reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Gilbert Doktorov is asked how the Iran war is reshaping dynamics in the East, especially for Russia and China, and what the broader implications are for global order. - On Russia’s stance and reaction: Doktorov notes a gap between the Kremlin’s official positions and what “chattering classes” discuss. He observes astonishingly limited reaction from President Putin and his close foreign-policy circle to dramatic developments that could redefine regional and global orders. He contrasts Putin’s cautious, “slow-war” approach with sharper criticisms from other Russian voices (e.g., Salaviyev and Alexander Dugin) who urge moving beyond a gradual strategy. There is a sense within some Russian circles that a more assertive stance may be required, yet official channels show restraint. - On Iran’s strategic position and alliances: He points out that Iran has withstood intense pressure and maintained the ability to threaten Gulf energy infrastructure and the Strait of Hormuz, thereby sustaining global leverage despite severe attacks. Iran has managed to survive and press the global energy market, calling into question how meaningful Iran’s inclusion in BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is in practice. He notes scant evidence of meaningful Russian or Chinese military or intelligence support to Iran in public accounts, and cites Israeli claims of Russian arms shipments being denied by Moscow. - On the West’s behavior and international law: The discussion highlights what is described as the United States’ “might makes right” posture and the dismissiveness toward traditional international-law norms, including UN Charter commitments. The panelists contrast American rhetoric about legality with its real-world actions, and discuss how Russia’s and China’s responses have been cautious or critical rather than conciliatory or confrontational. - On potential military cooperation and bloc dynamics: The conversation explores whether a deeper Russia-China-North Korea alignment could emerge in reaction to US and Israeli actions against Iran. Doktorov mentions that North Korea is viewed as a, “will and determination to act,” supplying munitions such as underwater drones and missiles to Iran, whereas Russia and China are characterized as more talk than action. He argues Moscow benefits from maintaining broad, non-aligned diplomacy, but acknowledges a shift in Russian thinking after recent events toward more decisive posture. - On Europe and the US-European split: The panel discusses the European Union’s fragility and its leaders’ inconsistent responses to the Iran crisis and to US pressure. They consider European solidarity rhetoric as a cover for avoiding hard choices, with examples including Belgian leadership suggesting normalization with Russia post-conflict. The discussion reflects concern that EU leaders may be forced to confront realignments as Gulf energy supplies and US LNG leverage reshape Europe’s energy security and political calculus. - On diplomacy and pathways forward: The speakers debate the prospects for diplomacy, including possible three-way or broader security arrangements, and whether Alaska or other meeting points could offer reprieve. They note a public split within Moscow’s foreign-policy establishment about how to proceed, with internal figures pushing for diplomacy and others advocating a stronger balance of power. There is explicit skepticism about the utility of negotiations with Donald Trump and the idea that the war could end on the battlefield rather than through diplomacy. - On the Ukraine war’s interconnection: The discussion emphasizes that the Iran crisis has global ramifications that feed back into Ukraine, noting that Russia’s current posture and Western responses influence the Ukraine conflict. Doktorov highlights that the depletion of US air defenses observed in the Israel-Iran context affects Ukraine, underscoring the interrelatedness of the two wars and their combined impact on global power dynamics. - Final takeaway: The dialogue reiterates that the Iran war has a global dimension with the two wars being intimately connected; the Iran conflict reshapes alliances, energy security, and strategic calculations across Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, while signaling a potential reconfiguration of Western alliances and multipolar governance.

In early February, we were tasked by the White House to assess countries based on adherence to international laws on weapons use and humanitarian aid. Despite working on the report, we were removed before its release. When it came out on May 10th, it surprisingly acknowledged Israel's potential violation of international laws with US weapons but also stated that Israel is not impeding humanitarian aid. This was unexpected and contradictory to previous actions by the White House.

