6/19/25: Ted Cruz Dog Walked By Tucker, Theo Von Warns Of Bibi, Majority Support Iran War, Regime Change Ignorance

Krystal and Saagar discuss Ted Cruz dog walked by Carlson, Theo Von warns of Bibi, majority of Americans support Iran war, Iranian calls out neocons regime change ignorance.

 

Sohrab Ahmari: https://x.com/SohrabAhmari 

 

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.

Episode Transcript

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 this 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. All right, let's turn it down to the
full Tucker Carlson Ted Cruz interview. I gotta tell this,
it's probably maybe one of the top five moments of
my life was watching Ted Cruz get owned completely into
the sun. This clip has been more viral than any

(00:47):
news clip that I have seen in a long time.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
I'm well left right, so it's everywhere.

Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yeah, and I have to say, listen, I understand why
the right loves this guy. It's fun when he's on
your side. Well, this was a treat to watch. I
have to say the whole thing.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
I'm glad.

Speaker 3 (01:00):
I'm glad to have you with us, at least for
a moment. There's a reason he's been in generational talent.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
For thirty years. Let's start, though.

Speaker 3 (01:06):
There are several moments of this which I think are
really important. First and foremost is actually getting to the
core of Ted Cruz's ideology, of his explanations, and of
the vicious tactics that a lot of people who are
Israel supporters use to shut down the debate around striking Iran.
First and foremost is anti Semitism. Now, you're going to
watch here in this clip where Ted Cruz says that

(01:28):
one of his pledges sworn pledges when entering the United
States Senate it was to be the main defender of
the state of Israel, and then also accused Tucker Carlson
at the same time of saying he is obsessed with Israel.
Every accusation is a confession.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 4 (01:44):
It's just interesting because what you're now describing in a
very defensive way, I will say, is foreign influence over
our politics. Now, and you began, and it's so transparently
obvious to everybody. I don't know why you would be
embarrassed of it. You've said that you are sincerely for Israel.
I believe you. I don't think you have some weird
to agenda.

Speaker 5 (02:00):
You seem to be, by the way, Tucker, it's a
very weird thing, the obsession with Israel. Well, we're talking
about for it. You're not talking about Chinese, you're not
talking about Japanese, you're not talking about the Brits, you're
not talking about the French. The question what about the Jews?
What about the Jews? Like anti semi?

Speaker 1 (02:18):
Now, Senator, you're just.

Speaker 5 (02:19):
In the question you're asking why are the Jews controlling
our foreign policy?

Speaker 4 (02:24):
And that's what you just asked, hardly saying that, and
I have that that's exactly what you just said.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
Well, actually, I.

Speaker 4 (02:29):
Can speak for myself and tell you what I am
saying on behalf, not simply of myself, but on my
many Jewish friends who would have the same questions, which
is to what extent? And it's interesting you're trying to
derail my questions by following me an anti semi, which
you are. I did not, of course you are. And
and rather than be honorable enough to say it right
to my face. I are city squeezy feeline way implying

(02:49):
it or just asking questions about the Jews. I'm asking
questions about the Jews I have. There's nothing to do
with Jews or Judy is and it has to with
foreign government.

Speaker 5 (02:58):
Is in Israel controlling our foreign policy. That's not about
the you said I'm asked by. You're the one that
just called me, I think a sleazy feline.

Speaker 4 (03:05):
So it's sleazy to imply that I'm an anti Semite,
which you just did.

Speaker 5 (03:09):
No, I just you're asking give me another reason if
you're not an anti Semi, give me another reason why
the obsession is Israel.

Speaker 4 (03:18):
I am, in no sense obsessed with Israel. We are
on the brink of war with Iran, and so these
are valid questions.

Speaker 5 (03:23):
But you're not.

Speaker 4 (03:24):
If I can finish, you asked me why I'm obsessed
with Israel three minutes after telling me that when you
first ran for Congress, you elucidated one of your main goals,
which yes, to defend Israel. Yes, And I'm the one
who's obsessed with Israel. I don't see a lawmaker's job
as defending the interest of a foreign government, period, Any government,

(03:45):
including the ones that my ancestors come from.

Speaker 5 (03:46):
So that's my position.

Speaker 4 (03:47):
That does not make me an anti Semite, and shame
on you for suggesting otherwise.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
And I mean that, yeah, that is exactly That is
how that should be handled. Is that this guy says,
one of my sworn pledges is to enter the United
States Senate and be a sworn defender of the State
of Israel.

Speaker 6 (04:03):
Be the strongest defender of the State of Israel.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
And then says, you are obsessed with Israel. You know
why we're not talking about the UK. Look, if a
UK wants to drag us into some shitty war, I'll
talk about the UK all day long. If Japan wants
to drag us and do some shitty war, I'll talk
about that well.

Speaker 2 (04:17):
And he says that they're talking about a Rod and
the Mullus because we're not giving them.

Speaker 6 (04:22):
We're not like giving them the bombs. We're talking about
the country that.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
We said billions of dollars to every year that has
helped persuade our president.

Speaker 6 (04:29):
And again he's a willing participant.

Speaker 2 (04:31):
To get into an insane war, like of course we're
going to talk about that.

Speaker 1 (04:35):
That is yeah, and I love that he.

Speaker 6 (04:36):
Calls him out on how he's just trying to.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
Like suggest it, like fucking man up and say it
to my face then, And I can't. I cannot tell
you how many times I remember Dean Phillips doing this,
in particular when I interviewed him where Yeah, well, why
are you so interested in the Jews? Yes, first of all,
no one said anything about the Jews. We're talking about
a foreign government. And actually, thank you very much, it's
quite anti semitic to conflate every Jew with this foreign

(04:59):
governm if you want to talk about actual anti semitism.
So it felt so good to see him call out
his sleazy feeline suggestion here instead of just listen, if
you want to call me an anti semi do it.

Speaker 3 (05:11):
Yeah, well, so is the best Israel is both a
multi ethnic incredible democracy or it's a Jewish state, and
it's like, well, which is actually twenty five percent of
your own population? Oh yeah, by the way, I actually
know something about population. Twenty five percent of that population
is not Jewish, all right, And they brag about that
all day long.

Speaker 5 (05:27):
Right, They're like, oh look.

Speaker 3 (05:29):
All yeah, but that's what they hold up, right, it's
a multi democracy. They got better rides here than they
do in any other country in the world. And it's like, well, oh,
you're just talking about the Jews, right, It's like you
can't have it both ways. And I was so glad
to see this defenestration on the anti semitism question because
they are the ones who use the anti Semitic tropes.

(05:50):
You can't talk about the State of Israel without being
than an anti semi yourself. And look, this is part
of a year's long campaign and especially post October seventh,
to conflate Zionism and Judaism itself with the state, which,
by the way, is anti Semitic. Remember, Joe Biden, not
a Jew in the world would be safe if the
State of Israel did not exist. They're more Jews living
in America. Okay, there's a huge Jews Jewish population in America.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
There's no place that is more unsafe for Jews than Israel.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
Yeah, at this point, right.

Speaker 3 (06:18):
In terms of being bombed in the Middle stry, Yeah,
would you rather live in New York City?

Speaker 1 (06:21):
Would you rather live in Tel Aviv? Right now?

Speaker 3 (06:24):
All right, let's get to apac then, because this was
also an incredible moment because Tucker asks Ted Cruz whether
APAK is the foreign lobby and why it's not required
to be registered as such. And here you see Ted
Cruz twist himself into knots about APAC.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 4 (06:40):
Well, I don't think I'm obsessed with this, okay, but
I think a lot of people are in like the question.

Speaker 5 (06:44):
Israel spies on us? Well, so does every other country.
Why are you mad at israel I?

Speaker 4 (06:47):
Guess no, No, I'm hardly the one who's I've never
taken money from the Israel lobby?

