Iran Gets FINAL WARNING as US Looks to CLOSE European NATO Bases, where the host condemns global institutions for failing America amidst Iran's alleged human rights abuses and financial insolvency. The segment details President Trump's ultimatum by 8 p.m. to open the Strait of Hormuz or face attacks on Revolutionary Guard-linked civilian infrastructure, while criticizing Democrats like AOC for supporting Tehran. Citing Scott Jennings' support for destroying such targets and polling showing Republicans ahead in favorability, the analysis argues that closing the strait hurts Iran's oil exports to China, suggesting the President's aggressive messaging signals imminent military action within 48 hours to secure leverage against a four-decade-long adversary. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Nations Crumbling Before Our Eyes00:14:23
We are watching a major shift in real time.
And it's not random.
It is all by design.
You've got the United Nations effectively crumbling before our very eyes, the organization that we help start and that we fund.
You've got NATO on the brink of total collapse with the United States threatening to pull out troops from European bases as we speak, the presidents moments ago tearing into NATO.
We will get to that.
But I think you've got to think about this right now.
All these organizations that we built up to help create a safer, better, more peaceful world have completely, totally, utterly failed.
And now we know that.
And now we're doing something about this.
It's why we're now having to issue an ultimatum in real time to Iran, 8 o'clock tomorrow night, or else.
Because someone has to take charge.
The global system that was built up with the intention of helping to preserve the world order has completely failed all of us.
And this president knows it.
And you know it, which is why he was elected President of the United States to take over and manage this disaster.
This isn't chaos.
This is by design.
This needs to happen in the here and now.
You know, for so many years, you think about it, for decades really, for 47 years at least, as far as Iran is concerned, we were relying on institutions, all institutions built up after World War II, to keep the peace.
And guess what?
Those systems failed.
They have effectively been disconnected.
qualified on the world stage.
You look at the United Nations, for example, United Nations of which we pay the bulk of the money, the bulk of the funding.
They were supposed to bring countries together.
They were supposed to resolve all these disputes.
They were supposed to, by the way, have our interests as money bags for the entire organization at heart.
But did they know?
No, despite paying, what, 22% or more of the tab, they have never looked out for us.
So we build this thing.
We contribute to this thing.
We are the ones that keep it running because we're the only ones with the money to keep it running.
And what do they do?
They basically give us the middle finger over and over and over again.
You get an organization that's completely ineffective, that, by the way, has no credibility because I'm sorry, but when you are deciding to put Iran on the Human Rights Council, you lost me and you lost the rest of the world.
Iran, who, by the way, just last week killed some 40,000 people.
And that's who the United Nations thinks is okay to put onto the Human Rights Council?
No way.
China?
China, where they're imprisoning people in the Uyghur population?
No.
Again, the UN has rendered itself irrelevant.
And now it's out of money.
You see, mom and dad have cut the UN off and the UN is trying to make a go of it for itself.
I mean, this is why it kept turning to climate change, right?
Don't kid yourself.
It was trying to find new ways to get money, because none of these countries are paying their dues.
You now have the UN out with a warning saying, we're about to run out of cash.
What do you want us to do about it?
It's not like you have our back at any point in time and beyond the money, as I said, total credibility issues, on top of which we got NATO that the president has taken down in real time today.
at the White House, blasting NATO, blasting the Europeans, blasting the world, frankly, for that matter.
Again, the United Nations were looking at you because you have the United States having to do everything.
I mean, what was the world going to allow for?
For Iran to get a nuclear weapon that was perfectly fine with them?
I mean, don't forget, the whole intention of these organizations is to stop that.
What do you think NATO was created for?
In the wake, again, of World War II, to prevent conflicts like we've seen, it was a big fixture that came out of the need for containing the Soviet Union.
Well, we contained it.
You know, you have Reagan to thank for that.
Thank you very much.
Ronald Reagan containing the Soviet Union.
So in 1991, guess what?
No one needed NATO anymore.
But what did NATO do?
It just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger and more and more ineffective.
So instead of winding down, you got this bureaucratic worldwide machine that just bolts up, in a way and wants more money, more money, more money, more money, more commitments, more commitments, more commitments.
And guess who carries the bulk of that burden?
Us here in the United States of America.
So you got to ask yourself are our interests even being served anymore at all?
And the short answer, in light of what's transpiring right now, in light of our need to put a deadline of 8 o'clock tomorrow night on Iran, no, our interests are not being served in any way, shape, or form.
And what connects this all together is, in fact, Iran.
Iran, who's about to hold the world.
Hostage and who is it but the US of A that's the only one willing to do anything?
You see, these systems they're crumbling, they have been exposed.
The only decisive action is coming from us and from President Trump, and not even from the left, who for some reason wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
I mean, in all seriousness, I'm looking at Rashida, I'm looking at Ilhan.
Whose side are you on, ladies?
I think we now.
But you know, I'll tell you this.
At a time when all of these systems are being questioned, at a time when these institutions are crumbling right before our eyes, the U.S. is leading.
The U.S. is leading vis a vis how we're keeping the world safe from Iran, and we are leading the world into space.
Consider what's going on with Artemis II today.
A true Accomplishment for humankind and for the United States of America.
So don't kid yourself.
This is a reset right now.
We, as Americans, are back in the driver's seat.
Welcome to the program, everyone.
Good to have you here.
Make sure you subscribe, share, like.
NATO is done as we know it.
The president making it very clear in his speech with reporters today.
NATO, bye bye.
Secretary General is great.
