reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We express sympathy for the victims of the Iran explosions, stating the US and Israel were not involved. No evidence supports these claims. Speculation on US involvement is deemed ridiculous due to lack of proof. The history of US actions in Iran is mentioned, but the current administration denies any involvement in the recent explosions.

There was no drive to get to the bottom of the story because there were no Americans on the aircraft. A new investigation petered out because other things seemed more important. The reason why there was no final report is exclusively someone's fault, because they got bogged down with something else. The lack of taking responsibility for what happened is sad. The entire affair is viewed as a gigantic screw up. After the preliminary investigation, no further action was taken. It seems plain that it was a tremendous mistake, a giant blunder. People should have been held accountable, corrective action taken, and an apology issued to the Iranians. Captain Rogers declined an interview, stating he would do the same thing again. He was awarded a Legion of Merit medal for his performance on the Vincennes. News of the shootdown stunned Iran.

Speaker 0 discusses the differing international reactions to airliner shootdowns. He notes that when the Korean airliner was shot down, there was significant moral outrage and a response in the United Nations. He compares this to 1978 or 1979, when Israel shot down a Libyan civilian aircraft for violating Israeli airspace, an incident for which President Nixon sent a wire to Qaddafi and to Sadat apologizing. He points out that there was no talk of bringing that incident to the United Nations, and that at a meeting of the International Pilots Associations, 102 nations voted to condemn Israel with four voting not to, and the American representative abstained. The abstention, he says, was because “we couldn't create an enemy there.” He then contrasts this with the Soviets shooting down an airliner, noting that the same situation would elicit moral outrage in the same circles, but that a difference exists: “we must insist that the Soviets have gotta be created as an enemy.” He argues that without portraying the Soviets as a major enemy, it would be difficult to secure appropriations for more arms. The discussion shifts to national security rhetoric. He acknowledges, perhaps reluctantly, that people talk about being tough and strong and that missiles have been released, including intermediate-range missiles, Pershing II, and plans for more Trident II missiles. He then asks what the Soviet response has been: the Soviets have placed cruise missiles into attack submarines and positioned more of them off the U.S. coast. He challenges the idea that this development increases national security, describing the situation as “a whole ballgame that I don't understand.”

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

Speaker 0 introduces a “hidden operation theory” about the F-15 down and the rescue, describing it as a conspiracy theory that has emerged. The claim is that US special forces were already on the ground inside Iran when the F-15 was shot down, with the rescue location near the Isfahan nuclear site. The theory suggests the ground operation’s objective could have been to target nuclear material or uranium, and that the F-15’s role may have been to sanitize airspace to facilitate the ground operation. The theory posits the F-15 was shot down by Iran, the ground operation was exposed, and the extraction became urgent, turning a ground operation into a rescue because it went sideways. The official US version is that the operation was a combat search and rescue (CSAR) to recover the downed pilot, with heavy fire during extraction and no comment on covert operations. The question is why big aircraft were used to remove one pilot. Speaker 1 (Sameer Joshi) acknowledges there are missing pieces but remains focused on CSAR as the main interpretation of the first few days. He notes on the first day: one C-130, one MC-130, and two Blackhawks (HH-60s) were sent; one pilot was recovered. The WSO was in communicado for about 24 hours, planning and hiding, and his message confounded observers. The C-130s and tankers fed the mission; jamming and electronic warfare were employed to discourage Iranian regrouping. The US would have faced opposition on the ground; the field selected was a former Iranian agricultural airfield where two MH-130s landed. The Delta or C-6 aircraft provided support, creating a perimeter while smaller roving patrol helicopters watched for threats. The combination of Reapers and fighters (A-10s, F-15Es) supported a plausible, well-planned operation. The US would have faced ground-fire but proceeded to recover the WSO and pilot, with details still undisclosed. Once resources were committed and the operation appeared successful, CENTCOM framed it as an audacious mission with a visible payoff in the pilot’s return. He believes this is the likely scenario and notes there may be other theories, but focuses on the ongoing operation’s positive outcome. Speaker 0 agrees, noting that covert operations may prevent full disclosure and that the discussion is warranted given war aims and endgame questions. Abhijit (Speaker 2) is introduced to comment on the C-130s being stuck in the mud. He explains skepticism: there may have been another ceasefire operation, but the area’s terrain (high altitude around 6,000 feet) and dust are relevant. He references a historical parallel to 1979/1980 hostage rescues in which CH-53 Stallions were grounded by dust storms. He argues the US “never makes the same mistake twice” and doubts the dust-in-fuel explanation for the two downed helicopters, noting the precision planning typical of American operations (geologists, site surveys). He cites the Abbottabad raid as another example and questions the plausibility of both helicopters going down in the same way. He concludes he is not buying the dust explanation and emphasizes the need for granular, well-planned execution. Speaker 0 thanks Sameer and Abhijit for their insights, acknowledging the balance between the mission’s audacity and the questions it raises, and notes the discussion is valuable for understanding what is being dealt with.

