Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:00]
Stephen K. Bannon
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.
- [00:05]
Bleacher Report Announcer
The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real time, scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment. The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real time, scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.
- [01:04]
John Eastman
And Brett, let me just start with you.
- [01:06]
Actually.
- [01:06]
General, let me start with you because I want to ask about the Kuwaiti oil tanker as we're still getting new information that it is on fire off the coast of Dubai. General, how concerning is that?
- [01:16]
General Kaine
Well, it's very concerning. It indicates that the air defense systems that we have in the region aren't covering some of the most critical assets we have. Now, having said that, this is about the 13th tanker that's been hit since the beginning of the war. Of the 22 commercial ships that have been hit since February 28, we should expect more of this. I don't think we can defend all of them. It will certainly make it harder for those ships to pass and get the insurance companies to support them if they're constantly getting hit.
- [01:49]
John Eastman
How unusual is this? Have you been in negotiations, not being sure if you're talking to the right people?
- [01:55]
I wish I could say it's totally unusual, but look, in this circumstance, we don't really know who's in charge in Tehran. So this is like completely unprecedented. I'm sure our analysts who know Iran so well are trying to figure out what's happening. But you know, John, think about even when Supreme Leader Khamenei, who was killed in the beginning of this, was in charge, they still have a somewhat of a collective decision making apparatus. And on big decisions, very hard for one person to say, this is how it's going to be. And, and I suspect in Tehran right now, you know, these messages going back and forth have caused a debate. There's probably fractures and what the Trump administration is asking Iran to do, and they have a set of reasonable asks, particularly on the nuclear program. Give up your enrichment program, which has been in demand for some time. Iran has never agreed to do that. So if they were, John, to come in with a new position and say, actually we're going to accept what the Americans are asking for, we want to have a ceasefire, sanctions relief, that's going to be a huge decision in their system. And I don't think anyone right now in Tehran is powerful enough to really make that decision fast. I say one more thing. Negotiating with the Iranians, nothing is ever fast. It takes time. They deliberate. You know, they have this process they go through. They always demand one change or another. And that's when they had a system that you could somewhat predict. So even more confusing now. So, yeah, it's going to be hard to get a quick outcome here.
- [03:18]
General Hegseth
This new regime, because regime change has occurred, should be wiser than the last. President Trump will make a deal. He is willing and the terms of the deal are known to them. If Iran is not willing, then the United States War Department will continue with even more intensity.
- [03:40]
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Now share an operational update. Our Joint force continues to focus on our military objectives as we systematically continue to degrade and destroy Iran's ability to project power and threaten stability beyond its borders. First, the Joint Force continues to destroy Iran's ballistic missile and UAS capabilities. We remain focused on interdicting and destroying the logistical and supply chains that feed these programs. And this remains a truly joint effort prosecuted around the clock from air, land, sea, space and cyberspace. Long range bombers from U.S. strategic Command are coordinating with tactical fighter aircraft from our joint force launched from bases around the region and the continental United States. While simultaneously, Navy fighters from the sea and sailors continue to project power from the sea, while army and marine artillery units continue to execute long range precision fires deep into enemy territory against high value targets. Meanwhile, on the defense side, our army and air defenders and aviators, as the Secretary talked about, remain vigilant, forming a shield to protect our forces and our partners intercepting missiles and drones. Together, we continue to deliver precision strikes against key manufacturing nodes, component storage sites, research facilities deep within Iranian territory. And over the past 29, I'm sorry, 30 days, we've struck more than 11,000 targets. Given the increase in air superiority, we've successfully started to conduct the first overland B52 missions which allow us, as we've said before, to continue to get on top of the enemy and as the Secretary talked about, switch towards more and more dynamic targets servicing mobile targets around the battle space. We've continued to do the work against Iran's missile, drone and naval production facilities and we continue the multi domain pressure that we've talked about. Second, on the Navy front, we continue to assert dominance over the Iranian Navy. We remain focused on targeting their minelaying capability, their naval assets and we've now, as I mentioned briefly last time, started to work attack helicopters and other close air support assets into the naval domain. So CENTCOM continues to identify and work against naval depots and storage areas and we've taken out again more than 150 ships including all Jamarin class frigates inside their navy. Third, we continue to prosecute our campaign against our defense industrial base at scale. This includes factories, warehouses, nuclear weapons, research and development labs and the associated infrastructure requirements required for Iran to reconstitute its combat capability.
- [06:36]
General Hegseth
As far as President Trump and boots on the ground, I don't understand why the base, which they have already, they understand, wouldn't have faith in his ability to execute on this. Look at his track record of pursuing peace through strength America first outcomes. What he's simply saying, and it's exactly true, and I've said from this podium too, we're not going to foreclose any option. You can't fight and win a war if you tell your adversary what you are willing to do or what you are not willing to do to include boots on the ground. Our adversary right now thinks there are 15 different ways we could come at them with boots on the ground and guess what? There are. So if we needed to, we could execute those options on behalf of the President of the United States and this department. Or maybe we don't have to use them at all. Maybe negotiations work or maybe there's a different approach. The point is to be unpredictable in that. Certainly not let anybody know what you're willing to do or not do. But if anybody has internalized the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan as the first one, President Trump to call them out for what they are, he's not going to repeat those lessons. And I think I've been very clear about that from the podium.
