Tim Miller vs. Rep. Gottheimer: War Debate Gets HEATED

Summary

Bulwark Takes: Tim Miller vs. Rep. Josh Gottheimer – "War Debate Gets HEATED"

Date: April 7, 2026
Host: Tim Miller
Guest: Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Bulwark Takes features an intense and detailed debate between host Tim Miller and New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer concerning the ongoing U.S.-Iran war, the administration’s objectives, Congressional oversight, and the influence of U.S. allies on decisions of war. The conversation is lively, often testy, and delves deep into topics of military necessity, administration transparency, the ethics of foreign influence, and the clarity (or lack thereof) of America’s goals in Iran. The episode also briefly touches on media engagement and anti-Semitism on the political left and right.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. State of Play and Clarity of Objectives

• Current Situation: Tension is high as the U.S. is a month into conflict with Iran, the Strait of Hormuz is closed, gas prices are spiking, and Congressional oversight is in focus.

• Gottheimer’s Position:

  • Remains consistently anti-Iranian regime, highlighting the threat to Americans and allies, ongoing proxy violence, and missile/nuclear program advancements.

    “We’ve got to do everything we can to crush the Iranian government...” – Rep. Gottheimer (01:34)

  • Strongly criticizes the administration’s failure to articulate clear objectives, both historically and in recent weeks.
  • Voted for the War Powers Resolution due to the administration’s lack of communication with Congress and the public about the war's aims.

• Tim’s Challenge:

  • Presses for clarity: "Did the speech clarify anything for you? ...I didn't feel like I got a lot of clarification...” (03:39)
  • Questions the justification for supporting a war with undefined or shifting objectives, and without confidence in executive leadership.

    “Why not just oppose this?...when you can't trust the people running it, when they haven't made their case to you?” (05:42)

---

2. Justifications for War & Metrics for Success

• Administration’s Case:

  • Gottheimer cites threats from Iran’s nuclear program, its development of long-range missiles, and ties to terror proxies as core concerns.
  • Admits no committee briefing has clarified what American “victory” looks like.

    “They have not once...come before a Congressional committee to talk to us about whether, and I think as a member of Congress...I have a huge problem with that.” (05:11)

• Tim’s Skepticism:

  • Insists that setting back Iran’s programs doesn’t justify harm to U.S. interests and alliances if the regime remains empowered and strategic straits are lost.

    “We pushed back their capabilities two years to screw over our own people. That feels like a terrible deal.” (10:24)

• Dissent on Threat Assessment:

  • Gottheimer: Believes weakening Iran’s drone/missile/nuclear programs, even temporarily, is a “huge win” if actually achieved.

    “If it turns out that we've significantly diminished their capabilities...I'd say that's a huge win...” (10:59)

  • Tim: Argues Americans don’t see a tangible Iranian threat that warrants these sacrifices.

---

3. Lack of Oversight, Accountability, & Transparency

• Tim’s Key Critique:

  • Blasts the administration for poor communication and for leaving Congress—and the American public—in the dark about rationale and the endgame.

    “If you don't know, nobody knows. So why not oppose this?... We can't trust the people running it. They lie. They're liars. They have demonstrated a lack of competence, at least at the political level.” (13:56)

• Gottheimer’s Dilemma:

  • Shares frustration at not being briefed—despite being on the Intelligence Committee.
  • Believes the President must provide an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) or declaration of war by April 28 per the War Powers Act.

    “I believe the President has 60 days to come to us to ask for an authorization...If you want funding, you will do the same thing. You either get an AUMF...or you will get the hell out.” (30:16–31:06)

---

4. Debate over Administration Competence and Agency

• Trust in Leadership:

  • Gottheimer distinguishes support for military/intelligence professionals from support for the President or political appointees:

    “This is not about Donald Trump or anybody else, this is about standing up.” (14:26) Tim: “You think the Iranian mullahs are a greater threat to the American people than Donald Trump getting us into this war...” (14:58)

  • Tim calls out the contradictions in trusting “the best military” while the commander-in-chief lacks credibility.

    “Why would you let a guy that would tweet that be in charge of a war...” (15:49)

• Gottheimer’s Position:

  • Critiques the president’s handling: “Do I think that Donald Trump has handled this? Well, back to the other thing we were talking about. No, obviously not.” (15:10)

---

5. Foreign Influence: Israel, Kushner, and the Decision to Go to War

• Concern Over Influence:

  • Tim presses on reports that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was in the Situation Room making the case for war and asks about the influence of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has business entanglements with regional actors.

    “The president's son in law was in the Situation Room...Does that concern you at all?” (19:05)

• Gottheimer’s Response:

  • Uncomfortable with the handling of such sensitive roles: “You're asking me...am I good with the way he brings like who he brings around the table? No, of course.” (19:45)
  • Strongly rejects notion that Israel "pushed" the US into war, arguing that, while consultation with allies is routine, the final call is for U.S. interests.

    “There's a huge difference between saying somebody made us do it...versus saying, sure, we consulted with our allies and we thought it was what best for America's national security.” (26:42)

  • Admits many details remain unknown to him, even as an Intelligence Committee member.

---

6. Responsibility and the Politics of War Authorization

• Would Gottheimer Authorize More War?
  • Refuses to commit publicly, pending full briefings.