The speaker acknowledges that all the failures and risks leading up to the tragedy were known beforehand. They mention the failure to prevent, plan, manage, and respond to the contingencies that arose that day. The speaker also mentions the failure to act quickly when the situation escalated. Viewers are questioning if someone should apologize for these oversights. The other speaker cannot say when apologies will be made but expresses heartbreak over the situation. They believe that as a society, we have neglected global warming and failed to prioritize important matters.

The speaker was questioned about his duty station on the USS Liberty as a scene leader and member of the forward repair party. He saw two torpedoes aft but not the one that hit the ship, and believed the ship would sink. An admiral threatened the speaker, stating that if he repeated one word about the USS Liberty and who attacked it, he would end up in Leavenworth or worse. The speaker questioned why they were left alone. The speaker felt betrayed and worthless after the encounter, comparing it to the attack and worse than heartbreak. Another speaker stated the admiral knew everything and wasn't a nice man. 28 of the 34 people killed that day worked for him.

The discussion centers on the recent F-15 incident, the rescue operation, and what the events reveal about U.S. plans and Iranian defenses. The hosts note a flood of misinformation but lay out what they consider to be known elements: several U.S. aircraft were downed or destroyed, and the situation includes a complex, high-stakes rescue of a downed pilot. Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, is brought in to explain what happened and why. He suggests there was a larger mission at work behind the F-15E downing. He explains that the aircraft involved often place a colonel in the weapons systems seat as mission commander, implying this was part of a broader air component operation rather than a simple single-aircraft strike. He emphasizes that the F-15E’s ejection sequence could involve a rear-seat officer exiting first if the mission is large, and notes that a malfunction or timing could affect ejection sequences and distances from the crash site. Ritter argues that Iran has reconstituted its air defenses after prior U.S. and Israeli operations and is relying more on electro-optical and infrared guidance rather than radar-guided missiles. This shift makes U.S. standoff weapons less effective and increases vulnerability to close-in air defenses. He notes that the Iranians were able to hit U.S. aircraft, including an F-35 and an A-10, and asserts that the downing of the F-15E was not just luck but a sign of Iran’s growing capability. On the rescue, Ritter details the sequence after two HH-60 Pave Hawk CSAR helicopters were shot down or rendered nonflyable, necessitating a Plan B. He describes a standard CSAR package with two MC-130 aircraft and four AH-6/MH-6 Little Bird helicopters as a typical arrangement. He explains that, in this case, three additional aircraft configured to carry Little Birds were used because the original CSAR birds were compromised. He asserts that Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six flew on the mission and that Delta Force personnel were involved, with ground security roles for airfield protection. The aim was to extract the downed pilot and begin recovery operations despite Iranian interference. A key element Ritter highlights is the decision to rely on an airfield survey to determine whether the improvised field could support the mission. He claims that the airfield survey was not possible in time and that intelligence from Israel had to suffice to deem the field usable for MC-130 operations. He alleges that the field’s front gear sank into wet sand, trapping one or both MC-130s during takeoff—forcing a rapid shift to lighter aircraft and offloading to three C-295-type aircraft, which allowed the rescue to proceed but resulted in the destruction of the heavy aircraft and many mission-critical assets to deny Iran access to sensitive equipment. Ritter also contends that the mission had dual objectives: rescue of the pilot and a planned operation against Isfahan involving uranium hexafluoride feedstock, potentially a U.S. effort to seize nuclear material and declare a victory over Iran’s program. He suggests the media leak that the backseater was not rescued forced a retasking of the operation, undermining that broader plan and prompting a retreat from Isfahan-related aims. He asserts that the Iranians closing in on the retasked plan signaled the end of the uranium raid, framing the outcome as a mixed result: the pilot was saved, but significant assets were lost. The discussion touches on CIA involvement and the trust between JSOC and the CIA, noting past tensions and the use of other intelligence channels. Ritter asserts that Israel provides valuable on-the-ground intelligence but cautions that overreliance on outside intelligence can be problematic. He questions why the president publicly framed the mission as a victory and raises questions about decision-making and potential political considerations driving the operation. In closing, Ritter emphasizes remaining questions: why the operation proceeded in a way that exposed heavy aircraft to Iranian defenses, how long U.S. assets could have sustained a high-risk operation, and how the political narrative of victory aligns with the actual military risks and losses. He concludes that while the rescue succeeded, the broader Isfahan uranium plan appears to be off the table, and the overall mission reflects a complex, high-stakes balance of intelligence, timing, and strategic objectives.

