reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The conversation centers on Iran, its 47-year regime, and how to think about protest, reform, and potential change from the perspective of an Iranian-American who has lived in the United States most of his life. The speakers discuss the severity of the regime, the nature of the opposition, and the calculus involved in any push for change. - Freedom and the cost of change: Freedom is described as nasty and the regime as “nasty.” The speakers assert that the regime, including the IRGC, is not likely to give up Iran in a peaceful way. They emphasize that protests and resistance have been ongoing, and that the regime has a track record of destroying opposition. They use the imagery of public executions and a ruthless approach to suppression, comparing the regime’s behavior to a brutal, game-of-thrones-like motto. - Personal history and perspective: The guest notes his life trajectory—born during the 1978 revolution, living through the Shah’s era briefly, and then the Khomeini years—giving him a long historical frame for evaluating leadership and revolution. He remarks that he has no moral authority to tell Iranians how to protest or whether to risk their families, acknowledging the severe personal stakes for those on the ground. He stresses the bravery and resilience of the Iranian people and explains the immense pressures that drive ordinary citizens to protest. - The strategic challenge of regime change: The guest asserts that the regime wants to stretch negotiations and extend days to avoid losing resources, implying a protracted endurance tactic. He insists that replacing or reforming the regime would be extremely difficult, given the depth of the regime’s networks and its long tenure. - Reza Pahlavi and leadership dynamics: The discussion revisits Reza Pahlavi, the former shah’s son, noting his recent high-profile activity, meetings in Washington, and televised statements. The guest acknowledges both praise and criticism of Reza Pahlavi, arguing that leadership in Iran would require clear, tough decisions and that those who criticize him must provide constructive counterarguments rather than ad hominem attacks. He discusses the complexity of leadership in exile and the challenges of returning to Iran to lead, including loyalty issues within the military and the risk of betrayal. - The US and foreign policy angle: The hosts debate what role the United States should play, including the consideration of strikes or sanctions. The guest uses a parable about a local offense (a killer in Miami) to illustrate how a country should commit to eliminating a threat without broad interference in other regions’ problems. He argues for public support of a targeted objective but cautions against broad, nation-building wars that could trigger larger conflicts. He also notes the influence of other actors, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, China, and European nations, on the Iran situation, suggesting a multi-layered and opaque calculus in any action. - The question of strikes and objectives: The speakers discuss whether strikes should aim to completely destroy the regime or merely pressure it, emphasizing that the intention behind any military action matters more than the action itself. They consider the risk of a dangerous power vacuum, comparing potential outcomes to Libya or Iraq, and discuss the possibility of negotiating with a different leadership that could concede to protesters’ demands while minimizing harm to the broader population. They acknowledge the difficulty of achieving a favorable outcome without risking unintended consequences. - The role of sanctions and diplomacy: The sanctions are described as byproducts of the regime’s leadership and its lack of diplomacy, with the argument that sanctions affect the Iranian people more than the ruling elite. The dialogue touches on questions of accountability for the regime’s behavior and the broader regional dynamics, including public sentiment in Iran and international responses. - Mossad and external involvement: The guest asserts that Mossad and Israel are heavily involved in Iran’s internal dynamics and protests, given the existential stakes and the perception of threats against Iranian leadership. He contends that foreign intelligence communities are active in shaping events and information, including potential misdirection and propaganda. - The broader takeaway: The discussion ends by underscoring the need for multiple options and credible leadership in Iran, the difficulty of changing a deeply entrenched regime, and the reality that any transition would be complex, potentially dangerous, and require careful, strategic consideration of long-term impacts rather than quick, sweeping actions. The host reflects on the remarkable intensity and busyness of US politics and foreign policy under a dynamic administration, noting that such a convergence of domestic and international pressures makes this period historically singular.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO are removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime and pursuing regime changes in Iran and Iraq is crucial. Preemptive attacks on nations like Iraq, Iran, and Libya, which are seeking nuclear weapons, are recommended. The goal is to stop Iran's aggression and terror, with support for Israel being a common stance across political lines. Translation: Removing the Soviet Union and the PLO would end international terrorism. Changing regimes in Iraq and Iran is important, with preemptive attacks on nations seeking nuclear weapons like Libya suggested. The focus is on stopping Iran's aggression and terror, with support for Israel being universal.

Speaker A: The moral concern is that if you can remove the human element, you can use AI or autonomous targeting on individuals, and that could absolve us of the moral conundrum by making it seem like a mistake or that humans weren’t involved because it was AI or a company like Palantir. This worry is top of mind after the Min Minab girls school strike, and whether AI machine-assisted targeting played any role. Speaker B: In some ongoing wars, targeting decisions have been made by machines with no human sign-off. There are examples where the end-stage decision is simply identify and kill, with input data fed in but no human vetting at the final moment. This is a profound change and highly distressing. The analogy is like pager attacks where bombs are triggered with little certainty about who is affected, which many would label an act of terror. There is knowledge of both the use of autonomous weapons and mass surveillance as problematic points that have affected contracting and debates with a major AI company and the administration. Speaker A: In the specific case of the bombing of the girls’ school attached to the Iranian military base, today’s inquiries suggested that AI is involved, but a human pressed play in this particular instance. The key question becomes where the targeting coordinates came from and who supplied them to the United States military. Signals intelligence from Iran is often translated by Israel, a partner in this venture, and there are competing aims: Israel seeks total destruction of Iran, while the United States appears to want to disengage. There is speculation, not confirmation, about attempts to target Iran’s leaders or their officers’ families, which would have far-reaching consequences. The possibility of actions that cross a diplomatic line is a concern, especially given different endgames between the partners. Speaker C: If Israel is trying to push the United States to withdraw from the region, then the technology born and used in Israel—Palantir Maven software linked to DataMiner for tracking and social-media cross-checking—could lead to targeting in the U.S. itself. The greatest fear is that social media data could be used to identify who to track or target, raising the question of the next worst-case scenario in a context where war accelerates social change and can harden attitudes toward brutality and silencing dissent. War tends to make populations more tolerant of atrocities and less tolerant of opposing views, and the endgame could include governance by technology to suppress opposition rather than improve citizens’ lives. Speaker B: War changes societies faster than anything else, and it can produce a range of effects, from shifts in national attitudes to the justification of harsh measures during conflict. The discussion notes the risk of rule by technology and the possibility that the public could become disillusioned or undermined if their political system fails to address their concerns. The conversation also touched on the broader implications for democratic norms and the potential for technology-driven control. (Note: The transcript contains an advertising segment about a probiotic product, which has been omitted from this summary as promotional content.)

