Trump DENIES Peace Talks With Iran, Polymarket Says US WILL Intervene, U.S. Strike IMMINENT
01:07:03 Share

Hi, I'm Richard Karn, and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket Hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here, and it's a total game changer. Old-fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's Pocket Pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust-proof anti-burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage.

Plus, your super light and ultra durable pocket hose copper head is backed with a 10-year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of

Any size copperhead hose. Just text WATER to 64000. That's WATER to 64000 for your two free gifts with purchase. W-A-T-E-R to 64000. By texting 64000, you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Hose. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply. Available at pockethose.com slash terms.

RFK Jr.'s threatening to block big pharma advertising, and I am all for it. This money goes to cable networks where almost every commercial, because their audience is over 70, is a bunch of drugs.

And this is what keeps these media narratives locked in place. Big pharmaceutical companies, big money, dumping tens of billions of, well, literally a $10 billion market into media. And then what happens? It's quite simple. You may be wondering why it is that YouTube was banning certain ideas related to medications in 2020.

There are a lot of conspiracies, and some of them may be more true than others, but I'll give you one simple one that probably played a big role. When people were going on YouTube and advocating for cheap, low-cost medicines, one, there is insurance and liability where YouTube's like, dude, don't give medical advice, but then why block doctors who literally can give medical advice?

Well, they shouldn't. It's not their patient, to be honest. So that is a component. Money, money. Big pharmaceutical companies were like YouTube. We spend billions on ads on your platform. OK, if you're going to have people making all these viral videos claiming that what we produce is bad for them, we're going to pull our advertising. And YouTube goes, holy crap, big pharma ads make the world go round. I say, RFK, let's roll. Now, some people have said, but Tim,

This would violate the First Amendment. And I say, maybe, maybe.

There are a lot of limitations on speech that we've already agreed upon. In fact, the founding fathers, nobody ever really agreed with free speech. So spare me this. You know, these liberals come to me and they're like, you don't believe in free speech. I'm like, oh, the founding fathers didn't believe in free speech. They had blasphemy laws. They signed a constitution in 1789. And when they did, you couldn't go outside and proclaim bad things about the Lord.

They'd arrest you for it. And they were like, well, nobody said that was free speech because there were moral lines society had agreed upon. No, no, we mean the right to political ideas. Now, for the most part, I think it's fine that most conversations be allowed and they should be. But let's not play this over the First Amendment game because they restrict tons of things related to speech. They restrict our guns. They restrict this. And some might say, OK,

We should be absolutists on all of the amendments. Perhaps you're correct, perhaps. But I'm going to tell you, I am not and never have been a laissez faire capitalist or just staunch abject libertarian. I think it is absolutely fine if Congress says advertising drugs has limitations. That's a good argument in the First Amendment.

It's a good argument, but I'm not going to sit here while big pharma just pumps out these drugs unfettered and then uses the billions to then manipulate the public. I mean, we've got challenges. I don't have a good answer for you. I don't. Maybe I'm wrong. I can say that. But let's check out the story from Bloomberg. RFK Jr. Plans Crackdown on Pharma Ads and Threat to $10 Billion Market. The Trump admin is discussing policies that would make it harder for harder for

and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending. I don't care. Although the U.S. is the only place besides New Zealand where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the admin vulnerable to lawsuits. So instead, focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans, who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Yeah, I'm for it. I'm totally for it. The two policies the admin has focused on would be to require greater disclosure of side effects of a drug within each ad, likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive. Let's roll, baby. Or removing the industry's ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes. I'm going to tell you.

I wish it were easy, and I wish there were easy answers. But the reason why I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist is I can tell you right now, snake oil is a real thing. You used to have, you still probably do, these balance bracelets, they call them. They take a rubber band, they put it on your wrist, and tell you it grants you magical balance powers. Unfortunately, some people fall for it. Now, you may be thinking, come on, who's stupid enough to believe that a balance bracelet improves your balance?

They actually perform a magic trick magicians use called the center of gravity illusion. It's a preliminary trick used to claim an object is imbued with power. Okay, so let's try this. I'll explain. I have here this guitar pick.

And the magician goes, what if I were to tell you that this is a guitar pick crafted from the tooth of the devil himself, granting unworldly powers to all who possess it? You'd roll your eyes and laugh and say, sure, sure. Here's what they do. They say, I can prove it. Stand on one leg and hold out your hands. What they'll then do is they'll place their hand on your arm and they pull slightly away from your center of gravity. This will cause you to fall over.

They'll then say, aha, but hold the pick of destiny, TM, and watch what happens. They'll put the object in your hand and then the arm opposing your standing leg. They will push into your center of gravity and you will not fall.

It's pretty obvious to anybody who knows the trick. But what ends up happening is most people don't get it. All they know is that they were pulled down and they fell. But when they were holding the item, they were pulled down and they didn't.

It's a simple, simple trick meant to set up a larger magic trick where they then can make the item disappear or use it to make someone levitate. Now, what happens is these bounce bracelet people said, hey, we could trick regular people. And so they started doing this. They put the bracelet on their wrist and said, I can't pull you down. You're so strong. Then they made tens of millions of dollars, got a bunch of celebrities and athletes to wear them.

Everybody then said it must be real. And I said, yo, is fraud allowed? OK, is fraud free speech? No, it's not. You can't lie to people in order to take their money. Agreed? I think so. That's why I don't believe in absolutism when it comes to free speech. I think there are some restrictions defrauding people of good conscience who trust you because they don't know better. I think that's wrong.

So fraud, I say no. I believe that the pharma ads fall into comparable territories when they're not doing appropriate testing, when they are spending money to bypass legislation and then sell products that may be detrimental, running commercials for them to get you to give your money. I view that as bordering on the fraudulent.

I do not like what these companies do, and I think there should be some restrictions. Granted, I'll give the 1A absolutist people this. It's tough to navigate because I do think people have a right to speak and to advertise. And where do we draw the line? It's very difficult. What I can say is, man, I wish I had the answers. But we all do agree that these big pharma companies are ripping us off and causing massive damage to the American population. They're going to say,

Discussions are ongoing and plans could still be could still change before any action. Limiting pharma ads would be a major win for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy. He's long wanted to more strictly regulate how medicines are promoted. He said he believes Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries because of the U.S. drug company's ability to directly advertise. You know, it's really insane when I'm watching the TV like, you know, Fox News or something.