A friend of the speaker, now deceased, conveyed a sequence of decisions and reactions related to military aircraft and orders. The friend said that after the aircraft were sent off, they were recalled by Washington from McNamara. Even before they hit Horizon, they were called back. After reconfiguring, another volley was sent up. Then Johnson got on the phone and said, you better, turn those g d planes around. The speaker quotes the claim that, “I don’t care if, every sailor on that ship gets hurt or whatever killed, but they left us out left us out there to die.” The speaker asserts that “that’s what our government wanted. That’s what Israel wanted.”

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."

The first participant asks the second to identify who did each major event. For MLK Jr., the second participant says, “That was a CI operation because they considered him a dangerous communist. And but the FBI was bugging the, in churches where he was giving some of his speeches in churches. They were bugging the podiums and following him around. He was a top target, for elimination.” For JFK, the second participant states, “I think that was a CI hit. They they may have employed some mafia connections to carry it out because that was their mafia assassination program.” Concerning LBJ, the first participant notes, “LBJ was very involved in all that in Dallas. So,” and the second participant adds, “he an evil man.” The first participant affirms, “He was an evil man.” Turning to Pearl Harbor, the second participant claims, “They knew the attack was coming was coming. They knew where it was gonna happen in Pearl Harbor and when. And they they told no one, and they let it happen on purpose. That that's from the commander of the Pacific Fleet. I would say that's a pretty pretty credible witness.” He continues, “So, yeah, that that was a false admitted that. They admitted they had the and they heard it was gonna happen. And, you how know, else were you gonna get Americans to be on the side of this war that had nothing to do with us?” This leads to the discussion of 9/11. The second participant says, “My opinion. As a criminal investigator, as a former CI officer, nine eleven was not the act of a bunch of poorly flight trained terrorists that executed an unbelievably meticulous, piloting of those aircraft, even even pilots. There's there's pilots for nine eleven truth now, and they say, we could not have done that. Not possible.” He adds, “And then we go to the passport issue, and we go to the Tower 7, which was a controlled demolition.” The second participant further asserts, “You talk to any structural engineer, and and and I I have. And the fact I think George w Bush blacked out. I think it was 40 pages of the 09/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. So what wait a minute. This report was supposed to be for the American people on what happened, and you blacked all these pages out? What in the world?” He continues, “I do not think that it was a bunch of un poorly trained or untrained terrorists that did it. I think there was another source behind it. I think it was intentional, and I'm going just from a a criminal invest investigative perspective just looking at the evidence, what evidence we have, that that was an intentional act, And it would fall right into the MO that you and I are talking about.” He concludes that the event was “Horrible” and emphasizes that “the shadow government deep state or especially the CIA. It does not matter. Their pawns on their chessboard, they don't care that three thousand people were horribly killed that day, but it achieved the aim of gutting the US constitution, bringing in the horrific Patriot Act Mhmm. Giving the CIA unthinkable authority for secret prison prisons and torture beyond waterboarding and and secret renditions and all of that, the FBI, the ability to to, spy on Americans came out of the Patriot Act. So it was the perfect national security state, energizer that the Patriot Act was, and 70 of the congressmen and senators that read the Patriot Act didn't even read it. They just signed off on it without even reading the bill.”

