All right, Alexander, we are joined once

again by the excellent Dennis Cusinich

on the Duran. Mr. Cusinich, thank you

for joining us and people can follow

your work. The best place where they can

follow your work is on your Substack

where you post uh amazing uh articles.

Is that correct?

>> That's uh that's correct. And thank you

for mentioning Substack. Thank you.

>> All right. I have that Substack as a

link in the description box down below

and I will also add it as a pinned

comment as well. So, Alexander uh Mr.

Cusinich, let's uh let's discuss what is

happening in reference to a recent

Substack post from Mr. Cassinich.

Alexander, pass it off to you.

>> Indeed. Indeed. And can I just say it is

always a great pleasure and honor for me

to be speaking with Dennis Cassini,

especially at these very difficult and

fraught times. Dennis has been a voice

of reason and sanity and great courage

by the way, moral courage in the United

States, in Congress, in politics, in

life generally in the United States for

decades. And I remember as I said just

before we started this program reading

and hearing all about him and admiring

him from a distance all those years ago

and his voice has stayed true throughout

all of that time strong and true all of

that time and it continues to be so now.

So Mr. Cassinich, you've written many

many fine pieces of many, you know,

throughout your time in politics and

since you've just written a piece on

your Substack site about war crimes and

I was wondering if you could tell us a

little bit about it.

>> Uh yes, and and again u thank you to uh

Alexander and Alex for being on the

Duran.

uh my uh I I've written a series of

pieces on uh Substack that um uh that

reflect upon a provision in uh the

National Defense Authorization Act of

2027

uh which is before Congress right now.

Uh there is a provision in it in section

219 that merges uh top level um uh

operations of the US and the Israeli

military. This is unprecedented.

It is frankly in my view

unconstitutional.

Uh it lacks it puts us in a position

where uh we are going to be in wars

forever. And why do I say that? You have

to remember that even recently uh it's

no secret that Benjamin Netanyahu pushed

Donald Trump into attacking Iran. Uh and

that's just one part of the Zionist

ambitions to gain more and more

territory and those territories include

Turkey, they include Egypt as well as

the areas that are now being occupied or

are being aggressed against. And so if

we were to bring Israel inside of our

defense establishment

uh considering the influence that they

already have on the outside

and create a formal structure where we

eliminate duplication. That's what

they're talking about in this proposal

where there's an integration on a on a

on a vast range operations.

Then what you have is instead of Israel

getting four billion dollars a year from

the US for for military purposes, they

will then have access to 1.5 trillion

annually in the US military um

expenditures. So uh the there are so

many things wrong with this proposal and

here we are in the United States uh

celebrating the 250 years of our

independence from Great Britain.

and we are about to uh jump into a

circumstance with Israel where we're

actually going to be forfeiting our

independent decision-m

>> I don't think anybody in the United

States perhaps grasps unpub from

yourself Mr.

how absolutely unprecedented

in American history this is. Of course,

I am British and I'm very familiar with

the relationship between Britain and the

United States during the Second World

War. The relationship then was a very

very strong one. But the British

military and the American military

fought alongside each other. There was

never any question of the kind of

integration between the two militaries

that we're talking about here. Had it

been proposed, which it actually was, by

the way, by uh people around Churchill,

Churchill was rather keen on that. Had

it ever been proposed, well, had it been

seriously proposed in the United States,

it would have been rejected outright.

And if you know the story, the history

of our relations with between ourselves

during the Second World War in a war of

existential importance

when we were both defending ourselves

against a you know an a a powerful adver

adversary with unlimited ambitions.

Well, people in the United States would

have said this is completely

unacceptable. It violates all

conceptions of American independence, of

the Constitution, as you said, in

exactly the way that you said. I I I

would never have believed that a country

like the United States would ever do a

thing like this.

>> Just my comment. Well, you know, you

you're um the parallel that you just

drew is very in instructive

because you know we you know even even

with the current administration many of

us in America understand that there is a

special relationship with uh Great

Britain.

But even with that kind of relationship,

even under existential conditions as you

have recited,

we would not have permitted a uh a

merger of uh of British and US uh u or

integration of British and US military.

Now uh

consider that if we wouldn't do that

with our historic best friends,

we we wouldn't we shouldn't do with

anyone. And and and the thing to keep in

mind is that

one of the reasons why I believe this is

illegal is that uh this essentially is

the form of a treaty. It it you know you

have the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization, which you know I'm not

really keen on, but that was a treaty.

