Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: Ratansi and welcome back to Going Underground, broadcasting all around the world from the UAE in the midst of renewed bombardment here in the region after the collapse of US Iran ceasefires. Today marks two years since the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at a campaign rally near Butler, Pennsylvania. Two months later came another alleged assassination plot at Trump International Golf Club in Florida. Some question whether these are intelligence agency operations, factors that must be taken into account when judging Trump abandoning his campaign promises to end America's forever wars. Trump himself has tied assassination fears to one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency. In a March interview with ABC news defending the February 28 assassination of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family, Trump said, I got him before he got me. They tried twice when I got him first. The result was a U. S. Israeli war on Iran that killed thousands, including more than 100 schoolchildren in Minab and plunged the region into yet another catastrophe. Today, Israel's Netanyahu is reportedly set to visit Washington for the first time since the killing of Khamenei, where he'll press for further bloodshed as the genocide in Palestine and Lebanon continues. Joining me again is Commander Chief Master Sergeant Dennis Fritz, who sat at the heart of American military power as principal advisor to General Richard Myers, who became US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. His book, Deadly Betrayal, released only after massive Pentagon censorship, offers an insider's account of the lies that catalyzed the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He joins me now from Waldorf, Maryland. Thank you so much, Chief Master Sergeant, for coming on. I noticed, I don't know, maybe the five eyes are affecting your camera or the connection between you and our studio here in Dubai. But what do you have to say, given, as I said, you were principal advisor to a general who became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Makes you ever more important, even if you can only hear you. I've got to ask you then, we don't know what's been happening in the minutes ahead of this interview, let alone days. I mean, the MOU signed in Versailles, you think, and this surprised me, it's been reported that you think the MOU was in good faith. I mean, that's despite the genocides continuing in Gaza and Lebanon and the resumption of violence here in West Asia.
[00:02:24] Speaker A: Yes. First of all, thanks for having me back again. It's truly an honor to be with you. And in regards to the five eyes, you may be onto something there, because I'd rather for it to be More so not being able to see me than not being able to hear me.
And so whether it be the CIA, DIA on this end. But getting to your question, yes, from the US Point of view, and particularly the President, President Trump, I do think it was done in good faith. And why do you say that, Dennis Fritz? The reason I say that is because of the fact that President Trump truly wants this war to end.
You know, I think you alluded to it and mentioned in your opening remarks, you know, he doesn't want to be known as the, you know, a president of forever wars. You know, he talked against that when he was running for office. And so I don't think he wants it. More importantly, President Trump is a businessman. He looks at the stock market and so forth. He look at prices in particularly that affects the American public, gas, if you will. And so I truly think he wants this war to end. So I think he truly did it in good faith. And in particular in Iran. Sure, they want this war to end as well. But I tell you what, I think they came out stronger in this MoU and I have concern will it continue to last as far as the MOU and leading into more peace and diplomacy? And I can tell you one person and one country is not happy with the MoU, and that's Beni Netanyahu and Israel. And so in good faith, both on the United States of America and Iran. Yeah, I think they both want to abide by it, but I think it's really going to be hard, not only because Israel and Ben may not want this, but because of President Trump's negotiating skills. You know, he says he's the, you know, the king of the deals, but he doesn't have anything, knows anything about diplomacy. And why do I say that? It's because of the fact you just can't go around and keep calling the people that you're negotiating with names.
And he's had a tendency in the past, there are continue to threaten them. And I think that's going to be the downfall of the MoU. To be quite frank with it though, I think it's trying to be done in good faith.
[00:04:36] Speaker B: So you don't think that there's right now some modern day Chief Master Sergeant Dennis Fritz who's advising, I don't know, Hill Ridge, Colby Hegseth's underling, that all of this was actually a ploy by Israel and that they've persuaded Trump into this? You don't think that there is a conspiracy here and the mou was a 60 day ceasefire in order to allow Israel to rearm ahead of renewed hostility. And I should say Trump said at the NATO summit that, you know, the MOU is dust.
[00:05:14] Speaker A: Yeah. Well, I will tell you, when you say Israel rearming, well, the United States rearming too. So there's no doubt in my mind that United States as well as Iran is taking advantage of this memorandum of understanding. There's no doubt there. But at the same time, I go back to what I said earlier. Look, you got to think about this.
You got to look at how gas prices were affecting us here in the United States of America.
[00:05:40] Speaker B: Trump famously said he didn't care, he didn't care about the gas prices.
