Israel’s Sinister Agenda to Use the U.S. Military to Defy Trump’s Plan for Peace With Clayton Morris
Clayton Morris examines Israel’s alleged push to provoke U.S. war with Iran by 2026, despite Trump’s opposition and depleted munitions stockpiles—potentially delaying Taiwan’s defense by a decade. Media like Fox News and figures such as Lindsey Graham amplify Iran’s nuclear threat, ignoring past false alarms since 1996, while suppressing dissent on Epstein files and pedophile networks. Morris warns of escalating censorship, false flags (e.g., NED’s Starlink-linked Iranian protests), and AI-driven surveillance, framing it as a bid for godlike control. The episode ends with praise for Morris’ truth-seeking, urging listeners to tune in live weekly at 6 p.m. Eastern on tuckercarlson.com. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, in between the Super Bowl halftime show and Epstein and the Winter Olympics, most Americans probably weren't aware that we are on the verge of a massive regional war in the Middle East, if not a third world war.
We are.
The largest movement of American military hardware is since 2003, the Iraq invasion, is now in or steaming toward the Persian Gulf off Iran, preparatory to what could be the aforementioned war.
Now, most people, once again, probably didn't know this.
Those who did know it weren't for it.
Recent polls on this question, are you for a war with Iran?
It's about one in five Americans support it.
The rest are probably asking, war with Iran?
Why do we have a war with Iran?
They said no idea.
The president did address it last night in his State of the Union and at a press conference.
And he said in public what he basically says in private, Trump being one of those rare public figures who's pretty much the same behind closed doors as he is on stage.
He says pretty much the same stuff.
He's a little funnier in private, but basically he's not a different guy.
He's the same guy.
And he's been saying the same thing about Iran for a long time.
Really, two things.
One, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
They cannot have a nuclear weapon.
He says it again and again.
He really means it.
That's not a talking point.
It's completely sincere.
And two, I would prefer a negotiated settlement.
I would prefer peace rather than war.
And that's obviously true.
So to bottom line where we are right now at the end of February 2026 on this looming Iran war, seems likely.
Have all those aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, planes ready, missiles ready, but it's not certain because the president hasn't decided to do it.
And you may not get that impression either from watching the news.
There is the sense that it's inevitable.
And that's kind of a psyop, actually, designed to make you think there's nothing you can do about it.
No, Trump has not decided to do this.
Again, seems likely.
All the momentum is in that direction.
But the president's the sole decider on this question.
He's the commander-in-chief.
And he's showing no obvious signs of enthusiasm.
And why would he?
There are a lot of reasons not to do this.
The first being the one just mentioned, which is most Americans don't want it.
And though it's not a direct democracy, it's a form of democracy, and you probably shouldn't commit history-changing acts without the support of your people.
And Trump feels that way.
This is someone who pays very close attention to, say, TV ratings.
Why is that?
Not just because he worked in TV, but because he thinks they're a pretty good measure of what people are interested in.
He cares about what people think.
And he's willing to listen to almost anybody.
So that's a good reason not to do it.
The public's not behind you.
Maybe you've got great reasons to do it that they don't know about yet, but we haven't heard those and the president hasn't really explained them other than to say Iran is bad.
Yes, that's been the official U.S. position since 1979.
Iran can have nukes.
That's always been the president's position.
And we would like some kind of settlement.
The reason he's not eager to start this war is because he, in general, isn't eager to start wars, hasn't been anyway, but because this would be a particularly tough war.
This is the largest buildup since the Iraq war, but Iran is not Iraq.
It's much, much, much bigger and much more technologically advanced.
Population of Iran is about 92 million.
In 2003, almost exactly 23 years ago, when we rolled into Baghdad, the population of Iraq was 25 million.
So Iran is more than three times bigger.
The land mass of Iran is multiple, six times bigger.
It's huge.
It's a huge, pretty advanced country compared to Iraq.
So that's a problem right there.
This is a serious thing to start a war with a real country.
Are we in a position to do that?
Well, there's some debate about that.
The U.S. military performs in a remarkable way under certain circumstances.
But is the U.S. military right now ready for a prolonged conflict with a big country?
Hmm.
No, it turns out.
And these are facts taken from open source material that have been published.
They're on the internet.
You can look it up.
None of this is classified.
This is all out there.
But current estimates suggest that the United States is so low on some munitions, partly because we've used them in the defense of Israel already in the last 12 months.
But whatever the cause, the United States is so low on certain kinds of munitions that were we to have even a brief but intense engagement with Iran, our military would not be ready for like 10 years to fight a real war against, you know, a peer or near-peer adversary.
So out the window would go any hope of defending Taiwan.
Whether or not this is a good idea is kind of up to you to decide.
But that would not even be on the table because we wouldn't be able to.
We would be much weakened by this because we don't have the stockpiles and we don't have the necessary industrial capacity to replace them quickly.
So we are not in a position to have a lengthy engagement.
And everyone at the Pentagon who's gaming this out understands that.
And again, this has been reported publicly, though not necessarily in the New York Times or the Washington Post, at least not on the front page.
But it's widely known.
So it'd be a tough war.
We're not in a great place to fight it right now.
And the potential downsides are absolutely real.
Lots of things could happen.
There are tens of thousands of Americans in the region, of course, in uniform and out.
They could be hurt or killed.
There's Israel, our ally, which is probably a little more vulnerable than we pretend it is to conventional attacks from ballistic missiles.
Do the math on how many missiles Iran is believed to have versus how many anti-ballistic missiles Israel has, or we have to defend Israel.
They could be in trouble.
And then there's a question of what happens to Iran.
Like, does it fall apart?
Does it disintegrate as a country?
To be clear, as of tonight, there is no Israeli plan for what comes the day after we depose the Ayatollah, knock out the leadership of the country.
What happens then?
Going to put in the former king's son or something?
No one believes that's real.
Will the country hang together with Pahlavi on the throne?
Come on.
No one is thinking this through because the people pushing this clearly don't care what happens after.
The point is to take out Iran as a coherent country, not to protect Israel, but in order to sweep Iran aside as a regional rival.
Once Iran is gone, there's no question as to who controls the Middle East.
It, of course, would be the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East, Israel.
Period.
That's the reason.
The problem is, if the country were to disintegrate, the downstream effects would be profound for everybody else.
You would likely have refugee crises.
Where would they go?
Well, Europe.
They haven't enough refugees.
They might go right across the water to Qatar or UAE.
Oh, that could be a huge, huge problem.
So why would they push for this?
Well, you have to think that the people pushing for this are not stupid.
They've thought through the consequences.
Let's say the United States attacks Iran.
Maybe Iran just says, you know, you're absolutely right.
We're evil.
We're rolling over.
Everybody in charge is going to retire, commit ritual suicide.
We're going to turn it over to some Western Democrat who brings in pro-choice politics and gay marriage and like, we're cool.
We're going to join NATO at that point.
That's great.
But what if Iran decides better to die on your feet than on your knees and just unleashes its conventional arsenal against American assets in the region, against Israel, and critically against energy infrastructure in the Gulf?
What would happen then?
Well, you would see a global depression if they did that, if they were successful in doing that.
If the extraction facilities and refineries and petrochemical plants in the Gulf were disabled.
How expensive would oil be per barrel?
How much would gasoline cost?
What would steel go for?
What would happen to liquefied natural gas, which goes to both Europe and China?
What would happen to Europe if you just disrupted the flow of LNG from the Gulf to Europe?
What would happen if you closed the Straits of Wormuz?
The choke point at the end of the Persian Gulf?
I mean, it wouldn't destroy the world forever, probably, but it would tank the economy in the meantime, for sure.
And who would suffer most?
Well, let's see.
The Gulf states, Europe, and the United States.
It's kind of weird that anybody, especially an ally, would push for a conflict that's almost guaranteed to hurt its so-called allies.
Why would you do that?
