We Are At War With Iran
01:13:35 Share

Craving your next action-packed adventure? Audible delivers thrills of every kind on your command, like Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir, where a lone astronaut must save humanity from extinction, narrated with stunning intensity by Ray Porter. From electrifying suspense and daring quests to spine-tingling horror and Rome

That's audible.com slash wondery U.S.

Hello, hello. What's up, everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I am Dave Smith. I am rolling solo for this episode. Rob is still, I think, traveling home on the West Coast on his way back here. Not quite sure. But, you know, obviously, we kind of know what we're going to talk about for today's episode.

I was on Breaking Points earlier today, and I was pretty harsh on President Trump. And I've been I had a couple of posts on Twitter there, and I've been watching the it's been a bit of a meltdown in my replies with, you know, some people very happy with what I said, some people very upset about what I said. But I thought for today.

I would kind of just do an episode on how I'm feeling about Donald Trump and obviously the current situation in the Middle East, where I would start just by saying that

We are at war with Iran as of right now. A lot of people are kind of framing this as if like Israel's at war with Iran and we're waiting to see whether or not the U.S. gets involved. I think that's fundamentally wrong. And I think we are at war with Iran right now. I think Donald Trump has already led us into another catastrophic war in the Middle East. Hopefully I am wrong about that. This is...

This is one where I really, really would be quite pleased to be proven wrong. And maybe later this week or next month or something, I can say, okay, I overreacted a little bit. I don't think that is the case. I hope I am wrong on that. I will gladly eat crow and be proven wrong on this one. But let's...

Before even getting into that, let me do like a little bit of background. I don't want to be too repetitive with things I've said before, so I'll try my best to go through this quickly. But then we could kind of get into where exactly we are right now and how this might play out going forward. So just to be clear, I.

Iran is a country that has been in the crosshairs of some very powerful people for quite a long period of time. Iran was, of course, as many of you know or might remember or learned after the fact, immediately after 9-11, Iran was put by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on the axis of evil.

They said Iraq, Iran and North Korea were the countries that were put on this list immediately following 9-11. Now, of course, as many of you guys know, those three those three countries had absolutely nothing to do with with 9-11.

Now, one of the reasons and one of the major reasons why they were put in the lines of fire right away was because Israel wanted to have a regime change there. This is something that is not this isn't a conspiracy theory. This is well documented and they've admitted it over and over again in their own words.

Now, this is stuff I've gotten into a lot before, so we don't need to go through the whole history of it, but most of you guys listening to this are probably already aware. But this was a major part of what was known as the clean break strategy that Israel had. Now, essentially...

Okay, so the Iranian revolution happened in 1979. The regime that's currently in control of Iran has been in control of Iran since 1979. Israel in the 70s, I think a couple years before that, it was in the late 70s, at Camp David when they made their peace with Egypt, they had promised to eventually give the Palestinians a state. Of course, this had been...

a big crisis in the Middle East going back from the late 1940s, 1947, 1948. In 1967, Israel fought the Six-Day War with Egypt and Jordan. That's when they took control of Gaza and East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And so Israel had control of these areas that had millions of inhabitants living in it.

And so there was always talk of what was to be done with this. The international community had always overwhelmingly supported a two state solution back to before the creation of the state of Israel. I mean, the original UN partition recommendation in 1947 was that there would be a Jewish state and a Palestinian state on the land that is today known as Israel. And so in 1967, Israel took control of Gaza and the West Bank.

By the 70s already, the international community, in this case, the United States of America, was pressuring Israel to make a two-state solution to give the Palestinians their own state. Fast forward to the 90s. In the early 90s is when the Oslo Accords started. And this was supposed to be the culmination of that process, that they were going to begin what they call the peace process.

Um, and the peace process was supposed to culminate in a Palestinian state. That was the idea. And of course, famously Bill Clinton brought, uh, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak, uh, Rabin to, uh, Washington DC. And they did a bunch of photo ops. Of course, this was the leader of the Palestinians and the prime minister of Israel. They shook hands, they signed an agreement and they were supposed to start working toward, uh, an eventual two state solution. Now the, um,

the thinking, or at least the stated thinking, things are always a little bit more complicated than this, but for broad strokes purposes, the stated thinking of Yitzhak Rabin and the Israelis who wanted to work toward a pseudo-Palestinian state, they were never going to give them a full state, but

regardless of that. The thinking was that essentially the Jews in Israel had had this, they had had horrible relations with the Arab world and much of the Arab world wouldn't recognize Israel. And the,

the thinking was that this was all over the Palestinian question, the refugee problem and the occupation, and that the other Arab countries were never going to recognize Israel or normalize relations until they dealt with the Palestinian problem. And so that was the idea of Oslo, was that, well, look, if we have this peace process and we give them a Palestinian state, we can settle the Palestinian problem, and then we can have normal relations and peace with the surrounding Arab countries. That was the idea. So...

Benjamin Netanyahu was always somebody who opposed this and evidently wrote a book about it. I've never read this Benjamin Netanyahu book, but evidently he wrote a book with a lot of this stuff in it. But I do know that in 1996, that's when the clean break memo was sent to Benjamin Netanyahu. This was written by Richard Pearl and David Wormser. A couple other neocons were authors on it as well. And what the clean break was, was a break

from that peace process. That was the idea of the clean break. And this was the neocons and the lacudniks

strategy was that we essentially, you know, you've had this whole plan known as the peace process with its, you know, land exchanges, as they called it, that's that, you know, is supposed to ultimately leave in a Palestinian state, lead to a Palestinian state. We want a clean break from that.

We want to get away from that. And so what we're going to do, right? So basically they flipped the Rabin model on its head and they said, you guys have this all wrong.

You're saying that you need to make peace with the Palestinians so that you can normalize relationships with the broader Arab world, with the surrounding Arab nation states. But see, that's all wrong. What you want to do is get away from the peace process, get away from the idea of a Palestinian state, and you'll do that by overthrowing the regimes that are giving you trouble around the area.

And this way, you don't have to make peace with the Palestinians so you can normalize relations with the broader Arab world. We can overthrow the governments that you don't like. You can normalize relations with the surrounding Arab world without having to give the Palestinians their own state.

So this was the ultimate plan of the neocons. And it's very, so the clean break memo was written in 1996. It's very interesting to read the neoconservative writing from that period of time.

