reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Netanyahu said that we will go to war. What he meant was The United States will go to war for us. So Netanyahu has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war. A devastatingly wrong war sold on completely phony pretenses that Netanyahu cheerlead. And one can even go online and find his testimony to congress in October 2002 about how wonderful this war is going to be and how it's gonna lead to a breakout of freedom throughout the Middle East. He's full of it, and he's been full of it for nearly thirty years. The ongoing wars in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, the recent so called twelve day war with Iran, which was a disgrace and a great danger.

Speaker 1: 'You know, I I have friends over there, but they stopped talking to me when I did not unconditionally support what they're doing.' 'Right. So I I can't really say with absolute certainty, but I suspect that things are not good.' 'I think mister Netanyahu knows that the the issue for the Israelis from the very beginning of this tragedy and I say tragedy because I think eventually it will come out that seven October was allowed to happen, that July was not a surprise. There's plenty of evidence on the street right now.' 'And if that comes out, I think mister Netanyahu and his friends are gonna be in very serious trouble at home.' Speaker 0: 'Well, that's gonna be jail.' Speaker 1: 'Used as an excuse to to sort of practice arson across the region.'

Speaker argues the Israeli hard-right government has a mandate to ethnically cleanse Gaza, saying, "they're gonna try to ethnically cleanse Gaza," and to "remove 2,500,000 people from there." He adds, "the idea that they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's morally crap after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets." He cites pattern recognition—"COVID, Maui fires, you know, Epstein"—and says his gut instinct is reliable. "I've been to Israel many times." He calls the country a fortress and notes "the whole country is surveilled." He claims "The last nine months, Israel is on the brink of civil war," with "hundreds of thousands of Israelis taking to the streets because Bibi Netanyahu was basically redefining the Israeli constitution"—"That’s not an exaggeration." Netanyahu has "an emergency government and a mandate to lead," and he asks, "Was there a stand down order?"

There's been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran. I think it's, very likely because, Netanyahu, is absolutely intent, and he has been intent for nearly thirty years. It's been part of Netanyahu's policy to pull The United States into repeated wars. Clean Break is a very strange but very clear statement of what has trapped The United States for nearly thirty years. Clean Break says, well, Israel's never going to compromise with its Palestinian Arab population in its midst and in the Palestinian lands. and it's going to control or expel or kill or ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. what he meant was The United States will go to war for us. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war. The United States has funded, armed, and diplomatically supported all of this.

Speaker 1 says the Gaza crisis raises motive questions and a possible 'stand down order'—six hours or more—while noting Israel is a fortress with a surveilled border. He recalls Israel’s nine months of near civil war over Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul, and that Netanyahu now has an emergency government. He suggests internal betrayal or 'bad agents' within the government or IDF whispers, arguing 'this is the closest thing to the Holocaust that any of us have lived through.' He warns the hard-right government has a mandate to 'go seek justice and revenge' and may attempt to 'ethnically cleanse Gaza' of '2,500,000 people.' He states, 'The answer is it shouldn't be a top priority to the American government because we have so many problems here to execute a CIA coup d'etat in another country.' He cautions against a wider war—'bombing Iranian oil depots' could draw in Russia and China, risking escalation, and notes past wars like the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War as context.

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.

Netanyahu faces a tough situation due to the October 7 attack, which the speaker claims was one of the most violent days in world history, based on available tapes. The speaker asserts that the attack should never have happened, and if they were president, it wouldn't have because Iran would have been broke.

Netanyahu faces a tough situation due to the October 7 attack, which the speaker claims was one of the most violent days in world history, based on available tapes. The speaker asserts that the attack should never have happened, and if they were president, it wouldn't have because Iran would have been broke.

