reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Mario and Glenn discuss the evolving Iran–U.S. confrontation after Trump’s speech and recent military actions. They explore whether Trump is seeking an off-ramp and how Iran might respond, focusing on strategic leverage around the Strait of Hormuz, escalation dynamics, and regional implications. - Trump’s posture and off-ramp: Mario notes Trump’s speech yesterday seemed like a threat if Iran doesn’t grant an off-ramp, with comments suggesting further precision attacks if peace isn’t achieved quickly. Glenn agrees Trump is signaling for an off-ramp but warns the President lacks obvious military targets to push Iran toward surrender. Both acknowledge Trump’s dual tendency to escalate while also hinting at ending the conflict. - Strait of Hormuz as leverage: The discussion emphasizes that Iran’s ability to control, or at least influence, the Hormuz strait is a key factor in determining the war’s outcome. If Iran maintains dominance over Hormuz, they can set transit conditions, demand concessions, or push for non-dollar trade. The speakers agree that Iran can “hold on to the Strait of Hormuz” to prevent a clean U.S. victory, making it a central bargaining chip. - Historical lens on victory and war termination: Glenn argues that raw military power often doesn’t translate into lasting political victory, citing Vietnam and the Iraq war as examples, and notes Iran views the conflict as existential for legitimate reasons. Trump’s stated goal of “destroying everything of infrastructure and energy” would raise global energy prices and provoke Iranian retaliation against Gulf states, complicating U.S. aims. - Possible outcomes and shifts in posture: They consider multiple scenarios: - If Trump off-ramps, Iran might reciprocate, potentially halting strikes on U.S. bases and negotiating terms around Hormuz. - If the U.S. presses ahead or escalates, Iran could intensify attacks on Gulf states or even Israel, leading to broader regional destabilization. - A mutually acceptable security framework may require the U.S. to reduce its Middle East footprint while Gulf states participate in a collective security arrangement over Hormuz. - Israel’s veto power and potential U.S. decisions: Israel’s security considerations complicate any exit, but the U.S. might act unilaterally if core national security interests are threatened. - Ground troops and regional dynamics: Both acknowledge the ambiguity around ground deployments; Trump’s denial of ground troops conflicts with the impulse to escalate, creating a paradox that makes miscalculations likely. The possibility of renewed ground involvement remains uncertain, with skepticism about sustaining a ground campaign given logistics and supply constraints. - Regional actors and diplomacy: They discuss whether a broader regional rapprochement is possible. Iran’s willingness to negotiate could depend on assurances about its security and status quo changes in the Gulf. Tasnim News reports Iran and Oman are developing a joint maritime protocol for Hormuz in the post-war period, with Iran planning a toll-based framework for tanker traffic, signaling monetization and control even as Hormuz reopens for the world. - NATO, U.S. defense spending, and leadership changes: The conversation touches on geopolitics beyond Iran, noting a forthcoming $1.5 trillion defense budget and a leadership shift at the U.S. Army, with secretary of war P. Hexath ordering the Army chief of staff to retire, signaling a potential reorientation of U.S. military strategy. - Israel–Iran–Gulf triangle: They consider how Iran’s actions could affect Israel and Gulf states, noting that Iran’s retaliation could prompt U.S. or Israeli responses, while Gulf states struggle with the economic and security repercussions of sustained conflict. - Timing and next steps: Mario predicts the war could end soon, driven by off-ramps and Iranian willingness to negotiate, whereas Glenn cautions that the conflict will likely continue given the deep-seated security demands and the strategic importance of Hormuz. Both acknowledge daily developments could shift trajectories, and express cautious optimism that some form of resolution may emerge, though the exact terms remain uncertain. - Final reflections: The discussion closes with reflections on how fragile the current balance is, the possibility of a peace-through-strength stance, and the high stakes for global energy markets, regional stability, and the international order. Mario thanks Glenn for the dialogue, and they sign off.

