Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor and chief of The Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 2: We'd like to hear from you. Molly.
Speaker 1: I think we have an important topic set up for today.
Speaker 2: We don't have to go looking for anything to talk about.
Speaker 1: War is on in the Middle East against Iran, the
United States at Israel.
Speaker 2: What day did the bombing start? Saturday?
Speaker 3: I don't know, It's overnight for me. Between Friday and Saturday, we've.
Speaker 1: Been talking about Iran and nuke's my whole career. We've
been talking about the prospects of war there whole career.
Speaker 2: I would say Iran has.
Speaker 1: Been an enemy of the United States as long as
I can remember, you know, when as a kid in
the Iranian hostage situation. But I think it's worth mentioning
that they also were behind in many ways the bombing
and the barracks in Beirut which killed hundreds of American soldiers,
the Cobar Tower bombings, with which the Iranian Revolutionary which
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard participated in planning, probably and numerous
other kidnappings and hostage taking, and they have been Whatever
you think about war, there is no denying I think
that they have been an enemy of the United States
for forty seven years. Were you surprised we did this?
What was your reaction?
Speaker 3: It's kind of funny because, in addition to everything you say,
we had been watching a massive build up in the
region of all of our military assets. So there's no
way that you could say you were surprised by the
action that took place, and yet I was still somewhat
surprised I had. I mean, I'll just say I thought
I understood Trump's approach to foreign policy on not engaging
in a full fledged war to achieve objectives, and so
I erroneously thought that the build up was more a
threat to get around to make concessions that might be
supported by a much less fully engaged war operation than
the one that we're seeing.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense, Yeah, probably, Well for me, it's
a little different.
Speaker 2: The surprise.
Speaker 1: The surprise for me was that we've talked about this
forever and we never actually follow through. Rany and regime
will go and do you know, engage in negotiations forever,
make all kinds of promises, try to extract all kinds
of goodies from the United States, and in the end
just break them and then we repeat the process. I
think Trump broke broke that fail feckless policy that's gone
on forever. There's an Axios report. Take it for what
you will. That what happened was Benjamin Netanya who called Trump. Obviously,
they have been building up, as you say, for months now,
so it's not like there wasn't military in place and
a plan in place. People think there's no plan are
fooling themselves. But that Netagna who saw or the most out,
saw that all the Iranian leadership was going to be
at a meeting. I don't know why these guys keep
showing up to meetings. I think it's a big.
Speaker 2: Problem for them.
Speaker 1: But they were going to be at a meeting, and
it was an opportunity to be to behead the Iranian regime.
And Trump took him up on it. He gave his
State of the Union, barely mentioned Iran really downplayed it
not to spook them. And then because the Iranians had
not been open to a deal. I mean Trump, if
it's true Witkoff and all the people in Geneva laid
out a very uh clear, achievable deal for the Ranians
to sign. The surprises that we've gone through this so
often and that Trump actually now has created a credible
deterrence for people who are our enemies and undermine us
broad but also kill our citizens.
Speaker 3: So so okay, a couple of questions on it. You
say that Trump has created a credible deterrence for these people,
well for authors, now for for others, what does that mean?
Speaker 1: It means that you if you are going to create
red lines? Trump? Listen, Trump. Trump says a lot of
things that he says a lot of.
Speaker 3: Things early consistent for decades that he does not believe
Iran can have nukes. Right. The White House sent out
d Times that Trump has said it over the decades.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: That is, whatever else other inconsistencies he may have, that
is one consistency he has had.
Speaker 1: They cannot have nukes as a consistent position he's had.
I saw a twenty eleven video of him talking about it,
and I think there's videos going back even earlier that
is consistent. But Trump said, you have to stop killing civilians.
You have to stop in your ballistics program, you have
to stop enriching uranium. They do whatever they want because
they know, and they knew that there would really not
be any kind of real repercussion. And I think our
enemies around the world have learned, including in Venezuela, that
Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Is going to act.
Speaker 1: It's not just going to be just diplomacy forever. If
I were an enemy of the United States right now,
I mean, I see a lot of people say, oh,
does this mean that you know other people can just
attack weaker countries and whenever they want, the US has
given them an excuse.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: I think that other countries and the enemies of the
United States are nervous right now because Donald Trump has
acted on his words and his promises and followed through
on his threats into places I mean in many more
than that, actually, But and it is a decisive action,
and that if they do something, you know, to undermine
our interest around the world, that there's a price to pay.
Speaker 2: Do you not agree with that? Oh?
Speaker 3: No, I'm just curious to hear anything on what's going
on here. But I'm more curious about you said that
people were foolish if they think there has not been
a well executed plan here. So maybe you can tell
us a little more about how you see this playing
out over the next hours, days, weeks, months, Like, what
is the plan exactly?
Speaker 2: Well, I meant a military plan.
Speaker 1: Anyone who plans for how things are going to shake
out in the Middle East where makes predictions in that
way are fools because they rarely come true. I think
the best case scenario and the hope probably of the
Trump administration is that they weaken the regime enough. That's
some kind of and I probably there is some plan
to try to spark this kind of organic regime change,
either by finding someone well, let me put it this way,
in the way that we tamed Venezuela and found someone
who was willing to basically work with us to some extent.
I don't know if that's going to work out. I
think regime change solely through airpower is incredibly difficult. It's
not that it can never happen, but it is difficult.
There's a report that we're giving Kurt, that we're arming
Kurds in the North.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's true.
Speaker 1: It was reported by CNN and what's her name, Natasha.
Speaker 3: Bertram Hoaser, Natasha bertrand.
Speaker 1: So I would I would not, you know, I'd like
to see more on that, though I don't know why
the Kurds shouldn't have a state if the Palace to
everyone supports the Palestinian stated, Kurds have many more people.
Speaker 2: Obviously, it's very complicated.
Speaker 1: So so in worst case scenario, we have gelded the
Iranian regime, and there are very good reasons to do
that outside of the obvious.
Speaker 2: So we could get to that in a minute.
Speaker 1: Their ballistic program, missile program is in shaw, you know, shattered,
their leadership is shattered. Their best minds and people with
military their best military minds and those who have the
most experience have been killed. So they're probably you know,
and I still think there's work to do on the
nuclear end. I mean, you may have to send in
some kind of special forces to deal with that here
and there.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: What.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 1: The problem here is that that we, because of the
neo conservatives of two decades, we have this idea that
when you go into war, there's this plan you can
write out, that these technocrats can write out how everything's
going to go, and that there's an easy solution. I
don't think there's an easy solution, but that shouldn't handcuff
us from acting when we have to act. It's not
our responsibility to have to clean up every country we bomb.
These people have been our enemies, they have killed Americans,
they have allowed the Chinese to essentially they're basically becoming
a client change state of the Chicoms. I saw a story,
you know, four days before the bombing, Reuters reported that
Iran nears deal to buy supersonic anti ship missiles from China.
You can't let Iran have that. I mean's so much
oil and commerce goes through near them, through the straits
that Americats act on that in that way as well.
Ninety percent of their crude oil goes to China. The
same thing with venezuel It was really about China in
some sense for the United States, and I think that's
important as well. I don't know, I'm all over the
place because it's such a big topic, but I don't
know that there's a specific plan that's easily written out
from a B to C.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: I think that the hope is that they'll be regime change,
and worst case scenario or iron is immensely weakened.
Speaker 3: Okay, I have like three more questions as a result
of that or comments. The first one is that you
said that the ballistic missile program had been shattered, that
the nuclear program had been shattered. And I will just
say I no longer believe such claims when people make them.
I feel somewhat foolish for having believed Trump and his
administration about how effective the massive strikes against the nuclear
facilities were in June. I in fact, remember that the
media came out shortly thereafter and said that might have
not been so effective, and everybody lambasted them for saying that,
only to have Trump himself say a few months later, Yeah,
actually we had to go after them again because it
really didn't matter what we did in June. I mean,
that's not how he said it, but you know what
I mean. We were told that we had that, like
this massive expenditure and effort had been really effective, and
I don't think people thought by that that that meant
we would be in a regime change war within a
few months.
