June 24, 2025 • 27 mins
In this episode, Mary Katharine Ham and Karol Markowicz discuss the recent US military action against Iran, exploring the implications of the strike, the operational success of the mission, and the broader context of US foreign policy in the Middle East. They delve into the historical hostility between Iran and the US, the importance of allyship, and the perception of military engagement without congressional approval. The conversation also touches on Trump's address following the military action and concludes with a discussion on the happiness gap between conservatives and liberals. Normally is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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 (00:04):
Hey, guys, we are back on normally the show with
normalist takes, but the news gets weird. I am Mary
Catherine ham Well.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I am Colonel Markolitz, and we had another weekend. You know,
when I got the text from you, I already had
already seen that the US had bombed. I ran, but
I almost was like, oh my god, did something else happened.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
No, that's that's the only one I was referring to
at that moment. Yeah, I was. I had a fun,
exciting Friday because I was on The Five, which is
a programming note. I should have given our listeners and
forgot about it.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
And look, I heard from friends. I heard your your
co host, Mary Katherine was on the five. I was like, oh,
that's amazing.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
And I'm not going to say that I convinced the
President on the five, but I will note the timing
that twenty four hours later this decision was made.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
You know, yes, Mary, as the results, I will say,
and I think I've said this on the show, but
I was actually very mixed on the US striking and
I had.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
You know, reasons for that. I didn't think it would
lead to World War three. That wasn't one of them.
I didn't think it meant American boots on the ground,
But for one thing, I wanted Israel to really show
the world that they can handle themselves. And I think
that they absolutely can. Israel has a best friend in
the White House right now, but they can't, you know,
rely on American political whims. I think if Democrats gets elected,
(01:26):
Democrats are getting progressively more anti Israel, they won't necessarily
be able to rely on America. I want them to
be able to handle themselves. And look they have. I
you know, I when explaining what's going on, and I
ran to my teen, I said, Israel brought them to
their knees and America kicked them in the teeth. That's
like what I see it as. Having said all that,
(01:47):
this is what allies do. And when the US, when
you know, had their global wars on terror, European allies participated,
even though did we need them to participate, not so much.
But this is what allies do. And so I liked
seeing America stand by Israel and help in times of trouble.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Yeah, so let me just do the rundown real quick.
The US military carried out its attack against Iran's nuclear
program early on Sunday local time. It was code named
Operation Midnight Hammer. The mission involved seven B two Spirit bombers.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
What now, Operation Hammer? I mean it may be with
you do not think full credit.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
That's a really good point, Carol. Midnight Hammer. The mission
involved seven B two Spirit bombers. Those are the stealth
bombers that you guys have seen, perhaps at flyovers in
the past, carrying massive thirty thousand pound bunker buster bombs
known as massive ordnance penetrators. It appears that a dozen
of the bombs were used to strike Iran's deeply buried
enrichment site at FORDOH or FORDAO. I'm sure exactly which
(02:48):
way to say it. Two weapons were also used to
strike an underground centrifuge facility at Iran's main enrichment site
and Aton's. Concurrent with the bombings, a US submarine submarine
launched more than two dozen cruise missiles. Those weapons hit
buildings and tunnels, interests as a third nuclear site Isfahan. First,
can I say, because I've said before, I'm starved for
(03:11):
institutions that do what they're supposed to do extremely well.
This mission did what it was supposed to do extremely well.
No leaks, no operational security problems went thirty hour round
trip into Iran bomb three sites left, as the DoD
(03:35):
says in a press conference, not a shot fired at them,
no awareness that they were there. They refueled twice in
the air. This is the way this is supposed to work,
and to see it be successful in that way is
just The military is the institution. I have the motion
confidence of all of ours. But to watch them succeed
(03:56):
is good. To watch them succeed on behalf of an
ally who has been succeeding in surprising ways for the
last two years, is also good. And I just think
this is a I'm glad I don't have to make
these decisions because I, like you, was like, I think
this is a great window of opportunity. And also, what's
the fallout, no pun intended? Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, yeap.
(04:22):
Those saying that the strike is bad use all sorts
of arguments that make me conclude they obviously can't have
a nuclear weapon. They're like, they're going to retaliate in
all these horrible ways, and I'm like.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Well, yes, yes, that makes no sense to me. Is
that all of the arguments would be so much worse
with nuclear weapons, and you know, a lot of the
people who talk about so they end up saying Iran's
not trying to get a nuclear weapon, which is obviously untrue.
And we're going to play a clip right now from
Marco Ruby in a second, but I just want to
(04:56):
go back to the one point you made about operational security.
Jennifer Griffin at Fox News said, in the past eighteen years,
I've never seen this level of operational security at the Pentagon,
and this is really a credit to Pete Hegseth, who
had a really rocket start in this administration. But seeing
him and Marco Rubio and you know, jd Vance behind
(05:19):
the president, I was at peace. I felt very like
these people have it under control. I especially, I mean
Hegseth and Rubio to me are just pinnacle of what's
going on in this administration and the absolute security I
feel when I see them. All Right, let's roll the
(05:40):
Marco Rubio clip about whether or not Iran actually wanted
to obtain nukes.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Are you saying there that the United States did not
see intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization.
Speaker 5 (05:56):
That's irrelevant. I think that question being asked on the media,
that's an irrelevant, and that me.
