reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Saddam Hussein is believed to be actively pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, and removing his regime would have positive effects on the region. However, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has a history of baseless claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. In a recent speech, he used props and a PowerPoint presentation to falsely accuse Iran of hiding a secret nuclear weapons program. This was a deliberate attempt to undermine the Iran nuclear deal. Many experts, including former inspector Robert Kelly, dismissed Netanyahu's claims as unfounded and childish, pointing out that his evidence was cartoonish and unreliable.

President Trump reportedly approved attack plans for Iran but is holding off on the final order to see if Tehran bans its nuclear program. The speaker claims Israel started something they couldn't finish regarding Iran's nuclear program, potentially drawing the U.S. into combat operations. The speaker questions the intelligence provided to justify potential military action and criticizes the power of CENTCOM within the Pentagon, arguing it overshadows hemispheric defense. They question the purpose of the 50,000 troops stationed in the Middle East. The speaker alleges that the nuclear operation in Iran is buried in a mountain, a fact known by the Israelis. They argue that Trump is trying to stop an invasion of our country, which is more important than this. They criticize those who question the patriotism of figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene and accuse media outlets of pushing propaganda against Trump. The speaker insists they are not isolationists or appeasers but advocate for thinking through military decisions thoroughly. They suggest Israel should finish what it started with Iran's nuclear program instead of relying on the U.S. to intervene.

Afshin Rattansi introduces claims of renewed U.S. and Israeli bombardment of Iran amid ongoing violence in Gaza and Lebanon, including the assertion that Trump bombed southern Hormuzgan province leaving 20,000 Iranians without water. He says Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran a year earlier during negotiations, striking military and nuclear facilities and killing senior commanders, nuclear scientists, and their families. Rattansi further says Tehran responded with missile waves, whose impact is “heavily censored,” and that days later the U.S. entered the war by striking Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles, after which Trump declared Iran’s nuclear program “obliterated.” This year, Rattansi alleges that Washington and Tel Aviv used “so-called imminent threat” and peace negotiations as a pretext to kill Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei and family members, and to kill 168 elementary schoolgirls, while Iran still retains a “massive stockpile” of enriched uranium and could produce 10–20 nuclear weapons in days. Rattansi asks Professor Ted Postol, a nuclear weapons and missile defense expert, whether the U.S. has a sustainable strategic position. Postol says the U.S. does not have such a position and argues Trump is constrained by domestic politics and pressured by an Israeli lobby with outsized influence and major financial power affecting U.S. and Congressional actions. Rattansi questions contradictions between Pentagon/CENTCOM self-defense framing and Trump rhetoric about “destroying” and even threatening to destroy Oman if it does not behave. Postol responds that the operation is not defensive, is a war of choice initiated with Israel, and from Iran’s perspective is a war of survival and existential protection against U.S. and Israeli aims to destroy Iranian civilization. He emphasizes that Iranian resistance would be driven by survival rather than U.S. internal politics. On war gaming and nuclear strike planning, Postol says military officers are servants of the Constitution, reserved about limits of military action, and that if Trump ordered nuclear weapons use, there is a real chance people would refuse due to nuclear weapons being in a special category. Asked about claims that Iran’s nuclear knowledge could be removed, Postol says knowledge cannot be erased and that even killing experts would not stop a program because societies have large numbers of capable people; he gives an analogy to Russia under Stalin, describing how reconstitution occurred after large purges. He also argues Israel lacks a chance of successfully stopping Iran via this approach. Rattansi asks why Iran would not declare it has nuclear warheads and delivery mechanisms. Postol answers that doing so would be bad for Iran and could provoke neighbors into developing nuclear weapons, reducing Iran’s security. He describes an Iranian strategy of preparing capability without crossing the line, including enriching 60% uranium hexafluoride to 90%, converting it to uranium metal, and using deep underground facilities; he states this could be achieved in weeks or months, potentially even in weeks, based on available centrifuge capability and setup. When discussing Trump’s fear of nuclear weapons, Postol says he is more comfortable with Trump being afraid of nuclear weapons and argues Iran is not the main source of nuclear instability—Israel is—asserting Israeli leadership has been pushing toward escalation despite military limits. He claims Iran’s ballistic missiles are more capable than initially seen, are hard to intercept, have larger warheads, greater accuracy, and are backed by large numbers, alongside drones and air defense misuse. On ballistic missile defense effectiveness, Postol disputes claims about Patriot performance and says air defenses have almost no capability against ballistic missiles. He also addresses regional nuclear risks: for Bushehr, he says a catastrophic meltdown could spread radioactivity depending on weather and winds, potentially reaching Dubai under some conditions. For Zaporizhzhia, he says if plants are shut down for a period of weeks, residual core energy is small enough that loss of cooling would not necessarily lead to major release; if operating, there is danger. On Dimona, he suspects the reactor is shut down; if shut down long enough, plutonium production could be lost, and severe core damage would likely not cause major radioactive release unless near and affected by wind. He warns that if Israel believed it had no choice but to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, Iran would respond differently, using underground facilities to convert 60% enriched uranium hexafluoride to nuclear weapons in potentially weeks.

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.

