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.

Nobody in the Pentagon said, hey. We can't do this. Because if they straight if they close the straight of our moves, there's no way we're gonna be able to stop them from unclosing it. Everybody in the Pentagon said that. Why would we do it? Because Pete Hegseth came in and said, we won't have to do that. The Israelis have told me that they're going to kill Khamenei on day one. We're gonna come in with the most massive air power ever seen. It's because we wanted to hit a thousand points on the ground a day for a period of time to create the impression of American invincibility, and the Iranians quit. And that way, we don't have to do any of this. Just so you understand, one of those thousand points was a girl's school that should never been struck. Yeah. I know. We struck hospitals, the whole thing. This is the most criminally minded war plan in the history of war plans. Is it criminal or stupid or both? Criminal. When you're the secretary of defense and you're required by the you know, we have a law of warfare act. If you violate the Geneva Conventions grossly, there's a death penalty. Hagsteth came in and said, I'm doing away with all the rules. I'm disbanding that unit. We're gonna disregard the law warfare manual. We want increased lethality. And so when he said, we're going to put a thousand bombs on thousand targets a day, he was saying, I don't care what you kill. We kill things and break break things, he said. That's what we do. Uh-huh. There was intent, criminal intent from the very start. So this was criminal and incompetent. What I don't understand is why the JCS didn't resign en masse. This is a leadership failure on the part of the most senior military officers, and now they're in a situation where they're gonna have to try and do something they know they can't do. If we send marines across the beach Yeah. And they die, people need to go to jail.

The speaker states that the United States is conducting an operation with a clear goal: to eliminate the threat posed by Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and by Iran’s navy to naval assets. The speaker says the operation is focused on this objective and is progressing “quite successfully,” with the details of tactics and progress to be discussed by the Pentagon and the Department of War. Two reasons are given for acting now. First, the speaker asserts that if Iran came under attack by the United States, Israel, or another party, Iran would respond against the United States. According to the speaker, orders had been delegated down to field commanders, and within an hour of the initial attack on Iran’s leadership compound, the Iranian missile forces in the south and in the north were activated to launch. The speaker notes that those forces were “prepositioned.” Second, the speaker explains that the assessment was that if the United States stood and waited for Iran’s attack to come first, American casualties would be much higher. Therefore, the president made the decision to act preemptively. The speaker emphasizes that they knew there would be an Israeli action, and that action would precipitate an attack against American forces. The implication is that delaying a preemptive strike would result in greater casualties, potentially billions of dollars in losses, and more American lives at risk. The overarching message is that the preemptive operation aims to neutralize Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and navy threats before they are used in consolidation with anticipated Israeli actions and any Iranian counterattacks against U.S. forces. The speaker frames the decision as prudent and anticipatory, intended to prevent higher casualties and to maintain safety for American personnel and assets. The speaker stops short of detailing specific tactical methods, pointing listeners to the Pentagon and the Department of War for a deeper discussion of tactics and progress.

The conversation discusses how vague commitments in the Iran-related MoU and regional agreements are being contested amid renewed fighting around the Strait of Hormuz, where ships are struck on the Omani side and the U.S. retaliates when Iran does so. The guests argue that the MoU’s language is not meant to be applied word-by-word because it was designed to remain vague to allow time for specifics. Instead, they frame the situation as a practical contest over control: Iran does not want the Omani side of the Strait to return to open “freedom of navigation” as before, while the U.S. does not want a new status quo that is controlled by Iran. The repeated kinetic exchanges are described as part of diplomacy rather than its opposite. One speaker argues the MoU functions as an invitation to talk, not as a system with an enforceable international-law mechanism, noting there is no judge empowered to determine whether either party violated it. He characterizes the current environment as Hobbesian after the Persian Gulf system was broken by the U.S. and Israel, with Iran believing it must retain control over the strait for its ongoing existence and viewing diplomacy as “war by other means.” He adds that Iran’s leadership sees the U.S. and Israel as dedicated to their destruction, so even when bombing stops temporarily, the strategic goal of deterrence through control of the strait remains. The discussion turns to why Iran wants operational and administrative control over day-to-day maritime traffic rather than just military capability. The speaker says Iran’s power includes the ability to shut down traffic kinetically via missiles and drones, especially given the effect on international insurance markets. However, Iran also wants ships to coordinate with the relevant authority (PGSA) because it is easier than repeatedly bombing ships. He emphasizes that Iran wants to demonstrate to Gulf states and others that transit occurs only by Iranian “sufferance,” not merely that Iran can close the strait at will. He also argues that this is not primarily about money now because there could be a period with no tolls or service fees, but about full operational control. He references a Bloomberg report quoting Oman telling European officials there is no way to return to the pre-war status quo, with possible fees for services such as depolluting the strait or helping ships navigate, and he contrasts this with the uncertainty around whether fees are obligatory. The other speaker asks why the U.S. strikes Iran every time Iran strikes ships, including whether it aims to degrade Iran’s ability to control the strait (such as destroying radars and fast attack boats) or whether it is trying to dissuade Iran from seeking control. The response is that the U.S. cannot keep the strait open by military means alone and that the U.S. is improvising rather than executing a fully thought-out strategy. He argues the U.S. is trying to preclude an Iranian-controlled outcome without conceding prematurely, noting Iran is reconstituting coastal capabilities quickly. On Lebanon, the conversation explains that both the Iranian MoU and a separate Lebanon agreement relate to Hezbollah, yet Hezbollah is not a signatory to either. One speaker says the Lebanese agreement is essentially a sop offered to the U.S. to show cooperation, but that it will not change the underlying dynamic: the Lebanese armed forces cannot disarm Hezbollah, Hezbollah will not disarm unilaterally, and Israel will not withdraw from southern Lebanon while Hezbollah is there. He argues Lebanon is therefore stuck with a state-within-a-state problem unless Hezbollah control changes, and he links the broader instability to Israel’s trauma after October 7th and its belief that threats must be eliminated—an approach he suggests Israel is still learning cannot work as hoped. The speakers also discuss Hezbollah’s role as Iran’s “extended defense” and describe Hezbollah as currently weaker than before but still essential for Iran’s forward-defense strategy. They argue Iran will not back down on the strait and Hezbollah, and also will not give up indigenous enrichment, though enrichment might be suspended while retaining certain capabilities. They discuss a possible long-term normalization pathway: gradually lifting sanctions and unfrozen assets over years could make it harder to revert to isolation later, which they frame as a hypothetical deal structure that could involve Lebanese military rearmament as a deterrent against Israel. The counterpoint is that Iran views global economic integration as U.S.-controlled, and that the leadership prefers “reigning in hell” rather than serving in “heaven,” with Iran also profiting under sanctions conditions. Towards broader regional dynamics, the conversation argues the Persian Gulf system must find a new normal after being broken. It predicts the U.S. will be less important in the Gulf than before, GCC states will adjust, and Iran’s post-war condition could make it more dangerous because it is weaker and more militarized under IRGC elites. It adds that transitional periods are dangerous and notes the U.S.’s stated shift in focus toward China, alongside the idea that earlier military commitments have wasted armaments that take years to reconstitute. The conversation closes by tying conflicts back to narratives and myths, arguing that the Israeli-Palestinian issue underpins multiple actors’ positions and that different groups use it as a vehicle for broader nationalistic or ideological goals. The final question addresses heated rhetoric between Turkey and Israel, concluding that while it can be political and domestic-support driven, it reflects deeper strategic interest clashes and is concerning.

