June 23, 2025 • 11 mins
Sharon McMahon joins the show to give some insight into the U.S. bombing Iran over the weekend.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We want to talk to Sharon McMahon.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
But Sharon McMahon is kind of a friend of the
show and basically has I think it started out with
an Instagram with you know, that's how she got very
well known. And basically she's kind of a teacher and
wants people to know like the truth instead of like
the political politicized truth and all the you know, the
spin and that type of thing. So let's talk to Sharon.
(00:22):
And first of the question, did I do a good
job describing what you do, Sharon or did I leave
anything out? I know you're an author. Now I've actually
got your book. I've been reading your book. I brother
the chapter about Clara Brown because she's from Colorado. I'm
from Colorado. Fascinating book.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Really enjoy that.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah, what I do is complicated, but you know, America's
government teacher is one one name you could use for me.
So I appreciate it. And it's good to be with you.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Well, thanks for being here. We were kind of surprised.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
You mean, it's just kind of like people who said
on the sidelines and get our news here and there,
and and most people don't really know a lot about
the whole bombing and why we bombed and what was
going on. But then some people are very like excited
or happy that we did it, and some people are not.
There are two sides, Sharon, talk to me about the
two sides, the pros and cons or however you wanted
(01:14):
to address the bombing of Iran.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Yeah, I think it's a great discussion to be having
because we you know, it helps us better understand our
own history and our own foreign policy. So here's one side.
The pro side for having gone in and bombed three
nuclear sites in Iran. The pro side is that Iran
is an evil regime. They are the largest state sponsor
(01:40):
of terror. They indiscriminately kill women and children, the elderly,
They kidnap people. The Islamic Republic of Iran actively engages
in crucifixion in the year twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
That's rruci fiction, which is not just something that you know.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
It's a horrible evil way to horse or someone till
they die.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yes, they use amputations and blindings as punishment. So these
are not good guys in this scenario. We can all
get on board with that. Now, what do you do
about not good guys? That's the question, of course. So
the idea is that, you know, if you're thinking about
the pro side, we should not let the Islamic Republic
of Iran have nuclear weapons. They can't be trusted with them.
(02:27):
That's the pro side. And Israel has spent the last
couple of weeks bombing with air strikes of course Iran's
military capabilities, decimating huge amounts of Iran's air force and
other military sites. So Iran's military capabilities are currently greatly weakened.
(02:48):
So this was seen by President Trump as an advantageous
time to strike. Better to get them before they have
nuclear weapons than after, and better to get them when
they are weakened than when they are in a position
of strikes. So that's sort of the pro side. The conside,
of course, is that this is an act of aggression
on the part of the United States. That's pretty obvious.
(03:10):
Whether or not it is justifiable is another question, of course.
But the other thing about this is that there doesn't
appear to have been an actual imminent threat to the
United States in the sense of like any day now,
Iran is going to drop a nuclear weapon on New
York City. There's no intelligence that says anything like that.
(03:31):
In fact, our own intelligence says the opposite, that they
were not, in fact just about ready to pull the
trigger on developing nuclear weapons. So you know, the other
one other thing I'll add to that is that it
does make us more vulnerable in the Middle East. The
United States has dozens of military sites in the Middle East.
We have forty thousand troops stationed there right now, right
(03:54):
and it does make our military sites in the Middle
East more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and other other types
of retaliation from Iran.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Okay, now that we're talking with Sharon McMahon, h And
by the way, I'm gonna mention you have a newsletter
letter out that you can sign up for. It's a
preamble dot com.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Is it the preamble dot com?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
The Preamble dot com?
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Yes, okay, And.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So we're we want to talk about this because we
never get political on the show. But this was such
a big story and this could be one of the
defining moments of the current presidency. But a lot of
people are worried that is this going to turn into
because you know Trump's ideas. I see it is like
now they're gonna come to the table and they're gonna
want peace because they know that we you know, we've
got them. But then there are other people say, no,
(04:43):
this is going to lead to a prolonged, generations long war. Now,
I know you can't predict the future, but what concerns
you or what do you want to say about that?