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the extraordinary and escalating tensions around Iran, the Middle East, and the United States’ role in the region. - The guests reference recent remarks by Donald Trump about Iran, noting Trump’s statement that Iran has until Tuesday to reach a deal or “I am blowing up everything,” with a quoted line describing Tuesday as “power plant day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran,” followed by “open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards or you’ll be living in hell.” They describe this rhetoric as madness and suggest the rhetoric signals a potential for a severe U.S. action. - They contrast Trump’s stated plan with the capabilities and willingness of the U.S. military, arguing there are three distinct elements: what Trump wants to do, what the U.S. military can do, and what the U.S. military is willing to do. They discuss a hypothetical ground operation targeting Iran, including possible actions such as striking Natanz or a nuclear-related site, and potentially hitting a “underground missile factory” at Kesheveh, while acknowledging the risk and uncertainty of such plans. - The conversation details a Friday event in which a U.S. F-15 was shot down, and the implications for the broader operation: A-10 Warthog, F-16s, two Black Hawk helicopters (Pave Hawks), and two C-130s were reportedly lost, with speculation about additional losses. They discuss the Pentagon’s statements about casualties and the possibility that other aircraft losses were connected to a rescue attempt for a downed pilot. They estimate several U.S. airframes lost in the effort to recover one pilot and discuss the high costs and risks of attempting CSAR (combat search and rescue). - The speakers reflect on the status of U.S. combat leadership and the debates surrounding purges of senior officers. One guest emphasizes that the fired leaders (Hodney and Randy George) were not operational decision-makers for Iran and argues the purge appears political rather than war-related, describing it as part of a broader pattern of politicization of the senior ranks. - They discuss the Israeli war effort, noting significant strain from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and questions about Israel’s manpower and reserve mobilization. They mention reports that 300,000 reservists have been activated and talk of an additional 400,000 being considered. The discussion touches on claims that Israel is attacking Iranian negotiating participants and how the U.S. could be drawn into a broader conflict. They critique the Israeli military’s leadership structure, arguing that young officers with limited experience lead a reserve-based force, which they view as contributing to questionable battlefield performance. - The Iranian strategy is analyzed as aiming to break U.S. control in the Persian Gulf and to compel adversaries to negotiate by threatening or constraining energy flows. The guests detail Iran’s actions: targeting oil facilities and ports around Haifa and Tel Aviv, Damona (near the suspected nuclear sites), and claims of missiles hitting a major building in Haifa. They describe widespread civilian disruption in Israel (bomb shelters, subway tents) and emphasize the vulnerability of Israel given its manpower challenges and reliance on U.S. and Western support. - The broader strategic landscape is assessed: Iran’s goal to control the Gulf and oil, with potential consequences for global energy markets, shipping costs, and the international economy. They discuss how Iran’s actions may integrate with China and Russia, including potential shifts in currency use (yuan) for trade and new financial arrangements, such as Deutsche Bank offering Chinese bonds. - They discuss the economic and geopolitical ripple effects beyond the battlefield: rising U.S. fuel prices (gas increasing sharply in parts of the U.S., including Florida), potential airline disruptions, and the broader risk to European energy security as sanctions and alternative energy pathways come under stress. They note that Europe’s energy strategies and alliances may be forced to adapt, potentially shifting energy flows to China or Russia, and the possibility of Europe’s economy suffering from disrupted energy supplies. - Toward the end, the speakers acknowledge the difficulty of stopping escalation and the need for major powers to negotiate new terms for the post-unipolar order. They caution that reconciliations are unlikely in the near term, warning of the potential for a broader conflict if leaders do not find a path away from continued escalation. They close with a somewhat pessimistic view, acknowledging that even if the war ends soon, the economic ramifications will be long-lasting. They joke that, at minimum, they’ll have more material to discuss next week, given Trump’s actions.

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

Moneypenny, who identifies as British, explains she does not profess to understand the American legal system and notes the British system is harsh. She says that if a high-ranking, medal-awarded UK military figure who used to be a jet pilot and who worked in UK military intelligence came forward with evidence of a misdemeanor involving the death of many people, that matter would be investigated. She says she is stuck and wants to appeal to Pam Bondi and possibly Cash Patel. She describes a US military member who used to be a pilot, who worked in sensitive intelligence, who had visited the Diego Garcia Military Base, and who had a level of clearance allowing him to explore the base, and who was aware of the Black Navy and operations requiring senior sign-in. To her, that individual sounds like someone who would be taken seriously. She questions why information from someone of that caliber who has spoken out, who is recorded speaking out, who has given corroborating evidence and named others, and who can tell where a seven seventy-seven airliner with two hundred thirty-nine souls on board went and how the operation took place, down to the mechanics and the people involved, is not being taken seriously or investigated. She frames this as murder. She notes there are two hundred thirty-nine people on board and thousands of friends, family, and others who have dedicated time to examining the case over the past eleven years, including herself. She mentions videos that potentially reveal some information, but Ashton Forbes, who holds those videos, has been given letters from the American military or American department stating that, in matters of national security, they cannot confirm any of the detail. She reiterates that this decorated military veteran, a former jet pilot who flew into Diego Garcia, who served in Iraq, and who has performed impressive military work for the United States, has spoken out and is on record. She says she will send the video and asks why nothing is being done and why nobody is investigating. She says she does not understand how the United States can overlook this, and she expresses anger on behalf of all those people aboard and their friends and families, many of whom are Chinese and Malaysian. She demands that something be done about this. She adds that she is a nobody, and that she will put this on social media and wait for a bloody good explanation as to why nobody is taking this seriously, because she considers it inhumane. She hopes the Trump administration, among others, would not allow something inhumane to occur, and she ends by expressing that she hopes others agree.

