reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that he used his “personality” to prevent starting wars, and claims he was the first president in decades who “started no new wars.” He repeatedly emphasizes that under him the U.S. had “peace” and “prosperity,” and that they “never got into a war” while he was president. He says there was no need for wars involving “foreign lands” and countries “you’ve never heard of,” claiming those countries “don’t even want us there.” He states, “We will expel the war mongers from our government,” and contrasts his record with critics who predicted he would “start a war.” He references the deaths from “horrible wars” in the Middle East and claims opponents support war, saying “They love wars” and “like a war… love killing people.” He declares he is “the only president” who did not start a war and argues that Donald Trump would also keep the country out of war: “We had no wars with Donald Trump as your president.” The speaker also mentions Hillary Clinton’s claim that Trump’s rhetoric would get the U.S. into a war, responding that his own “rhetoric’s gonna keep us out of wars,” and asserting that this is what happened.

It's going to be hard to do business like this. Say thank you to the American people. Accept that there are disagreements, and let's litigate those disagreements rather than fighting it out in the American media when you're wrong. We know you're wrong. I think it's good for the American people to see what's going on here. That's why I kept this going so long. You have to be thankful. You don't have the cards. You're buried there. Your people are dying. You're running low on soldiers. Don't play games. It would be a damn good thing to get a ceasefire right now. I'd tell you to take it so the bullets stop flying and people stop dying. Of course, we want to stop the war. You're saying you don't want a ceasefire? I want a ceasefire with guarantees because you'll get a ceasefire faster than anything else.

Speaker 0 notes that land strikes to stop drug trafficking specifically will start soon, and questions whether Speaker 1 has been promised anything. Speaker 1 responds that he does not know and, even if he did, he wouldn’t say it, adding, “we are not involved, and we will not get involved into another nation's policy, for their own national security.” Speaker 0 then asks whether Speaker 1 would welcome U.S. military action. Speaker 1 says, “I will welcome more and more pressure so that Maduro understands that he has to go, that his time is over.” He emphasizes that this is “not conventional regime change” and that it “cannot be compared to other cases like countries in The Middle East.” He states, “We had an election,” and asserts that “Regime change was already mandated by over 70% of the population,” arguing that the goal is “support to enforce that decision.” Speaker 0 asks how to square military action with receiving a peace prize and whether the moment has become necessary. Speaker 1 answers that what they are fighting for is “precisely freedom in order to have democracy and democracy in order to have peace.” He argues that “to maintain freedom and to achieve freedom, you do need strength,” contrasting this with the idea of a peace that would come from oppression or mere concession. He contends that it is “absolutely absurd” that Maduro’s regime gets support from Russia or from Iran, while democratic countries and democratic leaders are not being asked for support. He rejects the notion of appealing solely to peaceful means without addressing the regime’s international backers. Speaker 1 concludes by saying they do not have arms, but they have “our will. We have the power of organization and the power of love,” and adds, “peace is ultimately an act of love.”

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.

I came here seeking diplomacy to end my country's destruction, but I am being attacked for it. We have problems, yes, but everyone does during war. You may not feel it now, but you will. Don't tell us what we're going to feel; you're not in a position to dictate that. You're gambling with the lives of millions, even risking World War III. We've been strong from the start, thankful for the support, but we were alone. I said thanks. We want to stop the war, of course, but we need guarantees for a ceasefire. Ask our people what they think about a ceasefire. You gave us javelins, unlike Obama, who gave us sheets. Be more thankful; without you, we have no cards. One more question, Mr. President.

The speaker claims to be the first president in 70 years who did not start a war. They mention Hillary Clinton, whom they used to call crooked but now refer to as beautiful. The speaker dismisses Clinton's prediction that they would start a war, stating that their personality will prevent it. They confidently declare that they will prevent World War 3, emphasizing the current proximity to such a conflict.

I'm trying to end the destruction of your country, but it’s disrespectful to come to the Oval Office and attack the administration that's trying to help. You're enforcing conscription because of manpower problems; you should be thanking the president for trying to bring this conflict to an end. I've seen the propaganda tours you put on. Is it disrespectful to try to prevent the destruction of your country? During war, everyone has problems, even us. But you're in a bad position. You don't have the cards right now, but with us, you start having cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. You are gambling with World War Three. Have you even said thank you? You campaigned against us in Pennsylvania. Offer some appreciation for the U.S. and the president trying to save your country.