Because it's before 9-11, but after they've made this decision to embark on the foreign policy that becomes realized after 9-11. Now, the reason why it's so interesting to read the neocons writing in the 90s is because as they're fighting all of the wars, all the terror wars after 9-11, they have this, you know, they have a 9-11 related narrative.

justification for why they're going to fight all these wars. But before 9-11, when they didn't know that they were going to get that gift to them,

They had a whole different, they had very different stated objectives and stated justifications. And so you get into more of like, oh, what's really going on here? What's really going on here? And basically, the regimes that were giving Israel problems, and when I say giving Israel problems, meaning they were defiant of Israel, they were supporting Israel's enemies. I mean, back from the very beginning in Israel,

1947, 1948, the creation of Israel involved something like 750,000 Palestinians being forced or fleeing their homes and never being allowed back in. It led to this permanent refugee crisis.

And so there was the refugee crisis. And then after 1967, they were occupied by the Israelis. So there was this there was resistance to Israel from the very beginning. And that included terrorism.

Of course, there was also terrorism from the Israeli side. And even before the creation of the State of Israel, there were Zionist militias, paramilitary organizations that were terrorists by nature. And of course, after the creation of the State of Israel, the State of Israel engaged in all types of actions that were terrorists in nature and still do to this day.

The regimes that were giving Israel a bunch of problems were to list off a few, but

Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, Bashar al-Assad's Syria. These were all regimes that didn't recognize Israel as legitimate and would, to different varying degrees, would fund and arm some of the resistance groups from their perspective or terrorist organizations from the Israeli perspective. So,

Iran was always the big one. Iran was always the one they wanted the most, but it was also the hardest one to get. And in fact, immediately after 9-11, there was some kind of inter-fighting about this. Sharon was the prime minister of Israel in 2001 when 9-11 happened. Sharon's envoy, blanking on his name, but I know that he initially argued when he had first seen the plans to invade Israel

Iraq, he had tried to persuade the George W. Bush to do Iran first. They wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but they wanted to overthrow the mullahs in Iran first. And that was a source of some infighting. Ultimately, they were told that, don't worry, Iran's next. Iran is coming next.

And so ultimately they said, okay, that's good enough. And then they supported them. Their, their concern of course, was that, you know, if you just overthrew Saddam Hussein and didn't overthrow the mullahs in Iran, you would just be handing more influence over to Iran. They ended up being correct about those concerns, but of course they fell in line and supported the,

the war in Iraq and then for the 2002 Israel was involved in pumping out some of the most ridiculous propaganda about how Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was in on 9 11 and all this other stuff but again you can go read the neocons in in their own words you could read in the 90s or a project for a new American Century where they wrote out that they wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein for Israel

It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or any of this other nonsense. But after 9-11, that became very effective propaganda that, oh, we're just doing this because we're trying to stop another 9-11. In a post-9-11 world, we can't allow Saddam Hussein to have weapons of mass destruction.

As General Wesley Clark, who is the Supreme Commander of the NATO Allies, as well as a four-star general, as he is on record and he has repeated this multiple times and really doubled down on it. But he said that in late 2001, he saw what's known now as the famous

seven countries in five years. He saw that what he claimed was a classified document that he was evidently illegally shown because he was a general in Bill Clinton's administration, but he was a civilian at this point, or at least not in the administration. He was shown a classified document that said that it had been decided that we were going to overthrow seven countries in the next five years. The last one on that list is Iran.

The other six have already been completed. We are on the seventh country. So like that's what's going on here. And that is the only answer that makes everything else make sense. So Benjamin Netanyahu, of course, the current prime minister of Israel, the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history, he has been, no exaggeration, I think,

I've heard someone say he was making the claims in the 80s, but the furthest back I could find, I believe, was 1991. But so at least since I since I was eight years old, Benjamin Netanyahu has been saying that Iran is on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons all through the 90s. He would have precise dates, right?

He would have all types of arguments about why he knows why their intelligence is so good that they know that it's one to three years and one to three years. The Iranians are going to have nuclear weapons.

over and over and over again. He said this in 91 and 95 and 98 in 2001 and 2002, he came and testified before the US Congress, said we have to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It'll have positive reverberations around the region, said he has weapons of mass destruction, said the Iranians are working on a nuke. He also advocated that we overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and overthrow the government in Iran.

So he just came over to America and advocated for three regime change wars blatantly. Again, this isn't a theory. It's not a conspiracy theory. This is on the record information. And so this entire time he's been claiming that Iran is about to get nuclear weapons. When Obama signed the deal with Iran, he said that now Iran has been fast-tracked.

on their path to nuclear weapons. So, you know, fast track, it was, it was one to three years in 1991. And then in 2013, it was fast tracked. So anyway, we're now eight years later from there and, or excuse me, 12 years later from there. And, um,

Still no nuclear weapon in Iran, but that didn't stop him from going to the United Nations where he had that Daffy Duck bomb, like a big circle black bomb, and the black was filled all the way up to like 90%. He said, this is how close they are. They're this close to getting a nuclear weapon.

All always Benjamin Netanyahu has been he's constantly been trying to get the U.S. to go overthrow the regime in Iran and make no mistake about it. That's what this latest attack is about. It is not about destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities. No one is really concerned that Iran has a nuke. Iran has what is is known as a latent deterrent.

So essentially, they've been enriching uranium up to a point to have essentially not a nuclear deterrent, but what's known as a latent deterrent where you basically get close enough to say, hey, I could make nukes if we wanted to. And that's supposed to be enough of a threat that what's happening right now doesn't happen.

The idea being that no one's going to actually come attack you if you have a nuclear weapon. They don't want to make a nuclear weapon because they think they'll get bombed if they actually start getting close to making it. So they've settled for this latent threat area where they, you know, they don't have a nuclear weapon. They've opened their books. They're a member of the nonproliferation treaty. They have inspections. They're like, look, this is what we're doing.

but we're not we're not going any further than that so you know let's let's leave it at that um now it might it it's worth understanding like that there's a few other like elements here that have pushed around to want a nuclear weapon and one of them is that we don't really mess with nuclear-armed countries

And that's the truth. You know, of all of the countries that I've been talking about here, there was one who was on the list after 9-11.

And that we've never really messed with. I mean, we put sanctions on them, but we won't attack them. And that's North Korea. And how did North Korea manage to get us not to attack them? Well, they developed nuclear weapons and they've tested them several times. And so what are you going to do? You know, in since World War Two, America has fought a lot of wars.

We've been in many, many wars since 1945 when World War II ended. We fought wars in Korea and Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and many others, just to name a few. But you might notice that one of the things that all of the countries that we fought in have in common is that they do not have nuclear weapons.