    “I want to know what the hell their argument is. I'll meet with them and understand where we are and get that information and then I'll make a decision.” (32:32)

  • Tim: “Not doing hypotheticals is an answer in itself because it's not a no...” (32:39)
  • Gottheimer: “That is deeply irresponsible to just say no...before getting briefed.” (32:48)

---

7. Media Engagement, Anti-Semitism, & Platforming Extremists

• Debate Over Going on "Hostile" Podcasts:
  • Tim suggests Democrats should sometimes engage with MAGA or far-left podcast audiences (like Hasan Piker’s).
  • Gottheimer strongly prefers not to “legitimize” extremists, particularly not white supremacists or profoundly anti-Semitic figures.

    “I would not like to legitimize (people like) Candace Owens...I don't believe you should legitimize people who are white supremacists.” (35:08–35:20)

  • Both agree on the dangers of misinformation and the rise of anti-Semitism in discourse.

    “The insane amount of disinformation that I see out there on a daily basis about...Israel, about Jews...is so insane.” (37:18)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• “We’ve got to do everything we can to crush the Iranian government...”
  — Rep. Gottheimer (01:34)

• “Did the speech clarify anything for you? ...I didn't feel like I got a lot of clarification...”
  — Tim Miller (03:39)

• “If you don't know, nobody knows. So why not oppose this?... We can't trust the people running it. They lie. They're liars.”
  — Tim Miller (13:56)

• “If it turns out that we've significantly diminished their capabilities...I'd say that's a huge win...”
  — Rep. Gottheimer (10:59)

• “That feels like a terrible deal.”
  — Tim Miller (10:24)

• “This is not about Donald Trump or anybody else, this is about standing up.”
  — Rep. Gottheimer (14:26)

• “Why would you let a guy that would tweet that be in charge of a war...”
  — Tim Miller (15:49)

• "I believe The President has 60 days to come to us to ask for an authorization...If you want funding, you will do the same thing. You either get an AUMF...or you will get the hell out."
  — Rep. Gottheimer (30:16–31:06)

• “I would not like to legitimize (people like) Candace Owens...I don't believe you should legitimize people who are white supremacists.”
  — Rep. Gottheimer (35:08–35:20)

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Episode Start/War Context: 00:20–01:34
• Gottheimer’s Stance on the War: 01:34–04:51
• Debating Objectives and Administration’s Failures: 04:51–06:37
• Should Democrats Support War Without Clarity?: 05:42–06:55
• Practical Consequences of War (Strait of Hormuz, Gas Prices): 08:15–10:59
• Trust in Leadership vs. Military: 13:56–15:56
• Influence of Israel and Kushner: 19:05–27:05
• War Powers and AUMF Discussion: 30:16–32:39
• Platforming Extremists/Podcast Strategy: 34:16–37:51

---

Tone and Style

The debate is robust, frank, and adversarial—with frequent interruptions, sarcasm, and pointed skepticism, especially from Tim. Gottheimer remains defensive of oversight responsibilities, but steadfast in his hawkish view of the Iranian regime and war goals, while sharing palpable frustration over inadequate administration transparency. There are moments of levity and self-awareness about the circularity and opacity of official discourse.

---

Conclusion

This episode is a forceful illustration of Democratic divisions over the war in Iran, the confusion sown by shifting or opaque war aims, and the complexities of ally influence and media strategy. Both host and guest agree that the American public deserves a clear explanation for war, but fundamentally disagree on the wisdom (and political responsibility) of supporting a war effort absent that clarity. The segment closes with a tease for future debates on AI and media engagement.

---

For listeners seeking concise points:

• The objectives and endgame of the U.S.-Iran war remain unclear—even to Intelligence Committee members.
• Administration communication with Congress and the public has been criticized by both host and guest.
• Rep. Gottheimer supports containing Iran and sees benefit in military setbacks, but is unwilling to fully oppose ongoing operations without more information.
• Tim Miller is sharply critical, arguing that absent clear threats to the homeland, the war’s costs to Americans and alliances far outweigh ambiguous "wins."
• Concerns about foreign influence, corruption, and anti-Semitism in public discourse remain sensitive themes for both parties.

Transcript

[A]

You know what they say, early bird

[B]

gets the ultimate vacation home.

[A]

Book early and save over $120 with VRBO because early gets you closer to the action, whether it's waves lapping at the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks. Well, whatever you want it to. So you can all enjoy the payoff come summer with Vrbo's early booking deals. Rise and shine. Average savings $141. Select homes only. Hey everybody. Welcome to the Bulwark. I'm Tim Miller, delighted to be here with New Jersey Congressman Josh Gotheimer. Sir, I think maybe we have a little, some disagreements over the Iran war. We can hash out a little bit. And so I want to get into that, but first, just because things are moving so fast, I just want to kind of lay out where things are. As we tape, obviously this is Tuesday afternoon. The President this morning was posting about Ohio. A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. About an hour ago, Pakistan put out a public statement saying that they're asking for a two week ceasefire. We're seeing some reporting literally right now as we're talking that maybe there's some optimism about that from both sides. We'll see how it shakes out. So that's where things stand. When we scheduled this conversation, you'd put out a statement talking about how you were different from some of your fellow Democrats because you were more proactive in supporting the decision to act against the Iranian regime. I'm wondering if that's where you still stand here about a month in, a little over.

