Trump GOES OFF After Israel VIOLATES CEASEFIRE, Dave Smith Slams Trump BETRAYAL ft. Dave Smith
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest Dave Smith @ComicDaveSmith (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL Trump GOES OFF After Israel VIOLATES CEASEFIRE, Dave Smith Slams Trump BETRAYAL ft. Dave Smith
From the Financial Times, Israel-Iran latest fragile truce appears to take hold after Trump rebukes Israel and Iran.
The U.S. president has accused both sides of violating the ceasefire.
And the latest update is, Trump warned Israel not to drop the bombs.
They went and did it anyway.
And the Financial Times acknowledges that even after Trump said don't do it, they say a truce brokered by the U.S. president went to effect on Tuesday morning, but Israel swiftly claimed it had been broken by Tehran and struck an Iranian radar station.
However, it said that after a conversation between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it would refrain from further attacks.
Trump posted, don't do it.
Israel did it.
I think this is this game where they're basically saying, I will have the last word in this regard.
And Trump is trying to get them to back off and stop.
It was a real smack in the face to Trump that Israel bombed this radar station, despite the fact Trump said, don't do it.
It was an hour and a half before the news was reported.
So there had to be time to call it off.
That being said, Trump, I think, being the adult in the room, likely said to Israel, just stop, Iran, don't retaliate.
But support right now, I mean, I think I actually have the, this is from CNN.
A majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's Iran airstrikes, CNN poll finds.
Now, it's hard to know exactly where Trump's polling stands.
In the past week, he's had tremendous polling.
Insider Advantage has Trump up 10, Trafalgar up 9, and Russ Mussen up 5. Now, over the period of the bombing, Reuters Ipsos has him at minus 16. But let me just track the previous Reuters Ipsos, which had him at minus 12, meaning a four-point swing in the negative.
It's hard to know exactly how this will affect Trump's approval rating, but we're going to be joined by Dave Smith, who's been particularly prominent on this issue.
Despite the fact that he is a comedian, he certainly has a lot to say about this, as he is entitled to.
So we're going to pull this in, loading up the live player now, and we should be good to go.
You know, it's kind of hard to say what's going to happen right now.
It's been a wild, I mean, I got to say that the last week has probably been up there with the wildest weeks since me and you have been covering politics.
And, you know, it's hard to say because Donald Trump has signaled almost everything over the last week.
And so he's talking about evacuating Tehran and regime change a few days ago.
Now he seems to be signaling.
He seems to have taken the off-ramp or desires to take the off-ramp that essentially the Iranians allowed by doing what they did after Soleimani was struck again, by striking back, but not really striking back and giving America advanced warning and making sure, you know, essentially Iran is in this obvious position where they're like, we can't look like we're doing nothing in response to this to our own people, but we really, really don't want it.
We don't want to fight for obvious reasons.
And so Donald Trump wants to be taking this off ramp.
Now he seems to be frustrated with that Benjamin Netanyahu and many of the Hawks never wanted an off-ramp.
And as you know well, this has always been about regime change for them.
So I would be thrilled if this is the end of it.
But at the same time, I do think it's a moment.
Like, let's just say this sticks and this is the end of the immediate conflict right now.
It is a moment for Americans to kind of reevaluate a lot of things here.
Because number one, I think that the Hawks foundational claim to this entire issue, which I would argue is every bit as phony as their claims for all of the other wars in the last 25 years.
But the foundational claim about Iran has been that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.
And this is something obviously that Donald Trump has bought into very much too.
But this claim kind of relies on an argument that Iran is so uniquely crazy and evil that if they got a nuclear weapon, they'll just use it.
They'll just nuke it.
Now, forget the fact that they're not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
They don't have a nuclear weapon.
They don't have the capability to deliver one if they were to get one.
But it's like, I mean, Tim, a lot of really bad people have gotten nuclear weapons in history.
Joseph Stalin got nuclear weapons.
Mao Zedong got nuclear weapons.
Right now, you know, Putin and G and a lot of bad people have nuclear weapons.
And the idea that Iran is so uniquely evil because they just don't care about their own survival, that claim seems to really be falling apart.
I mean, Iran, if Iran wanted to, they could have killed a lot more people and they didn't for the reason that they do care about their self-preservation.
They would much rather rule their country than be violently deposed.
Oh, it's, I mean, look, I think this is totally phony.
I mean, all, look, all of the intelligence, all of the intelligence until the day after Israel started bombing them was that they're nowhere, even Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the most, you know, has the longest track record of predicting how close Iran is to a nuclear weapon and is always wrong.
