In-Focus: BOMBSHELL REPORT: US is Unprepared for War With Its Enemies
45:12 Share

Remember when newly minted U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said to her Soviet counterpart back in early 2009 that they were going to reset U.S.-Russian relations, and she even gave him a reset button for the point? Well, of course, they did reset it. They made it all delusional. But if Trump comes in, he's going to really have to reset U.S. policies across a large swath of areas, and I'm going to go through some of them coming up.

All right. Well, I want to start today's program by not talking about something specifically Israel related. Let's just do something new. Catherine Harwich, the incredible investigative reporter used to be at Fox and then at CBS and now has her own investigative report, interviewed this

early retired CIA officer who went into medical retirement in her 40s because she suffered from something called the Havana Syndrome. And we're going to show a little clip of it, but first just remind us all what is Havana Syndrome.

This is from the Daily Mail report on Herridge's interview with this woman who's going under the pseudonym Alice. The syndrome is a disputed medical condition experienced by a cluster of U.S. and Canadian government officials who were based in and around a dozen overseas locations which started among employees in Havana in 2016. Symptoms include dizziness, cognitive problems, insomnia, and headaches. The most prominent theory is that it is caused by

pulsed electromagnetic energy and ultrasound emanating from sonic weapons. Okay. So that's what the fear is that, uh, U S adversaries are using essentially electromagnetic pulse weapons against U S officials in order to take them out of

their job, make them dysfunctional, unable to function. There are a lot of former U.S. officials who've been afflicted since 2016 by this condition, and they've all been forced into early retirement. And according to Alice in this interview that she gave with Catherine Herridge, several of them have also died of cancer and Parkinson's and a number of other horrible afflictions. So just watch this one part here. The

It works out that Averill Haynes, the director of national intelligence under Joe Biden and a former senior Obama administration official, that she is denying essentially that this Havana syndrome is a real thing and essentially gaslighting these U.S. officials and saying that they're not really sick, that it's some sort of a hypochondria or imagined idea that they're sick, but they're being given the treatment of somebody who's actually afflicted with early retirement and all the rest of it.

So let me just play this clip of Alice, Alice talking to Catherine Herridge about what happened.

You were attacked. Yes. You were attacked by an energy weapon. Yes, a directed energy weapon. The intelligence community has attempted to thwart congressional investigative efforts to uncover the truth at every turn. I mean, that sounds like a government cover-up. It's a cover-up and it's terrifying. And it should be terrifying to all Americans. The new congressional report found it appears increasingly likely that a foreign adversary

is behind these injuries. Vertigo. Yes. Eye tracking issues. Yes. Traumatic brain injuries. Yes. Did the CIA gaslight you? Me and every other A.H.I. victim. It was designed to make us think ourselves are crazy and question our own injuries. Is it reasonable

to think that the intelligence community doesn't want to acknowledge a foreign adversary. Yes. So you see in this clip, essentially, that Congress investigated this whole Havana syndrome and they came up with a point that, no, actually, this is real. Just as the Defense Department came up with the conclusion that this is a real syndrome, this is a real problem. It was caused by

some sort of apparently electromagnetic pulse assault on U.S. personnel in their homes, in their homes wherever they are stationed. So Alice was stationed in Africa in an habit.

And then they say that the reason that the DIA, the Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, has come out with a report essentially questioning whether this syndrome is real is because they don't want to deal with the political implications of what happened. So the United States has adversaries. These adversaries are using these sonar weapons to...

to target specifically U.S. operatives. This is an act of war against the United States, obviously. And rather than contend with this growing phenomenon, it's not going anywhere. It's expanding. It's expanded from Cuba to many other areas of the world where Americans, specifically American, but apparently also Canadian personnel have been targeted by these weapons.

on a personal basis to get them specifically as operatives out of the running or out of the business of taking care of the United States. And rather than protect U.S. personnel,

and go after the people who are targeting Americans, whether in the CIA or any other service, the Biden administration, under Averill Haynes' watchful eyes as a director of national intelligence, the Biden administration is denying this phenomenon even exists, right? Because they don't want to deal with it. So rather than protect American personnel, they're denying...