[B]

Well, so you know, what hasn't changed is my view that actually if you look at my release from a month ago, I think it's very consistent with my position now, which is one, we've got to do everything we can to crush the Iranian government in the sense of going back to the late 70s, this regime has literally killed scores of Americans, attacked our allies, attacked and killed our service members and our bases through their terror proxies, killed thousands more. None of that's changed. Their banner is Death to America. As you know, we're the Great Satan according to them. They've took our embassy and turned it into a hate museum against Americans. Right. So, you know, and they continue to threaten our democracy and freedom. None of that's changed at all. They also, you know, from I'm on the Intelligence Committee without going into specifics, although some of this has been declassified by the Secretary of State talking about it. But as you know, they've been very Aggressive, both in their nuclear program, but also in their ballistic missile and drone programs, further threatening our country, especially if they build, if they have enough capacity to stop us from getting to a bomb, if they choose to jump the line and enrich. So that hasn't changed. And I also said the reason why I voted for the War Powers Resolution back then that we voted on in the Congress, as you know, was that the administration had completely failed, in my opinion, to make the case to the American public into Congress. Right. And in terms of what, what the reasoning was for going in and also what the objectives were when they went in and what they are today, they've still failed completely to outline those objectives to me in a way that to the American public and to the Congress, including progress made. And, you know, the President gave a speech a few days ago which probably should have given, in my opinion, on day one of all this. And so that hasn't changed either. Like, I think they've completely failed to.

[A]

Did the speech clarify anything for you? I didn't, I didn't feel like I got a lot of clarification on why we're doing this.

[B]

Did it clarify anything for me? No. I mean, I think it at least took pains to say to the country, hey, by the way, here's why, what we're worried about in Iran. Right. And here's why we're doing this, which the President really hadn't done. And by the way, their objectives as, you know, completely shifting all over the place for the last, you know, 40 plus days. They're like all. We're all over the map. It's like that scene in Airplane, you know, like when they were like, we're at 5,000ft, 8,000ft, 10,000ft. They're all over the place. And I, I kind of found, like, that was the way when I'm, you watch their communications on this, of, like, what their objectives were. Is it, was it terror? Is, you know, raiding their terror program, their ballistic missile program on drones? Is it getting to a regime change? Right. Which is a whole different. That's a whole different objective. They talked about the Navy and diminishing the Navy, which I think is critically important. But, but again, you know, it's, it's. Without laying these things out and understanding what victory looks like, it's tough to go after it.

[A]

Right. So do you, so do you have any sense of what the objectives are right now?

[B]

No. I mean, if, if you go on, if. Do I have any more clarity publicly from what I think the objectives are shifting ultimately? No, I Mean, I, I think where they've, what they've said consistently, if you're looking at like the map of where they've been consistent and what the President said, it's concern about the nuclear pro, them having a nuclear weapon. Right. That's, I guess, consistent. And there, and they've consistently talked about diminishing the Navy. Otherwise, the rest of it is kind of shifted, has shifted all over the place. And, and you know, and that's, and by the way, they have not once, not once come before a congressional committee to talk to us about whether, and I think as a member of Congress and as a member of an oversight committee related to that completely have a, I have a huge problem with that.

[A]

So we're aligned in all those critiques. I guess. Then my question is why not just oppose this? Clearly, I just, I don't understand what, why there be any possible interest from a Democratic member in a war when we don't know what the objectives are, when you can't trust the people running it, when they haven't made their case to you?

[B]

Well, because as somebody who is obviously on the Intelligence committee and who's focused on the Middle east for a long time, containing the threat. Right. Containing Iran, which I know the government there, not the people who they've massacred tens of thousands of indiscriminately, including children, but knowing what kind of threat Iran poses. Right. I believe the importance of stopping that threat is critical. But you know, there's different ways to stop a threat.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

And I, and I, and especially I don't believe regime change right now, for instance, is something that, that you could do unless you're going to put troops on the ground. And I don't support that. Right. So that doesn't mean I don't still believe it's a threat. And I work for America, not for a political party.

[A]

Hey.

[B]

So this time of year, I'm trying to stay consistent with eating well. But between work workouts and commuting, cooking just isn't happening as much as it should. Tempo Meals, however, gives me fresh, balanced meals ready in two minutes, so I can eat the way I want without losing time. Each meal is perfectly portioned for lunch or dinner and it's ready in just two minutes. That means real food, real fast, without the sad desk lunch or the drive through regret. With 20 new recipes every week. Made from nutrient rich ingredients, Tempo keeps things exciting and helps you stay consistent with healthy eating habits. Even busy athletes like Maria Sharapova swear by Tempo for balanced meals that help them Stay on top of their wellness goals. And no matter your goals, there's a Tempo meal for you. So protein packed meals with up to 30 grams of protein, calorie conscious or even GLP1 balanced meals. It's convenient but flexible enough to fit the way you want to eat. For a limited time Tempo is offering our listeners 60% off their first box. Go to tempomeals.com bulwarktakes that's tempomeals.com bulwarkTakes for for 60 that's 6 0% off your first box. Templemeals.com bulwark takes rules and restrictions may apply.

[A]

So I guess I'm just confused. So do you want him to keep going? Like what do you want to happen tonight? Like would you like him to say you know what, we're pulling out of this, we're going to try to do a space saving deal or do you want them to keep pressing forward?

[B]

What I'd like is to find out. We get a deal which is going to reopen the straits is going to make sure that we can get gas prices down and get right because got 20% of the world's oil going through there and gas going through there. I'd like to know some commitments on their nuclear program and their drone and ballistic missile program and understand what we're going to do financially to contain their terror proxy program. You know supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, all threats us.

