WAR HAS BEGUN | Timcast IRL #1460 w/ Seth Holehouse
Seth Holehouse dissects Operation Epic Fury, a U.S.-Israel strike on Iran killing six American troops, questioning public support amid escalating Gulf retaliation and regime-change skepticism. He warns of Iranian sleeper cells post-Austin shooting, ties China’s oil trade to Tehran’s survival, and dismisses leftist anti-Israel rhetoric as hypocritical while advocating mass deportations over military quagmires. The debate hinges on whether U.S. intervention risks prolonged conflict or achieves nuclear deterrence—with domestic backlash looming if casualties rise. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, we are brought to you by the campaign for America First International Assistance.
This is the CAFIA.
They believe that a new era of America First International Assistance is underway and that President Trump has made clear the U.S. will act decisively while ending the practice of providing blank checks.
According to CAFIA, the U.S. assistance should be strategic, accountable, and tied to measurable results that strengthen American security, including stronger borders, tougher enforcement, and real cooperation to stop illegal immigration and keep deadly drugs out of U.S. communities.
CAFIA believes that America First Assistance should focus on stabilizing fragile regions before crises reach U.S. shores, strengthening key partners and supporting American farmers, manufacturers, and workers.
It also cites data from President Trump's pollster showing that 80% of Trump voters support this approach to international assistance.
The campaign for America First International Assistance believes Trump is sending a message to Beijing stating that the use of foreign aid to buy influence and control will no longer go unchallenged and that the U.S. must lead with strength, purpose, and clear conditions that put American security first.
You guys can check out more by going to AmericaFirstintl.org.
Again, that's AmericaFirstintl.org.
Tax Network USA, my friends.
Do you owe back taxes or have unfiled tax returns?
Or have you filed every year but still keep owing?
Did you retire and suddenly get hit with a tax bill you didn't expect?
Maybe you pulled money from your 401k or IRA early and now the IRS wants its share.
Whatever your tax issue is, the outcome is the same.
Your balance is not going down.
Penalties are growing.
Interest compounds.
And many of you are about to owe again for the upcoming tax year with no plan in place.
Stop what you're doing and call Tax Network USA.
The IRS is not waiting.
They are enforcing collections through wage garnishment, bank levies, and property seizures.
They can even file for you without your consent.
This is where Tax Network USA comes in.
With over 15 years in business, there hasn't been a tax case they haven't seen or resolved.
They specialize in tax controversies and help taxpayers nationwide get back on track by resolving back taxes and unfiled returns once and for all.
Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their team has resolved over $1 billion in tax debt.
They can do the same for you, but you have to call now.
They're offering a free investigative call with the IRS.
After that investigation, they'll put a clear plan in place to resolve your tax problem, get you back on track.
So don't wait.
Call 1-866-686-1535.
That's 1-866-686-1535 or visit tnusa.com/slash Tim.
All right, so smash the like button, share the show with all your friends.
Head on over to rumble.com and become a member so you can watch our after show and also head on over to Timcast.com so you can join our Discord.
The Discord is where you can jump into the after show and ask our guest questions, talk to the panel.
You can probably find someone to date because that's happened a lot too.
Maybe even have a couple kids.
That'd be awesome.
So joining us to talk about the stories that we have discussed a little bit, we've got a lot of stuff that's developing and stuff, but joining us to talk about these and all this stuff tonight is Seth Holehouse.
All right, we're going to start with a little bit of the timeline from Reuters.
Top U.S. General outlines initial timeline of U.S. military operation in Iran.
Top U.S. General Dan Kane, Dan Raisin Kane, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Monday gave an initial timeline and some details on the start of the U.S. military operation in Iran.
So far, four, well, at the time of the writing, it was four, but they've actually upped the casualties to six.
U.S. service members have been killed and four others remain seriously wounded, the military has said.
As of February 27th at 3:38 p.m. Eastern Time, the U.S. Central Command received the final GO order from President Donald Trump.
Operation Epic Fury is approved.
No aborts.
Good luck.
U.S. forces made final preparations.
Air defense batteries check systems to respond to Iranian attacks.
Pilots and crews rehearsed strike packages for the final time.
Air crews began loading final weapons.
Two carrier strike groups began to move towards launching points.
The first moves were made by U.S. Cyber Command and U.S. Space Command, which worked to disrupt, degrade, and blind Iran's ability to see, communicate, and respond before the attack began.
February 28th, at 1:15 a.m. Eastern Time, which is 9:45 a.m. Iran time, more than 100 aircraft from land and sea launched, forming a single synchronized wave.
The daylight strike was based on a trigger event conducted by the Israeli defense forces, enabled by the U.S. intelligence community.
This was an apparent reference to Kane's Israelis' strike, surprise strike on Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khomeini, that was aided by U.S. intelligence.
All right.
So we're going to get into a lot of the things going on.
And first off, we're going to talk about the death toll because one thing the United States, the American people, don't really take kindly to is Americans coming home in body bats.
This is the biggest fear that America has.
We're extremely concerned with losing lives.
I said last week, the U.S. is generally accepting of airstrikes if there are no casualties.
And you can see that kind of the evidence for that in the Venezuela operation.
The fact that the U.S. went in, did what it wanted to do, no Americans lost their lives.
So the approval rating on that was something like 80% or something.
75% of Americans were like, well, that's okay, you know.
But we're in a conflict now that is, by the president's own admission, going to be something longer.
It's not going to be like just the strikes on Venezuela.
The president has already alluded to a expectation of casualties.
And within the first couple of days, we had an Iranian missile strike.
I believe it was a U.S. Navy installation in Saudi Arabia, I think.
And that's where six U.S. service members died.
So I'm wondering what you guys think about that.
You know, the fact that this is already off to a start where there are Americans that have died.
And the reason, and I'm going to push back on that just because if you look back at the way that we staged before the invasion of Iraq, if you look back at the way that we staged before the first desert storm, it was obvious that there were going to be boots on the ground.
The United States doesn't send in ground forces unless there's a Burger King in a trailer right behind him.
The logistics are just not there to say that the boots, that there's going to be boots on the ground.
Now, that's not saying that there won't be.
That's saying that as of right now, talking about boots on the ground is too early.
You would see massive buildup, a massive buildup of logistics before you could realistically predict.
Actually, you would see some logistics starting to move before you could realistically predict boots on the ground.
Now, again, I'm not saying that it won't happen.
I'm just saying that I think that it's early to talk about that kind of stuff.
Well, and off your initial point, I mean, with the story, the six service members were killed in Kuwait at a base there.
And that actually kind of steel mans a little bit what Mark Arubio was saying today about how this strike was actually kind of more preemptive in the sense that they were going to attack us anyway.
So we might as well strike first.
And this is why I say this kind of steel mans it to a degree is because the casualties would have been far higher if we didn't anticipate an attack occurring coming from Iran.
Again, this is not to sort of say one way or the other if this is a good idea.
I just really don't think so.
But people are saying this is like the service members were killed during the operation.
It was actually killed by Iranians striking in Kuwait.
Well, I mean, look at what's happening now is the Iranians are striking Gulf states that have zero involvement whatsoever.
They struck a French naval base and the UAE.
So Either UA or Qatar, the UAE, I believe.
So it's like, clearly, Iran has zero geopolitical instincts.
Very reminiscent.
I know people always compare stuff to World War II, but this actually is very salient.
It would be kind of reminiscent of when Japan attacked the Americans at Pearl Harbor.
It's like you're just kind of roping in countries that probably otherwise would be slightly aligned, but they wouldn't be all in, and now it forces their hand to go all in.
So Iran is rallying the entire Sunni-Muslim world against them because while they certainly are empathetic with the Palestinians, they do not like Iran.
So, you know, it's forcing them to pick a side.
And when you strike them, they're going to side against you.
No, it's not for Israel, but I will say this was because of Israel.
And let me explain.
Let me flesh that out a little bit more.
