reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Glenn and Scott Ritter discuss the rapid-onset crisis in the Persian Gulf after the United States announced it would “open up the Strait Of Hormuz” by force, with reports of American warships being struck and Iran countering with drones and missiles. Ritter asserts that the Strait of Hormuz is not being opened by the U.S.; he cites claims of two American warships and two U.S.-flagged container ships transiting, while notes that ships attempting transit have been struck by Iranians. He says Iran has been striking targets in the United Arab Emirates, and the U.S. has claimed to sink at least six small Iranian boats. He calls it war, not a skirmish or ceasefire, and says the ceasefire is over. He adds Bahrain has declared a state of emergency and Kuwait is “on the cusp” of declaring one. He mentions Iran’s indirect communications and a one-and-a-half-hour call from Vladimir Putin to Donald Trump, indicating that continued U.S. action against Iran would be devastating for the U.S., the region, and everyone. Ritter assesses the situation as containable but requires the United States to back down. He notes extraordinary UAE measures, including Israel sending air defense missiles and troops to the UAE, signaling a key strategic shift toward the Abrams Accords and a broader Israeli project. He argues the UAE faces an existential gamble, tied to the notion that a failure would undo this new alliance structure. He hopes the U.S. avoids escalation but doubts it aligns with Donald Trump’s temperament. Glenn asks about the objectives behind U.S. actions, suggesting the possibility of probing Iran to see if it would permit ships to transit under threat, or provoking European engagement, and asks why the U.S. went forward. Ritter responds by criticizing Trump’s inner circle and policy origins: he claims the policy is shaped not by the CIA or DIA but by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), an Israeli-adjacent think tank, and by Scott Bessent, with economic strategies drawn from FDD papers. He contends there is no Iranian pressure and disputes claims about Iranian oil storage and revenue, pointing to a flourishing Iranian oil trade with Pakistan and arguing the blockade is propaganda. He asserts that three U.S. objectives—regime change in Iran, termination of ballistic missiles, and elimination of Iran’s nuclear program—have not been met: Iran’s regime remains in place, missiles are firing, and the nuclear program is not on the table; Iran would destroy regional oil infrastructure if the U.S. resumes military action. Ritter decries what he calls a culture of propaganda and says the president surrounds himself with “stupid people,” not smart ones, leaving the U.S. without a truthful understanding of reality. He claims Iran’s response to U.S. actions has been decisive and that the U.S. is losing credibility, with the broader geopolitical risk including potential disruption to global economies. He uses strong language about the president’s mental state and asserts that the current trajectory is a desperate gamble driven by narcissism, lack of integrity, and a distorted perception of power. Towards the end, Glenn notes the possibility of escalation continuing, while Ritter argues for a decisive Iranian response to signal that the U.S. cannot win, urging a forced political and strategic recalibration to prevent further degradation of regional stability. The conversation closes with mutual acknowledgment of the volatility and a sense of pessimism about near-term de-escalation.

- Tucker Carlson released a video addressing the war with Iran, arguing he was among the few who warned Washington weeks before the conflict began and that President Trump did not heed that warning. The discussion notes Tucker’s appearance in Washington with Trump and mentions supporters like JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard. - Carlson’s framework for analyzing a major war is introduced as four questions: 1) Why did this happen? 2) What was the point of it? 3) Where does it go from here? 4) How do we respond? - On why this war happened, the speakers assert a simple answer: this happened because Israel wanted it to happen. The conflict is characterized as Israel’s war, not primarily for U.S. national security objectives, and not about weapons of mass destruction. The argument is made that the decision to engage was driven by Israel, with Benjamin Netanyahu demanding U.S. military action and pressuring the U.S. through multiple White House visits. - The speakers contend that many generals warned against the war due to insufficient military capacity, but those warnings were reportedly ignored as officials lied about capability and duration of a potential conflict. They claim there was no credible plan for replacing Iran’s government after a potential topple, highlighting concerns about Iran’s size, diversity, and the risk of regional chaos. - The discussion suggests a history of manipulation and misinformation, citing a 2002 exchange where Netanyahu allegedly pushed for regime change in Iran and noting Dennis Kucinich’s account that Netanyahu said the Americans had to do it. They argue this war is the culmination of a long-term strategy backed by Netanyahu. - On what the point of the war would be for Israel, the speakers say the objective is regional hegemony. Israel seeks to determine regional outcomes with minimal constraints, aiming to decapitate Iran to allow broader actions in the Middle East, including potential expansionist goals. They argue Iran’s nuclear program was used as a pretext, though they contend Iran was not imminently close to a nuclear weapon. - The role of regional players is examined, including the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman—and their strategic importance as energy producers and regional influencers. The speakers claim Israel and the U.S. sought to weaken or destabilize these Gulf states to reduce their capacity to counter Israel’s regional dominance and to push the U.S. out of the Middle East. - It is asserted that Netanyahu’s strategy would involve reducing American involvement, thereby weakening U.S. credibility as a security partner in the region. The claim is that the Gulf states have been left more vulnerable, with missile threats and disrupted energy infrastructure, and that Israel’s actions are designed to force the U.S. to withdraw from the region. - The speakers argue that Europe stands to suffer as well, notably through potential refugee inflows and disruptions to LNG supplies from Qatar; Europe’s energy security and economy could be adversely affected. - The discussion notes alleged Israeli actions in the Gulf, including reports of Mossad activity and bombings in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, though it is presented as part of a broader narrative about destabilization and its costs. - The potential consequences outlined include cascading chaos in Iran, refugee crises in Europe, and a weakened United States as an ally in the Middle East. The speakers predict long-term strategic losses for Europe, the Gulf states, and the U.S. - The discussion concludes with a warning that, if Israel achieves its aims to decapitate Iran, the region could destabilize further, potentially triggering broader geopolitical shifts. A final reference is made to Naftali Bennett portraying Turkey as the new threat, illustrating ongoing great-power competition in the region. - The overall message emphasizes truthfulness in reporting, critiques of media narratives, and the view that Western audiences have been propagandized into seeing Middle East conflicts as moral battles rather than power dynamics between competing states.

