Speaker 1: This is Dan Caplis and welcome to today's online podcast
Speaker 1: edition of The Dan Caplis Show. Please be sure to
Speaker 1: give us a five star rating if you'd be so kind,
Speaker 1: and to subscribe, download and listen to the show every
Speaker 1: single day on your favorite podcast platform.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Dan Caplas Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown
Speaker 2: filling in for Dan today. Good to be with all
Speaker 2: of you on this extremely hot day. I hear it's
Speaker 2: going to get up to ninety nine degrees tomorrow, so
Speaker 2: I think that probably means a swimming pool weekend for
Speaker 2: my kids. Hopefully you guys have plans to either be
Speaker 2: at the pool or indoors in this kind of crazy.
Speaker 3: Weather, or maybe in the mountains.
Speaker 2: That'd be a great place to be and call her
Speaker 2: out of this weekend as well. But we have so
Speaker 2: many national issues to talk about on the show today.
Speaker 2: Federal cuts to Medicaid? How is that going to impact Colorado?
Speaker 2: Are all the I guess claims that you're hearing about
Speaker 2: that really true? Is it really a medicaid cut or
Speaker 2: is it really a change to eligibility for Medicaid? Which
Speaker 2: is something that we have deeply needed for a long time.
Speaker 2: We're also, of course, going to talk about Iran and
Speaker 2: President Trump's announcement the other day that everyone will know
Speaker 2: within the next two weeks what he's going to do.
Speaker 2: We're going to talk about some of the options the
Speaker 2: US would have go through some different elected officials on
Speaker 2: the federal level, people like Charlie Kirk, and their different
Speaker 2: opinions about what the US should do. If you have
Speaker 2: opinions on what the US should do or not do,
Speaker 2: you are very welcome to call into the show or
Speaker 2: text today the numbers eight five five four zero five
Speaker 2: eight two five five, or you can text five seven
Speaker 2: seven three nine and start it with Dan. Another thing
Speaker 2: we're going to cover on the show today is sanctuary
Speaker 2: state laws here in Colorado, because New York has the
Speaker 2: governor of New York has announced that they're going to
Speaker 2: provide fifty million dollars in taxpayer money to provide legal
Speaker 2: services for illegal immigrants. I'm sure this is in response
Speaker 2: to the Trump administration in Ice actually doing what they
Speaker 2: promised and cracking down on illegal immigrants, removing them from
Speaker 2: the United States and focusing specifically on the criminal But
Speaker 2: states like New York want to go ahead and fund
Speaker 2: their legal services to keep them here in the country.
Speaker 2: All the while, at least here in Colorado, citizens often
Speaker 2: are losing services, but we're paying even more for people
Speaker 2: who are not supposed to be here in the first place.
Speaker 2: So that's definitely an issue that New York is taking on,
Speaker 2: but it's already been handled here in Colorado by Democrats
Speaker 2: and the legislature who at least every two years pass
Speaker 2: another slew of sanctuary state laws, all the while Governor
Speaker 2: Polis continues.
Speaker 3: To claim we're not a sanctuary state.
Speaker 2: Well, the facts reveal and the laws reveal that we absolutely,
Speaker 2: very clearly are, and so we'll get into the details
Speaker 2: of that a little bit later in the show.
Speaker 3: I'm Christy Britton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapli Show.
Speaker 3: Some specific news that was released today.
Speaker 2: Some of the Minnesota lawmakers who were shot, Senator John
Speaker 2: Hoffman and his wife Yeavette, have been recovering in the hospital.
Speaker 2: I believe State Senator Hoffman is still in critical but
Speaker 2: stable condition. So they actually talked to the news today
Speaker 2: and revealed more about what happened when the gunman came
Speaker 2: to their door. So I guess what they've said happened
Speaker 2: is he came to their door at about two am
Speaker 2: in the morning and made a lot of noise, banged
Speaker 2: on the door, and yelled out that he was a
Speaker 2: police officer, and he demanded that they opened the door
Speaker 2: and that he'd be allowed to enter. And so, as
Speaker 2: most people would do in that kind of a scenario,
Speaker 2: they opened the door. They were there in their home
Speaker 2: with their adult daughter, and as soon as they opened
Speaker 2: the door, they saw that he had a gun pointing
Speaker 2: at them, and I believe he began to shoot, and
Speaker 2: the state senator like lunged at him to try and
Speaker 2: get the gun down because his wife and adult daughter
Speaker 2: were also there. He was shot eight or nine times,
Speaker 2: and then his wife was also shot eight or nine times.
Speaker 2: And by that point their adult daughter was able to
Speaker 2: shut the door to the house a locket and call
Speaker 2: the police, and the shooter went on to actually go
Speaker 2: to another legislator's house and kill her and her husband.
Speaker 2: But I think this brings up something that's really unexpected
Speaker 2: for a lot of people, Like what do you do
Speaker 2: if a police officer is at your door in the
Speaker 2: middle of the night and you don't expect it. I mean,
Speaker 2: most people would answer the door. That's what you're supposed
Speaker 2: to do. But I think one thing about this scenario
Speaker 2: that no one would have known this ahead of time,
Speaker 2: but now I think we could really think about and
Speaker 2: evaluate it. Police officers usually don't come to a house
Speaker 2: alone in the middle of the night. They come together,
Speaker 2: and so I think if you're ever in a scenario
Speaker 2: and hopefully no one ever is in another scenario like this,
Speaker 2: but if you are and there's a single police officer
Speaker 2: outside your door yelling for you to open the door,
Speaker 2: A lot of police organizations actually recommend that you go.
Speaker 3: Ahead and call your local police officers.
