JD Vance vs. Israel: What Everyone Is Getting Wrong About the Iran Deal

[00:00:00]All right, ladies and gentlemen. Well, JD Vance has been saying a lot of things lately and um a lot of people are responding to it in respect to this um Iranianou the memorandum of understanding which is kind of laying the groundwork for the negotiations which are going to be taking place over the next 60 days. Um a lot of people are upset about this memorandum of understanding. A lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives are upset with it.

[00:00:25]Uh a lot more people are upset with some of the remarks that JD Vance has said.

[00:00:29]The Israelis are certainly upset with kind of the trajectory of the conversation, but then there's a lot of other people that think JD Vance just nailed it. That that he essentially got it right with respect to what needs to happen next in the Iranian conflict and uh that he got it right with respect to Israel's precarious position in this negotiation process. And what I want to do today is recognize that once again I I feel like I'm I'm disagreeing with all of my friends because all of I have friends on both sides of this equation. And a part of me kind of feels like um both sides are being unfair to the other. Like like it's almost become impossible to have a good faith conversation on any sort of issue which includes the Middle East and specifically Israel.

[00:01:17]And so I'm going to give it a shot.

[00:01:18]Right. I have a good of a shot at the risk of just making everybody mad. Um, but it it really is just kind of my honest opinion of what's going on based off of the information that we have right now. So, let's go ahead and start by talking a little bit about what's actually going on and some of JD Vance's comments with respect to theou. So, right out of the Jerusalem Post says, JD Vance becomes the face of the US Iranou, Trump's most dangerous foreign policy bet to date. In an interview with ABC, Vance noted the US administration believes it's a good deal for the people of Israel. A lot of Israeli politicians tend to disagree with that and they actually have some some points that we're going to get into, but uh let's talk a little bit more about. In a high stakes media blitz spanning the last 24 hours, US President JD Vance has positioned himself as the administration's primary advocate.

[00:02:09]Vance, often seen as the face of the Trump's administration's America first foreign policy, spent the day moving from one major network to another, seeking to shape the narrative surrounding the agreement. And what they mean by this is JD Vance was seen as the guy within the administration that was the most skeptical of us launching these attacks in Iran.

[00:02:30]Um he's he's generally seen as one of the people within the administration that when they talk about America first foreign policy, which is again a horribly defined concept at this point, um he's basically just seen as being far more non-interventionist than than maybe other members on the cabinet.

[00:02:48]And so, uh, JD Vance being put in charge of managing the negotiations essentially put America in the position where they were going to have somebody that was kind of already skeptical of what was going on, but has generally been supportive of the Trump administration.

[00:03:01]It's not like JD Vance has been going out there trying to undermine everything Trump was doing. He just went into this with a lot more skepticism. Right. And and to Vance's credit, I think he has tried to uh faithfully carry out his his duties as a member of the administration, right? I mean, obviously he's elected as well, but he's elected with the president. Um, while at the same time offering a different perspective here and and this comes from a guy that actually served in a in a forward area, uh, served in combat with the Marine Corps. So, it's it's not a it's not like he he hasn't had skin in the game when it comes to fighting in the Middle East. And a lot of us that fought in the Middle East have been very very skeptical of renewing any more conflicts in that region of the world.

[00:03:44]Uh, by the same token, I I think Vance also took the position and certainly one that I took is that we recognize Iran as a threat. We recognize the IRGC as a horrible terrorist organization.

[00:03:57]Um, and and we we also recognize that Donald Trump has not been eager to send US service members into a conflict for the purpose of doing things like nation building. Um, Donald Trump has never really been a fan of of nation building in general, especially not in the Middle East. And and again to his credit there has been no nation building on this like regime change was not was never listed as one of the objectives of the Trump administration. The the four primary objectives were eliminate their their nuclear capacity, their ability to make nuclear weapons um severely degrade and end their ballistic missile capabilities. Um essentially destroy their navy and prevent them from funding terrorist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Now I would say out of those four objectives you have partial success with respect to the nuclear program and it hasn't been eliminated but it's been severely degraded but one of the primary questions is the existing enriched uranium. With respect to uh the ballistic missile early reports suggested that a lot of it had been destroyed and I think that some of that was because there was a lot of ballistic missiles launched in the first couple of weeks and then it just degraded significantly. I think what what the assessment now suggests is that they still have the capacity and they still have stockpiles. They've just moved it underground because at this stage it's better for the Iranians to have it as a threat rather than to actually utilize them, especially the way that they've been utilizing them previously. With respect to their navy, their navy's been essentially sunk. It's it's essentially ineffective as as being able to project force. The one uh the one concern is the smaller boats which could potentially lay mines in the straits of Hormuz. And then the fourth criteria is the the ability to support proxies. And you know, when it comes to ballistic missiles, you have some success, but nowhere near what we wanted. When it comes to supporting uh proxies, again, that's going to if the regime is going to stay in place, that's going to require a commitment from the regime to not support those proxies, and we'll see what happens with that. Um, you know, so really the only thing that we can really claim is has really been done has been the the destruction of the Navy. the the other three criteria. It remains to be seen whether or not we will get sufficient concessions from Iran within the 60-day negotiation period. One of one of the sources of my frustration for the people that I think are being overly critical of Trump and Vance right now is they're acting like theou the me memorandum of understanding is the agreement. No. The memorandum of understanding lays the groundwork for the negotiation process. Now, do I think theou is great? No, I don't. But does he get things talking and is that potentially beneficial? It depends on what happens during the 60 days worth of negotiation. And that's a lot of what JD Vance has been saying and that's what he's been saying to some of the the critics as well. So you see this article from Fox. JD Vance reveals details of the US Iran deal, addresses whether taxpayer money will go to Tyrron. This was a huge issue because there was a couple of things that were taking place.

