← The Michael Knowles Show
The Michael Knowles Show
Ep. 1922 - "I Got Him First" Trump's War In Iran Explained In 5 Mins
01:01:50
Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:00]
A
It's tax season, and at Lifelock, we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for the threats you can't control. Terms apply. The United States has launched a preemptive war in the Middle east based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the desire to liberate a people from a regime that we wish to change in a country whose name starts with the letters I R, A. And then one more. Does that sound familiar? Are you having deja vu? Yes. Hold on. Two things here, and they kind of oppose each other, but let's just get this straight right off the bat. Yes, it seems crazy that the President who ran specifically against the Bush era regime change wars is now launching perhaps the biggest Middle east regime change war that we've ever seen. Yes, right off the bat, that's crazy. Here's the second part, though, the craziest part of all of it is that this time it might actually work. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. Welcome back to the show. There's a lot of Iran to talk about. A lot of Iran we're gonna be running. At the end of this show, you'll say I ran a marathon today talking about this conflict. However, I hope we have time to get to Shia LaBeouf's great interview, one of the greatest interviews I've ever seen, in which he talks about his faith, what he would say if he met Jesus. We will get to all of it. First though, I want to tell you about Cowboy colostrum. Go to cowboycolostrum.com knowltz k n a W L E S if you are ready to finally see real results this spring. Better digestion, glowing skin and stronger hair, just like mine. And steady energy that lasts. Start where it all begins. Your gut. Once your gut is right, everything else falls into place. That is why I've partnered with Cowboy Colostrum. The highest quality bovine colostrum made right here in America from 100% grass fed cows. This is not the watered down, over processed stuff you see all over the Internet. Cowboy colostrum is true. First day, whole colostrum, rich, full fat, loaded with bioactives. Like immunoglobulins and growth factors. Do not worry. It's ethically collected only after the calves get their share. Colostrum is nature's original superfood. It strengthens your gut lining, calms inflammation and boosts immunity, which means clearer skin, thicker hair, stronger nails, and less bloating. Right now, head on over. Our listeners will get up to 25% off their entire order. Just. Just go to cowboycolostrum.com Knowles K A W L E S Use code Knowles at checkout. This is approved not only by Mr. Davies, who has sworn by Colostrum for a long time, but also by sweet little Alisa. Okay, Those are big endorsements. You go to cowboycolostrum.com knowles get 25% off when you use code Knowles at checkout. I want to get into what happened in Iran. I want to get into the political calculation leading up to it. I wanna get into the three different camps that you can find yourself in. People seem to think there are only two camps. Pro war in Iran, anti war. I think there are really three. And I think it tells you a lot about Trump's thinking. I wanna get into the grand strategy of it all. Were we dragged into this war? Did we lead this war? What's this war even for? Is it about regime change? Is it about nukes? Is it about freedom? Is it about American interest? Wanna get into all of that? However, the first thing I have to touch on is the liberal media's reaction because the US And Israel launched the strikes on Saturday, Friday night. No, I guess it would be early Saturday morning, Iran. But we wake up in the United States on Saturday. This has happened and it worked. It took out the whole top of the Iranian regime, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. People are saying Ayatollah Khomeini like the first supreme Leader of Iran, but it's Khamenei. Even I mispronounce it. And I've been saying this name for many years. Khamenei. Khamenei, whatever. Doesn't really matter now. You know, we're not gonna be talking about him too much longer anyway. Here is what the Washington Post said in their obituary of the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, is dead at 86. Hold on, let me get to the. Hold on. No, it's not the first part. Here it is. With his bushy white beard and easy smile, Ayatollah Khamenei cut a more avuncular figure in public than his perpetually scowling but much more revered mentor. And he was known to be fond of Persian poetry and classic Western novels, especially Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. They will never outdo this one. We thought that the liberal media, I think it was the Washington Post, actually had reached the peak when the leader of ISIS was killed, and they referred to him as an austere religious scholar. Abu Bakr Ab Baghdadi, an austere religious scholar, was struck down today. But this, this beats that one by a country mile. With his bushy beard and easy smile, they turned the Ayatollah into Jihad Santa Claus. It's unbelievable. Bushy beard, easy smile. Oh, that affable Ayatollah. He was avuncular, wasn't he? That's a great word. I do love the word avuncular. He was avuncular, and he loved Persian poetry and he loved Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. There were actually these tweets from the ayatollah, I guess I don't know if the Ayatollah really was much of a reader, but he certainly presented himself as a reader. There were all of these tweets going around of all the books he'd read. One of them going around yesterday was that he had read Umberto Echoes the Name of the Rose. So I remember one time I read the Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, and I thought, okay, well, now I can confirm two bad things have happened to this man in his life. But that novel's not good. That's a bad novel. And Les Miserables, okay, anyway, I don't think those are the salient facts about the ayatollah's life. He is not Jihad Santa Claus. He was the leader of a nation that from its inception, from the beginning of the regime, had been opposed to the United States. The regime begins by taking American hostages, by overthrowing the American ally, the Shah, and then taking American hostages. And they have been declaring jihad against the United states for the 49 or so 49, 46 years of its existence. So Trump launches Operation Epic Fury. He alerted the nation. Here's his telling of the operation.
- [07:43]
B
Over the past 36 hours, the United States and its partners have launched Operation Epic Fury, one of the largest, most complex, most overwhelming military offensives the world has ever seen. Nobody's seen anything like it. We have hit hundreds of targets in Iran, including Revolutionary Guard facilities, Iranian air defense systems. Just now was announced that we knocked out nine ships, plus their naval building, all in a matter of literally minutes. Iran's formerly supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei is dead. This wretched and vile man died like a dog of hundreds and even thousands of Americans on his hands and was responsible for the slaughter of countless thousands of innocent people all across many countries. The entire military command is gone as well.
