March 3, 2026 • 34 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
It's that time, time, time, time, luck and load. The
Michael Very Show is on the air.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
John Wards, from you A Senator John Cordon out of Texas,
the Republican says former President Donald Trump can't win the
twenty twenty four general election. For President Cornyon saying, I
think President Trump's time is passing by.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Are you saying don't vote for Donald Trump? You know
it too important to.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Gamble. I do think it's very important that we have
a candidate who can win in twenty twenty four, and
I'm not sure President Trump is that candidate.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
You've said that you think it's time for the Republican
Party to move on from President Trump.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
You know, in politics, unless you can win an election,
you're pretty much irrelevant.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
To The senator didn't say who he intends to support,
but he then double down on who he believes the
Republican Party should not nominate, and that is former President
Donald Trump born untold Fox twenty six.
Speaker 6 (01:04):
He won't be supporting former President Trump, and neither should
all the Republics.
Speaker 7 (01:08):
I can't tell you that I've worked with Senator Cornet,
who is up for re election, a number of times
on a number of pieces of legislation. He's actually not
been the worst Republican that you can find in the Senate.
Speaker 6 (01:22):
To be perfectly honest, I.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
Know Republican voters, and as I said earlier, really it's
a question of who bothers to show up. If only
the most radical people show up in the primary, then
I think that's going to be analog.
Speaker 6 (01:46):
Prob The song is.
Speaker 8 (02:01):
Texas Senator John Cornyan to negotiate with Democrats to see
if there is a compromise to be reached. Cornan joins
a bipartisan group of senators who say they will work
on the issue throughout the Memorial Day recess.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
I expector will be an informed debate about reforms we
can make, and I look forward to participating in those discussions.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
I've been working for more than.
Speaker 9 (02:24):
Three years on a red flight statute that seems now
to have met its moment.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Senator John Cordon Conservative like you.
Speaker 9 (02:37):
Drop the songs now, there are some Republicans, including former
President Trump, who are ripping this and ripping.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
You as well.
Speaker 10 (02:56):
The deal on gun control currently being structured and pushing
this about the radical left Democrats. But the help of
Mitch McConnell, Rhino Senator John corner in Texas and others
will go down in history.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Is the first step of the movement to take your
guns away. The wall, I have.
Speaker 6 (03:11):
To tell you, Jucture is no.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
I'm going to stop your llegal immigration wall is an immorality.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
What we need is a virtual border filled giant wall
from sea to shining sea.
Speaker 6 (03:23):
Makes no sense. What's what?
Speaker 3 (03:25):
So?
Speaker 1 (03:32):
So, it is election day in Texas with the primaries
(04:07):
that will choose the nominees who will face off in November.
We have a very interesting statewide race for the US
Senate nomination for the Democrats. A white liberal named James
tallerco a black woman named Jasmine Crockett. She's a congressman,
(04:28):
he's a state rep. It's about a fifty to fifty
race the betting odds or that tall Rico wins. I
think there's a decent shot that Jasmine Crockett wins. I
don't normally make predictions because I don't find them to
be very interesting, but I will tell you where I
(04:49):
think there is a chance that something could happen. It
doesn't mean I predicted it will, but I think there's
a good chance that Jasmine Crockett manages to win the
Democrat nomine I hope she does, because she's a weaker
candidate to run against.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
But there is.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
It's all going to be a turnout battle. It's going
to be a question of turnout. And the Democrat primary
when you have a white liberal and a black candidate,
gets very, very interesting because race is everything to the Democrats.
And yeah, so we'll we'll, we'll wait and see. On
the Republican side, you've got a sitting senator in John Cornyn,
(05:33):
who is a four term senator, twenty four years. He's
been there. He has opposed Trump. Therefore, Trump has not
endorsed him. He has opposed the border wall, said he
supported it, that he didn't support it. He's on record
doing both. But most recently he now says, you know,
he's a big he's big for the border wall and
and for border protection because that will help him in
(05:56):
his election. Every six years we call him John Wayne mccornyan.
Every six years, this conservative Texan who's just like us emerges.
And look, we got primaries today in Arkansas and North Carolina.
These themes come up, these swamp creatures who who tell
us what we want to hear, then go off to
DC and screw the lobbyists and get paid by the
(06:19):
lobbyists and all these sorts of things. And then and
then when they're up for election every two years for congressman,
every six years for senators for senator, they come back
and they tell us their weathers again, and they do
the research to find out what turns us on, and
they tell us that, and it's so hard to beat
them because they've got the name idea, and they've got
(06:41):
the money that the swamp paid. Once you're in the club,
the swamp covers your bills and as long as you
do what the swamp wants. Now, if you don't do
what the swamp wants, they'll kick you out. But as
long as you do what the swamp wants, you've got
a career of it. So once you get in the club,
you're in. Well, Cornyn is the oh swamp creature. But
(07:01):
he's being challenged by our Attorney General Ken Paxton, who,
according to the polling, is leading in the race, Anne
Wesley Hunt, who's a relatively new congressman, but he's managed
to peel off some of that corning vote and so
it's very likely to be a runoff, could potentially could
(07:22):
potentially be a Paxton win without a runoff, but we
will see exactly that should be interesting. You've got Dan
Crenshaw who has managed to piss off apparently every Navy Seal,
every politician, the President. He's the only Republican incumbent running
for Congress in Texas that Donald Trump did not endorse
(07:45):
for reelection. So you've got some very very interesting elections
going on today. We're going to focus on Iran for
the next segment or two or so with our guest
Colonel Eric Navarro from the Middle East Forum. Will come
back to politics in the next hour, but just so
you know, we have not talked enough about Iran, and
we don't have any election updates yet per se because
(08:06):
that's going on today. So that's what's coming up. The
situation in Iran is very, very complicated, and a lot
of folks want to minimize or simplify that, but that
can't be done. It needs to be understood for what
exactly is going on and who the players are and
(08:28):
what is at stake, and that's not an easy thing
to do. We invite back to the program our expert
on Middle East matters. It's Colonel Eric Navarro, Director of
Military and Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum. Seasoned
military officer, business leader, and national security strategists, two combat
tours in Iraq, training evolutions, technology initiatives, real world operations
(08:50):
around the world, fascinating perspectives, and it's an honor to
have him back. Colonel Navarro. Let's start with why now?