Is there confidence in the Pentagon's leadership after recent failures like the Afghanistan pullout and incidents involving spy balloons? The current insiders have not been held accountable for these issues. Pete Hegseth deserves a chance; he has 20 years of military service, two bronze stars, and an education from Princeton and Harvard. Critics say he’s not the typical Washington choice, but the American people have rejected the usual picks. While civilian leadership made decisions, the military executed them, leading to disastrous outcomes. With a new president, there’s hope for change by appointing non-insiders. Hegseth, as a veteran advocate, must prove his capability in the role, but he should be given an opportunity to succeed.

The weak strategic leadership of the 25-year-old staffers in the White House over the past four years is concerning. Lloyd Austin's performance is disappointing, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, should be recalled to active duty and court-martialed for his actions in Afghanistan.

Michael Waltz, the president's national security advisor, is leaving the administration along with his deputy, Alex Wong. Waltz, a former congressman and Green Beret with a long career in foreign policy, was involved in the "Signal Gate" story, which caused consternation among some people.

General Mark Milley's portrait was recently removed from the Pentagon, a rare move for a 40-year military veteran. This action followed tensions with Donald Trump, who Milley served closely as his military adviser. Milley expressed concerns about his safety and the implications of his role during politically charged events, emphasizing that military loyalty should be to the Constitution, not the president. His removal was publicly supported by Trump’s advisor's wife, who criticized Milley. This situation raises questions about the message sent to military personnel regarding loyalty and adherence to the code of conduct, as character and judgment are essential virtues in the military. The discussion highlights the importance of upholding military ethics and the challenges faced when political loyalty is prioritized over constitutional duty.

Joe Kent, former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, explains why he resigned over the war against Iran, arguing Iran posed no imminent threat and that the war was driven by Israeli influence and a regime-change agenda. Key points: - Imminent threat and escalation: In his view, Iran was not on the cusp of attacking the U.S. during Trump’s second term. Iran followed a calculated escalation ladder, stopping proxies during Operation Midnight Hammer and returning to negotiation afterward. After the attack on nuclear sites, Iran retaliated in kind, then returned to talks, indicating a calibrated approach rather than irrational behavior. The “imminent threat” cited by some officials was viewed as primarily tied to Israeli actions against Iran, not Iranian intent to attack the U.S. directly. - Regime-change as miscalculation: Kent contends that regime-change aims in Iran—similar to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya—are flawed. He believes attempts to remove the Iranian regime strengthen it instead, and he personally did not want another costly war in the Middle East. - Israeli influence and the policymaking process: He describes a multilayered Israeli influence network—strong PAC presence, intelligence sharing, and media/think-tank leveraging—that shapes U.S. policy. Israelis push for no enrichment and regime-change outcomes, using media echo chambers and direct access