Speaker 0: Nearly two weeks into this conflict, the official story is cracking, and the number of Americans wounded is slowly coming out. Yesterday, we reported based on our sources that the number of American wounded was at least one hundred and thirty seven. After our report ran, the Pentagon has now publicly acknowledged about one hundred and forty wounded. That confirms our sources on this. So why did it take a little news show like ours to report this information? Why wasn't Fox News reporting this information? The Pentagon I know it's really weird. Why is the mainstream media silent on this? The Pentagon finally comes out and actually admits to this. Speaker 1: Reuters comes out and reports this. Exclusive. As many as one hundred and fifty US troops wounded so far in Iran war. They just published this today, this morning. March 10. That's remarkable. Exclusive. Just curious how that's an exclusive when we reported it yesterday. Yesterday. Whatever. Hey, Reuters. Bite me. Anyway, this war is clearly not winding down no matter what the messaging says. President Trump is saying the war could end very soon. But Iran says talks with The United States are off the table for now. Tehran is prepared to keep striking as long as it takes. And they're vowing an eye for an eye. So what is an eye for an eye actually mean? Does it mean you hey, you killed our leader. We kill yours? Does it mean, hey, you killed all these girls who were the daughters of members of the the Iranian Navy at a girls school, do we also do that to you? Like, what is actually does that look like? Speaker 0: Does it mean we took out your water infrastructures or you took out ours? So we do that. Right. Your gas infrastructure, civilian infrastructure, that's that's a war crime. But we did it. Your oil infrastructure, we do that. Like, what exactly does that look like? Meanwhile, the Strait Of Hormuz is getting worse by the minute. US intelligence tracking Iranian mine laying threats now as Gulf energy infrastructure there is taking a major hit with about 1,900,000 barrels per day of refining capacity across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and The UAE. All down. CBS now says shipping through the Strait Of Hormuz has ground to a virtual halt. Nothing getting through. That's of just a few minutes ago. And Israel's hammering Beirut's southern suburbs and Lebanon. So they've essentially invaded Lebanon. Speaker 2: And then there's the neocon political class in Washington saying the quiet part out loud. Senator Lindsey Graham is now openly talking about, you know, going back to South Carolina to tell the sons and daughters in South Carolina, you know, you gotta send your loved ones to the Middle East. That's what I'm doing here in South Carolina. I gotta tell them to go fight in the Middle East, and he's calling on other Middle East countries that have been sitting on the fence that we've supported over the years as allies. Get off the fence. Go bomb Iran. Help out with Iran. And, oh, by the way, Spain, we're pissed off at you because you don't want us using your air bases or airspace to bomb Iran. Listen. Speaker 0: To our allies step up, get our air bases out of Spain. They're not reliable. Move all those airplanes to a country that would let us use them when we're threatened by a regime like Iran. To our friends in Spain, man, you have lost your way. I don't wanna do business with you anymore. I want our air bases our air bases out of Spain into a country that will let us use them. To our Arab friends, I've tried to help you construct a new Mideast. You need to up your game here. I can't go to South Carolina and say we're fighting and you won't publicly fight. What you're doing behind the scenes, that has to stop. The double dealing of the Arab world when it comes to this stuff needs to end. I go back to South Carolina. I'm asking them to send their sons and daughters over to the Mideast. What I want you to do in The Mideast to our friends in Saudi Arabia and other places, step forward and say this is my fight too. I join America. I'm publicly involved in bringing this regime down. If you don't, you're making a great mistake, and you're gonna cut off the ability to have a better relationship with The United States. I say this as a friend. Speaker 1: Ugh. He's an odious friend. Speaker 0: Say this as a friend. Speaker 3: With friends pick up a gun and go fight yourself, you coward. Yeah. I freaking hate that. But you're calling so, like, bluntly for somebody else to go die for his stupid cause. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: I am so curious about this. I mean, he's a liar. But how many people in South Carolina are really walking up to him and saying, who are we gonna get to fight with us? Who are we gonna get to fight Iran? Worried about this. My son can go, but who's going with him? Let's make some war playdates. Who does that? Speaker 0: Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst, NRA gun trainer, and, he's been looking at all of this and doing some incredible writing over at his website, Sonar twenty one. Larry, thank you for joining us. Great to see you back on the show. Speaker 4: Hi, guys. Good to see you. Speaker 0: So I wanna talk about the American war wounded first because Mhmm. I know that this is, near and dear to your heart and, of course, something that you've been watching, closely. And the lies, of course, that are coming out about this. Again, I spoke to sources over the past forty eight hours that were telling us here at Redacted about 137 Americans wounded. Then the Pentagon comes out and then confirms about a hundred and forty. So right pretty much right on the nose. And does that number sound low to you? Or does that sound about right? Speaker 4: That sounds a little low. So on March 4, let's go to Germany. Stuttgart, just North West of Germany, there is a hospital called Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. Landstuhl's primary mission is to handle American war wounded. On March 4, they issued a memo telling all the pregnant women that were about to give birth that, sorry, don't come here. We're not birthing any more babies. We gotta focus on our main mission. So that was the first clue that there was there were a lot of casualties inbound. I know, without mentioning his name, somebody who was involved dealing with the combat casualties during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he dealt with the personnel at Lunstul. And he called someone up and said, can't say anything, but there's a lot of casualties. Then 13 miles to the east of Landstuhl is an army base called Kaiserslautern. Kaiserslautern and the Stars and Stripes issued for that base had an appeal, a blood drive appeal. Hey. We need lots of people to show up and donate blood. So those that was on March 5. So I wrote about this March 6. So I wrote about this four days ago, that, yeah, we had a lot more casualties, and there are more coming, because Iran's not gonna stop. You know, right now, we're getting signals that the Trump administration is reaching out, trying, oh, hey, let's talk, let's talk cease fire. Iran's having none of it. They've been betrayed twice by Donald Trump and his group of clowns. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 4: You know? And and so they're not ready to say no. No. They've got the world, by the testicles is the polite way of saying it, withholding the Strait Of Hormuz. They've shut down the movement of not only oil, liquid natural gas. They're the supplier of about 25%, 25 to 30% of the world's liquid natural gas, and, about 30%, 30 to 35% of the world's urea, which is used for fertilizer. Now, that may not I just learned that that may not be as important as I once thought it was because most of it comes out of Oman. Oman, you don't have to worry about things going through the Strait Of Hormuz. But on oil and liquid natural gas, huge. 94% of The Philippines depended upon the flow of gas, both liquid and the petroleum oil, out of the Persian Gulf. India, 80%. Japan, South Korea. So this is gonna have a major impact on certain economies in the world. Now there there I I I've said this ironically. I I think Vladimir Putin's sitting there going, maybe Donald Trump really does like me, because what he's done is he's making Russia rich again in a way I mean, they're getting, you know, they were selling they were forced to sell their oil previously under sanctions at, like, $55 a barrel. Now they're getting $88.90 dollars a barrel. Well, and they just opened it up to India. I mean, that story over the past forty eight hours, like, so they The United States has eased its restriction on Russian oil flowing to India. I mean, talk about an absolute disaster. Speaker 4: Well, yeah. And remember what had happened there is India was playing a double game too. You know, bricks India is the I in bricks, and Iran is the new I in bricks. And so what was India doing? Well, India was pretending to play along with The United States, but then going to Russia and saying, hey, Russia. Yeah. We'll buy we'll buy your oil, but we needed a discount because we're going against the sanctions, and we need to cover ourselves. So Russia said, okay. As a BRICS partner, we'll let you have for $55 barrel. So they got a discount. So now when all of a sudden the the the oil tap is turned off, including the liquid natural gas, India goes running back to Russia. Now remember, on, February 25-26, India was in Israel buttering up the rear end of BB, Net, and Yahoo, kissing rear end all they could. Oh, man. It was a love fest. We're partners with Israel. And then Israel attacks their BRICS partner. And what does India say? Nothing. Zero. They don't say a thing about the murdered girls. So now all of a sudden, the oil's turned off. It's nine days now with no oil coming out of there for India. They go running back to Russia. Hey, buddy. Let's let's get back together. And Russia says, sure. That's great. But it's gonna cost you $89 now a barrel. No more friends and family program. Gonna get market conditions. Speaker 0: We've had many journalist friends that have had their bank accounts shut down. We were literally in the middle of an interview with a great journalist from the gray zone who found out that his banking was just shut down. Literally, in the middle of an interview, he got a message that his banking was shut down. Well, Rumble Wallet prevents that, because Rumble can't even touch it. No one can touch it. Rumble Wallet lets you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your future and your family. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, and now the new USA USA app USAT, which is Tether's US regulated stablecoin all in one place. Tether Gold is real gold on the blockchain with ownership of physical gold bars, and USAT keeps your money steady against inflation. No banks needed. It's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them if you want with the click of a button. There'll be no fees when you tip our channel or others, and we actually receive the tip instantly unlike other platforms where we have to wait for payouts. So support our show today and other creators by clicking the tip button on our Rumble channel. Speaker 1: Now I wanna ask you about president Trump responding to CBS News reports that there may be mines in the Strait Of Hormuz. That doesn't make a ton of sense. He says we have no indication that they did, but they better not. But they are picking and choosing who gets to go through, and their allies can go through. So why would they mine their allies? What do we make of this? Do we need to respond to this at all? Speaker 4: Yeah. I don't think they've done it yet. But let's recall the last time Iran mined the Persian Gulf. They didn't mine the Strait Of Hormuz. They mined farther up. It was 1987, 1988. Why did they do that? Well, in September 1980, when Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski were still in office, The United States encouraged a guy named Saddam Hussein, don't know if you've ever heard of him, but they encouraged Saddam Hussein to launch a war against Iran. And then Ronald Reagan comes in with Donald Rumsfeld and Cap Weinberger, and by 1983 had provided chemical weapons, or the precursors that Iraq needed to build chemical weapons, and Iraq started using chemical weapons against Iran in 1983 and continued to do it in '84, 85, 86. During that entire time, Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons. They were not going because they saw it as an act against God. They were serious about the religion. So 'eighty seven, 'eighty eight, they start dropping mines there in the Persian Gulf. Well, at that time, they didn't have all these missiles, so the United States Navy, a Navy SEAL, a good friend of mine, set up what was called the Hercules barge, and he had a Navy SEAL unit with him, and they fought off attacks by Iranian gunboats. He had some Little Bird helicopters from the one sixtieth, the special operations wing of the Air Force. And but we ended up disrupting the Iranian plan to mine The Gulf back then. Well, we couldn't do that today. We do not have that capability because Iran would blow us out of the water with drones and with missiles. You as we've seen, it's been happening over the last ten days. So United States would be in a real pickle. Speaker 1: And especially given the rhetoric of US war hawks in power for three decades. Like Yeah. Yes. They kind of had to prepare all of this time. Did we think that they weren't paying attention when we said it to the world? Speaker 4: Well, when we're writing our own press clippings and then reading them, there is a tendency to say, god, I am great. Can you see this? How good we are? And so they really believed that our air def the Patriot air defense systems and the THAAD systems would be they they could shut down the Iranian missiles and drones. And what they discovered was, nope. They didn't work. And they worked at an even lower level than the you know, Pentagon kept foul. We're shooting down 90%.

