Shocking Revelations: Pentagon Admits US Failure to Destroy Houthis’ Arsenal | Geopolitical Trends

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you on this April 7th. Hope you had a good and relaxing weekend. So I enjoyed it and you are gearing up for the new week. So for me, the excitement never ends, especially when it comes down to geopolitical, uh, uh, developments and, and dynamics that's taking place. So And today I have a very, very interesting topic for you, uh, that I am going to be providing you my own assessments, my own analysis, and share with you some excerpt from my, uh, writings that coincide with what's going on regarding this particular topic. And the topic, for those just who might be here for the first time, I will be addressing about the failure of the United States to sort of limit or destroy the Houthis. And this was announced in an official statement inside the Pentagon. So anyway, this is what I'm going to be addressing. But first, let me say hi to our wonderful community. Camila Rowenska, good to see you. Hanging G, as always. Moita, good to see you. Liang, good to see you. Christian, uh, uh, come on, a list. Good to see you here. Truth Seeker, Willie Harmon, Phil, as always. Francis Tango, Big Basil, good to see you. And Laval, I haven't seen you for a while, Laval. Good to see you here. So as always, um, all right guys, let me get in into, uh, oh, uh, Texas Grown, good to see you here. So, uh, Taiwan Steel, as always here. Good to see you guys. Some All right, let's get into— as I said, I am going to be, uh, detailing for you now what the Pentagon, uh, the Department of Defense, or Pentagon, that is, that is officially now acknowledging the US failure in destroying the Houthis' massive arsenal of missiles, drones, um, and bombers. Was not even— even now for us with the, uh, the aircraft carriers, the, the, the, the fighter jets and the drones and the We couldn't do it. So that just tells the story right there. So, but first I'm going to do, uh, some headlines for you because there are some, uh, issues going on around the world that I need you to at least put it in perspective. And, uh, and once again, I'm going to be talking about this for those who might be joining us here for the first time. So by the way, make sure to subscribe, uh, to the channel here and, uh Let me see what I can get you. The link right here, guys. So to those who are joining us here for the first time, I would greatly appreciate if you could, uh, subscribe to the channel. I put it in the chat box for you here, and make sure to share it with others so they, like you, have an opportunity to hear the truth. So, all right, the first, uh, headlines I'm going to be sharing with you from around the world has to do with, uh, Which one is that? Yeah, Mr. Trump, of course. What's new there, right? Now, now, this, uh, you have to put it in perspective, what Mr. Trump just did regarding the additional, uh, uh, sort of, uh, the tariffs they're putting on other countries. That's not what I'm going to be, uh, mentioning this. I'm going to specifically mention about the 10 Arab countries that are affected by some tariffs. And I'm going to detail more later on because I'm going to link it to what I'm going to be talking about. I just want to give you a heads up that here is the thing. Think about— I'm going to quickly, uh, state to you which the countries are: United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Algeria, Sultanate of Oman— Oman, which is now negotiating as a third party between Iran and the US— and Bahrain. So what they all have in common, they all are like sort of under the thumb of the US, except for Algeria to a degree that I, that I am aware of. But, but that's to me was the surprising part of it. And all this links to exactly what's going on regarding the Houthis, because the Houthis were the only one to take stand against the US. Where are the pathetic Arab leaders? And I'm gonna get into that later on when I share with you the history of the US relations with West Asia or Middle Eastern countries, especially the Arab, Arab, uh, or Muslim countries. Uh, second one has to do with, uh, second headline with Marco Leroy Marco here. This is during the meeting that just took place in NATO for foreign secretaries. So NATO— I'm sorry, Arroyo, here is what he said: Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon. This is what the secretary said about Iran, that it will never obtain a weapon, stressing that the United States will not allow it. How arrogant of us to be thinking in these terms, because here is the thing, here is the thing. Why couldn't he say this about, let's say, North Korea? You know, makes you just wonder. It's because what Marco Rubio's statements, you know, literally, why couldn't he say this about North Korea? Oh, we would not allow North Korea to to obtain a nuclear weapon. So, and it shows you right there the mindset of where things are regarding a hawk, a warmonger, the likes of Marco. So this is just what you need to understand this reality. Uh, a third, uh, topic which is very, very important, uh, for you guys to also understand, and this one has to do with the Here I have a picture because it will make more sense to you, uh, Russia. Okay, yeah, check it out here, guys. Oh, what is it? Uh, pardon me here, guys, let me, let me just get this one for you here because it makes more sense to see it. There we go. So take a look at this one here. This is the Central Bank of Russia. Why is this important? It is important because, uh, uh, 25 countries has joined now Russia's alternative payment system to SWIFT. This is what's crucial. Of course, we're not going to hear about— I didn't find that information here in the US. So this is why now Alla Bekina, she's the, the head of the National Payment System Department at the Central Bank of Russia said that 177 financial institutions from 24 countries— exactly, uh, 24 countries— that are currently participating in the Russian financial messaging system known as SPFS, which was developed as an alternative to the global payment system. It's, it's a major development, guys. Uh, you only have to understand the link between the financial aspects and the geopolitical, uh, tensions that's taking place. So, and the, uh, the last thing I'm going to share with you is this one right here, guys, before I'll jump in into my, uh, topic. And this one has to do with this picture here, this US aircraft carrier. But that's not the point. The point is that it was an article written by Brandon Weikert. He's the security editor of The National Interest, stated, and I quote here, any conflict with Iran will significantly increase the likelihood of the US aircraft carrier being seriously damaged or sunk, noting that the abundance of US forces in the Middle East weakens it rather than strengthening it. And he got— he was spot on. Just because we have so many bases and so many troops in the Middle East doesn't— or West Asia— doesn't make it a point of strength. It makes it a weak point. Like, we have a target on our back. And when you add to the picture an aircraft carrier, like a sitting duck, Iran has the capabilities of sinking, the aircraft carrier. I just found it very, very interesting, uh, for you guys to know this one. So, all right, let me, let me dive in into my topic here. And as I mentioned, officials at the Pentagon— there are 3 sources, anonymous sources, they didn't want to come forward— said, this is what they says word for word, and I quote, we have not succeeded in destroying the Houthis' massive arsenal. And that in itself, it shows you the idea of where things are regarding that. Here is, with all the mighty power, the military one, and we couldn't even defeat the Houthis. So, and this is where those Pentagon officials, that are the one that are reported that the success, yeah, the success in destroying the Houthis massive arsenal of missiles, drones, and bombers was not significant. So, and to me, that was the reason why I told you guys before, I'm going to check on some information and get back to you on this. I didn't want to talk about this on Saturday because I had to wait for some other confirmations. So, and the reason I was waiting for this is because there were 3 other congressional officials who also disclosed the information that Ansarullah, or Houthis, have reinforced— this is the key— have reinforced many of their hideouts and other target sites, which is basically doing what? Thwarting the American ability to destroy the, uh, the, the Houthis, uh, sites of missiles and so forth. And this is why, as it stands now— and I'm gonna get into the cost— one particular information that was released during this report is that so far about $200 million— not, not the overall cost, this is just in, in munition. We're not talking how, you know, how long it takes to move an aircraft carrier, the cost that it takes to launch an F-18 or F-16 or a Hornet, whatever that is. The cost it, it, it requires to launch a missile. We talking only munition, about $200 million in just 3 weeks. So, and so far the airstrikes have not achieved their objective. You remember what Mr. Trump said? I'm going to bring the Houthis back to the Stone Age. Where is it? So, and you also have to consider now the additional assets that we have put into place, in addition to the human cost of deploying two aircraft carriers, in addition to bombers, fighter jets, the Patriot missile systems, and the THAAD air defense systems. All this to fight the Houthis. And we couldn't defeat them. And that is why there is now, in my opinion, the way I look at it moving forward, this is not going to be over anytime soon, even though Mr. Trump's saying, I'm gonna just go wipe them out and be done. The same argument we made about Afghanistan, the same argument and a mistake we made about Iraq when we went in and said— I remember, I was in the thick of it At the beginning, when I argued against the invasion, I was told, oh, Mr. O, it will be a quick walk. We're just gonna go liberate Baghdad and get out. I say, hell no, you are going, you're staying in for the next 15 to 20 years, let alone the cost in treasure and blood that are associated with that. And here we are again. You will think we will learn something from history. Apparently not, because we are poor readers, some. Now, despite the new raids that we are conducting, you know, we've been conducting now more raids and nothing, nothing have deterred the Houthis and will ever deter the Houthis. So the recent one is that the, uh, Ansarullah, or Houthis that is, reported that new airstrikes— this is within the last 24 48 hours, a targeted, uh, area in the Kitaf District. Kitaf District is in the north in Saada. So in addition to the Kahlan, uh, area, which is east of the north city, uh, of, of, of Saada as well. So at the same time, Israeli media reported that the US air defenses intercepted the missile launched from Yemen before it reached Israel. I'll let you reach your own conclusion on that, and I am going to share a clip with you and you'll reach your own conclusion. Please take a listen here, and it's just a sound of it because that's what I was able to look for or find this weekend. I was working on this one to put it together for you. Oh, let me turn this on so you can hear. It says right there, guys, in Arabic, the moment of the fall of the missile in Ascalon. Okay, I just want you guys to see this with your own eyes, listen to it. So, but you'll reach your own conclusion regarding this one. So now, uh, to go back to my, uh, specific topic about the Houthis and the US failure to deter or even defeat the Houthis now. And this is where the Houthis mentioned that the US warplanes have launched now a series of airstrikes, as I said, in Sa'dah, Hudaydah, and Sana'a, which is the capital. So, and so the total of all this, you're looking about just the city, the southern part of Sa'dah, they were about 17 raids in two waves, meaning two sorties or two strikes, whatever term you want to use. And this starts, of course, since March 15th, when Mr. Trump announced that he had ordered now his forces for a major offensive against the Houthi group.