Now, there's some exceptions to that. I mean, we had like a we had a drone bomb campaign in Pakistan, you know, but that was kind of approved by the government there. And then when they I mean, they asked us to stop a few times when they really got serious. We did kind of cut it back. There's the other example you could use is probably I guess we've supported Ukraine, who has had some successful strikes inside Russia. So there's like, you know, there's but generally speaking,

You don't really get messed with if you have nuclear weapons, at least not nearly as much as if you don't. And the other major factor there is that Muammar Gaddafi, he became what's known now as the Libya model. This is the term that's often used, but Muammar Gaddafi essentially got rid of his entire weapons program. And in fact, I believe he only attained them to get rid of them, but that's neither here nor there.

Moe Mardafi got rid of all his weapons. George W. Bush took it as a victory and said, look what we did. We got Moe Mardafi to denuclearize and get rid of his chemical weapons. And then the Obama administration went in there and overthrew his regime. And after having a no-fly zone and bombing the crap out of Libya, we allowed a mob of angry Libyans to sodomize him to death.

beat, beat and sodomize him to death. It's a pretty tough way to go out. And so this of course sent a message to everybody involved that you do not want to give up your weapons programs. So we kind of in a true, not just a strategic blunder because that kind of, that doesn't exactly get at it. It's not just like it was an error. We, we,

We knew what we were doing. Anybody could have told you that this would have been the ramification of overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi after he had gotten rid of his weapons programs. But we sent a message to the entire world, like anyone who cares about nuclear proliferation or any of that, we sent a message to the entire world that you do not want to get rid of your weapons programs. And in fact, what you want to do is have nuclear weapons.

And this is something that, by the way, even though he advocated for this war, when I was debating Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan's show, this is one of the concessions that he made, that yes, that was a big mistake. That was a big mistake because now it's incentivized everybody to want to get these weapons. So we did it anyway.

Even though it would be the worst thing for world peace, let alone the worst thing for Libya, you know, and the worst thing for destabilizing that region. It was also the worst thing for the migrant crisis into Europe. But just more broadly speaking, for world peace, it was the worst thing you could do.

but we did it so Israel could get another regime change that they wanted. So Israel could not have to deal with the pesky little problem of their neighbors objecting to their brutal treatment of the Palestinians. That's what the whole thing's about, including what we're going through right now. It's what it's all about. It's what it's always been about. And, you know, one more thing just on the nuclear stuff.

It is wild. This has been one of the wildest aspects to the entire dynamic here is that, and I'm not sure everyone knows this, I think

I think most people who talk about this stuff know it, but it is really wild, a very wild detail. Now, if you remember when I was, uh, when I was debating, um, that, uh, lawyer lady, Natasha, um, I can't remember her last name or how to say it right, but this is the one where Pierce Morgan just lost his shit on her. And that became kind of the story of the, the debate that Pierce was just screaming at her that she's just lying through her teeth. But at

At one point in the debate, I said to her, and I think some people were like, we're trying to argue some of the like Zio Twitter accounts. We're trying to argue that I was just asking an irrelevant question. And what did this have to do with the debate? But at one point, I mean, this lady had just lied through her teeth so many times that I just made the point to Pierce that I was like, look, she's she's a liar. She won't tell the truth if it makes Israel look bad. And then I asked her, I said, does Israel have nuclear weapons?

And then we all laughed as she danced around it and went, I don't know any better than you if Israel has nuclear weapons. Now, by the way, I'm saying some people may not know this. Isn't that already a little strange? Have you ever heard of that before? You ever heard of anyone saying, I don't know if this country has nuclear weapons? We always kind of know. You know who the nuclear armed countries are and who the non-nuclear armed countries are. Well, here's why. Israel has nuclear weapons, has had nuclear weapons for many decades, but it's a secret.

They don't admit it. Everyone knows they have them, but they sit there and pretend that they don't. And the reason they do that is so they don't have to join the non-proliferation treaty. So they are the only country that has nuclear weapons, won't admit that they have nuclear weapons, and won't join the treaty. Iran, on the other hand, does not have nuclear weapons and is a member in good standing of the non-proliferation treaty.

Think about how crazy that is. So Israel is using the defense that they're building a secret nuclear weapon while Israel is sitting on secret nuclear weapons. I can't make this up. It's too wild. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Small Batch Cigar, the place to buy cigars online. I know a lot of guys who are cigar enthusiasts. They all tell me Small Batch is the absolute best cigar.

They have free shipping on every order. Almost every order arrives within two to three days in the continental United States of America. They have the most thorough packaging in the industry, including Boveda packs in every purchase. This way, your cigar shows up to you in good shape, which I'm told is what it's all about. And they have an amazing selection of rare and limited, hard-to-find cigars. Plus, you can earn 5% reward points instantly. Go check them out at smallbatchcigar.com.

Most people like to click new so they can shop their newest arrivals and make sure to use the promo code problem that will get you 10% off plus those 5% reward points that I mentioned earlier. Smallbatchcigar.com promo code problem for 10% off. All right, let's get back into the show. So, all right.

Just to be clear here, the CIA concluded back in 2007 that Iran had given up its nuclear weapons ambitions and they were not pursuing nuclear weapons. They have reaffirmed that over and over again since there. Just earlier this year, a couple months ago, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, put out their annual threat assessment. In it, they said...

Same thing. Iran does not have nuclear weapons, is not pursuing nuclear weapons. All of the intelligence has been that this is exactly what we've been saying. It's a latent deterrent. They're just enriching uranium. They are enriching uranium beyond their civilian needs.

I forget the exact numbers. I think for nuclear energy, you need like between 3% to 5%. I think for some of the medical grade stuff, like cancer treatments and things like that, you need like between 25% and 30%, something like this. You could double check the numbers. And they're at like 60%. So there's no question. They're above just what they need, but they're doing it for exactly the reasons I just said. They want to be close enough that they could get a new, like if they get attacked like this, they want to be able to develop a nuclear weapon in a hurry.

But they don't have one single nuclear weapon. So Benjamin Netanyahu was interviewed last night by Brett Baer.

And even Benjamin Netanyahu, Brett Bayer asks him, you know, Brett Bayer is he's he's good for at least pretending to be a journalist. So he'll ask like a couple tough questions, but there'll be no tough follow up questions and he'll let you get away with whatever you say afterward. But he asked Netanyahu straight up. He said he said, well, look, all of our intelligence is saying that they don't have nuclear weapons and that they're not trying to get them. So, like, did you did Israel get some new intelligence from

Is something new that way? And he didn't even have an answer. He just went, well, yes, we think they're going to get. And then at one point he said, maybe they're 12 to 13 months away. So again, just to be clear,

The guy who's been lying through his teeth about how far away from a weapon Iran is. I mean, he was saying one to three years in the 90s. So now he's saying one year plus. Even he's not claiming they got nuclear weapons or they were about to get nuclear weapons from his own, from the horse's mouth. He's saying that maybe in a year they could have gotten them.