[A]

Right. Well so that where we were six weeks ago and the strait was open six weeks ago. They had bombed the nuclear facilities last year Tim.

[B]

I mean unless we. I'm hoping we find out. Oh you mean if we know. But if we massively diminish those programs that would be a good thing I

[A]

guess if the regime is still in charge though if they've had a regime transition from an 86 year old guy that was going to die soon anyway to his son and the IRGC is still in charge and, and they've demonstrated that they have control over the strait and you know, I mean sure they've lost some ships and missiles but that could be replenished like great, like why would we we did that. We caused all this harm because all this international harm we've pissed off our allies in Europe and Asia and Australia. People at home have higher gas prices like to what? For what end? We got rid of a couple of their missiles and ships. Who cares?

[B]

Don't. Well no, don't say who cares in that because what if we told you hey by the way we've set back their missile, drone and nuclear program several years. Would you consider that a winner? A lot.

[A]

I mean, they said that last year and now we're in a war with them again. And I think that China, Russia could replenish them. We're seeing Russia's replenishing them now. Obviously that's how they shut down our plane. Like they didn't, you know, have. So, so there are other ways for them to access weapons going forward.

[B]

I again say we, we knew that we significantly set back their program in that regard. Would you still, you would say, you would say. Well, it doesn't really.

[A]

I'd say that's still a loss. Yeah, because we've given them. Now they know they can control the straits. We've given them more power and leverage. We've alienated our European allies and our Asian allies and, and people in America who had no idea what the purpose was of this war, who did not feel at all threatened by their ballistic missile capabilities are going to suffer major economic consequences. And they're suffering at the pump already. But with the supply chain disruption, there's going to be massive economic consequences to this. And so that is the deal. We pushed back their capabilities two years to screw over our own people. That feels like a terrible deal.

[B]

Well, not in the sense. Here's where I look at it just a little differently. And I hear, by the way, that perspective, I would say I look at it from the angle of if it turns out that we've significantly diminished their capabilities when it comes to drone, missile and nuclear and we're able to, and we actually are successful doing that if, if that's where it turns out. And some of this stuff I, you know, can't talk about. But we'll, but we also need to learn more and see what kind of any kind of negotiated ending of this is again. So until I see that, I don't know but say that let's just play the, the, let's just play that out. If that happens, I'd say that's a huge win because what I was worried about and what I am what I was worried about, and it's not something that we should just brush aside as Americans who care about our security. Their development of their ballistic missile program development was not something that we should just look the other way on in their drone program development is not something that we should just look the other way on. And you could say, well, that doesn't matter. But as somebody who's worried about our interests in the region and worried about us, you know, I do I don't

[A]

use interest at home, though. I mean, is that. I don't think that you can make the case. How can you make the case to the American people that the Iranian missile program was a real threat to America and it was a threat that was so great that it was worth harming, like harming their economic interests.

[B]

You think them having a. Do you think them having a nuclear weapon would be a disaster?

[A]

Yeah, sure, but. But they've been on the cusp of having nuclear weapon for a long time. We were in a. We had a deal with them under the Obama administration that Trump had taken us out of. There are other potential options for. Potential for.

[B]

We did nothing to diminish their terror program. Like, you know, that deal did nothing to address their terror program, which could.

[A]

And do you think that we're safer, though, today from terror? That Americans are safer? Not that Americans are safer from a terror threat today than we were a month ago. It seems to me that the risk of retaliation is higher. The terror. The threat of terror is probably higher today, I would assume.

[B]

No, I think this. I think that, you know, part of my frustration and getting back to your central question, where you started, part of my frustration because, you know, I'm just giving you a sense of, like, what are you asking me? What would I hope to get out of this? That's what I would hope to get out. Part of my frustration is some of the questions that we're both asking each other we don't know the answers to. And that's actually what's deeply frustrating. If some of the answer turned out to be yes, some things I know the answer to. But let's say that some of the things turned out to be yes. Like, I actually would come down and say the country, Americans are safer because of it, if it turns out the answers are no, are actually we have not diminished certain things that I think we have as well as I'd like to know. And that's. In the end, we'll find out. Well, then, by the way, then I'll have a different opinion about.

[A]

You're on the Intelligence Committee, though. If you don't know, nobody knows. So why not oppose this? I just don't understand how we could not just be clearly in opposition to a program where we don't know what the objectives are. We can't trust the people running it. They lie. They're liars. They have demonstrated a lack of competence, at least at the political level. The military has obviously demonstrated competence. But, you know, we're going to trust Trump And Pete Hegseth and just take, and just take our chances. Hopefully it works. That's where you're at.

[B]

I fundamentally know that the Iranian government is an enemy of our country and very close allies with our other enemies, China and Russia and North Korea. I know that they are dangerously close to having a nuclear weapon, and that's unacceptable. I know that their missile program advanced significantly. I know that their drone program advanced significantly. I know that poses a massive threat. Their terror program has advanced massively. And I know they're a major threat to the United States of America. And so knowing that this is not about Donald Trump or anybody else, this is about standing up.

[A]

I mean, this is the president. You think they're great. You think the Iranian mullahs are a greater threat to the American people than Donald Trump getting us into this war. You think the Iranian mullahs are a greater threat. You're more scared of them.

