U.S. Strikes Highly Strategic Iranian Island, Report Says, as Trump Scolds "Very Unhelpful" Europe

Summary

Podcast Summary: "U.S. Strikes Highly Strategic Iranian Island," The Morning Meeting (March 31, 2026)

Podcast: The Morning Meeting
Host: Mark Halperin (2WAY)
Co-Hosts/Panelists: Hogan Gidley & Melissa DeRosa
Date: March 31, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode provides an in-depth look at the fast-moving developments regarding the U.S.-Iran conflict, focusing on breaking news that the U.S. has struck a highly strategic Iranian island at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz. The conversation covers the implications of this strike, President Trump’s diplomatic strategy and controversial statements directed at European allies, questions about the potential endgame in the conflict, and the wider repercussions for global markets and domestic politics as the U.S. heads into the midterm elections.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Breaking News: U.S. Strike on Qasem Island

• [06:00] Mark Halperin reports, based on the Wall Street Journal, that the U.S. has hit Qasem Island, a strategic Iranian outpost near the Strait of Hormuz.
• The island is described as “very strategically important” and essential for Iran’s military operations in the region.
• Speculation abounds that attention previously paid to other locations (“carg”) was a distraction and that Qasem is a higher-value target.
• The panel debates whether the strike signals escalation or is part of a calculated endgame.

2. Trump’s Diplomatic Gambit and Messaging to Europe

• [07:35] The Wall Street Journal also reports that Trump has told aides he’s willing to end the conflict without reopening the Strait of Hormuz, focusing instead on degrading Iran’s military capacity.
• Trump’s posts on Truth Social sharply criticize France and the UK for lack of support:
  • “France has been very unhelpful... The US Will remember.”
  • “Build up some delayed courage. Go to the Strait and just take it. The USA won't be there to help you anymore… Go get your own oil.”
    (Read at [07:35–08:00])
• Analysis: Trump's statements are seen as an attempt to pressure European allies to take a more active role or risk being left without U.S. support.

3. Is the U.S. Preparing to ‘Walk Away’?

• [08:28–13:19] The panel explores motives behind leaks suggesting Trump might leave without fully resolving the conflict.
• Hogan Gidley: “Getting this out there...reminds the world—you need us more than we need you. So keep jackassing around and we’ll just walk away.” ([10:10])
• Melissa DeRosa: Offers three theories for the leak’s purpose:
  1. Pressure Europe to step up (“fuck around and find out”)
  2. Shift expectations about what counts as victory
  3. Strategic misdirection—a “head fake” before a surprise attack on the island.
• Consensus: The White House may be testing international response, shifting goalposts, or using information warfare.

4. Measuring ‘Victory’ — What’s Enough?

• [16:32–20:14]
• Melissa DeRosa: Lays out concerns that “walking away” with the Strait still closed and Iran’s nuclear material unsecured would be seen globally as a “massive failure.” ([16:32])
• Hogan Gidley: Counters that killing the Ayatollah, decimating Iran’s missile capacity, and degrading its leadership is a victory, though admits this may not be perceived as such.
• Debate centers on whether the U.S. is truly resetting global norms of war and if leaving Iran weakened but not dismantled achieves stated goals.

5. Strait of Hormuz: Open or Closed? Strategic & Economic Impact

• [24:22–25:53] Confusion remains about the current status of shipping lanes, with some sources saying limited passage is allowed for allied ships.
• Melissa DeRosa: Argues that as long as oil prices, market instability, and supply chain issues linger, the U.S. cannot afford to exit:
  • “Until we can do something that will fundamentally fix the economic problems we caused.” ([26:53])
• Mark Halperin: Points out the administration thought oil prices would spike higher than they have, which could influence the duration of conflict. ([27:35])

6. Pressure on European Allies

• [31:08–32:41]
• Hogan and Melissa discuss whether Trump’s message will spur greater European military involvement, with the consensus that Europe has shown little inclination so far despite clear self-interest.

7. Ethics & Tactics of Targeting Infrastructure

• [33:42–35:50]
• Debate on hitting civilian targets like water and desalination plants:
  • Melissa: Against escalating to civilian infrastructure, warning of war crimes and rule-of-law precedents.
  • Hogan: Mixed; recognizes humanitarian cost but suggests if regime uses infrastructure against people, it could be justified tactically.

8. Domestic Political Consequences

• [36:44–43:35]
• Senate campaign vulnerabilities and Rahm Emanuel’s strategies dominate a quick tour of midterm stakes.
• Melissa and Hogan both single out economic fallout as the biggest domestic political risk.

9. Nuclear Threat: Is Regime Change the Only Solution?

• [45:48–53:41]
• During Q&A, listeners and panelists agree that absent regime change (or a very altered regime), there is no verifiable way to prevent Iran from retaining nuclear capability.
• Melissa: “Anything short of regime change… I don’t know how we ever get any level of confirmation that they are not building… a nuclear weapon.” ([50:53])

10. Long-Term Strategic Victory vs. Short-Term Tactical Gains

• [54:44–59:06]
• Listener Joshua and the panel discuss the difference between tactical military successes and long-term U.S. strategic interests, including global economic leadership.
• Melissa: Points out ripple effects of oil price increases, including inflation, fertilizer, plastics, and key consumer goods.
• Hogan: Suggests only overwhelming military force or regime change can achieve real strategic victory, but also cautions against overreaching.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Trump on Truth Social ([07:45]):
  “France has been very unhelpful. Respect to the butcher of Iran who has been successfully eliminated. The US Will remember.”
  “The USA won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil.”
• Melissa DeRosa ([16:32]):
  “The world would react that it was a massive failure and that the US has become an unhinged sort of bull in a China shop…”
• Hogan Gidley ([17:24]):
  “It would unequivocally be a success, but it would not be portrayed as such… the media right now is saying we're losing a war we're clearly winning.”
• Melissa DeRosa ([22:27]):
  “I am just merely laying out the reality in a nonpartisan way.”
• Melissa DeRosa ([33:42]):
  “I think it is a very bad idea. I think it could take this war to a whole new level… someone could turn around and come for us and say, you guys set these rules yourself.”
• Joshua (Listener, [54:44]):
  “I think people are misunderstanding the difference between tactical victory and strategic victory in Iran.”
• Melissa DeRosa ([58:17]):
  “When you're talking about the down, you know, trend of what happens with oil, you're talking about fertilizer, which means food gets more expensive. You're talking about plastic, you're talking about polyester, you know, Mark's clothes will cost more. It's everything that goes down, down drain from that.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [06:00] Start of US strike news on Qasem Island
• [07:35] Trump’s stance on ending the conflict without reopening Hormuz
• [08:28] Debate: Who leaked the ‘walk away’ narrative and why?
• [11:21] Motivations for the strategic leak—Melissa’s three theories
• [16:32] Would leaving with the strait closed, Iran still nuclear, be a failure?
• [20:14] Further debate on what constitutes “success”
• [24:22] Status of the Strait of Hormuz and global oil flows
• [26:53] Economic imperatives for the US not leaving yet
• [33:42] Ethical debate about civilian infrastructure as targets
• [36:44] Domestic political campaign implications
• [45:48] Listener Q&A—nuclear threat and regime change necessity
• [54:44] Discussion of tactical vs. strategic victory, global economic stakes

---

Final Thoughts

The episode’s tone is both urgent and analytical, capturing the confusion and complexity of a global conflict approaching a possible crossroads. The hosts and guests bring a lively, unscripted debate, mixing sharp partisanship with occasional bipartisan agreement. The major takeaways are that U.S. strategy is in flux, that Europe is being pressed hard for greater engagement, and that neither tactical victories nor social media pronouncements are close to resolving the deeper nuclear and regional threats posed by Iran.

