reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- Tucker Carlson released a video addressing the war with Iran, arguing he was among the few who warned Washington weeks before the conflict began and that President Trump did not heed that warning. The discussion notes Tucker’s appearance in Washington with Trump and mentions supporters like JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard. - Carlson’s framework for analyzing a major war is introduced as four questions: 1) Why did this happen? 2) What was the point of it? 3) Where does it go from here? 4) How do we respond? - On why this war happened, the speakers assert a simple answer: this happened because Israel wanted it to happen. The conflict is characterized as Israel’s war, not primarily for U.S. national security objectives, and not about weapons of mass destruction. The argument is made that the decision to engage was driven by Israel, with Benjamin Netanyahu demanding U.S. military action and pressuring the U.S. through multiple White House visits. - The speakers contend that many generals warned against the war due to insufficient military capacity, but those warnings were reportedly ignored as officials lied about capability and duration of a potential conflict. They claim there was no credible plan for replacing Iran’s government after a potential topple, highlighting concerns about Iran’s size, diversity, and the risk of regional chaos. - The discussion suggests a history of manipulation and misinformation, citing a 2002 exchange where Netanyahu allegedly pushed for regime change in Iran and noting Dennis Kucinich’s account that Netanyahu said the Americans had to do it. They argue this war is the culmination of a long-term strategy backed by Netanyahu. - On what the point of the war would be for Israel, the speakers say the objective is regional hegemony. Israel seeks to determine regional outcomes with minimal constraints, aiming to decapitate Iran to allow broader actions in the Middle East, including potential expansionist goals. They argue Iran’s nuclear program was used as a pretext, though they contend Iran was not imminently close to a nuclear weapon. - The role of regional players is examined, including the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman—and their strategic importance as energy producers and regional influencers. The speakers claim Israel and the U.S. sought to weaken or destabilize these Gulf states to reduce their capacity to counter Israel’s regional dominance and to push the U.S. out of the Middle East. - It is asserted that Netanyahu’s strategy would involve reducing American involvement, thereby weakening U.S. credibility as a security partner in the region. The claim is that the Gulf states have been left more vulnerable, with missile threats and disrupted energy infrastructure, and that Israel’s actions are designed to force the U.S. to withdraw from the region. - The speakers argue that Europe stands to suffer as well, notably through potential refugee inflows and disruptions to LNG supplies from Qatar; Europe’s energy security and economy could be adversely affected. - The discussion notes alleged Israeli actions in the Gulf, including reports of Mossad activity and bombings in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, though it is presented as part of a broader narrative about destabilization and its costs. - The potential consequences outlined include cascading chaos in Iran, refugee crises in Europe, and a weakened United States as an ally in the Middle East. The speakers predict long-term strategic losses for Europe, the Gulf states, and the U.S. - The discussion concludes with a warning that, if Israel achieves its aims to decapitate Iran, the region could destabilize further, potentially triggering broader geopolitical shifts. A final reference is made to Naftali Bennett portraying Turkey as the new threat, illustrating ongoing great-power competition in the region. - The overall message emphasizes truthfulness in reporting, critiques of media narratives, and the view that Western audiences have been propagandized into seeing Middle East conflicts as moral battles rather than power dynamics between competing states.

Shortly after 9/11, the speaker encountered Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz at the Pentagon. A general called him urgently, revealing that they had decided to go to war with Iraq. When asked why, the general admitted they didn't have any new evidence connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda. The decision was made because they didn't know what else to do about terrorism and believed their military could overthrow governments. Weeks later, the speaker asked if they were still going to war with Iraq, to which the general responded that it was even worse. He showed the speaker a classified memo outlining plans to attack seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. The speaker regrets not seeing the memo and asks for the general's name.

The speaker decries tweeting the f word on Easter morning and demands respect for the holiday. They argue that sending out a tweet promising the murder of civilians while declaring “praise be to Allah” is a mockery of both Islam and Christianity, and that the author cannot be supported by Christians who oppose such mockery. The speaker asserts that the tweet implies using the US military to destroy civilian infrastructure in another country, which they describe as a war crime and a moral crime against the people of that country. They specify targets such as bridges that people cross daily to go to school, work, and worship, including church, noting that there are over a million Christians in Iran and that this is “their Easter too.” They reference civilian power plants in Iran, a country with almost 100,000,000 people, and question the consequences of power loss. The speaker warns that without power, babies connected to incubators die and people in hospitals die, highlighting the human impact of such actions. The speaker rejects any justification rooted in international law, emphasizing moral law and God’s law instead, stating that killing noncombatants—people who did nothing wrong and did not choose the war—is immoral and unacceptable. They declare that it can never be moral or justified and that such actions are always wrong.