There has been a total and complete reshaping of Middle Eastern geopolitics since October 7th.
Who was the original commander?
Yahya Sinwar was the original commander who really led third worldists astray because this really, again, allowed the reinvigoration of American hegemony, I think, worldwide in the Middle East.
And, you know, we're seeing third worldists in shambles right now.
But ever since the October 7th war failing to achieve their goals of, I don't know, destroying Israel, Israel has managed to take out Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and then Lebanon's actually, the government of Lebanon has distanced themselves from Hezbollah, which is worth mentioning.
And I mean, if I could flesh this out a little bit further, they attacked the Houthis also in Yemen.
They also helped assist in, we don't know completely how involved Israel and the Americans were in regime change in Syria, but that happening over the course of the couple of years preceding this greatly influenced the Americans and Israelis' ability to strike in Iran.
So there are no air defense.
There used to be air defenses in Syria and Lebanon that helped prevent Israelis and Americans from flying over and striking the Iranians.
But since the Israelis largely defeated our enemies in Syria and Lebanon, it helped facilitate the opportunity to strike straight at the Iranian regime without having to worry too much about blowback from their proxies in different countries.
So from the post-millennial, we're going to talk about this a bit.
The death toll rises to six U.S. service members following Iranian attacks on Fortified Operations Center in Kuwait.
U.S. Central Command has confirmed that an additional two U.S. service members were killed in the attack on a fortified operations center in Kuwait over the weekend.
This raises the death toll of American service members from four to six thus far under Operation Epic Fury.
As of 4 p.m. Eastern Time, March 2nd, six U.S. service members have been killed in action.
U.S. forces recently recovered the remains of two previously unaccounted for service members from a facility that was struck during Iran's initial attacks in the region.
Major combat operations continue.
The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after Next of Kin notification sentcom reported.
Operation Epic Fury was launched by the Trump administration on Saturday, March 1st.
Israel and the U.S. teamed up to attack Iran and dismantle their regime.
In addition to killing the nation's supreme leader, the entire command structure was wiped out.
It's worth noting the U.S. has struck over a thousand or struck a thousand targets in the first hours.
And I believe at this point, they've struck 2,000 targets.
So, I mean, it is something like I don't want to, you know, to sugarcoat the situation and not talk about the lives lost.
But if I understand correctly, the U.S. has largely taken out their significant air defense, and they're starting to do things like load JDAMs, which JDAMs are not good if you have serious air defense.
But if you have, if you have the ability to fly high and just drop bombs, J-DAMs are great.
So if that's the case, you know, does this look like a second phase is coming now?
Or do you think that this is still something where the U.S. looks like they're going to lose significant numbers of people?
And by significant, I mean numbers that the American people are going to find unacceptable.
Well, I don't even think we should be looking at this as judging if there's like a certain threshold of casualties that would make those success.
And I'm not saying you're saying this, but a lot of people are saying, well, if there's zero casualties like Venezuela, this is a good thing.
But it literally reminds me of the Libya stuff back in the day, where Libya was toppled, zero casualties from Americans or the Europeans that were involved.
And at the time, everyone celebrated this as a great victory, saying, well, this is a worthwhile operation.
There were zero casualties.
And then the result ended up being a massive problem, quite frankly, for the West, specifically Europe.
And so this kind of reminds me of the same thing with Iran.
It's like, if they're seriously trying to say, well, as long as we can get this across the finish line with zero casualties, then this is a success.
I'm like, the casualties isn't really, I mean, not to downplay what's happening, but it's like, even if it was zero, this is still, it's probably going to result in something.
It's going to be unknown what the result is.
I don't know if casualties should be how we define victory or sort of like success.
I think that's fascinating because I think the president's been most concerned about that issue in particular.
And I think as far as the American public goes, that's what they do care about.
I think that the American public would support regime change in Iran so long as it didn't count, didn't cause many American casualties or require boots on the ground.
But when you do move to a position of boots on the ground and then hundreds of casualties, I think polls show that that's dramatically the other way.
So I think that's why the president has been doing this mostly as an air campaign.
Same with Venezuela.
He was trying to do these quick attacks with our military force and not draw inspiration from prior commanders in chief who would like to stage a nation build.
And that wasn't conducive to success for the American military.
The American military wasn't built to build nations.
It was built to destroy nations.
So we shouldn't try to put a square peg in a round hole.
So, I think that's been the president's MO, which is why I also believe him when he says he only wants to do this for four or five weeks has been the loose term.
I don't think if he is able to achieve his objectives in that amount of time, then I think he will pull out if he still if he doesn't achieve them.
Yeah, I think that if there's a high, if there is a high, and by, and when I say high, I mean by American standards, a high death toll of Americans, I think that the U.S. is going to broadly really be upset, right?
Like there are people, like right now, I think that it's probably unpopular overall.
I think that the Americans will, the American people will accept it if there aren't significant losses.
But Aladdin and I were talking earlier.
And if a cruise missile manages to make it through and hit an aircraft carrier and takes it out of commission for a little while, which I mean, regardless of the likelihood of that happening, if that happens, then the president's in a really tough spot because you don't want to initiate a war and then turn tail and run because that ruins your credibility.
That ruins, that definitely ruins any chances of Republicans getting anything done.
Like they're not like they're going to be, you know, pariahs for ages and ages.
And it'll look like the same kind of thing that happened in Iraq.
But at the same time, the American people don't have this.
We have never seen a you or not, at least not since World War II, have we seen an American ship significantly hit?
And the meme is: don't F with our boats.
So if there's an attack on a Navy ship like the Lincoln or something like that, that's successful.
I don't think that you're going to see that kind of the American people coalesce and say, yes, let's get them back.
I think there's going to be a lot of people that are going to be real PO'd at the Trump administration.
They're going to be, what happened to no more wars?
Which you've already seen that in a certain segment.
But I think those people are going to be really upset and it's going to cause real problems for accomplishing any goals.
You know, there's, I feel like a major quagmire, I mean, and a contradiction in many of the things that the president says.
But one thing in particular that he constantly said throughout his time campaigning and while president: it's that Iran, the regime in Iran, will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
And then at the same time, he says, no new wars and no Middle Eastern quagmires.
And these can't both be true at the same time if the regime chooses to pursue nuclear weapons and he chooses to prevent them.
I think that's kind of where we're at the fork in the road on this conversation too.
There's two other things that I also wanted to expand on.
Because I asked earlier today, Secretary of War Pete Heckseth had a press briefing where I was able to ask him about whether or not we currently have boots on the ground.
No, but we're not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do.
I think it's one of those fallacies for a long time that this department 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 exactly how far we'll go.
Here's what we're willing to do and not do.
It's foolishness.
And so President Trump ensures that our enemies understand we'll go as far as we need to go to advance American interests.
But we're not dumb about it.
You don't have to roll 200,000 people in there and stay for 20 years.
We've proven that you can achieve objectives that advance American interests without being foolish about it.
Now, will we be bold about it?
Are we willing to be decisive about it?
Do we put months and months of planning into what kind of effects we want to achieve?
Absolutely.
But going forward, why in the world would we tell you, you, the enemy, anybody what we will or will not do in pursuit of an objective?
We fight to win.
We fight to achieve the objectives the president of the United States has laid out.
First, I think that was one of the least convincing no's I've heard in a long time.
I think A few things.
On top of that, I think the American people deserve the right to know that if the military that they support and their sons and daughters are fighting in, if they are on the ground fighting a war somewhere, which is what the president said that we are engaged in a war, then we deserve to know if there are boots on the ground.
Having said that, though, boots on the ground could mean so many different things.
If we just have some special operations people on the ground, boots on the ground, I feel like, implies more military troops than just some special operations forces there.
I assume there are, though, special operations forces there.
And when people hear boots on the ground, they're thinking large-scale military actions with tens of thousands of Marines there, which I think is what he was trying to avoid saying.
He, however, did not rule it out, which I understand why he wouldn't want to because he still wants to intimidate the regime.
Or I don't know if he's genuinely leaving the option open.
The president also said that he is down to send troops over there if need be, but the president also likes to leave his options open.
I asked that question in particular.
A lot of people were saying it's a dumb question because how is he supposed to answer that if there hasn't been public information about it, though?
I just think it's probably the most important issue at hand with how it comes to public sentiment about the war.
A lot more people will support the war against Iran if we don't have boots on the ground versus if we do.
I think that's the central question moving forward because that'll also be heavily linked to the casualty count that Americans suffer.
Well, where my mind's going is my biggest concern is not deaths of American troops in Iran.
It's American soil, right?
Because this is the theater of war that we're fighting now is not what it was in World War II, right?
Where you have these big ships showing up and dropping troops off and your planes flying overhead.
This is fifth generation warfare, right?
It's information war.
It's a lot of stuff that is new.
And so my concern is, okay, we know that Iran has very heavy ties with the CCP, right?
With the BRICS nations.
They've got an entire fifth column on American soil, right?
A lot of people don't think about that.
You go to Walmart, you're passing an Iranian sleeper cell.
You're passing a Chinese quote-unquote student who's actually trained Chinese special forces that's here.
That's where my concern is, is domestic.
Is Iran going to fire a missile in the United States?
No, it's stupid, right?
But like what we saw with the Texas gunman, which I've got some ideas that, you know, that's kind of suspicious for a few reasons, but our infrastructure is so vulnerable.
And we know this, right?
Our government knows it.
If you look at our grid especially, it would be so easy to have a couple of Iranian terror cells in the United States absolutely cripple this country, whether it's attacking a key power station, attacking a key transportation hub.
So that's where my concern goes: what's happening with these troops that we know, especially under the Biden administration, were just walking over the border, setting up shop here.
I'm going to talk about it, but there's also one question that I want to ask you about that.
From CBS News, Texas gunmen wore property of Allah hoodie, an Iranian flag t-shirt during the attack, had photos of Iranian leaders at home, sources say.
CBS News has obtained a new photo of the gunman who police say killed two people and wounded 14 at a bar in Austin, Texas.
The photo shows the gunman, Nadaga Diagni, after he was killed by police.
It shows the clothing he was wearing during the attack, including a shirt with a design similar to the Iranian flag.
Asked about the shirt at a news conference Monday, Alex Doran, the acting special agent in charge of the FBI's field office in San Antonio, told reporters that investigators were looking into what connections the shooter may have had.
Any declarations on what led to that motive would be premature, Doran said.
The shooter was also wearing a sweatshirt that said property of Allah during the attack, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.
That description matches a photo obtained by Fox News that appears to show the gunman carrying a long gun.
Now, I don't think you're wrong in your concerns, but I would say if that is going to happen, or if that were the case, if there are so many sleeper agents here, then why would they not have attacked right after we basically took out the Ayatollah?
I imagine that would be kind of the catalyst.
It's like, if you're here in the U.S. and you're hiding among the U.S. population, if the U.S. attacks and or if they kill the Ayatollah, not just the attack, but actually take out basically all of the command structure in the first hours, wouldn't that be the catalyst to say, okay, now's the time to retaliate?
Let's go and attack.
Now, because this gunman seems like he was a lone wolf.
That's what it kind of points out right now, at least.
Obviously, it's one guy.
It wasn't a cell.
It was a dude that probably was upset that the U.S. was attacking and he took it upon himself to go to a soft target, a bar in Austin.
What would you say to someone that says, well, where are these attacks?
It's tough to say if he would be specifically tied to Iran, because if he's from Senegal, that would mean he's Sunni.
Obviously, Iran is a Shia country.
So I kind of lean towards the Lodz that this is probably a schizophrenic third worldist who would be upset with any third world country or non-American, or sorry, non-Western aligned country being bombed.
He was probably equally as frustrated with Venezuela.
There's a huge contingent of these people all across the third world who just, again, hate white people specifically and get really upset when white people do white people things, which is get people online sometimes.
So these types of guys just get completely fired up.
And that's why I think a little bit of schizophrenia, a little bit of third worldism.
I mean, this guy was a citizen, so I think that he might get passed over with my prescription.
But I think that this only kind of adds strength to the argument.
It's time to continue or to ramp up deportations of people from countries that don't align with our values, right?
Like I know that there's a lot of people that think that the idea of ending immigration for a decade or two think that's a little too extreme.
They think that deporting people is too extreme.
But I really do think that it's probably necessary to start really focusing on getting people that are not American citizens, that come from cultures that don't align with the United States and sending them home.
The United States does not have magic soil.
Just because you come here and land on the U.S. doesn't make you into a democracy someone that loves democracy, that loves a representative republic.
And the United States has no obligation to allow people that hate our way of life and don't understand or can't relate to our governmental structure and the way that we live.
I also wanted one more point to your question on timing, right?
You'd asked the timing of would it make sense if right after attack like this, that's when you see these cells activated.
And I think that if you're looking at, say, Iran acting in isolation, perhaps, but if you're looking at Iran as being part of a much bigger proxy war and a much bigger war that ties in the CCP, Russia, you know, I think the CCP, as much as we've been focused on, okay, people coming across the border, it's a lot of these, you know, kind of dangerous people from terrorist countries, right?
What they call the special interest aliens, right?
And these people coming in here that they're being flagged.
Okay, hey, this guy's from Somalia, terrorist background.
I think that the big concern I have is the Chinese.
A lot of Chinese students that are trained that they're operatives, right?
And so, in terms of timing, is it if there's going to be some sort of domestic attack, say a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in America, is it the Iranian leadership that's coordinating that, or is it the CCP, right?
Because the CCP might be saying, hey, look, all these Iranian cells hold off because we've got this event that's going to happen.
It's going to tie into something with Taiwan, et cetera.
So, the timing could be something much bigger than just the Iranians retaliating for the death of their own leaders.
Yeah, your estimation about China, I'm 100% in agreement.
I think I say it over and over.
China is an adversary.
Every single person in the United States that has Chinese family, that's a Chinese national, that has family, all of their family is a pressure point.
The Chinese has no compunction with throwing people in jail, torturing people in order to apply pressure to people that are here.
Every Chinese person that's here that has family back home, that's not a citizen, if they're a Chinese national, they are absolutely a security issue.
And I think that they should all be sent home because as long as China is a threat to the United States, I think that they're a vector for attack in some way, whether it be industrial espionage or something like, like you were saying, like some kind of sleeper cell.
I don't know how many Chinese nationals came over the open border when Biden was the president, but I'm sure that it's in the tens of thousands.
And that kind of threat is something that the government cannot ignore.
And it's not taking nearly enough action to mitigate that threat.
I think this is why, like, okay, we're already at net negative migration.
This is why the Trump administration needs to go further and pursue remigration, where you need to start taking a look at these people that have come here in the last 40 to 50 years under this, effectively since the 1960s, they've blown the barn doors wide open on immigration.
You need to start taking a look at these people's paperwork.
This is what we call paperwork Americans because clearly this guy, this citizenship, didn't do anything for him.
You know, the pocketbook constitution didn't do anything for him.
We need to start asking questions: what can someone from Senegal offer the United States?
Okay, there's exceptions, but exceptions don't disprove the norm.
We don't design our public policy off of exceptions.
So we need to start taking a look at these countries and saying, there's probably not much they can add by having them on a list.
We need to start sort of consolidating who's going to most easily assimilate into the United States and then go from there.
And then, yeah, start pursuing remigration for a lot of these people.
The fact that we've brought in people in the last 60 years who have very, very, very strong opinions on conflicts that have nothing to do with us already shows that our immigration policy has failed.
The fact that whenever India and Pakistan went at it, you had fights and strip malls in Dallas.
