Speaker 1: We are back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist, and
your experience sharpa on today's quest for knowledge. As always,
you can email the show at radio at the Federalist
dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST, make
sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and of
course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Jacob Olidor, Chief Research Officer, Director
of American Security at the America First Policy Institute. As
we talk about the war in Iran, and we found
out that the world had changed changed again on Saturday,
and now we are days into this joint mission, this
joint operation between the US military and the Israeli forces,
and the questions, of course are many, and where do
we go from here? I think is a good place
to start. Jacob, thank you so much for joining us
in this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: It's a pleasure to be with you, madam, with your listeners.
Thank you.
Speaker 1: Chat Well, here we are. Yes, I like to save
this question for the end, and we'll get back to
that perhaps again. But now we're here what's next.
Speaker 2: Now we're here, indeed, and it's certainly I always st
are from the position of what we don't know, and
it's been in this case revealing insofar as in the
lead up to Saturday, the President's team were very discreet
about the overall objective. Of course, the nuclear was part
of it. But in that speech on the early hours
of Saturday, which I found one of the most eloquent
of his presidency, he laid out for the American people
two things. First of all, the distinct American objective here,
which his team has since echoed with remarkable consistency, and
that is his fulfillment of his article to Section two
duties as president has prescribed in the Constitution to protect
the American people against threats against them. And the rest
of the remarks outlined the nature of that threat. And
I was listening to that as a Congressional staff. I
served at the privilege of serving for Senator Orrin Hatch
when he was in Senate leadership, and I would have
to read the justifications in fact from President Trump and
other administrations, the justification for strikes, and that is how
those are tailored. It's the kind of what listing out
what the threats are. And at the very end, of course,
he says, look, this will basically set the conditions for you,
the run in people, to take the country finally into
your hands and create your own destiny. That's not the
American people's job. That's not America's job. It is for
you that Iran. But in completing and meeting our objectives here,
which by the way, are shared by our partners not
only Israel but others, you will have that opportunity. But
we need to get this job done because the American people,
their lives are at stake here and so that I
think is where we are, and it's been The success
has been remarkable, I mean within hours, basically decimating you know,
several layers of military leadership there, capabilities and the other
remarkable piece. And this is something important for context. Yes,
it's a US and Israeli operation so far, and you
know we do have distinct priorities to a degree, but
there are other voices wanting to take a bigger part potentially,
And I look at the statements from our Arab partners
in the region, are who have a lot of confidence
and very vocal about their positions about Iran and the
threats that it poses to them. And then over the
weekend you saw that joint statement from the United Kingdom,
France and Germany in which they say very specifically they
will take defensive actions let you call it whatever it is, defensive, offensive,
but targeting Iranian ballistic missile capabilities. And that's in that statement.
So if we do see Europeans taking this action, you know,
it's US and our allies really eliminating an existential and
immediate threat to all of us.
Speaker 1: The messaging has been confusing though in the opening days,
and I wanted to get your take on this because
you know, the President, as you mentioned, the President laid
out some of the objectives that you know prompted all this,
but we heard from different administration officials kind of different
stories about why this was happening. Obviously, there is that
existential concern of Iran getting a hold of a nuclear
weapon or being able to build that nuclear weapon. By
the way, with the help of previous US administrations, I
think we must point that out. We talked about regime
change then, and then all of these other things kind
of surrounding that taking out and no love loss of
course to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who has been
the face of the leading nation, leading sponsor of terror.
But then finally on Monday, I think it became clear
that this was about the United States the Pentagon and
the President making the decision that Israel was going to
do this with or without us, and the administration said,
if you're going to do this, then we're going to
do the be involved because we want to make sure
that we can control the outcome. Is that ultimately what
this is about, No.
Speaker 2: It's not. I think that. Look, this regime at the
outset and to this day uses the phrase, you know,
big Satan, little Satan. I mean, it's clear who they're
referring to, big Satan being the United States little Israel.
But that doesn't limit their threats as well as I said,
I mean, it's the regional partners that are you say,
the UAE actually taking more missiles than Israel actually in
Iran's volleys. I mean, part of that is geographic, I get.
