reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We will stop the flow of funds to Iran. We won't have a hundred hostages, including Israelis and Americans, held by Hamas and Hezbollah, who are essentially Iranian mercenaries. America needs to recognize the importance of Israel, secure the release of Israeli hostages, and reaffirm our support for Israel as our top ally.

Mario: Do you think The US should attack Iran? Joel: He could do a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime, but not explicitly try to topple it. Clint (Glenn): Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. You think that Iran the authority enemy. Of Not America being responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here. You're unbelievable. No legitimate security concerns for Iran. None of your rules. Mario: Gentlemen. Astonishing. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? Clint: I see that’s very dishonest. This idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return. They stop the threat. No. Mario: Never tried we've never gone down this path at all. Joel: You’re just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies. It doesn't seem to bother you. Mario: Joel, I’m gonna start with you. A pretty broad question. Do you think The US should attack Iran, and do you think they will? Joel: The president has set his own terms. He has three choices: do nothing and frame that as diplomacy; do a large but limited strike designed to punish the regime but not topple it; or go all in toward regime change. He hasn’t made regime change his explicit objective yet. I think he’ll pick option two, a large but limited strike, because negotiations aren’t designed to lead somewhere. The Iranians are not serious, in his view. Mario: Do you think Trump should go with option two, or seek regime change? Joel: He should go with number two. Regime change is something I would love to see, but it’s too big an objective with air power. If the regime is toppled by force, the risks are immense. Damaging the regime—ballistic missiles, some nuclear components—could be enough to protect citizens and allies, even if it doesn’t topple the regime. If a coup follows, that’s a risk. Mario: Glenn, you argued against regime change but acknowledged concerns about the regime’s brutality. Please respond to Joel and the broader points. Glenn: I don’t think Trump should attack. It’s very likely he will, and the objective will probably be a limited bloody nose attack that is going bombed for two or three days or, like last time, twelve, and then pull away, with an implicit understanding that if Iran retaliates, it could be a big war. There is no diplomatic solution because the Iranians reject multi-issue deals; they want nuclear issues to be separate. The Iran regime is existentially threatened, so they’ll respond. The aim should be to recognize key security concerns and pursue a broader security understanding, not just use force. Mario: Joel, respond to Glenn’s point about whether Iran must be considered an enemy and about potential diplomacy. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? No. But this regime is an enemy. The people of Iran do not have to be enemies. The supreme leader believes the United States and Israel are enemies, and for forty-seven years they say, death to America, death to Israel. The Iranian regime has decided they’re the enemy. The Iranian people largely despise the regime. Mario: If Iran agrees to stop the nuclear program, should The US accept such a deal? Is that enough? Joel: The nuclear program is almost 100% destroyed; you wouldn’t negotiate solely on that. If diplomacy exists, it would be to address threats beyond the nuclear issue—ballistic missiles, regional alliances, human rights, etc. The Iranians were willing to accept transparency around their nuclear program in JCPOA-era diplomacy, but the Americans pulled out. If a nuclear deal is possible, it would require mutual concessions; insisting on broader concessions risks collapse. Glenn: The problem is that Iran has legitimate security concerns too. The strategy after the Cold War linking security to global hegemony is problematic. There should be recognition of Iran’s legitimate security needs, not a complete defanging. We should explore a grand bargain—recognize a Palestinian state, get out of Syria, and pursue a path with Iran that reduces the threat without destroying Iran. Mario: There’s a debate about whether the Gulf states see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran now. Joel, what’s your take? Joel: Two countries—Qatar and Turkey—see Israel as an enemy. Turkey’s Erdogan has threatened Jerusalem; Qatar hosts anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda via Al Jazeera and has hosted Hamas leaders. Israel has the right to defend itself and has pursued peace deals with several Arab states, but the region remains dangerous. Israel should avoid destabilizing moves and pursue peace where possible, while recognizing the security challenges it faces. Glenn: Israel’s internal politics and policy flaws exist, but law in Israel provides equal rights to Arab citizens; policy can be improved, but not all claims of apartheid reflect law. Arabs have political rights, though issues with funding and policy remain. The West Bank is a flashpoint; Gaza is controlled by Hamas, complicating Palestinian governance. There’s a broader discussion about whether regime change in Iran is desirable given potential fragmentation and regional instability. Mario: Final question: where is Iran by year’s end? Glenn: If Trump attacks, Iran will perceive an existential threat and may strike back hard, possibly shutting the Strait of Hormuz. Russia and China may intervene to prevent complete destruction of Iran. Joel: I hope Glenn’s scenario doesn’t come true. Iran might pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If the regime is weakened, the region’s stability could be jeopardized. The options remain: negotiate, strike, or regime-change—prefer a large but limited strike to deter further advancement without taking ownership of an unknown future. Mario: Thank you both. This was a vigorous, wide-ranging exchange. End of time.