Why I strike Iran?
Speaker 8 (09:01):
Now?
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Why not? Wait?
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Well, thanks for having me back. I think what happened
is this was a strategic opportunity that was presented to
both President Trump and then the Israelis. I don't think
it was originally planned. I believe that what happened is
during the Twelve day War and the strike. Even during
(09:24):
the twelve day War, there was an opportunity there. I
believe the President saw the amazing success the Israeli forces
had in decimating the Iranian air defenses and missiles and
leadership sites, command control sites, and that's when he decided
to strike the ford Al and other nuclear facilities to
(09:48):
strike a blow against Iran's nuclear program. So that was
one strategic opportunity that the President jumped down and sees.
That's what happens often in battle, you have a plan.
Obviously the enemy gets a vote. Then opportunities present themselves
on the battlefield, and if you don't seize them, they're
(10:08):
fleeting and you miss them and you may miss your
chance at ultimate victory. So here, based on the results
of the Twelve Day War and then the uprisings, the
popular uprisings in that country by the people that want
to take their country back, and then the subsequent you know,
suppression of those protests, that all created a started building
(10:30):
the conditions for the regime to be teetering on the
brink right now. The US has been seeking to undermine
and pressure the regime to give up its nuclear ambitions,
to give up its funding and fueling of the regional
chaos through its proxies, and it's been unsuccessful. And that's
(10:51):
just because they they were committed to their own cause
of regional domination and securing a nuclear weapon to protect
their theocratic regime. Right. So, as these conditions have been
set for the regimes to be teetering, it presented yet
another strategic opportunity to take advantage of. And I believe
(11:13):
that President and the Israelis, working in concert, understood the
gravity of the situation. This is twenty seven years in
the making, there are so many different advantages to being
able to take out this this terrorist regime that it
(11:34):
made sense to attack. Now. The other part, too, is
in its in its, and it's dying thros, the regime
is going to be more desperate and more flagrant about
their pursuit of weapons. I believe the latest briefing last
(11:54):
yesterday was talking about how they were already fart at
work rebuilding their ballistic missile stock files and pursuing the
nuclear weapons. So they were not going to stop. Uh
So it was time to actually take the fight to
them once and throw.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Colonel Navarro is our guest. I'm going to ask you
some very simple questions. I think. I think we tend
to speak on a very high level, and most public
conversations are that leave people behind that want of very
basic understanding of what's going on. And we shouldn't take
that for granted. The taxpayers pay for this, We staff
the worst. Let's talk about the dangers. What are the risks,
(12:34):
worst case and most likely case, because there are consequences
to this. We've already seen loss of life for instance.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Yeah, there's always risks in all these operations, and there's
always risk and strategic decision making. What you have to
do is weigh the benefits and the rewards of victory
versus the risks to those operations or those decisions to
be lost of life. When we sign up, we all
(13:04):
know that that's the potential. In fact, I'm actually, I
don't know if an interest your audience, I'm actually going
back on active duty to support the efforts starting tomorrow. Yeah,
and that's just because again, what we all need to
do our part. We need to support the folks that
are down range and try to support and achieve ultimate victory.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Now, how does that so? What does the logistics is
that decision you make or you are asked to read?
What does that look like?
Speaker 3 (13:33):
I offer to help. So I'm a reservist part of Marcent,
which supports Sycome Right, and so I offered. The team
is busy twenty four hours a day, obviously supporting the
forces that are executing the mission, and so I volunteered
(13:53):
to come in and help assist however I can. And
I would just say that that's kind of the ethos
that we all have. Those of us that served, they
are of us who have served. So it's not we're
not being put in harm's way willy nilly, or we
go in with our eyes wide open. We believe in
(14:15):
the mission, especially this one. This has some deep roots here.
We're talking again forty seven years. One of the first
acts of the Islamic regime was to take care of
people hostage. As a marine, I think personally we learn
about the Marine barracks bombings by Hesbelah, you know, the
(14:36):
Iranian proxy in the eighties, but also as an Iraq
war veteran, we had intel. We understood that the Iranians
were teaching and training Iraqi militias to develop and employ
what we call explosively formed penetrators, which are extremely deadly IEDs.
(14:56):
And I believe the numbers was at least six hundred
American troops were directly killed by these Iranian made id IDs.
So this was a threat for decades. And what I'll
be honestly, I'll be perfectly honest with your audience. I
don't know why it has taken up until President Trump
(15:18):
to finally do something decisive about this. For the longest time,
we have said this regime is a threat to regional
order and a direct threat to US personnel. Well, they
even tried to assassinate or were planning or plotting to
assassinate President Trump. So at what point do we say, Okay,
(15:40):
we must eliminate that threat.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
You know, I don't. Let me see if I have
little world. Let me see if I have the audio handy.
If not, we'll have. In the next segment. In two
thousand and eight, while she's running for president, Hillary Clinton says,
if she's president, there will be strikes on Iran. You
would attack Iran. It's just interesting. She goes on to
(16:03):
be Secretary of State for Barack Obama, who cut a
deal with them and sent palettes of cash. This has
been talked about for a very, very long time. We
have that audio, we'll play that. Coming up, our conversation
with Colonel Eric Navarro, director of Middle and Military and
Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum. Allow me to
(16:26):
introduce myself.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
My name is Mitch michael Berry, Genius.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Our guest is Colonel Eric Navarro, the director of Military
and Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum, who will
go back active duty tomorrow in response to what's going
on in Iran, so putting his money where his mouth is,
putting his life on the line literally to serve his country.
And this effort. You asked sort of a rhetorical question,
(16:54):
Colonel Lavarrow. He said, I don't know why it's taken
till forty seven. Why does it take un till Trump
to do this, to strike Iran? Because in your opinion,
that's needed to have been done. This is Hillary Clinton
running for president in two thousand and eight, and I
want the.
