reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel that resulted from advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end will continue.

Two weeks into the conflict, the official casualty toll for Americans is rising. The Pentagon has publicly acknowledged about 140 wounded, after Redacted reported at least 137 and Reuters later published an exclusive saying as many as 150 US troops wounded. The panel notes this number and questions why it wasn’t more prominently reported earlier by major outlets. Iran asserts talks with the United States are off the table for now and vows to keep striking as long as it takes, with an “eye for an eye” stance. The discussion asks what “eye for an eye” would actually entail, debating whether it means targeting civilian or infrastructure components in retaliation. The Strait of Hormuz is deteriorating rapidly with intelligence tracking Iranian mine-laying threats, and Gulf energy infrastructure suffering damage. About 1,900,000 barrels per day of refining capacity across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE is down, and CBS reports shipping through the Strait has ground to a virtual halt. On the broader geopolitical stage, Israel is bombarding Beirut’s southern suburbs and Lebanon, effectively expanding its operations in the region. In Washington, Lindsey Graham is openly urging Americans in the South to push their sons and daughters to fight in the Middle East, urging allied countries to step up and end back-channel support, including public pressure to move air bases out of Spain. The panel criticizes this rhetoric as urging others to bear the burden of conflict. Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, joins to discuss wounded American troops and casualties. He notes March 4 at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, whose memo told pregnant women not to come for births, signaling a surge of casualties. He adds a nearby Kaiserslautern blood drive was issued on March 5, underscoring higher inbound casualties. Johnson explains Iran’s capacity to respond with drones, missiles, and other weapons, suggesting the Strait’s disruption affects global energy markets—oil and liquefied natural gas—while noting the impact on major economies: India and others depending on Gulf energy, with Russia benefiting from higher oil prices as Western sanctions shift flows. He highlights Russia’s oil diplomacy shifts, including India’s discounted imports and Berlin’s and BRICS dynamics, and observes that Russia’s price at about $89 a barrel reflects new market conditions. Johnson discusses how some in Washington may be leaking assessments to shift blame for any future outcomes, pointing to a leak of the National Intelligence Council memo warning against expecting regime change in Iran. He suggests there are warhawk factions in the Trump administration with aggressive aims, including potentially targeting Kharg Island, a critical oil export hub for Iran, which could provoke drone and missile countermeasures from Iran. The conversation notes that Iran could respond with drones and missiles rather than by ceding control of Hormuz, emphasizing that taking Kharg Island would be dangerous due to Iran’s drone capabilities and air defenses. Overall, the dialogue conveys a war that is not winding down as messaging might imply, with escalating casualties, strategic waterway disruption, and high-stakes diplomatic and military posturing across the region.