- [08:49]
A
Okay, so there are three camps on war with Iran. People have been debating this for a long time. And I have been making the case chiefly that probably we should not go to war with Iran, that probably the reward was not worth the cost. However, we have to be very clear about the camps here, because there are arguments that can be made that cover multiple camps. The three camps, as I see it, are the peaceniks who are just simply opposed to war. No more war ever again. The peaceniks used to be chiefly on the left. In recent years you've seen a lot of them on the new right as well. You then have the idealists, the idealists, the neocons, the hawks who have basically never seen an adversarial country they didn't want to bomb. The kind of people who believe not only should we intervene in pursuit of American interest, but we should intervene in pursuit of American ideals. We need to spread democracy all around the world and maybe that will have good practical effects in the end. But ideologically we cannot tolerate totalitarianism or authority, authoritarianism or anything that in any way diverges from Madisonian liberal democracy, if we even still have that. That's the idealist, hawkish camp. And then there are the people in the middle who are realists, who are pragmatic, who are, one might even say, America first, certainly in the way Trump means it. I think that's the camp that Trump is in, the camp that wants America to be strong, maybe to help the world order, cuz we are the global empire, but also to be strong so that we can be strong to benefit the American people. The kind of group that says we need to be tough and intervene around the world so that we get better trade deals, so that Americans stop being threatened when we go abroad, so that our enemies do not advance. Enemies like China and Russia. We're going to intervene sometimes when it's in our interest, when the intervention can be done efficiently, when the benefit will outweigh the cost. That's that camp. And so right off the bat, when we're talking about Iran, I'm just gonna write off the peaceniks, the kind of people who say we should never go to war, war is always terrible or whatever. That's just not a serious opinion. I have friends who hold that opinion on the left and the right, I guess. But that's not a serious opinion. You don't even get to join the conversation if that's your view. I'm reminded of C.S. lewis's excellent essay against pacifism. That's just. I don't think it's a serious moral point of view, but I certainly don't think it's a serious point in statecraft. So write that one off. Now we're left with the realist, pragmatic types and the hawks and the idealist and the neocon types. So which is this? I think that the decision to go to war in Iran was not chiefly led by the neocons and the hawks. I think it was a battle from within the realist, pragmatic, practical camp. When President Trump says America first, he's been clear about what that means from the beginning. Some people want to pretend that America first means America's not involved anywhere in the world, and we never use our military and we never go to war. That has never been what Trump has meant by that. Don't forget, when Trump launched America first, this iteration of America first, back in 2015, 2016, one of his promises was to go destroy ISIS. So not only did he talk about intervention, he talked about military intervention. Not only military intervention, but military intervention in the Middle East. Clearly, what he means by America first is in that center camp. We need to be strong. We need to pursue our interests. We need to be respected on the world stage. So that's the debate. Now, had I been on the National Security Council and nobody invited me, but had I been on it, I probably would have made the argument that the risks were too high, that the benefits were not totally clear, that things could spiral out of control, and things could still spiral out of control. By the way, the early few days have been very, very promising. There are a billion things that could go wrong. So I probably would have made that argument. But notably, that would not have been a peacenik argument. And I don't think the argument that Trump is making is some neocon kind of argument. I think Trump's argument is, yeah, yeah, it's high risk, but I can do it. I'm the man who can do it. I'm the man who can get all these benefits for us. I'm gonna take the risk. Trump's a risk taker. He's. I won't say a gambler, but. Cause he does it with skill. And he's. But Trump's gonna come in and say, I have a great record on Foreign policy. Look what I did in Venezuela. Look what I did in the Middle east in my first term. Look what I did in Russia, Ukraine. I prevented that war from breaking out until Biden got in. I can do it. And so the debate is not really over ideology. It's not really over even grand strategy preferences, though we'll get to what that means. It's really a debate over, can this guy, can this guy really effect US Foreign policy better than any president in our lifetimes? And we don't know. It remains to be seen. We are in the early days of this war, which President Trump says is gonna go on for four weeks, maybe five weeks. You know, famous last words for some other presidents, however, we have to observe, the first few days have been extremely effective, extremely successful beyond most people's wildest imagination. And President Trump has the best record on foreign policy practically in my lifetime. So even if some of us would have said, I don't think it's worth the risk, I think we should just deal with the Iranian regime, even though we've been at odds with them since 1979, even if that's the art, really, there's not a disagreement on strategy here. All the serious people want to get rid of the Iranian regime. In an ideal world, the only question is, can we actually pull this off? Thus far, President Trump is giving us a lot of reason to believe that. Now, what this means is that when we read President Trump's no stupid wars, no more stupid wars promise from 2016, we heard that. A lot of people heard that as no more wars. The emphasis was on the word wars. But what President Trump is showing is, no, no, no, the emphasis was on the word stupid. When we say no more endless wars, we heard wars. The emphasis was on the word endless. I think Pete Hegseth just made that point. I think Pete made a statement, maybe this morning. Here's the Secretary of War to the
- [15:40]
B
media outlets and political left screaming, endless wars.
- [15:43]
A
Stop.
- [15:45]
B
This is not Iraq. This is not endless. I was there for both. Our generation knows better, and so does this president. He called the last 20 years of nation building wars dumb. And he's right. This is the opposite. This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission. Destroy the missile threat, destroy the Navy, no nukes. Israel has clear missions as well, for which we are grateful. Capable partners. As we've said since the beginning, capable partners are good partners. Unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force.
