Impeachment Looms Over Trump After the Pentagon’s Leaked Nuclear Plans. Joe Kent on What Comes Next.

There's something about catastrophe. that's very difficult for the human. brain to process. Something terrible. happens and most people refuse to. acknowledge it as it begins. Talk to. anybody who's seen a shooting, for. example, and they'll tell you, most of. them will tell you if you interview. them, I thought it was fireworks or a. car backfiring. Most people perceive a house fire in the. first moments as burning toast. Again,

there's something about people that. pushes away evidence of disaster. And so. with that in mind, how would the average. person assess the risk of nuclear war, which to state the obvious or what used. to be obvious is the worst possible. thing. A nuclear war ends inevitably in. the destruction of all human life on the. planet. So there's nothing worse than. nuclear war. Ask your average American, are we close to nuclear war? And haven't.

seen polling on it, but nine out of 10. would almost certainly say, well, no, of. course not, because it's just not. imaginable. And let's hope it remains unimaginable. But the evidence is mounting that some. people are imagining it and therefore we. are moving much closer to it. What's the. evidence? Well, it's all around us. And. it's only our unwillingness, our native. hesitancy to add it all up that prevents. us from seeing that. But here are a. couple facts that might be worth. considering if you're trying to assess, are we actually close to a nuclear war?

Russia has revised its nuclear doctrine. Nuclear doctrine is exactly what it. sounds like. It's the rules that a. country sets for itself about when and. under what circumstances it will use. nuclear weapons. Most countries that. possess nuclear weapons, not all, but. most, have what's called a no first use. policy. Meaning they pledge to the. world, but also to themselves, we will. not be the first to press the button. We. will use nuclear weapons in defense. only. Notably, the United States and. Israel do not have a no first use.

policy. They have reserved the right to. use nuclear weapons offensively if they. so desire. But until very recently, no. one imagined that the United States or. Israel or any country would ever launch. nuclear weapons unless nuclear weapons. have been launched against them. And. that's why for over 80 years, nuclear. weapons have basically preserved the. peace. Horrifying as they are, or. perhaps because they are so horrifying, we haven't had a global war since 1945.

Because the idea is nobody would win. Mutually assured destruction is the. phrase that people often used for this. And so it's a big change when states. start to think about using nuclear. weapons in the same way that you would. use say artillery. or bombs or missiles. That has never been considered before. But now clearly it is under. consideration by a couple or maybe.

several different countries. And those. would include Russia, the United States, and Israel. Again, how do we know that? Well, Russia has revised its nuclear. doctrine. The United States is now in. the process of revising its nuclear. doctrine. As for Israel, well, the. government of Israel and successive. governments of Israel have over more. than 50 years at various points. threatened the use of offensive nuclear. weapons. So, we sort of know that Israel. is capable of that, at least if you take.

them at their word. But the United. States is a country most Americans never. imagined would seriously consider. lobbing nukes into another country. unless it was attacked first. But it is. a fact that that is now under. consideration. And not just under consideration, it has. been proposed in writing within the. Pentagon. Reports in the last two weeks. indicate that during meetings within the. Pentagon about how to respond to Iran in.

that current war, the possibility, the. option has been floated of using what. are called tactical nuclear weapons, which are just nuclear weapons detonated. at a higher altitude or at a lower. strength, but they're still nuclear. weapons. that discussions. about their use have taken place in the. Pentagon and we're here to confirm that. that is absolutely true. And not only. have there been discussions about the. use of nuclear weapons, tactical nukes. against say Car Island or Pickax.

Mountain or various spots within Iran, those discussions have included slide. decks, which is to say somebody wrote. down on a computer screen, hey, maybe we. should use nuclear weapons in this war, this war of choice, this war that we. started for objectives that have nothing. to do with America's national security. or national interest. Now, you would think at that point. the meeting would stop and the person in. charge of the meeting would say, "Who. wrote that? Who's suggesting that? Who.

actually put on a screen in letters in. English the idea that we would use. nuclear weapons. in the Persian Gulf and the person. running the meeting would find out. Then. he would call the president and then. legal proceedings, criminal proceedings. would begin against the person who wrote. that down." Because anyone who suggests. the use, the voluntary use, the. offensive use of nuclear weapons is. putting at risk the life of every person.

on the planet. And that would include. your children and grandchildren and you. That person is by definition a lunatic, a dangerous lunatic who should not only. be removed from any decision-making. authority, but probably should go to. jail like immediately, especially in a. country that routinely puts people in. jail for, I don't know, tax evasion. The. guy who suggests ending life on this. planet probably should face some kind of. sanction. And the rest of us should join. in in saying that's not acceptable. And. again, anyone who suggests that is.

dangerous, is a crazy person, is in fact. a criminal because that's true. People. who suggest killing every human being. are criminals. But nobody said that. in part because. the president of the United States has. repeatedly suggested using nuclear. weapons in the war against Iran. Now, if. you were to pose this question to the. White House press office, they would say. the president has never suggested using. nukes. But of course, that's not true. because in statement after statement. post on the internet on true social, the.

