reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

In a discussion with Glenn about rising US-Iran tensions and the prospect of war, Syed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, outlines several key points and scenarios. - He asserts that Iranians are preparing for war, with the armed forces building new capabilities and underground bases, while ordinary Iranians remain calm and continue daily life. He notes large demonstrations on February 11, with up to 4,000,000 in Tehran and 26–34,000,000 nationwide, seen as a show of solidarity against what he calls Western “rioters or terrorists” and against aggressive posturing by Israel. He stresses that Iran government negotiations will be framed around Iranian sovereignty: Iran will not negotiate who its friends are, who its allies are, or give up its rights to a peaceful nuclear program or enrichment, but could consider a nuclear deal. He argues any new deal would not revert to JCPOA terms given Iran’s technological advances and sanctions. He says a deal is unlikely under current conditions, though not impossible, and that even with a deal, it wouldn’t necessarily endure long. Ultimately, Iran is portrayed as preparing for war to deter aggression and preserve sovereignty. - The conversation discusses broader regional security, linking Israeli-Palestinian issues to potential peace. Marandi argues that Zionism has ethnosupremacism and that Western media often whitewashes Israeli actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. He emphasizes that a genuine peace would require recognizing Palestinian humanity and restoring fair treatment, arguing that a one-state solution could be the only viable path given the West’s failure to secure a lasting two-state arrangement. He contends the West has allowed colonization of the West Bank and that only a one-state outcome will resolve the situation, while portraying growing international hostility toward the Netanyahu regime and Zionism, including among young Jews. - On possible US strategies, Marandi rejects the notion of token strikes, arguing that even limited actions would invite broader conflict and potentially false-flag provocations that could be used to escalate toward war. He warns that Iran would respond with full force and could target US bases, naval assets, and regional interests, potentially shutting the Strait of Hormuz or sinking ships, with widespread economic ramifications. He predicts a regional war involving Iran’s allies in Iraq (where PMF played a key role against ISIS) and Yemen, and Hezbollah, suggesting that Arab Gulf regimes hosting US bases would likely collapse quickly in such a conflict. He stresses that Iran’s missile and drone capabilities are heavily focused on the Persian Gulf area and that war would be existential for Iran and its allies, but a dangerous, protracted challenge for the United States. - The potential consequences of US oil and petrochemical disruption are discussed. Marandi notes that Iran could retaliate against Iranian tankers or, conversely, seize Western tankers in response to piracy. He emphasizes Iran’s comparatively lower dependence on oil exports due to sanctions and sanctions-driven diversification, arguing that attacking Iran would backfire economically for the US and its allies. He also highlights that such a war would be regional, not just Iran versus the US, given Iran’s relationships with Iraq, Yemen, and other actors, and that Gulf regimes would be under immediate pressure. - Regarding current US leadership and narrative control, Marandi critiques the inconsistency of Western narratives around regime change, human rights, and democracy, pointing to the Epstein files as revealing a distrustful climate in Western politics. He argues Western media often uniformly pushes a narrative of Iranian repression while ignoring or whitewashing similar or worse actions by Western allies. He suggests that the lack of a cohesive, credible Western narrative signals a shift in geopolitical dynamics and could limit the ability to mobilize public support for aggressive actions against Iran. - They also touch on US-Israeli diplomacy, noting Trump and Netanyahu’s posturing and the Epstein documents’ potential implications. Marandi contends time is not on the side of aggressive policy, given midterm political pressures in the US and growing public skepticism about war, which could undermine leadership like Trump and Netanyahu if conflict escalates. The discussion ends with acknowledgment of the complexity and volatility of the situation, and gratitude for the opportunity to discuss it.

