reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- New footage from Tel Aviv is shown, including videos outside windows of what sources say they are seeing, with a claim that Fox News is not covering this damage in Tel Aviv. The discussion centers on the reality of buildings being hit near City Hall, and questions why it isn’t being widely covered by Fox News. - The conversation shifts to missile stocks and interceptors. A comment references Keith Kellogg on Fox News discussing a Wall Street Journal report about running out of interceptor missiles within four to five weeks, and a claim that there is no problem because orders were placed and allies could supply missiles. The speaker notes that UAE reportedly has about a week left of interceptor missiles and says missiles from Iran are getting through “like a sieve.” - It is argued that the U.S. has a limited stockpile because many missiles have been transferred to Israel and Ukraine over the past years, leaving the U.S. inventory low. The claim is made that continuing the war with depleted missiles would heighten national security risk and vulnerability globally. - The transcript discusses potential international responses. The speaker contends that Europe’s mobilization rhetoric (France, Greece) should not be expected to deter Iran, noting that Greece does not have a major army and that NATO-funded contingents are involved rather than independent power. The assertion is made that Iran’s strikes in Tel Aviv, Tehran, Qom, and other cities show that Iran believes it can strike back effectively, signaling a preference to fight the United States and Israel rather than submit again. - The central point is that the conflict is described as 100% about missiles and air-defense missiles, not ground forces. The speaker argues Iran likely has enough offensive missiles to prolong the conflict for months, possibly longer than U.S. capacity to sustain it, especially with Hormuz potentially shut or partially shut, which could hurt the western economy. - Admiral James Stavridis is cited by Speaker 0, noting that as the U.S. and Israel expend hundreds of precision weapons, the focus should shift to logistics and stockpiles. The discussion emphasizes the need for inventory clarity, planning, and alignment between political objectives and military capabilities. - Speaker 1 asserts that the planning should have assessed inventories, timeframes, and whether the means match the objectives. The argument states that risking all resources without sufficient offensive or defensive capacity is a dangerous gamble, suggesting the current course could be a “huge blunder.” - The conversation touches on General Dan Kane, who reportedly told the president two weeks earlier that there were not enough ammunition and it would not be pretty to win. A reference is made to Trump’s Truth Social claiming Kane’s assessment was incorrect, with talk of whether Kane did or did not say the president’s characterization was accurate. The claim is made that there are concerns about integrity and whether senior leaders would publicly contradict the administration’s framing if necessary. - A follow-up question is raised about whether admitting a ground invasion would imply insufficient missiles to sustain the mission, with Speaker 1 acknowledging that admitting ground troops would signal a lack of missiles for sustained action. - The segment then shifts to a sponsorship note about depression treatment options, promoting Ataybekli and its lead program BPL-003 (a nasal spray psychedelic-based therapy) developed for treatment-resistant depression, with background on the company, its investors, and the roadmap toward Phase 3 in 2026. It emphasizes the potential for faster, more scalable treatment sessions and invites viewers to learn more at a website, with disclaimers about not providing medical or financial advice.

The speaker addressed the House Republicans' report on the Afghanistan withdrawal, calling it a partisan report that says little new. According to the speaker, the Trump administration's Doha Agreement mandated a complete U.S. withdrawal, including from Bagram Air Base, and released 5,000 Taliban fighters. This agreement demoralized the Afghan government and military. President Trump ordered a rushed exit by Christmas 2020. President Biden chose to abide by the agreement to end the war. The speaker refuted several claims in the report, stating that the Department of Defense prepositioned military units, the rapid collapse of Afghan forces was unanticipated, securing Bagram Air Base was impractical, U.S. equipment was not handed over to the Taliban but left behind by Afghan forces, and there was no deception from the current administration. The speaker stated that ending wars is difficult, but the withdrawal was conducted professionally. The speaker acknowledged the tragic loss of life, especially at Abbey Gate, and honored those who served in Afghanistan. The speaker concluded that with the war over, the nation can focus on other security interests.