Speaker 1: Did you Can I just talk about the initial thing
that you said for a second. Yeah, obviously Donald Trump exaggerates.
He said obliterated I think was the word. Now, all
of a sudden, we're going to take him very literally.
Speaker 2: I think we shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: I think they were set back tremendously, But that is
not the reason that Israel and the United States move now. Obviously,
if we are to believe Steve Whitcoff, the Ranians admit
they have about a lot of enriched uranium already that
we needed them to hand over.
Speaker 2: That they had moved farther than we thought.
Speaker 1: When people say the bomb is imminent, they don't mean
that could. They could be imminent forever. They have to
finish it off. They could stay in one place in
that timeline forever. The thing, though, is the attack needed
to happen probably now or soon, because Iran is at
its weakest right now.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean they haven't been set back.
Speaker 1: That means that now is the least dangerous time for
the United States military to do this. At some point,
if the Chinese weaponry gets to Iran, if we let
them have tons of ballistic missiles, it's going to become
a far bigger war. It could become a much bigger quagmire.
Right now, we have air superiority Unfortunately we lost four
sould American servicemen. And but the reason to move now
is that they're at their weakest. So the idea that
they weren't set back, I think they were set back
and they are now at their weakest. So waiting for
them to re arm was going to be dangerous, especially
since they wouldn't agree to the deal that was laid
out for them, which asked them to stop their nuke program.
Why can't if there is no nuke program and it
is not dangerous and they are not on the cusp,
why can't they agree to a deal to hand over
their enrich uranium to shut down their programs that are
very deep in mountain side sides that cluster bombs can't
get to. I mean, you know, so I think that's
the reason.
Speaker 3: Okay, this is an interesting thing too, I'd said, I
don't believe when people say we've smashed their capabilities, it's
not just because of engaging in a new round here.
But there was a story that one of the facilities
that we had attacked during that twelve day campaign in
June is being left untouched right now, and it is
the one where the Iranians are storing they're enriched uranium, right,
it's the Isfahan facility.
Speaker 2: That's what they say. We don't mean, we don't know.
Speaker 3: You ask like, why aren't they turning it over? And
I think that's actually an interesting question. I don't know
the answer. But I'm wondering if correct me, if this
might just sound crazy. What if they're further along in
their nuke development than we realize? What if they do
have nukes for instance? Is that crazy?
Speaker 2: No? But there's it's it's not that simple.
Speaker 3: No one's in there because like I'm pretty sure there's
a short distance between having enriched uranium and basically having
a new but you have to.
Speaker 1: Figure out waye delivery systems and I mean it's not
that simple.
Speaker 3: But yeah, right, But we have very little other than
Israel apparently knowing everything about where everybody is in Iran.
I feel like we don't have great insight. We haven't
they haven't been letting people in to analyze their program.
What if they're already there? And then, if so, what
does that mean? I think it could explain some of
their reluctance to negotiate, But I don't know if that,
I really don't know if what I just said doesn't
make sense.
Speaker 1: Maybe I suspect that Israel would know. It seems like
they're really embedded in that country.
Speaker 3: Any way they do know.
Speaker 2: Maybe they do, but so maybe that's why we have it.
Speaker 3: We don't know, but maybe the US government in Israel knows,
and maybe that explains it would.
Speaker 1: Be it would not be something to share until it
was secured and all over. Yeah, or maybe you know
there are there are maybe there are humanitarian reasons not
to bomb there. Maybe you're you know, maybe you're going
to release radioactive material.
Speaker 2: I don't know any of that. I'm just saying there
could be reasons we don't know.
Speaker 1: There's a lot we don't know in the fog of war,
and you know, Israel's not going to share that.
Speaker 2: The CIA is not going to share that with us.
Speaker 1: And I don't have a lot of faith that the
CIA knows what's going on with weapons of mass destruction.
But there's a far better case here that the Iranians
are far closer and trying than there was for Iraq
when we invaded Iraq. Everyone says regime change war. I
just think that's aspirational. I just I don't really believe
like that. The Israelis think that through air power there's
going to I think they want a regime change because
they want a friendly nation there, which should be this.
Iran should not be an enemy of Israel or the
United States. But it is complicated. I think it's thirty
five percent of Iran are Arabs or other minorities. It's
like there are a lot of people in rural areas
who are pro you know, regime. It's in the big
cities where people aren't. So I'm saying it's complicated. I
don't know about the regime change. I hope it happens,
but it's not really our responsibility to go down there
and make it happen. I think we need to try
to help people if we can, but not at the
expense of American lives. And I don't believe Donald Trump's
going to I don't believe this needs to be a
long war, and I don't believe this is going to
be a forever war. And I don't believe that we're
going to have massive troop deployments. We don't even we
didn't we didn't even send enough troops to invade any place.
I don't know why people think that's going to happen.
We have fifty thousand people in the area.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so let's go back to you said. You said
you wanted to talk about reasons for the war, and
Trump has given a variety of different explanations or reasons
for the war. One of them is that he does
want to change the regime, which has already happened by
virtue of killing off. I mean it's happened at least
to some extent. I'm being flippant killing through the killing
of the Supreme leader. But he's talked also about how
they have some people in mind who might be good
for replacement but they got killed too, or who might
be candidates for replacement not good for replacement. And then
we had the strike. You made the joke about how
all everyone was gathered at once and that's how we
were able to take out forty of their leaders. But
then when they met to replace the leader, we took
out that meeting too. People have been making jokes like
have these people not heard of emails or zoom or
you know, is there a way for them to gather
without all being in the same room and getting killed
by their enemies.
Speaker 4: College underemployment is at crisis, levels. Almost half of recent
college grads are working in jobs that do not require
a college degree. We have not seen numbers like these
since when two thousand and eight. Check out the Watchdog
on Wall Street podcast on Apple, Spotify, wherever you get
your podcasts.
Speaker 3: So, among the reasons that Trump has given for why
he launched this war was regime change. And I do
not know how regime change can be affected from the air,
and so I'm or I always think of it this way.
There are ranges of possibilities. I think there's like a
five percent chance that you could affect regime change from
the air. Trump tends to be lucky. Maybe he'll be
lucky here. But if regime change is a goal, as
he has stated, I'm wondering how long we wait to
see if that five percent chance of being able to
do it without a ground invasion works, or does he
give up on that goal or what.
Speaker 1: I don't think we can say there's been pristine coherence
here in messaging. I think the messaging has been pretty.
Speaker 2: Bad.
Speaker 1: One reason for that probably is because there are an
array of reasons that we're going after Iran, and it's
difficult to explain. So the Trump administration is trying to
find the most salable reasons and objectives to sell the
American people. I don't think they've done a great job
on that at all. You can affect regime change in
different sorts of ways that in the world. You can
keep killing leaders until you get to someone who's going
to do business with you, or maybe someone is just
a Mosad agent. You can also do this and hope
for and I think this is one of the hopes
a coup, not of the Revolutionary Guard but the regular army.
If you really believe, and maybe people don't, that they
can have nukes, that we don't want them. We don't
want them, that Iran to be an outpost for Chinese
military that you know, there are our enemy. These are
secondary concerns in the long run, We're not you know,
we don't have to rebuild countries.
Speaker 2: We don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's their problem in the end. We can
do what we can to help them. But they were
an enemy of our allies of the United States. You
have the entire every Gulf nation now essentially together against Iran.
There are a longstanding threat to our Sunny Golf allies
or our friends.
Speaker 2: You know, this is the real world.
Speaker 1: We have to have allies, and obviously Israel is an
ally of ours, despite the anger of most people.
Speaker 2: So we're a lot of people.
Speaker 1: And if you believe all that, we get to act
militarily without having to worry that every single thing is
going to work out exactly how we want in the
long run within that country, I think. And we have
no responsibility to rebuild that country either if we don't want.
I think that that's an old you know, one of
these antiquated ideas that we should dispense with.
Speaker 3: How many countries have nuclear weapons right now? It's like nine.
Speaker 2: Something like that, Pakistan, India, Israel.