But look, at the end of the day you alluded
to the point here is that the distinction from prior administrations,
this is a president that knows what an adversary looks
like and understands the threats to the American people and
takes that action when and we don't have to wait
for a threat to be imminent, by the way, I mean,
if it is a threat to the American people, that
is his job as commander in chief, you know. Separate
from that, there's the question of the state of the regime,
and I thought the Vice President did a remarkable job
on Fox I think it was yesterday, and I think
his words were the fate of the regime is incidental
to our objectives. So there is it's very possible, potentially
likely that the regime will fall or what what we
know is the regime will collapse, and yet our objective
will remain taking out the threats because we know that
they are persistent and pervasive in their pursuit of those threats.
And even after we took out their nuclear program last summer,
an action that we took again because of the imminence
of that threat, their intention did not disappear. And that
was the conclusion that the President drew. I believe based
on the way in which they carried out their negotiations.
They're part of the negotiations in the weeks leading up
to this weekend. So the narrative, the justification. The context
is very clear here, and I think the President's team
have articulated it as well.
Speaker 1: What is your assessment of the readiness of the people
of Iran the counter movement against this regime. It is
no secret that many in Iran have lived under this
oppressive regime and they hate it. It's clear. It couldn't
be more clear. And it was, you know a few
weeks ago when so many thousands came out in the
streets and risked their lives, literally risked their lives in protests,
and then you had this evil regime mowing down you know, thousands,
tens of thousands of these people. All of that said,
one can sen empathize and and you.
Speaker 2: Know and.
Speaker 1: Want to see the removal of this regime by the
people of Iran. How ready are they to do that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a good question there is on this. I
think obviously there is more that's unknown than is known.
What we do know, of course, is the regime as
the weapons, and we know their tactics and record. Now
the president put them unnoticed that should they take action
against their people, they will be met with an even
more overwhelming response. But you know, the future of the
country again that is ultimately for the running people. That
won't be something for us to be. It will be
obviously a situation that will be monitoring. But you know
what that looks like and what the how the people
take the opportunity and how long it takes that is
still unknown and very much contingent on on on basically
their own capacity and who comes up as the the
leader they determine needs to be the one to lead
them through. You know. With that being said, of course,
as the regime is collapsing, and I think you know
it's obviously no overstatement the removal of Haminae was a historic,
a colossal change in the regime's calculus. But then also
several layers below, you still have remnants that are no
less vicious and seeking to cause harm and create threats,
and our responsibility to protect Americans will will be there
as well, because those threats will continue. So that's something
to monitor as well, and kind of the unpredictability of
how how the regime in its decline or in its
weaken state, looks to escalate a new ways. But again,
all of this I think from the I believe the
strategic objective focused of what we're doing I think that
these are all considerations that I'm certain we've been thinking
through in obviously embarking on this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's my broader question is, as noted,
there are many many citizens of Iran that are not
only wish for, but are working for regime change at
this hour. But there are still many Iranians who hate
the United States more than they hate this evil regime.
So what does that all mean to the success of
these operations?
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's important not to overstate as well,
and really not to generalize too about a country as
large and diaspora community as diverse and large as well.
But I think it's interesting to just as you look
at the streets of you know, places like Los Angeles
and other parts of our country not traditionally supporters of
the president in arms and parading, celebrating his achievements, celebrating
his actions, I think that speaks to a new consensus,
or maybe an existing consense of we're only seeing now
that on this issue, on the fact that Iran needs
a different future, and that the president has helped the
owning people have the conditions for them to pursue that
on their own terms. That is I think there's some
kind of a consensus there on that issue alone. Now
that being said, there are you've also seen images out
of Iran of the size of the funeral Rahmana I
always look at and the size of that crowd. There
are regime supporters, and as I mentioned, they are the ones,
or at least those in government are the ones with
the guns. But all that being said, I think there
is also a regional component of this as well, and
you know, populations within and without Iran that have a
desire to see a different future for that country for
their own sakes because they know that will be that's
that is a guaranteur of peace for them in the region.
So again, a lot of unknowns, but I think that,
you know, as far as kind of the perspective of
those who want this regime out, I think they have
a wider chorus of support even beyond their borders, which
which I think will be interesting to watch.
