Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Jun 23 2025

The hosts dive into breaking news about escalating tensions between Iran and the United States following President Trump's ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Buck returns from France to discuss how Trump authorized "Bunker Buster" strikes targeting three main nuclear facilities in Iran over the weekend, causing substantial damage. The hosts examine the partisan response, noting that Democrats like AOC quickly called for Trump's impeachment over the military action, which Clay and Buck find hypocritical given similar actions during previous administrations.

The conversation shifts to developing news about Iran's retaliatory missile strikes, with reports of explosions over Doha, Qatar, where U.S. military bases are located. The hosts discuss Iran's announcement of "Operation Baat AFA" targeting American bases, comparing it to Iran's response after the Soleimani assassination when Iran fired approximately 100 missiles at U.S. bases with minimal casualties

The hosts praise former President Trump's Saturday night address alongside Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and JD Vance, highlighting Rubio's compelling interview on CBS where he discussed Iran's nuclear ambitions and their deteriorating infrastructure. The conversation also explores how authoritarian regimes like Iran respond primarily to shows of strength rather than diplomatic arguments. Clay and Buck suggest that the Biden administration's perceived weakness, particularly after the Afghanistan withdrawal, emboldened adversaries, contrasting this with Trump's approach to foreign policy.

The hosts address some criticism from Republican figures, particularly Marjorie Taylor Greene's claim that the US was entering "World War III," which they characterized as an overreaction to current events in the Middle East. 

Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome everybody to the Monday edition of The Clay Travis
and Buck Sexton Show. I am back from France and
very happy to be here with all of you. Still
not one hundred percent on the voice. Sorry about that.
Got a little sick when I was abroad. No shot there.
I don't know, man, this Miami situation, Clay, my immune
system is not what it used to be. If I
don't have perfect weather and the beach nearby that.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
All the time, anytime you leave and go anywhere. Now
that you're in perfect weather all the time around a
little bit of a subtle shock. You got to get
back to the New York City, got it back to
eaton and you know, rat infested pizza parlors in New
York City, to get the immune system back up and running.

Speaker 1 (00:42):
You know, communism one of the things you wouldn't expect.
Maybe good for the immune system. Speaking of New York,
we got a lot of stories. Obviously, the Iran situation
will dive into I haven't had a chance to talk
to about it yet. I'm gone just about a week.
And you know, sure enough, Clay almost gets us into
World War three? Who knew, Clay? What are you doing buddy.
You know, I thought you might throw a party. I
didn't think you might start a global conflict. But we've

(01:03):
got a lot to get into with Iran and the
strikes there over the weekend. As you know, President Trump
ordered the bunker busters to be used and substantial damage
done to the three main nuclear facilities in Iran. In Iran,
We've got also some live updates on that one coming
from the news wires here. In just a moment I
mentioned New York City though. This guy's Zoran Mamadani, who

(01:28):
is really a shocking socialist, I mean, is a straight
out of He's actually even crazier I think than Bernie
Sanders in some ways. He is surging ahead in the
Democrat primary polling in my old hometown of New York,
which is just going to be disastrous if he ends
up as much as I I don't know. I despise

(01:50):
Cuoma because of what he did during COVID, but I
don't think he is a complete lunatic. I think this
guy is a total lunatic politically speaking. He's out of
his mind Mamdani. So we'll get into that. We've also
got gosh, so much as is generally the case on
a Monday, the President weighing in on what will happen

(02:10):
if anybody decides to mess with us. The Iran strikes
obviously occurred over the weekend the US involved. Last I remember,
Clay and I were in the Oval Office a few
hours later these strikes on Ironica by the Israeli Air Force.
That was last not this Thursday, the Thursday before, right

(02:30):
Thursday before that. And so here we are now really
two weeks into this conflict, and over this weekend, President
Trump ordered the deployment of our two point four billion
dollars apiece, when you add the full scope of the program,
in B two bombers, also Tomahawk missiles fired from our
nuclear subs. So two of the three parts of the

(02:54):
nuclear triad involved in the strikes are nuclear triad involved
in the strikes on these reactors and these research facilities
that the Iranians had been operating and refused to negotiate
their way out of this story right now. And look
my assessment, some of you were asking, and it was
really because I was overseas and I was six hours ahead,
and mysel you know, I had to make sure that

(03:16):
I was paying attention to world events while also representing
US abroad for our wonderful advertisers or possible advertisers. But Clay,
I think that a lot of what you've shared on
the strikes I would agree with in terms of its
incredible military precision. Tactically, both the Israeli and American components

(03:39):
of this have been remarkable, and the Iranian response has
been far more inept and weak than I would have
even anticipated. We could have witnessed what I would call
the greatest aerial strike success, certainly in this century and
perhaps even going back a century. Now we are waiting

(04:03):
to see what comes of this, Clay. We've got the
imminent threat. This is the big headline across Fox News
and other sites right now. This look, this is the concern.
Right The concern is what is the the blowback? What
are the consequences of these strikes? We worry about terrorist cells.
I think that's the highest likelihood threat, but also the

(04:23):
lowest impact threat against US strategic interests. You know of
some lunatic somewhere, you know, God forbid, but he shoots
a few people or worse, that's not going to change
the trajectory of the war of the Middle East. It's
just a spie act of a terrorist or spiteful act
of a terrorist. But you have something here where you
have military action that is apparently imminent from the Iranian

(04:45):
regime firing at bases in our US base and Cutter,
so striking obviously Katari soil and going after or rather
you know, in the sovereignty of Cutter, going after US
base is placed there. If this happens, I think we
can expect a major escalation, a retaliatory escalation clay from Trump.

(05:06):
And I think that this is the concern a lot
of people have. What we've seen so far has been
a remarkable success. What happens next is the big question.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
Look, I think welcome back and glad to have you
back stateside. And I think that Trump had to make
the most consequential decision of his presidency so far, and
I think he made the right one. And so Saturday
evening we attacked the B two bomber pilots, all of

(05:38):
the individuals who fired the shots from our submarines. It's
an incredible statement for American no how and I think
you also have to extend it. We have talked a
lot about this. There were no leaks. Trump one point
zero was a sieve. Everything immediately got out Trump two

(06:00):
point zero, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Jade Vance, obviously Trump himself,
everybody in the National Security team, Tulca Gabbard. They delivered
a magisterial plan and performance in terms of the attacks.

Speaker 3 (06:17):
Now you went through this once before.

Speaker 2 (06:22):
To me, the question that we are monitoring, as we
are speaking to all of you, is how will Iran respond?
And there seems to be an expectation that they will
respond in some way by attempting to attack American forces
in the Middle East, which is not dissimilar to what happened.
And you could probably speak to this very well. After

(06:44):
Trump killed Cassim Solimani and so many people out there said, oh, Mike,
you remember World War III was trending. Everybody lost their minds.
There were injuries to American troops, thankfully no deaths, and
then it was like, okay, Iran got to have their
public reprisal against the Great Satan, but it was not

(07:08):
a substantial response in terms of its devastating impact by
any stretch of the imagination.