That tells you all you need to know that this immigration policy over the last post, this post-1960s consensus of our immigration, of the way that we conceptualize ourselves as Americans, where we're just an idea and we're not actually a real nation with the real history and a real shared lineage, just absolutely ridiculous.
I think one of the most fascinating parts of this story, and if we zoom out a little bit more to the whole Iran situation, is, again, it's really fascinating how much of a paper tiger Iran's turning out to be.
In the past, we would have feared the terrorist attacks we would have feared was like the Beirut barracks bombing, or in 1992, there was an Israeli embassy bombing by Hezbollah and Benos Ares.
And they were these major terrorist attacks.
If all that Iran is able to muster up is, you know, a dozen casualties through like a half dozen countries throughout the Middle East, it's kind of underwhelming.
It's actually very underwhelming considering what the conventional wisdom was surrounding Iran for the longest time.
I remember being reliably told that if anything were to happen to the Ayatollah, that, you know, Israel would be wiped off the map.
Unfortunately, nine Israelis died in a ballistic missile strike in Beit Shemesh, next to outside of Jerusalem.
But all things considered, that's not a ton of casualties.
Every single life that is lost is obviously, you know, dastardly and horrible.
And we thank every service member for their service.
But again, all things considered of how all these strikes are playing out and the costs that are coming to the regime, it's astonishing how little the pushback has been.
So if this is worst terrorist attacks that they could kind of muster, it's very unimpressive.
It's fascinating again how much of a paper tiger that they were and that their proxies were as well, because Hezbollah was supposed to be the person who kind of fended off anybody from attacking Iran.
Because if you were to attack Iran, then Hezbollah had a ton of weapons and it was going to cause a ton of trouble in the Middle East.
But we really dismantled all that, we and our allies.
One last tidbit on this, because I don't think we focused on this enough.
The killing of Ayatollah Khomeini and the significance of that, I do not think can be overstated.
This was a regime founded on anti-Americanism.
They contributed to the killings of many Americans in the Marine Barracks bombing.
They also contributed a ton of IEDs to Mymar soldiers in Iraq.
I think it's just so fascinating how quickly things have changed.
One last tidbit on this.
I know I love to glaze Israel on the show, so this won't be coming as any news to anybody.
But one of the most amazing things here that I think Israel did was how effective they were at assassinating different high-ranking leaders.
They started with Hamas, with Yahya Simwar, Ishmael Hania, who was killed in Tehran, rather, and Mohamed Dief.
Then they made their way up and to kill the leader of the general secretary of Hezbollah in Hassan Rasrallah.
There was almost no response.
And now they were able to also kill the Ayatollah.
So just the amount of good intelligence that the Israelis have, I feel like can't be overstated.
And in the press briefing earlier today, Secretary of War Hekseth mentioned how happy he was to have a capable ally that we're not always as American dragging all the military weight in all the battles around the world.
It's amazing to have capable allies who actually can do some of the dirty work for us.
I think that was a wink and not to the Europeans who aren't doing shit in Ukraine and maybe some of our Asian allies in Japan and Korea who maybe could be doing more in the Pacific.
Do you think they have the capabilities to really go down the list of military leaders that there's a-not only there, the undersecretary, the under-undersecretary, the assistant.
I don't think that Israel has actually dragged the U.S. into it.
I think that he made it pretty clear that no matter what happened, there was going to be strikes against the U.S., against their neighbors.
Iran is that kind of state, right?
Like they are the destabilizing power in the Middle East.
The Sunnis in Iran don't like the Shia, or the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia don't like the Shia in Iran.
And they have not been friendly.
They look at each other as destabilizing.
And so it doesn't matter that it was Israel doing the attack.
Iran was going to attack their neighbors and the U.S.
But it didn't help that he mentioned Israel because now you've got people saying, well, it's all for Israel.
And you can't deny the fact that the U.S. being involved does help Israel.
This is something that is going to benefit Israel in the long run.
And the American people don't see how it benefits the United States, even though you see all over X right now, there are people making arguments, myself included, that this is more about China for the U.S. than it is for Iran.
But people that are on X and don't kind of look at the big picture, they really don't believe that.
They think this is all about doing Israel's bidding, you know.
And that's an important point that obviously you can't have this discussion without bringing in Israel.
If you look at, you know, really like the past six months, especially, Israel has become a major talking point, right?
Especially among, you know, you mentioned the horseshoe, right?
You had people on the kind of the more far right and also on the left.
And there's a lot of truth to that, right?
There's a lot of concern about AIPAC.
There's a lot of concern about some things that tie into Israel.
However, I don't think that we can look at this without looking at what is the role of the CCP, because even a lot of the agitation around Israel, even if it's grounded in absolute truth, right?
It's still something you have to look at and say, okay, how is this helping China?
Because what I've seen with this is I've seen that, because in my own podcast, I've covered China extensively, right?
It's part of my adult life has been trying to expose the atrocities specifically of the Chinese Communist Party, right?
And so I'm seeing a lot of people on the right that are actually becoming pro-China amidst this, which is really interesting, but it's really concerning to me because I'm seeing people saying, oh, there's no such thing as a Uyghur genocide.
It's like one of the first interviews I did in my own podcast, I interviewed a surgeon that fled China because he was forced to do live organ harvesting on Falun Gong, right?
He literally explained the process of how that happened to him when he started cutting this person over open after a kind of a purposely botched execution.
And the guy's heart was still beating as he was removing organs, right?
This is what the CCP is doing.
And I mean, it is, but I'm seeing, but even he told me that was back then.
He goes, I asked him about the Uyghur concentration camps.
He goes, oh, absolutely.
He goes, you realize that the CCP sells a lot of their organs to wealthy Middle Easterners.
You know what those Middle Easterners want?
They want halal organs.
So having this massive database of Muslim organs in China is huge.
And so I'm seeing though that there's, again, there's propaganda and there are information campaigns happening on so many angles, but I'm seeing that I absolutely think that the CCP has amplified a lot of the Israel stuff to a point.
Again, there's a lot of strong voices on the conservative side that are saying, gosh, wow, look at China.
Look how clean China is.
Look at their big, beautiful cities.
Look at their infrastructure versus our infrastructure here.
China's not doing this, but you have to realize that, yeah, like, you know, it's odd to see people on the right that kind of have taken on anti-Western sentiment.
And a lot of that, I think, is because of the fact that the U.S. has had such botched adventurism in the past.
They have decided to engage in wars that were poorly thought out, or at the very least, engage in rebuilding of countries after wars that has not panned out the way that the people in power thought that it was going to.
And so it makes perfect sense that people are like, well, you know, maybe, you know, it's like the me, maybe we're the baddies.
And while I don't agree with that, I don't think so at all.
I think that there have been significant mistakes made, but that doesn't mean that the United States is a net negative for the world.
I understand why people would kind of get that inclination.
Do you think that the influence of China on people here in the U.S. is shaping the opinion that they have of Israel?
Or do you think that that's something that is just organic?
I think China, from what I understand, China and Israel's relationship isn't like super frosty.
They kind of stay out of each other's way.
They don't really have any overlapping interests for the most part beyond China generally wants the Iranian regime obviously to be stable and Israel obviously doesn't.
But I don't see them like really going to blows.
I don't think the CCP would like expend too many resources to try and like foment serious anti-Israel sentiment.
That seems to be more coming from Qatar, Iran itself.
That's pretty much it.
I would say that's like really trying to foment this in the United States.
I do think Rubio is actually saying this.
This is a calculated statement.
I don't think this is like people are, oh, a Freudian slip.
He admitted that Israel pushed America into the situation.
I think he's saying this for a reason.
Some people have speculated one thing or another.
I think it's kind of a warning shot actually to Israel to say like, hey, we can back out whenever we want and you should be left.
Again, people made this point.
Lomez actually made a great point where he's saying, ultimately, we should be looking now to start handing off responsibilities to, again, the countries that this directly affects.