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Yeah, so the first thing I want people to remember
is that Iran does not have the military capability of
making mainland United States. They don't have.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
The abilities A lot of people thinks they do.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Yeah, yeah, they do not. They can hit United States
interests overseas. That's not to say that our military sites
in the forty thousand troops we have stationed in the
Gulf area are not highly important.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
They are.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
They do not have the capability of striking the US,
but our military interests of forty thousand servicemen and women
around the Middle East could be in imminent danger.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Well. They they have demonstrated for decades their willingness to
use terror. That's that is really what they specialize in.
And they fund proxy groups like Hamas has the Law
who these other militant groups who use terror as well.
So even if they want to say, you know, have
plausible deniabilities like oh it has Belah, they pay those
(05:51):
militant groups, they pay, provide them with weapons, et cetera.
So again, it's not that there is going to be
some kind of nuclear attack on the United States. Iron
doesn't have nuclear weapons, they can't strike the mainland the
United States. But it does not mean that we are
not more vulnerable elsewhere in the world. Right now, that's
(06:11):
just a very honest trade off of having taken these actions.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I want to ask you this one too, because now
people are saying that they will activate sleeper cells. It
sounds like kind of a John Clancy novel that they're
going to activate terror ast sleeper cells here in the
United States.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Does that concern you?
Speaker 3 (06:30):
It does, given their ability or their propensity, I should say,
to engage in terror and knowing that they don't have
the ability to have sort of a might versus might
fight with the United States. Of course they don't. We
have a far larger military capability than they do. They're
going to potentially want to use whatever types of strike
(06:52):
they can be involved in, and frankly, a stoking fear
is part of the strat g the idea that like, well,
we're going to activate the sleeper cells. Get ready for
another nine to eleven. That actually is terrifying to many Americans.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Sure, yeah, like you're into a ballgame or going to
a you know whatever. I don't want to say suggestions
because I don't want to be able to go, oh
yeah that, but you're right.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Now, it makes us afraid to go out in public.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Yes, yes, you know we the idea that you would
make somebody scared is part of the strategy. So you know,
I'm not part of the intelligence community, and I can't
tell you exactly how many sleeper cells we're monitoring in
the United States and how many plots we have you know,
foiled or are working on foiling right now. But I
(07:44):
would certainly not take take to acts of terror, either
in the United States or at our interests elsewhere. I
would not take that off the table.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Let me ask you, because we're talking to Sharon McMahon,
who is basically like America's history political teacher without being partisan,
and we just love sharing because she doesn't spin things.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
She tells us the way they really are. I want
to ask you.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
There are people who are saying that what Trump did
without congressional approval was illegal and is an impeachable offense.
And other people are saying, no, we're glad that he
did it. He needed to do this because they could
have been very dangerous. So where do you come down
on that one? What do you know about that?
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Yeah? In fact, if people are interested in the full story,
I have a whole breakdown of it on the preamble
dot com today, but I'll give you a brief summary here.
It is true that only Congress has the power to
declare war. But it's also true that the Constitution gives
the title of Commander in Chief to the president, and
the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly said that presidents have the
(08:49):
right to conduct foreign policy, that Congress has very little
input when it comes to foreign policy. So you know,
there are other confounding factors like the War Powers Act
of nineteen seven three that preclude a president from engaging
the United States military and long term, prolonged military conflict
like they did in Vietnam without congressional approval. That said,
(09:13):
here's here's the flip side. Every single president of the
modern era, including Joe Biden, including Barack Obama, including Donald
Trump during his first term, including Bill Clinton, including Ronald Reagan,
they have all engaged in military air strikes without congressional approval. Now,
(09:34):
you can like what Donald Trump did in Iran, you
could dislike it. You can say that he should not
have done it. Those are legitimate things to discuss and debate.