president has threatened the total. destruction of Iran, of the civilization. itself. And of course, you can't achieve. that with any conventional weapon. There's only one way to achieve that, the total destruction of a civilization, and that's with nuclear weapons. And so. openly in public for the world to see, the president has threatened, the US. president has threatened the use of. nuclear weapons in this war. And so we should consider that a real.

possibility. But of course, we don't. because we can't metabolize something. that horrible. So, in recent weeks, we've been hearing. [snorts]. that the situation. in Russia, not in Iran, but in the war. ongoing against Russia has deteriorated. to the point that the Russians are. considering using nuclear weapons. And. so, we've done everything we could by. calling people to find out, is that. true? And it's hard to know exactly if that's.

true. But here's the way to think about. it. So the war in Russia, despite. getting almost no attention in American. media, is not only ongoing, but it's. accelerating. That's the first thing to. know. And it's accelerating because. NATO, the United States, and the Western. European powers are. hitting targets, including civilian. targets and energy targets deep within. mainland Russia. That would include a.

school killing people on beaches with. drones, hitting the Kremlin itself. multiple times in drone attacks. So. that's becoming more intense. Public. opinion in Russia clearly is moving in a. more bellose direction. There are. elections underway in Russia right now. which end September 20th, the Duma. elections, the lawmakers elections. And. it's very clear that more and more. Russians, and it's hard to quantify this.

precisely, but are. surprised and dismayed that their. government is allowing attacks not by. Ukraine, but by Ukraine sponsors NATO. and the United States. against Russia. And it's not destroying. the Russian economy. We haven't been. able to do that. But it is hurting the. Russian economy. And of course, it is a. threat to ordinary Russians. People are. getting killed on beaches by drone.

attacks paid for by the United States or. NATO. And if those attacks are being targeted. with coordinates given to the Ukrainians. by the CIA, and that's exactly what's. happening, then your average Russian is. beginning to wonder why aren't we doing. anything about this? And so there is. mounting pressure on the leadership of. that country. Vladimir Putin who despite. American and Western propaganda is not. an absolute totalitarian dictator which. is to say he can't make any decision he.

wants. He is subject to the opinions. influenced by the opinions of all kinds. of different power centers within that. country including public opinion. So the. point is pressure is mounting on Putin. to do something to stop these attacks on. Russia. And of course the people. mounting the attacks paying for them. It's not the Ukrainians by the way. There is no real Ukraine anymore. Its. population has been decimated in this. war. The big decisions are made by. outside powers. Ukraine has no. sovereignty, unfortunately for Ukraine.

But the people who are making the. decisions, and that would include the. CIA in the United States, the NSA in the. United States, the heads of state of. Great Britain and France and Germany and. basically the rest of the West. Those. people clearly understand that we're. moving toward some sort of more open. conflict with Russia. And that's kind of. the point. Push Russia to do something. radical against the West. Blow up Kiev,

for example, the Ukrainian capital. Hit. Poland, maybe even lob some kind of. weapon into Western Europe. And at that. point, you get what they've wanted since. day one, which is an open war with. Russia that they expect that they'll win. somehow. which of course they won't. But the delusion that Western powers can. control Russia by force is. long-standing. I mean, many. leaders have fallen to that delusion.

Napoleon himself in 1812 famously. invaded Russia, got all the way to. Moscow, occupied Moscow for a month. in 1812, and then retreated and. destroyed the entire French army. Hundreds of thousands of French soldiers. died on the march back to Paris. But. totally undeterred, crazed with hubris, Napoleon continued to pick other wars. and in less than 3 years he was defeated. finally famously in a fight with the.

Brits at Waterlue and died at 51 in. exile and France was never again to this. day a global power. So he destroyed. France and the French Empire. because he thought that he can control. Russia through force. And of course you. know. 30 years later almost within living. memory the German government under Adolf. Hitler did exactly the same thing in. operation Barbar Roa and marched all the. way to Moscow once again and was once. again totally destroyed. So there's. something about Russia and the idea that.

outside powers can conquer it, take its. resources or something, prevent it from. becoming a global power that is very. alluring to Western leaders. But there. is zero track record of success. Now. once again within living memory of the. last attempt which was the German. attempt in 1941 to do the same thing. European and American leaders have. decided that no this time it will be. different and we will control Russia. through force. But of course that's not.

going to happen. It will not work and it. could lead to nuclear war. So in any. case, we have been talking to as many. people as we can about this and one of. them we interviewed yesterday from. Moscow, Lena Sutzky, who is uh the. leader of a political party in Russia, a. sophisticated, very knowledgeable. person. Um very well connected within. Russia and to ask him how close are we. to some kind of conflict? Most Americans. are not paying attention. The American.

administration is totally distracted by. the war with Iran. Do you think that we. are moving toward some kind of nuclear. conflict? Now, unfortunately, that. interview is it's not possible to air. most of it because it got screwed up by. a translator. Um, but we're going to. show you one clip. So, in this Slutzky. says, look, we don't plan to use nuclear weapons. unless and until some other power, some. Western power sends nuclear weapons to.