The transcript captures a street debate outside King’s College London about Iran, Palestine, and Western responses, with participants expressing strong, divergent views on who is responsible for regional violence and how Western attitudes shape perception. Key points and claims: - Speaker 1 asserts that the Islamic Republic funds Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, framing Iran as the root of several regional conflicts and describing these groups as terrorists, not resistance movements. They argue removing the Islamic Republic would lead to a more peaceful Middle East for both Iranians and Palestinians. - Speaker 2 largely concedes Palestine as the primary concern but admits uncertainty about the specifics of Iran-related issues, indicating a lack of clarity about the Iran-Palestine dynamic. - A recurring line is that Iran’s repression of protests at home is severe: “the Islamic Republic killed 50,000 innocent Iranian people” during protests, and yet there has been no equivalent Western or global outcry on Iran compared to Gaza/Palestine. - There is commentary on Western extremism perceived as anti-Western and anti-Israel, with some participants arguing that the West has been fed narratives via social media about imperialism and Western interference, influencing public opinion against Western powers. - The discussion touches on the Iranian government’s tactics: internet blackouts have been used to control information, though some participants claim openness has improved; others suggest the regime is untying protests and that many people are ill-educated about Palestine. - There is a claim that after the 1979 Revolution, Iran’s fall precipitated a radical shift in the region, with the West experiencing radicalization due to demographic changes and funding from Iran and Qatar to anti-West and anti-Israel sentiments in universities. - The dialogue includes a proposition that the “unholy marriage of Marxism and Islamism” complicates political alignments, with some participants arguing that both the West and Muslim-majority contexts influence radicalization and protest dynamics. - The speakers argue that the left should focus on Iran, believing that a peaceful Iran would dry up funding to Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah, thereby reducing wars and supporting Palestinians. - Overall, the speakers emphasize hypocrisy in international reactions: Western silence on Iran’s internal oppression contrasts with intense attention to Palestinian issues, and they urge a broader, more consistent critique of Iran’s leadership and its regional impact. Notable concluding sentiment: - The discussion ends with a sense of shared concern about conflict in the region and a desire for peace and prosperity that would result from addressing Iran’s governance, which some participants equate with ending the Islamic Republic’s influence in funding militant groups. The exchange closes with thanks to Muhammad, signaling an informal but resolved wrap to the conversation.

The speaker declares that these are historic days that will be recorded in Israel’s history. Under Operation Roaring Lion, the war is ongoing and intensifying, with Israel pummeling the Islamic regime in Tehran and its emissaries, including Hezbollah in Lebanon. The speaker emphasizes unprecedented coordination between Israel and the United States, asserting that this collaboration has produced substantial achievements that are altering the situation in the West Bank, the broader Middle East, and beyond. According to the speaker, these developments are elevating Israel’s status to that of a regional superpower—and in many respects a global superpower—thereby strengthening its ability to confront and deter enemies and secure its survival. The claim is made that threats may rise and fall, but once Israel attains superpower status, it gains the power to push away threats and safeguard its future. The speaker references a personal historical perspective: in 1993, they published an article in a newspaper asserting that the greatest threat to the State of Israel is not solely from Arab states but from Iran. They assert that, for more than thirty years, the ayatollah regime has acted to attack the United States and the West and, foremost, has worked to implement a plan to destroy the state of Israel. In summary, the message is that Operation Roaring Lion represents an escalating conflict aimed at Iran and its allied networks, backed by strong Israel–U.S. cooperation, which the speaker contends is reshaping regional dynamics, enhancing Israel’s power status, and aligning with long-standing concerns about Iran as a central threat to Israel.

Iran has kicked out IAEA inspectors, potentially concealing parts of its nuclear program. Israel, which won't allow inspections and is secretive about its nuclear weapons, is also a concern. The speaker does not blame Israel for wanting nuclear weapons but finds it hypocritical to push for regime change wars over secret nuclear weapons when it has them. The speaker suggests a deal where both Iran and Israel give up their secret nuclear weapon programs. The speaker references South Africa's denuclearization before ending apartheid and notes that if Israel recognizes sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, it may have to enfranchise millions of Palestinians. The speaker believes that the South Africa model for denuclearization is not totally off base. The speaker criticizes the Iraq War, stating it cost America $3 trillion and aided the rise of China and ISIS. The speaker questions whether those advocating for attacks on Iran understand the country.

