reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The region is currently facing its greatest danger in years. There is a credible threat of an attack by Hezbollah and other Iranian allies, potentially leading to a nuclear war. Israel, in response, could defend itself using all available weapons, including nuclear capabilities. This situation is extremely perilous.

The discussion centers on a tense moment over Iran, with President Trump issuing an ultimatum to Iran: come to the table for a new nuclear agreement or the United States will hit Iran again, with the next strike described as far worse than the last. An armada led by the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is reportedly moving toward Iran, framed as a ready-to-go force for a potential rapid strike if necessary. The hosts question whether this is genuine leverage for negotiations or a countdown to war. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter joins to analyze the buildup. Ritter argues that Trump has backed down twice before in decisive engagement with Iran, citing the downing of a Global Hawk and the aborted bombing in support of protesters. He suggests that what is unfolding is part of a broader campaign strategy, including economic pressure that led to protests in Iran, which he attributes to Mossad and CIA-controlled agitators during a “shaking the tree” phase. He contends that Israel has signaled the next strike against Iran must be the last, and believes the planned attack would be a full-spectrum assault involving air strikes, cyberattacks, and support for CIA/Mossad-backed groups inside Iran to dismantle the government quickly. Ritter claims Iran will respond with cyber warfare and possibly shut down critical infrastructure and temporarily seize control of the Strait of Hormuz; he predicts the result would be severe consequences for the region and the United States, including economic fallout. He asserts that Iran will not back down on its nuclear program, characterizing negotiations as unacceptable to Iran and linking Iran’s enrichment program to national pride and existential survival. He also argues that the United States is acting in support of Israel, with Trump’s actions influenced by Israeli money and policy, and labels Iran as not pursuing a nuclear weapons program at this time—though 60% enrichment shortens timelines and complicates intelligence efforts. Ritter emphasizes that Congress should declare war, not the president, and warns that the United States could lose an aircraft carrier and suffer broader devastation if conflict escalates. He also critiques the characterizations of Iran as imminently threatening, arguing that the preemption narrative is not supported by imminent threat criteria and suggesting diplomacy and restraint are warranted. The conversation then shifts to US preemption rhetoric and the role of Congress. A speaker argues that the baseline presence of 30,000–40,000 American troops in the region, within range of Iranian missiles and UAVs, requires a credible defensive posture. They criticize Marco Rubio for framing preemption as legitimate self-defense, noting that Article 51 of the UN Charter allows preemption only for imminent threat and that such immediacy is not demonstrated. The discussion suggests a need for congressional scrutiny and potential impeachment if war is pursued without proper authorization. On nuclear questions, Ritter shares his intelligence assessment: Iran is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapons program and has not reconstituted a full enrichment program, though 60% uranium enrichment represents a concern. He asserts that while Iran is capable of cyber warfare, a broader strike against Iran would likely trigger significant retaliation, including against Israel, which he describes as vulnerable to Iranian missiles. The dialogue moves to Cuba, with Rubio and Trump signaling aggressive moves toward regime change. Ritter sees Cuba as more resilient than Libya and notes the long-standing US effort to topple the Cuban government, complicated by Cuba’s limited leverage and its trade relations with China, Russia, and Venezuela. The panel discusses the Monroe Doctrine reinterpretation and the broader geopolitical contest with China and Russia, suggesting that Cuba will be a tougher target than the US expects. In closing, Ritter reiterates that an attack on Iran is unlikely and would be disastrous, cautioning that internal political calculations, including midterm consequences, will influence presidents’ decisions. The show thanks Ritter for his analysis.

We've targeted Iran's top nuclear scientists, comparing them to Hitler's nuclear team, as well as ballistic missile manufacturing facilities. Iran is allegedly targeting our population with one-ton bombs, while we are targeting military, nuclear, and ballistic missile sites to prevent them from possessing 20,000 such weapons. If we don't act now, it will be too late. We're protecting ourselves, our Arab neighbors, and the world from Iran's ballistic missiles that can reach Europe and soon the United States. This regime has caused death to Americans, and we don't want them to have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. Today it's Tel Aviv, tomorrow it's New York. We're doing something in the service of mankind, a battle of good against evil. America stands with the good, and I appreciate President Trump's support.

