reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Israel's war on Hamas has caused immense devastation and loss of life in Gaza. The United States, despite international outcry, has bypassed Congress to approve an emergency weapon sale to Israel. Secretary Blinken claims an emergency exists, but it's unclear who Israel needs to defend themselves from. The situation in Gaza is dire, with thousands killed and millions displaced. The Israeli government's actions seem to indicate a desire for their genocide to occur more quickly.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel that resulted from advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end will continue.

The US policy regarding the conflict in Israel will not change, as they aim to support Israel's defense while ensuring humanitarian aid reaches Gaza. The focus is on achieving a ceasefire to reduce violence, evacuate people, and deliver aid. The US emphasizes the importance of Israel protecting civilians and assures continued support.

Innocent civilians in Gaza are being killed by Israeli strikes, leading to a growing humanitarian crisis. Protests are taking place worldwide, calling for a ceasefire and highlighting the suffering of civilians. The Israel Defense Forces claim to only target Hamas, but Amnesty International and Queen Rania of Jordan argue that Israel has violated international law. Hamas, on the other hand, justifies the sacrifices made by the Palestinian people in their fight for liberation. The Biden administration supports a pause for humanitarian aid, but not a ceasefire, as they believe it would benefit Hamas. Israel insists on continuing their campaign against Hamas until their hostages are returned and Hamas is removed from power. President Biden is navigating a difficult situation, advocating for a humanitarian pause while working towards a resolution.

We must have conversations with Israel to protect innocent lives in Gaza and provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians. President Biden aims for a two-state solution for peace in the Middle East.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Work has resulted in movements in the region by Israel, prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where it stands on the need for this war to end will continue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on ending the war will continue.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and General C. Q. Brown held a press conference after meeting with NATO allies, where Austin promised support to Israel in its self-defense efforts. However, concerns have been raised about whether Israel's actions constitute collective punishment against Palestinians. The conflict has resulted in thousands of Palestinian casualties, including deaths, injuries, and displacement. Israel's blockade has limited access to essential resources such as food, water, and medicine, leading to dire conditions in Gaza. Russia and China have called for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, while Western nations, including the US, have opposed it. A classified document reveals Israel's plan to forcibly expel over 2 million Gaza civilians. The film urges governments to intervene and prevent further escalation and loss of life.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Actions by Israel in the region were prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen there. Despite this, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Efforts will continue to pursue what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end.

The destruction in Gaza is extensive, as reported by the New York Times using satellite images. Hundreds of thousands of people are being forced to flee Gaza, with no possibility of returning. Gaza South, where people were told to seek refuge, is also being bombed and locked down. The Egyptian border is closed, preventing people from leaving. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah, reclaiming the ancient borders of Israel. This goes beyond seeking revenge on Hamas terrorists and raises concerns about anti-Semitism.

The discussion centers on the Iran ceasefire, Iran’s negotiating stance, and how Israel’s actions and U.S. political dynamics are shaping perceptions and potential outcomes. - President Trump describes the Iran ceasefire as “on life support” and says Iran’s peace terms are “totally unacceptable” and “garbage.” Iran’s position, according to Iranian media cited in the segment, treats Washington’s peace proposal as a surrender document, insisting on the end of U.S. sanctions, release of frozen Iranian assets, the right to sell oil freely, and control of the Strait of Hormuz—a nonstarter for Washington. Trump also threatens more war, aligning with Netanyahu’s preferences. - On the ceasefire, another participant notes “the ceasefire remains in place for the time being,” while a speaker mocks the peace proposal as weak and life-supporting, using medical imagery to describe its fragility. - Netanyahu’s appearance on 60 Minutes is summarized as him “begging for more war,” outlining how to remove enriched uranium and how to achieve that goal, with emphasis on military action. He suggests “you go in” and take it out, implying American and Israeli cooperation, though one participant stresses not to reveal military plans and cautions about the feasibility and risks of such missions. There is also a claim that Netanyahu implies the United States should bear primary responsibility for military actions if needed. - The dialogue expands to a broader critique of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank, with one participant stressing that Israel is “besieged on the media front” and that propaganda has harmed Israel’s image. There is a claim that social media manipulation by other countries has contributed to negative impressions of Israel, and a consensus that Israel has not used adequate or effective propaganda in its defense. - The panel discusses the ethics and consequences of censorship, with one speaker arguing against censorship yet acknowledging the impact of social media manipulation on public opinion. They contend that attempts to silence critics or punish those who oppose Israel’s policies are counterproductive and harm Jewish communities globally by conflating Jewish identity with Israeli policy. - Anna Kasparian (The Young Turks) weighs in, describing Netanyahu as untrustworthy and arguing that Israel’s actions—targeting hospitals, education centers, and civilians—have generated global criticism. She asserts the issue is not merely a social media phenomenon but an Israel-centered one, citing the ongoing destruction in Gaza and military actions in Lebanon. She argues that U.S. support for Israel is a political question driven by lobbying, and she predicts growing political pressure against leaders who prioritize Israel’s interests over American interests. - The panel critiques U.S. political alignments, noting that Democratic and Republican positions have not yielded a clear consensus on Iran. They argue that diplomacy has varied across administrations (Obama’s JCPOA vs. other strategies), and they contend that Netanyahu’s influence has pushed the United States toward a harder stance on Iran, often aligning with Israel’s regime-change objectives. - Looking ahead, the speakers caution against a renewed kinetic war with Iran, referencing military experts who argue that the United States lacks the capacity or strategic justification for a large-scale confrontation. They emphasize the high costs, the effectiveness of Iran’s drones, and the risks of escalating conflict, suggesting that a more restrained approach or different leverage might be necessary. - The closing segment underscores uncertainty about future conflict, with a warning that a return to bombing Iran could be counterproductive and that political and public opinion dynamics in the United States are shifting, especially regarding support for Netanyahu and Israel.