Speaker 3 (07:15):
And we moved on.

Speaker 2 (07:16):
I wonder what the decision is going to be of
the Ayah tolas from a face saving perspective, what will
they do now? I think is one of the questions
that lingers. I think you would sign off with me
on Trump's decision to wipe out much of the nuclear
capabilities of Iran sent an important message. It was necessary

(07:37):
since Iran seemed to have no interest in actually negotiating.
We kind of forecast that this would be likely the outcome.
I think the vast majority of the Trump supporters, voters,
all of you out there listening, agree, Some disagree, and
that's okay. It's healthy to disagree. We should have big
debates in public on major issues. But I think now

(07:57):
the question is what's next.

Speaker 1 (08:00):
Thing that it's not a finished situation by any means,
and so for anyone to come to a conclusion on this, uh,
you know, you have to remember everyone I worked in
that Office of Iraq Analysis, it was called actually OIA,
that had been the place that was also responsible for
before I got there. Don't blame me for the WMD

(08:22):
analysis largely in Iraq. And to look at what the
Iraq War was, now that's a that's a full scale invasion.
It's very different. I understand this, and one of the
problems we have here is that people can pick there,
you know, is this is this World War two and
Neville Chamberlain situation, or is this Gulf of Tonkin incident
or is the Everyone can pick whatever the historical analogy

(08:44):
they want is for the situation and try to find
a way to fit this in. This is a no surprise,
is a unique and complicated circumstance that is specific to
exactly what we are seeing here. Meaning you can draw
some lessons from others, but nothing else. Is a roadmap
for this because this is still happening and this is

(09:04):
different from everything else that we have seen. Can the
government lie to you? Yes? Absolutely? Is mission creeper real thing? Absolutely?
Should there be concerns about you know, those as well
as other aspects of this, Yes there should. However, so far,
what we've seen is the Irani nuclear program brought to
an end with minimal casualties both on the good guy

(09:26):
side and minimal civilian casualties on the Iranian side, and
the response from the Iranians has been almost nothing. I mean,
let's just call up what it is. The Iranians have been,
I think taken very much by surprise by how effective
these strikes were and as I said initially when this
first happened, when the Israelis opened up, if you have

(09:49):
a great capability to counter attack somebody, you don't let
your entire military leadership get wiped out in the first
hour of the war. Okay, that's the truth. There's no
playing possible, there's no oh wait, we we're lulling them
into a full sense of false sense of security by
letting them take out, you know, most of our major
military assets, most of our military leadership. No, of course not.

(10:13):
So you're talking about a largely defanged Iranian military. Certainly
for external operations at this point. It's very different when
you get into something like nation building or counterinsurgency or
regime change or anything like that. Then it's just people
walking around the streets with Ak forty sevens. Can you
know ruin a much larger armory. We've we've learned that lesson,

(10:35):
but we're not there. So we need to line these
things up with where we are. And I just clay
one thing. I was observing a lot of this as
I was in France and doing my thing and smoking
my Actually I did not smoke any gal was because
that would have been that would have been bad for
my could But I observed all these things, and people
want to declare things as either right, that they were

(10:57):
either right or wrong based on what's happened. And I
would just say that nobody knows yet. Really. If you've
been saying world War three would break out right away, yeah,
clearly that's not true. The notion that the Iranian that
the Iranians we're going to be able to turn to
Russia and China and those two countries were going to
militarily intervene against the United States or that's insane. And
I saw a lot of people saying that. Unfortunately, that's

(11:19):
just not based in any reality of anyone who understands
really how national security works at the most fundamental level,
because there's no interest in those countries in doing that.
Why would they do that? Doesn't make any sense. But
then again, we're waiting to see, as we talk to
you right now, in real time, if there are major
strikes on US military basis, and what that looks like
and what our countermeasures are. So I just say to everybody,

(11:42):
we don't know yet. We're watching this as it goes.
I think Trump made the right call. I think the
israelis so far were far more successful than most people
anticipated they could be this quickly. Now we see what
happens next. Now we see what the next phase is.
So we'll take calls on this and dive into it

(12:02):
more here and Clay's watching closely on the monitors as
we see. I mean, obviously we're thinking about our troops too,
and we don't want, we don't want to have any
losses on our side, so we'll watch the.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
I think what you hit as we go to break here,
Buck is super significant. Iran is isolated, and pay attention
to what people do, not always what they say. There's
nobody in the Middle East that has actually lined up
aggressively behind Iran. In fact, most of them are behind
Israel in the United States, And on top of that,
this idea that somehow China or Russia we're going to

(12:34):
get involved. China and Russia don't actually want I don't
think a nuclear Iran. I don't think they trust the
Ayatolas with nuclear weapons, and so they have been very
muted in their criticisms as well. Some countries are going
to chirp, but in terms of actions, I don't know
that we have ever seen Iran more isolated. In terms

(12:56):
of actual support and backing, which is why the idea
of oh what comes next.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
World War III?

Speaker 2 (13:03):
No, actually, there aren't people allied with Iran who were
willing to put themselves on the line over this. Now again,
we may well get an Iranian response officially live on
the air as this show progresses. Based on the way
things are looking right now, we will update you on
the latest there. But in terms of everything falling apart
after this strike, to me so far, it feels like

(13:25):
the Solmani assassination, where Iran talks a big game but
isn't able to actually respond in a significant way, and
maybe doesn't even want to respond in a significant way.

Speaker 1 (13:36):
I was aware, Clay very of the highest level discussions
back in the Iraq War days. I want to say,
you know, late in the Bush administration, early the Obama
administration in that era, high level discussions about what to
do when it came to the IRGC coulds force and
Solomoni and the consensus on the policy side, not from

(13:58):
the war. The war fighters wanted to take him out
because he was killing more fellow warfighters. He was just
handing these EFPs, explosedly foreign penetrators to the shea milicious
to deploy specifically against our troops. They wanted to take
them out. Policy communities said, oh no, it'll it'll create
so much of a you know, we'll have to worry
about the Arab streets so much or whatever. They were wrong.

(14:20):
So on the costom Solomoni thing, we saw the results.
We saw what happened to the people that said you
can't hit that guy. They were wrong and Trump proved
them wrong. So now we see it's going to take
a little more time. We see taking out the reactors,
the US getting involved in taking out the reactors. Was
this a brilliant master stroke tactically and otherwise to end

(14:41):
the Iranian regimes nuclear ambitions for the foreseeable future, or
is it something else we'll see. We know that the
media is getting very fired up about these stories this week,
but what's not getting a lot of attention is a
study under a view of our nation's largest assets and
whether they can be monetized for the benefit of a
sovereign wealth fund. There's at least one guy out there

(15:02):
who's out a history, a long one in DC and
Wall Street who's paying attention to this. His name is
Jim Rickards. He's one of those in the know people
with great insights on a potential forthcoming opportunity with huge
benefit to our nation and to you in particular. Jim
Rickards is tracking the possible creation of the first ever
national sovereign wealth fund. This is a fund that provides
a return to citizens or retires national debt, which benefits everybody.