Speaker 4 (06:01):
Point in US intelligence assessment. You know it's not, yes,
it was, that's a political decisions.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
Well I know that better than you know that, and
I know that that's not the case.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
But i'm whether the order was given and.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
The people who say that it doesn't matter if the
order was given. They have everything they need to build
nuclear weapons. Why would you bury Why would you bury
things in a mountain three hundred feet under the ground,
Why would you bury six Why do they have sixty
percent in rich uranium? You don't need sixty percent in
rich You are the only countries in the world that
have uranium at sixty percent are countries that have nuclear
weapons because it can quickly make it ninety They have
(06:32):
all the elements they have. Why are they Why do
they have a space program? Is Ron going to go
to the moon? No, they're trying to build an ICBM.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
No.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
But that's a question.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
That's a question, that's a question of intent. And you
know in the intelligence assessment that it was that Iran
wanted to be a threshold.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
See you use thos.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
I'm talking about what the intelligence March assessment. And that's
why I was asking you if you know something.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
More from it.
Speaker 5 (06:53):
That's also an inaccurate representation of it. That's an accurate
representation of it. That's not how intelligence is read. That's
now how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows.
Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching
uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program.
So why would you enrich uranium at sixty percent if
(07:15):
you don't intend to one day use it to take
it to ninety and build a weapon. Why are you
developing ICBMs? Why do you have eight thousand short range
missiles in two to three thousand long mid range missiles
that you continue to develop. Why do you do all
these things and just everything they need for a nuclear weapon.
They have the delivery mechanisms, they have the enrichment capability,
they have the highly enriched.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Uranium that is stored.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
That's all we need to see.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
How does she ask him questions like that and not
think this is going to be the result, just so
on point. He knows his stuff so backwards and forwards.
This is why he has seventeen jobs in our government
and the IAEA.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
The fact that he's using the International Atomic Energy Agency,
which is of course, this intergovernmental agency that is headquartered
in Vienna. It's all the things the Libs love, and
the IAEA is the source for the sixty percent number,
which makes a civilian nuclear program, an energy nuclear program
(08:12):
not make any sense because as he said, sixty percent
is way above what you would need for that, and
that's why they put it three stories underground. I just
I think that I think that Trump saw an opportunity
to join that in YAHOO in a generational, once in
(08:33):
a lifetime chance at changing the face of the Middle
East and at getting to a place where, as he says,
sometimes you need toughness for peace, which is his own
spend on peace strength. He saw this as an opportunity
to do that, and that has been his strength in
the Middle East in the past, when he moved the embassy,
(08:56):
right when he went after solo money. He rejects the
sort of Georgetown Foreign Service. Yes, he does hey on
foreign policy, and that consensus has been a trap in
many cases for presidents in the past. And so he's
done these things that have not ignited World Wars three
when everyone told us they would. And I do think
(09:19):
it's a strength of his CNN was saying I was
watching shortly after his speech and one reporter was saying,
we know, the thing about the Trump White House is
very insular, and they don't talk to the same people
that you would normally talk to when you're contemplating something
like this, and I was like, yes, that is the point,
for better or worse, whether you disagree with him or
agree with him on this, that's the point of this
(09:39):
administration is to not talk to the same people.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Yep, Yep, that's exactly it. Trump is his own thing,
and we like that about him in some cases. Obviously
we have problems with it and others. But this was
a classic Trump decision making based on what he knows
and has got, what he has gotten from competent people
around him. And I can't possibly praise him enough in
(10:07):
times like this. I think this is really where he shines.
I want to say that one of the normy concerns
I've heard is that Iran will now look at ways
to hit America. What I want people to understand is
Iran is always looking for ways to hit America. It
started in nineteen seventy nine, taking of sixty six American
hostages for two years, but there have been numerous other
(10:29):
attacks throughout the years. A nineteen eighty three truck bomb
at our military base killed two hundred and twenty US
Marines and twenty one other service personnel in Beirut, Various
murders of our service people in Iraq during that war.
It was Iranian militias would come in and kill our people.
And last November, the US Justice Department announced charges against
(10:51):
an Iranian national and two American accomplices for plotting to
assassinate President Trump. I feel like that story, even Tucker
Carlson said, you know, if that was true, would be
a front page news. The fact that it wasn't front
page news that our Justice Department announced charges. This isn't
like we heard a rumor. It's just it's unclear to
(11:12):
Americans that this has been going on. I feel like
a lot of people feel like we're in a war
with Iran now, but they've been in a war with
us for decades, and important to understand that nobody wants
a hot war, nobody wants more interactions with the Iranian regime,
but they have been plotting and trying this on us
(11:35):
for literally decades.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
Yeah, Tommy Vietor, who is an Obama bro which is
of a completely opposite philosophy on Iran said, Iran might
retaliate today, tomorrow, or in months or a year from now.
Aurana its proxies might blow up a bus filled with
American tourist in Cyprus. No one knows what comes next.
Bombing around started something that we no longer have the
capacity to predict or contain. I said, Siri, please describe
(11:59):
our behavior from nineteen seventy nine until now right, that
was the state of play already. And because they do
war through terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hesbula and the Huties,
sometimes people don't recognize that as Iran. Marjorie Taylor Green
was saying, I don't know anyone who's been injured by Iran,
and I was like, yes, you do, yes, because there's
tons of soldiers in the State of Georgia who have
(12:22):
been injured or killed by Iranian proxies. That's a really
important thing to remember. And I think the state of
play now minus nuclear capabilities and having destroyed much of that.
We don't have the exact damage assessments at this point,
but having destroyed much of that, we are undoubtedly safer
with this same regime not having the nuclear capabilities, then
(12:45):
having it, then you get to the question of like
is this Libya and will it become an unstable region
for that reason, But again I think even unstable without
nuclear capabilities is better than what.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
We have right And also about the proxies. There's a
really excellent article I think it was in Yesterday's Wall
Street Journal by Elliott Kaufman. It's called Benjamin Nyahoo versus
Kassem Solimani. And the part that I want people to
know is this. Three months before the twenty twenty US
killing of Kassam Solmani, the legendary Kuds Force commander, laid
(13:22):
out his life's work. Quote. This is a quote from Salamani.
