Goldie Gamari and the hosts argue Trump’s Iran strikes mark a decisive regime change—toppling the mullahs’ 47-year Islamic dictatorship, uniting Iranians under secular nationalism, and aligning with U.S. "America first" goals. They dismiss Iraq comparisons, citing Iran’s pre-existing transition plan led by Reza Pahlavi and high literacy, while warning of the "red-green alliance" between Western leftists and radical Islamists. The episode frames this as a Cold War-style victory, redirecting resources from endless conflict to domestic priorities, and pivots to Mexico’s cartel crisis, accusing President Claudia Scheinbaum of complicity—either through bribery or fear—while promoting Gamari’s Substack and travel tour. [Automatically generated summary]
It's a history of repressive, dangerous, and destructive regimes being replaced by better ones.
The story is not an unchecked one.
Sometimes regime change turns out for the worse.
But the United States has generally intervened over the past two and a half centuries to produce positive regime change.
And Iran, as I will argue, could well be our finest hour.
Regime change has gotten such a bad name in recent years, even on the right, and perhaps especially on the right, that it's helpful to remind ourselves of the times and places where regime change has worked wonderfully.
I'll start with the American Revolution.
Regime change.
The British are forcibly ejected and America seizes control of its own destiny.
Hey, that worked out pretty well, didn't it?
Writing as a champion of the American Revolution, the English essayist Tom Payne wrote, We have it in our power to make the world all over again.
That is the hopeful, resonant slogan of regime change.
Good can prevail over evil.
Things can get better if we act to make it happen.
Incidentally, the French intervened to help us get there.
That's probably the last time the French did something useful in the world.
Fast forward to the middle of the 19th century.
Texas used to be a part of Mexico, and the Mexicans broke faith with the Texans.
So the Texans revolted in 1836 and created their own independent republic, regime change.
And it was a good one because the Mexicans in Texas had far more rights than the Mexicans in Mexico.
Nine years later, Texas joined the United States and claimed its border at the Rio Grande.
The Mexicans refused.
This was the start of the Mexican War, 1845 to 1848.
The United States intervened on behalf of Texas and defeated Mexico.
Texas got its full territory back and now became part of the United States.
Again, regime change.
The Civil War 1861 to 1865 produced its own regime change or changes.
In reaction to Republicans winning the election of 1860, the South created its own nation founded on slavery.
Regime change.
But this was problematic because, hey, you don't get to break away from a country just because you lost the last election.
It took the Union armies four years to unify the country by forcibly reintegrating the rebel states.
Again, regime change.
And some southerners are still unhappy about it.
But I'm not because that's how we got today's America, a great and powerful republic that became the largest economy in the world in the 19th century and the world's sole superpower in the 20th.
We can't make America great again if we didn't have a great and powerful country to revive in the first place.
The Ottoman Empire, which lasted 400 years, was finally dismembered by the Allies in World War I.
It was the last of the great Islamic empires, regime change.
And of course, a good one because it ended the era of Islamic caliphates.
World War II offers many examples of regime change.
The Allies produced regime change in Italy, in Austria, across Asia, and North Africa.
Of course, the most notable examples of regime change are Japan and Germany.
The United States intervened directly to force regime change in Japan and Germany, even to the extent of rebuilding those countries and rewriting their constitution.
And the results have been excellent.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the United States won the Cold War.
This produced regime change across Eastern Europe, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Romania, in Bulgaria.
And in every case, it was a big improvement over communist rule.
Eventually, regime change reached the Soviet Union itself when Soviet communism collapsed.
Now, whatever problems Russia has had with Putin's authoritarianism or gangster capitalism, who can argue that the collapse of the Soviet Empire was not a good thing for us, for the world, and for the Russian people themselves.
So, the United States has a very good record when it comes to regime change.
Why then, the antipathy to regime change?
Well, mostly it comes from two cases: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, there are some sobering lessons here, but in neither case was regime change itself the problem.
The problem was how we went about achieving regime change.
It was about what we did after the regime change.
In both cases, responsible neoconservatism gave way to neocon idiocy.
We did incompetent regime change.
Consider Afghanistan.
Surely it was right for the United States after 9-11 to remove the regime that was the host nation for the attacks.