Iran has kicked out IAEA inspectors, potentially concealing parts of its nuclear program. Israel, which won't allow inspections and is secretive about its nuclear weapons, is also a concern. The speaker does not blame Israel for wanting nuclear weapons but finds it hypocritical to push for regime change wars over secret nuclear weapons when it has them. The speaker suggests a deal where both Iran and Israel give up their secret nuclear weapon programs. The speaker references South Africa's denuclearization before ending apartheid and notes that if Israel recognizes sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, it may have to enfranchise millions of Palestinians. The speaker believes that the South Africa model for denuclearization is not totally off base. The speaker criticizes the Iraq War, stating it cost America $3 trillion and aided the rise of China and ISIS. The speaker questions whether those advocating for attacks on Iran understand the country.

The conversation centers on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Iran, and regional dynamics, with Speaker 0 (a former prime minister) offering sharp criticisms of the current Israeli government while outlining a path he sees as in Israel’s long-term interest. Speaker 1 presses on US interests, Lebanon, and the ethics and consequences of the war. Key points and claims retained as stated: - Iran and the war: Speaker 0 says he supported the American strike against Iran’s leadership, calling Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime a brutal threat and praising the move as punishment for Iran’s actions, including backing Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. He questions why there was a lack of a clear next-step strategy after the initial attack and asks whether a diplomatic alternative, similar to Obama’s Iran agreement, could have achieved nuclear supervision without war. He notes the broader regional risk posed by Iran’s proxies and ballistic missiles and emphasizes the goal of constraining Iran’s nuclear program, while acknowledging the economic and security costs of the war. - On Netanyahu and influence: Speaker 1 references the New York Times report about Netanyahu’s influence on Trump and asks how much Netanyahu affected the decision to go to war. Speaker 0 says he isn’t certain he’s the best judge of Netanyahu’s influence but believes Netanyahu sought to push the war forward even during a ceasefire and that Iran’s threat required action, though he questions whether the next steps beyond initial strikes were properly planned. He states, “Iran deserve to be punished,” and reiterates the need for a strategy to end hostilities and stabilize the region. - Proxies and regional instability: The discussion highlights Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as Iranian proxies destabilizing the Middle East, with Speaker 0 insisting that Iran’s support for these groups explains much of the regional violence and Israel’s security concerns. He argues that eliminating or significantly curbing Iran’s influence is essential for regional stability. - Gaza, West Bank, and war ethics: Speaker 1 cites humanitarian and civilian-impact statistics from Gaza, arguing that the war has gone beyond a proportionate response. Speaker 0 concedes there were crimes and unacceptable actions, stating there were “war crimes” and praising investigations and accountability, while resisting the accusation of genocide. He criticizes certain Israeli political figures (e.g., Ben-Gvir, Smotrich) for rhetoric and policies that could protract conflict, and he condemns the idea of broad acceptance of annexation policies in the South of Lebanon. - Lebanon and Hezbollah: The core policy debate is about disarming Hezbollah and the future of Lebanon-Israel normalization. Speaker 0 argues against annexing South Lebanon and says disarming Hezbollah must be part of any Israel–Lebanon peace process. He rejects “artificial” solutions like merging Hezbollah into the Lebanese army with weapons, arguing that Hezbollah cannot be permitted to operate as an independent armed force. He believes disarming Hezbollah should be achieved through an agreement that involves Iran’s influence, potentially allowing Hezbollah to be integrated into Lebanon’s political order if fully disarmed and bound by Lebanese sovereignty, and with international support (France cited). - Practical path to peace: Both speakers acknowledge the need for a negotiated two-state solution. Speaker 0 reiterates a longstanding plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, the Old City administered under a shared trust (involving Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). He emphasizes that this vision remains essential to changing the regional dynamic and that the current Israeli government’s approach conflicts with this pathway. He frames his opposition to the present government as tied to this broader objective and says he will continue opposing it until it is replaced. - Personal reflections on leadership and regional hope: The exchange ends with mutual recognition that the cycle of violence is fueled by leadership choices on both sides. Speaker 0 asserts that a different Israeli administration could yield a more hopeful trajectory toward peace, while Speaker 1 stresses the importance of accountability for war crimes and the dangers of rhetoric that could undermine regional stability. Speaker 0 maintains it is possible to pursue peace through a viable, enforceable two-state framework, and urges focusing on disarming Hezbollah, negotiating with Lebanon, and pulling back to an international front to prevent further escalation. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes urgent punitive action against Iran with the imperative of a negotiated regional settlement, disarmament of proxies, and a concrete two-state solution as the viable long-term path, while condemning certain actions and rhetoric that risk perpetuating conflict.