Before—

and here is the key, and I put it in quote here— before Mr. Trump mentioned that, oh, by the way, this will be a complete elimination of the Houthis, end of quote. Yeah, good luck with that, Mr. Trump. So, and the thing is how the Houthis responded to that. And I read the statement by Abdel Malik al-Houthi. Abdel Malik al-Houthi, he's the head of the Houthis. So what he's saying basically is that the Houthis responded that Trump threat will not deter them from continuing their support for Gaza. This is where again I'll tip my hat to them, because you give credit where credit is due. Tell me if there is any pathetic Arab or Muslim leaders came forward and said, oh, I'm gonna condemn what the US is doing, I'm gonna condemn what the Israelis are doing against the Palestinians. Tell me if there's any. Arab or Muslim leader beside Iran and Yemen?

None.

Let alone that, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Trump sanctioned 10 Arab countries because he knows they are pathetic. They won't be able to say a word. As a matter of fact, Mr. Trump now prepares for his upcoming trip to none other than Saudi Arabia. Why do you think the meeting between Russia and the US took place in Saudi Arabia? Because the Saudis bribed their way to host this so-called sort of the meeting for the optics on a global stage. And they had to pay a trillion dollars in investments. That's how pathetic Muslim and Arab countries. So now I know there are now demonstrations in Morocco regarding the Palestinian, the Gaza issue and so forth. But this has nothing to do with that. Morocco is also concerned. It's because unemployment is going to the roof. The economic conditions for an average citizen is going bad. So to Morocco, which by the way has a relationship with Israel, diplomatic— there are 4 countries, Arab countries, that have officially diplomatic relations with Israel still till today: United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and Morocco. Come on, let's be fair, let's be just, let's be honest, let's be pragmatic about it. If you are to call yourself a Muslim, you know, and you are witnessing what's going on, you know, this is when you start to realize— and I'm not going to get into the religion, how manipulative a religion can be and is. Now, I respect your— regarding religion, whatever religion you practice, you are entitled to whatever. To me, it's just for me, uh, when I spend sleepless nights starting to question. I will get up at 3 o'clock in the morning and sit quietly in my living room just thinking about this role of religion and the role of God, however you perceive God to be. If this God is so powerful, why will he or she will allow massive destruction that's going on, like in Gaza, like what happened in Myanmar, like what happened in Bangkok with the earthquakes. If this God is so merciful, why? And if this so-called Arab and Muslim countries claim to be supporting the Muslim ummah, you know, which is nonsense, it's nothing but pathetic. And that's what prompted me to start to think and question, because when you stop questioning, that's when you stop evolving intellectually. Doesn't matter religion or not. And now the Houthis have proved once again, guys, and you're smart enough, once again, tell me if there is any, any so-called Muslim or Arab countries beside Iran and Yemen that stepped forward and challenged what the US is doing or what Israel is doing or even condemning it. As a matter of fact, at this time of this that I'm doing this, There is an official from Israel government is visiting United Arab Emirates, and the foreign minister of United Arab Emirates is welcoming the guy. So once again, this is what I need you guys to understand, the big picture of this. So, so I'm gonna play a clip for you regarding what's going on with a particular, uh, Let me see if I can get to it here. I'm not gonna play it. Bear with me here because I want to skip to the, uh, all right, let me share this with you because I happen to know something about this particular individual, and I even quoted him in one of my books, of course challenging his argument. So let me share this with you here, guys. And take a listen carefully.

A question: with renewed war in Gaza and Yemen and instability spreading across the entire region, what are President Trump's true goals in the Middle East? Let's get to the bottom line. The Gaza ceasefire That ceasefire was put to a violent end by Israel on March 18th when it launched a bombing campaign that killed 5 mid-level Hamas leaders and hundreds of civilians, mostly women and children. U.S. officials now say they're working on a different ceasefire plan, but now Trump is beating the drums of war with Iran and threatening dire consequences unless these Yemen attacks stop. So what are America's intentions for the region? Today we're talking with Vali Nasser, professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University. And he's author of the upcoming book, Iran's Grand Strategy: A Political History. Bally, it's great to have you in studio with me today.

