Pod Insights The Tucker Carlson Show Military Expert Dan Caldwell Breaks Down What Will Happen Next in Israel’s War With Iran About this episode Former Pentagon official Dan Caldwell explains what would happen if Ted Cruz gets his way in Iran.
(00:00) Introduction
(00:47) What Would Happen if the US Strikes Iran?
(09:23) American Troops in Iraq and Syria
(20:12) Did US Policy Makers Intentionally Put American Troops at Risk?
(27:16) What Are the Casualties in Israel?
(55:41) Are We Seeing the Fall of the Neocons?
Paid partnerships with:
ExpressVPN: Go to https://ExpressVPN.com/Tucker and find out how you can get 4 months of ExpressVPN free!
Preborn: To donate please dial #250 and say keyword "BABY" or visit https://preborn.com/TUCKER
Jase Medical: Go to https://Jase.com and use code TUCKER
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcript 16,827 words · 7 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Speaker 00 Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
0:29 Tucker Carlson? So it seems likely the US government will participate in offensive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. If that happens, what next? How does Iran respond? Can airstrikes alone end the nuclear program? And what happens to the rest of the countries in the region and Iran's allies? Do they get involved? There is no better person to talk this through with than former Pentagon official Dan Caldwell, who joins us now.
1:17 Tucker Carlson? As we sit here right now, and I hope you'll correct me if you think this is, this impression is wrong. But I think the general view among people who are watching what's happening in Iran is that there will be some kind of US strike. I'm not, this is, I'm getting this from what I'm reading in the, in the popular press. There will be some kind of strike on Iran by the US military against an enrichment site, the famous subterranean enrichment site, with some kind of conventional, large conventional bunker buster weapon. That has not happened. Of course, we don't know that's going to happen. We don't know anything. But let's just assume that does happen.
2:00 Tucker Carlson? What happens next?
2:02 Speaker 02 Well, let me just say, if it does happen, I hope all my predictions are dead wrong.
2:07 Tucker Carlson? Me too. Thank you for saying that.
2:10 Speaker 02 That means dead Americans and, you know, I won't say who I was talking to somebody who I guess you could describe as a neoconservative. And, you know, I said, I hope if this happens, you're making fun of me and calling me an idiot.
2:23 Tucker Carlson? Me too. I totally.
2:24 Speaker 02 I really mean that because there's guys who are just like me 15, 20 years ago that are going to be in the middle of this fight. Either they're going to be on some of these bases that will likely come under attack. They're going to be part of air crews, you may on some of these ships. I really hope that all the confident predictions play out and I'd love to be wrong.
2:42 Tucker Carlson? Can I ask you this? How are those guys, since you've been one of those guys, how are those guys feeling right now?
2:47 Speaker 02 You know, um.
2:48 Tucker Carlson? Are they getting news? Are they on social media? Are they aware of what people in the US are saying about the likelihood of this?
2:54 Speaker 02 I think that a lot of them are. I have spoken to a few that are still in the service. And the ones that I talked to are either senior listed or more senior officers. So they've been around for 15, 20, some cases 25 years at the tail end of their careers. And honestly, a lot of those guys are tired. And these were guys 20 years ago that the one thing they wanted was to get in the fight. They wanted to go to Iraq. They wanted to go Afghanistan. Some of them are on their seventh, eighth deployments either to the region or to Europe or somewhere else. And they're, they're worn out. And they also see that the military has really continued
3:39 Speaker 02 to be overstretched despite the fact that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have wound down. And remember, we still have thousands of troops in Iraq and Syria. Thankfully, the Trump administration prior to this appears to have started a retrograde, a withdrawal from Syria. Hopefully, we go to zero there. So we still have a lot of troops there. And a lot of them just feel like. We've been doing this for so long and there's so many things we have to do to fix the military, you know, to fix the culture, something the DOD is really trying to prioritize. We need to reform our army, you know, Secretary Dan Driscoll is starting this major army reform effort that I think is important. And another war will distract away from that, will take
4:20 Speaker 02 resources away from that. There's, there's a huge problem right now with a standard of living within the United States military. A lot of barracks are falling apart. You had the Navy Secretary John Fallon, and credit to him, he went out to Guam and saw the decrepit state of the barracks for I believe the Marines out there, and he ordered them shut down. And they were so bad. So another war that, that not only puts more lives in danger and requires more deployments to that region after 20 years of, of continuous deployment, sometimes the last minute. Again, it takes resources away from, from things we need to do. And I think a lot of folks are really worried about that as well.
5:04 Tucker Carlson? If you're, you're on a ship in the region right now, and you think there could be offensive military action by the US military, and you're, you're at some level of the chain, you're part of it. Are you nervous?
5:18 Speaker 02 I mean, being I, I, and when I was in the Marine Corps, even though we are an amphibious branch, I, I never served on a, on a ship before I flew over to Iraq. I didn't go over on a, on a boat float. But I mean, from what it's been described to me, you're in a, a metal container. I, you know, I used to talk a lot of trash about the Navy, but, but understanding what it's like to live on a ship six months at a time, and especially when you get extended over and over again. I'd rather do multiple deployments to Iraq. I'd just like to say that. But it's very isolating. It's very scary because you sometimes feel like you don't have control and that events are out of your hands in a way that's maybe not the same for somebody who's serving in the infantry, or you're an individual pilot.
6:04 Tucker Carlson? There's nowhere to run, literally.
6:06 Speaker 02 Yes. Yeah. It's, it's terrifying. And as been publicly reported, we had some very, very close calls in the recent fight against the Houthis is, uh, there was, um, you know, some anti-ship missiles. We have a very- Effective ballistic missile defense and anti-missile defense on these ships. But one of the reasons why one of those F-18s fell off the Harrius S. Truman was because it had to do some aggressive maneuvers to potentially avoid a Houthi anti-ship missile and thankfully didn't hit. But imagine being one of the 6,000 sailors and Marines on that ship and in that moment. And it's terrifying. It can be absolutely terrifying.
6:50 Tucker Carlson? It is terrifying. I'm sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I was thinking about this morning, what would it be like to be one of those guys just waiting for something to happen and knowing it could be?
6:58 Speaker 02 Nothing but respect for the United States Navy.
7:01 Tucker Carlson? Totally agree. So you were saying, and I just wanted to add my voice and be in agreement, I really hope to be wrong in every one of my predictions, I hope to laugh at myself and apologize to everyone for being hysterical. I really hope that I can do that. And I know you feel the same way. So with that caveat, what do you think is likely to happen if a strike of the nature that I described happens?
7:22 Speaker 02 Well, I think the event to look back on, the back two that could show us what could happen is what happened after the Soleimani strike. And it's not a perfect comparison because it's pretty clear the Iranians telegraphed to us that they were going to do that. We had some back-channel communications, most likely. And so we knew it was coming. And so our troops on Al-Sadr Air Base, where I served, and actually interestingly, where the Vice President served as well too, many years ago, were able to get to shelters and to get out of places that were very exposed. And Iran launched a salvo of ballistic missiles at Al-Sadr Air Base. But even then-
8:04 Tucker Carlson? Which is where?
8:05 Speaker 02 Al-Sadr Air Base is in western Iraq. It's in Al-Ambar Province.
8:09 Tucker Carlson? It's in outright.
8:10 Speaker 02 And one thing to note about that base is, is that we do a lot of joint training with Iraqi Army. And the Iraqi Army is part of the same government that has another security force called the Popular Mobilization Force, which is a group of militias that are loyal to Iran. They were funded, initially supported and trained by Quds Force, led by Soleimani at the time. And so we are at that base, training allies of the people that are likely going to be trying to kill us in this war. So that's important to remember. And- That I think can lead you to to understand.
8:51 Tucker Carlson? That is still the case?
8:52 Speaker 02 Absolutely. That's our main mission in Iraq right now is to support the Iraqi security forces, which includes the Popular Mobilization Forces, which consists of Iran allied militia groups.
9:06 Tucker Carlson? This is so bonkers.
9:08 Speaker 02 It is the most convoluted mission, I think, on the face of the earth.
9:12 Tucker Carlson? Is that a mission? That seems like.
9:14 Speaker 02 A suicide pact.
9:15 Tucker Carlson? Kind of, kind of. It seems like putting guys in jeopardy for what's the purpose exactly?
9:21 Speaker 02 We're, we're, we're literally propping up an ally of Iran and we're subsidizing an ally of Iran. And some will argue it's like, well, we need these troops in, in Al Assad and we need them in, you know, parts of Baghdad still and other parts of the country to check Iran. But a small number of troops is not meaningfully influencing the Iraqi government and it's not providing a meaningful check on Iranian influence. They're just easy targets that allow us to, excuse me, allow the Iranians to bleed us cheaply.
9:53 Tucker Carlson? So without divulging anything, I mean, I know that you won't during the course of this conversation say anything that is privileged or, you know, legally confidential secret. But as far as you know, they're, they're there today. Those American troops are still in Iraq.
10:06 Speaker 02 As far as I know, yes.
10:07 Tucker Carlson? Still surrounded by Iranian proxies.
10:09 Speaker 02 Yes. Yes. And so I would still have concerns about a strike, a direct military intervention in Iran, were those troops not there? But the risks would be substantially lower if we didn't have troops in Iraq and Syria.
10:26 Tucker Carlson? Remember in 2020, when CNN told you the George Floyd riots were mostly peaceful? Even as flames rose in the background? It was ridiculous, but it was also a metaphor for the way our leaders run this country. They're constantly telling you, everything is fine. Everything is fine. Don't worry. Everything's under control. Nothing to see here. Move along and obey. No one believes that. Crime is not going away. Supply chains remain fragile. It does feel like some kind of global conflict could break out at any time. So the question is, if things went south tomorrow, would you be ready? Well, if you're not certain that you'd be ready, you need AmmoSquared.
11:10 Tucker Carlson? AmmoSquared is the only service that lets you build an ammunition stockpile automatically. You literally set it on autopilot. You pick the calibers you want, how much you want to save every month, then they'll ship it to you or they'll store it for you and ship it when you say so. You get 24/7 access to manage the whole thing. So don't let the people in charge, don't let CNN lull you into a fake sense of safety. Take control of your life, protect your family, be prepared. Go to AmmoSquared.com to learn more.
11:42 Speaker 03 We all hear the radio ads about the IRS. They tell you to be afraid, to be scared, and they try to frighten you into calling. I'm not here to do that. Tax relief advocates is different. TRA is here to tell you that if you owe money to the IRS, whether it's $5,000, $50,000, or $500,000, we have a solution. It doesn't matter if you're sitting in your car, at work, or with your kids, no matter where you are, call now. 800-576-4705. Don't lose hope. TRA can eliminate or reduce what you owe to the IRS. Generous programs are now available that can give you a fresh start. Our passion is taxes and helping individuals fix their IRS problems. We have over 1,000 5-star reviews on Google and an A+ with the Better Business Bureau. You don't need to be afraid of the IRS any longer.