I have assembled for you six armies outside Iran, and
I've created a corridor fifteen hundred kilometers long and a
thousand kilometers wide all the way to the shores of
the Mediterranean. Salamani told Iran's army chiefs. Any enemy that
decides to fight against Islamic revolution and against the sacred
regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran will have to
(13:44):
go through these six armies. It won't be able to
do so. And Elliott writes, Yet Israel did rather than
circumvent Solimani's strategy, Jerusalem has s bought Tehran on its
own terms of Solomoni six armies. Only the Hutis and
Iraq's popular mobilizations have escaped. Israel fought through Hamas Islamic
Jihad has Bella, wiping out their leadership and slicing up
(14:06):
their missile arsenals, leaving the a Sad regime in Syria
to crumble without support. The proxies mattered, and again our
alliance with Israel matters. That we had the same goal
of taking out the Iranian nuclear program, and in order
to do that, Israel had to fight through these armies first.
That is what allyship should be about. That is what
(14:29):
allies do for each other.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Well and from the safety perspective back home. And that's
why this huge window, no not huge window, a small
window of opportunity, because if you leave them to their
own devices, they will rebuild all of those missile capabilities
that had just been taken out by Israel, which made
this much safer to attempt. They're weaker than they've ever
been because of Israel's work. We didn't have to do
(14:53):
a lot of that work. Israel did almost all of it.
We have capabilities to do this last part. You can
go deep into the bunkers with these massive ordinance penetrators,
which I believe this is the first time they've been
used for the thing they're supposed to be used for,
and at this moment they were quite possibly weaker than
they will ever be in the future because they hadn't
(15:15):
begun to rebuild those capacities. So again I believe, I
know there are people who don't. There's a completely different
philosophy from the Tommy Vturs of the world that if
you just talk to these people and you give them
a bunch of money, and you let Iranian assets sit
inside the American government and influence people, and you open
the border to whoever you want to for four years
(15:36):
to let unvetted people come in and like maybe start
sleep or cells, that that will succeed in bringing safety.
But to me, that doesn't look like peace. That looks
like danger, and taking out this operation in a successful
way looks a lot more close to peace.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Exactly. It is a more peaceful time in the Middle
East today because of Americans actions over the weekend. Anybody
who disagrees with that is simply wrong. It's again, it
may not have seemed like we were at war with
i Ran all along, but we have been, and that's
a reality that we have to face.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
I'm going to throw this one out there because i
just want to give it some space. I am not
of the mind that you need that you need congressional
approval for a bombing run. I don't think that's ever
been the case in my lifetime. But some are making
that argument now, some of them. There are some people
who are making that who have been consistent on it
(16:35):
for many years. There are some who are making that
argument who think it's unconstitutional when Trump does a bombing
run without congressional approval, but not when Obama did a
bombing run that congressional approval. Which is that's Nancy Pelosi's position,
is that Libya good.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
This bad. Yeah. There's also the fact that we last
month bombed the Houtis for weeks, for like weeks, nobody
said anything. Is it just because this involves Israel? Is
it just that this is a bigger power? But I
think Iran has been exposed as not being this superpower
(17:13):
that we were all worried it was becoming. And again
you know, with the nuclear program, it would have been
a different story. But we've done these kinds of bombings
without congressional approval. The thing is, I would love for
Congress to go back to being the you know, the
permission giver for all kinds of things. But you can't.
Don't tell me you're starting right now. Don't tell me
(17:35):
this is the one that you need to This is
the one that we need permission for. All the other
ones were irrelevant. I just don't buy it.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Yeah, I don't either. I do think it seems like
the rift that we addressed last week, which we noted,
happens mostly at like upper level policy discussions and or
online instead of in the real world. I think that
will remain the case case. If this was a successful mission,
which you know that already seems so by being undetected
(18:05):
and everybody getting home safe, if it was also successful
in reaching you know, the goal that we wanted to reach.
American voters largely have no issue with that, right. They
are pro pro as I call it Trump's doctrine of
occasional belicosity, like I'm just going to shoot somebody and
then I'm going to come home, Like he's not interested
(18:26):
in the second part. Now he truthed about regime change. Right,
he got people a little nervous. But what he's saying
is okay, Iranian people, you can make Iran great again.
In I Ga Mega his.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Actual truth tweet whatever. It's not politically correct to use
the term regime change, but the current Iranian regime is
unable to make Iran great again. Why wouldn't there be
a regime change? Miga make Iran grade again?
Speaker 1 (18:57):
When he's good.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
He's so good, I can't.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I also enjoyed the quote from his address, which was
his address was really solid. When he came out, I
knew he was going to nail it because I was
looking for short and sweet, like you don't get a
lot after this, and I didn't want him on a
bunch of Trumpian tangents. He came out, he nailed the
name of all three sites, and I was like, my
dude has been practicing, and he nailed that. He went
(19:23):
on for just a few minutes, and not without Trumpian flourish.
My favorite one was you know, if they do anything else,
you know the consequences will be much bigger than this
and much easier.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Right. My favorite was we love God, we love God.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Can I say that? I think, because I am a
person of faith, I think there is providence involved in this.
I think there was providence in John Paul the Second,
Thatcher and Reagan being aligned against communism. I think there
is providence in Bibi Netan, Yahoo and Trump against all odds,
serving together twice getting like a do over on this right.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
And I think I really do think Trump was never
the God guy. And I'm also a person of faith.