[00:06:53]one was uh removing sanctions and allowing Iran to be able to freely transport oil as a condition of opening up the straits without tolls. Now, the the issue of tolls is still going to be, you know, in the negotiations, but the immediate opening of the straits and allowing for the free flow of oil also including lifting sanctions on Iran. And this is a concession that Iran wanted and that they were granted. And again, you can't claim that opening the Straits of Hormuz um is a win for us because the Straits of Hormuz wasn't closed before the war started. So the people that are pointing out like this is not some major this is not a major victory on our part.

[00:07:29]They're making a good point, right? That is that is a totally fair and valid point. The straight of Hamuz was open before we started this, then it closed as a result of the conflict and Iran being able to make credible threats against oil tankers and now it's removed again. But Iran got something in order to do it. So Iran got something in order to return the status quo. That is a negotiation victory for them. However, they've had their their military completely decimated. Right? Keep in mind, they didn't control the Straits of Hormuz because they had the ability to like control who came in and came out.

[00:08:02]They had the ability to do one thing, potentially sink oil tankers, and that was enough to stop the flow of oil. And it caused a major energy crisis, especially in Europe and other places around the world.

[00:08:14]um because the straight have opened up, we've already see a drastic decrease. I mean, the price of oil was upwards around $126 and I think now it's dropped all the way down to 80, right? Which is significant. It's a significant drop which is going to impact gas prices and everything else. I'm going to talk a little bit more on why that was important. But some of the other things that that he that V JD Vance pointed out right now, he goes, "Vice President Vance said that the proposed US Iran deal will usher in a new day for the Middle East." While address we'll see while addressing whether US taxpayer funds will be used to finance Iran's potential 300 billion reconstruction fund. In the interview, Vance told Fox News that Iran could have access to the multi-billion dollar fund if the nation fulfills obligations outlined in its deal with the United States. The agreement says they are not getting a single dime of American money. Here's what that means. There's a couple ways they can get these funds. This 300 billion like infrastructure project is something that's going to be done through private businesses and through the Gulf States. So theoretically, the idea here is that the Gulf States and whatnot are going to help finance infrastructure rebuilds within Iran as kind of like a show of goodwill and things like that with the potential to change the disposition of the relationship between Iran and the Gulf States.

[00:09:25]I think that is very aspirational. Um because I don't trust the IRGC. The IRGC has not changed in its nature and its objectives and what it wants. And and by the way, for all the people that act like, you know, Iran's not a threat or Iran's only an issue because we helped stage a coup in 1953, that's that's just not accurate. It's it's not to say that the CIA wasn't involved in trying to influence the Shaw to get rid of a leader at one point, but the Shaw had dismissed that dismissed that guy before. The guy that went away in 53 came back later, right? So this idea that we staged a coup and so that that is a horrible oversimplification and and it vastly emphasizes the US role over there in a decision that yeah we tried to influence for obvious reasons but the idea that we arranged it all is just a little bit absurd.

[00:10:12]Having said all that if you think that this is all about blowback on US policy or if the US was just out of the Middle East this wouldn't be an issue or if the US wasn't allies with Israel this wouldn't be an issue. bull, right? Tell me you know nothing about the Islamic doctrine of the Islamic Republican or the Islamic revolutionary government without telling me you know nothing about it. Islam has global aspirations especially when you're talking about people like the IRGC.

[00:10:38]Okay. So that this idea that they would all be nice to us if we were just nice to them. That is garbage.

