reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Dennis Kucinich discusses his Kucinich Report piece on Substack, titled Iran, Epstein, and Human Sacrifice, and argues that many elites view war and power through a distorted moral lens. He contends that the Iranian population and officials frame the conflict as an existential fight against a “pedophile regime” in the United States and in Israel, and he notes controversial claims about Israel as a safe haven for pedophiles. The conversation broadens into a critique of Western elites and the culture surrounding war, emphasizing that those at the top “don’t care about you and I,” nor about American soldiers who may be killed, describing the elites as bloodthirsty. Kucinich challenges readers to consider how Western civilization is perceived to be in decline under elite leadership, arguing that leaders legitimize extreme acts in pursuit of greed. He questions what would happen if Israel or the United States used atomic weapons in Iran or Pakistan, warning that radiation could spread regionally, effectively causing Israel to bomb itself. He asserts that there is a uniparty in Congress with little true opposition, and he claims that Congress is complicit by approving massive budgets—“over a trillion dollar budget” and a request for a $1.5 trillion annual military appropriation—without exercising its constitutional powers. The discussion then shifts to partisan politics. The host notes apparent support for the war from older MAGA Republicans and some Democrats, suggesting there is little daylight between the parties on this issue. Kucinich points to long-standing influence Aligned with Israel, including APAC’s role in elections and the media’s amplification of Israel-centric narratives, alongside the U.S. veto at the UN and a lack of enforcement of international law. He emphasizes that Netanyahu has pushed for war against Iran for thirty years, recounting a 2002 exchange in which Netanyahu pressed for war against Iraq and linking Netanyahu’s current influence to ongoing pressures on U.S. leaders and Congress. The host and Kucinich discuss the consequences of the conflict, including potential war escalation and civilian casualties, referencing Iran’s defense of Palestinians and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. They criticize the path of a broader war and warn that new nuclear programs could arise as nations seek deterrence, noting the deteriorating START treaty environment and the possible global arms race spurred by current policies. They argue that the government’s conduct reflects a total disregard for human life and morality, with elites pursuing “meglomaniacal ambitions and grifting.” Both speakers advocate for visible, nonviolent civilian resistance to pressure Congress to cut off funds for the war and to initiate impeachment proceedings as a check on executive power. They recognize that impeachment in the Senate would require two-thirds support, which may be unlikely, but contend that the process itself is important to curb executive overreach. They discuss the potential impact of public protests, campus dissent, and electoral choices in November as ways to express opposition, warning that the regime’s actions could provoke a harsher American response as casualties mount and as Iran potentially escalates its own defense. The conversation closes with a call for people, especially women who express concern, to translate moral outrage into action, to stand up for freedom and human rights, and to push back against a permanent warfare state. Dennis Kucinich reiterates that a broader peace movement is required to counter what he views as a dangerous consolidation of power and a disregard for democratic accountability.

Afshin Rattansi opens by linking NATO’s 77th annual summit to ongoing wars, saying NATO weaponry is used in Gaza and Lebanon, in Bandar Abbas in Iran, and in a proxy war against Russia. He also claims NATO leaders and President Trump want expanded conflict, while NATO member populations face hardship. Rattansi speaks with James Carden, editor of the Realist Review and senior advisor to the American Committee for U.S.-Russian Accord. Carden says Trump publicly scolded NATO at the start of the summit for not supporting the American war against Iran, including a threat to cut off trade with Spain. He argues that behind closed-door sessions Trump aligned with a neoconservative agenda, citing claims about offering Ukraine “licenses to build Patriot missiles,” and comparing the second Trump administration to the “third term for Bush-Cheney.” Carden says Trump’s approach at the summit reflects continuity with post-9/11-era policy. Rattansi asks whether Trump’s fear of nuclear war should translate into different action, contrasting him with Biden and Obama. Carden responds that Trump’s prior actions contradict his alleged fear, listing withdrawal from the 1987 INF Treaty, the ripping up of the Open Skies Treaty, and non-renewal of New START. He says Trump has come under influence of American neoconservative lobbying and frames this as support for endless war in Ukraine and the Middle East, including decisions to continue striking Iran and to walk away from an MOU. Rattansi raises concerns about legacy and a possible pivot away from neocons. Carden says that continuing to fund the Ukraine war and provide Patriot missile-related support signals no end to the conflict and argues the advisors around Trump are not serious about ending the war or engaging Russia diplomatically. He says Zelensky is “walking away quite happy” from the Ankara summit. On reports that Ukraine’s drone campaign signals success and strikes deep into Russia, Carden says for every Ukrainian drone strike inside Russia, Russia responds with a missile, and he claims Ukrainians are suffering far more. He says the headlines do not change the balance of forces on the ground and criticizes the mainstream narrative that Ukraine is “a drone away from victory,” adding that Trump lacks people telling him the truth. Rattansi asks what neocons and Western elites want. Carden says many want “a resounding defeat of Russia,” dissolution of Russia, and regime change, asserting that European elites object to diplomacy and call advocates for settlement “puppets of the Kremlin.” He says Trump and those around him are “squarely in that camp.” Rattansi asks whether Russia shares blame for not imposing “fierce red lines,” and for Finland hosting nuclear weapons. Carden says Russia likely made mistakes after the 2014 Maidan coup, including trusting the Minsk process; he cites Angela Merkel’s later revelation that Minsk was used to buy time for Ukraine to build defenses and military. He describes the war as reminiscent of World War I with drones, making it difficult for either side to break through, and frames the options for Zelensky and Putin as continuing to waste lives or seeking settlement, adding that he says alternatives to war exist but have not been pursued due to pressure from Washington and Brussels. Asked about Washington’s “deep state,” Carden says the views he describes are “pretty uniform,” calling Landau and Colby outliers. He claims Trump relies on neoconservative influence, including Mark Thiessen and Jared Kushner, and says the national security advisor and secretary of state are hardline neoconservatives, naming Marco Rubio. He argues the window for responsible action is closing as U.S. primary politics approaches, with calls to “double down” because both parties believe the war is winnable for Ukraine. During the follow-up, Rattansi questions whether Trump could pivot after U.S. midterms, and whether he might end the war or stop U.S. funds to Zelensky. Carden doubts a political turn like Reagan’s, saying Trump would need different people and a narrower conception of American interests, asserting the Donbass has “nothing to do with the United States” and that Crimea, Donbass, or access to the Sea of Azov do not affect American strategic interests. Rattansi asks about leverage for diplomacy and claims about possible propaganda “false flags.” Carden says the United States must leverage NATO, arguing that threatening to turn off funding or walk away would create leverage, while simply following European preferences leaves none. On energy impacts from wars in West Asia, Carden links energy prices to midterm politics, saying Trump must choose between continuing the war against Iran on behalf of Netanyahu and risking midterms due to oil prices, or prioritizing his constituents’ well-being. He speculates that if populations replace European governments, negotiation might become possible. Rattansi asks whether Trump might leave NATO. Carden says it is “mostly an act,” suggesting Trump could try to distance the U.S. from NATO only if he brought in ideological allies, but he argues major changes are unlikely given appointments and staffing. Rattansi shifts back to West Asia, asking what this means for the region given Kushner and Rubio connections to Israeli-linked sources. Carden says the U.S.-Iran conflict should not be treated in isolation, identifying Israel’s “drive for greater Israel” as the “true driver,” tying it to Gaza, removal of Palestinians from the West Bank and southern Lebanon. He says progress between the U.S. and Iran will not occur until that project is addressed, and rejects the claim that Iran sought nuclear weapons, citing the Ayatollah’s fatwa against such weapons. Finally, Rattansi asks whether the site of Syria’s former al-Qaeda leader Jelani (given as “Jelani of Syria”) with Trump suggests Democrats’ political situation. Carden says Hillary Clinton may go for the presidency in 2028, citing a “very weak” field, her remaining control and influence in the Democratic Party, and the idea that none of the Democrats he spoke to think Gavin Newsom has a chance. He says Clinton has money, influence, and goodwill, and if she becomes the candidate it would likely produce “regime change wars” that depose leaders such as Assad and replace them with radical Islamists like Jelani.