A big part of the reason why Netanyahu even still to this day doesn't have to kowtow to The United States is because he understands the leverage he has. He understands that he is the wall that protects The United States and the Western allies from Iran. And it makes it so that we can spend our money on something else, and he spends his money and his lives protecting the rest of us against Iran.

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.

Wanna get on to Ukraine. But, given that Israel is signaling it doesn't like the, Al Qaeda operative, Jelani in Damascus, and we know Tulsi Gabbard is something of an expert on Syria because she exposed the lies and the, phony war in Syria when The United States was supporting the ISIS and Al Qaeda rebels there. How do you and Trump has been very brave arguably saying, he's not gonna, start sending loads of money like Britain is to Tchelani. There's still thousands of American troops, though, in Syria. What is American Syrian policy Syria policy? America's policy towards Syria is basically Israel's policy. And what The United States was bent on doing was wrecking Syria and keeping it wrecked. That's the Israeli objective here. This is what the Israelis wanna do with Iran. They don't simply wanna do away with Iran's nuclear capability. They surely do wanna do that, but they wanna wreck Iran. They wanna turn Iran into Syria. And what the Israelis are doing in Syria is going to great lengths to make sure that Syria remains, a dysfunctional state. They don't want Syria to become, a formidable adversary. They want it to remain broken. And, of course, The United States will support the Israelis in that regard. So, of course, the Israelis are not gonna allow the Americans to give huge amounts of aid to Jalani so that he can produce a viable Syrian state because that's not Israeli policy. Just look at what they're doing in Iran. I mean, excuse me, what they're doing in Lebanon. It's a similar situation.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that Washington’s thinking reflects the belief that the ultimate goal for Iran must be regime change and the destruction of the country. He describes this as a core mentality that could manifest either through installing a puppet regime (such as “Shah junior” or another successor) or by breaking the country up. This, he says, is not just a tactic but a fundamental objective in Washington’s approach toward Iran. He then connects this to broader discussions about Ukraine and Russia, suggesting that some countries are reluctant to admit a stark reality: it’s not merely a matter of what agreements can be reached, but rather a conviction that those countries “must be destroyed.” He emphasizes that for these actors, the rhetoric of negotiation collapses into a belief that Russia “must be destroyed,” illustrating a mindset in which agreements are viewed as gimmicks or mere stops along the path to that end. The speaker asks how one negotiates with anyone who holds such a mentality against you. He contrasts two possibilities: negotiating with someone who is seeking a modus vivendi—finding a way to live on the same planet without escalating conflict—with negotiating with someone who openly asserts a desire to destroy you. In short, he argues that the presence of a destruction-driven mindset fundamentally alters the nature of feasible negotiations, making it unclear how a mutually acceptable agreement could be reached when the other side preclaims annihilation as a goal.

Saeed Mohamed Marandi explains that Iranians view current events as an extension of the twelve-day war, where Israel and the Trump administration allegedly collaborated to undermine Iran and failed. He cites US Treasury remarks at Davos about manipulating Iranian currency to provoke protests, which he says led to peaceful demonstrations followed by highly trained groups that caused destruction and police casualties. He asserts that Israel claimed responsibility, with Mossad statements and Channel 14 reporting that weapons brought into Iran caused police deaths, and he notes Western media glossed over these facts. He argues this campaign aimed to push Trump toward confrontation with Iran, while messaging about Iran’s nuclear program and regional alliances shifted over time. Iran’s response, he says, has been that any attack will be treated as all-out war with an overwhelming Iranian retaliation. He contends Trump is boxed in: a larger strike would provoke a massive Iranian response across the region, affecting oil and gas flows through the Persian Gulf and potentially collapsing the global economy. He suggests the “smart” outcome would be to back off and end peacefully, potentially declaring victory without concessions, as Trump did in Yemen, though he believes Iran will not accept any deal that compromises sovereignty or core capabilities. Marandi lays out Iran’s view of the regional and strategic landscape: Iran’s counterstrike would target US interests across the region, not just bases, and would involve allies in Iraq, Yemen, and other areas. He argues the Persian Gulf is highly vulnerable because regional regimes hosting US bases are complicit, and a war would disrupt global energy supplies. He asserts Iran’s capabilities are primarily directed at the United States, given US threats since the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, and that Iran has strengthened missiles and drones, along with air defenses. He contends Israel is vulnerable, and the aim of some in the US political circle is to sacrifice US interests for Israeli interests. He asserts that Iran’s real objective is to prevent a repeat of the “sword over Iran”—to avoid six-month cycles of provocations—and to end the possibility of ongoing CIA-backed unrest being used as pretext for further strikes. On the possibility of negotiation, Marandi says Iran will not give up nuclear enrichment, missile capabilities, or regional alliances. He notes there was a JCPOA, but Iran would not accept a repeat of that deal; any future agreement would need to be better for Iran. A deal could be discussed about the nuclear program, but not one that cedes sovereignty or enrichment rights. He suggests Trump could try to retreat by declaring victory or offering a hollow concession, but Iran is ready for all-out war if attacked. He emphasizes that if the US backs down, it would be a major defeat for Washington; if it engages in war, it would be a world tragedy and the US would be defeated, with global implications. He argues Iran’s stance is clear: they will respond massively to any attack, and the only viable path for the US would be to walk away and pretend it gained something it did not. Glenn notes that regional allies feel exposed as world power shifts toward multipolarity, and asks about whether Iran would treat this as an existential threat and how it would fight. Marandi responds that Iran views the objective as balkanization, supported by Israeli interests, and that Iran would confront attempts to seize control of the country. He reiterates that Iran will not compromise sovereignty or support for Palestine, and that a conflict would be devastating for the world, with Iran prepared to fight to defend its existence.

Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist. The speaker believes Palestinians have a right to return to their homelands and equal rights. They argue against the existence of Israel as a Jewish country, stating that separatist states do not work. The conversation also touches on the identification of countries as Christian or Muslim, contrasting them with the world's only Jewish country, which the speaker questions.

The United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. An attack on Iran would occur if, during the next ten years, they considered launching an attack on Israel. The U.S. would be able to totally obliterate them. A nuclear-armed Iran is a challenge that cannot be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy, risking a nuclear arms race and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. The United States will do what it must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Ensuring that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power is one of the highest priorities. Iran's key nuclear and nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

Host: Welcome back. We’re joined by Larry Johnson, a former CI analyst, to discuss what looks like a war with Iran coming sooner rather than later. The world is watching as the US mobilizes more military assets to the region. How should we read this? Is this preparation for war, or a show of strength during negotiations? Larry Johnson: I hoped it was intimidation, but people I trust in national security say this is far more serious. It’s described as one of two things: either a reprise of Midnight Hammer, when US and Iran coordinated two raids into northern Iran, or they’re preparing for an Israeli attack and to back Israel. It’s not just to force concessions at the negotiating table; it’s a warning indicator. Steve Bryan, a former undersecretary of defense, reacted emotionally to US–Iran negotiations, arguing that Iran is using a rope-a-dope strategy. This pressure toward attacking Iran is enormous, and Netanyahu’s visit suggests coordination. The issue has moved beyond nuclear weapons to ballistic missiles and support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The rhetoric around Hamas and Hezbollah is, in my view, a red herring; Israeli claims don’t match the facts. Trump is under heavy pressure from the Zionist lobby to act, and I think a violence outbreak in the next two weeks is plausible, though I hope I’m wrong. Host: The debate you referenced about motives is revealing. If the goal is to destabilize or create chaos to justify action, which past interventions show that hasn’t produced sustainable stability. If the aim is negotiation leverage, what can be achieved now? It seems the US insists on tying any nuclear deal to Iran abandoning its allies and deterrence. Johnson: Iran has built a formidable arsenal: 18 types of ballistic missiles, a recently reportedly successful intercontinental ballistic missile test, five types of cruise missiles, and over 15 types of drones. They’ve learned from decades of conflict with the US and see themselves as at war with the United States. The US narrative of Iran as the aggressor clashes with historical US actions that damaged Iran’s economy and civilian life. Iran’s patience has been tested; they’ve drawn a line in the sand and are prepared to defend themselves, retaliating massively if attacked. They now have support from China and Russia, including advanced radar and air defense, with Chinese and Russian ships headed to the Arabian Sea for a joint exercise. If conflict escalates, Iran could retaliate across the region, with regional actors potentially joining in. Host: You mentioned the tactical realities of the region. The US has deployed many F-35s to the region, including land-based F-35s for SEAD. There are reports of a large US presence in Armenia, and Iran’s potential to strike Haifa or Tel Aviv if attacked. The geopolitical picture is complex, with Russia and China providing support to Iran. The US carrier fleet in the Gulf would face Iranian, Russian, and Chinese air defenses and missiles, including hypersonics. The question is whether the US can sustain a prolonged, scalable war against Iran. Johnson: The US’s sea-based strength is being tested. In the Red Sea, the US faced difficulties against the Houthis with two carriers and a robust air-defense screen; in the current scenario, Iran’s capabilities—air defenses, missiles, drones, and support from Russia and China—make a quick, decisive victory unlikely. Moreover, Israel’s own readiness for a broader war is uncertain; Netanyahu’s visit to the US could signal coordination, but Israeli media note that they may join only if Iran is on the back foot. There’s concern about intelligence reliability: Mossad assets that aided last year’s operations in Iran may be compromised, while Iran benefits from new radar and integrated air defenses. Host: Regional reactions could be pivotal. Iran has contingency plans against regional targets, and Armenia/Azerbaijan might be used as launch pads. Saudi Arabia and Qatar may sit this out if possible, while Iraq has aligned with Iran. The broader question is whether diplomacy can prevail, or whether the cycle of treating conflicts with force will continue. There’s a critique of Western policy: the idea that Iran wants to destroy the US is simplistic, and the region’s dynamics are far more nuanced. Johnson: Iran’s potential to escalate, regional dynamics, and great-power backing mean this could be more than a localized conflict. The overarching point is that there are limits to military power; politics and diplomacy remain essential, and the West’s current posture underestimates the complexity of Iran’s deterrence and regional links. Host: Thanks, Larry. I’ll link to Sonar 21 for more of your writings.

