1. On this issues he is lying to the hill other x CIA agents mention that U.S has no interest in Iran but the ones who and have been pushing War with Iran are Suadis and Neocons of Isreal in which half of Isreals dont like Bibi. Other presidents are aware of these but they didnt do nothing because of few people saw it is wrong and would harm our country in many ways. Why now attack Iran because they want to get off the petrodollar to trade their oil and the U.S doesnt like it ,they kill Saddam and lybia president over the idea. Its not about the Oil but the dollar.

  2. US of A kills the most innocent civilians every year.
    Also, the whole refugee crisis was started by bombing
    Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya etc.

  3. From what I've gathered Israel wants control of the oil under Iran and Syria's feet and the US banking cartel wants their central banks gold reserves to prop up the floundering US petro dollar to buy a little more time before the US bond market melt down

  4. Yeah, so for all the Iran fanboys using the old “Mosaddeq Coup” talking point, keep in mind that the Shi’a clerics whose successors are now the Ayetollahs of Iran, were violently opposed to Mosaddeq’s views on women and supported the coup to begin with. It’s only after the Shah continued his liberal policies that the religious clerics started complaining about American foreign influence.

  5. Joe Rogan: " Of course the CIA has never visited me telling me what I can and cannot talk about ……..
    Few months later : Has a literal CIA agent on as a guest.

  6. Who or what entity, politically speaking, was mainly behind Trump's decision to break the deal? You don't just out of the blue decide to break the deal.

  7. Your FBI agent is a douchebag right-wing f***. He's nothing more than a propagandist for a regime change and for propping up the oligarchs

  8. Iran is in its worst shape since the fall of the Shah?! F*** off you FBI s*******! The Shah was an ugly Thug put in power by the United States who got rid of a democratically elected leader

  9. Pompeo admitted on TV that the CIA, lie, cheat and steal. He forgot to mention they also assassinate and overthrow democratically elected governments for their resources.

  10. I can’t agree with this, what the US did was disrupt a stable situation with no evidence that the Iranians had violated, and then proceed to hit the IRANIAN PEOPLE with economic sanctions to get at the regime. They have created a situation of mass poverty and international fear because one man child thought he could look like a deal maker by scraping something he didn’t under stand in a region he does not give a shit about. No one benefitted from this, and the Iranians will now never trust the west in a new deal. There moderate factions that backed the deal have been delegitimised and they are fully committed to security through nuclear weapons.

  11. No. But I sure as hell don't value his opinion (whether or not it happens to align with my own) on the only step taken in decades toward fixing the hot mess that his very organization created in the first place. The CIA backed a revolution in Iran against their democratically-elected leader because they thought they could use Iran as a pawn in their ideological chess match against communism. He was pro-nationalization of the oil industry so they toppled his government in favour of a pro-West dictatorship, which eventually led to another revolution that produced the Islamic Republic. It was a short-sighted and highly unethical maneuver that blew-up in their faces anyway. The agency should be gutted and its responsibilities either divided between remaining government organizations or given to a new organization rebuilt from the ground up with accountability and independent oversight in mind. The US doesn't need its own KGB.

  12. 4:26 If that is what he's saying, then he's the type of moron that's been destabilizing Iran-US relations (on both sides) for decades. It was a DEAL and just because it might've, in his opinion, been too much of a compromise from the American position, it's better than no deal, in which Iran has free rein. The crucial part, however, is the deeper function of such an agreement: building trust. To sign a deal and then toss it in the trash not only undermines possible gains in the present, it undermines any potential gains, including more substantial ones, in the future. Why should Iran bother coming to the table if they can't trust that the US won't simply ignore the agreed-upon stipulations following the next election? Look at it from Iran's position: not only have they lost any relief from the economic effects of imposed sanctions they may have gained, they also lost time and resources they could've put toward building their defensive (or offensive) capabilities. From their perspective, not only has the US reimposed sanctions that prevent Iran's economic independence, they've strategically damaged their ability to oppose the US militarily. I have no love for the Iranian regime whatsoever, but I can understand how they might see all of this as a militaristic, imperialist tactic, and propagandize it as such. And if positions were reversed, the American government would use it to reinforce their labelling of Iran as a "rogue state".
    TLDR: Shirking on the deal not only damages this particular one, irrespective of its particular material gains, it impacts any future efforts to come to an agreement by destroying the smidgin of trust that may have been gained by abiding to it.

  13. If you watch videos of people who actually go to Iran, you see that the people there are actually quite friendly. And the women there have far more freedom than say Saudi Arabia or some other middle eastern countries. There's a lot of educated people there. People have a weird idea of what Iran is, and the people who live there. Political freedom does not really exist, but that's different.
    So since the deal was broken, the right wing fundamentalists are gaining more support again within Iran. Just when they were starting to lose support. It's a young population that wants change. But now its heading in the wrong direction. And what is the alternative? There is nothing that has replaced the deal. Nothing in sight. It's a worse situation, not better. It's ass backwards.

  14. This guy has no idea about Iran nor jcpoa. So better not to talk about it. Why the hell should US have the access to inspect military bases? You wanted them not to build nuclear weapons so they are not due to the jcpoa(confirmed by 5+1 except us). well it as an international agreement, it is not possible that an administration is able to withdraw from an agreement made by the last government. It screws the whole reliability of the country . The thing that you don’t understand is that Iran is not United Emirates or Saudi Arabia or other countries in the Middle East that let you build up your bases or interfere in their politics, actually that might be the thing making you so angry.

  15. His main point us that he wants to Inspect all military bases they want. Even israel is not allowing usa to do that. No one on earth will allow another country to do that. Maybe only saudi's!!
    These guys are high!!!

  16. They wanted to sign and that justified us – that’s just pure anti persian hate we can build anything nuclear we want what makes you think you run the world especially the country that invented the idea of United States and the name America

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *