Transcription
We, as I said at the top of the show, don't have clear-cut goals of our own. This is why President Trump is all over the map when he explains why we're doing this. It's the Israelis who are in the driver's seat. And the Israelis have made it unequivocally clear that their goal is regime change. And let me just say a bit more about this. People talk about eliminating the missiles, uh, the ballistic missiles that the Iranians have. They talk about uh eliminating once and for all Iran's uh nuclear enrichment capability and finally its ability Iran's ability to support Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. But you can't do any of these things unless you have regime change.
There has to be a a story here that you change the regime and that new regime then decides it's not going to build ballistic missiles. It it's not going to support the Houthis and Hamas etc. and it's not going to pursue nuclear enrichment. You have to get rid of the regime. The Israelis understand this. And you have to believe that number one, you can get rid of the regime, and number two, that you can put a new regime in place that will decide to never go down the nuclear enrichment road, to never build ballistic missiles, and to never support the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah. That's what you have to believe. So regime change has to be the goal here because it's the only way of solving those other problems. If you go in and destroy the missiles or you go in and eliminate the nuclear enrichment capability, they'll just rebuild those uh assets. So, you have to get regime change and you have to believe that the new regime uh will not be interested in all of those military options. That that's the issue here. And I ask anybody who thinks this military operation is going to work, do you think you're going to get regime change? Is that going to be the end result? And if you do think we're going to get regime change, uh do you think that that new regime is going to not want missiles, nuclear enrichment, and not want to support the Houthi, Hamas, and Hezbollah? I find it impossible to come up with a plausible story that tells me how you get regime change and you get a new regime that has no interest in doing those three things.
>> Well, um, did Netanyahu force Trump's hand by saying as Tucker says, uh, Rubio told the gang of eight? And I think that is what Rubio told the gang of eight because he he revealed part of what he told the gang of eight. whole gang of eight thing is so profoundly unconstitutional. The law requires notifying Congress not to select eight members and you don't tell those eight members under the vow of secrecy. So they can't tell the other members of Congress. They can't tell their constituents. They can't tell the press. That's not a democracy. But we can put that aside um put that aside for the moment. Did Netanyahu force Trump's hand or was this joint attack planned all along for the day on which the attack began?
Look, it it's not just real. It's Israel plus the lobby, the Zionist lobby, the Israel lobby here in the United States. Uh Trump has been under tremendous pressure uh from the lobby. Furthermore, if you look at his negotiating team, he has his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witoff as his two principal negotiators. These are the two principal representatives of the United States who deal with the Iranians. These are arch zionists. These are two people who are deeply committed to Israel. These are Israel's lawyers. This tells you that it's not just Israel itself that's putting pressure on the United States and the United States is therefore jumping to Israel's command. It's Israel plus the lobby. If you didn't have this enormously powerful lobby here in the United States putting pressure on President Trump and his predecessors, we'd have had over time and we would have today a fundamentally different approach to dealing with Israel. We treat it like a normal country. But we don't treat it like a normal country. We treat it specially. It it we have a relationship with Israel that has no parallel in recorded history. And that's what's driving the train here. So it's not just Israel alone.
Now the question of what happened in the planning process, it's just very hard to say. I find it hard to believe that they decided in late December of last year that they were going to attack at some point and it was only a matter of when. I'm sure that they had significant contingency plans and I'm sure they were talking about the likelihood of attacking uh but whether they actually had planned to attack when they did um uh over the weekend, it's hard to say.