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 reports aggressive military actions and ongoing negotiations with Iran. They state that they have “destroyed a lot of additional targets today” and that “the navy's gone” and “the air force is gone,” while noting that “we know that” and that they “destroyed many, many targets today” in what was “a big day.” Negotiations are described as both direct and indirect, with emissaries involved as well as direct dealings. On the diplomatic side, the speaker says Iran “agreed to send eight votes two days ago, and then they added another two, so it was 10 votes,” and that “today, they gave us as a tribute I don't know. Can't define it exactly, but they gave us, I think out of a sign of respect, 20 boats of oil.” These vessels would be moving “through the Hormoz Strait” and would begin “starting tomorrow morning over the next couple of days.” The speaker claims to be “doing extremely well in that negotiation,” while acknowledging uncertainty in dealings with Iran: “you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up.” Historical references are cited to explain current posture: the “b two bombers” and the termination of the “Iran nuclear deal done by Barack Hussein Obama, probably the worst deal we've ever done as a country, of the dumbest deals we've ever done.” The speaker asserts that the deal was terminated, otherwise “right now, they'd have a nuclear weapon,” and that an attack with the B-2 bombers was used to stop them from having nuclear capability. The speaker suggests a possible future deal with Iran but notes it is not certain: “I think we'll make a deal with them. Pretty sure. But it's possible we won't.” Regarding regime change, the speaker asserts that “we've had regime change, if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed. They're all dead.” The “next regime is mostly dead,” and the “third regime” involves “a whole different group of people” than any before. The speaker contends that this constitutes regime change and characterizes the first regime as “really bad, really evil,” which is claimed to be “done.” The second regime is described as “appointed, and they're gone.” The third group is described as “much more reasonable,” leading the speaker to say that regime change appears to be achieved and may be automatic.

The world has changed due to Trump's actions. Many Americans, including independents and some Republicans, are aware of his misrepresentations and the potential for war. I expressed concern that as pressure mounts, he may lead us into a conflict with Iran. Sadly, it seems my worries may have been justified. This election holds significant consequences.

Speaker 0 outlines steps Donald Trump has taken to create a war with Iran: first, he tore up the Iran nuclear agreement. Speaker 1 confirms, “I am announcing today that The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.” Speaker 0 notes a second step: he has escalated crippling sanctions against Iran. Speaker 1 adds, “The sanctions kicking in at midnight Sunday target Iran's oil exports, banking, and shipping. Even though UN inspectors say Iran is still complying with the nuclear deal. The United States will pursue sanctions tougher than ever before.” Speaker 0 identifies a third step: he designated Iran's military as a terrorist organization. Speaker 2 states, “Secretary of state Mike Pompeo has announced that The US is designating the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terror group. Today, The United States is continuing to build its maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime. I'm announcing our intent to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including its good force, as a foreign terrorist organization.” The summary adds that, with this designation, the US can sanction “pretty much anybody who talks to or deals with or has any business whatsoever with the IRGC.” Speaker 0 lists a fourth step: he continues to deploy more and more US troops to the region. Speaker 2 reports, “Just moments ago, the Pentagon authorized an additional 1,000 American troops to The Middle East in response to growing concerns over Iran.” He also notes that “a US aircraft carrier and a bomber task force are being sent to areas closer to Iran.” Speaker 2 adds a bellicose message: “Yes. There will indeed be hell to pay. Let my message today be very clear. We are watching, and we will come after you.” Speaker 0 shifts to a political appeal, saying, “We’ve got to stop Donald Trump from starting a war with Iran. I'm asking you to join me and support my legislation, the No More Presidential Wars Act.” To participate in the third presidential debate, she states that “in order to qualify … I need at least a 130,000 people to contribute to our campaign.” She asks viewers to donate, instructing them to click the link or donate at tulsi twenty twenty dot com.