- [16:32]
A
There you have it. This Will not be an endless war. This will not be. We're going fast. I think what's confounding a lot of people about this, and again, a billion things could go wrong, but the fact that this worked so effectively, what's shocking to a lot of millennials, certainly to a lot of zoomers, maybe even to a lot of Gen X, is that in our lifetimes, we have never seen the United States military truly unleashed. We've always put all these constraints around it. You know, I mean, under Bush, after the initial days of the global war on terror, the US Military was told to function basically as an ngo, as some kind of UN nonprofit or something, to hand out goodies to the locals. They were constrained. Under Obama, they were especially constrained. And so you saw these bungling missteps that were generated really by the political class in Washington, not by the US Military. And I think looking at these operations, Venezuela and now Iran, I think a lot of people are just shocked to discover the amazing strength from the perspective of technology and personnel, the just amazing, awe inspiring force of the United States military, because we hadn't seen that unleashed. And that changes the calculation. So just to wrap up that bit, should we go to war in Iran? Should we not? Obviously. Alia iacta est. The die is cast. But everyone is debating this from the perspective of ideology. Well, I'm an interventionist and you're an isolationist. Isolationist, which is always a term of derision, always a term of insult. No, I'm a non interventionist and I'm a liberty loving America first and you're a warmonger. It's all from ideology. That's not what this is about. About the questions that we don't have answers to, frankly, outside of the government. Maybe the government doesn't have answers either, but we certainly do not outside the government. Is was the threat posed by Iran really that great? We don't really know. The government could be lying about it. The government might not even know, but we certainly do not know. Was the threat posed by Iran really that great? And two, can we really effectively and efficiently install a friendly regime in Iran? Those are the two questions. Not should America ever intervene or not? Should we spread democracy or has nothing to do with any of that. I think from Trump's perspective, certainly from my perspective, those are the two questions. What really was the threat? How effectively really can we install a pro Western regiment? If the threat was high and we can easily install a pro Western regime, then obviously this was awesome. This was like the greatest thing ever. Trump will go down as one of the greatest presidents in American history. Replacing this regime in Iran has been a pretty high American priority since 1979. If the threat was not that high and we get bogged down in an endless war, Trump will have destroyed his legacy and he will go down in much the same way as George W. Bush. That is serious risk that this guy is taking based on his confidence in the United States military and his confidence in his own statesmanship. Say what you will, that takes serious guliens. Okay, we will get into the reasons for the war. What has happened since there were protests according to the liberal media at US Embassies, especially an embassy in Pakistan. The there too, you saw the US Military unleashed. This ain't the Obama era guys. This is the real deal. We will get into what happens next and when I can finally get Cuban tobacco to blend into Mayflower cigars for the next country that we take over. First though, I wanna tell you about Ave Maria Mutual funds. Go to avemariafunds.com Michael M I C H A E L I for one, believe that you should not have to compromise your values when it comes to investing. Why put your money into companies that go against what you believe in? That is exactly why I love our sponsor, Ave Maria Mutual Funds, and why I am proud to serve on their board. In fact, I just got back from a board meeting for Ave Maria Mutual Funds and I think it's just terrific. I think they're great from the financial perspective and I think they're really great from the moral perspective. And when you can marry those two things, that's wonderful. They've been around since 2001. Founded by George Schwartz. Today they manage nearly $4 billion in assets with more than 100,000 shareholders. What sets them apart is simple. They refuse to invest in companies tied to abortion, pornography, embryonic stem cell research or those supporting Planned Parenthood. Whether you're saving for retirement, your kid's education, or you just want to grow your wealth responsibly, Ave Maria Mutual Funds offers a range of options so you do not have to compromise. Learn more at avemariafunds.com Michael M I C H A E L that is avemariafunds.Com Michael all mutual funds are subject to market risk, including possible loss of principal requested prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, fees, charges and expenses and another information you should read carefully and consider carefully before investing. The prospectus can be obtained by calling 1-866-283-6274 or can be viewed at ivamereafunds.com IvyMerea mutual funds are distributed by Ultimus Fund Distributors, LLC. What are the reasons for war? I want to be real specific. I want to really drill down here on what we're doing. One reason that has been suggested is that Iran was on the brink of a nuclear weapon. Something we've been hearing, in my case, almost every year of my life since I was born. What, since the 90s? Really? Since the 80s. We've been hearing this since before I was born. Iran is on the brink of a nuclear weapon. According to reporting and sources from Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Was Iran really on the brink of a nuclear weapon? No. Were they pursuing a nuclear weapon? Yes. Did Trump's military strikes on Fordo last year set back the nuclear program? Yes, obviously. But it couldn't be the case that that was a totally successful operation and Iran was once again on the brink of nuclear weapons. That would be contradictory. But that's not even what was being claimed. Iran was continuing to pursue nuclear weapons. Trump was clearly unhappy with how the negotiations were going. We tried to negotiate with Iran for almost 50 years. They just wouldn't. They wouldn't play ball. So Trump said, okay, well, look, I gave him a serious hit over the summer. They didn't want to play ball after that, I guess I got to take out the regime. So, brink of nuclear weapons? Probably not. There was another claim that Iran was about to launch an attack on U.S. interests. And so we had to preempt that because they were about to launch a missile attack any day now. There is really no evidence of that at all. I think that is just pure propaganda flying around from where? I'm not totally sure. But according to the people who were debriefing Congress on this matter, apparently no. Iran was not about to launch an attack on U.S. interests. Now, you could observe that Iran had already seriously harmed US interests, cuz Iran has killed about 1000 US troops over the course of its regime, going all the way back to the 1980s and a lot during the global war on terror and even recently. It's not like it was over, you know, 10 years ago. Iran killed three Americans just two years ago. I think it was January of 2024. So we went in and we blew up the Iranian Revolutionary Guard headquarters, among