Speaker 5 (06:52):
Have you taken money from the israel A pack? So
APAK raises a lot of money for me, But it's
actually a missnomer because the people who raised money are individuals,
So it's not the pack itself, but their individual members
in the American Israeli UH friendship and foreign lobby. No,
it's an American lobby. It's the A pack stands for

(07:13):
the America Israeli political action. What is it lobby for? So,
to be honest, not a whole lot effectively, Listen, I
came into to Congress thirteen years ago with the stated
intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the
United States Senate. I've worked every day to do that
a pack. A lot of times APAC I wish were

(07:36):
much more effective. Like they're there are the swamp terrified
of a pack and APAC.

Speaker 4 (07:43):
I'm not terrified of a pack at all. I'm you're
the one who seems little uncomfortable. I'm asking now, I'm
not uncomfortable all. I'm just asking what APAC does. My
understanding having none, we could tell you that is the
lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government.

Speaker 3 (07:56):
Oh actually, and by the way, you want some evidence
of that?

Speaker 1 (07:59):
Who what c six? Please here up on the screen.

Speaker 3 (08:02):
Here we have a story from our friend David Dan
just you know from yesterday Ryan sayline and Ryan grim
is on that byline as well. A PAC demands democrats
quote stand with Israel. Okay, I don't know how much
evidence that I need to shove in your face to
show literal direct coord coordination between APAC and the State
of Israel, including photos post October seven showing a PAC

(08:24):
members in the same room as Benjamin Nutt and Yahoo
in Israel, or the number of conferences that they hold
here in Washington, DC and across the United States on
every college campus in America, to basically turn US citizens
to foreign lobbyists. And by the way, fine, okay, but
then just be registered under the law, which is under
the Barker, Which is exactly the point that Tucker I

(08:45):
know lots of.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
People who lobby for foreign curners. He's like, I'm related
to some of them, think his brother, they have to register?
Why does an APAC? And then he asked Ted cru
Is a really simple question, like because Ted Cruiz tries
to oh, well, they're not just representing what the Natanyahu
government wants. He's like, okay, I'm an example, one example.
Of course he can't do it. Yes, Oh well I
have to go back and look. Yeah, because there isn't one.

Speaker 6 (09:05):
I have to go because there isn't one.

Speaker 2 (09:07):
Because whatever it is that the current Israeli government, which
has been led by Benjamin Attaniaho over quite a while now,
you know, off and on for decades at this point,
whatever they want, that's what APAC signs up for. How
is that not foreign lobbying?

Speaker 1 (09:20):
So exactly there, Well, now let's get to my personal favorite. Now. Look,
I'm gonna put my cards on the table. I'm an atheist.

Speaker 3 (09:25):
So anytimes people start citing scripture to justify their behavior
like an in a national context. I'm getting pretty skeptical.
But this shit, I mean, look, I grew up around
these people, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But
Tucker asked tud Cruz why he supports Israel. He says
two reasons. First, and he starts to cite the Bible,

(09:49):
and not just citing the Bible. There's this school I'm
trying to get up to speed on this, So Christians,
I apologize, which I believe is called dispensationalism, which is
basically like taking the Bible the words applying them is
to be literally true. And in particular, here Israel as
it's mentioned in the Bible is conflating that with the
actual nation state of Israel, created in nineteen forty eight.

(10:12):
So watch here Ted Cruz cite the Bible. Ben can't
even quote which verse of the Bible that he is saying.
And for the primary reason that he supports the state
of Israel, let's take a listener.

Speaker 5 (10:24):
Growing up in Sunday School, I was taught from the
Bible those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those
who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective.
I want to be on the blessing.

Speaker 4 (10:34):
Side of things, of those who bless the government of Israel.

Speaker 5 (10:37):
Those who bless Israel is what it is. Doesn't say
the government of It says the nation of Israel. So
that's in the Bible. As a Christian, I believe that.
Where is that? I can find it to you. I
don't have the scripture off the tip of mine. You
pull out the phone and use it. It's in Genesis.

Speaker 4 (10:53):
So you're quoting a Bible phrase. You don't have context
for it, you don't know where the Bible it is.
But that's like CRI theology. I'm confused.

Speaker 5 (11:00):
What does that even mean? Tucker. I'm a Christian. I
want to know what you're talking about. Does where does
my support for Israel come from? Number one, because Biblically,
we're commanded to support Israel.

Speaker 4 (11:12):
But number two, no, no, no, hold on. You're a
senator and now you're throwing out theology. And I am
a Christian. I am allowed to weigh in on this.
We are commanded as Christians support the government of Israel.
We are commanded to support Israel. And what does that
mean is we're told those who blessed Israel be blessed.

Speaker 5 (11:27):
But what hold on? Define Israel? This is important? Are
you kidding this majority Christian country define Israel? Could do
you not know what Israel is? That would be the
country you've asked like forty nine questions about.

Speaker 4 (11:37):
So that's what Genesis refer That's what God is talking
in the nation of Israel. Yes, and he's so does
that the current borders the current leadership. He's talking with
the political instity called Israel.

Speaker 5 (11:47):
He's talking about the nation of Israel. Yet nations exists,
and he's discussing a nation. A nation was the people
of Israel is the nation is referring to in Genesis.
Is that the same as the country run by Benjamin
Yahu right now? Yes, yes it is. And by the way,
it's not run by Benjamin Etnia who is a dictator.
It's it's a.

Speaker 1 (12:02):
Democratic but he's the prime minister.

Speaker 5 (12:06):
Right But just just like you know, America is the
country run by Donald Trump? Not actually the American people
elected Donald Trump the same principle.

Speaker 4 (12:13):
Sicily, I'm talking about the political entity of modern Israel. Yes,
and that is you believe that's what God was talking
about is Genesis?

Speaker 5 (12:20):
I do. But but that country's existed since when for
thousands of years now, there was a time when it
didn't exist, and then it was recreated just over seven.

Speaker 4 (12:28):
But I'm saying, I think most people understand that line
in Genesis to refer to the Jewish people God's chosen people.

Speaker 5 (12:39):
That's not what it says.

Speaker 1 (12:41):
I mean, this is batch crazy.

Speaker 3 (12:42):
I mean, I'm just gonna, you know, remind people of
Glenn Greenwall's joke here on our show we think Iran
is a theocracy.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
We what, all right, you know, give me some mulla
if that this is the ship that's running my country.

Speaker 6 (12:54):
Well, and here's the thing, is like it's funny, but it's.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
No, it's really curious.

Speaker 6 (12:59):
It's deadly serious.

Speaker 2 (13:00):
Go back to that text that Mika could be sent
to Trump. That Trump then publicized the number of people
in this in this government, including our ambassador to Israel
and our Secretary of Events, who have this like end
Times theology around this. Apparently who knows how many senators
and members of Congress share this view as preposterous and
absurd and disturbing, as it is offered by Ted Cruz

(13:24):
that you are commanded as a Christian to do what
Bibi Netanya, who wants you.

Speaker 6 (13:27):
To do that's his position.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
Okay, then you couple that with the absolute religious zealot
psychos that command so much power in Netanyahu's government, and
you put that together with very clear indications that Trump
himself has some sort of Messiah complex after you know,
narrowly escaping death in Butler, Pennsylvania. As if this isn't

(13:50):
terrifying enough, the fact that you think that you have
people involved, powerful, the most powerful people involved, who think
they are commanded by the BYI or divinely destined to
effectuate some outcome here, that shit terrifies me me too.
And so I know, you know, the Christians went in
on what specifically that passage in the Bible is. I

(14:13):
hear have from Grok that it most commonly Israel refers
the collective descendants of Jacob's twelve sons, not the fricking
nation state that was created in nineteen forty eight arbitrarily,
by the way, by.

Speaker 6 (14:22):
The United States of America. I'll let them do that.

Speaker 2 (14:25):
I just object to any biblical or religious text being
used to justify wars, or foreign policy or national policy whatsoever.
That is where I get off. Regardless of how you
want to interpret any particular Biblical line.

Speaker 3 (14:39):
Apparently in this dispensationalism and end times eschatology like these
are Look again, I am not qualified to talk about this,
and it's just not even really worth it. I would
just look at it and be like this is preposterous,
Like you have a United States senator here, I mean,
you know this, look, I guess to go all religious
and two thousand and six atheists. So what doing nineteen

(15:01):
forty seven before Israel existed? Like who were they commanded to,
you know.