Speaker 2: You call your local sheriff's office and ask if they
Speaker 2: send anyone to your home. That's a very acceptable thing
Speaker 2: to do so that you know you don't find yourself
Speaker 2: in this kind of a scenario. I know that's what
Speaker 2: Minnesota police are now recommending specifically the legislators, but I
Speaker 2: think people in general do is go ahead and make
Speaker 2: that call, ask if they're supposed to be there. So
Speaker 2: sometimes it's just such strange things we have to consider
Speaker 2: in today's society, with so much violence and terrible behavior
Speaker 2: that goes on. Whether we're talking about said at protests
Speaker 2: that should have been peaceful, whether we're talking about gunmen
Speaker 2: coming to doors of people. They disagree with a lot
Speaker 2: of very unnecessary, in tragic violence in our society. Now,
Speaker 2: this actually leads me to Iran, which I think is
Speaker 2: going to be a big, big topic today. What would
Speaker 2: be the purpose of the United States engaging in Iran?
Speaker 2: Of course, there are a lot of people both on
Speaker 2: the left and the right, who are saying, no, not
Speaker 2: another endless war in the Middle East. The US should
Speaker 2: stay out, leave it alone. Israel's got it under control.
Speaker 2: They believe that President Trump is more of an isolationist,
Speaker 2: so to speak, make America great again, not the world
Speaker 2: great again. And so you know a lot of either
Speaker 2: hesitancy or objections from people saying, well, let's hold back.
Speaker 2: What are we doing jumping in the Middle East again?
Speaker 2: I think it's really important for that reason that people
Speaker 2: know the very specific involvement that President Trump is suggesting.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: I also will say that I think sometimes President Trump
Speaker 2: isn't necessarily I don't know, explicit in all the detail
Speaker 2: that he gives when he says, hey, here's exactly what
Speaker 2: we're considering. Sometimes I think he talks a lot in
Speaker 2: general terms without sharing some of the details with people.
Speaker 2: Of course, some of that's going to be for national
Speaker 2: security reasons, and sometimes it is because that's just how
Speaker 2: he is. But the biggest thing that the United States,
Speaker 2: at least that has been reported in some outlets and
Speaker 2: sometimes by the White House and press conferences, is the
Speaker 2: bunker buster bomb.
Speaker 3: I don't know how many of you are aware.
Speaker 2: I had to look up what that was, but it's
Speaker 2: this extremely giant bomb that can actually could take out
Speaker 2: Iran's one of their most dangerous, dangerous nuclear facilities that
Speaker 2: is in.
Speaker 3: The side of the mountain.
Speaker 2: It's actually kind of like the facility we have Cheyenne
Speaker 2: Mountain and down in the close to the springs here
Speaker 2: in America that we have in Colorado. Iran has a
Speaker 2: facility like that, but they have a nuclear facility similarly
Speaker 2: built into the side of a mountain. Very very hard
Speaker 2: to take out. I mean, there's a reason countries do that.
Speaker 2: It's difficult to get taken out.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: Israel doesn't have these kind of bombs, the bunker buster
Speaker 2: bombs that can blast into the side of a mountain
Speaker 2: and take out whatever is beneath.
Speaker 3: We do in the United States.
Speaker 2: Furthermore, we have the B two bombers that actually carry
Speaker 2: these bunker buster bombs. Your average bomber can't carry them
Speaker 2: because they're much too big, much too heavy. So Israel
Speaker 2: has neither the weapon that is needed nor the aircraft
Speaker 2: that's needed to bring it.
Speaker 3: In the US does have it.
Speaker 2: We also have it currently located within flying distance of
Speaker 2: Iran's facility. So this is the specific request that Israel's making,
Speaker 2: At least I think Israel's making it of the United States.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty sure it's exactly what they would want is
Speaker 2: for this nuclear facility to be taken out. So that
Speaker 2: is specifically what President Trump is considering doing. I for
Speaker 2: one thing, there is a giant, giant difference in a
Speaker 2: very targeted, specific strike and a whole long war.
Speaker 3: In the Middle East.
Speaker 2: So I think when we're talking about US involvement in Iran,
Speaker 2: it's really important to know exactly what we're talking about
Speaker 2: and not.
Speaker 3: I think blow it out of proportion.
Speaker 2: And we're going to get into some clips after the
Speaker 2: break of what how different people are analyzing this, what
Speaker 2: they're saying about it, and would love to get your
Speaker 2: feedback too.
Speaker 3: You can plan on calling in after the break if
Speaker 3: you'd like.
Speaker 2: Eight five five four zero, five eight two five five,
Speaker 2: or text your thoughts to Dan at five seven seven
Speaker 2: three nine. But I think we should just be very
Speaker 2: specific about this situation that's actually at hand. I really
Speaker 2: don't think with President Trump's view of foreign a US
Speaker 2: involvement in foreign wars, that he's actually thinking about putting
Speaker 2: our troops on the ground. The US commonly sends special
Speaker 2: forces into places like Ukraine and trains their soldiers how
Speaker 2: to fight against Russia. We commonly send our special forces
Speaker 2: over to Israel and actually learn from the Masade, while
Speaker 2: we also teach them, you know, things that we know
Speaker 2: how to do.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot of coordinations.
Speaker 2: If you want to consider that troops on the ground,
Speaker 2: I guess you can, but it's really not the conventional
Speaker 2: definition of troops on the ground, and I have not
Speaker 2: heard that that's something that President Trump is really considering.
Speaker 2: So I think we need to separate our idea of
Speaker 2: some big long war in the Middle East with a
Speaker 2: very targeted strike that would be useful for the entire world.
Speaker 2: When a country like I Ran continue used to say,
Speaker 2: on one hand, oh no, no, no, we're only using
Speaker 2: this for our defense.
