zelensky, but first he’s, you know, first he’s conned by the neocons in our country and now he’s conned by these coalition of the brain dead who really are brain dead if they think that they can turn the tide in the battle in Ukraine.

The Russians have won. It’s just a matter of how much Putin is willing to give to, well, to have the kind of arrangement which will allow a lot of, well, a lot of, what do we call it? Put, put a lot of lipstick on the pig of defeat, because it’s going to take a lot of lipstick. But you know the interesting thing, Eddie? Putin doesn’t want to take all of Ukraine. My God, that would be another Vietnam for him, for God’s sake. When he poured that, all he wants is a secure buffer zone. And he said so.

Okay, can that be worked out? Of course it can. Does Trump want an end to the war there? Of course he does. So what people don’t seem to realize is you have the head of Russia and you have the head of the US that want to do a deal. Does that make a deal possible? Of course it does. And everything else you see, you know, these attacks by Ukraine deep into Russia, those are all aimed at make it impossible to have a deal or to stymie the negotiations that were slated to start the next day. And did.

Because the Russians and the US Said, look, we’re not going to play this game. We’re going to Istanbul. We’re going to have the next negotiations. We’re willing to have yet another set of negotiations. And Zelensky is the odd man out, supported only by the coalition of the brain dead. And I say that advisedly. I want to get back to Israel and Iran real fast because I thought it was. As a former intelligence analyst, I’d like to know how remarkable of a move it is for President Trump to say what he did on Air Force One just yesterday.

I’m going to play a brief video. We’ll watch it, and then I’d love to hear your opinion on it. But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one? Because Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard testified in March the. The intelligence community said Iran wasn’t building a nuclear weapon. I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to happen. Okay, so he just said. He. He mentioned Tulsi Gabard back in March. She addressed. I think it was the Senate, some. Some Senate committee on. On both. Both, actually. Both. Okay. And it was about how there was no evidence that Iran was working towards or is at the cusp of a nuclear weapon.

Trump just publicly rejected her assessment, or at least didn’t explain why his opinion changed from her last meeting. How embarrassing is that for Tulsi Gabbard? And does that resonate in the intelligence community that you have a president telling reporters that he doesn’t care about the assessment? He said, I don’t care what she thinks. Resonate, actually, it’s destructive. My God. That’s the whole job that we did or do in the intelligence community. Tell the President what we think is the real case. That’s why the CIA was set up after World War II, when Truman knew damn well that he’d hear one story from the State Department, hear another story from the Defense Department.

He wanted one agency responsive to him that would have career protection for telling it like it is. I labored in that agency for about 20 of my 27 years. Then toward the 20th year, it started to be corrupted, even on Russian or Soviet foreign policy. But here is a very important consideration. After the debacle on Iraq, when my former colleagues, I know them by name, when they got bonus awards for concocting a member Trucius of a Lying estimate saying Saddam Hussein was on the verge or had already nuclear weapons or chemical weapons or biological weapons and he was about to give them to terrorists.

We knew that was not true. We could see that was not true from the outside, and we said so three times to President Bush. Now we know what happened. There were no WMD. And this conflation of Saddam Hussein with 9, 11, that is just despicable. Okay? Give them to terrorists. Okay, now let’s fast forward. So the debacle happens. No one is held accountable. The four colleagues responsible for my previous colleagues responsible for doing this estimate get bonuses, okay? Everybody sees that and everybody says, oh, my God, now the neocons are going after Iran. This is what, 2005, 2006, okay? It was clear even before Iraq, the neocons were saying, well, you know, we’ll do Iraq, but real men go to Tehran, okay? Real men, okay? So it was clear in Washington, for all those paying attention, that the next target was Iran.

So what happened? Well, somebody got into their head. You know, Iraq was bad enough, but could we not find. Yeah, well, let’s try to find one honest manager of intelligence analysis and do an estimate on Iran and see how close they are to having a nuclear weapon. And there are enough sensible people saying, okay, let’s do that. And they searched in the CIA. They couldn’t find anybody. They went to the State Department to a fellow named Tom Finger who was head of their intelligence unit. They said, tom, would you come in and do an estimate on whether Iran has nuclear weapons or how close they are? And Tom said, are you kidding me? My God, I won’t go back there and do that.

