reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Cameras are being installed in public places in Iran to identify women not wearing the hijab. Iranian officials plan to send warning text messages to those caught on camera. This increase in surveillance is part of the ruling regime's crackdown on women challenging the compulsory dress code. The movement gained momentum after the death of Masa Amini, a 22-year-old who died while in custody of Iran's Islamic morality police for not wearing her hijab properly.

Glenn: Welcome back. We’re joined by professor Syed Mohammed Marandi, from Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Thank you for coming back. Marandi: Hi, Glenn. Thank you. It shows how much I like your show because I went through a lot of trouble to get online. Glenn: I appreciate it. Regarding the riots in Iran, Tehran included, it seems every time there’s a buildup to regime change or invasion, the script follows a pattern: first destabilize with sanctions and an information war, then build on public grievances and instigate violent protests. You announce the intention to help locals in their aspirations for freedom, with rhetoric reduced to a binary: either you don’t care about the protesters or you support sanctions or intervention. After a coup or invasion, the US and its allies have a zero-sum geopolitical interest and power interest, not altruism. The result, from the Arab Spring onward, is that the country to be liberated is destroyed. Iranian protests are an internal issue, but once international, geopolitics intrudes. How do you assess the situation on the ground in Tehran, domestic grievances, and the geopolitical component? Marandi: Western media and think tanks periodically declare Iran on the verge of collapse, but the state has popular support and a strong constitutional adherence. Currency suddenly fell—perhaps 30–50% in a brief period—and was managed from abroad, with pressure from the US and Western allies on currency-exchange places. Peaceful protests in Tehran and other cities followed mainly by business people whose shops were threatened by rising prices; if the currency isn’t stabilized, they’d go out of business. Protests continued into day two, with larger crowds in some cities. Then infiltration occurred: small, well-disciplined groups began to riot. Over the past days, over 100 officers were murdered, some beheaded or burned alive, some police faces smashed. A nurse in a clinic was burned alive in the top floor; ambulances and fire engines were burned; a Red Crescent worker was killed. Western media claims “protesters” and ignores footage. Across the country today, demonstrations in support of the Islamic Republic and the constitution were large—city by city like Isfahan, Tabriz, Ahvaz, Mashhad, Tehran. The crowd in Tehran was among the largest ever. Despite rioters, millions showed up in demonstrations across the country. The Iranian state’s media is outspent by a global Persian-language media empire in the West, with billions spent on online campaigns, bot armies, and networks. Yet millions demonstrated in support of the state. People can see the footage themselves. The internet was shut down to coordinate rioters across groups including ISIS-related elements, monarchists, and Kurdish groups. The rioters’ coordination collapsed when the internet went down. The regime’s supporters remain, and demonstrations in Tehran and across Iran show broad, diverse perspectives, all affirming support for the constitution and the state. Glenn: I’ve seen pro-government marches here as well; they’re huge, though not always covered in Europe. Marandi: There’s a narrative control to label the government illegitimate to topple it. The rhetoric claims Iranians are freedom-loving, yet those who claim to support them have bombs and blood. Pompeo’s tweet suggesting Mossad agents among protesters, and Mossad’s Persian-language statements, indicate foreign interference. The internet blackout aimed to prevent coordination among rioters; footage shows violent acts—two men burned in a mosque, a nurse burned in a clinic, ambulances and public buses destroyed. The “millions on the streets” claim is contradicted by the actuality of coordination via foreign paymasters. Glenn: Trump claimed Iran had fallen and would negotiate; is this about a new nuclear deal, stalled or about missiles and Iran’s regional support? What are Washington’s aims? Marandi: No one contacted him; his claim about the second-largest city falling is baseless. His ignorance shows inchoate knowledge of ground realities. Trump’s past statements about surrendering Iran suggest aims aligned with the Israeli regime’s goals: a broken West Asia and North Africa, fragmentation of states, and meddling across the region. Erdogan’s miscalculation—allying with Israel and Qatar—empowered Israeli policy at the expense of Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and Iran. The “woman, life, freedom” protests were initially fueled by Western narratives; BBC Persian and other outlets spread misinformation about Massa Amini, which was later corrected, but the cycle repeats. The West uses propaganda to push riots; Iran’s endurance of sanctions and propaganda demonstrates broad legitimacy for the Islamic Republic even amid external pressure. The demonstrations today show support for the state, the constitution, and Iran’s policies while denouncing the US, the Israeli regime, and their supporters. AOC’s stance and Trump’s stance reflect a uniparty tendency toward empire preservation. Glenn: Regarding potential war, Lindsey Graham floated strikes; how likely is war? Marandi: The currency manipulation aimed to justify instability for war. The CIA, Mossad, and others would seek to justify strikes, but Iran is prepared for war. If the US attacks, Iran may strike back; the population that stood with the state could unite in the face of aggression. Iran’s capabilities include underground drone and missile bases, short- to medium-range missiles, more easily moved than long-range missiles. Iran could devastate US installations if attacked. If war occurs, Iran could retaliate in the Persian Gulf and beyond, potentially impacting global economies. If the US begins, Iran could respond decisively, targeting American interests abroad and in the region. The Zionists allegedly favor war for their regional aims, regardless of Western consequences. Glenn: Professor Malandy, thank you for traveling and for the discussion. Marandi: Always a pleasure, Glenn.

