reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Significant human rights violations against Christians have occurred in both Sunni and Shia controlled areas in Syria, which has a 10% Christian population. The situation could worsen, especially with Bashar al-Assad's regime having killed hundreds of thousands, but he is now gone. The Iranian influence in the region is declining, with key proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Assad no longer in power. Turkey is making incursions into Northern Syria, while Israel maintains control over the Golan Heights, preventing terrorist threats. The Syrian government has weakened, leading to a power struggle among various factions, including the Kurds. The collapse of the Russian-Iranian alliance in Syria highlights their internal weaknesses. President Biden noted that neither Russia nor Iran can effectively support a regime in Syria anymore, which reflects their diminished capabilities. Overall, while the situation remains complex, the decline of these powers could be seen as a positive development.

Excitement surrounds the recent toppling of Assad in Syria, but the situation is concerning. The group that ousted him, Hayat Tahir al Sham, is led by Abu Mohammed Al Julani, a former Al Qaeda leader. After being imprisoned in Iraq, Julani was sent to Syria to establish Jabhat al Nusra. He later distanced himself from ISIS, aiming to create an Islamic state in Syria rather than a global caliphate. His rule in Idlib resembles that of the Taliban, with accusations of silencing dissent and imposing strict laws. Julani's original name is Ahmed Hussein Alshara, and he seeks to liberate a broader region known as al Sham, including Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. Turkey's Erdogan supports the rebels, posing a new threat as he aims to lead Sunni Muslims against Western civilization. Under this new regime, minorities, particularly Christians and Kurds, may face persecution.

Peto Pete discusses the troubling situation in Syria, highlighting U.S. support for rebel groups, some of which are linked to Al Qaeda. He points out the contradiction of U.S. actions, as the Pentagon and CIA back opposing militias. The U.S. aims to assist in establishing a sovereign Syria and provide humanitarian relief after years of conflict under Assad. Despite these efforts, the situation may worsen, with the recent appointment of a new Syrian leader who was previously wanted by U.S. authorities. The narrative suggests a cycle of violence and instability continues, with little hope for change.

Russia was initially hesitant to engage in the Syrian conflict, which began in 2011 when the U.S. coordinated with Al Qaeda and other groups. The CIA's secret operation, Timber Sycamore, provided Al Qaeda with anti-tank and anti-air weapons, making them a proxy force for U.S. interests alongside ISIS. The U.S. aimed to overthrow the legitimate Syrian government by using these proxies, including various terrorist factions. In Aleppo, the Syrian Army, supported by Hezbollah and some Iranian-organized troops, led the efforts to reclaim territory. A similar strategy is currently observed in Ukraine.

Recent events in Syria mark a culmination of a long-term strategy by Israel, particularly under Netanyahu, to reshape the Middle East. This effort began with the "Clean Break" strategy in 1996, aiming for a "Greater Israel" by destabilizing neighboring governments. The U.S. has been complicit in these actions, engaging in wars across multiple countries, including Iraq and Libya, under the guise of fighting terrorism. The narrative around Assad has shifted over the years, often driven by U.S. interests rather than genuine threats to national security. The ongoing conflicts serve the interests of the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby, leading to instability rather than peace. Future U.S. foreign policy must prioritize diplomacy and accountability to avoid further escalation, particularly regarding Iran and Russia.