>> This would have to be a treaty that

would be subject to Senate debate and

approval. There's there's no treaty

here. just slipped it in as a provision

in a large, you know, almost a

thousandpage bill and zero debate. Zero.

Matter of fact, they cut off debate by

not including an amendment that would

have struck this provision from the bill

in the rules committee of Congress and

they did that silent silently, quietly.

Uh so there was no debate in the

committee and there was no debate of

course on the floor of the house. Now,

legislation's held up for the moment,

but but this is a um it's not just that

it's unprecedented.

Um we have a right if there was a debate

to say what about this particular

partnership if we for those who say well

we want to do it.

Israel's leaders who whose national

security ministry is in the United

States uh uh at this time

they're they're uh either have arrest

warrants out them for them at the ICC

for war crimes or the arrest warrants

are in process.

What in the world are we doing?

bringing somebody right inside of our

sacred house who has murdered maybe a

hundred thousand Gazins

>> who who have a military uh practice of

shooting children in the in the head and

the chest who have just dropped in

southern Lebanon perhaps one of the

biggest bombs that's ever been dropped

in peace time on on on innocent people

who have uh who have made an art of a ch

of you know a chamber of horrors of

killing and so are these our values is

this what we stand for is this what

we're to become now the United States

hands haven't been clean to be sure in

many conflicts in the 20 20th and 21st

century but to bring

Israel's government into the military

and making military making decisions of

the United States

>> creates nightmares that we will have

even conjuring.

>> That is that is absolutely correct. I

mean, what we would have in effect is a

situation where the United States is not

only integrated

into

Israel's foreign policy and defense

objectives in the Middle East, which

look increasingly unlimited and by the

way, increasingly utopian and

fantastical. I mean you mentioned wars

against Turkey, wars against Egypt, wars

against all over the place all the time,

everywhere, but we have also a situation

with Israel where um they have been

conducting war in an increasingly

ruthless way in a way which if this

happens is going to implicate the United

States in this ruthlessness

in ways that it might no longer have any

mechanism to control because if you

merge militaries in this kind of

fashion, you dilute your decision making

capabilities.

>> You want to comment on that?

>> Yeah. Well, you're you're right about

that and let's

>> let's look at where we are right now at

this moment.

>> Uh we cannot come to an agreement with

Iran on ending the conflict there. Why

is that? because Israel is doing

everything it can to make it impossible

for the objective that Iran has to stop

the strikes on Lebanon. That's what

they're doing. They they're we want to

see that ended. They don't. They want uh

more room in southern Lebanon. Uh they

want the Latani River to be the

demarcation. They're moving into the

northern part of Lebanon. The bombing is

has been extensive.

our partners really. Um

the that war in Iran should have never

been started. February 28th that the

attack that occurred that that killed

the Iranian leader as well as 168 school

children

uh remains a a blot on on our country.

But it was done at the behest of of

Israel with this idea that somehow the

Iranian government's going to collapse

and Israel would have uh some kind of

access to control events in Iran. You

use the word fantastical. That's right.

It is it's a kind of thinking that

reflects a megalomaniacal impulse that

is uh that is advanced by murderous

instincts

and uh I I'm very concerned for my

country. You know, first of all, I'm an

American. That's number one. You know, I

may see myself as a citizen of the

world, but I'm an American. and

America's interests are in no way served

whatsoever by bringing Israel into uh uh

peerless decisionmaking position in the

uh now Department of War

because that's what that's what they're

about right now. They're about total and

allout war. And so keep in mind

something, Alexander,

that the US is right now considering

that $1.5

trillion

annual

war budget, we'll call it. And that

represents a 67%

increase over the previous year, which

was roughly n 900 billion dollars. So

here we have a much larger military,

much larger capabilities, much larger

expenditures for weapons, bombs of all

sorts,

and Israel comes in the tent to help

direct our policy. No way. No way.

>> There's another aspect to this, which is

the way in which it undermines what I

would call democracy and what I would

definitely say is democracy. I mean,

you've already explained that it's

happening without debate, that it's a

treaty which is not being ratified as a

treaty by the Senate in the way that the

constitution requires. Um, it's also

something that is being done against

what one senses is very much the flow of

opinion in the United States today. Um,

young people, but not just young people,

many, many people across the United

States have, as we know, over the last

three years, become increasingly

critical of Israeli foreign policy and

have been speaking out against it. Um,

we've had all sorts of people oppose it

and yet something is being done which

seems to be diametrically contrary to

that sentiment because it commits the

United States ultimately to facilitating

these Israeli projects. And of course,

last but not least, the decisions that

are being made, which are war decisions.

