reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The conversation centers on a reported peace framework and the idea that Iran is “giving up all of their chips” and cards. The speaker says many people seem to believe the rumor that a peace deal is in play, and reacts by calling themselves an optimist while insisting the approach must be “realistic.” The speaker argues that any peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and that the key requirement is taking steps to restrain Israel. They say that, if the U.S. looks at the Israelis “with clear eyes,” it could achieve a deal with Iran that does not include everything the U.S. wants—for example, the speaker says Iran will not “hill(s) in the deal about zero enrichment” and will not “hand us over all your enrichment.” The speaker’s main goal is ending the fighting, which they say is “definitely possible.” However, the speaker expresses skepticism that the U.S. has taken the first “hard step” of telling Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” They describe the war as “existential for the Israelis,” and argue the situation cannot assume Israel will not face conditions that could lead to continued attacks or another “terrorist attack.” The speaker says the U.S. cannot “take that off the table” or “rule it out,” and cannot allow others to dismiss considerations as “a conspiracy theory.” The speaker further claims the U.S. has had institutional difficulty being skeptical and “not trusting” regarding Israel, saying Israel “lied us, lied to us to get us into this war.” They argue the U.S. needs to “turn Matter” (stating “as a matter of fact”) and apply more verification, especially because Israel is described as an ally that has misled the U.S. Finally, the speaker says if Israelis believed the U.S. would extricate itself from the conflict, “there would be an element within Israel” seeking actions to prompt Americans to recommit to the conflict, reinforcing the need for not taking anything off the table and emphasizing verification.

Mario and Professor discuss the current MOU tied to Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and related negotiations. Professor says Iran is “in the driver’s seat,” that the deal starts “terrifically” for Iran, and that it will “get better over time.” He argues the most important information comes from shippers who want Iran to clearly guarantee their security “by Iran,” not by the United States, UAE, or other Gulf states. He says Iran’s stated demands include $12 billion up front, another $12 billion at the end of the 60 days, and ongoing weekly oil-sale revenue of about a “billion dollars a week,” which he frames as leverage used to “squeeze” Donald Trump during the 60-day window. Professor’s central claim is that oil inventory drawdowns create a timeline advantage for Iran. He says oil shipments to refineries take roughly 30 to 60 days, so during the 60-day window consumers must keep drawing down inventories because “there will be no new oil coming” to them. He predicts Iran’s leverage will grow by the end of 60 days because the world’s buffers will be gone, and oil inventory experts indicate inventories cannot be refilled until next year. He adds that this produces a repeating cycle: if Iran cuts off again, it would be “much worse” for the market, giving Iran additional leverage to demand more, including linked pressure regarding Lebanon and Hezbollah. He also argues that Iran is using the negotiation as a power-maximization tool to reach regional dominance, noting that since March/April Iran has allegedly “taken Hormuz” and then worked to shift Gulf-state alignment through negotiations with Russia, China, Pakistan, Qatar, Oman, and apparently the UAE. He says the Abraham Accords have “gone poof” and frames the shift as “power” and “relative power,” building a sphere of influence while reducing the strategic value of American presence. He expects more regional arrangements “without the U.S.” over the next six months, potentially including Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Regarding U.S. and Israeli reactions, Professor says Israel is the “biggest loser” in a flipped power landscape where Iran becomes the rising power. He argues Israel opened a “second front into Lebanon,” making Israel and the United States more overstretched as Iran’s leverage increases. He says the key question is which Iranian demands matter most: cutting off U.S. military aid to Israel, withdrawing U.S. combat forces from the Persian Gulf, or both. He suggests Israel could respond by “lashing out” if it feels cornered, including possible targeting of Iranian leaders involved in negotiations. Mario asks whether Trump making clear the U.S. would not support Israel in a war would still allow Israel to start one. Professor says “words won’t be enough,” citing internal political pressures on Netanyahu ahead of reelection and the need to appear successful at defending Israel against Iran and Hezbollah. He argues Iran’s leverage trajectory could continue growing and that he expects a period of increased pressure through at least January. On U.S. intelligence, Professor references reporting that CIA Director John Ratcliffe told Trump that U.S. intelligence raised serious doubts about Iran’s willingness to make nuclear concessions, including that Iranian officials discussed the deal inconsistently with what they told American negotiators. He also references Israeli media reporting about Trump potentially allowing opposition figures to be sidelined. In discussing the MOU’s clauses, Professor says ambiguities in the MOU and supposed Israel withdrawal plan (described as non-direct and vague) would tend to advantage Iran across the 60-day window. He frames Iran’s leverage as rising if agreed withdrawal plans do not materialize, with Iran using the resulting circumstances as justification to close the Strait again. He also emphasizes Iran’s strategy of shifting blame—“passing the buck”—so that increased pressure is attributed to America or Israel rather than Iran. Mario and Professor end by noting they will wait for the MOU to be released and then review clauses for political ramifications, while Professor bases his outlook on Iran statements plus the oil inventory drawdown mechanics structured into the 60-day timeframe.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and the host discuss escalating geopolitical tensions centered on Iran, Russia, China, and the United States, with examination of diplomacy, strategy, and international law. - Wilkerson notes Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahian’s meeting with Vladimir Putin and suggests Beijing should be part of any further diplomacy, saying the significance lies in Putin’s assertion that the US faces allies and cannot make headway unilaterally. He praises Wang Yi, Sergei Lavrov, and Abbas Kamel (Abbas Rishi) as true diplomats who execute their leadership’s will with finesse, contrasting them with what he sees as other actors. - The host reflects on Russia’s wartime aims in Ukraine and Iran’s security concerns under sanctions, arguing that both Moscow and Tehran had reasonable demands (Ukraine’s neutrality/NATO expansion, ending US threats near Iran). He asks whether a durable common ground is possible or if the conflict will become protracted, with one side capitulating. - Wilkerson outlines a broader, global contest he calls a renewed great game, with theaters in the Arctic (Russia inviting China to share its Arctic coast and potential new shipping routes), the Baltic states, Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the bottom theater of Iran. He asserts the conflict is being waged against China through proxies and warns that a lack of leadership in the US, including figures like Rubio, Hegseth, and Trump, jeopardizes strategic interests. - He discusses BRICS (including Russia, China, and India) and the potential for a 30,000-kilometer-per-hour Agni missile with a 5,000–7,000 mile range, highlighting its significance for multipolar alignment. He suggests this bloc could alter the global balance and accelerate moves away from US-dominated frameworks. - The host asks about US misjudgment of Iran’s resilience. Wilkerson says the US assumed air power would compel compliance, a belief he says is flawed. He critiques the emphasis on JCPOA-like outcomes that appear to offer aTrumpian victory, rather than addressing ballistic missiles and other issues. - The discussion touches international law, UNCLOS, and the Law of the Sea Treaty. Wilkerson argues the US should revisit and potentially revive international law, including UNCLOS, to manage straits like Hormuz and to reduce conflicts, noting that neither the US nor Iran has ratified UNCLOS. He criticizes the current administration for disregarding international law to serve strategic aims but stresses the need to reengage with treaties and norms. - They address Iran’s nuclear issue. Wilkerson expects attempts to frame any deal as better than Obama’s JCPOA, potentially including transfer of uranium to Russia, while the Iranians may accept a negotiated arrangement if it halts bombing. They discuss possible Turkish mediation via law-of-the-sea frameworks and international law as a stabilizing mechanism, lamenting the fecklessness of the UN and the current UN Secretary General. - The host notes Netanyahu’s difficulties in Lebanon and questions Israel’s future status as a Jewish state, predicting demographic and political challenges ahead. - On Iran’s peace proposal, Wilkerson says Trump would likely reject it to preserve leverage and position for a JCPOA-like framework, arguing that the administration’s endgame is to claim a victory and move on, regardless of regional consequences. - Finally, they anticipate a likely imminent phone call between Putin and Trump, predicting a tense exchange about Ukraine and US policy, with potential but uncertain outcomes. Wilkerson reiterates concerns about the broader multipolar shift, domestic political pressures in the US, and the risk of escalating conflicts without coherent strategy.

