reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Taxpayers, let’s discuss the infiltration of our government. The Biden administration has made intentional intelligence failures, leading to significant threats. Maher Patel, head of intelligence programs, is prioritizing efforts away from critical issues like the southern border and threats from Iran and China. He has ties to anti-Israel sentiments and previously worked for Samantha Power. Robert Malley, Biden’s envoy to Iran, recently had his security clearance suspended by the FBI, raising concerns about his connections. Arianne Tabatabay, who was installed by Malley at the Department of Defense, has communicated directly with Iranian officials. This situation demands investigation, especially regarding why Malley was suspended while Tabatabay remains in her position. The implications of these appointments are serious and warrant immediate attention.

The speaker discusses the alleged infiltration of the Biden administration by individuals with ties to Iran. They mention Maher Ptahr, head of intelligence programs in the White House, who has been accused of prioritizing intelligence collection efforts in favor of Iran. They also bring up Robert Malley, Biden's envoy to Iran, whose security clearance was suspended by the FBI. The speaker claims that Malley installed an Iranian national, Arianne Tabatabay, in a position at the Department of Defense. They argue that these individuals pose a threat to American priorities and call for an investigation into their actions.

Dan Bongino highlighted why Israel is a focal point, arguing that unwavering support for Israel doesn't align with an "America First" agenda and hinders national freedom. A Fox News source suggested Epstein was an intelligence asset for Middle Eastern entities, possessing blackmail material of influential individuals. This blackmail isn't solely in Epstein's hands, but controlled by a foreign country, potentially compromising U.S. officials. High-profile individuals have shown stronger allegiance to Israel than to America. Despite some Israelis being supportive, many pro-Israel figures avoid addressing financial aid to Israel, which may be actively blackmailing the U.S. government. The Epstein case alone warrants severing ties with Israel until the truth is exposed, as blackmail compromises our government's integrity.

Mario: Daniel, after decades of diplomacy, the Middle East is now at war. Early on you suggested Hormuz and economic leverage; as the conflict evolved, US ground invasion talk, targeted Iranian leadership, and new developments—like JD Vance’s reaction to US intel and Israel striking energy infrastructure in Iran—have shaped concerns that Israel wields outsized influence. Broad question: how did we get here and why? Daniel: There’s a long history of American and Israeli influence in play. There is American agency and a geopolitical logic tying chokepoints like Hormuz to broader aims, such as reasserting US primacy vis-à-vis China. But this doesn’t fully explain how the last 10 yards into war were crossed. Netanyahu’s long effort to shape a strategic environment culminated when he found a president open to using American power in the region. Israel’s strategy appears to be to assert greater regional dominion by leveraging US military power and creating dependencies with Gulf states. Netanyahu reportedly offered the president an actionable plan, including on-the-ground assets, to decapitate Iran’s leadership and spark a broader upheaval, which helped push the White House toward a twelve-day war in June. Israel also presented a narrative of rapid US escalation to secure its aims, while the American interagency process—though deteriorated in recent years—had to interpret unusually aggressive, yet selective, Israeli intelligence and objectives. The result is a complex dynamic where US rhetoric and decisions are deeply entangled with Israeli designs for regional hegemony, an outcome that was not broadly anticipated by many regional partners. Mario: If the US administration had not fully understood Israel’s project, how did this come to pass? And how does Mossad factor in? Daniel: Israel has tremendous access to influence over an American administration through lobbying, media echo chambers, and political finance, which Netanyahu exploited to drive a course toward major confrontation with Iran. Before Trump’s term, Netanyahu was nervous about a president who could pivot against allies; he devised a strategy that culminated in Operation Midnight Hammer and subsequent US-Israeli collaboration, reinforced by the possibility of rapid decapitation of Iran’s leadership. There are reports (and debates) about Mossad presenting on-the-ground assets and the possibility of instigating a street revolution in Iran, which may not have been fully believed by Washington but was persuasive enough to shape policy. The question remains how much of Israeli intelligence makes it to Trump and his inner circle, especially given concerns about cognitive ability and decision-making in the White House at that time. Netanyahu’s aim, according to Daniel, was not simply to topple Iran but to maximize Israel’s regional leverage by using American power while reducing other regional peers’ influence. Mario: What about Gulf states and broader regional realignments? How did the Gulf respond, and what does this mean for their security calculus? Daniel: The Gulf states face a stark dilemma. They fear Iran's retaliatory capabilities but also distrust America’s consistency and question whether US support will be cost-effective. Iran’s strikes into the Gulf have forced Gulf capitals to reassess their reliance on US protection and Israel’s influence, particularly given Israel’s aggressive posture and expanded regional footprint—Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza—with potential implications for the Gulf’s own security and economic interests. Some Gulf actors worry about over-dependence on American security assurances while Israel intensifies operational reach. The GCC’s calculus is shifting: they confront a choice between continuing alignment with the US-Israel bloc or seeking more independent security arrangements. The possibility of a broader Gulf-Israel axis, or at least closer coordination, is tempered by concerns over long-term regional stability, public opinion, and the risk of escalation. Mario: How has this affected perceptions of Iran, Israel, and the broader regional order? Has the Gulf’s stance shifted? Daniel: The region’s balance has been unsettled. Iran’s actions have damaged Gulf trust in its neighbors’ security guarantees, while Israel’s aggressive posture and reliance on US power have complicated Gulf states’ calculations. Turkey’s role is pivotal as it balances concerns about Iran and Israel, while also watching how the region realigns. The possibility of a future where Iran’s power is weakened is weighed against the risk of destabilization and long-term security costs. Negotiations between the US, Iran, and regional actors—stoked by Turkish diplomacy and shifting Gulf positions—are ongoing, with Turkey signaling that diplomacy remains important, even as Gulf states reassess their security dependencies. Mario: What about Lebanon and Hezbollah, and the potential for broader spillover? Daniel: Lebanon faces severe consequences: displacement, civilian harm, and a domestic political paralysis that complicates relations with Israel. Hezbollah remains a factor, with ongoing tensions in Lebanon and the South. Israel’s goal of establishing security-control in Lebanon risks reigniting long-standing conflicts, while Lebanon’s government seeks a balance that could prevent further escalation, if possible. The broader picture is that Israel’s approach—driven by a perceived need to neutralize Iran and all potential threats—could provoke wider regional blowback, complicating already fragile domestic politics across the Levant. Mario: Final thoughts as the war unfolds? Daniel: Israel’s strategic ambitions appear to extend beyond countering Iran to shaping a broader order in which it remains the dominant regional power, aided by US military leverage. Gulf states face a difficult reorientation, reassessing longstanding alliances in light of perceptions of US reliability. The coming months will reveal whether regional actors can recalibrate toward diplomatic resolutions or wind up in a deeper, more protracted conflict. The question remains whether a political path could replace military escalation, and whether external powers can deter further aggression and stabilize the region without allowing a broader conflagration.