Ehud Olmert discusses the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and its domestic implications for Israel, arguing the attack was a brutal, civilian-targeted assault in homes, not against soldiers or military sites, with over 1,200 civilians killed. He emphasizes that the immediate Israeli impulse was to pursue all killers, and he distinguishes between the real security threat in the south and the actual events of that day. He contends that the danger to Israel’s security in the south was not realistic if Israel had fully deployed defense systems and manpower; the catastrophe resulted from arrogance, complacency, and overconfidence, leading to a total absence of defense when Hamas crossed the border. On Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership, Olmert says the counteroffensive was inevitable but criticizes the government for years of mishandling engagement with the Palestinian Authority and for tacitly enabling Hamas by channeling funds to Hamas via Qatar. He argues that Netanyahu became “the greatest ally of Hamas” by providing military and financial support that allowed Hamas to build tunnels and rockets. The major mistake, according to Olmert, was not pursuing meaningful negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which would have served Israel’s strategic interests more than tacit arrangements with Hamas. He questions the strategy of the military response, noting that the day-after plan was absent and that international patience frayed as a result of continued Israeli attacks without a clear horizon for Gaza’s future. Olmert notes that the war’s continuation raised concerns about its legitimacy, citing a 2025 moment when senior former military leaders, including the former commander in chief and heads of intelligence services, signed a petition opposing further expansion of the war. He says this contributed to widespread international opposition, with riots and protests harming Israel’s global reputation. Domestically, he highlights a polarized society and a battle over democracy, citing protests that predated October 7 due to Netanyahu’s attempts to reform the judiciary and other democratic institutions. He claims more than 60% of Israelis do not trust the prime minister and doubt that his government serves Israel’s true national interests. Olmert weighs Israel’s international position, arguing that U.S. influence in the region has actually grown, while Israel’s military superiority has increased. He points to Hezbollah’s decline and Syria’s realignment as indicators, and argues that Israel is in a better place to tolerate risk for a meaningful peace process leading toward a two-state solution. He contends the rhetoric from Netanyahu’s government is out of step with real needs. Regarding diplomacy with Iran, Olmert says he would have tried to engage Iran directly, suggesting that Iran might respond to candid dialogue about mutual destruction and proxies. He recounts his own attempts to reach out to Iran during his tenure and contends it could be worth trying again. On Russia and shifting alliances, Olmert recalls his 2018 view that Russia-Israel ties were important, noting recent tensions due to Ukraine and Iran. He says Kazakhstan’s President’s interest in joining the Abraham Accords is ironic given long-standing Israeli relations, and asserts Israel has opportunities to pursue different policies from the current government. He argues that replacing the government could allow renewed strategic talks with the United States, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and a reestablishment of trust with Russia and China. Olmert concludes by reiterating that the path to better security and a sustainable future lies in changing the Israeli government to enable renewed diplomacy, peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, and a comprehensive two-state framework.

In 2002, before the Iraq invasion, Netanyahu testified to US Congress, stating Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and hiding facilities underground. This was allegedly false and led to war. Netanyahu also stated he wanted regime change in Iran and questioned how to achieve it. Speaker 0 asks: How can we trust someone who goaded the US into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? Given recent events, why are we confident Netanyahu won't do the same with Iran, given his 20-year call for regime change? Speaker 1 says the President and Secretary have close working relationships with Netanyahu. The US commitment to Israel's security transcends any government. The US condemns Iran's attacks. Speaker 0 notes Netanyahu heads the Israeli government and there's a difference between condemning actions and the US getting into a war with Iran. Speaker 1 says the US is not interested in an all-out conflict with Iran, but is committed to Israel's security.

