TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the role of the United States in the Middle East. Speaker 1 argues that the US government has supported dictators in the region and interfered in their affairs, leading to violence and instability. Speaker 0 disagrees, saying that the violence is due to theocracy, not US actions. Speaker 1 counters by pointing out instances of violence and extremism in other religions as well. Speaker 0 dismisses this as a liberal view. The conversation ends without a resolution.

Speaker 0 asks if the US will freeze the $6 billion that was unlocked for Iran in exchange for prisoners, considering Iran's support for Hamas. Speaker 1 responds that none of that money has been spent yet. Speaker 0 then asks if the US will prevent Iran from using the money for their activities, to which Speaker 1 reiterates that none of the money has been spent.

Speaker 0 asks why President Trump unleashed Prime Minister Netanyahu to resume genocide in Gaza, resulting in the intentional killing of 400 civilians. Speaker 1 believes Trump has no choice, due to agreements with major donors beyond Miriam Adelson, obliging him to underwrite Netanyahu's actions. Speaker 1 notes Netanyahu arranged a meeting between the U.S. and Azerbaijan, not the State Department, indicating the Israel lobby's grip. Speaker 1 believes Trump is obliged to comply and won't diverge. Speaker 0 asks if Trump has no choice but to militarily back Israel if it attacks Iran. Speaker 1 thinks so, noting the possibility of Israel precipitating a war with Iran. The expectation is the U.S. will reinforce Israeli actions, with joint strike planning and intelligence sharing already in place. Speaker 1 believes it's a foregone conclusion, though the timing is uncertain.

Speaker 0 argues that financial warfare could destabilize Venezuela and Brazil and help end the war in Ukraine with “one move,” specifically via $20 oil. He notes his awareness of Lincoln Gordon, US ambassador to Brazil in 1964 during a successful coup, and says he does not advocate that today, but Eduardo mentioned this idea. He contends that Venezuela is utterly dependent on oil and Brazil is dependent as well, suggesting financial techniques to destabilize both countries as the most powerful approach. He mentions the possibility of bombing labs or cartel depots in Venezuela but insists that there are better ways—financial warfare being the number one method. He recalls discussing the tactic with Peter Navarro last summer and emphasizes that there are many powerful techniques beyond kinetic means. Speaker 1 questions the practicality of oil being priced at $20 per barrel, noting that such a price would bankrupt frackers and that Saudi Arabia’s finances depend on higher oil prices, since lifting costs are around $60. He asks how the rest of the dominoes would fall if oil is set at $20. He invites Speaker 0 to name the “poison,” acknowledging Saudi Arabia as a factor, and contends that oil may head toward lower prices for reasons unrelated to financial warfare. Speaker 0 responds that Saudi Arabia could be affected by the strategy, and reiterates that the core point is to hurry up and act, while acknowledging many other techniques exist beyond financial warfare. He reiterates that there are many methods to destabilize these countries—banking system disruptions, hacking, power grid disruptions—and argues that Bolsonaro’s direction in Brazil is favorable from his perspective. He emphasizes that while kinetic options exist, there are very powerful financial techniques that could be used to achieve the aim. Overall, the discussion centers on using financial warfare—particularly manipulating oil prices around $20 per barrel and employing banking, cyber, and infrastructure disruption—as the primary, non-kinetic means to destabilize Brazil and Venezuela and influence geopolitical outcomes, including pressuring Russia and signaling Putin to take notice.