Stanislav and Speaker 0 discuss a rapidly evolving, multi-front crisis that they argue is in its early days but already sprawling across the region and the global energy order. Key military and strategic points - The conflict has expanded from warnings into a broader destruction of regional economic infrastructure, extending from Israel to Iran. Israel began by hitting southern oil fields; Iran responded with attacks on oil and gas facilities and US bases, and warned it would strike “everywhere” including US bases if attacked again. - Iran’s stated aim includes purging the US from the Persian Gulf by destroying American bases and making hosting US forces prohibitively expensive. This has been coupled with actions that blinded US radars and pressured Gulf Arab states to expel the Americans. - Israel attacked infrastructure and a nuclear power plant associated with Russia’s project; Israel’s destruction of oil infrastructure and oil fires contributed to a widespread environmental contamination event, with oil smoke and carcinogenic particulates dispersing over Central Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Northern India, and potentially further. - The war is generating cascading economic damage, including a potential long-term hit to energy supply chains. The speaker who has oil-industry experience (Speaker 1) explains that refinery expansions and LNG projects involve complex, lengthy supply chains and custom equipment; extensive damage means years, not months, to recover, with LNG output potentially 20%–30% lower for Europe, and cascading effects on fertilizer supplies and food production. - European energy and fertilizer dependencies are stressed: Russia supplies a large share of chemical fertilizer; Europe could face severe energy and food crises, while the US appears more flexible on sanctions and fertilizer sourcing. - On the military side, there is discussion of a possible ground invasion by US forces, including the 82nd Airborne (as part of the XVIII Airborne Corps) and Marines. The analysis emphasizes the daunting difficulty of any cross-border operation into Iran or even taking forward positions in the Strait of Hormuz or on nearby islands. The speaker argues that the 80th/82nd Airborne’s capabilities are limited (light infantry, no back-up armor), making large-scale incursions extremely costly and unlikely to achieve strategic objectives (e.g., seizing enriched uranium on Kare Island). The argument stresses that “mission impossible” scenarios would yield heavy casualties and limited gains, especially given Iran’s mountainous terrain, entrenched defense, and pervasive drone threat. - Kare Island (Hormuz Strait) is described as highly vulnerable to drone swarms. FPV drones, longer-range drones, and loitering munitions could intercept or complicate the deployment of troops, supply lines, and casualty evacuation. Even with air superiority, drones combined with coastal defenses could make an island seizure a “turkey shoot” for Iran unless ground troops can be rapidly reinforced and sustained against a rising drone threat. - The role of drones is emphasized: drones of various sizes, including small FPV systems and larger retranslated-signal drones, could operate from Iranian coastlines to disrupt coastlines such as Kare Island and other Hormuz approaches. The talk highlights how drones complicate casualty evacuation, medical triage, and resupply, and how air assets (helicopters, Ospreys) are vulnerable to drone attacks. Nuclear and regional deterrence questions - Enriched uranium: Iran reportedly has around 60% enrichment; 90% would be necessary for weapons, which could provide a deterrent or escalation leverage. The possibility of nuclear weapons remains a major concern in the discussion. - Fatwas and leadership: The new supreme leader in Iran could alter policy on nuclear weapons; there is debate about whether Iran would actually pursue a weapon given its political culture and regional risk. Regional and international dynamics - The role of Russia and China: The discussion suggests the US is being leveraged by adversaries through proxy relationships, with Russia and China potentially supporting Iran as a way to undermine US influence and the Western-led order. - Regime and leadership dynamics in the US: Speaker 1 predicts intense internal political pressure in the US, including potential civil unrest if casualties rise and if policies become unsustainable. There is skepticism about the willingness of US political leadership to sustain a protracted conflict or a ground invasion. Recent events and forward-facing notes - A ballistic missile strike on southern Israel and simultaneous missile salvos from Iran were reported during the interview; there were also reports of air-defense interceptions near Dubai. - The discussion closes with warnings about the potential for catastrophic outcomes, including a nuclear meltdown risk if nuclear facilities are struck in ways that disable cooling or power systems, and emphasizes the fragility of the current strategic balance as this crisis unfolds.

Al Qaeda has acted as a proxy force for the U.S. in Syria, working alongside ISIS to achieve American objectives. Since the war began in 2011, the U.S. has supported Al Qaeda, providing them with weapons through covert operations. The goal has been to overthrow the Syrian government, employing ruthless tactics to starve and freeze the civilian population, exacerbated by severe sanctions. Medical supplies were cut off, leading to preventable deaths. An explosion in Lebanon, which devastated the economy, is suspected to have been orchestrated to further harm Syria. The U.S. has manipulated global media narratives to obscure these actions, presenting them as altruistic. Throughout, there has been a disturbing campaign of sexual violence against women and children, facilitated by the chaos of war, highlighting the extreme cruelty inflicted on the Syrian people in pursuit of geopolitical goals.