The panel’s consensus: without true regime change or some fundamental shift, no agreement or exit will satisfactorily resolve Iran’s nuclear ambitions or stabilize the world economy.

---

For listeners or readers hoping to catch up:
This episode delivers an inside-the-newsroom, unsanitized look at real-time crisis management, alliance politics, and the shifting definitions of victory and leadership in the wars of 2026.

Transcript

[Melissa DeRosa]

Get in the game with the college branded Venmo debit card. Wreck your team with every tap and earn up to 5% cash back with Venmo Stash, a new rewards program from Venmo. No monthly fee, no minimum balance, just school pride and spending power. Get in the game and sign up for the Venmo debit [e-mail] collegecard the Venmo MasterCard is issued by the Bancorp Bank. NA Select Schools available Venmo Stash terms and exclusions apply at venmo.me stash terms max $100 cash back per month.

[Mark Levin]

Foreign this is the morning meeting. Hogan Gidley's here. Melissa DeRosa things are moving very quickly this morning. Reports of a potential US Strike on a key strategic island of the Iranians and a lot of confusion about the president's posture towards ending the conflict with the Strait of Hormuz. Not securities, but untruth Social so I'm going to jump right into the daybook and then we're gonna have our conversation and get to your questions before too long. Please raise your hand if you want to be part of the conversation. The president at this time has no public events scheduled today. Although, as I said, he's already been on Truth Social. I shouldn't say there's no public events. He's no public events until tonight. Executive time. Currently he's used part of that to be on social media. Three o', clock, a policy meeting, closed press. Four o', clock, another policy meeting, closed press and then he he attends the opening of Chicago the musical at 7:30 tonight at the Kennedy center for the Performing Arts. They call it the Kennedy center on the year. Oh no, that's what we did. The Trump Kennedy Center. Yeah. That's not the official readout anyway. Sometimes he's taken red carpet questions, but in theory we will not see the president. And there's no Caroline Levitt briefing scheduled at this time. There was a newsless Pentagon briefing that ended a little while ago that the secretary of war and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs made opening statements that were newsless and then took about a half dozen questions or responses to which were largely newsless. Don't know what the vice president's doing today. Congress remains out. The Supreme Court may issue opinions today. We could get at 10 o' clock Eastern we could get the decision on the Voting Rights Act. If they wanted to issue an opinion on that case, that has meaning for the midterms this year, they'll need to do it soon. Tomorrow they're hearing the case on birthright citizenship. Not much else going on, so let's dive into it. In a moment, I'll just do a quick word from a sponsor and then we're going to talk about the Wall Street Journal story and the latest news. But just quick word from the Cozy Earth folks. Once again, many of you have bought the bubble Cuddle blanket for your pets. Yesterday we showed you a kitten. Today we're back to dogs. This bubble Cuddle blanket is available for humans too. But here's some great photos sent in by a member of the two way community of pets. You can buy the bubble Cuddle blanket and there you go. Cute pups in virtually identical positions. 20% off everything on the site for you and your [e-mail] using the promo code. Morning. Get the bubble Cuddle blanket for you everyone you love, including your dogs. But not just the bubble Cuddle blanket. You can also buy anything on the site. The comforter, the essential socks that come in calf, quarter, ankle and no show. Do like the no shows. Each available right now. 20% off each pair of the socks crafted with care to fit seamlessly into your routine. Everyday essentials from cozy Earth required comfort meets intentional design. Go on right now. Buy whatever you wish. Bubble Cuddle blanket Luxe bath towel set. Whatever you wish. Discover care in every detail with 20% off using the promo code. Morning. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[Hogan Gidley]

I started with one shop. No college degree, no big investors. It was just a willingness to work. Over time that one shop turned into a multi billion dollar business called Crash Champions. All the lessons I learned along the way came from the grind. And that's what my show Pod Crash is all about. We have real conversations with people who've built things the hard way. We talked to founders, athletes and blue collar leaders who kept going when things got tough. You'll hear stories of grit, leadership and growth. Plus real world lessons you can take back to your team and your life tomorrow.

[Mark Levin]

When you get momentum, you step on the gas. That's how you get separation from everybody else.

[Hogan Gidley]

I was at Harvard Law School as blah blah blah. I looked up, let me tell you something. There's kids in my neighborhood putting in Sheetrock that are smarter than you.

[Joshua]

AI is going to disrupt a lot of stuff. It is never going to disrupt physical

[Mark Levin]

blue collar trade skill.

[Joshua]

And the guy just looked at me

[Hogan Gidley]

and he said it's bloody impossible. So I asked him this question. I said it's impossible.

[Joshua]

Unless

[Hogan Gidley]

that's podcrash with me. Matt Ebert Watch on YouTube and listen wherever you get your podcasts, this is it.

[Mark Levin]

The world as you know it is over. Completely done. It's not about to be over. It's over. Some of the scientists who helped build AI are now sounding the alarm.

[Joshua]

I was selling AI as a great thing for decades and I was wrong.

[Mark Levin]

I was wrong.

[Joshua]

There's a longer term existential threat that

[Hogan Gidley]

will arise when we create digital beings

[David]

that are more intelligent than ourselves.

[Joshua]

We have no idea whether we can stay in control.

[Mark Levin]

While others say that AI will usher in unfathomable abundance, I've always believed that

[Hogan Gidley]

it's going to be the most important invention that humanity will ever make.

[Mark Levin]

This really will be a world of abundance. And among these fears and these fantasies, we seek the story of our future. Listen to the last invention on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, the Wall Street Journal at this hour alone is reporting that the US has hit an island called Chasem Island. It's at the north mouth of the Strait of Hormuz. It's very strategically important. It's used by the Iraqi military for a variety of functions. And many people said all the talk, many analysts said the talk of carg was all a distraction and that Qasem was actually the greater, the greater asset. Let's we'll wait for more reporting to see what's exactly going on there. Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the Wall Street Journal reporting last night that President Trump was willing to end the conflict or thinking of ending the conflict without reopening the strait, here's that story. Trump tells aides he's willing to end war without reopening Hormuz. In recent days, the story says Trump and his aides assessed that a mission to pry open the choke point would push the conflict beyond his timeline of four to six week. He decided the US should achieve its main goals of hobbling Iran's navy and its missile stocks and wind down the current hostilities while pressuring Tehran diplomatically to resume the flow of free trade. If that fails, Washington would press allies in Europe and the Gulf to take the lead in reopening this strait. Well, the president did just that this morning. In a post on Truth Social, the president this morning said this. The country of France wouldn't let planes headed to Israel loaded up with military supplies fly over French territory. France has been very unhelpful. Respect to the butcher of Iran who has been successfully eliminated. The US Will remember President DJT and then another post a few minutes later. All these countries that can't get jet fuel because The Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran. I have a suggestion for you. Number one, buy from the U.S. we have plenty. And number two, build up some delayed courage. Go to the Strait and just take it. You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself. The USA won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been essentially decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil. President DJG now, if you look at the totality of everything in the news today, you could think the war is about to end, or you could think the war has got a long way to go. And that includes rhetoric from people in the administration over the last 24 hours. So, Melissa and Hogan, let's start with the Wall Street Journal story. This story has two very impressive bylines on it, but stories like that don't come out of nowhere. Now, some people are skeptical of the story. They think it's a distraction and a feint. Here's a writer for the Economist or for the. Is it the Economist? Who does Carlstrom Write for? 108, please. Writes for the Economist.