So mostly to Israel, but also to these Gulf states that, again, this is in their interest, not so much ours.
I do think it's true.
I wish a lot of people, because this whole Israel conversation has gotten so toxic, like it really has, where you can't even like say it without one side accusing you of being a Zionist and then the other side accusing you of being like, you know, Hitler reincarnated or whatever.
I think it's like, let's just cut through it.
Cernovich just said it.
Like, he's like, let's just cut through it.
Obviously, the pro-Israel lobby, this is their thing.
Again, the lobby, this is the primary driver behind this.
Like, Trump in a vacuum would still probably be anti-Iran.
Like, let's not pretend that it's only because of the pro-Israel lobby that Trump doesn't want Iran to have a nuke.
Like, in a vacuum, Trump would still not want Iran to have a nuke because Iran having a nuke is terrible for us.
But if this is true, I mean, if this is the situation, the pro-Israel lobby now is to give us, let's get the SAVE Act.
Like, start throwing us some bones, right?
Like, we took out the trash.
I hate to say it, but you kind of saw it last summer.
The Big Beautiful Bill passes a week after we strike Iran the first time.
So it's like, throw us a few bones.
Start whipping these senators into shape because it's like, let's make it happen.
So, Elad, do you have any thoughts on what kind of influence China has on the situation with Israel?
And obviously, like I said, this is something that's very good for Israel.
Of course, if the Mulas are taken out of Iran, if there's no more, you know, if it were to be a situation where, say, hypothetically, the Shah were back in power, they had elections, that's clearly very good for Israel.
And there's going to be people that no matter what happens, they're going to say, yep, that was for Israel.
But do you think that the broader picture is something worth trying to focus on?
Or do you think that the people that are kind of anti-Israel are just going to say that and we can't make any kind of advances in the, I guess, the propaganda side?
So for many reasons, many people's top issue is Israel and they will be blinded by that.
And that's how they will go one way or another, just depending strictly on what Israel is doing.
As far as China goes, I thought you made a really good point earlier about the petro dollar, because as I understand, one of the major underminings of the petro dollar, it's not too major, but like they could potentially grow into something bigger is how oil is sold from Iran to China in Yuan.
I wrote a piece on my Patreon, and I think that actually China is the larger piece for the U.S. Obviously, Israel was going to do what they're going to do.
And I think that everything that Secretary Rubio said stands true.
Like if the Israelis attack Iran, Iran's going to look at it as if it was attack from the United States.
They're going to attack us.
But if you want to go ahead and read about it, it's on my Patreon.
It's patreon.com slash Philademains.
But I do think that China is broadly the big thing.
And this plays into the idea, this actually does play into the idea of changing the focus from Europe to the Western Hemisphere because China was involved in Venezuela.
China's involved in Cuba.
And there's arguments that Cuba's going to fall of their own volition.
There's also people talking about the State Department being in contact with people in Cuba.
Raul Castro's grandson, I think, is the guy that's in charge.
Now, I could be getting that wrong.
But the point being, the U.S. is already positioning itself to have some kind of influence on a post-communist Cuba.
And that's, again, something that hurts China.
There was the situation with the Panama Canal where China was trying to build, I believe, ports on either side or what have you.
And the U.S. is trying to interpret the U.S. has successfully stopped that from happening.
All of this stuff is trying to take power away from China.
So that way the United States doesn't have to get into a hot war with China.
Yeah, if we zoom out a little bit and think of this more in the big picture and especially in the second Trump administration, I think what we should understand here is this is a reinvigoration of U.S. hegemony around the world.
Initially, people only suspected that, no, this is just Don Roe doctrine.
This is just in the Western Hemisphere.
No, he's only going to do stuff in Venezuela.
He wouldn't dare to expand this around the world.
You know, they were talking about spheres of influence.
No, he's going to abandon different parts of the world.
He's giving Ukraine to Putin and Europe to Putin, and he's giving all of Asia to Xi Jinping.
But that couldn't be further from the truth.
The president is strengthening his allies and then taking away the allies of our enemies.
So we are destroying China's allies.
You know, as far as what Russia is doing, they've proven to be ineffective in taking over Ukraine, mostly thanks to our support and arms.
No thanks to those bum Europeans who I don't think we give enough shit to.
And now what we're seeing going on in Israel, of course, in the Caribbean and South America with Venezuela, as you also mentioned, the Panama Canal.
So I think what we should be understanding from this is that the Americans and President Trump in particular is just knocking off China's allies one by one.
And soon enough, it won't make any sense for China to want to make a move because they lack the allies to do so.
So next on the list, I think we're likely to see China.
Russia's bogged down in Ukraine.
China almost has no other allies to help them make or would support them in making a major move on Taiwan.
And they should feel pretty isolated right now.
Like, who are China's close allies that are nice and strong?
Russia's proven, I think, to be very weak.
Again, Cuba is weak.
Venezuela is weak.
Iran's the weakest it's ever looked ever.
And they got their Ayatollah killed.
And, you know, the repercussions to that was next to nothing to we were worried about World War III as a result of this shit.
Nothing happened.
So China running out of allies, being put in a ship position.
U.S. hegemony is here to stay.
And I'm so tired of hearing this third world this talks about, talking about BRICS and spheres of influence.
And you guys are all morons with no real understanding of how the world works.
But I'm glad the president's here to upend your worldview of how things should and can go.
The idea that we were trending towards a multipolar world was like the consensus until like four years ago when President Trump came back, right?
Well, President Trump, and I'm a Trump glazer, but also when Russia just failed so dramatically.
That kind of like, I actually think Trump in the first term and the back of us, maybe not in the back of us, but his political advisors are certainly like making that calculation that maybe, well, no, maybe we are going towards a multipolar world.
And then Russia and then COVID hits and China like gets a significant thing.
I guess the concern comes in is: look, if we're able to make such decisive action in Iran, why can't we just like have blanket third world migration ban?
Why can't we like actually have like a remite great?
Like I know we're starting, we're getting mass deportations, but why can't we get something dramatic?
Because we can get something dramatic in Venezuela.
We can get something dramatic in Iran.
We can get things, we can get dramatic when we need to.
We can get some shocking on when we need to.
How about we get some shocking on Queens, New York?
I think if the administration were to really ramp up the deportations and actually put some real numbers up, numbers that were satisfying the people on the right, I think that would actually, that would pay a lot of dividends.
Like, I mean, I don't, I don't know exactly what the, like you guys said, I don't know exactly what the actual goal is.
But if the, if the Iranian regime is taken out and we don't have a lot of casualties, I'm going to be, all right, well, I guess that was a good idea.
And if there's significant casualties or the president, like I said earlier, like something happens and the president turns tail and runs, then the president's going to be a pariah and it's going to be like, well, he was terrible.
As I understand, and the administration has been saying a lot, and my word is not bond, so don't take it at face value, is to try to change the regime to a regime that doesn't have ambitions of a nuclear weapon or supporting proxies at the cost of as little soldiers as possible.
I think that's what the formula is roughly coming down to.
What are the chances of having some kind of resolution like in Venezuela where you take out the top guys and then the new guys come in and say, well, they're just going to take me out if I don't.
But I also say I don't have faith in Iran not just falling into a civil war.
I don't know how much you guys know about domestic Iranian politics, but there's a ton of secular young people, and then there's the old Shah or the Shah's son or something.
Then there's the Islamists.
And then there's a bunch of Arabs.
There's a bunch of Kurds who all have their different interests.
So I don't see how this country, if they aren't able to quickly form a cohesive government, doesn't fall into civil war if the president washes his hands of this.
If he's not able to quickly, you know, within the four, five, six weeks, get regime change, he'll just say, fuck it.
You guys stay a weak regime and hope somebody else takes over and it'll probably just lead to civil war.
Well, I mean, if that's the case, then, you know, again, Donald Trump is going to go down in history as just another American that meddled in the Middle East and added chaos.