An Iranian girl died after being beaten by morality police for not wearing a hijab at a Tehran metro station. This incident is similar to the murder of another girl last year for the same reason. The morality police, who are men, enforce the mandatory hijab rule in Iran. While some argue that this is a cultural practice that should be respected, many people in Iran oppose the oppressive regime and would prefer to live in a free country. It is important to condemn such violence, even though the exact details of this incident are not confirmed. Iran serves as a warning of how a free country can turn into an authoritarian nightmare. Additionally, in Gaza, school officials have voted to require young girls to wear head coverings.

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 outlines a vision for a post-Islamic Republic Iran, arguing that the Iran people associate with terrorism, extremism, and poverty is a misperception, and that a free Iran will be peaceful, flourishing, and different from the current regime. The speaker asserts that after the fall of the Islamic Republic, Iran’s security and foreign policy will change fundamentally: the nuclear military program will end, support for terrorist groups will cease immediately, and Iran will work with regional and global partners to confront terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, and extremist Islamism. Iran will act as a friend and stabilizing force in the region and as a responsible partner in global security. In diplomacy, relations with the United States will be normalized and the friendship with America and its people will be restored. The State of Israel will be recognized immediately. The speaker envisions expanding the Abraham Accords into the Cyrus Accords, bringing together a free Iran, Israel, and the Arab world, framed by mutual recognition, sovereignty, and national interest. In energy, Iran is described as possessing some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world and will become a reliable energy supplier to the free world. Policymaking will be transparent, with Iran’s actions described as responsible and prices as predictable. On governance, Iran will adopt and enforce international standards, confront money laundering, and dismantle organized corruption. Public institutions will answer to the people. In the economy, Iran is portrayed as one of the world’s last great untapped markets, with a educated, modern population and a diaspora connected to the world. A democratic Iran will open its economy to trade, investment, and innovation, and Iran will seek to invest in the world, replacing isolation with opportunity. The speaker emphasizes that this is not an abstract vision but a practical one grounded in national interest, stability, and cooperation, and calls for the international community and the Iranian people to stand with this change. The fall of the Islamic Republic and the establishment of a secular democratic government in Iran are presented as restoring dignity to the Iranian people and benefiting the region and the world. A free Iran is described as a force for peace, prosperity, and partnership.

Lebanon used to be the only majority Christian country in the Middle East, known for its open-mindedness, multiculturalism, and high-quality universities. By the 1970s, the Christian majority shifted due to the growth of the Muslim population, who are allowed to marry up to four wives. As Muslims became the majority, violence against Christians increased. By 1974, it became unsafe for Christians to travel due to checkpoints where they were targeted. In 1975, civil war erupted after an attack on a church. Muslims, supported by oil money, aimed to use Lebanon as a base against Israel. Lebanon, once nearly 70% Christian, saw its demographics change within thirty years. Despite a fair division of government posts after independence, the new Muslim majority became intolerant and began massacring Christians, believing they now had the power to dictate the rules.

Ayatollah Khamenei has consolidated power and is now more influential than ever before. By engaging with Iran and opening it up to the world, political reform can be expedited. This includes foreign investment and the establishment of an embassy in Tehran.