The discussion centers on Israel, Iran, and the United States’ role, focusing on perceived double standards about “foreign agents,” changing U.S. policy under Donald Trump, and concerns about influence inside American politics. Mario and the other speaker open by reacting to news claiming Netanyahu intends to tap pro-Israel Republican lawmakers and media figures such as Mark Levin to help undo progress toward a peace deal with Iran. They argue that Netanyahu’s position is not about nuclear weapons in practice, but about continuing pressure on Iran. The speaker says deterrence and nuclear power mean Israel will not be attacked the way it fears, and that Iran’s role as a regional power has checked aggression. They also claim there is no military option to change Iran’s position, which is presented as part of why Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The conversation then turns to a perceived double standard in U.S. discourse about foreign influence: critics fearmongering about certain countries and allegedly demonizing anyone who is complimentary or fair toward them. The speaker says careers are threatened and people are accused of being foreign agents in one case, while Israel-related foreign influence is treated as normal. They emphasize that if the U.S. treats Russia differently from Israel regarding foreign agents, the same standard should apply to both. They discuss frustration with criticism aimed at people outside the U.S. for caring about democracy and sovereignty, and note that Americans are not portrayed in similar stories to the same extent as prominent pro-Israel media figures. The speaker also argues that foreigners can support Israel verbally without risking lives or bankrolls in the way Americans would. On the war with Iran and the MOU, the speaker says Trump’s shift and signing reflect inability to pursue a military alternative, and that “math is math.” They emphasize that Iran is described as having control over the Strait of Hormuz and that prolonged conflict would worsen economic and material pressures, including a fertilizer crisis, beyond oil and gas. They argue that continuing engagement risks restarting a pointless war, especially given claims that Netanyahu is working to sabotage peace efforts. The speaker highlights Netanyahu’s stated intent to continue offensive actions in Lebanon and questions what the U.S. would do after Iran’s retaliation. Lindsey Graham’s support for the MOU is described as notable, and they debate whether this represents short-term defeat-acknowledgment while planning longer-term sabotage, versus a genuine shift. The speaker says it is difficult to determine directly but claims Israel has exerted pressure on U.S. policy for a long time and suggests the relationship is not based on genuine closeness between Trump and Netanyahu. They state Israel’s acceptance of U.S. support is framed as financially and militarily asymmetrical: the U.S. is described as funding roughly half of Israel’s military and providing major foreign aid, while the speaker claims Israel’s intelligence provided to the U.S. has allegedly pulled the U.S. into wars. A related topic is the potential merger of U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence structures. The speaker calls it “wild,” says it would make it “nearly impossible to get rid of” personnel they describe as Israeli infiltrators, and warns that it could lead to violent domestic upheaval if the trend continues. They also claim Senator Tom Cotton is pushing to merge Mossad and the CIA and call into question whether he is influenced by something like cash. The conversation includes discussion of political outcomes and voter behavior, including a claim that Israel-aligned influence may be “lucky” when fighting happens in primaries because voters are more galvanized and less focused in general elections. They argue that non-voters form a large block, that media division contributes to atomization, and that the system needs change rather than demonizing ordinary citizens. Turning to Israel’s internal perspective, the speaker says Israelis may believe they are entitled to border expansion and claims that U.S. support for decades conditions Israel to think its actions are acceptable. They argue that this makes it harder for Israeli society to undo narratives that justify harming civilians. They reject empathy toward “terrorists,” and claim that when critics label wrongdoing as terrorism, they are accused of anti-Semitism. The transcript discusses Mike Huckabee’s remarks that the U.S. “wouldn’t exist without Israel.” The speaker responds that the U.S. is older than Israel and argues that Israel cannot exist without U.S. support. They also link Huckabee’s stance to evangelical Christian beliefs about Israel’s role in the second coming, stating that those beliefs affect support for the state of Israel. They reference Huckabee’s meeting with Jonathan Pollard (described as a U.S. traitor) and say the White House response was no but there was “no problem,” expressing anger that such actions would not be treated as unacceptable. On whether Trump is under duress, they discuss claims that Trump’s behavior shifted after the 2024 assassination attempt. The speaker says they are not an insider but is influenced by Joe Kent’s claims and says Israel “has the capacity and capability” to carry out assassinations and use blackmail. They continue that Trump’s choices may reflect constraints rather than ideological alignment. Finally, they discuss how much control a U.S. president truly has, describing the deep state, unelected bureaucrats, and agency autonomy as factors that allow decisions to be made without presidential approval, including references to CENTCOM and past claims that “authorization from the U.S.” does not necessarily mean Trump personally authorized actions. The conversation concludes with the speaker expressing hope Trump continues working toward peace, while emphasizing skepticism that the MOU will lead to a lasting peace deal, and warning that U.S. influence structures and institutional autonomy could undermine desired outcomes.

Speaker 0 questions the rationale for the war, noting that “the intelligence did not suggest that an attack was imminent from Iran,” and asking, “What is left? Why are we at war with Iran?” He also remarks that “the nuclear program isn’t the reason” and that he never expected to hear Ted Cruz talking about nukes. Speaker 1 suggests the simplest explanation given, which has been backtracked, is that “Israel made us do it, that Bibi decided on this timeline, Netanyahu decided he wanted to attack, and he convinced Trump to join him by scaring Trump into believing that US assets in the region would be at risk, and so Trump was better off just joining Netanyahu.” He adds that this may not be the full explanation, but it’s a plausible one. He notes that “the nuclear program is not part of their targeting campaign,” and that “harder line leadership is taking hold,” with the Strait of Hormuz “still being shut down even as we get their navy.” He asks what remains as the explanation, suggesting it might be that Israel forced the United States’ hand and questions, “How weak does that make The United States look? How weak are we if our allies can force us into wars of choice that are bad for US national security interests?”

