Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Sahra Wagenknecht on the Failing War in Ukraine, the State of German Politics, and Her New Political Party
Video Transcript
April 19, 2024
post photo preview

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


 

NOTE: Exceptionally, this English-language transcript of the interview with Sahra Wagenknecht, originally conducted in German, was released without a paywall for all to enjoy. Locals subscribers have access to a transcript of every System Update episode.


Interview: Sahra Wagenknecht

xstYGYXNmv8R-lhVPTNefhZdSV-sPl-FN23tC95oZ-GiDJUAibsWS9p8Xb60dzrvs_BeFVY_IzfGESNEKc4F4QhRnjHLg_o5i84Of1qIN1vOx_aVBsFZSjjV1nmPwlBg3cUvgq0RqMLX

 

G. GREENWALD: Okay. Sahra, Guten Tag. It's very good to see you again. Thank you for giving us some time.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: A pleasure. I'm also really looking forward to the interview.

 

G. GREENWALD: Let's start with the war in Ukraine. We spoke to you a little bit more than a year ago about your opposition to Germany's involvement in the war. How—14 months later—do you now see this war between Russia and Ukraine? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, it is horrible. This war is ongoing. Clearly, we can see that everything we've been told—including in Germany—such as, we have to supply the tanks, we have to supply the weapons and that would lead to a solution but none of this has worked. And Germany has become more and more of a war party. There are now politicians in Germany who are calling for the war to be taken into Russia with Taurus missiles. That is a very dangerous development. And it has demonstrated in all honesty that anyone who wants to end this war will have to negotiate and finally make a serious offer for negotiations. And I am very pleased that the Pope is also calling for this, that many countries in the South are calling for this, and that we in Germany will continue to call for this. But the German government has so far entirely opposed this.

 

G. GREENWALD: So, independent of moral arguments or geostrategic arguments, it has become clear to everyone that Ukraine cannot possibly win this war, especially as victory was defined by NATO as Russians expelled from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea. The Ukrainians have no artillery, and no people left to send to the front line. The only movements in the front line have been in Russia's favor. Has support in Germany for funding and arming the war in Ukraine changed at all over the last year?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: There is a considerable proportion of the population who see things differently and are also fed up with being told that Ukraine could win this war because they can see that they are unable to do so. But there is a very, very strong media debate in Germany that amounts to the narrative that if we don't stop Putin now, he will invade Poland or Lithuania or the Baltic states. In other words, they are now trying to sway people, who have also come to the realisation that arms deliveries have not led to a turnaround in the war, convinced by creating a new narrative. The new narrative is that we have to do everything we can to stop Putin because if there were to be another compromise now, he would invade other countries. And unfortunately, there are a lot of people in West Germany, and less so in East Germany, who believe that. So you can't say that the mood has now completely changed. 

 