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

Iran and its proxies may threaten retaliation, but if they act on it, they would face severe consequences. There would be nothing left of them. I've made it clear that any attack would lead to total obliteration. This should have been communicated by Biden, but he failed to do so, possibly due to a lack of intelligence. If a leader or their associates are targeted, the response should be the complete destruction of the responsible state, which includes Iran.

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.

The speaker says the war with Iran is “back on” after renewed bombings. They claim the sequence began when the U.S. was trying to guide tankers and ships through the southern portion of the Strait of Hormuz, an area Iran “doesn’t want ships to use” near the Omani shoreline. The speaker states Iran has asserted control over traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and has granted safe passage through a “Northern Channel” closer to the Iranian border. They say this relates to Iran’s territorial waters out to about 11 nautical miles from shore, and that the U.S. preferred not to use the northern route because it would require paying fees to Iran. The speaker claims that as three to five tankers sailed through the southern portion, the IRGC warned them to turn around and stop, but they did not, and the ships were “struck by drones,” with some “set on fire” and “kinetically attacked.” The speaker then says the United States bombed Iran in response, citing CENTCOM, which they state reported striking 80 targets. They say CENTCOM stated U.S. forces struck Iranian air defense systems and coastal radar sites, anti-ship missile capabilities, and small boats. The speaker questions the presence of small boats, referencing a claim that Iran’s Navy had already been destroyed. Next, the speaker says Iran has begun retaliatory strikes against U.S. forces, firing anti-ship cruise missiles and drones at U.S. Navy warships in the Sea of Oman. The speaker adds that Iran is asserting it will “assert control over the Strait of Hormuz.” They cite Professor Robert Pape (University of Chicago) saying: “trump is playing with nationalist fire by striking civilian targets in iran with millions demanding revenge at the supreme leader's funeral,” and also: “Trump just handed the regime a clear trigger for major retaliation. The entire world economy is now at risk.” The speaker also references political commentary from Marjorie Taylor Greene about “bombing Iran during the ceasefire” and says the war is “not a war.” They further mention Pete Hegseth (as referenced by the speaker), and that Marco Rubio is described as saying the U.S. would not allow Iran to control the Strait of Hormuz or charge a toll. The speaker turns to energy markets, stating that oil is spiking again and that a supply shock they have warned about will “kick in in a very harsh manner,” leading to “motor oil shortages,” “diesel shortages,” and higher prices for gasoline, diesel, and “jet fuel” by less than one month, accelerating into September and October. They link the worsening energy situation to escalation in conflicts and to attacks on infrastructure, claiming Ukrainian drone attacks hit multiple Russian oil tankers. They also claim that oil refining and refined product output are suffering “both out of Russia and also out of… the Middle East,” and that this is “engineered” to create a global energy crisis. They say the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is at its lowest level since the 1980s. They also claim the U.S. revoked a sanctions waiver/license that allowed Iran to sell oil through roughly the end of August, stating: “the MOU is dead,” and that Iran’s oil will not contribute to Western supply because sanctions are back on. The speaker predicts additional choke-point escalation, asserting “closure of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait” could come next. They also mention Iran ballistic missiles striking U.S. military bases in Bahrain “apparently,” and conclude that fuel costs, food prices, fertilizer impacts, and supply-chain problems will intensify. They say fertilizer shortages for the fall planting season will lead to “increased famine in 2027,” and that “many items” could become unaffordable in the U.S. Finally, they predict U.S. economic and geopolitical consequences, including spillover into U.S. treasury markets if Japan sells treasuries to buy oil or gas, and they claim this could lead to a U.S. invasion of Iran. They state the IRGC says the U.S. will not be allowed to interfere in the Strait of Hormuz and argue that Iran will hold control until the West cannot handle energy “strangulation.”

