No Spin News - Weekend Edition - April 11, 2026

Summary

---

Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis

Episode: Weekend Edition - April 11, 2026
Date: April 11, 2026
Host: Bill O'Reilly

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on escalating U.S.-Iran tensions, the global diplomatic response, the domestic and international media’s framing of President Trump’s wartime decisions, and public opinion on the administration's strategy. Bill O'Reilly dives into media bias, NATO's fractured stance, and the complexities of winning modern wars—particularly when fighting for nuclear nonproliferation against an adversary like Iran. O’Reilly is joined by analysts and correspondents who provide insight on European, Israeli, and U.S. perspectives, with a keen focus on how narratives are weaponized both at home and abroad.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Media Reaction and Narrative Framing

• War Crimes Accusations
  • O'Reilly highlights The New York Times, which claims: “Trump revels in threats to commit war crimes in Iran.” ([00:47])
  • Media and political adversaries are portrayed as eager to paint Trump as either "a war criminal" or as "surrendering"—no action he takes can be spun as successful by opponents.

    “If the United States were to pull back at the last minute and not bomb Iran, then he’d be surrendering...If we do, then he’s a war criminal. You see, this is the vice that the American left has clamped down on President Trump.” ([27:27])

• Left-Leaning Political and Media Opposition
  • O'Reilly accuses critics (e.g., Democratic Senators and Congresspeople) of prioritizing anti-Trump sentiment over strategic analysis, equating their rhetoric with propaganda.
• Polling Data
  • CNN and Economist polls consistently show most Americans oppose the war and Trump’s handling of it, but O'Reilly sees this as the result of media confusion and focus on personal financial pain (e.g., gas and stock prices). ([24:44])

2. International Response and Global Fractures

• NATO and Allies
  • O'Reilly and Dr. Michael Rubin lament that key NATO allies (notably Spain, South Korea, Australia, and even Japan) have refused to support U.S. action against Iran. ([05:46])
  • Spain singled out for more than diplomatic passivity: Spanish industries, exposed by investigative work, have allegedly shipped military-grade materials to Iran, supporting their drone program even while denying the U.S. use of bases. ([06:59])
  • Dr. Rubin attributes these stances partly to shifts toward leftist governments and self-distracting domestic scandals. He also notes broader trends of U.S. allies behaving as “Lilliputians” intent on restraining American power (referencing Gulliver’s Travels). ([08:10])
• Migration and Western European Fears
  • O'Reilly asks if European reluctance is rooted in fears over Muslim migration, especially from North Africa, tying this to policy hesitance and moral posturing by governments and the Catholic Church. ([10:06])
  • Rubin points out this is the first war with a net inflow into Iran, owing to refugees’ confidence in U.S./Israeli precision strikes, and highlights that the new UN High Commissioner for Refugees (an ex-refugee himself) is challenging Europe's blanket acceptance of economic migrants. ([11:01])

3. Israel’s Perspective and the View from the Region

• High Israeli Morale
  • Armin Rosen (Tablet magazine) reports overwhelming Israeli support for the ongoing campaign in Iran, despite weeks of bombardment and the sacrifices entailed. Israelis see the stakes as existential and are committed to “finishing this job.” ([26:33])
  • Contrasts American and Israeli experiences of conflict: “You remember how people in the United States kind of lost their minds about a single Chinese spy balloon. The experiences are just kind of much, much different.” ([27:40])
• Divergence of U.S. and Israeli Interests
  • While militaries are cooperating, Rosen notes their underlying national interests and stakes are not identical. ([26:33])
• Antisemitism and Public Opinion
  • O’Reilly and Rosen discuss the spike in anti-Semitism tied to the conflict, noting it is more pronounced and dangerous in Europe, where leaders fear unrest from recent Muslim immigration. ([32:14])

4. Military Strategy, Negotiations, and the Nuclear Issue

• Military Actions and Their Limits
  • O’Reilly underscores the recent U.S. attack on Carg Island—a military hub for Iran’s oil exports—strategically not targeting oil directly so as not to provoke China. ([17:26])
  • U.S. strategy includes avoiding excessive civilian casualties and preserving global oil flows.
• Negotiation and Leverage
  • Talks between the U.S. and Iran are set to begin in Pakistan, led by VP JD Vance, but O’Reilly tempers expectations due to the regime’s disregard for Iranian civilian deaths. ([36:47])
  • O'Reilly’s “simple question” test: “Is it okay with you that Iran have nuclear weapon? That's it.” He notes that no critics answer this bottom-line question. ([24:44])
• Iranian Strategy
  • Dr. Rubin likens Iran’s approach to “rope-a-dope,” betting the U.S. will lose domestic and allied resolve before Iran backs down ([14:23]):

    “The Iranians are trying to wait us out…they believe they can outlast the United States here.”

• China and Russia
  • Both countries are seen as critical enablers for Iran. China, in particular, sources 80% of its oil from Iran and has a vested interest in a quick end to hostilities.

5. Debate on “Winning” and What Victory Looks Like

• American Public’s View
  • Many polls show Americans don’t see the war as “worth it,” with the main public complaint being rising gas prices rather than strategic threats. ([24:44])
• Information as a Battleground
  • O’Reilly criticizes how quickly enemy claims and propaganda find their way into American and European media and political narratives. ([36:47])
  • He expresses concern that the left and media would rather see Trump defeated than Iranian hardliners—a recurring theme throughout the episode.