that there's a problem and questioning apparently the sanity or the honesty of Americans who have been afflicted by this because they don't want to deal with the political ramifications of the idea that the United States and its personnel are being targeted in acts of war by unnamed

adversaries. And why would they do this? Well, that brings us to a story that was reported on December 9th by Adam Credo over at the Washington Free Beacon, where Credo discussed the findings of a congressional investigation into or congressional

It's a China select committee on China. They did a war game where they were trying to see what would happen between the United States and China in the event that the United States was called on to defend Taiwan because they're being invaded by the Chinese from the sea.

And this is what they came up with. The United States doesn't have the weapons required in order to defend Taiwan, in order to fight China. This is just a couple of paragraphs from the Credo article. It says,

America's cache of long-range anti-ship missiles critical to defending Taiwan in a sea battle in the case of a Chinese invasion will run dry within three to seven days, according to the committee's findings. Within a month, meanwhile, the United States would run out of long-range cruise missiles.

Taiwan's own supply of mid-range anti-ship missiles would also be expended within a week of the battle. And then the question is, okay, so now you have that. How long will it take you to fix the fact that you have this shortfall in your arsenals? How long will it take you to build these things? So it says here,

In the current defense landscape, it would take the United States roughly two years to produce key munitions needed for a conflict with China, including Tomahawk missiles, cruise missiles, and surface-to-air munitions. It would take the United States decades longer to rebuild ships and aircraft carriers destroyed in a standoff with Beijing. America's aircraft carrier replacements would take an estimated 40 years to resupply. So to build enough

aircraft carriers to replace ones that might be sunk in these battles. And China, of course, has been developing missiles specifically in order to sink American aircraft carriers. That would take America 40 years, while new attack submarines would take around eight years, according to a summary of the war games published by the China Committee.

Then it says, well, the United States, right, has not been preparing for any of these scenarios, but rather is just denying, you know, actual attacks on U.S. personnel, because apparently this is one of the things that they don't want to deal with, the political ramifications, for instance, of the EMP assaults on U.S. personnel, because they don't want to have to deal with the sector of actually in front of America's eyes.

adversaries, whether it's China or Russia or anyone else, right? So it says because the Chinese are preparing for this war, just as, you know, the Russians have been preparing for this war, just as, of course, Iran prepared for the war with Israel, right? It says China has worked to surpass the United States in sophisticated arms for some time.

U.S. Strategic Command warned last year that Beijing has outpaced America in its supply of land-based intercontinental ballistic missile launchers. Well, great. White House. And then this is the kicker, okay? How does the Biden administration respond to this Select China Committee report that shows that the United States

is incompetent, is incapable of waging a war to defend Taiwan against the Chinese invasion. That's essentially what this war gained Shuman. Just by the way, to make sure that they got it right, they repeated this war game 25 times. They did it 25 times in a row, and each time they came up with the exact same results. So aside from everything else, doctrine, et cetera, the United States simply doesn't have either the industrial capacity to build the systems that it needs to go to war against China,

And it doesn't have on hand the arsenals that it requires in order to fight China. So how does Jake Sullivan, as the national security advisor, respond to this finding? Oh, he says...

God forbid we end up in a full-scale war with the PRC. He said this during an event at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at the beginning of December. He said, but any war with a country like the PRC, a military like the PRC, is going to involve the exhaustion of munition stockpiles very rapidly. Okay, he's been national security advisor for four years. What has he done? And the answer is,

Absolutely nothing. So he's about to leave office in three weeks and he's leaving wreckage. He's leaving the wreckage of a national security architecture for the United States in which the United States is absolutely incapable of contending with its primary, what it views as its primary national security threat, which is China.

