reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Davos is not protecting liberal democracy. President Trump will challenge elites on immigration, public safety, climate change, China, and gender ideology. He will trust science and the American people's support. The goal is to awaken lions, not guide sheep.

The speaker argues that he used his “personality” to prevent starting wars, and claims he was the first president in decades who “started no new wars.” He repeatedly emphasizes that under him the U.S. had “peace” and “prosperity,” and that they “never got into a war” while he was president. He says there was no need for wars involving “foreign lands” and countries “you’ve never heard of,” claiming those countries “don’t even want us there.” He states, “We will expel the war mongers from our government,” and contrasts his record with critics who predicted he would “start a war.” He references the deaths from “horrible wars” in the Middle East and claims opponents support war, saying “They love wars” and “like a war… love killing people.” He declares he is “the only president” who did not start a war and argues that Donald Trump would also keep the country out of war: “We had no wars with Donald Trump as your president.” The speaker also mentions Hillary Clinton’s claim that Trump’s rhetoric would get the U.S. into a war, responding that his own “rhetoric’s gonna keep us out of wars,” and asserting that this is what happened.

The speaker believes the most important part of the Trump doctrine is to only commit troops when necessary, but then to "punch hard." This approach respects American service members. President Trump beat ISIS quickly with overwhelming force, accomplishing what people thought was impossible. Regarding Iran, the speaker advocates for strong action, referencing the Soleimani strike as an example. Despite predictions of broader war, the speaker claims that the Soleimani action actually brought peace and checked Iran.

The speaker announces a fundamental policy shift, declaring that the United States is "putting America first" in its approach to foreign policy. This marks a move away from what is described as a previous pattern characterized by persistent military engagement overseas and attempts to reshape other nations according to U.S. objectives. Central to the message is the assertion that prior United States policy relied on three interconnected strands: "never ending war," "regime change," and "nation building." The speaker frames these elements as a continuous cycle of intervention abroad, implying that they have defined U.S. strategic behavior for an extended period. The emphasis is on the duration and repetitiveness of these actions, suggesting that they consisted of ongoing military campaigns and efforts to alter or replace foreign governments, as well as comprehensive efforts to reconstruct other countries’ political and social systems after intervention. In contrast to that approach, the speaker states that this pattern is being replaced by a new guiding principle described as "the clear eyed pursuit of American interest." The phrase indicates a shift toward a more pragmatic and calculating view of national priorities, emphasizing direct consideration of what benefits the United States rather than the pursuit of regime change or large-scale nation-building projects. The use of the term "clear eyed" implies a more sober, unromantic assessment of national interests, potentially signaling a preference for caution, restraint, or selective engagement in foreign affairs. The overall claim is that the United States is transitioning from a longstanding policy framework centered on expansive overseas interventions to a strategy that prioritizes core American interests. The speaker frames this transition as a redefinition of national goals, suggesting that policy decisions will be guided by a more straightforward accounting of costs and benefits to the United States, rather than by a commitment to broad, interventionist projects abroad. In summary, the speaker presents a declarative pivot: from perpetual interventionism defined by endless wars, attempts at regime change, and nation-building endeavors, to a policy orientation focused on pursuing American interests with a more discerning, realist perspective. The message conveys a shift toward prioritizing national interests over involvement in ongoing foreign interventions.