I took all those footnotes from that lying estimate back in October 2020. Nobody paid. Give me a break. I’m not going to do that. And I said, tom, Tom, we’re afraid there’s going to be a war here. For God’s sake, we’ll let you take your own people in. For the state, the ones that wrote the Spitfire. We’ll give a whole year and we’ll have this requested by Congress. So whatever you say comes out under congressional authorization. Tom. I know, Tom. Tom reluctantly agreed. He was given a whole year. Luckily, during that year, he got some new information.

But he came out with an estimate in November of 2007 which said Iran stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and has not resumed work on a nuclear weapon. We say this all 12 intel. I guess there were 16 by then. All 16 intelligence agencies with high confidence. Okay, wow, that was November 2007, what happened? George W. Bush went to Tel Aviv and he said, I don’t agree with those people. I don’t. I don’t agree with them. But there it was. Congress let it out. It was on the books. When George W.

Bush wrote his book Decision Points, I don’t urge you to buy it. It’s in a library. Okay. But he must have written this part himself. This estimate was a bombshell. It deprived me of the military option. And this is a quote for how could I authorize a military strike on the nuclear facilities of a country that the intelligence community says has no active nuclear weapons program? Period, End quote. Unspoken bummer. So what they had intended to do is walk off into the sunset the next year, 2008, with an attack by Israel and the US on Iran.

God knows how it were to come out. I think we know, but they’d be out of there, out of office, and they would fulfill their last obligations to the neocons. Now, I mention all that because this time it’s different. This time you have a bunch of people in the intelligence community that have not been reprimanded, have been rewarded for telling the President what he wants to hear, like William Burns, the head of the CIA, July, two years ago, Mr. President, Putin has already lost in Ukraine, and his military forces have been shown to be ineffectual to the whole world to see 10 days later, President Biden, you know, Putin has already lost in Ukraine.

And my national intelligence director, April Haynes, tells me that they’re running out of ammunition and they have no indigenous capability to produce any of the ammunition or the military supplies they’re losing on the front, who have already won. So this is the guy, William Burns, who I thought more highly of then earlier anyhow. Why do I mention him? Well, before. Before he goes out of office in October. Okay. Last year, he gives this system interview and he says, you know, just want to remind you that the intelligence community still says every year since 2007 that Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon.

And besides that, we have the kinds of capabilities that if Iran started working on a nuclear weapon, well, the west would learn very, very quickly, Period. End quote. Now that was gratuitous. Why did. Why did William Burns all of a sudden decide to come clean? Well, maybe he just felt real bad. Maybe it’s sort of like doing penance for all his lies before. But. But this was the truth, and it’s still the truth. Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that that was still the truth. So Here we have Trump saying, I don’t care what Tulsi grabbing says.

The significance for the intelligence community, Eddie, is that this was our last hurrah, okay? Everything else had been politicized. Everything else had been told to the President what he wanted to hear alone among all these really important issues. The intelligence analysts with whom I was privileged to work way back then stood firm and said, look, we don’t care what the pressure is from the White House. Iran is not working on a nuclear weapon and the proof is in the pudding. Don’t pay attention to what the IEEE IEEE, the International Atomic Energy Agency, decades old, what they say.

They’re totally politicized by you guys in the West. Matter of fact, their board of governors all, you know, completely biased toward the west, decided the day before, the day before Israel’s strike on Iran that, oh, the Iranians have been hiding things, suspicious activity, having to deal with nuclear. And they’re enriching and all this stuff. So, so they’re in the, in the pocket of the West. All this just to say that this did happen before. As a matter of fact, this aspect is still happening. The worry is that Iran will give its nuclear weapons to terrorists. Does that sound familiar? That is what George Tenet, the head of the CIA told the head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove at Headquarters Langley, CIA, on 20 July 2020, two months before the attack.