Max Blumenthal discusses what he calls the all-encompassing, defining influence of pro-Israel interests in the United States, arguing that Israeli influence has shaped Donald Trump’s career and policy from the beginning. He traces this to Trump’s inner circle and to figures connected to pro-Israel billionaires in New York, such as Charles Kushner, Howard Lutnick, and Steve Witkoff, and to the Adelsons’ network around the Republican Jewish Coalition. He cites Trump’s early appearances with Adelson-backed circles and his 2015-2016 remarks at the RJC convention, where Trump suggested making a deal between Israelis and Palestinians and referenced a Palestinian state, which Blumenthal says alarmed the Adelsons and the RJC. Blumenthal asserts that Trump’s 2016 rise was financed by Israel-first billionaires, with Paul Singer shifting from initially opposing Trump to backing him for the Iran policy he desired. He claims Singer’s money helped Trump move toward a war with Iran, aligning with figures like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and other pro-Israel advisors who provided influence, while Bannon was sidelined. He argues Tucker Carlson and other voices in the first term may have constrained war with Iran, but that the second term brought even more pro-Israel personnel, including Mike Waltz in national security circles, and Marco Rubio continuing to push the Israel-aligned line. Blumenthal details what he describes as a cultivated, orchestrated process of influence over Trump and his advisers, culminating in a February 11, 2020 or 2021 meeting in the Situation Room where Netanyahu dictated terms to Trump to strike Iran. He describes the room as divided between an “A Team” of pro-Israel figures (Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, and others) and a dissenting “B Team” (J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and another figure) who had little real influence. He asserts that Netanyahu, with Mossad director David Barnea briefing Ratcliffe, steered Trump toward war with Iran, and that many within the administration recognized the war’s insanity but did not oppose it due to fear of repercussions. Blumenthal contends that the ceasefire in the region was sabotaged by Israel and that President Trump’s posture is effectively dictated by Israeli leadership. He cites Rubio’s post-briefing disclosure that Israel would attack Iran regardless of U.S. preference, and says the ceasefire’s terms, as drafted by the State Department for Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, indicate that Lebanon should be included; Israel, he says, launched a major assault in Lebanon—killing hundreds and attacking areas around Beirut and the American University of Beirut—in an attempt to provoke Iran and place the United States on the spot to reject Lebanon’s inclusion. He argues this demonstrates a “coup” in the White House, with Trump acting as “the first Israeli president,” and says the ceasefire is a hoax being sabotaged by Israel. Blumenthal points to domestic political consequences in the United States, noting Joe Kent’s resignation as a sign of MAGA discontent and arguing that Netanyahu has destabilized presidencies across the board. He claims that within MAGA, overt Israeli influence exists in influential media and political circles, including financiers and podcasters. Blumenthal lists prominent figures he claims are effectively Israeli foreign agents within MAGA infrastructure: Josh Hammer, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Dinesh D’Souza, Sebastian Gorka, Brandon Tatum, Todd Starnes, Laura Trump, and Don Jr.; and he asserts that Salem Media Group operates as an Israeli foreign agent, with Brad Parscale as a registered agent overseeing a contract between Israel’s foreign ministry and Clock Tower Strategies, delivering tens of millions in payments to influencers. He claims Laura Trump and Don Jr. own a stake in Salem Media, signaling a merger between the Trump orbit and Israeli interests. Finally, Blumenthal argues there is a fusion of ideological zeal and institutionalized influence, with a battleground between MAGA voices not paid by Israel and others who are funded to propagate Israel-first narratives, and he predicts a major clash in upcoming party conventions over U.S. policy toward Israel. He concludes that the clock is running out for Israel and that the country’s strategy relies on continuing aggressive actions, including bombing, to resolve its problems.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

