Episode #2213: Iran’s War Without Objectives dissects how Trump’s "Operation Epic Fury" against Iran—triggered by Israel’s looming strike—lacks clear goals, risks endless conflict, and ignores Pentagon warnings. With 150+ schoolgirls killed and six U.S. troops dead, the strike’s decapitation of Ayatollah Khamenei failed to destabilize Iran, while Hezbollah and regional chaos escalate. Rubio admits the U.S. acted as Israel’s proxy, Congress was sidelined, and Trump’s shifting timelines mirror Iraq War chaos. Neocons like Graham push regime change despite Iran’s institutional resilience, while polls show 73% U.S. opposition—yet war profiteers bet $1.2M on strikes. The episode ties the conflict to historical U.S. interventionism, questioning whether this reckless escalation serves Israel or dooms America to another unwinnable quagmire. [Automatically generated summary]
In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's the David Knight Show.
As the clock strikes 13, it's Tuesday, the 3rd of March, year of our Lord, 2026.
Well, he had a very interesting revelation yesterday from Marco Rubio.
Why now?
Why now did we attack Iran?
As Trump has said, you know, for 40-some odd years, I've been shouting death to America.
So why do we do it now?
Well, we're going to tell you the very interesting reason.
And it's something that unfortunately a lot of us have been talking about for quite some time.
We have War Pete saying he is a recovering neocon.
I think he fell off the wagon, if that was ever the truth.
We're going to have Charlie Kirk and his comments about Lindsey Graham and the neocons and the failures, both pragmatic and philosophical.
But folks, the real failure is moral.
And we're going to talk about how their war plans have already gone sideways.
Yes, Trump taco.
He doesn't check iting out, but he always changes orders.
He always changes objectives.
It's that chaos and not able to steer a course that is really the concern here as we look at the commander and thief.
We'll be right back.
Well, Pete Hegseth says that this war in Iran is not Iraq, but he can't say what it is.
And he scolds the press for saying, how dare you ask what our objectives are, right?
I mean, don't you know that we're supposed to be the rulers of the world?
That's all you need to know.
By right, we are the exceptional power.
We can project power.
And he made some vague mentions about how Iran should not be allowed to project power.
Well, the Pentagon has named this Operation Epic Fury.
And Hegseth doesn't really have any objectives except to say lethality.
Let me just say, killing everybody is not an objective.
Killing everybody is not legal.
It's not moral.
But that's all that Pete Hegseth can come up with.
Lethality.
They even have this thing about lethality maxing, which goes back to a lot of the slang on some of the discussion boards and stuff.
It's people who are doing crazy stuff to their body men.
to affect their jaw to get the square jaw or whatever.
They think that it's all about looks.
Quite frankly, I think it is an appropriate way for the Pentagon to describe itself because it is all about looks, isn't it?
It's all about cosmetic surgery.
Forget surgical strikes.
This is about cosmetic surgery, about image, projecting an image, not necessarily power.
Well, the question when we look at whether or not he is a recovered neocon, I guess we could always question whether or not war, Pete, is going to become repeat.
I've been a recovering neocon for six years now.
Like the foolishness with which we ricocheted around the world, intervening, think it was in our best interest when really we just overturned the table and created something worse in almost every single scenario has led to almost, I mean, the hubris of the Pentagon is that they want to now tell other countries how to do counterinsurgency based on what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Are you kidding me?
So you really have learned nothing.
That's right.
I think he really has learned nothing either.
By the way, while we're on the topic of what should U.S. policy be and should we ever have a president who makes a case for war?
You know, like, hey, they attacked us.
Let's stop this threat of violence that's killing our own people.
No, we are the ones who are doing that.
We are the aggressor.
We are the Hitlers in all of this.
Charlie Kirk got it right before he died.
On one side is the Lindsey Graham, John Bolton types, where they are actively calling for regime change.
Here is Lindsey Graham.
This is just lunacy.
It says nothing new with nuclear weapons at this point.
This is now that we want to go all in and take out the regime.
It's time for us to close the chapter on the Iranian Ayatollah and his henchmen and start a new chapter in the Middle East.
That sounds good, doesn't it?
But what have we learned when it comes to wars and especially wars in the Middle East?
What you draw up on a whiteboard rarely happens.
What you think theoretically is going to occur, there might be unintended and unforeseen consequences, especially when you're talking about a country two and a half times the size of Texas.
It has 90 million people and was an ancient and green great power with well over a dozen ethnic groups.
You have underground Christians.
You don't really have many Jews left in in Persia, but also you have secular, younger Persians.
Who's going to run the country exactly?
Lindsey Graham?
This sounds like Hillary Rodham Clinton in Libya.
So i'm pointing to the first extreme right now, the neoconservative extreme, the.
We must go, take off the head of the snake right now.
Be all in president Trump in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat.
If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs.
If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.
But here's the bigger question, wouldn't the world be better off if the ayatollahs went away and replaced by something better?
Wouldn't Iran be better off?
It's time to close the chapter on the Iranian ayatollah and his henchmen.
Let's, close that chapter soon and start a new chapter in the Mideast, one of tolerance, hope and peace.
Okay, that sounds good, but that's pathologically insane.
I'm sorry it is.
How do you know it's going to be better.
Yeah, the ayatollah is awful, but maybe he's one of the few guys that can keep that country together and not have a 90 million person civil war.
Lindsey Graham is so consistently out of his mind it's hard to even comprehend.
Regime change is not like changing the head coach at the Chicago Bears.
It's not how it works.
It's not like a clean transfer.
Typically in the Mideast.
It's very messy, creates a quagmire and then there is civil war.
Yeah well, their well-defined plans went away right at the very beginning.
Very first thing they did was the decapitation strike, when all the leaders were meeting and Trump told Jonathan Carl.
He said yeah, we had three or four candidates that we wanted to replace the ayatollah.
We killed them all.
That's how this stuff goes.
They don't have a plan.
They're the gang that can't shoot straight.
They don't know what they're doing and, of course, we got to get the ayatollah out of there, because he's a horrible guy and he is.
It's kind Kind of interesting, all of the things that people are talking about in terms of what the Ayatollah did.
He's got a secret police.
He arrests, tortures, kills dissidents, on and on and on.
One of the longest authoritarian leaders that the world has had, longest surviving.
I looked at it and it's like, you know, the Shah did all of those things.
Our guy.
The Shah was there for another year, longer than Khomeini was.
And the Shah is the one who basically paved the way for Khomeini to take over.
There's a lot of things here that are really working against themselves.
One of the things in terms of when you look at the motivation of people to fight a war and don't underestimate that.
I think that counts a great deal, especially in asymmetric warfare.
Motivation is a big part of the equation.
And they want to talk about how they did this precision surgical strike and we can pinpoint accuracy.
We can do this and that and everything.
And at the same time, how do you explain then these two schools that were killed, where they killed 150 or 160-something kids, girls in one school alone, about another 50 or 60 in the other school?
How do you explain that?
At the same time, you're boasting about the accuracy of your weapons and your targeting and your planning.
And of course, what Scott Ritter was saying yesterday, I played that clip for you.
He was involved in targeting when he was in the military.
And he said he is haunted by the fact that they got bad intel and they targeted this bomb shelter and killed so many civilians, a lot of them children.
And so his take on it was, this is just kind of a quota system.
You know, the Trump administration comes in and the Pentagon and we got to have X number of strikes.
So give us targets.
And he said, these guys are just going through grabbing targets sloppily, grabbing targets.
That's what this is about.
And I think people are going to see, they talk about blowback.
That's one of the very first places it begins.
First of all, they have their decapitation strike.
They not only kill the Ayatollah, but they kill the people they think they can work with.
Secondly, they brag about their precision strike while they kill two schools full of children.
And so this is not Iraq.
This is not endless, said Heg Seth.
He said, all you people are talking about mission creep.
It's not mission creep, I guess.
It's just creeps on a mission, right?
Committee to re-elect the president.
Sounds like going back to Nixon.
And Dan Kane had laid out the mission in operational terms.
Protect U.S. forces, prevent Iran from projecting power beyond its borders, and disrupt and destroy its ability to sustain combat operations.
Well, Dan Kaine had some other things to say, and I reported that before the strike went out.
Dan Kane, and it was widely leaked, apparently by JD Vance, who would like to become president.
He sees his chances evaporating with this war.
He pointed out that Dan Kane said, you know, we're short on ammo and we're short on allies.
That's a big deal.
And so there was a lot of reluctance there in the Pentagon from the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and yet Trump does it anyway.
We're going to talk about why he did it here in a moment.
So emphasize the U.S. is setting the terms of this war from start to finish.
Are we really?
Are we really?
You know, what are the legal basis for these combat operations?
And are we setting the terms for it?
Are we in control?
Or is there a tail that's banging the dog?
That's basically what Rubio said in a meeting with some congressional leaders that they call the Gang of Eight.
Destroying missile stockpiles and we're degrading naval capacity.
These are measurable tasks.
Well, we're also, we're not just destroying the stockpiles of ammunition of the Iranians.
We're destroying our own stockpiles, leaving us vulnerable as we're trying to provoke a war with China as well.
Ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon is a strategic objective, but it can't be secured by air power.
A durable nuclear outcome would require verification, monitoring, and inspection framework that's capable of confirming compliance over time.
You're going to have somebody on the ground to do that.
When the secretary promises, quote, no stupid rules of engagement and rejects the constraints associated with prior conflicts, he signals a posture that is centered on unilateral force.
This is why I say he only talks about killing people.
That's his only plan, lethality.
And when he despises rules of engagement, that's why War Pete despises international rules of war, why he despises the Geneva Convention, why he despises the Pentagon's rules that have been there.
You know, things like we don't kill people who are shipwrecked.
There's so many of these things that they're doing, of course, in the Caribbean.
A Daily Call reporter, Reagan Reese, asked Trump, I said the U.S. would leave when all the objectives are complete, and then asked Trump directly, well, what are those objectives?
War Pete, how dare you ask the president what his objectives are?
Do you not realize that you're talking to a king here?
And of course, his objectives always change.