The conversation centers on multiple competing narratives about the war and its wider regional significance, with the speakers presenting their interpretations and challenging each other’s points. - The hosts open by acknowledging competing narratives: some view the war as a necessary action against a regime seen as destabilizing and dangerous (nuclear ambitions, regional havoc); others see it as Israel removing a geopolitical threat with U.S. involvement; a third perspective argues it stemmed from miscalculations by Trump, perhaps driven by Israeli influence. The dialogue frames the war within broader questions of American, Israeli, and Iranian aims. - Speaker 1 references Joseph Kent’s resignation letter, arguing Iran was not an immediate U.S. threat and that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby influenced Trump toward war. They assert Trump’s stated interest in Iranian oil and control of the Strait of Hormuz; they describe Trump as guided by business interests. They frame U.S. actions as part of a long-standing pattern of demonizing enemies to justify intervention, citing Trump’s “animals” comment toward Iranians and labeling this demonization as colonial practice. - Speaker 0 pushes back on Trump’s rhetoric but notes it suggested a willingness to pressure Iran for concessions. They question whether Trump could transition from ending some wars to endorsing genocidal framing, acknowledging disagreement with some of Trump’s statements but agreeing that Israeli influence and Hormuz control were important factors. They also inquire whether Trump miscalculated a prolonged conflict and ask how Iran continued to fire missiles and drones despite expectations of regime collapse, seeking clarity on Iran’s resilience. - Speaker 1 clarifies that the Iranian system is a government, not a regime, and explains that Iranian missile and drone capabilities were prepared in advance, especially after Gaza conflicts. They note Iran’s warning that an attack would trigger a regional war, and reference U.S. intelligence assessments stating Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or a program for one at present, which Trump publicly dismissed in favor of Netanyahu’s view. They recount that Iran’s leaders warned of stronger responses if attacked, and argue Iran’s counterstrikes reflected a strategic calculus to deter further aggression while acknowledging Iran’s weaker, yet still capable, position. - The discussion shifts to regional dynamics: the balance of power, the loss of Israel’s “card” of American support if Iran can close Hormuz, and the broader implications for U.S.-Israel regional leverage. Speaker 1 emphasizes the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress, while also suggesting Mossad files could influence Trump, and notes that the war leverages Netanyahu’s stance but may not fully explain U.S. decisions. - The two then debate Gulf states’ roles: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are depicted as providing bases and support to the United States; Kuwait as a near neighbor with vulnerability to Iranian action and strategic bases for American forces. They discuss international law, noting the war’s alleged illegality without a UN Security Council authorization, and reference the unwilling-or-unable doctrine to explain Gulf state complicity. - The conversation covers Iran’s and Lebanon’s involvement: Iran’s leverage via missiles and drones, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as a Lebanese organization with Iranian support. They discuss Hezbollah’s origins in response to Israeli aggression and their current stance—driving Lebanon into conflict for Iran’s sake, while Hezbollah asserts independence and Lebanon’s interests. They acknowledge Lebanon’s ceasefire violations on both sides and debate who bears responsibility for dragging Lebanon into war; Hezbollah’s leaders are described as navigating loyalties to Iran, Lebanon, and their people, with some insistence that Hezbollah acts as a defender of Lebanon rather than a mere proxy. - Towards the end, the speakers reflect on personal impact and future dialogue. They acknowledge the war’s wide, long-lasting consequences for Lebanon and the region, and express interest in continuing the discussion, potentially in person, to further explore these complex dynamics.