If Iran has a civil war, I imagine, and I don't know for sure, but I imagine that will affect gas prices and gas prices is something that affects every American, and they're going to want to know why they're spending $6 a gallon or what have you.
From the Jerusalem Post on Monday morning, a number of social media accounts circulated what they believed was an example of lasers intercepting Hezbollah rockets.
The video showed rockets being launched from Lebanon, and many of the rockets appeared to explode soon after liftoff.
The video did not show lasers intercepting rockets, but the mass interest in the new technology is clear.
Look, most of the time, you can't actually see lasers, right?
So we're going to play the video so you can see it.
Well, if I understand correctly, part of the defense of the ships nowadays actually is direct energy weapons, right?
They're loaded up onto Aegis cruisers or whatever, and they can actually defeat.
That's why I said earlier, you know, it's like it may be kind of far-fetched, the idea that a cruise missile would get through.
But, you know, because of the fact that the U.S. does have technology that the American people don't know about, the president has said himself, you know, he can't keep his mouth shut at all.
He wants to boast about everything.
So he's alluded to the fact that the U.S. has technologies the American people don't know about.
He's stated it plainly.
And so these kind of weapons, if Israel has them, I have to imagine that the U.S. also has them because the U.S. is well known.
The U.S. and Israel are well known for sharing technology.
I do think that I do think that I think that's part of why the U.S. wanted Greenland or wanted a guarantee of military access to Greenland.
Because if this particular, you know, this particular video shows the rockets just taking off and being shot, obviously the proximity of Israel to Lebanon is significantly closer than the U.S. to Russia.
But if you have something stationed in Greenland that's significantly further away from the U.S., it's much closer to where Russia's missiles would be coming from.
So it does make sense that they would be like, hey, you know, we want to be able to position these types of technologies up there.
That's a horrible statement, but it's actually probably true.
All right, we're going to jump to this one here.
From the Daily Mail, a mysterious earthquake swarm hits Nevada near top secret base used for testing nuclear weapons.
A series of mysterious earthquakes has been recorded near one of America's most secretive bases used for nuclear testing.
Over the last day, the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, has detected 16 moderate tremors, all stronger than 2.5 in magnitude, in the vicinity of Taunapoa test range in Nevada, better known as Area 52.
Both Area 52 and its more famous neighbor, Area 51, sit on a massive complex just north of Las Vegas called the Nevada Test and Training Range.
For decades, it has been believed the U.S. military has carried out experimental aircraft testing as well as nuclear weapons research in this remote area.
Now, scientists have monitored over 100 seismic events within 50 miles of the Tunapoa test range in just the last week.
These earthquakes have ranged from very small shock waves between 1 and 1.9 in magnitude to minor earthquakes stronger than 3.0, which could be felt by anyone at ground level nearby.
Now, this is something that Donald Trump has actually been talking about.
We haven't had significant nuclear tests in a long time.
There's definitely not been any above-ground tests.
I think I'm not sure when the subterranean tests were ended, but the United States has a responsibility to make sure that our nuclear deterrent is functional.
And Donald Trump has alluded to being interested in resuming tests.
Do you guys think, Seth, do you think this is actual testing or do you think that this is something else?
I mean, we also, we know that our government has massive dumps, right?
You know, deep underground military bases, right?
This is, you know, with tunnels and there's a lot of information about this that's not this conspiracy realm.
So, I mean, yeah, are they, there's something going on there, whether it's nuclear testing.
I mean, it's also, I mean, just to me, it seems kind of strange that if you're testing nuclear weapons, and maybe I'm not a nuclear expert, but why would you test them underground?
I mean, I don't know how deep they do them, but underground testing has been a thing for a long time.
Yeah, I mean, I think that, again, like I said, if the United States is going to continue to have nuclear weapons, which is probably not in question or not an option, I think tests are something that are a responsibility.
You know, no matter what the international community says, no matter what any kind of international, the IAEA or whatever says, there is a responsibility of the government to make sure that these weapons are functional.
You know, they're the most destructive weapons that the U.S. acknowledges having.
And so if they don't, I mean, you don't want to say that you've got these weapons and say, and use them as a deterrent.
And then if you come to find out that they don't work or what have you.
So, a lot, do you think that these earthquakes are nuclear tests?
I've read some reporting that said, like, it would have had to have been a small nuclear weapon that China was testing for that to be what they picked up on their Richter Scale or what have you.
Maybe we could get a geologist on it, but like I think to produce that, it would have had to be, I didn't read this article, but it would have had to be multiple nuclear weapons, not just one to create seismic activity that grand.
So, the piece went on to say at this uh the outbreak of earthquake swarms near the nuclear testing site has also come as the U.S. launches a massive bombing campaign against Iran.
And President Donald Trump has warned the biggest wave hasn't even happened yet.
At the same time, the final remaining nuclear weapons treaty between the U.S. and Russia expired earlier in February, just weeks before the USGS started picking up concentrated swarm underground.
The strongest of these recent earthquakes took place Sunday at 11:37 Eastern Time when a magnitude 4.3 shockwave rattled a report, a remote point of the Namada Desert, roughly 48 miles northeast of Tan Pa.
I mean, if the treaty between the U.S. and Russia expired, you know, and it was just a few weeks ago, doesn't it make doesn't it make a little more sense that maybe the U.S. decided they were going to?
Mr. Nebulous says, in Tim Cast Community Tradition, I'm announcing that my wife, Eve Apologist, a regular on the Discord, is currently giving birth to our firstborn, a daughter, Tallulah.
Yeah, like you know, what happens all across the country is, you know, girls look at their men and then they look at Tim Castirel and they look back at their man and they just sigh.
If you go to readyscore.com, readyscore.com, I built a, it's free.
It's a free preparedness assessment tool.
So you go in there, there's a whole questionnaire, and it'll walk you through, and you can do a short one.
It's like 90 seconds or a longer one.
And it basically, it's like covers every area, like home defense, water, food, medicine.
And it gives you a report, kind of give a credit score.
It gives you your preparedness score.
Your ready score, right?
So it's readyscore.com.
And that way you can see it's like, okay, your ready score is like a 60 out of 100.
And it's like, you're missing in these areas.
So like I'd, I'd have to, to know that, I'd have to kind of ask some questions and say, okay, here's what I think that we're missing.
But in general, it's a long, long answer, but in general, having a compound, like what you need.
The biggest thing, honestly, is just having people.
Like that's the, that's probably the most overlooked thing that people think about preparedness is they're thinking like they can be a lone wolf and live in the woods and survive the apocalypse.
It's like, no, you got to have a community, right?
You got to have people with multiple skills.
You know, you have to have for so many reasons, not to mention the fact that, you know, if you want to have your family line continue, you can't just have your own family line interbreeding, right?
So you want to have a compound of, but that's a longer discussion.
Like, this is what I love is like when libtards, every time we play Fortunate Sun for like the Venezuela edits and they're like, um, that was actually a wholesome Changa's anti-war song.
And I'm like, sit down.
It's the cool, we're dropping bombs.
It's the cool helicopter song now.
We're retconning.
There's nothing you can do about it.
You're gay.
We're cool.
It's ours now.
So take, take your, take your tail back to Reddit, and we'll, and we'll handle the edits.
We'll handle the soundtracks.
Thank, thank you.
It's like, it's like having genius.
You know, genius is like, oh, this is what the lyrics actually mean.
I think agency exists for people who aren't Jewish as well.
And most of the wars that the United States has fought, obviously, haven't been for Israel.
But there's a certain subsect of people who are Israel obsessed and that believe that whenever something happens on this earth, it's because of the Jews or the Zionists in one way or another.
So I just want to tell everybody out there, you have agency in this world.
You have the power to change things in your world and in your life.
Jews do not control you and do not control the outcome of what you achieve in your life.
Isn't that a beautiful thing, though?