The United States has begun major combat operations in Iran with the objective of defending the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. The regime is described as a vicious group whose menacing activities endanger the United States, its troops, bases overseas, and allies worldwide. The speech cites decades of hostile actions, including back­ing a violent takeover of the US embassy in Tehran (the 444-day hostage crisis), the 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut (241 American fatalities), involvement in the USS Cole attack (2000), and killings and maimings of American service members in Iraq. Iranian proxies are described as having launched countless attacks against American forces in the Middle East and against US vessels and shipping lanes in recent years. From Lebanon to Yemen and Syria to Iraq, the regime is said to have armed, trained, and funded terrorist militias that have caused extensive bloodshed. Iran’s proxy Hamas is credited with the October 7 attacks on Israel, which reportedly slaughtered more than 1,000 people, including 46 Americans, and took 12 Americans hostage. The regime is also described as having killed tens of thousands of its own citizens during protests, labeling it as the world’s number one state sponsor of terror. A central policy stated is that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon.” The administration asserts that in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, the regime’s nuclear program at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan was obliterated. After that attack, the regime was warned never to resume its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and repeated attempts to negotiate a deal are described as unsuccessful. Iran is said to have rejected renouncing its nuclear ambitions for decades and to have tried to rebuild its program while developing long-range missiles capable of threatening Europe, US troops overseas, and potentially the American homeland. The United States military is undertaking a massive ongoing operation to prevent this regime from threatening U.S. interests. The plan includes destroying Iran’s missiles and raising its missile industry to the ground, annihilating the regime’s navy, and ensuring that terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or attack American forces or use IEDs against civilians. The speaker asserts that Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon and asserts the capabilities and power of the U.S. Armed Forces. Steps to minimize risk to U.S. personnel are claimed, but the reality that lives of American service members may be lost is acknowledged as a possible outcome of the operation. The message to the IRGC and Iranian police is to lay down weapons with immunity or face certain death. To the Iranian people, the timing is described as their moment to take control of their destiny with America’s support, urging sheltering and caution as bombs are dropped. The speech ends with blessings for the armed forces and the United States.

It will take a year to physically remove them, but leaving the equipment behind could shorten it to 7 months. However, if we leave behind billions of dollars worth of weapons, they will likely be used against our future generations.

If you hadn't given us our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks, maybe even less. Actually, I heard from Putin that it would have been over in three days.

If the President orders the end of the war and the withdrawal of American troops, it will take about a year to physically remove them. Leaving behind equipment could shorten the timeline to around 7 months, but it would also mean leaving behind billions of dollars worth of weapons that could be used against future generations.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of telling the truth about options to end the war. They state that if the order to end the war is given, it will take a year to physically withdraw all American troops. However, if equipment is left behind, it could be done in 7 months. The speaker warns that leaving behind billions of dollars worth of weapons will result in them being used against future generations.

I will tell the truth about ending the war. If I order the end of the war and withdrawal of American troops, it will take a year to physically remove them. Leaving the equipment behind could shorten it to 7 months, but it would mean leaving behind billions of dollars worth of weapons that could be used against our grandchildren in the future.

Your country is in big trouble, you're not winning. However, you have a good chance of coming out okay because of us. We are staying strong in our country from the beginning of the war. We've been alone, but we are thankful. You haven't been alone! This cabinet member doesn't belong in this cabinet. We gave you 350 billion dollars worth of equipment through this president. What if you didn't have our military equipment? This war would have been over in two weeks.

'If tomorrow, the order goes out from the I'm president of The United States. I issue an order. End the war today. Begin to withdraw all American troops.' 'It will take a year to get the American troops out.' 'If you leave all the equipment behind, you might be able to do it in seven months.' 'And you leave those billions of dollars of weapons behind, I promise they're gonna be used against your grandchild and mine someday.' 'And you leave those billions of dollars of weapons behind, I promise they're gonna be used against your grandchild and mine someday.'

Your country is in big trouble. You're not winning this. You have a good chance of coming out of this okay because of us. We are staying strong in our country from the beginning of the war. We've been alone, and we are thankful. You haven't been alone. We gave you $350 billion for your military, but they had to use our military. If you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.

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.

