reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers present a narrative in which Netanyahu is portrayed as having knowingly enabled Hamas rather than created it, arguing that “he fed it” and that keeping Gaza under Hamas control and the West Bank under Fateh was a deliberate strategy to prevent Palestinian unity. They claim Netanyahu “dealt with Hamas for a long time as a strategic friend” and that he “was all the time helping Hamas to survive” in order to maintain a balance that served his aims. One speaker alleges that while Netanyahu was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive “$35,000,000 every month from Qatar.” Another adds that “Israel will not give money to the Hamas,” and that “you cannot even transfer this money through banks because even the banks don't want to cooperate,” so Netanyahu was said to “beg this small and very rich country, Qatar, to give money to our enemy.” The claim is further sharpened by asserting that “this suitcases of money was given to Hamas under the request of Benjamin Netanyahu personally,” with the assertion that “the Qatarians knew him from the beginning” and “they were asking him to send them his requests in writing because they knew that he's going to lie in the future.” A speaker contends that Netanyahu “allowed more than 1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of the Hamas because he believed that he can control the level of hatred,” labeling that belief as “nonsense” and arguing that “he cannot control the flames.” The allegation is that Netanyahu’s strategy was to “keep Hamas there, weaken the Palestinian authority on the West Bank, sustain the extremists, weaken the moderate,” a approach that, according to the speakers, “exploded in our faces in the most brutal way on October 7.” Finally, one speaker describes Netanyahu as repeatedly presenting himself as “the expert on terrorism” and “the protector of Israel,” and asserts that under his regime, the country has entered into “this incredible, unbelievable war.”

If Israel faces annihilation, they might use their nukes. Iran and Hezbollah need to understand they cannot wipe out the Israeli people. If Israel is about to be totally destroyed, they need to be thinking about all their options. The US military being stretched is not Israel's fault. The US should fund its military and not treat it like a secondary agency. This country has a lot of problems, but that's not on the head of the Israeli people who are trying to survive. When the US looks weak, violence and threats increase. Israel's gotta do what it's gotta do.

Ayman Ramel from Beirut sent in a super chat saying today was very tough as Southern Lebanon faced ongoing devastation, with the scene described as Israel’s continued bombing of Southern Lebanon in real time. The IRGC (Iran) characterized the attacks as an Israeli savage massacre, claiming hundreds killed in one of the biggest strikes on its capital, and pledged revenge. Tehran called the action a breach of the ceasefire with the United States and claimed it represented a historic and crushing defeat for the US, promising retaliation against Israel. Israel’s IDF spokesperson said they would continue operations against Hezbollah as long as Hezbollah threatened Israeli civilians, accusing Hezbollah of targeting civilian infrastructure and displaying video of attacks in a populated city center. An initial casualty figure cited before the broadcast was around 256, but the number was believed to be higher. Ben Swan, an independent journalist, joined to provide on-the-ground context from Beirut. He reported that numbers of dead ranged from about 280 to 350, with injuries around 1,500. He noted more than 100 locations bombed that morning, highlighting the dynamic and fluid casualty count. He observed that Israel did not issue the usual warnings—no leaflets or cell-phone alerts indicating where strikes would occur—leading to civilians, including women and children, being killed with little or no forewarning. He emphasized that the affected areas in Southern Lebanon are historically Christian and home to long-standing communities, noting connections to biblical sites in the region (e.g., Cana’s wedding and Peter’s burial site) to illustrate the demographic being affected. He claimed Israel’s stated objective is to take Southern Lebanon up to the Litani River and to integrate it into a broader “Greater Israel” project, with Netanyahu’s office reportedly warning Lebanon’s army to move away from a bridge crossing the Litani River as a strategic target. This would geographically separate Northern and Southern Lebanon, according to the narrative aired. The discussion touched on broader political themes including debates about whether Israel’s actions reflect a broader tactic to project power or to distract from other regional pressures. The conversation linked the conflict to perceptions of American influence and strategy, including whether the United States has leverage to influence Israel’s actions. Some participants argued that US influence exists and that global opinion has grown more critical of Israel, citing condemnation from European leaders and shifts in international sentiment. They argued that Israel’s messaging has been effective in focusing attention on Iran, potentially allowing actions in Lebanon to proceed with less scrutiny. The speakers explored the idea that the conflict is part of a broader geopolitical strategy, including claims that the war serves to advance the so-called “Greater Israel” project, and discussed how Western powers, notably the United States, are perceived as entangled in regional dynamics. They contrasted perceived Israeli tactics with Russia’s more deliberate approach in Ukraine, suggesting Israel’s strategy aims to destroy civilian infrastructure to prevent return to the territory, whereas Russia has pursued more selective destruction. The program suggested that if China and other nations condemn the actions, international pressure could intensify, potentially escalating beyond a regional conflict. The speakers referenced a report from Breaking the Silence about Israel’s past Gaza operations, describing it as a “construction project” of destruction, to illustrate a pattern of strategic demolition of civilian infrastructure. In summary, the segment described an intensified conflict in Southern Lebanon with high casualties and widespread bombings, alleged lack of civilian warnings, and discussions about strategic objectives, US influence, and broader geopolitical implications, including potential global ramifications if international responses intensify.

