reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Giving permission to use the weapons for them causes the Russians to have difficulties, and a lot of their material is lost. But the contradictory is that we have all benefit that the war lasts long; we have all benefit that the war lasts long.

It will take a year to physically remove them, but leaving the equipment behind could shorten it to 7 months. However, if we leave behind billions of dollars worth of weapons, they will likely be used against our future generations.

Over the course of 20 years in Afghanistan, the United States armed and equipped the Afghan National Security Forces with congressional approval. However, as the Taliban advanced, many of these forces chose not to fight and instead surrendered their weapons. The specific reports about weapons left behind cannot be verified, but it is important to clarify that the United States did not simply abandon a pile of weapons in Afghanistan. This notion is historically inaccurate.

If you hadn't given us our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks, maybe even less. Actually, I heard from Putin that it would have been over in three days.

If the President orders the end of the war and the withdrawal of American troops, it will take about a year to physically remove them. Leaving behind equipment could shorten the timeline to around 7 months, but it would also mean leaving behind billions of dollars worth of weapons that could be used against future generations.

John Mearsheimer and Glenn discuss the trajectory of the United States’ foreign policy under Donald Trump, focusing on the shift from an anticipated pivot to Asia and a reduction of “forever wars” to the current Iran confrontation and its global implications. - Initial optimism about Trump: Glenn notes a widespread belief that Trump could break with established narratives, recognize the post–Cold War power distribution, pivot to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia, end the “forever wars,” and move away from Europe and the Middle East. Mearsheimer agrees there was early optimism on Judging Freedom that Trump would reduce militarized policy and possibly shut down the Ukraine–Russia war, unlike other presidents. - Drift into Iran and the current quagmire: The conversation then centers on how Trump’s approach to Iran evolved. Mearsheimer argues Trump often vacillates between claims of victory and deep desperation, and he characterizes Trump’s current stance as demanding “unconditional surrender” from Iran, with a 15-point plan that looks like capitulation. He describes Trump as sometimes declaring a “great victory” and other times recognizing the need for an exit strategy but being unable to find one. - The escalation ladder and strategic danger: A core point is that the United States and its allies initially sought a quick, decisive victory using shock and awe to topple the regime, but the effort has become a protracted war in which Iran holds many cards. Iran can threaten the global economy and Gulf state stability, undermine oil infrastructure, and harm Israel. The lack of a credible exit ramp for Trump, combined with the risk of escalation, creates catastrophic potential for the world economy and energy security. - Economic and strategic leverage for Iran: The discussion emphasizes that Iran can disrupt global markets via the Strait of Hormuz, potentially shut down the Red Sea with Houthis participation, and target Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. The U.S. should maintain oil flow to avoid devastating economic consequences; sanctions on Iran and Russia were strategically relaxed to keep oil moving. The longer the war drags on, the more leverage Iran gains, especially as Trump’s options to harm Iran’s energy sector shrink due to the global economy’s needs. - Exit possibilities and the limits of escalation: Glenn asks how Trump might avoid the iceberg of economic catastrophe. Mearsheimer contends that a deal on Iran’s terms would entail acknowledging Iranian victory and a humiliating US defeat, which is politically challenging—especially given Israeli opposition and the lobby. The Iranians have incentive to string out negotiations, knowing they could extract concessions as time passes and as U.S. desperation grows. - Ground forces and military options: The possibility of a U.S. ground invasion is deemed impractical. Mearsheimer highlights that Desert Storm and the 2003 invasion involved hundreds of thousands of troops; proposed plans for “a few thousand” light infantry would be unable to secure strategic objectives or prevent Iranian counterattacks across the Gulf, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf, with Iran capable of inflicting significant damage on bases and ships. The discussion stresses that even small-scale operations could provoke heavy Iranian defense and strategic backlash. - European and NATO dynamics: The Europeans are portrayed as reluctant to sign onto a risky campaign in support of U.S. objectives, and the episode warns that a broader economic crisis could alter European alignment. The potential breaching of NATO unity and the risk of diminished transatlantic trust are underscored, with Trump’s stance framed as blaming Europeans for strategic failures. - Israel and the lobby: The influence of the Israel lobby and its potential consequences if the war deteriorates are discussed. Mearsheimer notes the danger of rising antisemitism if the war goes catastrophically wrong and Israel’s role in pressuring continued conflict. He also observes that a future shift in U.S. strategy could, in extreme circumstances, diverge from traditional Israeli priorities if the global economy is at stake. - Deep state and decision-making: The final exchange centers on the role of expertise and institutions. Mearsheimer argues that Trump’s distrust of the deep state and reliance on a small circle (Kushner, Whitkoff, Lindsey Graham, media figures) deprived him of necessary strategic deliberation. He contends that a robust deep-state apparatus provides essential expertise for complex wars, offering a counterpoint to Trump’s preferred approach. He contends the deep state was not fully consulted, and that reliance on a limited network contributed to the strategic miscalculations. - Concluding tone: Both acknowledge the grave, uncertain state of affairs and the high risk of escalation and miscalculation. They express a desire for an optimistic resolution but emphasize that the current trajectory is precarious, with signs pointing toward a dangerous escalation that could have wide-ranging geopolitical and economic consequences. They close with a note of concern about the potential for rash actions and the importance of considering responsible exits and credible diplomatic channels.