Ashwin Rutanski hosts Going Underground, outlining a global swirl of recent events: Odessa massacre anniversary, Ukraine, oil politics with UAE withdrawing from OPEC+, Trump signaling troop withdrawal from Europe, and a broader context of US and allied military actions. The broadcast features a guest: Master Sergeant Wes Bryant, a former chief of the Pentagon’s civilian harm mitigation and response effort and the first head of its civilian protection center of excellence (PTEC). Bryant discusses his twenty-year career as a JTAC (Joint Terminal Attack Controller), coordinating on-the-ground targeting and calling in air strikes, while conducting civilian harm mitigation and collateral damage analysis to minimize civilian casualties. Key explanations from Bryant: - JTAC role: JTAC stands for Joint Terminal Attack Controller, formerly Forward Air Controller. JTACs coordinate and call in air strikes, oversee intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for targeting, and conduct civilian harm mitigation to avoid civilian casualties. - Bryant’s background: Spanned conventional and special operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, later initiating and operating strike cells against ISIS across Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Bryant describes the Pentagon’s civilian protection efforts: - Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Effort (CHMRE) was authorized during the Trump administration and later codified into law under Secretary Lloyd Austin in the Biden administration, establishing the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence at the Pentagon and a broader network across the US government. - The aim of the Center was to sustain and improve protection of civilians and reduce civilian harm in military operations, reflecting past failures and successes in the war on terror. Reactions to leadership and policy shifts: - Bryant asserts that Pete Hegseth, who later led the Pentagon, pursued a transition toward a view of “wokeness” and restrictive engagement rules, leading to the dissolution of the civilian protection center and a shift toward “lethality” and greater civilian harm tolerance. He claims Hegseth’s rhetoric and policy direction contributed to a more permissive environment for strikes with increased civilian casualties. - He contends that this shift correlates with intensified operations in Iran and broader Middle East conflicts, including alleged recklessness and negligence in targeting in places like Yemen and the Caribbean/Pacific, and a failure to adequately account for civilian harm. Views on war conduct and accountability: - Bryant rejects claims that Trump’s inflammatory statements on social media are solely negotiation tactics; he argues that Trump’s actions—such as threats to bomb energy infrastructure and bridges in Iran, including a strike on a bridge—indicate intent that could amount to war crimes and reflect a disregard for civilian harm. - He criticizes the current approach to civilian protection, arguing that even if some actions are framed as “fog of war,” Iran-related operations involve months of target vetting from secure rear offices, with a lack of on-the-ground risk in contrast to battlefield fog of war. He asserts this marks a departure from past standards and raises concerns about willful recklessness or negligence as potential war crimes. Iran/Israel/Gaza context and analysis: - Bryant argues that many civilian casualties in Gaza and Iran reflect a broader policy environment influenced by a fusion of extremist ideologies within Trump’s and Netanyahu’s camps, including revisionist Zionism and white Christian nationalism. He claims the administration is aligned with Israel due to these ideological underpinnings, impacting the US approach to Iran and Gaza. - He suggests that US weapons are often used in ways that violate international law or US best practices, and he envisions a role for civilian protection mechanisms to monitor end-use of weapons, though such monitoring faced challenges in State Department capacity. Concluding remarks: - The discussion touches on incidents such as the Kunduz hospital strike and calls into question the balance between strategic aims and civilian protection. Bryant emphasizes a concern that the current leadership under Hagseth lacks accountability, contrasting it with earlier attempts to implement civilian harm mitigation within the Pentagon. - The program closes with Bryant’s assertion of concern over the ongoing use of anti-tank/anti-personnel mines and their open-area deployment, suggesting potential violations of international law. Bryant’s interview highlights: the role of JTACs in targeting, the rise and fall of the Pentagon’s civilian protection center, and perceived shifts in US military policy that Bryant attributes to Pete Hegseth and related leadership, framed within broader debates over civilian harm, international law, and the ethics of US interventions in the Middle East.

No country seems willing or able to stand up to Israel, including the United States. The Biden administration's support for Israel is losing him support, especially among young people. Even within the Democratic Party, there is division over this issue, with protests and opposition from members of Congress. The left wants to restrain Israel but is unable to do so. Israel's number one enemy, Iran, also fails to challenge them effectively. With no country able to stand up to Israel, it raises the question of whether Israel is the most powerful country in the world.