Concerns are growing that those opposed to Trump, having exhausted other means to undermine him, may resort to instigating a world war to prevent his return to power and the potential exposure of their actions. The focus of Washington is on foreign policy and military power rather than domestic issues like border control or the drug crisis. A war with Iran, which is now allied with major global powers, could escalate into a world war involving Russia and China. The ongoing situation in Ukraine is seen as a failure, with no clear victory in sight. Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran or Russia lacks the wisdom necessary for leadership.

- "The the Zelensky factor is dead in America." - "We're not romantic about this war anymore." - "In fact, the the reality of the war is becoming more and more apparent to the Americans." - "Trump's core doesn't want a war with Russia." - "They don't want a nuclear war at all." - "He promised peace." - "He guaranteed peace." - "Twenty four hours." - "Now he didn't deliver on that." - "Later he said he was joking, but his base hasn't forgotten that promise." - "So don't worry about Congress." - "They don't elect the president." - "And they will fall in behind the president because if he can secure his base with a peace deal, he can ruin everybody in congress, especially a republican who goes against him." - "So Trump is very secure if he can secure his base."

Speaker 0 questions the rationale for the war, noting that “the intelligence did not suggest that an attack was imminent from Iran,” and asking, “What is left? Why are we at war with Iran?” He also remarks that “the nuclear program isn’t the reason” and that he never expected to hear Ted Cruz talking about nukes. Speaker 1 suggests the simplest explanation given, which has been backtracked, is that “Israel made us do it, that Bibi decided on this timeline, Netanyahu decided he wanted to attack, and he convinced Trump to join him by scaring Trump into believing that US assets in the region would be at risk, and so Trump was better off just joining Netanyahu.” He adds that this may not be the full explanation, but it’s a plausible one. He notes that “the nuclear program is not part of their targeting campaign,” and that “harder line leadership is taking hold,” with the Strait of Hormuz “still being shut down even as we get their navy.” He asks what remains as the explanation, suggesting it might be that Israel forced the United States’ hand and questions, “How weak does that make The United States look? How weak are we if our allies can force us into wars of choice that are bad for US national security interests?”

The conversation centers on multiple competing narratives about the war and its wider regional significance, with the speakers presenting their interpretations and challenging each other’s points. - The hosts open by acknowledging competing narratives: some view the war as a necessary action against a regime seen as destabilizing and dangerous (nuclear ambitions, regional havoc); others see it as Israel removing a geopolitical threat with U.S. involvement; a third perspective argues it stemmed from miscalculations by Trump, perhaps driven by Israeli influence. The dialogue frames the war within broader questions of American, Israeli, and Iranian aims. - Speaker 1 references Joseph Kent’s resignation letter, arguing Iran was not an immediate U.S. threat and that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby influenced Trump toward war. They assert Trump’s stated interest in Iranian oil and control of the Strait of Hormuz; they describe Trump as guided by business interests. They frame U.S. actions as part of a long-standing pattern of demonizing enemies to justify intervention, citing Trump’s “animals” comment toward Iranians and labeling this demonization as colonial practice. - Speaker 0 pushes back on Trump’s rhetoric but notes it suggested a willingness to pressure Iran for concessions. They question whether Trump could transition from ending some wars to endorsing genocidal framing, acknowledging disagreement with some of Trump’s statements but agreeing that Israeli influence and Hormuz control were important factors. They also inquire whether Trump miscalculated a prolonged conflict and ask how Iran continued to fire missiles and drones despite expectations of regime collapse, seeking clarity on Iran’s resilience. - Speaker 1 clarifies that the Iranian system is a government, not a regime, and explains that Iranian missile and drone capabilities were prepared in advance, especially after Gaza conflicts. They note Iran’s warning that an attack would trigger a regional war, and reference U.S. intelligence assessments stating Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or a program for one at present, which Trump publicly dismissed in favor of Netanyahu’s view. They recount that Iran’s leaders warned of stronger responses if attacked, and argue Iran’s counterstrikes reflected a strategic calculus to deter further aggression while acknowledging Iran’s weaker, yet still capable, position. - The discussion shifts to regional dynamics: the balance of power, the loss of Israel’s “card” of American support if Iran can close Hormuz, and the broader implications for U.S.-Israel regional leverage. Speaker 1 emphasizes the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress, while also suggesting Mossad files could influence Trump, and notes that the war leverages Netanyahu’s stance but may not fully explain U.S. decisions. - The two then debate Gulf states’ roles: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are depicted as providing bases and support to the United States; Kuwait as a near neighbor with vulnerability to Iranian action and strategic bases for American forces. They discuss international law, noting the war’s alleged illegality without a UN Security Council authorization, and reference the unwilling-or-unable doctrine to explain Gulf state complicity. - The conversation covers Iran’s and Lebanon’s involvement: Iran’s leverage via missiles and drones, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as a Lebanese organization with Iranian support. They discuss Hezbollah’s origins in response to Israeli aggression and their current stance—driving Lebanon into conflict for Iran’s sake, while Hezbollah asserts independence and Lebanon’s interests. They acknowledge Lebanon’s ceasefire violations on both sides and debate who bears responsibility for dragging Lebanon into war; Hezbollah’s leaders are described as navigating loyalties to Iran, Lebanon, and their people, with some insistence that Hezbollah acts as a defender of Lebanon rather than a mere proxy. - Towards the end, the speakers reflect on personal impact and future dialogue. They acknowledge the war’s wide, long-lasting consequences for Lebanon and the region, and express interest in continuing the discussion, potentially in person, to further explore these complex dynamics.