That taco.
Hegseth replied, Iran's, Iran projects power in a way that we can't tolerate.
Let's think about that.
U.S. and Israel have armies.
U.S. and Israel have planes and missiles.
U.S. and Israel have nuclear weapons.
None of that can be tolerated by Iran.
We project power.
As a matter of fact, that seems to be the only thing that we're concerned about is projecting power.
Iran can't project that.
But if you're going to stop that, here's this, you know, this double standard that we've got here.
If you're going to stop them projecting power, is that not an open-ended mission?
Well, yes, it is.
Preventing Iran from projecting power is not a narrowly defined condition.
Projecting power can include support for proxy militias, weapons transfers, cyber operations, missile tests, maritime activity, political influence to aligned groups.
This is what we do, right?
We do all of these things, but they better not do that.
They don't have a right to exist.
They don't have a right to protect themselves from us, even if we attack them.
If suppressing power projection becomes the organizing principle, the mission's boundaries become inherently movable.
Any remaining influence can be treated as justification for continued action.
These are these same people who tell us we're not getting into a quagmire.
Defining Victory Conditions00:04:56
We're not going to do an endless war.
And yet, if your goal, the only goals that we can kind of suss out of these people is to stop them from projecting power.
That is an endless conflict.
Punitive strikes without occupation are precisely what the Iraq Lexon was supposed to teach.
Degrade the capability, impose the cost, and leave before the insurgency starts.
Hex says, explicit rejection of nation building isn't evasion.
It's a doctrine.
The problem isn't that the strategy is incoherent.
The problem is that projecting power as a terminal objective has no natural stopping point.
It expands to meet whatever resistance it encounters.
Kind of like the war on terror.
It's a war on a tactic.
It's not even a well-defined person.
And of course, the terrorists were being trained and funded by the U.S. government as well.
Al-Qaeda, the Mujhideen before them, then Al-Qaeda, then ISIS.
We actually ran air cover for this guy who had this long rap sheet, or I guess you could say his resume of being in every one of these terrorist groups.
We helped to install him as leader in Syria and destabilize that area.
Everywhere that we go would leave chaos and death.
The doctrine has precedent.
The precedent is not encouraging.
The 1986 Tripoli strikes, which is what Kirk was saying, and this sounds like Hillary Clinton, right?
1986 Tripoli strikes were declared a success within 48 hours and a failure within a decade.
Hegseth has also said the U.S. will fight to win.
Winning presumes that something can be identified and measured.
If the desire to avoid nation building produces a strategy defined almost entirely by punitive force without a clearly articulated political settlement, then success becomes synonymous with contained degradation rather than a stable, verifiable outcome.
And of course, they will let us know when they have won.
They will let us know.
They're not going to define what the mission is.
They'll let us know when the mission has been accomplished, just like George W. Bush did on the deck of the aircraft carry.
Remember that?
Mission accomplished.
One lie after the other.
Hegseth said, Monday, I think one of those fallacies for a long time is that this department, Department of Defense, or presidents or others should tell the American people and our enemies, by the way, here's exactly what we'll do.
Here's exactly how long we'll go.
Here's how far we'll go.
Here's what we're willing to do and not do.
That is foolishness, he says.
Well, is it foolishness to define what you are fighting for?
Why you're fighting?
I guess the people who fought World War II were fools, right?
As a matter of fact, the U.S. government went through a great deal of trouble with the Frank Capra series of films, Why We Fight.
Everybody knew why they were fighting.
They were fighting because they were attacked, right?
And other countries were attacked by Hitler.
The same way that we do it now.
You know, the preemptive strike from Japan.
Hey, we got to attack them because they've put these crippling sanctions on us or whatever.
So we knew why we fought in World War II, and we knew what the objective was.
We don't have that kind of clarity anymore because the people who are leading our government and our armed forces don't have that kind of clarity themselves.
That is foolishness of the worst kind.
All war Pete wants is lethality, killing.
That is his objective.
That's the only thing you're going to get out of this guy.
When the objective is undefined, allies cannot calibrate their own risk.
So it makes it more difficult to get allies, right?
You're asking me to buy into something that you don't have a defined objective to achieve here.
What's that all about?
And that's what we're doing, and that's why we're in the situation that we're in.
Public fatigue with an open-ended war is well-defined.
Establishing explicit boundaries to keep the campaign from expanding addresses strategy.
Do you have one?
Well, as I said, Trump, from the very beginning, from the very first strike, things went in a different direction.
Trump told Jonathan Carl in an interview that he had successors in mind after the strikes in Iran, but they were all killed.
Strait of Hormuz Tensions00:15:00
And so it goes when you are going to be the policeman of the world, right?
And he said, the attack was so successful that it knocked out most of the candidates, Trump told me.
It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because we killed them all.
And so, first, striking how stunningly successful the president believes this military operation has been.
He actually told me nobody else in the world could have done this.
It's not geopolitics, folks.
It's egopolitics.
It's not 3D chess.
It's a fool's errand.
Anyway, he said the attack was so successful, it knocked out most of our candidates.
So how is that successful?
It's successful in a way that only somebody who has bankrupted a half dozen casinos who is that stupid could think that it's successful.
You had a plan, did you?
Well, Trump completely ignored White House reporters on Sunday night.
He decided that he would point to and hang around statues of Jefferson and Franklin that he recently put in the Rose Garden area.
I got to say that is as close as you'll ever get to Jefferson and Franklin.
He rejects Declaration of Independence.
He rejects the Constitution.
He rejects their politics, their philosophy, their actions.
But he embraces the statue.
I got to say, going back to the late 90s, I told the family, I said, I don't ever want to go to Washington again.
I don't have to.
I said, this place is nothing but a cemetery of liberty.
You can look around it and you can see the statues of Jefferson and Franklin, other people who appreciated and understood liberty and gave it to others.
As I've always said, liberty is one thing you can't have unless you give it to others.
They were wise enough to understand that.
But I look around and it's a mausoleum.
It's a cemetery of monuments to great men, though we don't have anything like them anymore.
I mean, the picture of this orange pig standing next to a statue of Jefferson makes me want to throw up.
You're not even of the same country.
Get out of here.
It's like Stephen Miller talking about wee, we, we when he talks about America and the founding of America.
His parents came here as refugees during World War II.
He didn't do anything to build this country.
He's destroying it.
He's antithetical to everything this country is about.
Stephen Miller is one of the most anti-American, un-American immigrants we've ever had.
I'd take a million Mexicans if we could get rid of Stephen Miller.
10 million.
Unbelievable.
On welfare.
Just get rid of this guy.
Unbelievable.
So he hangs around the statues of the non-interventionists.
Hopefully, something will rub off on him.
I don't know.
Trump skipped out on answering questions from the press the day after he had done this strike.
We were shouting questions.
What's your message for the families of the service members who are killed?
How long are we going to be in this conflict?
He doesn't talk about any of that.
As a matter of fact, there is a reporter, host, I guess, Joey Jones, who's on Fox News.
I don't know who this guy is.
But he told MAGA, he said, it's okay to ask questions about troops killed in Iran.
Americans, he said, demand answers when our blood is shed.
You know, I don't think he was talking to ordinary rank-and-file people, right?
MAGA or whatever.
I think he was talking to his employers at Fox News, saying, It's okay if I ask questions of the King Trump because Americans know it's okay.
We do question authority.
He's talking to himself.
He's talking to his bosses at Fox when he says that.
He saw combat in both Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
He lost both legs above the knee, and he suffered severe damage to his arm and wrists.
He urged viewers on Sunday to not lose sight of the ultimate sacrifice those soldiers made a day earlier.
He said, it's incumbent upon me to stop for a moment.
I understand that there's a that three people killed is a small number.
Well, it's getting bigger all the time.
We're now, as of last night, we're up to six.
He said, but three lives lost, three Americans killed in action for what?
He doesn't say that, right?
Three Americans killed in action is hundreds, if not thousands, of lives affected.
He said, really millions for every American out there that understands what that is like.
Well, I agree, and I think that is important, but I also don't think that only American lives matter.
You know, three Americans were killed.
We had, what, maybe 200 school children between the ages of 7 and 13, young girls.
They don't matter because they're Iranian.
They don't matter because the Ayatollah was their leader.
They didn't have anything to do with the Ayatollah being in power.
Who knows if they even liked him or their parents even liked this guy?
That's like saying it's okay to kill Americans because of Donald Trump.
I despise that man.
You're going to say that gives Iranians a license to kill me and my family?
Come on.
Let's get real about that.
That's what war is.
We're going to kill these people in this other country because we don't like their leader.
How about we have trial by combat?
I'd like to see if Trump could take on this guy who was in his early 80s.
I don't know.
Got some new health concerns with Trump as some things are showing up on his neck.
I'm not laughing at the health condition.
I mean, it happens to all of us, but I'm just saying, why don't we let these old men fight it out with each other instead of killing innocent people?
Well, a drone is impacted a U.S. Embassy in Riyadh after Rubio warns that the hardest hits are yet to come.
Yeah, Trump says we're projecting four to five weeks, but it can go longer.
Whatever it takes.
In other words, another open-ended war.
The Strait of Hormuz is closed, and they will set any ship on fire that tries to pass through.
Reuters reports citing Iranian media.
So West Texas Intermediate crude oil is now up by more than 7%, following the headlines.
You know, they've very proud of the fact that Iran had, I don't know, something 7 or 11 ships or some small number of ships in that area.
I don't even know if they qualify as ships.
They might have been boats.
But they said they're all gone, right?
The Iranian quote-unquote Navy, if they ever had a Navy, all gone.
That's not what's going to close the Strait of Hormuz.
It's asymmetric warfare.
They have missiles, they have drones, and it's a very narrow passageway that's there.
And the tankers going through are very vulnerable.
You want to take a chance with your billion-dollar tanker, whatever these things cost?
Go through the Strait of Hormuz, or maybe just set this out and we just stop the flow of oil.
As I said yesterday, when you compare the amount of oil that goes through the Strait of Hormuz, it's about 20% of the global supply.
