reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 expresses derogatory remarks about Palestine. Speaker 1 asks for Netanyahu's response to Palestinians, to which Speaker 0 suggests wiping out all Palestinians. Speaker 2 gestures actions towards Gaza, implying harm. Speaker 1 advocates for complete destruction of Palestinians, comparing it to a parking lot. Speaker 3 suggests erasing Gaza and killing those inside to free Israel. Speaker 0 insists on wiping out all Arabs. Speaker 1 believes the next war in Gaza should be the last.

Speaker 0 hopes Benjamin Netanyahu, his generals, and the Israeli industry burn in hell. Speaker 1 says they were looking for babies but found none, and admits to possibly killing a 12-year-old girl. Speaker 1 states an investigation is underway regarding the potential war crime of Israeli forces blowing up the main drinking water reservoir in Raqqa. Speaker 1 says they cannot feel comfortable with assistance from Trump, Sleepy Joe, or Obama because of Jews. Speaker 1 claims Jews rule the world by proxy, getting others to fight and die for them, and that anyone criticizing Israel is accused of antisemitism. Speaker 1 says they were forced to participate in an infant sacrifice for power. Speaker 2 says they will do whatever is needed to defend themselves.

The speaker reports aggressive military actions and ongoing negotiations with Iran. They state that they have “destroyed a lot of additional targets today” and that “the navy's gone” and “the air force is gone,” while noting that “we know that” and that they “destroyed many, many targets today” in what was “a big day.” Negotiations are described as both direct and indirect, with emissaries involved as well as direct dealings. On the diplomatic side, the speaker says Iran “agreed to send eight votes two days ago, and then they added another two, so it was 10 votes,” and that “today, they gave us as a tribute I don't know. Can't define it exactly, but they gave us, I think out of a sign of respect, 20 boats of oil.” These vessels would be moving “through the Hormoz Strait” and would begin “starting tomorrow morning over the next couple of days.” The speaker claims to be “doing extremely well in that negotiation,” while acknowledging uncertainty in dealings with Iran: “you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up.” Historical references are cited to explain current posture: the “b two bombers” and the termination of the “Iran nuclear deal done by Barack Hussein Obama, probably the worst deal we've ever done as a country, of the dumbest deals we've ever done.” The speaker asserts that the deal was terminated, otherwise “right now, they'd have a nuclear weapon,” and that an attack with the B-2 bombers was used to stop them from having nuclear capability. The speaker suggests a possible future deal with Iran but notes it is not certain: “I think we'll make a deal with them. Pretty sure. But it's possible we won't.” Regarding regime change, the speaker asserts that “we've had regime change, if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed. They're all dead.” The “next regime is mostly dead,” and the “third regime” involves “a whole different group of people” than any before. The speaker contends that this constitutes regime change and characterizes the first regime as “really bad, really evil,” which is claimed to be “done.” The second regime is described as “appointed, and they're gone.” The third group is described as “much more reasonable,” leading the speaker to say that regime change appears to be achieved and may be automatic.

Speaker 0 asserts that Bezalel Smotrich and Ben Gavir are “literally talking about exterminating the entire population of Gaza.” Speaker 1 counters that they are not talking about extermination. Speaker 0 insists the statements are brazen, up front, and what they actually want to do. Speaker 0 adds that Hamas is involved in a separate context. Speaker 0 says, “The West Bank had nothing to do with what happened on October 7, but they're annexing that land anyway. They're raining terror on innocent people, innocent Palestinians.” Speaker 0 concedes, “I am willing to admit, because it's the truth, that what Hamas did on October 7 was a fucking atrocity,” specifically mentioning killing innocent people. Speaker 1 challenges acknowledgement of atrocities against civilians in Gaza. Speaker 0 asks about a hospital being tapped; Speaker 1 responds that it’s an old terrorist trick and they do it “all the time.” Speaker 0 asks whether the IDF's action was wrong. Speaker 1 concedes, “I'm sure they have committed what we would call war crimes, as every army does in every war.” Speaker 0 notes, “Including our own.” Speaker 1 agrees, giving the Civil War example: Sherman burned Atlanta and Vad, arguing that despite brutality, the North were the good guys fighting slavery, and also noting Israel is fighting to survive and is the front line in the Western world. Speaker 0 disputes this, saying much of the problems in the Middle East come from an expansionist policy and that if Israel wasn’t trying to continue expanding, they would not be dealing with the enemies they’re dealing with. Speaker 1 disagrees that they ever were expanding, arguing they “were attacked” and that they “never been trying to expand.” Speaker 0 claims Israel is trying to annex the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Syria, and argues they have succeeded in doing so. Speaker 1 says these are lands where they were attacked from when Israel became a country in 1947; he claims Israel said, “we will accept half a loaf,” and asserts they had as much right to that land as anybody, with a historical presence since a thousand BC when King David had a lineage. Speaker 0 dismisses this lineage-based argument as irrelevant to the present. Speaker 1 counters that it’s relevant, and asserts that the notion of wiping out innocent people merely because one’s ancestors lived there centuries ago is not acceptable. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 calling Palestinians colonizers, and Speaker 1 arguing they are not colonizers; they assert that Israel is annexing land, which, in their view, is described as colonization.