[00:05:44] Speaker A: He changed his mind very quickly on that. So you got to think about this too. Here in the United States of America, domestically, gas prices were rising dramatically and it was impacting us here.
Another thing that President Trump has to deal with, the politics of the United States of America. And I will tell you that the tide is turning dramatically against him and more importantly against Israel, if you will, because of the impact of, if the war was to continue. So go back to your original question. Do you think it was done in good faith?
Yes, because of the fact. I will tell you, I don't think we had no choice. You take a look at this, okay, we went in with the original objectives of okay, no nuclear weapon.
We were going to change the regime.
We were going to stop their support of their so called proxies, which are really their allies, if you will, but we call them proxies. None of that has happened. And I'll be quite frank with you, and this is to the world, we were not winning the war. I wouldn't go as far as say we were losing, but none of our objectives were met. And oh, by the way, Iran was gaining strength with the strait of hormones being closed down. Not only was it affecting us and impacting us negatively here in the United States, but the world economy as well. So we had to come up with some ceasefire. Now, this memorandum of understanding, you know, is not the, it's not a peace deal, if you will. It is truly a memorandum of understanding how to, how to get to peace if we can eventually do that. But to be quite frank with you, as I've been saying, and I'm on record of saying this, peace and diplomacy are dead on arrival as long as this administration is in place. Because President Trump does not understand diplomacy. He keeps speaking out loud, he keeps saying negative things. And oh, by the way, Israel in particular, Ben and his, if we call it government does not want to see this war to end.
And so yes, the memory of understanding, I think it was done in good faith. But would it lead to peace and diplomacy? I don't see that happening. But we do see a so called ceasefire, which is a limited ceasefire because armed hostilities and conflict can just pick up at any time, as we've seen in the past.
[00:08:02] Speaker B: Yeah, people are being killed all the time. But isn't the point what you just said, that needs to be highlighted, that Israel doesn't want it? If one accepts for a moment that it wasn't good to face Israel, didn't want the MOU to happen, in which case, what would we expect on the basis of Israel historically, when it is opposed to US Foreign policy, what do we expect it to do? Do we expect false flags? Do we expect new events to try and make the American public think, oh, Iran really is our enemy and Trump wasn't being an idiot when he dissolved the JCPOA and said that Iran is an imminent threat to United States security?
[00:08:51] Speaker A: I like what you said historically, and historically, Israel is known for false flags, if you will. You know, going all the way back to USS Liberty, which a lot of folks are talking about now, where they actually bombed a US Ship. Bombed it and tried to cover it up to get us into war with Egypt at the time.
False flags is a history. Go back to Syria, where during the Obama administration where President Obama said, hey, my red flag and my determining point to go to war with Syria will be if chemical weapons are introduced. And all of a sudden magically chemical weapons are introduced in the domestic war in Syria. So historically, Israel has been known for false flags. And I don't see no difference this time because they truly do not want this war to end. See, it's part of what the master plan, as you alluded to and mentioned my book about deadly betrayal. You know, it's part of the plan why we went into Iraq. And I've been predict. When people say I predicted it, no, I didn't predict it. I saw it. I saw the plans going all the way back to the 1990s. This is a continuation of the plan of the Middle east on behalf of Israel.
And so they want this war. This is the last piece. Now, I've been warning about this for years now. You hear people like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates are saying, hey, Ibn Netanyahu has always wanted us to attack Iran. Well, he finally got, and I think I mentioned in the book, if he ever gets the president that he wants, we will attack Iran and he finally got chief personality.
[00:10:32] Speaker B: So if that's the case, should we be expecting false flags and should we expecting that, I mean Iran was claiming that some of the attacks on GCC countries were not by them were actually Israeli attacks disguised as Iranian attacks. Should we take all these claims as seriously as someone might who was focused on the USS Liberty? I don't know whether when you were at the Pentagon this was canteen talk and people widely understood what, what Israel did to murder so many American servicemen on the USS Liberty.