But it took Joe Biden one month to engage in
airstrikes without congressional approval when he was president. And yes,
people said the same thing to Joe Biden. It's unconstitutional
for you to act without congressional approval. So this is
(09:56):
not a new debate. This debate is not new to
Donald Trump. The conflict with I that's new. But the
concept of a president acting using a military without congressional approval,
that's not a new debate.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Okay, I'm so glad we had you on because I've
heard that flare up over the weekend and now I've
decided not to listen to my uncle Archie on Facebook
that he is telling me about what because I really
I thought he had a lot of credit. Last question, Sharon,
I appreciate your time so much, Vaunt, and people that
are twenty three years old or have a twenty three
year old are concerned about, Oh my god, in the future,
(10:29):
is this going to mean Vaut's going to be suiting
up with a United States Marine Corps and being launched
onto the beaches some Does this mean any anything for
military service for young people in.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
Terms of a draft. No, the United States has a
two million member voluntary army where you voluntarily sign up.
There is no scenario that is being planned for right
now that would mean, you know, we're going to need
more than two million military members. The nature of warfare
has changed. A lot of it is done via drone.
(11:01):
That's not to say that there is no possibility of
a larger conflict, but there's really not a scenario on
the immediate near future horizon in which young people are
going to be drafted into service.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Well that's reassuring. Is that a haircut? Appointment later?
Speaker 2 (11:15):
So Sharon a couple of things. First of all, her
newsletter is I think it's a daily the Preamble dot com.
You're on Instagram, Sharon says, So that's how we found you.
And you've got the book out which I got for
Father's Day from a guy that I'm not even his father,
but it's called The Small and the Mighty, And shout
out to Nate forgetting that for me, and I really
(11:36):
like it. So Sharon we love you. Thanks for being
on much more reliable than my uncle Archie. I appreciate
you and good luck, and thanks for staying in touch
with us.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
My pleasure, I see you again
We want to talk to Sharon McMahon.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
But Sharon McMahon is kind of a friend of the
show and basically has I think it started out with
an Instagram with you know, that's how she got very
well known. And basically she's kind of a teacher and
wants people to know like the truth instead of like
the political politicized truth and all the you know, the
spin and that type of thing. So let's talk to Sharon.
(00:22):
And first of the question, did I do a good
job describing what you do, Sharon or did I leave
anything out? I know you're an author. Now I've actually
got your book. I've been reading your book. I brother
the chapter about Clara Brown because she's from Colorado. I'm
from Colorado. Fascinating book.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Really enjoy that.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah, what I do is complicated, but you know, America's
government teacher is one one name you could use for me.
So I appreciate it. And it's good to be with you.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Well, thanks for being here. We were kind of surprised.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
You mean, it's just kind of like people who said
on the sidelines and get our news here and there,
and and most people don't really know a lot about
the whole bombing and why we bombed and what was
going on. But then some people are very like excited
or happy that we did it, and some people are not.
There are two sides, Sharon, talk to me about the
two sides, the pros and cons or however you wanted
(01:14):
to address the bombing of Iran.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Yeah, I think it's a great discussion to be having
because we you know, it helps us better understand our
own history and our own foreign policy. So here's one side.
The pro side for having gone in and bombed three
nuclear sites in Iran. The pro side is that Iran
is an evil regime. They are the largest state sponsor
(01:40):
of terror. They indiscriminately kill women and children, the elderly,
They kidnap people. The Islamic Republic of Iran actively engages
in crucifixion in the year twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
That's rruci fiction, which is not just something that you know.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
It's a horrible evil way to horse or someone till
they die.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yes, they use amputations and blindings as punishment. So these
are not good guys in this scenario. We can all
get on board with that. Now, what do you do
about not good guys? That's the question, of course. So
the idea is that, you know, if you're thinking about
the pro side, we should not let the Islamic Republic
of Iran have nuclear weapons. They can't be trusted with them.