You can tell me you love me, but if you're encouraging me to commit suicide, you're probably lying.
It's possible that we should judge people's intentions by the effects of what they do, not by their own description of their motive.
Is it possible that there is some hostility toward the United States, the Gulf states, and Europe from the people pushing this war?
Oh, there's a lot of hostility.
And part of it makes sense.
The Gulf states, the six Arab oil-producing states called the GCC in the region, are, along with Iran, one of the main impediments to Israel's regional hegemony.
They are very rich.
They produce something that the rest of the world needs.
They're also very good at diplomacy, particularly Qatar.
They settle a lot of disputes internationally.
They posited themselves as the Switzerland of the Middle East.
And they've done a good job at it, actually.
And so they are a rival to Israel.
You hear on Fox News, they're Hamas supporters.
No, no, no, that's not their sin.
Their sin is existing as a powerful independent country in potential rivalry with the regional hegemon, Israel.
So shafting them would be a very good thing from the Israeli perspective.
But what about the United States?
Israel's benefactor, its closest ally?
Hmm, why would they want that?
Well, maybe if you're gaming this out a little bit, you've decided we need a new superpower.
Public opinion in this country has swung against us so hard, this bipartisan consensus that we're its closest ally is disintegrating before our very eyes.
And let's be honest with ourselves, this is not going to continue forever.
We need another country to be aligned with.
Now, how many big countries are there to choose from?
It's got to be physically large, big population, nuclear-armed.
Not too many.
In fact, the big ones would be China and India.
But China, unfortunately, is a Han ethno-state.
So you can't really turn its population against itself in order to increase your own power.
It's not going to work.
It's resistant to this, to manipulation.
And that leaves India.
And it was probably no coincidence that the Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Modi, spoke to Knesset today about the ancient ties between Israel and India.
Bottom line, yes, Israel is moving on from the United States at some point, probably sooner rather than later, to India.
And so weakening the United States in a war with Iran is not all bad.
In fact, it might be good because then there's no rivalry at all in your region.
It's you, the only country with nuclear weapons, and everybody else.
So you can kind of do whatever you want.
You don't have to worry about hostile neighbors.
You can expand the size of your territory, for example.
You can move your borders in all directions.
Who's going to stop you?
No one.
So if you game this out for a minute, the things that from an American perspective seem horrifying, like real downsides, holy smokes, we could tank the U.S. economy.
We could wreck the energy sector, at least temporarily.
Some of our key Arab allies could be disabled by this.
Those all seem very bad from an American perspective.
Are they so bad from an Israeli perspective?
No, they're not, actually.
They may be the point long term.
So where does this leave our president, President Trump?
Well, it leaves him where he began, which is very resistant to start big new wars.
He, of course, ran for president both times, all three times, on the promise that he wouldn't do that.
And he very famously in the 2016 campaign attacked Jeb Bush because of his brother's invasion of Iraq.
That was idiotic, he said.
And of course, he was right.
And 23 years later, we know exactly how right he was.
That war, which lasted 20 years, waged on behalf of our ally Israel, didn't help the United States.
It helped to impoverish the United States and sink this country deeper into debt to weaken the dollar and destroy a generation of young men, mostly from the flyover states, the most decent and patriotic among us, destroyed.
So from an American perspective, Iraq was a true disaster, and Trump was the first big political candidate to say that out loud.
He knows this.
He always has.
So why would he even be considering a war with Iran?
Well, one way to think about it is the United States may not have a choice about whether or not this war starts, because of course, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu could always act unilaterally, preemptively, against Iran and just do it.
Just strike Iran.
What would happen then?
Well, most likely the Iranians would strike Israel and then potentially strike American assets in the Gulf and then potentially strike energy facilities in the Gulf.
And the United States would be by definition drawn in.
So it's possible that the U.S. government, while not anxious to go to war with Iran, is trying to find a way to contain the behavior of its closest ally, Israel.
Rather than sit back and wait for Bibi to do something that we have to clean up, that we're implicated in and then sucked into, it's possible that the U.S. government is attempting to steer this in a less destructive direction.
None of this, of course, is filtered down to people paying attention because the few who are paying attention to this, because all the noise has been about Iran's nuclear weapons.
They're on the verge of building a nuclear weapon any day now.
Now, if you're semi-awake, you may remember that it was only about eight months ago, back in June of last year, during the short but hot 12-day war against Iran, that the United States took out nuclear processing facilities deep underground and then announced we have ended the Iranian nuclear threat.
And then without you noticing, well, you were on summer vacation or going to your kids' graduation or bringing them back to school or watching the Super Bowl halftime show with your jaw slack, while you were not tuned in, all of a sudden that threat out of nowhere re-emerged.
And there's Benjamin Netanyahu on television or at the White House for a seventh time in a single year making the case that we're right on the verge of a nuclear holocaust.
Any day now, the Iranian government will have a nuclear weapon.
And by the way, as noted, the president does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
That is one thing that he takes very, very seriously.
And he said that to the Iranians.
And unfortunately, turns out, whatever side you're on, the current Iranian government is very hard to deal with.
They're disorganized.
The head guy is 87 years old.
There's almost no communication directly between the governments.
The supreme leader in Iran has never had a single phone call with the president of the United States.
It's unclear exactly who's in charge.
There are all kinds of factions.
I mean, it's a nightmare.
So the only people who've really been out there speaking in public about Iran's nuclear program basically are Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and his many accolades and paid shills in the United States.
You may have seen this tape before, but in case you haven't, it's worth watching again, because it reminds us that Benjamin Netanyahu has been saying exactly the same thing about Iran.
They're about to have a nuclear weapon any minute since at least 1996.
And by next spring, at most, by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.
From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.
The two nations that are vying, competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, is Iraq and Iran.
And Iran, by the way, is also outpacing Iraq in the development of ballistic missile systems that they hope will reach the eastern seaboard of the United States within 15 years.
The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran, that has wed a cruel despotism to a fanatic militancy.
If this regime or its despotic neighbor, Iraq, were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country and not only for the Middle East, but for all of mankind.
I believe that only the United States can lead this vital international effort to stop the nuclearization of terrorist states.
But the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.
You can see why the government of Israel has such contempt for the United States while they're totally happy to tank our economy, stretch our military to its limit, degrade us in public.
Why?
Because our leaders put up with this.
Some foreigner shows up in our capital every year for 30 years telling the same lies and everyone in there just nods along all 535.
It was like, Iran's about to get a nuclear weapon.
I mean, they believe it.
How could you have respect for people who believe something that dumb?
Well, you couldn't, and they don't.
And by the way, it's not just the claim that Iran is seconds away from a nuclear weapon that they're recycling here.
It's maybe the oldest lie in American foreign policy you heard in those clips too, which is we need to do this because it's a despotic regime that is oppressing its own people.
Now, this line is older than you may know.
And the reason it's so distressing, it's so cynical, is because it plays upon Americans' best quality, which is decency.
Americans hate despotism.
They believe freedom is granted them and all people by God.
And so a regime that oppresses its own people is inherently illegitimate.
Americans are born believing that, and God willing, they always will believe that because it's true.
So if you're trying to sell an illegitimate war waged for reasons that had nothing to do with human rights at all, you would use that line, wouldn't you?
Probably.
Well, American policymakers have used that line and we pulled some.
You want to hear some?
This is, I'm going to get my glasses, which I've dropped.
Excuse me, we pulled this, and this actually made me laugh out loud.
So this goes back, well, 61 years.
Here's Lyndon Johnson, 1965, in a speech at Johns Hopkins, explaining that the war in Vietnam, which was just getting intense then, so three years from Tet, from the height, he said this, tonight, Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change.
So really, we're doing this for the Vietnamese people.
Okay, now.
Then Bush, George W. Bush, son of George H.W. Bush, said this right before the Iraq war started.
We're quoting, we have no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
Right.
