Rubio and McBride Clash Over Trump’s NATO Remarks in House Hearing - Greenland Ownership Question Follows NATO Value Debate

Secretary of State Marco Rubio faced direct questioning from Representative Sarah McBride during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in early June 2026.

McBride, a Democrat from Delaware, focused on statements by President Donald Trump that she argued went beyond normal pressure on allies and risked weakening NATO itself.

The exchange centered on two specific Trump comments: one from a January 21 speech in Davos in which he said the United States “never got anything” from NATO, and a later Truth Social post in which he said of the alliance that “they will do nothing for us.”

McBride asked Rubio whether he shared the president’s assessment that the United States never received value from NATO. Rubio answered by explaining the practical benefits he sees in the alliance. He stated that one major reason for U.S. involvement has been access to bases in Europe that support American operations in contingencies, citing Germany as an example. He added that some NATO countries have recently denied the United States use of those bases, which he described as undercutting the original purpose of American participation.

McBride noted that Trump’s critical remarks occurred before the Iran war and therefore fell outside any Article 5 collective defense context. She repeated her question about whether Rubio agreed with the claim that the United States never got anything from NATO. Rubio replied that he shared the president’s view “on issues that are a priority to the United States.” McBride interpreted the answer as disagreement with the literal claim and moved forward. She then reminded the committee that Article 5 has been invoked only once, after the September 11 attacks, and that European countries lost more than one thousand service members in the subsequent operations, with Denmark suffering the highest per capita losses among allies.

The discussion shifted to Greenland. McBride referenced Trump’s earlier statement that the United States needs ownership of Greenland in order to defend it.

She asked whether ownership of territory inside NATO is required for defense. Rubio said it would be easier to defend Greenland if the United States controlled it and noted that talks with Denmark and Greenland continue on a regular basis. When pressed on Article 5, Rubio stated that the United States remains in the alliance, that the president would attend the next NATO heads of state meeting, and that NATO needs significant changes. He did not give an unqualified pledge that the United States would automatically defend an ally under Article 5 in every future scenario.

The exchange illustrated a consistent administration emphasis on greater European defense spending and reduced reliance on U.S. forces while retaining formal membership in the alliance.

Rubio has described NATO as still useful for power projection but in need of reform so that member states develop stronger capabilities of their own.

Coverage of the hearing highlighted both the specific quotes and Rubio’s pivot toward operational access and burden sharing rather than a direct endorsement of Trump’s strongest language.

SOURCES:

https://mcbride.house.gov/media/press-releases/video-release-rep-mcbride-challenges-secretary-rubio-trumps-attacks-nato

https://atlantablackstar.com/2026/06/09/rubio-thought-he-had-an-easy-way-out-then-a-congresswoman-blew-up-every-spin-attempt-and-sent-the-exchange-off-the-rails/

Share

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #NATODebate #RubioHearing #Article5

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law

Mike Rogers is calling out Abdul El-Sayed - What Half-Sister Eman Abdelhadi Wrote in 2012 and 2013

Mike Rogers is calling out Abdul El-Sayed for looking Michigan voters in the eye on Meet the Press and saying he and his family have zero ties to the Muslim Brotherhood when his own half sister posted years ago that the family has long been MB and that their mother was active in the group back in college in Egypt.

That same mother later worked for a relief outfit the U.S. Treasury tagged for supporting terrorists including al Qaeda.

El-Sayed was raised mostly by his dad after the divorce and nobody has shown he personally joined anything, but when a candidate for the U.S. Senate flat out denies family history that his own sister put online it raises a simple America first question.

Do you trust someone who will not level with you about where his people stood with groups that have backed Hamas and worse, or do you want a senator who puts this country first no matter where the family came from. Voters can decide if that denial is honest enough for the job.

Michigan Senate Candidates Clash Over Family Ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

Republican nominee Mike Rogers released a campaign ad and social media posts on October 12, 2026, accusing Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed of lying during a Meet the Press interview about family connections to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Rogers stated that El-Sayed’s denial was an outright lie and that the candidate and his family had surrounded themselves with extreme organizations. The ad incorporated clips from the interview along with references to a half-sister’s earlier public statements.

On the October 11 broadcast, moderator Kristen Welker asked El-Sayed whether he or his family had any ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sayed answered “No.” Welker followed up by confirming that he personally had no ties, then asked about his family.