He said in his interview with Brett Bayer, maybe a year, maybe 13 months.
Then all of a sudden, the next day, Tulsi Gabbard comes out and completely contradicts her testimony and the DNI annual threat assessment that both said that Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is not pursuing nuclear weapons.
No intelligence report or anything like that, but that they could be weeks away from getting a nuclear weapon.
The fact is that this is going nuclear and the best person at breaking this down, of course, is Scott Horton.
But this is something there was a focus group test in 1990 where they decided that like, you know, the whole like The whole idea of going in there to like liberate people, like using that as a justification for war.
You know, we got to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait to put the king back in power.
That didn't really resonate with the American people, but the nuclear threat always did.
And it's not a coincidence that that threat has been used both in the war in Iraq and in the propaganda for this war.
But listen, Muammar Gaddafi got rid of his nuclear program and they still went in and overthrew him.
That's never really what this has been about.
And as I bring up all the time, whether you look at the clean break doctrine or you look at General Wesley Clark's comments about the seven countries in five years, the game here has always been to have regime change against all of the states that are hostile to Israel.
That's been what these guys have been fighting for forever.
And I just think it's a real moment for Americans to wake up and go, look, what did we just do?
We just launched a war against a country that hadn't attacked us, that wasn't an imminent threat, that poses no real threat to the United States of America.
And we did it.
And then when our president, after blundering and getting us into this mess, makes the heroic decision to end the thing, what does Netanyahu do?
He tries to get it going again.
I mean, like, why would we put ourselves in this position where we're allowing a country to constantly be pressuring us into another war that almost everybody knows would be a catastrophe if we were to go through?
Like, does anyone not think that Benjamin Netanyahu wants us to continue this war and have a regime change there?
There's been a couple polls that I've read that show the majority of Americans oppose the strikes on Iran.
Even among Trump, among the Republican Party, there is a higher rate of disapproval for the strikes than general disapproval for Trump.
But you mentioned Mumar Gaddafi.
And one of the arguments I heard as to why Iran does want to enrich uranium and does want to produce a nuke is because Gaddafi agrees to give up his nukes and they go in and they kill him.
And so the argument then is the Iranians are like, your word means nothing.
If we abandon our efforts, you're going to come in for regime change.
So it actually, I think a lot of people have made the argument, and it makes sense, they were pursuing this because of the threat of regime change.
Well, certainly our actions, both in Libya and now just our actions over the last week, do nothing but incentivize them to want to get a nuclear weapon, which is, you know, when you think about it, it's just like the most counter.
Isn't that government for you, Tim?
You know, like a stated problem.
And then you pursue the policy that is most likely to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy or something like that.
But at least where we were before the war, and now we'll have to see, you know, a lot of this depends on what happens next.
But at least before the war, what Iran was trying to do was to negotiate America back into the JCPOA.
And it was Donald Trump who allowed the Hawks to put the poison pill in the negotiations, that they had to give up all Euro, all enrichment and their civilian nuclear program, which is something they just weren't going to do and isn't really a very reasonable ask.
But look, they have an inspections regime that's inspecting the nuclear sites there in Iran.
And so, look, it just seems to me that what they wanted, the most reasonable explanation is that they wanted to have essentially a latent nuclear deterrent and then they wanted to have a negotiation chip in the negotiations.
So they wanted to have something that they could negotiate away in exchange for reducing sanctions or something like that.
So this morning, I wake up to Donald Trump dropping an F bomb over Israel and Iran violating the ceasefire.
But Trump was actually much more stern with Israel, saying that the moment they announce this, Israel goes and drops bombs, the likes of which is never seen.
Iran fires one rocket that hits nothing.
And now Israel is prepared to do this launch.
He said he's very upset with them.
He posted on Truth, do not do it.
An hour and a half later, it was reported that Israel did strike a radar station in Iran, seemingly in defiance of what Trump instructed them to do.
I'm curious what you think, Trump, how will Trump react to this?
Is he going to try and pull the, okay, yeah, Netanyahu kind of just spat in my face, but I don't want this war to break out?
Or does he hold a grudge against Israel for basically spitting in his face?
Well, you know, what Donald Trump has already put up with from Netanyahu and still just been his number one supporter is pretty remarkable.
I mean, Netanyahu, as you remember well, Tim, came out and stabbed Donald Trump in the back after the 2020 election, after Donald Trump had done everything for Netanyahu, everything.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem, getting us out of the JCPOA, of course, because we could have avoided this entire thing.
but for Netanyahu, Donald Trump decided to pull out of it.
If you remember back in- That's the Iran nuclear deal that Obama got us into with the Europeans and the Iranians.