You have the opportunity and agency to do whatever you want in this life.
Well, because it's like this whole idea that if it weren't for like Israel and Trump's ear, that Trump would be like okay with Iran having nuclear weapons, that doesn't make any sense.
Like, there's clearly some overlapping interests.
I think even the most ardent anti-Israel people could admit that there are some overlapping interests with the US and Israel when it comes to Iran.
The reason why I want people to understand this too, as far as the left goes, the reason why so many people on the left hate Israel is only because Israel is right-wing and white-coated.
Because when people on the far left think of Israel, they think of white people.
That is why they hate Israel.
Because they think of Israel as a so-called settler colonialist society.
But guess what?
We are here in America too.
We are proudly a settler colonialist society.
And that's part of what makes us a great country.
So they're using the same blueprint and framework that they use on Israel that they will eventually use on the United States.
So when you hear this shit on the left about Israel, just think about all these themes and trends are the same thing that they will say about the United States in the future.
They hate Israel because they believe they are white people in the Middle East.
You see all these people like, oh, bro, you are the great replacement.
And then, in addition to that, every pro-Palestine rally, there's like Antifa there, and there's like LGBT people there because, like, to your point, they just see Israel as like a white colonial country.
What do you think we are?
We're a white colonial country.
What do you think Australia is?
What do you think Canada is?
Like, they view Israel the same way.
Again, these like third-worldists, whatever, they view Israel the same way.
So it's like, don't adopt their talking points.
Use authentically right-wing criticisms if you are going to critique a relationship with Israel.
Yeah, well, I mean, that's why the phrase useful idiot exists.
Like those people are just, they're useful until they're not useful.
And whether it be the communists, the actual tankies, or you're talking about the Islamists, once those people are no longer useful, they liquidate them.
And that's historically, that's what happened.
That happened in China.
That happened in Iran.
That happened in Russia.
This is just the way that it goes, the way that the revolution always happens.
You have a broad section of society that thinks, oh, we're going to go ahead and complain about the existing structure, and then we'll take it down, and then we're going to have our utopia.
But what happens is the strongman that is actually running the show, once they are in power, they liquidate the useful enemies because they don't need revolutionaries because of the revolution.
This is the way that it always pans out because when you empower the people that are looking to have the revolution, when you empower, you look for a leader, that person wants to stay in power.
Just to put a cap on this point, the people in the United States and around the world who are the most anti-Israel people are Muslim extremists, and Islam is incompatible with our Western values.
I think that's just something to consider.
Once they finish dealing with the Jews as the way they see fit, they will not be satisfied at stopping there.
Clint Torres, Clintorres says, he's got two super chats.
He says, howdy people, just wanted to give a shout out to my son who is following in a long family tradition of soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors by honorably and bravely serving in our U.S. Navy.
He had to go radio silent on his ship Saturday morning.
So please keep my boy and everyone else's boys and girls who are bravely putting themselves in harm's way for their country in your prayers.
Shout out to all of our service members, domestic and abroad, protecting the freedoms that we often take for granted.
But it's people like your son that really allow America to be what it is today.
And without people like him, we wouldn't exist.
So we really give our deepest thankful gratitudes and thanks to the people who are really willing to sacrifice as opposed to us just being loudmouths behind the mic.
You know, they're real people willing to lay it all down on the line for the things they believe in.
And I truly commend them for it.
They're the modern day heroes and warriors of our time.
And like, whatever your take is, even if you're the most anti-Iran, you know, intervention guy on planet Earth, you have to take a step back and at least like sit in awe about our military.
Like our military is unbelievable.
We're the most lethal force in human history.
And it's because of like boys like that, like their son.
Like we have on, we honestly, we have a secret sauce, which is Americans.
Like we have the most unbelievable people.
We have the blood of the greatest men in history like gushing through our veins.
So whatever the military wants to do, they're going to get it done.
So it's like, again, whatever your take is, the military is so sick.
I'm Not Your Buddy guy says, unfortunate reality of Iran is they kept kicking the can down the road, not realizing we had to face this threat one day.
It's better they had no nukes.
I mean, that's there.
The argument for that is, I mean, it's a real argument that like, look, eventually Iran was going to have to be dealt with.
Like the idea that Iran was going to be left to their own devices and continue to sponsor terror all over the place, continue to try to develop weapons, continue to, you know, support the Houthis, continue to, you know, keep the straight of Hormuz in a, you know, a stranglehold on it.
Like that was not going to be something that could stand forever.
Iran had to be dealt with.
And whether you like it or not, even if you don't think that the U.S. should be doing the dealing with them, that is, it is realistic to say, look, it's gone on too long.
I mean, this is the hard part because while it's easy to say, oh, I'm an isolationist, right?
It's like, I just want to be America.
It's like this is not the world 400 years ago where a country could just kind of stay relatively its own region, right?
So there's no such thing as being in isolation, right?
Not in today's world.
And so, yes, the United States, especially post-World War II, became the global police, right?
And, you know, Peter Zihan's book, The end of the world is just the beginning, like does a good job of detailing how the modern world that we see now, the shipping, everything, it's like on a razor's edge.
A lot of it has come through the naval presence and the structure that the United States has given the world.
And so, you know, while I am absolutely what you'd say in isolation, it's like, okay, no, no foreign wars, just like don't meddle in that kind of stuff.
I also understand that as a country, if we've got a country, like, you know, so say I live in my house and say my neighbor has a machine gun that he's always pointing at my kids in the backyard, like, I'm going to do something about it, right?
So I do agree that we have to do something, but it's just, it's, it's just so nuanced and there's been so much, um, there's been so much deceit from our own government.
Yeah, but I guess it begs the question: what do you think that something should be?
Like, obviously, it's, it's hard to say, you want to go in there militarily, or if you just don't have an answer, that's fine too.
But I don't think that's satisfying to a lot of people who want to, you know, see how the world will be and how this will affect geopolitics down the line.
Yeah, I mean, it's like, okay, if you had to do something, I would do what Trump is currently doing, right?
If you can be surgical and you can eliminate that threat, eliminate the potential threat in the future in a way that you're minimal loss of life, not just for us, but also for them.
You know, we're not firebombing cities over there with the intent of just wiping out the Iranian population, right?
So it's like, yeah, if you had to, like, if they had the intelligence that they had these active programs and that they were actively developing nuclear weapons and their intelligence was saying that, yes, they're going to use these nuclear weapons on American people.
It's like, you know, they had an agreement they were negotiating with the Islamic regime and they said they were going to continue pursuing, they didn't want to sign any agreement about any limits to it.
We offered them nuclear material to have their nuclear facilities that they wanted to base energy or some sort of research based off of.
They completely denied that.
They said there's no conversation to be had about their ballistic missile testing.
Is that to say the president has your endorsement for his attacks on Iran?
If you want to understand what's happening in the world right now, you want to look at the Epstein stuff through this lens.
It's basically the idea that over time, evil accumulates in positions of power.
And so I think that even before Christ, we had consolidation of powerful evil that, and it's maintained a lot of that control.
And so, like, the world where you see it today, it's like almost every government has massive amounts of evil in it, right?
And it's just, it's, it's the hard thing.
It's like, is Israel their government evil?
Yeah, they're doing some evil stuff there, right?
Is our government absolutely?
Is the CCP, which is still running the world's largest state-run organ harvesting operation of underground Christians, Falun Gong, et cetera, absolutely evil.
So it just, it's, it's like we're kind of put into a situation now where it's so difficult to like you can't look at anything in a binary way of just black or white.
Like it's, it's so complex.
And so that's why it's hard for me to give this answer of just like, I absolutely support Donald Trump and these actions because I'm also trying to look at that.
I'm analyzing, okay, how does this tie in to the Epstein files?
How does it tie into this?
How does it tie into all these other things?
And so it's hard for me just to give a binary answer of like, yes, I support it or yes, I'm against it.