Speaker 11 (17:09):
Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will
attack Iran. Whatever stage of development they might be in
their nuclear weapons program in the next ten years, during
which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel,
we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a
terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran
(17:30):
need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them
from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
It's fascinating that's eighteen years ago. You go Reagan, who
I think really brought them to heal when he comes
into office. You know, they wait until Reagan has sworn
in to release the hostages because they feared that he
would attack. But you know, then you go into Bush
and Clinton, and Bush and Obama and then Trump and Biden,
(18:06):
and here we are Trump again. And it's interesting because
this has been a thorn in the side of our
country for a very long time, regardless someone's opinions of
Israel and Israel's relationship with them. If you just look
at American involvement in Iran and their effects on our
wars and our lives, it is sort of surprising that
(18:27):
it hasn't happened until now. Do you have a reason
for that.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Well, it's long and complicated, but to put it, I'll
try to simplify it. We in this country for decades
have had a almost a week. When we fight wars,
we often have not fought to win them, and so
that has caused some of the complications in this For example,
(18:56):
the so called Forever Wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. We
won theil war right and then we lost the aftermath
because of planning or mission, mission expansion and whatnot. But
the point is, once you go in, you need to
go in to win right decisively at the strategic level
(19:16):
and crush the enemy. And until you crush the enemy,
what's going to happen is they'll keep reconstituting and coming back.
And that's the last several decades. That's exactly what has happened, right,
So what we're seeing now is that president is willing
to learn the lessons of failed campaigns prior to his
(19:38):
time in office and apply those lessons, but also to
give clear objectives and then say we must achieve those
objectives in order to finally end this conflict or end
this threat. And you heard that in his public comments
talking about we just we have to do it right.
This has been a long time in coming. We tried
(19:59):
to get a deal with them. I believe mister Wickoff
was on TV yesterday talking about one of the first
days that during these recently resumed talks, one of the
first days the Iranians came in and said, essentially, we're
still pursuing the program where we have enough to make
eleven nuclear weapons, and we're going to do it right.
Well again, when somebody tells you who they are over
(20:21):
and over and over again, you must accept it, and
if they're a threat, you must take them out.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Colonel Eric Navarro is our guests. I find it interesting
how many nations Iran has now hit. And obviously it
might appear that they're attacking Americans in hospitals, but they've managed,
you know, Jordan, Uae, Dubai. They've managed to make a
(20:48):
lot of enemies and do a lot of harm in
the Middle East. And I understand it's a complicated place.
This isn't Naser in fifty six trying to pull together
an Arab union. You have Shia and Sunni and the like.
But it does strike me that they're probably not making
any friends with their neighbors with strikes on countries that
might have been inclined to stay out.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Absolutely. But here's the thing. There's a couple of reasons
why this is happening. One on the ground level, most
of their leadership has been taken out, or a lot
of it. The command control nodes have been attacked and destroyed.
A lot of these launches are independent by the battery
commander or the on field commander that has probably old
(21:31):
orders that he's trying to issue others. It seems like
it's just they're lashing out, almost like the death throes
of the regime. Right they're disconnected there. There doesn't seem
to be a specific military strategic objective with this, other
than to lash down and try to cause as much
pain as possible in the region, maybe force the US
(21:52):
in Israel to cut the campaign short of its final objective.
It's not going to work. But then on top of that,
this gives the lie to the fact that it's only
the US and Israel. Right, so there's reports that Prince
mbs from Saudi Arabia was pushing the president to safe
these actions. We have other allies in the region that
(22:15):
wanted this threat and understood this threat needed to be eliminated,
right and now with the direct action against these countries,
they're even more hardened to go against this Iranian threat.
So if this regime is able to be eliminated and
the Iranian people freed to take their country back, it
(22:36):
will have positive effects throughout the region, both for security,
for economic reasons, and then strategically, it will be a
huge blow to China and Russia's ambitions in the region.
And we haven't even talked about that, but there's in
great power competition taking this energy and technology exchange that
Russia and China get from, you know, the exporter of
(23:00):
Heed drones to Russia and the exporting of oil to China.
That's a huge blow to both of those countries and
they're obviously are primary strategic geopolitical threats.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Well, let's move to that subject. There are number of
things that I want to cover, but China's you know,
I think I read three to four percent of their
oil was coming from Venezuela, and you know, they had
boot they had they had folks on the ground, whatever
their capacity was just just before we attacked and pulled
Maduro out. But then Iran is something like six to
(23:31):
eight times the percentage of oil they get from from
the Straight of Horn moves and this is a big
blow to their economy. They're trying to move obviously to
electric as much as possible. But I got about a
minute and a half here, and then we can pick
it up in the next segment. Where do you see
China's role in this and potential involvement, whether it be diplomatic, military, economic,
(23:52):
or whatever else.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
I think they're going to be standing by. I think
they're going to be shifting. If you notice, in both
Venezuela and Iran, when their proxies or their partner so
called partners come calling, they don't answer because they don't
want to get into a direct conflict with the US.
They view this as a long, long term issue where
(24:17):
they will become the global hegemon. Chinese look at it
through centuries. They think they had the long game, so
they will bide their time. But they're going to make
a mistake here. But they do not want to get
involved in any direct conflict, nor does Russia. I believe
there were phone calls made to Russia for support by
(24:37):
the Iranians, and the Russians gave them moral support and
nothing else. Right, So there's a lot of different complications
here or considerations by our adversaries, but at the end
of the day, peace, true strength actually works, especially when
the strength is demonstrated at this level.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
Lieutenant, it's our Colonel Eric Navarro is our gasity, director
of Military Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum. We
will continue our conversation. I want to talk about Russia's role,
if any, into what extends commute.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Cattle. Cattle, I had a fine box.
Speaker 12 (25:16):
Und Michael Barry in the Colonal Eric Navarro, the director
of Military and Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum,
is our guests.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
We're talking about Iran and what this means for the world. Uh,
you know the stock market, I haven't checked it since
earlier today, but uh, it took a little it took
a little dive this morning. There is some panic off,
and there is panic at a time like this. I
spent some time with my financial advisors this afternoon talking
(25:46):
about you know, we talk ahead of time about these
sorts of things and afterwards, and panic tends to be
a temporary thing. I'm not giving anybody financial advice, just
the way I approach it.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
There.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Uncertainty tends to make people very uncomfortable. But when people
start talking about World War three, they're typically not people
with the understanding of what that looks like or any
real experience or knowledge of it. They just panic, and
you know, sky's falling. World War three. Russia's involvement would
complicate things obviously, to what extent militarily economically do you
(26:17):
see Russia involved in this? Potentially?
Speaker 3 (26:20):
I don't think they're going to be involved at all.
