reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker clarifies that while Iran possesses enough nuclear fuel for approximately 10 bombs, the US assessment indicates they haven't made the political decision to weaponize it. The speaker questions the purpose of 900 pounds of 60% enriched uranium if not for weapon production, referencing a question posed to the Senate Intel Chair. The response received was "leverage," which the speaker seems to find insufficient.

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

Iran reportedly wants to talk, but according to Speaker 1, they should have done so sooner, during the allotted 60-day period. Speaker 1 stated that on the 61st day, they declared that there was no deal to be made. Speaker 1 believes Iran is not winning and should talk immediately before it is too late.

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

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.

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

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

According to the speaker, diplomacy is not a dirty word. The speaker claims that Governor Waltz made an extraordinary statement. The speaker states that Iran is as close to a nuclear weapon today as they have ever been. The speaker asks Governor Waltz why he blames Donald Trump. The speaker states that Waltz's running mate, not his, has been the vice president for the last three and a half years.

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

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

Speaker 0 notes that, “if you listen to our leaders, it seems like everything is fine,” with a war “barreling towards a close,” markets “exploding,” and Trump praising the stock market. He says Pam Bondi reminded us about why we can’t have the Epstein files because “the Dow is over 50,000.” He reports Trump said Israel and Lebanon have agreed to begin a ten day ceasefire, starting at 4 PM Eastern, and claims they “haven’t spoken in thirty four years” but now are at a ten day ceasefire, while Israel is carrying out “last minute terrorist attacks, blowing up civilian homes in Inatah, centuries old village in South Lebanon,” and “blowing up a school” in Marwan, South Lebanon. He also says Trump spoke an hour earlier that Iran and the United States are close to an agreement to end this war. He closes with a tongue-in-cheek jab about a “ten days to regroup” from Tony in the chat. Speaker 1 emphasizes the priority: “The big thing we have to do is we have to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon,” stating that Iran “agreed to that” and that Iran has agreed to give back the nuclear dust “way underground because of the attack we made with the b two bombers.” Tony Garrett in the chat is cited again confirming “ten days to regroup, restock, and reassess.” Speaker 0 then introduces Colonel Daniel Davis as host of Deep Dive, noting a bombshell from his sources and that despite positive rhetoric, military movement suggests otherwise. Speaker 2 asserts that, even without his sources, President Trump was asked if there’s no deal, “we’ll definitely do that,” and that Secretary Hagstads (Hagstad) briefing said, “we are locked and loaded and we are ready to get right back into this.” He says there has been “lots of ammunition and fuel and restocks” moved into the region during the ceasefire to be used, and cautions that “until an order is given, it doesn’t matter what you’ve prepared for,” but that “militarily, all the pieces are in place to restart this thing.” He concludes the pause is a pause to reload, not a true end to hostilities. Speaker 3 asks about ten days’ viability to replenish ammunition, and about a Wall Street Journal report that the Pentagon is pushing Ford and GM to shift factory capacity toward weapons production. Speaker 2 says such conversions are possible (World War II precedent) but would be expensive and time-consuming; more likely, the U.S. “can take them out of our stockpiles” and deplete them, possibly for months or years to replenish, with Iran possibly calculating they can outlast U.S. firepower. He notes the risk that a protracted war could outstrip American stockpiles, whereas Iran could endure longer. Speaker 0 shifts to gold and silver promotions, then returns to the strategic issue, describing that Mossad head’s claim that Iran war ends only with regime change, and Russian intelligence’s counterclaim that the ceasefire is a mask. He asks the chat if the ceasefire is real; Speaker 2 confirms it is real in a technical sense (no missiles fired) but calls it a pause to reload, not a negotiated settlement. Speaker 4 (Secretary of War remarks) says, “Iran can choose a prosperous future…we will maintain this blockade,” and “if Iran chooses poorly, then they will be a blockade and bombs dropping on infrastructure, power, and energy,” while Treasury is launching “Operation economic fury.” Speaker 2 responds that such measures are physically feasible but question their effectiveness in achieving supply and demand balance or restoring fertilizer, helium, and chip supply chains, arguing Iran will endure and that the war is militarily unwinnable. Speaker 2 reiterates concerns about escalating consequences in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, noting the USS Ford’s voyage around Africa to avoid the Houthis, and arguing continued aggression risks destroying global supply chains, with the war demanding a quick exit. Speaker 0 and Speaker 3 thank Colonel Davis and close.

