Regime Change in Iran Livestream

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. 00:00:05 Speaker 2: I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start at turning point, you would say, college chapter. Go start atturning point, you say, high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. 00:00:37 Speaker 1: Sign up and become an activist. 00:00:39 Speaker 2: I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade, most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. 00:00:46 Speaker 3: Lord, Use me. 00:00:48 Speaker 2: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserved Gold, leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers. 00:01:09 Speaker 4: All right, welcome to this special Saturday coverage live stream of the United States Military along with Israel forces striking Iran. We knew this was a potential. We actually sort of warned about it all week long. We weren't sure when or if. Even last we heard is that the president was not confirmed either way. Well, now we know he has authorized military strikes in the heart of Iran. We've seen strikes all over actually even including the iatola's residents. 00:01:44 Speaker 5: There are reports that he may he may be dead. I don't think it's confirmed yet, but he certainly hasn't done any dramatic appearances proving he's alive. 00:01:55 Speaker 4: Well, and you also have to assume that they have pre recorded videos of him, so if you see those, stay frosty, as Jack Besobak always says, always wait for the confirmation. But yes, we are seeing preliminary indications that he could in fact be dead, along with other top leaders of the IRGC, and it remains unclear though. It's the fog of war. So the first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. So we have to just say what we know, and this is what we know. The United States and Israel launch coordinated major military strikes on Iran today with US operation named Epic Fury and Israel, which is called Roaring Line. President Donald Trump announced major combat operations are underway aimed at destroying Iran's missile industry, navy, and nuclear capabilities while preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons. Strikes targeted Iranian leadership, including apparent attempts on Supreme Leader Ayatola Ali Kameni and the President, the armed forces, heads, nuclear sites, missile facilities, and other regime military assets across multiple cities, including of course, Tehran. Trump publicly urged Iranians to rise up in his speech to take over your government and seize their freedom, framing the action as an opportunity for regime change against the wicked radical dictatorship and said, in fact, he said that this was a once in a generation opportunity, and obviously that's in response to the massive wave of protests that rose up, at which point the regime then killed tens of thousands of his own citizens to quell. Iran then retaliated with a large wave of ballistic missiles and drones targeting Israel, with intercepts reported over areas like Haifa and Jerusalem and multiple US military bases assets in the region. Iranian strikes hit US facilities, including Al Udayid Air Base and cutter bases in Kuwait, Al Dafra and the UAE, the u S Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain and other places in the Gulf. Explosion and air defense activations were reported in Ua Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan, with civilian impacts including a reported Israeli strike on a girls' school in southern Iran. This is not, as far as I'm aware, had been confirmed. That's per Iranian state media, so take it with a grain of salt, but obviously that's a negative if true. The conflict marks a massive, massive escalation, with Ongoi's operations expected over several days, UN Security Council emergency meetings called, and global reactions ranging from calls for restraint to fears of broader regional war breaking out. This is nothing new, This happens just about every time. And yeah, we are still waiting for confirmed reports of Iranian's top officials, whether or not they survived or are dead. 00:04:49 Speaker 5: And that how to everyone, and that is that's how it's going to be today. I would say, if you're online looking for updates on x or YouTube, be ready for you know, the fog of war has been replaced by a fog of bs. Nowadays, you have obviously a lot of people are propaganda actors, and now we're in the age of AI. So you could see a video and that video is fake. You could see a lot of You'll see a lot of reports that this has happened, that a missile has struck this place or that place. You have to be careful, don't believe everything is true, especially if it's an account you're not familiar with. Hopefully, if it's coming from a major news outlet, it's going to be more reliable. But even they can be fooled, as we've learned in past US military interventions. So we're watching everything, but really, unless the United States government itself is confirming something, be prepared for things to shift rapidly. So far, there's been no reports of American casualties, but the President did warn in his remarks last night, which we're cutting up right now, he did warrant that that might happen. This is not like the strikes last summer where it seems we struck their nuclear base and then Iran was ready to sort of do this kfabe, shoot missiles so they can show their honor. But they weren't really trying to hit anything. 00:06:17 Speaker 6: They went wide on. 00:06:19 Speaker 5: The Yes, this time, our stated intent is to bring down the regime of Iran, and we can reasonably expect them to shoot at us for real this time, and we're going to see how effective they are. On the positive side, I will note that our first strikes went and around in the middle of the day, and so based on that, I would guess Iran does not have a strong ability to defend themselves, and we can hope that they don't have a terribly good ability strong ability to hit us either. 00:06:51 Speaker 4: So the two waves of attack, one from the Israeli side, one from the US. The US is going after military installations. They're going after including like naval yards. They're trying to take out the military and the anti air capacity of the Iranians. They look to have been remarkably effective. Actually, the Israelis, we're told, are going after the head of the snake, so they're hitting military officials, so it's sort of a divide and conquer. It does appear that this has been a remarkably effective first volley by the United States and israel forces. The joint operation. The air defenses are holding up in Israel, which is one indication that the missile capabilities of the Iranians have been taken out fairly successfully. They are obviously still able to shoot missiles out. However, at this point, what we can tell is that the first wave of attacks and strikes by the US have been successful. Let's go ahead and play a clip from Potus. This was late last night, in the wee hours. This is when he made the announcement to the nation that the strike had commenced. 00:08:07 Speaker 7: Two fifty two, a short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating eminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. It's menacing activities directly in danger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, and our allies throughout the world. For forty seven years, the Iranian regime has chanted death to America and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States, our troops, and the innocent people in many many countries. It's been mass terror, and We're not going to put up with it any longer. 00:09:03 Speaker 4: So you know, I calling around this morning. You know, it became very clear to me, you know that I would say there is extreme concern that Iran had reinitiated its nuclear ambitions. 00:09:22 Speaker 5: Now, and the President referred to that in his remarks. 00:09:25 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:09:26 Speaker 4: But so if we're so, there's two different sort of things we need to analyze here. There is the political analysis and the military analysis. From a military standpoint, we pray for all of our troops, We pray for peace. We pray that there would be zero American casualties, although as you said, Blake, the President has alluded that that could happen. This The missile capabilities, especially of the Iranians, are advanced, and one of the reasons that Israel throughout the years has wanted to take out Iran. We talk a lot about nuclear They were very concerned about their interplistic continental missiles, right, the intercontinental ballistic missiles. They that was actually a bigger concern for it for many in the military of Israel. So there's a military consideration and then there's a political consideration. The political consideration, we have to just be honest that there is a sense that this was not sold to the American public sufficiently. Perhaps there will be an opportunity on the back end of this. If there is concerns about the weapon capability or the bomb capability, the nuclear capability of the Iranians that we are not aware of, then perhaps we'll hear about that on the back end. Obviously, you want to avoid a situation if you know, for example, what happened in Iraq, where we were told that they were developing weapons of mass destruction, only to find out that those reports were untrue or fabricated. So I'm sure they're being very very cautious with how they're communicating that. However, one thing is very clear. There was a dramatic, urgent concern that there could be weapons that were being developed imminently, and I don't know what that means. We're gonna have to wait and find out and hear, but that is one thing that we need to keep our eyes on. 00:11:23 Speaker 5: And obviously, if you have thoughts, send us messages. We're on rumble right now, we're live there. If you send us messages, we're happy to read them. We want to get a sense of how the base feels about everything that's unfolding, because we're here for you. That's why we're live. Yeah, so we have a lot of just messages, you know, praying for our nation, praying for our military, many prayer emojis of course, and we will we'll keep monitoring that referencing the nuclear stuff. As you said, the President did directly mention that in his remarks as well. Let's play that two fifty three. 00:12:04 Speaker 7: It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again, they can never have a nuclear weapon. That is why in Operation Midnight Hammer last June, we obliterated the regime's nuclear program at Fordeaux Natanse and Isfahan. After that attack, we warned them never to resume their malicious pursuit of nuclear weapons, and we sought repeatedly to make a deal. We tried, they rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. 00:12:52 Speaker 4: Yeah, And I mean, so the other thing I would say here is I'm seeing a lot of people on the internet reference clips from Charlie and this is something I was very aware of as a dynamic. I'm sure you were aware of as well, Blake, But you know, I've been called by multiple members of the press trying to get our reaction. What would Charlie think? What would you know? Here's here's what I know. Charlie was, by instinct and by default against regime change wars. 00:13:25 Speaker 6: He just was. 00:13:25 Speaker 4: There's no getting around that. There's no there's there's no truth other than that. But Charlie was also a realist. I remember on multiple occasions he told me something along the lines of listen, the world is a very dark place without American military leadership. 00:13:42 Speaker 1: It was. 00:13:42 Speaker 4: It didn't mean he was in favor of a foreign of venturism or regime change wars, because he wasn't. But he was also a realist, and President Trump had earned his respect. President Trump had earned his a big, long leash, not an unlimited but a very long one to make tough decisions, as Charlie's to say, this is why we elected him, to make tough decisions. Now, I am not saying that I think that this war has been properly sold to the American public. 00:14:13 Speaker 6: I don't think it has been. 00:14:14 Speaker 4: But if there was additional information that we are not privy to, that would have, in their minds, necessitated an urgent, aggressive attack if they felt the diplomacy avenue had been exhausted, if they were getting dragged around, if they were getting played for fools, then President Trump would act. 00:14:36 Speaker 6: And we always knew that would be the case. 00:14:37 Speaker 5: Thinking on it, I would think frankly, how he engaged with the strikes in Iran last summer, which is I know he did not really favor involvement there. He did not like escalation. The idea of striking Iran did fill him with some foreboding. I think in the lead up to this war. This is purely I guess on this part. Charlie is not here. Unfortunately. I think he would have been lobbying against these strikes. But it is as you say. I think if he were arguing against it to the administration and they went with it anyway, he would allow himself to consider they may know something I don't, or the president. He reached this conclusion for a reason. Ultimately, we do elect the president to make those life or death calls, and we have a history of presidents who have run on a platform of avoiding wars and then they have chosen to initiate them after taking office because they believe the situation has changed or the intelligence has changed, and I think that is the attitude Charlie would have that the decision has been made. Now we have to hope the president has a good plan, has a good strategy, has a way to make this work out the best for America, and that is what he would pray for right now. 00:15:54 Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely, I think you know, I'll never forget the hit that he did with Jesse Waters, where you know, you could tell Charlie in his own mind was was hoping that it wasn't going to happen. But ultimately he said, at this point, you have to trust Trump. And I don't mean the meme. I don't mean the cliche. This is why you elect leaders to make difficult decisions, even when they are politically unpopular. You have to sort of trust that the providence of God is leading us. You have to you have to pray for our leaders to make wise decisions, even when you feel like you would have been you would have made a different decision. Ultimately, we do not have all the facts and we have to watch. 00:16:35 Speaker 3: Now. 00:16:35 Speaker 4: We'll say that this was the largest build up of US troops since the Gulf War in our Operation Iraqi Freedom. If you will this this is the largest build up of troops that we've seen. So I was always under the impression that something was going to happen, and I will say, from initial indications, this seems to have been very well thought out. We are also finding out that the US is using a new form of one way drones that have not been used before. So they're using those in the interior of Iran, which they're kamikaze drones. Apparently that's not been something that we've used in the past. We're using them now and they've proven extraordinarily effective. 00:17:19 Speaker 5: War has changed. 00:17:20 Speaker 4: War has changed. This was another warning from President Trump to the IRGC to lay down your arms or face death. 00:17:32 Speaker 7: To fifty six, to the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces, and all of the police, I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity, or, in the alternative. 00:17:47 Speaker 8: Face certain death. 00:17:50 Speaker 7: So lay down your arms. You will be treated fairly with total immunity, or you will face certain death. 00:18:00 Speaker 4: Down your arms, all right. So, getting reports on this bombing of the school where fifty school children are reported. 