El-Sayed again said “No” and began to discuss why the question was being raised. El-Sayed, a physician and progressive Democrat who would become the first Muslim member of the U.S. Senate if elected, has consistently rejected claims of personal affiliation with the group.

Rogers and supporting outlets pointed to social media posts by El-Sayed’s half-sister, Eman Abdelhadi, a University of Chicago assistant professor. On June 24, 2012, days after Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi won Egypt’s presidential election, Abdelhadi wrote that her family “has long been MB” and that she had spoken with her mother about the mother’s activism in the Muslim Brotherhood during college in Egypt in the early 1970s. In July 2013 posts she stated that she had family members jailed for belonging to the group and that she was praying for relatives who supported it in Egypt during political turmoil. She also noted conversations with “MB family in Egypt.”

Abdelhadi and El-Sayed share the same biological mother, Fatten Elkomy, who emigrated from Egypt in the late 1970s. The parents divorced when El-Sayed was a toddler; he was raised primarily by his father in Michigan while Abdelhadi lived with their mother. Elkomy later worked as a nurse practitioner for the Islamic American Relief Agency, an organization the U.S. Treasury designated in 2004 for providing support to terrorist groups including al-Qaeda. Court records referenced her in connection with certain fund transfers, but she was never charged and left the organization that year. No public records establish that El-Sayed himself joined the Brotherhood, met specific members of the maternal extended family involved with it, or maintained ongoing operational ties.

A September 2026 Bridge Michigan fact check found no evidence that El-Sayed had pledged personal support to the Muslim Brotherhood or held explicit membership.

The review noted that he had written about Egyptian politics, including a 2011 column urging U.S. support for that country’s revolution and participation in a 2012 group statement defending then-President Morsi. Separate claims have also involved El-Sayed’s father-in-law’s past roles with the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, organizations named as unindicted co-conspirators in a federal case involving Hamas financing; neither group was itself convicted. The United States has designated certain branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations, citing support for Hamas, though the group’s Egyptian leadership and activities have varied across decades.

The exchange fits a broader pattern in the Michigan Senate race in which Rogers has repeatedly highlighted El-Sayed’s associations, campaign donors, and family history while El-Sayed has framed the attacks as an effort to question his faith rather than his record. Available evidence shows clear maternal-side family history with the Brotherhood as described by Abdelhadi, alongside an absence of documentation that El-Sayed personally joined or actively supported the organization. Voters must weigh those distinctions against the candidates’ policy positions ahead of the November election.

SOURCES

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/mike-rogers-accuses-el-sayed-of-lying-about-familys-muslim-brotherhood-connect-citing-his-sister/ 

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/abdul-el-sayeds-family-has-long-been-in-egyptian-muslim-brotherhood-senate-candidates-sister-said-in-unearthed-social-media-posts/ 

https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/fact-check-no-evidence-abdul-el-sayed-pledged-support-to-muslim-brotherhood/ 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ck5yndgnwez1o 

Share

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #MichiganSenate #MuslimBrotherhood #ElSayedRogers

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law

Which Florida counties ordered people out, and who did not

Hurricane Isaias is the first hurricane of the 2026 Atlantic season, and on Friday morning it was a Category 3 storm with sustained winds of 120 miles per hour.

The National Hurricane Center placed it south of Pensacola, Florida, moving north northeast, with landfall expected along the Florida Panhandle late Friday.

Forecasters warned of a life threatening storm surge, heavy rain, tornadoes, and widespread power outages. A Category 3 rating describes wind speed. It does not, by itself, describe how much water will come ashore or how long production will stay offline.

The phrase “Get out NOW” came from public officials urging people already under local orders, including a social media warning from Florida Senator Rick Scott. It is not a single federal evacuation of the entire Gulf Coast. Mandatory orders are county decisions tied to surge zones. Escambia County ordered zones A and B out as of noon Thursday, covering Pensacola Beach, Perdido Key, other low areas exposed to roughly 7 to 10 feet of surge, and mobile homes.

Santa Rosa County expanded its order Friday morning. Okaloosa County ordered coastal sections out starting Thursday noon, including Okaloosa Island and parts of Fort Walton Beach, Destin, Mary Esther, and Niceville. Florida’s governor had already declared a state of emergency for 25 counties. Alabama and Georgia also issued emergency declarations in affected areas. People outside those zones were not under the same order.