The speaker states they never want to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas. They say they wanted a ceasefire, but have always been committed to the destruction of Hamas. They add that they wanted a ceasefire, but have always made clear that they wanted to see a different authority moving forward in governance of Gaza.

The conversation centers on an extreme projection regarding Gaza. The speaker asserts an intention to erase Gaza and to relocate its people, specifically stating, “We are going to erase Gaza. We have to take the people there and send them to Libya.” This line signals a drastic and inflammatory plan involving population displacement and destruction of the territory. The dialogue then shifts to considering the future of Gaza, with the pointed question, “What do you see as the future for Gaza?” and a reply that there is “No future,” followed by questions that further illustrate a dehumanizing view of the region’s prospects. The questions—“No future. A parking lot? A dumping ground?”—are presented as rhetorical inquiries about what Gaza could become, implying a barren or ruinous outcome rather than a viable state or community. There is an assertion that the speakers had “agreement,” suggesting some prior consensus or deal, though the exact nature of that agreement is not detailed in the transcript provided. The dialogue then introduces a shift to current events: “Suddenly, they send some missiles,” followed by the claimed reaction, “Our people send missiles from inside.” This exchange frames a rapid escalation of hostilities, with missiles allegedly being launched from inside Gaza and a reciprocal acknowledgment that missiles were observed coming from Gaza. The speaker reflects on how these developments affect their ability to respond, asking, “So now we can answer them. So you think that's also something that's that's possible?” The repetition and phrasing indicate an openness to escalating or expanding retaliation, emphasizing a belief that “everything is possible.” The concluding and most reiterated assertion is, “Everything is possible. We are going to erase Gaza. We have to take the people there and send them to Libya.” This reinforces the central, extreme stance of erasing Gaza and relocating its inhabitants, framing it as an actionable objective tied to the events just described, including the missile exchanges and the perception of an ongoing conflict. Overall, the transcript presents a sequence of statements that depict an intent to erase Gaza and relocate its population to Libya, framed within a broader discussion of Gaza’s uncertain future, potential agreement, and a cycle of missile exchanges that are used to justify aggressive or retaliatory possibilities.

An individual states there will be no Arabs in the Gaza Strip; they will go to Turkey, Scotland, or Britain. The speaker does not want to kill them, but wants them out of Gaza, using methods such as withholding humanitarian aid. The speaker believes Israel's far right has no pity for Palestinian civilians. While they may not succeed in resettling Gaza, the October 7 attacks have bolstered them and they see this as a moment of opportunity.

Speaker 0 states that the goal is not to completely subjugate Afghanistan. The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and European countries through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security alliance. That is the goal: to have an endless war, not a successful war.

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.

According to the speaker, the action is described as an attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza, with the stated aim of removing 2,500,000 people from there. The speaker also notes that those involved 'they have a mandate to go seek justice and revenge' and suggests that 'they this idea that they need to have a true truce or a peace treaty, that's morally after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged to the streets.' The remarks highlight the speaker's framing of the conflict in terms of justice, revenge, and timing for a peace settlement, emphasizing the moral condition under which a truce or treaty should be pursued.

