reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We have a tendency to always support the right wing because the Republicans are better than the Democrats. If Kamala Harris had won in 2024 and bombed Iran, there'd be riots; but with Trump, ninety percent of Republicans supported bombing Iran on Israel's behalf. Donald Trump is the matrix president. In 2016 Hillary Clinton, in 2020 Joe Biden, were matrix candidates; 2024 Donald Trump was. After October 7, the Jews knew that the Republican party controlled by APAC, controlled by Israel, and with Trump in office, they were gonna let Israel do whatever they wanted to do. Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the media are all in on it because Trump is their matrix candidate. JD Vance is the Matrix candidate. They ordered Trump to nominate him. Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Tucker Carlson ordered Trump to pick J. D. Vance. This is what they don't want you to hear.

Speaker 0: The Israelites is not Israel. And as Tony and I are both Catholic, and so when we talk about the Israelites that are talked about in the Bible, there is a clear distinction between this prophecy about the Israelites and the government of Israel and white Europeans settling into the holy land. Mhmm. And so when we say this, like, the Israelites, the Israelites in the bible are actually the Palestinian people who have been there for thousands of years, not the white European from Ukraine or Poland or America. The Israelites are the people who were indigenous to that land that lived there for thousands of years, and those are not the people who have Trump wrapped around his finger. It's this, like, settler colonial white Europeans that have settled into the land of the actual Israelites that have either blackmailed him or cut deals with him financially. I mean, we go back to greed. Right? Greed is always, like, a big factor decisions. So Trump, in all senses, is wrapped in intertwined with this government and the Zionist regime and the Rothschilds and the Vanderbilts and the 13 rich families that control the world, basically. Right.

The conversation centers on escalating tensions with Iran and the looming deadline for potential military action. The speakers reference visible signs of US military preparations, including deploying troops and families saying goodbye, and debate what might happen as the 8 PM deadline approaches. There is skepticism about a straightforward, “easy” operation, with criticism directed at White House assurances and a sense that the administration’s planning has been flawed. Captain Matthew Ho from the Eisenhower Media Institute is brought in to offer analysis and cut through the confusion. Captain Ho describes the situation as dangerous and driven by what he calls “a madman,” arguing that rational, logical plans don’t apply in the current moment. He predicts that if the deadline is met and Trump orders an attack on Iranian civilization, this would likely involve attacks on infrastructure rather than nuclear weapons. He expects strikes against Iranian railroad junctions, bridges, power plants, and other infrastructure, with petrochemical facilities and storage facilities already targeted in the preceding hours. Iran’s likely response, he suggests, would be severe and could disrupt global energy production, leading to a potential worldwide economic crisis. He cautions that the conflict could broaden and notes a historical pattern of American bombing campaigns that cause long-term humanitarian harm, including impacts on energy byproducts like plastics and fertilizers. The discussion turns to the tools in the US arsenal, with speculation that hypersonic weapons or other advanced munitions could be deployed, possibly accelerated timelines for weapons that were not yet fielded. Ho also mentions the possibility of using the “mother of all bombs” and other heavy ordnance, but notes practical limitations, such as deployment from specific aircraft. He contends that the broader aim appears to be a large-scale bombing campaign targeting critical infrastructure, which could cripple Iran’s energy and water systems and cause cascading civilian suffering. He argues this would reflect a strategic objective of humiliating Iran rather than achieving a straightforward military victory. There is extensive speculation about nuclear options. Ho discusses the hypothetical use of usable nuclear weapons and the debate around whether the United States or Israel might employ them. He explains different yield options (for example, dialing a B61 to smaller yields) and the potential for a smaller, targeted nuclear strike that could seal a facility. He notes that while nuclear use is not guaranteed, it remains a concerning possibility, particularly if the conflict escalates and Iran responds with substantial missile and drone attacks on regional targets, including potential Israeli infrastructure. He emphasizes the risk that Israel, facing Iranian leverage, might consider nuclear options, given its own doctrine and regional posture. The hosts and guests also discuss the political dynamics behind the White House’s posture, with references to Donald Trump and J. D. Vance talking about newly available tools; Trump’s emphasis on a grand, demonstrative win; and the broader context of American policy toward Israel, including criticisms of longstanding US support for Israeli military actions. A guest notes that US policy has been shaped by a long succession of administration stances, with ongoing concern about the influence of the military-industrial complex and energy interests on decisions in the Middle East. Toward the end, the conversation briefly shifts to propaganda concerns and the human cost of war, with a reflection on how many young service members—20-year-olds on aircraft carriers—could be contributing constructively at home instead of being drawn into prolonged conflict. The discussion closes with a note that more Russian assets are reportedly inbound to Iran, suggesting foreign involvement in the crisis. The segment ends with Captain Ho’s departure and a nod to continued close monitoring of the deadline’s outcome.