Okay. Now, another thing that's an important detail here is that Iran can't get nuclear weapons without us knowing that they're getting nuclear weapons. So it's not as if this was just going to be a surprise. We would know that they're pursuing them. But even Benjamin Netanyahu is not claiming that they have some intelligence that we don't have. So you might wonder, why did he attack right now?

Why did he attack when Iran was in the middle of negotiations with the United States of America and Donald Trump had publicly asked him not to do this? Now, that's where we get into a little bit more of an interesting kind of detail in all of this. So essentially.

Donald Trump, Netanyahu said also in this interview that that Donald Trump was well aware of the attack, well aware that Israel was going to attack and that he had approved it. Donald. OK, after Israel attacked Iran, after the attack.

Then there was reporting that essentially not only did Donald Trump know this, but Donald Trump was in on it and that the negotiating was all a fake, basically so that Iran wouldn't see this attack coming so that they were like coordinating and working together. So this is what Netanyahu and other reports are saying.

On the other hand, Tucker Carlson was on with Steve Bannon yesterday, and he said that he knows for a fact this is absolutely not true and that they're lying and that Witkoff and Donald Trump were negotiating in good faith and that they really wanted to avoid this war and come to some type of nuclear agreement, some type of new Obama-Aran deal. But I suppose this one would be a little bit tougher or something that Donald Trump could find.

find a way to justify tearing up the last agreement only to go back to the negotiating table to try to get a new agreement. But that's what Tucker's claiming. Now, I don't know what's true and what's not in that.

I trust Tucker Carlson a lot more than I trust Benjamin Netanyahu. But just to be clear, there's really only a couple of options here. And I'm open to if someone wants to point out an option, something I'm missing here, then you tell me. But the point is that either...

Either Netanyahu is telling the truth here or Tucker Carlson is telling the truth here. Now, if Benjamin Netanyahu is telling the truth here, then we're at war with Iran right now. If Tucker Carlson is telling the truth here, we're at war with Iran right now.

Either way, you know, it's funny because you may I'm sure as you see, you know, some of the Israel supporters just gloating and celebrating, you know, we could get into that a bit more because there's so much hypocrisy that's going on from all of them. But they will. It's so funny because they're in this position of defending the indefensible.

They're defending Israel, who just launched just a cowardly sneak attack.

Inactive aggression, you know, a preemptive war. So a war of choice, a war of aggression in a sneak attack. They just Pearl Harbored Iran. OK, but somehow we're supposed to view this as that. So what their justification will be, and this is what they'll almost to a man with the law say, is that, well, no, this was a defensive action because Iranians,

Iran started the war on October 7th when their proxy, Hamas, launched a terrorist attack against Israel.

But if you'll notice, like this is always the case when the war hawks talk about Iran, they'll assert these things, but they never have to actually back it up with any facts. Like you may have noticed, you may have heard when the hawks are talking about Iran, they'll quite often say that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. But you might notice what they never do is back that up with anything factual.

And by the way, I am not arguing that Iran does not sell weapons and even collaborate with terrorist organizations. I'm not arguing that. But they say Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. And it's like, okay, so where's the measurement for that? Have you ever seen anyone sit down and say, look, this is how much Saudi Arabia gives to terrorist organizations, and this is how much Iran gives to terrorist organizations? Have you ever seen anyone measure how much

the U.S. gives to terrorist organizations, how much Israel gives to terrorist organizations. And by the way, this is before I'm even playing the game of how do you define terrorism? Because there's a pretty strong argument that what Israel's done in Gaza over the last 21 months has been terrorist in nature. There's a strong argument that what America did in shock and awe to Iraq was terrorist in nature. But leaving all of that aside, I'm talking like organizations that we'd all agree are terrorists.

like Al Qaeda or ISIS? How much support have they gotten from the US, from Israel, from Saudi Arabia, from Turkey? No one even measures it. They just assert Iran is the, but okay, fine.

Let's just say that's true. So Iran now now Hamas is an Iranian proxy. Now, what do they have to prove when they when they say that Iran? And of course, you know, this isn't just like random people saying this, like senators. Lindsey Graham called for us to bomb Iran on October 8th.

Like right after October 7th, he said, we should be attacking Iran right now. This is a long sitting member of the Senate in America was calling for a war because of October 7th. Now, what do they have to demonstrate in order to claim that Iran was at war with Israel?

Do they have to demonstrate that Iran was in on the planning of October 7th? Because I've seen, you know, I've argued with people again, not just random people on Twitter, but people like in the media with big followings. And like I just mentioned, senators and congressmen and all types of people have made this argument.

Our intelligence, the best US intelligence, said that Iran was caught off guard, was shocked by October 7th. They had no knowledge of it. But then the response to that will be like, well, what did they think those weapons were going to do? Huh? They still gave weapons to Hamas.

which, you know, again, I'm sure at some point Iran has sold some weapons to Hamas. I don't really know how much. There's been a full blockade around that country since 2007. So I don't know how much. But, you know, look, we get weapons into federal prisons in the United States of America. And, you know, some weapons get into Gaza as well. Maybe Iran has...

given them something substantial again no one ever really seems to try to back up these claims they certainly were selling weapons to hezbollah they certainly have sold some weapons to the houthis and sure maybe they gave some weapons to hamas also but notice here

The criteria is that they didn't have to have any knowledge of October 7th. They didn't have to be a part of the planning of October 7th. They didn't have to be a part of the execution of October 7th. They gave weapons to Hamas, and then Hamas did October 7th, and that's enough. That's enough to say Iran is at war with Israel. Okay, well, if that's true, then what is Israel attacking Iran other than the U.S. being at war with Iran?

And again, the case is much stronger for the U.S. being at war because it's not, look, according to Netanyahu, if what he's saying is true, then we expressly greenlit this operation. So not only was it done with our weapons, a country that we prop up with our weapons attacked them, but that if what Netanyahu is saying is true, that we were using the negotiations to help them sneak attack them. Now, look,

I don't exactly know whether Netanyahu is telling the truth. These reports are true or whether Tucker Carlson's right. I don't think Tucker Carlson's lying. It is possible that people are lying to him and he's believing the lies. But either way, if what Netanyahu is saying is true, then not only did we not only are we a part of this, but we were like an active part in the most, um,

in the most shameful way, pretending to want negotiations, just setting them up for another war.