We did that for human rights reasons.
We just wanted democracy in Iraq.
Did that happen?
The Christian population was annihilated.
Hundreds of thousands of people died?
And political control was turned over to the Ayatollahs in Iran.
Hmm, no.
But he said it anyway.
And so did Dick Cheney, by the way.
My belief, he said, in the lead up to the Iraq war, is that we will be greeted as liberators.
The vast majority of Iraqis would respond favorably to an effort to rid the country of Saddam's regime.
Well, someone who happened to be in Baghdad in December of 2003, the day we caught Saddam at Decrete, I can attest to what you already know, which is that's where the insurrection started.
But Barack Obama, even, three years after getting elected president, having been thoroughly briefed and had a lie in 2011, said this about the bombing of Libya and the murder of our sometime ally and CIA asset, Muammar Gaddafi, quote, this is a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.
They're desperate for it.
Regime change in Libya, said Barack Obama, would serve America's, quote, broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
I mean, what can he do but laugh?
It's so absurd.
It's such an obvious lie.
It's like Bibi Netanyahu said, they're minutes away.
As long as people believe this or are so polite they pretend to believe it, politicians will keep telling the same lies.
You have to make them pick a new lie.
Now, what's interesting is that the administration, I think to its credit, hasn't done a ton of this.
There's been, you know, the, oh, we feel bad for the billion Iranians murdered in the streets of Tehran or some, whatever, who knows what the number is.
You can't believe any number connected to any conflict in any country ever, because everyone lies about them all the time.
But some number of Iranians protesting the Iranian government apparently were killed by the government.
And we feel bad about that.
And we legitimately do feel bad about that.
Is that a good reason to topple the existing power structure and just let the country devolve into whatever happens next?
Probably not.
And the administration hasn't really made that case or really any case other than they can't have nuclear weapons.
So you can at least feel satisfied that they're not trying very hard to lie to you.
They're basically just saying, looks like we could have a war because everybody knows the only reason we're having this war is because Israel wants it.
This is their last chance, they believe.
This presidency is the last presidency where they're going to have unequivocal bipartisan support.
Period.
You can't primary every Thomas Massey and there's a whole army of them coming at some point because everyone can see what's going on.
And you can shut down X and you can shut down the internet.
You can be like Great Britain and arrest people who protest Israel.
But attitudes are not going to revert to what they were five years ago.
Sorry.
And they know this.
So this is our last chance.
What's so amazing is that Israel, which at least is acting in what it perceives to be its own national interest, is joined by its shills in the United States, of course.
But really, its only other ally in this is the American news media, whose job it is to tell you the truth and inform you as to what's happening, to tell you, hey, wake up.
The world could be changing and it's going to affect you and your family.
That's their job.
And instead, they've been lulling you to sleep with the same variety of transparent lies and propaganda.
And so just for fun, we decided we would pick a cross-section.
And not just from a liberal media or right-wing media, but from all media, because it's not a left-right question.
Chuck Schumer is every bit as much in favor of an invasion of Iran, a regime change war in Iran, as, I don't know, pick a brain dead Republican senator, which is almost all of them.
They're all for it.
And so are all the Democrats.
You don't see Alexandria Cazio-Cortez making a real case against it.
She's like a pro forma case because she knows that all of her constituents hate it.
But is she really working to stop us?
Of course not.
Because they're all for it because they're paid to be for it.
And so are the media.
So here's a quick cross-section.
Now, it goes without saying that the Wall Street Journal, owned by the Murdoch family, has been by far the most egregious and the most stealthy because starting new regime change wars on behalf of Israel is like the whole reason to have the Wall Street Journal now, apparently.
But here's just a few headlines.
The diminishing risk of an Iran attack, quote, two years ago, there was a strong possibility the region would spiral out of control.
Not anymore.
Really?
Oh, really?
What is the plan the day after we depose or kill the 87-year-old supreme leader or President Pazeshkian?
Use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order, or you can clink the link in the video description, or you can scan the QR code to claim this outstanding offering.
But here is the greatest offender, maybe of all.
And that'd be the New York Post, the scrappy New York tabloid famed for its rollicking crime headlines: headless body and topless bar.
It's a hilarious newspaper, always has been.
Up until two years ago when Lachlan Murdoch took full control of it.
And now it's like commentary.
It's like any other publication from a neocon think tank in Washington is just advocating for war and lying to you in order to get you to support it.
So here's just a quick selection from the New York Post: Memo to President Trump.
Don't miss this historic moment to strike Iran and end its terror regime.
This historic moment.
Iran's rulers plainly fear U.S. strikes.
Trump should prove them right.
Mr. President, you're so strong and dangerous.
You have a chance to prove that.
They fear you.
Memo to self, never accept flattery uncritically because it is deeply subversive.
Attacks are straightforward.
Flattery is reptilian.
Flattery is the true danger.
Oh, President Trump, you're so strong.
They're afraid of you.
Prove them right by killing them.
And then, if Trump doesn't strike Iran now, history will never forgive him.
If you don't have a war with Iran, history will never forgive you.
Probably depends on who writes that history.
But hundreds of millions of Americans will forgive you.
They'll be grateful to you for pulling us back from the brink of something we don't need and don't want.
And then last, of course, Douglas Murray, the eminent historian.
Everyone respects Douglas Murray.
He's got a British accent.
He's not being paid to say this.
Don't worry.
Trump has a chance to end Khamenei's reign of terror in Iran.
His reign of terror.
Because if there's one thing Douglas is concerned about, it's human rights in Iran.
He's been there.
And now to the New York Times.
And this is interesting if you're a right-winger because the New York Times is, of course, like the most liberal publication in the world.
It's NPR on paper.
It's totally different from, say, Fox News.
It's like they're polls apart.
They have nothing in common whatsoever.
Except on a few questions like immigration and war and the basis of our economy, which is finance and real estate, the banks.
Except on those issues, there's some overlap.
Okay, there's vigorous consensus.
In other words, except on the issues that actually matter, that drive history, that determine whether or not your children thrive in this country or not.
On those issues, they're one and the same.
And so here's a selection.
We'll put this one up on the screen because it's so amusing.
Here's Mr. Brett Stevens.
Three different pieces he's written on this question.
He's obviously a man with a great deal of credibility and authority on regime change wars, having advocated for all of them, none of which has worked.
The case for striking Iran.
Can we let Iran get away with mass murder?
Israel had the courage to do what needed to be done.
The case for overthrowing Maduro, the Syria opportunity.
We absolutely need to escalate in Iran.
And then my personal favorite from 2023, 20 years later, quote, 20 years on, I don't regret supporting the Iraq war.
Okay.
Should you be admitting that?
20 years later, I am not ashamed to wear women's underwear.
Well, actually, you should be ashamed.
You should be embarrassed.
If you don't regret supporting the Iraq war, if that support occasioned no soul-searching in you, then you, my friend, have a spiritual problem.
All of us make mistakes.
All of us support dumb things as someone who supported the Iraq war.
I can attest to that personally.
So the acid test is not, do you make mistakes?
The acid test is, do you admit that you did?
And do you apologize?
But if you refuse to do either one of those things and instead, 20 years later, are still bragging about the greatest disaster in modern American history as if it's a badge of honor, hard to know if we have anything in common as people, because that's contemptible and scary.
It's never occurred to you the Iraq war was a mistake?
Really?
On what basis was it a success?
Hmm.
So if that's really your view, maybe we shouldn't trust you when you tell us that we have a moral obligation to attack Iran.
Just throwing that out there.
So that's where the print media are.
But let's be honest, it's not really the print media who are driving this, because this is a Republican administration.
And as everyone knows, Republicans have one main news source, and that's Fox News.
I have some familiarity with the product, and I can say that even as Fox News's reach and power and influence have diminished greatly, mostly due to technological changes, people go on the internet, they don't pay for cable.