The person nearest to Trump is his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Netanyahu was sleeping in Kushner's bed in the family home. Netanyahu is very, very close friend of Kushner's father, Charles Kushner, a real estate mogul who was jailed for illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tamper. Jared has funded illegal settlements in Israel. A funder of APAC, he's got big business connections to George Soros, Trump. From day one, he handed the American economy to Steven Mnuchin as his treasury secretary, also an ultra Zionist. He named his own lawyer, the extreme Zionist David Friedman. Jason Greenblatt, he became US special representative for international negotiations, which include negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israeli regime is planning to push ahead because they own the president of The United States. This is the reality that we're facing.

Speaker 0 expresses a view on religion and national character, saying: “if a country doesn't have religion, doesn't have faith, doesn't have God, it's gonna be very hard to be a good country.” He adds, “This It'll be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you Christians.” He states, “I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian. I'm a Christian.” He admits doubt about heaven: “I don't think there's anything gonna get me in heaven. Okay? I really don't. I think I think I'm not maybe heaven bound. I may be in heaven right now as we fly an air force, but I'm not sure I I'm gonna be able to make heaven.” He claims to have been “really saved” by “somebody very special,” and repeats: “A high beak. A high beak. A high beak.” Speaker 1 recounts the presidential oath ceremony: “When US President Donald Trump took its oath of office, he had his right hand raised, but his left wasn't on the Bible. But does it matter? Academics tell Reuters that it was an oversight and it doesn't have much practical impact, although the moment has gone viral online.” A professor is quoted that “the oath is to the constitution.” He notes that “Two bibles were held by Trump's wife Melania as she stood next to him at the ceremony.” Speaker 2 presents claims about Trump’s faith: “Trump converted to Judaism two years ago and joined Chabad Lubavitch Synagogue in New York City according to a high level White House official.” A figure named Mister Goldberg says the story has allegedly been held by CNN's editors for months, but will be released soon. David Elias Goldberg, a fellow at the Jewish Center of Antisemitic Study, has also interviewed the White House source. The source says Trump was pushed by Ivanka and Jared Kushner to join the faith; Trump initially resisted, fearing it would threaten his evangelical Christian base, but then changed his mind and “officially converted in early two thousand seventeen.” The ceremony was private and guarded for nearly two years. The White House appears prepared to release this information gradually, and by summer, Trump is expected to address his new faith in an evening televised news conference. He is described as “the most pro Israel president in the history of America,” having given Israel “every single thing that they wanted,” and being “about to give them war with Iran.” The question is raised: “Has he converted?” A Times of Israel article is cited: “Trump, the first Jewish president of The United States.” It is emphasized: “Now that's not us saying that. That's times of Israel.” The discussion notes that Times of Israel is a Jewish nation, and that “these people do like Israel.” Speaker 0 interjects: “Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.” Speaker 3 adds: “And he loves Israel too. Six years ago, I was up here. And I said, this is our first Jewish president. This is our first Jewish president. This is our first Jewish president. Not not consecutive. We”—and then Speaker 0 closes with: “thank you for everything, Joel. We thank you for everything.”

The conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war. Key points and claims retained as stated: - Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war. - On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region. - Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability. - Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon. - Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited). - Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced. - Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.

