reSee.it - Related Video Feed

President Trump ordered a military operation against Yemen, despite criticizing Biden's foreign interventionism during his campaign, stating problems could be solved over the phone instead of "dropping bombs all over Yemen." After a ceasefire negotiated by Trump's envoy, Houthi leaders threatened to block Israeli Red Sea shipping due to Israel's blockade of humanitarian relief to Gaza. Trump responded by bombing Yemen, killing dozens and threatening further action against Yemen and Iran. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz suggested bombing Iranian ships, potentially leading to a major Middle East war. The speaker claims Trump's actions contradict his promise of peace and that neocons in his administration are influencing him. They state that Russia and China's ships are not threatened because they are not enabling the "Israeli demolition of Gaza," and that US support of Israel is making the US a target. The speaker concludes that the US should follow Russia and China's lead in staying out of the conflict, as Red Sea shipping is of minor importance to the US economy.

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.

Under President Trump, there won't be a World War III, unlike the current situation. If a war does occur, it will be unprecedented due to advanced weaponry.

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.

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.

Before 1,000 were brutally killed, including Americans, and before Iran helped Hamas plan the attack, killing Americans, Trump played hardball with Iran, destroyed ISIS, kept the Middle East at peace, and kept the U.S. out of endless wars through strength. Evil only respects unyielding strength. When Trump is back in the White House, if enemies spill a drop of American blood, the U.S. will spill a gallon of theirs. Trump is the strength needed to make America strong again. Donald J. Trump approves this message.

The speaker claims to be the first president in 70 years who did not start a war. They mention Hillary Clinton, whom they used to call crooked but now refer to as beautiful. The speaker dismisses Clinton's prediction that they would start a war, stating that their personality will prevent it. They confidently declare that they will prevent World War 3, emphasizing the current proximity to such a conflict.

The world has changed due to Trump's actions. Many Americans, including independents and some Republicans, are aware of his misrepresentations and the potential for war. I expressed concern that as pressure mounts, he may lead us into a conflict with Iran. Sadly, it seems my worries may have been justified. This election holds significant consequences.

President Trump criticized Dick and Liz Cheney for advocating military interventions while remaining safe in Washington. He emphasized that they send brave service members into dangerous situations without facing the risks themselves. Trump highlighted his decisions to withdraw troops from Syria and Iraq, contrasting his approach with Liz Cheney's desire for continued military presence. He labeled her a "radical war hawk" and suggested that her views would change if she were in a combat situation. Trump argued that those who promote war from a distance should experience the realities of conflict firsthand.

Donald Trump's foreign policy failures are highlighted, including inaction after Iran's attacks and drone downing. Criticized for surrendering American interests to Russia and Iran, he is deemed the worst foreign policy president of the speaker's generation. Supporters' claims of avoiding wars are dismissed as surrendering. Trump is portrayed as weak and fearful, not a master of foreign policy.

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.

We are no longer dealing with traditional warfare where the side with the most uniforms wins. The enemy we face now is sneaky, underhanded, and wants to harm our civilians worldwide. We must put an end to their actions. Some criticized me for saying I would bomb them, but I don't care. They need to be stopped.

World War 3 is looming, and we need to remove warmongers and globalists from positions of power. I was the only president who rejected the advice of Washington's generals and bureaucrats, preventing us from starting a war. For years, people like Victoria Nuland have pushed for conflict, as seen in Ukraine and Iraq. We must replace the corrupt establishment with individuals who prioritize American interests. During my administration, we made progress in bringing peace to the world, and we will continue this mission. We will also stop lobbyists and defense contractors from influencing our military and national security officials. With strong leadership, we could end the Ukraine conflict quickly. In my next four years, we will replace the failures in our government with competent officials who prioritize America's interests.