Speaker 3: In India, Israel, North Trance. Do we already say Russia,
US China? Okay? So whatever, it's a not a ton,
do you think? And then we saw it yesterday. I
got them yesterday. Poland said that they were going to
work toward getting nukes. I am reminded of something Charles
Crowdhammer said on Special Report one night, all right, I
mean I remember him saying it that night. I don't
know if he said it on air, that he thought
that all countries should have nukes, that that was the
only way to handle things going forward. Like, you couldn't
keep people from getting nukes, so just let everybody have
them and then it works for this mutually assured destruction?
Is that kind of thing he would say to to
be counterintuitive, But do you I think also about how
with Libya we forced them to give up their nukes
and it led to a greater ease for us to
affect regime change from the air, and it was a mess.
Right will does not make countries realize that the only
way that they can protect themselves is to have nukes
and to start a race toward that. I'm not even
saying that as a bad thing, given what Crowdhammer said,
But how would this make people less likely to work
very hard to develop nukes?
Speaker 1: I mean, if I thought my country was going to
be carpet bombed if I was making nukes, I think
it would make me less likely to try to get one.
But more than that, Crowdhammer is completely wrong. I mean,
Crowdhammer would have been right if you were talking about
rational actors in the world. Even dictatorships are rational actors
to some extent. The Iranian Shia twelvers the revolutionaries of
the Komani revolutionaries are not rational actors. If they were
rational actors, they wouldn't have put their country in this
position for decade after decade, they're waiting for the twelvethy mom.
I'm not saying they're all going to blow themselves up.
Speaker 2: I think their view is completely different.
Speaker 3: I do agree that their religious ideology is dangerous and
problematic and does not match in a world with our values.
I have grown to dislike when people say that someone's crazy.
We hear this all the time. It's like, you know,
whether it's North Korea, Russia, Iran. Rather than looking at
them as countries that we disagree with or who we
think their ideology is wrong, we just say, oh, they're crazy.
Do you remember when Putin invaded Ukraine and everyone was like,
he's so crazy on chemo drugs, that's why he's doing this.
And it was like, well, actually you can disagree with
him and completely see what his strategy is here with Ukraine,
Like it actually made perfect sense, and so I grow
I just there's something I like react against when people say, oh,
this regime, because there people are getting killed, that shows
that they're crazy. Shouldn't we start with the assumption that
people are acting in what they perceive as their interest
and in fact, maybe they really do think that Israel
in the US will literally wipe them off the map
unless they have nukes, and so they see it as
an existential threat that way.
Speaker 2: That's not a rational position.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they're mentally ill or crazy.
Speaker 2: In that way.
Speaker 1: I just believe they're rational or what they think is
a rational outlook on the world. Is Islamic fundamentalism, a
cosmic generational view of society. It is irrational in the
sense of geopolitics or of domestic politics to bring destitution
to your people, to try to get nukes. They're not getty.
Do you honestly think that they believe that Israel can
wipe them off the map?
Speaker 2: For once?
Speaker 1: Israel has nukes right now, they could have wiped them
off the map a long time ago. America could wipe
them off the map a long time ago. I think
Russia is a completely different story. Putin is completely rational.
He's doing things he thinks are best for Russia. I
think they're wrong. But we talked about nukes in North Korea.
That's a perfect example of why you can't let an
actor like this get nukes. It literally protects them completely.
They could go out if they had nukes and spread terrorism,
kill Americans. There's nothing we can do that wouldn't lead
to some kind of nuclear confrontation.
Speaker 3: That's all true, and I tend to agree with you.
I once again kind of want to see what is
the game plan for eradicating that as a threat? You
kill them, how many of them and for how long
till you.
Speaker 1: Get to some Well, at some point you're going to
get to someone who's going to do business with you
or not. Then we just leave it, and then they're
incredibly weakened. Like I'm not saying, you know, and if
you have to go back ten years from now starting
up a new program, you go back. There's no we
don't live in utopia. There are bad guys in this
world and sometimes you have to deal with them.
Speaker 3: No, No, I'm I'm just trying to listen, trying to
learn on this new regime change war in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: I don't buy that regime change war?
Speaker 3: What was that?
Speaker 2: I don't buy that it's actually a regime change war.
Speaker 1: I think that American politicians are always trying to appeal
to the charity and good will of American voters. I
think that's true, and they want you know that's a
selling point.
Speaker 3: You think you think calling for regime change, war in
the in the persion with the Persian Empire is a
selling point for the American people because I actually, Okay,
so interesting.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's a difference. We have to believe,
there's a difference between imposing democracy on people and trying
to help them take their own country back. Persians don't
run Iran. Colmanias to run Iran. It's a complete tyranny.
So I think that we try to appeal to Americans'
ideals of freedom in a way. I don't think I
think China is the reason we're they're I think nukes
are the reason we're there. I think the Straits are
the reason we're there. I don't think I think regime
change probably in the minds of people who are planning
this and care about this, comes beneath that.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think most Americans, particularly anyone alive since
the late seventies, understands that Iran is a hostile foreign power.
They have engaged in hostile actions against the United States
for decades. Totally agree with you there, I think, well,
I saw Tom Cotton say yesterday, they have been an
imminent threat to the United States since nineteen seventy nine,
and I was like, I think we're going to work
on that definition of the word imminent there, buddy. But
they have been a thorn in our side for that
long period of time. How much you view them as
a day to day threat, I think varies widely. I
think most Americans do not perceive a daily threat from Iran,
even if they don't like them, right. So that also
relates to how much Americans are willing to do in
terms of time, money, lives, all that to constrain the
Iranian regime, and some people want to obliterate the Iranian regime.
There is a wide there's so much people have very
different ideas about what should be done to constrain them
all the way up to obliterate them. And for forty
seven years we have not done what we've done in
the last year, right, And so I do think that
a people who want to do a regime change war
in Iran should have could have done a much better
job of making the case for it leading up to
when we all found ourselves at war with Iran. And
I don't mean that in the way that we haven't
been at war with Iran since the late seventies. Yeah,
I get that, But this dramatic escalation of action, I
think is something that could have you already alluded to it.
The communication has been weak. I think that Americans will
tolerate a very short period of time of action here,
although the polls show that. What is I mean? I
saw a Fox News poll. I think it was fifty
to fifty. Fifty percent of Americans support this. Fifty percent don't.
That's a pretty low percentage on the early days of
a war. So those numbers always go down. Right. Our
involvement in the Russia Ukrainian War started it out at
like ninety percent and then it plummeted. Starting out at
fifty to fifty is not where you want to be
heading into what could be a very lengthy campaign. You disagree,
Tell me why.
Speaker 1: I disagree, because most issues, when you look at these,
first of all, they ask the question in weird ways,
but most issues, when you look basically mirror where people
stand on Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a singular figure
in that sense among Republicans. I saw many polls show
like there's eighty two percent support for what he's done.
Right now, you're right, of course, if it goes on
and on, it's you know that will fall. But fifty
to fifty for anything Donald Trump does is not bad
in my view. I would say this that the Americans
like when we do well and win, and they don't
like when we fail and lose.
Speaker 2: They are not as especially on war. They're very mercurial.
With Iraq.
Speaker 1: Everyone wanted to go in once it went bad. It's
like no one ever wanted to go in. Everyone's like,
I don't know why we went there. But so I
think you're right. It has to be a short term
and decisive move. We can't get bogged down there and
I don't think we will. And if it's successful in
some way I don't mean regime change, but in finding
someone there who will do business with us, a surrender
of some sort, something like that, I think it's going
to be a success. I think most Republicans are fine
with it. I think most Americans will. Democrats will be
against it, because they're just against anything Donald Trump does.
Speaker 3: I want to say that I am trying to give
two weeks of grace. I am trying to give two
weeks here. I assume, like you do, that they have
a plan they're not sharing the plan for a reason
that that maybe that will either come out or develop
or something within two weeks. So I am doing my very.
Speaker 2: Best thing you've told me in the past.
Speaker 3: Hope you hear it. I'm trying very I hear you.
Speaker 1: You've told me in the past that you're fine with
us bombing people and getting out of their our enemies.
Speaker 2: And not just fine.
Speaker 3: I actually love it. I think it's okay.