G. GREENWALD: If you look at the history of the 20th century, the one lesson it shows is that very bad things happen when Germany and Russia are antagonistic, or see each other as enemies or involved in wars. And yet we've had the German Chancellor many times give pro-war speeches, saying that Germany must ensure Russia's defeat. What dangers does that create? And what do you think should be the relationship between Germany and Russia? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, relations are very bad. I can imagine that old traumas have been awakened in many people in Russia when they hear that German politicians want to supply weapons to attack Russia. Now, for example, it became public in Russia that there was a discussion among German officers about the delivery of Taurus missiles, where there was a debate about whether it would be possible to deliver them and disguise the fact that they came from Germany. And the Taurus missiles are so dangerous because Ukraine could use them to attack Moscow. They could destroy ministries and the Kremlin in Moscow. They could attack military bases, even nuclear bases in Russia. And when German officers discuss the possibility of delivering such missiles and how it might be possible to conceal the fact that they came from Germany, I can imagine that this will of course reawaken old fears in Russia and that a great deal of historical experience, especially among older people, may bring this back to the surface. The relationship between Germany and Russia is at a low point and that is very regrettable. And it is also incredibly foolish of the Germans because we are harming ourselves above all. Our economy is in crisis because we can't import cheap energy. No gas, no Russian oil. The German economy is now shrinking for the second time this year, probably. We have high inflation, people have lost purchasing power and they are afraid of their industrial jobs. So above all, it is a policy that is damaging the German economy and the people in Germany. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So, at the beginning of the war, in 2022, there was a delusion in the U.S. and in Europe that maybe Ukraine could really win. But I think now almost nobody believes that Ukraine can expel Russia from Ukrainian territory. So what do you think are the real motives in Germany and Europe for why they want to continue this war indefinitely? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, of course, it's a permanent gateway. The war is also very, very expensive for Russia. This means that the economic sanctions will of course remain in place as long as this war continues. You also don't want to admit that you haven't achieved your goals. The German Foreign Minister stepped up at the beginning of the war and said, "We want to ruin Russia", and Russia has not been ruined. On the contrary, Russia now has a close alliance with China and is really very well-paced in the BRICS. Yes, the alliance is getting bigger, but you don't want to admit that, you don't want to acknowledge that either. And I think the German media is much more one-dimensional here. I have the feeling, I also read some of the American press, that there is a more open discussion there about the question of how we can perhaps end this war, how we can get out of it. Meanwhile, for example, the parliamentary group leader of the governing party SPD (Social Democrats) in the Bundestag addressed the issue here, saying that perhaps we need to discuss putting a halt to the war. He was attacked terribly for that. So to address a self-evident fact that we need to end this war means—if you are a member of the SPD in Germany and you recognize that—you will be beaten up for it. The Pope said in an interview that Ukraine needs to consider how negotiations can take place out of self-interest, which was also criticized in the German press. It was said that the Pope was calling on Ukraine to surrender, which he never did. Unfortunately, we also lack diversity and positions in the media here to promote negotiations and to advocate an end to the war, which tends to be pushed very, very much into a corner; these are the people who are allied with Putin, who is running Putin propaganda. And that, of course, has a certain impact on how many people here in the country view the war.

 

G. GREENWALD: It's exactly the same in the United States, everything you just described. Since we last spoke, one of the major developments is that you left the longtime party to which you belong, Die Linke, or the left, to form a new party called Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance for Reason and Justice. Some polls now show your new party polling as high as 20%. One of the things that is most obvious is that the word Linke, left, is not in your party's name, your new party's name. Why is that? And what motivated you to leave the party that you were a member of for so long? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, the Left has unfortunately alienated a large part of its voters. It has mainly focused on these so-called modern, progressive issues, which are mainly within academic milieus, in well-off, privileged milieus, and anti-racism, but also more out of symbolic politics, such as trans debates. But the truly fundamental social problems, wages, pensions, and social fears about the future, have been increasingly lost sight of. And that's why the Left has become very, very weak. Many former voters of the Left have moved to the right and are now voting for the AfD [Alternative für Deutschland]. It's a right-wing party in Germany and at some point, I simply said to myself along with others that we no longer want to watch how the left of the party spectrum is basically just going downhill and the right is benefiting, but rather we want a new force to emerge in Germany that embodies social justice and reason, but also peace policy. Die Linke is increasingly taking very, very unclear positions on the issue of peace policy, for example. A year ago we had a big peace rally with over 50,000 people. The left distanced itself and did not support it. And there are now clear voices on the left that are campaigning for arms deliveries to Ukraine. And that has also contributed to the Left losing voters. And this is where the BSW  [Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht] is now a clear voice for peace, and negotiations, but also for social justice. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So this formula that you're embracing, this new kind of politics, let's say, defending traditional left-wing economic policies to help the working class, but at the same time avoiding or rejecting these very elite left-wing dogmas on culture war issues, seems like that's becoming increasingly visible in other countries in northern Europe as well. Do you see the success of that kind of combination of politics, defending the working class, focusing on their economics, but avoiding these more elite culture war questions as being a framework for success in other left-wing parties in other countries in Northern Europe?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Well, we can't complain about the response and the support we have. It's been very, very strong. We only founded the party in January and we're currently at over 5%, in Germany, in some eastern German states we're in double figures. That really is something that is quite unusual when a party is so new. And that's why I can tell that there really was a big gap in the political system that we are now filling. And I am firmly convinced that we can also change politics in Germany as a result. The stronger we become – we hope to achieve a good result in the European elections – the more we can influence German politics. So if we campaign as a voice for peace, then this will also put pressure on the German government. Or, if we make it an issue that wages have been falling in Germany for three years. That is something that has never happened before in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. It's actually a scandal that people have been losing income for three years and are completely resisting it. And at the same time, we also recognize that people have a longing for stability, and security, that you can't ignore that. In Germany, we live with very high levels of migration. This is something that the Left has always denied. In my opinion, we consider this to be an important issue because it takes place primarily in poor neighborhoods and not in rich ones. So this is already a policy, a policy offer, it also has a logic to it and it's very well received by people. 