- [07:42]
John Eastman
Removing Iran's enriched uranium, so has the strait, which was not initially one of the objectives of the war. Do you feel that the Hormuz Strait has become the top military objective for the administration?
- [07:56]
John, it's hard to see how this ends if Iran is controlling the Strait of Hormuz. And to say that that's been a strategic gain for the United States. I think it's good if we're taking out their missiles, their drones, their air force, their navy, their power projection. But the Strait of Hormuz is the artery of the global economy. And here Iran is demonstrating that it can basically control it. And if you step back even further, John, and connect this to Russia and Ukraine and these shahed drones, which, you know, we dealt with against our forces for years, they can travel about a thousand. Some of them can travel longer than 1,000 miles. They're very hard to find. Iran has proliferated the technology to Russia. That's how Russia is sustaining its war in Ukraine. The Houthis in Yemen shot these things at tankers back in 2023, 2024, shut down the red Sea. This is like a hybrid warfare terrorism. And it is the future and it's upon us. And so that's what Iran is doing. And now that means that it is a very good thing if we can actually, you know, take apart Iran's defense industrial base, its ability to produce these things, these drones, these missiles. But they have a lot of them. They're using them, they're proliferating them. And the tactics are very similar to what Russia is doing in Ukraine, just firing these things off at civilian targets. And a tanker is a definition of a civilian asset. It's not a military asset.
- [09:15]
Moderator/Interviewer
We've had some signaling that the US Will retake control of the Strait of Hormuz at that point. What military posture will be imposed to guarantee safe passage for our allies, deter our enemies and demonstrate U.S. dominance in the region? And also, can you speak to how much America's adversaries, Russia, China, North Korea, how much they're supporting Iran's war machine at this point with arms and intelligence, and what we are militarily doing to punish the enemy coalition.
- [09:48]
General Hegseth
Appreciate both questions on the Strait of Hormuz. There are many more vessels flowing through today than there were, as the President has arranged. The President has been clear to Iran, open it for business or we have options, and we certainly do. And when you look at what the Chairman laid out with the Navy, with the Navy industrial base, with coastal Cruise missiles, with UAVs with counter mine capabilities, we've been focused from the beginning on attriting and defeating those capabilities and limiting their options. There's lots we're doing as well, some of which is known, some of which is not known, to set the conditions and I think the President was clear this morning in his truth, that there are countries around the world who ought be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well. It's not just the United States Navy. Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big bad Royal Navy that could be prepared to do things like that as well. So he's pointing out this is an international waterway that we use less than most. In fact, dramatically less than most. So the world ought to pay attention and be prepared to stand up. President Trump's been willing to do the heavy lifting on behalf of the free world to address this threat of Iran. It's not just our problem set going forward, even though we have done the lion's share of preparation to ensure that that strait will be. Will be open, which is an outcome the President has been very clear on. As far as Russia and China, we know exactly what they're doing, what they are or are not doing. We don't have to air publicly what all of that is, but where necessary, we're addressing it, we're mitigating it, and. Or we're confronting it head on.
- [11:15]
Commentator on Israel and Lebanon
The trend is that they are doubling down in Iran, which is unfortunate, because if they start to deploy troops, they put troops on Iranian soil, it's just going to get worse. And so it seems as though they're digging more and more as a way to justify and validate their initial decision to go in there. And another trend I see, unfortunately, is with Israel. Israel, they're going forward more and more in Lebanon. They passed a law today in the Knesset that they're going to hang Palestinians, you know, who are. Who are found guilty, but they're not of murder, but they're not going to hold Israelis to that same requirement.
- [11:49]
Questioner/Reporter
Question for you, and then a question for General Kaine. You said we're a month into the operation Epic Fury. How long until the objectives are achieved? And is there a scenario where a deal is struck before the objectives have been achieved? And then for General Kaine, there's been lots of media coverage that suggested a ground invasion is imminent. What other purposes might the soldiers and the marines who have been deployed over to the Middle east serve in this conflict?
- [12:18]
General Hegseth
Well, just like the previous question, it's sort of Military 101. Don't tell your enemy what you're willing to do or not do, and don't tell your enemy when you're willing to stop. Especially an enemy that likes to hide in bunkers and try to hoard their missiles and hope you'll wait you out so that's not a question I'm going to answer or the president has said definitively we have our own goals and guidance and things were military objectives that we're moving toward and things that we look at. And as he's articulated, you know, he said four to six weeks, six to eight weeks, three. It could be any particular number, but we would never reveal precisely what it is because our goal is to finish those objectives and we're well on our way. And the chairman and I look at this every single day. It will be the president's determination and the president's determination alone when those objectives are complete and when it serves the interest of the American people to cut that deal, to make sure that Iran doesn't have a nuclear capability and ultimately that our objectives, our interests are advanced. I don't know if you want to add anything.