If Israel faces annihilation, they might use their nukes. Iran and Hezbollah need to understand they cannot wipe out the Israeli people. If Israel is about to be totally destroyed, they need to be thinking about all their options. The US military being stretched is not Israel's fault. The US should fund its military and not treat it like a secondary agency. This country has a lot of problems, but that's not on the head of the Israeli people who are trying to survive. When the US looks weak, violence and threats increase. Israel's gotta do what it's gotta do.

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?”

The conversation begins with discussion of a sudden shift in US/Iran-Israel rhetoric and a development reported as Iran suspending its delegation trip to Switzerland for the opening round of nuclear negotiations. The initial source cited is Al Mayadeen. Iran’s stated reason is ongoing Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon. Iran argues that Israel operating more than six miles inside Lebanese territory violates Article 1 of the MOU, which calls for an immediate end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, and therefore Iran says there is “nothing to go to Geneva for” if the ceasefire clause is being breached before negotiations begin. The transcript also notes that Donald Trump posted a call for a complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel. The discussion then shifts to the “wild card” described as Israel and whether Trump can reign in Netanyahu. Colonel argues that Israeli leadership and US supporters were instrumental in putting Trump into the White House and that they are turning current events into a “test of Jewish power,” aiming to bully Trump back into attacking Iran. He claims this is where events are headed. He also references a CNN report that Netanyahu is reportedly lobbying to shape the final US-Iran agreement by pressuring Trump through allies and intermediaries in Washington, mobilizing pro-Israeli senators and media allies. The transcript further states Netanyahu believes a final agreement will be reached but remains concerned Tehran will not uphold commitments, and that Netanyahu said “we will restore security to the north” by keeping the security zone in southern Lebanon as long as Israel’s security needs require. Asked whether Trump can withstand pressure, Colonel states he believes Trump and Iran “collectively reached the point” where they see no point in further war. He describes what he says was Trump’s private impression earlier in political interactions: Trump did not want a war with Iran, thought an arrangement could be reached, and was focused on the United States. Colonel claims Trump’s transformation began with Ukraine, and later shifted into belligerence. He says that at the beginning of the collision with Iran, Trump used language around sending B-2 bombers and said “the war is over,” but that he “couldn’t do it,” and became concerned about financial markets, polls, and the economy. Colonel claims Trump kept repeating that the war would end soon, but that the only way to end it was to end it, not by talking and not by a military solution. Colonel further claims Trump did not want to use a nuclear weapon and that it was “off the table.” Colonel then discusses Trump’s relationship with Israel and the MOU as a rough framework. He says Trump finds elements of the framework comfortable, including not meddling in internal affairs and reducing overseas entanglements. He also claims Trump had conversations with Netanyahu and made it clear he does not want Israel to go nuclear. Colonel portrays Trump’s decision-making as attempting to bring the conflict to closure, after concluding bombing would not work. He says Trump may have been shown information about Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon that contributed to a change in how Trump framed the issue, and he references Trump’s comments about destroying an entire apartment building to eliminate one person. The transcript moves into a broader argument about long-term regional power shifts. Colonel says the two powers that will emerge are Iran and Turkey, and that they will dominate the Middle East for decades. He distinguishes them, asserting Iran will coexist and can be talked to and do business, while provoking Turkey would be “a fight to the finish.” He argues Turkey has a martial character and cites its military effectiveness as being among the top five in the world. When asked about Turkey’s military capabilities, he emphasizes not only technology but human material and soldier character, adding a cultural reference about a funeral song for Turkish soldiers. Colonel then presents “ISR-Strike” as the strategic change behind modern warfare, linking surveillance and standoff attack systems, and claims that this makes older power projection methods less effective. He argues the world must change and criticizes calls to reset to past patterns of “go back in and bomb some more,” drawing analogies to historical Roman limits. In this context, he says Trump understands the need for change and “cutting losses.” Asked whether Israel could sabotage negotiations by continuing strikes and whether Trump could refuse to support Israel even defensively, Colonel says what the question describes is “almost already happening,” pointing to Israeli shelling and a likely effort to attack Hizballah positions. He says Israel needs US assistance with munitions, missiles, and intelligence, and argues that Netanyahu would pressure Washington through officials and lawmakers to force support. Colonel also states he is “genuinely concerned” about the president’s safety. Later, the conversation turns to speculation about how pressure could escalate beyond normal political attacks. Colonel suggests that investigations could be launched involving members of the president’s family, pointing to personal wealth growth and potential exploitation of “unsavory” matters, and references “the Epstein files” as something that could return to center stage. He then argues that escalating outcomes can range from orchestrated efforts to unexpected attempts, comparing to historical assassination attempts. He says calls for resignation are not what he supports at that moment, arguing resignation should occur after closing the chapter. Finally, the discussion addresses how much agency the president and commanders have within the system. The transcript cites claims from CENTCOM and other departments that commanders have less agency than expected and that higher-level elected officials similarly have constraints due to bureaucratic structures, service hierarchies, confirmation processes, and lobbying. Colonel ties this to a broader system of incentives and limited political time for presidents to accomplish objectives, concluding with a reference to his book “A Margin of Victory: Five Battles That Changed the Face of War, Modern Warfare.”