Speaker 3: 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 1: What is interesting but not surprising, of course, is the
number of people on the left, the radical left in
this country, who have suddenly become grievers, grieving for the Ayatola,
who has spent the last three plus decades, of course,
doing everything that he can to obliterate Israel, to wipe
it off the map, and whatever he could to at
the very least harm Americans in America and elsewhere. But
you also see kind of two different responses on the
conservative side. The one, of course, is a full celebration
of this operation and a lot of optimism that Iran
will finally be dealt with. But there are a number
of conservatives in this country who voted for President Trump
because he promised to do what previous administration's previous presidents
failed to do, and that was to tell America we
are done with endless ever wars. We spent, of course,
a very long time in Afghanistan, spent a very long
time nation building in Iran, and the America first principle,
of course, is often seen as what it suggests this America,
we don't need to meddle elsewhere. Why do you think
the administration's response to that will be ultimately and where
do you see all of that playing out?
Speaker 2: Well, right, speaking purely my personal capacity, I have no visibility. Obviously,
I don't want to speak on behalf of the administration.
I think there is to me. Well, first of all,
I think they've articulated the objective as I mentioned, but
protecting Americans, and I think that to me is highly
compelling and really and in fact is the kind of
reversal of history that we needed, because the Obama in
particular has endangered Americans by involving empowering the iatolas, thinking
that moderates in their midst thinking that lucrative palettes of
cash would moderate them, would make them more, when in
fact all they wanted was to just prolong these engagements
to harm us. And so that's corrective number one. But
the other thing, you know, as you mentioned, there are
different voices and obviously different voices speaking from different assumptions
of you know what, the present may or may not
think this or that. But if you look at his
rhetoric and his focus, first of all, he has said
since he went down the Golden Elevator escalator, Eran will
not have a nuclear weapon, that has been something he
has never wavered from. That was on his campaign trail,
and this is part of it. But the other thing
to me, there is a continuum as well of his
position on whether it's trade, whether it's other issues, as
he stepped again onto that escalator in twenty fifteen, the
ways in which the American people have been taken advantage
of by the countries and have been under threat because
of that. It's the same narrative that we fundamentally, the
Washington Consensus is betrayed backrow America, working America, the American families,
they've paid the price because of and part of that too,
because of these forever wars, these expansive projects which you know,
in their military operation, I want to clarify we're effective
and important in eliminating terrorists, we can't deny that, But
in their other trappings of nation building and in civil
society type thing, you know, you know, different types of
projects like that were completely expansive and beyond the focus
and in a waste of course of taxpayer dollars and failures.
So what he's trying to do here is bring the
focus back to the American people, focus on and in
this case the most pervasive global threat. The source of
it all is from this regime. That's point number one.
For number two is the operational part that the objective
here is and we're seeing the evidence of its successes,
as the President say, you know, faster than intended schedule time,
you know, ahead of schedule, meeting that objective operationally in
a very targeted, precise way alongside partner. So it's not
just our burden. And I believe I think we will
see if the rhetoric from our partners translates into actions,
we will see others coming and really ensure this is
comprehensively dealt with.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the coalition building is extremely important, as we have
seen time after time after time, particularly in engagements in
the Middle East. I'm going to get back to that
in just a moment. But you know, there are a
lot of Americans who are asking today, Okay, well wait
a minute, I thought we took out there around's nuclear capacity,
the capacity to build intermediate long range nuclear warheads or
or short range for that matter, and so so why
are we why are we back there? Didn't we handle
that last last summer? What is the answer to that,
and what is the status of their their capacity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, the answer is exactly what the President said
right after Operation Midnight Hammer. If we see evidence again
that Iran is trying to do this, we will respond
again militarily. He said that right after the successful operation.
And in fact, as I mentioned, the intention not only
in the nuclear program, but in building out other types
of measures, other new tactics to get around it have
only have expanded, but out of necessity on the Iranian
regime's part. But Centray Rubio mentioned, I think it was
yesterday this drone shield that Iranian the regime is thinking of.
I mean, that's a whole new use of the drone
warfare to kind of insulate them and give them that flexibility.
So to think that this is an adversary that's just
going to wait around and just take the punch and
not try to fight back, I think nobody was under
any illusions about that we dealt a substantial, substantial blow
to their nuclear program, really eliminating its threats for the
foreseeable future, if you include as well the researchers that
were taken out and the various facilities of course the
big ones. But but yeah, this is still they are
they want to kill Americans and they want to do harm,
and so that remains their intention, and this is the
this is the response to that or the preemption of that.
I should say, We're not going to wait around.