00:18:10 Speaker 5: We should explain that one. Yeah, so there's a report Iran is claiming that an elementary school was struck and that several dozen students are dead. That is their claim. I would again, as I opened at the top of the show, all claims are subject to revision, and some things will just be made up, some things will just be lies. I highly doubt our government would intentionally strike an elementary school, So there's a possibility didn't happen at all, accidental strike. Iran might have launched one of their missiles and it didn't go well and it landed inside their own country. All of those things are possibilities. But people are going to run with whatever narrative they want for political reasons in the days to come. 00:18:55 Speaker 4: Yeah and listen, I'm you know, I'm seeing a tweet from Cernovich saying the Mullas did it to blame the US. We don't know that either, technically, so but we'll we'll find out. I mean again, the fog of war is completely set in, so do not jump to conclusions here. 00:19:11 Speaker 6: That's the main thing. 00:19:12 Speaker 4: But they're trying to It's clear that if this is an op, they're trying to make Trump look like a child murderer. And this is you know, very very early grain of salt time huge Anything from the Iranian state media. By the way, they do this with Hamas. You know, Hamas's state media claims all these casualties. None of this is confirmed, but people pairrot it anyways and they quote it as the official number. All right, So again, two different lines of analysis that we need to consider this entire stream. One is political, one is militarily. From a military standpoint, it looks like Iran sprayed and prayed hitting US bases even in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia then responded saying that it will get in the fight with US, So there is a difference sometimes between Arabs and Muslims. Look at the Board of Peace that President Trump has put together. It was interesting because a lot of people looked at that board of peace and said, now, this isn't like the old boards of peace. This isn't like the UN You get Tony Blair. You've got a couple sort of old mainstays Western Alliance partners. But a lot of that was Turkish, it was UAE, it was Katari, it was Saudi. So that's looking fairly prescient right now as we're involved in this Iranian strike. So interestingly enough, we have a lot of support from that region of the world. 00:20:33 Speaker 6: And guess what. The Iranians have been a thorn. 00:20:36 Speaker 4: In a lot of the Middle Eastern country sides for a long time, all right, so they are reacting, I think, as you might, it might be surprising, but actually, when you know the history of the region, Iran is no friend of a lot of those countries. As a matter of fact, Iran has been a bully. It's the number one state sponsor of terror, and it's an irrational actor at times. I'm not saying it's fully irrational, but it has been sowing chaos through the region, killing Americans. The President is right about that that they have been killing Americans through their proxies in the region for decades. And you know, here's a picture of the Board of Peace, which we need to get names of these folks, because I think that's important. 00:21:20 Speaker 6: Two fifty nine. 00:21:20 Speaker 4: That's the Board of Peace that President Trump has put together. Will it be interesting to see who on that board of peace has our back in this moment. And so far, Iran has misplayed its hand by hitting a lot of people other you know, Arab nations in the in the region, even if they're going after US basis. As one US official said after the strike that landed in Saudi, they said that they made a huge mistake. They made a huge mistake doing that. So now Saudi is getting in the fight and striking back. 00:21:52 Speaker 5: Yeah, it does seem again, this is why this is different from past ones. It seems there was to use a program term. There was some k fabe about our past conflicts with Iran where we'd bomb something and they would shoot a missile into the desert. We blow stuff up and they would again they just shoot missiles and they'd blow up a mile outside of one of our bases. This time Iran realizes that we are going for the regime. They are more seriously aiming at everyone, and to the extent there's anything good about that, I think it will align the region that Iran is a rogue actor that needs to go down. I don't think the Saudi public is going to be happy that they're having missiles blow up in Riod. The Amoradis are not going to enjoy missiles blowing up in the middle of Dubai. 00:22:42 Speaker 4: Yeah, well, we just got some images here. This is an Iranian missile struck a five star Fairmont The Palm hotel in Dubai. We'll get these images up. Some sources claim there where US personnel at this hotel, but this gives you a sense of the damage that we are seeing. If we can get some of this. Yeah, look at this. 00:23:02 Speaker 5: This stuff might be just a piece of debris, like it's not a big fire. 00:23:06 Speaker 4: Well, but nevertheless, this was an Iranian counter strike that has now hit a five star hotel in the Middle East. So and and by the way, there's images like this all over the internet right now of the irun encounter, strikes and debris falling, as you said, Blake, some of them getting shot out of the sky but not completely and then the debris falls near civilians. These videos are all over the place. Again, I want to reiterate the US strikes were taking out the military installations. That seems to be the divide of responsibilities here, while the Israelis were taking out personnel. You remember, I'm kind of reminded of the A's images where Israel struck those those apartment complexes and they didn't hit the seventh floor, they didn't hit the floor, they hit the eighth floor, very to kill people. And so we know that they have very precise striking capability when it comes to locating certain personnel and then taking them out. We know that Massad has infiltrated the Iranian regime at the deepest level, so they with some likelihood, with some good likelihood, we can predict that a lot of Iranian top military brass, top government officials would their locations would have been known, and if they wanted to take them out, they very well could have. Now we're still waiting on confirmation on the Ayatola himself that that's sort of the big domino to fall, and then the question becomes what happens If that happens. Will the Iran regime fold like a cheap suit, you get the head of the snake, does the rest of the apparatus and the regime fall? Is there enough popular goodwill within Iran to overthrow the regime? Are Will the r IRGC continue fighting? 00:25:02 Speaker 6: Will it? 00:25:03 Speaker 4: Will it attempt to push back and re establish control. 00:25:09 Speaker 5: The answer is, we'll see These things take longer than a couple hours, which I know is frustrating. In the age of tiktoks and such like, everything moves faster, and wars move faster as well, But they still take days, weeks, sometimes months, and we'll see what unfolds here. 00:25:28 Speaker 4: And by the way, I called a number of uh, let's just say DC folks, members of Congress, that sort of thing. The hope seems to be in the early indication seems to be the hope. Let's start with the hope. The hope is that this is a quick operation that let's say last days, not weeks. But it very well could last week weeks, and that would be I think politically and militarily a bad outcome. But it could, and we need to brace ourselves for that. The hope is that this is a days long struggle, that we are successful, that the regime falls quickly, if that is the goal. Again, I'm not saying I'm pro regime change. I'm saying, now that we're here, what are the best outcomes. As a matter of fact, I am very much like Charlie that I am against regime change inherently by instinct, after everything that happened after nine to eleven. But we are here now, and this is why you elect a president, this is why you trust. You have to at some point as a republic that is representative of republic, you have to trust your elected leaders to do the right things, especially once you're in these types of situations. We can debate whether this was the right move to do or not at a later point. Certainly it is politically fraud, but at this point we have to pray that it is successful and that the best outcomes happen. And so far, so far, we're not sure. But that is the hope in DC. The hope in DC is that this is quick. I will tell you that. 00:27:00 Speaker 5: What some people are saying in the chat, we do want to see what the base thinks about this. Uh, these people want all of us dead. They consider us infidels. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the people of Iran. Well that that's interesting because I think part of the optimistic case for this is that the Iranian regime is unpopular. They did have a major uprising a month ago. It has not been It is certainly not a government that has made its people wealthier or better off. So I think there is a lot of sentiment in favor of toppling them. But it's also true that a sometimes the quickest way to bolster support for a crappy government is to have bombs falling on your country. So we will see what unfolds in that dimension. Uh I support the United States from Dylan uh sunshines Sunshine Kim says. People have jumped to conclusions with everything Trump has done, and he was proven right each time. So that is what we are hoping for. We saw that with the strike last summer. We'll be frank. Charlie was very wary of that. I was very wary of that. I think all of us were. But in the end, the strike was successful, there were no casualties, there was no serious retaliation, so he was able to properly thread the needle to get the US involved without it escalating or extending into something prolonged. And if there's a similar arrangement here, I think we I'll be frank. We see opposition to this from people who are on the right, who are in the President's space, but success justifies itself. If this is a short war, if this is a decisive war, if US casualties are low or even man we could pray for this non existent, then there will very rapidly be some. 00:28:52 Speaker 4: I mean, we have to brace ourselves to the fact that there probably are going to be some casually, hopefully not dead casualties. Remember, is sort of an all inclusive express that could mean injured and dead. Let's hope that. Let's hope that we lose no lives. But I think it would be naive to anticipate that we don't have some casualties in some form. 00:29:11 Speaker 5: So be happy, says dear God, please protect our troops. Then get them out of the Middle East. That was my initial thought, and I actually I mentioned this on X that I think the best success case for this conflict is if you take the attitude Iran is the last really major foe of the United States in the Middle East. You have some terrorist groups in rural areas, you have tinpot types, but this is the last regime that could you know, is making a serious bid for nuclear materials of any kind. And the thought is, if you can topple them, this can be We've had a lot of wars in the Middle East in the last forty years. This could be our last war in the Middle East. And if the President is able to come out of this and say now we are able to die back America's involvement here, we can send those troops or send them to Asia to contain China. Yep, and we're done with the Middle East. Other than you know, we have a few allies there. We're buds with them. They are our strategic friends. And if he can say, I use the Abraham Accords to make it so everyone's no longer at war with Israel, and I use this to make it so Iran has settled business after forty five years of their nonsense. It's done. We're disengaging. I think that is a winning message, if he's able to sell that message. Yeah, so yeah, come on, so here, here we got. This is the Board of Peace, by the way, This is the executive board, which is focused on diplomacy and investment. This is Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, Steve Witcock, Tony Blair, Ajai Banga from the World Bank, World Bank President, Mark Rowan, CEO of Apollo Global Management. 00:30:51 Speaker 4: Robert Gabriel, all this stuff, all right. So here's the countries US, Israel, Saudi, United Arab Emirates, cutter Bafrain, Wait, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Argentina, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Indonesia. And there's from some others Albanian, Armenia, iserbai Jean, Bulgaria, Cambodia, El Salvador, Kosovo, Mongolia, Paraguay, Turkey. 00:31:13 Speaker 6: So excuse me. 00:31:16 Speaker 4: When you look at that list and then you realize the region that we're fighting in the Board of Peace is all of a sudden assumed a much larger consequence, which I think is fascinating. You sort of see maybe President Trump was lining up the political the diplomatic backing to finally sort of excommunicate this this evil from the region. And by the way, whether you're for or against this strike is irrelevant to the truth that Iran is an evil regime, at least the the Ayahtola and the regime that runs around. We're not saying that about the people. But you do see that this Board of Peace could have assume a larger consequence given the situation. Hey, Mikey, welcome. Mikey just drove in. Wanted to join in. 00:32:05 Speaker 9: How's it going, Uh, yeah, yeah, I mean I was watching the stream. I think you guys are doing a great job. But I agree with you Andrew that I do take a stance against regime change. But at the same time, I don't feel I think we learned our lesson with the Venezuela thing, and also the twelve day war, which is just that initial reports aren't always accurate. And this isn't the first time we've even heard claims that Comeni is dead right, and so anything from Comeny is dead to Republicans are going to lose the Senate because of this, all of that is kind of all over the place, and I think we need. 00:32:44 Speaker 6: To wait a little bit. 00:32:46 Speaker 9: However, I will just add time and again I bet against the president when it comes to foreign entanglements like this, and time and again I've been proven wrong. I even remember with Venezuela, I was texting, you know, Josh and a few other people, is like, this is blah blah blah, blah blah. And then in the coming days I was like, Wow, that was a crazy operation that we ran. And so I think this is something that we're going to see with Iran, but also with Charlie specifically. I mean he saw young people and I can relate to this, which is that young people have a different stance when it comes to foreign policy. And it's not that we, you know, don't want to be involved in any foreign issue. It's just that we kind of have a little bit of a fatigue with it. 00:33:32 Speaker 5: I mean from the time I was. 00:33:34 Speaker 9: Born, so, believe it or not, I was born in two thousand and one, pretty crazy. But from the time I was born nine to eleven to today, there has literally been a conflict in the Middle East. And also, I mean when you take it into account, like there's been a conflict regarding Israel from the time I was born to today. And so as a young person, you're seeing, you know, this increase and you're a bil he to probably never be able to own a home, never be able to afford a family. You know, the dating markets shrinking, the average home purchase is forty years of age, and everything is like kind of betting against young people. And so when they see something like this, their initial reaction is why do I care about that? 00:34:16 Speaker 3: Right? 