Lindsey Graham stated he told allies that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, the U.S. and Israel should target Iran by destroying their refineries to put them "out of the oil business." Speaker 0 claims Graham hasn't considered the consequences of war with Iran, and that Graham and many of his colleagues are reckless. Speaker 0 also mentions Dan Crenshaw's call for a "war to end all wars," which speaker 0 dismisses as impossible, stating that wars beget more war and citing World War I as an example.

The speaker argues that pushing for war with Iran is a dangerous delusion. They claim: “That’s all you gotta do is just push a button, give an order, and bam. Iran will be blown up.” They challenge the audience to understand how combat power works and to see that many war advocates are “singing from the same sheet of music.” The speaker names several individuals as examples of this chorus: Rebecca Hendrix, Victoria Coates, Rebecca Grant, Mike Pompeo, General Jack Keane, and Senator Lindsey Graham, indicating that all of these figures promote a similar line of thinking about provoking a war with Iran. The central claim is that these hawkish voices believe one can “do this massive armada” and that Iran cannot respond effectively. The speaker insists that such views are incorrect, stating that Iran can and would “make life incredibly difficult and kill many Israelis.” They note the explicit claims by Iran that they would attack and kill targets and people in Israel, and attack Americans and kill Americans through bases throughout the region. The speaker emphasizes that if the advocacy for war succeeds in provoking Iran, “you’re gonna get a lot of Israelis killed and a lot of Americans killed.” The speaker also acknowledges uncertainty about Iran’s precise calculations, noting that Iran’s claims about what they would do may be posturing or may reflect a real intent to respond, but that the speaker cannot predict which. They argue that Iran may choose not to act if it believes retaliation would be excessive or counterproductive, but if Iran does move as it has said it would, the consequences would be severe for Israelis and Americans. In summary, the speaker condemns the assumption that a war with Iran can be conducted unilaterally or without severe retaliatory consequences, warning that the consequences could include significant loss of life among Israelis and Americans if Iran follows through on its stated intentions. The dialogue frames the issue as a critique of a pervasive pro-war chorus and underscores the potential human cost of such policy.

During the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, The US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides. There are NATO officers that are from other country British. But there are a bunch of Israeli defense force officers in the Pentagon that week. And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it. The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get. Because of the weakness of our leaders, we have incited predators in a foreign country to take advantage of us. Why have a government, especially a strong government if it's taking orders from another weaker government? And that is the state of play. And they're not even pretending.

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?”

We are no longer dealing with traditional warfare where the side with the most uniforms wins. The enemy we face now is sneaky, underhanded, and wants to harm our civilians worldwide. We must put an end to their actions. Some criticized me for saying I would bomb them, but I don't care. They need to be stopped.

This is not about arguing who is right or wrong, who started it or who didn't. The problem here is not a war. It's genocide, which has already killed nearly two thousand children who have nothing to do with this war. They are victims of this war. And honestly, I don't know how a human being can wage war knowing that the result is the death of innocent children.

"What we put up with the attack on the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about, clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel, and it's somehow shameful to say that." "For example, during the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, during that short conflict, there are a bunch of Israeli Defense Force officers in the Pentagon that week." "And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it." "How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters, even if invited, barge into a meeting and start demanding, we want this, we want that, you need to get on this." "The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get."

About ten days after 09:11, I went through the Pentagon, and I saw secretary Rumsfeld and deputy secretary Wolferwitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the joint staff who used to work for me. And one of the generals called me, and he said, sir, you gotta come in you gotta come in and talk to me a second. I said, well, you're too busy. He said, no. No. He says, we've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq. This was on or about the September 20. I said, we're going to war with Iraq. Why? He said, I don't know. He said, I guess they don't know what else to do. So I said, well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda? He said, no. No. He says, there's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. He said, I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments. And he said, I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail. So I came back to see him a few weeks later. And by that time, we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, are we still going to war with Iraq? And he said, oh, it's worse than that. He said he reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. He said, I just he said, I just got this down from upstairs, meaning the secretary of defense's office today. And he said, this is a memo that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.

The speaker emphasizes that to understand the situation, we should consider what Jack Keane is saying. We have one aircraft carrier strike group, plus land-based air power and a lot of air defense missiles on the ground, and a lot of air power there, but there are no ground troops. Don Rumsfeld had about 300,000 total ground troops at his disposal, and we went in on the ground and defeated the regime in about a month. There was a profound amount of air power, much more air power than exists in The Gulf right now, and altogether there was a lot more air power then, yet we still underestimated them. We defeated them militarily in about a month, but then an insurgency rose up afterward because you can’t kill everybody, which is what happened. Jack Keane, Dan Raisin Cain, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the man Trump has talked about—are highlighted as significant military leaders. The question is how many ground troops does he have available? Nada. And you are talking about destroying the civilian and military leadership the way Don Rumsfeld successfully did. He did...

