Transcript
Chris Cuomo (0:00)
The President of the United States is on the precipice of what can do the most good or bad to his presidency. And it comes down to two questions involving the regime in Iran. Iran versus Israel is not accurate. You have the regime in Iran, you have the people, you have Israel, you have America, and you have the rest of the world. And all are in play in this situation. And it comes down to two basic questions for the President of the United States that he is going to have to answer. And what's happening with maga? What's happening in social media? There's a lot of noise, but they're not answering the questions. I'll lay them out. I'll. I'll give you the options. Let's get after it. I'm Chris Cuomo. Thank you for joining me here on the Chris Cuomo Podcast. Here are the two questions. Does America have to stop the regime in Iran from enriching uranium? Yes or no? Okay, that's the first question. Let's say the answer is no. They do not have to stop the regime from enriching uranium. Now, some of you are going to say that's absurd. Look, MAGA is imploding on this question right now. Now, I knew this was going to happen, not about the Iranian regime and nukes, but I knew MAGA would have to, at some point implode, because that's what happens with extreme agendas. And I knew it would happen with Wokeism as well. Eventually, these things collapse under the weight of themselves. So within MAGA right now, you have isolationists. We don't do anything in America for anybody but ourselves. That's what we do. And then you have the we gotta kill bad people and we gotta stick by Israel and the hawks that used to be the Republicans, and they're in conflict with each other. And sure, there's something interesting and sporting about watching Mark Levin and Sean Hann and other people on the right beat the snot out of Rogan's rogue comic buddies and all of these other complete neophytes who decided to have opinions about things that they don't understand and get into the business of provocation. And now you got Tucker Carlson and literally some joker saying one thing, and they're going against other MAGA guys about whether or not we should bomb Iran. And none of them are dealing with the right questions. And certainly they don't have answers about what to do if you don't bomb. So let's go back to the question. Does America have to stop the regime in Iran from enriching uranium to weapons grade. Right. I'll add that part. Because if they just want it for a nuclear reactor, that's what was in the original agreement. But they're doing like 20 times more than that. All right, let's say the answer is no. How can the answer be no? Well, look around the world. There are a lot of people have nukes that we don't see as an existential threat. And there are a lot of bad actors that have nukes. People who don't like us. China, Russia, North Korea. Right. Unstable places. Pakistan, maybe India. Why does this one matter so much? What does it matter if there is one more? Now, the better answer to why the answer is no. The better explanation is not yet. Not yet. Now, not yet gets a lot of weight from me. Why? Because the idea that Israel has learned that they're much closer to getting a bomb one doesn't seem to comport with American intelligence. Because they were going to go meet with the guys in Oman. So clearly they didn't think that they were on the verge of attacking us, because then they wouldn't have been meeting that way. And I'm sure you've seen the Daily show clip, Bibi. Netanyahu has been saying that Iran is on the verge of doing this for almost 10 years. Why? Because he fears them and he wants to take them out. Now, does that mean that America should feel the same way? No, not necessarily. So that's the better answer to no, you don't have to stop them this way. Okay, but I still think. Now you go to the other answer. Yes, America does have to stop the regime in Iran from enriching uranium. Why? Because even Russia, even China, even India, North Korea, none of them exist under the motto of destroying America. Overtly, egregiously, explicitly, enthusiastically, the way Iran's regime does. Not the people separate the regime from the people. The idea of we're going to go to war with Iran, Iranians are bad. No, we're talking about a regime. A despotic, oppressive, theocratic, Islamist regime. It's different. The people are under the yoke of oppression there. Okay? It's not unlike what's happening in Gaza. The difference is the regime is a lot more powerful than Hamas. They have a lot more weapons at their disposal and capabilities. We're seeing that now. You've got like 90 million people in Iran. It's a huge place. It's a top 20 population in the world. It's top four in the region. Right behind Pakistan, India and a couple others. Right. Maybe one other. So It's a huge population, it's very powerful, and the regime is very formidable. So. But the answer, therefore, if you go down the road of yes, you do have to stop them. Why? Because they want to destroy you. And as soon as they get a nuke, they're going to be playing a very, very dangerous and intentional game in a way that we've seen nobody else do. Now, you don't have to believe that you can say, ah, that's what you said about North Korea, and nothing's happened there. I would say this is a distinction with a difference. Islamism in the extreme is set up to destroy the West. They do believe we are the Great Satan. North Korea doesn't want us fucking with them. There's a difference. So if the answer is yes, now you have the problem where everybody else is stuck. You don't want to bomb them. You want Israel to stop. Okay, then how do you stop the regime from getting nukes? Now, you only have one answer. And I think it's the one that President Trump is going to be most comfortable with. And I think it's most natural posture for him. Okay. And I believe that in terms of timing, this is his best option. Okay? And again, I take some comfort, despite all the noise and all the provocation and all the punking and all the pushing that's going on in the media, but really social media, with all these podcast fringe types trying to motivate their agendas for clicks time militates in favor of saying, we're going to stop you, but not that way, not yet. I think the most likely play that comports with what Trump believes, which is what? Military action is almost always a waste of blood and money. You don't get enough back for it. Now, you, you can criticize that he's not principled enough, he's not moral enough, he doesn't have a code. He doesn't want to fight to protect democracy and to free people and all these other noble aims that are often ascribed to violence. No, he doesn't believe those things, but that works in favor of our analysis here, which is why he won't want to do this. There's not enough upside and there is tremendous downside and he isn't wrong. And he is a deal maker and he is a saber rattler. Okay? And I do believe. Well, but he's saying, I told you, I told you now. Evacuate Iran. It sounds like he's