But as it has diminished, it has not broken the stranglehold that Fox has over Republicans in Washington.
They watch Fox, they want to go on Fox.
And so Fox has really driven this war.
And if it occurs, you can thank Fox more than any other media organization, more than any other lobbyist, more honestly than any government, more than the government of Israel.
Fox News has pushed for this war.
Its owners personally have pushed for it, personally.
And of course, its employees on the channel have pushed for it with such aggression and unanimity that as of tonight, there is not a single on-air Fox personality who is going to question going to war with Iran.
There are some who may have reservations.
There was one on a weekend show who very bravely spoke up and said, is this a good idea?
That was the last time this topic was discussed on that weekend show.
Because the order has gone down to Fox employees, we are in favor of this war.
And that is very obvious if you watch it.
Now, one of the main cheerleaders for an invasion of Iraq and every other invasion and every other instance of shedding of human blood, or just killing in general, would, of course, be Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Now, if you don't watch Fox, you may have no idea what he actually says when he goes on Fox, which is all the time.
So we want to play you a short montage of Lindsey Graham and watch as you watch this his eyes.
And you can see that he is maybe for the first time that day feeling elevated and light and happy, but also tantalized.
You can almost watch his mouth fill with saliva.
Some people feel this way in strip bars, others in bakeries.
Now, you can look at that and say, you know, this guy's risking his soul talking like this.
This guy is wrong on the evidence.
This guy's clearly a buffoon with some kind of psychosexual problems that we're not qualified to diagnose, but that are totally evident.
But you should also keep in mind as you watch Lindsey Graham, he's taken very seriously by his colleagues in the Senate, not just the Republicans, but also the Democrats.
And he's taken very seriously by Republicans in Washington more broadly.
Of course he is.
He's taken very seriously.
This has an effect.
And that effect could get us into, you know, certainly the worst war in 23 years.
So the idea is to flood the zone, the information zone, to make sure that no Republican in Washington hears anything but that.
And the proponents of this war are very intent on that.
They've made no effort to convince you it's a good idea.
They are staying up night and day convincing the decision makers it's a good idea.
And they're trying, by the way, to shout down and threaten and defame and slander and exclude anybody who has a contrary view, who might pipe up and say, wait a second, are we sure this is a good idea?
What would happen if the energy trade gets shut down in the Persian Gulf?
What would happen if Iran lobbed, successfully lobbed some sort of armament into a U.S. aircraft carrier and Americans died?
What would happen?
What would happen if Israel felt threatened enough to use nuclear weapons against Iran, which is a possibility, despite what they tell you?
That's a possibility.
What would happen?
Once these things get going, you don't know where they wind up.
And anyone who says he does know is lying, obviously.
So anyone who raises those questions must be called a Nazi and an anti-Semite and you want to kill Jews.
The game is to make sure that the only noise in the room comes from Graham and people like Graham, right?
Until, of course, someone pushes play and it's too late to stop it.
And at that point, we can all pretend we were never for this or they just did it wrong or whatever.
We've seen this movie so many times.
You know exactly what's going to happen if it goes south.
And the truth is, it works because people are intimidated.
Donald Trump does great credit, listens to everybody, everybody.
And by the way, in his speeches, when he starts rolling and ad-libbing and all that, the weave, as he calls it, he'll often say, I talk to this guy.
And he actually kind of listens to people.
But people around Donald Trump have been intimidated, understandably, by the level of pure aggression aimed at anybody who raises totally reasonable points about the downsides of a war with Iran.
So they haven't said anything.
So keep in mind, and by the way, this is a message to anyone who knows Donald Trump, has a good relationship with him, likes him, loves the United States.
Now's the time to maybe call and say, whoa, whoa, wait a second, have some concerns here.
Now is the time, right now, because the decision has not yet been made.
But it's not just aggression, it's also lying.
So I'm going to play one last clip before we go to Clayton Morris, who's spent many years in the U.S. media and has a, I think, more tactile sense of what's going on here in information world.
But one last clip, and this is from, I think, two days ago.
And this is from a man at Fox, a weekend show host called Mark Levin.
And really nobody has elevated his own visibility to a greater extent or worked harder to get the United States into war with Iran than Mark Levin has.
And he's done it not through brilliant argument, incisive analysis, basically through screaming.
But as we get closer and closer and closer to the time where this war could actually start, Levin has decided to just make stuff up.
And the clip you're about to hear is from his podcast, I believe, and you could check it two days ago.
And it is grounds for dismissal from Fox News, immediate grounds for dismissal.
And it's also, at the very least, grounds for like questions to him, like, what are you doing?
What are you doing saying something like this?
This is Mark Levin telling his listeners, such as they are, that Iran has nuclear-tipped ICBMs aimed at the United States.
If you wake up in a world where Mark Levin is publicly identified with, quote, civilization, you are an upside-down world.
Civilization begins with the acknowledgement that human life is sacred, that God created each person as an individual, that identity politics is therefore wrong, and that telling the truth matters because truth is absolute.
You may get it wrong, but the idea that nothing is true is a form of nihilism, and that attitude is the enemy of civilization.
Not because he hopes to win an argument, but because he hopes to whip his listeners into such a frenzy of fear and rage that they will support something that will hurt them.
This will hurt the United States almost without question if it happens.
This is not good for you.
It's not good for our actual allies, the energy-producing countries in the Middle East, which are our actual allies.
Israel is in no sense our ally in this.
And yet, Mark Levin will not, and none of these people will, address that debate.
Instead, they're just lying to scare people into supporting something that will hurt them.
Mark Levin actually tweeted this.
And if you're old enough to remember the Iraq War, this is going to make you laugh.
Iran producing ballistic missiles with chemical and biological warheads.
We mustn't delay any longer.
They have WMD.
Where'd that information come from?
Well, it came from the free press.
No, I beg your pardon.
It did not come from the free press.
Though they probably repeated it.
It came from another aligned publication in Washington.
Is there any evidence of that?
No, of course there's no evidence of that.
And I'd be willing to bet my house that that lie originated in the same place the original WMD lie originated in 2002 before the Iraq war in Israel.
Of course, tell Americans, tell the Congress, tell the White House that the country we want you to spend your money and your lives to overthrow so we can have a greater degree of control or hegemony in our region, that that country is a threat to you because they have weapons of mass destruction.
That was a lie then.
It's a lie now, but they're saying it.
And so if you followed Mark Levin's Twitter feed, which I didn't until today, but it's an amazing thing, actually, you'll see that he's given up all argument, any attempt to win anyone over, and instead repeating, kill Khomeini, take out Khomeini, take out Khomeini every single day.
Now, what is this?
Well, it's really a kind of witchcraft, actually.
It's the idea that if you repeat something enough, that you can will it into existence.
The words alone will make it real.
And by the way, that works.
Unfortunately, that works.
If you repeat a lie enough, it assumes substance.
God isn't fooled, but people are.
And so when you see somebody doing that, saying something that's totally untrue that contradicts the observations of your eyes and ears, like, I know that's not true.
And you see that person brush off the fact that it's not true and continue to repeat it, you know that that person is trying to mesmerize you and put you under whatever kind of spell this is.
And that person is scary.
And that right now, ladies and gentlemen, is most of the American media and most of the U.S. Congress.
So keep praying.
In the meantime, Clayton Morris, who once had a seat on the fabled Fox News morning show, joins us now for an update on what he thinks is going on with the media.
So are you, I mean, tell me if you think it's fair to say that not all, but most traditional left-right media are aligned.
They have disagreements, of course, on the trans issue, but on this issue, whether or not we go to war in Iran, it seems like there's complete agreement.
But Lindsey Graham and these others, is it really about Israel or is it really about the money?
And I think for most of these people, it's probably about the money.
It's the massive military-industrial complex.
I got warned when I was on Fox.
