reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Netanyahu said that we will go to war. What he meant was The United States will go to war for us. So Netanyahu has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war. A devastatingly wrong war sold on completely phony pretenses that Netanyahu cheerlead. And one can even go online and find his testimony to congress in October 2002 about how wonderful this war is going to be and how it's gonna lead to a breakout of freedom throughout the Middle East. He's full of it, and he's been full of it for nearly thirty years. The ongoing wars in Lebanon, in Syria, in Iraq, the recent so called twelve day war with Iran, which was a disgrace and a great danger.

"One of the hopeful things that I have discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past fifty years has been a result of media lives." "The media could have stopped it if they had searched deep enough." "If they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could have stopped it." "Populations don't like wars and populations have to be fooled into wars." "Populations don't willingly and with open eyes go into a war." "But our number one enemy is ignorance and I believe that is the number one enemy that everyone is not understanding what is actually going on in the world." "Now, the question is who is promoting ignorance?" "In this latter category, it is bad media." "The result is we see wars and we see corrupt governance continue."

And one thing a friend said to me interestingly, which is, okay. Charlie, we've pushed back against the media on COVID, on lockdowns, on Ukraine, on the border, on so, like, maybe we should also ask a question. 'Is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel?' 'Just a question, you know, that maybe we shouldn't believe everything the media says because I know I've been conditioned to ask a lot more critical questions over the last couple of years.' 'So, Ben, some people would accuse Israel of wanting to ethnically cleanse.'

Question: 'Why should the world tolerate you having nuclear weapons and not, say, Iran?' The speaker replies that 'we never admitted to have such weapons,' and says the comparison is 'very insulting.' They note, 'We fought suffered one holocaust. We listened to our neighbors.' They ask, 'Is it because of the holocaust that you should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?' The exchange centers on accusations of moral justification for nuclear armament. The passage concludes with the speaker's abrupt exit: 'You know what? This interview was finished now. Your attitude is so hostile, and your questions are so arrogant. I don't want to'

They forgot that they invaded Iraq, Syria, and Libya for oil. They forgot that the same reasons they use to defend Zelensky should be used to defend Palestine. They forgot that to achieve sustainable development goals, all wars should cease, but they helped start one because it suited their power games. They also forgot to end another war because it didn't suit their interests. What's the difference between Ukraine and Palestine? Isn't it time to end both wars and others, and use the remaining time to build paths to save life on the planet?

There's been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran. I think it's, very likely because, Netanyahu, is absolutely intent, and he has been intent for nearly thirty years. It's been part of Netanyahu's policy to pull The United States into repeated wars. Clean Break is a very strange but very clear statement of what has trapped The United States for nearly thirty years. Clean Break says, well, Israel's never going to compromise with its Palestinian Arab population in its midst and in the Palestinian lands. and it's going to control or expel or kill or ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population. what he meant was The United States will go to war for us. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war. The United States has funded, armed, and diplomatically supported all of this.

The speaker claims the West is complicit in crimes against journalists and supports the Israeli regime, with any criticism being minimal and for show. They assert the West is aligned with a "Holocaust in Gaza," "genocidal strikes in Lebanon," and support for ISIS and Al Qaeda. The speaker also alleges Western aggression and war against the Iranian people.