The host notes the ceasefire appears to be over after Israel scuttled Trump’s plans for a two-week peace; the Wall Street Journal reports that Netanyahu was furious he wasn’t included in the peace plan discussions. The host says Israel wasn’t formally part of Iran negotiations and was unhappy it learned a deal was finalized late and wasn’t consulted, according to mediators and a promoter familiar with the matter. Speaker 1 interjects apologetically, then remarks that online narrative suggests that if you say Israel led the US into this war, you’re antisemitic, which they call antisemitic, and speculate that they’re all antisemitic. Speaker 0 describes Israel as throwing a tantrum “like a toddler” after the peace plan’s collapse and launching massive airstrikes on residential buildings in southern Lebanon, supposedly with no military purpose. Speaker 2 counters that civilians are involved and mentions tunnels under the area. Speaker 0 notes these attacks also targeted Iranian and Chinese Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure, calling it a direct attack on China, and claims at least 250 people were killed in these attacks on civilian apartment complexes in southern Lebanon. Speaker 1 adds that bombs continue to hit Beirut, with images described as horrific; there are 256 confirmed deaths at that point. Israel is also ramping up attacks in Gaza and the West Bank, which some warned would happen once the ceasefire was announced. Speaker 3 states that Netanyahu says the ceasefire with the US and Iran “is cute, but it doesn’t really have much to do with Israel,” and that Israel will keep fighting whenever they want, noting that two weeks were announced but not the end of the world. Acknowledgment follows that “we were not surprised in the last moment.” Calls for Netanyahu’s resignation in Israel rise. Iran announces it will close the Strait of Hormuz; the Trump administration says water will open but contradicts Fox News reporting that tankers have been stopped due to the ceasefire breach. Fox News reports raise concerns about whether the plan is credible. Speaker 4 mentions that Iran’s parliament says the ceasefire is violated in three ways: noncompliance with the ceasefire in Lebanon (civilians being slaughtered), violation of Iranian airspace, and denial of Iran’s right to enrichment; Iran insists uranium enrichment remains part of the deal, while the Trump administration claims they will not enrich uranium. Speaker 5 adds that Iran’s ability to fund and support proxies has been reduced, claiming Iran can no longer distribute weapons to proxies and will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons; prior to the operation, Iran was expanding its short-range ballistic missile arsenal and its navy, which posed an imminent threat to US assets and regional allies. The host counters that June had claimed “done enriching uranium,” but Iran says they will do whatever they want, having “won the war.” Speaker 6 asks how one eliminates a proxy’s ability to distribute weapons if the weapons and proxy networks already exist. Speaker 1 notes the points are contentious and shifts to a discussion with Ryan Grimm from Dropside News. The host, Speaker 0, asks Grimm to weigh in on the 10-point plan circulated as Trump’s plan, which Grimm says is not a formal document and not necessarily accurate; a “collection of different proposals” from Iran that was “collected into a single proposal” and later claimed to be new when presented as a new 10-point plan. Grimm describes the process as inconsistent and says the administration’s narrative has become convoluted. A segment follows about a centenarian, Maria Morea (born 1907, died 2024 at 117), whose gut microbiome showed diverse beneficial bacteria; studies of long-lived people show similar patterns, suggesting longevity relates to daily habits and gut health. The sponsor pitch for kimchi capsules is included, noting it provides gut-beneficial bacteria with Brightcore’s product, offering a discount. Speaker 0 returns to the ceasefire discussions, arguing that Israel’s actions indicate it does not want peace. Grimm expands, saying Israel is in a worse position than before and aims to push north into Lebanon and perhaps target maritime resources; Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz would elevate its regional status, with Belt and Road targets implying a significant structural shift. The host questions whether Trump would abandon Netanyahu if necessary and whether Trump would throw Netanyahu under the bus to stop the war. Grimm suggests Trump may prefer an out to avoid broader conflict, while noting the political stakes in the US and international responses. The discussion then revisits how Netanyahu allegedly sold the war to Trump and cabinet members, with New York Times reporting that the aim was to kill leaders, blunt Iran’s power, and potentially replace the Iranian government, while acknowledging that the initial strikes did not achieve regime change and that Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxies have been affected by the conflict. The segment closes with a humorous analogy to a Broadway line about a fully armed battalion.

Speaker 0 notes that Monday feels distant and references Gulf News in Dubai welcoming US–Iran talks and calling for peace across the region; they acknowledge uncertainty about whether by the time the broadcast airs war may have already begun. Speaker 1 argues that fear is not the dominant motivation behind the current administration’s actions, but there is real fundamental ambiguity and uncertainty about what they are trying to achieve. He mentions strategic ambiguity and strategic inconsistency, suggesting the US administration has done more of the latter. He asks whether President Trump intends to limit Iran’s nuclear program, its missile program, or its support to proxies, or if he is aiming for regime change. He concedes there is some understanding that Trump wants negotiations to center not only on civil nuclear capabilities but also on ballistic missiles, and to some extent on other elements, even if the aims remain unclear. Speaker 0 responds that they do know Trump wants negotiations to center on the nuclear issue beyond civil nuclear concerns, which he implies does not exist as a simple distinction, as well as on ballistic missiles. He references Trump’s stated goals to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons and to address missiles, indicating these were among his latest utterances. He adds that this has been the goal of every US administration, though tactics have changed. He suggests that the US is trying to determine whether to focus on preventing nuclear weapons, missile capabilities, or broader influence, implying that the approach and emphasis have varied. Speaker 1 notes that the consensus, based on statements by others including Secretary of State Rubio, is that the US senses Iran is historically weak and believes it can secure a much better deal. He lists potential components of a stronger deal: no indigenous uranium enrichment, no stockpiles of uranium, and severe limitations on both the range and number of Iranian missiles and on Tehran’s support for proxies. He points out that Israel is seeking the de minimis in this portfolio, and that there is constant communication between Israel and the United States on the Iran portfolio.

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.