It is not in the U.S.'s or Israel's interest to get involved in another major war in the Middle East. It's false to say that when Israel was attacked, America was attacked. Adopting that mentality leads to situations like Iraq. The U.S. shouldn't put boots on the ground in Israel, and many Israelis agree. The U.S. is limited in how it can support Israel right now due to resources given to Ukraine and military drawdown after twenty years of war. The U.S. drew down artillery prepositioned in Israel and gave it to Ukraine, and it will take years to rebuild the capacity to adequately support partners like Israel and Ukraine while preparing for a potential conflict with China. Israel is going to need a lot of artillery shells just like Ukraine does. Early in the Ukraine war, Israel was attacked for taking a neutral stance and resisting pressure to send its Iron Dome to Ukraine. Had Israel caved, more Israelis would have died. Israel deserves credit for prioritizing the safety of its citizens.

Israel is facing deep trouble with no way out. They couldn't defeat Hamas in Gaza, are stuck there, and lack a military solution against Hezbollah. A war with Iran won't solve their problems. Internal issues, like reservists' misconduct, could lead to civil war. Israel heavily relies on the US for support, receiving $18 billion in 2024.

Alastair Crook and the host discuss the rapid escalation in the Middle East following US-Israel strikes on the South Pars gas field, the Bushehr nuclear plant, and the Iranian leadership, and Iran’s retaliatory moves. Crook argues the situation is spiraling out of control and that the South Pars attack was a major escalation that Iran sees as affecting its electrical supplies and infrastructure. He cites a narrative from circles close to Trump—via Jared Kushner and others—that the response, which blamed Israel and not Qatar, was intended to pressure Iran to abandon Hormuz closure, a move Crook characterizes as delusional. He notes Israeli media implying joint action with the US and asserts Israel approved the strike, aiming to present a significant victory for Trump and Israel, while suggesting the American political environment is volatile and markets react to Trump’s statements. Crook explains that Qatar’s infrastructure suffered damage, with liquefaction facilities affected, leading Qatar to call force majeure on long-term gas contracts for five years and estimating a rebuild time of at least five years. He says the perceived “pressure on Iran” was used to justify actions that did not align with reality, and he views the statement by Trump as an attempt to manage market expectations about oil prices and Hormuz. The dialogue covers Trump’s rhetoric, including his claim that no one expected Iran would retaliate against Gulf states, which Crook labels as indicatives of a broader miscalculation and “La La Land” thinking. The conversation then moves to energy-security dynamics. Crook mentions discussions around potentially sending thousands of Marines to secure Hormuz, which he deems delusional given the geography, Iranian artillery coverage, and the difficulty of sustaining such a force along a 2,000-kilometer coastline. He also notes Iranian capabilities, including hypersonic missiles (Patah-2), submarines, drones, and a range of anti-ship weaponry, which challenge the feasibility of a successful amphibious intervention. Crook emphasizes that Iran has prepared a long-term plan to increase pressure on Israel, anticipating depletion of Western capabilities and aiming for a peak after Western responses wane. In assessing Israeli public perception, Crook says support for the war is very high (about 93%), but much of the optimism depends on propaganda and beliefs that Iran will rapidly collapse or be disarmed, reinforced by Netanyahu and some Western allies’ messages. He quotes internal Israeli censorship and media manipulation, including a report by Nine/97 Two about PR-led portrayals of limited damage and a narrative of resilience. On the Iranian side, he notes greater visible national cohesion and resilience, with the population rallying behind the state; hospitals and schools have reportedly been targeted, yet Iranians respond with unity rather than abandoning the fight. Crook highlights the broader strategic objective for Iran: a long-duration campaign to exhaust Western and Israeli capabilities, with a staged buildup designed to reach a psychological and strategic peak at a moment that yields maximum impact. He observes a mismatch between Western assumptions—short wars and swift regime-change hopes—and Iran’s longer-term, prepared strategy, including the conservation of more sophisticated missiles for a future phase. The conversation covers shipping and insurance dynamics as Lloyd’s of London confirms Iran’s IRGC has created a system for permitted passage through a new channel near Kharg Island, with inspections and licensing requirements. This channel would allow certain vessels (including from India, Pakistan, Malaysia) to pass only if their cargoes are purchased with dollars, implying a potential move away from US-dollar-denominated trade for energy shipments and signaling a shift in global energy logistics. Crook suggests this could pressure Gulf states and Europe to adapt to new transit rules, while China continues to pass vessels through the main Hormuz channel, given China’s energy needs and diversification. The discussion touches America’s strategic doctrine of controlling sea lanes vs. new realities of freer navigation in the Persian Gulf region, with reference to broader geopolitical implications for China, Russia, and Iran. Crook mentions the potential for regional actors like Hezbollah, Hashd al-Shabi, and the Houthis to activate in support of Iran’s broader strategy, including potential disruptions to Saudi oil routes. He notes historical echo lines, such as Churchill’s oil-dependence for naval power and Iran’s longstanding leverage over oil and naval routes. Towards the end, Crook warns of existential risks for Israel if the conflict persists and domestic US divisions widen, potentially affecting US-Israel alignment. He suggests a red line for MAGA voices and a potential but catastrophic scenario of boots-on-the-ground involvement in the Middle East. He concludes with a cautious view of the possibility of a broader, prolonged confrontation and the heavy political costs for both the United States and Israel, even as both leaders seek to project strength and victory.