12:27 Speaker 03 End your tax nightmare today by visiting us online at TRA.com or call 800-576-4705. That's 800-576-4705. Tax Relief Advocates: Real Solutions for Real People.
12:43 Speaker 04 Imagine if every time inverse Kramer or another top investor bought a stock, you bought it too. In your own brokerage account, automatically. Well, that now exists and it's called Autopilot. Built by the team behind the viral Pelosi Stock Tracker, Autopilot lets you browse their marketplace of strategies run by proven investors or AI-driven models. Just find one with a high return, connect your personal brokerage account like a Schwab or Robinhood, and every trade they make, you make automatically. Your money never leaves your own account. Autopilot just mirrors the moves. So now, no more guessing, no more staring at charts, and no more checking the market between meetings. Also, over 1.3 billion is already invested. So if you wanted to check it out, search autopilot
13:28 Speaker 04 in the App Store or go to joinautopilot.com. That's joinautopilot.com. Investing has risks like the loss of principal.
13:38 Tucker Carlson? Man, can I just say something really cynical? It'd be pretty easy to draw us in to a ground war against or a full-scale regime change effort against Iran by attacking those troops, no matter who you are.
13:52 Speaker 02 I've said it publicly, you know, prior to being at DOD. In a lot of ways, those troops in Iraq and Syria were a tripwire to a larger war. And the, especially after the defeat of ISIS caliphate, and you can argue whether or not they should have been put back in Iraq and Syria to begin with, but especially after the ISIS caliphate, they should not have been there. And one of the, there were many crimes in the first Trump administration, but one of the greatest crimes in the first Trump administration was an active effort by President Trump's own political appointees, in some cases, and elements of the military to undermine
14:34 Speaker 02 his stated preference to withdraw, particularly from Syria. And let's not forget, you had the president's special representative, I believe, for Syria, this guy Jim Jeffrey, who, after he left the administration, ran around Washington DC bragging about lying to the president about the number of troops in Syria so that he would be less likely to withdraw them.
15:00 Tucker Carlson? And that's not a crime? I think that's a crime.
15:02 Speaker 02 It should be. It absolutely should be. And it's disgraceful. And the fact-
15:06 Tucker Carlson? Subverting the civilian leadership of the military is not a crime? I think it is.
15:09 Speaker 02 Absolutely is. And, and I, it was completely outrageous. And as a result, you know, I, I think there's a direct line between that and last year, when you had three army reservists killed at Tower 22 in Jordan by a drone. Tower 22 in Jordan is directly in support of, it exists to support a base in Syria. And had Jim Jeffrey and others not undermine President Trump, those three reservists would likely still be alive today.
15:42 Tucker Carlson? Why is it called Tower 22?
15:44 Speaker 02 Honestly, I, I'm not entirely sure.
15:46 Tucker Carlson? But it is a US military installation of some kind in Jordan?
15:49 Speaker 02 Yes.
15:49 Tucker Carlson? Whose purpose is to support the US military? Installation that is in Syria but shouldn't be.
15:53 Speaker 02 It's literally right across the border and that and that that that uh that installation in Syria is called Tanef.
16:01 Speaker 02 And again, none of this, this has all been reported, public info is that was originally established to train anti Assad fighters to basically effectively retrained them to fight ISIS. And so um then that mission morphed into a counter Iran mission where it's they wanted to keep American troops there and the proxies there. So Iran wouldn't have a line of communication or basically, you know, an ability to move forces from Iran through Iraq to Syria. So that was justification. But then things changed in northern Syria. The Syrian army started collaborating more with the Kurds. So they got a line of communication. And so then it ran out another mission and then it became airspace control.
16:47 Speaker 02 And by the time um it was you got to January 2020, I believe it's January, February 2024, when this incident happened.
16:58 Speaker 02 The Biden administration, it was reported, you know, when people asked about Syria policy, Biden admin officials would just laugh because we had none. So they were sitting there for no reason other than this belief is that you can never withdraw or retrench from anywhere because of surrender.
17:15 Tucker Carlson? Well, and the irony is, of course, that elements of ISIS now run Syria and we're cool with that for some reason.
17:21 Speaker 02 Yeah, I mean, at the end of the day, um, Jelani was created in an American prison. Now, I will say, I think it is good. We're trying to remove sanctions on Syria.
17:32 Tucker Carlson? I totally agree.
17:33 Speaker 02 Because um, you know, sanctions only hurt the the average person in Syria. I'm glad we're pursuing that. I'm glad we're trying to pursue some type of diplomatic course there. But let's be honest, who won that war? Al Qaeda won the war.
17:47 Tucker Carlson? Well, that's the point. Look, I'm rooting for Jelani. I want him to become, you know, a wise leader who makes the region more stable and peaceful. And I want everyone to succeed. But as long as we're framing everything in moral terms. This just shows the true bankruptcy of the program.
18:05 Speaker 02 Yeah, that we replaced Assad with Al Qaeda.
18:11 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
18:11 Speaker 02 One, you know, I guess the one thing they have in common is you both begin with A first, but.
18:17 Tucker Carlson? The one thing they don't have in common is only one of them is responsible for nine 11. So I think I'm pretty pro Assad if that's the choice.
18:23 Speaker 02 I mean, I, yeah, Assad definitely was incredibly nasty and awful.
18:28 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
18:28 Speaker 02 But you essentially bring up nine 11. Who did we cooperate with after nine 11? We sent prisoners to Assad to help interrogate. And ultimately we had a shared interest in stopping Al Qaeda. So we cooperated with Assad early on.
18:46 Tucker Carlson? I know. So if you, if you were to frame your foreign policy around your own interests or even around your own grievances, like it's fair to be mad about nine 11.
18:54 Speaker 02 Yeah.
18:54 Tucker Carlson? All those people died, 3,000. Then you would be, you would definitely not be happy that the guy who helped you after nine 11 was overthrown in favor of the people who did nine 11. Like from an American perspective, that's not a win.
19:06 Speaker 02 And we spent tens of billions of dollars in Syria. We lost lives, you know? We, we know Joe Kent, you know, his story. His wife, absolute heroic woman.
19:21 Speaker 02 You know, other soldiers, Marines were wounded. We came close at several points to getting into combat with the actual Russian military. We had a major battle with Russian mercenaries, the Wagner, Wagner group.
19:36 Speaker 02 You know, a lot of people focus on the risk of escalation in Ukraine and, and an incident where American and Russian forces that are operating area could come into conflict and where that could go. That, that almost happened in Syria on a weekly basis for several years because you had Russian and Syrian, or you had Russian and American aircraft operating in the same place. You had American troops and Russian troops operating in the same area. One misunderstanding could have kicked off a cycle where we're in a major conflict with Russia. And, and, and, you know, the focus has been on Ukraine, but the place for a longest time where Russian and American forces were brushing up against each other wasn't Syria.
20:18 Speaker 02 So especially after the destruction of ISIS caliphate, that mission should have ended. And it is, again, an absolute crime that it was undermined not once, but twice in President Trump's first term.
20:30 Tucker Carlson? You described our troop presence in Iraq as, quote, a tripwire. Can you flesh out what you mean by that and how it happened?
20:39 Speaker 02 Um, I would say both Iraq and Syria and probably more Syria is, um, that kind of gets to ultimately why I think some people wanted to keep our troops there is that if there was a mass casualty incident where an Iranian aligned militia or some other actor attacked American troops and, you know, God forbid, killed or wounded a significant number of troops, that would have been justification to escalate either against Iran or to get more involved fighting other groups like, you know, Al Qaeda, ISIS.
21:19 Speaker 02 And so just their mere presence was, again, they weren't effectively deterring Iran or other actors because they're just too small, but their presence in and of itself was a risk that we could be sucked into a major war.
21:33 Tucker Carlson? So are you saying that you sincerely believe there are US policymakers who intentionally put American troops in at risk?
21:40 Speaker 02 I don't think consciously there are US, at least I don't want to believe.
21:48 Tucker Carlson? No.
21:49 Speaker 02 There, there are US policymakers that believe that, but, you know, I, I think subconsciously some folks did.
21:56 Tucker Carlson? Lyndon Johnson allowed the USS Liberty to be attacked. He knew those guys were going to die. He thought they were all going to die. I mean, that, I think that's true. So, I mean, that's happened before. He was the President of the United States, allowing, hoping for the death of US troops for some other agenda. Like, there are people that evil. Lyndon Johnson was that evil.
22:13 Speaker 02 Yeah. I mean, the, the, you know, when we know now about Gulf of Tonkin and all that other, I, I think so.
22:18 Tucker Carlson? Exactly.
22:19 Speaker 02 Yeah.
22:20 Tucker Carlson? Exactly.
22:21 Speaker 02 And, um, I, you know, my- My belief is, is that honestly, a lot of it more had to do, and we talked about this last interview, this kind of policy inertia, like it's easier just to say, let's keep doing the status quo, as opposed to actually changing something because there's less risk in a lot of people's minds. Now, again, I just laid out the risk of keeping troops there, but in some people's minds, there's less risk to their career by preserving the status quo as opposed to changing something that's not working.
22:52 Tucker Carlson? Your private information is more vulnerable even than you know. Even if you trust the big data brokers not to sell your online history, hackers can do it. They can break into their systems or yours and release your files to anyone they want, governments or the highest bidder. Just last week, for example, a new leak caused a 364,000 person leak. That means 364,000 people had their private information go public. That's a massive invasion of privacy at scale, really. So we trust ExpressVPN to protect us from falling victim to these schemes. ExpressVPN is an app that reroutes 100% of your online traffic through secure
23:34 Tucker Carlson? encrypted servers, and that prevents data brokers or anyone else from seeing what you're doing and stealing your private information and reselling it. That means what you do on your computer, everything you click on, everything you watch, every friend you make on social media will be private as it should be. ExpressVPN also hides your IP address. That's the data number that brokers use to track your behavior and then sell it. So right now, you can get an extra four months for free when you use this show's link. Scan the QR code on the screen, go to expressvpn.com/tucker and get four extra months of ExpressVPN. Expressvpn.com/tucker.