Ashwin Ratanji introduces New Order’s new season, arguing that the war in West Asia has moved beyond regional containment and is reshaping energy flows, alliances, and “neutrality.” Ratanji cites US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to a Senate hearing in Washington, saying the Trump administration wants to end the license allowing countries such as India to continue buying Russian oil. He links this to Prime Minister Modi’s planned visit to Moscow for the annual India-Russia summit later this year, and to Modi’s trip to the G7 in Evian, France, in under two weeks—potentially his first face-to-face with Trump since February 2025—where Russian oil, tariffs, and the Strait of Hormuz are expected to be discussed. Ratanji then interviews Professor Charles Kupchan, former US National Security Council director for European affairs under Clinton and Obama, and author of The End of the American Era and Bringing Order to Anarchy: Governing the World to Come. Kupchan frames the current moment using Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks,” saying “the old is dying and the new cannot be born,” and describes the liberal international system anchored by the United States and democratic allies as having peaked in the 1990s and now ending without a clear replacement order. He characterizes Trump as “the demolition man” rather than an architect of what comes next, calling the period a historical hiatus between twentieth-century order and a twenty-first-century one. On whether the US is prepared for its empire to go the way of the British empire, Kupchan says the United States shows “schizophrenia”: a foreign policy establishment committed to American hegemony and dollar/military anchoring, alongside a MAGA approach emphasizing being “done being the Atlas of the world,” returning to a Monroe Doctrine focus, and pushing allies to carry more burdens. He argues Trump has shifted from an America-first posture into a pattern similar to predecessors by launching or escalating conflicts in the Middle East without achieving goals, contributing to unpredictability. Kupchan also says domestic political fracture has replaced an earlier bipartisan centrist coalition, leaving the US oscillating between incompatible visions of its role. Discussing Ukraine and Iran, Kupchan argues there is “no clear strategic vision” guiding Trump, describing him as acting “on instinct,” with shifting justifications. He says on China there has been a shift from early-term confrontational tariff-driven policy and escalated confrontation during Biden’s presidency, to a more cooperative posture in a recent trip to Beijing where Trump sought to lower the temperature and pursue trade deals with Xi Jinping, while noting the outcome depends on reciprocal Chinese moves. Kupchan addresses domestic political backlash: he says civil society, courts, Congress, and Republicans have increasingly pushed back, especially regarding executive authority and constraints around the Iran war. He describes a possible peak in Trump’s presidency, with uncertainty about midterms and 2028, and adds that Democrats lack ideological unity between moving to the center or the left, expecting voters to “throw the bums out” because no party answers key affordability and economic questions. He links this to the impact of technological change, automation, and hollowing out of the political center. In a sanctions segment, Kupchan argues sanctions will remain a “go-to” tool because they are politically easy for the US but says sanctions repeatedly fail to achieve stated goals in an interdependent world. He describes how Russia redirected supply chains after Ukraine-related sanctions, and says Iran has not been toppled or deterred despite long-standing US/EU sanctions and blockade measures. He connects the declining effectiveness of sanctions to de-dollarization trends, including Chinese payment system development and BRICS efforts for internal payment mechanisms, which he says reduce US leverage over dollar-denominated transactions. On global governance and the US role, Kupchan says the US “damaged its brand” but believes it is not permanent, tying recovery to rebuilding the American middle class through employment and education for the digital era. He argues China and Russia want multipolarity and an end to American hegemony but “don’t really know what” multipolarity means in terms of governing proposals. He calls for sustained cross-bloc dialogue rather than fly-in, fly-out summits, pointing to G20-like structures and emphasizing that ongoing dialogue between China, Russia, India, Europe, the US, and global-south countries is lacking. Regarding whether the US is too poor or too isolated to participate in a new order, Kupchan says the US remains dominant in GDP and maintains unmatched military capacity and global bases, while noting China faces demographic and economic problems and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have consequences “for generations,” though the US also has problems. He says the US is likely to remain among the most influential for decades. Zara Khan then fields audience questions. One asks about Trump and the midterms; Kupchan says he “never makes predictions” but indicates Trump may lose. Another asks whether Israel is sovereign or an extension of US foreign policy; Khan frames it as a “full duplex” relationship. The session ends with a question to viewers: whether “secondary sanctions” turn “middle powers into frontline actors” in great power rivalry, inviting responses on X at neworder_underscore_tv.

Before the brutal killings and Iran's involvement in attacks, President Trump took a tough stance, defeating ISIS and maintaining peace in the Middle East. He avoided endless wars and gave no taxpayer money to Iran. Speaker 1 emphasizes that evil only respects unyielding strength, promising to show enemies that any harm to Americans will be met with a strong response. President Trump asserts that he will bring back the strength needed to make America strong again. This message is approved by Donald J. Trump.

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

I can be tougher than anyone, but that's not how you make deals. We had a president who talked tough about Putin, but Putin still invaded Ukraine. Diplomacy is the path to peace and prosperity. America is a good country when it engages in diplomacy, like President Trump is doing. Putin occupied parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, back in 2014. Obama was president then, followed by Trump, then Biden, and now potentially Trump again. Nobody stopped Putin back then. People were dying on the contact line. I even signed a ceasefire deal with him in 2019, along with Macron and Merkel, but he broke it, killed our people, and didn't exchange prisoners.