As I stand here before you in flesh and blood, here are a few very important points I wanna make clear to the rest of the world: 1) I am alive and well. All reports of me being dead are fake news. 2) We are winning this war. Let there be no doubt about it. 3) The days of Iran are are counted. 4) I am not the president of The United States Of America. 5) We will continue this war until the threat has been abolished completely and without a doubt. 6) We must now stand united and strong in this fight for peace and democracy. 7) Beware of false claims and fake news.

The speaker discusses Venezuela, saying that "the people of Venezuela they say if I ran for president of Venezuela, I'm polling higher than anybody has ever polled in Venezuela." He adds that "So after I'm finished with this, I can go to Venezuela. I will quickly learn Spanish. It won't take too long. I'm good at language." He continues, "And I will go to Venezuela. I'm gonna run for president." He concludes, "But we're very happy with the president-elect that we have right now."

I signed deals with leaders like Macron and Merkel, including ceasefire agreements and gas contracts, but these were broken, and prisoner exchanges didn't happen. What kind of diplomacy are we even talking about here? With all due respect, it's disrespectful to come here and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of my country. Everyone has problems during war, but you'll feel it in the future. We've been alone since the beginning, but we are thankful for the help. You gave us military equipment; without it, the war would've been over quickly. I've said thank you many times, and we want to stop the war, but you need to ask our people about a ceasefire. Obama gave us sheets; you gave us javelins. Be more thankful; without you, we don't have any cards.

The conversation centers on accusations about Venezuela’s leadership and the international response to Middle East conflict. Speaker 0 asserts that “the woman” who is supposedly taking over Venezuela is pro Israeli and pro Likud, noting she signed a cooperation deal in 2020 with Netanyahu’s Likud party and fully supports Netanyahu’s war on Gaza, asking, “This is why we're seeing the bombing of them right now?” Speaker 1 counters by outlining a pattern of what they view as permissive international inaction. They assert that “The UN has allowed the bombing and destruction of Beirut and Lebanon. They've allowed the bombing and destruction of Syria. Every day, they permit the bombing of Yemen's Arab people.” They then ask what major Western capitals—Berlin, Paris, London, Washington—will say as they “keep encouraging the Hitler of the twenty first century now against the noble peaceful people of Iran.” They declare, “The Bolivarian humanist peaceful people of Venezuela say no to war,” urging that the madness must be stopped. Speaker 1 then addresses Israelis and Jews directly, framing themselves as a Christian and Sephardic heir who tells them to “stop Netanyahu's madness.” They state that only “the people of Israel can stop this madness.” They question where warmongering will lead and warn about the consequences of racism, intolerance, hatred, and violence. They ask whether missiles and bombs will subdue the will of the world’s peoples and call for an end to aggression against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, and the noble people of Iran. The speaker emphasizes that “The ball is in the court of Israel's Jewish people” and urges an end to this “immoral war, this criminal war.” The exchange conveys a sense of urgency and moral appeal, framed as a call for stopping perceived aggression and imperial complicity, while highlighting the interconnections between Venezuelan solidarity with peaceful movements and opposition to ongoing bombardments in the region. We shall see.

Every place we've gone, we've had tremendous success. But while we're doing all of these things, we're achieving major strides toward completing our military objective. And some people could say they're pretty well complete. We've wiped every single force in Iran out very completely. Most of Iran's naval power power has been sunk. It's on the bottom of the sea. Think it's almost 50 ships. I was just notified it's 51 ships.

Speaker 0 emphasizes that the MAGA base is not at risk of being lost because they want to win, want the country protected, and want strength to prevent hostile nations from having nuclear weapons, as well as support for certain allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. They state MAGA wants strength and victory, and that there has been success. They reference going into Venezuela, noting they campaigned on “peace with strength,” adding, “you wouldn't have to I said you'll never have to use it.” They then joke, “but some and Cuba's next, by the way. But pretend I didn't say that, please. Pretend I didn't say that. Please.” They conclude with a plea to the media to disregard that statement, and reiterate “Cuba's next.”

He broke agreements, killed our people, and didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy is that? We're trying to prevent the destruction of your country. During war, everybody has problems. You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards. You're gambling with World War Three and disrespecting this country. Have you said thank you once? We are staying strong. You haven't been alone. We gave you billions and military equipment. Without it, the war would have been over in days. Just say thank you. It's important for Americans to see what's going on. You don't have the cards. Your people are dying, and you're running low on soldiers. If you could get a ceasefire, you'd take it. I want a ceasefire with guarantees. I gave you javelins, Obama gave you sheets. Be more thankful because without us, you don't have any cards.