Mario: Do you think The US should attack Iran? Joel: He could do a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime, but not explicitly try to topple it. Clint (Glenn): Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. You think that Iran the authority enemy. Of Not America being responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here. You're unbelievable. No legitimate security concerns for Iran. None of your rules. Mario: Gentlemen. Astonishing. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? Clint: I see that’s very dishonest. This idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return. They stop the threat. No. Mario: Never tried we've never gone down this path at all. Joel: You’re just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies. It doesn't seem to bother you. Mario: Joel, I’m gonna start with you. A pretty broad question. Do you think The US should attack Iran, and do you think they will? Joel: The president has set his own terms. He has three choices: do nothing and frame that as diplomacy; do a large but limited strike designed to punish the regime but not topple it; or go all in toward regime change. He hasn’t made regime change his explicit objective yet. I think he’ll pick option two, a large but limited strike, because negotiations aren’t designed to lead somewhere. The Iranians are not serious, in his view. Mario: Do you think Trump should go with option two, or seek regime change? Joel: He should go with number two. Regime change is something I would love to see, but it’s too big an objective with air power. If the regime is toppled by force, the risks are immense. Damaging the regime—ballistic missiles, some nuclear components—could be enough to protect citizens and allies, even if it doesn’t topple the regime. If a coup follows, that’s a risk. Mario: Glenn, you argued against regime change but acknowledged concerns about the regime’s brutality. Please respond to Joel and the broader points. Glenn: I don’t think Trump should attack. It’s very likely he will, and the objective will probably be a limited bloody nose attack that is going bombed for two or three days or, like last time, twelve, and then pull away, with an implicit understanding that if Iran retaliates, it could be a big war. There is no diplomatic solution because the Iranians reject multi-issue deals; they want nuclear issues to be separate. The Iran regime is existentially threatened, so they’ll respond. The aim should be to recognize key security concerns and pursue a broader security understanding, not just use force. Mario: Joel, respond to Glenn’s point about whether Iran must be considered an enemy and about potential diplomacy. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? No. But this regime is an enemy. The people of Iran do not have to be enemies. The supreme leader believes the United States and Israel are enemies, and for forty-seven years they say, death to America, death to Israel. The Iranian regime has decided they’re the enemy. The Iranian people largely despise the regime. Mario: If Iran agrees to stop the nuclear program, should The US accept such a deal? Is that enough? Joel: The nuclear program is almost 100% destroyed; you wouldn’t negotiate solely on that. If diplomacy exists, it would be to address threats beyond the nuclear issue—ballistic missiles, regional alliances, human rights, etc. The Iranians were willing to accept transparency around their nuclear program in JCPOA-era diplomacy, but the Americans pulled out. If a nuclear deal is possible, it would require mutual concessions; insisting on broader concessions risks collapse. Glenn: The problem is that Iran has legitimate security concerns too. The strategy after the Cold War linking security to global hegemony is problematic. There should be recognition of Iran’s legitimate security needs, not a complete defanging. We should explore a grand bargain—recognize a Palestinian state, get out of Syria, and pursue a path with Iran that reduces the threat without destroying Iran. Mario: There’s a debate about whether the Gulf states see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran now. Joel, what’s your take? Joel: Two countries—Qatar and Turkey—see Israel as an enemy. Turkey’s Erdogan has threatened Jerusalem; Qatar hosts anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda via Al Jazeera and has hosted Hamas leaders. Israel has the right to defend itself and has pursued peace deals with several Arab states, but the region remains dangerous. Israel should avoid destabilizing moves and pursue peace where possible, while recognizing the security challenges it faces. Glenn: Israel’s internal politics and policy flaws exist, but law in Israel provides equal rights to Arab citizens; policy can be improved, but not all claims of apartheid reflect law. Arabs have political rights, though issues with funding and policy remain. The West Bank is a flashpoint; Gaza is controlled by Hamas, complicating Palestinian governance. There’s a broader discussion about whether regime change in Iran is desirable given potential fragmentation and regional instability. Mario: Final question: where is Iran by year’s end? Glenn: If Trump attacks, Iran will perceive an existential threat and may strike back hard, possibly shutting the Strait of Hormuz. Russia and China may intervene to prevent complete destruction of Iran. Joel: I hope Glenn’s scenario doesn’t come true. Iran might pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If the regime is weakened, the region’s stability could be jeopardized. The options remain: negotiate, strike, or regime-change—prefer a large but limited strike to deter further advancement without taking ownership of an unknown future. Mario: Thank you both. This was a vigorous, wide-ranging exchange. End of time.

Netanyahu's actions have profoundly impacted Israel, the Middle East, and particularly the Palestinians. He has repeatedly engaged the U.S. military in Israel's conflicts, avoiding the need for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Netanyahu was a key advocate for the Iraq War, costing Americans significantly, yet he continues to evade accountability due to the influence of the Israel lobby. The path to peace is clear and widely accepted globally, but remains obscured for Americans. Many Arab nations have proposed a sensible peace plan that ensures Israel's security based on international law, but the U.S. continues to veto these efforts.