In the discussion, Speaker 1 argues that Iran’s objective is simply to survive; their strategy is to continue lobbing missiles, launching drones, and striking back as the U.S. approaches within Iran’s vicinity. He contends Iran has maintained command and control, dispersed forces, and possesses a large and enduring supply of missiles and drones, so the minimal victory for Iran is to endure the conflict. When asked what the U.S. should do to win, Speaker 1 criticizes bombastic rhetoric about U.S. superiority and questions the efficacy of regime change through bombing. He suggests that killing the supreme leader backfires by galvanizing the population and Shiites worldwide, noting Iran’s developed succession mechanisms that compensate for leadership losses. He argues that attempts to destroy Iran or disintegrate its society are misguided and that, if the U.S. pushes toward such aims, it may trigger greater confrontation with China and Russia. He also implies mixed signals from U.S. leadership, contrasting expectations under Biden with actual actions, and contemplates a similar pattern under Trump. Speaker 2 adds that President Trump could claim success by neutralizing key figures like the Ayatollah, but suggests that Israel’s preferences are driving U.S. policy, implying limited autonomy for America. He notes the risk of being drawn back into conflict and emphasizes uncertainty about public perception as the war continues. He remarks on the presence of pro-war voices and social media pushback, interpreting it as a sign that the audience may be “over the target.” Speaker 0 seeks a military assessment of the current state: the Iranian capacity, the Israeli position, and American casualty figures. Speaker 1 assesses Israel as internally distressed: internal unrest, exhausted armed forces, and a large exodus of citizens; he predicts Israel faces an ominous future and foresees Israel possibly deteriorating before Iran. He describes Israel’s use of mercenaries and acknowledges substantial damage on both sides, with Netanyahu’s visibility limited. In the broader Persian Gulf, Speaker 1 states that deterrence has failed among regional powers such as the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The United States is perceived as hampered by a long logistical footprint; uncertainty about missile stocks and intercepts persists, but Speaker 1 asserts that Iran can sustain war for a long time and that bombing alone will not compel Iranian capitulation. He foresees intensified U.S. troop and firepower deployment, including three carrier battle groups over the next two weeks, to replace the current forces. Overall, the conversation centers on Iran’s resilience, the limited likelihood that bombing will force regime change, the risk of broader great-power involvement, and growing weariness and strategic complications for all sides, with Iran poised to endure and possibly prevail in the long term.

A rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is mechanically possible within 3-4 months, entailing a military-style extraction. However, this would leave the Saudis seeking a force to combat the Shia, potentially leading them to fund Al Qaeda-linked Sunni extremists. An early exit could thus intensify the threat from a powerful Sunni extremist group, legitimized by Saudi funding, aiming to retain a foothold in Iraq and counter Iranian expansionism.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of telling the truth about options to end the war. They state that if the order to end the war is given, it will take a year to physically withdraw all American troops. However, if equipment is left behind, it could be done in 7 months. The speaker warns that leaving behind billions of dollars worth of weapons will result in them being used against future generations.

