Transcription
Imagine with me, a trillion and a half dollars, the largest war budget in the entire history of humanity, and who will pay the bill? A dangerous leak from a private dinner of President Abu Al-Daba'i, a 67-minute video that the White House mistakenly published and immediately deleted. What is the catastrophe that was said in it? American magazine Newsweek explodes a political bomb. Will President Abu Al-Daba'i be impeached by the constitution? And is the decision in the White House a rational one, or has it become an open gamble? A grinding war of attrition, and a Pakistani initiative in the final moments to save what can be saved. The details, my dear friends, are shocking. I am Mounis Rawaneh, and you are watching the program "Say It All." The program where we say what is not said on the screens. In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Welcome, my dear friends. Before we delve into the details, the tanks, and the politics, we are facing the largest war budget in the history of humanity. A astronomical figure allocated to the Pentagon, which is now more appropriate to call the Ministry of War. This budget reached approximately a trillion and a half trillion dollars. To grasp the magnitude of this budget, it has increased from last year's astronomical budget by 44%. Imagine with me, imagine with me the scene. The largest budget the Pentagon has ever received in American history has been allocated to an administration of a president who promised his voters and sang to them in all his election rallies that he is the only president who did not start and will not start new wars. The president who described foreign military interventions as absurd wars with no end, wars that have drained trillions of dollars that, according to him, should have been spent within America. He used to promise American families a safe environment and low living costs, and he used to attack the warmongers day and night, saying they have destroyed the United States with absurd wars at the expense of the simple citizen. So, the question that strongly arises now is, who will pay the bill for this huge funding? Where will they get the approximately 440 billion dollars that Trump requested for the Department of Defense? To answer this question, research institutions have searched tens of pages of American papers and budgets for 2027, and we found that they did not just stop at reducing ordinary spending. No, they literally slaughtered the programs that affect the lives of the poor people in America. Listen to these statistics that hurt. The reduction, my dear friends, will be on the elderly, residents of rural areas, farmers, cancer patients, construction and factory workers, youth in poor neighborhoods, the unemployed over 55, the homeless, and small business owners. Even clean water. Meaning, any American citizen who wants to drink clean water is now threatened after the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency was cut by 52%. Also, children with special needs, indigenous people, meaning Native Americans, and the residents of Hawaii had their dedicated housing programs canceled. A comprehensive reduction, and on top of all that, 3 billion dollars that were allocated for infrastructure, housing, and community services in low-income neighborhoods were reduced. Imagine an American government making such a request for a huge war budget just seven months before the crucial midterm elections in November. This alone gives us a very dangerous indicator of what is happening behind the scenes. So, what makes an American administration risk all this voter base? The answer, my dear friends, came from a very dangerous leak during a dinner hosted by Abu Al-Daba'i a few days ago. A leak of what was said behind closed doors. Trump said, word for word, focus with me on what he said. He said, "The country has no time to care for childcare or provide healthcare for the elderly and low-income individuals. We are at war here. Our role must be military protection. Take care of yourself." This is the same statement that was followed by a full 67-minute video of this private dinner. Of course, the official White House account published it and then immediately deleted it, as if they realized the magnitude of the disaster they had caused. But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that these leaks are not 100% accurate, the official budget requested by Abu Al-Daba'i from Congress for 2027 reveals the truth. Everything. We are indeed facing the largest war budget, and the decision no longer cares about the American interior. This puts us before two possibilities, one more dangerous than the other. Either the Abu Al-Daba'i administration no longer cares about the election results at all, and this could lead the administration to continuous accountability from Congress. Or the second terrifying possibility is that there are catastrophes awaiting Americans and the world, catastrophes that make the Abu Al-Daba'i administration feel that there is no room for justification and they have no other choice. Now we reach the most dangerous shift in the entire political equation. My dear friends, Iran is no longer in a position of passive reaction. Its strategy has changed. What does that mean? It refuses to negotiate under fire. It links any strike it receives to a similar response and is holding onto the Strait of Hormuz as a permanent strategic asset and a terrifying leverage on the global economy. In contrast, America is raising the stakes and increasing the tone of threat without a quick decisive tool. And here, we must pay attention to the silent signal from the world. What does that mean? There are European moves to try to exclude America from protecting the Strait of Hormuz to avoid provocation. China, for example, is closing certain airspaces in a mysterious and sudden way. The same applies to Europe, as we saw last week. This, my dear friends, is not neutrality. This is preparation for a world after American dominance. When statements clash and threats rise uncontrollably, it means one thing: the decision has become an open gamble on a major escalation that could lead to destructive options or a forced retreat that preserves prestige. In both cases, there is no such thing as a clean slate. And under this charged atmosphere of military madness, last-minute attempts have emerged, which we can consider the straw that breaks the camel's back. A Pakistani proposal for a two-phase agreement to cool down the front before it burns everything green and dry. The first phase is the immediate phase, where a ceasefire begins immediately and without complex conditions, and the Strait of Hormuz is reopened directly. This is a crucial matter for global oil supplies not to collapse and for us to enter a global economic crisis. As for the second phase, within 15 to 20 days, a comprehensive and final peace agreement will be negotiated. They have tentatively named it the Islamabad Agreement. This final agreement, according to leaks, could include Iran's agreement to impose strict restrictions on its nuclear program and guarantee that it does not possess nuclear weapons. So, what is the مقابل? Relief from suffocating sanctions, release of frozen Iranian assets, and the establishment of a broader regional framework that guarantees the security of the Strait of Hormuz with the participation of everyone. So, let's be realistic, my dear friends. What are the chances of the partial agreement succeeding within the next 48 or 