[Melissa DeRosa]

It is the Economist.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah. Here's a European correspondent for the Economist. He says regarding the Wall Street Journal, saying the president's musing about giving up the war before the Gulf strait is secured. I'm sure Trump said this to his aides at some point. Why not? He said everything else over the past month. I also think the ongoing American buildup in the region suggests he's not about to do it immediately. The most reliable indicator of, quote, what will Trump do has been military deployments. Those of you who watch this show know this is my point of view. At some point, there will likely need to be either a deal or a coalition around Hormuz. But the idea that America is going to imminently walk away seems at at odds with what's really happening in reality. Hogan Gidley I am a big believer in, in how silly it usually is to speculate about who leaked what for what purpose. But who leaked what for what purpose. Who, who put out that Wall Street Journal story to, to let the world know that in theory, the president was willing to walk away with this with it, not with the Strait of Hormuz not open.

[Hogan Gidley]

Now, you know, I don't know who did that.

[Mark Levin]

Well, what kind of, for what motive, what motive would someone around the president have to put that out, try to help out the Wall Street Journal, do them a favor?

[Hogan Gidley]

No, I think There are several. One of which is to let the world know that Donald Trump, in all of his understanding of the Middle east and global affairs, having been president once before at this point, takes a look at the playing field, takes a look at the pieces involved. The European nations that have kind of washed their hands of this, even though they rely greatly on the street, for example, and just thinking, you know what. What if we decide just to get out of this thing? No one wants to be there long. I promised I wouldn't be there long. We said four to six weeks. My intel's telling me this particular piece could make us go a lot further than that. So, you know what? You know, I'm. I'm. It seems as though these other nations, it seems as though the mainstream media, Democrats, they didn't like Iran at the outset. We did something about it. They didn't like me doing something about it. They wanted to make sure the strait was fixed. So I went to work and fix on, fix the straight. They said, no, we don't like that either. So, you know what? Fine. We don't need the oil. We have our own oil. Europe's complaining about it, too. Fine, you go handle it. They know that Donald Trump could potentially do that. So I think getting this out there, for what purpose, I'm not entirely sure, but it seems as though it reminds the world, you need us more than we need you. So keep jackassing around and we'll just walk away. Enjoy it.

[Mark Levin]

Just by luck, the two co hosts today are two of the three most strategic leakers I've ever known. Just kidding, Melissa. Why would. What's the purpose of putting this out to the Journal? What. Why did. Why did the President's people want the world to think that the President would walk away if needed?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Well, I think it's one of three things. One, what Hogan just laid out, which is, you know, sort of saying to Europe, sort of fuck around and find out, if you're not going to step in now, we're going to walk away, and it's going to be your problem, not ours, because we don't get our oil from there.

[Mark Levin]

And that's. And that. That one's buttressed by his post this morning, basically saying, put up or shut up. If you don't act now, we're leaving.

[Melissa DeRosa]

So that could be one a second. Could be he's trying to move the goalpost in terms of when and how he declares victory. To say that this was not a measure of victory in what it is that we're doing in Iran. And so trying to readjust people's expectations of if we declare victory and walk away, this wasn't a part of it. Hormuz doesn't affect the U.S. it's now on Europe and the Gulf to deal with it. The third could just.

[Mark Levin]

I'm sorry, just to stop you on the second. So what you're saying is, if the president decides, hey, we've done what we can do, this is the Iranians aren't going to negotiate in good faith, we're going to end this thing. This is laying the groundwork to say, hey, the President's decided this is not a must have in order to end the war.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Yes. So that's a possibility as number two. The third is how does that story come out? And then this morning, we in Israel join and do a military strike on an island in the Hormuz straight. So was it a head fake? Was it a let your guard down? We're prepared to walk away. And then this morning, out of nowhere, we do what we did. So I think it's, it could be any of those three options. I think this, the smartest, most strategic would have been, would be number three. If I'm right about number three, if they were trying to just send that message and then turn around and do something the absolute opposite while their guard was down. But, but with this president and this White House, it could be any one of those three things.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, brilliant. We could end the show right now, ladies and gentlemen, and Melissa would have just added more value than anything else you could watch or listen to today. So thank you for that. Hogan, what do you think of Melissa's list?

[Hogan Gidley]

No, I think she's right. I would take issue with one piece of it, and that is, I think, for Donald Trump and just having worked for him now for quite some time, I feel as though people often misread him as someone who, you know, just wants his butt kissed and that's all he wants. And they'll prop you up and that's it. That's not what he wants. He's way more complex than that, although I'm sure he appreciates that every now and then. I think what this shows is Donald Trump often negotiates in real time with information he's received from his experts on a particular topic to test and see. It's almost like Mark, when you, when he goes up on stage in the campaign and says, what do you think about Sarah Sanders running for governor of Arkansas? Would that be a good idea? And he, you know, what do you think about Make America Great? Again, again. Versus make America great Again. Like, he tests these things in real time. Often he'll get information and just see what, what sticks and how people react to it. In this particular issue, though, on this particular issue, rather, I think he's more signaling to the world the sense of power that America has restored under his administration and his leadership, in a way almost saying, guys, I can do any of these options. I could get go full bore. I put troops in the air in the region. You said there were 40,000, I think, before we added 10 to that. So 50,000 troops there. I got 50,000 troops in the region. I've amassed warships all around the area. Or I'll just turn off the lights, come on home and say, you guys enjoy it. I think he's trying to show he can and will do any of those options. Now, whether it's a head fake or not. We've seen before him do certain things and then strike when no one thought, you know, they were looking. That's strategic, too. But it still doesn't mean all of the issues that Melissa laid out or that I'm talking about, they're still all on the table. He could easily walk away from this tomorrow.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, today. What are you guys doing at 9 Eastern time tonight?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Melissa, 9 Eastern time tonight, 9pm Yeah, I don't know. Is there going to be some, is there an address? That's happening.

[Mark Levin]

Hogan, what are you doing at 9 Eastern?

[Hogan Gidley]

Well, if there's an address, I'll probably watch an ad, but most likely no address.

[Mark Levin]

Secretary Rubio is on Hannity, just letting everybody know. Probably taped, but we'll see. So, again, the war is either about to end or not. We don't know. But I'll say this. In the last 24 hours, you'd be given if you, if you took people in the administration seriously and literally, you say that the president might think he could end with no securing of the nuclear material and not in the strait closed. And I'm wondering, Melissa, what you think the world reaction to that would be if the president ended the end of the conflict with Iran still with its nuclear material and its nuclear program degraded? I'm sure the Israelis have killed most of the scientists. But, but with their nuclear material not secured and with their enriched uranium not secured and the strait closed, how would the world react to that?

[Melissa DeRosa]

I think that the world would react that it was a massive failure and that the US has become an unhinged sort of bull in a China shop with no whatsoever for. For what it's doing and its impact not just, you know, in the region, but in the world in general. I mean, we are redefining the rules of war right now.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, Hogan, if that, if that, if the president did that, I want you to weigh in on what Melissa said. But the US And Israel would have done a lot of damage to Iran, their navy, their missile program, their leadership. But the people of Iran would still be oppressed. The leaders of Iran would still be extremists who want to destroy Israel and the United States. They'd still have their nuclear material, and the world economy would be in deep peril because of the closure of the strait. So net. Net. Would it be considered a success if you entered the war on those terms?