I will tell the truth about ending the war. If I order the end of the war and withdrawal of American troops, it will take a year to physically remove them. Leaving the equipment behind could shorten it to 7 months, but it would mean leaving behind billions of dollars worth of weapons that could be used against our grandchildren in the future.

'If tomorrow, the order goes out from the I'm president of The United States. I issue an order. End the war today. Begin to withdraw all American troops.' 'It will take a year to get the American troops out.' 'If you leave all the equipment behind, you might be able to do it in seven months.' 'And you leave those billions of dollars of weapons behind, I promise they're gonna be used against your grandchild and mine someday.' 'And you leave those billions of dollars of weapons behind, I promise they're gonna be used against your grandchild and mine someday.'

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...

As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.

Mario: Let's start with Venezuela. Do you think this is a strategy by Trump? Larry: I saw something similar back in 1988. The CIA was involved with trying to provoke Manuel Noriega into taking some action, so we could say we had to respond to set the stage for a military invasion, which I believe that in 2018, Donald Trump signed a finding authorizing a covert CIA action to get rid of Maduro. That attempt failed. And now the objective is to get control of the oil. That's the number one priority, with an eye toward the risk of a renewed Iran conflict and the prospect of shutdown of the Persian Gulf, and the need to have an alternative supplier. Ukraine defeating Russia was the plan, and Russia’s military is now around 1,500,000. Mario: What’s your initial reaction to Venezuela? I talked to John Kuriaki who said to read naval movements to gauge what the military plans. The buildup on the coast of Venezuela is significant. They’ve got 14, 12 warships, including the Gerald Ford. Do you think they are bluffing or this is a Trump strategy? Larry: It could be a bluff. I saw something similar in 1988. I was in the Central America branch, and the CIA’s analytical thrust was to provoke Noriega into taking action to justify a response and invasion. That happened in 1988. But that time there were US bases in Panama; Quarry Heights was full. Southern Command was there. Now Southern Command has moved to Miami, just near Southcom. Another issue: within the military, the concept of supported and supporting commands means the special operations command (SOCOM) would normally be the supporting commander, but here Southern Command would be subordinate to SOCOM, which is problematic because SOCOM cannot fight a conventional war. Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, and others are light infantry for raids, not mass warfare. So launching shells or sending ground forces won’t solve Venezuela; terrain is rugged and favors ambushes. If US troops ashore, body bags would likely exceed those from Iraq and Afghanistan. Venezuelans will fight, and insurgents from Brazil and Colombia could join. Decapitation strikes against Maduro could provoke an insurgency that the US would struggle to pacify. Mario: Could we see a decapitation strike like Israel against Hezbollah and Iran? Larry: Decapitating Maduro would still leave loyalists and other actors with weapons; an insurgency could erupt, and the US would be unable to pacify it. The real objective here is unclear. The State Department’s INL/INSCR programs have long documented Venezuela as a transit point for drugs; Trump claimed fentanyl is the issue, but most cocaine also goes to Europe. The 2018 Trump era mentioned the Trendy Aragua as a pretext to justify covert actions; I believe Trump signed a finding authorizing a CIA operation to remove Maduro, leading to Guaidó, but that failed. The broader agenda appears to be regaining oil influence and countering Russia, China, and Iran’s influence in Venezuela. Mario: Elaborate the agenda and strategy behind these strikes on boats out of Venezuela and Trump’s public acknowledgement of a CIA covert operation. What’s the strategy and intention? Larry: The objective is to restore oil control in Venezuela and reduce adversary influence. Maduro once aligned with the CIA, and Chavez/Maduro have maintained cordial relations with Moscow and Beijing. The US aims to curtail BRICS and reduce Venezuelan ties to Russia, China, and Iran, potentially moving Venezuela away from the dollar-based system. The theory that this is a message to Putin circulates, but if that were the aim, it’s a poor strategy given the broader geopolitical dynamics in Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian-Israeli arena. The US previously overpromised in the Red Sea and failed to secure freedom of navigation, signaling limited military capacity for large-scale campaigns. The objective of any Venezuela action must be concrete, otherwise it risks entanglement in an insurgency. Mario: Turning to general foreign policy under Trump. What about the national security strategy? Europe’s criticisms, and Trump’s approach to Ukraine—Witkoff and Kushner meeting Putin? Larry: The 2025 national security strategy signals change, but these documents are not blueprints; they’re guidelines. Europe is being asked to step up, while the US distances itself, arguing Europe’s resources and industrial capacity have diminished while Russia and China shift. Europe’s censorship and defense spending are under scrutiny. The US–UK intelligence relationship still lingers, but overall the West’s ability to project force is questioned. Russia and China’s relationship is deep and mutually reinforcing; the Rand Corporation’s earlier ideas that Ukraine would defeat Russia to force Moscow to join the West have not materialized. Ukraine’s fight has forced Russia to mobilize and shift front lines; casualty counts are contested, but Russia’s front has expanded with a larger force and higher attrition. Mario: What about Ukraine negotiations and Putin’s terms? Larry: Putin’s terms (as stated on 06/14/2024) are: Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk permanently part of Russia; Ukraine must withdraw forces from those territories before negotiations begin. An election must be held in Ukraine with a legitimately elected president, potentially replacing Zelenskyy, and Russia would then talk to Ukraine. Russia’s stance treats these territories as non-negotiable; freezing lines is not acceptable to Russia. If negotiations fail, Russia is likely to maintain control over large parts of Donbas and southern Ukraine, potentially extending into Kharkiv and Odessa. Western military support is insufficient in scale to match Russia’s production; Russia’s oil revenue remains a significant portion of GDP, and the global south is pivoting toward BRICS, with Modi’s meeting signaling stronger ties with Russia and China. The strategic trend is a shift away from Western dominance toward a multipolar order. Mario: Larry, appreciate your time. Larry: Pleasure as always, Mario.