The 63 percent oil figure is real, and it is easy to misread. On Thursday, the Marine Minerals Administration said operator reports through 11 a.m. Central Time showed about 62.89 percent of current daily Gulf oil production shut in, roughly 1.28 million barrels a day, and about 57.35 percent of Gulf natural gas. Crews had left 121 production platforms, 32.61 percent of 371 manned platforms, plus five rigs that are not dynamically positioned.

By Friday at 11 a.m. Central Time the same agency reported a higher estimate: 71.51 percent of Gulf oil, or 1,458,814 barrels a day, and 58.84 percent of Gulf gas.

Evacuations had risen to 129 platforms, 34.77 percent of the manned fleet, and eight non dynamically positioned rigs. Those percentages are of offshore Gulf output, not of all United States oil. Federal Gulf production is about 2 million barrels a day, roughly 15 percent of national crude.

Shutting a well is a standard safety step, not proof that a platform is damaged. Operators close production, pull people, and in some cases move floating rigs, then inspect before restart. Shell said evacuations were complete at Appomattox, Mars, Ursa, Olympus, and Vito, with production shut at Mars, Ursa, Olympus, and Vito.

Chevron said it had removed most personnel, kept four operated platforms producing, and shut the other five. The pace was fast. Tuesday’s survey, based on one company, showed no platform evacuations and about 9 percent of Gulf oil offline. Wednesday was about 25 percent of oil and 16 percent of gas. Thursday’s report covered 12 companies and jumped to the 63 percent level.

How much oil is actually lost depends on the track and on damage, which is not yet known. Earth Science Associates first modeled about 9 million barrels of Gulf oil disrupted across the storm, then cut that to roughly 7.2 million barrels as the forecast path shifted east, away from more of the producing area.

A model is not a final count. Undamaged facilities can return after checks. Damaged ones stay down longer. Refineries are a separate system from offshore platforms. Chevron’s Pascagoula refinery sits inside the hurricane warning area, so onshore fuel supply can be hit even if a given platform is spared.

The storm is still offshore as of Friday afternoon. Surge forecasts from the hurricane center included roughly 5 to 7 feet above ground from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, to Indian Pass, Florida, and in Mobile Bay, with lower ranges on either side of that stretch. Bridges in the Pensacola area were set to close once sustained winds reached about 38 miles per hour, which can trap people who wait. The oil number will keep moving until crews go back. The evacuation number will not. It is already set by the counties that issued the orders.

SOURCES

https://www.bsee.gov/newsroom/latest-news/statements-and-releases/press-releases/mma-monitors-gulf-response-isaias3 

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-gulf-producers-shut-more-oil-gas-isaias-nears-landfall-2026-10-09/ 

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/hurricane-isaias-strengthens-us-gulf-coast-prepares-landfall-2026-10-08/ 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Hurricane-Isaias-Shuts-In-128-Million-Bpd-of-Gulf-Oil-Production.html 

https://www.pnj.com/story/weather/hurricanes/2026/10/08/escambia-issues-evacuation-orders-for-zones-a-and-b-ahead-of-isaias/92154614007/ 

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cmkge3x2x969t 

Share

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #HurricaneIsaias #GulfOilShutIn #FloridaEvacuations

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law

A Laboratory Death Has Triggered Quarantines, International Monitoring and a Flood of Unverified Claims

A frightening claim is spreading online that a “viral plague” has escaped from a Russian biological laboratory and caused widespread panic. The underlying incident is real, but the most alarming version of the story remains unproven.

A 28 year old laboratory worker at the Irkutsk Anti Plague Research Institute in Siberia died after developing severe pneumonia.

Authorities subsequently placed roughly 200 people under medical observation and imposed quarantine measures at medical facilities. Russian health officials, however, have not confirmed plague as the cause of death or identified a laboratory leak.

Russia’s federal public health agency, Rospotrebnadzor, has described the illness as pneumonia of unknown origin. Officials say testing did not identify microorganisms associated with the woman’s professional activities. Reports that she may have broken a test tube containing plague bacteria have circulated, but those claims have not been independently established. The institute has reportedly found no evidence of an accident involving pathogen handling.

The government response nevertheless deserves attention. Contacts of the deceased worker were placed under medical supervision, a hospital was quarantined and additional disease control measures were implemented. Those precautions indicate that officials consider the situation serious enough to investigate, but quarantine itself does not establish what pathogen caused the illness. According to the available reporting, no additional confirmed plague infections have been identified.

There is also an important scientific correction to the headlines. Plague is not a virus. It is a bacterial disease caused by Yersinia pestis.