Speaker 1 (15:06):
To support?

Speaker 3 (15:06):
Like what the fuck? I can't even get my mind
around this stuff. But you know, this maybe is a
I don't know. I know they don't listen, but I
want people to know. In Israel they're laughing at you.
The secular Jews who make up a huge portion of
Israeli society. They think you're kooks and they think you're crazy.
The secular edge, highly educated Jews who live in New York,

(15:29):
in Los Angeles and Philadelphia or whatever.

Speaker 1 (15:31):
They think.

Speaker 3 (15:32):
They look at you like, you know, they're liberal Democrats.
They think this is gross and weird. And yet you know,
the only thing they're really using you for is your
biblical interpretation. To support a foreign state. When I went
to Israel, I think ninety percent of the people on
my plane were people like this, you know, from like
evangelical churches and when if you have ever been to Jerusalem,

(15:54):
I mean you know, it's full on, like ear piece
in pastor in the in the front and they go
to the cliff or wherever where the apocalypse.

Speaker 1 (16:03):
Is going to. I've seen this stuff with my own eyes,
and they believe it. They think it's serious.

Speaker 3 (16:08):
And when they're there, by the way, the Israeli government
uses them as pawns for American support. Now, look, they're
not going to listen because you know they're listening to
their churches and all this other. But the one thing
I would at least ask is if you're religious and
you have pride in your own beliefs, shouldn't you wonder
if you're being taken advantage of. I promise you I've
seen I met these people. They think you're a joke.

(16:29):
They're laughing at you and using you as a tool
to support their own country and their foreign policy. That's
really degrading in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (16:36):
I mean, no, just what kind of a religion would
compand you to support to endlessly support with no criticism
a country that is actively.

Speaker 6 (16:44):
Doing a genocide, like.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
Because that is a religion, you should not want to
have anything to do with it. If that's the real command,
you must endlessly but it is. I mean, at this point,
there's really no dispute. You ask any legitimate scholar of
genocide around the world, go look at what's.

Speaker 6 (17:02):
Going on in Gaza. See.

Speaker 2 (17:04):
I mean, we haven't even been able to cover the
fact that these aid massacres are still going on day
after day where they lure in innocent Palestinians and then desperate, hungry,
starving Palestinians and then murder them as they try to
seek some basic nourishment. Your God tells you to support
that that uh uh, you got to convert to some

(17:24):
other religion if that's what's commanded, because that is monstrously,
outrageously gore tesque, And that is where religious zelotry, I'm sorry,
is such a cancer. It is such a cancer because
then you think that you have some sort of divine
right and commandment to commit horrific atrocities and turn your
brain off because God commanded you to. I mean, there's

(17:45):
reason why if you look throughround history so many of
the worst crimes and atrocities are committed in the name
of some sort of outrageous religious fanaticism, and that is
one of the elements here that is deadly serious. And
you know, I really appreciate actually this exchange with Tucker,
because I'm not a Russian. He is, so for him
to be in there, and for Candice Owens to be
out there also, I saw her doing her explanation saying, no,

(18:07):
this is not what the biblical text means, and it
is a grotesque absurdity for you to interpret it that
your commandment as a Christian is to endlessly support whatever
the policy of bb net Yahoo is like total insanity.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Yeah whatever.

Speaker 3 (18:21):
I mean again, look, they're not going to listen. They
probably don't even watch the show. They're watching Glenn Beck
or Rush Limbaugh or whatever. So I'm good luck to you.
You want to continue to be a tool of a
foreign government. I mean there again, they're laughing their asses
off at you. I can promise I've seen it inside
of that country. But whatever, it's your choice. It's a
free country. Last thing here a clip that will show

(18:41):
everybody is about Donald Trump and the meaning of America
first is back and forth between Tucker and Ted Cruz.

Speaker 1 (18:47):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 5 (18:48):
You engage in reckless rhetoric with no faction. And to
be clear, I'm not calling you. You are put out
a newsletter attacking Donald Trump and calling him complicit John. Yes,
you have and and by the way, pained for Donald Trump.

Speaker 4 (19:03):
Yes, this is like after anti Semitism, this is the
last refuge.

Speaker 5 (19:07):
You're an antiseminin and you hate Trump. Okay, I have Trump.
I will read you put out a whole newsletter saying
Trump is a rand in America first, and here's what
Trump said in response. Well, considering that I'm the one
that developed America first, and considering that the term wasn't
used until I came along, I think I'm the one
who decides that for those people who say they want peace,
you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.

(19:28):
So for all of those wonderful people who don't want
to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon, that's
not peace. That was directed at you.

Speaker 7 (19:36):
Man.

Speaker 5 (19:36):
This is you got me busted. No, I'm just saying, okay,
I'm my views. Look, I like Trump. I can't paign
for Trump. I know Trump.

Speaker 4 (19:45):
I talked to him last night, not against Trump, and
you know that I but policy.

Speaker 3 (19:50):
So yeah, look that's a very revealing exchange. And look,
Ted Cruise is correct. Trump does operationally get to Descisin.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
This is the one point he got against Stucker to
be on.

Speaker 3 (19:58):
But because it's a political point and it's one which
is Trumpian. But you know, again, I'm not gonna let
sit here and just let the record, you know, say
that Donald Trump gets to define America first at an
actual level when it's a movement which has existed since
the nineteen twenties. Any you know, this is preposterous. Operationally
it may be true, and that's actually a separate question,

(20:20):
but that's the part that really bugs me is the
way that it is being weaponized in that form. And also,
you know, look, there are at least some maga folks
out there who probably did vote for Donald Trump because
he's anti war or appear at anti war, believed he
was anti war.

Speaker 1 (20:36):
Maybe not all of them, not a sizeable.

Speaker 3 (20:37):
Percentage, ten, fifteen, twenty percent. Sure I'm claiming it is
a majority, But what's wrong with them for protesting against
us and say, hey, this is not what I believed
a lot of Biden supporters got upset at Biden over
Israel that they're like, hey, that's not what I thought
was going to happen.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
A lot of George W.

Speaker 3 (20:54):
Bush supporters got mad at him over the war in Iraq.
It's perfectly fine, normal and democratic small d you know,
to protest even when if somebody is doing something, even
if you did vote for them, that you don't support her,
you don't like because it doesn't conflict with the understanding
of what you had when.

Speaker 2 (21:09):
You went, Well, what you're talking about is a normal
functioning political system, which we do not have. And I
mean that's the sad truth is, like, you know, whether
or not Tucker called Trump to apologize, it doesn't really
matter if it's true unless he actually comes out and
is like, no, I didn't do that, That's not what happened,
because then that just becomes facts in reality because Trump
says that it is. You know, if you listen to
the entire Tucker versus Ted debate, if you listen to

(21:31):
the entirety of I listened both to Sure Tucker on
with Steve Bannon, Steve Bannon on with Tucker. I listened
to all of those and the whole effort and you
hear this in Charlie Kirk's Rutter as well, Marjorie Taylor
Green's Rheter as well. Is to say, this is the
true representation of what Trump really wants, and to the
extent that he's not pursuing this path, which is the

(21:51):
most true to his intentions, beliefs, and ambitions, it's because
he's being tricked by this person or that person, or
the deep state or the neocons or whatever. That's where
the battle is fought. Because Tucker knows. And if they
didn't know, Trump demonstrated that when you went after Tucker
and said he was kookie and you know me said
he needs to go get a television network because basically

(22:12):
he's a husband. They know that the minute that they
actually go against Trump, if you do anything other than
signal in advance that at the end of the day
you're going to one hundred percent bend the knee, then
you're out, Then you become you become Liz Cheney, you
become Adam Kinzinger, you become justin homaj you become you know,
any number of the senators or members of Congress who

(22:32):
are no longer senators or members of Congress who've been
consigned to the dustbin of history. You are excised from
the movement, and that's it. Your influence is over your
whatever perks you get being in the Trump world, in
the Trump circle and having access to President and all
that stuff.