Speaker 0 describes a dynamic of collaboration and tension around Iran, noting that the Israelis are “very American” and that they could have shouting matches in meetings over whose idea is best, but then go have lunch and remain amicable. He emphasizes that Israelis are good allies that the U.S. needs to protect, and asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda “worked closely together in Iraq. And Syria.” Speaker 1 adds that in Syria the aim was to overthrow Assad. Speaker 0 explains that there were times when covert action findings allowed meetings to talk to the “quote, unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down, as CIA officers. Speaker 1 observes that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS (Daesh), but implies the CIA’s cooperation with ISIS and Al Qaeda lowers that problem. Speaker 0 argues that if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them, to work on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, the U.S. would have played that role side by side with diplomats and other involved countries, and he wouldn’t be surprised if that were happening; he calls it possibly hopeful. Speaker 1 notes that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda, and now that stance has changed. The speaker concludes with the reversal of priorities: “Now we have to go to Als ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.”

The transcript captures a street debate outside King’s College London about Iran, Palestine, and Western responses, with participants expressing strong, divergent views on who is responsible for regional violence and how Western attitudes shape perception. Key points and claims: - Speaker 1 asserts that the Islamic Republic funds Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, framing Iran as the root of several regional conflicts and describing these groups as terrorists, not resistance movements. They argue removing the Islamic Republic would lead to a more peaceful Middle East for both Iranians and Palestinians. - Speaker 2 largely concedes Palestine as the primary concern but admits uncertainty about the specifics of Iran-related issues, indicating a lack of clarity about the Iran-Palestine dynamic. - A recurring line is that Iran’s repression of protests at home is severe: “the Islamic Republic killed 50,000 innocent Iranian people” during protests, and yet there has been no equivalent Western or global outcry on Iran compared to Gaza/Palestine. - There is commentary on Western extremism perceived as anti-Western and anti-Israel, with some participants arguing that the West has been fed narratives via social media about imperialism and Western interference, influencing public opinion against Western powers. - The discussion touches on the Iranian government’s tactics: internet blackouts have been used to control information, though some participants claim openness has improved; others suggest the regime is untying protests and that many people are ill-educated about Palestine. - There is a claim that after the 1979 Revolution, Iran’s fall precipitated a radical shift in the region, with the West experiencing radicalization due to demographic changes and funding from Iran and Qatar to anti-West and anti-Israel sentiments in universities. - The dialogue includes a proposition that the “unholy marriage of Marxism and Islamism” complicates political alignments, with some participants arguing that both the West and Muslim-majority contexts influence radicalization and protest dynamics. - The speakers argue that the left should focus on Iran, believing that a peaceful Iran would dry up funding to Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah, thereby reducing wars and supporting Palestinians. - Overall, the speakers emphasize hypocrisy in international reactions: Western silence on Iran’s internal oppression contrasts with intense attention to Palestinian issues, and they urge a broader, more consistent critique of Iran’s leadership and its regional impact. Notable concluding sentiment: - The discussion ends with a sense of shared concern about conflict in the region and a desire for peace and prosperity that would result from addressing Iran’s governance, which some participants equate with ending the Islamic Republic’s influence in funding militant groups. The exchange closes with thanks to Muhammad, signaling an informal but resolved wrap to the conversation.

"Proxy, the PLO, international terrorism would collapse. If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." "Obviously, we like to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq." "The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed?" "It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out, but when should it be taken out?" "The answer is categorically yes." "The, the two nations that are vying competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, is Iraq and Iran." "But, a third nation, by the way, is Libya as well."

A group of individuals orchestrated a policy coup to take over the government and destabilize the Middle East for control. This plan was not openly discussed or debated in the US, despite its significant impact.

Shortly after 9/11, a general told the speaker that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq, despite no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The speaker later saw a memo outlining a plan to "take out 7 countries in 5 years," starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Iran viewed the U.S. presence in Iraq as both a blessing and a threat and became deeply involved in Iraq, offering assistance to various groups. The U.S. has refused to talk with Iran and has allocated $75 million to promote regime change, possibly supporting terrorist groups inside Iran. The speaker believes confrontation with Iran is likely, but force should be a last resort. Regarding Seymour Hersh's report, the speaker finds it plausible that the Pentagon is planning a bombing attack on Iran and that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are covertly funding groups in the Middle East. The Saudis, distrustful of U.S. judgment, are taking matters into their own hands. An early U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could lead the Saudis to fund Al Qaeda-linked groups to fight the Shia, intensifying the threat of Sunni extremism.

