TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"I'd give it a 12 to a 15. Their army is gone. They're just about look. Their navy is gone. Their communications are gone. Their leaders are gone. Two sets of their leaders are gone. They're down to their third set. Their air force is wiped out entirely. Think of it, they have 32 ships. All 32 are at the bottom of the ocean. Other than that, they're doing very well, Coach. Very well. We're doing our military is doing phenomenally. That's the big thing for this week. We seem to have a new thing every week. But the situation with a very bad and very sick group of leaders who were killing a lot of people, a lot of our people were"

- New footage from Tel Aviv is shown, including videos outside windows of what sources say they are seeing, with a claim that Fox News is not covering this damage in Tel Aviv. The discussion centers on the reality of buildings being hit near City Hall, and questions why it isn’t being widely covered by Fox News. - The conversation shifts to missile stocks and interceptors. A comment references Keith Kellogg on Fox News discussing a Wall Street Journal report about running out of interceptor missiles within four to five weeks, and a claim that there is no problem because orders were placed and allies could supply missiles. The speaker notes that UAE reportedly has about a week left of interceptor missiles and says missiles from Iran are getting through “like a sieve.” - It is argued that the U.S. has a limited stockpile because many missiles have been transferred to Israel and Ukraine over the past years, leaving the U.S. inventory low. The claim is made that continuing the war with depleted missiles would heighten national security risk and vulnerability globally. - The transcript discusses potential international responses. The speaker contends that Europe’s mobilization rhetoric (France, Greece) should not be expected to deter Iran, noting that Greece does not have a major army and that NATO-funded contingents are involved rather than independent power. The assertion is made that Iran’s strikes in Tel Aviv, Tehran, Qom, and other cities show that Iran believes it can strike back effectively, signaling a preference to fight the United States and Israel rather than submit again. - The central point is that the conflict is described as 100% about missiles and air-defense missiles, not ground forces. The speaker argues Iran likely has enough offensive missiles to prolong the conflict for months, possibly longer than U.S. capacity to sustain it, especially with Hormuz potentially shut or partially shut, which could hurt the western economy. - Admiral James Stavridis is cited by Speaker 0, noting that as the U.S. and Israel expend hundreds of precision weapons, the focus should shift to logistics and stockpiles. The discussion emphasizes the need for inventory clarity, planning, and alignment between political objectives and military capabilities. - Speaker 1 asserts that the planning should have assessed inventories, timeframes, and whether the means match the objectives. The argument states that risking all resources without sufficient offensive or defensive capacity is a dangerous gamble, suggesting the current course could be a “huge blunder.” - The conversation touches on General Dan Kane, who reportedly told the president two weeks earlier that there were not enough ammunition and it would not be pretty to win. A reference is made to Trump’s Truth Social claiming Kane’s assessment was incorrect, with talk of whether Kane did or did not say the president’s characterization was accurate. The claim is made that there are concerns about integrity and whether senior leaders would publicly contradict the administration’s framing if necessary. - A follow-up question is raised about whether admitting a ground invasion would imply insufficient missiles to sustain the mission, with Speaker 1 acknowledging that admitting ground troops would signal a lack of missiles for sustained action. - The segment then shifts to a sponsorship note about depression treatment options, promoting Ataybekli and its lead program BPL-003 (a nasal spray psychedelic-based therapy) developed for treatment-resistant depression, with background on the company, its investors, and the roadmap toward Phase 3 in 2026. It emphasizes the potential for faster, more scalable treatment sessions and invites viewers to learn more at a website, with disclaimers about not providing medical or financial advice.

Shortly after 9/11, the speaker encountered Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called him urgently, revealing that they had decided to go to war with Iraq. When asked why, the general admitted they didn't have any new evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The decision was made because they didn't know what else to do about terrorism and believed their military could overthrow governments. Weeks later, the speaker asked if they were still going to war with Iraq, to which the general responded that it was even worse. He showed the speaker a classified memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker regrets not seeing the memo and asks for the general's name.

