reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Breaking news from Washington reveals serious allegations against the State Department. Internal memos suggest the agency may have intervened in investigations into illegal and inappropriate behavior to protect jobs and avoid scandals during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. Allegations include prostitution and pedophilia, with claims that these investigations were either whitewashed or halted entirely by high-ranking officials. The State Department is now responding to these troubling claims regarding misconduct by its officials, including an ambassador and security agents associated with Clinton.

Israel's entire military plan was leaked, including highly confidential information about how they're going to fight, where they're going to fight, and where they're going to go. The leak was possibly from the defense department or somebody. Authorities have no idea who did it. The speaker suggests that whoever leaked the information is the enemy, possibly the enemy from within.

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.

The speaker asserts that discussing sensitive operations on a commercial chat jeopardizes American pilots' safety and mission success. They highlight that no senior officials present, including the Vice President and heads of Defense, National Security, CIA, and National Intelligence, cautioned against using a commercial app for such discussions, suggesting negligence and arrogance. The speaker claims Hegzeth initially lied when confronted, accusing Jeffrey Goldberg of fabrication. They call for the resignations of Hegzeth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Ratcliffe, stating Gabbard and Ratcliffe cannot be trusted with national security information. They add that if Witkoff texted from the Kremlin or Russian soil, he should be fired. The speaker confirms they are calling for these resignations, believing that in any other administration, it would be a foregone conclusion.

The speaker emphasized the dangers of Julian Assange's actions, highlighting how WikiLeaks' publication of unredacted State Department documents put lives at risk and hindered diplomatic relationships. They mentioned the State Department's efforts to protect individuals named in the documents but couldn't confirm specific harm. The discussion also touched on Assange's potential entry into the US and the judge's ruling on victims. The State Department's challenges in maintaining trust due to leaked information were noted, with concerns raised by foreign counterparts. The conversation concluded with a reference to private conversations and concerns raised by foreign leaders like Berlusconi.

Tulsi Gabbard has met with controversial figures and violated State Department guidelines by secretly visiting Syria to meet with Assad, who has used chemical weapons against his own people. Many view her as a potential Russian asset. Given her position, this raises serious concerns about her access to sensitive intelligence information, which could pose a risk to national security. The implications of her appointment are seen as highly irresponsible.

Senator Dick Durbin is allegedly working with other members of Congress to bring Gaza refugees to the United States without public input. This move is seen as a national security threat, as these individuals are unvetted and their intentions could be dangerous. If successful, major American cities could become like Gaza.

Last night, it was revealed that Tony Blinken played a significant role in orchestrating a plan involving 51 intelligence operatives. Their objective was to discredit a laptop that is widely known to be genuine. All evidence points to Blinken as the mastermind behind this scheme. It is crucial that he is questioned and held accountable for his actions.