- [13:19]
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
No. Just to answer your question, Reagan, you know, the range of military options that those forces can offer are extensive, not just limited to what you mentioned in terms of forces on the ground. And I wouldn't want to take away the president's decision space. But there are a multitude of things, not the least of which is Iran should note that they're out there and that they are at pressure point. And so they should carefully consider, I think at the diplomatic level, not my job as a chairman, but at the diplomatic level to consider what's in front of them.
- [13:54]
General Hegseth
I did the same with his boss, a colonel with a heart the size of Texas and a beautiful deployment mustache to match. I witnessed lethality. I met a junior airman as the sun was going down and a chill was setting on the tarmac, who, when asked what they needed, she simply looked up at me with a sly smile on her face and said, more bombs, sir, and bigger bombs. We will happily oblige her.
- [14:33]
Stephen K. Bannon
It's Tuesday 31st March in the year of our lower 2026. We're into this thing about a month now. Press conference this morning at the Pentagon. We're gonna have Neil McCabe at the White House, David Zierbeck over at the Pentagon. Ben Harnwell is going to join us from Rome. Eric Bolling's going to talk about markets. We're going to break all of this down because President Trump last night severe bombing by the American Israeli forces on military targets of the Iranians. And then this morning, President Trump dropped another bombshell, saying, hey, look, if people won't step up here, we're just going to toss the keys to maybe the NATO allies and see what they do in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. We're going to break all of that down first. POLITICO has a major story this morning about our own John Eastman. John Eastman, his long journey to get to the supreme court on the 14th amendment, birthright citizenship, an amazing story, an amazing man. John Eastman, next live in the War room. Take your phone out and text Bannon B A N N O N at 989-898. Get the ultimate guide. It is totally free and there are no obligations for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump. Now more than ever, you need to talk to Philip Patrick and the team at Birchgold about why gold is a hedge in times of financial turbulence, like it's been for, I don't know, 3,000 years. A man's recorded history.
- [16:04]
Bleacher Report Announcer
Short commercial the Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real time scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.
- [16:36]
General Hegseth
Here's your host, Stephen K. Banner.
- [16:41]
Stephen K. Bannon
For those viewers and listeners that have been with us for many, many years who've been doing this show, one of the great patriots and heroes you're familiar with is John Eastman. John Eastman not only stepped into the breach about the stolen 2020 election, which now we know in Georgia and all these other places are they're having dog fights about getting the evidence back of the steal. John Eastman has been with the president in the MAGA movement fighting on every different front. We covered it. I think we were the only channel, but definitely the show were and we covered play by play when they tried to take John Eastman's law license away and they've tried to bankrupt him and other him more than any other, I think individual, a lawyer in this movement today. John Eastman joins us. John, you're heading Back to Washington, D.C. for this argument in front of the Supreme Court tomorrow on the 14th amendment, birthright citizenship. And Politico had, as it leads storied this morning, the journey of John Eastman in making this what they called from a fringe theory to actually being argued at the Supreme Court and the Federalists and some of the smartest public intellectuals over the last week have basically said what Eastman has done is monumental, because if you don't get this right, you're not going to have a country. And of course, Peter Schweitzer in that magnificent book that was a New York Times bestseller for five straight weeks, it was central about these Chinese. He called them the Manchurian voters. I think it's 1.4 million Chinese living in China that came over here for the birthright tourism. So first off, John, tell us about your journey on this, and then let's get to the details of the case.
- [18:20]
John Eastman
Well, it started, Steve, in one of the 911 terrorism cases. Yasser Issam Hamdi, he was captured in Afghanistan, sent to Gitmo. And when they realized he'd been born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, they started treating him as a citizen. And former Attorney General of the United States, Ed Meese, and I filed a brief in that case saying, whoa, whoa, whoa. Just because he was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, while his parents, Saudi nationals, were here on a temporary work visa, the dad was working on an oil rig off the coast of Louisiana, doesn't make him a citizen. The 14th amendment says you got to be born here. That's, that's requirement one, but you gotta be subject to the jurisdiction here as well and reside in a state that means temporary visitors. And certainly those who are here illegally are not covered by the automatic citizenship of the citizenship clause. And that was the way we understood it for about a century. And kind of gradually, beginning in the 1950s or 60s, we moved away from that position. But President Trump's executive order restores the original meaning of the citizenship clause. If you're here illegally, then you're not subject to the complete jurisdiction. You're not part of our political community. If you're here just temporarily, you're here by our grace. You have not joined our political community. You're a visitor. And that's what the original meaning meant, and that's what the original court decisions were. That's what the original leading treatise writers of the 1870s said. That's what the Secretaries of State said in the 1880s. So it's only more recently that we've adopted this more radical view that anybody born here, no matter the circumstances, are citizens.