Speaker 1: Our guest today is Jacob Olador, chief research officer and
Director of American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
Talking about what's next in the war in Iran. We
talked about coalition building. Obviously that was extremely important in
the Persian Gulf War. It became extremely important again in
what a lot of conservatives and others believe was a
fool's errand in Iraq with the weapons of mass destruction
claims and all of those sorts of things. But we understand,
you know what was happening at the time, but you
are seeing, at least for now, Iran isolated because it had,
let's put it in simple parlance, that nation has ticked
off its neighbors for a long time, and the neighbors
have had to deal with the threats not only of
Iran and getting a nuclear weapon and what that would mean,
but they've had to deal with the unleashing of terrorist
groups like Hesblah, the funding of those terrorist groups, the Houtis,
and in hamas of course in Gaza. It's it's an
unstable region of the world. It has been for a
very long time. Iran made it that much more unstable.
Where do you think the Coalition building will go? Given
the history.
Speaker 2: Here, right, It's great to be back with you, you know.
The so much of the foundation of the coalition was
established by President Trump in his first term. Obviously, the
Abraham Accord has created a new opportunity for our regional
partners to work together. And then Israel. President Trump made
the decision to bring Israel out of the European Command
military structure into the Middle East Central Command structure, which
enabled a lot of those incredible historic military cooperation you
saw between Israel and its partners of the last couple
of years. You know. And I think the Coalition has
and enlarge part because of how the problem metastasized under
the Biden watch, which or Biden negligence, I should say Biden.
The Biden Iran policy I see as much worse than
the already completely disastrous Obama police in that they were
waiting around basically for twenty fifteen to come back, and
obviously that wasn't going to happen. They had no plan,
no backup, So obviously the problem grew much worse, and
the Europeans were also in the crosshairs during Putin's decision
to invade Ukraine, which was in which Iran provided missiles
and drones too. So that allowed Europe to actually take
a bold stand, which you know, obviously Europe is not
known to do. But they've issued sanctions and then a
series of sanctions against Iran for its support of Russia,
and then just now recently even the EU took the
step unthinkable, I think, to list the IRGC as terror organization,
and so they have. Actually I've made this observation that
we don't agree on too much with our European friends,
but there's one issue that's undoubtedly a consensus, and that
is on the need to address the threats from Iran.
And so I'm curious to see if and how that develops.
But certainly, I think for Iran's part, they always relied
on Europe to be able to do business there, to
have operate there freely. I think you're seeing, especially from
some of the heads of government there an awareness of
a different landscape and a different need, and so I'm waiting,
you know, that'll be an interesting to watch. But so
I think the coalition is forming. I think the you've
seen as well from some of our regional partners now
they the public statements of caution that we've seen in
previous weeks, especially from Saudi Arabia. That is a public
message because they are, as we're seeing now, in the crosshairs.
They're in the neighborhood. But we also saw that Washington
Post piece that the Crown Prince was encouraging quietly the
President to act, and the Defense Minister in Washington saying
that you know, we knew we do need to act
on the ultimatum we set. It's important for peace. And
so the the consensus is there. The the record of
working together to defend against Iranian threats is also there,
on which they're building and so I think that is
all Those are all positive signs for me in terms
of where a potential new coalition can take shape and
take ownership over the next phase of hopefully seeing their
neighborhood reach a more stable condition.
Speaker 1: Clearly, this is a very complicated region and there are
all kinds of politics, geopolitics, sect politics playing out. You know,
you have you have it. It's more than that, but
you have two major fundamental versions of Islam, or you know,
the political power surrounding Islam, and so Saudi Arabia is
not Iran in that capacity, just as a rock was
not Iran, because you have the two different factions. But
will you ultimately see the Islamic brotherhood if you will
get together in and this is what Iran is hoping
for a common enemy the United States and of course Israel.