00:34:17 Speaker 5: Why do I want to do that? Why do I want to be in But to. 00:34:19 Speaker 4: Your point, you've bet against President Trump. We've bet against President Trump. I remember with Charlie feeling a lot of consternation behind the scenes, wondering what the heck was going on, only to be proven wrong again and again. Now none of that is to say that this is politically popular, So that's a whole other analysis. But I do believe that President Trump and I've been convinced that he has our best interest at heart, whether or not it's always the political winner that we want it to be. We have Jack Posobic joining us. Now, Jack, what do you make of this? 00:34:49 Speaker 3: Oh? 00:34:49 Speaker 10: Lah? 00:34:50 Speaker 11: So yeah, I've been up, you know, running on real Marcus voice doing some work there from about eight in the morning. Woke up or least all the news like everyone one else. Look, you know, over human events. We've been reporting all week that it looked as though these strikes were imminent. We saw all the indications and warnings, the fifth leet pulling out of bah Rain. 00:35:10 Speaker 1: They knew Bahrain was going to be. 00:35:12 Speaker 11: One of the earliest targets in any retaliatory strikes from Iran. And indeed, just in the last couple of minutes we're hearing that Iran's response actually was able to take out it looks like one of their Kamakazi drones, these Shahad one thirty six drones, was able to take out a radar installation direct hit on a radar installation on the Bahrain Naval base. There So again real questions about Iran's ability to penetrate US electronic defenses air defenses ET cetera. But so we saw the ships pulling out as a huge indication of that. 00:35:43 Speaker 1: You know, you know, obviously the United States. 00:35:45 Speaker 11: Navy reflecting all the way back to the lessons of Pearl Harbor and knowing that when you're getting into these hostilities obviously different situation, but yeah, the vulnerability of ships at ort. Then you know, we just saw the sheer amount of heial being moved over to the the least. And the indications we were also getting out of the White House was that it looks like now it looks like things were about to pop off. So we were putting up strike packages on things that we could see the United States too, whether or not it's going to be infrastructure, regime infrastructure, whether it's going to be military only targets, whether or not we're going to target economic infrastructure, oil pipelines, oil refineries, that type of thing hit Iran where it hurts in the wallet, whether or not the strike packages will include that. What we've seen so far is it seems the United States as targeting IRGC facilities, specifically those at Chabahar band our Boss, these naval naval facilities. Of course, because everyone knows that Iran's most dangerous course of action is their ability to either mine or blockade the strait of Horror Moves. And in fact they only need to appear to mine the straight of Horror Moves to be able to shut down really the entire global hooties right, well, similar to the Hooties right, So the straight of horn Moves is the Gulf. The Hothis were on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula there in the Red Sea and so. 00:37:05 Speaker 1: Iran with their very tight order. 00:37:09 Speaker 11: If you look at that choke point at the mouth of the Gulf of the Persian Gulf, they have the ability just to just completely shut that down with mind. So yes, very similar to what the Houthis were doing in their choke point the Strait of Babelmandeb at the mouth. 00:37:22 Speaker 1: Of the Red Sea. 00:37:23 Speaker 11: So this real ability to constrain global shipping and global oil markets. 00:37:29 Speaker 1: I'm glad, glad I filled up yesterday. 00:37:31 Speaker 11: You know what I mean, you know, thinking that something like this was going to be coming. But what I'm also hearing out of the White House is that look expects strikes to be days, not hours. This is not going to be a one and done thing like Operation Midnight Hammer. President Trump, of course, in his overnight addressed to the nation. Of course, we're going to see whether or not he has another adjusted to the nation, but he said that this is about the regime. This is about conducting an air campaign hurting the regime, and he wants the peep to rise up and have the people flood the streets as we saw weeks ago, but really wants them to try to take over the regime. He's called for this. And so what we're going to see, I think here is sal We're gonna see salvos of alternating attack, pause and assess, attack, pause and assess. So wait to see the battle damage assessment, see what has been hit, what the capabilities are of those strikes, what the regime does, whether or not they want to sue for peace, whether or not you see a regime crack, and they want to come to a deal on the nuclear programs. President Trump has talked about, or perhaps an actual regime collapse, and in which case, obviously something that Charlie and you know we're here on the Charlie Kirk stream, So of course we all remember what Charlie said about those regime change scenarios back in juney really don't know what is going to come after. And I'm sure you know have all the clips and it's all been going viral right now, and people are pulling up the old tweets of Charlie where he spoke about this and warned about the dangers inherent and risks inherent in a regime chain scenario. That being said, you know, as we look forward, I don't think this is going to be over anytime soon, and of course we want to see what Iran does in response. We know Iran has also looks like they've conducted strikes not only on US basis like Bahrain, as I pointed out, but also in jebil Ali. That's the port of Dubai, and it looks as though that port one of the major ports on the Sunni Arab side of the golf that's the whole golf split the Shia, Iranians, the Persians versus the Sunni Arab. So jebil Ali, that huge port there in Dubai looks like they did target it. There was a strike, an interception of that strike, so it didn't it didn't land all the way, but it does look like some of the debris and the videos going around now. It looks like it's been confirmed have hit one of the four star hotels in Dubai. 00:39:49 Speaker 1: Of course Dubai. This the what do they call it? 00:39:51 Speaker 11: The Pearl of the golf and so real questions as to the economic fallout from all of this as it remains to be seen. But and Trump out there stalwart and saying that he wants to see this through. But again, I from what we're seeing so far, air naval combat powers, no boots on the ground. But wouldn't surprise me if we see some commando raids, IDF potentially even US special Forces, we don't know just yet, similar to the Mador raid. Obviously, we saw the Medal of Honor recipient there at the State of the Union with Erica a couple of days ago. 00:40:23 Speaker 1: So whether or not US special forces are involved, all of that will come out in the coming days and weeks. 00:40:29 Speaker 5: All right, We got a donation message from Sandra, thank you very much, and she says, I joined late. Can you give us a quick recap of what happened? Well, fortunately, recap go yeah, well he basically did. Even quicker recap of course is last night. I think it was about midnight Phoenix time. So it's interesting it was its broad daylight in Iran when this happened. We were used to pass strikes have been convenient for stream timing because it's happened in the evening, in the afternoon, he because it's nighttime over there. But they launched strikes on Iran in broad daylight. It was already Saturday, in the middle of the day there, and that's basically where we're at. We're waiting to see what the ramifications of those strikes are. Maybe we killed the Supreme Leader, maybe we didn't. We are possibly duve downe assassination strikes on several other leaders. In response, Iran has shot missiles all across the Middle East. Some of them appear to have caused damage, but we don't know what casualties, if any, there are, and we are waiting to see what happens next. Conflicts like this take days or weeks. They don't happen in hours. 00:41:39 Speaker 11: Can I just add as like as like an umbrella statement. Just there's so many claims that you're going to see online right now. Then in just breaking minutes, people are going to say that the Supreme Leader is dead, and I'm sure other people are going to say the bb net Yahoo is dead and this leader has been killed and that leader has been killed. Just just take everything with the grain of salt. Understand, we are in the fog of war. Truth is the first casualty in war. So stay frosty when it comes to all of this until any any of these claims, until things are actually confirmed, you just take everything at face value. 00:42:15 Speaker 6: I totally agree. 00:42:16 Speaker 4: We actually have John Solomon, who's calling in, John, Welcome to the stream. You've got Blake, Mikey, Jack myself. Yeah, please give us just you know, we got a you know, an email in or I guess it was a comment asking for a recap. Give us your assessment of what this strike is about. What the goals are the military mission, what is the win? What is the administration hoping to achieve here? 00:42:43 Speaker 12: Yeah, I think the President's pretty clear that the objective of this goal is to to basically knock down Iran's defenses in leadership to a point where the Iranian people can overthrow them and take over the government without Americans having to put boots on the ground, without having to have a significant an invasion like we did with Iraq or other regime change moments. 00:43:05 Speaker 3: Afghanistan. 00:43:06 Speaker 12: So it is a ear superiority mission that is designed to degrade the leadership, the military capabilities, and eventually open the door for the Iranian people themselves to overthrow the government. I'm sure the CIA has been working on an overthrow plan for some time with groups like the MK or the National Council for Resistance of Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point you see some of the Kurdis's special forces come in from the west. The West is pretty fortified now, but at time that will be degraded, and the goal is for us to just soften it up enough that the Iranian people can go in make their own regime change, make their own democratically elected government, and get over this forty seven year era of tyranny. Now, that's going to take time, particularly when you're doing aerial only. Last time, it took about twelve days to just simply soften up the air defenses so we can run some stealth bombers through and take out the nuclear facilities. Is to be probably a more complex project. Although Iran was pretty degraded, it's also low on resources, low on money, low on oil, low on energy, low on food, so it may crack sooner, or the Mullas may at some point, though it's not been their tendency say we've had enough, we'll tap out. And so I think those are two options that the US Intelligence Committee will be looking. 00:44:20 Speaker 3: Is there a moment where the Iranians. 00:44:22 Speaker 12: Tap out because China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba can't help them? And if not, I think we just keep degrading to the point of where on a ground invasion by Iranians leads to leadership change. 00:44:35 Speaker 3: That's the goalie that present is very clear. 00:44:37 Speaker 4: John, So, Yeah, this does seem to be a regime change operation. I don't think there's any way around it. Was Have you heard any rumors or reporting that, I mean, we saw jd Vance basically allude to the fact earlier this last week that they were developing there was indication that they were developing nuclear capabilities again that that would become a Is there any indication from you, like a dirty bomb or some other piece of intel that maybe hasn't been made public yet that could have increased the urgency to strike. 00:45:11 Speaker 3: Yeah. 00:45:11 Speaker 12: I think there's a couple of things that we do know for sure. We do know from and I have confirmed this with my own resources, that Iran was pressing China for some hypersonic missiles to get them shipped in the next few weeks so that they would have the ability to take out. 00:45:25 Speaker 3: Our ship fleet. 00:45:26 Speaker 12: Those hypersonics are so fast they can evade even American defenses sometimes, and that's something that China's been very good at. Those conversations, which US intelligence intercepted and monitored, was a primary reason. You want to protect your fleet. You got a lot of big assets in the water there, and you don't want a hypersonic to create a loss of life or a loss of capability for the United States. So that was the primary reason. The second reason is there is some indication they're rebuilding. They're trying to get to some of the uranium that's buried beneath the rubble that we created last summer. That could lead to a dirty bomb, though quite frankly, it'd be easier for them to create a dirty bomb by just getting some medical waste in Europe somewhere than trying to extract it from the ground. But we do see some early signs that Iran was trying to reconstitute some elements of the uranium enrichment and weaponization program. But they're pretty far back. They've lost a lot of capability from those strikes last summer. But both options are there. The third option to keep an eye on is just sleeper sales anywhere in the world. Here in America, there's always been a concern of hesbela on our own soil. Europe, always a clear evidence that hesbel has been on our soil. Remember, the Iranians just set someone and was working on a plot to kill Trump in twenty twenty four on our US soil. They previously tried to kill the Saudi Arabian. 00:46:46 Speaker 3: Ambassador at Washington, DC restaurant. 00:46:48 Speaker 12: So non traditional warfare is probably a third option of what they're looking at. 00:46:52 Speaker 4: Yeah, so that's what's interesting about this whole thing, John, And we're about to be taken by Real America's voice in about three minutes. 00:47:00 Speaker 6: What your schedule's like, I can. 00:47:01 Speaker 3: Stand up for by ten minutes, Yeah, I gotta go back in. 00:47:04 Speaker 4: Yeah minutes, two minutes till our rav join. But here here's my sort of psychological You know, I have no other proof other than I've watched the president closely for a decade here, But you know, the attempted assassinations on his life which have been confirmed. There are potential sleeper sales cells in the United States. He's also, I think, convinced that Iran has tried to meddle in the elections. If you if you combine these things with is the open threats that Iran has made throughout the years. If you combine these things with you know the fact that they have killed Americans, that they are a state sponsor of terror. He's shown throughout the years, whether it's the taking out Solomony, the fourd Oh strikes, He's shown an increased willingness to strike Iran. It seems to be where he believes there is a important you know, I would say mandate for the American people. It's especially that in that country. Thirty seconds, John. 00:48:04 Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you're right. I think the enough's enough. 00:48:06 Speaker 12: He said, I'd give you a chance, give you a chance, give you a chance to negotiate at some point. That's serious. We're just finishing this. Forty seven years a menace society. Iran has been all across the Western world, even on our own soil. I think Donald Trump just reached the fill up point. We're done, and he's going to make the capability for the Iranian people to be able to overthrow their government if they so choose. 00:48:25 Speaker 3: That's that's where he's at. I think that's it's a pretty clear read. 00:48:28 Speaker 4: Yeah, So this is seven hours ago in truth social President Trump posted Iran tried to interfere in the twenty twenty four elections to stop Trump and now faces renewed war with United States. And that's a that's a headline from just the news, Just the news, John Solomon, So he retreat that. So for our rav audience, John and Jack go to first to John and then to Jack. Just again, let's recap where we're at right now. John, you can firm just a minute ago with us this it appears to be a regime change military operation in Iran. 00:49:06 Speaker 6: Please your thoughts. 00:49:07 Speaker 12: Yeah, and again, the idea is that we're not going to change the regime. We're going to make it possible for the Iranian people if they so choose to do that. It's not our goal to go in and get the Mulls out, but we will soften up the ground, we will soften up the military capabilities. We will inflict significant damage until the Iranian government, the Iranian forces can't attack its own people strong enough, and that gives a chance for the Iranian people to decide if they want to on their own throughout the malls. That is the Objective's clearly what the President said. Let us do this and then when the bomb stop, go overthrow your government, take control of your government. Your freedom is at hand. That's what he said in the early hours of the morning. So that's what this is. We are creating the capability for the Iranian people to overthrow the government. We won't overthrow the government ourselves. We won't go in and get sodom like we did in two thousand and two. Will throw out the Taliban. 