We were right to drive the Taliban into the mountains.
But then we should have installed the opposition made up of rival tribes that hated the Taliban and gotten out.
The Taliban were 12th century anti-American tribesmen.
We should have replaced them with 12th century pro-American tribesmen.
Instead, we tried to run their country, to administer their tribal councils, to make Kabul into Philadelphia.
Big mistake.
We blew it.
The Taliban regrouped, and they are now back in power.
Iraq was an even bigger mistake for which the Bush gang, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, are to blame.
We should never have invaded Iraq because Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction.
Once again, we tried to impose parliamentary democracy there.
Once again, we failed.
But even here, America could have remedied its original mistake by replacing Saddam Hussein with rival thugs, thugs who would do our bidding and protect our interests.
We didn't do that.
We tried to run the place ourselves.
Now, for young people with short memories, Afghanistan and Iraq are all they know and remember.
These young people reject regime change because of these two isolated examples, which do not prove that regime change is a bad idea, but only that there is a bad way of going about regime change.
And we should not be stupid enough to go down that road again.
Trump, of course, knows this.
He campaigned from the outset on keeping America out of unnecessary long-lasting foreign wars and entanglements.
Now, let's talk about Iran and regime change.
The Mullahs came to power in 1979 as a result of regime change.
They were part of a revolution to overthrow the Shah.
It's worth recalling that the United States under Jimmy Carter helped to bring about this regime change.
We were allied with the Shah.
Carter pulled the Persian rug out from under the Shah.
That's how we got Khomeini.
So here is a crucial lesson in foreign intervention and trying to get rid of the bad guy.
Try to make sure you don't get the worse guy.
For Carter's role in this debacle, I give him the presidential Ninkampupuri Award.
He was perhaps the biggest fool we've had in the White House, although there are other contenders for the title.
The upshot of the Iran debacle is that for the first time, radical Islam got a hold of a major state.
Previously, radical Islam was merely made up of ragtag outfits, but now it had a country and an important country with a great history and oil wealth and a smart, educated population.
For the past half century, Iran has been a menace to the United States.
It has murdered our citizens, taken Americans hostage, terrorized our embassies, assaulted our allies, not just Israel, but also other Muslim countries, and undermined our policy goals and interests throughout the Americas and Mexico, in Venezuela, and elsewhere.
What makes Iran so dangerous is that its power is wedded to a revolutionary ideology that scorns death, champions martyrdom, seeks nothing less than the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate.
Iran seeks to become a nuclear power to help them achieve this end goal.
This is not my view of them, it is their view of them.
They affirm it in word and deed and have done so since 1979.
Now, ordinarily, America would have to deal with Iran by itself.
And this is not easy because America's record in fighting radical Islam is terrible.
But to our unbelievable good luck, Israel also has an interest in getting rid of the mullahs in Iran.
The Jews live in that bad neighborhood.
They understand their enemies.
They know how to deal with them.
Moreover, Israel has every justification.
Iran was one of the main planners and funders of the October 7 attack.
So Israel isn't preemptively striking Iran.
Israel is legitimately striking back.
Some people think America is getting involved to do Israel's bidding, but here's a case where Israel's interest happily converges with our own.
Not only that, but Israel is taking the brunt of the fight.
Israel pulverized Iran in the 12-day attack, and the United States simply joined for 48 hours by striking the key nuclear facilities.
Even now, Israel is spearheading the assault, and America is participating with and behind them.
America First is not a recipe for isolation.
America First means we should not get involved in unnecessary wars.
It means we should avoid long-term protracted entanglements.
America First does not mean ignore the world and focus only on domestic issues.
America First recognizes the world is a dangerous place and we have allies and adversaries.
America First means promoting American interests and getting our allies to help us do it.
If our allies benefit too, all the better because this way they will be more motivated to help us achieve our objectives.
Our objective here is to replace the world's greatest terrorist state, the most anti-American regime in the world, with a stable, prosperous, pro-American Iran governed as they wish by the Iranian people themselves.
Let's throw the bums out and give Iran back to the Iranians.
They're a smart people with ample resources.
We don't have to run their country.
They can take it from here.