 

G. GREENWALD: In the United States, there was a long-time opposition to mass emigration that came mostly from the left, from labor unions, who argued that the people who suffer from mass migration tend to be the poorest, and the working class people whose jobs are taken, whose wages are declined. One of the first, and I guess, most important events that began to drive a wedge between you and your party was your opposition to the policy of Angela Merkel to accept a million refugees from Syria. What do you see as the conflict between immigration, on the one hand, and the interest of the German poor and the working class on the other? 

 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, there is a conflict. My own father is from Iran. I understand that people are looking for a better life and that's why they move to wealthy countries. And I also think that we should talk about why people are fleeing their homeland. Many of those who come to Germany are from countries where wars have taken place and these wars have often been waged by the West, or in part, as in Syria, the West has armed certain groups there and supported this civil war because it wanted a regime change. So there are causes of displacement and migration. But you don't eliminate the causes by saying we're going to open the borders and invite everyone in. You need to achieve changes in the home countries. But here in Germany, it is also the case that housing shortages have of course worsened in the poorer residential areas. There is a lack of daycare places, the schools are swamped, there are many districts where first grade is starting and 80% of the children can't speak a word of German. Integration doesn't work either when the numbers are so high. And that's why the less privileged in Germany are very strongly opposed to such high levels of migration. Incidentally, people who have a migration background themselves even express their desire that this uncontrolled migration be stopped. And that's why this is an important issue for us because it strengthens the Right. High levels of migration, as it is happening now, naturally favor low wages and high rents, overburden the infrastructure and ultimately strengthen the Right. 

 

G. GREENWALD: One of the best-known parties in Germany that claims to be on the left is the Green Party, and it has become successful. It now has, among other people, Annalena Baerbock as its foreign minister. And I recall when the Greens were running, they ran on a platform of what they called a feminist foreign policy. This idea that if you have women in positions of power in foreign policy, it would make war less likely. And yet you have Baerbock and the Greens, along with the president of the EU, who are among the most aggressive supporters of Germany's involvement in the war in Ukraine, Israel's war in Gaza, support for NATO generally. Why did that happen? And how do you understand what role the Green Party plays in Germany?

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, the Greens really are a remarkable phenomenon. The party emerged from the peace movement. So alongside the question of environmental policy, peace policy was a very, very big issue for the first generation of the Greens. Petra Kelly was a great pacifist. She co-founded the Greens. Today, the Greens really are the biggest warmongers. They are the most fanatical about supplying weapons. In some cases, they are people who previously refused to do military service themselves, but who now know all the different types of tanks that are produced in Germany and are pushing aggressively for them to be supplied to Ukraine. Why is that? Well, the Greens are very, very strongly oriented towards the U.S., also on other issues. I can't say for sure why that is, but it is noteworthy. In many respects, the Greens are really the mouthpiece of U.S. politics and represent what is currently being discussed or expected in U.S. politics, and they have completely changed. It certainly also has something to do with this approach of a strong moralization of politics—i.e. you don't do politics to do something good but to be part of the good side. This approach results supposedly to “We are the good guys, the good West is fighting against Putin and the Russian dictatorship”. After all, this too resonates very, very strongly with the Greens as a narrative. In other words, we need to fight for human rights and democracy. It's all a lie. But that's just the Green tone. And in the party, there are now hardly any obvious functionaries who contradict it in any way. There are some in the SPD, but among the Greens, there really is a massive drumbeat for war and also an arrogance towards other countries, which they lecture on how they should be governed, including China, for example. But now the Greens are really the absolute worst when it comes to war policy. 