[00:11:07] Speaker A: Yeah, hey listen, you know, if I've always stated in the past, I can give you facts, assumptions and opinions and more so I've given you your facts. You know, but when we talk about some of the attacks on our GCC countries, you know, were done, maybe not done by Iran. Well, I'm going to give you an opinion. I believe that, I believe that some of those tactics may have been done by Israel and particularly Mossad. I really do believe that. Now I'm just giving you an opinion there because I don't know that. But then also I base it on Iran didn't take credit for some of those attacks. And so I don't know behind the scenes diplomacies that the Iranians were telling the US that back that hey, we were not responsible because they have not come out and said it. Even this latest attack that we had recently with a number of ships that were hit, Iran is really not come out and say hey, we truly did that though they have discussed about hey, they will control the strait and they will have coordination by ships that want to enter through the strait. But I will tell you, based on past history, based on some of the things I've seen in the Pentagon and, and some of our cooperation with Israel, I do think some of those attacks were possibly done by Israel intelligence agencies.
[00:12:34] Speaker B: I mean, was this the kind of talk at the Pentagon when you were working? Did people understand the before obviously you'd written the book Deadly Betrayal. But do people understand in the Pentagon, even under a Reed Hegseth running it, that Israel exerts this kind of influence over the Pentagon, let alone what it does in the State Department?
[00:12:53] Speaker A: Oh my goodness. There is no doubt even my days physically in the Pentagon during the George W. Bush administration, you could see Israeli IDF forces in and out of the Pentagon all the time. In particular, the guy I was working for at the time and under Douglas fy, they were in and out of his office all the time. In fact, I think I even mentioned it in the book Doug Feith and said hey, I will be the point of contact for the IDF in Israel. You know, I'm good friends with beaming that to Yahoo. So I will tell you, I don't know what's going in the Pentagon right now because I'm not there. But from 1979 until 2022, I've been in and out of the Pentagon physically in the building. And I will tell you, I have never seen the influence during that time that Israel had in the Pentagon in my life. And I will tell you, let me just say this again. I have been out in and out of the Pentagon physically assigned to the Pentagon since 1979 through 2022. I was in and out of the Pentagon between assignments. And I will tell you, Israel has always had influence in the Pentagon. But the worst I've ever seen it was during the George W. Bush administration. And I can only imagine what's going on now with headset in there. It's probably even worse than that. So, yeah, let it be no doubt in your mind that Israel has had influence in the Pentagon. Chief Master sergeant Take that as a fact, not an opinion, not an assumption.
[00:14:20] Speaker B: Chief Master sergeant I'll stop you there. More from the author of Deadly the Truth about why the United States Invaded Iraq after this break.
Welcome back to Going underground. I'm still here with retired commander Chief Master Sergeant Dennis Frith. Chief Master Sergeant we were talking about the IDF soldiers nonchalantly walking in and out of the Pentagon when you were a staff member at the Undersecretary of Defense, you know, even maga, so called influencers, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and the like is stopping short of claiming the Israeli lobby were behind the Butler, Pennsylvania attempt at killing Donald Trump.
But given that you said the MOU signed in Versailles is in good faith by Donald Trump and that Israel doesn't want it, how much should we believe those who say Israel could assassinate Donald Trump?
[00:15:26] Speaker A: Well, once again, now we're getting into opinions or assumptions. Like I said, I like working in facts. But at the same time, if you look at, when you talk about, you know, rumors and conspiracy and possibilities, you know, there are many that believe and I know there's a lot of redaction that's taking place. There are many to believe that Israel was responsible for the assassination of John Kennedy, if you will. Because if you look at the APAC and Israeli lobbyists, you know, he wanted to stop that.
He didn't like them chilling our nuclear secrets, if you will.
And so there's, you know, there's, there's history there of the possibility now Do I know that?
I don't know that. But the way things are going right now, I will tell you this, I'll give Trump some positivity that I normally don't.
He's the first president that I know of that has been vocal, not privately, but vocal against Bibi Netanyahu and Israel as a whole, to include bans, if you will.
I've never seen this before. This is something I've been following for decades, you know, where practically Trump has said out loud and publicly, hey, I'm in charge, Bibi, go somewhere and sit down. I'm in charge. That's an embarrassment to Bibi Netanyahu. He has just as big of ego as Donald Trump. And so I'm sure this is embarrassing how publicly Trump is going with their.
[00:16:52] Speaker B: You don't think it's fair, sir? You don't think that's fair to its plan before it's actually genuine.
[00:16:57] Speaker A: So I do look at, listen, Trump is a narcissist, if you will. I've said in the past, you know, I think I heard it, so I won't give myself the credit for it. If you put Trump's face next to narcissist in the dictionary, you know, there will be your definition.