Why? Well, because over the past four years of the Biden administration, the administration has preferred to deny problems like the EMP assaults, the Havana syndrome afflicting U.S. personnel, rather than having to contend with it by doing, among other things, modernizing and massively expanding U.S. defense industrial capabilities and capacities in our symbols. Okay. They've

That's amazing. And then there's this story. Okay. So Tony Blinken, remember Afghanistan back in August of 2021, the United States just got up and left Afghanistan, leaving thousands of American citizens, not to mention Afghans who had been working for the United States for 20 years, just gone.

out, uh, out and dry, you know, they hung out and dried like nobody to help them, nobody to rescue them. They were all gone. They left $90 billion of advanced armaments in the hands of the Taliban. I remember that. So,

Blinken was supposed to testify about the disaster that is Afghanistan back in September, and he refused. And he was about to be held in contempt of Congress. He finally came, you know, when it's safe from electoral implications after the election. So he went, I think,

Last week, and he testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee about the disaster, which is Afghanistan. Incidentally, this morning when I was preparing the show, I saw that the Taliban, rulers of Afghanistan, have just outlawed NGOs from Hyderabad.

hiring or employing women. Women have been pushed out of higher education. They've been pushed out of most professions, and now they can't work for NGOs either. They're going to be facing starvation, a lot of medical crisis, et cetera. And mainly it's the human degradation of women under the Taliban that was so

It's such a such a obvious or prominent feature of the Taliban regime before 9-11. And here it's back because these people didn't change. Why would they change? They won the war. Why did they win the war? Well, Blinken and Biden gave them the war. And so this is what he's asked about that calamitous decision to leave in

in August of 2021 and just hand the country effectively over lock, stock, and barrel to the Taliban, which they claimed had reformed apropos of nothing because they had no evidence whatsoever to indicate that. So he said to the House Foreign Affairs Committee,

Look, you know, it couldn't have been foreseen. We just had no idea. We just didn't know. We were operating on incorrect information. So he says, even the U.S. government's most pessimistic assessments did not anticipate that the Afghan government and security forces would collapse so rapidly in the face of Taliban advances. But that...

The Free Beacon noted, helpfully, what is widely known, including by Tony Blinken himself, says 26 diplomats, however, said Blinken, that is the guy denying that he got any prior warnings that the catastrophe would be the outcome of what he did, said 26 diplomats said,

sent Blinken a dissent cable in mid-July 2021, one month before the fall of Kabul and six weeks before a suicide bombing that killed 13 American service members, warning of Afghanistan's rapid deterioration. Asked why he ignored that cable?

Blinken responded, well, very simply, because no one anticipated the government and Afghan forces would collapse as quickly as they did. So he's asked, why didn't you? Why didn't you adhere to this warning? Why didn't you pay attention to this warning? 26 diplomats gave you this warning in July, a month before this happened, right? Why didn't you listen to them? It's because nobody said anything. They did. I mean, that's like you answer with simply by continuing your denial of reality.

right? This is, these are now two policies, one with China armaments and Afghanistan, that you double down on your denial of reality after you're, after you're shown, it's not true. Look, here's evidence. You knew you got this warning. So we had no evidence. We had no warning. So it's all, you know, it's all just a lie. And, um, you know, all these two stories

These two stories have a common feature. Again, this is the denier, right? And the U.S. isn't the only place that this is happening, where you're basing major strategic decisions on a preference for not dealing with difficult business.

difficult states of affairs that you don't want to deal with. You want to leave Afghanistan. You're warned if you do it the way that you're setting out to do it, which is just getting up and leaving, giving them Bagram air base, not taking care of your allies, not moving them out of the country, not even really informing your coalition partners that you're doing this, making no allowance, no efforts to save anything, not personnel,

not your dogs, you know, nothing like zero, not to mention women of Afghanistan, nothing. You're not taking, making any effort to protect any of the things, any of the people that are totally dependent on you, any of the assets that you developed over 20 years of operations in Afghanistan or protect your own weapons, bring them home or disable them so that the Taliban can't use them and sell them and bring them to places like Gaza, where some of them have been seen, right? Yeah.

