reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks if the US will freeze the $6 billion that was unlocked for Iran in exchange for prisoners, considering Iran's support for Hamas. Speaker 1 responds that none of that money has been spent yet. Speaker 0 then asks if the US will prevent Iran from using the money for their activities, to which Speaker 1 reiterates that none of the money has been spent.

Iran's secret nuclear files will be revealed, including a warhead and a bomb. Although it is unclear if Iran is closer to having a bomb since 2018, Israel now has the capacity to enrich their drawing.

CENTCOM reports more than 10,000 U.S. sailors, Marines, and airmen, along with over a dozen warships and dozens of aircraft, are enforcing a blockade of ships entering and leaving Iranian ports. In the first 24 hours, no ships passed the blockade, six merchant vessels turned around and reentered an Iranian port in the Gulf of Oman, while other reports claim two U.S.-sanctioned Iranian ships and another Panamanian ship managed to pass. With mixed accounts of what’s getting through and what’s blocked, the discussion turns to Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, who has been closely tracking the situation. Ritter and the hosts discuss the Strait of Hormuz and what the United States can actually do there. They speculate the U.S. plan is to block at the opening of the strait. Reports of mixed passage capabilities are noted, including a quip about Iranian embassies posting that “you cannot block someone who blocked you,” and the group questions how such blocking would work and whether it could be followed by firepower, given a current ceasefire. Concerns are raised about what would happen if a ship simply proceeds in defiance. The possibility of firing on merchant vessels is framed as piracy, and there’s mention of threats against U.S. ships from Iran. The ceasefire’s remaining duration is noted as only a few days, with online betting markets (Polymarket) showing odd optimism that the conflict could end imminently, which is questioned by the panel. The conversation broadens to regional implications: Lebanon is seen as not halted by the current actions, and Gaza ceasefire violations persist amid ongoing rhetoric and Hezbollah presence. The discussion shifts back to awaiting Ritter’s input. When Ritter appears, he weighs in on whether the blockade can be escalated and what Iran’s response might be. He argues that if the United States wanted to resume pre-ceasefire behavior, it could bomb Iran, absorb Iranian missiles, and endure destruction to U.S. infrastructure, but that is unlikely, as the blockade is “a joke” used for posturing to justify negotiations. He suggests a political off ramp is sought, with a resumption of negotiations likely on Thursday through Pakistan, since the blockade’s effectiveness is limited and other nations have told the United States to “pound sand.” Regarding the blockade’s impact, Ritter notes that most Iranian shipping has already moved out of the trade routes or is skirting the coast, and major actors like China, Russia, and India have signaled they will not be pressured by the blockade. He challenges CENTCOM to show one instance of boarding a Chinese vessel to turn it around, while noting the U.S. Navy would risk being sunk if challenging shipping along Iran’s coastline. He stresses that a blockade is technically an act of war, and the United States would need a new description for its current actions. On nuclear negotiations, Ritter states Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and that there is no evidence of one sustaining past claims; he argues that the 60% enriched uranium is a provocation and explains that Iran’s leadership has claimed enrichment to maintain leverage in negotiations. He recounts past discussions with Iranian officials about limiting enrichment to 3.75% under IAEA supervision, arguing that Iran has the right under the NPT to possess the totality of the nuclear fuel cycle and that a mutual agreement could permanently limit higher enrichment pathways, potentially resolving the issue. He criticizes U.S. and Israeli positions and asserts that Israel’s influence is obstructing a straightforward resolution. The discussion touches on U.S. policy shifts and the idea that Netanyahu’s influence is affecting negotiations. Ritter concludes by reiterating that a realistic off ramp and negotiations are the preferred path, with a termination of the blockade and a resumption of talks anticipated. The hosts thank Ritter for joining and note audience appreciation from viewers who view his insights as truthful.

We should not give more money without accountability. Funds were misused in Nepal and Afghanistan. Money meant for Gaza is stuck. Lack of transparency is concerning. State funds indirectly reached the Taliban. No action taken against uncooperative partners. The State Department denies direct funding to the Taliban. Lack of accountability and frozen funds are issues. The State Department will investigate further. Refusal to confirm questionnaire accuracy is troubling. Further investigation is needed.

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

American taxpayer money has been funding the Taliban since September 2021. The Biden administration sends $40 million in cash weekly to Afghanistan through a complex system. The money goes to the Afghanistan International Bank (AIB), which lacks the authority to convert the dollars to Afghani. AIB then gives the money to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank of Afghanistan. Nur Ahmadogar, a U.S.-sanctioned terrorist for financing IED attacks against American soldiers, runs the central bank. Once the money reaches the central bank, they hold bidding and auctioning sessions, inviting individuals involved with the hawala system and licensed money dealers to bid on buying the dollars.

The US could regain trust by immediately removing sanctions on critical Iranian sectors like the medical sector, including chemotherapy drugs and diagnosis machines. Iran would likely request reconnection to the SWIFT payment system. After a deal is signed, there must be full sanctions relief, meaning all US sanctions must be removed. There can't be any more sanctions regimes. If the US reneges again, there have to be snapback clauses for Iranians to renew their nuclear activities. Iran will not give up its legitimate nuclear program, which is overseen by the IAEA and follows its rules. Nuclear nonproliferation is about weapons, not the use of nuclear energy for legitimate reasons.