That is far, far more than the amount of oil that was blocked with the 1973 OPEC embargo.
America's importation of foreign oil was only 19%.
And the OPEC embargo only was against the United States.
And it only lasted about six months or so.
But look at the economic consequences and how that unfolded through the rest of the 70s.
The inflation it kicked off, the stagflation that it kicked off, the massive recession that happened with it.
And because what happened was the U.S. went into the global market and started buying up oil from, had to have the oil and buying it up from other people, raising the price for everybody else.
But this is 20% of the global supply that is affected in terms of going through the Strait of Hormuz.
And it's not just the oil and transit.
It is also the refineries, which are clearly a target by the Iranians.
This is something we've already seen in the Russian-Ukraine war.
The refineries especially become a target, a very vulnerable, soft target.
But it can affect any of the infrastructure.
And it can happen here domestically as well.
How many ships will be willing to go through the Iranian kamikaze drones taking pot shots?
Marco Rubio says, well, the president always has all options on the table, yet he believes that the objectives can be achieved without any ground forces.
There's no diplomacy happening with Iran, and the next hits are going to be the hardest to come.
This is not Iraq.
It's not endless.
We'll see.
But it started the same way as Iraq, didn't it?
With lies about weapons of mass destruction.
Started exactly the same way.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it certainly does rhyme, doesn't it?
So Iran can't contest U.S. control of the Gulf in a conventional fight, but it doesn't need to.
Its strategy has always been centered on denial, using drones, missiles, mines to raise the cost of commercial transit through Hormuz.
Even if their so-called Navy takes heavy losses, and they have, the core threat remains.
Drone and missile attacks can still disrupt shipping and can still rattle energy markets and still rattle the global economy.
Meanwhile, the surreal implications underlying all this, Rubio says, I've been asked, why now?
And what did he tell them?
And it really got a lot of people upset.
He told the gang of eight leaders in the Senate and the House.
He said, well, Israel was going to strike, so they forced our hand.
We had to do it because Israel is going to do it.
They don't take any orders from us.
They give the orders to us.
And it's not just giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump with Jewish billionaires like Miriam Adelson.
It's not just doing that.
It is saying, well, we as a country are going to attack Iran.
And what Rubio said was if they attack Iran, we know that Iran is poised to immediately release attacks on our bases and so forth.
So we decided that we better get ahead of them and we better attack first and we better take out these bases because before we absorb those strikes.
That's the logic, if you want to call it that.
It's weakness of the worst kind, isn't it?
He wants to prattle on about the omnipotent presidency.
We've got all options always on the table.
Do whatever we want.
Unless it's something that Israel doesn't want to have happen.
In that case, we have to do what they want.
Yeah, it's not just about our corrupt politicians who've sold us out.
These people need to go to jail.
Why are they allowing this to happen?
Well, we know why they allow it to happen.
They're the ones who could pass a law to stop this foreign influence, but they're profiting from the foreign influence, so they keep it going.
So we're now up to six U.S. service members killed in action, 18 seriously wounded.
Trump claims a big wave is coming, and they are deploying more troops to the region.
The UAA Defense Ministry says their defenses have intercepted nine ballistic missiles and 148 drones.
You know, that's part of the problem.
Talked about this when we play, I'm sure you played risk.
And you know that when you are attacking, they presume that an attacker, a defender rather, has like a three-to-one.
It's been a long time since I played.
Do you remember, Travis?
Is it like a three-to-one advantage or something?
You know, when you're rolling the dice.
Anyway, they skew it that way.
And yet, when you're talking about missile defense, it goes the other way.
The advantage is with the attacker, because it's so hard to shoot down these missiles coming in.
You need to have three anti-missiles for every missile coming in.
That's one of the reasons why the supplies were so decimated in the 12-day war and what is happening in Ukraine, because you've got to have a lot of anti-missile missiles in order to even have a fighting chance, so to speak.
The U.S. military says it has a stock of over 1,250 targets and it has struck, I'm sorry, over 1,250 targets in Iran since the start of the operation.
And over 600 Iranians killed and climbing, including 200 schoolgirls.
Big victory, right?
This reminds me of Robert McNamara's body counts that were running through the Vietnam War.
I wasn't old enough to fight, but I was old enough to know what was going on.
Believe me, I was focused on that because my sisters were older and they knew boys who were going to Vietnam and had been there.
So I paid a lot of attention to it.
And this is the same kind of folly.
Just disgusting.
Trump says he doesn't rule out sending more troops on the ground to Iran.
He said, I don't have the yips, whatever that means, with respect to boots on the ground.
Like every president says, there will be no boots on the ground.
I don't say that, says Trump, after he launched strikes on Saturday.
He said, I say probably don't need them.
Or if they were necessary.
Because he has less interest in appearing to be reasonable, appearing to be good, than any other president I have seen.
I've never seen anybody who is as openly contemptuous of the constitutional rule of law and the lives of his own people than Donald Trump.
Didn't we see that in 2020?
Trump's War Tactics00:12:58
Why did people vote for him a second time?
I don't understand it.
Don't understand it.
As I said before, I thought he was more dangerous than La La Harris because people know who La La Harris is.
She's going to try to do a lot of things and she'd wake up people and they would resist her.
Trump, on the other hand, does this stuff.
He kills people right in front of you.
Shoot them on Fifth Avenue or whatever.
Shoot them up with his vaccine.
Lock you down with martial law.
And people still give him a pass.
I think he's the most dangerous president, without a doubt, of my lifetime.
So, yeah, he lies about everything else.
But when it comes to the troops and their lives, he just doesn't care enough to lie.
So the admission by Rubio saying, well, you know, we had to do it because Israel was going to do it.
We can't ever tell them what to do, right?
I mean, we give them billions of dollars, but we have no leverage with them whatsoever.
Matt Walsh said, well, he's flat out telling us that the war with Iran is because Israel forced our hand.
Forced our hand, they basically told us what we had to do.
Iran is claiming to have shot down at least one U.S. jet, while U.S. and Kuwaiti counter-claim there's actually Kuwaiti-friendly fire.
It's kind of like to think, you didn't fire me, I quit, right?
They don't want to say that happened to them.
Meanwhile, NATO has taken a pass as if they had anything to help with.
NATO Mark Ruta, who's now head of NATO, said the alliance will not participate in the joint U.S.-Israeli mission.
The joint chiefs say that more American service members are being added to this operation.
Go die for Israel.
That's what this is about.
Disgusts me.
Robo Bank's take is paraphrased down to one single key sentence.
The U.S. strike in Iran is Trump's high-risk gamble to choke China's energy lifeline, to flip Tehran to Allied control, to open the India-Middle East-Europe corridor, weaken Russia, and lock in 21st century U.S. hegemony, delivering quick regime change and falling oil prices that cement Trumpism as a historic win.
None of that is involved.
We're doing it because Israel told us.
This grand strategy that they want to project onto Trump, none of that is going to happen, folks.
None of that.
And it wasn't his strategy anyway.
He did it because Netanyahu told him to do it.
Or here's the other alternative, says Robo Bank.
Or it could spark Middle East chaos.
Yep.
And global blowback.
Yep.
That hands Beijing an advantage in a new age of empires.
I think that second scenario is the most likely one for sure.
So reporters are still frustrated by lack of a timeline or laying out any specific objectives.
Yeah, take that to Congress.
This is why, in the wisdom of people like Jefferson and Franklin, we said, let's have a deliberation about this.
Let's discuss before we go to war what is happening.
And that's just from a pragmatic standpoint.
And then you have the legal aspect.
And then you have the overarching moral aspect of this, that you don't initiate wars.
You don't start wars.
A preemptive strike is starting a war.
That in and of itself is immoral.
It's wrong.
It's immoral to start wars.
Isn't that why everybody got fired up about Pearl Harbor and about Hitler attacking Poland and on and on?
He's starting wars.
So Hegseth, I kept asking Hegseth, can't you tell us what your plans are?
How dare you?
How dare you ask me?
He says, didn't you hear my remarks?
We are ensuring that the mission is getting accomplished.
We would never, in front of a press pool, lay out how long that may take.
And they would never lay out what the mission is.
They'll tell you what the mission is once they have decided that they've accomplished the mission, just like George W. Bush on the aircraft carrier deck.
Trump previously told the Daily Mail it'd take up to four weeks.
Well, as this commentary says, I'm Zero Hedge, a month of intense warfare will seem like a lifetime given how fast events at the blowback have been coming over the last 48 to 72 hours.
He just told CNN, we're about to hit them hard and the operation is progressing very well.
The big wave hasn't happened yet, but it will come soon.
There's now an official Pentagon casualty death count.
Gulf allies, especially Israel, are getting hit hard by Iran's significant ballistic missile arsenal.
Trump himself may now be, and only too late, realizing that he just spit off more than he can chew in ordering this ultra-risky regime change operation.
There is, as of yet, no clear endgame.
Trump has talked about reaching objectives without defining them.
Of course he would, right?
Keep it fluid.
I don't want to tell you, if he defines an objective, folks, then he runs the risk of not meeting that objective and being seen as the loser that he is.
Lucky loser, that was the name of the book that he sued the people for publishing that because they talked about how he was, it was a slot machine with Trump's face on it coming up on the three different wheels.
And, you know, he's a gambler and he doesn't win even when he's the house.
It's crazy.
Anyway, it's very predictable, very familiar.
Sounds like the 2003 Iraq war under Bush and the neocons.
Israel is taking significant casualties, at least nine dead and dozens wounded.
Hezbollah has entered the war.
Even British U.S. bases on Cyprus have come under drone attack.
Gulf nations are seeing casualties, and even other European bases in the region have come under fire.
These have been sustained, particularly on Israel.
If Trump's thinking really approached this as if it was a one-and-done Venezuela, and that after some quick salvo, a country of 90 million with a well-armed, experienced military would immediately shout uncle, he's probably already realizing that this situation is spiraling out of control far beyond his expectations.
But he was clearly and loudly warned.
Yet, it is also true that Iranian top leadership is fast being depleted.