[00:10:44]All right. Please show me any country where where you have a majority Muslim population where all of a sudden you have a country that looks anything like the United States or countries within the West. You you even see it now in the United States and especially within Europe where when they reach a critical mass, they're not there to assimilate, right? In so far as Islam can spread itself through the sword, it does. And when it can't spread itself through the sword, it tries other mechanisms. So I am sick of people playing makebelieve that the only reason Iran or these terrorist organizations have any problem with the United States is because our presence in the Middle East or our support for Israel. It is absolute garbage. The Muslim world have been invading Europe and Western countries and attacking the United States before the modern state of Israel came into it exist. Hundreds of years, thousands of years before the modern state of Israel came into existence. So spare me. Not thousands. Since 700 AD. Anyway, um now that I got that out of my system, let let's go back what he's talking about. So, that's why I don't think this 300 billion reconstruction fund um is actually going to yield the sort of like positive results or significant change within the Iranian government. Um if it gets the table to discuss the other things, fine, as long as no US taxpayer dollars are going to it. Um the only other thing where they talk about Iran potentially um having money having access to money, it's not the US is paying them. The US may unfreeze assets, but it's supposed to be kind of like a a phased u a phased unfreezing, if you will, based off of Iran actually coming to the table and making the necessary uh concessions. Um, so what Vance also said is what the agreement does say is the Iranians behave and if there are sanctions relief and if the Iranians are integrated into the world economy, we invite other countries, not us, but other countries to invest in their country. Right? So that's this whole deal from 300 billion. Again, I don't think this is going to actually produce this the sort of results they think it's going to produce. But if it's not US tax dollars going to it, I I don't really care that much. Okay. Now, this was just JD Vance kind of explaining what was going on. This wasn't the main source of some of the problems. We're going to get to that here in just a second, but before we do, I want to talk about our good friends over at Good Ranchers because guess what, ladies and gentlemen, Father's Day right around the corner. Sunday is coming up. And if you still haven't gotten a gift for dad, well, you need to go over to Good Ranchers because they have got a great deal for Father's Day. Gifting is easy.

[00:13:11]Schedule delivery for a day. Dad will be home and add a custom message. Plus, you will get free express shipping. And every order is backed by Good Ranchers satisfaction guarantee. No stress about shipping perishable food, right? Because if for something some reason something happens, Good Ranchers will make it right. I have seen them do this before, right? And it was no fault of their own.

[00:13:32]By the way, Good Ranchers didn't screw up, but something happened, the meat got, you know, spoiled because of a screw- up with somebody else, and Good Ranchers still replaced it because it's just the sort of people they are. But here is the kicker, ladies and gentlemen. For a limited time, you can buy any Father's Day gift box and Goodranchers will throw in free Wu burgers automatically applied at checkout. So, if you want to take advantage of this for dad, go to goodranchers.com/nick.

[00:13:58]That's good.com/nick.

[00:14:00]Pick out any Father's Day gift box and the free Wu burgers will automatically be applied at checkout because let's face it, man, dad deserves something special. So, get him this, right?

[00:14:10]American meat delivered. All right, let's talk about the things that have really started to upset people.

[00:14:17]JD Vance made a series of of comments because obviously there was a lot of people in Israel and there was a lot of people in the United States that were frustrated by this deal. There was some people that thought that this was kind of stabbing Israel in the back. Now, it's important to note Benjamin Netanyahu has not come out and said that Donald Trump betrayed it. From what I understand, there's been no like top level like cabinet people that have said that. If I'm wrong or if something changes between now and the time that we publish this, fine. You can correct me in the comments, but that's my understanding. There are a lot of people in the United States that have that sentiment, right? But it didn't help when JD Vance was saying things like this. JD Vance on Iraq and on Iran and Israel. Do I think there are people within Israeli society who would like to turn Liby Iran into Libya, basically a failed state with 90 million people?

[00:15:02]Probably. But I don't know that BB wants that. Okay. I've never actually had that conversation with him. It would be an interesting conversation to have. I'll tell you right now, is Iran turning into a Persian Libya good for the United States of America? Absolutely not.

[00:15:14]Here's the deal. There are some people who are saying that this is ridiculous.

[00:15:18]That that how could JD Vance say something like this? Uh there there are people that believe I think Israel's ultimate objective is regime change in Iran. And for obvious reasons, Iran has it as one of its primary goals, wiping Israel off the face of the earth, right?

[00:15:33]They're developing nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, launching constantly launching terrorist attacks. They were behind October 7th. They're behind the Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon.

[00:15:43]Of course, Israel would want regime change in Iran. Israel knows that effective regime change at this stage is probably not possible. And so, what they would like is constant pressure on the ex on the regime as it currently exists.

[00:15:58]Because it's probably the most vulnerable it's ever been. that doesn't mean it's close to collapsing. That doesn't mean that um you you wouldn't you want to have it break out into civil war and now all of a sudden it can't achieve anything. Um but there have been prominent voices that have said, well, look, if they're fighting a civil war, then they can't build a nuclear program.

[00:16:16]They can't support their proxies and so maybe that would be better, right? And and okay, interesting theory. JD Vance clearly thinks that would not be better.

[00:16:25]Um and and and again I I can see the point where if they're so busy with internal problems, they they can't do the stuff that they typically do with supporting proxies or building more ballistic missiles or building a nuclear program, but that still creates a great deal of instability within that region and the straight of Hormuz. So I don't think an ongoing civil war is necessarily best for the region or for the world, especially when it comes to things like threatening the straight of Hormuz and having various factions that might be fighting over trying to control it. So again, I think JD Vance makes a fair point here. Um, but I also think it's, you know, again, when you're you're saying, are there people within the society, you know, I think there probably is. Again, you're you're you're throwing shade at them. It's like either either name names on here. Um, or, you know, don't make the comment. And and this is something where, again, I think part of this is JD Vance being frustrated because he didn't think we should have done this in the first place.

[00:17:19]And I think from his perspective, he don't think he doesn't think Israel has been properly appreciative. Um there was uh another uh comment right here that I think also stirred a lot of controversy.