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

Iran will receive 5 Iranians in exchange for the release of 5 Americans. The $6 billion addition was necessary to secure this deal. It would be ideal if we could simply ask for the Americans to be sent back, but that's not possible with Iran. Bringing Americans home requires tough decisions, compromise, and negotiations with people we may not want to negotiate with. However, it is important for Americans in trouble overseas and their families to know that this administration will do whatever it takes to bring them home.

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

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

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

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis and Glenn (Speaker 0) discuss the rapidly evolving situation around the Strait of Hormuz, the Lebanon ceasefire, and the broader implications for war, diplomacy, and global energy. - Iran asserts the Strait of Hormuz is open, contingent on conditions tied to the Lebanon ceasefire. Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi said the strait would be open “in conformity to the conditions that were set when they did the original ceasefire,” and the period of that ceasefire “expires… local time” in a few days. Iran’s stance includes three conditions: ships must be commercial, passage of a military ship is prohibited, ships and cargo must not be linked to any belligerent state; ships must pass through the route designated by Iran to avoid mines; passage must be coordinated with Iranian forces responsible for the passage, acknowledging Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps control of the strait. - The United States position is contrasted: President Trump stated, via Truth Social, that there is “no truth” to a deal reported by Axios about unfreezing Iranian assets in exchange for reprocessed material, and asserted he would not give any funds. Trump suggested he’d personally press to obtain the reprocessed material. He also claimed Iran promised never to close the Strait again. Iran’s side emphasizes a two-way street and that the strait’s openness depends on their terms, implying an incompatible dynamic with Trump’s one-way demand. - The Lebanese ceasefire is central to the conditions for Hormuz opening, with Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ibrahim Al-Faqqar warning that if the naval blockade continues, it would be a violation of the ceasefire. This sets up a potential contradiction: the Strait may be “open,” but the openness is conditioned on Lebanon and on how the blockade is treated. - Market reaction: oil dropped about 12% on the announcements, though observers warn the details matter greatly and a true opening depends on mutual compliance and ongoing events. - Military and diplomatic dynamics: both sides are preparing for renewed hostilities. The US has increased interceptor and offensive missiles and prepared systems (JASMs, Tomahawks, SM variants). Secretary of Defense and Trump indicate a readiness to resume hostilities when the ceasefire ends, though President Trump also notes possible diplomatic maneuvers. Iran is reportedly excavating tunnels, refurbishing underground missile facilities, and moving assets, while the US is reinforcing with ships and air traffic. Diplomatic efforts are occurring with multilateral engagement, signaling negotiations could extend beyond the current window. - Ground invasion scenarios: a US ground invasion of Iran is deemed physically impossible or highly impractical. Estimates suggest requiring 400,000–500,000 troops, with Iran’s mountainous terrain and fortified positions providing a lethal environment. Even efforts to seize coastal sites like Hormuz or Bandar Abbas would be costly and strategically indefensible, potentially yielding only temporary gains. - Endgame options presented by Davis as the three main paths for President Trump: (1) negotiate a settlement on terms minimally acceptable to Iran—likely including control of the strait, security guarantees, and reparations; (2) a sudden “firestorm” of bombing and energy-system strikes to coerce concessions; (3) maintain the blockade and pursue a prolonged economic pressure strategy, wagering on longer-term pain. All options carry significant downsides for the United States and global markets. - Economic and global risk: even a diplomatic breakthrough could leave lasting effects on energy, fertilizer supply, and broader economic stability. Experts warn of a potential global recession or even depression if the crisis persists or worsens, due to disruptions in oil, fertilizers, and related sectors. - The discussion closes with cautious optimism about diplomatic space, balanced by realism about the profound challenges and the likelihood that the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, with substantial economic and geopolitical risks no matter which path is pursued.