Israel does not believe the ICC has jurisdiction over Hamas. They think Hamas should be held accountable through Israeli investigations. The US supports the establishment of an independent Palestinian state for future accountability. Israel has jurisdiction over the occupied territories. The US believes they have jurisdiction through the Leahy Law. The US does not have criminal jurisdiction. They aim for Palestinian statehood for self-determination.

Israel encouraged and started Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. The speaker claims this served Israel's purpose at the time. The U.S. imposes its system on the world, such as invading Iraq to teach people how to be Democrats. The U.S. encouraged Palestinians to have a free election, and they elected Hamas. The speaker asserts the U.S. indirectly and directly, through Israel, helped establish Hamas. After Hamas became dominant through the election, the U.S. then had to kill them. The speaker concludes this does not make sense.

Recent events in Syria mark a culmination of a long-term strategy by Israel, particularly under Netanyahu, to reshape the Middle East. This effort began with the "Clean Break" strategy in 1996, aiming for a "Greater Israel" by destabilizing neighboring governments. The U.S. has been complicit in these actions, engaging in wars across multiple countries, including Iraq and Libya, under the guise of fighting terrorism. The narrative around Assad has shifted over the years, often driven by U.S. interests rather than genuine threats to national security. The ongoing conflicts serve the interests of the military-industrial complex and the Israel lobby, leading to instability rather than peace. Future U.S. foreign policy must prioritize diplomacy and accountability to avoid further escalation, particularly regarding Iran and Russia.

America is enacting this law in response to a kangaroo court attempting to arrest Israel's prime minister. Israel is confronting an enemy responsible for a genocide on October 7, 2024, which resulted in the deaths of many, including seven Americans, and the holding of 100 hostages. Israel is at the forefront of this fight against an enemy that has harmed our citizens. Throughout this conflict, Israel has demonstrated remarkable restraint and humanity, recognizing that civilian casualties are tragic. In contrast, for Hamas and its supporters, civilian deaths are part of their strategy for victory.

Israel receives significant economic and military aid from the US, even when it takes actions that the US opposes. The usual explanation for this support is that Israel is a strategic asset and a democracy that shares American values. However, these arguments do not fully justify the extent of aid provided. While Israel is a democracy, its treatment of Arabs and its colonization of the West Bank contradict American values. The historical case for Israel's existence based on anti-Semitism does not warrant unconditional support. The main reason for Israel's privileged position is believed to be the influence of the Israel lobby.

Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza is backed by the US, allowing Israel to avoid accountability for its human rights abuses. The US has vetoed UN resolutions critical of Israel over 50 times since 1972, including those addressing illegal settlements and war crimes. Financially, the US provides $3.8 billion in military aid annually and even dispatched an aircraft carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean. While the US used to mediate peace talks, recent administrations have escalated support for Israel and ignored the plight of Palestinians. The US defends Israel's actions, even as it kills more people in Gaza than Hamas kills in Israel. This gives Israel a pass on potential war crimes.