It didn't warn me about much, but that was one of the things tread carefully when I was criticizing the massive buildup, the massive military-industrial complex, the amount of money that we're spending on this to go to war in Iran or Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever other boogeyman of the week that you have, whether it's Russia through Ukraine, weapons that wind up in Mexico.
Shut up.
Don't ask those questions.
So we're all just supposed to sit back.
And then when you question it, why are we giving so much money to Israel?
Why do we give all of our money to these different places?
Shut up because these weapons are made in our backyard.
And so if you, as you know it better than anybody, but the military-industrial complex sits in the neighborhoods of most members of Congress.
Because whether you drive to Colorado Springs or you drive to Wichita, Kansas, inevitably there's going to be some arm of Northrop Grumman or Boeing or any, name it, Honeywell, it doesn't really matter, who are all receiving trillions of dollars now as part of this massive boondoggle.
So heaven forbid that they would ever question the money that's flowing into the military-industrial complex.
So all of them are bought and paid for.
And they're all part of this big cabal.
And I think you bring up a great point about they're all in lockstep because they want us to be fighting here, like in this narrow structure, right?
Have some culture war, like you know, whether it's funny stories on Fox News about HOAs telling people to remove like Christian symbols, whatever it is, right?
You just, you fight in these like little in this little bubble, you know.
But the real story is out here, and they want us fighting in here.
So it looks like that they're really at odds with each other, that AOC is really against Mike Johnson.
You know, they're and instead, they're all in agreement.
They're all in agreement, and they're all in lockstep.
When I read very little on this because it's all so misleading, but when I do read big media outlets on this question and Epstein for that matter, but Iran, uh, this week, I really get the feeling that the Intel agencies have some hand.
I get the strong feeling, the overwhelming sense that some government intel agency had a hand in shaping this coverage.
No, I think you'd definitely be on the right track.
And of course, up until a few years ago, you would have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, right?
This idea that, wait a second, the Intel community has a hand in shaping our narratives, our coverage.
We only learned about it through the church committee.
By the way, one of the great, great Americans.
But go back to the JFK assassination, right?
And Project Mockingbird before it ever became Operation Mockingbird and the infiltration of reporters at the Washington Post and the wiretapping of reporters to find out where information was coming.
That was sort of like the clandestine CIA operations then.
Then it morphs into the 1970s or late 1960s and 70s into Operation Mockingbird, where they were installing members of the intelligence community in newsrooms, particularly CBS News, the New York Times, and others.
And then once that was exposed, it morphed into, well, now they're just on the payroll of these of these of these networks.
You have Mike Pompeo.
They're not even hiding in the shadows anymore, like meeting you at the water cooler.
Like, hey, maybe you ought to not cover that story tonight, or maybe you ought to look at this angle of that story tonight, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Now you just have like people like Mike Pompeo on the payroll of major networks or reporters who are embedded inside the Pentagon, who are just adjacent to people like Jennifer Griffin, who the other night, literally on Fox News, said, it's not a matter of if we go to war with Iran.
It's a matter of when.
That's literally how she ended her toss back to yeah, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.
Well, you can, if you talk to, you know, members of the military, and I do, I'm sure you do as well.
And they were telling us, you know, in the weeks leading up to this that, wow, the Abraham Lincoln is now on its, I think, third deployment.
They've been extended.
So they were supposed to come home.
This is like the longest they've ever been out, 10 months, which is like unheard of.
So they've now been extended for like a third time.
And they're supposed to come home and see their spouses.
And sorry, this has been extended because of what's about to happen.
So like all of this information is like readily available, but of course, there's no journalism actually happening anymore.
And if there is, it's being parroted from whatever the intelligence state wants to be pushed out into the mainstream media.
People like Sean Hannity, who sit there literally and wear a CIA lapel pin.
I mean, look at the, look at it.
Just Google Sean Hannity's CIA lapel pin on the news is wearing a CIA lapel pin.
I mean, so, you know, this, I just, I feel like sometimes, Tucker, I wake up and I'm living in this like weird, bizarre world because people are going about their business.
They're going about their day.
And then you and I live in this world where we're seeing all of these things happening and it doesn't touch the American people necessarily, right?
They're going to go about their day.
The gas prices may go up.
Depends on what happens in the streets of Hormuz, et cetera.
Unless you're one of the families of the 50,000 Americans who are currently in the region and whom Joe Biden said, without a doubt, they will be.
It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when they are attacked.
So he's expecting fully for them to be cannon fodder.
So then these military families will have the loss of life.
But of course, that'll be insulated and bubble-wrapped from most of the American people anyway, and won't affect people's day-to-day lives.
So we pick these fights where we're doing these regime change wars over there, and there's very little effect on the United States populace.
And the mainstream media tries to bury and cover it or spin a narrative.
It's incredibly frustrating.
And to see the mockingbird media like Fox News and others just pushing for this, it is infuriating.
I think we even sell a t-shirt on our store that says conspiracy knower.
You know, exactly.
And our pronouns are, our pronouns are I told you so.
So I'm, you know, like, I'm fine.
You know, I wear it as a badge of honor.
It's fine, whether it's COVID or what was going on in Ukraine, the child trafficking operations, whatever it is that we've been covering on our show, I have yet to have anyone come on our show and say, you need to correct that mistake.
Oh, okay.
So, you know, conspiracy theories are just six months, six months' spoiler alerts, right, for what's to come.
So I love leaning into conspiracy theories because no one else is doing the job.
I mean, just look at the Epstein story.
Where is the mainstream media?
They're not covering it at all.
And not even not covering it, they're refusing to have voices on their air who could actually provide real value, real source material.
I'm speaking to a source today, actually, and who just who's recently been to Epstein Island.
And on Epstein Island, there's still papers, Jeffrey Epstein's papers scattered all over.
His books, materials everywhere, just laying there.
Not gathered up by the FBI, not gathered up and being investigated.
But where is this information in the mainstream media?
Where are any deeper questions about Epstein's murder and all of the inconsistencies that appeared that day at the prison?
Where are these?
They're not in the mainstream media at all.
And even like Fox News coverage of Pam Bondi's hearing was mysteriously absent.
I don't know if you noticed that, but Fox News loves to go wall to wall with, you know, whoever, whatever member of the cabinet is going to be there.
They love to go wall-to-wall coverage.
Let's check in now with Kash Patel.
You know, he's testifying before Congress today about what the FBI is doing.
And I'm, you know, is it because certain sources have told me that it is because how this hits just about everyone, the major power players?
I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene admitted that President Trump called her and asked her to not vote for the dispatch, what am I saying, the dispatch discharge petition.
I always get the discharge position.
Excuse me.
And of course, the Epstein Transparency Act in her words, quoting her, she said, president told me that too many of my friends would be hurt.
And I think that's at the heart of it.
And I think the money, and there's a reason also, I think, that we haven't seen any of the financial information yet.
So, you know, when you and I spoke a few years ago on the show, I talked about like Operation Gladio and NATO.
And there's a strategy that they have, which is, you know, the strategy of tension that Colonel Towner Watkins, she's very eloquent on this point.
And it's a strategy to keep us in this chaos, right?
And it's also like a drip feed of information.
So we get sort of disparate pieces of emails, but no financial information, no transactions that connect point A to point B.
We get this person said this.
Peter Atia said, I can't tell everyone about you.
You know, you're my friend, but man, you're kind of dirty.
We get Russian models with Bill Gates emails.
We get random pieces of Pizzagate and all of these other things.
But do we get financial connections, financial transactions, which the DOJ is sitting on, by the way?
Like, why don't we see any of that information?
And, you know, to your point with the New York Times or these different publications covering this up, I don't know, but they were actively involved in this.
I mean, you have Landon Thomas, for instance, right, whose name shows up as part of the Epstein investigation.
He was writing about the Epstein from the New York Times, financial reporter writing about Epstein back during his first arrest.
