Charlie Kirk (38:17)
So I see it as a threefold approach. One is the domestic political risk that it poses to the Trump 2024 coalition going forward in terms of political capital to get things done on the Hill, but also in terms of the midterms and in ultimately 2028. The second area of concern is geopolitical. In other words, how likely are we able to achieve an objective that would be favorable to American interest and would be perceived as favorable to American interests going forward? And then third is whether or not this is a use of our military that is constitutional, that is clearly legal and lawful, and that won't put our men and men and women at undue risk of harm for a unachievable objective. So from the domestic political side, I just think it it fractures the Trump 2024 base. It shrinks MAGA. More and more people are not identifying as MAGA. That's why you can get I think Richard Barris calls people's pundit, calls it purification through subtraction. So Trump may look at it and say, oh, I have 90% support, but it's of a shrinking base. That's not a good situation to be in politically in terms of domestic political capital to get things done on the Hill. But also in terms of the midterms, the and there was a big part of his base that was anti war. There was another part of his base that's libertarian that leans non intervention. Since 2015, he's campaigned very effectively as the peace president, the anti war candidate. This undermines and sabotages that entire public perception and thereby impairs his coalition from an electoral perspective and political capital. That was the degree to which he is seen as unpopular on the Hill limits his ability to get things done legislatively. The. But then you go to the geopolitics of it and it's for all the reasons and the military side of it that Charlie identified last year that you dig into this. It's unlikely that a regime, a we can attain a peaceful, free Iranian society and government through bombing them into such an agreement. And so as he pointed out that you know, the Shia are built on a culture of suffering. It's, you know, the Charlie was very good at developing strategic empathy and people sometimes confuse that with sympathy. It's, you don't sympathize with the Iranian regime. You can strategically empathize with it so that you understand it. And if you understand the culture and the people and the people in power, but also the people that could contest or challenge that power, then you have a sense of how probable or likely a sequence of events are using military or martial means. And what Charlie identified is that they have the, they have the means to militarily resist in ways that we cannot completely suppress. That they're unlikely to change their regime because the part of the Shia Islamic Charlie loved to study religions around the world and understand what motivated people around the world. But the Shia Islam religion is built on martyrdom, it's built on suffering, it's built on sacrifice. That's why the Ayatollah was happy to be martyred at the beginning of this conflict and he's now been replaced by his son. His son who is more. This is one of the points Charlie made that you got to look at who is likely to replace the existing regime. And there you look at who is likely to replace him. Well, it's more hardliners, people that are more likely to acquire nuclear weapons rather than less. More likely to be anti US and anti Israel than less. The new Ayatoll, new Ayatollah just had the Americans and the Israelis kill his father, kill his mother, kill his wife, kill his son and kill his niece. One year old niece. So what's the likelihood he's going to be really pro American? Unlikely. He's known as more of a hardliner, etc. So then you have the, so that's, you know, scenario number one is that it's unlikely to achieve, achieve a peaceful, free, democratic, pro Israel, pro US Regime. So why are we risking American resources? Why are we risking American men and women? Why are we risking Trump's domestic political coalition and his political capital?
