Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 17, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:04:18

Trump DENIES Peace Talks With Iran, Polymarket Says US WILL Intervene

Participants

Main voices

batya ungar-sargon

11:14

tim pool

48:53

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The war in Iran is escalating.
		And Donald Trump, a report came out saying that he was trying to engage in peace talks with Iran.
		He's now denied this.
		And J.D. Vance has issued a statement saying, in fact, Trump may decide he needs to do more to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
		There's a viral video going around.
		The only issue is that this seems to be the talking point used over and over again for some 30 or so years.
		That Iran is this close to getting a nuke.
		Maybe.
		I don't think it's particularly effective because just saying that we should be involved in a massive Middle Eastern conflict leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many Americans.
		But I suppose the question is, what is going to happen?
		And where are we currently at?
		So we do have a lot of updates on where the U.S. stands as it pertains to this war.
		And it looks like there's going to be a tremendous effort to convince the MAGA base to support Trump's intervention in the region.
		My prediction?
		Already we've got a tanker ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz.
		This connects the ocean with the Persian Gulf.
		The U.S. And this is my fear.
		I don't know the likelihood this will happen, but my fear is the U.S. will deploy security forces to the Strait of Hormuz for simply to keep trade open.
		And they'll say, we are not involved in the war with Israel and Israel strikes on Iran.
		However, U.S. military personnel and assets will be attacked in the Strait by Iran.
		And this will be the casus belli the U.S. requires to enter the end of the war.
		We're already seeing prominent pro-Trump voices mocking those who believe that we shouldn't intervene in this foreign conflict.
		You've got numerous personalities on the right saying yes to this war.
		Meanwhile, strangely, Jon Stewart is making fun of only the MAGA who oppose the intervention.
		Now, why would that be?
		You got Steve Bannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Jack Posobiec.
		They all said we shouldn't be involved in this war, and Jon Stewart mocks them and lies about what they think.
		But, Jon, why don't you actually just mock the Trump supporters who are in favor of the war?
		I mean, Donald Trump was the no new war's president.
		Now you've got a bunch of pro-Trump people being like, yay war!
		Well, that seems contradictory, no?
		Makes you wonder about what Jon Stewart's actual purpose is and what the intentions of the establishment are.
		And my friends, the war drums are banging.
		And I think we're going to be in this war.
		Polly Market says so.
		Yesterday, spiking as high as 67 percent.
		Now currently sitting as of last time.
		I checked at around 50, I believe 56 percent that the U.S. will take action against Iran.
		But pollster Rich Barris says this will end MAGA.
		If Donald Trump intervenes in Iran, it's over.
		Right now there are Democrats saying no war.
		Prominent ones.
		Progressive ones.
		What will happen to the anti-war segment of the MAGA coalition if Trump does decide to intervene?
		And how will this fracture?
		I can't say.
		But the People's Pundit says he thinks it's gone.
		He thinks it'll be the end.
		So get into all of that, my friends.
		Before we get started, we got a great sponsor.
		It is, of course, AmericanFinancing.net.
		Check out AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim.
		We're all feeling it.
		Costs are rising on everything, gas, groceries, home repairs.
		And if you're a homeowner, you probably thought, should I call American Financing to refinance and pay off this credit card debt?
		Then you second-guess yourself because of that low mortgage rate you currently have.
unidentified		Listen.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That low rate, it's not saving you if you're drowning in credit card interest at 25% or more.
		That's the math no one wants to face, but it's costing you thousands.
		Here's the truth.
		If you only make minimum payments, the debt will follow you for years.
		That's why people call American Financing.
		Because they're saving customers an average of $800 a month by using their equity to finally break free from credit card debt.
		You owe it to your family to see what's possible.
		No upfront fees, no pressure.
		It costs you nothing to find out what you could save every month.
		And if you start today, you may be able to delay two mortgage payments.
		Call American Financing today at 866-890-7811.
		That's 866-890-7811 or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim.
		Shout out.
		Thank you all for sponsoring the show and also shout out to Stephen Crowder and the Mug Club raiding this stream.
		You guys rock.
		Stephen Crowder's got a great show.
		It's the best show.
		It's the biggest.
		He actually is number one.
		The biggest live streaming show in the country.
		So it is with honor.
		And do respect to all of you.
		I appreciate Crowder shouting us out every day, rating this stream as we're part of the Rumble morning lineup.
		As we bring you into the afternoon, into the noon hour, I'm your host, Tim Poole.
		You can follow me on X and Instagram, at TimCast.
		Let's read this news and figure out exactly where we're at with this war.
		my friends, I'm going to say it again.
		I think the U.S. will enter the war.
		I think it's extremely likely.
		But, You know, he came out and he said, you know, our good hotels and our farms, they need these people.
		Now he's backtracking.
		Why?
		Because he listens.
		That's why he's a good president.
		Now I'm going to tell you, I'm not one of these diehard libertarian anti-war guys.
		I'm generally anti-war.
		And I can break down what that means for you.
		It means the cost of war is great.
		The prerequisite for intervention is high.
		Higher than what I believe the average establishment politician expects.
		They say, we were attacked.
		We must invade.
		I'm not so convinced.
		Listen, sometimes you're out at a bore, right?
		And a guy gets in your face and he shoves you.
		You've been attacked.
		The question is, do you engage?
		You assess the situation and make a determination.
		Sometimes the answer is yes.
		Sometimes it's no.
		The guy shoves you.
		And then he reaches for a gun.
		Okay, now we've got an interesting situation.
		Maybe you need to intervene.
		Or maybe you're at a bar and a guy shoves you and you say, listen, a fight you've won is a fight you've avoided.
		I'm not going to get provoked into this.
		I tend to be on the side of, let's try to avoid the fight whenever possible.
		And only in the most dire of circumstances do we engage in war.
		I'm not some libertarian like, no war ever for no reason.
		But let's read and see where we're currently at.
		News Nation reports Trump denies involvement in peace talks as Israel-Iran tensions flare.
		They say that Iran and Israel continue to trade attacks.
		Trump has echoed Israel's warning to the 9.5 million residents of Tehran.
		Get out while you still can.
	It's a switch-up from early Monday when the president said a nuclear deal with Iran was still achievable.
	Within one day, Trump has decided to depart the Group G7 summit.
	to monitor the situation and called for a complete give up by Iran.
	Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
	It's very simple, he told reporters on Air Force One.
	Israel's surprise attacks on Iran's military nuclear program prompted retaliatory action from Tehran.
	The country's traded attacks for five days.
	Israeli missiles have bombarded Iran's capital, including an attack on a state television studio while they were live on the air.
	While Tel Aviv said Tehran is targeting civilians with its strikes.
	Honest question.
	Is Tehran actually targeting civilians, or are they just incapable of targeting?
	It's an honest question.
	I think it's possible that Tehran's military capabilities are substantially weaker than that of Israel, as Israel is backed by the U.S. and also a great weapons developer.
	Tehran might just be launching missiles kind of blindly and hoping they hit whatever they can.
	Israel is targeting police and military sites.
	I think police.
	I did see a report on this one.
	Now, I will say this.
	If this was just about Iran's nuclear weapons, maybe we would have seen Israel targeting specifically the nuclear weapons, but they went after Iran's military leadership.
	That says something else.
	Now, our friends over at Polymarket have currently placed it at a 60% chance that the U.S. will intervene in Iran before July.
	Holy crap.
	That's crazy.
	And I think there's a second one.
	U.S. military action in Iran before August.
	70%!
	Okay, to be fair, 69%.
	That was rounding up.
	Guys, if you want to buy, yes, it's 71 cents.
	And there is, according to Polymarket, not always right, but often, a 60% chance that the U.S. will get involved.
	Oh, man.
	I do not believe the U.S. has sufficiently justified U.S. involvement in Iran.
	I do not believe it.
	They've made claims about how it's bad that Iran gets a nuclear weapon.
	But Iran having a weapon is not a laid-out threat to the United States.
	They're not going to launch a missile against us.
	I am concerned.
	Don't get me wrong.
	If Iran can enrich uranium and produce low-yield nuclear bombs and give dirty bombs to a bunch of wackaloons, that's terrifying.
	But what you're asking is for the US to involve itself in Iran, the size of Eastern Europe, 90 million people, a mountainous country.
	This is not Afghanistan.
	This is not Iraq.
	This would be a massive undertaking.
	And Iran is not without allies.
	Now, currently, I don't believe.
	Any of these other countries are going to come to the aid of Iran over these strikes.
	I don't think so.
	It is a tremendous ask for Iran to go to, say, China, Russia, or any of the other BRICS nations, for instance, and say, we need your help.
	We are being attacked.
	They're going to say, yeah, but the scale of attack does not reach that point where they're going to want to get involved.
	Now, if the U.S. intervenes and seeks to actually remove the Ayatollah.
	Perhaps then, this could lead to a larger-scale conflict.
	It is a tremendous undertaking and a threat to the United States.
	Therefore, while I say this, my friends, I'm anti-war.
	What does that mean?
	It means a simple way of explaining it.
	Because it can mean a lot, but to me, I'll explain what I mean.
	The threshold for intervention and declaration of war is very high.
	Congress must declare the war.
	There must be sound, reasoned arguments for our involvement.
	Legitimate strikes.
	Like, if a foreign country legitimately launches an attack on U.S. assets and kills a bunch of Americans, if U.S. politicians are assassinated or killed, all of these, I think, are grounds for war.
	I said it before.
	If Iran took the life of Donald Trump, immediate retaliation.
	I am not some staunch libertarian.
	We should never be at war for any reason, ever.
	I'm just saying the threshold is very high.
	Now, aside from Polymarket, my friends, we have the Pentagon Pizza Report.
	That's right.
	This is called the Pentagon Pizza Index.
	And most of you are familiar.
	It's tracking just how much pizza is being purchased at the Pentagon.
	Last night, as of 10 p.m., both dominoes near the Pentagon are reporting elevated levels of activity.
	And unfortunately, the gay bars are empty.
	That's right.
	Pentagon Pizza Report also noted that the local gay bar near the Pentagon is quiet right now.
	It's a funny thing to show, but the point is, I bet you could choose any bar near the Pentagon.
	People are working late.
	And the reason, the point of the pizza report is to show that the people near the Pentagon are ordering lots of food.
	The argument being when you're working late because you're getting ready for war, they order tons of food.
	So here we are.
	Axios reports Trump to hold Situation Room meeting on Iran.
	They say President Trump will meet with his national security team about the Israel-Iran war in the White House Situation Room on Tuesday.
	Two sources with knowledge tell Axios.
	Trump returned early from the G7 summit to focus on Iran and told reporters on Air Force One overnight that he wasn't interested in a ceasefire but a real end to the war and to Iran's nuclear program.
	The White House has discussed the idea of meeting directly with the Iranians this week, but Trump said that would depend on what happens when I get back.
	Israeli officials continue to believe the U.S. is likely to enter the war at some point to bomb Iran's underground enrichment facility.
	So far, the U.S. has helped Israel defend itself from incoming missiles, but declined to take part in offensive operations.
	questions.
	The narrative that we are hearing is that Israel doesn't have bunker busters.
	To get to the deep underground military bases, Dumbs, as they're called.
	The U.S. needs to enter the war.
unidentified		Man, I think it's a bad idea.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		J.D. Vance giving us the PR narrative.
		I like J.D. Vance.
		I like Trump.
		I don't like these neocon Trump people who were once never Trump people now saying, let's intervene in Iran.
		It is crazy.
		What's the argument?
		I get it.
		The best argument you can muster up.
		We know.
		If Iran does enrich uranium, it's not going to be an ICBM hitting the United States.
		It's going to be a dirty bomb.
		And with the poorest southern border, they can bring in these pieces piecemeal, and that's a terrifying thing.
		We've got to up our security to an insane degree.
		But does that mean we strike, invade regime change?
		Some may argue, what about a middle ground?
		What about U.S. airstrikes with no boots on the ground?
		An air war only?
		Maybe, but what does that mean for Iran?
		Target the Ayatollah?
		Trump claims he said don't target the Ayatollah, and I'll tell you why he didn't.
		I believe him.
		If they took out senior military leadership and the Ayatollah, the nation would become like ISIS overnight.
		Trump wants there to be command leadership, so he's leaving the Ayatollah intentionally so that the structure of government remains, lest you get chaos.
		Now, J.D. Vance has issued a statement.
