Evidence that the Iranian drone attack on Israel was oked by the U.S. | Seymour Hersh

[IBDaMann]

It's simply a matter of providing solid evidence for your own claims.

Nope. It's simply a matter of you refusing to even consider any evidence that runs counter to what Wikipedia tells you to believe, and your refusal to ever call boooolsch't when you should. That is the simple matter before us. Now that we have that out of the way, I'm happy to leave you believing what you believe. I tried to help you but you will have none of it ... owing to the fact that there would be work involved. Ergo, let's you and I get back to the thread; there's nothing more that I can do for you and you have nothing more than a broken record, i.e. "(paraphrasing) I refuse to see any evidence that disagrees with what I have been ordered to believe."

And I already told you that you don't need to provide conclusive evidence for your claims to be persuasive,

It doesn't matter what you claim, you actively refuse to consider anything that runs counter to the narrative you have been ordered to believe. You still have not identified a single attack on Israel over the previous 45 years that wasn't orchestrated by Iran, and yet you refuse to even consider that Iran attacked Israel again on October 7th. We're obviously done here.

Or are you saying that you can't find any solid evidence for your claims on the internet either?

I have seen conclusive evidence that is not on the internet. I was just trying to help you, that's why I was simply pointing you in a particular direction and providing you all the information you would need to perform research. At the time, I didn't realize that you were this irrational on this topic and too lazy to do any thinking for yourself. We can just forget that I ever tried and we can both resume posting as we had been. There's no law that says we somehow need to continue wasting time.

Anyway, you may be happy to know that I have now found some evidence that Iran may have had some involvement in the October 7th attack.

I'm not the one who should be happy. You are the one who should be happy that he is getting closer to the truth.

Let me ask you, do you consider "motivation" when you perform an analysis? You know how in murder trials prosecutors consider motive? Have you ever examined the Ayatollah's burning desire to expend $billions in the pursuit of destroying Israel? Have you ever allowed yourself to notice that only Iran attacks Israel? I'm just wondering. There's a great deal of solid evidence in that "direction" if you care to look. Otherwise, nevermind.

I know you don't like Wikipedia,

I dismiss it summarily.

they are quite convenient when it comes to getting information quickly

Wikipedia is convenient for getting disinformation quickly. I haven't had an opportunity to create my thread on Wikipedia's leftist bias yet.

Iranian General Killed In Israeli Strike Was Architect Of October 7

That general was probably not the project lead, but Israel was in serious need of declaring a victory. It was likely that any high-ranking Iranian the IDF bagged would be labelled something along the lines of "Oct 7th mastermind." Nonetheless, what you can clearly garner from this report is Israel's tacit admission that they knew all along that Iran perpetrated the Oct 7th attack.

 

[IBDaMann]

Talking to you is really a waste of my time.

You try and you try and you try ... and I always thwart your disinformation. You're right, you shouldn't waste your time.

Imagine, claiming that Arabs don't love their children. You were getting pretty desperate.

 

[IBDaMann]

How can the al Qassam brigades be part of Hamas is they are acting completely independently of same?

BINGO! We have a winner! Al Qassam is not Hamas and does not answer to Hamas. The Ayatollah funds Al Qassam to do the Ayatollah's bidding. Hamas is not in that picture.

 

[Walt]

You try and you try and you try ... and I always thwart your disinformation. You're right, you shouldn't waste your time.

Imagine, claiming that Arabs don't love their children. You were getting pretty desperate.

It is not for me to say who loves their children and who does not, but many people in the Middle East do allow children to be soldiers.

I had a friend in high school whose parents sent him to the USA, because the Iranian Government was trying to recruit him for the Iran-Iraq War. He would have been 13 at the time. I would guess his parents loved him, or were at least willing to spend a lot of money (for them in Iran) to send him to the USA. It was a difficult situation.

 

[IBDaMann]

It is not for me to say who loves their children and who does not, but many people in the Middle East do allow children to be soldiers.

You are following chapter 3 of the leftist Evasion & Tactical Debate Manual to the letter.

Step 1: You try to get some vague, indefinite statement admitted into the discussion. In this case, you want to slip in the notion that some middle east armies allow children to be soldiers.
Step 2: You pretend that the direct, concrete conclusion of step 1 is exactly the opposite of reality, and that you no longer need to support your argument. In this case, that Arabs send their pre-teens to war to attack Israel.