John Bolton suggests regime change in Iran, but the U.S. has a history of interference there. In the 1940s and 50s, Britain and the Soviets deposed the Shah, and later the U.S. overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh, who was seen as communist and hostile to American interests, despite being secular. The U.S. then reinstalled the Shah, an unpopular autocrat, making America unpopular in Iran. This led to the 1970s revolution, bringing Ayatollah Khomeini to power and creating an anti-American regime. Intervention made Iran an enemy. Regime change can lead to unforeseen consequences like civil war and refugee crises. The West should not interfere; Iran's problems today stem from past U.S. involvement.

Am I the only one that feels like we're watching the exact same strategy used by Zoran Mamdami that we saw in the Islamic revolution in 1979? Where have I seen anti capitalist feminist driving the agenda for revolution before? This is what Iranian women looked like before the Islamic revolution. I wonder if these feminist women here in The United States are worried about the same thing happening to them that happened to feminists in Iran after the Islamic revolution. Because you can pull up a whole bunch of photos where the women who supported the Ayatollah in their anti capitalist Islamic revolution ended up looking like this afterwards. that is straight up racism by policy. So I wonder if we'll be able to get a before and after of this.

The transcript discusses a video claimed to show an Iranian woman detained during the January protests, arguing the video is fake and produced by an AI company. It states the video is a product of Generative AI for Good, an Israeli impact company that develops AI-powered initiatives to amplify silenced voices, with one initiative focusing on sexual violence against women. The woman’s face is said to have been changed with AI to protect her identity, but the entire scene—bookshelf, curtains, samovar, and the creators—offers no information about where the testimony came from. The narrative within the video is said to be disturbing to many because, beyond the AI fabrication, the woman repeats nationalistic tropes that depict non-Persians as aggressors, and it claims without evidence that thousands of protesters, including children, were subjected to severe sexual violence in January. The speaker notes there are real victims of state and sexual violence, but questions why stories are made up and why now. Anthropologists are cited, stating that depicting oriental women as helpless victims in need of rescue is a powerful propaganda tool in political strategy and modern warfare. This portrayal is said to be designed to appeal specifically to Western white audiences, which allegedly influences global attention toward what Iranian women wear and Iran’s hijab laws rather than substantive equal rights issues. The transcript links this dynamic to the Iran’s woman life freedom movement, suggesting it went viral and drew foreigners worldwide to focus on slogans and visible symbols. The transcript then references former U.S. President Donald Trump, noting that he shared photos of eight Iranian women who were allegedly about to be executed and saved by his intervention. It adds that Iran’s judiciary denied these claims. It also states that the images have been altered to the point of debate over whether they are entirely AI-generated or simply retouched to appear more appealing—featuring young, attractive, hijab-free, mostly blonde women. The final observation asserts that thousands of people are in Iranian prisons, but in a war of bombs and narratives, some have discovered that if you can’t identify a perfect victim, you can create one.

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.

In this passage, the speaker contrasts the situation of women in America with that in Iran, recounting a dramatic shift that occurred after 1979. The speaker asserts that in America, women are allowed to dress, go to school, work, and marry whomever they like. By contrast, Iran “used to be like this too before they were taken over by radical Islamists in 1979,” but after 1979, under what the speaker describes as the “sick leadership of these terrorists,” women are treated “like dogs.” The speaker details a series of severe restrictions and injustices faced by Iranian women. Women are claimed to be forced to cover every part of their body, except their eyes. They are said to be prohibited from leaving home unless accompanied by a male escort. The speaker asserts that women are not allowed to obtain an education or hold a job. They are allegedly subjected to compulsory restrictions on marriage, including being forced to marry at a very young age, pointing to instances as young as six years old. Additional accusations are made, including claims that pedophilia and inbreeding are rampant within the society described, and that women are fortunate if they are even allowed to drive a vehicle. The speaker then shifts to a political criticism, referencing an assertion about a United States congresswoman “from one of these third world Muslim countries” who is married to her brother, and uses this as a rhetorical device to question where Democrat colleagues who claim to be feminists are in response to these alleged conditions. Throughout, the speaker uses stark, condemnatory language to depict the regime governing Iran as oppressively restricting women’s rights and autonomy, contrasting it with perceived freedoms in the United States. The argument hinges on the juxtaposition of pre- and post-1979 Iran and on a series of explicit accusations about gender-based repression, control over women’s bodies and movements, and the legal and social norms surrounding marriage and education. The speaker also employs a provocative question aimed at a specific political audience, urging accountability from those who identify as feminists within the opposing party.