- [20:04]
Stephen K. Bannon
Talk to me about that. How did this start shifting in the 50s and 60s since it was already pretty established? Like what groups started to say, oh, no. And. And why did Republicans, or why particularly conservatives and conservative legal scholars, jurists, et cetera, Congress, why did they just continue to look the other way?
- [20:22]
John Eastman
Well, you know, it started a bit under Franklin roosevelt. In the 1930s, they, the office of Legal Counsel produced a memo saying that anybody born here, no matter what, was a citizen. But that memo never got the force of law. When Congress updated the Immigration act in 1938, again in 1952, it just mirrored the language of the 14th Amendment. So they clearly intended not to go any further than the 14th Amendment required them to go. But beginning in the 19, I've traced it to a change in the passport rules in 1966. After 1965amendment to the passport requirements, somebody had to add some language to the passport application form. And it used to say, if you were born here, then they had several questions about the status of your parents. And I think some bureaucrat looked at it and said, well, I got to get this back down to one page. And I don't know what relevance those questions have. So they just dropped it. So now it's just, if you're born here, you're treated as a citizen. That was. That was 1966. So before that, look, people say that Wong Kim Ark, a very important case in 1898, settled the question, but Wong Kim Ark's parents were permanently and lawfully domiciled in this country. And the court goes out of its way 28 different times. It references the fact that they're domiciled here, that they're legally and permanently here. But there's broader language in it. Most scholars, until Trump came on the scene pressing this issue in 2015, most scholars had agreed that the Wong Kim Ark decision didn't settle the question or even address the question of the children of illegal immigrants. But the Trump arrangement syndrome by legal, most legal scholars is so strong that they started saying, oh, no, this has been settled for over 100 years, when in fact it hasn't been.
- [22:16]
Neil McCabe
No.
- [22:16]
Stephen K. Bannon
MSNBC and CNN every night. And you can tell they're quite worried about this. From the time you and Ed Meese filed that. Walk me through what's happened, because even in the political article, they said this is another. Eastman was a fringe. You know, he was a main guy on this, on. On the Big Steel, but he always comes up with these fringe theories. And this is Eastman at his best on. On some French theory. What have you had to go through from the time of Ed Meese until it's argued tomorrow morning at the Supreme Court?
- [22:47]
John Eastman
Well, I've debated, as the political article points out, I've debated the issue all over the country, law schools all over the country, at judicial conferences with some other prominent scholars. And like I said, up until Trump came on the scene and started pressing the issue. They all agreed with me that Wong Kim Ark didn't settle this issue, but they disagreed with me that my views were right. Although, look, I'm not the only scholar or even the first scholar that started looking at this. A very important book by Yale professors Roger Smith and Peter Schuck in the late 1980s, did a thorough assessment of the original debates and came to the same conclusion that I did. My colleagues at the Claremont Institute, Ed Ehler and Tom west, very prominent 14th Amendment scholars, have come to the same conclusion. University of Texas law professor Lino Graglia, the late Lino Graglia, independently came to the same conclusion. And more recently, as Trump's executive order has forced the issue to the front of academic discussion, very prominent scholars like Richard Epstein at University of Chicago and New York University have come to the same conclusion. In fact, in my view, anybody that takes seriously the original arguments that were had over the development of the 14th Amendment in 1868 will come to the same conclusion that the Supreme Court did when it first confronted the issue that leading scholars of that day came to, that the Secretary of State came to look, in the 1880s, there were a couple of kids born to German parents or Scottish parents visiting here just to take this notion that this is somehow a racist position off the table. And the Secretary of State said, no, the parents were just temporarily here. Their kids were not subject to the complete jurisdiction that is required by the 14th amendment because they continue to owe their allegiance to. To the foreign power, their parents, nationality. And that was the right answer. And so all Trump's executive order does is bring us back to the original understanding of the 14th Amendment. People say, well, most scholars disagree with Eastman. Well, that's true. Most scholars disagreed with me on the view that the power over interstate commerce did not extend to let the federal government regulate the entire economy. And yet we won that issue in 1995. Or that the First Amendment doesn't prohibit states from giving school vouchers to religious schools. Most scholars said that silly. It's a violation of the Constitution. And we won that argument as well. And right now, I've got teed up an issue about whether the spending clause lets Congress spend on whatever it wants or whether it's limited to the common defense and the national, the general welfare, as the Constitution requires. Most scholars disagree with me on that as well, but most of them aren't originalists, and they don't take seriously what the Constitution originally meant, as I do. And we tend to win on these things when we, when we present the originalist arguments to a court that understands that the original understanding of the Constitution is actually, it's not a guidance, it's not a suggestion, it's actually mandatory on us.
- [25:50]
Stephen K. Bannon
Is it just serendipity that Peter Schweitzer's book, one of the central parts of it, talking about how immigration has been used as a weapon against the United States, one of the most explosive things was this. Over a million Chinese that have been born here for this birth tourism, they actually live in China today and potentially could vote. Also these great journals like the Federalists coming out and saying if you don't have, talking about your argument and making the case at the Supreme Court tomorrow, if you don't sort this out and you don't get this right on the 14th amendment, you're not going to have a country. Is that, does that help this, make this such a big deal tomorrow at the Supreme Court?