It seems the Pentagon is already throwing the White House and Trump, however, under the bus, or at least is doing so through anonymous quotes given to the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and others.
Pentagon briefers acknowledged that Iran was not planning to strike U.S. forces or bases in the Middle East unless Israel attacked Iran first, undercutting the administration's argument Saturday that Tehran was planning to potentially strike the U.S. preemptively and posed an immediate threat, according to multiple people who attended the briefing.
Well, now we have had Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, say that.
It's not just leaks out of the Pentagon.
But the threat of a preemptive strike from Iran was not that at all.
It would have been a retaliatory attack based on Israel's preemptive attack.
So we decided we would go in and preemptively attack.
So senior administration officials told reporters on Saturday that the U.S. chose to attack Iran because it had received indications that the regime was planning to launch missile attacks against U.S. bases in the region preemptively and create a mass casualty situation.
There was no intelligence to support the administration's claim on this.
And now that has been, that was reported by CNN and by the New York Times and Washington Post.
There was no intelligence to support the idea that Iran was planning a preemptive attack.
And now Marco Rubio has said, has verified that.
Said the intelligence was that Israel was going to start the war.
So we had to get out in front of them because they won't listen to us.
They're not our ally.
They're our commander.
And so Dan Kaine, who is head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned about five different points.
He said that the war plans under consideration carried a very high risk of significant American and Allied casualties.
He cautioned that a multi-day campaign would exhaust the defense munitions and other limited supply items critical for protecting regional partners like Israel if Iran retaliated.
Again, short on ammunition, short on allies.
He said an intensive operation against Iran could deplete stockpiles to a level that would complicate U.S. readiness for potential future conflict with China.
We have to leave ourselves vulnerable.
The empire has to get vulnerable, can't protect itself because it's going to protect Israel.
But even that is called into question.
Do we even have enough missiles to protect Israel, our bases, our allies?
He described the potential campaign as one that could stretch the military thin and leave forces overtaxed.
Finally, he gave high likelihood of success.
He said, was unable to provide similar guarantees regarding a large-scale strike on Iran.
He had given a high likelihood of success when it came to Venezuela and Maduro.
You know, kidnapping a leader is a very different thing than going to war against a country the size of Iran.
And that was his point.
He said, yeah, we're going to, you know, we can certainly do this Venezuelan crime.
But in terms of starting a war with Iran, I can't guarantee that's going to be successful, said the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And of course, remember that Trump and War Pete were very careful to handpick loyalists to Trump.
They didn't want people who were going to rock the boat or going to push back against what he wanted to do.
Glenn Greenwald said that for decades, Netanyahu and American neocons have dreamed of only one foreign policy goal, having the United States fight a regime change war against Iran.
With the Oval Office occupied now by Trump, who campaigned for a full decade on a vow to end regime change wars and vanish neoconservatism, their goal has finally been realized.
They got exactly what they want.
And as Reason points out, the goalposts of the Iran war keep shifting, and you're going to see them shift.
Trump doesn't want to say what the strategy is because he's always changing his objectives.
He's always changing his orders.
You think the tariff thing was bad and chaotic?
Wait till you see the way this guy conducts a war.
Well, we're going to take a quick break before we go.
This was yesterday.
I didn't see this until the show ended.
IRS Machine Gun, thank you very much for the tip.
He said, no words can express how sick I am of this war-mongering president.
That was exactly the position I was in Sunday night when I was looking at this.
It's like, there's so much to say, so much to cover here.
I know I'm going to leave out, and I'm sure that I did, leave out some very important things here.
My contempt for Donald Trump and his regime.
I really can't put it into words.
I try, but I can't.
AP Rumble seat, as if the last few years wasn't enough via both sides of the aisle between Orange Man and Biden.
Now we're geopolitically isolated and a big red target for terrorism.
That's exactly right.
We'll be right back, folks.
Unlike most revolutions where the people rise against a real economic oppression, in our case here in Boston, we are fighting for purely an abstract principle.
It is, however, not nearly so abstract as the young gentleman supposes.
Imminent Threat to Liberty00:12:48
The issue involved here is one of monopoly.
Today, the British government will monopolize the sale of tea in our country.
Tomorrow it will be something else.
You're listening to the David Knight Show.
APS Radio delivers multiple channels of music right to your mobile device.
Get the APS Radio app today and listen wherever you go.
Welcome back.
Well, how popular is this war here in America?
Well, turns out not very popular.
A Reuters poll taken on Sunday shows only 27% of Americans support the U.S. attacking Iran.
43% of Americans oppose the war.
Another poll, it was 25% support, 59% opposed.
And as a matter of fact, if you look at this article from Free Thought Project, it said, here are 29 polls showing that Americans do not want war with Iran.
War with Iran is arguably the most unpopular foreign policy proposal of the last 40 years.
And in this very long article, I won't go through all the details, but they go through one poll after the other, and it's not even close.
Again, when you look at it, it's underwater.
And a lot of the, the very first one they've got here, underwater by 53%.
People, you know, 53% more people do not want the war than want the war.
Marjorie Taylor Greene calls out Vance and Gabbard for previous opposition to the war with Iran.
I played the clips yesterday of Tulsi Gabbard.
And of course, we had Stephen Miller saying, you know, hey, young guys, if you don't want to go to war for Biden, you better vote for Trump.
Well, how's that working out for you?
Marjorie Taylor Greene called them out.
She said, Vance and Gabbard, you both need to speak out against this war in Iran.
People are paying attention, very close attention.
Silence won't cut it.
You are both on record repeatedly, publicly, loudly against going to war with Iran.
Our friend Charlie Kirk was adamantly against war with Iran.
You cannot be silent.
Americans are dying.
You both know this is not what we campaign for, and this is 100% what we said would not happen.
We said, I said, you said, no more foreign wars, no more regime change.
All we wanted was America first.
This is not it.
You know, part of what Charlie Kirk was saying, and again, it was about the pragmatism, and it was about, I think we need to stop calling these people neocons.
There's nothing conservative about them.
They're just con men and women.
But they're really warmongers.
They sell war.
They profit from war.
That is their raison debt.
That is how they get and stay in office.
They do whatever it takes for the Machiavellian industrial complex.
And that's really what it's about.
It's about selling war.
And one of the things that Charlie Kirk said, he said, well, you know, we have, on the other hand, we have Ron Paul.
And, you know, I know these people can be isolationists, but, you know, that's kind of a pejorative term.
We shouldn't really call them.
They're really kind of looking at these things.
And we should be cautious about it because of the practical history.
You know, look at how this has worked out for us.
This neocon stuff is not working out.
He says, as a matter of fact, it's been such an epic failure.
We just need to reject that philosophy.
It's not to say that we need to jump into isolationism with both feet.
But that is really closer to what we want to look at.
Look, it's not Ron Paul.
I saw that and I wanted to say to Charlie Kirk, it's like, it's not just Ron Paul.
It was George Washington.
It was the founders of this country.
And for generations, they said, we don't go abroad seeking monster destroy.
We don't want to have foreign entanglements with other nations and get drawn into their wars and to fight their wars for them, like we did for Israel in this particular case.
This is a foreign entanglement that has drawn us into a war with Iran.
It's classic.
We knew about that.
Instead, what do we want?
We want peace and we want commerce with all countries.
Trump doesn't want commerce.
He wants conflict.
And he's done that from the very beginning.
It's all about ego politics.
There's no geopolitics in this at all.
It's all about his ego.
It's about intimidation.
It's a mafia approach to government.
He wants to be king of the world.
He wants these people about him to kiss his ring.
It's very destructive, very chaotic.
As I said, he is a one-man fourth-turning.
Depression and World War.
Gabbard ran a presidential campaign and made No More Regime Change Wars, a major plankover campaign.
She was also highly critical of Trump's escalations against Iran, which included the January, Excuse me.
The January 2020 killing of the Iranian general Soleimani.
Which is why I say, why are people surprised about anything like this that Trump does?
Look at what he did throughout 2020.
Look at what he did with Iran and an assassination.
It used to be that assassinations were considered to be evil because they are evil.
But somewhere along the way, we got brainwashed by all the James Bond movies.
This is very clearly an act of war.
Excuse me.
Gabbard said at the time, the assassination of Soleimani, this is clearly an act of war by this president without any kind of authorization or declaration of war from Congress.
Clearly violating the Constitution, said Gabbard.
Trump also launched the current war with Iran without any authorization from Congress.
But it's all different now because now he gave her a job.
He gave her a job.
That's all it takes, right?
For her to sell out the Constitution.
Vance warned against the idea of a war with the Islamic Republic.
He said, our interest, I think, is very much in not going to war with Iran.
It would be a huge distraction of resources.
It would be massively expensive to our country, he said.
Green came out strongly against the U.S. attack on Iran hours after they began on Saturday and has cited Trump's overseas interventions and support for Israel as it's committing atrocities in Gaza as one of the reasons for her falling out with the president and her recent resignation.
So again, why did they do it?
Well, Marco Rubio went to Congress and he told them.
He said, the U.S. launched preemptive strikes against Iran after learning that Israel was about to attack.
American troops in the region faced an imminent threat of retaliation, said Rubio.
So we had to do, we had to react to what Israel was going to do because Israel doesn't care what is our interest.
They have absolutely no loyalty or respect for the United States.
Just take a look at the Jonathan Pollard example, the betrayal of the spying, and then selling very damaging secrets to the Russians.
Sorry, let me clear my throat here.
Rubio made the revelation on Capitol Hill where he briefed a small group of congressional leaders, the so-called Gang of Eight.
There was absolutely an imminent threat, he said.
The imminent threat was from Israel.
The imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked and we believed that they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us.
And we were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded.
So, because we can't have any control over Israel and they have nothing but contempt for the well-being of the United States, we had to defend ourselves by attacking.
Rubio said the Department of War determined that a defensive posture following an Israeli attack would only open the U.S. to more casualties.
He said, We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting higher damage.
What?
Or well-in double-speak?
We went proactively in a preemptive attack defensively.
That's the same thing you heard from Japan.