Speaker 0 questioned whether there has been a “real sea change” inside the White House, suggesting prior conflict between Bibi (Netanyahu) and Trump often looked like theater, but saying this situation “seems different.” Speaker 1 said the shift appeared to be a rapid “total 180” with a notable timeline: last week seemed to indicate a return to full-scale war after heavy U.S.–Iran exchanges, with Iran targeting northern Israel in response to Israel bombing Beirut. Speaker 1 said they did not think limited attacks could occur without plunging the region back into war. They then described Trump making major threats again, including saying he would take Karg Island, followed by a sudden deal, making the sequence difficult to interpret. Speaker 1 attributed the change to internal U.S. disagreement, saying leaks and knowledge of Iran’s military capabilities after the war indicate that more than 70% of Iran’s missiles and missile launchers are intact, and that “people in the Pentagon” did not want to do this again. They also said people within the administration have been making this case to Trump, and that Trump appears to be listening “for the time being.” Speaker 1 linked the restraint to election concerns, arguing Trump’s midterms and Netanyahu’s elections create opposite incentives: Netanyahu wants the war to continue, while Trump does not, implying a possible split between personal political interests, while adding that a resulting real split between the U.S. and Israel would be surprising. Speaker 0 referenced moments when Trump speaks off the cuff, saying Trump admitted publicly that a peace agreement was needed; otherwise, with the Strait of Hormuz closed for “another few weeks,” it would lead to “bedlam.” Speaker 0 suggested Trump may have been reacting to warnings from oil executives and claimed Trump indicated that Iran was holding the cards. Speaker 1 contrasted Trump’s earlier claim that the Strait being closed was “great” because the U.S. was exporting more oil and gas than ever, and said the later admission showed it was not sustainable. They discussed a possible new approach raised by Mark Levin: pause for a few months rather than repeating actions—so Iran releases frozen funds can be avoided while the U.S. “rebuild[s]” and gets through the midterms—then restart. Speaker 1 said Iran likely suspects such a plan due to having no reason to trust the U.S. and said it is a possibility that the parties could “kick the can down the road” before revisiting.

President Trump reportedly approved attack plans for Iran but is holding off on the final order to see if Tehran bans its nuclear program. The speaker claims Israel started something they couldn't finish regarding Iran's nuclear program, potentially drawing the U.S. into combat operations. The speaker questions the intelligence provided to justify potential military action and criticizes the power of CENTCOM within the Pentagon, arguing it overshadows hemispheric defense. They question the purpose of the 50,000 troops stationed in the Middle East. The speaker alleges that the nuclear operation in Iran is buried in a mountain, a fact known by the Israelis. They argue that Trump is trying to stop an invasion of our country, which is more important than this. They criticize those who question the patriotism of figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and accuse media outlets of pushing propaganda against Trump. The speaker insists they are not isolationists or appeasers but advocate for thinking through military decisions thoroughly. They suggest Israel should finish what it started with Iran's nuclear program instead of relying on the U.S. to intervene.

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 centers on multiple competing narratives about the war and its wider regional significance, with the speakers presenting their interpretations and challenging each other’s points. - The hosts open by acknowledging competing narratives: some view the war as a necessary action against a regime seen as destabilizing and dangerous (nuclear ambitions, regional havoc); others see it as Israel removing a geopolitical threat with U.S. involvement; a third perspective argues it stemmed from miscalculations by Trump, perhaps driven by Israeli influence. The dialogue frames the war within broader questions of American, Israeli, and Iranian aims. - Speaker 1 references Joseph Kent’s resignation letter, arguing Iran was not an immediate U.S. threat and that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby influenced Trump toward war. They assert Trump’s stated interest in Iranian oil and control of the Strait of Hormuz; they describe Trump as guided by business interests. They frame U.S. actions as part of a long-standing pattern of demonizing enemies to justify intervention, citing Trump’s “animals” comment toward Iranians and labeling this demonization as colonial practice. - Speaker 0 pushes back on Trump’s rhetoric but notes it suggested a willingness to pressure Iran for concessions. They question whether Trump could transition from ending some wars to endorsing genocidal framing, acknowledging disagreement with some of Trump’s statements but agreeing that Israeli influence and Hormuz control were important factors. They also inquire whether Trump miscalculated a prolonged conflict and ask how Iran continued to fire missiles and drones despite expectations of regime collapse, seeking clarity on Iran’s resilience. - Speaker 1 clarifies that the Iranian system is a government, not a regime, and explains that Iranian missile and drone capabilities were prepared in advance, especially after Gaza conflicts. They note Iran’s warning that an attack would trigger a regional war, and reference U.S. intelligence assessments stating Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or a program for one at present, which Trump publicly dismissed in favor of Netanyahu’s view. They recount that Iran’s leaders warned of stronger responses if attacked, and argue Iran’s counterstrikes reflected a strategic calculus to deter further aggression while acknowledging Iran’s weaker, yet still capable, position. - The discussion shifts to regional dynamics: the balance of power, the loss of Israel’s “card” of American support if Iran can close Hormuz, and the broader implications for U.S.-Israel regional leverage. Speaker 1 emphasizes the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress, while also suggesting Mossad files could influence Trump, and notes that the war leverages Netanyahu’s stance but may not fully explain U.S. decisions. - The two then debate Gulf states’ roles: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are depicted as providing bases and support to the United States; Kuwait as a near neighbor with vulnerability to Iranian action and strategic bases for American forces. They discuss international law, noting the war’s alleged illegality without a UN Security Council authorization, and reference the unwilling-or-unable doctrine to explain Gulf state complicity. - The conversation covers Iran’s and Lebanon’s involvement: Iran’s leverage via missiles and drones, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as a Lebanese organization with Iranian support. They discuss Hezbollah’s origins in response to Israeli aggression and their current stance—driving Lebanon into conflict for Iran’s sake, while Hezbollah asserts independence and Lebanon’s interests. They acknowledge Lebanon’s ceasefire violations on both sides and debate who bears responsibility for dragging Lebanon into war; Hezbollah’s leaders are described as navigating loyalties to Iran, Lebanon, and their people, with some insistence that Hezbollah acts as a defender of Lebanon rather than a mere proxy. - Towards the end, the speakers reflect on personal impact and future dialogue. They acknowledge the war’s wide, long-lasting consequences for Lebanon and the region, and express interest in continuing the discussion, potentially in person, to further explore these complex dynamics.

Speaker 1 claims Democrats are deliberately lying to the press about the operation carried out on Saturday night by President Trump. Speaker 1 attended a classified briefing with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the head of the CIA, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They reviewed the operation, which Speaker 1 says was a spectacular success. Speaker 1 notes that Israeli intelligence, the IAEA, and even the Iranians are talking about more devastation than a leaked report suggests.