Thank you.

I just ask you, I think the purpose of this show today is I'm trying to understand what America wants to achieve in the Middle East, because I think to many people watching, they're not quite sure. On one hand, Donald Trump has come out and said, no new wars, we don't want to be deeply involved in these things. And yet we've just fired a barrage of missiles at Yemen, threatening Iran. And have taken all sorts of interesting postures with regard to Israel and Gaza. So, just tell me what you think America is trying to achieve in the Middle East.

Well, all that's been happening in the last 2 days, 3 days is actually a major change. Israel has resumed its military campaign in Gaza. The United States has bombed Yemen and is also threatening Iran with military action. I think the United States under President Trump still is trying to find a way to get out of the Middle East. It still does not want to spend the next 4 years in—

I will have to challenge Mr. Vali Nasr about this notion that the US is trying to get out. He's wrong on this.

Wars in the Middle East, and he wants to focus on China, Russia, domestic sets of issues. But President Trump is trying to force a situation on the Middle East. By using America's muscle in a way that he can get there. And that's a very, very risky gambit. So he wants to still, you know, end Gaza in a way that would mean the Palestinians would move.

Once again, guys, he's right, partially right on the idea of where he said earlier that he's trying, Mr. Trump is trying to, but when it comes down to Gaza, Mr. Trump is doing the reverse. And I found that the presenter here is not articulating that specific point, and for a reason.

Somewhere else that Israel gets the total security that he's looking for in Gaza, potentially the West Bank. He wants to finish the issue in Yemen and perhaps liquidate another one of Iran's, uh, axis, uh, militias, uh, partners.

Uh, I don't think so, because that was the whole reason why I'm doing this livestream for you to prove to you that Despite— and when you have scholars like this coming articulating certain aspects that has nothing to do with the truth, you know, I am forced to respond and push back against this kind of narrative. It's because we can go just— and I'll tell you soon once we listen a little further here what Mr. Valli has to say.

By force, thinking that that will do the trick. And then he's trying to bully Iran to the table, saying that if you don't come to the table, it's going to be war. And he's calculating that this kind of a strong arming the region will basically get the Middle East to where he wants it to be, which means that he can then basically move on to other things.

So I've read a lot in—

Okay, I'm going to stop right here, guys, because I need to keep going with what I want to talk to you. Now, Vali Nasr. You need to understand where he comes from. He comes from Johns Hopkins University. I'm very familiar with— as a matter of fact, I almost applied for a position to teach for Johns Hopkins University in Rome, in Italy. Didn't go through. I'm glad it didn't. So, but here is the thing. What you need to know about Johns Hopkins University, especially the Center for International, uh, Security, the SAIS, which is located in Washington. Now John Hopkins has strong ties to the U.S. government.

Why?

Because it offers a curriculum focused on international relations, diplomacy, and policy, and its graduates often pursue careers in the government or related field. And this is what I found very, very challenging. And as a matter of fact, I challenged in my writing when I wrote my Iran book because I had to sort of, uh, quoted him on, on one aspect that I completely disagreed. So take a listen here of what I wrote. I wrote back then in my Iran book, indeed, the Iran-Iraq conflict paved the way for the revival of the Shia, especially after the 1979 Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Ali Khomeini that ousted Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi a US ally. The conflict cemented the rule of both leaders, Khomeini in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, thus shaping the Persian Gulf for years to come. Interestingly, one thinks that with the removal of Saddam Hussein, the Shia revival will prosper. To the contrary, it did not. Vali Nasr, which is the guy you were listening to, guys, earlier, Vali Nasr writes And here is what I wrote, uh, what he wrote, and I quoted him: What Iran Revolution has failed to do, the Shia revival in post-Saddam Iraq was set to achieve. Which I disagree with that. To challenge that, the Shia revival poses to the Sunni Arab domination of the Middle East, and the Sunni conception of political identity and authority is not substantially different from the threat that Khomeini posed, which is way off in my opinion. Iran's revolution also sought to break the hegemonic control of the Sunni Arab establishment, which is wrong. The only difference is that the last time around, the Shias, uh, were the more radical and anti-American forces, and now the reverse seems to be true. This is what I quoted him on, which was a way of— because Shia, by the way, the Khomeini Revolution had nothing to do with the Muslim world. It had to do with Iran itself.

Why?