The bacterium continues to exist naturally in wildlife populations, including regions of Siberia, so the presence of a plague research facility does not by itself prove that an infection originated inside the laboratory. Determining the source would require laboratory testing and epidemiological evidence.

Pneumonic plague is the form that would create the greatest public health concern because it affects the lungs and can spread between people through respiratory droplets during close contact. It can become fatal very quickly without treatment, but modern antibiotics and established public health procedures have made plague a treatable disease when recognized promptly. Pneumonic plague also should not automatically be described as an airborne disease in the same sense as highly transmissible infections such as measles.

The number of people being monitored should also be placed in context. Approximately 200 people under observation does not mean 200 people have plague. Medical observation and quarantine are standard precautions when officials are investigating an unexplained illness that could involve a dangerous pathogen. Reports indicate that some people under observation tested positive for other respiratory infections, while no additional confirmed plague cases had been identified.

International health officials are watching the situation. The World Health Organization has sought additional information from Russia and has assessed the current public health risk to the general population as low based on the information available. Experts at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health have similarly cautioned against treating uncertainty as evidence of a major outbreak.

That does not mean the laboratory question should simply be dismissed. The facility handles dangerous pathogens, a worker died after developing severe pneumonia and authorities responded with containment measures. Those facts justify continued investigation. Russia’s history also gives outside observers reason to demand transparency. The Soviet Union maintained a large biological weapons program, and investigations into the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak eventually established that a military laboratory accident was responsible. That history justifies scrutiny of the current incident, but it does not prove that the Irkutsk case resulted from another laboratory accident.

The shadow of COVID 19 is also influencing the public reaction. A laboratory worker, an unexplained respiratory illness, quarantine measures and conflicting reports naturally remind people of the early stages of the pandemic. But resemblance is not evidence of the same event. The current facts remain much narrower: one confirmed death from unexplained pneumonia, precautionary monitoring, unverified reports of possible plague exposure and no confirmed laboratory leak or sustained person to person plague transmission.

The responsible position is therefore neither dismissal nor panic. There is a legitimate public health investigation involving a dangerous pathogen research facility, and authorities should establish exactly what caused the woman’s illness and whether any occupational exposure occurred. At the same time, declaring that a plague pathogen has escaped from a Russian laboratory goes beyond the evidence currently available.

The story will change if laboratory testing confirms Yersinia pestis, if investigators establish a laboratory exposure or if additional linked cases emerge.

Until then, the facts support a serious investigation, not a confirmed plague outbreak. The distinction matters because public health decisions must be based on evidence, especially when fear can spread faster than the disease itself.

Sources

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/dozens-quarantined-siberia-after-plague-institute-lab-worker-dies-2026-10-05/ 

https://sph.emory.edu/news/what-we-know-about-death-russian-lab-worker 

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/plague 

https://www.cdc.gov/plague/hcp/clinical-care/index.html 

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/rr/rr7003a1.htm 

https://www.cdc.gov/plague/hcp/emergency-guidance/index.html 

https://www.cdc.gov/plague/diagnosis-testing/index.html 

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240090422 

https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/russian-report-worker-siberian-plague-institute-fell-ill-137000129 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/10/05/us-officials-seeking-details-of-reported-russian-plague-death-quarantines/ 

https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/05/situation-under-control-russian-authorities-reassure-public-after-plague-reports-in-siberi 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/10/05/russia-lab-worker-pneumonic-plague/ 

Share

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #Plague #BiologicalSecurity #Russia

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law

From the 1953 Coup to Suez, Washington’s Changing Position in the World

The recent 26 page open letter from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to the American public deserves to be examined for what it actually says, but also for what it leaves out.

The letter is unquestionably political propaganda. It portrays Iran as the victim, presents its own government in a favorable light, attacks President Donald Trump, condemns American support for Israel, and directly encourages Americans to use the November midterm elections to change their government.