Ukraine. Here he is. >> If tactical nuclear weapons supplied by. Zalinsk's patrons are used against us, perhaps we will ultimately have to. consider the possibility of taking. asymmetric steps. But so far this has. not happened. And I very much hope, I. repeat, >> I very much hope it will not happen. NATO sending nukes to Ukraine.

Is there a crazier idea? Well, no, because of course this war began in the. first place because Russia didn't want. other people's nuclear weapons on its. western border, its border with Ukraine. And it was the threat of that, the. threat of Ukraine joining NATO, provoked. by the Biden administration and. administrations before Biden, including. the Bush administration. It was that. threat that pushed the Russians into. invading eastern Ukraine. And the war,

now more than four years old, is the. result. And the deaths of hundreds of. thousands, hundreds and hundreds of. thousands, total unknown, but clearly. the depopulation of Ukraine was the. result. The total destruction of the. nation of Ukraine was the result. And. that was predictable. It was knowable. But less than 5 years later, we can say. that if you push Russia hard enough. and if you threaten to put nuclear. weapons on its border, you will get a.

maximalist response. Of course, as you. would from any power you tried to do. that, too. So, the question is, are the. European powers is the United States. crazy enough to do something like that? Well, of course. So, the two things to. know, and we're going to speak to Joe. Kent about this in just a minute, but. the two things to know as you try to. assess where is this all going is one, the United States, despite claims to the. contrary, is in charge of the war.

against Russia. Is not a war to liberate. Ukraine. No one in the West wants to liberate. Ukraine. Of course, the United States. sponsored a coup in Ukraine in 2014 to. make certain that we could control its. governance. So there's no interest at. the policy-making level in any western. [clears throat] country in allowing an. autonomous sovereign Ukraine. We don't. want that. We've never allowed it. So. ignore those claims. This is not about. liberating Ukraine. This is a war.

against Russia and its purpose is to. separate Russia from Ukraine. Because as. a big new Bjinski famously said, if you combine Russia and Ukraine, you. have a superpower. the resources of. Ukraine, the manufacturing. capacity of Russia, the size of Russia, you have by definition a superpower. So. if you want to prevent Russia from. becoming a superpower, you have to. divide Russia from Ukraine. Of course, it's not as simple as saying so, but. that has always been the object. And.

there are probably other motives here, complicated historic motives for what. we're doing, ugly motives, motives that have to do very much with. the reimposition of Christianity on. Russia by Vladimir Putin over the last. 26 years. But whatever the motive, you. should know that the United States is. now waging a war against Russia. That's. just a fact. And there's a lot of. pretending that, oh no, we're not. We. can't control the Europeans. But that's. a lie. And we know it's a lie because a. couple of days ago, John Rackcliffe,

who's the director of central. intelligence, who runs the CIA, flew. into Moscow on an American military. plane. And we don't know exactly what. the conversation was between Ratcliffe. and his counterparts in Russia. But we. do know because the CI has told us out. loud that before he left, before the. plane took off from, I think, Latafia, John Ratcliffe called the Ukrainians and. told him to stop any offensive action. against Russia for the time that he was. there. He halted the Ukrainian offensive.

while he was in Moscow. Well, the person. who can stop the fighting is in charge, of course, by definition. And so in. doing that, John Radcliffe showed the. rest of us who's actually running the. war against Russia, and it's him. It's. the Central Intelligence Agency and the. Trump administration. The Trump. administration is waging a war against. Russia. And it's important to say that. out loud in the United States because. most people don't know it here, but in. the rest of the world and certainly. within Russia, everybody knows it.

So once you start waging a war against. the country with the world's largest. nuclear arsenal, there are risks. involved of course. and the main risk to you if you're an. American is you don't even know what's. happening. And so it's impossible to. protest against it. To protest against. the risk that is being imposed on you, the risk of the total destruction of. your country and the world, the death of. your children. That's exactly what. they're risking. So that's the first. thing to know. The second thing to know.

is that powers, nations like people. become much more dangerous when they. become weaker. The world has very little to fear from a. legitimately strong country. A strong. country simply wants to preserve the. status quo, its own interests, its trade. routes. It doesn't want to be threatened. by other countries, but it doesn't seek, say, territorial expansion. Because why. would you take the risk when you're. strong, when things are going well? Why. would you want to change them? The risk. always comes from the weaker party. The.

party that is cornered like an animal or. a short man in a bar fight. That's the. dangerous. opponent is the opponent who feels that. his options are running out, that he has. no choice. And that is exactly why there. are conversations now in the Pentagon. about using offensive nuclear weapons. against Iran, a non-uclear armed power. A strong country would never have that. discussion because a strong country. would for example use its navy its.