The anniversary of Operation Barbarossa is cited as context for contemporary events. The discussion claims that prior U.S. and allied support for genocide in Gaza and related meetings, including Genocide 7 in Evian, echoes Barbarossa-era history. It also alleges that the U.S. is pledging more weapons for the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev. A U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding is described as emerging amid the aftermath of Trump’s “failure to defeat Iran.” Afshin Ratansi introduces Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who previously served as a key source for Seymour Hersh’s work on Israel’s nuclear arsenal. The conversation centers on whether Netanyahu could release Epstein-filed damaging material about Trump if a deal is reached, and on the idea that Trump’s personal life may be in danger because of the Israeli lobby and Israeli elements in the U.S. Ari Ben-Menashe argues that Donald Trump did “the right thing” by trying to get the U.S. out of Middle East entanglements with Iran. He traces attempted U.S.-Iran deals back to President Clinton’s 2000 meeting with President Khatami, and he claims that Ehud Barak and others sabotaged that deal using Epstein-linked actions. He further says Israelis tried to sabotage deals made with the Iranians and wanted their own deal directly, without the U.S. The discussion describes Israel’s historical relationship with Iran, including arms provided to Iran against Saddam Hussein, and Prime Minister Begin’s bombing of Saddam’s nuclear reactor given by France, plus the use of Iranian territory for landings. It claims Israel is now seeking an independent relationship with the Iranians because Trump wants out of dealing with Iran. Ben-Menashe states that Prime Minister Netanyahu had contact with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying Ahmadinejad met Israeli representatives in Zimbabwe between April 22–23, 2010, and that Netanyahu maintained contact through a Hasidic sect in Jerusalem called Ritori Kartek. He says the Israelis used this channel for direct contact with the Iranian government without Arab or American intermediaries, and he claims Israel initially wanted to help Ahmadinejad take over Iran’s government. The conversation shifts to risk. Ratansi asks how dangerous the deal is for Trump personally. Ben-Menashe says Trump’s life is in danger, attributing it to Israelis and other people inside the United States, linked to the Israeli lobby, and says this is due to the deal made with the Iranians. The segment then addresses what the deal achieves for Iran, with Ben-Menashe saying Iran’s main priorities are money and sanctions, and that nuclear issues “don’t matter” to Iran at this stage. Ratansi asks why Lebanon is included in the equation; Ben-Menashe responds by referencing Israelis out of Lebanon and discusses how Syria’s inability to remove Hezbollah is tied to control over Lebanon, plus talk of an Alawite state. Later, Ratansi asks about Trump’s comments regarding Jalani, an al-Qaeda leader in Damascus, and how this relates to removing Hezbollah. Ben-Menashe replies that the current Syrian government cannot remove Hezbollah unless it takes over all of Lebanon, and he claims Israelis would not allow it. Ben-Menashe also says Netanyahu wants to leave the Iranian and Lebanese files aside and start a war in Yemen, including potential moves involving Somaliland across the Bab al-Mandeb straits, and warns of possible confrontation between Israeli and American interests due to U.S. troops in Somalia and Israeli involvement in Somaliland. The conversation ends with Ben-Menashe saying Trump will likely pivot from Iran to Russia and Ukraine, and that Netanyahu may try to sabotage an American Ukraine-related effort to keep Trump occupied and out of the way.

Netanyahu and his allies wanted to destroy Iran and bring about regime change, but they failed. This attack exposed them for who they are, alongside the genocide in Gaza, attacks in Lebanon, and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. The regime is exposing itself further. Netanyahu was begging for a ceasefire and for the Trump regime to intervene, which demonstrates his utter failure.

The speaker states unwavering support for Israel and its right to protect its sovereignty, referencing a visit to Israel during the war, including a kibbutz and the site of a music festival. The speaker claims devastation and true genocide began at the kibbutz on October 7th. The speaker accuses the Obama and Biden administrations of pandering to Iran by approving significant financial packages, which allegedly enabled Iran to build an arsenal and create seven proxies threatening the Middle East. The speaker suggests that Iran's actions threaten Israel, a small country of 9,000,000 people. The speaker concludes there will never be a two-state solution because one side will try to decimate the other.