Netanyahu controls Trump, not the other way around, which will also be the case regarding Israel's nuclear weapons. The influence of Israelis and their control over the US administration and Congress is unquestionable. Netanyahu has more influence in the US Congress than Donald Trump and is getting everything he wants. There is a groundswell in Congress to back Israelis and Netanyahu, no matter what he's done. After a hospital was hit in Israel, Netanyahu is saying they need to bomb and obliterate Iran.

"And that suits the Israelis just fine." "And if you're wondering why there's an awful lot of lunatic antisemitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic." "But how much of it is not organic at all?" "How much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" "Probably some because it serves their interest." "And so the true shame here, the actual villain in the story is the leadership of The United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades." "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do." "And for what reason? So if there's someone to be mad at, it's our leaders."

- The speaker claims that John Ratcliffe, the CIA, and Mossad are all the same, asserting that CIA and Mossad were involved with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and questioning where Steve Bannon stands on that issue. The speaker lambasts Ratcliffe as a “gosh damn fraud” and accuses intelligence agencies of destroying the country, urging removal, arrest, and charging of these figures. - The speaker recounts past involvement with Steve Bannon’s network, saying they used to be on frequently to discuss border and child trafficking topics, but after shifting to child trafficking, Bannon became unavailable. The speaker asks viewers to comment on whether they should appear on Bannon’s show again when a new documentary on child trafficking is released in November, and claims to have sent many texts to Bannon’s daughter, suggesting a sense of personal outreach that went unanswered. - A request is made for Bannon to show up on the speaker’s channel, with the speaker implying a personal connection and asking viewers to indicate if they think the speaker should appear on Bannon’s show as the new documentary drops. - The speaker urges viewers to watch their video and claims that Ratcliffe is a “gosh damn fraud” and a traitor, arguing that the two-tier justice system exists because intelligence agencies are “destroying our gosh damn country.” - Speaker 1 adds, supporting a broader conspiracy narrative: Witkoff is briefed three times a day by the CIA, and they lie to him. The speaker asserts this is not a marginal intelligence mistake but a deliberate pattern. - The discussion moves to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with claims that Hamas “doesn’t wanna do the deal” and that this comes from the Mossad and Netanyahu. There are calls for Ratcliffe to resign or for a congressional hearing on national television to reveal what Ratcliffe told negotiators. - The speaker references the beginning of a twelve-day war and says what Ratcliffe told the president about it was a lie, supported by a claim from the Times of Israel that cabinet minutes show Netanyahu’s cabinet was two years away from any emergency, not two days or two weeks. The speaker contends there was an emergency to kill negotiators so Witkoff could not meet in Muscat, Oman, on a Sunday, alleging that Mossad controls the CIA. - The closing remark credits Tulsi Gabbard and claims she was targeted or run out of the city, reinforcing the theme of institutional control by Mossad over American intelligence agencies.