And Mark Rutte, he's a great person, but.
He's got, and you know, it all began with if you want to know the truth, Greenland.
We want Greenland.
They don't want to give it to us.
And I said, bye bye.
Bye bye.
I like that.
You know what?
We're going to find some way to get that, I think, when it's all said and done.
They didn't want to do anything on Greenland.
And Trump said, you know, we're going to be the ones responsible for it anyway.
Let's face it.
So let's have a little more skin in the game.
Back to the president again, speaking to reporters in a really terrific press conference this afternoon and making it clear.
That NATO is in a heck of a lot of trouble.
He's not going to forget this one.
And I have to tell you, I'm very disappointed in NATO.
Very.
I think that NATO, I think it's a mark on NATO that will never disappear.
Never disappear in my mind.
You know, they're coming to see me on Wednesday.
They're going to say, oh, we'll do this, we'll do that.
Now they all of a sudden want to send things, you know.
But they said it loud and clear at the beginning when I spoke to UK of all, I would have said they would have been there first because they've been, they're the oldest.
And I said, Yeah, I'd love to have a little help.
He said, No, sir, we'd rather wait till you win.
I said, I don't need help after we win.
They have two old broken aircraft carriers, barely work.
I said, I guess we can use them.
Who the hell knows?
I called the general.
He didn't even want them.
He said, We don't really need them.
We got the SS Abraham Lincoln, sir.
We don't need them.
You know, we have, in terms of technology, we had one day 101 missiles going at 2,700 miles an hour aimed at the Abraham Lincoln.
101 missiles.
Out of 101 missiles, 101 missiles were shot down.
I mean, we've got one incredible military, right?
And he talked all about that rescue effort, which was just truly an Easter miracle and great to see.
And I think great for the nation.
Again, you think about all that's being accomplished right now with the rescues, with Artemis II.
It is a good time in America.
We have to step up to the plate because once again, no one else will.
We'd be all speaking German today if it wasn't for the United States of America.
And who knows what we would have been living with, possibly Sharia law, if it wasn't for Donald Trump and the United States of America taking a stand.
This will be something that goes down in history.
In the interim, we've got to think long and hard about what the heck we're going to do with NATO because this isn't really working out.
I want to show you how much I know it's not working out.
I want to go to some sound here.
Listen to our pilots having to find a workaround as they try to get to Israel because none of the Europeans will let us fly over their airspace?
Are you kidding me?
Okay, you see that map?
You see that big workaround?
I mean, wouldn't you be pretty livid too?
I am livid just looking at it.
Look at all the fuel that we have to burn and the giant detour that we have to take because France wouldn't allow us to go through their airspace.
I mean, what kind of agreement is this?
Get rid of it.
We're done.
Get those troops back from those European bases and say, you know what, to heck with it.
You want Ukraine?
You're going to have to pay for it.
You want us to help you in Ukraine?
I think that we've got to find some kind of arrangement, maybe a monetary arrangement to make this a little bit more worth our while because we've been just shelling it out over and over and over and over again.
And then when push comes to shove and the world really needs you, where are you?
You're up nowhere to be found, nowhere, nowhere, nowhere.
And it's not just me saying it's not just the president, everybody's saying it for goodness sakes.
And Marco Rubio, who actually used to like NATO, is like, gee, I mean, heck, you know, who needs enemies when you got friends like this?
Bring them on home.
When we need them to allow us to use their military bases, their answer is no, then why are we in NATO?
You have to ask that question.
Why do we have billions and billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, trillions of dollars, and all these American forces stationed in the region if we can only use, in our time of need, we're not going to be allowed to use those bases?
So I think there's no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to re examine that relationship.
We're going to have to re examine the value of NATO and that alliance for our country.
Ultimately, that's a decision for the president to make.
And you'll have to make it.
We're going to finish the job here.
As I said, we're very, very close to achieving our objectives on all of these things that I've outlined.
But I do think, unfortunately, we are going to have to re examine whether or not this alliance that has served this country well for a while is still serving that purpose, or has it now become a one way street where America is simply in a position to defend Europe, but when we need the help of our allies, they're going to deny us basing rights and they're going to deny us overflight?
I think these are very legitimate questions that we need to be asking, and this is going to have to be very carefully examined after this conflict is over.
Yeah, you better believe it's being carefully examined right now.
And the president came out and told some European newspapers, the Telegraph, for example, an interview.
Gee, I don't really think that we're going to need to be with London anymore and the UK on this whole NATO thing because they're not even going to give us anything.
I mean, they don't even have a ship, even if they wanted to.
They had six ships, four of which I guess were being serviced, two of which were in no shape whatsoever.
They had to borrow one just to meet their NATO requirements from Germany.
What is this?
What is this other than people taking advantage?
And for whatever reason, under all these administrations, nobody said boo.
I think because there was money involved.
I think because there were all kinds of agreements in place and, you know, all kinds of aid agreements that made it worth everybody's while to keep this whole system going.
And it took a businessman to come in and say, gee, this isn't working for us at all.
Look at this.
The United Nations as well at this moment on the brink, on the brink of insolvency with the president saying, Hey, we're not going to keep giving you guys money.
The whole world is refusing to help us, and we are noticing big time.
Think of it, and it's not just NATO.
You know who else didn't help us?
South Korea didn't help us.
You know who else didn't help us?
Australia didn't help us.
You know who else didn't help us?
Japan.
We've got 50,000 soldiers in Japan to protect them from North Korea.