Because the Shah was giving the whole country to the America. That's the reason why we put him there. And when I talk to you about the history of the US relations with the Middle East, and I break it down by every president in, in, in, in, in brief here. It will make perfect sense to you. So I'm going to leave that for the end of my talk here as I continue in my conversation regarding the Houthis person. So now you think about the Houthis targeting the US naval vessels, which is continue with effectiveness. This is what Abdel Malik al-Houthi is saying. Let me put a picture for you guys. So what are you saying? So the idea that, uh, uh, uh, that's what the leader of the Houthis is saying, Abdel Malik al-Houthi, and he announced this one on Friday, which is like, yeah, 2 or 3 days ago. So, so the operations targeting naval vessels are continuing, continuing with high effectiveness, according to his expression. And as a matter of fact, there was a clip of video, I didn't have it here, but I did see it. I forgot to put it up, guys. Sorry for that. Uh, that the aircraft carrier Harry Truman is constantly being pursued. This is what you need to understand that is not being reported here in the West. That one is being pursued. That's why I had to move up a little bit north. So, and this is why The Harry Truman, to those who understand the naval maneuvers and so forth, the nav— the, uh, the aircraft has moved up to far north of the Red Sea. So because you have to understand what this means when it comes down to naval maneuvering, because they are concerned that it might be even targeted. So the other thing, it has to do with when Abdel-Malik al-Houthi pointed, yeah, he pointed to the downing of another US drone. And I got a picture of it here, and I give credit to Associated Press for this picture. Does anybody know what this is, guys? Can you just type in, in the chat box, please? And I want you, because I want you to be part of the conversation. So, and I'm going to detail a few things about it once I see Uh, once again, let me put the picture for you guys once again, to those who are familiar a little bit with this. All right, let me see. Uh, oh, Hanging G, you got it. MQ-9 Reaper. Uh, Fred Ball, you got it, you got it. Uh, uh, Moha, you got it, you got it. It's the MQ-9. So now This is not the first. Do you guys know how many the Houthis have downed? 17. One-seven-zero. They have shut down, which is a large number when you consider. And of course, it's unique when you think about it, how high that drone goes, the, the, the, the technological advancements and so forth. And yet the Houthis were able to down it, which gives you the conclusion right there. They must have something in their possession, meaning the Houthis, in their arsenal that can shut down this. So, so, and of course there is also, uh, when you think about this unique case, we have not heard about— this is why we are not hearing about it here. And of course we are not disclosing, even specifying the period of when those drones have been down. So I remember when I used to, uh, and as a matter of fact, believe it or not, guys, I did the, uh, previously I did the presentation, uh, regarding this particular, uh, uh, developments in the region at that time. And I remember when I presented on this topic to several audiences, they were like, well, they can be, you know, the, the US military presence in the Middle East. And I said, it won't matter because that's nothing but a posturing. That's all it was. And I argued I'm gonna put the link for you guys to the speaking part. You can take a look at it later. I argued back then that it's just a matter of time because I said use history as your guide and look what have we achieved in Afghanistan, thinking with all the mighty power, air power and so forth, and yet we couldn't defeat the group over there. The same thing we did in Iraq. So, and that is why on Thursday this past Thursday of last week, it was disclosed that the Houthis have downed another American MQ-9 drone. You know, when you think about this, think about it, guys. This kind of drones, it's not an average, you know. This one is a high-tech that is used by the military, US military, to strike sort of targets and so forth. Now The cost varies depending again where you look. To my knowledge, the cost varies between $30 and $56 million a drone. And yet the Houthis were able to down it. Makes you just wonder. You know, we all know about how expensive— it's like what the Philippines end up now buying the F-16s from the US. No, no, no, no, they're not buying the package. You know, because they need to pay for the ammunition, they need to pay for the crew, they need to pay for pilot, they need to pay for maintenance. There is a lot. So when they disclose that it's $5.58 billion for 20, just 20, uh, uh, F-16s, no, there is more than meet the eye. The same arguments I was make, I'll make it right here. So, and because the operating system of this, this, uh, of this particular drones, the MQ-9, it is described as a, a predator. Because why? Because it enables the performance of multiple missions. So, and just in the past 2 or 3 weeks, this is now the third one that the Houthis have downed. So the total so far, 17 to my knowledge based on sources that I looked into. So, and this is one thing you need to understand why all of a sudden you have to think in terms of, are the Houthis attacks being intensified? The answer is yes. It's because we couldn't wipe them out as Mr. Trump said. So, and that is why now you start to have a different narrative inside the Pentagon. You know, as of Friday evening, it was the, the, the conversation among some high-ranking officials in the Pentagon with those two individuals, I think two or three, I couldn't remember or confirm this one, two or three that wanted to remain anonymous. They didn't want to disclose this. No, because they are realizing now that the concerns regarding the impact of the strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, there is an impact not on the Yemenis but rather on the US military readiness in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Now, now there are those here in Washington, once this information came out, they're saying, oh, They're just exaggerating. They are not. In my opinion, they are not. Because here is the thing, despite what you hear, that the US military retains some sort of, if I may use the term, authority to use its full capabilities in a region against the group. But it turns out to be it couldn't defeat it. Houthis still in possession of missiles that they still can fire. They still can target, they still can down the drones, they still launch at Israel, they still challenge the airspace of Israel. So, and this is why the— this unnamed source is saying that US military personnel now fear that the strikes in Yemen will negatively impact the military, the US military readiness in, in the Indian and the Pacific Oceans, because we are gearing up for another conflict in that part of the world, South China Sea. So that is what's important to understand why I wanted to do this for you guys, to put it in perspective. And mind you, what I said at the beginning for that headlines, that the Iran is capable of sinking an aircraft carrier. Just let that sink in. And by the way, the recent drone that the Houthis did, they show an image of it right here. This is the US MQ-9 that was shut down. And that is why it's important to understand when the Pentagon— all of a sudden this conversation was internal for internal consumptions. And I think, you know, this anonymous 2 or 3 individuals, they just trying to avoid the disaster. But it's too late for that because now we are back down in Yemen. If we retreat, that just sh— that just dismantle our credibility beyond what is— it's already shattered. Adds another page to the failure, abysmal performance of American might per se, military, following Afghanistan and Iraq. One way. Or you have the other option is to sit down and negotiate with the Houthis. And the Houthis are saying, whatever, all we are asking for, for Israel to stop its, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, acts of, uh, uh, war and destruction and, uh, uh, famine, preventing water and so forth against the people of Palestine. And yet no Muslim country or Arab leaders— all of them are pathetic because what they doing, they all saying, oh, it's all about religion, it's all about this, it's all about that. That just makes you just wonder. So, and that is why I am confident that we are not gonna be able to defeat the Houthis. So I'm gonna share a quick link with you just to make a point, regarding one aspect. I don't know if I have it. I kept it here somewhere. Uh, yes, regarding when Muslim countries talk too much. I give you a quick example about the Saudis. So take a listen at this. So I'm gonna share it with you, and it's on YouTube, guys. If you know where to look, you'll find it, but I'm gonna share it with you here.

Share.

Spot on, couldn't agree more. There we go.

When Saudi Arabia offered to build 200 mosques in Burkina Faso, President Ibrahim Traoré probably chuckled and said, thanks but no thanks. Instead of adding more places to pray, he suggested something a bit—

why is he doing—

when Saudi Arabia offered to build 200 mosques in Burkina Faso President Ibrahim Traoré probably chuckled and said, "Thanks, but no thanks!" Instead of adding more places to pray, he suggested something a bit more practical. How about schools, hospitals, or businesses that actually help people? Imagine a Burkinabe citizen walking into a brand-new mosque, hungry and jobless, praying for food, when what they really need is a job. Traoré basically told the Saudis, "We appreciate the thought, but we'd rather have opportunities, not just sermons." Now, that's a leader who understands that you can't pray away poverty. You need action. When Saudi—