Your country is in big trouble. You're not winning this. You have a good chance of coming out of this okay because of us. We are staying strong in our country from the beginning of the war. We've been alone, and we are thankful. You haven't been alone. We gave you $350 billion for your military, but they had to use our military. If you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.

The speaker describes undertaking a “stopover” which they characterize as an excursion in Iran, explaining that they had to “knock the hell out of them” because, in their view, the United States’ safety—and by extension the world’s safety—depended on it. They assert that this action was necessary to keep the country safe and to protect global security, framing it as an essential contribution that benefited the world. The narrator asserts that the world has not reciprocated this effort. They claim to have done a “great favor for the world,” and contrast that with a lack of reciprocity from others. A key part of their message centers on NATO, saying that the United States has given “billions and billions of dollars, trillions over the years.” In that context, they say they asked NATO for assistance, specifically for support with the streets, but contended that NATO did not want to get involved. The speaker implies that NATO’s reluctance to assist will have serious consequences, stating that this lack of involvement will “cost them dearly.” The remarks suggest a belief that the failure of others to participate or contribute will have notable negative repercussions for those parties in the future. The address closes with expressions of appreciation, with the speaker thanking everyone: “Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.” The overall message emphasizes a narrative of decisive action taken by the United States, a claim of asymmetrical reciprocity from international partners, and an expectation of consequences for those partners who chose not to assist.

The discussion opens with a note that countries negotiating with Venezuela for illegal oil are already starting to suffer, prompting questions about the future of Venezuela's oil industry. Speaker 1 responds that they will be very strongly involved in it, stating, “We have the greatest oil companies in the world, the biggest, the greatest, and we're going to be very much involved in it.” He emphasizes that they “can't do something like this,” and that they were prepared, being “out there with an armada like nobody's ever seen before.” He adds that they were prepared for a second wave, and that “this was so lethal” and “so powerful that we didn't have to,” but they were ready. He says they were prepared for a second wave going in, implying readiness for further action.

Military is so amazing. I rebuilt the military my first term. I didn't know I'd use it so much because then you also have Venezuela, which they say was one of the most lethal, incredible attacks in the history of military period, not just our military. It was a strong country, strong military. If you've ever been to Venezuela, they have soldiers all over everybody has a soldiers uniform on. They have tough soldiers, but, it was all done in forty five minutes. The entire war was won in forty five minutes. We set a record. That's like a fighter gets knocked out in the first three seconds. And now we're working with Venezuela, and we're we've taken in many times the cost of the attack, many, many times. And we're working with them. I it's like a joint venture, and we have tremendous amounts of oil. And we could do that with Iran very easily. We could just take their oil, but, know, I'm not sure that the people in our country have the patience to do that, which is unfortunate. You know, they wanna see it end. If we stayed there, I'd, you know, I'd prefer just to take the oil. We could do it so easily. I would prefer that. But people in the country sort of say, just win. You're winning so big. Just win. Come home. And I'm okay with that too because we have a lot of oil between Venezuela and our oil.

The speaker asserts that the opposing side has lost essential military and leadership capabilities: “They've lost their navy. They've lost their air force. They have no anti aircraft apparatus at all. They have no radar. Their leaders are gone.” The speaker then suggests a harsh consequence of intervening, indicating that “we could do a lot worse than one another.” The statement further contends that certain actions could be left undone or could be accomplished quickly, noting that “We're leaving certain things that if we take them out or we could take them out by this afternoon, in fact, within an hour,” implying that such measures would be decisive. The speaker concludes with the assessment that, as a result, “they literally would never be able to build that country back.” The overall message emphasizes the rapidity and completeness with which the opponent’s military and leadership structures could be dismantled, and the enduring impossibility of rebuilding the country once those elements are removed.

I signed deals, including ceasefire and gas contracts, with other world leaders regarding this conflict. They assured me the other party would never escalate, but they broke the ceasefire, killed our people, and didn't exchange prisoners as agreed. What kind of diplomacy is this? It's disrespectful to come here and attack the administration that's trying to prevent the destruction of your country. Everyone has problems during war, but you're in no position to dictate what we feel or what will happen in the future. We are gambling with World War III and you have not been thankful for the billions in aid and military equipment we have provided. I want a ceasefire with guarantees. Ask our people what they think. And remember, Obama gave you sheets, I gave you javelins.