Richard Wolff and Glenn discuss Trump’s political project, the trajectory of US capitalism, and how Europe is adjusting to a perceived decline of Western hegemon. - Trump’s politics are, in Wolff’s view, more traditional Republican strategy than a wholesale break with the past. The core priority remains to “make money for the top one to 5%” of people—corporate executives and the employer class that the US census identifies as about 3% of the population. The first-term flagship was the 2017 tax cuts for corporations and wealthier individuals; in the second term, the “big beautiful tax bill” of April likewise serves the core financial base before other issues like immigration or tariffs. - Trump’s more radical or theatrical moves—anti-immigrant campaigns, ICE enforcement, heightened rhetoric toward immigrants, and provocative international actions—are political theater intended to mobilize the traditional Republican coalition and reassure the business constituency. This theater targets the mass voting blocs, while the core funders provide the money to sustain the spectacle. - The domestic political dynamic: while a sizable segment of his base remains supportive, there is growing election-time anxiety within the business coalition and among some voters who are unsettled by his handling of events, including the Epstein scandal. Still, his base numbers hover around 30–35%, giving him a platform to push ahead, though the broader economic critique remains largely taboo in US politics across parties. - The fundamental economic problem: US decline as a structural issue is not debated openly by Trump’s circle or rival parties; the decline persists as China continues to outpace the US in growth. Even with tariffs, China redirected exports to other markets, maintaining a large overall export footprint and signaling the limits of unilateral US pressure. - The “tribute economy” concept: Trump’s international approach can be read as trying to convert other countries into tributaries—using tariffs, coercive measures, and diplomacy to extract relative gains from others while protecting US interests. This aligns with a broader narrative Wolff attributes to a waning hegemon resorting to coercive leverage rather than genuine economic strategy. - Andrew Jackson frame vs. reality: Trump’s use of a Jacksonian nationalist rhetoric is a superficial political device, not a deep historical redefinition. The honest historical view is that Trump adopts a veneer of Jacksonianism to justify a broader, conventional Republican agenda oriented toward the business class, while the world has changed in ways that the Jacksonian frame cannot fully accommodate. - The European reaction: Europe faces a difficult, shrinking trajectory. Wolff argues Europeans are increasingly likely to become an adjunct to the United States, with growth constrained by dependence on outside high-tech powerhouses (the US and China), shrinking industry from auto to other sectors, and rising social strain as welfare states come under pressure. - European policy implications: leaders may resort to increased militarization and a stronger anti-Russia stance to justify repression and social control at home, even as Russia’s actual military threat is overstated as a rationale. Wolff foresees growing social fragmentation, a potential class split between ruling elites and the working/middle classes, and the risk that external threats become a justification for expanding state power and military spending. - A longer arc: Wolff suggests that the current European and American trajectories reflect a broader decline of liberal hegemonies post-World War II. The solution would not be to return to a full Cold War-style confrontation but to acknowledge new multipolar realities, diversify alliances, and address domestic social needs rather than pursuing an ever-expanding militarized security paradigm. - The Minneapolis example and domestic politics: events like the ICE deployment in Minneapolis reveal a troubling trend toward heavy-handed, performative state power that could backfire politically for Trump, especially as more Republicans question Epstein-related narratives and other scandal-driven headlines intensify. - In Europe, the declining empire dynamic suggests a potential return to earlier anti-establishment currents, but leaders face the dilemma of maintaining welfare states while contending with reduced imperial leverage. The conversation anticipates rising social tensions unless new economic strategies and political alignments emerge that recognize changing power structures.

If I were in charge of NATO, like Joe Biden, I would immediately pursue peace and seek assistance from Trump. Despite criticism, Trump's foreign policy was commendable as he avoided starting new wars and maintained good relations with North Korea, Russia, and China. His Middle East policy, including the Abraham Accords, was particularly successful. If Trump were president during the Russian invasion, it would have been unlikely to occur. In my opinion, Trump has the potential to save the Western world and humanity as a whole.