		He says, look, I'm seeing this from the inside and I'm admittedly biased towards our president and my friend, but there's a lot of crazy stuff on social media, so I wanted to address some things directly on the Iran issue.
		First, POTUS has been amazingly consistent over 10 years that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
		Over the last few months, he encouraged his foreign policy team to reach a deal with the Iranians to accomplish this goal.
		The president has made clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment.
		And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways, the easy way or the other way.
		J.D. Vance is not wrong.
		Trump has consistently stated this.
		I know that there are a lot of people who support Trump who don't want to be at war with Iran, but this was always a possibility.
		So shout out to Dave Smith, with all due respect.
		Now, he said...
		And he said this shows Trump may have never deserved our support in the first place.
		And I reject that outright.
		I reject it.
		Dave, I think you're wrong.
		Libertarians gave their support to Donald Trump because he did give you something.
		He pardoned Ross Ulbricht.
		He pushed back on the woke insanity.
		He did good things.
		We knew this was a possibility.
		Now, you may argue this was always the worst case scenario, but this was your best bet.
		What were you going to do?
		Vote for Kamala Harris, who you know would get us involved in this war either way?
		Not to mention, they wouldn't pardon your friends.
		It's not perfect.
		But I think Trump did deserve our support, and now circumstances have changed.
		I will not support, as of right now, let me say this, U.S. intervention in Iran.
		I am not so blind to the intricacies of foreign policy and the world, and I think it's an absurdity to call anybody who doesn't want war an isolationist.
		That's stupid.
		I'm not an isolationist.
		I think there are times when the U.S. absolutely should declare war.
		But Congress ain't doing that, are they?
		If Congress declares war, I'll shrug and say, that's the function of government.
		This is a system we agreed to.
		If Donald Trump unilaterally deploys troops or engages in airstrikes, I will not support this.
		But there's nuance, ladies and gentlemen.
		You're allowed to say Trump is doing a bad thing while still liking the other things he does and still recognizing he's better than the other options.
		I fully expect that we get bad presidents on foreign policy.
		And that's been my life the whole time.
		This would be one of the biggest disappointments of my life if Trump were to engage in this conflict in this way.
		I wish I had easy answers for you.
	I was asked the other day.
	One of our members on TimCast's IRL, Uncentered Colin, what would the threshold be for the U.S. to actually get involved in this war?
	And I think it's going to have to be Iran directly targeting the U.S. And the reality is, we've talked about it before, if any of our political leaders, politicians are assassinated, if Trump was harmed or assassinated, you have no choice.
	You have no choice.
	And that's a scary thing because they could false flag it.
	Who knows?
	But if you as a nation allow your leader to be killed by an enemy, an adversary, and you do not retaliate, I fear you don't even have a country.
	Your negotiations will never be taken seriously ever again.
	There is a line.
	Man, I don't have easy answers for you.
	I just can say this in my heart of hearts.
	This is going to be bad for this country for a very, very long time.
	It's going to open the door for China to invade Taiwan.
	We're already split internationally.
	We're dealing with the war in Ukraine.
	We can't handle another front.
	I digress.
	J.D. Vance continues.
	These are distinct issues.
	Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment.
	But Iran rejected that.
	Meanwhile, they've enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose.
	They've been found in violation of their nonproliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is hardly a right-wing organization.
	It's one thing to want civilian nuclear energy.
	It's another thing to demand sophisticated enrichment capacity.
	And it's still another thing to cling to enrichment while simultaneously violating basic nonproliferation obligations and enriching right to the point of weapons-grade uranium.
	I've got to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use.
	I've got to see a single good argument for why Iran was justified in violating its non-proliferation obligations.
	I've got to see a single good pushback against the IAEA's findings.
	I do not believe, let me say this again, JD, big fan, but the American people are not sufficiently convinced.
	We do not accept the government just saying bad thing happened and expecting us to get behind foreign military intervention.
	It may be.
	Maybe.
	They come out with evidence and testimony.
	But the U.S. government has exploited the goodwill of the American people for decades, for generations.
	And we are sick of it.
	You've expired the benefit of the doubt.
	Not you personally, J.D., or Trump.
	But that's why I say the threshold has to be high.
	I don't believe them.
	I don't want Iran to get uranium.
	I'm terrified of what that means when they give Houthi rebels enriched uranium for dirty bombs or whatever they might do.
	It's going to be nuts.
	And I want to believe you.
	I do.
	I want to trust Trump and Vance.
	But I don't trust the deep state apparatus.
	So I don't see good reason here for the justification of a massive entanglement.
	I digress once again.
	Meanwhile, the president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens.
	He may decide he needs to take further action and end Iranian enrichment.
	That decision ultimately belongs to the president.
	And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.
	But I believe the president has earned some trust on the issue.
	And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals.
	Whatever he does, that is his focus.
	Natalie F. Denolition says, I have yet to see a single good argument on why the U.S. should be policing the world.
	Cassandra says, are you saying, Cassandra McDonald, are you saying Tulsi and the 18 U.S. intelligence bodies backing the opposite findings less than eight weeks ago are wrong or lying?
	And we have this flashback.
	Trump's director of national intelligence testified that Iran is not, let's pull this one up, not building a nuke in March.
	It's tough, right?
	Who do you trust?
	I trust Tulsi Gabbard.
	But I don't know.
	You know, I ask you guys what you think, because this is not an easy issue.
	Do you trust Trump?
	For me, I have to wonder.
	Here's a guy who's been demonized.
	They've tried to imprison him several times.
	They actually put him in jail and arrested him.
	Briefly, I might add.
	They tried to destroy him in every way imaginable.
	Is this a guy who is going to recklessly get involved in war, or is there actually a reason we may have to?
	One thing I can tell you is this.
	In 2012, around then, we learned of Stuxnet.
	The U.S. and Israel had created a massively sophisticated cyber weapon that effectively infected every computer everywhere, seeking out Iranian industrial control systems for centrifuges, nuclear centrifuges.
	It infected them, caused them to spin out of control, and then explode, destroying them.
	I think it's fair to say there's...
	I'd like comprehensive proof and evidence.
	And then there's this very serious question that comes to the American people.
	Should the U.S. be involved?
	I fear a future where Iran has nuclear capabilities for weapons.
	Seriously.
	Because these are dogmatic extremists.
	I also fear the U.S. saying we're not going to get involved in regime change.