Speaker 0: Welcome to game plan. I'm Shivan Jan now. So far, there is only one winner in this war in West Asia, and that's Russia. Mind you, I'm not saying that this was acknowledged by the European Council president Antonio Costa. US Israeli strikes in West Asia, they have driven up the price of oil, strengthening the Kremlin's ability to fund its military campaign. Now in a sharp reversal from last year's policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy, US treasury secretary Scott Pessen said that The United States could unsanction other Russian oil to keep the flow of oil intact. And this is because the Strait Of Hormuz, the pivotal point from where this war is kind of converging, that is under complete Iranian control. Movement of ships has been blocked. Movement of oil has been blocked. It has shot up the oil prices, and the repercussions are being felt across the world at this point. Is the war proving to be a boon for Russia whose economy is dependent on energy exports? As the state of Hormuz gets blocked, Russia gets a free hand at selling its oil at rates that can be expounded without proper discounts as well. Is Putin the one winning in the war that US and Israel started against Iran? To discuss this with me on game plan is doctor Glenn Deesen, professor of international relations at the University of Southeastern Norway. Glenn, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thanks so much for joining me here. Trump and Putin, they held a call recently, the first time this year, and this was to discuss the discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran. What do you think they would have discussed, and what kind of a role can Putin be playing in the ongoing war? Speaker 1: Well, I assume some of the things to discuss was obviously the the the extent to which The US and Russia targets each other because one of the things that the American media has been complaining about is the likelihood that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran for targets, but of course this is what The United States been doing for years and continues to do, that is give the Ukrainians targets to hit Russia. So I think there's a necessity to begin to discuss is appropriate and again what happens behind these doors, I don't know. But also of course there has to be some scaling back of the energy sanctions against Russia to bring this, the energy prices under control. As you suggest, they are now very much out of control. But I think also the main thing they've discussed is how to bring this war to an end because I think it's perfectly clear now that this US attack on Iran was a terrible mistake, and it appears that Putin would be the the main middleman who would might be able to bring an end to this war. But, again, it depends what can be done as what the Iranians will demand may be more than what the Americans can deliver. Speaker 0: Glenn, as you mentioned, Putin could perhaps be the main person to bring peace in this war. Putin has the highest chance of acting as peacemaker in West Asia. Is there anyone other than Putin at this point who can bring? Because just look at the optics of it. US starts a war, and I think ten days into it, he needs to make a call to Vladimir Putin to discuss that same war. How does it look for The US? Speaker 1: Well, they don't care for this, of course, but that it's similar to what to what happened with the war against Syria. That is, if you remember, back at president Obama's time, he had set these red lines, he were gonna attack Syria. It was quite obvious that this would be a disaster. So he went to the Russian president and he was able to get a deal through and which essentially took Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So it was, you know, it it it is the reality or the optics of it isn't great given that The US has been fighting a proxy war for years against Russia, but but, know, at some point, you have to put the optics aside. Who who else would be in a position to help to negotiate this? I'm thinking, you know, perhaps China could be a middleman, but I think given that The United States, especially under the Trump administration, wants to improve bilateral ties with Russia, I I I think he's probably the best, yeah, the best bet. Speaker 0: Would it be fair to say that Putin is emerging as a winner in this ongoing West Asia war, which only seems to be expanding within the West Asian region? Speaker 1: Well, no. I think, yeah, to a large extent, I think that is correct because the energy prices are way up. The US have to scale back sanctions. The all the weapons which The US had intended to ship towards Ukraine to fight Russia is now being depleted. For European leaders, as you mentioned earlier on, to who aspire to prolong the war in Ukraine, this is an absolute disaster. And we'll see that countries that cut the energy ties or at least reduced energy ties with Russia at the best of American pressure, they of course have learned a lesson now as well that this was not a good idea that you don't necessarily put bet too much on a hegemon in decline, so countries who before paid discounts now may have to pay premium. We'll see that Iran, which I assume is getting some support from Russia sees this relationship improving dramatically. They're moving much closer, which is good for Russia because the Iranians always have some suspicions towards the Russians given well a long history they've had through the centuries of conflict. So all of this improves. You can also say that The Gulf States, the weakening of The Gulf States has also a big impact on weakening The U. S. Ability to restore its hegemony because what show what's obvious now is that the Gulf States are not getting protection instead they're becoming very vulnerable as frontline states and The US is no longer seen as that reliable. Well, if they're not going to bet their security on The United States anymore then they may not have that much pressure to sell their oil in dollars. You're not gonna have those recycled petrodollars coming back to The US, and suddenly the whole AI race with China looks a lot weaker as well. So I think across the board, a lot of things look good for Russia, but and there is a big but here, and that is I don't think that the Russians want this war nonetheless because the Russians, much like the Chinese, value stability and predictability. And what's happening in Iran now could again, if something would happen to Iran collapse, that would be a disaster for this Greater Eurasia initiative that is to integrate economies of Greater Eurasian Continent, but also this could spiral into a world war. So from this perspective, it's very dangerous and I don't doubt that the Russians therefore want to put an end to this war simply because I guess much like India, they don't want the Eurasian Continent to be too China centric, they would like to have many poles of power and this requires diversification. This means that the Russians need close ties with Iran, with India and other countries. So for the Americans to knock off Iran off the, you know, the chessboard, the greater Eurasian chessboard would be a disaster for the Russians. So, yes, I think they're prospering or benefiting from this, but they they do wanna put an end to it. Speaker 0: Understood. Glenn, let me just come to the Strait Of Hormuz. You know, the objectives of U. S. Behind starting this war, that has been questioned enough. Why did you start this war in the first place? Those are questions not just emerging, you know, globally. They're also emerging from inside The U. S. But if you look at what a win will actually look like for US, would it be the state of Hormuz? Like, which whoever controls the state of Hormuz is eventually who walks away as you know, walks away with the victory at this point because The US was looking for a change in regime. They mentioned it enough number of times. That hasn't happened and doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Is the state of Hormuz the winning factor now? Speaker 1: Well, I I I don't think any The US would be in a position to control this just given the geography. So The US obviously went into into this war with the objective of regime change. That was the goal. This was the decapitation strike, this was the hope of killing Khamenei and obviously it didn't work. I think it shouldn't have come as a surprise, but you know killing the leader of Iran only created more solidarity within the country. And also the idea that the whole armed forces would begin to disintegrate once they had been punished enough, also proven to be incorrect. So I think at the moment you see the American pivoting a bit. Some are talking about the Strait Of Moose that this should be a goal, others are saying you see a shift now towards saying well, actually what we really want to do is just degrade Iran's missile capabilities that they won't have this long range missiles. And again, you know, these are the kind of vague objectives which they can essentially declare victory today then because Iran has had many of its missiles destroyed. Also it launched a lot of its missiles at U. S. Targets which means that its missile stockpile has been reduced. So this should be a source of optimism when The U. S. Moves from this very hard line objective such as regime change and they shift in towards missiles, reducing the missile stockpiles or something like this. But the straight of our moves, I think, is beyond what what is reasonable. It's it will be too difficult. So I don't think they will But why push too hard on do Speaker 0: you feel it would be difficult if I were to just look at the bases that they have across West Asia? They have enough military might. Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, have their bases there. How difficult would it be to exert that military might over the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, controlling it just means the ability to shut it down. Many countries would have the ability to shut down this narrow strait. The problem is that no one benefits from it, that is the Gulf States are hurt, Iran is hurt from it, The US and the global economy is hurt. So it becomes an exercise in self harm. The reason why the Iranians are doing this, the ability to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz is because The US has the ability to inflict a mass amount of destruction. It can go after civilian infrastructure, it can well, look what they've done to Tehran. It looks like, well, just, you know, the chemical warfare there. You've seen in terms of going after his fuel depots. They're going after the water supplies in Iran. You you see all these things. This is what America can do. Iran doesn't have that ability. They can't hit The United States. What they can do is cause economic pain. So, yes, I think The US and many of the Gulf States can also shut down the Strait Of Our Moose, but but but that's not that's it doesn't have any purpose. It doesn't have any reasoning. Speaker 0: Can they eradicate the Iranian control over the Strait Of Hormuz? I'm not talking about shutting it down, but just get rid of the Iranians from there and they then decide who gets to control and when it has to be shut and when it has to be opened and remained and kept open and secured. Can The US exert that kind of military might over the state of Hormuz to control it? Speaker 1: Then one need us to control a massive amount of Iran's territory, which is a huge territory with populated by 90,000,000 people. So this seems very unlikely and if closing down the Strait Of Hormuz would depend on very sophisticated weapon systems, will be one thing. But this can be shut down with drones which can be manufactured in apartments. It can be also shut down with small naval drones that is this essentially drone operated small torpedoes. There's it doesn't require a lot of high technology which means that The US can't take out very key infrastructure to prevent Iran from shutting this down, to force it to open. But with very cheap and easy to make weapons, the Iranians can shut it down and it's simply too much territory, too large population for The United States to shut down the these capabilities. So at some point, they're have to make peace with the Iranians and make it make sure it's in Iran's interest to keep the Strait Of Hormuz open because it is in their interest. The problem now is that Iran faces an existential threat. That is The US now threatens to destroy not just the government, but also the country. As Trump tweeted, we we will make it impossible for Iran to even rebuild as a nation. And this is what regime change means. There is no replacement government. This means the disintegration and destruction of Iran, a massive civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So for them this is existential which is why they went to this great extent. They've never done this before because they never believed that they faced this kind of an existential threat. So if the war ends, the Iranians have no reason to shut this straight down. This is very horrible for them as well. So, no, I I don't think The US can control the straight or almost no one can control it completely because too many actors could shut it down. Speaker 0: Glenn, thanks so much for joining me here on game plan. Whether this war continues further, that only means and if it does, that's essentially what Iran is looking at because they're not capitulating. They're not giving up. They are taking a bad amount of beating. There's no doubt in that, but they are continuing with their counters nevertheless. And straight of hormones is their main play where they're exerting their pressure with whether it's mines, whether it's their own boats, whether it's their own military boats. Now energy experts have also warned that whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia's economy, that depends directly on how long it lasts. But there is little to suggest that Iran is willing to capitulate that what we just discussed. They're inviting U. S. To continue the war on the other hand. That's what the statements from Iran suggest that we're waiting. Come on, on. Now in the midst of this, Russia is emerging as the winner as we just discussed. How long this lasts? It doesn't seem to be in the favor of The U. S. We'll need to wait and watch twelfth day and running. They expected it to last for about four to five weeks, whether it goes the distance or even longer. Let's wait. That was Glenn Deeson joining me here on Game Plan. Speaker 1: Thanks, Yvonne.