The US aims to prevent Saddam Hussein from using nuclear or chemical weapons on other countries. Despite his denial, he is believed to possess such weapons. The speaker mentions the devastating death toll of half a million children, surpassing that of Hiroshima. They question whether the cost of war is justified. Speaker 0 acknowledges the difficulty of the decision but believes the price is worth it. They argue that it is a moral obligation to protect the American people, military, and neighboring countries from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

The speaker asserts that the opposing side has lost essential military and leadership capabilities: “They've lost their navy. They've lost their air force. They have no anti aircraft apparatus at all. They have no radar. Their leaders are gone.” The speaker then suggests a harsh consequence of intervening, indicating that “we could do a lot worse than one another.” The statement further contends that certain actions could be left undone or could be accomplished quickly, noting that “We're leaving certain things that if we take them out or we could take them out by this afternoon, in fact, within an hour,” implying that such measures would be decisive. The speaker concludes with the assessment that, as a result, “they literally would never be able to build that country back.” The overall message emphasizes the rapidity and completeness with which the opponent’s military and leadership structures could be dismantled, and the enduring impossibility of rebuilding the country once those elements are removed.

Speaker 1 describes a decision to follow conscience after twenty years in the military, mostly deployed to the Middle East. He explains that after multiple deployments he realized “we weren't there for the reasons that our government told us” and that there was no vital national interest in the current fight. He made a promise to himself about twenty years ago not to send young Americans off to die on foreign battlefields if he ever had a position of responsibility. When given that opportunity, he decided to resign, stating he did not want to send others to die in wars he believed were not in the nation’s interest. Speaker 0 notes their Catholic faith and mentions recent comments by the Holy Father highlighting concerns for innocent civilians harmed by conflict, including the killing of Father Pierre in Lebanon. The question is asked whether faith community or religious leaders’ support has helped. Speaker 1 responds that the support has been huge and that the resignation gained more traction than he expected. He emphasizes that although the decision was not made lightly, faith helped him hear “God's voice” and guided him to take action, which made the act feel easy and liberating. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has hope for America. Speaker 1 affirms having a great deal of hope, calling this an exciting moment. He highlights the power of technology to connect like‑minded people and give them a voice, despite potential downsides. He notes the significant presence and enthusiasm of young people in the room, expressing optimism about the next generation. Speaker 1 outlines what he believes must happen moving forward: during the midterm season and as the war progresses, people should be on their knees in prayer, then take action once upright. He argues that leaders must hear the public’s stance against this war and the lack of a vital national security interest, calling for the troops to come home and for efforts toward peace in the region. He asserts a desire to avoid “twenty plus more years of bloodletting” and urges people from all political parties to pressure representatives to oppose continued overseas wars. Speaker 1 clarifies that he is not advocating pacifism; if the country is attacked or there is an imminent threat, actions will be taken. The core message is that the nation must not continue down the current path, and making this stance clear to leaders is essential to preserving hope.

To end the war, it would take a year to withdraw all American troops, or 7 months if equipment is left behind. Leaving weapons behind risks them being used against future generations.

The speaker describes a plan to cripple Iran’s infrastructure, stating that every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12:00 tomorrow night and every power plant will be out of business—“burning, exploding, and never to be used again.” The destruction would occur over four hours if desired. The speaker emphasizes a preference not to pursue such devastation and even says, “We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation,” noting that power plants and bridges are among the most expensive targets. He recalls a bridge being destroyed after a deal fell through, mentioning a call from Witkoff, Kushner, and JD that suggested the deal was breaking. He explains that he told them to “look out their window and watch,” and within forty-five minutes gave the order to knock out the biggest bridge. Within ten minutes after giving that order, the bridge was destroyed, described as the biggest bridge in Iran and possibly in the Middle East. The speaker asks, “So do I wanna do that? No. Do I wanna destroy their infrastructure? No.” Further, he states the consequences: it would take Iran a hundred years to rebuild if they were destroyed, whereas leaving today would take them twenty years to rebuild their country, and it would never be as good as it was. The only way they will be able to rebuild their country is to utilize the genius of the United States of America.

The speaker discusses the need to stop prolonging the war and find a way to de-escalate the conflict without relying on weapons. They believe it is important to engage in dialogue with America, as they believe America is trying to extend the war and benefit from it economically. The speaker mentions that America wants to maintain its status as a superpower and prevent China and Russia from becoming stronger. They argue that the business dealings with Russia in the past have strengthened both Russia and Germany, but now Europe is being economically weakened. The speaker concludes by stating that America is undoubtedly the superpower in this situation.

