reSee.it - Related Video Feed

My mother used to say that even in terrible situations, there is always some good that can come out of it if you search for it. We are currently at a crucial point in the world economy, which only happens every few generations. During a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1919 and 1946, around 60 million people died. However, we managed to establish a more peaceful world order since then. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is our responsibility to lead and unite the rest of the free world in this endeavor.

We are at an inflection point in the world economy and globally. This occurs every few generations. In a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1900 and 1946, 60 million people died. However, since then, we have established a more stable liberal world order. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is crucial for us to take the lead and unite the free world in this endeavor.

Our darkest days are ahead of us, and now is the time for a new world order. We need to clap for this shift and embrace a financial world order. This alternative vision suggests that ordinary people are too small-minded to govern themselves. Progress can only happen when individuals surrender their rights to a powerful sovereign. We are here to develop the great narrative that shapes the future. To do this, we must imagine, design, and execute the future.

We are experiencing accelerating change unlike any other time in history. Predicting the future was always difficult, but now it's impossible. In the past, basic skills like farming or hunting were always relevant, but now we don't know what to teach young people for the future.

There is a call for a new world order with varying characteristics worldwide. Addressing population growth's negative impact on ecosystems is crucial, with the United Nations playing a key role in finding solutions. Controlling a million people was once easier than killing them, but now it's the opposite. Translation: A new world order is needed with different characteristics globally. The UN must help stabilize world population amidst environmental concerns. In the past, controlling people was simpler than killing them, but now it's the opposite.

We have the opportunity to create a new world order for ourselves and future generations. It's not a crisis, but a necessary step. This new world order is important and should be pursued. It's a chance for the president of the United States to use this disaster to establish a new world order, a phrase his father used once before. We often talk about the need for a new world order.

The speaker discusses the shift from Western dominance to a more polycentric world, highlighting the decline of the West and the rise of non-Western economies. They criticize the negative impacts of American imperialism, citing examples like Libya and Syria. The speaker emphasizes the dangers of nuclear conflict and stresses the importance of preventing war. They advocate for a more balanced, polycentric world order to avoid catastrophic outcomes.

In this discussion with Glenn, Professor John Mearsheimer analyzes the U.S. handling of the Iran war under Trump, the role of Israel and the lobby, and the broader implications for the international system as power shifts from unipolar to multipolar. Key points on U.S. strategy and diplomacy - Trump’s approach is a unique form of diplomacy: he pursued a ceasefire grounded in Iran’s 10-point plan as a starting point for negotiations, then moved to a blockade of Iranian ports and allowed escalation elsewhere. The aim, according to the speakers, was to gain breathing space to rearm and regroup, and to press Iran into concessions. - The absence of a viable military option: there is no credible American military path to victory in the Iran war. Escalation would be Iranian-dominant, and further escalation would damage the world economy, creating political and economic consequences domestically and internationally. - The administration’s diplomacy is hampered by incompetence, notably in Ukraine-Russia diplomacy, which erodes confidence in negotiating with Iran as well. The Israeli lobby adds pressure to avoid a peace that acknowledges Iran’s gains. - Four goals in the war, from an Israeli perspective, are regime change, eliminating Iran’s nuclear enrichment, destroying long-range missiles, and stopping Iranian support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Israel and its lobby view the situation as existential and push for continued pressure unless Iran is decisively defeated. From the U.S. perspective, this means consensus among allies is fragile and often subordinated to domestic and lobby pressures. The strategic logic of the blockade and escalation - The blockade is not a war-winning instrument. The naval option is constrained by ship counts, wear on assets, potential Chinese escorts, and reciprocal Iranian actions (Iran already captured ships in retaliation). Iran’s tolerance for pain is high, and the blockade is not a reliable lever to force compliance. - Air power failed to defeat Iran, confirming that the war cannot be won through bombing alone. Ground invasion is unlikely due to limited American combat troops, political will, and public tolerance for casualties. Consequently, the U.S. has turned to naval coercion via the Strait of Hormuz and global oil interdictions, but this too is unlikely to compel a definitive Iranian capitulation. - A ceasefire is seen as essential to halt the fighting and begin negotiations; however, the ceasefire has not achieved meaningful negotiations because the blockade remains in place, and Iran has demanded its end as a condition to return to talks. Possible Iranian responses and risk dynamics - If the United States were to resume massive bombing, Iran could launch a “Goderdammerung” response—shutting down the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, attacking energy infrastructure and desalination plants, and wrecking the world economy. This would imply a broader regional and global calamity, with Iran threatening to pull down others with it. - The Iranians are expected to leverage the Strait of Hormuz and toll revenues, and to press for sanctions relief and ongoing control of the Strait as bargaining chips. The blockade may inflict pain, but Iran has shown a high capacity to tolerate it, making the naval option unlikely to deliver victory. Europe, diplomacy, and the evolving alliance system - Elbridge Colby’s remarks suggest Europe should take primary responsibility for conventional and Ukraine support, reflecting U.S. weapon stock depletion and a shift toward East Asia as the priority theater. This signals a “buck-passing” of security obligations and a withdrawal of the United States from Europe at the conventional level. - The Colby framework implies the U.S. is reorienting away from Europe and toward East Asia, potentially weakening NATO cohesion as American weapons support diminishes. This could push Europe to diversify security arrangements and rely less on U.S. guarantees. - There is a broader pattern of “divorcing” from allies: as the Gulf, Europe, and Ukraine face continued pressures, the alliance system frays. The U.S. may seek to offload security burdens, while Russia and China adapt by intensifying their own strategic ties and exploiting the rifts within Western alliances. The multipolar world and regional flashpoints - The discussion emphasizes that the world has moved from a post–Cold War unipolar moment to a multipolar system, with East Asia (China) as the primary U.S. strategic focus, but with persistent, volatile conflicts in Europe (Russia-Ukraine) and the Middle East (Israel-Iran, and allied networks like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis). - The speakers stress the interconnections among conflicts: resolving Israel-Iran involves Hezbollah and Hamas; resolving Ukraine involves European commitments and American supplies; and the evolving alliance structures—where the U.S. may reduce its conventional footprint in Europe—could heighten tensions or provoke Russian reactions. Final reflections - The conversation closes by acknowledging the plastic, uncertain moment in world politics: many possible futures depend on diplomacy, leadership choices, and how quickly new equilibria are formed among emerging great powers. The two speakers stress that avoiding a major conflagration will require careful diplomacy, recognition of interlinked flashpoints, and a willingness to rethink traditional alliance structures in a multipolar world.