And a commercial comes on and it'll go, is flab and all right for you? Call your doctor now and ask. And I'm like, no, no, I'm not going to call my doctor and ask because I don't know what it treats. And then I call him like, well, I saw the commercial. Hey, doc, flab and all. Is that right for me? And they're going to be like, flab and all treats.

Menopausal symptoms. You're a man. I'll go, oh, I didn't know. I saw a commercial. It didn't tell me what it was for. It just told me to call you, doc. And they're going to be like, uh-huh. But guess what? A lot of people do. There will be a sleep drug. And it will be like, call your doctor and see if this drug is right for you without telling you what the drug does. And then you'll call your doctor. And the doc will be like, yeah, let's give you the drug. Why? Because sometimes doctors get kickbacks. Indeed.

The new policy could threaten a key source of revenue to advertising and media companies, as well as the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Companies spent $10.8 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in total. I say, get rid of all of it.

AbbVie and Pfizer were particularly big spenders. AbbVie alone spent $2 billion on direct-to-consumer ads. Wow. Promoting the company's anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoke. I see those commercials all the time on Fox News. The medicine brought in more than $5 billion for AbbVie in the first quarter of 2025. Insane.

We're exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers. HHS spokesperson, excuse me, Andrew Nixon said in a written statement, adding that no final decisions have been made. AbbVie shares fell as much as 2.3 on Tuesday, their biggest drop in a month. Pfizer shares slipped as much as 1.7.

Before the loosening of advertiser regulations by the FDA in 97, U.S. pharma companies had to list all possible side effects for a medication if they wanted to mention which condition the drug being advertised was intended to treat. Now they don't. They say reading out a list of side effects took so long it drove up the cost of airtime. So what? The FDA change allowed ads to disclose fewer side effects and also allowed companies to direct customers to talk to their doctors, call a telephone number, or visit a website.

In 2024, 59% of pharma industry spend was on television advertising, making pharma the third highest spending industry on television ads. I say no. That's just me, though. I'd love to hear what you guys think. I'm for this Maha stuff. I'm all for it. I don't know about the tax stuff or whatever. I just I don't like it.

That over the course of several years, big pharmaceutical companies got big tech and politicians to mandate medications. Otherwise, they were going to pull lobby dollars and advertising spends. That's insane. Say lovey. I'll wrap up there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone. You know, stay tuned. We got more segments coming up for you in a little bit. Follow me on X and Instagram at Tim guest and we'll see you all in the next segment.

Kash Patel has just dropped a bomb last night, declassifying documents that show China may have been trying to fabricate fake ballots in the 2020 election to help Joe Biden win. Now, immediately, many people are taking this to say 2020 was stolen. And this proves it. That is not the point that Kash Patel made, nor is it the point of this story.

Now, what's strange is that as the story drops, you instantly have people trying to fact check the director of the FBI himself, saying the story has already been debunked. But the story that Kash Patel has released is not about proof that China helped steal the election for Biden.

It's that a report was given. It was made by the FBI documenting what appeared to be a Chinese plot to produce fake driver's licenses. So non-citizen Chinese personnel in this country working at the behest of China could acquire mail-in votes and falsely vote to benefit Joe Biden. When this report came to the FBI,

The director at the time disregarded it, refused to investigate, and then almost immediately issued a report saying nothing is going on. No one is interfering, or at least not China. I think they did come out and say Russia. The scandal is that there may have been this plot. It seems possible and probable based on the intelligence gathered, but the FBI threw the story away and tried to cover it up. Now, in my opinion,

That is potential circumstantial evidence. I should say it's actual circumstantial evidence that China did actually do this and that elements of our own government wanted it to happen and didn't want people to find out about it. The story is not, and I will clarify this one more time, that they found and have proven this plot. So a lot of people already are going, aha, I knew it. The election was stolen. Hold on, guys. We're not quite there yet.

What Kash Patel is going after is the corruption in the FBI to aid and abet the Democratic Party in these schemes. And this would indicate there is a decent probability. In fact, the story is true. Now, people have put community notes on Kash Patel's post with unrelated fact checks, trying to create the narrative among the cult psycho left that it's already been debunked in a post on X.

FBI Director Kash Patel says the FBI has located documents which detail alarming allegations related to the 2020 U.S. election, including allegations of interference by the CCP. I have immediately declassified the material and turned the documents over to Chairman Grassley for further review. Here's the story from Just the News.

FBI Director Kash Patel on Monday evening turned over to Congress an intelligence report raising concerns that China had mass produced fake U.S. driver's licenses to carry out a scheme to hijack the 2020 election with fake mail-in ballots for Democrat Joe Biden.

The newly declassified intelligence reports from August 2020 weren't corroborated or fully investigated and instead were recalled from intelligence agencies at about the time that then FBI Director Chris Wray testified there were no known plots of foreign interference ahead of the 2020 election in which Biden defeated Trump. Officials told Just the News. So again, I want to break that down for you guys.

This is evidence it may have actually happened. This is evidence that FBI Director Chris Wray may have been trying to cover this up because they were in on the scheme to steal the 2020 election. This is not proof that it actually happened or that the election was actually stolen in this way. That being said.

I've long maintained that it was universal mail in voting and ballot harvesting that benefited Democrats and allowed them to win because a lot of people who normally don't vote that I knew were voting. Now, that being said, if it turns out that they did manipulate mail in voting to win, well, then I would stand. I will say this. I stand corrected. But this intelligence was hidden from the American people. And I can't say that I or anyone else would be surprised to find that the FBI was in on it.

So once again, I will stress they did not corroborate or investigate these claims. It was an intelligence intelligence report saying we think this may be happening. And the weird thing and what needs to be investigated now is that Chris Ray threw it away, then testified. Nope, we don't got any intel. Now, hold on a minute. You had intel. You threw it away. Why would you do that? One, we can jump right to the he was in on it.