trillion dollar navy to I don't know. open the straight of H for H for H for H. for H for H for H for H for H for H for. Hormuz and restore balance to global. energy markets that's the point of. having a navy but we have demonstrated. over the last 6 months that we can't do. that our navy is not for bunch of. reasons capable of opening the straight. of Hormuz and so the United States is. facing a very tough decision and you do. have As reckless and crazy as this is, you do have some sympathy for it. If the. US leaves the Persian Gulf with Iran in.

control of the straight of form, there's. no lying about what just happened. We. lost the war. The US is much weaker than. it was at the outset and we're going to. have to live with the consequences of. that up to and including. a monetary reset globally which is to. say the loss. of global reserve status for the US. dollar and that has huge implications. for this country domestically. The end. of empire is always ugly and it can be. extremely ugly for the nation that.

administers the empire. And so the US. has an awful lot to lose. It's hard to. walk back from what we've done in a. graceful way that preserves our power. and our prosperity at home. So, the. Trump administration is in a really, really tough position. The question is, will it make it much worse? Will it get everyone on Earth killed. rather than accepting the inevitable. loss? And at this point, that loss is. inevitable, unfortunately, tragically.

So in this case, and it pains me as an. American to say that, the dangerous. party here is not Iran and not Russia. And it hurts even to use those words. because it was unimaginable even 10. years ago that the United States would. be the threat to world peace. But in. this specific instance, yes, because the United States doesn't. actually have many options left. There. is no conventional way to beat Iran. in.

this war. There is no conventional way. to beat Russia in this war. And so at. this point, the option is pull back. or accelerate into nuclear holocaust. And it's important to say this out loud, not to scare people, but so that people. know where we are right now at the end. of August 2026. And perhaps a public outcry can get the.

lunatics who are marching toward. annihilation to pull back. Storm season. is on the way and that means your Wi-Fi. could go down. And if it does, your. security cameras go dark, too. So, at. the exact moment you want to survey your. property during the blackout, you can't. Unless you install cameras by Defend. Defend cameras run on cellular, not. Wi-Fi. And that means they keep working. even when you lose [music] power. You. don't choose a carrier, you don't sign a. contract, you just mount it, open the. Defend app, and bam, you're connected.

It's that simple. So whether it's your. ranch, a job site, your backyard, Defend. works where Wi-Fi doesn't and keeps. working when the grid goes down, which. it may. Plans start at just $5 a month. Most people pay around 10. Plus, there. are no binding contracts, meaning you. get to cancel whenever you want. So. unlike big tech, Defend will never sell. your data. Not to China, not to the. government, not to anybody. It's an. American company built for people who. want actual security. Visit. defendellcam.com. and use the code Tucker for 20% off.

That's defendcam.com. Code Tucker. And with that, we're grateful to have. one of the wisest and best informed. people we know assess where exactly we. are. That's Joe Kent, most recently the. head of the counterterrorism center in. Washington. Uh, and our friend Joe Kent. Joe, thanks for doing this. um don't. want to be alarmist, don't want to scare. people, don't want to be scared, but the. evidence suggests that the US is running. out of options and the logic of this.

escalation gets us to uh first use. nuclear strike. That that's my. interpretation of where we are. Do you. think that's right? >> I I think if you zoom out and you get. beyond the the day-to-day kind of back. and forth, are we sanctioning them? or. we going back to some kind of a conflict. and you play out the scenario based on. the parameters that our our leaders. especially the president have outlined. I mean the president has he said a bunch. of different things throughout this. entire conflict. U but he started out.

with hey we need a total surrender and. we were using the the rhetoric of regime. change and at times we walked that back. Um but every time that we appear to get. a deal theou is a great example. We're. in another period right now where we're. trying to get a deal, but we're still. implying that the Iranian regime as we. know it must collapse, that there has to. be some kind of a total victory. And you. know, that that sounds like, okay, maybe. we could do that. Um maybe people. thought that, you know, in February, March time frame, but now here we are at.

the end of August and that still hasn't. happened with the military tools that we. have, you know, at our disposal. And so. if our goal is to completely and. totally, you know, collapse the regime, have the regime uh crumble or surrender. in some way, shape, or form, we've kind. of got two options because it's not. going to happen through sanctions. It's. not going to happen through the limited. air campaign that we've done up to this. point because if that was going to work, it it would have worked by now or we'd. be doing more limited air campaign. So. we've got two options, and that's to. escalate by putting boots on the ground.