[B]

Iranian government poses a massive. Has posed a massive threat to the United States. Do I think that Donald Trump has handled this? Well, back to the other thing we were talking about. No, obviously not. And I said that.

[A]

Yeah, obviously not. So why would we trust him to do something if we know he isn't going to handle it? Well, this is a very high stakes situation. I don't think anybody, you know, the Strait of Hormuz has now been closed

[B]

because it's not just Donald Trump that runs this. We've got the best generals in the world and the best military in the world, the best intelligence in the world.

[A]

I mean, but our generals are not the ones that are bleeding out. A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. That's the president. That's their boss.

[B]

Yes, but. Okay, but fine.

[A]

So why would you. So, yeah, it's absurd. Why would you let a guy that would tweet that be in charge of a war where American lives are at risk?

[B]

Well, because who's going to be? We have a commander in chief. That's his job. What do you want?

[A]

Yeah, to oppose him, I think to. To say that as a Democratic representative, you do not think that an unhinged commander in chief should be getting us into a war where he is promising genocide in Iran.

[B]

Reason why I opposed it, why I supported the War Powers Resolution a couple of weeks ago. Because I opposed him. I made it very clear. But, like, that doesn't mean that I'm not going to support our service men and women. It doesn't mean I'm not going to back the great work of our military and intelligence Community. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to say the government of Iran needs to be crushed.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

That's what I think, you know, so

[A]

you're kind of forward in the abstract. Like, you, you wish it would work well, but you don't know what the objectives are and you don't, you know, want to do anything to constrain.

[B]

I have a huge problem with how this thing's being executed. From how it's being executed. The goal of crushing Iran, I think, is. I think all the crushing Iran is the right thing. I think not giving us hearings is a problem. I think not giving us more information, the country and the Congress is a huge problem. I think firing the army chief of staff, huge problem. Right. So you asked, you asked me, if, you asked me, like, do I think the goal of massively diminishing Iran is a good thing? Totally. Do I think the way this is being executed is going well? No.

[A]

So do you think we're stronger? Do you think we're in a better place now than we were six weeks ago? Economically, geopolitically, From a safety standpoint, do you think we're in a better or worse place than we were six weeks ago?

[B]

I think if we've diminished their military. I think we're stronger. If we've diminished the military.

[A]

Come on, really. I mean, we've lost billions of dollars of military material that we're gonna now have to fund again. Our economics situation is worse. Our, our relationship with our allies is worse.

[B]

If they had 10,000 ballistic missiles, just, I'm picking a number yesterday, and they have 2,000 today.

[A]

Yeah. Were they going to, were they going to shoot 8,000 of them at Florida or New Jersey? Like, what was the risk of that?

[B]

Their missiles are longer range than we expected. They could shoot them at our allies in Europe. They could threaten us.

[A]

They could threaten allies in Europe Aren't on board with this. They're, they're, they've, you know, they're, they're now hostile to us.

[B]

You're asking me one question. I'm answering you. You're saying, do I think. You asked me a safety question. Okay, you actually, I don't ask. You asked me a safety question. I said if we, if we diminish their missiles and their drone program and, and diminish their nuclear program and their terror programs, the answer would be yes. But part of the frustration is I don't even. Well, I said we don't have all the answers that I'd like to have. I've seen some of the things and with some of the things I've seen, I think we've made progress in some areas. But you're right in terms of like the Straits of Hormuz right now. No, that's not acceptable. What's going on the Straits of Hormuz. Would I like to have actually have deeper like would I like the President have been handled this with the country better? Yup. Would I like him to engage the allies? Yep. But I like him done things better all along. Yes. But again Iran you asked me about as somebody.

[A]

Yeah sure.

[B]

Studied the region.

[A]

I got it.

[B]

I think diminishing Iran is a good thing. And the answer you keep trying to get me to say no to that. My answer is yes. Diminishing Iran is a good thing.

[A]

No, I'm just trying to understand. I disagree. I was trying to understand your position. Just the son in law. I'm curious about that. The president's son in law was in the Situation Room discussing this. He was at the negotiation table with Iran. He has received money from Saudi Arabia, who is obviously also supporting this effort. He's in business dealings with Saudi Arabia and other people in the region. Does that concern you at all? I just, I, you know, I find it hard to imagine that he has the appropriate security clearance for this given all of his conflicts. I'm just wondering being on the Intelligence Committee, if that's something that you're concerned.

[B]

Yeah, sure. You're asking me like if I'm like my am I good with the way he like bring like who he brings around the table? No, of course. Like I don't care he does that.

[A]

I don't know. I guess you would know more than me. I don't. All I know is that Jared Kushner is receiving money from MBS and the Jared Kushner is also involved with the Board of Peace and he's pushing to you have condos in Gaza and then simultaneously he's a negotiator.

[B]

Yeah. You got people in the government with cryptocurrency interests. You got people doing all these things that are in state by the way.

[A]

So that would lead me to not trust the people to do the war, I guess is where I'm going. Yeah.

[B]

I mean but by the way, like I, I, if you're, if your question is do coming back to like where I think our strengths are. I think our servicemen and women, incredible. I think our leadership incredible. I think our intelligence that the the day to day intelligence community, incredible. The best in the world. Like, and I have great. Do I have Great confidence in our, in like Tulsi Gabbard. No, absolutely not. Like, no. Right. But, but the point, but my point is like the people who briefly, you know and do a lot of, who do the day to day work and who are incredible out there, I have a lot of faith in them. And I think we're very blessed to have such good people.