The discussion centers on the Iran ceasefire, Iran’s negotiating stance, and how Israel’s actions and U.S. political dynamics are shaping perceptions and potential outcomes. - President Trump describes the Iran ceasefire as “on life support” and says Iran’s peace terms are “totally unacceptable” and “garbage.” Iran’s position, according to Iranian media cited in the segment, treats Washington’s peace proposal as a surrender document, insisting on the end of U.S. sanctions, release of frozen Iranian assets, the right to sell oil freely, and control of the Strait of Hormuz—a nonstarter for Washington. Trump also threatens more war, aligning with Netanyahu’s preferences. - On the ceasefire, another participant notes “the ceasefire remains in place for the time being,” while a speaker mocks the peace proposal as weak and life-supporting, using medical imagery to describe its fragility. - Netanyahu’s appearance on 60 Minutes is summarized as him “begging for more war,” outlining how to remove enriched uranium and how to achieve that goal, with emphasis on military action. He suggests “you go in” and take it out, implying American and Israeli cooperation, though one participant stresses not to reveal military plans and cautions about the feasibility and risks of such missions. There is also a claim that Netanyahu implies the United States should bear primary responsibility for military actions if needed. - The dialogue expands to a broader critique of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank, with one participant stressing that Israel is “besieged on the media front” and that propaganda has harmed Israel’s image. There is a claim that social media manipulation by other countries has contributed to negative impressions of Israel, and a consensus that Israel has not used adequate or effective propaganda in its defense. - The panel discusses the ethics and consequences of censorship, with one speaker arguing against censorship yet acknowledging the impact of social media manipulation on public opinion. They contend that attempts to silence critics or punish those who oppose Israel’s policies are counterproductive and harm Jewish communities globally by conflating Jewish identity with Israeli policy. - Anna Kasparian (The Young Turks) weighs in, describing Netanyahu as untrustworthy and arguing that Israel’s actions—targeting hospitals, education centers, and civilians—have generated global criticism. She asserts the issue is not merely a social media phenomenon but an Israel-centered one, citing the ongoing destruction in Gaza and military actions in Lebanon. She argues that U.S. support for Israel is a political question driven by lobbying, and she predicts growing political pressure against leaders who prioritize Israel’s interests over American interests. - The panel critiques U.S. political alignments, noting that Democratic and Republican positions have not yielded a clear consensus on Iran. They argue that diplomacy has varied across administrations (Obama’s JCPOA vs. other strategies), and they contend that Netanyahu’s influence has pushed the United States toward a harder stance on Iran, often aligning with Israel’s regime-change objectives. - Looking ahead, the speakers caution against a renewed kinetic war with Iran, referencing military experts who argue that the United States lacks the capacity or strategic justification for a large-scale confrontation. They emphasize the high costs, the effectiveness of Iran’s drones, and the risks of escalating conflict, suggesting that a more restrained approach or different leverage might be necessary. - The closing segment underscores uncertainty about future conflict, with a warning that a return to bombing Iran could be counterproductive and that political and public opinion dynamics in the United States are shifting, especially regarding support for Netanyahu and Israel.

Netanyahu faces a tough situation due to the October 7 attack, which the speaker claims was one of the most violent days in world history, based on available tapes. The speaker asserts that the attack should never have happened, and if they were president, it wouldn't have because Iran would have been broke.

The discussion centers on whether Donald Trump deserves credit for ending a conflict and for avoiding escalation, amid claims that political pressure and domestic politics often affect decisions about war. One participant says they would not credit Trump for trying to end a war they call illegal, and argues that ending the war is good for Trump because it improves his political position ahead of the midterms. They add that the Gaza war is not over and cite continued killing after an October ceasefire, including deaths of children and bombing described as occurring “just this week” in Gaza, along with ongoing violence in Lebanon and clashes involving Israelis and alleged Hezbollah militants. They and their cohost contrast Gaza with the situation involving Iran, arguing that Iran has leverage in negotiations that Hamas lacks. The conversation turns to an MOU and skepticism based on past negotiation failures, including comparisons to Alaska negotiations on Ukraine and the Gaza peace deal. They emphasize that Trump has issued a “mild” statement on an alleged drone attack in the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting a reluctance to escalate into renewed war. J.D. Vance is described as making repeated arguments against endless war and attacking critics of the deal, while also “overselling” American achievements. Specific claims raised include Vance asserting more nuclear inspections than the JCPOA and saying Iran will use unfrozen assets to buy U.S. agricultural goods, alongside Iranian denials and disputes over unfrozen assets. The conversation then discusses Iranian parliamentary speaker Ghalibaf mocking Trump and U.S. claims, framing it as trolling and insisting the tone and authorship of Iranian social media posts appears different over time. There is speculation about who writes the tweets and jokes about Mossad attempting to identify them. The guest further notes that a key figure, Mustafa Kamenei, is not appearing publicly, and mentions rumor claims about him being dead, with assertions that if he surfaced, people would try to kill him. On Israel and the U.S., the host asks for analysis of rhetoric from Trump and Vance, including Trump “justifying Iran’s missile program” and Vance criticizing Israel daily. The guest argues this is a new pattern: a Republican administration member criticizing Israel from the White House, and Trump saying Israel should have ballistic missiles. They connect this to past justifications for war and later claims that missile capacity was degraded, noting that Marco Rubio has been quiet on ballistic missiles and Israel in recent weeks. They propose that pro-Israel voices are reacting with frustration and that some conservative commentators avoid directly naming Trump while criticizing “the deal,” with examples including claims that commentators call it “J.D. Vance’s deal” rather than attributing it to Trump. The guest argues the U.S. still holds leverage over Israel because the U.S. funds and arms Israel, using historical examples: Ronald Reagan calling Menachem Begin in 1982 to stop bombing Beirut, and an argument that American presidents have leverage through calls. They say a ceasefire is “bare minimum” and question whether Israel will withdraw from Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, or other areas Israel is claiming to retain. They discuss congressional and Democratic backlash dynamics, including AIPAC’s influence, New York primaries, and a legislative effort to cut “$3 billion to Israel,” describing it as putting members of Congress on the spot. The conversation links Middle East peace to Palestine resolution, saying peace for the region runs through Palestine and that connected conflicts cannot be solved by isolating countries. They also cite Ehud Olmert as emphasizing this interconnectedness and reference Olmert’s criticism of Israel’s actions. They argue Iran has “won this war” strategically and that Iran leverages support for Lebanon and Hezbollah while events in Gaza remain unresolved. Finally, the discussion shifts to Europe and immigration, prompted by a dispute over a tweet amplified by Elon Musk involving Shia Muslims commemorating Ashura in Manchester with the phrase “good luck, Britain.” The guest clarifies they are not anti-Shia and says the procession itself has occurred for years, while arguing that amplifying such content is dangerous when paired with recent attacks on Muslims. The host replies that the concern is immigration being handled differently in Europe, and they agree there is a line between criticizing immigration and amplifying calls for violence.