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 conversation centers on Israel’s war with Iran and its broader regional implications, with Speaker 0 (an Israeli prime minister) offering his assessment and critiques, and Speaker 1 pushing for clarification on motives, strategy, and policy directions. Key points about the Iran war and its origins - Speaker 0 recalls learning of the war on February 28 in Washington, and states his initial reaction: the United States’ claim that Iran is an enemy threatening annihilation of Israel is understandable and something to be supported, but questions what the next steps and the endgame would be. - He argues that Iran, through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, posed a global and regional threat by arming missiles and pursuing nuclear capacity, and asserts that Iran deserved punishment for its actions. He raises the question of whether the outcome could have been achieved without war through a prior agreement supervised by international bodies. - He emphasizes that the lack of a clear, articulated next step or strategy undermines the legitimacy of the war’s continuation, even as he concedes the necessity of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. - He also notes that the war affected the global economy and regional stability, and stresses the importance of coordinating a path that would end hostilities and stabilize the region. Speaker 1’s analysis and queries about U.S. interests and Netanyahu’s influence - Speaker 1 questions the rationale behind U.S. involvement, suggesting that strategic interests around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program were not the only drivers, and cites reporting that Netanyahu presented Iran as weak to push Trump toward regime change, with limited pushback within the U.S. administration. - He asks how much influence Netanyahu had over Trump, and whether the war was pushed by Netanyahu or driven by broader strategic calculations, including concerns about global economic consequences. - He notes that, even if Iran was making concessions on nuclear issues, the war’s continuation raises concerns about broader U.S. and global interests and the potential damage to European and allied relationships. Israeli-Lebanese dimension and Hezbollah - The discussion moves to Lebanon and the question of a ground presence in the South of Lebanon. Speaker 1 asks whether Netanyahu’s administration intends annexation of Lebanese territory and whether there is a real risk of such plans, given the recent destruction of villages and the broader context of regional diplomacy. - Speaker 0 distinguishes between military necessity and political strategy. He says the ground operation in southern Lebanon is unnecessary because Hezbollah missiles extend beyond 50 kilometers from the border, and he argues for negotiating a peace process with Lebanon, potentially aided by the international community (notably France), to disarm Hezbollah as part of a larger framework. - He asserts that there are voices in the Israeli cabinet that view South Lebanon as part of a Greater Israel and would seek annexation, but he insists that such annexation would be unacceptable in Israel and that disarming Hezbollah should be tied to a broader peace with Lebanon and Iran’s agreement if a negotiations-based settlement is reached. - The idea of integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese military is rejected as artificial; disarmament is preferred, with the caveat that Hezbollah could not be dissolved as a military force if Iran remains a principal backer. Speaker 0 suggests that a Hezbollah disarmed and integrated into Lebanon’s political-military system would require careful design, potentially with international participation, to prevent Hezbollah from acting as an independent proxy. War crimes and accountability - The participants discuss imagery like a soldier breaking a statue of Jesus and broader allegations of misconduct during the Gaza war. Speaker 0 condemns the act as outrageous and unacceptable, while Speaker 1 notes that individual soldier actions do not represent an entire army and contrasts external reactions to abuses with a broader critique of proportionality in Gaza. - Speaker 0 acknowledges that there were crimes against humanity and war crimes by Israel, rejects genocide, and endorses investigations and accountability for those responsible, while criticizing the political leadership’s rhetoric and the behavior of certain ministers. - They touch on the controversial death-penalty bill for Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks, with Speaker 0 characterizing the Israeli government as run by “thugs” and criticizing ministers for celebratory conduct, while Speaker 1 argues that such rhetoric inflames tensions. Two-state solution and long-term vision - The conversation culminates in Speaker 0 presenting a long-standing two-state plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and the Old City of Jerusalem not under exclusive sovereignty but administered by a five-nation trust (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). - He asserts that this approach represents an alternative to the current government’s policies and reiterates his commitment to opposing Netanyahu’s administration until it is replaced. - They close with mutual acknowledgment of the need for a durable peace framework and reiterate that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be a condition for normalization between Israel and Lebanon, while cautioning against artificial or compromised arrangements that would leave Hezbollah armed or entrenched.

President Trump tells reporters in the White House that he has called off strikes against Iran because a deal is close, with multiple parties involved and the agreement potentially finalized within the next two to three days. Speaker 2 compares this to a repeating pattern attributed to Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu since February 28: declarations of victory, claims that the other side is begging to surrender, orders to announce an imminent deal, bombing again, and repetition. Speaker 2 says the cycle has happened “over 38 times,” arguing that a weekend bombing follows the claim of an imminent deal. Glenn Greenwald is referenced as having posted that the same pattern repeats weekly. Speaker 2 connects the discussion to earlier commentary by Tucker Carlson about Trump’s alleged dealmaking, then shifts to claims about sovereignty. In Speaker 1’s monologue, the United States is described as lacking sovereignty in decisions that “change the course of history,” with the war in Iran said to be decided by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than the president of the United States. Speaker 1 argues that this challenges the premise that people control outcomes through voting, claiming that on major questions elected officials are not in charge. Speaker 2 asks who is driving any potential peace agreement, stating that Iran has said there is no agreement and that Speaker 2 calls that claim a “total lie,” adding that negotiations had not yet involved speaking with Iran. Speaker 2 brings in Colonel Douglas McGregor to interpret Trump’s statements alongside reports of overnight attacks involving Gulf states, U.S. infrastructure, U.S. bases, and F-35s, with deaths inside Iran. Colonel McGregor says he asked someone in Wall Street what was going on and was told “there’s no truth” to the deal claims. He frames Trump’s behavior as persuasive like Bernie Madoff, saying Trump creates “the illusion of control.” McGregor describes possible outcomes: leaving and pretending nothing happened (described as unlikely), leaving without acting with Israel (said to risk Israeli use of a nuclear weapon), freezing everything into a prolonged “hot-cold war,” and continued escalation he believes Trump cannot control fully. Speaker 0 shifts to consequences, saying the stock market can respond to illusions, that continuous threats to kill people as national policy damage the psyche, and that there should be consequences for the repeated pattern. McGregor also argues that Gulf states are seeking security arrangements beyond the U.S., referencing Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and saying Arab states and the Arabian Peninsula are discussing security with Russia because the U.S. cannot protect what it promised. He suggests this marks the start of an end to what he calls the “American military empire,” with Koreans, Japanese, Persian Gulf states, and Europeans possibly asking the U.S. to leave. Speaker 2 reports “from insider sources” that Iran denies a deal Trump is bragging about, including the “new Ayatollah,” and claims negotiating teams are frustrated because Trump and his team allegedly sabotage negotiations by preemptively announcing “bullshit” online. Speaker 2 calls the situation “total theater.” McGregor explains constraints he believes apply to Trump regarding Israel: he says Israel would not stop attacking without destruction of Iran, while Trump would not want an agreement that prevents him from declaring victory. He warns that if Israel becomes a rogue actor, other states could seek nuclear access for protection. Speaker 0 mentions a morning claim about taking “Karg Island” and other oil infrastructure in a way he associates with Venezuela, then asks whether it is bluster and whether such action is feasible. McGregor responds that taking the island would involve “terrible risks,” questions what would be done with it afterward, and argues Iranians have more routes for oil than cargo islands. He adds that destroying facilities could affect China, Japan, and others with strategic petroleum reserves, while the U.S. reserve is said to be dropping. Speaker 2 asks what happens next and questions U.S. Central Command posts about the Strait of Hormuz remaining open while reports say commercial shipping is severely restricted. McGregor says the “open” message conflicts with reality, describes possible queuing and payment-for-priority claims in the Gulf, and says oil is being moved because Iran permits it, whether through regulation or bribery. He emphasizes that Trump would not admit limited control, warning against blockading indefinitely and against a prolonged shadow war involving troops facing ballistic missiles and armed drones. In closing, McGregor says he worries that resuming attacks could produce more losses, including credibility and prestige with the world, and that intervening in the Gulf with air mobile infantry would be a “disaster waiting to happen.” He says he cannot answer whether Americans have suffered unrevealed base losses but believes more losses are likely if attacks continue.

