June 17, 2025 • 36 mins
President Trump has convened his situation room in advance of potential American air strikes in Iran, potentially decapitating the regime and/or taking out their final nuclear storage facility bunker. Should the United States get involved and help Israel deliver the coup de grace? Or stay out of this entirely?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The President very very active on his truth social this hour.
That's because, according to Axios's reporting, President Trump will meet
with his National security team in the White House Situation
Room at one pm Eastern today to make decisions about
US policy toward the war between Israel and Iran, three
US officials have told Axios, and this is key.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Why this matters.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
The US official said, Trump is seriously considering joining the
war and launching a US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities,
especially its underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordau. It is
built into a mountain. They cannot get to it without
our bunker busting weapon. They need it, and they'll need
(00:42):
our you mentioned C one thirty C two's you need
a big plane. Only we have it to take it
in there, and they can't too.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
So there you go.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
The situation escalating quickly and in real time here on
Ryan schuling live. Potential American air strikes with in Iran
possible at this hour, not definitive, And the President has
assembled his cabinet, those in the situation room that would
have input on such a decision, a momentous decision of
tremendous gravity and importance, one way or the other, and
(01:16):
I want to get your take on how you feel
about this at five seven seven thirty nine via text.
I have mixed feelings on it. I'm sure many of
you do as well, especially those who have voted for
Trump because of his dovel like tendencies when it comes
to war. But I want to explain the nuance when
it comes to President Trump and the use of military
(01:37):
force in just a moment. But I also want to
lay out where are the various factions of the current
Republican Party lie, Because it wasn't that long ago, talking
twenty years or so, when the neo conservative establishment ruled
the roost and basically governed national foreign policy decisions for
(01:58):
the Republican Party as pertain to the White House. And
you can even go back to a certain degree to
President Ronald Reagan. Although I think Trump's foreign policy in
many ways mirrors Ronald Reagan, and it was a measured
peace through strength approach. Reagan was not seeking out wars
of misadventure, as you might hear Tucker Carlson, Tulsey Gabbard
(02:21):
talk about that modern faction of the America First Movement
which is averse to war. Thomas Massey ran Paul, the
libertarian wing isolationists in large regard that want to avoid
foreign interventions pretty much at all costs. The latter two
that I just named and at most cost I would
(02:43):
say in Tulsey Gabbard's case, and I think Tucker Carlson
has gravitated over to that. Thomas Massey ran Paul a
wing of the Republican Party. The way I would explain
my personal position is definitely leaning that way away from
the neo Khan strike first knee jerk.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Reaction tendency that we've seen in the past.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Senator Lindsay Graham is an example of this, the Bush
Cheney era of going on this expedition into Iraq where
there were questionable motives. We were told there were weapons
of mass destruction. Colin Powell gave that speech before the UN.
I don't think he was aware of the specific details
(03:28):
that undermined that case. I think there was a sincere
belief at one time that Saddam Hussein did in fact
possess so called weapons of mass destruction, in particular chemical
weapons that he used in the Iran Iraq War.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
And perhaps we think on his own.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
People mustard guess that sort of thing as far as
nuclear capability, I don't know that there was ever any
evidence of that or even a suggestion of that, just
that Iraq possessed some form of WMDs, and that was
our justification to go into Iraq to eliminate the Hussein regime,
including his sons Uda and Kuse, to try to nation
(04:05):
build and establish a democratic government within a rock.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
That did not succeed.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
We lost a lot of lives in that endeavor, lives, blood, treasure,
that investment of time resources. In my view, even in
real time, when I was kind of going along with it,
like well, I'm going to give w the benefit of
the doubt. We were just coming out of nine to
eleven about two years prior, and if this was part
of this axis of evil, as President Bush said at
(04:35):
the time, then okay, I'll go along with it, but
fool me once. Shame on you, fool me twice. We
won't get fooled again. Remember what you said. But we
were sold a bill of goods based on an axis
of evil that we were told existed, and that we're
in cooperation and coalition with one another.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
This didn't pass the smell test for me.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
From the very outset in terms of the political ambitions
and endgame for either Osama bin Laden and al Qaida,
that there would be some form of nexus between that
radicalism and albeit brutal, the regime, the Baptist regime of
Saddam Hussein. It was secular, it was not overtly religious
(05:19):
in nature.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
This is what led.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
To a large part of the conflict between Iran and
Iraq in the eighties, why they went to war with
one another. Iran had a fundamentalist Islamic regime with an
Ayahtola after the Revolution of nineteen seventy nine, and they
were not good neighbors with Iraq.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
This is where I cite.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Once again the example of the enemy of our enemy
is not necessarily our friend. They can both be two wrongs,
don't make a right. They can both be pretty bad.
And Ronald Reagan, he made some mistakes. He's my favorite
all time president. He remains that to this day for
various reasons. I thought his eight years were an absolute
(05:58):
renaissance of America, an ingenuity and success and a flourishing
middle class that my parents were definitely a part of.
I will always be thankful to President Reagan for that.
But we did prop up Hussain's regime. Saddam Hussein was
a madman, but he was our mad man, is what
we were being sold Again. This is the eighties when
(06:19):
we thought Iran was the worst of those two evils
and Iraq was the lesser of those two evils. Saddam
Hussein said many times, even late in his life before
he was executed, that he liked Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Why wouldn't he.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Reagan helped supply his arms and his military and ambitions
against Iran, and he hated the bushes obviously, Desert Storm
liberating Kuwait after Iraq invaded.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
That was one of the.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Few examples in our history since World War Two that
I would say that was a successful military effort, mission accomplished.
Get in, do the thing, get out Powell doctrine. That's
one where I really agreed with Colin Powell, Storm and
Norman General Norman Schwartzkoff Kelly cheers that. But you watch
(07:11):
this play out in real time. You could watch it
on CNN with Wolf Fplitzer. I mean, precise strikes, an
overwhelming force, but we don't get bogged down in a
quagmire like we did with Vietnam, or like we did
in Grenada, Lebanon, they root. I mean, there's so many
examples of this, Nicaragua, where if we don't have a
(07:31):
clearly defined mission, what is it, how do we achieve it?
When do we achieve it? How is that defined? And
then once accomplished gt to the fl We got bogged
down in Vietnam obviously a very unpopular war because it
dragged out over time and we were told that we
were winning the war that we were not winning. So
(07:52):
when it came to Desert Storm, that was a success.
I would say the strikes in Kosovo Bill Clinton authorized
were a success. It undermine the Serbian regime and Slovoda Melosovich.
And I know, coming from a Serb this might sound
a little contradictory, but that was a good thing. That
was a very good thing. The ethnic cleansing that was
going on. Melosovich did not represent, in my view, the
(08:13):
better angels, so to speak of the Serbian people, they're
very nationalistic people. I come from them on my mother's side,
But I don't believe that Melosovich had the best interest
at heart of that region at all. When it came
to the Albanian Muslims, when it came to Croatians, there
was a lot of that ethnic identity that was built
(08:35):
into a fear mongering campaign of ethnic cleansing. But that strike,
my buddy Hutch was involved in a very high level
intel operation Precision strikes, clearly defined target mission get out.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
We didn't occupy Serbia.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
We didn't establish or try to re establish some form
of government there. And that's where I think we got
into a sticky wicket, not just in Iraq, but Afghanistan too,
and look at the failure that turned out to be.
So if you are against President Trump getting the United
States involved in what is Israel's war.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
But is it? That's the question, And this is one
I struggle with.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Israel threw the first punch here, but they threw it
because they they couldn't afford, in their view Benjamin Natanyahu,
who I largely respect admire, support, they couldn't afford Iran
to throw a first punch that included a nuclear weapon.