Iranians took to the streets in January to demand an end to the Islamic Republic’s rule, but they were met with bullets. The crackdown that followed killed tens of thousands, with the true toll unknown. As protests grew, the regime pushed a familiar claim that the demonstrations were not spontaneous but engineered by foreign intelligence services, notably the Mossad and the CIA. New analysis from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) shows how this foreign-coup narrative was built, amplified, and circulated online, transforming a domestic uprising into the appearance of a foreign conspiracy. The process, according to NCRI, was not organic but deliberate: first, regime-aligned media framed protests as foreign sabotage; second, online influencers across political camps adopted and propagated that claim; third, engagement surged, often surpassing official state media; and finally, Iranian officials cited the online discourse as validation. The narrative then traveled outward and returned with legitimacy. NCRI identified high-engagement voices across diverse political spectrums who converged on the same conclusion about Iran: different politics, one narrative. Among the notable accounts involved were Nick Fuentes, pro-Kremlin amplifier Megatron Ron, Network Node, Atom Media, progressive commentator Omar Badar, gray zone journalists including Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal, and Iranian regime-aligned commentator Mohammed Manadi. One year and a half earlier, an essay described as Homine’s Soft Power in America discussed the influence the regime had created in academia, media, and cyber actors who operate in a coordinated and diffused manner, sowing doubt about casualty numbers and who is responsible for killings. Two provocative posts acted as catalysts: a Farsi-language Mossad account and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Both posts were rapidly weaponized as proof that the protests were foreign-backed. The largest engagement surge occurred after January 8, precisely as protests expanded and the crackdown intensified, with the same language and accusations repeated across networks. As violence unfolded inside Iran, a second online operation shifted blame away from events on the ground. The regime deployed “attribution warfare,” reframing a domestic uprising as foreign aggression, thereby blurring moral clarity and weakening international response. In modern information warfare, control over who gets blamed may matter as much as control over the streets.

Clayton opens by noting a media blackout on Iran and asks Professor Morandi to describe life in Tehran and the bombing campaigns from Israel and the United States, as well as Iran’s response. Morandi explains that Israeli and American forces have been bombing Tehran, with airstrikes every few hours that vary in intensity and largely target civilian infrastructure. He says Iran continues to fire missiles and drones at Israeli targets and at US assets in the Persian Gulf, not limited to bases. In Tehran, civilian infrastructure including apartment blocks, schools, and local police stations has been targeted to disrupt the fabric of society. After the “massacre of the children” on day one, schools and universities were shut, and people have left the city. Shops are mixed, with some open and many closed. There are daily rallies; a funeral for murdered commanders drew a very large crowd. Nights in Tehran and other cities see people in solidarity with the armed forces, though airstrikes and nearby missile impacts occur during these demonstrations. Morandi witnessed rallies where participants, including women and men, chanted in defense of the armed forces and condemnation of the war, and did not scatter even when missiles landed nearby; instead, crowds chanted louder. Clayton asks what Iranians are chanting and counters the Western narrative that Iranians are celebrating the bombings or that women are suddenly free. Morandi rebuts the narrative as decades of propaganda. He argues there is a United States and Israeli lobby presence shaping Iran-related coverage, and asserts that ordinary Iranians, including his students, are fluent in English and knowledgeable about the United States. He notes that Iranians are demonized in Western media and think tanks, and that Iranian women hold positions of power in academia and business; he cites examples from the University of Tehran where the deans have been women for eighteen of his twenty-two years there. He accuses Western media of labeling Iran as evil while violating it through attacks, and claims Iranians support movements for independence and solidarity with groups under empire, such as in Palestine, Cuba, Venezuela, and Southern Africa. He emphasizes normalcy in daily life—shops, parks at midnight, family picnics—and asserts that Iranians view Western portrayals as propaganda rather than reflective of reality. Morandi adds that older Iranians recall historical Western support for Saddam Hussein, including chemical weapons and the downing of an Iranian airliner, and notes that younger people may be disillusioned after witnessing Western actions. He mentions three young colleagues from his faculty who participated in riots but later expressed remorse and sought ways to help, recognizing the brutality of Western-backed actions. He cites incidents where Western-supported actions killed civilians, including the bombing of hospitals, the Red Crescent building, and a volleyball gym where many girls were killed, underscoring the discrepancy between Western narratives and on-the-ground experiences. The discussion briefly shifts to the broader information environment and mentions censorship across platforms, leading into a promotion of Rumble Wallet and its features. Morandi then describes the devastation from oil infrastructure attacks in Iran, including a night sky darkened by burning oil depots and widespread pollution from chemical-like fallout, with reports that the United States was upset with Israel for attacking Iranian oil infrastructure. He reflects on Tehran’s climate of fear and the extent of damage from these assaults, describing the scene as horrific, including workers burned in refinery incidents and the oil-smudged landscape. Clayton signals a transition to questions about Iran’s infrastructure, military capacity, the Strait of Hormuz, and developments in Israel-Iran dynamics, then indicates a break.