And if you just take a look at how big. Iran is, how big, you know, how how how. the terrain actually is, even if we had. the the full scope of our our military. called up like we did for the 2003. invasion and even if we had a coalition. like we had in 2003, a ground invasion. inside Iran just is not feasible. whatsoever. Even even if we had the. national will to do it, the country is. simply too big. The terrain is too much. And then even if we could come in and. topple the regime like we got rid of. Saddam, well then as we know we have.

this thing called an insurgency. And so. the ground option really quickly, you. know, that's just not a serious thing. And then also we don't have the. political will for it. So then you go. back to square one. Our goal is for the. regime to totally, you know, be. collapsed. And so quickly you you arrive. at well we kind of have to use a weapon. of mass destruction or or a nuclear. weapon of some sort. Uh and so really if. you just play out the scenario for long. enough, you arrive at weapons of mass. destruction, you know, fairly quickly. And then even if we set the bar at just.

we want Iran to not have the capability. to develop a nuclear weapon and and now. we've set our sights on pickaxe. mountain, we've gone back and forth. between saying, you know, the three. nuclear sites were completely. obliterated to they may still have some. nuclear dust in them. And that's where I. think we're tempted to use, you know, a. limited tactical nuke um which to on a. specific target as opposed to a. population center. But I just think the. longer that you you play out the math, you kind of come back to the Japan. scenario, which is where we were the. last time, the only time thankfully that. we've we've used nuclear weapons. We.

didn't want to commit the ground forces. necessary to take Japan because we had. already expended so much. The Pacific. campaign had already cost us so much. And so we said actually the the best. thing that we can do is is drop a. nuclear weapon. And so I I think we. would be fools to think that this. couldn't happen here in this current. scenario, especially as the. administration scrambles for a way out. >> So now and then, both of those. calculations began with the same demand, which was total submission. So you know, before really before the modern era,

defeat didn't necessarily mean. unconditional surrender, right? you you. just you want to resolve whatever the. the conflict is, but that doesn't. necessarily require you to enslave your. opponent at the end. Um, and so maybe. the problem is our original demand or. the president's original demand for. unconditional surrender. I mean, you can. imagine a world in which he just said, "Look, it's it's enough that you don't. have an active nuclear program and we. can back off and let you run your your.

world or your region.". And this is a fundamental problem we've. had with this last iteration of this. conflict. We we've really failed to set. the parameters. We failed to say what. our strategic goal is before we got into. the war. We got into the war and then we. fished around and we've moved the. goalpost several different times. And so. I mean that that's had many ripple down. effects. I'd say mostly with the. Pentagon, with the Department of. Defense, who's trying to come up with, you know, viable solutions for the. president, you know, using the tools.

they have at their disposal, which is, you know, military tools. Um, they. really haven't known exactly what the. president's wanted because he came out. and he said, "Okay, the total surrender, the regime's going to fall, etc." But. then we we backed off from that and now. it seems like we're just trying to get. basically the Straits of Hormuz opened. up once again. Um, but then we kind of. fall back on Iran will never have a. nuclear weapon. And so there's, you. know, there's a lot of different angles. there that you and I have have discussed. before on on why we're fixated on, you. know, the nuclear dust. I think a lot of. this, the vast majority of it is due to. the pressure from the Israelis. And the.

Israelis want regime decapitation. They're completely comfortable with a uh. scenario where we're constantly mowing. the grass. They're comfortable with the. chaos. Uh but they know Americans. aren't. And so they've had to sell us. some kind of an objective. But the. president has failed to to define that. So, if our goal was just to come up with. a solution to the Iranian nuclear. option, number one, the negotiations. were working. That's why the Israelis. had to shotgun through this war so. quickly in the leadup to the 12-day war. Midnight Hammer, I I believe, took that. off the table. And I think that was the.

president's intent was he was done. talking about levels of enrichment. He. was sick and tired of the Israelis. pressuring him and so he just took it. off the table. I I think the Iranians. actually went along with that because. they went right back to the negotiating. table. Um, but now we're back stuck in. this space where we're demanding some. kind of a total capitulation from the. Iranians when really that's just not. feasible at all. And we seem to have. recognized that at varying points. Again, theou I think is a great example. The president even said we have to do. theou because we're facing an economic. disaster in this in this country. So for.

a brief moment there he realized he. needed to be pragmatic and say okay good. enough. Our main goal has to be straight. of horm being opened up again. some kind. of a, you know, status quo or working. relationship we could have with the. Iranians and then we'll discuss their. nuclear file later on. But he couldn't. even tolerate the pressure internally. from the pro-Israel lobby because. immediately we, you know, dispatched. Marco Rubio over to Lebanon where he cut. a basically a side deal that negated. theou and then we also started. pressuring or allowing ships to come.

through in violation of the MOU, come. through the straits of Hormuz. So we we. seem to not know exactly what we want. And this is why I think we should be. very very concerned about something that. most people will think isn't feasible. like a nuclear weapon being deployed. because there is so much confusion and. friction and chaos in this entire. process. >> Yeah. I mean I you know so many things. to say but I mean I I was opposed to. impeachment the two impeachment attempts. against Trump. Strongly opposed. I the. whole thing was absurd. Um I I believe.

in stability. I think elected leaders. should serve out their terms. I I don't. hate Trump personally. So with all of. that said, the second any president. actively considers first use of nuclear. weapons, that person should be removed. from office immediately immediately. Because that's got to be the red line, destroying all of humanity in a with a. nuclear strike. I mean, I like So why. isn't there an attempt to remove him. from office like immediately? Anyone who.

