reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

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

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.

The US will have oversight and control over the funds sent to Iran, ensuring they are used for the intended purposes. If Iran tries to misuse the money, action will be taken to freeze the funds again. The regime will not have access to the money or the power to decide where it goes. Two transactions were made by Iran in Oman using the previously frozen funds, but the details are unknown at this time.

$100 billion in cash was flown to Tehran on US Air Force planes without congressional knowledge. The speaker questions the lack of investigation or impeachment over this. They suggest a possible collusion between politicians of both parties. The speaker believes God is orchestrating events.

Speaker 0 asserts that Netanyahu was continually helping Hamas to survive. Speaker 1 claims that while Netanyahu was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. Speaker 2 contends that Netanyahu cannot give the money himself because Israel would not give money to Hamas, and banks would not cooperate, so Netanyahu must beg Qatar, a small but very rich country, to provide money to their enemy. Speaker 0 contends that these suitcases of money were given to Hamas at the personal request of Benjamin Netanyahu, and that because the Qatari side knew him from the beginning, they asked him to send their requests in writing because they believed he would lie in the future. Speaker 1 asserts that Netanyahu allowed more than $1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of Hamas because he believed he could control the level of hatred, and states that this notion is nonsense, adding that he cannot control the flames.

The speaker questions whether individuals have the right to use money as they please, stating that the money belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran. They inquire if the money will be used for purposes beyond humanitarian aid and address the needs of the Iranian people.

Iran can use released funds for terrorism, despite claims it's for humanitarian purposes. Critics argue the money frees up funds for malign activities. However, there is no evidence supporting this claim. The funds were allowed to accrue under the Trump administration and can be frozen at any time.

The U.S. will oversee where the money goes, ensuring it's used for valid purposes. If Iran diverts funds, action will be taken. The regime won't have access to the money, which will be used for goods like medical equipment and food. Iran made two transactions from frozen funds in Oman, but details are unknown.

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.

Iran's access to frozen funds may indirectly support malign activities, despite claims of strict oversight. The money, accumulated under the Trump administration, can only be used for humanitarian purposes. Critics argue that freeing up these funds allows Iran to redirect resources towards terrorism. However, there is no concrete evidence of this happening. If misuse is detected, the funds can be frozen immediately.

- Speaker 0 says, "Are you aware that we are sending $40,000,000 a week to the Taliban?" - Speaker 1 responds, "Yes, sir. Can you name other instances of foreign aid going to terrorist organizations? We have assisted Al Shabaab in Somalia. There's been instances of the Hamzee network in Sudan, Hamas, Islamic Jihad Hezbollah, Kafaiba Hezbollah, Hayat Tahrir al Shams in Syria. Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect assistance from US foreign aid." - Speaker 0 adds, "You know, I'm wondering with all this talk about the Strait Of Hermos and Park Island and everything Lindsey's recommending, why are we listening to a traitor who needs to be arrested to funneling money to have a mosque and Al Qaeda through USAID. He's helping to support the enemies of our nation's food, and it's time to arrest him. He's a traitor."

The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

The speaker emphasizes that the funds being released to Iran are not a payment or ransom, but rather Iranian money that had been frozen. The U.S. will have oversight to ensure the funds are used for humanitarian purposes only. The speaker acknowledges that bad actors like Iran may continue to wrongfully detain Americans in the future, but this deal is focused on bringing home the innocent Americans currently detained. The speaker also addresses concerns about the potential misuse of funds, stating that there will be strict restrictions and oversight to prevent that. The U.S. will continue to hold Iran accountable for its destabilizing actions and human rights abuses.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

The U.S. will oversee where the money goes to prevent Iran from diverting funds. If they do, action will be taken. The regime cannot access the money directly. Iran made two transactions from frozen funds in Oman, but details are not available at the moment.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the impact of restrictions on Iranian funds. Speaker 1 questions if the funds' fungibility is affected, but Speaker 0 clarifies that the money belongs to Iran. They debate White House talking points and misunderstandings about US taxpayer money. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the funds are not US taxpayer money and criticizes claims that suggest otherwise. Speaker 1 argues that restrictions make it easier for Iran to access funds. The conversation ends with a disagreement on the use of the term "straw man argument." Translation: The speakers discuss restrictions on Iranian funds and clarify that the money belongs to Iran, not US taxpayers. They debate misconceptions about the origin of the funds and their impact on Iran's spending.