The discussion opens by critiquing mainstream media narratives about Iran, contrasting them with “neocon run” outlets and highlighting one-sided portrayals. Condoleezza Rice is cited as arguing that Iran started the war forty-seven years ago, with the implication that the current actions are a finish. Speaker 1 (a guest) adds that Iran has been at war with the U.S. since 1979, noting the embassy hostage crisis, the killings of Marines in Lebanon, and Iranian-made roadside bombs in Iraq, suggesting longstanding Iranian hostility. Speaker 0 and others reference this framing as propagandistic, while noting Pentagon claims of US air power over Iran. Speaker 2 describes the view of US bombers flying over Tehran and the IRGC, with the assertion that Iran will be unable to respond while US and Israeli air power dominates. Talk then shifts to the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran. Polymarket is cited, giving a 65% probability of US forces on the ground in Iran by December 31. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (spelled Ogracchi in the transcript) says he is waiting for a US ground invasion and claims Iran is prepared, while an NBC anchor appears surprised by the statement. A dialogue follows with a reporter asking an Iranian interviewee whether Iran is ready for a US invasion; the interviewee responds that Iran is ready and willing to confront US ground forces, insisting that Iran’s missiles and upgraded capabilities were demonstrated in prior conflicts. Colonel Douglas MacGregor appears to discuss the likelihood of US boots on the ground. He states zero probability of large-scale ground forces, noting the army’s reduced size since the 1990s and the Marines’ limited numbers. He argues a half-million troops would be needed for a meaningful ground campaign, with sustainment, drones, and missiles making a ground invasion impractical. He describes the challenge of moving forces through Israel, Syria, and into northern Iran, and asserts missiles and unmanned systems would deter such an operation. He also dismisses the idea that special operations could be the exception, noting concerns about extraction and the overall feasibility. Speaker 6 adds that Israel reportedly wants boots on the ground but lacks generals to lead such a mission, framing the move as potentially suicidal. The panel discusses perceived indicators of US military “success,” but MacGregor cautions that such signals—like a White House meeting with aerospace leaders and Israeli mobilizations—do not necessarily indicate a decisive victory. He argues that Iranian missiles and drones have inflicted damage on bases, radars, Patriot and THAAD batteries, and that Israel’s mobility and readiness are strained, with reservists mobilized but not guaranteed to show up. He emphasizes that Iran’s capabilities could prolong the conflict, and notes a broader geopolitical risk, including potential Russian and Chinese involvement. The conversation critiques Washington’s strategic planning, questioning whether the US or its allies had a systematic analysis of the likelihood of success in striking Iran, arguing that assumptions were evidence-free. MacGregor predicts a prolonged conflict, possibly extending for weeks, and warns against a broader regional collapse. He emphasizes that Iran’s strategy may be to endure and avoid a quick tactical defeat, while the US contemplates escalation or potential engagement with carrier groups. Regarding naval operations, there is debate about escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz. The idea of US insurers covering shipping is discussed, with concerns about the risk to US taxpayers and the feasibility of naval escorts near Iran. MacGregor and the others argue that such an approach would be dangerous and unlikely to be pursued by naval leadership, pointing to the risk of being sunk and the logistical challenges of carrier air operations at long distances. Toward the end, the participants reflect on information integrity in wartime, noting that casualties and damage are often under- or mis-reported, and referencing Napoleon’s adage that the first casualty in war is the truth. The final segment promotes MacGregor’s Substack piece, MacGregor Warrior, and MacGregor TV, acknowledging shadow bans and encouraging listeners to seek out his material. The host and guests close with a candid acknowledgment of ongoing uncertainty and the prospect of a drawn-out conflict.

The U.S. appears to be moving toward conflict with Iran, with little opposition from Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham suggests military action against Iran if Hezbollah attacks Israel. Former Colonel Douglas McGregor warns that such actions could escalate into a broader war, involving Russia and destabilizing the Middle East. He highlights the risks to U.S. military bases in the region and the potential for domestic terrorism due to open borders. McGregor emphasizes the inadequacy of U.S. military readiness and the moral dilemmas of collective punishment in Gaza. He calls for careful consideration of the consequences of war, noting that many policymakers may not fully grasp the implications for the U.S. and its allies. Ultimately, he believes that a regional conflict could threaten Israel's existence and worsen the U.S. economic situation.

We're heading toward war with Iran, with few Republicans pushing back. Bombing Iran's oil infrastructure, as Senator Graham suggests, could lead to disaster. About 20% of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz and Iran has missiles that can reach as far as 1,200 miles. If we attack Iran, our bases in Iraq and Syria will be targeted. Hezbollah, with a presence in Mexico, could cause trouble here at home. Our sanctions haven't stopped Iran from developing advanced missiles and cyber warfare capabilities. Our military isn't in a strong position to respond to a war with Iran, and our naval power may not have the impact we desire. The army is depleted and lacks the capacity for rapid deployment. Destroying Hamas means systematically rooting them out and likely causing mass civilian casualties. The support for Israel will erode as more destruction is captured coming out of Gaza.