We have 45,000 soldiers in South Korea to protect us from Kim Jong un, who I get along with very well, as you know.
Do you notice he said very nice things about me?
He used to call Joe Biden a mentally retarded person, okay?
So don't tell me about your stuff.
Joe Biden, he said he's a mentally retarded person.
He was so nasty to Joe Biden, it was terrible.
But to me, he likes Trump.
And Do you notice how nice things are with North Korea?
It's very nice.
But we have 45,000 people, soldiers, in harm's way and right next to Kim Jong Un with a lot of nuclear weapons.
45,000, which should have never happened.
If a certain president, I'm not going to mention this president because I happen to like him, believe it or not, but if a certain president did his job, Kim Jong Un would not have nuclear weapons right now.
But they're all afraid to do their job properly.
But just to conclude and just to finish, Japan didn't help us.
Australia didn't help us.
South Korea didn't help us.
And then you get to NATO.
NATO didn't help us.
Running Out of Money Everywhere00:10:01
No one's helping us.
We're on our own.
And I guess we're okay with that.
We've come to the realization it's us or no one.
But no one's willing to step up.
They just want more money, right?
Like this is the amazing thing.
Amazing, amazing, amazing thing.
It shows you we're only as good as our checkbook, right?
Because when we start cutting it off, they don't want to have anything to do with us.
They don't want to be involved in any of these conflicts.
And now the UN's out, you know, tin cup in hand.
We face a real danger of running out of money.
Running out of money, running out of money, running out of money.
And forgive me, it's not NATO that's running out of money, but they will.
This is the UN, okay?
The UN, United Nations, they're done too.
And they're out there saying, oh, this is chaos, this is chaos.
I told you in the beginning of the show, this is not chaos.
This is by design because this is what we have to do at this moment in time.
Otherwise, you got a bunch of little kiddies running the show.
It's like a freaking kindergarten, okay?
That's what's happening.
And no one's there to back up on the playground their friend that's trying to stick up for the whole darn school, okay?
This is what's crazy about it.
And they're just like, give me, give me, give me more money, more money, more money.
We're on the brink of chaos, according to Guterres.
He's the head of the UN.
Listen to him.
We see it in the daily lives of people struggling with rising food and energy costs from the Philippines to Sri Lanka to Mozambique to communities far beyond.
Many aspects of the conflict may be uncertain, but one thing is not.
If the drums of war keep beating, escalation will only make all of these worse.
Any renewed disruption in the Strait of Hormuz will likely bring more turmoil to the markets and deepen concerns about energy supplies.
Yeah, you know, that's actually not the case.
I've studied the markets for a lot of years.
You know, that's my whole background as a financial reporter.
And I'm looking at the markets.
They're actually quite tame in light of everything that's happening.
Today was pretty decent, right?
In light of this 8 p.m. deadline tomorrow, what it tells you is that the UN is trying to use the crisis to actually gin up support for everybody but the U.S.
So they basically, they're turning on mom and dad, right?
It's like the inmates are running the asylum and you got a bunch of kids.
You know, we like to say in our family, we're outnumbered because there's three of them.
which means when you're outnumbered and there's three of them and only two of you, you got to make sure you run a tight ship.
And we haven't been running a tight ship.
We haven't been running any kind of ship.
It's been total.
You want to talk chaos?
It's been chaos.
It's not chaos right now.
Yeah, sure.
They're worried.
Oh, you know, energy prices are going to skyrocket.
Listen, guys, you know what?
I got news for you.
You straighten this thing out and you're going to have energy like you never had before.
But you got to be willing to take some near-term pain for a couple of weeks, for goodness sakes, you bunch of wusses.
Really, that's what they are.
I mean, here they go on and on again.
No money, no money, no money.
Yeah.
You know, we can make it really hard where that no money situation comes from because we do control all the money and we've been cutting you off and I think we're going to cut you off some more.
The Secretary General has, as you know, repeatedly made clear the problem both of non-payment of Jews by member states and the related problem of the UN being forced to repay member states for budget expenses that it does not spend.
Those two factors have put us on an unsustainable trajectory.
We ended 2025 with a record $1.56 billion in outstanding dues, which is more than double that of the previous year.
So, unless either the payments come in or we're not compelled to return the monies that we are not able to spend because we didn't receive the budget, unless one of those two things happen, we face a real danger of running out of money.
Okay.
Well, You're going to have to figure that out now, aren't you?
You see, there's all these programs, all kinds of aid programs and this program and that program and climate programs and, you know, all the programs that they had there at the UN to kind of keep.
And by the way, peace in my mind is pointing this out.
What do you think these NATO bases are doing?
They're keeping those local economies there solvent.
What do you think all the UN activity is doing?
It's wealth transfers, okay?
It's wealth transfers from us as the wealthiest nation to the poorer countries.
But then when the poorer countries aren't even willing to help us or even kind of just signal some, you know, thumbs up of support, then what the heck are we doing?
Not to mention in this case, you've got poorer countries that are up against us.
Right?
That's what Iran is doing, yet they're part of the UN.
Iran, which gets to be part of the Human Rights Council.
Are you kidding me?
I don't think so.
You know, they've been pushing all this bogus stuff and this climate agenda all because they want to line their pockets.
And we don't need to do any more wealth transfers.
We do need to keep the world safe.
And apparently, we're the only ones willing to do it.
I want to go to Mike Walz, who's the ambassador to the UN, making some similar points here.
I mean, what the heck when you got Iran at the Human Rights Council?
It's kind of game over.
You've lost all credibility, period.