You absolutely have to think totally applicable, have the possibility to transfer it to the people of Afghanistan who've already proven that they're mad for the Taliban, right? How do you do that? By denying there's any problem. How do you deny that all of these Americans are being targeted personally as Americans, as American operatives all over the world by these EMP attacks? Well, you put out a report saying that nobody's been attacked and that the phenomenon is a lie.

Why? Because you can't build a bus. You can't build missiles. You can't build ships. You can't build anything because you've so degraded your industrial base that you're in a situation where it's going to take you 40 years to rebuild your aircraft carrier fleet. Why? Because...

Because you preferred other things. You preferred not to do this. And now you've reached the end of the road for these sort of things. And again, America isn't the only one who has this problem. Just think about France. So, you know, there's a phenomenon in France.

where on New Year's Eve, which is what we're going to be marking today, Muslim French people come out into the street and they burn, you know, hundreds and hundreds of cars because, you know, some people drink champagne and some people burn cars in riot. And in Paris and in France, more generally over the years, burning cars and rioting on New Year's Eve has become a new tradition of

France, right? It's a French tradition because it's happening in French and it's being carried out by people who are French. All right. So last night they apparently couldn't wait, right? They just couldn't wait for December 31st. So they started attacking and burning cars on December 30th because why wait for New Year's Eve when you can do it the night before New Year's Eve? But it's not just that they look at this, look at this post, look at this clip that was put up by Amy Mac on X this morning. What are they doing?

They're attacking French...

These are French people, right? They're not only burning cars. They're using mortars to attack French firemen and French policemen who are coming in. The French policemen are there to protect French firemen who are trying to put out the fires on the cars of French people that were set by Muslim French people. Okay, that's basically what the story is here. They're actually shooting mortars

border bombs, border rounds in civilian areas. These are civilians who are doing it, right? And this is France. This is France. And, you know, it's very important to put this out because if you pay attention and if you pay attention for five minutes,

you see that we have this idea, we have this picture in our head of what France is, you know, croissants and baguettes and beautiful pastries and cafes and the Champs-Élysées and Napoleon and the beautiful Grand Boulevards in Paris and elsewhere. This is not what France is anymore. I read a data today that said that two churches a day are attacked in France. Two.

Not just Notre Dame that just reopened after it was burned and they said it was an electrical fire, but there was ample evidence to suggest that it was arson. You know, not just Notre Dame, but

Two churches a day are in some way or another attacked in France. That's an amazing story. And obviously we don't have to go into, but we should, the way that the Jews of France are mistreated and left vulnerable constantly to assaults by the same people who burn cars by the French Muslim community that's supported the

actively by left-wing political activists throughout France. So you have a phenomenon of life as lived in France, and then you have a thought in people's head about what France is. And France is, in our minds as Westerners, bears very little resemblance to the France on the streets today.

You know, before the Olympics back last summer in Paris, there was a lot of fear because of all of the domestic terrorism that is carried out in France by these jihadists who are French citizens. And so in a really telling mood out of fear that, in fact, there would be major jihadist assaults during the Olympic Games that took place at the end of July, beginning of August of this past summer of 2024,

The French hired a Qatari security firm to do security detail at the Olympics. Now, why is that so notable? Because Qatari is a jihadist regime that supports, as we see in Gaza with Hamas, we saw in the past with ISIS in places like Syria and Iraq. There's a Qatar that's always been the mediator between Western countries like the United States who

whose nationals are being held hostage by, in the past it was ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and now it's Hamas, and these terrorist organizations. And why is Qatar able to do these sorts of mediations? Because they are the partners of Hamas and ISIS and so many other Sunni terrorist organizations. I mean, Al Jazeera is the main...

the main channel, the main network for getting out jihadist news and has been since it was established in 1996. So when the French brought in a Qatari security firm, essentially they were abdicating responsibility for national security in France to a jihadist regime. So once that happened, and you know, you can say yes, but the French security services were obviously very much involved in protecting the games and really they went off

except for the Israelis who were essentially under lock and key, except when they were allowed out very briefly to compete and then brought back into their protected areas, nobody was killed, right? As far as I can remember.