The discussion centers on contrasting narratives about the U.S.-Israel confrontation with Iran and what is actually happening on the ground and inside Iran. - Speaker 0 relays the “fog of war,” noting Western media claims that the U.S. and Israel are delivering a rapid victory in Iran, with leadership and navy wiped out and the war ending soon, referencing statements by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth that the war “should not be protracted” and will wrap up “very soon.” Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 push back, asking whether the war could spiral into a longer conflict and what the timeline may be, noting top general Dan Cain’s warning that the objectives will take time and that President Trump also suggested the operation could take weeks. - The program then goes to Tehran with Professor Syed Mohammed Morandi, a geopolitical analyst at the University of Tehran. Morandi explains the succession process after the death of the Ayatollah: the constitution provides a council of three that runs the government until the leader is chosen by the council of experts, which should happen in the next few days. In the meantime, the president, the head of the judiciary, and a representative from the Guardian Council run the state. He notes the councilors are being arranged to meet from abroad to avoid being targeted. - On the ground in Tehran, Morandi counters the idea that a rapid regime change is possible, detailing that U.S. and Israeli strikes have targeted Tehran and civilian infrastructure, including a claim that the government ordered people to leave the city and that an elementary school was bombed, killing about 165 girls in Minab. He describes a situation where rescue teams are struck again at the scene. He asserts that the U.S. and Israel are striking civilian targets and that there is a pattern of double tapping at sites like Fair Doce Square. - Morandi disputes U.S. claims of destroyed leadership and navy: he says that ships of the Iranian navy are in port, there are thousands of small speed boats prepared for asymmetrical warfare, and the U.S. has not touched them. He argues that the underground bases and missiles/drones remain intact, and that senior commanders were not all killed—only a handful. He notes that Iran is firing missiles at Israel and striking U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf, and that oil facilities and tankers could be attacked if escalation continues. He warns of an energy crisis if oil facilities are destroyed and notes that the price of energy has risen. - Regarding public sentiment inside Iran, Morandi states that there are no celebrations; instead, people are mourning. He describes gatherings across the country under missile fire, with demonstrations in Tehran despite security concerns. He shares that slogans included “We are prepared to die. We won’t accept humiliation. Death to Trump, death to Netanyahu,” and that millions were seen on the streets via his Telegram channel, though many left the city due to danger. He characterizes Western media portrayal as propaganda and says the sentiment on the ground is in opposition to U.S. and Israeli actions. - The host suggests that the Iranian perspective views this as a prolonged confrontation, with Iran prepared to sustain resistance for years because the United States is “completely unreliable.” Morandi notes that while negotiations have repeatedly failed, Iran aims to compel the U.S. and Israeli regime to recognize that military assault has consequences, including economic and political costs. - The program later notes that U.S. and Israeli figures frame the conflict as epically swift, while Morandi’s account emphasizes Iran’s resilience and long-term resistance, highlighting the discrepancy between Western media narratives and on-the-ground Iranian realities.

The discussion centers on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and the possibility of a U.S.-led or Israel-led military confrontation, with a mix of arguments about intelligence, strategy, and public appetite for war. - Recurrent warnings about Iran: The hosts note that for decades the U.S. government has warned Iran is on the brink of reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. They reference claims of “fresh intelligence” and “new evidence” of a renewed program, contrasting them with past warnings during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The tone suggests these claim cycles reappear with each new administration or set of negotiations. - Netanyahu and Iran timing: A compilation is shown of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stating over two decades that Iran has a nuclear program that could be imminent. One clip claims Iran could produce a weapon in a short time, with phrases like “weeks away,” “three to five years,” and even apocalyptic projections. The conversation then questions whether those warnings have come to fruition and whether media and public commentary have overstated the immediacy or impact of those claims. - Stuxnet and sanctions context: The moderator recalls that during the Bush era the U.S. launched Stuxnet against Iran’s centrifuges, and argues that Obama continued those efforts with sanctions; they portray sanctions as bipartisan pressure intended to justify claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A guest mentions “demonic officials” and cites a book to underscore a harsh view of the two-term sanction era. - Diplomatic vs. military options: The panel describes the Biden administration sending negotiators to address the nuclear issue, while noting that “other options” exist. They discuss the tension between diplomacy and potential coercive measures, including the possibility of coalition or unilateral strikes. - Military balance and potential outcomes (Colonel Douglas MacGregor’s view): The guest emphasizes the complexity and risk of fighting Iran. He argues: - Iran is capable and not a “backward desert” opponent, with an arsenal including roughly 2,000 ballistic missiles and significant, varied air defenses. - Iranian forces could target U.S. bases and Israel, potentially inflicting substantial losses, though the duration and scale of any campaign are uncertain. - The aim would be to “disintegrate the state” and induce chaos rather than secure swift compliance; the scenario could produce high casualties among both sides, potentially thousands for Iran and substantial American losses, depending on scale and duration. - The long-term goal, he says, is to “make the region safe for Israel” and establish Israeli hegemony, noting the defensiveness and regional power dynamics in play, including rising concerns about Turkey as a threat. - Intelligence reliability and sources: A CIA veteran (John Kiriakou) challenges the immediacy and reliability of intelligence asserting that Iran reconstituted a nuclear program. He contends: - The Israelis and the U.S. have historically provided intelligence that may be biased toward aggressive action. - The CIA has produced intelligence estimates stating Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program; he questions whether boots-on-the-ground intelligence would confirm otherwise. - He emphasizes the risk that media outlets amplify “existential threat” narratives rooted in political calculations rather than verified evidence. - The domestic political-media dynamic: The discussion highlights perceived incentives for hawkish messaging from certain U.S. and Israeli actors, including prominent commentators who push the threat narrative. One commentator argues that the push for war serves particular political or financial interests, suggesting that public opinion in the U.S. is not aligned with an immediate military conflict. - Regional and alliance implications: The panel debates how a U.S.-led or Israeli-led strike would affect alliances, regional stability, and the global economy. They highlight: - The possibility that Iran could retaliate with volumes of missiles and unmanned systems, inflicting damage on Israel and regional targets. - The risk that a prolonged conflict could undermine NATO cohesion and Western diplomatic credibility in the Middle East and beyond. - Concerns about the effect on energy routes, particularly the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and broader economic ramifications. - Operational and logistical strains: They discuss the practical challenges of sustained conflict, including: - Navy and air defenses, the need for replenishment of carrier groups, and the strain on logistics and maintenance after extended deployments. - The impact of political missteps and controversial statements (such as comments linked to public pro-war stances) on alliances and military readiness. - Speculation on timing and signals: The guests speculate about when or whether a conflict might occur, noting that political leaders may face pressure “between now and March” or around certain holidays, while acknowledging uncertainty and the potential for last-minute changes. - Ending note: The conversation closes with a recognition that the set of actors—intelligence, defense officials, media, and political leaders—are collectively influencing public perception and policy directions. The speakers emphasize contrasting views on Iran’s threat, the legitimacy and consequences of potential war, and the stakes for the United States, Israel, and global stability.

