Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 3: Happy Wednesday, Welcome to Breaking Points, Emily. How you doing
Speaker 3: doing well?
Speaker 4: Ryan. We've got a big show, lots of developments up
Speaker 4: in the Middle East to cover, and we have.
Speaker 5: Such a packed show.
Speaker 3: We were going to actually, and I'm not even joking
Speaker 3: this time, and I know it's hard for people to
Speaker 3: tell when I'm joking or not, we were going to
Speaker 3: have doctor Turtle Boyle on to cover the Karen Reid verdict.
Speaker 4: We're so close.
Speaker 5: The verdict did not come yesterday. It should have.
Speaker 3: The judge screwed it up. It's probably going to come
Speaker 3: this mon it's going to be not guilty. I'm telling
Speaker 3: you now. Maybe they'll get her on the OUI thing,
Speaker 3: the drinking and driving. It's a really important case for
Speaker 3: not just police abuse, corruption, but also the First Amendment
Speaker 3: because doctor Turtle Boy was charged with a bunch of
Speaker 3: different crimes for reporting on the case, literally for reporting
Speaker 3: on the case, and so far he's been victorious in
Speaker 3: all of those cases.
Speaker 5: Solidarity with Turtle Boy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, big time. And just know we are in touch with.
Speaker 5: Turtle though not necessarily with everything Turtle Boy believes in.
Speaker 4: Probably not, but we are in touch with Turtle Boy,
Speaker 4: and we do hope to have him on the show soon.
Speaker 4: But we're following that case very closely. Maybe we'll have
Speaker 4: information to cover on hopefully we hope to get him.
Speaker 3: He's done incredible work on that case, so hopefully we'll
Speaker 3: have him on this week.
Speaker 4: Yeah, amazing stuff.
Speaker 3: Ryan.
Speaker 4: We also have Brad Lander on today's show. That's a
Speaker 4: big get. He's been making headlines across the country after
Speaker 4: the dust up yesterday in New York City.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he spent several hours in federal custody yesterday because
Speaker 3: he was demanding a warrant from masked men who are
Speaker 3: trying to haul off haul off a New York resident,
Speaker 3: and so there's video of him.
Speaker 5: Let me see your warrant. Let me see your warrant.
Speaker 3: I want to see your warrant because there have been
Speaker 3: people impersonating ICE agents and using that kind.
Speaker 5: Of cover to commit crimes.
Speaker 3: He's demanding to see documentation that they are who they are.
Speaker 3: They arrested him, and that might upend the mayoral race.
Speaker 4: Right, so right, he's currently polling around third, right, but.
Speaker 3: He and Zorhan have cross endorsed each other, so in
Speaker 3: some ways it's a boost for Sorehan.
Speaker 4: We will see what he thinks over the last What
Speaker 4: he thinks about the last twenty four hours will also
Speaker 4: be joined after we cover developments out of Iran. Will
Speaker 4: certainly cover new statements from Vice President j d. Vance.
Speaker 4: Ted Cruz did an interview with Tucker Carlson that already
Speaker 4: is promising to be absolutely explosive. We have a couple
Speaker 4: of clips from that, you're gonna want to see those.
Speaker 4: Ryan has some developments from Gaza. Obviously, many predicted that
Speaker 4: in the shadow of what was happening in Iran, there
Speaker 4: would be some truly awful news to come out of
Speaker 4: Gaza that has proven sadly accurate. So Ryan is going
Speaker 4: to break down the latest there and Ross Park and
Speaker 4: we'll join us to talk more about Alexandria Kazuo Cortes
Speaker 4: endorsing Zoron Madani in New York City, and Ross will
Speaker 4: be here to kind of analyze what it means for
Speaker 4: the left.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Ross is a terrific independent journalist up in New York City.
Speaker 3: He's really the guy to follow if that's what you're
Speaker 3: interested in.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and then we'll be doing a live ama, So
Speaker 4: if you are a premium subscriber, you can join us
Speaker 4: for that Breaking Points dot Com. As a reminder, you
Speaker 4: can head over there if you want to try out
Speaker 4: a premium subscription. Ryan, let's get into the first block.
Speaker 5: Here, all right.
Speaker 3: So Trey Yanst for Fox News, who, interestingly a lot
Speaker 3: of kind of pro Israel folks have been really angry
Speaker 3: about because every time that Israel targets and kills a
Speaker 3: journalist in Gaza, he stands up for them. He also
Speaker 3: is willing to interview Palestinians. But he's been reporting out
Speaker 3: of Israel for a very long time and it is
Speaker 3: generally fairly sympathetic towards Israel, but it shows the lack
Speaker 3: of kind of any daylight that you're allowed as a
Speaker 3: reporter without getting criticized. But here he is just to
Speaker 3: set off this block. Reporting from Jerusalem.
Speaker 6: Right now, there are ballistic missiles being fired at Israel's
Speaker 6: second largest city of Tel Aviv. Currently missile defense systems
Speaker 6: are working to shoot down the incoming fire. We are
Speaker 6: going to take some cover here as this unfold. You
Speaker 6: can see in the distance interceptor rounds coming off trying
Speaker 6: to shoot down. Pull it off the dry pod and
Speaker 6: let's move inside. The flash there in the sky, explosions overhead,
Speaker 6: and again this is the third barade.
Speaker 5: I said.
Speaker 3: Jerusalem is in Tel Aviv, obviously, which is which is
Speaker 3: sustaining most of the ongoing blows. That the tenth wave
Speaker 3: Iran from Iran came yet yesterday, as there seems to
Speaker 3: be no sign yet of a ceasefire or slowing down
Speaker 3: of the of the back and forth here with Israel
Speaker 3: saying that tomorrow Thursday, they're going they have some huge
Speaker 3: surprise up their sleeve, yep, that they're that they're going
Speaker 3: to that they're going to launch.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and so The latest reporting is that fifty jets
Speaker 4: were striking Iran. Fifty Israeli jets were striking Iran yesterday,
Speaker 4: reportedly the centrifuge and missile production sites. But that particular
Speaker 4: shot for trey yinst is a dangerous one because the
Speaker 4: Iron Dome has been breached. There have been successful strikes
Speaker 4: over the course of the last week, so you can
Speaker 4: understand why he ran for cover in that case. Ryan,
Speaker 4: Now to your point, Trump posted yesterday. This is a
Speaker 4: two This is a true social post from Donald Trump yesterday,
Speaker 4: all caps unconditional surrenders.
Speaker 3: I saw that and I was so glad that this
Speaker 3: is over. Yeah, we have surrendered. God, I shouldn't laugh
Speaker 3: about it wasn't actually us surrendering to Iron. It actually
Speaker 3: meant he had surrendered to Israel and it's just going
Speaker 3: to allow them. He's like he thought for a while
Speaker 3: he was going to run American foreign policy, which is
Speaker 3: an understandable mistake because he ran for president of the
Speaker 3: United States and got one. He got more votes, and
Speaker 3: that Yahoo did not run. Biden ran for a while,
Speaker 3: but he dropped out, if you may remember, then Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris filled in, and then all the American people who
Speaker 3: felt like voting went to the polls and elected somebody
Speaker 3: to be the president of the United States, which in
Speaker 3: the Constitution sets American foreign policy that was written many
Speaker 3: hundreds of years ago.
Speaker 5: So that's not how we.
Speaker 4: Do it for a living breathing document.
Speaker 3: Right, it's a living dead document, So it's not how
Speaker 3: we do it anymore. So President Trump here has said
Speaker 3: that he's actually acknowledging that he's surrendering American foreign policy
Speaker 3: to a prime minister, Benjamin Nyah.
Speaker 4: Meanwhile, this is a one you can see. These are
Speaker 4: installations nuclear facilities across Tehran reportedly being obliterated, as this
Speaker 4: post on xputs it, by the i AF, lots and
Speaker 4: lots of hits. Now. The reporting line about Trump and
Speaker 4: the way that he has reacted to this, and it's
Speaker 4: important that you're watching what you're seeing on your screen
Speaker 4: right now. As we get into this New York Times tidbit.
Speaker 4: Greg Star posted it by saying, pretty funny to watch
Speaker 4: quote anti war Trump suddenly decide that warmaking looks totally
Speaker 4: awesome on TV and gravitate toward war with iron literally
Speaker 4: on that basis. He was responding to this Times report
Speaker 4: that when Donald Trump woke up last Friday morning quote
Speaker 4: his favorite TV channel, Fox News, was broadcasting wall to
Speaker 4: wall imagery of what it was portraying as Israel's military genius.
Speaker 4: Mister Trump could not resist claiming some credit for himself.
Speaker 4: In phone calls with reporters, mister Trump began hinting that
Speaker 4: he had played a bigger behind the scenes role in
Speaker 4: the war than people realized. Privately, he told some confidants
Speaker 4: that he was now leaning toward a more serious escalation,
Speaker 4: going along with Israel's early request the US deliver powerful
Speaker 4: bunker busting bombs. So Ryan that then brings us to
Speaker 4: a four, which was another post on truth Social yesterday. Immediately,
Speaker 4: immediately everyone pointed out the implication of what Trump is
Speaker 4: saying here when he goes, quote, we now have complete
Speaker 4: and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had
Speaker 4: good skytrackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it,
Speaker 4: but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived and manufactured stuff.