Can you get your arms around as a veteran of the Air Force the cost uh of amassing all of that military hardware uh there, the hundreds of planes, the dozens of ships, the thousands of troops? I can't. And the truth is that we have to wait till the operation is over before we can really get a good sense of uh of uh how much this is going to cost. But it's obviously going to be an enormous sum of money. I mean, President Trump is now talking about this war going on for four or five weeks. Um, I think it's probably going to go on longer than that, but uh, who knows for sure, but it's going to cost us an enormous amount of money. Uh, I think as important as the question of how much it costs us is what it does to our inventory of weapons. uh to what extent are we going to run down our inventory of weapons and what are the consequences of that uh for the Ukraine war and for the war uh or a possible war in East Asia against China. I mean the Chinese must be licking their chops at the thought that we're not only pinned down in Ukraine, we're now pinned down uh in the Middle East uh and that we're expending huge amounts of ammunitions. uh and we're not exactly a country that has a potent manufacturing base that can easily replace all these uh munitions that we're expending.
China uh buys a lot of oil from uh Iran. Would China allow the Iranian government to go under and be replaced by someone totally subservient to Trump who might affect that oil relationship in a way that's not in the China's best interest? >> Well, I don't think it's feasible that the United States could get that kind of government. I mean, I think that's a pipe dream. The Trump administration, the Israelis made the case, but that's not going to happen. So, I don't think the Chinese going to have to worry much about that. Whatever government takes over in Tran is going to be hostile to the United States. The idea that any government in Iran that takes over is going to be subservient to the United States is a pipe dream. Uh but nevertheless, there's no question Chinese now and over time will go to great lengths to prop up uh the Iranian regime and help the Iranian regime uh stay uh in a position where it can fend off the United States uh down the road.
I think by the way, one of the reasons that the Israelis are so anxious to attack now uh is because they understand that this is a window of opportunity that as you move forward over time, the Iranians will develop a much larger inventory of missiles and drones. Uh and the end result of that will be that it'll be impossible for Israel to attack Iran uh without getting clobbered badly. Uh so they better go now. uh especially given the fact that they have the United States in their hip pocket. But uh as I said, I don't think they're going to end up winning this war in any meaningful way. I think all the Iranians have to do is survive.
You know, I was thinking before I came on the show this morning of a situation where, let's say, the United States launches a few massive attacks over the next week or two. And let's say that the United States eliminates all of the missiles uh and all of the drones uh that the Iranians have. This is not going to happen, but let's just assume that that happens. And then we declare victory. Where does that leave us? The regime is still intact and they'll just rebuild the missiles. They'll rebuild the nuclear enrichment capability. They'll rebuild their drone capability. Uh, so how do we win the war? Iran is not going away and I don't think this regime is going away. But even if this regime goes away, the regime that's going to replace it is not going to be a friendly regime. And furthermore, that regime, I would bet, will be tempted to develop nuclear weapons in ways that the regime that was dominated by Ayatollah Hami was not interested in developing nuclear weapons. We just assassinated the Iranian leader who was really the main block on Iran going nuclear. uh and now that he's gone and given what's happening in this war, I think the incentives uh and the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons are much greater. So I think this is going to be an even bigger problem moving forward than it is now.
Here's a headline from our friends uh at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. President Trump, quote, "We have unlimited weapons to fight a forever war." Closed quote. Uh, no you don't. General Dan Kaine told you so just before you launched this war on Iran. Could Trump possibly be so misinformed, so moved by his own hubris, whatever was going on, that he doesn't understand that we don't have unlimited weapons, that not only are they limited, but the supply is short? Well, Kane told him that. There's no question about it. There was a whole flurry of stories in the media on this. All you have to do is look at the Ukraine war and the rhetoric surrounding the Ukraine war a over the past year or so where we have talked about the fact that there are limits to what we get can give the Ukrainians because we're beginning to draw down the stockpiles of ammunition and weaponry that we have to dangerous levels. uh and then you know you go to war in the Middle East the way we're executing this war now and you're going to further draw down those stock piles. uh so I I think that President Trump is just blowing smoke here. I mean as we know President Trump says all sorts of outrageous things that have little relationship to the basic facts and this is just another one of those cases. And again, this is why the Iranians, they just have to hang in there, right? They just have to hang in there and keep pounding away at Israel, keep pounding away at uh uh the uh American bases in the region and the Gulf States, and make sure that they do everything they can to close down the Red Sea and the Persian Persian Gulf.