Spot on, spot on. Because if you only know how many billions the Saudis have spent on building madrasas and extremist views of Islam, which have nothing to do with the religion, assuming you believe in a religion and so on, that's your prerogative and all that. All it's for nothing. I mean, even in Yemen in itself, when Ali Abdullah Saleh— and I was in that mosque, I went there physically to see with my own eyes. And I asked the person in charge of the mosque, I said, can I ask you a question? They said, yes, sir, yes, Mr. David Oualaalou. They know me by name at that time, and because I've spent a lot of time, so I get to know them. So, and I said, how much did it cost to build this? Well, we're looking at over $700 million. I was floored when I found that out because that was the donations from all the Muslim countries. And of course the mosque, Bears the name of who? The former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh Mosque. This is the truth. This is like in Arab, in the Muslim world, they all build mosques in the name of the president or king or whatever, which is pathetic. You're spending $700 million in one of the poorest countries in the Muslim world to build a mosque that is always empty. I was there, I saw there's nobody there. Instead of creating jobs and opportunities. And this is why pathetic Arab and Muslim leaders couldn't extend regarding what's going on with the US bombing the Houthis, and of course what's going on in Gaza. It shows you right there, using religion to justify whatever. And that's to me personally what prompts me to start questioning, because literally, literally, guys, and I'm here not to be Mr. Nice, I'm here to challenge your intellectual capabilities because we want to exchange ideas. And in exchanging ideas, that's how we learn. This is the problem we have in American education system. We stopped, we stopped challenging students because all we do is stand there and read the slides. Pathetic. That's pathetic. So the idea, when you start to think about religion in terms of what is, what is religion in itself What is faith? And I remember what's his name, the astrophysicist, uh, uh, Dr. Tyson, Neil deGrasse Tyson. I couldn't agree more when he mentioned or stated, and I quote, that faith is nothing but the belief in the absence of evidence. You know, you pray to God, well, whatever you perceive God to be. Once again, and again, I am not— I respect religions of all I just happen to question now, if this God is so merciful, why will he or she will let these people being slaughtered? And if these Muslim countries, like in this case of Saudi Arabia, wanted to build 20 mosques, why don't they have the courage to tell Israel, you need to stop? As a matter of fact, the Saudis also themselves were thinking about building, about establishing relations with Israel behind the scenes. I was aware of a private visit of an Israeli delegation to Saudi Arabia. Saudis had no clue. So, and when you consider what Mr. Trump just did with putting tariffs on 10, 10 countries, that just, it tells you the story right there. That's what I found very, very, you know, 10 Arab countries and none of them had the gut to take stand and say, no, we disagree with you on this, we're not going to allow, we're not going to sort of, we condemn what you, US, is doing to Houthis and what you, Israel, doing to the Gazans. So, but anyway, you all know where the Arab and Muslim countries the leaders. When I say I'm not referring to the people, the leaders, where they stand. They, they're pathetic, to say the least. So now, like I mentioned earlier, I want to conclude this with some historical snapshot about the US relations, uh, with, uh, with some, uh, or, or foreign policy in the region or towards the Muslim world. So, so bear with me here because it's very important for you guys to understand this dynamic. So So here is what I disclosed, and again, I'm talking to you based on my own experiences. I did presentations on this topic, so I spoke to both civilians and military entities. So I'm not talking in the top of my head here. There is a— there is an empirical research that's been conducted regarding these aspects of the conversation I'm sharing with you and the analysis. This is why I'm saying, guys, please make sure to share the channel with others so they have an opportunity. You know, you consider yourself lucky you are listening to this. You know, someone else might not have a chance. Same argument I used to make for my students, whomever sitting in classroom. I used to say, consider yourself lucky because there is someone out there that either couldn't afford to be in this classroom or just doesn't have the opportunity to do so. So I will greatly appreciate if you can share the channel with others and encourage them to subscribe. So here is what I wrote back then: Before detailing what American foreign policy towards the Muslim world consists of, one must shed light on the historical evolution of American policy since Woodrow Wilson to the present time. And the present time was about when Obama was in office. So it would be helpful to briefly determine from which period this policy started. So I will break this narrative into sections to make it easier for you guys to follow. So what I'm going to start with, I'm going to start with Woodrow Wilson. I'm sorry, for those who are interested in, uh, in history, so this is an opportunity for you to know. So here is the thing, during this period, which was between 1910 and 1917. During this period, the United States engaged little in the region. As a matter of fact, and there is a reason for that. Why? Because the British were taking the lead towards 1914, especially when they decided to land in the southern city of Basra in Iraq.

Why?

There was a reason, because they wanted to defend oil supplies from aggressions from Persia, which is current Iran, which was— I don't know how factual that is. Maybe the British were just making that up. So during this era, the United States neither pursued an aggressive policy with regard to oil production nor had an imperialist desire to conquer the region. However, America's interests during this period were towards Latin America and the Pacific. And when the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I, the British decided to share the spoils. However, Woodrow Wilson declined, to the shocking of the Brits. And who came after him was none other than— this was a Slick Willie guy. I never liked, given his history, I never cared for the guy. Uh, uh, Harry Truman. And I'm just moving into this era right away. '45 to '52, 1945 to 1952. This era marked a change in his story, in history, that would forever affect United States foreign policy towards the West Asia or Middle East. That is, the policy started as cooperation between Allied forces when US troops were stationed in Iran during World War II. U.S. soldiers helped to protect Iranian oil fields from foreign aggression and transfer military supplies to the USSR. However, at that time, Stalin decided to withdraw his forces after Truman made clear through the United Nations his opposition to Soviet military presence in Iran. And to demonstrate his willingness to challenge the Soviets, Truman threatened to use force to remove Soviet forces. This declaration marked the beginning of US foreign policy in the region, a policy marked by duplicity and double standards. Truman's far-reaching vision went beyond the expulsion of Soviet military from Iran. His political calculations included the establishment of a treaty with Iran's top official at that time. Does anybody know who was the individual at that time? You guys, because you, you would know, with the one who helped him, uh, came to power. This is what Truman end up doing. Let me see in the chat box if you guys can type in. Who that was.

Pardon me.