The speaker opens by citing James Madison, who wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1789 that “the constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive branch of power is the most interested in war and most prone to it,” and notes that the constitution itself vests in the legislature the question of war (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11) while giving the president operational powers of war (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Even if one claimed the 1973 War Powers Resolution supersedes the constitutional language, the speaker argues the president has not met its conditions: the president may only introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities under three circumstances—declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States—none of which exist today because Iran has not attacked the United States, Congress has not declared war, and Congress has not granted specific statutory authorization. Beyond this constitutional framing, the speaker asks why the United States would go to war with Iran and emphasizes that servicemembers deserve a clear mission. He questions how such a war would help American families with groceries, housing, or safety in schools and neighborhoods. He cautions against past interventions in the Middle East, arguing they have produced a debt of at least $8 trillion from wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, and contends a sustained war with Iran will not stabilize the region but will radicalize new generations of terrorists and generate more refugees to Europe and the United States. The speaker argues Iran is not Venezuela, and that Ayatollah Khomeini was not a president but a religious leader in a region notorious for radical Islamists; he asserts that the United States and Israel turned him into a martyr, contributing to broader conflict and casualties, including six American families who have lost loved ones. He claims the administration cannot provide a straight answer for why the preemptive war was launched, noting contradictory statements about imminent Iranian strikes and the rationale of stopping a nuclear program. A candid answer, he says, came from the Secretary of State, who said Israel forced the United States to act, implying that Congress must decide war. If American lives are to be risked, that decision must be debated and voted on by representatives, and the debate should be arduous with a hard vote. He offers a theory that colleagues do not want to go on record due to a poor track record of meddling in the Middle East and a desire to avoid their names being associated with an unfavorable outcome. The speaker asserts Congress is not here to declare war today; the vote on the War Powers Resolution is to reassert that Congress must decide questions of war. Some say war is authorized by paying for it through the budget, but the speaker asserts that defining the mission for the troops is not included in the budget and has not been done. He thanks the men and women engaged in combat, prays for their safety, and states that the resolution is written for them—to ensure they know when they achieve their mission and can come home.

Netanyahu wants to fight Iran to remain in office indefinitely. The speaker hopes Trump, or anyone, will defuse the situation. The U.S. needs to convince Middle Eastern allies of its support, but undeclared wars victimizing civilians are not a good solution. The speaker believes Iran must be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons, something they tried to do with some success. However, the speaker is against the constant killing of civilians who cannot defend themselves and "just want a chance to live."

The conversation centers on Israel’s war with Iran and its broader regional implications, with Speaker 0 (an Israeli prime minister) offering his assessment and critiques, and Speaker 1 pushing for clarification on motives, strategy, and policy directions. Key points about the Iran war and its origins - Speaker 0 recalls learning of the war on February 28 in Washington, and states his initial reaction: the United States’ claim that Iran is an enemy threatening annihilation of Israel is understandable and something to be supported, but questions what the next steps and the endgame would be. - He argues that Iran, through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, posed a global and regional threat by arming missiles and pursuing nuclear capacity, and asserts that Iran deserved punishment for its actions. He raises the question of whether the outcome could have been achieved without war through a prior agreement supervised by international bodies. - He emphasizes that the lack of a clear, articulated next step or strategy undermines the legitimacy of the war’s continuation, even as he concedes the necessity of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. - He also notes that the war affected the global economy and regional stability, and stresses the importance of coordinating a path that would end hostilities and stabilize the region. Speaker 1’s analysis and queries about U.S. interests and Netanyahu’s influence - Speaker 1 questions the rationale behind U.S. involvement, suggesting that strategic interests around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program were not the only drivers, and cites reporting that Netanyahu presented Iran as weak to push Trump toward regime change, with limited pushback within the U.S. administration. - He asks how much influence Netanyahu had over Trump, and whether the war was pushed by Netanyahu or driven by broader strategic calculations, including concerns about global economic consequences. - He notes that, even if Iran was making concessions on nuclear issues, the war’s continuation raises concerns about broader U.S. and global interests and the potential damage to European and allied relationships. Israeli-Lebanese dimension and Hezbollah - The discussion moves to Lebanon and the question of a ground presence in the South of Lebanon. Speaker 1 asks whether Netanyahu’s administration intends annexation of Lebanese territory and whether there is a real risk of such plans, given the recent destruction of villages and the broader context of regional diplomacy. - Speaker 0 distinguishes between military necessity and political strategy. He says the ground operation in southern Lebanon is unnecessary because Hezbollah missiles extend beyond 50 kilometers from the border, and he argues for negotiating a peace process with Lebanon, potentially aided by the international community (notably France), to disarm Hezbollah as part of a larger framework. - He asserts that there are voices in the Israeli cabinet that view South Lebanon as part of a Greater Israel and would seek annexation, but he insists that such annexation would be unacceptable in Israel and that disarming Hezbollah should be tied to a broader peace with Lebanon and Iran’s agreement if a negotiations-based settlement is reached. - The idea of integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese military is rejected as artificial; disarmament is preferred, with the caveat that Hezbollah could not be dissolved as a military force if Iran remains a principal backer. Speaker 0 suggests that a Hezbollah disarmed and integrated into Lebanon’s political-military system would require careful design, potentially with international participation, to prevent Hezbollah from acting as an independent proxy. War crimes and accountability - The participants discuss imagery like a soldier breaking a statue of Jesus and broader allegations of misconduct during the Gaza war. Speaker 0 condemns the act as outrageous and unacceptable, while Speaker 1 notes that individual soldier actions do not represent an entire army and contrasts external reactions to abuses with a broader critique of proportionality in Gaza. - Speaker 0 acknowledges that there were crimes against humanity and war crimes by Israel, rejects genocide, and endorses investigations and accountability for those responsible, while criticizing the political leadership’s rhetoric and the behavior of certain ministers. - They touch on the controversial death-penalty bill for Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks, with Speaker 0 characterizing the Israeli government as run by “thugs” and criticizing ministers for celebratory conduct, while Speaker 1 argues that such rhetoric inflames tensions. Two-state solution and long-term vision - The conversation culminates in Speaker 0 presenting a long-standing two-state plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and the Old City of Jerusalem not under exclusive sovereignty but administered by a five-nation trust (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). - He asserts that this approach represents an alternative to the current government’s policies and reiterates his commitment to opposing Netanyahu’s administration until it is replaced. - They close with mutual acknowledgment of the need for a durable peace framework and reiterate that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be a condition for normalization between Israel and Lebanon, while cautioning against artificial or compromised arrangements that would leave Hezbollah armed or entrenched.