They need to stop all of this woke nonsense.
There are seven UN agencies focused on climate change.
There was a commission called the George Floyd Commission, where Biden allowed UN investigators to come into US cities and pass judgment on our judges and policing, with countries like North Korea and Venezuela weighing in.
They need to get, as the president has said, they need to get back to basics stopping wars, preventing wars, helping him, as the secretary general pledged yesterday, helping him craft these.
Peace deals.
And then, you know, separately, there has to be, there's some people saying just get the heck out, walk away.
But there has to be one place in the world where everybody can get together and talk.
You got stuff done.
The president had 150 world leaders there yesterday, and he powered through the teleprompter nonsense.
But 150 world leaders listening to him, to his vision on immigration, on energy independence, and on his vision for world peace.
So we want something.
Okay, here's the deal.
If we're going to have something and we're going to be the main bankrolling, you know, right in the check mom and dad for this thing, then I think the kids need to play by the rules.
All right.
And you can't have some situation that gets out of hand to the point that we're dealing with right now, which is why this moment in time is so incredibly important.
And listen, Trump has always known this.
Here he is speaking at the UN, calling them out to their faces on the climate change stuff.
As just an excuse, an excuse for a whole bunch of other mumbo jumbo that they shouldn't have been.
You know what?
Time's up, guys.
We're on to you.
We're on to you.
Get about 24 hours or less at this point.
But we're not letting this happen in America.
In 1982, the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program predicted that by the year 2000, climate change would cause a global catastrophe.
He said that it will be irreversible as any nuclear holocaust would be.
This is what they said at the United Nations.
What happened?
Here we are.
Another UN official stated in 1989 that within a decade entire nations could be wiped off the map by global warming.
Not happening.
You know, it used to be global cooling.
If you look back years ago in the 1920s and the 1930s, they said global cooling will kill the world.
We have to do something.
Then they said global warming will kill the world.
But then it started getting cooler, so now they could just call it climate change because that way they can't miss.
It's climate change.
Because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there's climate change.
It's the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.
Okay.
Look, I'm going to be careful here because I realize people, you know, get all bent out of shape on this stuff.
And I would point out that when the whole world shut down during COVID, apparently, like, the climate change issues kind of went away, right?
I would also point out that while we have tried and done a lot on the green energy front, China's done zilch, zero, nada.
And if you really think about it, if this had played out the way they wanted, if China had gotten Kamala Harris in the seat and we had this continuation on of all this stuff and we got rid of all our fossil fuels and we weren't drilling in the US of A and then Iran got a nuclear weapon, you see where I'm going with this, guys.
I mean, the left is too stupid to see it.
They just can't, for whatever reason, game this out.
But China's not too stupid.
Iran's not too stupid.
Russia's not too stupid.
Infiltrate all this social media stuff and opinions and, you know, think tanks and big organizations like NATO and like the United Nations and Davos.
While we're at it, if you get enough of that group thinking there plus the social media stuff combined, and you have everybody thinking the world is going to end tomorrow.
And they shut off all fossil fuel capability here in the US and there's no more pipelines and there's no more drilling.
Global Stupidity vs Smart Geopolitics00:08:45
And then all of a sudden you wake up one day and Iran has the nuclear weapon.
Guess who's controlling the energy supply at that point?
And that actually matters in a world where we're going to be so dependent on AI, which is an energy, like, I mean, it sucks a lot of energy.
Okay, a lot of energy.
Like, we need to do a lot of work.
We need to do a lot of work on our grids, et cetera.
We got a lot of work in store, but we certainly don't want to, like, shut off the fossil fuels because that would be a problem.
Now, would it not?
I mean, think about how this could have gone down and know that it didn't.
Thank goodness.
Which is why this moment in time is so critical and this moment is so frightening for our enemies.
It's a new world order.
And we're ensuring that this is going to happen.
The U.S. of A is back in charge.
The U.S. of A is back on top, whether it be what we accomplished in Venezuela.
What we are accomplishing in Iran, whether it be what's coming down the pike in Cuba, the U.S. is back, ladies and gentlemen.
And guess what?
We're not going to put up with a two-bit player in the Middle East trying to control the rest of the world.
No, not happening, which is why the president got a little angry, a little heated under the collar over the weekend, sent this one out Tuesday.
We'll be power plant day and bridge day, all wrapped up in one in Iran.
There will be nothing like it.
Three exclamation points.
Open the effing straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell.
Just watch all in caps with one exclamation point.
Praise be to Allah, President Donald J. Trump.
Okay, I saw this over the weekend, all right?
And I had a wonderful, wonderful Easter.
I hope you had a great Easter as well.
I was up in New Hampshire with lots of family and it was just a terrific, terrific time.
All the little cousins were together, my kids and all their cousins.
I had a blast.
Anyway, I saw this thing and I got to tell you, what did I do immediately?
I went to Truth Social and I said, I just need to make sure that this is right.
And then I went and looked at, The White House accounts, a rapid response.
They have a Twitter account.
They retweeted this thing.
So I'm like, okay, all right, this seems real.
He's mad.
He's pissed, okay?
And he's using language and he's making fun of Allah and he's doing the whole thing, all right?
And then if you didn't catch him the first time, he came back for more and said Tuesday, 8 p.m. Eastern time, okay?
So, like I said, right around the corner here.
This could be fireworks.
Listen, the ball's in their court.
He's actually been quite generous.
He said, hey, you know what?
If you want to change it, I'll give you this opportunity.