The discussion centers on whether Israel is driving a war against Iran and how the United States fits into that effort, with conflicting reporting from major outlets and a mosaic of intelligence interpretations. - The hosts outline two competing major-news stories. The New York Times reports that Netanyahu has asked Trump not to bomb Iran, arguing Israel is not prepared to withstand Iran’s retaliation. The Washington Post had reported a few weeks earlier that Israel sent a delegation to Russia to assure Iran that Israel does not intend to strike first, while Netanyahu in Washington was pressing Trump to strike Iran. The implication is that Israel is trying to avoid being seen as the aggressor while hoping the U.S. acts, effectively using the United States to carry out escalation. - The Post’s framing suggests Israel wants to escalate tensions but avoid the perception of initiating the conflict; Iran, according to the Post, responded positively to Israeli outreach but remains wary that the US could still carry out attacks as part of a joint campaign. - Iran’s perspective: they are wary and believe the U.S. and Israel are not to be trusted, even as they respond to outreach. There is a suggestion that Iran, with Russia and China, is prepared to counter, and that Tehran is not fully aligned with Western narratives about Iran as a terrorist state. - Larry Johnson (Speaker 2), a former CIA intelligence officer, joins to break down the behind-the-scenes dynamics. He references an alleged economic operation around Trump’s meeting with Zelensky that targeted Iran’s currency, triggering protests and destabilization, allegedly orchestrated with CIA/Mossad involvement. He lists various actors (Kurds, the MEK, Beluchis) and claims they were directed to inflame unrest, with the aim of manufacturing chaos to enable a military strike that could be stopped or degraded by outside intervention. He argues the plan failed as Iran’s security forces countered and electronic warfare helped by Russia and China blocked the destabilization. - Johnson emphasizes a broader geopolitical balance: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey told the United States they would not permit overflight for strikes; Russia and China bolster Iran, raising the cost and risk of Western action. He notes that 45% of global oil passes through the Persian Gulf and that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, which would massively impact oil prices and global economies, benefiting Russia. - On the potential next moves, the panel discusses whether Israel might consider nuclear options if faced with existential threats, and they acknowledge the difficulty of countering hypersonic missiles with current defenses. They reference reports of an earthquake or saber-rattling related to Dimona and mention that some in Israel fear escalation could be imminent, but there is no consensus on what comes next. - The conversation also touches on U.S. political voices, including Lindsey Graham’s reaction to Arab involvement, and questions whether there is any mainstream American call to accommodate Iran rather than confront it. Overall, the dialogue presents a complex, multi-layered picture: Israel seeking US-led action while trying to avoid direct attribution as aggressor; Iran resisting Western pressure but positioning to counter with support from Russia and China; and a regional and global economic dimension that could amplify or deter conflict depending on strategic choices and alliance dynamics.

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?”

I was told we're going to war with Iraq without any solid reason, just because. Then, I found out there's a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

¿Quién bombardea a sus países vecinos? Irán y el estado sionista de Netan Yau. Desde hace 76 años, se ha disparado el genocidio de Gaza, matando diariamente a palestinos, incluyendo niños, mujeres y ancianos, y destruyendo edificios, escuelas, mezquitas, iglesias y hospitales. El mundo occidental apoya esta destrucción. Luego atacaron al Líbano y Siria. Ahora pretenden aplastar a Irán, desatando una guerra donde Irán ha demostrado un poder militar inmenso. Existe el riesgo de una guerra nuclear que se extienda por Asia Central, Asia Oriental, Medio Oriente y Europa. Los que tienen el poder político podrían detener esta guerra con una palabra, pero en cambio, alimentan el fuego. Venezuela aboga por la paz justa y apoya a los pueblos de Palestina, Líbano, Yemen, Siria e Irán. **English Translation:** Who bombs their neighboring countries every day? Iran and the Zionist state led by Netan Yau. For 76 years, the genocide in Gaza has been ongoing, killing Palestinians daily, including children, women, and the elderly, and destroying buildings, schools, mosques, churches, and hospitals. The Western world supports this destruction. Then they attacked Lebanon and Syria. Now they intend to crush Iran, unleashing a war where Iran has demonstrated immense military power. There is a risk of a nuclear war spreading through Central Asia, East Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Those in political power could stop this war with a word, but instead, they fuel the fire. Venezuela advocates for just peace and supports the people of Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and 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."