Glenn: Welcome back, with Janis Varoufakis, former Greek finance minister and founder of DM25. The world has grown more dangerous. He notes the war in Iran is asymmetric: the US is more powerful but Iran can shut down energy trade and view the conflict as existential, willing to shut down the global economy to avoid defeat. Glenn asks where the war is headed and whether there is an off-ramp. Yanis: The US has a history of asymmetric conflicts where it enters with confidence and exits with its wings clipped—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Iran has faced stronger opposition than those cases, and despite striking Tel Aviv and Gulf bases, the US pain threshold seems lower than Iran’s. He points out the difference this time is a broader regional and global resistance and Iran’s capacity to respond through strategic actions like shutting Hormuz, making escalation costly for the US. Glenn: Economics show that industrial might, supply chains, and technological sovereignty matter, suggesting a shift away from free trade. He asks whether these lessons will redefine Western ideology and asks about the role of deindustrialization over the last decades. Yanıs: He says the shift began after Bretton Woods and the era of financialization and neoliberalism, with industrial capacity shipped out and the West leveraging finance and, later, big tech. He notes Margaret Thatcher’s role in deindustrialization and shipping capacity abroad, and he is surprised Trump fell into a war against Iran without a clear exit strategy. He argues Netanyahu’s influence pulled the US into a long war, framing it as a tactic to keep Israelis in fear and justify annexation moves in the West Bank, thus sustaining conflict. He also addresses the liberal-imperialist claim of liberating women, stating that women of Iran do not need bombs and that liberation would require defeating the powers that prevent peace and democracy, citing the 1953 coup and the suppression of the left in Iran after 1979. He emphasizes that the regime’s survival has involved neoliberal policies within Iran and that both reformists and conservatives in Iran ultimately align around survival and regional power, with the regime having benefited from long-term Western hostility and recent escalations. Glenn: Raises the point that the US miscalculated even the narrative—often incoherent, with statements about “liberating women” fluctuating between aims of freeing women and destroying Iran’s ability to rebuild. Yanīs: He challenges the idea that this war is about liberating women, and reiterates that the people of Iran face a stark choice between the current regime and a failed-state trajectory. He argues the regime's popularity is enough to sustain it, and that external pressures are not driving a straightforward democratic outcome. He notes that the real losers are ordinary people in the US, Iran, and globally, with rising food and energy prices, while the leaders of Iran may see gains in rallying around a common external threat. Glenn: Cites Trump’s tweets about higher oil prices and questions the populist credentials when the impact is on the average person. Yanīs: He discusses the changing nature of warfare, highlighting drone technology as a major shift. A drone economy makes cheap drones capable of challenging costly missiles, altering the political economy of war and enabling autonomous, AI-driven weapons. He notes that drone warfare, as seen in Ukraine and now Iran, could lead to a permanent-war dynamic where peace becomes a system error. He mentions how tech companies like Palantir train AI for civilian and military applications, including hospital management, illustrating the broader commercialization of war tech. Glenn: Reflects on how competition among NATO, Russia, and China could reshape power dynamics, particularly with autonomous weapons and the ability of adversaries to strike at vulnerabilities. Yanīs: He cautions about the risk of a broader great-power war and notes that drones, autonomy, and AI could enable rapid decision-making with less human oversight, expanding the lethality and reducing accountability. Glenn: Observes that Iran can absorb pain and still threaten Hormuz, while the US and Israel may be unable to declare a decisive victory without economic and political costs. He asks where US and Israel go from here. Yanīs: He argues Netanyahu seeks permanent war to justify expansion, while the Trump administration would like a quick victory. He underscores that a clear victory is hard to define when Hormuz remains contested, and that Trump’s options may be to declare a triumph or continue the conflict, depending on midterm politics. He emphasizes that the war’s outcomes are measured by the cost to ordinary people rather than leaders’ narratives. Glenn: Adds that the war’s casualties and economic effects will hit working people hardest, and notes Trump’s failure to align populism with real-world costs. Yanīs: Returns to the moral dimension, explaining that he has opposed illegal wars by the US and Israel in various contexts and that his duty is to call out both sides, stressing international law and stopping his own governments from dropping bombs on Iran as the top priority. Glenn: Agrees, adding that human rights should restrain war, not justify it, and warns against substituting humanitarian rhetoric for power plays. Yanīs: Concludes by recalling past anti-war activism and reiterates that solidarity should resist imperialism, not substitute it with bombings of other regimes. He emphasizes choosing international law and opposing the gang-like rule of Western governments. Glenn: Thanks Yanis; Yanis thanks him as well.

Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of Power of the Future, discusses the increase in Iranian oil production under the Biden administration and the potential impact on gas prices. He highlights the importance of sanctions on Iran and how excess cash often funds terrorism. Turner also mentions the silence in the Middle East during the Trump administration due to increased American oil production. He expresses concern about the current situation, including the diminishing strategic petroleum reserve and the risk it poses to national security. Turner draws parallels between the current energy crisis and the 1970s, emphasizing the need for change in the upcoming elections.

The first speaker warns of an international disaster and a potential World War III scenario, explaining that national gasoline could move toward roughly $3.50 to $3.70 a gallon if disruptions persist over the next week. They frame this as how the war starts showing up in family budgets and note that Box News reports the US economy lost 92,000 jobs in February. The second speaker introduces a Box News Alert: the US economy did not add jobs in February; it lost 92,000 jobs, with unemployment ticking up to 4.4%. The first speaker says the Labor Department tried to soften the data by pointing to strike activity, winter weather, seasonal factors, and post-Christmas effects, but argues those factors aren’t enough. They contend the real problem is the timing: a weaker labor market paired with a war-driven energy shock, which could revive stagflation fears and prompt markets to reassess. They point to one of the worst weeks in months for global bond markets and say traders worry the energy-driven inflation crisis will keep central banks more hawkish for longer. They reference the Cleveland Fed president suggesting a policy shift toward holding rates longer, with future rate cuts already sliding as markets brace for energy costs to feed into inflation data. The first speaker emphasizes that energy is central because higher oil affects more than oil itself: it flows into trucking, food, airfare, home building and real estate, appliances, freight, fertilizer, utility bills, and everything related to growing, moving, cooling, heating, packaging, and delivering goods. They claim it’s not theoretical and note that companies are already warning about rising costs across supply chains. They state that air and sea corridors through the Gulf have been dramatically disrupted. The speakers highlight an underreported angle: a viral Fox News Weekend segment in which hosts asserted that they have already beaten Iran, listing claims of how they are winning.

The speaker raises concerns about Russia's use of Iranian oil tankers to violate US energy sanctions. They criticize the Biden administration for allowing Iran's "ghost fleet" of tankers to grow from 70 to 300, without imposing sanctions. This has enabled Iran to increase its oil exports, funding the regime and the war in Ukraine. The speaker questions why the administration hasn't sanctioned the tankers, as Russia is now using them to aid its aggression in Ukraine. The response from Speaker 1 acknowledges the symbiotic relationship between Iran and Russia and mentions efforts to break it up. However, the speaker argues that the administration has not effectively enforced oil sanctions, allowing funds to flow to Iran for attacks on Ukraine.

Speaker 0 outlines steps Donald Trump has taken to create a war with Iran: first, he tore up the Iran nuclear agreement. Speaker 1 confirms, “I am announcing today that The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.” Speaker 0 notes a second step: he has escalated crippling sanctions against Iran. Speaker 1 adds, “The sanctions kicking in at midnight Sunday target Iran's oil exports, banking, and shipping. Even though UN inspectors say Iran is still complying with the nuclear deal. The United States will pursue sanctions tougher than ever before.” Speaker 0 identifies a third step: he designated Iran's military as a terrorist organization. Speaker 2 states, “Secretary of state Mike Pompeo has announced that The US is designating the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terror group. Today, The United States is continuing to build its maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime. I'm announcing our intent to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including its good force, as a foreign terrorist organization.” The summary adds that, with this designation, the US can sanction “pretty much anybody who talks to or deals with or has any business whatsoever with the IRGC.” Speaker 0 lists a fourth step: he continues to deploy more and more US troops to the region. Speaker 2 reports, “Just moments ago, the Pentagon authorized an additional 1,000 American troops to The Middle East in response to growing concerns over Iran.” He also notes that “a US aircraft carrier and a bomber task force are being sent to areas closer to Iran.” Speaker 2 adds a bellicose message: “Yes. There will indeed be hell to pay. Let my message today be very clear. We are watching, and we will come after you.” Speaker 0 shifts to a political appeal, saying, “We’ve got to stop Donald Trump from starting a war with Iran. I'm asking you to join me and support my legislation, the No More Presidential Wars Act.” To participate in the third presidential debate, she states that “in order to qualify … I need at least a 130,000 people to contribute to our campaign.” She asks viewers to donate, instructing them to click the link or donate at tulsi twenty twenty dot com.