6. Expert Analysis: Regime Change, Oil, and Strategic Chokepoints

• Leland Vittert (NewsNation)
  • Warns that it’s still unclear if the Straits of Hormuz are open. Suggests the U.S. should focus on Iran’s oil revenue, since “what keeps [the regime] in power? The flow of money.” ([48:03])
  • Advocates for targeting Iran’s oil facilities to cut off cash to the regime and hasten internal collapse, rather than focusing on more symbolic or less vital infrastructure. ([53:41])

    “Give it a couple of weeks, choke off their oil, and then maybe the Iranians would be in a position where they feel like they needed to make a deal.” ([56:59])

  • Suggests that American reluctance for “boots on the ground” limits strategic options, but asserts that a demonstration of force—escorting ships or briefly seizing territory—could break Iran’s coercive leverage.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Media Framing
  “Now the latest is the New York Times headlines. Trump revels in threats to commit war crimes in Iran. So now we got the New York Times accusing the president not only of committing the war crimes, but revels wants to.”
  – Bill O’Reilly ([00:47])

• On International Reluctance
  “If the whole world…allied with the United States, Iran couldn't exist. And that's a memo.”
  – Bill O’Reilly ([05:42])

• On European Left-Wing Policy
  “…so many of these other countries are the Littleputians who simply want to tie us down, without view to the greater threat.”
  – Dr. Michael Rubin ([08:10])

• On the Iran Regime's Mentality
  “You're dealing with really savage people here. And we may not even get there on Saturday because they may do something crazy. Remember, the Iranian leadership does not care how many of their citizens die. Doesn't care.”
  – Bill O’Reilly ([36:47])

• On Public Opinion’s Simplicity
  “All they know is they're paying more at the gas pump.”
  – Bill O’Reilly ([24:44])

• On Israeli Endurance
  “Israelis have dealt with terrorism as a daily reality for 30 or even 40 years…not as something that could happen, but something that inevitably happens.”
  – Armin Rosen ([27:40])

• On Leverage and Regime Survival
  “What keeps them in power? The flow of money. Where's the flow of money come from? Oil. Stop that. And you have them by whatever body part you would like to note on your show.”
  – Leland Vittert ([53:54])

• On Western Narratives
  “Some of them hate Donald Trump more than the mullahs. There’s no doubt in my mind.”
  – Bill O’Reilly ([36:47])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:07–05:42 — Opening Talking Points Memo: Media, NATO hesitation, war crimes narrative
• 05:46–14:23 — Discussion with Dr. Michael Rubin: Spain’s aid to Iran, NATO’s divisions, European leftist politics, migration concerns
• 17:26–24:44 — Update: U.S. attack on Carg Island, war crimes debate, poll results, question of nuclear arms
• 26:33–36:42 — Armin Rosen segment: Israeli support, U.S.-Israeli interests, European/American public opinion
• 36:47–47:32 — O’Reilly’s memo on negotiations, media spin, Straits of Hormuz
• 48:03–61:07 — Leland Vittert debate: What is “control,” cutting off Iranian oil, regime survival, cost of escalation
• 62:10–62:53 — Episode wrap-up: Reflections, predictions, hopes for negotiation

---

Style & Tone

• Direct and often blunt, with O’Reilly’s signature skepticism toward mainstream media and left-wing “spin.”
• Guests add nuance but share a generally hawkish, U.S.-centric lens.
• The episode is combative—both toward political adversaries and media “narrative-managers”—and is pitched as “just facts,” though strong opinion and analysis are ever-present.

---

Conclusion

The episode presents an uncompromising, if polarized, view of America’s Iran policy, with O’Reilly and his guests arguing that Western hesitation is rooted in parochial, anti-Trump motivations and a failure to grasp strategic realities. The military and diplomatic dilemmas are dissected through the lens of media bias, European migration politics, Israeli survival instincts, and the enduring question of nuclear proliferation. The underlying refrain: the U.S. cannot allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and no amount of negative press or international whining will alter that existential bottom line.

---

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[B]

Now, the talking points memo is the new nickname Trump's War. So I assume, and we will report tomorrow on this, that the usual Trump haters will diminish the press conference today. And I have my producers looking for the sound and we'll go over that. And there are people actively hoping Iran beats the United States in this conflict. And we will spotlight those people tomorrow. Okay? The strategy from the hey, Trump media is to say we are not winning, okay? This is hurting every American, higher gas prices, whatever it may be, wrecking the economy, the whole world's against us, on and on. You've heard it, okay? And it's, I don't believe it's going to stop, all right? It'll just accelerate up. And then if we finally get a deal, which I think we will, I'm praying we will, then it'll be, yeah, but, yeah, but it's not the deal that he said. You see what's going on here? I mean, everybody does. And now the latest is the New York Times headlines. Trump revels in threats to commit war crimes in Iran. So now we got the New York Times accusing the president not only of committing the war crimes, but rebels wants to. So what are we talking about here? Well, we're talking about this, quote, 100 legal experts and lawyers, according to the New York Times. And you could get 100 legal experts and lawyers say anything. Okay? So the conduct of the war and rhetoric of US Officials raises serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes. It pointed out the very act of the United States attacking Iran, violation of the UN Charter. Since there's no evidence Mr. Trump was acting to defend his country against an imminent threat. So either these people don't believe that Iran has or wants a nuclear weapon or I don't know what plan B would be. So if you have a nuclear weapon and you're pledged to kill Jews and Americans and you've state sponsored terrorism for almost 50 years, it's not hard to do the math here, is it? New York Times, I mean, this is just almost laughable what they're throwing out there. But now it's war crimes. So let's go back into history. The only reason Japan surrendered to the United States in 1945 was because we dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We firebombed Tokyo, we firebombed Dresden, Germany. We, the United States killed what, a million civilians? Probably more from the sky. That was the only way to defeat these fascist countries that launched the war. It Is true. Iran did not launch any war. However, the nuclear weapon component dwarfs anything that Hitler or Tojo had. We all getting this. So a few nuts will accuse Truman and Winston Churchill of war crimes. But these are crazy people. You had to end it. Trump wants to end it by saying to Iran, you got to give up the nukes. All I can give you the facts, okay? So when you are examining what's really happening, if you care to be fair, that rhymes. Got to take all this into account. Trump haters, whatever he does, that's NATO, okay? They're not gonna like it. Whatever he does, they're not gonna like it. Japan, South Korea, that's kind of startling. Australia, not helping. Kind of startling. I mean, they're so far away that they're not going to be affected by any nuke that Iran might use. I understand, but come on. If the whole world, Again, I don't want to be repetitive, but if the whole world allied with the United States, Iran couldn't exist. And that's a memo.