The discussion centers on whether Israel is driving a war against Iran and how the United States fits into that effort, with conflicting reporting from major outlets and a mosaic of intelligence interpretations. - The hosts outline two competing major-news stories. The New York Times reports that Netanyahu has asked Trump not to bomb Iran, arguing Israel is not prepared to withstand Iran’s retaliation. The Washington Post had reported a few weeks earlier that Israel sent a delegation to Russia to assure Iran that Israel does not intend to strike first, while Netanyahu in Washington was pressing Trump to strike Iran. The implication is that Israel is trying to avoid being seen as the aggressor while hoping the U.S. acts, effectively using the United States to carry out escalation. - The Post’s framing suggests Israel wants to escalate tensions but avoid the perception of initiating the conflict; Iran, according to the Post, responded positively to Israeli outreach but remains wary that the US could still carry out attacks as part of a joint campaign. - Iran’s perspective: they are wary and believe the U.S. and Israel are not to be trusted, even as they respond to outreach. There is a suggestion that Iran, with Russia and China, is prepared to counter, and that Tehran is not fully aligned with Western narratives about Iran as a terrorist state. - Larry Johnson (Speaker 2), a former CIA intelligence officer, joins to break down the behind-the-scenes dynamics. He references an alleged economic operation around Trump’s meeting with Zelensky that targeted Iran’s currency, triggering protests and destabilization, allegedly orchestrated with CIA/Mossad involvement. He lists various actors (Kurds, the MEK, Beluchis) and claims they were directed to inflame unrest, with the aim of manufacturing chaos to enable a military strike that could be stopped or degraded by outside intervention. He argues the plan failed as Iran’s security forces countered and electronic warfare helped by Russia and China blocked the destabilization. - Johnson emphasizes a broader geopolitical balance: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey told the United States they would not permit overflight for strikes; Russia and China bolster Iran, raising the cost and risk of Western action. He notes that 45% of global oil passes through the Persian Gulf and that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, which would massively impact oil prices and global economies, benefiting Russia. - On the potential next moves, the panel discusses whether Israel might consider nuclear options if faced with existential threats, and they acknowledge the difficulty of countering hypersonic missiles with current defenses. They reference reports of an earthquake or saber-rattling related to Dimona and mention that some in Israel fear escalation could be imminent, but there is no consensus on what comes next. - The conversation also touches on U.S. political voices, including Lindsey Graham’s reaction to Arab involvement, and questions whether there is any mainstream American call to accommodate Iran rather than confront it. Overall, the dialogue presents a complex, multi-layered picture: Israel seeking US-led action while trying to avoid direct attribution as aggressor; Iran resisting Western pressure but positioning to counter with support from Russia and China; and a regional and global economic dimension that could amplify or deter conflict depending on strategic choices and alliance dynamics.

If the Soviet Union and the PLO are removed, international terrorism would collapse. Removing Saddam's regime would have positive effects on the region. It is necessary to consider when to take out Iraq's regime. Iran and Libya are also nations to watch for nuclear weapons development. It is important for all to unite against Iran's aggression. Stand with Israel regardless of political affiliation. Translation: Removing the Soviet Union and the PLO would end international terrorism. Removing Saddam's regime would benefit the region. The focus should be on when to remove Iraq's regime. Iran, Iraq, and Libya are developing nuclear weapons. It is crucial to unite against Iran's aggression. Support Israel regardless of political beliefs.

Shortly after 9/11, a Pentagon staffer says a colleague told him 'we're going to war with Iraq,' with no new evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. A few weeks later, a memo 'describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, and finishing off Iran.' Iran saw U.S. presence in Iraq as both a threat and a blessing; they were 'building up their own network of influence' and sometimes gave 'military assistance and training' to insurgents and militias. The administration allegedly sought to pay for regime change—'asking congress to appropriate $75,000,000' and 'supporting terrorist groups apparently who are infiltrating and blowing up things inside Iraq Iran.' Hersh notes a 'special planning group' to bomb Iran and Saudi funding of Sunni groups and the risk that a U.S. pull-out could empower Al Qaeda.

After 9/11, the speaker had a conversation with a general who informed him that the US had decided to go to war with Iraq, even though there was no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. The speaker later learned about a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker believes that Iran saw the US presence in Iraq as a threat and got involved to protect its interests. The speaker also discusses the possibility of the US planning a bombing attack on Iran and Saudi Arabia funding covert operations in the Middle East. The speaker warns against using force as a first resort and highlights the complexities of the situation in Iraq.

Speaker 0 asserts that removing the Soviet Union and its chief proxy, the PLO, would cause international terrorism to collapse. Speaker 1 argues for regime change as a strategic goal: removing Saddam’s regime would have enormous positive reverberations in the region, and there is interest in regime change in Iran as well. The question is not whether Iraq’s regime should be taken out, but when. It is not a question of whether to seek regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it. He also asks whether there are other nations the United States should consider launching preemptive attacks against, answering yes: Iraq and Iran are competing to be the first to acquire nuclear weapons, and Libya is also attempting to rapidly build an atomic bomb capability. He identifies three nations in focus: Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Speaker 2 emphasizes a unified front: they are together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation, and terror, and asserts that no matter one’s political stance, you stand with Israel.

Speaker 0, Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Speaker 4, and Speaker 5 exchange views on U.S. policy and Middle East conflicts. The dialogue opens with Benjamin Netanyahu boasting that he can bring the U.S. along with whatever he does, followed by Speaker 1 asserting, “America … can be easily pushed, pushed to the right direction.” The exchange notes that, even if that were true, it is insulting to hear aloud, yet acknowledges that “BB has had a lot of success in pushing America.” Speaker 2 asserts, “If you take out Saddam, I guarantee that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” In contrast, Speaker 3 announces, “My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war.” Speaker 2 adds, “Obviously, we'd to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran just as I would like to see in Iraq.” Speaker 4 states, “Short time ago, the US military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime.” Speaker 2 further claims, “Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Today, I authorize authorize the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya.” The repetition of “authorize authorize” appears in the transcript, emphasizing the declaration to commence action in Libya. Speaker 5 contends that the figure has been moving around the Middle East, his region, and his own country, “telling people point blank, just stating it, I control The United States. I control Donald Trump. I'm an American. You can't treat it it's too humiliating. I can't handle that, and I shouldn't have to put up with that.” The speakers collectively discuss U.S. involvement, potential regime changes, and the perceived influence of leadership over American actions, highlighting assertions of control, imminent military operations, and strategic aims in Iraq, Iran, and Libya.