	We'll be greeted as liberators.
	And then there we are.
	Decades occupying a country that is mountainous and is as big as Eastern Europe.
	We can't do this.
	We can't do this.
	I don't have all the answers, man.
	I wish I did.
	I wish I knew.
	Now from the White House, they say President Trump has always been clear.
	Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
	And they basically go out to lay out all of the quotes from Trump, not even all of them, but a lot of them, where Trump has said over the years, from his first term until today, he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, ever.
	How far do they go back?
	2011.
	We can't allow Iran to go nuclear.
	2011.
	So he's been consistent on this.
	Rapid Response 47 says Trump has never wavered in his stance.
	The real question is, Is it true?
	Are they actually enriching uranium?
	Tulsi says no.
	Man, man, man, man, man.
	We're gonna get involved.
	We're gonna be there.
	We're gonna be on the ground.
	It'll be the greatest gift to the Dems, says Paleo Armory.
	Actually, maybe I was reading the wrong name.
	But we have this from Daily Mail and a couple other stories.
	A lot, actually.
	Tehran radiation warning.
	As Israel says, it is on the verge of destroying 10 nuclear sites.
	And Trump demands nothing less than complete surrender.
unidentified		Thank you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We're already involved in the war.
		We ended the war when we decided to defend and arm Israel, and they took preemptive strikes against Iran.
		That's what the U.S. does.
		The liberal economic order, the world police.
		It's what we do.
		Take a look at this.
		Israel says Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon.
		U.S. Intel says it was years away.
		You know what I think?
		Pew data we pulled up last night shows that the 18 to 49-year-old demographic in this country has shifted heavily towards anti-Israel.
		It's 50-50 now.
		In 2022, it was 35% were anti-Israel.
		Today, it's 50. Now, you can certainly say that 15-year-olds turned 18 and 47-year-olds turned 50. The point is, overwhelmingly, over three years, this massive shift is indicative of an ideological shift.
		I believe the reason Israel's striking now, despite the nuclear program being years away, and the reason why the U.S. will likely get involved is because, as I said to Netanyahu himself, the next generation in 20 years, you will have no ally in the United States.
		Now, of course, that's not what the media and the left and the wackaloon anti-Israel people wanted to report.
		But that's what I said.
		I said when I asked Netanyahu, I said there's reports that Qatar has been funding anti-Israel sentiment online.
		Is there any proof of this?
		They reported it as though I was telling him it was true, which is bull.
		The argument is that Tucker Carlson is compromised because he interviewed the Qatari premier and that a PR firm paid a lot of money for that interview to happen.
		And I don't think Tucker got paid to do that interview.
		I think a PR firm reached out to Tucker and said, you want to interview the premier?
		And he said, hell yeah.
		And the lobbying firm or the PR firm gets paid a lot of money to do it.
		It has nothing to do with Tucker.
		And the idea that he's being paid by foreign countries to hold his opinion, I think, are absolutely ridiculous.
		Tucker Carlson's been rich forever.
		He doesn't need the money.
		And so how dare they try and impugn my honor or insinuate in any way that I was attacking Tucker Carlson when I'm anti-intervention?
		Ridiculous.
		That being said, what I told Netanyahu in that meeting, the younger generation does not support Israel.
		Sentiment is clear.
		In 10 or 20 years, you will not have an ally in the United States.
		This won't be relevant.
		These conversations won't matter.
		And I believe that's the case.
		And I think the reason they're acting now so hastily is specifically because they know it may be their last opportunity.
		Right now, the U.S. does still largely support Israel, but it's split only because of the older demographic.
		In 20 years, when the 60, 70-year-olds are all dying or dead, So in this country, it is going to be 70-80% anti-Israel.
		And that's a trend they can't change.
		So they're going now.
		CNN says U.S. intelligence assessments had reached a different conclusion.
		Not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing, according to four people familiar with the assessment, perhaps.
		That's what Tulsi Gabbard said.
		My friends, we are facing something truly insane in our lifetimes, but so it goes, right?
		So it goes.
		Excuse me.
		I do believe this could be the split of the MAGA movement.
		Now, we're going to be joined by Bhatia Ungar Sargon in a few minutes.
		That interview will be available at 4 p.m. for those watching the recorded version of this show.
		You can get it at rumble.com slash timpool or youtube.com slash timcast.
		Check it out.
		We're going to talk about how this affects MAGA.
		But for now, smash the like button.
		Share the show with everyone you know.
		You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		And we'll see you all in the next segment.
		For everybody else, we're going to stick to it live and be joined by Batya in about one second.
		We have this story from Newsweek.
		Trump's most favorable pollster warns.
		It could all be over for MAGA.
		The Guardian says Republican hawks versus MAGA isolationists, the internal war that could decide Trump's Iran response.
		According to Newsweek, President Trump's most favorable pollster has warned it could be all over for MAGA if the president gets the U.S. more deeply involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel.
	Kiss the Republican majority goodbye for the next decade.
	Rich Barris, the director of Big Data Poll, wrote an X. If he pulls the trigger, it's all over for MAGA.
	Newsweek reached out to Barris for further comment.
	Big Data Poll has given Trump the highest approval rating of plus 19 of any pollster in his second term so far.
	It is one of just two pollsters that are yet to record a negative approval rating, although its most recent survey recorded a major drop-off, giving Trump a rating of just plus one.
	A recent poll by the Reagan Institute conducted before Israel launched its surprise attack on Iran's military and nuclear program on Friday shows that a majority of Republicans support Israeli airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
	However, polling has shown also that Republican voters are worried about the U.S. being drawn into a military conflict in the Middle East.
	Now, my friends, Batya Unger Sargon views herself as a mega lefty, and I'm curious to see How she sees all of this and have a conversation with her.
	So let's bring her in.
	We will grab this interview, pulling up the site right now.
	I believe it is loading up.
	Usually takes about a second.
	And Bate, can you hear me?
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I can hear you.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hey, how's it going?
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Thank God, how are you?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I am great.
		Thanks for joining me.
		Can you just briefly introduce yourself for those that are not familiar with you?
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		My name is Batyonger Sargon.
		I am a journalist and author.
		I've written two books, one on how the media got woke, one on who is the American working class and do they still have access to the American dream?
		I'm a columnist at the Free Press.
		I'm a contributor at Newsmax.