[00:17:30]He goes, "What is your ex?" He was talking about Israel. What is your exact proposal? You're a country of 9 million people. You can't just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have. This is one where I think JD Vance was um overly flippant.

[00:17:44]And and here's why. JD Vance is a Marine. Um, I think if if people were regularly rocketing um, America, regularly rocketing, you know, his home state, uh, regularly launching terrorist attacks to where teachers had to, you know, have machine guns escorting kids to field trips. I think JD Vance attitude would be, we need to kill those people. Um, I think he also needs to have some respect for the fact that over multiple administrations within Israel and the United States. Um, Palestinians and and and other faction, Palestinians were offered multiple peace deals where they would get 94% 97% 98% of what they wanted and they always rejected it in favor of trying to kill Israelis. So for JD Vance to say, "What's your proposal?

[00:18:32]You can't just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem you have." Well, JD, to be quite honest, if every time you sued for peace, if every time you traded land for peace, if every time you did that it didn't work, you would probably start to come to the conclusion that people that whose primary goal is to genocide your people probably just need to be killed.

[00:18:54]All right. So, this is out of all this the the comments that JD Vance has made, I thought this one was the most disrespectful, the most um inaccurate and flippant with respect to the history of the region. and and the most in poor taste. Now, there's a lot of people like, "Yeah, that's right. See, we can't." No, I I'm sorry. If anybody was doing to the United States what Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthies, and various other countries had done to Israel, the United States would would have made them a pavement.

[00:19:29]Right? So, this is one where again, I don't think this was at all helpful. And the people cheering this on, I don't think I have a healthy respect for for what it means to live as a civilian sending your kids off to school not knowing if a Palestinian terrorist is going to blow up their school boat, school bus to try to make a point. So I I thought this was in really poor taste.

[00:19:50]Now, this next comment that he made, I think is whether you like it or not, um, needs to be taken very seriously because there have been some people that have rushed to this idea that JD Vance is just becoming Tucker Carlson. I don't think that's fair at all. I do not think that's fair at all. And they've they've gotten really angry at Donald Trump as if he is surrendered or if he's given in or if he's just betrayed, you know, whatever. And and JD Vance said this. He goes, "Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time. If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world. Now, I want to point something out. That's not technically true. All right? There are there are heads of states and other countries that are still generally supportive of Israel. Um, you know, Argentina, you could argue India, other places as well.

[00:20:42]The real factor is though is who is actually going who who is supporting Israel with with arms and munitions. Who is actually willing to fight alongside Israel with respect to these conflicts?

[00:20:54]And the answer to that one is the United States. And so whether you like it or not, I think JD Vance is accurate that I think the Israeli government should be very careful on how they approach this.

[00:21:03]By the same token, I understand why Israel is upset, specifically with respect to Lebanon, because Lebanon is at a point right now where there's a very real possibility that Hezblah, which has had something of a strangle hold over that country for a long time now through the help of Iran, uh could be losing its grip on on power over there. And you could actually see a significant change in the overall politics um of Lebanon, which would be not only good for Israel, it would be good for Lebanon, it would be good for the region. I think would be good for the United States.

[00:21:35]Um, and and again, I think Trump made some comments, too, kind of alluding to this idea of of Syria playing Syria playing more of a role, which I think is a horrible idea. Um, so it's it's understandable to me why Israel doesn't want to give up the ground that it's taken in Lebanon without some assurances that the Lebanese government is capable of standing on its own apart from Hezbollah.

[00:21:57]Um, I I think that is a much longer process. Um, which is probably why Israel wants to continue to be able to conduct operations.

[00:22:06]It's going to be interesting to see what happens. Um, you've already seen America acknowledge that Israel has a right to defend itself and if it gets attacked, it should be able to return fire. Uh, there have been some questions as to the proportional nature of the response. So, you know, again, if someone launches a rocket at Israel and Israel blasts the the launch site, I think most people see that as, okay, that's that's fairly reasonable. There's some concern that Israel is not being as discriminant as they should be with respect to their strikes on Lebanon. Okay. So, again, I'm just trying to be fair to both sides here. I think that the Israelis uh I certainly understand where they feel like they're not really a part of this negotiation. And so if they're not part of the negotiation, well then why should they stop conducting operations which they think are in their best national security interest? Here's the thing I I kind of want to make clear on this. It is one thing to say, well, it's not in our national security interest, so we're going to do what is best for Israel?

[00:23:02]Okay.

[00:23:04]But if it is in our national security interest, then shouldn't we do what's best for the United States? There's going to be a lot of people get mad at me for saying that. They're going to be like, "How is it in the best interest of the United States for the Ayatollah to get more money and to get these concessions without actually making good on the negotiations?" Well, I'm waiting to see what happens with the negotiations. If the negotiations go poorly, I will not sit here and say this was a good idea no matter what. If we don't get if we don't get truly strong concessions on the nuclear side where they hand over the enriched uranium and they agree not to develop nuclear weapons with oversight and transparency the United States gets to be a part of well then I'm I'm going to sit here right here now and say this conflict was not worth it e even to the extent that we get that I am still very skeptical that the timing of this conflict was was the best course of action. Um I I would argue that I don't think this was the best time to do it. Having said that, we did it. We've achieved some limited objectives, but if we don't achieve that one on the nuclear, this wasn't worth it. There, there I said it. For anybody that's that's trying to get me to to criticize the Trump administration on this, if we don't get the nuclear concessions that we're after, and I would go so far as to say if we don't get some concessions with respect to the ballistic missiles and respect to supporting proxies, then it would be fair to say that we probably didn't.