And then you have Nellie Bowles, who is, of course, the partner of, wife of Barry Weiss, who gets assigned by the New York Times as a tech reporter to go and do a profile piece on Jeffrey Epstein.
And it's in the files where she claims, oh, my newsroom basically, you know, they told me it was, or it later came out in her piece, Why She Justified It, that she could go and be with Epstein, that I'd be safe.
Like, so wait, the New York Times put you up to going to a known pedophile sex trafficker's house?
Like, what kind of newsrooms?
Like, yeah, you should, you, you girl, you just run along to a known sex trafficking and pedophiles house and write a profile piece as a tech reporter.
Like, look, I covered technology for years, love it.
And I know all those people in the tech world, if you call, like there's no way somebody from like The Verge or the tech reporter for the Wall Street Journal would be assigned to go do like a criminal profile piece like on financial crimes and sex trafficking or what it just wouldn't make any sense.
It's like Bob Woodward being chosen to cover Watergate, you know, like as an as an as a CIA asset or Intel, you know, adjacent asset.
It just doesn't make any sense.
And then when you learn that she's cozy with Epstein and then Barry Weiss, it's just so bizarre.
So the media, it's remarkable how incurious they are or intentionally incurious.
I don't believe they're dumb.
They're not allowing, for instance, Congressman Massey to appear on television.
I know for a fact that he hasn't, Fox News has not had him on in I think about a year, if I'm not mistaken.
The guy responsible, along with Rokana, for the Epstein Transparency Act, but Fox News won't allow Congressman Massey to appear on their airwaves.
Like, is there some sort of gatekeeping going on by Susie Wiles inside the White House to keep these people from getting this message out on their favorite network?
It's whatever the superstructure above governments is.
And that's very obvious in the Epstein emails and texts is that, you know, he's part of some informal structure that's, I don't know, shorting the global financial crisis and knows that Qaddafi is going to be killed before Hillary Clinton does or whatever.
Like this guy is so plugged in.
He's way more plugged in than any U.S. senator.
He's way more plugged in than any Secretary of State, probably more plugged in than the CIA director.
And, you know, this is where people say, oh, your conspiracy theorists are redacted and Tucker, whatever.
But it really is true when you understand that there's this global cultist network, pedophiles, Satanists who are, you know, responsible for the COVID cabal and all of it, this supra government, whatever you want to call it, at the heart of everything, then you understand that like Trump is just a small piece of this.
And you understand also that Epstein is just a small piece of this.
Maybe it's a window into it, in my opinion.
And they're very scared.
It's like circling the wagons to kind of protect this globalist network, however it operates at many, many different levels.
You know, you get glimpses into it, like with the Bilderberg group.
And, you know, when you see all these people at Davos telling us how they're going to control our lives in the next few years with AI, you know, chips inserted into our brains and moving past information warfare.
Now they're just going to have total control of us and all of it.
So I think that Rupert Murdoch and these guys, these oligarchs, these tech oligarchs who are at the top, they're way more powerful than President Trump, and they're really running the show.
I mean, when you see that we're going to have massive bio, you know, biometrics scanning and 6G networks rolled out and digital IDs and CBDCs and all of this digital tracking, it's all about control.
Kevin Schipp, former CIA whistleblower, told me 17 years at the CIA and he said, he said, Clayton, you have to understand that when I got to the CIA, the number one goal at the CIA is if they know your thoughts, then they've won.
And that's the number one goal of the intelligence state is for them to know your thoughts and to be able to have that control.
And we're not there yet, but we're damn close.
And I think those are the dark forces that are really running all of it.
And I think Trump is a small piece of this, but I think those power players that run all of these media networks and all of it, you know, the Jeff Bezos of the world and all of this have far more control than President Trump does.
As I was thinking about this story today, both about the looming war and about Epstein and how few people have stood up to say, wait a second, you know, what is this?
And I grew up in a country where people would routinely stand up and say, hey, what is this?
And I don't see a lot of that at all.
And I'm wondering why.
And mass hypnosis is part of it.
Of course, people seem to be under a kind of spell.
And I, you know, maybe I should be standing out there with like a sandwich board trying to say it.
I mean, I see the people in our chat room who watch our live show who are saying, I'm terrified of what's about to happen.
Where are the people who are denouncing this, trying to get this, trying to stop it?
But of course, they're all being drowned out.
And the media is complicit in this.
They're a huge piece of this salesmanship of it.
And when you just watch like local news, like I'm in Colorado, you just like flip on the local news for a few minutes to get maybe some weather updates.
They'll do a little quick update.
President Trump says this will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Play a quick soundbite of, I don't know, Mark Levin or Senator Lindsey Graham or somebody saying that this is a threat.
And then, you know, that person goes off to work and thinks, yeah, I guess Iran is a threat.
I hope I hope that doesn't happen.
So, you know, we got to stop them.
We got to do this.
And so I don't see a lot of the fear from just like average people going to the grocery store.
And again, I think it comes back to we are always so far removed from war in the United States.
And that's how they've thrived off this.
This is how the military-industrial complex has thrived is by having these wars over there.
And we don't have to see it.
And it's very sanitized.
It's like getting a chicken breast from the grocery store.
You know, you don't have to see the butcher process.
I wonder if people who do see it, who are paid to notice this stuff, you, for example, and other podcasters, that's really where truth is being told right now.
I'm grateful to be in this business unexpectedly because I feel like there are so many great people in it.
But it really is the only place at this point.
It'll change.
But as of right now, it's digital media, social media, and podcasts.
I mean, that's where people are telling the truth.
And there are lots of crazies too, and lots of liars, but that's really where most of the truth is being told.
Can they continue to do this?
I mean, it feels like there has to be some kind of dramatic free speech crackdown because what the government is doing at every level is too far from what the public wants.
The distance is, it's never perfect.
Like the government's always doing stuff people don't want.
But if every big thing the government is doing is, you know, an 80-20 against issue with the public, that's not sustainable.
You have to do something or you're going to have a kind of revolution, right?
I mean, that's exactly why we got rid of TikTok, right?
I mean, that's you're going to see this consolidation of these independent voices and others will pop up and whether or not they're as successful or not.
I mean, who knows at the end of the day.
But of course, you're going to have this consolidation in sale and censorship.
And that's, I mean, we've seen it on YouTube and you've seen it on these other platforms.
And so you saw it during COVID and you saw, you know, Elon Musk still hasn't answered the question.
And I think it's still there, which is that backdoor access for Twitter.
And maybe he will answer it.
He didn't answer.
I followed up with him.
He still hasn't answered the question, but there was a backdoor access from the U.S. government to X, formerly Twitter.
And I asked him about it specifically, and he didn't know anything about it when I asked him.
And he said, I'm going to have to follow up on that.
And I followed him.
I never got an answer on that.
So, like, to steal your phrase, you know, like, what is that?
Really?
X still has a backdoor access from the federal government to censor users on X?
I mean, you can just see people's voices who criticize a certain topic who then are suddenly throttled or, you know, suddenly shadow banned and whose messages suddenly don't appear in your timeline.
And so, again, not to be conspiratorial, but these things are going to have to be censored at a greater level and they will have more control of it.
You're already seeing it too with answers you get on AI.
And so many people are ditching Google, just general Google searches.
It's absurd, you know, so that they get new versions of Google searches thinking that they're getting more honest answers when really it's what garbage in, garbage out.
Whatever the programming is for AI, it's the answers they're going to get on that side.
So, you know, it's very, very difficult to get honest answers anymore.
And all of these sources, especially on the media side, the digital media side, and where is AI pulling their source material from, like mainstream media?
Like I did a search the other day and it pulled up like six different sources and Reuters.
So what are you going to do when the power goes out?
Not theoretically, but actually in real life.
Most Americans used to think total power failure only happened in unstable countries, places without functioning governments, places you only went to on vacation.
This is the U.S. people would say that could never happen here.