The conversation centers on multiple competing narratives about the war and its wider regional significance, with the speakers presenting their interpretations and challenging each other’s points. - The hosts open by acknowledging competing narratives: some view the war as a necessary action against a regime seen as destabilizing and dangerous (nuclear ambitions, regional havoc); others see it as Israel removing a geopolitical threat with U.S. involvement; a third perspective argues it stemmed from miscalculations by Trump, perhaps driven by Israeli influence. The dialogue frames the war within broader questions of American, Israeli, and Iranian aims. - Speaker 1 references Joseph Kent’s resignation letter, arguing Iran was not an immediate U.S. threat and that Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby influenced Trump toward war. They assert Trump’s stated interest in Iranian oil and control of the Strait of Hormuz; they describe Trump as guided by business interests. They frame U.S. actions as part of a long-standing pattern of demonizing enemies to justify intervention, citing Trump’s “animals” comment toward Iranians and labeling this demonization as colonial practice. - Speaker 0 pushes back on Trump’s rhetoric but notes it suggested a willingness to pressure Iran for concessions. They question whether Trump could transition from ending some wars to endorsing genocidal framing, acknowledging disagreement with some of Trump’s statements but agreeing that Israeli influence and Hormuz control were important factors. They also inquire whether Trump miscalculated a prolonged conflict and ask how Iran continued to fire missiles and drones despite expectations of regime collapse, seeking clarity on Iran’s resilience. - Speaker 1 clarifies that the Iranian system is a government, not a regime, and explains that Iranian missile and drone capabilities were prepared in advance, especially after Gaza conflicts. They note Iran’s warning that an attack would trigger a regional war, and reference U.S. intelligence assessments stating Iran does not have a nuclear weapon or a program for one at present, which Trump publicly dismissed in favor of Netanyahu’s view. They recount that Iran’s leaders warned of stronger responses if attacked, and argue Iran’s counterstrikes reflected a strategic calculus to deter further aggression while acknowledging Iran’s weaker, yet still capable, position. - The discussion shifts to regional dynamics: the balance of power, the loss of Israel’s “card” of American support if Iran can close Hormuz, and the broader implications for U.S.-Israel regional leverage. Speaker 1 emphasizes the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress, while also suggesting Mossad files could influence Trump, and notes that the war leverages Netanyahu’s stance but may not fully explain U.S. decisions. - The two then debate Gulf states’ roles: Saudi Arabia and the UAE are depicted as providing bases and support to the United States; Kuwait as a near neighbor with vulnerability to Iranian action and strategic bases for American forces. They discuss international law, noting the war’s alleged illegality without a UN Security Council authorization, and reference the unwilling-or-unable doctrine to explain Gulf state complicity. - The conversation covers Iran’s and Lebanon’s involvement: Iran’s leverage via missiles and drones, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah as a Lebanese organization with Iranian support. They discuss Hezbollah’s origins in response to Israeli aggression and their current stance—driving Lebanon into conflict for Iran’s sake, while Hezbollah asserts independence and Lebanon’s interests. They acknowledge Lebanon’s ceasefire violations on both sides and debate who bears responsibility for dragging Lebanon into war; Hezbollah’s leaders are described as navigating loyalties to Iran, Lebanon, and their people, with some insistence that Hezbollah acts as a defender of Lebanon rather than a mere proxy. - Towards the end, the speakers reflect on personal impact and future dialogue. They acknowledge the war’s wide, long-lasting consequences for Lebanon and the region, and express interest in continuing the discussion, potentially in person, to further explore these complex dynamics.

Netanyahu controls Trump, not the other way around, which will also be the case regarding Israel's nuclear weapons. The influence of Israelis and their control over the US administration and Congress is unquestionable. Netanyahu has more influence in the US Congress than Donald Trump and is getting everything he wants. There is a groundswell in Congress to back Israelis and Netanyahu, no matter what he's done. After a hospital was hit in Israel, Netanyahu is saying they need to bomb and obliterate Iran.

Netanyahu wants to fight Iran to remain in office indefinitely. The speaker hopes Trump, or anyone, will defuse the situation. The U.S. needs to convince Middle Eastern allies of its support, but undeclared wars victimizing civilians are not a good solution. The speaker believes Iran must be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons, something they tried to do with some success. However, the speaker is against the constant killing of civilians who cannot defend themselves and "just want a chance to live."