Or it's possible they didn't want to know the truth if that was the case. You get a report saying the Chinese are trying to help Joe Biden win and you're a Democrat. You're going to go just just get rid of that one. I don't want to know. I don't want to know. That's basically what it sounds like. Or we can just say, all right, he was in on it.

The new documents were turned over to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who had first raised concerns to the Bureau that the intelligence hadn't been fully vetted and instead was just dismissed, even though there was evidence of the fake licenses.

Thanks to the oversight work and partnership of Chairman Grassley, the FBI continues to provide unprecedented transparency at the People's Bureau, Patel told Just the News in a statement. To that end, we have located documents Chairman Grassley requested, which detail alarming allegations into the 2020 U.S. election.

Specifically, these allegations include these include allegations of plans from the CCP to manufacture fake driver's licenses and ship them into the United States for the purpose of facilitating fraudulent mail in ballots. Allegations which, while substantiated, were abruptly recalled and never disclosed to the public. So I want to say this again.

They knew that there was something actually going on. And the FBI threw it away without investigating. So I have no problem. It was funny. Someone chatted the other day. They're like, Tim will never admit he was wrong. What? I literally do that all the time. If the FBI puts out proof and it looks like this is evidence, not proof, but evidence that the election was actually stolen.

I'm going to go and say right now, based on this initial report, it does seem to suggest not only that Joe Biden cheated, but that the FBI aided and abetted Chinese influence to manipulate our elections. And that is a very serious charge. Now, we're not formally at war with China, but if it is true that Chris Wray did this to aid and abet a foreign adversary listed and codified in our law as an adversary, then

Those are some very serious charges, to say the least. In accordance with Chairman Grassley's request for documents, I have immediately declassified the material and turned the document over to the chairman for further review.

Officials who have seen the documents told Just the News that the FBI had a relatively new confidential source who provided information in summer 2020 that the Chinese government was manufacturing and exporting fake U.S. driver's licenses as a part of a plot to create voter identities for Chinese residents living in the U.S. so they could vote with fake mail-in ballots. The intelligence source claimed the plot was specifically designed to benefit Biden.

They also said the intelligence report was recalled in a few weeks and the allegations never fully investigated on the grounds that the source needed to be re-interviewed. But in fact, another agency, CBP, had intercepted nearly 20,000 fake licenses around the time the intelligence came into a possible corroboration of the report, the official says.

Now, again, the major scandal here is evidence that the election was being manipulated, potentially stolen evidence. The FBI sought to cover it up. Here's the best part. Kash Patel's tweet, his ex post. Sorry. Right. Proposed community notes. OK, what's this all about? And the top suggestion says alleged plots by the Chinese to interfere in the 2020 election have been long debunked. Oh, yeah. Long debunked.

Let me just say this, my friends. This is a new claim by the sitting director of the FBI. You can't just take links from 2020 and 2021 and claim it debunks a claim that was just made. Imagine someone said Tim Pool last Saturday stole an ice cream cone from a restaurant. And then someone said, actually, that's not true. Look at this story from March of 2020. Tim Pool pays for ice cream. It's like, uh,

These allegations are asynchronous. That what? Look what they're doing. They're trying to get a community note so that liberals who see the post from Kash Patel will think it's already been debunked when it hasn't been. Here's a report from March of 2021. Foreign threats to the 2020 U.S. federal elections.

It's not been debunked. Cash just released the documents. You got to release something today. What else do we got from Fulcrum? Claim other countries can counterfeit ballots to affect our elections. Fact check false. This isn't even fact checking what cash released. They said they were creating fake voter identities to get legitimate ballots, not counterfeit ballots. Why are they lying? We have this from AFP.

Facebook posts share misleading fraud claim after Chinese courier package spotted at U.S. election ballot count unrelated to the statement made by the head of the FBI that the that at the then head of the FBI covered up this information. My friends.

We have some very real information that shows Democrats may have been in on covering up Chinese fraud. I'm talking about literal CCP fraud in our elections. And they're acting like it's a lie. I commend the job that Kash Patel is doing. I know a lot of people are frustrated, but I think he's doing a tremendous job. This is extremely important. And one by one, he has been dropping these documents, which we have long been waiting for as to the corruption in this country.

I'm going to leave there, my friend. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all in the next segment.

To say that I actually agree with being a reasonable person, but then attack it from the other side. He does this with everything. He'll say stuff like, well, yeah, you know, we have concerns about the woke left, but the people who are critical of the woke left are bad. Basically, you will never get a strong anti-establishment position from Jon Stewart. It's going to be pro-establishment. He feigns being anti-establishment just a little bit. So he's the one you're supposed to listen to.

But then staunch anti-establishment voices are all to be mocked and ridiculed because they're hypocrites, liars and grifters. Don't trust them. And he does it by means of fake videos that they hide behind comedy so you can't sue him. It's a dangerous game, John, especially in the AI era. I wonder how we can play this game in turn. But I digress. Jon Stewart rips Trump's involvement in Israel-Iran conflict. What the F are we doing? I wonder, does he really?

Here's the clip of John, and let's see what he says. Perhaps the reason why the president is being cagey about all this is because not all of the MAGA are embracing Netanyahu's bomb fetishes. We cannot be dragged into and actually dragged into a war in the Middle East. We put America first. Come on, man. You see the jump cut, guys. You see the games they play. Watch it again and see the white flash on Steve Bannon. Netanyahu's bomb fetishes.

We cannot be dragged into and actually dragged into a war in the Middle East. We put it. That's not a quote. They fabricated that statement from Steve Bannon. Don't get me wrong. Steve Bannon does not want to be involved in a war in the Middle East, but that was not a quote.

You see, to make their point, they will edit together different words. I think we should save this one because I'd like to play that game, Jon Stewart. America first, and that means American interests first. Our MAGA base, they do not want the United States to be engaged in this. I don't know anyone that wakes up and thinks about bombing Iran. She doesn't know anyone who wakes up and thinks about bombing Iran. I got to tell you. Why did they just laugh at what he said? Yeah.