And when things go wrong, no one's coming to save you.
That's why LastCountry Supply offers the Grid Doctor.
It's a 3,300 watt battery backup system built to keep your entire household running when everything else stops.
It powers full-size appliances, medical devices, essential tools.
You can use it indoors.
It's totally safe.
There's no fuel.
There are no fumes.
There's no noise.
We have one at home and it's awesome.
It's got 15 output ports.
It charges from the wall when you have power, from your car when you don't.
It's got a solar panel so the sun can charge it.
It's built to withstand EMPs, lightning, solar flares.
It is durable as hell.
So taking care of yourself and the people you love, the people you're responsible for is your job.
Get power you can trust always.
Get the grid doctor today at our very own, lastcountrysupply.com.
Our business.
This is the power supply that we use.
Lastcountrysupply.com.
So that's pretty funny.
What did you think?
Mike Huckabee, we went interviewed him last week in Israel and I found everything about him totally disgraceful.
But since we did that, but I tried to let him talk and not be a jerk, which is hard for me.
And to, you know, kind of press him.
Yeah, right.
I'm not a great person.
Don't pretend to be.
But I did want to get to the root answers on a couple of foundational questions, like if Israel has a right to exist uniquely in the world, where does that right come from?
And to whom does it apply?
And what are the boundaries of the state?
Like those are, I think, basic questions.
He, and why aren't you representing the U.S. government as the U.S. ambassador?
After that interview, I mean, I think the guy, something broke inside him.
Have you ever been attacked after an interview?
That's usually a sign that something snapped in the person.
Well, I mean, you can only ask the question 30 times and not get an answer at some point.
Like, you know, this could be a five-hour interview for just, I'm going to ask the same question over and over and over again, and you're not going to answer the question.
Like, where does that right come from?
And then, like, under bewilderment, finally, like an admission of truth at one point when he says, yes, they should just take it all, Tucker.
And I just about fell out of my chair.
Natalie and I watched it together.
We both looked at each other.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
And of course, widely condemned across all of the Middle East after that comment that, sure, Israel has a right to all of this land they should just take up.
But Israel won't because they're good.
They're good.
So they're not going to.
So we should just rest.
We should all sit back because they have no history of doing that at all and just allow them to take the small sliver of land.
So, but you can only ask that question so many times before, you know, and you're not going to get an answer and not going to get a straight answer about it.
And while I was there, Trump's ambassador, his original ambassador before the Biden-era ambassadors, I mean, got into quite a bit of problems with the Portuguese government for basically telling them to back off on China.
There were a couple of other issues, but it was coming from a place of American interest.
And it was quite a big deal, like in the Portuguese press.
Like, how dare this ambassador, how dare he tell us what the Americans want?
You know, this is Portugal, right?
So I almost would like a little bit of that, right?
Like, hey, I'm going to hold a press conference here in Tel Aviv.
And while we believe in our partnership with Israel, we also as Americans don't stand for pedophiles, known pedophiles.
Like, why is Israel a safe haven for pedophiles?
And it is.
I mean, you could call up Barry Weiss and have her pull up the CBS archives where the CBS did a deep dive on Israel's deep pedophile connections and where American pedophiles can flee and find safe haven, this right of return.
It doesn't matter if you're pedophile.
It doesn't matter if you killed children or not.
Who cares?
So as an American ambassador to stand up there and hold a press conference and say, as Americans, even though we've got a great relationship with Israel, we will not stand for this country harboring convicted pedophiles or pedophiles under indictment who are caught in a sting operation back in the United States.
Like, we want these people extradited back to the United States to stand trial and to face a jury of their peers, but we don't hear any of that.
Our cameraman got really hassled by thugs in the Israeli security services.
I mean, unequivocally hassled, outrageous.
And Huckabee didn't ask what happened.
He just immediately took the side of the foreign government against my producers.
So, don't we as American taxpayers and American citizens have an expectation that there's someone in our government who will take our side against a foreign government or at least consider our position against their position?
I'm just reminded, it's like you see the movies, Hollywood movies where, you know, an American is in another country and he finds safe haven by going to a U.S. embassy, right?
I mean, even just back in the Fox days, you know, I mean, and, you know, Huckabee's always been gracious to me and I've been very nice.
In fact, but there was many times where he was like, I'm going to Israel again this week.
I'm going to Israel again this week.
And this was back when before he was, he had a show, but before he was running for president and complaining about Trump, he said, God, why did Fox puts Trump on all the air?
You know, I can't get, I can't get a word in edgewise.
They won't give me any airtime.
He sucks up his words.
Trump sucks up all the air in the room.
I can't get on the TV, you know, and all this stuff.
But so he would be like, I'm going to Israel again and come back.
Clayton, I brought you a gift, you know, and here's another, here's a Yarmulka.
Like, oh, thanks.
And I'll add it to the Yarmulka collection in my office now.
And here's the jar.
This is right, you know, this is right from Tel Aviv.
Here's another.
So, I mean, he was, there was a deep love, deep love there for many, many years.
And, you know, he wouldn't get this position if he was tough on Israel.
He wouldn't be in a position of flying in and being the U.S. ambassador if he was tough on Israel or he was going to put them in their place.
And we're not going to carry out another regime change war on your behalf.
Like, look, we tried it in Libya, didn't work out so well, destabilized the Middle East.
We tried it in Iraq, didn't work out so well, destabilized the Middle East.
And I know you've been calling for this for decades for us to help you and to carry this out in Iran.
We're not going to do it.
He'd be out of a job.
I just don't see how when you have literally a White House chief of staff who is formerly worked for Netanyahu inside the White House, you don't choose an ambassador.
The gatekeeping does not allow for somebody who's critical of Israel to be the U.S. ambassador to Israel.
I mean, I think this is, we've gotten to this place because nobody wants to hurt anybody's feelings.
And the Bibi people have conflated skepticism of Israel's goals with anti-Semitism, which is insane.
I mean, there are a lot of Jews who don't like Bib, and they have every good reason to.
They're not anti-Semites.
No person is an anti-Semite for disliking the actions of the Israeli government or not buying Zionism, whatever that is.
So people have been kind of like, they don't want to have that fight.
So they've just sort of let this fester.
And then there's the other factor, which is physical fear, because Israel is so violent and it's constantly bragging about murdering people and blowing up kids with pagers or leveling Gaza.
I mean, this is the most violent country in the world by far per capita.
So there is a feeling that like, well, if you criticize them too much, they could hurt you.
And I get that.
I'm not criticizing anyone who's afraid because there's a reason to be afraid.
However, we've gotten to a place where we're potentially going to like wreck our economy and Americans will die because one guy, Benjamin Netanyahu, thinks it's a good idea or good for his political career or whatever.
That if we go to war with Iran, it will not be a walk in the park.
It will be a brutal, bloody war.
And it will be their quote, hell on earth, hell on earth.
And that's just there.
Every military expert I've talked to says, we have no strategy whatsoever.
And we have, as you pointed out in your monologue earlier, what endgame?
Like, what is the end of this?
Sort of a permanent boots without like permanent or some sort of large contingent of boots on the ground, hundreds of thousands of American forces, boots on the ground in that country.
What are we looking at here?
Targeted strikes?
And that's, we're just going to wash our hands of it and hope that that's the end of it and we walk away.
It makes zero sense.
So this is going to be an absolutely debilitating war.
It would be devastating to the American economy.
The U.S. dollar, of course, is already purposely being devalued.
You know, we're talking about like $30 Big Macs in the coming years.
I mean, that's what we're heading towards.
We want to further oil prices in the streets of Hormuz.
Like, what will this do to the United States economy?
But you hear from the MAGA crowd who we're now energy independent.
So we don't care about the straits of Hormuz anymore.
That's inconsequential because now the United States is fully energy independent.
And we've done so brilliantly, according to Lindsey Graham, thanks to the president of the United States, that it doesn't matter if the straits of Hormuz are shut down because guess what?