And so Trump, and that's why he uses himself in the third person, Trump comes first before anybody and that includes Bibi Netanyahu. And so I don't, I think it's Trump being Trump, if you will. And I think, you know, if it was going to impact his prejudice negatively, he will go against Bibi and he's proven that. I don't think it's theater. I just think it's his ego. And as well I know Bibi Netanyahu has an ego.
And so when you talk about, you know, well, you know, Israel or Mossad trying to assassinate President Trump, I don't know, I'm just giving you opinion or assumption. But I think that could be the biggest false flag, if you will you actually do that here. Recently you just had Trump saying that he was number one on the hit list of Iran. Well, wouldn't it be something if something like that would happen? And I will tell you, I think during the NATO summit, I don't know and I guess we'll find out more later, was that Trump had to switch from his new Air Force One and take another plane, which will be Paul sign will be Air Force One. No matter what plane President own is Air Force One. But I'm hearing he had to take another plane, probably in disguise to get out of Turkey with the fear of some type of assassination. So wouldn't it be something if all of a sudden, now that Trump has said that, hey, he's the number one hit for Iran in regards to assassination and an assassination attempt is made, that could be the biggest false flag there, and then guess what? Blame it on Iran.
[00:18:51] Speaker B: Well, even if he survives it, he has to satisfy the blob somehow, arguably. What if he pivots to Ukraine as a lot of people are expecting, beaten by Iran and the Hormuz Strait?
What do you think? Do you think he doubles down on the proxy war, making friends with all the European leaders again, or does he try and get a peace in Europe in the longest war since World War I?
[00:19:20] Speaker A: Well, I truly don't think he'll ever give up on trying to bring peace to Ukraine because going into his administration, this particular second administration of his, that was his goal. And in fact, his ego once again said, I will make a deal within 24 hours.
And sadly, you know, people had the nerve to believe that. And so I do think that is still his goal. But at the same time, you know, Trump has so much rhetoric, you don't know what to believe. Because I think going into the NATO summit, I think he will still pick a fight, you know, with the NATO countries, Italy, France, Spain, if you will.
[00:20:01] Speaker B: That was all on display. That was clearly all on display. But I mean, actually, sorry to interrupt that, but has Russia been wise in waging a slow, incremental conflict, do you think, in terms of how this pivot occurs from Iran to Ukraine by Trump?
Has a slow war of attrition been a wise move? Or do you think Putin should have been more decisive?
[00:20:29] Speaker A: Lanson, great question. That's been my biggest surprise. I've been on record for years now saying that Russia could take out Ukraine, totally destroyed at any time. And with the number of military forces that they're losing, I got to tell you, I am surprised that he has not been more than the Ukrainians are
[00:20:50] Speaker B: losing, because remember, the statistics in US Media and NATO media is the Russians are losing, you know, 20 million a week or so.
[00:20:59] Speaker A: No, no, I don't think Russians are losing. Now, Ukraine, like I said, just by attrition, Ukraine cannot win this war. But what I'm saying is just so, I mean, just think about the internal attacks that Ukraine has been successful inside of Russia, you know, and like I say, I must say again, they are losing military men and women, I'm assume, in this war. And I'm surprised that he's let it go on so long that being Putin and that just not fully go in once and for all and do as much destruction as possible. By the way, Israel has set the presence of doing that by way of what they've done in Gaza and what they wish to do in Lebanon. And so and going back to some of you said it's been this digressive man when we talked about the relationship between Trump and Bibi Netanyahu. Now just look at Lebanon, for example. I will tell you Trump did stop him, he being Bibi Netanyahu, from going in and doing further destruction in Lebanon. And I can tell you, no doubt in my mind, because that's part of the master plan. I say it goes all the way back to 1990 that after Gaza, Bibi Netanyahu really wants to take over Lebanon, if you will, not just southern Lebanon, but, you know, the Lebanon. And so I do think that Trump does have that pull and using the bully pulpit against Bibi.
[00:22:21] Speaker B: 19 maybe he was reading a biography of maybe he was reading a biography of Reagan and thought he remembered how Reagan defied Israel and that's what his beliefs were over Lebanon. Of course, our condolences to all those bereaved in Lebanon because they won't be able to see on the ground any peace at all.
Anyone who's watching this program. But in that case, Rubio at the NATO summit, very quick to almost take pride in the fact that deep strikes were being made on oil refineries in Russia, let alone the civilian bus casualties of Russians, people in Belarus. I mean, are they trying to trigger the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia?