Shortly after 9/11, a general told the speaker that the decision had been made to go to war with Iraq, despite no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The speaker later saw a memo describing a plan to "take out seven countries in five years," starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Iran saw the U.S. presence in Iraq as both a blessing (removal of Saddam) and a threat, leading to their involvement in Iraq. Iran provides assistance to insurgents and militias, driven by their perception of being next on the "hit list." The U.S. has refused to talk with Iran and has allocated funds for regime change and may be supporting terrorist groups inside Iran. Regarding Seymour Hirsch's report, the speaker said it's plausible that the Pentagon is planning a bombing attack on Iran and that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are funding covert operations to weaken Iranian-backed Shias, possibly even using groups with ties to Al Qaeda. The Saudis, distrustful of the U.S., are taking matters into their own hands in Iraq. An early U.S. withdrawal could intensify the threat of a powerful Sunni extremist group funded by the Saudis to counter Iranian expansionism.

An Israeli official stated that a plan to take out the supreme leader of Iran was rejected by the U.S. President over concerns of escalating the conflict. The official believes that removing the supreme leader would end the conflict, not escalate it, claiming Iran spreads terrorism, sabotage, and subversion throughout the Middle East and is bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war. According to the official, Israel is preventing a horrific war and bringing peace to the Middle East. They believe that defanging Iran will allow for new heights in the Middle East, expanding the Abraham Accords, trade, tourism, and communication between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The official stated that the U.S. has provided tremendous help, including American pilots shooting down drones, THAAD batteries in Israel, and Aegis ships.

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

The speaker describes undertaking a “stopover” which they characterize as an excursion in Iran, explaining that they had to “knock the hell out of them” because, in their view, the United States’ safety—and by extension the world’s safety—depended on it. They assert that this action was necessary to keep the country safe and to protect global security, framing it as an essential contribution that benefited the world. The narrator asserts that the world has not reciprocated this effort. They claim to have done a “great favor for the world,” and contrast that with a lack of reciprocity from others. A key part of their message centers on NATO, saying that the United States has given “billions and billions of dollars, trillions over the years.” In that context, they say they asked NATO for assistance, specifically for support with the streets, but contended that NATO did not want to get involved. The speaker implies that NATO’s reluctance to assist will have serious consequences, stating that this lack of involvement will “cost them dearly.” The remarks suggest a belief that the failure of others to participate or contribute will have notable negative repercussions for those parties in the future. The address closes with expressions of appreciation, with the speaker thanking everyone: “Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.” The overall message emphasizes a narrative of decisive action taken by the United States, a claim of asymmetrical reciprocity from international partners, and an expectation of consequences for those partners who chose not to assist.