Lindsey Graham stated he told allies that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, the U.S. and Israel should target Iran by destroying their refineries to put them "out of the oil business." Speaker 0 claims Graham hasn't considered the consequences of war with Iran, and that Graham and many of his colleagues are reckless. Speaker 0 also mentions Dan Crenshaw's call for a "war to end all wars," which speaker 0 dismisses as impossible, stating that wars beget more war and citing World War I as an example.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor discusses the likelihood and dynamics of a potential new war involving Iran, the Middle East, and broader great-power competition. - On a possible Iran strike: MacGregor says there will be a resumption of the war, though he cannot predict timing. He cites Western attempts to destabilize Iran (Mossad, CIA, MI6-backed unrest) and argues Iran is more cohesive now than it was forty years ago, with demonstrations representing a small minority and not a broad collapse of support for the government. He contends that those who want to destroy Iran or empower Israel believe the regime can be toppled with Western support and Israeli action, but he asserts that such a regime change is unlikely and that Iran will respond forcefully if attacked. He notes that current deployments are heavy on airpower with limited naval presence, and he suggests Israel’s broader goals (Gaza, Lebanon, Syria) will not be achievable without addressing Iran. - Regional actors and incentives: Netanyahu’s regional aims require confronting Iran, and Turkish involvement with the Kurds could influence the balance. He describes a recent Kurdish incursion into northern Iran that Iran suppressed, aided by Turkish coordination. He frames BRICS as militarizing in reaction to Western actions, including in Venezuela, Russia, and Ukraine, and says disrupting the Persian Gulf oil flow would harm China, prompting cooperation with Azerbaijan and Turkey against Iran to undermine the One Belt, One Road project. He also argues that BRICS countries—Russia, China, India—will not easily align with U.S. plans if Washington proceeds toward war. - Russian and Chinese calculations: On Russia and China, MacGregor says they have supplied Iran with military tech and missile/radar capabilities and helped counteract efforts to disrupt Iran with Starlink. He believes many Iranians still oppose regime collapse and that a broader war would risk escalation with Russia and China backing Iran. He cites Moscow’s withdrawal of Russian personnel from Israel and the sense in Moscow that Trump is unreliable, leading Russia to hedge against U.S. actions. He notes Russians are concerned about Europe and envision potential conflicts with Europe, while he questions U.S. strategy and end states. - No first-use and nuclear considerations: MacGregor discusses the idea of no-first-use (NNU) as a potential framework to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation, suggesting a multilateral agreement among the major nuclear powers (US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Britain, France). He posits that such an agreement could advance diplomacy, including on Korea, and reduce the likelihood of Armageddon. He mentions that Trump could leverage such a stance, though he notes Trump’s tendency to pursue more aggressive policies in other areas. - Europe and NATO: He argues Europe is unprepared for renewed large-scale conflict and has disarmed substantially over decades. He criticizes Britain and France for rhetoric and capability gaps and suggests the United States is fatigued with European demands, though he doubts Europe could sustain a conflict against Russia. - Venezuela and domestic budget: He emphasizes the futility of long wars in certain contexts (Venezuela) and the mismatch between spending and real capability gains. He references the defense budget as largely consumed by fixed costs like veterans’ medical care and pensions, arguing that simply increasing the budget does not guarantee meaningful strategic gains. He notes the role of special operations as valuable but not decisive in major wars. - Concluding view: MacGregor reiterates that war in the region is likely, with many overlapping alarms and uncertainties about timing, leadership decisions, and the risk of escalation. He stresses that both Russia and China have stakes in the outcome and that the Middle East conflict could influence global alignments and deterrence dynamics. He closes by underscoring the potential importance of no-first-use diplomacy and broader nuclear risk reduction as a path forward.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor and Glenn discuss the unfolding Iran war three days in, arguing that the conflict has become a regional war with global economic and strategic reverberations. Key points and allegations: - Iran has targeted at least 27 bases and port facilities across the region, from Kirlik Airbase to Dubai, effectively regionalizing the war. Oil markets anticipate disruption; Europe’s open price rose about 20% on expectations of supply cuts, with a potential rise above $100 per barrel. - In the Gulf, inexpensive drones have breached what appear to be expensive air and missile defenses, affecting airstrips and airports. A large expatriate workforce in the UAE (about 4.6 million Indians and many Europeans and Americans) is stranded, highlighting economic disruption. Oil infrastructure damage is just beginning, with some Saudi refineries struck; more damage anticipated. - The war’s consequences extend beyond Iran and Israel, potentially affecting India, Northeast Asia, Turkey, and Europe. The conflict did not begin with a joint US-Israeli attack; it began with an Israeli attack, with Rubio (Secretary of State-like comment) indicating that Israel started it, which the US later joined due to perceived insufficient posture. - Reports indicate three F-15s were downed; casualties include American sailors and Marines, though the exact numbers are unclear. - The rhetoric from Secretary Hagel (likely Hagerty) and Trump about Iran as a state sponsor tied to Israel is criticized as incautious. MacGregor argues the focus should be on Pakistan and Syria (where remnants of ISIS/Al Qaeda reside), noting Pakistan’s long-standing role as an incubator of radical Islam. He views the war as primarily about Israel’s aim to destroy Iran to enable greater Israeli regional hegemony, with the US fully committed. - He predicts a long regional war and warns that logistics will be decisive: missiles are finite, and the US may exhaust its stock; many missiles used in Ukraine reduce available stock for Iran-related defense. He notes Hypersonic missiles and decoys complicate defense capabilities. - European involvement is uncertain; Britain’s rapid response is unclear, and the broader European willingness to intervene remains doubtful. China and Russia are viewed as potentially pivotal if they decide to intervene; India is suggested as a potential mediator, given cultural ties and BRICS interests. - The US’s strategic credibility and military power are questioned. MacGregor contends the US has shown unreliability, damaging its legitimacy and triggering broader regional and global realignments. He emphasizes that the world is moving toward a new order, with the end of Sykes-Picot-era maps and shifting alliances; Gulf monarchies may seek US withdrawal. - Iran’s resilience is stressed: even if the supreme leader was killed, unity of command remains, and Iran’s dispersed military network complicates US efforts. Iran’s survival could enhance its regional influence; the longer the conflict lasts, the weaker the US and Israel appear, and the stronger Iran, Turkey, and others may become. - The possibility of an escalation to nuclear warfare is raised: if Israel uses a tactical nuclear weapon to stop Iran’s missiles, Russia and China might intervene; this could force a broader confrontation. MacGregor doubts Israel’s ability to sustain a large front and warns this could lead to a strategic pivot by major powers. - On outcomes and endgames: Iran seeks US withdrawal from the region; the US’s presence is likely to be forced out as Gulf states demand it. The interview suggests a collapse of US influence and a reshaping of the Middle East, with Persia re-emerging stronger. Israel’s survival is uncertain; extended fronts and exhaustion are anticipated. - Trump’s role is described as constrained by Netanyahu: Trump is not a free agent, and there is little expectation of near-term strategic change in Washington. The potential for a negotiated end is deemed unlikely so long as Iran remains intact and steadfast. Overall, the conversation frames the conflict as a turning point: a regional war with profound economic and geopolitical ripple effects, signaling the decline of US military hegemony in the Middle East and the possible reconfiguration of global power blocs, with Iran poised to gain relative strength if the conflict persists.