Nope. Arabs love their children and do not send their youngsters off to fight in militaries to be killed fighting the IDF.

I had a friend in high school whose parents sent him to the USA, because the Iranian Government was trying to recruit him for the Iran-Iraq War.

Nice story. I bet you didn't question any of the details.

 

[Scott]

It is not for me to say who loves their children and who does not, but many people in the Middle East do allow children to be soldiers.

You are following chapter 3 of the leftist Evasion & Tactical Debate Manual to the letter.

Step 1: You try to get some vague, indefinite statement admitted into the discussion. In this case, you want to slip in the notion that some middle east armies allow children to be soldiers.
Step 2: You pretend that the direct, concrete conclusion of step 1 is exactly the opposite of reality, and that you no longer need to support your argument. In this case, that Arabs send their pre-teens to war to attack Israel.

I agree that he didn't include any supporting material in the form of links. I decided to see if I could find some. I could:
Begin with the children: Child soldier numbers doubled in the Middle East in 2019 | Middle East Institute

Note that the Middle East Institute isn't some anti Arab news source. Their top funder in 2023 was the United Arab Emirates, and they have large donations from other Arab countries as well. You can see their funding contributors for 2023 here:
https://www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/2024-03/Total 2023 Contributions.pdf

 

[Scott]

Furthermore, I've seen plenty of evidence that Hamas can act independently from Iran.

Agreed. It's Al Qassam who obeys the Ayatollah and who attacks Israel. Hamas does not obey the Ayatollah, does not attack Israel and does not get paid $100 million annually by Iran.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the al Qassam brigades are anything other than the military wing of Hamas.

I believe the October 7th attack on Israel by Hamas is a good example of that.

... and this is the result of your laziness...

On and on with the unsubstantaited assertions. Let me know if you ever get to substantiating any of them.

 

[Scott]

You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims above, followed by a 25 minute video. Are you suggesting that your claims are substantiated by the video?

Nope.

Thanks for letting me know. Would have been frustrating watching it only to find that the claims you'd made weren't substantiated within it.

You should definitely still watch that video. Consider it an anchor point.

I watched the start of it. I also noticed that it's 8 years old. It seems like a good video, but as you yourself are saying that it doesn't actually substantiate any of the claims you made, I'll pass on watching the rest for now.

 

[Scott]

If I said "That doesn't prove anything" at some point in the past (I think you're suggesting it was in response to a video of. yours), it's probably because I felt that said video didn't have any solid evidence.

And here you reveal that you don't consider anything as "evidence" if it runs counter to what Wikipedia tells you to believe.

As I've already pointed out numerous times, Wikipedia is not my only source of information.

I gave you a video of John Bolton explaining the situation.

My view of Bolton is pretty dismal. Here's an article of a confrontation between Julian Assange's wife that was published around a year and a half ago. In case you're wondering, I'm definitely in Julian Assange's camp:
Watch Stella Assange Slap The Mustache Off John Bolton’s War Criminal Face | Caitlin Johnstone

 

[Scott]

According to a 2020 U.S. State Department report, Iran provides about $100 million annually to Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas.[4]

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_support_for_Hamas

The "including Hamas" is erroneous.

According to who?

 

[Scott]

It's simply a matter of providing solid evidence for your own claims.

Nope. It's simply a matter of you refusing to even consider any evidence that runs counter to what Wikipedia tells you to believe

Not Wikipedia again -.- Perhaps it might best to just agree to disagree here.

And I already told you that you don't need to provide conclusive evidence for your claims to be persuasive, but you do need to atleast provide -solid- evidence.

It doesn't matter what you claim, you actively refuse to consider anything that runs counter to the narrative you have been ordered to believe.

I was talking about -your- claims. Have you so little interest in providing evidence for them?

I have seen conclusive evidence that is not on the internet.

Do you expect forum posters to just take your word for it?

I was just trying to help you, that's why I was simply pointing you in a particular direction and providing you all the information you would need to perform research.

As I've mentioned previously, when in a debate, I never expect my debating opponent to find evidence for my claims. Saying that I'd seen conclusive evidence off the internet might be fine in terms of explaining why I believe a certain thing, but it's not much value if I'm trying to persuade someone who doesn't agree with me to begin with.

Anyway, you may be happy to know that I have now found some evidence that Iran may have had some involvement in the October 7th attack.

I'm not the one who should be happy. You are the one who should be happy that he is getting closer to the truth.