Secretary Rubio's remarks indicate that Israel put U.S. forces in harm's way by insisting on attacking Iran, said Congressman Joaquim Castro.
And the administration was complicit, joining their war rather than talking them down, because evidently we have no leverage with them, right?
They control Trump and Rubio and Congress.
Matt Walsh said, so he's fight out telling us that we're at war with Iran because Israel forced our hand.
This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said.
So how about we tell Israel what to do for a while, right?
Can't do that.
Iran had already pre-positioned its missiles and had them ready on alert, said Rubio.
He didn't specify where the missiles were aiming or which U.S. targets would have been within range.
The small cadre of lawmakers being briefed on Monday is referred to as the Gang of Eight, comprised of the leaders of both parties in the House and Senate and their respective intelligence committee chairman because the intelligence agencies are the true government of this country.
And they're the ones who get us into wars.
So he had people like Mike Johnson, Hakeem Jeffries, John Thune, Chuck Schumer, and then the House Intelligence Committee chairman and ranking members of both parties.
Democrats across both chambers have decried the Trump administration for not informing them and not informing lawmakers of the impending military action against Iran.
Rubio said, Well, there's no law that requires us to do that.
Look at how Marco Rubio perverts and inverts the Constitution.
He says, the law says we have to notify them 48 hours after beginning hostilities.
We've done that.
And I think the notification went today, but did notify members of Congress, but we did notify members of Congress in advance.
We can't notify 535 members of Congress, he said.
Well, that's not what the Constitution says.
The Constitution says 535 members notify you if you're allowed to do this.
They decide whether or not a war should start.
If the war starts, then it's up to you to conduct it.
But they decide when the war starts, not you.
We don't want to have all that power with one individual.
And of course, the founders understood that.
They said the executive branch is the ones most likely to get us into a war.
We have seen that now over and over again.
He said, we've complied 100% with the law, and we're going to continue to comply with it.
You can't trust anything that these people say.
Everything they say is a lie.
Everything they say is a perversion.
Everything they say is about ignoring the Constitution and doing whatever they wish.
One Individual's Power00:02:56
Well, we're going to take a quick break, folks.
And, well, I've got a couple of comments here I'll cover here before we take a break.
This is from High Boost.
He said, there is no strategy.
Trump is doing what BB says and wants, and that's why there is no directive.
They don't even know what they're doing.
That's right.
I'll let you know when I find out.
Audi, MRR, good to see you.
He says, Trump showed us who he was in his first term.
I have no idea why people thought that the guy who effed up America to an unprecedented level of F-up was somehow going to be America's savior.
Yeah, I've never seen or even imagined that a president would lock down a country and say, you got to stay locked down until I get a vaccine.
I knew what Dark Winter was about.
I just didn't think they'd be able to pull it off, honestly.
I didn't think the American people would go along with it.
I didn't go along with it.
And I know many of you didn't go along with it.
I couldn't understand how complicit and passive the American sheeple were with all this stuff.
And it was one of the most evil things I've ever seen in my life.
One of the most evil things ever.
Well, we're going to take a quick break.
Be right back sounds of
Motown.
Find them on the Oldies channel at APSRadio.com.
People Who Sent Checks00:03:10
Well, before I continue with the program, I just want to take a moment and thank those who produce this program, those who provide the money to keep it going.
These are the checks that we received in the last week of February.
And I just want to say to people, just to give you an idea of where we are, we wound up at 7-8, which was, as I said before, it's kind of my fault because they didn't talk about any of this stuff until late in the month.
And so we got caught up toward the end of the month, and we really appreciate the people who sent us contributions.
David and Anne Marie N., Jeremy W., Jackie and Fred U, Matthew H., Johnny S. Sellers family, Kelly and Philip M. Dane D., Tom and Nancy K, Peter G., Marty T. of I'm Marty, and Karen B., Karen C., Jeffrey and Cynthia C., Stephen C., Dale L., Gonzalo and Susan M.,
Lois L., Gary B, Tim S, and Doug E. Thank you so much.
We appreciate your contribution.
These are the people who sent us checks.
If you'd like to know how to support the program, we have the post office box address at davidknight.news.
And we also have the places where you can find the program that's not behind a firewall, paywall.
We don't put it behind a paywall anywhere, but if you do get some of the sites like Subscribestar or Substack, there's an additional aspect there.
There's no commercials if you get the audio. of the program that's there.
And you also get articles that Travis posts up, articles that we cover the links to them in case you want to go do your own research and find that information there.
So we have listed the places where you can find the show live, where you can find the video and audio archives to listen to it however you would like.
And it's a good thing to go there and to find those links because sometimes there's shadow banning that is happening on some of these platforms and it can be difficult to find the show.
So go to davidknight.news to find the links to the show, davidknight.news to find the links to where you can support the show.
Let's talk a little bit about the regime change because this is real quickly before we do want to remind people that we do have sponsors who support the show.
Yes.
And a really good one is Homestead Products.shop.
You can go there.
Their products are high quality and made in America.
They do their best to make sure that you're getting the best quality products you can.
And right now they've got on sale their two Citronella tea lights.
They're great for indoor or outdoors, especially outdoors because they will keep the bugs away.
You may not have seen them because of the cold, but they are coming.
So if you want to stock up on some Citronella tea lights, you can go to Homestead Products.shop right now.
They're on sale and you can pick up a couple of them.
So please go support Homestead Products.shop.
It helps support the show and it hopefully gets you something that will help you.
They've got all kinds of different products there.
That's right.
As Trump said, a big wave is coming.
Supreme Succession Risks00:13:25
He's talking a military attack on Iran.
But of course, there's a big wave of bugs that are coming as soon as the weather warms up.
And so you can sit out there with your mesquite barbecue starters that he also has there.
And I think it's a great use of mesquite.
Otherwise, it's just kind of blowing around in everybody's way.
But, you know, that's one way to handle it.
And so you can get your mesquite, start your barbecue grill, and fire up the citronella candles to keep the bugs away.
So thank you, Homestead Products.shop.
And briefly, you can go and get 10% off with the code night at homesteadproducts.shop and 10% off the trends journal with code night.
And of course, there is davidknight.gold.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
And let's not forget rncstore.com.
You can get 10% off of books as well as products, books to educate you about cancer and some natural treatments for it.
And you can get the natural treatments for it there at rncstore.com and save 10% off there as well with the code NIT.
Let's talk a little bit about regime change.
The Iranian state media has now confirmed that the supreme leader, why don't we start calling that?
Give Trump that title, all right?
King just doesn't get you there.
Of course, Shah was the Persian word for king, but I think, you know, I think Maga and Trump would be happy with supreme leader.
Anyway, the supreme leader is dead now.
And 86-year-old Ayatollah, who had ruled Iran for 36 years, as I said before, he was actually there for 36 years, eight months.
The Shah was in power for 37 years and six months.
So again, about another 10 months longer than the Shah was there.
And I looked at it, and part of what's going on with this is he wasn't just a political leader, but he was also a religious leader.
I look a little bit into the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims, because these are two main sects of Muslims.
And the Sunnis are about 90 to 85%, which means that the Shia are about 10 to 15% of Muslims, which is equivalent to about 300 to 500 million Shias.
And they look at this guy who had this office, they look at him in a sense, as some people have said, kind of like a Pope for the Catholics.
There is a sense of succession that they have for this.
They believe, and this is part of the difference between the Shias and the Sunnis.
The Shias are more like they have, they don't necessarily, the Shias identify a line of secession, but the Sunnis are basically focused on collective community and debate in terms of coming up with a consensus for how they're going to interpret their Islamic law.
And the Shias are saying, well, we want people who are in a line of succession going back to Muhammad and they're going to decide who this next supreme ruler is going to be.
It is kind of a thing when you look at it, it is very much like the Shah, the king.
I can see why they would have both of these authoritarian leaders in, because you've got some guy who is basically in this line of succession.
Again, they're talking about the Shah's son as if he's a possibility to put in there.
I don't think that's going to work, basically.
Who knows?
That might be part of the plan that Netanyahu has for Trump to do.
We'll have to wait and see.
But Khomeini was one of the world's longest-serving authoritarian rulers, but not as long-serving as the Shah.
Again, about another 10 months for the Shah.
Khomeini took power in 1989 following the death of the Ayatollah who was there with the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini.
And I think this guy's name is like Khomeini or something instead of Khomeini.
They almost look the same, but they're two different people.
And so there was a really old Ayatollah who took over in 1989 the revolution that dethroned the Shah.
This guy was there for 36 plus years.
As supreme leader, he held authority over the judiciary, the state media, and over all security forces.
Sounds just like the Shah, doesn't it?
He wielded that power ruthlessly against dissent.
Thousands of protesters were killed under his watch during the most recent crackdown.
Again, sounds like the Shah.
The Shah and his secret police, the SAVAC, created and trained by the CIA and Mossad.
Iran's exiled former crown prince, Reza Pavlavi, a leading opposition leader who has organized mass protests against regime, also called for the Iranian people to take to the streets.
The question I have when I ever look at this, everybody talks about the Ayatollahs and they're horrible, right?
And very repressive, very totalitarian.
But nobody talks about how repressive and totalitarian the Shah was.
And my only thinking on this is that the press takes so much of their direction and information from the CIA, and the CIA put that king in.
Well, what is next?
As people are asking, what's next for Iran after Khomeini is dead?
This person writing on RT says, as a researcher of Middle Eastern politics, I can't treat such actions as a surgical strike.
They amount to the demolition of constraints that once, however imperfectly, made the international arena at least somewhat predictable.
And this is the folly of Stephen Miller and his ilk.
The idea that, hey, every country, every country's borders are up for grabs.
And if you can't defend it, you can't keep it.
We're going to take Greenland.
We're going to do this.
We're going to go after Cuba next and all the rest of the stuff.
There's just this endless list of conflict and chaos that Stephen Miller and the Trump regime want.
And that's the reality of all this stuff.
Yeah, the Shah was evil and Khomeini was evil, but you knew where these guys were.
It was predictable and you could work around that to try to maintain peace internationally.