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

First speaker: Let me ask you. Regardless of what he thinks, what do you think, militarily speaking, looking at all just the fundamentals, if if The United States attacks Iran in any capacity and they respond back and they hit, we'll say, Al Udeid or any of these other bases that are in the area, the the the naval area at Bahrain, what would happen? What do you think would be the result on the ground? Second speaker: American casualties and then Israel will be destroyed. That's all nearly destroyed. That's pretty much what is gonna happen. And, the issue here is, how they can, basically preserve their US Navy's assets in the area. Obviously, United States has tomahawks, and many people do not understand. United States has about two and a half thousand tomahawks in general. It's the block four and block five, which is still I mean, it's it's a long range. It's about 2,000 kilometers. But the point is for the country like, Iran, 2,000 Tomahawks are nothing. You know? And so, they can still hit some political leadership. But, the moment they begin to fly, there will be a really, really serious repercussions for the liberal and fifth column in, Iran. And after that, we might have only the hardening of the regime if you wish. Because even if they kill Khamenei, okay. So what is gonna happen? Well, he becomes a martyr. And, Iranian people, they're they're they're courageous. I mean, they will fight back.

The speaker believes it is difficult for a U.S. president to initiate war with Iran. If compromise with Iran is not possible, the traditional method of America entering wars would be best for U.S. interests. Drawing historical parallels, the speaker notes that Presidents Roosevelt, Wilson, Johnson, and Lincoln waited for events like Pearl Harbor, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, and the attack on Fort Sumter to justify military action. If the Iranians do not compromise, it would be best if they started the war. The U.S. could increase pressure through covert means, such as causing Iranian submarines to sink, or escalating existing covert operations. The speaker is not advocating for these actions, but suggests that sanctions are not the only option.

In the discussion, Speaker 1 argues that Iran’s objective is simply to survive; their strategy is to continue lobbing missiles, launching drones, and striking back as the U.S. approaches within Iran’s vicinity. He contends Iran has maintained command and control, dispersed forces, and possesses a large and enduring supply of missiles and drones, so the minimal victory for Iran is to endure the conflict. When asked what the U.S. should do to win, Speaker 1 criticizes bombastic rhetoric about U.S. superiority and questions the efficacy of regime change through bombing. He suggests that killing the supreme leader backfires by galvanizing the population and Shiites worldwide, noting Iran’s developed succession mechanisms that compensate for leadership losses. He argues that attempts to destroy Iran or disintegrate its society are misguided and that, if the U.S. pushes toward such aims, it may trigger greater confrontation with China and Russia. He also implies mixed signals from U.S. leadership, contrasting expectations under Biden with actual actions, and contemplates a similar pattern under Trump. Speaker 2 adds that President Trump could claim success by neutralizing key figures like the Ayatollah, but suggests that Israel’s preferences are driving U.S. policy, implying limited autonomy for America. He notes the risk of being drawn back into conflict and emphasizes uncertainty about public perception as the war continues. He remarks on the presence of pro-war voices and social media pushback, interpreting it as a sign that the audience may be “over the target.” Speaker 0 seeks a military assessment of the current state: the Iranian capacity, the Israeli position, and American casualty figures. Speaker 1 assesses Israel as internally distressed: internal unrest, exhausted armed forces, and a large exodus of citizens; he predicts Israel faces an ominous future and foresees Israel possibly deteriorating before Iran. He describes Israel’s use of mercenaries and acknowledges substantial damage on both sides, with Netanyahu’s visibility limited. In the broader Persian Gulf, Speaker 1 states that deterrence has failed among regional powers such as the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The United States is perceived as hampered by a long logistical footprint; uncertainty about missile stocks and intercepts persists, but Speaker 1 asserts that Iran can sustain war for a long time and that bombing alone will not compel Iranian capitulation. He foresees intensified U.S. troop and firepower deployment, including three carrier battle groups over the next two weeks, to replace the current forces. Overall, the conversation centers on Iran’s resilience, the limited likelihood that bombing will force regime change, the risk of broader great-power involvement, and growing weariness and strategic complications for all sides, with Iran poised to endure and possibly prevail in the long term.