It doesn't really help, at least as far as I'm seeing this, it doesn't help Tucker Carlson's claim that we were evacuating people in the region 24 to 48 hours before the attack came. So if nothing else, there seems to be like knowledge, prior knowledge before the fact, which is what Netanyahu is claiming. So maybe that's it. But look, I mean, imagine that, right? Imagine that...

Not only was the claim that, you know, Hamas was a proxy of Iran, but imagine that the Iranians had been in negotiations with the Israelis and then quietly 24 hours before October 7th pulled their people out of the region.

And then after pulling off October 7th, the Hamas leaders came out and said, yep, Iran had our back. They knew we were going to do it. This was all a setup to get Israel. We would have already gone to war with Iran over that.

So like, again, as I always kind of insist with these things, it's funny because the Israel supporters will accuse us of moral relativism. But the entire time, I'm always saying, what is the objective standard here? What is the objective standard? We can't have one standard for when Iran is at war and a completely different standard for when we're at war. If there is an if we're rejecting relativism and we're having an objective standard here,

By any objective standard, we are at war with Iran. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Massachips.

Did you know that all chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow up until the 1990s when big corporations switched to cheap processed seed oils? Today, seed oils make up to 20% of the average American's daily calories, and recent studies have linked seed oils to metabolic health issues and inflammation in the body. This is something Bobby Kennedy has talked a lot about, but now NASA has decided to do something about it.

They've created a tasty and delicious tortilla chip with just three ingredients and no seed oils. These chips don't only avoid all the bad stuff. They taste incredible too. Masa is crunchier, tastier, and sturdier than other chips. It's not going to break under your salsa or guac.

or whatever you like eating, go check them out. Massachips are beloved by tens of thousands of customers and have been endorsed by industry-leading health and nutrition experts like Ben Greenfield and Gary Brekka. If you're ready to give Massa a try, go to Massachips.com slash Dave and use the promo code Dave for 25% off your first order. That's Massachips.com slash Dave. Promo code Dave for 25% off your first order.

your first order. All right, let's get back into the show. Now, let's just explore for a second here. If, let's say the Tucker Carlson angle is right. Let's say that, which, you know, certain things are kind of hard to explain, but if what Tucker, like it certainly is plausible that

That Israel would go ahead and do this even without Donald Trump's support. I mean, they've always been kind of their game is always to lure America into their next war. And so maybe this was it, that they just felt like they'd put Trump in this position and then he'd have no choice. So let's let's explore that scenario, which maybe there's a third one that I'm missing here, but it seems like it's got to be one of these two.

So let's say, as Tucker Carlson says, that Donald Trump and Steve Witkoff were negotiating in good faith. They wanted to get a deal done. They wanted to avoid this war. And then Israel sabotaged them.

Okay, so they're just to understand here. They are we are in negotiations with the Iranians. There was a meeting set the day After Israel attacked the next day the Iranians were supposed to be meeting negotiating with the Trump administration So then Israel attacks destroying the possibility of negotiations at least it seems there are reports today that that Iran still wants to negotiate but I just I

I have a feeling we're past that point. I hope I'm wrong. And I hope this does end in a very short war that ends in negotiations. That would be great. But let's just say, let's say...

that israel keep in mind by the way that after bending over backward for netanyahu in his first administration netanyahu i mean literally doing things that no other president has ever done for the israelis moving the embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem and you understand why that's that's such a provocative thing that the israelis have wanted for so long because the the two-state solution

going back to the Oslo Accords, was supposed to be based around 1967 borders. And when people say 1967 borders, they mean before the Six-Day War in 1967. So the borders that held from 1948 until 1967. So those borders...

would split Jerusalem with East Jerusalem being a part of the new Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza being the Palestinian state. So the significance of putting the embassy in Jerusalem or of Israel calling Jerusalem its capital rather than Tel Aviv is that it's a signal that you're never getting your Palestinian state, much like the settlements in the West Bank.

It's like, hey, if we're going to give them a state, then how come we're building these giant settlements on the territory that's supposed to be their state? So Donald Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem. Donald Trump gets the Abraham Accords through, basically bribes the surrounding Arab countries to recognize Israel and enter into normal relations with them, bribes them with taxpayer money to do that. He does everything he can. Kills Soleimani, you know, just...

The most pro-Israel president you could possibly be.

And yet Benjamin Netanyahu was the first one to throw Donald Trump under the bus and congratulate Joe Biden for winning the 2020 election before American media had even called the race for Joe Biden. Forget the weeks and months afterward where Trump was contesting the election and bringing court cases. Obviously, all of them failed. But that wasn't clear at the time. Donald Trump, this was Benjamin Netanyahu.

congratulated Joe Biden for winning before the American media was even calling the race. After everything Donald Trump did, the guy turned around and stabbed him in the back. And so now, again, we're operating under the Tucker Carlson model here.

Now, you're telling me that Donald Trump was in the middle of negotiations and Israel started a war that Trump was trying to avoid. And then they went out and lied about it and said, no, no, no, he was in on it the whole time. And Donald Trump doesn't correct the record.

doesn't come out and say, no, no, no, they're lying, guys. I was negotiating. I did not want this war. If that were true, then the only way to be a leader after that would to come out, state that for the record, condemn Israel's aggressive attack of Iran and say, no, we are going back to negotiating right now. And now whatever. Now we're not negotiating favorably with Israel or something like that. But he didn't. Because essentially, that would just make him look weak.

That would make him look weak because he, something was done to him against his will that has now totally changed the calculation and made peace much more difficult to attain. So if that's true, if the Tucker Carlson, you know, model, whatever you want to call it, if Tucker Carlson is right, when he says he knows for a fact that Trump and Witkoff were negotiating in good faith and we're not covering for the Israelis, then Donald Trump is

is allowing that to be the narrative. It's actually even worse for Donald Trump than he is the most impotent coward of a leader that he wouldn't even go out and correct the record to potentially avoid World War III. Like, in the worst case scenario, avoid World War III. In a better case scenario, avoid a catastrophic war in the Middle East. And beyond that, just to tell the truth, just to not allow the Israelis to dog walk you into the policy they want.

So you got two options here. Either way, it's a disastrous failure from Donald Trump.

And that just really can't be overstated. And so that is why I said earlier today on breaking points that I'm I'm, you know, it's not that I was ever really on it or whatever, but I'm just to be I'm officially jumping off the Trump train here. I think it I just think the guy if he ever did deserve our support, he no longer does.