Speaker 0 questions: "You just suggested that Iran somehow got its hands on a tomahawk and bombed its own elementary school on the first day of the war, but you're the only person in your government saying this. Even your defense secretary wouldn't say that when he was asked, standing over your shoulder on Saturday. Why are you the only person saying this?" Speaker 1 responds: "Because I just don't know enough about it. I think it's something that I was told is under investigation, but Tomahawks are used by others, as you know. Numerous other nations have Tomahawks. They buy them from us. But I will certainly whatever the report shows, I'm willing to live with that report."

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the population and ethnic mix of Iran, which Speaker 1 is unable to answer. Speaker 1 defends his lack of knowledge, stating he doesn't memorize population tables. They then argue about whether Iran is trying to murder Donald Trump and whether the U.S. is supporting Israel's military actions. Speaker 0 claims the U.S. government denied acting on Israel's behalf. The discussion shifts to whether it is acceptable for Israel to spy on the U.S., including the president. Speaker 1 says allies spy on each other and that it's in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel, despite the spying. Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1, as an American lawmaker, doesn't object to the spying. Speaker 2 criticizes Speaker 1's stance, calling it insane and not conservative to defend being spied on.

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

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

Ro Khanna (Speaker 1) and the other speaker debate Obama’s Iran policy and its consequences, referencing actions, deals, and geopolitical alignments. - The other speaker asserts that under Obama there were 14 wire transfers to a Swiss account linked to Hezbollah between 2014 and 2016, totaling 1.7 billion dollars, which he says Obama told Congress were frozen Iranian assets. He also claims a back channel to Tehran through Valerie Jarrett operated after Obama left office, describing it as a shadow government, and alleges pellets of cash were sent to Iran by plane. He questions why money would be sent to Iran given its alleged nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terrorism. - Ro Khanna counters that Obama was a great statesman who left America safer, noting that 97% of enriched uranium was removed, American service members deaths were avoided, and gas prices did not rise as claimed by the other speaker. He says Obama did not give China a larger role in the region and did not harden the IRGC; instead, Obama engaged in diplomacy to bring China, Russia, and European allies on board toward a path to a non-nuclear Iran. - The other speaker insists Obama sent money to the Iranians and that they resumed enrichment. Khanna responds, “That’s not true.” The other speaker clarifies that a deal was reached to remove 97% of enriched uranium, and assets unfrozen were Iranian assets, not U.S. money, with broad international involvement (China, Russia, France, UK, Canada, the U.S.). He says Obama tried to torpedo the deal and that APEC and Netanyahu opposed it, which dragged the U.S. into more conflict in the Middle East. He argues Obama was against the Iraq War and favored normalization toward Iran, with broad global support, but claims AIPAC and Netanyahu undermined that effort. - Khanna pushes back, suggesting the claim that Obama delivered on preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is inaccurate, asserting that 10 presidents before Trump all claimed Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and stating that Obama delivered 97% out in some sense while the other speaker reiterates that Obama sent money to Iran. The other speaker emphasizes the world’s broad support—Russia, China, Canada, the U.K., France, and others—lost or shifted away, implying that U.S. leadership faltered and that the world coalition was lost. - The discussion shifts to what U.S. policy should be: a return to “team America,” addressing gas prices, avoiding further wars, and a preference for leadership that aligns with Israel’s stance as framed by Netanyahu and AIPAC, according to the other speaker. Khanna notes ongoing debate about who holds influence, and the dialogue ends with a mutual acknowledgment of continuing the conversation, thanking each other and Maria.

Speaker 1 states that 20 years ago, the situation with Iraq was different because there were no weapons of mass destruction, and it was pre-nuclear age. Speaker 1 claims that Iran has gathered a tremendous amount of material and will be able to have a nuclear weapon within months, which "we can't let happen." When asked about intelligence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, Speaker 1 claims that if the intelligence community says there is no evidence, then "my intelligence community is wrong." When told that the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said there was no evidence, Speaker 1 reiterated that "she's wrong." Speaker 1 denies helping Iran to stop reports of claims slamming Iran from China, stating that "they're there to take people out."