to U.S. decision-makers to steer policy in a direction that aligns with their goals, sometimes at odds with longer-term U.S. interests or what Trump might publicly advocate. - Intelligence versus policy sales: He notes that intelligence briefings can inform or sell a policy. Israeli influence can bypass traditional channels, presenting threats in emotionally resonant terms (e.g., fear of Ayatollahs obtaining a bomb) to push for aggressive stances. This has contributed to a cycle of escalation and military action. - Negotiation space and red lines: The administration’s narrowing of red lines around enrichment (from broader nuclear nonproliferation to zero enrichment) limited potential deal space. The Iranians did show willingness to negotiate on enrichment levels, monitoring, and proxies, but the Israelis and policy ecosystem continually sought broader prohibitions, complicating any potential agreement. - The Iran-Israel dynamic: The Israeli objective appears oriented toward regime change or a state of chaos preventing Iran from leveraging its regional power. Kent argues the U.S. has enabled Israel by subsidizing its defense and offense, creating pressure that constrains U.S. policy and international leverage. - Strategic and regional assessment: The Gulf, Straits of Hormuz, and regional energy security are central. He argues that the U.S. cannot easily open Hormuz militarily in the long term and that any durable arrangement would require restraining Israel, easing sanctions relief for Iran, and returning to a sustainable regional security framework. - Iran’s current strategy: Iran has managed to deter substantial American escalation by threatening to disrupt energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz and by leveraging proxies and regional influence. The leadership has shown discipline in controlling proxies and presenting a credible threat that optimizes Iran’s strategic position. - Great power dynamics: China is seen as a major beneficiary of the current cycle, gaining leverage as global energy transactions shift away from the dollar and as U.S. attention diverts to the Middle East. Russia’s posture is also affected; sanctions and energy markets interact with Iran’s actions, while Russia and China could exploit the distraction and reframe influence in their favor. - Syria and broader war lessons: Kent emphasizes that regime-change in Syria contributed to instability, with various factions and external powers (Turkey, Israel, HTS, Al Qaeda offshoots) complicating the landscape. He remains skeptical about the future stability of Syria, warning that competing external interests could lead to further conflict. - Prospects for de-escalation: A path to de-escalation would require restraining Israel’s offensive actions, offering some sanctions relief to Iran, and engaging in constructive regional diplomacy to reopen Hormuz. He suggests a sustainable deal would avoid large U.S. troop commitments and focus on practical counterterrorism cooperation, stable oil flow, and avoiding regime-change rhetoric. Overall, Kent argues that the Iran war was driven by a dominant Israeli influence, a flawed regime-change impulse, and a diplomacy dynamic that prioritized aggressive measures over practical, balanced engagement. He advocates restraining Israel, pursuing a pragmatic, limited set of objectives with Iran, and reframing U.S. regional strategy to reduce perpetual conflict in the Middle East. He also warns that without de-escalation, the conflict risks drawing the U.S. into a prolonged and costly cycle with broad regional and global repercussions.