Speaker 4: Nobody does it better than the good old USA. So
Speaker 4: that first line, in particular, we now have complete and
Speaker 4: total control of the skies over Iran. When you combine
Speaker 4: that with the New York Times report that Craig Sargeant posted.
Speaker 4: It's an interesting, i think, potential window into the way
Speaker 4: Donald Trump, on a substantial basis, not even just stylistically,
Speaker 4: but substantially, is now approaching this war, which is that
Speaker 4: US involvement projects strength, and there's nothing he likes more
Speaker 4: than the projection of strength. If he were here and
Speaker 4: had a fair shot to defend himself, he would say, absolutely,
Speaker 4: that's policy in and of itself, that strength. That is
Speaker 4: the policy, that is the end goal is so that
Speaker 4: the United States looks strong and hegemonic. And I think
Speaker 4: that's increasingly what his quote unquote America first foreign policy
Speaker 4: is conceived of in his own mind. The problem, and
Speaker 4: we'll talk about this in the next block, is that's
Speaker 4: not how a lot of his own allies see it.
Speaker 3: It reminds me a little bit of his approach to
Speaker 3: the tariffs, in the sense that he just launches these
Speaker 3: tariffs at everybody and says the goal of them ultimately
Speaker 3: is He's going to, you know, force China and Japan
Speaker 3: and all of these countries to the take to the
Speaker 3: negotiating table.
Speaker 5: It's like they're all the phone is ringing off the hook.
Speaker 5: The tariffs are working now net Yahoo.
Speaker 3: Apparently one of the ways he was able to sell
Speaker 3: these strikes to Trump is as a way to win
Speaker 3: leverage in the negotiations. And so there are all there's
Speaker 3: talk that, oh, he's going to have Witkough or you know,
Speaker 3: he's going to send advance to speak with you know,
Speaker 3: various Iranian negotiators that he hasn't murdered yet, and that
Speaker 3: if he can do that, that that's a win. Except
Speaker 3: in both cases they were already at the table. You
Speaker 3: want to talk to China or Japan about trade, call
Speaker 3: them up, happy to talk. Iran was literally already at
Speaker 3: the negotiating table. They were supposed to meet last Sunday
Speaker 3: until they killed some of the negotiators and the meetings
Speaker 3: were canceled. So then you go ahead and say, oh,
Speaker 3: one of the things we're trying to do is get
Speaker 3: them back to the table. It's like when it was
Speaker 3: first suggested to me the night of the attacks that
Speaker 3: this was the way that Nenyahu had persuaded Trump, I thought,
Speaker 3: not even Trump, is that stupid? Like that makes no sense.
Speaker 3: You're like, you're already negotiating. You don't need to bomb
Speaker 3: them to get to negotiate. With them, but apparently that worked.
Speaker 3: That combined with look how cool war looks on TV,
Speaker 3: it's similar to the Costum Solomony assassination. In twenty twenty,
Speaker 3: the Israelis came to Trump and said that they wanted
Speaker 3: to assassinate Solemony and that they would but they needed
Speaker 3: the US to do it because they don't they didn't
Speaker 3: have the They wanted the US to do it, but
Speaker 3: they would take the credit for it, the credit slash
Speaker 3: blame for it. Trump said no, no, no, I want
Speaker 3: the credit for it. I'm going to do it. And
Speaker 3: so he used the Saudis to reach out to the
Speaker 3: Iranians to say that, hey, let's let bygones be bygones.
Speaker 3: Let's try to ease tensions a little bit. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: left the Iran nuclear deal, but let's, you know, let's
Speaker 3: live together peacefully in this world, the kind of stuff
Speaker 3: Trump says now. And so they get they lure him
Speaker 3: to Bagdad for these peace negotiations, and then when he
Speaker 3: gets into a car outside the airport with a drone,
Speaker 3: they kill him and everybody in the car, and then
Speaker 3: he takes credit for it.
Speaker 5: So all of it's very similar.
Speaker 3: Pretending to use diplomacy pretending to care about peaceful co
Speaker 3: existence and then salivating over like they with a real lust.
Speaker 3: That's kind of disturbing. Well, that's the death and carnage.
Speaker 4: That's sort of the crux of it is that I
Speaker 4: think these tiktoks are really the TikTok New York Times reporting,
Speaker 4: Axios reporting, they're all strategically they're full of strategic leaks.
Speaker 4: And that doesn't mean the reports are incorrect, but it's
Speaker 4: actually really hard, right.
Speaker 5: It might be to know we're getting lied to constantly.
Speaker 4: Totally, and it's for for different reasons too. So part
Speaker 4: of actually the implication of all that reporting is in
Speaker 4: fact that Trump was strategically the administration at least was
Speaker 4: strategically leaking that they were dead serious about diplomacy, and
Speaker 4: they weren't.
Speaker 5: That's one of the theories.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the dead is the that's the operative part of it.
Speaker 4: But uh, that was I mean, that's actually part of
Speaker 4: one of the stories we're being sold is that they
Speaker 4: were projecting, using the media and their own public posturing
Speaker 4: to project seriousness about these negotiations, and we actually still
Speaker 4: don't know whether or not that's true or whether to
Speaker 4: the point you just raised that Donald Trump's hand was
Speaker 4: forced by netsan Yahoo in a way that made Trump,
Speaker 4: who wants to always look hegemonic, who wants to look
Speaker 4: like he is the embodiment of strength, his United States
Speaker 4: is the embodiment of strength. Is then his hand is
Speaker 4: being forced by net Yaho because he feels like the
Speaker 4: United States and net yeah, who knows. He feels like
Speaker 4: the United States needs to look as though it's in
Speaker 4: control and post things like quote unquote, we have total
Speaker 4: control over the skies. I don't think we still have
Speaker 4: a clear answer on what happened. I think we can
Speaker 4: have we have good indications in these in one direction
Speaker 4: or the other, but we still don't quite know. And
Speaker 4: I think that that's where you see jd Vance coming in. Yesterday,
Speaker 4: he got into a back and forth with Cassandra McDonald.
Speaker 4: We can put a five, we can roll through a
Speaker 4: five and a six actually, but he posted a really
Speaker 4: lengthy note on ACT yesterday where he said, I'm seeing
Speaker 4: this from the inside, and I'm admittedly biased towards our president,
Speaker 4: parentheses and my friend, but there's a lot of crazy
Speaker 4: stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some
Speaker 4: things directly on the Iran issue. He first notes that
Speaker 4: Trump has been quote amazingly consistent over ten years that
Speaker 4: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. He then says, I've
Speaker 4: seen a lot of confusion over the issue of quote
Speaker 4: unquote civilian nuclear power and uranium enrichment, that these are
Speaker 4: distinct issues. He says that Iran has been found in
Speaker 4: violation off they're not proliferational obligations by the International Atomic
Speaker 4: Energy Agency, and then goes on to actually exchange a
Speaker 4: polost with Cassandra McDonald Ryan, who was previously Cassandra Fairbanks.
Speaker 5: Am I right, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4: Okay, And she was previously sort of Bernie adjacent.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I remember her in twenty sixteen being maybe my
Speaker 3: memories gone correct me if I'm wrong down in the comments,
Speaker 3: But I remember her being a like super pro Bernie
Speaker 3: person in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 4: So he gets into a back and forth with her
Speaker 4: over Tulsi Gabberd's testimony that US intelligence's assessment was around
Speaker 4: basically was not close to having a nuclear weapon, And
Speaker 4: she said, are you saying, Tulsi in the eighteen US
Speaker 4: intelligence bodies back in the opposite findings less than eight
Speaker 4: weeks ago are wronger lying, yes.
Speaker 5: It's true.
Speaker 3: Vance, she was an Ald Bernie person. So it's interesting
Speaker 3: that this back and forth is between JD. Vance, who
Speaker 3: has been on his own political pipeline, and then Cassandra
Speaker 3: who was strong Bernie supporter but felt like the Democrats
Speaker 3: that just had ruined what Bernie stood for, and so
Speaker 3: she went on the pipeline over to Maga.
Speaker 4: Right, And so JD replies and says, no, I'm not
Speaker 4: saying that. First off, Tulci's testimony was in March, and
Speaker 4: a lot has changed since then. Second, if you look
Speaker 4: at what she said, then her point about your Raim
Speaker 4: enrichment is consistent with what I wrote above. And Ryan,
Speaker 4: we are going to get into this a little bit
Speaker 4: in the next block. That is the new I think
Speaker 4: attempt for the quote unquote America first, anti neo kon
Speaker 4: Maga people who are supportive of Donald Trump's approach over
Speaker 4: the last week, to Israel's attacks in Iran which are
Speaker 4: boiling pretty steadily, to US full US involvement, to the
Speaker 4: bunker buster being used. Is this argument. This is all
Speaker 4: consistent because things changed since March twenty seventh. They are
Speaker 4: genuinely very close to enrichment et cetera.