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.”

I'm trying to end the destruction of your country through diplomacy. It's disrespectful to litigate this in front of the American media, especially considering you're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower issues. You should thank the President for trying to resolve this conflict. During war, everyone faces problems, even you. However, you are in no position to dictate what we're going to feel, we are going to feel very good and very strong. You've put yourself in a bad position from the beginning of the war, you don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. It's disrespectful to this country. Have you even said thank you? You campaigned for the opposition, offer some appreciation for the United States and the President who is trying to save your country.

Speaker 0 contends that the world economy is severely damaged and worsening, blaming Israel’s influence, Trump’s policies, and BlackRock. They say Trump reversed the downturn but that his current behavior worsens the situation, describing him as a degenerate gambler who keeps betting with the people’s money. They warn that the global economy is being sunk by these decisions and that any recovery would be unlikely if he does not shut down the current course. Speaker 1 argues a simple plan: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and they won’t have one. They claim the president didn’t want to go that far, but there is no pressure from elsewhere. They assert victory will come, stating that militarily they have already achieved a complete victory in theory, with Iran’s navy effectively nullified and ships sunk by the U.S. They emphasize Iran’s strategy hinges on closing the Strait of Hormuz, not their blue-water navy. They note Iran has now made larger financial demands—a claim of $500,000,000,000 in reparations—describing these as part of a broader disaster. They accuse globalists and BlackRock of engineering the war to derail the Trump recovery, leading to inflation, fertilizer shortages, and a planetary downturn. They say there is no way to reverse this and warn that threats of further strikes against Iran could worsen the situation. They also accuse media and political figures of misrepresenting the war’s trajectory, and criticize those who supported the war for claiming to have been right. They suggest the debt situation is dire, with the national debt approaching or exceeding GDP in service, calling this a banana republic scenario. They describe a coming period of permanent austerity and a “great reset” via a central bank digital currency system, and contrast this with the supposed prior plan that could have rebuilt the economy. Speaker 2 adds that the United States holds all the cards if escalation occurs, but the goal is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore open access without mines in the water or tolls. They emphasize the aim to return to the previous open state of the strait. Throughout, Speaker 0 revisits earlier warnings about the start of the war, insisting Schmoyle (Schmoy/ Schmoyle) had warned this would derail the global recovery. They recall personal discussions with Tucker Carlson about Trump’s assessment of the war’s consequences, noting that Trump claimed “everything I do always turns out okay,” even as the analyst contends the consequences have been severe. They reiterate that the “globalist trap” and the Iran war were designed to undermine the U.S. and world economy, with the goal of bringing about a prolonged austerity and a global cashless system. They describe demonstrably worsening indicators—stocks, oil, and rates rising; inflation accelerating; fertilizer shortages; and a deepening recession—arguing these dynamics confirm the planned malaise. They reference headlines about inflation, the Iran confrontation, and potential sleeper cells, and they criticize the left, Democrats, neocons, and “MAGA knob polishers” for supporting the war. They reiterate that the globalists’ objective is to derail the U.S. and Western economies and to push toward a controlled, austerity-driven global order, while claiming the administration’s responses are failing to reverse the trend.

The speaker asserts that Iran’s modern military—its navy, air force, air defenses, leadership, and bunkers—has been “rapidly and historically obliterated, defeated from day one with overwhelming firepower.” The speaker credits a joint air campaign conducted by Israel and the United States as “a history books” operation, made possible because the United States’ president “unites their hands to actually go out and close with and destroy the enemy as viciously as possible from moment one.” The speaker frames the coalition as part of a negotiation “with bombs,” highlighting the coercive approach used during the conflict. Over Tehran, the speaker states there is a choice about the future, noting that the president has “made it clear that you will not have a nuclear weapon,” a position the war department “agrees” with. The speaker emphasizes maintaining US leverage—“keeping our hand on that throttle”—as long as it is necessary to achieve American interests on the battlefield. The speaker distinguishes this conflict from prior campaigns, saying, “This is not Iraq and Afghanistan,” and describes the president as being focused on specific outcomes rather than vague end states. The core objective is stated plainly: to create the conditions for Iran “never to have a nuclear capability,” and the speaker asserts that this objective is being pursued “in historic fashion.” The message closes with gratitude to the president for leading this effort.