The discussion opens by critiquing mainstream media narratives about Iran, contrasting them with “neocon run” outlets and highlighting one-sided portrayals. Condoleezza Rice is cited as arguing that Iran started the war forty-seven years ago, with the implication that the current actions are a finish. Speaker 1 (a guest) adds that Iran has been at war with the U.S. since 1979, noting the embassy hostage crisis, the killings of Marines in Lebanon, and Iranian-made roadside bombs in Iraq, suggesting longstanding Iranian hostility. Speaker 0 and others reference this framing as propagandistic, while noting Pentagon claims of US air power over Iran. Speaker 2 describes the view of US bombers flying over Tehran and the IRGC, with the assertion that Iran will be unable to respond while US and Israeli air power dominates. Talk then shifts to the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran. Polymarket is cited, giving a 65% probability of US forces on the ground in Iran by December 31. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (spelled Ogracchi in the transcript) says he is waiting for a US ground invasion and claims Iran is prepared, while an NBC anchor appears surprised by the statement. A dialogue follows with a reporter asking an Iranian interviewee whether Iran is ready for a US invasion; the interviewee responds that Iran is ready and willing to confront US ground forces, insisting that Iran’s missiles and upgraded capabilities were demonstrated in prior conflicts. Colonel Douglas MacGregor appears to discuss the likelihood of US boots on the ground. He states zero probability of large-scale ground forces, noting the army’s reduced size since the 1990s and the Marines’ limited numbers. He argues a half-million troops would be needed for a meaningful ground campaign, with sustainment, drones, and missiles making a ground invasion impractical. He describes the challenge of moving forces through Israel, Syria, and into northern Iran, and asserts missiles and unmanned systems would deter such an operation. He also dismisses the idea that special operations could be the exception, noting concerns about extraction and the overall feasibility. Speaker 6 adds that Israel reportedly wants boots on the ground but lacks generals to lead such a mission, framing the move as potentially suicidal. The panel discusses perceived indicators of US military “success,” but MacGregor cautions that such signals—like a White House meeting with aerospace leaders and Israeli mobilizations—do not necessarily indicate a decisive victory. He argues that Iranian missiles and drones have inflicted damage on bases, radars, Patriot and THAAD batteries, and that Israel’s mobility and readiness are strained, with reservists mobilized but not guaranteed to show up. He emphasizes that Iran’s capabilities could prolong the conflict, and notes a broader geopolitical risk, including potential Russian and Chinese involvement. The conversation critiques Washington’s strategic planning, questioning whether the US or its allies had a systematic analysis of the likelihood of success in striking Iran, arguing that assumptions were evidence-free. MacGregor predicts a prolonged conflict, possibly extending for weeks, and warns against a broader regional collapse. He emphasizes that Iran’s strategy may be to endure and avoid a quick tactical defeat, while the US contemplates escalation or potential engagement with carrier groups. Regarding naval operations, there is debate about escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz. The idea of US insurers covering shipping is discussed, with concerns about the risk to US taxpayers and the feasibility of naval escorts near Iran. MacGregor and the others argue that such an approach would be dangerous and unlikely to be pursued by naval leadership, pointing to the risk of being sunk and the logistical challenges of carrier air operations at long distances. Toward the end, the participants reflect on information integrity in wartime, noting that casualties and damage are often under- or mis-reported, and referencing Napoleon’s adage that the first casualty in war is the truth. The final segment promotes MacGregor’s Substack piece, MacGregor Warrior, and MacGregor TV, acknowledging shadow bans and encouraging listeners to seek out his material. The host and guests close with a candid acknowledgment of ongoing uncertainty and the prospect of a drawn-out conflict.