He says the physical elimination of a state's top leader, an assassination, is an acceptable policy tool, if it is, then law becomes stage scenery rather than an organizing principle.
And that's really where we are with the Trump regime.
Law is just scenery, and it only applies if they like the law.
If they don't like the law, they ignore it.
That's the hallmark of a dictator.
Dictator says the law is in my mouth.
It's whatever I dictate, whatever I say.
So rules only apply when they serve the strong, and they can be set aside when they do not.
This in a nutshell is Stephen Miller and Donald Trump.
Against that backdrop, reports of a strike on a girls' primary school has been absorbed with particular bitterness in Iran.
Whether there'll be any clear moral judgment at all or whether the tragedy will dissolve into cautious phrasing and familiar rituals of justification whenever responsibility falls on U.S. allies, again, this is part of the problem that they have.
While they want to focus on how precise and surgical their strikes are and the decapitation, taking out the leaders and all that sort of thing, then that kind of works against the idea that, hey, this is just an accident and, you know, the fog of war and all that.
You know, we have unintended casualties during war.
Well, it really does undermine that narrative that it was just accidental collateral damage killing all these schoolgirls when you drone on and on about your decapitation surgical strikes.
In moments like this, emotion risks becoming policy.
The loss of a figure of this scale, talking about the Ayatollah again now, will not be experienced only as a political development.
For many Shiite communities beyond Iran's border, it will register as a symbolic wound.
And we may see that the Shiites hit the fan in many, many countries.
Like I said, it's like 10 to 15% of all the Muslims, and you just basically killed their religious leader, not just the guy who was the political leader of Iran and not very well liked either in that capacity.
So this can sharpen anti-Israeli sentiment.
It can widen the line of confrontation with the West.
The subtle arithmetic of vengeance that turns outrage into recruitment.
And when you look at this shooter in Austin, I don't know if anybody has looked at his background to see if he is a Shiite Muslim.
That might have been his motivation.
He was not from Iran.
He was from, I think, was it Senegal?
Did you remember that, Travis?
I heard Senegal, but I didn't confirm.
But, you know, he could have very well have been a Shiite Muslim.
So the pattern of strikes, the framing of the campaign are widely interpreted as an attempt to deprive Iran of both mind and heart, systematically removing the upper tiers of decision-making.
The strategic wager is clear.
Disrupt succession, provoke the elite fragmentation, and paralyze government at the very moment that the state is at its most vulnerable.
But those who imagine Iran as a structure held up by one man underestimate the degree to which the Islamic Republic has been changed under these siege conditions for several decades.
Over decades of sanctions, covert action, and external threats have developed institutional redundancies and continuity mechanisms precisely to survive shocks.
In systems that have lived under permanent threat, succession planning is a survival mechanism.
Reuters reports say Ayatollah Rafi has been appointed as the jurist member of the leadership council.
He's not the Jewish member.
I don't have a Jewish Ayatollah.
Tasked with temporarily carrying out the Supreme Leader's duties.
It is a signal that the system intends to have no vacuum, even under bombardment, and to lock in transition framework that Iran's constitutional logic provides.
Politically, he is a figure rooted in the clerical milieu while simultaneously embedded in the state's institutional circuitry.
You're not going to see much of a change there, quite frankly.
Regime change decapitation is rarely, however, about one person.
It's about preventing the body from finding another head.
Looks around and trying different heads on, I guess, for size.
Finally, hovering over every successful scenario is a security establishment, and that in Iran is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
External assessments cited by Reuters suggest that the aftermath may produce not dilution, but consolidation.
Strategies of decapitation frequently yield an adverse effect, an inverse effect.
The higher the pressure, the higher the probability of accelerated consolidation, tightening of ranks, and a harsher survival mode.
People are in existential threat mode, right?
It's either kill or be killed.
The gravest danger in the current U.S.-Israeli course is that the attempt to finish Iran by eroding governability and disabling institutions may open the door to a future drenched in blood and ruin.
The history of the region recently, modern times, has repeatedly shown that dismantling a state from the outside rarely yields a clean outcome.
More often, it unleashes cycles of violence, fragmentation, and revenge, paid for not by decision makers, but by ordinary families, neighborhoods, and children.
Even those who imagine that collapse will deliver liberation tend to discover that the vacuum does not remain empty.
It fills with militias, with vendettas, with economies of predation, with leaders who rise, listen to this, not because they can govern, but because they can hurt.
Send Baron to War00:14:45
Right?
And say, I just want you to get even with those guys over there.
So what Trump and his idiots have done is just kick the ant bed here and make them angry and put them in survival mode.
And when I look at what has been happening with the massive, you know, the iron fist that the Ayatollah hit these protests with, it was something that some Christian organizations have been involved in it.
They said, this is an opportunity for us to A, help other people, and in doing so, to give them the gospel.
And there was an organization that was helping to equip them and train them in terms of giving medical help and other things like that.
Those people are going to have a target on their back right now.
Thanks to Trump, thanks to the Pentagon.
Whenever they go into Middle Eastern country and kick the antbed, this is what always happens.
It winds up being the extinction of all the Christians in the area.
This is another part of their policy that happens reliably and continuously each time they do this kind of stuff.
Well, we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back.
Making sense.
Common again.
You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Whether you're feeling like the blues or Blue Grass, APS Radio has you covered.
Check out a wide variety of channels on our app at apsradio.com.
Well, guess what Lindsey Graham has been doing the last few days?
I mean, this guy must be partying and celebrating like he's never done before.
He is so excited, one war after the other.
And he thinks that Donald Trump is the greatest president he's ever seen, just as I think he's the worst president I have ever seen.
So Lindsey Graham is out there taunting Cuba, saying, you're next.
He said that after Venezuela as well.
He said to Cuba, you're next.
And so Lindsey Graham unloaded a sharp threat against Cuba after Operation Epic Fury.
As a matter of fact, I saw a meme where they had Kash Patel dressed up in a furry costume and he's sitting at his table with everybody else in suits.
And he said, I thought you said it was Operation Furry.
Anyway, appearing on Sunday night, America with Trey Gowdy, Graham told Trey Gowdy that Trump must finish the job that Reagan failed to do.
It wasn't just Reagan.
Pretty much every president has had a chip on their shoulder about Cuba.
Cuba?
He praised Trump's moves to strike Iran and Venezuela before it.
He issued a stark threat toward Cuba.
Cuba's next.
They're going to foul.
This communist dictator in Cuba, their days are numbered, said Lindsey.
Then he loved up on Trump some more.
I have admired you.
I have never admired you more than I do right now.
He loves him.
That's kind of creepy out.
If you're a heterosexual, I guess.
Anyway, Charlie Kirk in terms of, I played that early in the program.
He said, Lindsey Graham is absolutely insane.
He is.
He's deranged.
He's crazy.
Certifiably so.
I mean, if you keep doing the same stuff over and over again, expecting different results, you are crazy.
He's a crazy murdering SOB, really, Lindsey Graham is.
So I'm here to tell you that Donald Trump, in my opinion, is the gold standard for Republicans, maybe for any president when it comes to foreign policy.
Now, what does that tell you about Donald Trump?
All right.
Neocon extraordinaire.
Here's the guy who, if you look up the word neocon in the dictionary, you're going to see Lindsey Graham there, right?
And he thinks that the gold standard for Republicans and for any president is Donald Trump.
In other words, the neocon, the leading neocon, says that the best neocon of all is Donald Trump.
Trump, I have admired you.
I never admired you more than I do right now.
Graham has made similar threats against Cuba before, telling reporters aboard Air Force One in January, you just wait for Cuba.
Cuba is a communist dictatorship.
It's killed priests and nuns.
They've preyed on their own people.
Their days are numbered.
Have we done a lot of that as well?
A Friday before the Iran strike, Trump flouted the idea of a quote-unquote friendly takeover of Cuba to reporters outside the White House.
A friendly takeover?
He says, they don't have anything right now, but they're talking with us, and maybe we'll have a friendly takeover of Cuba.
Yeah, like a friendly takeover of Greenland or Canada or any of this other nonsense.
We could very well end up having a friendly takeover of Cuba after many, many years, he said.
Well, again, hostile takeover is really more like it, especially if we're looking at Graham, because he is hostile to everybody and everyone.
Washington has aggressively tightened its economic stranglehold on Cuba.
Isn't that nice and friendly?
Bless their hearts.
Pressuring Venezuela's new acting president, Del C Rodriguez, to cut off oil exports to the island.
The move has strangled Cuba's already struggling economy, compounding severe fuel and food shortages that are there.
The saber rattling from Washington comes just days after a deadly shootout at sea between Cuban Coast Guard and armed men in a boat allegedly stolen from Florida.
That's the first I've seen that they said the boat was stolen.
But again, these guys are, you know, there is a mania amongst ex-Cubans to take over Cuba.
This is yet another one of these instances.
The incident, which left Ford, has further inflamed tensions, and Cuba has accused the U.S. of failing to curb the militancy of exile groups in the American soil who seek to overthrow the government of Havana.
Cuban deputy foreign minister stated that the incident was not isolated, but part of a 60-year pattern of attacks and countless terrorist attacks organized, financed, and carried out from the territory of the United States.
Well, I mean, that absolutely is true.
I would go back and look at the Bay of Pigs and other things like that.
And in terms of aggression, I think the most aggressive thing that I ever saw Cuba do to the United States, they've been horrific with their own people.
They've confiscated the property of a lot of people who fled Cuba.
But I think probably the worst thing that happened was the release of all these criminals that Castro did who made their way to Florida.
And that was, I'm trying to remember, was it Mario Boltla?
Anyway, there was a ton of unsavory characters who were unleashed by Castro.
That's about the worst thing that I saw done to the United States.
I understand internally what Castro did to people that were there.
Stephen Miller, if young men don't want to be drafted to fight in Kamala's and Cheney's Third World War, they better get out and vote for Trump, he said.
Well, no, I think your best bet, that didn't work, did it?
I think your best bet is to get adopted by Donald Trump.
Maybe if you're one of his children, you don't have to go to war.
There's a hashtag out there.
I mentioned this yesterday about Baron.