- [26:29]
John Eastman
I think it does. Although it's not argued in that way by either my brief or this Solicitor General's brief, which by the way, Solicitor General John Sauer and his team have done a fabulous job making the originalist case here. But even beyond what Peter Schweitzer has published, and I think it's very opportune that it's coming out is I saw a report last week that of those one point some million Chinese nationals that were born here and are treated as citizens, 200,000 of them of military age, young men are back here in this country asserting their citizenship. That's an army. Our major enemy on the world stage has an army of young military age men here claiming they're citizens because of this ridiculous notion that we back into a birthright citizenship.
- [27:21]
Stephen K. Bannon
John, do we have it for a few minutes? I want to hold you through the break or do you have to jump on the plane right now? Do we have.
- [27:26]
John Eastman
Yeah, they're. They're starting to board. I'm afraid I gotta run.
- [27:30]
Stephen K. Bannon
Okay, okay, go ahead. Just give us, give us your. We'll try to grab you tonight or tomorrow. Just give us your, your coordinates. Where do people follow you on social media?
- [27:38]
John Eastman
So the, the Dr. John Eastman on Twitter is the best place. They can also go to my legal defense fund site, givesendgo.com eastman and I'll try and do some updates there as well.
- [27:53]
Stephen K. Bannon
Perfect. We'll get you back on. John, you're a patriot and a hero. I don't think anybody, you know, maybe Rudy and, and Mike Lindell, but no one's. They've tried to destroy so many people, but they really focused on you. And one of the reasons they knew the kind of intellectual firepower you bring on these topics tomorrow at the Supreme Court, the long journey of John Eastman. Brother, love you. We'll talk to you later. Thank you, sir.
- [28:17]
John Eastman
All right, take
- [28:20]
Stephen K. Bannon
these are the heroes to step into the breach. Like the folks down in Georgia, Eastman is a hero, intellectual powerhouse and a hero, and that's why they've tried to destroy him. Short break, White House in Rome next.
- [28:35]
General Hegseth
Here's your host, Stephen K. Ban.
- [28:40]
Stephen K. Bannon
Okay, just to set the stage here tomorrow, we are going to have special coverage of this argument in the supreme court on the 14th amendment, birthright citizenship. We know Rosemary Jinx is going to be there, some other folks going to be there. Hopefully we've got Our own Neil McCabe will be there outside the the Supreme Court. We'll be talking to people and of course, listening to those, some of the arguments that are going to dip in and out of it. John Sauer representing the solicitor general of the United States and a guy just doing an incredible job representing the government. Very, very, very important tomorrow on the 14th Amendment. Also tomorrow, the Mass Deportation Coalition is, as you remember, on April, they're going to release their action plan. I've had the honor of seeing a draft of that in the last 48 hours. It is very powerful. And tomorrow we're going to have members of the Mass Deportation Coalition on to discuss that. Mike Howell and many, many more, Erik Prince, hopefully grab Eric. There's so many members of this coalition. It's kind of the coming together of some of the most prominent names in this immigration fight. And particularly we cannot take our eye off the ball of mass deportations, even if the lobbyists that continued to hammer the White House want us to stop doing it. You saw the poll yesterday. We had Rosemary Jinx on from Punchbowl, which K Street wants us to talk about anything else but mass deportation. But thank God we got a mass Deportation coalition. They've put together an action plan that's pretty amazing. So that's all tomorrow because I realized sometimes in the war over here in the last 30 days, it's like that opening scene and Going with the Wind with Scarlett o', Hara, I think talking to the terrorists, the Tarlington twins. War, war, war. All you boys talk about is war. Well, we're going to talk about a lot more than that because we've got so many things to cover. But however, first things first, Eric Bolling, we're going to talk war and markets. So the president and I've got Harnwell in Rome because I got to talk about this NATO situation, which is quite disturbing. McCabe's at the White House. He's going to give us assessment of this, of this press briefing today. It was a little light on specifics, but it had some very important things about overall. But Eric, the President, after lighting up and he told guys, I said, hey, if you start hitting oil facilities of the Arabs, I'm going to have a reply. And of course, last night they hit a tanker in Kuwait and lit it up. The President's reply was quite stunning with I think 2,000 pound bombs. And we played that in the cold open. But he came back this morning and said, look, our work's about done. We're hitting our objectives and the straight of Hormuz, you know, services Asia and services Europe. And maybe it's time I toss the keys to guys because we're just not going to hang around here forever if nobody's prepared to do any heavy lifting. And the Israelis said they're not going to do boots on the ground. They're tied up in Lebanon. The Arab nations have just put out, I think, a communique saying we need the United States to take this to its ultimate conclusion against Iran. Yet they're not prepared to commit militarily. Your thoughts and particularly what the markets are telling us about what has gone on in the last 12 hours.