Chas Freeman and the interviewer discuss a rapidly unraveling international order and rising tensions in the Gulf, with implications for Europe, Asia, and global security. - Freeman argues that the five-century European domination of the world is over, Pax Americana is dead, NATO is moribund, and the Atlantic alliance is failing. He claims Europe views NATO as a defensive alliance but sees neither role NATO purportedly serves, and notes European countries (Spain, France, Austria) restricting U.S. access to bases and airspace in relation to Iran actions. - He describes a rearranged Gulf regional order being shaped by war, with Iran’s position strengthened. He highlights Donald Trump’s rhetoric as decoupling the U.S. from guaranteeing passage through the Strait of Hormuz, pointing out that the Strait cannot be opened by force, and that other actors must negotiate to ensure their energy exports remain routable. Freeman notes Macron’s similar view and explains that the solution would be an agreement with Iran, accompanied by IRGC verification and a signaling code for safe passage. - Freeman identifies Iran gaining two outcomes: the end of oil sanctions due to global price concerns and the acquiescence of the world to its de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz. He asserts Gulf Arab states have little choice but to negotiate with Iran, and that other regional players (China, India, Japan, Turkey, perhaps Bangladesh) are already anticipating this, with a Korean vessel reportedly passing through after negotiating with Iran. - He observes the geopolitical rearrangement: Pakistan is favored by China as a mediator, offering extended deterrence to Saudi Arabia; Pakistan’s strong Shia population and cultural ties to Iran put it in a pivotal role. Israel’s and the U.S.’s disinformation campaigns in the Gulf are noted, as are attacks on desalination plants and the vulnerability of Gulf states that harbor U.S. bases. Oman is highlighted as the only Gulf state anchoring U.S. naval presence and maintaining relative peace with Iran. - Freeman also points to the broader shift in regional security arrangements: a move away from dependence on Western military technology, with the Pakistan-Turkey-Egypt-Saudi alignment seeking more autonomy and potential Chinese participation in security architectures. He highlights the five-nillar meeting in Islamabad and a joint statement with Wang Yi outlining principles for Gulf security, suggesting a tilt toward regional solutions. - He notes the European Union’s sluggish diplomacy and lack of appetite for active diplomacy, contrasting Macron’s call for Europe to shape the world with reality. He argues that proxy wars are fading as the U.S. exits Ukraine as a proxy battleground, and Europe cannot rely on American arms in the same way, given stock replenishment needs and Israeli priority. - Freeman discusses nuclear proliferation concerns: Iran’s potential push toward nuclear weapons, and possible regional moves by Saudis, Turks, Egyptians, and others toward their own nuclear capabilities, including Japan’s latent capabilities and the broader fear of a chain reaction of nuclearization across regions, including Europe and Latin America (Brazil and South Africa’s defense agreements). He suggests Europe might need a more vigorous self-defense posture and a rethinking of security architecture beyond a Russia-centric framework. - He emphasizes the difficulty of achieving diplomacy amid eroding trust, noting that Western leaders lack imagination and that the UN and NATO's relevance has weakened. He envisions a Eurasian security framework that includes China, Japan, and Korea, moving toward a pan-Eurasian approach rather than block-based security. - On how the current war might end, Freeman argues that the conflict is unlikely to end at the negotiating table; instead, Iran is expected to continue pressuring Israel, and the conflict could persist as Iran maintains its missile and deterrence capabilities. He suggests the end is likely to come on the battlefield with Iran achieving objectives, while Western and regional actors may fail to secure a lasting stabilization. He concludes with a wary note on leadership and responsibility, lamenting the absence of statesmen capable of forging a new security architecture. - The discussion closes with a blunt observation about leadership, the unpredictability of Trump, and the uncertain future of American involvement in West Asia, leaving open questions about how or when the current war might actually end.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of telling the truth to the American people about the options for ending the war. They state that if the President were to issue an order to end the war and withdraw all American troops, it would take approximately a year to physically remove them. However, if the equipment is left behind, it could potentially be done in 7 months. The speaker warns that leaving behind billions of dollars worth of weapons would likely result in their future use against future generations.