other military assets. There's video going all around about this, aircraft carriers and destroyers, and we blew it up. Okay. Another cause of the war that's been floated is Israel. Did Israel try to drag us into this war? I think the answer is yes. Right. According to the Washington Post. The answer is yes, according to Washington Post reporting, which, again, grain of salt. You know, they're the ones who said that the Ayatollah was Santa Claus. But still, here's their reporting. In the briefing on Tuesday for the Gang of Eight, which consists of leaders of the House, the Senate, and each chamber's intelligence agencies or intelligence committees, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated to lawmakers that the mission's timing and goals were shaped by the fact that Israel was was going to attack with or without the United States, according to a person familiar with the administration's outreach to lawmakers. So the only debate that seemed to be remaining was whether the US Would launch in concert with Israel or if the US Would wait until Iran retaliated on US Military targets in the region and then engage. So this could mean one of two things. One, this could just be the White House trying to fly some political cover and say, no, it's really Israel, but, you know, so therefore we were dragged into this. That would be very much in keeping with a statecraft going back millennia. However, it could be totally sincere that Israel has Mossad agents throughout every Iranian interest, everywhere. The degree of penetration is absolutely astounding. And they said, okay, no, this is it. This is the moment. We got them, they're all gonna be in this meeting. We're gonna blow em up now. So we're gonna go in and you can deal with it. And the problem is, because the United States is so closely tied to Israel, Iran would not retaliate only by hitting Israeli interests. They would retaliate by hitting American interests. So if Israel even did act alone, we would still get dragged into it. That's just how alliances work. America's a global empire, and Israel is part of the empire. That's how it goes. People can debate whether or not that's a good thing or whether or not the tail wags the dog sometimes or whether or not our interests are too closely. We could debate that all day. It's just a fact. Just as Judea was a troublesome province for the Roman Empire, so too, that neighborhood of the world is tricky for us. It seems to be just part and parcel of the Holy Land. Okay, so that part, I believe Israel was gonna do it. Maybe Israel had very good reasons to do it. Israel's wanted to do it, obviously, for a long time and has struck various Iranian interests many times. But Rubio says that's why we had to go in, to have an early advantage. Now, was it just Israel dragging us into war? According to the Washington Post, no. You know who else was dragging us in? This is a little interesting tidbit. Saudi Arabia. Now that's odd. This is one of the most distinctly Muslim countries in the entire world. So you got one of the most distinctly Muslim countries in the entire world teaming up with the distinctly Jewish country. Historically, they haven't always gotten along. And both of them, according to the Washington Post, lobbying the United States to go in and attack the other regional power and the other very prominent Muslim country, the Shiite Muslim country, Iran. According to the Washington Post, the Saudi leader, Mohammed bin Salman warned that Iran would come away stronger and more dangerous if the United States did not strike now after amassing the largest military presence in the Middle east since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And this is according to people who were all speaking on the condition of anonymity. So the idea being, look, we built up these huge military assets in the region, much as we did in Venezuela in the lead up to ousting Maduro. And so if you get all the way there and then Iran really won't negotiate, they just keep stalling. They keep putting everything off and you don't do anything, then Iran wins the game of chicken. Iran is stronger than it was even before you sent the USS Gerald Ford and the USS Abraham Lincoln into the region. So according to the reporting, which Saudi Arabia denies, Saudi Arabia says no, we've been consistent in supporting diplomatic efforts to reach a credible deal with Iran. We never lobbied. We never. No, of course, this is the Saudi reg. That for a long time denied that they killed Jamal Khashoggi, who also our media lied to us and pretended was some journalist for the Washington Post, actually, but actually he was like a Saudi spy. And anyway, but all of that to say you can't always take the Saudis at their word. And I believe the reporting that they too were lobbying to hit Iran. And regardless, Saudi Arabia supports hitting Iran. Right now Riyadh has issued a statement calling on the international community, which really means the United States and Israel, to take all necessary and decisive measures to confront Iran. Okay, there are two other people who I think could have been really pushing us into war. And one of those people is not really talked about, but he happens to be the guy sitting in the Oval Office first. Before we get to that, I wanna tell you about tacovas. Go to tokovas.com knowles do you know what I'm wearing right now? I'm wearing my Tokova's shoes. They're actually a nice loafer. I know Tacova's is mostly known for their boots. It's hard for me to pull off boots. They're beautiful shoes. Nice loafer shoe. They're so so good. I wear them most days. Most days of my life I wear these shoes. Anywhere worth going is worth going in. Good boots and shoes to Cova's crafts quality western boots and shoes for everyone from the guys actually working the ranch to those of us who just want to look like we could. Their boots are handcrafted in over 200 meticulous steps so they feel broken in and comfortable right out of the box. Their in store experience has expert staff, complimentary beverages, customizations that make your boots feel uniquely yours. I just love them. I love them. Wear them like every day. They're just terrific right now. Get 10% off@tacovous.com Knowles by the way, while you're there you can get a wallet too. I have this very cool to covis wallet which a friend of mine, a famous guy who, you know, compliments I pulled it out at lunch and just. I don't know. Everything to covis makes is so great. Go to tokova's.com knowles when you sign up for email and texts you will get 10% off. T e c o v a s.com knowles canada w l e s tocovis.com knowles c site for details to Covis Point your toes West Was it, let's see, who Was it that Iran was on the brink of a nuclear weapon? That we went to war? No. Was it that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons? Yes. Was it that Iran was about to launch an attack on U.S. interests? No. Was it that Iran has already attacked U.S. interests? Yes. Was it Israel? Yes. Was it Saudi Arabia? Yes. Was it the Iranian diaspora? Was it the Iranians, who tend to be very pro Western, who live in the United States and throughout the west, who have been begging for the US to bomb the mullahs for decades now? Well, according to the crown prince of Iran, whose father the Shah was deposed, yes. This is a great moment. And just wait till you see the look on this journalist's face when Pahlavi talks about how great Trump is for doing this.