I believe in God, and I always thought that God
plays a hand and a lot of what we see happening.
But Trump was it. And I think that the attempt
on his life in Butler really changed him. You could
(20:27):
see it in so many different ways around him. But
at the end of the address, he said, I just
want to thank everybody in particular God. I want to
just say, we love you God, and we love our
great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East, God
bless Israel, and God bless America. You know, it's really
wonderful to see him in that place. Of course, there's
(20:47):
a lot of people who are concerned about it. The
Daily Beast headline yesterday was Donald Trump's strange God talk
As people concerned. It does not have me concerned. It
has me very happy actually.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
That this is another like deep divide between elite commentary
and normal people. Normal people regularly have thoughts about how
God is directing their lives and hope to put God's
blessing on various missions and various leaders. That's a very
normal thought for normal people to have. But in the
Daily Beast newsroom and the New York Times newsroom, not
(21:20):
so much so.
Speaker 5 (21:22):
Right.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
I don't want to be triumphalist about it, but I
do think he took He took a very brave chance.
He was decisive in the ways that I think made
him worth voting for. Over Oh gosh, imagine a Harris
administration right now.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Kamala Harris right now. I just, oh gosh.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
And when I said that earlier about the like Iranian
assets in the American government, these things are real. These
are real stories that don't get a lot of play.
But in the Biden government there were like Iranian folks
just hanging around, advising, influencing from outside and inside. They
gave the Obama administration authorized giving them billions in just
(22:02):
palettes of cash rash. Yeah, they said, wink, wink, I'm sure,
you guys won't build a bomb right right, and it's
just brain dead, Like I don't understand anything about that philosophy.
I think this one is better, and I think we
would have been unsafe with Harris in office.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Fully fully agree, we're going to take a short break
and come right back with normally. Well, I feel like
we should end with a light topic because this is
clearly you know, we've been through some things here. Nate
Silver posted a graph a few days ago. Nate Silver
(22:46):
was is the five thirty eight you know pulling guy.
He was at The New York Times before. His graph
showed the liberal conservative happiness gap and how it persists
among across all demographics. Like literally, it doesn't matter your race,
it's on every single race of conservative is happier versus
(23:07):
every race of liberal. Every age cohort is happier. Every
educational attainment group is happier when they are conservative. Overall,
the number is sixty eight percent of conservatives are happy
versus fifty three percent of liberals. I would say, you know,
the postgraduate cohort is supposedly the happiest one. Seventy five
(23:28):
percent of postgraduate conservatives are happy. Sixty percent of postgraduate
liberals are happy, and I would just say it shows
it really does. This was not at all surprising to me.
I thought that this would be obvious to everybody. Income
is another one. People who make over one hundred k
(23:50):
tend to be happier. Seventy four percent of conservatives who
make over one hundred k are happy versus sixty percent
of liberals. None of this is surprising to me.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Well, and the one that a lot of people are
flagging is that conservatives who make thirty k a year
are exactly as happy as liberals who make a hundred k.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
It's amazing.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
That is quite a stat And look, I don't want
to overread this stuff, but it's been consistent over many
different types of studies, different types of polling. Obviously this
is self reported, but your self reported happiness matters if
you perceive yourself as happy. That's part of how it works.
(24:36):
There is there's some theory, of course, that liberals over
report mental illness, and also that conservatives underreported right because
it might not be in their cohort fashionable to say
like I'm dealing with this.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Or that right.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Also, though, like liberals incentivize at having some sort of
mental malady to earn the right to be heard or
to like exist within their coalition, right, you have to
be like, yeah, I am just like a white lady,
but also look at my three conditions, and that's why
(25:16):
I'm an okay person.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
There's also our buddy Ian Miller on X posted because
the worldview of the political left requires a delusional obsession
with trying to solve mostly non existent problems. They replace
religion with politics when their politics are never ending uphill
battle against reality. That makes sense to me as well.
A lot of people are saying, oh, conservatives are lying.
(25:38):
They're just lying about their happiness. Why why would you
lie about Oh, by.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
The way, I think, I think lying about your own
happiness probably leads you to be a little bit happier.
There's there's all the things that show repeatedly that they
serve happiness. Conservatives are into building families, shareishing that family time,
having faith. These are like the things that liberals have
(26:05):
to sort of do begrudgingly that we do happily, are
the things that actually show repeatedly create happiness. We also,
i think have, particularly people of faith, have an acceptance
that we live in a fallen world. And therefore things
will not progress to perfection. Yeah, via government program or
our lives or whatever it is. And so you sort
(26:26):
of you're playing with that built in and you understand
that life is hard and that you cherish the beautiful
moments more is my experience with our cohort versus others
who don't have faith.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Yeah. Absolutely, And Abigail Schreyer wrote this in her last book.
But you know, the more you wallow in your unhappiness,
the worse you feel. And it's why her book is
called bad Therapy. I recommend it to everybody all the time.
But it's why kids who go to therapy actually don't
end up being happier. They end up being less happy
(26:59):
because constantly talking about their problems and wallowing in those
problems makes you less happy. And there's nothing the left
enjoys more than the wallowing.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
I mean, it does seem sort of obvious what's happening here.