The speaker is asked why they won't admit that the US doesn't plan to give the money to Iran. In response, the speaker explains that they have always had the power to oversee how the funds are distributed and they have the option to withhold it if they choose to.

Iran has a history of funding terrorism, like Hamas, regardless of sanctions. The argument that the money given to Iran is fungible suggests that they could have used other funds for the recent attack.

Speaker 0 asks whether military action against Iran is now off the table, and says they will watch and see what the process is, noting they were given a very good statement by people that are aware of what's going on.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about Iran, including its population, which Speaker 1 does not know. Speaker 1 defends his lack of knowledge, stating he doesn't memorize population tables. Speaker 0 suggests this information is relevant given Speaker 1's stance on the country. The discussion shifts to whether Iran is trying to murder Donald Trump, which Speaker 1 believes. They also discuss military strikes and US support for Israel. Later, they discuss whether Mossad shares all intelligence with the US, and whether they spy domestically in the United States. Speaker 1 says allies spy on each other, which Speaker 0 questions. Speaker 0 asks if it's in America's interest for Israel to spy on the US, including the president. Speaker 1 says it's in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel, and Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 won't say he doesn't want to be spied on.

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

Speaker 0 argues that “they’re making hundreds of billions of dollars a year more,” and that this funding emboldens them to give their proxies “weapons, money, and the vigor to attack the Jewish state,” which he says is unacceptable in the international community. He sets the stage for a connection between large flows of money and aggressive action by those proxies. Speaker 1 responds by asserting that “the only reason that Hamas attacked Israel, the only reason they’ll able to is because of increased Iranian funding,” and adds that Hamas is funded “in part” by Iran but that Hamas also receives funding from various other sources. He names possible funders such as Iran and Qatar and questions who funds Iran, suggesting multiple sponsors. Speaker 0 presses the point with a direct question, “Who funds Iran?” prompting Speaker 1 to identify Qatar as a potential funder. Speaker 0 repeats and confirms, expressing uncertainty about specifics by saying, “Buffans? Okay. Who from Hamasi? Of course they do. Right?” Speaker 1 continues with uncertainty, noting that “they were transferring a whole lot of money to the Gaza Strip” and references the Gaza funding issue as a major scandal associated with Netanyahu, described as “one of the big scandals that Netanyahu was involved in,” tied to letting that money pass through to the Gaza Strip, though he adds “I don’t know this is supervision.” In the dialogue’s core, Speaker 0 posits a logical implication: “If Iran gets more money, that’s good for Hamas. Right? You agree on that? Come on.” Speaker 1 responds with a cautious “Broadly speaking,” and Speaker 0 presses further, urging Speaker 1 to concede one point, addressing him by name, Steven. Overall, the exchange centers on the linkage between international funding, particularly Iranian and Gulf-state money, to Hamas and its activities, with attention to the claim that large monetary flows empower proxies to threaten Israel, and with references to past allegations about the transfer of funds to Gaza and the political fallout surrounding those funds.

The speaker discusses how the current energy policies of the president have led to an increase in oil prices, which in turn may be providing Iran with more funds to support terrorist groups. Speaker 1 disagrees with this viewpoint, stating that they do not believe our actions are directly funding Iran. Speaker 0 argues that by restricting oil supply in the US and regulating the industry, the administration is indirectly contributing to higher oil prices and potentially benefiting Iran. Speaker 1 avoids commenting on this hypothetical scenario and does not provide a clear answer.

The speaker states the goal is to cut off the flow of money to Iran. They claim this action will lead to the release of hostages, including Israeli and American citizens, held by Hamas and Hezbollah. The speaker urges America to prioritize its relationship with Israel and work towards bringing the hostages home. They emphasize the importance of standing by Israel as America's top ally.