The speaker states that sanctions against Syria were once important but are now being removed, expressing optimism about Syria's future success. The speaker hopes Syria will "show us something very special," similar to Saudi Arabia. The administration is pursuing peaceful engagement and offering friendship to those who accept it in good faith. The speaker claims unprecedented strides and progress have been made, envisioning a bright future for the Middle East. The speaker suggests that if nations in the region set aside differences and focus on shared interests, the world will be amazed. The speaker believes the Middle East, the "geographic center of the world and the spiritual heart of its greatest faiths," will transform from a place of turmoil to a land of opportunity and hope.

Wanna get on to Ukraine. But, given that Israel is signaling it doesn't like the, Al Qaeda operative, Jelani in Damascus, and we know Tulsi Gabbard is something of an expert on Syria because she exposed the lies and the, phony war in Syria when The United States was supporting the ISIS and Al Qaeda rebels there. How do you and Trump has been very brave arguably saying, he's not gonna, start sending loads of money like Britain is to Tchelani. There's still thousands of American troops, though, in Syria. What is American Syrian policy Syria policy? America's policy towards Syria is basically Israel's policy. And what The United States was bent on doing was wrecking Syria and keeping it wrecked. That's the Israeli objective here. This is what the Israelis wanna do with Iran. They don't simply wanna do away with Iran's nuclear capability. They surely do wanna do that, but they wanna wreck Iran. They wanna turn Iran into Syria. And what the Israelis are doing in Syria is going to great lengths to make sure that Syria remains, a dysfunctional state. They don't want Syria to become, a formidable adversary. They want it to remain broken. And, of course, The United States will support the Israelis in that regard. So, of course, the Israelis are not gonna allow the Americans to give huge amounts of aid to Jalani so that he can produce a viable Syrian state because that's not Israeli policy. Just look at what they're doing in Iran. I mean, excuse me, what they're doing in Lebanon. It's a similar situation.