 

G. GREENWALD: So Ukraine is one war that Germany is providing arms to, but there's another war where Germany is also doing that. That is the war by Israel in Gaza. There's currently a case in the International Court of Justice brought by Nicaragua against Germany, accusing Germany of aiding genocide by providing the arms and bombs to Israel that they use against Palestinian civilians. What is your view of what the German policy toward Israel and its war in Gaza should be? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Yes, I think it's really horrible what we've been seeing in the Gaza Strip for months now. These are war crimes. It's a terrible war against the civilian population, against women, against children. And of course, Germany, or even every German, is special—and they naturally have a different relationship or responsibility towards Israel because of German history, because of the Holocaust. We have always said, and I support this, that we understand or share Israel's right to defend itself against these attacks by Hamas, but what is happening over there has nothing to do with self-defense; it is a major war crime. And that is why we, the BSW, have now submitted a motion in the Bundestag to impose an immediate arms embargo on Israel, i.e. to stop supplying weapons, because Nicaragua is right. Therefore, all countries that supply weapons are partly responsible for this terrible killing in the Gaza Strip. That is why I think it would be deeply appropriate and urgently necessary for us to take a different path here, to stop supplying arms immediately and to condemn this action. Condemn the fact that this is a campaign of revenge and not self-defense. In my opinion, we need to make that very clear. And Netanyahu has now even announced that he may launch a ground offensive on Rafah. And that would take death and horror to a whole new level. So here, I think there is no reason to say that we as Germans should stand on the side of the Israeli government. On the contrary, the Israeli government is basically pursuing a course here that could actually cause the entire Middle East to enter a major war. When I look at the development of relations with Iran, the attack on the Iranian consulate, there is also a possible threat of military escalation. And we absolutely must not allow that to happen, we cannot support it, we need to clearly condemn it and distance ourselves from it, and above all, we need to stop providing weapons. 

 

G. GREENWALD: I think everybody understands the very unique German duty and obligation after the Holocaust and World War II. But I think there are two ways of looking at what Germany's obligation is. One is to say our obligation is just to support Israel in everything that it does, no matter what that is. The other is to say we should oppose genocide and violence against civilians in every instance where it occurs. How does Germany understand the difference between those two options? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: In the meantime, the German media, including the German government, has been mildly critical. It's no longer the case that they support everything the Israeli government does. But there is still far too little criticism. I also believe that we have a responsibility to defend Israel's right to exist, but the kind of warfare we are now seeing does not increase security for people in Israel or for Jews worldwide; on the contrary, it endangers it. It is an extremely right-wing Israeli government, whose defense minister even announced at the beginning that they wanted to wage a war against civilians. He spoke of human animals when he spoke of Palestinians. And that wording is fascistoid and we simply need to speak out and recognize that this is not something we can support and that we have no responsibility whatsoever arising from our history in sharing or engaging in such actions and such contempt for humanity, on the contrary, we must condemn such very clearly. 