The discussion centers on the view that the United States has entered into a war with Iran on behalf of Israel, with the war framed as one that could be protracted and costly in American lives. The speakers contend that this conflict will not be resolved quickly despite assurances from the administration or Israel, and they warn of immediate economic and strategic consequences, including the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and potential damage to the US economy as energy infrastructure becomes a target. Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, is cited as warning that the US and Israel cannot win against Iran and that Iran is prepared for years of conflict. He is cited as recalling his testimony about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and arguing that the pretext for the current war—Iran’s alleged uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons—lacks supporting evidence from the CIA and the DNI. Ritter is described as asserting that the war will not be short and that the United States will face a drawn-out confrontation. Speaker 1 adds that the conflict is regional and will have consequences for the American public, noting the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as unprecedented and signaling an economic phase to the conflict. The claim is made that Iran has not experienced a popular uprising against its government; rather, there are rallies in support of the government. The war plan, initially predicated on a decapitation strategy, is described as having gone awry from the start, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly telling the president that there are insufficient resources to win, yet the campaign proceeded. The proximity of the initial strikes to a “decapitation” objective is emphasized, and the assertion is made that the war is already lost due to resource constraints and misalignment of the plan. Speaker 0 references an operation named “lion’s roar” by the Israeli Air Force, describing it as the largest sortie in Israeli history with 200 jets and 500 targets, calling it the genesis of the opening strike. The expectation discussed is that the initial phase could involve using less advanced weapons to overwhelm air defenses, while Iran claims to possess capabilities not yet demonstrated publicly. Over the next 24 to 96 hours, the speakers anticipate continuous strikes aimed at regime change, destruction of air defenses, and suppression of ballistic missile launches, including production capacity near Tehran. The discussion suggests that Iran has prepared extensive dispersal of targets (creating thousands of additional targets) and that Iranian forces are likely to relocate to avoid interdiction, complicating intelligence and targeting efforts for Israel and the United States. A key conclusion asserted by the speakers is that the conflict represents a war of choice, and they describe it as an illegal war of aggression contravening the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations Charter. They argue that Iran will respond forcefully and that the United States and Israel will face escalating resistance, with Iran viewed as likely to gain the upper hand and to pursue a diplomatic settlement favorable to Iranian objectives, including non-nuclear goals. The expectation is that Russia and China will push for a diplomatic resolution that aligns with Iran’s terms, particularly in avoiding a nuclear outcome.

Scott Horton introduces Joe Kent, formerly of the 75th Rangers and then the CIA’s Special Activities Division, who fought in the terror wars and later headed the Counterterrorism Center before resigning from the Trump administration over the war in Iran. Kent describes his background and why he came on the show, noting that he resigned over policy rather than personal animus, and emphasizes that his focus is on Iran policy and its intersection with Israeli interests. Kent asserts that the war with Iran was largely driven by the Israeli agenda and timeline. He points to statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the President, and the Speaker of the House claiming the attack was launched because they knew Israel would attack as well, arguing that this indicates Israel was driving U.S. policy and that the United States should not be bound to an Israeli timeline or to an outcome that serves Israeli objectives. He recounts his time at NCTC and in the White House, describing an ecosystem that included media figures, think tanks, and high-ranking Israeli officials, which he says influenced U.S. policy and reduced the president’s decision-making space, particularly concerning Iran’s red lines on enrichment. Kent explains his concern that the push for a hard line against Iran’s enrichment was an Israeli-led framing that equated any enrichment with a nuclear weapons program. He describes an alleged “Goldilocks methodology” by which Iran could enrich but not weaponize, a position the Israelis reportedly used to rally U.S. policymakers toward war. He argues that the Israelis wanted to remove any space for a negotiated deal and sought regime change, leveraging the U.S. military to accomplish that goal. He emphasizes that the war was not the first option and that a more pragmatic, slower approach could have yielded a deal if U.S. policymakers allowed it. In discussing the question of who was pressuring whom, Kent says the Israelis were trying to force a scenario where Iran’s red line would be seen as unacceptable, thereby pushing the United States toward war. He notes that Trump’s willingness to negotiate existed but was constrained by Israeli pressure and media echo chambers, and that the war’s timing undermined any potential for a peaceful settlement. He asserts that, if the president had space to negotiate, a deal might have been possible, but the Israelis’ push to force conflict narrowed that space. Kent also addresses the question of how the war affected American strategic interests, arguing that the United States should restrain Israel and align policy with broader American interests in the region, rather than facilitate regime change or allow broader chaos. He contends that an ongoing U.S.-Israel alignment over militarized actions in the Middle East risks destabilizing the region, jeopardizing energy security, and undermining U.S. partners in the Gulf and Europe. Regarding the Iraq war and Iran, Kent asserts that the Israeli lobby pressured for war in 2002-2003 and had broader influence in Syria and elsewhere, but he also acknowledges the complex mix of neoconservatives and various factions. He describes how, after the Iraq war, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and U.S. policy intersected with Iranian influence and regional dynamics, noting that many Iraqi Shias fought against Iran while others aligned with Tehran, and asserting that mishandling these dynamics contributed to instability. Kent discusses the handling of Iranian EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) and argues that Iran shaped many of the tactics, while local Iraqi groups adapted them. He emphasizes that the broader narrative around Iranian responsibility for attacks in Iraq should be tempered by on-the-ground complexities, including Iraqi dynamics and the role of other actors like Lebanese Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. The conversation turns to the question of whether there were Iranian assassination plots against President Trump, with Kent acknowledging a real threat after Soleimani’s killing but emphasizing that the most serious plan was not clearly linked to a large-scale operation; rather, one individual, Asif Mershand, was recruited by Iran and monitored by the FBI. Kent cautions that allegations of broader Iranian plots should be scrutinized, and he notes ongoing questions about linkage and DHS investigations. Throughout, Kent reiterates his core conclusion: the essential policy misstep was allowing Israeli leadership to drive U.S. policy on Iran, and a successful path forward would require restraining Israel and pursuing a negotiated deal with Iran under conditions that preserve American strategic interests, with a clear off-ramp and space for diplomacy. He endorses the notion that President Trump could secure a deal if given the political room to reset the dynamic with Israel and to recalibrate U.S. commitments in the region.