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 centers on a loud, multi-voiced discussion about the prospect of war with Iran, U.S. policy dynamics, and the influence of allied actors—especially Israel—on Washington’s decisions. - The opening segment features sharp, provocative claims about President Trump’s stance toward Iran. One speaker asserts that Trump gave Iran seven days to comply or “we will unleash hell on that country,” including strikes on desalinization plants and energy infrastructure. This is framed as part of a broader, catastrophic escalation in Iran under heavy pressure on Trump to commit U.S. forces to Israel’s war. - Joe Kent, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned from the administration, presents the central prognosis. He warns that Trump will face immense pressure to commit ground troops in Iran, calling such a move a “catastrophic escalation” that would increase bloodshed. Kent urges the public to contact the White House and members of Congress to oppose boots on the ground in Iran, advocating for peaceful resolution and public pressure for peace. - The discussion shifts to Israeli involvement. The panel notes that Israeli media report Israel will not commit ground troops if the U.S. invades Iran, and some assert Israel has never, in any conflict, committed troops to support the U.S. The conversation questions this claim, noting counterpoints from analyst Brandon Weichert that Israel has undermined American forces in certain areas. - The debate then returns to Trump’s diplomacy and strategy. The host asks whether Trump’s stated approach toward Iran—potentially including a peace plan—is credible or “fake news.” Kent responds that Iran will not take diplomacy seriously unless U.S. actions demonstrate credibility, such as restraining Israel. He suggests that a more restrained Israeli posture would signal to Iran that the U.S. is serious about negotiations. - The program examines whether the MAGA movement has shifted on the issue. There is testimony that figures like Mark Levin have advocated for some form of ground action, though Levin reportedly denies calls for large-scale deployment. Kent explains that while he believes certain special operations capabilities exist—units trained to seize enriched uranium—the broader question is whether boots on the ground are necessary or wise. He emphasizes that a successful, limited operation could paradoxically encourage further action by Israel if it appears easy, potentially dragging the U.S. deeper into conflict. - A recurring theme is the perceived dominance of the Israeli lobby over U.S. foreign policy. Several participants contend that Israeli influence drives the war timeline, with Israeli action sometimes undermining U.S. diplomacy. They argue that despite public differences, the United States has not meaningfully restrained Israel, and that Israeli strategic goals could be pushing Washington toward conflict. - The conversation also covers domestic political dynamics and civil liberties. Kent argues that the intelligence community’s influence—infused with foreign policy aims—risks eroding civil liberties, including discussions around domestic terrorism and surveillance. The group notes pushback within the administration and among some members of the intelligence community about surveillance proposals tied to Palantir and broader counterterrorism practices. - Kent addresses questions about the internal decision-making process that led to the Iran policy shift, denying he was offered a central role in any pre-crime or AI-driven surveillance agenda. He acknowledges pushback within the administration against aggressive domestic surveillance measures while noting that the debate over civil liberties remains contentious. - The program touches on broader conspiracy-like theories and questions about whether individuals such as Kent are “controlled opposition” or pawns in a larger plan involving tech elites like Peter Thiel and Palantir. Kent insists his campaign funding was modest and transparent, and he stresses the need for accountability and oversight to prevent misuse of powerful tools. - In closing, the speakers converge on a common refrain: no U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. They stress that the priority should be preventing another ground war, avoiding American casualties, and pressing for diplomacy rather than expansion of hostilities. The show highlights public involvement—urging viewers to contact representatives, stay vigilant about foreign influence, and oppose a march toward war. - Across the exchange, the underlying tension is clear: competing visions of American sovereignty, the balance between counterterrorism and civil liberties, and the extent to which foreign actors (notably Israel) shape U.S. policy toward Iran. The participants repeatedly return to the need for accountability, restraint, and a peaceful path forward, even as they recognize the high stakes and the intense political pressure surrounding any potential intervention.