[00:24:20]This was probably not worth uh the sacrifice that it required. Okay, having said that, the people that are insisting that what we need is regime change and and there's a recent poll that came out that said about 39% of Republicans want there to be a negotiated settlement and about 36% want want regime change and we know Israel wants regime change. Here's all I want to say on this. Um, okay, but what's the probability that you get it right now? What is the probability that you get it? I think that's what needs to be taken into consideration. We can talk all day long about what we want. What's the probability that you actually get it? I'm going to talk about that in a second. JD Vance also took on um some of the comments from like Senator Ted Cruz who said that Trump is receiving poor advice. Uh you know, Senator Bill Cassidy out of Louisiana said that Ronald Reagan would be rolling over in his grave. I'm going to be honest, I don't really care what Bill Cassidy has to say and neither do the people of Louisiana because he just got crushed in his uh primary. But some of these other things where they they've brought up uh issues I think are are legitimate issues.

[00:25:25]They're legitimate issues um about theou and about the probability of being able to work in good faith with the Iranian government. Um the question is is okay so then what should be done about it?

[00:25:41]What should be what should Trump be holding if he shouldn't be signing this?

[00:25:46]if he shouldn't be into these negotiations, well then what should he be doing? And I'm gonna get to that in just a second. But first, I want to talk about our good friends over at Angel Studios. That's right, ladies and gentlemen. Young Washington. This is a new movie coming out by Angel Studios.

[00:26:01]And it's the untold story of George Washington before he was a general or a president. At 20 years old, he faced crushing failures, near-death experiences, and pivotal moments that forged leader into the man who would shape America. And one of the things I like about this is it's this idea sometimes we tend to deify the founding fathers. We almost treat them like they're like demigods. And it's important to understand that nope, these were men. These were men that it was not just one string of success after the others. They went through some very hard times and a couple of inches in a different direction with with a couple of shots fired and they would have died in their early 20s. And George Washington has an incredible early life experience that I think is important for Americans to understand on the 250th anniversary. And if you join the Angel Guild today, go to angel.com/nick.

[00:26:50]You can take advantage of the special America's 250th offer by becoming a premium member for the lowest price of the season. You'll get two free tickets to see Young Washington in theaters this Independence Day and be a part of the making of, excuse me, be a part of making this film the number one movie in America for our nation's 250th anniversary. Go to angel.com/nick.

[00:27:14]Join up as a premium member. Get those tickets. What a great way to celebrate our independence. All right, let's move on to the last part of this where we talk about this idea of if if Trump shouldn't be doing this, right? If if if this is not the the deal he should have, um if if all of this is a a huge mistake, then I want to know what exactly are the options. Um because the the bottom line is it it is it is all fine and good to talk about what you hope would happen, right? When people say uh when the 36% that were pulled say I would prefer regime change, so would I. So would I. I would prefer regime change. Um, but what if you asked the question, would you prefer regime change if it included sending an additional 30,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to the region in order to destroy Kark Island uh invade uh Iran in order to control one side of the strait or to take down Tyrron to systematically go through and fight in urban warfare battles against the IRGC.

[00:28:23]Like if if you answer question that way, I'm I'm willing to bet that a significant portion of that 36% that would prefer regime change doesn't prefer regime change if that's the price to be paid in order to achieve it.

[00:28:35]Because even if you did all of those things, there's no guarantee that you actually get a better regime. Now, it's highly probable that you'd get at least something better than the Ayatollah and the IRGC, but are we going to get involved in another ground war in Iran? And if we do, are we then going to be responsible for policing the country, for helping establish a new government, for writing a new constitution? Are we going to be responsible for managing all of that like we attempted to do in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[00:29:02]If if that's if that's what it takes to actually affect regime change, and by the way, I do believe that the only way you get a lasting deal is through regime change. Totally believe that. I think the Israelis are right on that point.

[00:29:15]The the real question you have to ask yourself is, okay, but do the conditions currently exist in order to achieve that? I don't think they do. I had hoped they did. When I saw all these protests taking place, I was hoping that there was intel somewhere where a couple of battalion commanders in the Iraqi regular army were going to break off and join the resistance. I was hoping that there was established rebel groups that had been armed for years that were ready to finally come forward and actually fight the IRGC in the streets. Guess what? That didn't happen. None of that materialized. Zero.

[00:29:49]There there was some talk of giving weapons to the Kurds. The problem is is that you can't just arm one ethnic group, one minority ethnic group in Iran and and use that as the basis for an effective insurgent campaign.

[00:30:03]And this is where this is where I'm going to lean a little bit on my my experience as a Green Beret because Green Berets specialize in unconventional warfare and counterinsurgency. What does that mean?