		I have a group chat show on Two Way and I am, for the purposes of this appearance, probably most importantly a huge, huge, huge fan of Tim Pool.
		Oh!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He's trying to butter me up so I go, nice, I go, he's on you, huh?
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Your independence of thought and your refusal to be told what to think and your moral clarity.
		I just admire you so much.
		So this is a big honor for me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So now I'm going to go easy on you for the interview, I guess.
		No, I'm kidding.
		But I do appreciate it.
		There's a statement out.
		Rich Barris, Newzik, wrote about this saying that if Trump enters the war in Iran, it will be the end of MAGA and the Republican majority for 10 years.
		I'm curious what you think about this ongoing rift between—I mean, the mega coalition is split right now.
		Trump supporters are divided.
		Do you agree with what Barris was saying?
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		So, no, and I'm sort of a skeptic of the narrative that there's a real split in the MAGA movement.
		I think there's a split in the, like, influencers of the MAGA movement.
		But the actual MAGA voters, the actual base is quite united around the position that President Trump has staked out.
		So, yes, in the influencers, you have people like Mark Levin, who is, like, extremely pro-Israel and wants us to go full hog and bomb Iran.
		And then you have the Tucker Carlson.
		Who are pretty anti-Israel and think that we should be doing nothing here, including not even supporting Israel defensively, and we should be dropping Israel, as he put it.
		So you have this, like, among the influencers, this dichotomy of pro-Israel, America first, anti-Israel, anti-intervention, America first, and then pro-Israel, massive intervention, regime change, let's say.
		But neither of these positions is the position that the president has stated.
		What the president is doing is he's very pro-Israel, but he's very anti-war.
		And so he has defended Israel, helped Israel in its defensive capacities.
		But from his point of view, it's very clear that he is trying to still negotiate that deal.
		He believes 100 percent Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
		On behalf of America, that's the America first position.
		That's not on Israel's behalf, that's on our behalf as American citizens.
		But from his point of view, he's using Bibi and Israel's military supremacy to try to force Iran to the table to sign a deal, a peace deal in which they would commit to that.
		So if you have the pro-Israel, pro-intervention on the one side, and the anti-Israel, anti-intervention on the other side, what the president has done is this kind of pro-Israel, anti-war.
		I completely agree on the surface.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think Trump has basically made this our position, but I think most I think for the people who, you know, I've always been anti-war.
		What that means is, the way to describe it is, I'm not some staunch libertarian, never get involved for any reason ever.
		It's that the threshold of proof and justification must be very, very high.
		Or it is very, very high.
		And I don't think it's currently met.
		And while I agree, Trump has, like right now, the public surface level – It's going to be defensive.
		The Trump administration has stated we are asserting a defensive position.
		I think the fear that most people have, you know, Bannon, Posobiec, even people like me, is that we're going to get drawn into this.
		Trump may be saying now, we don't want to be involved in a war with Iran, and we're not going to, but what happens when Iranian forces or someone trying to instigate the war, be it deep state or even U.S. standard intelligence assets, false flag, or we get legitimately attacked in, say, the Strait of Hormuz?
		It feels like we are, we are, we are, the dominoes are falling over and we're going to be involved no matter what.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		So I also like you, you know.
		I came up under the regime of these false neoconservative quagmires in the Middle East.
		I'm with you.
		First of all, I think the Iranians are being extremely careful not to touch our soldiers, which is very wise of them.
		So they are working really hard to meet that bar that the president has set for them.
		Second of all, you know, I think...
		We may end up attacking only because Israel's success was so overwhelming.
		I mean, to control the airspace, the skies over Iran in five days.
		I guarantee you the Israelis are as surprised as everybody else that it was so easy.
		I think the president might see this as an opportunity.
		You know, for our bomber jets to fly over and start dropping bunker busters on Fordow.
		I'm not sure where I am on that yet.
		I mean, for now, I'm against that.
		I'm not sure if I could be convinced of it, but the idea that that would inexorably lead to the kind of regime change that we saw or our level of investment in regime change that we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, to me, that's a little bit not true.
		It's very clear that Trump could pull this off without us being the ones to have to oversee what comes next.
		I think I'm still with you.
		Right now, my position is they should come to the table.
		I really hope they come to the table.
		But I think from the president's point of view, it could be that this is too big of an opportunity to pass up.
		We'll see where it goes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think that's exactly it.
		I was looking at last night on TimCast.IRL, we looked at Pew data that shows as of from 2022 to 25, the 18 to 49-year-olds in this country have shifted heavily anti-Israel.
		By 15 points.
		In 2022, 18-49 year olds, 35% anti-Israel.
		Today it's 50%.
		I should say Israel critical is probably a better way to say it.
		They're critical of U.S. involvement.
		I think that we're likely going to get involved in this.
		I think it is going to cause a rift among at least, let's just say the conservatarian and libertarian portion of Trump's base.
		I think it's going to rip that from it.
		I think the Trump administration is going to be dragged into this because if they wait, 10 years from now, support for Israel is going to be so low, there will never be an opportunity for the U.S. to justify any kind of action in Iran ever.
		And it's been the U.S.'s position, not necessarily the Trump administration, but the U.S., to remove the government of Iran for decades now.
		So it just seems like an inevitability.
		The problem then is, I do think...
		The U.S. just wants to secure the trade routes in the region.
		We don't want to be involved in regime change.
		The problem is that's the domino that falls over that eventually sees us in a regime change war.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So right now we've got in the Strait of Hormuz, a tanker is on fire.
		They say it collided with another vehicle.
		Now, a lot of people are saying it's not directly tied to the war, but— The Persian Gulf can't be cut off.
		These are American trade partners.
		You've got Kuwait.
		You've got Iran.
		You've got—well, not necessarily trade partners with Kuwait, but you've got Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia.
		They're not going to accept the Persian Gulf getting cut off.
		So the fear is— The U.S. is going to dispatch security forces to the Strait of Hormuz for the purpose of keeping it open, and then someone's going to get bombed.
		One of the U.S. assets will get bombed because either some Houthi rebel group, Iranian-backed militia group, or Iran itself will attack to assert some kind of military dominance in the region, or the worst-case conspiratorial scenario is a false flag by someone who wants to instigate that war, and then Trump has no choice.
		What appears to be Iranian forces.
