reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel that resulted from advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end will continue.

The conversation centers on a reported peace framework and the idea that Iran is “giving up all of their chips” and cards. The speaker says many people seem to believe the rumor that a peace deal is in play, and reacts by calling themselves an optimist while insisting the approach must be “realistic.” The speaker argues that any peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and that the key requirement is taking steps to restrain Israel. They say that, if the U.S. looks at the Israelis “with clear eyes,” it could achieve a deal with Iran that does not include everything the U.S. wants—for example, the speaker says Iran will not “hill(s) in the deal about zero enrichment” and will not “hand us over all your enrichment.” The speaker’s main goal is ending the fighting, which they say is “definitely possible.” However, the speaker expresses skepticism that the U.S. has taken the first “hard step” of telling Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” They describe the war as “existential for the Israelis,” and argue the situation cannot assume Israel will not face conditions that could lead to continued attacks or another “terrorist attack.” The speaker says the U.S. cannot “take that off the table” or “rule it out,” and cannot allow others to dismiss considerations as “a conspiracy theory.” The speaker further claims the U.S. has had institutional difficulty being skeptical and “not trusting” regarding Israel, saying Israel “lied us, lied to us to get us into this war.” They argue the U.S. needs to “turn Matter” (stating “as a matter of fact”) and apply more verification, especially because Israel is described as an ally that has misled the U.S. Finally, the speaker says if Israelis believed the U.S. would extricate itself from the conflict, “there would be an element within Israel” seeking actions to prompt Americans to recommit to the conflict, reinforcing the need for not taking anything off the table and emphasizing verification.

Without light, there's no path from this darkness. I understand the passion of the people and have been working quietly with the Israeli government to reduce their presence in Gaza. Thank you.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about ending the war will continue.

Congress has talked about this issue for a long time, and I'm glad the question was finally called. However, it's disappointing that some people, who support Ukraine and Israel, prioritized politics over our national security interests. I'm still shocked by their decision.

Israel, like other countries, is sovereign and makes its own decisions. The United States does not dictate to Israel or any country. We present what we believe is right, but ultimately it's up to them.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Work has resulted in movements in the region by Israel, prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where it stands on the need for this war to end will continue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on ending the war will continue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening, despite movements in the region by Israel prompted by advocacy. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about ending the war will continue.

It's a a really significant first step, and I really commend president Trump and his administration as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20 plan and seeing a path forward for what's often called the day after. Most importantly, the conflict hopefully will end with the cease fire. The hostages will be returned. And then the very hard work of rebuilding Gaza, of finding the kind of security that Israel and the Palestinians after Hamas deserved to have, moving forward with the other points in the plan to try to create an opportunity for Palestinians to have a better life and for Israel to have greater peace and security, I am very hopeful that we'll be able to see progress. Today's a good start, but we have to keep going from here.

Israel, like other countries, makes its own decisions. The US doesn't dictate to any country. We present what we believe are the good options. We stand up for what we believe in the briefing room.

