"Iran’s Plan To Make You SIMP" exposes how critics of U.S.-Israeli strikes—labeled cowards, liars, and America haters—distort Iran’s collapse: 35,000 protesters killed, its air force wiped out after a single F-35 dogfight, and its navy sunk in Operation Epic Fury, which hit 2,000 targets with 2,000 munitions in 100 hours. With 50,000 U.S. troops deployed, IRGC leaders like Mokadam dead, and Qatar arresting Iranian spies, Iran’s regime faces total military defeat—yet critics ignore its nuclear progress and global terror role while pushing false narratives, from Blumenthal’s fake troop claims to Sachs’ pro-China spin. Public support soars at 76%, exposing the hypocrisy of those who prioritize domestic chaos over dismantling a regime that’s already lost the war. [Automatically generated summary]
There's a coalition of people that are coming together to take on the United States.
These people are cowards plus liars, plus people who despise America.
It's a coalition of scavengers.
There are the cowards who mouth platitudes about how much they really didn't like the Ayatollah, but then they spend their days talking about how the United States couldn't and shouldn't ever do anything.
And then there are the liars who literally craft stories out of nothing in order to undermine America.
And finally, there are the actual America haters who are often both cowards and liars, but really, really just despise America and her pursuit of our national interest in the world.
That coalition is coming together, but it's not going to win because President Trump is going to win this war.
But let's start with the cowards.
These are the people who pretend that, you know, they didn't like the Ayatollah very much, but they're really, really upset that anything is done about it.
So, for example, they're really, really mad that international law, ooh, international law, the precious gugaw of the pseudo-intellectuals, has been somehow violated.
Yes, if we don't have Myanmar's approval of a military strike on the Ayatollah's, or China's, which for, I mean, if there is one country I need approval from, it is China currently oppressing a billion people, or Russia, which is currently engaged in an aggressive war of conquest in Ukraine while throwing dissenters out of random third-story balconies at hotels.
I need Russia's approval.
That's international law.
And if we don't have their approval, the mullahs must remain immune.
Here, for example, is the pathetic Mark Carney of Canada.
The current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order.
Despite decades of UN Security Council resolutions, the tireless work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the succession of sanctions and diplomatic frameworks, Iran's nuclear threat remains.
And now, the United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.
My favorite part of that, I think, is where Mark Carney suggests international, we've had decades of the IAEA being thwarted.
We've had decades of UN resolutions being ignored.
And now the United States and Israel won't even go to the UN.
So you literally just said why they shouldn't.
You explained why those organizations are trash and do nothing.
And then he turns around and says, yes, but if you don't go to Canada with its vast military prowess, currently, Mark Carney, by the way, is trying to sell out Canada to the Chinese government because he's mad at President Trump's tariffs.
So if you don't go to Canada to Canada, what?
Are we dropping maple syrup on the Iranians right now?
Is that the idea?
Or take Zorhan Mamdani, who was happy to express support for terror supporters throughout his entire career, but now he too is hiding behind international law as cover for his consistent opposition to Western strength.
unidentified
Mr. Mayor, do you think Iran is better off without the Ayatollah?
You know, I've said before that the Iranian government has engaged in systematic repression of its own people, even killing thousands of Iranians who were seeking to express the most basic forms of dissent earlier this year.
It is a brutal government.
And I've also said that while I may be a young mayor, I am old enough to remember the devastating consequences of our country pursuing a war with the intent of regime change in that very same region not that many years ago.
And even if you have questions about what comes next, the answer should be yes.
Yes, Iran is better off without Ayatollah Khomeini'i.
But according to Mamdani, the important thing is saying that the Ayatollah is bad, like really bad.
But the minute anybody does anything, that is so much worse.
We have to make sure that he stays in place because, you know, after all, the Iraq war, and again, this Iraq war syndrome nonsense that has been promoted by the left and then the horseshoe right together, that every war is Iraq, every single intervention is Iraq, is so ahistorical and absurd.
It is ahistorical.
It is just tripe.
It is nincompoopery.
The president of the United States ran in 2015-2016 on the platform that the Iraq war was bad, which was a controversial opinion inside the Republican Party at the time, lest people forget.
The idea that he is now going to engage in a new, long-lasting occupation, not like the first three weeks of the Iraq war, where the United States kicked the living hell out of Saddam Hussein and ended his regime.
But what came after?
That was the part that went wrong, by the way.