This was a she this was I know Donald Trump was always, you know, Israel's lapdog. And I know that he was always would always, you know, was terrible on Iran, terrible on Israel was always, you know, would talk in this blustery language. But at the very core of Donald Trump's pitch was that I do that so we don't fight wars.

This is what all of his supporters bragged throughout his first administration and the four years after, that there were no new wars under Donald Trump, no new wars in the Middle East. Well, that's over now. And all this talk about how Russia wouldn't have dared done it had I been president or Hamas wouldn't have dared to do it if I had been president. Israel will dare do it. Israel seems to be more emboldened by the fact that Donald Trump's president than they've ever been about anything else.

I mean, this is a war that they've wanted for at least the last 30 years. They only felt emboldened to do it now. So I just I don't know what what I can say other than that's just that's it. That's it for me. I mean, look, Donald Trump, for all the stuff he's he's been through.

And of course, I say this just in principle. Believe me, I know how corrupt the Congress is. I know this will never happen. They actually probably love this about Donald Trump. You know, for all the people who hate Donald Trump, and I mean the people in power, not like someone you know, but say like all the people...

at CNN or MSNBC or the New York Times or the Washington Post or in the Democratic establishment or the Republican establishment, all the people in the CIA or the FBI or all of them, right? For all as much as they've hated Donald Trump for the last eight, nine years, they like this.

You won't you won't see any impeachment attempts from the leadership, at least maybe like some rogue elements. But you're not going to see like, you know, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer leading impeachment hearings over this. But this is actually the thing Donald Trump should be impeached for. He should be impeached and removed for this because either of those two things, either of those two scenarios is just unforgivable.

If he had an ounce of integrity, he'd resign himself right now. Let J.D. Vance get in there. Let's see if maybe he's got a backbone. But if Donald Trump literally...

tried to not only fool the Iranians, but fool his own supporters into thinking that he was negotiating for peace and then encouraged in a legal war of aggression by the Israelis, then he should be impeached and removed. And if he didn't, and Israel has...

sabotaged the United States of America and a country who is our welfare queen, a country whose wars we fight for them, whose weapons we supply to them, where we give them $4 billion a year just for existing, not to mention the $3 billion a year we give Egypt to never fight them or the

billions of dollars that we've given to Jordan to never fight them or the billions of dollars we give to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates to never fight Israel, all that we've given them, that they would go out of their way to sabotage our peace talks and then our president would sit there and take it and not correct the record. That's even worse. To be honest, that's even worse.

Either way, he should actually be impeached and removed for this. Of course, he won't be. He'll be impeached for a phone call with Zelensky or, you know, whatever, January 6th or something like that for the nonsense. This the thing is that this is what they actually like about Donald Trump. Look.

I hope that, you know, there's there's as I've been saying some stuff like this, both on breaking points and on Twitter today, I've there's been a lot of people who say that I'm overreacting. Wait and see. We'll see what happens here. I hope you're right. I hope you're right. And I hope I'm wrong. This is still too far for me.

I'm off the Trump train, if ever I was really on it. I was hopeful at one point. But I hope you're right. And I hope that, you know, the Iranians were signaling today that they were ready to negotiate, which is, I was surprised by. I thought it was going to be too late for that. But then again, I mean, we just saw one of two things happen here. Either Donald Trump never really wanted to negotiate with the Iranians,

Or he did and Israel sabotaged it. So why should we think negotiations are going to happen now? I guess a couple other notes that I would say here. It has been wild. It's almost like you stepped in some type of time machine. And I'm back in 2002 listening to the same people use the same justifications that were used to launch the invasion of Iraq. I mean, literally the exact same people.

I'm listening. I'm seeing Mark Levin and Glenn Beck all telling me how we'll be greeted as liberators. Oh, will we really? No, you don't understand. They were developing weapons of mass destruction. Okay. All right.

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Cornbread. Cornbread's CBD gummies. They're good for stressful time, like when the world's at war. Maybe you need a nice CBD gummy to calm down. Well, make sure you go to cornbreadhempscbdgummies.com.

Cornbread's hemp CBD gummies are made to help you feel better, whether it's stress, discomfort, or just needing a little relaxation. I can tell you that I've taken these. They help me sleep. Really, really great stuff. Right now, you guys can get 30% off your first order. Just head to cornbreadhemp.com.

slash POTP and use the promo code POTP at checkout. Once again, that's cornbreadhemp.com slash POTP promo code POTP at checkout for 30% off. All right, let's get back into the show. It's like, man, you guys should be forced to at least switch it up for the next one. You know, that's what you, that's the lie you guys told us last time you were duping us into fighting a war on Israel's behalf. You got to find a new one for this time. Um,

It's also, it's just been, it's appalling. And I got to say, kind of shocking to see how many people were celebrating this immediately, like celebrating how easy it was, how successful Israel was before it's even clear. I mean, before it's even clear, like how much the Iranian nuclear program has even been degraded. It's just very unclear right now. How many people have died? Very unclear right now. I think they're,

They were reporting like 70 people were killed with several hundred being wounded out of Iran. But we still haven't even the dust hasn't even settled. We don't exactly know. And they're celebrating. See, this was easy. Here's a video. I saw one person post a video of what looked to be about 25 Iranians cheering. And they were like, look, the people are ready to rise up.

Yeah. It's like, I remember them saying the same thing about Saddam Hussein, but at least there were like thousands of people in those videos. But there, you know, this is, this is how wars always work. Every single war, my,

My entire life, every war was like this. I remember in... I think I've told this on the show before, but I have a memory. I was a little kid. I was born in 1983, so it was in 1991 that George H.W. Bush launched the Gulf War and invaded Iraq for the first time. I remember his address to the nation when he announced that we were invading. And I...

I remember, you know, vaguely from the time, but I've read about this as an adult, but I remember the celebration after the Gulf War in the one in 91 I'm talking about now. And everybody was just celebrating how easy it was. I mean, we went right in there and just steamrolled them. It was a cakewalk. We didn't take casualties, some injuries. I don't think I don't think America took any casualties.

in that war. I might be wrong, but if there were, they were very low in number. And that was it. We were celebrating how easy it was. It was such an easy success, you know, cakewalk, except we went on to be militarily bogged down in that country for the next 30 years.