The speaker argues that pushing for war with Iran is a dangerous delusion. They claim: “That’s all you gotta do is just push a button, give an order, and bam. Iran will be blown up.” They challenge the audience to understand how combat power works and to see that many war advocates are “singing from the same sheet of music.” The speaker names several individuals as examples of this chorus: Rebecca Hendrix, Victoria Coates, Rebecca Grant, Mike Pompeo, General Jack Keane, and Senator Lindsey Graham, indicating that all of these figures promote a similar line of thinking about provoking a war with Iran. The central claim is that these hawkish voices believe one can “do this massive armada” and that Iran cannot respond effectively. The speaker insists that such views are incorrect, stating that Iran can and would “make life incredibly difficult and kill many Israelis.” They note the explicit claims by Iran that they would attack and kill targets and people in Israel, and attack Americans and kill Americans through bases throughout the region. The speaker emphasizes that if the advocacy for war succeeds in provoking Iran, “you’re gonna get a lot of Israelis killed and a lot of Americans killed.” The speaker also acknowledges uncertainty about Iran’s precise calculations, noting that Iran’s claims about what they would do may be posturing or may reflect a real intent to respond, but that the speaker cannot predict which. They argue that Iran may choose not to act if it believes retaliation would be excessive or counterproductive, but if Iran does move as it has said it would, the consequences would be severe for Israelis and Americans. In summary, the speaker condemns the assumption that a war with Iran can be conducted unilaterally or without severe retaliatory consequences, warning that the consequences could include significant loss of life among Israelis and Americans if Iran follows through on its stated intentions. The dialogue frames the issue as a critique of a pervasive pro-war chorus and underscores the potential human cost of such policy.

The transcript centers on a loud, multi-voiced discussion about the prospect of war with Iran, U.S. policy dynamics, and the influence of allied actors—especially Israel—on Washington’s decisions. - The opening segment features sharp, provocative claims about President Trump’s stance toward Iran. One speaker asserts that Trump gave Iran seven days to comply or “we will unleash hell on that country,” including strikes on desalinization plants and energy infrastructure. This is framed as part of a broader, catastrophic escalation in Iran under heavy pressure on Trump to commit U.S. forces to Israel’s war. - Joe Kent, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned from the administration, presents the central prognosis. He warns that Trump will face immense pressure to commit ground troops in Iran, calling such a move a “catastrophic escalation” that would increase bloodshed. Kent urges the public to contact the White House and members of Congress to oppose boots on the ground in Iran, advocating for peaceful resolution and public pressure for peace. - The discussion shifts to Israeli involvement. The panel notes that Israeli media report Israel will not commit ground troops if the U.S. invades Iran, and some assert Israel has never, in any conflict, committed troops to support the U.S. The conversation questions this claim, noting counterpoints from analyst Brandon Weichert that Israel has undermined American forces in certain areas. - The debate then returns to Trump’s diplomacy and strategy. The host asks whether Trump’s stated approach toward Iran—potentially including a peace plan—is credible or “fake news.” Kent responds that Iran will not take diplomacy seriously unless U.S. actions demonstrate credibility, such as restraining Israel. He suggests that a more restrained Israeli posture would signal to Iran that the U.S. is serious about negotiations. - The program examines whether the MAGA movement has shifted on the issue. There is testimony that figures like Mark Levin have advocated for some form of ground action, though Levin reportedly denies calls for large-scale deployment. Kent explains that while he believes certain special operations capabilities exist—units trained to seize enriched uranium—the broader question is whether boots on the ground are necessary or wise. He emphasizes that a successful, limited operation could paradoxically encourage further action by Israel if it appears easy, potentially dragging the U.S. deeper into conflict. - A recurring theme is the perceived dominance of the Israeli lobby over U.S. foreign policy. Several participants contend that Israeli influence drives the war timeline, with Israeli action sometimes undermining U.S. diplomacy. They argue that despite public differences, the United States has not meaningfully restrained Israel, and that Israeli strategic goals could be pushing Washington toward conflict. - The conversation also covers domestic political dynamics and civil liberties. Kent argues that the intelligence community’s influence—infused with foreign policy aims—risks eroding civil liberties, including discussions around domestic terrorism and surveillance. The group notes pushback within the administration and among some members of the intelligence community about surveillance proposals tied to Palantir and broader counterterrorism practices. - Kent addresses questions about the internal decision-making process that led to the Iran policy shift, denying he was offered a central role in any pre-crime or AI-driven surveillance agenda. He acknowledges pushback within the administration against aggressive domestic surveillance measures while noting that the debate over civil liberties remains contentious. - The program touches on broader conspiracy-like theories and questions about whether individuals such as Kent are “controlled opposition” or pawns in a larger plan involving tech elites like Peter Thiel and Palantir. Kent insists his campaign funding was modest and transparent, and he stresses the need for accountability and oversight to prevent misuse of powerful tools. - In closing, the speakers converge on a common refrain: no U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. They stress that the priority should be preventing another ground war, avoiding American casualties, and pressing for diplomacy rather than expansion of hostilities. The show highlights public involvement—urging viewers to contact representatives, stay vigilant about foreign influence, and oppose a march toward war. - Across the exchange, the underlying tension is clear: competing visions of American sovereignty, the balance between counterterrorism and civil liberties, and the extent to which foreign actors (notably Israel) shape U.S. policy toward Iran. The participants repeatedly return to the need for accountability, restraint, and a peaceful path forward, even as they recognize the high stakes and the intense political pressure surrounding any potential intervention.

The U.S. appears to be moving toward war with Iran, with little opposition from Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham suggests military action against Iran if Hezbollah attacks Israel. Former Colonel Douglas McGregor warns that such actions could lead to significant consequences, including economic turmoil and military retaliation from Iran, potentially drawing in Russia and Turkey. He emphasizes that sanctions have not weakened Iran's military capabilities, which remain advanced. McGregor expresses concern about the U.S. military's readiness and the potential for domestic terrorism due to open borders. He cautions against the moral implications of collective punishment in Gaza and suggests that the situation could escalate into a regional conflict, urging for careful consideration of the long-term effects of U.S. actions.

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.

The US may be heading to war with Iran, with Republicans encouraging it. Senator Graham suggests bombing Iranian oil refineries if Hezbollah attacks Israel. Douglas MacGregor believes the chosen destination is Armageddon, with little appreciation for the implications. He notes 20% of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz, and Iran has missiles capable of hitting targets 1,200 miles away. MacGregor warns that US bases in Iraq and Syria would be targeted, and Hezbollah could cause trouble within the US. He claims that if the US attacks Iran based on Hezbollah's actions, it risks conflict with Russia and potentially Turkey. Sanctions haven't stopped Iran from developing advanced missiles and cyber warfare capabilities. MacGregor argues the US military is weak and unprepared for war with Iran. He believes destroying Hamas would mean annihilating Gaza, a form of collective punishment. He also raises concerns about terrorism in the US due to open borders and the presence of Hezbollah. MacGregor suggests the conflict could harm the US economy, lead to terror attacks, and that the US has cast moral turpitude to the side. He notes some leaders may be thinking clearly about the situation, but their voices aren't being heard.

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.