The first three weeks of the Iraq war was by every available metric, a win for the United States.
It was what came after that was a problem.
Do you think that Trump is going to engage in Bushian, neoconservative nationbuilding in Iran?
Is that your actual thought at this point?
But of course, this is the argument of the cowards and also the liars.
Then there are the cowards who slander Israel in order to somehow imply that Israel is the bad guy in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
So Gavin Newsom, who is absolutely slimy, I mean, truly slimy, taking every position he could possibly take.
As I've said before, the man takes more positions on politics than the Kama Sutra.
Gavin Newsom, who in an interview with me admitted freely that Israel had not committed genocide in Gaza, now he goes on with the Pod Save bros, and he knows he has to please.
They're Israel-hating asses.
And so he immediately comes out and starts talking about how Israel is an apartheid state.
False, 20% of the Israeli population is Arab Muslim.
They're on the Supreme Court.
They are in the medical system.
Huge percentage of Israeli doctors are Arab Muslim.
They're in every area of Israeli society.
It is not apartheid for Israel to actually have delegated certain parts of land to, for example, the Palestinian Authority, a terror supporting group.
But Gavin Newsom knows he has to mouth the platitudes to his far-left friends if he wants the nomination because the Democratic Party, as Senator John Fetterman said yesterday on the show, is moving dramatically away from Israel.
So here's Gavin Newsom telling lies and being a coward.
It breaks my heart because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path, where I don't think you have a choice but that consideration.
I mean, to say this is in America's interest at a time when affordability is at crisis levels, where you had an administration that literally got elected saying this is exactly opposite of what they would ever consider doing.
The fact that we are in this now regional war, all these proxies.
I mean, the fact of the matter is that blaming it on Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, there is complete solidarity in Israel from left to right on agreement on what Israel is doing right now.
Yair Lapid, who is on the left, center left, he agrees with Netanyahu on this.
Now, Tali Bennett, the chief rival to Netanyahu, agrees on this.
Even Yair Golan, far, far, far to the left, can't openly say he disagrees with what's going on.
So this is just nonsense.
But again, when you are a coward and you are afraid of your own party, you have to start lying.
And then there are the actual liars, the people who are making actual stories up out of nothing.
Stories they know aren't true, but they push them anyway.
So the catastrophists who aren't actually worried about World War III or a long-standing boots on the ground occupation, but try to lie to Americans that they are.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, who has had his own shady history with the truth, when it comes to his purported military service, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, he says, you know, he's worried that we're going to put boots on the ground.
Now, does he mean that there might be special operators on the ground?
Because if we're talking about special operators on the ground, welcome to the real world where the United States has special operators on the ground all over the world, everywhere from Asia to Africa to the Middle East.
But that's not what he is implying.
He is implying a gigantic airlift of hundreds of thousands of troops, gigantic boots on the ground footprint.
It's, again, it's a lie.
It is untrue.
And again, it's astonishing to watch this while he is wearing the American flag, Ukraine flag pin on his lapel.
I am more fearful than ever after this briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground and that troops from the United States may be necessary to accomplish objectives that the administration seems to have, but I also am no more clear on what the priorities are going to be of the administration going forward.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, directly from the Native American Reservation, from her teepee, she says that there is no plan, and she would know, because after all, she is a military leader, an expert.
All these people who pretend they know anything about foreign policy or politics, these late night hosts who know nothing, doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
I mean, like unbelievable stuff here from Jimmy Kimmel.
He once watched a Robertson-Yero movie, Wag the Dog, and now thinks that that's real life.
Trump is suddenly all about toppling regimes, which is interesting because I remember a time when the idea that a president would start a war because he couldn't make a deal was seen by some as a negative.
First, quick reminder: please subscribe over at Daily Wire so that we can continue to bring you the kind of content you want.
Obviously, our coverage of the war is continuing.
It is live.
It is around the clock.
I mean, we're bringing you the scoops full-time, plus the commentary that you want, all the debates about all the hot issues, only available at Daily Wire right now.
Go check it out.
We really appreciate it.
We couldn't do this without your help.
In a minute, we're going to get to the people who actually hate America, but you don't want people who hate America at your company.
In fact, you just want the best people at your company.
And that's why you need Zip Recruiter.
That's right.
There are a lot of people right now who need better employees, the IRGC.
But I don't think the IRGC is going to be using ZipRecruiter.