The discussion centers on how Donald Trump is said to have “transformed” from describing himself as being under blackmail or duress to portraying himself as someone who can control Netanyahu and Israel—framed as a rationalizing process meant to avoid cognitive dissonance. The speaker argues that, if a person is pressured into actions, the mind may later reframe the situation so the person believes they “chose this” rather than being forced, ultimately convincing themselves that they are in control. This is illustrated through historical examples and analogies, including claims that Stockholm-syndrome-like processes occur when captives are compelled to adapt psychologically and socially to survive. To support the explanation, the speaker cites Texas frontier accounts and rereads Herman Lehman’s *Nine Years Among the Indians, 1870 to 1879*, describing cases in which boys captured by Comanches and Apaches could be brought over into the captors’ mindset over time. The speaker also references *Indian Depredations in Texas* (1889) and films such as *The Searchers* (including the story of a kidnapped girl who does not want to return), as well as Burt Lancaster’s *Ulzanas Raid*. The core claim is that these captives underwent prolonged hardship and social pressure—adaptation through survival, conditioning, and eventual identity change—so that the captive’s mind becomes “in their mind” part of the group. The speaker then ties the framework to contemporary politics by returning to remarks attributed to Trump about Israel and Netanyahu. The speaker says that earlier, Rubio and Trump supposedly said they conducted an attack (after February 28) because Israel said it would attack Israel, but that later Trump’s mindset shifts to believing Netanyahu will do whatever he says and that Trump may even joke about becoming “the next prime minister of Israel.” The speaker adds that Trump reportedly dismisses unfavorable polls as “fake news” and cites a poll Trump mentioned claiming extremely high Israeli favorability, arguing that such favorability does not translate to broad global acceptance. A large portion shifts to a geopolitical and energy argument focused on Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and the global economy. The speaker claims that U.S.-linked actions have increasingly been associated with heightened risk, noting U.S.-provided munitions and support and asserting that extending Israel’s range with refuelers helps Israel “leapfrog” beyond Israel’s defensive perimeter. The speaker argues that assassination tactics and “sneak attack” approaches undermine negotiation, using historical comparisons (including Pearl Harbor) to argue that starting or escalating conflict produces long-term distrust and consequences. The speaker argues that the conflict is not sustainable as a prolonged “stalemate” because world fuel levels are declining and the global system is described as being “just in time,” with tankers serving as moving inventory. The speaker proposes a “tank bottom” concept—when reserve fuel buffers abroad become so depleted that supply chains and infrastructure cannot handle remaining fractions—leading to global cascading effects. They claim that even if ships head to the U.S. to refuel, it inflates U.S. prices, damages perceptions of the U.S. internationally, and does not solve the global shortfall. From there, the speaker forecasts knock-on impacts: acute energy problems followed by food crisis conditions, and they link agriculture outcomes to fertilizer, diesel, irrigation, and supply constraints. They also argue that psychological and social preparedness matters—asserting that Americans may collapse faster due to expectations of constant electricity, water, and supermarket access, while people with lived hardship may adapt more readily. The transcript also includes an extended interlude promoting and discussing products and fundraising tied to the show, including supplements, iodine products, wallets, and an RFID/Faraday-shield theme. It describes sales, pricing, and claims about how shielding protects against card scanning and data theft.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins the program with host Glenn to discuss the escalating tensions around Iran, the U.S. leadership, and the broader geopolitical and economic implications. The conversation centers on what is driving recent White House actions, the potential paths forward, and the risks of cascading consequences. Key points and insights: - Trump’s countdown to strike Iran: Wilkerson interprets Trump’s 48-hour, then 5-, then 10-day countdowns on Iran’s energy facilities as an attempt to buy time rather than a clear plan for escalation. He suggests Trump is trying to stall and manage narratives while lacking a credible path out of the crisis. - Reasons Trump is escalating: Wilkerson argues Trump is “buying time to be buying time,” unable to articulate a feasible exit strategy. He posits that the main driver of the escalation is a realization by Trump that he’s deeply entangled, with Bibi Netanyahu as the principal ally who would abandon him in a crisis. - Global force posture and limits: The administration is assembling various special operations forces (e.g., 1st SOG, rangers from multiple locations) and delivery/ extraction capabilities, but Wilkerson believes a full invasion is not feasible and would risk impeachment. He notes the use of dispersed forces and high-end delivery systems akin to operations in Venezuela, stressing the operational and strategic implausibility of a large-scale invasion of Iran. - Iranian diplomacy and leadership: Wilkerson cites Iranian diplomacy as sidelined by U.S. actions. He highlights a UN emergency meeting where Iraqi officials criticized the U.S. and Israel for “two bullying nuclear weapons regimes” and condemned the “torpedoing of diplomacy,” pointing to the broader frustration with the international handling of the Palestinian-Israeli situation. He criticizes Witkoff and Kushner as ineffective in negotiating with Iran and notes a strong Iranian stance emphasizing an end to what they view as aggression. - Domestic political dynamics: Wilkerson criticizes both U.S. parties for their current leadership, accusing figures like Keane, Hagel, and Trump of mismanaging the crisis. He rails against the influence of evangelical and political figures who advocate Old Testament-style rhetoric in modern policy, arguing it contributes to destructive escalation. - Economic and global ripple effects: The war threatens the global economy, with consequences such as disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz impacting helium, urea, and broader trade. Wilkerson warns that the world could experience a global recession, potentially spiraling into a depression, due to shipping bottlenecks and energy-price shocks. - Strait of Hormuz and strategic chokepoints: A recurring theme is the vulnerability created by critical chokepoints. Wilkerson references his naval analysis of global straits and identifies Hormuz as a significant vulnerability, though not necessarily the most critical, with Bab el-Mandeb potentially more serious. - Israel’s situation and nuclear considerations: Discussion turns to Israel’s military situation in Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu’s political decisions, and the potential for Israel to face internal collapse or drastic shifts. Wilkerson raises the hypothetical that Iran could seek a nuclear deterrent if faced with existential threats and notes concerns about how the U.S. and Israel might respond to an Iranian nuclear capability. - Possible exit routes and diplomacy: When pressed for a pathway out, Wilkerson suggests a drastic but unlikely option: declare victory and leave, lifting sanctions and pressuring allies to do the same, including pressuring Europe to support rebuilding Iran. He emphasizes this as a potentially politically expedient exit for Trump, though he doubts it will happen. - Nuclear entanglements and further escalation: The conversation turns to the risk of nuclear exchange if Iran develops a deterrent and if Israel or the U.S. decide to escalate further. Wilkerson outlines a scenario in which limited U.S. forces strike Gulf targets, provoking Iranian retaliation that could escalate into a broader regional conflict with nuclear implications, given multiple nuclear powers’ capabilities. - Long-term outlook: Wilkerson references the broader implications for the global order, noting the dangers of imperial hubris post-Cold War, and warns that multiple dimensions—military, economic, and diplomatic—are converging toward a dangerous crossroads. He asserts that the current trajectory could threaten global stability and the viability of traditional alliance structures. In sum, Wilkerson presents a troubling synthesis: Trump’s incremental escalation appears aimed at time-buying without a credible exit; Iran’s leadership responds with strategic diplomacy and potential deterrence considerations; Israel faces internal and regional pressures; and the global economy and critical chokepoints amplify the risk that the conflict could spiral into a larger, harder-to-control crisis. He emphasizes the dangerous mix of leadership missteps, strategic miscalculations, and existential stakes that could reshuffle the regional and global order.