We seem to be heading to war with Iran, with little pushback from Republicans. War with Iran could mean Armageddon, with no appreciation for the implications for the US, Europe, and the Middle East. Twenty percent of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz, and Iran has missiles that can reach 1,200 miles with precision. If we bomb Iran, our bases in Iraq and Syria will be targeted. Hezbollah has a large operation in Mexico, and their agents could cause trouble here at home. If we attack Iran, Russia will not sit by quietly. Sanctions haven't stopped Iran's military development. Our military is at a weak point. If the US enters this conflict, it will be difficult for Russia and Turkey not to also come into this fight against us.

- President Trump has threatened an entire civilization with utter destruction if Iran does not meet an 8 PM deadline tonight for negotiations and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. He posted “A whole civilization will die tonight” on Truth Social, and the remark is circulating on X. - Ahead of the deadline, Israel began striking civilian infrastructure in Iran, including railways, bridges, and critical transit routes. Officials say these are military targets, with ongoing debate about civilian damage. - Vice President JD Vance says the United States is prepared to use tools not used before and that the U.S. will get a response from the Iranians by 08:00 tonight, positive or negative. He says the goal is a world where oil and gas is flowing freely, where people can heat and cool their homes and transport themselves, and that Iran must avoid “acts of economic terrorism.” He mentions tools in the toolkit that the President can decide to use if Iran does not change course. - JD Vance’s stance is described as doubling down on this rhetoric and the 8 PM deadline. - The discussion questions what “tools in our toolkit” refers to, noting the White House PR team’s denial that it referred to nuclear weapons; the host suggests the remark was ambiguous or open to interpretation. - Civilians in Iran are forming human chains on bridges, placing themselves at risk in a display of defiance and self-sacrifice. The host and guest question whether this indicates a desire to be Bombed or a call for greater humanity from the U.S. and Israel. - Professor Morandi from Iran discusses the threat as read inside Iran, noting that Trump has repeatedly spoken of “obliterating Iran.” He observes that Western media do not condemn Trump’s violent rhetoric, even as they oppose war generally. - Targets cited by the IDF map include eight bridge segments near Tehran, Qaraj, Tabriz, Kasham, and Qom, described as military targets; Morandi notes that universities have been bombed in Tehran, as have other academic institutions, and questions how civilians and infrastructure are treated. - Morandi explains that, from Iran’s perspective, a ceasefire is unacceptable because it would allow renewed attacks in six months and would require reparations; Arab Gulf regimes hosting bases must pay for the damage. - The host and Morandi discuss the psychology of Iranians standing against the United States, highlighting civilian resilience, religious-cultural motivations, and the sense of dignity against imperialism. - Morandi notes Iran’s alliances across the world, including Yemen’s Ansarullah/Houthis, Iraqi resistance groups, Hezbollah, and Palestinian groups; he warns that closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait would be catastrophic for global oil routes and could intensify energy prices. - The program observes that Iran’s air defenses and missile capabilities are robust and that the U.S. may miscalculate Iran’s defense capabilities; Morandi asserts Iran can retaliate against U.S. and allied oil and gas assets in the region. - Allegations of propaganda include “death to America” chants, which Morandi explains as anti-imperial, not literal calls to destroy the United States as a country. - The segment ends with a call for cooler heads to prevail and a reminder of the 8 PM deadline, with Morandi thanking the host and urging safety.

Biden's attempt to play both sides has backfired as he lifted sanctions on Iran, allowing them to gain billions of dollars in wealth. Iran is now just 30 days away from obtaining nuclear capability. The previous administration terminated the nuclear deal but failed to take any further action. If the election outcome had been different, a deal with Iran could have been reached within two weeks. However, Biden's decision has made Iran rich again, with China being their top oil customer. This incompetence has led to the imminent threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, which is unacceptable.