And Donald Trump, if you remember, this was Donald Trump really upset the Hawks in 2016 when he had, he had, I forget exactly what he said, but this is when Donald Trump was very new when he first started running for president.
And people asked him, how does he feel?
Someone asked him, like, how does he feel about Israel-Palestine?
And he said, we should be neutral and we should stay out of it.
And that is, you know, to Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro, that's basically like saying, Adolf Hitler was a great guy and we should do what he said all over again.
Like, it's like the worst thing you could say.
Yeah, well, probably.
But and then Donald Trump, being the savvy businessman and politician that he is, he went and gave a speech at APAC.
And the first thing he said to APAC was, I will get us out of the Iran deal.
The Iran deal is the worst deal that's ever been made.
And they loved it.
Anyway, he did everything for them.
And then Benjamin Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Joe Biden on winning the presidential election before our media was even calling the election for Joe Biden, when it was still very contested, before the court cases, before any of that.
And so I don't know, will Donald Trump take this?
It seems to me I've seen a long track record Of Israel being this country that is essentially America's welfare mom.
We support them in everything they do.
They always turn to us.
They always talk a big game, how they can do it all on their own, and then, oh, they actually can't.
If you remember, Tim, way, way, way, way back 72 hours ago, everybody on Twitter, all the hawks were lecturing me about how Israel doesn't even need America's help.
Israel's doing this all on their own.
All they need you to do is just shoot down some missiles when they're lobbed back in their direction.
But America's staying out of the, oh, yeah, yeah.
But turns out, actually, they can't do that.
They couldn't keep their war in Gaza, their destruction of Gaza going for another two months without Americans supplying the munitions and the intelligence.
So the thing is, they always rely on us, and then they spit in the faces of the American presidents, and every single one of them just takes it and keeps moving forward and keeps supporting them.
And so, I don't know, Trump is a different animal.
That, the clip you're talking about, was the angriest I've ever seen him at Israel.
There's an argument on the Zelensky thing, but he's being asked by these reporters, and you can tell the moment where he just he broke and he said, you know what?
I actually see, I'm actually kind of happy right now, to be honest.
I'm not a fan of U.S. intervention in foreign countries because you are dropping a match onto a powder keg.
You can make all the arguments for, look, when they come out and they say that there's 60% enriched uranium can be used for dirty bombs.
It can be used for weapons, all that stuff, I say, okay, that's bad.
I don't know that's a justification for the U.S. potentially triggering a complete destabilization of the region, U.S. boots on the ground.
You may be talking about a cure that's worse than the disease.
That being said, if the ceasefire holds and now Trump has a grudge against Netanyahu and this puts a barrier between the U.S. relations with Israel in such a way that Trump is basically like, you've betrayed us too many times.
I know there's going to be a lot of people who are going to take that one too seriously.
No, I mean like Trump's going to have a personal grudge over Netanyahu dropping a bomb when he said not to do it, putting him at risk and making him look like a chump.
This could actually hopefully bring Trump back to a place where he's like, I don't want to be involved in their problems anymore because they're going to screw us over.
This was a mistake.
And hopefully it turns out, okay, we get rid of their nuclear program.
Now Trump doesn't want to listen to Netanyahu anymore because his word isn't worth it.
And it removes us from these regional conflicts potentially.
Well, I mean, that would be the best case scenario.
And so, sure, I hope that's what comes of all of this.
The reason why I'm kind of skeptical about that is that, look, Donald, I mean, Donald Trump just, he can call it the 12-day war.
And if it ends at 12 days, that's great.
But he just launched a war of aggression on behalf of a foreign country that literally, I hope everybody really appreciates this.
This is a tremendous irony of this whole situation is that what stopped this from being a catastrophe was Iranian restraint.
Iran chose not to kill Americans.
Like that's, he put the, he put American soldiers in that position where it was the decision of the Iranians to give advance notice so that we could clear people out of there and didn't kill people.
But, you know, Israelis died in this thing and civilians, Israeli civilians died in this thing.
Iranians died in this thing.
This was horrible and didn't need to happen.
And so, look, maybe that is the outcome of all of this, but Donald Trump could have just done that without launching this war.
He could have just said, hey, we're not participating in any more of your wars.
This is not our problem.
And it's not even, look, obviously, like, as you've known me for years, Tim, like I'm a real non-interventionist and I have a very strict standard for when I think war is morally acceptable.
But even if you were going to argue like for a war of choice, for a preemptive, aggressive war of choice, right now, we are $37 trillion in debt.
We have major issues in our problems.