The discussion centers on the fragile peace deal and the ongoing conflict with Hamas, with emphasis on Hamas’ true nature, disarmament, hostage issues, humanitarian aid, and regional dynamics including Lebanon and Iran. - Hamas remains a terrorist organization. The interlocutor states that Hamas has not changed its stripe and is using the ceasefire to reassert control in Gaza through mass executions of those opposed or suspected of working with Israel, while attempting to rebuild its strength. The plan, in partnership with Netanyahu, is to disarm Hamas, dismantle its terror infrastructure, and build Gaza into something different, a top priority under the Trump plan. - The peace deal is a work in progress. Neither Israel, the United States, nor other actors expect Hamas to act in good faith. The discussion emphasizes that if Hamas does not disarm, it will be eradicated, a statement framed as a serious US commitment reflecting the nature of the war and regional determination to end Hamas as a threat. - The 20-stage plan and pathway forward. The plan provides a pathway to end Hamas as a regime and terror army in Gaza and to prevent Gaza from threatening Israel going forward. The goal is to disarm Hamas, dismantle its infrastructure, and transform Gaza into a stable, peaceful entity, though it remains a “work in progress.” - Hostages and displaced persons. A central issue is the status of hostages: Hamas holds 13 of the 28 people Hamas allegedly murdered and held, with 18 returned so far, and 25 originally cited in discussions (the transcript mentions 28 total murdered and 18 returned, with 13 still in Hamas control). The speaker argues that Hamas knows the whereabouts of several more hostages and should deliver them; the claim is that some hostages who were said to be unlocated could be found even if debris removal is slow. The Red Cross and humanitarian organizations say recovering bodies will be a massive, decades-long challenge, but the speakers argue that locating hostages does not require full debris removal. Aid and humanitarian access are discussed, including a suspension of aid after the killing of Israeli soldiers that was brief and then reinstated; aid trucks are allowed through to humanitarian zones controlled by Israel in Gaza, with concerns about Hamas siphoning aid for its own purposes. - Aid leakage and Hamas control of aid. The speakers contend that Hamas stole or redirected up to 95% of aid in Gaza prior to the ceasefire, using it to fund its war against Israel. They argue that UN agencies operating in Gaza are often under Hamas influence, whether willingly or unwillingly, and thus aid distribution has been compromised when Hamas governs. - Hamas’ current behavior in Gaza and security concerns. Hamas is described as reasserting control by mass executions and intimidation; there is concern about how much control they exert over the areas they govern and the potential for continued war if they disarm remains unactioned. The discussion stresses that the longer Hamas can control areas, the more they can pursue their war. - Trump–Kushner–Witkoff diplomatic leverage. The discussion credits President Trump’s diplomacy with changing Hamas’s calculus. The Qatar strike that nearly targeted Hamas negotiators is acknowledged as a turning point; Kushner and Witkoff claimed that Hamas wanted peace when engaged directly in Egypt, and that the strike on Qatar frightened Hamas into reconsidering its position. The interlocutor suggests that palace diplomacy, allied pressure in the Arab and Islamic world, and the military pressure on Gaza City converged to push Hamas toward releasing hostages and engaging with the peace process. - Israel’s regional strategy and deterrence. The speaker emphasizes that Israel must be able to defend itself and maintain power in the region. The Abraham Accords are cited as a success, with normalization continuing because partners recognize Israel’s stability and the advantages of cooperation. The Palestinian statehood question is reframed as a broader test of Palestinian willingness to accept Israel’s existence; the speaker notes parliamentary support in Israel opposing a Palestinian state and argues that Palestinian society must change its stance toward recognizing a Jewish state. - Lebanon and Hezbollah. Optimism is tempered by caution. In Lebanon, there is some movement toward demilitarization, with the Lebanese army involved and Hezbollah’s power being re-evaluated. The speaker stresses that even if conflict ends, Israel will remain vigilant and prepared to prevent a rebuilt Hezbollah threat along the border, citing past upheavals and the need to protect border towns like Kiryat Shmona. - Iran and the wider threat. Iran’s missile program and its nuclear ambitions are described as two cancers threatening Israel: missiles capable of delivering heavy payloads and a nuclear program. The strategic aim is to prevent Iran from creating a “ring of fire” around Israel (Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Iraq) and to prevent metastasis of Iran’s influence from spreading. - Global sentiment and demonization. The speaker acknowledges growing global antisemitism and demonization of Israel post-October 7, but argues that Israel’s demonstrated ability to defend itself strengthens its position and that support should endure as the conflict recedes from prominence. The Palestinian leadership’s stance and the broader regional dynamics remain central to whether a two-state solution can emerge, with a tempered expectation that the peace plan will proceed step by step.