We seem to be heading to war with Iran, with little pushback from Republicans. War with Iran could mean Armageddon, with no appreciation for the implications for the US, Europe, and the Middle East. Twenty percent of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz, and Iran has missiles that can reach 1,200 miles with precision. If we bomb Iran, our bases in Iraq and Syria will be targeted. Hezbollah has a large operation in Mexico, and their agents could cause trouble here at home. If we attack Iran, Russia will not sit by quietly. Sanctions haven't stopped Iran's military development. Our military is at a weak point. If the US enters this conflict, it will be difficult for Russia and Turkey not to also come into this fight against us.

Speaker 0 argues that most Americans oppose the war, citing polling and the president’s failure to make a case for it. The speaker asserts that people don’t feel threatened by Iran and don’t fear an Iranian ballistic missile landing in the United States. The speaker lists a set of American concerns: 72% can’t afford health insurance, 58% can’t afford car insurance, 67% live paycheck to paycheck, 31% can’t afford back taxes, and 50% carry massive credit card debt. They state they campaigned with the president and were among the few Republicans supporting Donald Trump when others opposed him in a primary, emphasizing a “America first” stance focused on American problems rather than foreign countries or foreign peoples. The speaker expresses concern for the Iranian people and hopes for a government that treats women fairly, but asserts that “we have seen over 100 little girls killed at a school from a bomb,” and claims that “America and Israel attacked Iran,” implying this is not good for Iranian women. They criticize the president’s claim that the Iranian people will topple their regime, saying the Iranian people won’t topple their regime while being bombed by the United States and Israel in an unprovoked attack, which the speaker claims is true. They reference Pete Hegseth’s comment that the U.S. did not start the war, but the speaker counters that America and Israel definitely started it and states, “you can’t lie that away to the American people.” The speaker declares being irate and furious about the situation, noting the national debt approaching $40 trillion and questioning the war’s cost. They argue that American troops have been killed and murdered for foreign countries, and that four Americans have died for Israel and the Iranian people, not for Americans. The speaker laments the loss of American military members and acknowledges the families who may be grieving. They mention Trump’s past statements that he doesn’t think he will go to heaven, and question what that implies about his decision-making, given that the president has said he may place troops on the ground and that what began as “a few day war” could extend to four weeks or more. The speaker recalls prior commitments by JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard to end foreign wars and regime change, but notes that “we’re a year in” and yet “we’re in another fucking war” with Americans killed. The speech ends with a call for America to “rip the Band Aid off” and to have a serious conversation about who is making these decisions and for whom.

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

We are committed to fighting for as long as it takes, supporting the president. However, there are concerns about the potential for World War 3 due to President Trump's decisions. We must not underestimate the dangers of a deranged president with control over nuclear weapons. It is crucial to find a way to avoid nuclear war and put an end to forever wars responsibly. Congress needs to restrain the president and not give him green lights for war. The military-industrial complex prioritizes short-term profit over America's security needs, and it's time to end these forever wars. Unlimited war reflects a lack of moral, particularly within the Republican party. Elections have consequences.

The discussion centers on the ongoing tensions with Iran, the potential for American military involvement, and the role of media and ideology in shaping public perception. The speakers express a critical view of how the situation is being managed and portrayed. Key points about the Iran situation: - President Trump publicly claimed “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but the panel notes Israel’s public interest in a broader outcome, specifically regime change in Iran, which would require boots on the ground rather than air strikes. - It is argued that air strikes alone cannot achieve regime change; the Israeli military, even with about 170,000 active-duty soldiers plus reservists, would need American boots on the ground to accomplish such aims against a larger Iranian army. - Senators, including Richard Blumenthal, warned about the risk to American lives in potentially deploying ground troops in Iran, citing a path toward American ground forces. - The new National Defense Authorization Act renewal could lead to an involuntary draft by year’s end, a concern raised by Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute who argues it treats citizens as owned by the government. - There is tension between Trump’s public push for a quick end to conflict and Netanyahu’s government talking about a larger, more prolonged objective in the region, including a potential demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza’s situation. - Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini issued a televised statement threatening to shut the Strait of Hormuz until the United States begs and vowing vengeance for martyrs, signaling that the conflict could continue or escalate beyond initial claims of victory. - The panel highlights potential escalation, including the possibility of nuclear weapons discussion by Trump and concerns about who controls the war, given factions within Iran and differing US-Israeli goals. Tucker Carlson’s analysis and warnings: - Carlson is presented as having warned that a war with Iran would be hard due to Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal aimed at US bases and allies’ infrastructure, and that it would push Iran closer to China and Russia, potentially undermining the US. - Carlson emphasizes the lack of a clear, publicly articulated endgame or exit strategy for the war, arguing that diplomacy has deteriorated and that the US appears discredited in its ability to negotiate peace. - He discusses the governance of Israel and the idea that some Israeli leaders advocate for extreme measures, referencing “Amalek” language used by Netanyahu to describe enemies, which Carlson characterizes as dangerous and incompatible with Western civilization’s values. - Carlson argues that American interests and Israeli strategic aims diverge, and questions why Israel is the partner with decision-making authority in such a conflict. He notes the US’s reliance on Israel for intelligence (with Israel translating SIGINT) and suggests that Israel’s endgame may be to erode American influence in the region. - He also suggests the war is being used to advance a broader political and ideological project, including America’s pivot away from foreign entanglements; he asserts that certain power centers in the US and in media and defense circles benefit from perpetual conflict. - Carlson discusses the moral framework around targeting and civilian casualties, asserting that there is concern over the ethical implications of autonomous targeting and the potential for AI to play a role in warfare decisions. - He notes the possibility that AI involvement in targeting decisions exists in other conflicts, though in the Iran situation, he mentions that a human pressed play in the specific case of an attack (the school near an Iranian base), while coordinates may have come from other sources, possibly shared by Israel. - Carlson discusses media dynamics, describing mainstream outlets as “embedded” with the defense establishment and questioning why there isn’t a robust public discussion about the war’s endgame, exit ramps, or the true costs of war. Media, propaganda, and public discourse: - The panel critiques media coverage as lacking skepticism, with anchors and outlets seemingly aligned with the administration’s war narratives, raising concerns about “access journalism” and the absence of tough questions about goals, timelines, and consequences. - Carlson and participants discuss the use of propaganda—historically, Disney and the Treasury Department in World War II as examples—arguing that today’s propaganda around Iran relies on pop culture and entertainment to normalize or justify intervention without clear justification to the public. - They argue that contemporary media often fails to examine the ethics and consequences of war or to question the necessity and legitimacy of continuing conflict, suggesting a broader risk of technology-enabled control over public opinion and civil discourse. White House dynamics and internal debate: - The guests discuss the possibility of internal disagreement within the White House, noting that while some senior figures had reservations, external pressure, particularly from Netanyahu, may have pushed the administration toward action. - They touch on the strategic ambiguity surrounding US forces in the region, noting that while large-scale ground invasion is unlikely, special forces and other assets may be deployed, with civilian and military costs disproportionately affecting American families. - The conversation also explores concerns about civil liberties, surveillance, and the potential for centralized control of information and warfare technologies to influence domestic politics and social cohesion. Overall, the dialogue presents a multifaceted critique of the handling and propulsion of a potential Iran conflict, emphasizing the risk of escalatory dynamics, the clash of strategic goals between the US and Israel, concerns about democratic consent and media accountability, and the ethical implications of modern warfare technology.