Speaker 0 argues that control over the strait is more powerful than any nuclear weapon, noting that control is clearly in Iran’s hands, with additional mining of the southern portion forcing ships to sail right next to Iran’s total control. They criticize MAGA/Trump supporters for claiming Iran must open it immediately, saying, “you can say all the words you want, but Iran still controls the strait. And that means they control the backbone of the energy of planet earth, period.” Speaker 1 responds that Trump is desperate for a solution because the situation is humiliating the United States. They recount the U.S. posture since the Carter era, referencing the Carter Doctrine: to secure the energy-producing region in exchange for security guarantees, ensuring the Strait of Hormuz remains open. They remind that in 1987, during Operation Earnest Will, the U.S. Navy reflagged the Kuwaiti tanker fleet and escorted it through the Strait of Hormuz to protect it from Iraq and Iran. They say the Iranians watched and learned, and have since developed the capabilities to shut the strait down, and that the U.S. cannot keep it open—our navy, air force, and lack of sufficient ground power can’t do it. Therefore, Iran “own this. It is theirs, and they have declared it is ours.” Speaker 1 warns that if Iran continues to shut the strait, it will cause permanent damage, including permanent economic damage globally, with Europe facing an energy crisis it won’t recover from and Asia facing serious economic harm, including China. They note that China has intervened and pressured Iran to come to the table because a significant portion of China’s energy comes from the Middle East and from countries unable to ship oil due to the closure. They conclude that China told the Iranians they must sit down and talk with the Americans, and that Iran didn’t want to come to the table because they are “winning this war,” asserting, “they’re like, keep bombing us. We don’t care. You’re not destroying us. You’re not breaking our will. We’re destroying you. We’re humiliating you.” The Iranians, according to Speaker 1, were told by the Chinese to flow oil again and to begin talks, prompting Iran to sit down with the Americans.

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.

The discussion centers on an arrangement involving Israel’s missile systems and technology, with one participant describing Israel as being framed as doing the United States a favor by allowing access to Israel’s technology “for the Iron Dome level of stuff.” One participant counters that Israel “is getting a lot of that” and that the relationship is not accurately characterized as one-sided generosity, adding that Israel has received “a lot” of military technology and weaponry. One participant argues that Israel is not the “giver” in the relationship, especially in intelligence, describing Israel as “the taker” and the U.S. as “the host,” referencing John Kiriakou and others from their perspective. They say that everyone they have spoken with, including people they mention (including Kiriakou and Bustamante), has told them versions of this same idea, concluding that the notion of Israel’s role as purely a nice thing for U.S. benefit “doesn’t feel like what I’ve seen in reality.” They also address the demeanor of a media-trained individual they spoke with, describing him as “impressively media trained” and “unflappable,” even while being pressed. The conversation includes uncertainty about specifics, including the formalization of Israeli companies being on U.S. soil, which the speaker says they “didn’t quite still get.” A key moment is the speaker stating that “none of us want this,” calling it unpopular and saying they feel the U.S. is “teaming up with the most diabolical country.” They describe the other person reacting with “interesting,” while still referencing Iran as a threat. The speaker contrasts the framing, saying that the war is branded with Iran even though Iran is the one attacked, and that the person attacked gets branded with the label “Iran war.” The speaker concludes by saying the situation is “ass backwards,” asserting that the narrative outcome was predictable, and that objective observers would see that it was “not in our interest.” They argue the framing places “people” listening in a position where the U.S. has to “defend the Iranian regime,” which they say no one wants to do.