Speaker 3: We're peaceful.
Speaker 2: Our production of nuclear is just peaceful, just for our
Speaker 2: own country. And then two months later they say oh again,
Speaker 2: they repeat their wish that Israel be wiped off the
Speaker 2: map and say we have the ability to create these
Speaker 2: weapons and we can and will anytime we want. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is a very volatile, dangerous situation. You're on the
Speaker 2: Dan Kapla Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown. When we come back,
Speaker 2: we'll listen to a variety of congressmen and commentators on
Speaker 2: the situation with Iran and hopefully get your thoughts too.
Speaker 5: And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3: You're back on the Dan Caplas Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2: Before we get into more discussion on Iran and contrast
Speaker 2: what different congressmen are saying about the US potential strikes
Speaker 2: in Iran, I'm gonna go to something one of our
Speaker 2: textures said on a very different topic. They said, why
Speaker 2: is nobody talking about them selling off millions of acres
Speaker 2: of BLM land and US Forest Service land in this bill,
Speaker 2: the Big Beautiful Bill.
Speaker 3: This is something I won't support if they saw off
Speaker 3: the public land.
Speaker 2: I happen to be a hunter and a conservationist, but
Speaker 2: nobody on the right wants to talk about that. Actually
Speaker 2: think this is a great question, and it's one that's
Speaker 2: been coming up over the last couple weeks with provisions
Speaker 2: in the Big Beautiful Bill so called, to sell off
Speaker 2: some federal land. So anyone else who has thoughts on
Speaker 2: this would love to hear from you as well. But
Speaker 2: I think there's a few facts that are necessary. I'm
Speaker 2: sure that texture is probably aware of this, but the
Speaker 2: Big Beautiful Bill is actually considering selling off zero point
Speaker 2: five percent, so half a percent of all the federal
Speaker 2: land that is owned by the United States in our
Speaker 2: nation now. Still, I don't think most people are aware
Speaker 2: of that small of an amount. But a recent poll
Speaker 2: show that seventy one percent of Americans oppose the sale
Speaker 2: of public land.
Speaker 3: They don't think this is a good idea.
Speaker 2: So I think when we're talking about it, there are
Speaker 2: a few things to consider, like why in the world
Speaker 2: would we do this in the first place. Why are
Speaker 2: they even considering it? Well, there are a few reasons.
Speaker 2: One of them is that selling off some federal land
Speaker 2: could allow for more energy production in the United States.
Speaker 2: Some of the federally owned land is very oil rich, actually,
Speaker 2: and so we could get more oil and either use
Speaker 2: it in our nation or sell it export it is
Speaker 2: one possibility. Another one is, of course, the money from
Speaker 2: the sale of the land could be significant, depending on
Speaker 2: how much it is and who we sell it to.
Speaker 2: Housing availability and affordability is the reason that most people
Speaker 2: are talking about right now, because they're specifically talking about
Speaker 2: selling federal land in the Western States, to include Colorado,
Speaker 2: where we do have a lack of affordable housing, and
Speaker 2: so they're saying, well, if we sold some of this land,
Speaker 2: you can make more affordable housing. I'm personally curious who
Speaker 2: actually wants to move onto this land, like it is
Speaker 2: way in the middle of nowhere for the most part,
Speaker 2: so I'm not even sure it's close to jobs or
Speaker 2: anything like that. So I don't know how much I
Speaker 2: buy that reason. But that's the reason that's being talked about.
Speaker 2: And then another one that I think a lot of
Speaker 2: people probably could identify with is that states and or
Speaker 2: private entities can manage the land better than the federal
Speaker 2: government when the federal government has millions and millions of acres,
Speaker 2: and for many years a number of the portions of
Speaker 2: the land, certainly here in Colorado, have not been managed
Speaker 2: well when it comes to wildfire risk and other things
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 3: So it depends on which state.
Speaker 2: Though, I mean, would Colorado acts they manage that better,
Speaker 2: would California actually manage that better? We've certainly seen that
Speaker 2: California doesn't. So what a state actually take care of
Speaker 2: the land and minimize the risks better than the federal
Speaker 2: government has done. Now, if we're going to talk about
Speaker 2: reasons why not to sell the land, in addition to well,
Speaker 2: it's considered US land, the land that belongs to everyone.
Speaker 3: So what's going to be the limit? When is the
Speaker 3: US going to stop selling the land?
Speaker 2: There's been some talk of it being used as like
Speaker 2: leverage and debts, and so some people are saying, we've
Speaker 2: better make sure that doesn't happen, because if it does,
Speaker 2: then China could actually get a hold of the land.
Speaker 3: That would be a terrible, terrible idea.
Speaker 2: But another reason, and I think this is the biggest
Speaker 2: one that applies to Colorado of why a lot of
Speaker 2: people are saying don't sell this land. There are a
Speaker 2: lot of ranchers and cattle owners, specifically in Colorado who are.
Speaker 3: Able to lease the federal land.
Speaker 2: And that's actually the way that they're able to run
Speaker 2: their operation and have their ranch and run their cattle.
Speaker 2: Is because they have a good deal to lease with
Speaker 2: the federal government beneficial for the land. It's beneficial for
Speaker 2: the ranchers if any of that land was sold.
Speaker 3: I mean, is the state going to allow ranchers to
Speaker 3: continue to lease the land?
Speaker 2: I don't think so. The state is very anti agriculture
Speaker 2: here in Colorado. And then of course there's some hunters
Speaker 2: and fishers who also have concerns about what would happen
Speaker 2: if the land were sold.
Speaker 3: So it is a big issue.