I don't think she knows anyone who wakes up and thinks. I think she knows you, John. Like, haven't you guys met? Maybe not. Maybe I'm crazy. But she's met a bunch of Democrats, too. So I'll take it. Let's just agree that as a joke against Congress, acceptable. I'm going to say this. It may surprise some people. Credit where credit is due. I certainly have tremendous policy and knowledge.

in some instances, space laser differences with these folks. But I applaud any group that is steadfast in a diplomacy-first posture. See, what I love about that is this is the game The Daily Show plays. They masquerade as mocking the truth. But when you then realize they're fabricating statements and lying, if they get sued, they rush to the defense of it's clearly a fabricated comedy show and not meant to be taken seriously.

But the people who are watching it believe you are showing them reality and then mocking the inconsistencies. It's a clever game. The only problem with their posture that I see with it is their reluctance to commit America's military to fighting drawn out and often pointless wars doesn't seem to extend to America. Not one of these people you're about to hear

is calling for the entirety of the United States military to deploy to a single state to occupy it and start a new government and rebuild that state. President Trump should fully deploy the military in the streets. Take back the streets of L.A. Do it and do it fast.

Huh, Jon Stewart? He's referring to riots and Trump invoking the Insurrection Act or Title 10 to stop riots. That's it. You see, if you actually provide people context, it is this. Charlie Kirk does not see a concern with sending National Guard or Marines in to the tune of a few thousand, several thousand for the purpose of a one week long riot for which you end the riot and then they leave.

And he does see a problem with deploying the entirety of U.S. military assets, the apparatus to the Middle East for the occupation and regime change of Iran. You see, those are those are kind of different things. John doesn't want to be in Iran. He wants to be in. And he doesn't want to deploy the military overseas. He wants to save the military for the real threat.

He's not being hypocritical, just f***ing mind blowing. What's mind blowing about a bunch of people rioting, throwing bricks at federal buildings, and someone saying 700 Marines to protect federal buildings is acceptable?

The idea that we would send tens of thousands of U.S. troops, air refueling tankers, aircraft carriers to the Indo-Pacific so that we can engage in regime change war in Iran, a massive country of 90 million people. That's insane. The idea that we're going to send several hundred to several thousand to stop a riot over the course of a week is normal. But Jon Stewart is a hypocrite and a liar.

The MAGA mindset appears to be we didn't vote for foreign wars. We voted for civil war. Ah, but he's lying. The battle for America was going to take place in Los Angeles. The only way to win here is to double and triple down. Not once did Steve Bannon say in that clip, deploy the military. He simply said,

This is war. We've got to double and triple down. What does that mean? It's all pulled out of context. And this is the dirty game Jon Stewart plays. Jon, stop being so scummy. But you know what the problem is? That's what his show is and always has been. It is funny to push a political ideology by manipulating people. And then if they sue you, it's just jokes. Current war that we are seeing waged by the Democrats.

by the foreign nationals waving Mexican flags. The city of Los Angeles is an occupied city. It is time to retake the cities of this country. It is time to use force.

What the ****? They are looking. What do you mean, what the ****? He just showed you a video of Waymo cars being summoned and destroyed. Yeah, we use force to stop that. So, and we take our cities back from roving bands of violent rioters. Why are you acting like you're confused by this, John? You know you're not. For any pretense, they are...

Pretends to sick their robot dogs on Democrats. And the guys waving Mexican flags and setting fires to Waymo's and firebombing federal buildings are Democrats.

Agreed. The strategy that they're using is to inflate the threat that this country now faces, to so rile up their base as to make the left in this country, represented by over 75 million votes in the past presidential election, a legitimate military target. That has not been said by literally anybody. This is a

psychotic thing for Jon Stewart to claim. And that's the point. If you actually sue him and say no one called for the use of military against run-of-the-mill Democrat voters, their response will be, it's simply jokes. It's all just a joke. None of it's real. For the United States of America, it's a strategy that's been used before to gin up military conflict.

It is remarkable the lies that these people engage in. Now, I have a question. Why would Jon Stewart try to discredit several individuals who are saying no war with Iran?

We're in interesting times. If you go back to the Bush era, voices like mine or any of these, they'd never be anywhere near the TV. The TV was going to be your kooky anti-war activist who didn't have great arguments. And then everybody else was pro-war with Iraq. And if you weren't pro-war with Iraq, you weren't going to be on TV. In fact, fascinating thing, Bill Maher, he got, when did they cancel Politically Incorrect? Let me pull that one up. Bill Maher to show they canceled him. And I think it was because he said the terrorists on 9-11 were brave.

Politically incorrect talk show was, let's see, it was canceled 2002. I think, yep. And the point he was making was not that he liked what they did. He was saying that it takes a tremendous amount of courage to die for a cause. They're evil and stupid. They canceled them for this. So let me pull this up for you. On September 11, 2001, conservative political commentator Barbara Olson was on her way to L.A. to appear as a guest on Politically Incorrect when the airplane she was on was hijacked and flown to the Pentagon.

In the aftermath, Judge W. Bush and the terrorists responsible were cowards. One of Bill's guests, Dinesh D'Souza, said, these are warriors and we have to realize that the principles of our way of life are in conflict with people of the world. And so, I mean, I'm all for understanding the sociological causes for this, but we should not blame the victim. Americans shouldn't blame themselves because other people want to bomb them.

Ma agreed and replied, we have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits a building, say what you want about it, but it's not cowardly. Okay, so he didn't say brave. It is not cowardly.

He's making a point of logic, not a point of morality, that the people of the United States have long wanted these wars and cheered for it from the safety of their own bedrooms. And that's why so many of us have said, if you want to go to war with Iran, you should be on the front line first because it's going to be 18 to 20 year olds who go and fight. But I got news for all of you. We ain't got that many left. So good luck. People aren't having kids these days. Now, anyway, I digress. Bill Maher gets canceled for this.

So the question I have to go back to my question, why would Bill Maher seek to discredit several individuals who are anti-war? If you hold these heterodox opinions, you would get removed in this era. Today, Jon Stewart acts as the perfect catch-all for the liberal. Let's say you're a liberal and you're like, I don't want to go to war with Iran. I don't want to be involved in that.

And then you hear Steve Bannon says it. Then you hear Jack Posobiec or Marjorie Taylor Greene. Uh-oh, we got ourselves a problem. Reasonable right-wing populists agrees with you. Jon Stewart's job is to make sure you do not relate to the people you agree with and agree with you.