Glenn and John Mersheimer discuss US interests in Venezuela beyond democracy promotion and narco-terrorism. Mersheimer argues the Monroe Doctrine defines US Western Hemisphere aims: preventing distant great powers from forming military alliances with or basing forces in the Americas. He asserts the Venezuela operation is not about the Monroe Doctrine or great-power competition, but an imperialist or neocolonial effort by the US to control Venezuela’s politics and oil. He notes Trump’s emphasis on who controls Venezuelan oil reflects blunt imperialism, not classical doctrine. Glenn asks if this aligns with past patterns of intervention or if it’s more brazen. Mersheimer says the US has a long history of interfering in Western Hemisphere politics, targeting leftward movements, toppling regimes, and even hinting at broader regional actions under Trump. He emphasizes Trump’s blunt rhetoric and actions—saying the US can “run Venezuela” and that Venezuela’s oil is “our oil”—as evidence of a brazen approach that lacks typical liberal-justifying rhetoric and resembles a naked imperial project. The conversation shifts to international law and the liberal rules-based order. Glenn notes that liberal order sometimes legitimized force (as in Kosovo) and asks how the Venezuela episode fits. Mersheimer argues that during the unipolar moment the US adhered to international law more and created many rules, but Trump has shown contempt for international norms, trashing the rules-based system. He contends this shift harms US interests and shows that Trump cares primarily about the United States, not about international law or other countries. They discuss European reactions and the Nord Stream incident as a test of Western liberal rhetoric. Glenn notes perceived hypocrisy in European support for Israel’s actions in Gaza and questions whether Europe will push back against Trump. Mersheimer says Europeans fear losing the US security umbrella and NATO, so they appease Trump to maintain American presence in Europe, even as they recognize his bully tendencies. He suggests Europeans might criticize but avoid costly confrontations that would threaten NATO, though Greenland could test this dynamic. He predicts the possibility of a US move on Greenland given Trump’s willingness to use force “on the cheap,” and notes that such a move could fracture NATO and European unity. They discuss the broader West, arguing the concept of a homogeneous West is fading. The US pivot to East Asia due to China’s rise undermines traditional Europe-centered alliances. The deterioration of US-European relations, combined with Moscow’s efforts to exploit European fault lines, could produce a fractured West. The discussion highlights the erosion of liberal values as a coordinating narrative, with European dependence on the US as a pacifier intensifying appeasement dynamics. The Ukraine war remains central in assessing future alliances. Mersheimer asserts Trump’s strategy shifts burden to Europe, which cannot sustain Ukraine support, and predicts blame games if Ukraine loses, with European leaders and Washington trading accusations. Russia’s efforts to deepen European and Atlantic tensions will persist, potentially leaving Europe more divided and the US less able to serve as a stabilizing force. He concludes that the Venezuela episode, while notable, does not fundamentally alter the trajectory set by Ukraine and the pivot to Asia, though it underscores weakening Western cohesion and the fragility of NATO if US commitments wane. Glenn and Mersheimer close reflecting on the difficulty of maintaining a unified Western order amid shifting power and repeated demonstrations of Western frictions, expressing concern over future stability and the risk that major actions—such as potential Greenland intervention—could further destabilize the transatlantic alliance.

What's happening in The Middle East, in particular with Gaza right now, we have some more responsibility for both sides in a way because we provide help and funding for both Arab nations and Israel. And so we definitely have a moral responsibility, and especially now today, the weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons, and American funds is essentially are being used for this. But there's a political liability, which I think is something that we fail to look at because too often there's so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn't be involved in. Hamas, if you look at the history, you'll find out that Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. And he said, well, that was better then and served his purpose, but we didn't want Hamas to do this. Then we have election, then Hamas becomes dominant, so we have to kill him.

The U.S. has contributed more to Israel's defense budget than Israel itself in the last three years. This year, the U.S. gave nearly $3.1 billion to Israel, making it the top recipient of American foreign aid. This occurs while many Americans struggle with finances, senior citizens can't afford medications, veterans are underserved, and schools are closing. Israel ranks among the top 30 richest countries, yet receives a large lump sum of aid upfront, allowing it to accumulate interest while the U.S. pays interest on the borrowed money. Additionally, the U.S. gives billions to Egypt and Jordan to discourage them from opposing Israeli policies, adding to the financial burden. With presidential elections approaching and promises to cut spending to address the $16 trillion debt, some argue the U.S. should prioritize its own needs.

Israel encouraged and started Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. The speaker claims this served Israel's purpose at the time. The U.S. imposes its system on the world, such as invading Iraq to teach people how to be Democrats. The U.S. encouraged Palestinians to have a free election, and they elected Hamas. The speaker claims the U.S. indirectly and directly through Israel helped establish Hamas. Because Hamas became dominant after the election, the U.S. then had to kill them. The speaker concludes that this does not make sense.