There's a hashtag now, Send Baron.
It's always rich man's war, poor man's fight.
That was a phrase from the Civil War.
You know, when I played Shenandoah earlier, I always think about That movie, whenever I talk about war, and how the character played by Jimmy Stewart and that, how his family did not want to get involved on either side, but they got drawn into this senseless conflict, and people on both sides kidnapped, killed his children, and that.
And that's the way it goes.
There's always rich man's war, poor man's fight.
Baron is a good example of this.
The hashtag send Baron is trending on social media as a satirical website calls for Trump to deploy his youngest son into the military.
The website, draftbarontrump.com, was set up by a former South Park writer amid Operation Epic Fury, which has seen the U.S. and Israel launch extensive airstrikes against Iran.
At least, they say here, at least four American servicemen is now up to six and counting, have been killed.
Trump has been accused of appearing indifferent toward those deaths, shrugging them off as a reality of war and warning that the U.S. death toll could get quite a bit higher.
Hey, folks, that's just the way it is for you little people.
Get used to it.
Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Death.
During brief remarks at a Medal of Honor ceremony in the wake of the attacks, the president spoke about his plans for the ballroom in the White House.
He has the same thing he did in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death.
Yeah, wasn't that a horrible thing?
Hey, did I tell you about my ballroom?
Let's talk about that.
He's basically doing the same thing yet again.
Toby Morton, a comedian and former South Park writer who runs dozens of political parody sites, recently made headlines for scooping the TrumpKennedyCenter.org and TrumpKennedyCenter.com domains and using them to troll the president who wanted to put his name above the Kennedy center that was there.
If you're looking for proven genes, inherited courage, and unquestionable resolve, look no further than the Trump family.
Leadership starts somewhere.
That's what he put on his website.
And of course, a lot of people have been trolling the Trumps with all this stuff.
When we look at, we've got this AI animated picture that they had of Donald standing there with Baron between him and Melania.
And this is a quote from the website, the parody website.
People come up to me with tears in their eyes and they say, Sir, you're the strongest.
Send Baron off to war and so forth.
So what we did was we put that in the AI to do Donald Trump's voice and combine that with the AI video that's out there.
We got this.
People come up to me with tears in their eyes and they say, Sir, you're the strongest.
Send Barron off to war.
I've always been strong, very strong, stronger than anyone expected.
Some say the strongest ever, and strength matters.
Believe me.
I'm sorry, son.
It was me or you.
And my bone spurs still hurt.
My baby!
As a matter of fact, yeah, the bone spur stuff.
That's what got him off of the Vietnam War draft.
And the daughter of the podiatrist that wrote him the doctor's excuse.
I'm sorry, Donald Trump can't go to Vietnam.
He's got bone spurs.
He's got to stay home.
said that it was always a family joke.
They always laughed about it, how he did it as a favor to Trump's father.
POTUS is chilling at his own country club while starting World War III.
Hashtag send Baron.
And again, the person who talks about that is Dr. Alyssa Bronstein and Sharon Kessel, the daughters of a Queen's podiatrist, Dr. Larry Bronstein, who provided the bone spur diagnosis.
He later told the New York Times it was a favor from their father to Trump's father, who was his landlord.
But it looks like Baron might actually have a legitimate excuse.
He's too tall for the military.
They have a cutoff of 6'6 in the Marines, and the other branches of the military have a cutoff of 6'8.
Baron is already 6'9.
I don't know if he's still growing or not.
So again, he's too tall for the military.
They can't fit him in the tanks or planes, I guess.
So bone spurs for Donnie and a growth spurt for Baron.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu's son also doesn't have to go.
Rich man's war, poor man's fight.
And this article is talking about how this is a UK Express.
People are so concerned that he's very vulnerable living in Miami.
Netanyahu's Son's Duty00:02:55
Well, maybe not as vulnerable as if he went to war.
He's got a lot of security people that are around him all the time, I'm sure.
Benjamin Netanyahu's 34-year-old son, Yair, has been living in Miami while Israeli soldiers mobilize, sparking outrage among troops and security warnings from experts.
And so again, Trump's son doesn't have to go.
Netanyahu's son doesn't have to go.
You'll have to go.
And you'll have to hope that the attacks don't come to our shores as well.
So he's supposedly engaged in non-profit charity work.
Maybe he works for the Clinton Foundation.
What do you think?
In Florida, while approximately 360,000 reserve soldiers have been mobilized to join the Israeli army in the war against Iran, temporarily abandoning their responsibilities.
I don't know that it's an excuse if you're going to get drafted in Israel to say, I've got some charitable work that I need to do.
He's certainly being protected by Mossad, who are watching him, near him.
If they don't want to have him know that they're around, they won't be visible.
But I'm sure that they are watching him.
I think it's foolish for him to be here, said one person.
He should be doing his duty in Israel, and that the prime minister's family is as much a part of what is required to defend their country as for anybody else.
In March, Shinbet confirmed that it handles security for Netanyahu's wife and sons.
Though it remains uncertain whether protection continues while Yair is in the U.S.
Oh, you know it does.
I think it's a huge mistake from the perspective of Israel, from the perspective of symbolism, that he is not serving and he is not doing his duty in the military.
The situation has sparked fury among Israeli soldiers who say that he should be contributing to the war effort.
You know, even the royal family tried to keep up appearances.
You know, they would have Andrew, not Andrew, but what's the other guy's name that married the American Charles?
Andrew?
No, Charles.
I don't remember these people.
I can't remember.
The red-headed guy, the son, one of the two sons of Diana.
Anyway, they had him join the military.
And they love to take pictures of these guys in uniform to show everybody that, hey, the royal family is a part of this as well.
But not the royal family in America.
They don't even try to pretend.
It's us who are leaving our work, said one person in Israel, to protect our families back home.
Not the people who are responsible for this situation.
Rich man's war, poor man's fight, poor man's death.
Our brothers, our fathers, our sons are all going to the front line, but Yair is not here.
It doesn't help to build trust in the leadership of our country.
Well, again, Trump made his announcement.
They did the attack was at night, but it's during the day in Iran.
Trump's Expensive Fundraiser00:02:52
He recorded an eight-minute video, and then he went back to their fundraising party in Mar-Lago, a very expensive fundraiser that was happening there.
And you've got an article here from Media talking about how he made that transition very easily.
Just amazing how difficult it is to be the commander-in-chief, and then all of a sudden you got to go to a party, right?
Anyway, he says, I always liked gold, he said, when he was making his speech there and his entrance at the massive ballroom.
He says, so we're ahead of schedule as he started as he pivoted after talking a little bit about the war that he just started and how he just set the Mideast on fire.
Then he starts talking about his massive ballroom that he's building near the White House.
He said, so we're ahead of schedule there by a lot.
But please join me in thanking every American service member who bravely is standing in harm's way, he said.
And we have a lot, a lot of great service members here with us in this big, beautiful building.
Isn't it beautiful?
We've added onto that building a little bit.
We're improving the building.
See those nice drapes?
It's about a year and a half from now, and you're going to see a very beautiful building.
There's your entrance to it right there.
Looks so nice.
I think I'll save money on the doors because you can't get more beautiful than that.
I picked those drapes in my first term.
I always liked gold.
It'll be spectacular.
The most beautiful, I believe, because I have built many a ballroom.
This is the idiot who is leading this country into chaos, war, and global depression.
Just amazing.
They're picking out drapes and talking about it.
No wonder Lindsey Graham likes them.
Maybe they can talk about their clothing and their interior decorating.
They could get onto Broadway shows that they've loved.
I don't know.
After talking about the ballroom, Trump finally got to the quote reason that we're gathered here this morning to recognize the unsurpassed courage of three really incredible American heroes.
One living and two no longer with us, he said.
Yeah.
Well, Trump parties at a flashy gala on Friday night while the troops are warned that they may die in Iran.
Again, he hosted this in Friday night at Mar-a-Lago.
It was a charity, a nonprofit called Place of Hope, which describes itself as a faith-based organization providing care for children and families in South Florida.
I wonder if it's any connection to Paula White.
She just had a statement where she, she's a faith healer that's out there.
She says, I'm not going to start healing any of you people until you get up to the contribution of what was she trying to get?
Insider Trading Suspicions00:06:45
It's like tens of thousands of dollars.
And it was for a charity that was there.
But she was scolding people that she was not going to start praying for them until they started coughing up some cash.
Truly was amazing.
I'm looking for the article here, but I wasn't planning on talking about that just yet.
And I don't have that article here.
So we will get back to circle back to that at some point here.
But let's talk a little bit about the morality of this.
And let's begin with the people who profiteered not off of a fundraiser party in Mar-a-Lago, but who profiteered off the polymarket where people go to bet.
You know, there's a lot of talk about this.
As I pointed out last Wednesday, they had the Jerusalem Post had run a test with four of the most prominent large language models, AI, asking them, when's the war going to start?
And I said at the time, I said, they could have just asked Netanyahu.
He's the one who's going to decide when the war starts.
And how about that?
Rubio has confirmed that it was Netanyahu who made the decision.
Nevertheless, some people made a lot of money off of this.
Anonymous polymarket account won $1.2 million on Trump's Iran strikes in a very suspicious bet.
People were commenting on this and said, it's insane that this is legal.
We got people around Trump who are profiting off of war and death.
The same thing was done with a strike on Venezuela.
Everybody could see that it was coming.
I mean, it's not hard to guess that it's coming when he sends aircraft carrier groups parked off of the coast.
But it's been less than eight months, sorry, eight weeks since an anonymous account on Polymarket netted over $400,000 after successfully predicting the Trump administration's invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro.
The mysterious betder doubled down on their wager mere hours before the U.S. aircraft launched the offensive, which led to at least 80 civilian and military casualties.
And so they doubled down on the bet just a few hours before it happened.
It was an extremely suspicious situation, making it look like it was somebody who had some inside information in the Trump regime.
So now the Trump administration has attacked Iran.
The situation is looking even worse.