going to attack. And the Israeli media said he's going to attack. Look, Israel is an ally. Israel's under an existential threat. But you've got to look at it through that lens, okay? They have every reason to want America to want to join them in this, and they may be saying things that are provocative and evocative of that result. And I don't believe that. I don't believe that America was bombing last night, and they weren't. Those reports were wrong. And I don't believe we're on the verge of doing it now. I think it's under consideration. Sure. These guys want to take you out, and there's every reason to believe that they're enriching uranium at a rate that only leads in one direction. Okay? It's either used to fuel vessels and assets that they don't have or to make weapons. But Trump is a dealmaker, and I believe that the message he's going to arrive at is regime. Do you want me to let Israel and help Israel keep tenderizing you like this, or do you want to sit down at the table? And I think that he presents it as a last, clear chance. Some will see it as weakness, and they'll be wrong. Some will see it as strength, and they'll be wrong. It will be practicality, and it will be a message that the world needs to see and hear, which is Trump told Iran they could do this a different way. And look, he's already said that. But here's what's wrong with the current messaging. I gave you 60 days. You didn't do it. I told you this was going to happen. Now you got to abandon and you've got to evacuate and all this other stuff. He can't do it unilaterally. He needs Iran, the regime specifically, not the Iranian people, because they don't have the power here. They are subjugated by this regime. The regime needs to come out and says, fuck you, we're not going to do it now. We're not going to do it now. The world has seen Trump gave him a chance, gave him a chance to do a deal, gave him a chance to do it civilly, and they rejected it. And then we'll see what the next step is. But right now, that is what makes the most sense, as opposed to doing a naked bombing effort. Now, I don't even know that that would be legal. Okay. Why? Because there is this really rushed rationale that people are offering. Well, but, I mean, you just said they're about to create nuclear bombs, so there's an emergency, so we can do it. An emergency needs proof. Okay? You have three different avenues of use of force here. You have the United States Constitution. You have the authorizations for use of military force, which are from 2001 and 2. And you have the War Powers act or War powers resolution from 1973. The AUMF is a joke and is only proof of Congress ducking its duty because it got burned by the Iraq war. The idea that that is the basis of action 9 11, and going after the people responsible for 911 or the 2002 one, that has to do with Iraq and what's happening in Iraq and who's sponsoring what's happening in Iraq, none of that applies here. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. Okay, then you have the Constitution that he has the ability to protect us in a time of emergency. This is not an emergency as far as we know. Again, I get what Israel's saying, but he's been saying that for almost 10 years. All right? We do not know that they're on the verge of having a weapon. We haven't had that show. We don't know that the United States thinks that. And the President would have to make that clear in order to have any unilateral power here. Then you go to the War powers Act of 1973, and people keep saying, yeah, he can do it. Under that, he has 48 hours to tell Congress, no, no, no. If he satisfies one of the four requirements that allow him troop movements or any type of introduction of US Military that means bombing, any kind of staffing movement, anything like that, you can even argue material support if somebody who's doing it would qualify. You have to show that an attack is imminent, that there is something about to happen or that has happened and that is not satisfied. And especially the 1973 War Powers act is sensitive to what Congress's posture is. And that's why you have members of Congress who are trying to quickly come up with a resolution that they do not believe that military power or force or action is legally justified right now. And if they say that, then there is a burden on the President to make a case before he does anything. And I think that is right. I don't think it's a usurpation of the executive. The Constitution is pretty clear. The Founding Fathers were pretty clear, okay? A president is not a king, okay? And he is not supposed to unilaterally make those kinds of decisions. Congress is supposed to declare war. The President makes war. He conducts off of their decision. He readies, he prepares within the executive in terms of planning and structure and training and how monies are Used that are apportioned. But he doesn't declare war except in extreme circumstances. And I don't know that that requirement is satisfied. Support comes from Lucy. Listen, smoking kills, okay? But there are many of us who have habits and we are prone to habits. So how about having one that is 100% pure nicotine because that's what you need, but it is always tobacco free. Lucy breakers are nicotine pouches, but they have a little bit of a surprise. What's the surprise? Each pouch has a capsule that can be broken open to release extra flavor and hydration. Okay? So you don't have the dry mouth that you can get with other pouches. Set yourself up up with a subscription and have Lucy delivered straight to your door. Now, look, you can argue about it, but I'm telling you, if you're into it, if it works for you, why not do it in the best, least compromised way? That's Lucy. You're gonna have a nicotine routine. Let's level it up with Lucy. Go to Lucy Co Cuomo and use the promo code Cuomo and you'll get 20% off your first order. Lucy has a 30 day refund policy, so you can always change your mind. Again, that's Luci Co. Use the code Cuomo and you'll get 20% off. So the two questions, do you have to stop them? No or yes? If yes, then how? And nobody wants to deal with that on social media right now. They either have an opinion, go in there and do it or don't do it. If you say don't do it, then what would you do then? How do you stop them? Now I think that your best answer, which a lot of you aren't offering, you know, it's just, oh, impeach the President and he already did it, by allowing Israel to go in and do, and do that. Listen again, welcome to politics, welcome to geopolitics. You naive rube that you think that this is something unusual, that America knew Israel was going to do this in Iran and let it happen anyway. You don't think that happens all the time? And now you think he should be impeached? Seriously, what a joke. It just reveals how shallow, how basic, how emotional these MAGA folks can be. And the fringe on the other side also just, this isn't their kerfuffle yet, but the idea that he shouldn't be impeached for what they were talking about. But you want him impeached for this?