Speaker 0 recounts that Lebanon was born and raised with a reputation for openness and multiculturalism, describing it as the only majority Christian country in the Middle East, with fair and tolerant values. He notes that Lebanon prided itself on multiculturalism, had an open border policy, and welcomed people to share the westernization created in the heart of the Arabic world. Muslims sent their children to study in Lebanon’s universities, which were considered among the best in the Arabic world, and they worked in an economy described as the best in the Middle East despite no oil. Beirut is recalled as the Paris of the Middle East and the banking capital of the region, and in 1965 National Geographic reportedly featured Lebanon on its front cover as the Eden of the Middle East. The narrative then shifts to change over time. Independence occurred in the early 1940s, but by the 1960s and 1970s, Christians became a minority while Muslims became the majority in Lebanon. As the Islamic population grew, the country supposedly became less tolerant, with demands for rights that were described as not compatible with what the speaker calls the Judeo-Christian value system that had been created. The speaker identifies the influx of Palestinians from Jordan in 1970 as a turning point. Lebanon accepted the third wave of Palestinians, the majority of whom were Muslims, into refugee camps. He claims they joined with Muslims in Lebanon and declared jihad on Christians, with the objective of creating a base to fight Israel, kill the Jews, and throw them into the sea. He notes that Palestinians had attempted this in Jordan as well, but failed due to the dictatorship of the king, yet were able to come to Lebanon, leveraging Lebanon’s open-mindedness, fairness, tolerance, multiculturalism, and democracy to topple Lebanon’s democracy.

In 2000, secretary of state Madeleine Albright acknowledged for the first time the US's role in the 1953 coup in Iran. The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. After the 1953 coup, the oil returned to British control, and the US gave increasing support to the Shah of Iran. In 2013, Iran's parliament approved a bill for the government to sue the US for its involvement in the coup. The bill followed the release of declassified documents offering details about how the CIA carried out the coup as an act of US foreign policy. Campaign to install a pro Western government in Iran. Target: prime minister Mossadegh and his government. Objectives: through legal or quasi-legal methods to affect the fall of the Mossadegh government and to replace it with a pro Western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister.

Taha, a former mullah, faced challenges as a member of the LGBT community in Iran. Despite coming from a religious family and rising in the ranks of Islamic authority, he tried to keep his sexual orientation hidden. However, his secret was exposed when he started conducting gay weddings. Iran's attitude towards homosexuality drastically changed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Previously, being gay was not a crime, and there were gay-friendly establishments. However, the conservative Islamic government that took power made gay sex punishable by death, making Iran one of the seven countries in the world with such severe penalties.

In 1951, the Iranian parliament, led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, nationalized the oil industry, ending four decades of British control via the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Mosaddegh's initiative was supported by his nationalist party and religious groups led by Ayatollah Khashani. Three factors contributed to the nationalization: national convergence, a strong bond between the nation, religious groups, and the nationalist party, and rivalries among major powers. Following nationalization, the US and Britain imposed sanctions on Iran, leading to a coup against Mosaddegh in 1953. Experts believe the nationalization was a primary cause of the Anglo-American coup, which resulted in a US-backed monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, later overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The CIA has since confirmed Washington's role in the coup. The US gained a share of Iran's oil wealth after the coup, as previously, only Britain benefited. Iran was the first Middle Eastern country to nationalize its oil industry, marking a key moment in both Iranian anti-colonialism and Middle Eastern political development.