[00:30:11]We're either fighting with the rebels to overthrow the government or we're fighting with the government to destroy the rebels. So, I know a little bit something about this. And and the bottom line is that if you want successful regime change, then what you need is an organic solution that will actually work with the culture. And in order to do so, you need to have a fighting force that is capable of holding ground, of being able to train, refit, resupply, and then go back out and attack again.

[00:30:44]And they need to be able to sustain that long enough to be able to wear down or or overthrow the government. And then you need some sort of mechanism that has political legitimacy with the people that is able to then form a new government. and and ideally they've already formed a shadow government so that when the rebel forces are actually launching attacks and whatnot, they're doing so at the behest of a of a shadow government which will then come out of the shadows once they've attained enough territory and begin to govern. Do any of those conditions exist?

[00:31:18]Apparently not.

[00:31:20]Do do we have the ability to create those conditions um in a relatively short period of time?

[00:31:27]That being three or four months? No, I don't believe we do. I don't. Somebody else could be privy to information that I'm not, but I don't believe we do.

[00:31:34]Okay. What is a uh what is a limited strategy that we could implement that could potentially bring Iran to their knees? Well, I I will tell you this much.

[00:31:43]There is there is one potential approach that we could take and that would be if you did a limited ground invasion where you destroyed Kark Island. So because Kark Island handles about I think it's roughly 85 to 90% of oil exports for the regime. If you destroyed the infrastructure on that island and made it impossible to be able to uh transport oil from there. if you deploy ground forces to the other side of the strait into Iranian territory to where you could theoretically control enough space to where you could reopen uh the straight of Hormuz. You would essentially remove the leverage that the Ayatollah and the IRGC has. But there's no way you do that without deploying US ground forces. And even then, the question is going to be, do the Iranians still possess the capability to either lay mines to use uh significant drone attacks in order to sink or severely damage a tanker or even potentially use remaining ballistic missiles. Because again, Iran doesn't actually have to have the power to close down the straight of form. They have to be able to convince people that they have the power to do it.

[00:32:53]And and that's the question. So the the only limited operation I could see here that could potentially bring down the regime is if the United States was actually able to open up the straight of her and I don't personally I don't see how they can do that right now without occupying a significant portion of Iran along the um along the sea there.

[00:33:18]Are we willing to do that?

[00:33:20]Are are we willing to drastically increase the deployment of combat troops to another ground war in the Middle East?

[00:33:27]And and you you you can't just look at this from the standpoint of do we possess the capability. You have to also look at it from the standpoint of one, is it constitutional at this point?

[00:33:37]That's a that's a valid question.

[00:33:40]Two, you would also have to look at will Congress vote for the funding to support that operation.

[00:33:47]Three, would the American people would a sufficient number of the American people support such an action, especially as casualties start to come in?

[00:33:58]Did does any of this create the sort of circumstances that will yield positive results with limited casualties prior to the midterms?

[00:34:09]And and this is the part I I watched a conversation between Ben Shapiro, Michael Nullles, and Andrew Claven. I'm gonna be honest. I thought Andrew Claven nailed it. He said, "You have to look at this through the term of the midterms."

[00:34:20]Why? It's called asymmetric warfare. The IRGC understands that they do not need to beat the United States military in the field. They do not need to shoot down a bunch of planes or sink a bunch of our ships. They don't need to do any of that. They need to strangle the oil supply long enough to keep gas prices as high going into the midterm election cycle, right? And they just need to bunker down and not die.

[00:34:45]Because if they can bunker down, not die, and gas prices remain incredibly high, and there's no real resolution to this, and now all of a sudden we're talking about a significant deployment of ground troops to the region in order to try to secure the straight horm.

[00:34:59]And that is all the news is talking about going in. So all through the summer, Americans are paying a lot more for everything because gas prices are high. And now we're talking about the prospect of another ground war in the Middle East. Do you think Republicans have any shot of winning the midterms under those conditions?

[00:35:17]I don't Let me ask you something. If If you're someone that wants to see regime change, I think we should write it out.

[00:35:23]If if you're someone in Israel and and you believe that the the United States should continue to apply pressure in Iran until we have regime change, here's my question. If Democrats win overwhelming in the midterms, they take back the House of Representatives.

[00:35:36]That's all they need to do. They don't need to take the House and the Senate, just the House of Representatives. If they take it back, what do you think is the first thing they're going to do?

[00:35:43]I'll give you a hint, it's going to be to construct the budget in such a way to where no more funding is allowed for operations in Afghanistan because that is the power of the purse and all they need to do is control the House to do it. They're already projected to win the House.

[00:36:01]The only thing is the the only thing that's potentially standing in the way is that if you have a quick resolution of this conflict and we can get focused on other things. Now Ben Shapiro made up a good point. He said look Americans don't like to be embarrassed on the world stage. They don't like to be embarrassed in conflict. That's absolutely true and the next 60 days will get to determine whether or not we are embarrassed or whether or not we achieve something substantive. But the other thing that I I would suggest where I would disagree with Ben on this is that there weren't enough Americans that were actually interested in this war in the first place. It's not as if there was a massive strategic wellthoughtout campaign to sell this to the public. It essentially happened very quickly.