There is talk of a new world order, with various leaders mentioning it. The Clinton administration is considering its foreign policy in relation to this new world order. George Bush has also mentioned it, emphasizing its importance. The idea of a new world order is seen as significant and there is a belief that we have the opportunity to shape it. This new world order is expected to be different from what we are used to.

According to the speaker, the presented information signals the end of human-dominated history, not the end of history itself. In five years, a technology will exist capable of independent decision-making and idea creation. This is unprecedented because previous technologies, from stone knives to nuclear bombs, could not make decisions independently. For example, President Truman, not the atom bomb, decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. Furthermore, past technologies only replicated human ideas, disseminating music, poems, and novels written by humans. Now, technology can generate entirely new ideas on a scale beyond human capabilities.

"For the first time in history, foreign policy has become global." "Communications are instantaneous and there exist problems which are genuinely not national like environment, nuclear proliferation and simulations." "So in this sense, we are living in a new world and a new world order will emerge." "The only question is whether it will arise out of intellectual and moral insight and by design or whether it will be forced on mankind by a series of catastrophes." "That's the challenge of our period and it makes it, to my mind, one of the most exciting periods in which anybody can live."

The moment of truth is approaching as the previous world order fades away. We are witnessing a fundamental clash of principles that will shape international relations in the future. This conflict goes beyond power struggles and geopolitical influence; it will determine whether we can create a world that fosters development and resolves contradictions through mutual respect for cultures and civilizations, without coercion or force. The outcome will be crucial for our collective future.

As a kid, nuclear war was the big fear. Now, a highly infectious virus is the greatest global catastrophe risk. An epidemic, whether natural or intentional, is the most likely cause of over ten million deaths in the coming decades. We are not ready for the next epidemic, and it's surprising how little preparedness there is. To prepare, we need to run simulations, like germ games instead of war games, to identify our weaknesses. If we start now, we can be ready.

For the first time in history, policy has become global. Communications are instantaneous, and there exist problems which are genuinely not national like environment, nuclear proliferation, and simulations. So in this sense, we are living in a new world and a new world order will emerge. The only question is whether it will arise out of intellectual and moral insight and by design or whether it will be forced on mankind by a series of catastrophes. That's the challenge of our period and it makes it, to my mind, one of the most exciting periods in which anybody can live.

A computer at MIT, sponsored by the Club of Rome, analyzed the direction of our world and concluded that society is nearing the end of a 2000-year development. Prosperity leads to disruption, requiring a reevaluation of global social and political situations. Economic growth always leads to a crisis, and controlling everything, including industrial production, prevents crises but assumes we stop getting richer. Reorienting our activities and attitudes globally is the biggest task mankind has faced. It's important to have a global perspective, limit having more than two children, and avoid local patriotism. The speaker believes a revolution is necessary and should be planned.