Speaker 0: The Iranian action has been stated very clearly. If they are attacked at all, they will not exercise restraint as they have in the past. They will respond with whatever they have that can reach targets within range. They will use their ballistic missile arsenal, and they will attack bases where our aircraft are located, where we have radars, where we have air and missile defense. They will look for command and control hubs, presumably in Qatar and other places in The Gulf. They will attack ships if they think they can strike them. They will do enormous damage, obviously, to Israel, which they see as the principal culprit and justifiably so in organizing the entire operation. If it were not for Israel, would any of this happen? I think the answer is certainly not. So we know what the Iranians will do. And how long can they do it? I think that we'll run out of missiles long before they do. So what are we going to do at the beginning? You're gonna have a massive, massive assault in the first twenty four hours. It's going to be unlike anything that we've seen certainly since 1990 or '91 rather. So that's what we're gonna see on our side, and they'll respond as best they can with whatever they have. So I think it's short of a use of a nuclear weapon, everything is on the table, and everything will be used.

Speaker 0 argues that most Americans oppose the war, citing polling and the president’s failure to make a case for it. The speaker asserts that people don’t feel threatened by Iran and don’t fear an Iranian ballistic missile landing in the United States. The speaker lists a set of American concerns: 72% can’t afford health insurance, 58% can’t afford car insurance, 67% live paycheck to paycheck, 31% can’t afford back taxes, and 50% carry massive credit card debt. They state they campaigned with the president and were among the few Republicans supporting Donald Trump when others opposed him in a primary, emphasizing a “America first” stance focused on American problems rather than foreign countries or foreign peoples. The speaker expresses concern for the Iranian people and hopes for a government that treats women fairly, but asserts that “we have seen over 100 little girls killed at a school from a bomb,” and claims that “America and Israel attacked Iran,” implying this is not good for Iranian women. They criticize the president’s claim that the Iranian people will topple their regime, saying the Iranian people won’t topple their regime while being bombed by the United States and Israel in an unprovoked attack, which the speaker claims is true. They reference Pete Hegseth’s comment that the U.S. did not start the war, but the speaker counters that America and Israel definitely started it and states, “you can’t lie that away to the American people.” The speaker declares being irate and furious about the situation, noting the national debt approaching $40 trillion and questioning the war’s cost. They argue that American troops have been killed and murdered for foreign countries, and that four Americans have died for Israel and the Iranian people, not for Americans. The speaker laments the loss of American military members and acknowledges the families who may be grieving. They mention Trump’s past statements that he doesn’t think he will go to heaven, and question what that implies about his decision-making, given that the president has said he may place troops on the ground and that what began as “a few day war” could extend to four weeks or more. The speaker recalls prior commitments by JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard to end foreign wars and regime change, but notes that “we’re a year in” and yet “we’re in another fucking war” with Americans killed. The speech ends with a call for America to “rip the Band Aid off” and to have a serious conversation about who is making these decisions and for whom.

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.

The discussion centers on the view that the United States has entered into a war with Iran on behalf of Israel, with the war framed as one that could be protracted and costly in American lives. The speakers contend that this conflict will not be resolved quickly despite assurances from the administration or Israel, and they warn of immediate economic and strategic consequences, including the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and potential damage to the US economy as energy infrastructure becomes a target. Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, is cited as warning that the US and Israel cannot win against Iran and that Iran is prepared for years of conflict. He is cited as recalling his testimony about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction and arguing that the pretext for the current war—Iran’s alleged uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons—lacks supporting evidence from the CIA and the DNI. Ritter is described as asserting that the war will not be short and that the United States will face a drawn-out confrontation. Speaker 1 adds that the conflict is regional and will have consequences for the American public, noting the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as unprecedented and signaling an economic phase to the conflict. The claim is made that Iran has not experienced a popular uprising against its government; rather, there are rallies in support of the government. The war plan, initially predicated on a decapitation strategy, is described as having gone awry from the start, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly telling the president that there are insufficient resources to win, yet the campaign proceeded. The proximity of the initial strikes to a “decapitation” objective is emphasized, and the assertion is made that the war is already lost due to resource constraints and misalignment of the plan. Speaker 0 references an operation named “lion’s roar” by the Israeli Air Force, describing it as the largest sortie in Israeli history with 200 jets and 500 targets, calling it the genesis of the opening strike. The expectation discussed is that the initial phase could involve using less advanced weapons to overwhelm air defenses, while Iran claims to possess capabilities not yet demonstrated publicly. Over the next 24 to 96 hours, the speakers anticipate continuous strikes aimed at regime change, destruction of air defenses, and suppression of ballistic missile launches, including production capacity near Tehran. The discussion suggests that Iran has prepared extensive dispersal of targets (creating thousands of additional targets) and that Iranian forces are likely to relocate to avoid interdiction, complicating intelligence and targeting efforts for Israel and the United States. A key conclusion asserted by the speakers is that the conflict represents a war of choice, and they describe it as an illegal war of aggression contravening the U.S. Constitution and the United Nations Charter. They argue that Iran will respond forcefully and that the United States and Israel will face escalating resistance, with Iran viewed as likely to gain the upper hand and to pursue a diplomatic settlement favorable to Iranian objectives, including non-nuclear goals. The expectation is that Russia and China will push for a diplomatic resolution that aligns with Iran’s terms, particularly in avoiding a nuclear outcome.