- [32:03]
Eric Bolling
Great assessment of bringing us up to speed. One other thing, in those last, I'd say 15 hours, maybe 12, Bahrain has declared a force majeure, which we know is really a trigger word for traders around the world. There's a problem with supply and that drives prices up. Russia's threatened a force majeure for whatever reason, also driving prices up. So what happened was yesterday Trump said open the Strait of Hormuz and come to the.
- [32:29]
Stephen K. Bannon
Hang, hang on, hang on, hang on for one second. I just want the audience, I just want the understand, I want the. Hang on, Eric. I want the audience to understand when you say force majeure, that is them telling the world that contracts we signed at much lower prices, we're going to walk away from those contracts because of act of God, act of war, act of nature, it's all defined under force majeure means we're tearing up the contract. And when we resign, the contract with you, it'll be at these much higher prices for oil and gas. Is that the force majeure is a weapon that can be used and here it's being used by our allies in the Gulf who refuse to support us militarily, want our defense or whining about why we're not doing a better job of defending them. They're now starting to tear up these contracts to get higher prices. Is that, is, is that the takeaway the audience should have about the, the, the importance and power of this concept of force majeure?
- [33:25]
Eric Bolling
Exactly right, Stephen. We, you know, we, we brought this out before anyone declared a force majeure that I said we talked about. Likelihood is they would be declaring force majeure whether they need to or not, because it's literally a paragraph in almost every single business contract, whether it's oil or not. You can see it. We see a force majeure in any sort of other types of deals, contracts as well. You're right. It's act of God, act of nature, act of war basically covers it. But so it gave these folks, these Arab countries, now Russia's joining the party to rip up the contracts that they settle at, who knows, 50, $60 a barrel, 65. And reinstitute them. In the case of Brent, which is now trading $118 a barrel today up $5 more even on the heels of what would some, I'll tell you, the equity markets, the stock market thought what Trump said this morning was a positive thing, relieving the pressure. Stocks rallied up. Oil market didn't come down because the oil folks have probably been burned a couple of times because we hear Trump say we're about to win this or they're obliterated. And then Iran bombs. More oil infrastructure. Happened last night again, so oil traders and not speculators, the actual guys trading the oil, the people I talked to, the refiners, the petroleum transporters, the producers, they believe higher prices are in the cards going forward. So here's the mixed signal. Yesterday, Trump says to Iran, open the straight, get to the negotiating table or you're done. We're going to hit water plants, we're going to hit power plants, and you're going to be finished. And then today we wake up a much softer tone. I think this is very smart. He says, you know what, our work is almost done here. I'll tell you what. European Union, you're ball now. You're the ones at most risk. China, you're at most risk for not getting this oil through the strait. You take over from here. Especially since none of the Arab countries want to join boots on the ground, which is really the only way to truly get it done. I think that was a positive, to the point, Steve and I Will tell you this. I'll tell your audiences I've told them in the past. I texted Pete Hegseth and Susie Wiles this morning because we had sent them that discussion we had about the off ramp, if they were looking for an off ramp, that all parties are made whole. And Trump looks like an absolute hero businessman by cutting that oil deal with Iran and Venezuela using our oil companies. I sent it to both of them and said, hey, hey, don't forget we sent you this a couple of weeks ago. This is the perfect off ramp for all parties involved. No loss of life. And Trump will be the guy who signs a deal that gives us oil independence for the rest of our lives. I mean, it's such a winner. So I think him moving off, we're going to obliterate you unless you relent to, hey, we did our job. Europe, Asia, it's on you. Pick up. Take, take over from here. Your ball.
- [36:10]
John Eastman
Your turn.
- [36:12]
Eric Bolling
Good.
- [36:13]
Stephen K. Bannon
Your theory is that. I think the president's kind of mentioned it. He says, hey, why don't I just, you know, we ought to think about just seizing their oil, right? I mean, your, your, your idea is a nicer way, a contractual way to do that, but essentially, it's this. It's, it's, it's. You get to the same place, don't you?
- [36:34]
Eric Bolling
No, no, you don't. Because remember, you want to do a deal with a hostile government. These people are fanatics. They'll, they'll fight to the death. They'll continue to, to do things, hit up, hit US Interest in the region, even at home, maybe the sleeper cells. What you do is you cut the deal with our oil companies, The US Oil companies go in, negotiate a deal that they produce the extra barrels. We get the barrels at fair market price, and they continue to live their fanatical, religious, fanatical lives. And we, we just step away and go, we got a great deal. We got a wonderful deal for, for our economy for the rest of, you know, certainly tied to oil for the rest of our lifetimes. And Iran can say we fought off the, you know, the American, big American beast, and they, they, they cut a deal with us. So that's the best negotiation, Steve, you know this, the best negotiation anywhere is when both sides feel like they didn't get everything they want, but they, they walk away with a lot of what they wanted. And this is the off ramp for it. Hopefully it gets to that point. And again, our oil companies have to be at the center of that so that we ensure the fact that we're getting that oil first. We want it, great. We don't want it. Throw it on the, throw it on the international market.
