Krystal and Saagar discuss former Trump staffer dire warning, Trump snipes at Tucker Carlson, Tim Dillon sounds off on Iran war.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
We're very excited now to be joined by Dan Colwell.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
He is a former Pentagon senior advisor, recently worked under
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Trump administration, longtime foreign
policy analyst in the United States Marine.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
I think the last one most important title there for you.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
But Dan, one of the reasons we wanted to talk
to you is we've covered your story extensively here on
the show. The story really of the ousting of you
and really a target on both your back and others
who are inside the administration, people who it's spoken out
vocally for a restraint in US foreign policy. And Dan
is somebody who literally worked you for this most recent administration.
(01:09):
Perhaps you could give us some insight into some of
the things that happened here. Let's start with D one,
please and put it up there on the screen. It
does now appear, Dan, that many of the US diplomatic
efforts by Steve Wikoff and others served as cover for
this Israeli surprised attack on Iran. Now, giving your experience
and some of your insight, you know, without getting into
(01:30):
classified information, what's your assessment of what really went on
inside here, now that you know all the principal players.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
So I do think that at the end of the day,
that diplomacy was and still is the primary goal. Is
that ultimately the President believes that the only way to
solve this is primarily, I say, solved this permanently. Solve
this is through a diplomatic effort, because, as a lot
(01:57):
of people pointed out, a military solution, even using all
the power of America's bomber fleet, naval assets and combined
with Israelis, will not permanently dismantle the Iranian nuclear program.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Well, can I zero in on that because you saw
these warplans, all right, and you don't have to get
into that, but you're somebody who actually sat there at
the desk. So is that what you're saying, you know,
given your knowledge, is that this is not something that
can be solved by the United States of America.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
Well, don't take it from me. I mean the Israelis
have said this as well too. Now there is a
caveat to this is you could militarily occupy Iran. You
could do another regime change war, another long term occupation
of Iran, and that is the way that you would
truly permanently dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Now, let's be honest,
(02:47):
that'd be incredibly costly. It would make Iraq and Afghanistan
and what we've been doing in Syria and in other
countries look like a cakewalk. Iran is a significantly larger country.
It is a more militarized country with a much more
advanced military, and a lot of people are focused on
like their their higher end conventional capabilities.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
But they also have a very strong militia force.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
They have a regular militia force called the Bachi and
they are are really truly a garrison state, and that
would be incredibly difficult occupation. So getting back to what
President Trump was looking at doing, is I truly believe
that that a lot of this stuff about oh this
is a cover, I have to say, I think is
(03:33):
misinformation interesting and I think that that it was primarily
and there were others that disagreed in the administration, is
that the president really wanted to prioritize the diplomatic option.
Now I'm not in the administration anymore. I don't know
what has gone on in the past couple of weeks
for sure, but diplomacy was always the thing that he
(03:55):
wanted to prioritize, and based on his remarks, I still
think he wants to pursue diplomatic outcome.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Cost So it's your belief that he was effectively double
cross and betrayed by the Israelis here who because I mean,
the reason that these strikes happened on, you know, after
the sixty day deadline that President Trump had implemented. It
happened on day sixty one, something that he, by the way,
you know, highlighted and celebrated in the aftermath.
Speaker 5 (04:20):
Of these attacks very clearly.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
The timing of these was to blow up any possibility
of a diplomatic solution, which is something the Israelis are
not interested in. So you're telling me your belief is
that President Trump was effectively betrayed his diplomatic negotiations undercut
by the Israelis, or do you think that he bought
into this? What I think is proposter You can give
your opinion, an expert opinion on it. Preposterous belief that
(04:45):
somehow going to war with Iran was going to make
it easier to effectuate some sort of a peaceful diplomatic solution.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
So, Crystal, this is a cop out. A lot of
my assumptions over the last week have been blown up.
I can't answer that that question with absolute certainty. What
I can tell you from my experience inside the administration
and what I know of the people in the administration
is that diplomacy was what they wanted to pursue. So
(05:16):
you had guys like Steve Whitcoff, you had people like
Michael Anton.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
You had a lot of folks across.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
The administration that were putting a lot of effort and
trying to come up with ideas on how to make
diplomacy work. Did it was it always perfect. Were they
always doing the right thing? These are always incredibly difficult
things to pull off. I think that if we look back,
there are maybe things that could be done better. And
(05:42):
I think to your point, it's going forward, Yes, I
think you have todmit is that in the short term,
diplomacy is going to be incredibly difficult. It's going to
take a lot of things to come back from what
has happened over.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
The last few days. Right, So this is where I
want to get to.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Then, because you tell you name some of the pro
diplomatic factions, you don't have to get into names if
you don't want to, but just arrived for us. What
the other faction inside perhaps the administration and in Washington
appears to be that obviously is now backing Donald Trump
behind this action and really is both loving celebrating the
Israeli military campaign and actively working to put the United
(06:15):
States into this conflict.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
What does that faction look like and where are they located?
Well within the administration.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
I know what one observation I've had is and I
didn't work in the first administration.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
I worked a lot with.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Them on the outside, mainly on reforming the VA, and
then towards the end on ending endless wars.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
What I saw on the first administration.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Was is you had most of the people in the administration,
particularly the national security side, dislike the president and we're
oftentimes working against him.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
This time you don't have that.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Is you have a lot of truly smart and talented
people across the inner Agency, a lot of great people
at the Pentagon, especially on Bridge Colby's policy team. You
have great service secretaries. I think the Deputy Secretary Steve
Feinberg is doing a great job. And as State's Department,
similar you have people like Michael Anton. And you have
a lot of great people in the Vice President's office,
at OD and I and at the NSC, and they
(07:06):
all largely I mean, they have disagreements over the issues,
but their attitude is this is they have their views.
They are going to make recommendations to the president based
on their analysis of intelligence on the DoD side of
the trade offs to accomplish certain military options, and they're
going to make those recommendations. They're going to run them
(07:26):
up up the chain, and from there the President and
the principles are going to debate and decide. Now within
the administration, I think that most of the of the administration,
the political appointees, understand that there's a lot of danger.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
With a war in Iran. Not everyone, but most folks do.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
I think there are a lot of folks in the
uniform military that actually think that a war with Iran
would be disastrous. But there are folks that still are
under this delusion that all we have to do is
send if you be, two bombers in and drop a
couple massive ordinance penetrators on four to oh and everything
will be fine. And there's a lot of people outside
(08:07):
the administration, in the think tank community, in Congress, in
the advocacy space, and the media that are still bought
into this idea that this is largely a risk free proposition.
And let me tell you, if the United States gets
directly involved, there's a risk that it could be one
of the biggest national security catastrophes we've seen over the
(08:28):
last twenty thirty.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
Let's stick with that. So let's put d two guys
please up on the screen. Here.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
We have a recent report, as you just mentioned, somebody
Elberge Colebrie, somebody who I consider a friend and a
very very intelligent person. The headline here is Pentagon is
split over Trump's Israel policy, but specifically Dan, what they
are talking about is a war inside of the administration
here between the Sentcom Commander, General Michael Carilla and Elbridge Colby,
(08:53):
who is the what is he the Undersecretary Defense for policies,
who I mean has the audacity to suggest, Hey, we
need to be careful with our military resources here. A
war with Iran or offensive military action against Iran in
conjunction with Israel would significantly deplete our stocks and it
could make us very unprepared for a conflict that actually matters.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Describe the contours of this general.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
The Sencom Commander, General Carilla, who is both Sencom is
under his environment. He is scheduled, I think to you know,
his term be over soon. But he is the top
military commander here obviously has the ears of the Secretary
Defense and the President in this theater.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
What are his views here of the conflict?
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Well, first of all, I just want to say regarding
Bridge and his team, you know, my friends Mike Dimono
and others.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
They're doing their jobs.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
Their jobs is to challenge what the combatant commanders want
to do. It is their job since the combatant commanders
are very focused on the regions they control.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Their AORs is what they're called.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Their job is to look at the global picture in
assess the trade offs, the support what various.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Combatant commanders want to do.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
So we're in an environment where the United States's military
resources are constrained. We've had twenty years of plus of
wars in the Middle East. We have emptied many of
our magazines of ammunition in our arsenals to support Ukraine.
Is we have an environment where our resources are not limitless, so.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Trade offs are real.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
So every asset we move into centcom comes at the
expense of another combatant command, like the Indo Pacific, where
we have a real threat, a real challenge in China,
we trade off against things we're trying to do in
the Western hemisphere.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I think one thing.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
This administration deserves a lot of credit for is more
of a Western hemispheric focus. So Bridge is doing what
he's supposed to do. And also say this, knowing Bridge
and Mike and the rest of the team there is
they're going to challenge, which is healthy and good. They're
going to make a recommendation. But the end of the day,
when the Secretary of Defense and the president makes a decision,
they're going to turn around and follow it and insurance
(10:59):
implement in it properly. Now, in regards to General Gorilla, look,
I mean, I think it's it's been reported, and I
you know, based on my experience with him, is that
he takes a fundamentally different view of the importance of
the Middle East than a lot of other people in
the administration. And he also, I think, believes that a
(11:20):
military campaign against Iran will not be as costly as others.
So he that's his view, and I think there are
a lot of folks that want to see some type
of military action occur before he retires as a result
of that. So he retires, to believe, in the middle
of July. And I don't think it's a coincidence. You
(11:42):
see a lot of the pressure ramping up to do
something prior to his retirement, got it.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
So, just back in March, Director of National Intelligence Toulsey
Gabbard testified that the intelligence community continues to assess Oron
is not building a nuclear weapon. Let's go ahead and
take a listen, just a little flashback to her testimony
to this regard.
Speaker 6 (12:02):
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building
a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Kamani has not authorized
the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in two thousand
and three. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran
decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
What is your understanding of the current situation, because obviously,
I mean, we've covered all the comments now about how
the real goal for bb Dtyahu and others who are
supportive of this direction and policy, what their real goal
is here is regime change. But the nuclear program is
being used as the pretext and justification for these strikes.
So what can you tell us about Iranian nuclear development?
Speaker 4 (12:40):
So I obviously can't get in specific intelligence and what
was discussed and what I saw or didn't see, But
my understanding was that that assessment was correct and was
largely agreed to across the intelligence community. What it was
the CIA military intelligence community, with the State Department have
(13:03):
and the State Department actually has a very good intelligence branch,
one of the best. Actually, they've been more right than
the rest of the ICEE. It's called iron r that
that has been the consensus for a while now, and
one of the reasons actually that is the consensus is
based on Iranian behavior. Is I think this often gets overlooked,
but I believe it was Komane before he died, had
(13:24):
a flatois against developing a nuclear weapon, and that hasn't
been repealed. Yes, that was an indicator that a lot
of people were watching that. If they repealed that, like okay,
now they're going to sprint towards bomb. And I'd also
know too, is that it's not a matter of they
can just snap their fingers and in a day they
could have a bomb. There's still a breakout time and window,
(13:46):
and then it takes more time to actually weaponize this.
But again, from what I know, and I've been out
of loop now for you know, close to two months,
is that that assessment still stands well.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
One thing I look at and is even in Bev's
announcement of the war, the shortest timeline he gives for
a breakout is a few months. If this is not
a you know, a couple of day things. That's basically aligns.
Speaker 5 (14:07):
With hearing since the ninety Yeah, of course we've been
hearing there.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Even if that's bs, he doesn't even say they're days
away from a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
He's like or a few months away from a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
It's like, well, okay, so we had a deal tomorrow
to have a talk.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
We can't do that.
Speaker 5 (14:22):
You know.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
It's like one of those where it's just extraordinary and really,
what I want to get at with you, Dan, is
is within this administration at this point. You know, if
they go forward with this, and of course it'll look
they'll try to minimize it. You said, we just got
to do a B two. What does it look like
from there? You know, the B two that's step one.
So now what you know, if we see the straits
and war moves get close and all this, what how
(14:44):
many resources of the United States is would it take
even from that point of a so called limited intervention.