Number one, they're terrorists.
Number two, they have no internet access.
And number three, I don't think they're going to find good people on ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter is for you.
It is for your business.
It is going to make your business better.
This is what we do at Daily Wire.
When we are looking for better employees, we head on over to Zip Recruiter.
Skills-based hiring is the key.
Our sponsor, ZipRecruiter, helps you do just that.
Right now, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com/slash dailywire.
You want people who can perform, who can solve problems, who can create, who can build.
That's what drives growth in a company like ours and in your company as well.
ZipRecruiter sorts through the tidal wave of applicants and figures out who actually has the skills you need.
If you're also an employer who's adopted skills-based hiring, the best way to ensure your applicants have the right skills is using ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter recommends smart screening questions to help you hone in on that perfect match for your role.
So you're not wasting time on people who are totally wrong for the job.
We have active postings right now over at ZipRecruiter.
You can easily add those screening questions right to your job post so you get the highest quality applicants.
And if you want to view candidates who have recently been active on the site rather than an old, forgotten profile, ZipRecruiter's filters can help you with that as well.
Let ZipRecruiter help you find amazing candidates with the skills you seek.
Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within day one.
And now try it for free at ziprecruiter.com/slash daily wire.
That's ziprecruiter.com/slash daily wire.
Meet your match on ZipRecruiter.
Finally, there are the America haters.
We've talked about the cowards and the liars.
And then there are the people who really, truly hate America.
And yes, there are a lot of people who live in America who truly hate America.
Now, there's an easy way to tell who hates America.
They kind of say it.
If you call America a terrorist organization for killing one of the world's most evil dictators, for example, I'm not a you hate America.
That doesn't seem that controversial to me.
Call me crazy, but if you say that the United States is the worst terror organization in the world, you don't like America, period.
Because that is such an overt lie.
That is such a moral calumny that there can only be one explanation, and it is your deep and abiding hatred for America's role in the world.
So last night on Piers Morgan, which is the Jerry Springer of political television, where people gather to throw chairs at one another and determine paternity.
Piers Morgan, who has sort of made a mockery of the entire industry by putting on screen whatever dregs are still willing to go on screen with Piers Morgan.
He had on Dave Smith, who has, you know, apparently his job is never to tell jokes, but to instead give poorly informed foreign policy takes.
Ben Ferguson rightly notes at that point that he might want to take down the American flag behind him.
That is right.
It doesn't matter, it turns out, how many times you appear on Joe Rogan's show or how many times you hide behind your title of comedian who holds the Guinness Book of World Records for fewest jokes told, or how many times you spew puerile analogies that demonstrate nothing but unbelievable, willful ignorance of the nature of war.
I'm sorry, but you hate the country if you say America is the worst terrorist organization in the world.
You just do.
To make that argument, you have to deliberately obscure the difference between actual terrorists who actually are seeking deliberately to kill innocent people in the name of politics, not collateral damage, deliberately seeking to kill innocent people, and nation states who are seeking to avoid civilian casualties, often while fighting those actual terrorists, which of course is the point for people who hate America, to reduce America to the level of its enemies in order to uphold those enemies.
That is the goal.
Now, I know that Dave Smith is super duper excited that his name was mentioned here, and he's sitting there shouting at his TV screen in his basement, debate me, bro.
To which I answer, nah.
I don't debate with trolls who claim that America is the biggest terrorist state in the world because that is idiotic.
I didn't debate the Lyndon LaRouche followers who sat in Harvard Square carrying anti-war cardboard signs back in the day.
And I feel no necessity to debate, debate a completely intellectually dishonest interlocutor who spends his days cribbing Noam Chomsky and then immediately retreats to his pose of ignorant comedian every time he is confronted with a fact.
Dave Smith is the kind of fellow who says that Donald Trump should be in jail for life as a war criminal, legitimizes every single scurrilous figure on the internet from Nick Fuentes to Candace Owens, and then demands that everyone treat him as though he is some sort of honest, worthy intellectual opponent.
He's not.
If you would like to hear a complete dismantling of Dave Smith, I highly recommend Coleman Hughes' interview with Smith over at the Free Press.
Just go check that out.
Save yourself some time.
And by the way, you also hate America if you claim that the president of the United States is merely a tool of foreign interests without any evidence whatsoever, like none.
You're promoting lies directly mirroring those of the Iranian terrorist government in direct contravention of truth and of the Trump administration's own words.