In this conversation, Brian Berletic discusses the current collision between the United States’ global strategy and a rising multipolar world, arguing that U.S. policy is driven by corporate-financier interests and a desire to preserve unipolar primacy, regardless of the costs to others. - Structural dynamics and multipolar resistance - The host notes a shift from optimism about Trump’s “America First” rhetoric toward an assessment that U.S. strategy aims to restore hegemony and broad, repeated wars, even as a multipolar world emerges. - Berletic agrees that the crisis is structural: the U.S. system is driven by large corporate-financier interests prioritizing expansion of profit and power. He cites Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy papers, particularly The Path to Persia, as documenting a long-running plan to manage Iran via a sequence of options designed to be used in synergy to topple Iran, with Syria serving as a staging ground for broader conflict. - He argues the policy framework has guided decisions across administrations, turning policy papers into bills and war plans, with corporate media selling these as American interests. This, he says, leaves little room for genuine opposition because political power is financed by corporate interests. - Iran, Syria, and the Middle East as a springboard to a global confrontation - Berletic traces the current Iran crisis to the 2009 Brookings paper’s emphasis on air corridors and using Israel to provoke a war, placing blame on Israel as a proxy mechanism while the U.S. cleanses the region of access points for striking Iran directly. - He asserts the Arab Spring (2011) was designed to encircle Iran and move toward Moscow and Beijing, with Iran as the final target. The U.S. and its allies allegedly used policy papers to push tactical steps—weakening Russia via Ukraine, exploiting Syria, and leveraging Iran as a fulcrum for broader restraint against Eurasian powers. - The aim, he argues, is to prevent a rising China by destabilizing Iran and, simultaneously, strangling energy exports that feed China’s growth. He claims the United States has imposed a global maritime oil blockade on China through coordinated strikes and pressure on oil-rich states, while China pursues energy independence via Belt and Road, coal-to-liquids, and growing imports from Russia. - The role of diplomacy, escalation, and Netanyahu’s proxy - On diplomacy, Berletic says the U.S. has no genuine interest in peace; diplomacy is used to pretext war, creating appearances of reasonable engagement while advancing the continuity of a warlike agenda. He references the Witch Path to Persia as describing diplomacy as a pretext for regime change. - He emphasizes that Russia and China are not credibly negotiating with the U.S., viewing Western diplomacy as theater designed to degrade multipolar powers. Iran, he adds, may be buying time but also reacting to U.S. pressure, while Arab states and Israel are portrayed as proxies with limited autonomy. - The discussion also covers how Israel serves as a disposable proxy to advance U.S. goals, including potential use of nuclear weapons, with Trump allegedly signaling a post-facto defense of Israel in any such scenario. - The Iran conflict, its dynamics, and potential trajectory - The war in Iran is described as a phased aggression, beginning with the consulate attack and escalating into economic and missile-strike campaigns. Berletic notes Iran’s resilient command-and-control and ongoing missile launches, suggesting the U.S. and its allies are attempting to bankrupt Iran while degrading its military capabilities. - He highlights the strain on U.S. munitions inventories, particularly anti-missile interceptors and long-range weapons, due to simultaneous operations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential confrontations with China. He warns that the war’s logistics are being stretched to the breaking point, risking a broader blowback. - The discussion points to potential escalation vectors: shutting Hormuz, targeting civilian infrastructure, and possibly using proxies (including within the Gulf states and Yemen) to choke off energy flows. Berletic cautions that the U.S. could resort to more drastic steps, including leveraging Israel for off-world actions, while maintaining that multipolar actors (Russia, China, Iran) would resist. - Capabilities, resources, and the potential duration - The host notes China’s energy-mobility strategies and the Western dependency on rare earth minerals (e.g., gallium) mostly produced in China, emphasizing how U.S. war aims rely on leveraging allies and global supply chains that are not easily sustained. - Berletic argues the U.S. does not plan for permanent victory but for control, and that multipolar powers are growing faster than the United States can destroy them. He suggests an inflection point will come when multipolarism outruns U.S. capacity, though the outcome remains precarious due to nuclear risk and global economic shocks. - Outlook and final reflections - The interlocutors reiterate that the war is part of a broader structural battle between unipolar U.S. dominance and a rising multipolar order anchored by Eurasian powers. They stress the need to awaken broader publics to the reality of multipolarism and to pursue a more balanced world order, warning that the current trajectory risks global economic harm and dangerous escalation.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about ending the war will continue.

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

Here's a preview of the upcoming 60 Minutes interview. Prime Minister Netanyahu appears unresponsive to certain pressures. The work we've done has led to significant movements in the region, influenced by our advocacy. In a new clip from Vice President Harris's interview, she addresses whether the U.S. lacks influence over Netanyahu. She emphasizes that U.S. aid has enabled Israel to defend itself against missile attacks. Given the threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, it is crucial for us to support Israel's defense against these dangers.

During the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, The US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides. There are NATO officers that are from other country British. But there are a bunch of Israeli defense force officers in the Pentagon that week. And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it. The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get. Because of the weakness of our leaders, we have incited predators in a foreign country to take advantage of us. Why have a government, especially a strong government if it's taking orders from another weaker government? And that is the state of play. And they're not even pretending.