Speaker 4 (14:49):
Well, I think it's I think we need to start
with what is the war right now? And as we
sit here today, and there's a lot of things changing,
and it could change, you know, very rapidly in the
next minutes or hours, But right now, essentially the war
is a race. It is a race between Iran and
(15:10):
Israel to see who can destroy the other side's critical
military equipment the fastest and exhaust the other size supply
of critical munitions. So for Israel, that is Iran's ballistic missiles,
but also their ballistic missile launchers. That's really actually probably
(15:30):
more important than missiles themselves, and that's why Israeli Air
Force it appears to really start to focus on those
in the last days. For the Iranians, they are trying
to exhaust the supply of the United States's FAD batteries
they have there, and then Israel's very good integrated missile defense.
They're trying to exhaust the supply of their missile interceptors
(15:52):
while simultaneously trying to outlast Israel's supply of precision munitions,
particularly their standoff munitions. So in terms of that race,
who has the advantage right now, it's hard to say.
It looks like the Israelis did a really spectacular set
of strikes the first day. They destroyed a lot of
the Iranians command. They did hit some key sites. But
(16:14):
Israel doesn't have the size, or doesn't have enough planes
and the ability to basically attack the Iranian military on
a scale that it would destroy their offensive capability in
one day. So Iran as we sit here today still
has a lot of offensive capability. On the other hand,
(16:35):
Iran has not launched as many missiles as we thought
they were, but more Iranian missiles seem to be breaking
through as the barrages continue on.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
So what would that indicate to you?
Speaker 4 (16:49):
That indicates to me that that Israel and the United
States are rash either rationing their interceptors knowing they have
a limited supply, or the Iranians are learning and learning
how to launch their missiles in a way that they
can break through defenses. Now getting back to your question
of like, what does this mean for the United States, Well, again,
the United States is in a resource constrained environment. Our
(17:10):
ability to fight a prolonged war against the Iranians is
very limited and would come at very high trade offs.
So what would it look like, say, if there is
an authorization to use the b twos to strike Foordo. Well,
I think that from there, iran would feel like the
United States is now directly engaged in the war, not
(17:32):
just indirectly through defensive and they would feel like, now
we have to strike American forces in the region. And
this is where the casualty figures come from. And this
is where I think some people get dishonest because they say, oh,
nobody's talking about boots on the ground. Well, we have
forty thousand troops spread across the Middle East, all of
whom are in striking range of Iranian ballistic missiles, and
(17:54):
I have to say many of them are on bases
that don't have the same layered defenses that most Israeli
cities have. So you could have a situation where the
Iranians are launching mass drone, mass missile attacks on these
bases and can inflict heavy casualties on the United States.
So what happens from there? The people who've been saying,
(18:16):
you know, oh, we just got to let Israel do
what they want to do and they don't need our
help to then now a couple of days later is like,
the American needs to get involved and we need to
have b two strikes on photo. Those same people are
going to call for escalation. If the United States escalates,
there's gonna be more attacks. They could start attacking our
golf Arab partners and allies, and then from there you
(18:37):
have the straits of horror moves potentially closed. You have
attacks on energy infrastructure. Energy prices spike.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
Straight up from its is what of energy?
Speaker 1 (18:48):
I believe it's.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
But it's a huge portion of China. Actually, so then
they might need to get involved.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Yes, and that they may look at the need, they
may look at what's happening in golf and say, okay,
now it's the time make a move against Taiwan. I'm
a little less confident than that, but that is a possibility.
So you'll have massive energy spikes here in the United States,
which could upset the progress that the President Trump is
made on reducing inflation. You'll have thousands, potentially thousands of
dead American soldiers, diplomats and other civilians. And let's not
(19:17):
forget too, you will have a lot of dead Arabs,
dead Iranians, and yes, dead Israelis. You know it is
Israeli civilians, Iranian civilians that are paying most of the
price for this war. Right now, we can't forget it.
You know, I was reading coming in here today, it
looks like that many of the casualties last night from
(19:39):
the Iranian nuclear strike were Ukrainians. That they were probably
Ukrainian refugees, Ukrainian Jews fleeing the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
And I don't know that for sure, but Tel Avisi, yes,
and that's.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
You know, those are the people paying the price in
that and it really upsets me that people are minimizing
this on both sides and ignoring that. And this is
where it had It's just not a video game. We
don't have a magic power where it's just a matter
of a few B two strikes and a few cruise
missiles and this problem is solved. There is real risk
that this could escalate into something much much worse.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
And Dan, let me ask you one more question on that.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
I mean, we saw, you know, our intervention in Libya
which ends up in that country being a failed state.
Speaker 5 (20:21):
Let's say that BBNT Yahu.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
And others get their wish and this regime in Iran
effectively collapses.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
You know what is the fallout?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
What does it look like if you have this giant,
incredibly significant country as effectively a failed state.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Well, my friend Sara Bamari actually wrote a We're gonna
have the show on Thursday. Yeah, really great Twitter posts
about this, and Sarah b I think is really interesting
because he used to be a regime change advocate and yes,
reassessed his views and he walked through I think very effectively.
Of what that would mean is you know, it mean
that the United States would have to get more involved
(20:58):
in Middle East when we're trying to do less and
power allies to do more, including Israel alongside the Gulf Arabs.
It would mean probably higher energy prices for at least
a short term before global markets could adjust. And you know,
you could have an actual true nuclear threat here because
you could have bad actors outside of the Iranian regime
(21:21):
get a hold of these nuclear material and build something
like a dirty bomb and so and they Iran has
other WMDs, They likely have chemical weapons that could fall
in the wrong hands. So it's a huge threat. The
Iranian regime is awful, one of the worst on the planet,
but they are still a regime that has shown that
they have not provided these weapons to some of the
(21:43):
bad proxies in the region. Yet that could change if
the war drags on and they have not done certain
things that you would expect a totally irrational regime to
do correct. And we just simply don't know what would
replace this regime, and that is one of the big
things and problems with through theme change.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
One last question for you. You know, by all accounts,
it seems the Iranians were engaged in diplomatic negotiations with
the Trump administration and good faith. Of course, they had
previously engaged with the Obama administration and in good faith
and were able to secure a deal that the first
Trump administration got down of and the Biden administration declined.
Speaker 5 (22:18):
To get back into.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
You know, it seems to me like, if you're, you know,
as a layman here looking at the Iranian calculation, this
has created additional incentives for them to accelerate towards acquiring
nuclear weapons. I mean as an expert, you know, is
that your assessment too of the sort of calculus that
has been created, not just with regard to what we've
did with Iran, you know, basically lying about diplomatic negotiations
(22:42):
to create the conditions for an Israeli surprise attack, but
with regards to Libya, with regard to other countries around
the way of Ukraine. You know, is that the sort
of calculus that our foreign policy has created for countries?
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Well, I'm far from an expert on this. I'm just
have the privilege of knowing a lot of really smart
people whose ideas I can steal. I think, yes, there
is an incentive now for the Iranians to actually break
out and pursue nuclear weapon before and Crystal.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
You kind of alluded to this earlier.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
I think that for the Iranians, you know, they want
to have the appearance that they could break out. They
want to preserve some type of capability, in large part
because of what happened in Libya, because of what happened
in Iraq and recently Syria as well too. It hasn't
appened in North Korea, but for them, the nuclear weapon
(23:34):
threat is more of a bargaining chip for things like
sanctions relief, better integration in the region. And really the
biggest guaranteurs their national survival are things like their missile program,
which for them is very important because of their experience
in the Ran Iraq War where they were really brutalized
(23:54):
by Saddam's scud missiles as duple have bombers. So that's
more important for their their regime and national survival than
a theoretical nuclear weapon. But look, if the United States
is perceived as not being able to negotiate in good
faith along with the Europeans, if there's a belief that
other actors in the region are going to undermine it,
(24:16):
then they just might make the decision like, Okay, we're
going to be the Middle East North Korea in a
lot of ways they already are. We're going to you know,
break out and basically become a massive hermit kingdom, and
that's the only way we're going to be able to survive.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
As a nation.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Yeah, and that's a terrifying lesson because that actually did
work for North Korea and they work out.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
They're still there.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
And every time I've talked with multiple people on the
negotiating team with the DPRK, every single time we told
them to denuclearize, they're like, yeah, how they work out
for Gaddafi? They know they're not stupid.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
It's funny. It's not a coincidence that in the middle
of the negotiations, where where President Trump was making progress
and he deserves a lot of credit for taking the
steps he did, It's not a coinsays John Bolton came
out and started talking about Libya. Yeah, that was a
deliberate attempt to undermine his negotiation. I will say this
time around, I think among his political pointees, you don't
(25:12):
have people like that that would go and ultimately try
and undermine negotiation if it reaches a point at that point.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Yeah, but yeah, if you if you do.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
But again, I have to acknowledge that it is going
to be tough to get negotiations back on track, but
there is there is still a pathway for that. It's
going to take more time, and the biggest thing administration
is going to have to show on that is patience. Yes,
well said.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Dan, I really appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
Dan, thank you so much. I appreciate you talking.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
To you very much. So all right, we're going to
go to the next part.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Some interesting reaction from MAGA world to our encouragement and
involvement in Israel's attacks and war with Iran. Steve Bannon,
who has been obviously very opposed to us getting involved
in this way, I had a lot to say. Let's
go ahead and take a listen to a little of that.
Speaker 7 (26:05):
You either got it. If you're gonna go alone, you
got you can take care of your deal or not.
You don't need us. Decide to go alone, decide to
reject it. Now, we don't need you. We're gonna go
to Loan and the goat alone last about six hours.
Not only do they want to defense, they want us
to go on offense. But don't set it up that
we're gonna get wrapped up in this thing in the
(26:25):
first day, and now people want us go on offense
into bombing runs on this and Mike Pompeo, Mike Pompeio
sitting there, go everybody in the golf Regent's so excited.
Is that your paymasters and cutter Pompeo that you took
the money from, Is that your paymasters and cutter are
telling you this. What I know is that we weren't
asked to come. You know this, People went on this
(26:47):
by themselves. They made a conscious decision to do it themselves.
And if you want to do it yourselves, then do
it yourselves. All of a sudden, we got to come
in and defend that and what planet. And I'm not
worried people say it's going to tear a Maga apart. No,
is not going to tear maga apart at all.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
We need, we may have.
Speaker 7 (27:08):
Needed to do this to decide who's really America for
us and who's still a neocon? Who's still a Neocon?
And if I'm hurting your feelings, I'm sorry your feelings
going to have to get hurt. All of you burmers
skipping around right now?
Speaker 1 (27:25):
What happened in Iraq?
Speaker 7 (27:27):
We were lied to what happened in Iraq the law
of undertended consequent weapons that are being used today have
a degree of precision that no one ever dreamt of
in a prior conflict.
Speaker 8 (27:40):
The bombing designed to shock Rock's military centered on Baghdad,
but also struck key targets in Mosal are book in
the north, bus in the South. We've especially accomplished our mission.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
We did everything that we set out to do. Everybody's
back safe and sound.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
All targets are designed to undermine the regime of a
rocky president. Saddam Hussein I had to convince his generals
to turn on him or at least surrender.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
So you got Bannon say, we're finding out Steve Bannon, Yeah,
finally we're.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Going to find out.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
Who's America first? Who are the neocons? It looks very
much like Donald Trump is in the neocon camp.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Here's the issue, is this whole America first thing. It
actually gets to the next part. I've been wanting to
go off on this. Le's put it up there on
the screen. Trump says, quote, I decide what America first means.
For those two people who say they want peace, you
can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapons. So
for all of those wondering, wonderful people who don't want
anything to do about Iran having a nuclear weapon, that's
not peace. But really it's the hubris of so much bullship.
(28:35):
Decide what America First means. And actually, this is a
key test there. Dave made a prediction I didn't want
to get into it at the time where he was like,
Maga is going to turn on Trump.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
I'm like, no, I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
Actually, and look, I mean, where's the truth is that
the vast majority of the American people are propagandaed to
an insane degree on war.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Let's look back to two thousand and three.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
The propaganda worked, Okay, America did not on the Iraq
war since mid two thousand and five, until people were
dying in the streets and the Basra Mosque and all that.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Yeah, we're going on.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Those of us who are applaced to from the beginning
were considered.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Traitors, trators.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
Okay, it took years for this to happen, and similar here.