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

Lawrence Wilkerson and Glenn discuss a fragile ceasefire in Southwest Asia and what it signals about broader geopolitics and U.S. strategy. - Ceasefire prospects and Lebanon: Wilkerson says, as a military professional, ceasefires need the first week or two to establish, and with Iran-related communications, longer to restore contact with dispersed forces. He notes Netanyahu’s continued bombing in Lebanon and Beirut, arguing this is a major impediment to a durable ceasefire, with Iran having made clear that if Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire the deal may fail. - NATO and U.S. commitments: Wilkerson declares NATO effectively dead, though not formally, predicting the U.S. will disengage from NATO in practice as Ukraine’s conflict accelerates the decline. He links this to a broader reevaluation of U.S. alliances, suggesting a shift away from formal alliances toward other strategic arrangements, especially given changes in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. - U.S. role in Southwest Asia: He argues the United States is moving toward “offshore balancing” or withdrawal from the region, citing aging maritime assets, vulnerable aircraft carriers, and a changing energy/security architecture that lessens the need for a permanent U.S. ground presence. He predicts a transformation where pipelines and land routes become more important than sea routes, with Central Asia (Caspian energy) and the broader Eurasian land corridor strengthening, while Gulf oil dynamics and the Arab-Israeli tie weaken. - Russia and China in a multipolar world: Wilkerson contends power is shifting toward a multipolar order. He suggests Russia will become a major land and maritime power, leveraging Arctic routes and expanding naval reach, while China leverages both the Belt and Road and maritime interests (including deep-sea fishing and ports). He emphasizes the need to accept this shift rather than fight it, warning against a Thucydides trap scenario if the U.S. doubles down on containment. - The Middle East and regional realignments: He describes potential strategic shifts, such as Saudi Arabia redirecting Gulf investment toward Syria and away from Israel, and Israel’s future as a “tool” rather than the driver of U.S. policy. He fears Israel’s days could be numbered if the wider regional energy and political alignments move against it and if U.S. support falters. He calls for a genuine two-state framework and democracy in Israel for long-term viability, but doubts such changes will occur given current leadership. - U.S. domestic politics and leadership: The discussion touches on the perceived degradation of U.S. institutions (Congress, Supreme Court) and political finance concerns (Citizens United). Wilkerson criticizes the leadership around Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, accusing them of pursuing religious-nationalist agendas and purging military leadership to build a partisan base. He cites the potential for internal conflict, including a possible civil dimension in the United States, exacerbated by polarization and militarized factions. - Iran and diplomacy: Wilkerson presents two opposing paths for the Iran question: a subterfuge scenario where negotiations are used to lull Iran into a false sense of security, followed by renewed pressure, or a serious diplomatic track led by a serious U.S. president to end the war and negotiate a settlement that satisfies Iran’s terms (reparations, sanctions removal, regional security guarantees). He doubts the current leadership will pursue genuine diplomacy, anticipating muddled outcomes or renewed strikes. - The ceasefire’s optics and escalation: He suggests the ceasefire could be a tactical pause while threats of escalation persist, with the Iranians possibly misreading U.S. diplomacy. He notes the risk of renewed Israeli actions against Iranian targets or proxies, and the potential for further bombardment or military missteps (citing past U.S. missteps as cautionary examples). - Cultural and geopolitical macro-trends: Wilkerson emphasizes the erosion of Western-led order, the rising importance of land-based energy and trade corridors, and the need to recalibrate how the United States engages a rising, multipolar world. He uses historical analogies (Halford Mackinder, Monroe Doctrine) to describe the strategic pivot toward inland power centers and away from exclusive maritime dominance. - Concluding outlook: The conversation ends on a bleak note about continued instability, the potential for regional and domestic turmoil, and the sense that without new leadership and a fundamental rethinking of strategy, the current trajectory risks further deterioration of global stability and U.S. influence.

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.

What actions lead to the greater good in Israel? It's essential to stop those who wish to harm Israelis, as they pose a significant threat. A major issue is the indoctrination of hatred in children from a young age in Gaza, which must be addressed for lasting peace. We need to eliminate those promoting hate and ensure that children are not taught to hate in any context. Additionally, economic prosperity in Gaza is crucial. Historical examples, like the post-World War II rebuilding of Germany and Japan through the Marshall Plan, demonstrate that supporting nations can lead to lasting alliances and peace.

Ehud Olmert discusses the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and its domestic implications for Israel, arguing the attack was a brutal, civilian-targeted assault in homes, not against soldiers or military sites, with over 1,200 civilians killed. He emphasizes that the immediate Israeli impulse was to pursue all killers, and he distinguishes between the real security threat in the south and the actual events of that day. He contends that the danger to Israel’s security in the south was not realistic if Israel had fully deployed defense systems and manpower; the catastrophe resulted from arrogance, complacency, and overconfidence, leading to a total absence of defense when Hamas crossed the border. On Prime Minister Netanyahu’s leadership, Olmert says the counteroffensive was inevitable but criticizes the government for years of mishandling engagement with the Palestinian Authority and for tacitly enabling Hamas by channeling funds to Hamas via Qatar. He argues that Netanyahu became “the greatest ally of Hamas” by providing military and financial support that allowed Hamas to build tunnels and rockets. The major mistake, according to Olmert, was not pursuing meaningful negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which would have served Israel’s strategic interests more than tacit arrangements with Hamas. He questions the strategy of the military response, noting that the day-after plan was absent and that international patience frayed as a result of continued Israeli attacks without a clear horizon for Gaza’s future. Olmert notes that the war’s continuation raised concerns about its legitimacy, citing a 2025 moment when senior former military leaders, including the former commander in chief and heads of intelligence services, signed a petition opposing further expansion of the war. He says this contributed to widespread international opposition, with riots and protests harming Israel’s global reputation. Domestically, he highlights a polarized society and a battle over democracy, citing protests that predated October 7 due to Netanyahu’s attempts to reform the judiciary and other democratic institutions. He claims more than 60% of Israelis do not trust the prime minister and doubt that his government serves Israel’s true national interests. Olmert weighs Israel’s international position, arguing that U.S. influence in the region has actually grown, while Israel’s military superiority has increased. He points to Hezbollah’s decline and Syria’s realignment as indicators, and argues that Israel is in a better place to tolerate risk for a meaningful peace process leading toward a two-state solution. He contends the rhetoric from Netanyahu’s government is out of step with real needs. Regarding diplomacy with Iran, Olmert says he would have tried to engage Iran directly, suggesting that Iran might respond to candid dialogue about mutual destruction and proxies. He recounts his own attempts to reach out to Iran during his tenure and contends it could be worth trying again. On Russia and shifting alliances, Olmert recalls his 2018 view that Russia-Israel ties were important, noting recent tensions due to Ukraine and Iran. He says Kazakhstan’s President’s interest in joining the Abraham Accords is ironic given long-standing Israeli relations, and asserts Israel has opportunities to pursue different policies from the current government. He argues that replacing the government could allow renewed strategic talks with the United States, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and a reestablishment of trust with Russia and China. Olmert concludes by reiterating that the path to better security and a sustainable future lies in changing the Israeli government to enable renewed diplomacy, peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, and a comprehensive two-state framework.