Okay, uh, no, it was an Iranian guy. Uh, Ali, Ali G. No, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, I'm, I'm, uh, oh, oh, Matt Becky, you got it. It was the Shah. Uh, where is this? Uh, uh, now hold on a second, hold on a second. This is not about old or new. You have to understand the context of this. The reason why I'm sharing this, there is a reason for it. So now, just to put it in perspective for you to understand, so, uh, and yes, it was, uh, Muhammad Reza Shah, Bahlavi, a move that was seen by Stalin at the time as the beginning of an era of confrontation and struggle over ideological dominance and expansion. And of course, in the midst of all this This force-producing developments. The United Nations was in the process of what? Something completely different. And this has to do the partisan plan of Palestine. As a result, Truman accepted the outcome of this vote in 1947, in which 57% of the land went to Israel And 43% went to Palestine. So this is why Truman— Truman was the one that set the tone. Uh, he's not well-liked, uh, here in the US if you ask historians, but he's the one who set the tones for, uh, aggressively pursuing, uh, for the success of this Partisan Plan. So, and of course, this event precipitated the creation of the State of Israel. Which Truman officially recognized immediately on May 4th, 1948. And what comes next was the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict that continues to mark and define, to some extent, American involvement in West Asia. So who came after him? It was Eisenhower. Now, Eisenhower era, it's important to understand because it was marked by three major events that took place in 19— once again, I'm going to just test your knowledge here— 1953, 1956, and 1958 respectively. So what happened in 1953? All remember, guys, within the same area. Okay, this might, uh, okay, I'm gonna just move on with this, guys. 1953 marks the ousting of none other than the popular Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadegh, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, who vehemently opposed the British and American presence and influence in his country. I mean, it was right of him to do so. It's his country, the people voted for him. That's what he wants— they want him to do. So however, his removal from power basically was through a coup that was involving two entities, the US and Britain, MI6 and CIA. So impacted US image and reputation among not only Iranians but also throughout the Muslim world. It was the beginning of putting American claim of protecting and honoring the democratic process under the microscope. As a result, the US foreign policy's lack of credibility and mistrust stained American engagements with the Middle East. It also further undermined, uh, sort of, uh, American credibility and cemented the notion that The Muslim world has lost trust in the US claims of protecting so-called democracy. But yet, even though it was back then, history is repeating itself right now. Once again, tell me, guys, if there is any Muslim or Arab nations that condemned what the US is doing or what Israel is doing beside Iran and Yemen. None. So The second event, 1956, and this one has to do with France, Britain, and Israel. Why? They attacked Egypt after the latter decided to nationalize the Suez Canal. The United States, of course, reacted swiftly to the Egyptian government decision, not only by joining in the attack but also in ending the war to its favor, to our favor, of course, you know. The last event during this period was 1958. Of course, that's when President Eisenhower ordered US troops into Beirut to protect the Lebanese Christian-led government. That is why it's very, very important. And again, the reason I'm sharing this is to put it in perspective. How history plays a role. That's why I disagree with you, the individual who wrote, well, this is an old history. No, that means you're gonna need to pay closer attention. So fast forward to Kennedy, 1961, 1963. So following Eisenhower's poor relations with the Arab nationalists, President Kennedy decided to reverse this policy by strengthening ties with Arabs and Israelis alike. And this transition, what did it signal to the Arab world? That Kennedy willingness to sit down and discuss mutual concerns. Kennedy's two most important concerns were as follows. The first is to ensure that Jamal Abdel Nasser would not join the Soviet Union camp. And the second one to convince him, meaning Nasser, to soften his attitude towards the Israelis. So they play on both sides, basically. Johnson era, 1963-1968. Of course, this era, uh, was, uh, uh, very, very challenging for the US because we— the US was going through tremendous challenges both domestically and internationally. On the domestic front, of course, we were dealing with the racial tensions, issues of income inequality, and poor economic conditions, which is exactly what we are witnessing today. The government is not disclosing the truth about where things are economically. However, every citizen is struggling to make ends meet. I am not an economist to be talking about these tariffs and all that stuff. They're in my area. The only thing I know is that when I go to the grocery shopping, I am noticing the prices going up, not down. So, so if I am okay financially to do this, what about a person who can't? Once again, this is the importance of understanding history. So the domestic front, as I said, the racial tensions, issues of income inequality, poor economic conditions, this is what highlighted President Johnson's inability to deal with these issues. And that is one of the reasons a lot of people do not know, that is one of the reasons why he did not seek the second term, because he couldn't deal with these issues. Because it was going bad. On the international front, perhaps the most polarizing event during this era— what was it, guys? Do you know? Remember, 1963, 1968. And I used the key term polarizing event. Does anybody know? Doreen Johnson, LBJ. Taiwan, not Taiwan. No, good try. Uh, Multi Tom Tom, Vietnam, Vietnam. You got it, because that was the, that was the, the, the, as I said, the, the sort of pulverizing, uh, uh, polarizing rather event during his— it was the Vietnam War. And by the way, according to historians, you know, it was the most divisive event in American life since the Civil War. So despite, despite immersion in domestic affairs, Johnson administration was poor pulled into West Asia or Middle East not by choice but rather necessity. Why is this? It's because 1967 Six-Day War, in which Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel, compelled the US to intervene, which made, made you question, why would we get involved to begin with? But that's when you realize American political system has been dominated and controlled from outside in. So we end up getting involved, intervened due to the U.S.-Israeli special relations, I wrote back then. It was only when the Israelis threatened to conquer more Arab lands that the USSR threatened to use force against Israel if it moved forward with its plan. And this event marked a turning point not only in the US foreign policy towards the region but also towards the Soviet Union. I see the similarities right here regarding Iran. So when the Russians issued a warning to the Americans in a subtle way— I did a video for you guys about that— that, that that message is a subtle way of, we will come to the defense of Iran if you ever attack, because they have their interests. Russians will not hesitate. Russians will not also hesitate to provide some advanced systems to the Houthis, or inshallah, if not they already have. Right after that came none other than Crook What's his name? Nixon, Crook Nixon we call him. Nixon, of course, 1969 to 1976. Of course, Watergate scandal, which rocked the American political system during this period, was the hallmark of his presidency. However, the surprise attack by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan on Israel on holiday of Yom Kippur of 1973 forced the United States to come to the aid of Israel once again. So in the midst of all these developments, the United States was not— and I repeat, was not— in possession to get into a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union after the latter— remember, USSR threatened Israel at that time. So, so as a result, US pressured the Israelis into accepting a ceasefire. So now makes you wonder why the US didn't do that regarding now the Gaza conflict. Why the Arab and Muslim world didn't sort of, uh, ask the US to ask Israel? No, they don't care. All Arabs do, and Muslims, they talk. You know, all this show for going to mosques and all that, it's nothing but a facade. Don't fall for that, guys. Don't fall for that. And of course, it's your life. You decide what's, what's good for you. So as a result, the US pressured the Israelis to enter ceasefire. And of course, after the Arab-Israeli War, what happened in 1973? Major event that shocked the United States. Does anybody know? 1973. Let me see if anybody— guys. Oh, oh, Matt Becky, you got it! Oil embargo. Uh, uh, uh, H, uh, uh, HO Channel, you got it! The embargo, 1973. And this is where the OPEC, or the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, implemented an oil embargo against the United States. Many historians agree that these arrangements, which resulted in the return of some land Israel has seized from both Syria and Egypt, were not considered peace agreements. And what was interesting about this era is that Nixon administration failed through ignorance or as a matter of convenience to address the Palestinian issue. I think it was not ignorance, is a convenience. That's why they didn't want to do it. So, and while those events unfolded, a strong military officer named Saddam Hussein was emerging in Iraq. So, and this leads me to the Carter administration, very important era also. Historians have rated this era of US policy, foreign policy towards the region, as both successful and disastrous for two main reasons. It was the most stressful period— successful, I'm sorry, successful period of the US foreign policy towards Middle East due to Carter's mediation and negotiations of none other than Camp David Accord of 1978, which led to a peace agreement in 1979 between Egypt and Israel. Of course, you all know what happened to Anwar Sadat when he went back. Both leaders, Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin Israel were determined to ensure that American efforts would continue, will come to fruition. And to demonstrate its commitment to this peace treaty, guess what we end up doing? The United States increased its aid to both countries, Israel and Egypt, a policy that is still in effect today. And the total aid package which comes out of our tax dollars You know, why am I— why, why my dollar, my tax dollars going for the aid? No, it's beyond me. But the aid package both countries reached was about $4.5 billion on a yearly basis. We've been paying this for a long time now. We dropped it a little bit, but it's still— so they just, uh, however, a month later, which means after 1979, Months later, Israel invaded Lebanon in an operation known as Operation Litany. And this is where Carter failed to deal with the foreign policy challenges at the time. So it was another main event during his time was the— excuse me— the presence of the Soviets in Afghanistan, because he was unable to challenge the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. And what ended up, uh, uh, Carter, what, what he end up doing, he end up limiting his options to merely boycotting the Summer Olympics, which were held at that time in Moscow. And this is exactly the time when many foreign policy experts translated this decision as the US inability to influence world events on this scale. This is why I always say you have to understand the history of the lack of credibility and the failure of American foreign policy from way back, because it was coming down. For me personally, and I can't speak on behalf of others, but for me personally, started in 1982. That's when— who came after him? None other than Reagan. Reagan, 1981 to 1989. Of course, his era marked a major confrontation in West Asia or Middle East, particularly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It was another event that took place in 1986, and this one has to do with the Iran-Contra scandal, and that one undermined US credibility and policy. Of never negotiating with terrorist group or extremist groups. This event showed that when pressured, the United States yields to demands. And this leads me ask you guys question: could we be seeing the same with the Houthis? Houthis not gonna be defeated. Will this be forcing the US now to enter into negotiations with the Houthis? What do you guys think? So, because I'm seeing a precedent of this, events suggest that. So the presence of foreign forces, both Americans and French, in Beirut changed the dynamics in the conflict in Lebanon at that time. So for example, for instance, as I wrote back then, on April 18, 1983, a truck bomb struck the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Resulting in the death of American soldiers at the time and civilians both. Similarly, on October 23, 1983, same year, simultaneous bombing killed 241 American soldiers and 57 French paratroopers in their Beirut barracks, barracks rather. As a result, Reagan was forced to withdraw American forces from the country, fueling speculations among organizations at that time that if you engage the US in a