The transcript centers on a loud, multi-voiced discussion about the prospect of war with Iran, U.S. policy dynamics, and the influence of allied actors—especially Israel—on Washington’s decisions. - The opening segment features sharp, provocative claims about President Trump’s stance toward Iran. One speaker asserts that Trump gave Iran seven days to comply or “we will unleash hell on that country,” including strikes on desalinization plants and energy infrastructure. This is framed as part of a broader, catastrophic escalation in Iran under heavy pressure on Trump to commit U.S. forces to Israel’s war. - Joe Kent, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned from the administration, presents the central prognosis. He warns that Trump will face immense pressure to commit ground troops in Iran, calling such a move a “catastrophic escalation” that would increase bloodshed. Kent urges the public to contact the White House and members of Congress to oppose boots on the ground in Iran, advocating for peaceful resolution and public pressure for peace. - The discussion shifts to Israeli involvement. The panel notes that Israeli media report Israel will not commit ground troops if the U.S. invades Iran, and some assert Israel has never, in any conflict, committed troops to support the U.S. The conversation questions this claim, noting counterpoints from analyst Brandon Weichert that Israel has undermined American forces in certain areas. - The debate then returns to Trump’s diplomacy and strategy. The host asks whether Trump’s stated approach toward Iran—potentially including a peace plan—is credible or “fake news.” Kent responds that Iran will not take diplomacy seriously unless U.S. actions demonstrate credibility, such as restraining Israel. He suggests that a more restrained Israeli posture would signal to Iran that the U.S. is serious about negotiations. - The program examines whether the MAGA movement has shifted on the issue. There is testimony that figures like Mark Levin have advocated for some form of ground action, though Levin reportedly denies calls for large-scale deployment. Kent explains that while he believes certain special operations capabilities exist—units trained to seize enriched uranium—the broader question is whether boots on the ground are necessary or wise. He emphasizes that a successful, limited operation could paradoxically encourage further action by Israel if it appears easy, potentially dragging the U.S. deeper into conflict. - A recurring theme is the perceived dominance of the Israeli lobby over U.S. foreign policy. Several participants contend that Israeli influence drives the war timeline, with Israeli action sometimes undermining U.S. diplomacy. They argue that despite public differences, the United States has not meaningfully restrained Israel, and that Israeli strategic goals could be pushing Washington toward conflict. - The conversation also covers domestic political dynamics and civil liberties. Kent argues that the intelligence community’s influence—infused with foreign policy aims—risks eroding civil liberties, including discussions around domestic terrorism and surveillance. The group notes pushback within the administration and among some members of the intelligence community about surveillance proposals tied to Palantir and broader counterterrorism practices. - Kent addresses questions about the internal decision-making process that led to the Iran policy shift, denying he was offered a central role in any pre-crime or AI-driven surveillance agenda. He acknowledges pushback within the administration against aggressive domestic surveillance measures while noting that the debate over civil liberties remains contentious. - The program touches on broader conspiracy-like theories and questions about whether individuals such as Kent are “controlled opposition” or pawns in a larger plan involving tech elites like Peter Thiel and Palantir. Kent insists his campaign funding was modest and transparent, and he stresses the need for accountability and oversight to prevent misuse of powerful tools. - In closing, the speakers converge on a common refrain: no U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. They stress that the priority should be preventing another ground war, avoiding American casualties, and pressing for diplomacy rather than expansion of hostilities. The show highlights public involvement—urging viewers to contact representatives, stay vigilant about foreign influence, and oppose a march toward war. - Across the exchange, the underlying tension is clear: competing visions of American sovereignty, the balance between counterterrorism and civil liberties, and the extent to which foreign actors (notably Israel) shape U.S. policy toward Iran. The participants repeatedly return to the need for accountability, restraint, and a peaceful path forward, even as they recognize the high stakes and the intense political pressure surrounding any potential intervention.

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.

Speaker 0: It's been a few days since you issued that resignation. You’ve been called weak by the president of the United States. You’ve been called a traitor by Lindsey Graham. You’ve been called an anti-Semite by Mitch McConnell, among others. Now there are reports that you’re under a leak investigation potentially accusing you of a felony that could put you in jail even though you now are raising your two boys. You’ve remarried, but you’re their sole biological parent still here. I ask you now whether this was worth it. Speaker 1: I think it most certainly was, Megan. I mean, the attacks against me are to be expected. The ad hominems from people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham at this point are fairly laughable. They don’t wanna discuss the issues. I wanna discuss the issues. As for the leak allegations, I’m not concerned because I know I did nothing wrong. Of course, I am concerned because we’ve all seen the FBI and the full way of the government come down on individuals who speak out. So that has me a little bit concerned, but I know the truth and the facts are on my side. So I think the important issues to address are what’s at hand, why we’re at war, and how we get out of the state that we’re in right now. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Your boys have already lost one parent. I mean, the thought of this government for which you’ve been working and the government for which you’ve sacrificed so much, actually trying to put you in jail over an alleged leak after the number of leaks we’ve seen go unpunished over the past ten years is truly outrageous, Joe. I mean, does it anger you? How does it make you feel? Speaker 1: You, you know, it it does anger me, but it it’s all just to be expected. I I knew this was going to happen. I I know their playbook. I think we’re all very familiar with their playbook. So, actually, the fact that they’re leaking these allegations so so they have to leak the allegations of an FBI investigation. If there truly was an FBI investigation, and who knows, maybe there will be, there would be a process and procedure for that. They would actually formally come to me. And if they were still collecting information, they most certainly wouldn’t leak it. So the fact that the FBI, DOJ, or really probably just partisans are leaking this this so-called investigation against me at a time when I’m going on and publicly speaking out against the course the administration is on, to me, that tells me everything that I need to know. I feel very confident in what I’m doing right now. I think I have a mission, and I think it is to do everything I can to stop this war. So to me, I kinda view everything else as a sideshow, and I just wanna stay focused on the mission.