(02:27):
That's the pro side. And Israel has spent the last
couple of weeks bombing with air strikes of course Iran's
military capabilities, decimating huge amounts of Iran's air force and
other military sites. So Iran's military capabilities are currently greatly weakened.
(02:48):
So this was seen by President Trump as an advantageous
time to strike. Better to get them before they have
nuclear weapons than after, and better to get them when
they are weakened than when they are in a position
of strikes. So that's sort of the pro side. The conside,
of course, is that this is an act of aggression
on the part of the United States. That's pretty obvious.
(03:10):
Whether or not it is justifiable is another question, of course.
But the other thing about this is that there doesn't
appear to have been an actual imminent threat to the
United States in the sense of like any day now,
Iran is going to drop a nuclear weapon on New
York City. There's no intelligence that says anything like that.
(03:31):
In fact, our own intelligence says the opposite, that they
were not, in fact just about ready to pull the
trigger on developing nuclear weapons. So you know, the other
one other thing I'll add to that is that it
does make us more vulnerable in the Middle East. The
United States has dozens of military sites in the Middle East.
We have forty thousand troops stationed there right now, right
(03:54):
and it does make our military sites in the Middle
East more vulnerable to terrorist attacks and other other types
of retaliation from Iran.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Okay, now that we're talking with Sharon McMahon, h And
by the way, I'm gonna mention you have a newsletter
letter out that you can sign up for. It's a
preamble dot com.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Is it the preamble dot com?
Speaker 3 (04:18):
The Preamble dot com?
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Yes, okay, And.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
So we're we want to talk about this because we
never get political on the show. But this was such
a big story and this could be one of the
defining moments of the current presidency. But a lot of
people are worried that is this going to turn into
because you know Trump's ideas. I see it is like
now they're gonna come to the table and they're gonna
want peace because they know that we you know, we've
got them. But then there are other people say, no,
(04:43):
this is going to lead to a prolonged, generations long war. Now,
I know you can't predict the future, but what concerns
you or what do you want to say about that?
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Yeah, so the first thing I want people to remember
is that Iran does not have the military capability of
making mainland United States. They don't have.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
The abilities A lot of people thinks they do.
Speaker 3 (05:04):
Yeah, yeah, they do not. They can hit United States
interests overseas. That's not to say that our military sites
in the forty thousand troops we have stationed in the
Gulf area are not highly important.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
They are.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
They do not have the capability of striking the US,
but our military interests of forty thousand servicemen and women
around the Middle East could be in imminent danger.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Well. They they have demonstrated for decades their willingness to
use terror. That's that is really what they specialize in.
And they fund proxy groups like Hamas has the Law
who these other militant groups who use terror as well.
So even if they want to say, you know, have
plausible deniabilities like oh it has Belah, they pay those
(05:51):
militant groups, they pay, provide them with weapons, et cetera.
So again, it's not that there is going to be
some kind of nuclear attack on the United States. Iron
doesn't have nuclear weapons, they can't strike the mainland the
United States. But it does not mean that we are
not more vulnerable elsewhere in the world. Right now, that's
(06:11):
just a very honest trade off of having taken these actions.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
I want to ask you this one too, because now
people are saying that they will activate sleeper cells. It
sounds like kind of a John Clancy novel that they're
going to activate terror ast sleeper cells here in the
United States.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Does that concern you?
Speaker 3 (06:30):
It does, given their ability or their propensity, I should say,
to engage in terror and knowing that they don't have
the ability to have sort of a might versus might
fight with the United States. Of course they don't. We
have a far larger military capability than they do. They're
going to potentially want to use whatever types of strike
(06:52):
they can be involved in, and frankly, a stoking fear
is part of the strat g the idea that like, well,
we're going to activate the sleeper cells. Get ready for
another nine to eleven. That actually is terrifying to many Americans.