 

G. GREENWALD: I know that Germany has a much different approach to free speech than the United States has, especially when it comes to expressions of anti-Semitism, for reasons that I think everybody can understand. At the same time, there have been a lot of reports about attempts to punish and repress defenders of the Palestinian cause or critics of Israel, even sometimes when the critics of Israel are Jewish, we see actions by the German government against them. How serious of a problem is this, and do you think it is something to worry about this attack on free speech in the name of defending Israel? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: So we don't really have an open debate in Germany, we have a clear narrowing of the spectrum of opinion on many issues, including this one. So anyone who formulates harsh criticism here is met with the sledgehammer of anti-Semitism. For example, my co-chairwoman of the BSW was recently on a television program, a talk show, and she was accused of the BSW  being an anti-Semitic party. In other words, we are a party of anti-Semites because we criticize Israel and because we condemn the actions of the Israeli government. This shows that a truly absurd debate is taking place here. We will continue to point out that there is a big difference between anti-Semitism and a completely justified and absolutely necessary criticism of a far-right Israeli government that is committing the worst war crimes in the Gaza Strip. 

 

G. GREENWALD: The last time you and I talked, you made it very clear that you were very opposed to the far-right German party, AfD. And we talked about the differences between yourself and that party because there had been reports that some people on the right are supportive of you and now your new party. And I understand that. But there are also reports, especially in the wake of this explicit racist discussion, that this party may need to be outlawed or prohibited from the ballot. What are your thoughts on how the AfD should be treated legally? 

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: I am strongly against banning the AfD. In my opinion, the whole debate about it is completely misguided. Ultimately, this will help the AfD. We need to deal with its policies and positions. For example, they have European candidates who clearly have a nationalistic worldview. They define being German by blood. That's racism, it's very bad. But you can challenge this in terms of content or you can address the AfD's economic positions. It has a radical position about the market, wants to dismantle the welfare state, and opposes higher minimum wages. Or, for example, it is not a peace party. When it comes to Ukraine, the AfD has positions that are actually similar to ours in that they also advocate a negotiated peace but, regarding the issue of the Gaza conflict, for example, they are a radical supporter of the Israeli government. That has something to do with the fact that they are very strongly anti-Islamic and not ultimately that they are a force for peace. However, you need to challenge them in terms of content and not with blanket bans and blanket exclusion. The main reason they are now gaining so much popularity is because of how poorly Germany is being governed—because the coalition government is so unjust, so haphazard, so incompetent, the economic situation is very bad and people are afraid. That's why the AfD has doubled in the polls in these two years. But that's not because people are right-wing. And if you want to win back these voters, you need to deal with the AfD objectively. 

 

G. GREENWALD: Well, I find your political project not just very interesting, but very relevant to other countries in the West, including the U.S. And it's always a pleasure to speak to you, and I really appreciated your time today.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: You're very welcome, thank you very much. And yes, perhaps until next time. 

 

G. GREENWALD: Guten Tag. Tschüss.

 

SAHRA WAGENKNECHT: Okay. Tschüss. 


And that concludes our show tonight.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
48
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
QUICK: Ask Questions for Today's Mailbag!

Glenn will be discussing the Israel-Iran conflict and a Trump Administration official who is in an awkward political predicament, so questions on other topics are more likely to be chosen.

Seymour Hersh said the US will commence action this weekend.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/what-i-have-been-told-is-coming-in

Cool Episode of ‘The Why Files’……

post photo preview
U.S. and Israel vs Iran: Repeating War on Iraq Scripts; Overwhelming Bipartisan Consensus for Israel's Wars
System Update #469

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeYkVcgzcgVgwTH4HsgQ-PsjfJnkkerEMKzJUBNbex49ctiCfUGCSwgs9h6Vn3qKESfxyvgEpfVQz8nobvNvfVrE9z8iBrAZvKRdf7iPZ-2Qov6I426kA0Sqc0Yy6Oh5amLisL1-RzSK5ykf5mGHyE?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

The war initiated by Israel against Iran last Thursday was dangerous from the start and has each day only become more dangerous. President Trump has boasted of his pre-war coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He's already been using U.S. military assets to protect Israel. He's now even re-deploying aircraft carriers in the Pacific, where we're told they are guarding against America's greatest enemy – China – now to the Middle East, where Israel has demanded they go to support its war. 