I mean, look, it is factually incorrect. America First is
a movement that goes back all the way to the
nineteen twenties. It is literally not invented by Trump, but
operationally it is, let's be honest, and that's part of
why everyone's like, oh, we get to decide what's true.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
There's no such thing, okay.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
And this also gets to the whole idea of like
Trump is pro war or pro peace.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
It's like he's neither.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
He is just this manipulatable figure and there are factions
within his movement and his coalition, some of which is
varying on top or not, and Trump at different times
gets to go along. His kind of mor or a morphousness,
is actually a strength because it kind of convinces both
sides that he is one of them. He both convinced
the pro Israel neocons and the anti war people at
(29:56):
least libertarians like Dave Smith on our show, to vote
for him. Right, That's actual political strength in politics. But
now you know, whenever it comes down to it, what
he's really telling us is he's the person who decides
because all of his political information says they will follow me.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
I think he's right.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
And Steve Bannon in a way into its how correct
that is by saying to all you boomers switching around
on cable news, like you are being sold alive. But
I don't know if that's enough to remind them, because
the force of the propaganda is immense. I mean, I
watch CNN and I see a former IDF spokesperson who is.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
Analyzing the war.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
I see Scott Jennings, mister Maga in a fucking bunker
in Jerusalem telling Trump to go and bomb Iran. Mister
Maga on CNA. That's CNN, not to mention Fox. I
go on Fox. I see one segment of a guy
being like, hey, it's not such a good idea from
my friends over at the American Conservative Nine out of
(30:56):
ten gases. All these former generals, former Bush guys are Fleischer,
the guy who you know, was the press secretary during
the war in Iraq. That's who is being mainlined into
their blood. And they've already been, you know, so conditioned
because of the anti anti Semitism campaign of the last
(31:16):
two years to be you know, susceptible to all of
these arguments. I mean, in retrospect, like anti anti Semitism
is the most successful Neo Conservative rehabilitation projects of all time,
all time, because they convinced you know, not only the
United States government, they weaponize the Department of justice and others,
but to literally prosecute basically their political opponents and to
(31:37):
go after you abandon their principles of free speech. But
now on war right, some of us saw at the time,
talked about it here a lot.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
But most people were very willing to go along with it.
Speaker 5 (31:47):
So well, I don't even you hear from Bannon.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
I mean, there's so much, there's so much spin and
cope from people like him who have been vocally opposed
to a hot war with the run, which again, let's
be clear, we are in today like we are there.
Speaker 5 (32:03):
Donald Trump made the decision, he.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Is the decider at the top of the food chain,
used the negotiations as a ruse to create the conditions
for Israel to launch a surprise attack. Supply the munitions
provided the defense, like we are in this thing. And
even for him and others who have been vocally critical
of that possible direction, you know, they have to pretend like, oh,
maybe Trump didn't know this was going to happen, and
(32:28):
to not direct fire directly at him and criticize him
directly for his choice to destroy his own diplomatic negotiations
and throw in with the Israelis and their desire for
a regime change war.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
I mean, that's where we are.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
And so I think you're right, Sager, Like I think
Steve Bannon is a very astute political actor, and he
knows that you can't actually on the right in the
MAGA coalition. You cannot actually directly criticize Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
I already know Dave he's going to get Dave earlier
on in O Show, said Trump should be impeached.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
I mean, I don't.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
Look, I love Dave, and if I was advising him
on his influence in the Republican Party, I feel you
shouldn't do that.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
But I don't think he doesn't care about the Republican
But that's the point.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
That's what we're dealing with.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
Me and day we don't give a shit, Okay whatever,
I'm just going to say whatever I want. I've burned
all the bridges that I have in Washington. Dave, you know,
he's a guy who says what he thinks. That's great,
But for these people, if you want to preserve your influence,
all it takes is one critical comment of Trump. And
as evidence of that, you look at what Trump says
about Tucker Carl.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
I mean, look, Tucker has been one of the most
vociferous supporters of Trump.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
I mean, he has JD.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
Vance on the ants on the ticket.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
I mean, this guy nobody's taken more bullets for Trump
than Tucker. And when Tucker has the temerity to say
Trump is complicit with Israel's war on Iran, that we
should cut Iran off, Trump immediately disregards and basically hits
back and says, I'm the person, not you, Tucker. So
it's it's like even just a single critical comment is enough.
(34:06):
And that's the thing, is what did he say, Tucker
in a newsletter? We can put that, by the way,
E three up on the screen. You know, these are
basic right wing comments. He just says all we have
to do is cut off Israel. He said we should
drop Israel and we should have no involvement in this,
and that Trump is complicit kind of you know, muted.
If you ask me in terms of what should be
(34:27):
called for here in terms of the even that not enough.
And now what do I see this morning, Laura Lumer,
Tucker Carlson is a maga faker. You know they're turning.
You know the machine is working already already, you know,
Mark Levin says, Tucker Carlson is a Katari asset because
why because he interviewed the prime or whatever, the King
(34:47):
of Katar, the Emir of Qatar. So one of these idiots. Actually,
you know, you'll love this. They accused me of being
agent a Qatar. What do you want you want to
tell me what I've been saying about Qatar here for
the last five years. That'd be news to the Katari government,
who hates my guts. But it's one of It's just
it's hilarious. Yeah, Like, well, the way that this all works.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
I was taking a look at you know, Marjorie Taylor
Green put out this long post that she's getting like
a lot of credit for for, you know, as being
like anti war, and even the lefties giving her credit
for this. Guess what word doesn't appear in this like
long ass screed once Trump. Yeah, I mean, And that's
the thing. It's like, if you are going to pretend
like the commander in chief, who you know, blew up
(35:26):
his own negotiations to do this for Israel and continues
to shift the weapons and continues to go along and
celebrate the impact, et cetera, you're going to pretend like
he's not involved, like you're just not. No one's going
to give you any credence that lacks any sort of
credibility or honesty. So again, that just shows you these
are political actors. They're responding to their perception correct perception
(35:49):
of the political landscape. And so no, they're not going
to turn on Trump. They'll find some cope, they'll find
some justification, they'll distract with some culture war thing whatever.
Try not to talk about it, but yeah, I think
you know, to go back to Dave saying that he
thinks that Trump will lose his coalition over this. I mean,
I do think there are some who were not Trump
fans previously who voted for him this time, who believed,
(36:12):
in my opinion, foolishly. But listen, I'm not here to
like rub people's nose in it that he would be
this anti war candidate or at least would be better
than the alternative. I think there's some percentage, and I
think there's independence, especially who fell into that camp who.
Speaker 5 (36:27):
You know will drift away.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
We're about to show you Tim Dillon, who was you know,
broadley spportive of Trump in this last election, and you
know he's being very critical at this point as well,
so I'm not going to say there's no one that
he will lose over this, but the broad Republican Party, no,
they're going to be all about it.
Speaker 5 (36:43):
They're going to be pushing him to do war. We
already see it.
Speaker 2 (36:45):
We already see Republican congressmen jumping in to say, now
we need full regime change. And that's the way this works.
Not to mention, the Democrats are being very quiet. There's
only a handful who have said anything negative about this,
so they're pathetic as well the mainstream media, but you know,
they're always horny for war. This is like the most
bipartisan of bipartisan consensis. And to your point, Sager, there's
(37:07):
not There has not been a big propaganda build up
to this war with Iran in the near term, Like
we didn't have, you know, these big presentations of here's
how close they are to break down and oh my god,
we have to you know, do something right now. We
didn't have that, But we have how many decades of
propaganda that has been sold to the American people about
(37:28):
how they're such bad guys and we can't let them
get a weapon and we have to do something, and
they're a rogue regime, and so all of that is
very baked into your normy American psyche. So I think,
especially in the early phases, when it feels very easy
and mission accomplished, you're going to have some significant support,
certainly in the Republican Party.
Speaker 5 (37:48):
You're going to have very.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Broad support, and you're going to have some support among
the American population.
Speaker 5 (37:51):
I hate to.
Speaker 9 (37:52):
Say, Americans love a winner, right all Right after Ukraine,
the Ukraine flags are still flying them, you know, in
my neighborhood, and they never catch up with reality.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
And this is just me lamenting, but it's the truth.
I mean, just think too.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
And also it may be true we even had two
years of propaganda leading up to the war in Iraq.
We have had two years of pro Israel propaganda, Okay,
across the entire Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
So let's not forget that.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
Right that really makes him though yes to no, maybe
at a younger level, but I mean, I don't think that.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
The Israeli is crying about their civilian casualties. I don't
think that's really landing with people at this point, given
what we've all seen on our timelines.
Speaker 1 (38:30):
Ye, all of this, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
I have found a real reluctance among the American people
to accept like tenants of realism because it does admit,
you know, it requires admitting moral ambiguity, Like for me
to be able to say these things like, yeah, Saddam
was a bad guy, and I'm gonna be honest, it
would be better off today if he were still in
power Gaddafi. No one's saying he's a good dude, preferable
(38:54):
to the outcome. Assad He murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
We would be better off today if Bashar al Asade
was in power instead of freaking al Qaeda. Okay, I
mean I could go down the list and same here
with the Mullas. I don't think the Mulas are great people,
or the Iranian people are prospering in Islamic freedom or
any of this stuff. But you know, I do know
(39:16):
based on that track record that it rarely works out.
What Mubarik? How did that happen? Oh, Muslim brotherhood gets
itself elected? Now, CC's probably what even more dictatorial than
Mubarik ever was.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
I can go on forever.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
Yeah, in this list, and the point even putin everyone's.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
Like, oh, what do you know? Your Putin lover.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
I'm like, no, Putin is disgusting. Their system of government
is horrible. But you know, you can acknowledge there's some
moral ambiguity. Americans don't like that. There's like this nineteen eighties,
like you know, Cold War, Bruce willis evil Empire. Stuff
that's just been mainlined into their blood, especially if they're boomers.
Younger people get it. But that's another thing about influence.
(39:56):
My only hope is this is remember Keith Olberman. I
hate Keith Overman, but his rise was very important at
the time. He was the only guy who anti gave
the voice to the people who hated the war in Iraq.
And so this is actually a good moment, hopefully for
independent media, those who are not bought by you know,
by the Israel Lease, Dave Rubin or any of these
(40:19):
other folks. But you know, for the rest of us,
you know, for at least with the platform of the
Internet more just like the blogosphere in six that's where
Glenn came from. That's where a lot of stars, you know,
anti war stars originally got their starts. So that's my
only hope is that I do know at least that
the people eventually hopefully will be on our side. But
you know, in the interim, I think we're in for
(40:40):
a dark time. And do I think MAGA is gonna
say absolutely not the idea of some MAGA coalition taking
the streets.
Speaker 1 (40:46):
No, it will never happen. I mean, I'm just only
of the truth.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
It will never happen. Yeah, there's no such thing. There
may be some elite breakage and all of that, and
that's part of why I'm pretty outspoken as well as Look,
I know the White House officials are just like me.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
They're all on Twitter all day.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
You know, they see it, and so if you get
in their head a little bit, that's good.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
But I'm not naive.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
I don't think there will be some grand march against
Donald Trump. He will can They'll go along, they always do.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
They will, They'll find some way to rationalize, they'll find
some way to cope, and so, you know, in the
in the in the short term, I think the unfortunately,
I think there will be a public willingness among a
good percentage of the population to give another Middle Eastern
war a chance. But as we get dragged further and
further in, I think that will curdle incredibly quickly, and
(41:33):
I think it will, you know, I mean, I think
his presidency will be all bit destroyed.
Speaker 5 (41:38):
Of course for me, that's kind of a silver lining,
but you.
Speaker 2 (41:41):
Know, I think that's inexorably where we are headed. And
you know for a country. Look here, we are declining empire.
Can't even put on a decent like military parade yet
what a squeaky tanks, embarrassing.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Ship marching information you freed are doing a better day.