Speaker 6 (22:46):
It's done.

Speaker 2 (22:47):
So that's why they fight on that turf of well,
I am the true representation of what Trump, in his
all knowing brilliance, what he really wants, which is why
Steve Bannons is now running around telling Financial Times an
other outland. Let's do like listen, at the end of
the day, if he has more intelligence than we do,
then we're going to go along. It's why when Bannon
was out criticizing Elon at the beginning and Trump told

(23:09):
him shut up, that he did until Elon was persona
on Grada and then he went back to it. Well,
that's the way that this works. That's why Charlie Kirk
changed his tune. And Charlie Kirk was never critical of Trump,
but he got a call from the White House saying, hey,
tone it down, and he said, yes, sir, no problem.

Speaker 6 (23:24):
All.

Speaker 3 (23:25):
Look, they're all the same and it's operational. It's the
only way that you maintain your access and your ability,
and that's the problem of trying to straddle these two worlds.
You can be honest and you could say what you think,
like me by I'm telling my phoney ringing off the.

Speaker 1 (23:38):
Hook right now on my phone.

Speaker 3 (23:40):
My phone calls are going one way and not there's
not a lot of incoming, and there's a lot of
us screw you that.

Speaker 1 (23:45):
Is happening right now.

Speaker 3 (23:46):
But that's the world that it is what it is,
and that's it's very unfortunate. But I also think it's
important to show people and to even tell people, you know,
from my perspective of that is the only way that
you can maintain influence within the system.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
It's really unfortunate.

Speaker 3 (24:01):
I guess there is a second way though, actually, and
this is a good transition because we're now going to
talk about theovon is. Sometimes you become like this cultural
and you become a big enough figure. That's some of
the things that you say becomes something that the White
House or others need to respond to. And so that's
why when I saw this clip here of THEO vaugh
somebody who I don't know if he voted for Trump,
I don't know if he's ever said he attended his inauguration,

(24:23):
and he's had on.

Speaker 6 (24:25):
And Jared Dona, Marl.

Speaker 3 (24:28):
Banka just had JD vans On, had JD vance On
before previously on the campaign, the first major podcaster to
have on Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (24:36):
So you know, he's also somebody.

Speaker 3 (24:38):
Though who is not has been willing to at least
speak out against Israel and his campaign in Gaza. But
here you have a very very interesting message direct a camera,
pretty rare in my opinion from THEO on political events
speaking out against a war with Iran.

Speaker 7 (24:53):
Let's take a listen, we're trying to get us into
a war with Iran or not America if Israel is
trying to. I don't trust the Israel leader at all.
I don't believe anything that guy says. And I I
don't think that our soldiers should have to go and

(25:19):
defend stuff that they start. I'm not a soldier, so
I might I'm obviously speaking out of turn. I'm not
even brave enough to serve. So there's that element. But
that is kind of how I feel, I guess, And
so it's like, yeah, when do I speak?

Speaker 5 (25:35):
When do I say that?

Speaker 7 (25:37):
You know, because it feels like they're trying to push
Trump to go do that, and it's like who makes
that choices? He make that choice, and then what do
we get? You know, what's the win for us? We're
just involved in some other thing while we have suffering
here at home. So maybe something like that is like, yeah,

(26:00):
I have Should I even speak up? Because I'm not
in service. Servicemen and women may be like, we want to,
We'll do it, you know, and that's their commitment and
their job.

Speaker 5 (26:10):
Uh, But yeah, I just I don't know.

Speaker 7 (26:15):
That guy really scares me and and I don't know
why we support them. I don't understand that. I wish
they would really give us a better explanation, you know,
especially after the massacres in Gaza. I don't understand. I
do not understand that. And some people say, well, you

(26:37):
don't know enough about it. That may and it may not.
But it's like, dude, can I still speak about it?
Can I speak about how I feel about it?

Speaker 1 (26:47):
Serious as it gets on the theio Monto?

Speaker 3 (26:49):
But look, I mean I appreciate him doing it, and
because look, you know, there was so many and I
talked about this yesterday, Yeah, Chrystal. And this is even
in the context of our own show, The White House
made a huge deal about alternative media and podcast right, yeah, right,
well guess what you know, we literally had either our
second or our first biggest day ever this week ever
in terms of our analytics. Why because we're providing content

(27:12):
which is both newsy and it is obviously some A
lot of it's opinionated and against the war, and anti
war content literally could not be bigger right now. So
if they care so much about YouTube and about anti
war content, I'm sure Kyle's channel has blown the hell up.
You can go and you can look at the YouTube
views on any you know, major content creator who's political,
who's speaking out against the war.

Speaker 1 (27:32):
I'd be willing to bet that they're all seeing similar rise.

Speaker 3 (27:35):
And so they cared so much about all the views
of the bros and the podcast and all.

Speaker 1 (27:39):
This other stuff.

Speaker 3 (27:40):
It's like, we'll pay attention, pay attention right now, Dave Smith, Right,
you know, you guys made a big deal about him.
It's like, well, what happened whenever he speaks out against you?
You know, really it's only cable news and the political establishment,
which is really just willing to go along with this.
People were not connected to the system think this is very,
very messed up what's.

Speaker 1 (27:56):
Happening right now.

Speaker 6 (27:57):
But we all know what Trump is watching.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
Sure, we all know you're at your taking a case
for influence on Trump. I'm saying though, that if in
some way, like again, they claim to have the pulse
of the American people, then at that time, well.

Speaker 1 (28:13):
Here's the pulse.

Speaker 3 (28:14):
I'm not saying we're representative of the whole country, representative
of some of the country a decent amount of our audience.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
But for Trump, I know that so well.

Speaker 3 (28:20):
A lot of them don't support this war, so she'll
probably take that into account.

Speaker 1 (28:24):
Here's what I.

Speaker 2 (28:24):
Would say is, listen, I think the Trump I think
Trump is one hundred percent correct that his base, his movement,
they're going to be along for the ride. And also listen,
I'm sorry when you pull the Republican base. They are
just more pro war than the Democratic base. That's just reality.
They always have been, they still are, even as there's
been some erosion in that direction. And you know, there

(28:44):
was obviously like it was important for Trump politically in
twenty sixteen when he finally speaks the truth about the
Iraq war. And I think this time around it wasn't
that people perceived him as anti war that solidified his
support with the base. The base was going to be
there no matter what. It's Independence, and that's who you know,
I think will be unhappy. I think Independence will. They

(29:07):
may at the beginning actually support the war. I don't know,
because there's just that's if. You would be hard pressed
to find a war that the US got into that
didn't enjoy some level of public support. Unfortunately over the
course of my lifetime. But I think, you know, THEO
Vaughn and those sorts of voices matter for Independence.

Speaker 6 (29:24):
I will also say, though, just in terms.

Speaker 2 (29:26):
Of his framing there, it's so convenient for Trump that
it's not him, it's he's getting pulled in. You know,
it's the Israelis and who's really making the decisions here,
And I don't trust that guy being that Yahoo Like
I just it's very convenient.

Speaker 6 (29:39):
It's not even critique of Trump.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
It's like, oh, these nefarious forces are pulling us into war,
which is also like I said, it's just it's a
convenient and inaccurate narrative. Maybe I'm being too expecting too
much from THEO Vonn say, I think you are, Like
I said, it is a way to justify what is
already a horror show from Trump. Already a horror show

(30:01):
from Trump. It's a way to justify the things that
already you know should be unacceptable. And people with character
like Dave Smith have already said that's it, like already,
even without whether we get directly offensively or have boots
on the ground or you know, actively put up the
mission accomplished banner.