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

The discussion centers on the fragile peace deal and the ongoing conflict with Hamas, with emphasis on Hamas’ true nature, disarmament, hostage issues, humanitarian aid, and regional dynamics including Lebanon and Iran. - Hamas remains a terrorist organization. The interlocutor states that Hamas has not changed its stripe and is using the ceasefire to reassert control in Gaza through mass executions of those opposed or suspected of working with Israel, while attempting to rebuild its strength. The plan, in partnership with Netanyahu, is to disarm Hamas, dismantle its terror infrastructure, and build Gaza into something different, a top priority under the Trump plan. - The peace deal is a work in progress. Neither Israel, the United States, nor other actors expect Hamas to act in good faith. The discussion emphasizes that if Hamas does not disarm, it will be eradicated, a statement framed as a serious US commitment reflecting the nature of the war and regional determination to end Hamas as a threat. - The 20-stage plan and pathway forward. The plan provides a pathway to end Hamas as a regime and terror army in Gaza and to prevent Gaza from threatening Israel going forward. The goal is to disarm Hamas, dismantle its infrastructure, and transform Gaza into a stable, peaceful entity, though it remains a “work in progress.” - Hostages and displaced persons. A central issue is the status of hostages: Hamas holds 13 of the 28 people Hamas allegedly murdered and held, with 18 returned so far, and 25 originally cited in discussions (the transcript mentions 28 total murdered and 18 returned, with 13 still in Hamas control). The speaker argues that Hamas knows the whereabouts of several more hostages and should deliver them; the claim is that some hostages who were said to be unlocated could be found even if debris removal is slow. The Red Cross and humanitarian organizations say recovering bodies will be a massive, decades-long challenge, but the speakers argue that locating hostages does not require full debris removal. Aid and humanitarian access are discussed, including a suspension of aid after the killing of Israeli soldiers that was brief and then reinstated; aid trucks are allowed through to humanitarian zones controlled by Israel in Gaza, with concerns about Hamas siphoning aid for its own purposes. - Aid leakage and Hamas control of aid. The speakers contend that Hamas stole or redirected up to 95% of aid in Gaza prior to the ceasefire, using it to fund its war against Israel. They argue that UN agencies operating in Gaza are often under Hamas influence, whether willingly or unwillingly, and thus aid distribution has been compromised when Hamas governs. - Hamas’ current behavior in Gaza and security concerns. Hamas is described as reasserting control by mass executions and intimidation; there is concern about how much control they exert over the areas they govern and the potential for continued war if they disarm remains unactioned. The discussion stresses that the longer Hamas can control areas, the more they can pursue their war. - Trump–Kushner–Witkoff diplomatic leverage. The discussion credits President Trump’s diplomacy with changing Hamas’s calculus. The Qatar strike that nearly targeted Hamas negotiators is acknowledged as a turning point; Kushner and Witkoff claimed that Hamas wanted peace when engaged directly in Egypt, and that the strike on Qatar frightened Hamas into reconsidering its position. The interlocutor suggests that palace diplomacy, allied pressure in the Arab and Islamic world, and the military pressure on Gaza City converged to push Hamas toward releasing hostages and engaging with the peace process. - Israel’s regional strategy and deterrence. The speaker emphasizes that Israel must be able to defend itself and maintain power in the region. The Abraham Accords are cited as a success, with normalization continuing because partners recognize Israel’s stability and the advantages of cooperation. The Palestinian statehood question is reframed as a broader test of Palestinian willingness to accept Israel’s existence; the speaker notes parliamentary support in Israel opposing a Palestinian state and argues that Palestinian society must change its stance toward recognizing a Jewish state. - Lebanon and Hezbollah. Optimism is tempered by caution. In Lebanon, there is some movement toward demilitarization, with the Lebanese army involved and Hezbollah’s power being re-evaluated. The speaker stresses that even if conflict ends, Israel will remain vigilant and prepared to prevent a rebuilt Hezbollah threat along the border, citing past upheavals and the need to protect border towns like Kiryat Shmona. - Iran and the wider threat. Iran’s missile program and its nuclear ambitions are described as two cancers threatening Israel: missiles capable of delivering heavy payloads and a nuclear program. The strategic aim is to prevent Iran from creating a “ring of fire” around Israel (Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Iraq) and to prevent metastasis of Iran’s influence from spreading. - Global sentiment and demonization. The speaker acknowledges growing global antisemitism and demonization of Israel post-October 7, but argues that Israel’s demonstrated ability to defend itself strengthens its position and that support should endure as the conflict recedes from prominence. The Palestinian leadership’s stance and the broader regional dynamics remain central to whether a two-state solution can emerge, with a tempered expectation that the peace plan will proceed step by step.