And President Trump firmly has stated this going back to
his first.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Term in office.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and we must do
everything and anything possible within our power to prevent that.
President Trump tried that through diplomacy, and it did not work.
The Iranians did not respond to that. They did not
take threats seriously that it was going to be the
carrot or the stick. I think they doubted the severity
(09:59):
of the stick. Now they're finding that out. They're f
owing after fa ing, so to speak. But where do
you stand five seven seventy three nine on this potential
military intervention in Iran? Why is the United States getting involved?
This was explained earlier today. You heard Harris Faulkner from
Fox News and are open there. But this is Amos Yadenydleen,
(10:24):
maybe former Israeli Air Force general, explaining the purpose of
this nuclear shelter, this facility that is reportedly housing a
lot of the centrifuges that potentially contain nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
And this is his take on what needs to happen.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
Total is the policy insurance of the nuclear off Iran
nuclear program. They used to have a huge enrichment site
called Natas with fifteen thousand centrifuges.
Speaker 5 (11:05):
Many of them are advanced.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
But Natas, the Isueli Air Force can destroy.
Speaker 5 (11:11):
FODU is in the middle.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
Of a mountain in a place that is very difficult
to destroy, and they move a couple of centralfooges, not
more than hundreds. That in case that Natas will be attack,
they will have this place as a safe place.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
I know he has a very thick accent, but just
to kind of summarize their four doah spelled fr Dow
is regarded as a safe place, and it is well
below the earth, and it is beyond the reach of
whatever bunker busting bombs that Israel possesses. However, the United
States hasn't played all of our cards yet, and our
(11:50):
bunker busting bombs they're much bigger, they're much more powerful.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
And that's what Yadline says.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
Here can Israel attack it from the air?
Speaker 4 (12:00):
The monk bus sees of Israel, which is two thousand pounds,
is not enough for.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
This well protected under a mountain site.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
However, never underestimate the Isueli innovation, other capabilities that Israel
used in the past, and maybe we'll find a new
way as we did with the pages or as we
did with other suprising techniques.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah, never underestimate the Masad, the special forces of Israel,
the IDF itself, their resourcefulness, their ability to do more
with less, their intel capabilities have proven to be spectacular
in these precision attacks against Iran, which is basically decimated
their military capacity and capabilities, their missile supplies, their nuclear facilities.
(12:56):
Israel had this building for years, all of this intel
that they were able to compile, and my theory proved
to be correct. There was somebody on the inside of
the Iranian regime that was a mole, that was a leak,
that was a spy that provided all of this very
specific intel and the whereabouts of the high ranking generals
(13:18):
and military leaders of Iran, and also the nuclear sites.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Bing bing bang, They're gone.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
And here's Jadline finally talking about whether or not the
United States could come in and deliver the coupde gras.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
And the United States help you with a more powerful
bunker busting bomb, and is that in the works that
you know of?
Speaker 4 (13:42):
No doubt, the United States has a seventy thousand pounds.
It's a huge bone that is carried only on big
bombers from a B fifty two to B two, and
the Israel it does not possess such a boomer. So
(14:06):
I think if we want to continue the elimination of
the Iranian Dangelius nuclear polam, the US should consider to
make the finder at the final step.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
This is the part of it.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
I will oversimplify it a metaphor, but I believe it
applies here. Israel is like the little brother that got
in a fight and through the first punch, but now
needs its bigger brother, the United States, to come in
and finish the fight and finish the job. It's not ideal,
it's not what I would have mapped out. It's not
(14:44):
my personal preference. But we're relying now on intelligence that
Israel has gathered that the United States has apparently verified,
at least to the satisfaction of President Trump, that are
in Iran nuclear weapon was imminent. Again, I say this
again against the backdrop of what we were told about Iraq,
and I understand the hesitancy, the doubt rather than the
(15:06):
benefit extended. But I don't think that should extend or
apply to President Trump.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
This man is not a warmonger.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
This is a guy who tries any other alternative first,
peaceful diplomacy. He thinks he can bargain. He thinks he
can make a deal. That's him the art of the deal.
He thinks he can make a deal between Potent and Zelensky.
He might seem naive in that pursuit, but he believes it.
He doesn't believe in war as a first resort. He
(15:36):
believes in war as a last resort. But here's the
bell curve that you need to know about President Trump.
He's a dove for all intents and purposes when it
comes to the approach to war. He was highly critical
of the war in Iraq and its execution. We didn't
keep the oil. Remember that in the debates. I mean,
he sent shockwaves through the debates in criticizing President George W.
(15:59):
Bush and laying that at the feet of Jeb Bush
with an exclamation point and just eviscerated Jeb in the debate.
Because the Republican Party had become wary of the warmongers
running it. And that is a big part of why
Donald Trump had so much appeal with a part of
a Republican Party that either was very quiet or didn't exist,
or was the silent majority or silent minority for a time.
(16:21):
And then they showed up and they showed out for
him because they believed in that. My mom was one
of those people who had become wary of the Republican Party.
The Bush, McCain, Romney blah blah, blah, and then Trump
comes in and he's just this breath of fresh air.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
However, he is not a verse to military action.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
He is precisely for what I just stated, and that
is the use of swift, overwhelming, decisive force and then
get out. Look what he did to Abu Bakar Albeg
Daddy or Kassam Solamani. When it's a targeted attack. The
leader of ISIS isis itself destroy the caliphate. He's bragged
(17:01):
about that. He was right to brag about that. No,
he will use our military. But the thing that he
always puts first and foremost and why the military loves
him and their families love him, is he understands the
gravity of that decision. In putting our troops in harm's
way and losing a single American life, that means something
to President Trump. He feels that very deeply. So authorizing
(17:25):
air strikes is one thing. We're not going to send
in ground forces to Tehran, at least I hope not.
I don't think so, not under President Trump. But where
there's a high probability of success and a low probability
of American casualties, he is going to execute the mission,
and he is going to give our armed forces everything
they need to succeed.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
That is the part that I take comfort in.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Jennifer Griffin reports on the movements of our troops, which
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has confirmed.
Speaker 6 (17:54):
The Knimics and some of her escorts were spotted yesterday
crossing the Singapore Street steaming west after leaving the South
China Sea. On board are squadrons of F eighteen super
Hornet Strike aircraft and an electronic warfare squadron. More than
twenty Air Force tankers have flown to the Middle East
from Europe. All eyes now on Whitman Air Force Base
(18:16):
in Missouri, home to the B two stealth bombers.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
If the President.
Speaker 6 (18:20):
Orders them to fly, it's a thirty hour round trip
to the Middle East and would require a lot of
mid air refueling, hence the prepositioning of all those refuelers
to Europe.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
So everything is coming into shape and form, and I
think a clear message is being sent to the Ayatola
in Iran. He's basically the only one left and President
Trump has been very precise in his language too.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
He was asked whether they're going to take out the Iatotle,
He goes nah, we won't kill him yet.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
He knows how to speak in the parlance of the
Iranians in a language they'll understand. And when we come
back from Bray, Jennifer Griffin kind of paints the picture
of the various voices within the Trump administration and then
there are those without. Tulsea Gabber, Director of National Intelligence,
there appeared to be some kind of fissure or separation
(19:11):
or daylight between her position on whether Iran's possession of
a nuclear weapon was imminent and President Trump's assertion that
the Intel said that there was. Tucker Carlsond had comments,
President Trump fired back at him, and the chicken hawk
of all time, Senator Lindsay Graham. I don't think he's
being helpful, but we'll break it all down when we
come back. If it's moving time in the Rocky Mountains
(19:36):
for you, whether it's going within the state of Colorado
or moving out, or you know somebody who might be
moving in, you want to contact Ashley Key Ashley Key online.