24:13 Tucker Carlson? That sound? That's the National Squash League. Pro teams, the world's best players, and rally so fast you'll forget to breathe. Season four is in full swing and every match streams free on YouTube. Big hits, bigger rivalries, and a front row seat from wherever you are. Watch every match for free on YouTube. Search National Squash League and hit subscribe or follow live updates on Instagram at NSL.Sport.
24:41 Tucker Carlson? So most people don't wake up in the morning and decide to feel horrible, exhausted, foggy, disconnected from themselves. But it does happen and it happens slowly. You're working hard, you're showing up and then your energy disappears by midday. Your focus is dull, your weight won't move. A lot of people are told that's just getting old. That's what it is, but that's not actually true. For many men and women, these are not personal fears. They are signals tied to your metabolism, your hormones and nutrient imbalances that go undetected for years. You don't even know you're deficient. And that's why we're happy to partner with Joy and Blokes, a company that was built for people who are all done guessing and ready to figure out what exactly is going on. And that starts with comprehensive lab work and a one-on-one consultation with a licensed
25:26 Tucker Carlson? clinician. An actual human being explains what's happening inside you and builds a personalized plan, which includes hormone optimization, peptide therapy, targeted supplements. So don't settle. Go to joyandblokes.com/tucker. Use the code TUCKER for 50% off your lab work and 20% off all supplements. That's joyandblokes.com/tucker. Use the code TUCKER, 50% off labs, 20% off supplements. Joy and Blokes, get your edge back. And regardless of motive, I think your point is demonstrably true. Whether or not the people who set it up intended it to be a tripwire, it is a tripwire.
26:05 Speaker 02 Yes.
26:06 Tucker Carlson? That's fair, right?
26:06 Speaker 02 Yes, absolutely.
26:08 Tucker Carlson? So that's the first thing that could happen if we strike, if the US military strikes offensively against Iran in any way, right? So yeah, and okay, so then what else? What would happen then?
26:22 Speaker 02 Well, um, that's where there's really, it all depends on the impact of the counter strike on US troops and on American facilities and how the United States responds. If we continue, at that point, you're on the escalation ladder. So if our troops are attacked and we attack, uh, we counter attack with a larger strike and a larger force, and if we use certain bases in the region, like say in places like Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, if, if these countries allow us, and there's a good chance, this is something I think. Needs to be constantly reinforced is that these Gulf Arab states are not where
27:07 Speaker 02 they were in 2019. So there's not, it's not a guarantee that they would allow us to use these bases in their country to attack Iran. But if the Iranians perceive whether it's true or not that we are using those bases and they're looking to punish us, they will attack bases that are, you know, larger, more, maybe more hardened, but hosts a lot more troops. And that could quickly lead to more casualties. They could also attack ships in the Arabian Sea or Persian Gulf. And they could also, if we continue to get pushed up the escalation ladder, attack US diplomatic facilities. Now, those are all
27:50 Speaker 02 worst case scenarios, but there are risks that should be considered and can't be ignored. So it gets back to this, this whole idea that I just, again, I hope I'm wrong. I fundamentally don't buy that you can just do one or two strikes and that's it. And Iranians, you know, aren't going to respond. It's gonna have to be, you're gonna have to prepare and expect a much longer and much more bloody military campaign.
28:17 Tucker Carlson? Obviously, without divulging the details of any kind of classified planning document, we know that the Pentagon has been thinking about how Iran would respond to a strike against its enrichment facilities for like a long time, a long, long time. This has been, I mean, people, and I know that you're one of them. Does anybody think that they just wouldn't respond?
28:40 Speaker 02 I'm sure there are people right now who are trying to say is they won't respond. It's like they're weak, they're on their back foot. They, they're, they want to just come save, save the regime. So therefore they're just going to back off, that they're not actually going to respond. And if you look at the hours immediately after the Israeli, initial Israeli set of airstrikes, there's some people saying, Watch like Iran's not gonna really respond or it's gonna be weak. And you know, over the next few days, they launched between 400 and 500 ballistic missiles.
29:22 Speaker 02 Again, thankfully, they weren't as effective as originally advertised, but still they've, as we sit here today, I believe, killed around 25 Israelis, wounded nearly 600. They've been able to hit, um, uh, you know.
29:37 Tucker Carlson? They've wounded 600 Israelis so far?
29:39 Speaker 02 Yes, yeah.
29:40 Tucker Carlson? Are we, um, there's total military censorship in Israel. Israeli citizens are not allowed to leave. Most of them are not allowed to leave the country. They, they shut it down. So like they're stuck there for people. And, um, so, and there's, you know, total control of the press in Israel. So do we know, like, are we confident we know the casualty numbers in Israel?
30:01 Speaker 02 No, both sides, the, the numbers that have been released by both sides are, in some cases, maybe overstating things. I think it's, it's likely the Iranians are maybe overstating civilian casualties, understating military casualties.
30:17 Tucker Carlson? You would guess.
30:18 Speaker 02 And I think, I think it's a lagging indicator. My understanding, and again, I'm not an expert on this, is that the way Israelis work is that they allow the information to come out at just a later point. But look, I mean, in some ways I don't blame them because somebody filming something from a balcony and how a missile hits, that is intelligence for the Iranians.
30:40 Tucker Carlson? Oh, I, oh, I'm not complaining about it. I'm just saying, I, I always.
30:43 Speaker 02 And you saw something, you see that very, in Ukraine as well.
30:47 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, I mean, you, that's a whole different, I mean, the casualty numbers in Ukraine, you know, American lawmakers who funded this war, extended this war for years at the expense of the Ukrainians, I think have a moral obligation to know how many Ukrainians have died. They did this.
31:02 Speaker 02 Yeah.
31:02 Tucker Carlson? But they don't care.
31:03 Speaker 02 I actually think there's an amendment, and I could be wrong about this, put in one of the National Defense Authorization Acts or an attempt, uh, to force the disclosure of the two true casualty numbers, and I think it was defeated. Or it was added in and just, it's been ignored by DOD.
31:19 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, I really think that's contemptible. I've asked a bunch of lawmakers who've, who have, are really responsible for the war, um, or the continuation of the war, you know, like how many Ukrainians have died? They have no interest in knowing, you know, but anyway.
31:34 Speaker 02 The point, the point of walking all that through that is, um, There and Iran is really adjusting and changing their tactics as the war grinds on. And that's in part because Israelis have been successful in destroying some of their mobile missile launchers and their missile stocks. So the barrages aren't as intense, but you're seeing them introduce new systems. And here's, here's the most important thing that, you know, absent an American intervention, which as we've discussed could be imminent.
32:09 Speaker 02 Right now, the war is essentially a race between Iran and Israel. For the Israelis, they are trying to destroy as many Iranian ballistic missile launchers and ballistic missiles before they run out of anti-missile ballistic missile interceptors for their Arrow David Sling systems and then our THAAD systems and our SM3, SM6s that we're launching off of ships. Likewise, Iranians are trying to preserve as many of their missile systems and survive as many Israeli airstrikes as possible while Israelis wear down their store of precision
32:54 Speaker 02 munitions and, and missile interceptors. So each side is trying to get to a point where they're either not threatened by certain offensive weapon systems, or their offensive weapon systems can breach defensive systems more effectively and inflict more casualties. And I, there are smart people that say right now in that race, Israel has a slight advantage. Other smart people say Iran has a slight advantage because of the number of missiles they've stockpiled. And that really, right now is, is the game. So there's a time pressure here on both sides. And absent, you know, American military intervention, which will change the whole dynamic, is that's really what it's going to come down to.
33:38 Speaker 02 Which side can outlast the other with certain types of weapons and weapon systems?
33:42 Tucker Carlson? Again, with the caveat, I have no freaking idea what's going to happen. Nobody does other than, well, I don't know that anybody does right now.
33:51 Tucker Carlson? I mean, there's been reported repeatedly that there's going to be American military intervention, like that's just like reported as fact. And whether it is or not. So I just want to focus a little more intently on how does that change the dynamic and how much offensive intervention would qualify as like dragging America into the war officially? Any?
34:14 Speaker 02 Well, again, a lot of it goes, that goes back to the conversation we're just having. If, if Iran doesn't respond to just one or two strikes, they decide to take that blow and there's evidence that they, that most of the evidence shows they probably wouldn't, then that would probably contain the size of the American offensive operation. But if we were to go in, I think it is likely that we wouldn't just hit a nuclear site for the sake of our own troops. So it would not just be a one-off strike or we'd coordinate with Israelis. And again, if there is an attack on American bases in response to this,
34:58 Speaker 02 that would pull the United States more into the war and push us into a spiral where we're constantly escalating against the other side. And then that brings us to a point where even though it's pretty clear the Trump administration, even if they do decide to do the strike, doesn't want a regime change war, is ultimately get pulled into a regime change war, whether or not we want it.
35:21 Tucker Carlson? So none of this was even on the table, you know, 10 days ago until the Prime Minister of Israel called the President of the United States and said, I'm going in, I'm doing it. I don't care what you, what you say. This has all been reported in the New York Times, give them three days notice. It's just a little bit crazy that all of a sudden we're talking about like, how are we going to deal with this war against Iran, which wasn't even a thing two weeks ago. So I just want to say that. How, if this were a war that the United States chose, this was, it wasn't, this was a war that was chosen for us, we were going along with it. But if we had chosen this, if we decided, like pending on HQ, we're going to take out those enrichment facilities, how, like you wouldn't do it three days later, right? There's a lot of planning for these things?
36:05 Speaker 02 Yes. And this is, I mean, again, stuff that's been publicly reported is these types of operations have been planned for years. And they've had different plans, they've adjust, they've adjusted, but have essentially been on the shelf for, for years now.
36:20 Tucker Carlson? Yeah. But does it make it harder to get just three days notice before this, the shooting starts?
36:28 Speaker 02 This is where I'm a little unsure because I don't know what 100% for sure. There's a lot of public reporting, but that's not always so.
36:36 Tucker Carlson? That's you're, you're absolutely right. And I shouldn't pretend like I know.
36:39 Speaker 02 And, and so I don't know what was in the region or not, but there to successfully accomplish something like this, you do need a, a, there needs to be a lot of things that happen leading up into that. I think that is fair to say, and the United States military can move quickly when it needs to. I will say it can move quickly when you don't have large number of ground troops, when you're primarily relying on air and naval assets. So you can move stuff in quickly, but leading up into that, there would have, there normally would be a lot of planning. But again, I'm sorry if I'm going back and forth here. This has been a scenario that has been planned for, for a long time.