The United States State Department has dismissed the effort as a propaganda campaign designed to obscure Iran’s conduct and the damage inflicted on its military infrastructure. That assessment should not simply be ignored. At the same time, dismissing the letter entirely risks missing the historical argument embedded inside it. Reuters

The most interesting part of the controversy concerns the IRGC’s discussion of 1953. The letter identifies the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh as a foundational event in the history of Iranian hostility toward the United States. It describes Mosaddegh as an Americanophile and connects his downfall to his effort to nationalize Iran’s oil resources. What is striking is the treatment of Britain. The letter emphasizes the CIA, the Shah, Israel and later American involvement, but largely leaves out the British role in creating the conditions that led to the coup. That omission matters because the historical record does not support the idea that Britain was merely an innocent bystander. EIR

The documentary record is unusually clear on this point. In late 1952, British officials approached the Truman administration about removing Mosaddegh. A November 26, 1952 State Department memorandum explicitly recorded that the British Foreign Office had proposed cooperation on a coup and that British intelligence believed such an operation might be the best remaining option.

The British government was deeply frustrated by the collapse of negotiations over oil and increasingly believed Mosaddegh could not be persuaded to reach an acceptable settlement. The document also shows that American officials recognized the risks. They warned that overthrowing Mosaddegh could damage relations with Iran, alienate the Iranian population and create wider regional consequences. National Security Archive

That does not mean the CIA was an unwilling participant that simply followed British orders. The United States ultimately became an active participant in the operation. A declassified CIA document states that the campaign to remove Mosaddegh was authorized by President Eisenhower, the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence in July 1953. The operation sought to bring about the fall of Mosaddegh’s government and replace it with a pro Western government under the Shah, with General Fazlollah Zahedi as prime minister. Eisenhower later privately acknowledged that the United States had helped bring about the Shah’s restoration and Mosaddegh’s removal. Office of the Historian

The important historical distinction is therefore not whether America or Britain was responsible. Both played roles, although their roles and timing were different.

Britain had powerful economic interests in Iranian oil and pressed Washington to consider regime change. The United States eventually adopted the operation and supplied critical covert assistance. Reducing the entire history to an exclusively American conspiracy leaves out Britain. Reducing it to a purely British operation does the opposite. The evidence supports a more complicated conclusion: British economic and strategic interests helped drive the effort, while American intelligence and political power became decisive participants in its execution.

That history becomes relevant because the current dispute is taking place around another strategic energy corridor. The 1953 crisis centered heavily on oil and Western influence over Iranian resources. Today, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints. The present conflict is therefore not simply a dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. It also involves maritime security, energy markets, regional power, Israel’s security, American military credibility and the future political order of the Persian Gulf. That does not prove that oil is the secret explanation for current American policy. It does demonstrate why energy and strategic geography cannot be removed from the analysis.

The comparison with the 1956 Suez Crisis is consequently more serious than it might first appear. Suez began when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company, a British and French enterprise.

Britain and France regarded Nasser as a threat to their remaining influence in the Middle East. Israel subsequently joined them in a secret military arrangement. Israel invaded Egypt, followed by British and French military intervention. President Dwight Eisenhower refused to support the operation and instead pressured Britain and France to accept a ceasefire and withdrawal. The United States also supported United Nations action against the invasion. Office of the Historian

Suez demonstrated something that Washington had to confront repeatedly during the twentieth century: American interests and European interests were not always identical. Eisenhower understood that supporting the British and French invasion would associate the United States with European colonialism at precisely the moment when nationalist movements were spreading throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East. He also feared that the Soviet Union could exploit the crisis. Washington therefore chose to pressure its own allies rather than allow them to determine American policy. The decision damaged relations with London and Paris temporarily, but the United States eventually emerged with greater influence in the Middle East. Office of the Historian

That is the central reason some analysts now describe the Iran conflict as Washington’s Suez moment. Foreign Affairs has explicitly compared the present crisis with Suez, while also warning against assuming that historical change happens overnight.

The British and French empires did not disappear immediately after Suez. Britain remained a major Gulf power for years afterward, and France continued fighting to preserve its position in Algeria. The larger geopolitical transformation became obvious only over time. The same argument can be applied to the United States today. A military setback, a failed diplomatic strategy or a breakdown in confidence among allies does not automatically end American influence. It can, however, accelerate a process already underway. FlipHTML5

This is where the current political language surrounding Iran becomes significant. President Trump recently said Iran had been “decimated” and that Tehran faced a choice between the easy way and the hard way. His statement came as the administration continued weighing its next move in a conflict involving the Strait of Hormuz and continuing military pressure. The language communicates determination, but it also creates a strategic problem. If Washington defines victory in increasingly expansive terms, every compromise can begin to look like weakness. The longer a conflict continues without a clearly defined political settlement, the more difficult it becomes to determine what success actually means. CBS News