The speakers discuss the idea of eliminating the population of Gaza to solve the conflict with Israel. They suggest using bombs, explosives, and bulldozers. They acknowledge that this would provoke a response from Arab countries, but believe that ultimately it would bring peace. They express a desire for complete separation, bigger walls, and stronger borders. They argue that a world without Gaza would be a better world.

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.”

Speaker 0 argues that October 7 was “the ultimate false flag designed for two purposes, to ethnically cleanse and destroy all Palestinians,” followed by a plan “to rebuild Gaza in order to make billions of dollars off of beachfront property and trillions of dollars off of all of the natural gas resources that sit off the coast.” They claim this has “been the plan all along” and assert it was “planned before October 7.” Speaker 0 urges viewers to “Watch Jared Kushner's face when Steve Witkoff admits this on sixty minutes that this was all a plan and it predated October 7.” They say, “Watch,” and continue, “There are plans already,” and repeat “We have plans already. We have a master plan already.” They allege, “Jared's been pushing this and we're working together,” and state, “I love Jared's face. Just admitted. You just kinda let the cat out of the bag that we've been working on this for two years before October 7. We needed October 7, of course, to carry this out. It's a great false flag for us to be able to put my master plan in place.” They add, “And you can't make this up. We're all right. The whole world is a stage at this point.” They claim, “Kushner was like, damn you, you just you just admitted it.” Speaker 0 then shifts to other reporting: “More on that part of the story in a minute. But first, three more journalists killed by Israel last night.” They state the world is notably silent, noting that among the three journalists killed by Israel was “a CBS freelance reporter.” They claim this is significant because it involves “CBS News that is now run by Israel first and wild Zionist, Bari Weiss.” They allege, “But if you go to CBS's news website that she runs, she's in charge of CBS News.” They claim there is “zero mention of it” on CBS News’s site, while noting “plenty of stories about, oh, the house voting this, Trump's, you know, whatever, the body of a swimmer found somewhere, and you can order a new indoor pizza oven if you want.” They conclude, “No mention of one of their own journalists being targeted and killed by Israel, of course.”

