Bill O'Reilly claims to have spoken with President Trump four weeks prior, revealing a strategy involving weapons inspectors monitoring Iran's uranium program rather than immediate military action. O'Reilly argues that if negotiations fail, Trump may target Iranian infrastructure, citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as precedents, while criticizing European allies and Democrats for prioritizing migration over confronting nuclear proliferation. He asserts Trump needs a decisive victory before the midterms to avoid becoming a lame duck reliant on executive orders, ultimately defending his No Spin News operation against corporate constraints and relocation rumors. [Automatically generated summary]
I think he's got to take out some kinds of bases or trains or infrastructure that could harm the Persian people.
I see it from a historical lens.
So the only reason the Japanese surrendered was Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a firebombing at Tokyo.
They weren't going to surrender.
Is that that would have been hundreds of thousands of more casualties there?
So I think the president does rely on history a bit.
And if he's got to use U.S. military power to damage the country and believes that there will be a payoff to that, a positive payoff, then that's what he'll do.
Bill, uh, I've played a lot of clips of you over the last couple of weeks because I think you've been a very fair arbiter about what's going on with this war, about what the intentions have been, about, uh, that we don't always know all of the pieces before Trump does things.
I think you've analyzed his tweets well, et cetera, et cetera.
Uh, we are Taping this now.
It is 3 50 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7th.
We're going to air this at 7 15.
Supposedly at 8 p.m., something is going to happen.
You know, it's a guess, but I think there is a chance that there'll be an extension because I know talks are going on through Pakistan and I don't.
Believe that Donald Trump wants to kill civilians.
In fact, I know that because about four weeks ago, Dave, I had an extensive conversation on the phone with the president about the whole situation and how to bring it into the realm of reality without massive destruction.
And he was absolutely convinced that he could get a deal from the Mullins.
And that's what he wanted, didn't want to use heavy military action.
So, I can report that as fact.
And then he and I went over what a deal might comprise.
The main component, obviously, is the Mohs would have to allow weapons inspectors in to monitor their uranium situation.
The fact that they won't do that should tell everybody in the world of their ill intent.
Why wouldn't you do that?
If the whole thing would stop and then you could rebuild your country and all you have to do.
You say, no, we're going to give up our nuclear arsenal.
When you saw Trump's tweet on Easter and it had the F bomb and then the subsequent tweet where it seemed that everybody was hung up on the word civilizational, what do you make of the rhetoric?
I'm, you know, 10 years into this thing.
I just think he is what he is.
He likes to surprise people, he uses colorful language.
I don't read into it too much other than it's exactly what the art of the deal is, which is you say some crazy things and see what happens.
But I see a lot of people, even on the right, freaking out over some of the rhetoric right now.
I think he's got to take out some kinds of bases or trains or infrastructure that could harm the Persian people.
I see it from a historical lens.
So, the only reason the Japanese surrendered was Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a firebombing at Tokyo.
Then they weren't going to surrender.
So, that would have been hundreds of thousands of more casualties there.
So, I think the president does rely on history a bit.
And if he's got to use U.S. military power, To damage the country and believes that there will be a payoff to that, a positive payoff, then that's what he'll do.
Once the mullahs say, okay, you can have the weapons inspectors come in on a regular basis, we're not going to enrich uranium to weapons grade, then what happens is the Strait of Hormuz opens, all the oil comes in.
And remember, China gets 80% of its oil from Iran, and China.
Is a major player in this.
Okay, so that happens.
And then knowing Trump, part of the deal would be okay, we'll help you put back Humpty Dumpty.
Okay, and we'll help you in the economic range if you don't misbehave.
So that's the carrot.
To help terrorists.
So he's got to walk that line in a very, very methodical way.
Remember, the Iranian government is really on, if you look at everybody on the planet, they're the worst.
They're the worst.
They kill more people, finance more terrorism, do more things to make instability in the Middle East a reality than anybody does.
They're worse than Putin.
They're worse than the Chinese.
They're horrible.
So, to deal with them in a constructive way, it would take the nukes.
What do you make of the fact that so many of our allies in Europe, particularly Western Europe, seem to be unwilling to confront evil?
I mean, even if you look at some of the plane routes we've had to use to rescue our guys over the last couple of days, you know, we couldn't go over Spain, for example.
That confronting evil seems very low on the list that these countries are concerned with right now.
And I say that literally, he was so detached from reality those four years that you couldn't have possibly gotten any kind of trenchant analysis from him.
Couldn't.
He was incapacitated.
But the Democratic Party, they're the same as Spain.
Okay, if they could, they would cripple the U.S. military activity.
They don't seem to care whether the mullahs have a nuclear weapon capacity, do they?
That's my question to everybody who dissents.
Are you okay with the mullahs having this nuke?
I mean, that would be my first question to Pope Leo.
And I'm a real loyal Catholic and I'm not being disrespectful.
So, one way or another, regardless of what happens tonight or tomorrow, do you think this is the end of the sort of post World War II order of things in that America has now realized, at least under this administration, that NATO will not be a help anymore?
That we really have allies who, you know, as long as we give them money and protection, they'll basically be quiet.
But when we need them, they don't do much.
That seems to be unraveling.
We are seeing new alliances in the Middle East now that Iran has attacked about 30 Of its neighbors.
They're kind of realizing Israel is not the enemy.
Do you sense we're going to see a whole shift on what that looks like over the next couple of years?
You know, I've asked you a version of this a couple times, but going from mainstream to the online world.
Navigating between the new voices, the older voices, the journalistic rules that existed in the old world versus the free fall or the sort of open ended world that we're in right now and doing what you've always done.
He's an old time journalist who came up under the rule of you report honestly and you put aside your ideology when you're doing.
Hard news.
Now, I've been a commentator since 1996, so that was a long time.
But before then, I was a hard news reporter, as Croft was.
And we had a very interesting conversation about what happened at CBS, because he worked for 60 Minutes for 30 years.
And they just let the ideology overwhelm the hard news operation.
So, what we've decided to do here is that we have the No Spin News, which is a daily Uh, television, uh, presentation goes out on YouTube, goes out everywhere where I give you my take on what's happening and I back it up with facts.
It's a fact based but opinionated broadcast.
And then with the long form, we do one a week.
Uh, and I didn't want to do it, but the younger people on my staff demanded it and it's working out great.
Uh, we can get into a lot of things like you do, um, that you couldn't do in two or three minute sound bites.
So we have, I think, maximized our potential in the new journalistic order that really combines social media with, you know, we're on linear.
I mean, we're on direct TV.
We're on all of these outlets.
People all over the world watch us.
So we, we, we just don't work for a corporation.
Okay, so I'm the corporation.
I run three.
We don't have that hanging over our head.
And corporate America that runs the media companies is in absolute disarray.
And I know all these people, I know what they have to go through every day.
You don't want to be there.
I don't want to be there.
And the kicker is, I'm making just about as much money now as I did when I was working at Fox.
Bill, my last question is this Although my parents enjoy seeing you at the beach in Long Island, Every now and again in the summer, when will the operation move to the free state of Florida?