Speaker 6 (30:16):
I'm done. I'm out.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
He should be impeach already for what he's doing. Like
that is the actual, like principled, accurate read of where
you are, if what you actually cared about was keeping
the station.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
Out of I would say, with THEO and with the look,
one of the things I actually detected a lot, and
I'm sure you saw. This is when he's like, I'm
not sure if I'm allowed to speak about it. This
is the concern trolling around expertise and really about people
being willing to speak out on war. And he's like,
I don't know if I know enough about it, because
what happened THEO had Candice Owans, and I forget who
else on the show who spoke out against Israel, and

(30:47):
what do you think ninety eight percent of his phone
was from some of the people who are pro Israel
you don't know nearly enough to be able to comment
on this, Like how dare you say the word genocide
to the Vice President of the United States, Because that's
what they did, is they'll be like, oh, you're not
qualified enough or knowledgeable enough to be an involved actors.
I actually detected like a lot of discomfort from him,

(31:09):
like having to speak about this issue. And ultimately, I mean,
I think what's penetrated as conscience is about the Israeli
military action in Gaza, which kind of informs a lot
of his thoughts here.

Speaker 1 (31:19):
So anyway, I cut him and many other as much
much bigger break.

Speaker 3 (31:23):
I mean, one of the reasons why you could shouldn't
hold Dave in theater the same standard is like Dave
is you know, incredibly knowledgeable.

Speaker 6 (31:28):
Well, Dave has an ideology.

Speaker 3 (31:30):
Yeah, I was gonna say, Dave is an ideological liberty
amount of anti war actors thought deeply about his own politics,
about where things are going to go. I mean, this
is just like I don't know, I think, take what
you can get, because for me, it's a barometer of
where things are and what is important.

Speaker 1 (31:47):
Should we move on to the polling because.

Speaker 3 (31:49):
This is the biggest black pill that we can possibly take.
And so yes, as I might say, it is true,
YouTube and many other places big online audiences, anti war
content is doing very well. But unfortunately that is not
what the vast majority and particularly the voting boomer base
of this country is watching. They're watching cable news, and

(32:10):
over on cable news, it is just a mainline of
pro war propaganda. And even worse, you are just watching
the framing by the Trump administration be accepted here by
a lot of the American people. Here's student ends, Harry Enton.
We got to tell everybody the truth. The truth is
is that if Trump does decide to strike Iran, it
will probably be pretty popular.

Speaker 1 (32:29):
Let's take a.

Speaker 8 (32:30):
Listen, and overall, I feel like there's more support for
Donald Trump's positions than is comically acknowledged opposer Ran getting
a nuclear weapon. I mean, look at this, seventy nine
percent of adults agree on that they agree with Donald Trump,
but Ron cannot get a nuclear weapon, eighty three percent
of Republicans, seventy nine percent of Independence, seventy nine percent
of Democrats. When you get seventy nine percent of Democrats
and eighty three percent of Republicans agreeing on anything. You

(32:51):
know that that position is the very clear majority in
this country. And so the American public is with Donald Trump.
They definitely opposed I Ron getting nuclear weapons for Ranch
trying to make a nuclear weapon. Look at this overall,
you get the slight plurality. I mean it's within the
margin I remember, but the slight plurality of Americans actually
favor US air stripes compared to forty seven percent of
posing it.

Speaker 2 (33:11):
There you go, yeah, there.

Speaker 3 (33:13):
Republican number is seventy percent. I mean, I guess I
can take it to the bank that there's thirty percent
of people out there. But let's all be honest at
the same look, there is some confounding stuff. And I'll
also say this about America. Americans are fickle, right, So
at the very beginning, do you remember what the numbers
were on Ukraine? It was like ninety ten.

Speaker 1 (33:29):
Yeah, it was literally ninety.

Speaker 6 (33:32):
I will suffer.

Speaker 1 (33:33):
I will say, yeah, how'd that work out for you?
Huh huh. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (33:36):
I didn't want to say I told you so, but
I guess I'm going to run do it. But that's
part of what I guess. You know, reading a book
can get you.

Speaker 1 (33:43):
This is the problem.

Speaker 3 (33:43):
Though I've read enough to say the vast majority of
the American people supported the war in Vietnam. Eventually, everybody
always has retrograde amnesia. Though no, I never spoorned that bullshit. Okay,
the vast majority of the American people supported the war
in Vietnam up until nineteen sixty eight, and actually even
well into the nineteen seventies. Well, the vast majority of
the American people supported the war in Iraq. The vast

(34:06):
majority of the American people supported the Libyan intervention in
twenty eleven.

Speaker 1 (34:12):
The vast majority of.

Speaker 3 (34:12):
The American people wanted to pick a good side in Syria.
They supported the strikes, you know, on the Asid regime.
If you were to pull people and be like, hey,
do you think it's worth taking out North Korea's nuclear
weapon in twenty seventeen, most people are going to say yes. Now,
what I always say is that if you ask them
to consider the consequences, that's when things usually change a

(34:36):
little bit.

Speaker 1 (34:37):
But even then, let's all be honest.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
We're bad at projecting the consequence, like people are bad
at projecting in the future.

Speaker 6 (34:42):
Oh, ten steps down the road, this is going to
go poor.

Speaker 1 (34:45):
And look, I get it.

Speaker 3 (34:46):
It's difficult because it requires, you know, like a level
of critical thinking that the vast majority of people don't want.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
And I'm not putting people down.

Speaker 3 (34:52):
Most people are living their lives and they don't want
to think very much about the news.

Speaker 1 (34:57):
Or war or whatever.

Speaker 3 (34:58):
Now I would ask you to because does of course,
you know, affect your gas prices and you know, oh,
the national debt and whether we have the social programs
and ability as we all learn from the war in Iraq,
But you know, you.

Speaker 1 (35:10):
Do continue to live your life.

Speaker 3 (35:11):
Let's go to put the Economist poll up here at
least some good news. I think for me, most Americans
think that the US military quote should not get involved
in the conflict.

Speaker 1 (35:20):
Between Israelity Iran.

Speaker 3 (35:22):
So here they say, do you think the US military
should get involved in the conflict. The reason why I
think that's really important is that doesn't just say strike,
it says involved.

Speaker 5 (35:30):
Here.

Speaker 2 (35:31):
Here's what I noticed. It doesn't say anything about nuclear weapons.

Speaker 6 (35:34):
Yes, And this is why, this is why.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
The most important thing that you can impress upon people
is this is not about nuclear weapons. Because the moment,
let's say we asked the public, do you support a
regime change war in Iran, I guarantee you the results
of that would be overwhelmingly know. But let me tell you,
if you were listening to any cable news network, if

(35:58):
you are listening to you Know, and some in the
media too, the question is, and this is what Trump
wants it to be, should Iran have a nuke or not?
That is not the question. That is not the appropriate framing,
That is not what this is about. Iran was not
pursuing a nuclear weapon. In fact, if you don't want
Iran to have a nuclear weapon, you should be outraged
that this bombing blew up the potential for successful diplomatic

(36:20):
negotiations to make sure that Iran does not get a
nuclear weapon, because the logic is much more straightforward now
for Iran to race to a bomb as we were
discussing before. So these polls that have come out so
far are all over the place, and it is the
most significant indicator I have ever seen of how important

(36:41):
is to get the narrative and the information right and
for people to understand what is really going on here.
Because yes, if you ask the American people, hey, should
we do some limited strikes to make sure Iran doesn't
have a bomb. Yeah, a majority is going to say yes,
I agree, which is why Trump is consistently saying they
can't have a bomb.

Speaker 6 (36:58):
They can't have a bomb, they can't have a bomb.

Speaker 2 (36:59):
That's that's why that's his line, because he knows that
is solid political ground. The moment people realize that's not
what this is about, this is about another like disastrous
or game change war, then the politics completely change and
completely shift. And so again that's why the most important
thing that you can impress upon people is what this

(37:20):
is really about, and that the idea of the nukes
is fake, invented, there is no evidence to support it,
and that is a pretext to obscure the real goal
of what's.

Speaker 6 (37:30):
Going on here.

Speaker 3 (37:30):
Let's also put this Washington Post stuff on the screen,
because this gives you a very very clear picture about
how this all looks as well in terms of the
propaganda and in terms of the framing. Can we put
that up please, guys, this new Washington Post element that
we have. They ask at this time, would you support
or oppose the US military launching air strikes against Iran
over its nuclear program. You've got twenty five percent support,
thirty percent unsure, forty five percent oppose.