They they are bogged down with the Ukraine fight. They're
not looking to get entangled in other fights. There's been
no evidence that they're they're willing to go directly with
any US or Israeli forces in any way. They'll pay
lip service to supporting you know, their their partners in
(26:44):
Iran or Venezuela. But at the same time. There's some
signs that there may be movement on the Ukrainian front
as far as diplomatically as a result of these operations.
But I will say we're in there. We're still in
the early days of this, so things can go, you know, sideways.
So that's why I think, you know, we need to
(27:06):
be completely focused on achieving the actual objective here. What
is that?
Speaker 1 (27:12):
I was gonna say, what is the objective?
Speaker 3 (27:15):
I think ultimately the objective is to destroy the Iranian
regime's ballistic missile program and nuclear weapons program, and its
ability to attack any of our forces in the region,
and its ability to suppress its own population. Now there's
a fine line between that and regime change. I think
(27:37):
what the President and others have said is it's not
directly trying to do regime change, but it's setting the
conditions to allow the Uranian people to take over take
back their country.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Yeah, and I guess we're moving perhaps beyond your immediate
area of expertise, but to the extents you feel comfortable
talking about it. I am very concerned that we just
have a natural outpouring of democrat stability. We've not seen
that in Iraq or Libya or Egypt, or a number
of other countries. I will tell you, I'm very concerned
(28:09):
as to what democracy looks like in countries that may
not among the populace share our values. Just because somebody's
posting a Twitter video doesn't mean that you have stability
of you know, or a middle class.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
You know.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
A lot of Iranis that could have been a part
of a government have fled the country, And I just
wonder about the institutions capable of birthing and incubating a
democratic society.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Understood. But I'll be honest with you, it doesn't necessarily
have to be a democracy or a Western style democracy.
In fact, that's kind of the flaw in our post
war Iraq posture, trying to impose Jeffersonian democracy in a
country that had no institutions to support that. Right, what
we're looking for is stability and a regime that is
(29:01):
not a threat to the US, to our allies in
the region, to global order, right, that's first and foremost.
If it's a democracy, that's all the better because we
know how successful it could be and how we could
be allied with such a country. But I will say
also that the Iranian Revolution, you know, they're The Iranian
(29:21):
populace was very sophisticated and modern and they just felt
prey to you know, the revolutionary at least a part
of the populace taken up in the revolutionary spirit against
the show to be clear.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Uh, same with Lebanon, Same with a number of countries, Turkey,
you know, for periods of time when secularism was more
of the norm. But this sort of we call it
radical Islam, this more orthodox doctrinal Islam, has has tended
toward this type of tyrannical, oppressive government. We've seen that
(30:02):
in Pakistan, which shares the same cultures as India, other
than the religious, but you look at the difference between
life in Pakistan and life in India and it's dramatic.
We've seen this in Syria, which once was Damascus was
a place you would have you'd have been happy to visit.
It's sort of to me the difference between Havana pre
(30:23):
Castro and post Castro, where you get these sort of
tyrannical regimes, whether they be Communist or Muslim, whatever the
reason for the tyranny, and life just goes to hell.
And we've seen a wave of this over the last
four decades across the country, and it's sad for the
people who live there. So this really is a great opportunity.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
Absolutely, and you're right, We've seen this around history. These
desk slots come in and immediately their popular population suffer.
I'm all for helping the Iranian people rebuild in a
positive an economically viable way, but I will say the
first and foremost objective is to ensure that the threat
(31:06):
posed by the Mulas is eliminated is UH and the
region is not under their way or that their proxies
suffer as a result too. Don't forget about the remaining prosties,
especially the Houthis and Yemen, which is one of my
particular areas of focus. UH. They're going to still exist
even if this is fully successful in Iran, and so
(31:29):
they'll still have to be vigilance there. They'll still have
to be potential operations to strike an that would.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Concern you most, Colonel Vere What would concern you most
in terms of sparking this thing and you know, the
fire exiting the pit and and and raging and becoming
more of what we would refer to as the World
War sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
Well, there's two parts to it. If this was the
most negative outcome would be that Iran was plunged into
a violent civil war between different factions buying for to
fill the power vacuum. And in that situation and in
that environment, if China or Iran were to get involved
to try to take advantage of it and shape events,
(32:14):
then that would be very concerning and something that we
got to deal with. But I will say I do
not think that that's going to happen, for a variety
of reasons. But for you know, again, peace to strength
is critical when that strength is demonstrated, right, It's not
just talking about it, right, it's actually demonstrating the capacity
(32:35):
to execute these operations in a route to the effective way, right,
the Maduro operation, Right, this operation, the initial days of
strikes to be able to essentially gain air supremacy in
twenty four hours and conduct operations continuously to continue to
attrit the adversaries in Iran. Right. Nobody is going to
(32:57):
see that and go oh, I want to get involved
in that. Right, And that's that's that goes all the
way back down to the schoolyard right with dealing with
schoolyard bullies, Right, you have to stand up to them.
Oftentimes you have to have to punch them in the face,
and that they still don't get that you got to
beat them up, right, And now that's that can be simplified,
overly simplified, but that's what happens. Here's the thing prior
(33:20):
to that. For too many decades, I want to go
back to this. Americans have gotten worked into thinking that
violence is always bad and war is always bad, and
that's just simply not the case. There are oftentimes throughout
history where violence actually solves problems, and that's what you're seeing.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
We could talk at lengths about the rule about the
tendency of where men and women look at conflict resolution differently,
but that would open a can of worms that I
will discuss at another time. Colonel Eric Namorrow, director of
Military's Take Strategic Programs they at the Middle East Forum,
who goes active duty tomorrow, good looks are and thank
(34:00):
you for your service.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
Thank you, m HM
It's that time, time, time, time, luck and load. The
Michael Very Show is on the air.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
John Wards, from you A Senator John Cordon out of Texas,
the Republican says former President Donald Trump can't win the
twenty twenty four general election. For President Cornyon saying, I
think President Trump's time is passing by.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Are you saying don't vote for Donald Trump? You know
it too important to.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
Gamble. I do think it's very important that we have
a candidate who can win in twenty twenty four, and
I'm not sure President Trump is that candidate.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
You've said that you think it's time for the Republican
Party to move on from President Trump.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
You know, in politics, unless you can win an election,
you're pretty much irrelevant.