Speaker 5 (41:58):
It is humiliating, actually humiliating.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
And the worst part Zger sponsored by coin base, sponsored
by palins here locking by like So here we are
declining empire in large part because of our previous Middle
Eastern foreign you know adventures. While the Chinese were like
building and creating prosperity for their country and researching, we
were at you know, wasting lives, money, you know, lives
(42:24):
and treasure and time, bogged down in Iraq, bogged down in Afghanistan,
still in some ways to this day.
Speaker 5 (42:31):
And so here we are set.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
To embark on an even more insane, wild, disastrous, morally
horrific adventure in Iran, a vastly larger country with vastly
more military resources, and which is also not by the way,
like you know, Iraq was sort of like a fake
country that's like arbitrarily drawn, like Iran has a like
(42:55):
this is a proud nation with a long, you know,
ancient history, and we think we can just go in
and do what we want to, whatever we want to do,
and mold it in our image, et cetera. I mean,
it's just like the scope of the disaster cannot possibly
be you can't wrap your head around it. You know,
the number of refugees, the number of deaths, the amount
of money, the amount of military cost, all so that
(43:19):
BB can get his way. And our president is such
a fool that he went along with this rationale. Whatever
was sold to him, he bought into it. And now
here we are and we're on this chain that it's
hard to see how we walk away from. You know,
I really appreciate Dan coming on and getting you know,
his insights from inside the administration and just he's been
(43:39):
thinking about these issues for a long time. But like
the idea that the Iranians or anyone else is going
to think that it's a good idea to negotiate with
us at this point, like it's a fantasy. We lie
to their faces and even going back to the original
deal with Obama, Like, if you're the Iranians and you're
looking at it with a cold calculus at this point,
you'd say, we'd be better off if we didn't negotiate
(44:01):
with them and we just pursued a nuclear weapon, we'd
be in better condition today. And they're not the only
country around the world who is going to observe that
and learn, like, you can't deal with us, you can't.
I mean, the tariffs are another example that, like, you know,
we can't even tell these countries that we launched this
trade war against what they could do in order to
get the tariffs taken off of them. You can't work
with us, you can't trust us, and that is that's
(44:24):
a disaster for us, it's a disaster for you know,
it's a disaster for the world for hopes of like
peace and coexistence.
Speaker 5 (44:30):
And you know, but yeah, the.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
Cult of Trump being the emblem of America, first, he's
right about that.
Speaker 5 (44:39):
He has created it.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
So it is a cult of personality and it means
what he says it means, and the vast majority of
Republicans are going to find some way to rationalize and
go along with it.
Speaker 5 (44:49):
Whatever it is.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
Absolutely You're absolutely right. Okay, let's get to Tim Dillon.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
So all that being said, we did have an interesting
descent from Tim Dylan, who has been, you know, one
of the one of the comedians who was in the
you know, Trump aligned sphere important for their election this
time around, and he's been increasingly critical of some of
the actions that have been taken by this administration. Aron
being no exception. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9 (45:16):
Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the
UK just like Ukraine is on behalf of the of
Western Europe against Russia.
Speaker 1 (45:23):
We have to stop it right there.
Speaker 10 (45:25):
Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the
United Kingdom. Is that the most insane thing anyone's ever heard?
Are people right now in the United Kingdom is their
biggest problem?
Speaker 1 (45:42):
Iran?
Speaker 10 (45:43):
What is this woman speaking of? What is she talking about?
What does anyone talk is Iran. The reason that no
one can afford a house is Youran. The reason that
they're spent and all everywhere is Iran. The reason that
we've got political corruption is USh for. The reason is
r on the reason that we have twelve people that
(46:03):
own everything in this country is Iran. The reason that
we have, you know, an epidemic of poison food that's
killing people and children, And is Iran the reason for
any of this? Is Iran the reason the corporations in
America just pillage and leave the trail of daft and destruction.
Speaker 8 (46:22):
In their way. Can you imagine knocking on the door
of a double wide trailer and grabbing a person who
is five months away from being homeless in our country
and asking them their biggest problem?
Speaker 1 (46:36):
How?
Speaker 8 (46:37):
How do you think the word Iran is gonna come up? Much?
Speaker 2 (46:40):
A man, but sager, there is going to be a
massive media effort to convince people that actually Iran is
their biggest problem and this is what they should be
focused on.
Speaker 3 (46:49):
Yeah, of course, and you know we'll watch this all continue.
This is actually a good test as well as you know.
There was a lot of talk about the podcast election
and new media and all this. I can only speak
from my own own just general assessment. I don't think
a lot of the Maga podcast. You know, they're not
Maga podcast, they're branded that way by the media, but
whatever that, I don't think a lot of those people
(47:11):
wouldn't necessarily go along with this. I could be wrong,
of course, but there will be, you know, a good
pop culture test as to how this is all going
to play out. But broadly, what Tim is getting at
is that, you know, look America first, Yes, operationally it
is what Trump whatever Trump.
Speaker 1 (47:29):
Means, talked about it earlier. But it's a potent idea.
Speaker 3 (47:32):
And look, it's been smeared for almost a century now,
but there is a reason that that term arose because
hundreds of thousands of Americans were shipped to Europe and
killed in the trenches of France for what exactly. To
this day, there's a good argument about it. And then
we didn't even pass you know whatever, the treaty or
the fourteen Points to Treaty Forsi and the League of
(47:54):
Nations like it was a huge waste. That was a
general democratic uprising movement in the same way the twenty
sixteen could probably considered that of saying out loud, this
was a disaster. We were sent off for nothing, and
it has nothing to do with improving our own lives.
And that's why it's offensive for Trump to say that
it's about him, and it's also it's up for the taking.
(48:15):
It's a real idea, it's something that you know, is
at the heart for a lot of us. So look,
I hope to see more from this, like from Tim
from Bill Burr, from Rogan, from any of these guys,
to to be able to speak out against this, because
they do have cultural power, they do have the ability,
you know, to sway or at least highlight public opinion,
you know, and others, because at this point, like that
could be all that saves us, and I will be honest,
(48:38):
I don't even think that could save us, just because
of how captured Washington is by these neo conservatives. I mean,
we had the Democratic leader of the House of the Senate,
the Democratic leader of the Senate, who's supporting the war
with his you know, basically you're talking.
Speaker 5 (48:51):
About saying Trump into the war.
Speaker 2 (48:53):
He's calling him Tago Trump, Right, I won't really go
to war with Iran.
Speaker 3 (48:56):
Democratic leadership is asking for this, like they are sorting it.
We have the entire establishments, Mike Johnson, pray for Israel.
You know, it's we are totally totally captured at this
point on the question of Israel's war with Iran, and
so look, you know, the outside forces, this genuinely maybe
all we have got at this point. Yeah, I want
(49:19):
to upset people's expectations. You're not gonna win for a while.
It took i mean what six the six midterm elections
for the anti war voices to really be heard, and
to be honest, they didn't really do what they were
supposed to do. The surge ended up happening in O
seven and all of that, and it took really four
years to the apotheosis of the Obama campaign. Yeah, he
screwed it up to And so also be a lesson.
(49:39):
Don't be trusting necessarily Carnival Barker's out there saying that
they're anti war and then when they get in power, shocking,
you know, they change their tune.
Speaker 2 (49:47):
It's why it's so important, not that people can never
change and learn lessons, but it's really important to see
who was right about war when it was unpopular. Yeah,
because it's very easy, you know, ten years later to
be like, oh, the Iraq war that was bad. Yeah
at the time when there was a cost to be paid.
Who said it was wrong at the time? And like
(50:10):
I said, it's not that there can't be exceptions. People
change their mind and like really, you know, come to realize, Okay,
that was absolutely foolish. But broadly, you know the people
who were like, a Rock's a great idea, Ukraine's a
great idea, and they only shift once public opinion changes
and it's safe to do so you should be very
leery of those people.
Speaker 5 (50:31):
Now.
Speaker 2 (50:31):
In terms of the media landscape, Yeah, the Democrats are
just so utterly pathetic. I mean, I think they are
wildly on foreign policy. They are so at odds with
the Democratic base, They are so at odds with the
Democratic base. And yeah, they are right for the tam
I mean, look at what's happening with Zoron in New
York City, right, and he has a really quite dramatic
(50:52):
I mean, he's a BDS supporter and he's on the
verge of potentially winning a New York City mayoral race.
Like it shows you how right the rotten husk of
the Democratic Party is for the taking. If you had
people who are willing to be like aggressively anti war,
because that is where the base is. But the media organizations,
(51:13):
they're going to be lockstep in support of Israel, in
support of you know, hawkishness. They're going to be cheerleading
for more and more and more escalation. And they still
have significant purchase, not to mention that there are is
so many decades of propaganda convincing people that aron should
be a top concern that you know, where they are
and their weapons development should be something that's top of mind,
(51:34):
should be something that's a predominant focus of US policy
and US foreign policy specifically, that is still going to
have some power. So it's really important to see people
like Dave Smith, to see people like Tim Dillon, to
see new media voices who can offer, you know, a
place for truly anti war people to go to feel
like they are you know, they are heard, to feel
(51:55):
like they're not crazy. And the larger that those non
establishment media figures are and more significant they are in
in you know, our public discourse on this issue, the
better will be. Although you know, obviously I've been like
there's a lot of limits there too, some of the
same problems you know, where you have just like hack
(52:15):
partisans in quote unquote independent media as well, and so
you'll see plenty of that too. But but yeah, it's
it's good to see Tim. I so much respect to
Dave for going so hard hard say and Trump should
be I mean, he said it previously.
Speaker 5 (52:30):
Truder has already said.
Speaker 2 (52:31):
Listen, if Trump gets us involved in warner around, I
will apologize for telling people to vote.
Speaker 5 (52:35):
And he I didn't even have to ask him.
Speaker 1 (52:37):
Yeah, that's ready, he just did it.
Speaker 5 (52:39):
You gotta give it.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
Look, there's going to be people like that. But also,
I mean, as you said, there's the warning. I mean,
there's a lot of so called independent voices out there
that are blithering away on the question why are they
always in Tel Aviv?
Speaker 1 (52:50):
You know, how are these people always in Tel Aviv?
Speaker 3 (52:53):
It's amazing, isn't it, All of these free trips that
they just happen to do. Oh, and it certainly doesn't
inform their views at all. But watch out, there's a lot.
There's a lot of dark money and stuff flowing out
there as well. It's funny too, because the accusations they're
always throwing is that we're bought or somebody else, when
in reality, you know, they have the murkiest finances. Oh
(53:13):
with the whole whatever that Russian deal y about. Okay,
let's let's let even leave Tim out of this. It's
more like, how is your business set up? If your
business is set up so you don't have any checks
and balances to have that amount of cash just flowing
into your bank account. You're not asking any questions you
have a problem because that's not about Russia. That's just
droadly about your philosophy. You should you should know the
(53:34):
level of uh, you know, checks and stuff here that
happened before any money starts flowing anywhere.
Speaker 1 (53:39):
And part most of the time.
Speaker 3 (53:40):
You say no because what because it's about independence and
there's a reason for that. So anyway, we'll see because
things are not trending in a good direction. But you know,
at least we're here. At least we're here to be
able to do the.
Speaker 1 (53:53):
Show for all of you.
Speaker 3 (53:54):
So I do hope you guys can help support us
breakingpoints dot com just because you know this, this work
that we have to do is probably more important than
ever before. But we'll have a show for everybody tomorrow
and the next day and the next day and more.
We're going to continue working around the clock here to
bring you all the news. So thank you all very much.
Speaker 1 (54:10):
We appreciate it.
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
We're very excited now to be joined by Dan Colwell.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
He is a former Pentagon senior advisor, recently worked under
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Trump administration, longtime foreign
policy analyst in the United States Marine.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
I think the last one most important title there for you.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
But Dan, one of the reasons we wanted to talk
to you is we've covered your story extensively here on
the show. The story really of the ousting of you
and really a target on both your back and others
who are inside the administration, people who it's spoken out
vocally for a restraint in US foreign policy. And Dan
is somebody who literally worked you for this most recent administration.