And you know, I'm going to raise my kids in
the faith and also you know, with conservative values and
thinking that America is just the greatest and not wallowing
or being victims. I would do that anyway because I'm me,
but I would do it on the evidence, if I
(27:31):
were honestly reading the evidence because I think their outcomes
will be.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
Better, that is the truth. Well, thanks for joining us
on Normally. Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can
subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts. Get in touch with
us at normallythepod at gmail dot com. Thanks for listening,
and when things get weird, act normally
Hey, guys, we are back on normally the show with
normalist takes, but the news gets weird. I am Mary
Catherine ham Well.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
I am Colonel Markolitz, and we had another weekend. You know,
when I got the text from you, I already had
already seen that the US had bombed. I ran, but
I almost was like, oh my god, did something else happened.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
No, that's that's the only one I was referring to
at that moment. Yeah, I was. I had a fun,
exciting Friday because I was on The Five, which is
a programming note. I should have given our listeners and
forgot about it.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
And look, I heard from friends. I heard your your
co host, Mary Katherine was on the five. I was like, oh,
that's amazing.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
And I'm not going to say that I convinced the
President on the five, but I will note the timing
that twenty four hours later this decision was made.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
You know, yes, Mary, as the results, I will say,
and I think I've said this on the show, but
I was actually very mixed on the US striking and
I had.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
You know, reasons for that. I didn't think it would
lead to World War three. That wasn't one of them.
I didn't think it meant American boots on the ground,
But for one thing, I wanted Israel to really show
the world that they can handle themselves. And I think
that they absolutely can. Israel has a best friend in
the White House right now, but they can't, you know,
rely on American political whims. I think if Democrats gets elected,
(01:26):
Democrats are getting progressively more anti Israel, they won't necessarily
be able to rely on America. I want them to
be able to handle themselves. And look they have. I
you know, I when explaining what's going on, and I
ran to my teen, I said, Israel brought them to
their knees and America kicked them in the teeth. That's
like what I see it as. Having said all that,
(01:47):
this is what allies do. And when the US, when
you know, had their global wars on terror, European allies participated,
even though did we need them to participate, not so much.
But this is what allies do. And so I liked
seeing America stand by Israel and help in times of trouble.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Yeah, so let me just do the rundown real quick.
The US military carried out its attack against Iran's nuclear
program early on Sunday local time. It was code named
Operation Midnight Hammer. The mission involved seven B two Spirit bombers.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
What now, Operation Hammer? I mean it may be with
you do not think full credit.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
That's a really good point, Carol. Midnight Hammer. The mission
involved seven B two Spirit bombers. Those are the stealth
bombers that you guys have seen, perhaps at flyovers in
the past, carrying massive thirty thousand pound bunker buster bombs
known as massive ordnance penetrators. It appears that a dozen
of the bombs were used to strike Iran's deeply buried
enrichment site at FORDOH or FORDAO. I'm sure exactly which
(02:48):
way to say it. Two weapons were also used to
strike an underground centrifuge facility at Iran's main enrichment site
and Aton's. Concurrent with the bombings, a US submarine submarine
launched more than two dozen cruise missiles. Those weapons hit
buildings and tunnels, interests as a third nuclear site Isfahan. First,
can I say, because I've said before, I'm starved for
(03:11):
institutions that do what they're supposed to do extremely well.
This mission did what it was supposed to do extremely well.
No leaks, no operational security problems went thirty hour round
trip into Iran bomb three sites left, as the DoD
(03:35):
says in a press conference, not a shot fired at them,
no awareness that they were there. They refueled twice in
the air. This is the way this is supposed to work,
and to see it be successful in that way is
just The military is the institution. I have the motion
confidence of all of ours. But to watch them succeed
(03:56):
is good. To watch them succeed on behalf of an
ally who has been succeeding in surprising ways for the
last two years, is also good. And I just think
this is a I'm glad I don't have to make
these decisions because I, like you, was like, I think
this is a great window of opportunity. And also, what's
the fallout, no pun intended? Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, yeap.
(04:22):
Those saying that the strike is bad use all sorts
of arguments that make me conclude they obviously can't have
a nuclear weapon. They're like, they're going to retaliate in
all these horrible ways, and I'm like.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Well, yes, yes, that makes no sense to me. Is
that all of the arguments would be so much worse
with nuclear weapons, and you know, a lot of the
people who talk about so they end up saying Iran's
not trying to get a nuclear weapon, which is obviously untrue.
And we're going to play a clip right now from
Marco Ruby in a second, but I just want to
(04:56):
go back to the one point you made about operational security.
Jennifer Griffin at Fox News said, in the past eighteen years,
I've never seen this level of operational security at the Pentagon,
and this is really a credit to Pete Hegseth, who
had a really rocket start in this administration. But seeing
him and Marco Rubio and you know, jd Vance behind
(05:19):
the president, I was at peace. I felt very like
these people have it under control. I especially, I mean
Hegseth and Rubio to me are just pinnacle of what's
going on in this administration and the absolute security I
feel when I see them. All Right, let's roll the
(05:40):
Marco Rubio clip about whether or not Iran actually wanted
to obtain nukes.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
Are you saying there that the United States did not
see intelligence that the Supreme Leader had ordered weaponization.
Speaker 5 (05:56):
That's irrelevant. I think that question being asked on the media,
that's an irrelevant, and that me.
Speaker 4 (06:01):
Point in US intelligence assessment. You know it's not, yes,
it was, that's a political decisions.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
Well I know that better than you know that, and
I know that that's not the case.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
But i'm whether the order was given and.
Speaker 5 (06:11):
The people who say that it doesn't matter if the
order was given. They have everything they need to build
nuclear weapons. Why would you bury Why would you bury
things in a mountain three hundred feet under the ground,
Why would you bury six Why do they have sixty
percent in rich uranium? You don't need sixty percent in
rich You are the only countries in the world that
have uranium at sixty percent are countries that have nuclear
weapons because it can quickly make it ninety They have
(06:32):
all the elements they have. Why are they Why do
they have a space program? Is Ron going to go
to the moon? No, they're trying to build an ICBM.