Speaker 1 explains that the current phase of the operation marks the end of a long-standing plan. The top-level individuals involved in the plan have been taken out, causing panic among presidents, prime ministers, and other officials. These individuals are now turning on each other, cooperating with authorities in exchange for their safety. The speaker mentions that the remaining individuals involved are the "useful idiots" who are resorting to desperate tactics. The speaker predicts that in the coming months, there will be discomfort and revelations, leading to military tribunals and further arrests.

Speaker 0 says this is “the closest thing to the Holocaust” that any of them have lived through. They claim that now “Bibi” and the Israeli hard right government have a mandate to “ethnically cleanse Gaza,” emphasizing that they do not use the term lightly. Speaker 0 says the government is “talking about basically removing 2.5 million people” from Gaza and suggests it has a mandate to seek “justice and revenge.” They reject the idea that Israel needs a truce or a peace treaty, calling it “morally crap,” and reference “women and children be[ing] burned alive and dragged to the streets.” They then state there are “serious questions,” and add that their “pattern recognition” over the last five years has “become pretty short.”

But if you if you were to say, how does Israel solve this problem forever in the future? I think that if you leave a scrap of Palestinian DNA Wait. Can I ask you real quick? If we destroy all of Gaza, what is the loss to the world? I didn't say that there's a loss to the world. I don't really think that the Palestinians provide Wait. Time out. If Israel did eliminate 2,300,000 Gazans. Right? Let's say it took them even a long time, short time, whatever. They just completely eliminate, wipe them all out. This would cause a response by the Arab countries. There would 100% cause a response by the Arab countries. They would thank us. But I legitimately cannot think of any

The real reason of this war is the terror organization; Hamadah is still holding our hostages. What we need to do about the terror organization? 'My answer is very clear. The terrorists. Not of the children. Not of women.' 'If you do not kill the staff, bank staff, and the customer, you cannot catch the robbers.' We do all we can not to hurt the citizens. 'To kill more than 70,000 civilians. No. There are more than there are more than the terrorists.' 'My solution is that go to the UN, work with the UN, and agree the two state solution to establish a state of a Palestinian.' 'If you do not work with the Palestinian together, you can never win the war over terrorists.' 'But this specific war will end when the terror organization will release all our hostages and will give up his weapon.'

Speaker 0 argues that there must be a change of direction, which is exactly what the Iranian people are demanding. He suggests that if the Iranian people receive support from the president for that idea, it would encourage them to take to the streets in even greater numbers and apply more pressure on the regime from within. He identifies the decisive factor as the instrument of repression that has been unleashed against the people and states that overcoming this obstacle is what could tilt the odds in favor of a movement that could push toward a complete collapse of the regime. He asserts that a decisive strike could alter the balance, describing it as the mechanism that would enable the people to prevail. Speaker 1 asks whether such decisive actions would involve American strikes, and whether Israeli strikes could play a role, implying that the Iranian people might view external intervention as cavalry coming to aid them. Speaker 0 confirms that it could be an American strike, an Israeli strike, or any force willing to act; he emphasizes that the cavalry is seen as necessary because the regime has to be confronted in ways that the regime cannot be confronted through ordinary means, and that the nation’s defenses can only be sustained up to a point without such intervention. Speaker 0 notes that the regime is so desperate that it has to import elements from Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq to act as instruments of repression, indicating that the regime is running out of its own capable personnel to carry out the dirty work. He asserts that the regime is on its last leg and on the verge of collapse, and that it will try every other means to survive. That is why a definitive strike could completely reverse the odds in favor of the nation and defenseless people, and such support is what is needed. Speaker 1 asks what should be struck: whether to target command and control facilities of the IRGC, or to launch a decapitation strike against the Ayatollah, and what either the United States or Israel, or any willing party, should do. Speaker 0 responds that from the perspective of the people on the streets, the priority is to neutralize every element that has been unleashed against them. He says anything connected to the regime’s mechanism of control or violence should be targeted, and that such action cannot be achieved through diplomacy or negotiation. He notes that the president’s promises have been heartening to the people of Iran, and if those promises are carried out, they would change the entire complexion of the situation. Speaker 1 then asks what would happen if the regime topples.