Speaker 0 describes new information from a source familiar with the incident: the two survivors climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike. They were believed to be potentially communicating with others and salvaging some of the drugs. Because of that behavior, it was determined they were still in the fight and valid targets. A JAG officer was also providing legal advice. Speaker 1 interprets this as supportive of the second strike, stating that the mission is to take out the boat, stop the drugs, and keep the vessel and its cargo from reaching shore using lethal means. The speaker credits the United States Armed Forces as heroic and asserts that they "did exactly that." Speaker 1 then shifts to a political statement attributed to President Trump and others, declaring that they, along with Secretary Haigseth and the entire government, are committed to using the military to defend the American people, borders, family, culture, history, and heritage. The speaker contends that the aim is to defend The United States and to avoid pursuing efforts to build democracies in distant regions such as in the Middle East. The assertion is that the military will be used to protect American security, American prosperity, and American lives in the United States, where people live and where children live, rather than engaging in overseas nation-building. Summary of key points: - Two survivors reportedly climbed back onto the boat after the initial strike and were believed to be communicating with others and salvaging drugs. - Their actions led to the determination that they remained in the fight and valid targets, with a JAG officer providing legal advice. - This information is described as backing up a second strike, with the mission defined as taking out the boat, stopping the drugs, and preventing the vessel and its cargo from reaching shore using lethal means. - President Trump, Secretary Haigseth, and the administration are portrayed as determined to use the military to defend American people, borders, family, culture, history, and heritage, and to avoid efforts to impose democracy-building in the Middle East. - The overarching claim is that the military will protect American security, prosperity, and lives at home.

John Mearsheimer and Glenn discuss the trajectory of the United States’ foreign policy under Donald Trump, focusing on the shift from an anticipated pivot to Asia and a reduction of “forever wars” to the current Iran confrontation and its global implications. - Initial optimism about Trump: Glenn notes a widespread belief that Trump could break with established narratives, recognize the post–Cold War power distribution, pivot to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia, end the “forever wars,” and move away from Europe and the Middle East. Mearsheimer agrees there was early optimism on Judging Freedom that Trump would reduce militarized policy and possibly shut down the Ukraine–Russia war, unlike other presidents. - Drift into Iran and the current quagmire: The conversation then centers on how Trump’s approach to Iran evolved. Mearsheimer argues Trump often vacillates between claims of victory and deep desperation, and he characterizes Trump’s current stance as demanding “unconditional surrender” from Iran, with a 15-point plan that looks like capitulation. He describes Trump as sometimes declaring a “great victory” and other times recognizing the need for an exit strategy but being unable to find one. - The escalation ladder and strategic danger: A core point is that the United States and its allies initially sought a quick, decisive victory using shock and awe to topple the regime, but the effort has become a protracted war in which Iran holds many cards. Iran can threaten the global economy and Gulf state stability, undermine oil infrastructure, and harm Israel. The lack of a credible exit ramp for Trump, combined with the risk of escalation, creates catastrophic potential for the world economy and energy security. - Economic and strategic leverage for Iran: The discussion emphasizes that Iran can disrupt global markets via the Strait of Hormuz, potentially shut down the Red Sea with Houthis participation, and target Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. The U.S. should maintain oil flow to avoid devastating economic consequences; sanctions on Iran and Russia were strategically relaxed to keep oil moving. The longer the war drags on, the more leverage Iran gains, especially as Trump’s options to harm Iran’s energy sector shrink due to the global economy’s needs. - Exit possibilities and the limits of escalation: Glenn asks how Trump might avoid the iceberg of economic catastrophe. Mearsheimer contends that a deal on Iran’s terms would entail acknowledging Iranian victory and a humiliating US defeat, which is politically challenging—especially given Israeli opposition and the lobby. The Iranians have incentive to string out negotiations, knowing they could extract concessions as time passes and as U.S. desperation grows. - Ground forces and military options: The possibility of a U.S. ground invasion is deemed impractical. Mearsheimer highlights that Desert Storm and the 2003 invasion involved hundreds of thousands of troops; proposed plans for “a few thousand” light infantry would be unable to secure strategic objectives or prevent Iranian counterattacks across the Gulf, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf, with Iran capable of inflicting significant damage on bases and ships. The discussion stresses that even small-scale operations could provoke heavy Iranian defense and strategic backlash. - European and NATO dynamics: The Europeans are portrayed as reluctant to sign onto a risky campaign in support of U.S. objectives, and the episode warns that a broader economic crisis could alter European alignment. The potential breaching of NATO unity and the risk of diminished transatlantic trust are underscored, with Trump’s stance framed as blaming Europeans for strategic failures. - Israel and the lobby: The influence of the Israel lobby and its potential consequences if the war deteriorates are discussed. Mearsheimer notes the danger of rising antisemitism if the war goes catastrophically wrong and Israel’s role in pressuring continued conflict. He also observes that a future shift in U.S. strategy could, in extreme circumstances, diverge from traditional Israeli priorities if the global economy is at stake. - Deep state and decision-making: The final exchange centers on the role of expertise and institutions. Mearsheimer argues that Trump’s distrust of the deep state and reliance on a small circle (Kushner, Whitkoff, Lindsey Graham, media figures) deprived him of necessary strategic deliberation. He contends that a robust deep-state apparatus provides essential expertise for complex wars, offering a counterpoint to Trump’s preferred approach. He contends the deep state was not fully consulted, and that reliance on a limited network contributed to the strategic miscalculations. - Concluding tone: Both acknowledge the grave, uncertain state of affairs and the high risk of escalation and miscalculation. They express a desire for an optimistic resolution but emphasize that the current trajectory is precarious, with signs pointing toward a dangerous escalation that could have wide-ranging geopolitical and economic consequences. They close with a note of concern about the potential for rash actions and the importance of considering responsible exits and credible diplomatic channels.