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson joins the program with host Glenn to discuss the escalating tensions around Iran, the U.S. leadership, and the broader geopolitical and economic implications. The conversation centers on what is driving recent White House actions, the potential paths forward, and the risks of cascading consequences. Key points and insights: - Trump’s countdown to strike Iran: Wilkerson interprets Trump’s 48-hour, then 5-, then 10-day countdowns on Iran’s energy facilities as an attempt to buy time rather than a clear plan for escalation. He suggests Trump is trying to stall and manage narratives while lacking a credible path out of the crisis. - Reasons Trump is escalating: Wilkerson argues Trump is “buying time to be buying time,” unable to articulate a feasible exit strategy. He posits that the main driver of the escalation is a realization by Trump that he’s deeply entangled, with Bibi Netanyahu as the principal ally who would abandon him in a crisis. - Global force posture and limits: The administration is assembling various special operations forces (e.g., 1st SOG, rangers from multiple locations) and delivery/ extraction capabilities, but Wilkerson believes a full invasion is not feasible and would risk impeachment. He notes the use of dispersed forces and high-end delivery systems akin to operations in Venezuela, stressing the operational and strategic implausibility of a large-scale invasion of Iran. - Iranian diplomacy and leadership: Wilkerson cites Iranian diplomacy as sidelined by U.S. actions. He highlights a UN emergency meeting where Iraqi officials criticized the U.S. and Israel for “two bullying nuclear weapons regimes” and condemned the “torpedoing of diplomacy,” pointing to the broader frustration with the international handling of the Palestinian-Israeli situation. He criticizes Witkoff and Kushner as ineffective in negotiating with Iran and notes a strong Iranian stance emphasizing an end to what they view as aggression. - Domestic political dynamics: Wilkerson criticizes both U.S. parties for their current leadership, accusing figures like Keane, Hagel, and Trump of mismanaging the crisis. He rails against the influence of evangelical and political figures who advocate Old Testament-style rhetoric in modern policy, arguing it contributes to destructive escalation. - Economic and global ripple effects: The war threatens the global economy, with consequences such as disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz impacting helium, urea, and broader trade. Wilkerson warns that the world could experience a global recession, potentially spiraling into a depression, due to shipping bottlenecks and energy-price shocks. - Strait of Hormuz and strategic chokepoints: A recurring theme is the vulnerability created by critical chokepoints. Wilkerson references his naval analysis of global straits and identifies Hormuz as a significant vulnerability, though not necessarily the most critical, with Bab el-Mandeb potentially more serious. - Israel’s situation and nuclear considerations: Discussion turns to Israel’s military situation in Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu’s political decisions, and the potential for Israel to face internal collapse or drastic shifts. Wilkerson raises the hypothetical that Iran could seek a nuclear deterrent if faced with existential threats and notes concerns about how the U.S. and Israel might respond to an Iranian nuclear capability. - Possible exit routes and diplomacy: When pressed for a pathway out, Wilkerson suggests a drastic but unlikely option: declare victory and leave, lifting sanctions and pressuring allies to do the same, including pressuring Europe to support rebuilding Iran. He emphasizes this as a potentially politically expedient exit for Trump, though he doubts it will happen. - Nuclear entanglements and further escalation: The conversation turns to the risk of nuclear exchange if Iran develops a deterrent and if Israel or the U.S. decide to escalate further. Wilkerson outlines a scenario in which limited U.S. forces strike Gulf targets, provoking Iranian retaliation that could escalate into a broader regional conflict with nuclear implications, given multiple nuclear powers’ capabilities. - Long-term outlook: Wilkerson references the broader implications for the global order, noting the dangers of imperial hubris post-Cold War, and warns that multiple dimensions—military, economic, and diplomatic—are converging toward a dangerous crossroads. He asserts that the current trajectory could threaten global stability and the viability of traditional alliance structures. In sum, Wilkerson presents a troubling synthesis: Trump’s incremental escalation appears aimed at time-buying without a credible exit; Iran’s leadership responds with strategic diplomacy and potential deterrence considerations; Israel faces internal and regional pressures; and the global economy and critical chokepoints amplify the risk that the conflict could spiral into a larger, harder-to-control crisis. He emphasizes the dangerous mix of leadership missteps, strategic miscalculations, and existential stakes that could reshuffle the regional and global order.

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

The speaker questions the number of nuclear weapons Iran and Israel possess. They admit to having no knowledge of Israel's nuclear weapons despite being in the government. The speaker denies discussing Israel's nuclear program and dismisses the importance of the issue. They mention that experts estimate Israel's nuclear weapons to be between 84 and 100. The speaker acknowledges the hypocrisy of Israel having a secret nuclear program while criticizing others in the region.

The speaker believes Israel's recent attack on Iran is politically motivated, referencing a close Knesset vote where Netanyahu narrowly avoided another election. They argue that focusing on Iran's nuclear program is a distraction, as North Korea poses a greater nuclear threat to the U.S. and Iran lacks the necessary delivery systems. The speaker highlights Israel's own uninspected nuclear program, suggesting a double standard. They propose a deal where both Iran and Israel denuclearize, potentially brokered by Trump. They draw a parallel to South Africa's denuclearization and the possibility of Israel needing to grant voting rights in the West Bank. The speaker criticizes the enthusiasm for regime change wars, citing the Iraq War as a costly failure that benefited China and ISIS. They question whether those advocating for regime change in Iran have sufficient knowledge about the country, referencing a senator who couldn't estimate Iran's population or ethnic makeup. They contrast the comfort of advocating for war from safe positions with the sacrifices made by those who fight and die in them.