Speaker 4 (06:38):
No.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
But that's a question.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
That's a question, that's a question of intent. And you
know in the intelligence assessment that it was that Iran
wanted to be a threshold.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
See you use thos.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
I'm talking about what the intelligence March assessment. And that's
why I was asking you if you know something.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
More from it.
Speaker 5 (06:53):
That's also an inaccurate representation of it. That's an accurate
representation of it. That's not how intelligence is read. That's
now how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows.
Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching
uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program.
So why would you enrich uranium at sixty percent if
(07:15):
you don't intend to one day use it to take
it to ninety and build a weapon. Why are you
developing ICBMs? Why do you have eight thousand short range
missiles in two to three thousand long mid range missiles
that you continue to develop. Why do you do all
these things and just everything they need for a nuclear weapon.
They have the delivery mechanisms, they have the enrichment capability,
they have the highly enriched.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
Uranium that is stored.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
That's all we need to see.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
How does she ask him questions like that and not
think this is going to be the result, just so
on point. He knows his stuff so backwards and forwards.
This is why he has seventeen jobs in our government
and the IAEA.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
The fact that he's using the International Atomic Energy Agency,
which is of course, this intergovernmental agency that is headquartered
in Vienna. It's all the things the Libs love, and
the IAEA is the source for the sixty percent number,
which makes a civilian nuclear program, an energy nuclear program
(08:12):
not make any sense because as he said, sixty percent
is way above what you would need for that, and
that's why they put it three stories underground. I just
I think that I think that Trump saw an opportunity
to join that in YAHOO in a generational, once in
(08:33):
a lifetime chance at changing the face of the Middle
East and at getting to a place where, as he says,
sometimes you need toughness for peace, which is his own
spend on peace strength. He saw this as an opportunity
to do that, and that has been his strength in
the Middle East in the past, when he moved the embassy,
(08:56):
right when he went after solo money. He rejects the
sort of Georgetown Foreign Service. Yes, he does hey on
foreign policy, and that consensus has been a trap in
many cases for presidents in the past. And so he's
done these things that have not ignited World Wars three
when everyone told us they would. And I do think
(09:19):
it's a strength of his CNN was saying I was
watching shortly after his speech and one reporter was saying,
we know, the thing about the Trump White House is
very insular, and they don't talk to the same people
that you would normally talk to when you're contemplating something
like this, and I was like, yes, that is the point,
for better or worse, whether you disagree with him or
agree with him on this, that's the point of this
(09:39):
administration is to not talk to the same people.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Yep, Yep, that's exactly it. Trump is his own thing,
and we like that about him in some cases. Obviously
we have problems with it and others. But this was
a classic Trump decision making based on what he knows
and has got, what he has gotten from competent people
around him. And I can't possibly praise him enough in
(10:07):
times like this. I think this is really where he shines.
I want to say that one of the normy concerns
I've heard is that Iran will now look at ways
to hit America. What I want people to understand is
Iran is always looking for ways to hit America. It
started in nineteen seventy nine, taking of sixty six American
hostages for two years, but there have been numerous other
(10:29):
attacks throughout the years. A nineteen eighty three truck bomb
at our military base killed two hundred and twenty US
Marines and twenty one other service personnel in Beirut, Various
murders of our service people in Iraq during that war.
It was Iranian militias would come in and kill our people.
And last November, the US Justice Department announced charges against
(10:51):
an Iranian national and two American accomplices for plotting to
assassinate President Trump. I feel like that story, even Tucker
Carlson said, you know, if that was true, would be
a front page news. The fact that it wasn't front
page news that our Justice Department announced charges. This isn't
like we heard a rumor. It's just it's unclear to
(11:12):
Americans that this has been going on. I feel like
a lot of people feel like we're in a war
with Iran now, but they've been in a war with
us for decades, and important to understand that nobody wants
a hot war, nobody wants more interactions with the Iranian regime,
but they have been plotting and trying this on us
(11:35):
for literally decades.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
Yeah, Tommy Vietor, who is an Obama bro which is
of a completely opposite philosophy on Iran said, Iran might
retaliate today, tomorrow, or in months or a year from now.
Aurana its proxies might blow up a bus filled with
American tourist in Cyprus. No one knows what comes next.
Bombing around started something that we no longer have the
capacity to predict or contain. I said, Siri, please describe
(11:59):
our behavior from nineteen seventy nine until now right, that
was the state of play already. And because they do
war through terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hesbula and the Huties,
sometimes people don't recognize that as Iran. Marjorie Taylor Green
was saying, I don't know anyone who's been injured by Iran,
and I was like, yes, you do, yes, because there's
tons of soldiers in the State of Georgia who have
(12:22):
been injured or killed by Iranian proxies. That's a really
important thing to remember. And I think the state of
play now minus nuclear capabilities and having destroyed much of that.
We don't have the exact damage assessments at this point,
but having destroyed much of that, we are undoubtedly safer
with this same regime not having the nuclear capabilities, then
(12:45):
having it, then you get to the question of like
is this Libya and will it become an unstable region
for that reason, But again I think even unstable without
nuclear capabilities is better than what.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
We have right And also about the proxies. There's a
really excellent article I think it was in Yesterday's Wall
Street Journal by Elliott Kaufman. It's called Benjamin Nyahoo versus
Kassem Solimani. And the part that I want people to
know is this. Three months before the twenty twenty US
killing of Kassam Solmani, the legendary Kuds Force commander, laid
(13:22):
out his life's work. Quote. This is a quote from Salamani.