The discussion centers on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and the possibility of a U.S.-led or Israel-led military confrontation, with a mix of arguments about intelligence, strategy, and public appetite for war. - Recurrent warnings about Iran: The hosts note that for decades the U.S. government has warned Iran is on the brink of reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. They reference claims of “fresh intelligence” and “new evidence” of a renewed program, contrasting them with past warnings during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The tone suggests these claim cycles reappear with each new administration or set of negotiations. - Netanyahu and Iran timing: A compilation is shown of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stating over two decades that Iran has a nuclear program that could be imminent. One clip claims Iran could produce a weapon in a short time, with phrases like “weeks away,” “three to five years,” and even apocalyptic projections. The conversation then questions whether those warnings have come to fruition and whether media and public commentary have overstated the immediacy or impact of those claims. - Stuxnet and sanctions context: The moderator recalls that during the Bush era the U.S. launched Stuxnet against Iran’s centrifuges, and argues that Obama continued those efforts with sanctions; they portray sanctions as bipartisan pressure intended to justify claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A guest mentions “demonic officials” and cites a book to underscore a harsh view of the two-term sanction era. - Diplomatic vs. military options: The panel describes the Biden administration sending negotiators to address the nuclear issue, while noting that “other options” exist. They discuss the tension between diplomacy and potential coercive measures, including the possibility of coalition or unilateral strikes. - Military balance and potential outcomes (Colonel Douglas MacGregor’s view): The guest emphasizes the complexity and risk of fighting Iran. He argues: - Iran is capable and not a “backward desert” opponent, with an arsenal including roughly 2,000 ballistic missiles and significant, varied air defenses. - Iranian forces could target U.S. bases and Israel, potentially inflicting substantial losses, though the duration and scale of any campaign are uncertain. - The aim would be to “disintegrate the state” and induce chaos rather than secure swift compliance; the scenario could produce high casualties among both sides, potentially thousands for Iran and substantial American losses, depending on scale and duration. - The long-term goal, he says, is to “make the region safe for Israel” and establish Israeli hegemony, noting the defensiveness and regional power dynamics in play, including rising concerns about Turkey as a threat. - Intelligence reliability and sources: A CIA veteran (John Kiriakou) challenges the immediacy and reliability of intelligence asserting that Iran reconstituted a nuclear program. He contends: - The Israelis and the U.S. have historically provided intelligence that may be biased toward aggressive action. - The CIA has produced intelligence estimates stating Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program; he questions whether boots-on-the-ground intelligence would confirm otherwise. - He emphasizes the risk that media outlets amplify “existential threat” narratives rooted in political calculations rather than verified evidence. - The domestic political-media dynamic: The discussion highlights perceived incentives for hawkish messaging from certain U.S. and Israeli actors, including prominent commentators who push the threat narrative. One commentator argues that the push for war serves particular political or financial interests, suggesting that public opinion in the U.S. is not aligned with an immediate military conflict. - Regional and alliance implications: The panel debates how a U.S.-led or Israeli-led strike would affect alliances, regional stability, and the global economy. They highlight: - The possibility that Iran could retaliate with volumes of missiles and unmanned systems, inflicting damage on Israel and regional targets. - The risk that a prolonged conflict could undermine NATO cohesion and Western diplomatic credibility in the Middle East and beyond. - Concerns about the effect on energy routes, particularly the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and broader economic ramifications. - Operational and logistical strains: They discuss the practical challenges of sustained conflict, including: - Navy and air defenses, the need for replenishment of carrier groups, and the strain on logistics and maintenance after extended deployments. - The impact of political missteps and controversial statements (such as comments linked to public pro-war stances) on alliances and military readiness. - Speculation on timing and signals: The guests speculate about when or whether a conflict might occur, noting that political leaders may face pressure “between now and March” or around certain holidays, while acknowledging uncertainty and the potential for last-minute changes. - Ending note: The conversation closes with a recognition that the set of actors—intelligence, defense officials, media, and political leaders—are collectively influencing public perception and policy directions. The speakers emphasize contrasting views on Iran’s threat, the legitimacy and consequences of potential war, and the stakes for the United States, Israel, and global stability.