The discussion centers on the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and the possibility of a U.S.-led or Israel-led military confrontation, with a mix of arguments about intelligence, strategy, and public appetite for war. - Recurrent warnings about Iran: The hosts note that for decades the U.S. government has warned Iran is on the brink of reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. They reference claims of “fresh intelligence” and “new evidence” of a renewed program, contrasting them with past warnings during the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. The tone suggests these claim cycles reappear with each new administration or set of negotiations. - Netanyahu and Iran timing: A compilation is shown of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stating over two decades that Iran has a nuclear program that could be imminent. One clip claims Iran could produce a weapon in a short time, with phrases like “weeks away,” “three to five years,” and even apocalyptic projections. The conversation then questions whether those warnings have come to fruition and whether media and public commentary have overstated the immediacy or impact of those claims. - Stuxnet and sanctions context: The moderator recalls that during the Bush era the U.S. launched Stuxnet against Iran’s centrifuges, and argues that Obama continued those efforts with sanctions; they portray sanctions as bipartisan pressure intended to justify claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A guest mentions “demonic officials” and cites a book to underscore a harsh view of the two-term sanction era. - Diplomatic vs. military options: The panel describes the Biden administration sending negotiators to address the nuclear issue, while noting that “other options” exist. They discuss the tension between diplomacy and potential coercive measures, including the possibility of coalition or unilateral strikes. - Military balance and potential outcomes (Colonel Douglas MacGregor’s view): The guest emphasizes the complexity and risk of fighting Iran. He argues: - Iran is capable and not a “backward desert” opponent, with an arsenal including roughly 2,000 ballistic missiles and significant, varied air defenses. - Iranian forces could target U.S. bases and Israel, potentially inflicting substantial losses, though the duration and scale of any campaign are uncertain. - The aim would be to “disintegrate the state” and induce chaos rather than secure swift compliance; the scenario could produce high casualties among both sides, potentially thousands for Iran and substantial American losses, depending on scale and duration. - The long-term goal, he says, is to “make the region safe for Israel” and establish Israeli hegemony, noting the defensiveness and regional power dynamics in play, including rising concerns about Turkey as a threat. - Intelligence reliability and sources: A CIA veteran (John Kiriakou) challenges the immediacy and reliability of intelligence asserting that Iran reconstituted a nuclear program. He contends: - The Israelis and the U.S. have historically provided intelligence that may be biased toward aggressive action. - The CIA has produced intelligence estimates stating Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program; he questions whether boots-on-the-ground intelligence would confirm otherwise. - He emphasizes the risk that media outlets amplify “existential threat” narratives rooted in political calculations rather than verified evidence. - The domestic political-media dynamic: The discussion highlights perceived incentives for hawkish messaging from certain U.S. and Israeli actors, including prominent commentators who push the threat narrative. One commentator argues that the push for war serves particular political or financial interests, suggesting that public opinion in the U.S. is not aligned with an immediate military conflict. - Regional and alliance implications: The panel debates how a U.S.-led or Israeli-led strike would affect alliances, regional stability, and the global economy. They highlight: - The possibility that Iran could retaliate with volumes of missiles and unmanned systems, inflicting damage on Israel and regional targets. - The risk that a prolonged conflict could undermine NATO cohesion and Western diplomatic credibility in the Middle East and beyond. - Concerns about the effect on energy routes, particularly the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and broader economic ramifications. - Operational and logistical strains: They discuss the practical challenges of sustained conflict, including: - Navy and air defenses, the need for replenishment of carrier groups, and the strain on logistics and maintenance after extended deployments. - The impact of political missteps and controversial statements (such as comments linked to public pro-war stances) on alliances and military readiness. - Speculation on timing and signals: The guests speculate about when or whether a conflict might occur, noting that political leaders may face pressure “between now and March” or around certain holidays, while acknowledging uncertainty and the potential for last-minute changes. - Ending note: The conversation closes with a recognition that the set of actors—intelligence, defense officials, media, and political leaders—are collectively influencing public perception and policy directions. The speakers emphasize contrasting views on Iran’s threat, the legitimacy and consequences of potential war, and the stakes for the United States, Israel, and global stability.

Speaker 0 raises a question about the legality of striking Iran’s bridges and power plants, asking how such action would not be a war crime. He asserts that Iran killed 45,000 people in the last month, and could be as many as 60,000, including protesters, calling them “animals.” He argues that they must be stopped and that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, stating that “They want a nuclear weapon. They've been trying for a long time.” He claims to have stopped them “with the Obama horrible Iran nuclear deal” and says he “stopped them in a lot of different ways.”