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

Speaker 0 questions the rationale for the war, noting that “the intelligence did not suggest that an attack was imminent from Iran,” and asking, “What is left? Why are we at war with Iran?” He also remarks that “the nuclear program isn’t the reason” and that he never expected to hear Ted Cruz talking about nukes. Speaker 1 suggests the simplest explanation given, which has been backtracked, is that “Israel made us do it, that Bibi decided on this timeline, Netanyahu decided he wanted to attack, and he convinced Trump to join him by scaring Trump into believing that US assets in the region would be at risk, and so Trump was better off just joining Netanyahu.” He adds that this may not be the full explanation, but it’s a plausible one. He notes that “the nuclear program is not part of their targeting campaign,” and that “harder line leadership is taking hold,” with the Strait of Hormuz “still being shut down even as we get their navy.” He asks what remains as the explanation, suggesting it might be that Israel forced the United States’ hand and questions, “How weak does that make The United States look? How weak are we if our allies can force us into wars of choice that are bad for US national security interests?”

Max Blumenthal discusses what he calls the all-encompassing, defining influence of pro-Israel interests in the United States, arguing that Israeli influence has shaped Donald Trump’s career and policy from the beginning. He traces this to Trump’s inner circle and to figures connected to pro-Israel billionaires in New York, such as Charles Kushner, Howard Lutnick, and Steve Witkoff, and to the Adelsons’ network around the Republican Jewish Coalition. He cites Trump’s early appearances with Adelson-backed circles and his 2015-2016 remarks at the RJC convention, where Trump suggested making a deal between Israelis and Palestinians and referenced a Palestinian state, which Blumenthal says alarmed the Adelsons and the RJC. Blumenthal asserts that Trump’s 2016 rise was financed by Israel-first billionaires, with Paul Singer shifting from initially opposing Trump to backing him for the Iran policy he desired. He claims Singer’s money helped Trump move toward a war with Iran, aligning with figures like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and other pro-Israel advisors who provided influence, while Bannon was sidelined. He argues Tucker Carlson and other voices in the first term may have constrained war with Iran, but that the second term brought even more pro-Israel personnel, including Mike Waltz in national security circles, and Marco Rubio continuing to push the Israel-aligned line. Blumenthal details what he describes as a cultivated, orchestrated process of influence over Trump and his advisers, culminating in a February 11, 2020 or 2021 meeting in the Situation Room where Netanyahu dictated terms to Trump to strike Iran. He describes the room as divided between an “A Team” of pro-Israel figures (Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, and others) and a dissenting “B Team” (J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and another figure) who had little real influence. He asserts that Netanyahu, with Mossad director David Barnea briefing Ratcliffe, steered Trump toward war with Iran, and that many within the administration recognized the war’s insanity but did not oppose it due to fear of repercussions. Blumenthal contends that the ceasefire in the region was sabotaged by Israel and that President Trump’s posture is effectively dictated by Israeli leadership. He cites Rubio’s post-briefing disclosure that Israel would attack Iran regardless of U.S. preference, and says the ceasefire’s terms, as drafted by the State Department for Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, indicate that Lebanon should be included; Israel, he says, launched a major assault in Lebanon—killing hundreds and attacking areas around Beirut and the American University of Beirut—in an attempt to provoke Iran and place the United States on the spot to reject Lebanon’s inclusion. He argues this demonstrates a “coup” in the White House, with Trump acting as “the first Israeli president,” and says the ceasefire is a hoax being sabotaged by Israel. Blumenthal points to domestic political consequences in the United States, noting Joe Kent’s resignation as a sign of MAGA discontent and arguing that Netanyahu has destabilized presidencies across the board. He claims that within MAGA, overt Israeli influence exists in influential media and political circles, including financiers and podcasters. Blumenthal lists prominent figures he claims are effectively Israeli foreign agents within MAGA infrastructure: Josh Hammer, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Hugh Hewitt, Dinesh D’Souza, Sebastian Gorka, Brandon Tatum, Todd Starnes, Laura Trump, and Don Jr.; and he asserts that Salem Media Group operates as an Israeli foreign agent, with Brad Parscale as a registered agent overseeing a contract between Israel’s foreign ministry and Clock Tower Strategies, delivering tens of millions in payments to influencers. He claims Laura Trump and Don Jr. own a stake in Salem Media, signaling a merger between the Trump orbit and Israeli interests. Finally, Blumenthal argues there is a fusion of ideological zeal and institutionalized influence, with a battleground between MAGA voices not paid by Israel and others who are funded to propagate Israel-first narratives, and he predicts a major clash in upcoming party conventions over U.S. policy toward Israel. He concludes that the clock is running out for Israel and that the country’s strategy relies on continuing aggressive actions, including bombing, to resolve its problems.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Work has resulted in movements in the region by Israel, prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where it stands on the need for this war to end will continue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on ending the war will continue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about ending the war will continue.