(15:25):
Jim thinks that this could be coming because of an
asset buried under American soil that would allow us to
have a sovereign wealth fund. To hear more of Jim
Rickards thinking, go to Birthright twenty twenty five dot com.
A lot of this conversation is a result of President
Trump's instigation on this issue, could make Trump the most
popular president in history and help millions of investors with
their retirement. Go to birthright twenty twenty five dot com

(15:47):
to get the details free of charge. That's Birthright twenty
twenty five dot com paid for by Paradigm Press.

Speaker 3 (15:53):
You ain't imagining it. The world has gone insane.

Speaker 4 (15:58):
Reclaim your sanity and find them on the free iHeartRadio
app or wherever you get your podcast.

Speaker 1 (16:06):
Welcome back into play and Buck. We're still waiting for
the updates if and when they come in on this
reported the imminent threat against US military base in Cutter.
We've also got more updates from the region on what
Israel has been hitting. You see, Clay, they blew the
doors off of, or the gates off of the infamous

(16:29):
Evan prison in Iran, which is where they keep political prisoners,
you know, high profile prisoners. He's really just blew the
gates open. It's on the front page or on the
It's funny, I say front pages if I actually like
Clay read paper papers, but you know it's on the website.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
I was walking around trying to find paper paper this
morning in Michigan. I'm doing the show from up here,
and I finally found paper paper to sit down and
do all my reading.

Speaker 1 (16:56):
You and my dad, I don't even know he's you
guys can both also on a new around like it's
no problem. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (17:02):
Lad gets driven crazy by the amount of sound. And
even when I if there's a if there's an article
on multiple pages, She's like, I don't even want I
don't even want to read it.

Speaker 3 (17:11):
I don't know why they have to put it on
two pages.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
I co sign with her on that one. But here
is from the weekend. I wanted you to hear it
from President Trump himself. Remember, this is a big decision
made by the commander in chief to follow up the
Iranian strikes with a military capability that only the United
States has that really goes to among our most expensive

(17:35):
and a high tech and sensitive from a you know,
classified and proprietary perspective. I mean, this is something we
can do. No one else on the planet can do
what the US military did with these strikes in Iran.
President over the weekend, at about ten Eastern time on
Saturday addressed the nation. He had Jad Kerry and I

(17:57):
watched it live as it happened. I'm sure many of
you did a well, but just so you can get
a sense as to what the President's view of the
strikes does. This happened on Saturday. Some of you might
not have even heard it. This is cut one play it.

Speaker 5 (18:08):
A short time ago, the US military carried out massive
precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the
Iranian regime for Doau, Natanse, and s Fahan. Everybody heard
those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.

(18:31):
Our objective was the destruction of irans nuclear and richment capacity,
and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the
world's number one state sponsor of terror.

Speaker 1 (18:43):
Tonight, I can report to.

Speaker 5 (18:44):
The world that the strikes were a spectacular military success.
Iran's key nuclear and richmond facilities have been completely and
totally obliterated. Around the bully of the Middle East must
now make peace. If they do not, future attacks would
be far greater.

Speaker 1 (19:04):
And a lot easier. He made it very clear. First
of all, he's had spectacular success. And you know, President
Trump in what I think will be one of the
more memorable moments of not just his second term, but
really of his entire president presidency when all is said
and done, it's a big moment. Clay. We've been talking
about the Iranian nuclear facilities and possible strikes on them

(19:26):
for decades now. I mean, this has been a conversation
going on for a very long time. But notice this, Clay,
and this is the part of it that I think
has to be factored into our calculations about the success
of this and about the risk reward calculations. He's let
the Iranians know if you mess around, now, you know,
that's it. We did our thing, we hit your facility.

(19:47):
If you come at us with some terror strike or
you do something somewhere, we can hit you a lot
harder wherever we want to hit you. It's not worth
it to you. So the question is what is the
calculation made by the mulus, by the Iranian regime itself.
That's what remains to be seen, and we could be
finding out at any moment.

Speaker 2 (20:07):
Yeah, reports that the expected attack is in Qatar. I
mean question for you, if we have all of the
intel about where the attack is coming from, and theoretically
we're gonna remove our troops to keep them safe, how
much of letting them have a couple of missiles land

(20:27):
is just for show? In other words, it almost feels
like allowing your sparring partner to, you know, kind of
catch you one in the ribs when you know it's
coming and it's not actually in any kind of significant danger,
because you're giving them the opportunity to look like, hey,

(20:47):
we returned fire, even though look if on a scale
of one to ten, our attack on them was a ten,
if they punched back with a one, it's like, okay,
nothing really happened, But you're allowing them to face a bit.
I mean, how much of this is in other words,
kabooki theater or almost sparring on our side.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
This this brings up and I know a lot of
you and we'll take some calls and some talkbacks on
this because it's in there's in MAGA world. As you
all know, there are very very fervently held beliefs on
this particular issue that are not all in alignment. Okay,
you really have a non interventionist what are we doing?

(21:29):
Have we not learned the lessons wing of MAGA right now?
And then you have a Israel needs to not live
under the specter of nuclear threat from lunatics and this
is the time and we can do it, and we've
done it, and you know you have these two different
I'm very aware of this. I've been reading and a
lot of you know, some of the big voices on

(21:49):
one side, some of the big voices on the on
the other side. So we have room for this discussion here.
But Clay, to the point you're making it, it's about,
well do we want you know, there's we want. Let
me be very clear about how I'm saying this. There's
what we like a regime change to occur, and then
there's do we want to take part in any kind

(22:10):
of regime change? And do we realize if we go
with number two, what the implications of that may be.
Like there's these different phases or different tiers. I think
that the Trump administration wants a new government in Iran,
but I think they're very careful about not involving themselves
further in overthrowing the existing government, because we don't want

(22:33):
to be in a situation where there's Mission creep and
we're doing what you know that and and I completely
share that sentiment. We should not be rebuilding or in
charge of Iraq.

Speaker 2 (22:45):
You you were there so serving the country, So I mean,
you know which I know a lot of listeners were
I was not. Most listeners were not. I would imagine
your perspective, but I was. I was interested to hear
your perspective on this in particular. There are obviously differences
between Iran and Iraq, but your perspective would be But

(23:06):
I'm curious to hear having seen the United States try
to engineer a government in Iraq. Now, Iran was involved
in helping to try to stop that from being in
any way.