guerrilla warfare tactics, America may leave. This is exactly what happened in Afghanistan. This is exactly what happened in Iraq. This is exactly what happened in Somalia. Mogadishu and so forth. And of course is what happened in Vietnam. How can we all forget that? Once again, now you know why I wanted to share this historical snapshot with you guys, to put it in perspective, because I am seeing the trend and probably we might end up having similar outcome when it comes down now to the US dealing with the Houthis. The US will not be able to defeat the Houthis. That's the way I see it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. So then come George H.W. 1989, 1993, the US military involvements. This in one particular country was none other than Kuwait, and we all know the history of that one because the US wanted to sort of liberate Kuwait and, uh, champion democracy and so forth. And destabilize the region. We have our own, own reasons for that. As a matter of fact, if you only know— if you only know how those oil fields end up being on fire, I'll let you think about that. Think about it. Who set these oil fields on fire? So, uh, fast forward to 1993-2001, Clinton era. Well, the Clinton policy, uh, same thing, was, was miserable anyway, to say the least. Uh, Slick Willy, we call him Slick Willy, of course, all the corruption that existed, and of course his affair with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and all that. And you have to understand, too many events beside what I wrote, and I didn't talk about this one at that time because it was still classified. One of them has to do with Jonathan Pollard, and the other one has to do with Mark Rich. If you know who it is, you need to go and read up on it. Uh, Mark Rich, let me, let me type it in the chat box for you. Uh, Mark Rich. Google him later on and read up on it because it was Bill Clinton that was involved in that. But there was one major event, and this has to do with the uprising, the Palestinian uprising, or Intifada as it's called, that I would— as it's, uh, called in Arabic. So, and this one, uh, because the establishment of Palestinians' rights to self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank. So, and of course, fast forward to the World Trade Center and the bombing of USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden in 2000. And this is where American foreign policy hesitated to address this kind of surprises. George W. Bush, 2001 to 2008, of course he was marked by 9/11, which once again I don't know if I showed you Slick Willie here. Then you get the Bush here, uh, he lives in my city right here, by the way. So, uh, Bush, of course, you all know about 9/11, but also you need to do some read-up on really understanding how 9/11 came about. So I'm not going to get involved in that here. So, but there were two other main events, and it has to do with Afghanistan, toppling the group in Afghanistan, which by the way, only to see them return to power 18 years later. How pathetic. And the second has to do with the invasion of Iraq, which I argued against. So, but there was one particular issue here, guys, that I need to mention it as I wrote back then. And here is what I wrote: America can neither cherry-pick the political actors through which democracy takes hold, nor dictate how and where it takes hold. Doing so undermines US credibility and casts doubt on its ability to support really what is called fundamentals, like free elections. And this— I was referring to what took place regarding Egypt. And this is why one could see why towards the end of his presidency, Mr. Bush realized that his crusade in promoting democracy in the Middle East was a dead end. Who's going to believe in that? So, and if you notice, I'm going to hint to something for you guys. If you noticed what, uh, uh, uh, uh, Mr. Bush, the term he used of a religious connotation, crusade. This is part of using a religion to justify. This is exactly what happened when here in the US, when you want to push a policy on the Americans, just mention God, Christianity, and so forth. That's how you sell it to the masses. Who came after him? It was none other than Obama, the drone guy. That's how he's known. Dark history. American foreign policy in the region under Obama is ambiguous, was ambiguous, as also unclear. And many reasons prove my claim to this. As someone who not only worked in the region for a number of years, and I spent a lot of time there, but also understand the cultural and the social setting under which the Muslim, the Muslim world operates, it is perplexing, I wrote back then, back then, to hear the United States claim to support a set of universal rights— freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, the right to practice religion without fear of violence or discrimination, and the right to free and democratic elections. Then when a coup happens like the one in Egypt that saw the Egyptian military conducted when it removed the democratically elected president Mohamed Morsi, the United States stays silent as though the rules of democracy apply only to a few rather than to all. Historians definitely will regard Mr. Obama presidency as one marked by a drone policy which created more enemies than ever. Regarding the, uh, Mohamed Morsi, I remember the cable, that one in between the US and Saudi Arabia. Both of them gave the green light for the military to the guy, the current guy, Al-Fatah Sisi, who is a former military back then, to take over. He got the nod from both the US. That's why he's so pathetic He couldn't say a word to the Israelis because he can't. He knows all Muslim and Arab leaders except Iran and Yemen, all of them, no exceptions. That's what I'm saying. I just wanted to highlight this to you guys, and I concluded that the Egyptian people have the final say to vote at that time for whomever they believe is qualified to lead the country. So removing the elected president, I wrote back then, is perceived as though democracy and its so-called values of free elections, among others, amounts to empty rhetoric. More than ever, Egypt will remain divided between those who want so-called democracy through other means than free and fair elections, and those who have lost faith in the principles of what democracy stands on. As the case of the coup in Egypt demonstrates, no party benefits from division and chaos resulting in serious consequences for not only Egypt but also the greater Middle East writ large. That's how I see it, guys. And this is why, again, I, I was debating whether to Really, I know it's long, a little bit, but if you don't at least hear it from me regarding this aspect of history, things will not make sense to you regarding what's going on right now between the US and the Houthis, because history tends to recycle and repeat itself. We've seen this when we entered behind closed doors negotiations with the other parties that we couldn't defeat. Once again, Afghanistan and Iraq. As our case in point. I'm seeing the same. I am seeing the same here, guys, because if there is one reality, literally one reality that we all need to, uh, sort of come to a grip with, is that we won't be able to defeat the Houthis. And the way it's going to work, it's going to work exactly like what happened in Tora Bora. To those who understand what took place in Tora Bora in Afghanistan, you know what I'm referring to. We couldn't, we couldn't defeat them despite the fighter jets, despite— and again, when I got to Afghanistan in 2002, my first word was, you know, what makes us think we're going to defeat those people? By the way, guys, can anybody sort of explain this to me. If you look at the history, no major power was able to defeat that. Because if you look at the, the, uh, if you look at, for example, the, the whole idea of, uh, where, how things are in Afghanistan in comparison And this is where this, this idea of, and I couldn't agree more with the, there's a guy by the name Major General, uh, Dweiri. He's an Egyptian. I, I, I'm very familiar with his background. Uh, because remember we used to train Jordanians, so I was involved in that. And I couldn't agree more with him because he's the one, he got that comparison of destroying the Houthis capabilities is not as easy. And Yemen in itself, the geography of Yemen is similar almost like what happened in Tora Bora. And what happened in Tora Bora? Because the terrain. I spent time in Sana'a. I used to go outside the city, just mountains, rivers, caves. You know, there were even areas where I was told, please do not go there. And I say, why not? Told me, they will kill you. I say, why? They said, you're a foreigner. And these people, they told me because they really, they cared for me, they liked me, you know. And I wasn't with this arrogance of American, whatever. I looked at him as a human being, no more, no less. And I kind of made it clear. And I listened to what they had to say because they know the area, they are aware of it. So And that is why we won't be able to defeat. That's why the US will not be able to put ground troops on in Yemen. No way. Now, of course, it was one aspect. I can elaborate more on that, whether it was the presence of some special ops at some point. Yeah, you read between the lines, guys. You read between the lines. But even the presence was shortly lived. If you know what I mean. So, and this is again why I wanted to share this with you for understanding that because the Houthis' capabilities are not in one location. They're not in Sa'dah, they are not in Hudaydah, they are not in Sana'a. No, no, they are not. They are spread out throughout the country, number of cities, caves, ragged terrains, rugged mountains, and it would be very, very challenging for the Americans to track or even get closer to. Now we even made it worse. Now no American whatsoever, whoever, and I'm telling you from experience, when I was there, I used to go out, you know, I won't stay inside the embassy. Now if any essentials in, in the American Embassy will not be able to, to put a— to step a foot outside the embassy or the compound. If they want to go for a walk, they're gonna walk inside the compound. They'll be taken out in no time. And that is why, just to sum up all this, this is why this report inside the Pentagon highlighted now the failure of the United States in at least taking out the, the, the, the, uh, the storages where missiles are. Because we don't know, we do not know what do they have. We haven't seen everything. Same thing with Iran. I mean, for the guy, the, the editor of The National Interest, to come and disclose that info, I bet you, knowing how things work I bet you he was provided sensitive information from within the intelligence community that disclosed— for him to disclose that, that Iran has the capability of sinking an aircraft carrier. This is why we moved up north. So anyway, guys, that's all I have to share with you. I know I took a lot of time here, but again, it's— it's— I needed to share this history with you because I need you guys to understand. And I spend a lot of time putting this stuff together, so I will greatly, greatly, greatly appreciate it if you hit the like button, share the channel with others, and of course support the channel. So, so let me say thank you to some, uh, uh, super sticker donors here. Uh, uh, Arimov, thank you so much for your super sticker. You wrote, when will Islam stop calling the genocide Jews for Allah? Jews are not the enemies. Islam is the violent colonizer. Uh, there are some, there are some truth there, you know. Let's, you know, religion, it's another topic we can do, guys, and I'd be happy to do it. It's just I have to do it on a different— there is a lot of stuff. And again, I'm— when I'm saying I'm speaking for myself, I, I, I respect whatever. I really spent sleepless nights. I end up waking up at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning just sitting and, and starting to question. And that's usually where you break through your intellectual capacities, because you don't want to be like a herd, just following the herd wherever it goes. You, if you need to go alone, you go alone. If you need to take risk, you take risk, because now you're gonna start to challenge your own assumptions, you know. I like what, uh, Ibrahim Traore of Burkina Faso said to the Saudis, thank you. Why would the Saudis build 20 mosques? What for? You know, if you really want to help Burkina Faso, help them, donate that money if you want to donate it, and let them decide for themselves. They will know better what needs for the country. That's just how it is. And the Muslim world tends to mislead the masses because they are brainwashed, sad to say, and I don't shy away from saying it. Uh, Arlene Chambers, much appreciate you. Thank you, Dr. O, excellent history lessons. Yeah, I wanted to share this with the community because I sensed the need and the urgency for understanding at least how the evolution of American, uh, so-called foreign policy in that part of the world, starting from all the way to 1914. And I was very brief in all this, so, and that's exactly what I wrote in my book, and I don't mind sharing that with you. Once again, Arlene, thank you so much for your Super Sticker. And the last person I want to say thank you to is Marvin Vargas. Uh, Dr. O, appreciate your knowledge of history, honestly. You're most welcome. You know, I want you guys to know, I want you guys to know, and I— you know me, I'm not this Mr. Nice. I say what I feel. If I didn't feel it, I won't say it.