The speaker claims intelligence failures by the Biden administration have led to "world war 4." According to the speaker, Maher Batar, head of intel programs in the National Security Council, prioritizes intelligence collection and once worked for Adam Schiff. A photo allegedly shows Batar wearing Palestinian garb and supporting "Jewish apartheid." Robert Malley, Biden's envoy to Iran, had his security clearance suspended by the FBI. Ariane Tabatabai, allegedly installed in the Department of Defense by Malley, is accused of emailing the Iranian foreign minister in 2014 to request permission to take a trip on behalf of the U.S. government. She is now assistant chief of staff to the Department of Defense's special operations office. The speaker questions why Malley's clearance was suspended and why Tabatabai is still employed by the DOD.

Joe Kent, former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, explains why he resigned over the war against Iran, arguing Iran posed no imminent threat and that the war was driven by Israeli influence and a regime-change agenda. Key points: - Imminent threat and escalation: In his view, Iran was not on the cusp of attacking the U.S. during Trump’s second term. Iran followed a calculated escalation ladder, stopping proxies during Operation Midnight Hammer and returning to negotiation afterward. After the attack on nuclear sites, Iran retaliated in kind, then returned to talks, indicating a calibrated approach rather than irrational behavior. The “imminent threat” cited by some officials was viewed as primarily tied to Israeli actions against Iran, not Iranian intent to attack the U.S. directly. - Regime-change as miscalculation: Kent contends that regime-change aims in Iran—similar to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya—are flawed. He believes attempts to remove the Iranian regime strengthen it instead, and he personally did not want another costly war in the Middle East. - Israeli influence and the policymaking process: He describes a multilayered Israeli influence network—strong PAC presence, intelligence sharing, and media/think-tank leveraging—that shapes U.S. policy. Israelis push for no enrichment and regime-change outcomes, using media echo chambers and direct access to U.S. decision-makers to steer policy in a direction that aligns with their goals, sometimes at odds with longer-term U.S. interests or what Trump might publicly advocate. - Intelligence versus policy sales: He notes that intelligence briefings can inform or sell a policy. Israeli influence can bypass traditional channels, presenting threats in emotionally resonant terms (e.g., fear of Ayatollahs obtaining a bomb) to push for aggressive stances. This has contributed to a cycle of escalation and military action. - Negotiation space and red lines: The administration’s narrowing of red lines around enrichment (from broader nuclear nonproliferation to zero enrichment) limited potential deal space. The Iranians did show willingness to negotiate on enrichment levels, monitoring, and proxies, but the Israelis and policy ecosystem continually sought broader prohibitions, complicating any potential agreement. - The Iran-Israel dynamic: The Israeli objective appears oriented toward regime change or a state of chaos preventing Iran from leveraging its regional power. Kent argues the U.S. has enabled Israel by subsidizing its defense and offense, creating pressure that constrains U.S. policy and international leverage. - Strategic and regional assessment: The Gulf, Straits of Hormuz, and regional energy security are central. He argues that the U.S. cannot easily open Hormuz militarily in the long term and that any durable arrangement would require restraining Israel, easing sanctions relief for Iran, and returning to a sustainable regional security framework. - Iran’s current strategy: Iran has managed to deter substantial American escalation by threatening to disrupt energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz and by leveraging proxies and regional influence. The leadership has shown discipline in controlling proxies and presenting a credible threat that optimizes Iran’s strategic position. - Great power dynamics: China is seen as a major beneficiary of the current cycle, gaining leverage as global energy transactions shift away from the dollar and as U.S. attention diverts to the Middle East. Russia’s posture is also affected; sanctions and energy markets interact with Iran’s actions, while Russia and China could exploit the distraction and reframe influence in their favor. - Syria and broader war lessons: Kent emphasizes that regime-change in Syria contributed to instability, with various factions and external powers (Turkey, Israel, HTS, Al Qaeda offshoots) complicating the landscape. He remains skeptical about the future stability of Syria, warning that competing external interests could lead to further conflict. - Prospects for de-escalation: A path to de-escalation would require restraining Israel’s offensive actions, offering some sanctions relief to Iran, and engaging in constructive regional diplomacy to reopen Hormuz. He suggests a sustainable deal would avoid large U.S. troop commitments and focus on practical counterterrorism cooperation, stable oil flow, and avoiding regime-change rhetoric. Overall, Kent argues that the Iran war was driven by a dominant Israeli influence, a flawed regime-change impulse, and a diplomacy dynamic that prioritized aggressive measures over practical, balanced engagement. He advocates restraining Israel, pursuing a pragmatic, limited set of objectives with Iran, and reframing U.S. regional strategy to reduce perpetual conflict in the Middle East. He also warns that without de-escalation, the conflict risks drawing the U.S. into a prolonged and costly cycle with broad regional and global repercussions.