Europe is portrayed as moving toward a potential large-scale war with Russia, while diplomats in Ukraine are said to be “doubling down” instead of leaving despite Russia’s warnings of an imminent massive bombing attack. The discussion frames Russia as rarely bluffing, stating it typically signals what it will do and then carries it out, particularly by shifting from restrained actions to a “new phase” of greater danger. Former CIA officer Larry Johnson says Russia held back from striking key areas in Kyiv four years ago, when the city was encircled and Russia had only one artery out. He argues that Russia previously lacked the full inventory of weapons and personnel needed to confront NATO but that Russia now has them. Johnson says the tone shift began about three weeks earlier when Dmitry Puliantsky, described as Russia’s ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and a former UN official, stated Europe was on the target list because of Europe’s support for attacks described as terrorist attacks inside Russia. Johnson says the position was reinforced by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Rypkow and then finalized by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in comments to Marco Rubio, including that Russia is giving the West notice and time to vacate. Johnson emphasizes that attacks on civilian targets that involve bombing and killing civilians are described as terrorism, regardless of the actor. He also says Russia held back until it could remove intelligence assets—people and operational support personnel—from sites linked to CIA, SBU, and defense headquarters, so the warning is aimed not only at diplomats but also at secondary personnel supporting military and intelligence operations. In response to questions about how hard it would be for infiltrators to leave, Johnson describes operational tradecraft and argues Russia likely penetrated sectors across military, intelligence, law enforcement, and diplomatic areas. He says Russia makes a calculation about whether information gained from assets is more valuable than destroying them, and that Russia has decided to destroy units now. He adds that public handling of the warnings can enable assets to avoid detection by not showing up to work without triggering immediate suspicion. On the scale of escalation, Johnson describes the next phase as moving from intermittent attacks to “high speed,” intensifying assaults intended to lay groundwork to reoccupy and take Kyiv, and also take Odessa. He says Russia’s actions reflect a determination that the “special military operation” will enter a new level of activity, and he argues Russia would establish a pro-Russian government rather than leaving it unchanged. He also cites past Soviet/Russian experiences with insurgency and radical jihadist conflict, including efforts involving Ukrainian guerrilla groups and later Chechen conflicts, describing a history of crushing such movements over years. The discussion then shifts to Iran and a “so-called” ceasefire, including reports of a potential 60-day extension requiring President Trump’s sign-off. Johnson says that, within the last 25 minutes, Iran shot down an MQ-9 drone belonging to the Americans in Bushehr province and that over three consecutive days there has been exchange of fire involving the United States’ combat air patrol and Iranians on the ground. The conversation says Iran stopped additional US ships and that shots were fired at a US tanker attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Johnson lists Iranian conditions for agreement: assets being unfrozen immediately, sanctions ending especially on oil, Strait of Hormuz coming under Iranian control alongside Oman, and an environmental fee for ships akin to arrangements in the Dardanelles. He also says Iran’s conditions include stopping the war in Lebanon and stopping killing of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. He argues that without Trump forcing the hand of Israel, the ceasefire will not hold, and he says there is no agreement to end fighting because the sides remain far apart, with the Trump administration portrayed as unwilling to accept Iran’s conditions.