I have assembled for you six armies outside Iran, and
I've created a corridor fifteen hundred kilometers long and a
thousand kilometers wide all the way to the shores of
the Mediterranean. Salamani told Iran's army chiefs. Any enemy that
decides to fight against Islamic revolution and against the sacred
regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran will have to
(13:44):
go through these six armies. It won't be able to
do so. And Elliott writes, Yet Israel did rather than
circumvent Solimani's strategy, Jerusalem has s bought Tehran on its
own terms of Solomoni six armies. Only the Hutis and
Iraq's popular mobilizations have escaped. Israel fought through Hamas Islamic
Jihad has Bella, wiping out their leadership and slicing up
(14:06):
their missile arsenals, leaving the a Sad regime in Syria
to crumble without support. The proxies mattered, and again our
alliance with Israel matters. That we had the same goal
of taking out the Iranian nuclear program, and in order
to do that, Israel had to fight through these armies first.
That is what allyship should be about. That is what
(14:29):
allies do for each other.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Well and from the safety perspective back home. And that's
why this huge window, no not huge window, a small
window of opportunity, because if you leave them to their
own devices, they will rebuild all of those missile capabilities
that had just been taken out by Israel, which made
this much safer to attempt. They're weaker than they've ever
been because of Israel's work. We didn't have to do
(14:53):
a lot of that work. Israel did almost all of it.
We have capabilities to do this last part. You can
go deep into the bunkers with these massive ordinance penetrators,
which I believe this is the first time they've been
used for the thing they're supposed to be used for,
and at this moment they were quite possibly weaker than
they will ever be in the future because they hadn't
(15:15):
begun to rebuild those capacities. So again I believe, I
know there are people who don't. There's a completely different
philosophy from the Tommy Vturs of the world that if
you just talk to these people and you give them
a bunch of money, and you let Iranian assets sit
inside the American government and influence people, and you open
the border to whoever you want to for four years
(15:36):
to let unvetted people come in and like maybe start
sleep or cells, that that will succeed in bringing safety.
But to me, that doesn't look like peace. That looks
like danger, and taking out this operation in a successful
way looks a lot more close to peace.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Exactly. It is a more peaceful time in the Middle
East today because of Americans actions over the weekend. Anybody
who disagrees with that is simply wrong. It's again, it
may not have seemed like we were at war with
i Ran all along, but we have been, and that's
a reality that we have to face.
Speaker 1 (16:13):
I'm going to throw this one out there because i
just want to give it some space. I am not
of the mind that you need that you need congressional
approval for a bombing run. I don't think that's ever
been the case in my lifetime. But some are making
that argument now, some of them. There are some people
who are making that who have been consistent on it
(16:35):
for many years. There are some who are making that
argument who think it's unconstitutional when Trump does a bombing
run without congressional approval, but not when Obama did a
bombing run that congressional approval. Which is that's Nancy Pelosi's position,
is that Libya good.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
This bad. Yeah. There's also the fact that we last
month bombed the Houtis for weeks, for like weeks, nobody
said anything. Is it just because this involves Israel? Is
it just that this is a bigger power? But I
think Iran has been exposed as not being this superpower
(17:13):
that we were all worried it was becoming. And again
you know, with the nuclear program, it would have been
a different story. But we've done these kinds of bombings
without congressional approval. The thing is, I would love for
Congress to go back to being the you know, the
permission giver for all kinds of things. But you can't.
Don't tell me you're starting right now. Don't tell me
(17:35):
this is the one that you need to This is
the one that we need permission for. All the other
ones were irrelevant. I just don't buy it.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Yeah, I don't either. I do think it seems like
the rift that we addressed last week, which we noted,
happens mostly at like upper level policy discussions and or
online instead of in the real world. I think that
will remain the case case. If this was a successful mission,
which you know that already seems so by being undetected
(18:05):
and everybody getting home safe, if it was also successful
in reaching you know, the goal that we wanted to reach.
American voters largely have no issue with that, right. They
are pro pro as I call it Trump's doctrine of
occasional belicosity, like I'm just going to shoot somebody and
then I'm going to come home, Like he's not interested
(18:26):
in the second part. Now he truthed about regime change. Right,
he got people a little nervous. But what he's saying
is okay, Iranian people, you can make Iran great again.
In I Ga Mega his.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
Actual truth tweet whatever. It's not politically correct to use
the term regime change, but the current Iranian regime is
unable to make Iran great again. Why wouldn't there be
a regime change? Miga make Iran grade again?
Speaker 1 (18:57):
When he's good.
Speaker 2 (18:58):
He's so good, I can't.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I also enjoyed the quote from his address, which was
his address was really solid. When he came out, I
knew he was going to nail it because I was
looking for short and sweet, like you don't get a
lot after this, and I didn't want him on a
bunch of Trumpian tangents. He came out, he nailed the
name of all three sites, and I was like, my
dude has been practicing, and he nailed that. He went
(19:23):
on for just a few minutes, and not without Trumpian flourish.
My favorite one was you know, if they do anything else,
you know the consequences will be much bigger than this
and much easier.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Right. My favorite was we love God, we love God.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Can I say that? I think, because I am a
person of faith, I think there is providence involved in this.
I think there was providence in John Paul the Second,
Thatcher and Reagan being aligned against communism. I think there
is providence in Bibi Netan, Yahoo and Trump against all odds,
serving together twice getting like a do over on this right.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
And I think I really do think Trump was never
the God guy. And I'm also a person of faith.
I believe in God, and I always thought that God
plays a hand and a lot of what we see happening.