Mario: Do you think The US should attack Iran? Joel: He could do a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime, but not explicitly try to topple it. Clint (Glenn): Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. You think that Iran the authority enemy. Of Not America being responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here. You're unbelievable. No legitimate security concerns for Iran. None of your rules. Mario: Gentlemen. Astonishing. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? Clint: I see that’s very dishonest. This idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return. They stop the threat. No. Mario: Never tried we've never gone down this path at all. Joel: You’re just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies. It doesn't seem to bother you. Mario: Joel, I’m gonna start with you. A pretty broad question. Do you think The US should attack Iran, and do you think they will? Joel: The president has set his own terms. He has three choices: do nothing and frame that as diplomacy; do a large but limited strike designed to punish the regime but not topple it; or go all in toward regime change. He hasn’t made regime change his explicit objective yet. I think he’ll pick option two, a large but limited strike, because negotiations aren’t designed to lead somewhere. The Iranians are not serious, in his view. Mario: Do you think Trump should go with option two, or seek regime change? Joel: He should go with number two. Regime change is something I would love to see, but it’s too big an objective with air power. If the regime is toppled by force, the risks are immense. Damaging the regime—ballistic missiles, some nuclear components—could be enough to protect citizens and allies, even if it doesn’t topple the regime. If a coup follows, that’s a risk. Mario: Glenn, you argued against regime change but acknowledged concerns about the regime’s brutality. Please respond to Joel and the broader points. Glenn: I don’t think Trump should attack. It’s very likely he will, and the objective will probably be a limited bloody nose attack that is going bombed for two or three days or, like last time, twelve, and then pull away, with an implicit understanding that if Iran retaliates, it could be a big war. There is no diplomatic solution because the Iranians reject multi-issue deals; they want nuclear issues to be separate. The Iran regime is existentially threatened, so they’ll respond. The aim should be to recognize key security concerns and pursue a broader security understanding, not just use force. Mario: Joel, respond to Glenn’s point about whether Iran must be considered an enemy and about potential diplomacy. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? No. But this regime is an enemy. The people of Iran do not have to be enemies. The supreme leader believes the United States and Israel are enemies, and for forty-seven years they say, death to America, death to Israel. The Iranian regime has decided they’re the enemy. The Iranian people largely despise the regime. Mario: If Iran agrees to stop the nuclear program, should The US accept such a deal? Is that enough? Joel: The nuclear program is almost 100% destroyed; you wouldn’t negotiate solely on that. If diplomacy exists, it would be to address threats beyond the nuclear issue—ballistic missiles, regional alliances, human rights, etc. The Iranians were willing to accept transparency around their nuclear program in JCPOA-era diplomacy, but the Americans pulled out. If a nuclear deal is possible, it would require mutual concessions; insisting on broader concessions risks collapse. Glenn: The problem is that Iran has legitimate security concerns too. The strategy after the Cold War linking security to global hegemony is problematic. There should be recognition of Iran’s legitimate security needs, not a complete defanging. We should explore a grand bargain—recognize a Palestinian state, get out of Syria, and pursue a path with Iran that reduces the threat without destroying Iran. Mario: There’s a debate about whether the Gulf states see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran now. Joel, what’s your take? Joel: Two countries—Qatar and Turkey—see Israel as an enemy. Turkey’s Erdogan has threatened Jerusalem; Qatar hosts anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda via Al Jazeera and has hosted Hamas leaders. Israel has the right to defend itself and has pursued peace deals with several Arab states, but the region remains dangerous. Israel should avoid destabilizing moves and pursue peace where possible, while recognizing the security challenges it faces. Glenn: Israel’s internal politics and policy flaws exist, but law in Israel provides equal rights to Arab citizens; policy can be improved, but not all claims of apartheid reflect law. Arabs have political rights, though issues with funding and policy remain. The West Bank is a flashpoint; Gaza is controlled by Hamas, complicating Palestinian governance. There’s a broader discussion about whether regime change in Iran is desirable given potential fragmentation and regional instability. Mario: Final question: where is Iran by year’s end? Glenn: If Trump attacks, Iran will perceive an existential threat and may strike back hard, possibly shutting the Strait of Hormuz. Russia and China may intervene to prevent complete destruction of Iran. Joel: I hope Glenn’s scenario doesn’t come true. Iran might pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If the regime is weakened, the region’s stability could be jeopardized. The options remain: negotiate, strike, or regime-change—prefer a large but limited strike to deter further advancement without taking ownership of an unknown future. Mario: Thank you both. This was a vigorous, wide-ranging exchange. End of time.