You can negotiate with me, but they're choosing not to meet our demands.
And so, yeah, it's up to them, and they're dropping the ball.
Listen to the president here today in the press briefing room.
Go ahead, please.
Your messaging on the war has moved.
From the war is coming to an end to we're going to be bombing Iran to the Stone Ages.
And we've heard a range of those kind of messages.
So, which is it?
Are you winding this down?
I can't tell you.
I don't know.
I can't tell you.
It depends what they do.
This is a critical period.
They have a period of, well, till tomorrow at 8 o'clock.
I gave them an extension.
They asked for an extension of seven days, right?
I said, Steve, give them 10 days.
10 days is.
Up actually today, so I gave them 11, I guess, indirectly.
I thought it was inappropriate the day after Easter.
I want to be a nice person.
They have till tomorrow.
Now we'll see what happens.
I can tell you they're negotiating, we think, in good faith.
We're going to find out.
We're getting the help of some incredible countries that want this to be ended because it affects them also.
A lot of people are affected by this.
But we're giving them till tomorrow, 8 o'clock Eastern Time, and after that, They're gonna have no bridges.
They're gonna have no power plants Stone ages.
Yeah Whoa, okay, and everybody's got their hand up everybody's asking questions He's being tested on this is this really you know a humanitarian issue?
Is this illegal?
Is this a violation the Geneva Connect Convention if you were to go after the bridges and the power plants and he's got a good response for this basically it's like you want to know what's against the Geneva Convention allowing these guys to get a nuclear weapon.
I mean, they just killed 40,000 last week alone, for goodness sakes.
Hello, people.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. President, for the question.
Deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure violate the Geneva Conventions and international law.
Who are you with?
I'm with the New York Times.
Zolan from the New York Times.
The failing.
The failing.
Are you concerned?
You see circulation way down at the New York Times.
Are you concerned that your threat to bomb power plants and bridges amount to a threat?
No, no, no.
I hope I don't have to do it.
But again, I just said 47 years they've been negotiating with these people.
They're great negotiators.
And because they're not going to have a nuclear weapon.
And if somebody that takes my place someday is weak and ineffective, which possibly that will happen because we had numerous presidents that were weak, ineffective, and afraid of Iran, we're never going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon.
And if you think it's okay for people that are sick of mind, that are tough, smart, and sick, really sick, ideologically, you know, from a policy standpoint, from a Stand any which way you want to say.
Mentally, these are disturbed people.
If you think I'm going to allow them, and powerful and rich, to have a nuclear weapon, you can tell your friends at the New York Times not going to happen.
Quiet, quiet, quiet.
You no longer have credibility at the New York Times because the New York Times said, oh, Trump won't win the election, and I won in a landslide.
I won every swing state.
New York Times said, oh, Trump won't win the election.
New York Times has no credibility.
The credibility they have is it used to be all the news that's fit to print.
A great, the old gray lady, it was great, but they're running on past fumes, and you can't keep doing that.
You have to be able to give the correct news.
And people like you, who I know, are fake.
You're fake.
Okay, really taking down the New York Times there.
I think Unc Andy47 pointing out they got totally roasted.
Yes, but I know we laugh at it.
He's actually right.
I mean, you think about the lies that have been printed.
in the New York Times, we have been spoon-fed a whole lot of lies, whether it be on Hunter Biden's laptop that they told us was not Hunter Biden's laptop, whether it be on the COVID stuff.
We've had a lot of lies, okay?
So there's been quite a history of that.
And then he's not wrong when he says, yeah, they kept saying, I'm going to lose, I'm going to lose.
And what do you know?
He won.
So it shows you really when push comes to shove, I think Americans knew that this moment was coming.
I think that we knew something had to give because these institutions, whether it be the UN, whether it be NATO, whether it be the New York Times and the mainstream media, these institutions served a purpose at one point in time but have exhausted their use.
They are no longer necessary.
They've proven it over and over and over again.
And this is where we are at this moment in time.
And so you've got to say to yourself, listen, he sees effectively the weight of the world on his shoulders right now, the fate of humanity on his shoulders.
And he's not going to let the wackadoos with their religious Zealots running the show over in Iran have that kind of control over the rest of the world.
Nor is he going to allow for the wackadoos here in the U.S., whether it be AOC and Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, to be controlling the show either.
Listen to this one.
A lot of the news doesn't talk about that.
They talk about, oh, women's rights.
You want to see women's rights?
I kind of see it there.
It's amazing when I see some of the stupid people like, you know, AOC plus three, all that group.
They talk about, oh, freedom for Iran.
They don't tell you the real facts.
Women, men, gays.
Appeasement Leads to Nuclear Risk00:11:02
How about gays for Iran?
They kill the gays, they throw them off buildings.
So I wonder what's going on.
What is going on?
TDS, they hate Trump so much that they are somehow fine.
With all kinds of human rights being violated.
I mean, I just don't get it.
As a woman, like, I don't get it.
I mean, there's so many things with the Democrat Party.
I mean, you guys standing up for women?
Give me a break.
You can't even stand up for the girl who's, you know, running in the junior track meet.
And now you're perfectly fine with Iran, the way they treat women.
You're okay with that.
And think about how homosexuals are treated there.
I mean, as gays for Iran, for goodness sakes, you wouldn't be alive in Iran.
I'm sorry.
But come on, wake up.
Deal in reality.
Get over your stupid TDS because it's not helping the world.
As for whether or not this is a violation of law, whether it is a violation of the Geneva Convention, etc.