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

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of striking Iran to eliminate its nuclear program and the broader implications of regime change. - Speaker 0 acknowledges arguments that Israel has wanted to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, and that American involvement with B-52s and large bombs might be needed to finish the job. He notes the idea of a strike that proceeds quickly with minimal American casualties, under a Trump-era frame that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. - He observes a shift among Washington’s neoconservative and Republican circles from opposing Iran’s nuclear capability to opposing Ayatollah rule itself, suggesting a subtle change in objectives while maintaining the theme of intervention. He concedes cautious support if Trump executes it prudently, but warns of a “switcheroo” toward regime change rather than purely disabling the nuclear program. - Speaker 0 criticizes the record of neocons on foreign policy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, the Arab Spring) and argues that the entire Middle East bears their failures. He emphasizes a potential regime-change drive and questions what would come after removing the Ayatollah, including possible US troop deployments and financial support for a new regime. - He highlights the size of Iran (about 92,000,000 people, two and a half times the size of Texas) and warns that regime change could trigger a bloody civil war and a large refugee crisis, possibly drawing tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilizing Europe. - Speaker 1 presents a more vocal stance: he would like to see the regime fall and leaves to the president the timing and method, insisting that if the nuclear program isn’t eliminated now, “we’ll all regret it” and urging to “be all in” to help Israel finish the job. - In cuts 3:43, Speaker 1 argues that removing the Ayatollah’s regime would be beneficial because staying in power would continue to threaten Israel, foment terrorism, and pursue a bomb; he characterizes the regime as aiming to destroy Jews and Sunni Islam, calling them “fanatical religious Nazis.” - Speaker 0 responds that such a forceful call for regime change is immature, shallow, and reckless, warning that certainty about outcomes in foreign interventions is impossible. He asserts that the first rule of foreign policy is humility, noting that prior interventions led to prolonged conflict and mass displacement. He cautions against beating the drums for regime change in another Middle Eastern country, especially the largest, and reiterates that the issue is not simply removing the nuclear program but opposing Western-led regime change. - The discussion frames a tension between supporting efforts to deny Iran a nuclear weapon and resisting Western-led regime change, with a strong emphasis on potential humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The speakers reference public opinion (citing 86% of Americans not wanting Iran to have a bomb) and critique interventions as historically destabilizing.

John Mearsheimer and Glenn (Speaker 0) discuss the current state of the international system, its shifts since World War II, and the implications for U.S. foreign policy, Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. - Structural changes since the Cold War: Mearsheimer argues fundamental changes are underway in the international system due to two forces: evolving structural dynamics and the rise and actions of Donald Trump. The Cold War produced a bipolar order with the United States shaping a Western security architecture (NATO, European Community) designed to wage the Cold War. After 1989–1991, the Western order expanded globally during the unipolar moment, with NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and globalization (including China joining the WTO). From 2017, the world has entered a multipolar era with three great powers, and East Asia becomes the United States’ most important region outside the Western Hemisphere, overtaking Europe and the Persian Gulf. - East Asia as a priority: The U.S. pivot to East Asia (explicitly discussed by Clinton and then pursued under Trump) reorients strategic priorities away from Europe in a multipolar world where China is a peer competitor. This shift redefines where the U.S. focuses its resources and attention. - Trump as a destabilizing factor: Trump’s presidency is described as sui generis—a one-man wrecking ball that amplified unilateralism and contempt for international law, institutions, and allies. After initial containment of China in his first term, Trump’s policies intensified a unilateral approach. The Iran war decision (February 28) is presented as a catastrophic misstep that worsened U.S. positions globally and risked destabilizing the region further. - Three major strands of American policy causing trouble: NATO expansion, the global war on terror, and the Iran war. NATO expanded eastward in the 1990s and 2000s, culminating in Ukraine’s entry in 2022, aggravating Russia and complicating U.S.–Russia relations and European security. The global war on terror led to Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts and other interventions (Libya), generating domestic fatigue and a populist backlash that helped propel Trump. The February 28 Iran invasion created a broader, more consequential set of regional and global ramifications, with China, Russia, and Europe pressuring limits on U.S. actions. - The Iran war: Mearsheimer stresses that Iran presents a more dangerous theater than Iraq because the stakes are higher globally, with potential for a worldwide depression and cascading economic impacts, particularly in Asia. He outlines three options for ending or de-escalating the Iran conflict: (1) maintain the status quo with ongoing blockades; (2) blockade plus bombing, which risks catastrophic economic damage and Iranian retaliation; (3) cut a deal with Iran, which would be politically difficult in Washington given Israeli influence and the desire to avoid conceding that Iran “wins.” He asserts that the blockade alone won’t force surrender, bombing would escalate risk and deplete U.S. military capacity, and the only viable path is a negotiated settlement, though domestic and allied opposition makes this hard. - Israel–Iran–U.S. dynamics: The relationship between the United States and Israel creates a “tag team” dynamic, with Israel viewing Iran as an existential threat. If Iran preserves its nuclear enrichment capability, it could push Israel toward considering nuclear options, which raises the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Trump’s rhetoric has even hinted at extreme objectives against Iran, complicating efforts to reach a deal. Mearsheimer emphasizes the influential role of the Israeli lobby in U.S. policy and notes the broader risk of nuclear escalation in the region. - Ukraine and nuclear deterrence: The Ukraine war has surprised many by showing Ukraine’s ability to threaten Russian strategic forces with Western support, which underscores Karaganov’s point about Europeans underestimating the nuclear dimension of security and deterrence. Mearsheimer highlights that the current era features a complex web of regional and great-power interdependencies—Russia, China, Iran, and European security architectures are all interlinked, affecting and being affected by one another. - Conclusion and outlook: The discussion emphasizes that managing security competition, rather than relying solely on military solutions, is essential. The speakers warn that the contemporary shift toward multipolarity and the interwoven regional dynamics heighten the risk of escalation and miscalculation, making prudent diplomacy and restraint crucial to avoiding a broader catastrophe. They acknowledge the difficulty of achieving lasting peace in the Middle East given domestic political constraints and the powerful influence of regional actors, but stress the necessity of recognizing the geopolitical realities of a world in which power is distributed more unevenly than in the Cold War.

