reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The conversation centers on a reported peace framework and the idea that Iran is “giving up all of their chips” and cards. The speaker says many people seem to believe the rumor that a peace deal is in play, and reacts by calling themselves an optimist while insisting the approach must be “realistic.” The speaker argues that any peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and that the key requirement is taking steps to restrain Israel. They say that, if the U.S. looks at the Israelis “with clear eyes,” it could achieve a deal with Iran that does not include everything the U.S. wants—for example, the speaker says Iran will not “hill(s) in the deal about zero enrichment” and will not “hand us over all your enrichment.” The speaker’s main goal is ending the fighting, which they say is “definitely possible.” However, the speaker expresses skepticism that the U.S. has taken the first “hard step” of telling Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” They describe the war as “existential for the Israelis,” and argue the situation cannot assume Israel will not face conditions that could lead to continued attacks or another “terrorist attack.” The speaker says the U.S. cannot “take that off the table” or “rule it out,” and cannot allow others to dismiss considerations as “a conspiracy theory.” The speaker further claims the U.S. has had institutional difficulty being skeptical and “not trusting” regarding Israel, saying Israel “lied us, lied to us to get us into this war.” They argue the U.S. needs to “turn Matter” (stating “as a matter of fact”) and apply more verification, especially because Israel is described as an ally that has misled the U.S. Finally, the speaker says if Israelis believed the U.S. would extricate itself from the conflict, “there would be an element within Israel” seeking actions to prompt Americans to recommit to the conflict, reinforcing the need for not taking anything off the table and emphasizing verification.

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 conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war. Key points and claims retained as stated: - Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war. - On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region. - Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability. - Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon. - Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited). - Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced. - Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.

Professor Syed Mohammed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, discussed the aftermath of Donald Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping in Beijing, arguing that the trip and US requests to pressure Iran achieved nothing. He said Trump and his team were “detached from reality,” pointing to Trump having “expelled so many” Iran, Chinese, and Russian experts from national security structures, and claiming they entered negotiations “blinded.” Marandi referenced monitoring Iranian and Chinese signals during the Iranian foreign minister’s trip to China, suggesting US efforts should have been understood in advance as unlikely to produce results. Marandi predicted that after returning to the United States, the Trump regime would move toward renewed violence against Iran. He said the United States lacked the political will to implement a ceasefire, end the siege on Iranian ports, and bring about ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza so ships associated with five countries could pass through the Strait of Hormuz. He attributed the absence of political will to the “Zionist lobby” and the Israeli regime, stating they would not accept a ceasefire or end hostilities due to Netanyahu’s personal agenda, elections ahead, his court case, and coalition partners. He also claimed war could be “quite soon,” involving Iran’s readiness for “a very, heavy assault” by Netanyahu and Trump regimes, and the mobilization of remnants of January armed insurrection fighters, Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq (about 5,000), and “Taqfiri, the Wahhabi Salafi” groups along the Pakistan border in “no man’s land” regions of Pakistan. He said Iran is preparing for this scenario and that Iranian armed forces are on “full alert.” Responding to media reporting that diplomacy has failed and Iran has rebuilt most missile bases, Marandi stated Iran’s response would