Afshan Rutansi hosts New Order, a program touting a global view of how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. The episode centers on the Trump administration’s war against Iran and its wider regional and global consequences, claiming the conflict has killed, wounded, or displaced over a million people from Iran to Lebanon to the South Caucasus, with the global South paying for shortages of fertilizer, fuel, food, and medicines as the Strait of Hormuz is mined and contested. The discussion also touches on Iran’s targeting of Israel’s nuclear program and Israel’s targeting of Iran’s nuclear reactor, and references the IEA’s view that Trump-era energy crises are worse than the 1970s oil shocks. The panel notes Pakistan’s perceived threat after Iran, and a claim by a former US DNI that Pakistan might be a concern if the US touches its WMD program. India, as this year’s chair of BRICS, says it will not broker peace between the USA and Iran. Dennis Kucinich, a former US congressman from Ohio who gave 155 speeches in the US Congress against war with Iran, joins the show. He has run for the Democratic presidential nomination twice and led RFK Jr.’s 2024 campaign. He describes the war as a “catastrophe, a circus of miscalculation,” and says Iran could be “the graveyard of the American empire.” He criticizes the US for bombing Iran while negotiations were ongoing, killing a negotiator and, with Israel, continuing bombing, and notes the death toll approaching 2,000 Iranians. He asserts that the USInduced negotiations to give up enriched uranium were under way, then bombed Iran, undermining diplomacy. He states there was “no imminent threat,” citing testimony by Joe Kent, a former official in the directorate of national intelligence, who resigned and described the threat as non-existent, and argues that the US strategy is to dominate the Middle East’s energy, currency, and trade. Kucinich argues that the war has led to higher oil and LNG prices, greater military spending in the Gulf, more fragile shipping routes, and increasing alignments with Iran and anti-western economic partners. He contends the global South bears a disproportionate burden from higher food, fuel, and grain prices, and that ordinary Americans are affected as well. He rejects the idea of neutral broker roles, noting India’s attempt to avoid binary alignment and maintain channels with both the US and Iran, arguing India’s BRICS leadership seeks de-escalation, energy security, and stability in food and fertilizer prices. On the broader strategic landscape, Kucinich says there is no real strategy to this war, only an attempt to capture supplies and control the oil market, with petrodollar dominance challenged by BRICS’ move toward local currencies. He predicts higher oil and food prices, inflation, and greater difficulty for the United States to maintain its global position, calling for the removal of bases in the Middle East. He references the “March of Folly” and suggests the new world order will follow, but not the one envisioned by current leaders. The latter portion shifts to viewer questions with Zara Khan, addressing whether BRICS will revive the UN, the nature of the January 2026 Iranian protests, and media portrayals of Iranian casualties. The discussion reaffirms skepticism toward Western media narratives, the CIA’s alleged role in provocations, and questions about international law amid perceptions of a US-led invasion. The program closes by inviting viewer engagement on whether India should maintain neutrality.

The speakers discuss the potential for war between Iran and Israel, with one noting the US embassy in Iraq evacuated nonessential personnel and military bases were told to evacuate non-military personnel. One speaker expresses disappointment that Trump, who campaigned on preventing new wars, seems to be leading the US toward conflict. One speaker claims Trump could stop the conflict by telling Israel they are on their own, withholding intelligence and support. They lament American troops being in danger for no reason. The speakers criticize Trump for acting like Biden, merely expressing disapproval without taking action. They claim Congress is completely in Israel's pocket, despite public opinion, especially among younger Republicans, being unfavorable towards Israel. One speaker cites a post from Tom Cotton about Iran seeking nuclear weapons, likening it to the lead-up to the Iraq War.