And you talked about the enormous

increase in the budget, the military

budget, and the commitment, ultimate

commitment that this will bring to

further involvement in the Middle East.

It seems to fly completely in the face

of what most Americans seem to want,

which is a withdrawal or at least some

kind of reduction of the American

presence in the Middle East. After all,

Donald Trump said and campaigned and was

elected, as he said, as the president of

peace. Now this it seems to me works so

far against all of that that ultimately

one has to say that if you do something

so completely contrary to the American

Constitution, the law and the sentiment

of the American people, then you cannot

argue that this is anything other than

an anti-democratic measure.

>> Well, uh you're you're absolutely right.

it it uh it's not only lacking in

constitutional authority, it's lacking

in accountability. As you stated,

there's uh Alexander the uh there's a

question of democratic accountability

here. Who voted for this?

The American people right now have by

and large rejected uh what Israel is

doing and uh there people are becoming

increasingly horrified when they see the

images that are coming out of Gaza and

the West Bank and South Lebanon and and

and Syria and what what's h you know and

what happened in Yemen and

uh and and is this our future? It it

must not be. and and the uh let's look

at some recent congressional elections,

primaries in the United States, Israel

uh and the US policies with Israel

played a a substantial role in the

defeat of some very well-known

incumbents who themselves were seen as

progressive. But that one issue caused

people to say, "Nope, uh you know,

you've taken money from Apac, you've

taken money from other Israel interests.

We we reject that and we want to cut

this kind of close cooperation which

puts us uh into forever wars. So the you

you're right there the the American

people are are beginning to uh strongly

reject this association and part of it's

generational

younger people in the US who are seeing

their job opportunities in the future

challenged by AI who are having

difficulty being able to pay rent or

certainly the dream of owning a home

becomes out of reach who are paying off

educational loans

who are finding it difficult just to be

able to survive economically.

They look at the government's commitment

to more war and they say what in the

world are we doing? and and that

commitment comes at this moment uh in in

large u matter as a result of our

relationship

uh with Israel and our participation

with them which has already put uh US uh

authorities in danger of uh of being

charged in the ICC as well.

I I'd like to turn to something else

which is something that you have been

very involved in in the past and which

by the way I believe um again um puts

you fully in line with the sentiments of

the American people. You mentioned

earlier in the program that the United

States does not have an entirely clean

hands in relation to what it's done in

many places in the world in many wars

around the world. The reality is the the

other thing I would say about that is

that to my memory and knowledge

whenever that has become publicly known

and discussed in the United States

whenever there been horrors committed

in any war in any conflict there is

amongst the American people a deep

revulsion

and there is a demand that this stop and

it has an effect. I've seen it have an

effect. It had an effect in Iraq. It had

an effect previously in Afghanistan. It

had an effect in other places. Now if we

have an arrangement like this

with a military and a government which

has become increasingly ruthless and

which has behaved in a way that has

engendered a very dangerous ruthlessness

within its own society. If you listened

and follow the kind of political debate

that you see in Israel, you can see

this. Then are we going to commit the

United States into a partnership which

will lead the United States into things

war crimes which the American people

would reject and would strongly reject

and which are completely contrary to the

sentiments in the Constitution,

the Declaration of Independence, all of

the founding documents of the United

States that I know. What are your

thoughts there

>> as you're speaking? You know, I I know

uh that the people of the United States

by and large

don't want war.

They don't want to be the agency of

other people's suffering.

They

are revolved

at the violence that is committed in the

name of the United States

is becoming a greater

element

in our politics which I predict

will continue to have an effect in the

2026 elections but 2028 will we'll see a

moment of reckoning about these

policies. However,

the

lack of general lack of awareness about

bringing

Israel inside the military

decision-making uh matters to make them

co-equal to make them to create a merger

to talk about integration to talk about

eliminating duplications

uh puts us in a position

where there'll be an acceleration

of the um

of of the murderous activities of of

Israel because once they're inside

there's zero restraint. Here's something

that for your thoughts uh Alexander,

let's go back through history.

Uh when wars are fought and one military

conquers another military,

that country comes under the control of

the conquering nation.

in some way, shape, or form for years.

But what happens when one military

finds a way to get inside of another

military

and be able to make decisions that

affect two countries?