And so you could say, well, the French were really responsible for the security there. But the fact that they gave responsibility for protecting the games to the Qataris indicates that the French have abdicated their responsibility for national security to the jihadists. And this is a very disturbing state of affairs. And then you have

And yet when the United States wanted to reach a ceasefire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah, the United States acted like this sort of colonialist, imperialist-powered organization.

ordering Israel around, demanding that we stop fighting Hezbollah, which was basically destroyed through the beepers and Nasrallah's assassination and many other actions taken by our ground forces on the ground, and Hezbollah. And France was acting as the former colonial imperialist power in Lebanon, Syria. So the French and the Americans, these two imperialist powers, this is not for the first time, were discussing...

had to reach a ceasefire between their vassals, Israel on the one hand and Hezbollah terrorist organization controlled by Iran on the other. And when you look at this

It's insane on so many levels. First of all, why would the United States want to stop Israel from destroying Hezbollah, which, aside from al-Qaeda, has killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization in history? I mean, it's obviously American. So why would the United States be protecting it from Israel? The other one is, why is it working on this with Israel?

and there's a false state that's essentially adjudicated by the National Security to the type of jihadists that it's now representing. So they're not actually the imperial power. They're more like a supplicant to people like Nasrallah and other jihadists because they're so afraid of them on the streets in Paris. So first, it's insane because why would you want to interfere in Israel's war effort? Second, you know, you have...

you have this fiction, right? Where the United States is working with France as an equal. France is essentially a country that is a failed state and has abdicated its independence, basically, to these jihadis, whether in the streets burning down Paris or in Qatar that they then hired to bring in to protect French people from the very jihadists who...

Qatar hosts in its own territory and preaches to through Al Jazeera and funds through various funding networks as well. So you're looking at this crazy situation where none of the things that you're seeing are actually what they're supposed to be. And all the while, it's the United States under the Biden administration carrying out this lunatic strategy

phantasmagorical foreign policy that has no basis in reality and that the United States has to carry out even if it doesn't want to because it has no capability of contending with the threats as they're growing and developing to the United States itself because somebody decided that the best thing to do would be to let America's defense industry industrial capability just sort of

you know, go to park. So, you know, that's bad. And now let's just move

to a funny clip, I find it, I mean, funny as in, oh my God, here is an interview that Blinken did with Bloomberg over the weekend. And it's just a stunning clip that I'll, let's just watch the clip that I'm going to show you and then I'll go through it a little bit. So he asked a Bloomberg reporter, asked him about the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza.

And this is what he's -- and let's just listen to his response. -We should logically be able to get this. And I say that with all the caution that comes with that statement because, you know, we've been very close before, and we've had these Lucy and the football moments where you're just ready to kick the football, and Lucy pulls it away. But what's changed is this.

Hamas knows that the cavalry is not coming to the rescue. For months and months and months, it hoped it would get a wider war with Hezbollah, with Iran, with Iranian-aligned groups coming in and creating more problems from Israel on more fronts and helping Hamas endure. We now know that's not happening. They know it's not happening because of the very important work that was done with us and with others dealing with the unprecedented Iranian attacks on Israel, dealing with Hezbollah. So you see what Tony Blinken is doing here?

He's talking about, oh, the reason why conditions might be good now to reach a ceasefire between Hamas and the IDF in Gaza without ever mentioning Israel. Right. You see how they did that. So because of things that we and others did. Right.

Hamas no longer can depend on the cavalry coming, Hezbollah, Iran, or whatever to save them, and therefore they're on their own. But he never mentions, why doesn't he mention that the reason why if we have come to a point where we may get a ceasefire in Gaza, how did we get there? It's not because of anything the United States did per se. It's true that the United States assisted

in blocking Iran from reaching Israel with, you know, lobs of hundreds of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and drones over two separate massive attacks, right? It's true. But who did they help? He doesn't say Israel. Who did the lion's share of the work? Who took down almost every single one of those missiles? Israel, not the United States. And yet here he is saying we and others. Who are the others? And who...