No.

It's your support, it's your contribution, and I'm not talking just financially here. It's your intellectual contribution also. It's your dedication, is your support for the community what keeps me going. I don't mind doing the work, and I'll do the work because that's my commitment to you, but also because of you. And I am very grateful and appreciative to be part of this community. This is not my community, it's ours. And it took us this time to build it, and I am hoping to expand it on a larger scale around the world. And aim big, that's the way I always look at it. Aim big, that's how I see it. So once again, thank you all. To those who, uh, uh, uh, get me a Super Sticker, I'm, I'm very, very grateful to you. Uh, for my upcoming Asia trip I want to say thank you to those who became— I have a new individual who became a member of the Buy Me Coffee, is, uh, uh, Horus Oasis Baby. So that's the screen name for it. Army with Harmony, also thank you for buying me 3 cups of tea in support of, uh, of my upcoming Asia trip. Uh, Hangin' G, thank you for buying me 5 cups of tea. So, and many, many others. So I'm very, very grateful. Next week, uh, I think I'm going to do an update for you guys as to where the fund, uh, uh, fundraising going on so far. But I am still planning on going in, uh, after August. So once again, uh, this is for the trip for Asia, and I'm going to show you the link for the channel.

Sure.

And I'm very grateful. I look forward to seeing you. I'll be working on some other stories for you. As always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.