[Hogan Gidley]

It would unequivocally be a success, but it would not be portrayed as such in large part because the media right now is saying, we're losing a war. We're clearly winning. So, of course.

[Mark Levin]

Well, forget the media. Forget the media. How would the Saudis. It continues to be reported that AP reported what others have today, what others have reported. Israelis certainly don't want the war to end, but neither did, according to the Associated Press, do the Gulf states or the Saudis. So they are at CBS News. They aren't. They aren't. The walls, the Washington Post. They wouldn't consider it a success if it ended there, it would seem right.

[Hogan Gidley]

But, I mean, we have a good relationship with Saudi, obviously. And the president said just the other day, why aren't you part of these Abraham Accords?

[Mark Levin]

We've.

[Hogan Gidley]

You. You've moved the goalpost on this, too. So, look, these negotiations are always ongoing, the conversation.

[Mark Levin]

I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt. Forget the media. Would you consider it a success if the Iranian regime were still repressing all the people, if they had all their enriched uranium and the strait was closed, would you personally consider it a success?

[Hogan Gidley]

I would consider it success to have killed the Ayatollah, 60 members of their leadership, destroyed their ballistic missile capability and gotten rid of their ability.

[Mark Levin]

But net. Net. Net net, you'd say was a success? Okay.

[Hogan Gidley]

I would say it's a success for sure.

[Mark Levin]

Go ahead.

[Melissa DeRosa]

I just.

[Hogan Gidley]

Okay.

[Melissa DeRosa]

So, yes, we killed the Ayatollah. Yes, we killed 60 top people. But if we're set, if the scenario Mark is laying out is we're leaving with the Strait of Hormuz still completely under the control of Iran, which, by the way, it never was before. So we've actually strengthened their hand. And something now monetize or control. So that would be something that has strengthened them. Number two, While, yes, the Ayatollah is dead and we've killed off a large percentage of his cabinet, someone is still in charge. And it seems as though they are people who are more radicalized, more fundamentalist, with less to lose, which is a scary prospect when you're talking about terrorists in the Middle East. Number three, you have the people of Iran who are still under a dictatorial thumb and being publicly executed and being suppressed and not doing, rising up, which if we believe any of the reporting was originally the goal, that we would clear the field for them to have their own uprising and they still have enriched uranium. And let me just remind everybody, with nuclear bomb, you only need one, right? That's all you need. So if we leave and they are stronger in terms of their dominance of the strait, which controls 20% of the world's oil and all the trickle down that comes along with that, that there are still people from the initial regime who are in charge, who are more hardened, who are more fundamentalist. The people there are not any freer than they were six weeks ago. And there's still the ability to build a nuclear bomb. Then I understand on what measure we could say it was a success.

[Hogan Gidley]

Well, said Hogan, again, this is, this is kind of a. In. What more does the left want?

[Mark Levin]

Okay, it's not the left, Hogan. It's not the left.

[Hogan Gidley]

Mark. Mark.

[Mark Levin]

It's done.

[Hogan Gidley]

It is. It is.

[Mark Levin]

The left would say, too. But it's not just the left, Hogan, because Melissa's not on the far left.

[Hogan Gidley]

I didn't say she was.

[Mark Levin]

Well, but, but, but Melissa just. Rep. Melissa said a bunch of things that the senators from Connecticut could have said, but she's not the senators from Connecticut. She just said a bunch of things that thoughtful people in the Gulf states could say. They're not. They're not the senators from Connecticut. I agree pretty much with everything Melissa just said. I'm not a senator from Connecticut.

[Hogan Gidley]

But my point is, what part of this you didn't like? We did the thing you didn't like. We killed the Ayatollah in the first place.

[Melissa DeRosa]

No, no, no.

[Hogan Gidley]

But the country didn't want any.

[Mark Levin]

We're talking net. Net. Hogan, all you want to do is talk about the positive things. We're not denying the positive things. We're just saying, you know, did you know, Hogan, did you know there's a, there's a Pottery Barn in Trump Tower. And, and the Trump Tower Pottery Barn rule is we break it, you own it. Gulf states, you own it. Asia, you open the Gulf, you own it. People of Iran, what I'm saying, Mark, that's the difference. That's the Trump Tower, Pottery Barn rule.

[Hogan Gidley]

Mark. The narrative writ large across this country, permeated through the left and the media, through polling that shows people are unhappy with bombing Iran. You're telling me now he walks away and they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, don't walk away. They had no problem with the Ayatollah killing 30,000, slaughtering 30,000.

[Mark Levin]

No, Hogan, you're creating straw man. You're just creating the same straw man. We all have a problem with that. We also have a problem with making, as Melissa said, the straight is worse. We do the straight is worse. Hogan, Hogan, I, I'm, I'm, I'm four square. Four. Taking action against Iran. Four square.

[Hogan Gidley]

Truly.

[Melissa DeRosa]

And by the way, like, by my party standards, I'm a hawk. When this first happened, I was like, good, because we, these people are the largest funders of terror since 1979.

[Hogan Gidley]

Okay, I'm asking the wrong question and

[Melissa DeRosa]

we can finish this once and for all. I'm fully supportive. And by the way, I took a lot of shit from my own party for coming out and saying that as forcefully as I did and on this program, accused of not being a Democrat. So I am, I am just merely laying out the reality in a nonpartisan way.

[Hogan Gidley]

Okay, okay. But here, one quick thing. You just made my point for me. You got excoriated for saying this mission was appropriate by the Democrats who were opposed to it. But that's not made the point, which is what I was making.

[Mark Levin]

We got to move on.

[Hogan Gidley]

Listen, I'm answering your question mark, because here's the thing. What happens moving forward has always been the issue. And if you don't want us to put boots on the ground, you don't want us to go whole hog into Iran, you don't want us to go into a full scale war for months at a time. The objectives he lined at the beginning have been accomplished.

[Mark Levin]

I didn't say I was against any of those things. I'm for winning, not losing. That's all. Here's the thing, and this is so screwed up to me, last night on two Way tonight, I reported that what the President's been saying for a few days, that the Iranians are, as a show of good faith and of a, as a validation of who's in power, we're going to let some ships go through. And, and what I reported last night, which I've not seen anywhere else, is it could be more than the number of Sizably more than the number the President's already said. If right now, instead of hearing a Wall Street Journal report so far, no, not matched by anybody else, that the US And Israel are hitting an island, if what we were told were a bunch of ships were going through and that it was validation of the fact that there were legit negotiators and interlocutors, we'd all be saying we're headed towards a peaceful settlement. No one else is reporting that. Maybe my reporting's wrong, maybe my sources were wrong, but I don't quite understand what's going on in the Strait because I read somewhere this morning the two ships did go through, so I don't know what's going on there. Either of you have any thoughts on that?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Well, what I read was that they're allowing ships to go through that are from their friendly allies. Right. That they are controlling who and what and when and in a very limited capacity.

[Mark Levin]

But that's not, but that's not what the President said or what I reported.

[Hogan Gidley]

So could, could, could it be that Donald Trump, knowing full well that we were allowed to send some ships through, but also his intel and I have no knowledge of this, but his military intelligence telling him, hey, they're saying this is okay, but they're doing back channel things to make it more difficult or to, to, to, to put more assets on that island to prevent further traffic. They, they kind of did a PR move of their own to say, look at how benevolent we are. Let's just let people through. And then Trump goes, oh, really? I'm going to bomb that island now. I mean, I don't know. There, there's too many unknowns going on here. But I'm saying the potential is there for him just to remind them, don't mess around here. I will destroy way more than you're, than you're capable to defend.