Glenn: Welcome back. We’re joined again by Prof. Syed Muhammad Marandi of Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. The latest news is a U.S. peace proposal for Iran, with expectations of Iran’s response. The deal reportedly doesn’t address nuclear issues or the Strait of Hormuz. What can we make of this, and what wider negotiations are taking place? Marandi: Regarding the American proposal, we’ll have to wait to see the content, but Iran’s position is clear and unlikely to shift from its current priorities. First, a ceasefire and end to the fighting. The United States and the Israeli regime are currently violating the ceasefire, and until they end the slaughter in Lebanon and Gaza and the siege, there will be no possibility to move forward. After that, it will be the 10 Plan that Iran put forward and Trump accepted. Iran is not going to move away from that. If the Americans think over time this is just internal consumption, they are mistaken. It’s a major miscalculation akin to the miscalculation of launching the war. The Americans are now insisting that Iran respond within a time frame; Iran will respond when ready, possibly a day or two or three later, to avoid being intimidated. The American proposal, if true, likely violates Iran’s sovereignty and seeks something it could not gain on the battlefield. Iran would be flexible on issues but not on principles. On nuclear program, enrichment, sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, these won’t be given up. Iran is willing to do a deal, like in 2015, but not the Obama-era version; it would need an upgraded agreement that Iran envisions, not one Trump thinks is upgraded. Any deal, if it occurs, would have to be far more favorable than the 2015 agreement. The war participants gambled and lost; an attack could still occur. There’s a strong possibility of an imminent attack, and Iranian preparations reflect that outlook. No ships have left the Strait of Hormuz; Iran’s response to previous U.S. actions has been robust, while avoiding heavy escalation. The Strait of Hormuz has not been closed by Iran; it remains open for friendly states and those who have not joined the war against Iran. Glenn: It does seem the U.S. is returning to potential all-out war against Iran, though the U.S. may have limitations in what it can actually achieve. You mentioned Lebanon and Israel; has the push to address Lebanon’s siege dropped out of talks, or is it still on the table from the American side? Marandi: Iran’s stance is that there must be a regional ceasefire that includes Gaza; Lebanon is part of that regional ceasefire condition. Iran will not remove that from the table. Washington and Netanyahu demanded unconditional surrender at the war’s start, but after 39 days they accepted Iran’s 10-Plan as the basis for negotiations. Iran will not accept a shift in the American position, nor the continued slaughter of Palestinians and Lebanese as a precondition for talking. Glenn: What about disruption in Gulf cooperation with the U.S.? Saudi airspace was limited then reversed; are there splits in the U.S.-led alliance, or was that transient? Marandi: It’s unclear; the Iranians know U.S. airpower is concentrated in Qatar, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait. The Iranians are prepared for attack and believe the U.S. has not yet achieved its aims. Western reporting suggests Iran’s missiles and drones have advanced beyond what was seen in the 39-day war, with new underground-produced systems demonstrating greater capability. Glenn: On China, Xi Jinping and Iran recently met; how will that affect talks with the U.S. President and Xi’s approach? Marandi: China and Iran held a good meeting; China is impressed by Iran’s performance in the war, as are Russia and many others. China recognizes that the U.S. is targeting China, Russia, and Iran simultaneously. Iran’s relations with China are strong, but Iran won the war largely on its own—resilience, leadership, and the people’s support. The Strait of Hormuz is controlled by Iran, and the U.S. cannot overturn that within any negotiation framework. Glenn: If the U.S. returns to full-scale war, what red lines would Iran consider triggers for a broader conflict? Marandi: The likelihood is a major assault combined with terrorist incursions from northern Iraq and Pakistan-based groups, with ground actions against Iran. Iran believes it could counter and destroy critical infrastructure, including in Gulf states, which would escalate and likely devastate regional and global markets. Iran would retaliate against infrastructure targets, maintaining restraint toward civilians, but would not refrain from destroying critical assets if Iran’s infrastructure is attacked. If a new war begins, Iran expects a comprehensive defeat of the invading forces and non-cooperation with further aggression. Glenn: Thank you for the insights. We’ll likely speak again as this situation evolves. Marandi: Thank you, I appreciate it.

This is a wonderful first step, following the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, something I'm very proud of. Many in the United States believe it was a brilliant decision, and today, we're going to give it some effect and bring it to life.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Actions by Israel in the region were prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen there. Despite this, Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Efforts will continue to pursue what is necessary for the United States to be clear about its stance on the need for the war to end.