Speaker 5 (00:51):
To The senator didn't say who he intends to support,
but he then double down on who he believes the
Republican Party should not nominate, and that is former President
Donald Trump born untold Fox twenty six.
Speaker 6 (01:04):
He won't be supporting former President Trump, and neither should
all the Republics.
Speaker 7 (01:08):
I can't tell you that I've worked with Senator Cornet,
who is up for re election, a number of times
on a number of pieces of legislation. He's actually not
been the worst Republican that you can find in the Senate.
Speaker 6 (01:22):
To be perfectly honest, I.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
Know Republican voters, and as I said earlier, really it's
a question of who bothers to show up. If only
the most radical people show up in the primary, then
I think that's going to be analog.
Speaker 6 (01:46):
Prob The song is.
Speaker 8 (02:01):
Texas Senator John Cornyan to negotiate with Democrats to see
if there is a compromise to be reached. Cornan joins
a bipartisan group of senators who say they will work
on the issue throughout the Memorial Day recess.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
I expector will be an informed debate about reforms we
can make, and I look forward to participating in those discussions.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
I've been working for more than.
Speaker 9 (02:24):
Three years on a red flight statute that seems now
to have met its moment.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Senator John Cordon Conservative like you.
Speaker 9 (02:37):
Drop the songs now, there are some Republicans, including former
President Trump, who are ripping this and ripping.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
You as well.
Speaker 10 (02:56):
The deal on gun control currently being structured and pushing
this about the radical left Democrats. But the help of
Mitch McConnell, Rhino Senator John corner in Texas and others
will go down in history.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Is the first step of the movement to take your
guns away. The wall, I have.
Speaker 6 (03:11):
To tell you, Jucture is no.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
I'm going to stop your llegal immigration wall is an immorality.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
What we need is a virtual border filled giant wall
from sea to shining sea.
Speaker 6 (03:23):
Makes no sense. What's what?
Speaker 3 (03:25):
So?
Speaker 1 (03:32):
So, it is election day in Texas with the primaries
(04:07):
that will choose the nominees who will face off in November.
We have a very interesting statewide race for the US
Senate nomination for the Democrats. A white liberal named James
tallerco a black woman named Jasmine Crockett. She's a congressman,
(04:28):
he's a state rep. It's about a fifty to fifty
race the betting odds or that tall Rico wins. I
think there's a decent shot that Jasmine Crockett wins. I
don't normally make predictions because I don't find them to
be very interesting, but I will tell you where I
(04:49):
think there is a chance that something could happen. It
doesn't mean I predicted it will, but I think there's
a good chance that Jasmine Crockett manages to win the
Democrat nomine I hope she does, because she's a weaker
candidate to run against.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
But there is.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
It's all going to be a turnout battle. It's going
to be a question of turnout. And the Democrat primary
when you have a white liberal and a black candidate,
gets very, very interesting because race is everything to the Democrats.
And yeah, so we'll we'll, we'll wait and see. On
the Republican side, you've got a sitting senator in John Cornyn,
(05:33):
who is a four term senator, twenty four years. He's
been there. He has opposed Trump. Therefore, Trump has not
endorsed him. He has opposed the border wall, said he
supported it, that he didn't support it. He's on record
doing both. But most recently he now says, you know,
he's a big he's big for the border wall and
and for border protection because that will help him in
(05:56):
his election. Every six years we call him John Wayne mccornyan.
Every six years, this conservative Texan who's just like us emerges.
And look, we got primaries today in Arkansas and North Carolina.
These themes come up, these swamp creatures who who tell
us what we want to hear, then go off to
DC and screw the lobbyists and get paid by the
(06:19):
lobbyists and all these sorts of things. And then and
then when they're up for election every two years for congressman,
every six years for senators for senator, they come back
and they tell us their weathers again, and they do
the research to find out what turns us on, and
they tell us that, and it's so hard to beat
them because they've got the name idea, and they've got
(06:41):
the money that the swamp paid. Once you're in the club,
the swamp covers your bills and as long as you
do what the swamp wants. Now, if you don't do
what the swamp wants, they'll kick you out. But as
long as you do what the swamp wants, you've got
a career of it. So once you get in the club,
you're in. Well, Cornyn is the oh swamp creature. But
(07:01):
he's being challenged by our Attorney General Ken Paxton, who,
according to the polling, is leading in the race, Anne
Wesley Hunt, who's a relatively new congressman, but he's managed
to peel off some of that corning vote and so
it's very likely to be a runoff, could potentially could
(07:22):
potentially be a Paxton win without a runoff, but we
will see exactly that should be interesting. You've got Dan
Crenshaw who has managed to piss off apparently every Navy Seal,
every politician, the President. He's the only Republican incumbent running
for Congress in Texas that Donald Trump did not endorse
(07:45):
for reelection. So you've got some very very interesting elections
going on today. We're going to focus on Iran for
the next segment or two or so with our guest
Colonel Eric Navarro from the Middle East Forum. Will come
back to politics in the next hour, but just so
you know, we have not talked enough about Iran, and
we don't have any election updates yet per se because
(08:06):
that's going on today. So that's what's coming up. The
situation in Iran is very, very complicated, and a lot
of folks want to minimize or simplify that, but that
can't be done. It needs to be understood for what
exactly is going on and who the players are and
(08:28):
what is at stake, and that's not an easy thing
to do. We invite back to the program our expert
on Middle East matters. It's Colonel Eric Navarro, Director of
Military and Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum. Seasoned
military officer, business leader, and national security strategists, two combat
tours in Iraq, training evolutions, technology initiatives, real world operations
(08:50):
around the world, fascinating perspectives, and it's an honor to
have him back. Colonel Navarro. Let's start with why now?
Why I strike Iran?
Speaker 8 (09:01):
Now?
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Why not? Wait?
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Well, thanks for having me back. I think what happened
is this was a strategic opportunity that was presented to
both President Trump and then the Israelis. I don't think
it was originally planned. I believe that what happened is
during the Twelve day War and the strike. Even during
(09:24):
the twelve day War, there was an opportunity there. I
believe the President saw the amazing success the Israeli forces
had in decimating the Iranian air defenses and missiles and
leadership sites, command control sites, and that's when he decided
to strike the ford Al and other nuclear facilities to
(09:48):
strike a blow against Iran's nuclear program. So that was
one strategic opportunity that the President jumped down and sees.