Speaker 0: Welcome to game plan. I'm Shivan Jan now. So far, there is only one winner in this war in West Asia, and that's Russia. Mind you, I'm not saying that this was acknowledged by the European Council president Antonio Costa. US Israeli strikes in West Asia, they have driven up the price of oil, strengthening the Kremlin's ability to fund its military campaign. Now in a sharp reversal from last year's policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy, US treasury secretary Scott Pessen said that The United States could unsanction other Russian oil to keep the flow of oil intact. And this is because the Strait Of Hormuz, the pivotal point from where this war is kind of converging, that is under complete Iranian control. Movement of ships has been blocked. Movement of oil has been blocked. It has shot up the oil prices, and the repercussions are being felt across the world at this point. Is the war proving to be a boon for Russia whose economy is dependent on energy exports? As the state of Hormuz gets blocked, Russia gets a free hand at selling its oil at rates that can be expounded without proper discounts as well. Is Putin the one winning in the war that US and Israel started against Iran? To discuss this with me on game plan is doctor Glenn Deesen, professor of international relations at the University of Southeastern Norway. Glenn, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thanks so much for joining me here. Trump and Putin, they held a call recently, the first time this year, and this was to discuss the discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran. What do you think they would have discussed, and what kind of a role can Putin be playing in the ongoing war? Speaker 1: Well, I assume some of the things to discuss was obviously the the the extent to which The US and Russia targets each other because one of the things that the American media has been complaining about is the likelihood that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran for targets, but of course this is what The United States been doing for years and continues to do, that is give the Ukrainians targets to hit Russia. So I think there's a necessity to begin to discuss is appropriate and again what happens behind these doors, I don't know. But also of course there has to be some scaling back of the energy sanctions against Russia to bring this, the energy prices under control. As you suggest, they are now very much out of control. But I think also the main thing they've discussed is how to bring this war to an end because I think it's perfectly clear now that this US attack on Iran was a terrible mistake, and it appears that Putin would be the the main middleman who would might be able to bring an end to this war. But, again, it depends what can be done as what the Iranians will demand may be more than what the Americans can deliver. Speaker 0: Glenn, as you mentioned, Putin could perhaps be the main person to bring peace in this war. Putin has the highest chance of acting as peacemaker in West Asia. Is there anyone other than Putin at this point who can bring? Because just look at the optics of it. US starts a war, and I think ten days into it, he needs to make a call to Vladimir Putin to discuss that same war. How does it look for The US? Speaker 1: Well, they don't care for this, of course, but that it's similar to what to what happened with the war against Syria. That is, if you remember, back at president Obama's time, he had set these red lines, he were gonna attack Syria. It was quite obvious that this would be a disaster. So he went to the Russian president and he was able to get a deal through and which essentially took Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So it was, you know, it it it is the reality or the optics of it isn't great given that The US has been fighting a proxy war for years against Russia, but but, know, at some point, you have to put the optics aside. Who who else would be in a position to help to negotiate this? I'm thinking, you know, perhaps China could be a middleman, but I think given that The United States, especially under the Trump administration, wants to improve bilateral ties with Russia, I I I think he's probably the best, yeah, the best bet. Speaker 0: Would it be fair to say that Putin is emerging as a winner in this ongoing West Asia war, which only seems to be expanding within the West Asian region? Speaker 1: Well, no. I think, yeah, to a large extent, I think that is correct because the energy prices are way up. The US have to scale back sanctions. The all the weapons which The US had intended to ship towards Ukraine to fight Russia is now being depleted. For European leaders, as you mentioned earlier on, to who aspire to prolong the war in Ukraine, this is an absolute disaster. And we'll see that countries that cut the energy ties or at least reduced energy ties with Russia at the best of American pressure, they of course have learned a lesson now as well that this was not a good idea that you don't necessarily put bet too much on a hegemon in decline, so countries who before paid discounts now may have to pay premium. We'll see that Iran, which I assume is getting some support from Russia sees this relationship improving dramatically. They're moving much closer, which is good for Russia because the Iranians always have some suspicions towards the Russians given well a long history they've had through the centuries of conflict. So all of this improves. You can also say that The Gulf States, the weakening of The Gulf States has also a big impact on weakening The U. S. Ability to restore its hegemony because what show what's obvious now is that the Gulf States are not getting protection instead they're becoming very vulnerable as frontline states and The US is no longer seen as that reliable. Well, if they're not going to bet their security on The United States anymore then they may not have that much pressure to sell their oil in dollars. You're not gonna have those recycled petrodollars coming back to The US, and suddenly the whole AI race with China looks a lot weaker as well. So I think across the board, a lot of things look good for Russia, but and there is a big but here, and that is I don't think that the Russians want this war nonetheless because the Russians, much like the Chinese, value stability and predictability. And what's happening in Iran now could again, if something would happen to Iran collapse, that would be a disaster for this Greater Eurasia initiative that is to integrate economies of Greater Eurasian Continent, but also this could spiral into a world war. So from this perspective, it's very dangerous and I don't doubt that the Russians therefore want to put an end to this war simply because I guess much like India, they don't want the Eurasian Continent to be too China centric, they would like to have many poles of power and this requires diversification. This means that the Russians need close ties with Iran, with India and other countries. So for the Americans to knock off Iran off the, you know, the chessboard, the greater Eurasian chessboard would be a disaster for the Russians. So, yes, I think they're prospering or benefiting from this, but they they do wanna put an end to it. Speaker 0: Understood. Glenn, let me just come to the Strait Of Hormuz. You know, the objectives of U. S. Behind starting this war, that has been questioned enough. Why did you start this war in the first place? Those are questions not just emerging, you know, globally. They're also emerging from inside The U. S. But if you look at what a win will actually look like for US, would it be the state of Hormuz? Like, which whoever controls the state of Hormuz is eventually who walks away as you know, walks away with the victory at this point because The US was looking for a change in regime. They mentioned it enough number of times. That hasn't happened and doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Is the state of Hormuz the winning factor now? Speaker 1: Well, I I I don't think any The US would be in a position to control this just given the geography. So The US obviously went into into this war with the objective of regime change. That was the goal. This was the decapitation strike, this was the hope of killing Khamenei and obviously it didn't work. I think it shouldn't have come as a surprise, but you know killing the leader of Iran only created more solidarity within the country. And also the idea that the whole armed forces would begin to disintegrate once they had been punished enough, also proven to be incorrect. So I think at the moment you see the American pivoting a bit. Some are talking about the Strait Of Moose that this should be a goal, others are saying you see a shift now towards saying well, actually what we really want to do is just degrade Iran's missile capabilities that they won't have this long range missiles. And again, you know, these are the kind of vague objectives which they can essentially declare victory today then because Iran has had many of its missiles destroyed. Also it launched a lot of its missiles at U. S. Targets which means that its missile stockpile has been reduced. So this should be a source of optimism when The U. S. Moves from this very hard line objective such as regime change and they shift in towards missiles, reducing the missile stockpiles or something like this. But the straight of our moves, I think, is beyond what what is reasonable. It's it will be too difficult. So I don't think they will But why push too hard on do Speaker 0: you feel it would be difficult if I were to just look at the bases that they have across West Asia? They have enough military might. Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, have their bases there. How difficult would it be to exert that military might over the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, controlling it just means the ability to shut it down. Many countries would have the ability to shut down this narrow strait. The problem is that no one benefits from it, that is the Gulf States are hurt, Iran is hurt from it, The US and the global economy is hurt. So it becomes an exercise in self harm. The reason why the Iranians are doing this, the ability to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz is because The US has the ability to inflict a mass amount of destruction. It can go after civilian infrastructure, it can well, look what they've done to Tehran. It looks like, well, just, you know, the chemical warfare there. You've seen in terms of going after his fuel depots. They're going after the water supplies in Iran. You you see all these things. This is what America can do. Iran doesn't have that ability. They can't hit The United States. What they can do is cause economic pain. So, yes, I think The US and many of the Gulf States can also shut down the Strait Of Our Moose, but but but that's not that's it doesn't have any purpose. It doesn't have any reasoning. Speaker 0: Can they eradicate the Iranian control over the Strait Of Hormuz? I'm not talking about shutting it down, but just get rid of the Iranians from there and they then decide who gets to control and when it has to be shut and when it has to be opened and remained and kept open and secured. Can The US exert that kind of military might over the state of Hormuz to control it? Speaker 1: Then one need us to control a massive amount of Iran's territory, which is a huge territory with populated by 90,000,000 people. So this seems very unlikely and if closing down the Strait Of Hormuz would depend on very sophisticated weapon systems, will be one thing. But this can be shut down with drones which can be manufactured in apartments. It can be also shut down with small naval drones that is this essentially drone operated small torpedoes. There's it doesn't require a lot of high technology which means that The US can't take out very key infrastructure to prevent Iran from shutting this down, to force it to open. But with very cheap and easy to make weapons, the Iranians can shut it down and it's simply too much territory, too large population for The United States to shut down the these capabilities. So at some point, they're have to make peace with the Iranians and make it make sure it's in Iran's interest to keep the Strait Of Hormuz open because it is in their interest. The problem now is that Iran faces an existential threat. That is The US now threatens to destroy not just the government, but also the country. As Trump tweeted, we we will make it impossible for Iran to even rebuild as a nation. And this is what regime change means. There is no replacement government. This means the disintegration and destruction of Iran, a massive civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So for them this is existential which is why they went to this great extent. They've never done this before because they never believed that they faced this kind of an existential threat. So if the war ends, the Iranians have no reason to shut this straight down. This is very horrible for them as well. So, no, I I don't think The US can control the straight or almost no one can control it completely because too many actors could shut it down. Speaker 0: Glenn, thanks so much for joining me here on game plan. Whether this war continues further, that only means and if it does, that's essentially what Iran is looking at because they're not capitulating. They're not giving up. They are taking a bad amount of beating. There's no doubt in that, but they are continuing with their counters nevertheless. And straight of hormones is their main play where they're exerting their pressure with whether it's mines, whether it's their own boats, whether it's their own military boats. Now energy experts have also warned that whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia's economy, that depends directly on how long it lasts. But there is little to suggest that Iran is willing to capitulate that what we just discussed. They're inviting U. S. To continue the war on the other hand. That's what the statements from Iran suggest that we're waiting. Come on, on. Now in the midst of this, Russia is emerging as the winner as we just discussed. How long this lasts? It doesn't seem to be in the favor of The U. S. We'll need to wait and watch twelfth day and running. They expected it to last for about four to five weeks, whether it goes the distance or even longer. Let's wait. That was Glenn Deeson joining me here on Game Plan. Speaker 1: Thanks, Yvonne.