Speaker 0 opens by stating the people involved have “been at war with us for forty six years,” framing the ongoing conflict as a long-standing confrontation. Speaker 1 responds with a broader critique, asserting that Scott Jennings is “more than happy to defend a war with a country that starts with the letters IRA,” and accusing the administration of failing, which would lead to “trillions and trillions of dollars more in debt.” They note their own relative youth during earlier administrations that defended prior endless wars, and they argue that the current war is “not going your way,” asking if eight weeks is “endless” to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 tries to remind the audience that the conversation is about the pace and direction of the war, stating the plan as “gonna be four to six weeks,” while Speaker 1 questions whether Speaker 0 “had the attention span of a net?” and recalls a previous TV debate “four to six weeks ago” where Speaker 0 claimed “we were weeks away from it.” Speaker 1 uses this to cast doubt on Speaker 0’s credibility, suggesting a failure to defend the war’s progress and calling out what he sees as a “political concession.” He asks Speaker 0 to name “one political concession” the administration has made, implying a demand for concrete examples of compromise or capitulation. Speaker 2 intervenes to restore order, saying, “Hey. Woah. Honestly. I’m not gonna have this guy’s gonna on my face,” and asks everyone to calm down, emphasizing that they are in a debate where points can be responded to. Speaker 1 presses the question, again asking for a named concession, while Speaker 0 reframes the issue, asserting a “very simple goal”: to “keep terrorists and a terrorist regime from having a nuclear weapon that can threaten The United States, our allies in Europe, anybody else.” This statement is presented as the core objective that should guide assessment of the war’s conduct and any concessions, though Speaker 1 challenges the framing by pressing for concrete evidence of political concessions. Speaker 2 concludes by signaling a transition: “Alright. We’re gonna leave it there, guys. Next for us, the president suggests ABC.” The exchange thus juxtaposes a debate over war strategy, duration, and concessions with a stated overarching objective of preventing nuclear threats from terrorist regimes, before moving on to a new topic framed as what the president is proposing to ABC.

- 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 speaker emphasizes that the US will need to send their sons and daughters to war just like they currently do. They stress that this is a natural consequence and that people will die, which they find to be a terrible thing.

The United States has been sending hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine's defense, with no end in sight, and with no security. Do you want to keep this going for another five years? Two thousand people, or more, are being killed every single week.

I believe it's crucial for Americans to understand the current situation, which is why I've been transparent about it for so long, so you should be thankful. You lack the advantages, facing significant difficulties. People are losing their lives, and your troop numbers are dwindling. Don't turn a deaf ear. You're running low on soldiers.