You know, there were massive sanctions and bombing campaigns all through the Clinton years of Iraq. In fact, it was one of the things that was one of the stated grievances in Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on the West was how many babies we killed in Iraq. And

We were bogged down there throughout the 90s. Of course, after 9-11, they launched the George W. Bush's war there. That went on to be another 20-year catastrophe. It was 30 years of fighting after that. It was real easy to celebrate how easy it is at the time. Of course, everybody remembers famously that only a couple months into George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,

He had a mission accomplished celebration where he came in on a fighter jet and they had the big mission accomplished banner behind him and everyone was celebrating. What an easy victory it had been. See, we got Saddam out of there. And then we went on to be embroiled in a 20-year catastrophic civil war where something like a million people died.

I remember right after Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown is when Hillary Clinton had her famous, we came, we saw, he's dead. They were all planning.

about how this was going to be the centerpiece of hillary clinton's uh 2016 presidential campaign you know she was secretary of state she was they called it hillary's war she was the one who really pushed uh to overthrow muhammad qaddafi and in obama's memoir he said that he was about 50 50 on the issue and that hillary clinton was the one who convinced him

So she was bragging about it and they wanted to have something. You know, Hillary Clinton had, again, I might be a little bit older than some of you guys, but I remember this stuff. But in the 90s, when Hillary Clinton was the first lady, she was put in charge of health care. She was going to sell the new health care reform and it failed.

And so she was just kind of remembered for this policy failure. She really had nothing as a senator. She voted for the war in Iraq, which was a disaster. She didn't really have anything that she could say like, this was my, you know, she always Hillary Clinton always tried to run on like, I'm the professional one. I'm the one with experience. I'm, you know, all this shit.

But she didn't have anything to hang her hat on. And so they thought this would be it. The Libya model. You see, she led a regime change, you know, one of the countries that Israel wanted us to get rid of. But she didn't do it with boots on the ground the way that George W. Bush did. These days, this is how the Democrats were trying to sell themselves. Like, we're the party of war, but we're for smart wars. We don't just send our troops in and get, you know, beaten.

boggled down in a nation building project. We just took out the leader, you know? So that was their plan. They were going to run on Libya in her presidential campaign. By the time she was running for president, she wouldn't dare bring up Libya. She wouldn't even mention it because it was so obviously a colossal failure at that point.

i'm sure a lot of you guys can remember because i'm not going that far back now but when vladimir putin first invaded ukraine joe biden said we would defeat them with sanctions alone we wouldn't even have to send in weapons to the ukrainians we could just sanction russia right out of ukraine

How'd that work out? You know, hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons later and Russia's got more territory than they had then. So for people who are celebrating how easy and successful this war was 48 hours into the war, these people are out of their fucking minds. Like you can't look back at the last 25 years and go, at least I shouldn't be celebrating yet.

Now, maybe I'll be wrong. Maybe I'll be proven wrong in all of this. Perhaps it is true that Iran is a better candidate for regime change than these other countries. I've heard that argument made, and I must admit there's not nothing to it.

Iran has a different history, a different level of sophistication, a different tradition in liberalism than a lot of these other countries do. There's the Shah who was installed by the U.S.,

after we overthrew Mosaddegh in 1953, who was a democratically elected leader, by the way. But he didn't want to do business with British oil companies, and so the CIA went in and overthrew him. And we installed the Shah, and from 1953 to 1979, Iran was a much different country than it's been since then.

and they're you know some of you guys may have seen but like they'll show you pictures of like iran in 1971 and there's women in mini skirts and there's cities and there's you know and and then after the revolution in 79 it became a much more repressive society still in big cities in iran there are nightclubs and there are you know like there's the argument is that there's a there's a liberalism to their culture that you don't find in others

And I listen, I suppose I'll say perhaps there that finally this time and for the first time, the Warhawks are actually right about this. And this will be easy and they will overthrow the regime and it will just be a much better situation. But I'm doubtful. I've just seen this movie play out many times before. And.

You know, there's a lot of bluster right now. There's a lot of people talking about how weak the Iranian regime is. That's what Netanyahu was saying to Brett Baier the other day. They always say this when they're trying to get us to war. Oh, they're so weak. It'll be so easy to go just overthrow them. Because again, make no mistake about it. This is about regime change. This is about getting the seventh country on Wesley Clark's list. It's not about a non-existent nuclear weapons program.

There are other things that are also different about Iran. And I think Israel's already felt that. Like, one of the things that's pretty different about Iran is that when we went in to take out Saddam Hussein, when we went in to take out Muammar Gaddafi, when we went in to overthrow the Taliban, when we went in to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, they didn't... They weren't able to bomb the crap out of Israel in response.

They certainly weren't able to bomb the United States of America in response. Iran has already demonstrated, while all of these people are celebrating, Iran has already demonstrated that they can touch Israel. And I don't think they've emptied out everything they have yet. Nobody's claiming that.

You know, it should also be pointed out here that immediately, and this is what I mean when I say the U.S. is already at war with Iran, immediately that we have U.S. armed forces shooting down the Iranian missiles. So think about that, too, as just one more, you know, one more example of how we're at war with them. Imagine you either allow slash facilitate Iran.

or possibly didn't want but will still make excuses for Israel's aggressive attack of Iran. And then you're shooting down the missiles coming back in the other direction, protecting them. So I don't know. How is that not being at war with that country? And so, you know, they could sit here and say that this regime is weak.

The people really hate them. They don't have any popular support. You know, 80% of the people oppose this regime. All the numbers that they say, again, like with all their claims about Iran, they never have to show their work. They never have to demonstrate how they concluded this. The fact of the matter is that this regime has stood since 1979. Now, if they were so weak...

Okay, this regime has stood since 1979 with the most powerful governments in the world wanting them out, and they've still stayed in. I don't think I'm buying this argument that they're going to be so easy to topple. And once again, as the military told George W. Bush in 2007, we do not have escalation dominance in a war with Iran. No.

meaning, you know, escalation dominance is the military term that basically means we're going to do this. Now, once we do this, they could either do this or this or this. If they do this, we do this. If they do this, we do this. If they do this, we do this. This is the type of dominance we had over Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And when I say that, I don't mean what everybody knows we got bogged down in Iraq was in nation building.

It was after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Then we had this civil war breakout. We fought on one side of the civil war. There was resistance from the other side of civil war. We're trying to hold regular elections. We're trying to impose a new government. The country's in flames. Al Qaeda comes in to join up with the resistance. Now we got these fighters who were fighting an insurgency. That's where the war in Iraq gets really messy. That's where a million people die. That's where we're in a 20-year regime change war.