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

Speaker 0: Welcome to game plan. I'm Shivan Jan now. So far, there is only one winner in this war in West Asia, and that's Russia. Mind you, I'm not saying that this was acknowledged by the European Council president Antonio Costa. US Israeli strikes in West Asia, they have driven up the price of oil, strengthening the Kremlin's ability to fund its military campaign. Now in a sharp reversal from last year's policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy, US treasury secretary Scott Pessen said that The United States could unsanction other Russian oil to keep the flow of oil intact. And this is because the Strait Of Hormuz, the pivotal point from where this war is kind of converging, that is under complete Iranian control. Movement of ships has been blocked. Movement of oil has been blocked. It has shot up the oil prices, and the repercussions are being felt across the world at this point. Is the war proving to be a boon for Russia whose economy is dependent on energy exports? As the state of Hormuz gets blocked, Russia gets a free hand at selling its oil at rates that can be expounded without proper discounts as well. Is Putin the one winning in the war that US and Israel started against Iran? To discuss this with me on game plan is doctor Glenn Deesen, professor of international relations at the University of Southeastern Norway. Glenn, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thanks so much for joining me here. Trump and Putin, they held a call recently, the first time this year, and this was to discuss the discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran. What do you think they would have discussed, and what kind of a role can Putin be playing in the ongoing war? Speaker 1: Well, I assume some of the things to discuss was obviously the the the extent to which The US and Russia targets each other because one of the things that the American media has been complaining about is the likelihood that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran for targets, but of course this is what The United States been doing for years and continues to do, that is give the Ukrainians targets to hit Russia. So I think there's a necessity to begin to discuss is appropriate and again what happens behind these doors, I don't know. But also of course there has to be some scaling back of the energy sanctions against Russia to bring this, the energy prices under control. As you suggest, they are now very much out of control. But I think also the main thing they've discussed is how to bring this war to an end because I think it's perfectly clear now that this US attack on Iran was a terrible mistake, and it appears that Putin would be the the main middleman who would might be able to bring an end to this war. But, again, it depends what can be done as what the Iranians will demand may be more than what the Americans can deliver. Speaker 0: Glenn, as you mentioned, Putin could perhaps be the main person to bring peace in this war. Putin has the highest chance of acting as peacemaker in West Asia. Is there anyone other than Putin at this point who can bring? Because just look at the optics of it. US starts a war, and I think ten days into it, he needs to make a call to Vladimir Putin to discuss that same war. How does it look for The US? Speaker 1: Well, they don't care for this, of course, but that it's similar to what to what happened with the war against Syria. That is, if you remember, back at president Obama's time, he had set these red lines, he were gonna attack Syria. It was quite obvious that this would be a disaster. So he went to the Russian president and he was able to get a deal through and which essentially took Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So it was, you know, it it it is the reality or the optics of it isn't great given that The US has been fighting a proxy war for years against Russia, but but, know, at some point, you have to put the optics aside. Who who else would be in a position to help to negotiate this? I'm thinking, you know, perhaps China could be a middleman, but I think given that The United States, especially under the Trump administration, wants to improve bilateral ties with Russia, I I I think he's probably the best, yeah, the best bet. Speaker 0: Would it be fair to say that Putin is emerging as a winner in this ongoing West Asia war, which only seems to be expanding within the West Asian region? Speaker 1: Well, no. I think, yeah, to a large extent, I think that is correct because the energy prices are way up. The US have to scale back sanctions. The all the weapons which The US had intended to ship towards Ukraine to fight Russia is now being depleted. For European leaders, as you mentioned earlier on, to who aspire to prolong the war in Ukraine, this is an absolute disaster. And we'll see that countries that cut the energy ties or at least reduced energy ties with Russia at the best of American pressure, they of course have learned a lesson now as well that this was not a good idea that you don't necessarily put bet too much on a hegemon in decline, so countries who before paid discounts now may have to pay premium. We'll see that Iran, which I assume is getting some support from Russia sees this relationship improving dramatically. They're moving much closer, which is good for Russia because the Iranians always have some suspicions towards the Russians given well a long history they've had through the centuries of conflict. So all of this improves. You can also say that The Gulf States, the weakening of The Gulf States has also a big impact on weakening The U. S. Ability to restore its hegemony because what show what's obvious now is that the Gulf States are not getting protection instead they're becoming very vulnerable as frontline states and The US is no longer seen as that reliable. Well, if they're not going to bet their security on The United States anymore then they may not have that much pressure to sell their oil in dollars. You're not gonna have those recycled petrodollars coming back to The US, and suddenly the whole AI race with China looks a lot weaker as well. So I think across the board, a lot of things look good for Russia, but and there is a big but here, and that is I don't think that the Russians want this war nonetheless because the Russians, much like the Chinese, value stability and predictability. And what's happening in Iran now could again, if something would happen to Iran collapse, that would be a disaster for this Greater Eurasia initiative that is to integrate economies of Greater Eurasian Continent, but also this could spiral into a world war. So from this perspective, it's very dangerous and I don't doubt that the Russians therefore want to put an end to this war simply because I guess much like India, they don't want the Eurasian Continent to be too China centric, they would like to have many poles of power and this requires diversification. This means that the Russians need close ties with Iran, with India and other countries. So for the Americans to knock off Iran off the, you know, the chessboard, the greater Eurasian chessboard would be a disaster for the Russians. So, yes, I think they're prospering or benefiting from this, but they they do wanna put an end to it. Speaker 0: Understood. Glenn, let me just come to the Strait Of Hormuz. You know, the objectives of U. S. Behind starting this war, that has been questioned enough. Why did you start this war in the first place? Those are questions not just emerging, you know, globally. They're also emerging from inside The U. S. But if you look at what a win will actually look like for US, would it be the state of Hormuz? Like, which whoever controls the state of Hormuz is eventually who walks away as you know, walks away with the victory at this point because The US was looking for a change in regime. They mentioned it enough number of times. That hasn't happened and doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Is the state of Hormuz the winning factor now? Speaker 1: Well, I I I don't think any The US would be in a position to control this just given the geography. So The US obviously went into into this war with the objective of regime change. That was the goal. This was the decapitation strike, this was the hope of killing Khamenei and obviously it didn't work. I think it shouldn't have come as a surprise, but you know killing the leader of Iran only created more solidarity within the country. And also the idea that the whole armed forces would begin to disintegrate once they had been punished enough, also proven to be incorrect. So I think at the moment you see the American pivoting a bit. Some are talking about the Strait Of Moose that this should be a goal, others are saying you see a shift now towards saying well, actually what we really want to do is just degrade Iran's missile capabilities that they won't have this long range missiles. And again, you know, these are the kind of vague objectives which they can essentially declare victory today then because Iran has had many of its missiles destroyed. Also it launched a lot of its missiles at U. S. Targets which means that its missile stockpile has been reduced. So this should be a source of optimism when The U. S. Moves from this very hard line objective such as regime change and they shift in towards missiles, reducing the missile stockpiles or something like this. But the straight of our moves, I think, is beyond what what is reasonable. It's it will be too difficult. So I don't think they will But why push too hard on do Speaker 0: you feel it would be difficult if I were to just look at the bases that they have across West Asia? They have enough military might. Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, have their bases there. How difficult would it be to exert that military might over the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, controlling it just means the ability to shut it down. Many countries would have the ability to shut down this narrow strait. The problem is that no one benefits from it, that is the Gulf States are hurt, Iran is hurt from it, The US and the global economy is hurt. So it becomes an exercise in self harm. The reason why the Iranians are doing this, the ability to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz is because The US has the ability to inflict a mass amount of destruction. It can go after civilian infrastructure, it can well, look what they've done to Tehran. It looks like, well, just, you know, the chemical warfare there. You've seen in terms of going after his fuel depots. They're going after the water supplies in Iran. You you see all these things. This is what America can do. Iran doesn't have that ability. They can't hit The United States. What they can do is cause economic pain. So, yes, I think The US and many of the Gulf States can also shut down the Strait Of Our Moose, but but but that's not that's it doesn't have any purpose. It doesn't have any reasoning. Speaker 0: Can they eradicate the Iranian control over the Strait Of Hormuz? I'm not talking about shutting it down, but just get rid of the Iranians from there and they then decide who gets to control and when it has to be shut and when it has to be opened and remained and kept open and secured. Can The US exert that kind of military might over the state of Hormuz to control it? Speaker 1: Then one need us to control a massive amount of Iran's territory, which is a huge territory with populated by 90,000,000 people. So this seems very unlikely and if closing down the Strait Of Hormuz would depend on very sophisticated weapon systems, will be one thing. But this can be shut down with drones which can be manufactured in apartments. It can be also shut down with small naval drones that is this essentially drone operated small torpedoes. There's it doesn't require a lot of high technology which means that The US can't take out very key infrastructure to prevent Iran from shutting this down, to force it to open. But with very cheap and easy to make weapons, the Iranians can shut it down and it's simply too much territory, too large population for The United States to shut down the these capabilities. So at some point, they're have to make peace with the Iranians and make it make sure it's in Iran's interest to keep the Strait Of Hormuz open because it is in their interest. The problem now is that Iran faces an existential threat. That is The US now threatens to destroy not just the government, but also the country. As Trump tweeted, we we will make it impossible for Iran to even rebuild as a nation. And this is what regime change means. There is no replacement government. This means the disintegration and destruction of Iran, a massive civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So for them this is existential which is why they went to this great extent. They've never done this before because they never believed that they faced this kind of an existential threat. So if the war ends, the Iranians have no reason to shut this straight down. This is very horrible for them as well. So, no, I I don't think The US can control the straight or almost no one can control it completely because too many actors could shut it down. Speaker 0: Glenn, thanks so much for joining me here on game plan. Whether this war continues further, that only means and if it does, that's essentially what Iran is looking at because they're not capitulating. They're not giving up. They are taking a bad amount of beating. There's no doubt in that, but they are continuing with their counters nevertheless. And straight of hormones is their main play where they're exerting their pressure with whether it's mines, whether it's their own boats, whether it's their own military boats. Now energy experts have also warned that whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia's economy, that depends directly on how long it lasts. But there is little to suggest that Iran is willing to capitulate that what we just discussed. They're inviting U. S. To continue the war on the other hand. That's what the statements from Iran suggest that we're waiting. Come on, on. Now in the midst of this, Russia is emerging as the winner as we just discussed. How long this lasts? It doesn't seem to be in the favor of The U. S. We'll need to wait and watch twelfth day and running. They expected it to last for about four to five weeks, whether it goes the distance or even longer. Let's wait. That was Glenn Deeson joining me here on Game Plan. Speaker 1: Thanks, Yvonne.