She is unqualified to be DNI, with positions that are far outside mainstream American politics. Her visit to Assad in Syria, who was aligned with Russia and Iran, was justified by her claim that Syria wasn't a direct threat to the U.S., which is incorrect. The alliance between Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah poses direct threats to Americans in the region and to key allies like Israel and Jordan. It will be interesting to see what information may emerge from the Syrian government if the rebels capture Damascus, particularly regarding Americans involved.

Ro Khanna (Speaker 1) and the other speaker debate Obama’s Iran policy and its consequences, referencing actions, deals, and geopolitical alignments. - The other speaker asserts that under Obama there were 14 wire transfers to a Swiss account linked to Hezbollah between 2014 and 2016, totaling 1.7 billion dollars, which he says Obama told Congress were frozen Iranian assets. He also claims a back channel to Tehran through Valerie Jarrett operated after Obama left office, describing it as a shadow government, and alleges pellets of cash were sent to Iran by plane. He questions why money would be sent to Iran given its alleged nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terrorism. - Ro Khanna counters that Obama was a great statesman who left America safer, noting that 97% of enriched uranium was removed, American service members deaths were avoided, and gas prices did not rise as claimed by the other speaker. He says Obama did not give China a larger role in the region and did not harden the IRGC; instead, Obama engaged in diplomacy to bring China, Russia, and European allies on board toward a path to a non-nuclear Iran. - The other speaker insists Obama sent money to the Iranians and that they resumed enrichment. Khanna responds, “That’s not true.” The other speaker clarifies that a deal was reached to remove 97% of enriched uranium, and assets unfrozen were Iranian assets, not U.S. money, with broad international involvement (China, Russia, France, UK, Canada, the U.S.). He says Obama tried to torpedo the deal and that APEC and Netanyahu opposed it, which dragged the U.S. into more conflict in the Middle East. He argues Obama was against the Iraq War and favored normalization toward Iran, with broad global support, but claims AIPAC and Netanyahu undermined that effort. - Khanna pushes back, suggesting the claim that Obama delivered on preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is inaccurate, asserting that 10 presidents before Trump all claimed Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and stating that Obama delivered 97% out in some sense while the other speaker reiterates that Obama sent money to Iran. The other speaker emphasizes the world’s broad support—Russia, China, Canada, the U.K., France, and others—lost or shifted away, implying that U.S. leadership faltered and that the world coalition was lost. - The discussion shifts to what U.S. policy should be: a return to “team America,” addressing gas prices, avoiding further wars, and a preference for leadership that aligns with Israel’s stance as framed by Netanyahu and AIPAC, according to the other speaker. Khanna notes ongoing debate about who holds influence, and the dialogue ends with a mutual acknowledgment of continuing the conversation, thanking each other and Maria.

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.

Rob Malley, a former official, had his security clearance revoked by the White House for undisclosed reasons. He had hired three Iranian operatives who were spies to help shape the Biden administration's policy on Iran. One of them still holds a senior position in the Department of Defense. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not addressed this issue, despite the fact that the US is providing significant funding to Iran while they support Hamas and the killing of Israelis. It is concerning that Iran would employ Americans to influence American policy. The Biden administration is avoiding taking responsibility for this situation.