In this exchange, Speaker 0 raises the issue of the USS Liberty attack in 1967, arguing that if truth matters, the Israeli government must be held accountable because the American flag was flying on that ship. Speaker 0 presses why, in a discussion of modern Israeli–American relations, Speaker 1 would deem the attack “irrelevant” to current ties. Speaker 1 responds that when assessing today’s relations, citing the 1967 attack as a basis for judgment is irrelevant—comparable to using evidence from World War II or 1776 to define present-day relations with Britain or Germany. He emphasizes that while the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, and that Israel paid reparations, the actual naval record indicates the incident was a mistaken and tragic event. He notes that those who reference the USS Liberty often do so to suggest Israel deliberately harmed America, and asks if that is Speaker 0’s broader point. Speaker 0 reiterates that truth requires accountability from the Israeli government, given the American flag on the ship. Speaker 1 points to the naval investigations, stating that multiple investigations exist and that the Israeli military at the time was flying Mirage planes and the USS Liberty was operating off-grid. He explains that the Israeli forces mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel and believed it was shelling Al-Arish, which was not true. He describes the sequence: the American flag was knocked down in the initial attack, the engagement lasted about ninety minutes, and once it became clear the vessel was American, the attack was halted and a ship was dispatched to assist the Liberty. He also notes there have been other unfortunate friendly-fire incidents in war, such as during the Gulf War when US forces killed British troops. Speaker 0 asks about the broader agenda behind raising the incident, suggesting that it is not limited to that specific event. Speaker 1 acknowledges the question but questions the motive and implies that it is not an appropriate basis for evaluating current U.S.–Israel relations. Speaker 0 asserts that there are ongoing problems in the relationship, but again emphasizes the six-decade-old incident as relevant to the discussion. Speaker 1 maintains that, in the same way that many histories exist, there are many countries and contexts, and reiterates that the question is not answered satisfactorily. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 indicating this will be the last question.