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson and Glenn discuss the current U.S. posture toward Iran, Russia, and China within a broader critique of U.S. diplomacy and imperial overreach. They begin by contrasting the era of diplomacy with today’s approach, noting that Donald Trump paused his plan to open the Strait of Hormuz by force after earlier objectives were not met, while Marco Rubio claimed that Operation Epic Fury had already achieved its goals. Wilkerson contends Rubio’s statements are egregiously wrong and emphasizes that a blockade is an act of war, citing post–World War II international law and Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis decisionmaking, where quarantine was used as an alternative to a blockade. He dismisses the idea of kamikaze dolphins and argues the Iran situation failed objectively; Trump appears to seek an exit from a costly engagement, and the only way to open the Strait would be if an Omani-Iranian consortium controlled it and charged a modest pass-through fee. Wilkerson argues the Strait of Hormuz plan was cocked up, and he criticizes the Pentagon and Pete Gaskdast for missteps. He suggests genuine strategic outcomes depend on Iranian control of the strait, and he questions how 2,000 ships in the North Arabian Sea could be escorted without sufficient naval power. The discussion then moves to European involvement; Wilkerson dismisses the French carrier strike group as a meaningless display that does not enhance combat power, noting current and rising costs of U.S. and allied carriers and the obsolescence of carriers in first-tier warfare. He highlights BRICS as a counterpoint to Western strategy, pointing to the BRICS Summit in September in Delhi under Modi, with the theme “building for resilience, innovation, cooperation, and sustainability,” and contrasts this with U.S. emphasis on primacy and sanctions. The conversation shifts to the historical arc of empire, with Wilkerson likening today’s U.S. posture to the regimes of the 1930s and arguing that the empire’s methods are eroding alliances. He critiques U.S. leaders and the psychological willingness to pursue warlike paths, suggesting that the BRICS framework represents a potential alternative to the U.S.-led order. He invokes Eisenhower’s preference for diplomacy and the UN, warning that the current trajectory risks becoming a modern-day breach of international norms. He warns that if Europe’s leaders are displaced and if the U.S. continues to threaten war, the global balance could shift toward a multipolar confrontation where China and Russia align more closely, potentially undermining the Bretton Woods system and Swift, and leaving the U.S. vulnerable to sanctions regimes and other strategic restraints. The dialogue then addresses Israel, Netanyahu, and Lebanon. Wilkerson asserts that Israel’s current actions in Lebanon and the broader region reflect a “Hitlerian/Tojoian” posture, describing the Israeli stance as violent and undermining regional stability. He notes Haaretz and other Israeli media critiques of Netanyahu’s approach, suggesting that a democracy with inclusive governance could offer a path forward, but in its present form, Israel faces existential questions about its future statehood. He argues that Europe’s political leaders are unlikely to endure the current trajectory, and he emphasizes the central role of nuclear weapons in shaping the strategic risk of the era. Wilkerson asserts that the current imperial framework relies on existential threats to unify populations, and he hopes BRICS and other powers will adopt climate-security as a unifying concern to avert catastrophic conflict. Towards the end, Wilkerson cautions that if the U.S. and its allies do not reframe diplomacy, the world may turn against the empire, with Xi Jinping’s potential to transform the global financial system and sanctions regimes as a signal of a broader realignment. He concludes with a sobering reminder that the planet remains vulnerable to catastrophic outcomes if diplomacy fails, and he acknowledges the possibility of renewed bombing of Iran being discussed in some quarters.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson discusses the Iran conflict in depth, emphasizing that its outcome depends on multiple interconnected variables. He expands on a prior list of factors, adding his own: the actions of Russia and China, shortages of vital munitions, the resilience of the Iranian people, on-the-ground actors and energy facilities, the status of the Bab al-Mandab strait and the Strait of Hormuz, and the American public’s reaction to the war. He asserts that the conflict’s nature is central to understanding how events unfold. Wilkerson recounts his long experience in the U.S. military and in planning for war, noting his involvement in past U.S. positions toward Iran, including support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and later naval engagements in the Strait of Hormuz. He highlights a historical episode in which a U.S. Aegis cruiser fired missiles at an Iranian passenger airliner, a move he identifies as decisive in prompting Iran to accept a UN resolution and end the conflict. He argues that the current conflict is fundamentally misunderstood by U.S. policymakers, who he says fail to grasp the nature of a war against a "3,000 years old" and 90 million-strong people who would defend themselves violently, and who are willing to sacrifice to resist what they view as an imperial confrontation. Wilkerson criticizes public statements from U.S. officials—specifically Marco Rubio, Pete Hagseth, Donald Trump, and others in the administration—for lacking a coherent understanding of the conflict’s nature. He contends that Netanyahu’s objective is chaos in the region, extending beyond Iran to a broad Lavant corridor, and he adds that Turkey is watching closely, concerned about Israeli arming of Kurdish groups and the potential for battlefield shifts that could involve Turkey indirectly. He argues Turkey has already moved from being a bystander to a participant, given intelligence networks on the ground and potential strategic alignments. On the Kurdish issue, Wilkerson discusses U.S. considerations of arming Kurdish groups, noting that such moves would strain U.S. relations with Turkey and destabilize regional dynamics across Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey. He recalls past U.S. actions—like support for Kurdish groups in Iraq after Operation Provide Comfort—and cautions that arming Kurds in multiple countries could provoke serious geopolitical fallout, including undermining Turkish cooperation and complicating Iran’s internal security. The conversation also delves into broader strategic implications. Wilkerson suggests a multipolar world is emerging, with China and Russia potentially benefiting from American overreach and regional chaos. He cites the Chinese decision to promote the renminbi as the world’s transactional reserve currency as indicative of China’s willingness to confront U.S. dominance, while acknowledging that China would avoid direct military engagement in a major war if possible. He warns that a nuclear-armed Israel alongside the United States attacking Iran presents a dangerous paradox, given Iran’s JCPOA-era transparency and nonproliferation commitments, contrasted with Israel’s undisclosed nuclear arsenal. Addressing U.S. military capacity, Wilkerson argues that the United States lacks sufficient munitions and will struggle to sustain an extended ground campaign in Iran. He contends that ground forces would face immense challenges, given Iran’s terrain, population, and the potential for civilian casualties. He also questions the credibility and consistency of U.S. political leadership, contrasting promises to restore the strategic oil reserve with failures to fund it, and he notes the potential consequences for allied countries like South Korea, which might reconsider its alliance given Washington’s willingness to reallocate defense assets. Wilkerson points to the broader humanitarian and strategic costs of the conflict, arguing that the war has already triggered civilian harm and that the narrative around supporting protesters and stopping missiles has evolved into a broader destabilization strategy. He emphasizes the risk that a limited victory could prompt renewed aggression elsewhere, and he suggests that the geopolitical chessboard in the region—Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Black Sea—could be poised for further turbulence if Western powers miscalculate. In sum, Wilkerson warns that the Iran conflict could escalate beyond a regional skirmish into a global confrontation, driven by misperceptions, overlapping national interests, and the strategic ambitions of major actors, including Israel, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and China.