Speaker 0 asks if the administration still has no red lines. Speaker 1 confirms that it is still the case. Speaker 0 refers to a previous statement made in late October about the administration not drawing red lines for Israel as civilian deaths in Gaza increase. Speaker 1 confirms that it is still the case, mentioning that airstrikes continue and civilians continue to die from them.

Speaker 0 confirms their focus on targeting senior commander wolf and promises to provide more data as the operation progresses. Speaker 1 questions Israel's decision to bomb a refugee camp, knowing innocent civilians would be harmed. Speaker 0 acknowledges the complexity of the situation, mentioning the possibility of infrastructure and tunnels in the area. Speaker 1 emphasizes the presence of refugees and civilians in the camp, to which Speaker 0 acknowledges the tragedy of war and urges people to move south. Speaker 1 continues to inquire about the decision to bomb the camp, and Speaker 0 mentions that the commander was killed but cannot confirm the status of civilians. They reiterate their efforts to minimize civilian casualties and express determination to go after all terrorists involved in previous attacks.

Speaker 0 describes the events as “a classic regime change color revolution destabilization operation.” He asserts that “the military strike was being prepared in advance,” and that “the violence that they carried out” was carried out by “agent provocateurs managed and inserted by US and Israeli intelligence,” with British intelligence also involved. He adds that “when it comes to Iran, The United States and Britain are hand in hand since the first coup in Iran, which was a US British operation.” He further claims that Iranians who supported the shah “fled to The US, to Europe, to Canada, where they've set themselves up,” and that “nearly all of whom are quite wealthy,” consisting of monarchists who have been “looked after very well by the US government.” He says the US regards them as a “fifth column that they can deploy during times like this.” The speaker extends the accusation to other conflicts, stating that the US keeps “Syrian fifth column, an Afghan, an Iraqi, a Libyan fifth column,” and that wherever there’s a war, “The US and the British, the Canadians, they keep them in residence, and they use them either to create the future political class that they'll then parachute in.” He describes this as part of “the neocolonial system.” He concedes that “it didn't work out, but it was ugly.” Regarding information warfare, he criticizes the mainstream media, politicians, and “these so called influencers,” describing their misinformation and propaganda campaign as “even uglier.” He emphasizes that “this is not the first go around,” claiming they have “been doing this perpetually for years,” with the aim of creating unrest and instability and momentum. He explains a sequence they allegedly seek: if they can obtain momentum, it is followed by “a military strike, and then a decapitation of the leadership, and then regime change, hopefully.” He concludes that “so it didn't work out.”

Speaker 0 confirms their focus on targeting a senior Hamas commander and promises to provide more data as the operation progresses. Speaker 1 questions the decision to bomb a refugee camp, knowing innocent civilians would be harmed. Speaker 0 acknowledges the complexity of the situation and mentions the possibility of infrastructure and tunnels in the area. Speaker 1 emphasizes the presence of civilians and refugees in the camp. Speaker 0 acknowledges the tragedy of war and urges civilians to move south. Speaker 1 presses for more information, questioning the decision to bomb the camp. Speaker 0 cannot confirm if the commander was killed but assures efforts are being made to minimize civilian casualties. The conversation ends with technical difficulties.

Speaker 0 asserts that “What happened in October 7 was an Israeli setup,” and questions whether Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately boosted Hamas to prevent a Palestinian state. The question is framed as a direct challenge: “Yeah. Sure. He deliberately and systematically even even told this on record. Whoever wants to avoid the threat of a two state solution has to support my policy of paying protection money to the Hamas.” The removal of ambiguity is emphasized by the speaker’s phrasing that this was done “with the permission of our prime minister” and involved letting Qatar transfer a huge amount of money in cash, “probably more than $1,400,000,000,” with the claimed effect of increasing Hamas’s power. Speaker 0 then shifts to interrogate a separate line of inquiry, asking whether there was a “stand down order,” repeating the question: “Was there a stand down order? Six hours? I don’t believe it.” The speaker emphasizes realism by labeling the question as legitimate and non-conspiratorial: “Was did somebody in the government say stand down? That is a legitimate non conspiracy question.” The closing remark asserts a collective identity and responsibility: “The whole country is the IDF. The whole country is.”

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.