00:49:57 Speaker 4: Yeah, John, You know there's conflicting reports that about the Iatola himself being killed in these strikes. The way I understand it is that the US is looking at infrastructure, military sites, naval sites, radar defense missile sites. Israel is going after the head of the snake operations, going for top officials. Maybe that I told himself. Do we have any confirmation? 00:50:24 Speaker 6: Do we know? 00:50:25 Speaker 4: Are you seeing indications early indications one way or the other? 00:50:28 Speaker 3: We do not. 00:50:29 Speaker 12: US intelligence does not have confirmation one way or the other. There are some reports the US have received that some top Republican Guard commanders were killed at these military sites, possibly a defense official. 00:50:42 Speaker 3: No word yet oncome Any, though. 00:50:44 Speaker 12: It is clear that Israel picked come anyse many known locations during the strike, So Israel clearly their weapons were clearly targeted at the Supreme leader. 00:50:52 Speaker 3: Whether they hit him or not, I don't know. 00:50:54 Speaker 12: There was a very important event that occurred on Monday, didn't get a lot of news. 00:50:57 Speaker 3: We covered it, but the resistance. 00:50:59 Speaker 12: Group MYK, which is one of the possible successor governments here, they launched an attack on Kammane's palace and they got to inflict substantial damage and that was very eye opening to the US government, US intelligence because Iranian forces weren't able to protect that facility, and it was pretty clear that Kamane must not have been there right, that they had a lower fossil level, So that gave us some inclination that committee had left one of his known refugees and had moved somewhere else in the country, much like he did before the nuclear strikes in the Twelve Day War last summer. 00:51:31 Speaker 3: But the second part of. 00:51:32 Speaker 12: That was they realized that Iranian forces are depleted, that they couldn't even resist a ragtag team of resistance fighters who aren't nearly as well armed as the IRGC. 00:51:43 Speaker 3: And it was a sign that the world. 00:51:45 Speaker 12: Is caving in on the mullas that their military capabilities are diminishing. 00:51:48 Speaker 3: And I think that. 00:51:49 Speaker 12: Just added to the paradigm of intelligence that they evaluated before they launched this morning strikes. 00:51:54 Speaker 4: John Solomon, just the news. Thank you so much, John, We appreciate it. 00:51:58 Speaker 3: Great to be with you guys. 00:52:00 Speaker 4: Absolutely John, great analysis, Jack, your thoughts. 00:52:07 Speaker 11: Well, look, John is actually absolutely correct. You know, we're not going to be sure just yet whether or not leadership was taken out in terms of the regime leadership the Ietola. I mean, look, when two aircraft carriers are sent over like that, when you see that much American air power, naval power, naval combat power brought to bear in the Gulf, it doesn't surprise me at all, or wouldn't surprise me at all if the IRGC moved him to a hardened sight one of the runs extensive underground bunker systems. And you know, so it really becomes that spy versus spy kind of question of whether or not they knew where he was when they went to take him out, whether or. 00:52:45 Speaker 1: Not he was using decoys, all this sorts of things. 00:52:48 Speaker 11: So you know, really just holding holding the holding our fire when it comes to that, keeping our powder dry. 00:52:55 Speaker 1: We're staying frosty. 00:52:56 Speaker 11: But at the same time we need to understand, I think and American people want to want to hear what are the goals here, what's happened on on the ground, what is the status of the regime and are we seeing it have the effect? 00:53:12 Speaker 1: Are protesters flooding the streets? Are they coming out again? 00:53:15 Speaker 11: But you know, big questions for the protesters of course, because they faced severe crackdowns when they came out a couple of weeks ago from the IRGC, from members of the regime. And so that's going to be this real scenario of you know, are we going to get another are we going to get a nineteen seventy nine in reverse? Or are we going to get a Tienemen square again? These you know, it's risky. It is always risky to try to attempt regime change at all, let alone with the air power alone. It's something that where the track record is mixed. It's a very mixed track record of these things. There's certainly no confirmation. And as Charlie himself always said that you take out the Ayatola, you have no idea what is going to come next. You could have these resistance groups launch, as John was saying there, you know there are some who have. 00:54:05 Speaker 1: Militias as well. 00:54:06 Speaker 11: You could see a civil war scenario breakout and a total regime collapse that turns into a quagmire. 00:54:12 Speaker 1: And then of course for US forces in the region. 00:54:14 Speaker 11: Look, you know, that's that's why they pulled out of Bahrain, That's why they pulled out of other areas, because they know Iran has many ways to take this worldwide, and certainly, by the way, certainly, if the regime does feel that they are in survival mode, and there's no question in my mind that it seems like Israel and you heard from the President are directly targeting the regime. If they go into full survival mode, they are going to pull out the stops. Anything they can do, whether you're talking sleeper cells within the United States, within Europe, whether you're talking straight to Horne Moves, everything is going to be on the table. 00:54:47 Speaker 9: Jack, What the ripple effect of this, What does this mean for countries like China, who got like five percent of their oil from Venezuela. They get a majority of their oil from I think it's like twenty percent of their oil from Iran. What is it this mean for the CCP, What does this mean for other countries that are directly involved with the Iranian regime? 00:55:05 Speaker 11: Well, I mean in the near term, you know, it's it's hard to say, right, It all sort of depends on how this shakes out. Clearly, if this goes on for several days, you're going to see an oil shock, probably Monday, you're going to see that with an oil spike if there is. And keep in mind, with that straight to horror moves, the IRGC doesn't even need to actually mine it. They could have a couple of freighters go out there and just drop empty barrels in the water, but that if that's enough to look like mines, there's nobody that's going to be sending these these massive oil tankers that are filled with you know, one hundred million dollars worth of their supply to go through there. They're not going to take that chance if they think Iran has actually put mines in the water, whether the real minds or not, there's of course, a joke in the there's a joke in the United States Navy that every ship can be a mind sweeper once. So you know, it depends to see who's going to go first, or you send some barge or some kind of drone thing up there. But that being said, that's going to lead to those oil shocks if there is a you know, a regime change scenario like take Venezuela for example, where the United States was able to find a more reliable partner after Maduro one who is willing to send oil to the United States as well as continue those shipments to China, but then under US auspices, that could be another scenario that plays out. However, I would caution against that because the Iranian regime is not it's not the same as the as the Venezuelan regime. It's a regime where you have the Ayatola on the religious side, you have Mola's on the religious side, but then you also have it's very split, it's very mixed in terms of its government. You also have the IRGC, you have the civilian government. So again, any one of those is going to play a role in any regime collapse that comes out. Also real questions as to whether or not Russia gets involved here, although my assessment would be that because Russia is so bogged down in Ukraine right now. Also, we didn't see Russia get involved when Asad looked like he was on his life legs up there in Syria about a year ago. I would be very surprised if Russia gets involved here. 00:57:05 Speaker 1: I wouldn't rule it out, but I. 00:57:07 Speaker 11: Would assess that seeing Russian involvement, the likelihood at this point is low. 00:57:12 Speaker 4: So just to as a recap here, Iran's Defense Minister Amir Naza Zadai and Revolutionary Guard commander Mohammed Pakpor reportedly have been killed in Israeli strikes. Again, we don't know about the ietol himself, but that's something. UKPM kir Starmer has said that their forces are active and British planes are in the sky today as part of the Coordinated Regional Defense Operation. And as you said, Jack, Iran has moved to close the strait of her Moose, with ships reportedly receiving vhs a VHF transmission from Iran's Revolutionary Guard warning no ship is allowed to pass the straight of horm Moose. Let's go ahead, and just I think for the sake of Charlie's voice getting in here, because everybody's invoking what Charlie had said, and I think that can be a little frustrating when you're on this side of it, and Jack and Mikey Blake, you can all attest because we were involved behind the scenes with Charlie, unerstood the way he was strategically thinking about things. Some of the presentations of his voice on social media are one sided. Let's just put it that way. Let's go to thirty eight. This is Charlie explaining Trump's unpredictability as the point two thirty eight. 00:58:29 Speaker 2: This is why how President Trump is handling it is perfect. You do not know what President Trump is going to do, and let me kind of queue you in on something. The unpredictability is the point. The fact that I don't know, and you don't know, and Iran doesn't know is the greatest power he could possibly. 00:58:51 Speaker 1: Exercise over these maniacs. 00:58:55 Speaker 2: The fact that the US military could blow Toronto smithereens and he's saying, get out of Toron now. 00:59:00 Speaker 8: Whoof that's power? 00:59:04 Speaker 2: And President Trump means it when he says it. And President Donald Trump is balancing all of these things, and he and only he is positioned to be able to solve this problem. He has earned our trust and we should continue to give it to him. 00:59:21 Speaker 5: But we have he weighed in on around many times because we've had many Iran things, and so as we've discussed, one of the struggles with this conflict is I think it's gonna catch it. It catches some people off guard that that's happening at all, if they're not big news followers and they haven't fully sold yet. Why this is necessary, why this is essential, Why this is for America's core interests. I think they still can and if it's a big success, it will be easier. But they have to make that case. And Charlie commented on that, let's play clip two fifty. 00:59:55 Speaker 2: By no means a military expert. But here's my rule when it comes on military things is if you, as a our con citizen can't understand it, then they have not done a good enough job explaining it, because that stuff's actually not as complicated. Would you agree, Blake, like, oh, you know this is just for military minds. Actually, now you're a US citizen, you deserve a right to understand it. You're a stakeholder. This is your government. 01:00:15 Speaker 6: Yeah. 01:00:15 Speaker 4: Well, and we started off the show before we joined RAV and it's worth reiterating here for the real America's Voice audience. By the way, we have Alex Marlow joining us in just a moment, a few other guests lined up throughout the hour. But what we will say is my blunt assessment is that this war was not sold sufficiently to the US public. I have no problem saying that. It's I think that's just that's our conclusion. Okay, But on this all this morning, I was making phone calls, I was reaching out to people. There is legitimate concern within certain circles of DC that John Solomon confirmed this, that maybe it was a dirty bomb, maybe they were reaching out to the CCP for hypersonic missiles, but there was an urgent move. I think Iran knew that the time was running out. And if we find that out on the back end and they do use that to sell this and the urgency of this strike, I do think that would be helpful, and they should make that point if they can confirm it. I do think there's reticence in making those points ahead of time because of what happened with the weapons of mass destruction to backle in Iraq, where we were sold a war based on the fact that you know, Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. We find out that wasn't true, and then it became a larger scandal because of that. So I don't think they want to sell the war per se on you know, Iran having a dirty bomb or getting hypersonic missiles from China. What they want to do is say they are not allowed. The Irani regime is not allowed to have nuclear capabilities. They want to develop these things. We can't let them. It's time for the people of Iran to rise up. I think those are the two safest points of action. I think we can also say is that President Trump was sick of getting messed with on the negotiating table. His patients wore thin. So everybody holds your calm. I would say, this is why we need to allow the process to play out and not rush to judgment. I will tell you everybody on the Internet that is claiming what Charlie would have thought or said, Charlie would not rush to judgment. Charlie would have been I think instinctively against a regime change war. 01:02:33 Speaker 6: That is very clear. 01:02:34 Speaker 4: But he also would have understood the fact that President Trump is stuck between a series of very difficult decisions and that this is why we work so hard to get him elected, is to make these types of difficult decisions. So that's what I would say, Jack, am I misstating the facts? 01:02:51 Speaker 1: No, I don't think you're understating it at all. 01:02:53 Speaker 11: And look, we all know that Charlie gave his gave his all to prevent and a ground invasion of Iran last year, that he's on record for doing this. He traveled to the White House, went to speak to the President in the Oval Office about this and said, we do not want to see boots on the ground. 01:03:13 Speaker 1: We don't want to see a ground invasion. 01:03:14 Speaker 11: Gen Z, who and everybody knows Charlie spent four hours a day going on campus talking to gen Z. That's how he knows exactly what gen Z thinks about this. That gen Z support would totally collapse for the coalition in terms of a ground invasion and pushing for a full on regime change war where it was unilateral from the United States. 01:03:37 Speaker 1: We don't know exactly. 01:03:38 Speaker 11: What Charlie would have said in this scenario where you're seeing air, you're seeing navy, but you're not seeing that boots on the ground piece where President Trump is calling for the Iranian people to be the ones that are the forcing function to push out the regime. We also know that Charlie was very forceful when he talked about the idea of endless war, prolonged war, forever war, and just the idea in general that anyone can come up here and tell you that you know what's going to come after the Iotola collapsing. The Iotola is going to leave, and suddenly you know, it's all going to be horseshoes and rainbows. You could see a regime change or excuse me, regimed collapse scenario. You could see a quagmire, you could see a civil war. You could see regional actors come in, non state actors. This is the Middle East, after all, it is rife with terrorist groups. That's kind of the whole idea. So the sense that this is going to lead to some kind of immediate, you know, immediate victory for the Iranian people is actually a much unfortunately for you know, I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I'm just saying that given the track record in this region, we should be very, very wary of anyone telling us that everything is going to be perfect in the wake of this. And I think that Charlie understood that and also understood where gen Z was coming from in terms of their wariness, because they don't want to see more war. They want to see arrests for Epstein, they want to see importations, they want to see economic relief, they want to see a focus on domestic policy. That's particularly where gen Z is and Charlie always did his best to be that voice to the administration and to the world so that folks would be able to understand that scenario. 