You can find her at Keyfront rangehomes dot com. Go
to that website and what you're going to find is
an exclusive one stop shop for not only high end
(19:57):
real estate. She works with Live Southby's International, so she
has that branding and everything that goes with it. But
the staging, the effort, the attention to detail that you're
just not going to get hardly anywhere else. And if
Ashley can't help you personally directly, she can refer you
to somebody who will.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
She gives one.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Hundred percent of her effort, one hundred percent of the
time to one hundred percent of her clients. Keyfront Range
homes dot com. And if you got moving on your mind,
reach out to Ashley Key today through the iheartlink on
her website and just say maybe just reach out for
a conversation. And if you do that, She's going to
hook you up with one thousand dollars closing credit just
for reaching out. Just for doing that, don't be shy.
(20:37):
This is a sign you should do it today. And
even if you're selling in the fall, reaching out now
is going to get you firmly established for that sale
and getting the best for your home. This testimonial from
the Montano family saying quote, Ashley is by far the
best of the best. She's professional, hard working, and honest.
Ashley helped me with both buying and selling property. She's
dialed into the market and sold my home for more
(20:59):
than I thought it was worth, and fairly quickly. On
the buying side, she gave me honest opinions on the
properties that I looked at, and it is a stellar negotiator.
I could tell that she always had my best interests
at heart. Buying and selling property can be stressful. We
know that it's daunting, know that too, but Ashley made
it seem easy. I am glad that I have found
my agent. That's just one of many testimonials you'll find
(21:21):
at keyfrontrangehomes dot Com. One more time, that's key k
Ey Front Rangehomes dot Com. All one word, Ashley Key
moving in style elevated.
Speaker 6 (21:34):
As we learn more about what the President is thinking
about further US involvement to stop Iran's nuclear program, John
my colleague Peter Doocey is reporting that the president's top
intelligence chief, Tulsea Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, was
not invited to Camp David on June eighth, where the
intelligence and plans were being discussed. She was on National
(21:55):
Guard duty at the time, but US officials tell Peter
she was never invited in the first place. She is
in the situation room today.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
However, now there has been more reporting Jennifer Griffin Fox
News there via Peter Doucey that President Trump he reacted,
he was pushed on this board Air Force One. I
believe about whether or not Tulci Gabbard, his Director of
National Intelligence, was either undermining or refuting his assessment that
(22:23):
Iran had become on the precipice of developing a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Trump then said, I don't care what she said.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Okay, and then Gabbard came back to clarify, Look, now
we're on the same page here. People were taking my
comments out of context that I originally made. I don't
know what to believe exactly, other than, hey, President Trump's
the boss, he calls the shots, and Tulci Gabbard, I'm
glad that she's there is maybe a dissenting voice on
(22:54):
this and many other issues. You want a team of rivals,
somebody that's not afraid to speak up and own the
narrative or counter whatever President Trump's prevailing wisdom based on
whoever he's getting that advice or information from is at
the time. But this brings me to some text before
we get to some more audio, and I would ask
it this way of Kelly, and we'll see how she
feels about I don't even know.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
I don't even not gonna.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
Ask her, though, if on a scale to one to
ten and at one on the Dove scale regarding Iran
on behalf of Israel, should the United States get involved, intervene,
finish the job, decimate the leadership of the Iranian Mullahs
and the Ayatola, eliminate this final nuclear destination that we're
being told about. If that's a one on like don't
(23:39):
do it scale, Thomas Massey ran, Paul Tucker Carlson, And
then at a ten, you got like Senator Lindsay Graham,
what number? Where do you follow in that scale? Kelly
couchera about whether or not we should do this?
Speaker 7 (23:52):
So we are in a quagmire, without question. I would
put us at a seven.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
No, No, you want you where do you feel?
Speaker 8 (24:01):
I said? A seven?
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Okay, so you're more towards Lindsay Graham than you are
Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 8 (24:05):
Uh. Tucker's just being an ass right now. He's not
thinking right. But and Lindsay, I mean he's always good
for a war. Uh.
Speaker 7 (24:14):
But but I think that you just a dovetail on
what you said regarding big brother coming in and supporting
little brother who got in a fight. Yep, we don't
live there, but there are ramifications if we don't intercede
in some way, and I agree with you, no boots
(24:38):
on the ground, nothing like that. But Trump has never
been a supporter of that type of warfare.
Speaker 8 (24:48):
He's always the one.
Speaker 7 (24:50):
If you remember Syria, he basically told, uh, gee, listen,
I just bombed the crap out of Syria with a MOAB,
which is what we would probably give Israel in order
to wipe out their nuclear establishment. And I think that
needs to be done because I think an armed Iran
is a very dangerous Iran. Know that it's going to
(25:15):
somehow get back to the United States. Whether that's already
the cells that are active here, they don't need marching
orders from Tehran to go and wreak havoc on it.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Cause you on that note, because that's an important point.
Whether it's Hamas has Belah, the Hoothi rebels, they're all
propped up by the Irani regime. If you decapitate the regime,
all support for those three groups that I just named
are gone, and they're pretty much well.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
That all depends on oil because also if you take
the oil, like Trump had this.
Speaker 8 (25:49):
Notion of you know, you didn't take the oil to
you know.
Speaker 7 (25:55):
Yes, but in the same case it has to be no,
did that that is their one cash cow.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Well, let me pause you there again because I want
to get down this warhawk of path the change.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
We're not going to take Iran's oil.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
That's that's a foolish notion, not just by you, but
I'll say, we need something to reinforce the Iranian people
who might want to create their own government that they
would have a source of income, and that would be oil.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
We're not going to come and deer it and then
run them by FIA.
Speaker 7 (26:26):
And I agree with you on that, which is what
I was saying, is that you know, we can't go
in there with the thought process of the Lindsey Grams
of the world who want regime change.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
Just can't do it.
Speaker 7 (26:38):
Got to let the people figure that one out for themselves.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
And that's the problem for me because you leave a
void and it gets to this text and I want
to make sure I get these in at five seven, seven,
three nine. Then what replaces the void? Often in fact
almost always is even worse. Look what happened with Libya
and the elimination of Moor Kadafi. We had Kadafi in
a box. Not a great guy. I'm the plane lockerby Scotland.
(27:02):
You remember President Reagan famously bombed the hell out of
Tripoli and Kadafi killing his daughter. It's a sad thing. However,
do you remember what Ronald Reagan said? You can run,
but you can't hide. And that sent a message, and
we basically didn't hear from Kadafi ever again after that.
I think it was nineteen eighty six somewhere around there,
and he minded his p's and q's, and then he
(27:25):
saw what happened in a rock. He's like, okay, well
I'm not going to do that. He gave up him
a nuclear program. Kadafi did. But then we had been Gazi.
Then we had Hillary Clinton, who was a warhawk herself.
This has all been kind of juxtapost. Most of the
warhawks now are on the left. They're in the Democratic Party,
in that establishment, Clinton Hillary being one of them, and
(27:46):
she was joking about it, about being Ghazi and about Kadaffi,
and Kaddafi suffered an ignomish a very unfortunate fate for him.
But then you had all kinds of chaos in his wake.
You have chaos in the wake of Saddam Hussein being
taken out in Iraq. So what happens in Iran? How
would it be any different? How would it be better?