But just the war with Saddam Hussein's government was a cakewalk. You know, we went in there and whatever they did, we had 10 times more power. You know, they do this. We send in the Air Force. They do this. We send in the Navy. Like we'd always be able to take out their next option. What the Pentagon was telling George W. Bush in 2007 is that we don't have that with Iran. Like we don't have that.

you know it's like okay we bombed their nuclear facilities then they could touch any one of our bases or embassies in the region and we just have tens of thousands of u.s military personnel all throughout the region you know i mean we have the bases in iraq in bahrain and in qatar all over the place we have u.s bases that they can touch not to mention israel's right there as well and to see

You know, the same people who have championed war after war after war, every one of them being a catastrophic failure now out here.

saying, no, no, no, this one's easy. It's like, I just would not, I'm looking at this thing, I would not take their word for it. And I hope I'm wrong. I hope Donald Trump pulls a Trump card out of his ass and gets back to the negotiating table and we can somehow avoid this calamity. But as of now, I am just not seeing it. It does not look good, if you're asking me. And I do think that no matter what, this has been a total betrayal of

of of America first and of MAGA by Donald Trump. And, you know, I'm kind of sick of people making excuses for him. You know, Donald Trump has had some of the the biggest tests of his life. He has absolutely failed.

Then COVID was the first one was the biggest test of his life. He championed lockdowns. He mocked places that weren't locking down, made predictions about places, countries like Sweden, how they were going to like regret that they didn't have lockdowns. Meanwhile, they, they did great through COVID, um, did substantially better than their, their neighbors. Um,

Donald Trump kept Fauci on the job through all of 2020, bragged about his the awful vaccine, you know, not even getting into his foreign policy decisions. Like how much just how much death and destruction is on this guy's hands?

And look, I know I, I supported him this time around there. It really did seem at the time, like he was a much better option in some ways. I'm sure he still was a much better option than Kamala Harris. And I still tend to think looking back at it, that it would have been worse for the country for her to win overall, but,

But this is just, you know, this is the second major test of Donald Trump's life, and he's just failing it miserably. And I have no role in any of this if not to tell the truth. And I'm just not, you know, I understand where people who are real close to the president and want to influence him still feel like they got to kind of kiss his ass while blaming everyone else around him. But that's not me.

At a certain point, it's like, no, this is on him. It's his fault. He's had enough good people around him, and he's listening to the bad ones on this. This is why you don't load your whole cabinet up with nothing but pro-Israel people. It should also be pointed out, and this is part of why it's such a betrayal to his own base, that he's not going to get mass deportations done either.

You know, which by the way, the timing of him totally bitching out on that works really well with the timing of this happening. Because right now you have a situation where Donald Trump has majority, the majority of the American people support mass deportations. Donald Trump was elected on the issue of immigration twice, three times if you ask his supporters.

The majority supports Donald Trump's position, but it's a difficult policy to enact, and the minority who opposes it is mobilized and energetic. They are now back out on the streets protesting Donald Trump. In other words, Donald Trump needed all of his political capital in order to get his signature issue through, and instead, he's going to completely divide his base.

It's going to divide his base over this. So just so you know, we're never getting any of that done. The neocon agenda of attacking the world and inviting the world, the neocon agenda of removing all, having regime change against all of Israel's enemies are alive and well. They are, as always, they're winning the day politically. Even though they're losing the day with the people, there's, I mean, there's like neocon. Think about it like this. How crazy is this?

The term neocon is now a pejorative to the point that people like Mark Levin and Douglas Murray go, no fair. Don't you call me that name? You got to stop using that name. That's a secret code word for you hate Jews. Think about it. From the guy who wrote the book, The Case for Neoconservatism or Neoconservatism, Why We Need It or whatever his dumb book was called.

That guy, Mark Levin, the self-described neoconservatives now say, don't call me that. That's a mean word. That's how much neoconservatives have lost the argument with the American people. They now say you're a racist if you use the term neocon. That's how much they've lost the argument. And yet still their policy wins the day. How crazy is that? And, you know, people listen.

I knew this was going to happen. I knew I was going to end up in this situation at some point. I was hoping I wouldn't, but it seemed inevitable. I had a lot of people in the MAGA world who were just loving me when I came out and supported Donald Trump. And a lot of those same people are now hating me that I'm criticizing him and apologizing for supporting him. And that's fine.

I never really, you know, I always knew when those people were celebrating me that it was kind of phony and I kind of feel the same way now. I don't really care. I'm going to keep telling the truth as I see it. But I will say this, and this is the final thing I'll say, and we can wrap up the episode on this. One of the criticisms of Donald Trump supporters for years and years now has been that they are members of a cult.

Whatever Donald Trump says they're going to support. He could do a 180 on his policy from yesterday and then they'll do a 180 right there with him. And I think that that is a fair assessment of some of Donald Trump's supporters, but certainly not all of them. And I have been...

really blown away. And part of this is the dynamic I was talking about, how the neocons have completely lost the argument, and yet they completely win the policy. It doesn't matter how many debates I do where I just smash a neocon, they still have more influence in DC than me or people who think like me ever will, at least anytime soon.

But it is it has been remarkable to see how many of kind of the influential right wing people, Trump supporters are just not supporting this policy, are coming out against it. And I would just for whatever influence I have, I would just say like, hey,

Hey, look, you know, all those Joe Biden supporters who really were members of a cult who literally just repeated whatever the corporate media said. Oh, Ivermectin is horse dewormer, horse dewormer, horse dewormer. He's sharp as a tack, sharp as a tack, sharp as a tack. Like whatever they told you behind closed doors, behind closed doors, he's sharp as a tack. And then as soon as the media told them that their guy who they loved was going to drop out, they said, yes, he must drop out. He must drop out. Kamala Harris is joy and hope. Kamala Harris is joy and hope. Like the,

They literally are just in a brainwashed cult. Don't be like them. We're not supposed to be them. We're supposed to actually believe in something. And if you do actually believe in something, at a certain point, you got to stop making excuses for the guy who's failing on all of that shit. And that's where I am. As always, very interested to hear your feedback. I hope I'm wrong about a lot of this stuff. I hope this works out and it isn't another disaster. As of right now, not looking too good.

we'll see what happens today of course there was uh as some of you may have seen uh scott horton had put out that he had sources close to him that were telling him america is going to attack around today i have heard from those same sources they have been right on the members only episode a couple days ago i had had told you know if you want to get that you got to sign up over at partoftheproblem.com but i had told our audience in the members only episode

that I had some sources that were saying Israel was about to attack a couple days before Israel attacked Iran. They turned out to be correct about that. The same sources are telling me that the U.S. is about to attack Iran. We'll see if they're right again, but either way, we're already at war. Let's hope it ends quickly. All right. Thank you guys for watching. Catch you next time. Peace.