Speaker 0 asks why President Trump unleashed Prime Minister Netanyahu to resume genocide in Gaza, resulting in the intentional killing of 400 civilians. Speaker 1 believes Trump has no choice, due to agreements with major donors beyond Miriam Adelson, obliging him to underwrite Netanyahu's actions. Speaker 1 notes Netanyahu arranged a meeting between the U.S. and Azerbaijan, not the State Department, indicating the Israel lobby's grip. Speaker 1 believes Trump is obliged to comply and won't diverge. Speaker 0 asks if Trump has no choice but to militarily back Israel if it attacks Iran. Speaker 1 thinks so, noting the possibility of Israel precipitating a war with Iran. The expectation is the U.S. will reinforce Israeli actions, with joint strike planning and intelligence sharing already in place. Speaker 1 believes it's a foregone conclusion, though the timing is uncertain.

Mario: Daniel, after decades of diplomacy, the Middle East is now at war. Early on you suggested Hormuz and economic leverage; as the conflict evolved, US ground invasion talk, targeted Iranian leadership, and new developments—like JD Vance’s reaction to US intel and Israel striking energy infrastructure in Iran—have shaped concerns that Israel wields outsized influence. Broad question: how did we get here and why? Daniel: There’s a long history of American and Israeli influence in play. There is American agency and a geopolitical logic tying chokepoints like Hormuz to broader aims, such as reasserting US primacy vis-à-vis China. But this doesn’t fully explain how the last 10 yards into war were crossed. Netanyahu’s long effort to shape a strategic environment culminated when he found a president open to using American power in the region. Israel’s strategy appears to be to assert greater regional dominion by leveraging US military power and creating dependencies with Gulf states. Netanyahu reportedly offered the president an actionable plan, including on-the-ground assets, to decapitate Iran’s leadership and spark a broader upheaval, which helped push the White House toward a twelve-day war in June. Israel also presented a narrative of rapid US escalation to secure its aims, while the American interagency process—though deteriorated in recent years—had to interpret unusually aggressive, yet selective, Israeli intelligence and objectives. The result is a complex dynamic where US rhetoric and decisions are deeply entangled with Israeli designs for regional hegemony, an outcome that was not broadly anticipated by many regional partners. Mario: If the US administration had not fully understood Israel’s project, how did this come to pass? And how does Mossad factor in? Daniel: Israel has tremendous access to influence over an American administration through lobbying, media echo chambers, and political finance, which Netanyahu exploited to drive a course toward major confrontation with Iran. Before Trump’s term, Netanyahu was nervous about a president who could pivot against allies; he devised a strategy that culminated in Operation Midnight Hammer and subsequent US-Israeli collaboration, reinforced by the possibility of rapid decapitation of Iran’s leadership. There are reports (and debates) about Mossad presenting on-the-ground assets and the possibility of instigating a street revolution in Iran, which may not have been fully believed by Washington but was persuasive enough to shape policy. The question remains how much of Israeli intelligence makes it to Trump and his inner circle, especially given concerns about cognitive ability and decision-making in the White