Speaker 3 (23:17):
Successful, deeply involved.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
I mean, it really subverted our efforts in the most
malicious ways they could.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
But yeah, and I think a lot of times people
miss that that Iran has been a malign influence basically
on any thing that could be good in the Middle
East for some time to come. But having been there,
I imagine you don't think it's a good idea to
have boots on the ground trying to impact in the
event there were regime change, the decisions made by the

(23:42):
Iranian people.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
It's a that would be an absolutely horrible idea, And
there's one that I would vociferously oppose in whatever ways
are available to me, having seen but Clay, not just
the reality in Iraq, the really in Afghanistan. Yeah, I
say even in two thousand. I was in Afghanistan in
twenty ten, and it was when Obama had decided that
this was the good war in Iraq was the bad war.

(24:05):
And anybody who was in Afghanistan then, and remember I
had essentially like delivery of I was almost like a
highly classified gopher. I would deliver classified among principles in theater.
So I would take the stuff to the ambassador, I
would take the stuff to the four star general, and
I mean I mean hand carry like you know, hard

(24:27):
copy stuff, and I just remember any of these and
I had to read the assessments. I had to be
familiar with what was going on. If you knew what
was going on in I Rock, I mean in Afghanistan
in twenty ten, you knew that the policy was failing
and had no chance of success. But what happens is
that at all everything gets cleaned up when you get
to the I wasn't in the military, but the guys

(24:48):
would say, when it gets to like the brigade or sorry,
it gets to the division level, and then the command level,
all the assessments from brigade and battalion and company, all
this stuff that the guys who are actually seeing it
gets cleaned up to, Yeah, we're doing great, it's working
really well, because the four star doesn't want to tell
the president your ideas suck and this is never going
to work, or you know, our ideas suck and this

(25:09):
is never gonna work. So, yeah, that is a lesson
that I think was learned very painfully by us in
both The Rock and Afghanistan. And so that's something that
we have to keep in mind here. But I think
that right now we're not there, not everything is, you know,
just like not everything is Vietnam, that everything is World
War two. This is its own situation and so far,

(25:30):
what do you do? You have an update on that?

Speaker 2 (25:32):
Yeah, we just got breaking news reports of explosions in
Qatar and this is from Baraka Revd I believe who's
a reporter at Axios.

Speaker 3 (25:42):
Sorry to interrupt.

Speaker 2 (25:42):
An Israeli official says Iran has launched six missiles towards
US bases in Qatar. So as we were telling you
that it was likely to happen.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
We will keep you.

Speaker 2 (25:53):
Updated on the absolute latest there. But that report just
coming down in the last two minutes or so.

Speaker 4 (25:59):
Well.

Speaker 1 (26:00):
Yes, so to your question though, so there's the regime
change conversation that factors in now to everything that comes
from this, you know, the aftermath of the US strikes
and the nuclear facilities. How do we avoid getting drawn
into that? I think there's pretty clear and I shouldn't
say universal or clear agreement, but there's pretty widespread agreement

(26:21):
among maga. I'm not even Democrats just hate Trump and
they hate every I can't even you know what do
they They just need to figure out why they exist
other than hating Trump. And that's their own problem in
terms of Republicans, in terms of the Trump Trump voters
out there, there's a I think, a broad rejection of
any intervention that would require US boots on the ground

(26:43):
or anything like that. But that's that's one thing that
we have now though we look at the escalator or
the escalation and back and forth that would happen after
something like this clay. If Iran hits military bases that
is a proportion response in some way to what we did.

(27:04):
That would not It doesn't mean that we're gonna like
allow them to do it. It doesn't mean that we
don't necessarily exact a price for them doing it, but
it wouldn't result and I think in escalation where we go, okay,
now we're really gonna make things more painful for Iran,
substantially more so than we already have, and then the
Israelis already had if they do something horrific, I mean,
I don't want to get into it, but something al
Qaeda style, which is really the concern here. The concern

(27:27):
is that the Iranian regime a IRGC who's every bit.
I mean, look at the bombing of the well that
was a military target, but you look at the bombing
Marine barracks. They've been involved in mass casualty terrorism in
the past. If they do that against the civilian target,
then I think the question turns to or the likelihood
is that the Trump administration goes and takes out the

(27:49):
remnants of senior Iranian leadership. That's I think Trump has
intimated that essentially. Okay, if you order, if the iatola
orders mass casualties murder anywhere in the world, you know,
against Americans, israelis your net like, then you are mulla omar.
We've bin laden in the Taliban, then we're in a

(28:09):
whole different world of how we're going to handle this.
So that's what I think remains to be seen. If
they just strike our military bases, I don't think not
that that's we told them not to do that. We
may hit their bases more in retaliation and say are
you done yet? Are you done yet? But if they
do something against civilians, then I think that you might

(28:29):
just decide, we might decide to decapitate what's left of
the regime. That's what I think could happen.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
Trump is in the situation room, by the way, which
suggests we'll give you the latest on this again, reports
that six different missiles fired by Iran at Qatar and
our military base presumably there.

Speaker 3 (28:47):
Again.

Speaker 2 (28:48):
This is we will give you the latest. There's video
out there showing those missiles coming in. It's night in
the in the Middle East right now, at least in Qatar,
and we'll give you the absolute latest on that. But
the reason why it suggests that we were very well
aware that this was coming is because the President was

(29:08):
already in the situation room, and I'm sure they are
monitoring in real time what exactly happens there.

Speaker 3 (29:16):
So we will give you the absolute latest. We come back.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
But Israeli citizens certainly appreciate solidarity our nation has shown
them over the past six hundred and thirty days since
the October seventh Hamas Terra attacks. Bill Ward's on display
today in Israel with the words thank you, mister President,
along with the picture of President Trump. Just twelve hours
after our nation's military targeted strikes in Iran. Iran has

(29:42):
fired back at Israel. This has been going on for
several days now, over a week, and the Fellowship is
doing everything they can to make room and make hay
for as many people as they possibly can, to make
sure that emergency rooms and shelters are fully stocked with
critical life saving supplies. That's why the Fellowship needs your

(30:03):
most generous gifts today to help make their work possible
in this incredible time of need in Israel. Now's your
time to stand with Israel's most vulnerable. To rush your gift.
Call eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's eight
eight eight four eight eight IFCJ. You can also go
online at IFCJ dot org. That's IFCJ dot org.

Speaker 4 (30:29):
Play Travis and Buck Sexton telling it like it is.
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.

Speaker 2 (30:37):
Iran has responded so far, it appears that they telegraphed
their actions. They are seeking to dial back after we
kicked their ass on Saturday night. Either they don't have
the ability to actually do anything to us, which is
probably true, and or they are afraid of what we
might do in response to them and Buck I loved

(31:01):
on Saturday night, when Trump came out about ten pm Eastern, Marco, Rubio,
Pete Hegseth, and jd Vance all arrayed behind him, spoke
for about three and a half minutes, and then his
top spokespeople Rubio Vance and Heg seth All spoke Sunday publicly,
and I thought did phenomenally well. But this, sorry, this

(31:24):
Marco Rubio versus Margaret Brennan on I think it's faced
the Nation or CBS News or wherever the heck she works.
Every time that it occurs, it just is an absolutely
epic beat down. And let's just play a couple of
a couple of these cuts. This is Rubio against Margaret
Brennan about cut twelve. Here, just to give you a

(31:49):
sense of the intellectual evisceration that took place on CBS
Sunday morning.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
This is what it sounded like.