These are the questions that need to be asked. And
(28:08):
I get where a lot of our Texters might be
coming from, including this one, who are averse to this intervention. Ryan,
I am not going to support a genocide. I am
not going to support Trump illegally sending our boys and
girls to Iran. All intelligence shows Iran are not enriching
or making a bomb.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
They are in compliance with IAEA. That is not true.
That is not true.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
IAEA has said no, they're exceeding their limits in terms
of the percentage of enrichment for the uranium that they have,
So that is a point of fact needs clarification continuing though.
The only country not in accordance with these guidelines is Israel.
Why go to war it with a government that has
its own aggressive and awful aims in the region. Let
(28:50):
Israel fight its own wars and let's take care of
boys and girls here at home. It's sickening to consider
we're actually going to do this again. I've noticed this
streak too, and it's concerning to me as probably the
most pro Semite, pro Jewish, pro Israeli gentile on the planet.
Yours truly, I feel in accord, and We've talked about
this many times, about Israel's right to exist, about their
(29:14):
unique position in the region as one of our strongest
and fiercest allies and supporters. No matter what goes on,
whether it's nine to eleven or any other military endeavor
we might pursue, Israel has been there for us. This
is why I feel a much stronger allegiance and bond
with Israel than I do, say Ukraine. What has Ukraine
ever done for us? Yes, you have to ask that question.
(29:36):
Loyalty that gets loyalty. There is no country on the planet,
including the United Kingdom, in my view, that is more
loyal to us than Israel, and I will defend that
relationship to the hil I get real queasy when I
watch people like Candice Owans, Tucker Carlson, unfortunately Thomas Massey,
(29:57):
there's this anti Semitic, nasty vibe undertone. There's like this
Ben Shapiro calls it a horseshoe. Theory of it comes
all the way back around a Thomas Massey with an
ilhan Omar. And I'm not calling Thomas Massa an anti
Semite out of hand. I think he's just a very
non interventionist type. America first, like to the literal definition
(30:19):
of that, I'm America first, but I'm not America only.
We don't exist in a vacuum or avoid and any
delusions of that nature should.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Have been silenced on nine to eleven.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
We can't just separate ourselves from the rest of the world,
especially in a modern society. So I think that there's
a there's merit to what our texter just said about
not why we're not going to send boots on the ground.
That The only way I support this, and I think
this is where we're going with it, is if the
mission is clearly defined, if it's at minimal risk to
(30:50):
our airmen and air women, because that's who we're sending
in also with the Navy coordinates, with the aircraft carriers,
et cetera. We have a narrowly defined target, it's obliterated,
and we get out and we have minimal if probably
no American casualties of any kind. Never would I ever
in this instant support boots on the ground, sending troops
(31:12):
in no tanks rolling into Tehran.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
No, that's me, that's just me. That's just my opinion.
Speaker 8 (31:17):
I agree, thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 7 (31:20):
But you send my daddy's plane in there and where
he did all the auditing on?
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Is it the B two?
Speaker 8 (31:26):
The B too?
Speaker 2 (31:26):
Oh?
Speaker 7 (31:28):
And they can drop they can drop a little moab,
you know, on the stuff. And that is about as
tactical as you can get. That's in and out. You
can't see the B two. That's the whole reason behind
its existence.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Stealth bomber, they call it.
Speaker 7 (31:44):
And so I agree with you, but that texture is
simply not knowing.
Speaker 8 (31:51):
The entire story.
Speaker 7 (31:53):
Okay, we don't have a choice at this point, a
nuclear Iran. I have to say it, right, because I
can't say.
Speaker 8 (32:02):
Iran don't do that. I'm gonna play it out March seagulls.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
We'm going to do it. We're gonna do it.
Speaker 8 (32:06):
Of course you are, because you're k Rock.
Speaker 5 (32:08):
Yes.
Speaker 7 (32:09):
So, but seriously, we can't afford to have that happen,
and we won't afford to have that happen. So Texter,
I encourage you to read a little bit more and
not get so emotionally wrap up up.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
I would encourage people to back up a step this
way too. Iran, It's land mass sits on, if not
the most oil rich reserve in the world, it might
be Saudi Arabia, but it's right up there. It's top
two or three. Is their primary source of income and export.
Why would Iran, of all countries, want to develop nuclear power?
(32:46):
Why would they have to do it? Why would they
want to do it? Are they especially green? Is Greta
Thunberg going to Tehran and holding demonstrations about being nicer
to the environment. Do you think Iran cares about their emissions?
Think about that clearly, brain logically, no, obviously not so.
The oil rich reserves that they have, that they have
(33:06):
tapped into. They basically are the head of the snake
of Opek and have been since the revolution. Why would
they abandon that resource rich in supply, demand, export profits
and go no.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
No, no, no, no, We're gonna put that aside. We're
very conscious about the environment here in Iran. Just me
saying that should sound ridiculous, because it is.
Speaker 8 (33:28):
Can we send Greta or for there.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
Let's do it right now.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
I'm going to do it during this break and adhere
to what Kelly just said. We'll have flock of seagulls,
more of your tex five seven, seven, three nine.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Your thoughts? Where are you on that scale that.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Spectrum between Tucker Carlson and Lindsey Graham, Tucker being a one,
Lindsay being a ten as to whether or not you
support the United States getting involved, intervening, finishing the job
for Israel in Iran and taking out that final nuclear
bunker which might be two thousand feet below the earth.
Ryan Schuling Live continues concludes for hour one after this.
Speaker 9 (34:04):
I am saying this because I'm really afraid that my
country's going to be further weakened by this. I think
we're going to see the end of American empire. Obviously
other nations would like to see that, and this is
a perfect way to scuttle the USS America on the
shoules of Iran. But it's also going to end I
believe Trump's presidency and effectively end it.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
And so that's why I'm saying, what do you mean
by that that's coming for you? That's you get Look,
I knew Bush. I knew George W. Bush with you know,
family connection, with so much. I knew Bush personally. I
still see Bush sometimes.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
And.
Speaker 9 (34:39):
You know, of course he he hates me, and he
does because I criticized him on Iraq and that war
is the sum total from historical perspective of his administration.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Is that a direct comparison that is appt Iran in
Iraq that Tucker Carlson makes there with Steve Bannon, or
is it apples and oranges? President Trump was asked about it,
and he seems to the latter.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
Carlson's criticizing you, saying that.
Speaker 6 (35:04):
You're complicent in the war.
Speaker 5 (35:06):
I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying.
Speaker 6 (35:08):
Let him go get a television network and say it
so that people listening.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
Ooh burn, Let him go get a television network and
say it. Okay five seven, seven, three nine. A couple
of texts here winding things down for our one Ryan.
It's interesting that the Iranian uranium and Richmond facility is
located at the base of a mountain hundreds of feet underground,
similar to the plot of Top Gun Maverick. That is
(35:32):
a country that is purposefully unnamed in that movie. But yeah,
the parallels are undeniable. And this one, Ryan, don't forget
the Democrat's favorite hero, John McCain on the way he
used to run around the Senate chambers singing bomb bomb,
Bomb Bombbomb Iran and I played that song earlier. That's
a throwback to nineteen eighty. Well much more in the
(35:53):
form of your text five seven, seven, three nine. Also,
Arnold Schwarzenegger goes on the view upsets the Apple Cart
total fire for Joy Bihar. You're gonna want to stick
around and hear that. Plus Jimmy Sangenberger on The Mike
Lindell Verdict, Hour two of Ryan Schuling Live
The President very very active on his truth social this hour.