So, Senator Jeff Markley, you've never heard of him?
He's irrelevant.
He's a Democrat from Oregon.
Here he was suggesting that basically Israel is leading America around, meaning the Jews are leading Trump around like a leash, like a leashed puppy.
This is a senator sitting in the United States Senate.
Or Jeffrey Sachs, frequent Tucker Carlson guest and Chinese frontman, who apparently appears only on horseshoe right shows to explain that President Trump is actually a puppet of Messiah.
It had nothing to do with nuclear weapons all this time.
The Iranians reached out constantly to negotiate.
And in 2015, they concluded an agreement with the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany, the P5 countries plus one called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
And it put Iran strictly under UN supervision in the International Atomic Energy Agency.
B.B. Netanyahu had a fit because he wanted to overthrow the government.
He did not want peaceful relations with a non-nuclear Iran.
So Donald Trump, who is a puppet of our CIA, Mossad, and Miriam Adelson and the rest, ripped up the JCPOA in 2018.
Jeffrey Sachs, it should be noted, is a World Economic Forum globalist show, true globalist show.
It believes thoroughly in China, which is why he is constantly a guest on all of the programs of all the people who really kind of despise the country.
And by the way, again, this is a lie.
Here was President Trump being asked directly whether it was Israel who was leading him around here.
And here's Trump's response.
unidentified
Mr. President, did Israel force your hand to launch these strikes against Iran?
Did that go and pull the United States into this war?
Okay, and meanwhile, Marco Rubio, who, again, was taken out of context for the past 48 hours.
I played you both clips yesterday of what Rubio actually said.
Rubio actually said is that the Iranians were building hardened facilities for their ballistic missiles and nuclear, and that over the course of the next year, it would be impossible to actually take out those facilities.
And so that would likely cause Israel to launch some sort of strike, and that would drive some sort of action by Iran against American bases in the region.
So those are two separate questions, the why and the why now.
And that was immediately taken by truly dishonest people to suggest that actually it was Israel who forced the Trump administration into war.
Here was Marco Rubio pointing out that everyone was lying yesterday.
You asked me, I was asked a very specific question.
So you guys can misrepresent it, but I was asked a very specific question yesterday.
The bottom line is this.
The president determined we were not going to get hit first.
It's that simple, guys.
We are not going to put Americans' troops in harm's way.
If you tell the President of the United States that if we don't go first, we're going to have more people killed and more people injured, the president's going to go first.
That's what he did.
That's what the president will always do.
He will always put the safety and security of our men and women in uniform and of all Americans before anything else.
He's always going to do that.
And that's what he did here.
In addition to that, I would argue that this threat from Iran, they are hiding behind these missiles and hiding behind these drones.
They wanted to reach a point where you couldn't touch them and then they could do whatever the hell they wanted with their nuclear program.
And there is no way in the world that this terroristic regime was going to get nuclear weapons, not under Donald Trump's watch.
And Rubio, by the way, happens to be correct about the missile stockpiles.
We actually have a chart showing the Iranian missile stockpile versus U.S. interceptor capacity.
And the basic idea here is that Iran was rapidly ramping up its missile supply in order to overcome the response capacity of allied nations in the region.
Rubio was also asked by the press about the fact that they had cut up his statement.
Once the president made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them.
That's what I said yesterday, and you guys need to play it.
And if you're going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not flip it, to reach a narrative that you want to do, all right?
Now, there are, of course, again, for the thousandth time, legitimate questions to be asked about any military operation, goals, costs, strategy, risks.
All of that isn't just legitimate.
It is necessary.
So let's take one question that's been posed a lot by our listeners and others.
Why don't we solve all our problems at home before solving any problems abroad?
Very often, this is expressed as, what are we doing in Iran when we haven't deported all the illegals?
Or why are we bombing Iran when we haven't paid for prescription drug coverage?
Or something like that.
Okay, this is sort of an intellectually dishonest question in a way, because it's actually two questions that are weirdly linked.
One is, should we go after Iran?
That's a yes or no question.
Should the president do what he is doing?
And two, does going after Iran somehow inhibit us from pursuing whatever other goal it is that you are stating?
So for example, going after Iran, does that somehow inhibit us from doing deportations?
Now, when we ask the question like that, the answers become a lot clearer because the essence of the federal government when it comes to national defense and domestic priorities is to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Should we go after Iran?