In the conversation, Syed Mohammed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, addresses multiple interwoven geopolitical issues, centering on Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the broader strategic rivalry with the United States and its allies. Syria and ISIS release - Marandi asserts that the Damascus regime, described as al-Qaeda/ISIS-aligned factions, would not tolerate Kurdish forces backed by the United States. He notes prior violence against Alawites, Christians, and Druze as context for the current disturbing images from Syria. - He argues the United States is not a reliable partner for its allies, pointing to past episodes such as Obama’s refusal to support Arbil when ISIS threatened the Kurdish government, and Soleimani’s rapid military response to save the city. - He states that ISIS prisoners have been released in Syria, implying that thousands of ISIS members are now free and could destabilize Syria and possibly Iraq. He emphasizes that both Jolani (an ISIS-linked figure) and the Kurdish groups in northeast Syria are allied to the United States, making it unclear who released the prisoners but suggesting that those actors are aligned with the U.S. - The broader implication is that the release increases instability in Syria and potentially across the region. Border security and spillover fears - The discussion turns to Iraq’s border with Syria, with Marandi weighing whether U.S.-backed jihadist forces might spill into Iraq or Lebanon. He suggests a likelihood that ISIS/Al-Qaeda remnants could be used to pressure Lebanon and Iraq to prevent closer Iranian influence. - He notes that Iran’s potential responses could include its missile and drone capabilities, should security worsen on a front involving its allies in Lebanon and Iraq; however, Iran currently refrains from large-scale involvement in Syria but would consider action if threats to Iran or its allies escalate. Regime change, fragmentation, and U.S.-Israel aims - The conversation shifts to Iran post-riots, with questions about U.S./Israel strategies for regime change. Marandi contends the plan is to destabilize and fragment Iran, not to establish a unified post-regime scenario. - He cites alleged Israeli and Western involvement in organizing riots as evidence of a broader conspiracy to create chaos and justify military action. He claims Mossad and other intelligence agencies were on the ground, and public statements from former CIA officials acknowledged Israeli involvement. - He describes the riot phase as highly organized, with foreign funding (including Bitcoin), online recruitment, and careful targeting of police and infrastructure. He portrays the protests as initially legitimate grievances that devolved into violent chaos fueled by external coordination, with widespread destruction and deaths, including the killing of police officers. - In contrast, he highlights large pro-government demonstrations, especially a national day of demonstrations that he says showed widespread popular support for the Islamic Republic and condemnation of rioters. He points to extensive media coverage highlighting peaceful protests, while arguing that the riot narrative dominated Western coverage. Internal Iranian dynamics and public opinion - Marandi emphasizes the fragmentation among Iranian opposition groups: MEK, monarchists, Takfiri remnants near the Pakistan border, and Kurdish separatists, all of whom he asserts lack credible popular support. - He argues that even if the regime were at risk, fragmentation would prevent any single faction from stabilizing the country post-regime change. He suggests this aligns with his view of broader Israeli aims to weaken and fragment Iran and neighboring states, as seen in Syria and Iraq. Military capability and deterrence - He asserts Iran’s substantial missile and drone capabilities and asserts that Iran could defend allies in Lebanon and Iraq if needed. He notes Iran’s long-term preparedness against U.S. threats, including underground bases and extensive drone/missile stocks. - He contends that if war occurred, it would have wide regional and global economic consequences, potentially destabilizing oil markets and prompting broader geopolitical upheaval. He argues that U.S. restraint may be influenced by the risk of a global economic meltdown. Russia, China, and Starlink - Regarding technological assistance for countering communications, he mentions rumors of Russian or Chinese involvement in aiding Iran's internet disruption and Starlink-related issues, acknowledging uncertainty but highlighting a growing trilateral closeness among Iran, Russia, and China in the face of U.S. pressure. media narratives and leadership - He criticizes Western media for portraying protests as peaceful, while Israeli claims and cyber/disinformation around the events are presented as demonstrations of foreign involvement. He maintains that internal Iranian unity—visible in large-scale demonstrations—contrasts with the portrayal of a fractured nation. - He closes by suggesting that while some European leaders may align with U.S. policies, the overall strategic outlook remains uncertain, with a warning that Trump’s approach could escalate tensions rather than yield stability.

Hezbollah's capabilities have been degraded, and thousands of terrorists were eliminated, including Nasrallah, his replacement, and the replacement of his replacement. Hezbollah is now weaker than it has been in many years. The Lebanese people are at a crossroads and can take back their country, returning it to peace and prosperity. If they don't, Hezbollah will continue to fight Israel from densely populated areas at the expense of the Lebanese people.

Dr. Trita Parsi, cofounder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, analyzes the current Gulf dynamics amid the ceasefire discussions and regional volatility. - Israel–Saudi normalization’s core flaw: these arrangements were intended to secure U.S. commitment to regional security rather than enable the U.S. to disengage. The normalization linked U.S. security guarantees for Israel with those for several GCC states as a counterweight to Iran, but after October 7 the basis for that alignment began to erode amid Israel’s actions in Gaza. - Post-Oct 7 shifts: Saudi officials increasingly said Iran is not the region’s problem; Israel is. This undercut the Abrams Accord, which was seen largely as an anti-Iran coalition. Iran has managed to survive and, in some ways, strengthen, controlling key leverage points like the straits, and conveying that threats of U.S. force against Iran are not highly effective. - U.S. strategic trajectory: the current dynamics may push the United States to accelerate its exit from the Persian Gulf. This could leave Saudi Arabia in a position where it must recalibrate with Iran—potentially angrier but more powerful—while also considering how to respond to Iran’s actions in the war and its own security concerns. - Saudi–Israel implications: without a reliable U.S. shield, Saudi Arabia might drift back toward closer ties with Israel, though domestically that would be difficult. The Saudis had hoped for continued U.S. backing until Iran was significantly checked; given there were no viable escalatory options for the U.S. in the war, staying in could have produced worse outcomes, whereas exiting poses risks of instability and reshaping alliances. - Host’s interpretation of the ceasefire: the host questions whether the ceasefire is genuine or a lull to restock weapons, while Parsi emphasizes the timeline issue—interceptors and THAAD remnants take years to replenish, and two weeks is insufficient for a real reset. He suggests Trump’s possible aim might be to exit the region, not secure a deal, leaving Iran to control the Strait and Israel to decide its own path thereafter. - Historical analogies: Parsi likens U.S. occupation decisions to Bremer’s post-2003 Iraq policies, arguing that exiting could have avoided amplifying regional instability and the rise of insurgent problems, even if the outcome would still be painful. - Overall takeaway: the future may involve the United States stepping back, Iran consolidating strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz, and Saudi Arabia facing a choice between recalibrating its regional strategy with Iran and coordinating more closely with Israel, all amid unresolved tensions and limited U.S. military capacity for a quick rebuild.