The speaker emphasizes that to understand the situation, we should consider what Jack Keane is saying. We have one aircraft carrier strike group, plus land-based air power and a lot of air defense missiles on the ground, and a lot of air power there, but there are no ground troops. Don Rumsfeld had about 300,000 total ground troops at his disposal, and we went in on the ground and defeated the regime in about a month. There was a profound amount of air power, much more air power than exists in The Gulf right now, and altogether there was a lot more air power then, yet we still underestimated them. We defeated them militarily in about a month, but then an insurgency rose up afterward because you can’t kill everybody, which is what happened. Jack Keane, Dan Raisin Cain, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the man Trump has talked about—are highlighted as significant military leaders. The question is how many ground troops does he have available? Nada. And you are talking about destroying the civilian and military leadership the way Don Rumsfeld successfully did. He did...

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the extraordinary and escalating tensions around Iran, the Middle East, and the United States’ role in the region. - The guests reference recent remarks by Donald Trump about Iran, noting Trump’s statement that Iran has until Tuesday to reach a deal or “I am blowing up everything,” with a quoted line describing Tuesday as “power plant day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran,” followed by “open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards or you’ll be living in hell.” They describe this rhetoric as madness and suggest the rhetoric signals a potential for a severe U.S. action. - They contrast Trump’s stated plan with the capabilities and willingness of the U.S. military, arguing there are three distinct elements: what Trump wants to do, what the U.S. military can do, and what the U.S. military is willing to do. They discuss a hypothetical ground operation targeting Iran, including possible actions such as striking Natanz or a nuclear-related site, and potentially hitting a “underground missile factory” at Kesheveh, while acknowledging the risk and uncertainty of such plans. - The conversation details a Friday event in which a U.S. F-15 was shot down, and the implications for the broader operation: A-10 Warthog, F-16s, two Black Hawk helicopters (Pave Hawks), and two C-130s were reportedly lost, with speculation about additional losses. They discuss the Pentagon’s statements about casualties and the possibility that other aircraft losses were connected to a rescue attempt for a downed pilot. They estimate several U.S. airframes lost in the effort to recover one pilot and discuss the high costs and risks of attempting CSAR (combat search and rescue). - The speakers reflect on the status of U.S. combat leadership and the debates surrounding purges of senior officers. One guest emphasizes that the fired leaders (Hodney and Randy George) were not operational decision-makers for Iran and argues the purge appears political rather than war-related, describing it as part of a broader pattern of politicization of the senior ranks. - They discuss the Israeli war effort, noting significant strain from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and questions about Israel’s manpower and reserve mobilization. They mention reports that 300,000 reservists have been activated and talk of an additional 400,000 being considered. The discussion touches on claims that Israel is attacking Iranian negotiating participants and how the U.S. could be drawn into a broader conflict. They critique the Israeli military’s leadership structure, arguing that young officers with limited experience lead a reserve-based force, which they view as contributing to questionable battlefield performance. - The Iranian strategy is analyzed as aiming to break U.S. control in the Persian Gulf and to compel adversaries to negotiate by threatening or constraining energy flows. The guests detail Iran’s actions: targeting oil facilities and ports around Haifa and Tel Aviv, Damona (near the suspected nuclear sites), and claims of missiles hitting a major building in Haifa. They describe widespread civilian disruption in Israel (bomb shelters, subway tents) and emphasize the vulnerability of Israel given its manpower challenges and reliance on U.S. and Western support. - The broader strategic landscape is assessed: Iran’s goal to control the Gulf and oil, with potential consequences for global energy markets, shipping costs, and the international economy. They discuss how Iran’s actions may integrate with China and Russia, including potential shifts in currency use (yuan) for trade and new financial arrangements, such as Deutsche Bank offering Chinese bonds. - They discuss the economic and geopolitical ripple effects beyond the battlefield: rising U.S. fuel prices (gas increasing sharply in parts of the U.S., including Florida), potential airline disruptions, and the broader risk to European energy security as sanctions and alternative energy pathways come under stress. They note that Europe’s energy strategies and alliances may be forced to adapt, potentially shifting energy flows to China or Russia, and the possibility of Europe’s economy suffering from disrupted energy supplies. - Toward the end, the speakers acknowledge the difficulty of stopping escalation and the need for major powers to negotiate new terms for the post-unipolar order. They caution that reconciliations are unlikely in the near term, warning of the potential for a broader conflict if leaders do not find a path away from continued escalation. They close with a somewhat pessimistic view, acknowledging that even if the war ends soon, the economic ramifications will be long-lasting. They joke that, at minimum, they’ll have more material to discuss next week, given Trump’s actions.

Jamie Menina, a top adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, has been terminated. Joseph R. Halstead from Joint Staff Public Affairs stated that Menina's alleged comments do not reflect the positions of the chairman or the Joint Staff. Menina was confirmed to have worked with the Joint Chiefs and is currently with Booz Allen Hamilton. Halstead indicated that Menina's termination was a standard practice for contractors following an undercover investigation. This decision follows Menina's comments about working with retired generals on efforts related to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. The report encourages sources within the government to share information about fraud or misconduct. Further interaction with Joseph Menina is expected tomorrow.