Speaker 1 (37:53):
But you can still see that that unsure number is
pretty big.

Speaker 3 (37:56):
So they say forty seven percent of Republicans they already
support it, Okay, twenty nine percent unsure, so that's a
vast majority or the support are unsure only twenty four
percent oppose. Democrats kind of the opposite, since a more partisan.
But this gives me a little hope here with the
independent figure twenty percent support, thirty six percent unsure, forty
four percent say that they oppose military and veteran household.

(38:18):
It's actually a little bit higher there for support. There's
still some strong opposed numbers, and same with non military.
But the point is is that you can still see
a significant amount of support here amongst the Republican Party
already as long as you sell it to them about nukes.
And this is a why people who want nuance will
have warnings always lose is because we have to start

(38:42):
from disproving the allegation and then warning about fortieth order consequences.

Speaker 1 (38:47):
Now.

Speaker 3 (38:48):
I wish, though, that we would have enough experience at
this point that I could just say Libya and someone
would be like, oh, yeah, that's a good point, right,
you know.

Speaker 1 (38:55):
Oh, it's just.

Speaker 3 (38:56):
About striking air defense in Libya. Nothing else, guys, no
boots on the ground. Oh except what over one million
people flooded Europe and caused massive demographic crisis. Oh, Siria,
not a single American stepped on the ground. Oh wait,
except until Isis accepted a caliphate and a bunch of
more slaughtered in the Bata Klan. And actually it's twenty

(39:17):
twenty five and they're still over a thousand troops that
are on the ground in Syria today. You know, it's
like having to warn about all these consequences. Same with Iraq.
You know, the Iraq question was about nuclear weapons. Now
if I had if they had correctly posed to the
American people, do you support nation building in Iraq?

Speaker 1 (39:35):
I do not think that the vast majority would have
supported it.

Speaker 3 (39:38):
But the point is is, once you're in, you're in,
and you just slowly get bought in and next thing,
you know, Oh, we have to bring peace between the
Sunni and the Shia, because Americans are super qualified for
that one, right.

Speaker 1 (39:49):
Right, And then oh, actually no, it's a civil war.
We got to get involved here.

Speaker 6 (39:52):
We've got to make sure girls can go to school.

Speaker 1 (39:54):
Right now, exactly right.

Speaker 6 (39:55):
We went committing that. By the way, in regard to
a rod.

Speaker 1 (39:58):
Yeah, like oh yeah, oh, oh my god.

Speaker 3 (40:00):
I'm reading this book right now about I told you about.
It's called Revolutionary Iran. Fantastic book. I highly recommended this hole.
Oh they wore mini skirts into Yeah, that was in
like one neighborhood in Tehran.

Speaker 1 (40:11):
Okay, as usual, it's always the same.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
Well, that also misrepresents the reality for women in Iran
right now. I'm not saying that they don't discriminate and
it's not oppressive, et cetera. But you have like a
huge number of women who are preponderance of the STEM graduates,
et cetera. I mean, the whole thing is just like
distorted all the way.

Speaker 1 (40:27):
But what point is that it's nuanced. It's a difficult picture. Okay.

Speaker 3 (40:30):
You had another Islamic nation called Turkey, which basically tried
to eradicate the religion and all of religiosity from society.
Want to ask how that worked out. There's a guy
named Aridiwan who's in charge. Basically came on the back
of a rebellion against that despite what years decades of
propaganda against the religion of Islam. It turns out they're
not very good at it. My only point is that, look,

(40:51):
whether things should be or should not be is not
my decision.

Speaker 1 (40:55):
That's for the people of Iran, that's for the people
of Turkey.

Speaker 3 (40:58):
You live how you want to live, and I'll live
how the way I want to. But to transpose like
these like western neighborhoods onto the.

Speaker 1 (41:06):
Entire society is ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (41:08):
Like I'm thinking, in Jordan, anybody's ever been to Jordan,
there's like this one neighborhood where all the Americans hang
out and there's like a gay bar there, and people
will be like, oh, so he's such a progressive society, and.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
I'm like, yeah, there's one, okay.

Speaker 3 (41:20):
And the reason they all go there is because they
can like drink or whatever, go and pull the vast
majority of the city I have. I'm on and be like, hey,
what do you think about this? They probably outraged or
they digitous. Let live and let live and they make
exist in one place. This is not to denigrate. They
can live how they would like.

Speaker 6 (41:35):
And I'm on it maybe the most western.

Speaker 1 (41:37):
Yeah, one of the most western places.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
Yeah, there's there's so much to say about it. And
here's the bottom line too, It's not that I don't
care about the fate of women and girls, but I
know a regime collapse in Iran is going to be
devastating for everyone. That is the most devastating thing you
can imagine, right, So, yeah, the justifications that were already
running through for why this would be great idea. I mean,

(42:00):
it's like a speed run through what we saw throughout
all of these failed regime change operations. I want to
read a few of the comments from because what Washington
Post does is they do the poll, but they also
talk to the voters about their justifications, which are kind
of interesting. So they have a Nevada woman, sixty two Republican,
voted for Trump. She says, the US cannot allow Ran
to have nukes. Israel is our friend, Iran is the

(42:21):
main sponsor of terrorism. So that is a Fox News
watcher through and through watching the same content as the
president of the United States. You have another Republican, though,
who voted for Trump, seventy four year old woman. She says,
I think Trump in the US need to continue negotiations
and alternatives before the US bombs Iran and starts World
War three.

Speaker 6 (42:38):
Okay, that's good. I like that one.

Speaker 2 (42:39):
You've got a Democrat who didn't vote says Roan is
not an imminent threat to the US. You've got an
independent who voted for Trump, forty four year old man
who says, I'm not convinced they have nuclear weapons.

Speaker 6 (42:49):
We need proof.

Speaker 2 (42:50):
But I'll tell you if you look further into this
poll and the results that they got, and this again
is why Trump is saying over and over again they
can have a nuke.

Speaker 6 (42:57):
They can't have a nuke.

Speaker 2 (42:58):
They can have a nuke because a eighty two percent
of respondents to this poll, Democrats, Republicans, independence, eighty two
percent said they are concerned about Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
So you know that's why they feel like the firmest
ground is when they're trying to convince you that they

(43:19):
were right on the edge of getting this nuclear web
and we have to act now. And if they're able
to persuade the public of that for some time, they
will enjoy some level of support. Now I will tell
you I had I won't say who exactly, but I
had a young man nineteen years old who is, you know,
not a newswatcher. He is very much your like nor me,

(43:41):
not super He works in the trades.

Speaker 6 (43:43):
He's not focused on any of this stuff.

Speaker 2 (43:46):
Who was deeply concerned about this actually, like this broke
through to him, and he is the tie. He's the
theolon watcher, Like that's that's where he falls. And so
I think in terms of independence, I think you have
a real chance to make the case when I look
at those Republican numbers who already support it, and then
you've got a whole bunch of them who are unsure.
You know, I just look at that, and I know

(44:06):
the minute Donald Trump makes the decision, they're all going
to walk in and like Trump says, it's good, so
it must be good.

Speaker 6 (44:10):
That's what we're doing.

Speaker 3 (44:11):
So if you guys want to know what they're watching
over on Fox, I tweeted this, but literally they had
on the sun of Elie Wisel, the guy who wrote
Night to the Holocaust Survivor, to come on and to
compare striking Iranian nuclear facilities to bombing Auschwitz during World
War Two at the height of the Holk that's the
level of shit that these people are imbibing into their brains.

(44:32):
And there's not a single element of skepticism of anything
that you're hearing. Usually The way that they frame the
question is, but like there is a risk of foreign entanglement,
why don't you tell us why that's not true. That's
the closest that they'll come to even presenting the risk.
It's just so so bad. It's honestly, it might even
be worse than two thousand and three. The only like

(44:55):
shining thing that I saw is that that Tucker interview
went so massive, viral like viral into the sense that,
like you said, the nineteen year olds are listening like
on liberal, on conservative wherever, like it was all over TikTok,
and it was framed it was exactly the right bite
sized moment, you know, and all that, and that really
did break through.