The discussion centers on shifting U.S. rhetoric toward Iran and Israel amid negotiations and escalating conflict. As the interview goes live, news reports Iran suspended its trip to Switzerland for the opening round of nuclear negotiations. Iran’s stated reason is ongoing Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon, arguing Israel is operating over six miles inside Lebanese territory in violation of Article 1 of the MOU calling for an immediate end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon. Iran says if the ceasefire clause is being breached before negotiations begin, there is nothing to go to Geneva for. Trump is also described as posting a call for a complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel. The interview then focuses on Israel as a “wild card” in the MOU and whether Trump can restrain Netanyahu. The colonel says Israeli leadership and U.S. billionaire supporters helped put Trump into office and are turning current events into “a test of Jewish power,” aiming to pressure Trump back into attacking Iran. He argues this approach reflects disproportionate influence already held by these actors, and predicts efforts to bully the president toward war. A CNN report is referenced describing Netanyahu lobbying to shape the final U.S.-Iran agreement by pressuring Trump through allies and intermediaries in Washington, mobilizing pro-Israeli senators and media allies. Netanyahu is said to believe a final agreement will be reached but is concerned Tehran will not uphold it. Separately, Netanyahu is described as saying Israel will restore security to the north through maintaining a security zone in southern Lebanon until Israel’s security needs require it, which the interviewer links to Netanyahu rallying U.S. influence to pressure Trump. When asked whether Trump can withstand this pressure, the colonel describes a transformation in Trump’s foreign-policy posture: he says Trump did not want a war with Iran, believed an arrangement could be reached, and showed reluctance to go to war generally. The colonel describes interruptions in foreign-policy dialogue after Ukraine in April 2022, then describes increasing belligerence around the early Iran conflict, including an account of Trump’s expectation that military action could end the war quickly. He then says Trump concluded the approach was not going well, became concerned about financial markets and the U.S. economy, and that the repeated claim “this war is going to end soon” could not end the conflict without a closure. The colonel argues Trump found no military solution and that using a nuclear weapon was “off the table.” He frames Trump’s challenge as dealing with Israel in a context where only an MOU exists as a rough framework, and highlights provisions aligned with Trump’s instincts, including not meddling in internal affairs and desire for forces to return home. He claims Trump was shown information about atrocities by Israelis against people in Gaza and Lebanon and that Trump’s statement about not needing to destroy an entire apartment building to eliminate one person reflects a broader realization. The colonel says some people are calling for Trump’s resignation because he “lost a war,” and responds that major powers do not achieve permanent “perfect victory streaks,” but instead must cut losses and move on. The colonel argues that future power in the Middle East will be dominated by Iran and Turkey, describing them as different from Israel and emphasizing that provoking Turkey would lead to a “fight to the finish.” He argues Israel’s existential threat is not Iran but Turkey, and contends that Israel and others are operating in a changing global environment where ISR-strike complexes and persistent surveillance plus standoff attack weapons enable new defensive and offensive capabilities. He concludes that the war must be brought to an end because the world has fundamentally changed and efforts to “reset it to backwards” are tied to calls for bombing more. A question is raised about how escalation could work if Israel continues strikes in Lebanon and Iran retaliates, and Trump chooses not to get involved, including not intercepting missiles. The colonel replies that this is “almost already happening,” citing Israeli shelling from southern Lebanon artillery positions and predicting Israel will attack Hizballah positions, which he describes as an existential threat for Israel. He says Israel would need U.S. assistance—munitions, missiles, intelligence—and predicts Netanyahu would pressure Trump politically if support were withheld, including threats aimed at Trump’s political survival. He also says he is “genuinely concerned” about the president’s safety. The conversation then shifts to claimed political and systemic factors limiting presidential agency and the possibility of escalation beyond normal pressure campaigns. The colonel suggests investigations involving members of the president’s family and references wealth growth and “Epstein files” as elements that could return to center stage. He also describes how criminal or political actions and unpredictable events have historically led leaders to be removed or harmed, and compares concerns to the experience of President Kennedy’s assassination. When discussing how pressure campaigns could become more sinister, he outlines ways investigations, media narratives, and orchestrated blame could be pursued. Near the end, the colonel discusses how broader U.S. and military bureaucracies operate, stating commanders can be constrained by service chiefs and confirmed positions, and arguing that institutional incentives discourage independent action. He recommends his book “A Margin of Victory: Five Battles That Changed the Face of War, Modern Warfare,” and says it addresses the limits of what government can accomplish on an average day due to other people’s decisions and confirmed constraints. The interview closes with the colonel referencing a Substack piece coming out Sunday or Monday discussing a shift in power and asserting that Iran has won the war and is “invincible,” “humbled, but not broken.”

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

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.

Speaker 1 states that 20 years ago, the situation with Iraq was different because there were no weapons of mass destruction, and it was pre-nuclear age. Speaker 1 claims that Iran has gathered a tremendous amount of material and will be able to have a nuclear weapon within months, which "we can't let happen." When asked about intelligence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, Speaker 1 claims that if the intelligence community says there is no evidence, then "my intelligence community is wrong." When told that the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said there was no evidence, Speaker 1 reiterated that "she's wrong." Speaker 1 denies helping Iran to stop reports of claims slamming Iran from China, stating that "they're there to take people out."