Just a few minutes ago, President Trump ordered the 16 million people who live in Tehran to immediately evacuate a city where it's now 2 a.m. 

With Israel, as always, demanding more. Now, they want the U.S. planes and bombs to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities for them. The former Israeli defense minister went on CNN just an hour ago and told President Trump in the U.S. that it's our obligation to fight this war with them. And for them, President Trump has repeatedly opened the possibility of even greater U.S. involvement in the war. 

There are so many aspects of this new conflict worth covering and dissecting –and we will do so throughout the week – but tonight we want to focus on the amazing ease the U.S. government has in convincing its population to support whatever new war is presented to it. Over four years ago, intense war propaganda from the U.S. political class and media persuaded Americans to want to fund and arm the war in Ukraine – a war that is still dragging on with no favorable end in sight – and overnight huge numbers of people in the United States have suddenly become convinced without having ever said so previously that war with Iran is some sort of moral imperative as well as a strategic necessity for the survival of American citizens of the United States. 

No matter how debunked, discredited and disgraced that Iraq war narrative has become, as long as one just waits 20 or 25 years, then, apparently, that same script just works like magic all over again. You just haul it out, fearmongering, and huge numbers of people respond by saying, "Yes, let's go to war, let' kill people." 

We'll examine all of that, as well as the standard bipartisan unity in support of new American wars and especially wars involving Israel, you hear Democrats almost unanimously, either staying quiet or praising President Trump, with just a few exceptions from both parties. And we'll look at that as well. 

AD_4nXeYkVcgzcgVgwTH4HsgQ-PsjfJnkkerEMKzJUBNbex49ctiCfUGCSwgs9h6Vn3qKESfxyvgEpfVQz8nobvNvfVrE9z8iBrAZvKRdf7iPZ-2Qov6I426kA0Sqc0Yy6Oh5amLisL1-RzSK5ykf5mGHyE?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

AD_4nXdXi3PHhIfI5UY5jue2s_VN_Dre1s5GH_qzxPS39EBWpyASwtOnszEASDMpdRuJzVlrD4idh5uDoPcdU38-w-kpHnSvAo9rtxSpcN4lW-sAiALyp2wxVRGqfHoLUqaYrKPxb_-HZMv3-aKzQLw90g?key=aMiM9imCrTsNamRKd6Vfew

If you're an American citizen as an adult, you have seen the United States repeatedly go to war. Anyone 18 or over has seen the United States involved in all sorts of wars and that's after the Iraq war, which is now 22 years ago. Essentially, if you're American, it means forever, for a long, long time, for many decades, that you are a citizen of a country that's always at war. 

After World War II, there was a very visible and clear pattern, which is that the U.S. government convinces its citizens, enough of them, to support the war at the beginning. They deluge them with war propaganda, which is extremely strong, primal, tribal and enough Americans initially support the war to let the U.S. government politically go and drop bombs or finance some other country to go drop bombs for it. Then, after six months, a year, or two years, or four years, polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the war that they were convinced to support. Going back to the war in Vietnam, throughout the 1980s’ wars, the War on Terror in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, the financing of the war in Ukraine, Israel's destruction of Gaza, bombing Yemin and now this new war that the United States is becoming increasingly involved in, in lots of different ways and we're only on the fifth day.

You just see so many Americans on a dime the minute a new war is presented to them, with whatever pretext can be conjured, even if they're exactly the same pretext that most Americans lived through watching proved to be complete lies the last time it was used in 2003, even though it's exactly the same script, exactly the same pretext, coming from exactly the same people. You can get enough Americans to immediately stand up and start cheering for death and destruction and bombing. Not all, a very substantial minority oppose it, I think if the U.S. overtly gets even more involved in the war in Iran, obviously anything resembling ground troops entering Iran, but even perhaps prolonged bombing of Iran as well through U.S. jets and bombs, as President Trump has indicated and Israel has demanded, maybe some of that will erode, that support will erode. But all that's needed is enough support at the beginning of the war to let the government start it. And once the U.S. government enters the war, it doesn't matter anymore whether the people continue to support it; then it's just already done. All the normal arguments are assembled about why we can't stop, why we can't cut and run, why that would be appeasement, etc., etc. All the same scripts all the time, used over and over, and even though they get proven to be discredited, or unpersuasive, or full of lies, you just use the same ones each time. And that's how the United States stays as a country at war.

