reSee.it - Related Video Feed

You think that if you speak very loudly about the war... He's not speaking loudly. Your country is in big trouble. Can I ask, wait a minute? No. You've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble. I know you're not winning this. You have a damn good chance of coming out.

The conversation centers on Iran, its 47-year regime, and how to think about protest, reform, and potential change from the perspective of an Iranian-American who has lived in the United States most of his life. The speakers discuss the severity of the regime, the nature of the opposition, and the calculus involved in any push for change. - Freedom and the cost of change: Freedom is described as nasty and the regime as “nasty.” The speakers assert that the regime, including the IRGC, is not likely to give up Iran in a peaceful way. They emphasize that protests and resistance have been ongoing, and that the regime has a track record of destroying opposition. They use the imagery of public executions and a ruthless approach to suppression, comparing the regime’s behavior to a brutal, game-of-thrones-like motto. - Personal history and perspective: The guest notes his life trajectory—born during the 1978 revolution, living through the Shah’s era briefly, and then the Khomeini years—giving him a long historical frame for evaluating leadership and revolution. He remarks that he has no moral authority to tell Iranians how to protest or whether to risk their families, acknowledging the severe personal stakes for those on the ground. He stresses the bravery and resilience of the Iranian people and explains the immense pressures that drive ordinary citizens to protest. - The strategic challenge of regime change: The guest asserts that the regime wants to stretch negotiations and extend days to avoid losing resources, implying a protracted endurance tactic. He insists that replacing or reforming the regime would be extremely difficult, given the depth of the regime’s networks and its long tenure. - Reza Pahlavi and leadership dynamics: The discussion revisits Reza Pahlavi, the former shah’s son, noting his recent high-profile activity, meetings in Washington, and televised statements. The guest acknowledges both praise and criticism of Reza Pahlavi, arguing that leadership in Iran would require clear, tough decisions and that those who criticize him must provide constructive counterarguments rather than ad hominem attacks. He discusses the complexity of leadership in exile and the challenges of returning to Iran to lead, including loyalty issues within the military and the risk of betrayal. - The US and foreign policy angle: The hosts debate what role the United States should play, including the consideration of strikes or sanctions. The guest uses a parable about a local offense (a killer in Miami) to illustrate how a country should commit to eliminating a threat without broad interference in other regions’ problems. He argues for public support of a targeted objective but cautions against broad, nation-building wars that could trigger larger conflicts. He also notes the influence of other actors, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, China, and European nations, on the Iran situation, suggesting a multi-layered and opaque calculus in any action. - The question of strikes and objectives: The speakers discuss whether strikes should aim to completely destroy the regime or merely pressure it, emphasizing that the intention behind any military action matters more than the action itself. They consider the risk of a dangerous power vacuum, comparing potential outcomes to Libya or Iraq, and discuss the possibility of negotiating with a different leadership that could concede to protesters’ demands while minimizing harm to the broader population. They acknowledge the difficulty of achieving a favorable outcome without risking unintended consequences. - The role of sanctions and diplomacy: The sanctions are described as byproducts of the regime’s leadership and its lack of diplomacy, with the argument that sanctions affect the Iranian people more than the ruling elite. The dialogue touches on questions of accountability for the regime’s behavior and the broader regional dynamics, including public sentiment in Iran and international responses. - Mossad and external involvement: The guest asserts that Mossad and Israel are heavily involved in Iran’s internal dynamics and protests, given the existential stakes and the perception of threats against Iranian leadership. He contends that foreign intelligence communities are active in shaping events and information, including potential misdirection and propaganda. - The broader takeaway: The discussion ends by underscoring the need for multiple options and credible leadership in Iran, the difficulty of changing a deeply entrenched regime, and the reality that any transition would be complex, potentially dangerous, and require careful, strategic consideration of long-term impacts rather than quick, sweeping actions. The host reflects on the remarkable intensity and busyness of US politics and foreign policy under a dynamic administration, noting that such a convergence of domestic and international pressures makes this period historically singular.

Did you see the man who committed the robbery? Yes, I did. Could you point him out? That's him in the green suit, Devo hat, and beard. That description fits many people here. I’m talking about him right there. There are still several who match that description. If the witness can’t identify him, I move for dismissal. Motion denied. Did you really think hiring lookalikes would work? No, this is my big move. Could you point out the robber again? It was your client, but the shuffling makes it unclear. I move for dismissal. Denied. We all know it’s your client. Can I speak with my client? They know it’s you, and you’re in trouble. Your client is not a buff man. Plans A and B failed. What’s your final remark? If you don’t dismiss this case, I’ll harm myself. You’re not going to do that. He knew I wouldn’t.