be “very harsh,” “more decisive than even the thirty nine day war,” describing an environment he said is hostile for an American assault due to “hot season” conditions in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula. He argued that if the United States strikes Iran’s critical infrastructure, Iran would destroy the critical infrastructure of countries he listed as involved in the war against Iran: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and “all of these” that participate. He asserted that the most harmed would be the Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, and claimed that if electricity and water supplies were struck, populations would have to empty or evacuate. He connected this to a likely deep, long-lasting economic depression. Marandi said Iran would not initiate retaliatory escalations only once, asserting that when Israel struck Iran’s South Pars gas field, Iran responded by heavily hitting Qatar’s and Emirati oil and gas installations. He further stated Trump posted dismissive claims during the war, and that Iran’s retaliation “won’t be pulling any punches.” On diplomacy, Marandi said the United States’ proposal depends on the American side, asserting that the ceasefire was a US defeat and that Iran would not change its stance. He said the US was under the illusion it could pressure Iran into accepting a watered-down version of US demands, and he argued the US and world were not “winning” siege warfare. He emphasized a route for the United States to accept agreed ceasefire conditions the US “failed to fulfill,” arguing that otherwise slaughter in Lebanon and Gaza and the inability of ships to pass would continue. Marandi said the decision for war is “not Trump’s” but “Netanyahu’s,” and said the Zionist lobby and Israeli regime control it. He described an Iranian goal as applying pressure so Washington’s political elites would conclude they must impose peace by telling Israel to “sit this one out,” claiming this had not yet happened. He also cited Tucker Carlson’s account of his discussion with Trump and Joe Kent’s resignation and interviews as supporting the idea of decision-making power behind continued war. When asked how fighting would differ, Marandi said Iran’s handling of proxies on the Pakistan border (Wahhabi and Salafi groups) would be “dealt with rather easily,” while Kurdish and accompanying terrorists would be more complicated due to their larger numbers. He claimed the Iraqi resistance would escalate “all out,” that Yemen is prepared for war, and that the Red Sea would be shut down, ending oil and other exports through the Red Sea. He said Israel would be “hammered very hard” and that the war would be more intense and quick to unfold. Regarding allies and outsourcing war-fighting, he said the Gulf states’ capacity to fight Iran was limited, describing the Emirates as lacking effective fighting forces and emphasizing that he expected Arab streets to respond differently than regime media during the prior war. On China and Russia, Marandi said Iran’s relations with China and Russia are “very good,” pointing to the Iranian foreign minister’s meetings with President Putin and in Beijing. He asserted that ultimately Iran “won the war based on its own capabilities,” while friends assisted. He claimed Iran’s missile and drone capabilities are more powerful now and that Iran has prepared underground missile and drone bases for decades, as well as plans for ground invasion readiness. He argued the US would be “foolish” to conduct a ground assault and said Iran would likely allow incursions and island-taking, then ambush and counterattack to wear forces out over months. He referenced communications during the earlier war, stating Iranians initially did not respond to messages to prolong fighting, and that after days they allowed communications and forced acceptance of an Iranian framework. He said Iran wants the war to last as long as possible now to deter future aggression. In reassessment of Iranian influence narratives, Marandi referenced Leon Panetta stating Iran holds a gun to the head of the United States, and Robert Kagan writing “checkmate” in The Atlantic, claiming “reality eventually catches up.” He said Robert Kagan was “on the payroll” and maintained that war would end poorly for Trump, the Israeli regime, and Zionism, while predicting a global economic depression if critical infrastructure is struck. He closed by repeating that Iran would fight decisively and not back down until the conflict ends.

Mario: Daniel, after decades of diplomacy, the Middle East is now at war. Early on you suggested Hormuz and economic leverage; as the conflict evolved, US ground invasion talk, targeted Iranian leadership, and new developments—like JD Vance’s reaction to US intel and Israel striking energy infrastructure in Iran—have shaped concerns that Israel wields outsized influence. Broad question: how did we get here and why? Daniel: There’s a long history of American and Israeli influence in play. There is American agency and a geopolitical logic tying chokepoints like Hormuz to broader aims, such as reasserting US primacy vis-à-vis China. But this doesn’t fully explain how the last 10 yards into war were crossed. Netanyahu’s long effort to shape a strategic environment culminated when he found a president open to using American power in the region. Israel’s strategy appears to be to assert greater regional dominion by leveraging US military power and creating dependencies with Gulf states. Netanyahu reportedly offered the president an actionable plan, including on-the-ground assets, to decapitate Iran’s leadership and spark a broader upheaval, which helped push the White House toward a twelve-day war in June. Israel also presented a narrative of rapid US escalation to secure its aims, while the American interagency process—though deteriorated in recent years—had to interpret unusually aggressive, yet selective, Israeli intelligence and objectives. The result is a complex dynamic where US rhetoric and decisions are deeply entangled with Israeli designs for regional hegemony, an outcome that was not broadly anticipated by many regional partners. Mario: If the US administration had not fully understood Israel’s project, how did this come to pass? And how does Mossad factor in? Daniel: Israel has tremendous access to influence over an American administration through lobbying, media echo chambers, and political finance, which Netanyahu exploited to drive a course toward major confrontation with Iran. Before Trump’s term, Netanyahu was nervous about a president who could pivot against allies; he devised a strategy that culminated in Operation Midnight Hammer and subsequent US-Israeli collaboration, reinforced by the possibility of rapid decapitation of Iran’s leadership. There are reports (and debates) about Mossad presenting on-the-ground assets and the possibility of instigating a street revolution in Iran, which may not have been fully believed by Washington but was persuasive enough to shape policy. The question remains how much of Israeli intelligence makes it to Trump and his inner circle, especially given concerns about cognitive ability and decision-making in the White House at that time. Netanyahu’s aim, according to Daniel, was not simply to topple Iran but to maximize Israel’s regional leverage by using American power while reducing other regional peers’ influence. Mario: What about Gulf states and broader regional realignments? How did the Gulf respond, and what does this mean for their security calculus? Daniel: The Gulf states face a stark dilemma. They fear Iran's retaliatory capabilities but also distrust America’s consistency and question whether US support will be cost-effective. Iran’s strikes into the Gulf have forced Gulf capitals to reassess their reliance on US protection and Israel’s influence, particularly given Israel’s aggressive posture and expanded regional footprint—Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza—with potential implications for the Gulf’s own security and economic interests. Some Gulf actors worry about over-dependence on American security assurances while Israel intensifies operational reach. The GCC’s calculus is shifting: they confront a choice between continuing alignment with the US-Israel bloc or seeking more independent security arrangements. The possibility of a broader Gulf-Israel axis, or at least closer coordination, is tempered by concerns over long-term regional stability, public opinion, and the risk of escalation. Mario: How has this affected perceptions of Iran, Israel, and the broader regional order? Has the Gulf’s stance shifted? Daniel: The region’s balance has been unsettled. Iran’s actions have damaged Gulf trust in its neighbors’ security guarantees, while Israel’s aggressive posture and reliance on US power have complicated Gulf states’ calculations. Turkey’s role is pivotal as it balances concerns about Iran and Israel, while also watching how the region realigns. The possibility of a future where Iran’s power is weakened is weighed against the risk of destabilization and long-term security costs. Negotiations between the US, Iran, and regional actors—stoked by Turkish diplomacy and shifting Gulf positions—are ongoing, with Turkey signaling that diplomacy remains important, even as Gulf states reassess their security dependencies. Mario: What about Lebanon and Hezbollah, and the potential for broader spillover? Daniel: Lebanon faces severe consequences: displacement, civilian harm, and a domestic political paralysis that complicates relations with Israel. Hezbollah remains a factor, with ongoing tensions in Lebanon and the South. Israel’s goal of establishing security-control in Lebanon risks reigniting long-standing conflicts, while Lebanon’s government seeks a balance that could prevent further escalation, if possible. The broader picture is that Israel’s approach—driven by a perceived need to neutralize Iran and all potential threats—could provoke wider regional blowback, complicating already fragile domestic politics across the Levant. Mario: Final thoughts as the war unfolds? Daniel: Israel’s strategic ambitions appear to extend beyond countering Iran to shaping a broader order in which it remains the dominant regional power, aided by US military leverage. Gulf states face a difficult reorientation, reassessing longstanding alliances in light of perceptions of US reliability. The coming months will reveal whether regional actors can recalibrate toward diplomatic resolutions or wind up in a deeper, more protracted conflict. The question remains whether a political path could replace military escalation, and whether external powers can deter further aggression and stabilize the region without allowing a broader conflagration.

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 begins with discussion of a sudden shift in US/Iran-Israel rhetoric and a development reported as Iran suspending its delegation trip to Switzerland for the opening round of nuclear negotiations. The initial source cited is Al Mayadeen. Iran’s stated reason is ongoing Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon. Iran argues that Israel operating more than six miles inside Lebanese territory violates Article 1 of the MOU, which calls for an immediate end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, and therefore Iran says there is “nothing to go to Geneva for” if the ceasefire clause is being breached before negotiations begin. The transcript also notes that Donald Trump posted a call for a complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel. The discussion then shifts to the “wild card” described as Israel and whether Trump can reign in Netanyahu. Colonel argues that Israeli leadership and US supporters were instrumental in putting Trump into the White House and that they are turning current events into a “test of Jewish power,” aiming to bully Trump back into attacking Iran. He claims this is where events are headed. He also references a CNN report that Netanyahu is reportedly lobbying to shape the final US-Iran agreement by pressuring Trump through allies and intermediaries in Washington, mobilizing pro-Israeli senators and media allies. The transcript further states Netanyahu believes a final agreement will be reached but remains concerned Tehran will not uphold commitments, and that Netanyahu said “we will restore security to the north” by keeping the security zone in southern Lebanon as long as Israel’s security needs require. Asked whether Trump can withstand pressure, Colonel states he believes Trump and Iran “collectively reached the point” where they see no point in further war. He describes what he says was Trump’s private impression earlier in political interactions: Trump did not want a war with Iran, thought an arrangement could be reached, and was focused on the United States. Colonel claims Trump’s transformation began with Ukraine, and later shifted into belligerence. He says that at the beginning of the collision with Iran, Trump used language around sending B-2 bombers and said “the war is over,” but that he “couldn’t do it,” and became concerned about financial markets, polls, and the economy. Colonel claims Trump kept repeating that the war would end soon, but that the only way to end it was to end it, not by talking and not by a military solution. Colonel further claims Trump did not want to use a nuclear weapon and that it was “off the table.” Colonel then discusses Trump’s relationship with Israel and the MOU as a rough framework. He says Trump finds elements of the framework comfortable, including not meddling in internal affairs and reducing overseas entanglements. He also claims Trump had conversations with Netanyahu and made it clear he does not want Israel to go nuclear. Colonel portrays Trump’s decision-making as attempting to bring the conflict to closure, after concluding bombing would not work. He says Trump may have been shown information about Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon that contributed to a change in how Trump framed the issue, and he references Trump’s comments about destroying an entire apartment building to eliminate one person. The transcript moves into a broader argument about long-term regional power shifts. Colonel says the two powers that will emerge are Iran and Turkey, and that they will dominate the Middle East for decades. He distinguishes them, asserting Iran will coexist and can be talked to and do business, while provoking Turkey would be “a fight to the finish.” He argues Turkey has a martial character and cites its military effectiveness as being among the top five in the world. When asked about Turkey’s military capabilities, he emphasizes not only technology but human material and soldier character, adding a cultural reference about a funeral song for Turkish soldiers. Colonel then presents “ISR-Strike” as the strategic change behind modern warfare, linking surveillance and standoff attack systems, and claims that this makes older power projection methods less effective. He argues the world must change and criticizes calls to reset to past patterns of “go back in and bomb some more,” drawing analogies to historical Roman limits. In this context, he says Trump understands the need for change and “cutting losses.” Asked whether Israel could sabotage negotiations by continuing strikes and whether Trump could refuse to support Israel even defensively, Colonel says what the question describes is “almost already happening,” pointing to Israeli shelling and a likely effort to attack Hizballah positions. He says Israel needs US assistance with munitions, missiles, and intelligence, and argues that Netanyahu would pressure Washington through officials and lawmakers to force support. Colonel also states he is “genuinely concerned” about the president’s safety. Later, the conversation turns to speculation about how pressure could escalate beyond normal political attacks. Colonel suggests that investigations could be launched involving members of the president’s family, pointing to personal wealth growth and potential exploitation of “unsavory” matters, and references “the Epstein files” as something that could return to center stage. He then argues that escalating outcomes can range from orchestrated efforts to unexpected attempts, comparing to historical assassination attempts. He says calls for resignation are not what he supports at that moment, arguing resignation should occur after closing the chapter. Finally, the discussion addresses how much agency the president and commanders have within the system. The transcript cites claims from CENTCOM and other departments that commanders have less agency than expected and that higher-level elected officials similarly have constraints due to bureaucratic structures, service hierarchies, confirmation processes, and lobbying. Colonel ties this to a broader system of incentives and limited political time for presidents to accomplish objectives, concluding with a reference to his book “A Margin of Victory: Five Battles That Changed the Face of War, Modern Warfare.”

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 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.

In 2002, before the Iraq invasion, Netanyahu testified to US Congress, stating Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and hiding facilities underground. This was allegedly false and led to war. Netanyahu also stated he wanted regime change in Iran and questioned how to achieve it. Speaker 0 asks: How can we trust someone who goaded the US into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? Given recent events, why are we confident Netanyahu won't do the same with Iran, given his 20-year call for regime change? Speaker 1 says the President and Secretary have close working relationships with Netanyahu. The US commitment to Israel's security transcends any government. The US condemns Iran's attacks. Speaker 0 notes Netanyahu heads the Israeli government and there's a difference between condemning actions and the US getting into a war with Iran. Speaker 1 says the US is not interested in an all-out conflict with Iran, but is committed to Israel's security.

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 discussion centers on the Iran ceasefire, Iran’s negotiating stance, and how Israel’s actions and U.S. political dynamics are shaping perceptions and potential outcomes. - President Trump describes the Iran ceasefire as “on life support” and says Iran’s peace terms are “totally unacceptable” and “garbage.” Iran’s position, according to Iranian media cited in the segment, treats Washington’s peace proposal as a surrender document, insisting on the end of U.S. sanctions, release of frozen Iranian assets, the right to sell oil freely, and control of the Strait of Hormuz—a nonstarter for Washington. Trump also threatens more war, aligning with Netanyahu’s preferences. - On the ceasefire, another participant notes “the ceasefire remains in place for the time being,” while a speaker mocks the peace proposal as weak and life-supporting, using medical imagery to describe its fragility. - Netanyahu’s appearance on 60 Minutes is summarized as him “begging for more war,” outlining how to remove enriched uranium and how to achieve that goal, with emphasis on military action. He suggests “you go in” and take it out, implying American and Israeli cooperation, though one participant stresses not to reveal military plans and cautions about the feasibility and risks of such missions. There is also a claim that Netanyahu implies the United States should bear primary responsibility for military actions if needed. - The dialogue expands to a broader critique of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank, with one participant stressing that Israel is “besieged on the media front” and that propaganda has harmed Israel’s image. There is a claim that social media manipulation by other countries has contributed to negative impressions of Israel, and a consensus that Israel has not used adequate or effective propaganda in its defense. - The panel discusses the ethics and consequences of censorship, with one speaker arguing against censorship yet acknowledging the impact of social media manipulation on public opinion. They contend that attempts to silence critics or punish those who oppose Israel’s policies are counterproductive and harm Jewish communities globally by conflating Jewish identity with Israeli policy. - Anna Kasparian (The Young Turks) weighs in, describing Netanyahu as untrustworthy and arguing that Israel’s actions—targeting hospitals, education centers, and civilians—have generated global criticism. She asserts the issue is not merely a social media phenomenon but an Israel-centered one, citing the ongoing destruction in Gaza and military actions in Lebanon. She argues that U.S. support for Israel is a political question driven by lobbying, and she predicts growing political pressure against leaders who prioritize Israel’s interests over American interests. - The panel critiques U.S. political alignments, noting that Democratic and Republican positions have not yielded a clear consensus on Iran. They argue that diplomacy has varied across administrations (Obama’s JCPOA vs. other strategies), and they contend that Netanyahu’s influence has pushed the United States toward a harder stance on Iran, often aligning with Israel’s regime-change objectives. - Looking ahead, the speakers caution against a renewed kinetic war with Iran, referencing military experts who argue that the United States lacks the capacity or strategic justification for a large-scale confrontation. They emphasize the high costs, the effectiveness of Iran’s drones, and the risks of escalating conflict, suggesting that a more restrained approach or different leverage might be necessary. - The closing segment underscores uncertainty about future conflict, with a warning that a return to bombing Iran could be counterproductive and that political and public opinion dynamics in the United States are shifting, especially regarding support for Netanyahu and Israel.

Speaker 0 says a piece about Israel’s “obscene treatment” of Speaker 0’s country has an obvious takeaway that America’s “special ally is not actually an ally,” and that NBC News did not want readers to realize this. Speaker 0 claims the report’s authors repeatedly inserted “globalist propaganda” into the story, including the neocon talking point that Israelis are America’s “special friends,” while still presenting “eye-opening” information about Israel spying. Speaker 0 argues that throughout the entire NBC News piece, there is continued praise for Israel as “our greatest ally” and “special friend.” Speaker 1 says the piece lays praise on Israel and is about Israel spying, which they find “reprehensible.” Speaker 1 describes decades of belief that Israel is America’s best ally, an “island of democracy” amid “sea of chaos” in the Middle East, and that many Jewish people Speaker 1 personally knew seemed “like really good people.” Speaker 1 says that as “growing physical evidence” has emerged that Israel is “not quite who we thought they were” and that Israel “definitely” abuses America, the situation has become normalized. Speaker 1 claims that even when things have come out, “no action has been taken,” leading Israel to be “a little bit more bold,” doing actions “out in the open.” Speaker 1 cites an example involving Netanyahu and Lebanon: Speaker 1 says Netanyahu stated that a stop to fighting in Lebanon is a “non-negotiable requirement” for Iran to end the war, and that Speaker 1 believes Netanyahu will “do what I want anyway,” even if President Trump intervenes. Speaker 1 says Speaker 1 expects Trump may “hold off for a day or two,” but that Israel “they’re fighting again today.” Speaker 1 asks why the U.S. continues to support Israel and provide it with ammunition, weapons, political cover, and diplomatic cover “to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests?” Speaker 0 responds, “It’s so frustrating.”

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.

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.

In a discussion on the risk of a broader war with Iran and Russia, Alastair Crook discusses the current state of Iran-related negotiations and strategic calculations. He notes a lot of propaganda and confusion, and asserts there has been a substantive change, though it’s important to understand what that change is. He mentions there was never a proposal for Aradshi to meet with Kushner or Whitcroft in Islamabad; Trump called that a fantasy, stating there was no point to talks until Iran and its allies produced a plan of what they want. He recalls that Iran’s negotiating position was outlined in a ten-point plan given to the Americans for Islamabad talks, which Trump described as a realistic basis for discussion, and notes that the points have not changed. He reflects on the JCPOA, rereading it and considering what Iran would want to return to, suggesting the JCPOA feels like a “parole from prison” given the military bases, sanctions, UN resolutions, and IAEA inspections that would accompany a return. He describes Iran’s new investigation process principles as not discussing the nuclear issue until Iran has resolved questions about the war, the blockade of Hormuz, sanctions, and the seizure or refitting of tanker ships by US officials. Iran says it will discuss Hormuz and a potential discussion of CICEFAR later, and possibly military issues later; Khalibat tweeted that Trump claims “he has all the caste,” but Iran says “one is Hormuz” and Iran controls Hormuz while threatening to continue, and can also control the Bab al-Mandab, the Red Sea, and pipelines. He notes the American blockade is porous, with vessels passing through, and explains Iran’s ongoing oil earnings during the war—citing that four tankers recently earned nearly $1.8 billion, with Iran continuing to move tankers along the coast into territorial waters. He emphasizes Iran is not prepared to capitulate and suggests Iran is a civilizational, revolutionary state, not just a conventional nation-state. Crook then analyzes prospects for negotiated settlement. He argues there is no path to a simple solution, comparing the situation to Brexit, and identifies two major roadblocks. The first is Trump, whose approach to Iran is influenced by dislike of Obama and the desire to present a better JCPOA to outdo Obama; he asserts that a deal more favorable than Obama’s JCPOA would still face opposition from Netanyahu and Koali, and suggests Trump’s incentive would be to present a symbolic win like 430 kilograms of enriched uranium handed over as a trophy, which Iran is unlikely to do. He discusses Vance’s Islamabad discussions and wonders whether Trump would accept a deal that extends timelines and increases monitoring if it is not a “win” for Trump. The second barrier is Israel, where Netanyahu faces pressure over war outcomes against Iran and Hezbollah; Crook describes Israel’s shift toward a more messianic, apocalyptic stance, and cites Israeli defense minister Katz’s apocalyptic language. He argues restraint is unlikely in Israel and suggests Israel may push the United States to continue the war, though he questions whether this aligns with American interests. Crook contends that if a settlement with Trump is possible, it would still require addressing Israel, which may not cooperate. He notes European Union insistence that sanctions on Iran will not come off for values or regime change reasons, and positions this within a broader context of a multipolar world where Western actors struggle to adapt to new power dynamics. He reiterates that Iran’s objective is to break the paradigm of sanctions and Western control, including the dollar hegemony and the financialized world, and to resist the imperial structures backing those policies. He concludes by observing that the war is a broader contest that could threaten the American-led world order, and that the time is on the side of Iran in a material sense due to its revenue from oil and control of Hormuz, while Western economies face cost of living pressures and potential shortages.

- Speaker 0 recounts a conversation with vice president JD Vance, who called from his plane after returning from Washington. The discussion centered on the development—and what was described as an explosion—of negotiations, with the American side not willing to tolerate Iran’s alleged violation of the agreement by failing to open cross-border crossings and ceasefire commitments. The central issue for the United States, per JD Vance as relayed, is the removal of all enriched material and ensuring that there is no more enrichment in the coming years, potentially for decades. - Speaker 1 echoes and expands on this, asserting that the information confirms Joe Kent’s statements about Israel pushing the Trump administration to move the goalposts and demand harsher terms from Iran in order to prolong the war. They argue that Israel’s actions are driven by a need to prolong the conflict, implying it is not in the United States’ or Iran’s interest to continue the war, and suggesting that Israel’s interference undermines a potential settlement. - The speakers present Barak Ravid’s (the Israeli journalist) reporting as further corroboration, describing Netanyahu at a cabinet meeting as having discussed Vance’s call from the plane and reiterating the claim that the American side could not accept Iran’s alleged violations. The central issue remains removal of enriched material and preventing any future enrichment for decades, a shift they frame as a change from prior understandings. - The discussion references Joe Kent’s resignation letter, interpreting it as evidence of shifting goalposts imposed by Israel and reinforcing the claim that Iran’s enrichment levels were being framed as an existential threat requiring zero enrichment, a stance the speakers say Iran never agreed to. They argue that a deal could be reached about uranium enrichment levels and monitoring that would end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz if the United States subordinated Israeli demands to its own interests. - The speakers imply a pattern of influence where JD Vance’s statements and actions are contrasted with what they describe as pressure from Netanyahu and other Israeli figures to derail negotiations. They claim Jared Kushner publicly celebrated a Gaza-related policy outcome they view as aligning with long-standing plans that purportedly prioritize private Israeli interests over American policy, and they allege Kushner’s demeanor signals a lack of restraint despite negotiations failing to produce peace. - The speakers imply, without endorsing, that the ongoing actions and disclosures point toward a broader strategy by Western and allied actors to escalate toward a wider conflict, including World War III, with long-term aims of shaping global governance structures. They suggest that Western leaders are preparing for a major conventional war and acting without public consent or scrutiny, framing recent events as part of a deliberate trajectory toward broader confrontation. Note: Promotional content and advertising by Speaker 2 (yellowshrimpstore/alexandrapshore products) has been excluded from the summary.