[A]

You're listening to the no SP News Weekend Edition.

[B]

Okay, so NATO continues to sit it out. Spain's the worst. But it was surprising today to hear President Trump say South Korea, Japan, Australia and other countries won't help us. All of NATO is united now. There will be a meeting. The head of NATO coming to see President Trump on Wednesday. NATO's got to do something. Except Spain. Now, Spain is a socialist country. They don't like the United States and they have denied us refueling on their land for our planes to go to Iran. They have now actually helped out. I understand Iran military capabilities. Pretty startling. Joining us from Bethesda, Maryland, Dr. Michael Rubin. He is a senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute, which is a think tank dedicated to defending human dignity. So tell me about this Spain helping Iran thing.

[C]

Well, you know, the Middle east forums. Jose Lev Alvarez, a former Special Forces soldier who is fluent in Spanish, has exposed a great deal of Spanish industry, which was shipping military grade steel and other technology to Iran, to a company that was manufacturing Iranian drones. This is at the same time, as you said, Bill, that the Iranian, that the Spaniards were denying the United States access to some of the bases. And it's at the same time that the Spanish government was also boycotting all Israeli goods and leading the braying pack, arguing that Israel really has no right to exist, that it's a terrorist state. I mean, it really is unbelievable that a Spanish ally, one that was with us just a couple decades ago, I mean, a NATO ally, one that was so with us just A couple decades ago has made such a turn, and

[B]

it has because it's a socialist government. Is that what's behind this?

[C]

In Spain's case, yes. But also the Spanish prime minister was elected and as you said, he comes from a socialist background. He was elected because among Spain's center right, there was a corruption scandal. As soon as he got into office, however, he, his wife became the focus of a corruption scandal. So I suspect in Spain's case, part of its ideology, part of its distraction. And then if we want to look more broadly, you're talking about South Korea, which today is also a very leftist regime, and other countries, Australia, we are like Gulliver in Gulliver's Travels. And so many of these other countries are the little putians who simply want to tie us down without view to the greater threat that looms over the horizon, Bill.

[B]

But they believe the greater threat is Trump, and Trump even said it today, this is all about Greenland. That's why NATO hates him and won't cooperate, which I think there's some truth to that.

[C]

Well, NATO certainly resents Donald Trump. Look, if we want to look at Donald Trump's first term, one of Donald Trump's signature achievements was actually getting NATO to pay up. But NATO doesn't necessarily like having to pay up. And certainly its politicians don't like having to explain to a public that doesn't understand that has been shielded from these threats for so long. When it comes to Iran, you know, the Iranians have conducted assassinations on French soil, on German soil, on, on Spanish soil, on British soil. I mean, this notion that Iran doesn't pose a grave and growing threat is absolutely insane. And this, this notion that we hear that imminence, that Donald Trump violated imminence is simply backward when it actually comes to the roots of imminence in international law.

[B]

Well, you've got everybody aligned, including the Catholic Church that's putting a more immoral label on the action against Donald Trump. And usually the church stays out of stuff like this, but they haven't this time around. So I'm wondering if this is more about migration into Europe because these governments fear, particularly Spain is going to legalize what, a couple hundred thousand people from mostly from North Africa. And then you go down a list, you got Britain and you got France with millions of people pouring in, and it looks like the government fears those people. And of course, as you know, Iran's a Shia nation and that's a dominant part of Islam.

[C]

You know, Bill, I'm really glad you asked this question, because One of the things that fascinates me with regard to this current war is in talking to people from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for example, this is the first war where you've actually had a net inflow of population because so many Iranians have been crossing the border from Turkey into Iran, from Armenia into Iran, because they have such faith that the Americans and the Israelis are bombing precisely, and therefore they don't carry risk. What's actually quite interesting when we talk about this issue of migration, and is, of course, number one, this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Convention on Refugees. But the other issue is that on January 1, Barham Saleh, the former President of Iraq, took over as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. He's the first High Commissioner who was actually a refugee himself. And he has rebutted this Western European socialist embrace that all refugees are legitimate. He's basically been proposing get back to the basics, that economic migrants aren't refugees. And this, more than anything else, puts the Western European approach, their back is to the ropes. I mean, simply put, they're upset that they can no longer hijack international institutions to promote their ideology, which isn't rooted in the actual law.

[B]

But you don't have that in Japan or East or South Korea or Australia. These countries are just sitting it out, waiting for the United States to do the dirty work. It looks to me.

[C]

Well, you're absolutely right on Japan, and I'm actually surprised by Japan. South Korea, however, and Australia have both taken hard left turns. And so when we actually look at the conservatives in South Korea, they're akin to mainstream Democrats in the United States. The spectrum in South Korea, I was there quite recently, has shifted so far to the left. We need to be cognizant and calibrate our foreign policy towards the reality of what these countries are now, rather than what they once were. But you're absolutely right, it is surprising. And again, going back to Donald Trump's first term, what he stopped is the freeloading within NATO. And now it looks like we have a much greater problem. Look, when it comes to Iran, you can kick the can down the road as far as you want, but eventually that road comes to an end when it comes to this notion that there was no imminence. Bill, let me ask you a question. If I decided I didn't like you, and I purchased a gun, and then I Googled where you live, and then I purchased ammunition, and then I took an Uber to your house, and then I knocked on your door and loaded the gun at what point. Would I pose an imminent threat? I would argue that when I threatened to kill you, that would be the time in which I should face consequences. And the fact of the matter is that Iranians were chanting death to America every single day. And when people say, hey, we need more diplomacy, then how come they don't question why the Russians were selling anti aircraft missiles to Iran or the Chinese were talking about selling anti carrier killer missiles? The fact of the matter is, if you want to know why diplomacy, the window of diplomacy closed, you got to ask the Kremlin and you got to ask Beijing.