A discussion centers on a report that Trump allegedly called Netanyahu an “effing idiot” during a tense phone call, with claims that Netanyahu received U.S. permission for an operation involving Beirut that was intended as a “bluff” with an evacuation order rather than actual bombing. The conversation explores whether Netanyahu could have obtained authority to strike Beirut through other officials in the U.S. administration without Trump’s direct approval, emphasizing how leaders can “work the system” via gaps between decision-makers. The colonel argues that the characters and relationships among decision-makers heavily shape national security outcomes, citing volatile leadership dynamics and describing how powerful political figures can conflict even when both consider each other “indispensable.” He links Netanyahu’s increasing vulnerability to domestic political setbacks, including the Knesset moving elections up, and to attacks from political opponents using Netanyahu’s perceived responsiveness to Trump’s instructions as a weapon. According to the discussion, Netanyahu initially seemed likely to follow Trump’s guidance about Lebanon, but the issue escalated across Jerusalem through diplomatic and political spillover, leading Netanyahu to reverse course and return to a “warpath” posture in Lebanon. The speakers discuss how rhetoric may diverge from action, and then broaden into a broader pattern: opponents are portrayed as escalating pressure by citing Netanyahu’s listening to the U.S. president in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Iran, accusing him of not securing enough U.S. action. The colonel also points to Netanyahu’s use of terminology described as invoking “final solution” and says the phrase about completing the Iran mission “in a way that constitutes a final solution” is “nasty terminology,” while stating a hope that it is being used as material to “bluff.” Another major thread claims that Pakistan has moved toward China and Iran as its preferred alignment, with a described arrangement involving Pakistan’s ISI and the military and a transfer or provision of nuclear weapons capabilities to Iran, framed around AQ Khan’s network and Pakistan’s nuclear history. The discussion claims that logistics networks connecting rail and ports (including a Chinese rail route into Iran and maritime routes) support Hezbollah and Iran’s resupply, especially for ballistic missiles, and argues that the Strait of Hormuz situation is being worsened by continued confrontation rather than contained by it, with the claim that many ships have passed after paying tolls and that Iran would benefit if it gained full control. The speakers criticize what they describe as a lack of direct diplomacy with Iran, arguing that third-party communications and intermediaries have replaced real talks, and describe Iran responding more aggressively in Lebanon by freezing talks, threatening strikes on Israeli forces inside Lebanon, and issuing evacuation orders for northern Israel. The conversation also discusses whether Iran could develop or already have the capability to match warheads to missiles quickly and whether Iran might conduct a nuclear test as a warning to the U.S. and Israel to deter further strikes. A point is raised that openly demonstrating could force Trump into escalation, while another perspective suggests Iran might focus on deterrence vis-à-vis Netanyahu. The dialogue extends into nuclear deterrence and first-strike capability debates, alongside references to U.S. nuclear posture thinking and the idea that some in the U.S. government argue for using nuclear weapons rather than relying solely on deterrence. In closing, the conversation turns briefly to Ukraine and NATO, with a claim that Putin is seriously considering striking NATO and an argument that a “Not a penny more” approach from Trump could pressure Zelensky and NATO allies toward an outcome without needing NATO strikes. The host also plans to bring up the nuclear-warning-shot discussion with an upcoming guest and references a Pakistani-source report that Iran may already have a nuclear weapon and might do a test to deter further attacks.