You know, I don't usually like John Bolton very much.
Like, you know that.
Full disclosure.
I, over the years, have kind of seen him as only one way.
But at this moment in time, this very brief moment in time, so enjoy it while it lasts, I'm going to play you some John Bolton because I think he's right on this.
Watch.
So, you heard President Trump, or you saw in his True Social Post that was profanity laced, this threat to make tomorrow, quote, Power Plant Day and Bridge Day.
If you were advising the president now, would you encourage him to follow through with those specific threats to the civilian infrastructure if tomorrow's deadline comes and goes?
Well, let's take a look at the phrase civilian infrastructure.
There's less there than meets the eye.
First off, the Revolutionary Guard is typically thought to hold control over about 40% of Iran's economy, from which they derive revenues.
Their generals derive revenues.
The Guard itself derives revenues.
They're part of the war machine, 40% of the economy.
Next, the prohibition is against attacking civilian targets.
But, for example, a power plant that provides energy to a military base, to a military facility, to a military manufacturing operation is a legitimate target.
There's collateral civilian damage, that's true, but it's a legitimate target.
And what we've seen.
Is that Iran, like Hamas, has spent a lot of effort building a military machine underground, but it's left the power for that machine on top of the ground.
And I think it's perfectly obvious that highways can be used to move men and equipment for military purposes.
So the words civilian infrastructure are not talismanic.
You have to look at specifics.
And presumably, that's what the lawyers in the Pentagon are doing as they go down the target list.
I think we have very high priority in not violating that prohibition against hitting civilian targets.
And let's see what happens.
So, again, yeah, I'm not necessarily Bolton's not my go to guy in part because he kind of has one no and one no only, which is very, very pro conflict and pro war.
But I think his point is well taken in that he is saying, hey, you know what?
This is a different kind of scenario in that they have built up this power plant for the use of their military.
And the military is a primary beneficiary of this power plant.
So, thus. we have the ability to go in and take it out.
Listen, I don't even want to debate it.
I just don't because I think you've got one thing that you've got to accomplish here, and that's you've got to effectively make them so that they come to the table, they negotiate with us, and we have no risk of a nuclear Iran going forward at any point in time in the future.
And that's the goal that needs to be accomplished.
And there are a lot of different ways to do it.
And the president doesn't want to have to take these ways, but this is what's happening.
He actually said something very interesting today as well.
He said, you know what?
The people of Iran.
They want this.
They said they get nervous when the bombs aren't falling because they need this change.
But the IRGC has such a hold on everyone that unless all of these people are taken out, and we've gone after regime one, regime two, we're on regime three.
Apparently they're a little bit more malleable, but obviously not that malleable, so much that we are going to have to do, apparently, what we're thinking of doing in about 24 hours' time.
So listen, they're not coming to the table to get rid of this weapon.
how do they even exist in this environment?
You might be asking yourself.
They have something called a mosaic style of warfare that they have built up over the last couple of decades.
It is all designed to be independent of authority.
So even though you have regime one, you have regime two, and apparently regime three, you have all these little cells and operations that are effectively able to manage on their own.
And so they're not taking orders from central command.
They've effectively been preparing for this day forever.
Okay, fine.
Well, guess what?
We've been preparing forever as well.
Listen to Secretary of War, my former colleague at Fox, Pete Hegseth.
Per the president's direction, today will be the largest volume of strikes since day one of this operation.
Tomorrow, even more than today.
And then Iran has a choice choose wisely, because this president.
Does not play around.
You can ask Soleimani.
You can ask Maduro.
You can ask Khomeini.
Yeah, just ask any of those guys, okay?
I think you'll take the hint.
But how did we get here?
How did we get here?
We got here because of what I said in the very beginning of the show.
We have allowed for these institutions to take over, for the inmates to be running the asylum, for the kids to be running the show.
There's been no heavy hand.
There's been no guidance.
In fact, it's been appeasement.
Gosh darn it, I can think of how we got into World War II as well, right?
A little too much appeasement.
Think about the appeasement that Obama was willing to engage in with Iran.
We'll just give him more money.
That didn't work, guys.
It didn't work.
You got to be a whole lot heavier handed than that.
The president making that point as well today in the briefing room.
Let's go to him right now.
Their strength.
If I didn't terminate the Barack Hussein Obama Iran nuclear deal, they would have had a.
Don't forget, that was a path to a nuclear weapon.
Remember this.
He chose Iran over Israel, pure and simple.
How Israel can vote for a Democrat is if you're Jewish in New York City or any place else in this country, and how you can vote for a Democrat is in Billy Booth.
Because he chose Iran, a very hostile Iran.
Remember when he filled up a 757 with cash, billions of dollars of cash, and he sent it over to them.
Then they gave them tens of billions of dollars.
He chose Iran over Israel.
Israel, and really the Arab world, if you look, because, you know, the other, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE.
I mean, you take a look.
I mean, I can add Kuwait and I can add Bahrain and you can add others.
He chose such an unlikely candidate.
Nobody could believe it.
Frankly, if you're going to choose between Iraq and Iran, he should have chosen, he should have befriended Iraq.
He went in the exact opposite direction of all thinking.
Why'd he do that?
I think he had a different worldview.
And we could go conspiratorial and question why he had that worldview.
But let's just assume he had a different worldview, okay?
He thought that there was a future for Iran.
He thought they could join the world stage.
They could join global commerce.
Granted, there's a lot of wonderful people there, for sure.
I mean, heck, you know, you've had a lot of people immigrate from Iran and become tremendously successful here in the U.S.