01:05:15 Speaker 9: Mikey gen Z, Yeah, yeah, I don't want a black pill, but I'm gonna wait. 01:05:21 Speaker 6: In a way. I'm gonna have patience. 01:05:22 Speaker 13: But you said it earlier, which is great. 01:05:25 Speaker 9: I mean, even people in DC are friends in DC right now, they don't want this to drag on. And again back to the twelve day War. We thought that that. 01:05:35 Speaker 13: Was going to drag on to another endless war, and it ended in twelve days. 01:05:38 Speaker 6: So the k FABE, the k Fabe. 01:05:40 Speaker 5: Yeah, and even our friends in DC. 01:05:42 Speaker 9: I mean, I got this this morning it's success looks like limited strikes focused on denying nuclear capability, no ground troops, no invasion, no forever war from this, and then also just a reminder that iron has historically armed terrorists time and again. 01:06:00 Speaker 6: Numbers on state sponsors, yeah, of course. And so. 01:06:04 Speaker 9: When it comes to you know, terrorist groups like even the hu Thies right that are attacking American ships, what if they got their hands on nuclear weapons because of Iran, or a dirty bomb because of Iran, or hypersonic missiles because of Iran. You know that that all kind of trickles down. But I mean, as a gen Zer, I don't like a lot of us just don't care, Like we don't care. 01:06:24 Speaker 13: Why do we want to see that? Why do we want to be involved in this? 01:06:28 Speaker 5: It is worth remembering the divide because when you think even this even predates to me, of course, and I'm kind of old that Iran was basically public enemy number one in the nineteen eighties, Well, Yusha was well, but even even Russia didn't do things they Iran literally took American hostages, over one hundred of them for. 01:06:51 Speaker 6: Over a year. 01:06:52 Speaker 5: And young people won't understand what it was like that every night on television, the evening news, which was a thing people watched. Then it would come on and they would say, it has been two hundred and twenty eight days that Americans have been held hostage in Iran, every single day. 01:07:08 Speaker 1: Like Carter was thrown out of office over this. 01:07:11 Speaker 5: Yes, and it was a huge psychological shock that a foreign country would just torment dozens of Americans taken hostage in this way, and we felt powerless to do anything about it. There was an attempt at rescue mission it failed, and in that time Iran. So if you lived through that, it's very relatable to see Iran as this very severe, permanent United States enemy, and I think that psychologically shaped a lot of people. But as you say, if your gen z, you've mostly lived through the era of just Iran is perpetually a country we might go to war with. Yeah, but you don't have that shock memory of that time. Iran actually did a hugely just you know, a hugely harmful thing to a large number of Americans. 01:07:56 Speaker 4: Well said, so we're going to have out Marlow join us in just a moment, and then we're gonna have Mike Davis there. I'm gonna throw up this image, Uh, actually it's you know, John Fetterman keeps surprising, but throw up two eighty one. 01:08:12 Speaker 6: There's a whole conversation. You know. 01:08:14 Speaker 4: Axios has this article Democrats demand war powers vote after US strikes Iran. John Fetterman responds, committed Democrat here, I'm a hard no. 01:08:23 Speaker 6: My vote is Operation Epic Fury. 01:08:25 Speaker 4: So we're gonna have Mike Davis walk us through the legalities of the strike because this will constantly come into focus. And I want to throw in a billion grains of sault here, so endless grains of salt. But as we await for confirmation of the fate of the Ayatol himself, Kamani. 01:08:44 Speaker 6: Uh, you know, I'm getting. 01:08:45 Speaker 4: One more little sort of unconfirmed report again unconfirmed, unconfirmed, unconfirmed, that Supreme leader is out unconfirmed thousand grains of sault. But as we sort of piece together these data points, it's an interesting one and to hear. So we're obviously very much looking at that and we will confirm when we can. 01:09:07 Speaker 3: Uh. 01:09:07 Speaker 4: But that's one indication, very very interesting that I'm getting. 01:09:10 Speaker 5: Since since we're waiting on Alexa Marlow, we have a very good clip featuring him where he was speaking with Charlie about this conflict, and it's a good it's a good statement of Charlie's attitude, which I know a lot of people are interested how he would respond to this, which was that he has his personal biases, his personal beliefs, but he has also, as an American citizen, a tendency to place trust in President Trump, which is why he supported him. Let's play two forty nine. 01:09:38 Speaker 2: I think that we need to also differentiate for everyone keeping score online where they say, oh my goodness, Donald Trump started a new war. It is very conceivable that if he bombs those two cities, that is not a new war. Now Iron could retaliate and then what happens after that? But I trust the I trust President Trump onter. 01:09:54 Speaker 1: Percent in this moment. 01:09:55 Speaker 2: He's a man made for this moment. 01:09:57 Speaker 1: Understand through all. 01:09:58 Speaker 2: This he took out Saul. He took out isis he is able to navigate them. 01:10:03 Speaker 5: So that's the hope I think we're all having, is that we lived through the Bush administration, for example, which didn't which had a very open ended approach to wars, go into Afghanistan, drop thousands of troops there, when what does victory look like? We don't know, go into Iraq overthrow its government. Over one hundred thousand US troops there, thousands of them killed, They're four ages. When do we get out? What's victory look like? Eh, we don't know. We do have confidence that President Trump will have a clearer sense of what does he hope to get out of this, what are the limits of how far he will go on this? And he's repeatedly demonstrated ability on that front, and so we are hopeful, we are prayerful that this will be another case of that, even though this is a bigger intervention than we've seen in the past. 01:10:51 Speaker 6: So I agree. 01:10:52 Speaker 5: So I'm just trying to a lot that's going on, folks. 01:10:55 Speaker 4: Yeah, a lot of information incoming here, and it looks like we are we're gonna have let's see Rich Barris gonna join us. We're gonna talk about the political side of this with him connecting via phone in just a few minutes. 01:11:11 Speaker 6: We also have. 01:11:13 Speaker 4: Mike Davis coming on talking about the legality of it. We also have Alex Marlow, editor in chief of Breitbart, joining any moment now. So you know, let's just we want all voices here. We don't want to drown out the folks that don't want this. We don't want to We don't want to hype it up as if it's a good thing. The truth is, we just simply don't know. One thing we do know is that Charlie worked his butt off to get President Trump elected because he trusted him to handle these types of decisions. Whether or not Charlie was in favor of such operations that you know, that's very clear. He didn't want like regime change. That being said, he was willing to take each different action on its own merits. He did, you know, regime change as an instinct. 01:12:00 Speaker 6: Bad. 01:12:01 Speaker 4: Okay, fine, But Charlie was willing to take each individual operation. 01:12:06 Speaker 6: On its own merits. 01:12:07 Speaker 4: That's very very clear from all the time I spent with Charlie. 01:12:12 Speaker 6: So we have to do the same. Jack, are you hearing? I think? Oh, we lost Jack for a second. 01:12:19 Speaker 4: Hold on, here we have Alex Marla just told me he's he's in the queue, so let's go ahead and try and. 01:12:25 Speaker 6: Log him on. 01:12:26 Speaker 4: And we have Rich Barris also joining. We are here on Real America's Voice as well streaming everywhere. Thanks everybody for joining. Lots of incoming. So yep, so we got another confirmation, Iron is telling the Revolutionary Guard tell ship's passage through the Strait of Horne Moos is not allowed. EU Naval Mission officials say, so, the EU is confirming that the straight of horn Moose is being closed by Iran. Whether or not that will hold, how long that will hold, is yet to be determined. So we have that from Reuters. Ron's Again, Ron's Revolutionary Guards teil ships passage through the strait of her moves not allowed. EU Naval Mission officials say, well, the EU will just allow Ron to do whatever it wants. 01:13:11 Speaker 6: So the was like, oh, I guess we can't do that. I have it. 01:13:15 Speaker 5: It is very funny. I saw today, all right, Alex is joining us. We saw there was a French politician who's a member of a pro EU party, and that vander Lyon person who heads the European Commission, did some statement upset about this, and the French politicians just like, basically, shut up. You guys are really annoying because they are always. 01:13:37 Speaker 4: Well, the Europeans all each other. That's so. Alex Marlow. Welcome to our special Saturday stream here reacting to American strikes against Iran as well as with Israeli forces as well. I think there's multiple ways you can now analyze what's going on here, Alex. One is from a purely political stance. One is from a military perspective. Taking the military side, obviously, we pray for our troops, We pray for everybody's safety, we pray for zero casualties, all of those things. It seems to have been extremely effective strikes, just based on Iran's failure to retaliate. But and we're still waiting on confirmation on who's who's still alive, who's dead. Take it to the political side, though, Alex, which you know, what do you make of the political fallout of a strike like this? 01:14:29 Speaker 8: Yeah, these are all great ways to frame it. 01:14:31 Speaker 14: App And first of all, credit for you guys to forgetting on the stream. I know it's what Charlie would have wanted. So I don't love speaking for Charlie, but I can tell you that so great job. 01:14:39 Speaker 8: I know his audience wants to hear what's going on. 01:14:42 Speaker 14: Yeah, I got a quite a bit of insight because I spend some time with the President this week and we did talk about this is off records, so I'll try to speak in broad terms about it. But the political stuff here, just to start there, I don't see huge upside for the president even with a successful strike. 01:14:58 Speaker 8: It seems like one of. 01:14:58 Speaker 14: These one of the He's endeavors where even if he nails it, I don't know if he picks up new voters from that. But if he fails, of course it'll be a defining thing. It'll complicate the midterms, it will complicate twenty twenty eight. So it's a bold move. But he knows this. He's a smart person, so he must have felt highly confident that this thing was going to be successful, and he was sick of dealing with a Rod's negotiating tactics, which are very tough and very unreasonable, and they demand crazy stuff. They never back off an inch even though they're very very weak right now. So that seems like where it comes from politically is I don't even know if he nails it, if he picks up any support. But his perspective, from what I'm able to glean from my conversations with him, is that people tend to be very negative when things happen initially, and then if they're successful, they all of a sudden get on board. It's kind of like people remembering they were at Woodstock when they weren't that sort of thing. So he thinks that a lot of people didn't like, for example, the Maduro raid, and then now everyone kind of likes it. And so he has that data point in his head, and he thinks there's a lot of unfinished business with Iran, and he thinks they've been incredibly weak since Solomoni's killing in the first administration. 01:16:07 Speaker 8: So we got that. 01:16:08 Speaker 14: Going and I feel like this is one where the early evidence suggests it has been a early success for President Trump. But the key thing here, he was crucial about emphasizing this point. He is not going to tolerate iron getting a nuclear weapon, and nothing in their rhetoric, and we follow Iranian state media very closely bry Britain, is nothing in their rhetoric backed off of that at all. He was one hundred percent, no holds barred, full steam ahead from the Iranian regime, even after the devastating attacks of a couple of months ago where their nuclear program was pretty much wiped out. Their air defenses, as you can tell from today, basically non existent. They are incredibly weak and they're not backing down at all. So if the Iotols wanted to stay in power, they needed to commit flat out we will not have nukes, and they didn't come remotely close to that. And clearly nothing change in the last forty eight hours of negotiations. 01:17:03 Speaker 4: Yeah, and by the way, people need to understand this, President Trump has been remarkably consistent on one thing with Iran. They cannot have nuclear capabilities. And I said it earlier, Alex, and I think it's worth stating again. You know, I was calling around. There seems to be Listen. I would put this in the unconfirmed category, but there seems to be a serious concern on the part of a lot of people that are as ardently anti war as we are, and as Charlie was, within the leadership. 01:17:37 Speaker 6: Of our own government, Yeah, ardently anti war. 01:17:41 Speaker 4: That the urgency to commit to this strike at this moment escalated quickly. And I don't know if that was a dirty bomb or as John Solomon said before you joined that there was concern of hypersonic missiles, there was something in the calculus changed, and would I would presume that they wouldn't want to go public with that to sell the war because of the WMD fiasco. We all remember so, but something happened here, and I think Iran understood that their time was ticking and they were trying to make pretty serious moves to to you know, as a deterrent or maybe they were serious. 01:18:18 Speaker 6: About using it against us go ahead. 01:18:21 Speaker 14: Yeah sure, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah. So I have no information on that, but I will tell you from my time with the President, and you could see the steady build up around Iran of American military personnel. 01:18:34 Speaker 8: On our fleet. 01:18:35 Speaker 14: It felt like this was going to happen unless Iran said, as Trump putted the magic words, we're not going to have a nuclear weapon. I think he probably some mother desires as well. But it was interesting because I was going to follow up with Hi when I was talking about this. I was going to ask him, well, what about making sure they released all these political prisoners, what about them becoming democratic? 01:18:55 Speaker 8: What about them having a free press? Can we press them? And stuff like that? 01:18:58 Speaker 14: And you could tell it was pretty singular, was they need to commit to know nukes ever, and their rhetoric is they want enrichment to sixty percent. There's nothing else they're gonna do with that. That's not for you know, medical R and D. For sixty percent if they're pursuing that and you're doing it in Trump's face. 01:19:14 Speaker 8: Trump hates when you get in his face. 01:19:15 Speaker 14: Remember when Maduro started dancing in the street, and then Trump when he got him, he went and took him out, like That's one of the things with Trump you don't do. And Iran was relentless about not backing down, continuing to have rhetoric as if they're very strong, they're very weak politically and there's no real clear opposition, which is a big complication. We can talk about that for hours. 