According to blockchain analytics company, Bubble Maps SA, six polymarket accounts made around $1.2 million in profit after successfully betting on the U.S. striking Iran by the end of February, suggesting that an ethically appalling scheme is spreading behind closed doors.
All six accounts were created last month, and they exclusively bet on when Trump would strike the sovereign nation.
So this is somebody who maybe they were involved in polymarket before, but they create a new account that they hope is not going to be traced back to them to trade on insider information.
That's why, you know, when you look at things like polymarket, it's going to be a lot of insider trading, people who know what's going to happen with that.
So the bets were made mere hours before the first bombs fell on Iran's capital.
It is insane that this is legal, said Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, in a post on Blue Sky.
He said, people around Trump are profiting off of war and death.
I'm going to introduce legislation as soon as possible to ban this.
Beyond these suspicious accounts, many other users were sucked into the fervor of betting on bloodshed in Iran.
Polymarket saw trading volumes for a single contract about the timing of Trump's strikes balloon to just shy of $90 million.
Prediction markets are some of the first products that allow direct bets on geopolitical events.
Polymarket facilitating anonymous betting through the use of cryptocurrencies, making instances of insider trading difficult to identify, let alone to police.
So you create a new account, you fund it with crypto, and then you get paid off in crypto.
And they can't tell that you are somebody who's inside the Trump administration or somebody who's inside the Pentagon who is profiteering off of this.
But really, how different is this than what the Republicans and Democrats do on a regular basis?
You know, look at Lindsey Graham.
Look at a lot of these other war sellers, these warmers.
Is this bet on Polymarket really any different than that?
Combined with the fact that Polymarket generally only requires a wallet in order to trade some kind of a crypto wallet, which allows for a high level of anonymity.
This can create incentives for participants to act early and to do insider trading.
Meanwhile, Polymarket's biggest competitor, Kalchi, which is regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, requires users to verify their identities and has taken a notably different approach.
Just last week, the company cracked down on a video editor named Artem Kaptur, who works for James Mr. Beast Donaldson, YouTube's most popular content creator.
They accused him of insider trading and they fined him over $20,000.
So Polymarket's main trading platform is operating from outside of the U.S.
And it's technically not open to U.S.-based customers after the CFTC fined the company $1.4 million during former President Joe Biden's term in 2022 for operating an unregistered derivatives market.
So again, of course, polymarket bet could have been done by somebody in Israel, yet, you know, the connection to similar things that happened in Venezuela might argue for something that is happening.
People connected with the Pentagon or the Trump administration.
Those are two different events, though.
I mean, you could still had somebody do insider trading on the Venezuela thing.
It could be a different group of people.
It could even be people in Israel who were trading on Polymarket.
It could have been one of those lethality maxers that are around Pete Hegseth, you know, and all that trendy stuff.
Different Events, Same Questions00:06:40
Well, the attack on Iran was moral, says the U.S. to the UN Security Council.
Really?
I would say that if it is preemptive, that if you haven't been attacked, you are starting the war.
Full stop.
That is not moral to start wars.
And actually we had, let's see, do I have that in here?
I didn't put that in here.
Actually had Melania Trump opening up the U.N. Security Council.
How in the world does she have that kind of, what does she have to say about all this stuff?
So again, as Trump went down his lists of Iranian history, as I pointed out yesterday, He talks about the Iranian Revolution, what happened in 1979, but he left out the American CIA revolution, the coup of 1953.
He talked about the authoritarian totalitarian government of the Ayatollahs, but he didn't talk about the totalitarian, authoritarian government of the Shahs.
In 1983, he said Iran's proxies carried out the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
You know, Ronald Reagan had the good sense to leave.
He said, these people are crazy.
We're not going to get involved in what's happening in Lebanon.
It's not any of our business.
But Trump leaves out his assassination of Soleimani, their top military leader that was there.
And he added that in 2000, Iran knew of and was probably involved in the bombing of the USS Cole military ship, which resulted in the death of 17 U.S. service members.
But there are other issues in terms of the U.S. military accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, and nothing happened.
There weren't any terrorist attacks.
Instead, what they accepted was some compensation from the U.S. government for that murder of a couple hundred people, nearly 300.
And it wasn't really much compensation per person that was there.
But that was handled in a reasonable way.
And then subsequently, in just a couple of years, similar thing happened off the coast of Long Island.
I believe that the U.S. government doing exercises as they had done in Iran shot down Flight 800.
But of course, the FBI confiscated and blocked that investigation.
That's what the FBI stands for, I think, is feds blocking investigation.
They certainly did that with Flight 800, doing it with Epstein as well.
So again, but weren't we negotiating with Iran?
Asked one person.
Well, actually, no.
It was lies and treachery.
Congress is rushed to get into the loop as critics are denouncing the Iran strikes.
But of course, you're going to have Mike Johnson and others are going to make sure that really nothing happens with this.
They do not want to have the Constitution enforced.
The scramble to brief a broader swath of lawmakers comes as bipartisan coalitions in the House and the Senate move to force votes next week on measures that would limit Trump's ability to take additional military action against Iran without Congress's sign-off.
Despite calls from Democrats to quickly reconvene both chambers and debate the war powers measures, Speaker Mike Johnson and Toon and the Senate have no plans to do so.
You see, this is why I played this clip of Jeff Sessions interrogating Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense at the time, because, again, Jeff Sessions, like, well, you know how this works.
You're supposed to come to Congress and we're supposed to decide whether they're going to have a war or not.
It's like, well, Senator, we'll let you know what we decide to do, said Panetta.
And that's exactly what's going on.
And the Senate and the House, under people like Toon and Thun, whoever I pronounce his name, and Johnson, that's exactly what they want.
They don't want the Constitution.
So this is where we are right now.
Trump cites failed talks as justification for Iran's strikes.
But the negotiators say, no, actually, they weren't failed talks.
It's just that the Trump administration was not acting in good faith.
And now we've had Rubio himself, Trump's own Secretary of State, come out and say, no, it wasn't the talks.
We did this strike, not because we didn't think they were getting anywhere, but because we were afraid that Israel was going to go there, that Israel was going to kick off the war.
We're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
The David
Bill Clinton's Corruption00:05:01
Knight Show.
Tell Alexa to add the APS radio skill and have access to the best channels anywhere, from country to blues, classic hits to news.
APS Radio curates incredibly diverse playlists for you to enjoy.
Get details at APSRadio.com.
Well, Sidney Falco, Zero says, I remember watching Christians, quote unquote, declare the weapons of mass destruction and war was justified by God.
Then they backed up to those yellow support the troops stickers.
Then America bless God stickers.
Spineless.
Yeah, we're seeing a lot of that.
There's a lot of the prophecy profiteers are working overtime right now.
It's the end of the world, and they don't know any of that.
And you look at the profiteers out there, people like Paula White Cain, who is the leading spiritual advisor to Donald Trump, just said, and I found the article here, we're not going to lay hands on people until you are obedient.
And so you have to send us somebody.
You got to give $100,000.
We're going to reach our goal of $100,000 during this conference before I'm going to start healing you people.
So Christ-like, isn't she?
It's amazing.
Get a check.
Make it payable to Paula White Ministries.
If you say I don't have it, give $100.
Bring up a sacrificial seed.
This isn't for me.
This is about kids that will die without you being obedient, she said.
And so she rose to prominence through a TV ministry.
She's married one of the singers, songwriters from, I think it's Journey.
His name is Kane.
So they call it the White Cane Ministry.
I think whenever I see that, I think of the blind leading the blind, you know, the white cane.
In February 2025, Trump appointed White Cain to lead the White House Faith Office, which is intended to empower faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to better serve families and communities.
I just look at these people like Paula White, people like Julie Green, people like Mike Huckabee.
It's like, folks, if you're not a Christian, I got to say to you, this is not, these are not followers of Christ, whatever they are, whatever their relationship is with God.
As a matter of fact, there was an article put up by Brian Shulhave.
He said, quoted Jesus, he said, I'm not praying for the world.
I'm praying for my people.
And I guess he wasn't requiring them to chip in some money for that either.
Let's take a quick look in just a little bit of time we've got of what happened with Epstein.
Isn't it interesting that Bill and Hillary testified and there has been so little talk about that.
Thanks to Trump, he covered up for them.
Maybe he can do a really good job of covering up for himself with Epstein.
So Bill Clinton comes up and says, I didn't have any relationship with that man, right?
Hillary Clinton is there saying, oh, it was only about charity.
That's the only reason that Bill was on those planes and I don't even know Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, Glenn Maxwell was at Chelsea's wedding.
We've got the pictures that show that.
It's getting harder and harder because of AI to tell if these pictures are manufactured, but those were not.
It's just when you look at these strikes that are happening, purportedly, strikes over Iran or strikes over Israel.
It's like, I don't know if that's real or not.
I really can't tell anymore at this point.
And so it's a new form of the fog of war, I guess.
But when it comes to Bill and Hillary, he was saying, oh, all these flights that I took, and he took like nearly two dozen of these things.
Epstein went to the Clinton White House 17 times.
I forget how many flights, but it was a couple dozen that Bill Clinton took on the Lolita Express.
He says it was simply charity work.
And I had my staff there and all the rest of the stuff.
It's like, well, okay, where was Hillary?
Why didn't she meet Jeffrey Epstein if it was all charity work and she's so heavily involved in the charity stuff?
And then of course there are those uncomfortable pictures about Bill Clinton sitting on the Jeffrey Epstein plane with a very young girl on his lap, face blacked out.
This is the kind of corruption folks.
It truly is evil.
And it was kind of interesting.
The New York Times came out and said, well, the QAnon people are saying, we told you it was a satanic pedophile elite with all these different things.
And I said, well, they didn't quite get the New York Times doesn't see the satanic connection.
The QAnon people don't see the Trump connection.
Maybe Trump is connected to the satanic cults.
Everything Hidden From Us00:01:18
You ever think about that?
Thanks for joining us.
The Common Man.
They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
They created Common Past to track and control us.
Their Commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
And the Communist Future.
They see the Common Man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
That is what we have in common.
That is what they want to take away.
Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidnightshow.com.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for sharing.
If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.