The conversation centers on whether U.S. policy shifts toward “putting America first” and whether Trump/J.D. Vance statements about Israel and Iran are genuine or the result of external manipulation. Mario asks Alex whether what J.D. Vance and Trump are saying is meant sincerely, referencing J.D. Vance and Trump’s language. Alex responds that he believes J.D. Vance and Trump have been influenced and manipulated, and he links U.S. decision-making to behind-the-scenes arguments raised in cabinet meetings about Israel’s Middle East actions. He says J.D. Vance heard claims from the Pentagon that Israel’s plan was a terrible idea, would fail to produce regime change, would close the strait, would “destroy the administration,” and would “kill the world economy,” describing a pattern where Israel’s actions were connected to dragging the U.S. toward total war. Alex claims Trump later realized he had been manipulated by “false intelligence” provided by Netanyahu and Mossad, including claims that Netanyahu and Mossad convinced Trump that Kurds would rise and the Iranian regime would fall within four days. Alex says Trump then looked for an “exit ramp” for more than a month but was repeatedly pulled back in as Israel allegedly continued attacks and sabotaged negotiations, including an episode where Trump claimed he ordered Israel to stop hitting Lebanon and Alex claims Israel hit harder afterward. Alex adds that Netanyahu allegedly refused to leave southern Lebanon, and he singles out Ben-Gavir as even more radical and influential, quoting Ben-Gavir saying, “We need to burn all of Lebanon to the ground,” and framing this as a broader “Greater Israel project.” Alex describes a “canary in the coal mine” by citing Gerald Morgan (Steven Crowder’s co-host) as saying Ben-Gavir is a horrible person and that Morgan would not support Israel if it continued such “genocidal” statements and behavior. Alex also says that Israel’s influence is reflected in legislation, claiming the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for 2027 would merge and synchronize U.S. and Israeli military research and development and weapons, and that days after committee passage, the Defense Intelligence Agency and two other agencies allegedly said Israel is the highest-level espionage threat to the U.S. Mario connects the discussion to Trump’s rhetoric, asking whether this is more than rhetoric and could go on longer. Alex answers that Trump is “100% pro-Israel” and believes Israel has a right to exist, saying Trump seeks to be a major peacemaker and wants the Abraham Accords. Alex says Trump “never liked Netanyahu,” claiming Trump is enraged and looking to break with Israel due to constituents’ war-related break from “Israel first” and inflation. Alex says he expects Israel to keep provoking, including possibly launching bigger provocations against Iran, or a “magical terror attack” blamed on Iran, and ties this to Netanyahu’s legal situation and alleged incentives not to destabilize internal outcomes tied to October 7-related investigations. The transcript then shifts to direct quotes shown in a clip from Gerald Morgan challenging a statement attributed to Ben-Gavir: Alex relays the argument that “All of Lebanon must burn,” asserting disproportionate retaliation logic, warning that absorbing Lebanon would lead to further targets like Turkey and Syria, and arguing the U.S. supported Israel for decades. Alex then says Katz made similar statements, including a claim that villages in southern Lebanon have been flattened and that 200,000 Lebanese residents in a security zone are never returning. Alex later elaborates on what he says is Israeli conduct: alleged leveling of villages, destruction of houses, leveling churches and crusader castles, and poisoning crops via concentrated glyphosate weed killer (Roundup), comparing this to prior actions in Gaza and the West Bank involving wells. He also claims “Lebanese, Christian or Muslim” who do not leave would face IDF snipers and killing, and he says Israel publicly called the approach “the Gaza treatment” for Lebanon. Alex expands into broader claims about political networks and leverage. When asked what leverage Israel might have over Trump, Alex describes opening “back channels” and cutting Israel out of live time intelligence, but also claims Israel has leverage over Trump through business ties and the “Epstein network,” asserting Trump wanted to take over such power structures for himself and that Israel “got all the intel” through secret forms that redirect information away from the Five Eyes. Alex claims this results in Israel placing personnel in key Pentagon and intelligence positions and describes “partially under a Likudnik Israeli coup right now.” Mario asks whether Alex believes this is linked to dirt involving Epstein. Alex says it is not primarily dirt used to compromise Trump, but rather that Trump joined the network and expected protection and loyalty; when it didn’t go as planned, Alex claims Trump became angry and tried to assert dominance over Israel. Alex argues Trump’s actions would be reversed only when Trump decides he was wrong, and he lists conditions for a fundamental shift: Trump needs to call for Netanyahu to leave, oppose legislation such as the NDAA Section 224 and a matching Senate Intelligence Bill, deny Israel merging with U.S. military/intelligence, and cut off funding and weapons. Alex also adds that he wants Trump to oppose laws restricting free speech and to reverse other actions he lists as harmful. In the short term, Mario asks what happens if Israel strikes Beirut, Iran retaliates, and whether Trump would be dragged in. Alex says the longer the Strait of Hormuz is closed and the worse the economy becomes, the more pressure Trump will face, and he claims Trump might come out against Netanyahu if Israel’s actions cause unbearable economic damage and if bombing Iran is framed as leading Iran to attack Israel. Alex also predicts Israel’s land-gathering motivations, including gas corridors. Finally, Mario asks whether Netanyahu could fall to pressure and whether Israel could cease fire and pull out, similar to Trump’s alleged change with J.D. Vance. Alex says there is “absolutely” a chance for that kind of shift, claiming Israel could be removed through money and opposition channels, that the White House could work with Netanyahu’s opposition, and that if there is no war within a year, pipelines and systems could cut the Strait of Hormuz out of the equation. Alex closes by arguing Israel’s radical leadership escalates conflict in ways that generate backlash and that de-escalation depends on Trump directly confronting Israel’s leadership rather than supporting their decisions.

More than 40 times, an agreement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran has been described as reached and merely pending the Iranian government’s signature, with details allegedly initialed and carved in various parchments and even stone—but there is still no peace agreement. The speaker says Iranian missiles will fly again “tonight.” They also claim Benjamin Netanyahu is “brazenly” assassinating and murdering people in Beirut while Donald Trump has stated that no further bombing of Beirut is permissible. The speaker presents two conclusions: either Trump cannot control Netanyahu, who is positioned as the prime minister of a country described as existing entirely through American largesse (financial, diplomatic, political, and military), or there is an inference that the relationship’s true nature allows continued actions despite U.S. instructions. The speaker argues there is no sense in which Trump is ordering Netanyahu to do things he refuses to do, framing an alternative “good cop, bad cop” dynamic. They reference a “Brian Berletek” school of thought and say people in Hong Kong have suggested the Trump-Netanyahu relationship is “organic,” though the speaker notes they currently take the other side of the argument. The speaker insists there are only two alternatives regarding Trump’s ability or willingness to curb Israel’s behavior, which they say has scuppered any possibility of even a memorandum of understanding (MOU), never mind a deal. They state Trump has filled airwaves and news for days claiming the war is over, but say it is not over and assert Iran will be attacking Israel “tonight.” The speaker asks what America will do about that, and says powerful forces in the American political system and the global political system will demand Trump come to the aid of the man Trump says he is “mightily pissed off with.” They conclude that Trump has not taken any action resembling kicking Netanyahu out despite apparent dependence.