Speaker 6 (31:56):
It doesn't matter if the order was given. They have
everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you
Why would you bury things in a mountain three hundred
feet under the ground, Why would you bury six Why
do they have sixty percent in rich uranium? You don't
need sixty percent in rich urrea. The only countries in
the world that have uranium at sixty percent are countries
that have nuclear weapons, because it can quickly make it
ninety They have all the elements they have. Why are

(32:17):
they why do they have a space program? Is Aran
going to go to the moon. No, they're trying to
build an ICBM.

Speaker 7 (32:21):
No.

Speaker 3 (32:21):
But that's a question.

Speaker 8 (32:22):
That's a question, that's a question of intent. And you
know in the intelligence assessment that it was that Iran
wanted to be a threshold. See you use those I'm
talking about what the intelligence March assessment. And that's why
I was asking you if you know something more from it.

Speaker 6 (32:36):
That's also an inaccurate representation of it. That's inaccurate representation
of it. That's not how intelligence is read. That's not
how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows.
Forget about intelligence, but the IAEA knows they are enriching
uranium well beyond anything you need for a for a
for a civil nuclear program.

Speaker 2 (32:56):
Uh okay, that's point one you want to play. Let's
play point two here, because I do think it goes
into the essence of the attacks that are being levied
here by left wing media, which it should be mentioned
many people out there said, oh my goodness, if we
do this, thousands of American troops are going to die.

Speaker 3 (33:13):
It's early, but we eviscerated.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
It appears the Iranian nuclear opportunity going forward, and Iran
basically rolled over and played dead. To your point, Buck,
they are effectively, after forty six years of Ayatola rule,
a third third world country that's being frankly passed rapidly

(33:37):
in their own region by the Saudi Arabia, the uae Qatar.
Countries that they used to look down on for generations
are now having way stronger economies, way better frankly military,
and way more success as a country.

Speaker 1 (33:52):
Yeah, Iran is an ancient and proud civilization that for
the last fifty years has in brought low by moron
theocrats who make everything worse for everybody in the country.
That's what's happened. You know. It's a bit like you
talked to Cuban Americans down here in South Florida about Cuba,

(34:12):
a beautiful island with great people who have been emmiserated
and enslaved by communist imbeciles since the Castro regime took power. Right,
I mean, this is unfortunately what it can happen in
some of these places. But here we've got Marco Rubio
cut two. You want to play this one, right, he
continues on dealing with Margaret bretton play it.

Speaker 6 (34:32):
Why would you enrich uranium at sixty percent. If you
don't intend to one day use it to take it
to ninety and build a weapon. Why are you developing ICBMs.
Why do you have eight thousand short range missiles in
two to three thousand long mid range missiles that you
continue to develop. Why do you do all these things
and have everything they need for a nuclear weapon. They
have the delivery mechanisms, they have the enrichment capability, they

(34:54):
have the highly enriched uranium that is stored. That's all
we need to see right hand. The regime that's already
in all than terrorism and proxies and all kinds of
things are on. They are the source of all.

Speaker 8 (35:04):
Yes, and no one's disputing, no one's disputing that I'm
not doing that here. And they were censured at the
IAEA for that enrichment and for violating their non proliferation agreements.
I was simply asking if we had intelligence that there
was an order to weaponize, because you said weaponization ambitions.

Speaker 6 (35:20):
An intelligence that they need to build a nuclear weapon,
and that's more than enough.

Speaker 3 (35:25):
I mean, here's a question for you, Buck.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
If Iran has no interest in having nuclear weapons, why
do they need to enrich uranium and be pursuing nuclear
energy in any way. They sit on one of the
biggest oil fields in the world. They have more energy
access than almost any country, well anywhere.

Speaker 1 (35:47):
Okay, so you're asking, you're asking the basic and obvious
questions that people that oppose this have to just refusee
that you can't address, can't deal with that.

Speaker 2 (35:56):
Why, that's my question, Like what would be the reason
they would be burying uranium enrichment minds basically, for lack
of a better way of characterizing it, beneath mountains while
being on top of oil fields. If they weren't trying
to create nuclear weapon.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
It's even worse than that. Like if they were willing
to play ball with the international community. Remember the their
signatories to the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which they just
violate this but put that aside. You know, treaties, right,
you know this is like Pompey Magnus of ancient Rome.
Don't quote laws to men with swords like okay, fine,
we're in a power dynamics based world, not a treaty

(36:33):
and obligations based world. Okay. If they were willing to
work with the international community such as it is, if
they were willing to play ball with America, Europe, et cetera,
and stop doing the things that they're doing that are
destabilizing and that make the region so miserable quite honestly,
and so much violence. I mean, the French would build

(36:56):
their reactors for them, and people would help them if
the regime was willing to have real inspections, playball and
do what has been asked here for a long time,
civilian nuclear power, that there are ways that that could
be achieved and done. Of course, you asked the question,
which is maybe even more important, well, why would they
even want that considering how much oil they have, which

(37:16):
is just easy, you know, easier for them, And the
answer is that they want to have a nuclear weapons capability.
Do you see this? If you are a regime of
bad actors for the last fifty years or so, if
you have nukes, you don't have to worry really about
external overthrow. That's that's the lesson that a lot of
people take from this, and that's which is why North

(37:37):
Korea gets to North Korea do it right. North Korea
is a perfect example. You can be a religious zelot
run theocracy that has held it, but well, it's basically
what North Korea. Is they just worship the Kim dynasty
instead of you know, Islam. But it actually, it really
is kind of a theocracy, and in a sense it's
a netcrocracy because the founder, Kim Il sung, still kind

(38:00):
of worshiped as the head of the Communist Party.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
But to your point, again from a international affairs response,
I have actually seen some of the members of the
Clinton administration saying publicly, now we blew it with North Korea.
In retrospect, we should have had attacks on their nuclear capabilities.

(38:23):
Bill Clinton considered it in nineteen ninety four. I even
saw Rama Manuel come out and say it. And I
think most people out there would say, hey, it'd be
better if this crazy North Korean dictatorship didn't have nuclear weapons.
But because they have them, they basically have power and
perpetuity because the risk of attacking them is nuclear war.