Speaker 3: Right, But I just does anybody believe that like that,
Speaker 3: that's the thing.
Speaker 5: That's the thing.
Speaker 3: And I'm wondering about the Trump supporters, Like you guys
Speaker 3: have seen the videos of netaw who's saying since like
Speaker 3: the two thousand, early two thousands that if you just
Speaker 3: do if Iran is right around the corner from getting
Speaker 3: a bomb. There's also some fun videos going around him
Speaker 3: starting in nineteen eighty two saying that if the US
Speaker 3: would just do X and terrorism will go away. And
Speaker 3: the first one is in nineteen eighty two. He says,
Speaker 3: if we can just get rid of the Soviet Union,
Speaker 3: then their puppets, the PLO, will be destroyed and there
Speaker 3: will be no kind of Palestinian resistance movement, he says,
Speaker 3: and there will be no terrorism anywhere in the world.
Speaker 3: You get rid of the Soviet Union, there'll be no terrorism.
Speaker 3: He's like, oh, okay, never mind, it didn't work. If
Speaker 3: you get rid of Saddam Hussein, there will be no
Speaker 3: terrorism anywhere and no instability. It's the middle least ironically,
Speaker 3: of course, what did taking out Iraq do? It empowered
Speaker 3: Iran like went It took Iran from a regional subpower
Speaker 3: to a regional superpower, and so now he says, to
Speaker 3: take out Iran, then now we're not going to have
Speaker 3: any problems anymore.
Speaker 5: No instability.
Speaker 3: And he's been saying for twenty plus years that were
Speaker 3: right around the corner from getting a bomb and vance.
Speaker 5: It was a very smart man.
Speaker 3: Word that worded that response to Cassandra very cleverly.
Speaker 5: What about Tulsi? Was she wrong?
Speaker 3: And he says, no, a lot has changed since March.
Speaker 3: But what did he not say there?
Speaker 5: He did not.
Speaker 3: Say we have new intelligence that suggests that since March,
Speaker 3: Iran is trying to make some breakout for a bomb,
Speaker 3: because according to the intelligence assessments and all of the reporting,
Speaker 3: we do not have that intelligence.
Speaker 5: And that is not the case.
Speaker 3: And the Iotola and the political leadership in Iran had
Speaker 3: not made that decision. They have their own reasons not
Speaker 3: to want that. They don't want proliferation in the region.
Speaker 3: Not only did they think that it would be bad
Speaker 3: for them, and they kind of built the program as
Speaker 3: a chip to trade away for getting rid of sanctions.
Speaker 3: They don't want Saudi Arabia, Ue and all these other
Speaker 3: countries to have nuclear weapons either because sometimes they get
Speaker 3: in conflicts with them. They went through a one of
Speaker 3: the nastiest wars of the last fifty years with the RACK,
Speaker 3: and those people were fought in that war. They don't
Speaker 3: they so they have their own strategic reasons not to
Speaker 3: want nuclear but they also know if they use the
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon against Israel, Israel has second straight capabilities and
Speaker 3: they're finished. So for all these reasons, our intelligence assessment
Speaker 3: is that they're not going for a bomb where they were.
Speaker 5: Not as of a week ago.
Speaker 3: The way that Vance says it, a lot has happened
Speaker 3: since March.
Speaker 5: That is true.
Speaker 3: NBA Finals going on, Karen Reid trial has happened since March.
Speaker 4: Show lies, Detective many other.
Speaker 3: Many things have happened since March, so he can make
Speaker 3: a true statement which is fundamentally a lie because Tulsi
Speaker 3: Gabber's an intel assessment as of March held until the
Speaker 3: second that they were bombed.
Speaker 4: So Tulsi Gabbert, this is actually quite interesting. New reporting
Speaker 4: suggests that Donald Trump was very irked by that video.
Speaker 4: We tried to cover it last week, but the news
Speaker 4: just got insane of Tulsi Gabbard coming out and she
Speaker 4: got really mocked for this because the video was admittedly
Speaker 4: a bit odd, and we're increasingly see why the video
Speaker 4: of about nuclear conflict. Do you remember that she put
Speaker 4: it out last week and it started with Hiroshima Nagasaki
Speaker 4: and transitioned into a very eerie, vague warning about the
Speaker 4: imminent threat of nuclear conflict or the looming threat of
Speaker 4: nuclear conflict would be one way to put it. And
Speaker 4: it seems increasingly that was interpreted by people around her
Speaker 4: and was intentionally it was intentionally dropped because Tulsa Gabbard
Speaker 4: was concerned about potential escalation in this situation. Now, it
Speaker 4: could be the case that video was actually about Russia Ukraine,
Speaker 4: It could be the case that video was about China.
Speaker 4: It could be the case of the video was just
Speaker 4: a video, but Trump was reportedly irked by it and
Speaker 4: saw that. As you combine it with the fact that
Speaker 4: Tulsa Gabbard was left out of the Camp David meeting.
Speaker 4: Now the reporting is that she had a national Guard conflict.
Speaker 4: Peter Deucy reported that there's that, But Peter Deucy reported
Speaker 4: that she wasn't invited anyway, And so it does seem
Speaker 4: like the you know, I think Tulca Gabbard is is
Speaker 4: sort of a what's the right word, she'll transgress the
Speaker 4: the conventional wisdom in a group. Should we've seen her
Speaker 4: do that like that? She has the history of doing that,
Speaker 4: whatever you think of her, And so you can understand
Speaker 4: why people who are increasingly marching in one direction would
Speaker 4: leave the descent out of a camp David meeting, for example.
Speaker 3: But I think, however, and not to catch up, but
Speaker 3: go back to this point in a second. This is
Speaker 3: from the same New York Times article. They write, while
Speaker 3: everyone knew that miss Gabbard was as anti interventionist as
Speaker 3: they come, she rarely pushed that view on the president.
Speaker 3: So congratulations to Tulsa Gabbard who switched parties to fight
Speaker 3: regime change wars, to get into a position where you
Speaker 3: couldn't have an influence to fight against a regime change war,
Speaker 3: and quote rarely pushed that view.
Speaker 5: On the president. Well done. What do you do, Tulsi?
Speaker 5: If you're watching, what are you doing with your life? Like?
Speaker 5: What are you doing?
Speaker 4: Disagree? Well, I mean I kind of disagree with that,
Speaker 4: but I guess it's hard to know. That's the thing
Speaker 4: with all of these leaks is it's hard to know
Speaker 4: what's actually happening behind closed doors. I'd rather Tulsi Gabbard
Speaker 4: be in the administration throwing cold water on all of it.
Speaker 5: But she's not throwing cold water.
Speaker 4: I mean, I guess it's so throw some cold water,
Speaker 4: Tulsi the Politico. So, a senior administration official told Politico
Speaker 4: this morning, quote, certainly the video made him Trump not
Speaker 4: super hot on her, and he doesn't like it when
Speaker 4: people are off message. So if you're Toldsy Gabbard, obviously,
Speaker 4: to remain in any position of influence, you have to
Speaker 4: walk an absolute tight rope. And I guess it's just
Speaker 4: hard to know the extent to which she's done that.
Speaker 4: I'm glad that it's not. I'll just say Bush forty
Speaker 4: three at the White House right now, there's at least
Speaker 4: some possibility of someone raising some cold water. But yeah,
Speaker 4: you're right, I mean it could be literally just putting
Speaker 4: out the cryptic video.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, when she resigns in protest or gets fired standing imitation,
Speaker 3: please come on the program and tell us exactly what
Speaker 3: you did to fight against these regime change wars.
Speaker 4: And to your point, Jade Vance is going to have
Speaker 4: to fill in that blank of what happened if he
Speaker 4: wants to remain consistent and playcate. Actually a lot of
Speaker 4: people in MAGA world. He's going to have to ultimately
Speaker 4: fill in the blank of what changed since March, especially
Speaker 4: if the United States involvement increases now now the Supreme
Speaker 4: Leader Hamani has responded and said that Iran won't accept
Speaker 4: quote imposed war or imposed peace, and has warned that
Speaker 4: any United States strikes will have quote serious irreparable consequences.
Speaker 4: The reporting is also that Iran is potentially preparing to
Speaker 4: hit US basis. That's not surprising at all, but US
Speaker 4: bases in the region, which means that we can be
Speaker 4: dragged into this, as everyone knows, at any moment. But
Speaker 4: that also that there could be deaths of US military
Speaker 4: personnel at any moment. And so we are right now
Speaker 4: simmering on the edge of it. Doesn't look like we're
Speaker 4: heading for de escalation in any way whatsoever. It looks
Speaker 4: like right now we're teetering on the brink of full
Speaker 4: blown war.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And according to yov Glan, we can play this here.