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

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the presence and influence of the Taliban within government and international circles, and the U.S. approach to engagement. Speaker 1 suggests that while there may not be overt Taliban infiltration as a formal party, there are lobbyists, supporters, and Taliban in neckties and suits in Washington, pointing to the speech of the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, Thomas West, as evidence of whitewashing the Taliban. Speaker 0 counters that the U.S. is in regular, productive dialogue with the Taliban, and believes the Taliban are sincere but frustrated. He notes that no sanctions have been passed against the Taliban since last August, that four Americans have returned, but several remain in Taliban custody. He also highlights that the U.S. has backed the shipment of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash into the country since August, and claims it is actually over $1,000,000,000. Speaker 0 states that the U.S. has cooperated with the Taliban on certain discrete issues, including closing roads and managing crowds to prevent terrorist disruption, and that he has had a series of engagements with senior Taliban leaders. When asked about returning to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban, he says, “The sooner, the better,” noting that the Taliban want sanctions relief, development aid, and a big seat at the table. He mentions an announced plan to pump in another $308,000,000, and describes mechanisms that are getting hundreds of millions of dollars in cash directly into the banking system. The Taliban purportedly want to seat their permanent representative in New York. ISIS-K is described as a common enemy, with the Taliban maintaining a vigorous and robust effort against it. He asserts that, despite concerns, they are building productive relationships and an honest dialogue with Taliban members, while acknowledging the priority of countering ISIS-K. He references the Doha agreement breach by the Taliban in sheltering Ayman al-Zawahiri in downtown Kabul, which he characterizes as unacceptable and a major breach, and states that even after this event, the U.S. is prepared to engage pragmatically with the Taliban regarding terrorism concerns. Speaker 1 adds that the UN and World Bank are developing a humanitarian exchange facility to move more Afghans into the system, noting that many banknotes have circulated for over ten years and are not accepted by shops or the central bank. He mentions a private-sector arrangement in Europe facilitating the shipment of hundreds of millions in cash into private banks in Afghanistan, with money going to the Afghanistan International Bank (AIB), which allegedly lacks authority to convert dollars to Afghanis and to auction them, and then passes funds to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank of Afghanistan. He asks who is in charge of the Central Bank, identifying Nur Ahmad Ora as the head, described as sanctioned by the U.S. for financing IED attacks that killed American soldiers. He concludes that diplomacy with the Taliban is essential to achieve objectives and asks whether there are Taliban in elections, asserting that they hold official offices and are present, urging the listener to review their statements to determine if they are Taliban sympathizers or whitewashing the Taliban. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 remarking, “Man, that's scary.”

In January 2016, Obama authorized sending $1.7 billion in cash to Iran, a nation known for sponsoring terrorism. The money was delivered in actual cash, stacked on pallets, and flown into the country. The funds were allegedly part of a long-standing financial obligation stemming from a pre-1979 agreement where the U.S. had committed to supplying Iran with military equipment. Following the Iranian revolution, the transaction was abandoned, leading Iran to claim reimbursement for the $400 million initially paid, which, with accrued interest, grew to $1.7 billion. An initial $400 million was delivered in February via aircraft, with the remaining balance delivered in subsequent shipments. Some claim that this funding allowed Iran to pay for terror and build up their nuclear programs.

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

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

The treasury, and what we have done is created a dollar shortage in the country. At a speech at the Economic Club of New York in March, I outlined the strategy. It came to a swift and, I would say, grand culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under. There was a run of the bank. The central bank had to print money. The Iranian currency went into free fall. Inflation exploded, and hence, we have seen the Iranian people out on the street. We will continue monitoring all the partners, all the Iranian partners. The good news, senator, is that we have seen and we can see it with our fencing.

American taxpayer money is funding the Taliban through $40,000,000 sent weekly by the US government to Afghanistan. The money goes through the Afghanistan International Bank to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank, led by a sanctioned terrorist. The Central Bank auctions the dollars to licensed money dealers involved in the hawala system.

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

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

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

First class plane tickets, luxury cars, fine jewelry, all these lavish things allegedly bought by Minnesota fraudsters with taxpayer money intended for hungry children. New documents obtained by NewsNation show hundreds of millions of dollars worth of funds were spent in the fraud scheme engulfing Minnesota’s social services programs, prompting an investigation by the House Oversight Committee. The committee’s chairman, congressman James Comer, told NewsNation he thinks this could potentially be an organized scheme expanding beyond Minnesota. Speaker 1 also suggested that this is happening in other states with other social programs and other groups. Rich McHugh, reporting for NewsNation, noted that the new documents reveal how millions of dollars of taxpayer funds built from Minnesota’s welfare scandal were spent, with the indicted individuals “living large” and “burning large amounts of cash.” According to the coverage, when the indictments were first announced in September 2022, the revelations were shocking even then. The reports describe purchases of houses in Minnesota, resort property, and real estate in Kenya and Turkey, as well as luxury cars, commercial property, jewelry, and much more. A Maldives honeymoon is described as part of the lifestyle, and there was footage of the group popping champagne. The documents show investments in waterfront properties and real estate—“entire buildings in Kenya”—as well as Porsches. The scammers were young and reportedly very wealthy, texting each other images and messages, including “a box full of cash” valued at a quarter of a million dollars, and a note saying, “you are gonna be the richest 25 year old, inshallah.” They wired millions to China and to Kenya, and one text reportedly said, “please send 1,000 to Mogadishu Baccarat,” which appears to reference a market in Somalia once controlled by Al Shabaab, the site of the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen (Treasury Secretary Scott Besson is referred to in the transcript as the speaker) said they are investigating and will try to find any links of this money going to Somalia and to Al Shabaab, and they plan to look at more scrutiny on all monies going back to Somalia. The report emphasizes that this investigation is just beginning, with ongoing scrutiny and potential broader implications beyond Minnesota.

American taxpayer money is currently funding the Taliban, a situation that has persisted since September 2021. The U.S. administration is sending $40 million weekly in cash to Afghanistan. This money goes to the Afghanistan International Bank, which cannot convert it to Afghani or auction it. Instead, it is transferred to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank of Afghanistan, led by Nura Madoro, a sanctioned terrorist responsible for financing attacks against U.S. soldiers. The Central Bank then conducts bidding sessions where licensed money dealers participate to buy the dollars.