01:19:32 Speaker 8: But there's a there. 01:19:34 Speaker 14: The regime was weak within Iran, they're weak from the air, and Trump is not liking the way they're behaving. So that's where it comes from. And I don't know if any of the calculus really did change. Iran is just very tough negotiators. They're smart people, and they thought they I think they kind of dared Trump to do it. 01:19:50 Speaker 5: They got to I mean, they got away with this posture for literally decades forever. You're exactly doing the same thing for decades and getting the same results. You get used to it, you think it's going to work. 01:20:01 Speaker 4: Yeah, I think I was going to say, you brought up Alex the political angle of this. 01:20:06 Speaker 6: We have rich bears, but I didn't want to. 01:20:08 Speaker 5: Well, well could jump to Bearrison sec but I want to address something because a lot of people, inevitably, a lot of people cared about what Charlie thought about these things. They looked to him, they trusted his judgment. And we're seeing a lot of people repost We've showed several Charlie clips. They're also posting tweets of his, and some of them were very straightforward. There's one he made last summer where when Lindsey Graham was calling for regime change, and Charlie said, regime change will cause a civil war. It would be insane, it could kill hundreds of thousands of people, it could start another Muslim refugee crisis. That's what he said at the time about a regime change war. And I think we should be frank throughout. If Charlie was with us, I believe throughout the lead up to this conflict, he would have had those same concerns. He would have been warning the President about the downsides. He would have been warning other members of the administration about the downsides. He would be worried, we would we were in those text chains, we would have seen it. That said, he also always did have trust with the president, and he would look for the bright side of things, and he was an American patriot, so he would pray for our success once that began. And I just want to say that to offer perspective on how I think he would have felt about this. And that's not to use Charlie as a shield. That is not to use say everything just revolves around him because he's not with us anymore. But I know people, all of us are feeling the lack of Charlie in a moment like this because he was a natural leader of the movement. 01:21:35 Speaker 9: Well, I think that's also like as soon as all of this broke out, you saw that social media immediately went to go find charge hips because he still is, even in death, like the leading voice on. 01:21:46 Speaker 5: A matter like this. 01:21:47 Speaker 6: Well, and I'm sorry, go ahead, no, I was just gonna say. 01:21:50 Speaker 9: And it makes me upset though, because for these people that didn't actually know Charlie, like Blake you said it in private. 01:21:56 Speaker 13: He would be not happy with this situation. 01:22:00 Speaker 9: He would express his thoughts you would oftentimes see him talk about on the show. But then as soon as this would happen, he'd have the he would have trust in the president, he would try to calm people down. And so it's really irritating for me to see so many people on social media have the opposite reaction, to use his voice to actually cause chaos, to actually cause fear of this situation, to actually cause hatred of President Trump in this whole ordeal, when actually that's not what he would want. 01:22:25 Speaker 4: Well, and one of the Charlie Charlie resisted ideological fervor or these like the drums of war. He was really good about that. And because he hated war, m M. But he but he trusted the president. That's certainly true. I think we've established those points, But politically there's there's no there's I think less ambiguity to help us unpack that. 01:22:46 Speaker 6: Rich Barris, are you still on the line with us? I'm here, brother, all right, brother, Hey, so can you hear me? Yeah? I can hear you. 01:22:53 Speaker 4: So you're on with Alex Marlow, Mikey McCoy, Blake Neff, and myself. 01:22:58 Speaker 6: So welcome to the show. Rich. 01:23:01 Speaker 4: You know, I kind of know if I if I know you at all, Rich, I know kind of some of what you might say here, but you know, break it down, I mean, how how. 01:23:12 Speaker 6: Bad could this be? 01:23:13 Speaker 4: But also help us paint the best case scenario. 01:23:17 Speaker 10: Okay, look, I mean, well, first of all, we're a little bit in the ahistorical waters, like we're in uncharted waters because we've never had something to compare this too. Right, you had a president and I hear what other people are saying about you know, he did. He was consistent that Iran could never have a nuclear bomb. Listen, Americans do not follow the minutia of policy like this. Donald Trump was the anti war president. He rose to prominence and took out two massive political dynasties, largely on the no new war's promise. That is what every average American voter will tell you. They're not going to tell you about some like, you know comment he made on a campaign stop somewhere about Iran not getting a nuclear weapon. And this was and the administration knows this was a deeply, deeply unpopular action. The last one that we handed to them before we got out of the field was seventy percent of post that includes a majority of Republicans. So, like, I would love to gauge out and say this will cost this much, but the truth is, we've never been here before. Presidents have sold military actions to the public. They didn't done their best to drum up support for it before they did, you know, took any action, and they did not do this. So there's there's almost there's no look my knee jerk reaction, guys. And I'm not saying this to be negative or positive. I mean my job as a polster, right is that there's really there's no upside here. I know I heard what was said before too about the administration and their their mindset, because obviously I was talking to people myself in the last couple of weeks about this. You know that Maduro wasn't popular, then they snatched him and it got more popular. Maduro pulled more popular than this. And the fact is that Maduro is just a grab. It's not, you know, a regime. There's more of a symbol to a regime change war in the Middle East when it comes to Donald Trump, like that specifically was his stick. And if you you know, I just feel like that's a bit of a generational disconnect. If you're still thinking that, you know, there's a rally around the flag effect in this country, and you know, a positive outcome is going to elicit more support. You're kind of missing, You're missing the plot. You know that the plot is that everybody who's under age fifty five fifty years old in this country feels then no matter who they vote for, all they get is more focused on the Middle East and more wars and a government that doesn't pay any attention to them and their needs. 01:25:45 Speaker 6: So that out. 01:25:46 Speaker 10: You know that the opposition to this conflict was less about the specifics of it or whether you know we're doing good or we're doing bad. It was just like, no more, no more, we have needs at home, and I don't know how you get around on that. I mean even a successful mission, which I don't know what successful mission is. I mean, regime change is never an overnight thing. There are always unintended consequences and bad political headlines that plague you, you know, time and time again. Even if there was no quote of success, it doesn't negate why they you know, it doesn't negate the fact that voters opposed this and they posed it for a reason. 01:26:26 Speaker 6: Yeah, no, I I I hear you. Rich. 01:26:28 Speaker 4: I wanted to get your voice in because I think it's important. Jack has rejoined the show, Jack Pasovic, did you catch what Rich just said? 01:26:38 Speaker 6: I'd love to get your input on that. 01:26:40 Speaker 11: Uh, well, I mean I've heard Rich in general. You know, his stuff had to have a source call just some uh some uh you know, and and really, you know, look, there there are real questions I think as to what as to how long this this plays out, And I think the longer it goes, the the more or political ramifications are. 01:27:02 Speaker 1: I think that's that's basically it. 01:27:04 Speaker 11: And if President Trump does indeed mean to see this all the way through to full regime change, that could be longer. That could be a lot longer than one weekend. It's certainly going to be longer than one round of strikes, but we could be looking potentially at weeks of operations within Iran. 01:27:23 Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean I think this, you know, sort of one of these things that we pray it's a day is not weeks situation, but it certainly could be more drawn out. And we have to be honest about the fact that Iran is a much bigger country, is stronger country. Yeah, there's weaknesses politically militarily, I think the regime is probably at its weakest point. As Alex mentioned that it's been in a long time, but it's still Iran. This We're talking eighty million plus people, a lot of internal division and factions, different regional geographical differences. Alex Marlow final thoughts to you, my friend. I think, thank you for making the time on a Saturday. 01:28:01 Speaker 8: Yeah, we have my pleasure. 01:28:02 Speaker 1: No. 01:28:02 Speaker 14: I think Jack and Rich touch on really important stuff. One of the hangoffs for me is what is next. And it is very factionalized country, and I think Trump again is probably drafting off of but with Maduro is there, it wasn't really a regime change war. They just took out one bad guy and it seems like things are moving in a positive direction. I think Trump understands leadership, and I don't think that he feels as though whatever is going to feel the void is going to be as threatening to the Western way of life as the eye tools are. And so I don't think he's got a lot of confidence. And reinstalling the show, I don't think that's going to be a popular thing. But I think the litmus test will be are their boots on the ground. I think once American boots are actually on the ground, and this is no longer an aerial campaign, I think that's when you're going to start losing a lot of people. I think a lot of people are going to tolerate this from a political standpoint. Again, I don't know who he's going to be adding politically on this, But if he's able to take out some bad guys, neutralize some threats, to do it from the air in just the spirit of going in kicking ass and getting out the way he's done in the past, stuff ages very well. But if there's boots on the ground and the regime change becomes America doing it hands on, I think that is going to be very, very deeply unpopular. And I do think that sort of thing that Charlie certainly didn't like. 01:29:17 Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, I think that's right. Rich. 01:29:22 Speaker 4: You have done analysis on, you know, kind of the polling of the president, and listen, there's other considerations besides polling that in a moment like. 01:29:31 Speaker 6: This you have to take into account. 01:29:33 Speaker 4: But you you're I remember that graph you came out with Rich that it was basically Iran and Epstein and the president still hasn't recovered. 01:29:42 Speaker 6: We just had that bump. I texted you privately. Rich. 01:29:45 Speaker 4: You said he was going to get a bump from the State of the Union. Does this complicate that bump? 01:29:49 Speaker 10: Yeah it does. And this is something I warned and I mean I don't have a problem saying this out loud. This is something I you know, I warned them about. You had a great moment during the State of the Union. This is something we can really build on. Let's take this momentum now and show the American people that we refocused and you know, on their needs. And you know, guys, you know this is something I said in yesterday too, because you know, no one's going to remember a great moment during the State of the Union. When something like this happens, it completely drowns out all of the positive that you you know, you refocused and built on. That's just the way American voters work. And let me just put it like this. You know, look, if you feel we just won an election in twenty four guys, you know, with the president was being persecuted, they Joe Biden rounded up more political prisoners than Vladimir Putin. They want to pack the court, they want to add states, they want to dismantle our entire system. And we ran on this concept that you know, Democrats were an existential threat to this country, what their ideology stands for, the political violence behind it. They are the threat to average Americans. They're the threat to the unfairness in the economy. And if you know, taking an action like this has basically no upside and will just do nothing but shave it doesn't matter if it's ten percent, it weakens the coalition. And if you believe both things are true, then this was not wise. End of story. You know, the primary objective must be to preserve the integrity of the coalition, because if Democrats take this government back over in November, it's the presidency is effectively over. You know we're gonna Why would why would anybody, and I don't use this term lightly, Why would you waste the first two years of your peak presidency when the president has the most opportunity to get real change done. Why would you waste both years now on other people's problems instead of showing the American people that you cared about their problem and what their problems and what you were elected to do. Is your primary focus. Weakening this coalition, which could have been a thirty year governing coalition like the Roosevelt Coalition is an unbelievable thing. Is a political guy to watch. It really is. 01:32:03 Speaker 8: But hold on, I got a cup half. 01:32:07 Speaker 14: Yeah, I got a cup half full reaction to something that Rich said, which is that I think Trump is aware of this stuff. I think he understands that if he blows the midterms, we're doing impeachments, we're doing NonStop investigations, we're doing NonStop loft. 01:32:18 Speaker 8: Here his presence, he's ruined. 01:32:20 Speaker 14: So it shows you he's got a very high degree of confidence that this is not going to be a ground war, and that he is this is going to age well, and this is going to be we took out a terrorist regime that is funding care all around the world from getting nuclear weapons, and that will be the post it note talking point. I have no evidence that that's going to be how it's going to turn out. Maybe it won't, and I'm very cautious that it won't, but I feel like that's clearly what he was thinking when he made this move. And so hopefully the information he's got, which is that they were just so weak, so vulnerable, particularly from our very capable air forces, to go in and do some real damage quickly. So hopefully that's all this is, and this is not a prolonged regime change thing. 