That's because, according to Axios's reporting, President Trump will meet
with his National security team in the White House Situation
Room at one pm Eastern today to make decisions about
US policy toward the war between Israel and Iran, three
US officials have told Axios, and this is key.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Why this matters.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
The US official said, Trump is seriously considering joining the
war and launching a US strike against Iran's nuclear facilities,
especially its underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordau. It is
built into a mountain. They cannot get to it without
our bunker busting weapon. They need it, and they'll need
(00:42):
our you mentioned C one thirty C two's you need
a big plane. Only we have it to take it
in there, and they can't too.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
So there you go.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
The situation escalating quickly and in real time here on
Ryan schuling live. Potential American air strikes with in Iran
possible at this hour, not definitive, And the President has
assembled his cabinet, those in the situation room that would
have input on such a decision, a momentous decision of
tremendous gravity and importance, one way or the other, and
(01:16):
I want to get your take on how you feel
about this at five seven seven thirty nine via text.
I have mixed feelings on it. I'm sure many of
you do as well, especially those who have voted for
Trump because of his dovel like tendencies when it comes
to war. But I want to explain the nuance when
it comes to President Trump and the use of military
(01:37):
force in just a moment. But I also want to
lay out where are the various factions of the current
Republican Party lie, Because it wasn't that long ago, talking
twenty years or so, when the neo conservative establishment ruled
the roost and basically governed national foreign policy decisions for
(01:58):
the Republican Party as pertain to the White House. And
you can even go back to a certain degree to
President Ronald Reagan. Although I think Trump's foreign policy in
many ways mirrors Ronald Reagan, and it was a measured
peace through strength approach. Reagan was not seeking out wars
of misadventure, as you might hear Tucker Carlson, Tulsey Gabbard
(02:21):
talk about that modern faction of the America First Movement
which is averse to war. Thomas Massey ran Paul, the
libertarian wing isolationists in large regard that want to avoid
foreign interventions pretty much at all costs. The latter two
that I just named and at most cost I would
(02:43):
say in Tulsey Gabbard's case, and I think Tucker Carlson
has gravitated over to that. Thomas Massey ran Paul a
wing of the Republican Party. The way I would explain
my personal position is definitely leaning that way away from
the neo Khan strike first knee jerk.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
Reaction tendency that we've seen in the past.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Senator Lindsay Graham is an example of this, the Bush
Cheney era of going on this expedition into Iraq where
there were questionable motives. We were told there were weapons
of mass destruction. Colin Powell gave that speech before the UN.
I don't think he was aware of the specific details
(03:28):
that undermined that case. I think there was a sincere
belief at one time that Saddam Hussein did in fact
possess so called weapons of mass destruction, in particular chemical
weapons that he used in the Iran Iraq War.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
And perhaps we think on his own.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
People mustard guess that sort of thing as far as
nuclear capability, I don't know that there was ever any
evidence of that or even a suggestion of that, just
that Iraq possessed some form of WMDs, and that was
our justification to go into Iraq to eliminate the Hussein regime,
including his sons Uda and Kuse, to try to nation
(04:05):
build and establish a democratic government within a rock.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
That did not succeed.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
We lost a lot of lives in that endeavor, lives, blood, treasure,
that investment of time resources. In my view, even in
real time, when I was kind of going along with it,
like well, I'm going to give w the benefit of
the doubt. We were just coming out of nine to
eleven about two years prior, and if this was part
of this axis of evil, as President Bush said at
(04:35):
the time, then okay, I'll go along with it, but
fool me once. Shame on you, fool me twice. We
won't get fooled again. Remember what you said. But we
were sold a bill of goods based on an axis
of evil that we were told existed, and that we're
in cooperation and coalition with one another.
Speaker 2 (04:56):
This didn't pass the smell test for me.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
From the very outset in terms of the political ambitions
and endgame for either Osama bin Laden and al Qaida,
that there would be some form of nexus between that
radicalism and albeit brutal, the regime, the Baptist regime of
Saddam Hussein. It was secular, it was not overtly religious
(05:19):
in nature.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
This is what led.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
To a large part of the conflict between Iran and
Iraq in the eighties, why they went to war with
one another. Iran had a fundamentalist Islamic regime with an
Ayahtola after the Revolution of nineteen seventy nine, and they
were not good neighbors with Iraq.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
This is where I cite.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Once again the example of the enemy of our enemy
is not necessarily our friend. They can both be two wrongs,
don't make a right. They can both be pretty bad.
And Ronald Reagan, he made some mistakes. He's my favorite
all time president. He remains that to this day for
various reasons. I thought his eight years were an absolute
(05:58):
renaissance of America, an ingenuity and success and a flourishing
middle class that my parents were definitely a part of.
I will always be thankful to President Reagan for that.
But we did prop up Hussain's regime. Saddam Hussein was
a madman, but he was our mad man, is what
we were being sold Again. This is the eighties when
(06:19):
we thought Iran was the worst of those two evils
and Iraq was the lesser of those two evils. Saddam
Hussein said many times, even late in his life before
he was executed, that he liked Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Why wouldn't he.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
Reagan helped supply his arms and his military and ambitions
against Iran, and he hated the bushes obviously, Desert Storm
liberating Kuwait after Iraq invaded.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
That was one of the.
Speaker 3 (06:47):
Few examples in our history since World War Two that
I would say that was a successful military effort, mission accomplished.
Get in, do the thing, get out Powell doctrine. That's
one where I really agreed with Colin Powell, Storm and
Norman General Norman Schwartzkoff Kelly cheers that. But you watch
(07:11):
this play out in real time. You could watch it
on CNN with Wolf Fplitzer. I mean, precise strikes, an
overwhelming force, but we don't get bogged down in a
quagmire like we did with Vietnam, or like we did
in Grenada, Lebanon, they root. I mean, there's so many
examples of this, Nicaragua, where if we don't have a
(07:31):
clearly defined mission, what is it, how do we achieve it?
When do we achieve it? How is that defined? And
then once accomplished gt to the fl We got bogged
down in Vietnam obviously a very unpopular war because it
dragged out over time and we were told that we
were winning the war that we were not winning. So
(07:52):
when it came to Desert Storm, that was a success.
I would say the strikes in Kosovo Bill Clinton authorized
were a success. It undermine the Serbian regime and Slovoda Melosovich.
And I know, coming from a Serb this might sound
a little contradictory, but that was a good thing. That
was a very good thing. The ethnic cleansing that was
going on. Melosovich did not represent, in my view, the
(08:13):
better angels, so to speak of the Serbian people, they're
very nationalistic people. I come from them on my mother's side,
But I don't believe that Melosovich had the best interest
at heart of that region at all. When it came
to the Albanian Muslims, when it came to Croatians, there
was a lot of that ethnic identity that was built
(08:35):
into a fear mongering campaign of ethnic cleansing. But that strike,
my buddy Hutch was involved in a very high level
intel operation Precision strikes, clearly defined target mission get out.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
We didn't occupy Serbia.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
We didn't establish or try to re establish some form
of government there. And that's where I think we got
into a sticky wicket, not just in Iraq, but Afghanistan too,
and look at the failure that turned out to be.
So if you are against President Trump getting the United
States involved in what is Israel's war.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
But is it? That's the question, And this is one
I struggle with.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Israel threw the first punch here, but they threw it
because they they couldn't afford, in their view Benjamin Natanyahu,
who I largely respect admire, support, they couldn't afford Iran
to throw a first punch that included a nuclear weapon.
And President Trump firmly has stated this going back to
his first.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Term in office.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and we must do
everything and anything possible within our power to prevent that.
President Trump tried that through diplomacy, and it did not work.