37:20 Tucker Carlson? So Roe v. Wade was overturned three years ago and people celebrated, but the battle over abortion is not over. In fact, did you know that abortions are at a 10-year high? In a lot of ways, it's the saddest thing that happens in this country. The birth rate falls and the killing of children accelerates. It's awful. Preborn is fighting this trend. They're expanding their life-affirming care in the darkest corners of the country to help women and save babies. Now abortion mafia don't want women to think about what they are carrying. They want them to think that ending the pregnancy will solve all of their problems, but that is not true. 11% of women who take the abortion pill, for example, go on to suffer serious health consequences.
38:03 Tucker Carlson? And that does not include the emotional and moral consequences. It's bad. It's ending a life. So when you give to Preborn, you are not just saving a baby, you're saving a mother too. Preborn has already rescued over 350,000 babies. There are still many, many more who need help. Dial pound 250 and say the keyword baby to support their cause. That's pound 250 baby. Go to preborn.com/tucker, preborn.com/tucker, because children are the greatest gift.
38:32 Speaker 05 I'm Serena Williams and I'm healthier on Roe. I've lost 34 pounds in a year with GLP-1's diet. And exercise on RO, you can access GLP one options, including the first FDA approved GLP one pill for weight loss. Go to ro.co/journey to see if you qualify. 14 to 20% average weight loss in one year in non-diabetics with obesity or overweight with a weight-related medical condition versus 2.2% to 3.1% in placebo R. RX only. To stay informed about serious side effects, go to ro.co/safety.
39:03 Tucker Carlson? Period. In thinking about this, non-classified, of course, but given that Iran is part of BRICS and has all kinds of military and economic ties with Russia and China, how high is the concern that they might get involved?
39:18 Speaker 02 So this is, this is where it gets interesting is, um, I think Russia in particular has a lot of reasons for them not to get involved.
39:31 Tucker Carlson? That's my sense.
39:32 Speaker 02 And the reason, there's a few reasons is one, a lot of the things that Iran would need from Russia are actually things that Russians really need in Ukraine.
39:41 Tucker Carlson? Right.
39:42 Speaker 02 So air defense assets, fighter jets and things like that is Russia's military and industrial base is much more developed than the United States and NATO. Interesting fact. And, you know, the NATO secretary general says all the time is Russia produces more weapons and munitions in three months than all of NATO combined produces in a year. So, but the Russian way of war in Ukraine relies on overwhelming firepower. So it's very difficult for them to divert weapons to other partners. I'm not saying that, that, that couldn't happen. Maybe there's some intelligence sharing, but I, I don't think that my gut would be
40:24 Speaker 02 is they would not support Iran in a very big way. I think China is, is, is different. I don't think that they would overtly support the Iranians, but I think if there's one party that over the medium term at least, and they may face some short-term challenges because of disruption and, and energy supplies, but over the medium term that would benefit from another major war in the Middle East and what the United States is heavily involved in, it is China, because the weapons that we would be using to fight Iran are.
40:59 Speaker 02 What we would need in a Pacific contingency and God forbid we fight a war with China. It's not even fighting war either. It's weapons that we want to supply to some of our partners, whether it's Japan or the Philippines or South Korea or Taiwan. Those are all systems that would be heavily used, whether it's air defense, standoff munitions, you know, other types of air-to-surface munitions, surface munitions. Those are the things that are going to lead the Iran fight because of just the size of Iran. Iran is a huge country, both in terms of population, but geography, it's not as small
41:40 Speaker 02 in terms of geography as Iraq and it's much longer distances to say get from the Persian Gulf up to Tehran. So you have to rely on certain types of weapons and certain types of aircraft. Again, all of which are, would be at the tip of the spear in a fight against China. So it is in their interest to see us expand more and more munitions and wear down more and more weapon systems in the Persian Gulf. So again, China's played it very smart in how they engage the Middle East. I think that they would be more willing to do things economically to help Iran and maybe provide some non-lethal systems like they have for Russia that could be beneficial for Iran in this fight. But again, you can't.
42:24 Tucker Carlson? What's and what do you mean by non-lethal systems?
42:27 Speaker 02 So for example, China, there's debate over this, but there's not really clear evidence that China has provided lethal weapon systems like Iran and North Korea have to Russia. However, they have provided non-lethal weapon systems like counter drone technology to Russia. They have provided, they've helped them get around some of the Western sanctions. They've helped provide them certain types of electronics that are maybe harder to get from the West. I think we can say that with confidence. They could do that with Iran.
43:00 Tucker Carlson? And massive investment in Russia.
43:02 Speaker 02 Yes.
43:02 Tucker Carlson? Which by the way, keeps the Russian population prosperous and happy and not complaining about the war.
43:07 Speaker 02 Yes. But again, as we, you know, talked about before, that's not a natural alliance. And the Russian security services are still very suspicious of the Chinese, just like the Iranian security services aren't. They're still suspicious of the Russians because there's a long history of Russia invading and
43:30 Tucker Carlson? These are countries that border each other.
43:32 Speaker 02 Yes, occupying Iran, I believe twice in the 20th century. So getting back to the theme that we've talked about before is like, we've all pushed these countries together because of our dumb foreign policy. We should be able to pull them apart. They should have natural tension, but because of our foreign policy over the last 30 years, we're creating these opportunities for cooperation. And that makes the situation in the Middle East worse, the situation in Ukraine worse, and the situation in the Pacific worse for us.
44:01 Tucker Carlson? Do you think there's any chance that China become, if, you know, if this does become a direct conflict between the United States and Iran, that China enters it in a way that's like, that we can't ignore, that's just so provocative that we're at war with them too?
44:16 Speaker 02 I think it's more likely that they would make a decision to do something in the Pacific because that is more important to them. I don't, I don't buy this argument that if we were to pull out of the Middle East, that China would want to become a hegemon in the Middle East. They have been able to use smart power and minimal military power to maintain influence and reap economic benefits from the Middle East. And they don't have the force projection capabilities that the United States has. Some smart people that I've worked with have made pretty compelling arguments that, that, that they are not likely to try and dominate the Middle East.
44:59 Speaker 02 So I don't think China would get directly involved in the Middle East, but if they see the United States worn down even more in the Middle East, that may change some of their calculus vis a vis Taiwan.
45:12 Tucker Carlson? And I wonder, not just Taiwan, so we've been in Japan for 80 years, we've been in Korea since 1950, 75 years.
45:22 Tucker Carlson? Those are like in their neighborhood.
45:25 Speaker 02 Yeah.
45:25 Tucker Carlson? And I'm certainly not justifying anything China. I'm not, you know, but I'm just trying to understand like their perspective because I think it's meaningful. If there were, you know, if there was an 80 year old Chinese military base in Belize, you'd be like, huh, a little close. We wouldn't want that. Nobody wants that. And so maybe their expectation is that they can drive us out of the east, out of their direct sphere. Is that a concern? I mean, is that something that people think this stuff through think about?
45:54 Speaker 02 Um, yeah, I think, I think there have been people that have thought about that. And I think there's a lot of people, honestly, I think one of the biggest issues the Pentagon is dealing with right now is since that has been identified as the main theater, the main threat, the pacing, to use, you know, military term, the pacing threat, um, or pacing challenge, whatever term you want to use, um, that everything we're doing in the Middle East trades off against the Pacific, which from an economic standpoint is much more important to us than the Middle East. You know, what happens in the South China Sea is fundamentally more important than what happens in the Middle East.
46:36 Speaker 02 Middle East, I think is, you know, five, uh, 5% of the world's population, 5% of the GDP, East Asia is like something like 60%, 40 or 60% of the world's GDP. So just from a trade in the conditions of our economic prosperity standpoint, it is, it is much more important to us. And China is an actual real existential threat to the United States where Iran is, is a threat in so as much that we have 40,000 troops spread across the Middle East, many of them who are in exposed positions, as we've talked about, that are vulnerable to Iranian attacks. That's the biggest reason why they're a threat.
47:18 Tucker Carlson? Wait, I don't know. I don't think you watch Fox News. I heard Ted Cruz say that the Iranians are going to nuke LA.
47:26 Speaker 02 Well, as of right now, they don't have a nuclear bomb. One interesting thing is, is Iran has not developed missiles that go beyond a certain range. Doesn't mean they can't, but they have been hesitant to up until this point because they don't want to be seen as threatening countries outside their region.
47:46 Tucker Carlson? So why is Ted Cruz saying they're going to nuke LA?
47:49 Speaker 02 I think, and again, I've been a big Ted Cruz fan over the years. I've come to, you know, respect him on many levels. I think he is repeating a talking point to help raise the level, in people's minds, the level of threat that Iran actually imposed. Let's,
48:08 Tucker Carlson? let's- In order to justify American involvement in regime change.
48:13 Speaker 02 Correct. Let's be honest. Iran has been a bad actor in the Middle East. They've been a, they have been a major sponsor of terrorism, indisputably. But I believe their economy is the size of Pennsylvania. Saudi Arabia alone spends four times what they do on defense. They're bordered by Pakistan that has a nuclear weapon and they have pretty decent relationship right now, but over the years there's been tension because Pakistan, Sunni, Iran, Shia, you have Israel with a very capable nuclear triad and very capable army. So they're surrounded by countries in the region that have historical antagonisms
48:53 Speaker 02 with them. And they simply, right now, do not possess the capability to hit the United States with conventional weapons. What they do, and this is something we've talked about and need to be concerned about, is they do have the ability to infiltrate terrorists in other countries. That is a risk. That is something we need to take into account, but is not existential, like the threat posed by China with what is quickly emerging as the biggest navy in the world with hundreds of nuclear weapons, including intercontinental ballistic missiles against the United States. China that, you know, could shut off a significant amount of trade and economic activity to the United States and harm us in significant ways.
49:38 Speaker 02 Iran is simply not an existential threat in the same way that China is and even Russia is with 6,000 nuclear weapons.
49:44 Tucker Carlson? If there's one thing we've learned over the past couple of years, it's that when things go south unexpectedly, and they do, you are in charge of your family's health and safety, not the authorities, you. And so, prepare, think it through ahead of time. You remember that during the dark days of COVID, for example, you kept hearing about a medication, a medicine called ivermectin. Doctors have used ivermectin for decades, treating parasites, viruses, even studying it as a potential cancer treatment. But you are not allowed to use it. In fact, you're a bad person if you even use the word. But at Jase, they've thought this through and they've looked at the evidence. The doctors at Jase have created a powerful anti-parasite formula made with a blend that includes ivermectin.
50:28 Tucker Carlson? It's the fastest, most affordable option on the market, and getting it actually is simple. Getting that and other lifesaving medications is just a matter of going to jase.com. Jase is J-A-S-E. You fill out a brief online consultation, and a Jase doctor quickly reviews your information. Within minutes, your medication could be on its way to you, delivered right to your door. That and a lot of other lifesaving medications. So don't wait till there's a disaster. Take back control of your family's health and safety. You can get emergency antibiotics as well. Go to jase.com, use the discount code TUCKER. Jase.com discount code.