[B]

Well, they've been historically trying to destabilize the United States. And one way you do that is to prop up a rogue state. They hate Israel too, but Israel is a minor player there. Final question for you. The Iranian strategy is fairly simple. It's a rope, a dope, you know, use a boxing thing, will take all of the bombings and all of the military action because we don't believe that the United States can be able to outlast the opposition both from within and without. Because the press in America, as you know, doctor, hates Trump. And they're going to use every single weapon they have to try to delegitimize, which is why Trump said today, put it on Obama. Put the whole thing on Obama, okay, today, which I thought was interesting. And he did that to try to deflect some of this. It's Trump's fault. It's Trump's fault. It's Trump's fault. But that's what the Iranians believe, that they can outlast the United States here. How do you see that?

[C]

Well, first of all, I'm reminded of that old joke about the New York Times and that if George W. Bush walked on water, the headline would have been George Bush can't swim. And the fact of the matter is the press is what the press is. During the Cold War, we had communists, we had anti communists, and we had anti anti communists. And the same dynamic is at play today. But you're absolutely right, the Iranians are trying to wait us out. Now, the model as a historian that I look at is 1999 with the Clinton administration when we were bombing Serbia in order to compel a concession and safety for Kosovo. And what a lot of people forget is the bombing itself didn't actually change the regime in Belgrade. It didn't actually end Sloboland Milosevic's rule that came the next year because he had so few supporters left that he was much more easily overthrown. I suspect we Might be going down the Serbia path right now.

[B]

Yeah, but something's got to happen with the nukes. Trump's not going to back away from that.

[C]

Oh, you're. Nor should he. That it? Look, he's the commander in chief. He's responsible if we try to ensure international stability and security by consensus. That's never worked before. That's why the president has always been the leader of the free world. If we listen to global consensus, the Berlin would have fallen back in the 1940s, 1950s. We wouldn't default the Soviet Union. We would have, I mean, basically, it would be a whole different world. And that's what so many people on the left and so many people who are just obsessed by Trump Derangement syndrome don't understand.

[B]

All right, Doctor, thanks very much for the good analysis. We really appreciate it.

[A]

This is the no Spin News Weekend

[B]

Edition Talking Points Memo is the latest. US Military struck Carg Island. That's the big distribution center for Iranian oil. Didn't blow up the oil because of China. China gets 80% of its oil from Iran. And you know, there's back channels there. United States does not want to alienate China in this whole thing. So it took out a lot of the military on Carg island, bunkers, storage facilities, things like that, but did not bomb the oil itself. That may happen, it may not. But there's no doubt in my mind I know this turf pretty well, that the United States is going to try to protect the oil supply, the world's oil supply. Two major railroad lines have stopped in Iran. Israelis warn that government not to run those trains because they'll be blown off the tracks, apparently. And then the worldwide reaction is interesting. President Trump can't win. He can't win. So if the United States were to pull back at the last minute and not bomb Iran, then he'd be surrendering. Then he'd be, you know, Teflon, whatever they call him. If we do, then he's a war criminal. You see, this is the vice that the American left has clamped down on President Trump. No matter what he does, he loses in their eyes. And they'll obviously, they control a lot of what the messaging is that goes out from the media. Now, the latest is the war criminal thing. This is just new this week. All right. But this is a well thought out campaign roll tape. We should note that destroying civilian power infrastructure is generally considered to constitute a war crime under international law.

[D]

And that would be, on its face, a violation of the laws of war and would be a war crime. He is continuously threatening to commit war crimes.

[B]

Few hours later, he put out an

[D]

extra post teasing some weeknight war crimes.

[B]

Tuesday, 8:00pm Eastern time.

[D]

Okay. He could be announcing a military attack in primetime tomorrow.

[B]

The clear answer is yes, it would be a war crime. It's not clear, and a guy's an idiot. Blumenthal, the senator from. From Connecticut. I'm not big on name calling, but he truly is. And so is Murphy, the other senator from Connecticut. We've been over this turf before. So the war criminal thing is now in motion. The next thing to come up will be the assertion that Iran is actually winning the war. Go. The reaction is that Iran is gaining leverage over us as this war goes on. And I've been saying for over a week that Iran is winning the war. Yeah, because you're an idiot, too. This is Seth Moulton, a congressman from Massachusetts. These are far left people. I mean, these aren't serious people. They're not looking at the situation and trying to analyze it with any kind of objectivity at all. United States not losing. All right. We are basically trying to get some kind of an arrangement where Iran will walk away from their nukes. And we are doing it with the civilian casualties in mind. That's what's restraining us right now. The war criminal thing. Right On a polling. And you got to understand, most people don't know the history of this. If you're really confronting evil, we get into. That's why I put the Ayatollah Khomeini on the COVID I mean, how evil? This thing has been going on for 50 years. They've killed thousands of Americans. And most people don't know. All they know is they're paying more. Okay, so this is a CNN poll. First question, what is your view of the US decision to take military action inside Iran? Approved. 34. Disprove. 66%. Okay, next one. In your view, is the war in Iran worth the toll is taken on American lives and the financial burden it places on the US Government, or is the war not worth these costs? Not worth it. 70. Yes. Worth it. 29. Okay. I don't dispute that. You know, the propaganda element in all this and the recent history of Iraq and Afghanistan. People are confused. I don't. They don't know about the nukes and how close and all of that. All they know is they're paying more at the gas pump. Okay. Another poll, the Economist. Okay. Do you support or oppose the war with Iran? Support. 28. Opposed. 59. Pretty much the same as the CNN. A little bit better. Numbers for Trump there. Second question. Do you approve or disprove the way Donald Trump's handling the situation? Proof 30. Disprove 60. No opinion 10. Okay. So consumer pain and, and the stock market, too. I got my statement. I went, oh, look at this. But I understand a big picture here. I got it. So my personal situation doesn't enter into my analysis of what the right thing to do is for the world. And let me, let me end this talking points memo with this situation. When I'm confronted with a person who opposes the US Action, I asked one simple question because I'm a simple man. Is it okay with you that Iran have nuclear weapon? That's it. So Pope Leo. That would be my question for the Pope. Okay. All of the NATO leaders said, okay with you that Iran have this device because that's what it's all about. Nobody answers that question. They don't answer. They go off into, you know, flights of this and that, or, well, he should have done this or he doesn't have the goal or he didn't. This. It's all tactics. It's not bottom line. So that's interesting. Finally, the, after all of this is done, no matter how it comes out, and I said this was the biggest risk that President Trump has taken in his administration and it could go either way. You remember I said that. But no matter how it goes, the Democrats are going to use this tactic. Here's the speaker, the, the minority speaker of the House.