But Trump was it. And I think that the attempt
on his life in Butler really changed him. You could
(20:27):
see it in so many different ways around him. But
at the end of the address, he said, I just
want to thank everybody in particular God. I want to
just say, we love you God, and we love our
great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East, God
bless Israel, and God bless America. You know, it's really
wonderful to see him in that place. Of course, there's
(20:47):
a lot of people who are concerned about it. The
Daily Beast headline yesterday was Donald Trump's strange God talk
As people concerned. It does not have me concerned. It
has me very happy actually.
Speaker 1 (20:58):
That this is another like deep divide between elite commentary
and normal people. Normal people regularly have thoughts about how
God is directing their lives and hope to put God's
blessing on various missions and various leaders. That's a very
normal thought for normal people to have. But in the
Daily Beast newsroom and the New York Times newsroom, not
(21:20):
so much so.
Speaker 5 (21:22):
Right.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
I don't want to be triumphalist about it, but I
do think he took He took a very brave chance.
He was decisive in the ways that I think made
him worth voting for. Over Oh gosh, imagine a Harris
administration right now.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Kamala Harris right now. I just, oh gosh.
Speaker 1 (21:42):
And when I said that earlier about the like Iranian
assets in the American government, these things are real. These
are real stories that don't get a lot of play.
But in the Biden government there were like Iranian folks
just hanging around, advising, influencing from outside and inside. They
gave the Obama administration authorized giving them billions in just
(22:02):
palettes of cash rash. Yeah, they said, wink, wink, I'm sure,
you guys won't build a bomb right right, and it's
just brain dead, Like I don't understand anything about that philosophy.
I think this one is better, and I think we
would have been unsafe with Harris in office.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
Fully fully agree, we're going to take a short break
and come right back with normally. Well, I feel like
we should end with a light topic because this is
clearly you know, we've been through some things here. Nate
Silver posted a graph a few days ago. Nate Silver
(22:46):
was is the five thirty eight you know pulling guy.
He was at The New York Times before. His graph
showed the liberal conservative happiness gap and how it persists
among across all demographics. Like literally, it doesn't matter your race,
it's on every single race of conservative is happier versus
(23:07):
every race of liberal. Every age cohort is happier. Every
educational attainment group is happier when they are conservative. Overall,
the number is sixty eight percent of conservatives are happy
versus fifty three percent of liberals. I would say, you know,
the postgraduate cohort is supposedly the happiest one. Seventy five
(23:28):
percent of postgraduate conservatives are happy. Sixty percent of postgraduate
liberals are happy, and I would just say it shows
it really does. This was not at all surprising to me.
I thought that this would be obvious to everybody. Income
is another one. People who make over one hundred k
(23:50):
tend to be happier. Seventy four percent of conservatives who
make over one hundred k are happy versus sixty percent
of liberals. None of this is surprising to me.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Well, and the one that a lot of people are
flagging is that conservatives who make thirty k a year
are exactly as happy as liberals who make a hundred k.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
It's amazing.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
That is quite a stat And look, I don't want
to overread this stuff, but it's been consistent over many
different types of studies, different types of polling. Obviously this
is self reported, but your self reported happiness matters if
you perceive yourself as happy. That's part of how it works.
(24:36):
There is there's some theory, of course, that liberals over
report mental illness, and also that conservatives underreported right because
it might not be in their cohort fashionable to say
like I'm dealing with this.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Or that right.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Also, though, like liberals incentivize at having some sort of
mental malady to earn the right to be heard or
to like exist within their coalition, right, you have to
be like, yeah, I am just like a white lady,
but also look at my three conditions, and that's why
(25:16):
I'm an okay person.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
There's also our buddy Ian Miller on X posted because
the worldview of the political left requires a delusional obsession
with trying to solve mostly non existent problems. They replace
religion with politics when their politics are never ending uphill
battle against reality. That makes sense to me as well.
A lot of people are saying, oh, conservatives are lying.
(25:38):
They're just lying about their happiness. Why why would you
lie about Oh, by.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
The way, I think, I think lying about your own
happiness probably leads you to be a little bit happier.
There's there's all the things that show repeatedly that they
serve happiness. Conservatives are into building families, shareishing that family time,
having faith. These are like the things that liberals have
(26:05):
to sort of do begrudgingly that we do happily, are
the things that actually show repeatedly create happiness. We also,
i think have, particularly people of faith, have an acceptance
that we live in a fallen world. And therefore things
will not progress to perfection. Yeah, via government program or
our lives or whatever it is. And so you sort
(26:26):
of you're playing with that built in and you understand
that life is hard and that you cherish the beautiful
moments more is my experience with our cohort versus others
who don't have faith.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Yeah. Absolutely, And Abigail Schreyer wrote this in her last book.
But you know, the more you wallow in your unhappiness,
the worse you feel. And it's why her book is
called bad Therapy. I recommend it to everybody all the time.
But it's why kids who go to therapy actually don't
end up being happier. They end up being less happy
(26:59):
because constantly talking about their problems and wallowing in those
problems makes you less happy. And there's nothing the left
enjoys more than the wallowing.
Speaker 1 (27:09):
I mean, it does seem sort of obvious what's happening here.
And you know, I'm going to raise my kids in
the faith and also you know, with conservative values and
thinking that America is just the greatest and not wallowing
or being victims. I would do that anyway because I'm me,
but I would do it on the evidence, if I
(27:31):
were honestly reading the evidence because I think their outcomes
will be.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
Better, that is the truth. Well, thanks for joining us
on Normally. Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays, and you can
subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts. Get in touch with
us at normallythepod at gmail dot com. Thanks for listening,
and when things get weird, act normally
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
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
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.