How many illegal entries did we have to the country in the last administration?
None of us really know.
Maybe 10 million.
We don't really know how many people came in under Joe Biden.
And now Donald Trump is trying to, in the weeks leading up to this, trying to implement his number one policy priority, which is deportations.
There are protests in the streets against.
He needs all the political capital he can for that.
We've got 100,000 plus ODs every year.
We have major, major problems.
Almost every city in this country is falling apart.
And so to now, at this point, choose to get involved in this when he could have just said all along, no, we're not doing this.
We will fight a war if we are legitimately threatened, not for other nations.
But like, let's, all I'm saying here is like, let's have an objective standard and look at both sides and hold them to the same standard.
Okay, so they chant things.
The U.S. government, after putting Iran on the axis of evil after 9-11, even though they had nothing to do with 9-11, we invaded their two neighboring countries, like the two countries that touch Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
If you could picture the map in your head on either side of Iran, we invaded and destroyed both of those countries.
They know who they're messing with here.
They know, and of course, and this is my point.
They don't want it, just like all of the, as evil as all of these people, look, Mao Zeitong's the worst human being who ever lived.
He killed more people than anybody else, but he wasn't just going to launch a nuke at somebody because he wanted to rule.
He wanted to be destroyed.
And he knows if he launches a nuke, nukes are flying back at him.
The point is that the Iranians actually, while they are a theocratic repressive government, do not appear to be suicidal.
And if they were suicidal, they could have killed a bunch of Americans.
And yes, then they probably Donald Trump.
I mean, look, this is the risk that Donald Trump put us in, though.
Like, let's say they were suicidal, or let's say they just went for it and they did just kill a bunch.
What do you think?
As you just pointed out, what would Donald Trump's response have been to that?
I mean, I don't think there's, yeah, that's right.
And what would it take to have a regime change?
You know, back in the 90s when we invaded Iraq the first time, we invaded the country and still didn't get a regime change.
Now, true, that was because they backed off.
But the point is that the regime withstood an invasion.
Iran is a much stronger, much bigger country.
We would have needed to send the 82nd Airborne in if that had happened.
And so it's just like, I hope people appreciate the catastrophe that we just flirted with.
Like this would have been probably a much tougher war than Iraq or Afghanistan.
We could have gotten ourselves into another 20-year catastrophic quagmire.
You know, a lot of people made a big deal, but I did say that I regretted it the other day.
You know, look, if I voting to me, I have a different kind of theory of voting than most people do.
I think it's kind of like, look, either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump was going to be president.
And I do, you know, you'll have to wait till the end of the four years.
If this is the end of this war, then overall, right now, I'd probably say, yeah, we're still better off that Trump's in there than if Kamala Harris was in there.
But at the same time, that's over.
That's in the past.
I voted for him.
Now I just have whatever I have.
There's not that much influence, but I got an audience and a show or whatever.
And so when he goes to make a catastrophic decision like this, I'm going to use, you know, the most influence I can to be like, no, screw you.
Do not do this.
People who voted for you will turn on you over doing this.
And I think that a lot of people, because Donald Trump is so enormously popular with Republicans and just is the most like popular political figure in the country, so many people, and for understandable reasons, they won't criticize him.
They'll criticize everyone else around him, but they won't criticize him.
And that's just to me, like to me, that's the role Tucker Carlson is supposed to play.
Tucker Carlson is supposed to keep his influence with Donald Trump, but I'm not.
I'm me.
I'm just supposed to tell the truth.
And so, you know, like my job is to make people laugh at comedy clubs and tell the truth on podcasts.
That's all that I get paid to do.
So my job is to tell the truth and go, hey, no, this is a horrible decision for a president to make.
And look, if that had happened, if Iran had killed some Americans and then Donald Trump had to do a full regime change war or something like that, then that probably would have been worse than even what Kamala Harris would have been, which would have been a disaster also.
So who knows?
You know, we never get to run the counterfactuals.
There were a lot of positives that came out of Donald Trump winning the presidency once again.
You know, I made the joke on X that somewhere in a parallel dimension Kamala Harris is president and we've already got regime change as the people of Iran clap and cheer for the American troops entering Toronto's liberators.
And I think Trump is the here.
I think Israel pressures Trump into the strike.
Trump is wishy-washy.
J.D. Vance clearly didn't want it.
Tulsi Gabbard clearly didn't want it.
Trump has said for decades, Iran, no nuclear weapon.
He's convinced of it.
He says, okay, fine, limited strikes.
Now he's getting pissed because it seems like, of course, Israel's intention was never just striking the nuclear facilities.