(01:09):
Perhaps you could give us some insight into some of
the things that happened here. Let's start with D one,
please and put it up there on the screen. It
does now appear, Dan, that many of the US diplomatic
efforts by Steve Wikoff and others served as cover for
this Israeli surprised attack on Iran. Now, giving your experience
and some of your insight, you know, without getting into
(01:30):
classified information, what's your assessment of what really went on
inside here, now that you know all the principal players.
Speaker 4 (01:36):
So I do think that at the end of the day,
that diplomacy was and still is the primary goal. Is
that ultimately the President believes that the only way to
solve this is primarily, I say, solved this permanently. Solve
this is through a diplomatic effort, because, as a lot
(01:57):
of people pointed out, a military solution, even using all
the power of America's bomber fleet, naval assets and combined
with Israelis, will not permanently dismantle the Iranian nuclear program.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Well, can I zero in on that because you saw
these warplans, all right, and you don't have to get
into that, but you're somebody who actually sat there at
the desk. So is that what you're saying, you know,
given your knowledge, is that this is not something that
can be solved by the United States of America.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
Well, don't take it from me. I mean the Israelis
have said this as well too. Now there is a
caveat to this is you could militarily occupy Iran. You
could do another regime change war, another long term occupation
of Iran, and that is the way that you would
truly permanently dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Now, let's be honest,
(02:47):
that'd be incredibly costly. It would make Iraq and Afghanistan
and what we've been doing in Syria and in other
countries look like a cakewalk. Iran is a significantly larger country.
It is a more militarized country with a much more
advanced military, and a lot of people are focused on
like their their higher end conventional capabilities.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
But they also have a very strong militia force.
Speaker 4 (03:12):
They have a regular militia force called the Bachi and
they are are really truly a garrison state, and that
would be incredibly difficult occupation. So getting back to what
President Trump was looking at doing, is I truly believe
that that a lot of this stuff about oh this
is a cover, I have to say, I think is
(03:33):
misinformation interesting and I think that that it was primarily
and there were others that disagreed in the administration, is
that the president really wanted to prioritize the diplomatic option.
Now I'm not in the administration anymore. I don't know
what has gone on in the past couple of weeks
for sure, but diplomacy was always the thing that he
(03:55):
wanted to prioritize, and based on his remarks, I still
think he wants to pursue diplomatic outcome.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Cost So it's your belief that he was effectively double
cross and betrayed by the Israelis here who because I mean,
the reason that these strikes happened on, you know, after
the sixty day deadline that President Trump had implemented. It
happened on day sixty one, something that he, by the way,
you know, highlighted and celebrated in the aftermath.
Speaker 5 (04:20):
Of these attacks very clearly.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
The timing of these was to blow up any possibility
of a diplomatic solution, which is something the Israelis are
not interested in. So you're telling me your belief is
that President Trump was effectively betrayed his diplomatic negotiations undercut
by the Israelis, or do you think that he bought
into this? What I think is proposter You can give
your opinion, an expert opinion on it. Preposterous belief that
(04:45):
somehow going to war with Iran was going to make
it easier to effectuate some sort of a peaceful diplomatic solution.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
So, Crystal, this is a cop out. A lot of
my assumptions over the last week have been blown up.
I can't answer that that question with absolute certainty. What
I can tell you from my experience inside the administration
and what I know of the people in the administration
is that diplomacy was what they wanted to pursue. So
(05:16):
you had guys like Steve Whitcoff, you had people like
Michael Anton.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
You had a lot of folks across.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
The administration that were putting a lot of effort and
trying to come up with ideas on how to make
diplomacy work. Did it was it always perfect. Were they
always doing the right thing? These are always incredibly difficult
things to pull off. I think that if we look back,
there are maybe things that could be done better. And
(05:42):
I think to your point, it's going forward, Yes, I
think you have todmit is that in the short term,
diplomacy is going to be incredibly difficult. It's going to
take a lot of things to come back from what
has happened over.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
The last few days. Right, So this is where I
want to get to.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Then, because you tell you name some of the pro
diplomatic factions, you don't have to get into names if
you don't want to, but just arrived for us. What
the other faction inside perhaps the administration and in Washington
appears to be that obviously is now backing Donald Trump
behind this action and really is both loving celebrating the
Israeli military campaign and actively working to put the United
(06:15):
States into this conflict.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
What does that faction look like and where are they located?
Well within the administration.
Speaker 4 (06:20):
I know what one observation I've had is and I
didn't work in the first administration.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
I worked a lot with.
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Them on the outside, mainly on reforming the VA, and
then towards the end on ending endless wars.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
What I saw on the first administration.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Was is you had most of the people in the administration,
particularly the national security side, dislike the president and we're
oftentimes working against him.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
This time you don't have that.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Is you have a lot of truly smart and talented
people across the inner Agency, a lot of great people
at the Pentagon, especially on Bridge Colby's policy team. You
have great service secretaries. I think the Deputy Secretary Steve
Feinberg is doing a great job. And as State's Department,
similar you have people like Michael Anton. And you have
a lot of great people in the Vice President's office,
at OD and I and at the NSC, and they
(07:06):
all largely I mean, they have disagreements over the issues,
but their attitude is this is they have their views.
They are going to make recommendations to the president based
on their analysis of intelligence on the DoD side of
the trade offs to accomplish certain military options, and they're
going to make those recommendations. They're going to run them
(07:26):
up up the chain, and from there the President and
the principles are going to debate and decide. Now within
the administration, I think that most of the of the administration,
the political appointees, understand that there's a lot of danger.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
With a war in Iran. Not everyone, but most folks do.
Speaker 4 (07:46):
I think there are a lot of folks in the
uniform military that actually think that a war with Iran
would be disastrous. But there are folks that still are
under this delusion that all we have to do is
send if you be, two bombers in and drop a
couple massive ordinance penetrators on four to oh and everything
will be fine. And there's a lot of people outside
(08:07):
the administration, in the think tank community, in Congress, in
the advocacy space, and the media that are still bought
into this idea that this is largely a risk free proposition.
And let me tell you, if the United States gets
directly involved, there's a risk that it could be one
of the biggest national security catastrophes we've seen over the
(08:28):
last twenty thirty.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
Let's stick with that. So let's put d two guys
please up on the screen. Here.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
We have a recent report, as you just mentioned, somebody
Elberge Colebrie, somebody who I consider a friend and a
very very intelligent person. The headline here is Pentagon is
split over Trump's Israel policy, but specifically Dan, what they
are talking about is a war inside of the administration
here between the Sentcom Commander, General Michael Carilla and Elbridge Colby,
(08:53):
who is the what is he the Undersecretary Defense for policies,
who I mean has the audacity to suggest, Hey, we
need to be careful with our military resources here. A
war with Iran or offensive military action against Iran in
conjunction with Israel would significantly deplete our stocks and it
could make us very unprepared for a conflict that actually matters.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Describe the contours of this general.
Speaker 3 (09:14):
The Sencom Commander, General Carilla, who is both Sencom is
under his environment. He is scheduled, I think to you know,
his term be over soon. But he is the top
military commander here obviously has the ears of the Secretary
Defense and the President in this theater.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
What are his views here of the conflict?
Speaker 4 (09:30):
Well, first of all, I just want to say regarding
Bridge and his team, you know, my friends Mike Dimono
and others.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
They're doing their jobs.
Speaker 4 (09:38):
Their jobs is to challenge what the combatant commanders want
to do. It is their job since the combatant commanders
are very focused on the regions they control.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
Their AORs is what they're called.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Their job is to look at the global picture in
assess the trade offs, the support what various.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
Combatant commanders want to do.
Speaker 4 (10:00):
So we're in an environment where the United States's military
resources are constrained. We've had twenty years of plus of
wars in the Middle East. We have emptied many of
our magazines of ammunition in our arsenals to support Ukraine.
Is we have an environment where our resources are not limitless, so.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Trade offs are real.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
So every asset we move into centcom comes at the
expense of another combatant command, like the Indo Pacific, where
we have a real threat, a real challenge in China,
we trade off against things we're trying to do in
the Western hemisphere.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
I think one thing.
Speaker 4 (10:37):
This administration deserves a lot of credit for is more
of a Western hemispheric focus. So Bridge is doing what
he's supposed to do. And also say this, knowing Bridge
and Mike and the rest of the team there is
they're going to challenge, which is healthy and good. They're
going to make a recommendation. But the end of the day,
when the Secretary of Defense and the president makes a decision,
they're going to turn around and follow it and insurance
(10:59):
implement in it properly. Now, in regards to General Gorilla, look,
I mean, I think it's it's been reported, and I
you know, based on my experience with him, is that
he takes a fundamentally different view of the importance of
the Middle East than a lot of other people in
the administration. And he also, I think, believes that a
(11:20):
military campaign against Iran will not be as costly as others.
So he that's his view, and I think there are
a lot of folks that want to see some type
of military action occur before he retires as a result
of that. So he retires, to believe, in the middle
of July. And I don't think it's a coincidence. You
(11:42):
see a lot of the pressure ramping up to do
something prior to his retirement, got it.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
So, just back in March, Director of National Intelligence Toulsey
Gabbard testified that the intelligence community continues to assess Oron
is not building a nuclear weapon. Let's go ahead and
take a listen, just a little flashback to her testimony
to this regard.
Speaker 6 (12:02):
The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building
a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Kamani has not authorized
the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in two thousand
and three. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran
decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
What is your understanding of the current situation, because obviously,
I mean, we've covered all the comments now about how
the real goal for bb Dtyahu and others who are
supportive of this direction and policy, what their real goal
is here is regime change. But the nuclear program is
being used as the pretext and justification for these strikes.
So what can you tell us about Iranian nuclear development?
Speaker 4 (12:40):
So I obviously can't get in specific intelligence and what
was discussed and what I saw or didn't see, But
my understanding was that that assessment was correct and was
largely agreed to across the intelligence community. What it was
the CIA military intelligence community, with the State Department have
(13:03):
and the State Department actually has a very good intelligence branch,
one of the best. Actually, they've been more right than
the rest of the ICEE. It's called iron r that
that has been the consensus for a while now, and
one of the reasons actually that is the consensus is
based on Iranian behavior. Is I think this often gets overlooked,
but I believe it was Komane before he died, had
(13:24):
a flatois against developing a nuclear weapon, and that hasn't
been repealed. Yes, that was an indicator that a lot
of people were watching that. If they repealed that, like okay,
now they're going to sprint towards bomb. And I'd also
know too, is that it's not a matter of they
can just snap their fingers and in a day they
could have a bomb. There's still a breakout time and window,
(13:46):
and then it takes more time to actually weaponize this.
But again, from what I know, and I've been out
of loop now for you know, close to two months,
is that that assessment still stands well.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
One thing I look at and is even in Bev's
announcement of the war, the shortest timeline he gives for
a breakout is a few months. If this is not
a you know, a couple of day things. That's basically aligns.
Speaker 5 (14:07):
With hearing since the ninety Yeah, of course we've been
hearing there.
Speaker 3 (14:11):
Even if that's bs, he doesn't even say they're days
away from a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
He's like or a few months away from a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
It's like, well, okay, so we had a deal tomorrow
to have a talk.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
We can't do that.
Speaker 5 (14:22):
You know.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
It's like one of those where it's just extraordinary and really,
what I want to get at with you, Dan, is
is within this administration at this point. You know, if
they go forward with this, and of course it'll look
they'll try to minimize it. You said, we just got
to do a B two. What does it look like
from there? You know, the B two that's step one.
So now what you know, if we see the straits
and war moves get close and all this, what how
(14:44):
many resources of the United States is would it take
even from that point of a so called limited intervention.
Speaker 4 (14:49):
Well, I think it's I think we need to start
with what is the war right now? And as we
sit here today, and there's a lot of things changing,
and it could change, you know, very rapidly in the
next minutes or hours, But right now, essentially the war
is a race. It is a race between Iran and
(15:10):
Israel to see who can destroy the other side's critical
military equipment the fastest and exhaust the other size supply
of critical munitions. So for Israel, that is Iran's ballistic missiles,
but also their ballistic missile launchers. That's really actually probably
(15:30):
more important than missiles themselves, and that's why Israeli Air
Force it appears to really start to focus on those
in the last days. For the Iranians, they are trying
to exhaust the supply of the United States's FAD batteries
they have there, and then Israel's very good integrated missile defense.