House at that time. Netanyahu’s aim, according to Daniel, was not simply to topple Iran but to maximize Israel’s regional leverage by using American power while reducing other regional peers’ influence. Mario: What about Gulf states and broader regional realignments? How did the Gulf respond, and what does this mean for their security calculus? Daniel: The Gulf states face a stark dilemma. They fear Iran's retaliatory capabilities but also distrust America’s consistency and question whether US support will be cost-effective. Iran’s strikes into the Gulf have forced Gulf capitals to reassess their reliance on US protection and Israel’s influence, particularly given Israel’s aggressive posture and expanded regional footprint—Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza—with potential implications for the Gulf’s own security and economic interests. Some Gulf actors worry about over-dependence on American security assurances while Israel intensifies operational reach. The GCC’s calculus is shifting: they confront a choice between continuing alignment with the US-Israel bloc or seeking more independent security arrangements. The possibility of a broader Gulf-Israel axis, or at least closer coordination, is tempered by concerns over long-term regional stability, public opinion, and the risk of escalation. Mario: How has this affected perceptions of Iran, Israel, and the broader regional order? Has the Gulf’s stance shifted? Daniel: The region’s balance has been unsettled. Iran’s actions have damaged Gulf trust in its neighbors’ security guarantees, while Israel’s aggressive posture and reliance on US power have complicated Gulf states’ calculations. Turkey’s role is pivotal as it balances concerns about Iran and Israel, while also watching how the region realigns. The possibility of a future where Iran’s power is weakened is weighed against the risk of destabilization and long-term security costs. Negotiations between the US, Iran, and regional actors—stoked by Turkish diplomacy and shifting Gulf positions—are ongoing, with Turkey signaling that diplomacy remains important, even as Gulf states reassess their security dependencies. Mario: What about Lebanon and Hezbollah, and the potential for broader spillover? Daniel: Lebanon faces severe consequences: displacement, civilian harm, and a domestic political paralysis that complicates relations with Israel. Hezbollah remains a factor, with ongoing tensions in Lebanon and the South. Israel’s goal of establishing security-control in Lebanon risks reigniting long-standing conflicts, while Lebanon’s government seeks a balance that could prevent further escalation, if possible. The broader picture is that Israel’s approach—driven by a perceived need to neutralize Iran and all potential threats—could provoke wider regional blowback, complicating already fragile domestic politics across the Levant. Mario: Final thoughts as the war unfolds? Daniel: Israel’s strategic ambitions appear to extend beyond countering Iran to shaping a broader order in which it remains the dominant regional power, aided by US military leverage. Gulf states face a difficult reorientation, reassessing longstanding alliances in light of perceptions of US reliability. The coming months will reveal whether regional actors can recalibrate toward diplomatic resolutions or wind up in a deeper, more protracted conflict. The question remains whether a political path could replace military escalation, and whether external powers can deter further aggression and stabilize the region without allowing a broader conflagration.