Speaker 2: No, it's a good question. I think the opposite is true,
and I'll tell you why. I think that. I think
we don't appreciate enough that it's not only the Muslim
communities in the Middle East, but even the Shia communities
in the Middle East that are some of the victims
of this regime's terror. Not all I mean. But first
of all, you know this regime which came to power
with a hybrid. It's really a hybrid of Islamic and
Marxist ideology. So you have the vanguard that's very much
Marxist thinking, and one of many of their ideologues came
from that school in the sixties and fifties. So you
have to think these are communities that not only are
targeted physically now because they live in these countries that
are under attack from regime missiles, but also their religion,
you know, is being packaged in this way to basically
be the biggest force of destruction in the world. And
so even from a I would think just individualistic perspective,
this is an issue as well. So I think that'll
be interesting. That'll I think account for some of what
we'll see on the ground in the Middle East, as
far as you know, if the regime, out of desperation,
tries to reach out to as it's been doing a
little bit, some of the militias in Iraq, you know,
if they respond, You've seen many of its proxies not
actually take action. That's because, for example, has bel only
recently they did start a little bit, but their calculus
is what does the population thinking, and Frank of the
population is not on board. And so the Prime Minister
of Lebanon is going out and saying we should not
be attacking Israel. This is not in our interest precisely
because that's not what the Lebanese street wants. This is
an important context for again explaining the success, like the
success of the continued efforts that we're taking.
Speaker 1: This president has been clear and this administration has been
clear from the beginning, and it's been clear throughout. It
was clear throughout the first term. It's clear and Trump
two point zero. They don't take any options off the table.
And that's a good thing. That's a position of strength.
That's a position of strength that we certainly did not
have in the Biden or Obama years, where red lines
were crossed all the time. Of course, but all of
that said, he has not ruled out boots on the ground.
That has long been a major concern for Americans, American families,
of course, with you know, with military members, not that
they you know, they don't believe in the work, the commitment,
the job that these brave members of the military have.
But all of that said, how likely is it that
we will have to see ground forces in Iran?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Well, what the President's team have said is they
don't want to weigh in either way on that issue.
And again we have to remember when they're speaking now,
especially now on this issue, anything they say publicly will
also be heard by the adversary, and so they don't
want to provide any additional support to them. Say all right, well,
America's this is kind of the extent of it, we can,
we can pucker through and figure this out. That being said,
I you know, I obviously see this. This is something
that was likely I'm not on the inside anymore and
wasn't really this. But I would think that this type
of an operation, this scale, which the President said, is
unlike anything we've seen before with consequence for our benefit,
unlike anything we've seen before around the world. I would
imagine this was in the works and planning for a
lot of time. And so I think that speaks the
success of the operation of which we've only seen. Again,
we're only at the end of day four local time
there already with with historic success. So I, you know,
again not weighing in either way, but I think it's
kind of a moment where, having accomplished so much already,
let's sort of see how it plays out. And but yeah,
I think that's kind of where they're at on it.
But you know, and so obviously we've had we should
have started, you know, we have had already American casualties,
and which the President mentioned in his opening remarks on
Saturday morning, and that that is, as a president said,
a reality of any military engagement war, especially of this magnitude.
But I think it's important for us to remember this
is not us alone, that this is something that truly
is shared by I think the world, the peace letting
people around the world, and we see it again in
the statements from our partners and allies, but certainly in
the region and so where we do have not only
support but cooperation, and so that I think is an
important piece of context for both for how this has
been conducted.
Speaker 1: How likely is it that this war, this military operation
expands further into the region. We are seeing explosions, hearing
explosions and seeing them in in Lebanon and elsewhere. How
far does this this campaign go do you think?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think at a certain point it becomes a
little bit of a semantics piece of you know, using
the word war. What we really haven't seen. The running
response has been pretty much like it's done in the past.
I mean, they really don't are not able to really
mount a sufficient response. But that's exactly been the approach.
We are preempting and preventing a bigger escalation, and that's
been obviously Israel's approach. You know, it's very possible. Have
they not done that with Lebanon years ago. Over the
last few years, they would have actually had, you know,
the scenario that everybody feared of the hundreds of thousands
of as blow missiles, fire and digital that never materialized
because there was took out the launchers, the commanders and
so forth. Now that being said, Israel has its specific
objectives in the region, and part of that will be
decisively eradicating hesbel A presence, not just the threat from Lebanon.
I mean, the last few years has been dismantling the threat,
which is included again incredible accomplishments through their covert actions
of taking out Estralla and all the leadership. I think,
and what I've been reading in the press as well
is that Israel is looking at something substantial in Lebanon
which again will accrue benefit, the result of which this
is the war that Israel had planned, not the gas
of war, which Israeli parlance is sometimes called the war
of mass distraction because because the real threat, the strategic
threat to Israel's existence was in the north and so
the but that again will accrue benefit as far as
addressing the presidents of actives of giving over to our
partners a their region, because once the threat from Lebanon
from Hezbola is eradicated in Lebanon, then there is opportunity
for progress in that part of the world and for
Israel its neighbors, who by the way, agree with the
actions Israel is taken, by the way, are those that
Lebanese people want. And so you see a lot of
the with the Arab street really wants to see that.