I'm Moneypenny and I'm British. I don't profess to understand the American legal system, though I know the British system fairly well. It is fairly harsh at the moment. But I know that if a high ranking, somebody who's been awarded a medal in the British military, who used to be a jet pilot, who used to work in the intel sector of the UK military, came to us and said he was aware of a misdemeanor, a crime involving the death of many people, and he had various evidence and other people that would corroborate that, that something could be done about it, it would be investigated. So this is where I'm stuck, and I want to appeal. Pam Bondi and maybe Cash Patel. If a member of the US military who used to be a pilot, who worked in sensitive intel, who had visited the Diego Garcia Military Base, who had a level of clearance such that he was free to explore that base, who was aware of the Black Navy and the operations that would require being signed in or read in at a very senior level. That individual to me sounds as though he would be somebody that would be taken seriously. So this is where I have a problem. This is where I don't understand. I do not understand how somebody of that caliber who has spoken out, who is recorded speaking out, giving evidence corroborating, giving names of other people. Who is able to tell us where a seven seventy seven airliner with two thirty nine souls on board went and who took it and how the whole operation took place down to the mechanics of it, the individuals that took part in it. Why isn't that information being taken seriously? Why isn't that information being investigated? We are talking about murder. I'm sorry to use that word. There are two thirty nine people, souls involved and probably thousands of friends, family and many, many interested parties over the past eleven years. Many people who have dedicated a lot of time to looking at this, myself included. There are videos that potentially are giving away some of the information about what happened. But the person who has those videos, a person called Ashton Forbes, has been given letters from the American military, American department saying in a matter of national security, they cannot confirm any of the detail. So now we have a decorated military veteran, a former jet pilot who flew into Diego Garcia, who was in Iraq, who has done a lot of very impressive military work on behalf of The United States, has spoken out, is on record. I will send you the video. Why? Why is nothing being done? Why is nobody investigating? I do not understand how The United States can overlook this because, frankly, I'm pretty angry. On behalf of all those people on board, predominantly Chinese and Malaysian people and all their friends and families, I demand that something is done about this. And I'm a nobody, and you don't have to listen to me. But I'm gonna put this on social media, and I'm gonna sit here and wait until somebody responds and gives a bloody good explanation as to why nobody is taking this seriously. Because frankly, it's inhumane, and I don't think the Trump administration, amongst anybody else, would allow something inhumane to take place. I hope you agree.