[Mark Levin]

J.D. vance is a new book coming out. The Associated Press reports about his religious faith and conversion to Catholicism as an adult. Communion Finding My Way Back to Faith Out, June 16th. Melissa, what's the great. What's the, of all the things you see out there, what's the greatest piece of data that tells you the war is going to end soon?

[Melissa DeRosa]

I, I honestly don't see other public statements from the White House. I don't see.

[Mark Levin]

Okay, Hogan, what data do you see that suggests the war is going to end soon?

[Hogan Gidley]

Data? I don't know that I have a grasp on all the pieces of the ones I mentioned. The destruction and death we've already caused in Iran, but I do with Rubio at the helm at State pointing out that this only take a few more weeks, a handful of more weeks, I'm pretty confident in that. And just knowing Donald Trump doesn't want to have a long protracted war, that, that those two pieces to me are pretty significant.

[Mark Levin]

Here's how much the president loves the King of England. He's given him a four day state visit with a banquet on April 28th. So in just about a month, even as he's attacking the British government. Melissa, what's the greatest piece of data. Yeah, Monarchy. Monarchy. What's the great, what's the greatest piece of evidence you see that the war is going to go on for a long time.

[Melissa DeRosa]

I don't know about that. The war is going to go on for a long time. But until we get these, the gas prices out of control and the ripple effects on the markets, I don't think we can leave. And I said this previously, I mean the president is between Iraq and a hard place which is he wants to

[Mark Levin]

talk about Iran and a hard place.

[Hogan Gidley]

I knew you were going knew that

[Melissa DeRosa]

he wants to, you know, the more that he, he wants to calm the markets, he cares about the economy, he wants gas prices to go down. So you talk about diplomacy, you talk about leaving, you talk about this not being a forever war. But in order to get out we've got to finish the thing we started. So I think let's until we can do something that will fundamentally fix the economic problems we caused.

[Mark Levin]

Right. So let's talk about that. Oil is up. Brent crude is what is it 1, 117. Where is it now? Brent crude was up as high as it's been since the war, although people in the administration continue to tell me privately what they've told the president has said publicly which was they thought it would be higher by now. They thought it might be 107. They thought it might be substantially higher than 1 or 7. They thought it'd be more like, it could be more like 150 headed towards 2. And the Dow is the Dow futures. We're five minutes away from the open. The Dow futures are up again in a week where so far right. They were up yesterday. The market finished up yesterday. Here's Jamie Dimon on Fox and Friends talking about the economy and the war. This is 121. Please. How's the market reacted in your view?

[Hogan Gidley]

I think the market, you know, looks, the markets are unpredictable and it's hard for me to tell you exactly what

[Mark Levin]

but I think they're just looking at,

[Hogan Gidley]

is there a chance something can go wrong now? We should all hope nothing goes wrong. We should all hope that these bad people are, you know, that we win this thing and clean up the straits and that Iran is no longer a threat to everybody. And but they're, you know, the markets

[Mark Levin]

will be concerned until it's over. Hogan, even Jay Powell yesterday didn't seem particularly concerned about the medium or long term effects of the war. So is that a concern if the war goes more than a couple more weeks?

[Hogan Gidley]

I mean the economy is always concerned for a whole host of.

[Mark Levin]

All right, how big a concern? I should never ask. Yes, no questions. How big a concern do you think it would be for the president if this, if the impact on the economy and therefore impact on the midterms, if the war continued for another two weeks

[Hogan Gidley]

plus, I don't think it's that big of one. If it continues for two weeks plus again, as I said at the outset, depends on whether or not we quote, unquote win or quote unquote lose. And the perception around that, much like the economy is doing way better under Trump, but the feeling is that it's not doing that well. So, you know, that's a tough thing to combat. I think if he can somehow show a significant obvious clear victory and then the economy settles and costs continue to come down, I think it's golden for him and for the midterms. But you know, I a long way off.

[Mark Levin]

Melissa, the president, Jamie Dimon also said the war needs to be finished and finished right. What are your thoughts on, on the economy in the midterms, in the war?

[Melissa DeRosa]

No, I agree with Jamie Dimon. It has to be finished. It has to be finished. Right. Because if we don't finish it right and we just declare victory and leave, even if it's not real victory, then the economics of this are going to continue to reverberate through the midterms and potentially beyond. So I think to Hogan's point, another two weeks, I don't think that that is that big of a deal. I think that people have sort baked into their perception of what's going on. In the short term, this could go a little bit up, a little bit down, a little bit up, a little bit down. I'm personally not looking at my portfolio right now. It would make you crazy. But I think if it goes beyond this or if we walk away and we walk away without the straight of Hormuz being open with the potential for Iran becoming, as I said earlier, stronger because now they get to dictate which ships go through and to who, then that's going to cause bigger problems. And the president and his team had staked a lot of what was going to happen in the midterms on the big beautiful bills effects taking place in quarter two, quarter three and people starting to feel some relief and being able to point to some of those wins and all of that could be undermined if the global economy is in upheaval.

[Mark Levin]

The Wall Street Journal's Go ahead, Hogan.

[Hogan Gidley]

I just have a question because I get all that and the straight is a, is of concern I would imagine for the global community based off of what Donald Trump tweeted this morning. Truth out this morning, Melissa, is there a world in which that does push these European nations to go, you know what, maybe we shouldn't treat America as the world's piggy bank anymore and as the world's defender, maybe we should try and help some of our own futures here by doing some military actions in the Strait as opposed to putting everything on America. And if they were to do that, that's my first question. But if they were to do that, second question is then that, then put like even a, a calmer blanket I guess over, over the region and the world that, that we're all kind of in this thing together.

[Melissa DeRosa]

I mean you would have to speak to the European leaders. I, I am shocked at this point that they haven't gotten involved because I would think that when they're seeing the capability of the long range missiles that Iran has built that they would understand that it's very much whether they got, whether they were a part of going in or not, that they are directly in their, you know, in, in their view. Yes. And that it was is in within their best interest. But they haven't moved until this point. Maybe that's what I said. Option number one is Trump, you know, sort of trying to use that to pressure them to get involved because it's in their own best interest.

[Mark Levin]

Right. We got a few more topics to cover. Please raise your hand if you want to get in the conversation. If you've never raised your hand before, please do. Please don't put smack in the chat. Please adhere to the sign Wait two hours before, after eating, before go going swimming and peace, love and understanding for all. A lot of debate in legal circles, military circles, political circles. Is it ethical, is it the right thing to do tactically and strategically to hit civilian targets, water, desalination plants, energy targets. This was ostensibly off limits by, decreed by the president on a schedule that still had a few more days to run. And the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which is foursquare for the war, said today it's a bad idea to hit those targets because risk alienating the Iranian people, you risk causing a refugee crisis, etc. Melissa, do you have a thought on whether hitting desalination plants and power plants is a bad idea or a good idea?

[Melissa DeRosa]

I think it is a very bad idea. I think it could take this war to a whole new level. And as I said before, I think we're currently rewriting the rules of engagement as it stands, and at some point, someone could turn around and come for us and say, you guys set these rules yourself, and so now you have to live by them. So I don't think that it is the right move to do this, Hogan.