[00:36:41]And a lot of Americans, myself included, were willing to give Trump a lot of leeway on this because we tend to Trump we tend to trust Donald Trump when it comes to to foreign policy.

[00:36:52]precisely because he doesn't want to get us involved in nation building exercises.

[00:36:57]And what we're seeing right now is Donald Trump coming to the realization that the the conditions on the ground do not exist to affect successful regime change. That is why he never made it one of the US objectives in Iran.

[00:37:09]But he also understands that if he wants a shot at winning the midterms, gas prices got to go lower. And and everyone in the brother can tell me how they don't like that.

[00:37:20]I I'm sorry, but I I just think it's reality, right? The Democrats want Donald Trump gone, so they're already motivated to get to the polls and vote for their their people. There is a significant portion of the MAGA coalition that also sees this as a distraction from America First policy.

[00:37:38]And again, we can argue the nuances all day long, right? I I am someone that is generally supportive of a non-interventionist foreign policy, but also cannot stand the IRGC or the Iranian regime and want to see them taken out. I'm also someone that is generally supportive of Israel.

[00:37:54]But the bottom line is the bottom line.

[00:37:56]I don't see how we get out of this with with any better deal than what we can potentially negotiate in the next 60 days without a significant reinvestment of time, energy, and troops to this conflict.

[00:38:13]And I think requiring any of that puts us in the potential position where the American public reject that as a strategy and punish Republicans at the polls in November.

[00:38:26]And and again, this is all this is all just theory if the Democrats take the House because regardless of what you would like, what you would not like, it won't matter. The Democrats will dedicate all of their energy to turning the House of Representatives into nothing more than a series of committee hearings and tribunals against the Trump administration. It will be nothing about defunding the military, defunding ICE.

[00:38:47]That's all it will be. And they will have the power of the purse in the House. So respectfully, as someone who appreciates Israel's position and not liking what's going on, I don't like theou, I am hoping we get something out of the negotiations.

[00:39:04]I'm just being honest. If if somebody can present a strategy other than the ones that I've presented, and I have one more I'm going to talk about briefly that could actually get us out of this uh conflict in in a more successful fashion given the conditions not only on the ground in the Middle East, but on the ground here in the United States, I'm all ears. I'm willing to hear it. I cannot stand the Iranian regime.

[00:39:30]But again, I know something about this type of conflict. And if the proper conditions aren't there, you're not going to achieve the results that you want. Yes, you can continue to bomb.

[00:39:40]Yes, you can continue to put up pressure, and you can do with that in ways that that minimizes the probability of US casualties. But the moment you're deploying divisions of of US infantrymen and paratroopers and marines, you're going to see increased casualties. And the question is, how quick can you actually secure the straight of Hormuz? How quick could you potentially take out the Iranian regime?

[00:40:06]Especially if that Iranian regime doesn't get up and actually fight.

[00:40:10]If you really got to go fight doortodoor through tunnel complexes and everything else, you're going to see casualties.

[00:40:17]So what's the solution? What is the solution other than going about this negotiated settlement that can potentially get us something of substance remains to be seen and potentially put us in a much better footing for the midterms.

[00:40:33]So I I don't again I I wish I was wrong in my analysis. Now, I I will tell you what I think the strategy needs to be if we're serious about regime change in Iran, but it's not a four-month strategy. It it's it's not even a four-year strategy. It it is going to be a a longterm strategy where we actually work on developing a core of junior officers within the regular army that would be willing to break away and fight the regime. It is about developing resistance groups probably among Arabs, Arabs, Kurds, Azarbaijanis and and certain Persian groups and and being able to get them in a position to where the next time the conditions are right for mass protests and things of that nature. They can show up to the streets with more than rocks.

[00:41:26]But that's going to take time to develop. If you want the end state that you're looking for, you're going to have to invest in the in the time to develop the conditions so that when that catalyst comes about, you can take full advantage of it. We weren't able to take full advantage of it this time. I hate that. I I genuinely do. I'm not happy about any of this. I I think there's things that JD Vance said that again I've already articulated. I think we're wrong. I I think we're inaccurate.

[00:41:57]But there's other things that he said that are just true. It's real politique and I don't know what to I don't know what to do other than to say that it is what it is. So what what I hope for again please if you've got a better solution provide one in the comments.

[00:42:13]Um but the way I see it right now we have one of a few different ways that this is going to go down. One is is that the Iranians recognize that Trump is not going to be perceived. Claven proed this out too that Trump is not going to be perceived as a loser so that if they really push Trump hard, he will start bombing them again. He he may even credibly threaten to deploy troops.

[00:42:37]Because here's what we've recognized.

[00:42:39]The one piece of leverage Iran really has is being able to close down the straight of Hormuz. If you took that capability away from Iran, the their negotiating ability pretty much goes out the window. And at that point, you probably could facilitate the the fall of the regime.