The transcript contrasts statements from the United States/White House side and Iranian officials about whether a deal is imminent. The United States side says a deal is “two days away,” while Iranian officials say that is “not true at all,” claiming there has been no discussion and that there was “no deal.” The speaker says there were “two deals.” The first followed a “thirty-nine day war.” This began with Trump saying “unconditional surrender, lay down your arms,” and ended with Trump accepting Iran’s “ten point proposal” as the framework for negotiations, which “didn’t go well for Trump.” After thirty-nine days, a ceasefire was agreed upon, including an element to end “the genocidal attacks on Lebanon.” Trump allegedly agreed to this, but the transcript claims Netanyahu “carpet-bombed the country in order to wreck the ceasefire,” and that instead of Trump forcing Netanyahu to abide by the ceasefire, he “sided with Netanyahu,” resulting in the ceasefire being wrecked. The speaker then says Trump imposed a “siege on Iranian ports,” described as “an act of war” and “another violation of the ceasefire.” The speaker attributes the failure to both Trump and Netanyahu. The second “agreement” is described as still being “floated.” The transcript says a general framework was agreed upon, but the details contain “gaps,” and there is “right now… no progress.” It outlines elements the speaker says were more or less agreed: - The US would lift sanctions on Iranian energy exports for the duration of the agreement (an MOU), while Iran would receive part of its assets “stolen over the years by the United States.” - The war in Lebanon would end, including “the genocide in Gaza” stopping. - The lifting of the siege on Iranian ports would be exchanged for Iran normalizing ship movement through the Strait of Hormuz. - Iran would declare it will “not pursue nuclear weapons,” which Iran has been saying it will not do for years. The transcript says the agreement was “close” but that “the details were never sorted out.” It further claims Trump repeatedly said he would not return Iranian assets, remove sanctions, or lift the siege. The speaker states that this “runs against written statements by his own negotiators,” and concludes that “the only person who’s the deal breaker is Trump,” suggesting he is pressured not to have the deal by Netanyahu and “the Zionist lobby.” It argues US interests favor “normalization of global trade” and energy flowing out of the Strait of Hormuz, while “Israeli regime interests” are described as continuing war and hostilities to “wreck the global economy and… the US economy,” with the transcript claiming Netanyahu and the “Zionists” have “the upper hand.”

Speaker 0 says a piece about Israel’s “obscene treatment” of Speaker 0’s country has an obvious takeaway that America’s “special ally is not actually an ally,” and that NBC News did not want readers to realize this. Speaker 0 claims the report’s authors repeatedly inserted “globalist propaganda” into the story, including the neocon talking point that Israelis are America’s “special friends,” while still presenting “eye-opening” information about Israel spying. Speaker 0 argues that throughout the entire NBC News piece, there is continued praise for Israel as “our greatest ally” and “special friend.” Speaker 1 says the piece lays praise on Israel and is about Israel spying, which they find “reprehensible.” Speaker 1 describes decades of belief that Israel is America’s best ally, an “island of democracy” amid “sea of chaos” in the Middle East, and that many Jewish people Speaker 1 personally knew seemed “like really good people.” Speaker 1 says that as “growing physical evidence” has emerged that Israel is “not quite who we thought they were” and that Israel “definitely” abuses America, the situation has become normalized. Speaker 1 claims that even when things have come out, “no action has been taken,” leading Israel to be “a little bit more bold,” doing actions “out in the open.” Speaker 1 cites an example involving Netanyahu and Lebanon: Speaker 1 says Netanyahu stated that a stop to fighting in Lebanon is a “non-negotiable requirement” for Iran to end the war, and that Speaker 1 believes Netanyahu will “do what I want anyway,” even if President Trump intervenes. Speaker 1 says Speaker 1 expects Trump may “hold off for a day or two,” but that Israel “they’re fighting again today.” Speaker 1 asks why the U.S. continues to support Israel and provide it with ammunition, weapons, political cover, and diplomatic cover “to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests?” Speaker 0 responds, “It’s so frustrating.”