Netanyahu wants to fight Iran to remain in office indefinitely. The speaker hopes Trump, or anyone, will defuse the situation. The U.S. needs to convince Middle Eastern allies of its support, but undeclared wars victimizing civilians are not a good solution. The speaker believes Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons, something they previously attempted to do successfully. However, this does not require constant killing of civilians who cannot defend themselves and simply want to live.

The transcript discusses Bloomberg’s claim that the United States has acquired the text of an Iran-related Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that, in the speaker’s framing, represents US concessions to Iran and Iran’s “decisive victory.” The speaker says the MOU includes terms such as the US lifting its naval blockade on Iran immediately upon signing, and pledging to withdraw US forces from the region within 30 days of the final agreement. The speaker interprets “the region” as the entire Middle East, implying US forces would leave places including Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, Qatar, and also withdraw from the Arabian Sea and the Sea of Oman. The speaker highlights additional points attributed to the MOU: Iran agreeing it will never produce nuclear weapons; the US halting all economic sanctions against Iranian oil and related banking services, allowing Iran to sell oil at normal market prices; and the US releasing frozen Iranian funds and assets, described as “many tens of billions of dollars,” with figures such as 24 billion mentioned and estimates about portions released before Friday. The speaker also claims the Israeli lobby opposes the agreement and wants “endless war,” alleging that Israel would continue bombing and expanding territory. The transcript then proposes two possible paths for President Trump. One path is that Trump is pressured or threatened into backing away from the agreement, blaming Iran, and supporting perpetual war. The other path is that Trump keeps his word, signs the deal, and the Strait of Hormuz reopens, with improvements to oil availability taking time rather than happening instantly. The speaker asks what would determine which path Trump takes, arguing that a key factor may be new claims that Iran has multiple nuclear weapons. The speaker says the nuclear-weapon claim emerged within about two weeks prior to the discussion, citing investigative journalist Pepe Escobar and former CIA case officer Larry Johnson. According to the transcript, they received the information from a high-ranking Pakistani official stating that Iran has multiple nuclear warheads and is prepared to demonstrate them, and possibly to use them. The speaker claims that after this information surfaced, Trump began changing his public tone toward Iran, including slamming Netanyahu and criticizing bombing in Lebanon—specifically apartment complexes—and saying not everyone in those buildings is Hezbollah. The speaker further claims that US posture toward Israel is shifting, including KC-135 refueling planes being pulled out, and argues these signals align with Trump distancing from Netanyahu’s campaign. The speaker states that the world would supposedly learn “the truth” within days if Trump reverses course and bombs Iran again; if Trump continues supporting the peace memorandum and signs it on Friday, the speaker interprets that as evidence Trump believes Iran has nuclear weapons and that Iran is prepared to demonstrate or use them. The speaker also emphasizes that one MOU point says that by Friday Iran will agree it will “never produce nuclear weapons,” and argues this does not necessarily address acquiring nuclear weapons already produced elsewhere, naming Pakistan, Russia, and North Korea as potential sources. The transcript expands on Pakistan’s alleged role, suggesting Pakistan may be handing warheads to Iran and that the information could plausibly come from Pakistan because Pakistan is the origin of the warheads. The speaker speculates Iran could attach nuclear weapons to its existing ballistic missile delivery technology. The speaker argues Trump may now be more afraid of Iran’s nuclear capability than of Netanyahu using alleged “Epstein files” or other compromising material, and suggests that advancing a “224 law” in Congress is intended to bypass presidential control over intelligence sharing with Israel. Additional claims in the transcript include speculation about the lack of visible wreckage from a recently reported crash involving a B-52 bomber, with comparisons to alleged missing airplane evidence related to 9/11. The speaker also mentions the Iran–Pakistan gas pipeline, saying it has been mostly completed for decades but is not functional largely due to sanctions blocking financial transfers, and that lifting sanctions could allow gas to flow, benefiting Pakistan economically. The speaker concludes that the situation is at a major pivot point shaped by Trump’s decision, framing possible outcomes as either catastrophic continuation of conflict or movement toward peace that would benefit oil and energy supplies, with the speaker urging readiness and calling for peace while asserting many lives are at stake.

The speaker believes Israel's recent attack on Iran is politically motivated, referencing a close Knesset vote where Netanyahu narrowly avoided another election. They argue the conflict isn't about Iran's nuclear program, as North Korea poses a greater nuclear threat to the US. The speaker highlights that Iran lacks the capabilities for a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, unlike North Korea. They suggest a deal where both Iran and Israel give up their secret nuclear weapon programs, drawing a parallel to South Africa's denuclearization. The speaker criticizes the enthusiasm for regime change wars, recalling the flawed Iraq War, which cost trillions and aided the rise of China and ISIS. They question whether those advocating for attacks on Iran understand the country, citing a senator's lack of knowledge about Iran's population and ethnic mix. The speaker contrasts the comfortable political stance of supporting regime change wars with the sacrifices made by those who fight and die in them.