- The discussion centers on Iran amid weekend protests and a push by some Western figures for regime change, with emphasis on misinformation and “rage bait” clips online. The hosts claim much of the trending content is old, mislabeled, from other countries, or edited to look new. - It is alleged that Iran is deliberately conducting a nationwide digital blackout to close off information from inside the country and to hinder outside eyes. Reportedly, Iran is not only shutting down ordinary Internet traffic but also attempting to disrupt satellite connections (Starlink, Iridium, Inmarsat, Thuria). The claim is that foreign partners are aiding Iran in this blackout, with China and Russia specifically named as helping jam communications, including satellite phones and Internet links. SkyFreight flights are said to bring jamming equipment into Iran. The satellite and Internet disruptions are described as part of an unusually sophisticated communications clampdown. - Starlink and other satellite services are reportedly being jammed beyond basic GPS interference, with references to Starlink, Iridium, GlobalSat, Inmarsat, and Thuria. China is singled out as a key player in the jamming equipment. There are also mentions of health risks within the radius of the jamming equipment. - On casualty figures, Iranian media is cited as reporting 500 killed and 300 injured, but the hosts’ sources disagree with both the Iranian and Western figures. The hosts’ sources claim 2,150 dead, 480 injured, and 620 missing across 11 cities in Iran as of yesterday. - The broadcast introduces Doctor Miriam Asusli (online persona: Syrian Girl) who had just returned from Iran. She describes normal conditions on the ground during her visit, including using the metro, observing advanced infrastructure, and seeing women in higher educational attainment with some freedom in dress. She challenges the notion of widespread protests and asserts that the situation in Iran did not resemble the media’s depiction; she suggests Iran’s protests are about opening the economy and breaking Western influence, extending broader claims about global liberal order, Western-backed “color revolutions,” and control of oil and markets. - The guest asserts that the protests are connected to broader geopolitical aims, including Israeli and American efforts to change regimes, and argues that sanctions in Syria and Iran are designed to create instability. She alleges Western-backed groups and foreign entities push for regime change and profit from it, including claims about the CIA and Mossad’s involvement in supporting rebels in the region, and suggests that the regime change narrative serves Western interests. - There is a discussion about sanctions and their impact, with claims that sanctions cause starvation and destabilization to push for external influence or regime change. The guest mentions the idea of Iran pursuing peaceful nuclear power as a potential stabilizing factor, while also expressing controversial views about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons as a balance against Israel’s alleged nuclear capabilities. - The conversation connects the current events to broader regional dynamics, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts that Western powers seek to exploit Iran’s turmoil for strategic gains. The hosts acknowledge that there are multiple narratives and say that their sources in the Middle East indicate preparations for conflict by the end of the month, with specific timing debates around late January (the thirtieth or thirty-first). - The program closes with the hosts noting parallel reporting from Israeli sources about potential conflict timing and thanking the guest for on-the-ground insights, expressing a desire for peace.

The Iranian government is a corrupt dictatorship that masquerades as a democracy. It has turned a once wealthy country into an economically depleted rogue state. Instead of improving the lives of its people, Iran uses its oil profits to fund terrorists and fuel conflicts in the Middle East. The Iran deal, which the United States entered into, was a one-sided and embarrassing agreement. It is time for the world to demand that Iran's government end its pursuit of death and destruction, release unjustly detained individuals, stop supporting terrorists, and respect its neighbors' rights. The people of Iran want change, and their leaders fear them the most.