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.

The discussion centers on the Iran ceasefire, Iran’s negotiating stance, and how Israel’s actions and U.S. political dynamics are shaping perceptions and potential outcomes. - President Trump describes the Iran ceasefire as “on life support” and says Iran’s peace terms are “totally unacceptable” and “garbage.” Iran’s position, according to Iranian media cited in the segment, treats Washington’s peace proposal as a surrender document, insisting on the end of U.S. sanctions, release of frozen Iranian assets, the right to sell oil freely, and control of the Strait of Hormuz—a nonstarter for Washington. Trump also threatens more war, aligning with Netanyahu’s preferences. - On the ceasefire, another participant notes “the ceasefire remains in place for the time being,” while a speaker mocks the peace proposal as weak and life-supporting, using medical imagery to describe its fragility. - Netanyahu’s appearance on 60 Minutes is summarized as him “begging for more war,” outlining how to remove enriched uranium and how to achieve that goal, with emphasis on military action. He suggests “you go in” and take it out, implying American and Israeli cooperation, though one participant stresses not to reveal military plans and cautions about the feasibility and risks of such missions. There is also a claim that Netanyahu implies the United States should bear primary responsibility for military actions if needed. - The dialogue expands to a broader critique of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank, with one participant stressing that Israel is “besieged on the media front” and that propaganda has harmed Israel’s image. There is a claim that social media manipulation by other countries has contributed to negative impressions of Israel, and a consensus that Israel has not used adequate or effective propaganda in its defense. - The panel discusses the ethics and consequences of censorship, with one speaker arguing against censorship yet acknowledging the impact of social media manipulation on public opinion. They contend that attempts to silence critics or punish those who oppose Israel’s policies are counterproductive and harm Jewish communities globally by conflating Jewish identity with Israeli policy. - Anna Kasparian (The Young Turks) weighs in, describing Netanyahu as untrustworthy and arguing that Israel’s actions—targeting hospitals, education centers, and civilians—have generated global criticism. She asserts the issue is not merely a social media phenomenon but an Israel-centered one, citing the ongoing destruction in Gaza and military actions in Lebanon. She argues that U.S. support for Israel is a political question driven by lobbying, and she predicts growing political pressure against leaders who prioritize Israel’s interests over American interests. - The panel critiques U.S. political alignments, noting that Democratic and Republican positions have not yielded a clear consensus on Iran. They argue that diplomacy has varied across administrations (Obama’s JCPOA vs. other strategies), and they contend that Netanyahu’s influence has pushed the United States toward a harder stance on Iran, often aligning with Israel’s regime-change objectives. - Looking ahead, the speakers caution against a renewed kinetic war with Iran, referencing military experts who argue that the United States lacks the capacity or strategic justification for a large-scale confrontation. They emphasize the high costs, the effectiveness of Iran’s drones, and the risks of escalating conflict, suggesting that a more restrained approach or different leverage might be necessary. - The closing segment underscores uncertainty about future conflict, with a warning that a return to bombing Iran could be counterproductive and that political and public opinion dynamics in the United States are shifting, especially regarding support for Netanyahu and Israel.