Speaker 0: Nearly two weeks into this conflict, the official story is cracking, and the number of Americans wounded is slowly coming out. Yesterday, we reported based on our sources that the number of American wounded was at least one hundred and thirty seven. After our report ran, the Pentagon has now publicly acknowledged about one hundred and forty wounded. That confirms our sources on this. So why did it take a little news show like ours to report this information? Why wasn't Fox News reporting this information? The Pentagon I know it's really weird. Why is the mainstream media silent on this? The Pentagon finally comes out and actually admits to this. Speaker 1: Reuters comes out and reports this. Exclusive. As many as one hundred and fifty US troops wounded so far in Iran war. They just published this today, this morning. March 10. That's remarkable. Exclusive. Just curious how that's an exclusive when we reported it yesterday. Yesterday. Whatever. Hey, Reuters. Bite me. Anyway, this war is clearly not winding down no matter what the messaging says. President Trump is saying the war could end very soon. But Iran says talks with The United States are off the table for now. Tehran is prepared to keep striking as long as it takes. And they're vowing an eye for an eye. So what is an eye for an eye actually mean? Does it mean you hey, you killed our leader. We kill yours? Does it mean, hey, you killed all these girls who were the daughters of members of the the Iranian Navy at a girls school, do we also do that to you? Like, what is actually does that look like? Speaker 0: Does it mean we took out your water infrastructures or you took out ours? So we do that. Right. Your gas infrastructure, civilian infrastructure, that's that's a war crime. But we did it. Your oil infrastructure, we do that. Like, what exactly does that look like? Meanwhile, the Strait Of Hormuz is getting worse by the minute. US intelligence tracking Iranian mine laying threats now as Gulf energy infrastructure there is taking a major hit with about 1,900,000 barrels per day of refining capacity across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and The UAE. All down. CBS now says shipping through the Strait Of Hormuz has ground to a virtual halt. Nothing getting through. That's of just a few minutes ago. And Israel's hammering Beirut's southern suburbs and Lebanon. So they've essentially invaded Lebanon. Speaker 2: And then there's the neocon political class in Washington saying the quiet part out loud. Senator Lindsey Graham is now openly talking about, you know, going back to South Carolina to tell the sons and daughters in South Carolina, you know, you gotta send your loved ones to the Middle East. That's what I'm doing here in South Carolina. I gotta tell them to go fight in the Middle East, and he's calling on other Middle East countries that have been sitting on the fence that we've supported over the years as allies. Get off the fence. Go bomb Iran. Help out with Iran. And, oh, by the way, Spain, we're pissed off at you because you don't want us using your air bases or airspace to bomb Iran. Listen. Speaker 0: To our allies step up, get our air bases out of Spain. They're not reliable. Move all those airplanes to a country that would let us use them when we're threatened by a regime like Iran. To our friends in Spain, man, you have lost your way. I don't wanna do business with you anymore. I want our air bases our air bases out of Spain into a country that will let us use them. To our Arab friends, I've tried to help you construct a new Mideast. You need to up your game here. I can't go to South Carolina and say we're fighting and you won't publicly fight. What you're doing behind the scenes, that has to stop. The double dealing of the Arab world when it comes to this stuff needs to end. I go back to South Carolina. I'm asking them to send their sons and daughters over to the Mideast. What I want you to do in The Mideast to our friends in Saudi Arabia and other places, step forward and say this is my fight too. I join America. I'm publicly involved in bringing this regime down. If you don't, you're making a great mistake, and you're gonna cut off the ability to have a better relationship with The United States. I say this as a friend. Speaker 1: Ugh. He's an odious friend. Speaker 0: Say this as a friend. Speaker 3: With friends pick up a gun and go fight yourself, you coward. Yeah. I freaking hate that. But you're calling so, like, bluntly for somebody else to go die for his stupid cause. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: I am so curious about this. I mean, he's a liar. But how many people in South Carolina are really walking up to him and saying, who are we gonna get to fight with us? Who are we gonna get to fight Iran? Worried about this. My son can go, but who's going with him? Let's make some war playdates. Who does that? Speaker 0: Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst, NRA gun trainer, and, he's been looking at all of this and doing some incredible writing over at his website, Sonar twenty one. Larry, thank you for joining us. Great to see you back on the show. Speaker 4: Hi, guys. Good to see you. Speaker 0: So I wanna talk about the American war wounded first because Mhmm. I know that this is, near and dear to your heart and, of course, something that you've been watching, closely. And the lies, of course, that are coming out about this. Again, I spoke to sources over the past forty eight hours that were telling us here at Redacted about 137 Americans wounded. Then the Pentagon comes out and then confirms about a hundred and forty. So right pretty much right on the nose. And does that number sound low to you? Or does that sound about right? Speaker 4: That sounds a little low. So on March 4, let's go to Germany. Stuttgart, just North West of Germany, there is a hospital called Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. Landstuhl's primary mission is to handle American war wounded. On March 4, they issued a memo telling all the pregnant women that were about to give birth that, sorry, don't come here. We're not birthing any more babies. We gotta focus on our main mission. So that was the first clue that there was there were a lot of casualties inbound. I know, without mentioning his name, somebody who was involved dealing with the combat casualties during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he dealt with the personnel at Lunstul. And he called someone up and said, can't say anything, but there's a lot of casualties. Then 13 miles to the east of Landstuhl is an army base called Kaiserslautern. Kaiserslautern and the Stars and Stripes issued for that base had an appeal, a blood drive appeal. Hey. We need lots of people to show up and donate blood. So those that was on March 5. So I wrote about this March 6. So I wrote about this four days ago, that, yeah, we had a lot more casualties, and there are more coming, because Iran's not gonna stop. You know, right now, we're getting signals that the Trump administration is reaching out, trying, oh, hey, let's talk, let's talk cease fire. Iran's having none of it. They've been betrayed twice by Donald Trump and his group of clowns. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 4: You know? And and so they're not ready to say no. No. They've got the world, by the testicles is the polite way of saying it, withholding the Strait Of Hormuz. They've shut down the movement of not only oil, liquid natural gas. They're the supplier of about 25%, 25 to 30% of the world's liquid natural gas, and, about 30%, 30 to 35% of the world's urea, which is used for fertilizer. Now, that may not I just learned that that may not be as important as I once thought it was because most of it comes out of Oman. Oman, you don't have to worry about things going through the Strait Of Hormuz. But on oil and liquid natural gas, huge. 94% of The Philippines depended upon the flow of gas, both liquid and the petroleum oil, out of the Persian Gulf. India, 80%. Japan, South Korea. So this is gonna have a major impact on certain economies in the world. Now there there I I I've said this ironically. I I think Vladimir Putin's sitting there going, maybe Donald Trump really does like me, because what he's done is he's making Russia rich again in a way I mean, they're getting, you know, they were selling they were forced to sell their oil previously under sanctions at, like, $55 a barrel. Now they're getting $88.90 dollars a barrel. Well, and they just opened it up to India. I mean, that story over the past forty eight hours, like, so they The United States has eased its restriction on Russian oil flowing to India. I mean, talk about an absolute disaster. Speaker 4: Well, yeah. And remember what had happened there is India was playing a double game too. You know, bricks India is the I in bricks, and Iran is the new I in bricks. And so what was India doing? Well, India was pretending to play along with The United States, but then going to Russia and saying, hey, Russia. Yeah. We'll buy we'll buy your oil, but we needed a discount because we're going against the sanctions, and we need to cover ourselves. So Russia said, okay. As a BRICS partner, we'll let you have for $55 barrel. So they got a discount. So now when all of a sudden the the the oil tap is turned off, including the liquid natural gas, India goes running back to Russia. Now remember, on, February 25-26, India was in Israel buttering up the rear end of BB, Net, and Yahoo, kissing rear end all they could. Oh, man. It was a love fest. We're partners with Israel. And then Israel attacks their BRICS partner. And what does India say? Nothing. Zero. They don't say a thing about the murdered girls. So now all of a sudden, the oil's turned off. It's nine days now with no oil coming out of there for India. They go running back to Russia. Hey, buddy. Let's let's get back together. And Russia says, sure. That's great. But it's gonna cost you $89 now a barrel. No more friends and family program. Gonna get market conditions. Speaker 0: We've had many journalist friends that have had their bank accounts shut down. We were literally in the middle of an interview with a great journalist from the gray zone who found out that his banking was just shut down. Literally, in the middle of an interview, he got a message that his banking was shut down. Well, Rumble Wallet prevents that, because Rumble can't even touch it. No one can touch it. Rumble Wallet lets you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your future and your family. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, and now the new USA USA app USAT, which is Tether's US regulated stablecoin all in one place. Tether Gold is real gold on the blockchain with ownership of physical gold bars, and USAT keeps your money steady against inflation. No banks needed. It's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them if you want with the click of a button. There'll be no fees when you tip our channel or others, and we actually receive the tip instantly unlike other platforms where we have to wait for payouts. So support our show today and other creators by clicking the tip button on our Rumble channel. Speaker 1: Now I wanna ask you about president Trump responding to CBS News reports that there may be mines in the Strait Of Hormuz. That doesn't make a ton of sense. He says we have no indication that they did, but they better not. But they are picking and choosing who gets to go through, and their allies can go through. So why would they mine their allies? What do we make of this? Do we need to respond to this at all? Speaker 4: Yeah. I don't think they've done it yet. But let's recall the last time Iran mined the Persian Gulf. They didn't mine the Strait Of Hormuz. They mined farther up. It was 1987, 1988. Why did they do that? Well, in September 1980, when Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski were still in office, The United States encouraged a guy named Saddam Hussein, don't know if you've ever heard of him, but they encouraged Saddam Hussein to launch a war against Iran. And then Ronald Reagan comes in with Donald Rumsfeld and Cap Weinberger, and by 1983 had provided chemical weapons, or the precursors that Iraq needed to build chemical weapons, and Iraq started using chemical weapons against Iran in 1983 and continued to do it in '84, 85, 86. During that entire time, Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons. They were not going because they saw it as an act against God. They were serious about the religion. So 'eighty seven, 'eighty eight, they start dropping mines there in the Persian Gulf. Well, at that time, they didn't have all these missiles, so the United States Navy, a Navy SEAL, a good friend of mine, set up what was called the Hercules barge, and he had a Navy SEAL unit with him, and they fought off attacks by Iranian gunboats. He had some Little Bird helicopters from the one sixtieth, the special operations wing of the Air Force. And but we ended up disrupting the Iranian plan to mine The Gulf back then. Well, we couldn't do that today. We do not have that capability because Iran would blow us out of the water with drones and with missiles. You as we've seen, it's been happening over the last ten days. So United States would be in a real pickle. Speaker 1: And especially given the rhetoric of US war hawks in power for three decades. Like Yeah. Yes. They kind of had to prepare all of this time. Did we think that they weren't paying attention when we said it to the world? Speaker 4: Well, when we're writing our own press clippings and then reading them, there is a tendency to say, god, I am great. Can you see this? How good we are? And so they really believed that our air def the Patriot air defense systems and the THAAD systems would be they they could shut down the Iranian missiles and drones. And what they discovered was, nope. They didn't work. And they worked at an even lower level than the you know, Pentagon kept foul. We're shooting down 90%.