That's what happens often in battle, you have a plan.
Obviously the enemy gets a vote. Then opportunities present themselves
on the battlefield, and if you don't seize them, they're
(10:08):
fleeting and you miss them and you may miss your
chance at ultimate victory. So here, based on the results
of the Twelve Day War and then the uprisings, the
popular uprisings in that country by the people that want
to take their country back, and then the subsequent you know,
suppression of those protests, that all created a started building
(10:30):
the conditions for the regime to be teetering on the
brink right now. The US has been seeking to undermine
and pressure the regime to give up its nuclear ambitions,
to give up its funding and fueling of the regional
chaos through its proxies, and it's been unsuccessful. And that's
(10:51):
just because they they were committed to their own cause
of regional domination and securing a nuclear weapon to protect
their theocratic regime. Right. So, as these conditions have been
set for the regimes to be teetering, it presented yet
another strategic opportunity to take advantage of. And I believe
(11:13):
that President and the Israelis, working in concert, understood the
gravity of the situation. This is twenty seven years in
the making, there are so many different advantages to being
able to take out this this terrorist regime that it
(11:34):
made sense to attack. Now. The other part, too, is
in its in its, and it's dying thros, the regime
is going to be more desperate and more flagrant about
their pursuit of weapons. I believe the latest briefing last
(11:54):
yesterday was talking about how they were already fart at
work rebuilding their ballistic missile stock files and pursuing the
nuclear weapons. So they were not going to stop. Uh
So it was time to actually take the fight to
them once and throw.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Colonel Navarro is our guest. I'm going to ask you
some very simple questions. I think. I think we tend
to speak on a very high level, and most public
conversations are that leave people behind that want of very
basic understanding of what's going on. And we shouldn't take
that for granted. The taxpayers pay for this, We staff
the worst. Let's talk about the dangers. What are the risks,
(12:34):
worst case and most likely case, because there are consequences
to this. We've already seen loss of life for instance.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Yeah, there's always risks in all these operations, and there's
always risk and strategic decision making. What you have to
do is weigh the benefits and the rewards of victory
versus the risks to those operations or those decisions to
be lost of life. When we sign up, we all
(13:04):
know that that's the potential. In fact, I'm actually, I
don't know if an interest your audience, I'm actually going
back on active duty to support the efforts starting tomorrow. Yeah,
and that's just because again, what we all need to
do our part. We need to support the folks that
are down range and try to support and achieve ultimate victory.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Now, how does that so? What does the logistics is
that decision you make or you are asked to read?
What does that look like?
Speaker 3 (13:33):
I offer to help. So I'm a reservist part of Marcent,
which supports Sycome Right, and so I offered. The team
is busy twenty four hours a day, obviously supporting the
forces that are executing the mission, and so I volunteered
(13:53):
to come in and help assist however I can. And
I would just say that that's kind of the ethos
that we all have. Those of us that served, they
are of us who have served. So it's not we're
not being put in harm's way willy nilly, or we
go in with our eyes wide open. We believe in
(14:15):
the mission, especially this one. This has some deep roots here.
We're talking again forty seven years. One of the first
acts of the Islamic regime was to take care of
people hostage. As a marine, I think personally we learn
about the Marine barracks bombings by Hesbelah, you know, the
(14:36):
Iranian proxy in the eighties, but also as an Iraq
war veteran, we had intel. We understood that the Iranians
were teaching and training Iraqi militias to develop and employ
what we call explosively formed penetrators, which are extremely deadly IEDs.
(14:56):
And I believe the numbers was at least six hundred
American troops were directly killed by these Iranian made id IDs.
So this was a threat for decades. And what I'll
be honestly, I'll be perfectly honest with your audience. I
don't know why it has taken up until President Trump
(15:18):
to finally do something decisive about this. For the longest time,
we have said this regime is a threat to regional
order and a direct threat to US personnel. Well, they
even tried to assassinate or were planning or plotting to
assassinate President Trump. So at what point do we say, Okay,
(15:40):
we must eliminate that threat.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
You know, I don't. Let me see if I have
little world. Let me see if I have the audio handy.
If not, we'll have. In the next segment. In two
thousand and eight, while she's running for president, Hillary Clinton says,
if she's president, there will be strikes on Iran. You
would attack Iran. It's just interesting. She goes on to
(16:03):
be Secretary of State for Barack Obama, who cut a
deal with them and sent palettes of cash. This has
been talked about for a very, very long time. We
have that audio, we'll play that. Coming up, our conversation
with Colonel Eric Navarro, director of Middle and Military and
Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum. Allow me to
(16:26):
introduce myself.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
My name is Mitch michael Berry, Genius.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
Our guest is Colonel Eric Navarro, the director of Military
and Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum, who will
go back active duty tomorrow in response to what's going
on in Iran, so putting his money where his mouth is,
putting his life on the line literally to serve his country.
And this effort. You asked sort of a rhetorical question,
(16:54):
Colonel Lavarrow. He said, I don't know why it's taken
till forty seven. Why does it take un till Trump
to do this, to strike Iran? Because in your opinion,
that's needed to have been done. This is Hillary Clinton
running for president in two thousand and eight, and I
want the.
Speaker 11 (17:09):
Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will
attack Iran. Whatever stage of development they might be in
their nuclear weapons program in the next ten years, during
which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel,
we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a
terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran
(17:30):
need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them
from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
It's fascinating that's eighteen years ago. You go Reagan, who
I think really brought them to heal when he comes
into office. You know, they wait until Reagan has sworn
in to release the hostages because they feared that he
would attack. But you know, then you go into Bush
and Clinton, and Bush and Obama and then Trump and Biden,
(18:06):
and here we are Trump again. And it's interesting because
this has been a thorn in the side of our
country for a very long time, regardless someone's opinions of
Israel and Israel's relationship with them. If you just look
at American involvement in Iran and their effects on our
wars and our lives, it is sort of surprising that
(18:27):
it hasn't happened until now. Do you have a reason
for that.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Well, it's long and complicated, but to put it, I'll
try to simplify it. We in this country for decades
have had a almost a week. When we fight wars,
we often have not fought to win them, and so
that has caused some of the complications in this For example,
(18:56):
the so called Forever Wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. We
won theil war right and then we lost the aftermath
because of planning or mission, mission expansion and whatnot. But
the point is, once you go in, you need to
go in to win right decisively at the strategic level
(19:16):
and crush the enemy. And until you crush the enemy,
what's going to happen is they'll keep reconstituting and coming back.