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.

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

John Mearsheimer and Glenn (Speaker 0) discuss the current state of the international system, its shifts since World War II, and the implications for U.S. foreign policy, Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. - Structural changes since the Cold War: Mearsheimer argues fundamental changes are underway in the international system due to two forces: evolving structural dynamics and the rise and actions of Donald Trump. The Cold War produced a bipolar order with the United States shaping a Western security architecture (NATO, European Community) designed to wage the Cold War. After 1989–1991, the Western order expanded globally during the unipolar moment, with NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and globalization (including China joining the WTO). From 2017, the world has entered a multipolar era with three great powers, and East Asia becomes the United States’ most important region outside the Western Hemisphere, overtaking Europe and the Persian Gulf. - East Asia as a priority: The U.S. pivot to East Asia (explicitly discussed by Clinton and then pursued under Trump) reorients strategic priorities away from Europe in a multipolar world where China is a peer competitor. This shift redefines where the U.S. focuses its resources and attention. - Trump as a destabilizing factor: Trump’s presidency is described as sui generis—a one-man wrecking ball that amplified unilateralism and contempt for international law, institutions, and allies. After initial containment of China in his first term, Trump’s policies intensified a unilateral approach. The Iran war decision (February 28) is presented as a catastrophic misstep that worsened U.S. positions globally and risked destabilizing the region further. - Three major strands of American policy causing trouble: NATO expansion, the global war on terror, and the Iran war. NATO expanded eastward in the 1990s and 2000s, culminating in Ukraine’s entry in 2022, aggravating Russia and complicating U.S.–Russia relations and European security. The global war on terror led to Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts and other interventions (Libya), generating domestic fatigue and a populist backlash that helped propel Trump. The February 28 Iran invasion created a broader, more consequential set of regional and global ramifications, with China, Russia, and Europe pressuring limits on U.S. actions. - The Iran war: Mearsheimer stresses that Iran presents a more dangerous theater than Iraq because the stakes are higher globally, with potential for a worldwide depression and cascading economic impacts, particularly in Asia. He outlines three options for ending or de-escalating the Iran conflict: (1) maintain the status quo with ongoing blockades; (2) blockade plus bombing, which risks catastrophic economic damage and Iranian retaliation; (3) cut a deal with Iran, which would be politically difficult in Washington given Israeli influence and the desire to avoid conceding that Iran “wins.” He asserts that the blockade alone won’t force surrender, bombing would escalate risk and deplete U.S. military capacity, and the only viable path is a negotiated settlement, though domestic and allied opposition makes this hard. - Israel–Iran–U.S. dynamics: The relationship between the United States and Israel creates a “tag team” dynamic, with Israel viewing Iran as an existential threat. If Iran preserves its nuclear enrichment capability, it could push Israel toward considering nuclear options, which raises the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Trump’s rhetoric has even hinted at extreme objectives against Iran, complicating efforts to reach a deal. Mearsheimer emphasizes the influential role of the Israeli lobby in U.S. policy and notes the broader risk of nuclear escalation in the region. - Ukraine and nuclear deterrence: The Ukraine war has surprised many by showing Ukraine’s ability to threaten Russian strategic forces with Western support, which underscores Karaganov’s point about Europeans underestimating the nuclear dimension of security and deterrence. Mearsheimer highlights that the current era features a complex web of regional and great-power interdependencies—Russia, China, Iran, and European security architectures are all interlinked, affecting and being affected by one another. - Conclusion and outlook: The discussion emphasizes that managing security competition, rather than relying solely on military solutions, is essential. The speakers warn that the contemporary shift toward multipolarity and the interwoven regional dynamics heighten the risk of escalation and miscalculation, making prudent diplomacy and restraint crucial to avoiding a broader catastrophe. They acknowledge the difficulty of achieving lasting peace in the Middle East given domestic political constraints and the powerful influence of regional actors, but stress the necessity of recognizing the geopolitical realities of a world in which power is distributed more unevenly than in the Cold War.

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.”