Scott Horton introduces Joe Kent, formerly of the 75th Rangers and then the CIA’s Special Activities Division, who fought in the terror wars and later headed the Counterterrorism Center before resigning from the Trump administration over the war in Iran. Kent describes his background and why he came on the show, noting that he resigned over policy rather than personal animus, and emphasizes that his focus is on Iran policy and its intersection with Israeli interests. Kent asserts that the war with Iran was largely driven by the Israeli agenda and timeline. He points to statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the President, and the Speaker of the House claiming the attack was launched because they knew Israel would attack as well, arguing that this indicates Israel was driving U.S. policy and that the United States should not be bound to an Israeli timeline or to an outcome that serves Israeli objectives. He recounts his time at NCTC and in the White House, describing an ecosystem that included media figures, think tanks, and high-ranking Israeli officials, which he says influenced U.S. policy and reduced the president’s decision-making space, particularly concerning Iran’s red lines on enrichment. Kent explains his concern that the push for a hard line against Iran’s enrichment was an Israeli-led framing that equated any enrichment with a nuclear weapons program. He describes an alleged “Goldilocks methodology” by which Iran could enrich but not weaponize, a position the Israelis reportedly used to rally U.S. policymakers toward war. He argues that the Israelis wanted to remove any space for a negotiated deal and sought regime change, leveraging the U.S. military to accomplish that goal. He emphasizes that the war was not the first option and that a more pragmatic, slower approach could have yielded a deal if U.S. policymakers allowed it. In discussing the question of who was pressuring whom, Kent says the Israelis were trying to force a scenario where Iran’s red line would be seen as unacceptable, thereby pushing the United States toward war. He notes that Trump’s willingness to negotiate existed but was constrained by Israeli pressure and media echo chambers, and that the war’s timing undermined any potential for a peaceful settlement. He asserts that, if the president had space to negotiate, a deal might have been possible, but the Israelis’ push to force conflict narrowed that space. Kent also addresses the question of how the war affected American strategic interests, arguing that the United States should restrain Israel and align policy with broader American interests in the region, rather than facilitate regime change or allow broader chaos. He contends that an ongoing U.S.-Israel alignment over militarized actions in the Middle East risks destabilizing the region, jeopardizing energy security, and undermining U.S. partners in the Gulf and Europe. Regarding the Iraq war and Iran, Kent asserts that the Israeli lobby pressured for war in 2002-2003 and had broader influence in Syria and elsewhere, but he also acknowledges the complex mix of neoconservatives and various factions. He describes how, after the Iraq war, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and U.S. policy intersected with Iranian influence and regional dynamics, noting that many Iraqi Shias fought against Iran while others aligned with Tehran, and asserting that mishandling these dynamics contributed to instability. Kent discusses the handling of Iranian EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) and argues that Iran shaped many of the tactics, while local Iraqi groups adapted them. He emphasizes that the broader narrative around Iranian responsibility for attacks in Iraq should be tempered by on-the-ground complexities, including Iraqi dynamics and the role of other actors like Lebanese Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. The conversation turns to the question of whether there were Iranian assassination plots against President Trump, with Kent acknowledging a real threat after Soleimani’s killing but emphasizing that the most serious plan was not clearly linked to a large-scale operation; rather, one individual, Asif Mershand, was recruited by Iran and monitored by the FBI. Kent cautions that allegations of broader Iranian plots should be scrutinized, and he notes ongoing questions about linkage and DHS investigations. Throughout, Kent reiterates his core conclusion: the essential policy misstep was allowing Israeli leadership to drive U.S. policy on Iran, and a successful path forward would require restraining Israel and pursuing a negotiated deal with Iran under conditions that preserve American strategic interests, with a clear off-ramp and space for diplomacy. He endorses the notion that President Trump could secure a deal if given the political room to reset the dynamic with Israel and to recalibrate U.S. commitments in the region.

Senior officials at the National Security Council (NSC) were reportedly fired, including Lieutenant General Timothy Hawk, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and commander of CyberCom. These firings were allegedly not due to incompetence or involvement in the Signal Group chat. Instead, a right-wing influencer and conspiracy theorist purportedly advised the president to remove them based on claims from an internet troll who alleged the officials were not sufficiently loyal to the president. The speaker suggests this action betrays national security and indicates a pattern of turning away from allies.

The speaker states that military matters should not be approached politically, but that Mark Milley has become a political animal. The speaker claims they would have fired Milley immediately if they had known he spoke with the Chinese in January 2020, assuring them that the U.S. military was under control. The speaker says Milley never informed them about these conversations. The speaker concludes that Milley, along with someone else, should have left after Afghanistan.