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?”

John Ratcliffe, when he was isolated with Donald Trump to basically feed Donald Trump Mossad talking points, including about phony fabricated WMD propaganda about the Houthis about to get a nuclear weapon from Iran if he didn't strike. He was isolated by Susie Wiles, the chief of staff. Susie Wiles had actually went she went to Israel to work for Benjamin Netanyahu on his twenty twenty reelection campaign. America First and your chief of staff literally worked for a foreign leader? That's what we're unmasking is the biggest foreign influence infiltration operation in American history that is basically taking control of an administration that says it's America first and is taking us to a very dangerous place. And everybody's concerned about it, including for on the left, on the right, and we're also concerned about where we're being taken in this country.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

The host notes the ceasefire appears to be over after Israel scuttled Trump’s plans for a two-week peace; the Wall Street Journal reports that Netanyahu was furious he wasn’t included in the peace plan discussions. The host says Israel wasn’t formally part of Iran negotiations and was unhappy it learned a deal was finalized late and wasn’t consulted, according to mediators and a promoter familiar with the matter. Speaker 1 interjects apologetically, then remarks that online narrative suggests that if you say Israel led the US into this war, you’re antisemitic, which they call antisemitic, and speculate that they’re all antisemitic. Speaker 0 describes Israel as throwing a tantrum “like a toddler” after the peace plan’s collapse and launching massive airstrikes on residential buildings in southern Lebanon, supposedly with no military purpose. Speaker 2 counters that civilians are involved and mentions tunnels under the area. Speaker 0 notes these attacks also targeted Iranian and Chinese Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure, calling it a direct attack on China, and claims at least 250 people were killed in these attacks on civilian apartment complexes in southern Lebanon. Speaker 1 adds that bombs continue to hit Beirut, with images described as horrific; there are 256 confirmed deaths at that point. Israel is also ramping up attacks in Gaza and the West Bank, which some warned would happen once the ceasefire was announced. Speaker 3 states that Netanyahu says the ceasefire with the US and Iran “is cute, but it doesn’t really have much to do with Israel,” and that Israel will keep fighting whenever they want, noting that two weeks were announced but not the end of the world. Acknowledgment follows that “we were not surprised in the last moment.” Calls for Netanyahu’s resignation in Israel rise. Iran announces it will close the Strait of Hormuz; the Trump administration says water will open but contradicts Fox News reporting that tankers have been stopped due to the ceasefire breach. Fox News reports raise concerns about whether the plan is credible. Speaker 4 mentions that Iran’s parliament says the ceasefire is violated in three ways: noncompliance with the ceasefire in Lebanon (civilians being slaughtered), violation of Iranian airspace, and denial of Iran’s right to enrichment; Iran insists uranium enrichment remains part of the deal, while the Trump administration claims they will not enrich uranium. Speaker 5 adds that Iran’s ability to fund and support proxies has been reduced, claiming Iran can no longer distribute weapons to proxies and will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons; prior to the operation, Iran was expanding its short-range ballistic missile arsenal and its navy, which posed an imminent threat to US assets and regional allies. The host counters that June had claimed “done enriching uranium,” but Iran says they will do whatever they want, having “won the war.” Speaker 6 asks how one eliminates a proxy’s ability to distribute weapons if the weapons and proxy networks already exist. Speaker 1 notes the points are contentious and shifts to a discussion with Ryan Grimm from Dropside News. The host, Speaker 0, asks Grimm to weigh in on the 10-point plan circulated as Trump’s plan, which Grimm says is not a formal document and not necessarily accurate; a “collection of different proposals” from Iran that was “collected into a single proposal” and later claimed to be new when presented as a new 10-point plan. Grimm describes the process as inconsistent and says the administration’s narrative has become convoluted. A segment follows about a centenarian, Maria Morea (born 1907, died 2024 at 117), whose gut microbiome showed diverse beneficial bacteria; studies of long-lived people show similar patterns, suggesting longevity relates to daily habits and gut health. The sponsor pitch for kimchi capsules is included, noting it provides gut-beneficial bacteria with Brightcore’s product, offering a discount. Speaker 0 returns to the ceasefire discussions, arguing that Israel’s actions indicate it does not want peace. Grimm expands, saying Israel is in a worse position than before and aims to push north into Lebanon and perhaps target maritime resources; Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz would elevate its regional status, with Belt and Road targets implying a significant structural shift. The host questions whether Trump would abandon Netanyahu if necessary and whether Trump would throw Netanyahu under the bus to stop the war. Grimm suggests Trump may prefer an out to avoid broader conflict, while noting the political stakes in the US and international responses. The discussion then revisits how Netanyahu allegedly sold the war to Trump and cabinet members, with New York Times reporting that the aim was to kill leaders, blunt Iran’s power, and potentially replace the Iranian government, while acknowledging that the initial strikes did not achieve regime change and that Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxies have been affected by the conflict. The segment closes with a humorous analogy to a Broadway line about a fully armed battalion.

Netanyahu controls Trump, not the other way around, which will also be the case regarding Israel's nuclear weapons. The influence of Israelis and their control over the US administration and Congress is unquestionable. Netanyahu has more influence in the US Congress than Donald Trump and is getting everything he wants. There is a groundswell in Congress to back Israelis and Netanyahu, no matter what he's done. After a hospital was hit in Israel, Netanyahu is saying they need to bomb and obliterate Iran.