Speaker 3: It is our obligation, the United States obligation to enter
Speaker 3: into this war of their choosings.
Speaker 5: Play A seven.
Speaker 7: I believe that the United States of America and the
Speaker 7: President of the United States have an obligation to make
Speaker 7: sure that the region is going to a positive way
Speaker 7: and that the world is free from Iran that possessed
Speaker 7: nuclear weapons in the middle of the rich's place in
Speaker 7: oil and gus in the world. This could be a
Speaker 7: disaster for the world. And I believe that the determination
Speaker 7: of the American president that have been shown recently will
Speaker 7: pave the way to America to enter into this very
Speaker 7: important operation. The president of the United States have the
Speaker 7: option to change the Middle East and influence the war
Speaker 7: and influence the world.
Speaker 3: So if you read the Times piece very closely, you
Speaker 3: get to parts where it just doesn't make sense. Like
Speaker 3: Trump is on the phone that Yahoo telling him he
Speaker 3: doesn't want to want net Yahoo to attack Iran while
Speaker 3: he's still doing the negotiations, and he gets off the phone,
Speaker 3: He's like, well, nothing I could do. It looks like
Speaker 3: he's going to do it, and we might have to
Speaker 3: join him, might have to help him out.
Speaker 4: It's like, really, otherwise we look weak from his perspective.
Speaker 3: Or you say, you're not doing that, and if you do,
Speaker 3: we're not replenishing in your weapon stocks.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that would be strunge.
Speaker 3: But they have their own domestic industry. And there are
Speaker 3: people in Israel who've been calling for you know, less
Speaker 3: US military support because they want to build up their
Speaker 3: own weapons industry even more than it is, so that
Speaker 3: they're completely independent and can continue war endlessly without any
Speaker 3: pressure from anybody, including US.
Speaker 5: So let them do that.
Speaker 3: Then it's like tell them, nan, yah, okay, if that's
Speaker 3: what you're gonna do, you're gonna do it alone. But
Speaker 3: it sounds like that, you know, just told him what
Speaker 3: he was going to do, and that told him that basically,
Speaker 3: and basically, you're going to help us, whether you like
Speaker 3: it or not.
Speaker 5: So what what did we have the whole election for?
Speaker 5: We covered that.
Speaker 3: We spent like a year on this dumb show covering
Speaker 3: the presidential election.
Speaker 5: Why should we just cover.
Speaker 4: Cover the Israeli elections?
Speaker 5: Yeah? Yeah, I guess so.
Speaker 4: Well. Donald Trump, when he first won the Republican primary,
Speaker 4: was winning a lot of votes specifically as a critic
Speaker 4: of American foreign policy, which led a lot of people
Speaker 4: to categorize him sort of neatly as an anti interventionist,
Speaker 4: which has never been true. We knew that from his
Speaker 4: first term that that was never true. And the Times
Speaker 4: report and we could go full circle here that we
Speaker 4: mentioned at the beginning of this block about Trump seeing
Speaker 4: on Fox News the images of Israel bombing Iran and
Speaker 4: an inching closer and closer to war. Again, that is,
Speaker 4: all of us are strategicallyaking it's fog of war media information.
Speaker 4: So you have to, you know, learn, We all have
Speaker 4: to learn from what's happened many times in the past
Speaker 4: and try the best we can to piece together the
Speaker 4: puzzle of what happened here. And that's already hard enough
Speaker 4: to do with Donald Trump's foreign policy because I think
Speaker 4: it's it's so often about optics. But that's why that
Speaker 4: particular part of the report rings sure. I mean, he
Speaker 4: just spent tens of millions of dollars on a military
Speaker 4: parade for admittedly the reason of optics. That's that's the
Speaker 4: I guess.
Speaker 5: Which just killed a woman.
Speaker 4: I saw that tanks on New York Avenue here in DC.
Speaker 4: But that is the predicate of peace through strength. I mean,
Speaker 4: it's obviously not just optics, but that the projection of
Speaker 4: strength is the and this is taking in good faith,
Speaker 4: obviously that argument. And I'm not saying that the argument
Speaker 4: is being made by everyone in good faith, because certainly
Speaker 4: it's but that you have to look strong in order
Speaker 4: to have your foreign policy serve as a deterrent. Now,
Speaker 4: the problem is that is very seductive, and it easily
Speaker 4: ends up boiling into hot conflict. That's why it's always
Speaker 4: been sort of funny to see in a tragic way,
Speaker 4: the peace through strength conservative movement reported repeatedly support hot conflicts.
Speaker 4: You know, from Gulf War. Then you can get into
Speaker 4: Iraq obviously and Afghanistan, but also even just like post
Speaker 4: Cold War skirmishes and different outposts, peace through strength is
Speaker 4: really easy for that to just go strength and you
Speaker 4: never actually get to the piece that.
Speaker 5: Would be the history of the American empire.
Speaker 4: Right, definitely, this is the last thirty years, at least
Speaker 4: the last thirty years. But we don't quite know where
Speaker 4: this is going. We do have this quote, and again
Speaker 4: this is a Trump administration official to Dasha Burns at Politico. Quote.
Speaker 4: The movement right now is away from diplomacy and toward
Speaker 4: US involvement. We are moving toward taking out Irani and
Speaker 4: nuclear facilities. So that's what's on the table. Could happen
Speaker 4: at any moment.
Speaker 3: Yes, the logic seems to inexorably lead to a strike
Speaker 3: on the four doh and a mountain nuclear facility like
Speaker 3: that seems to be like I making predictions, but like.
Speaker 5: That that's where that's where this is headed.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's hard to see and.
Speaker 5: Where that goes from here? What oil is? What up to?
Speaker 8: What?
Speaker 5: Seventy something in a barrel? Now? Like oil prices are surging.
Speaker 3: Iran is threatening the you know mine, the Strait of
Speaker 3: Horror moves which is where the half the world's oil
Speaker 3: moves through Irani and Yue, and Saudi oil moves through
Speaker 3: their natural gas from Cutter moves through there. China has
Speaker 3: built a railway from China to Tehran to ship oil
Speaker 3: from Iran to China.
Speaker 5: It's not fully operational.
Speaker 3: I think it's first kind of maiden voyage was like
Speaker 3: a couple of weeks ago. But once that gets going,
Speaker 3: they'll be able to move enormous amounts of oil into China,
Speaker 3: which is where most of the Orian oil goes. Because
Speaker 3: of our stupid sanctions, they get it actually much cheaper
Speaker 3: than the otherwise would incredible American policy, like our policy
Speaker 3: is going to be that one of the world's biggest
Speaker 3: oil producers must sell its oil at a discount to
Speaker 3: our adversary China. That's our policy, right because reasons reasons.
Speaker 4: Well, just before we leave this block and get into
Speaker 4: the politics of it, the death toll right now, according
Speaker 4: to one human rights group, they're saying it's at least
Speaker 4: five hundred and eighty five Iranians wounded. That's the death
Speaker 4: toll or wounded is north of thirteen hundred. That's according
Speaker 4: to the group human Rights Activists. There are there's other
Speaker 4: smiths that put that a bit lower. The Associated Press
Speaker 4: reports that Aron has a history of downplaying death tolls,
Speaker 4: and so the higher number might be the safer assumption
Speaker 4: in this case. But twenty four dead in Israel as well,
Speaker 4: and it looks ryan like those numbers aren't going to
Speaker 4: slow down.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and Trump said everybody in Tehran needs to evacuate.
Speaker 3: Then he backed off of that. Israelis have set everybody
Speaker 3: in I think District eighteen in Tehran I needs to evacuate,
Speaker 3: which is in the center of the city. It's a
Speaker 3: city of ten million people. We've spoken to people who
Speaker 3: are there and are in contact with them. They said
Speaker 3: there's no gas. Like you know, when you have a crisis,
Speaker 3: you can't replenish the gas supplies. The gas stations, so
Speaker 3: there's no gas like, so if you don't have a
Speaker 3: tank of gas, like, you're not getting out of town. Also,
Speaker 3: traffic is utterly gridlocked, and it's a city of ten
Speaker 3: million people, so you cannot just flat evacuate it. Also,
Speaker 3: banks are shut shut down because of Israeli hacks. This
Speaker 3: hacker group called Predatory Sparrow, which is known to be
Speaker 3: affiliated with with Israel, hacked to IERGC linked banks, which
Speaker 3: are also very popular banks among regular people, so people
Speaker 3: can't get their money. I'm also told that this same
Speaker 3: hacker group took down the kind of this IERGC linked
Speaker 3: crypto company I forget what it's called, and made off
Speaker 3: with like forty seven million dollars and so Iranians, you know,
Speaker 3: in order to because of sanctions. Crypto is a very
Speaker 3: popular means of moving money around just between just from
Speaker 3: people overseas into Iran. Like you live in Los Angeles,
Speaker 3: just send money to your family back into Iran. Crypto
Speaker 3: is an easy way to do it. And so that
Speaker 3: has been routed. So if yeah, the destruction aside from
Speaker 3: the kind of physical and the destruction, and so then
Speaker 3: you tell somebody you need to evacuate under those circumstances
Speaker 3: like it's.