We have the opportunity with Israel's help to deal radical Islam its greatest blow, to take away from radical Islam the one major state it still controls.
And we have the Muslim country, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Gulf kingdoms, even Qatar behind us.
If we're successful, this will be our greatest triumph since the Cold War, perhaps even since World War II.
United States-Iran Coalition00:15:48
This will be regime change, but not Bush-style.
Trump-style.
Regime change in the tradition of the American founding and World War II and the Cold War.
Trump becomes our greatest president in the 21st century.
We become the good guys in the world again.
This isn't anti-MAGA.
It is MAGA.
It's one way that we make America great again.
With Trump at the helm, we're achieving something great for the Iranian people and for the Muslims in the region and for Israel and for America.
The only people who are mourning regime change in Iran are the mullahs, the Democrats, and Taka Carlson.
And that's the way I see it.
If you haven't been following precious metals, well, you might want to start.
Look at gold and silver.
Gold last year, 2025, up over $5,000 an ounce.
Silver, over $100 an ounce.
So that means gold is up 64% for the year.
Silver, 150%.
Now, there's been a little bit of a pullback since then, but that's normal.
The reason that people are doing this and the reason central banks are buying gold, they don't trust the government.
They don't trust the dollar.
They don't trust the debt.
You need to find out more about this as you figure out your own investments.
I recommend a kit from Goldco.
It's the 2026 kit on precious metals, a guide to gold and silver, and there's an easy way to get it.
Just go to dineshgold.com.
That's dineshgold.com.
Guys, I'm really delighted to be joined by an Iranian, Goldie Gamari, who lives in Canada.
She is a writer.
She is a political activist.
She is, in fact, a former politician who represented the Carleton province in Ontario from 2018 to 2025.
She's also a former international trade lawyer.
Goldie, thank you for coming on.
I really appreciate it.
Let me begin by just asking you: you know, right in the aftermath of the capture of Maduro, we saw all these great videos of Venezuelans just going berserk, going nuts.
I mean, weeping, crying, dancing in the streets.
And I thought that was kind of a vignette, you know, to be remembered, but I see it again now.
I see Iranians in Iran and around the world having the same reaction to the, well, to the finishing off of Khamenei.
What was your emotional reaction when you first heard about it?
So I heard about it.
First of all, Dinesh, thank you so much for having me on.
It's so great to be here.
Big fan of yours.
So I was live streaming when I heard about the news and I just started crying.
I started crying out of relief.
It felt like this huge, huge weight, this huge burden had been lifted off of my shoulders.
You know, hearing the news of Khamenei's extermination, it would be the equivalent of, you know, let's say hearing the news of Hitler, Hitler's death.
The same thing, the same thing.
Khamenei is the Hitler of our time.
He has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hands, not just Iranians, but he has the blood of Americans on his hands.
He has the blood of Israelis on his hands.
He has the blood of people in the Middle East on his hands.
So he is known as a war criminal and a dictator.
So for me personally, it was just huge relief.
And of course, once I got over my emotions a little bit, laughter, joy, and celebration.
And that's exactly been the reaction of Iranians in Iran and around the world.
Was it a case, Goldie, where for a little while there, it looked like this was a missed opportunity?
I mean, the United States pulverized the nuclear sites, and it appeared that that was the time when the U.S. and maybe Israel could have gone all the way, but Trump held back.
And it looked like there may be an opportunity over time for the mullahs to regroup, maybe weakened, but nevertheless survive.
And then this would be another missed opportunity, kind of like the missed opportunity of 2009.
Were you worried that that was going to happen?
And did that make the relief of what did happen like all the more intense?
No, so I personally was not worried because there were a lot of political signs there.
Like if you knew where to look, if you know where to look, there were signs that the situation was building up to this.
And I believe the reason that it took so long is because the United States had to get all of its military assets in place.
Because as you can see, as soon as the strikes began, the Islamic regime went haywire.
And not only did they attack Israel, but they've been attacking all the other countries in the Persian Gulf area as well.
You know, many of these are countries that used to support and prop up the Islamic regime.
I mean, they've even gone after Bahrain.
And, you know, what has Bahrain done?
What has the UAE done?
They've even sent missiles to Oman.