What is going on, let alone the debate over whether a war of attrition versus a one strike should be the strategy of the Russian Federation.
[00:23:18] Speaker A: Listen, we're dealing with the Trump administration. We're dealing with an orthodox crazy world and administration.
Take Trump out of the equation for a moment. If Trump was not the president, the United States will be all in. You got to remember that Rubio is a traditional foreign policy, as Trump would call him, rhino, if you will. And so there's no doubt in my mind Rubio is loving this. And if Rubio was president, if you will, we will be supporting NATO and Ukraine and we probably will be on the cusp of truly World War Three, because I would think that Rubio or any other traditional rhino, as Trump will call them, will definitely actually be full fledged supporting Ukraine militarily.
Trump, by the way, he's the one, like I said, I got to give him some credit, if you will, because of the fact that he truly wants peace. Listen, when I talk about his ego, he truly wants that peace prize even though he start wars. That's why I say I think he want this war to end. His biggest prize will be if he could bring peace between the Ukraine and Russian war. That will be his biggest yet.
[00:24:38] Speaker B: He knows it's American assets being deployed in these killings within Russia. We're running out of time.
I must ask you whether when you were at the Pentagon and at the Air Force control of Israel's nuclear weapons, did people understand that Israel could determine the use of its own nuclear weapons or does the United States have an ability to prevent Israeli use of nuclear weapons unilaterally?
[00:25:07] Speaker A: You know, I have to be honest with you. Like I said, I try to operate in facts and I give you because
[00:25:11] Speaker B: it just never discussed something never discussed
[00:25:14] Speaker A: even though you listen. I had some of the highest clearances you could have, you know, throughout my military. And I never saw that discussed. Now this is going to surprise you when I say this. Now. I asked some of my colleagues who are in the know, one of my good friends, Larry Wilkeson, both, you know, worked for the chairman when Powell was the chairman of Georgia staff and the secretary of state.
And you know, I would even ask him. I never saw talk of truly Israel having nuclear weapons. And so you know that you talk about conspiracy. Me personally, I've always thought was in a big farce that do they truly have them and we're providing that protected arm for them. But there are experts that know more so than I do that say they truly they stole them from us, that they do have the nuclear weapons. But I never heard any discussion even during the run up of the Iraq war and the implementing of the start of the plan to take out Iraq, then Syria and then as we're trying to do now, Iran. I never heard the talk of them actually having the nuclear weapons. Now
[00:26:20] Speaker B: discussion, let alone understanding the revelations from Mordecai Vanunu, through which I certainly know Israel has them. I'm just going to finally ask you
[00:26:29] Speaker A: then given, as I said, never heard the conversation.
[00:26:32] Speaker B: Amazing. Given the ice, as I said, you were principal adviser to a man that became joint chief of staff, Chairman of the joint Chief of Staff Dan Raisin Cain, this Trump official chairman of the joint chief of staff, do you think he understands the nuclear threat from Israel? Does he understand a nuclear threat from Russia if they continue pouring US Weaponry to attack within the Russian Federation? What do you make of him and do you think the job of the principal advisor the job of the principal advisor, your counterpart, as it were, you know, in a kind of way.
Shouldn't he be telling him that we face a certain nuclear threat right now?
[00:27:12] Speaker A: Yeah, that's where I have some confidence, I feel confident he's telling them that. And I must tell you, I was a person that was against raising Cain. I didn't think he was qualified to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You know, we brought, even though he was a felon, airman, you know, we brought him off retirement as a three star general. Normally the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has a lot of experience, would have been a four star combatant commander, if you will, or been the chief of the particular service. He did not have that experience of being a combatant commander. But I do think that he does, you know, have the competency to be able to say, hey listen. And being out, you know, being briefed by intelligence, by the intelligence community, that he does have the competency for us, hey listen, this is very dangerous. And from the insiders that have told me, I believe he's telling them that I do.
[00:27:59] Speaker B: We're out of time on that endorsement of Razor Kane. Chief Master Sergeant Dennis Fritz.
[00:28:03] Speaker A: Thank you, thank you for having me.
[00:28:05] Speaker B: Once again, that's it for the show and condolences to all those of you bereaved or affected by Washington's wars of aggression. We'll be back on Saturday with a brand new show. Until then, keep in touch via all our social media, if it's not censored in your country. And head to our channel, goingundergroundtv on rumble.com to watch new and old episodes of Going Underground TV Saturday. It.