Chas Freeman and Glenn discuss the broader geopolitical implications of the ongoing war with Iran, focusing on perspectives from China, Russia, and the United States, and then turning to regional dynamics involving Israel, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, and others. Freeman argues that China does not have a unified view on the Iran war. He notes that some in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army are pleased to see the United States seemingly disarmed by its own stalemate and by depleting weapons stockpiles, including the pivot away from stationing intermediate-range missiles in the Pacific. Geopolitical thinkers fear the war destabilizes a central region for global commerce and energy, with the Hormuz Strait now effectively impassable. He asserts that Azerbaijan has become a primary route for Asia-to-Europe transit, while Iran’s control of the strait and safe passage for Chinese tankers complicate sanctions regimes. China, he says, is also recalibrating its economy toward renewables and away from fossil fuels due to the war’s effects. Freeman highlights how Asia-Pacific dynamics are affected: Japan is highly dependent on oil and gas imports and is stressed; Taiwan faces limits due to its own energy constraints; South Korea is economically hurt by the strait closure; Southeast Asia suffers from reduced petroleum exports; and the war pushes China closer to Russia, with Russia’s planned Siberia gas project gaining traction as a diversified supply route away from maritime routes. He also mentions Brazil and South Africa increasing military cooperation, noting potential Brazilian-Japanese collaborations and rising defense spending in Japan, with implications for US influence and global supply chains. Freeman then discusses Russia, noting Trump’s call with Putin and the possibility that Russia is seeking to influence or assist in ending the war with Iran. He asserts Iran seeks to deter or destroy Israel and to decolonize West Asia, including removing American forces from the Gulf. He emphasizes that Russia and China do not want Iran subjugated and abstained on a Security Council resolution condemning Iran, aiming to avoid offending Gulf Arabs while not endorsing the war. The war has drawn Iran closer to Russia, with Iranian drones and technology transfers now in Russian use, and Russia increasing influence in Iran as Gulf reconstruction becomes necessary. Freeman also points out that Iran has demanded reparations and sanctions relief, and that sanctions have deeply distressed the Iranian population. He argues that Russia benefits from higher oil and gas prices and European energy dependence on Russian supply, while the conflict complicates Western weapon stockpiles and European defense needs. He contends Putin benefits from divisions within the US and diminished American global leadership, while the war is not advantageous for the United States overall. Freeman emphasizes a broader moral and strategic dimension, criticizing what he sees as a departure from international law and ethical norms, including the suspension of targeting guidelines and collateral-damage assessments in certain operations. He cites concerns about human rights and humanitarian law, warning that the erosion of a universal moral order could have long-term consequences for Western diplomacy. He invokes historical and religious ethical frameworks (Kant, Grotius, and others) to argue for a return to principled conduct in war and postwar reconciliation. The conversation turns to Israel, with Freeman suggesting that Netanyahu’s long-standing aim to reshape Israel’s security and borders faces a difficult reckoning as Iran becomes a tangible military threat. Freeman contends that Israel’s plan for regime change in Iran is failing, and he questions what Plan B might be if Israel cannot secure its strategic goals. He warns that Israel could contemplate extreme options, including nuclear considerations, if it feels existentially threatened, while noting the potential for Israel’s positions to undermine American public support for Israel and complicate US domestic civil liberties and freedom of inquiry. Glenn and Freeman close by acknowledging that the situation has created a shifting web of alliances and rivalries, with European willingness to appease Trump waning and broader questions about coexistence in the Middle East. They stress the need for a more sustainable approach to regional security and a reconsideration of diplomatic norms to avoid escalating toward broader conflict.

The speakers discuss Iran's nuclear capabilities and Israel's potential response. Netanyahu claimed in 2012 that Iran was months away from a nuclear bomb. In 2015, he stated Iran was weeks away from having the fissile material for an arsenal. In 2018, Israel revealed Iran's secret nuclear files, including alleged warhead designs. A hot war between Israel and Iran could threaten the United States, but one speaker suggests the U.S. should stay out of it. Marco Rubio stated Israel took unilateral action against Iran and the U.S. was not involved. However, Trump acknowledged he was aware and gave a green light. Israel used American equipment during the strikes.

The speaker believes Israel's recent attack on Iran is politically motivated, possibly due to Netanyahu's tenuous position in the Knesset. They argue that focusing on Iran's nuclear program is a distraction, as North Korea poses a greater nuclear threat to the U.S. The speaker highlights Israel's own uninspected nuclear program, suggesting hypocrisy in pursuing regime change in Iran over nuclear proliferation. They propose a deal where both Iran and Israel denuclearize, potentially brokered by Trump. Drawing parallels to the Iraq War, the speaker criticizes the lack of knowledge about Iran among those advocating for regime change, citing a senator's ignorance of Iran's population and ethnic makeup. They contrast the comfortable position of those promoting war with the sacrifices made by soldiers.

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.