It did make me happy to know that there actually was some solid evidence that Iran played a part in the October 7th attacks, considering how much we've been arguing about it. The sad part is that I strongly suspect that you could have found those articles yourself a while back. In essence, I feel like I did your homework for you. You will never see me asking you to find evidence for any of my claims.

Let me ask you, do you consider "motivation" when you perform an analysis? You know how in murder trials prosecutors consider motive? Have you ever examined the Ayatollah's burning desire to expend $billions in the pursuit of destroying Israel?

First of all, there are currently a -lot- of Ayatollahs:
**
Originally used as a title bestowed by popular/clerical acclaim for a small number of the most distinguished marja' at-taqlid mujtahid, it suffered from "inflation" following the 1979 Iranian Revolution when it came to be used for "any established mujtahid".[3] By 2015 it was further expanded to include any student who had passed their Mujtahid final exam,[4] leading to "thousands" of Ayatollahs.[5]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah

Did you mean to refer to the current Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei?

I know you don't like Wikipedia, but for they are quite convenient when it comes to getting information quickly on a given source of information.

Wikipedia is convenient for getting disinformation quickly.

On some subjects, I can agree with that, but I still find that for most subjects, they are a fairly good place to start getting information on a given subject.

I haven't had an opportunity to create my thread on Wikipedia's leftist bias yet.

Let me know when you do, I'd be interested in seeing it.

**

Iranian General Killed In Israeli Strike Was Architect Of October 7

Thursday, April 4, 2024

An ultra-conservative political group in Iran said slain IRGC commander*Mohammad Reza Zahedi was involved in the planning and execution of Hamas’s deadly October 7 attack against Israel.

It is the clearest admission of Iran’s involvement in the atrocities which saw 1,200 mostly civilians murdered and over 250 taken hostage, since terror group Hamas invaded Israel on October 7.

Zahedi, along with his deputy and five other IRGC forces, were killed Monday in an*Israeli airstrike*against Iran's consulate building in the Syrian capital Damascus.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Coalition Council of Islamic Revolution Forces (also known by its Persian acronym SHANA) hailed Zahedi’s “strategic role in forming and strengthening the resistance front as well as in planning and executing*the Al-Aqsa Storm.”

“Axis of resistance” or “resistance front” are the terms coined and employed by the Iranian authorities to refer to Tehran’s proxies in the region, such as*Hamas, Hezbollah,*Hashd al-Shaabi*and Yemeni Houthis.

Iran has time and again denied its involvement in the incident, saying Hamas and other Tehran-backed armed groups in the region make their own decisions and act independently.

However,*the Iranian regime swiftly praised the October 7 attack and orchestrated street celebrations, with large banners hung within hours. Some view this as a potential indication that Tehran had prior knowledge of the operation, a claim reported by the*WSJ.
**

Full article:
Iranian General Killed In Israeli Strike Was Architect Of October 7 | Iran International

The title of their article seems to be a stretch, but the article itself does lend credence to the idea that Iran was in fact part of the planning. I suspect the details were left up to Hamas, which would make it easy for Iran to claim that they had no prior knowledge of said details.

That general was probably not the project lead, but Israel was in serious need of declaring a victory. It was likely that any high-ranking Iranian the IDF bagged would be labelled something along the lines of "Oct 7th mastermind." Nonetheless, what you can clearly garner from this report is Israel's tacit admission that they knew all along that Iran perpetrated the Oct 7th attack.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. The article -does- present some evidence that at least some people in Iran had prior knowledge that it was going to occur, by referencing a Wall Street Journal article, which I also quoted in my last post. The Wall Street Journal only uses anonymous sources, however, so it's difficult to ascertain how reliable their sources are.

 

[Scott]

You can, ofcourse, continue to claim that Al Qassam is not the military wing of Hamas,

Don't misquote me. I stated that Al Qassam is acting completely independently of Hamas, with Iran paying Al Qassam's salaries.

How can the al Qassam brigades be part of Hamas if they are acting completely independently of same?

BINGO! We have a winner! Al Qassam is not Hamas and does not answer to Hamas. The Ayatollah funds Al Qassam to do the Ayatollah's bidding. Hamas is not in that picture.

My mistake was in thinking that you'd come around to thinking that the al Qassam brigades were actually the military wing of Hamas. Anyway, if you ever find any evidence on the internet that the al Qassam brigades are not the military wing of Hamas, let me know.