How much more how much more dangerous is

that? It's it's without a shot, I might

add. uh uh between the two parties, they

just insert themselves and are in a

position to be able to usurp the

sovereignty of the United States of

America to be able to undercut our

independent decisionmaking

and to be able to use our strategic

resources,

our tax dollars

for their own narrow purposes.

which are simply about

ethnic cleansing,

genocide in the service

of territorial expansion.

So, you know, I don't I don't think any

Americans signed up for that. and and I

predict that if this thing passes uh you

will find a uh consequences for

everybody who's out there supporting it.

>> I mean there's just one other there's

there's another thing I wanted to to

say. I mean the point about duplication

seems to me to be completely wrong and

actually it makes little sense. I mean

it takes a purely functional approach to

military matters. Whereas of course when

you're talking about military matters

you're talking about questions of war

and peace. It's not duplication. It's

dialogue between allies. And the fact

that the allies might have different

views it seems to me is a good thing not

a bad thing. What is called duplication

is in effect an attempt to set up a

unitary command where there should not

be. It it takes away responsibility.

It means that command the ability to

hold command

responsible and under proper civilian

control, American civilian control if

we're talking about the United States is

lost. I find it very strange by the way

that people in Congress

don't see this. I would have thought

that given that there are quite a few

people in Congress, I understand who

have worn the uniform, they would

understand this.

Well, you have put your finger on uh uh

on something that I don't think anybody

else has has brought forward yet, and

that is the fact that if you

quote eliminate duplication unquote,

uh you have a unitary command.

the uh constitution of the United States

uh and that is uh article one section

two of the constitution. It deals with

the executive

makes the president the

commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

Um people who join the armed forces have

to take an oath to defend the

constitution of the United States.

If we bring in a foreign country, in

this case Israel, into our military

command, number one, uh they will not be

under the president of the United

States. Number two, they don't have an

oath to the United States of America.

They have no commitment whatsoever to

the United States of America. They'll be

in a position to simply use the assets

of the US in furtherance of their own

ambitions. I mean it is so easy to see

that it it is

you know I find it astonishing that

members of Congress don't understand

that but you know hey what's a

constitution among friends right

America is

its constitution is its birth document I

mean the constitution of the United

States is not merely

an extraordinary and I would say

wonderful document in itself

but it is the foundation upon which

America is built more so than any other

country.

I mean, you know, if we're talking

about, say, France, France has had many

constitutions in its time and it's had a

very long history. But the United States

is the United States because it is named

that in the opening words of the

Constitution of the United States. We

the people of the United States. So I

would say that the constitution is just

a matter between friends which I'm sure

some people are saying well that seems

to me to misunderstand completely what

America is. So that's the first thing.

The other thing I wanted to say because

it's I just wanted your final thoughts

on this militarization

because Israel has become a very

militarized society. Now, the United

States has not been a militarized

society for most of its history, but it

is increasingly becoming. So, can you

say something about that and about the

enormous damage that is doing both to

America and to the life of the American

people and to the economy as well? Big

question, but just a few words about it

from you, Dennis Cassinich.

>> Militarization is is not simply the size

of an army.

>> Yeah. Yeah, militarization is what

percentage of your budget goes towards

the military. And today, well over 50%

of the discretionary spending in the

United States goes for the newly named

Department of War. What does that do? It

crowds out health care, education,

retirement security. It crowds out a

range of legitimate services that uh

people pay for with their taxes. So, uh,

do we do we have a militarization of the

budget? Yes. And I will tell you that

precedes a militarization of thought,

word, and deed. And, uh, but I still

believe that the American people, uh,

want peace. They want to end these

forever wars. And if given a chance to

have their representative vote, they'd

want their representative to vote

against this this merger of the US and

Israeli military.

Well, I'm going to just suggest this to

all Americans who are listening to this

program. Listen to Dennis Cassini at his

wise words. Write to your congressman.

Write to your senator.

Speak to everybody that you can. Tell

them about what he has just said.

Organize and argue against this terrible

bill. Dennis Casinich, thank you very

much for coming on our programs. If

there's anything further you wish to

say, please do. But for me, thank you is

what I want to say.

>> Well, I do want to say this that your

understanding of of America, its uh

Declaration of Independence and its

Constitution is is is lyrical. It has uh

it touches my heart as an American. And

I think that uh um we we need to know

that all over the world that there are

people whose love for America depends on

our adherence to the highest principles

that are set forth in that not just the

declaration but the constitution of the

United States. So thank you very much.

Uh it's a privilege and an honor again

to join you on the Duran.

>> Thank you Dennis Cassinich. A privilege

and an honor for us to have you.