>> You know, the person that they want to put in charge of the government uh has been living in the United States for the past 45 years. That's the sha's son who has the same name as the sha risa uh palevi. I can't imagine after 40 years he would be welcomed and embraced by uh the Iranian people. He would just be for however long he lived a puppet of the Americans who are despised after the murder of Kmeni, the murder of 160 school girls, the bombing of a neonatal unit in a a hospital in downtown Thyron. I agree 100%. But let me just add something to that fact that they are the administration and its acolytes are making the argument that he is the viable alternative tells you that they have no organization or individuals inside of Iran who can run the country after you get regime change and run the country in a pro-American way. Remember the name of the game here is regime change. The first question you want to ask yourself is are you going to get regime change? And then the second question you want to ask yourself is if you get regime change, are you going to get a friendly regime? And we have nobody on the ground inside of Iran who is friendly to the United States, who's a plausible candidate to run the country if we get regime change, which we're not going to get in all likelihood. So what do we end up doing? We end up talking about putting the sha's son in charge, flying him back in. This is 1953 all over again. We're gonna bring back >> right in 1953. Just to remind the audience is when the CIA and MI6 orchestrated coup throughout Muhammad Mosedak, a popularly elected president and they installed the sha. The father of this guy, he's not a young man anymore. He's about my age. He was a young man when his father was deposed and he and his mother and siblings fled to Maryland, USA. And you want to remember, judge, his father was hated. It's not like his father was deposed by uh the Ayatollas and his father loved leader in Iran. Exactly the opposite was the case. Most Iranians were glad to see him go.
>> Let me ask you about Turkey. Uh, Professor Mir Shimemer Naftali Bennett, who's the former Israeli prime minister, is quoted as saying, better for worse, Turkey poses a greater threat to the stability of Israel than Iran does. Do do you expect to see Turkey taking advantage of the bombardment of Israel in some way? I'm not sure what you mean taking advantage of the bombardment of Israel. You mean >> other words, you expect Turkey to do anything now while Israel is being attacked? >> No, not at all. I think the Turks have a deep-seated interest in seeing Iran survive because the Turks understand that Turkey and Iran are the two big countries in the greater Middle East that the Israelis would like to finish off. Uh Israel wants to dominate the Middle East and as we've talked about on numerous occasions, what they'd really like to do in Iran is break it apart due to Iran what's been done to Syria. and they'd like to do a similar thing with regard to Turkey. They'd like to make Turkey uh as weak as possible. And the Turks are fully aware of this. I believe that what you're going to see is you're going to see the Turks begin to talk about nuclear weapons more and more. You already see evidence of that. I've seen a few articles over the past two or three months where the Turks are beginning to talk seriously about acquiring nuclear weapons. And that's because they view Israel as a threat, just as the Iranians view Israel as a threat. And the Turks great fear is that if the Israelis and the Americans finish off the Iranians, they'll put their gun sites on Turkey. That's what's going on here.
>> Wow. How do you see this war progressing? I just I know it's an unfair question. It's becoming a regional war. Trump said as says at one point it'll be over in four weeks and at the other point he and he said say we don't rule out boots on the ground. My own view is that boots on the ground would be catastrophic for America. It's very hard to say. Um I mean what if the war goes on for four weeks, the regime survives in Thran and uh they're continuing to fire ballistic missiles uh at American bases at Israel and fire drones as well. uh and there appears to be no end in sight and we're running out of munitions and uh public opinion in the United States is shifting against Trump, what is he going to do then? Uh it's very hard to say. I again if the question you have to ask yourself is if if if I'm right and that we don't have a winning strategy that we can't win this war, what do we do? Do we accept defeat?