An official states that serious consequences for bombing and killing children will be a second-term decision to prevent, not a first-term one, due to political calculations. It's too politically risky to say what Biden said earlier in the week, which was "we're not going to give you more bombs." A US shipment of 3,500 bombs was paused. There is a huge, powerful Jewish influence in both Republican and Democratic politics. The administration faces pressure regarding siding with political factions and parties. Deliberations on Israel are not public to avoid angering people. Israel has both a domestic and international footprint. Domestically, there are many Jewish people, and it's easy for certain folks to twist the message. After the October 7th terrorist attack, the US could help, but can't say that because it's all classified. Losing support from Jewish voters could prevent obtaining 270 electoral votes. Saying "no free bombs" was risky because Jews will get upset, feeling America is turning against them. The Palestine effort represents many voters, and they feel they've lost them. Keeping things quiet is necessary for now.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Work has resulted in movements in the region by Israel, prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where it stands on the need for this war to end will continue.

The speaker argues that even months later, a ceasefire and an end to the indiscriminate targeting and killing of civilians in Gaza remain unachieved, describing the violence as out of control and on an industrial scale. They state that the United States is backing Israel’s military campaign against the Palestinian people, not against Hamas, and claim that the broader coalition of powers—including the Five Eyes, the G7, Canada, the United States, Britain, and the EU—are backing it. They assert that moral action is to call for a ceasefire, engage in diplomacy, and try to convince Israel that this may not be the right way forward, even if a ceasefire cannot be achieved or Israel will not comply. The speaker contends that the United States is not a neutral party or external observer but a co-belligerent in the genocide in Gaza. They allege that the U.S. provides bombs, artillery, targeting information, drone surveillance data, satellite information, reconnaissance, material support, naval support, and other assistance. They claim the U.S. is as much at war against the Palestinians as Israel is, implying that U.S. withdrawal from its support—rearming Patriot missile batteries, the Iron Dome, JDAMs, bunker busters, and other weapons that are slaughtering the native Palestinian population on a scale not seen in modern warfare—would change the dynamics of the conflict. The speaker emphasizes the ongoing continuation of this support despite all that has been witnessed and urges reflection on the consequences and blowback that could affect the United States and its allies.