Speaker 2 (07:09):
Sure, yeah, like you're into a ballgame or going to
a you know whatever. I don't want to say suggestions
because I don't want to be able to go, oh
yeah that, but you're right.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
Now, it makes us afraid to go out in public.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Yes, yes, you know we the idea that you would
make somebody scared is part of the strategy. So you know,
I'm not part of the intelligence community, and I can't
tell you exactly how many sleeper cells we're monitoring in
the United States and how many plots we have you know,
foiled or are working on foiling right now. But I
(07:44):
would certainly not take take to acts of terror, either
in the United States or at our interests elsewhere. I
would not take that off the table.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Let me ask you, because we're talking to Sharon McMahon,
who is basically like America's history political teacher without being partisan,
and we just love sharing because she doesn't spin things.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
She tells us the way they really are. I want
to ask you.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
There are people who are saying that what Trump did
without congressional approval was illegal and is an impeachable offense.
And other people are saying, no, we're glad that he
did it. He needed to do this because they could
have been very dangerous. So where do you come down
on that one? What do you know about that?
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Yeah? In fact, if people are interested in the full story,
I have a whole breakdown of it on the preamble
dot com today, but I'll give you a brief summary here.
It is true that only Congress has the power to
declare war. But it's also true that the Constitution gives
the title of Commander in Chief to the president, and
the Supreme Court has overwhelmingly said that presidents have the
(08:49):
right to conduct foreign policy, that Congress has very little
input when it comes to foreign policy. So you know,
there are other confounding factors like the War Powers Act
of nineteen seven three that preclude a president from engaging
the United States military and long term, prolonged military conflict
like they did in Vietnam without congressional approval. That said,
(09:13):
here's here's the flip side. Every single president of the
modern era, including Joe Biden, including Barack Obama, including Donald
Trump during his first term, including Bill Clinton, including Ronald Reagan,
they have all engaged in military air strikes without congressional approval. Now,
(09:34):
you can like what Donald Trump did in Iran, you
could dislike it. You can say that he should not
have done it. Those are legitimate things to discuss and debate.
But it took Joe Biden one month to engage in
airstrikes without congressional approval when he was president. And yes,
people said the same thing to Joe Biden. It's unconstitutional
for you to act without congressional approval. So this is
(09:56):
not a new debate. This debate is not new to
Donald Trump. The conflict with I that's new. But the
concept of a president acting using a military without congressional approval,
that's not a new debate.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Okay, I'm so glad we had you on because I've
heard that flare up over the weekend and now I've
decided not to listen to my uncle Archie on Facebook
that he is telling me about what because I really
I thought he had a lot of credit. Last question, Sharon,
I appreciate your time so much, Vaunt, and people that
are twenty three years old or have a twenty three
year old are concerned about, Oh my god, in the future,
(10:29):
is this going to mean Vaut's going to be suiting
up with a United States Marine Corps and being launched
onto the beaches some Does this mean any anything for
military service for young people in.
Speaker 3 (10:40):
Terms of a draft. No, the United States has a
two million member voluntary army where you voluntarily sign up.
There is no scenario that is being planned for right
now that would mean, you know, we're going to need
more than two million military members. The nature of warfare
has changed. A lot of it is done via drone.
(11:01):
That's not to say that there is no possibility of
a larger conflict, but there's really not a scenario on
the immediate near future horizon in which young people are
going to be drafted into service.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Well that's reassuring. Is that a haircut? Appointment later?
Speaker 2 (11:15):
So Sharon a couple of things. First of all, her
newsletter is I think it's a daily the Preamble dot com.
You're on Instagram, Sharon says, So that's how we found you.
And you've got the book out which I got for
Father's Day from a guy that I'm not even his father,
but it's called The Small and the Mighty, And shout
out to Nate forgetting that for me, and I really
(11:36):
like it. So Sharon we love you. Thanks for being
on much more reliable than my uncle Archie. I appreciate
you and good luck, and thanks for staying in touch
with us.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
My pleasure, I see you again
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!
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
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides.  Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer  Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.