Speaker asserts the USS Liberty was clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting, Israel, and questions why it's shameful to say that. They reference a "twelve day war" with Iran, framing it as the US and Israel versus Iran, with bombing on all sides. They claim IDF officers in the Pentagon—among other foreign officers—barge into meetings, give orders, and demand action during that week, and that "nobody did anything about it." The speaker warns that permitting this "deeply unhealthy behavior" invites "predators in a foreign country" to take advantage of us, noting "it's not anti Israel at all." They demand leaders at the Pentagon and across the US government "stand up and defend us against all potential threats" and not prostrate themselves before a foreign nation, asking why have a government if it's taking orders from another weaker government, "And they're not even pretending."

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

Our military leaders are great, but our involvement in the Middle East has given our military a bad reputation. Going into the Middle East was a horrible decision, the worst in our country's history. It has turned out to be a disaster, destroying the region and costing us billions of dollars and millions of lives. The situation is much worse now than it was 20 years ago. We should have just done a retribution strike for the World Trade Center and not gotten stuck in there like quicksand. Currently, there are reports of as many as 40,000 Americans affected.

The speaker describes a plan to cripple Iran’s infrastructure, stating that every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12:00 tomorrow night and every power plant will be out of business—“burning, exploding, and never to be used again.” The destruction would occur over four hours if desired. The speaker emphasizes a preference not to pursue such devastation and even says, “We may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation,” noting that power plants and bridges are among the most expensive targets. He recalls a bridge being destroyed after a deal fell through, mentioning a call from Witkoff, Kushner, and JD that suggested the deal was breaking. He explains that he told them to “look out their window and watch,” and within forty-five minutes gave the order to knock out the biggest bridge. Within ten minutes after giving that order, the bridge was destroyed, described as the biggest bridge in Iran and possibly in the Middle East. The speaker asks, “So do I wanna do that? No. Do I wanna destroy their infrastructure? No.” Further, he states the consequences: it would take Iran a hundred years to rebuild if they were destroyed, whereas leaving today would take them twenty years to rebuild their country, and it would never be as good as it was. The only way they will be able to rebuild their country is to utilize the genius of the United States of America.

But if you if you were to say, how does Israel solve this problem forever in the future? I think that if you leave a scrap of Palestinian DNA Wait. Can I ask you real quick? If we destroy all of Gaza, what is the loss to the world? I didn't say that there's a loss to the world. I don't really think that the Palestinians provide Wait. Time out. If Israel did eliminate 2,300,000 Gazans. Right? Let's say it took them even a long time, short time, whatever. They just completely eliminate, wipe them all out. This would cause a response by the Arab countries. There would 100% cause a response by the Arab countries. They would thank us. But I legitimately cannot think of any

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.”

- In 2008, rumors circulated in the FBI about a high-level asset who worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time: he worked for the Saudi intelligence service and he worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not a United States citizen, said to be on a student visa and a national from another country. - In 2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. I will faithfully execute. The office of president of the United States. The office of president of the United States. - One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sortaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within one institution at a time. - One of the things he did, of course, was he defunded our military. He brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ISIS. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. - And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your orders. And that...

The speaker states the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, not deter conflict, and that the US will invade countries. An officer from the joint staff informed him the US was going to attack Iraq, but didn't know why, and that Saddam wasn't tied to 9/11. Later, the same officer showed the speaker a memo from the Secretary of Defense's office stating the US would attack and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The speaker claims the country was taken over by people like Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld from the Project for a New American Century, who wanted to destabilize the Middle East and make it under US control. Their document, written before 9/11, acknowledged transformation would be a long process.

10 days after 9/11, a general informed me that we were going to war with Iraq. When I asked why, he didn't have a clear answer but mentioned that our military was capable of taking down governments. Weeks later, while we were bombing Afghanistan, I asked if we were still going to war with Iraq. To my surprise, he showed me a memo from the secretary of defense's office outlining a plan to take out 7 countries in 5 years. The countries listed were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.