Richard Haass’s criticism therefore goes beyond the immediate question of Iran. Following Trump’s United Nations speech, Haass argued that American foreign policy was moving away from a model based heavily on consent and cooperation and toward one based more heavily on coercion and force. Whether one agrees with Haass or not, his argument identifies a genuine strategic question. American power has historically depended on more than military capability. It has also depended on alliances, financial influence, diplomatic relationships, intelligence cooperation and the willingness of other governments to believe that cooperation with Washington serves their interests. If those governments begin preparing for a world in which American policy is less predictable, American power can decline even without a military defeat. PodScripts

The European reaction illustrates that concern. Chatham House director Bronwen Maddox has argued that the traditional Western alliance is under severe strain and that European governments increasingly have to consider how they would protect their own interests if Washington becomes less reliable as an ally.

Her argument is not evidence that NATO is ending or that Europe is preparing for war with America. It is evidence of something more measurable: European strategists are discussing greater independence from Washington because they no longer assume that American priorities will always coincide with European priorities. Chatham House

Canada provides an even more unusual example. Prime Minister Mark Carney told The New York Times that his government had examined the possibility of American military action against Canada as an “extreme tail risk.” Carney emphasized that such a conflict was not the base case and described the preparation as ordinary risk management. That distinction is important. Canada is not predicting an American invasion. It is acknowledging that responsible governments examine even highly unlikely scenarios when relations with a major power become sufficiently uncertain. Canada has also been working to reduce dependence on the United States in areas such as technology and defense procurement. Irish Times

Taken together, these developments do not prove Susan Kokinda’s broader interpretation that an American confrontation with Iran represents the final collapse of a British dominated geopolitical system or the destruction of the postwar Western order. That is an interpretation, not an established historical fact. The evidence does support a narrower and more defensible conclusion. The United States is operating in a world where old alliances, old assumptions and old power relationships are being reconsidered. The 1953 Iranian coup demonstrates how foreign intervention can create political consequences that survive for generations. Suez demonstrates that even great powers can discover that military capability does not guarantee political control. The present Iran conflict is testing whether the United States can impose its objectives without producing a wider strategic backlash.

The IRGC letter should therefore be read with two thoughts in mind at the same time. Iran has a clear propaganda interest in portraying itself as an innocent victim and encouraging Americans to oppose their own government.

Its claims cannot simply be accepted at face value. But the existence of Iranian propaganda does not erase documented American and British intervention in Iranian history. Nor does criticism of Iran require Americans to pretend that every previous American foreign policy decision was wise. A serious examination requires both facts to remain visible.

The larger issue may ultimately have less to do with whether Iran wins or loses a particular military confrontation. The deeper question is what kind of international position the United States wants to occupy afterward. Washington can remain a dominant military and economic power while still losing political influence if allies begin making contingency plans around American pressure rather than American partnership. That is what makes the current moment important.

The question is no longer simply what happens to Iran.

It is whether the United States can use its enormous power without convincing the rest of the world that it must increasingly prepare for a future in which American power is something to hedge against rather than something to rely upon.

Sources

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iran/2017-08-08/1953-iran-coup-new-us-documents-confirm-british-approached-us-late 

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54IranEd2/d148 

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Iran/d363 

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54IranEd2/d328 

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/suez 

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v16/d373 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/authors/gamal-abdel-nasser 

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/chatham-house-director-bronwen-maddox-warns-does-mark-end-western-alliance 

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-revolutionary-guards-call-trump-big-liar-2026-09-29/ 

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/canada/2026/09/25/mark-carney-says-canada-has-prepared-for-extreme-tail-risk-of-us-military-action/ 

Share

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #Iran #Geopolitics #AmericanForeignPolicy

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law

Claims on Disease, Assassination, and Global Coordination - Warrants, Confrontation, and Death in 2001

Bill Cooper spent more than a decade assembling documents, radio transcripts, and public records into one continuous argument about concentrated power.

Milton William Cooper, known as Bill Cooper, was born on May 6, 1943, in Long Beach, California, and died on November 5, 2001, in Eagar, Arizona. Public Navy records confirm he reached the rank of petty officer second class, served a tour in Vietnam, and received two service medals. He stated that he also served in the Air Force and on an intelligence briefing team for the commander of the Pacific Fleet, where he claimed to have read classified material on extraterrestrial contact.

Independent checks of available service records have not confirmed access at that level, and several researchers who examined his early UFO material concluded that portions matched documents already circulating in civilian UFO circles, including items later identified as fabrications.