We successfully completed the mission, but I will never forget how BB Netanyahu let us down. It was a terrible thing. The intelligence and actions of our opponents, potentially Iran, need to be addressed. They are smart and vicious, and everything they hear is being analyzed. We were disappointed by BB's attempt to take credit for our precise and magnificent job. They need to strengthen themselves up.

From the outset, one of the speakers says there was a sense that the official narrative about the day didn’t add up, expressing that many Americans feel they were being lied to. The major problem they identify with the assassination narrative includes inconsistencies and unanswered questions rather than acceptance of the official story. Speaker 1 recalls being told Charlie Kirk was shot and initially in critical condition, but notes that the video shows an exit wound and movement of Kirk’s shirt that suggests an impact nearby. With extensive experience around gunshot wounds, they say what they saw didn’t make sense. They reference the FBI’s announcement of a shooter and describe a separate incident involving a person on the roof who allegedly disassembled and reassembled a firearm, aligned a scope, fired a cold bore shot, moved to the roof, and then wrapped the rifle up. They mention texts from the shooter that didn’t sound like a typical 22-year-old and state that these observations raise questions. They say asking questions leads to being torn down or accused of holding conspiracy views, and they specify they aren’t claiming “Israel did it,” but insisting the questions about the event “don’t look good.” They raise specific questions: did the security team remove Charlie Kirk’s lapel mic after the incident and give it to someone else; what happened to the SIM card; did someone take the camera behind him; why was the crime scene contaminated and rebuilt. They admit they don’t know what is true but insist the questions deserve answers. They note that once they question, they’re labeled antisemitic, and they say they didn’t even bring up Israel. They emphasize the personal and national significance of the incident. Speaker 0 mentions a claim that Charlie Kirk was portrayed as Superman, with his body supposedly stopping the 30-odd-six bullet, and asks what would have happened if a 30-06 round hit him. Speaker 1 says it would likely blow his head off and leave remnants of the bullet, arguing that they don’t think such remnants have been found yet. They question why the chair and desk were moved and contend that a forensic expert could determine the shot’s origin, insisting they are simply asking questions. If those questions can be refuted, they would stop asking; but they claim they’re not getting any answers beyond “this is what happened” and being told to “shut up.” Speaker 0 adds that telling someone to be quiet amounts to labeling them antisemitic, and that when the trial comes, they will look like a fool. Speaker 1 says that’s a tactic of the left—when you call them out, they label you a name—and that the right is now doing the same to them.