They're trying to exhaust the supply of their missile interceptors
(15:52):
while simultaneously trying to outlast Israel's supply of precision munitions,
particularly their standoff munitions. So in terms of that race,
who has the advantage right now, it's hard to say.
It looks like the Israelis did a really spectacular set
of strikes the first day. They destroyed a lot of
the Iranians command. They did hit some key sites. But
(16:14):
Israel doesn't have the size, or doesn't have enough planes
and the ability to basically attack the Iranian military on
a scale that it would destroy their offensive capability in
one day. So Iran as we sit here today still
has a lot of offensive capability. On the other hand,
(16:35):
Iran has not launched as many missiles as we thought
they were, but more Iranian missiles seem to be breaking
through as the barrages continue on.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
So what would that indicate to you?
Speaker 4 (16:49):
That indicates to me that that Israel and the United
States are rash either rationing their interceptors knowing they have
a limited supply, or the Iranians are learning and learning
how to launch their missiles in a way that they
can break through defenses. Now getting back to your question
of like, what does this mean for the United States, Well, again,
the United States is in a resource constrained environment. Our
(17:10):
ability to fight a prolonged war against the Iranians is
very limited and would come at very high trade offs.
So what would it look like, say, if there is
an authorization to use the b twos to strike Foordo. Well,
I think that from there, iran would feel like the
United States is now directly engaged in the war, not
(17:32):
just indirectly through defensive and they would feel like, now
we have to strike American forces in the region. And
this is where the casualty figures come from. And this
is where I think some people get dishonest because they say, oh,
nobody's talking about boots on the ground. Well, we have
forty thousand troops spread across the Middle East, all of
whom are in striking range of Iranian ballistic missiles, and
(17:54):
I have to say many of them are on bases
that don't have the same layered defenses that most Israeli
cities have. So you could have a situation where the
Iranians are launching mass drone, mass missile attacks on these
bases and can inflict heavy casualties on the United States.
So what happens from there? The people who've been saying,
(18:16):
you know, oh, we just got to let Israel do
what they want to do and they don't need our
help to then now a couple of days later is like,
the American needs to get involved and we need to
have b two strikes on photo. Those same people are
going to call for escalation. If the United States escalates,
there's gonna be more attacks. They could start attacking our
golf Arab partners and allies, and then from there you
(18:37):
have the straits of horror moves potentially closed. You have
attacks on energy infrastructure. Energy prices spike.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
Straight up from its is what of energy?
Speaker 1 (18:48):
I believe it's.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
But it's a huge portion of China. Actually, so then
they might need to get involved.
Speaker 4 (18:54):
Yes, and that they may look at the need, they
may look at what's happening in golf and say, okay,
now it's the time make a move against Taiwan. I'm
a little less confident than that, but that is a possibility.
So you'll have massive energy spikes here in the United States,
which could upset the progress that the President Trump is
made on reducing inflation. You'll have thousands, potentially thousands of
dead American soldiers, diplomats and other civilians. And let's not
(19:17):
forget too, you will have a lot of dead Arabs,
dead Iranians, and yes, dead Israelis. You know it is
Israeli civilians, Iranian civilians that are paying most of the
price for this war. Right now, we can't forget it.
You know, I was reading coming in here today, it
looks like that many of the casualties last night from
(19:39):
the Iranian nuclear strike were Ukrainians. That they were probably
Ukrainian refugees, Ukrainian Jews fleeing the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
And I don't know that for sure, but Tel Avisi, yes,
and that's.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
You know, those are the people paying the price in
that and it really upsets me that people are minimizing
this on both sides and ignoring that. And this is
where it had It's just not a video game. We
don't have a magic power where it's just a matter
of a few B two strikes and a few cruise
missiles and this problem is solved. There is real risk
that this could escalate into something much much worse.
Speaker 5 (20:14):
And Dan, let me ask you one more question on that.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
I mean, we saw, you know, our intervention in Libya
which ends up in that country being a failed state.
Speaker 5 (20:21):
Let's say that BBNT Yahu.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
And others get their wish and this regime in Iran
effectively collapses.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
You know what is the fallout?
Speaker 2 (20:29):
What does it look like if you have this giant,
incredibly significant country as effectively a failed state.
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Well, my friend Sara Bamari actually wrote a We're gonna
have the show on Thursday. Yeah, really great Twitter posts
about this, and Sarah b I think is really interesting
because he used to be a regime change advocate and yes,
reassessed his views and he walked through I think very effectively.
Of what that would mean is you know, it mean
that the United States would have to get more involved
(20:58):
in Middle East when we're trying to do less and
power allies to do more, including Israel alongside the Gulf Arabs.
It would mean probably higher energy prices for at least
a short term before global markets could adjust. And you know,
you could have an actual true nuclear threat here because
you could have bad actors outside of the Iranian regime
(21:21):
get a hold of these nuclear material and build something
like a dirty bomb and so and they Iran has
other WMDs, They likely have chemical weapons that could fall
in the wrong hands. So it's a huge threat. The
Iranian regime is awful, one of the worst on the planet,
but they are still a regime that has shown that
they have not provided these weapons to some of the
(21:43):
bad proxies in the region. Yet that could change if
the war drags on and they have not done certain
things that you would expect a totally irrational regime to
do correct. And we just simply don't know what would
replace this regime, and that is one of the big
things and problems with through theme change.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
One last question for you. You know, by all accounts,
it seems the Iranians were engaged in diplomatic negotiations with
the Trump administration and good faith. Of course, they had
previously engaged with the Obama administration and in good faith
and were able to secure a deal that the first
Trump administration got down of and the Biden administration declined.
Speaker 5 (22:18):
To get back into.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
You know, it seems to me like, if you're, you know,
as a layman here looking at the Iranian calculation, this
has created additional incentives for them to accelerate towards acquiring
nuclear weapons. I mean as an expert, you know, is
that your assessment too of the sort of calculus that
has been created, not just with regard to what we've
did with Iran, you know, basically lying about diplomatic negotiations
(22:42):
to create the conditions for an Israeli surprise attack, but
with regards to Libya, with regard to other countries around
the way of Ukraine. You know, is that the sort
of calculus that our foreign policy has created for countries?
Speaker 4 (22:53):
Well, I'm far from an expert on this. I'm just
have the privilege of knowing a lot of really smart
people whose ideas I can steal. I think, yes, there
is an incentive now for the Iranians to actually break
out and pursue nuclear weapon before and Crystal.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
You kind of alluded to this earlier.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
I think that for the Iranians, you know, they want
to have the appearance that they could break out. They
want to preserve some type of capability, in large part
because of what happened in Libya, because of what happened
in Iraq and recently Syria as well too. It hasn't
appened in North Korea, but for them, the nuclear weapon
(23:34):
threat is more of a bargaining chip for things like
sanctions relief, better integration in the region. And really the
biggest guaranteurs their national survival are things like their missile program,
which for them is very important because of their experience
in the Ran Iraq War where they were really brutalized
(23:54):
by Saddam's scud missiles as duple have bombers. So that's
more important for their their regime and national survival than
a theoretical nuclear weapon. But look, if the United States
is perceived as not being able to negotiate in good
faith along with the Europeans, if there's a belief that
other actors in the region are going to undermine it,
(24:16):
then they just might make the decision like, Okay, we're
going to be the Middle East North Korea in a
lot of ways they already are. We're going to you know,
break out and basically become a massive hermit kingdom, and
that's the only way we're going to be able to survive.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
As a nation.
Speaker 3 (24:33):
Yeah, and that's a terrifying lesson because that actually did
work for North Korea and they work out.
Speaker 1 (24:37):
They're still there.
Speaker 3 (24:38):
And every time I've talked with multiple people on the
negotiating team with the DPRK, every single time we told
them to denuclearize, they're like, yeah, how they work out
for Gaddafi? They know they're not stupid.
Speaker 4 (24:48):
It's funny. It's not a coincidence that in the middle
of the negotiations, where where President Trump was making progress
and he deserves a lot of credit for taking the
steps he did, It's not a coinsays John Bolton came
out and started talking about Libya. Yeah, that was a
deliberate attempt to undermine his negotiation. I will say this
time around, I think among his political pointees, you don't
(25:12):
have people like that that would go and ultimately try
and undermine negotiation if it reaches a point at that point.
Speaker 1 (25:22):
Yeah, but yeah, if you if you do.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
But again, I have to acknowledge that it is going
to be tough to get negotiations back on track, but
there is there is still a pathway for that. It's
going to take more time, and the biggest thing administration
is going to have to show on that is patience. Yes,
well said.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Dan, I really appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (25:42):
Dan, thank you so much. I appreciate you talking.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
To you very much. So all right, we're going to
go to the next part.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Some interesting reaction from MAGA world to our encouragement and
involvement in Israel's attacks and war with Iran. Steve Bannon,
who has been obviously very opposed to us getting involved
in this way, I had a lot to say. Let's
go ahead and take a listen to a little of that.
Speaker 7 (26:05):
You either got it. If you're gonna go alone, you
got you can take care of your deal or not.
You don't need us. Decide to go alone, decide to
reject it. Now, we don't need you. We're gonna go
to Loan and the goat alone last about six hours.
Not only do they want to defense, they want us
to go on offense. But don't set it up that
we're gonna get wrapped up in this thing in the
(26:25):
first day, and now people want us go on offense
into bombing runs on this and Mike Pompeo, Mike Pompeio
sitting there, go everybody in the golf Regent's so excited.
Is that your paymasters and cutter Pompeo that you took
the money from, Is that your paymasters and cutter are
telling you this. What I know is that we weren't
asked to come. You know this, People went on this
(26:47):
by themselves. They made a conscious decision to do it themselves.
And if you want to do it yourselves, then do
it yourselves. All of a sudden, we got to come
in and defend that and what planet. And I'm not
worried people say it's going to tear a Maga apart. No,
is not going to tear maga apart at all.
Speaker 1 (27:07):
We need, we may have.
Speaker 7 (27:08):
Needed to do this to decide who's really America for
us and who's still a neocon? Who's still a Neocon?
And if I'm hurting your feelings, I'm sorry your feelings
going to have to get hurt. All of you burmers
skipping around right now?
Speaker 1 (27:25):
What happened in Iraq?
Speaker 7 (27:27):
We were lied to what happened in Iraq the law
of undertended consequent weapons that are being used today have
a degree of precision that no one ever dreamt of
in a prior conflict.
Speaker 8 (27:40):
The bombing designed to shock Rock's military centered on Baghdad,
but also struck key targets in Mosal are book in
the north, bus in the South. We've especially accomplished our mission.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
We did everything that we set out to do. Everybody's
back safe and sound.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
All targets are designed to undermine the regime of a
rocky president. Saddam Hussein I had to convince his generals
to turn on him or at least surrender.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
So you got Bannon say, we're finding out Steve Bannon, Yeah,
finally we're.
Speaker 5 (28:07):
Going to find out.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
Who's America first? Who are the neocons? It looks very
much like Donald Trump is in the neocon camp.
Speaker 3 (28:12):
Here's the issue, is this whole America first thing. It
actually gets to the next part. I've been wanting to
go off on this. Le's put it up there on
the screen. Trump says, quote, I decide what America first means.
For those two people who say they want peace, you
can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapons. So
for all of those wondering, wonderful people who don't want
anything to do about Iran having a nuclear weapon, that's
not peace. But really it's the hubris of so much bullship.
(28:35):
Decide what America First means. And actually, this is a
key test there. Dave made a prediction I didn't want
to get into it at the time where he was like,
Maga is going to turn on Trump.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
I'm like, no, I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (28:46):
Actually, and look, I mean, where's the truth is that
the vast majority of the American people are propagandaed to
an insane degree on war.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
Let's look back to two thousand and three.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
The propaganda worked, Okay, America did not on the Iraq
war since mid two thousand and five, until people were
dying in the streets and the Basra Mosque and all that.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
Yeah, we're going on.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Those of us who are applaced to from the beginning
were considered.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
Traitors, trators.