The transcript centers on a loud, multi-voiced discussion about the prospect of war with Iran, U.S. policy dynamics, and the influence of allied actors—especially Israel—on Washington’s decisions. - The opening segment features sharp, provocative claims about President Trump’s stance toward Iran. One speaker asserts that Trump gave Iran seven days to comply or “we will unleash hell on that country,” including strikes on desalinization plants and energy infrastructure. This is framed as part of a broader, catastrophic escalation in Iran under heavy pressure on Trump to commit U.S. forces to Israel’s war. - Joe Kent, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned from the administration, presents the central prognosis. He warns that Trump will face immense pressure to commit ground troops in Iran, calling such a move a “catastrophic escalation” that would increase bloodshed. Kent urges the public to contact the White House and members of Congress to oppose boots on the ground in Iran, advocating for peaceful resolution and public pressure for peace. - The discussion shifts to Israeli involvement. The panel notes that Israeli media report Israel will not commit ground troops if the U.S. invades Iran, and some assert Israel has never, in any conflict, committed troops to support the U.S. The conversation questions this claim, noting counterpoints from analyst Brandon Weichert that Israel has undermined American forces in certain areas. - The debate then returns to Trump’s diplomacy and strategy. The host asks whether Trump’s stated approach toward Iran—potentially including a peace plan—is credible or “fake news.” Kent responds that Iran will not take diplomacy seriously unless U.S. actions demonstrate credibility, such as restraining Israel. He suggests that a more restrained Israeli posture would signal to Iran that the U.S. is serious about negotiations. - The program examines whether the MAGA movement has shifted on the issue. There is testimony that figures like Mark Levin have advocated for some form of ground action, though Levin reportedly denies calls for large-scale deployment. Kent explains that while he believes certain special operations capabilities exist—units trained to seize enriched uranium—the broader question is whether boots on the ground are necessary or wise. He emphasizes that a successful, limited operation could paradoxically encourage further action by Israel if it appears easy, potentially dragging the U.S. deeper into conflict. - A recurring theme is the perceived dominance of the Israeli lobby over U.S. foreign policy. Several participants contend that Israeli influence drives the war timeline, with Israeli action sometimes undermining U.S. diplomacy. They argue that despite public differences, the United States has not meaningfully restrained Israel, and that Israeli strategic goals could be pushing Washington toward conflict. - The conversation also covers domestic political dynamics and civil liberties. Kent argues that the intelligence community’s influence—infused with foreign policy aims—risks eroding civil liberties, including discussions around domestic terrorism and surveillance. The group notes pushback within the administration and among some members of the intelligence community about surveillance proposals tied to Palantir and broader counterterrorism practices. - Kent addresses questions about the internal decision-making process that led to the Iran policy shift, denying he was offered a central role in any pre-crime or AI-driven surveillance agenda. He acknowledges pushback within the administration against aggressive domestic surveillance measures while noting that the debate over civil liberties remains contentious. - The program touches on broader conspiracy-like theories and questions about whether individuals such as Kent are “controlled opposition” or pawns in a larger plan involving tech elites like Peter Thiel and Palantir. Kent insists his campaign funding was modest and transparent, and he stresses the need for accountability and oversight to prevent misuse of powerful tools. - In closing, the speakers converge on a common refrain: no U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. They stress that the priority should be preventing another ground war, avoiding American casualties, and pressing for diplomacy rather than expansion of hostilities. The show highlights public involvement—urging viewers to contact representatives, stay vigilant about foreign influence, and oppose a march toward war. - Across the exchange, the underlying tension is clear: competing visions of American sovereignty, the balance between counterterrorism and civil liberties, and the extent to which foreign actors (notably Israel) shape U.S. policy toward Iran. The participants repeatedly return to the need for accountability, restraint, and a peaceful path forward, even as they recognize the high stakes and the intense political pressure surrounding any potential intervention.

The conversation centers on whether there will be boots on the ground. Speaker 1 says they would not exclude this possibility for those reasons or any others, but the decision will depend on how things unfold going forward. The question is raised about whether Israeli boots on the ground might be included; Speaker 1 responds, “I exclude nothing,” noting they have been waiting for forty-seven years and that every necessary means should be taken in order to achieve their goals.