That's a legitimate question.
We've been dealing with it all week.
And again, I've been spending years explaining why Iran is a threat to the United States.
This has been true for legitimately decades.
I mean, decades, decades, decades.
In fact, here is a man named Donald Trump in 1980 explaining why Iran is a threat.
Donald Trump said that 46 years ago, 46 years ago.
And he's making the same argument today.
So then the question becomes, is somehow going into Iran inhibiting our ability to deport illegal immigrants or pay for health care or whatever else?
The answer here is no.
If you ask the Borders Art Tom Homan whether the effort in Iran has somehow redeployed our border patrol to Iran or the Middle East, the answer is quite obviously, no, DHS is not redeploying from Minneapolis to Iran.
And this sort of asinine suggestion that all areas of the government are the same is sort of like saying that if you staff up the police to police crime in a city, are you somehow taking money away from your hospitals?
And the answer is those are two, or are the police officers being redirected from the medical care they normally provide?
What in the world?
In fact, if you wish to have a secure country in the future, getting rid of regimes that support global terrorism is, in fact, an excellent way to help secure the homeland.
And listen, if you're worried we're spending too much money on the operation in Iran and that somehow we can't pay for our social welfare programs right now, let me remind you, we couldn't pay for them before and we are living on debt.
So I really don't kind of want to hear from you if you haven't been making the argument to dramatically cut domestic spending before the attack on Iran.
But now you find yourself tempted to argue that deploying our military to take out the world's leading terrorist regime is just too expensive.
Now, let me suggest why that is wildly disingenuous.
Here is the reality.
This war, this war will cost far less, far less, because necessarily it will.
It's going to be a lot shorter and a lot more contained.
This war will cost a lot less than Iraq and Afghanistan.
And neither of those two was the major driver of our debt.
According to the Defense Department and Congressional Research Service, the United States spent roughly $1.6 trillion to $2.1 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan.
During that exact same period, we spent over $18 trillion on Social Security, $15 trillion on Medicare and Medicaid, trillions more on social welfare programs like SNAP.
If you want to make the argument the action in Iran is not in our national interest, then go ahead and make the argument.
But people who are suggesting that this is a spending problem when in reality they just don't like the action against Iran, that's a misdirect.
So what comes next?
Well, the president explained the state of play this morning.
So, yes, actually, the United States and Israeli militaries are doing extraordinary work.
Meanwhile, Pete Hegseph, the Secretary of War, he said the Iranian Air Force is trash, which, by the way, first actual kind of dogfight between a plane from the Iranian Air Force and an Israeli F-35.
I will let you guess who won that.
Spoiler alert, it was not the Iranian Air Force.
Here's Pete Hegseph explaining.
The Iranian Navy is in trouble.
The Iranian Air Force is basically by planes at this point.
The so-called governing council that might have selected a successor, dead, missing, or cowering in bunkers, too terrified to even occupy the same room.
Senior generals, mid-level officers, enlisted ranks, they can't talk or communicate, let alone mount a coordinated and sustained offensive.
That's not great for morale.
The Iranian Air Force is no more.
Built for 1996, destroyed in 2026.
The Iranian Navy rests at the bottom of the Persian Gulf.
Again, they've been declaring the RGC that they shut the Straits of Hormuz.
That's not true.
In fact, it is so not true that the president of the United States is actually offering to ensure shipping going through the Strait of Hormuz just to get the shipping going.
Again, he put out a statement on Truth Social about that yesterday.
He said, effective immediately, I've ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation to provide at a very reasonable price political risk insurance and guarantees for the financial security of all maritime trade, especially energy traveling through the Gulf.
This will be available to all shipping lines.
If necessary, the U.S. Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible.
No matter what, the United States will ensure the free flow of energy to the world.
United States economic and military might is the greatest on earth.
More actions to come.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Again, that is a good move.
That's a good move by the president because, again, there are a lot of people who are worried by the Iranian propaganda.
He's saying, listen, we're willing to put our money where our mouth is.
And that is right.
Meanwhile, Hegseph says that very, very soon there will be complete control of the skies.
Effectively, there already is.
The United States has been flying not B-2s, which is a stealth aircraft, B-52s, which are just gigantic, gigantic planes that don't move all that fast.
They're kind of like passenger airliners.
They move like 650 miles an hour.
We're flying those over Iran right now.
It's basically a blimp in the sky, and nobody can touch it.