The discussion centers on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and the possibility of a U.S.-led or Israel-led military confrontation, with a mix of arguments about intelligence, strategy, and public appetite for war. - Recurrent warnings about Iran: The hosts note that for decades the U.S. government has warned Iran is on the brink of reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. They reference claims of “fresh intelligence” and “new evidence” of a renewed program, contrasting them with past warnings during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The tone suggests these claim cycles reappear with each new administration or set of negotiations. - Netanyahu and Iran timing: A compilation is shown of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stating over two decades that Iran has a nuclear program that could be imminent. One clip claims Iran could produce a weapon in a short time, with phrases like “weeks away,” “three to five years,” and even apocalyptic projections. The conversation then questions whether those warnings have come to fruition and whether media and public commentary have overstated the immediacy or impact of those claims. - Stuxnet and sanctions context: The moderator recalls that during the Bush era the U.S. launched Stuxnet against Iran’s centrifuges, and argues that Obama continued those efforts with sanctions; they portray sanctions as bipartisan pressure intended to justify claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A guest mentions “demonic officials” and cites a book to underscore a harsh view of the two-term sanction era. - Diplomatic vs. military options: The panel describes the Biden administration sending negotiators to address the nuclear issue, while noting that “other options” exist. They discuss the tension between diplomacy and potential coercive measures, including the possibility of coalition or unilateral strikes. - Military balance and potential outcomes (Colonel Douglas MacGregor’s view): The guest emphasizes the complexity and risk of fighting Iran. He argues: - Iran is capable and not a “backward desert” opponent, with an arsenal including roughly 2,000 ballistic missiles and significant, varied air defenses. - Iranian forces could target U.S. bases and Israel, potentially inflicting substantial losses, though the duration and scale of any campaign are uncertain. - The aim would be to “disintegrate the state” and induce chaos rather than secure swift compliance; the scenario could produce high casualties among both sides, potentially thousands for Iran and substantial American losses, depending on scale and duration. - The long-term goal, he says, is to “make the region safe for Israel” and establish Israeli hegemony, noting the defensiveness and regional power dynamics in play, including rising concerns about Turkey as a threat. - Intelligence reliability and sources: A CIA veteran (John Kiriakou) challenges the immediacy and reliability of intelligence asserting that Iran reconstituted a nuclear program. He contends: - The Israelis and the U.S. have historically provided intelligence that may be biased toward aggressive action. - The CIA has produced intelligence estimates stating Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program; he questions whether boots-on-the-ground intelligence would confirm otherwise. - He emphasizes the risk that media outlets amplify “existential threat” narratives rooted in political calculations rather than verified evidence. - The domestic political-media dynamic: The discussion highlights perceived incentives for hawkish messaging from certain U.S. and Israeli actors, including prominent commentators who push the threat narrative. One commentator argues that the push for war serves particular political or financial interests, suggesting that public opinion in the U.S. is not aligned with an immediate military conflict. - Regional and alliance implications: The panel debates how a U.S.-led or Israeli-led strike would affect alliances, regional stability, and the global economy. They highlight: - The possibility that Iran could retaliate with volumes of missiles and unmanned systems, inflicting damage on Israel and regional targets. - The risk that a prolonged conflict could undermine NATO cohesion and Western diplomatic credibility in the Middle East and beyond. - Concerns about the effect on energy routes, particularly the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and broader economic ramifications. - Operational and logistical strains: They discuss the practical challenges of sustained conflict, including: - Navy and air defenses, the need for replenishment of carrier groups, and the strain on logistics and maintenance after extended deployments. - The impact of political missteps and controversial statements (such as comments linked to public pro-war stances) on alliances and military readiness. - Speculation on timing and signals: The guests speculate about when or whether a conflict might occur, noting that political leaders may face pressure “between now and March” or around certain holidays, while acknowledging uncertainty and the potential for last-minute changes. - Ending note: The conversation closes with a recognition that the set of actors—intelligence, defense officials, media, and political leaders—are collectively influencing public perception and policy directions. The speakers emphasize contrasting views on Iran’s threat, the legitimacy and consequences of potential war, and the stakes for the United States, Israel, and global stability.

In a leaked 2012 email, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the best way to help Israel is to use force in Syria to overthrow the government. The speaker questions why the American secretary of state would be willing to use American troops and money to overthrow the Syrian government, asserting there is no American interest in doing so. The speaker claims she is doing it to help Israel. The speaker believes this should be considered treason.