The conversation centers on Israel’s war with Iran and its broader regional implications, with Speaker 0 (an Israeli prime minister) offering his assessment and critiques, and Speaker 1 pushing for clarification on motives, strategy, and policy directions. Key points about the Iran war and its origins - Speaker 0 recalls learning of the war on February 28 in Washington, and states his initial reaction: the United States’ claim that Iran is an enemy threatening annihilation of Israel is understandable and something to be supported, but questions what the next steps and the endgame would be. - He argues that Iran, through proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, posed a global and regional threat by arming missiles and pursuing nuclear capacity, and asserts that Iran deserved punishment for its actions. He raises the question of whether the outcome could have been achieved without war through a prior agreement supervised by international bodies. - He emphasizes that the lack of a clear, articulated next step or strategy undermines the legitimacy of the war’s continuation, even as he concedes the necessity of addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. - He also notes that the war affected the global economy and regional stability, and stresses the importance of coordinating a path that would end hostilities and stabilize the region. Speaker 1’s analysis and queries about U.S. interests and Netanyahu’s influence - Speaker 1 questions the rationale behind U.S. involvement, suggesting that strategic interests around the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program were not the only drivers, and cites reporting that Netanyahu presented Iran as weak to push Trump toward regime change, with limited pushback within the U.S. administration. - He asks how much influence Netanyahu had over Trump, and whether the war was pushed by Netanyahu or driven by broader strategic calculations, including concerns about global economic consequences. - He notes that, even if Iran was making concessions on nuclear issues, the war’s continuation raises concerns about broader U.S. and global interests and the potential damage to European and allied relationships. Israeli-Lebanese dimension and Hezbollah - The discussion moves to Lebanon and the question of a ground presence in the South of Lebanon. Speaker 1 asks whether Netanyahu’s administration intends annexation of Lebanese territory and whether there is a real risk of such plans, given the recent destruction of villages and the broader context of regional diplomacy. - Speaker 0 distinguishes between military necessity and political strategy. He says the ground operation in southern Lebanon is unnecessary because Hezbollah missiles extend beyond 50 kilometers from the border, and he argues for negotiating a peace process with Lebanon, potentially aided by the international community (notably France), to disarm Hezbollah as part of a larger framework. - He asserts that there are voices in the Israeli cabinet that view South Lebanon as part of a Greater Israel and would seek annexation, but he insists that such annexation would be unacceptable in Israel and that disarming Hezbollah should be tied to a broader peace with Lebanon and Iran’s agreement if a negotiations-based settlement is reached. - The idea of integrating Hezbollah into the Lebanese military is rejected as artificial; disarmament is preferred, with the caveat that Hezbollah could not be dissolved as a military force if Iran remains a principal backer. Speaker 0 suggests that a Hezbollah disarmed and integrated into Lebanon’s political-military system would require careful design, potentially with international participation, to prevent Hezbollah from acting as an independent proxy. War crimes and accountability - The participants discuss imagery like a soldier breaking a statue of Jesus and broader allegations of misconduct during the Gaza war. Speaker 0 condemns the act as outrageous and unacceptable, while Speaker 1 notes that individual soldier actions do not represent an entire army and contrasts external reactions to abuses with a broader critique of proportionality in Gaza. - Speaker 0 acknowledges that there were crimes against humanity and war crimes by Israel, rejects genocide, and endorses investigations and accountability for those responsible, while criticizing the political leadership’s rhetoric and the behavior of certain ministers. - They touch on the controversial death-penalty bill for Palestinians convicted of lethal attacks, with Speaker 0 characterizing the Israeli government as run by “thugs” and criticizing ministers for celebratory conduct, while Speaker 1 argues that such rhetoric inflames tensions. Two-state solution and long-term vision - The conversation culminates in Speaker 0 presenting a long-standing two-state plan: a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, and the Old City of Jerusalem not under exclusive sovereignty but administered by a five-nation trust (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and the United States). - He asserts that this approach represents an alternative to the current government’s policies and reiterates his commitment to opposing Netanyahu’s administration until it is replaced. - They close with mutual acknowledgment of the need for a durable peace framework and reiterate that Hezbollah’s disarmament must be a condition for normalization between Israel and Lebanon, while cautioning against artificial or compromised arrangements that would leave Hezbollah armed or entrenched.