Russia initially resisted involvement in Syria, where the US supported Al Qaeda through covert operations. The CIA supplied weapons, including anti-tank and anti-air missiles, to Al Qaeda in Idlib province. The US used proxies like Al Qaeda and ISIS to overthrow Syria's government. In Aleppo, the Syrian Army, Hezbollah, and Iranian-backed troops were key players. Similar proxy tactics are seen in Ukraine.

Taking Hama marks a significant shift in the battle dynamics, but caution is essential to avoid complacency. The recent successes stem from unification and discipline among military factions, transitioning from chaos to organized operations. The regime's weaknesses are evident, but discussing them during the battle is unwise. The Assad regime's perceived survival is misleading; it remains subservient to Iran. Governance should be institutional, protecting all groups, unlike the Assad regime's sectarian approach. Hayat Tahrir Sham is part of a broader project for Syria's future, emphasizing the need for flexibility in leadership. Actions, not labels, define true intentions. Stabilizing Syria is crucial for global peace, and rehabilitating liberated areas will encourage refugees to return home.

She is unqualified to be DNI, with positions that are far outside mainstream American politics. Her visit to Assad in Syria, who was aligned with Russia and Iran, was justified by her claim that Syria wasn't a direct threat to the U.S., which is incorrect. The alliance between Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah poses direct threats to Americans in the region and to key allies like Israel and Jordan. It will be interesting to see what information may emerge from the Syrian government if the rebels capture Damascus, particularly regarding Americans involved.

The war in Syria originated not from Bashar Al Assad, but from a decision in Washington in 02/2011 to overthrow Assad, a desire originating from Jerusalem and the Israeli government for over 25 years, with Netanyahu aiming to reshape the Middle East in Israel's image by overthrowing opposing governments. This aligned with the CIA and the U.S. government, leading to Operation Timber Sycamore, a program where the U.S. and regional countries trained rebels, including jihadists, to overthrow the Syrian regime. This resulted in chaos and 600,000 deaths. The CIA's goal in 02/2011 was for a jihad group to take power in Syria after being armed by the U.S. Peace in the region requires real diplomacy, not CIA operations, and an end to Israel's militarization of the Middle East. The Syrian war is one of six wars Israel has promoted, including in Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. In 02/2001, Wesley Clark was shown a Pentagon paper outlining a plan for seven wars in five years. The only war that hasn't occurred is a U.S. war with Iran.

There were significant human rights violations against Christians in Syria, in both Sunni and Shia controlled areas. The potential for things to get worse is there, but the upside is that the Iranian crescent is dead, meaning the Iranian regime is in real trouble because their biggest proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Assad are gone, and Shia influence is waning. Turkey is encroaching on Northern Syria to create a buffer zone, while Israel controls the Golan Heights and has moved into a buffer zone at Mount Hermon. The Syrian government has abdicated to a rebel alliance. Russia and Iran are weak, as evidenced by the collapse of their alliance in Syria, indicative of their interior weakness. This is a direct result of blows Ukraine and Israel delivered. Net net, this is probably a good thing, but there are no great things in the Middle East.