The speaker believes President Trump gets to define "America First" because he was elected and leads the movement. The President is focused on the core American national interest: ensuring Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. When asked how long diplomacy should be given before military action, the speaker says the President will pursue diplomacy until he believes there is no opportunity left. Once diplomacy has run its course, the President will do what he needs to end Iranian enrichment and the nuclear program. The speaker advises the President to trust his instincts, which he believes are the best of any president or political leader he's ever seen. The speaker thinks the President knows when diplomacy has run its course and when to employ the military to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The President will continue working the process and allow diplomacy to unfold, while retaining the option to do whatever is necessary to keep Americans safe.

Glenn and John Mersheimer discuss US interests in Venezuela beyond democracy promotion and narco-terrorism. Mersheimer argues the Monroe Doctrine defines US Western Hemisphere aims: preventing distant great powers from forming military alliances with or basing forces in the Americas. He asserts the Venezuela operation is not about the Monroe Doctrine or great-power competition, but an imperialist or neocolonial effort by the US to control Venezuela’s politics and oil. He notes Trump’s emphasis on who controls Venezuelan oil reflects blunt imperialism, not classical doctrine. Glenn asks if this aligns with past patterns of intervention or if it’s more brazen. Mersheimer says the US has a long history of interfering in Western Hemisphere politics, targeting leftward movements, toppling regimes, and even hinting at broader regional actions under Trump. He emphasizes Trump’s blunt rhetoric and actions—saying the US can “run Venezuela” and that Venezuela’s oil is “our oil”—as evidence of a brazen approach that lacks typical liberal-justifying rhetoric and resembles a naked imperial project. The conversation shifts to international law and the liberal rules-based order. Glenn notes that liberal order sometimes legitimized force (as in Kosovo) and asks how the Venezuela episode fits. Mersheimer argues that during the unipolar moment the US adhered to international law more and created many rules, but Trump has shown contempt for international norms, trashing the rules-based system. He contends this shift harms US interests and shows that Trump cares primarily about the United States, not about international law or other countries. They discuss European reactions and the Nord Stream incident as a test of Western liberal rhetoric. Glenn notes perceived hypocrisy in European support for Israel’s actions in Gaza and questions whether Europe will push back against Trump. Mersheimer says Europeans fear losing the US security umbrella and NATO, so they appease Trump to maintain American presence in Europe, even as they recognize his bully tendencies. He suggests Europeans might criticize but avoid costly confrontations that would threaten NATO, though Greenland could test this dynamic. He predicts the possibility of a US move on Greenland given Trump’s willingness to use force “on the cheap,” and notes that such a move could fracture NATO and European unity. They discuss the broader West, arguing the concept of a homogeneous West is fading. The US pivot to East Asia due to China’s rise undermines traditional Europe-centered alliances. The deterioration of US-European relations, combined with Moscow’s efforts to exploit European fault lines, could produce a fractured West. The discussion highlights the erosion of liberal values as a coordinating narrative, with European dependence on the US as a pacifier intensifying appeasement dynamics. The Ukraine war remains central in assessing future alliances. Mersheimer asserts Trump’s strategy shifts burden to Europe, which cannot sustain Ukraine support, and predicts blame games if Ukraine loses, with European leaders and Washington trading accusations. Russia’s efforts to deepen European and Atlantic tensions will persist, potentially leaving Europe more divided and the US less able to serve as a stabilizing force. He concludes that the Venezuela episode, while notable, does not fundamentally alter the trajectory set by Ukraine and the pivot to Asia, though it underscores weakening Western cohesion and the fragility of NATO if US commitments wane. Glenn and Mersheimer close reflecting on the difficulty of maintaining a unified Western order amid shifting power and repeated demonstrations of Western frictions, expressing concern over future stability and the risk that major actions—such as potential Greenland intervention—could further destabilize the transatlantic alliance.