Speaker 1: Iran has no air defense already gone, its capacity to
launch missiles, it's completely diminished. It's planned to. Its planned
to bomb Gulf states, including Qatar, has backfired. They did
that because they wanted those states to besiege the Americans
to stop. Instead, they just rallied those countries against them.
So I don't Everything has gone well as far as
a military operation can go, I am. I don't know
why people aren't incredibly impressed by the American military and
the Israeli military. So I don't really get what all
the hand ringing is about.
Speaker 3: You don't. You don't understand and why there might be
skepticism about a regime change war in the Middle East.
You don't.
Speaker 1: I would if we landed troops and invaded the place
and tried to implement it ourselves. But no, I don't see.
Speaker 3: I saw that the New York Post was amplifying something
Trump said about how maybe there will be troops there now.
I think if you read his comments, he wasn't actually
saying that so much. I think the New York Post
is trying to encourage it. You saw the Wall Street
Journal say the worst mistake Trump could do here is
just think, you know, mission accomplished and not engage in
a lengthy regime change.
Speaker 1: War didn't sell lengthy. They said that he has to
finish the job that we started, which is correct.
Speaker 3: There's already pressure there. And then you had his best friend,
Lindsey Graham saying, please join Israel's ground invasion of Lebanon.
So you cannot be you cannot be confused.
Speaker 1: Why you're always exac're you always exaggerate just slightly enough.
He didn't say there's no ground invasion of Lebanon by
his there's a bombing on Hispola, which is an Iranian
proxy which launched missiles at them. Lindsay Graham and Tom
conn are the two people that are constantly brought up
because they're literally like the two full blown neo cons
left in the world, and you know, most Senators didn't
seem they seem pretty level headed about all this, you know, Republicans,
I don't think. I just think there's an exaggeration of
the of the of the appetite for any kind of invasion.
Trump says stuff all the time. Obviously there's going to
be maybe some special forces landing to do this or that,
but there's not We don't have the troops for invasion there.
Speaker 2: It's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, I could be Listen, I shouldn't make any
predictions on foreign policy. You never know where things go.
But so far it seems like an incredibly I mean,
and I.
Speaker 3: Just want to say on this, like my mentioning of
Lindsay Graham, who did call for Trump to join Israel's
efforts in Lebanon, that I do think that Trump has
given us reason to trust him rather than freak out.
Let me say, there's a range here. It's possible that
he's just hubristic about how effective all of his previous
efforts have been and he thinks that, oh well, if
we could do this amazing thing in Venezuela with no
loss of life for Americans, and you know, obviously there
were quite a few casualties, but no loss of life, right,
Did I get that right?
Speaker 2: I think someone was shot maybe, but did not.
Speaker 3: Definitely people were shot. If you watched the State of
the Union, that helicopter pilot the helicopter after being shot
five times in the leg, which I just can't even
fathom how incredible that guy is. But I just don't
want to neglect to mention someone if they were. But
he might have gotten hubristic over it and said, oh yeah,
we can also do this with Aron, you know, which
which is maybe a little bit more challenging. People are like,
Iran is not Iraq. Iran's also not Venezuela. You know,
these are different countries with radically different situations going on.
But having said that, I still think Trump has done
a really good job with foreign policy over both of
his administrations, And so that also keeps me from completely
being like, oh, wow, I didn't realize we elected George W.
Speaker 2: Bush here, Oh come on.
Speaker 1: The claim of people don't know what or neo conservatism
is morphed into this word where people attack anyone who
believes that we should act militarily.
Speaker 2: Yes, he's hubristic. He's supuristic about everything.
Speaker 1: But the military has been incredibly effective, I think because
it acts in decisive ways with a target in mind,
with an endgame in mind, and finishes what they have
to do.
Speaker 2: The Venezuelan stuff has been great.
Speaker 1: The Iran stuff so far, it's tragic that anyone dies,
but when they're by the way. I think Donald Trump
said that we're going to lose people. I think he
said that in one of the interviews.
Speaker 3: So he said it when he announced that he had
launched the war, right.
Speaker 1: And that's going to happen. You're right, Iran is not Iraq.
But also Iran.
Speaker 2: Isn't as dangerous as people make them out to.
Speaker 1: They would be if they were allowed to have nukes
to defend themselves with, and ballistic missile programs at supersonic
missiles from China. I think that's incredibly important to point out.
This squeezes China big time.
Speaker 2: They get a.
Speaker 1: Lot of oil from Iran, they get oil from vent
they got oil from Venezuela.
Speaker 2: I just assume that China was such.
Speaker 1: A big part of the discussion before doing this for
the United States. The gi Israel has different goals, regional goals.
And incidentally, the attack in Lebanon is not against the
Lebanese government. It's against the Habela Missia militia, which functions
as a nation state within Lebanon, and the Lebanese government
is starting to arrest his bola. I mean, Israel is
actually helping Lebanon. I don't think it would be the end.
I don't think they need American help there.
Speaker 3: But it's to your point about why now are we
doing this. Iran has never been weaker. Iran has propped
up every single one of these things. I mean it's
basically Iranian outposts of his bowl a Hamas, all these things.
So I totally get the logic there as well.
Speaker 1: The October someone mentioned this. I think it's correct in
one way. But the October seventh attack was Pearl Harbor
in the Middle East. It changed everything. Israel is a limit,
you know, weake in his ballas Syria is. You know,
we'll see what happens with that bin Laden guy. But
Syria is out of Asad's hand, Iran is weakened. Even
the Hutis aren't shooting firing missiles. Really, the whole Middle
East has changed, you know, never know where that goes like,
maybe once Iran's not a threat, the tension between Israel
and the urb nations will be inflamed again. You never
know what happens, but it's changed everything.
Speaker 3: It's just a side thing. But I want to say
I am always tremendously impressed with the intel that Israel
has and how effective it is. You know that they
knew where this meeting and who would be at this meeting.
That was the reason for the initial strike, and it
just and then that they knew about this second meeting
and they took out the people who were gathered to
vote on the new Supreme Leader. And it just makes
me wonder why they were so bad at understanding what
was about to happen on October seven. It's like, how
can you be so good at knowing you know who
the dentist of the Supreme Leader is in Iran, but
not knowing your immediate neighborly threat.
Speaker 2: I think there are a couple of reasons for that.
Speaker 1: One is they didn't Israel didn't take them seriously enough
anymore and didn't have embedded And it's because Hamas is
so low fi that actually hurts. I think intel where
you actually have to get people on the ground. So,
for instance, I read that the Israelis had hacked the
camera system on the traffic camera systems into Iran, and
that's how they knew where everyone was driving all the
time and where they'd be. It's very difficult to do
that and that kind of stuff in Gaza. Also, Iranian
spying on the Iranians and others has been It's not
like they started this, you know, a few days ago.
They've been doing this for decades and they're just embedded.
Like do you know what Eli Cohen was in Syria?
He was in the sixties that Israelis had a spy
in Syria almost became like the defense minister of the
country right until he was found out. He was one
of the great spies of all time. Probably he worked
his way up. I suspect there are Eli Cohen's in
Iran right now. It just seems like they know everything
that's happening, and that if you're a lot live, this.
Speaker 3: Could get someone killed. So the next Supreme leader could
be an Eli Cohen.
Speaker 2: That'd be great.
Speaker 3: I wanted to mention. I saw this tweet from Michael
McFall Russia collusion hoaxer Michael McFall who is at He
works for Condi Rice out at Hoover, I think and
is one of the stupidest people I've ever followed on Twitter.
But he was saying that Trump had done a bad
thing with this invasion because he hadn't followed the highly
effective George W. Bush model. I think he might be
a Bushy, but I think he also was a Democrat,
Democrat appointed ambassador to Russia or something. He was like,
you know, Bush spent months making the case for WMD,
and he took that case to the American people and
the United Nations, and he built together this massive coalition
of the willing, and he did a ground invasion and
Trump didn't do any of those things, and that's why
Trump's bad. And I was like, Okay, I actually do
agree that a case should have been made, or that
it should be made now. But I'm like, I hadn't
felt so great about the operation that Trump had undertook
until I read Michael mcfall's reasoning for why it was
a failure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's one of the worst.
Speaker 1: I mean, all those pseudo intellectual foreign policy guys are terrible.