Starting last night and to be completed in a few days, in under a week, the two most powerful air forces in the world will have complete control of Iranian skies, uncontested airspace.
I hope all the folks watching understand what uncontested airspace and complete control means.
It means we will fly all day, all night, day and night, finding, fixing, and finishing the missiles and defense industrial base of the Iranian military, finding and fixing their leaders and their military leaders.
Flying over Tehran, flying over Iran, flying over their capital, flying over the IRGC, Iranian leaders looking up and seeing only U.S. and Israeli air power.
Hegseth also pointed out that actually the IRGC Special Operations Commander who was in charge of trying to kill President Trump in 2024, and yes, there was an assassination attempt on President, actually two separate assassination attempts on Trump that were in the planning stages when those Iranian agents were arrested.
Well, here's Pete Hegseth saying that the guy who was behind all of that is now dead.
We've known for a long time that Iran had intentions on trying to kill President Trump and or other U.S. officials.
And while that was not the focus of the effort by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, never raised by the president or anybody else, I ensured and others ensured that those who were responsible for that were eventually part of the target list.
It wasn't the beginning of the effort.
We were focused on missiles and launchers, and that's the focus.
But ultimately, if we had the opportunity to get at those who are trying to get at Americans specifically, we would.
And so we eventually had the opportunity to do that from the air.
More than 50,000 troops, 200 fighters, two aircraft carriers, and bombers from the United States are participating in this operation, and more capability is on the way.
These forces bring a massive amount of firepower, representing the largest buildup by the U.S. in the Middle East in a generation.
In the opening hours of Operation Epic Fury, U.S. Central Command Forces, together with Israel, delivered overwhelming and unprecedented strikes into Iran.
Many of you may remember the shock and awe strikes of 2003.
The first 24 hours of this operation were nearly double the scale, and we continue with 24-7 strikes into Iran from seabed to space and cyberspace.
Now we're less than 100 hours into this operation, and we've already struck nearly 2,000 targets with more than 2,000 munitions.
What's about to, you know, you're about to see, you know, we're going to unleash Chang on these people in the next few hours and days.
You're going to really begin to perceive a change in the scope and in the intensity of these attacks as, frankly, the two most powerful air forces in the world take apart this terroristic regime and defang it and take away its ability to threaten its neighbors or hide behind a zone of immunity that allows them to develop their nuclear ambitions.
When he says unleash Chiang, you know what that means.
Okay, so if you go back to the 50s, when China had been taken over by Mao and Shanghai-shek had moved over to Taiwan, there was a conservative point of view that we should allow and fund the reinvasion of China from Taiwan.
So that was Unleash Chang.
Okay, that became a sort of meme pushed by George H.W. Bush when he was president of the United States.
Apparently, when he was playing tennis, or I guess this is even, you know, when he was VP, when he was playing tennis and he had a really weak serve, he would yell, Unleash Chang before hitting the serve.
And that was then picked up by Jeb, exclamation point Jeb, former governor of Florida, who would use that phrase all the time, Unleash Chang.
And when he was the governor of Florida and Marco Rubio was the senator from Florida, he gave him a sword that he called Chang.
And he described Chang as a mythical conservative warrior.
And meanwhile, the Iranians are basically relegated to firing desultory ballistic missile attacks, most of which are being shot down, and drones.
So they are firing successfully.
Some drones, drones are able to escape some missile defense systems because they move so slowly.
So moving so slowly that people actually in the radar sensors think they're birds or other aerial objects.
And so here was some footage of the U.S. consulate in Dubai, which was hit by an Iranian drone.
There was no one there at the time.
How do you know that Iran is really losing?
Because Qatar has turned.
So Qatar, which has always played this sort of middle ground between the United States and Iran.
Well, now they are turning on the IRGC and actually arresting members of the IRGC in Qatar.
Remember, this is the country that housed Hamas.
10 suspects, according to Al Jazeera, were arrested in these terrorist cells, according to Qatar news agencies.
Seven had been assigned to spy on vital and military facilities in Qatar.
Three were tasked with carrying out sabotage operations.
Hardest hit, Tucker Carlson, who, of course, has been standing for the Ayatollahs.
And now his friends in Qatar, for whom he has been running interference, they're our greatest ally, of course.
Well, now they're actually acting like allies and arresting members of the IRGC.