The Trump doctrine is a major departure from previous presidential doctrines. Trump stated that "nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built," and that interventionists were intervening in societies they did not understand, echoing criticisms of Vietnam and Iraq. Trump has seemingly changed the Republican party's focus from war and peace to peace and war, talking about peace more often. While still hawkish enough to bomb groups like the Houthi rebels, he seems to be responding to new Republican constituents who prefer to hear about peace. His rally banner in the Middle East read "peace through strength," a slogan from the Reagan era. Prioritizing peace over war is popular with the American people.

The speaker argues that winning in political struggle is currently nearly impossible, and that Donald Trump grasped this reality in a way that others have not. They say, perhaps uniquely in the Western world, Trump understands how to handle the confrontation with the deep state, and they acknowledge Viktor Orban and Bekailly Malay as potential examples of others who have challenged entrenched power. However, the speaker emphasizes that Trump embodies “the playbook of how you need to behave,” suggesting that his approach is a model for contemporary politics. The speaker contends that many politicians are clinging to a dated strategy. They describe a past era—the seventies and eighties—when the prevailing belief was that it was possible to reason with the opposition, find compromises, be bipartisan, persuade people, and sell policies in the media through traditional pitching and persuasion. According to the speaker, that strategy cannot be adopted today because the opposition has changed. In contrast to those bygone expectations, the speaker asserts that the current opposition is not composed of social democrats who merely want to raise taxes or increase public spending. Instead, they describe the current opposition as aiming to destroy Western civilization. The speaker emphasizes the severity of this shift in aims, framing the opposition as having existential goals that go beyond ordinary political disagreement. Throughout, the core claims center on a diagnosis of a strategic pivot in modern politics: the old playbook of negotiation and persuasion is no longer viable because the opposition has fundamentally changed its aims, adopting objectives that are presented as existential threats to Western civilization. The speaker positions Trump as an exemplar of the new, effective approach to navigating this transformed political landscape, highlighting the perceived necessity of a more combative and uncompromising posture in confronting opponents who, in the speaker’s view, seek to undermine foundational Western values.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of striking Iran to eliminate its nuclear program and the broader implications of regime change. - Speaker 0 acknowledges arguments that Israel has wanted to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, and that American involvement with B-52s and large bombs might be needed to finish the job. He notes the idea of a strike that proceeds quickly with minimal American casualties, under a Trump-era frame that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. - He observes a shift among Washington’s neoconservative and Republican circles from opposing Iran’s nuclear capability to opposing Ayatollah rule itself, suggesting a subtle change in objectives while maintaining the theme of intervention. He concedes cautious support if Trump executes it prudently, but warns of a “switcheroo” toward regime change rather than purely disabling the nuclear program. - Speaker 0 criticizes the record of neocons on foreign policy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, the Arab Spring) and argues that the entire Middle East bears their failures. He emphasizes a potential regime-change drive and questions what would come after removing the Ayatollah, including possible US troop deployments and financial support for a new regime. - He highlights the size of Iran (about 92,000,000 people, two and a half times the size of Texas) and warns that regime change could trigger a bloody civil war and a large refugee crisis, possibly drawing tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilizing Europe. - Speaker 1 presents a more vocal stance: he would like to see the regime fall and leaves to the president the timing and method, insisting that if the nuclear program isn’t eliminated now, “we’ll all regret it” and urging to “be all in” to help Israel finish the job. - In cuts 3:43, Speaker 1 argues that removing the Ayatollah’s regime would be beneficial because staying in power would continue to threaten Israel, foment terrorism, and pursue a bomb; he characterizes the regime as aiming to destroy Jews and Sunni Islam, calling them “fanatical religious Nazis.” - Speaker 0 responds that such a forceful call for regime change is immature, shallow, and reckless, warning that certainty about outcomes in foreign interventions is impossible. He asserts that the first rule of foreign policy is humility, noting that prior interventions led to prolonged conflict and mass displacement. He cautions against beating the drums for regime change in another Middle Eastern country, especially the largest, and reiterates that the issue is not simply removing the nuclear program but opposing Western-led regime change. - The discussion frames a tension between supporting efforts to deny Iran a nuclear weapon and resisting Western-led regime change, with a strong emphasis on potential humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The speakers reference public opinion (citing 86% of Americans not wanting Iran to have a bomb) and critique interventions as historically destabilizing.