And Trump, who does not care about any of that,
blew up so many of their norms that it's like.
Speaker 2: At some point we were captured.
Speaker 1: By this idea that we had to go out into
the world and explain ourselves to the United Nations to
get a bunch of countries to sign on before we acted,
Like whatever you think of Iran, the idea that we
have to go to Europe and make sure that the
British are okay with us doing something, and that we
need to build coalitions with a bunch of countries, even
if it's the right thing to do, it's crazy, and
I think that Trump doesn't care very much about that.
If you want to be on our side, that's great.
If you don't, we're going to act in America's best interest.
The other thing that you mentioned earlier is this notion
that there has to be an imminent threat. And first
of all, imminent is a malleable word. It could mean
a lot of things. But why can't we act on
our long term interests as well. It's easier to take
out Iran today than five years from now when.
Speaker 2: They're loaded again. Let's do it. There's no reason not
to do it.
Speaker 3: Okay, So that does remind me of something I wanted
to ask you going back to the war. And I
know we should probably wrap this up here, but you
are a big fan of Article one authority.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think it's unconstitutional what we're doing.
Speaker 3: Why are you not screaming about it like you scream
about tariffs. Is it because you support the underlying action
or what? No?
Speaker 1: I think that it's been decimated. We haven't declared war
since World War two. Moomps are not a declaration of war,
and we used one from two thousand for like ten wars.
I mean, even in Vietnam to some extent Korea. I
mean we're talking about major, long term or military conflicts
that were probably unconstitutional.
Speaker 2: Right when it comes to tariffs.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, it's Donald Trump who's creating those
precedents to undermine the Constitution, So there is a difference.
I wish I don't even know if this falls under
the War Powers Act. What he's doing, I don't know.
I think he should have a window because in modern
warfare there are legitimate emergencies, not like a trade and
balance or something that you have to act. If you
let the enemy know you're going to act, if you're
making the case publicly, can undermine and hurt and kill
American citizens. Yeah, I would prefer very much that they
go to Congress. I think that's the right thing to do.
I think was wrong when they didn't do it for Libya.
I'm consistently held that position since Truman, probably since Jefferson.
American presidents have essentially most of the time, unless it
was very easy for them, like you know, World War
two or something ignored constitutional need for Congress to approve warfare.
Speaker 3: That does remind me. I thought it was interesting the
kerfuffle about Marco Rubio coming out and explaining why the
action was taken at the time it was taken and
Congress does. I mean, there is an effort within the
administration to show that what they did was lawful, right,
and so you have to have like a reason for
why you were doing it or why you were doing
it now. And Marco Rubio said someone was going to
attack Iran, and when that happened, there would be retaliatory,
retaliatory strikes against US interests in the region. Basically because
of our involvement in the region, we have outposts in
most countries there, and that Iran would strike those and
so we decided to take action preemptively to constrain Iran's
ability to kill Americans. It was seemed like a very legal,
like a good legal argument for why we were taking action.
And everyone kind of freaked out because he was saying
Israel was about to strike Iran and that's why we
did it, and they were seeing this as like a
claim that Israel had forced our hand. Then BB Netanyahu, well,
then Mike Johnson says the same thing, and then BB
Netanyaho goes on Sean Hannity that night and he says,
I have been trying to convince presidents for forty years
to join our efforts against Iran, and only Trump, you know,
was able to be convinced, and that's why he's the
greatest wartime president and blah blah blah. So it's kind
of an interesting interview. I even watched both JD Vance
and BB Netanyahu on television, which I rarely do, just
to see what they were having to say about it.
But I assume, given what I know about you, that
you don't have a problem with what was said, and
that this is just them explaining the legal case for
why now, plus the realities of the situation, which is
that Israel is our great ally and They're in a
much greater conflict here. But then Trump came out the
next day and he was like, no, I'm the one
who forced Israel into war, which is a very Trumpian
thing to say. But also then you go back to
the beginning of why did we do this? Now? You know,
like there's been unclear messaging about it. All.
Speaker 1: The kerfuffle around Marco Rubio was that a lot of
people went online and lied about what he said, took
a snippet of what he said, missed the later explanation,
which was very clear that the US was going to
do this anyway. The idea, first of all, that Donald
Trump can be coerced or something into fighting war. It
reminds me of the Russia collusion hoax. It's the idea
that Donald Trump doesn't make decisions, that he is under
the spell of other people. Last summer, there were planes
in the air Israeli IDF planes or air force planes.
We're going to bomb Iran, and Trump literally tweeted out
Benjamin Netta, now, who bring back those planes, and.
Speaker 2: That he did.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But more than that, further reporting shows that it was
Israel that saw that all these high level Iranian officials
were going to be meeting. They went to Donald Trump
without or the United States, and the United States said
let's do it now. It was going to be done
sooner or later. I believe under Trump he's been, like
we said, talking about this forever and the idea and
Israel and the United States worked together because their allies
in the Middle East. The idea that we're doing this
just for Israel or something is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: It's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: We're not allowed to have allies anymore. Like everyone reads
every into this cooperation as some kind of conspiracy. To
Benjamin ETTANYAHUO, just like Churchill right in World War Two,
is allowed to go to the President of the United
States and make the case for why we should help
an ally in certain ways, I don't understand what the
big conspiracy here is.
Speaker 3: I actually didn't understand what the big conspiracy was either.
I do highly encourage people to listen or read Marco
Rubio's entire statement to the press, because I think I think,
first of all, it was a great statement, and I
think he did a very good job, except for the
part that his reasoning for why we were doing this
against Iran. I mean, you're getting like twelve different reasons,
and the messaging truly could not be worse. But he
comes out and he says, Okay, the reason why we
did this is we want to harm their ballistic missile
capabilities and their naval assets. The reason why we did
this now is because Israel was about to strike them,
and we knew that if they struck them that there
would be retaliatory retaliatory action against the US. So that's
why we did it now. But he says multiple times,
we knew that Israel was going to act, and so
we knew that that was going to get Americans killed,
and that's why we joined them when they set the timeline. Now, ye,
people hear that and they're like, this is horrible. Well,
I kind of get the argument that we should be
setting the timeline and not our weaker ally Israel, But
I think it's over reading the situation because what does
he begin with, We're already going to do it, right,
And then someone specifically asks about like sounds like there
wasn't an imminent threat, and this is his weakest answer.
I think he's like, well, there was because Israel was
about to attack them, and when that happened, that would
make it an imminent threat. But then they're like, are
you saying that you were forced to do this because Israel?
And he's like, no, you know, number one, this action
had to happen, and it needed to happen within the
next year and a half because of where they were,
where they were headed with their nuclear program, right, And
then also, yeah, yes it happened now because of what
Israel was about to do. It's you know, he specifically said,
it's like no, but then yes. So there was a
bit of muddling on that. But I think it's okay
to just be honest about the situation, meaning I mean
I It has been reported that I that I was
in a meeting with BB a few months ago and
asked about this issue, whether he was trying to get
the US involved in a war, and it has been
reported that he said that Iran was a threat to
the US. There was some discussion about that whether that
is an accurate representation of whether the imminent threat was
to the US or Israel. But I see no problem
with just being honest. None of this is like cut
and dry. It's not like Iran is on our border,
but we do have interests throughout the region that can
be debated whether that's working out well for people or not.
I think the vast majority of Americans support how we
are engaged in the region. I could be wrong, So
I don't see why it's got to be like I
think it's only fraught because there are anti Semitic elements
on left and right who try to make it fraught.
Does that make sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they want to blame the Jews for why we're
at war, which is fine, they can do it, but
they don't either. Most of those arguments are gibberish, but
many of them are by people don't understand the dynamic
between the country or the Middle East at all. The
very idea Israel doesn't do anything without per I mean
big without permission in essence from the United States. If
Donald Trump told them, no, you're not doing it that day,
they wouldn't do it that day. It's just not dictating
terms in the law.
Speaker 3: And you can't imagine, for taking Marco Rubio at his word,
that that action was going to take place regardless of
what we said about it.
Speaker 1: I think that talking point is ce ya right. I
think that they keep saying imminent threat, which can mean
many many things, and they.