[E]

Go, something is really wrong with this guy, clearly. And at minimum, we need a wellness check. He's unhinged, he's out of control. And this is not presidential behavior or anything close to it. And some of my Republican colleagues need to actually step up and recognize something is wrong at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[B]

Okay, don't worry about that. None of that's going to happen. And that's the memo.

[A]

You're listening to the no Spa News Weekend Edition.

[B]

Joining us now from Brooklyn, New York, is Armin Rosen, who's a correspondent lodge for Tablet magazine, which is an online outlet about Jewish life and identity. So I'm assuming that the Israelis support pretty much everything that's going on here. Would I be wrong on that?

[F]

Well, polls in Israel right now show that something like 75% of the Jewish population supports Israel's actions in Iran. Currently, there's very high support for continuing this as long as, kind of as long as it takes in order to make Iran so weak that Israelis no longer feel like they no longer have to worry about them, which is remarkable. Because Israelis have been running in and out of bomb shelters for five or six weeks by now. They believe in kind of finishing this job. But the stakes for them are much different than they are for the United States. You know, the US Homeland is not under constant daily attack the same way that Israel's home front is. You know, Israeli and US Interests in this conflict are potentially quite different. But for the time being, the two militaries are working quite closely to deal a profound amount of damage to this regime pretty much every single day.

[B]

So Israelis are used to suffering economically because of terrorism, but Americans are not directly suffering. Would that be an accurate statement?

[F]

Yeah, I mean, I think it's true. I mean, Israelis have dealt with, you know, terrorism as a daily reality for 30 or even 40 years by now, you know, not as something that could happen, but something that inevitably happens. You know, at least since in the last 20 years, probably the country has had, you know, maybe tens of thousands of rockets and missiles fired at it at some point or another. You remember how people in the United States kind of lost their minds about a single Chinese spy balloon. The experiences are just kind of much, much different. But I think Americans do have recent experience of very far away events having an effect on our lives and on our bottom lines. There was a rather large spike in various commodities after the Russian invasion of Ukraine a few years ago, many of which are on the same scale or even larger than the increases we've seen the past few weeks. You know, we are not completely insulated from world events, and the people who are predicting an Iranian victory basically think that the Iranians can inflict enough economic damage or anxiety on Americans to basically convince us that somehow we've lost.

[B]

Back away. Back away.

[C]

Right.

[B]

Are you surprised that the polling in America is so anti the Trump administration's military strategy? Are you surprised?

[F]

I'm actually not that surprised. At the end of the day,

[C]

American

[F]

politics are very highly polarized. For one thing, anything that Trump does is going to be opposed by vast numbers of people, almost no matter what. But also, I've been writing about the US Iranian relationship for a long time, particularly around the time of the nuclear deal a decade ago. And people forget this, but that deal was actually very unpopular, something like between 55 and 60%. You know, poll after poll after poll showed that there was decisive opposition to the Obama administration's deal. But I think that also just reflected the polarization of the time. I think Americans don't really think all that deeply about foreign policy for the most part, nor should they. The Iranian Nuclear program is not an issue that people think affects their daily lives particularly. It's a highly technical issue. That's the reason that it became, you know, very easy to kind of, you know, massage public opinion on these issues, because Americans don't really confront them very often. But again, in reality, a world where Iran has a nuke and is one that is generally less stable, one where the US Is not in control of the various things that we need America to be in control of for our lives to be as safe and comfortable as they are.

[B]

Yeah, well, I mean, look, it's hard to make anybody uses a nuclear weapon, North Korea or anybody. The whole world gets thrown into a depression, number one, and the whole alignment that we have changes. And that brings me to. There are a significant amount of Europeans and Americans who believe that somehow Netanyahu in Israel calling shots here and that Trump's going along with it. You've heard that, right?

[F]

Yes, I think it's not really true. I mean, there was a report in the New York Times just a few minutes ago, actually, right before I came on, you know, recounting this presentation that Trump gave, or excuse me, that Netanyahu gave to Trump back in February. Basically argue, you know, providing like, a list of potential leaders of Iran and arguing, you know, that it would basically be that this war would be easy. It's true that events like that probably did happen in some form or another, but the reality is that the regime in Tehran has been very opposed to the United States for many decades. Trump himself has highlighted that threat, you know, for the last 47 years. He said in both of his campaigns for president that he considered Iran to be a major threat to the United States. And Iran has killed, you know, directly killed, far more American soldiers than they

[B]

have killed roadside bombs in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, this leads into the anti Semitism that we're seeing in America and Europe. Europe is worse, far worse, I think, in that area than America is, because the European leaders actually fear the influx of Muslims, particularly in Great Britain. In France, they fear them. And here we don't have that. It's just a matter of propaganda and crazy college kids running around. But this Iranian thing, the world is sitting it out. Did that surprise you?

[F]

There are aspects of it that I do find really not just surprising, but shocking. In the early days of this war, there was a drone fired from Lebanon, probably by Hezbollah, at the British base in Akrotiri in Cyprus. Akrotiri is sovereign British territory. It's not just an overseas base. You know, the British are Allowing, you know, various basing rights to the United States as part of this war, but they've been kind of irrelevant beyond that. I mean, I think it's pretty clear by now that the free world really only has three functioning militaries. You know, look, it's the United States, it's Israel, and it's Ukraine. You know, the British, the French. All of these countries that are part of our larger security architecture have sat this out, even though I believe there was a French soldier killed a few weeks ago. And again, British sovereign territory has come under attack by Iranian proxies since this began. I mean, they're concerned about escalation spirals.

[D]

Right.

[F]

The European diplomatic stance is always to push for de escalation and compromise, but at the same time, you know, these are events that are considered great provocations to countries that are supposedly not anymore players in the world, and they don't seem to be anymore.

