← 10 Minute Drill
10 Minute Drill
Trump’s call: the decades of conflict that led to the US bombing Iran, and what comes next
00:13:11
June 24, 2025: U.S. Strikes Iran’s Nuclear Facilities | BBB Update | Supreme Court & Union Showdowns In this urgent episode of The 10 Minute Drill, we break down the U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities—what just happened,...
Loading summary
Transcript13 lines
- [00:00]
A
The United States takes out Iran's nuclear facilities, how they are responding and what comes next and a big beautiful bill Update all of that and so much more today on 10 Minute Drill. Everybody get up. Get up.
- [00:15]
B
The story of America is the story of an adventure. I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. We are a nation under God and I believe God intended for us to be free.
- [00:31]
A
Huge global news broke on Saturday night.
- [00:34]
B
News from the President of the United States that there has been an attack inside Iran. Just moments ago, President Donald Trump putting out on Truth Social. We have completed our very successful attack on three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.
- [00:52]
A
The next day, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Raisin Cain briefed on the details of the attack.
- [00:57]
B
As the Secretary said, this was the largest B2 operational strike in US history and the second longest B2 mission ever flown, exceeded only by those in the days following 9 11.
- [01:13]
A
Yesterday, Iran began their response with attacks on US military bases across the Middle east, including Doha, Qatar. Some have suggested that's more of a token response, but this is going to be a very fluid situation that we'll be watching all week long. But one thing that Iran did not expect is pushback from Qatar as Iran targeted the US Military base in Doha. So we'll see if that becomes a bigger problem for Iran. But today what we're really gonna talk about is how we got here. Both the long term history that led to this point and the short term just since President Trump got to office. Where this goes and what the political fallout's gonna be. It's important to note that this conflict with Iran really goes back several decades. Even all the way back as far as 1979 with the Iran Hostage Crisis when a group of Iranian rad took over the American Embassy in Iran. For 444 days, American diplomatic staff were held at gunpoint, blindfolded and paraded out from media. That ended just as soon as President Reagan was inaugurated. But it was a major flashpoint in what has since been continued conflict and frustration. In a timeline from the foundation for Defense of Democracies, they detail all of these attacks and acts of harassment from Iran from 1979 until now. April 1983. A suicide car bombing kills 63 people, including 17Americans at the US embassy in Beirut. October 1983. Operatives of Hezbollah drive a truck bomb at Marine compound in Beirut, killing 220 U.S. marines and 21 other service personnel. June 1996. A truck carrying 5,000 pounds of explosives blows up at a U.S. air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia. 19Americans die, some 500 people are injured. As you can tell. CRASH over the last 40 years, there have been numerous, countless attacks from Iran on US Military personnel, killing hundreds, wounding thousands. Other things that happened we talked about. Over 600Americans were killed in Iraq due to Iran's efforts and Iran's equipment. They have attempted to kill President Trump twice. The October 7th terrorist attack carried out by Hamas was largely funded by Iran and led to 48Americans being killed and many more taken hostage. But even more recently than that, in 2023 and 2024, January 2024, a drone launched by Khatib Hezbollah kills three US soldiers at a military base in Jordan and wounded more than 40 other service members. November 2024 A report by the foundation for Defensive Democracies indicates that Iran and its proxies have conducted more than 180 attacks against U.S. forces in the Middle east between October 17, 2023 and November 19, 2024, resulting in more than 180 wounded and three killed U.S. service members. So that is about 40 years of history of Iran attacking Americans, killing hundreds of Americans, injuring thousands more. And here is what every president for the last 40 years has had to say about it. Bill Clinton we are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. George W. Bush Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, period. Barack Obama I have stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. Joe Biden we will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. So while every president has agreed they shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons, every president has also had a different approach to it. For example, you'll remember Barack Obama had the Iran nuclear deal, which part of which included a sort of charm them bribery effort to give them sanctions relief to the tune of millions and millions of dollars on pallets of cash that were flown to Tehran. A lot of people later suggested that same cash was likely used to fund both the October 7th terrorist attack and Hezbollah' continued attacks that we just outlined over the years against American personnel. President Biden had a much different approach where he and Kamala Harris line was this what's the message to Iran? Don't. As President Biden said, just don't exactly one word pretty straightforward. So you'll remember that don't one word phrase from Kamala Harris similar to her two word phrase to illegal immigrants crossing the border of was in the end of 2023. And as we've just talked about, a number of attacks from Iranian proxies came in 2024. So now we have a few decades of understanding that both appeasement through pallets of cash, appeasement through one word answers, and turning the other cheek haven't really worked, which lead us to where President Trump is and months and months of effort at diplomacy. So in the last few months since President Trump came into office, he's gone to great lengths to show his work on two key things. One, doing the diplomat legwork to attempt to give Iran an opportunity for a diplomatic off ramp. Something short of having to take out their nuclear facilities through negotiations, lots of conversations, things like that. But then also showing their work about the urgency factor here. Here's Caroline Levitt just last week. Iran has all that it needs to.
- [06:05]
B
Achieve a nuclear weapon.
- [06:07]
A
All they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that. So recognizing that urgent, urgent, urgent danger. But also the fact that conversations and diplomatic solutions up to this point were showing no progr. President Trump took the action that he took. Here is Secretary of State Marco Rubio defending that urgency argument on Sunday.