The Iranians did not respond to that. They did not
take threats seriously that it was going to be the
carrot or the stick. I think they doubted the severity
(09:59):
of the stick. Now they're finding that out. They're f
owing after fa ing, so to speak. But where do
you stand five seven seventy three nine on this potential
military intervention in Iran? Why is the United States getting involved?
This was explained earlier today. You heard Harris Faulkner from
Fox News and are open there. But this is Amos Yadenydleen,
(10:24):
maybe former Israeli Air Force general, explaining the purpose of
this nuclear shelter, this facility that is reportedly housing a
lot of the centrifuges that potentially contain nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
And this is his take on what needs to happen.
Speaker 4 (10:47):
Total is the policy insurance of the nuclear off Iran
nuclear program. They used to have a huge enrichment site
called Natas with fifteen thousand centrifuges.
Speaker 5 (11:05):
Many of them are advanced.
Speaker 4 (11:07):
But Natas, the Isueli Air Force can destroy.
Speaker 5 (11:11):
FODU is in the middle.
Speaker 4 (11:13):
Of a mountain in a place that is very difficult
to destroy, and they move a couple of centralfooges, not
more than hundreds. That in case that Natas will be attack,
they will have this place as a safe place.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
I know he has a very thick accent, but just
to kind of summarize their four doah spelled fr Dow
is regarded as a safe place, and it is well
below the earth, and it is beyond the reach of
whatever bunker busting bombs that Israel possesses. However, the United
States hasn't played all of our cards yet, and our
(11:50):
bunker busting bombs they're much bigger, they're much more powerful.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
And that's what Yadline says.
Speaker 5 (11:56):
Here can Israel attack it from the air?
Speaker 4 (12:00):
The monk bus sees of Israel, which is two thousand pounds,
is not enough for.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
This well protected under a mountain site.
Speaker 4 (12:11):
However, never underestimate the Isueli innovation, other capabilities that Israel
used in the past, and maybe we'll find a new
way as we did with the pages or as we
did with other suprising techniques.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Yeah, never underestimate the Masad, the special forces of Israel,
the IDF itself, their resourcefulness, their ability to do more
with less, their intel capabilities have proven to be spectacular
in these precision attacks against Iran, which is basically decimated
their military capacity and capabilities, their missile supplies, their nuclear facilities.
(12:56):
Israel had this building for years, all of this intel
that they were able to compile, and my theory proved
to be correct. There was somebody on the inside of
the Iranian regime that was a mole, that was a leak,
that was a spy that provided all of this very
specific intel and the whereabouts of the high ranking generals
(13:18):
and military leaders of Iran, and also the nuclear sites.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Bing bing bang, They're gone.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
And here's Jadline finally talking about whether or not the
United States could come in and deliver the coupde gras.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
And the United States help you with a more powerful
bunker busting bomb, and is that in the works that
you know of?
Speaker 4 (13:42):
No doubt, the United States has a seventy thousand pounds.
It's a huge bone that is carried only on big
bombers from a B fifty two to B two, and
the Israel it does not possess such a boomer. So
(14:06):
I think if we want to continue the elimination of
the Iranian Dangelius nuclear polam, the US should consider to
make the finder at the final step.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
This is the part of it.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
I will oversimplify it a metaphor, but I believe it
applies here. Israel is like the little brother that got
in a fight and through the first punch, but now
needs its bigger brother, the United States, to come in
and finish the fight and finish the job. It's not ideal,
it's not what I would have mapped out. It's not
(14:44):
my personal preference. But we're relying now on intelligence that
Israel has gathered that the United States has apparently verified,
at least to the satisfaction of President Trump, that are
in Iran nuclear weapon was imminent. Again, I say this
again against the backdrop of what we were told about Iraq,
and I understand the hesitancy, the doubt rather than the
(15:06):
benefit extended. But I don't think that should extend or
apply to President Trump.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
This man is not a warmonger.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
This is a guy who tries any other alternative first,
peaceful diplomacy. He thinks he can bargain. He thinks he
can make a deal. That's him the art of the deal.
He thinks he can make a deal between Potent and Zelensky.
He might seem naive in that pursuit, but he believes it.
He doesn't believe in war as a first resort. He
(15:36):
believes in war as a last resort. But here's the
bell curve that you need to know about President Trump.
He's a dove for all intents and purposes when it
comes to the approach to war. He was highly critical
of the war in Iraq and its execution. We didn't
keep the oil. Remember that in the debates. I mean,
he sent shockwaves through the debates in criticizing President George W.
(15:59):
Bush and laying that at the feet of Jeb Bush
with an exclamation point and just eviscerated Jeb in the debate.
Because the Republican Party had become wary of the warmongers
running it. And that is a big part of why
Donald Trump had so much appeal with a part of
a Republican Party that either was very quiet or didn't exist,
or was the silent majority or silent minority for a time.
(16:21):
And then they showed up and they showed out for
him because they believed in that. My mom was one
of those people who had become wary of the Republican Party.
The Bush, McCain, Romney blah blah, blah, and then Trump
comes in and he's just this breath of fresh air.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
However, he is not a verse to military action.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
He is precisely for what I just stated, and that
is the use of swift, overwhelming, decisive force and then
get out. Look what he did to Abu Bakar Albeg
Daddy or Kassam Solamani. When it's a targeted attack. The
leader of ISIS isis itself destroy the caliphate. He's bragged
(17:01):
about that. He was right to brag about that. No,
he will use our military. But the thing that he
always puts first and foremost and why the military loves
him and their families love him, is he understands the
gravity of that decision. In putting our troops in harm's
way and losing a single American life, that means something
to President Trump. He feels that very deeply. So authorizing
(17:25):
air strikes is one thing. We're not going to send
in ground forces to Tehran, at least I hope not.
I don't think so, not under President Trump. But where
there's a high probability of success and a low probability
of American casualties, he is going to execute the mission,
and he is going to give our armed forces everything
they need to succeed.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
That is the part that I take comfort in.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
Jennifer Griffin reports on the movements of our troops, which
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has confirmed.
Speaker 6 (17:54):
The Knimics and some of her escorts were spotted yesterday
crossing the Singapore Street steaming west after leaving the South
China Sea. On board are squadrons of F eighteen super
Hornet Strike aircraft and an electronic warfare squadron. More than
twenty Air Force tankers have flown to the Middle East
from Europe. All eyes now on Whitman Air Force Base
(18:16):
in Missouri, home to the B two stealth bombers.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
If the President.
Speaker 6 (18:20):
Orders them to fly, it's a thirty hour round trip
to the Middle East and would require a lot of
mid air refueling, hence the prepositioning of all those refuelers
to Europe.
Speaker 3 (18:31):
So everything is coming into shape and form, and I
think a clear message is being sent to the Ayatola
in Iran. He's basically the only one left and President
Trump has been very precise in his language too.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
He was asked whether they're going to take out the Iatotle,
He goes nah, we won't kill him yet.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
He knows how to speak in the parlance of the
Iranians in a language they'll understand. And when we come
back from Bray, Jennifer Griffin kind of paints the picture
of the various voices within the Trump administration and then
there are those without. Tulsea Gabber, Director of National Intelligence,
there appeared to be some kind of fissure or separation
(19:11):
or daylight between her position on whether Iran's possession of
a nuclear weapon was imminent and President Trump's assertion that
the Intel said that there was. Tucker Carlsond had comments,
President Trump fired back at him, and the chicken hawk
of all time, Senator Lindsay Graham. I don't think he's
being helpful, but we'll break it all down when we
come back. If it's moving time in the Rocky Mountains
(19:36):
for you, whether it's going within the state of Colorado
or moving out, or you know somebody who might be
moving in, you want to contact Ashley Key Ashley Key online.