- [30:49]
B
What is your message to President Trump? My message to President Trump is that
- [30:54]
A
I'm here to echo and join millions
- [30:57]
B
of my compatriots inside and outside of Iran to thank him for having done and having the courage to do what
- [31:04]
A
is not easy but intervene and he
- [31:07]
B
will go down in the annals of Iranian history as the most celebrated foreign leader that changed the ball game and changed the world As a result, in
- [31:16]
A
January, there's this great bit there at the end where you get the Reza Pahlavi, the Crown Prince. He says, you know, yes, Trump is the greatest guy ever. We totally love Trump. And then the 60 minutes, you're in a. She goes, uh huh, okay. All right, next question. No doubt the Iranian diaspora absolutely loves this. And then there's President Trump and he's the guy. Was it Israel? Yes. Was it Saudi Arabia? Yes. Was it this threat? Was it that? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, let's get down to basic decision making. I think this answer from Trump on the cause of war tells you so much about his decision making process and his grand strategy.
- [31:58]
B
I just spoke to President Trump for several minutes about Iran. I asked him about who is gonna take over now that. That the Ayatollah, the Supreme Leader, is gone. And his answer was interesting. He said the attack was so successful, it knocked out most of the candidates. He told me, it's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. I talked to him about the fact that the Iranians had tried to kill him. There was a plot in 2024, an Iranian plot, to try to kill Trump. And he said of the ayatollah, I got him before he got me. They tried twice. Well, I got him first. As for how long the war will go on, the President told me, we always thought. He always thought it was going to be a four or five week deal. That's what he told me, a four or five week operation. He said it could be shorter and he was prepared to go longer.
- [32:55]
A
I got him before he got me. That is the talk of a Manhattan real estate developer. That is the talk of a guy who, by virtue of his previous job, had to deal with the mob. That is tough guy talk. Iran has tried to kill Trump. This is not just based on intelligence community analysis. A lot of people don't believe intelligence community analysis. Iran has been pretty open about this. They weren't hiding the ball here. Iran has tried to kill Trump on multiple occasions and threatened to kill Trump for a long time. And then Trump comes out, he goes, yeah, he tried to get me, but I got him first. Funny how that works, huh? This tells you a lot about how Trump views the world. First of all, We're struggling to understand this because we think this is war with Iran. This is not war with Iran. And even some of the messaging you're getting out of the White House here, it's not gonna be an endless war. It's not gonna Be like Iraq. It's not gonna be this. Even that, I think, kind of misses the point. Trump just told you what this is about, what the first impulse is about, which is he goes, yeah, Khamenei, he tried to get me, but I got him first. I was talking to a buddy of mine about this last night, and he made an excellent, excellent point. Trump does not believe in institutions. I love institutions. I'm a conservative. I love it. Trump does not believe in institutions. And I gotta give him credit here, I think that he has a really good point when it comes to foreign policy, Trump believes in individuals. He does not believe in institutions. He believes in individuals. Had Trump been the CEO of a Fortune 50 company, Trump would believe in institutions a lot more than he does. He would believe in boards and legacies and contingencies. But Trump was the head of the Trump Organization. Trump was the reality TV star. Trump was the guy who is a personal brand. And in Manhattan real estate in particular, you're not dealing with institutions, you're dealing with individuals. So we, when we think of foreign policy, we think, okay, we think of the Chinese Communist Party. Trump doesn't think of the Chinese Communist Party. He probably doesn't know what the Chinese Communist Party is. He thinks that's a waste of time. He knows Xi Jinping, and he knows if he can get along with Xi Jinping, he knows how he can get along with Xi Jinping. He knows what can anger Xi Jinping. He knows what can put Xi Jinping into a corner. He's dealing individually. He knows Kim Jong Un. He doesn't know anything about the regime of North Korea. He knows Kim Jong Un. He knows Vladimir Putin. Look at what he did in Venezuela. Did he replace the socialist regime? Did he go in there and replace that socialist party in Venezuela and replace it with the classically liberal center right party? No, he didn't do that. He went in, he kidnapped Nicolas Maduro, and then the person underneath Nicolas Maduro, he put in charge. According to reports, he was impressed that she was able to keep up oil exports even amid American sanctions. So he thought, you know, this lady, maybe she can play ball. And then he went in and he said, hey, you're gonna run the country now. And he said, almost verbatim, if you cross us, we'll kill you. He said, I'm getting the words a little bit off, but he said, look, I think we can work with her, but if she crosses the line, it's gonna be worse for her than it was for Maduro. Maduro got kidnapped. She'll get murdered. That's the implication. And you know what, that's worked pretty well. And I suspect that's what's gonna happen here. Compare that to George W. Bush in Iraq. George W. Bush in Iraq goes in, we win the military victory, we rat Saddam Hussein in like five minutes. And then what do we do? We disband the Iraqi Ba'ath Party, we disband the army, we disband all of these institutions that. Because in the Bush view, the institutions are the problem. We need to spread democracy and Western liberalism. And I don't think that's what Trump's thinking. I think Trump's gonna go in, he's gonna kill the number one guy, and then he's gonna kill the number two guy. Trump had to joke about this. He goes, yeah, you know, look, some of the guys we were thinking could take over, unfortunately we were so successful, we killed them all. Oops, guess we're gonna have to find someone new. He's kind of trash talking. He's very good at that. But I think Trump is looking at regime change in Iran more like the Maduro model, because there are two potential meanings of regime change. The first potential meaning is you truly change out the regime, the ideology, the party that is powering the government. But the other way that you use regime change in a looser sense is you take out the leader and maybe you leave the party in place, maybe you leave the ideology, such as it is in place. You just put a new guy in and you put a gun to his head and you say you're gonna play nice or you know what's gonna happen, we're gonna kill you too. And then we're just gonna keep killing you until we get a guy that plays nice, Capiche? That worked in Venezuela. I suspect that is what President Trump is doing here. You know, it's funny because all the foreign policy geniuses make fun of Trump. He doesn't understand the nuances of the Shia and the Sunni and the this party and the that