 

[IBDaMann]

I agree that he didn't include any supporting material in the form of links. I decided to see if I could find some. I could:
Begin with the children: Child soldier numbers doubled in the Middle East in 2019 | Middle East Institute

I appreciate your input. I don't contest your article. My point is that Walt is using vague references to draw very specific invalid conclusions. Walt's unsupported, and absurd, assertion is that Al Qassam sends pre-teens to kill Israelis.

Let's address your point first. Yes, around the world there are desperate circumstances and children are conscripted into militaries. This is more common in Africa. When analyzing this, we should look at the three categories of military involvement in which these children are placed:
1. Youth instruction. Most societies have a "boy scouts" or otherwise youth training/indoctrination program. Even Hitler had a "Hitler youth" program that was very similar to the Boy Scouts but also instilled a sense of German nationalism and hatred for Jews. Arab countries equally have youth instruction which often carries a certain hatred for Jews, but mostly emphasizes doing good deeds and being socially responsible. In more desperate areas, children are taught trades and how to properly weild a weapon, perhaps even military maneuvers, as well as to be suspiscious of their enemies.
2. Military training. This involves having the children actually train with the adults, but not deploy and fight until they are older. Militaries really do not value having children in their ranks. Militaries don't mind teaching children but will stop short of placing them in positions in which the danger that they pose is to their own comrades rather than to any enemy. Things have to be exceedingly desperate for a military to call in its child trainees.
3. Military deployment. When guerrilla warfare or pirating or rogue banditry becomes short-handed, children can be trained to fill manpower slots. This obviously happens but is rare.

In standard societies, parents do not allow their children to get themselves killed. Walt's attempt to slip in the unsupported argument that Hamas, and then Al Qassam, somehow force children to the front lines to kill Israelis is stupid.

Note that the Middle East Institute isn't some anti Arab news source. Their top funder in 2023 was the United Arab Emirates, and they have large donations from other Arab countries as well. You can see their funding contributors for 2023 here:
https://www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/2024-03/Total 2023 Contributions.pdf

Could you expound on your point?

 

[IBDaMann]

You have yet to provide any evidence that the al Qassam brigades are anything other than the military wing of Hamas.

You have yet to show that the Ayatollah pays Hamas a dime. The Ayatollah pays Al Qassam. You are the one that needs to show that Al Qassam somehow OBEYS Hamas and not the Ayatollah.

You have yet to show that anyone other than Iran attacks Israel. Nonetheless you go on and on with the unsubstantaited assertions. Let me know if you ever get to substantiating any of them.

 

[IBDaMann]

As I've already pointed out numerous times, Wikipedia is not my only source of information.

As you have emphasized, it's where you start and where you glean your initial narrative that causes you to reject all evidence of anything to the contrary.

My view of Bolton is pretty dismal.

Irrelevant. I think he's a dirtbag as well. It's the content he is expressing that matters. His words stand on their own. It is a fallacy to reject what he tells you just because you don't like him. If someone you don't like tells you the Pythagorean theorem, does that prove it false?

Here's an article of a confrontation between Julian Assange's wife that was published around a year and a half ago. In case you're wondering, I'm definitely in Julian Assange's camp:
Watch Stella Assange Slap The Mustache Off John Bolton’s War Criminal Face | Caitlin Johnstone

You have a completely mistaken impression of what occurred, and what was said, in that video. You should start a thread on the Julian Assange case.

Regardless, John Bolton is not addressing Iran in this case. Yes, John Bolton is on Team Israel and defends Israel for everything they do. Nonetheless, he can explain unequivocally that Iran is behind the Oct 7th attack. What did he say that you believe was erroneous about Iran's attack?

[Q

 

[IBDaMann]

Not Wikipedia again

You keep letting Wikipedia do your thinking for you. You take great pride in it.

Do you expect forum posters to just take your word for it?

I have no expectations. I was trying to help you. You can forget about it.

As I've mentioned previously, when in a debate, I never expect my debating opponent to find evidence for my claims.

I'm not interested in debating you.

Saying that I'd seen conclusive evidence off the internet might be find in terms of explaining why I believe a certain thing, but it's not much value if I'm trying to persuade someone who doesn't agree with me to begin with.

My help is definitely of no help if you don't want my help. I get it. You do not want to think for yourself; it requires too much work. Keep believing that Hamas is Al Qassam and that Hamas did Iran's bidding for free. I hope that works for you.