The desperate counter-arguments right now that Iran somehow is going to pull off some sort of military miracle here, being led by the repulsive Chenk Uyghur, who says, quote, Iranian drones cost $35,000.
Our missiles to intercept them cost between $500,000 and $4 million.
Uh-oh, they have tons of drones, and we are starting to run low on FAD and Patriot missiles.
We spent 25% of them defending Israel in June.
And then, of course, he calls out Glenn Greenwald, who is most famous for sucking the toes of male prostitutes and wearing bizarre lingerie and then taping it.
But in any case, Chenk Uyghur, he's making a point that it happens not to be true.
The vast majority of Iranian drones are not being shot down by FAD, that is the terminal high-altitude area defense or Patriot batteries, but actual American and Israeli aircraft.
F-15s and F-16s, for example, shot down more than 80 drones in one night in April 2024 when Iran attacked Israel.
F-35s, F-A-18s do the same thing.
Pilots are generally using 70-millimeter laser-guided rockets, which cost about 25 grand, about the same as one of the drones.
And you know who's going to run out of $25,000 iterations more and faster?
The U.S. or the Pisspoor Iranians?
We have a lot of $25,000 missiles that we can spend, like munitions that we can spend, actually.
If we get into spending war with Iran, Iran don't have no money.
It is a problem for them.
They can manufacture a lot of drones and we can shoot down a lot of drones.
Plus, they're not going to have a command and control center to even deploy drones in the very near future.
President Trump put out a statement on Truth Social, quote, the United States munitions stockpiles have at the medium and upper medium grade never been higher or better.
As was stated to me today, we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons.
Wars can be fought forever and very successfully using just these supplies, which are better than other countries' finest arms.
At the highest end, we have a good supply, but not where we want to be.
Much additional high-grade weaponry is stored for us in outlying countries.
Sleepy Joe Biden spent all of his time and our country's money giving everything to PT Barnum-Zelensky of Ukraine, hundreds of billions of dollars worth.
And while he gave so much of the super high-end away for free, he didn't bother to replace it.
Fortunately, I rebuilt the military in my first term and continue to do so.
The United States is stocked and ready to win big.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
So while I disagree with his characterization of Ukraine and Zelensky, the reality is that we do have significant stockpiles.
And again, the munitions we are using to shoot down the drones, that is not actually the FAD and Patriots for the most part.
Now, President Trump is also making the point that the Iranians are running out of missile launchers.
It's a major issue for the Iranians.
So, the Iranian pace of fire has slowed dramatically in terms of their ballistic missile launches.
Well, because they're basically trying to drip and drop their way to exhausting the Americans.
If they fire all their missile launchers, they're toast, and they know this.
So, instead of shooting off hundreds at one time, which are then immediately destroyed by the United States and the Israelis, instead, they're firing off two, three at a time, hoping to basically make it last like a kid eating a cookie really, really slowly.
So, President Trump says that defense companies are under emergency orders.
We're making it fast.
We have Unlimited, as stupid as former President Joe Biden was, he didn't use it.
Well, apparently, they're planning to name Ali Khamenahi's son, Moshtaba, Iran's new supreme leader, which is pretty amazing.
Pretty amazing.
So, their move is not to select someone who might be more moderate to negotiate with the Americans.
Instead, they're selecting someone who apparently is even crazier than his dad.
And we'll see how that works out for them.
The Israelis have already said that dude's on the target list.
Unsurprising.
So, one of the games that the coalition of scavengers is playing here with regard to President Trump, the people who are the liars and the cowards, and the people who just don't like America very much, is that somehow President Trump, what he's doing right now, is wildly unpopular with the American people.
Okay, let's start with Republicans.
You've seen a ton of headlines, many, many headlines.
The war inside the Republican Party.
And then it's the same people who are always cited, the same clown crew, the same clown car, the same exact people, always.
It is Tucker Carlson, it is Megan Kelly, it is Candace Owens.
It's the same group of people, always and forever.
How many Republicans do they actually represent?
Well, fortunately, we have numbers on this.
According to CBS News, 85% of Republicans support the president's strikes on Iran.
According to Fox News, 84% of Republicans support the strikes on Iran.
According to the Washington Post, 81% of Republicans support the strike on Iran.
According to Reuters Ipsos, 82% of Republicans support the strikes on Iran.
So it doesn't sound like a gigantic split inside the Republican Party, actually.
It just sounds like a bunch of podcast hosts who are programming into the algorithm.