Like, there's no Israel in this war, only Gaza, right? And the entire discourse is like that. He never talks about the fact that Israel is America's ally and that the United States stands with Israel in its efforts to defeat Hamas. They never even talk about Palestinian terrorism. They never talk about October 7th, except for like a throwaway line that Lincoln threw in there. And the Bloomberg reporter never talked about Israel. Right.

just Gaza. And then he talks at length about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, nobody referring to the fact that, you know, these three humanitarian aid workers were just killed by Hamas the other day, right? And Hamas controlling the humanitarian aid is an utter and complete disaster because it makes them stay in power. It enables them to stay in power and enables them to continue to fight because they're fully supplied, fully stocked with

with everything that they need for the lock-all. And they get first dibs on all the food and all the medicine. And here's the United States, right, ignoring who they are, pretending away Israel's existence in this conflict, along with the help of the U.S. media, with Bloomberg, right, which is really, really quite...

Quite amazing. And there's another aspect to this that I'm not going to go into much, but the first whole section, I think 10 minutes of this interview, are about U.S. policy towards Syria. So the guy from Bloomberg helpfully notes that HTS that's in charge of Syria now through the Gholadi guy said it's a terrorist organization.

What are we going to do? And so Tony Blinken says, well, you know, we're waiting to see how they respond. They've said the right things. We just have to see, you know, what they actually do on the ground. Right. And if they do the right things, we'll, you know, think about ending U.S. sanctions and U.N. Security Council sanctions against Syria. OK, fine. But what if they do what they're expected to do as jihadist terrorists and what they're actually doing, which is installing Turks and other foreign terrorist groups

in key positions in their new army. What happens if now what you have is not a terrorist organization called ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra or whatever they want to call themselves on any normal day, but actually the Syrian military is just ISIS?

What do you do then? Because that's actually what's happening now in Syria. There's no or else. There's always, if you do this, which they never do, then we'll give you stuff. It's never, but this is what we're going to do if you remain yourself. And it's a, it's a sort of a, again, it's a lunatic conversation. It's totally demented. It's like saying, um,

I don't know. What is it like? It's like having a conversation about a vegetarian diet with a lion, right? I mean, it's just not going to happen. The lion is not going to be wanting to eat quinoa. It's not going to happen.

Right? And so why are you having these conversations? Because it's all about deluding yourself. Then you can go into long, drawn-out negotiations with ISIS about whether they're ISIS or not. And you're going to set benchmarks to find out whether ISIS is ISIS or not. As opposed to just saying, okay, they're ISIS. They want to be in charge of Syria. Okay, it's war. Okay, no. Like, that's just not going to happen. The fact that Assad was bad doesn't mean that he gets to be replaced by al-Qaeda.

You know, the United States isn't going to stand for these things. But now you have Americans on the ground talking directly with ISIS, right? With HGS, ISIS. Why? Because they're Hamas. Why? We're taking Hamas too, right? Through the wonders of the Qatari diplomatic war. It's all the same fiction, right? Oh, if they were... These are all lies that people are telling you. So...

And it's not just, you know, serious going back to Gaza for a second. So he talks about how you need to rebuild Gaza, get a new administration, get this, get that. We're not going to get that. And of course, he's not alone in this. The IDF general staff still insists that we should allow the Palestinian Authority, which is a terrorist organization, to take over Gaza on the day after. And they even put out this statement over the weekend.

saying to the prime minister, you know, through the media and all without, you know, naming themselves or all officials, high level IDF sources, which is chief of general staff, Horatio Levy, it always is him, right? Or one of his assigned generals to go and leak

to Yediot Aharonot. So they leak to Yediot Aharonot that before there's a hostage deal, we all have to agree on the day after so that it won't be Hamas, so that we don't surrender to Hamas only to get Hamas afterwards, which is, of course, crazy because if you surrender to all Hamas's demands, you withdraw IDF forces from Gaza in order to get a tenth of the hostages out and leave the rest behind. Then, obviously, Hamas won the war and, well,

And that's just what it is. But they delude themselves. They say, no, we're going to bring in the PA. We're going to bring in Abu Mazen and all of his wonderful moderate terrorists who work for him and work with Hamas and work with Islamic Jihad, etc. And then we're going to get a whole new deal. And that's how we're going to win.