Speaker 0 says, "Well, it's a great deal for Israel, and it's a great deal for everybody." He questions, "You wanna get your hostages back. Right? You want them back or do you not want them back?" and adds, "And, it's a great deal for Israel." He continues, "It's a great deal for the entire Arab world, Muslim world, and world. So we're very happy about it all." On timing, he asks, "When do you think the hostage will start being freed?" and responds, "I think very soon. They're in negotiation right now as we speak." He concludes, "They've started the negotiation. It'll last a couple of days. We'll see how it turns out, but I'm hearing it's going very well."

Washington, DC saw two major Iran-related developments: a New York Times report alleging that Israel and the United States planned to install Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s leader, and a tense phone call in which President Trump, pressured by Middle East partners, spoke with Benjamin Netanyahu for about an hour. The readout, echoed by three individuals in the room, said Netanyahu’s “hair was on fire” and that Netanyahu urged immediate action—“bomb them right now” and keep bombing Iran—while Trump said he would not resume military operations and wanted a peace agreement. Discussion turned to the claimed peace framework, with Joe Kent saying he was an optimist so long as realism is maintained: a peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and Israel must be restrained for negotiations to move forward. Kent said the deal would not be everything either side wants, and he opposed “poison pills” about “zero enrichment” and “hand us over all your enrichment,” while emphasizing the need for “an end to the fighting.” He added skepticism that the first hard step has been taken to tell Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” Asked about the phone call details and Trump’s claim that Netanyahu would do whatever Trump wants, Kent said he had difficulty believing it, but could see how Netanyahu’s public posture would reflect pressure and public sentiment. Kent also said Israel’s early war actions were “very, very clever,” getting the U.S. committed to an initial strike against Iran’s supreme leader and killing off moderating forces, which he said makes the current negotiation harder. He described a likely “full court press” by pro-Israel lobbying and media to influence Trump, while suggesting time would tell whether Trump would dictate terms. The conversation then shifted to Ahmadinejad. Kent said the report shows Israel’s “main goal” before the war was to get the U.S. committed to conflict, using a “throw everything at the wall model” of far-fetched ideas to see what “resonated.” Kent said the proposed Ahmadinejad plan resembled a Venezuela model: decapitate the leadership and install someone who would stabilize and align with Israel’s interests, presenting it as a sales pitch rather than a detailed operational plan. He said the effect of the approach, in some version, was to push the U.S. into war and to take the strike that removed moderates, making Trump’s desired deal “more challenging.” Kent also addressed the idea that Israel could use chaos to prolong conflict, emphasizing Israel’s ability to tolerate chaos and describing internal pressures within Israel as the war continues. He said the Israelis’ longer-term incentives could align with preventing war conclusions, particularly from the perspective of internal political dynamics. A separate segment included a clip from Nick Fuentes on Alex Jones’ show, asserting that Israel might carry out a false flag on the United States (or Europe) to restart momentum and provide a new pretext. Kent responded that the war is “existential for the Israelis,” and said major concerns cannot be ruled out. He argued the U.S. has an unrealistic relationship with Israel, tends to accept Israeli intelligence “almost, like, verbatim,” and fails to discuss uncomfortable possibilities—such as whether Israeli intelligence is meant to influence the U.S. or whether Israeli operations involve spying. Turning to U.S. domestic politics, the discussion referenced the Thomas Massie election, claims about pro-Israel influence, and a Justice Department advisory committee on antisemitism. Kent criticized what he described as pro-Israel lobbying tactics and said campaign money and exposure may force changes in strategy. On election systems, Kent said election integrity issues remain, arguing that mail ballots and machine tabulation are difficult to verify and that Americans should demand scrutiny of verification and counting mechanisms. When asked about foreign interference, Kent said intelligence would track foreign interference if it existed, but described the difficulty of tracking money from super PACs under the current system. He also cited dual citizens and the ability to donate large sums as complicating oversight. Finally, Kent responded to claims that American journalists are on Israeli intelligence targeting lists, including a clip naming Tucker Carlson as “enemy number one,” and said U.S. intelligence discussions about Israeli agendas and operations are culturally constrained. He concluded by expressing optimism about midterms and future elections, arguing the younger generation will be more engaged and that increasing turnout and education on primaries can improve outcomes.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Work has resulted in movements in the region by Israel, prompted by advocacy for what needs to happen. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. The pursuit of what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where it stands on the need for this war to end will continue.