[Hogan Gidley]

I mean, they've already attacked us, killed American citizens. I don't think they're really worried about the rules of war or the Geneva Convention by any stretch. I do think I see both sides of it. Not to sound harsh or cold or to freak anyone out here, but. But I get the fact that if we've crippled Iran to this point and they still have some semblance of control over its people, which they utilize whenever they want to try and get an outcome from the people who are uprising, et cetera, they shut off the Internet, they shut off water or power or whatever they do, those who run the country. There's a thought process in which you say, well, hold on, I don't want to hurt those people anymore. They're already suffering enough, so I don't want to take out those facilities. At the same time, if the Iranian leadership is the only one benefiting from those. Those plants and that electric grid and everything else, because they're wielding it as power over their own people, take it out.

[Mark Levin]

That.

[Hogan Gidley]

That obviously ratchets things up. There is then a different outcome, I think of. If you break it, you bought it. And I said at the outset of this, of this conflict, maybe that's not the mentality anymore, the American military or the American government or this administration, and that I think that's a good thing. If you begin to tear up their infrastructure, the question then goes, hold on. Now you're dealing with 90 million people who really wanted out from under the thumb of this terrorist regime. Do we then have an obligation to, at the very least, not to nation build, but to put more resources into rebuilding their infrastructure? Then it becomes, I think, more complicated.

[Mark Levin]

Slap up Nikki Haley on Fox, please. Let you see what she's saying. She Just started to see what her first answer is. Like,

[Melissa DeRosa]

Really good progress there, making sure they don't have any nuclear production. So I think, you know, one phase that President Trump's going to have to make a decision on is, you know, how to extract that enriched uranium or dissolve it. That's going to require special units, force, which I guess is already on the way to take care of that. And then you want to make sure that they are economically hardened so that they can't continue to pay their proxy. So that's a win for the U.S. a win for Iran is different. They just want to survive. Their goal is to put enough political pressure and economic pressure on two more

[Mark Levin]

topics of domestic politics. Hogan, if you were the executive director of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, what would be your biggest concern right now.

[Hogan Gidley]

Of the economy?

[Mark Levin]

Of the economy. Just the general effect the economy could have on all the races.

[Hogan Gidley]

Yeah, it's always the economy. I'd always be concerned about how you,

[Mark Levin]

how you message and which, and which, and which race would concern you the most right now.

[Hogan Gidley]

Oh, gosh, I even looked at all the races I'm really worried about at this point for us on the Senate side. But, you know, whatever.

[Mark Levin]

Melissa, if you were chair of the dscc, what, what, what race would you be most concerned about?

[Melissa DeRosa]

Most concerned about? I don't think the DSCC is playing defense. I think that the d. Well, they are.

[Mark Levin]

They're playing defense in Michigan. They're playing defense in New Hampshire. They're playing defense in Georgia.

[Melissa DeRosa]

I. Okay, sorry. I think that if I'm head of the dscc, I'm trying to look at how to exploit the economy, the war, the dysfunction of.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, but what would you be worried about? The answer is Michigan, by the way.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Well, thank you for that, Professor.

[Hogan Gidley]

This McLaughlin Group.

[Mark Levin]

All right, lastly, everybody's favorite topic. Rom Rahm continues to just get nonstop press. He somehow is allowed to write comms for the Wall Street Journal. He has a column today and the Washington Post. He's allowed to continue to work for CNN and be on CNN nonstop. He got a long piece in Politico the other day. He's all over the New Hampshire press for his politics and eggs thing. Here's 118axios scoop. Rahm Emanuel announces plan to divert ice money to community colleges. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wanted to put something in a time capsule of gimmicky Rahm Emanuel policy proposals, this would be one. Take ICE money, put it to community colleges. And here's an article in the Hill. 117 Emanuel unveils 6 for 26 agenda for Democrats ahead of midterms. His 6 points were minimum wage increases, a taxpayer bill of Rights, health care cross controls, ethics reforms, social media, minimum age limits, and a ban on prediction betting for federal officials. Now there's a big debate. We've talked about it here before, about whether Rahm's going to be a strong candidate or not. People generally think he'll get in the debates and it'll be a factor, but probably not the nominee because he's got so much opposition from the left. But here's my question. First for you, Melissa, if you were associated with someone else running, would you be concerned about all this attention Rahm's getting? Or, or, and, or would you be trying to do the same thing? Like is Rahm having a template here that other people are foolishly not exploiting or it doesn't matter for another year?

[Melissa DeRosa]

I think that Rom is obviously testing the waters. I think what he's doing that's smart and unlike what everybody else on the field is doing is he's seeding the Bernie crazy DSA lane and basically saying, you guys can have it. And you've got people like Gavin Newsom and J.B. pritzker and people who are not far left lunatics who are trying to, in a very inauthentic way, exploit the moment and misread the room and say, I want to be that person because Bernie's not going to run again and AOC is not proving to have real chops. And so while everybody's rushing over there, I think he's trying to test the waters to say, can I own this middle? Maybe everybody else splits that.

[Mark Levin]

Very smart. But I need to ask a question again because I didn't ask it precisely enough. There's an ideas primary, which Karl Rove and Bill Clinton, both very smart people about presidential politics, would tell you is underrated. And there's a volume of media attention primary, right. Get better known in the early states as well as nationally. Rahm right now is lapping the field with the exception of Gavin Newsom and the attention primary. Rahm is lapping the field on the ideas primary and the attention primary. So I'm asking is, if you were a Democrat and you wanted to be the nominee, would you say, hey, I got to get into these two primaries because I'm not going to leave the field to Rom or it doesn't matter and you can join these primaries after the midterms.

[Melissa DeRosa]

It's still such a far way out. But it does matter. And I would say we need to get in the game a little bit. You know, Pete Buttigieg is, I read in Politico in a big profile that his strategy is to keep his head down. Although I think it's comical that it was said in a big profile in Politico while he's out doing all these other things. He's, like, trying to look like he's under the radar while being on the radar. But, yeah, if you're serious about running and you're seeing him make these moves, I would say we need to get in the game more. Car.

[Mark Levin]

Hogan, how do you rate the importance of the ideas primary?

[Hogan Gidley]

I think it's important. You know, I. If this is viewed in the, through the lens of a Daytona 500, we're at lap one. Maybe we've just started our engines and so does Rom have enough gasoline? Does he have the good pit crew? Does he have the right tires to go 500 laps? Yeah, I don't know. But you can't win unless you start pretty well at least, or, you know, you have an idea of what you want to do and be.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah. Can you name anybody else who's thinking of running, who's even competing in the ideas primary? Can you name anybody else with an idea? They have about 20, 28. Anybody? I can't.

[Melissa DeRosa]

No. And they're all just saying, I'm against Trump, I want to be the leader.

[Mark Levin]

Or they want to raise taxes or they.

[Hogan Gidley]

Yeah. The only thing I would take issue with is she's talking about the crazy left wing, Bernie Sanders wing. It's crazy, but it's more mainstream now than it ever has been in the Democrat party, as referenced and evidenced by Melissa pointing to several top named Democrats in the party embracing that ideology, embracing that lane, trying to grow it from there. So I think the fight inside the party will be interesting on their side heading into their primary season, of course. And you'll have a whole host of different styled candidates, you know, duking it out on stage. I'm. I'm here for it.

[David]

Yeah.

[Mark Levin]

All right. One more news update that just came across my. Go ahead.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Well, I just wanted to say that I, I actually think that it's the Democratic elites grossly misreading what went on in the New York City primary and thinking that that can be replicated across the country where Zora Mumdami in New York City, one of the bluest cities in America, with a turnout 74%. Democrats barely hit 50%. So I think that the elites are always chasing where they think the party is going and that's what they're doing in this instance. And I think that there are a lot of people who feel politically homeless, who are in the Democratic Party, who are open to the middle. If someone can articulate a vision that is not just anti Trump, it's going back to the Clinton Democrats. And I do think that there are a lot of people that want that for that and currently don't have that as an option on the menu.