		How do we not then retaliate?
		How do we not then get involved?
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I could see us retaliating, but I just don't see why that leads inevitably to regime change.
		I don't think President Trump is a person who gets dragged into things.
		In fact, the opposite.
		I think he really resents that.
		I think that's what we saw with Zelensky the moment that meeting turned.
		I hope so.
		He literally set the entire global economy on fire because he thought that that would be good for the working class, right?
		Like this is not a person who can be convinced out of his opinion.
		So I could see us, yeah, giving the bunker busters.
		I could see us retaliating.
		I don't see him getting involved in regime change.
		He likes the mullahs where they are right now because Khomeini is very weak.
		That's exactly where he wants him so he can force him to make that deal.
		Every time Trump tweets or talks or says something, you can see exactly how he is plotting this to get them exactly to where he wants them.
		So I think he's using the Israelis rather than the other way around.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I hope.
		So the report is that Trump told Israel not to strike the Ayatollah.
		And I think there's several reasons.
		I think what you just mentioned, it leaves them weak, threatened, and it creates a leadership that fears death.
		So they're going to say, let's hold back so I live.
		But I also think the reason is, if you were to take out the actual governmental leadership, you end up with an ISIS-style Iran of chaos you can't control.
		Right now, Trump's going to have a terrified Ayatollah being like, my government's going to collapse, I'm going to die.
		Trump's forcing him to the table.
		I'm hoping that is the case with Israel.
		But what I will say to your point about Trump getting dragged into things, it certainly looks that way with what Israel's been doing.
		You know, Israel's claimed that Trump knew the whole time they were going to do this despite the fact that Trump was negotiating with Iran.
		Tucker Carlson stated that he knew Trump was negotiating in good faith with Iran to get them to back down, and then Israel claimed he wasn't.
		I do think— I don't see that.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		See, I think those could both exist at the same time.
		He was negotiating in real...
		And said to them, you have 60 days to make a deal that I approve of.
		Like, that does not conflict with him telling the Israelis, give me this time to negotiate.
		I'm not backing you up until I've had my time.
		So I think Tucker Carlson has been falsely creating this narrative where it's true.
		Both of those could be true at the same time.
		Yeah, he had that meeting with Netanyahu in the Oval Office.
		Netanyahu said to him, I want a bomb.
		And he said, no, I'm negotiating in good faith right now.
		I'm giving them 60 days.
		We'll talk then.
		They talked then, and then they said, all right, go for it.
		Let's see what you can get, you know, with the bad cop side of things.
		So, you know, it seems like, here's the thing about Israel.
		Like, our interests are frequently very aligned with Israel's, but they're not identical.
		And that's okay for an ally.
		They're aligned more often than they aren't.
		And the idea that they are the superpower, that they are controlling the strings is just so ridiculous.
		Just look at the history.
		Every single time, you know, they love to say AIPAC is controlling American politics.
		Every time APEC pulled out all the stops to stop some sort of, you know, military deal, selling weapons to this one Iran deal here or there, they lost.
		Every single time.
		The president is guided by his moral compass.
		He has a vision for peace in the Middle East.
		He wants to be known as the man who brought global peace.
		I mean, it's obvious that's what he's trying to do.
		And he sees Iran having a nuclear weapon as being anathema to what he thinks will be the greatest achievement.
		For the American people in our lifetimes.
		And I think he deserves credit for trying to do that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I agree.
		The Abraham Accords were huge.
		Normalization of economics between Israel and other Arabic nations.
		And Trump talked about wanting to end the Israel-Palestine conflict.
		Not to mention crossing the DMZ into North Korea.
		I think Trump really, really wants a legacy of the global savior.
		He wants to be beloved.
		He wants to go down as this great man.
		Here's what I hope.
		You're giving me some optimism on this one.
		I'm hoping it's Trump's big ask, right?
		Right now you got all these MAGA people saying, holy crap, we're going to go regime change.
		We're going to go boots on the ground.
		I'm hoping that Trump is actually, and this may be wishful thinking, but it's a big ask where he wants Iran to think that, that he's capable of this because he really just wants them to back down and surrender completely.
		Like, okay, we're done.
		And instead of having – I think this is fair.
		If any world leader given the option, would you prefer it if your enemy surrendered or you had to go in and waste money and resources?
		They'd say, I'll take the surrender.
		So maybe that's what he's doing.
		I want to believe.
		I want to believe.
		But I'm terrified that John Bolton – I know he's not there now, but he represented a lot of the interests of the military-industrial complex in the deep state.
		He said, we will be celebrating in Tehran, and that was when he was in the first Trump administration.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		I see why people are nervous, but I think the president deserves a little more credit than that.
		This is a man who hates war.
		In 2005, I was having lunch with a TV executive recently.
		He told me that in 2005, Trump would call him on the phone and scream at him, what are we doing in Iraq?
		This is so wasteful.
		He hates war.
		And so I think he deserves a little bit more credit.
		I understand why, like, younger people don't understand why a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to us as Americans, but it really actually is.
		And that's not because I want to see regime change.
		I just think it's a false narrative that if we...
		Therefore, we will be overseeing regime change.
		I think that there's a lot of steps in between there, and the idea that Trump is going to go the route of the Boltons, he's not actually giving Mark Levin what Mark Levin wants.
		That is the thing, I think, to keep in mind.
		Like, you know, Tucker wants you to think that Mark Levin got his way, and so does Mark Levin, right?
		Because it is in both of their interests to make you think that.
		But that is not the case.
		He has been walking a fine line.
		He is really navigating this delicate situation in a brilliant, brilliant way.
		And I think he deserves a lot of credit for it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I do think it's fair to say about a lot of steps between if the U.S. supplies weapons to Israel and they bomb Iran versus if the U.S. bombs Iran or the U.S. gets involved directly on the ground.
		I think for me, having grown up in the Iraq-Afghan war coming of age around that time, We tend to view, like people like me and the millennials will view war and foreign policy rather singularly.
		And it's entirely fair to say maybe Trump is a different guy.
		And I think so.
		And just because we had this this period in the 2000s where we engaged in these what I would call fraudulent invasions doesn't mean every foreign policy action will always be exactly that.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		And think about how different the Middle East is right now.
		Trump just got back from this trip where he visited with the Saudis who hate Iran, the Qataris who are Iran's allies, and then the UAE who are Israel's allies, right?