(38:44):
And that is the lesson that I think Iran has
taken now by attacking this regime, we are trying to
prevent another North Korea, but we're also sending the message
to other countries that may make the rational choice, hey,
we need to have nuclear weapons to their consequences for
pursuing these and also buck. This is why I think

(39:05):
the response from China and from Russia has been muted
because deep down they don't want Iran to have nuclear
weapons either.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
Yes, of course, they can't trust Iran. These countries do
not align countries or whatever you want to call them,
that will work together. These are places, you know, Putin's
right hand man. Can't trust Vladimir Putin. You think the Iranians,
I mean, these people will only These are countries that
only will work together insofar as it is caught, zero

(39:36):
cost to them and in their immediate interests, no interest,
as long as the oil flows. These countries don't give
a They don't care who's in charge in Iran. You know,
the Chinese get a lot of oil from Iran because
of the sanctions, and you know they want that oil
to keep flowing. And you know the Russians. I know
this seem strange people, but the Russians actually buy a

(39:56):
lot of Iranian oil too, even though the Russians have
a lot of oil our own, right, because it has
to do with refining and the global markets. But Clay,
there's no The World War II thing never made any
sense because there's no countries that are going to come
to the aid of Iran that want to lose their
own soldiers in some conflict with Israel and or with

(40:18):
the United States. So that's not going to happen. The
thing for me, that's the biggest open question right now
is what do we want if we're going to take
this forward beyond what we are. It is possible, folks,
we wake up tomorrow and Iran has managed to do
something horrible and kill a lot of people somewhere, and
that will change, That will change the dynamics in this

(40:39):
conflict overnight. I mean, that is possible. So far, we
haven't seen that in what we've seen from Iran has
been pretty contained and pretty predictable. Right, So what do
we want? Meaning what do we truly the American people
want now? The first thing is we want this to
not be our problem and for us not to be involved.
I get that. That's like first principle, that's numeral un

(41:00):
here is okay, we don't want to make this our problem.
But in terms of if we can foresee a future
where we don't have to, wouldn't it be nice? I mean,
how often do we sit around talking about, you know,
the future of Kazakhstan, which by the way, has a
lot of natural resources. People think of Borot. It's actually
a very large country, a lot of natural resources. I
think a tremendous amount of not the potassium is what

(41:22):
Borat always says. I think it has a lot of
natural gas. Someone checked me on that. But my point
is we don't care about that. You know, Kazakhstan does
its thing. Yeah, they don't have free speech, and but whatever,
it's not our problem. We don't have to worry about this.
We really want Iran to be in that category. Yeah,
it's just not our problem. And so if not our
problem is what we want from Iran? What does that

(41:42):
look like? How do we get there? And is that
the Iranian regime just kind of sputtering along as it
is defanged, as I've said, or do we really want
to see what happens if people start dragging the you know,
the IRGC and the besiege which is there. Really they're
brown shirts, and I mean they're street militia if you will,

(42:03):
of the regime. If we start, if they start getting
dragged out in the streets and beaten by you know,
the civilians with pitchforks and torches, so to speak, is
that what we want, you know, I don't know. You know,
this is where we get into the I don't know again,
not us doing it. I'm just saying, what do we
really want in Iran?

Speaker 2 (42:22):
I think that's the question at this point going forward,
and we could spend some time on it in this
third hour because to me, the question that and by
the way, Elon Musk.

Speaker 3 (42:32):
Turn on Starlink.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
Let the Iranians actually see what's going on in the
rest of the world, because Buck, what they're going to
say internally is we responded in cut and force and
wiped out the United States forces in the Middle East. Right,
this is what Iranian state television is gonna say. But
bigger picture, what a lot of these young people in
Iran are saying. When I say young, I mean people
thirty five and younger. Either you're a you know, having kids,

(42:56):
or you are.

Speaker 1 (42:57):
That's where we are now in life, Clay, We're like,
we're in all these whippers snow pres in their thirties.

Speaker 2 (43:02):
Yeah, all these young guys. But they are looking around now.
At some point embarrassment and anger starts to set in
and Iran because you see people in Saudi Arabia having
a better life than you Bahrain Qatars having the freakin
World Cup. Saudi Arabia is gonna have the World Cup.
They love soccer. Why is Iran getting left behind? It's
one thing if the US and Israel are better off, okay,

(43:24):
But when your fellow Arab and Muslim countries are leaving
you behind and you to your point, Buck used to
be a proud member of the Persian Empire. Go study
world history. They ancient history. They were ahead of the curve.
They were long ahead of much of even Europe back
in the day. And now they're falling behind quality of life.
They can't even keep the power on so they can

(43:45):
take elevators in buildings. These are real questions that I
think are going to start getting asked by the Iranian people.

Speaker 3 (43:51):
And where does it lead? That's the question.

Speaker 1 (43:53):
Let's what comes next? What should come next? That's the
question for all of you call us talkbacks on the
iHeart app. You know what to do. If you have
a family, you have a responsibility to think of their
will being long after you're gone. You should have a will,
maybe both a will and a trust as well. Only
a third of Americans right now have a will. When

(44:13):
there's not a will oftentimes your assets end up in probate,
delaying the release of those assets to family members and
costing everyone time and frustration and money. Depends on the
state you live in, of course, but you'd be surprised
what percentage of your assets can be claimed by the state.
Writing a will has been made infinitely easier by a
website that specializes in this called Trust and Will dot com.

(44:35):
They make it simple, affordable, and the result gives you
peace of mind now and your surviving family members clarity
in the future. That website is trust and Will dot com.
You're experts in creating personalized trust and wills that protect
your legacy. Visit trust and Will dot com.

Speaker 3 (44:52):
Two guys walk up to a mic.

Speaker 4 (44:56):
Anything goes Clay, Travis and Bucks. To find them on
the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (45:05):
All right, welcome back into Clay and Buck. We're taking
a look at the now aftermath of the Iranian retaliatory
missile strikes on a US base and Cutter and so
far it was pretty much a non event. I mean
so far as no casualties, no major destruction in the

(45:25):
missiles were intercepted and the Iranians it is now reported
coordinated like Toll of America. We're firing, So that really
is done, clay Ass, I mean that's all true. It
is like a stage managed response from the Mullahs, and
so we should continue to keep an eye on this,

(45:46):
but it looks pretty pretty contained for now. I want
to take some of your commentary thoughts into consideration here.
The lines are open eight hundred and two eighty two
two eight eight two we have I thought this is
funny v IP email from Brian. Liberals are against anyone
having nuclear power anywhere except for Iran. It is funny.

(46:07):
Very Iranian nuclear ambitions are sacred. Anybody else nuclear power
is scary, right, but Irani and nuclear stuff is sacred,
according to the Libs.