The speaker explains that America's interests can be either distinct or overlapping at different times. They emphasize that a primary concern is not going to war with Iran. The rationale given is that war would be a huge distraction of resources and would be massively expensive to the country.

The conversation highlights that, beyond the nuclear enrichment issue, there are numerous unresolved questions that must be addressed to reach a meaningful agreement. Key topics include who controls the Strait, the future of US military bases in the region, what security architecture would reassure Iran that it won’t be attacked again, and how to handle reparations and sanctions. The participants note interconnected problems involving Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran’s relations with them. Speaker 1 points out that the president has described force as the greatest cudgel, using bombs and the threat of bombs to compel a unified proposal and bring adversaries to the table, but Speaker 1 questions how viable this approach is given current fractures. Speaker 0 agrees it’s a repeated pattern of insisting on force, and emphasizes the irony of proponents claiming that bombing will produce a unified outcome when negotiations seem unlikely. Speaker 0 reinforces that the war was started and heavily bombed for a long period without achieving goals, arguing that the result so far is a loss of the war. They criticize President Trump’s belief that resuming bombing would yield the desired outcomes not achieved earlier, calling that line of reasoning foolish. Speaker 0 emphasizes there is no military option that will succeed and warns that escalation could benefit Iran. Speaker 0 further argues from an Iranian strategic perspective, suggesting that if they were playing Iran’s hand, they would not go to Islamabad soon but instead would urge the United States to escalate and see how the international economy would be affected—likening it to a Titanic approaching an iceberg—thereby increasing Iran’s leverage for a better deal than presently available. Speaker 1 notes that Israelis do not want the war ended and prefer continued escalation, implying a disconnect between U.S. strategy and Israeli preferences. They reiterate that Trump seems to be holding a weak hand, unable to secure a war-winning outcome, while the broader situation remains fragmented and complex with multiple regional actors and strategic considerations to resolve.