[A]

I think that we have great military capabilities. I'm deeply concerned about our political leadership. You mentioned Tulsi when she was.

[B]

As you should be.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. She was testifying. You were asking her about this question about the degree to which Israel influenced our entrance into the war. You've expressed some concern with people scapegoating Israel. So it's important that people don't kind of put this decision on Israel. The Times today has a story where Benjamin Netanyahu was in the Situation Room February 11th and making a pitch to Donald Trump about what their plan was for the war. Trump was impressed with that pitch. According to the New York Times reporting, there were others in the administration who were saying that Bibi was too optimistic about the potential outcomes for regime change and otherwise. And it just seems just like the basic fact is that Israel encouraged us and influenced us to get into the war. Is that not right?

[B]

I didn't see that New York Times story. I think the question I asked at the committee, which is the question that I think is important, is was the, did I ask this of the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and then asked to see if the NI Director Gabbert agreed, was what motivated our decision about protecting the United States of America, that we made our decision, or was it because it somehow reported because we were, you know, pushed into it by, by Israel or any other country? The answer was no. This decision we made to protect the interest of the United States of America,

[A]

and it seems like we were pushed into it by Israel, though everything I've

[B]

seen on a classified side reinforces that. But of course, by the way, we should talk.

[A]

I hadn't seen, though, that you didn't know that Bibi Netanyahu was in the Situation Room making a pitch to Trump on this war.

[B]

I'm not invited. The Situation Room.

[A]

I know. Again, I would think that on the classified side, the Intelligence Committee, like you guys would know that a foreign government was briefing the President and why he should enter a war. Right, no.

[B]

Article one and Article two, obviously. Article one, the Congress. We've got, we've got, we've got a class. We've got.

[A]

I hear you.

[B]

A classified place where we go where we get briefed.

[A]

Sure.

[B]

The White House is, you know, a different article, the Constitution, they do their own thing, as you know.

[A]

But we.

[B]

It's very common to share intelligence with our allies. So if you're telling me if we were doing intelligence sharing and strategic sharing as we do with our allies all the time, that would be completely saying that.

[A]

I'm saying that Bibi encouraged Trump to get into the war. I just, I think that that's just a fact, isn't it?

[B]

I went and I wasn't there. I have no idea what was.

[A]

Do you think that we would be in the war if Bibi was against it?

[B]

Do I think that we thought there was a national interest for the United States of America to get involved here, which. To protect America's national interests? Absolutely.

[A]

You think we would have gone alone? You think we would have done this war alone, without BBs?

[B]

Again, you're asking me questions that I don't know the answer to. Well, I know what I asked. I know what I could. What I asked the head of the CIA, and I know what I asked the Director of National Intelligence.

[A]

Well, you also said you can't trust the National Director of National Intelligence. So I'm not that surprised that you should lie to you.

[B]

But. Yeah, but it comports with what I've. What I've been briefed on. But I. But it was the only public setting. The reason I asked that in a public setting is we don't ever get a public. As you probably know. There's only, like, we don't often get a public setting to ask questions. Most of the stuff we do is in a classified setting, below ground. It's not public.

[A]

I think one thing, like we both are. I'm concerned about the increasing anti Semitism in this country. I know you are. You've talked about it. And I just. And so it worries me. I think that an average American.

[B]

That's why I'm not on Piker. That's why I'm not on Piker's show and on your show.

[A]

Okay, we can talk about that next. I think that an average American would look at this war that we're in and say, I don't understand what our direct interest is. It's costing me more at the pump. We were not responding to a recent terror attack on us from Iran. Obviously, Iran's been attacking us for a long time through proxies. But if you're just an average American, you're like, I don't understand why we're doing this. I hear that Bibi Netanyahu was encouraging Trump to do it. I don't think that it's crazy for regular people to look at this in this country and say, okay, it seems like Israel was influencing us to get into this war. And I don't know why we can't just say that. I think it creates distrust when we can't just say what is true. That's just true, Tim.

[B]

How do you know? But you're just asserting to what you just did is exactly what I have a problem with. With you are you are basing something on, like, we have no facts that you know that you, that you, you weren't in the room.

[A]

You think the New York Times is wrong? There was a Feb. 11 meeting in the Situation Room. Bibi was in the Situation Room. You don't think that's, you think that's fake news?

[B]

Do I think the president and the prime minister have met and talked about Iran many times over the years like President Biden did with, with, with the prime minister, like President Obama did with the prime minister going back like to the beginning of time. Do I think people have talked about these threats together, Our allies? Absolutely.

[A]

Do I know any other allies? He didn't talk to Japan. He didn't talk to Europe.

[B]

Do I know, like, actually what caused the decision? No. And, and by the way, the New York Times doesn't know. And the only people who know were people who were like in the decision inner circle about what actually made them make the decision.

[A]

So it seems like Bibi was in the decision inner circle. They planned it together.

[B]

When we have gone to, gone into other conflicts before, like, like Obama did, like Biden just did, like, do you think that we, he didn't have consultation with our allies?

[A]

Of course he did. Yeah. That's why I'm saying I don't understand why people just want, why we can't just say this, why we can't just say it's true.

[B]

There's a huge difference between saying somebody made us do it, they told, pushed us into it versus saying, sure, we consulted with our allies and we thought it was what best for America's national security.