The conversation centers on Iran, potential U.S. action, and the wider strategic spillovers across the Middle East and beyond. The speakers discuss what prompted a delay in striking Iran, the likelihood of a broader attack, and how regional and great-power dynamics might unfold. - On why a strike against Iran was postponed, the consensus from the guest is that Netanyahu asked for more time to prepare for defending against Iranian missiles and to enable a larger attack footprint. The guest also cites public statements by U.S. figures supporting a bigger operation: Lindsey Graham emphatically said last Friday that the delay was so we can go bigger; General Jack Keane stated that military operations would target political and military leaders and destroy their military infrastructure to take the regime out. The guest emphasizes that the most likely scenario is an expanded target set and greater combat power in the region to defend bases and improve the attack’s effectiveness, rather than a symbolic strike. - Regarding whether Russia or China would become involved, the guest doubts active involvement by either country, but suggests indirect support or intelligence help could occur. The logic is that direct involvement would be costly for these powers, though they might assist Iran indirectly. - On the readiness and capability of Iran, the guest argues Iran is now far more prepared than in the twelve-day war. They note that insiders were purged after the prior conflict, defenses were strengthened, and missile production likely accelerated since June, with production areas shielded from prior attacks. Iran’s ability to respond quickly and with significant damage is viewed as higher, and the guest warns that if Iran experiences an existential threat, it could abandon restraint and retaliate in a way that makes a broader war more likely. - The discussion covers U.S. bases in the region, where the guest concedes that the U.S. air defense is not at the level of Israel’s Iron Dome and David Sling, THAAD, and other integrated systems. Some bases lack robust defense against ballistic missiles, drones, and other threats, and, while 30,000 U.S. troops remain in the area, the overall air-defense capability is described as insufficient to stop all Iranian missiles. - Would Iran strike Gulf nations directly to pressure them to push the U.S. to end the war? The guest says not likely, arguing that Iranian leadership has signaled a preference for good relations with Gulf states and that attacking Gulf bases or cities would create more enemies and complicate Iran’s strategic posture. - A decapitation strike targeting leadership is considered plausible by some but deemed risky. The guest notes Iran has continuity of government plans and could designate successors; even if leadership is removed, a power vacuum could ignite internal fighting. The possibility of an existential attack by Iran—coupled with a broader regional war—could be catastrophic and is something to avoid. - The discussion turns to Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and the broader spillover risk. The guest suggests that if Iran’s retaliation is strong and Hamas or Hezbollah see an opportunity, there could be escalations, including potential involvement by Turkey. However, Iran would likely avoid opening new fronts that would diffuse its capability to strike U.S. bases in the region. - The problem of Iran’s internal diversity is highlighted: Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Lurs, Arabs, Baluchs, and Turkmen, among others, complicate any post-regime-change scenario. The guest argues Iran could fragment, but emphasizes that a successful Western-backed regime change could still lead to civil strife rather than a stable replacement, warning of a “textbook failed regime change” akin to past Middle East interventions. - On NATO and Western unity, the guest asserts NATO is dead or in deep trouble, citing European leaders who doubt U.S. stability and reliability. He notes European politicians discuss building an autonomous European security architecture, implying growing European reluctance to rely on U.S. leadership for defense. - Greenland as a strategic issue: the guest argues there is no rational military need for Greenland for security, and that the notion of occupying or militarizing Greenland is driven more by Trump’s personal preferences than strategic necessity. He points out that even if Greenland were militarized, Russia and China would have little to gain, given logistical and strategic barriers. - Finally, the future trajectory: the guest predicts Iran will likely be pressed hard in a large strike but warns that the consequences could be severe, including regional destabilization, potential civil conflict inside Iran, and long-term strategic costs for the U.S. and its European partners. He suggests that as long as the U.S. overextends itself in multiple theaters (Iran, Greenland, Ukraine, Venezuela), global stability and the U.S. economic footing could be endangered. The guest closes by highlighting the uncertainty of Trump’s next moves, citing possible abrupt shifts and cognitive concerns that could influence decisions in unpredictable ways.

Scott Ritter argues that indicators suggest a major US military action against Iran is being prepared, with US naval forces and air power in the region and discussions of precision strikes against Iranian officials. He assessment that the move toward war seems likely, noting Iran’s capabilities to retaliate in multiple devastating ways: Iran can terminate regional energy production at will and inflict horrific harm on American bases, potentially killing hundreds or thousands of American service members; Iran could also deliver near-lethal damage to Israel. He warns that the US could suffer losses of ships, including an aircraft carrier. Israel reportedly has told the US it is prepared to absorb up to 700 Iranian ballistic missiles if the US ensures removal of the Iranian regime from power. Ritter contends the US lacks the means to remove Iran’s military and civilian leadership from power, especially after telegraphing a strike. He recalls the 2006 or 2008-style dynamic where Iran would respond forcefully if attacked, including a possible knockout strike against Israel with long-term consequences for regional energy security and the global economy. He discusses Iran’s preparedness, including underground command posts and buried enrichment capabilities (citing Ferdow as an example) and the likelihood that Iran has continuity plans that would withstand decapitation attempts. He asserts Iran would respond by disrupting energy and possibly Hormuz, with a broad, existential resilience against disruption. On the objective of potential operations, Ritter believes the aim would be to destroy Iran’s national-level command and control, suppress regional security institutions, and enable uprisings in various regions (Balochistan, Arab regions, Azeris, MEK-supported factions). He notes the CIA-backed groups and a possible attempt to resurrect a monarchy, suggesting Trump may have been influenced by expatriate anti-regime voices. He says Iran is prepared for such moves, including networks in Northern Iraq, Kurdish forces, and other regional proxies, and anticipates a surge of paramilitary activity, assassination campaigns, and widespread sabotage to create chaos and fracture the country. Ritter asserts that Russia and China would resist a US-Israeli strike against Iran. Russia has strategic ties with Iran and could push for Iranian retaliation against US assets, including the possibility of shooting down US B-2 bombers to humiliate American military superiority. He argues that Moscow and Beijing would support Iran to blunt US actions, including potential disruptions of US naval power or shipping. Regarding a possible off-ramp, Ritter suggests that an off-ramp would require the US to claim it forced concessions and to double down on sanctions, avoiding another large-scale strike. He cites that a “deal” from Trump would resemble a gangland arrangement rather than a treaty, warning that Iran should seek a comprehensive treaty based on international law rather than a high-pressure bargain. He contends Iran should avoid preemptive strikes that might invite nuclear retaliation, though he believes Iran could justify self-defense under UN Article 51 if threatened imminently. In closing, Ritter states that the situation is dangerous, with surveillance and reconnaissance ongoing, and notes that while war seems likely, an off-ramp could still be presented through sanctions and political messaging rather than immediate military action. He acknowledges the tension and pressures on both sides, and offers a cautious, war-weary perspective.