The discussion centers on shifting U.S. rhetoric toward Iran and Israel amid negotiations and escalating conflict. As the interview goes live, news reports Iran suspended its trip to Switzerland for the opening round of nuclear negotiations. Iran’s stated reason is ongoing Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon, arguing Israel is operating over six miles inside Lebanese territory in violation of Article 1 of the MOU calling for an immediate end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon. Iran says if the ceasefire clause is being breached before negotiations begin, there is nothing to go to Geneva for. Trump is also described as posting a call for a complete ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel. The interview then focuses on Israel as a “wild card” in the MOU and whether Trump can restrain Netanyahu. The colonel says Israeli leadership and U.S. billionaire supporters helped put Trump into office and are turning current events into “a test of Jewish power,” aiming to pressure Trump back into attacking Iran. He argues this approach reflects disproportionate influence already held by these actors, and predicts efforts to bully the president toward war. A CNN report is referenced describing Netanyahu lobbying to shape the final U.S.-Iran agreement by pressuring Trump through allies and intermediaries in Washington, mobilizing pro-Israeli senators and media allies. Netanyahu is said to believe a final agreement will be reached but is concerned Tehran will not uphold it. Separately, Netanyahu is described as saying Israel will restore security to the north through maintaining a security zone in southern Lebanon until Israel’s security needs require it, which the interviewer links to Netanyahu rallying U.S. influence to pressure Trump. When asked whether Trump can withstand this pressure, the colonel describes a transformation in Trump’s foreign-policy posture: he says Trump did not want a war with Iran, believed an arrangement could be reached, and showed reluctance to go to war generally. The colonel describes interruptions in foreign-policy dialogue after Ukraine in April 2022, then describes increasing belligerence around the early Iran conflict, including an account of Trump’s expectation that military action could end the war quickly. He then says Trump concluded the approach was not going well, became concerned about financial markets and the U.S. economy, and that the repeated claim “this war is going to end soon” could not end the conflict without a closure. The colonel argues Trump found no military solution and that using a nuclear weapon was “off the table.” He frames Trump’s challenge as dealing with Israel in a context where only an MOU exists as a rough framework, and highlights provisions aligned with Trump’s instincts, including not meddling in internal affairs and desire for forces to return home. He claims Trump was shown information about atrocities by Israelis against people in Gaza and Lebanon and that Trump’s statement about not needing to destroy an entire apartment building to eliminate one person reflects a broader realization. The colonel says some people are calling for Trump’s resignation because he “lost a war,” and responds that major powers do not achieve permanent “perfect victory streaks,” but instead must cut losses and move on. The colonel argues that future power in the Middle East will be dominated by Iran and Turkey, describing them as different from Israel and emphasizing that provoking Turkey would lead to a “fight to the finish.” He argues Israel’s existential threat is not Iran but Turkey, and contends that Israel and others are operating in a changing global environment where ISR-strike complexes and persistent surveillance plus standoff attack weapons enable new defensive and offensive capabilities. He concludes that the war must be brought to an end because the world has fundamentally changed and efforts to “reset it to backwards” are tied to calls for bombing more. A question is raised about how escalation could work if Israel continues strikes in Lebanon and Iran retaliates, and Trump chooses not to get involved, including not intercepting missiles. The colonel replies that this is “almost already happening,” citing Israeli shelling from southern Lebanon artillery positions and predicting Israel will attack Hizballah positions, which he describes as an existential threat for Israel. He says Israel would need U.S. assistance—munitions, missiles, intelligence—and predicts Netanyahu would pressure Trump politically if support were withheld, including threats aimed at Trump’s political survival. He also says he is “genuinely concerned” about the president’s safety. The conversation then shifts to claimed political and systemic factors limiting presidential agency and the possibility of escalation beyond normal pressure campaigns. The colonel suggests investigations involving members of the president’s family and references wealth growth and “Epstein files” as elements that could return to center stage. He also describes how criminal or political actions and unpredictable events have historically led leaders to be removed or harmed, and compares concerns to the experience of President Kennedy’s assassination. When discussing how pressure campaigns could become more sinister, he outlines ways investigations, media narratives, and orchestrated blame could be pursued. Near the end, the colonel discusses how broader U.S. and military bureaucracies operate, stating commanders can be constrained by service chiefs and confirmed positions, and arguing that institutional incentives discourage independent action. He recommends his book “A Margin of Victory: Five Battles That Changed the Face of War, Modern Warfare,” and says it addresses the limits of what government can accomplish on an average day due to other people’s decisions and confirmed constraints. The interview closes with the colonel referencing a Substack piece coming out Sunday or Monday discussing a shift in power and asserting that Iran has won the war and is “invincible,” “humbled, but not broken.”

The discussion centers on whether Netanyahu's government is in serious trouble and what recent developments suggest about Israeli politics and the Gaza situation. - Protests and public sentiment in Israel: Proponents point to large weekly protests in Tel Aviv against Netanyahu, noting claims of “massive protests” that have drawn thousands, with some saying a quarter of a million previously. The speakers emphasize that demonstrations before October 7 indicated substantial opposition to Netanyahu, including calls for a commission of inquiry into corruption and judicial overreach. They also acknowledge a shift after October 7, with Netanyahu attempting to build a coalition and currently holding about 65 of 120 seats, suggesting he remains in power. One speaker asserts that protests are used politically, while acknowledging their scale in the center of Israel. - Netanyahu’s political standing and coalition: The speakers describe Netanyahu as facing multiple felony charges related to corruption and note his history of coalition-building with smaller parties. They argue that war and conflict are used domestically to unite the population and distract from corruption allegations. They suggest Netanyahu’s government is the most extreme right-wing in Israel’s history, with two cabinet ministers having felony convictions for anti-Arab hate crimes and holding key security and finance roles. The prognosis offered is that Netanyahu is not likely to be removed from power soon, potentially leading through 2030. - Funds to Hamas via Qatar before October 7: A new report from the Tel Aviv newspaper Idiot “Iranath” states that Israel asked Qatar to increase funds transferred to Hamas in Gaza less than a month before October 7. The claim is that Netanyahu-era officials knew the money would enable Hamas to divert funds to arms and military preparedness, and that Hamas was exploiting Qatar’s civilian aid to strengthen its military capabilities. The discussion emphasizes that Israel funds Hamas indirectly through Qatar, and that nothing entering Gaza happens without Israeli knowledge or approval. - Stand-down orders and the October 7 attack: The conversation discusses Israeli stand-down orders and the protests among IDF soldiers about the events of October 7. There is an assertion that some young women in IDF outposts were put at risk, with questions about what the government knew and whether it allowed certain actions. The speakers describe a view that the Israeli military and political leadership may have been complicit or negligent regarding operations on October 7, including claims about attempted obfuscation of investigations and the Hannibal directive. - CIA, John Kiriakou, and past U.S. behavior: The dialogue references CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, noting his exposure of the Bush torture program and contrasting U.S. actions with Israeli policies. John Kiriakou comments on his experiences in the Middle East, including an anecdote about discussions in Riyadh in 1991 regarding Gaza’s infrastructure, and he asserts that Netanyahu’s government is deeply integrated with actions surrounding Hamas. - Prospects for accountability and investigations: The speakers express strong doubt about a credible investigation into October 7, arguing that Israel is in “survival mode” and that Netanyahu will not be imprisoned. They describe proposed commission arrangements as potentially whitewashing, with Netanyahu seeking to appoint some members himself, and they predict that the investigation is unlikely to be thorough or independent. - Summary stance: The discussion presents Netanyahu as politically resilient despite corruption charges, with a broad right-wing coalition and ongoing protests. It underscores the interconnections between Israeli funding structures for Hamas through Qatar, the alleged stand-downs surrounding October 7, and perceived obstacles to a transparent, independent accountability process.