Speaker 1 (45:14):
Now we didn't have that, No.

Speaker 3 (45:15):
Three, and there's probably not enough to stop what's coming,
but at the very least it exists in the historical record.

Speaker 2 (45:22):
Real quick after grec myself, it's seventy percent who are
concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.

Speaker 6 (45:26):
So still high, still very high.

Speaker 3 (45:28):
All right, Well, next we have a very special guest,
Soraba Marii. Sorab is an expert both on Iran. He's
a former neo Khon who wanted regime change he's now
a realist who opposes regime change. He can tell us
in exact like exactitude, why a regime change operation in
Iran would be a total disaster.

Speaker 6 (45:48):
For critically, she knows how many people live in Iran,
and he.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
Also knows how. Let's get to it.

Speaker 3 (45:56):
Very excited now to be joined by Soraba Marii. He's
the US editor for Unheard, great friend.

Speaker 1 (46:00):
Of the show. It's good to see you man, Thank
you for joining us, Thank you both for having me.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
So so we gave you a fantastic introduction already, and
so let's just get down to it. About the population
of Iran. Whether you can tell us, because certainly Ted
Cruz can't. Let's take a listen, and most importantly, let's
dissect why that matters for US regime change attempts.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
Here, let's take a listen.

Speaker 5 (46:21):
How many people living around? By the way, I don't
know the population at all. No, I don't know the population.
You don't know the population of the country you seek
to topple. How many people living around? Ninety two million? Okay, yeah,
how could you not know that? I don't sit around
memorizing population tables.

Speaker 4 (46:41):
Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the
overthrow of the government.

Speaker 5 (46:45):
Why is it relevant whether it's will because ninety million
or eighty million or a hundred million.

Speaker 4 (46:48):
Why because if you don't know anything about the country.
I didn't say I don't know anything about Okay, what's
the ethnic mix of wrong? They are Persians and well
presuminantly Shia.

Speaker 5 (46:57):
Okay, you don't know thing about Iran. So okay, I'm
not the Tucker Carlson bird on Iran.

Speaker 4 (47:05):
You're a senator who's calling there the one the government
at the country.

Speaker 5 (47:09):
Eight. No, you don't know anything about the country. You're
the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump.
I'm not saying that. Who can't figure out General SOLMONI
you believe they're trying to murder Trump?

Speaker 4 (47:20):
Yes, because you're not calling for military strikes against them
in retaliation.

Speaker 5 (47:24):
And if they really believe that carrying out military strikes today?
Who said Israel was right with our help? I've said
we Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.

Speaker 4 (47:33):
Well, this you're breaking news here because the US government
last night denied the National Security Council spokesman Alex Fifer
denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on
Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.

Speaker 5 (47:44):
We're not bombing, then Israel's bombing. Then you just said
we were. We are supporting as you're a senator. If
you're saying the United States government is now, we're with
I run right now. People are listening.

Speaker 3 (47:54):
So so why does it matter that somebody who wants
to overthrow the regime in Iran doesn't know the population
or the ethnic makeup of Iran?

Speaker 9 (48:02):
First of all, like kudos to Tucker for that interview.
It reminded me of a kind of journalism you see
on UK broadcast. Tell us journalism, you know where you
really probe, and too often we don't in the United States,
where it's just so deferential to anyone in power. But
it matters because Iran is a large and extremely complex society,

(48:24):
vaster and more sensitive than Iraq, where the last time
we attempted a real kind of regime change, direct occupation
and nation building. So yes, it really it matters for
many reasons. One is, first of all, just the sheer
size of the country tells you something about how difficult

(48:45):
the kind of post regime collapse scenario would be. And second,
of all, you know, it also goes into how much
the Iranians, how many people, for example, they can recruit
if the United States is forced into a ground operation
and there's a kind of war of attrition between the regime,
whatever regime we would install, and where the regime remnants,

(49:08):
the older regimes remnants home, they could recruit, how many
people they could recruit. So it's just I mean, it's
just appalling. And I admire Senator Cruz on some issues,
but it's just appalling that he doesn't know. And the
excuse making for it side wall is he supposed to
look up Wikipedia?

Speaker 2 (49:26):
Yes, you know, yes, actually read up briefing.

Speaker 9 (49:30):
You have access to, you know, information that the rest
of us don't like read.

Speaker 6 (49:34):
Read your article. Yeah, we could put it eat you
up mama's screen.

Speaker 2 (49:37):
I mean, this is so I knew the population number
because Soccer and I one of the first things we
did when we knew that this was being contemplated, when
we knew we were backing this war in Iran. It
is okay, Well, how does this compare it to see her?
How does this compare it to a rock? What is
the population of Iran versus Israel? Like this is the
most surface level that you could possibly know about this conflict.

(49:58):
And yes, it's incredibly significant, but I would love you
to lay on a little bit of what you do
in this piece of like, Okay, let's say you get
your wish. Let's say the current regime collapses. How do
you see that unfolding? Given the fact, as you just
stated that Iran is a complex, multi ethnic society.

Speaker 9 (50:16):
Yep, So, first of all, the biggest problem will be
the question of political authority, a national authority that can
keep the country together and govern minimally. And given Iran's
political culture. Iran's political culture is defined by a term
in Persian and Arabic stebdad, which means an arbitrary rule. Unfortunately,

(50:40):
the way that it's developed, everything goes through a central authority,
whether it's whether you call it a shah meaning a king,
or whether it's an ayatola who is basically a king
under a different aspect, he's just instead of a crown,
he wears a turban. That degree of central authority and
a tradition of of centralized rule that has forestalled the

(51:03):
development of a sense of different social classes being able
to resolve differences through civil society. Through well defined legal
rights and duties, etc.

Speaker 1 (51:14):
Et cetera.

Speaker 9 (51:15):
Is underdeveloped. We've had attempts at trying to build those
up in our twentieth we I mean Iranians. I'm Iranian American,
but the Iranians have attempted to build it up. In
some cases those attempts have been short circuited by foreign imperialists.
There was a constitutional revolution in nineteen oh five, and
the Brits and the Russians basically in part set out

(51:38):
to scuttle that because they treated Iran as a prize
in the so called Great Game. There was a parliamentary
democracy for a while after World War Two, and the
leader of that movement was toppled in parts through It's complicated.
It's not just in a leftist kind of talking point.
It's like we toppled our democratic government. The story is
more complicated. But at any rate, it hasn't developed that

(52:02):
political culture that would easily be able to stand up
a new order. So that's the main problem. And so
who would you install. They floated the Shah of the Sun,
and monarchy is has some attractive things about it. He
represents a kind of continuity, a link to the path
to the Iranian past. There are problems with it, though

(52:23):
everyone I know who's taught who's worked with Reza Pahlavi,
the heir to the Pahlavi dynasty, describes him as basically
like indolent and curious, et cetera. Second, he's become like
a quasi spokesman for the idea of He didn't act
in a kingly way, which is when that happened.

Speaker 1 (52:41):
He should.

Speaker 9 (52:41):
He should have said something like, I feel my compatriot's pain,
I'm doing I'm using all my influence to bring it
to an end, and uh, you.

Speaker 1 (52:52):
Know that sort of thing.

Speaker 9 (52:53):
What he said instead was you know, this is all
Iran's fault, which there of course, I mean, the Iranian
regime has shouted this nasty slogan death to Israel, death
to America.

Speaker 1 (53:03):
I don't deny that.