The speaker asserts that the United States bears responsibility for Iran’s later radicalism, contending that the American government is the reason Iran became radical. The reasoning given is that Iran had a democratically elected leader, Mossadegh, whom the speaker claims the U.S. did not like because he wanted to nationalize the oil. The speaker notes that the British also disliked Mossadegh for the same reason, and references a historical moment—1953—described as the Iranian coup d'etat, stating that it was aided by intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. Following this intervention, the speaker claims that the United States and its allies “put the shah back in,” describing the shah as physically sick and unpopular. This sequence, according to the speaker, established conditions that paved the way for a rise in and persistence of radical elements within Islam for many decades. The points are presented in a causal narrative: U.S. opposition to Mossadegh over oil nationalization contributed to intervention in Iran, which led to restoring the Shah; the Shah’s unpopularity and ill health, under this arrangement, helped create an environment that empowered radical Islamist forces for an extended period. Key claims highlighted include: - The American government is depicted as the root cause of Iran’s later radicalism. - Mossadegh’s push to nationalize oil made him a target of U.S. and British opposition. - The 1953 coup d'etat in Iran was aided by intelligence agencies from the UK and the United States. - The Shah was reinstalled after the coup and is characterized as physically ill and unpopular. - This sequence is said to have paved the way for the most radical elements of Islam for many decades. The speaker emphasizes the continuity of this historical arc as a justification for present-day views on Iran, linking early mid-20th-century foreign intervention to long-term Islamist radicalism. The narrative is presented as a straightforward cause-and-effect chain, with the 1953 coup and the Shah’s reinstatement identified as pivotal events leading to subsequent decades of radicalization.

The speaker acknowledges that the economy was in a bad state when the current president took office. They claim that the previous administration lacked a comprehensive plan and that the current president has taken steps to improve the economy. They mention that gas prices increased due to Putin's war. Another speaker counters these points, stating that most of the jobs created by Biden were actually recovered from the pandemic and that the economy is still far from where it was under Trump. They argue that gas prices rose because of Biden's restrictions on domestic energy production, not because of the Ukraine war. They express skepticism towards the speaker's claims and criticize their credibility.

Iran wants to take over Saudi Arabia by burning down the Saudi embassy. They claim the US created ISIS by supporting Mujahideen fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. A high-level asset allegedly became president in 2008 to destroy the US from within. The president defunded the military and allegedly funded ISIS through covert operations. An ISIS commander in Pakistan confessed to receiving funds routed through the US to recruit fighters for Syria. The US government has been criticized for indirectly funding terrorist organizations. President Obama requested funds to train Iraqi soldiers and Syrian rebels to fight ISIS.

The speaker expresses the belief that Iran is financing terrorism through its oil infrastructure and suggests that it is time for Iran to face consequences for its actions. They state that if it were up to them, they would escalate the war against Iran. Speaker 1 seeks clarification, asking if the speaker is suggesting that the United States and Israel should bomb Iran, even without direct evidence of their involvement in a recent attack. The speaker confirms this, saying "yeah."