Speaker 2 (46:19):
I saw this and I thought this was kind of
a checkmate on the argument against nuclear strikes, strikes to
prevent nuclear weapons on our behalf by Trump. They said, oh,
now we're really in danger. There's no telling what Iran's
going to do now. And my argument was, well, if
you think that Iran is a huge threat, now, weren't

(46:43):
they a way bigger threat with nuclear weapons? In other words,
I would rather than if they're going to attack us
have less effective weapons than more effective weapons. I thought
that was kind of they were checkmating themselves with their
own logic, and they would say, well, now they're more
likely to strike ius. I actually think we have insured
and we're now seeing this that they don't have the

(47:06):
ability to hit us with anything.

Speaker 3 (47:09):
Is the essence of this. And I mentioned it earlier.

Speaker 2 (47:12):
If we could go back in time and Bill Clinton
in nineteen ninety four, I saw Rama manual say this
could have a do over. He would have tried to
wipe out North Korea. They said, Jimmy Carter got over there.

Speaker 1 (47:24):
Miss missile program, not the country, the missile program.

Speaker 2 (47:27):
Yes, yes, so yeah, yeah, we don't want to kill
in North Korea.

Speaker 1 (47:31):
But yeah, well he's like, hey, we bomb them, and
we bomb them again, and we bomb them some more.
It's like, hey, buddy, it's a lot of bombing. Uh.

Speaker 2 (47:38):
North Korea nuclear weapons back in the nineties, if we
could have restricted their access to them, that would have
been a really good thing. And I think the lesson
that we learned from that is we cannot allow these
rogue dictator states to have access to nuclear weapons because
it's logical for them to want them, because it preserves
their power because once you have them, can Jong Noon

(48:01):
your point, basically has created a theocracy built around his
father and uh, and then you have to bow down
and worship him.

Speaker 3 (48:09):
We don't.

Speaker 2 (48:09):
It's not a good thing that they at some point
could have a guy just decide to bomb a nuclear
weapon there. But we don't have the ability to take
him out now and to take out their nuclear weapons.
We can't allow Iron to be the equivalent of North
Korea in the decades to come.

Speaker 1 (48:25):
Let's do a talk back here from Brian in Worcester, Massachusetts.
This is talkback d d.

Speaker 9 (48:34):
Hi Buck Brian from Wister, mass I just wanted to
get your take on you have these leftist journals out
there this weekend saying that, oh, Iran, because Trump telegraphed
it so soon, Iran actually moved most of their enriched
uranium out of those sites and they still all have it.
I mean, I don't believe that, But I'm just wondering
what your analysis is on where they're getting that intel

(48:55):
quote unquote from and what you think a truthful of
it is excellence.

Speaker 1 (49:02):
Yeah, I don't buy that. And here here's why the
Israelis have this whole place mic Up. Okay, this is
one thing that we know. If they know where to
put the tactical missile strike in an apartment building so
that it only kills the nuclear scientists, you are not
about to believe. I don't think anyone should believe that

(49:24):
they would allow the evacuation of the most sensitive material
from the sites that are going to be completely saturated
with intel, surveillance coverage, all of that, right, So I
do not buy. Yeah, did they try to get some
stuff out of there, I'm sure, but I do not
buy that they were able to salvage their nuclear program
with some last minute trucks, and that the Israelis who

(49:45):
are flying constant air strikes. Let that that's the key.

Speaker 3 (49:49):
That's the key.

Speaker 2 (49:49):
Just logically think through this. If you know that's a
nuclear site and suddenly you bring the nuclear site out
of the bunkers to put it onto trucks and Israel
has complete air superiority, you're actually making their job easier.
So the logic of that argument doesn't stand up to

(50:13):
your point, Buck, because Israel would just wipe out the
trucks filled with the nuclear armaments, and it would be
way easier to do that than have to go into
the side of a mountain like we had to do
with the bunker busting bombs.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
Also, imagine that's your job. It's like you you have
to move the enriched uranium.

Speaker 2 (50:32):
I had last week, Buck, I was saying, I don't
know whether Orran had pulled all their guys out, but
can you imagine going into the ford down the side
of the mountain for the last few weeks, when in
any moment you know that the US could decide to
just wipe you out. That's like the worst job in
the world. And I hope for those guys credit or safety.

(50:53):
I don't want anybody to get killed who doesn't have
to get killed. I hope Iran didn't have them still
going into the mountain just waiting for the bunker busting
bomb to come in and wipe them out. I mean,
that's a kind of a that's a tough that's a
tough gig.

Speaker 1 (51:07):
Some some folks on the right are gonna, I think,
have to take a take a little bit of of
a moment to collect themselves, maybe even take a chill
pill and and calm down about some of this stuff.
I've seen some really bad analysis of this from some
You're like, well, why uh, you know, why don't I name?

(51:29):
It's not about naming individuals, and people can see what
others have said, and I know I'm not I'm not
about uh. And neither is Clay taking shots that are
undermining anybody on on the right. Certainly in the commentary sphere. Politicians,
we have to hold du accounts. So sometimes we're gonna
get a little salty about what a Republican center is
voting for whatever. But other people that are commenting, they
have their audiences and they have what they do. And

(51:51):
but that's all the way of saying. You know, Marjorie
Taylor Green here saying that we are entering World War three,
in nuclear war, she she needs to calm down. That's
actually not that's actually not what we are doing right now.
Play thirty seven six.

Speaker 7 (52:06):
Months in six months in seed, and here we are
turning back on the campaign promises, and we bombed Iran
on behalf of Israel. Yes it was on behalf of Israel.
We are entering a nuclear war, the World War three,
because the entire world is going to erupt. And you
want to know, the people that are cheering it on

(52:26):
right now, their tune is going to drastically change the
minute we start seeing flag. Drake Coffins on the Nightly
News on Fox News that brainwashes all the baby boomers,
and on CNN that brainwashes all the Democrat baby boomers.

Speaker 8 (52:40):
And that is exactly how this is going.

Speaker 7 (52:42):
To go down.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
That is not how this is going to go down.
I'm not saying, Look, we've left open. I said that
this thing could change overnight. There could be something that
happens and there's an issue and we have to handle it.
But what she's saying is that somehow Donald Trump would
have to be so inept, poor decision making, blacking and
strategic vision that as commander in chief, you would allow
us to get drawn into a situation where the entire

(53:06):
world at some level, right, I mean not every country,
but where many countries are at war or of this
or that's crazy town stuff. And I can say that
very confidently, and if I end up being wrong, well
who will care because it'll be the middle of World
War three. It's reckless to say this stuff. It's okay
to say we shouldn't strike aram what we already have.
So that's you know, I don't begrudge anybody there. I

(53:29):
don't agree with the strike out, don't you know, because
bad things are going to happen. But when you're claiming
that we're in the midst now, or rather we're entering
World War three and nuclear war, you're saying crazy stuff
that is scaring people and preventing sober assessment of what's
going on and adult conversation about what should happen now.
So I very much disagree with Congresswoman Taylor Green's assessment

(53:54):
here to the point where I think she sounds like
a jackass and it's not a good thing to be doing.