The United States will collaborate with partners in Syria to manage risks following the recent decline of support for Assad from Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. This shift stems from Iran's miscalculations after the October 7 attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which has weakened Russia's ability to assist Assad. The U.S. has maintained sanctions on Assad, supported military operations against ISIS, and backed Israel's actions against Iranian networks. Moving forward, the U.S. will support Syria's neighbors, ensure stability in Eastern Syria, engage with Syrian groups for a political transition, and remain vigilant regarding the actions of rebel groups. Humanitarian relief efforts will also be prioritized to aid Syria's recovery from years of conflict.

Between October 17th and 24th, US and coalition forces were attacked multiple times in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-backed proxies using drones and rockets. The groups responsible for these attacks are supported by the IRGC and the Iranian regime. The US is preparing for further escalation and is ready to defend its forces and interests. They have significant capabilities in the region, including naval assets and fighter aircraft. The US has also deployed additional military capabilities to enhance deterrence and respond to any contingencies. They aim to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas from expanding regionally but are prepared to protect their partners and interests. Force protection is a priority, and all necessary measures will be taken to defend troops and interests overseas.

Where we both remain acutely concerned about the Assad regime's campaign of violence against their own citizens. The Assad regime's continued brutality is galvanizing international opinion. The United States will continue to work with our partners to turn this growing consensus into increased pressure and isolation for the Assad regime. President Assad has lost the legitimacy to lead, and it is clear that Syria would be better off without him. Yesterday, The United States imposed new sanctions, and ambassador Ford delivered a clear message to the Syrian government. Immediately stop the violence, withdraw your security forces, respond to the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people for a democratic transition in concrete and meaningful ways.

The previous administration successfully avoided new wars and managed to contain Iran. In the coming weeks, the U.S. will reassert its leadership in the Middle East, ensuring safety for Israel, Gulf Arab allies, and American citizens without deploying large military forces. The approach was clear: exiting the flawed nuclear deal, strengthening ties with Israel, relocating the embassy to Jerusalem, and eliminating key Iranian leaders like Qasem Soleimani helped deter Iran's aggression. Additionally, cutting off their financial resources prevented funding for attacks, such as those on October 7th. The previous administration's policies aimed to deny Iran the wealth that contributed to their military capabilities.

For the past decade, foreign powers have sought to destroy Syria. "Israel wants to reclaim Southern Syria, Turkey wants to reclaim Northern Syria, and the Persian Gulf states want a secure route for a natural gas pipeline to Europe." The "American Empire" seeks to destroy any nation that fails to open its economy to Western corporations. The preferred method... "to destroy a nation by agitating and arming minority groups while sending thousands of foreign mercenaries" and "funded by foreign intelligence agencies via massive arms smuggling that supplied billions of dollars in weapons to so called rebels." "American weaponry included expensive shoulder fired surface to air missiles and large anti tank weapons, like the American TOW system." By the end of 2,015, the Syrian government had lost control of most of its territory. "Russia announced that any aircraft that bombed Syrian forces would be shot down." "Israel expanded its Druze militias in Southern Syria" and "American aircrafts and artillery supported Kurdish forces" into Eastern Syria. "The White Helmets" were "founded in 2013 by a British ex military officer" and "funded to the tune of $100,000,000 by The US, UK, and Europe"—they "purport to be rescuing civilians" yet "no one in Eastern Aleppo has heard of them." "The covert war on Syria killed over 400,000 people and pushed 5,000,000 refugees." "Seven years has been a disaster under Obama" with "CIA and Saudi Arabia together" fueling a "proxy war" that brought ISIS; get out. The plot to destroy Syria failed as it reconquered most of its territory.

Conflict risks may escalate globally, particularly in the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East. Iran is backing Russia in Ukraine and supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the region. Accountability for these actions will be maintained.