Oman was like the, you know, supposedly the intermediary that was actually advocating for and supporting the Islamic regime.
So I think that's why that's why it took so long because the United States had to make sure that when this military intervention begins against the Islamic regime, that it has the proper military assets to deal with the threat of a dictatorship that's not only brutal to its people, but a dictatorship that is really run and controlled by a cult of death.
Goldie, how do you explain that weird phenomenon of the Iranians lashing out, as you say, at other Muslim countries?
I mean, there's a certain view in America that they're all in it together and that countries like Qatar are playing a double game.
They're actually wink-wink on the side of Iran.
And yet you hear for many people this bizarre spectacle of Iran firing missiles at sort of fellow Muslims and angering them.
And not only that, but sort of bringing them over to the side decisively of the United States and Israel, thus creating a much broader coalition against Iran.
This seems to be like irrational, suicidal behavior.
Why would they do that?
Yeah, well, I mean, that's because they're not Iran.
They're a foreign occupying force that's called the Islamic regime and they're occupying Iran.
Prior to 1979, when Iran was a normal country, Iran was actually an ally of the United States.
It was an ally of Israel and it was an ally of all the other countries in the Persian Gulf area and the Middle East as well.
So, you know, the only reason I can think of that the Islamic regime is doing this is because, again, they're a terrorist group.
And, you know, they might have had allies like Qatar in the past, but there's no honor amongst thieves.
And so, you know, the Islamic regime being the terrorist group that it is, it's going scorched earth.
And I trust and I hope that this will be a lesson for governments out there to not prop up dictatorships, to not prop up dangerous foreign governments, because by propping them up and by trying to legitimize them, you're only putting the safety of your own citizens at risk.
And as you can see, this Islamic dictatorship does not care about the lives of anyone.
I mean, when you have an Islamic regime that mass slaughters almost 90,000 innocent, unarmed Iranians just because they want freedom, they're not going to show any sort of remorse towards other countries.
And, you know, one of the missiles I've heard even attacked, I think it was like a hospital, like a Palestinian hospital.
So there you go.
What do you?
How do you account for the fact that the people who seem to be protesting the loudest against U.S. action and Israeli action in Iran is the left?
Is the left in the United States?
Is the global left?
Is the explanation really nothing more than the red-green alliance?
These people are allied with radical Islam.
A defeat for radical Islam is a weakening of the red-green alliance.
Therefore, they oppose it.
Is that what it amounts to?
So, yeah, that's definitely, well, it's less about the weakening.
It's less about jihad.
It's more about their own anti-imperialist sentiments.
So, the reason that the 1979 Islamic coup d'état was successful in the first place is because the Islamists were joined by the communists and also by the woke progressives.
So, these people joined up with the Islamists thinking that, okay, we're smart, we're intelligent.
When we overthrow the Shah, we're going to take over.
Of course, the Islamists, being the violent savages that they are, as soon as the Shah was overthrown, they basically turned their guns on the same people who had been supporting them and pretty much executed them all.
And then, of course, started their reign of mass terror.
So, this is, I think, a case of useful idiots.
And, of course, the woke left and the communists and so-called progressives, they are so blinded by their anti-imperialist ideology that they are literally willing to side with brutal Islamic dictators because all they care about is the downfall of Western democratic societies like the United States.
And I think this is very, very dangerous and it has to be taken seriously.
It seems to me part of it, Goldie, is that the left in America and in the West somehow thinks that they can take the savages, as you call them, and domesticate them.
So, in other words, I think they realize that you can't have like bin Laden in America or Mullah Omar from the Taliban or even Khameni, but they think we can have Mamdani, we can have Ilhan Omar.
In other words, Mamdani is in some ways an Islamist, but on the other hand, he's like, he's for the trans, he's for gay rights, he's for like mandatory health care.
So, he seems to line up with the priorities of the progressive left.
Do you think, I think what you're saying is that this sort of leftist project to domesticate the radical Muslims might work in the short term, but in the in the long term, the savages will show their teeth.
Oh, 100%.
This is all about Takiya.
So, they basically say what they have to say in order to gain influence and power.
And then, once there's enough of them, they take over.
That's exactly what we're seeing in certain parts of the United States.