Stanislav and Speaker 0 discuss a rapidly evolving, multi-front crisis that they argue is in its early days but already sprawling across the region and the global energy order. Key military and strategic points - The conflict has expanded from warnings into a broader destruction of regional economic infrastructure, extending from Israel to Iran. Israel began by hitting southern oil fields; Iran responded with attacks on oil and gas facilities and US bases, and warned it would strike “everywhere” including US bases if attacked again. - Iran’s stated aim includes purging the US from the Persian Gulf by destroying American bases and making hosting US forces prohibitively expensive. This has been coupled with actions that blinded US radars and pressured Gulf Arab states to expel the Americans. - Israel attacked infrastructure and a nuclear power plant associated with Russia’s project; Israel’s destruction of oil infrastructure and oil fires contributed to a widespread environmental contamination event, with oil smoke and carcinogenic particulates dispersing over Central Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Northern India, and potentially further. - The war is generating cascading economic damage, including a potential long-term hit to energy supply chains. The speaker who has oil-industry experience (Speaker 1) explains that refinery expansions and LNG projects involve complex, lengthy supply chains and custom equipment; extensive damage means years, not months, to recover, with LNG output potentially 20%–30% lower for Europe, and cascading effects on fertilizer supplies and food production. - European energy and fertilizer dependencies are stressed: Russia supplies a large share of chemical fertilizer; Europe could face severe energy and food crises, while the US appears more flexible on sanctions and fertilizer sourcing. - On the military side, there is discussion of a possible ground invasion by US forces, including the 82nd Airborne (as part of the XVIII Airborne Corps) and Marines. The analysis emphasizes the daunting difficulty of any cross-border operation into Iran or even taking forward positions in the Strait of Hormuz or on nearby islands. The speaker argues that the 80th/82nd Airborne’s capabilities are limited (light infantry, no back-up armor), making large-scale incursions extremely costly and unlikely to achieve strategic objectives (e.g., seizing enriched uranium on Kare Island). The argument stresses that “mission impossible” scenarios would yield heavy casualties and limited gains, especially given Iran’s mountainous terrain, entrenched defense, and pervasive drone threat. - Kare Island (Hormuz Strait) is described as highly vulnerable to drone swarms. FPV drones, longer-range drones, and loitering munitions could intercept or complicate the deployment of troops, supply lines, and casualty evacuation. Even with air superiority, drones combined with coastal defenses could make an island seizure a “turkey shoot” for Iran unless ground troops can be rapidly reinforced and sustained against a rising drone threat. - The role of drones is emphasized: drones of various sizes, including small FPV systems and larger retranslated-signal drones, could operate from Iranian coastlines to disrupt coastlines such as Kare Island and other Hormuz approaches. The talk highlights how drones complicate casualty evacuation, medical triage, and resupply, and how air assets (helicopters, Ospreys) are vulnerable to drone attacks. Nuclear and regional deterrence questions - Enriched uranium: Iran reportedly has around 60% enrichment; 90% would be necessary for weapons, which could provide a deterrent or escalation leverage. The possibility of nuclear weapons remains a major concern in the discussion. - Fatwas and leadership: The new supreme leader in Iran could alter policy on nuclear weapons; there is debate about whether Iran would actually pursue a weapon given its political culture and regional risk. Regional and international dynamics - The role of Russia and China: The discussion suggests the US is being leveraged by adversaries through proxy relationships, with Russia and China potentially supporting Iran as a way to undermine US influence and the Western-led order. - Regime and leadership dynamics in the US: Speaker 1 predicts intense internal political pressure in the US, including potential civil unrest if casualties rise and if policies become unsustainable. There is skepticism about the willingness of US political leadership to sustain a protracted conflict or a ground invasion. Recent events and forward-facing notes - A ballistic missile strike on southern Israel and simultaneous missile salvos from Iran were reported during the interview; there were also reports of air-defense interceptions near Dubai. - The discussion closes with warnings about the potential for catastrophic outcomes, including a nuclear meltdown risk if nuclear facilities are struck in ways that disable cooling or power systems, and emphasizes the fragility of the current strategic balance as this crisis unfolds.