Speaker 3 (29:12):
Okay, it took years for this to happen, and similar here.
I mean, look, it is factually incorrect. America First is
a movement that goes back all the way to the
nineteen twenties. It is literally not invented by Trump, but
operationally it is, let's be honest, and that's part of
why everyone's like, oh, we get to decide what's true.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
There's no such thing, okay.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
And this also gets to the whole idea of like
Trump is pro war or pro peace.
Speaker 1 (29:35):
It's like he's neither.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
He is just this manipulatable figure and there are factions
within his movement and his coalition, some of which is
varying on top or not, and Trump at different times
gets to go along. His kind of mor or a morphousness,
is actually a strength because it kind of convinces both
sides that he is one of them. He both convinced
the pro Israel neocons and the anti war people at
(29:56):
least libertarians like Dave Smith on our show, to vote
for him. Right, That's actual political strength in politics. But
now you know, whenever it comes down to it, what
he's really telling us is he's the person who decides
because all of his political information says they will follow me.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
I think he's right.
Speaker 3 (30:12):
And Steve Bannon in a way into its how correct
that is by saying to all you boomers switching around
on cable news, like you are being sold alive. But
I don't know if that's enough to remind them, because
the force of the propaganda is immense. I mean, I
watch CNN and I see a former IDF spokesperson who is.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
Analyzing the war.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
I see Scott Jennings, mister Maga in a fucking bunker
in Jerusalem telling Trump to go and bomb Iran. Mister
Maga on CNA. That's CNN, not to mention Fox. I
go on Fox. I see one segment of a guy
being like, hey, it's not such a good idea from
my friends over at the American Conservative Nine out of
(30:56):
ten gases. All these former generals, former Bush guys are Fleischer,
the guy who you know, was the press secretary during
the war in Iraq. That's who is being mainlined into
their blood. And they've already been, you know, so conditioned
because of the anti anti Semitism campaign of the last
(31:16):
two years to be you know, susceptible to all of
these arguments. I mean, in retrospect, like anti anti Semitism
is the most successful Neo Conservative rehabilitation projects of all time,
all time, because they convinced you know, not only the
United States government, they weaponize the Department of justice and others,
but to literally prosecute basically their political opponents and to
(31:37):
go after you abandon their principles of free speech. But
now on war right, some of us saw at the time,
talked about it here a lot.
Speaker 1 (31:44):
But most people were very willing to go along with it.
Speaker 5 (31:47):
So well, I don't even you hear from Bannon.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
I mean, there's so much, there's so much spin and
cope from people like him who have been vocally opposed
to a hot war with the run, which again, let's
be clear, we are in today like we are there.
Speaker 5 (32:03):
Donald Trump made the decision, he.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
Is the decider at the top of the food chain,
used the negotiations as a ruse to create the conditions
for Israel to launch a surprise attack. Supply the munitions
provided the defense, like we are in this thing. And
even for him and others who have been vocally critical
of that possible direction, you know, they have to pretend like, oh,
maybe Trump didn't know this was going to happen, and
(32:28):
to not direct fire directly at him and criticize him
directly for his choice to destroy his own diplomatic negotiations
and throw in with the Israelis and their desire for
a regime change war.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
I mean, that's where we are.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
And so I think you're right, Sager, Like I think
Steve Bannon is a very astute political actor, and he
knows that you can't actually on the right in the
MAGA coalition. You cannot actually directly criticize Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (32:58):
I already know Dave he's going to get Dave earlier
on in O Show, said Trump should be impeached.
Speaker 1 (33:03):
I mean, I don't.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
Look, I love Dave, and if I was advising him
on his influence in the Republican Party, I feel you
shouldn't do that.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
But I don't think he doesn't care about the Republican
But that's the point.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
That's what we're dealing with.
Speaker 3 (33:13):
Me and day we don't give a shit, Okay whatever,
I'm just going to say whatever I want. I've burned
all the bridges that I have in Washington. Dave, you know,
he's a guy who says what he thinks. That's great,
But for these people, if you want to preserve your influence,
all it takes is one critical comment of Trump. And
as evidence of that, you look at what Trump says
about Tucker Carl.
Speaker 1 (33:32):
I mean, look, Tucker has been one of the most
vociferous supporters of Trump.
Speaker 5 (33:39):
I mean, he has JD.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
Vance on the ants on the ticket.
Speaker 3 (33:42):
I mean, this guy nobody's taken more bullets for Trump
than Tucker. And when Tucker has the temerity to say
Trump is complicit with Israel's war on Iran, that we
should cut Iran off, Trump immediately disregards and basically hits
back and says, I'm the person, not you, Tucker. So
it's it's like even just a single critical comment is enough.
(34:06):
And that's the thing, is what did he say, Tucker
in a newsletter? We can put that, by the way,
E three up on the screen. You know, these are
basic right wing comments. He just says all we have
to do is cut off Israel. He said we should
drop Israel and we should have no involvement in this,
and that Trump is complicit kind of you know, muted.
If you ask me in terms of what should be
(34:27):
called for here in terms of the even that not enough.
And now what do I see this morning, Laura Lumer,
Tucker Carlson is a maga faker. You know they're turning.
You know the machine is working already already, you know,
Mark Levin says, Tucker Carlson is a Katari asset because
why because he interviewed the prime or whatever, the King
(34:47):
of Katar, the Emir of Qatar. So one of these idiots. Actually,
you know, you'll love this. They accused me of being
agent a Qatar. What do you want you want to
tell me what I've been saying about Qatar here for
the last five years. That'd be news to the Katari government,
who hates my guts. But it's one of It's just
it's hilarious. Yeah, Like, well, the way that this all works.
Speaker 2 (35:05):
I was taking a look at you know, Marjorie Taylor
Green put out this long post that she's getting like
a lot of credit for for, you know, as being
like anti war, and even the lefties giving her credit
for this. Guess what word doesn't appear in this like
long ass screed once Trump. Yeah, I mean, And that's
the thing. It's like, if you are going to pretend
like the commander in chief, who you know, blew up
(35:26):
his own negotiations to do this for Israel and continues
to shift the weapons and continues to go along and
celebrate the impact, et cetera, you're going to pretend like
he's not involved, like you're just not. No one's going
to give you any credence that lacks any sort of
credibility or honesty. So again, that just shows you these
are political actors. They're responding to their perception correct perception
(35:49):
of the political landscape. And so no, they're not going
to turn on Trump. They'll find some cope, they'll find
some justification, they'll distract with some culture war thing whatever.
Try not to talk about it, but yeah, I think
you know, to go back to Dave saying that he
thinks that Trump will lose his coalition over this. I mean,
I do think there are some who were not Trump
fans previously who voted for him this time, who believed,
(36:12):
in my opinion, foolishly. But listen, I'm not here to
like rub people's nose in it that he would be
this anti war candidate or at least would be better
than the alternative. I think there's some percentage, and I
think there's independence, especially who fell into that camp who.
Speaker 5 (36:27):
You know will drift away.
Speaker 2 (36:28):
We're about to show you Tim Dillon, who was you know,
broadley spportive of Trump in this last election, and you
know he's being very critical at this point as well,
so I'm not going to say there's no one that
he will lose over this, but the broad Republican Party, no,
they're going to be all about it.
Speaker 5 (36:43):
They're going to be pushing him to do war. We
already see it.
Speaker 2 (36:45):
We already see Republican congressmen jumping in to say, now
we need full regime change. And that's the way this works.
Not to mention, the Democrats are being very quiet. There's
only a handful who have said anything negative about this,
so they're pathetic as well the mainstream media, but you know,
they're always horny for war. This is like the most
bipartisan of bipartisan consensis. And to your point, Sager, there's
(37:07):
not There has not been a big propaganda build up
to this war with Iran in the near term, Like
we didn't have, you know, these big presentations of here's
how close they are to break down and oh my god,
we have to you know, do something right now. We
didn't have that, But we have how many decades of
propaganda that has been sold to the American people about
(37:28):
how they're such bad guys and we can't let them
get a weapon and we have to do something, and
they're a rogue regime, and so all of that is
very baked into your normy American psyche. So I think,
especially in the early phases, when it feels very easy
and mission accomplished, you're going to have some significant support,
certainly in the Republican Party.
Speaker 5 (37:48):
You're going to have very.
Speaker 2 (37:48):
Broad support, and you're going to have some support among
the American population.
Speaker 5 (37:51):
I hate to.
Speaker 9 (37:52):
Say, Americans love a winner, right all Right after Ukraine,
the Ukraine flags are still flying them, you know, in
my neighborhood, and they never catch up with reality.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
And this is just me lamenting, but it's the truth.
I mean, just think too.
Speaker 3 (38:07):
And also it may be true we even had two
years of propaganda leading up to the war in Iraq.
We have had two years of pro Israel propaganda, Okay,
across the entire Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
So let's not forget that.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
Right that really makes him though yes to no, maybe
at a younger level, but I mean, I don't think that.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
The Israeli is crying about their civilian casualties. I don't
think that's really landing with people at this point, given
what we've all seen on our timelines.
Speaker 1 (38:30):
Ye, all of this, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (38:33):
I have found a real reluctance among the American people
to accept like tenants of realism because it does admit,
you know, it requires admitting moral ambiguity, Like for me
to be able to say these things like, yeah, Saddam
was a bad guy, and I'm gonna be honest, it
would be better off today if he were still in
power Gaddafi. No one's saying he's a good dude, preferable
(38:54):
to the outcome. Assad He murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
We would be better off today if Bashar al Asade
was in power instead of freaking al Qaeda. Okay, I
mean I could go down the list and same here
with the Mullas. I don't think the Mulas are great people,
or the Iranian people are prospering in Islamic freedom or
any of this stuff. But you know, I do know
(39:16):
based on that track record that it rarely works out.
What Mubarik? How did that happen? Oh, Muslim brotherhood gets
itself elected? Now, CC's probably what even more dictatorial than
Mubarik ever was.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
I can go on forever.
Speaker 3 (39:27):
Yeah, in this list, and the point even putin everyone's.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
Like, oh, what do you know? Your Putin lover.
Speaker 3 (39:32):
I'm like, no, Putin is disgusting. Their system of government
is horrible. But you know, you can acknowledge there's some
moral ambiguity. Americans don't like that. There's like this nineteen eighties,
like you know, Cold War, Bruce willis evil Empire. Stuff
that's just been mainlined into their blood, especially if they're boomers.
Younger people get it. But that's another thing about influence.
(39:56):
My only hope is this is remember Keith Olberman. I
hate Keith Overman, but his rise was very important at
the time. He was the only guy who anti gave
the voice to the people who hated the war in Iraq.
And so this is actually a good moment, hopefully for
independent media, those who are not bought by you know,
by the Israel Lease, Dave Rubin or any of these
(40:19):
other folks. But you know, for the rest of us,
you know, for at least with the platform of the
Internet more just like the blogosphere in six that's where
Glenn came from. That's where a lot of stars, you know,
anti war stars originally got their starts. So that's my
only hope is that I do know at least that
the people eventually hopefully will be on our side. But
you know, in the interim, I think we're in for
(40:40):
a dark time. And do I think MAGA is gonna
say absolutely not the idea of some MAGA coalition taking
the streets.
Speaker 1 (40:46):
No, it will never happen. I mean, I'm just only
of the truth.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
It will never happen. Yeah, there's no such thing. There
may be some elite breakage and all of that, and
that's part of why I'm pretty outspoken as well as Look,
I know the White House officials are just like me.
Speaker 1 (40:58):
They're all on Twitter all day.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
You know, they see it, and so if you get
in their head a little bit, that's good.
Speaker 1 (41:03):
But I'm not naive.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
I don't think there will be some grand march against
Donald Trump. He will can They'll go along, they always do.
Speaker 2 (41:10):
They will, They'll find some way to rationalize, they'll find
some way to cope, and so, you know, in the
in the in the short term, I think the unfortunately,
I think there will be a public willingness among a
good percentage of the population to give another Middle Eastern
war a chance. But as we get dragged further and
further in, I think that will curdle incredibly quickly, and
(41:33):
I think it will, you know, I mean, I think
his presidency will be all bit destroyed.