I was wondering if you had a chance to look into Operation Mockingbird, the declassified program from the 1970s where the CIA infiltrated the mainstream media. Do you think it could be happening today? I find it concerning that domestic American coverage of world events focuses on Russia and Iran, but not Saudi Arabia. Why aren't human rights violations in Saudi Arabia covered as extensively as they should be? Go to Saudi Arabia and do it yourself. I don't mean to be rude, but Anderson Cooper's Wikipedia page states he received CIA training in college but no journalism training.

"And that suits the Israelis just fine." "And if you're wondering why there's an awful lot of lunatic antisemitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic." "But how much of it is not organic at all?" "How much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy?" "Probably some because it serves their interest." "And so the true shame here, the actual villain in the story is the leadership of The United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades." "You'd think every country would act that way, and most do." "And for what reason? So if there's someone to be mad at, it's our leaders."

"Please explain to me the difference between Putin's invasion of Ukraine and our invasion of Iraq." "Somebody tell me what was different." "Why was ours considered okay and Russia's not?" "The only they're for the same thing, regime change." "Same thing." "We wanna change who is governing Iraq." "Putin wanted to change who is governing Ukraine." "Now don't get me wrong." "I didn't support either war." "They both suck." "But everybody you notice our national media doesn't bring that up at all, do they?" "And you notice they brought up now the Fed or the international courts have made it so Putin can't travel now because he's considered a war criminal." "Let's not forget the international courts did the same thing with Bush and Cheney after the invasion of Iraq." "Why do you think George Bush can't leave The US?"

The current conflict in Israel and Palestine raises the question of why there always has to be an immediate answer. War is devastating, with no winners and civilians paying the price. Governments rarely face consequences proportional to the destruction caused. The need for immediate and dogmatic responses leaves no room for moderation or observation. The interests driving global conflicts are often not those of the people, but rather the governments and military-industrial complex. Wars are fueled by a money-hungry culture, with profits increasing as lives are destroyed. We must question if these conflicts are truly ours to decide. The powerful manipulate narratives to convince the masses of their choices, even to their own detriment. We must seek a third way that exposes the real enemy: the amalgamation of money, government, and corporations. We should not sacrifice our children for profit or allow ourselves to be divided into simplistic sides.

Mario opened by asking Professor (Speaker 1) for his initial reaction to the horrific shooting in Australia, noting Iran’s spokesperson condemned the attack. Professor 1 said the Iranians were swift to respond and suggested the western media’s speed benefits the Israeli regime; he noted early suggestions that one of the alleged culprits has a Salafi Wahhabi background, which he tied to allies of the United States and Israel, and said the Israeli regime has historically supported ISIS and Al Qaeda. He added that the immediate accusations against Iran by Israel and some Western outlets raise questions. Mario pressed Professor 1 on his tweets, asking whether he genuinely believes Mossad could be behind the Sydney attack or if he was critiquing others’ blaming Iran. Professor 1 replied that he wouldn’t put anything beyond Mossad and the Israeli regime, citing the Hannibal directive during October 7 and noting past high-profile conspiracies and investigations where insiders seemed to know more than the public. He referenced 9/11, claiming the attackers’ backgrounds and stock market movements suggested possible foreknowledge, and argued that a regime that carries out genocide could do anything. He asserted that the obsession with blaming Iran in various cases is a frequent pattern, and that the Australian media had started implying Iran’s involvement in the Sydney attack. Michael interrupted to challenge the framing, asking Professor 1 to distinguish between critiquing Israeli actions and endorsing unfounded claims about Iran. Professor 1 argued that for nearly fifty years accusations have often targeted Iran, while Israel’s actions — including genocidal traits and hospital bombings — have not faced equivalent condemnation, though he clarified he had not claimed Israel carried out every conspiracy. He asserted that ISIS and Al Qaeda were created by Western interests and Gulf regimes, and alleged U.S. and Israeli involvement in supporting extremist groups. He claimed Western policy and Saudi/Wahhabi influence underpin these groups, and argued Israeli and Western power shapes Middle East outcomes. Michael commented that the discussion should avoid knee-jerk conspiracism and noted the pattern of blaming Israel for many attacks, while acknowledging legitimate grievances against Israel’s conduct. He cited a May Washington, DC attack linked to Gaza motivations and argued this blowback results from Western support for extremist groups, including ISIS and Al Qaeda. He criticized using blanket attribution to Israel, stressing that this rhetoric crowds out rational critique of Israel and U.S. policy. He referenced Epstein as an example of alleged intelligence connections and warned activists to beware of being portrayed in compromising footage. The conversation shifted to Netanyahu’s statement blaming Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state for the attack. Professor 1 condemned Netanyahu’s framing, calling him anti-Semitic for conflating Judaism with Zionism and arguing that Palestinians are Semites; he claimed the Israeli regime’s influence in Washington is substantial and that accusations against Iran distract from Israel’s genocide. He argued that many Jews oppose the Israeli regime, and that Zionism cannot be equated with Judaism. He reiterated that the regime’s policies, including alleged use of Wahhabism and Western support for extremists, have fueled blowback. Mario asked for final reaction on Netanyahu’s claim and the broader role of Western policy. Michael acknowledged the complexity and described Western-Israeli influence as significant, while insisting on avoiding unfounded accusations about any single actor. Professor 1 condemned terrorism in all forms but argued that the main culprits are those carrying out genocide in Palestine, with the slave-vs-oppressor framing underscoring his view of the Palestinian situation. The discussion closed with a note that both guests view Western policy and Israeli actions as central to global blowback, while cautioning against simplistic attributions of attacks to Iran or Israel without solid evidence.