First speaker: Let me ask you. Regardless of what he thinks, what do you think, militarily speaking, looking at all just the fundamentals, if if The United States attacks Iran in any capacity and they respond back and they hit, we'll say, Al Udeid or any of these other bases that are in the area, the the the naval area at Bahrain, what would happen? What do you think would be the result on the ground? Second speaker: American casualties and then Israel will be destroyed. That's all nearly destroyed. That's pretty much what is gonna happen. And, the issue here is, how they can, basically preserve their US Navy's assets in the area. Obviously, United States has tomahawks, and many people do not understand. United States has about two and a half thousand tomahawks in general. It's the block four and block five, which is still I mean, it's it's a long range. It's about 2,000 kilometers. But the point is for the country like, Iran, 2,000 Tomahawks are nothing. You know? And so, they can still hit some political leadership. But, the moment they begin to fly, there will be a really, really serious repercussions for the liberal and fifth column in, Iran. And after that, we might have only the hardening of the regime if you wish. Because even if they kill Khamenei, okay. So what is gonna happen? Well, he becomes a martyr. And, Iranian people, they're they're they're courageous. I mean, they will fight back.

After 9/11, a general told me the decision to go to war with Iraq was made without evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda. Plans were revealed to take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Military operations began in Iraq and Syria. The situation in Syria was discussed, acknowledging the distressing images coming out of the country.

In this discussion, Speaker 0 interviews Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and US Marine Corps intelligence officer, about the implications of a phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and the broader geopolitics around Ukraine, Iran, and energy. - On the Trump-Putin call and diplomacy with the US: Ritter notes that Trump initiated the call, and Russia has kept a diplomatic channel open with the United States, despite tensions and distrust. Russia reportedly invited figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to continue diplomacy. He interprets Russia’s openness as a strategic move to maintain influence in decision-making, particularly with the US seeking Russian assistance on energy and conflict termination in Ukraine and Iran. - Russia’s behavior in response to Western strikes and its strategic calculus: Ritter argues Russia has deliberately avoided a rapid military overreaction to Western actions (e.g., UK strikes on Bryansk using Storm Shadow missiles and Flamingo systems) to prevent elevating Ukrainian nationalism or provoking a harsher Western stance. He suggests Russia can legally justify countermeasures against British facilities tied to Storm Shadow and Flamingo production, but chooses restraint to avoid elevating domestic political backlash and to exploit diplomatic openings. - Economic dimensions and sanctions: He contends Russia benefits from the lifting of oil sanctions, with Russia able to sell crude at much higher market prices, improving its budget and war finances without further escalation. This is framed as a strategic reward for keeping the diplomatic channel open and for not overreacting militarily. - The strategic objective in Ukraine and the West: Ritter states Russia aims to remove Ukrainian nationalism from Europe’s security equation and to establish Ukraine as a neutral party. He argues that Russian actions, including potential pressure on Ukraine and Western states, are designed to compel a settlement more favorable to Moscow, with less emphasis on Ukrainian terms. - The Iran context and US leverage: The conversation posits that Russia’s phone call with Trump could enable further discussions with Kushner and Witkoff on terms that reflect Russian objectives, given the US’s urgent need for Russian help on energy and geopolitical cover. Ritter suggests Moscow could pressure Iran to negotiate in a way that aligns with broader Russian goals and reduces US influence, including potentially linking Ukraine settlements to Iran’s termination or moderation. - Off-ramps and the Iranian war: In Iran, the sole off-ramp is one Iran accepts; the US and Israel no longer control the process. Ritter argues that US strategies (e.g., general Cain’s claims about missile successes) are misguided, with Iran reportedly evading decisive pressure and maintaining leverage. The path forward would involve Russia acting as mediator and engaging Iranian leadership more directly, while the US’s ability to impose a decisive settlement appears limited. - US military options and feasibility: Ritter points out the limits of US military options in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. He argues that large-scale ground involvement (e.g., 80,000 Marines to seize territories around Hormuz) is impractical given resource constraints, political risk, and logistical challenges. He criticizes the reliance on bombing campaigns with insufficient precision munitions and questions target selection and legality, highlighting a historical precedent where strategic air campaigns did not compel German surrender in World War II. - Broader geopolitical consequences and alliances: The discussion covers how a perceived US strategic defeat could reshape global alignments. Ritter foresees BRICS strengthening as the US loses credibility, with China advancing in Taiwan and the South China Sea, and Russia expanding influence in the Middle East. He suggests Iran could emerge as a regional power, while Israel’s nuclear program could come under renewed pressure. Russia’s involvement in the Middle East, grounded in a strategic framework with Iran, provides Moscow with diplomatic legitimacy to lecture Gulf states. - Lavrov’s stance and Gulf politics: The speakers address Lavrov’s public admonition of Gulf states for pressuring Iran and seeking Western support, arguing this reflects Russia’s adherence to its diplomatic framework and a legally grounded position. Russia’s recent strategic framework with Iran underpins its legitimacy to influence Gulf behavior. - Closing assessment: Ritter emphasizes that the war’s trajectory is being driven by Iranian resilience and US strategic miscalculations. He maintains that Russia’s role as mediator and its leverage over energy markets position Moscow to shape outcomes, while the United States appears increasingly constrained, resource-drained, and vulnerable to strategic defeats on multiple fronts. The result could be a reordering of global alliances and regional power dynamics, with Russia and Iran gaining greater influence and the US recalibrating its priorities accordingly.