And it's very dangerous.
It's very dangerous.
I mean, I think just yesterday, we heard the news of a mass shooting in Austin, Texas.
And my condolences to Americans there.
That was a person who had a shirt that said property of Allah.
And then underneath that, he had a flag of the Islamic regime.
And he wasn't even Iranian.
That's the scary part.
So there are a lot of people who are not Iranian, like Mamdani, for example, but he supports the Islamic regime.
And I think Americans need to take this threat very, very seriously.
Anyone, anyone who supports the Islamic regime, anyone who carries our flag, anyone who is mourning the death of a Muslim Nazi like the Ayatollah, these people are threats to Americans.
And the Islamic regime, one of the things they have done is they have imported a lot of these people into the United States.
They're funding a lot of various lobby groups.
They've created a whole bunch of Islamic centers.
And so now, I think Americans are going to start to see more of these sleeper cells waking up because this radicalization has been happening in the United States for several decades now.
And yet, when people try to call it out, they're accused of Islamophobia.
I'd like to ask you, Goldie, to address a concern that is on the right, and particularly coming from a lot of young people, young people raised in the environment of the Iraq war and its aftermath, Afghanistan.
To them, regime change is generally a bad word, and they see it like happening all over again.
Now, on top of this, many of these same people say, Look, the one thing I've learned about my government is that I am at the bottom of their list.
They're always concerned about liberating some other guy someplace else.
And while we don't begrudge the Iranians their freedom and we don't begrudge Israel its interests, what about my interests?
Why am I at the bottom of the list?
Why shouldn't our government prioritize America instead of these adventures abroad?
If you were speaking directly to those people, what would you say to them?
So I would answer in two parts.
The first part would be with respect to regime change.
The regime change actually happened in 1979 when Jimmy Carter and the Democrats got involved and destroyed the constitutional monarchy that we had, destroyed the allyship that Iran had with the United States by bringing in the Ayatollahs in the first place.
So what's happening right now is not regime change, it's a reversal.
It's undoing the regime change of 1979 and taking Iran back to what we were before American intervention.
So that would be number one.
Number two, with respect to the concern about the needs of Americans, 100% right, American needs should be put forward first by American presidents and American policy.
And that's exactly what President Trump is doing.
Because you have to also, you know, if you just look at the cost-benefit analysis, for example, the Islamic regime has been waging a forever war against the United States for the last 47 years.
That is very, very expensive.
This is money and dollars that could be going towards investing in young people in American society.
And yet instead, these are, you know, hundreds of trillions of dollars that have been going to defend American interests and American allies against an enemy that has been murdering Americans for the last 47 years.
So what's happening right now is President Trump is actually ending this 47-year forever war.
Once that happens, Iran will go back to being an ally of the United States.
And we can continue then to focus on our respective countries.
Chasing Out Radical Islam00:10:58
Iran in and of itself is, you're looking at when Iran is free, that's almost going to be like $1 trillion worth of investment and economy that's going to open up, which is also very good for the American economy as well.
So it's a win-win situation for everyone here.
That's how I would frame it.
You mentioned Jimmy Carter, and this is, I think, something people don't really know, which is that Jimmy Carter came to power in 1976.
He campaigned on a human rights platform, and then he singled out the Shah and basically said, he's a dictator.
He has a secret police.
He's a bad guy.
I need to pull the Persian rug out from under him.
And of course, the result was Khomeini.
In other words, he went from the frying pan into the fire and trying to get rid of the bad guy.
He got the guy who was 10 times worse.
So I think what you're saying, and this needs to be highlighted, the United States played a role, maybe not the decisive role, but certainly an enabling and contributory role to the mullahs establishing themselves in the first place.
Had it not been for Carter, or maybe had a Republican president been in office, we would not have gotten that outcome.
And I think what you're also saying, I'd like you to dwell on this a little bit more, that a free and prosperous Iran governed by Iranians is going to be really good, not only for the region, but also for the United States.
Now, here I want to raise what seems to me to be a real obstacle, which is this: that even in Venezuela, you've had a revolution that's taken about 25 years.
That happened, Ugo Chavez comes to power about 1999.
In Iran, though, it's almost 50 years, and that's a long time to change a society.