They all want to see Iron's influence taken away, eradicated.
And so but again that that is Israel's war, just
as the Gaza War was Israel's a war. And and
again those are wars, those are wars of necessity because
of Israel's survival, because if it doesn't, that's again narrowly,
it's calculus which and it is prerogative to to take
in defense of its own citizens. The American objective here,
going back to the original point, is looking at the
immediate threats to the American people, which again are pervasive
as we look at you know what Iran has been
building towards and discussing publicly, So you know, will that
be considered a wider war? Will that just be Israel's
military operation to eradicate the threat from Hesblo, which will
by the way, accelerate the effectiveness of our objectives. That
remains to be seen. But again, I think the state
of Iran's military political leadership isn't such an unprecedented state
of disarray. And I say that especially with the ouster
of Humanae that I really, you know, we don't know
exactly what their calculus is, but you know it's it's
you know, given how much how effective things have been,
you know, I think the objective is in sight is
what it looks like.
Speaker 1: Speaking of the language and the semantics, we have a
lot of folks in Congress who seemingly haven't read the
Constitution or that we've learned much about you know, military
actions and what the executive branch can do and cannot do.
And so you're hearing all of this talk that this
is an illegal operation, that the president did not have
the authority to do this, and he needs Congress's approval.
That obviously is not the case. Why other than for
naked politics, is this the response from many members of
the Democrat side.
Speaker 2: It's completely reckless, and especially right now among Democrats, to
be gratuitous to be going there. Look, I served for
Senate leadership and I was there I read the justification.
As you know, we were given the bio President Trump
of his actions, and so he is using the same method.
In fact here, you know, he immediately gave notice to
the American people to Congress and in those remarks at
two thirty in the morning on Saturday. That is sufficient
to meet whatever that that goes beyond, in fact, what
he's required to do by the Constitution, which authorizes him.
Again if you if you read the plain language, to
take actions that he deems necessary. It's his decision alone
as commander in chief to protect the American people. That's
that's the that's exclusively the objective here. And look, I
think there are you know, this will be you'll see
all types of you know, broadsides that are again the
time right now is to put politics aside for everyone,
get together behind the president, immunity, support this important uh
this important action on behalfy people.
Speaker 1: Final question for you and even very generous with your time.
But this isn't just about Iran. We talk about the
four dhs of this administration. There are other things in play.
I think about our other significant adversaries, Russia and China.
What kind of message and what is the strategy relating
to Russia, China and other adversaries in this particular conflict
right now.
Speaker 2: I think it'll be interesting to watch how they Obviously
they're the only ones who have been criticizing the operation.
I think that we will see so it has direct
impact on both in terms of deterring them. But I
suspect that we will see a a very quick, quick
downstream effect on Russia especially. I mean that Pudin's war
has already not been going in his direction, in his favor.
He's hemorrhaging men. The numbers I think in last month
alone was the total number that we had lost in
the Korean War, just in one month, and he is
not and with no gains really to show. And I
think militarily speaking, i've heard that, you know, after the winter,
which is you know, soon we're in spring, the Ukrainians
will have the advantage militarily. But if you think about
his dependence on Iran for ballistic missiles, drones, other types
of equipment, you know that supply line is now being
cut off by our efforts just de facto. So I
think it's very real that we will see an end
to the Ukraine War. You know, in short order. I mean,
I don't want to you know, be flippant or overstate,
but I I think that'll be the first domino to fall.
And then as for China, you know, they take their
consumer of Irun and oil. They you know, for them,
Iran represents a major foot gold in the region. They
provide missile parts and missiles to Iran. That that is
disappearing as well. So their opportunity to to to undermine
our interests, you know, within other parts of the world
is being lost. So and it certainly reasily anything else
they want to do. So I think this is having
global effect already, and I think that the benefits of
that will accrue only towards us and our interests. So
another reason why this is important.
Speaker 1: Time will tell obviously with all of these things. But
as we watch all of this play out, Americans will pray.
I will pray, but I will pray for America first.
Thanks to my guest today, Jacob Oladort, chief research Officer
and Director of American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
You've been listening to another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
I'm Matt Kettle, Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll
be back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of
freedom and anxious for the fray.