24 hours? Frankly, the chances are very slim, and the possibility of Tehran accepting any of these conditions under the current military pressure is almost zero and nonexistent. Nevertheless, this appears to be the last phase and the only remaining opportunity to prevent a dangerous escalation, an escalation that could include massive destruction of Iranian infrastructure, which will undoubtedly lead to similar catastrophic consequences in the Gulf countries, because if the fire grows, its sparks will reach everyone. My dear friends, let's take, for example, Abu Al-Daba'i seriously. When the president of the most powerful country in the world speaks, we must take his words with absolute seriousness. From a legal and ethical perspective, what Abu Al-Daba'i writes on his platforms, like the Truth Social platform, is not just a passing opinion or a vent. This is a statement with direct legal impact. When the President of the United States threatens to return Iran to the Stone Age, this is not a metaphor. No, this is an explicit threat of comprehensive destruction of the civilian infrastructure of an entire country. The United Nations Charter is clear and explicit, prohibiting the threat of the use of force, not just the act itself. And when purely civilian targets, such as power stations and bridges, are named, the threat here becomes specific and legally accountable. This terrifyingly approaches the logic of collective punishment, which is completely prohibited in international law. As for the Strait of Hormuz, the strait is not managed by military warnings and tweets, but by the rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. America justifies its actions by self-defense, but in international law, self-defense requires two basic conditions: necessity and proportionality, and both are completely absent in the current scene. Targeting infrastructure threatens two fundamental principles in the Geneva Conventions: distinction between military and civilian, and proportionality. The words of leaders are attributed to their countries and can very well be used as evidence before the International Court of Justice. And ethically, this is rhetoric that legitimizes comprehensive destruction and makes the idea of wiping out an entire society seem like a normal and ordinary matter to public opinion. But the real danger, my dear friends, is not just in the tanks and missiles. The greater danger is in preparing people's minds to accept things that neither reason, nor law, nor humanity accepts. So, this is a moment of true shame, a shame on humanity, a shame on America, and a shame on the American Congress, which appears complicit through its silence or its support for this language that is outside all laws. And all this madness we have spoken about did not pass unnoticed within America. Following a wave of controversy sparked by President Abu Al-Daba'i's latest post, which the American media described as vulgar and undisciplined, reactions escalated in Washington. Senior politicians and media figures came out strongly criticizing him, most notably the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, who warned of the danger of this type of rhetoric at a highly sensitive international moment. Schumer described Abu Al-Daba'i's behavior as raising serious questions about his mental balance in managing the crisis. In this remarkable and very important context, the reputable American magazine Newsweek published a report that exploded a political bomb. The report raised the increasing talk in narrow circles about the possibility of impeaching Trump by activating the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution. So, what is this amendment? This, my dear sir, is an amendment that allows the Vice President and a majority of the members of the government, the ministers, to declare the President unable to perform his duties and thus transfer power. The report did not come out of nowhere, my dear friends. It came in the context of circulating and leaked statements from the President that reached the point of threatening to strike civilian facilities and wipe Iran off the map in vulgar language. And in an unprecedented escalation of tension, the report indicated a noticeable increase in bets, people who bet, like the Kashi platform, about the possibility of activating this scenario. This reflects what? It reflects a real state of concern within political and economic circles in America. But let's be precise and clear, my dear friends. Can this really happen, apart from the media noise? Applying the 25th Amendment faces almost insurmountable obstacles. It has never been applied to impeach any US president in history. This amendment was designed in 1967 for cases of clear medical or mental incapacity, such as a coma, not to confront political decisions or provocative statements. Its activation requires a decision from the Vice President and a majority of the ministers, and these are themselves part of the political circle loyal to the President. So, even if they activate it, the President can challenge it, and then it will be decided in Congress by a two-thirds majority, which is an impossible condition given the sharp political division between Republicans and Democrats. So, we are facing a constitutional mechanism that is more theoretical than a practical tool. So, why are we talking about it? Because its mere mention, its mere circulation in this wide manner in the reputable American media and in political circles and betting markets, reflects a very disturbing reality. It confirms that the head of power in the American system, who possesses executive powers that could destroy the world, his behavior and statements are no longer interpreted as traditional political stances, but are now read as a factor of global instability. So, the mere presence of the President's eligibility in public discussion is itself a political indictment of the nature of the current leadership, a clear indicator of the extent of concern that has gone beyond Trump's opponents and reached the depths of the American system itself. So, what we are seeing today, my dear friends, is not just an ordinary war. This is the end of an entire phase of decision-making. A superpower is raising the ceiling insanely because it has lost its decisive tools, and an opponent is digging in his heels because he knows that a war of attrition plays to his advantage, and time is also on his side. And here, precisely here, the most dangerous types of wars begin when the decision loses its reason and the game of endings begins. In the end, the largest budget in history has been approved. The poor Americans will pay the price from their health and education, and the warships are still at sea, awaiting the unknown. And we have several crucial hours before the big explosion, and the Islamabad initiative is hanging by a thin thread, and international law is undergoing the biggest moral assassination in modern history. So, this was the complete picture from the corridors of Congress and the White House leaks to the waters of the Gulf and the Red Sea. Share your opinions in the comments. Do you think things will move towards a deal at the last minute, as Pakistan suggests, or has the decision to escalate taken its course and there is no room for retreat? In conclusion, we ask God Almighty for your safety. We wish you benefit. May God mend the situation and guide the minds. Greetings to all, and peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you. Ah.