The problem that Iran has is its religious allegiance.
And so because of this religious allegiance, which in my estimation has a lot of violence embedded within it and that has been brought out over the last several decades or 47 years, we could say, because of that, you're never going to get to a place where you can have a peaceful country that you're negotiating with unless you take out the religious extremism.
Which means you need to get rid of the Ayatollahs.
You need to get rid of the Imams.
You need to make sure that you have a secular government that is willing to engage in commerce for the benefit of the country and the people.
And that means no nuclear weapon.
Full stop.
But again, you've got to ask yourself why the heck Barack Obama did that?
And what would have happened if Donald Trump hadn't come along and ripped the whole thing up?
And he made a terrible mistake.
But that was a road to a nuclear weapon.
And when I terminated that, everyone said, Oh, he terminated it.
It was one of the best things we ever did because he had a road to a nuclear weapon.
And it was a very short term deal.
You know, countries don't do 10 year deals, countries do hundreds of years.
You don't do a 10 year deal.
For a country, you need this isn't you're a landlord, you're renting a store on a certain street, and you give somebody a five year or 10 year lease.
This is a country.
It was a short term deal.
It was ready to expire.
I terminated it before it expired.
It took a lot of heat.
And it was one of the best things they ever did because he would have had a nuclear weapon.
Then he would have had another nuclear weapon had those beautiful B 2 bombers not gone in eight months ago and obliterated that site.
And by the way, the word is obliteration.
CNN said, well, maybe it wasn't complete.
It was so complete that they still haven't been able to get it.
It was obliteration.
But if we didn't hit them, that was a courageous decision, too, because we had all those planes flying in at night with very little cover, unbelievable stealth planes.
and they were able to do their job.
If we didn't do that, Iran would have had a nuclear weapon at a high level, either one of those two.
And if that had happened, let's be really clear, they would have held the entire world hostage at a time when we need energy badly.
Stealth Planes and Total Obliteration00:02:34
You think about this new economy that we're going into, and I know a lot of people don't like it and they're nervous about AI, but I'm here to tell you it's here to stay and it's hard to fight progress.
And if you fight the progress, you're not going to be out in front of it.
You're not going to own it.
You're not going to control it.
And China will.
And if you need energy for all those GPUs to be cracking, guess what?
If Iran had controlled the energy supply, we would have been up a creek without a paddle.
To put it nicely.
And so we had to do this, okay?
We had to do this.
I'm watching gold throughout all of it.
You know, I'm a big fan of gold as a great diversification tool, really, really great diversification tool in your portfolio.
I'm looking at it at 46.85, closing the day out basically flat as we see crude oil going up a little bit.
You got silver going up a little bit.
You've got copper going up a little bit.
So commodities seeing a little bit of upward pressure and gold's included, you know, up point, as I look at it, 0.04%.
I will say this.
It doesn't even matter.
For me, when gold goes down, I just keep buying it.
When gold goes up, I bought some earlier today because it was down.
When gold goes up, I like it and I watch it and I'm like, gosh, I wish I had more.
It's one of those diversification tools that I think plays out over the long haul no matter what, which is why I think it's an important part of your portfolio.
And I want to tell you about these new guys over at Kirk Elliott Precious Metals because they're terrific.
Dr. Kirk Elliott, PhD, runs it.
He's going to be back on the show on Thursday.
He's got some really good insights on a whole lot of things.
But what I love about these guys is they are transparent.
You know, so many of these gold companies.
And I've learned a little bit about this myself.
It turns out there's all kinds of markups involved.
So if you get a special coin, right, with a special face on it, let's just say it is not actually the entire value of the gold, right, because there's work that goes into creating that particular coin.
And so these guys are super upfront and they are transparent and they'll just tell you, this is what it is.
And so they have very transparent upfront costs.
And then upon, if you decide to liquidate it, so upon liquidation, there's actually no cost with the belief that, you know what, this is money that belongs to you.
It's your savings.
They've got a really talented team as well there that can walk you through it.
So I encourage you to go look at them.
KEPM.com forward slash Trish gives me a little credit.
KEPM forward.com forward slash Trish.
Back to Ron for a moment.
This is a now or never kind of moment.
It's got to be done.
Now or Never for the President00:02:20
And the president's making it clear.
You know, he wants the straight for everyone.
And by the way, if you want to go back to international law, et cetera, guess what?
They don't have any right to that waterway.
It's not theirs.
It doesn't belong. to them.
It's not their real estate.
It's everyone's.
So for them to say, okay, we're going to control this and not allow everyone through, well, they can't.
And the president's like, where are you?
Hey, UN.
Hey, NATO.
Where are you?
Because they can't do this.
So, hey, why don't you just go get your oil?
And this has been a big part of his messaging.
Yes, we want the straight open.
Are we willing to commit all of the resources?
I think he's kind of at his wits end.
He's like, come on, people.
We've taken out the Navy.
We've taken out the Army.
We've taken out two regimes.
Can you like get off your duff and go, you know, sail a ship over there and do a little something too?
So this is at this moment very much in his purview.
At the same time, he wants Iran to do the right thing and say, okay, you know, it's not ours and we will open up.
They're hurting themselves, by the way, when they close it down because then China can't get its oil.
Just saying.
I mean, they got customers all over the globe, right, that aren't getting their oil either.
Here, I want to go to Scott Jennings, who's being asked about this on CNN today.
And he's pointing out that, you know what?