The speaker suggests that we are in a transition between old and new orders. They question how we can retain positive aspects from the old order while avoiding a chaotic new world order. Another speaker views it as a transition of eras rather than orders, but acknowledges that the international order built after 1945 will evolve. They emphasize that we are entering a new era and have the opportunity to shape it. The core principles and institutions of the existing order will be adapted to address current challenges.

Alex Kraner and Glenn discuss the evolving Iran crisis, U.S. strategy, and broader implications for Europe and the global order. - The Trump administration’s approach to the Iran confrontation is characterized as reactive and ad hoc. Alex suggests the administration has a “thoroughly thought through strategy of making it up as they go along,” operating in a reactive mode as ground conditions change and new opportunities arise. He asserts the conflict is one the U.S. went into that “created the problems that they're trying to solve now,” leaving the U.S. in a weak position. - On domestic optics and objectives, Trump appears to seek tangible, visible proof of success, needing to “humiliate Iran” or demonstrate a victory, but the complexity of the conflict makes a clean win difficult. Alex questions why the administration would proceed with such a path, given that Trump is due to visit China next week and may want to present stronger leverage at that meeting. - The strategic implications of controlling the Strait of Hormuz are highlighted. If Iran maintains control, it could pressure neighboring countries to decouple from the U.S., reduce American influence, and even threaten U.S. bases and the dollar’s dominance in the region. Conversely, the U.S. cannot easily “go home” without relinquishing strategic positioning, which would undermine Western dominance in the region. - The likely trajectory is escalation. The discussion notes a shift toward renewed or intensified violence, with potential further bombings and Iranian retaliation. There is a view that the U.S. is boxed into choosing between victory and defeat, with no middle ground if sanctions and regional pressure fail to resolve the crisis. - The broader political calculus: the conflict is seen as intersecting with Israel’s regional posture and broader Middle East dynamics. There is concern that Israel’s actions and the broader alliance structure complicate any possible ceasefire, and that the ceasefire may already be off the table due to continued hostilities in Gaza and Lebanon. - The economic and military balance is emphasized: the U.S. military is spread thin across multiple theaters, and analysts note that achievements on paper do not translate into decisive victory in the field against Iran, which is large, populous, and capable of sustained resistance. - There is widespread skepticism about the likelihood of a favorable outcome for U.S. or Western objectives. Alex argues that conventional military instruments are unlikely to compel regime change in Iran, and he contends the U.S. has already “painted itself into a corner” with no credible face-saving exit. - The discussion on Europe and NATO: Glenn and Alex discuss Europe’s response to the Iran conflict and its impact on Ukraine and Russia. They describe a new Joint Expeditionary Force (ten Northern European nations under British command) as a mechanism to confront Russia, signaling a potential shift toward a new European naval alliance aimed at harassing Russia’s northern maritime routes. This raises questions about why European NATO members would cledge their navies to a London-led command in a bloc that could escalate toward war with a nuclear power. - London’s role in shaping Western policy is repeatedly highlighted. The speakers suggest that “all roads always end up leading to London,” pointing to the British establishment’s influence on Middle East policy, Israel, and Europe’s strategic posture. They argue that powerful financial or banking interests (the “cabal” or “banking cartel”) may exert outsized influence over political leaders, including Trump, Netanyahu, and British officials, sustaining a long-standing push for Middle East hegemony. - The multipolar shift: both speakers emphasize that the world is moving away from unipolar American dominance toward a multipolar system with multiple power centers. They suggest that a sustainable peace would require acknowledging this distribution of power and adjusting strategies accordingly, rather than pursuing unilateral or hegemonic approaches. - Final reflection: if the West pursues a multipolar settlement, it could avert the calamity of a broader, potentially nuclear confrontation. However, the speakers warn that the global struggle over power—between unipolar and multipolar orders—may still unfold in blood, fire, and broader geopolitical clashes.

Speaker 0 is asked by Alicia about what’s at stake in the November election. He answers that 'Everything. Like, everything is at stake, and I'm really not being, facetious about that.' He adds, 'To be real, what's at stake is whether or not a new world order is able to take root and grow.' The speaker frames the election as carrying existential consequences, hinging on whether a 'new world order' can take root and grow. The remarks convey a sense of urgency about the outcome and link it to the potential inception of a new global framework. The dialogue centers on the scope of political consequences and global order.

For the first time, policy is global due to instantaneous communication and non-national problems like the environment and nuclear proliferation. A new world order will emerge, either through intellectual and moral insight and design, or forced upon mankind by catastrophes. This challenge makes our period an exciting one to live in.

There is talk of a new world order, with various leaders mentioning it. The Clinton administration is focused on establishing their foreign policy and shaping this new world order. It is seen as a big idea and an opportunity for change. The world we know is evolving, and there is a chance for us, especially the younger generation, to lead in shaping this new world order.