would even tolerate that kind of talk. from any of his subordinates or. employees is by definition unfit. That's. the total destruction of the world. No. >> Yeah. The contrast is pretty wild. I. mean, they wanted to impeach President. Trump before because he had the audacity. to question if, you know, mailin ballots. were legitimate or not. Uh, and he said, "Go go march peace peacefully and. patriotically onto the capital to to. protest this uh this election." However, he has threatened to annihilate an. entire civilization and the so-called.

opposition party, uh, they seem to be. completely okay with that. I mean, every. now and again, you know, in a hearing, they'll they'll throw out some barbs and. jabs about, oh, didn't you know that. your interceptors were being depleted? But there doesn't seem to be any actual, you know, push back from the Democrats. And I think this really points to the. true bipartisan consensus in Washington. DC, which is they always want more war, especially this war with Iran. And I. think that really speaks to the amount. of influence the Israeli lobby has over. our elected officials. But I mean, even. with the Ukraine war, I mean, now.

because the president has said different. things, Republicans, I think, are a bit. more torn than they were before when. when Republicans, you know, weren't in. power. But even with the Ukraine war, there was a lot of push back. There was. a lot of back and forth. But with this. war, there has been no real push back. from from the Democrats. And then by and. large, I mean, the most resistance I. think you've seen has been from. Republicans or former Republicans that. are saying like, "Hey, this isn't what. we actually ran on." So, I I don't know. I think this has been a great unmasking. that just shows there's only one party. in Washington DC. Home ownership has.

always been at the center of the. American dream. It is an actual asset, a. place people work their entire lives to. build, a place of stability and security. and real value. Right now, though, too. many homeowners are stuck swiping credit. cards to cover groceries. There's. basically a survival tax of 20% interest. or more. So why keep handing your money. to the banks when you could keep it for. your family. Interest is what kills you. Our friends at American Financing have a. better way. They're helping homeowners. use their hard-earned equity and they're.

supporting Americans looking to fulfill. the dream of owning a home with mortgage. rates [music] currently in the fives. American Financing saves its customers. an average of $800 a month. That's about. 10 grand a year. It's not just a loan. It's a true financial reset. We. recommend American Financing. They're. called America's Home for Home Loans for. a reason. So, get out of credit card. debt. I mean, it is just crazy to borrow. money. No judgment, but it doesn't make. any sense to borrow money at that rate. If you want out, call 8006855696.

800685-5696. or visit americanfancing.net/tucker. I agree with that completely and um you. know I I think there's going to be a a. huge political shift after November I. would think. But I just can't get past. the fact and it is a fact. It's not a. guess. It's a fact that. the use of first use of nuclear weapons,

offensive use of nuclear weapons has. been discussed in Pentagon meetings and. put in slide decks. And Marjorie Taylor. Green tweeted that a couple of weeks ago. and was, you know, dismissed that's not. true. Well, it is. It's it's factually. true and now everyone in the. administration knows that it's true. I. don't understand how that can be. tolerated. Again, it's not a partisan. question. It's not about Trump's. personality or it's not about anything. It's not about any of the debates that. we normally have. That has to be the. end. You cannot allow that. But no one.

seems to think that. Like, everyone's. fine with that. I mean, I left the Trump administration. and I I think that there's a very um. odd, I guess, is the best way I could. put it, uh, probably the most polite way. I could put it, culture um throughout. the entire administration that you just. need to go along with whatever the boss. says, which is the job that we all. signed up for, and if you can't do that, you should leave, which is what I did. However, there there does seem to be an. erosion of of you know, I would say, you. know, norms is cliche, but I would just.

say an erosion of any kind of, you know, moral compass where people should stand. up and say like we shouldn't be doing. this or why are we letting a foreign. government put us in this this position. I'm not sure why it's not reaching the. president that the best thing that we. should do right now is just pick up and. leave before things get, you know, far. worse. I I I for the life of me don't. understand that. I do think there's a. major cultural issue right now within. the administration. we should be seeing. a lot more people uh from the. administration stand up and leave. They. don't have to do it the way the way I.

did it. I mean, there's a lot of. criticisms you can make of how I left. I. mean, that's fine. However, the fact. that we haven't seen more people leave. the administration and say like, I I'm. not going to go along with this. This is. taking our country in a disastrous. direction. I I think just, you know, speaks volumes to the incentive system. that is created inside Washington DC and. unfortunately the people who end up in. these positions. Um I that's something. that we have to fix if our country is. actually going to be saved. >> or or the world. I mean just again.

>> any leader of any country who suggests. first use of nuclear weapons has. forfeited his right to lead. He has to. be removed immediately. I I think that's. just a fair standard. Any normal person. I think if we kind of cool the. temperature a little bit and just ask. objectively is that fair? Yeah, of. course that's fair. You you can't risk. the destruction of the world. You're not. allowed you didn't build the world. you're not allowed to do that. So, so, so back to the the internal incentives. here that are driving us toward. destruction, and it is destruction.