party. He doesn't understand the nuances of the Chinese Communist Party and the FSB and the. I don't know, Trump. Understanding individuals. Talk about a vindication of the great man theory of history. Trump just dealing mano a mano seems to have worked out pretty well. And this brings us to the grand strategy here. Trump. What I think he's after is not just revenge or even self protection for the guy who tried to kill him. I don't think it's just about the oil. I don't think it's about freedom for the people in Iran. I think it's in part about that, but I think it's only about that. I think Trump, I don't think Trump wants to retreat as an isolationist. I don't think Trump wants to spread democracy around the world. Here is what I think Trump wants. And the Iran strike gives you this perfectly, or could give you this perfectly if it doesn't spin out of control. Trump wants to reshape the world order in a way that benefits the United States. The American empire has been on decline for 25 years, since 9 11, maybe even before that. We had this huge peak because of the dot com bubble and the information technology revolution, but we were socially becoming weaker. And after the Cold War, we kind of squandered the post war dividend and we were kind of declining. And then we had the bungle in Iraq and Afghanistan start declining. We had the global financial crisis, we're declining more. We had the Obama years were really declining. I mean, this is really bad. Then we had Trump come in the first term and kind of staved it off a little bit. Okay. But then Biden, oh my goodness, we just started plummeting. 3 million illegals coming in a year. People don't speak English anymore. The economy is on the brink. It's just collapsing. Right. And then Trump comes in and I think what he wants to do is just reset things, say, no, no, we can win it. I mean, even the shock for many Americans, 50 and under, that the American military actually can succeed and succeed beyond people's wildest expectations when the politicians in Washington don't constrain them. When we fight a war to defeat our enemy and get what we want within the confines, I think, of law and justice, if we have time today, we'll get to. Some people are arguing that this is an illegal war, whether by the law of the Constitution or by international law or by just war theory. I'll try to get to that today. If we don't, we'll get to it tomorrow. But that's what Trump wants to do. And from this perspective, I think it is undeniable at this point. Trump understands grand strategy better than any president in our lifetimes. And the proof of this is Iran's reaction. Not at the United States or even Israel. Iran's reaction to all the Gulf states after this strike. We'll get to that momentarily. First, this weekend, the moment news broke that the US Launched strikes on Iran, the Daily Wire went live immediately. I lost my Saturday morning and my wife wanted to kill me. But it was okay. We had to do it. This is a big event. We brought in real experts, we delivered real analysis. We covered the latest developments as they happened. That kind of live coverage is only possible because of our members. If you value breaking news, investigative reporting and journalism that helps you understand what is actually happening in the world, go to dailywire.com and become a member today. My favorite comment, yesterday or no, on Friday. This is from Waylon Jenkins, 222, who says I got more prison time for a bar fight. It's a shame. Oh yeah, speaking of violence, you talk about this guy, this antifa guy showed up to one of my speeches, threw an explosive, seriously injured a female cop. He should have gotten 20 years instead or more. That's attempted murder. You throw an explosive in someone's face. Instead he got, I think two years. Now he's at a halfway house. Pathetic. It's true. You could have gotten more jail time for a bar fight. Okay, Trump's grand strategy here, it's Iran's response that proves in the early days the wisdom of this strategy. So right off the top, Iran declares jihad on the United States. This, I shouldn't laugh. This is from Visigrad24, says breaking. 99 year old Iranian Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi has declared jihad against the United States and Israel. Is that really breaking? Would we say breaking? First of all, the guy is almost literally 100 years old. And I'm pretty sure Iran has declared jihad against the United States and Israel for like half his life. For the whole of the Iranian regime. Breaking news. Iran doesn't like America or Israel. Okay, next response. Drones hitting the Saudi Aramco Ras Tenura facility. This is one of the biggest oil export facilities in the entire world. They process 6.5 million barrels of oil a day. This is apparently 7% almost of global oil supply going through this one facility. Iran hits the Saudi facility. Iran hits Oman. Iran hits Bahrain. I think Bahrain, Kuwait. Iran's just hitting these Gulf states. And I think this was probably a pretty bad idea because I think it actually advances Trump's strategy. You don't even have to take my word for it. The Iranian foreign minister has just admitted this was probably not great. Well, there might be a risk. I have been in touch with all of them, as I said, especially with Qatar and Oman foreign ministers. I explained for them what happened in Oman was not our choice. We have already told our army armed forces to be careful about the targets that they choose. As a matter of fact, you know Our militaries, military units are now, in fact, independent and somehow isolated. And they are acting based on instructions, you know, general instructions given to them in advance. No, no, no. This is all big understanding, you understand? This is all we did not mean. I know. Iran hit Oman. I know this seemed very bad. And hit Dubai. I know. I don't know what accent. It's like almost Russian or something. I know. No, but it is big mistake, habibi, a big mistake. You see, because we actually don't have any control over our military. Now, that's basically his argument. His argument is we have no control over our terrorist army forces. This is one of the big risks for Iran. Cause the chief problem of Iran over the last 50 years is, is that they've got one foot in the international order and one foot outside of it. In some ways, they're like a real state. In some ways, they're like a terrorist organization. And so one of the problems is when things start to break down. Most charitable view of what he's saying is you lose control of your terrorists. In any case, they hit Dubai. Ah, it's not a good look. Oman. I've been to Dubai and Oman. They're both very nice places to be. Dubai is a little bit degenerate, but, you know, people go there, get up to no good. But Oman is a beautiful, beautiful country. And what these countries desire more than anything, in my limited experience there, what they desire is to not have terrorism. They don't want any of that. These are places, especially Dubai and the Emirates, that thrive on tourism, that thrive on international finance and business being here to give Westerners a nice place to live where they don't have to pay taxes. That's what they thrive on. When missiles start flying, that becomes an existential threat to