The Biden administration's intelligence priorities are allegedly being set by Maher Batar, head of intelligence programs in the National Security Council. He formerly worked for Adam Schiff and a photo shows him in Palestinian garb in front of a sign supporting Jewish apartheid. Robert Malley, Biden's envoy to Iran, had his security clearance suspended by the FBI. Arianne Tabatabai, who Malley installed in the Department of Defense as assistant chief of staff for special operations, allegedly emailed the Iranian foreign minister in 2014 asking for permission to take a trip on behalf of the U.S. government. These individuals are accused of having ties to the Iranian regime and influencing intelligence priorities away from American interests, potentially intentionally. House Intel has not investigated these matters.

Donald Trump is prioritizing America First, not Israel First, and will no longer consult with Israel on Middle Eastern foreign policy. Trump believes Benjamin Netanyahu tried to manipulate the U.S. into war with Iran and caught Israel preparing to strike Iran without informing the U.S. Mike Walls allegedly spied on the Trump administration to coerce the cabinet into war with Iran on Netanyahu's behalf, but instead of firing him, Trump made him UN ambassador to silence him. Trump is reportedly going to recognize Palestine as a state, which will anger Israel. Israel is not our greatest ally, but our deepest foe, and the CIA says they are the number one spy threat in the U.S. The World Banking Cartel and Jeff Epstein are all tied together, but blackmail no longer works because there is evidence against everyone involved. The media can't lie anymore because people are waking up and have access to information.

Donald Trump is prioritizing America First, not Israel First, and will no longer consult with Israel on Middle Eastern foreign policy. Trump believes Benjamin Netanyahu tried to manipulate the U.S. into war with Iran and caught Israel preparing to strike Iran without informing the U.S. Mike Walls allegedly spied on the Trump administration to coerce the cabinet into war with Iran on Netanyahu's behalf. Trump appointed Walls as UN ambassador to silence him. Trump is aiming for world peace and believes Israel is trying to drag the U.S. into more Middle Eastern wars. Trump is reportedly going to recognize Palestine as a state, which will anger Israel. Israel is not our greatest ally, but our deepest foe, and the CIA considers Israel the number one spy threat in the U.S. The World Banking Cartel and Jeff Epstein are tied together, but blackmail is no longer effective because evidence exists against everyone involved. The media can't lie anymore because people are waking up and have access to information.

The speaker discusses alleged infiltration of the US government by individuals with ties to Iran. They mention Maher Ptahr, head of intelligence programs in the White House, who is accused of prioritizing intelligence collection efforts away from important areas such as the southern border and terrorism. They also mention Robert Malley, Biden's envoy to Iran, whose security clearance was suspended by the FBI. The speaker claims that Malley installed an Iranian national, Arianne Tabatabay, in a position at the Department of Defense. They argue that these individuals are distracting from protecting American priorities and call for an investigation into the situation.

"this is a good thing because it brings The United States into a conflict that we've been involved in on an existential level for decades." "There was an Israeli spy ring in The United States, and they clearly knew nine eleven was coming." "They aired it." "They're real people." "They're not crazy." "Those are factually true statements." "How many Shiite terror attacks have there been in The United States in my lifetime? Let me do the math." "Zero." "Don't tell me that the greatest threat we face is Iran. That's a lie." "You're telling it on behalf of a foreign power." "Iran is not even in the top 10 list." "Our problems would include tens of millions of foreign nationals living illegally in my country." "Nobody knows their identities." "A drug crisis that's killed millions of Americans over the past twenty years." "My family was attacked." "It's true." "And everyone kind of knows it's true."