It did make me happy to know that there actually was some solid evidence that Iran played a part in the October 7th attacks, considering how much we've been arguing about it. The sad part is that I strongly suspect that you could have found those articles yourself a while back.

I'm not the one who needs to be convinced. I have seen everything I need to see; it's just not on the internet. I tried to just give you the correct answer up front. You are the one who adopted a phony narrative because you were told to believe it.

In essence, I feel like I did your homework for you.

That's a stupid position to take. You did some research and you learned something. You should be happy, not sad. There's so much more you could learn by researching what I told you, and there is a big fat zero you can learn by letting Wikipedia continue to do your thinking for you. I don't care which one you pick. I get your message, i.e. you don't want any help if it will involve you doing any work. Message received.

You will never see me asking you to find evidence for any of my claims.

You will never find me asking you to research anything for me.

First of all, there are currently a -lot- of Ayatollahs:

... but there is only one The Ayatollah.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I'm not sure why you believe everything you read on the internet without question. If an article says that Israel claims that they killed the architect of the Oct 7th attack, you just believe it as gospel truth ... because you read it on the internet ... and you never say to yourself "Hey, the architect of the attack would have been one of the Ayatollah's trusted cabinet members/ministers. The general, if he was even involved, would have merely been responsible for executing the attack!" ... i.e. you never call booooolsch't.

The article -does- present some evidence that at least some people in Iran had prior knowledge that it was going to occur, by referencing a Wall Street Journal article, which I also quoted in my last post. The Wall Street Journal only uses anonymous sources, however, so it's difficult to ascertain how reliable their sources are.

... but you can also research Israeli government announcements immediately after the attack calling for the world to hold hold Iran accountable for their attack. Wouldn't that pretty much be a smoking gun in your eyes that Israel should have followed up on their own demand by invading Iran, and not Gaza?

By the way, I did find this, which I didn't expect to see on the internet. You'll find it interesting. In September 2023, many in Israel and in the US were anticipating Iran's attack on Israel ... one full month prior to the Oct 7th attack and the information made it into an article! Granted, they read the signs as an all out war coming by way of Al Qassam, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, but they got the timing right and only erred on the magnitude of the attack.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202309051003

 

[Scott]

I agree that he didn't include any supporting material in the form of links. I decided to see if I could find some. I could:
Begin with the children: Child soldier numbers doubled in the Middle East in 2019 | Middle East Institute

I appreciate your input. I don't contest your article. My point is that Walt is using vague references to draw very specific invalid conclusions. Walt's unsupported, and absurd, assertion is that Al Qassam sends pre-teens to kill Israelis.

I haven't seen him say anything about the Al Qassam brigades, or about pre teens for that matter. Here's a line he did say:
**Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran all use child soldiers. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have used child soldiers against Israel.**
Source:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...y-the-U-S-Seymour-Hersh&p=5968051#post5968051

His more recent claim, which is the one I decided to look into:
**
It is not for me to say who loves their children and who does not, but many people in the Middle East do allow children to be soldiers.
**
Source:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...y-the-U-S-Seymour-Hersh&p=5969037#post5969037

The evidence is clear that some middle eastern countries do have a fair amount of child soldiers.

Let's address your point first. Yes, around the world there are desperate circumstances and children are conscripted into militaries. This is more common in Africa. When analyzing this, we should look at the three categories of military involvement in which these children are placed:
1. Youth instruction. Most societies have a "boy scouts" or otherwise youth training/indoctrination program. Even Hitler had a "Hitler youth" program that was very similar to the Boy Scouts but also instilled a sense of German nationalism and hatred for Jews. Arab countries equally have youth instruction which often carries a certain hatred for Jews, but mostly emphasizes doing good deeds and being socially responsible. In more desperate areas, children are taught trades and how to properly weild a weapon, perhaps even military maneuvers, as well as to be suspiscious of their enemies.
2. Military training. This involves having the children actually train with the adults, but not deploy and fight until they are older. Militaries really do not value having children in their ranks. Militaries don't mind teaching children but will stop short of placing them in positions in which the danger that they pose is to their own comrades rather than to any enemy. Things have to be exceedingly desperate for a military to call in its child trainees.
3. Military deployment. When guerrilla warfare or pirating or rogue banditry becomes short-handed, children can be trained to fill manpower slots. This obviously happens but is rare.

In standard societies, parents do not allow their children to get themselves killed.