51:03 Speaker 00 Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPac.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
51:36 Speaker 06 Oh, I feel worse. This flu is not playing around. Dad, you promised you'd be in my band, and it's showtime.
51:43 Speaker 05 Then it's Dayquil Intense Flu time.
51:45 Tucker Carlson? For fast and powerful relief of your flu symptoms, try Dayquil Intense Flu.
51:50 Speaker 06 Hit it. Yeah.
51:52 Tucker Carlson? Dayquil Intense Flu, the fast-acting daytime coughing, aching, aching, aching fever power through your flu medicine. Use is directed. Keep out of reach of children. Good, Tucker. So why are we so focused on Iran?
52:06 Speaker 02 There are a lot of reasons.
52:08 Tucker Carlson? But they can't be strictly limited to our national interest, given what you just said.
52:12 Speaker 02 Again, it goes back to, first and foremost, and I know people want to talk about a whole host of other things, but really, the thing that is driving this the most, and our focus on Iran and the Middle East as a whole, is that too many of our policymakers still believe in the idea that America needs to be not simply the most powerful country in the world, but the most dominant power in the world, that we need to have dominance in a way that we are able to impose our values on other parts of the world that have rejected, mainly liberalism, that we need to use our dominance to achieve liberal hegemony.
52:54 Speaker 02 And that leads us to, into conflict with countries in regions that really don't, shouldn't matter as much to us as they should. And we do have some interest in the Middle East, to be clear, and I can walk through those, but the countries that just don't pose the type of threat that a lot of people in Washington hype them up.
53:13 Tucker Carlson? Wouldn't it be easier if you're the Iranian government just to like, observe Pride Month in Tehran and just like, get this over with? And then, then there's no threat of an attack, right?
53:25 Speaker 02 Well, you know, as Bret Stephens told my friend, Sir Abimari, you know, he wants ultimately to see the 82nd Airborne in the streets of Tehran, you know, escorting a gay pride parade, and that kind of, that kind of sums that up.
53:38 Tucker Carlson? Bret Stephens said that?
53:39 Speaker 02 Yeah.
53:41 Tucker Carlson? Man, I've known a lot of people in 56 years. I don't know, I've ever met anybody weirder and dumber than Bret Stephens, but that's just me.
53:47 Speaker 02 I actually, this is gonna sound weird.
53:50 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
53:51 Speaker 02 I respect him because he just says it out loud. He, he, he says, yeah, I want the United States to be the most dominant power in the world to,
54:00 Speaker 02 spread liberal values. I want, I want the United States to-
54:03 Tucker Carlson? Bret Stephens is not even from this country. I mean, it's like getting a lecture about America from Bret Stephens is like-
54:09 Speaker 02 I, again, I, I just have-
54:11 Tucker Carlson? I'm pretty sure he's from Mexico, but whatever. Ah.
54:14 Speaker 02 He is?
54:15 Tucker Carlson? Yeah.
54:16 Speaker 02 He's from Mexico. I didn't know that. But again, I, in a weird way, I obviously find his views abhorrent. I mean, he's, he's said absolutely fundamentally racist things about, about, um, you know, Arabs and other people. Um, uh, he's got a weird obsession with genetics, but he's honest. He doesn't try to like wrap it in the, in the, this cloak of American interests and American values. Uh, he just comes out and says it. And, and again, in a weird way, I kind of appreciate that.
54:45 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, no, I mean, there, there's, I guess that that's where the being an idiot kind of plays into it. He just kind of says it out loud.
54:53 Speaker 02 Isn't it, isn't it funny essentially that I think you have what, three or four New York Times op ed writers that believe exactly what he believes? I mean, David Brooks, David French, him, Tom Friedman's kind of evolving. I don't even know where Tom Friedman is these days, but essentially they, they, they-
55:14 Tucker Carlson? Bethesda.
55:14 Speaker 02 Yeah. They, they hold the same views. Um, the supposed, you know, left wing paper and there's some, look, they've, you know, credit New York Times, sometimes they do have some good stuff on their op ed pages, but you know, that you essentially have four op ed columnists that believe essentially the same thing. They just express it differently. Like David French would never be that. David French would be the guy that, that masks it and like, this is what's good for America and America-
55:42 Tucker Carlson? They're all violence worshippers, David French especially. And there is a kind of like weak man compensates through-
55:51 Tucker Carlson? Promoting killing in other parts of the world, you know, it's like this sort of same weird cuck syndrome they all have. No, it is though. It is. I mean, you don't have to be Sigmund Freud to see like David French. It's like a psychosexual thing that's going on.
56:04 Speaker 02 Uh, yeah.
56:05 Tucker Carlson? They're so handsome.
56:07 Speaker 02 I mean, I, I will say this, David is, you know.
56:10 Tucker Carlson? I'm, I'm a much bigger dick than you are, and I'm sorry. You're such a nice person.
56:14 Speaker 02 No, I, well, you bring up certain people, I will be a dick. I, I think David, it's, he's so interesting because he, he brought away such a much different, um, I, I know there's people that, you know, mocked his military service. I'm not going to do that. But he, he brought it away like a much different understanding of his service in Iraq than a lot of other people. And I've just kind of found that fascinating. And, and I, I think in a lot of ways, um, his views are really increasingly, the way he talks about foreign policy, I think he's more of a barometer of where the center of the Democrat party
56:54 Speaker 02 is than the, the dying neoconservative fringe of the Republican party is. He is representing increasingly where the Democrat party is, not the Republican party on foreign policy.
57:04 Tucker Carlson? Interesting.
57:06 Speaker 02 And we, we brought this up last time. Remember the, the Democrat party platform in 2020 was more hawkish on Iran. They did a 180 from, from, excuse me, in 2024, they did a 180 from where they were in 2020 on Iran in 2024. And it was more hawkish. And there's a world where you could add Liz Cheney as a national security advisor or as the secretary of defense.
57:31 Tucker Carlson? That's just the darkest thing I can imagine. So you, I just want to go back to something you said a second ago. You said the dying Republican neocon fringe. Of course, I love the sound of that, but it's hard to see, you're looking obviously in more broadly than I am, because right now I see Fox News as just this pure crazed neocon war propaganda operation. Mark Levin, the least credible person in broadcasting is like in charge of the government. I mean, I'm overstating, of course, but it's like, they seem very powerful right now, that part of the Republican party. Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Mark Levin. But you're saying they're a dying fringe?
58:13 Speaker 02 Again, it's looking at it right now, it's very easy to think that the neo cons have once again taken over the foreign policy apparatus of the Republican Party. But I think we need to look at a couple of things. There is no popular support for going to war directly with Iran. We have to acknowledge there is concern about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but there's not a constituency for going to war with Iran. And it hasn't really ever been one, but most of your Republican voters don't want this.
58:50 Tucker Carlson? I looked up the numbers, the polling numbers, and I think the AIDS virus is more popular than the idea of going to war with Iran. I think it's actually 16% national support.
58:59 Speaker 02 Yeah. And that was from YouGov, Brookings has done polls, the University of Maryland. There was one joke of a poll that was clearly manipulated that's being circulated by neo cons, but there's poll after poll from both liberal, nonpartisan conservative institutions show there's not broad support for this. In addition, you now have within the administration, a lot of people that don't look like the types of people that used to staff Republican administrations, mainly George W. Bush administration, but also you could argue that the first Trump term in terms of foreign policy. These are people like Bridge Colby, people like Joe Kent, people like Michael Anton, who have different ideas about American foreign policy
59:44 Speaker 02 and are much different than, say, the types of people that a Paul Wolfowitz or a John Bolton would hire into administration. So they, they have, they don't have a lot of people within the power structure right now, at least on the political side, within the career side in the military, absolutely. And then in addition, you have to acknowledge is that there's now an institutional structure that didn't exist in 2016 of organizations that are able to get a message out around foreign policy that challenges what, you know, Ben Rhodes called the blob, even though he's a card carrying member of the blob, these traditional organizations that push for American primacy and intervention. So...
1:00:29 Speaker 02 You have a lot of pieces coming together that show that neoconservatism on the right is in retreat, but that's in a lot of cases when movements can be most dangerous is that I really sense in a lot of ways why they have gone all out is because they're desperate as they see particularly on the right, the younger cohort coming up. And we talked about this. A lot of these people make you and me look like Paul Wolfowitz in terms of our foreign policy beliefs.
1:00:57 Tucker Carlson? I feel very, I mean, I always say this, but I feel very moderate. I am very moderate just by temperament and I don't meet really any moderate young people in these questions at all.
1:01:09 Speaker 02 And they see that. So that's why there is such an all out effort right now to push this because they think it's their last chance.
1:01:17 Tucker Carlson? I think they're right. I think they're right. So I think even now, we're sort of officially clinging to the idea that Israel's goal here is a non-nuclear Iran. That's not true. Their goal is regime change. I think it's fair to say. But I do think Donald Trump's goal is not regime change. I don't think he wants to be, I know he doesn't want to be in a regime change where he just doesn't want Iran to have a bomb. He said that a million times. My question is a practical one. Is it possible to shut down a nuclear program with an air campaign?
1:01:53 Speaker 02 I think you can roll it back. I think you can severely damage it, but look, I'll use an argument that the advocates of the Iraq war made is that you can't truly shut down a weapons of mass destruction campaign with certain people in charge of the country. You can't truly shut it down because you can't trust inspectors. You can't truly trust intelligence.
1:02:21 Speaker 02 They were doing that in a very manipulative way, but there's a sliver of truth in that. So if you truly want to get rid of an Iranian nuclear weapon program and make sure there it's totally dismantled, it's likely going to require a regime change or some type of occupation or, you know, invasion. That may sound extreme, but if you stop and think about it, that's, that's the truth. Now you can roll again.
1:02:49 Tucker Carlson? Well, so I have thought about it, but not as deeply as you have, I would bet. Can you flesh that out a little bit? Why, why would an air campaign not solve the nuclear problem?
1:03:00 Speaker 02 Because you would need to verify that all the centrifuges are destroyed. You need to verify that all the knowledge, both, you know, scientists, um, you know, other engineers that, that they are accounted for, in some cases killed, that there's no files remaining, um, and that all the centrifuges, all the different pieces, all the nuclear material, the triggers, anything that could be part of this are destroyed. And then any development of the delivery systems, it is, it is incredibly difficult to do that. It's impossible to do that purely through air. You're going to need inspections. You're going to need people on the ground verifying this.