Speaker 5: Not going to happen. People are just going to honker
Speaker 5: down and hope that they don't get killed.
Speaker 4: And finally, let's put this last element on screen. A eight.
Speaker 4: This is the debate over war powers that is escalating
Speaker 4: in Congress now. Obviously, with Republican control of the House.
Speaker 4: In the Senate, it's unlikely this is brought to the
Speaker 4: floor or becomes a serious possibility of getting passed. But
Speaker 4: as The New York Times reports here there's in the
Speaker 4: House a Democratic Republican quoteamed up on Tuesday to introduce
Speaker 4: a resolution that would require congressional approval before US troops
Speaker 4: could engage in offensive attacks against Iran. The measure, by
Speaker 4: Rocanna and Thomas Massey underscore of view held by many
Speaker 4: in Congress that mister Trump should not be able to
Speaker 4: decide on his own whether the US weighs deeper into
Speaker 4: the conflict. Now. Senator Tim Kaine on Monday introduced a
Speaker 4: similar resolution. The Time says, referring to the Upper Chamber,
Speaker 4: there and Brian, this is I can't believe where even
Speaker 4: it is so quaint and so obvious that this is
Speaker 4: should not be covered by the aomths but here we are,
Speaker 4: and it's it's hardly making a run.
Speaker 3: Do they even claim that it's covered by the AMF
Speaker 3: the An they haven't so fast. In two thousand two
Speaker 3: is aimed at al Qaeda and its allies, al Qaeda
Speaker 3: and Iran, you know, basically a war and that work, yeah, right, exactly.
Speaker 3: So to the extent that al Qaeda exists as it
Speaker 3: used to, like Iran is, there is Lauran as their adversary,
Speaker 3: So trying to use it in that context would be absurd.
Speaker 3: I think they're just they are not even caring. No,
Speaker 3: they're just they're just going to do it. And so
Speaker 3: Tim Kaine has put forward in the Senate and Massy
Speaker 3: in the House of War Powers resolution, and Bernie Sanders
Speaker 3: has put forward in the Senate bill that would basically
Speaker 3: say you can't that would block the use of funds
Speaker 3: for an attack on Iran. The We asked him Kine,
Speaker 3: why he went this route rather than blocking funds, and
Speaker 3: kin Kane told.
Speaker 5: Us that drops out. It will have a story later today.
Speaker 3: Teaming up with the prospect actually that he wanted something privileged.
Speaker 3: Privileged means the leadership in the House and Senate cannot
Speaker 3: block it. That's why Massey would have done the resolution
Speaker 3: that way too. So it comes so it has to
Speaker 3: at least come to the floor for a vote. It's
Speaker 3: what the bite that it has is less than if
Speaker 3: you pull funds because saying, hey, we say you can't
Speaker 3: do this, it's unconstitutional. Presidents have been like whatever, like hike,
Speaker 3: we're doing it anyway. But you know they're they're going
Speaker 3: to at least put people on record, or that's that's
Speaker 3: the hope at least could get up to I think
Speaker 3: they're at what twenty seven or thirty co sponsors at
Speaker 3: this point. That'd be incredible, right, but it's yeah, but
Speaker 3: it's still the raises the question of where why isn't
Speaker 3: the Democratic Party seizing this opportunity like a you think
Speaker 3: Trump is a tyrant. He manhandled a senator last week,
Speaker 3: indicted a Democratic member of Congress last week for some
Speaker 3: ice stuff, or two weeks ago yesterday he arrested a
Speaker 3: and he is an ice Democratic mayoral candidate in New York.
Speaker 3: You think this guy's a tyrant. You don't think he
Speaker 3: has legal authority to launch his war, And you're just
Speaker 3: gonna kind of sit back and let Tim Kane and
Speaker 3: Bernie Sanders then Massy do something. Rocanna called out, I
Speaker 3: think he's gonna be on the program Friday. Rokanna called
Speaker 3: out Schumer for Schumer's Schumer's response was, you know, if
Speaker 3: we decide we're going to do it, we will definitely.
Speaker 5: Assert our authority. Like what I mean.
Speaker 3: If if you decide you're kind of thing is that
Speaker 3: to say like we do it or don't do it?
Speaker 5: Yeah, so in otherwise you're not, which which this is.
Speaker 4: Why Congress should vote on these decisions. Is exactly why
Speaker 4: Congress should be forced to vote on these decisions.
Speaker 5: Yeah, of course people should in a republic should have
Speaker 5: a say on this stuff.
Speaker 4: Completely insane, but here we are.
Speaker 3: So so Yeah, you can call your mammer Congress tell
Speaker 3: them to co sponsor this resolution, this war Powers resolution.
Speaker 3: So at least there's some counter counter pressure.
Speaker 4: Ryan, speaking of counter pressure and the degree to which
Speaker 4: it may or may not exist in the West Wing
Speaker 4: and in the Republican Party. Let's transition to this next
Speaker 4: block where we're going to start here with Lindsay Graham
Speaker 4: on Fox News yesterday making a statement that then reverberated
Speaker 4: across X and particularly with people who are typically allies
Speaker 4: of Donald Trump who are influential voices on the right.
Speaker 4: So let's first rule Lindsey Graham on Fox News and
Speaker 4: then get into the reaction that it's set off. Can
Speaker 4: you guarantee that can President Trump in anything, can you
Speaker 4: make the commitment that this would not lead to a
Speaker 4: longer war.
Speaker 9: I can guarantee you that if the ito all gets
Speaker 9: a nuclear weapon, he will use it.
Speaker 10: I believe that with all my heart and soul.
Speaker 9: So the men and women who serve they're the ones going,
Speaker 9: not people answering a poll, And if you ask them,
Speaker 9: would you be willing to risk your life to stop
Speaker 9: the I tool them from having a nuclear weapon, all
Speaker 9: of them would say yes, because it makes their country,
Speaker 9: our country is safer. So we live in a world
Speaker 9: where you've got to confront problems you want to avoid
Speaker 9: World War three, learn the lessons from World War two.
Speaker 9: People in World War Two appeased Hitler to the point
Speaker 9: that it got so much out of hand. We had
Speaker 9: a world war and sixty million people got killed. So
Speaker 9: we live in a world where you pay now or
Speaker 9: you pay later.
Speaker 5: I hope it's eliminated. I would like to.
Speaker 9: See this regime fall, but I'm going to leave it
Speaker 9: up to the President as to what to.
Speaker 4: Do and when to do it.
Speaker 9: But I do know this, if we don't take out
Speaker 9: their nuclear program now, we'll all regret it. We're very close,
Speaker 9: be all in, mister President and helping Israel finish the job.
Speaker 9: And let's see where we're at after we neutralize our
Speaker 9: nuclear program.
Speaker 4: So it goes without saying that Charlie Kirk is obviously
Speaker 4: very close to Donald Trump, very close to the White House,
Speaker 4: and particularly close to Donald Trump Junior. This b too,
Speaker 4: is how Charlie Kirk responded to Lindsay Graham's statement that
Speaker 4: he would like to see the regime fall. He says,
Speaker 4: this is insane. Regime change will results in a bloody
Speaker 4: civil war, killing hundreds of thousands, and creating another massive
Speaker 4: Muslim refugee crisis. Toapling a leader is never as easy
Speaker 4: as you think. It almost always results in further involvement
Speaker 4: in civil war and chaos. Resist this. Mount Wall of
Speaker 4: the Daily Wire responded, Lindsay Graham is calling for a
Speaker 4: full scale invasion of Iran for the sake of quote
Speaker 4: fighting for our freedom. This is insane, reckless madness from
Speaker 4: a war mongering asshole who's been in office for thirty
Speaker 4: years and never done a single thing to make life
Speaker 4: better for Americans. Every single every true America First Conservatives
Speaker 4: should reject this maniac and everyone like him. Referring to
Speaker 4: Lindsay Graham or Giam change war in the Middle East
Speaker 4: has never made Americans freer. Ryan, Obviously, the goal right
Speaker 4: now of Lindsay Graham and his allies is to convince
Speaker 4: Maga world that this time is different. You mentioned this earlier.
Speaker 4: This time jd vance to the point that he was
Speaker 4: responding to Cassandra McDonald about this time, there is different
Speaker 4: information since March, and trust us when we say it
Speaker 4: this time, you're just you know, we're the good guys here.
Speaker 4: We're not doing with this.
Speaker 5: You'll be greeted as liberators this time.
Speaker 4: This time we are not Colon Powell in front of
Speaker 4: the UN. Things really did change since March, for example,
Speaker 4: And that's where they find themselves right now, which is
Speaker 4: quite interesting because they've dined out for the last decade
Speaker 4: on criticizing Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld and all of
Speaker 4: those genuine neo conservatives. They've dined out for about a
Speaker 4: decade on slamming them and doing it to borrow a
Speaker 4: word you used earlier in the show lustily right, with
Speaker 4: great glee. And here they find themselves apparently listen, maybe
Speaker 4: this time is different, seems unlikely. Maybe in here they
Speaker 4: find themselves in the same exact situation.