Ray McGovern emphasizes the erosion of the post-World War II security architecture, especially the U.S.-led system that emerged after the Cold War and aimed to globalize the Transatlantic Partnership. He argues that this expansion has strained the United States economically, militarily, and institutionally, and that security has become more volatile as empires exhaust both capabilities and moral legitimacy. He uses NATO’s history to illustrate how shifting perceptions of threat—historically the Soviet menace versus modern Russian and German sensitivities—shape alliance dynamics. He notes that many Americans were taught a one-sided narrative: NATO was created to contain the Warsaw Pact, while the Soviets also felt threatened by Western actions. He recalls his own indoctrination, the evolution of NATO, and the Warsaw Pact’s creation in response to West German NATO entry in 1955, explaining that “security is indivisible” and that each side’s fears drive the other’s behavior. He observes that polls show the U.S. losing its status as Russia’s main adversary, with Germany becoming the more prominent concern, which complicates the security calculus. Speaker 0 adds historical context, referencing John Lewis Gaddis and the Cold War’s security competition, where blocs prompted mutual insecurity. He discusses the Helsinki Accords and the attempt to reduce security competition, contrasting that with post-Cold War optimism that NATO expansion would stabilize Europe. He notes opposition among some American leaders to expanding NATO and argues that the Ukraine conflict reveals a problematic belief in “force for good” through military blocs, suggesting that expanded NATO has contributed to the current crisis rather than preventing it. He highlights the potential consequences of continued reliance on NATO and U.S. guarantees, questioning the credibility of Article 5 guarantees in an era of waning U.S. commitment. Speaker 1 recounts his experiences in Munich (1968) with Radio Free Europe and his opposition to encouraging Czech resistance to Soviet tanks, arguing that the Brezhnev Doctrine has a modern analogue in Ukraine. He describes the sequence leading to Crimea’s annexation, including the 2014 Maidan events, Western negotiations (Minsk Accords), and the dynamic between Western leaders and Putin. He argues that Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine arose from a perception of NATO encroachment and Western deceit, asserting that Moscow’s actions were a response to attempts to place Ukraine in NATO orbit and to secure a vital Black Sea port. He states that Russia halted further invasions in 2022 after Ukrainian negotiations to avoid NATO membership and a ceasefire, and he contends that Western actors, including Boris Johnson, pressured Ukraine to continue fighting. Speaker 0 contends that the war’s conduct was shaped by Western promises and the perception that NATO’s expansion would secure democracy. He criticizes European leaders like Kaya Kaltois (Kallas) and Zakharova’s exchange to illustrate the political theater around NATO and European security. He stresses that European leaders’ rhetoric—such as calls for “no Russian red lines”—and the reliance on U.S. military power created incentives for continued conflict. He also critiques the influence of the military-industrial complex, warning that profiteering from defense production drives war. Speaker 1 emphasizes the CIA’s dual role: one branch “for lying to the public” and overthrowing governments, and another “analysis division” that historically aimed to tell the truth. He cites the 2007 unanimous intelligence assessment that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and had not resumed, noting that later officials removed or reframed statements about immediate threats. He references George W. Bush’s admission that the 2007 estimate deprived him of a military option, and he points to Tulsi Gabbard’s 2019-2024 reluctance to label Iran as an imminent threat. He argues Iran is not a direct threat to the United States but is linked to Israel and regional dynamics, including Netanyahu’s role and the 2003-2007 Iran/Iraq/Israel calculus. He mentions Joe Kent’s resignation as a dissenting voice against continued war in Iran, suggesting that some military leaders and officials pushed back against aggressive policy. Speaker 0 wraps by noting the evolving U.S.-Israel relationship and the need for responsible diplomacy. He highlights the broader international realignment: NATO’s credibility waning, Europe reassessing security guarantees, and potential shifts in alliances with the Gulf States and Asia. He closes with a cautious note that genuine diplomatic leadership and intelligent intelligence analysis could help establish a more stable order, rather than perpetuating disruptive escalation.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

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 conversation centers on Iran’s current crisis and the likelihood, timing, and aims of potential U.S. and Israeli actions against Iran. The speakers discuss whether protests inside Iran are driving any attack plans or if those plans were made beforehand, and what the objectives might be if war occurs. Key points and claims, preserved as stated: - The Iranian regime is described as facing its worst crisis since 1979, with reports of thousands dead, and questions about whether the U.S. and possibly Israel will strike Iran, and what their objectives would be (regime change vs installing a new leader under the supreme leader). - The interviewer introduces Trita Parsi, noting his nuanced, non-dual position and his personal history of fleeing Iran around the revolution. - The analysts discuss whether a war plan against Iran existed before the protests; Speaker 1 (Parsi) argues the plan was made prior to the protests and that the protests did not cause the decision. He says the Israelis intended to provoke the U.S. into war, but the sequence shifted so the United States would lead with Israel in a supporting role. He notes Netanyahu’s unusual quiet and suggests a deliberate effort to present this as Trump’s war, not Israel’s, though he believes the plan originated in Washington in late December at the White House. - The protests are said to be organic and not instigated from abroad, with possible slight slowing of plans due to the protests. The rationale for striking Iran initially emphasized Israeli concerns about Iranian missile capabilities and their potential rebuilding of missiles and, ambiguously, nuclear ambitions; there was no credible media evidence presented to support new nuclear development claims, according to Speaker 1. - The justification for an attack is viewed as a pretext tied to “unfinished business,” with the broader aim of addressing Iran’s missile program and perceived threats, rather than the protests alone. The discussion notes that pro-Iran regime factions in the U.S. may find protests more persuasive among centrist Democrats, but less so among MAGA or core Trump supporters. - The origins of the protests are described as organic, driven by currency collapse and sanctions, which Speaker 1 connects to decades of sanctions and the economic crisis in Iran. He states sanctions were designed to produce desperation to create a window for outside intervention, though he emphasizes this does not mean the protests are purely externally driven. - The role of sanctions is elaborated: Pompeo’s “maximum pressure” statement is cited as intentional to create conditions for regime change, with Speaker 0 highlighting the destruction of Iran’s economy as a method to weaken the regime and empower opposition. Speaker 1 agrees the sanctions contributed to economic distress but stresses that the protests’ roots are broader than the economy alone. - The discussion considers whether the protests could be used to justify external action and whether a regional or global backlash could ensue, including refugee flows and regional instability affecting Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and GCC states. It’s noted that the U.S. and some regional actors would prefer to avoid a total collapse of Iran, while Israel would welcome greater upheaval if it constrains Iranian capabilities. - The question of a power vacuum inside Iran is addressed. Speaker 1 argues there is no obvious internal opposition strong enough to quickly replace the regime; MeK is excluded as a coalition partner in current Iran opposition movements. The Pahlavi (Reza Pallavi) faction is discussed as a possible figurehead outside Iran, with debate about his domestic support. The MEK is described as outside any coalition due to its history. - Pallavi’s potential role: Speaker 1 suggests Pallavi has gained closer ties with Israel and some pro-Israel circles in Washington, but emphasizes that domestic support inside Iran remains uncertain and difficult to gauge. Pallavi says he would seek a democratically elected leader if the regime falls; Speaker 1 cautions that words alone are insufficient without proven ability to secure loyalty from security forces and to persuade key societal sectors. - The Shah’s legacy and comparison: The Shah’s regime is described as highly repressive but comparatively more open socially and economically, though with a discredited political system. The current regime disperses power within a more complex system where the supreme leader is central but not incomparable to past autocrats. - The potential for separatism and regional spillover is discussed, including Kurdish separatism in western Iran. Speaker 1 clarifies that the Kurdish group is not part of the protests but a separate element taking advantage of the situation; the risk of civil war if the state collapses is acknowledged as a nightmare scenario. - The possibility of a Maduro-like approach (managed transition through elite elements) is considered. While channels of communication exist, Speaker 1 doubts the same dynamics as Venezuela; Iran lacks internal continuity in the security establishment, making a similar path unlikely. - Military retaliation dynamics are examined: Iran’s response to limited U.S. strikes could be symbolic or broader, including potential strikes on U.S. bases in the region. The possibility that Israel would push the United States to target Iran’s military capabilities rather than just decapitation is discussed, with notes about potential after-effects and regional reactions. - The 12-day war context and Iran’s current military capabilities: There is debate about whether Iran’s military could be a greater threat to U.S. bases than previously believed and about how easily Iranian missile launches could be located and neutralized. - The closing forecast: The likely trajectory depends on the next few days. A limited, negotiated strike could lead to negotiations and a transformed regime with lifted sanctions, perhaps avoiding a wholesale regime change; a more aggressive or decapitating approach could provoke substantial instability and regional repercussions. The conversation ends with a personal note of concern for Parsi’s family in Iran. - Final reflection: The interview ends with expressions of concern for family safety and a mutual appreciation for the discussion.