We've been hearing a lot of people saying, “Look, I'm happy that Israel is bombing Iran, as long as the U.S. has no involvement in the war, we don't enter it, we don't have to pay for it. As long as it's not our war, I'm fine with it.” But, of course, the entire Israeli military is funded by American taxpayers. Every time Israel has a new war, the weapons that it uses come from the United States, transferred to Israel. We pay for their wars, we arm their wars, we support diplomatically those wars and we use our military assets every single time and our intelligence apparatus to support and enable the war, as the United States is already doing. We already have multiple new U.S. military assets ordered to the region by President Trump. They're already active in protecting Israel from retaliation. President Trump openly said that he is considering the possibility of involving the U.S. even more directly in this war with Iran: "We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president said. (ABC News. June 15, 2025.)

That all depends on what you mean by ‘involved.’ We're paying for the war, we're arming the war, we've deployed military assets that are actively now trying to shoot down missiles coming from Iran as retaliation for the Israelis launching a completely unprovoked attack on Iran, based on the claim that Iran was about to get nuclear weapons, just weeks away, something they've been saying for 30 years, as we've shown you many times, same thing that was said in 2002. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
U.S. Involvement in Israel's Iran Attack; the View from Tehran: Iranian Professor on Reactions to Strikes; CATO Analysts on Dangers and War Escalations

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXd1VoS9xg7si8ZviLBfSqd9c5_FMQdODz9RYxLWVBvtebHFOs0oWtttaWP_7qvL_VZdS0enruALLjYbkU-CdLQUDxNECHRbc5Y9OjrLuK-6y6Uq602-Q9fTzTYkN5_S0oVACoqvAhTWU86eCRc8vZU?key=lmRJixp6Jlz5wRA3fSBDAg

Today's most important news is obvious: Israel last night launched a major military assault on Iran, targeting residential buildings in Tehran, where military commanders and nuclear physicists live with their families, as well as bombing multiple nuclear facilities throughout the country. 

Triumphalist rhetoric flooded American and Israeli discourse almost immediately, until just a little bit ago, when a barrage of Iran's ballistic and hypersonic missiles began hitting Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other major population centers. Escalation seems virtually inevitable at this point. The level of escalation – always the most dangerous question when a new war has started – is most certainly yet to be determined. 

Then there's the question of the role of the United States and President Trump in all of this. News reports from both the U.S. and Israeli media suggested this morning that Trump was working hand-in-hand with the Israelis to pretend that he was still optimistic about a diplomatic resolution with Tehran, but did so only as a ruse to convince the Iranians that Trump intended to restrain Israel and thus lure Iran into a false sense of security when, in fact, Trump was not only green-lighting the attack but actively working with the Israelis to launch it. President Trump's own statements today proudly boasting of the success of the attack, along with his own concrete actions such as ordering U.S. military assets into position to yet again defend Israel, strongly bolster those reports and clearly indicate a direct U.S. involvement in this war between Israel and Iran, a U.S. involvement that already exists and will almost certainly continue to grow over the next few days and perhaps few weeks and even months. 