Speaker 3: And to give credit to the kind of the mega movement,
Speaker 3: it is willing to have debates over policy to give
Speaker 3: discredit to the MAGA movement. Because everyone is so loyal
Speaker 3: to Trump, and because Trump takes loyalty so seriously and
Speaker 3: holds such long grudges, those debates can never.
Speaker 5: Include criticism of Trump.
Speaker 3: So in this case, Lindsey Graham presents a nice target
Speaker 3: for people who want to criticize Trump's policy here but
Speaker 3: don't want to criticize Trump. So when Lindsey Graham goes
Speaker 3: so far out on a limb and says such extreme stuff,
Speaker 3: it's like, Okay, now we feel free, because no, Lindsey Graham.
Speaker 5: Has had his ups and downs with Trump.
Speaker 3: He's tight with him, but he's also like said that
Speaker 3: he's done with him. He'll remember, Trump gave his phone
Speaker 3: number out at a rally.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: That so Lindsey Graham is fair game.
Speaker 3: Within magot, you can hit you can hit him, and
Speaker 3: so they're kind of taking that opportunity.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: Marjorie Taylor Green and Matt Gates meanwhile making an awful
Speaker 3: lot of sense.
Speaker 5: Let's roll, let's roll them on. Ah A N Matt, I.
Speaker 8: See it just as you do, and you like that
Speaker 8: out so well, that's the America First message, But it's
Speaker 8: also the truth that the American people have woken up to.
Speaker 11: We've watched for decades propaganda news. I'll call out Fox
Speaker 11: News and the New York Post. They're known to be
Speaker 11: the neo con network news. We have propaganda news on
Speaker 11: our side, just like the left does, and the American
Speaker 11: people have been brainwashed into believing that America has to
Speaker 11: engage in these foreign wars in order for us to survive.
Speaker 11: And it's absolutely not true.
Speaker 8: Prime mister net and Yahoo said I saw on video
Speaker 8: he said today that America First is America dead.
Speaker 11: And that sounds like a threat to me. And I
Speaker 11: completely completely disagree with him on that.
Speaker 3: Can oh and get a better mic from Marjorie Taylor Green.
Speaker 3: You're on cable, like you lobbied Congress and like force
Speaker 3: cable companies to pay you so you could be on cable.
Speaker 3: Use some of that money center of mic. Come on,
Speaker 3: what are you doing? What are you guys doing here?
Speaker 4: You should sendator just as a courtesy.
Speaker 3: Well, I'll send her mike if she'll use it. Let's
Speaker 3: let's jump to B six before we get to Bill Mitchell.
Speaker 3: B six is Donald Trump Junior, because and I need
Speaker 3: you to unpack this for us, so Usobiec says, you
Speaker 3: know it's close to he's close to Bandon and close
Speaker 3: to Trump. You know, when people warned that regime change
Speaker 3: war would break up the MAGA coalition, consider that that
Speaker 3: is exactly what the neo cons want, the anti never Trumpers,
Speaker 3: And then Trump Junior says, this is one hundred percent right.
Speaker 3: I'd add neo cons and Democrats. And that's why I
Speaker 3: think my criticism, by the way, should be taken even
Speaker 3: more seriously, because I recognize that if you go to war,
Speaker 3: this probably does blow up the MAGA coalition, which, hey, fine,
Speaker 3: I'd rather that the mega coalitions stay together and we
Speaker 3: don't get war. But it's true that for a lot
Speaker 3: of the like rich Lowry types and others who want war,
Speaker 3: and actually this is a good opportunity. Put up Bill
Speaker 3: Mitchell before you responded to it, so put up B five. Yeah,
Speaker 3: B five is is Bill Mitchell who became this kind
Speaker 3: of democrat basically right, But he says, has anyone considered
Speaker 3: the possiblity of that America has miraculously survived so many
Speaker 3: close calls over the centuries, is that our purpose is
Speaker 3: to defend Israel. If we quit Israel, I believe God
Speaker 3: may quit us. And I'm not prepared to take that chance.
Speaker 3: Am I has. Didn't Bill Mitchell become kind of anti Trump?
Speaker 4: I think he did, but he's sort of like he's
Speaker 4: known as like hardcore Maga to the point of being
Speaker 4: almost like the caricature of a Maga boomer on x never.
Speaker 4: But I think he may have then like moved away
Speaker 4: from it a bit. But that is a And you know,
Speaker 4: there were some people on the right mocking that post
Speaker 4: or expressing like just real opposition to what's in that post.
Speaker 4: That's reflective of what we've talked about before. Dispensation was
Speaker 4: fairly fairly common evangelical approach to Israel Ryan And it's basically, yeah,
Speaker 4: what he's saying is that, and he's taking it even
Speaker 4: and he's making even more political than the basic theory is.
Speaker 4: But dispensationalism is that Israel plays a role obviously, that
Speaker 4: political Israel, not the sort of historic nation of Israel,
Speaker 4: but that political Israel, as the nation state that exists
Speaker 4: right now in twenty twenty five, plays a role in
Speaker 4: the end times, and then politically that has nudged a
Speaker 4: lot of evangelical Christians. I think Mike Kakabye is sort
Speaker 4: of played very carefully with us in the past. But
Speaker 4: I think probably including Mike kakabee that yeah, that uh,
Speaker 4: and everyone remembers his text message to Trump from yesterday,
Speaker 4: which was sort of I think the implication of it
Speaker 4: is that he's thinking of this like Bill Mitchell told
Speaker 4: Donald Trump that God saved him for a reason and
Speaker 4: then said he wasn't leaving Israel. Huckaby said he was
Speaker 4: a leaving at.
Speaker 5: Lease bring upon the apocalypse.
Speaker 4: It felt like that you could you could read into
Speaker 4: it that way. Yeah, So this is what's being pushed
Speaker 4: back on by everyone else.
Speaker 3: So Trump, So Trump Junior, not that he has a
Speaker 3: whole lot of influence on Trump's senior, but what should
Speaker 3: we read into Trump Junior cautioning against the very regime
Speaker 3: change war that his father now seems to be getting
Speaker 3: excited about.
Speaker 4: So Tucker Carlston, Charlie Kirk, Trump Junior, these people are
Speaker 4: very close to each other, and I.
Speaker 3: Think Advance is kind of Advance is very in that.
Speaker 4: Yes, absolutely, and reporting is that JD. Vance has politely
Speaker 4: opposed We were talking about Tulsa earlier, but that Jade
Speaker 4: Vance has internally politely opposed us. Again, we don't know
Speaker 4: how much of that is true. Could just be strategic
Speaker 4: leaks from the Vance camp to sort of cover himself,
Speaker 4: but that's what's been suggested. So my best guest, Ran
Speaker 4: is that what this is is genuine opposition. We keep
Speaker 4: hearing the Charlie Kirks say trust Trump. We keep hearing JD.
Speaker 4: Vance saying he trusts the commander in chief. We've heard
Speaker 4: a couple of others say that politicians, elected officials, Republican
Speaker 4: mag elected officials say that in the last forty eight
Speaker 4: hours that they just trust Donald Trump's instincts on all
Speaker 4: of this. So I think my best guess is that
Speaker 4: they are inclined to be very skeptical, suspicious and opposed
Speaker 4: to what's happening, and have expressed that privately, but are
Speaker 4: publicly trying to play both sides. And look like they're
Speaker 4: skeptical and suspicious of it. So they're taking every opportunity
Speaker 4: to lash out at Lindsay Graham. He can kind of
Speaker 4: be the whipping boy here so that it makes it
Speaker 4: look like they're not fully neo conservative, even as Donald
Speaker 4: Trump considers doing exactly what Lindsay Graham is calling for.
Speaker 4: All right, well, that's as my buzz, guys.
Speaker 3: I mean, hey, let's move from there to Tucker, because
Speaker 3: I think that's a good a good segue into this
Speaker 3: much now much anticipated interview. Ted Cruz sat down with
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson for his His His Cabin podcast, and Tucker
Speaker 3: has so far released two clips. Ted Cruz already stalty
Speaker 3: about the clips that have been released. The entire podcast
Speaker 3: episode is not out yet, but it appears like it's
Speaker 3: going to be Tucker Carlton and Ted Cruz arguing about
Speaker 3: war with Iran for a very long time.
Speaker 5: Let's roll the first bit. How many people living around?
Speaker 10: By the way, I don't know the population at all. No,
Speaker 10: I don't know the population. You don't know the population
Speaker 10: of the country. You seek to topple.
Speaker 4: How many people living around? Nine eight two million?