[00:42:54]But you couldn't guarantee that you're going to have a stable country immediately following. And and the the expectation would be is that US forces would have to stay. And I'm sorry, I just don't think the will is there among the American people right now. I just don't.

[00:43:09]So if you you you either continue to bomb and hope that they just fall under the pressure or you launch some sort of operation to destroy Kark Island and attempt to open the straits um without Iran.

[00:43:25]Again, opening the straits doesn't just mean we we have overwhelming military presence there. It means that all of the people who own the tankers are actually willing to to risk it. That's that's where you got to get. That's the calculus.

[00:43:40]Right. So, if you're not going to do those things, then what's the option? The option is try to get the best deal you possibly can, which ensures that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, at least while the Trump administration is still in power, right? There there is no long-term agreement with Iran that means anything. There's only short-term agreements when they believe that the costbenefit analysis doesn't add up. And and I think Trump may have convinced them that the cost and benefit analysis doesn't add up while Trump is in the White House. And so the Iranian calculus might be fine, we'll be good for right now, and then when Trump's gone, we'll re-evaluate. I think that's probably what they'll do. But at least it buys us some time with respect to nuclear development or ballistic missiles development or operating through proxies in the Middle East.

[00:44:26]I think that's probably the best that we can do in order to have a shot at winning the midterms. And then after the midterms, we can re-evaluate again on what our strategy needs to be. But I'm just going to say right now, I think the American people are just so fed up and tired with Middle Eastern conflicts.

[00:44:42]They just want to see a reorganization of American focus. But both, by the way, they want to see a a re focused back toward the United States on our own domestic issues. But even so far as foreign policy, I think people I think more and more Americans are fed up with the Middle East and I think they're becoming increasingly fed up with Europe as well. In fact, I'm going to have a special guest on and we're going to talk about um reorientation of our foreign policy actually to the Western Hemisphere because I actually think there's a lot of positive opportunities that are developing in large part because of Trump's foreign policy in places like Venezuela and Panama and Cuba. So, anyways, I don't think this is all doom and gloom. And like I said at the very beginning of this, I'm pretty sure I'm going to make everybody mad because there's points that I agree with JD Vance on, there's points I disagree with uh JD Vans on. There's points that I think his opposition have gotten correct and there's other points where I don't think they're being fair to JD at all. Um I think this is just a sucky situation. Um like I said at the very beginning of this conflict, can't stand Iran. Um but uh the timing and conditions have to be right in order to achieve a lasting peace in in that area. And it appears to me that the conditions do not exist for that. So now we're going to probably have to accept some sort of negotiated peace in the interim.

[00:45:56]I would like to see a long-term strategy for fundamentally undermining and replacing the Iranian regime, but it has to be by through and with the Iranian people. It cannot be the United States responsible for toppling the government and replacing it with something in our image. It ha the burden of it, the vast majority of the burden of that responsibility rest with the Iranian people. I would like to help them to do so, but that's what it's going to take.

[00:46:23]And those conditions do not currently exist. And I believe that in order to try to create those conditions in a relatively short period of time would almost certainly require a large contingent of US ground forces. And I just don't think the will is there for it. So again, you can like what I say, you can don't like what I say. Here's a little secret. I don't like what I'm saying. I don't like that these are the conditions. But I think this is the reality. And so I'm trying to be truthful and I'm trying to offer things that I think could actually work and hopefully be beneficial for US foreign policy. But the the bottom line is this.

[00:46:55]I I'm someone that believes that US foreign policy in the Middle East often overlaps primarily overlaps with Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East.

[00:47:04]But it's not a perfect one for one. And if Israel feels like it's got to continue its operations in Lebanon in order to achieve its security, I understand and respect that. But the United States also has to do what's best for our national security. And I would argue to the Israeli government that Democrats taking control of Congress um is in no way, shape or form in our interest as Americans or in their interest. And one of the things I think Andrew Clayven got right is the biggest threat to the United States right now is not Iran. That doesn't mean it's not a threat. I believe it is. I believe Islam is a threat to the United States. But our biggest threat to the United States is actually domestic right now. And we have to be able to address that first.

[00:47:43]And if that means that we have to close this down, close this chapter of this conflict down because it's merely a chapter um and refocus our efforts somewhere else. Well, if that's what's in our best interest, that's what we have to do.

[00:47:57]But I I I hope they will come to the conclusion that again a powerful United States um is in their best interest and we all we all react accordingly. But it's going to be difficult. It's going to be difficult. I wish we weren't in this position. I really do. Anyways, that's my take. Uh once a day, once again, Father's Day coming up. If dad doesn't own the man book, well, that might be a that might be a great gift for him. Maybe you can also get him some brew around and find out coffee. Maybe you can get him a mug to put that coffee in. Right. All of that is in the link.

[00:48:32]Go and check it out. Once again, I I hope at the very least you you think I'm an honest broker in the way I an I analyze these things. Like I said, I'm I'm making enemies of friends on both sides of this right now. Uh because I really do have friends kind of all over the place on this topic. And I I try to at least be respectful to all their various perspectives and then offer my own. And hopefully uh that gives you a more complete perspective as well. Once again, thank you for joining us and we'll see you next