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.

"On the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about, clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel." "And it's somehow shameful to say that." "During the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, The US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides." "But there are a bunch of Israeli defense force officers in the Pentagon that week." "And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it." "The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get." "Because of the weakness of our leaders, we have incited predators in a foreign country to take advantage of us." "Oh, that's such an anti Israel thing." "It's not anti Israel at all." "And they're not even pretending."

More trouble, no one has caused more harm, no one has caused more wars in my lifetime than Israel. Israel is not our ally. At this point, they are our enemy. They take money from us. They incriminate us to the whole world. They implicate us in their immoral war crimes. No one has hurt this country more than Israel has. Israel is our top enemy. Enemy.

Extremely clearly. 'Do you think there's been a lot of talk today about another war with Iran? I think it's very likely because Netanyahu is absolutely intent, and he has been intent for nearly thirty years.' Netanyahu back in 1996 with American political advisers, actually came up with a a document, called Clean Break. 'There's just one footnote to that. When, Netanyahu said that we will go to war, what he meant was The United States will go to war for us.' 'So Netanyahu has been the great champion of pushing America into endless wars for the last three decades. He was the big cheerleader of the Iraq war.' 'This has its roots in Netanyahu's doctrine, which is, we will control all of Palestine.' 'We will overthrow the governments that support the militancy against Israel's control over Palestine.'

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.

The discussion focuses on Iran strikes and what the “real objective” might be versus what the public is being told. One speaker points to “the first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War two” and frames it as part of a broader distraction. They suggest the timing may be intended to draw attention away from other issues, mentioning “the Epstein stuff” and claiming “a 100%” connection to a “huge distraction.” The speaker also connects the Iran-related developments to other sudden, sensational news, stating “all of a sudden aliens are real, oh, by the way, we're starting a war with Iran at the same time,” which they say “seems a little bit too on the nose.” The speaker says Iran is “a problem” and that they “think Iran's a threat to The United States,” but they find the method hard to believe as the “only way to go about it,” concluding it is “so hard for me to think anything other than distraction.” They further note a recurring theme of accusations that Israel “playing a huge role” in the situation is driving U.S. actions, and ask whether the other speaker has an opinion on that. When asked about being “a puppet for Israel,” the speaker responds that if the U.S. is “literally just being a puppet for Israel,” that is “unsettled.”