Iran is the main force behind various groups like the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. They pose a threat not only to us but also to the Middle East and the world. We must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons to prevent them from conquering the region, collapsing regimes, and threatening global security. As the Prime Minister of Israel, I am committed to doing everything possible to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Seyed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, discusses the war launched against Iran, Iran’s aims, and the shifting regional dynamics. He argues that Western analyses over the years have been incorrect and that Iran’s objectives are clear: Iran will not accept a ceasefire until its demands are met, will no longer tolerate U.S. threats or Gulf regimes acting as bases against Iran, and will seek compensation from regional adversaries for destruction and slaughter attributed to the conflict. He asserts that Iran’s position and strength are growing, with widespread street support for the leader and resilience under missile and drone strikes against U.S. assets and Israel’s regime. Key points on Iran’s war aims and the conflict: - Iran’s demands: ceasefire is not an option; the war will continue until Iran’s demands are met. Iran will no longer accept a situation in which the United States can threaten it again, and will demand that Gulf regimes stop operating bases that threaten Iran. Yemen will demand and obtain full compensation for destruction. - Regional balance: Iran views the Palestinian and Lebanese causes as linked to regional resistance; Hezbollah, Yemen, Iraq, and other groups are actively undermining the regime’s regional military and political position. - Ground realities: Iran’s missiles and drones are striking U.S. assets across the Persian Gulf; Israel is being heavily targeted; resistance in Lebanon and Iraq is damaging the regime; Yemen is prepared to escalate its actions. The longer the war lasts, the more compensation Iran anticipates extracting from Gulf regimes. Escalation and tactics: - Civilian targets: Iran’s leadership says the United States has failed on the battlefield and is now targeting civilians and infrastructure, including attacks on fuel depots, desalination plants, and oil facilities, creating toxic rain and ecological harm in Iran. - Desalination and water security: destruction of desalination plants is described as a major risk to civilian water supply; Iranian civilians face environmental and health consequences from the attacks. - Economic impact and energy markets: Marandi contends that 20 million barrels of oil per day are missing from the market and that Western reserves could only offset two months; closing the Strait of Hormuz or sustained disruption could precipitate a global economic crisis and undermine the petrodollar system. - Strategic posture: Iran will respond with countermeasures, and if Gulf regimes push further against Iran, Tehran asserts it could take actions that would profoundly affect the region’s energy infrastructure and Western interests. International actors and alignment: - France and other Western allies: France has announced a defensive mission to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while Trump has made highly contradictory statements about ending the war or destroying Iran, illustrating perceived Western moral and strategic hostility. - China and Russia: Marandi notes closer alignment among Iran, China, and Russia, with China and Russia benefiting from opposing U.S. dominance in West Asia; Iran’s geography allows multiple overland routes for weapons and supplies, and Moscow and Beijing are seen as unlikely to allow a Western victory in the region. - Azerbaijan and Turkey: Azerbaijan’s response and Turkey’s involvement are discussed; Iran emphasizes it would respond decisively against Gulf and regional actors supporting Israel if pushed. Domestic and regional reactions: - Iranian public sentiment: there is strong public support for the leadership, with mobilization and resilience evident in Tehran and across the country despite missile and drone strikes. - Perceived Western narratives: Marandi argues that Western elites have remained morally and strategically bankrupt, using demonstrable inconsistency in statements and policy to justify continued escalation. Broader implications: - The war is reshaping regional power dynamics, with Iran asserting greater confidence and influence, and with China and Russia increasingly integrated with Iran against U.S. hegemony in West Asia. - The deteriorating situation could produce far-reaching consequences for global energy markets, security arrangements in the Persian Gulf, and the dollar-centered economic order, depending on how escalation and potential reciprocal actions unfold.