Speaker 2: If you have any thoughts, feel free to call in
Speaker 2: eight five five four zero five eight two five five
Speaker 2: or text Dan at five seven seven three nine. I'm
Speaker 2: Christy Burton Brown. You're here on the Dan Kapli Show.
Speaker 2: I honestly don't have a hugely strong opinion on whether
Speaker 2: or not we should be selling off federal land. To me,
Speaker 2: what matters more is who would get a hold of
Speaker 2: it and who would own it, Because there's any risk
Speaker 2: of China or an other country getting a hold of it,
Speaker 2: that's absolutely awful. If it really does take away the
Speaker 2: benefits that United States citizens enjoy from the federal land.
Speaker 2: I'm not a big fan of that. I think we
Speaker 2: should keep a lot of nature. I think we should
Speaker 2: keep a lot of access, but half of a percent
Speaker 2: of the land to allow for energy production, maybe some
Speaker 2: more affordable housing and things like that, better management of
Speaker 2: the lands. To states, I would actually do it, I'm
Speaker 2: not sure that is a terrible idea. Senator Mike Lee,
Speaker 2: who tends to come down on a good side of
Speaker 2: less government involvement, is supporting this provision, and he comes
Speaker 2: from one of the western states that would be affected
Speaker 2: by this. So I think as long as it's kept
Speaker 2: very minimal, very specific who buys it, it might actually
Speaker 2: be a decent idea. But we'll see what actually happens.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and move to it. Back to Iran. Now,
Speaker 2: I'm going to do first by taking a caller, Robert
Speaker 2: from Denver. Welcome to the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 4: Hey are you I'm good?
Speaker 3: How are you good?
Speaker 4: Good? I just wanted can I comment on the Iran situation? Yes?
Speaker 2: Please?
Speaker 4: Do? I think the United States is going to have
Speaker 4: to deal with it? And because if you look it up,
Speaker 4: Iran who's launched seven satellites? Okay, yeah, WELLUS are you
Speaker 4: using hypersonic whiles against Israel right now, right five percent
Speaker 4: years at least six thousand miles an hour, and they
Speaker 4: can change the direction as they need to avoid the
Speaker 4: by a dome and whatever you use. So I think,
Speaker 4: and here the fact that brand took over our embassy
Speaker 4: the Eyotel did, right, and we held our embassy staff
Speaker 4: hostage for four hundred and forty four days, and they
Speaker 4: call us the Great Satan, right, I think we're going
Speaker 4: to have to deal with it. I don't think we
Speaker 4: can just say we need to make peace and they're
Speaker 4: able to stand down. I don't think that's going to
Speaker 4: work when they're already launching, according to Wikipedia, seven satellites
Speaker 4: in this space.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, they continue to develop their technology. Despite all
Speaker 2: their claims for peace, their intentions are quite obviously to
Speaker 2: attack Israel first in the US second. So I think
Speaker 2: you're right when we combine the technology they have, what
Speaker 2: they've already shown they're willing to do, and what they
Speaker 2: have done in the past with the specific situation, I
Speaker 2: think that's going on right now. Israel was able to
Speaker 2: cut down on the power of Hesbalah of the hoodies
Speaker 2: in Yemen, and with the Assad regime toppling in Syria.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's a lot of Iranian allies that have
Speaker 2: been taken out or significantly weakened. So in many ways,
Speaker 2: it's a prime opportunity to you know, take away this
Speaker 2: threat that absolutely exists, as you're saying, Robert, to the
Speaker 2: United States as well as Israel.
Speaker 4: All right, well, I agree with everything.
Speaker 3: Thank you, awesome, thanks for calling in. Good to have you.
Speaker 3: All right. You also could call in.
Speaker 2: If you have thoughts on the conflict in Iran and
Speaker 2: what the US should do eight five five four zero
Speaker 2: five eight two five five, or text your thoughts five
Speaker 2: seven seven three nine to Dan.
Speaker 3: Let's let's see.
Speaker 2: I don't think I quite have time to play a
Speaker 2: clip right now, but we have a Democrat congressman, a
Speaker 2: Republican congressman, and then Charlie Kirk, all of whose opinions
Speaker 2: we will get to you on the Iran conflicts, see
Speaker 2: if they match up with any of yours, or if
Speaker 2: you have a completely different idea. But I think to
Speaker 2: Robert's point, to our last callers point, this really is
Speaker 2: not just in Iran Israel conflict. That's been a lot
Speaker 2: of American's objections to some of the former wars in.
Speaker 3: The Middle East. They say, well, while.
Speaker 2: It started out as the war on terror or weapons
Speaker 2: of mass destruction, at least we believed they were there
Speaker 2: in Iraq, it then became nation building. It then became
Speaker 2: very focused on other countries problems in other countries' conflicts,
Speaker 2: not something the US should be directly involved with, according
Speaker 2: to a lot of these people who don't want to
Speaker 2: see involvement right now. But I don't think anyone is
Speaker 2: suggesting that we need to go build a nation in Iran.
Speaker 2: There are a ton of people in Iran who would
Speaker 2: love to see the current regime overthrown, but they can't
Speaker 2: do it, and if the regime is fully taken out,
Speaker 2: they can actually take care of their own country and
Speaker 2: rebuild their own country. I don't think anyone suggesting the
Speaker 2: US should go in and do that. I also think
Speaker 2: it should be deeply considered, like what is your responsibility
Speaker 2: in the world when you are the top superpower. I
Speaker 2: don't think you can sit back as an isolationist and
Speaker 2: just say, well, you know, let's let the world take
Speaker 2: care of themselves, like you don't have to go in
Speaker 2: and fight every conflict. But you also can't sit back
Speaker 2: and just take care of yourself. The world falls to
Speaker 2: pieces if you do that, and you eventually lose your
Speaker 2: superpower status. So we'll continue this discussion Iran when we
Speaker 2: get back from this break. I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're
Speaker 2: on the Dan Caplis Show. Make sure you call in
Speaker 2: if you have thoughts over the break eight five five
Speaker 2: four zero five eight two five five or texture thoughts
Speaker 2: on Iran or any other topic to Dan f five
Speaker 2: seven seven three nine.