In 1991 he published Behold a Pale Horse through a small press. The volume mixes his own commentary with reprinted texts. One appendix reproduces the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a document long established as a forgery first circulated in early twentieth century Russia. Cooper added a note instructing readers to replace references to Jews with references to the Illuminati and to treat the text as a plan by secret societies rather than an ethnic conspiracy.

Another section presents Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars as a recovered secret manual. The text matches an essay written in the late 1970s by Hartford Van Dyke and was not a classified government product. The book also advances claims that President Eisenhower signed a treaty with extraterrestrials, that a group called Majestic 12 managed alien technology, and that the driver of the presidential limousine fired the fatal shot at John F. Kennedy with a specialized device.

Cooper later revised the alien portion of his account, arguing that stories of extraterrestrial invasion functioned as a planned pretext for global government rather than literal contact.

From 1992 until his death he hosted The Hour of the Time from a studio in his home in Eagar, Arizona, feeding the program by telephone or tape to the shortwave station WWCR in Nashville. Nightly broadcasts covered tax authority, the Federal Reserve, surveillance technologies, media ownership, and the sequence of events at Waco and Ruby Ridge. He repeatedly told listeners to examine primary sources themselves and to reject any claim, including his own, that they could not verify. On June 28, 2001, after a CNN report that Osama bin Laden had threatened attacks on American and Israeli targets, Cooper stated that a major incident would be blamed on bin Laden and used to expand government powers.

After the September 11 attacks he argued on air that the response would include military action in multiple countries and restrictions on domestic liberties. Those statements tracked publicly available news reports from the preceding days and matched the pattern of prior warnings he had issued about crisis legislation.

Cooper described HIV as a deliberately engineered pathogen aimed at specific populations, with a cure already developed and withheld. No peer reviewed evidence has supported that account, and the claim circulated widely enough that a South African health minister distributed the relevant chapter to officials in 2000, drawing public criticism.

He also maintained that secret societies coordinated through groups such as the Bilderberg meetings and Skull and Bones directed both foreign wars and domestic policy.

These assertions rest on the interpretation of meeting attendance lists and membership overlaps rather than on documents showing operational command. Listeners and later writers noted that Cooper treated disagreement as evidence of participation in the same network, a stance that closed off ordinary correction.

In July 1998 federal authorities charged him with tax evasion. He did not appear, and in 2000 the U.S. Marshals Service listed him as a major fugitive. Local charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and endangerment arose from disputes with neighbors in Apache County. On the night of November 5, 2001, sheriff’s deputies attempted to arrest him at his residence.

According to official accounts, Cooper fired first and struck Deputy Robert Martinez in the head. Other deputies returned fire and killed Cooper.

Martinez survived. Cooper had told his audience in advance that officers would come to his property at night and shoot him on the doorstep. The sequence matched the warrant history and the armed resistance he had publicly described, not an unannounced federal raid.

His broadcasts and book reached militia audiences, some prisoners, and portions of hip hop culture. Timothy McVeigh ordered tapes from him before the Oklahoma City bombing. Later commentators have traced stylistic similarities between Cooper’s all encompassing narrative and subsequent online conspiracy formats.

The factual record separates three elements that Cooper often joined: verified military service at petty officer rank, a large body of reprinted and reinterpreted texts whose origins are independently documented, and specific causal claims about treaties, assassinations, and engineered diseases that lack corroborating primary evidence.

The pattern he presented was therefore a single interpretive frame applied across institutions, wars, and technologies rather than a set of separately confirmed findings.

SOURCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Cooper

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2023/09/why-inaccuracies-in-bill-coopers-influential-conspiracy-theory-book-serve-as-its-strength/

https://www.wired.com/story/conspiracy-how-9-11-broke-americas-brain/

Share

#thebrutaltruthnewspodcast #substack #BillCooper #BeholdAPaleHorse #HourOfTheTime

FAIR USE COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

substack.com/@originalbrutaltruth OCTOBER 2026 The Copyright Laws of the United States recognizes a “fair use” of copyrighted content. Thank you all for subscribing. If you enjoy and feel the information shared here is important, please share it!

The videos and YouTube channel in general may contain certain copyrighted works that were not specifically authorized to be used by the copyright holder(s), but which we believe in good faith are protected by federal law and the fair use doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, parody, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. All video is for educational purposes only. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law