Pepe and Mario discuss a broad set of geopolitical developments, focusing on Venezuela, Iran, and broader U.S.-led actions, with insights on Russia, China, and other regional players. - Venezuela developments and U.S. involvement - Venezuela is described as a “desperate move related to the demise of the petrodollar,” with multiple overlapping headlines about backers maneuvering for profit and power in Latin America, and about the U.S. declaring “this is my backyard.” Delcy Rodríguez, the daughter of a slain revolutionary killed by the CIA, leads a new government, described as old-school Chavista with strong negotiation skills, who prioritizes Venezuela’s interests over U.S. interests. - The operation is criticized as having no clear strategy or forward planning for reorganizing the Venezuelan oil industry to serve U.S. interests. Estimates from Chinese experts suggest it would take five years to recondition Venezuela’s energy ecosystem for American needs and sixteen years to reach around 3 million barrels per day, requiring approximately $183 billion in investment—investment that U.S. CEOs are reportedly unwilling to provide without total guarantees. - There is debate about the extent of U.S. influence within Maduro’s circle. Some Venezuelan sources note that the head of security for the president, previously aligned with the regime, was demoted (not arrested), and there is discussion of possible U.S. ties with individuals around Maduro’s inner circle, though the regime remains headed by Maduro with key loyalists like the defense minister (Padrino) and the interior minister (Cabello) still in place. - The narrative around regime change is viewed as a two-edged story: the U.S. sought to replace Maduro with a pliant leadership, yet the regime remains and regional power structures (including BRICS dynamics) persist. Delcy Rodríguez is portrayed as capable of negotiating with the U.S., including conversations with Marco Rubio before the coup and ongoing discussions with U.S. actors, while maintaining Venezuela’s sovereignty and memory of the revolution. - The broader regional reaction to U.S. actions in Venezuela has included criticism from neighboring countries like Colombia and Mexico, with a sense in Latin America that the U.S. should not intrude in sovereign affairs. Brazil (a major BRICS member) is highlighted as a key actor whose stance can influence Venezuela’s BRICS prospects; Lula’s position is described as cautious, with Brazil’s foreign ministry reportedly vetoing Venezuela’s BRICS membership despite Lula’s personal views. - The sanctions regime is cited as a principal reason for Venezuela’s economic stagnation, with the suggestion that lifting sanctions would be a prerequisite for meaningful economic recovery. Delcy Rodríguez is characterized as a skilled negotiator who could potentially improve Venezuela’s standing if sanctions are removed. - Public opinion in Venezuela is described as broadly supportive of the regime, with the U.S. action provoking anti-American sentiment across the hemisphere. The discussion notes that a large majority of Venezuelans (over 90%) reportedly view Delcy Rodríguez favorably, and that the perception of U.S. intervention as a violation of sovereignty influences regional attitudes. - Iran: protests, economy, and foreign influence - Iran is facing significant protests that are described as the most severe since 2022, driven largely by economic issues, inflation, and the cost of living under four decades of sanctions. Real inflation is suggested to be 35–40%, with currency and purchasing power severely eroded. - Foreign influence is discussed as a factor hijacking domestic protests in Iran, described as a “color revolution” playbook echoed by past experiences in Hong Kong and other theaters. Iranian authorities reportedly remain skeptical of Western actors, while acknowledging the regime’s vulnerability to sanctions and mismanagement. - Iranians emphasize the long-term, multi-faceted nature of their political system, including the Shiite theology underpinning governance, and the resilience of movements like Hezbollah and Yemeni factions. Iran’s leadership stresses long-term strategic ties with Russia and China, as well as BRICS engagement, with practical cooperation including repair of the Iranian electrical grid in the wake of Israeli attacks during the twelve-day war and port infrastructure developments linked to an international transportation corridor, including Indian and Chinese involvement. - The discussion notes that while sanctions have damaged Iran economically, Iranians maintain a strong domestic intellectual and grassroots culture, including debates in universities and cafes, and are not easily toppled. The regime’s ability to survive is framed in terms of internal legitimacy, external alliances (Russia, China), and the capacity to negotiate under external pressure. - Russia, China, and the U.S. strategic landscape - The conversation contrasts the apparent U.S. “bordello circus” with the more sophisticated military-diplomatic practices of Iran, Russia, and China. Russia emphasizes actions over rhetoric, citing NATO attacks on its nuclear triad and the Novgorod residence attack as evidence of deterrence concerns. China pursues long-term plans (five-year plans through 2035) and aims to elevate trade with a yuan-centric global south, seeking to reduce dollar reliance without emitting a formal de-dollarization policy. - The discussion frames U.S. policy as volatile and unpredictable (the Nixon “madman theory” analog), while Russia, China, and Iran respond with measured, long-term strategies. The potential for a prolonged Ukraine conflict is acknowledged if European leaders pursue extended confrontation, with economic strains anticipated across Europe. - In Venezuela, Iran, and broader geopolitics, the panel emphasizes the complexity of regime stability, the role of sanctions, BRICS dynamics, and the long game of global power shifts that may redefine alliances and economic arrangements over the coming years.