Speaker 0 begins by noting a new escalation in the war: after the president's Easter-weekend speech, the United States struck a massive bridge in Tehran, described as part of Tehran’s pride because it would cut about an hour from Iranians’ commutes. Trump posts, “the biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again,” and says, “Make a deal before it’s too late.” He warns that nothing is left of what could still become a great country. Speaker 1 responds with skepticism about the administration, mocking the idea of “the Nord Stream pipeline” being blown up as a lie by the prior administration. Speaker 0 notes that Trump boasted about the bridge strike on Truth Social and questions the strategic value of targeting civilian infrastructure, comparing it to striking the Golden Gate Bridge and asking whether that would be labeled a war crime. Iranian retaliation follows: a strike at the center of Tehran (clarified as Tel Aviv in error in the transcript) with a ballistic missile, causing a neighborhood to burn, as shown on Fox News and circulating on social media. Reports also emerge that an Amazon data center was struck in Bahrain, Oracle in the UAE, and that Iran had claimed it would strike Microsoft, Google, Amazon and other large American companies. The United States is not protecting them. Speaker 2 engages Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive with Dan Davis, to assess the latest moves alongside the president’s speech. Speaker 2 argues that the president’s remarks about “bomb you back into the stone age” indicate punishing the civilian population, not just military targets, which could unite Iranians against the United States and Israel. The bridge strike appears to align with that stance, making a regional outcome that contradicts any stated aims. He calls it nearly a war crime, since civilian infrastructure has no military utility in this context. He suggests the action undermines any potential peace path and could prompt stronger resistance within Iran. He warns that, politically, Trump could face war-crimes scrutiny, especially under a Democratic-controlled House, and that it damages the United States’ reputation by appearing to disregard the rule of law and morality. Speaker 1 asks whether such tactics are ever effective, noting a lack of evidence that inflicting civilian suffering yields political concession. Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 reference historical examples (Nazis, British during the Battle of Britain, Hiroshima-era considerations) to suggest such tactics have not succeeded in breaking civilian resolve, arguing this approach would harden Iranian resistance. Speaker 2 cites broader historical or regional patterns: torture or collective punishment has failed against Germans, Japanese, Palestinians in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. He contends the appeal of using such power is seductive but dangerous, likening it to “war porn.” He notes that the number of Iranian fatalities floated by Trump has fluctuated (3,000, 10,000, 30,000, then 45,000), describing them as not credible, yet the administration seems unconcerned with accuracy. Speaker 3 adds that the rhetoric justifies escalating violence with humanitarian consequences, including potential energy-system disruption. Speaker 0 asks about the discrepancy between Trump’s claim of decimating Iran and subsequent attacks on multiple targets in the Gulf and the firepower Iran still holds, including underground facilities and missile capabilities. Speaker 2 explains that Iran can absorb punishment and still strike back, suggesting that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be opened by force and that escalation could involve considerations of a larger false-flag scenario. He mentions a warning about a potential nine-eleven-level attack and potential media complicity, implying fears of a false-flag operation blamed on Iran. Speaker 0 notes the possibility of Israeli involvement undermining negotiations and cites JD Vance’s planned meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, noting Kharazi’s injury and his wife’s death, implying an assassination attempt. Speaker 2 critiques U.S. reliance on allies, arguing that Israel’s actions threaten U.S. interests and that the White House should constrain Israel. He asserts there is no military solution to the conflict, warns of long-term costs to the United States and its European and Asian relations, and predicts economic consequences if the conflict continues. Speaker 1 remarks that Iranian leaders’ letter to the American people shows civilian intent not to surrender, while Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 emphasize the risk of ongoing conflict, with Colonel Davis concluding that there is no feasible open-strand resolution. The discussion ends with thanks to Colonel Davis for his analysis.

- 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.