And that's the most, I would say, generous view of what they are doing.
Well, how are people feeling about the midterms?
Right now, there's about a 50-50 split.
This pre-Iran strike, Harvard Harris said there's a 50-50 split on the midterms.
So it's not clear Republicans are going to get shellacked.
Obviously, it's an off-year election.
The chances are Republicans don't do great.
Economic issues are the main voter concerns.
At the same time, 53% trust President Trump to manage the economy, and there's large-scale support for Trump's policy proposals at the State of the Union.
Now, how about, again, the impact of the war?
According to this new CBS poll, asked whether they approve or disapprove of the actual military operation.
The question is answered by the duration of the war.
Americans don't mind short military actions that are successful.
They don't like long, long military actions that are unsuccessful.
So if it lasts days or weeks, days or weeks, which is what it's going to last, it's not going to be a months-long thing.
It certainly will not be a years-long thing.
Days or weeks, 76% approval rating.
That's not Republicans.
That is all Americans.
76% approval rating if the conflict lasts days or weeks.
24% disapproval rating.
So this idea, this is sinking Trump.
The American people can't stand it.
They're at their breaking point.
It's nonsense.
It's not true.
If it lasts for months, there is still 46% approval rating.
Hey, not months, like five weeks, like months.
That's if it lasts for two months, three months, four months.
Then it has a 54% disapproval rating.
And years, obviously, 87% disapproval rating.
So the question is completely reliant, as Ben Dominich, our opinion editor, said yesterday.
Just another reason you should go subscribe over at Daily Wire because he's ahead of the game.
It turns out that if this is a short, successful war, Americans like it.
And if it is a long, unsuccessful war, then Americans don't like it.
I know, crazy talk.
Utterly predictable, obviously.
As far as sort of general approval of the current U.S. military action against Iran, approve or disapprove, net approval in the GOP, according to Fox News, 68%.
That is net.
That's not 68% approve.
That is the gap between approve and disapprove.
That means it's like 84 to 16, if I am doing my mental math correctly here.
Among a wide variety of groups, it is overwater.
That includes white voters, people with no degree, people aged over 45, men, white evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, rural voters, union households, and remember all these people out there who are saying they speak for the military households.
They speak for the military, right?
These are the people who say, well, you know, no foreign wars.
American boys and girls are going to die abroad.
Military households approve of the current action against Iran by a 20-point margin, meaning 60-40 they approve.
That's military households.
And one of the great ironies of all the people on the left and the horseshoe right who claim to speak in the name of the military is that they very rarely actually talk to people who are in the military.
It turns out the military is quite conservative and hawkish when it comes to actual effectuation of American foreign policy.
So that's part of the electoral story.
And then you get to the midterms.
Okay, so yesterday there were some big primaries over in Texas.
There was a Texas Senate primary.
It faced John Cornyn, the incumbent senator from Texas, against Ken Paxton.
Ken Paxton is the attorney general of Texas and Wesley Hunt, congressman.
And the way that it works in Texas is that if you do not get 50% in a primary, then you have to run in a runoff.
So, worst case scenario seems to be materializing for the Republicans.
What Republicans don't want in Texas, and maybe it won't matter because James Tallarico, who we'll get to in a moment on the other side, is very, very, very much to the left.
However, if you were to game this out, the worst case scenario for Republicans, the riskiest, shall we say, scenario electorally for Republicans is Ken Paxton versus James Tallarico.
That is the most risky scenario.
So in the primaries last night, Cornyn slightly, like very, very, very slightly beat Ken Paxton, 42% to 41%.
Wesley Hunt came in at 13.5%.
Unclear if Hunt is going to turn around and endorse Paxton or something.
Meanwhile, Tallarico beat Jasmine Crockett, who I think performed shockingly well for a person who probably should be in a psych ward somewhere.
So Jasmine Crockett won 46% of the Democrat vote.
Tallarico, who is, again, the new Beto O Cruz, the darling of the late night talk show hosts and some of the coastal donors, he won 53% of the vote.
So Tallarico got a majority.
That means he's the nominee.
And meanwhile, Republicans are going to have a runoff, which means that Cornyn and Paxton are going to beat the living hell out of each other.
And Tallarico is going to sit there and just wait for whatever happens next.
Now, normally that would be great for Tallarico.
However, there is a lot of tape of Tallarico coming out, demonstrating that he is indeed far too left for the Texas population.