Joe Kent, former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, explains why he resigned over the war against Iran, arguing Iran posed no imminent threat and that the war was driven by Israeli influence and a regime-change agenda. Key points: - Imminent threat and escalation: In his view, Iran was not on the cusp of attacking the U.S. during Trump’s second term. Iran followed a calculated escalation ladder, stopping proxies during Operation Midnight Hammer and returning to negotiation afterward. After the attack on nuclear sites, Iran retaliated in kind, then returned to talks, indicating a calibrated approach rather than irrational behavior. The “imminent threat” cited by some officials was viewed as primarily tied to Israeli actions against Iran, not Iranian intent to attack the U.S. directly. - Regime-change as miscalculation: Kent contends that regime-change aims in Iran—similar to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya—are flawed. He believes attempts to remove the Iranian regime strengthen it instead, and he personally did not want another costly war in the Middle East. - Israeli influence and the policymaking process: He describes a multilayered Israeli influence network—strong PAC presence, intelligence sharing, and media/think-tank leveraging—that shapes U.S. policy. Israelis push for no enrichment and regime-change outcomes, using media echo chambers and direct access to U.S. decision-makers to steer policy in a direction that aligns with their goals, sometimes at odds with longer-term U.S. interests or what Trump might publicly advocate. - Intelligence versus policy sales: He notes that intelligence briefings can inform or sell a policy. Israeli influence can bypass traditional channels, presenting threats in emotionally resonant terms (e.g., fear of Ayatollahs obtaining a bomb) to push for aggressive stances. This has contributed to a cycle of escalation and military action. - Negotiation space and red lines: The administration’s narrowing of red lines around enrichment (from broader nuclear nonproliferation to zero enrichment) limited potential deal space. The Iranians did show willingness to negotiate on enrichment levels, monitoring, and proxies, but the Israelis and policy ecosystem continually sought broader prohibitions, complicating any potential agreement. - The Iran-Israel dynamic: The Israeli objective appears oriented toward regime change or a state of chaos preventing Iran from leveraging its regional power. Kent argues the U.S. has enabled Israel by subsidizing its defense and offense, creating pressure that constrains U.S. policy and international leverage. - Strategic and regional assessment: The Gulf, Straits of Hormuz, and regional energy security are central. He argues that the U.S. cannot easily open Hormuz militarily in the long term and that any durable arrangement would require restraining Israel, easing sanctions relief for Iran, and returning to a sustainable regional security framework. - Iran’s current strategy: Iran has managed to deter substantial American escalation by threatening to disrupt energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz and by leveraging proxies and regional influence. The leadership has shown discipline in controlling proxies and presenting a credible threat that optimizes Iran’s strategic position. - Great power dynamics: China is seen as a major beneficiary of the current cycle, gaining leverage as global energy transactions shift away from the dollar and as U.S. attention diverts to the Middle East. Russia’s posture is also affected; sanctions and energy markets interact with Iran’s actions, while Russia and China could exploit the distraction and reframe influence in their favor. - Syria and broader war lessons: Kent emphasizes that regime-change in Syria contributed to instability, with various factions and external powers (Turkey, Israel, HTS, Al Qaeda offshoots) complicating the landscape. He remains skeptical about the future stability of Syria, warning that competing external interests could lead to further conflict. - Prospects for de-escalation: A path to de-escalation would require restraining Israel’s offensive actions, offering some sanctions relief to Iran, and engaging in constructive regional diplomacy to reopen Hormuz. He suggests a sustainable deal would avoid large U.S. troop commitments and focus on practical counterterrorism cooperation, stable oil flow, and avoiding regime-change rhetoric. Overall, Kent argues that the Iran war was driven by a dominant Israeli influence, a flawed regime-change impulse, and a diplomacy dynamic that prioritized aggressive measures over practical, balanced engagement. He advocates restraining Israel, pursuing a pragmatic, limited set of objectives with Iran, and reframing U.S. regional strategy to reduce perpetual conflict in the Middle East. He also warns that without de-escalation, the conflict risks drawing the U.S. into a prolonged and costly cycle with broad regional and global repercussions.

Donald Trump is prioritizing America First, not Israel First, and will no longer consult with Israel on Middle Eastern foreign policy. Trump believes Benjamin Netanyahu tried to manipulate the U.S. into war with Iran and caught Israel preparing to strike Iran without informing the U.S. Mike Walls allegedly spied on the Trump administration to coerce the cabinet into war with Iran on Netanyahu's behalf, but instead of firing him, Trump made him UN ambassador to silence him. Trump is reportedly going to recognize Palestine as a state, which will anger Israel. Israel is not our greatest ally, but our deepest foe, and the CIA says they are the number one spy threat in the U.S. The World Banking Cartel and Jeff Epstein are all tied together, but blackmail no longer works because there is evidence against everyone involved. The media can't lie anymore because people are waking up and have access to information.

Israel has significant leverage over Trump due to past financial dealings. Wilbur Ross, while associated with the Rothschilds, organized a bailout for Trump when he was heavily in debt. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson have also contributed $100 million to Trump's election campaign. This influence is evidenced by Trump's actions, including moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, leading to the creation of "Trump Heights." It is claimed that Trump will sanction the Israeli annexation of the West Bank as part of an agreement. Trump is allegedly beholden to these interests due to blackmail and financial dependence. The speaker asserts that Trump did not vanquish the deep state but merely changed its personnel.