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

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

Ray McGovern emphasizes the erosion of the post-World War II security architecture, especially the U.S.-led system that emerged after the Cold War and aimed to globalize the Transatlantic Partnership. He argues that this expansion has strained the United States economically, militarily, and institutionally, and that security has become more volatile as empires exhaust both capabilities and moral legitimacy. He uses NATO’s history to illustrate how shifting perceptions of threat—historically the Soviet menace versus modern Russian and German sensitivities—shape alliance dynamics. He notes that many Americans were taught a one-sided narrative: NATO was created to contain the Warsaw Pact, while the Soviets also felt threatened by Western actions. He recalls his own indoctrination, the evolution of NATO, and the Warsaw Pact’s creation in response to West German NATO entry in 1955, explaining that “security is indivisible” and that each side’s fears drive the other’s behavior. He observes that polls show the U.S. losing its status as Russia’s main adversary, with Germany becoming the more prominent concern, which complicates the security calculus. Speaker 0 adds historical context, referencing John Lewis Gaddis and the Cold War’s security competition, where blocs prompted mutual insecurity. He discusses the Helsinki Accords and the attempt to reduce security competition, contrasting that with post-Cold War optimism that NATO expansion would stabilize Europe. He notes opposition among some American leaders to expanding NATO and argues that the Ukraine conflict reveals a problematic belief in “force for good” through military blocs, suggesting that expanded NATO has contributed to the current crisis rather than preventing it. He highlights the potential consequences of continued reliance on NATO and U.S. guarantees, questioning the credibility of Article 5 guarantees in an era of waning U.S. commitment. Speaker 1 recounts his experiences in Munich (1968) with Radio Free Europe and his opposition to encouraging Czech resistance to Soviet tanks, arguing that the Brezhnev Doctrine has a modern analogue in Ukraine. He describes the sequence leading to Crimea’s annexation, including the 2014 Maidan events, Western negotiations (Minsk Accords), and the dynamic between Western leaders and Putin. He argues that Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine arose from a perception of NATO encroachment and Western deceit, asserting that Moscow’s actions were a response to attempts to place Ukraine in NATO orbit and to secure a vital Black Sea port. He states that Russia halted further invasions in 2022 after Ukrainian negotiations to avoid NATO membership and a ceasefire, and he contends that Western actors, including Boris Johnson, pressured Ukraine to continue fighting. Speaker 0 contends that the war’s conduct was shaped by Western promises and the perception that NATO’s expansion would secure democracy. He criticizes European leaders like Kaya Kaltois (Kallas) and Zakharova’s exchange to illustrate the political theater around NATO and European security. He stresses that European leaders’ rhetoric—such as calls for “no Russian red lines”—and the reliance on U.S. military power created incentives for continued conflict. He also critiques the influence of the military-industrial complex, warning that profiteering from defense production drives war. Speaker 1 emphasizes the CIA’s dual role: one branch “for lying to the public” and overthrowing governments, and another “analysis division” that historically aimed to tell the truth. He cites the 2007 unanimous intelligence assessment that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon at the end of 2003 and had not resumed, noting that later officials removed or reframed statements about immediate threats. He references George W. Bush’s admission that the 2007 estimate deprived him of a military option, and he points to Tulsi Gabbard’s 2019-2024 reluctance to label Iran as an imminent threat. He argues Iran is not a direct threat to the United States but is linked to Israel and regional dynamics, including Netanyahu’s role and the 2003-2007 Iran/Iraq/Israel calculus. He mentions Joe Kent’s resignation as a dissenting voice against continued war in Iran, suggesting that some military leaders and officials pushed back against aggressive policy. Speaker 0 wraps by noting the evolving U.S.-Israel relationship and the need for responsible diplomacy. He highlights the broader international realignment: NATO’s credibility waning, Europe reassessing security guarantees, and potential shifts in alliances with the Gulf States and Asia. He closes with a cautious note that genuine diplomatic leadership and intelligent intelligence analysis could help establish a more stable order, rather than perpetuating disruptive escalation.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

US intelligence assessments contradict claims that Iran is only weeks away from a nuclear bomb, estimating they are three years away from producing one if they chose to. The claim that Iran is weeks away from a nuclear bomb does not align with facts. Actions taken only set back the Iranian nuclear program by months.