So why do they say this? Why would they say this? And afterwards, I guess the prime minister or somebody in his office said, this is all nonsense and we can't have this sort of thing happening. I wish somebody would say it in their own name, but whatever. So you have these

Warring factions going to the media and trying to push their agenda, particularly the IDF here. They have no right. This is pure subversion. Why would they do this now? I mean, because there's only one option for Gaza. Just like there's only one option for protecting the Druze and the Christians and probably the Kurds in Syria.

which is for the United States to protect the Kurds, as they have been doing, and for Israel to protect the Druze by keeping its security zone in Syria for the foreseeable future. You have ISIS in charge of Damascus. Well, then fine. Then you have the United States protecting the Kurds and working with the Kurds, as they have been doing for years in northeastern Syria. And you have Israel

in charge of the Khermon mountain ridge and working with the Druze in southwestern Syria so that they can't overthrow the regime in Jordan, they can't hurt Israel, and they can't foment some sort of Islamist revolution that's going to see the annihilation of the Kurds in Syria and in Iraq and in other places. So, I mean, there are things that you do. You stand with your allies against your enemies. You don't try to pretend that your enemies aren't your enemies.

But that's basically the core of what the United States has been doing over these years, and then working with subversive forces inside of allied governments in order to block Israel in this case from actually doing anything that would require you to contend with reality. The reality in Israel's case being that the only alternative to Hamas is Israel, and that if Gaza isn't going to be a threat to Israel in the long haul, then Israel has to control Gaza militarily at a minimum.

Probably, I think, from a civil government's perspective, and that the only economic answer to Gaza is to let the people emigrate. Tony Blingen had a great line in that Bloomberg article where he said the Gazans, as opposed to everybody else, have nowhere to go. But that's his fault, too.

He could have, and he should have, forced Egyptian President al-Sisi to let the Gazans seek shelter in the Sinai and perhaps move from there to third countries. But this was a breach of binding international humanitarian law that the Egyptians have barred the Gazans from leaving. So, you know, it's true that they can't leave, but that's his fault.

It's his fault. And why did he do that? Because he has this idea in his head that Gaza is Israel's problem and that Israel is basically to blame for October 7th because Israel is the bogeyman in all of this.

Because there's no Palestinian state. Well, why isn't there? There was a Palestinian state in Gaza. But I digress. The point is that you see these American policies, whether it's in relation to America's own servicemen and women, like that CIA officer Alice and her colleagues, who were targeted by whoever that American adversary is with electromagnetic pulse weapons.

And they have been neutralized as American operatives as a result. And all American operatives now live with the fear that if they're operating abroad, and perhaps, you know, it'll extend into the United States. Who knows? We don't know that the United States is going to pretend that they're lying.

Right. And because they don't want to contend with the political ramifications of them being targeted. What do we see in Afghanistan? You knew you absolutely knew everybody with eyes on their heads knew that the Taliban was going to take over if you don't make allowances to prevent them from happening. And if you don't care that the Taliban takes over, then at least you have to remove your weapons from Afghanistan in order to prevent them from getting them.

You know, remove the U.S. citizens in Afghanistan, et cetera. So take the minimal steps that you need in order to minimize the damage to the United States itself and to the Afghans who have worked with the United States for 20 years. Take them out of the country. But instead of doing that, you pretend that you had no idea that you were going to cause a catastrophe when you absolutely knew you were going to do it. Why? Because you don't care. Because you don't, it doesn't bother you.