Speaker 10: Okay, how could you not know that I don't sit
Speaker 10: around memorizing popular tables. Well, it's kind of relevant because
Speaker 10: you're calling for the overthrow of the government. Why is
Speaker 10: it relevant whether it's will because ninety million or eighty
Speaker 10: million or one hundred million. What because if you don't
Speaker 10: know anything about the country. I didn't say I don't
Speaker 10: know anything about Okay, what's the ethnic mix of iron
Speaker 10: They are Persians and presuminantly Shia. Okay, you don't know
Speaker 10: anything about Iran. So okay, I'm not the Tucker Carlson
Speaker 10: bird on Iran. You're a center who's calling there the
Speaker 10: one government, the one who about the country. No, you
Speaker 10: don't know anything about the country. You're the one who
Speaker 10: claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.
Speaker 5: I'm not saying that.
Speaker 10: Who can't figure out to say General Solamoni and you said,
Speaker 10: believe they're trying to murder Trump? Yes, because you're not
Speaker 10: calling for military strikes against them in retaliation, and if
Speaker 10: they really believe that carrying out military strikes today? Who
Speaker 10: said Israel was right with our help? I've said we
Speaker 10: Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them. Well, this
Speaker 10: you're breaking news here because the US government last Night denied.
Speaker 10: The National Security Council Spokesmanlex Fiffer denied on behalf of
Speaker 10: Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any
Speaker 10: offensive capacity. We're not bombing, then Israel's bombing.
Speaker 5: Then you just said we were.
Speaker 10: We are supporting as stakes. You're a senator if you're
Speaker 10: saying the United States government is now we're with the
Speaker 10: run right now.
Speaker 5: People are listening now.
Speaker 3: One reason some of this might be important, Saga flagged
Speaker 3: this this morning. Let's put up B nine. So this
Speaker 3: is the Iraq war. Coverage is extremely important to go
Speaker 3: back over because so much of what we're seeing today
Speaker 3: directly mirrors what we saw in two thousand and one
Speaker 3: and two in the lead up to the two thousand
Speaker 3: and three invasion.
Speaker 5: And I'll just read from this quote.
Speaker 3: During those looks, the New York Times Fund during their
Speaker 3: conversation with the President, Peter Gallbraith claims, it became apparent
Speaker 3: to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between
Speaker 3: Sunny's and she heites. Gall Breth reports that the three
Speaker 3: of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there
Speaker 3: are two different sects in Islam, to which the President
Speaker 3: allegedly responded, I thought the Iraqis were Muslims, and so Emily.
Speaker 3: I've seen a lot of people defending Ted Kruz here saying, look,
Speaker 3: you don't have to read the CIA World Factbook about
Speaker 3: every country. You know whether or not you want to
Speaker 3: invade them. And you know Cruise's point there is, like,
Speaker 3: doesn't matter if there's eighty million or one hundred and
Speaker 3: ten million. You could say, okay that maybe maybe that
Speaker 3: particular data point doesn't matter. Seventy to one hundred and
Speaker 3: ten million. It's forty fifty million people we're talking about here.
Speaker 3: But okay, fine, let's let's grant that the ethnicity, the
Speaker 3: ethnic breakdown is so important because what happened in Iraq,
Speaker 3: like what like let's just think about it, like what
Speaker 3: what actually happened after we invaded exactly what Peter Galbraith,
Speaker 3: by the way, warned would say, warned would happen. He said, Hey,
Speaker 3: right now, you have a Sunni minority who is in
Speaker 3: control of the country in the form of Sodom Hussein.
Speaker 3: There's a Sham majority, and then there's and there's a
Speaker 3: Kurdish population up in the north that do not like
Speaker 3: Saddam Hussein Uh and in fact, there was a no
Speaker 3: flies on at the at the time, kind of basically
Speaker 3: creating a de facto independent Kurdish region in the north.
Speaker 3: Uh that if you get rid of Saddam Hussein, Iran
Speaker 3: is going to arm and in power Shia militias who
Speaker 3: are going to spark a sectarian civil war in Iraq.
Speaker 5: That's what was predicted. And if you didn't know.
Speaker 3: These basic facts about the country, you would not be
Speaker 3: able to do that analysis. So to say that, oh,
Speaker 3: Iran is Persian and you know, predominantly Shia, is to
Speaker 3: then say, well, we'll knock off one Shia Ayahtola and
Speaker 3: we'll get it, and we'll get a we'll put a
Speaker 3: Shia you know res you know, we'll throw in the
Speaker 3: Shah's kid and everything will be fine. You're your colleague,
Speaker 3: saver it unheard. Amani wrote a piece recently that actually,
Speaker 3: and maybe that's where Tucker got it. Maybe he read
Speaker 3: that and was like, oh, this this sounds very familiar.
Speaker 3: He wrote a piece saying, look, yes, there are a
Speaker 3: lot of Shia Persians in Iran, but it's like barely
Speaker 3: a majority. In fact, it doesn't even include the Ayatola.
Speaker 5: Who's Zari r uh.
Speaker 3: You have a you have a Kurdish region in the northwest,
Speaker 3: which we love to foment.
Speaker 5: You know, we anywhere we.
Speaker 3: Can find like a population anywhere that is interested and
Speaker 3: that is that has some skepticism of the metropol. We
Speaker 3: love to go in and send them some weapons and
Speaker 3: some encouragement, some weapons and.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, this express your national interests.
Speaker 4: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: You know, we do that everywhere, and we're not the
Speaker 3: only ones that know how to do that. So if
Speaker 3: you create this power vacuum and you have half the
Speaker 3: country fighting the other half of the country fighting other
Speaker 3: sacks of the country, that seems like something we should
Speaker 3: consider before we go into wars. So that's why I
Speaker 3: think it's not fair to say that Tucker was asking
Speaker 3: him trivia questions.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no, I mean listen, like, I think Tucker's using
Speaker 4: those questions as a way, a clever way to make
Speaker 4: a point. And you know, so.
Speaker 3: Ted Cruz is like the smartest, one of the top
Speaker 3: five smartest senators IQ.
Speaker 4: Wise, he's up there for sure. Yeah, he's like, hey
Speaker 4: and Mike Lee and Bernie smart.
Speaker 5: I can't tell.
Speaker 4: I think he's pretty smart. Yes, So Cruz responded, quote,
Speaker 4: did a long interview with Tucker, he released a snippet
Speaker 4: playing a quote gotcha on the population of Iran. I
Speaker 4: declined to play that silly game. Watch the full two
Speaker 4: hour interview where Tucker attacked Trump, attacks the APAC lobby,
Speaker 4: and falseley claims Iran is not trying to assassinate Trump.
Speaker 4: So Cruise, interestingly enough, is advertising this video as heavily
Speaker 4: as Tucker, if not even more heavily than Tucker. He
Speaker 4: also reposted an attempt to criticize Tucker that said, Tucker,
Speaker 4: what's the Iatola's favorite color? Ted Cruise? I don't know, Tucker,
Speaker 4: How then can you support an attack on Iran? Cruise
Speaker 4: because they're building nuclear weapons, want to destroy American Israel? Tucker,
Speaker 4: that's ridiculous. He told me his favorite colors blue, So yeah,
Speaker 4: I mean, like again, Ted Cruise makes a point that I.
Speaker 5: Think actually read obviously his favorite color is red.
Speaker 4: Come so easy, It's so easy. He loves our lighting.
Speaker 4: Sources say, but here at break your boys, But.
Speaker 5: It's a homage to the Ayatola.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, people are gonna believe it what you say.
Speaker 4: He's trying to Tucker's trying to make a very legitimate point.
Speaker 4: Ted Cruz, I think has a fairly legitimate response where
Speaker 4: he says, what does it matter whether the population is
Speaker 4: eighty million or one hundred million or ninety two million. Fine,
Speaker 4: that is a perfectly legitimate response. But what Tucker is
Speaker 4: trying to get at with that line of questioning as
Speaker 4: he built to what is the ethnic break down of
Speaker 4: Iran is exactly what Soccer pointed out is that we
Speaker 4: sit here and play risk from air conditioned conference rooms
Speaker 4: in Washington, DC basically, and then a bunch of poor
Speaker 4: American kids end up getting dragged into it, and you
Speaker 4: kill a bunch of civilians. I mean, already seventy women
Speaker 4: and children are reportedly have reportedly been killed over the
Speaker 4: last week in Iran. So that's already happening. And so
Speaker 4: it's easy, I think, to get caught up, especially when
Speaker 4: we look back and comparing what happened in the early
Speaker 4: days of the build up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is
Speaker 4: just so so easy to get caught up in war
Speaker 4: as a culture war, war as like actual war. And
Speaker 4: I think Tucker's making a perfectly legitimate point. I'm excited
Speaker 4: to watch the full two hours here. I think we
Speaker 4: know what Tedgrus is going to say, but you made
Speaker 4: a point early in the show. I find it interesting
Speaker 4: that at least is willing to debate these sort of things.
Speaker 4: I guess that's true. I mean, this is this is
Speaker 4: two pretty high profile mainstream MAGA voices sitting down and
Speaker 4: yelling at each other and encouraging people to watch their argument.
Speaker 4: I guess that is that's a glass half full. Take.