Before 1,000 people were killed, including Americans, and Iran aided Hamas in planning an attack, President Biden provided $1 billion of taxpayers' money to Iran. In contrast, Trump took a tough stance, defeating ISIS, maintaining peace in the Middle East, and avoiding prolonged wars through strength. Speaker 1 emphasizes that evil only respects unwavering strength and promises that if American blood is shed, a greater retaliation will follow. Trump asserts that his leadership will restore America's strength. This message is approved by Donald J. Trump.

The speaker says they will “stop wars” rather than start one, promising “no more wars” and “no more disruptions,” and claiming that this will lead to “prosperity and…peace.” They state that “under Trump” there will be “no more wars, no more disruptions,” and that “prosperity and peace” will be for all. The speaker concludes by saying they are “the candidate of peace” and identifying themselves as “peace.”

Donald Trump's election was due to an unprecedented coalition of diverse Americans. Trump exposed the traditional left-right political structure as a control device. This coalition is now threatened by a potential war with Iran. The key planks of Trump's platform were stopping forever wars, securing the border and deporting illegal immigrants, and restructuring trade to bring back manufacturing jobs. The focus on maintaining forever wars, particularly in the Middle East, is seen as a threat to this agenda. Involvement in a war would destroy the coalition and hinder the deportation of illegal immigrants, which is considered essential for preserving the country. The situation is escalating, potentially leading to civil war in major cities.

We are committed to fighting for as long as it takes, supporting the president. However, there are concerns about the potential for World War 3 due to President Trump's decisions. We must not underestimate the dangers of a deranged president with control over nuclear weapons. It is crucial to find a way to avoid nuclear war and put an end to forever wars responsibly. Congress needs to restrain the president and not give him green lights for war. The military-industrial complex prioritizes short-term profit over America's security needs, and it's time to end these forever wars. Unlimited war reflects a lack of moral, particularly within the Republican party. Elections have consequences.

World War III is looming, and we must remove warmongers and globalists from power. I was the only president to reject the advice of Washington's generals and bureaucrats, preventing war. People like Victoria Nuland have long sought confrontation, as seen in Ukraine and Iraq. We need to replace the corrupt establishment with those who prioritize American interests. During my presidency, we made great progress in putting America first and achieving peace. We will transform the state department, Pentagon, and national security establishment. Lobbyists and defense contractors won't push us into conflict for personal gain. I rebuilt our military, earning respect from other countries. With the right leadership, we could end the Ukraine conflict swiftly. In my next term, we'll replace the failures with competent officials who prioritize America's interests. Thank you.

Trump was considered good on foreign policy, including getting out of Syria and defeating ISIS, but he was always hawkish on Iran. Zionists wanted a full conflict with Iran but only got the Soleimani assassination. Despite popular belief, Trump was allegedly pursuing regime change in Iran throughout his term, even getting close to overthrowing the Iranian government. This was also happening in Venezuela. Trump ripped up the JCPOA, and the rhetoric now suggests that such events wouldn't occur if Trump were president. Trump is trying to run even further to the right, making it hard to say no to war with Iran. Iran will be in the crosshairs regardless of the administration, especially for Israel, making them more of a target for the United States.

We need to clean house and remove warmongers, globalists, and the deep state from America. Unlike previous presidents, I didn't start a war because I rejected the advice of Washington's generals, bureaucrats, and diplomats who only know how to get us into conflict. People like Victoria Nuland have been pushing Ukraine towards NATO for years. In my next four years, the war mongers, frauds, and failures in our government will be gone.

The "Trump doctrine" departs from previous doctrines like the Monroe and Bush doctrines. Trump believes that "nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built" and that interventionists intervened in societies they didn't understand. The Trump doctrine is essentially "you do you," focusing on deals and money without lecturing on morals. As one Trump administration member stated, Trump isn't going to lecture, he's going to do deals, describing it as realism and transactional. This raises the question of abandoning traditional morality and exporting values. While planting democracy in the Middle East didn't work, Trump seems to prioritize peace over war, appealing to new Republican constituents who prefer a focus on peace. He still advocates bombing when necessary, but his emphasis is on "peace through strength."