[Hogan Gidley]

Do you think?

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, just.

[Hogan Gidley]

Do you think Melissa, though, someone like Spamberger in Virginia who ran as a moderate, has governed, is a wild left person? Do you think that's a model where they say, all right, we're going to run trying to let the media couch us as moderate, we're going to say we're moderate, we namby pamby on some of these issues. But when we go, like I guess I'm saying is, does her governing style hurt the, the thought process that you could trust the Democrat to be kind of moderate throughout, or is it one of those things where we could, as Republicans could point that and say, see, this is what they tell you they are. Then they raise taxes 150% in your state, taxing everything from dog walkers to dog groomers to people who go to the gym.

[Melissa DeRosa]

I think that Republicans can absolutely make that case. In her specific case and she would have the rebuttal of, oh, I have to deal with a legislature that is way further to the left and I'm trying to compromise to your point. It opens the Democrats up certainly to saying, oh, they're going to run this one way and govern another way.

[Mark Levin]

All right, one more piece of news across the wire and then to your questions here, President Trump reporters now know the good time to call him is an 8:00am Eastern Time hour because he's in office time. So he's sitting around looking at his phone and CBS News got him on the phone and here's what he told them. He is, quote, not ready, quote, quite yet to abandon efforts to force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to try to despite a true social post suggesting allies need to do it themselves. In a phone call, Mr. Trump reiterated his frustration that other countries, including the UK had not sent military assets to join the U. S. Israeli war against Iran. But he said he isn't pulling American forces out of the effort yet, quote, at some point I will, not quite yet, but countries have to come in and take care of it. Iran has been decimated, but they're going to have to come in and do their own work. Again, no mention of the fact that he got these quote unquote tribute gifts of allowing ships to go through. Still very confusing to me. Have to call my source back. All right, to your questions now. And for reasons I can't quite explain, my inclination is to only call on people with beards, at least to start. So that's what we'll do. We'll start with David. David, welcome in. Thank you for being here. Unmute. Tell folks who don't know where you are and what's on your mind. For Melissa and for Hogan, I thank you.

[David]

And my beard thanks you. I raised my hand because I wanted to tell you that you, you asked a really smart question, not that that's unusual, on two way tonight, last night. And the question was, can Trump possibly walk away from this whole situation, which he obviously would like to do without the, the supposed two week nuclear threat from Iran solved?

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, you do that.

[David]

And that's a very tough question. But now you've made it even tougher because you've added in. Can he walk away and also leave the Strait of Hormuz closed, even though it was open for decades before he arrived? Yeah, that's pretty crazy. But yeah, going back to the first question, the nuclear question, which after all was the proximate cause that was, that was cited by everyone, including, including Mr. Rubio, who seems to have forgotten all about it.

[Mark Levin]

Yes, sir.

[David]

There's only two ways for the US to assure itself, for the west to assure itself that Iran cannot put together a nuclear program in secret and, and get a bomb. There's only two ways. One is to impose a friendly regime that will, you know, end the, the idea that Iran is our enemy. And I personally think that's, that's really a bad idea since we tried it in 1954, lasted for a long time and it brought us, it brought us the mallows eventually. But it doesn't matter because we obviously have given up on that idea. The whole idea of regime change, it's not happening. So the only, there's one other way that we could do this and that is to have an agreement with the government of Iran, as much as we dislike it, with ironclad guarantees that they won't produce a nuclear weapon, with inspections, with the participation of other countries, just a whole regime of negotiation.

[Mark Levin]

In a negotiation, have them to hand the nuclear material over and including, including

[David]

getting rid of nuclear material. Yeah, but, you know, we had an agreement. It was negotiated by President Barack Obama. It lasted for quite some time, and Iran did not produce A nuclear weapon in that period.

[Mark Levin]

Well, but. But someone would say they got closer either. Some would say they got closely.

[David]

The Israelis would tell you that it was close.

[Mark Levin]

Not only the Israelis. Not only the Israelis would tell you

[David]

it certainly wasn't months away.

[Mark Levin]

All right, David, I agree with 68%, but that's the question. Thank you.

[David]

Question is, could we get to such an agreement again? And I think that's the problem, because any trust that existed back then, and there wasn't a lot of trust on either side, has been completely eroded by the fact that every time there's a negotiation, we take the opportunity to attack Iran.

[Mark Levin]

Well, but then there's no.

[David]

There's no trust on this.

[Mark Levin]

Turn it over to Hogan. And then Melissa didn't respond. But I'll say you're right. There's no trust in each side. But the American point of view is the reason there's no trust is Iran cheated at the previous agreements, and during these negotiations, they lied. And that the reason the US Walked away from these negotiations was not because they didn't want a deal, but because they didn't trust the Iranians to make a deal that would be a good deal.

[Hogan Gidley]

Hogan, forget the fact that the previous administration, and Obama as well, last two, three previous administrations, excluding Trump there, gave them, you know, billions of dollars in cash to fund terrorism. That all is a problem in that region. The. The thought, though, that the current regime could be trusted to not produce nuclear material or not continue its nuclear program. After Donald Trump bombed Forda within months, satellite imagery showed they were rebuilding it already, even though they said they weren't going to. Even though we destroyed it, they're having to rebuild it. They cannot be trusted. That's just generations of fact in this particular instance. Right. But the question becomes, what is the agreement you could put in place? Because as you just. You made a comment. I think a little bit, David, that was a fallacy. If we could. Is there any chance to go back to get them to agree again to a good agreement? Well, you have to agree that the first agreement was a good one, and I don't agree with that. I think it was a bad one. I don't think they're going to allow American inspectors with the current regime. No way. And if they did, it would be treacherous, to say the least. I don't think they're going to stop their desired stated goal of death and destruction to Jews and the West. So I'm not sure how that occurs unless we just completely eradicate any potential for the. You know, you rip it down. This is. This is a crass way to say it, but you gut it to the studs and start all over again. And I don't think anyone has the appetite in this country to do that. So I'm not sure how an agreement can be. Can be made with anyone who has a semblance of the previous regime's mentality.

[Mark Levin]

Melissa?

[Melissa DeRosa]

No, I don't disagree with a lot of what Hogan just said and what you said, Mark. And this leads me back to. And this wasn't something I was cheerleading for. This is just my factual analysis of where this thing is going, anything short of regime change. And I don't know how we ever get any level of confirmation that they are not building or working towards building a nuclear weapon, which, again, I'm going to repeat, you only need one. And so I don't. Unless you put in. Unless there's regime change, where there's a friendly regime, where they allow our weapons inspectors to come in, where we have an actual agreement, I don't know how you get out of this with any assurance that we are safer off tomorrow than we were six weeks ago.

[David]

David, I totally agree. I think you misunderstand my point. My point was not that we. That negotiations are on the way and we're going to have an agreement. My point was the Trump administration has made it impossible for us to ever have an agreement that they would trust, and we don't trust them. Therefore, there's no agreement. So absent. But absent a new regime.