their polities. And so what's the grand strategy of this all? This is where you really. Whether you're totally in support of the Iran war, whether you're skeptical of the Iran war, as I continue to be, as I certainly was before. Though now the die is cast and we're all in with our president. He deserves a fair bit of credibility. And in any case, it's our country, but one can keep a healthy skepticism, or whether you're all for it. Regardless, I think you have to appreciate the grand strategy here going back to the first term. First term, what is Trump's signature foreign policy accomplishment? It's the Abraham Accords, where he gets some of the Gulf states to drop the hostilities with Israel. Israel, which is an American ally. And even if you don't think they're a great ally. And I think there are arguments that they're pretty decent ally. But regardless, they are an outgrowth of the American empire. So to get the Gulf states, and we have allies there, too, to drop the hostilities with Israel is a great achievement, but it's still kind of loose, it's kind of nebulous. It started to fray, obviously, during the Gaza war by getting Iran to fire not just on Israel, not just on some American bases, but to fire on Dubai, but to fire on Oman, obviously, to fire on the huge escalation to be hitting Saudi Aramco, to hit. All of that codifies, consolidates the, you know, reifies the Abraham Accords kind of abstract alliance into a military alliance. It really begins to reshape the region. And China and Russia have taken serious notice of this. Between Venezuela and Iran, we've just cut off almost 20% of China's oil. It won't be a huge deal, and they can figure it out, but that's a real hit. The fact that Russia is not coming in to the aid of its client state in Iran tells you that Russia realizes this was a pretty successful move by the United States and they don't want to get on the wrong side of it. Putin then responds, and within hours of the strike on the ayatollah, he says, hey, hey, you know that thing you wanted in Ukraine? You know those security guarantees you wanted in? Yeah, we're good with that. Now, that is a reordering of the world again. A billion things could go wrong, and it could tarnish Trump's legacy and all that. But you have to give the guy, he has a keen sense of grand strategy, even if it's not totally conscious. I kind of give him more credit than a lot of people do, but this is a really, really smart ran strategy, and it kind of makes a mockery of the whole foreign policy establishment in D.C. for the last 20, 30 years. There's so much more to get to. I don't care. I'm running a little late today. I don't care. There's too much to get to. I just mentioned Russia accepts the security guarantees in Ukraine. Now you've got Muslims overrunning US Embassies in Iraq and Pakistan. But even here, look, there's video coming out of the attack on the embassy in Pakistan. Notice something different about this attack than attacks on U.S. embassies under People like Obama? They're screaming, running, babbling, God, what's going on here? What's going on here? Well, what's going on is these guys show up to the embassy and the Marines just start shooting them. And the way it's being reported, the headlines, I love this. This is Bloomberg and I think Al Jazeera, I can't tell the difference. Said 10 killed in pro Iran protests at US consulate in Pakistan protests. 10 killed in pro Iran protest at US consulate in Pakistan's Karachi. That was Al Jazeera. It's a protest. It was a protest. Hey, let's take a look at the protesters. Do we have a picture of the protesters? Oh, okay. It's a guy shooting at the Marines. Got it. Okay. It's a guy with a gun, though. It doesn't. I'm waiting for the WaPo obituary. If this guy got killed, you know, known for his crisp white shirt and keen ability to balance on one leg, this protester was. Yeah, I don't. That's not a protest, that's an attack. And under previous administrations, they would have either been constrained or not properly resourced and fortified. Under this administration, though, we have the Marines, and if you try to storm our embassy, we're gonna shoot you. We're gonna shoot all of you. And that's a tough. I don't really take pleasure in this. Some people, I don't know, they get a little bloodlust up in the war. But this is a lesson. This is a very tough lesson for people, and it's a lesson that they might not have understood because of the weakness of previous administrations, but this is an important lesson for everyone, to recognize all these people who want to do harm to American embassies or American interests, even at home. This is not Obama. This is not Biden. This is not Obama. If you threaten us, we're going to kill you all. We're going to kill all of you. Why do you think Putin picked up the phone so fast to try to wrap down the Ukraine war? The minute this hit, he said Trump will really do it. He'll just go in, kidnap the leader of Venezuela based on a legal predicate. By the way, the guy had an arrest warrant out for him. Maduro Ali Kamene. We've been talking about getting rid of these people for 49 years. 49, 46. I keep forgetting the number for a long time. And Trump just goes in and does it. And that sends a message to people that this is not Obama, this is not Biden. This probably is not George W. Bush either. We should point out there have been American losses so far. Confirmed. I think there were three. Three American servicemen have been killed so far. There have been some other injuries. You know, obviously awful. We should all say prayer for the repose of their souls and for their families. Also, multiple F15s were shot down in Kuwait. By Kuwait. It was actually friendly fire. You know, not great coordination from our allies in Kuwait. The good news is we lost the airplanes, but all of the pilots ejected safely. So I don't think any American servicemen were killed in this friendly fire, but pretty scary. In any case, we should pray for their families. What comes next? What comes next? I'm hoping maybe we get a little, I don't know, Cuba. We'll talk about that. Trump's actually already hinting at that, but I think Rubio put it very, very well. What we need to recognize is this is not just about Trump getting some oil. This is not just about spreading democracy even further than it's ever been. This is not just about the world order as we have known. It is over. It is passing away, both because of the passage of time, but also, here's the good part, because it was. It was an order that had America in decline. And now there is a new world order that has the possibility of America in ascent again, of American strength again. There's no guarantee that it actually works. But I think Trump's broadest view of the grand strategy is that he's going to make America great again. And a lot of people, even many people on the right, don't think America can be great again because of all sorts of economic and demographic and cultural reasons. But Trump is serious when he says, I want to make America great again. He's really serious about that, and he'll either do it or he'll go down swinging. Here's Marco Rubio. The world is changing very fast throughout the universe. The old world is gone, frankly, the
- [54:08]
B
world I grew up in.