		Like he has vision into the future.
		He has an idea of who could be applied to, you know, in the future to take on some of the roles that historically would have been our role as the United States.
		I mean, it's a totally different Middle East.
		That said, I think you're right to be nervous about it.
		I'm also nervous about it.
		I'm not really on board with the U.S. getting involved offensively.
		But even if they do, I think we should give the president a little bit of credit.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think so.
		Polymarket has it at 69%.
		That the U.S. will militaristically intervene.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		By the way, I saw that drop to about 50% by this morning.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		So last night it was at almost 70. No, no, hold on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		69. There's two bets.
		By beginning of July and beginning of August.
		By the end of July, it's at 69% right now.
		It may have changed in the past 10 minutes or so.
		And then by the end of June, it's at 56. It may have gone down.
		The betting markets, oof, man.
		But I do think it's fair to say there's a bunch of steps in between.
		I'm curious your thoughts on this sentimental shift we've seen among Americans toward Israel.
		It's gone rather negative.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Honestly, I don't think that that's about being pro-Israel or anti-Israel.
		The American people are very, very philo-Semitic.
		They're very protective of their Jewish neighbors.
		So American Jews are like, they don't realize this because most of them are Democrats, which is very sad, although it's changing, thank God.
		But the American people are the most philo-Semitic people on the planet.
		They're just like the American working class.
		They're just very attached to, a lot of them are Christians.
		Now, when it comes to Israel, it's a little more complicated because Israel is a sovereign nation.
		When I see those polls, I think what young people are saying is, look, we don't want to be paying for it.
		I don't think they're saying, like, we don't like Israel.
		We don't recognize that it's a strategic interest in the region.
		I think they're saying something very fair, which is, like, Israel is a very rich country.
		Every Israeli has universal health care.
		Like, why are we paying for their weapons?
		And I think that's a completely fair position when I sometimes lean towards.
		I think the Israelis are now having a real conversation So I think that's going to start to shift as well, and I think it should.
		They are a very rich country.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But there is also, on the left, the staunchly anti-Israel.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Yes, on the left, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that's massive.
		And that's spreading at universities.
		You know, Trump is cracking down on a lot of these student visas.
		I'm curious, yeah, what you think about this.
		It exists on the right to a certain degree, but on the left, it's dominant.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, definitely.
		Yeah.
		I mean, but that's been a constant.
		I mean, you know, in the 70s, you think leftists on college campuses liked Israel.
unidentified		They didn't.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		You know, like, that's a total constant.
		To me, like, the problem with universities, it's really not the anti-Semitism, which is obviously there.
		It's like the fact that they manufacture contempt for the working class.
		Like, that's what I really fucking hate about it, is like, people graduate from there with a surefire path to, you know, the American dream, and they come out having been educated to think that.
		That, like, people who work for a living with their hands are somehow lesser than.
		I fucking hate that so much more than anti-Semitism, which I think is a sideshow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's going to be funny when AI takes all those jobs away.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		All the white collar, all the academic jobs are gone, and the only jobs left are we need someone who can lift stuff.
unidentified		Right, totally.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you saw that video of the protester where the black woman's trying to get to work and the white guy's like, oh no, not work.
unidentified		Yeah.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		Like, that guy hates Israel, I guarantee it, but that's, like, the least bad thing about him.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
unidentified		I agree.
unidentified		Well, I'm curious if you have any final thoughts on all the stuff, anything we didn't address Thank you for everything.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, well, I appreciate it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And we're going to have you here, I think, like, what, next week, right, for IRO?
unidentified		Yeah, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's going to be awesome.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, where can people find you?
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		I'm on Twitter at Bunger Sargon.
		I refuse to call it X. I'm also on Instagram at Batia US.
		And yeah, you can find me on Tim IRL next week on Tuesday night.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's going to be awesome.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, I really do appreciate you hanging out and giving us your insights.
unidentified		Thank you so much.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And we'll see you next week.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		See you soon.
batya ungar-sargon ▲ ● ▼		God bless.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Take care.
		All right.
		That was...
		There we go.
		Batia Unger Sargon.
		And interesting.
		Giving me a little bit of optimism, I guess.
		A little optimism.
		I am admittedly probably so jaded.
		I'm just staring at all of this, the polymarket numbers.
		I'm like, the U.S. is going to bomb Iran.
		And the next thing we know, there's going to be one circumstance after another where we have no choice but to get involved.
		We're going to have security forces in the region.
		Our men and women in uniform are going to get bombed by some Iranian-backed group.
		Trump's going to say, we will not tolerate a single death.
		He doesn't want the legacy of Joe Biden.
		I hope and I beg and I pray that his name So maybe.
		Maybe.
		So I will say this.
		Fair point, Tabatia.
		And I think Trump does deserve a bit of benefit of the doubt.
		I really do think so.
		He's trying really hard to maintain a promising legacy.
		He's changed his position many times when his base has lobbied him on social media.
		Trump isn't the guy who just listens to big business.
		You know, we had that moment where Trump came out and said, you know, we got to protect the farmers.
		A lot of these farms, they got illegal immigrants.
		You know that they're good people.
		They work here for 20 years.
		They're not committing any crimes.
		And everybody got mad.
		The base said, no, we are not going to give special privileges to big business.
		Small farms don't have that privilege.
		Well, guess what?
		Trump backtracked.
		He said, we're not going to do it.
		No exemptions.
		No exceptions.
		We're going to start deporting.
		I think it's fair to say that Trump is very, very concerned.
		And I'll tell you this, too.
		That Trump had called Tucker Carlson kooky.
		Because I can tell you this, those guys are friends.
		And I'm pretty dang sure Tucker can just call the president on the phone and say, Mr. President.
		In fact, there are numerous stories about how Tucker met with Trump and has given him advice on numerous occasions.
		I really do think that Trump takes it to heart when he hears Tucker Carlson put out a statement.
		Because Trump knows Tucker.
		He knows Tucker's got a powerful position and he's influential whether he wants to say it or not.
		Trump said maybe he can get a television deal and then people will listen.
		Yeah, he's getting millions on every show he does per night.
		He's one of the top podcasts in the world right now.
		Tucker did not lose influence simply because he's not on cable TV anymore.
		The people who follow him still do.
		Granted, he's probably not getting the same thing that he actually might be getting more.