01:33:00 Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, hey, I pray for that. 01:33:01 Speaker 10: Yeah, that's the best case scenario, Andrew, which you asked me about before. I echo that I pray for that well. 01:33:09 Speaker 4: And I want to address something here because I again I you know, these are just what I my sources. But it's also John Solomon. I think Jack has been hearing similar things. You know, here's a post by Matt Walsh, and you know, Matt Walsh, it's a very lengthy post. I think it's a very sober post. It's basically saying, you know, nobody's sufficiently explained, you know, how this benefit of American citizens, And on it goes, he says we and he brings up a I think a very good point, but I want to address it. We hear about the dangers of a nuclear Iran, but that's odd because we were told that Iran's nuclear capabilities were already had already been set back decades. We hear that this war will be over quickly and easily because Iran is powerless, which I hope and praise the case, and maybe it will be. But that's odd too, because if Iran is such a paper tiger, then how are they in danger a danger to us in the first place. It's it seems hard to argue both that Iran is an existential threat to the United States and that we can topple them in twenty minutes with no casualties or negative downstream effects. So I think those are very logical statements by Matt. But if some of the rumors that I'm hearing about concerns about either a dirty bomb or hypersonic missiles from China, that they were trying to initiate some sort of connection with the CCP, there even a weak Iranian regime, if properly motivated, if they understand that their time is running out quickly, then they could be extremely dangerous. Even if we took out four toh and some of the other nuclear sites, they could be dangerous extremely quickly and even weakened, and they might and you know, a dog backed into a corners could bite you, all right. So I don't necessarily think that these things have to be mutually exclusive. If somebody was chiming in, oh Rich, go ahead. 01:35:00 Speaker 10: Yeah, can I actually, yeah, Andrew, can I address that? Because I think Matt is probably summarizing what the consensus is right now. I mean We're already in the field right now. We're already talking to voters about this. You know, they woke up to this this morning, so we'll take them some time to process. But these inconsistencies are very glaring, to the point where even Normans who aren't focused on politics, like all we all are twenty four to seven, are constantly saying this in interviews. Wait a minute, Wait a minute, the Fourteau plant, the other two sites, this was supposed to be You just told us six months ago that we completely decimated their nuclear capability. Like this is not going to be lost on people, and it was. It is the case. It is the job of the president to make that case, and he didn't, and that is a massive problem. George Bush when they lied, But George Herbert Walker Bush babies had an incubator, you know, he threw he drove support before he took action. It was unsupported at first. He drove it to eighty percent before he launched a golf war. Even Grenada had almost yeah, I think it was actually seventy nine eighty percent. They took time to build their case, to make their case to the American public, and this time Americans are feeling slighted. I think you didn't even father. 01:36:25 Speaker 4: Yeah, No, I agree with you, Rich, I Yeah, I agree with you that I think this has not been sold to the American public and there is going to be a political fallout. The question is how how long will that that hangover last? 01:36:37 Speaker 3: Rich? 01:36:38 Speaker 4: Thank you for calling in, Rich Barris, big data pole, really important analysis there. We're gonna we're gonna do a little line change here, Rich, So I appreciate you calling in real quick. Hey, Jack, You've got some new reporting on the line of succession that apparently we were of should Kamane be taken out? 01:37:02 Speaker 11: Well, of course, and this still remains to be an assessment, but this is in line with what I've been reporting over at Human Events. This coming from Reuters. They're saying that there's CIA assessment that was presented to the President that prior to the Iran strikes, the CIA had assessed that even if Iotola Kimani is killed, that he would be replaced by hardline IRGC elements. It goes on to say that in the run up that is more than likely that the IRGC would take over. These assessments were produced over the last two weeks, really asking that question what would happen. 01:37:38 Speaker 1: What could happen if. 01:37:39 Speaker 11: A US military operation or US and Israeli operation would trigger regime change in the Islamic Republic? Now, obviously, as the President Trump has called for, that is the goal of the operation. This is the of course, the IRGC, being the elite military force whose purpose is to protect the Schiai Muslim clerical rule in Iran. Conclude the scenario with any certainty, but most likely that it would be elements of the IRGC that takes over, and that of course coming out of Reuters. But a report written by the CIA, presumably Director Ratcliffe, who we know is down at mar A Lago right now with the President as well as Secretary Hegseeth and other members of the National Security team that are there at this sort of the Winter Situation Room, if you will, there at mar Alago, has presented to the President. 01:38:32 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:38:32 Speaker 6: I think that's important. 01:38:33 Speaker 4: Basically, one kill is not gonna, you know, topple the regime. I think that's a fair assessment here. I would not done as well. Yeah, this isn't Venezuela, but there have been other kills, and so as confirmations come in, we'll keep an eye out for that Mike Davis Article three project is joining us. Now we have this story, these these rumblings up on Capitol Hill, and I want to make sure we throw to it because you know, we've seen fetterman is chiming in two eighty one. Here, throw it up, police axios, Democrats demand war powers vote. 01:39:08 Speaker 6: After the US strikes. 01:39:09 Speaker 4: Run, Mike Davis explained to us the legality of these strikes and what's the jockeying that's about to take place on Capitol Hill. 01:39:19 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:39:19 Speaker 15: Under Article one of the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. Under Article two of the Constitution, the President of the United States, as the commander in chief, has the power to repel an imminent attack, to repel invasions of America, the homeland, to a repel attacks on American soldiers, service members, allies interest. Back in two thousand and one, the Congress passed a Congressional Authorization for the use of military force after nine to eleven that permitted the president to go after to go after terrorist attacks. Presidents since then have interpreted that broadly. Back in nineteen seventy three, over President Nixon's veto, Congress passed the War Powers Act no president, Democrat or Republican Republican has ever complied with the War Powers Act of nineteen seventy three. Every president since nineteen seventy three has said that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. If the president were to follow the War Powers Act, what would happen is is that Congress would have six up to sixty days to pass a joint resolution to tell the president that he is authorized to continue to use force. If they do not do that during that sixty day period, the president has up to thirty more days ninety days total to withdraw those military forces. 01:41:04 Speaker 4: So that would basically hamstring the president. So you're saying that since the passage of the War Powers at nineteen seventy three, every every president has basically defied it. 01:41:16 Speaker 6: Yes, yeah, Blake, is that. 01:41:20 Speaker 5: We like to our presidents like to do things. 01:41:22 Speaker 4: Yes, we I mean, I don't see how it's even functional though, actually right, because you you have to move quickly, is that you do? 01:41:30 Speaker 5: But I think we should we should reflect on this fact that for most of this Republic's history we did rely on cong We at least went through the motions of the Congress as a large declaring wars we declared, we declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Germany and World War One, we declared war on Spain before going to seize Puerto Rico. And I think I think you would, ideally you would want cong to sign off on an intervention of this magnitude as and for that matter, interact. We did sign off on that use of military force before we went in. And I don't think we want a country where we just passively accept the idea that any president can start any war of any duration without some sort of check on. 01:42:19 Speaker 4: Yeah, So Mike on reflecting on that, Obviously any activity is more legitimate when you have the backing of Congress. It's good politically, it's probably good culturally. Explain the difference of those war resolutions, you know, in World War II, for example, World War One, versus what was established in the apparently unconstitutional War Powers Act of nineteen seventy three. 01:42:42 Speaker 15: Well, we haven't had a declaration of war by Congress since World War two? 01:42:46 Speaker 6: Correct, And there. 01:42:47 Speaker 15: Are serious implications for Americans' civil liberties. When you have a declaration of war, the president has more authority to do things within the borders of the United States, including as it relates to American citizens civil liberties when there's a declaration of war. So I think we have to be careful about going down the path of a declaration of war because it actually may have the opposite effect of what many people think. Libertarians think, in particular, it means that our liberties are more at risk. With the War Powers Act of nineteen seventy three, again passed by Congress, they overrode President Nixon's vita. They were trying to curb the president's war making powers during the Cold War. Because again, we haven't had a declaration of war since World War Two, no president has followed it. I would say this about this current bombing of Iran. I think the president has inherent power under Article two of the Constitution as commander in chief, because you just had the Iran's supreme leader, I think it was ten days ago, put out a video saying that he is going to sink American warships. That is, the president has the power and the duty under Article two to make sure that Iran does not sink American warships. And it's hard to sink American warships. As I ran supreme leader, if your house is obliterated or your debt. 01:44:17 Speaker 4: Yeah, great analysis there, Mike. I appreciate you. I think this is going to be a really much much ink will be spilled, put it that way over this fight in Washington about what Trump's abilities are in the next coming week. So this is really important context. We needed it. Thank you, Mike Davis. 01:44:35 Speaker 14: You know, guys, there's a legal issue which might address really well, but a lot of this is. Part of the problem here is that the Democrat Party is run by online activists on the internet, and this is a big risk of that is if they want to be included in big boy decisions, then they can't let their online radicals control the whole party because it probably isn't even most of their voter base. And Rich was here, had to ask him what the polling is on that. But it's one of these things where there so deeply unserious as a party that they pretty. 01:45:02 Speaker 8: Much check out. 01:45:03 Speaker 14: And so that's why, of course we don't want the president breaking the law. 01:45:07 Speaker 8: But what's he gonna do. He's gonna call. 01:45:09 Speaker 14: Up and they did apparently according to sources that I have, they did speak to the Gang of Eight, so that includes four Democrats or at least three of them they got on the phone from what I'm told ahead of time. But you can't consult most of the people in that party and expect anything serious to happen. It's just a waste of time. And how do we know they're not going to leak stuff? Remember we're not that far removed from from General Millie basically warning the Chinese if we're gonna attack them, or saying he would do that. So there's so many people who try to undermine this president every turn. We don't get to have nice things like everyone working together when we might go to war now. 01:45:45 Speaker 8: And that's a deep shame. 01:45:46 Speaker 4: Yeah, that's really well put. 01:45:48 Speaker 6: Alex So. 01:45:50 Speaker 4: I just got a note from one of my contacts in the military and he basically said, you know, first he wants to make this clear. Iran is not Persian, is per not Arab. They are Western friendly more so than some of the out some I think in our popular imagination that we think. And of course he's talking about the actual people of Iran, not necessarily the regime. The falling of the Mullahs in Iran will give an opportunity for Iran to become Western friendly more so and also join former allies in the Middle East to regulate oil away from bad actors and adversaries. Obviously thinking about the CCP. You made this point earlier, Mikey. It will greater limit Russia to a regional power and it will lose which will lose an ally there. It will removes an ally from North Korea. It dams up the Chinese Belton Road initiative, and will cause them to have a further play pay global prices for energy they can't produce. So there's there are knock on downstream effects. There's also implications for Taiwan and China potentially, So I do think that Trump is thinking strategically from an international standpoint. 01:46:56 Speaker 8: I think I want to talk China, hear Andrew if we can. 01:46:58 Speaker 14: But yeah, well, we're almost ninety percent of Iron's oil oil exports go to China and they get it a cut rate, and China is trying to destroy our country with fentanel and I'm sure that's part of Trump's calculus. Again, I'm not trying to justify anything as particularly this thing becomes a complicated ground war with regime change. I'm not trying to do that, but I do want to add to the context that if they're giving the Communist Party of China cut rate oil at a steep discount, then that is going to be devastating to China, who is trying to murder Americans with fentanel. As we're having this conversation, No, I. 01:47:33 Speaker 4: Think that's I think that's spot on, all right, Jack Pasowic, please. 01:47:37 Speaker 11: Yeah, No, I was just gonna say, you know, when it comes to China and their reliance on Iranian oil, that also could potentially up the ante for you know, typically we don't see the Chinese get involved in these types of wars. We typically see them be more circumspect when it comes to that. But at the same time, you certainly could see China getting in and support similar to how they got behind the Taliban very quickly in the Fall of Kabul. You could really see China get in and back potentially, well, we're just talking about the scenario if the IRGC gets in, you could see China come in and backstopping them very quickly. Because it's all about stability for those oil supplies. China is even understanding of the issue with the straight of Horne moves. That's why they've been trying to build a part as part of the Belton Road initiative, a pipeline across Pakistan and across Shinjong. That's why the Wigers are so important to them and keeping the Wakers down, because they want a pipeline directly to their Iranian supplies and the Iranian oil supplies there in Persia, and so this is something that's very, very important for the Chinese. They don't have the types of oil supplies that they you know, that other countries do. This is why, of course they're building pipelines with Russia in Siberia. So you really could see as an X factor here China getting involved backing the IRGC the same way that they backed the Taliban in Afghanistan because it's just that much more. 01:49:00 Speaker 1: Important for them. 01:49:01 Speaker 4: Yeah, I wonder how much Russia can actually backfill what they're about to lose from Iran, assuming this plays out the way it looks students, None of that is certain, But I wonder how much Russia could backfill if they lose an arounding source of oil. 01:49:15 Speaker 5: Blake, Why don't you speak, it's just efficient. 