You can find her at Keyfront rangehomes dot com. Go
to that website and what you're going to find is
an exclusive one stop shop for not only high end
(19:57):
real estate. She works with Live Southby's International, so she
has that branding and everything that goes with it. But
the staging, the effort, the attention to detail that you're
just not going to get hardly anywhere else. And if
Ashley can't help you personally directly, she can refer you
to somebody who will.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
She gives one.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Hundred percent of her effort, one hundred percent of the
time to one hundred percent of her clients. Keyfront Range
homes dot com. And if you got moving on your mind,
reach out to Ashley Key today through the iheartlink on
her website and just say maybe just reach out for
a conversation. And if you do that, She's going to
hook you up with one thousand dollars closing credit just
for reaching out. Just for doing that, don't be shy.
(20:37):
This is a sign you should do it today. And
even if you're selling in the fall, reaching out now
is going to get you firmly established for that sale
and getting the best for your home. This testimonial from
the Montano family saying quote, Ashley is by far the
best of the best. She's professional, hard working, and honest.
Ashley helped me with both buying and selling property. She's
dialed into the market and sold my home for more
(20:59):
than I thought it was worth, and fairly quickly. On
the buying side, she gave me honest opinions on the
properties that I looked at, and it is a stellar negotiator.
I could tell that she always had my best interests
at heart. Buying and selling property can be stressful. We
know that it's daunting, know that too, but Ashley made
it seem easy. I am glad that I have found
my agent. That's just one of many testimonials you'll find
(21:21):
at keyfrontrangehomes dot Com. One more time, that's key k
Ey Front Rangehomes dot Com. All one word, Ashley Key
moving in style elevated.
Speaker 6 (21:34):
As we learn more about what the President is thinking
about further US involvement to stop Iran's nuclear program, John
my colleague Peter Doocey is reporting that the president's top
intelligence chief, Tulsea Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, was
not invited to Camp David on June eighth, where the
intelligence and plans were being discussed. She was on National
(21:55):
Guard duty at the time, but US officials tell Peter
she was never invited in the first place. She is
in the situation room today.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
However, now there has been more reporting Jennifer Griffin Fox
News there via Peter Doucey that President Trump he reacted,
he was pushed on this board Air Force One. I
believe about whether or not Tulci Gabbard, his Director of
National Intelligence, was either undermining or refuting his assessment that
(22:23):
Iran had become on the precipice of developing a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Trump then said, I don't care what she said.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
Okay, and then Gabbard came back to clarify, Look, now
we're on the same page here. People were taking my
comments out of context that I originally made. I don't
know what to believe exactly, other than, hey, President Trump's
the boss, he calls the shots, and Tulci Gabbard, I'm
glad that she's there is maybe a dissenting voice on
(22:54):
this and many other issues. You want a team of rivals,
somebody that's not afraid to speak up and own the
narrative or counter whatever President Trump's prevailing wisdom based on
whoever he's getting that advice or information from is at
the time. But this brings me to some text before
we get to some more audio, and I would ask
it this way of Kelly, and we'll see how she
feels about I don't even know.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
I don't even not gonna.
Speaker 3 (23:16):
Ask her, though, if on a scale to one to
ten and at one on the Dove scale regarding Iran
on behalf of Israel, should the United States get involved, intervene,
finish the job, decimate the leadership of the Iranian Mullahs
and the Ayatola, eliminate this final nuclear destination that we're
being told about. If that's a one on like don't
(23:39):
do it scale, Thomas Massey ran, Paul Tucker Carlson, And
then at a ten, you got like Senator Lindsay Graham,
what number? Where do you follow in that scale? Kelly
couchera about whether or not we should do this?
Speaker 7 (23:52):
So we are in a quagmire, without question. I would
put us at a seven.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
No, No, you want you where do you feel?
Speaker 8 (24:01):
I said? A seven?
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Okay, so you're more towards Lindsay Graham than you are
Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 8 (24:05):
Uh. Tucker's just being an ass right now. He's not
thinking right. But and Lindsay, I mean he's always good
for a war. Uh.
Speaker 7 (24:14):
But but I think that you just a dovetail on
what you said regarding big brother coming in and supporting
little brother who got in a fight. Yep, we don't
live there, but there are ramifications if we don't intercede
in some way, and I agree with you, no boots
(24:38):
on the ground, nothing like that. But Trump has never
been a supporter of that type of warfare.
Speaker 8 (24:48):
He's always the one.
Speaker 7 (24:50):
If you remember Syria, he basically told, uh, gee, listen,
I just bombed the crap out of Syria with a MOAB,
which is what we would probably give Israel in order
to wipe out their nuclear establishment. And I think that
needs to be done because I think an armed Iran
is a very dangerous Iran. Know that it's going to
(25:15):
somehow get back to the United States. Whether that's already
the cells that are active here, they don't need marching
orders from Tehran to go and wreak havoc on it.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Cause you on that note, because that's an important point.
Whether it's Hamas has Belah, the Hoothi rebels, they're all
propped up by the Irani regime. If you decapitate the regime,
all support for those three groups that I just named
are gone, and they're pretty much well.
Speaker 7 (25:42):
That all depends on oil because also if you take
the oil, like Trump had this.
Speaker 8 (25:49):
Notion of you know, you didn't take the oil to
you know.
Speaker 7 (25:55):
Yes, but in the same case it has to be no,
did that that is their one cash cow.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Well, let me pause you there again because I want
to get down this warhawk of path the change.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
We're not going to take Iran's oil.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
That's that's a foolish notion, not just by you, but
I'll say, we need something to reinforce the Iranian people
who might want to create their own government that they
would have a source of income, and that would be oil.
Speaker 2 (26:23):
We're not going to come and deer it and then
run them by FIA.
Speaker 7 (26:26):
And I agree with you on that, which is what
I was saying, is that you know, we can't go
in there with the thought process of the Lindsey Grams
of the world who want regime change.
Speaker 8 (26:37):
Just can't do it.
Speaker 7 (26:38):
Got to let the people figure that one out for themselves.
Speaker 3 (26:41):
And that's the problem for me because you leave a
void and it gets to this text and I want
to make sure I get these in at five seven, seven,
three nine. Then what replaces the void? Often in fact
almost always is even worse. Look what happened with Libya
and the elimination of Moor Kadafi. We had Kadafi in
a box. Not a great guy. I'm the plane lockerby Scotland.
(27:02):
You remember President Reagan famously bombed the hell out of
Tripoli and Kadafi killing his daughter. It's a sad thing. However,
do you remember what Ronald Reagan said? You can run,
but you can't hide. And that sent a message, and
we basically didn't hear from Kadafi ever again after that.
I think it was nineteen eighty six somewhere around there,
and he minded his p's and q's, and then he
(27:25):
saw what happened in a rock. He's like, okay, well
I'm not going to do that. He gave up him
a nuclear program. Kadafi did. But then we had been Gazi.
Then we had Hillary Clinton, who was a warhawk herself.
This has all been kind of juxtapost. Most of the
warhawks now are on the left. They're in the Democratic Party,
in that establishment, Clinton Hillary being one of them, and
(27:46):
she was joking about it, about being Ghazi and about Kadaffi,
and Kaddafi suffered an ignomish a very unfortunate fate for him.
But then you had all kinds of chaos in his wake.
You have chaos in the wake of Saddam Hussein being
taken out in Iraq. So what happens in Iran? How
would it be any different? How would it be better?