A discussion centers on a report that Trump allegedly called Netanyahu an “effing idiot” during a tense phone call, with claims that Netanyahu received U.S. permission for an operation involving Beirut that was intended as a “bluff” with an evacuation order rather than actual bombing. The conversation explores whether Netanyahu could have obtained authority to strike Beirut through other officials in the U.S. administration without Trump’s direct approval, emphasizing how leaders can “work the system” via gaps between decision-makers. The colonel argues that the characters and relationships among decision-makers heavily shape national security outcomes, citing volatile leadership dynamics and describing how powerful political figures can conflict even when both consider each other “indispensable.” He links Netanyahu’s increasing vulnerability to domestic political setbacks, including the Knesset moving elections up, and to attacks from political opponents using Netanyahu’s perceived responsiveness to Trump’s instructions as a weapon. According to the discussion, Netanyahu initially seemed likely to follow Trump’s guidance about Lebanon, but the issue escalated across Jerusalem through diplomatic and political spillover, leading Netanyahu to reverse course and return to a “warpath” posture in Lebanon. The speakers discuss how rhetoric may diverge from action, and then broaden into a broader pattern: opponents are portrayed as escalating pressure by citing Netanyahu’s listening to the U.S. president in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Iran, accusing him of not securing enough U.S. action. The colonel also points to Netanyahu’s use of terminology described as invoking “final solution” and says the phrase about completing the Iran mission “in a way that constitutes a final solution” is “nasty terminology,” while stating a hope that it is being used as material to “bluff.” Another major thread claims that Pakistan has moved toward China and Iran as its preferred alignment, with a described arrangement involving Pakistan’s ISI and the military and a transfer or provision of nuclear weapons capabilities to Iran, framed around AQ Khan’s network and Pakistan’s nuclear history. The discussion claims that logistics networks connecting rail and ports (including a Chinese rail route into Iran and maritime routes) support Hezbollah and Iran’s resupply, especially for ballistic missiles, and argues that the Strait of Hormuz situation is being worsened by continued confrontation rather than contained by it, with the claim that many ships have passed after paying tolls and that Iran would benefit if it gained full control. The speakers criticize what they describe as a lack of direct diplomacy with Iran, arguing that third-party communications and intermediaries have replaced real talks, and describe Iran responding more aggressively in Lebanon by freezing talks, threatening strikes on Israeli forces inside Lebanon, and issuing evacuation orders for northern Israel. The conversation also discusses whether Iran could develop or already have the capability to match warheads to missiles quickly and whether Iran might conduct a nuclear test as a warning to the U.S. and Israel to deter further strikes. A point is raised that openly demonstrating could force Trump into escalation, while another perspective suggests Iran might focus on deterrence vis-à-vis Netanyahu. The dialogue extends into nuclear deterrence and first-strike capability debates, alongside references to U.S. nuclear posture thinking and the idea that some in the U.S. government argue for using nuclear weapons rather than relying solely on deterrence. In closing, the conversation turns briefly to Ukraine and NATO, with a claim that Putin is seriously considering striking NATO and an argument that a “Not a penny more” approach from Trump could pressure Zelensky and NATO allies toward an outcome without needing NATO strikes. The host also plans to bring up the nuclear-warning-shot discussion with an upcoming guest and references a Pakistani-source report that Iran may already have a nuclear weapon and might do a test to deter further attacks.

Rula and Mario discuss the broader and regional dimensions of the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon conflict, focusing on the perception of Israel’s actions, Iran’s role, and the future of Lebanon and the wider Middle East. - Rula frames the war as centered on the greater Israel project, describing the military occupation, domination, and violence in Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian territories as the core issue. She argues Israel is an occupying power under international law and questions the rationale of asking Palestinians and Lebanese to disarm while occupation persists. - Mario challenges the view that Israel as a single, unified actor always seeks expansion, noting that in Lebanon, Hezbollah’s presence arises from past Israeli actions and that some Israelis want coexistence with Lebanon. He contends there are variations within Israeli society, with some advocating for annexation or permanent conflict, while others prefer coexistence or diplomacy, though he acknowledges a radicalized current in Israeli politics. - The conversation moves to Iran’s role and regional dynamics. Mario argues the conflict has become regional and global, with Iran signaling willingness to act ruthlessly to mirror US and Israeli actions, and with other powers (Gulf states, China, Russia, the US) shaping the war’s scope. He asserts Israel’s strategic goals diverge from American goals, claiming the war serves the Greater Israel project and that Netanyahu has long pursued this vision, aided by a perceived, multi-decade alignment with American power and money from pro-Israel donors. - Rula emphasizes the internal Israeli political and social landscape, citing the Gatekeepers documentary as evidence that Israeli leadership has used Hamas and other actors as strategic tools, and she argues that the state’s actions are guided by a broader ideology (which she attributes to a form of Jewish supremacism) rather than conventional security concerns. She contends that Israel’s security narrative relies on perpetual conflict, and she asserts the United States has become financially and politically subservient to pro-Israel interests through campaign financing and lobbying. - The dialogue addresses US and international responses. Mario notes the US and Western support for Israel, while acknowledging criticisms of American influence. Rula counters by pointing out that US actions, such as sanctioning international courts to shield Netanyahu from war crimes prosecution, reflect a deep, structural alignment with Israeli policy. They discuss how this alignment influences regional dynamics, including the US response to challenges from Iran, Syria, and Hamas. - On Lebanon specifically, they debate whether Israel intends to annex parts of Lebanon or seek coexistence with Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah. Rula argues that Israel historically aimed to push toward annexation or subjugation of Lebanon, driven by a broader Greater Israel agenda, while Mario suggests Israel may prefer coexisting arrangements similar to Egypt and Jordan, though she counters that such coexistence would still come with coercive power dynamics and that Israeli policy has repeatedly demonstrated willingness to decimate Lebanon’s infrastructure and Hezbollah targets when framed as security operations. - The discussion covers ceasefires and ceasefire violations. They note that Hezbollah reportedly agreed to disarm and withdraw from certain areas, but ceasefire breaches occurred on both sides, including Hezbollah rocket fire and Israeli strikes. They debate who has honored or violated agreements, with Rula asserting that Israel breached ceasefires multiple times and Mario emphasizing parallel violations by Hezbollah. - They touch on the humanitarian and civilian toll, highlighting Lebanese displacement, destruction in Lebanon similar to Gaza, and the long-term risk of further fragmentation in the Middle East. Mario and Rula acknowledge Lebanon’s multi-sectarian society and express a lament for its potential loss of stability and coexistence. - Towards the end, they reflect on Israeli societal attitudes, referencing nationalist and supremacist sentiments inside Israel, including debates over Palestinian and Arab citizens, and they discuss the relative popularity of hardline policies among Israelis, contrasted with poll data that vary by source about two-state solutions or diplomatic options. - The exchange closes with mutual appreciation for the dialogue, a hint of residual mistrust in negotiated outcomes, and a light aside about a potential inquiry to an Israeli spokesperson about unpaid propaganda work, signaling ongoing attempts to scrutinize public messaging. Key points reiterated: - The war seen as part of a broader Greater Israel project, with occupation central to the conflict. - Iran and regional powers are pivotal in expanding the war beyond the Middle East. - Israeli internal politics, donor influence, and demographic shifts shape policy and willingness to pursue or resist further conflict. - Hezbollah and Lebanon are central but contested elements in debates about annexation versus coexistence. - Ceasefire dynamics reflect mutual distrust and ongoing violence on both sides. - There is a strong emphasis on the need to address underlying crises and the danger of perpetuating permanent warfare, with appeals to listen to diverse Israeli voices and to consider the humanitarian consequences for Lebanon and Palestinians.