[B]

I think that the irrationality and emotion of this has overtaken the logistical danger and really what it's all about. Last word.

[F]

Yeah. I mean, look, this is a very novel conflict. There hasn't really been a war like this where a rival country's leadership was decapitated in the opening hours, where this much has been destroyed this quickly, but where it seems like the preexisting political order of the country under attack is going to survive. We're in all kinds of uncharted territory. But if, if the war ended today, the Iranians would be rebuilding for an awfully long time. They would be far more isolated than they were when this began. It's clear that the Gulf states, you know, are not about to be led into, you know, they're not going to put up with having to tolerate an Iranian protection racket in the Strait of Hormuz, which I think is going to prove to be a toxic asset for the Iranians, assuming they can even control it at the end of this. And also, there was quite a bit of instability inside of Iran in the months after the war last year.

[D]

Right.

[F]

There were huge protests back in January, and Iran took far less damage. You know, the regime has come under far more sustained attack now than they did back then. I think people predicting that they know exactly what's going to happen inside of Iran in the next few months are diluting themselves for the time being, winning.

[B]

The one thing we do know is that if it stopped today, Iran would still have the uranium enrichment program, and that's why it isn't stopping today. Yep. Trump can't live with that. That's where he staked it all out. So, anyway, Aman, thanks very much. We really appreciate you coming on talking to us today. Thank you.

[A]

This is the no Spin News Weekend Edition.

[B]

The best coverage and most honest of Iran begins now. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. So the latest is that the negotiations between the United States and Iran will begin Saturday morning in Pakistan. JD Vance, the vice president, is going to lead our delegation there. And I have no expectations whatsoever, obviously hoping for the best for my country. But you're dealing with really savage people here. And we may not even get there on Saturday because they may do something crazy. Remember, the Iranian leadership does not care how many of their citizens die. Doesn't care. Now, we've seen regimes like that. Putin's like that. The difference is Putin cares if he dies. The mullahs apparently don't. Anyway, you have heard an amazing amount of misinformation, even quoting enemy dispatches. Press releases put out by the mullahs then find their way into the American press and the Democratic Party, which spits them out. It's. I've never seen anything like it. And that's not an exaggeration. All right, let's run it down and using the facts. So the president is in a quandary, okay. He has to show the American people that there is a concrete benefit by using the military against Iran. Has to. Okay. The benefit would be that weapons inspectors would go in and remove the uranium and that the Straits of Hormuz would get back to normal. I predicted on Monday that there would be an extension of negotiations. Roll tape. Now, the president reiterated that the end of Tuesday, tomorrow, if he doesn't have some kind of deal with Iran that involves nukes, that he'll bomb their electrical grid, take them out, they won't have any communications. I believe that that might be extended. The Tuesday deadline might be extended. Well, how do I know that? Because I talked to the President, that's how. That's my job, to be a reporter and to get the best information possible. And I knew from the very beginning of this whole mess, Trump did not want Armageddon to be unleashed on Iran. He wanted a deal. And that continues. I also predicted that no matter what the president does, the press and the Democratic Party would vilify him. Go, President Trump can't win. He can't win. So if the United States were to pull back at the last minute and not bomb Iran, then he'd be surrendering. Then he'd be, you know, Teflon, whatever they call him. If we do, then he's a war criminal. You see, this is the vice that the American left has clamp down on President Trump. So two predictions, which is why you watch this program. One, the ceasefire would be extended and it would not be Armageddon militarily against Iran this week. And two, that it's manufactured that Trump could not win. They call him Taco now. He's a taco. Trump always backs out or some stupid acronym. So when you understand the game, and it is a game for these people, some of them hate Donald Trump more than the mullahs. There's no doubt in my mind. Now, I can't read minds, but just on their behavior over the years, they would rather have Trump go down than the Mullis go down. All right, so I'm just going to run you a few soundbites. After this happened, you would think that everybody in the world, not just in the United States, would say, boy, I'm glad that the US Military didn't have to go in and kill tens of thousands of civilians. That is such a good development. No. No way. That is. Nope. Immediately the sniping began on cnn. Go.

[G]

And there will be some who will call it, you know, Taco. Trump always chickens out, which is making way too light of it. But it is also a truth, which is that he makes giant threats that he does not follow through on.

[B]

It didn't. It was the Taco Tuesday of all Taco Tuesdays. As our president decided not to drop the chal for at least another two weeks.

[D]

He announced that at the request of

[B]

Pakistan, which has been facilitating negotiations, he

[H]

was giving Iran two weeks to live.

[B]

And so we're happy that that didn't happen. No, no, no, he's a taco. No, he's weak. Okay, now let's get specific. So I must have heard 30 times yesterday how Iran is controlling the Straits of Hormuz. That is a lie. They are not controlling anything. What Iran can do is fire drones at freighters. The insurance companies around the world have told the freighters, if you get hit by an Iranian drone, we're not going to cover you. Okay? That's what that is. And so many freighters say we're not going to take a chance. But Iran isn't controlling anything. In fact, if the US Military wanted to regulate the Straits of Hormuz, it would take them about 24 hours to do so. But that would require close quarter combat and the American people don't want that. Okay, so they don't want this cliche boots on the ground, and that's what it would require. But Iran doesn't have the power to control that strait. US can wipe them off the face of the earth down there. So that's what's one lie. Okay, then there is the nukes. Now, we don't know much about this other than defense of War. War Secretary Pete Hagseth says we're getting all the nukes out. I don't use Hegseth on this broadcast because he's not an objective. All right. Purveyor of information. He's not. All right? Now, if the president says something, he's the president I have to use. But if it's an acolyte, I don't use it. I independently verify everything. Again, this is why you watch me. All right? But Hagseth did say we're going to do what we said we're going to do. Hope so. Because if you don't, that would be the end of Donald Trump's presidency. You've got to get those nukes out of there. Now, the stock market liked it. It was up 1300 points at the open oil, down 18%. So the world is breathing a sigh of relief. Financial communities, okay. Doesn't really matter to me. But that's the react. That's how you gauge the react. I'm going to end with this sound bite because it's just so outrageous. Now, remember during World War II, okay. If you said something like you're going to hear now, you would have been arrested and charged with treason or whatever. This is Ed Markey, Okay? A senator from Massachusetts. Go.

