Transcript
David Pakman (0:00)
The United States is at war or are we? The administration can't decide. On the one hand, we're not at war because they didn't get a declaration. On the other hand, Pete Hegseth says this is a war. In any case, the antiwar president has launched regime change. The Ayatollah Khamenei is dead. American troops have already been killed. And Trump casually says that's the way it is and there will be more US Troops kill, killed. Now, meanwhile, the so called regime change operation is being characterized five different ways, depending on which legal problem they're trying to solve. And as if that were not enough, we've got reports that war plans were being bragged about out loud in a D.C. restaurant hours before the bombs fell. Remember when Tulsi Gabbard warned us about unconstitutional war powers when it wasn't Trump as president? Well, both Tulsi's old statements and Ted Cruz's new ones really undercut the legality and the purpose of what is happening in Iran. And now the question becomes, what is the plan and who is really in control here? All of that and more. Today, The anti war president and winner of the FIFA Peace Enterprise inaugural, of course, has done the unthinkable. Or has he? The United States is now at war with Iran, or are we? Is it a special military operation? Is it simply a political assassination? Is it actually a war? And if it is a war, is it a legal one? What on earth is happening to American foreign policy? I'm going to break it all down for you, going to give you my thoughts. And I think it's important to start with the Ayatollah was a terrible theocratic leader. No one is denying that. If you were simply to say, I mean, listen, 90 plus million people in Iran under the brutal oppression of this theocratic regime, it's hard to find more appropriate people to want deposed. Very difficult. The Ayatollah would be at the top of the list. But what we have to ask are really three questions and we're going to go through these here. Number one, was this legal? Number two, is it advisable for the United States to be doing it? And number three, even if you're fine with the United States doing it, is Trump the guy we want running the thing, given his corruption? So let's come back to that. A lot of different news headlines dropping over the weekend. The United States and Israel now, with the help of the UK apparently, which is going to allow the US to launch missiles from their territory, launched attacks on Iran on a number of sites and early rumors were ultimately confirmed that the Ayatollah Khamenei was killed. The supreme leader of Iran, Iranians mostly rejoicing. That's true. And I don't think that we need to pretend as though the average Iranian is really angry about this. Iranians, especially young Iranians, of which there are many, have been to the degree that they are comfortable, expressing dissatisfaction and disgust for a very long time with this theocratic regiment. Iran now is retaliating. Iran attacking Europe, Iran attacking Israel, Iran attacking Dubai. There are fears of potential sleeper cells in the United States. And Iran has made very clear that all bets are now off and they will be doing what they can to target Americans, American troops, the United States. And so whatever we think about the attack carried out against Iran, we also have to consider what are the follow on effects going to be. And is the average American in the United States safer or more at risk? Is the average American abroad safer or more at risk? That's number one. Secondly, we then look at Russia's response. Russia has now said, well, Donald Trump has untied our hands, suggesting that any restraint Russia was exhibiting now goes away because they feel as though the United States has crossed some kind of red line. And now whether it is in shared defense of Iran or for whatever other reason or for Russia's ambitions in Ukraine, that their hands are now untied. We also have reporting that the Saudi crown prince was secretly in favor of this attack and lobbying for it. And this is something that I got a lot of emails from folks in the audience sort of confused, saying, you know, David, it seems as though there are other countries in the region that are actually happy about this, despite being what we call Muslim countries. And that is absolutely true. And again, this is all I'm just trying to give you the most factual assessment possible here. It doesn't make the attack right or wrong. And we're going to get into that in a moment. We are. It is there are some countries in the Middle east that despite having shared religion with Iran, sort of, because remember that not all of these predominantly Muslim countries adhere to the same teachings or the same sects of Islam. And that's a relevant story. The Saudis, for example, have great interest in stability in the region and therefore they see Iran for what it is, which is a sort of tinderbox ready to explode and in a very economically damaging way. You need only look at the stock market, which opened very down. Now it's up a little bit. It's unclear where it'll end up. But futures down hundreds of points, oil markets thrown into chaos. You need only look at that to understand, wow, the Emiratis, the Saudis. There are a lot of countries in that region that see Iran as a similar threat to that which the United States, the uk, Israel and other allies side. Okay, so that's the sort of framework and set up for this. Now, I think that there is a lot to be gleaned here from listening to some Iranian Americans. And one of them is friend of the show, Congresswoman Yaseen Ansari, who put out a tweet that I think in three paragraphs really well explains a lot of what the stakes are here. Let's put that up on the screen. She wrote, quote, khamenei was the epitome of evil. For decades, he oversaw the torture, imprisonment and murder of countless Iranians who dared to demand freedom. American blood is on his hands as well. No one should mourn him, and his death is a relief. But removing one man does not dismantle a brutal regime. Military force alone will not secure a democratic future for the Iranian people. And it risks putting US Troops in further danger if there is no serious plan for what comes next. An action of this magnitude demands strategy, clarity, and a credible path forward. She finishes by saying, I want nothing more than a free Iran and safety and security for innocent Iranians. That requires more than force. It requires seriousness, accountability, and a real plan to support the Iranian people in determining their own future. So there is a lot there, and I think that that is very well said. Let's go through this in layers. I wanted the Iranian regime out. That is a terrible regime of human rights abuse, theocratic extremism. It is nasty stuff by any sense of the word. And maybe you are in category one, which is you are happy that the Ayatollah is out. But then the question becomes, 86 year old Ayatollah known succession planning had been done, does killing the Ayatollah really end the regime? I worry that the answer is it doesn't. The next question is, well, what about the US Doing regime change? Many in my audience will say, ayatollah out, that's phenomenal. But I don't want the United States being involved in regime change. And part of the reason why maybe that the United States being involved in regime change has gone so horribly wrong for so long and it kind of sort of seems to be illegal. But maybe you actually say, hey, you know what, I'm for the greater good and I am okay with the United States being involved in regime change. Right. So we're going with the. If even if you believe, if you believe that the ayatollah out is good, and if you have no problem with the United States being involved in regime change in Iran because you believe it is for the greater good, do you really want the United States under Trump managing that regime change? Trump, where everything is self serving, mismanaged, run by a cadre of clown car tools like Pete Hegseth and others, and done for his own benefit, for his own enrichment, for the enrichment of his family and his friends. And that's where you have to say that this is. Even if you are willing to say, I don't really, I'm not. They assassinated the Ayatollah. I'm okay with that. The US Is involved in regime change. I'm okay with that. I would still argue that Trump being the one running it, even if you've passed all of those initial thresholds I just mentioned, is an absolute disaster. And by the way, Trump doesn't give a damn about the service members that have already been killed. Trump says there will be more and that's the way it is. And that's what I want to talk about next. Hours ago, Donald Trump confirmed that three US Service members are dead and many injured and that there will likely be more due to his decision to strike Iran. That's the way it is, Donald Trump said. No visible hesitation, no sense of gravity or responsibility. He got a note not to go to Vietnam for bone spurs. So everybody who's there must want to be there, right? It's just an inevitability. Let's watch the clip. By the way, since this video, a fourth American service member is believed dead. Let's take a look.