The discussion centers on the view that the United States has entered into a war with Iran on behalf of Israel, with the war framed as one that could be protracted and costly in American lives. The speakers contend that this conflict will not be resolved quickly despite assurances from the administration or Israel, and they warn of immediate economic and strategic consequences, including the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and potential damage to the US economy as energy infrastructure becomes a target. Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, is cited as warning that the US and Israel cannot win against Iran and that Iran is prepared for years of conflict. He is cited as recalling his testimony about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and arguing that the pretext for the current war—Iran’s alleged uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons—lacks supporting evidence from the CIA and the DNI. Ritter is described as asserting that the war will not be short and that the United States will face a drawn-out confrontation. Speaker 1 adds that the conflict is regional and will have consequences for the American public, noting the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as unprecedented and signaling an economic phase to the conflict. The claim is made that Iran has not experienced a popular uprising against its government; rather, there are rallies in support of the government. The war plan, initially predicated on a decapitation strategy, is described as having gone awry from the start, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly telling the president that there are insufficient resources to win, yet the campaign proceeded. The proximity of the initial strikes to a “decapitation” objective is emphasized, and the assertion is made that the war is already lost due to resource constraints and misalignment of the plan. Speaker 0 references an operation named “lion’s roar” by the Israeli Air Force, describing it as the largest sortie in Israeli history with 200 jets and 500 targets, calling it the genesis of the opening strike. The expectation discussed is that the initial phase could involve using less advanced weapons to overwhelm air defenses, while Iran claims to possess capabilities not yet demonstrated publicly. Over the next 24 to 96 hours, the speakers anticipate continuous strikes aimed at regime change, destruction of air defenses, and suppression of ballistic missile launches, including production capacity near Tehran. The discussion suggests that Iran has prepared extensive dispersal of targets (creating thousands of additional targets) and that Iranian forces are likely to relocate to avoid interdiction, complicating intelligence and targeting efforts for Israel and the United States. A key conclusion asserted by the speakers is that the conflict represents a war of choice, and they describe it as an illegal war of aggression contravening the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations Charter. They argue that Iran will respond forcefully and that the United States and Israel will face escalating resistance, with Iran viewed as likely to gain the upper hand and to pursue a diplomatic settlement favorable to Iranian objectives, including non-nuclear goals. The expectation is that Russia and China will push for a diplomatic resolution that aligns with Iran’s terms, particularly in avoiding a nuclear outcome.

- Trump has been presenting optimistic updates about negotiations with Iran, despite Iran denying them, and there is a belief that Monday morning actions are an attempt to manipulate markets, keep oil prices low, and keep the stock market high. - If a weekend land invasion of Iran occurs, many military experts suspect US troops would have to land or parachute in, which would change gold demand and pricing dynamics. - Speaker 1 explains that a true war outcome would require ground troops to take control of territory, not just air strikes or bombs. He notes Trump promised no troops on the ground, but argues that regime change would be impossible without occupying the country, leading to higher American casualties and families affected. - He warns that sending troops would mean they would have to stay in Iran, creating a prolonged conflict akin to Iraq or Afghanistan, with no clear exit strategy and ongoing political and strategic problems. - He suggests that Trump could alternatively declare victory and withdraw, claiming the destruction of Iran’s military capabilities (no navy, no air force, no nuclear program) as a complete victory and greatest military achievement. - The discussion then notes that the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war, implying strategic stakes and continued vulnerability. - Speaker 0 points out that Iran has pledged not to allow US occupation and would fight back, describing Iran as a country of 90 million with rugged terrain and highly motivated, religiously committed people who could be willing to die for their country. - They acknowledge the assumption that Iranians are uniformly supportive of a US liberation, labeling that notion as crazy. - They conclude that there could be even greater anti-American sentiment in Iran now than a month ago, recognizing that the population’s reaction to war may be hostile despite US actions.

The United States cannot win this war against Iran. The speaker says Iran has geographic, geopolitical, and strategic dominance, and can shut down the Strait of Hormuz whenever they want, so the United States cannot win “short of something crazy like nukes.” Because of this, the speaker argues the United States should tell Israel to win the war by telling Israel to keep doing what it is doing in Lebanon, while the United States would cut off funding if Israel does not comply—“you will never see a dime from the United States.” The speaker presents this as the only way the United States could achieve the war objective against Iran and rejects the idea that the suggestion is “crazy.” The speaker then states that in the real world, Trump is not going to cut off Israel, saying he will not do so due to “all the strings attached” to him and who he is beholden to in the United States.

The speakers discuss how Americans are influenced by “sensational messaging” from Hollywood and national symbols—such as the American dream, “America the beautiful,” and the pledge of allegiance—to view the United States as the freest country and to romanticize America’s government. They argue that, in reality, the system functions like “100% a corporation,” using taxpayer-funded contracts and grants to “prop itself up.” They say the government engages in foreign wars they characterize as “evil,” and that the public pays for these actions. The speakers then describe a cycle in which Hollywood produces action movies that glorify the military. One speaker, a former army officer, says it is especially “disgusting and nefarious” because men and women sign up for “noble causes” but are used for purposes the speaker claims have nothing to do with defending the constitution or protecting American freedoms. They cite “Operation Iraqi Freedom” and “Operation During Freedom” and state it is “almost common knowledge” that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the invasion had no business, including in light of questions and skepticism about events on 09/11. They argue these actions were disastrous and did not produce more freedom. The speaker contends that bombing “innocent” people and causing “justifiable collateral damage” in foreign countries—while displacing hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, and destroying entire civilizations—does not stop terrorism, but instead enrage people in those areas. They emphasize that while service members sign up believing they are fighting to defend freedoms and security, what they are actually fighting for is different. The other speaker responds that it is “sad” and expresses sympathy for military members. They say many veterans realize the truth while on “that bloody road,” watching friends die or being injured in wars unrelated to defending America’s freedoms or security, and instead connected to protecting the corporate interests of America and making “a small percentage of people very rich.”