We’ll speak to Professor Mohammad Marandi, who is in Tehran and has heard and witnessed a lot of what happened but also has some unique analysis from his role as an American Iranian scholar of foreign policy and to scholars Justin Logan and Jon Hoffman, from the Cato Institute, one of the very few think tanks in the United States, which has long counselled restraint and non-interventionism in U.S. foreign policy. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Federal Court Dismisses & Mocks Lawsuit Brought by Pro-Israel UPenn Student; Dave Portnoy, Crusader Against Cancel Culture, Demands No More Jokes About Jews; Trump's Push to Ban Flag Burning
System Update #466

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXejs0DWGiP8ieMfNSDSHxWeGpA0bYQ2sB6GX53BerQgLDbevN48qlCXkh11p78EUWG7xmSLMCw_dta-m52iwfsgIA3W2CeT9zra6jIl7Krf7sFz7NI2c-vDb2dnkU0ifL9MRhw4ltCOYIB3YKvkIQQ?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

In the first segment, we’ll talk about the victimhood narrative that holds that American Jews, in general, and Jewish students on college campuses in particular, are uniquely threatened, marginalized and endangered. One of the faces of this student victimhood narrative has become Eyal Yakoby, who is a vocal pro-Israel activist and a student at the University of Pennsylvania. 

In 2024, he was invited by House Republicans to stand next to House Speaker Mike Johnson and he proclaimed: I do not feel safe. He said it over and over. “I do not feel safe” has kind of become the motto for his adult life. Now, he seized on those opportunities by initiating a lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania seeking damages for what he said was the school's failure to fulfill its duties to keep him safe. Mind you, he was never physically attacked, never physically menaced, never physically threatened, but nonetheless claimed that the school had failed to keep him safe and told the congress in the country that he did not feel safe. 

The federal judge who is presiding over his lawsuit, who just happens to be a Jewish judge, a conservative judge, appointed by George W. Bush, not only dismissed Yakoby's lawsuit as without any basis, but really viciously mocked it, depicting his claims as a little more than petulant entitled demands from a privileged Ivy League student who wants to not be exposed to any ideas or political activism that might upset him – sort of depicting him as the Princess in “The Princess and the Pea,” Andersen’s literary fairytale about a princess who's so sensitive to anything that might concern her, that she's even unable to sleep if there's a pea buried beneath the seventeenth mattress on which she sleeps. 

This judicial decision is worth examining not only for the schadenfreude of watching one of America's whiniest pro-Israel activists be exposed as a self-interested fraud that he is, but also for what it says about the broader narrative that has been so relentlessly pushed and so endlessly exploited from so many corners, insisting that the supreme victim group of the United States is, of all people, American Jews. 

Then: speaking of extreme entitlement, Barstool founder Dave Portnoy made quite a name for himself over many years by ranting against the evils of cancel culture, championing the virtues of free speech, and viciously mocking as snowflakes and as people who are far too sensitive anyone who takes offense at jokes, offensive jokes told by comedians. That is what made it so odd – yet so telling – when this weekend we watched the very same Dave Portnoy viciously berated one of his employees for disagreeing with Portnoy's insistence that while jokes about everyone and every group continue to be appropriate, there must now be one exception: namely, according to Portnoy, jokes about Portnoy's own group,  American Jews,  must now be suspended and deemed too dangerous to permit. 

AD_4nXejs0DWGiP8ieMfNSDSHxWeGpA0bYQ2sB6GX53BerQgLDbevN48qlCXkh11p78EUWG7xmSLMCw_dta-m52iwfsgIA3W2CeT9zra6jIl7Krf7sFz7NI2c-vDb2dnkU0ifL9MRhw4ltCOYIB3YKvkIQQ?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

AD_4nXeNPsWu8SYZVkQAs1AKBVzXSCqCNnJSXFRz97DnkaHGIxGix2Zh6YmbJTQCrmPrgX3vqBOePYDLHyYhwxRNyY7s7q2Ucj32uOVbkk6jWZgH6dWxrUKjcwab1q_D0yJ_S0Fv_z7W0ckJp94i_tscuw?key=UyjQkErH6uhdu9Xo5Lcq4g

There have been really a lot of radical and fundamental changes, first on the political culture and then in our legal landscape as a result of the attack on October 7, and particularly the desire of the United States – by both parties – to arm the Israelis, to fund the Israelis, to protect the Israelis as they went about and destroyed Gaza. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals