reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

Discussion on Hamas and Israel. 'Israel, bombed Qatar, which houses a lot of Hamas officials,' and asks whether this 'will this potentially endanger America's own interest in The Middle East?' They compare Israel’s aims to 'unconditional surrender' and ask, 'What does success look like in Gaza?' noting that twenty three months have passed. They seek feedback from American perspective on how things could have been handled—PR, conduct—and how to respond to claims that Israel is committing genocide. The dialogue questions whether the media is totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel, and discusses ethnic cleansing and what a good outcome five years from now would be. The host adds: 'You can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel,' and 'And it is totally fine to say to people who wish to destroy our civilization, no, your values suck, and they don't belong here.'

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.

Speaker 0 asks why President Trump unleashed Prime Minister Netanyahu to resume genocide in Gaza, resulting in the intentional killing of 400 civilians. Speaker 1 believes Trump has no choice, due to agreements with major donors beyond Miriam Adelson, obliging him to underwrite Netanyahu's actions. Speaker 1 notes Netanyahu arranged a meeting between the U.S. and Azerbaijan, not the State Department, indicating the Israel lobby's grip. Speaker 1 believes Trump is obliged to comply and won't diverge. Speaker 0 asks if Trump has no choice but to militarily back Israel if it attacks Iran. Speaker 1 thinks so, noting the possibility of Israel precipitating a war with Iran. The expectation is the U.S. will reinforce Israeli actions, with joint strike planning and intelligence sharing already in place. Speaker 1 believes it's a foregone conclusion, though the timing is uncertain.

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.

Afshin Ratansi hosts *Going Underground* from the UAE, saying that tomorrow Donald Trump will host Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, while Ratansi claims Gaza has been called out as genocide by the UK, U.S., and EU and that Saudi Arabia will not normalize relations with Israel. Ratansi connects this to the anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, referencing Charlie Hirsch’s *Samson Option* and claiming Kennedy tried to push Israel to open its Dimona nuclear weapons reactor for inspection while a separate clandestine apparatus, Operation Gladio, was already operating. Ratansi describes Gladio as NATO’s clandestine terrorism network run with the CIA and MI6, allegedly used to stage mass-murder atrocities blamed on the left to block legitimate parties in Cold War Europe and oppose Washington in the Global South, and claims Gladio “never truly ended.” Ratansi introduces Colonel Roxantana Watkins, a 30-year U.S. Air Force veteran who says she traced Cold War covert structures and believes they still shape the world. Watkins explains that Operation Gladio ran out of NATO and required NATO-aligned organizations to sign secret agreements to create stay-behind units in each country. She says the U.S. is a NATO country too and asks where its Gladio units were. She claims Gladio was used “everywhere,” including Iran before the overthrow of Mossadegh, Korea before the Korean War, and Vietnam “by the French.” Watkins says Gladio is a generic term and that actual programs had different names in each country—for example, Portugal’s “Jinter Press” and Turkey’s “Gray Wolves,” with Italy being the only country she says conducted an in-depth study that revealed the program existed under the name “Gladio.” Ratansi says Italy had the largest Communist Party in Europe after 1945 and that fake atrocities at railway stations discredited the left. Watkins agrees and says communism became a “boogeyman” attributed to the Soviet Union, while declassified CIA documents she cites discuss labor efforts assigned to the left. She says she stopped using “left and right” because it has no use in modern language, describing a model in which workers’ rights were abolished under Mussolini while labor organizing occurred alongside international corporations. She claims the National Cash Register took over transactions in Italy during Mussolini, and that James Jesus Angleton—father of CIA official James Angleton—was tied to the franchise owner, which she says enabled an intelligence network to control finances. Watkins says the system is orchestrated around “the international syndicate” of oligarchs controlling societies so they are not democratic. She links this to assassinations and overthrows when leaders become nationalistic and rely on resources to enrich their own people, citing Omar Gaddafi’s assassination and Venezuela’s situation. She then narrates the case of Patrice Lumumba in the early 1960s Congo, alleging Eisenhower and Nixon refused to meet him and that Belgium-linked arrangements would block Congo from enriching itself, leading Lumumba to refuse the deal and prompting his murder by “Operation Gladio Elements” controlled by Otto Skorzeny under Reinhard Gehlen’s German intelligence, the BND. Watkins argues that any prime minister or president “that stands up for their country” becomes a target. In response to whether Gladio aligned with Israeli interests, Watkins claims James Angleton sat at the Mossad desk in the CIA and at the Vatican’s desk, asserting that a “strategy of tension” governs Gladio, tracing it to the late 1800s with the Fabian Society and the idea of creating “left and right” camps to control people. She claims Israel is a strategy of tension concept controlling the Middle East, and says Taiwan was a pivotal friction point in Asia. Watkins says covert operations are funded with drug networks, citing Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan as controlling over 80% of the opium trade in Asia, and describes Paul Helliwell’s alleged role in creating Castle Bank and using front companies for property purchases in Central Florida. She also claims the UK MI6 helped set up Colombia as part of the “crystal triangle” and that London set up Israel. Ratansi asks Watkins about Watkins’ reaction to the live-streamed assassination of Charlie Kirk. Watkins says Kirk’s persona encouraged people to talk to each other across divisions and that the apparatus “cannot have” that. She says the current Gladio rests on student youth movements worldwide and references “Optor in Serbia,” student movements, and George Soros funding, claiming college-age levels include recruiting foot soldiers for Mossad, MI6, and CIA. She compares it to FBI assassinating Fred Hampton after he built the “Rainbow Coalition,” saying authorities do not want people to come together. Ratansi raises poverty and opposition to Israel, including polls after Gaza and a SNAP pause during a government shutdown, and asks what happens if people rebel. Watkins responds that she argues the “42 million” figure is exaggerated and that the strategy includes cutting off funding so people rise up, using both conditions for radicals to evolve and “planned, targeted radicalizations.” She says during the shutdown she was surprised there was not a false flag to generate opposition, and claims Venezuela had multiple false-flag-style attempts in 2019 and 2020 that failed. Watkins says she tracked over 400 attempts to overthrow governments and documented 90 successful coups. Ratansi asks about the Jeffrey Epstein revelations and whether they would shock the public enough to overthrow oligarchic power. Watkins claims blackmail is “the grease” that makes operations work and says people like Jeffrey Epstein were part of enabling leverage, describing blackmail networks operating globally and citing examples involving underage videos and suicides after exposure. Ratansi asks whether Israeli power over the Trump administration is as strong as during the Biden administration. Watkins says Trump publicly called out Mary Madelson as funding various efforts and that Israel comes up frequently in Gladio research. She cites claims that the IDF created a one-year school for drug-network managers in Latin America and that Israel acted as a “cutout” for Reagan-era missile and weapons transfers, as well as involvement related to diamond mining in Africa despite Israel not owning diamond mines. She concludes that it is “very troubling” anytime Israeli support backs a politician, saying it implies significant pull over funding. Ratansi ends the show with condolences for people affected by what he calls ongoing UK-U.S. “armed genocide” across Palestine, and says the program will return on Saturday.

- The speaker claims that John Ratcliffe, the CIA, and Mossad are all the same, asserting that CIA and Mossad were involved with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and questioning where Steve Bannon stands on that issue. The speaker lambasts Ratcliffe as a “gosh damn fraud” and accuses intelligence agencies of destroying the country, urging removal, arrest, and charging of these figures. - The speaker recounts past involvement with Steve Bannon’s network, saying they used to be on frequently to discuss border and child trafficking topics, but after shifting to child trafficking, Bannon became unavailable. The speaker asks viewers to comment on whether they should appear on Bannon’s show again when a new documentary on child trafficking is released in November, and claims to have sent many texts to Bannon’s daughter, suggesting a sense of personal outreach that went unanswered. - A request is made for Bannon to show up on the speaker’s channel, with the speaker implying a personal connection and asking viewers to indicate if they think the speaker should appear on Bannon’s show as the new documentary drops. - The speaker urges viewers to watch their video and claims that Ratcliffe is a “gosh damn fraud” and a traitor, arguing that the two-tier justice system exists because intelligence agencies are “destroying our gosh damn country.” - Speaker 1 adds, supporting a broader conspiracy narrative: Witkoff is briefed three times a day by the CIA, and they lie to him. The speaker asserts this is not a marginal intelligence mistake but a deliberate pattern. - The discussion moves to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with claims that Hamas “doesn’t wanna do the deal” and that this comes from the Mossad and Netanyahu. There are calls for Ratcliffe to resign or for a congressional hearing on national television to reveal what Ratcliffe told negotiators. - The speaker references the beginning of a twelve-day war and says what Ratcliffe told the president about it was a lie, supported by a claim from the Times of Israel that cabinet minutes show Netanyahu’s cabinet was two years away from any emergency, not two days or two weeks. The speaker contends there was an emergency to kill negotiators so Witkoff could not meet in Muscat, Oman, on a Sunday, alleging that Mossad controls the CIA. - The closing remark credits Tulsi Gabbard and claims she was targeted or run out of the city, reinforcing the theme of institutional control by Mossad over American intelligence agencies.

Ambassador Chas Freeman and Glenn discuss the volatile situation across West Asia and beyond, focusing on Iran, Israel, and how great-power and regional dynamics interact with the Ukrainian and Venezuelan crises. - Israel-Iran confrontation and objectives: Freeman argues that Israel is preparing to challenge Iran to expand its regional dominance beyond the Levant into West Asia. Netanyahu reportedly said that if Iran resumes its missile development program, that would justify an Israeli attack. Freeman notes Iran has never halted its missile development, describing Netanyahu’s pretext as transparent. He believes Iran is prepared to retaliate and that Israel is capable of unexpected moves, so vigilance is warranted. - Iran’s domestic situation and external leverage: The discussion highlights domestic distress in Iran driven by economic conditions, notably the sharp devaluation of the rial. The Pazeshkian government’s central-bank management changes are mentioned, as are low oil prices and broader economic pressures. Freeman emphasizes that protests, especially on economic affordability, are often leveraged by external actors (Israel and the United States) but also reflects genuine Iranian grievances. He argues the protests threaten the regime only as a demand for economic reform, not a signal of imminent regime collapse. - Regional realignments and external actors: There is a sense that Iranian protests could invite external manipulation, while Israel has long supported exiled Iranian groups capable of striking inside Iran. The June Israeli attack reportedly led Iranian security services to round up many people accused of Mossad engagement, suggesting Israel’s intelligence network inside Iran has been eroded. The discussion notes a shift in Gulf Arab openness toward Iran, with Oman’s foreign minister stating that Israel—not Iran—is the source of region instability, signaling a strategic realignment against Israel. Turkey’s position is ambiguous, and Russia and China are aiding Iran in reconstituting air defenses. Egypt and Iran appear to have mended ties, while Iran’s allied groups (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi movements) are partially reconstituted but lack close-in capability to attack Israel directly; Hamas remains on the defensive in Gaza. - Prospects for a broader war and what success might look like: Freeman suggests Israeli objectives include fragmentation of Iran and continued pressure to undermine Iran’s governance, with possible support for exiled groups. He notes Iran’s missiles, including hypersonics, and its air defenses, and warns that a new Israeli attack could trigger broader regional involvement. He also discusses potential coalitions against Israel forming among Gulf states if conflict escalates, with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states balancing relations with Iran and the region. - Deterrence, diplomacy, and the collapse of international law norms: The conversation critiques deterrence as reliant on threats without diplomatic reassurance, pointing to a lack of meaningful dialogue with Iran and the West’s inconsistent commitment to international law. Freeman argues that the Trump administration repudiated a previously approved agreement with Iran, and he criticizes US actions in Venezuela, Cuba, and other places as undermining sovereignty and international norms. He asserts that the Zionist approach to security is seen by many as uncompromising and expansionist, eroding international law and the UN Charter, with Israel and the United States often shielding violations through impunity. The discussion touches on Europe’s perceived hollow rhetoric and the suppression of dissent on security matters, claiming that discussing security concerns or engaging in diplomacy is sometimes treated as legitimizing adversaries. - Global parallels and strategic indicators: The speakers compare the current dynamics in Europe and the Middle East with broader trends—escalatory language, the weaponization of language, and the suppression of dissent about US and Western policies. They discuss the governance implications of US actions, the role of international law, and the risks of miscalculation in Iran-Israel tensions. As indicators of looming conflict, they cite the movement of large American transport aircraft (C-5As) carrying weapons to Israel through Europe, potential naval movements to the Mediterranean or Arabian Sea, and possible deployments to Diego Garcia. - Conclusion: The conversation underscores the fragility of regional security, the potential for miscalculation in a highly militarized context, and the sense that diplomacy is deteriorating amid a pattern of external interference, deterring legitimate security concerns, and a broader decline in adherence to international law. Freeman closes by acknowledging the depressing but necessary clarity of facing these dynamics squarely.

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.

The discussion centers on whether Netanyahu's government is in serious trouble and what recent developments suggest about Israeli politics and the Gaza situation. - Protests and public sentiment in Israel: Proponents point to large weekly protests in Tel Aviv against Netanyahu, noting claims of “massive protests” that have drawn thousands, with some saying a quarter of a million previously. The speakers emphasize that demonstrations before October 7 indicated substantial opposition to Netanyahu, including calls for a commission of inquiry into corruption and judicial overreach. They also acknowledge a shift after October 7, with Netanyahu attempting to build a coalition and currently holding about 65 of 120 seats, suggesting he remains in power. One speaker asserts that protests are used politically, while acknowledging their scale in the center of Israel. - Netanyahu’s political standing and coalition: The speakers describe Netanyahu as facing multiple felony charges related to corruption and note his history of coalition-building with smaller parties. They argue that war and conflict are used domestically to unite the population and distract from corruption allegations. They suggest Netanyahu’s government is the most extreme right-wing in Israel’s history, with two cabinet ministers having felony convictions for anti-Arab hate crimes and holding key security and finance roles. The prognosis offered is that Netanyahu is not likely to be removed from power soon, potentially leading through 2030. - Funds to Hamas via Qatar before October 7: A new report from the Tel Aviv newspaper Idiot “Iranath” states that Israel asked Qatar to increase funds transferred to Hamas in Gaza less than a month before October 7. The claim is that Netanyahu-era officials knew the money would enable Hamas to divert funds to arms and military preparedness, and that Hamas was exploiting Qatar’s civilian aid to strengthen its military capabilities. The discussion emphasizes that Israel funds Hamas indirectly through Qatar, and that nothing entering Gaza happens without Israeli knowledge or approval. - Stand-down orders and the October 7 attack: The conversation discusses Israeli stand-down orders and the protests among IDF soldiers about the events of October 7. There is an assertion that some young women in IDF outposts were put at risk, with questions about what the government knew and whether it allowed certain actions. The speakers describe a view that the Israeli military and political leadership may have been complicit or negligent regarding operations on October 7, including claims about attempted obfuscation of investigations and the Hannibal directive. - CIA, John Kiriakou, and past U.S. behavior: The dialogue references CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, noting his exposure of the Bush torture program and contrasting U.S. actions with Israeli policies. John Kiriakou comments on his experiences in the Middle East, including an anecdote about discussions in Riyadh in 1991 regarding Gaza’s infrastructure, and he asserts that Netanyahu’s government is deeply integrated with actions surrounding Hamas. - Prospects for accountability and investigations: The speakers express strong doubt about a credible investigation into October 7, arguing that Israel is in “survival mode” and that Netanyahu will not be imprisoned. They describe proposed commission arrangements as potentially whitewashing, with Netanyahu seeking to appoint some members himself, and they predict that the investigation is unlikely to be thorough or independent. - Summary stance: The discussion presents Netanyahu as politically resilient despite corruption charges, with a broad right-wing coalition and ongoing protests. It underscores the interconnections between Israeli funding structures for Hamas through Qatar, the alleged stand-downs surrounding October 7, and perceived obstacles to a transparent, independent accountability process.

The discussion centers on whether Donald Trump deserves credit for ending a conflict and for avoiding escalation, amid claims that political pressure and domestic politics often affect decisions about war. One participant says they would not credit Trump for trying to end a war they call illegal, and argues that ending the war is good for Trump because it improves his political position ahead of the midterms. They add that the Gaza war is not over and cite continued killing after an October ceasefire, including deaths of children and bombing described as occurring “just this week” in Gaza, along with ongoing violence in Lebanon and clashes involving Israelis and alleged Hezbollah militants. They and their cohost contrast Gaza with the situation involving Iran, arguing that Iran has leverage in negotiations that Hamas lacks. The conversation turns to an MOU and skepticism based on past negotiation failures, including comparisons to Alaska negotiations on Ukraine and the Gaza peace deal. They emphasize that Trump has issued a “mild” statement on an alleged drone attack in the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting a reluctance to escalate into renewed war. J.D. Vance is described as making repeated arguments against endless war and attacking critics of the deal, while also “overselling” American achievements. Specific claims raised include Vance asserting more nuclear inspections than the JCPOA and saying Iran will use unfrozen assets to buy U.S. agricultural goods, alongside Iranian denials and disputes over unfrozen assets. The conversation then discusses Iranian parliamentary speaker Ghalibaf mocking Trump and U.S. claims, framing it as trolling and insisting the tone and authorship of Iranian social media posts appears different over time. There is speculation about who writes the tweets and jokes about Mossad attempting to identify them. The guest further notes that a key figure, Mustafa Kamenei, is not appearing publicly, and mentions rumor claims about him being dead, with assertions that if he surfaced, people would try to kill him. On Israel and the U.S., the host asks for analysis of rhetoric from Trump and Vance, including Trump “justifying Iran’s missile program” and Vance criticizing Israel daily. The guest argues this is a new pattern: a Republican administration member criticizing Israel from the White House, and Trump saying Israel should have ballistic missiles. They connect this to past justifications for war and later claims that missile capacity was degraded, noting that Marco Rubio has been quiet on ballistic missiles and Israel in recent weeks. They propose that pro-Israel voices are reacting with frustration and that some conservative commentators avoid directly naming Trump while criticizing “the deal,” with examples including claims that commentators call it “J.D. Vance’s deal” rather than attributing it to Trump. The guest argues the U.S. still holds leverage over Israel because the U.S. funds and arms Israel, using historical examples: Ronald Reagan calling Menachem Begin in 1982 to stop bombing Beirut, and an argument that American presidents have leverage through calls. They say a ceasefire is “bare minimum” and question whether Israel will withdraw from Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, or other areas Israel is claiming to retain. They discuss congressional and Democratic backlash dynamics, including AIPAC’s influence, New York primaries, and a legislative effort to cut “$3 billion to Israel,” describing it as putting members of Congress on the spot. The conversation links Middle East peace to Palestine resolution, saying peace for the region runs through Palestine and that connected conflicts cannot be solved by isolating countries. They also cite Ehud Olmert as emphasizing this interconnectedness and reference Olmert’s criticism of Israel’s actions. They argue Iran has “won this war” strategically and that Iran leverages support for Lebanon and Hezbollah while events in Gaza remain unresolved. Finally, the discussion shifts to Europe and immigration, prompted by a dispute over a tweet amplified by Elon Musk involving Shia Muslims commemorating Ashura in Manchester with the phrase “good luck, Britain.” The guest clarifies they are not anti-Shia and says the procession itself has occurred for years, while arguing that amplifying such content is dangerous when paired with recent attacks on Muslims. The host replies that the concern is immigration being handled differently in Europe, and they agree there is a line between criticizing immigration and amplifying calls for violence.

The broadcast discusses the potential global attention shift away from Jeffrey Epstein as US-Israeli tensions with Iran escalate, with a focus on events planned for Saturday. The program promises to broadcast from Dubai in the Gulf, less than 100 miles from the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint of international trade Iran has threatened to shut down. Saturday is described as a day when NATO-nation type leaders, including Marco Rubio, will gather in a Munich hotel to discuss developments in West Asia, which the speaker implies may be overshadowed by the war situation. The show features a guest described as the senior adviser for Iran at the US State Department up until a couple of years ago, who is also a distinguished diplomatic fellow at the Middle East Institute and a 40-year U.S. Foreign Service retiree. The guest is said to discuss why, during the years of JCPOA nuclear negotiations, the talks with Iranian ministers and negotiators did not mention Israel’s nuclear weapons, and he is expected to share perspectives on what he thinks about recent developments described as the “Dimona earthquake” in the past few weeks, including whether Israel is testing more nuclear weapons and what the stakes are. The broadcast notes coverage from Abu Dhabi through a report: a senior UAE diplomat visits Iran amid fears of U.S. action, with UAE stating that it welcomes U.S.-Iran talks and calls for peace, aligning with a peace-oriented stance in contrast to what Netanyahu may want. It is stated that a decision was made on Wednesday in Washington during Netanyahu’s seventh meeting with Donald Trump, a meeting note that runs alongside references to Jeffery Epstein’s files in Washington, suggesting timing or political context related to Epstein’s case. The program identifies itself as Saturday’s Going Underground, hosted by Afshin Rattansi, and claims to be broadcast worldwide on RT except in NATO nation totalitarian Western European countries. It will also be available on Rumble, Odyssey, and Elon Musk’s X. The overall framing connects imminent Middle East tensions, nuclear issues, and high-profile political meetings with broader media attention that could be overshadowed by the unfolding crisis.