They started bombing the IRGC and other targets immediately after the U.S. did.
So they clearly want more.
I think if it was Kamala Harris, we'd be escalating every step of the way right now.
And it's not because of her, but it's because she represents the Democratic Uniparty machine that has wanted boots on the ground in Tehran for decades now.
Trump made the mistake of bringing on Bolton in the first place, but he's one of these guys.
And you can see it from Hillary Clinton to the rest of the D.C. war apparatus.
Bolton said in Trump's first term, this time next year, we'll be celebrating in Tehran.
I think Kamala Harris wins.
I think they push for it.
I think Trump might actually back off right now.
I'm hoping he does.
And I'm hoping that the end of this is we actually are happy that we voted for Trump.
And we say, of all the outcomes we could have gotten.
I'll put it this way.
I always call myself a reformer, not a revolutionary.
If the worst thing we get from Trump is he launches a strike, I don't like it.
I will say I disapprove of it.
But then we don't get an expanding war.
I'll consider this the correct option still.
I'll be very happy that was the outcome.
I don't think we're ever going to get a Rand Paul president who shuts all that down, at least not in the immediate.
So I'm feeling pretty good right now.
I don't know.
I mean, I hope the ceasefire holds, but I'm just wondering what you think is going to happen next.
And particularly, Trump has been so kind of erratic and all over the place in the last week.
I mean, going from first he's negotiating, then Israel strikes, then he says, aha, the negotiations were just to fool you.
So who knows what he's doing with all of this, you know?
But if that's the case, look, I mean, there's no question things look much, much better today than they did just 24 hours ago.
Literally, 24 hours ago, as we're speaking right now, the breaking news was that missiles have been launched at U.S. bases.
And it wasn't for about another hour yesterday that we found out that, oh, they had given advance warning.
So like 24 hours ago, yesterday, it looked like we might be getting sucked into a major catastrophe here.
So things are looking much better today.
Thank God for that.
You know, I will gladly trade people saying, oh, Dave was an alarmist on this for avoiding the catastrophe.
that's fine by me.
And look, the real, you know, we can't go back and run counterfactuals and we're not going back in time.
So what's done has already been done.
So at this point, yeah, let's really hope that Trump walks away from this thing.
And let's really hope that maybe a lot of people learned a bit of a lesson by just seeing, even seeing today, how much the Hawks are turning on Donald Trump.
And like, there's a real asymmetry to this here, right?
Because people could say, oh, hey, Dave, you turned on Donald Trump just last week and now the Hawks are turning on him this week.
So you all turn on Donald Trump if you don't get your way.
But the fact is that I turned on Donald Trump because a war with Iran could be a catastrophe for the United States of America.
And they're turning on Donald Trump because the regime change would be good for Israel and they don't care if it would be a disaster for America.
Tucker says he apologized because he pushed a little too hard.
I'm hoping that Trump had this conversation.
They spoke to him and they said, here are the potential risks.
Here's what you're getting yourself into.
And then he was like, I'm going to go middle of the road on this one because Trump just wants everyone to love him.
I'm hoping what happens now is he sees how much of a hassle it is and how damaging domestically it is to get in the middle of a foreign conflict, especially considering Netanyahu bombed that radar station after Trump said, don't do it.
I'm hoping the end result is that Trump leaves this saying, it's not worth the effort.
I don't want to be involved in these things.
Everybody's pissed at me no matter what I do.
So maybe just don't get involved at all and let the angry people be angry.
If he had focused solely on the domestic issue and his domestic agenda, and we weren't having this conversation, the Hawks would be hawking and begging him to do it.
The people who voted for him wouldn't be complaining about it.
Trump would have no flack in any direction.
And he'd be carrying out his agenda, which has been improving his polls.
So hopefully that's the lesson he gets before he carries it out.
Even when people personally have issues with Donald Trump, which there are always a lot of voters out there who are like, I don't like the way he's always calling people names and I don't like the way he does this and I don't like all the stunts.
But the agenda of bringing back jobs to America and not having de facto open borders where we don't even know who's in our country and not getting into any more of these stupid wars and improving the economy and more energy and more, like all of this is wildly popular because why wouldn't it be?
Who's against any of that?
Except for like deranged progressives or something.
Who's against any of that?
And so yeah, hopefully he can pivot away from this and pivot away from these entangling wars and get back to what the whole mission was about, right?
And I do think that whatever Trump decides to do, his core base, those who will defend him no matter what, will defend him.
If Trump came out and said, I don't want to be involved in any more of this, so we are ending our involvement in this, then you're going to see the most prominent Trump voices cheering for that decision.