Extremely clearly. 'Do you think there's been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran? I think it's very likely because Netanyahu is absolutely intent, and he has been intent for nearly thirty years.' Netanyahu back in 1996 with American political advisers, actually came up with a a document, called Clean Break. 'There's just one footnote to that. When, Netanyahu said that we will go to war, what he meant was The United States will go to war for us.' 'So Netanyahu has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war.' 'This has its roots in Netanyahu's doctrine, which is, we will control all of Palestine.' 'We will overthrow the governments that support the militancy against Israel's control over Palestine.'

Ashwin Rutansi hosts Going Underground, opening with a claim that Dubai was hit harder by Iranian retaliation than anywhere else in the region outside Israel, and noting this broadcast marks 73 years since the CIA’s MKUltra program. He frames the USA and what it represents as a malign influence, and argues the US propaganda system has failed to spin defeats in multiple wars, including the Iran conflict. He says the world recognizes Israel’s genocide in Gaza despite NATO attempts to shield it, and notes that US public opinion shows disapproval of Israel. Netanyahu is accused of tightly controlling the media and cracking down on protests. Rutansi then welcomes Avram Berg (Israel’s former president, speaker in the Knesset, professor at NYU Abu Dhabi and Notre Dame Jerusalem) who speaks from Jerusalem. The discussion concentrates on the power dynamic between Netanyahu and Trump, and whether Netanyahu was surprised by Trump’s ceasefire declaration, plus how Netanyahu might retaliate if the ceasefire were sabotaged. Speaker 1 (Avram Berg) characterizes the situation as highly serious and delicate. He suggests the war’s origins and triggers are unclear, describing a “divorce” in the relationship between Trump and Israel: Trump’s ceasefire move is seen as coordinated or at least not fully aligned with Israel. Berg notes Netanyahu has not publicly spoken yet, and might frame the ceasefire as coordinated with him, but he views the immediate outcome as neither side having real winners and sees Iran as having survived strongly. He suggests China is rising in the background. Rutansi asks how secure Netanyahu is if the ceasefire persisted, recalling Israel’s aggressive actions in Lebanon after Trump’s ceasefire announcement and Trump’s retreat from conditions. Berg replies that politically, Israel has an election looming; the war was a strategic move for internal politics—Israelis rally around the government during wartime—yet Netanyahu may not gain politically from this round and could face backlash in upcoming elections. Berg also argues Netanyahu’s broader agenda—weakening Iran, disarming Hezbollah, and stopping Hamas—has failed across these fronts, leaving Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran still viable or intact. The host probes whether Netanyahu needs a false flag or propaganda to counter what Trump’s supporters might claim. Berg distinguishes substance from rhetoric, noting Hezbollah in the north is a problem for Lebanon and Syria; Iran’s threat was real but not existential for Israel, and suggests diplomacy and balancing could have handled it better. Berg emphasizes that war without political settlement is wasteful and results in casualties across many sides. Rutansi notes growing global hatred of Israel, while Berg refrains from embracing Hamas/Hezbollah as liberation movements, warning against falling into such narratives. Berg acknowledges global resentment of Israel but doubts a wholesale shift in allegiance toward Hamas or Hezbollah. The host asks about Epstein-related intelligence rumors and Trump’s leverage. Berg dismisses Epstein-related conspiracy as gossip rather than serious political leverage, insisting on reasoning over sensationalism. He does acknowledge Epstein’s notoriety but rejects tying it to concrete policy influence. When the discussion turns to nuclear weapons, Berg asserts Israel’s nuclear capability remains officially unacknowledged domestically, recounting past suppression of open debate on the topic. Berg argues that Iran’s perceived threats and regional rivalries push towards deterrence and urges a Middle East no-weapon agreement to reduce risk. He contends the broader regional security architecture must discourage all nuclear powers, including Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and neighboring states, with energy collaboration coupled with non-proliferation. On whether Netanyahu would use a nuclear weapon to stay out of jail, Berg says no, arguing the strategic logic of nuclear use deters first use and that leaders know once a nuclear device is used, it invites retaliation. He views Netanyahu as unlikely to employ a nuclear weapon. Rutansi closes, promising continued coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu-Iran dynamic, while Berg declines to dive into conspiracy theories, reiterating that discourse should be grounded in arguments, values, and policy.