Speaker 3: And notice what Ted Cruz used as two of his
Speaker 3: retorts to Tucker Carlson. In his tweet, Tucker Carlson criticized Trump.
Speaker 3: Mm yep, yep, Like that's his argument. His argument is
Speaker 3: not I was right about x y Z. It's Tucker
Speaker 3: Carlson said something mean about Trump, so therefore Tucker Carlson
Speaker 3: should be rejected. And then he also says, and Tucker
Speaker 3: Carlson doesn't believe that the Iranians are trying to kill Trump,
Speaker 3: which there's this whole thing that that there was this
Speaker 3: intel report, which apparently Trump does not believe either. That
Speaker 3: he thinks that this was the deep State lying to
Speaker 3: him to try to manipulate him. That this this claim
Speaker 3: that Iran was actually trying to kill Trump. There's much
Speaker 3: more evidence that Ukraine, did you follow that one assassin
Speaker 3: and much more evident.
Speaker 5: In Ukraine was actually or somebody in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: We should we should we should cover that, uh that
Speaker 3: that assassination attempt more in depth.
Speaker 5: There's an there's a go you can go google it.
Speaker 3: There's this indictment where the guy, one of the guys
Speaker 3: who tried to kill Trumps like in communication with Ukrainians like, what, so,
Speaker 3: let's go bomb them, I guess. But Tucker's response was,
Speaker 3: you don't really think that Iran is trying to kill
Speaker 3: Trump because if you did, you would support.
Speaker 5: Bombing them right now for that.
Speaker 3: And you don't you support bombing them over there the
Speaker 3: claims of nuclear and Richmond or whatever. So he's saying,
Speaker 3: he's saying, nobody believes it and it's all just a lie.
Speaker 4: And so the question going forward then is how Donald
Speaker 4: Trump reacts. I mean, obviously he's been very critical of
Speaker 4: Tucker Carlson just in the last several days. But does
Speaker 4: does Trump continue siding with Tucker or continue siding with
Speaker 4: Ted Cruz over Tucker, or does Trump, who is always
Speaker 4: putting his ear to the ground on his base as
Speaker 4: far as his base is concerned. Remember, even he was
Speaker 4: concerned that net Yahu had a quote unquote public relations
Speaker 4: problem in Gaza about a year ago. So does does
Speaker 4: Trump falter on any of this or does he see
Speaker 4: this ultimately in his best interest or does he see
Speaker 4: this as something that's necessary for him to do in
Speaker 4: order to maintain the support of his own coalition, including
Speaker 4: like he knows, for example, Tucker. He thinks that Tucker
Speaker 4: will always be with him. I don't think that's the case.
Speaker 4: But he thinks that he can keep Tucker and Ton
Speaker 4: Junior and Charlie Kirk on board, which I think that
Speaker 4: is probably true, and Tulci Gabbard, I don't know about that.
Speaker 4: But can he do that and still keep Mary Madelson happy?
Speaker 4: Can he do that and still keep Ted Cruz happy?
Speaker 4: And the people who believe the same things that Ted
Speaker 4: Cruz does? Can you keep those people happy? And does
Speaker 4: he think it's more important to keep those people happy?
Speaker 4: Does he agree with him? We just honestly have no
Speaker 4: idea at this point, and that's the huge open question.
Speaker 3: So the other clip Tucker released is them going back
Speaker 3: and forth on Massade spying on the United States.
Speaker 5: Let's roll this one.
Speaker 10: Does Masade share all of this intelligence with us?
Speaker 9: Oh?
Speaker 10: Probably not, but they share a lot. We don't share
Speaker 10: all of our intelligence with them, but we share a lot.
Speaker 10: It's a close a lot. Do they spy domestically in
Speaker 10: the United States? Oh, they probably do, and we do
Speaker 10: as well. And friends and allies spy on each other.
Speaker 10: And I assume why I assume all of our allies
Speaker 10: spy on us.
Speaker 5: That's okay with you.
Speaker 10: You know what. One of the things about being a
Speaker 10: conservative is that you're not naive and utopian. You don't
Speaker 10: think humans are all. Part of the reason socialism doesn't
Speaker 10: work is is the mantra for each according to his abilities,
Speaker 10: to each according to his needs doesn't work. As a conservative,
Speaker 10: I assume people act in their rational self interest.
Speaker 5: To pay people to spy on you.
Speaker 10: It's conservative to recognize that human beings act to their
Speaker 10: own self interest. And every one of our friends spies
Speaker 10: on us, And I'm not.
Speaker 4: Do you like it?
Speaker 10: That's my question. I'm not asking whether they have motive
Speaker 10: to do it. Of course they do. I understand that,
Speaker 10: and I and by the way, I'm not mad at that.
Speaker 10: And you're an American lawmaker, So I just want to
Speaker 10: want to I want to know your attitude. You said
Speaker 10: that you're guiding principle, in fact, the only principle, the
Speaker 10: only criterion. I said, guiding the overwhelming. I wouldn't say
Speaker 10: only is it in America's interest? Is it an America's
Speaker 10: interest for Israel to spy on us, including on the president?
Speaker 10: It is an America's interest to be closely allied with
Speaker 10: Israel because we get huge benefits for it. And you
Speaker 10: want to want to see the clearities.
Speaker 5: But I just want to stop on the spine for
Speaker 5: a second.
Speaker 10: That it takes place, as you know, and including on
Speaker 10: the President of the United States and several precedents, and
Speaker 10: I just want to know if that's okay, and why
Speaker 10: is it okay? Wouldn't an American lawmaker say to a
Speaker 10: client state, you're not allowed to spy on us.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, I know why you want to.
Speaker 10: I'm not mad at you, but you're not allowed to, sure,
Speaker 10: and I don't care for it. I don't want to
Speaker 10: be spot on by you. Is that it's kind of
Speaker 10: weird not to say that, but you don't seem able
Speaker 10: to say that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what Tucker's poking at There is this longtime argument
Speaker 3: from critics of Israel that Israel is not a very
Speaker 3: good ally, and he and Tucker saying like, look, I
Speaker 3: don't blame them. They're looking out for their own interests, right,
Speaker 3: and fine, that's what. But we are Americans. We can
Speaker 3: look out for our own interests. And if they're going
Speaker 3: to constantly spy on us, you know, Boris Johnson famously
Speaker 3: said he thought Netna, who himself, bugged his bathroom when
Speaker 3: he stayed at his place, the Menna was always coming
Speaker 3: in with these massive diplomatic bags. And people are like, ah,
Speaker 3: it's funny that he is, you know, having his lonlaundry
Speaker 3: wash here. What else do you think he's breaking in there?
Speaker 3: Not just his laundry?
Speaker 4: Wait, no, the laundry actually is.
Speaker 3: It's this thing that he brings dirty laundry becaus a
Speaker 3: free laundry service for like foreign leaders.
Speaker 4: To get the water Gate or something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and everybody laughs about it. It's like a couple morons.
Speaker 3: He's bringing in more than his laundry.
Speaker 4: It's never just lunch, never just laundry. Yeah. I mean
Speaker 4: the idea is that our ally or that our interests
Speaker 4: are always aligned. Right. That's the line that they.
Speaker 3: Were caught somewhat recently putting a whole bunch of like
Speaker 3: scanners around the White House.
Speaker 4: Right, And what Carlson is saying there is that the
Speaker 4: interests of the United States in Israel are not always
Speaker 4: aligned in some pretty significant ways. But also I think
Speaker 4: he referred to them in that clip as a client
Speaker 4: in a client state, and so I think the point
Speaker 4: that he's making is that Israel's interests should as a
Speaker 4: client state, as he said. But I mean either way,
Speaker 4: they were twenty percent of their military budget annually and
Speaker 4: they've said that they wouldn't be able to prosecute the
Speaker 4: Worry Gaza if it weren't for us. So if you
Speaker 4: are that dependent on another nation, it's you may think
Speaker 4: it's in your interests to spy on that nation, but you,
Speaker 4: Ted Cruz, as a representative of that nation, should tell
Speaker 4: them not to because you have the power. And this
Speaker 4: is what we're talking about earlier in the show when
Speaker 4: you mentioned that actually, if Trump was interested in projecting strength,
Speaker 4: strength would be coming out and telling Yahoo to cut
Speaker 4: it out and seeing you know how that would go.
Speaker 4: And you know, it's a fair point from Tucker obviously
Speaker 4: that if you again want the United States to be
Speaker 4: so supportive of Israel to the point where Israel is
Speaker 4: dependent on the United States for its actual existence, which
Speaker 4: is obviously the case from their perspective and from Ted
Speaker 4: Cruz's perspective, then shouldn't you tell them, maybe not to
Speaker 4: spy on the United States and not just give them
Speaker 4: that tacit a. Everybody does it, So go on ahead
Speaker 4: and tap our our phones and our White House and
Speaker 4: all that. It seems reasonable, SAME's reasonable, seems reasonable.
Speaker 5: Nothing is reasonable about this though.
Speaker 4: No