01:49:18 Speaker 4: Those pipelines aren't built yet. Yeah, so there is a time to lay there. But you're you're kind of looking into some of these these down knock on effects what this could mean for the Indo Pacific, for Axa. 01:49:28 Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean the best it's like I like I said earlier, the best argument for this conflict is if this, instead of being yet another Middle East war, is could this be the last Middle East war because Venezuela something or you know, we've had so many troops, so many assets, so much attention on the Middle East for my entire adult life. We had the Gulf War, which turned into you know, we bombed Ract several times throughout Clinton's presidence, which then leads into Afghanistan, leads into Iraq, leads into Libya, leads into the ISIS war, and now we're back around to Iran where this all started. And even before I was born, we had the conflicts with Iran, with the hostages and other standoffs. It's been this huge focus of America for a long time. And what's driven so much frustration is we've gotten involved repeatedly. Thousands of Americans have died, and one there never seems to be super clear progress, and instead it just seems to go on forever and there's not clear upside for the United States through all of it. And if President Trump is able to overthrow this regime and then say all of the big threats to America are gone. We're expanding the Abraham Accords. Will you know, We'll stay friendly with all of the countries involved. But now America is self sufficient in oil. We're an oil exporter, which we never were throughout a lot of these conflicts in the past. And now we can take all this focus that we've had on the Middle East and we can focus on America, focus on China, focus on where our core strategic interests are. That is the best cell that he can make on this. And that's rather you think this war is a great idea or is a disastrous idea. The war is happening, and so now well we look forward. 01:51:12 Speaker 9: I don't know, like I like, I could be wrong, you know, in the coming weeks or whatever. But this really doesn't from early reporting even look like a war. I mean, it's day one, it's day one, and we could be wrong, but this doesn't look like a war. This looks like strikes on regime. But if you look back to a rock I mean the images out of Baghdad during the start of the War like that was very different. That actually was a war. This is very different, and we could be wrong as time goes on. But President Trump time and again has been right on this. The Twelve Day War, everybody thought that this was going to go on forever Venezuela. People thought it was it was a bad idea, and now this is the third time where President Trump could prove us all wrong again. However, I just want to say this, This is a sign to China, This is a signed to Russia that when President Trump warns of something, when President Trump says not to do something and you do the opposite, like he's coming in, he will. 01:52:15 Speaker 4: Take Actually it's like that Marco Rubio great one liner where he says, well, if you didn't know, now you know. 01:52:20 Speaker 6: Yeah exactly. 01:52:21 Speaker 4: But he's done that a couple of times, and I do think there is power in that basically saying, you know, if you if you don't get in line, bad things are gonna happen, and then they actually happen. I mean, that is a that is a break from a lot of previous presidents. It just is, and I think it's gonna have potentially positive impacts. I think Alex Marlow thank you for making the time. Final thoughts to you, I think we should do a bit of a round the horn here, What do you hope to see? What do you expect to see? And then we'll we'll move to Jack and then. 01:52:57 Speaker 14: Yeah, I'm cautious about the fact that Trump's reputation as someone who does not start wars is in jeopardy at the moment, and he wants that. I think he likes that for himself for historical context. So he must have obviously thought this was a really legitimate opportunity to take out a terrorist funding regime that's deeply tied to China and could do a lot of good here. So I am definitely gonna wait it out before I have a full evaluation that I'm not gonna light my hair on fire over this yet, particularly if we keep it aerial and we seem to see evidence of high profile targets getting hit with precision, which it looks like that's what we're seeing initially. 01:53:36 Speaker 8: This could go any. 01:53:37 Speaker 14: Sort of direction, but as of now, I'll keep cautious optimism. 01:53:41 Speaker 8: The one thing that I want to. 01:53:42 Speaker 14: Respond to that's been a discussion, is this a question of what is his obligation to sell the war, and it's unfortunately, I feel like it's sort of a fruitless endeavor or a pointless endeavor for him to try to sell it to people, because if he's talking about anything other than affordability right now now, he's probably losing. And if he's talking about affordability, he's probably losing two. So it's one of these things where what is he supposed to say to get people on board? And I don't know. I think victory winning is its own ideology. And so if he can have success and then say look at the great success in retrospect, that is, in my opinion, probably his best strategy, and I think that's why he can go out and sell this. This was noticeably absent from a State of the Union. He had no Iran talk at all, which I thought was very telling. I thought that meant that he must be really knee deep in the negotiations for not to come up at all, which was It was a striking omission, I thought, and it made me think something really might happen here. Unless these guys say they're going to give up nukes. That's at a signal to me he was serious. He was going to attack, And I feel like the salesmanship element is not something that I expect. We would be nice to get it, but I think there's just too much risk that a convincing sale could take off China, which is not Trump's position. Remember Trump never talks about China, even when he's going up against China, he never says anything negative. He always says what a great guy Hi Jinping is. That's all he ever says publicly. That's the approach. So you got to imagine that will continue even if a lot of this does turn out to be about China in the end. And I think he feels like the more information he gives, the more people misinterpret it, the more people twist it, the more people leak, and that's a tough spot for him. So victory is again it's own ideology. If this thing holds and is successful, and a lot of high profile targets go down, and we don't have boots on the ground and we're not micromanaging a regime change, then we're gonna look back at this in a few weeks and we're gonna say it was another w But there's so many other scenarios that could present itself between now and then. 01:55:40 Speaker 4: Great great summation there, Alex Jack, We've got more intel coming in on this potential school that was hit. 01:55:49 Speaker 6: Fill us in. 01:55:50 Speaker 11: Yeah, so there's been reports from early on regarding a school that was struck. And again, just when when I see everything on Twitter, when I see things like this, you know, you really have to be careful with all of it because you just you just don't know what is real, what is a you know, what is a false report, what's disinformation. I'll just say this is what the AP is reporting right now. It is saying that, according to Iranian State TV, the death toll from a strike that hit a school in southern Iran has risen to eighty five people. This is also being reported currently in New York Times, BBC, and PR, but those are also being based off of Iranian state reports. So again I would I would caution that with a grain of salt as to exactly what's going on. There also seeing reports that this was a facility or this school was near an IRGC facility. 01:56:47 Speaker 1: That's going back and forth. 01:56:48 Speaker 11: But again I'm just reporting with their reporting, which is based on Iranian state reports. But because this is so much being reported in the media, we're just telling you to keep a breath it that that's what we're hearing. There's also questions as to and just like I would say, you know, we saw this in Ukraine a lot where there would be times where a missile or an interceptor or something that was in the path or nearby a certain facility was hit. 01:57:19 Speaker 1: That it may not have been that anyone. 01:57:21 Speaker 11: Was intentionally targeting that school, that hospital or something. But be given the nature of air combat and missile warfare, that if you get a shootdown, if you get a deflection, if you get a misfire, if you get debris, all of these things, if you're shooting down a drone for example, that the munitions could still be active and it may be unfortunately you know, in many of these cases that it hits an unintended target. And again just you know, blanket statement. I don't know, I'm not confirming whether or not this happened. We're just seeing those reports, but blanket statement that these are the things that happen when you go into war. 01:58:01 Speaker 1: As as they say, the enemy always gets a vote. 01:58:04 Speaker 11: Mike Tyson is famous for saying everyone's got a plan, so they get punched in the face. 01:58:08 Speaker 1: And we are currently in the fog of war. 01:58:11 Speaker 11: So that is that's the brief as far as I can give it on that report right now. 01:58:15 Speaker 4: Yeah, Mikey than Blake, and then we're gonna wrap. Mikey gen Z. You were born in two thousand and one, You've only known war. 01:58:25 Speaker 3: Yeah. 01:58:26 Speaker 9: I mean, this is why Charlie's stances on these things were so appealing to young peoples because we just kind of had a fatigue with it. But at the same time, having been under kind of the tutelage of Charlie, I learned oftentimes what was emotionally felt in private isn't always what needs to be said in public. Even though I am ultimately against regime change, President Trump has a record and I'm not going to bet against the record. And I also think as a patriot, seeing America take a firm stance against enemies is something that ultimately, I think all of us can agree on if it's done in the right way, if there's full transparency, if we understand why it matters to Americans. 01:59:10 Speaker 6: So mine is. 01:59:12 Speaker 9: A half a glass half full, let's wait and see approach. But ultimately, the images coming out of Iran, I really doubt this. 01:59:20 Speaker 13: This looks like a war for now, and we could be wrong, right this is only day one. Time will tell. However, I think. 01:59:28 Speaker 9: That these are these are Persian people. 01:59:32 Speaker 13: They are ultimately pro West. And all you have. 01:59:36 Speaker 9: To do is look at the reports of videos from young people in Iran right now. Look at reports of that is irony in Iran right now. And so the irony is is that young people here in the US really don't care about foreign policy. But then young people in Iran are cheering President Trump's name and running out of their schools. 01:59:54 Speaker 5: For them domestic policy, yeah, yeah, exactly. 01:59:56 Speaker 9: So we'll wait and see, but all ultimately, I think we need to just trust President Trump and our friends in DC. 02:00:05 Speaker 5: Right now. What I'll say is, if you pulled me last summer, should we do regime change in Iran? I would have said no. If you pulled me two weeks ago, should we do regime change in Iran? I think I would say no. But the President did make this decision to pursue this. We are all American patriots. We want the best for this country. So we must hope that this goes as the President hopes it will, as the military hopes it will, and we must support them in trying to achieve that a lot can happen. A lot could happen before this day is out, before this weekend is out. We might all be back in this studio in a matter of hours. If something major happens, if the US ship has hit, if US soldiers are lost, if there's major strikes, will hopefully be a place that you can turn to for honest perspective on this And so looking ahead, we are hoping for the best, but we've been frank. The administration must make a strong case for this conflict to the American people at large and to its base. They did run as a piece ticket. They made the case that President Trump is good at avoiding wars. He was very proud that in his first administration he did not begin any new ones. That doesn't mean he never has to start one, because sometimes that is the best call for the American people. And if they can make that case, God bless them and will be praying for them to be able to do that. And until then, we're playing a waiting game. 02:01:36 Speaker 4: Like everyone, Yeah, Jack, any final thoughts before we log off here. 02:01:41 Speaker 1: Jack or Alex, I can gre with everyone. 02:01:43 Speaker 11: I think that look, I think the American people want to hear from the president. I think the American people want to hear from the president live. 02:01:51 Speaker 1: They want to know what's going on. 02:01:53 Speaker 11: They want to hear from the man that they elected that if this is the goal, they want to see a live speech from him him from mar A Lago or in the Oval Office, if that's possible to be able to understand what's going on and what actions are going to be taken. Should we take this as a one day event, a one off event, or are we going to see more? When you've got that many American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. Again, each aircraft carrier carries five thousand American souls on it, so that's ten thousand just there sitting off the coast. And as these reports come out that Iran may have hypersonics, well, what does a hypersonic missile do? Those are carrier killers, that's what they're designed for. So with Americans and Harm's way, everyone of course is praying for them. We are praying for them, and the American people are going to want to hear from the president. 02:02:43 Speaker 1: There's no question. 02:02:44 Speaker 6: Alex Marlow final words. 02:02:46 Speaker 8: Yeah, that's great born from Jack. 02:02:48 Speaker 14: I would love to see it and he does, he's generally his best spokesperson and advocate, and everyone will pay attention if he does make a formal address, because I feel like that it'll get through the media filters, which is it's just just completely sick what's going on on a lot of the networks. We're just trying to get every single person to not give him any benefit of doubt, just to try to divide as much as possible this obviously complicated stuff. War is very complicated. We're getting a lot of flooding of Iranian propaganda into American media that will be touted by our press in order to try to harm our war effort. But it is a war effort. It's not a war per se yet, and I hope it doesn't get to that point. He obviously had a high degree of confidence that aerial assaults would be effective and taking out some high value targets, and I think creating perhaps a leadership vacuum in a country that's already very weak right now, both militarily and politically. And I think we all can acknowledge that it'd be nice if there was something else in there other than the Iyahtolas in leading Iran, which does have a lot of Western elements to it, and is big supporters of China, as we've discussed multiple times now, So there's a lot of. 02:03:51 Speaker 8: Upside here if this works. 02:03:52 Speaker 14: The problem is is that we all have so much scar tissue from things like this not working out, not from President Trump but from prior price And even those of us who are the biggest Trump supporters are imaginable, I have that in the back of their mind right now. So the more information that we can get, the better. 02:04:08 Speaker 4: Yeah, And I'll just say for now, the President's decided to take action. He's shown us for over a decade that he doesn't do endless wars. So we have to trust and believe that that is the goal here as well, that this will be a precision strike and that it can be quick and surgical, that we don't have any US casualties. That's the hope, and that's the prayer. And so we pray for our troops, We pray for our leaders, President Trump, jd Vance, Marco Rubio and on down. And we will monitor the situation closely as the information comes on. 02:04:43 Speaker 5: Monitor in the situations. 02:04:45 Speaker 6: As the information comes online. 02:04:47 Speaker 4: We may be back here in the studio before you know it, but until then, thank you everybody who joined the stream. Thank you to Real America's Voice for taking it on their network. Alex marlow, Jack Besobic, Mike McCoy, Blake Nepp, and my We'll talk to you soon and pray for peace. 02:05:08 Speaker 13: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com