Maybe, maybe because we've got a little tough love in there from President Trump, the U.K. is putting some kind of coalition together to help take care of this matter.
If the Strait of Hormuz isn't opened up by 8 p.m. tomorrow night, as a Republican, would you support?
That the U.S. government destroying civilian infrastructure in Iran as Trump is threatening?
Well, I would support us doing anything we have to do to meet our military objectives.
And so, you know, I'll leave that to the commander in chief on how he wants to do that and how we think best to do that.
I would note that last week the British government convened a meeting of 40 nations to talk about how they might keep the Strait of Hormuz policed and open into the future, which, by the way, is exactly what the president asked for, which was an international group of countries getting together and working on this problem so that Iran doesn't continue to be a pest, an economic pest to the world.
So maybe that's going on.
And at the same time, these diplomatic conversations are going on, but that's my view.
So that would be good.
Maybe somebody's doing something.
You know, I'll tell you, when push comes to shove and we cut off the money supply, what do you know?
Interesting Diplomatic Timing Ahead00:05:00
What do you know?
You know, it's like the kid that just won't move off the couch.
And you say, hey, you know, please move off the couch.
Please go get a job and move off the couch.
And the kid doesn't move.
And then finally you say, okay, you know, this Friday, you got to move off the couch.
And then you take all his stuff and you put it outside and you move him off the couch.
And maybe then he gets a job.
And maybe then he stands on his own two feet.
That's kind of like what's going on right now, if you would, with NATO.
They don't have a choice at this point.
They're going to have to get their oil.
And if they want to get their oil, they're going to have to pull their act together, for goodness sakes.
Hey, UK, get those ships going.
You can't have four out of service when you only got six.
Thank you very much.
I will tell you, this is a moment in time.
It is by design.
And the American people are responding to this in a really good way, even though you wouldn't know it by listening to the mainstream media.
I'll tell you anecdotally, I know a lot of libs.
I know a lot of conservatives and I know a lot of libs.
And you know what?
I don't let politics interfere with friendship.
They sometimes do.
They sometimes do, but not me.
And what I'm hearing from a lot of libs right now is relief.
They actually, underneath it all, as long as they haven't been contaminated by the likes of AOC, plus three, you know, Ilhan Omar Rashida.
And I guess you can take your pick on the other.
Would that be that Ayanna Presley there in Boston?
She's got a good deal going, too.
Check out her hubby.
He apparently has made millions of dollars as a lobbyist for her, huh?
Anyway, a lot of Democrats are actually liking what the president is doing.
And certainly, I think the GOP is on board, aside from a few podcasters out there.
Take a look at this poll on CNN.
I want to go to, I really like this guy, Harry Anton.
Who has so much enthusiasm with how he delivers the news?
Let's take a look at his numbers.
Let's take a look at this.
Net favorability.
Party ahead at this point.
Midterm of years with the GOP president.
In 2018, Dems were up by 12.
In 2006, on net favorability, which party you like more?
Dems were ahead by 18.
Republicans are actually ahead on net favorability at this point by five points.
So Democrats are just simply put running behind their previous benchmarks, and they need to be running well ahead of them if they want to take back the United States Senate.
That's interesting.
Okay, so I realize they're only up five.
But the Democrats are not where they need to be if they want to take back the Senate, for goodness sake.
So they've still got a lot ahead of them.
And I would say this, I want to go to a the weekend show on NBC where the reporter is trying to say, hey, you know, it's going to be a bloodbath at midterms because, you know, people don't like this.
I'm just going to remind you all, you want to talk about what a bloodbath it would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon?
I mean, again, we don't have a choice on something like this.
It may not be perfect timing for the Politicos out there.
It may not go over well at midterms, but in some ways, like, do you care?
I mean, this is what you elected the guy for, for goodness sakes.
And here is some reporter trying to say, you know, he doesn't see it the way everybody else sees it.
And his campaign people are trying to warn him.
And Mark Short, who used to work in his legislative division, kind of sets her straight.
Watch.
Susie Wiles, chief of staff, told Time magazine this week she had concerns that President Trump had a rose colored view based on what aides were giving him in terms of information and updates about the status of this war.
I think he has a clear eyed view of the status of this war, Kristen.
I think he gets his information beyond his White House staff.
As you know, he talks to you frequently, he talks to plenty of folks in the media, he talks to a lot of people.
And so I don't doubt that he has a clear eyed view.
I think that.
Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years.
They've killed many innocent Americans.
I think the world changed on October 7th, 2023, because at that point, Israel decided they're going to take matters in their own hands.
I think that the president, heading into these next 48 hours, he understands leverage better than most people do.
He understands that Iran's leverage right now is the Strait of Hormuz.
His leverage is having the most powerful armed forces the world has ever assembled.
And I think you're going to see that.
You're going to see that in the next 24 to 48 hours.
And that's why, you know, when he tweets out this morning, I think there's a lot of commentary that it looks deranged, it looks juvenile.
It's not.
It's the president is basically sending a message.
We could disagree as to whether or not it's presidential.
We could disagree if it's statesmanlike, but it's not accidental.
It's basically him wanting Iranians to think he's deranged because he's planning something here in the next 24 to 48 hours.
It's going to be an interesting one.
Our thanks to our friends at Media Research Center, also known as newsbusters.com.
Good guys over there that come up with some of those clips that I love to show you.
They're really good at watching the view, by the way.
We've got to give them a lot of props for that.
Anyway, look, guys.
You know what?
It's going to be what it's going to be, but I don't think you can operate totally, totally on nothing but