- [06:26]
B
Why would you bury things in a mountain 300ft under the ground? Why would you bury six? Why do they have 60% enriched uranium? You don't need 60% enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60% are countries that have nuclear weapons because they can quickly make it 90.
- [06:41]
A
So the administration has made a strong case that urgent action was necessary. But here's how the American people feel about it. We've seen a lot of polling up to this point, and there's been a lot of chatter about a divide among Republicans about President Trump's actions being unpopular. But the numbers show consistent, consistent, steady support for this. Let's look at this. 73% say Iran cannot be trusted to honor any diplomatic agreement. 89% are very or somewhat concerned about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. 72% support direct US military action if necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This other polling from Echelon Insights gets specifically into how different groups of Republicans feel. Republicans who identify first as Trump supporters are more hawkish on Iran than Republicans who identify as Republicans first. That speaks to this sort of MAGA divide you've been seeing online, but doesn't seem to actually exist in real life. Some 66% of Trump approvers say Iran developing nukes is an existential threat justifying involvement. So while there appears to be broad support for the idea that Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and very strong support for taking action to prevent that, there is a group that has come out against President Trump on this. And that's congressional Democrats. Already we have two Democrats in Washington calling for President Trump to be impeached over this. Representative Sean Cassin from Illinois and AOC herself from New York have both come out and said this is an impeachable offense. I think every Democrat is now going to be asked if they agree with these Democrat representatives that President Trump taking out the nuclear capabilities of the world's worst sponsor of terror is an impeachable offense for the President of the United States. When you look at polling that shows people overwhelmingly support preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, this will be a difficult position for Democrats to defend. But we will watch and see as this situation continues to unfold. As all this goes on in the Middle East, Congress is continuing to press forward on President Trump's big beautiful bill. Over the weekend there were debates with the Senate parliamentarian to discuss what parts of the bill can fit under the reconciliation rules and what don't fit. One component of this fight that is not going anywhere is the discussion about Medicaid. A new group called Unrig the Economy is running ads against Republicans. Here's a tiny segment of that what.
- [09:05]
B
Happens to my mother in law if Medicaid ends?
- [09:09]
A
So first, as you hear this woman talk about ending Medicaid, you have to remember this bill does not end Medicaid. Getting ineligible people and illegal immigrants off of Medicaid doesn't end the program. If anything, Democrats are pushing us much closer to ending the program by suggesting this person's mother in law, who's probably fictional, should compete against illegal immigrants and 30 year old men playing video games in their underwear at home, which we've talked about here quite extensively. But also, let me make the point Unrig the economy. The group behind these ads in swing states is a front group for the 1630 fund which we've talked about is funded by Swiss billionaire and foreign philanderer Hans Jorg Wyss. So again, as you continue to see ads about Medicaid, you have to ask why is a foreign billionaire trying to force Medicaid to cover illegal immigrants and men in their 30s Women playing video games in their underwear? I have lots of questions about Hansjerk Visa's priorities here, but as you see these ads, it's important to remember that one other important nugget of the big beautiful bill is Joni Ernst Protecting Taxpayers Wallets Act. This bill is focused on government unions. We've Talked extensively on 10 Minute Drill about the absurdity of the fact that government workers paid by taxpayers can unionize against us and against our interests and just how ridiculous that is. Senator Joni Ernst's bill ends Taxpayer funded union time seeks to stop the practice of federal employees engaging in union activities while on the clock and being paid by the government. Right now we are funding union activities of government union workers that are specifically working against our interests. For example, in the beginning of the DOGE debates, you saw protests of people standing outside federal government buildings protesting cuts to fraud, waste and abuse in any government department. We were paying for those protests because those employees were using their union time that we again as taxpayers are paying for. And that is an outrageous thing when you consider that these government workers are protesting efforts to cut fraud, waste and abuse in government to make government work better. Joni Ernst is holding an event this week with Mary Kathryn Ham on Capitol Hill. We'll provide details on that, but it should be a really valuable discussion about just how important this issue is. Again, we are funding so many things as taxpayers. The idea of paying blue haired protesters outside federal government buildings to protest against making government work better is outrageous. Yesterday we celebrated the birthday of one of America's greatest heroes, Justice Clarence Thomas. In honor of him, we want to look one more time at something he wrote just last week. This case carries a simple lesson in politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty. Courts should not assume that self described experts are correct. So you'll remember that was about the artificial scientific consensus about dangerous sex change surgeries being necessary for the health of children, which we now know through so much other research is completely flawed. But it also relates to so many other industries, for example energy and climate change. When you have so many self described experts who say that oil and gas companies are causing the bad weather and they need to pay billions of dollars so they can build new infrastructure in blue cities. That's why nobody trusts experts anymore. When you look back at the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that we all stood six feet apart in the grocery store because of scientific consensus which only years later we found up, found out was completely made up. There is no more trust in those self described experts. And I think Justice Thomas is putting important words to an issue that we've all felt for a very, very long time here. So we celebrate him. We thank him for his work for America. That is all the time we have for today. Thank you so much for joining us on 10 Minute Drill. Please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify subscribe on YouTube. Thanks so much for joining us. Have a good one ra.