- [37:46]
Stephen K. Bannon
Is any of this practical? Because one of the, let's just say, inconsistencies is that we're saying that we're degrading these. One of the objectives is to degrade them so there's no force projection or power projection against Israel, against the Gulf Emirates, what they call regionally, and that hasn't been 100% done yet, but they're deflating and decline. But on the Strait of Hormuz, if they in asymmetric warfare essentially have command by negation, let's say they don't have maybe total control, but they can command to not allow. They may end up enforce their will on everything, but they at least stop the ships from going in. And they still, as you saw last night with the Kuwaiti tanker, every now and again, even a scattershot approach, they can light one up. Is it reasonable to just tell the allies, hey, it's your baby and you and the Arabs figured out when it hasn't been, it looks like with the scatter guns still able to hit and probably more, you know, mines, speedboats, etc. Still out there, that to toss it to either the oil companies and your, your theory the case and, or the Arab and European allies to actually go make something happen when it looks like now it's not probably 100% there.
- [39:04]
Eric Bolling
So a couple things there, a couple thoughts there. You said our allies, and I know you, Steve, you would like to be putting air quotes around the word allies because their interests in the Middle east and frankly Russia are higher oil prices. So they're doing everything in their power encouraging Trump to, quote, unquote, finish the job. That means more troops, maybe troops on the ground, more bombings. That elevates oil prices for the intermediate future, not just the short term future. The intermediate future, it could be a year, it could be two years. And what that does is where. Who wins in that? Who wins in that? The other thought is, don't they effectively control the Strait of Hormuz now? I mean, they, anytime they want, they can do that. And we've, they've proven we're three almost four weeks into this conflict and we don't have a ship in there. And ships aren't. The only ships that are going are the ones that both Iran and the US Agree are allowed to go through. So they do have it and they probably always have. Unless the Saudis want to step up. They're on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz and take that control. But why, you know, why is it the U.S. the reality is, Steve, we use West Texas Intermediate. We produce most of the oil we need right here. We don't need Middle Eastern oil if we don't have to, especially with that deal. We can actually even work on Venezuela, Canada and Mexico to increase our purchases there. So the reason why West Texas intermediate, our oil is 104, 4 today and Brent is 118 today and Middle Eastern Omani crude others are 150 today is because it's a regional issue. It's not really our issue somewhat is because oil is a global commodity but you know, in other words, one one price raises all prices. But to, to the extent that we say we have all the production we need, go ahead, close the straight, we have our production, we're good, we're good to go. Why are we, you know, fighting, risking our young people's lives is really the only way to truly, truly take over Iran and regime change and get that oil. Why would we risk that? It's just, it seems like our outcome.
- [41:06]
Stephen K. Bannon
You were the, you were the risk. You were the first one to observe, you were the first one to observe yesterday where President Trump yesterday morning. President Trump normally said something accommodating that the oil would drop. Yesterday was the first time it did. In fact it went up and then surged into the day. What has happened with his comments about having the allies take over the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. What has oil done today
- [41:31]
Eric Bolling
up West Texas Intermediate is basically flat trading 100, $304 a barrel, which is where it was not at the close yesterday. It was 101 at the close yesterday. It ran up after the close because of Russia saying they may force majeure oil. So it was at 104 after like in the European trading or Asian trading. This morning it opened up about the same price but brent jumped up $5 a barrel. That the Brent that a lot of the Middle Eastern crudes are tied to price wise. So that jumped up. So no one in the oil trading community is ready to say all clear yet. The equity market has a different thought. They like, they love to hear what they heard. And equities are up today substantially 4, 500 points in the Dow. But the oil guys are not buying it.
- [42:19]
Stephen K. Bannon
Eric, you've got to do the show. We'll see you in the afternoon. Hopefully do a turnover. We'll have more to report. Eric Bowling. Great job. Brent oil $118 a barrel short break.
- [42:34]
Eric Bolling
War room.
- [42:35]
General Hegseth
Here's your host, Stephen k. Ban.
- [42:41]
Stephen K. Bannon
Okay, McCabe at the White House. Neil McCabe, it was a little different this morning. I want to make note that CNN and then I think Fox News, my ever crack team because we're, we're trailing at Fox News, I think both cut away. CNN definitely cut away about two thirds the way through it. I believe Fox News cut away before it was over. MSNBC took it almost to the end and then they cut away. It was quite interesting. McCabe, your assessment of what you heard this morning over at the White House from the Pentagon press conference?