How do we know that? Because Sir Richard Dearlove gave a briefing to Tony, not Sir Tony Blair. Okay? And he said, and I quote, well, we don’t have the briefing. It was leaked. It said the President has. George Tenet says, head of the CIA says the President decided to make war on Iraq. Now, quote, this attack will be justified by the conjunction of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Okay, a translation. We’re going to say he has wmd and we’re going to say he’s going to give him to the terrorists and that he was somehow linked to the 911 thing.

Okay? And then the crowning sentence, the intelligent quote, the intelligence, the intelligence and the facts are being fixed to suit the policy, period, end quote. That’s the cardinal sin of intelligence analysis. There it was standing right out in a London observer when somebody gave that debriefing minutes to the Observer. And you know, so that’s, that’s how bad it was on Iraq. Now this whole justification is coming up again. Now not only will does Iran have nuclear weapons or it’s good just about the. But they’re going to give them to terrorists and you know what that means? Look what happened.

It’s just so damn disingenuous that, you know, if I were, if I were an Irishman, which I am, I’d get angry about it. The Ted Cruz you were mentioning about hearing the same old story, Ted Cruz was on Fox News today or last night, and he said that if we don’t stop Iran, there’ll be a mushroom cloud over New York and Los Angeles. Yeah. So we’re like back to the like mushroom cloud. So, so I, I had a question about Netanyahu and his goals. You were on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Judging Freedom recently, and he’s a great friend of the Trench Journal, and you mentioned about how Bibby, from his perspective, could be playing with nothing to lose if he stops this war with Iran without a decisive victory and without a regime change, he’s going to face a lot of pressure from the Knesset to keep this coalition together.

And so some people might say he has every incentive to keep this war going to the end. And there’s even the risk you mentioned before of at least the Sampson option that’s out there. So I’d like to just play a quick clip of you on Napolitano show and I’d like to hear your opinion on, on this. And Ray, you, you just finished arguing a few minutes ago that Netanyahu was so desperate that he would, can, in your view, he would consider using nuclear weapons if he felt that that would preserve his time in office and insulate him from prosecution for crimes where the evidence of his guilt is overwhelming.

I do, I fear that there’s no guarantee that he wouldn’t do that. I mean, he’s got a lot at stake personally. They have that little bridal suite prepared for him in one of those Tel Aviv jails for he and for him and his wife. As soon as he’s out of power, that’s where he lands. Now, maybe the chances are less than 50, 50 that will happen. But, you know, if you’re Netanyahu, you’re going to, you’re going to roll the dice. And the dice in this case has caused already a major war and could end up in a situation where the Iranians with their new capabilities force Netanyahu into a decision.

Does he give up? Does he go to jail for the rest of his life? Or does he use the Samson option, the nuclear weapons that we all know he has in quantities of about 200? So Ray Trump isn’t a dumb guy, is he? Doesn’t he know that Netanyahu politically is on the ropes in Iran. Doesn’t he know that? He’s a desperate man. And why, why does he. If he doesn’t, why doesn’t he? And why is he going down with Netanyahu? Why would he allow that to happen? Well, that’s a good question, Eddie. I don’t think Trump is a dumb guy at all.

I think he’s been mousetrapped. Look what he kept saying, please, we’re going to negotiate this thing. Oh, negotiations are going okay. Oh, now they’re not going. So. But we’re going to negotiate. Please don’t attack Iran. He said that in several ways. Just in the two weeks before what happened before Netanyahu attacked Iran. Now, that’s one thing that leads me to believe that he was mousetrapped. Now, it’s sort of embarrassing for a President of the United States to say, oh, our great ally Iran, I’m sorry, Israel mousetrapped us. I didn’t know a damn thing about this. I don’t approve of it and I’m going to tell them to stop.

Well, the political realities in this country are such. And in the press in particular, that he knows that this would be kind of a, this have a real downside for him, Trump. So what he decided to do is when he heard that this was going to happen and they say, well, yeah, Mr. President, it’s going to happen. And they really didn’t tell us about it except for this and that. And let’s go down and watch TV because you’re going to be really happy to see how we have destroyed their air defenses. And indeed, that’s what the President was.