The conversation centers on whether U.S. policy shifts toward “putting America first” and whether Trump/J.D. Vance statements about Israel and Iran are genuine or the result of external manipulation. Mario asks Alex whether what J.D. Vance and Trump are saying is meant sincerely, referencing J.D. Vance and Trump’s language. Alex responds that he believes J.D. Vance and Trump have been influenced and manipulated, and he links U.S. decision-making to behind-the-scenes arguments raised in cabinet meetings about Israel’s Middle East actions. He says J.D. Vance heard claims from the Pentagon that Israel’s plan was a terrible idea, would fail to produce regime change, would close the strait, would “destroy the administration,” and would “kill the world economy,” describing a pattern where Israel’s actions were connected to dragging the U.S. toward total war. Alex claims Trump later realized he had been manipulated by “false intelligence” provided by Netanyahu and Mossad, including claims that Netanyahu and Mossad convinced Trump that Kurds would rise and the Iranian regime would fall within four days. Alex says Trump then looked for an “exit ramp” for more than a month but was repeatedly pulled back in as Israel allegedly continued attacks and sabotaged negotiations, including an episode where Trump claimed he ordered Israel to stop hitting Lebanon and Alex claims Israel hit harder afterward. Alex adds that Netanyahu allegedly refused to leave southern Lebanon, and he singles out Ben-Gavir as even more radical and influential, quoting Ben-Gavir saying, “We need to burn all of Lebanon to the ground,” and framing this as a broader “Greater Israel project.” Alex describes a “canary in the coal mine” by citing Gerald Morgan (Steven Crowder’s co-host) as saying Ben-Gavir is a horrible person and that Morgan would not support Israel if it continued such “genocidal” statements and behavior. Alex also says that Israel’s influence is reflected in legislation, claiming the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for 2027 would merge and synchronize U.S. and Israeli military research and development and weapons, and that days after committee passage, the Defense Intelligence Agency and two other agencies allegedly said Israel is the highest-level espionage threat to the U.S. Mario connects the discussion to Trump’s rhetoric, asking whether this is more than rhetoric and could go on longer. Alex answers that Trump is “100% pro-Israel” and believes Israel has a right to exist, saying Trump seeks to be a major peacemaker and wants the Abraham Accords. Alex says Trump “never liked Netanyahu,” claiming Trump is enraged and looking to break with Israel due to constituents’ war-related break from “Israel first” and inflation. Alex says he expects Israel to keep provoking, including possibly launching bigger provocations against Iran, or a “magical terror attack” blamed on Iran, and ties this to Netanyahu’s legal situation and alleged incentives not to destabilize internal outcomes tied to October 7-related investigations. The transcript then shifts to direct quotes shown in a clip from Gerald Morgan challenging a statement attributed to Ben-Gavir: Alex relays the argument that “All of Lebanon must burn,” asserting disproportionate retaliation logic, warning that absorbing Lebanon would lead to further targets like Turkey and Syria, and arguing the U.S. supported Israel for decades. Alex then says Katz made similar statements, including a claim that villages in southern Lebanon have been flattened and that 200,000 Lebanese residents in a security zone are never returning. Alex later elaborates on what he says is Israeli conduct: alleged leveling of villages, destruction of houses, leveling churches and crusader castles, and poisoning crops via concentrated glyphosate weed killer (Roundup), comparing this to prior actions in Gaza and the West Bank involving wells. He also claims “Lebanese, Christian or Muslim” who do not leave would face IDF snipers and killing, and he says Israel publicly called the approach “the Gaza treatment” for Lebanon. Alex expands into broader claims about political networks and leverage. When asked what leverage Israel might have over Trump, Alex describes opening “back channels” and cutting Israel out of live time intelligence, but also claims Israel has leverage over Trump through business ties and the “Epstein network,” asserting Trump wanted to take over such power structures for himself and that Israel “got all the intel” through secret forms that redirect information away from the Five Eyes. Alex claims this results in Israel placing personnel in key Pentagon and intelligence positions and describes “partially under a Likudnik Israeli coup right now.” Mario asks whether Alex believes this is linked to dirt involving Epstein. Alex says it is not primarily dirt used to compromise Trump, but rather that Trump joined the network and expected protection and loyalty; when it didn’t go as planned, Alex claims Trump became angry and tried to assert dominance over Israel. Alex argues Trump’s actions would be reversed only when Trump decides he was wrong, and he lists conditions for a fundamental shift: Trump needs to call for Netanyahu to leave, oppose legislation such as the NDAA Section 224 and a matching Senate Intelligence Bill, deny Israel merging with U.S. military/intelligence, and cut off funding and weapons. Alex also adds that he wants Trump to oppose laws restricting free speech and to reverse other actions he lists as harmful. In the short term, Mario asks what happens if Israel strikes Beirut, Iran retaliates, and whether Trump would be dragged in. Alex says the longer the Strait of Hormuz is closed and the worse the economy becomes, the more pressure Trump will face, and he claims Trump might come out against Netanyahu if Israel’s actions cause unbearable economic damage and if bombing Iran is framed as leading Iran to attack Israel. Alex also predicts Israel’s land-gathering motivations, including gas corridors. Finally, Mario asks whether Netanyahu could fall to pressure and whether Israel could cease fire and pull out, similar to Trump’s alleged change with J.D. Vance. Alex says there is “absolutely” a chance for that kind of shift, claiming Israel could be removed through money and opposition channels, that the White House could work with Netanyahu’s opposition, and that if there is no war within a year, pipelines and systems could cut the Strait of Hormuz out of the equation. Alex closes by arguing Israel’s radical leadership escalates conflict in ways that generate backlash and that de-escalation depends on Trump directly confronting Israel’s leadership rather than supporting their decisions.

Joe Biden and his allies, including Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and news anchors, prioritize Ukraine over the needs of your town. Only Donald Trump opposes Washington's war agenda and is being targeted by those in power. This attempt to remove Trump before you can vote for him should be the most concerning thing in American politics.

Joe Kent, the recently resigned head of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), discusses the reasons behind his departure and its broader political implications. He says the resignation received more attention outside national security circles than he anticipated, and he notes the response from some former colleagues has been substantial. Kent addresses criticisms from figures like Sebastian Gorka, including a voicemail, and defends his stance and conduct during his tenure and resignation. The central issue Kent highlights is his belief that the United States entered a war with Iran under pressure from Israel and its American lobby, rather than because Iran posed an imminent threat. He argues that the decision to go to war was made under intense influence from allied actors and that the administration’s posture was driven by demands for zero enrichment and regime change, which he views as misguided. He states his hope that President Trump will consider alternative advice and potentially change course, given concerns about the trajectory of the conflict. Kent describes the current situation as heading toward a catastrophic direction economically and strategically. He cites the global market and energy production in the Gulf as areas already experiencing massive impacts, and he contends that the United States’ role as security guarantor in the region has deteriorated. He also expresses concern about American casualties and the possibility that the Israeli leadership might be tempted to escalate further, including the possibility of a nuclear strike by Israel if the conflict worsens. He emphasizes that restraining Israel is a fundamental prerequisite for any credible negotiation or attempted de-escalation. Regarding intelligence and threat assessment, Kent asserts that there was no imminent Iranian threat. He explains that, in his view, the Iranian escalation ladder is understood through various data sources, and he claims Romney-style consensus within the NSC warned against aggressive strikes that would backfire by rallying Iranian hardliners. He criticizes the influence of Israeli channels and media surrogates on American policy, arguing that this contributed to the misreading of Iran’s capabilities and intentions. He links these dynamics to past errors such as the Iraq War, alleging Israeli involvement in pushing for interventions and misrepresenting the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Kent also discusses U.S. policy in Syria, arguing that the United States should have limited its engagement with the regime led by former al-Qaeda-linked figures. He contends that the U.S. became too closely involved with HTS/Jalani’s government and that these actions tied Washington to concessions and a broader Syrian outcome that is not aligned with American interests. He notes tension between Israeli and Turkish aims in Syria and predicts conflicts between those two actors as they vie for influence. On the domestic terrorism front, Kent notes that the biggest open-source threat comes from inspired, lone actors rather than organized cells. He references data indicating tens of thousands of known or suspected terrorists and underscores uncertainty about who is currently within the United States due to porous borders. He suggests that while we can disrupt cells, lone actors driven by inspiration remain a significant concern because they are harder to detect and interdict. Throughout the discussion, there is a recurring emphasis on the need for American leadership to consider “what is in it for The United States” in major policy decisions, rather than yielding to external lobbies or ally-driven narratives. Both Joe Kent and Dr. Mike Scheuer critique what they see as the overreliance on special operations and on partners like Israel to push objectives, arguing for a more measured, strategically coherent approach that restrains aggressive actions by allies when they threaten broader American interests or stability in global currency and energy dynamics. As the interview closes, the hosts announce that Kent will appear on Mark Levin’s show, signaling ongoing public engagement in the debate over U.S. policy toward Iran, Israel, and the broader Middle East. The conversation touches on the potential of negotiated settlements and the controversial notion of large-scale special forces operations as a path forward, with Kent reiterating the primacy of restraining Israeli actions as essential to any viable policy outcome.