I'm concerned about the optics of arresting someone flying a Union Jack. Think about the political implications for the nation. We don't want to incite a civil war by arresting an Englishman for flying his flag, especially when others seem to be supporting the October 7 attacks. Did the arrested man say any slogans? I can still speak to your prisoner and I've moved back.

You guys were brave, but also assholes, so please back off. You know who's an asshole? Someone who sentences me and makes my sentencing last while I get sentenced in twenty-two years. That's an asshole. This is certainly fun, motherfucker. You didn't do shit, fucking bitch, fucking bald-headed bitch. Fuck you, Tourette's, man, okay.

It's quite shocking. As the verdict was read, it appeared to our producers inside the courtroom that Ruth tried to stab himself in the neck with a pen. That's what it appeared to to look like. Then four marshals dragged him out of the courtroom, took his coat off. They then shackled him at the waist and ankles, and then they brought him back into the courtroom. So again, this just in from our producers as the verdict was being read, Ruth tried to hurt himself in the neck with a pen. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Get the fuck out of my face. Not only crying as she left, obviously, she, went into a full sprint to get away from the media and, yelled out some profanities, John. Yeah. Well, clearly, she's upset. I mean, to to Jim Trusty's point, she's likely been talking to her dad.

With respect, I think it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and attack the administration that's trying to prevent the destruction of your country. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because of manpower problems. You should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. But don't tell us what we're going to feel. You're in no position to dictate that. You will feel our influence. You're gambling with the lives of millions and with World War III. What you're doing is very disrespectful to this country. Have you said thank you even once? You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who's trying to save your country.

With all due respect, I find it disrespectful that you come to the Oval Office and try to argue in front of the American media. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. You might not feel it now, but you will in the future. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. You're in no position to dictate that. You're in a bad position and don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. What you're doing is very disrespectful. Have you said thank you? You campaigned for the opposition. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who's trying to save your country.

The speaker states their intervention was delayed significantly. When the interview eventually occurred, Piers Morgan allegedly carried out a smear job. The speaker claims that "right now, they're bombing Tehran." The speaker stayed in a dangerous place for Morgan's program, but Morgan allegedly smeared, lied about, and demonized Iran to justify death, destruction, and aggression. The speaker found Piers Morgan's behavior disturbing, but claims he is not unique. According to the speaker, mainstream Western media is full of people who are tools of power and will do whatever powerful decision-makers instruct them to do.

I was asked why I don't wear a suit, considering my high office. Many Americans don't respect that I don't dress up. I will wear a costume after this war is finished. Maybe I'll wear something like yours, or maybe something better, or perhaps something cheaper. We'll see.

A senator forcefully denies allegations against him and accuses the government of manipulating the media. Another person agrees with the senator's claims but also criticizes him for not resigning. The senator accuses his colleagues of acting politically and defends his engagement with foreign governments. The person dismisses the senator's speech and suggests he should focus on his trial. They question why the senator is still being paid attention to despite severe accusations against him. The person also discusses the tendency for senators to support each other in times of trouble. They find it strange that the senator has not been expelled despite being accused of being a foreign agent for two Middle Eastern nations.

A skinny kid with a funny name is on the debate stage, and people are wondering who he is and why he's there.

Saddam Hussein, after lighting a cigar, asks what means should be used against traitors, stating the only way is the sword. He instructs party members to stand, recite the party slogan, and leave the room when their name is called. As Saddam reads names, individuals comply, though seemingly aware of a grim fate. One man protests his innocence but ultimately follows the order. After 68 names are called, Saddam thanks the remaining members for their loyalty, prompting a relieved standing ovation. Saddam himself sheds a tear on stage.

I signed the exchange of prisons agreement, but the other party didn't follow through. What kind of diplomacy are we even talking about here? I'm referring to the diplomacy that will prevent your country from being destroyed. With all due respect, it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and try to argue this point in front of the American media. Right now, you're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for intervening.