Speaker 5: You're listening to the Dan Kapliss Show podcast.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the Dan Kapless Show. I'm Christy Burton Brown.
Speaker 2: Let's get us some commentary with different congressman and Charlie
Speaker 2: Kirk about the Iran conflict. Now, before I play these
Speaker 2: clips for you, I'm going to tell you just think
Speaker 2: the difference in these two congressmen. That Democrat Congressman Jim
Speaker 2: Heimes is from Connecticut and the Republican Congressman Mark Alford
Speaker 2: is from Texas. So think to yourself about how Connecticut
Speaker 2: and Texas might respond differently.
Speaker 3: And let's see how different it really is.
Speaker 2: Here is Representative Jim Heimes from Connecticut.
Speaker 6: There's some chance you could have the best case scenario
Speaker 6: setting aside right and wrong, in justice and injustice and
Speaker 6: all that. There's some chance you could get the dream
Speaker 6: scenario right, which is that the Iranian people finally decide
Speaker 6: they've had enough and they overthrow this regime, and you know,
Speaker 6: you get a situation where you know, this incredibly educated,
Speaker 6: very capable people decides that we're going to rejoin the
Speaker 6: Company of decent Nations.
Speaker 3: But you know, we're in the Middle East.
Speaker 6: You know, there are fifty other scenarios that range from
Speaker 6: you know, our naval base in Bahrain and their airbase
Speaker 6: and Cutter being attacked, to the fall of the King
Speaker 6: of Jordan. You know, the King of Jordan is hanging
Speaker 6: on by his fingernails for a the larger reasons. I mean,
Speaker 6: I could just go on for an hour about the
Speaker 6: different scenarios that if you are knowledgeable on the Middle East,
Speaker 6: you would say, hey, there's some chance of that too.
Speaker 6: So long winded way of saying, if you know, we
Speaker 6: can sort of joke about taco and you know, everything
Speaker 6: is two weeks or four weeks or never. But I
Speaker 6: think when you're talking about war in the Middle East,
Speaker 6: going slower than rather than faster is not a bad thing.
Speaker 2: Okay, fair point that the ideal scenario would be for
Speaker 2: the Iranian people themselves to overthrow the regime. But I
Speaker 2: do think they have tried that, and there's a lot
Speaker 2: of people there who would love to do that, and
Speaker 2: it's not the kind of regime that is easily overthrown
Speaker 2: for many reasons, one of the many being I mean,
Speaker 2: think about North Korea.
Speaker 3: How are those people supposed to overthrow that regime.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying those kind of things are impossible, but
Speaker 2: these are two of the hardest nations in the entire
Speaker 2: world for citizens who very deeply might want to overthrow
Speaker 2: the regime to actually be able to do it.
Speaker 3: So I mean, yes, ideal.
Speaker 2: Scenario, sure, practical scenario, I don't think so. That doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that Representative Heim's, Democrat congressman from Connecticut is wrong
Speaker 2: that slow walking this a little bit. It's giving some
Speaker 2: time to think about impulsively reacting to a scenario in
Speaker 2: the Middle East is the one is the right thing
Speaker 2: to do? I mean, yes, a little bit of time
Speaker 2: is good to make sure we're doing the right thing,
Speaker 2: coordinating with allies I'm doing well. It's necessary and not
Speaker 2: crossing lines that involves the US permanently in the Middle
Speaker 2: East again, but too much time also, you can lose opportunities.
Speaker 2: So let's listen to his one other comment before we
Speaker 2: move on to Congress and Mark Alfred from Texas.
Speaker 6: I guess I'm not surprised, right and you know, the
Speaker 6: fact that we're not reading about a US attack on
Speaker 6: Iran right now actually gives me a little bit of comfort.
Speaker 6: I was asked this morning, you know, if you're advising
Speaker 6: the president, what.
Speaker 1: Do you do?
Speaker 6: And the advice I would give the president is, you know,
Speaker 6: you are in a point of maximum leverage right now,
Speaker 6: right and off of you know, the regime has been
Speaker 6: badly hurt, badly embarrassed. They're probably worried about what's going
Speaker 6: to happen inside Iran with the Iranian people, So now
Speaker 6: is the time to call them up and say you
Speaker 6: give up any enrichment, which by the way, is the
Speaker 6: deal from the old JCPOA and yes that had a
Speaker 6: fuse on it, but you give up any enrichment. And
Speaker 6: this stops today point a maximum leverage. So you know,
Speaker 6: the fact that we're not talking about a US attack
Speaker 6: leaves me to believe that maybe that's what's happening, which
Speaker 6: I think is good because Jim, I mean, listen, I'll
Speaker 6: try to make this quick, but yeah, war in the
Speaker 6: Middle East is a hell of a roll of the dice.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I'll just point out one thing from his comments.
Speaker 2: He's saying he thinks perhaps by buying this two week window,
Speaker 2: what President Trump may be doing is trying to negotiate some.
Speaker 3: Sort of deal with Iran.
Speaker 2: It may very well be true, but to his point,
Speaker 2: the exact thing that we would want in a negotiated
Speaker 2: deal like that has been agreed to before. Iran has
Speaker 2: said previously that they wouldn't make nuclear weapons. They've agreed
Speaker 2: before to let inspectors in. We've seen where that's gone.