I I have just heard that Israel um that. the Netanyahu government, which is. facing an election in October, is. considering an acceleration in Lebanon, like more aggre more killing in Lebanon. Um do you think that's true? And if. Israel does that, what will the US. response be, do you think? >> Well, the easy answer uh to to the. latter part of your question, what will. the US response be to anything that.

Israel does? Um at best will allow some. US official to say we really don't like. it that Israel did that. And then a. couple days later, they'll walk it back. and say, "Yes, but Israel has the right. to defend itself or some other, you. know, boilerplate line." Unfortunately, regardless of sometimes uh using, you. know, more strongly worded uh tweets or. um you know, public statements against. the Israelis, we have yet to change the. relationship with the Israelis. whatsoever. Regardless of how many times. the Israelis have publicly violated what. the president has told them, you know,

to do or not to do in this conflict in. particular, we continue to provide the. Israelis basically with whatever they. want. I mean, we're merging, and people. don't like it when I say merging, but. we're giving the Israelis access to some. of the most sensitive capabilities. within the Department of War, within our. intelligence community. Uh, as part of. the National Defense Authorization Act, we're still giving the Israelis nearly 4. billion in assistance. We launched this. war at their behest, which has cost us, I think, somewhere to the tune of 300. billion and 18 fallen Americans,

tragically. So, we have yet to really, you know, change the nature of our. relationship with the Israelis. So we. should not expect the Israelis to change. how they behave. Now the Lebanon piece I. think is is very very interesting. because the Israelis are very smart. They understand American politics very. well. I think they know that they ran up. to the limit um where they can publicly. humiliate the president by going and. taking offensive actions inside of Iran. because that's just a blatant smack in. the face to the president. They got away. with it on multiple occasions and they.

got us into this war. They know that. they don't need to put the president or. Republicans in the hot seat any more. than they already have going into the. midterms. But that's where Lebanon is. much easier. Lebanon is right on their. borders. They don't need any assistance. from America to reach inside of of. Lebanon in the way they do with Iran. However, because this war has gone so. poorly for us, the Iranians have moved. their support from Lebanese Hezbollah. They moved it away from being. clandestined and covert and they've. said, "Okay, now we are actually going. to act as a true regional power and.

we're going to hold the Israeli. government accountable whenever they do. something inside Lebanon that we don't. like." And in the past, this would just. be covert support, but to Hezbollah, but. we've seen them actually launch. ballistic missiles now against Israel. So, Israel knows they can restart the. war. the Iranians I think in in a way to. attempt to reign in Israel they put. Lebanon as part of theou and that's one. of the first violations that we made and. it's one of the mo the first failures. that we had with enforcing theou is we. cut that side deal that allowed the. Israelis to to maintain their presence.

and to continue to go on the offensive. inside Lebanon. So Lebanon is going to. be essentially the easy button for the. Israelis to uh kind of poke at the. Iranians to flare back up this conflict. Uh and right now I think the Lakood. government they're in a very dangerous. position uh because they're facing. re-election. So they want there to be a. hot war. They want to show their people. that they're going on the offense. against Hezbollah. So again uh for us to. put ourselves in this in this position I. just think is incredibly reckless. >> So the future of the United States hangs.

on the fortunes of the Lood party in a. country of 9 million people and their. elections in October which most. Americans know nothing about, don't even. know they're happening. But like our. children's future depend on that. Like. BB's desire not to lose. >> Yeah. When you say it out loud, it's. absurd. Um and most people if they just. heard that if they just heard that. statement, they would be like, well, you. know, Tucker and Joe were being. hyperbolic and that's just ridiculous. However, if you just look at the last I. mean, six months, I mean, obviously. there's there's a longer history prior. to that, but if you look at the history.

since basically that the we got into. this war in February, that is. essentially the scenario. We got into. this war and don't take my word for it. Listen to Secretary of State/N National. Security Adviser Marco Rubio. We got. into this war because the Israelis were. about ready to launch an attack in Iran. and we knew that that this time this. iteration of the conflict, the Iranians. wouldn't take it on the chin. They would. actually hit us back because they had. already been through one iteration of of. conflict before. And so we got into this. war because of the Israelis. and we're. staying in this war. The Israelis have.

killed several of the the moderates, the. so-called Iranian moderates that we were. negotiating with or actually at the. negotiating table with us. Uh the. Iranians got the Israelis got us on. board with killing the Iranian supreme. leader, the Ayatollah, which is led to a. more hardline leadership class coming. into power inside of Iran. So, we can't. get ourselves out of this war because. the Israelis got us into it. Every time. we think we're trying to get out of it, the Israelis take some action primarily. at this point in this juncture inside. Lebanon that keeps us in this war. We.

refuse to change our relationship with. the Israelis. So the Israelis have no. incentive to change their behavior. whatsoever. We've never held them. accountable. So when you look at it. through through that lens, the fact that. the internal politics of Israel and the. Lood party and the Lood party facing. re-election and the Israelis knowing in. the back of their head, they know that. Donald Trump is probably the last. pro-Israel president that they're going. to have. So essentially, they're going. for broke. They're trying to get as much. as they can right now out of the United. States of America, out of the US. taxpayer, out of the blood of American. soldiers before, you know, the ride.