The discussion centers on Iran’s response to the latest US peace terms and the broader trajectory of the conflict. Iran publicly rejected the terms, calling them “completely unrealistic” and signaling that they would not open the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the claim is made that the rumblings from US outlets and the president’s rhetoric suggested closeness to a deal, but those impressions are challenged as inconsistent with Iran’s stance. Project Freedom is said to have been shelved after Saudi Arabia reportedly refused to allow US forces to use its airspace and a key regional airbase, making the Trump administration’s stated option to advance that plan unworkable. The host asks where things stand on the escalation ladder. Professor Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, describes the situation as a trap. He argues that the fundamental issues in play have not changed since the bombs began falling about seventy days ago. He praises the US military’s tactical performance—air, naval, and leadership-target strikes—but criticizes the strategy as fundamentally flawed. According to Pape, tactical successes do not yield meaningful strategic results, and Iran’s power is growing due to geography and cheap technologies like drones and mines. He notes that even after sinking Iran’s navy, the impact was negligible because Iran’s power persists and expands, especially given a Gulf-wide vulnerability to Hormuz. A critical development discussed is Iran’s action near the UAE, striking a pipeline that bypassed Hormuz and moved nearly 2,000,000 barrels of oil per day. This demonstrated Iran’s capacity to inflict damage despite a naval blockade, contributing to Gulf states’ reluctance to participate in or support US actions. The implication is that US punitive measures—hitting energy infrastructure or power grids—are unlikely to force Iran to kneel and may instead provoke greater retaliation. Pape warns that the escalation could drag on for months, with consequences such as rising gasoline prices in the US, potentially reaching about $6 in May or higher in some places like Chicago. The conversation turns to more immediate developments: fresh drone attacks around Kishem Island with Iran claiming air defenses intercepted the assaults; Iranian officials reportedly require compensation for damages and the withdrawal of all US forces from the Gulf as preconditions for ending the war. Pape reframes these attacks as part of Iran’s effort to keep the United States off balance and off leadership leverage, suggesting that Trump’s approach—driven by civilian leadership and charisma—misses the realities of great-power politics. He discusses the broader risk of increased Gulf infrastructure targeting if the US escalates, including the potential for higher gas prices and substantial infrastructure repair costs. The interview ends with reflections on the limits of punishment as a strategy, the enduring influence of Iran’s geopolitical position, and the likelihood that even if further force is used, it may not yield the desired strategic outcome. The speakers acknowledge the difficulty of predicting exact moves but emphasize the persistence of the escalation trap and the real-world consequences for energy markets and regional stability.

Speaker 0 contends that the world economy is severely damaged and worsening, blaming Israel’s influence, Trump’s policies, and BlackRock. They say Trump reversed the downturn but that his current behavior worsens the situation, describing him as a degenerate gambler who keeps betting with the people’s money. They warn that the global economy is being sunk by these decisions and that any recovery would be unlikely if he does not shut down the current course. Speaker 1 argues a simple plan: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and they won’t have one. They claim the president didn’t want to go that far, but there is no pressure from elsewhere. They assert victory will come, stating that militarily they have already achieved a complete victory in theory, with Iran’s navy effectively nullified and ships sunk by the U.S. They emphasize Iran’s strategy hinges on closing the Strait of Hormuz, not their blue-water navy. They note Iran has now made larger financial demands—a claim of $500,000,000,000 in reparations—describing these as part of a broader disaster. They accuse globalists and BlackRock of engineering the war to derail the Trump recovery, leading to inflation, fertilizer shortages, and a planetary downturn. They say there is no way to reverse this and warn that threats of further strikes against Iran could worsen the situation. They also accuse media and political figures of misrepresenting the war’s trajectory, and criticize those who supported the war for claiming to have been right. They suggest the debt situation is dire, with the national debt approaching or exceeding GDP in service, calling this a banana republic scenario. They describe a coming period of permanent austerity and a “great reset” via a central bank digital currency system, and contrast this with the supposed prior plan that could have rebuilt the economy. Speaker 2 adds that the United States holds all the cards if escalation occurs, but the goal is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore open access without mines in the water or tolls. They emphasize the aim to return to the previous open state of the strait. Throughout, Speaker 0 revisits earlier warnings about the start of the war, insisting Schmoyle (Schmoy/ Schmoyle) had warned this would derail the global recovery. They recall personal discussions with Tucker Carlson about Trump’s assessment of the war’s consequences, noting that Trump claimed “everything I do always turns out okay,” even as the analyst contends the consequences have been severe. They reiterate that the “globalist trap” and the Iran war were designed to undermine the U.S. and world economy, with the goal of bringing about a prolonged austerity and a global cashless system. They describe demonstrably worsening indicators—stocks, oil, and rates rising; inflation accelerating; fertilizer shortages; and a deepening recession—arguing these dynamics confirm the planned malaise. They reference headlines about inflation, the Iran confrontation, and potential sleeper cells, and they criticize the left, Democrats, neocons, and “MAGA knob polishers” for supporting the war. They reiterate that the globalists’ objective is to derail the U.S. and Western economies and to push toward a controlled, austerity-driven global order, while claiming the administration’s responses are failing to reverse the trend.