[A]

What else would you call it, like, besides pushed us into it or encouraged him influence, what else would you call it? Like, he came to, he was in the Situation Room making a pitch on the war two weeks before it started. What else would you call that?

[B]

I think many presidents I know because I worked for a president. I think many presidents have met with world leaders and talked about whether or not we should get involved in something or not if it was good for their national interests and. But most importantly, for America's national interests. And I think just because they had a meeting in the Situation Room. So big deal.

[A]

And it's a pretty big deal. We started a war that Donald Trump said he was running against the war. He said, no war with Iran. He did not lay a predicate for the war. There was not an imminent threat.

[B]

He was like, listen, you got to do that. So your view is like, they just made us do it and we did it.

[A]

I didn't say made. No, you said made. I didn't say that. What I said is that I think that Bibi pitched. I think Trump was high on his own supply after Venezuela, and he thought, this is easy to do this. And I think the BBC there. Yeah, yeah. And I think he's like, this is easy, doing these little regime change things. This is fun. This is a lot easier than getting things passed through Congress. I got to deal with assholes like gottheimer so I can be the decision maker. I think Trump's really hot on it, and I think the Bibi went to him and said, hey, these guys in Iran, they tried to kill you. We've got great intelligence. We've got this plan. This could be the moment. They're very vulnerable. We can topple them. And Trump said, hell, yeah, I'm on board. So I'm not saying that Trump has agency. I'm not saying that he was tricked or something, but I think that obviously this is something that Netanyahu has wanted to do for a long time, and he made the case to Trump, and Trump said, I'm on board. I just think that that obviously happened.

[B]

No, I guess history will find out. I have no idea.

[A]

Why do you think he did it? Why do you think he decided to get in right now? I think he was president once before. Iran was a threat then. He's been president for a year and three months. Why did he decide to do it now?

[B]

Because I believe, and this is actually what hopefully we'll find out ultimately, I believe he looked at certain threat intelligence against the United States of America and made a decision what he thought was best as the commander in chief. Right. I think that's what happened. He looked at the facts, look at the thought.

[A]

There was a threat, like we had a threat, like an imminent threat on the homeland.

[B]

I mean, Tim, you're asking me to answer questions that I don't know the answer to.

[A]

Okay, well, you said that based on intelligence. Based on intelligence that he looked at the threat assessment.

[B]

I think you're asking me what, how I think he made his decision.

[A]

Again, I just think that if you're

[B]

a regular American military and makes a decision.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I mean, that's probably what he did.

[A]

Yeah. This is just very. I understand. I'm sorry. I don't mean, like, this is frustrating. I just think that it's like if a congressman who is on the Intelligence Committee doesn't know why Trump decided to do it and doesn't. And there's no tangible imminent threat. And Trump has been president once before and he said he wasn't gonna do a war with Iran, and all of a sudden he's like, hey, I'm gonna go to war with Iran. And the result is that American soldiers die and that people see a massive increase in their price ass. Like, people are going to be like, what in the hell is happening? And, and I, and I think that, that they would have a right to be upset about it. And, and you. And, and you're not. Do you. What should. Would. Don't you agree that people would be. That that's. People should have a right to be upset about that if, like, you don't even know why we did it, by

[B]

the way, what I think it. No, what I said was I. You asked me like, what was the conversation, what happened in a strategic decision. I wasn't there. But I'll tell you this. I. What I said to you was, I've seen intelligence over time and seen threats from Iran and like, where, where I see very deep concerns that people like me had. Do I know what ultimately made him make the decision? As you're asking me? No, I wasn't there. I wasn't in the Situation Room. This is why I actually believe the War Powers act was triggered. I believe The President has 60 days to come to us to ask for an authorization of force or for a declaration of war. I think April 28th is coming up very fast. I think the expectation from all of us in Congress will be you will lay out exactly your objectives, your reasoning, your timelines and your goals. And if you want funding, you will do the same thing. You either get an AUMF or you will get a declaration of war, or you will get the hell out. And that's what I believe. And I think, by the way, as I start, where I started this conversation, Tim, was he still hasn't laid out clearly to me, to the American people or to the Congress what he hopes to achieve, what a win looks like for the Commander in Chief. There's only one commander in chief. There's not 635 or 535 or 135. There's only right. There's only one commander in chief. And so I say that because he has to make certain decisions, he has access to certain information that I don't have, even though I'm on the Intelligence Committee, I'm not on. I don't get access to all the military stuff. I don't get access to everything. The point is the President should come make the case before the Congress. His people should come make the case. They should go before our committees, they should lay this out, answers to the questions that you're asking and that I have questions about as well and make the case to the public. And so you're asking me like what I'm pissed off about. That's what I'm pissed off about. Are you asking me do I think Iran, the government deserves, do we deserve to take down the government of Iran, this regime who's killed tens of thousands of their own people and killed scores of Americans with Death to America as their banner? Do I think they should get them? Absolutely. And that you asked me that as well. And I'm not changing my view on that. That's what my view is.

[A]

So that's the last thing that. So you're a gettable vote for authorization, military force. If they came to you and said, hey, here's what we're, here's what our plan is after April 28, we have another month we need you get a funding, would you be open to voting for it?

[B]

Do hypotheticals, I want to know what the hell their argument is. I'll meet with them and understand where we are and get that information and then I'll make a decision.

[A]

Well, not doing hypotheticals is an answer in itself because it's not a no, you're not a no like some people would. Some people would just be a no right now. These, this is insane.