More than 40 times, an agreement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran has been described as reached and merely pending the Iranian government’s signature, with details allegedly initialed and carved in various parchments and even stone—but there is still no peace agreement. The speaker says Iranian missiles will fly again “tonight.” They also claim Benjamin Netanyahu is “brazenly” assassinating and murdering people in Beirut while Donald Trump has stated that no further bombing of Beirut is permissible. The speaker presents two conclusions: either Trump cannot control Netanyahu, who is positioned as the prime minister of a country described as existing entirely through American largesse (financial, diplomatic, political, and military), or there is an inference that the relationship’s true nature allows continued actions despite U.S. instructions. The speaker argues there is no sense in which Trump is ordering Netanyahu to do things he refuses to do, framing an alternative “good cop, bad cop” dynamic. They reference a “Brian Berletek” school of thought and say people in Hong Kong have suggested the Trump-Netanyahu relationship is “organic,” though the speaker notes they currently take the other side of the argument. The speaker insists there are only two alternatives regarding Trump’s ability or willingness to curb Israel’s behavior, which they say has scuppered any possibility of even a memorandum of understanding (MOU), never mind a deal. They state Trump has filled airwaves and news for days claiming the war is over, but say it is not over and assert Iran will be attacking Israel “tonight.” The speaker asks what America will do about that, and says powerful forces in the American political system and the global political system will demand Trump come to the aid of the man Trump says he is “mightily pissed off with.” They conclude that Trump has not taken any action resembling kicking Netanyahu out despite apparent dependence.

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.

The conversation centers on Iran’s current crisis and the likelihood, timing, and aims of potential U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran. The speakers discuss whether protests inside Iran are driving any attack plans or if those plans were made beforehand, and what the objectives might be if war occurs. Key points and claims, preserved as stated: - The Iranian regime is described as facing its worst crisis since 1979, with reports of thousands dead, and questions about whether the U.S. and possibly Israel will strike Iran, and what their objectives would be (regime change vs installing a new leader under the supreme leader). - The interviewer introduces Trita Parsi, noting his nuanced, non-dual position and his personal history of fleeing Iran around the revolution. - The analysts discuss whether a war plan against Iran existed before the protests; Speaker 1 (Parsi) argues the plan was made prior to the protests and that the protests did not cause the decision. He says the Israelis intended to provoke the U.S. into war, but the sequence shifted so the United States would lead with Israel in a supporting role. He notes Netanyahu’s unusual quiet and suggests a deliberate effort to present this as Trump’s war, not Israel’s, though he believes the plan originated in Washington in late December at the White House. - The protests are said to be organic and not instigated from abroad, with possible slight slowing of plans due to the protests. The rationale for striking Iran initially emphasized Israeli concerns about Iranian missile capabilities and their potential rebuilding of missiles and, ambiguously, nuclear ambitions; there was no credible media evidence presented to support new nuclear development claims, according to Speaker 1. - The justification for an attack is viewed as a pretext tied to “unfinished business,” with the broader aim of addressing Iran’s missile program and perceived threats, rather than the protests alone. The discussion notes that pro-Iran regime factions in the U.S. may find protests more persuasive among centrist Democrats, but less so among MAGA or core Trump supporters. - The origins of the protests are described as organic, driven by currency collapse and sanctions, which Speaker 1 connects to decades of sanctions and the economic crisis in Iran. He states sanctions were designed to produce desperation to create a window for outside intervention, though he emphasizes this does not mean the protests are purely externally driven. - The role of sanctions is elaborated: Pompeo’s “maximum pressure” statement is cited as intentional to create conditions for regime change, with Speaker 0 highlighting the destruction of Iran’s economy as a method to weaken the regime and empower opposition. Speaker 1 agrees the sanctions contributed to economic distress but stresses that the protests’ roots are broader than the economy alone. - The discussion considers whether the protests could be used to justify external action and whether a regional or global backlash could ensue, including refugee flows and regional instability affecting Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and GCC states. It’s noted that the U.S. and some regional actors would prefer to avoid a total collapse of Iran, while Israel would welcome greater upheaval if it constrains Iranian capabilities. - The question of a power vacuum inside Iran is addressed. Speaker 1 argues there is no obvious internal opposition strong enough to quickly replace the regime; MeK is excluded as a coalition partner in current Iran opposition movements. The Pahlavi (Reza Pallavi) faction is discussed as a possible figurehead outside Iran, with debate about his domestic support. The MEK is described as outside any coalition due to its history. - Pallavi’s potential role: Speaker 1 suggests Pallavi has gained closer ties with Israel and some pro-Israel circles in Washington, but emphasizes that domestic support inside Iran remains uncertain and difficult to gauge. Pallavi says he would seek a democratically elected leader if the regime falls; Speaker 1 cautions that words alone are insufficient without proven ability to secure loyalty from security forces and to persuade key societal sectors. - The Shah’s legacy and comparison: The Shah’s regime is described as highly repressive but comparatively more open socially and economically, though with a discredited political system. The current regime disperses power within a more complex system where the supreme leader is central but not incomparable to past autocrats. - The potential for separatism and regional spillover is discussed, including Kurdish separatism in western Iran. Speaker 1 clarifies that the Kurdish group is not part of the protests but a separate element taking advantage of the situation; the risk of civil war if the state collapses is acknowledged as a nightmare scenario. - The possibility of a Maduro-like approach (managed transition through elite elements) is considered. While channels of communication exist, Speaker 1 doubts the same dynamics as Venezuela; Iran lacks internal continuity in the security establishment, making a similar path unlikely. - Military retaliation dynamics are examined: Iran’s response to limited U.S. strikes could be symbolic or broader, including potential strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The possibility that Israel would push the United States to target Iran’s military capabilities rather than just decapitation is discussed, with notes about potential after-effects and regional reactions. - The 12-day war context and Iran’s current military capabilities: There is debate about whether Iran’s military could be a greater threat to U.S. bases than previously believed and about how easily Iranian missile launches could be located and neutralized. - The closing forecast: The likely trajectory depends on the next few days. A limited, negotiated strike could lead to negotiations and a transformed regime with lifted sanctions, perhaps avoiding a wholesale regime change; a more aggressive or decapitating approach could provoke substantial instability and regional repercussions. The conversation ends with a personal note of concern for Parsi’s family in Iran. - Final reflection: The interview ends with expressions of concern for family safety and a mutual appreciation for the discussion.