The transcript centers on a dramatic framing of Trump’s Davos appearance and a strategic reorientation of U.S. and Western policy away from the post-World War II rules-based order. The speakers argue that Trump’s actions signal the end of the Bretton Woods-era system and the unipolar order, unsettling globalists who want to cling to the old framework. The main points: - Davos as a turning point: Trump walked into the World Economic Forum and framed the room as “friends and maybe a few enemies,” telling European elites he no longer trusts them to defend American interests. He challenged their energy policies as suicidal and criticized Europe for not leveraging its own energy resources, despite North Sea oil and gas; he referenced Europe’s rising electricity prices (claiming a 139% increase) and highlighted wind power versus oil reserves. - The Greenland signal and a broader realignment: While Greenland is noted as a significant detail, the larger story is Trump recentering U.S. strategy toward the Western Hemisphere. This includes stabilizing the hemisphere, deterring mass migration, crushing transnational criminal networks, and preventing hostile powers from owning key assets near U.S. borders. The plan is described as a Monroe Doctrine-like approach, or a Donroe Doctrine, focusing on the Western Hemisphere rather than Brussels’ priorities. - Europe and NATO exposed: Trump’s rhetoric targeted European elites and NATO members, pushing back against what the speakers describe as the old order that expects U.S. protection without reciprocal responsibility. The claim is that the United States is moving toward a national-interest-based posture, rethinking involvement in the UN and NATO, and deciding who is in or out of major security arrangements. - Canada’s contrast at Davos: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney presented a polite globalist counterpoint—calling for a rupture in the rules-based order and a coalition of middle powers to resist superpowers. The speakers contrast this with Trump’s inward, transactional approach and point to Canada’s perceived ingratitude toward the United States. - Domestic and regional actions: The show notes concrete steps, including Argentina’s open support for Malay’s government, the designation of Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations, and a large Western Hemisphere military meeting (34 countries) to plan actions against cartels and transnational criminal networks. There is emphasis on the United States acting decisively in the region and the broader implications for national security. - Alberta and Canadian diplomacy: Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (referred to as Scott Benson) comments in Davos about Alberta as a potential natural partner for the United States, illustrating a shift in how Washington is evaluating regional partnerships. The contrast with Carney’s call for a rules-based order underscores the political climate. - Money and minerals emphasis: The speaker pivots to the financial implications of a shifted world order, arguing that money is moving into mining stocks as the U.S. seeks to secure domestic supply chains. The narrative highlights a surge in gold and silver prices and a pivot to mining equities as a strategic investment response to geopolitical shifts. - Vanguard Mining and specific metals: The sponsor Vanguard Mining is presented as exposing a diversified portfolio across five metals—gold, copper, uranium, lithium, and molybdenum—with direct exposure to projects in British Columbia, Argentina, and Paraguay. China’s dominance over these critical minerals is outlined: China’s control of lithium refining (60–70% of world capacity), copper refining and consumption (roughly 58% of refined copper), and molybdenum production (42–45% of global output), plus new export restrictions on moly powders. The company’s portfolio, including a focus on the Pokitos-1 lithium project in Argentina, is highlighted as strategically significant for Western supply chains. The ticker UUUFF is mentioned for Vanguard Mining, with availability on major U.S. exchanges. Overall, the transcript asserts a geopolitical and economic shift away from the existing global order toward a more transactional, hemisphere-centered American strategy, with mining and critical minerals playing a key role in national security and economic policy.