- 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.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, joins the program to discuss the dramatic developments in the war against Iran. The conversation centers on the strike on Karg Island, the strategic choke point for Iran’s oil exports, and the broader implications of escalating U.S. actions. - Karg Island and the oil threat: The host notes that Karg Island handles 90% of Iran’s oil exports and asks why Trump isn’t targeting this area. Johnson argues the attack on Karg Island makes little strategic sense and points out that Iran has five oil terminals; destroying one would not end Iran’s potential revenue. He emphasizes that the U.S. bombed the runway of the major airport on the island, which he says remains irrelevant to Iran’s overall capacity to generate revenue. He notes the runway damage would not support U.S. objectives for invading the island, given runway length constraints (6,000 feet measured vs. need for 3,500–3,700 feet for certain aircraft) and the limited air force in Iran. Johnson asserts that Iran has indicated it would retaliate against oil terminals and Gulf neighbors if oil resources or energy infrastructure are attacked. - Economic and strategic consequences of closing the Strait of Hormuz: Johnson states that the action effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off 20% of the world’s oil supply, 25% of global LNG, and 35% of the world’s urea for fertilizer. He explains fertilizer’s criticality to global agriculture and notes that rising gas and diesel prices in the United States would impact consumer costs, given many Americans live paycheck to paycheck. He suggests the price hikes contribute to inflationary pressure and could trigger a global recession, especially since Persian Gulf countries are pivotal energy suppliers. He also points out that the U.S. cannot easily reopen Hormuz without unacceptable losses and that Iran has prepared for contingencies for thirty years, with robust defenses including tunnels and coastal fortifications. - Military feasibility and strategy: The discussion covers the impracticality of a U.S. ground invasion of Iran, given the size of Iran’s army and the modern battlefield’s drone and missile threats. Johnson notes the U.S. Army and Marine numbers, the logistical challenges of sustaining an amphibious or airborne assault, and the vulnerability of American ships and troops to drones and missiles. He highlights that a mass deployment would be highly costly and dangerous, with historical evidence showing air power alone cannot win wars. The hosts discuss limited U.S. options and the possible futility of attempts to seize or occupy Iran’s territory. - Internal U.S. decision-making and DC dynamics: The program mentions a split inside Washington between anti-war voices and those pressing toward Tehran, with leaks suggesting that top officials warned Trump about major obstacles and potential losses. Johnson cites a leak from the National Intelligence Council indicating regime change in Tehran is unlikely, even with significant U.S. effort. He asserts the Pentagon’s credibility has been questioned after disputed reports (e.g., the KC-135 shootdown) and notes that Trump’s advisors who counsel restraint are being sidelined. - Iranian retaliation and targets: The discussion covers Iran’s targeting of air defenses and critical infrastructure, including radars at embassies and bases in the region, and the destruction of five Saudi air refueling tankers, which Trump later dismissed as fake news. Johnson says Iran aims to degrade Israel economically and militarily, while carefully avoiding mass civilian casualties in some instances. He observes Iran’s restraint in striking desalination plants, which would have caused a humanitarian catastrophe, suggesting a deliberate choice to keep certain targets within bounds. - Global realignments and the role of Russia, China, and India: The conversation touches on broader geopolitical shifts. Johnson argues that Russia and China are offering alternatives to the dollar-dominated order, strengthening ties with Gulf states and BRICS members. He suggests Gulf allies may be considering decoupling from U.S. security guarantees, seeking to diversify away from the petrodollar system. The discussion includes India’s position, noting Modi’s visit to Israel and India’s balancing act amid U.S. pressure and Iran relations; Iran’s ultimatum to allow passage for flag vessels and its diplomacy toward India is highlighted as a measured approach, even as India’s stance has attracted scrutiny. - Israel, casualties, and the broader landscape: The speakers discuss Israeli casualties and infrastructure under sustained Iranian strikes, noting limited information from within Israel due to media constraints and possible censorship. Johnson presents a game-theory view: if Israel threatens a nuclear option, Iran might be compelled to develop a nuclear capability as a deterrent, altering calculations for both Israel and the United States. - Terrorism narrative and historical context: The speakers challenge the U.S. portrayal of Iran as the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, arguing that ISIS and the Taliban have caused far more deaths in recent years, and that Iran’s responses to threats have historically prioritized restraint. They emphasize Iran’s chemical weapons restraint during the Iran-Iraq war, contrasting it with U.S. and Iraqi actions in the 1980s. - Final reflections: The discussion emphasizes the cascade effects of the conflict, including potential impacts on Taiwan’s energy and semiconductor production, multiplied by China’s leverage, and Russia’s increasing global influence. Johnson warns that the war’s end will likely be achieved through shifting alignments and economic realignments rather than a conventional battlefield victory, with the goal of U.S. withdrawal from the region as part of any settlement. The conversation closes with mutual thanks and a reaffirmation of ongoing analysis of these evolving dynamics.