Scott Horton introduces Joe Kent, formerly of the 75th Rangers and then the CIA’s Special Activities Division, who fought in the terror wars and later headed the Counterterrorism Center before resigning from the Trump administration over the war in Iran. Kent describes his background and why he came on the show, noting that he resigned over policy rather than personal animus, and emphasizes that his focus is on Iran policy and its intersection with Israeli interests. Kent asserts that the war with Iran was largely driven by the Israeli agenda and timeline. He points to statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the President, and the Speaker of the House claiming the attack was launched because they knew Israel would attack as well, arguing that this indicates Israel was driving U.S. policy and that the United States should not be bound to an Israeli timeline or to an outcome that serves Israeli objectives. He recounts his time at NCTC and in the White House, describing an ecosystem that included media figures, think tanks, and high-ranking Israeli officials, which he says influenced U.S. policy and reduced the president’s decision-making space, particularly concerning Iran’s red lines on enrichment. Kent explains his concern that the push for a hard line against Iran’s enrichment was an Israeli-led framing that equated any enrichment with a nuclear weapons program. He describes an alleged “Goldilocks methodology” by which Iran could enrich but not weaponize, a position the Israelis reportedly used to rally U.S. policymakers toward war. He argues that the Israelis wanted to remove any space for a negotiated deal and sought regime change, leveraging the U.S. military to accomplish that goal. He emphasizes that the war was not the first option and that a more pragmatic, slower approach could have yielded a deal if U.S. policymakers allowed it. In discussing the question of who was pressuring whom, Kent says the Israelis were trying to force a scenario where Iran’s red line would be seen as unacceptable, thereby pushing the United States toward war. He notes that Trump’s willingness to negotiate existed but was constrained by Israeli pressure and media echo chambers, and that the war’s timing undermined any potential for a peaceful settlement. He asserts that, if the president had space to negotiate, a deal might have been possible, but the Israelis’ push to force conflict narrowed that space. Kent also addresses the question of how the war affected American strategic interests, arguing that the United States should restrain Israel and align policy with broader American interests in the region, rather than facilitate regime change or allow broader chaos. He contends that an ongoing U.S.-Israel alignment over militarized actions in the Middle East risks destabilizing the region, jeopardizing energy security, and undermining U.S. partners in the Gulf and Europe. Regarding the Iraq war and Iran, Kent asserts that the Israeli lobby pressured for war in 2002-2003 and had broader influence in Syria and elsewhere, but he also acknowledges the complex mix of neoconservatives and various factions. He describes how, after the Iraq war, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and U.S. policy intersected with Iranian influence and regional dynamics, noting that many Iraqi Shias fought against Iran while others aligned with Tehran, and asserting that mishandling these dynamics contributed to instability. Kent discusses the handling of Iranian EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) and argues that Iran shaped many of the tactics, while local Iraqi groups adapted them. He emphasizes that the broader narrative around Iranian responsibility for attacks in Iraq should be tempered by on-the-ground complexities, including Iraqi dynamics and the role of other actors like Lebanese Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. The conversation turns to the question of whether there were Iranian assassination plots against President Trump, with Kent acknowledging a real threat after Soleimani’s killing but emphasizing that the most serious plan was not clearly linked to a large-scale operation; rather, one individual, Asif Mershand, was recruited by Iran and monitored by the FBI. Kent cautions that allegations of broader Iranian plots should be scrutinized, and he notes ongoing questions about linkage and DHS investigations. Throughout, Kent reiterates his core conclusion: the essential policy misstep was allowing Israeli leadership to drive U.S. policy on Iran, and a successful path forward would require restraining Israel and pursuing a negotiated deal with Iran under conditions that preserve American strategic interests, with a clear off-ramp and space for diplomacy. He endorses the notion that President Trump could secure a deal if given the political room to reset the dynamic with Israel and to recalibrate U.S. commitments in the region.

I'm starting to think that "America First" may not mean what we think it means. America First PR is a conservative PR firm run by Melissa Rain Lively. She seems well-connected, pictured with figures like Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump, but she was once a "Jewish woman who escaped QAnon." Now, she's at Mar-a-Lago, and I wonder if it has something to do with Israel relaunching a plan to disguise its propaganda behind foreign agents, a "new Hezbollah, Hezbollah 2.0." She often looks MAGA, but many posts focus on another country, like strengthening ties between the U.S. and Israel. Then there are posts like "Time to get terrorists" with foreign troops. Something seems off with "America First PR." What do you think?

Mossad is considered the leading assassination unit and has significantly influenced US policy for decades. Trump is allegedly falling in line with this influence. A deep state apparatus, including the CIA, Mossad, and MI6, governs US foreign policy. Ukraine's attack on Russia's strategic nuclear bombers and Israel's attack in Tehran share the same origins and methods, indicating Mossad's involvement in both operations, with the CIA's knowledge. Despite claims of an "America First" policy, the US allegedly operates with an "Israel First" foreign policy, which is characterized as reckless and dangerous. The US is purportedly willing to expend vast resources to fulfill extremist Zionist objectives.