Speaker 2: It is always only a temporary band aid when you're
Speaker 2: talking about Iran. So is that really the right answer?
Speaker 3: I'm here.
Speaker 2: Let's move to a Congressman Mark Alford. He's talking to
Speaker 2: John Berman on CNN, and let's get his thoughts.
Speaker 3: Do you think they have a nuclear ward?
Speaker 7: Now I don't have any way of knowing that for sure,
Speaker 7: but I'm not going to wait around and find out.
Speaker 8: The intelligence suggests that they certainly don't have a warhead,
Speaker 8: and there's discrepancy over that.
Speaker 5: Way they've made that threat.
Speaker 7: They want instead we're the great Satan in their eyes.
Speaker 8: Do they have an intercontinentibalistic missile?
Speaker 7: Not to my knowledge, I don't have any intelligence.
Speaker 8: Sim Burchett again, and these are his words here. He
Speaker 8: was noting that the Iranians right now can't shoot a missile.
Speaker 8: He said, past Greece. You know, obviously they're hitting Israel
Speaker 8: right now. But his point was that the United States,
Speaker 8: he does not believe, is that a direct threat to
Speaker 8: the Iranian weaponry.
Speaker 2: So that was really more John Berman from CNN than
Speaker 2: Congressman Alford. Will get to more of his comments in
Speaker 2: a second. But part of the problem with that kind
Speaker 2: of thinking is okay, so even if Iran doesn't right
Speaker 2: now have an intercontinent o ballistic missile, do we wait
Speaker 2: until they do to take out their nuclear facility, the
Speaker 2: most dangerous one in their nation? When we currently have
Speaker 2: an opportunity to do it? And if you weren't here
Speaker 2: on the last segment, one thing we talked about with
Speaker 2: the opportunity that is being handed right now to Israel
Speaker 2: and the United States is that typically Iran has much
Speaker 2: more I guess, much stronger allies. I mean Syria, with
Speaker 2: Asad used to be an ally, the Hooties and Hezbollah
Speaker 2: and Hamas used to all be there in the alliance
Speaker 2: in a way in different ways with Iran, and right
Speaker 2: now all of them have either been weakened or eliminated.
Speaker 2: So that is a very unique opportunity that currently exists.
Speaker 2: Here's more about what Congress ban Alfred said.
Speaker 7: Well, look, it is best to chop the head off
Speaker 7: the snake now before it turns into a Medusa. And
Speaker 7: once that starts, there is no turning back. I would
Speaker 7: rather deal with the situation now, a problem that we've
Speaker 7: been dealing with now for four to five decades, and
Speaker 7: get a leader in Iran who can truly lead the
Speaker 7: people and the will of the people who want normalcy.
Speaker 5: And I was just over there in.
Speaker 7: October in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, meeting with leaders, the
Speaker 7: President of Egypt, King of Dellah. They want normal in
Speaker 7: this region. They want someone to deal with Iran. They
Speaker 7: won't come out publicly and say remove the Ayatola, but
Speaker 7: they want some normalcy.
Speaker 2: Right, and this is I think that's right. That's part
Speaker 2: of the exact problem that goes on. There's a lot
Speaker 2: of countries that aren't going to take it on themselves
Speaker 2: to do it, and in some cases can't, but they
Speaker 2: don't really like the situation there either. And this is,
Speaker 2: of course, as we all know, what happens when you
Speaker 2: have a dictator cemented in a country for decades upon
Speaker 2: decades upon decades. It becomes even more difficult for the
Speaker 2: people of that nation to overthrow that kind of a
Speaker 2: regime because the control is more intense than most Americans
Speaker 2: could even imagine. And the ability to just you know,
Speaker 2: throw off the bans of that particular government isn't something simple.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's something we love to think about as Americans.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: That's how we started our own country. Throw off the
Speaker 2: bands of a nation who thinks they can govern us,
Speaker 2: who thinks they can send soldiers into our homes, who
Speaker 2: thinks they can imprison us whenever they want, And we're
Speaker 2: going to take into our own hands, create a constitution
Speaker 2: and create this nation. And here we are the most
Speaker 2: successful nation in the world who is able.
Speaker 3: To do it.
Speaker 2: But it is not that easy when you are under
Speaker 2: the kind of control that Iran, that North Korea are under.
Speaker 2: And I think a lot of people who are more
Speaker 2: isolationists in their opinion. Don't like this kind of thought,
Speaker 2: but I really do think it is part of the
Speaker 2: job of being the world's greatest superpower is to say, yes,
Speaker 2: our own nation should be our priority. Yes it should
Speaker 2: be America first, but America first doesn't mean America only.
Speaker 2: And so saying we do have summer responsibility to make
Speaker 2: the world a secure place.
Speaker 3: And Iran is a threat to us as well.
Speaker 2: Whether again, whether or not they have that intercontinental ballistic
Speaker 2: missile now, which I really don't think anyone thinks that
Speaker 2: they do have that capability at the moment, they would
Speaker 2: love to develop it. How do we know where their
Speaker 2: alliance with Russia is going to take them one day.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of volatility in this situation. Iran has
Speaker 2: proven that they're not the kind of nation to stick
Speaker 2: to the agreements they make. They're not the kind of
Speaker 2: nation that listens to the other nations around them, like
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia and Jordan and says, you know, maybe we
Speaker 2: should take less of a hardline approach and actually take
Speaker 2: it upon ourselves to create peace.
Speaker 3: They're nowhere near.
Speaker 2: Going to do that with the current leadership they have,
Speaker 2: and that effects not only Israel but also Europe and
Speaker 2: also us here at home in America. So we'll get
Speaker 2: your thoughts in the next segment. If you want to
Speaker 2: call in a five five four zero five eight two
Speaker 2: five five, or you can text them to Dan at
Speaker 2: five seven seven three nine.