Speaker 2: Came up with a reason.
Speaker 1: To, you know, to backfill that claim, because that's what
Americans want to hear, that there was a threat and
you went to war because there was an imminent threat.
Speaker 3: But he was as you know, legally and ethically, you
you do have to make a case for why you're
engaging in war. Just war theory, which we have followed
for a long period of time, has influenced our military actions,
does lay out certain principles for whether and when to
go to war, and it's good that we follow those
instead of just being like might is right and we
can do whatever we want. If we want to kill
a bunch of kids, that's okay.
Speaker 2: Like you want your really kill a bunch of kids,
we don't know.
Speaker 3: Saying we did. I'm saying you don't want people who
act that way. You want people who do try to
be limited or to do try to only hit military
objectives like those are good things that make make your
action justified.
Speaker 2: Right sometimes, but oh, you need to also have a clarity.
Speaker 1: Why can't be moral relatives. We are the good guys
in this and it is a just war, but there's
also a line of immunity, and I think Marco Rubio
mentioned that, and that line of immunity creates a situation
where a future war that will definitely happen will be
far there will be far more loss of life. So
that's also an imminent threat. The line where Iran gets
their ballistic missiles or their supersonic missiles from China. Now
is that easy to explain to the American people. No,
it is difficult, But you're right. I just want to
stress this. Ribio said the Israelis were going to act,
which now we know they were going to act because
all the leadership was in one place. But then he
was Someone explicitly asked him, that's the why. Someone asked him.
What in that same presser that everyone ignored who said
that Israel dragged list into war? Was this was the
US forced to strike because of impending action. No, no
matter what, ultimately this operation needed to happen. That's the
other question is the question of why now?
Speaker 2: But this?
Speaker 1: Then he goes on and on and lists the usual reasons,
the line of immunity, the the way you run acts,
the fact that why does why won't any peace? Nick say, hey, Iran,
accept this deal that doesn't let you have nukes if
you don't want nukes anyway. You know why Ben Rhoades
doesn't say that, and the isolationists on the right don't
say that because they don't care or want Iran to
have nukes. That's the real endgame here. And most of
the people who were like Israel dragged us into the war,
would not support military action against Iran if they had
a nuke, if they.
Speaker 2: Were Chinese outposts. They just don't care.
Speaker 3: I just want to point out that there can be
arguments for why it would be. Why all the arguments
for why it would be sort of just something you
have to let Iran do are not You should let
people make those arguments. You know, you and I might
not agree, but it's not necessarily like without merit. I
mentioned that what argument I mentioned the Charles Crowdhammer thing
that it might just be easier to let everyone get nukes.
Speaker 1: At this point, it seems hard for me to believe
Charles Crowdhammer wanted Iran to have nukes, But you're right,
but it was.
Speaker 3: He was kind of talking about the cost associated with
preventing people from getting nukes is just it just gets
like higher every year, and that it I'm just saying
there's an argument.
Speaker 1: Can I just say on that point, though, who wants
nukes right now? Are there than any Iran who shouldn't
have them? Probably no one.
Speaker 3: Yesterday.
Speaker 2: I'm fine with Poland having.
Speaker 3: Dukes, wants nukes. It's just a very unrealistic thing for
most of them.
Speaker 2: Right, It's not as easy as people think. But if Iran.
Speaker 1: Gets nuke the nukes, the entire Sunni world will immediately
get new who want to.
Speaker 2: Get nukes and probably get nukes.
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, all the Gulf nations, Egypt, do we want that.
I don't want that. I don't know what Charles Kronheimer wants.
I don't want that because you look at what happened
in Pakistan the other day.
Speaker 2: I know we're on this so long, but the bunch.
Speaker 1: Of crazy people rush the embassy, the American embassy there.
We saw what happened in Iran in seventy nine. That
almost happened in Pakistan actually around the same time. I
believe it could happen. You don't want countries like Pakistan
or that have nukes to fall into the hands of Islamists.
So I'm against Islamic nations having nukes. We can to
prevent it. I'm not saying we need to go to
war all the time, but it's good to stop them.
Speaker 2: Okay, No, I was.
Speaker 3: Going to say, I'm curious what you think the effect
will be on the Republican Party. You say that, I
think you were saying that Republicans support Trump here, and
that is true in friendly and unfriendly polls. It does
show that Republicans are, of course, much more likely to
support Trump's action than either Democrats or independence. Independents are
much closer to Democrats on this issue than on probably
any other issue in that they strongly disapprove of it.
So heading into elections where you're trying to get your
base to come out and vote and then also appeal
to independence, what do you think the effect of this
will be or do you think it'll be Do you
think it'll be done so quickly that it'll be a
forgotten memory or what.
Speaker 2: I think?
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to have much affected all
either way. Yesterday I looked at a poll that or
two polls that showed what Americans are most concerned about
in foreign policies very low. Now, if tomorrow something terrible happens,
like a ballistic missile hits a base, and kills thirty Americans.
I think that can change a lot of.
Speaker 2: The reaction to this, in my view is the.
Speaker 1: Reaction, for instance, amongst Democrats, will be that they don't
like Trump. So one of the polls I saw, maybe
it was Politico, ask like do you trust do you
trust Donald Trump to do the right thing with Iran?
And a lot of people were pointing out that the poll,
this poll showed that everyone was against Iran, but it
was tied to Donald Trump, which is how a lot
of these things work. I think it will have very
little effect in the end on the midterms, unless some
unforeseen big thing happens.
Speaker 2: Why what do you think?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I think actually probably agree with you
on this that if if this wraps up quickly, it
will have less of an effect. I know politically over
longer terms, wars tend to become toxic for the party
that is perceived as engaging in them. And I think
a big part of Trump's appeal had been that he
claimed that he would not start a war, that he
opposes big war, that he was wanting to end wars.
And I did see some people say like, no, Trump
didn't launch a war, He's ending a war. That will
be a complicated message for a not friendly audience. I
think that works very well with people who are already
aligned or who are already are.
Speaker 2: Very far on me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, people are very focused on Iran. I think
that that does work. I'll just further say that although
I think that the Republican Party has not really given
voters enough reason to vote for them, or I heard
Kristin Sualtis Anderson say people don't vote to say thank you.
They vote because they're angry, and that is very true.
And even like with the good things that are being
done by the Trump administration, I don't think people will
turn out to say good job. I do also worry
about even even just like I think the best case
scenario and I don't see this as being like huge,
a huge percentage of probability, but the best case scenario
would be that we are in and fully out within
a month. Right even that, what did Trump called it
a digression or something into Iran? Or he had some
kind of word about, Yeah, we care about this country,
but we're doing this digression into our diversion into Iran.
It is a diversion against the domestic policy agenda. And
I think that if he can return to a focus there,
that would be very good for political reasons. And I
think a lot of Americans perceive a far higher day
to day threat from the radical left than they do Iran,
even understanding that both are threats, and they have seen
very little, maybe nothing done to keep that threat that
they deal with day to day. You know, government schools
trying to trans their children, or people killing people or
going after them in a very hostile fashion for any
public expression of non left wing beliefs, that type of stuff.
You know, Charlie Kirk was assassinated in September, and they're
prosecuting the individual who allegedly shot him, but not really
doing anything about the larger Antifa or radical trans movements.
You're not seeing Antifa, which engages in such horrible action,
hurting cities from Portland to Minneapolis and otherwise, and trying
to stop that domestic policy agenda. You're not seeing them
being like rounded up and dealt with, really, And so
I think Americans are much more tolerant of the foreign
policy adventurism if they're getting what they need at home.
And so I would encourage Trump if this is his
signature thing, his legacy that he wants to have of
this war in the Middle East, that he would not
do it at the expense of his domestic policy agenda.
Speaker 1: Yeah, people should prepare themselves, obviously for Republicans to lose
in the midterm, because that's the norm. If this goes
on too long and it seems like he's diverted all
his attention from domestic issues, it doesn't help. Though in
the past, competent, winning military operations don't seem to hurt
presidents very much at all. And with as far as
the things that you just listed, some of them are
very difficult to annount.
Speaker 2: You have to I.