[Mark Levin]

That's. That's why there has to be. There has to be. If not regime change, there has to be something like Venezuela. There has to be a regime, an altered regime. An altered regime that's willing to hand over the nuclear material. They don't understand the only solution.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Let me say something for Hogan. I'm going to say something for you, Hogan. I don't. Whether it was Trump or Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, we cannot and did not trust Iran. And so while, yes, Trump came in and, you know, kicked this hornet's nest, I would not say that we were in a position where we were in a trustworthy relationship with them. Who was in the White House.

[Hogan Gidley]

They. They literally just fired up, said they didn't have rockets that could go far, and then now have rockets, miraculously, that can pinpoint European capitals all over the globe. Like, this regime obviously cannot be trusted. It slaughters its own people. It's the largest state sponsor of terror. She just mentioned it. Everyone from Kamala Harris to Barack Obama to Joe Biden. To Hillary Clinton. So they cannot get a nuclear weapon. Donald Trump tries to prevent that. But this relationship between us and Iran cannot continue. Cannot be something that is sustainable with the current regime as Trump did with Maduro in Venezuela. You put someone in place that you can still has Maduro's mentality and ideology but will deal with America is way better. And I don't think Iran is to that point yet. And I don't know that they can get to that point. But for as everyone here says, regime change because it is very clear the leadership there cannot be trusted at all.

[Mark Levin]

David, thank you. Grateful to you. I don't read the chat, but I glance at it and we're not rooting for regime change at all costs. We're not here advocating put ground troops in. We got it. We got to get a regime change. What we're saying is at least what I'm saying and I believe Melissa is saying is that the, and I think David agreed with this. The only way to get the nuclear material out is to have a compliant regime. Whether it's a, whether it's a bunch of Iranian Thomas Jefferson's or it's a Bunch of Venezuela 2.0. We're just saying that's the only way to get it done. We're not, we're not saying. And therefore at all costs bring about regime change.

[Hogan Gidley]

Right.

[Mark Levin]

Joshua also seems to have a beard unless it's a Groucho thing that he just threw on to get called on. But I'll take the risk. Joshua, welcome in. Tell folks I don't know where you are. What's on your mind. How do you keep powdered sugar out of that thing?

[Joshua]

Yeah, it, it, I get more and more powdered sugar the older I get Mark.

[Mark Levin]

So yeah, there you go. Tell everybody where you are and what's on your mind.

[Joshua]

Virginia Beach. I, Chad is unhinged today. All the, all the, the strawman popping off about this. You know, I, I think people are misunderstanding the difference between tactical victory and strategic victory in Iran. And they are simply not taking Iran's natural, natural advantages seriously. Natural advantage of, of only having to survive to win. And now this tripwire that has been triggered through this kinetic action. And that tripwire is the very, very low cost, high yield threat to the Strait of Hormuz that Iran can just simply do indefinitely. Because it's not just Iran, it's not just the United States who has a say in this. It's shipping companies, it's insurance companies. The cost of oil is, is going to go up and to think, well, obviously the cost of oil is going up, but I think we are going to see the, the commodities skyrocket. We're, we're not just talking about oil, we're talking about fertilizer, we're talking about, we're talking about shipping lanes. And I simply don't understand how people to include our president are not, are not more concerned about this and are just simply like, oh, yeah, sic em, Pete. Right? Like, yeah, show them more kinetic action, Pete. Because that seems to be working. Like, the problem is all of our kinetic action is very expensive and the more we do, the more we degrade, the lower the cost to effect ratio becomes.

[Mark Levin]

Right.

[Joshua]

Just naturally, it's a math problem. If we don't see regime change in Iran, like a real meaningful regime change, because currently we've got the irgc, so we've seen, I guess, regime change in Iran to a certain extent because now the IRGC is in charge. Oh, great. Oh, that's wonderful.

[Hogan Gidley]

Right.

[Joshua]

But if we don't see meaningful regime change in Iran, there's no way that we achieve strategic victory. And we need strategic victory because. For a couple reasons, and I could go on and I won't. I put it in the chat. People disagree with me, that's fine. But we have bigger fish to fry. We have a debt crisis in the United States that cannot be solved with dollars and cents in any traditional way and won't. The political reality is Republicans and Democrat administrations spend, spend, spend. And the only way for us to, to, to, you know, maintain our way of life in the United States is, is to be on top. Right. Like American empire by another name. We have to stay on top and we have to have people in charge of that are, that, are, that are competent and capable of managing a global economy.

[Mark Levin]

Yep.

[Joshua]

And these are the strategic issues.

[Mark Levin]

You speak, you speak for tens of millions. Very well said, Melissa. And then Hogan.

[Melissa DeRosa]

Now just to pick up on your point about the, about it's not just oil. I mean, think about how much time the government has spent working towards dealing with the inflation issue so that we could get to a place where we could lower interest rates in a meaningful way and this could erase all of that. I mean, it's, you know, when you're talking about, when you're talking about the down, you know, trend of what happens with oil, you're talking about fertilizer, which means food gets more expensive. You're talking about plastic, you're talking about polyester, you know, Mark's clothes will cost more. It's everything that goes down, down drain from that. And so I think it's with, you know, you're, we've created potentially additional headaches for us here at home economically, which is why I don't think we could just walk away.

[Hogan Gidley]

Yeah. And Joshua, first of all, I want you to know I've been growing this beard in since the sixth grade. And if you see I catch the light just right, it's starting to fill in. I can feel it.

[Mark Levin]

Yeah, looking good.

[Hogan Gidley]

You're doing a good job. Thanks. Thanks. Getting ready for the winter 10 winters from now. Listen, interesting points. I don't think Iran understands anything other than military might. Negotiations have never really worked with Iran. They always walk away from them. What they do is try and inflict pain, fear, death, destruction throughout the region. That's what they understand. Donald Trump started this military operation doing that to try and get their attention, which he got, obviously. Now, if the regime doesn't change, as we've said many times on this, on this panel, we don't have to install somebody, but someone has to rise up from the ranks of the people there that we can negotiate with, have conversations with. Because your point, which was we need to it behooves the world when America is the greatest empire. Well, that's true. We can't be isolationists here, but we can't be the world's policemen. We can't be nation builders all over the world either. But we expect our allies who we share military might with. We buy and sell weapons with our partners in allies, some even our enemies for that matter. We share intelligence with our partners. Partners and ours as well. But another key component of being an ally is showing up when the other person is in trouble. Showing up when there is a military operation that benefits all parties involved. And for whatever reason in Ukraine, everyone comes around America and says we're going to help out.

[David]

Yep.

[Mark Levin]

Joshua, thank you.

[Hogan Gidley]

They just go, no, it's really weird.

[Mark Levin]

Thank you. Grateful to you. I got to jump over to SiriusXM for rolling to our second hour. Please join me there. Channel 111 making Kelly Channel for another hour of the program later today. Next up, new episode, tables Turned. Emily Jasinski, my colleague there, interviews me. She's the host of After Party. If you're interested in my life and I don't know who would be, but if you are, Emily does a pretty hard hitting interview of my history and media in particular. And then Drew Holden and I talk about liberal media bias. So join me there on YouTube and on podcast tonight, 5pm Eastern Time. Steve Elmendorf and Justin Safi. Join me on two way tonight at 5 Eastern. And tomorrow morning Hogan would be back. We bid farewell. Well, to Melissa. Thank you, Melissa, Kevin Walling and Hogan, tomorrow at 9. I may have some news in the 10 o' clock hour, so join me there. Working on it now. Thank you, Melissa. Thank you, Hogan. Thank you all for being part of the two way community, particularly those of you with beards, bubble cuddle, blankets or both. See you on Sirius XM. See you at 5. See you tomorrow at 9. Have a great.