You know, just as in Iraq, you find a penetration of these Islamists into every level of society, right?
They run the schools, they run the local city councils, they're patrolling every street.
So, in other words, changing all that is not going to be easy.
And I think this is what people are a little nervous about.
It's like, hey, we don't want the United States to be doing kind of country management all over again.
What can you say to sort of assure Americans that, hey, guess what?
You know, we Iranians can sort of take it from here, that there's a point at which the Iranians can and will run their own country, and this won't be Iraq all over again.
So, I mean, the first thing I want to say is that Iran is not Iraq.
Iran, you know, we're a civilization that's thousands of years old.
We actually had a constitutional revolution back in 1906.
So, we had our first democratically elected parliament in 1906, which lasted up until 1979.
In terms of what comes next, so we are a very educated society, both inside of Iran and outside.
Our literacy and education rate is 97%.
We already have a transitional plan in place with His Royal Highness Reza Pahlavi, who's the crown prince of Iran.
This is a transitional plan that is available online in English and in Persian.
It has been peer-reviewed, and a lot of Iranians have provided their input on that as well.
And so, this document pretty much outlines exactly how Iran will be transitioning from an Islamic dictatorship to a functioning secular democratic society, just like we used to have before 1979.
And in fact, Senator Lindsey Graham is working on creating a bipartisan working group that's going to present this transitional plan to U.S. Congress as well.
So, I would say to Americans, rest assured, Iran is not Iraq.
We're not even Muslim.
We're not even Muslim, right?
So, it's a totally different culture, totally different society.
There's a reason that 10 million Iranians live outside of occupied Iran, the vast majority of them being in the United States.
And up until now, you probably didn't even know, you probably never heard of them.
And that's because we Iranians integrate very, very well into Western society and culture because we have the same values and the same ideals.
So, I would say, rest assured, like we got this covered.
I mean, one thing you're saying that's very striking to me is when you say Iran is not even Muslim, it's a way of saying that this Islamic project to sort of Islamize or Islamicize Iran aggressively using all the tools of government, of power, have failed and that in some ways have almost discredited Islam in the eyes of a lot of the Iranian people.
Now, this alone to me is hugely significant because I don't know another society that has de-Islamicized itself in this way.
And not only that, I think you agree, will agree with me that Iran has been the sort of crown jewel of radical Islam, right?
Before that, you had the Muslim Brotherhood, you had these ragtag terrorist groups, but radical Islam did not have a hold of a major state until Khomeini came along.
And then every other Islamist has been looking enviously like, how do I do that in my country as well?
So aren't you saying in part that this would deal a mortal blow to radical Islam, the whole global radical Islamic project that goes beyond Iran, but this would be a massive setback.
And so in some ways, a victory no less spectacular than the victory in the Cold War?
100, 100%.
What's happening right now is going to be bigger than the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The only other country I can think of that de-Islamized would have been Spain back when the Moors occupied Spain.
And then eventually the Spaniards were able to decolonize and reclaim Spain for Christians.
That's pretty much what's happening in occupied Iran right now.
And the one thing that the Islamic dictatorship has done is they have shown us the true face of Islam and Islamism.
And Iranians, we're done with it.
We're done with it.
We're done with Islam.
It doesn't mean that there aren't no Muslims among us.
There are.
They are a small minority.
However, even Iranian Muslims are saying that they're sick and tired of Islam being a part of government policy.
One thing that is, one of the things that Iranians created 2,500 years ago was the concept of human rights under Cyrus the Great.
And so freedom of religion has been a part of the Iranian Empire, also known as the Persian Empire.
Freedom of religion has been a part of our culture and our values for thousands and thousands of years.
So this notion of this Islamic dictatorship trying to control us, it just, it never worked because ultimately our Iranian identity, heritage, civilization, and culture is much stronger, much stronger, and it has been around for thousands and thousands of years.
So this is a failed experiment.
I would say prior to the Islamic regime taking over, the vast majority of Iranians were Muslim, but they were secular Muslims, right?
They're just sort of Muslim in name only.
But now, now everyone's rejected it because we just don't want anything to do with it anymore after 47 years of Islamic occupation.