[H]

The Strait of Hormuz is now in control, is controlled by the Iranian army. That's going to turn it into a toll road that is going to raise prices around the globe. The uranium is still under the control of the. Of the Iranian army. The people in Iran are not free. This has been a complete and total failure militarily, but it has also been a moral failure for our country.

[B]

So he would have been arrested, marking by saying, oh, the Japanese are winning, Germans are winning, because it's an evidence of flow. And you don't give that kind of an assessment to say that this is a total failure militarily. I mean, it's a staggering lie. Staggering. The United States and Israel has downgraded the capacity of Iran to wage offensive warfare and killed their entire leadership corps. I mean, you know, and Markey doesn't care because he, again, he's one of those guys that I think hates Trump more than the Mullis. Just an opinion. And that's the memoir.

[A]

You're listening to the no Spa News Weekend Edition.

[B]

All right. Joining US now from D.C. is Leland Vitard, who listen to this title News Nation's chief Washington anchor. Wow. So you know, I'm on with Vittered every Monday on News Nation and he has a lot of experience in the Middle east and of course he's watching the coverage because he's right in the middle of it. So where did I go wrong in my talking points memo?

[D]

I don't think it's what you said, Bill. I think it's what you didn't say. We don't know whether or not the Strait of Hormuz is open. The Wall Street Journal is reporting the Iranians are charging tolls in Bitcoin and in Chinese yuan. I'm old enough to remember when sending billions of dollars to the Iranians was a bad idea. Allowing them to receive massive amounts of funds, especially in cryptocurrency, is a bad idea because we know what they're going to do with it, which is they're going to try and fund terrorists to kill Americans.

[B]

Okay, but let me stop you there. That toll is paid for by the shipping companies. That's who pays for it. Okay, so it's Iran's got his hand out. You put money in the hand or you don't put it in the hand. They don't control anything. As I said, if, well, potato tomato.

[D]

If I say to you, Bill, if you want to walk past me, you have to give me a million dollars or otherwise I'm going to start firing cruise missiles at you.

[B]

We don't have cruise missiles down there.

[D]

Okay, okay. They have remotely piloted drones and yes, they do have some cruise missiles and they still have the anti ship missiles that China gave them. This is beside the point. We don't know is the real answer because we don't know what the final deal is. You're a reporter, so am I. I don't trust what the White House says. I don't trust what the Iranians say. I wait to see what happens. If the uranium comes out of Iran and into US hands, that is an enormous unmitigated walk off grand slam homerun for Donald Trump. If the Iranians are still able in a month to charge tolls to shipping companies because otherwise the companies can't get insurance for fear of being shot at by the Iranians, then it is an unmitigated disaster for President Trump because we get the status quo with the Iranians getting more and more money. We just don't know yet you have to evaluate the ground truth based on an objective set of criteria.

[B]

Okay, that's fair. But these people who are saying we lost, they're wrong. I mean, nobody's far beyond wrong. It's far, it's subversive because they have to know the negotiation doesn't start until Saturday. All right, and, and why would, why would the Iranians even bother to negotiate if they weren't getting pummeled? They wouldn't.

[D]

Well, two ways to look at that. Right? I just got recently married. So go, go with me for a second here. If the Iranians need view Trump as needing a deal. As you said on my show, you said, I don't want to use the word desperately, but he needs a deal. If I show up at a Persian rug store and the guy selling me the rug knows that, my wife told me, you better buy a rug or you're not coming home tonight, I'm not going to get a good deal on the rug. And that is the problem right now. The Iranians view Trump as needing a deal. And to your point, they don't care if they die. They don't care if their people die. They are going to extract the highest price possible. And because they think Trump needs a deal, the price is going to be very high.

[B]

But the counter to that is if you don't do the deal that President Trump wants, that there's going to be held to pay. And you're right, they don't care. But they did come to the table in Pakistan.

[D]

They've always been at the table. It's been the US who says we should, who has said we don't want to negotiate. The Iranians were saying they would negotiate 38 days ago. They were the ones crying that the negotiations weren't continuing. So the Iranian position hasn't changed. But I'll give you one more thought on this. The Trump process here shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Iranian regime. You have said that you can't ferment regime change. I got very excited yesterday when the US Bombed Carg island, which is the Iranian oil export center, yesterday. Because if Trump cut off the money flow into the regime the regime uses to pay everyone off and stay in power in Iran, and the regime would fall apart from the inside. Bombing power plants doesn't do that. I think that President Trump has been getting some bad advice, perhaps from Pete Hegseth about how to bring the Iranian regime to its knees. And I would look towards Israel. That makes a very big separation between the Iranian people and the Iranian regime. That's something President Trump stopped doing a couple of weeks ago. I don't know why.

[B]

So you. You believe that if there's a choke point for the Iranians getting money from whatever source, they'll be overthrown from within, the generals will turn on that?

[D]

Yes. And the reason I know that is because the past couple of times the Iranians have been willing to negotiate it all, albeit they've gotten sweetheart deals. Has been when the regime was threatened by. Because they were financially strangled. That is the choke point to the regime because the generals will stop getting paid off. The generals will turn and become far more open to entrees from either the United States or Israel.

[B]

But China and Russia are financing Iran to some extent. So it would be very difficult to choke that. That flow of assets off.

[D]

No, not at all. And here's why. Because you can choke off the ability for Iran to export its oil to China very easily. You can shut down the ability for the Chinese to get money and equipment in and material in. The Russians are broke themselves. Why do you think the Iranians got so upset when the Israelis bombed their gas facilities and their oil facilities? The Iranian regime. Just think about what the mullahs care about, the IRGC cares about. They don't care about their people or power plants or bridges. They care about staying in power. What keeps them in power? The flow of money. Where's the flow of money come from? Oil. Stop that. And you have them buy whatever body part you would like to note on your show.