Like we're, we're all taken care of now.
We're able to start drilling Trump's drilling program.
So don't worry about it.
Will be fine.
What's China's response going to be?
What's Russia's response going to be?
What's the Middle East?
What are all of those countries in the Middle East?
What is their response going to be?
And by the way, what about all the cannon fodder of American soldiers sitting right there right now, not in fortresses?
Many of these places are like little outposts with very little protection at all.
Well, it's also, I mean, just to the energy independence thing, I'm very strongly for energy, for oil and gas, for coal.
I mean, I believe that completely.
However, energy prices, oil and gas prices are set at the international market.
So what does that mean?
Would you nationalize the energy producers and force them just to sell domestically?
Every refinery has to sell its products in the U.S. Like, what does that mean?
If the Straits of Hormuz are closed, if there's disruption to energy facilities in the Gulf, the price of oil as set on the international market where everybody in the world bids on it every day, all the time, will spike.
I mean, that's just a fact.
It's supply and demand.
So we're going to exempt ourselves from this.
How?
You would have to say, again, to American refineries, you can't sell in the international market.
American energy producers cannot sell on the international market.
Well, they believe that the petro dollar is a thing of the past, or, you know, the sort of Saudi, the Saudi petro dollar is a thing of the past.
And that, well, now in the United States, it'll be backed by our own oil in the United States.
So the U.S. dollar as a petro dollar will now be backed the full faith and credit of the United States government, which is also $39 trillion in debt, right?
So how is that going to play out on the international stage?
And will these oil producers, which make bank selling, I mean, just look at, we blow up the Nord Stream pipeline.
So what did we do?
We sell natural gas to Germany at what, three times the price that they were able to get it from Russia.
And now you're going to tell the oil and natural gas producers that they can't sell it to Germany.
They can't sell it to these other places because now there's no shipping lane.
There's no way to get this oil and natural gas to those regions of the world.
And you're only going to sell it to American consumers.
So we're going to nationalize it and sort of we'll subsidize it like the ethanol market, you know, like, and that's how we'll do it.
It feels like the rhetoric, I feel like such a liberal saying this because I hate on people, oh, the rhetoric is overheated on all sides.
But I mean, as someone who's been in the rhetoric business his whole life, and I've added to ugly rhetoric and said intemperate things, I've said incorrect things.
I have been part of the problem for sure at various points.
But I've never seen people talk like they're talking right now, particularly on the neocon side.
Anyone who disagrees is a Nazi.
Anyone who's not eager to regime change Iran wants a second Holocaust.
I mean, it's the kind of language where if not slowed soon, someone's going to get hurt for real.
I mean, just look at it on the, you know, whatever you want to call it, MAGA Twitter, MAGA X, that if you disagree or you, you know, call for the release of the Epstein files, that you're somehow, you're somehow a liberal, you're, you know, what you want to hurt the Trump administration.
You don't want us to go to war with Iran, then you're, you know, shut up, then you must be an anti-Semite.
So you're probably pro-Islam.
It's, I've never seen it like this.
I mean, I'm, you know, even going back to, I mean, even like, even going back to days, early social media, like it was far, far more congenial, I think, than it has, than it is today.
And I think that's why I think that's why you're going to see more censorship because as much as I love the dialogue, I love the back and forth on real issues.
But I think you're going to see massive censorship because they don't want us.
They don't want us fighting over the things that they want to carry out, like war with Iran or covering up the Epstein files or when you start to prick too closely, you get followed and people tap your phones when you're digging into pedophile networks and these other things.
So I think we're going to see more censorship, unfortunately.
And I think that's the intent.
I think at the end of the day, they want us fighting like this to be as loud as possible so that they can censor us and that they can have total control of it.
See, that's too out of control.
Too many people calling people Nazis.
We've got to control it.
YouTube changes its terms of service all the time, adds all sorts of new things you can't talk about on a regular basis.
And toward violence, I mean, first of all, there is some kind of nexus between violence outside our borders and violence inside our borders.
I believe that.
And in times of war and around wars, chaos and violence increase here.
You saw this during Vietnam.
Charlie Kirk was murdered a day after the Israelis bombed Doha, one of the craziest things that's happened in the last 20 years, et cetera.
I'm not saying there's a direct connection, but these things tend to flower simultaneously.
I just have always noticed that.
It's a spirit of violence that descends for real.
And for another, violent acts, you just saw this in Australia, real or not, are used as a pretext to strip people of their civil liberties, of their human rights, their God-given human rights.
And so I just fear that there will be some sort of domestic terror incident in which actual Americans will actually die, which is a true tragedy, no matter who they are, but that that tragedy will be used to strip the rest of us of our God-given human rights.
I mean, we have a long history of false flags being used to strip us of our civil liberties and to carry out these horribly nefarious things.
We just had, I think this afternoon, what's his name from the National Endowment for Democracy admitted in front of Congress that they were there inside of Iran helping to basically, you know, with their Starlink materials, helping to basically work on this agitation of protesters.
And Luis Stefani, I think, like shut him, shut him down, told him, shut up.
And like, I don't think we should talk about this here.
So you literally have an admission that we are involved and actively in these types of stoking of chaos around the world, whether it's people wearing plain clothes things showing up on January 6th,
whether it's 9-11 attacks on purpose to strip us of our civil liberties and get us into perpetual wars in the Middle East, whether it's, you know, William Randolph Hearst and Remember the Maine and pushing us into war against Spain and rallying certain purposes there, or whether it's FDR, you know, basically allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, which he did.
So you're speaking from historical precedence.
And, you know, I just, I get so frustrated when people think that these things don't happen or that false flag attacks used as a pretext for stripping us of our civil liberties won't happen or the massive digital ID bio infrastructure that is coming through the likes of these tech oligarchs.
And they've been rolling it out and testing it in places like Ukraine with the DIA app and making sure that everything is targeted and tracked and people can snitch on their neighbors in Ukraine.
You know, you can like literally press a button on an app and basically have the SBU show up at your neighbor's house to investigate them.
Like that's what they want.
And they test it out in these places like Ukraine and they want to roll it out here because as I said earlier, like what Kevin Schipp told me, they want control.
And that's the most frightening part of all.
We're just giving up control.
Every time you did a great piece a few weeks ago on the phones and spying on your phones.
It's like every time we take in these little pieces of advanced technology, it's making our lives easier.
It's actually sapping of us.
It's sapping us and it's taking away our liberties.
So part of me just wants to move out in the mountains of Wyoming and knock down any 6G, 5G towers I see anywhere around me and just live off the land and churn butter.
I think this is all a fantasy on the part of the people putting together the control grid.
I think that control over other people, over the physical landscape, over the universe, assuming godlike powers is like the desire of every evil person.
And I think history is filled with attempts at this from the Tower of Babel till present.
And I don't think it's possible.
And I think that people routinely overstate their own power and they think they can do it, but they can't.
And I think we laugh at them in retrospect.
Like you're going to build a tower to the sky and eliminate all different languages.
And I see these nefarious things and I see all these people drugged out on pot marijuana and they're just like drones.
And then once you roll in some sort of like universal basic income, you get to be a drone as part of the system.
And I don't know.
I'm usually a glass half full kind of person and I'm trying to be, but I think the moves in this AI direction is so nefarious and so terrifying that I don't know if we can put this genie back in the bottle.
I sure hope so.
But pretty soon in the next like five years, people are going to have robots in their houses like folding their laundry.
Like that is coming.
I mean, anyway, Tesla just converted one of their factories in Fremont to be the new Optimus robot plant.
So robots are coming.
AI and a much larger capacity is coming.
And by the way, the United States is losing desperately to China in that race.
And so you can only imagine these neocons and technocrats that really want to run things are going to be pushing for trillions of dollars in the United States budget to be able to try to compete with China.