Israel is believed to be intentionally provoking a regional conflict in order to achieve its long-term goals. These goals include annexing the Golan Heights, defeating Hezbollah, toppling Assad, destroying the Houthi movement, and pushing the United States to confront Iran. Israel wants the US to denuclearize Iran, bomb their centrifuges, and overthrow the Iranian government. The speaker argues that Israel has successfully weakened its Arab rivals over the years, leaving Iran as its only competitor in the Middle East. Israel aims to normalize ties with Arab Gulf States and dominate the region. If Iran is eliminated, Israel would control the entire Middle East, becoming a nuclear power and a dominant force in global trade.

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.

Rula and Mario discuss the broader and regional dimensions of the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon conflict, focusing on the perception of Israel’s actions, Iran’s role, and the future of Lebanon and the wider Middle East. - Rula frames the war as centered on the greater Israel project, describing the military occupation, domination, and violence in Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories as the core issue. She argues Israel is an occupying power under international law and questions the rationale of asking Palestinians and Lebanese to disarm while occupation persists. - Mario challenges the view that Israel as a single, unified actor always seeks expansion, noting that in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s presence arises from past Israeli actions and that some Israelis want coexistence with Lebanon. He contends there are variations within Israeli society, with some advocating for annexation or permanent conflict, while others prefer coexistence or diplomacy, though he acknowledges a radicalized current in Israeli politics. - The conversation moves to Iran’s role and regional dynamics. Mario argues the conflict has become regional and global, with Iran signaling willingness to act ruthlessly to mirror US and Israeli actions, and with other powers (Gulf states, China, Russia, the US) shaping the war’s scope. He asserts Israel’s strategic goals diverge from American goals, claiming the war serves the Greater Israel project and that Netanyahu has long pursued this vision, aided by a perceived, multi-decade alignment with American power and money from pro-Israel donors. - Rula emphasizes the internal Israeli political and social landscape, citing the Gatekeepers documentary as evidence that Israeli leadership has used Hamas and other actors as strategic tools, and she argues that the state’s actions are guided by a broader ideology (which she attributes to a form of Jewish supremacism) rather than conventional security concerns. She contends that Israel’s security narrative relies on perpetual conflict, and she asserts the United States has become financially and politically subservient to pro-Israel interests through campaign financing and lobbying. - The dialogue addresses US and international responses. Mario notes the US and Western support for Israel, while acknowledging criticisms of American influence. Rula counters by pointing out that US actions, such as sanctioning international courts to shield Netanyahu from war crimes prosecution, reflect a deep, structural alignment with Israeli policy. They discuss how this alignment influences regional dynamics, including the US response to challenges from Iran, Syria, and Hamas. - On Lebanon specifically, they debate whether Israel intends to annex parts of Lebanon or seek coexistence with Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah. Rula argues that Israel historically aimed to push toward annexation or subjugation of Lebanon, driven by a broader Greater Israel agenda, while Mario suggests Israel may prefer coexisting arrangements similar to Egypt and Jordan, though she counters that such coexistence would still come with coercive power dynamics and that Israeli policy has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to decimate Lebanon’s infrastructure and Hezbollah targets when framed as security operations. - The discussion covers ceasefires and ceasefire violations. They note that Hezbollah reportedly agreed to disarm and withdraw from certain areas, but ceasefire breaches occurred on both sides, including Hezbollah rocket fire and Israeli strikes. They debate who has honored or violated agreements, with Rula asserting that Israel breached ceasefires multiple times and Mario emphasizing parallel violations by Hezbollah. - They touch on the humanitarian and civilian toll, highlighting Lebanese displacement, destruction in Lebanon similar to Gaza, and the long-term risk of further fragmentation in the Middle East. Mario and Rula acknowledge Lebanon’s multi-sectarian society and express a lament for its potential loss of stability and coexistence. - Towards the end, they reflect on Israeli societal attitudes, referencing nationalist and supremacist sentiments inside Israel, including debates over Palestinian and Arab citizens, and they discuss the relative popularity of hardline policies among Israelis, contrasted with poll data that vary by source about two-state solutions or diplomatic options. - The exchange closes with mutual appreciation for the dialogue, a hint of residual mistrust in negotiated outcomes, and a light aside about a potential inquiry to an Israeli spokesperson about unpaid propaganda work, signaling ongoing attempts to scrutinize public messaging. Key points reiterated: - The war seen as part of a broader Greater Israel project, with occupation central to the conflict. - Iran and regional powers are pivotal in expanding the war beyond the Middle East. - Israeli internal politics, donor influence, and demographic shifts shape policy and willingness to pursue or resist further conflict. - Hezbollah and Lebanon are central but contested elements in debates about annexation versus coexistence. - Ceasefire dynamics reflect mutual distrust and ongoing violence on both sides. - There is a strong emphasis on the need to address underlying crises and the danger of perpetuating permanent warfare, with appeals to listen to diverse Israeli voices and to consider the humanitarian consequences for Lebanon and Palestinians.