I think we can agree that most -parents- wouldn't allow their children to become child soldiers. Walt himself actually offered anecdotal evidence to this effect when he said he knew an Iranian family that sent their son to the U.S. to avoid having their son become conscripted as a child soldier.

In terms of the middle east, the middle eastern countries the article cited to have a fair amount of child soldiers were Yemen, Syria and Iraq.

Walt's attempt to slip in the unsupported argument that Hamas, and then Al Qassam, somehow force children to the front lines to kill Israelis is stupid.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas does this, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of this.

Note that the Middle East Institute isn't some anti Arab news source. Their top funder in 2023 was the United Arab Emirates, and they have large donations from other Arab countries as well. You can see their funding contributors for 2023 here:
https://www.mei.edu/sites/default/files/2024-03/Total 2023 Contributions.pdf

Could you expound on your point?

My point was simply that the source of the article wasn't biased against middle eastern countries.

 

[Scott]

Agreed. It's Al Qassam who obeys the Ayatollah and who attacks Israel. Hamas does not obey the Ayatollah, does not attack Israel and does not get paid $100 million annually by Iran.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the al Qassam brigades are anything other than the military wing of Hamas.

You have yet to show that the Ayatollah pays Hamas a dime.

I have no idea how much money the Grand Ayatollah gives Hamas. However, the U.S. State Department had this to say about Iran's funding of Hamas and other Palestinian groups that it labels as terrorist groups:
**
Iran also provides up to $100 million annually in combined support to Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.
**
Source:
Country Reports on Terrorism 2021 | U.S. Department of State

 

[IBDaMann]

I have no idea how much money the Grand Ayatollah gives Hamas.

You absolutely know the amount. $0.00 The Ayatollah doesn't pay Hamas. The Ayatollah pays his proxies, i.e. Al Qassam (~$100 million annually), Hezbollah (~$700 million annually) and Islamic Jihad (~20 million annually), the ones who do his bidding.

However, the U.S. State Department had this to say about Iran's funding of Hamas and other Palestinian groups that it labels as terrorist groups:

Are there any errors? Should you be calling boooolsch't on any of it? ... or should you accept it in its entirety because it conforms to your desired narrative?

 

[Scott]

As I've already pointed out numerous times, Wikipedia is not my only source of information.

As you have emphasized, it's where you start and where you glean your initial narrative that causes you to reject all evidence of anything to the contrary.

I agree that it's frequently where I start, but that doesn't mean that I'll reject contrary evidence by default. As a matter of fact, when you have challenged Wikipedia narratives, I've gone to other sources to verify.

I gave you a video of John Bolton explaining the situation.

My view of Bolton is pretty dismal.

Irrelevant. I think he's a dirtbag as well. It's the content he is expressing that matters. His words stand on their own. It is a fallacy to reject what he tells you just because you don't like him.

Agreed, but in this case, it's a case of both disliking the person voicing a view and not finding any evidence for said view as well.

If someone you don't like tells you the Pythagorean theorem, does that prove it false?

No- unlike Bolton's claims, the Pythagorean theorem has been proven as far as I'm concerned.

Here's an article of a confrontation between Julian Assange's wife that was published around a year and a half ago. In case you're wondering, I'm definitely in Julian Assange's camp:
Watch Stella Assange Slap The Mustache Off John Bolton’s War Criminal Face | Caitlin Johnstone

You have a completely mistaken impression of what occurred, and what was said, in that video. You should start a thread on the Julian Assange case.

I actually started 3. From oldest to newest:
“Publishing Is Not a Crime”: The New York Times Joins the Fight to Free Assange | justplainpolitics.com

Chris Hedges: The Crucifixion of Julian Assange | justplainpolitics.com

Biden Says U.S. Is Considering Dropping Its Case Against Assange | justplainpolitics.com

Regardless, John Bolton is not addressing Iran in this case. Yes, John Bolton is on Team Israel and defends Israel for everything they do. Nonetheless, he can explain unequivocally that Iran is behind the Oct 7th attack. What did he say that you believe was erroneous about Iran's attack?

Honestly, I never watched the video. I generally prefer reading articles to watching videos when it comes to debates- articles are easy to quote, videos generally aren't. However, as you know, I've now found some articles that provide evidence for the claim that Iran did in fact play a part in the October 7th attacks, so I'm thinking looking at Bolton's video isn't necessary at this point.