Speaker 3: I'm Christy Burton Brown. You're on the Dan Kapla Show.
Speaker 3: Keep it here.
Speaker 5: And now back to the Dan Kaplas Show podcast.
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the Dan Capla Show.
Speaker 2: I'm Kristy Burton Brown talking about Iran and what exactly
Speaker 2: the United States should do. In the last segment, we
Speaker 2: contrasted some thoughts from Representative Jim Hines, a Democrat from Connecticut,
Speaker 2: and Representative Mark Alford, a Congressman from Texas. I want
Speaker 2: to I have some texts actually to get to both
Speaker 2: on Iran and on the sale of federal land. Lots
Speaker 2: of thoughts on that today, which is a very important
Speaker 2: issue and something that's definitely in the big Beautiful Bill
Speaker 2: as they call it right now, which would specifically affect
Speaker 2: Western states like Colorado. So loo get to that in
Speaker 2: a minute, but I do want to play some of
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk's thoughts on ran here we are.
Speaker 9: If we were to do forceful regime change sounds good,
Speaker 9: Lindsay Graham is cheering for that. What would happen to
Speaker 9: the refugees? Where would they go? Millions of people going
Speaker 9: to the West. The country could fall into civil war.
Speaker 9: And understand, there they're warriors there, These.
Speaker 3: Are the Persians.
Speaker 9: They were a great power for a thousand years. Not
Speaker 9: even the Romans could defeat Persia. And I'm not saying
Speaker 9: they're comparable to our marines or to our air force,
Speaker 9: but is that really the battle that we want.
Speaker 3: In front of us?
Speaker 9: And President Trump understands this astute lee. He is again
Speaker 9: he understand that so many people are saying, you must
Speaker 9: bomb right now, you must bomb right now, and other
Speaker 9: people equally say, oh, don't worry about it. Who cares
Speaker 9: if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? So President Donald Trump
Speaker 9: has something that the history books will write about. This
Speaker 9: is what legends are made of. This is the moment
Speaker 9: that President Trump was elected for.
Speaker 3: I mean, I can agree with him.
Speaker 2: This is certainly going to be a historical moment, whether
Speaker 2: or not the US jumps in and actually does the
Speaker 2: one thing we can do that Israel cannot do, which
Speaker 2: has use those bunker buster bombs to take out Iran's
Speaker 2: nuclear facility in the mountains. We're the only ones with
Speaker 2: that bomb. We are the only ones with the bomber,
Speaker 2: the B two that can take it in and do that.
Speaker 3: So it grew very.
Speaker 2: Historical moment that will set the stage for the future
Speaker 2: because it will either completely eliminate Iran's ability to produce
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons or will leave them with a limited ability
Speaker 2: to do so, which I'm not at all condenced.
Speaker 3: Is good for anyone in the world, including ourselves.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I fully agree with Tarlie Kirk on
Speaker 2: the whole. Not even the Romans could defeat Persia. These
Speaker 2: are warriors. I mean, any country is going to deeply
Speaker 2: go ahead and defend themselves fight.
Speaker 3: Could there turn into a civil war?
Speaker 2: And Iran sure there could, there's any Persians on both
Speaker 2: sides of that. I'm not really sure that's a legitimate
Speaker 2: reason to not do a strike, a targeted strike. Most
Speaker 2: people in the US are actually not talking about US
Speaker 2: going in and an acting regime change, us going in
Speaker 2: and doing nation building. That's really not the issue here.
Speaker 2: You'll always hear a few people out there talking about it. Yes,
Speaker 2: I'm sure Lindsey Graham is talking about it. That doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that the prevailing thought among people in the US government.
Speaker 2: It's like, we're talking about a very targeted strike and
Speaker 2: very targeted involvement, not even a full scale war, something
Speaker 2: the United States very specifically can do to go in
Speaker 2: and eliminate the ability of Iran to develop the kinds
Speaker 2: of weapons that could attack US. I also think it's
Speaker 2: very important for people to remember what Iran has been
Speaker 2: involved with over the year since at least the eighties,
Speaker 2: if not before, with American soldiers and with American citizens
Speaker 2: launching attacks and an embassy holding people hostage. They were
Speaker 2: the ones who were launching a lot of the attacks
Speaker 2: on our soldiers in Iraq like that was done by
Speaker 2: proxies of Iran, and I think a lot of people
Speaker 2: forget that that that was them doing it.
Speaker 3: It's the same regime that's in charge right now.
Speaker 2: Every opportunity that they have to attack Americans when we're
Speaker 2: anywhere near close by, they take it. And it's been
Speaker 2: extremely deadly for a lot of our military members. So
Speaker 2: this is not just a threat to Israel. It's been
Speaker 2: a threat to the US and our military men and
Speaker 2: women for quite some time. Let's listen to another clip
Speaker 2: from Charlie Kirk, though, talking about how Trump needs to
Speaker 2: balance two specific things as he's looking about potential involvement
Speaker 2: in Iran.
Speaker 9: The highest level statesman can only handle and can only manage,
Speaker 9: and that is to be able to balance two things.
Speaker 9: Number One, America does not want Iran to get a
Speaker 9: nuclear bomb, but number two, America does not want, in
Speaker 9: any way, shape or form to have a long quagmire
Speaker 9: in the Middle East to try to get into another
Speaker 9: Iraq or Libya or Syria or Afghanistan. And so it
Speaker 9: is a very difficult thread to needle a high wire act.
Speaker 2: Sure, we can agree it's difficult, but actually I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that it's quite that difficult. To be perfectly honest
Speaker 2: with you, I think if you there is always a
Speaker 2: middle ground. It's not always like, oh my goodness, we
Speaker 2: do nothing, or oh my goodness, we do complete regime change.