In a discussion on the risk of a broader war with Iran and Russia, Alastair Crook discusses the current state of Iran-related negotiations and strategic calculations. He notes a lot of propaganda and confusion, and asserts there has been a substantive change, though it’s important to understand what that change is. He mentions there was never a proposal for Aradshi to meet with Kushner or Whitcroft in Islamabad; Trump called that a fantasy, stating there was no point to talks until Iran and its allies produced a plan of what they want. He recalls that Iran’s negotiating position was outlined in a ten-point plan given to the Americans for Islamabad talks, which Trump described as a realistic basis for discussion, and notes that the points have not changed. He reflects on the JCPOA, rereading it and considering what Iran would want to return to, suggesting the JCPOA feels like a “parole from prison” given the military bases, sanctions, UN resolutions, and IAEA inspections that would accompany a return. He describes Iran’s new investigation process principles as not discussing the nuclear issue until Iran has resolved questions about the war, the blockade of Hormuz, sanctions, and the seizure or refitting of tanker ships by US officials. Iran says it will discuss Hormuz and a potential discussion of CICEFAR later, and possibly military issues later; Khalibat tweeted that Trump claims “he has all the caste,” but Iran says “one is Hormuz” and Iran controls Hormuz while threatening to continue, and can also control the Bab al-Mandab, the Red Sea, and pipelines. He notes the American blockade is porous, with vessels passing through, and explains Iran’s ongoing oil earnings during the war—citing that four tankers recently earned nearly $1.8 billion, with Iran continuing to move tankers along the coast into territorial waters. He emphasizes Iran is not prepared to capitulate and suggests Iran is a civilizational, revolutionary state, not just a conventional nation-state. Crook then analyzes prospects for negotiated settlement. He argues there is no path to a simple solution, comparing the situation to Brexit, and identifies two major roadblocks. The first is Trump, whose approach to Iran is influenced by dislike of Obama and the desire to present a better JCPOA to outdo Obama; he asserts that a deal more favorable than Obama’s JCPOA would still face opposition from Netanyahu and Koali, and suggests Trump’s incentive would be to present a symbolic win like 430 kilograms of enriched uranium handed over as a trophy, which Iran is unlikely to do. He discusses Vance’s Islamabad discussions and wonders whether Trump would accept a deal that extends timelines and increases monitoring if it is not a “win” for Trump. The second barrier is Israel, where Netanyahu faces pressure over war outcomes against Iran and Hezbollah; Crook describes Israel’s shift toward a more messianic, apocalyptic stance, and cites Israeli defense minister Katz’s apocalyptic language. He argues restraint is unlikely in Israel and suggests Israel may push the United States to continue the war, though he questions whether this aligns with American interests. Crook contends that if a settlement with Trump is possible, it would still require addressing Israel, which may not cooperate. He notes European Union insistence that sanctions on Iran will not come off for values or regime change reasons, and positions this within a broader context of a multipolar world where Western actors struggle to adapt to new power dynamics. He reiterates that Iran’s objective is to break the paradigm of sanctions and Western control, including the dollar hegemony and the financialized world, and to resist the imperial structures backing those policies. He concludes by observing that the war is a broader contest that could threaten the American-led world order, and that the time is on the side of Iran in a material sense due to its revenue from oil and control of Hormuz, while Western economies face cost of living pressures and potential shortages.

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.

Speaker 0 begins by noting a new escalation in the war: after the president's Easter-weekend speech, the United States struck a massive bridge in Tehran, described as part of Tehran’s pride because it would cut about an hour from Iranians’ commutes. Trump posts, “the biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again,” and says, “Make a deal before it’s too late.” He warns that nothing is left of what could still become a great country. Speaker 1 responds with skepticism about the administration, mocking the idea of “the Nord Stream pipeline” being blown up as a lie by the prior administration. Speaker 0 notes that Trump boasted about the bridge strike on Truth Social and questions the strategic value of targeting civilian infrastructure, comparing it to striking the Golden Gate Bridge and asking whether that would be labeled a war crime. Iranian retaliation follows: a strike at the center of Tehran (clarified as Tel Aviv in error in the transcript) with a ballistic missile, causing a neighborhood to burn, as shown on Fox News and circulating on social media. Reports also emerge that an Amazon data center was struck in Bahrain, Oracle in the UAE, and that Iran had claimed it would strike Microsoft, Google, Amazon and other large American companies. The United States is not protecting them. Speaker 2 engages Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive with Dan Davis, to assess the latest moves alongside the president’s speech. Speaker 2 argues that the president’s remarks about “bomb you back into the stone age” indicate punishing the civilian population, not just military targets, which could unite Iranians against the United States and Israel. The bridge strike appears to align with that stance, making a regional outcome that contradicts any stated aims. He calls it nearly a war crime, since civilian infrastructure has no military utility in this context. He suggests the action undermines any potential peace path and could prompt stronger resistance within Iran. He warns that, politically, Trump could face war-crimes scrutiny, especially under a Democratic-controlled House, and that it damages the United States’ reputation by appearing to disregard the rule of law and morality. Speaker 1 asks whether such tactics are ever effective, noting a lack of evidence that inflicting civilian suffering yields political concession. Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 reference historical examples (Nazis, British during the Battle of Britain, Hiroshima-era considerations) to suggest such tactics have not succeeded in breaking civilian resolve, arguing this approach would harden Iranian resistance. Speaker 2 cites broader historical or regional patterns: torture or collective punishment has failed against Germans, Japanese, Palestinians in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. He contends the appeal of using such power is seductive but dangerous, likening it to “war porn.” He notes that the number of Iranian fatalities floated by Trump has fluctuated (3,000, 10,000, 30,000, then 45,000), describing them as not credible, yet the administration seems unconcerned with accuracy. Speaker 3 adds that the rhetoric justifies escalating violence with humanitarian consequences, including potential energy-system disruption. Speaker 0 asks about the discrepancy between Trump’s claim of decimating Iran and subsequent attacks on multiple targets in the Gulf and the firepower Iran still holds, including underground facilities and missile capabilities. Speaker 2 explains that Iran can absorb punishment and still strike back, suggesting that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be opened by force and that escalation could involve considerations of a larger false-flag scenario. He mentions a warning about a potential nine-eleven-level attack and potential media complicity, implying fears of a false-flag operation blamed on Iran. Speaker 0 notes the possibility of Israeli involvement undermining negotiations and cites JD Vance’s planned meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, noting Kharazi’s injury and his wife’s death, implying an assassination attempt. Speaker 2 critiques U.S. reliance on allies, arguing that Israel’s actions threaten U.S. interests and that the White House should constrain Israel. He asserts there is no military solution to the conflict, warns of long-term costs to the United States and its European and Asian relations, and predicts economic consequences if the conflict continues. Speaker 1 remarks that Iranian leaders’ letter to the American people shows civilian intent not to surrender, while Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 emphasize the risk of ongoing conflict, with Colonel Davis concluding that there is no feasible open-strand resolution. The discussion ends with thanks to Colonel Davis for his analysis.

- 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.