1:03:43 Speaker 02 And again, what we've seen before is the argument that the inspectors aren't going to find everything. So I think you can kind of see where this is going. Um, and so the argument likely that you're going to see, and it's not totally incorrect, is that to truly get rid of the threat of a nuclear Iran, an Islamic republic with a nuclear bomb, is you're going to need regime change. And so as I've said previously, that's why in my mind, this really isn't about a nuclear bomb. And I think, I want to be clear, for President Trump it is. And for a lot of good people who rightly are concerned about nuclear Iran. It is about that, but for a lot of others, it's about regime change. And I think that the consequences of that for the United States, for the Middle East,
1:04:27 Speaker 02 even for Israel, have not been thought through because a lot of people, just like in Iraq, they aren't thinking about what comes next if we get rid of Iran.
1:04:37 Tucker Carlson? But we just, we just had the Iraq war. I mean, that was, it only started 22 years ago. And we still have troops there. We just got out of Afghanistan. Few years ago, after 20 year, like we, the memory is not just fresh. It's not even a memory. It's still a present reality. We still have troops there.
1:04:56 Speaker 02 What are you talking about? I mean, Iraq is a thriving liberal democracy. Afghanistan just achieved 100% female literacy. I don't, I'm like,
1:05:08 Tucker Carlson? Which was always, which was always the goal.
1:05:10 Speaker 02 What, what, you know, I don't know what you're talking about, but you know, joking aside is,
1:05:17 Speaker 02 there's still a lot of people who, who think we can do this, that we can actually change a regime and instill liberalism through the, the, the point of the barrel of a gun. That there is still that thinking in Washington DC that they have learned nothing from Iraq, from Syria, from Libya, from Afghanistan, from Yemen, from other places. It, it just, it does not work.
1:05:44 Tucker Carlson? My problem is bigger, which is what happens to the American empire, which is obviously contracting. We don't have the will or the money to sustain it at current levels. Obviously, you know, we are challenged by China and maybe other countries for, you know, supremacy over shipping lanes and over the air and all this, you know, like things are changing really, really fast. So the empire is getting smaller, but there's got to be a way to unwind it.
1:06:16 Tucker Carlson? Slowly, thoughtfully, with minimal damage. I think our adversaries, not even enemies, but just challengers to our position would like to, to crumble in one day. So there's this incentive to really kick the legs out from under America right now. Do you feel that?
1:06:33 Speaker 02 Um, I believe so. Yeah, I, I, I think so. And
1:06:39 Speaker 02 there, there, again, I, we, there's a lot of people, I think in China that would love us to see bog down in the, in the Middle East. You and I, you know, are, we don't believe that we should be involved in the Ukraine war, but the, if you're somebody that thinks that, that, you know, Ukraine is the most important thing for liberal democracy. This war is going to make it harder, if not impossible, to support Ukraine. You know, it's going to make it harder.
1:07:08 Tucker Carlson? Why is that? Why is that? Why would a war with Iran make it impossible to continue supporting Ukraine?
1:07:13 Speaker 02 It's a good question. So. After the October 7th attacks, you had Joe Biden go on 60 Minutes and say, after he was asked by the host, I forget what host it was, but he was asked, are we going to be able to support both Israel and Ukraine? And, you know, his dying brain said, oh, come on, man, of course we can. We're the most powerful country ever. We've, we won World War II. Of course we can do both. And a week later, the United States was forced to redirect a shipment of artillery shells from Ukraine to Israel to support them in their fight against Hamas. And that right there just shattered the illusion that we can do both. Of artillery shells. So pretty low tech stuff.
1:07:56 Speaker 02 Right. And we had about, I believe, six, seven months prior to October 7th, when Netanyahu was out of power for a bit, I think it was, if Holly Bennett was in charge.
1:08:12 Speaker 02 He allowed the, or not allowed, but signed off on the United States to pull all our artillery shells out of a prepositioned stockpile to give them to the Ukrainians to support them in their ultimately failed counteroffensive. So when October 7th kicked off, they needed certain types of ammunition, the stockpile that we had staged to support Israel in times of crisis was drained and we could not refill it because we were giving the Ukrainians more artillery shells per month than we could produce. So we were drawing down our stockpiles to very low levels. Now that's just artillery. I don't, at least right now, think there's going to be a lot of artillery battles. At least I hope not. If that happens, it's gotten really bad.
1:08:57 Speaker 02 But the most precious munition and asset, military asset in the world right now is air defense. So the Ukrainians need Patriot missiles.
1:09:09 Speaker 02 And there's been a lot of discussion in the press. That's Zelensky's number one demand when he talks to the United States. You want Patriot missiles. Well, the United States is going to need a lot of Patriot missiles to defend our troops in a war with Iran. So if a war with Iran kicks off and we're firing through our supply of Patriot missiles, we just simply aren't going to be able to give the Ukrainians anymore.
1:09:31 Tucker Carlson? Sounds like we're undersupplied.
1:09:34 Speaker 02 Absolutely, we are. And this, again, a lot of this, we can talk about ideology all day. But the end of the day, this is really a math problem. We were talking about that earlier with the race that Iran and Iraq are in, or excuse me, Iran and Israel. You know, it's our, our ability to sustain fights like this for long periods of time is extremely limited. And you're, you're, you're in a very precarious situation as a result of this.
1:10:05 Tucker Carlson? What do they do with a trillion dollars a year, exactly?
1:10:08 Speaker 02 It's a good question.
1:10:09 Tucker Carlson? No, for real. I'm not being mean. I mean, I respect there are some people in the military officers I respect. Not a ton, but some. I've met some really smart ones. But like, no one thought ahead. You can't even produce enough artillery to supply Ukraine and Israel? Not huge countries like that. What is that?
1:10:28 Speaker 02 So
1:10:32 Speaker 02 if you look at a system like the Iron Dome in Israel. Now, everybody kind of talks about, they call Israel's entire system, the Iron Dome. It's really, Iron Dome is designed to shoot down cheap rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.
1:10:49 Tucker Carlson? Right.
1:10:50 Speaker 02 The systems that are being used now are David's sling and the Aero system and then our THAAD system and some of our naval ships.
1:10:57 Tucker Carlson? Ships, yeah.
1:10:57 Speaker 02 Yeah. But the Iron Dome is designed to be a little more cheap and, and to shoot more en masse. We don't have enough systems similar to that where we can produce a lot of things in mass and in quantity. We focus on building these expensive systems with a lot of bells and whistles because we still haven't adapted to the fact that, you know, these wars that are quick and cheap and easy are not necessarily cheap, but are relatively quick. We don't use a lot of expensive munitions that those are few and going to be few and far between, if not exist in the future. So our defense industrial base still hasn't adapted to
1:11:41 Speaker 02 the fact that we just need to produce more, really cheaper and in some cases, less advanced weapons in larger scale instead of building these highly advanced weapons with all these bells and whistles in smaller numbers. Like right now, again, as public knowledge, we only produce about, I'd say 100, 150, and it could actually be lower, interceptors. So ammunition for the THAAD system, which is our most advanced anti ballistic missile system. We have only produced nine, around 900 to 1,000 THAAD interceptors. Just 900 to 1,000.
1:12:20 Tucker Carlson? Total?
1:12:21 Speaker 02 I'm not talking launchers. I'm talking the rounds for them.
1:12:24 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, yeah.
1:12:25 Speaker 02 So Iran has about, depends on the estimate, about 2,000 to 3,000 ballistic missiles that can reach Israel and maybe it's probably significantly less for Israelis. But you see how this quickly becomes a math problem. We've only built between 900,000. They have 2,000, up to 2,000 types of missiles that the THAAD is designed to shoot down. And if you're assuming 100% success rate, you don't have enough interceptors.
1:12:51 Tucker Carlson? Again, I refer to the previous question. What do we spend a trillion dollars a year on?
1:12:55 Speaker 02 We spend it on those, you know, hard to produce, expensive systems. And some of them, we have to admit, are very capable. F-35 has gotten a lot of criticism over the years, but I think we've adapted and turned it into a fairly capable system. Some people may disagree with me on that, but I think it is a capable system. But we haven't been able to build. And that has a lot to do with how we funded it, enough of those or enough of certain types of ammunition to really fight a long extended war against an enemy that has either a lot of people or can produce a lot of things like cheap drones or cheap rockets or cheap, you know, indirect fire weapons. We just are not quite set up for that type
1:13:40 Speaker 02 of fight yet.
1:13:41 Tucker Carlson? Well, I mean, Russia still occupies eastern Ukraine.
1:13:44 Speaker 02 Exactly. And, and for that, I mean, that is where it should have become patently obvious to us that we have to change how we do this. And again, credit to some of my colleagues at DOD is they know it. We fortunately just confirmed for under secretary of acquisition and sustainment, Mike Duffy, I think Steve Feinberg knows that. They know, but they have a big fight. They're going to be fighting a lot of entrenched interests to.
1:14:10 Tucker Carlson? It seems like the wrong time to start swaggering around trying to start new wars with people.
1:14:15 Speaker 02 Yeah, exactly. We are trying to fix a lot of things and we're going to have to put a lot of those things on a back burner if we get into a major regional fight.
1:14:28 Tucker Carlson? Um, if we throw these, and I, again, the, I don't know this is going to happen, but the president's stated goal is to make sure that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. I just want to restate, you don't believe as a practical matter that's achievable with a couple bunker buster strikes.
1:14:48 Speaker 02 I do not. And again, I hope I'm wrong. I think the best, the least worst option is an imperfect diplomatic solution. That is, that is the best, least risky option.
1:15:03 Tucker Carlson? Probably the only option. I mean, you can't force your wife to love you. Can't, you know, beat her up till she loves you. You have to, in the end, everything is voluntary. You have to convince people and someone who's, well, you're the military guy. You tell me. I mean, if someone is determined to commit violence against you, it's pretty hard to stop it if he's still alive, right?
1:15:22 Speaker 02 You can deter it. And that's where deterrence comes into effect here is that there are different levers. And I've said this before is yes, you do need a credible military option.
1:15:33 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, yeah.
1:15:34 Speaker 02 For diplomacy to work, but.
1:15:38 Speaker 02 I think everyone agrees, even, well, not everyone, but I think everyone who's approaching this in a sane manner, understands, just like with the Ukraine war, is that this is the least worst way for this to end, is with a robust diplomatic agreement. Again, maybe it's not so robust, it's less than perfect, that does restrain Iranian nuclear ambitions.