Speaker 9 (53:04):
But he said it's a Ronswald and rise up and
you know, overthrow the regime. Well, meanwhile, you know, you
see footage of fathers holding their infants with bloody diapers
because of the bombings. How is that guy going to
rise up? And you know, mounted small de democratic revolution.
So but sorry, just to clean up this point. Even

(53:26):
if he were the second coming of Cyrus the Great,
you know, the biblical emperor, the Persian emperor who's mentioned
in the Bible at various points. Even if you were
second coming of Cyrus, he needs to be able to
assert control over this far flung, sprawling country of ninety
million with a fractious ethnic makeup, and he couldn't do

(53:46):
that without a prolonged US intervention, right, in other words,
that you would have to help him do that. Otherwise
it would be just like Afghanistan, where there's a government
a rump state that can only control the capital and
its surrounding environment, and the rest of the country becomes
like Libyanized and Syrianized, and is you know, spreading instability
all over the place. So, for all these reasons, Senator Cruz,

(54:09):
if you're listening to this, buy a book.

Speaker 1 (54:14):
Genesis is great.

Speaker 9 (54:15):
I revere the Book of Genesis, but it's not enough
for understanding them.

Speaker 6 (54:19):
I'm sure you would be happy to speak with that.

Speaker 1 (54:21):
That's right.

Speaker 6 (54:21):
Yeah, ask you some.

Speaker 1 (54:22):
Question, Senator Cruz. Listen, he's a curious guy. He should
call you.

Speaker 3 (54:25):
So one of the things I won't really want to
dive into here, like you just said, is about this
necessity for authority and how in the vacuum of authority
the United States must step in. And I saw that
this was kind of a controversial point, but it just
seems very obvious to me. Israel is a country of
nine million. What they're going to impose regime change in
a country of ninety million. There's no occupation force that
is capable of that. And what would it involve, you know,

(54:48):
basically a fall of the Iranian regime? Like do you
think it is even possible for the Iranian regime to
survive at this point even if the United States does
not get involved? Given Israel's statement, their defense minister just
today threatened the Ayatola Homanium basically compared him to Hitler
and to a Nazi, and was like, yeah, we're going
to kill him, I mean effectively saying that. So is
there even a scenario at this point where they can

(55:09):
survive in their current form, if not dramatically weakened, And
what will come as a result of that?

Speaker 9 (55:15):
You know, if you had asked me that forty eight
hours ago, I would have said, no, that the pounding
that they're getting from the Israelis will lead to collapse. However,
looking at it from the perspective this morning, I think
that that will be a long term proposition. That is,
I don't think the Israelis have it in them alone
to be able to achieve that. What I've heard and

(55:38):
gathered from open source open sources and talking to people
on the inside, et cetera, is that the regime has
kind of like gotten reconsolidated itself. Let's say, in recent
recent days they claim to have taken care of the
Mossad infiltration that wrecks such havoc in the early stages

(55:59):
of the conflict. They are getting better at their kind
of very experimental people so they just like were like,
let's try different things with with Iron Dome and with
David slaying, and they're getting their kind of learning and
adjusting tactics as they go on. As I understand it,
and here, I, you know, take this with a grain

(56:20):
of salt, because I'm not like the kind of military expert,
but as I understand it, there miss they're like missile
launch structure is very automated and and hard to get at,
more so than than Israelis have claimed or did claim
in the triumphant early days. And so with all that
in mind, I think that what they want to do
is to make this a kind of long war of

(56:41):
attrition that goes on for a long time. I just so,
in other words, I'm saying is like the risks of
regime collapse have somewhat been reduced to my mind over
the past forty eight hours. However, that doesn't mean that
if it happens, it's a good thing for all the
early reasons I mentioned, or that the war of attrition

(57:03):
model is good for anyone in the region, you know,
whether it's US troops who are vulnerable and don't have
an iron dome sitting in Iraq and elsewhere, whether it's
Israel itself. I mean, I love the city of Tel Aviv,
and it really breaks my heart to see what the
Iranian ballistic systems have done. I mean, this has to
be put to a stop through a negotiated settlement.

Speaker 2 (57:23):
So so, what I hear from people who are supportive
of US getting offensively directly involved is basically like, well,
we can just go in, drop some mongerbusters on four
dough get out, and I don't know what you people
are so concerned about, Like this will be quick, it'll
be easy. It doesn't require us to be boots on
the ground and this long sal scale, you know, involvement.

Speaker 6 (57:44):
How do you see that?

Speaker 9 (57:47):
Yeah, so basically, okay, the way I think about it
is actually, this is an analogy from a friend of mine,
Kurt Mills, who said, you know, there are two houses.
One is a mansion and one is like a fixer upper.
The mansion is a negotiated settlement. The fixer upper is
the quick hit, and it looks more attractive, it looks

(58:07):
cheaper upfront, it's easier to sign the deal, meaning of
buying the house or in this case striking four dough.
But the house is actually termite ridden and collapses, you know,
when it's exposed to the lightest storm. So what I
mean by that is that this idea that you can

(58:27):
go in very quickly, hit four dough and get out,
you have to take it with a big chunk of salt,
not a grain of salt. Because Iran has only so
far used it's long range ballistics against Israel, that makes
sense because of the distance. It has a whole bunch
of short and medium range missiles that can reach US
bases which are vulnerable. As I said, it can try

(58:49):
to close the Strait of Hormuz through which twenty percent
of the world's energy supplies traverse and if they do
either or both of those things, and the United States
will inevitably right be forced to respond in a bigger way.
And we're in that bigger war. So the mansion, which
looks expensive and difficult and daunting to get of a deal,

(59:11):
is actually the more realistic option than the fixer upper
of just go in, strike and get out.

Speaker 2 (59:18):
And lastly so rob and by the way, we should
mention to people who are concerned about things, you have
been there, so you are eminently qualified on every level
to speak of such things. But the other thing that
Trump has posited is that American strikes Asraeli strikes, and
then you know, ultimately potentially American strikes on Iran will
soften them up so that that mansion will be more

(59:41):
easily acquired.

Speaker 6 (59:42):
What do you make of that logic?

Speaker 9 (59:45):
I just think at that point their incentives is you
basically have someone in a hole who's like firing at you,
and you fire even more, and you're telling him, but
come out, and his mentality is, well, if I come
out with my arms up, you're gonna shoot me.

Speaker 5 (01:00:02):
So the only the only.

Speaker 9 (01:00:04):
Rational thing from my point of view is to just
hole up and keep firing and maybe I'll die in
a flash of you know, heat, or I won't. But
I just don't see I don't see Iranians being able
to uh, the Iranian leaderships as we know known it historically.
You know, at that point, once that has happened, they think, well,

(01:00:27):
you're out to kill me, and I'm just gonna I'm gonna,
I'm gonna take my chances with firing rockets and closing
hor moves and you know, potentially setting off terrorist proxies
elsewhere in western heartlands, et cetera, et cetera. I just
I'm trying to think through that, and I just don't
see them being softened up. I'm seeing that just feeling
so cornered that.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
I don't see any historical evidence for it. I see none.

Speaker 3 (01:00:49):
You know, nations that are under the gun and ask
for unconditional surrender very rarely do it until they suffer
immense and mass death, and usually the population allis to
the flag because they don't want to deal with it either,
as bad as it is, They're willing to fight to
the death. And that's a very bad scenario I think
for all of us so up. Your commentary, your pieces
and all that have been so so helpful for all

(01:01:11):
of us, and I know they've been circulating wide part
of the reason we wanted to have you on the show.
I encourage everybody to read it and please keep up
the good work. Man.

Speaker 1 (01:01:18):
Thank you for joining us.

Speaker 6 (01:01:19):
Great to see it sarth bad news.

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
Guys, You're going to have to wait until tomorrow the
Friday Show to find out what our dear leader Obama
had to say about the present situation. So I'm sure
you'll be waiting with baited bread. Just went too long,
as we often do in the rest of the show.

Speaker 6 (01:01:33):
We got to get it wrapped to get badlines, get
it out.

Speaker 2 (01:01:36):
Thank you so much for sticking with us this week
for all of the coverage. I think we're going to
have all four hosts for the Friday show. To Mario,
I'll make it work, so we're going to have extensive
coverage there. And Rocana is actually going to join us.
He's one of the Democrats who's been pushing the War
Powers resolution fight in Congress, so really important to talk
to him right now.

Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
All right, we'll see you guys tomorrow.

Speaker 9 (01:01:54):
Then