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.

- Trump has been presenting optimistic updates about negotiations with Iran, despite Iran denying them, and there is a belief that Monday morning actions are an attempt to manipulate markets, keep oil prices low, and keep the stock market high. - If a weekend land invasion of Iran occurs, many military experts suspect US troops would have to land or parachute in, which would change gold demand and pricing dynamics. - Speaker 1 explains that a true war outcome would require ground troops to take control of territory, not just air strikes or bombs. He notes Trump promised no troops on the ground, but argues that regime change would be impossible without occupying the country, leading to higher American casualties and families affected. - He warns that sending troops would mean they would have to stay in Iran, creating a prolonged conflict akin to Iraq or Afghanistan, with no clear exit strategy and ongoing political and strategic problems. - He suggests that Trump could alternatively declare victory and withdraw, claiming the destruction of Iran’s military capabilities (no navy, no air force, no nuclear program) as a complete victory and greatest military achievement. - The discussion then notes that the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war, implying strategic stakes and continued vulnerability. - Speaker 0 points out that Iran has pledged not to allow US occupation and would fight back, describing Iran as a country of 90 million with rugged terrain and highly motivated, religiously committed people who could be willing to die for their country. - They acknowledge the assumption that Iranians are uniformly supportive of a US liberation, labeling that notion as crazy. - They conclude that there could be even greater anti-American sentiment in Iran now than a month ago, recognizing that the population’s reaction to war may be hostile despite US actions.

The United States has been sending hundreds of billions of dollars to support Ukraine's defense, with no end in sight, and with no security. Do you want to keep this going for another five years? Two thousand people, or more, are being killed every single week.

As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world. This is the first time this has happened.

While on a plane with President Trump, we discussed the Middle East. He drew a map, noting troop strengths in various countries. He highlighted the border between Syria and Turkey, mentioning the 500 U.S. troops stationed there and the significant forces in both Turkey (750,000) and Syria (250,000). Trump expressed concern about a potential conflict between these nations and asked his generals about the fate of the 500 U.S. troops. The generals warned that they would become cannon fodder. In response, Trump ordered their withdrawal.