Speaker 5 (41:38):
Of course for me, that's kind of a silver lining,
but you.
Speaker 2 (41:41):
Know, I think that's inexorably where we are headed. And
you know for a country. Look here, we are declining empire.
Can't even put on a decent like military parade yet
what a squeaky tanks, embarrassing.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
Ship marching information you freed are doing a better day.
Speaker 5 (41:58):
It is humiliating, actually humiliating.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
And the worst part Zger sponsored by coin base, sponsored
by palins here locking by like So here we are
declining empire in large part because of our previous Middle
Eastern foreign you know adventures. While the Chinese were like
building and creating prosperity for their country and researching, we
were at you know, wasting lives, money, you know, lives
(42:24):
and treasure and time, bogged down in Iraq, bogged down in Afghanistan,
still in some ways to this day.
Speaker 5 (42:31):
And so here we are set.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
To embark on an even more insane, wild, disastrous, morally
horrific adventure in Iran, a vastly larger country with vastly
more military resources, and which is also not by the way,
like you know, Iraq was sort of like a fake
country that's like arbitrarily drawn, like Iran has a like
(42:55):
this is a proud nation with a long, you know,
ancient history, and we think we can just go in
and do what we want to, whatever we want to do,
and mold it in our image, et cetera. I mean,
it's just like the scope of the disaster cannot possibly
be you can't wrap your head around it. You know,
the number of refugees, the number of deaths, the amount
of money, the amount of military cost, all so that
(43:19):
BB can get his way. And our president is such
a fool that he went along with this rationale. Whatever
was sold to him, he bought into it. And now
here we are and we're on this chain that it's
hard to see how we walk away from. You know,
I really appreciate Dan coming on and getting you know,
his insights from inside the administration and just he's been
(43:39):
thinking about these issues for a long time. But like
the idea that the Iranians or anyone else is going
to think that it's a good idea to negotiate with
us at this point, like it's a fantasy. We lie
to their faces and even going back to the original
deal with Obama, Like, if you're the Iranians and you're
looking at it with a cold calculus at this point,
you'd say, we'd be better off if we didn't negotiate
(44:01):
with them and we just pursued a nuclear weapon, we'd
be in better condition today. And they're not the only
country around the world who is going to observe that
and learn, like, you can't deal with us, you can't.
I mean, the tariffs are another example that, like, you know,
we can't even tell these countries that we launched this
trade war against what they could do in order to
get the tariffs taken off of them. You can't work
with us, you can't trust us, and that is that's
(44:24):
a disaster for us, it's a disaster for you know,
it's a disaster for the world for hopes of like
peace and coexistence.
Speaker 5 (44:30):
And you know, but yeah, the.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
Cult of Trump being the emblem of America, first, he's
right about that.
Speaker 5 (44:39):
He has created it.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
So it is a cult of personality and it means
what he says it means, and the vast majority of
Republicans are going to find some way to rationalize and
go along with it.
Speaker 5 (44:49):
Whatever it is.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
Absolutely You're absolutely right. Okay, let's get to Tim Dillon.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
So all that being said, we did have an interesting
descent from Tim Dylan, who has been, you know, one
of the one of the comedians who was in the
you know, Trump aligned sphere important for their election this
time around, and he's been increasingly critical of some of
the actions that have been taken by this administration. Aron
being no exception. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9 (45:16):
Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the
UK just like Ukraine is on behalf of the of
Western Europe against Russia.
Speaker 1 (45:23):
We have to stop it right there.
Speaker 10 (45:25):
Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the
United Kingdom. Is that the most insane thing anyone's ever heard?
Are people right now in the United Kingdom is their
biggest problem?
Speaker 1 (45:42):
Iran?
Speaker 10 (45:43):
What is this woman speaking of? What is she talking about?
What does anyone talk is Iran. The reason that no
one can afford a house is Youran. The reason that
they're spent and all everywhere is Iran. The reason that
we've got political corruption is USh for. The reason is
r on the reason that we have twelve people that
(46:03):
own everything in this country is Iran. The reason that
we have, you know, an epidemic of poison food that's
killing people and children, And is Iran the reason for
any of this? Is Iran the reason the corporations in
America just pillage and leave the trail of daft and destruction.
Speaker 8 (46:22):
In their way. Can you imagine knocking on the door
of a double wide trailer and grabbing a person who
is five months away from being homeless in our country
and asking them their biggest problem?
Speaker 1 (46:36):
How?
Speaker 8 (46:37):
How do you think the word Iran is gonna come up? Much?
Speaker 2 (46:40):
A man, but sager, there is going to be a
massive media effort to convince people that actually Iran is
their biggest problem and this is what they should be
focused on.
Speaker 3 (46:49):
Yeah, of course, and you know we'll watch this all continue.
This is actually a good test as well as you know.
There was a lot of talk about the podcast election
and new media and all this. I can only speak
from my own own just general assessment. I don't think
a lot of the Maga podcast. You know, they're not
Maga podcast, they're branded that way by the media, but
whatever that, I don't think a lot of those people
(47:11):
wouldn't necessarily go along with this. I could be wrong,
of course, but there will be, you know, a good
pop culture test as to how this is all going
to play out. But broadly, what Tim is getting at
is that, you know, look America first, Yes, operationally it
is what Trump whatever Trump.
Speaker 1 (47:29):
Means, talked about it earlier. But it's a potent idea.
Speaker 3 (47:32):
And look, it's been smeared for almost a century now,
but there is a reason that that term arose because
hundreds of thousands of Americans were shipped to Europe and
killed in the trenches of France for what exactly. To
this day, there's a good argument about it. And then
we didn't even pass you know whatever, the treaty or
the fourteen Points to Treaty Forsi and the League of
(47:54):
Nations like it was a huge waste. That was a
general democratic uprising movement in the same way the twenty
sixteen could probably considered that of saying out loud, this
was a disaster. We were sent off for nothing, and
it has nothing to do with improving our own lives.
And that's why it's offensive for Trump to say that
it's about him, and it's also it's up for the taking.
(48:15):
It's a real idea, it's something that you know, is
at the heart for a lot of us. So look,
I hope to see more from this, like from Tim
from Bill Burr, from Rogan, from any of these guys,
to to be able to speak out against this, because
they do have cultural power, they do have the ability,
you know, to sway or at least highlight public opinion,
you know, and others, because at this point, like that
could be all that saves us, and I will be honest,
(48:38):
I don't even think that could save us, just because
of how captured Washington is by these neo conservatives. I mean,
we had the Democratic leader of the House of the Senate,
the Democratic leader of the Senate, who's supporting the war
with his you know, basically you're talking.
Speaker 5 (48:51):
About saying Trump into the war.
Speaker 2 (48:53):
He's calling him Tago Trump, Right, I won't really go
to war with Iran.
Speaker 3 (48:56):
Democratic leadership is asking for this, like they are sorting it.
We have the entire establishments, Mike Johnson, pray for Israel.
You know, it's we are totally totally captured at this
point on the question of Israel's war with Iran, and
so look, you know, the outside forces, this genuinely maybe
all we have got at this point. Yeah, I want
(49:19):
to upset people's expectations. You're not gonna win for a while.
It took i mean what six the six midterm elections
for the anti war voices to really be heard, and
to be honest, they didn't really do what they were
supposed to do. The surge ended up happening in O
seven and all of that, and it took really four
years to the apotheosis of the Obama campaign. Yeah, he
screwed it up to And so also be a lesson.
(49:39):
Don't be trusting necessarily Carnival Barker's out there saying that
they're anti war and then when they get in power, shocking,
you know, they change their tune.
Speaker 2 (49:47):
It's why it's so important, not that people can never
change and learn lessons, but it's really important to see
who was right about war when it was unpopular. Yeah,
because it's very easy, you know, ten years later to
be like, oh, the Iraq war that was bad. Yeah
at the time when there was a cost to be paid.
Who said it was wrong at the time? And like
(50:10):
I said, it's not that there can't be exceptions. People
change their mind and like really, you know, come to realize, Okay,
that was absolutely foolish. But broadly, you know the people
who were like, a Rock's a great idea, Ukraine's a
great idea, and they only shift once public opinion changes
and it's safe to do so you should be very
leery of those people.
Speaker 5 (50:31):
Now.
Speaker 2 (50:31):
In terms of the media landscape, Yeah, the Democrats are
just so utterly pathetic. I mean, I think they are
wildly on foreign policy. They are so at odds with
the Democratic base, They are so at odds with the
Democratic base. And yeah, they are right for the tam
I mean, look at what's happening with Zoron in New
York City, right, and he has a really quite dramatic
(50:52):
I mean, he's a BDS supporter and he's on the
verge of potentially winning a New York City mayoral race.
Like it shows you how right the rotten husk of
the Democratic Party is for the taking. If you had
people who are willing to be like aggressively anti war,
because that is where the base is. But the media organizations,
(51:13):
they're going to be lockstep in support of Israel, in
support of you know, hawkishness. They're going to be cheerleading
for more and more and more escalation. And they still
have significant purchase, not to mention that there are is
so many decades of propaganda convincing people that aron should
be a top concern that you know, where they are
and their weapons development should be something that's top of mind,
(51:34):
should be something that's a predominant focus of US policy
and US foreign policy specifically, that is still going to
have some power. So it's really important to see people
like Dave Smith, to see people like Tim Dillon, to
see new media voices who can offer, you know, a
place for truly anti war people to go to feel
like they are you know, they are heard, to feel
(51:55):
like they're not crazy. And the larger that those non
establishment media figures are and more significant they are in
in you know, our public discourse on this issue, the
better will be. Although you know, obviously I've been like
there's a lot of limits there too, some of the
same problems you know, where you have just like hack
(52:15):
partisans in quote unquote independent media as well, and so
you'll see plenty of that too. But but yeah, it's
it's good to see Tim. I so much respect to
Dave for going so hard hard say and Trump should
be I mean, he said it previously.
Speaker 5 (52:30):
Truder has already said.
Speaker 2 (52:31):
Listen, if Trump gets us involved in warner around, I
will apologize for telling people to vote.
Speaker 5 (52:35):
And he I didn't even have to ask him.
Speaker 1 (52:37):
Yeah, that's ready, he just did it.
Speaker 5 (52:39):
You gotta give it.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
Look, there's going to be people like that. But also,
I mean, as you said, there's the warning. I mean,
there's a lot of so called independent voices out there
that are blithering away on the question why are they
always in Tel Aviv?
Speaker 1 (52:50):
You know, how are these people always in Tel Aviv?
Speaker 3 (52:53):
It's amazing, isn't it, All of these free trips that
they just happen to do. Oh, and it certainly doesn't
inform their views at all. But watch out, there's a lot.
There's a lot of dark money and stuff flowing out
there as well. It's funny too, because the accusations they're
always throwing is that we're bought or somebody else, when
in reality, you know, they have the murkiest finances. Oh
(53:13):
with the whole whatever that Russian deal y about. Okay,
let's let's let even leave Tim out of this. It's
more like, how is your business set up? If your
business is set up so you don't have any checks
and balances to have that amount of cash just flowing
into your bank account. You're not asking any questions you
have a problem because that's not about Russia. That's just
droadly about your philosophy. You should you should know the
(53:34):
level of uh, you know, checks and stuff here that
happened before any money starts flowing anywhere.
Speaker 1 (53:39):
And part most of the time.
Speaker 3 (53:40):
You say no because what because it's about independence and
there's a reason for that. So anyway, we'll see because
things are not trending in a good direction. But you know,
at least we're here. At least we're here to be
able to do the.
Speaker 1 (53:53):
Show for all of you.
Speaker 3 (53:54):
So I do hope you guys can help support us
breakingpoints dot com just because you know this, this work
that we have to do is probably more important than
ever before. But we'll have a show for everybody tomorrow
and the next day and the next day and more.
We're going to continue working around the clock here to
bring you all the news. So thank you all very much.
Speaker 1 (54:10):
We appreciate it.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com