1:16:03 Tucker Carlson? I gotta wonder about the troops who are, you know, at the barrel end of this thing. If they read the New York Times, they learn that the US, you know, really had nothing to do with any of this, just sort of Israel shows up and says, we're doing this, and now we're following along and participating to some extent, maybe now to a greater extent. What do they think of that? It feels like, or doesn't feel like it's true, we were pushed into this by another country. Is that, if you're serving in uniform away from your family, risking death, is that like a good reason? Do you think that's adequate? Or do people not think like that, when they're deployed?
1:16:44 Speaker 02 I think most folks are gonna have those thoughts, but they're gonna put them down and they're gonna focus on the mission. I think that's what they have to do.
1:16:52 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, of course, I totally agree.
1:16:54 Speaker 02 You can't, you know, when you're in the middle of a, you know, when you're about to drop bombs on Fordo, and you're a B2 pilot, you can't in your head be wondering about, you know, the nature of American foreign policy and how we got here.
1:17:07 Tucker Carlson? No, I totally get it. But when you get home.
1:17:10 Speaker 02 Yeah. And, and look, I have to be honest here. And I've told people this, I'm somebody who does believe the United States should have a partnership and support Israel. I think that in ideal world, is that we would have a security architecture, where you would have, you know, Gulf Arabs cooperating with Israel, that would help prevent the rise of a regional hegemon, and a global hegemon coming in, in, you know, dominating the region. I see benefits to that. But I am concerned that if this is perceived as a war for Israel...
1:17:55 Speaker 02 What, what impact is that going to have on support for us doing some of those things? And I've, I've tried to communicate to people who are strong supporters of the state of Israel, that that's one of these second and third order implications that you need to be aware of is what is going to happen to popular support for the state of Israel. I think you and Steve Bannon talked about this. Well. And, and there is another, there's another aspect here too. You know, right now in the region, the Gulf Arab states are wanting to pursue better relations with Israel for a lot of reasons. Business opportunities. Yeah, for sure. Other things. But one of the biggest things pushing them together is the threat
1:18:37 Speaker 02 of Iran. So if Iran collapses, it's a failed state. If, if they're not there, I think in a lot of ways, again, there's, there's still going to be Iran. And it's not clear, a lot of the regime change advocates can't articulate really what comes next. The Shah's failed son probably is going to go back to Tehran and take over. These, these nuts in the MEK aren't going to come and take over. But, you know, whatever is there, if it's less of a threat, if it's, if it's not the same threat, again, that's probably good. But what's the unintended consequence of that? Just like the unintended consequence of removing
1:19:17 Speaker 02 Saddam Hussein was empowering Iran. If you don't have that threat posed by Iran anymore, that in some ways balances against the Gulf Arabs, they're going to look at Israel and they may have concerns and they may go back to where they were before and be hostile to, to Israel. Yeah. It's, it's important to remember that for most of the Cold War, Israel pursued a foreign policy that was rooted in something called the periphery doctrine. And it was very smart. It was driven by Ben-Gurion where they dealt with a hostile Arab world, particularly the states that were supported by the Soviets. So they prioritized building relations with
1:20:00 Speaker 02 non-Arab countries on the periphery of the Middle East. So primarily Turkey. Yep. Iran and Ethiopia. And that was to balance.
1:20:09 Speaker 02 Against the Arabs. And that's why Israel, even after the Islamic Revolution, even though Khomeini was screaming death to Israel, that's why initially after Iraq invaded Iran, Israel was their main arms supplier and other countries started selling them stuff. That's why Israel was such an integral part of Iran-Contra, why you had a lot of American neoconservatives who are supporters of Israel that were advocates in the 80s, people like Michael Aden, Elliott Abrams, of still trying to pursue good relations with Iran, even though you had Khomeini shouting death for America, death to Israel. And that's why up until the end of the Cold War and the defeat
1:20:46 Speaker 02 of Iraq and the Gulf War, that Israel viewed Iraq as a bigger threat as opposed to Iran. And they were quietly supporting Iran, in some cases openly, even though you had this very antisemitic, anti-Israel regime. And honestly, it was incredibly, that was, I believe that was a smart thing to do. But after the end of the Cold War, after Saddam, the country they viewed as more threatening, was degraded, Iran became the bigger threat. So I tell that story to say is, what happens after
1:21:26 Speaker 02 you don't have Iran? Does Turkey become more powerful? Do other countries start to band together out of fear of what Israel's done in Iran? And so I'm really concerned that people aren't thinking through what could happen here then, not to mention what could happen in Iran. And I was listening, I've only listened to a small part of your interview with Ted Cruz, but he was saying something about how it would be good if Islamic regime was gone and through a popular uprising. Yeah, in an ideal world, you'd have a bunch of Iranian liberals rise up and overthrow the Islamic regime and you'd have a popular democracy in Iran. But it's more likely you could have something,
1:22:09 Speaker 02 you could have something worse, replace the mullahs, you could have Iran break into a civil war.
1:22:17 Speaker 02 You have a lot of ethnic minorities that are looking for independence. If Iraq hadn't invaded Iran in 1980, there's a chance, there's a world where Iran could have devolved into major civil war because of all these ethnic minorities that are trying to break away.
1:22:35 Tucker Carlson? Forty percent of the country.
1:22:36 Speaker 02 Yes. So that's a lot, a lot of history there. But this is what is not being discussed about the risks around regime change that really worries me. And it's a repeat of what happened in Iraq in 2003.
1:22:50 Tucker Carlson? Well, I think the people pushing it literally just don't care at all. And in fact, chaos in neighboring states, I think is bad for the world and including Israel, I think it's bad for everybody. But there are some people who think it's good. I mean, that is a world, that is a view.
1:23:06 Speaker 02 Yeah.
1:23:07 Tucker Carlson? A betting chaos on purpose.
1:23:10 Speaker 02 Yes. It's kind of like, so I was just in Europe and was meeting with European diplomats, was very interesting. And some of them were open, we saying, we want the Ukrainian war to continue because it benefits us. And these were from countries, I won't, you know, the Chatham House rules, I won't say who. But these are from countries that were supposedly the strongest supporters of Ukraine, saying, we want the war to continue. Not, not we want Ukraine to win. We want the war to continue.
1:23:41 Tucker Carlson? Why?
1:23:42 Speaker 02 Well, for them, they perceive Russia as a threat and that if Russia stops fighting in Ukraine, then they'll reorient against them, even though there's really not.
1:23:56 Speaker 02 Putin has not expressed the intent as clearly as some people like to say.
1:24:01 Tucker Carlson? What's so funny? I mean, if I would just, I know the Brits feel this way especially.
1:24:05 Speaker 02 Oh, yeah.
1:24:06 Tucker Carlson? They've convinced themselves that Russia is their greatest enemy. It's bizarre. But, you know, if I were Putin, I would offer free first-class trips to Moscow so they could see that like Moscow was so much nicer than any place in Great Britain. It's like not even close. There's no part of Great Britain that's as nice as Moscow. It's like, probably an upgrade for them. I mean, their, their leadership is so bad. Their country's so degraded.
1:24:34 Speaker 02 I think, I think a lot of them, I think the Brits are starting, I will say, I think they're starting to come around a bit.
1:24:41 Tucker Carlson? It's weird that they're mad at Putin. Why aren't they mad at Keir Starmer? Why aren't they mad at the fake conservative Rishi Sunak? And you know what I mean?
1:24:50 Speaker 02 I think, I think part of it is for, for them, and I'm not by no means an expert on British politics. I enjoyed working with some people. The British defense establishment was in the Pentagon. I have a lot of respect for them, but they're still kind of this grasping at trying to be a global imperial power when they're, you know, they don't have the resources or the power to do that.
1:25:14 Tucker Carlson? Of course, and I feel, I feel sorry for them, sort of, but on the other hand, it's like every Western country has the same syndrome where their, their well-deserved frustrations about the decline of their own countries are channeled into hate at people thousands of miles away.
1:25:30 Speaker 02 Yeah.
1:25:31 Tucker Carlson? It's like you're in a country where people are just dropping dead at 25 of fentanyl ODs, like no one can get a job after graduating college and you can't afford a house and can't get married or have kids. And you're like, it's, I'm mad at Putin. I'm mad at the Ayatollahs. It's like, it's, you know what I mean?
1:25:46 Speaker 02 Yeah.
1:25:47 Tucker Carlson? It's like this weird kind of like unwillingness to face the truth, which is no, you've been betrayed by your own leaders.
1:25:53 Speaker 02 It's easier to point, it's easier to point abroad than look, you know, and you've seen that, you've seen that throughout history, you know, the British dealt with that in the Falklands War. Why did Argentina invade the Falklands when they did? Because the Argentina junta was having severe problems.
1:26:10 Tucker Carlson? Exactly. And why did Thatcher respond the way that she did? Because she'd also just come out of these strikes and like, that helped her tremendously. No, there's all kinds of baked in incentives to war. I just, you do wish some of these countries would take that hostility, which again is well-earned, like they have a right to be hostile and focus it against their own leaders and affect regime change in their own countries. You know, they, these countries, they deserve regime change, a lot of these countries in the West.
1:26:39 Speaker 02 Yeah, and it's, again, for me, I've, I've been to Ukraine and went to Ukraine last year during the war and I came away with a lot of sympathy and respect for a lot of Ukrainians. I came away with a lot of immense, I'll just use the word hatred, shouldn't, you know, let it linger, but was angry at some of the Western supporters of Ukraine and a lot of Ukraine's leaders. Um.
1:27:04 Tucker Carlson? Why? Tell me why you felt that way.
1:27:06 Speaker 02 Because at the end of the day, a lot of these people's strategy is to continue to send young Ukrainians in pursuit of a victory that they know they can't win.
1:27:18 Tucker Carlson? Yes.
1:27:18 Speaker 02 And they're doing it just so they can feel good about themselves, just so they can say we're standing up to Putin. And, you know, I, I gotta say, like, you know, we haven't talked about the Ukrainian drone, you know, issue, but, uh, last month, the ambassador of Ukraine resigned, this woman named Bridget Brink. And she made a big show of it. She wrote a op ed for the Detroit Free Press. She's probably going to run for Congress in Michigan. And it was a bunch of pablum. It was about, um, you know, how America needs to lead the free world, how she was essentially ashamed that President Trump's administration
1:27:59 Speaker 02 has recognized that the only way Ukraine's going to survive as a nation is through a diplomatic settlement. And she was, she's saying that we were betraying our values and all this other nonsense.
1:28:09 Tucker Carlson? She's a child.
1:28:10 Speaker 02 It was childish. And she was the ambassador of Ukraine. I met her, actually.
1:28:14 Tucker Carlson? It's a joke.