The speaker argues that pressure on Netanyahu to reveal real information could emerge if a real US-Iran deal is forming. They claim Netanyahu would sabotage such a deal by releasing Epstein material against US government officials, including Trump, introducing new material not previously public. The claim extends beyond Trump to other officials as well, with Howard Lutnick noting that there are additional officials involved. The overall point is that Netanyahu might undermine the negotiations by exposing sensitive material tied to multiple US officials.

Speaker 0 describes exclusive reporting that there is major activity inside President Trump’s intelligence operation, with American intelligence professionals inside the administration allegedly furious because they believe the public is being lied to about the Iran war. They contend the official White House story does not match intelligence and that Trump’s Iran policy has been hijacked not by U.S. officials or agencies, but by the Israeli government and its intelligence apparatus, effectively running the White House messaging from Tel Aviv. Leaks to media, including the Washington Post, are said to reveal this truth, and examples are promised. Speaker 1 cites Jesse Waters’ framing of the blockade and “Project Freedom,” arguing the president paused it to save face for Iran, suggesting Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and that American negotiators would lose leverage if the plan continues. The host claims the president delays to secure a deal, and mocks the notion that the White House is in control, insinuating insanity in the regime. Speaker 2 interjects with a hostile remark, then reiterates the claim that Zionist forces are pushing misinformation to the American people and that the White House is “Israeli run.” Megan Kelly’s commentary is invoked to illustrate the information loop: a cabinet member seeks Fox News reach, then Fox News informs the president, continuing the cycle. The segment notes Tucker Carlson’s appearances in the run-up to the war but asserts the president was not persuaded, while asking who pushed the president to war and who made representations. Speaker 0 continues, saying brave patriots inside Trump’s ODNI reveal the truth through leaks that show a different story from the White House narrative. The administration allegedly says Iran is being crushed and its missile program decimated, while leaks claim Iran can survive the blockade for at least three to four months and that the Iranian underground tunnels and missile production have reopened. The question is raised why this information comes only via leaks and whether Tulsi Gabbard, supposed to oversee intelligence, is still involved, or if she’s been sidelined. John Brennan’s investigation is described as collapsing, with lead prosecutors replaced by voluntary interviews, while Brennan himself reappears as a commentator. Scott Ritter’s criticisms are cited, arguing U.S. policy toward Iran is written by circles aligned with Israel, not the CIA or DIA. Speaker 3 elaborates with insider perspective: leaks in Washington DC have long occurred, and leaking does not prove truthfulness. Leaks may be used to shape perceptions; the reality is that the White House manufactures perceptions and facts are suppressed. The dysfunction is described as Megan Kelly’s reference to the president’s adviser circle needing to go to media outlets to deliver messages, with the conflict of interest highlighted. The war’s scale is stressed as one of the most serious strategic campaigns since Desert Storm, with tens of billions spent and perhaps over $100 billion in damage to American assets, criticized as being treated like a parlor game. Speaker 0 asks for Scott Ritter’s view on leaks and the accuracy of the assessments about Iran’s damage and survivability. Speaker 3 says he is cautious about discussing battle damage but would take the Washington Post at its word; he believes the CIA underplays Iran’s missile survival and criticizes the president for lying about 18% and the broader economic impact, suggesting the CIA lacks a comprehensive grasp of Iran’s economy and military. Speaker 3 offers his assessment that a new round of Iranian action could be imminent and describes the president as clinically insane, with surrounding aides flattering him rather than telling the truth. He argues Iran could devastate Gulf energy infrastructure if attacked again, potentially collapsing the global economy, and that posturing may be a political maneuver to avoid disaster. He contends the intelligence apparatus is effectively run by Israel, with humans in Iran managed by Israeli sources, and the U.S. intelligence community unable to counter these narratives, urging congressional investigations. The segment closes with acknowledgment of Kishem Island attacks and Scott Ritter’s assertion that Israel heavily influences U.S. Iran policy, while noting the broader consequences. Speaker 0 wraps, thanking viewers and urging engagement.