I was in Brazil a few months ago and I met a guy who is descended actually from the Spanish royal family and he'd been studying the reconquest of Spain where they threw out the Muslims.
And he made a very profound point that hadn't occurred to me.
He goes, well, you know, the Spanish didn't actually throw the Muslims out.
He goes, we didn't throw the people out.
But he goes, we threw the leaders out.
We changed the leadership structure of the society.
And I found this kind of consoling because part of what he's saying is you don't have to expel a people.
What you have to do is expel an ideology, expel a leadership.
And I think that's what you're saying about Iran.
We're not really going to be, quote, chasing out the Muslims.
What we're going to be doing is chasing out radical Islam.
We're going to organize our society on a different basis with a different structure and a different set of freedoms.
And that, it seems to me, is in a way not a utopian project, but rather a more practical one.
Yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
In fact, there are many Iranian Muslims who are on the front lines fighting the Islamic regime, fighting the Islamic dictatorship who have lost their lives.
So you're absolutely correct.
This is not about chasing out Muslims.
This is about chasing out the Islamic dictatorship, chasing out the regime, and of course, you know, getting rid of those people who have been responsible for murdering us Iranians in the last 47 years, whether or not, you know, Muslim, atheist, Christian, Jews, or Astriid, Baha'i, whatever the case might be.
So, you know, we Iranians, we're all united and we're all fighting one enemy.
That's the Islamic regime.
Because ultimately for us, because again, we're such an old civilization, regardless of our religion or which part of the country we're from, the one thing that unites us is our Iranian identity.
And so we're all Iran first.
And that's what has kept us going.
And that's what has, like, that's basically the Islamic regime's worst nightmare is our Iranian identity.
And I think part of what you've been arguing here, I think very well, is the idea that the liberation of Iran, yes, it is Iran first for the Iranians.
It is perhaps helpful to the interests of other countries, Israel, India, and so on, but it is also completely consistent with America first.
Goldie Gamari, thank you very much for joining me.
Thank you so much for having me on.
Hey, I'm now on Substack.
It's kind of full circle for me.
I started out as a journalist writing articles for National Review, the American Spectator, The Washington Post, lots of places.
After my stint in the Reagan White House, I pivoted to writing books, and that was way back in 1991.
So I've been mainly known as an author and, of course, later as a filmmaker.
But my first job, journalist, and now I'm getting back to that.
On Substack, you'll get original articles and commentary, groundbreaking investigations, exclusive access to film clips and show clips.
Check Out the President of Mexico00:02:36
And guess what?
It's free.
So check it out.
Go to Dinesh D'Souza.substack.com.
Step into the world of the Dragon's Prophecy on a tour of the ancient land of Israel.
I'm Dinesh D'Souza, and I'm inviting you to join me and Jonathan Kahn for the Dragon's Prophecy Tour.
We'll walk the ancient streets of Jerusalem and visit iconic landmarks like the Western Wall, the Sea of Galilee, and the Mount of Olives, exploring the real-world settings behind the mysteries and what they reveal about the days we're living in.
Book now at inspirationtravel.com/slash dragon or call 844-715-2425.
The overdue neutralization of a cartel boss, El Mencho, by the Mexican armed forces in conjunction with the U.S. has lighted parts of Mexico in flames.
Here's what the cartels did to a Costco in Puerto Vallarta.
And this is a local Mexican airport.
Check out the president of Mexico.
This is Claudia Scheinbaum besieged by reporters.
Notice something interesting?
She's in an open car sticking her head out.
Trump says she isn't running the country.
Well, it wasn't meant to be, and we're very friendly with her.
She's a good woman, but the cartels are running Mexico.
She's not running Mexico.
The cartels are running Mexico.
And we could be politically correct and be nice and say, oh, yes, she is.
No, no, she's very, you know, she's very frightened of the cartels.
They're running Mexico.
And I've asked her numerous times, would you like us to take out the cartels?
No, no, no, Mr. President.
No, no, no, please.
But if she's not in charge, why is she sticking her head out like that?
Isn't she afraid they will take her out?
I can think of only one answer to these questions.
She has made a deal with the cartels.
I'm not sure if it's a deal based on bribery or a deal based on fear for her life, but either way, she's in it with them.