Ambassador Chas Freeman and Glenn discuss the volatile situation across West Asia and beyond, focusing on Iran, Israel, and how great-power and regional dynamics interact with the Ukrainian and Venezuelan crises. - Israel-Iran confrontation and objectives: Freeman argues that Israel is preparing to challenge Iran to expand its regional dominance beyond the Levant into West Asia. Netanyahu reportedly said that if Iran resumes its missile development program, that would justify an Israeli attack. Freeman notes Iran has never halted its missile development, describing Netanyahu’s pretext as transparent. He believes Iran is prepared to retaliate and that Israel is capable of unexpected moves, so vigilance is warranted. - Iran’s domestic situation and external leverage: The discussion highlights domestic distress in Iran driven by economic conditions, notably the sharp devaluation of the rial. The Pazeshkian government’s central-bank management changes are mentioned, as are low oil prices and broader economic pressures. Freeman emphasizes that protests, especially on economic affordability, are often leveraged by external actors (Israel and the United States) but also reflects genuine Iranian grievances. He argues the protests threaten the regime only as a demand for economic reform, not a signal of imminent regime collapse. - Regional realignments and external actors: There is a sense that Iranian protests could invite external manipulation, while Israel has long supported exiled Iranian groups capable of striking inside Iran. The June Israeli attack reportedly led Iranian security services to round up many people accused of Mossad engagement, suggesting Israel’s intelligence network inside Iran has been eroded. The discussion notes a shift in Gulf Arab openness toward Iran, with Oman’s foreign minister stating that Israel—not Iran—is the source of region instability, signaling a strategic realignment against Israel. Turkey’s position is ambiguous, and Russia and China are aiding Iran in reconstituting air defenses. Egypt and Iran appear to have mended ties, while Iran’s allied groups (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi movements) are partially reconstituted but lack close-in capability to attack Israel directly; Hamas remains on the defensive in Gaza. - Prospects for a broader war and what success might look like: Freeman suggests Israeli objectives include fragmentation of Iran and continued pressure to undermine Iran’s governance, with possible support for exiled groups. He notes Iran’s missiles, including hypersonics, and its air defenses, and warns that a new Israeli attack could trigger broader regional involvement. He also discusses potential coalitions against Israel forming among Gulf states if conflict escalates, with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states balancing relations with Iran and the region. - Deterrence, diplomacy, and the collapse of international law norms: The conversation critiques deterrence as reliant on threats without diplomatic reassurance, pointing to a lack of meaningful dialogue with Iran and the West’s inconsistent commitment to international law. Freeman argues that the Trump administration repudiated a previously approved agreement with Iran, and he criticizes US actions in Venezuela, Cuba, and other places as undermining sovereignty and international norms. He asserts that the Zionist approach to security is seen by many as uncompromising and expansionist, eroding international law and the UN Charter, with Israel and the United States often shielding violations through impunity. The discussion touches on Europe’s perceived hollow rhetoric and the suppression of dissent on security matters, claiming that discussing security concerns or engaging in diplomacy is sometimes treated as legitimizing adversaries. - Global parallels and strategic indicators: The speakers compare the current dynamics in Europe and the Middle East with broader trends—escalatory language, the weaponization of language, and the suppression of dissent about US and Western policies. They discuss the governance implications of US actions, the role of international law, and the risks of miscalculation in Iran-Israel tensions. As indicators of looming conflict, they cite the movement of large American transport aircraft (C-5As) carrying weapons to Israel through Europe, potential naval movements to the Mediterranean or Arabian Sea, and possible deployments to Diego Garcia. - Conclusion: The conversation underscores the fragility of regional security, the potential for miscalculation in a highly militarized context, and the sense that diplomacy is deteriorating amid a pattern of external interference, deterring legitimate security concerns, and a broader decline in adherence to international law. Freeman closes by acknowledging the depressing but necessary clarity of facing these dynamics squarely.