The speaker lays out a prepared, all-options approach to confrontation, emphasizing that both an easier and a harder path are available and acceptable. They assert that the United States will "give them full opportunity to do it the easy way," and when that fails, will proceed with the "hard way," underscoring a willingness to escalate if necessary. The stance is framed as a choice between leveraging an easier, targeted strategy or adopting stronger measures if diplomacy or limited action does not achieve the objectives. A central motive centers on perceived threats to the United States, specifically naming chemical weapons as a threat. The speaker identifies chemical weapons as a threat to the United States and also flags fentanyl as posing a chemical weapons threat, extending the danger from state actors to non-state crises and illicit trafficking. This framing links conventional security concerns with the broader chemical threat landscape. The discussion explicitly mentions Iraq and Venezuela as focal points for action, signaling the intention to address activities or regimes in those regions. The speaker highlights the presence of Al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq and characterizes them as part of “Al Qaeda of our hemisphere,” suggesting a regional dimension to the terrorist threat that could be leveraged to justify intervention or action. There is a stated belief that removing Saddam Hussein could transform the region. The speaker asserts that getting rid of Saddam "could really begin to transform the region" and describes there as "an opportunity to transform the entire region." This frames regime change in a transformative, strategic light, presenting it as a catalyst for broader democratic and freedom-oriented change. The rhetoric emphasizes the promotion of freedom and democracy as a guiding objective, describing democracy and freedom as concepts that "can serve as a beacon of hope." The final fragment, "Shark cannot," appears as an incomplete or garbled closing thought, attached to a broader theme of capability or constraint, leaving an abstract or unresolved note at the end.