Israel, like other countries, makes its own decisions. The US doesn't dictate to any country. We present what we believe are the good options. We stand up for what we believe in the briefing room.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Actions by Israel in the region were prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen there. Despite this, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Efforts will continue to pursue what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end.

Netanyahu controls Trump, not the other way around, which will also be the case regarding Israel's nuclear weapons. The influence of Israelis and their control over the US administration and Congress is unquestionable. Netanyahu has more influence in the US Congress than Donald Trump and is getting everything he wants. There is a groundswell in Congress to back Israelis and Netanyahu, no matter what he's done. After a hospital was hit in Israel, Netanyahu is saying they need to bomb and obliterate Iran.

The transcript argues that the Pentagon has “raised the alarm” about Israel, presenting espionage and political pressure as the lead threat to the United States. It says this goes beyond “just spying,” describing efforts to put pressure on people, “buying people off,” and forcing “full war.” It claims Israel is “bragging” about removing specific opponents and “we’re gonna get everybody,” and it cites a claim that the Pentagon called espionage by Israel the number one security threat. A central claim is that new legislation passed Thursday, under Section 224 of the National Defense Authorization Act, would give Israel “total access to everything,” including AI, weapons, weapons development, DARPA, top universities, live-time telemetry, integration, live-time fusion, and “synchronization,” which the transcript says refers to armed services working together down to the unit level. It states that Netanyahu wrote the plan and wrote what they put in the bill, thanking the committee for passing it, and describes the bill’s movement: from one committee to the final committee on Thursday, and then “less than twenty-four hours later” the Pentagon comes out with a confirmed assessment. The transcript says the Pentagon acknowledged that it had “leaked this to NBC News,” and that other outlets “sat on it” until the legislation began passing out of committee. It further states that the Pentagon’s assessment—described as being held for “two and a half weeks”—identifies Israel as the number one national security threat because of “the unhinged behavior of Israel,” including hacking phones, breaking into homes, and pressure on families. It also claims former spy chiefs and Israeli officials describe aggressive conduct and competence. The transcript then presents an “emergency warning” framing: it says the Pentagon issued an emergency warning to “the American people, the White House, and the armed services,” claiming Israel is attempting “a silent coup” against U.S. armed services and intelligence agencies. It claims multiple Pentagon intelligence agencies joined an agreement, stating they “aren’t doing their job,” and that the “treason got so bad” that the Pentagon’s number one threat is Israel’s espionage. It describes alleged symbols and coordination inside the Pentagon, including Israeli flags and bases, and says it describes efforts for troops to “pledge allegiance” to Israel and IDF soldiers wearing their uniforms during congressional voting. It then points to additional reports and news coverage, claiming the New York Times and Wall Street Journal later report that Israelis somehow broke into military phones and intelligence personnel systems “in live time control.” It also asserts Israel’s role in hardware supply chains, claiming Apple says new iPhones have their chip made in Israel by an Israeli defense company, and it references Israel’s prior activity against Iran’s power plants, comparing it to other countries’ chip-loading and software tactics while emphasizing Israel is “really nasty about it.” Finally, the transcript focuses on Congressman Massey’s criticisms. It says Section 224 includes “synchronize,” “integrate,” and related terms, and Massey argues the language implies merging the IDF and U.S. military, including chain-of-command concerns. It states Massey intends to offer an amendment to strip the provision. The transcript adds that Section 224 calls for a “czar” or “director of the merger program,” describing that the director reports once a year to Congress while the details are classified, and it claims the Pentagon is “a black hole for money.” It describes the committee chair and ranking member’s plans to mark up the bill and move toward a full House vote.