Donald Trump is prioritizing America First, not Israel First, and will no longer consult with Israel on Middle Eastern foreign policy. Trump believes Benjamin Netanyahu tried to manipulate the U.S. into war with Iran and caught Israel preparing to strike Iran without informing the U.S. Mike Walls allegedly spied on the Trump administration to coerce the cabinet into war with Iran on Netanyahu's behalf. Trump appointed Walls as UN ambassador to silence him. Trump is aiming for world peace and believes Israel is trying to drag the U.S. into more Middle Eastern wars. Trump is reportedly going to recognize Palestine as a state, which will anger Israel. Israel is not our greatest ally, but our deepest foe, and the CIA considers Israel the number one spy threat in the U.S. The World Banking Cartel and Jeff Epstein are tied together, but blackmail is no longer effective because evidence exists against everyone involved. The media can't lie anymore because people are waking up and have access to information.

Donald Trump has formed a highly pro-Israel cabinet, with key figures like Pete Hegseth advocating for aggressive military actions against Iran and promoting the idea of replacing Al Aqsa with a new temple. Trump's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, denies the existence of an occupation in the West Bank, while UN ambassador Elise Stefanik insists on unwavering U.S. support for Israel. Major funders like Sheldon Adelson and his widow, Miriam, have influenced Trump's policies, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and supporting annexation of the West Bank. Trump's ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE further integrate Israel's military interests in the region. Predictions suggest Trump will continue to escalate tensions with Iran and support Israel's expansionist goals, including the potential demolition of Al Aqsa.

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 transcript presents a fringe, highly charged discussion about perceived Israeli influence in the United States, Trump’s shift from “America first” to “Israel first,” and related political dynamics. The speakers repeatedly claim that Israel controls the U.S. government and American foreign policy, with several variations such as “Israel's controlling our government,” “Israel controls us,” and “The government of Israel controls The United States.” They assert that Israel has run American foreign policy for thirty years and that the United States government is taking edicts from Israel, describing it as an “Israel first administration.” As the discussion progresses, the speakers describe discomfort with America’s relationship with Israeli leaders, calling the Israeli government a “satanic regime” and suggesting it seeks to cause pain. They contrast Trump’s campaign promises of “America first” with his alleged current actions, arguing that he has escalated a war on behalf of Israel and turned on earlier allies who did not toe the Israel-first line. They claim Trump has allied with politicians and influencers who are unpopular with his former base, and that he endorses a “massive war on behalf of Israel that he promised he would never start.” They point to specific figures affected by these changes, including those who supported or criticized Trump and Israel. The discussion names individuals and entities linked to the shift, including Charlie Kirk. They claim Kirk was influential against the Iran war and withdrew support for Israel prior to his death; Erica Kirk allegedly took over TPUSA to continue Charlie Kirk’s legacy but allegedly did so in a way that opposes Kirk’s earlier stance, endorsing Massey’s Israel-funded opponent and labeling Massey a “rhino.” They argue donors pressured Kirk to change his stance, leading TPUSA to distance itself from Kirk’s legacy and to align with an Israel-funding candidate backed by Trump. The speakers claim broad consequences for Trump’s base: those who call for justice with the Epstein files, those suspicious of Israel, and those who question Erica Kirk are said to have been blackballed or marginalized. Conversely, supporters of the new Trump are described as urging to move on from Epstein, unconditionally supporting Israel, and reacting strongly to any critique of Erica Kirk. A recurring theme is a critique of Zionism as a political ideology; the speakers distinguish between “Israel” and “Zionism” and argue Zionism controls both the U.S. and Israel. They challenge religious claims that Israel is “God’s chosen people,” offering a Christian critique of that idea and asserting separations of church and state in the U.S. The discussion includes references to alleged silencing mechanisms, narrative control, and tribalism as a “SIOP” framework, describing three characteristics: silencing opposing ideas, a strong narrative, and tribalism. They illustrate these with examples such as censorship of anti-Israel sentiment or questions about Israel, accusations about a fixed narrative like “Israel is our greatest ally,” and the exclusion of dissenting voices. The speakers conclude by asserting that while Israel does not control the U.S., Zionism appears to influence both countries, and that the root issue is the influence of Zionism rather than a single country’s leadership. They urge viewers to speak up while suggesting the changes reflect a broader, troubling shift in political power, ending with a night-time sign-off and personal recovery product plugs being referenced but later deemphasized.