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

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

The transcript covers several interwoven topics and claims: - Ghislaine Maxwell and Trump administration connections: Maxwell was allegedly hired to do PR for the Trump administration last month when she sat for an interview with Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney and now deputy attorney general. The segment characterizes the piece as deal-making, with Maxwell purportedly giving glowing testimony about Trump to help address the Epstein files in exchange for a cushier, minimum-security prison placement and possible pardon considerations. The speaker says this is “insane from start to finish” and criticizes Trump supporters’ reactions. - Epstein/Maxwell trial details and evidence: The speaker asserts that the worldwide sex trafficking network was exposed, leaders identified (one allegedly died mysteriously in prison; the other was convicted in court). Maxwell’s trial is described as featuring “the four best witnesses” from a pool of more than 100 accusers. Maxwell is said to have been convicted by a jury on trafficking-related charges based on “mountains of evidence” including documentation, photos, videos, and financials, not only victim testimony. Maxwell is said to have recruited young girls in person, with specifics on where recruitment occurred, amounts paid, and tactics used, as well as how it was covered up. The speaker claims co-conspirators remained free, and over 100 corroborating witnesses provided consistent narratives. Maxwell allegedly faced two counts of perjury, which the DOJ settled to secure the trafficking conviction, and the perjury charges were not tried. The speaker asserts that conspiracy theories about the case are dangerous. - Alleged lies in Maxwell’s testimony: Maxwell allegedly claimed there were never cameras inside Epstein’s homes or in “inappropriate” rooms, with explicit language such as “no cameras anywhere outside of possibly things that would, I would consider normal.” The speaker contends there are “literal photos of cameras in his bedroom,” FBI seizure of binders with photos and videos, and other evidence of cameras and blackmail. Maxwell is said to have claimed she never recruited anyone from Mar-a-Lago, contradicting Trump’s corroboration that Virginia Roberts Giuffre was recruited from Mar-a-Lago. The photo of Maxwell with Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew in Maxwell’s London apartment is cited as evidence of the involvement of Epstein trafficking networks; the speaker notes it has been verified by forensic experts and a photographer, including a Walgreens-developed stamp on the back implying a 2001 development date. - Photo controversy and settlements: The photo is described as genuine, with multiple verifications. It is claimed Prince Andrew paid millions to Virginia Giuffre to avoid facing her in open court, and Maxwell allegedly paid Virginia millions to settle a defamation suit. - Leaked emails involving Ehud Barak: The speaker discusses newly highlighted emails from Ehud Barak that appeared online, stating there are over 100,000 emails to and from Barak that have been circulated and verified, with a time span of 10/10/2014 to 09/09/2015. The dataset reportedly contains over 83 emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Ehud Barak, many short and focused on arranging meetings, access, money, and investments. The company Reporti (now Carbine 911), an Israeli cyber tech company, is mentioned as a recurring topic, with Epstein and Barak involved in investing alongside Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund (Thiel’s fund invested $15,000,000 in 2018; Epstein invested $1,000,000 in 2016 via offshore shell companies). Johnny Vedmore’s reporting on Nicole Junkerman and related pieces is noted. The speaker mentions an online intelligence service Barak reportedly subscribed to for $3,000 annually that monitored powerful people (Clintons, Gates, Bezos, Putin, Netanyahu) and suggests patterns of surveillance on major figures. - Other ongoing stories: The presenter notes additional stories, including Trump allegedly “going socialist” and nationalizing part of Intel, CDC leadership disputes involving Bobby Kennedy and Susan Menoras, and labor actions by CDC staff. The Israel-Gaza situation is described with claims of civilian casualty rates at 83% of deaths in Gaza, two separate strikes on a hospital, and PR responses by Israel. The transcript also references Ron DeSantis launching an Israel license plate in Florida, Beverly Hills voting to display Israeli flags in public schools, and public backlash leading to backpedaling. A closing critique links ethnonationalist ideology to Nazi Germany, questioning the notion of Jews as God’s chosen people. - Closing notes: The host promises more reporting on these topics, mentions upcoming collaborations and documentaries, and signs off with personal reminders. A closing line from Speaker 1 remarks that “Our security is at stake.”

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.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

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