These are the questions that need to be asked. And
(28:08):
I get where a lot of our Texters might be
coming from, including this one, who are averse to this intervention. Ryan,
I am not going to support a genocide. I am
not going to support Trump illegally sending our boys and
girls to Iran. All intelligence shows Iran are not enriching
or making a bomb.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
They are in compliance with IAEA. That is not true.
That is not true.
Speaker 3 (28:30):
IAEA has said no, they're exceeding their limits in terms
of the percentage of enrichment for the uranium that they have,
So that is a point of fact needs clarification continuing though.
The only country not in accordance with these guidelines is Israel.
Why go to war it with a government that has
its own aggressive and awful aims in the region. Let
(28:50):
Israel fight its own wars and let's take care of
boys and girls here at home. It's sickening to consider
we're actually going to do this again. I've noticed this
streak too, and it's concerning to me as probably the
most pro Semite, pro Jewish, pro Israeli gentile on the planet.
Yours truly, I feel in accord, and We've talked about
this many times, about Israel's right to exist, about their
(29:14):
unique position in the region as one of our strongest
and fiercest allies and supporters. No matter what goes on,
whether it's nine to eleven or any other military endeavor
we might pursue, Israel has been there for us. This
is why I feel a much stronger allegiance and bond
with Israel than I do, say Ukraine. What has Ukraine
ever done for us? Yes, you have to ask that question.
(29:36):
Loyalty that gets loyalty. There is no country on the planet,
including the United Kingdom, in my view, that is more
loyal to us than Israel, and I will defend that
relationship to the hil I get real queasy when I
watch people like Candice Owans, Tucker Carlson, unfortunately Thomas Massey,
(29:57):
there's this anti Semitic, nasty vibe undertone. There's like this
Ben Shapiro calls it a horseshoe. Theory of it comes
all the way back around a Thomas Massey with an
ilhan Omar. And I'm not calling Thomas Massa an anti
Semite out of hand. I think he's just a very
non interventionist type. America first, like to the literal definition
(30:19):
of that, I'm America first, but I'm not America only.
We don't exist in a vacuum or avoid and any
delusions of that nature should.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
Have been silenced on nine to eleven.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
We can't just separate ourselves from the rest of the world,
especially in a modern society. So I think that there's
a there's merit to what our texter just said about
not why we're not going to send boots on the ground.
That The only way I support this, and I think
this is where we're going with it, is if the
mission is clearly defined, if it's at minimal risk to
(30:50):
our airmen and air women, because that's who we're sending
in also with the Navy coordinates, with the aircraft carriers,
et cetera. We have a narrowly defined target, it's obliterated,
and we get out and we have minimal if probably
no American casualties of any kind. Never would I ever
in this instant support boots on the ground, sending troops
(31:12):
in no tanks rolling into Tehran.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
No, that's me, that's just me. That's just my opinion.
Speaker 8 (31:17):
I agree, thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 7 (31:20):
But you send my daddy's plane in there and where
he did all the auditing on?
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Is it the B two?
Speaker 8 (31:26):
The B too?
Speaker 2 (31:26):
Oh?
Speaker 7 (31:28):
And they can drop they can drop a little moab,
you know, on the stuff. And that is about as
tactical as you can get. That's in and out. You
can't see the B two. That's the whole reason behind
its existence.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
Stealth bomber, they call it.
Speaker 7 (31:44):
And so I agree with you, but that texture is
simply not knowing.
Speaker 8 (31:51):
The entire story.
Speaker 7 (31:53):
Okay, we don't have a choice at this point, a
nuclear Iran. I have to say it, right, because I
can't say.
Speaker 8 (32:02):
Iran don't do that. I'm gonna play it out March seagulls.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
We'm going to do it. We're gonna do it.
Speaker 8 (32:06):
Of course you are, because you're k Rock.
Speaker 5 (32:08):
Yes.
Speaker 7 (32:09):
So, but seriously, we can't afford to have that happen,
and we won't afford to have that happen. So Texter,
I encourage you to read a little bit more and
not get so emotionally wrap up up.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
I would encourage people to back up a step this
way too. Iran, It's land mass sits on, if not
the most oil rich reserve in the world, it might
be Saudi Arabia, but it's right up there. It's top
two or three. Is their primary source of income and export.
Why would Iran, of all countries, want to develop nuclear power?
(32:46):
Why would they have to do it? Why would they
want to do it? Are they especially green? Is Greta
Thunberg going to Tehran and holding demonstrations about being nicer
to the environment. Do you think Iran cares about their emissions?
Think about that clearly, brain logically, no, obviously not so.
The oil rich reserves that they have, that they have
(33:06):
tapped into. They basically are the head of the snake
of Opek and have been since the revolution. Why would
they abandon that resource rich in supply, demand, export profits
and go no.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
No, no, no, no, We're gonna put that aside. We're
very conscious about the environment here in Iran. Just me
saying that should sound ridiculous, because it is.
Speaker 8 (33:28):
Can we send Greta or for there.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
Let's do it right now.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
I'm going to do it during this break and adhere
to what Kelly just said. We'll have flock of seagulls,
more of your tex five seven, seven, three nine.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
Your thoughts? Where are you on that scale that.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Spectrum between Tucker Carlson and Lindsey Graham, Tucker being a one,
Lindsay being a ten as to whether or not you
support the United States getting involved, intervening, finishing the job
for Israel in Iran and taking out that final nuclear
bunker which might be two thousand feet below the earth.
Ryan Schuling Live continues concludes for hour one after this.
Speaker 9 (34:04):
I am saying this because I'm really afraid that my
country's going to be further weakened by this. I think
we're going to see the end of American empire. Obviously
other nations would like to see that, and this is
a perfect way to scuttle the USS America on the
shoules of Iran. But it's also going to end I
believe Trump's presidency and effectively end it.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
And so that's why I'm saying, what do you mean
by that that's coming for you? That's you get Look,
I knew Bush. I knew George W. Bush with you know,
family connection, with so much. I knew Bush personally. I
still see Bush sometimes.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
And.
Speaker 9 (34:39):
You know, of course he he hates me, and he
does because I criticized him on Iraq and that war
is the sum total from historical perspective of his administration.
Speaker 3 (34:50):
Is that a direct comparison that is appt Iran in
Iraq that Tucker Carlson makes there with Steve Bannon, or
is it apples and oranges? President Trump was asked about it,
and he seems to the latter.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
Carlson's criticizing you, saying that.
Speaker 6 (35:04):
You're complicent in the war.
Speaker 5 (35:06):
I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying.
Speaker 6 (35:08):
Let him go get a television network and say it
so that people listening.
Speaker 3 (35:12):
Ooh burn, Let him go get a television network and
say it. Okay five seven, seven, three nine. A couple
of texts here winding things down for our one Ryan.
It's interesting that the Iranian uranium and Richmond facility is
located at the base of a mountain hundreds of feet underground,
similar to the plot of Top Gun Maverick. That is
(35:32):
a country that is purposefully unnamed in that movie. But yeah,
the parallels are undeniable. And this one, Ryan, don't forget
the Democrat's favorite hero, John McCain on the way he
used to run around the Senate chambers singing bomb bomb,
Bomb Bombbomb Iran and I played that song earlier. That's
a throwback to nineteen eighty. Well much more in the
(35:53):
form of your text five seven, seven, three nine. Also,
Arnold Schwarzenegger goes on the view upsets the Apple Cart
total fire for Joy Bihar. You're gonna want to stick
around and hear that. Plus Jimmy Sangenberger on The Mike
Lindell Verdict, Hour two of Ryan Schuling Live
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.