Ashwin Rutansi introduces New Order, a global show tracing how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. The program aims to explore partnerships, shifting alliances, and how structural changes ripple from global powers to streets, villages, markets, and boardrooms. The show promises to examine diplomatic architecture, networks of power, money flows, and levers of influence, presenting a fundamental reordering rather than mere turbulence. Zara Khan will join later to field viewer questions. Guest: John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago professor and coauthor of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. The discussion opens with the recent incident of Iran firing missiles at an F-35 and what it implies given anticipated US and allied arms purchases. Mearsheimer notes that aircraft over adversary territory face real risks from surface-to-air missiles and air defenses, even if the US and Israel have degraded Iran’s defenses. He suggests this is a factor behind why the US and Israel refrain from flying over Iran. Geopolitical framing: Who benefits from the ongoing war (in Iran) at the time of the interview? Mearsheimer identifies two clear winners: Russia and China. Russia benefits from sanctions relief on oil and gas pushed by Trump-era policies, and the war diverts munitions away from Ukraine, aiding Russia in its position. China gains as US credibility in foreign policy deteriorates, increasing its influence in the Middle East and globally as nations worry about an unreliable US, with Europe showing signs of leaning toward China. India’s position is discussed as a potential loser in this new order. The discussion asserts that India’s relations with Israel and Iran, and its ties to both the US and the Gulf, place it in a precarious position. The possibility of a summit or peace conference is deemed unlikely to solve inflation, gas prices, fertilizer costs, or Indian food production challenges; the war is characterized as bad news for India, as reflected in Indian media. On US policy and the Israel lobby: Mearsheimer contends that the Israel lobby has significant influence over US foreign policy and that its role in dragging the United States into wars, including Iraq in 2003, was central. He notes with some irony that the lobby’s power is increasingly in the open, referencing Joe Kent’s statements and public figures like Tucker Carlson and Bernie Sanders endorsing similar criticisms. He points to Francesca Albanese, UN official on Palestinian territories, describing the Israeli actions in Gaza as genocidal, and notes the lobby’s efforts to undermine her career. Policy advice for the Global South, focusing on India: Mearsheimer argues that India should maintain distance from excessive US alignment to avoid heavy leverage over Indian policy. He suggests speaking up against US policy when it harms national interests but avoiding becoming overly dependent on the United States. He cites examples such as Indonesia where maintaining friendly ties with China while balancing US relations would be prudent. He warns that excessive closeness to the US invites sanctions and pain, whereas diversifying partnerships could reduce vulnerability. BRICS and multipolarity: The war could benefit BRICS and the Global South, with Russia and China gaining, while some BRICS members like India and possibly Indonesia could suffer. The conflict may prompt a strategic rethinking of US ties, encouraging greater independence from Washington. The discussion also touches on Europe’s economic strain and NATO’s perceived setback if Russia prevails in Ukraine, describing a “double whammy” for European leadership from the Gulf conflict alongside Ukraine. End of interview: The program teases future exploration of the Israel lobby’s influence and the potential for a broader discussion on the end of the Israel lobby era, followed by viewer questions. Zara Khan presents questions from the audience, including whether the broader humanity will gain a say on the world stage and how the Iran war might differ from Vietnam and Afghanistan, emphasizing asymmetrical warfare and the risk of ground involvement. The show signs off, inviting viewers to follow and watch future episodes.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

The speaker criticizes the United States for claiming to support Palestinian civilians in Gaza while providing significant military aid to Israel. They question how this aligns with international humanitarian and human rights laws, as well as commitments to avoid explosive weapons in populated areas. The speaker highlights the increase in stock prices of weapons manufacturers during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza and asserts that the United States has profited from war throughout its history. They emphasize that neither Israel, the United States, nor arms manufacturers should profit from the harm inflicted on Palestinian civilians, and call for an end to arms sales to Israel.

The Biden administration recently granted an indefinite waiver to Korean chip manufacturers, Samsung and SK Hynix, allowing them to continue producing semiconductor chips in China. This decision has raised concerns about America's support for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP, in turn, has shown support for Palestine and provided military funding for Hamas attacks. To safeguard Israel's independence and liberty, it is crucial for America to sever ties with the CCP. Additionally, cutting off connections with the CCP is necessary to protect the lives and safety of American citizens, as the CCP is seen as the root cause of various oppressive regimes.

Republicans supporting Israel should consider the connections between influential figures and Israeli interests. Notably, Epstein had ties to prominent individuals linked to Israel, and his mysterious associations raise questions. It's crucial to differentiate between Jewish identity and Zionist support; not all Jewish people endorse Israel's actions. The current escalation of violence against Palestinians coincides with significant Israeli influence in U.S. politics, particularly during Biden's presidency. The narrative that Israel is involved in human trafficking and political manipulation is concerning. Supporting Israel amidst these issues raises moral questions about complicity in violence and human rights violations. It's essential to critically assess these connections rather than blindly follow party lines.