The speaker argues that there has been an “unbelievable success in by, degrading Iran,” moving Iran from a first-rate power to a second- or third-rate power. Iran is described as “throwing their weight all over the place” and “exporting terrorism,” not only across the Middle East but also to Venezuela, where they are “in cahoots with the Maduro regime.” The claim extends to Iran exporting terrorism to America and to the American hemisphere, and to Hamas and Iran’s proxies attempting to get their guys into the United States. The speaker asserts that Hamas and Iran’s proxies are a threat not only to the United States but to Israel and to “all America’s allies in The Middle East,” and to America itself.

Professor Michael Hudson and Glenn discuss how the war against Iran is reshaping the global economy and international order. Hudson contends this is World War III in the sense that energy, fertilizer, and oil exports are fundamental to the world economy, and the conflict targets these choke points. He notes a recent US stock market rally of about a thousand points, driven by hopes of reversibility, while insisting the war’s effects extend far beyond Iran and are irreversible. He asserts the US is waging a war to maintain control over the world oil economy by preventing any sovereignty that could export oil outside US influence. This includes sanctions on Iran and Russia, and earlier sanctions on Venezuela, with the aim of ensuring oil proceeds flow to US-controlled channels. He argues the US sought to control the Strait of Hormuz to decide who gets Gulf oil, but Trump’s advisers warned that attempting to seize Hormuz would leave troops as “sitting ducks,” yet the underlying goal remains “grab the oil.” He claims Iran’s objective is to guarantee security by removing all US bases in the Middle East and by relief of sanctions imposed by US allies; without that, Iran claims the world will not return to the previous order. Hudson emphasizes that the war disrupts key supply chains: oil, fertilizer, helium, sulfur, and related inputs. Although Iran allows oil exports via Hormuz for payments, it does not permit fertilizer exports, impacting the upcoming planting season. He forecasts the world entering the most serious depression since the 1930s due to these interruptions and the consequent financial ripples. On the financial system, Hudson explains that since the 2008 crisis, the US pursued zero or near-zero interest rates to rescue banks, enabling asset price inflation in real estate, stocks, and bonds. He describes a shift where non-bank lenders and private equity could borrow cheaply and buy up assets, creating a debt-led, Ponzi-like dynamic that depended on continued access to credit and rising asset prices. As long as rates stayed low, this system could keep rolling; now, with 10-year treasuries around 4.5 percent and 30-year mortgages above 5 percent, the cost of rolling over debt intensifies. The war-induced disruptions to energy and inputs threaten defaults and a feedback loop of debt collapse, catalyzing a depression. Regarding the broader international system, Hudson argues Europe is following sanctions on Russia at great economic cost, with Germany already experiencing GDP declines after energy sanctions in 2022. Europe’s shift away from Russian energy, the Ukraine-Hungary/gas dynamics, and the broader energy choke points threaten the cohesion of NATO and the EU. He predicts Europe may suffer consumer price increases and living standard cuts as deficits expand to subsidize heating and energy, leading to a reordering of alliances and economic blocs. He characterizes Asia–Russia–China as increasingly separate from Western systems, with a shift toward Asia as the growth center and Europe/US lagging. He asserts the West’s operational vocabulary frames the conflict as a clash of civilizations, but the underlying dynamic is a clash of classes, where the US seeks to subordinate others through energy and trade controls. Hudson argues the current trajectory signals not simply a decline but an abrupt systemic change: the end of the postwar Western-led order. He calls for rethinking international institutions and law, including a new framework to replace a discredited United Nations and to organize economic and military arrangements that protect sovereignty outside US-dominated systems. He highlights the need for energy and food self-sufficiency to resist weaponized foreign trade and to avoid being drawn into US-imposed economic chaos. In closing, Hudson points to Britain’s looming non-viability under deindustrialization and limited energy resources, illustrating how advanced economies may struggle to adapt to a new multipolar order.

Iran has achieved unbelievable success in degrading itself from a first-rate power to a second- or third-rate power. It has been throwing its weight around, exporting terrorism not only across the Middle East but to Venezuela, and it’s in cahoots with the Maduro regime. They are exporting terrorism to America and to the American hemisphere, and they want these Hezbollah and Hamas operatives to get their people into the United States. Hamas and Iran’s proxies are a threat not only to us, but to Israel, all of America's allies in the Middle East, and to America itself.