		His influence among the older generation probably went down because 70 plus year olds are watching Fox News and he was getting like 5 million per night.
		Crazy.
		But in the key demo, I think Tucker's still doing really well.
		So I'm hoping that as long as we all maintain that pressure.
		And again, I'm going to stress this.
		I'm not, you know, I consider myself anti-intervention, anti-war, but I'm not.
		You don't see me doing this.
		I don't go on X and scream, you know, anti, like, I'm not one of these staunch, hardcore dudes.
		That's why people call me a milquetoast fence-sitter.
		Obviously, I have opinions.
	They just want me to be a revolutionary.
	I am not.
	I am a reformer.
	This means that I try to move the needle as much as I can without breaking it off.
	And there are a lot of people that their whole view is, no, never, not ever.
	On so many issues.
	And my attitude is, what can we accomplish today?
	That's why I voted for Trump, despite the fact that I don't view him as a perfect avatar of everything I believe in.
	And when people say, well, I'm not going to vote for him because he's not the candidate I wanted.
	I wanted somebody else.
	I say, okay, but does he get you a lot of things that are good?
	Yeah, but I don't want to support the two-party system.
	Okay, well, listen.
	The two-party system has primaries.
	The Democrat primary is busted, and they have coronations.
	They don't have elections.
	But on the Republican side, Trump shows you actually can get your guy to win, even if he's somewhat libertarian or otherwise.
	If you guys do the groundwork, it is possible.
	The primary is the process by which the candidates rise up.
	I don't care if it's just two people at the end of the day.
	We had a whole primary season, and the people who made it made it.
	And Trump broke through that system.
	So I want to take...
	And that means Trump may be doing things that I don't like, but I'm not going to sit here and be like, throw the baby out with the bathwater.
	I'm going to say, well, Trump got rid of DEI in contracting.
	Trump's pushing back against DEI in schools and public works.
	Donald Trump is working on tax cut things that I like.
	The Doge cuts were fantastic.
	They've codified some of them halfway, so I think the House voted on them.
	Doge was great in gutting USAID.
	We got so many wins.
	It's been exceptional.
	Now Trump may get us entrenched in Iran.
	Bad thing.
	We keep up the pressure, we express ourselves, and we say, Mr. President, we deeply care about this issue.
	We do not want regime change.
	Now, I talked to Sebastian Gorka a month or two ago at this point, and he said, we are not going to have these long quagmire regime change wars, but we will strike targets.
	And I think that's a compromise.
	Look, a lot of people are going to say, Tim, no.
	No world police, no military strikes.
	Listen, if the U.S. has assets in a region, and we have treaties, and we simply say, if you hit us, we hit you back, I kind of shrug and say, you know, look, escalation can occur, but I certainly see that as a compromise.
	If you come to me and say, we're going to put boots on the ground in a foreign country and pull out their government, be there for 20 years, I say, no.
	No way.
	It's a waste of our money.
	It hurts the—it's damaging to the brave men and women in uniform and to the younger generation that's supposed to be inspired by what it means to America.
	I think there's so much wrong with it.
	A waste of money is the biggest thing.
	The funneling of money in directions that I think is ultimately bad for this country, neglecting our southern border, neglecting our own culture, the people of this country, our birth rates collapsing, our economy, our infrastructure, the plumbing, the roads, the bridges.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	If you come and say, We got people bombing trade routes, so we're going to surgically strike them with drones.
	Everybody gets mad to say, Donald Trump increased the drone strikes by 432%.
	I say, shut up.
	Like, it's this all or nothing, zero-sum game BS.
	Donald Trump upped the drone strikes.
	Yeah, I don't like it, but the reason he did was because he was pulling personnel back.
	As U.S. personnel came back, he wanted to maintain security in the region with a minimal play.
	So drone strikes went up.
	But U.S. personnel on the ground were coming back out.
	You'd have to do something like this.
	I think that's the play.
	I don't think it's perfect, but I got my fingers crossed that Trump's going to be the guy.
	I certainly hope so, my friends.
	Smash that like button.
	Share the show with everyone you know.
	You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast.
	We got our friend Russell Brand coming up right now.
	Let me, I believe it's Russell Brand.
	Sometimes it changes, but you know, it's usually Russell.
	We got Russell Brand coming up in just about a minute, who is going to be live talking about MAGA divided.
	Trump turns on Tucker as MAGA is split over the U.S. war with Iran.
	I think Batya makes an interesting point.
	She says we're not.
	It's the punditry class.
	I actually kind of agree with her.
	I do.
	I do.
	But let me caveat that.
	The influential people in the pro-Trump space.
	Can change and shape opinions.
	If we're talking about right now a simple idea, Trump wants limited military engagement with Iran, limited and no direct involvement, I actually think you'll find a majority of Americans are probably in favor of that.
	If the issue is intervention, that's where the real divide is.
	So it's not that Tucker is wrong or that Mark Levin is wrong.
	Now, hold on.
	What I'm saying is...
	I certainly disagree with Mark Levin and more so agree with Tucker.
	My point is, what Trump is doing may not reflect what either of these personalities actually want.
	My friends, we're going to send you on your way to hang out with Russell Brand.
	This is your Rumble morning lineup.
	I am Tim Poole, your host for the noon hour.
	You guys rock.
	I really do appreciate you guys hanging out.
	Make sure you check out TimCast IRL tonight at 8 p.m.
unidentified		Massive.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Crowder is too big.
		Crowder, you got a great show.
		And shout out to the Mug Club.
		He's the number one stream in the country on average.
		This is a big breaking news story.
		Someone might spike.
		If some streamer beefs with someone, they might spike.
		But on average, almost every single day, Crowder's number one.
		And guess what?
		We're number two.
		Tim Castile.
		Hey, I'll take it, man.
		I'll take it.
		It's an honor to be working with all y 'all.
		And to follow Steven Crowder's great show, massive show, and all of his fans for supporting and watching this show.
		And a shout-out to Russell Brand.
		It is an honor and a privilege, sir.
		You are a legend.
		To shout you out is an honor.
		Not everybody likes everybody.
		Everybody in the morning lineup has their audiences, but it's a privilege to get to work with all these guys, and I respect it.
		Thanks for hanging out, everybody.
		Once again, follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast, and we will see you all.

▲