So the purpose of this segment is to say, hold on, he may be saying something reasonable, but look how crazy they are. Taking them out of context and lying about their actual positions and then threatening you, saying they want to use the military against you, Democrat voter. Literally nobody said that's the game they play. Now you can take a look at all this sophistry we've got. Oh, man, that was great. Joel Berry. Come on, Joel. These they look it's going to be a wild world. I'll tell you this.

Joel Baer of the Babylon Bee says, the number one enemy of the non-interventionists is reality. If it weren't for reality, I would be non-interventionist too. It would be nice. Well, to be fair, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Like, with all due respect to the Babylon Bee, because they are funny and I like them, why would you say something that contained no argument or statement of fact? All you've posted is, you're dumb if you don't want war. What? I can give you a million and one reasons. Let's start with,

The government tends to lie to us to get us involved in foreign conflicts. The U.S. government over the past 30 years has consistently made the argument that we are not going in for regime change. And then they do. We spend exorbitant amounts of money. It weakens the American economy. We then are stuck in these quagmires. This is the history of the Middle Eastern conflict over the past 30 years. And then what do we see? It was a waste of time and a collapse.

Netanyahu has made the argument over and over and over again that Iran is going to get a nuke. And while certainly I think it's a problem if Iran is enriching uranium, because they're going to give a bunch of wackaloons dirty bombs. That's my actual fear. I don't think, I'm not scared at all of Iran launching a nuclear missile or something. It'll get shot down. It'll get stopped. It could be devastating. The bigger concern is small, low-yield dirty bombs given out to a bunch of wackaloon rebels and Iranian-backed terror groups. That freaks me out.

But y'all haven't made the case for U.S. intervention. And they're going to try. What's going to happen is we've already got a tanker on fire in the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. is going to say, we are defensive. We're going to secure this for our trade partners. Then we're going to get attacked. And they say, oh, no, Iran attacked us. Now we've got to go in. It's going to cost us an insane amount of money for decades. Our economy will be damaged by it. But this is non-interventionists don't live in reality. Nice argument.

This is ridiculous. One of my favorites is actually James Lindsay. He says, just calmly and quietly noticing some things. I might even have some questions I can ask. James Lindsay, of course, has been attacking anti-war individuals on the right, as well as Israel critical and anti-Semitic individuals, lumping them all into the same category as woke right.

And his criticism now is that Candace Owens, Matt Walsh and Cernovich actually had no problem with the killing of Soleimani, the Iranian general. But it's sophistry. This is the game all of them are playing. These people were never your friends or allies. They don't want to make legitimate arguments as to why we should or should not be involved in these conflicts. And I, of all people, the milquetoast fence setter, can swing it, can make the argument in either direction.

I can tell you exactly why we should get involved, exactly why we shouldn't, and why I remain on the we should not be involved. I'm not going to play a stupid game like Israel controls the world. No, I'm going to say the U.S. has not sufficiently justified the threat posed by Iran. Making a claim that they'll get a nuke and attack Israel is not a threat to the United States. Saying we have to back our allies is not sufficient in the deploying of the U.S. military into the Indo-Pacific. Now, by all means, you can make the argument it is. I'm saying my view is...

A threat to one nation when they decided to strike Iran does not warrant U.S. intervention in a mountainous country the size of Europe with 90 million people in it. OK, you got it. You got to go above and beyond. Now, I will add fine. Congress can vote on it. If Congress votes to declare war, I'll shrug and say, well, you know, I don't see that happening, but that's what I'll say. But everybody who wants the war is lying.

I'm going to wrap it up there, my friends. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Literally. Go to your neighbor's house. Hey, you got to watch Timcast. He'll be like, get off my porch, you weirdo. Or maybe he'll be like, I already do. And you'll high five and be friends forever. Stick around. We got more segments coming up. It's going to be fun. Thanks for hanging out. We'll see you all in the next bit.

The war in Iran is escalating and Donald Trump, a report came out saying that he was trying to engage in peace talks with Iran. He's now denied this. And J.D. Vance has issued a statement saying, in fact, Trump made made decide he needs to do more to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

There's a viral video going around showing Donald Trump saying for 16 minutes straight that he will never allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The only issue is that this seems to be the talking point used over and over again for some 30 or so years. That Iran is this close to getting a nuke.

Maybe. I don't think it's particularly effective because just saying that we should be involved in a massive Middle Eastern conflict leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many Americans. But I suppose the question is, what is going to happen and where are we currently at? So we do have a lot of updates on where the U.S. stands as it pertains to this war. And it looks like there's going to be a tremendous effort to convince the MAGA base to support Trump's intervention in the region. My prediction?

Already, we've got a tanker ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz. This connects the ocean with the Persian Gulf. The U.S. and this is my fear. I don't know the likelihood this will happen, but my fear is the U.S. will deploy security forces to the Strait of Hormuz for simply to keep trade open. And they'll say we are not involved in the war with Israel and Israel strikes on Iran.

However, U.S. military personnel and assets will be attacked in the straight by Iran, and this will be the casus belli the U.S. requires to enter the end of the war. We're already seeing prominent pro-Trump voices mocking those who believe that we shouldn't intervene in this foreign conflict. You've got numerous personalities on the right saying yes to this war. Meanwhile, strangely, Jon Stewart is making fun of only the MAGA who oppose the intervention.

Now, why would that be? You got Steve Bannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jack Posobiec. They all said we shouldn't be involved in this war. And Jon Stewart mocks them and lies about what they think. But, Jon, why don't you actually just mock the Trump supporters who are in favor of the war? I mean, Donald Trump was the no new wars president. Now you got a bunch of pro-Trump people being like, yay, war. Well, that seems contradictory. No, no.

Makes you wonder about what Jon Stewart's actual purpose is and what the intentions of the establishment are. And my friends, the war drums are banging. And I think we're going to be in this war. Polly Market says so. Yesterday, spiking as high as 67 percent. Now currently sitting as of the last time I checked at around 50, I believe 56 percent that the U.S. will take action against Iran.

But pollster Rich Barris says this will end MAGA. If Donald Trump intervenes in Iran, it's over. Right now, there are Democrats saying no war. Prominent ones, progressive ones. What will happen to the anti-war segment of the MAGA coalition if Trump does decide to intervene? And how will this fracture? I can't say. But the People's Pundit says he thinks it's going to.