[B]

That is deeply irresponsible to just say no that before getting briefed by the by. Before getting brief.

[A]

I think it's kind of, I would say deeply irresponsible to give Donald Trump, who threatened to end a civilization today, $0.01 for a war. That would be what I would say is deep.

[B]

If I learned tomorrow they had something that could cause mass destruction to you and your family, I would have a very different view. Sure.

[A]

Nobody's even saying that's what they have.

[B]

That. That's why, that's why I actually would want to do my homework and understand what our military has to tell me about where we are. What. Right.

[A]

And I apologize. We. I wanted to do AI. I wanted to do Piker, but it's just. We're trying to get. I'm just trying to get to the answer, because I don't. I guess this is the frustrating thing about this conversation. I do apologize, because this is a frustrating thing. It's like we're in this thing and they can't explain it. And so now we have to kind of process their incoherence. And to me, like, I just. I just think it's much easier to oppose it. Yeah, it's very upsetting.

[B]

And we've got troops on the ground in harm's way. We've got a straight that obviously is not under our control. We've got ships that are stuck. Yeah, I mean, I'm very pissed off about the situation, but at the end of the day, I'm going to do my job, and that's what I feel. Deep responsibility to do my job.

[A]

Fair enough. We have a rain check for you to yell at me about piker and do another time.

[B]

Come on.

[A]

What do you want to do? Okay, we can do it now. Do you want. What do you want to do? I got nowhere to be. I was being respectful of your time. But we could do a rain check. We could do it now. Whatever you want.

[B]

Okay. Well, I have. I have five minutes.

[A]

It looks like you have five minutes. All right, let's do it. Five. I think that's fair. Five minutes. You get to pick. Do you want to yell at me about Hasan Piker? Do you want to talk about. I'm concerned about AI. I'd love to hear you yell at

[B]

me about Hasan Piker. Unless you, like, want to say that. We should. We should. Are you a big Hassan Piker fan?

[A]

I'm not a big Hasan Piker fan. I think that the Democrats should have a message for their audience, though. But, you know, are you.

[B]

Are you concerned? And should we also go on Alex Jones and talk to him?

[A]

Well, I mean, I think that it would be probably pretty good for the Democrats to go on to some maga. MAGA podcasts, America first podcast, and talk to them about the ways that Donald Trump has betrayed them. Yeah, I think that would probably be good. And you have to make a decision on a case by case basis. Some of these people are just trolls. But if somebody has to have a bit of a. Have a good faith conversation. Yeah, sure.

[B]

I would not like to legitimize like Candace Owens.

[A]

I mean, Candace Owens is Talking about how Brigitte Macron is a dick and, like, there's bees that, you know, be cult. So I probably wouldn't do that one either. But if somebody disagrees, that's. Then that's fine.

[B]

Do I think we should legitimize people who are like, should people, Democrats go on white supremacist shows and say, well, they deserve to be heard because they have a lot of followers? No, I mean, like, we should have a debate with them because they're like, you know, that's just not what I believe. I don't believe you should legitimize people who are white supremacists. So, like, I would not recommend that we go on a bunch of white supremacist shows because they have a lot of followers. Right? Like, I don't think that's a good, That's a good outcome for the country.

[A]

I just, I think it's bad if you let all the cranks align onto one side. And sometimes, you know, it's important to have a message for people. I'm not saying that. Again, not legitimate. You can argue. We argued. You came on today. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with a good, healthy debate, but. And I wouldn't go on some, like, basement podcast of some white supremacists nobody's ever heard of, but if there's a prominent America first person or a prominent far left person.

[B]

What are you talking about?

[A]

Oh, yeah, exactly. There's a prominent far left person that could hear an argument. I'm for that. I don't think the Democrats did this as any favors by not by being like Burn the Witch when Bernie went on Joe Rogan. I don't think that paid off. So I don't know. I'm for, I'm for talking. I'm a talker. I'm a yapper, Josh.

[B]

People to profit, profit and amplify insane views that are deeply offensive to lots of Americans. And like, that's, and that's part of my concern is not like, giving legitimacy to them. And if what you're saying is you just go on and scream at them and tell them why they're crazy the whole time, then, okay, maybe.

[A]

No, I, I go on and try to be rational, make the case. I mean, again, this goes back to our earlier conversation about Israel. Like, I think you're giving. I think that one way to give legitimacy to anti Semitic cranks is to, like, tell them that they can't believe their lion eyes. Like, you know, and I think that conflating, you know, Jewishness with every decision that BB Netanyahu makes. I think gives ammo to anti Semitic cranks.

[B]

I think the insane amount of disinformation that I see out there on a daily basis about. About Israel, about Jews, about different organizations, it's like. It's so insane. Like, the fake.

[A]

There's a lot of bad info out

[B]

there, no doubt, that's put out there on a daily basis. Like, it's so nuts that, like, you know, you know, I don't want to give more credibility to people who propagate and lies and. And disinformation. And I think we got to be very careful. I think we got to be very careful.

[A]

Yeah. Anyway, I don't either.

[B]

We're AI next time.

[A]

We're gonna do AI next. You got to pick. You got to pick. I was going to let you pick. Okay. Congressman Josh Gotheimer. Bro, thank you very much for coming on. See, having a disagreement. Know same party lines. Same party lines. All right, brother, we'll see you soon, okay?