"Speaker 0: No one wants to fight for Israel. His hand. His hand. His hand. His hand. You're a coward. Just see I'm getting out of here. That's fine. Everybody sit down, please. Is your head the throat? No. It's not. This is disgusting. Disgusting. Just pull it out. It's dis"

I'm trying to end the destruction of your country through diplomacy, but it's disrespectful to litigate this in front of the American media in the Oval Office. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because of manpower problems and should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. You are gambling with the lives of millions of people and risking World War Three. What you're doing is very disrespectful to this country. You're not in a good position right now, but you start having cards when you're with us. Have you said thank you once? You campaigned for the opposition in Pennsylvania. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the President who's trying to save your country.

"You're as defiant as a defendant as this court has ever seen." "You are a privileged person. You are as privileged privileged as they come." "you crave it, ma'am." "You are no hero. Position, and you're a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to pedal a snake oil that's been proven to be junk time and time again." "No one in this courtroom who would consider that to be anything other than the absolute truth." "Our system of government can't function when people in government think that somehow, someway, the power they've been given is absolute in all respects." "You have no respect for the checks and balances of government. You have no respect for this court."

In the federal trial in Brooklyn, prosecutors accuse A Sif Merchant, a 47-year-old man from Pakistan, of plotting to assassinate American political leaders, including President Trump. Merchant testified in his own federal trial, claiming that Iranian leadership told him to “hunt down president Trump, hire a couple of guys that can take him out at a political rally.” Prosecutors say the evidence is damning, noting that Merchant paid two FBI agents thousands of dollars in cash, telling them to take out President Trump, and that he wrote the entire plan down on a hotel napkin. The case centers on Merchant’s assertion that Iran was behind the plot, based on his belief that the attack on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania—arrested one day before that incident—was similar to the plan given to him. Merchant says Iran wanted revenge for the killing of their top military leader, Qasem Soleimani, and that threats continue as the U.S. recently bombed Iran and took out its Ayatollah. Authorities describe the alleged scheme as involving an elevated rally site setup intended to create chaos that could facilitate the gunman, with Merchant claiming Iranian leadership provided the instructions. The closing arguments are underway as Merchant remains inside the Brooklyn Federal Courthouse, facing federal terrorism charges that could put him behind bars for life.

I just finished a show, and you won't believe the room they put me in. It's like Biden's Oval Office in here! I think I've finally figured out why I'm in this room. Let me show you. See that screen right there? It's a teleprompter right in front of my face. All I can say is, the last administration was something else.

Former President Trump has been indicted on charges that seem amusing to the speaker. Despite winning millions of votes and no clear threat to national security, he faces the prospect of a long prison sentence. The speaker compares the situation to an occupied country, drawing parallels to Paris during the German occupation.

In Tehran early in the morning, thousands of people have gathered on a street to commemorate the great, the martyr Ayatollah Syed Ali Khamenei. The people of Iran and Tehran are here to seek revenge.

If he did his job, I wouldn't need to do this. I received a malicious report. Look, they're all pointing. Someone's on the roof. There he is, laying down. We have dangerous people in our country causing trouble.

I'm trying to end the destruction of your country through diplomacy. It's disrespectful to litigate this in front of the American media, especially considering you're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower issues. You should thank the President for trying to resolve this conflict. During war, everyone faces problems, even you. However, you are in no position to dictate what we're going to feel, we are going to feel very good and very strong. You've put yourself in a bad position from the beginning of the war, you don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. It's disrespectful to this country. Have you even said thank you? You campaigned for the opposition, offer some appreciation for the United States and the President who is trying to save your country.

With all due respect, it's disrespectful to come to the Oval Office and try to argue in front of the American media. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower issues, and you should be thanking the president for trying to resolve this conflict. During war, everyone faces problems, even you. But you don't know that, God bless. Don't dictate what we're going to feel. We're trying to solve a problem. We're going to feel very good and very strong. You're in a bad position and don't hold the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. What you're doing is very disrespectful to this country, which has shown you far more respect than most said they should have. Have you even said thank you once, even today? You campaigned for the opposition; offer some appreciation for the U.S. and the president trying to save your country.

Mr. Clement is told he is under arrest. He declares "this is democracy manifest" and complains about a headlock. He accuses someone of grabbing his penis. He requests "some cups" and asks what the charge is. He states the charge is "eating a meal, a succulent Chinese meal." He remarks that someone knows their judo well and asks if someone else is waiting to receive his "limp penis."