He thinks it'll be the end. So get into all of that, my friends. Before we get started, we got a great sponsor. It is, of course, AmericanFinancing.net. Check out AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim. We're all feeling it. Costs are rising on everything, gas, groceries, home repairs. And if you're a homeowner, you probably thought, should I call American Financing to refinance and pay off this credit card debt?

Then you second guess yourself because of that low mortgage rate you currently have. Listen, that low rate, it's not saving you if you're drowning in credit card interest at 25% or more. That's the math no one wants to face, but it's costing you thousands. Here's the truth. If you only make minimum payments, the debt will follow you for years. That's why people call American financing because they're saving customers an average of 800 bucks a month by using their equity to finally break free from credit card debt.

Yowah to your family to see what's possible. No upfront fees, no pressure. It costs you nothing to find out what you could save every month. And if you start today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments. Call American Financing today at 866-890-7811.

That's 866-890-7811 or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim. Shout out. Thank you all for sponsoring the show. And also, shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club raiding this stream. You guys rock. Steven Crowder's got a great show. It's the best show. It's the biggest. He actually is number one, the biggest live streaming show in the country. So it is with honor.

And do respect all of you. I appreciate Crowder shouting us out every day, rating this stream as we're part of the Rumble Morning lineup. As we bring you into the afternoon to the noon hour, I'm your host, Tim Pool. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Let's read this news and figure out exactly where we're at with this war. And my friends, I'm going to say it again. I think the U.S. will enter the war. I think it's extremely likely. But

Rumors are that Donald Trump is backtracking on whether or not he will be giving protections to illegal immigrants on farms and in hospitality. You know, he came out and he said, you know, our good hotels and our farms, they need these people. Now he's backtracking. Why? Because he listens. That's why he's a good president. Now, I'm going to tell you.

I'm not one of these diehard libertarian anti-war guys. I'm generally anti-war. And I can break down what that means for you. It means the cost of war is great. And that means the prerequisite for intervention is high, higher than what I believe the average establishment politician expects. They say we were attacked. We must invade. I'm not I'm not so convinced. Listen, sometimes you're at a bar, right? And a guy gets in your face and he shoves you.

You've been attacked. The question is, do you engage? You assess the situation and make a determination. Sometimes the answer is yes. Sometimes it's no. The guy shoves you and then he reaches for a gun. OK, now we've got an interesting situation. Maybe you need to intervene or maybe you're at a bar and a guy shoves you. You say, listen, a fight you've won is a fight you've avoided. I'm not going to get provoked into this.

I tend to be on the side of let's try to avoid the fight whenever possible. And only in the most dire of circumstances do we engage in war. I'm not some libertarian like no war ever for no reason. But let's read and see where we're currently at. News Nation reports Trump denies involvement in peace talks as Israel-Iran tensions flare.

This is Iran and Israel continued. Iran and Israel continue to trade attacks. Trump has echoed Israel's warning to the nine point five million residents of Tehran. Get out while you still can. It's a switch up from early Monday when the president said a nuclear deal with Iran was still achievable. Within one day, Trump has decided to depart the group G7 summit to monitor the situation and called for a complete give up by Iran. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.

It's very simple, he told reporters in Air Force One. Israel's surprise attacks on Iran's military nuclear program prompted retaliatory action from Tehran. The country's traded attacks for five days. Israeli missiles have bombarded Iran's capital, including an attack on a state television studio while they were live on the air. While Tel Aviv said Tehran is targeting civilians with its strikes.

Honest question. Is Tehran actually targeting civilians or are they just incapable of targeting? It's an honest question. I think it's possible that Tehran's military capabilities are substantially weaker than that of Israel as Israel is backed by the U.S. and also a great weapons developer. Tehran might just be launching missiles kind of blindly and hoping they hit whatever they can. Israel is targeting police and military sites. I think police, I did see a report on this one. Now, I will say this.

If this was just about Iran's nuclear weapons, maybe we would have seen Israel targeting specifically the nuclear weapons. But they went after Iran's military leadership. That says something else. Now, our friends over at Polymarket have currently placed it at a 60 percent chance that the U.S. will intervene in Iran before July. Holy crap. That's crazy. And there's I think it's the second one.

U.S. military action in Iran before August. 70%. Okay, to be fair, 69%. I was rounding up. Guys, if you want to buy, yes, it's 71 cents. And there is, according to Polymarket, not always right, but often, a 60% chance that the U.S. will get involved. Oh, man. I do not believe the U.S. has sufficiently justified. Excuse me.

U.S. involvement in Iran. I do not believe it. They've made claims about how it's bad that Iran gets a nuclear weapon. But Iran having a weapon is not a laid out threat to the United States. They're not going to launch a missile against us. I'm I am concerned. Don't get me wrong. If Iran can enrich uranium and produce low yield nuclear bombs and give dirty bombs to a bunch of wackaloons, that's terrifying.

But what you're asking is for the U.S. to involve itself in Iran, the size of Eastern Europe, 90 million people, a mountainous country.

This is not Afghanistan. This is not Iraq. This would be a massive undertaking. And Iran is not without allies. Now, currently, I don't believe any of these other countries are going to come to the aid of Iran over these strikes. I don't think so. It is a tremendous ask for Iran to go to, say, China, Russia or any of the other BRICS nations, for instance, and say, we need your help. We are being attacked. They're going to say, yeah, but.

The scale of attack does not reach that point where they're going to want to get involved. Now, if the U.S. intervenes and seeks to actually remove the Ayatollah, perhaps then this could lead to a larger scale conflict. It is a tremendous undertaking and a threat to the United States. Therefore, while I say this, my friends, I'm anti-war. OK, what does that mean?

It means a simple way of explaining it. OK, because it can mean a lot. But to me, I'll explain what I mean. The threshold for intervention and declaration of war is very high. Congress must declare the war. There must be sound, reasoned arguments for our involvement. Legitimate strikes.