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

Speaker 0 opens with "we wanna see the maniacs of Hamas be defeated" and notes "Israel, bombed Qatar, which houses a lot of Hamas officials," asking "What happened here? ... Will this potentially endanger America's own interest in The Middle East?" He contrasts Israel's aims with "unconditional surrender" and asks, "Is that what Israel is aiming for here?" He wonders what "success look[s] like" in Gaza after about twenty-three months and what could have been done differently "on the PR front" or "conduct front." A claim heard is "Israel is committing genocide." The discussion touches on media skepticism, accusations that Israel wants to "ethnically cleanse," and asks for a five-year outlook. The remark "you can't be MAGA if you're anti Israel" prompts Ben Shapiro's response: "And it is totally fine to say to people who wish to destroy our civilization, no, your values suck, and they don't belong here."

- The public blames Netanyahu for October 7 as the one who fed the beast. He did not create Hamas, but he fed it. - Netanyahu, who is against peace and against having a Palestinian state, dealt with Hamas for a long time as a strategic friend. It was important for him to keep Gaza under the control of Hamas and keeping the West Bank under Fateh and preventing them from being united in any way. In order to do so, Netanyahu was all the time helping Hamas to survive. - At the same time that he was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. - Netanyahu can't give the money by himself. Israel will not give money to the Hamas. You cannot even transfer this money through banks because even the banks don't want to cooperate. So you, the Israeli prime minister, needs to beg this small and very rich country, Qatar, to give money to our enemy. - This suitcases of money was given to Hamas under the request of Benjamin Netanyahu personally. And because the Qatarians knew him from the beginning, they were asking him to send them his requests in writing because they knew that he's going to lie in the future. - He allowed more than 1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of the Hamas because he believed that he can control the level of hatred. It's nonsense. He cannot control the flames. - Your strategy was keep Hamas there, weaken the Palestinian authority on the West Bank, sustain the extremists, weaken the moderate. This exploded in our faces in the most brutal way on October 7. - Bibi tells the world again and again and again, I'm the expert on terrorism. I know how to fight terrorism. I'm the protector of Israel. And under his regime, we get into this incredible, unbelievable war. - I think we have to finish the job. We can finish the job. Victory is within reach, and that's our goal, total victory. Our fight is your fight, and our victory is your victory. Tonight, I wanna speak to you about total victory. Total victory over Hamas. Unless we have total victory, we can't have peace. - Total victory doesn't actually mean anything here in actuality. You know all of the casualties and death and suffering, and that's what it looks like in reality. That's what those words actually mean. - My dear friends, the word Gaza could end tomorrow if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and returns all the hospital. That's what total victory means, and we will settle for nothing less. - Netanyahu comes to the congress because he needs Americans desperately. - My friends, I came to assure you today of one thing. We will win. - He wants the Israeli public to be proud to have their leader speaking in front of this very prestigious group and getting applauded so many times. He's speaking to the American Congress, but he's really speaking to the Israeli public. - I would say that, tragically, the Americans don't know how to call him out. There was no plan for ending the war of Gaza, bringing the hostages home, and changing dynamics in the region. And things only got worse. Netanyahu is the architect of chaos. He may create a situation where it's irreversible. - He is the great example of a leader that lead his people to the wrong place. But this is the reality in which he will preserve his political power. And he know how to manipulate. Manipulate. He needs it in a way.