Speaker 1: Think more important I'm not sure if you mentioned it,
but the the border stuff, right, so he I think
there were missteps with Ice.
Speaker 2: Again.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get into who was a fault
with the shootings of the Minnesota, but in the perception
of the many Americans that was kind of there's a
lot of anarchy there, you know, initially, and it should
have been handled better, probably by the president, and I
think he pulled out of there, and now it seems
like he's not doing as much as he should be.
He should be stressing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I want to say he's doing a ton in
Louisiana right now. They have been in New Orleans, grounding
people up. Republican states do not go to war with
the federal government on border enforcement, and so you don't
hear anything about it. So like if it's in Tennessee
or if it's in Texas or Louisiana, nobody you know,
the government is actually helping federal agents with that law
enforcement strategy. If you're in Minnesota, where Antifa is headquartered,
or Portland where Antifa is headquartered, that's where you're having
trouble with rule of law because they're going to war.
Speaker 2: No, I agree.
Speaker 1: I was going to say he should be stressing the
successes he's having in states where this cooperation. I've always
believed that the border issue is far bigger than Poles
even reflect But we'll say.
Speaker 3: Polls showed that people cared a great deal about the
border during the Biden administration. Once Trump effectively closed the
border and started this deportation action, people are like, oh,
it's going well, and so they rate it as much
lower importance because it's not a day to day problem for.
Speaker 1: Them, you know, just a broader look at what's going
on with Trump. I just don't think there's ever going
to be a very popular president again with all American people.
We're just two partisan right now, and so American voters
blame the person in charge for all the bad things
that are happening, but very rarely go out of their way,
like you said, to give them credit for the good things.
Speaker 2: That are happening.
Speaker 1: And they have short memories, so you know, under Biden,
inflation was crazy.
Speaker 2: It's tempered a bit.
Speaker 1: That's a huge win, but it's voters kind of moved
past that. They're just living in their moment and things
still aren't great economically for many of them.
Speaker 2: So I think he has a hard hearts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's got a hard case, a difficult case to make,
but you're right.
Speaker 2: I mean, if this goes.
Speaker 1: On and on and he's not talking about affordability or
whatever people want to hear, that's tough.
Speaker 3: I just want to say one. I know. I actually
always thought even if he'd won in twenty twenty, it
would have been a better second term than a first term,
just because, like usually in your first term, you start
with your army of people who are great and then
they all kind of like go away to get higher
paying jobs, and then by the second term you're just
dealing with the dregs. It was totally opposite for Trump.
He came in with no army. He tried to do
that thing where he was playing along with the Republican
establishment and put a lot of them in and there
was all sorts of resistance in each and every agency,
and it was kind of a disaster. And by the
second term I knew he would have much better people
in play. But it's even better after four years with
the competence. And I just want to I know we
need to move on from the war thing, but I
just want to say one positive thing about this, one
more positive thing about the war effort, which is I
think changing the Department of Defense into the Department of
War is not just a name change, it's a mindset
change of Rather than focusing on how to best help
men in dresses advance to a higher position, it's about like,
how do we achieve our aims and effectively meet those
aims and do it with the least loss of life.
But with warriors, you know, from thinking of it as
a big hr commune into a war fighting enterprise and
the effectiveness of the military actions that we have undertaken
in the last year is just really inspiring and admirable.
From the operation in Venezuela to the most recent operation
in Iran. We have lost lives. It is very bad.
I don't think the American people have an appetite for
a very long duration of lost lives and all that.
But they understand that war fighting does come at great sacrifice,
and they're seeing some really impressive images of the effectiveness
of our strikes. You know. The I don't know if
you saw this morning, haigsets showed the sink king of
a submarine, the thinking by a submarine of a vessel,
the Iranian vessel, and it was the first time that's happened
since World War Two.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 3: I mean when people see that, it gives them confidence
in what's being done. So I just wanted to kind
of end with that.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you know, just a sports analogy, sometimes you'll
see a team in their body language is just not right.
They don't have that hubris, you know, they don't think
they can win basically, and Trump has changed that around
with our military. The body language is right. Hey, do
you want to talk about what do you think happened?
And what are your thoughts on what happened in Texas yesterday?
Speaker 2: Do you think, yeah, yeah, I thought.
Speaker 3: I mean I don't follow Texas politics as closely as
I should. The Senate Majority Fund or whatever it's called,
spent a lot of money so that John Cornyn would
not have to face a runoff against Ken Paxton, and
it didn't work. I mean, it's a lot of money expend.
They're going to spend a lot more money now, and
seems the people of Texas wish that they had. They
seemed dissatisfied. I have no idea what's going to happen
in that primary, And in fact, I would say Cornyn
has the strong, strong, strong advantage of not just incumbency,
but all the money and everything. But there's a growing
frustration with Republicans. They understand that if you're in a
state like Maine that does not elect Republicans for any
reason at any time, that a Republican like Susan Collins
is allowed to be as moderate and squishy as she is.
They get frustrated when they see in you know, much
redder states a week leadership like from a Ray Lankford
in Oklahoma or a John Cornyn, who is what did
he say. I mean, I saw an interview this week
where he's like, one of the reasons I want to
get elected is I think Donald Trump will be the
person to fix immigration with a big amnesty program, and
I want to help him do that. And it's like,
I don't think that's the appetite in the Republican Party
in Texas.
Speaker 2: How was the beast?
Speaker 1: I ask you, like what I get that his demeanor
is more moderate and all that, but has he opposed
Donald Trump in any of his big endeavors. I mean,
he seems to be pretty much on board with most things.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's I don't know enough. Like I said,
I don't follow Texas. I think the issue is more
about the leadership he is showing as the senator from Texas.
Is he what the Republican Party of Texas would like
to see in their leadership. That's the question that he'll
have to answer. It's already why he has a runoff.
I assume he'll probably do fine in the runoff, but
there are a lot of people who are dissatisfied with
him as a senator from Texas. And I don't think
that's something that just happened during the Trump administration, but
something going back. But I'm more interested in Dan Crenshaw
losing his primary, and I am. I mean, that guy's
not surprised, and the guy who is replacing him has
a lot of support from across the spectrum. Steve Toth. Toth,
I don't know how to say his name, but he
is really liked by a lot of Republicans. And Dan
Crenshaw had just a string of weird stories about how
aggressive and abusive he was toward other people. And he
was very much in that mold of like a Bush
era Republican and I think those two things in combination
hurt him in his primary.
Speaker 1: I would ask you this, do you think Paxton would
have a tougher time in a general in Quarin?
Speaker 3: I mean, for a number of reasons, Quarnin's been the
incumbent for many years. Paxton would face greater opposition from
Republicans in power. You know, he wouldn't get support should
he win this primary. He would probably be opposed by
the Republican establishment for dethroning one of their buddies. And
then also he is you know, it just stands to
reason like this is sort of the attitude of the
Republican Party. If we can get the squishiest person we
can to win the nomination, will do better in the general.
Sometimes that's true. Sometimes you actually have to work to
get the most based person in, even if it makes
it a little more challenging in the general. But that's
for each state to decide how they want to handle it.
Speaker 1: Well, my point is, I don't buy that Texas will
be lost, but it seems to me that that would
be a massive disaster for the Republican Party. I mean,
it would be an earthquake for them to lose that state.
I'm sorry, And you were going to talk about the
other race with that insufferable, sanctimonious, smug dude who won
what's his name?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say the Democrats. I always feel like
each party benefits from the opposing parties idiots, and it
works back and forth like constantly. But I know the
media and all the other Democrats love James Tallerico.
Speaker 2: Tis That man has the.
Speaker 3: Most punishable persona I have ever seen in a politician,
and it makes me judgy, not just about him, but
anyone who is persuaded by him. It's so obnoxious. Do
you like him?
Speaker 1: James to oh, my god, he's worse than Beto or Rourke.
I think I can't. He just rubs me the wrong way.
I can't believe people in Texas would fall for that.
I love how it's okay, incidentally, for a Democrat to
just basically appropriate Christianity as the central theme of his campaign.
And in my view, I'm not a Christian, so I'm
not going to speak for Christians, but in my view,
misrepresenting that faith in a pretty serious way generally. But
when a Republican mentions Jesus, everyone has a meltdown, you
know what I mean, And they just celebrate this guy.