Speaker 2 (54:00):
I would just say, pretty straightforwardly, world War III requires
that Iran have an ally. Can you name one country
that has lined up behind Iran? This is where I
think that there has not been enough pointing this out.

Speaker 3 (54:17):
The Middle Eastern countries want Israel to do this.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
Right, they may say again publicly, oh, Israel's like what
Saudi Arabia wants Iran to not.

Speaker 3 (54:28):
Have nuclear weapons?

Speaker 2 (54:29):
The uae Qatar, all of them agree with what we
did and what.

Speaker 3 (54:34):
Israel is doing.

Speaker 2 (54:36):
They're even China and Russia haven't said a word hardly
in defendi.

Speaker 1 (54:42):
This is also like, think about this, do you think
the Chinese give a crap about what happens to Iran.
They do not. Okay, the Chinese, the Chinese Communist Party
doesn't care about what's happening to Chinese people for the
most part. Okay, they definitely don't care about a few
nuclear sites getting hit in Iran. Whatever their diplomats say,
No one's even gonna remember tomorrow, and their diplomats are

(55:04):
just hoping they don't get thrown into some dark selling
portrait to death by Sujin Ping. So yeah, it's not
this is not some There's no way. It's just crazy.

Speaker 2 (55:14):
If anything, China is looking at this and saying, oh,
maybe we need to reconsider invading Taiwan.

Speaker 1 (55:24):
I know he's going to go Taiwan.

Speaker 2 (55:27):
I'm just saying I don't know what would happen because
we have the strategic ambiguity perspective as it pertains to
what we would do if China tried to take Taiwan.
But I definitely think that the Chinese noticed, Holy crap,
the US flew all around the world, wrecked the nuclear
capabilities of Iran, and the Iranians didn't even know we

(55:49):
were in their airspace. Maybe the US has got military
capabilities that would be a threat, and maybe they would
stand up for Taiwan.

Speaker 1 (55:59):
Well maybe all so, just bring it back to Trump
and the World War three and all these conversations that
are going on right now. By the way, I think
very few people are actually making the case. There's some
big voices that are saying it, but we're not. We're
not in the World War three or you know, a
long way from from anything that would require or that
should involve that level of it's hysterio. Okay, that's hysteria.

(56:19):
That's not that's not what's going on here. Maybe Trump
has learned the lesson though, you know, it's amazing to
me some of the people that have turned And again
MTG is a member of Congress, so I've a little more.
But some of the people on the right that I'm seeing,
and including some that honestly look I like and think
are really good on a lot of stuff, they're not
good on this. And I think in part it's, you know,

(56:44):
they they've gone too far in the direction of you know,
everything everything now is the Iraq War and WMD lies
everything is is a twenty year war in Afghanistan that
ends up with the Taliman coming back into power. It's like, well,
you know, we've seen that. There are plenty of things
that happened that don't result in this, and just because
whether it's you know, air strikes in Syria, which by

(57:06):
the way, Trump did in the first Trump administration, nobody
even remembers them. That's all you have to know about
how much mission creep there was. There No one even
remembers these missile strikes that we did remember this, and
there was talk about chemical weapons usage, which now there's
a lot of debate over whether that even happened. Put
that aside, I think Trump maybe did learn the lesson
though Clay, and the lesson is you could hit people
and then use hitting them as part of the framework

(57:28):
of understanding of you want to get hit again or
not behave you don't actually have to remember the Colin
Powell thing of you know, if you break it, you
buy it or whatever. I mean, that was his that
was his witticism that caught on with so many people. No, actually,
just because you bomb nuclear reactors doesn't mean you have
to have eighty second airborne landing on the outskirts of

(57:49):
Tehran season the airfields and being in charge of like
Iranian's plumbing for the next ten years, like we don't
actually have to do that. Trump's not going to do that.
I mean, that's what I see from all this. I
think the lesson has been learned.

Speaker 2 (58:02):
The other thing I would say here, some of you
are saying, Okay, how does this impact my pocket book?
Price of oil down seven and a half percent as
I am talking to you, down five dollars and fifty cents.
I was talking about this with Buck off Air. If
the big concern had been, oh, the straight of hor moves,
how is this going to impact the overall price of oil?

(58:26):
You know where most of Iran's oil goes, China. So
the last thing that China wants is Iranian oil fields
getting attacked because it increases the cost of their oil
and gas, which is about two percent of the overall
population overall supply. But overwhelmingly China benefits from discounted Iranian

(58:48):
oil and gas because of the sanctions that are in place.
So again, a lot of the analysis here has not
been sophisticated, and I think it builds on this Buck.
It's just an overall expectation of catastrophe everywhere. Sometimes catastrophe happens,
but if you expect all the time for everything to

(59:10):
end in catastrophe. Most of the time you are going
to be wrong. And again, I think what we are
seeing in the reaction from Iran is it's very muted.
It's nowhere near World War three. And I would just say,
if you expect world War three to happen, you have
to name at least one significant country that is willing
to go to war to protect Iran.

Speaker 3 (59:33):
I don't think there's even one of them. Just FYI, yeah,
I mean you think.

Speaker 1 (59:39):
The Russians have a lot of extra manpower to throw
into situations. The Russians have had to bring North Koreans
to come help them out, and that's for a fight
that is very central to the Putin Russian Kremlin ethos.
So people, look, you didn't need to know something about
something to have a lot of ideas about that thing.

(01:00:00):
And there are a lot of people out there right
now who don't know nothing about nothing, all right, And
they're really really flapping their gums on this stuff in
ways that I think are unhelpful. Again, they're ENTI to
America title do. I just think they don't know what
they're talking about. So it's wait, I'm also entitled to
say that you know we are on a talk radio show.
Online scammers are tricking Americans with fake passport renewal websites,

(01:00:22):
but instead of getting a new passport, they're finding out
that their online information has been stolen. Remember there's only
one official government site for applying for passports. It's important
to understand how cybercrum and identity theft are affecting our lives,
just like it's important that you rely on LifeLock for
online identity theft protection. They've been at it for two decades,
helping tens of millions of Americans, including Clay and me,

(01:00:43):
from online identity theft. Look, there are a lot of
places that can accidentally expose your information. It can happen
to the best of companies if there's a data breach.
That's why LifeLock monitors millions of data points a second
for risks to your identity. And if you do become
a victim of identity theft, a dedicated US based restoration
specially will fix it guaranteed or your money back. Easy
to help protect yourself with LifeLock, join now say forty

(01:01:05):
percent off your first year with my name buck as
your promo code. Call one eight hundred LifeLock, or go
online to LifeLock dot com and use promo code Buck
for forty percent off. Terms apply.

Speaker 4 (01:01:15):
Making America Great Again isn't just one man, It's many.
The Team forty seven podcasts Sundays at noon Eastern in
the Clay.

Speaker 3 (01:01:24):
And Buck podcast Feed.

Speaker 4 (01:01:25):
Find it on the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get
your podcasts