And with Israel, you have this preconceived notion that the Palestinians are the victim. You enact policies that are based on Israel not being your ally but being the problem and the force that has to be constrained. You build an entire policy for the Middle East in the midst of a war on that preconceived, totally false notion.

And then you try to coerce Israel into adhering to it. And you do that by subverting the government, by blocking, by threatening Israel, by threatening Prime Minister Netanyahu, lest he dare fire these idiot generals who apparently take direction from the delusional American officials in the State Department and the Defense Department that pretend that there's an alternative that's Palestinian to Hamas. And there isn't.

or that Hamas is somebody you can deal with, right? When you can. So how does Trump get out from under this disaster? What does he have to do in three weeks? What do Secretary of State incoming Marco Rubio, incoming National Security Advisor, what do they have to do in order to succeed? Well, they have to be realistic.

They have to have reality be their guide. They can't lie anymore about anything because we've hit the end of the road with all of these policies. I mean, look at Afghanistan. That's past the end of the road. That's too late. You already did that. You know, you go all over the Middle East. It's one wreck after another after another.

And the way that you solve this and you solve the munitions is by being brave, is by exposing the damage, and is by talking about the actual problems while putting together plans to fix them. So you have to expand the defense industrial base in the United States. You have to be able to make more weapons. You have to make better weapons.

You have to make a lot more weapons, just as Israel has to make a lot more weapons. You have to massively expand the industrial base of your industries if you want to meet the challenges rather than avoid them. You know, you can't pretend them away and say that this isn't America's problem. It is America's problem. Manifestly, it is America's problem. Just look at, just ask Alice.

you know, yes, it's an American problem. You have to be willing to look at reality in its face and contend with it. You may come up to the decision, well, we want to pick up our marbles and go home. Well, how do you do that without having the problems come to you at home? You do that by supporting your allies. So instead of

engaging in this fantasy that the ISIS terrorists who have taken over Syria should be given the benefit of the doubt, you stand with your allies, in this case Israel or the Kurds, in defending against these peaceful. Maybe they won't take over Damascus. Israel certainly has no interest in governing Syria, and it won't. But simply by defending themselves, they're going to prevent these

these forces from becoming a scourge for the entire region and for the United States as well. If you don't want to empower your enemies, then you have to stand with your allies. You have to give them what they need in order to win. And in Israel's case, aside from the weapons that the Biden administration has been denying Israel, it also is the political support that the Biden administration has been denying Israel at the UN and in other international arena and at home in the United States.

It means looking at France and saying to Emmanuel Macron, hey, just out of curiosity, how much of your territory do you actually control, your territory in France? And do you have any plans to reassert central governmental control over all of these areas that you've abdicated to the jihadists who live there and to their foreign sponsors in places like Qatar? Okay, if not, then the United States has to reach

the proper conclusions about the way to treat friends, but it has to be based on reality, right? And so you have to actually go and see what you need to defend your interests, where you are in your capabilities to achieve those goals,

And who are your partners for achieving them with you? This is the exact opposite, of course, of what Biden and his team have done for four years and what they and their counterparts in the administration of Barack Obama did during their time in office. How long will it take to achieve this goal?

I don't know, but it has to start on day one. It has to start on day one. When you see Tony Blinken saying, well, we're setting things up for the Trump team, you have to know that you should be running very, very quickly in the opposite direction because this man has been the architect as Secretary of State of the most dangerous,

the greatest, the most failed American foreign policy in U.S. history. And that's not easy because, of course, he came after he was deputy secretary of state under Obama. So this is a team of pyromaniacs. They have lit the world on fire. They have

They have caused so much damage to this world, and it's going to take a lot of realism and a lot of energy and a lot of resources and a lot of support for American allies in order to fix all the damage that they've caused. Anyway, those are my thoughts. We're going into 2025 now. It's a new year. We're going to get a new president, and hopefully we're going to turn over a new leaf, and we're going to move forward realistically

and make this world, make this Middle East much safer for all of us. All right. Happy New Year to all of you. And I'll see you again later.