Afshan Rutansky presents Going Underground from the UAE, noting that seven weeks into the US-Israel war in Iran, the region faces continuing conflict and hardship. She claims the war began with Trump and Netanyahu assassinating Iran’s leader and his family, leading to millions killed, wounded, or displaced in Iran and Lebanon, and global disruption of fuel and petrochemical supplies. She marks Iran’s National Army Day, noting a traditional military parade and speech, but says this year’s observance comes after the US threatened to destroy Iran’s civilization in one night, and after a claimed “fake” Trump blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. She asserts adversaries of the US government have gained through destruction of US power and preferential pricing, citing visits of regional leaders to China and Moscow following visits by UAE’s MBZ and the Malaysian king. She introduces Bill Astoria (twenty-year US Air Force veteran, former professor of history, author of several works on militarism) from Yarmouth, Massachusetts, and asks why he says Iran has “won this war on Iran.” Astoria responds that while Iran may not have definitively won yet, the United States is losing the war because its stated rationales—regime change, nuclear threat elimination, destroying ballistic missiles—have not been achieved. He argues Iran is more unified and a bigger world player than before, while the US and Israel have failed to meet their war aims. He suggests long-term consequences indicate the United States is in decline, including unsustainable Pentagon spending (citing proposed rises to approximately $1.5 trillion plus $500 billion in the next fiscal year) and the war used to justify this expansion. From Iran’s perspective, he says, there is no imminent existential threat from Iran; rather, the existential threat is perceived to come from nuclear-armed Israel and America. Rutansky raises a Financial Times headline about Goldman Sachs clients benefiting from Iran diversion and “military Keynesianism” returning as a driver for wealth, implying the defense budget primarily enriches the rich oligarchy. Astoria counters that the American public mainly experiences propaganda, noting a 50% budget increase framed as defense, and calls the Pentagon budget a department for perpetual war rather than true defense. He contends Trump’s rhetoric and actions reveal a shift toward imperial aims, and points to multiple operations in places like Venezuela, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Cuba, and Greenland. He also notes that diplomacy has been undermined by prior bombings and assassinations, reducing Iran’s trust in US negotiations. The conversation touches on the notion that Trump’s antiwar appeal was undermined by a militarized approach; Astoria stresses that military Keynesianism will not revive America and may increase authoritarianism and domestic repression, including harsher homeland security measures and militarized policing. He asserts Trump is a culmination of a warrior mentality in US policy, and that the Pope’s recent rejection of the war represents a related moral stance. Discussing Israel’s role, Astoria claims Israel poses a national security threat to the US in a nuanced way, suggesting Israeli influence over US foreign policy—particularly regarding Iraq, Iran, and the broader Middle East—casts doubt on whether Israel is a true friend to the United States. He argues the Ukraine war has faded from front-page coverage in US media, with continued support for Ukraine framed as necessary by American outlets. Toward the end, the host asks about censorship and media control; Astoria agrees that censorship is increasing as the conflict persists, noting that mainstream coverage emphasizes antiseptic imagery while omitting civilian casualties. He predicts more suppression of antiwar voices as the public becomes more aware of the war’s costs. The program closes with thanks to Astoria and a note that future guests will include a former Iraq War veteran now advising Robert Kennedy Jr. and working in Trump’s cabinet.

Trump is launching a $1 trillion military budget and is already bombing countries, with $1 billion spent in two weeks bombing Yemen. Additionally, $13 billion is going to Israel. The speaker states this is not what Trump promised. Trump may try to shut down war in the region that he created with a deal mimicking the 2015 deal, and might get the support of congress. Sanctions removal is a hard task in Washington, where every department office representative senator is affected by the Israeli lobby and its dictates. However, Trump is capable of doing a lot more than other, more well-mannered, American presidents.

Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground from Dubai, discussing the unfolding Trump-Netanyahu campaign against Iran and Lebanon, amid claims of a failed ceasefire and a chaotic US policy that could lead to peace talks or mass US casualties. The conversation centers on how US military operations were conducted with unclear objectives, the blockade of Hormuz, and broader questions about international alignments, domestic politics, and the integrity of US national security. Key points and claims discussed - James Webb, former senior foreign policy adviser to RFK Jr., discusses the conflict’s origins and the US military response: - The Iran conflict is described as atypical for the US military, with a lack of contingencies for evolving events, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Webb contrasts this with the Iraq War era, noting that past conflicts saw hundreds of thousands of troops staged for various contingencies. - He asserts the Strait of Hormuz closure is a significant, probable danger, and claims it was “the most probable and dangerous course of action” by the Iranian government, though later remarks acknowledge it was “closed for some.” - Webb accuses the President of denying the risk of such a closure and asserts this has harmed the US’s reputation and economic partnerships, painting the war as one fought on behalf of another country; he notes this stance as anomalous and unpopular domestically. - Assassination of Khamenei and Netanyahu’s involvement: - Webb describes waking to news of the assassination attempt on Khamenei as indicative of an Israeli planning cycle, arguing that assassinating foreign leaders risks violating norms and has long-term strategic consequences. - He claims the operation “bloody[s] the United States” and creates a blood feud between the US and Iran, undermining state-to-state negotiation dynamics. - Netanyahu’s influence and possible foreign power infiltration: - Webb questions what Netanyahu might have over Trump that resonates with MAGA voters, touching on theories involving foreign influence and the Epstein files, and suggesting long-standing efforts to cultivate influence within US politics. - He describes a broader pattern of neoconservative and pro-war pressures predating the Iraq War and accuses various political actors of co-opting Congress and government for an ongoing Iran-focused agenda. - Webb cites corruption in the US military procurement system and sanctions dynamics, noting cases where private-sector investments allegedly intersect with sanction decisions. - War powers, legality, and governance: - Webb emphasizes the constitutional requirement that Congress holds war powers (Article I, Section 8) and argues that the war with Iran did not follow proper processes or a legitimate declaration. - He critiques the War Powers Resolution’s applicability in this context, suggesting the administration acted beyond its constitutional authority. - RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and broader political dynamics: - Webb says he resigned from the RFK Jr. campaign after RFK Jr. equivocated on IDF tactics in Gaza, arguing this demonstrated an external influence on policy. He notes Tulsi Gabbard as DNI and expresses hope she can influence decisions, while acknowledging restricted access to the White House. - He believes there is bipartisan concern about the drift toward war and notes polling showing growing public wariness of foreign entanglements, including U.S.-Israel dynamics. He highlights potential shifts toward a more America-first foreign policy. - Military hardware, strategy, and vulnerability: - Webb discusses modern anti-ship and ballistic missile capabilities from Iran, Russia, and China, arguing US carriers require significant standoff distance and are vulnerable to advanced missiles, limiting traditional carrier-based operations. - He mentions USS George H.W. Bush’s unusual movements and raises questions about naval readiness and procurement integrity, as well as unexplained incidents aboard ships (e.g., clogging sewage systems) used to illustrate perceived internal disruptions. - Regional realignments and the petrodollar: - Webb suggests that aggressive Middle East actions could push regional allies to rethink loyalties and alliances, with potential implications for the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency. - He expresses cautious optimism that public sentiment toward “America first” and opposition to endless wars could drive political renewal, including a return to merit-based leadership and reduced foreign entanglements. - Final reflections: - Webb laments civilian casualties and school-targeting incidents, emphasizing the need for accountability and a reconsideration of strategic aims, while reiterating concern about the influence of powerful interests on national security decisions. - The program closes with condolences to those affected by NATO-related conflicts and a tease of continued coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu war. Note: The summary preserves the speakers’ names and quotes as presented, without adding external evaluation or commentary.