The speaker argues that the United States has, for about a century, supported Israel not only for strategic reasons but through a broad, coordinated influence network. The question is raised: why have we fought regime-change wars on Israel’s behalf, why do we back Israel in Gaza, and why do we provide foreign aid? The speaker states the answer is not solely because of APAC. The central claim is that there exists a vast network inside the United States—a “fifth column.” This network stretches from Silicon Valley and Stanford on the West Coast to Harvard and Columbia on the East Coast, including major businesses like BlackRock and large hedge funds, mainstream media, banking and finance, and Hollywood, all the way to Washington, D.C. through lobbying groups such as APAC and J Street and mega donors like Sheldon Adelson. The speaker describes this as a Jewish oligarchy that operates across industries and elite sectors, working either directly under Israeli intelligence or on behalf of Israel, to push America to support Israel’s well-being. The justification offered is that because they are Jewish, they care about the Jewish state; because they are Jewish, they have a special allegiance to Israel. The speaker asserts that after October 7, there was particular sympathy, and influence was used in various spheres—CBS, Harvard, Columbia, Silicon Valley, government, and Congress. The reference is made to a representative who served in the IDF and appeared in his IDF uniform, illustrating the claimed special affinity. The argument continues that when called upon, this network uses its influence across media, finance, academia, Hollywood, technology, and government. The stated purpose of this influence is to benefit their Jewish community at large and to benefit Israel.

Trump may have already launched a war, restarting Biden and Obama's wars. The United Arab Emirates won't allow the US to use its base in Abu Dhabi for an attack. Iran is better than others who stand with Israel or do nothing for Palestine. A war on Iran is what Netanyahu wants, who has been dragging Trump in his direction. Trump came to power claiming he was a man of peace and wanted a Nobel Peace Prize, but now he is being dragged into military actions. An attack on Iran would be a huge disaster for the region, the world's economy, and everybody. Netanyahu dreams of being the new imperial leader controlling the Middle East. Netanyahu seems to control Trump. The whole crowd around Trump is Zionist and totally supportive of Israel. Trump has forced Netanyahu to accept a temporary ceasefire, but now supports violations of every ceasefire by Netanyahu. This will lead to disasters for everybody, including the United States.

- 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.

- Trump is described as completely dependent on two pillars: the central banking system and the Fed for day-to-day provision to run the government. However, this group is claimed to be reporting to the Netanyahu syndicate, with Netanyahu and his syndicate asserted as in total control day to day. - The speaker asserts that Netanyahu, during the pandemic, was “killing more Israelis than Palestinians,” implying a harsh evaluation of Netanyahu’s actions. - The claimed dynamic is that Netanyahu wants Trump to engineer a war with Iran, and it appears that they are attempting to do so. The speaker cautions that they do not see a winning outcome, suggesting that if a real war is pursued without boots on the ground, there would be losses. - It is suggested that any such loss could make the neocons more powerful economically, implying a link between military action and economic plunder by neocons. - The speaker outlines strategic options: since the East-West strategy failed and Russia was not imploded, the alternative is to shift to a North-South approach by targeting Canada, Greenland, and Panama. This is presented as the next step for reshaping global strategy, given the failure of the East-West approach. - Trump is described as “educating the American people about what you need to keep the model going,” indicating a role in informing or guiding public understanding of the underlying framework or system. - The overall plan is characterized as a program to plunder their own populations and, by extension, plunder around the world, with a current focus on plundering the United States big time. The speaker asserts that this is the trajectory of the “syndicate.” - In sum, the transcript presents a narrative in which Trump relies on a Fed-centered financial system controlled by a Netanyahu-led syndicate, which allegedly drives aggressive geopolitical moves (notably toward Iran) and global plundering, with strategic shifts from East-West to North-South as part of an ongoing plan.