And that's the last several decades. That's exactly what has happened, right,
So what we're seeing now is that president is willing
to learn the lessons of failed campaigns prior to his
(19:38):
time in office and apply those lessons, but also to
give clear objectives and then say we must achieve those
objectives in order to finally end this conflict or end
this threat. And you heard that in his public comments
talking about we just we have to do it right.
This has been a long time in coming. We tried
(19:59):
to get a deal with them. I believe mister Wickoff
was on TV yesterday talking about one of the first
days that during these recently resumed talks, one of the
first days the Iranians came in and said, essentially, we're
still pursuing the program where we have enough to make
eleven nuclear weapons, and we're going to do it right.
Well again, when somebody tells you who they are over
(20:21):
and over and over again, you must accept it, and
if they're a threat, you must take them out.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Colonel Eric Navarro is our guests. I find it interesting
how many nations Iran has now hit. And obviously it
might appear that they're attacking Americans in hospitals, but they've managed,
you know, Jordan, Uae, Dubai. They've managed to make a
(20:48):
lot of enemies and do a lot of harm in
the Middle East. And I understand it's a complicated place.
This isn't Naser in fifty six trying to pull together
an Arab union. You have Shia and Sunni and the like.
But it does strike me that they're probably not making
any friends with their neighbors with strikes on countries that
might have been inclined to stay out.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Absolutely. But here's the thing. There's a couple of reasons
why this is happening. One on the ground level, most
of their leadership has been taken out, or a lot
of it. The command control nodes have been attacked and destroyed.
A lot of these launches are independent by the battery
commander or the on field commander that has probably old
(21:31):
orders that he's trying to issue others. It seems like
it's just they're lashing out, almost like the death throes
of the regime. Right they're disconnected there. There doesn't seem
to be a specific military strategic objective with this, other
than to lash down and try to cause as much
pain as possible in the region, maybe force the US
(21:52):
in Israel to cut the campaign short of its final objective.
It's not going to work. But then on top of that,
this gives the lie to the fact that it's only
the US and Israel. Right, so there's reports that Prince
mbs from Saudi Arabia was pushing the president to safe
these actions. We have other allies in the region that
(22:15):
wanted this threat and understood this threat needed to be eliminated,
right and now with the direct action against these countries,
they're even more hardened to go against this Iranian threat.
So if this regime is able to be eliminated and
the Iranian people freed to take their country back, it
(22:36):
will have positive effects throughout the region, both for security,
for economic reasons, and then strategically, it will be a
huge blow to China and Russia's ambitions in the region.
And we haven't even talked about that, but there's in
great power competition taking this energy and technology exchange that
Russia and China get from, you know, the exporter of
(23:00):
Heed drones to Russia and the exporting of oil to China.
That's a huge blow to both of those countries and
they're obviously are primary strategic geopolitical threats.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Well, let's move to that subject. There are number of
things that I want to cover, but China's you know,
I think I read three to four percent of their
oil was coming from Venezuela, and you know, they had
boot they had they had folks on the ground, whatever
their capacity was just just before we attacked and pulled
Maduro out. But then Iran is something like six to
(23:31):
eight times the percentage of oil they get from from
the Straight of Horn moves and this is a big
blow to their economy. They're trying to move obviously to
electric as much as possible. But I got about a
minute and a half here, and then we can pick
it up in the next segment. Where do you see
China's role in this and potential involvement, whether it be diplomatic, military, economic,
(23:52):
or whatever else.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
I think they're going to be standing by. I think
they're going to be shifting. If you notice, in both
Venezuela and Iran, when their proxies or their partner so
called partners come calling, they don't answer because they don't
want to get into a direct conflict with the US.
They view this as a long, long term issue where
(24:17):
they will become the global hegemon. Chinese look at it
through centuries. They think they had the long game, so
they will bide their time. But they're going to make
a mistake here. But they do not want to get
involved in any direct conflict, nor does Russia. I believe
there were phone calls made to Russia for support by
(24:37):
the Iranians, and the Russians gave them moral support and
nothing else. Right, So there's a lot of different complications
here or considerations by our adversaries, but at the end
of the day, peace, true strength actually works, especially when
the strength is demonstrated at this level.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
Lieutenant, it's our Colonel Eric Navarro is our gasity, director
of Military Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum. We
will continue our conversation. I want to talk about Russia's role,
if any, into what extends commute.
Speaker 3 (25:11):
Cattle. Cattle, I had a fine box.
Speaker 12 (25:16):
Und Michael Barry in the Colonal Eric Navarro, the director
of Military and Strategic Programs at the Middle East Forum,
is our guests.
Speaker 1 (25:26):
We're talking about Iran and what this means for the world. Uh,
you know the stock market, I haven't checked it since
earlier today, but uh, it took a little it took
a little dive this morning. There is some panic off,
and there is panic at a time like this. I
spent some time with my financial advisors this afternoon talking
(25:46):
about you know, we talk ahead of time about these
sorts of things and afterwards, and panic tends to be
a temporary thing. I'm not giving anybody financial advice, just
the way I approach it.
Speaker 3 (25:55):
There.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Uncertainty tends to make people very uncomfortable. But when people
start talking about World War three, they're typically not people
with the understanding of what that looks like or any
real experience or knowledge of it. They just panic, and
you know, sky's falling. World War three. Russia's involvement would
complicate things obviously, to what extent militarily economically do you
(26:17):
see Russia involved in this? Potentially?
Speaker 3 (26:20):
I don't think they're going to be involved at all.
They they are bogged down with the Ukraine fight. They're
not looking to get entangled in other fights. There's been
no evidence that they're they're willing to go directly with
any US or Israeli forces in any way. They'll pay
lip service to supporting you know, their their partners in
(26:44):
Iran or Venezuela. But at the same time. There's some
signs that there may be movement on the Ukrainian front
as far as diplomatically as a result of these operations.
But I will say we're in there. We're still in
the early days of this, so things can go, you know, sideways.
So that's why I think, you know, we need to
(27:06):
be completely focused on achieving the actual objective here. What
is that?