Channel 14 reports that Israel assesses Iran will carry out a missile attack on Israeli territory and respond in Beirut, with that expected to be a focus of the conversation. The guests discuss how the regional conflicts have affected Iran and its capabilities. Mark argues that the Islamic Republic has never been weaker in its 47-year history, citing severe degradation of nuclear programs, shattering of missile and defense industrial capabilities, decapitated leadership including Ali Khamenei, and a crippled economy, alongside a legitimacy crisis and major protests and repression in Iran. He says Iran has shifted to targeting the Gulf, with attacks described as involving thousands of missiles, rockets, and drones against multiple Gulf states. In contrast, Mara argues that while Iran is militarily weaker in the short term and Hezbollah is described as weak, she says Iran may be strategically stronger due to control of the Strait of Hormuz, and argues that US and Israeli bombing reportedly could not destroy significant underground and launcher-related facilities. She also highlights regional diplomatic engagement with Iran, including delegations and deals, and argues that the region may be moving toward coexistence and that a military solution is not the right approach. The discussion then turns to whether a military or diplomatic solution is preferable. Mark argues that without military action, and under the JCPOA trajectory, Iran would likely have produced nuclear weapons and long-range missile capabilities, including permanent leverage over Hormuz. He says the current situation reflects major damage, including claims such as reduced defense industrial base and missile inventory, degradation of nuclear enrichment and centrifuges, and that Hormuz leverage is limited and diminishing as alternatives and pipeline capacity increase. Mara responds by disputing specific confidence in statistics and states that there are disagreements in reported damage levels, while emphasizing that deterrence may also take new forms, including strike capabilities toward the Gulf and attempts to close Hormuz. A key part of the debate concerns claims about Iran’s defense industrial base destruction. Mark cites sworn testimony to the US Senate by Admiral Bradley Cooper, stating 85% of Iran’s defense industrial base was destroyed, while Mara argues that she cannot verify exact figures and points to broader concerns about prior reporting accuracy. They then discuss expectations of imminent attacks and the MOU. Mara raises questions about the IAEA view that Iran is more likely to build a nuclear weapon now, and mentions arguments about a 60-day period and potential concessions. Mark replies that will and capabilities must be distinguished, arguing Iran’s will to build nuclear weapons exists while capabilities have been severely degraded and that a missile shield needed to protect nuclear facilities has been degraded. Israel and Dahye (Beirut) are central in the Lebanon portion. Mark argues that Israel moved into southern Lebanon to push Hezbollah back from the borders and to address attacks into Israel, including Hezbollah’s use of anti-tank missiles affecting Israeli homes. He frames Israeli strikes as linked to Hezbollah actions and says Israel will strike Hezbollah strongholds in Dahye and Beirut. Mara argues that while Hezbollah started firing and dragged Lebanon into war, she worries about Israel’s actions escalating into village leveling and rhetoric about settling annexation of Lebanese territory, and she says the goal should be improving relations so Lebanon can normalize relations with Israel. Mark rejects normalization between Israel and Hezbollah/IRGC, arguing Hezbollah is an arm of the IRGC and dedicated to Israel’s destruction, and portrays the MOU as a mechanism intended to tie Iran and Hezbollah together and to pressure the US to accept Iran’s demands and prevent strikes on Hezbollah. Mara and Mark also debate whether Hezbollah and Israel can improve relations while Hezbollah remains in Lebanon, including the feasibility of Hezbollah disarming or merging with the Lebanese military. Mark says normalization is not possible given Hezbollah’s IRGC role and intent, while Mara argues for a path that avoids Lebanon being dragged into repeated wars and avoids outcomes like Syria or Libya. The transcript ends with Mara reading Donald Trump’s post stating that a Beirut attack should not have happened on a special day close to a peace deal with Iran, asserting Israel has the right to defend itself but should not disrupt an important process, calling for stand-down by all sides including Hezbollah, and describing it as a beginning to long peace. Mark responds that Trump wants the MOU and is trying to test Iran against his red lines over a 60-day timeline, suggesting that if Iran does not meet demands concerning nuclear and enriched uranium material, Trump would return to military action and severe economic pressure.