It is not in the U.S.'s or Israel's interest to get involved in another major war in the Middle East. It's false to say that when Israel was attacked, America was attacked. Adopting that mentality leads to situations like Iraq. The U.S. shouldn't put boots on the ground in Israel, and many Israelis agree. The U.S. is limited in how it can support Israel right now due to resources given to Ukraine and military drawdown after twenty years of war. The U.S. drew down artillery prepositioned in Israel and gave it to Ukraine, and it will take years to rebuild the capacity to adequately support partners like Israel and Ukraine while preparing for a potential conflict with China. Israel is going to need a lot of artillery shells just like Ukraine does. Early in the Ukraine war, Israel was attacked for taking a neutral stance and resisting pressure to send its Iron Dome to Ukraine. Had Israel caved, more Israelis would have died. Israel deserves credit for prioritizing the safety of its citizens.

An official states that serious consequences for bombing and killing children will be a second-term decision to prevent, not a first-term one, due to political calculations. It's too politically risky to say what Biden said earlier in the week, which was "we're not going to give you more bombs." A US shipment of 3,500 bombs was paused. There is a huge, powerful Jewish influence in both Republican and Democratic politics. The administration faces pressure regarding siding with political factions and parties. Deliberations on Israel are not public to avoid angering people. Israel has both a domestic and international footprint. Domestically, there are many Jewish people, and it's easy for certain folks to twist the message. After the October 7th terrorist attack, the US could help, but can't say that because it's all classified. Losing support from Jewish voters could prevent obtaining 270 electoral votes. Saying "no free bombs" was risky because Jews will get upset, feeling America is turning against them. The Palestine effort represents many voters, and they feel they've lost them. Keeping things quiet is necessary for now.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Work has resulted in movements in the region by Israel, prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where it stands on the need for this war to end will continue.