Speaker 1 (27:12):
I was gonna say, what is the objective?
Speaker 3 (27:15):
I think ultimately the objective is to destroy the Iranian
regime's ballistic missile program and nuclear weapons program, and its
ability to attack any of our forces in the region,
and its ability to suppress its own population. Now there's
a fine line between that and regime change. I think
(27:37):
what the President and others have said is it's not
directly trying to do regime change, but it's setting the
conditions to allow the Uranian people to take over take
back their country.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Yeah, and I guess we're moving perhaps beyond your immediate
area of expertise, but to the extents you feel comfortable
talking about it. I am very concerned that we just
have a natural outpouring of democrat stability. We've not seen
that in Iraq or Libya or Egypt, or a number
of other countries. I will tell you, I'm very concerned
(28:09):
as to what democracy looks like in countries that may
not among the populace share our values. Just because somebody's
posting a Twitter video doesn't mean that you have stability
of you know, or a middle class.
Speaker 3 (28:23):
You know.
Speaker 1 (28:23):
A lot of Iranis that could have been a part
of a government have fled the country, And I just
wonder about the institutions capable of birthing and incubating a
democratic society.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Understood. But I'll be honest with you, it doesn't necessarily
have to be a democracy or a Western style democracy.
In fact, that's kind of the flaw in our post
war Iraq posture, trying to impose Jeffersonian democracy in a
country that had no institutions to support that. Right, what
we're looking for is stability and a regime that is
(29:01):
not a threat to the US, to our allies in
the region, to global order, right, that's first and foremost.
If it's a democracy, that's all the better because we
know how successful it could be and how we could
be allied with such a country. But I will say
also that the Iranian Revolution, you know, they're The Iranian
(29:21):
populace was very sophisticated and modern and they just felt
prey to you know, the revolutionary at least a part
of the populace taken up in the revolutionary spirit against
the show to be clear.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Uh, same with Lebanon, Same with a number of countries, Turkey,
you know, for periods of time when secularism was more
of the norm. But this sort of we call it
radical Islam, this more orthodox doctrinal Islam, has has tended
toward this type of tyrannical, oppressive government. We've seen that
(30:02):
in Pakistan, which shares the same cultures as India, other
than the religious, but you look at the difference between
life in Pakistan and life in India and it's dramatic.
We've seen this in Syria, which once was Damascus was
a place you would have you'd have been happy to visit.
It's sort of to me the difference between Havana pre
(30:23):
Castro and post Castro, where you get these sort of
tyrannical regimes, whether they be Communist or Muslim, whatever the
reason for the tyranny, and life just goes to hell.
And we've seen a wave of this over the last
four decades across the country, and it's sad for the
people who live there. So this really is a great opportunity.
Speaker 3 (30:42):
Absolutely, and you're right, We've seen this around history. These
desk slots come in and immediately their popular population suffer.
I'm all for helping the Iranian people rebuild in a
positive an economically viable way, but I will say the
first and foremost objective is to ensure that the threat
(31:06):
posed by the Mulas is eliminated is UH and the
region is not under their way or that their proxies
suffer as a result too. Don't forget about the remaining prosties,
especially the Houthis and Yemen, which is one of my
particular areas of focus. UH. They're going to still exist
even if this is fully successful in Iran, and so
(31:29):
they'll still have to be vigilance there. They'll still have
to be potential operations to strike an that would.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
Concern you most, Colonel Vere What would concern you most
in terms of sparking this thing and you know, the
fire exiting the pit and and and raging and becoming
more of what we would refer to as the World
War sort of thing.
Speaker 3 (31:53):
Well, there's two parts to it. If this was the
most negative outcome would be that Iran was plunged into
a violent civil war between different factions buying for to
fill the power vacuum. And in that situation and in
that environment, if China or Iran were to get involved
to try to take advantage of it and shape events,
(32:14):
then that would be very concerning and something that we
got to deal with. But I will say I do
not think that that's going to happen, for a variety
of reasons. But for you know, again, peace to strength
is critical when that strength is demonstrated, right, It's not
just talking about it, right, it's actually demonstrating the capacity
(32:35):
to execute these operations in a route to the effective way, right,
the Maduro operation, Right, this operation, the initial days of
strikes to be able to essentially gain air supremacy in
twenty four hours and conduct operations continuously to continue to
attrit the adversaries in Iran. Right. Nobody is going to
(32:57):
see that and go oh, I want to get involved
in that. Right, And that's that's that goes all the
way back down to the schoolyard right with dealing with
schoolyard bullies, Right, you have to stand up to them.
Oftentimes you have to have to punch them in the face,
and that they still don't get that you got to
beat them up, right, And now that's that can be simplified,
overly simplified, but that's what happens. Here's the thing prior
(33:20):
to that. For too many decades, I want to go
back to this. Americans have gotten worked into thinking that
violence is always bad and war is always bad, and
that's just simply not the case. There are oftentimes throughout
history where violence actually solves problems, and that's what you're seeing.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
We could talk at lengths about the rule about the
tendency of where men and women look at conflict resolution differently,
but that would open a can of worms that I
will discuss at another time. Colonel Eric Namorrow, director of
Military's Take Strategic Programs they at the Middle East Forum,
who goes active duty tomorrow, good looks are and thank
(34:00):
you for your service.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
Thank you, m HM
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe
When a group of women from all over the country realise they all dated the same prolific romance scammer they vow to bring him to justice. In this brand new season of global number 1 hit podcast, The Girlfriends, Anna Sinfield meets a group of funny, feisty, determined women who all had the misfortune of dating a mysterious man named Derek Alldred. Trust Me Babe is a story about the protective forces of gossip, gut instinct, and trusting your besties and the group of women who took matters into their own hands to take down a fraudster when no one else would listen. If you’re affected by any of the themes in this show, our charity partners NO MORE have available resources at https://www.nomore.org. To learn more about romance scams, and to access specialised support, visit https://fightcybercrime.org/ The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe is produced by Novel for iHeartPodcasts. For more from Novel, visit https://novel.audio/. You can listen to new episodes of The Girlfriends: Trust Me Babe completely ad-free and 1 week early with an iHeart True Crime+ subscription, available exclusively on Apple Podcasts. Open your Apple Podcasts app, search for “iHeart True Crime+, and subscribe today!