Speaker 0 says a piece about Israel’s “obscene treatment” of Speaker 0’s country has an obvious takeaway that America’s “special ally is not actually an ally,” and that NBC News did not want readers to realize this. Speaker 0 claims the report’s authors repeatedly inserted “globalist propaganda” into the story, including the neocon talking point that Israelis are America’s “special friends,” while still presenting “eye-opening” information about Israel spying. Speaker 0 argues that throughout the entire NBC News piece, there is continued praise for Israel as “our greatest ally” and “special friend.” Speaker 1 says the piece lays praise on Israel and is about Israel spying, which they find “reprehensible.” Speaker 1 describes decades of belief that Israel is America’s best ally, an “island of democracy” amid “sea of chaos” in the Middle East, and that many Jewish people Speaker 1 personally knew seemed “like really good people.” Speaker 1 says that as “growing physical evidence” has emerged that Israel is “not quite who we thought they were” and that Israel “definitely” abuses America, the situation has become normalized. Speaker 1 claims that even when things have come out, “no action has been taken,” leading Israel to be “a little bit more bold,” doing actions “out in the open.” Speaker 1 cites an example involving Netanyahu and Lebanon: Speaker 1 says Netanyahu stated that a stop to fighting in Lebanon is a “non-negotiable requirement” for Iran to end the war, and that Speaker 1 believes Netanyahu will “do what I want anyway,” even if President Trump intervenes. Speaker 1 says Speaker 1 expects Trump may “hold off for a day or two,” but that Israel “they’re fighting again today.” Speaker 1 asks why the U.S. continues to support Israel and provide it with ammunition, weapons, political cover, and diplomatic cover “to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests?” Speaker 0 responds, “It’s so frustrating.”

In a discussion on the risk of a broader war with Iran and Russia, Alastair Crook discusses the current state of Iran-related negotiations and strategic calculations. He notes a lot of propaganda and confusion, and asserts there has been a substantive change, though it’s important to understand what that change is. He mentions there was never a proposal for Aradshi to meet with Kushner or Whitcroft in Islamabad; Trump called that a fantasy, stating there was no point to talks until Iran and its allies produced a plan of what they want. He recalls that Iran’s negotiating position was outlined in a ten-point plan given to the Americans for Islamabad talks, which Trump described as a realistic basis for discussion, and notes that the points have not changed. He reflects on the JCPOA, rereading it and considering what Iran would want to return to, suggesting the JCPOA feels like a “parole from prison” given the military bases, sanctions, UN resolutions, and IAEA inspections that would accompany a return. He describes Iran’s new investigation process principles as not discussing the nuclear issue until Iran has resolved questions about the war, the blockade of Hormuz, sanctions, and the seizure or refitting of tanker ships by US officials. Iran says it will discuss Hormuz and a potential discussion of CICEFAR later, and possibly military issues later; Khalibat tweeted that Trump claims “he has all the caste,” but Iran says “one is Hormuz” and Iran controls Hormuz while threatening to continue, and can also control the Bab al-Mandab, the Red Sea, and pipelines. He notes the American blockade is porous, with vessels passing through, and explains Iran’s ongoing oil earnings during the war—citing that four tankers recently earned nearly $1.8 billion, with Iran continuing to move tankers along the coast into territorial waters. He emphasizes Iran is not prepared to capitulate and suggests Iran is a civilizational, revolutionary state, not just a conventional nation-state. Crook then analyzes prospects for negotiated settlement. He argues there is no path to a simple solution, comparing the situation to Brexit, and identifies two major roadblocks. The first is Trump, whose approach to Iran is influenced by dislike of Obama and the desire to present a better JCPOA to outdo Obama; he asserts that a deal more favorable than Obama’s JCPOA would still face opposition from Netanyahu and Koali, and suggests Trump’s incentive would be to present a symbolic win like 430 kilograms of enriched uranium handed over as a trophy, which Iran is unlikely to do. He discusses Vance’s Islamabad discussions and wonders whether Trump would accept a deal that extends timelines and increases monitoring if it is not a “win” for Trump. The second barrier is Israel, where Netanyahu faces pressure over war outcomes against Iran and Hezbollah; Crook describes Israel’s shift toward a more messianic, apocalyptic stance, and cites Israeli defense minister Katz’s apocalyptic language. He argues restraint is unlikely in Israel and suggests Israel may push the United States to continue the war, though he questions whether this aligns with American interests. Crook contends that if a settlement with Trump is possible, it would still require addressing Israel, which may not cooperate. He notes European Union insistence that sanctions on Iran will not come off for values or regime change reasons, and positions this within a broader context of a multipolar world where Western actors struggle to adapt to new power dynamics. He reiterates that Iran’s objective is to break the paradigm of sanctions and Western control, including the dollar hegemony and the financialized world, and to resist the imperial structures backing those policies. He concludes by observing that the war is a broader contest that could threaten the American-led world order, and that the time is on the side of Iran in a material sense due to its revenue from oil and control of Hormuz, while Western economies face cost of living pressures and potential shortages.

President Biden stated that entering Rafah is a red line, yet the US will continue to provide weapons and support to Israel. The US supports Israel's right to defend itself. Reports show dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza, with children starving. The US is urging Israel to do more and has provided humanitarian aid through air drops and is exploring maritime options.