The conversation centers on reports that Donald Trump allegedly called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an “effing idiot” during a tense phone call, cited by Axios and corroborated by an Israeli media outlet. The colonel argues that Trump can be volatile and that Netanyahu and Trump are both “indispensable” to each other, even if they do not particularly like one another. He says Netanyahu’s political vulnerability is increasing: the Knesset has passed the first step toward moving elections up, and Netanyahu is facing barbed criticism over actions in Lebanon, especially after a moment when he appeared to heed Trump’s reported advice to stop what he was doing in Lebanon but then reversed course and faced renewed attacks. A key theme is that Netanyahu is under pressure and that opponents are using his relationship with the U.S. president as leverage across multiple arenas—Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Iran—by accusing him of not doing what the U.S. needed in order to convince the U.S. to take stronger action. The colonel contends that, in practice, heated rhetoric does not translate into decisive action against Netanyahu, because Netanyahu will pursue what he wants for both political and national security reasons, particularly to protect his survival. The discussion also addresses how a tense call could follow Netanyahu taking steps beyond what Trump initially permitted. The colonel says it is possible for a world leader and an ally to “work the system” and obtain authority through other officials without direct approval for the final step, then be able to claim leeway later. He explains this through a historical example involving Colin Powell, Sam Nunn, and President George H. W. Bush, describing how early decisions on sanctions and later reversals created conflict between a chairman and Congress. The colonel then returns to Netanyahu’s use of “final solution” terminology regarding Iran, referencing Netanyahu saying “We must complete the mission in Iran in a way that constitutes a final solution,” and asks what it means. He says he hopes it is material for bluffing, calling it a “powerful bluff.” Broader regional dynamics are discussed, including claims that Pakistan has decided to align more with China and Iran, involving an arrangement described as connecting Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities to Iran. The colonel references A. Q. Khan’s “father of the Islamic bomb” network, saying it supplied components and programs across multiple countries, and he describes efforts to track shipping and intercept potential nuclear or radiological material, including mentions of intercept operations and concerns about dirty bombs. The conversation also argues that logistics and strategic connectivity make Iran’s position stronger, mentioning routes and rail lines associated with China’s infrastructure reaching Iran. It then claims that disruptions at the Strait of Hormuz and regional shipping patterns are affecting outcomes, arguing that contesting control can worsen global economic pressure and that Iran’s position improves when shipping pays tolls and continues rather than being fully blocked. On diplomacy, the colonel says the U.S. is not conducting “real diplomacy” with Iran, asserting that communications are third-party and mediated rather than direct talks. Regarding Iran’s response to threats to strike Beirut, the colonel says Iran is acting with greater aggressiveness—freezing talks, threatening to strike Israeli forces inside Lebanon, and issuing evacuation orders for northern Israel—suggesting Iran has gained “new weight” and is using ballistic missile capability to support its stance. The transcript also covers nuclear deterrence questions: it discusses claims that Iran could quickly match a warhead to a missile, and it raises the possibility of an Iranian nuclear test as a “warning shot” intended to deter the U.S. and Israel. The colonel says he thinks openly demonstrating a test could backfire by forcing Trump into an escalatory position, but also notes that escalation risk is a central concern. Finally, the conversation touches on broader geopolitical tensions, including discussion of whether Putin is considering striking NATO and remarks about how U.S. actions could affect escalation dynamics.

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

Netanyahu understands the U.S. and currently has more control over U.S. foreign and defense policy than the U.S. president. The Israeli lobby has achieved its goal of unconditional U.S. backing. Netanyahu believes this control is temporary, so he's using this moment for Israel to establish permanent Israeli, Jewish, military, and political hegemony over the region, create greater Israel, and put everyone on notice that they are in charge. He is confident he has U.S. backing. The U.S. will not put vast numbers of troops on the ground because it doesn't have them to commit.

For 30 years, I've consistently said that the conflict is not about the lack of a Palestinian state, but about the existence of a Jewish state. Whenever we have evacuated an area, we have faced terrible acts of terrorism, whether it was in South Lebanon, Gaza, or Judea and Samaria. Therefore, I believe that in any future arrangement, Israel must have control over the entire area from the river to the sea. This is what sovereignty entails. I want to emphasize this truth to our American friends and prevent any attempts to impose a reality that would put us in danger. As the Prime Minister of Israel, it is important to be able to say no, even to our closest allies, when necessary, and to say yes when possible.