In a discussion about the Iran confrontation and its wider implications, Glenn and John Mearsheimer analyze the sequence of events and underlying dynamics behind President Donald Trump’s statements and policy shifts. - Trump’s two Monday tweets frame the episode: an initial threat to “wipe Iran off the face of the earth” to force concession, followed by a reversal to announce a ceasefire based on Iran’s 10-point plan. Mersheimer emphasizes that this sequence reveals Trump’s desperation to end the war and to secure a ceasefire quickly, then to shift to negotiations with Iran’s plan as the basis. - The framework of the negotiations is contrasted with the US’s prior maximalist aims. The United States had demanded four core goals: regime change, Iran’s nuclear enrichment cessation, elimination of long-range missiles, and cessation of support for groups like the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Mersheimer notes none of these have been realized, while Iran reportedly gains leverage through control of the Strait of Hormuz. - The Iranian 10-point plan is presented as a basis for negotiations that would, in effect, concede the big US demands. Trump’s evening tweet signaling acceptance of the 10-point plan is read as a defeat for the US position and a shift toward Iranian maximalism on its own terms. The claim is that the ceasefire, if it occurs, would involve concessions that Iran had already proposed. - The feasibility of a ceasefire is questioned. Iran’s open Strait of Hormuz depends on Israel halting attacks in Lebanon (on Hezbollah), which has not happened. Therefore, a true ceasefire is not in place, and the Israelis’ actions are seen as undermining any potential halt to hostilities. - The broader strategic picture is outlined. Iran’s leverage includes allied groups (Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas) and the ability to close chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz or the Bab el-Mandab strait via the Houthis. The discussion notes Iran’s large missile/drone arsenal and potential to threaten American bases, though Mersheimer stresses that sanctions and the prolonged war have devastated Iran’s economy, which complicates assessments of its strength. - The role of external powers and economies is highlighted. Mersheimer argues that the global economy—especially oil and fertilizers—drives the push to end the conflict. He suggests China and Pakistan, with Russian input, pressured Iran to negotiate, given the global economic risks of a prolonged war. He also notes that the New York Times reported that all 13 US bases in the Gulf were damaged or destroyed, undermining U.S. presence there. - Domestic political concerns are discussed. Trump’s ability to declare victory while acknowledging defeat creates a political hazard. Vance is presented as a potentially capable negotiator who could press for a ceasefire, but there is concern about internal political blowback if he concedes too much. - Israel’s position is considered crucial. Netanyahu’s government is described as having promoted the war, and the war’s outcome is said to damage U.S.-Israel relations. There is speculation that Israel may consider drastic options, including nuclear consideration against Iran, given the perceived failure of conventional means. - The Ukraine war and its relation to the Iran conflict are explored. If Iran’s war ends or is perceived as winding down, European capacity and willingness to support Ukraine become central questions. The U.S. may shift blame to Europe for Ukraine’s defeat if Russia advances, while withholding weapons to Ukraine to avoid further strain on U.S. stockpiles. - The discussion on rationality in international relations emphasizes that states act rationally when their decisions align with a plausible theory of international politics and a sound decision-making process. Mersheimer argues Europe’s behavior toward the U.S. is not irrational, though he criticizes its liberal-theory basis (NATO expansion) as potentially misguided but not irrational. He contrasts this with Trump’s Iran attack in February 2029, which he deems irrational due to a lack of a plausible theory of victory. - The multipolar world dynamic is reinforced. The war’s outcomes are viewed as weakening U.S. ability to project power, diminishing transatlantic cohesion, and boosting Russia and China’s relative position. The loss of Gulf bases and diminished American influence are expected to push Europe toward greater strategic autonomy, with NATO potentially becoming less meaningful by 2029, depending on future leadership. - Final notes include concerns about the political risk for Vance as a negotiator, the likelihood of a difficult peace process, and the possibility that misperceptions and propaganda—analyzed through historical parallels like the Vietnam War and Walter Lippmann’s ideas—have locked leaders into an “evil enemy” narrative that complicates peacemaking. Overall, the conversation portrays Trump’s messaging as a sign of desperation to end a costly conflict, the ceasefire as a fragile construct dependent on Iranian terms, Iran’s expanding leverage in the region, the fragility of U.S.-Israel and transatlantic bonds, and a shifting global order moving toward multipolarity with lasting economic and strategic consequences.

The US military carried out precision strikes on Iran's key nuclear facilities at Fordeaux, Natanz, and Esfahan, destroying Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and stopping the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror. The strikes were a spectacular military success, and Iran must now make peace or face greater attacks. For forty years, Iran has been saying death to America, death to Israel, killing Americans and others. The speaker thanks and congratulates Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and the Israeli military, as well as the American patriots who flew the missions. Either there will be peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than what has been witnessed. If peace does not come quickly, the US will go after other targets with precision, speed, and skill. No other military in the world could have done what the US did. General Cain and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will hold a press conference at 8AM at the Pentagon. The speaker thanks God and asks for protection for the military.

The United States has lost control over the situation in the Middle East, where serious problems are occurring. These issues could have been easily prevented if we had taken action. If we don't handle the situation with strength and precision, it could lead to a catastrophe. The same applies to the situation between Russia and Ukraine, which may be even more critical. We need to focus on fixing our country and bringing peace because we are in a dire situation.

The situation in Ukraine is dangerous and escalating. Joe Biden's actions have brought us close to nuclear war, as he is sending American tanks. It is crucial for all parties involved to seek a peaceful resolution before this catastrophe leads to World War 3, which would be a nuclear war. If I were in the White House, Russia would have never invaded Ukraine. We must demand peace in Ukraine now, and it is actually easy to achieve.