We're going to cut off the funding streams to Iran. This action aims to resolve the hostage situation involving Israelis, Americans, and others held by Hamas and Hezbollah, who are essentially mercenaries of Iran. It's time for America to recognize the importance of Israel, secure the release of the Israeli hostages, and reaffirm our commitment to standing by Israel, our most important ally.

Speaker 0 discusses working with the Israelis, describing them as “very American” and noting that they could get into shouting matches during meetings over whose idea was best, followed by casual lunch and reconciliation. He emphasizes that Israel is a good ally that the U.S. needs to protect and support, and he asserts that CIA and Al Qaeda had worked closely together in Iraq and in Syria, and that there are times when covert action allowed meetings with the “quote unquote, enemies” to try to bring things down as CIA officers. Speaker 1 adds that most of the world has a problem with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daesh, but there is less of a problem because the CIA worked with ISIS/Daesh and Al Qaeda. He suggests that if the CIA worked with them, it would be better to understand what they were doing, and if the plan is for the U.S. to work with them on a security agreement, which has been done with enemies before, then this has been done in concert with diplomats and other countries involved. He indicates he wouldn’t be surprised if that was happening and would call it possibly hopeful. Speaker 0 continues by noting that newspapers in the United States once celebrated Qasem Soleimani as a fighter with American troops against ISIS and Al Qaeda. He states that Soleimani “was, and now it's switched,” implying a shift in perception or policy. The overarching theme is the idea of collaboration or coordination with hostile or extremist groups in pursuit of broader strategic objectives, including countering Iran, and the possibility that such collaborations could be framed as necessary or hopeful within a complex web of alliances and covert actions. Speaker 0 ends by reiterating the shift in stance: “Now we have to go to al ISIS and Al Qaeda to go back against Iran.” This underscores a cyclical or ironic pivot in U.S. strategy, moving from partnering with certain adversaries against common threats to reengaging those same groups to counter another adversary. The dialogue presents a candid view of realpolitik, suggesting that relationships with seemingly incompatible actors and shifts in alliances occur as part of broader geopolitical objectives, with collaboration sometimes described as acceptable when it serves strategic goals, and public narratives sometimes contrasting with behind-the-scenes actions.

About ten days after 9/11, the speaker describes going through the Pentagon and seeing Secretary Rumsfeld. A general then pulls him aside and says they must talk briefly. The general says, “we’ve made the decision. We’re going to war with Iraq.” When the speaker asks, “Why?” the general replies, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” The speaker asks if they found information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The response is, “No. There’s nothing new that way.” The general explains they had “made the decision to go to war with Iraq,” and that it seems, as the speaker reflects, “we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we got a good military and we can take down governments.” A few weeks later, the speaker returns to see the general amid bombing campaigns in Afghanistan and inquires again, “We still going to war with Iraq?” The answer is presented as worse than prior: the speaker says the general tells him, “I just got this down from upstairs, meeting the secretary of defense office today.” He describes a memo that outlines “how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.” The speaker asks if the memo is classified, and the general confirms, “yes, sir.” He adds, “Don’t show it to” (the transcript ends there). Key elements include the asserted decision to invade Iraq without evidence of a direct link to Al Qaeda, the perception that the administration chose military action because other options were unclear, and the claim of a broader plan to “take out seven countries in five years” beginning with Iraq and extending through Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, with the memo described as classified. The account ties the Iraq invasion decision to a larger strategic agenda and emphasizes a chain of communication from the secretary of defense’s office to field-level comprehension, all within the context of ongoing Afghanistan bombing.

10 days after 9/11, a general informed me that we were going to war with Iraq. When I asked why, he didn't have a clear answer but mentioned that our military was capable of taking down governments. Weeks later, while we were bombing Afghanistan, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq. To my surprise, he showed me a memo from the secretary of defense's office outlining a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years. The countries listed were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.