- The public blames Netanyahu for October 7 as the one who fed the beast. He did not create Hamas, but he fed it. - Netanyahu, who is against peace and against having a Palestinian state, dealt with Hamas for a long time as a strategic friend. It was important for him to keep Gaza under the control of Hamas and keeping the West Bank under Fateh and preventing them from being united in any way. In order to do so, Netanyahu was all the time helping Hamas to survive. - At the same time that he was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. - Netanyahu can't give the money by himself. Israel will not give money to the Hamas. You cannot even transfer this money through banks because even the banks don't want to cooperate. So you, the Israeli prime minister, needs to beg this small and very rich country, Qatar, to give money to our enemy. - This suitcases of money was given to Hamas under the request of Benjamin Netanyahu personally. And because the Qatarians knew him from the beginning, they were asking him to send them his requests in writing because they knew that he's going to lie in the future. - He allowed more than 1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of the Hamas because he believed that he can control the level of hatred. It's nonsense. He cannot control the flames. - Your strategy was keep Hamas there, weaken the Palestinian authority on the West Bank, sustain the extremists, weaken the moderate. This exploded in our faces in the most brutal way on October 7. - Bibi tells the world again and again and again, I'm the expert on terrorism. I know how to fight terrorism. I'm the protector of Israel. And under his regime, we get into this incredible, unbelievable war. - I think we have to finish the job. We can finish the job. Victory is within reach, and that's our goal, total victory. Our fight is your fight, and our victory is your victory. Tonight, I wanna speak to you about total victory. Total victory over Hamas. Unless we have total victory, we can't have peace. - Total victory doesn't actually mean anything here in actuality. You know all of the casualties and death and suffering, and that's what it looks like in reality. That's what those words actually mean. - My dear friends, the word Gaza could end tomorrow if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and returns all the hospital. That's what total victory means, and we will settle for nothing less. - Netanyahu comes to the congress because he needs Americans desperately. - My friends, I came to assure you today of one thing. We will win. - He wants the Israeli public to be proud to have their leader speaking in front of this very prestigious group and getting applauded so many times. He's speaking to the American Congress, but he's really speaking to the Israeli public. - I would say that, tragically, the Americans don't know how to call him out. There was no plan for ending the war of Gaza, bringing the hostages home, and changing dynamics in the region. And things only got worse. Netanyahu is the architect of chaos. He may create a situation where it's irreversible. - He is the great example of a leader that lead his people to the wrong place. But this is the reality in which he will preserve his political power. And he know how to manipulate. Manipulate. He needs it in a way.

The hosts discuss an unusually intense Iranian funeral, with estimates of 9 to 10 million attendees and widespread anger expressed in the streets, including chants calling for death to Israel and the United States. A temperature conversion is debated (mid-to-high 90s Fahrenheit), and the discussion focuses on concern about where the hatred and anger could lead over “years from now.” They then turn to remarks by Donald Trump about the funeral turnout, with Trump initially saying he was surprised by the number of people and later calling the turnout “very impressive,” comparing it to crowds at his campaign rallies. The conversation shifts to whether Trump could be operating within a “bubble,” with claims that information is curated for him and that supporters may tailor what he sees, including an anecdote about people buying ad space to get onto Fox News at times Trump is watching. A separate U.S.-Israel discussion is driven by clips from Benjamin Netanyahu. When asked whether Israel is in a permanent state of war, Netanyahu says Israel is not, citing “four peace deals” and the Abraham Accords, attributing weakening of Iran to common “military action.” He argues Lebanon has “more cards in play,” asserting Lebanon wants to free itself from Hezbollah and that Christians, Druze, Sunni Muslims, and some Shiite Muslims seek protection. He also says that “some” Christian villages in Lebanon asked to be annexed to Israel because he says Israel protects them from Hezbollah. Additional Netanyahu remarks address anti-Israel sentiment in the United States. In the clip discussion, Netanyahu links hatred of Israel to hatred of America, claims protests often burn both Israeli and American flags, and says supporters of Israel wave both flags. He also describes social-media influence and “bot farms,” arguing it correlates with declining patriotic feelings and support for Israel, while insisting the alliance is based on “common values.” The hosts react by questioning how many Americans believe Netanyahu’s four main claims (that anti-Israel sentiment is anti-American; that Lebanese Christians want annexation; that younger and online shifts come from bot farms; and that Israel is a small self-defending country facing evil neighbors). They conclude that while a minority may accept those ideas, they argue the majority opposes them and that this represents a major change compared with prior U.S. history. Discussion then returns to regional military developments tied to Iran. There are claims of U.S. air asset repositioning: B-52s pulling out from England, F-15s leaving Jordan for the UK, and reports that at least six A-10s have flown into Jordan. The conversation connects this to potential escalation involving the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian actions against ships. They cite updates that traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains around the same level over several days (about 30-something ships per 24 hours) and mention an escort of ships, suggesting no major change in that narrow snapshot. A statement by Mohammed Medvedev is discussed, presented as claiming Iran has two maritime “weapons,” with the other not yet used besides the Strait of Hormuz—also referring to the Bab al-Mandib Strait. On Lebanon and Gaza, Netanyahu’s claims are summarized by the hosts: Iran trying to remove Israel from southern Lebanon, pressure on Lebanon, and Netanyahu’s assertion that Trump did not ask Israel to ease attacks on tunnels and did stop action earlier according to the hosts’ recounting of Netanyahu’s position. The conversation also includes Gaza: “no reconstruction in Gaza without disarmament and demilitarization” in a designated area, with Hamas not having given up, and discussion of impacts on Israel’s economy such as tourism. The hosts then mention a viral video of USS Liberty survivor Phil Turney saying he burned an “evil flag” on July 4 in remembrance of 34 brothers tattooed on his arm who were “slaughtered” June 8, 1967. They also discuss the broader idea of perceptions shifting in the U.S., comparing it to the process of mainstreaming beliefs (described through an “emperor with no clothes” example) and referencing COVID as an analogy for when information becomes widely accepted. They wrap up by broadening to U.S. society and recurring themes of “forever wars,” debt, inequality, and concerns about instability. They discuss a trending film, “Citizen Vigilante,” described as inspired by European rape-gang-related controversies and reflecting frustration with political handling of immigration and related social tensions. The conversation ends with stories about local law enforcement programs in Florida (rehabilitation-focused jail programs and sheriff-managed community structures), and a final return to the Iranian funeral photos showing Max Blumenthal and Jackson Hinkle attending, with Jackson described as attending multiple controversial international events.