Trump may have already launched a war, restarting Biden and Obama's wars. The United Arab Emirates won't allow the US to use its base in Abu Dhabi for an attack. Iran is better than others who stand with Israel or do nothing for Palestine. A war on Iran is what Netanyahu wants, who has been dragging Trump in his direction. Trump came to power claiming he was a man of peace and wanted a Nobel Peace Prize, but now he is being dragged into military actions. An attack on Iran would be a huge disaster for the region, the world's economy, and everybody. Netanyahu dreams of being the new imperial leader controlling the Middle East. Netanyahu seems to control Trump. The whole crowd around Trump is Zionist and totally supportive of Israel. Trump has forced Netanyahu to accept a temporary ceasefire, but now supports violations of every ceasefire by Netanyahu. This will lead to disasters for everybody, including the United States.

- The discussion opens with claims that President Trump says “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but Israel allegedly wants the war to destroy Iran’s entire government structure, requiring boots on the ground for regime change. It’s argued that air strikes cannot achieve regime change and that Israel’s relatively small army would need U.S. ground forces, given Iran’s larger conventional force, to accomplish its objectives. - Senator Richard Blumenthal is cited as warning about American lives potentially being at risk from deploying ground troops in Iran, following a private White House briefing. - The new National Defense Authorization Act is described as renewing the involuntary draft; by year’s end, an involuntary draft could take place in the United States, pending full congressional approval. Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute is described as expressing strong concern, arguing the draft would treat the government as owning citizens’ bodies, a stance attributed to him as supporting a view that “presumption is that the government owns you.” - The conversation contrasts Trump’s public desire to end the war quickly with Netanyahu’s government, which reportedly envisions a much larger military objective in the region, including a demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza, and a broader aim to remove Hezbollah. The implication is that the United States and Israel may not share the same endgame. - Tucker Carlson is introduced as a guest to discuss these issues and offer predictions about consequences for the American people, including energy disruption, economic impacts, and shifts in U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf. - Carlson responds that he would not credit himself with prescience, but notes predictable consequences: disruption to global energy supplies, effects on the U.S. economy, potential loss of U.S. bases in the Gulf, and a shrinking American empire. He suggests that the war’s true goal may be to weaken the United States and withdraw from the Middle East; he questions whether diplomacy remains viable given the current trajectory. - Carlson discusses Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini’s communique, highlighting threats to shut Hormuz “forever,” vows to avenge martyrs, and calls for all U.S. bases in the region to be closed. He notes that Tehran asserts it will target American bases while claiming it is not an enemy of surrounding countries, though bombs affect neighbors as well. - The exchange notes Trump’s remarks about possibly using nuclear weapons, and Carlson explains Iran’s internal factions, suggesting some seek negotiated settlements while others push for sustained conflict. Carlson emphasizes that Israel’s leadership may be pushing escalation in ways that diverge from U.S. interests and warns about the dangers of a joint operation with Israel, which would blur U.S. sovereignty in war decisions. - A discussion on the use of a term Amalek is explored: Carlson’s guest explains Amalek from the Old Testament as enemies of the Jewish people, with a historical biblical command to annihilate Amalek, including women and children, which the guest notes Christianity rejects; Netanyahu has used the term repeatedly in the conflict context, which Carlson characterizes as alarming and barbaric. - The guests debate how much influence is exerted in the White House, with Carlson noting limited direct advocacy for war among principal policymakers and attributing decisive pressure largely to Netanyahu’s threats. They question why Israel, a client state of the U.S., is allowed to dictate war steps, especially given the strategic importance of Hormuz and American assets in the region. - They discuss the ethical drift in U.S. policy, likening it to adopting the ethics of the Israeli government, and criticize the idea of targeting family members or civilians as a military strategy. They contrast Western civilization’s emphasis on individual moral responsibility with perceived tribal rationales. - The conversation touches on the potential rise of AI-assisted targeting or autonomous weapons: Carlson’s guest confirms that in some conflicts, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off, though in the discussed case a human did press play on the attack. The coordinates and data sources for strikes are scrutinized, with suspicion cast on whether Israel supplied SIGINT or coordinates. - The guests warn about the broader societal impact of war on civil liberties, mentioning the increasing surveillance and the risk that technology could be used to suppress dissent or control the population. They discuss how war accelerates social change and potentially normalizes drastic actions or internal coercion. - The media’s role in selling the war is criticized as “propaganda,” with examples of government messaging and pop culture campaigns (including a White House-supported video game-like portrayal of U.S. military power). They debate whether propaganda can be effective without a clear, articulated rationale for war and without public buy-in. - They question the behavior of mainstream outlets and “access journalism,” arguing that reporters often avoid tough questions about how the war ends, the timetable, and the off-ramps, instead reinforcing government narratives. - In closing, Carlson and his co-hosts reflect on the political division surrounding the war, the erosion of trust in media, and the possibility of rebuilding a coalition of ordinary Americans who want effective governance without perpetual conflict or degradation of civil liberties. Carlson emphasizes a longing for a politics centered on improving lives rather than escalating war. - The segment ends with Carlson’s continued critique of media dynamics, the moral implications of the war, and a call for more transparent discussion about the true aims and consequences of extended military engagement in the region.

The speaker believes a debate is needed regarding potential war involvement, suggesting the American people are largely against "forever wars." He cites ballistic missiles in Tel Aviv and Trump's deal-making abilities as reasons to de-escalate. He feels confident in Trump and Witkoff's ability to negotiate, contrasting it with the current trajectory toward combat. He questions how decisions about war involvement are made, noting the lack of a clear decision-making process. He believes the attacks against the interviewer stem from questioning potential war involvement and initiating a national discussion. He claims this level of open debate is unprecedented, with figures like Tulsi Gabbard and Bridge Colby contributing. He asserts that the Democrats are now institutionalists and points to CENTCOM as an example of institutional corruption.