The transcript presents a fringe, highly charged discussion about perceived Israeli influence in the United States, Trump’s shift from “America first” to “Israel first,” and related political dynamics. The speakers repeatedly claim that Israel controls the U.S. government and American foreign policy, with several variations such as “Israel's controlling our government,” “Israel controls us,” and “The government of Israel controls The United States.” They assert that Israel has run American foreign policy for thirty years and that the United States government is taking edicts from Israel, describing it as an “Israel first administration.” As the discussion progresses, the speakers describe discomfort with America’s relationship with Israeli leaders, calling the Israeli government a “satanic regime” and suggesting it seeks to cause pain. They contrast Trump’s campaign promises of “America first” with his alleged current actions, arguing that he has escalated a war on behalf of Israel and turned on earlier allies who did not toe the Israel-first line. They claim Trump has allied with politicians and influencers who are unpopular with his former base, and that he endorses a “massive war on behalf of Israel that he promised he would never start.” They point to specific figures affected by these changes, including those who supported or criticized Trump and Israel. The discussion names individuals and entities linked to the shift, including Charlie Kirk. They claim Kirk was influential against the Iran war and withdrew support for Israel prior to his death; Erica Kirk allegedly took over TPUSA to continue Charlie Kirk’s legacy but allegedly did so in a way that opposes Kirk’s earlier stance, endorsing Massey’s Israel-funded opponent and labeling Massey a “rhino.” They argue donors pressured Kirk to change his stance, leading TPUSA to distance itself from Kirk’s legacy and to align with an Israel-funding candidate backed by Trump. The speakers claim broad consequences for Trump’s base: those who call for justice with the Epstein files, those suspicious of Israel, and those who question Erica Kirk are said to have been blackballed or marginalized. Conversely, supporters of the new Trump are described as urging to move on from Epstein, unconditionally supporting Israel, and reacting strongly to any critique of Erica Kirk. A recurring theme is a critique of Zionism as a political ideology; the speakers distinguish between “Israel” and “Zionism” and argue Zionism controls both the U.S. and Israel. They challenge religious claims that Israel is “God’s chosen people,” offering a Christian critique of that idea and asserting separations of church and state in the U.S. The discussion includes references to alleged silencing mechanisms, narrative control, and tribalism as a “SIOP” framework, describing three characteristics: silencing opposing ideas, a strong narrative, and tribalism. They illustrate these with examples such as censorship of anti-Israel sentiment or questions about Israel, accusations about a fixed narrative like “Israel is our greatest ally,” and the exclusion of dissenting voices. The speakers conclude by asserting that while Israel does not control the U.S., Zionism appears to influence both countries, and that the root issue is the influence of Zionism rather than a single country’s leadership. They urge viewers to speak up while suggesting the changes reflect a broader, troubling shift in political power, ending with a night-time sign-off and personal recovery product plugs being referenced but later deemphasized.

Trump's choice for chief of staff is Susie Wiles, considered by some to be his handler, controlling access to him. Elon Musk is described as a fraud and government frontman. A carbon tax is recommended as a solution. Cabinet picks suggest a direction, including UN ambassador Elise Stefanik, secretary of state Marco Rubio, and EPA pick Lee Zeldin, all allegedly recipients of significant funds from the Israel lobby. Their views include crushing antisemitism, unconditional support for Israel, and confronting Iran. National security advisor pick Mike Waltz believes military force is needed to deter Iran's nuclear ambitions. Kristi Noem is slated for secretary of homeland security, having signed a bill conflating Israel criticism with antisemitism. Mike Huckabee is considered for US ambassador to Israel, allegedly believing Palestinians don't exist. Discussions about the "end times" are also referenced. Other picks include John Ratcliffe for the CIA, Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense, and John Thune for senate majority leader. Trump allegedly received $100,000,000 from Miriam Adelson. Claims are made that Palestinians are taught to kill from a young age and that Trump embraces the destruction of Palestinians.

Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground from Dubai, discussing the unfolding Trump-Netanyahu campaign against Iran and Lebanon, amid claims of a failed ceasefire and a chaotic US policy that could lead to peace talks or mass US casualties. The conversation centers on how US military operations were conducted with unclear objectives, the blockade of Hormuz, and broader questions about international alignments, domestic politics, and the integrity of US national security. Key points and claims discussed - James Webb, former senior foreign policy adviser to RFK Jr., discusses the conflict’s origins and the US military response: - The Iran conflict is described as atypical for the US military, with a lack of contingencies for evolving events, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Webb contrasts this with the Iraq War era, noting that past conflicts saw hundreds of thousands of troops staged for various contingencies. - He asserts the Strait of Hormuz closure is a significant, probable danger, and claims it was “the most probable and dangerous course of action” by the Iranian government, though later remarks acknowledge it was “closed for some.” - Webb accuses the President of denying the risk of such a closure and asserts this has harmed the US’s reputation and economic partnerships, painting the war as one fought on behalf of another country; he notes this stance as anomalous and unpopular domestically. - Assassination of Khamenei and Netanyahu’s involvement: - Webb describes waking to news of the assassination attempt on Khamenei as indicative of an Israeli planning cycle, arguing that assassinating foreign leaders risks violating norms and has long-term strategic consequences. - He claims the operation “bloody[s] the United States” and creates a blood feud between the US and Iran, undermining state-to-state negotiation dynamics. - Netanyahu’s influence and possible foreign power infiltration: - Webb questions what Netanyahu might have over Trump that resonates with MAGA voters, touching on theories involving foreign influence and the Epstein files, and suggesting long-standing efforts to cultivate influence within US politics. - He describes a broader pattern of neoconservative and pro-war pressures predating the Iraq War and accuses various political actors of co-opting Congress and government for an ongoing Iran-focused agenda. - Webb cites corruption in the US military procurement system and sanctions dynamics, noting cases where private-sector investments allegedly intersect with sanction decisions. - War powers, legality, and governance: - Webb emphasizes the constitutional requirement that Congress holds war powers (Article I, Section 8) and argues that the war with Iran did not follow proper processes or a legitimate declaration. - He critiques the War Powers Resolution’s applicability in this context, suggesting the administration acted beyond its constitutional authority. - RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and broader political dynamics: - Webb says he resigned from the RFK Jr. campaign after RFK Jr. equivocated on IDF tactics in Gaza, arguing this demonstrated an external influence on policy. He notes Tulsi Gabbard as DNI and expresses hope she can influence decisions, while acknowledging restricted access to the White House. - He believes there is bipartisan concern about the drift toward war and notes polling showing growing public wariness of foreign entanglements, including U.S.-Israel dynamics. He highlights potential shifts toward a more America-first foreign policy. - Military hardware, strategy, and vulnerability: - Webb discusses modern anti-ship and ballistic missile capabilities from Iran, Russia, and China, arguing US carriers require significant standoff distance and are vulnerable to advanced missiles, limiting traditional carrier-based operations. - He mentions USS George H.W. Bush’s unusual movements and raises questions about naval readiness and procurement integrity, as well as unexplained incidents aboard ships (e.g., clogging sewage systems) used to illustrate perceived internal disruptions. - Regional realignments and the petrodollar: - Webb suggests that aggressive Middle East actions could push regional allies to rethink loyalties and alliances, with potential implications for the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency. - He expresses cautious optimism that public sentiment toward “America first” and opposition to endless wars could drive political renewal, including a return to merit-based leadership and reduced foreign entanglements. - Final reflections: - Webb laments civilian casualties and school-targeting incidents, emphasizing the need for accountability and a reconsideration of strategic aims, while reiterating concern about the influence of powerful interests on national security decisions. - The program closes with condolences to those affected by NATO-related conflicts and a tease of continued coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu war. Note: The summary preserves the speakers’ names and quotes as presented, without adding external evaluation or commentary.

Israel runs the US government and the White House, and they are serving Israel's interests. Because of this, the United States is in wars it shouldn't be in, such as in Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Lebanon. The White House is deciding where to bomb at Israel's behest, not for American interests or security. It's not just "amateur hour" but "Israel hour" nonstop, and it's as if the US has one-person rule.

those are the words of a man, with an international arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I'm speaking of Netanyahu. He is a mass murderer. He is a killer. He commits war crimes, and he has control over American foreign policy and over American domestic policy now. The US government is run by Israel, by the Israeli government. Why and how? It's little hard to say, but it is the unbelievable fact that this brazenness, this recklessness, this cruelty, this arrogance from this extremist Israeli government controls American policy vis a vis, speech in The United States now. It's, it's shocking but true.