- [54:09]
A
And we live in a new era, geopolitics. And it's going to require all of
- [54:13]
B
us sort of reexamine what that looks
- [54:15]
A
like and what our role is going to be. And we've had many of these conversations in private. Many of our allies, they are our allies and need to continue to have those conversations. And I think Saturday, hopefully in the meetings, while there, will come in. Okay. Before we go, I know I'm running late. I don't care. I have to get to Shia LaBeouf. I promised we'd get to Shia LaBeouf. This is an interview going around. It has nothing to do with Iran. Shia LaBeouf, though he's led a colorful life, he converted. He had a religious conversion. Some years ago and converted to Catholicism. It was retaken with the traditional Latin mass. And then recently around Mardi Gras, he apparently went on a little bit of a bender in New Orleans. I think he was in jail. He had to go sleep it off or something. And then he just out of the blue gave this interview. What would you say to Jesus if you could meet him? I wouldn't say. Really? Nah, bro, I kiss him. I kiss him. I just kiss. I kiss his feet. No one say nothing. Chill out with these questions, Andrew. My bad. I didn't know it was gonna make you emotional. I'm a real Catholic, bro. A real one. I just thought you had thought about it. Nah, I'm a real one, bro. I wanna believe in something. Well, hey, bro, you gotta hit your head into the wall hard enough where you just go. It's the only way, dog. That's how you find God. Yep. For me, for the hard headed ones, yeah. You gotta go hard. What do you think was the real life equivalent of you smashing your head on the wall? I put a gun in my mouth. I was ready to kill myself, blow my brains out writing letters. Dark days, for real gone, ready to go. Why didn't you do it? Why didn't I do it? Because I'm. And also my mom, so God bless her, she kept me alive that night. This interview is magnificent. I'm not sure if it was ethical to interview him in this way because he's clearly going through something pretty hard right now and so probably should pray for Shia and he should process this, probably out of the public. But in a way, I'm glad he gave the interview because it's really touching in many, many ways. He goes off on all sorts of other questions he's asked about homosexuality. He talks about Martin Luther. It's a lot. But I love this interview and I love his response. First of all, his answer is totally right. What would you say if you met Jesus? I'd say nothing. I'd kiss him. What would you do? You'd adore God. Of course you would. Of course you would do that. That's what you should do. Anyway, he says I'm a real one. He's not saying I'm perfect. He's not saying I'm holier than thou. Certainly not. He's just. The whole time he's speaking in the context of what a sinner he is, all the ways he screwed up his life. But we all listen to. I don't know, I certainly listen to a lot of apologists, theologians, people speaking especially from an intellectual perspective about God and Christ and the truth of Christianity. And I find it very, very edifying. And that can have great apologetics effects, great evangelical effects. Shia LaBeouf's answer in that one minute clip might have even more stronger evangelical force than like every modern apologist. It just resonates with people because even if you've not been exactly at the place Shia LaBeouf was, we've all been to some version of it, some. Some proximity to despair, and we all have the longing for God because we're human beings and it was great. Shia LaBeouf is, for all his flaws, for all of his flaws, because of all of his flaws, he is a very, very powerful evangelist. Okay, the rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles Canada WLAS at checkout for two months, free on all annual plans. Tomorrow we make war.
- [58:48]
B
I think it's a desperate plan and foolish.
- [58:54]
A
I would save my people from destruction. So should you.
- [58:59]
B
Faith has Gladden's judgment. He's waiting on a miracle.
- [59:02]
A
And why do you tell me this? Because I think you can give him one. If I lead you into victory, Uther, the men of Britain will proclaim me King, you see, seeks our deliverance from God when he could so easily just give it to us with his own hands. Not long ago, you offered me the Fisher King sword. I've always believed you were meant to be High King. How many lives must be lost before you accept the power you were born to wield for Britain? How are we to drive out 15,000 Saxon with only two and a half thousand men? Today, Britain dies. The pendragon cycle rise of the merlin, now streaming only on daily wire. Plus.