- [43:17]
Neil McCabe
Yeah, I'll just pile on. C SPAN radio also cut out about halfway through. For what it's worth speaking as a retired senior public affairs NCO in the United States Army Reserve, it's important to look at not what is said but, but why it is said, what is not said and why it is not said. First thing Hegseth says is morale is high, our personnel are excited, they want more bombs and they're operating at a high tempo. And so that's great news. Also that our allies are awol. There's an Anglo French word sucreur, which basically is what Hegseth is saying is that our allies and friends are giving succeed to the Iranians. Kaine interestingly name checked defense contractors and the civilians working on sort of that industrial complex producing that equipment and munitions and war materiel. I thought that was interesting that he would make that effort to reach out to them. And also what is not said. USS Barxer was steaming with two other ships. It was a three ship task force steaming for epic fury. It just pulled into Florida. Excuse me, not Florida, Hawaii, for a port call. And so that tells me that maybe they're off ramping some of those marines and maybe that plays into why they're throwing away the keys. Steve?
- [44:50]
Stephen K. Bannon
No, it's very. The Boxer. Yeah, the Boxer you would think would be all engines ahead flank to get to across the western Pacific, through the Straits of Malacca and then into the Indian Ocean, North Arabian Sea. Clearly there is either some issue they want to take care of in port, but they pulled into Pearl Harbor. I want you to go back to a buried lead you just talked about. The tempo of this fight, ladies and gentlemen, is pretty impressive. I mean every night they're at these guys are at battle stations, general quarters. They're doing flight ops 24 hours a day. That means the destroyers are out there as pickets, you know, these two carrier strike groups or at least one carrier strike group because One's in port up in the eastern Med. It's pretty impressive, the Morales as reported by the Secretary of Defense and everything we can see. And they're doing this in a, in a really up tempo environment. Sir,
- [45:53]
Neil McCabe
I'll say this, that the overall message from this presser was that we are winning tactically and operationally and the Iranians are deserting, the morale is broken. And so from, from our perspective here at the Pentagon, everything is going great and it's up to the geopolitical guys to figure out how to exploit our success.
- [46:21]
Stephen K. Bannon
It's also, though, one of the implications, and I think this is one of the difficulties the administration's had. You've shattered their command and control and not just the electronics and all that, but you've also gone down almost, I think, to the brigade level. They tell me, for the Revolutionary Guard, it makes it even harder to find somebody even take the call to negotiate. But more importantly, somebody can actually make a deal stick that if you're negotiating with them, it's just not on a piece of paper. They actually have influence because you can tell from this brief and other things that we're hearing, they have shattered now, they dispersed and they're gonna fight. And this is why someone could fight on forever. But any kind of centrality that you would need to try to make some deal is hard for the simple reason you've dropped the hammer. Blown. And folks, I just don't know if everybody realizes every night they're having another hammer blow as only the United States military can deliver. Neil?
- [47:19]
Neil McCabe
Yeah, well, they're looking for where is Marshall Tito, right? Where's that rogue guy who declares himself a warlord? And he just says, okay, these six provinces are mine and I'm cutting a deal. So far, ideologically it's holding, but there has to be a Tito to emerge.
- [47:39]
Stephen K. Bannon
Neil, what's the, what's the feeling over at the, at the White House? I know people are hunkered down. I think they've put, I think they've canceled tours. It's, it's, it's very, you know, it's kind of general quarters over there 24 hours a day. I realize that gets, you know, people's nerves get frayed. What's your sense of the White House? How are things hanging together over there?
- [48:02]
Neil McCabe
This is like two realities. About half an hour ago, J.D. vance's motorcade rolled in. He walked into the West Wing. The president right now is in what they call executive time, so he's in meetings. All that's closed to the press. And then tonight the president and Melania are going to go to the Trump Kennedy center for the opening night of Chicago. And so there's you know, there's two different realities going on. There's the war track and then everything is fine. Track STEVE
- [48:31]
Stephen K. Bannon
yeah, business as usual. NEIL where do people get you reporting 247 tomorrow? We're going to I will talk to you after the show. Want to deploy you if it if the war can spare you, deploy you over to the Supreme Court for this historic argument of the US Government about getting rid of the birthright citizenship. Where do people get you, sir?
- [48:53]
Neil McCabe
STEVE they can find me on all the socials at reporter McCabe
- [48:59]
Stephen K. Bannon
thank you brother. Appreciate you. Okay, what we're going to do is take a short commercial break. We're going to be back We've got we're going to go to Rome. There's so much to report this morning. Most of this discussion has now shifted as we've been talking about for the last couple days. Where are the allies? Where are they stepping up? And I mean all of them from Israel to the Arab states to the Gulf, let's see we're throwing Asian in there. Where are they to to bear this burden that our young men and women are are currently bearing? All of want to make sure people get if you're 65 or older, if you're dealing with Medicare, there are literally a billion dollars. What is a it's a it's what a billion dollars in fees every year right out of Medicare that are misappropriate because people don't have the right advice. Go to call 845 War Room. This is the new company chapter. You get a free consultation even if you're already in a Medicare plan. If it's bugging you right, call them up. They will give you a free consultation to tell you exactly if that's the right plan for you and what you can do. Either perfect it or get a new plan. 845-war- room. That's chapter 845-war- room. Call them today. Get a free totally free consultation. We already know from feedback from the war Positive that you will you will find this enlightening, if nothing else. Chapter at 845 War Room. Short break. Back in a moment.