Oh, my God. Oh, wow. And you decided to join the winner, right? Excellent, says Trump the next morning. And I know all about it. Well, you know, that was a cover up for his not knowing all about it, but thinking, well, I’m going to join, get on the bandwagon of the winner. The reason I go through all this, well, there are other theories out there. Who knows who’s right, who said, oh, this is a real Machiavellian thing. This Trump was part of this intricate conspiracy to confuse the Iranians, give them a false sense of security. Well, it could be, but I don’t believe that to be the case.

So what are the implications? And the implications are that Trump is not only a clever person, but he’s a pretty angry person. And if Netanyahu did that to me and Netanyahu started to take it on the chin as he is right now with the Iranian response, I think I’d be disinclined to bail him out. So that’s why it’s consequential, in my view, how much Trump knew. I think the evidence suggests pretty clearly that he knew very little and that he was elated at the initial success and mousetrapped again when they finally had to tell him, oh, these damn Iranians, you know, they know how to fix things real well.

You know, they got their defenses up in eight hours. Oh, my. What’s going to happen now, Mr. Trump? That’s the new reality. And so he says, oh, I didn’t know anything about this. That was crazy, mercurial. Of course, now the Russians are looking on all this, and the Chinese, their priority is to prevent Netanyahu from getting so distraught that he uses his nuclear weapons. And so there’s a kind of a synchronicity to all this. There’s a kind of a joint wish to not let things get completely out of hand. But that requires putting real pressure on Netanyahu.

And political realities are such that I don’t know if Trump has it in him politically to say, look, Netanyahu, that’s enough. Stop there. You may have killed a whole bunch of senior leaders in Iran. You’re not going to win this thing. Knock it off. I know you don’t have all the time in the world. I appreciate you joining us, everyone. I would recommend you checking out raymogovern.com and please follow Ray on X. He’s a great person to follow. He keeps you up to date with geopolitical events and things. Speaking of X, speaking of your X account, I just would like to leave potentially on this question.

We know from, from polls out there that, that the American people and Trump supporters, they, they don’t want to go to war with Iran for the. Over the potential nuclear program or regime change. Polls have shown that I don’t have them in front of me. And people on social media have been saying that the only way traditionally to get Americans geared up for war is our false flags. And you mentioned that the Nimitz is headed there right now to the region, and you sent a message to the captain of the ship saying, please don’t let, please don’t let it be attacked by indicating, you know, an attack by Israel to pull the US and blame it on Iran, similar to the USS Liberty attack.

How realistic do you think an explosive false flag like that would take place? Do you think that that’s a possibility? Or would it be almost too obvious? Would it be something else? Well, too obvious. That would depend on The Western press wouldn’t it? Would anyone in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal blame Israel for false flag attack? I don’t think so. So it’s the kind of situation where whoever lies first wins. If. Now, the Nimitz, these aircraft carriers, which cost, last time I looked some $20 billion to build, are sitting ducks with today’s technology the way it is.

That’s why you have several of these aircraft carrier groups staying well away from Iran, well away from Syria. They’re well out in the Indian Ocean, for God’s sake, because they’re sitting down. Now the Nimitz is coming in there. What might happen? Well, if things are going really bad for Israel, if Trump is listening to saner voices urging him not to get involved militarily any more than he already is, and course they are helping with the air defense to the degree they can. So let’s say it’s going really bad. What’s to prevent Netanyahu from mounting this kind of attack on the Nimitz or any other kind of ship that the US has in the area? It would automatically be blamed on the Iranians.

And that would sort of make it very difficult for Trump to say, well, no, I don’t you short with the Iranians. No, you’d have to say, oh my God, now we have to, now we have to up our support for Israel. That’s the way it’s worked in the past. The Israelis are masters at false flag operations. And again, the media would be the key. And most people, I’m sorry to say, in this country tend to believe the likes of the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times. Roy McGovern, thank you for joining me.

I really appreciate your time, the time you took to talk to us. You’re most welcome, Eddie.
[tr:tra].

See more of Trends Journal on their Public Channel and the MPN Trends Journal channel.