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

Glenn welcomed Seyyed Muhammad Marandi, a Tehran University professor and former Iran nuclear negotiator adviser, and asked about the terms of the current ceasefire and why clarity is hard to get. Marandi explained the progression: the U.S. initially demanded unconditional surrender, then shifted to a “15 plan,” which Iran rejected. Iran developed its own plan, with the Supreme National Security Council sending a modified version to the leader, Ayatollah Bahamani, who finalized it and sent it to Pakistan. Trump ostensibly accepted Iran’s framework as the basis for negotiations, though “that doesn’t mean that we’re going to have peace” and there’s little faith in U.S. willingness to concede the 10 points Iran presented. He described the U.S. as an empire whose capitulation is unlikely, given internal and international pressure and the current closure of the Strait of Hormuz. He warned that the U.S. military footprint in the region would be hard to sustain and would face logistical and environmental strain, which could complicate any new war; nonetheless, Iran is preparing for the worst, having previously negotiated with the U.S. twice and seeing both efforts end in renewed conflict. He attributed recent Israeli actions against Lebanon as an effort to derail the ceasefire, noting that Israeli leadership (Netanyahu) appears motivated to induce more violence to gain leverage domestically, while Western media outlets largely abstain from criticizing these actions. Glenn pressed on how to interpret the two-week window for negotiations and whether Lebanon’s inclusion in the ceasefire remains valid. Marandi reiterated skepticism that the full Iran-focused 10-point plan would be accepted by the United States, calling Trump inconsistent and unpredictable. He suggested the two-week period might be extended if negotiations progress modestly, but doubted any comprehensive agreement would be reached given the U.S. tendency to resist rights-based terms and to change positions rapidly. The two discussed the possibility of renewed U.S.-Iran conflict, with Iran continuing to strike at Israeli targets and American assets in the Gulf if necessary. The conversation then moved to the question of who bears responsibility for the broader regional disruption. Marandi argued that Gulf regimes (the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar) are not in a position to fight Iran; without electricity and infrastructure, they would suffer cataclysmic losses. He asserted that the U.S. could not unify the Gulf states in a new campaign and that Iran would control the Strait of Hormuz if attacked. The UAE’s rumored strike on petrochemical facilities was cited as an example of the ongoing broader conflict. He also suggested Lebanon’s fate is tied to whether Israel continues striking Lebanon or shifts its focus back to Iran, and warned that a failure to constrain Israel would undermine any peace talks. Marandi asserted that the ceasefire’s terms could be undermined by the “Epstein class” influence over Western media and governments, arguing that the global media’s support for Israel’s actions betrays a broader humanitarian and democratic legitimacy crisis in the West. He also noted that Oman’s cooperation around Hormuz might be part of a negotiated arrangement, given Oman’s more favorable relationship with Iran and its geographic position on the strait. He stressed that Iran’s apparent victory could reshape global power dynamics, weakening the U.S. and empowering Iran and other Global South actors, with implications for the petrodollar system and regional alignments. Towards the end, Glenn and Marandi touched on the potential long-term regional changes, including borders and governance in the Gulf, and the broader economic and political costs for Gulf monarchies. Marandi attributed the crisis to Zionist influence on U.S. policy and lamented missed opportunities to pursue normal relations with the United States, referencing authors Flint and Leverett and their book Going to Tehran, which he suggested could have altered current events if heeded. He concluded by reiterating that lessons were not learned and that the war’s consequences would be lasting.

Netanyahu understands the U.S. and currently has more control over U.S. foreign and defense policy than the U.S. president. The Israeli lobby has achieved its goal of unconditional U.S. backing. Netanyahu believes this control is temporary, so he's using this moment for Israel to establish permanent Israeli, Jewish, military, and political hegemony over the region, create greater Israel, and put everyone on notice that they are in charge. He is confident he has U.S. backing. The U.S. will not put vast numbers of troops on the ground because it doesn't have them to commit.

The images from the conflict are devastating and speak for themselves. President Biden has repeatedly communicated his red lines to Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding actions in Gaza, including limitations on entering and potential aid restrictions. Netanyahu, however, continues to disregard these warnings. The US and others are questioning whether Israel's actions are in its best interest, given the increasing international isolation and tensions with allies like Egypt. The US may need to reconsider its support for Israel, potentially adjusting military aid conditions to influence their actions. Holding back specific weapons systems, not overall defense aid, is a possibility. There's even growing dissent within Israel itself, with calls for Netanyahu's removal. The situation requires the US to make a difficult choice about how it will support Israel moving forward.

During a short conflict, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) officers were in the Pentagon, alongside other foreign military officers such as NATO officers from other countries including Britain. That week, the officers “barg[ed] into meetings,” gave orders, and made demands, enraging American Pentagon staff, and nobody did anything about it. The speaker describes this behavior as deeply unhealthy, arguing it leads to further problems when foreign officers are allowed to demand actions inside U.S. military headquarters. They state that, because of the weakness of U.S. leaders, predators in a foreign country were incited to take advantage of the U.S., and they emphasize the point is not “anti Israel.” The speaker’s central claim is that U.S. leaders—at the Pentagon and throughout the U.S. government—have a sacred duty to defend and represent the U.S. against potential threats from foreign countries as needed, and not “prostrate themselves before a foreign nation.” They argue that a government should not take orders from another, weaker government, and they say this situation “has been for a very long time” and is “not even pretending.”