[B]

So then you would be in favor of the United States next move should the negotiation in Pakistan not bear fruition. US Troops seizing Hormuz.

[D]

Absolutely. And not only seizing Hormuz, which I don't know what they're seizing it from, because, Bill, you said the Iranians didn't control it. So who are they seizing it from?

[B]

Well, you have to take out the drones and the people that surround the area that are firing.

[D]

That sounds like control, doesn't it?

[B]

No, it's not control in a sense that they. Iran. All right. Have anything other than they're using terror methods. Okay.

[D]

They're.

[B]

Well, not really. I mean, they've been using terror methods against Israel for four decades. They don't control Israel. All right, so boots on the ground. I hate that. If we. In a perfect world, NATO would be with us. Of course, if we sent them in, it wouldn't take long to clean those people out. You know that.

[D]

No, it wouldn't. And I don't think you would even have to, quote, unquote, seize or take the ground. What you'd have to do is sail a couple of US Navy cruisers through there as escort ships and you might lose a cruiser or two. Would you point out the American people wouldn't be willing to do. When I ask admirals and generals, why didn't you all plan for this and have a plan to open the strait? It's basically the cost would be too high. That, that I think is the worst thing that has come out of this, is that the Iranians now know they can blackmail the world by, by exerting this control, this force, this terror method, whatever you want to call it, over the Strait of Hormuz and thus over the world economy. And Trump has to take away that feeling on their part by choking them off. The only way this changes is by getting rid of the Iranian regime. The only way you get rid of the Iranian regime is by killing it from within, by choking off its control and its, its ability to pay everybody off.

[B]

So you wouldn't be in favor of the two week ceasefire?

[D]

No.

[B]

You would have obliterated the country?

[D]

No, I wouldn't have obliterated the country. I would have done. I wouldn't have listened to what Trump said. I would have listened to, seen what Trump did, which was attack the oil facilities and stayed on that. It is very clear the Iranians have not capitulated. Okay. With what they're saying right now. And the fact that they're charging tolls and the fact that they're complaining that the US Broke the ceasefire and on and on and on shows that they're not begging for mercy. Quite the opposite. It was actually the Chinese, reportedly, who forced them to come to the negotiating table. That's not people who are in a position that they feel that they need to make a deal. As I said, the Iranians think Trump needs to make a deal. That's a bad position to be in. Give it a couple of weeks, choke off their oil, and then maybe the Iranians would be in a position where they feel like they needed to make a deal. How about this? Give us the uranium, then we'll talk. That would have been a starting point,

[B]

but they weren't going to do that. They wanted to talk before the uranium thing was made.

[D]

Who sets, who sets the rules? The Iranians or President Trump, the leader of the free world?

[B]

It's a negotiation. No, you're right. You're right in the sense that the mullahs are not cowed by President Trump. And then you also have China in the background and China's got a lot to say about this because it gets 80% of its oil from Iran and doesn't want this to go on much longer, which is a hopeful sign because the Chinese can put a lot of pressure on the mullahs. And, you know, if it works in concert with the United States, even furtively, that could lead. See, I would have given him the two weeks because, you know, the war crime drum United States is.

[D]

How many times did we extend this deadline? Was it 4 or 5? The Iranians were given opportunities.

[B]

What do you mean? In totality?

[D]

Two or two or three weeks ago. Trump was talking about two or three weeks ago.

[B]

They had a whole new regime that wasn't dead. And they had, they're the same capacity. They're all, they may be the same people, but the circumstances changed. So they're not nearly as strong militarily as they were. You know that. I mean, they're ballistic.

[D]

You know, they don't need to be strong militarily. They need to have their uranium and they need to be able to effectively shut down the. Why do they need uranium?

[B]

They don't need that uranium.

[D]

No, that's. They, they need it because that's their negotiating point. Point that, that is their.

[B]

They're going to have to give that up. You're going to have to give it up. What?

[D]

Okay, they don't, they don't seem to think that. And there's no indication in any way, shape or form that they, they are going to agree to that. What I will say to this, as long as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, members of it, associates of it, whatever you want to call them, are in charge of Iran, is until there is real change in Iran from a popular uprising, that country will spend the rest of its life because it is controlled by a Shia Marxist ideology trying to kill Americans and do everything they can to harm America.

[B]

It's going to be a tough sell right now. If you're right and they don't get anywhere in Islamabad, it's going to be a tough sell because the world does not want to confront the mullahs final word.

[D]

That that is the final word is that the, that there is no deal that Trump can sell as a win that Iran will actually live by and it's enforceable and that Israel believes guarantees its security, those three things do not exist. The only way to break that triangle is by cutting off this regime's source of funding. You don't do that in a negotiating table. You do that by cutting off their ability to export oil and not allow them to blackmail us.

[B]

That would require some ground action, that's for sure. All right, Leland, appreciate you coming on. Thank you.

[A]

This is the no Spin News weekend edition.

[B]

So once again, I just want to review. We have Howie Mandel on the Do It Live, long form podcast, whatever you want to call it. And then we are on Cuomo tonight at 8 o', clock, news Nation. And then we have our some journalist traders on our YouTube channel. I'm exhausted. I do all this stuff. I can't believe at my age I'm still doing this. Nobody else can either. Everybody. What are you doing? I said, you know, I have to do it. I mean I was given this gifts. I'm using them. And come on. If I predicted that, that it would be extension on Monday, that's pretty impressive. I think that's almost as big as me predicting that President Biden wouldn't run again months before he packed it in. I knew he wasn't going to run and I knew they were going to get an extension. What I don't know is how this negotiation is going to turn out. Leland may be right, but let's pray that we don't have to annihilate civilians. That is not going to be good for our country. But we can't let them have nukes. You've heard it and heard it and heard it, but it's true. Okay, you want to reach me billoriley.com billoriley.com name in town if you wish to or pine. We will see you on Monday.

[A]

Thank you for listening to the no Spin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the no Spin news, visit bill o'reilly.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's billoriley.com Sign up and start watching today.