Your country is in big trouble, you're not winning. However, you have a good chance of coming out okay because of us. We are staying strong in our country from the beginning of the war. We've been alone, but we are thankful. You haven't been alone! This cabinet member doesn't belong in this cabinet. We gave you 350 billion dollars worth of equipment through this president. What if you didn't have our military equipment? This war would have been over in two weeks.

'If tomorrow, the order goes out from the I'm president of The United States. I issue an order. End the war today. Begin to withdraw all American troops.' 'It will take a year to get the American troops out.' 'If you leave all the equipment behind, you might be able to do it in seven months.' 'And you leave those billions of dollars of weapons behind, I promise they're gonna be used against your grandchild and mine someday.' 'And you leave those billions of dollars of weapons behind, I promise they're gonna be used against your grandchild and mine someday.'

About 10 days after 9/11, the speaker met with Secretary Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. A general informed him that they had decided to go to war with Iraq, but when asked why, the general had no answer. There was no evidence linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, but they felt they had a strong military and could overthrow governments. Later, the speaker learned that there was a memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker asked if the memo was classified, and it was confirmed to be so.

Speaker 0: The Iranian action has been stated very clearly. If they are attacked at all, they will not exercise restraint as they have in the past. They will respond with whatever they have that can reach targets within range. They will use their ballistic missile arsenal, and they will attack bases where our aircraft are located, where we have radars, where we have air and missile defense. They will look for command and control hubs, presumably in Qatar and other places in The Gulf. They will attack ships if they think they can strike them. They will do enormous damage, obviously, to Israel, which they see as the principal culprit and justifiably so in organizing the entire operation. If it were not for Israel, would any of this happen? I think the answer is certainly not. So we know what the Iranians will do. And how long can they do it? I think that we'll run out of missiles long before they do. So what are we going to do at the beginning? You're gonna have a massive, massive assault in the first twenty four hours. It's going to be unlike anything that we've seen certainly since 1990 or '91 rather. So that's what we're gonna see on our side, and they'll respond as best they can with whatever they have. So I think it's short of a use of a nuclear weapon, everything is on the table, and everything will be used.

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

The speaker asserts that the opposing side has lost essential military and leadership capabilities: “They've lost their navy. They've lost their air force. They have no anti aircraft apparatus at all. They have no radar. Their leaders are gone.” The speaker then suggests a harsh consequence of intervening, indicating that “we could do a lot worse than one another.” The statement further contends that certain actions could be left undone or could be accomplished quickly, noting that “We're leaving certain things that if we take them out or we could take them out by this afternoon, in fact, within an hour,” implying that such measures would be decisive. The speaker concludes with the assessment that, as a result, “they literally would never be able to build that country back.” The overall message emphasizes the rapidity and completeness with which the opponent’s military and leadership structures could be dismantled, and the enduring impossibility of rebuilding the country once those elements are removed.