We have been fighting this war in one form or another for almost 50 years.
Also, the targets of late have strong connections to China and Russia.
I think that that's something that we've covered at length today.
This is not a situation where it's just one dimension, right?
And not that I'm a 5D chess guy, but it is worth saying, look, don't look at this as just an isolated incident.
This is something that actually, if you read the national security strategy, this is something that plays right into what the Trump administration has been talking about doing.
Oh, no, I think that also really gets into the question that you had asked me: is that it's like, okay, I don't think it's just the issue of just this isolated country that has these ill intentions towards the United States, right?
Like, we also know that a lot of the terrorist activity across the Middle East was actually the KGB was heavily involved in setting all that stuff up.
Like, why is it that the main weapon they use is a Russian weapon, right?
The AK-47, right?
The Middle East for a long time has just been a proxy for this kind of these larger nation states using this to foment hatred for America.
There's been so much going on over there, but I think that it's like I'm looking at not as much as looking at it from the lens of just this isolated country, but it's like if I look at Trump and I think, okay, he's doing this as a part of a bigger war.
It's like when Venezuela happened, you had a lot of people that were like, this is so wrong.
Like, okay, Trump's now doing regime changes.
And I'm looking at it and saying, well, yeah, but he may have just took a really key resource away from the CCP who wants us dead.
So it's the same way I'm looking at with Iran.
It's like, okay, if this is something that's going to actually really help the bigger picture of the war with the CCP, which we are at war with the CCP, whether we acknowledge it, they acknowledge it.
You read their doctrines, you read unrestricted warfare.
You go back to, I'm not sure if you ever come across the leaked speech of General Chi Hao Qian, right?
He was the, have you read it before?
Mind-blowing.
Maybe in the after hours we'll get to it, but it was this leaked speech in the early 2000s of one of the, he was the defense minister in China, when he literally was talking about how they needed to use biological weapons to wipe out between one and 200 million Americans so they could seize our land.
Right.
This was their minister of defense.
So that's why it's like, it's not as easy as me answering and saying, yes, they shouldn't have nukes, so we should kill their leaders, right?
So for people that are on YouTube, they can still find me.
I have a channel on YouTube to search for Man in America.
Less than half my content goes up there, though, because I get strikes because I question the medical industrial complex a little too much.
But the main place is really any place that they're watching or listening to Timcast.
Rumble's the biggest place.
That's where my largest audience is, is over on Rumble.
Just search for Man in America.
Beyond that, any of the podcast apps, search for Man in America.
And also, just a reminder of the ReadyScore.com is another place that they can not find my information, but something else they can do that will help them.
It's my favorite derogatory term for trans people.
I like it.
And if Taylor Lorenz is whatever is listening, I apologize.
I'm not trying to offend you.
But he doesn't take offense.
She doesn't take offense.
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked California's policies in schools that allow teachers to keep students' gender transition secret from their parents.
The justices sided with parents who brought the case forward six to three.
They later wrote, the intrusion on parents' free exercise right here, unconsented facilitation of a child's gender transition is greater than the introduction of LGBTQ storybooks we considered sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny in Mahmoud.
The state argued that the policies advanced a compelling interest in student safety and privacy, but those policies cut to the primary protectors of children's best interest, their parents, the court stated.
The court also said that the same is true for the subclass of parents who object to those policies on due process grounds.
Under long-established precedent, parents, not the state, have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of their children.
They wrote that the precedent set by prior class protections, the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children's mental health.
Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child's mental health.
But when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California's policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.
These policies likely violate parents' right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
I think that that's probably one of the most obvious decisions that the Supreme Court has come to in a while.
And I don't think it's not a surprise to me that there were three justices that said that the parents don't have the right to raise their children, that the state has the actual authority.
And we talked about who we think they are.
But I can't imagine what the dissent was.
And that's something that I'm actually interested.
I would love to read the dissent and who actually, you know, who wrote the dissent and what they had to say.
How do you justify hiding that kind of thing from a parent?
I think the 100 years from now, people will look back at this era in history, hopefully, right?
And they'll say, how on earth did these Supreme Court justices write this dissent saying we think it's okay for the schools to hide this stuff from the parents.
It just, it's, it's so insane.
You know, we're always, we're always kind of in the current reality that we're living, right?
See, it's hard to look at objectively.
Like you can look back at the 50s and say, oh, that was weird.
But I feel like there's so many things our society has changed so much and we've lost sight of it.
You could justify it from a left word perspective by saying that's who they truly are.
And if the parents won't accept that and help foster their true identity, then they're leading them to a life of pain, depression, and maybe even suicide.
They might even kill themselves if you don't confirm their, what is it, identity, their gender identity.
That's the left word justification of keeping it a secret from your parents.
What espionage and theft has Israel been committing?
I asked this in earnest.
I just haven't heard this.
unidentified
Okay, so there was the incident in the New Mech affair, also known as the Apollo affair, where over 200 pounds of weapons-grade uranium disappeared from a U.S. facility in Pennsylvania.
When was that?
And the CIA presented evidence that it may have ended up.
Then there was the theft of nuclear triggers that were then illegally exported to Israel.
Bibianetan Yahoo was directly involved in facilitating this.
There was Jonathan Pollard, who was paid by Israeli intelligence to pass over thousands of classified documents and intelligence reports, specifically to Israeli operatives, later moved to Israel while on parole after his conviction.
And there was the Stingray incident in 2017 and 2018, where the Mossad was capturing cell phone calls, texts, and phone location data using devices placed near the White House and other sensitive sites in Washington, D.C.
You have no idea that our other allies spy on us all the time and we spy on all of our other allies and it's standard practice for like most intelligence agencies to do that.
You listed off a couple of things that are like maybe token events.
I get it, bro.
You just don't like Israel.
You don't have to make this whole war thing about Israel to just come out and say, you know, you don't think it's good that we support Israel.
And it's all good.
You, you know, that's really what it comes down to.
unidentified
Without I'm okay with bombing Iran.
I have plenty of reasons to support bombing Iran.
I just don't think that you're going to be able to do it.
Okay, so you're just going to ignore the fact that You're just going to ignore what Rubio said, how we were effectively strong-armed into it because Israel was going to attack regardless of the fact that the United States was the primary target for retaliation.
So I would actually take a little bit of issue with that characterization because just because Rubio mentioned the fact that Israel was going to attack and that Iran was going to attack multiple people in response, because it wouldn't have just attacked the United States or U.S. facilities.
It would have attacked its neighbors just like it did.
So it wasn't just for Israel.
Now, as for your points about the espionage and stuff, there are a few of the things that you mentioned were actually egregious, but overall, Elad's point is right.
The United States spies on all of our allies.
France is actually one of the biggest, biggest, I guess, or one of the countries that does the most espionage, that spies on the U.S. the most.
So it is fairly normal when it comes to statecraft for allies to spy on allies.
Now, again, I did acknowledge that some of the things that you're talking about with the uranium and stuff like that, there are a few egregious ones that Israel has been involved in.
But the idea that only Israel is spying on the United States or that the U.S. doesn't spy on our allies, that's just not true.
unidentified
I never said that we didn't, and I never said that allies don't spy.
I just said that these are not the actions of our closest ally.
And these are not the sort of things that you would expect from a friendly nation that is trying to be the best friend of the United States.
You know, I do think that calling Israel our closest ally is a little bit of an exaggeration, but we do have a lot of overlapping interests with Israel.
So, you know, in the Middle East.
And I do think that they are generally an ally.
But Israel has its own interests.
You know, the United States has its own interests, and sometimes those interests don't align.
Let's discuss everyone's favorite topic: abortion, but this time with less killing.
So should doctors or should there be a law that requires doctors who perform abortions or terminate a pregnancy to try and save the life of both the mother and the child?
Keep in mind, like it's what, 20 weeks is, I think, the earliest, maybe a couple weeks sooner, earlier now for a viable child to be born.