That like, like if a foreign country legitimately launches an attack on U.S. assets and kills a bunch of Americans, if U.S. politicians are assassinated or killed, all of these, I think, are grounds for war. I said it before. If Iran took the life of Donald Trump, immediate retaliation. I am not some staunch libertarian. We should never be at war for any reason ever. I'm just saying the threshold is very high. Now, aside from polymarket, my friends, we have the Pentagon Pizza Report. That's right.

This is called the Pentagon Pizza Index. And most of you are familiar, it's tracking just how much pizza is being purchased at the Pentagon. Last night, as of 10 p.m., both dominoes near the Pentagon are reporting elevated levels of activity. And unfortunately, the gay bars are empty. That's right. Pentagon Pizza Report also noted that the local gay bar near the Pentagon is quiet right now.

It's a funny thing to show, but the point is, I bet you could choose any bar near the Pentagon. People are working late. And the reason, the point of the pizza report is to show that the people near the Pentagon are ordering lots of food. The argument being when you're working late because you're getting ready for war, they order tons of food. So here we are. Axios reports Trump to hold situation room meeting on Iran.

They say President Trump will meet with his national security team about the Israel-Iran war in the White House Situation Room on Tuesday. Two sources with knowledge tell Axios. Trump returned early from the G7 summit to focus on Iran and told reporters on Air Force One overnight that he wasn't interested in a ceasefire, but a real end to the war and to Iran's nuclear program. The White House has discussed the idea of meeting directly with the Iranians this week, but Trump said that would depend on what happens when I get back.

Israeli officials continue to believe the U.S. is likely to enter the war at some point to bomb Iran's underground enrichment facility. So far, the U.S. has helped Israel defend itself from incoming missiles, but declined to take part in offensive operations. The narrative that we are hearing is that Israel doesn't have bunker busters. To get to the deep underground military bases, DUMs as they're called, the U.S. needs to enter the war. Man,

I think it's a bad idea. J.D. Vance giving us the PR narrative. I like J.D. Vance. I like Trump. I don't like these neocon Trump people who were once never Trump people now saying, let's intervene in Iran. It is crazy. What's the argument? I get it. The best argument you can muster up. We know if Iran does enrich uranium, it's not going to be an ICBM hit in the United States. It's going to be a dirty bomb.

And with the poorest southern border, they can bring in these pieces piecemeal. And that's a terrifying thing. We got to up our security to an insane degree. But does that mean we strike, invade, regime change? Some may argue, what about a middle ground? What about U.S. airstrikes with no boots on the ground? An air war only? Maybe. But what does that mean for Iran? Target the Ayatollah? Trump claims he said don't target the Ayatollah. And I'll tell you why he didn't. I believe him.

If they took out senior military leadership and the Ayatollah, the nation would become like ISIS overnight. Trump wants there to be command leadership. So he's leaving the Ayatollah intentionally so that the structure of government remains lest you get chaos. Now, J.D. Vance has issued a statement. He says, look.

I'm seeing this from the inside and I'm admittedly biased towards our president and my friend. There's a lot of crazy stuff on social media. So I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue. First, POTUS has been amazingly consistent over 10 years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the Iranians to accomplish this goal.

The president has made clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment. And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways, the easy way or the other way. J.D. Vance is not wrong. Trump has has consistently stated this. I know that there are a lot of people support Trump who don't want to be at war with Iran. But this was always a possibility. So shout out to Dave Smith, with all due respect.

Now, he said Trump should be impeached. And he said this shows Trump may have never deserved our support in the first place. And I reject that outright. I reject it. Dave, I think you're wrong. Libertarians gave their support to Donald Trump because he did give you something. He pardoned Ross Ulbricht. He pushed back on the woke insanity. He did good things.

We knew this was a possibility. Now, you may argue this was always the worst case scenario, but this was your best bet. What were you going to do? Vote for Kamala Harris, who you know would get us involved in this war either way? Not to mention they wouldn't pardon your friends. It's not perfect. But I think Trump did deserve our support. And now circumstances have changed. I will not support as of right now. Let me say this. U.S. intervention in Iran.

I am not so blind to the intricacies of foreign policy and the world, and I think it's an absurdity to call anybody who doesn't want war an isolationist. That's stupid. I'm not an isolationist. I think there are times in the U.S. absolutely should declare war, but Congress ain't doing that, are they? If Congress declares war, I'll shrug and say,

That's the function of government. This is the system we agreed to. If Donald Trump unilaterally deploys troops or engages in airstrikes, I will not support this. But there's nuance, ladies and gentlemen. You're allowed to say Trump is doing a bad thing while still liking the other things he does and still recognizing he's better than the other options.

I fully expect that we we get bad presidents on foreign policy. And that's been my life the whole time. This would be one of the biggest appointments, disappointments of my life if Trump were to engage in this conflict in this way. I wish I had easy answers for you. I was asked the other day, one of our members on Timcast IRL on Senator Colin, what would the threshold be for the U.S. to actually get involved in this war?

And I think it's going to have to be Iran directly targeting the U.S. And the reality is we've talked about it before. If any of our political leaders, politicians are assassinated, if Trump was harmed or assassinated, you have no choice. You have no choice. And that's a scary thing because they could false flag it. Who knows?

But if you as a nation allow your leader to be killed by an enemy, an adversary, and you do not retaliate, I fear you don't even have a country. Your negotiations will never be taken seriously ever again. There is a line. Man, I don't have easy answers for you. I just can say this in my heart of hearts. This is going to be bad for this country for a very, very long time. It's going to open the door for China to invade Taiwan. We're already split internationally. We're dealing with the war in Ukraine. We can't handle another front.

I digress. J.D. Vance continues. He says, second, I've seen a lot of confusion over the issue of civilian nuclear power and uranium enrichment. These are distinct issues. Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment.

But Iran rejected that. Meanwhile, they've enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose. They've been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is hardly a right-wing organization. It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy. It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity. And it's still another thing to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic non-proliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.

I've yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use. I've yet to see a single good argument for why Iran was justified in violating its nonproliferation obligations. I've yet to see a single good pushback against the IAEA's findings. I do not believe, let me say this again, JD, big fan, but the American people are not sufficiently convinced.