Speaker 0: Welcome to game plan. I'm Shivan Jan now. So far, there is only one winner in this war in West Asia, and that's Russia. Mind you, I'm not saying that this was acknowledged by the European Council president Antonio Costa. US Israeli strikes in West Asia, they have driven up the price of oil, strengthening the Kremlin's ability to fund its military campaign. Now in a sharp reversal from last year's policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy, US treasury secretary Scott Pessen said that The United States could unsanction other Russian oil to keep the flow of oil intact. And this is because the Strait Of Hormuz, the pivotal point from where this war is kind of converging, that is under complete Iranian control. Movement of ships has been blocked. Movement of oil has been blocked. It has shot up the oil prices, and the repercussions are being felt across the world at this point. Is the war proving to be a boon for Russia whose economy is dependent on energy exports? As the state of Hormuz gets blocked, Russia gets a free hand at selling its oil at rates that can be expounded without proper discounts as well. Is Putin the one winning in the war that US and Israel started against Iran? To discuss this with me on game plan is doctor Glenn Deesen, professor of international relations at the University of Southeastern Norway. Glenn, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thanks so much for joining me here. Trump and Putin, they held a call recently, the first time this year, and this was to discuss the discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran. What do you think they would have discussed, and what kind of a role can Putin be playing in the ongoing war? Speaker 1: Well, I assume some of the things to discuss was obviously the the the extent to which The US and Russia targets each other because one of the things that the American media has been complaining about is the likelihood that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran for targets, but of course this is what The United States been doing for years and continues to do, that is give the Ukrainians targets to hit Russia. So I think there's a necessity to begin to discuss is appropriate and again what happens behind these doors, I don't know. But also of course there has to be some scaling back of the energy sanctions against Russia to bring this, the energy prices under control. As you suggest, they are now very much out of control. But I think also the main thing they've discussed is how to bring this war to an end because I think it's perfectly clear now that this US attack on Iran was a terrible mistake, and it appears that Putin would be the the main middleman who would might be able to bring an end to this war. But, again, it depends what can be done as what the Iranians will demand may be more than what the Americans can deliver. Speaker 0: Glenn, as you mentioned, Putin could perhaps be the main person to bring peace in this war. Putin has the highest chance of acting as peacemaker in West Asia. Is there anyone other than Putin at this point who can bring? Because just look at the optics of it. US starts a war, and I think ten days into it, he needs to make a call to Vladimir Putin to discuss that same war. How does it look for The US? Speaker 1: Well, they don't care for this, of course, but that it's similar to what to what happened with the war against Syria. That is, if you remember, back at president Obama's time, he had set these red lines, he were gonna attack Syria. It was quite obvious that this would be a disaster. So he went to the Russian president and he was able to get a deal through and which essentially took Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So it was, you know, it it it is the reality or the optics of it isn't great given that The US has been fighting a proxy war for years against Russia, but but, know, at some point, you have to put the optics aside. Who who else would be in a position to help to negotiate this? I'm thinking, you know, perhaps China could be a middleman, but I think given that The United States, especially under the Trump administration, wants to improve bilateral ties with Russia, I I I think he's probably the best, yeah, the best bet. Speaker 0: Would it be fair to say that Putin is emerging as a winner in this ongoing West Asia war, which only seems to be expanding within the West Asian region? Speaker 1: Well, no. I think, yeah, to a large extent, I think that is correct because the energy prices are way up. The US have to scale back sanctions. The all the weapons which The US had intended to ship towards Ukraine to fight Russia is now being depleted. For European leaders, as you mentioned earlier on, to who aspire to prolong the war in Ukraine, this is an absolute disaster. And we'll see that countries that cut the energy ties or at least reduced energy ties with Russia at the best of American pressure, they of course have learned a lesson now as well that this was not a good idea that you don't necessarily put bet too much on a hegemon in decline, so countries who before paid discounts now may have to pay premium. We'll see that Iran, which I assume is getting some support from Russia sees this relationship improving dramatically. They're moving much closer, which is good for Russia because the Iranians always have some suspicions towards the Russians given well a long history they've had through the centuries of conflict. So all of this improves. You can also say that The Gulf States, the weakening of The Gulf States has also a big impact on weakening The U. S. Ability to restore its hegemony because what show what's obvious now is that the Gulf States are not getting protection instead they're becoming very vulnerable as frontline states and The US is no longer seen as that reliable. Well, if they're not going to bet their security on The United States anymore then they may not have that much pressure to sell their oil in dollars. You're not gonna have those recycled petrodollars coming back to The US, and suddenly the whole AI race with China looks a lot weaker as well. So I think across the board, a lot of things look good for Russia, but and there is a big but here, and that is I don't think that the Russians want this war nonetheless because the Russians, much like the Chinese, value stability and predictability. And what's happening in Iran now could again, if something would happen to Iran collapse, that would be a disaster for this Greater Eurasia initiative that is to integrate economies of Greater Eurasian Continent, but also this could spiral into a world war. So from this perspective, it's very dangerous and I don't doubt that the Russians therefore want to put an end to this war simply because I guess much like India, they don't want the Eurasian Continent to be too China centric, they would like to have many poles of power and this requires diversification. This means that the Russians need close ties with Iran, with India and other countries. So for the Americans to knock off Iran off the, you know, the chessboard, the greater Eurasian chessboard would be a disaster for the Russians. So, yes, I think they're prospering or benefiting from this, but they they do wanna put an end to it. Speaker 0: Understood. Glenn, let me just come to the Strait Of Hormuz. You know, the objectives of U. S. Behind starting this war, that has been questioned enough. Why did you start this war in the first place? Those are questions not just emerging, you know, globally. They're also emerging from inside The U. S. But if you look at what a win will actually look like for US, would it be the state of Hormuz? Like, which whoever controls the state of Hormuz is eventually who walks away as you know, walks away with the victory at this point because The US was looking for a change in regime. They mentioned it enough number of times. That hasn't happened and doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Is the state of Hormuz the winning factor now? Speaker 1: Well, I I I don't think any The US would be in a position to control this just given the geography. So The US obviously went into into this war with the objective of regime change. That was the goal. This was the decapitation strike, this was the hope of killing Khamenei and obviously it didn't work. I think it shouldn't have come as a surprise, but you know killing the leader of Iran only created more solidarity within the country. And also the idea that the whole armed forces would begin to disintegrate once they had been punished enough, also proven to be incorrect. So I think at the moment you see the American pivoting a bit. Some are talking about the Strait Of Moose that this should be a goal, others are saying you see a shift now towards saying well, actually what we really want to do is just degrade Iran's missile capabilities that they won't have this long range missiles. And again, you know, these are the kind of vague objectives which they can essentially declare victory today then because Iran has had many of its missiles destroyed. Also it launched a lot of its missiles at U. S. Targets which means that its missile stockpile has been reduced. So this should be a source of optimism when The U. S. Moves from this very hard line objective such as regime change and they shift in towards missiles, reducing the missile stockpiles or something like this. But the straight of our moves, I think, is beyond what what is reasonable. It's it will be too difficult. So I don't think they will But why push too hard on do Speaker 0: you feel it would be difficult if I were to just look at the bases that they have across West Asia? They have enough military might. Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, have their bases there. How difficult would it be to exert that military might over the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, controlling it just means the ability to shut it down. Many countries would have the ability to shut down this narrow strait. The problem is that no one benefits from it, that is the Gulf States are hurt, Iran is hurt from it, The US and the global economy is hurt. So it becomes an exercise in self harm. The reason why the Iranians are doing this, the ability to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz is because The US has the ability to inflict a mass amount of destruction. It can go after civilian infrastructure, it can well, look what they've done to Tehran. It looks like, well, just, you know, the chemical warfare there. You've seen in terms of going after his fuel depots. They're going after the water supplies in Iran. You you see all these things. This is what America can do. Iran doesn't have that ability. They can't hit The United States. What they can do is cause economic pain. So, yes, I think The US and many of the Gulf States can also shut down the Strait Of Our Moose, but but but that's not that's it doesn't have any purpose. It doesn't have any reasoning. Speaker 0: Can they eradicate the Iranian control over the Strait Of Hormuz? I'm not talking about shutting it down, but just get rid of the Iranians from there and they then decide who gets to control and when it has to be shut and when it has to be opened and remained and kept open and secured. Can The US exert that kind of military might over the state of Hormuz to control it? Speaker 1: Then one need us to control a massive amount of Iran's territory, which is a huge territory with populated by 90,000,000 people. So this seems very unlikely and if closing down the Strait Of Hormuz would depend on very sophisticated weapon systems, will be one thing. But this can be shut down with drones which can be manufactured in apartments. It can be also shut down with small naval drones that is this essentially drone operated small torpedoes. There's it doesn't require a lot of high technology which means that The US can't take out very key infrastructure to prevent Iran from shutting this down, to force it to open. But with very cheap and easy to make weapons, the Iranians can shut it down and it's simply too much territory, too large population for The United States to shut down the these capabilities. So at some point, they're have to make peace with the Iranians and make it make sure it's in Iran's interest to keep the Strait Of Hormuz open because it is in their interest. The problem now is that Iran faces an existential threat. That is The US now threatens to destroy not just the government, but also the country. As Trump tweeted, we we will make it impossible for Iran to even rebuild as a nation. And this is what regime change means. There is no replacement government. This means the disintegration and destruction of Iran, a massive civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So for them this is existential which is why they went to this great extent. They've never done this before because they never believed that they faced this kind of an existential threat. So if the war ends, the Iranians have no reason to shut this straight down. This is very horrible for them as well. So, no, I I don't think The US can control the straight or almost no one can control it completely because too many actors could shut it down. Speaker 0: Glenn, thanks so much for joining me here on game plan. Whether this war continues further, that only means and if it does, that's essentially what Iran is looking at because they're not capitulating. They're not giving up. They are taking a bad amount of beating. There's no doubt in that, but they are continuing with their counters nevertheless. And straight of hormones is their main play where they're exerting their pressure with whether it's mines, whether it's their own boats, whether it's their own military boats. Now energy experts have also warned that whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia's economy, that depends directly on how long it lasts. But there is little to suggest that Iran is willing to capitulate that what we just discussed. They're inviting U. S. To continue the war on the other hand. That's what the statements from Iran suggest that we're waiting. Come on, on. Now in the midst of this, Russia is emerging as the winner as we just discussed. How long this lasts? It doesn't seem to be in the favor of The U. S. We'll need to wait and watch twelfth day and running. They expected it to last for about four to five weeks, whether it goes the distance or even longer. Let's wait. That was Glenn Deeson joining me here on Game Plan. Speaker 1: Thanks, Yvonne.

Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and Speaker 2 discuss the evolving confrontation between the United States and Iran and its broader economic and strategic implications. Speaker 0 highlights three predictions: (1) Trump would win, (2) he would start a war with Iran, and (3) the US would lose that war, asking if these predictions are still valid. Speaker 1 characterizes the current phase as a war of attrition between the United States and Iran, noting that Iranians have been preparing for twenty years and now possess “a pretty good strategy of how to weaken and ultimately destroy the American empire.” He asserts that Iran is waging war against the global economy by striking Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and targeting critical energy infrastructure and waterways such as the Baghdad channel and the Hormuz Strait, and eventually water desalination plants, which are vital to Gulf nations. He emphasizes that the Gulf States are the linchpin of the American economy because they sell petrodollars, which are recycled into the American economy through investments, including in the stock market. He claims the American economy is sustained by AI investments in data centers, much of which come from the Gulf States. If the Gulf States cease oil sales and finance AI, he predicts the AI bubble in the United States would burst, collapsing the broader American economy, described as a financial “ponzi scheme.” Speaker 2 notes a concrete example: an Amazon data center was hit in the UAE. He also mentions the United States racing to complete its Iran mission before munitions run out. Speaker 1 expands on the military dynamic, arguing that the United States military is not designed for a twenty-first-century war. He attributes this to the post–World War II military-industrial complex, which was built for the Cold War and its goals of technological superiority. He explains that American military strategy relies on highly sophisticated, expensive technology—the air defense system—leading to an asymmetry in the current conflict: million-dollar missiles attempting to shoot down $50,000 drones. He suggests this gap is unsustainable in the long term and describes it as the puncturing of the aura of invincibility that has sustained American hegemony for the past twenty years.

Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 only protests Western energy and never criticizes Saudi Arabia or Russia. Speaker 1 denies ever doing so. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 will condemn OPEC Energy and their use of private jets, and if Speaker 1 has ever been on a private jet. Speaker 1 claims to own 100 private jets and admits to frequently using them. Speaker 0 expresses confusion over Speaker 1's evasive responses.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the impact of restrictions on Iranian funds. Speaker 1 questions if the funds' fungibility is affected, but Speaker 0 clarifies that the money belongs to Iran. They debate White House talking points and misunderstandings about US taxpayer money. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the funds are not US taxpayer money and criticizes claims that suggest otherwise. Speaker 1 argues that restrictions make it easier for Iran to access funds. The conversation ends with a disagreement on the use of the term "straw man argument." Translation: The speakers discuss restrictions on Iranian funds and clarify that the money belongs to Iran, not US taxpayers. They debate misconceptions about the origin of the funds and their impact on Iran's spending.

The speaker is asked why they won't admit that the US doesn't plan to give the money to Iran. In response, the speaker explains that they have always had the power to oversee how the funds are distributed and they have the option to withhold it if they choose to.

Iran has a history of funding terrorism, like Hamas, regardless of sanctions. The argument that the money given to Iran is fungible suggests that they could have used other funds for the recent attack.

The speaker suggests bombing Iran's oil infrastructure as a response to their alleged financing of terrorism. They believe it is time for Iran to face consequences for supporting chaos. They clarify that if war escalates, they will come after Iran. Speaker 1 seeks clarification, asking if the speaker wants the US and Israel to bomb Iran without direct evidence of their involvement in the attack. The speaker confirms this.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

Speaker 0 argues that “they’re making hundreds of billions of dollars a year more,” and that this funding emboldens them to give their proxies “weapons, money, and the vigor to attack the Jewish state,” which he says is unacceptable in the international community. He sets the stage for a connection between large flows of money and aggressive action by those proxies. Speaker 1 responds by asserting that “the only reason that Hamas attacked Israel, the only reason they’ll able to is because of increased Iranian funding,” and adds that Hamas is funded “in part” by Iran but that Hamas also receives funding from various other sources. He names possible funders such as Iran and Qatar and questions who funds Iran, suggesting multiple sponsors. Speaker 0 presses the point with a direct question, “Who funds Iran?” prompting Speaker 1 to identify Qatar as a potential funder. Speaker 0 repeats and confirms, expressing uncertainty about specifics by saying, “Buffans? Okay. Who from Hamasi? Of course they do. Right?” Speaker 1 continues with uncertainty, noting that “they were transferring a whole lot of money to the Gaza Strip” and references the Gaza funding issue as a major scandal associated with Netanyahu, described as “one of the big scandals that Netanyahu was involved in,” tied to letting that money pass through to the Gaza Strip, though he adds “I don’t know this is supervision.” In the dialogue’s core, Speaker 0 posits a logical implication: “If Iran gets more money, that’s good for Hamas. Right? You agree on that? Come on.” Speaker 1 responds with a cautious “Broadly speaking,” and Speaker 0 presses further, urging Speaker 1 to concede one point, addressing him by name, Steven. Overall, the exchange centers on the linkage between international funding, particularly Iranian and Gulf-state money, to Hamas and its activities, with attention to the claim that large monetary flows empower proxies to threaten Israel, and with references to past allegations about the transfer of funds to Gaza and the political fallout surrounding those funds.

Speaker 0 asserts Iran attacked without provocation and insists America must wage war on Israel's behalf, even if it costs American lives. Speaker 0 claims these lives were promised to Israel two thousand years ago. Speaker 1 objects to their children dying for Israel. Speaker 0 dismisses this concern as selfish, stating American children will fight for Israel, who Speaker 0 identifies as America's greatest ally. Speaker 0 urges listeners to send their sons to war, acknowledging Israel funds Speaker 0's paycheck.