The speaker states that they have not seen any evidence to suggest a need for a different approach in helping Israel defend itself. When asked if any formal assessment has been conducted to determine if Israel is following the rules of war, the speaker admits to being unaware of any such assessment by the United States government. The question of how they can ensure that the weapons and resources provided by the U.S. adhere to international law is raised, to which the speaker reiterates that they have not seen anything to suggest a change in their approach to assisting Israel's defense.

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.

The Israeli hard right government has a mandate, and the speaker says they are “going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza,” while also claiming Israel is talking about removing 2.5 million people from there. The speaker further states that the government has a mandate to “go seek justice and revenge,” and argues that the idea they need a truce or a peace treaty is “morally crap,” referencing what they say they have seen involving women and children being burned alive and dragged to the streets. The speaker then emphasizes their personal “pattern recognition” over the last five years, citing COVID, the Maui fires, and Epstein. They say that when they see a story and it “doesn’t click,” their “guts” are usually right. They also say they have been to Israel many times and describe the country as a fortress, claiming that at the Gaza border “you cannot go 10 feet without running into a 19-year-old with an AR-15 or an automatic machine gun that is an IDF soldier.” They also claim the entire country is surveilled. They then provide political context, saying they do not discuss Israeli politics often and that most Americans do not know it. The speaker claims that over the last nine months, Israel was “on the brink of civil war,” describing protests and street demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of Israelis. They connect this to what they say was Benjamin Netanyahu redefining the Israeli constitution, stating that Netanyahu said the judicial branch has too much power and that planned protests against Netanyahu were expected to draw tens of thousands this week. The speaker says those protests “are all gone,” and claims Netanyahu has now formed an emergency government and has a mandate to lead. The speaker says they are “not willing to say” that Netanyahu knew or that there was intelligence “here,” but they say serious questions need to be asked. They ask whether there was a “stand down order,” stating “Was there a stand down order? Six hours?” They frame this as part of the questions they believe should be asked, alongside the earlier claims about the Israeli government’s mandate and the situation described at the Gaza border.

Speaker 0: Do we need this connection with Israel? What is it? No one ever explains what it's for. I feel like. Right? That would help everybody have a much better understanding, you know, because it starts to feel like America is just a shell company, an LLC for Israel. That's what it starts to feel like a lot of times, you know? Do you feel like that that's realistic, or do you feel like that that's off base? Speaker 1: I would I wouldn't send them a dime. Like, that's my position. I don't think whatever we're getting isn't worth it.

Israel, like other countries, makes its own decisions. The US does not dictate to Israel or any other country. We present what we believe are the good options. We stand up for what we believe in the briefing room. Translation: Israel and other countries have sovereignty to make their own decisions. The US does not impose its will on Israel or any other country. We present what we believe are the best options and stand up for them in the briefing room.

Hamas are evil people, and the idea of them controlling territory is unfathomable. Our hearts break for the families of the deceased, and the return of remains is a sacred thing. Hamas is weaker than before but still a threat and cannot be allowed to reconstitute. As long as Hamas is in Gaza, there will be no peace, and they must be eliminated. No country can coexist with a group whose purpose is destruction and atrocities. The President has a plan for Gaza's reconstruction, which involves removing people from the area to allow construction, but regional partners disagree. If they don't like the President's plan, they should propose a better one. The fundamental challenge is determining who will govern Gaza and how to eliminate Hamas.