Speaking to the judge, Alistair opined that it was Israeli/Nerunyahu pressure that stymied any chance of an agreement between the US and Iran. The Israelis demanded full surrender of nuclear material and no possibility of any further research, subject to stringent checks by others and themselves. (Plus herring rid of all ballistic missiles and no help to so-called proxy groups in the region.) These terms of course would be unacceptable to Iran even before talks began, as everyone knew.

In this scenario, Israel is dictating US policy : the zionists have control and are calling the shots.

Brian rejects this. Basing his position on the Brookings document of 2009, he maintains that the US is simply following a strategy of global domination which they concocted (ie, the corporate deep state) and this includes using Israel as then patsy or fall guy that the US can blame for any covert action they plan. Thus Israel started the war on Iran and the US had no choice but to follow suit for fear of being blamed and attacked. Similarly, if Israel uses nuclear weapons against Iran, the US can offer the excuse that they asked them not to and Israel ignored them. This despite the obvious fact that Isreal is only a nuclear power thanks to the US and cannot act independently.

The tail-wagging-the-dog scenario of the zionist lobby in Washington dictating US policy is a myth promoted and endorsed by the deep state for the reasons mentioned above. To support this, Brian says that the lobby provides only one per cent of all the money that flows into the political parties in the form of overt support and kick-backs. In other words, the lobby's influence is insignificant.

So who is right? Alistair or Brian?