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

Speaker 0: In a few days, America is already running out of weapons against Iran, despite spending about $1,000,000,000,000 a year on defense. The administration is meeting with top defense contractors at the White House because strikes on Iran are diminishing US stockpiles, especially long-range munitions like Tomahawk missiles. Interceptor missiles are being exhausted by Iranian attacks. This is not getting wide play in the mainstream media; there is a blackout. CNN reported that Israel told them they are not allowed to show incoming rocket attacks. Speaker 1: One go up there. We're not showing you that because we're not gonna show. The Israeli government does not allow us or want us to show where that may have come up, that interceptor. Speaker 0: The most powerful military machine in history is not calling a meeting because it's winning too hard. It’s calling a meeting because the shelves are getting bare. Axios and The Wall Street Journal report that the reality contradicts slogans of unlimited munitions. War is fought with inventory and magazine depth, not slogans. The White House is seeking more supply as munitions run low. Speaker 0: The dirty little secret is that war isn’t fought with slogans; it’s fought with inventory. The Iran fight is the worst kind of war for stockpiles because it’s strike targets and defense of everything you own at the same time. A CIA station house in Riyadh was hit; Iran could strike a CIA station, and telemetry data may have come from China or Russia. Iran doesn’t need to beat the US head-to-head in aircraft carriers to bleed us dry. Speaker 0: Aircraft carriers are relics of the post-World War II era and are vulnerable to hypersonic weapons. France is sending a carrier; it’s not about carriers but about forcing us to burn high-end interceptors faster than we can replace them. It comes down to math: a $50,000 drone versus a $4,000,000 interceptor or a naval missile defense shot. We’re bleeding resources. Speaker 0: Tomahawks are expensive long-range munitions. The Pentagon plans to buy only 72 Tomahawks in fiscal year 2025 and 57 in fiscal year 2026, while operations have consumed hundreds. Each missile is around $1,300,000. Raytheon and others are ramping Tomahawk production from roughly 60 per year to eventually 1,000 per year. How long will that take? The defense supply chain is strained. Speaker 0: The entire defensive layer is under strain: Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptors, costing about $4,000,000 each; Lockheed is moving to more than triple capacity, roughly from 600 per year to roughly 2,000 per year. Interceptors are expensive, and ramping production cannot fix the immediate shortfall. Speaker 0: Ukraine aid is enormous in dollar terms—State Department reporting puts military assistance since 2022 at over or close to $70,000,000,000, likely higher. Ukraine has been a grinding logistics war; Iran is turning into a high-end missile and air defense consumption war. Boots on the ground are being considered as necessary; air campaigns alone cannot achieve regime change. 155-millimeter shells production is around 40,150 rounds per month as of 2024–2025, but Ukraine’s consumption is far higher. Mineral shortages also constrain production, prompting the White House to convene the defense industry. Speaker 0: The war plan may be to destroy enough of Iran’s launch capability before magazines run shallow—a brutal last-call scenario. The US is fighting on two tracks: attack and defense, using Tomahawks, B-2 bombers, and 2,000-pound bombs, along with low-cost drones around $35,000 each. The message to Middle East allies is that the US cannot fully protect them as stocks thin. Putin and China are watching, waiting to see if the US can prevent a massive Russian advance or another major theater’s strain. The White House meeting with CEOs reads like a panic flare, not victory, as munitions are consumed faster than they can be replenished. The speaker notes the high death toll on Iran’s side and asks for more transparency on American casualties, while reiterating the commitment to anti-war principles.

Our military leaders are great, but our involvement in the Middle East has given our military a bad reputation. Going into the Middle East was a horrible decision, the worst in our country's history. It has turned out to be a disaster, destroying the region and costing us billions of dollars and millions of lives. The situation is much worse now than it was 20 years ago. We should have just done a retribution strike for the World Trade Center and not gotten stuck in there like quicksand. Currently, there are reports of as many as 40,000 Americans affected.