So there's just such frauds. I just can't see him winning.
I don't care who's running on the Republican side, but
Republicans can lose Texas.
Speaker 2: It's serious.
Speaker 3: The Republicans were trying to get Jasmine Crockett to win
the primary against Tall Rico. I don't know how bad
she lost. I was not paying attention to her until
fairly recently. I believe I could be wrong, but I
believe she attacked me as a racist when I was
testifying in Congress once, and it was so cartoonish and ridiculous,
and by the way she took up her whole time,
so that she just said that for five minutes that
I couldn't respond, and then quite nicely someone else later,
a later questioner was like, did you want to respond
to that? And I was like, oh, I do, thank you.
But I learned she was kind of a child of
elite privilege. Who does this cause playing as a like
ghetto girl and she's not. She's like, went to a
very fancy school in Saint Louis. It's all in act.
And I know all politicians are like that. They're they're
doing their aw shucks or whatever her thing is.
Speaker 2: But this will get me, probably get me in trouble.
But isn't it.
Speaker 1: I hate you day, it's not racist, But isn't it
demeaning that you feel like to represent African Americans you
have to act like you're from the street, Like there
are no educated or you know, well spoken black Americans.
I just feel like it's a it's a caricature, like
you say, it's just a cartoon of what she thinks
a black person is supposed to sound like. Now, I
know people say like, it's not my place to say
this to black people, but I mean, if someone was
like out out there being a Nebbish representing Jewish people
by being like schecky Green or something. I'd be like,
that's pretty offensive.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: The media, we're really looking her up until they sided
with James tall Rico in this primary battle and they
decided he would be a saver.
Speaker 2: Why do you think because he'll win. Because they think
he'll he has a chance to win.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the Republicans also thought he was the
bigger threat. I actually am not sure. I'm talking about
a woman who personally attacked me. I think I would
rather vote for her than James tall Rico. He is
that obnoxious. But there's something like I think, I mean,
since since I'm being offensive here, I think there's something
very effeminate about Democrat men, Like literally they have lower testosterone.
And then also they have fewer men in their party
and they're the great womanification of the Democrat Party has
made it so they do want either gay men or
men who kind of present as gay or as as
no threat to women. They don't. I think they do
genuinely like tall Rico more, or maybe they're just racist
and sexist. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Well, he says God is pro abortion.
Speaker 1: He says God is non binary, which I guess, in
some weird way might be God is not actually before
but yeah, okay, not true. But a stupid the father, yeah,
the father, he capitalized. Just a just a nut job.
Also a socialist, like just idiotic zero sum economic ideas.
No different than Bernie Sanders. It just doesn't seem like
Texas is the place for that. But we shall see.
There's always every I think, every election in my lifetime
since Texas turned red, I'm told that a Democrat has
a chance to win.
Speaker 3: So I think John Cornyn has also attacked me. And
why was that?
Speaker 2: I don't know, Molly. I think we need to hear
him out. What do you have to say? Okay, well, Molly,
everyone's attacking her.
Speaker 3: I know. It's so awful. I think it was when
he said that if you cared about securing the border,
you were a Russian in Texas.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about culture, yeap, What do I have?
I don't think I have a lot, do you? Once
you go first, I.
Speaker 3: Don't really have anything. I had a friend visiting this
weekend and she had an event at the White House.
It's an arts and culture summit for the America two fifty,
so was just kind of hanging out with her and
enjoying that. And then on Sunday night we did Rewatch.
This is a movie I'm beginning to like Rewatch with
alarming frequency. Miracle.
Speaker 2: Oh my gosh, I rewatched it too.
Speaker 3: I love that movie. It's just so good and it
I was cheering and crying and acting is so great
and there's so many good lines. Well. Our pastor on
Sunday had said that he was talking with some older
kids at our school, which goes through eighth grade, about
what is the greatest line in that movie? And pastor
thought that the greatest line was that the name or
that the yeah, the name on the front of the
jersey is more important than the name on the back.
But that one of the kids said, it's again. So
you know the scene where they aren't putting their whole
heart into a game with Norway or Sweden I can't remember,
And so the coach makes them just go to the
point of exhaustion after the game, drilling them, and he
just keeps saying again and again and again. And our
pastor was saying that we should have this kind of
attitude towards rooting out the sin in our lives, just
again and again and again. You just keep working to
work on your spiritual disciplines. We're in Lent, so we're
talking a lot about spiritual disciplines, what you give up,
also what you do. And so I loved the sermon,
but also I was like, I want to rewatch Miracle,
So we rewatched it that night.
Speaker 1: And but the best line is after again when he
just yells Mike Eruzione, That's what I think is that's.
Speaker 3: I mouthed that, like I didn't say anything out loud.
We're Lutheran, we're quiet, but I said, yeah, who.
Speaker 2: Do you play for? United States America? That is the
greatest line. And I watched the movie for that point,
like that's my favorite part of the movie. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yes, So I think it is interesting that we all
have that scene as the signature scene. But there are
other good lines in the movie too. I want to
just mention Justice Kavanaugh right before he came out for
his speech that saved his nomination, the hype that he
did with Don McGann they both love that movie, was
to say that line. Also, I watched the Miracle documentary,
So good, isn't it? Yeah? And I thought that line
from his kid when when his son is like, yeah,
all these people were saying how hard it was to
play for him for six months in nineteen eighty, He's like,
try being his kid anyway.
Speaker 2: Yeah, his kids.
Speaker 1: I think that's the best, most honest documentary, a miracle.
It's not all romanticism. Like his kids obviously had.
Speaker 2: A hard time with him. He was a hard man
in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: And they tell the story about how Herb Brooks is
he was the last guy cut on the sixty Olympic
team and when they won, his dad turned to him
and said, it looks like they cut the right right guy,
and how brutal that must have been. And he was
just a hard man. But I love that documentary. I
recommend it strongly for anyone who was interested in this
because it really They show footage that has never been
seen before. They have a lot of the players watching
their families. It's just really, really well done. I thought
it was well done. I watched a show called a
Night of the Seven Kingdoms, which is a spin off
of a prequel show to Game of Thrones. It is
not as pornographic i'd say, or violent. It was kind
of a straightforward story. People love this, and I think
I just thought it was okay, So maybe I'm missing something.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I also watched a season of Alone. It was Arctic
Adventure or something that shows nuts where they just drop
you off in the wilderness with like seven things and
you have to survive and whoever survives longest. I think
that this season it was seventy five days or something
around there. So they fish and hunt. Basically they all
are just emaciated, like they just lose. I think the
guy who won lost seventy five pounds. It just seems
irresponsible that show. But anyway, then I have such a
stack of books i'm reading that are amazing that I
thought maybe i'd mentioned a few. The first one's called
The Great Sea and it's a human history of the Mediterranean,
just super well written and interesting.
Speaker 3: I want to read that before I go on a
Mediterranean cruise in September.
Speaker 1: Nice there's a book it's kind of it's an older book,
but it's expanded and I think re edited. It's called Augustus,
the First Emperor of Rome by Adrian Goldsworthy, who's a great,
great historian of Rome. I have two more three more
the death of Trotsky, the story in plot to kill
Stalin's greatest enemy. I started reading this, it's like it's
a history, but it's like a spy novel. It's just fantastic.
People like not giving away anything by saying that Trotsky
was killed with an ice pick in Mexico City by
a Stalin spy, and it tells you that story quickly. Yes,
but I think people know that violent saviors the West,
conquest of the rest, and then because of what was
going on in Iran, I was rereading Among the Believers
by vs Nepal. You know that writer, such an amazing book.
He goes, I think it was in an eighty one.
He goes, it's like a travelogue in a way, but
he goes to Iran after the revolution. He goes to
the conquered people, not the Arabic countries, but people who
became Islamic when the our game. And if you're interested
in that, I think it's a classic. It's it's it's
a it's a fantastic book. It's a fantastic author.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to reach the show, you can do
so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 2: We'd love to hear from you. We'll be back next week.
Until then, be lovers of freedom and anxious for the
friend
Speaker 1: M