- The discussion opens with claims that President Trump says “we’ve won the war against Iran,” but Israel allegedly wants the war to destroy Iran’s entire government structure, requiring boots on the ground for regime change. It’s argued that air strikes cannot achieve regime change and that Israel’s relatively small army would need U.S. ground forces, given Iran’s larger conventional force, to accomplish its objectives. - Senator Richard Blumenthal is cited as warning about American lives potentially being at risk from deploying ground troops in Iran, following a private White House briefing. - The new National Defense Authorization Act is described as renewing the involuntary draft; by year’s end, an involuntary draft could take place in the United States, pending full congressional approval. Dan McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute is described as expressing strong concern, arguing the draft would treat the government as owning citizens’ bodies, a stance attributed to him as supporting a view that “presumption is that the government owns you.” - The conversation contrasts Trump’s public desire to end the war quickly with Netanyahu’s government, which reportedly envisions a much larger military objective in the region, including a demilitarized zone in southern Lebanon akin to Gaza, and a broader aim to remove Hezbollah. The implication is that the United States and Israel may not share the same endgame. - Tucker Carlson is introduced as a guest to discuss these issues and offer predictions about consequences for the American people, including energy disruption, economic impacts, and shifts in U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf. - Carlson responds that he would not credit himself with prescience, but notes predictable consequences: disruption to global energy supplies, effects on the U.S. economy, potential loss of U.S. bases in the Gulf, and a shrinking American empire. He suggests that the war’s true goal may be to weaken the United States and withdraw from the Middle East; he questions whether diplomacy remains viable given the current trajectory. - Carlson discusses Iran’s new supreme leader Khomeini’s communique, highlighting threats to shut Hormuz “forever,” vows to avenge martyrs, and calls for all U.S. bases in the region to be closed. He notes that Tehran asserts it will target American bases while claiming it is not an enemy of surrounding countries, though bombs affect neighbors as well. - The exchange notes Trump’s remarks about possibly using nuclear weapons, and Carlson explains Iran’s internal factions, suggesting some seek negotiated settlements while others push for sustained conflict. Carlson emphasizes that Israel’s leadership may be pushing escalation in ways that diverge from U.S. interests and warns about the dangers of a joint operation with Israel, which would blur U.S. sovereignty in war decisions. - A discussion on the use of a term Amalek is explored: Carlson’s guest explains Amalek from the Old Testament as enemies of the Jewish people, with a historical biblical command to annihilate Amalek, including women and children, which the guest notes Christianity rejects; Netanyahu has used the term repeatedly in the conflict context, which Carlson characterizes as alarming and barbaric. - The guests debate how much influence is exerted in the White House, with Carlson noting limited direct advocacy for war among principal policymakers and attributing decisive pressure largely to Netanyahu’s threats. They question why Israel, a client state of the U.S., is allowed to dictate war steps, especially given the strategic importance of Hormuz and American assets in the region. - They discuss the ethical drift in U.S. policy, likening it to adopting the ethics of the Israeli government, and criticize the idea of targeting family members or civilians as a military strategy. They contrast Western civilization’s emphasis on individual moral responsibility with perceived tribal rationales. - The conversation touches on the potential rise of AI-assisted targeting or autonomous weapons: Carlson’s guest confirms that in some conflicts, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off, though in the discussed case a human did press play on the attack. The coordinates and data sources for strikes are scrutinized, with suspicion cast on whether Israel supplied SIGINT or coordinates. - The guests warn about the broader societal impact of war on civil liberties, mentioning the increasing surveillance and the risk that technology could be used to suppress dissent or control the population. They discuss how war accelerates social change and potentially normalizes drastic actions or internal coercion. - The media’s role in selling the war is criticized as “propaganda,” with examples of government messaging and pop culture campaigns (including a White House-supported video game-like portrayal of U.S. military power). They debate whether propaganda can be effective without a clear, articulated rationale for war and without public buy-in. - They question the behavior of mainstream outlets and “access journalism,” arguing that reporters often avoid tough questions about how the war ends, the timetable, and the off-ramps, instead reinforcing government narratives. - In closing, Carlson and his co-hosts reflect on the political division surrounding the war, the erosion of trust in media, and the possibility of rebuilding a coalition of ordinary Americans who want effective governance without perpetual conflict or degradation of civil liberties. Carlson emphasizes a longing for a politics centered on improving lives rather than escalating war. - The segment ends with Carlson’s continued critique of media dynamics, the moral implications of the war, and a call for more transparent discussion about the true aims and consequences of extended military engagement in the region.

The speaker argues that the war in Iraq resulted in an enormous, unrecoverable cost: “we spent $2,000,000,000,000, thousands of lives,” and that the outcome left the United States with nothing to show for it. The speaker contends that Iran is now taking over Iraq, describing it as having “the second largest oil reserves in the world,” and asserts that this outcome proves the involvement in Iraq was a mistake. The speaker states that George Bush made a mistake and that the United States “should have never been in Iraq,” claiming that the intervention destabilized the Middle East. Regarding accountability, the speaker questions whether Bush should be impeached and suggests a preference for letting the other party decide how to label the issue, saying, “So you still think he should be impeached? I think it's my turn, ain't it? You do whatever you want.” The speaker emphasizes a belief that those responsible “lied,” specifically about weapons of mass destruction, asserting, “They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Alright.” In sum, the speaker presents three core assertions: (1) the Iraq War was extraordinarily costly in financial terms and human lives, and produced no tangible gain; (2) the war destabilized the Middle East and empowered Iran to increase influence in Iraq, which the speaker frames as a mistaken outcome; and (3) the leaders claimed WMDs existed when they did not, asserting that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that those claims were knowingly false. The dialogue also touches on impeachment as a potential consequence for the leadership involved, framed through the speaker’s yes-or-no stance and interjections about accountability.