(0:00 - 3:09) Just a couple of weeks ago, Israel and the U.S. cooperated in Operation Midnight Hammer, where they destroyed Iran's nuclear development facilities. And they did so with the approval of virtually every Western nation. As you'll discover today, almost certainly with at least the tacit approval of Russia and China as well.   But this begs a question. Why is it okay for North Korea to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran? Both are totalitarian states run by dictators and are ideological enemies of the West. North Korea is estimated to have 50 nuclear warheads, with the fissionable material to make 40 more.   And recently it was revealed by North Korean missile tests that they now have ICBMs capable of dropping those weapons on American soil. There's the obvious political reason North Korea has strong allies in Russia and China, both of which are also neighbors. A military strike against North Korea would risk escalating into war with those nations, and this has been true since North Korea began their nuclear weapons program in the 50s.   But Iran also has strong ties to China and Russia. However, there are strong reasons why those nations not only would not retaliate against the destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons program, but likely are breathing a sigh of relief, along with the rest of the world, and quite likely the Iranian government as well. Stick with me, folks.   We're going down the rabbit hole to uncover the hidden reasons for the attack that no one is talking about, but that all governments, including the Ayatollah, understand. First, we need a better understanding of the Middle East itself. For a brief time following the preaching of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century, much of the Middle East was one unified Islamic state.   It was something of a golden age for the region and led to their own renaissance. A lot of our math and science comes from Middle Eastern philosophers and mathematicians. Unfortunately, that Islamic state quickly broke up, largely due to religious differences.   The Shias or Shiites, though words are interchangeable and mean the same thing, and the Sunnis and many smaller factions within them. Fast forward over a thousand years, and the Ottoman Empire, prior to World War I, had once again unified much of the Middle East. But the war saw an end to that.   In 1916, there was the Sykes-Picot Agreement between France and England to divvy up control of the Middle East between them. It was supposed to be a secret, but things like that never stay secret for long. Then in 1917, the Balfour Declaration proposed the reestablishment of the nation of Israel.   On the surface, the Balfour Declaration was for the altruistic purpose of giving Jews who, since the Diaspora had been subjected to prejudice and persecution in many of the nations they settled in, their own country, where they would be safe from such persecution. This is highlighted by the fact that the nation of Israel wasn't actually established until 1948, following the Second World War and the Holocaust. These events gave Western politicians the support needed to actually carry through on their 30-year-old promise.   (3:09 - 4:56) But then there was the other reason. I'd been aware for a long time of the fact that Western nations, primarily England, had redrawn the Middle Eastern map following the First World War, putting together opposing tribes and factions in the Middle East into the same countries, guaranteeing conflict between them. But for a long time, I thought this was just British arrogance and incompetence based upon a profound misunderstanding of the cultural and religious influences in the Middle East.   But in my recent interview with analyst Tom Luongo, I realized it was intentional. The purpose was to keep the Middle East unstable, thus making it easier to control via outside influence. After all, the British had had a strong presence there for decades by that time.   It's highly unlikely that they were unaware of the consequences of their actions. This was also the real reason for the establishment of the Nation of Israel, so that Western powers would have a strong ally in the area. It's no accident that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons, making it extremely unlikely the Islamic states will be able to destroy them.   So why do Middle Eastern nations hate the West? It is not, as many people believe, because of radical Islam. Islamic extremists do hate the But they hate other Muslim factions as well. In fact, according to the Global Terrorism Database, in the decade between 2010 and 2020, there were approximately 120,000 instances of terrorism worldwide.   50,000 of those instances were carried out by Islamic extremists. But what you don't know is that most of them happened in the Middle East. Muslims attacking other Muslims, usually civilians.   (4:56 - 6:12) Of those 50,000 radical Islamic extremist terrorist attacks during that decade, almost 85% of them targeted other Muslims. In Iraq alone, in 2016, there were approximately 6,000 terrorist attacks, most of them against Muslim civilians. It's so common it's not even news, and so you don't hear about it unless you live there.   The reason why Middle Eastern governments and peace-loving citizens in the Middle East hate the West is because the Western hegemony has a long history of interfering in their affairs. And that brings us back to the political reasons why Iran can't be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but North Korea can. Remember that the instability in the Middle East was intentional, to allow for greater control of the region by Western powers.   But this also requires maintaining a certain balance of power in the area. If Iran gained nuclear weapons capability, it would lead to a Middle Eastern arms race that could easily lead to Western powers losing their influence. There's also the possibility that if Iran were armed with nukes, they would have the ability themselves to control the Middle East, forming once again a unified Islamic state.   (6:13 - 7:28) Not a good one, of course. Iran is an oppressive regime. But nonetheless, a unified Middle East could not be controlled by the West.   Then there's the problem of Israel. If Iran had nuclear weapons, the likelihood of a nuclear exchange with Israel would be very high, possibly resulting in the region become a radioactive wasteland for a thousand years, cutting off that oil supply to everyone. And that also explains why we have no reliable reports of casualties at the Iranian nuclear development facilities.   While we don't have absolute confirmation of this, many analysts believe that the Iranian government was warned in advance of the attacks and made sure no one was there. The attacks occurred in the middle of the night, so the scientists and technicians wouldn't have been there anyway. But there should at least have been security personnel, and quite a number of them.   Nobody, after all, is going to leave a nuclear facility without substantial security. And yet, as far as we know, no one was killed in the attacks. If the Iranian government knew in advance about the strike, as seems highly probable, why would they not have announced it to the world? Look, more Western aggression against our peaceful development of nuclear power.   (7:29 - 10:02) The answer to that question could be summed up in one word. Terrorism. North Korea has nuclear weapons, yes, but what they don't have is radical religious extremists who would be happy to park a van in the middle of downtown Washington with a nuclear warhead in the back.   Islamic extremists would see this as an opportunity for glorious martyrdom. And if Iran had nuclear warheads, a country which funds terrorism, most notably Hezbollah, sooner or later some jihadist nutjob would get their hands on one. And when Washington, or London, or Paris, or Toronto, gets wiped off the map, secret services around the world will leave no pebble unturned to find out who did it.   When it's discovered that it was an Iranian nuke, the repercussions for Iran would be extreme, likely their complete destruction, with the approval of almost every other nation on earth because they might be the next target of a nuclear detonation in one of their major cities. And the Ayatollah knows this. Saving face is a common concept in Asian cultures.   In fact, it's so important that in Japan, if you say something that damages another person's reputation, it's a serious crime, even if the allegations can be proven to be true. What you might not know is that saving face is important in Middle Eastern cultures too. They even have words for it, hwaj, face, and sharaf, honor.   The Ayatollah has to pretend that he didn't know, because if he did know, and all he did was to send everyone home, he would appear weak before his own people and before the surrounding Islamic nations. And so now we have just one final mystery. If the U.S. wanted to destroy Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, why carry out the attack in the middle of the night? Why not do it midday and take out the scientists and technicians as well, destroying Iran's brain trust? The facilities can be rebuilt in a few years.   Replacing the brain trust would take a generation at least. Once again, it has to do with maintaining a balance of power. And Iran, which could have weapons, is a deterrent to other Middle Eastern nations, a demonstration of their technical and military capabilities.   But an Iran that actually has nuclear weapons is a threat to the Western hegemony and their control of the region. And now you know the why.