Can President Trump do with Iran what he did with the Houthies last year? You remember in March of last year, President Trump became uh moved into the White House uh in January of 2025. In March, he said that he was going to finish off the Houthies once and for all. And he went to war against the Houthies. By May, he quit. He couldn't beat the Houthies. By the way, if he couldn't beat the Houthies, how's he going to beat Iran? But anyway, he didn't beat the Houthies. He accepted defeat, right? He said, "The Houthis are tough ombres. I didn't realize how tough they were. I've had enough." And we walked away. Can you do that with Iran, especially since we're joined at the hip with the Israelis on this enterprise? Uh, I don't know if he can just walk away. So then the question is, what does he do? Does he put boots on the ground? that would just make a bad situation worse. Uh so he's in real trouble.
And then there is the the Iranian side of the equation. Let's assume that we are very successful uh at tearing apart Iran and damaging the regime. And it looks like from the Iranian point of view that they believe they're going down. Uh you're in what I would call a God or damarong moment. Uh if you're the Iranians and you think you're going down, you bring everybody down with you. Uh and maybe what they'll then do is take their remaining ballistic missiles and drones and tear apart all of the oil infrastructure uh in the Gulf region and do enormous damage to the world economy. Uh shut down the straits of Hormuz for a long period. Uh so you know you're talking about two countries that are deeply involved in a war where from an Iranian point of view this is an existential threat that they're facing and where the Israelis think they're facing an existential threat and they are in the driver's seat. you know, when you talk about uh our relationship with them and you just sort of say, how do how do you walk back down the escalation ladder here? Uh maybe you can do it. Maybe both sides will have an incentive to do so at a certain point in time. But again, if you start walking down the in down the escalation ladder, the United States loses, right? and and pre President Trump has bet that he can beat Iran here. This this is this is not June 22nd of last year when he did a one and done when he went in attacked you know those three nuclear sites at Na Natan Natans uh Isvahan and Fordo that the very different situation here. He he's he's in the regime change business and he's in the regime change business without boots on the ground. And again, even if he gets regime change, what does that buy you? Uh so I I do not see what the happy ending is for President Trump. Almost every story he can tell, I think I can knock down uh quite easily.
Here's a montage compiled by our friends at uh CNN of the varying um explanations for war from the administration. >> Then we may have casualties that often happens in war. >> Uh I don't know if this is technically a war. >> We didn't start this war but under President Trump we are finishing it. >> This isn't a war. He we haven't declared war. The secretary of defense who calls himself the secretary of war said today this is a war. >> We set the terms of this war from start to finish. >> Nobody should classify this as war. It is combat operations. >> War is hell and always will be. >> Strategic strikes are not war. >> I mean some of this is is absurd. The Pete I like the Pete Hegsith comments the most. First of all didn't start this war. is I mean is this guy serious? Then you know we set the terms we'll win this war. I believe that anybody who seriously studies war uh or even semi seriously studies war understands that when you go into a war you never want to make those kinds of bold statements. War is you know an incredibly complicated enterprise. It's filled with unintended consequences and predicting how everything ends is a very tricky business. And when you look at the enterprise that we're engaged in in Iran, I think it's not the sort of situation where you want to make bold statements and you want to acknowledge the fact that you may be wrong, uh, that you may end up losing. This happens a lot of times when countries go to war. So when you listen to Pete Hegsith talk, you understand number one why we went to war. Mere fact that someone like that is in the room whispering in President Trump's ear gives you a good indication of why we went to war. But number two, it makes it clear when you see the hubris and that guy's commentary that he doesn't know what he's talking. And if anything, there's a good chance we'll end up on the short end of the stick when this war is over with.
>> Professor John Mir Shimemer, a pleasure, my dear friend. No matter what we talk about, thank you so much. Thanks for accommodating my schedule. I must tell you, your audience has been enormous. And to the audience, like and subscribe so it's easier for us to get Professor Mir Shimemer up on that algorithm. They all know what I'm talking about. Thank you, Professor. All the best. >> My pleasure. And all the best to you, judge. >> Thank you. We will see.