Speaker 0 expresses concern that Iran’s escalation leads to automatic draft registration and that many people voted against the Biden administration and Kamala Harris because of floated draft ideas for Russia. They reference a report on Liberty Report about this automatic involuntary draft registration. Speaker 1 describes the NDAA as a must-pass bill that often includes dangerous language. He says the bill will automatically register young men aged 18 to 26 for the draft and create a database, removing any choice about whether to register or not. He argues this presumes the government owns you and your body, equating it to slavery. He contends that if a war is unpopular or unconstitutional, people will still be forced to register. He notes a belief that the current war is obviously unconstitutional and asserts confidence in young Americans defending their country if attacked, though he questions whether an attack has occurred. Speaker 2 counters that the threat is not existential from Iran, but argues it comes from elsewhere, including issues at the southern border. He reframes the concern as domestic rather than a direct external threat from Iran. Speaker 3 agrees and adds that the U.S. lacks a sufficiently large army due to prior cuts and a focus on exotic weapons and a large surface fleet. He contends the army is too small to project power, and any ground invasion into the Middle East would face immediate, formidable opposition, including precision missiles and drones, making a conventional ground war implausible. He criticizes naval power’s utility in modern conflicts and suggests an invasion would be impractical. Speaker 2 asks for more detail about Karg Island, a strategic island off Iran’s coast, noting 90% of oil flows through Iran from that area. He mentions talk among Trump administration officials about capturing the island and asks how the U.S. could secure it. Speaker 3 explains that much of the oil from Karg Island goes to India, China, Japan, and South Korea; destroying or occupying the island would require moving ground forces and crossing water, which would be extremely dangerous. He warns that destroying oil infrastructure in the Persian Gulf would lead Iran to target refineries, drilling rigs, and storage tanks, and notes that Gulf States heavily rely on desalination plants. He cautions that destroying these plants could cause mass death and devastate Gulf economies. He adds that the Israelis previously struck a desalination plant in Iran, which would amplify consequences for regional economies. Speaker 0 asks how the public should feel about the conflict, noting that the government started it on false pretenses and that the country’s leaders and military performance have been disappointing. They seek guidance on how to view the situation and how to respond. Speaker 1 expresses domestic concern about a potential false flag, citing FBI warnings that Iran may have launched attack drones off the West Coast, suggesting a false flag could be used to erode civil liberties. Speaker 2 agrees with the false-flag concern and notes that Israel has a history of false flags and mentions events in Azerbaijan and Turkey. He emphasizes the need for Americans to understand the consequences of U.S. actions for people in the region and to push the president and administration to stop inflammatory language. Speaker 3 clarifies that Iranian officials have instructed contacts in the Western Hemisphere not to harm the United States, arguing that causing harm would benefit Israel. He concedes that false-flag analysis is plausible but unlikely in the long run, and stresses the importance of public awareness of consequences and maintaining peaceful regional relations after the war ends.

The speaker asserts that Iran’s modern military—its navy, air force, air defenses, leadership, and bunkers—has been “rapidly and historically obliterated, defeated from day one with overwhelming firepower.” The speaker credits a joint air campaign conducted by Israel and the United States as “a history books” operation, made possible because the United States’ president “unites their hands to actually go out and close with and destroy the enemy as viciously as possible from moment one.” The speaker frames the coalition as part of a negotiation “with bombs,” highlighting the coercive approach used during the conflict. Over Tehran, the speaker states there is a choice about the future, noting that the president has “made it clear that you will not have a nuclear weapon,” a position the war department “agrees” with. The speaker emphasizes maintaining US leverage—“keeping our hand on that throttle”—as long as it is necessary to achieve American interests on the battlefield. The speaker distinguishes this conflict from prior campaigns, saying, “This is not Iraq and Afghanistan,” and describes the president as being focused on specific outcomes rather than vague end states. The core objective is stated plainly: to create the conditions for Iran “never to have a nuclear capability,” and the speaker asserts that this objective is being pursued “in historic fashion.” The message closes with gratitude to the president for leading this effort.

Our military is strong and won't be influenced by woke culture. I'm referring to the capable generals, not the ones on TV. We quickly defeated our enemies, despite predictions of a 3-year battle. When I visited Iraq and met the generals I appointed, they confidently said it could be done in 4 weeks. They even believed we'd have extra time.

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

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

While on a plane with President Trump, we discussed the Middle East. He drew a map, noting troop strengths in various countries. He highlighted the border between Syria and Turkey, mentioning the 500 U.S. troops stationed there and the significant forces in both Turkey (750,000) and Syria (250,000). Trump expressed concern about a potential conflict between these nations and asked his generals about the fate of the 500 U.S. troops. The generals warned that they would become cannon fodder. In response, Trump ordered their withdrawal.

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