We do not accept the government just saying bad thing happened and then expecting us to get behind foreign military intervention. It may be, maybe they come out with evidence and testimony, but the U.S. government has exploited the goodwill of the American people for decades, for generations. And we are sick of it. You've expired your your the the benefit of the doubt. Not you personally, J.D., or Trump.

But that's why I say the threshold has to be high. I don't believe them. I don't want Iran to get uranium. I'm terrified of what that means when they give Houthi rebels enriched uranium for dirty bombs or whatever they might do. It's going to be nuts. And I want to believe you. I do. I want to trust Trump and Vance, but I don't trust the deep state apparatus. So I don't see good reason here for the justification of a massive entanglement.

I digress. Once again, meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens. He may decide he needs to take further action and end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.

But I believe the president has earned some trust on the issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus. Natalie F. Denilition says, I have yet to see a single good argument on why the U.S. should be policing the world.

Cassandra says, are you saying, Cassandra McDonald, are you saying Tulsi and the 18 U.S. intelligence bodies backing the opposite findings less than eight weeks ago are wrong or lying? And we have this flashback. Trump's director of national intelligence testified that Iran is not, let's pull this one up, not building a nuke in March. It's tough, right? Who do you trust? I trust Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't know. You know, I ask you guys what you think, because this is not an easy issue. Do you trust Trump?

For me, I have to wonder, here's a guy who's been demonized. They've tried to imprison him several times. They actually put him in jail and arrested him. Briefly, I might add. They tried to destroy him in every way imaginable. Is this a guy who is going to recklessly get involved in war or is there actually a reason we may have to? One thing I can tell you is this. In 2012, around then, we learned of Stuxnet.

The U.S. and Israel had created a massively sophisticated cyber weapon that effectively infected every computer everywhere, seeking out Iranian industrial control systems for centrifuges, nuclear centrifuges. It infected them, caused them to spin out of control and then explode, destroying them. I think it's fair to say there is it is reasonable to assume Iran is trying to develop enriched uranium and they're doing it deep underground.

I'd like comprehensive proof and evidence. And then there's this very serious question that comes to the American people. Should the U.S. be involved? I fear a future where Iran has nuclear capabilities for weapons. Seriously, because these are dogmatic extremists. I also fear the U.S. saying we're not going to get involved in regime change. We'll be greeted as liberators. And then there we are.

decades occupying a country that is mountainous and is as big as Eastern Europe. We can't do this. We can't do this. I don't have all the answers, man. I wish I did. I wish I knew. Now from the White House, they say President Trump has always been clear. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And they basically go out to lay out all of the quotes from Trump, not even all of them, but a lot of them, where Trump has said over the years from his first term until today, he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon ever.

How far they go back? 2011. We can't allow Iran to go nuclear. 2011. So he's been consistent on this. Rapid response 47 says Trump has never wavered in his stance. The real question is, is it true? Are they actually enriching uranium? Tulsi says no. Man, man, man, man, man. We're going to get involved. We're going to be there. We're going to be on the ground. It'll be the greatest gift of the Dems, says Paleo Armory.

Actually, maybe I was I was I was reading the wrong name. But we have this from Daily Mail and a couple other stories. A lot, actually. Tehran radiation warning as Israel says it is on the verge of destroying 10 nuclear sites. And Trump demands nothing less than complete surrender. We're already involved in the war. We entered the war when we decided to defend and arm Israel and they took preemptive strikes against Iran.

That's what the U.S. does. The liberal economic order, the world police. It's what we do. Take a look at this. Israel says Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon. U.S. Intel says it was years away. You know what I think? Pew data we pulled up last night shows the 18 to 49 year old demographic in this country has shifted heavily towards anti-Israel. It's 50-50 now. In 2022,

It was 35% were anti-Israel. Today, it's 50%. Now, you can certainly say that 15-year-olds turned 18 and 47-year-olds turned 50. The point is, overwhelmingly, over three years, this massive shift is indicative of an ideological shift.

I believe the reason Israel's striking now, despite the nuclear program being years away, and the reason why the U.S. will likely get involved is because, as I said to Netanyahu himself, the next generation in 20 years, you will have no ally in the United States. Now, of course, that's not what the media and the left and the wackaloon anti-Israel people wanted to report. But that's what I said I said when I asked Netanyahu.

Netanyahu, I said, there's reports that Qatar has been funding anti-Israel sentiment online. Is there any proof of this? They reported as though I was telling him it was true, which is bull. The argument is that Tucker Carlson is compromised because he interviewed the guitar, interviewed the guitar premier, and then a PR firm paid a lot of money for the interview to happen. And I don't think Tucker got paid to do that interview.

I think a PR firm reached out to Tucker and said, you want to interview the premier? And he said, hell yeah. And the lobbying firm or the PR firm gets paid a lot of money to do it. That has nothing to do with Tucker. And the idea that he's being paid by foreign countries to hold this opinion, I think, are absolutely ridiculous. Tucker Carlson's been rich forever. He doesn't need the money.

So how dare they try and impugn my honor or insinuate in any way that I was attacking Tucker Carlson when I'm anti-intervention? Ridiculous. That being said, what I told Netanyahu in that meeting, the younger generation does not support Israel. Sentiment is clear. In 10 or 20 years, you will not have an ally in the United States. This won't be relevant. These conversations won't matter. And I believe that's the case.

And I think the reason they're acting now so hastily is specifically because they know it may be their last opportunity. Right now, the U.S. does still largely support Israel, but it's split only because of the older demographic. In 20 years, when the 60, 70 year olds are all dying or dead. So in this country, it is going to be 70, 80 percent anti-Israel. And that's a trend they can't change. So they're going now.

CNN says U.S. intelligence assessments had reached a different conclusion. Not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing, according to four people familiar with the assessment, perhaps. That's what Tulsi Gabbard said, my friends. We are facing something truly insane in our lifetimes, but so it goes, right? So it goes. Excuse me. I do believe,

This could be the split of the MAGA movement. Now, we're going to be joined by Batia Unger Sargon in a few minutes. That interview will be available at 4 p.m. for those watching the recorded version of this show.

You can get it at rumble.com slash timpool or youtube.com slash timcast. Check it out. We're going to talk about how this affects MAGA. But for now, smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. You can follow me on X and Instagram at timcast. Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all in the next segment.