1:28:15 Speaker 02 When I went to Odessa the first time and I interact, I was never really directly, but on a lot of calls with her when I was in administration. And she could not articulate, how do you achieve some semblance of victory for the Ukrainians, considering the fact that they don't have enough people and we don't have enough weapons to give them?
1:28:34 Tucker Carlson? She told a friend of mine at an event, a cocktail event, um, that her baseline demand was that Putin give back Crimea. And it's like, she didn't know what Crimea was. She didn't understand. I mean, that basically like we'll have a nuclear war over Crimea is what she, but she, she didn't even understand that was the implication. Like she was like an idiot.
1:28:56 Speaker 02 Most of the Ukrainian, most of the Ukrainian government, obviously, no government's a unitary entity, but there's an increasing number of people in the Ukrainian government, including some folks that I think a lot of, I'm not going to say who they are, including some folks that I think would be surprising to people here, who recognize the reality. They know Crimea is not coming back. And those, you know, those people in some ways are becoming the enemies themselves. And that's why you see more and more crackdowns and dissent in Ukraine, why a lot of people are afraid to speak out, and why, honestly, that major drone attack was launched the day before a negotiating team was going to Istanbul to meet with the Russians.
1:29:42 Tucker Carlson? So what was, I mean, I don't, the conventional view is there's no chance the Ukrainians could have pulled that off without the help of NATO.
1:29:53 Speaker 02 So, can I heard you and Steve Bannon talking about this, here's, here's my view. I know Steve has been asking a lot about this. I actually don't believe that the upper echelons of the Pentagon, the CIA, White House, State Department knew about this.
1:30:11 Tucker Carlson? Well, the White House didn't know.
1:30:12 Speaker 02 That they're, I think they're 100% correct, because they would have been incredibly uncomfortable with this happening the day before peace talks. And I do have to say, I think the same applies to CIA leadership. However, I do believe that there were elements of the military supporting Ukraine, particularly through training and some of their intelligence sharing, and probably elements of the intelligence community that's supporting Ukraine, that knew about this and didn't run it up the chain because... They were worried that they would be told no because they had started this plan
1:30:54 Speaker 02 under the previous administration and they knew the previous administration likely would have been comfortable with it, but ours wouldn't. So they, they probably suppressed that information from getting up the chain. And I want to be clear, I'm not casting aspersions on everybody in like European command. There's a lot of great officers, great soldiers in marine sailors, airmen, serving European command. There's actually some really smart, realistic members of intelligence community that are serving on the Russia-Ukraine portfolio. But there's others that are still bought in, like Brigit Brink, to this idea that Ukraine can achieve a victory. And one way to do it is by these spectacular attacks that, you know, while
1:31:36 Speaker 02 may risk a little thing called nuclear war because we're attacking Russian strategic assets, not just, you know, missile launchers and stuff. And yeah, they have a role in the war in Ukraine, but they were, remember, they also attacked a Russian nuclear submarine base in north of country. So that was done first and foremost to undermine the peace talks, I think, going into Istanbul the day, the next day, and also too, to invite some type of escalation.
1:32:03 Tucker Carlson? Well, they've tried to kill Putin at least twice. So, yeah. Yeah. And that leads to one of my last questions, second to last question, which is, why do we put up with that? I mean, if our job is to run the world, or at least the West, and I think most people in the US government think that is our job, maintain the peace, act in our own interests, et cetera, et cetera. Zelensky and a few people around him are actively subverting that. He's not elected. He rules by force. Ukraine is less free than Russia, from what I can tell. Like, why are we continuing to send him money? Why don't we force him to leave? Why don't we, I don't know, render him somewhere? I don't, I don't get it. I
1:32:48 Tucker Carlson? forget what was.
1:32:51 Speaker 02 It was you told me this, or, you know, I have a, uh, some British commentator said, "We're just really bad at being an empire. We don't understand the patriot-client relationship."
1:33:04 Tucker Carlson? That was me. I've thought that since December of 2003 in Baghdad. "We're not good at this. We shouldn't, we're not good at it."
1:33:10 Speaker 02 Yeah, we were not built to be an empire.
1:33:12 Tucker Carlson? No, the Brits were.
1:33:13 Speaker 02 Yeah, the Brits definitely were, but we are not, you know. We were meant to be a republic, not empire.
1:33:19 Tucker Carlson? Yep.
1:33:19 Speaker 02 Um, and, uh, I think we, I will say this administration has started to change that. I can't tell you how much the aid pause that we did really freaked out the establishment and sent an important message to Ukrainians, but also Europeans. But there's still a ways to go. And, um, I think we, we need to really change that mental model about how partners and allies, we work with partners and allies. It doesn't mean that we are telling them what to, you know, we're dominating them in certain ways. We're always trying to throw them under the bus. That doesn't work either. But this idea that we let certain clients, um, do
1:34:03 Speaker 02 things constantly that are against our interest, it doesn't benefit us. In the long term, it doesn't benefit these clients. I mean, look at what happened in Afghanistan. I think that's a perfect example of that.
1:34:14 Tucker Carlson? Last question. Um, if you had to bet, do you think, um, the US government is capable of closing out this war in Iran? Like, saying to Israel, you know, "We've done enough. Like, stop." And if Donald Trump decides, you know, he wanted to go back to the negotiating table, send Steve Whitkoff to Oman, again, to meet with the Iranians and try and hammer something out, do we have the power to do that?
1:34:50 Speaker 02 I think it's, this is an interesting question. Are we talking about capability or willingness?
1:34:55 Tucker Carlson? Both. Like, could that actually happen? Is that realistic?
1:34:58 Speaker 02 Absolutely. I, I, I think that is, that is entirely possible. I say it's likely, I don't know.
1:35:04 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, we can't know, but you think it's possible?
1:35:06 Speaker 02 Of course. I mean, we, we have done this before. I mean, I, I think, you know, with Israel specifically, you know, Ronald Reagan is considered a very pro-Israel president.
1:35:21 Tucker Carlson? He was a very pro-Israel president, for sure.
1:35:23 Speaker 02 But there were times where, where the feeling was is that Israel was not doing things in our interest, and we made that clear, and we used our leverage to make sure that they were not harming American interests. And I think we perfectly have the capability to do that.
1:35:46 Speaker 02 Again, I, I, I, we don't know how the next few days are going to play out, but it's, it's definitely there, is we have tremendous amount of leverage over many parties in the Middle East, over, you know, many countries around the world.
1:36:01 Tucker Carlson? For sure.
1:36:01 Speaker 02 We just have used it incredibly poorly.
1:36:06 Tucker Carlson? Dan Caldwell, I keep reading about what an extremist you are. I think you're the most moderate person I've spoken to this month.
1:36:13 Speaker 02 Who else are you interviewing?
1:36:15 Tucker Carlson? Thank you.
1:36:16 Speaker 02 Is Jelani coming?
1:36:19 Speaker 02 Are you, are you going to Damascus?
1:36:20 Tucker Carlson? We love Jelani. We're totally pro-ISIS now. It's totally cool, as long as-
1:36:23 Speaker 02 You're going to Damascus?
1:36:24 Tucker Carlson? Assad is gone. The funny thing is, I was invited by, um, by Assad a couple of times, and I didn't go, both, you know, I didn't have super strong feelings about it. I was like, that's not worth it. You know, it's just not, I've got other interests and I'm not, I don't want to spend my life thinking about the Middle East. But if I'd gone, I think that would have been, I mean, it kind of wrecked Tulsi Gabbard's life for a number of years, got her kicked out of the Democratic Party. But if you were to go to Damascus with Jelani, the former Dash guy, the ISIS guy, Al Qaeda guy, true extremist. Totally cool.
1:36:59 Speaker 02 Yeah. I mean, Al Nusra, I mean, Al Nusra and ISIS split, but yeah, he was a member of ISIS.
1:37:05 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, whatever. I'm using the terms broadly, but like, like radical Sunni extremist, like nihilist.
1:37:11 Speaker 02 We do have to say one thing, though, about, you brought up Tulsi Gabbard, is there's a lot of good staff right now in the administration that are doing the Lord's work. And I have to say, some of the things that are being said about them and how they're being undermined in the press and being accused of awful things is absolutely disgusting. There candidly is an effort to run somewhat of the same playbook against them they did in me. It's like you're seeing these accusations of leaking and they're on the outs. Let's be honest, that's a trick that people who want a bigger war are playing to stifle dissent.
1:37:49 Tucker Carlson? Oh, I'm aware.
1:37:50 Speaker 02 Because if you dissent, you know, look, as I said before, you dissent and they make a decision to do something, it's your job to implement it. But they're trying to snuff out any sort of process or debate right now by attacking and trying to accuse certain groups of people, whether it's in the White House, the Pentagon, ODNI, State Department of leaking. So they're scaring them away from, from actually offering feedback and challenge. And that's utterly disgusting. And, you know, I, I know that there's a lot of good people in the White House that aren't going to tolerate it. They're not going to be, you know, they're not going to be bullied by it. But I think we acknowledge it's happening and it's, it's
1:38:35 Speaker 02 not surprising, but it still is utterly fucking disgusting.
1:38:38 Tucker Carlson? Can I say one thing, and you're definitely in this category, but it's the people who've been targeted in general are the most patriotic, the most pro-American, the most, people whose views are the most consistent with the ones Donald Trump ran on.
1:38:53 Tucker Carlson? I have noticed that. I think it's true for you. It's certainly true for Tulsi.
1:38:55 Speaker 02 They're also the people that when the president says we're doing this, they're going to implement it. And if they don't agree with it, if it, if it goes against their core beliefs so much, then they're going to resign. They're not going to do what Jim Jeffrey, who we were talking about earlier is going to do. They're not going to do what people in the first term did and undermine it. Is they're gonna say, Roger that and go forward.
1:39:21 Speaker 02 And that's what makes this whole thing even worse.
1:39:23 Tucker Carlson? Yeah, they're attacking the best people because lying is not a crime. Telling the truth is.
1:39:28 Speaker 02 Yeah.
1:39:28 Tucker Carlson? Thank you, Dan.
1:39:29 Speaker 02 Thank you. Appreciate it.
1:39:35 Tucker Carlson? We want to thank you for watching us on Spotify, a company that we use every day. We know the people who run it, good people. While you're here, do us a favor, hit, follow and tap the bell so you never miss an episode. We have real conversations, news, things that actually matter. Telling the truth always, you will not miss it. If you follow us on Spotify and hit the bell, we appreciate it. Thanks for watching.
Previous Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran Next Thank God Trump Brokered a Ceasefire. That’s the Last Thing Mark Levin Wanted. Page updated November 3, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