Speaker 3: Yes, Charlie Kirk is right.
Speaker 2: People don't want Iran to have a nuclear bomb or
Speaker 2: even the ability to build it, because, as we discussed
Speaker 2: on an earlier segment, that's what Iran constantly goes back
Speaker 2: and forth between, Oh, we have the capability to build it,
Speaker 2: but it's really only for self defense. It's really only
Speaker 2: for ourselves. Oh wait, now we can absolutely build it,
Speaker 2: and we could launch it on Israel anytime we want it.
Speaker 2: Like they talk out of both sides of their mouth,
Speaker 2: because they absolutely would take any opportunity they could to
Speaker 2: destroy Israel or destroy.
Speaker 3: The United States.
Speaker 2: So yeah, we don't want them to have a nuclear
Speaker 2: bomb for a whole lot of reasons.
Speaker 3: And so I think there's a very clear path.
Speaker 2: It's really not an either or, it's go straight up
Speaker 2: the middle to a very targeted strike that eliminates the
Speaker 2: potential for them building a nuclear bomb, and Israel's going
Speaker 2: to go ahead and continue to take their entire regime out.
Speaker 2: They've been very successful so far. I know they're going
Speaker 2: for the Ayatola himself, so hopefully it is real successful
Speaker 2: in that. I think Israel can handle a lot of this.
Speaker 2: They already are handling a lot of it. But there
Speaker 2: are some specific things that only the US can do
Speaker 2: that Israel cannot do, and one of those is taking
Speaker 2: out this very specific and nuclear facility. So I think
Speaker 2: that is a very clear balance between doing absolutely nothing
Speaker 2: and letting them have the capability to build a nuclear
Speaker 2: bomb and going so far as to be like, oh,
Speaker 2: let's nation build, let's resume change. We have seen that
Speaker 2: be unsuccessful in the Middle East, and we've gone that
Speaker 2: far even with good intentions. So just shoot straight up
Speaker 2: the middle and do a very targeted strike, do what
Speaker 2: only the US can uniquely do. I really don't think
Speaker 2: that's a super hard call. Now, I am not the president.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is, so we'll see what he decides to do.
Speaker 2: But I just don't think it's that complicated or that
Speaker 2: difficult to make a decision like that.
Speaker 3: I'm going to go to the.
Speaker 2: Text line in the limited time I had before I
Speaker 2: have to take another break. Someone saying Iran is currently
Speaker 2: occupied by an illegal Islamic regime. Obama had the chance
Speaker 2: to help the Iranian people overthrow their oppressors, but he
Speaker 2: turned his back on the Iranian students and left them
Speaker 2: to be slaughtered. Completely agree with you that President Obama
Speaker 2: greatly mishandled every opportunity that he had to help there
Speaker 2: be any change in Iran, did a horrible deal with them,
Speaker 2: gave them lots of money, bad decisions all up and
Speaker 2: down there. You know, again, I'm not the president, so
Speaker 2: I'm sure it's much harder when you're on the inside
Speaker 2: actually having to weigh all the information, all the security
Speaker 2: intelligence and everything that you're getting.
Speaker 3: So I think it is.
Speaker 2: Easy to be sort of an armchair quarterback and say, well,
Speaker 2: he never should have done any of that. I still
Speaker 2: don't think he should have, but it probably was a
Speaker 2: harder decision than it appears.
Speaker 3: To be from my end.
Speaker 2: But I've always thought that Obama made a huge, huge
Speaker 2: mistake with Iran. Another text saying, I think Iran in
Speaker 2: the world is calling Trump's bluff, believing he will do
Speaker 2: nothing over the nukes, bankrupting our already lost country like
Speaker 2: he did his company in the ninety funny comment there
Speaker 2: at the end. But you know, I actually think I
Speaker 2: agree with you that Iran probably believes that, because of
Speaker 2: Trump's more isolationist America First policies, that he isn't going
Speaker 2: to do anything, that He's going to threaten, that he's
Speaker 2: going to try and get them to negotiate and agree
Speaker 2: to some sort of inspection, which would be very humiliating
Speaker 2: for Iran even.
Speaker 3: To go that far.
Speaker 2: But I do think they're not completely convinced that he
Speaker 2: will actually order a strike like this. I'm not completely
Speaker 2: convinced that he's going to order a strike like this
Speaker 2: just based on, you know, probably some of the pressure
Speaker 2: he's going to get from his own party to like
Speaker 2: remain focused on America America only. But as I've said before,
Speaker 2: I just don't think that America first means America only.
Speaker 2: We can still do limited, targeted things around the world
Speaker 2: that help our allies, that keep the world safe, that
Speaker 2: accept the responsibility we have as a superpower. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I agree with you saying that they're probably calling his bluff.
Speaker 3: But he's very.
Speaker 2: Sometimes he's very unpredictable, and I think that you know,
Speaker 2: he calls their bluff too and says, okay, fine, here,
Speaker 2: here's what I'm actually going to do, and often takes
Speaker 2: a very strong position that does advance American interests, not
Speaker 2: only here.
Speaker 3: At home but abroad.
Speaker 2: So we'll find out apparently the next less than two
Speaker 2: weeks what's going to happen here the Dan Kaplis Show.
Speaker 2: I'm Christy Burton Brown. Keep your comments coming, text them
Speaker 2: to five seven seven three nine, address them to Dan
Speaker 2: or call over the break eight five five four zero
Speaker 2: five eight two five five will dive back into the
Speaker 2: sale of federal lands when we come back over the break,
Speaker 2: because a lot of Texters have interest in that as well.