George Bibi and Vlad discuss the United States’ evolving grand strategy in a multipolar world and the key choices facing Washington, Europe, Russia, and China. - The shift from the post–Cold War hegemonic peace is framed as undeniable: a new international distribution of power requires the U.S. to adjust its approach, since balancing all great powers is impractical and potentially unfavorable. - The U.S. previously pursued a hegemonic peace with ambitions beyond capabilities, aiming to transform other countries toward liberal governance and internal reengineering. This was described as beyond America’s reach and not essential to global order or U.S. security, leading to strategic insolvency: objectives outpaced capabilities. - The Trump-era National Security Strategy signals a reorientation: U.S. priorities must begin with the United States itself—its security, prosperity, and ability to preserve republican governance. Foreign policy should flow from that, implying consolidation or retrenchment and a focus on near-term priorities. - Geography becomes central: what happens in the U.S. Western Hemisphere is most important, followed by China, then Europe, and then other regions. The United States is returning to a traditional view that immediate neighborhood concerns matter most, in a world that is now more polycentric. - In a multipolar order, there must be a balance of power and reasonable bargains with other great powers to protect U.S. interests without provoking direct conflict. Managing the transition will be messy and require careful calibration of goals and capabilities. - Europe’s adjustment is seen as lagging. Absent Trump’s forcing mechanism, Europe would maintain reliance on U.S. security while pursuing deeper integration and outward values. The U.S. cannot afford to be Europe’s security benefactor in a multipolar order and needs partners who amplify rather than diminish U.S. power. - Europe is criticized as a liability in diplomacy and defense due to insufficient military investment and weak capability to engage with Russia. European self-doubt and fear of Russia hinder compromising where necessary. Strengthening Europe’s political health and military capabilities is viewed as essential for effective diplomacy and counterbalancing China and Russia. - The Ukraine conflict is tied to broader strategic paradigms: Europe’s framing of the war around World War II and unconditional surrender undermines possible compromises. A compromise that protects Ukraine’s vital interests while acknowledging Russia’s security concerns could prevent disaster and benefit Europe’s future security and prosperity. - U.S.–Europe tensions extend beyond Ukraine to governance ideals, trade, internet freedom, and speech regulation. These issues require ongoing dialogue to manage differences while maintaining credible alliances. - The potential for U.S.–Russia normalization is discussed: the Cold War-style ideological confrontation is largely over, with strategic incentives to prevent Russia and China from forming a closer alliance. Normalizing relations would give Russia more autonomy and reduce dependence on China, though distrust remains deep and domestic U.S. institutions would need to buy in. - China’s role is addressed within a framework of competition, deterrence, and diplomacy. The United States aims to reduce vulnerability to Chinese pressure in strategic minerals, supply chains, and space/sea lines, while engaging China to establish mutually acceptable rules and prevent spirals into direct confrontation. - A “grand bargain” or durable order is proposed: a mix of competition, diplomacy, and restraint that avoids domination or coercion, seeking an equilibrium that both the United States and China can live with.

There's an old concept: you love your family, then your neighbor, then your community, then fellow citizens in your own country, and after that the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has inverted that, hating the citizens of their own country and caring more about people outside their borders. That is no way to run a society. The profound difference that Donald Trump brings is the simple concept, "America first." It doesn't mean you hate anybody else. It means you have leadership, and president Trump has been clear that this puts the interests of American citizens first. In the same way that the British prime minister should care about Brits and the French should care about the French, we have an American president who cares primarily about Americans, and that's a welcome change. What is president Xi doing? What is with Vladimir Putin He's looking after the Chinese. Putin is looking after the Russians. That they're entitled to do that. Thank god. We now have an American president who's looking after the citizens of his own country.

If I were in charge of NATO, like Joe Biden, I would immediately pursue peace in Ukraine. I believe the best course of action would be to call back Trump. Despite criticism, his foreign policy was commendable. He avoided starting new wars and had positive interactions with North Korea, Russia, and China. The Abraham Accords in the Middle East were a significant achievement. Trump's knowledge of the world should not be underestimated, as his fact-based approach yielded the best foreign policy in recent decades. If he were president during the Russian invasion, it would have been impossible for them to proceed. In my personal conviction, Trump is the man who can save the Western world and humanity as a whole.

If I were in charge of NATO, like Joe Biden, I would immediately pursue peace in Ukraine. I believe the best course of action would be to call back Trump. Despite criticism, his foreign policy was the most successful in recent decades. He avoided starting new wars and had positive interactions with North Korea, Russia, and China. The Abraham Accords in the Middle East were a significant achievement. Trump's knowledge and education were questioned, but his actions speak for themselves. If he were president during the Russian invasion, it would not have been possible. In my personal conviction, Trump is the one who can save the Western world and humanity.