Despite having the world’s most powerful navy, the United States cannot force the Strait of Hormuz open, and US experts knew it would be closed if Iran was attacked. The US Navy is described as staying miles away, and America’s NATO allies are described as refusing to participate. The Iranians are said to have been preparing for decades, and with the US “running low on weapons,” Iran is described as having plans for a long-term asymmetrical war as a defensive fight for their existence. The transcript claims Iran has the “moral high ground” and “practically all the cards.” The transcript says that by his own admission, Trump expected a quick, decisive victory. It says Trump ignored warnings from experts and listened to Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu. It adds that Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes. It claims Trump said it would be “fun to kill the Iranians” and that they are “genetically inferior,” adding that no American president has spoken this way by historical standards. The transcript further claims the US murdered almost 200 school girls with Tomahawk missiles fired at an elementary school. It says Trump responded “can live with it,” and that secretary of war Pete Hegseth said there would be “no quarter” and “no mercy.” The transcript claims that while US-Iran nuclear talks were taking place in Geneva, Israel launched major airstrikes against Iran followed by the US. It says Iran and the US began negotiations again in Geneva in early February, and that Iran agreed to degrade its nuclear stockpiles. It then states that two days after negotiations ended, Trump attacked Iran, describing this as “deceptive diplomacy” used to attack Iran twice in the past year. It says it would be unreasonable for Iran to trust anything the US and Israel say, and that this would only encourage Iran to develop nuclear weapons, which the transcript says Iran has yet to do. For precedent, the transcript claims that during the Korean War the US targeted the civilian population, killing approximately twenty percent and destroying nearly every major city through a scorched earth strategy that targeted dams to destroy the agricultural economy. It says this led North Korea to develop a nuclear deterrent. It also claims Trump recently admitted that Israel has nuclear weapons, and asks why Iran would not build their own. The transcript states that the US director of national intelligence, Joe Kent, submitted his letter of resignation. It says Kent wrote Trump that the war was started due to pressure from Israel and its powerful lobby, and that early in the administration high-ranking Israeli officials and influential US media deployed a misinformation campaign undermining Trump’s “America first” platform and sewing pro-war sentiments. It says this echo chamber deceived Trump into believing Iran posed an imminent threat and that striking now would produce swift victory, and compares the tactic to the Israelis drawing the US into the Iraq War, costing “thousands” of lives. Kent is said to end his resignation with a call to reflect on Iran and “who we are doing it for,” asserting Trump “hold[s] the cards.”

- 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.