comes crashing to a halt sometime in. January of 2029. So when you look at it. through that lens, everything that you. just said about this tiny country. because of the influence it has over our. politicians driving, you know, basically. the fates of the world, the world. economy, the potential use of nuclear. weapons, it's 100% true and it should. scare everyone. And it's not just Iran. I mean, the same donors who pushed Trump. to follow Israel into this war, who. who have a hammerlock over this.

administration, are exactly the same. people who pushed us to war with Russia. So, they're not different people. It's. the same. It's the same group. It's And. so, I don't understand why Trump is. still their slave. I mean, he's very. frustrated. This is destroying his. legacy. It'll hurt his family. It's. hurting the country. It's wrecking the. Republican party. Like, it's all. downside for Trump. So, I don't And he's. mad about it. Obviously, he said so in. public. Why is he still under the. control of neocons?

>> Right now, that's the question of of our. era and I and um I hope we get answers. to it at some point, but I feel like. this this question will be studied for. quite some time. I mean, President Trump. came to power uh on I'd you know, say. three major principles and number one. was foreign policy. He called out on the. debate stage how foolish the Iraq war. was. I mean, he he has said over and. over again on the campaign trail how. foolish the Ukraine war is and how he. would solve it. And this was like the.

key premise, I think, of his 2016. campaign, most certainly his 2024. campaign. Um, there was also. immigration, of course, and there was. secure border. There was a lot of labor. and trade issues there. But the foreign. policy and the ramifications of American. foreign policy is something that. President Trump just he understood at at. a gut level. I mean, this is why I. supported President Trump from the time. that he attacked Jeb Bush on the debate. stage in South Carolina, you know, nearly nearly a decade ago. Um, that's. why I supported him because I was like, "Hey, the guy from the Apprentice. actually understands foreign policy. better than all the so-called experts.".

And me and most my friends had spent, you know, the last decade and a half in. these foolish wars. And so, what I still. for the life of me being on the inside, I don't understand how someone who. understood that at a gut level. And he. actually understood too more importantly. how the American people felt. He he. really knew that that this was a. sensitive issue with the American. people. And so to see him get walked. into a scenario that he knew was going. to be a disaster for our country, but. then also for him politically, I mean, President Trump has great political. instincts. And so to watch him just walk.

into this, you know, glaring bear trap. off a cliff, whatever analogy you want. to use, it's something that shocked me. Um, and I'm still trying to wrap my head. around. And people will say, you know, they they the the the Israeli lobby, the. neocons, they played to President. Trump's ego. They got him at the right. time. They said, "Hey, the protesters. are on the street." You know, Venezuela. most certainly. I was concerned when the. Venezuela operation happened, as were. many of my my peers and colleagues and. even guys in the military. They were. concerned that this was going to give. President Trump the false sense that any. country that we had a problem with, we. could just swoop in, grab or kill the.

leader, and it' kind of be ingame. That. that concerned me a lot, too. And so, yeah, did they give President Trump the. pitch at the right time and tell him, "Hey, this is going to be super easy.". Of course, I think all that happened. However, for President Trump to even. begin going down this road before the. 12-day war is is something that it still. baffles me. At the beginning of the. administration, early 2025, he he was. utterly just not interested and kind of. disgusted with people even entertaining. the idea of military operations in Iran. He put all of his chips in with with.

Steve Whit and his negotiations. And why. he flipped on a dime, I don't know. And. this is why I say that we should look at. every single factor that could influence. his decision making. Everything from. Butler to the breaches of his security. to having, you know, one of his closest. political uh advocates who was against. the war in Iran, who was against the. 12-day war, who was actively petitioning. the president not to get back into the. war when he, you know, Charlie Kirk was. publicly assassinated. I think we should. factor all that in too. And again, like. I I can't, you know, individually.

connect all these and say that they they. are all intertwined and it's the same. group or some, you know, vast. conspiracy. However, I do think all of. these things can should be included when. we're trying to assess why President. Trump made the decision uh decisions. that he made. A lot of people are using. peptides to get in shape. Not all. peptides are the same. If you take them, do you really know what you're. ingesting? Probably not. Join Bloss. makes it very simple. You start with an. easy online health assessment. Then if. necessary, your licensed clinician will.

order comprehensive lab work to. understand [music] exactly what. prescription is best for you. Not. everybody, just for you. It's a complete. review to ensure the best results. Your. peptide protocol is built specifically. around you. So there's no guesswork. There's not a one-sizefits-all [music]. plan. It's totally customized. Prescriptions are filled by. Americanbasedies using ingredients. sourced from FDA registered facilities. Tons of quality testing. No stone. unturned. You're getting the best. You. don't have to guess about what's going.

in your body. Starting now. This shows. listeners can get 65% off labs plus 20%. off peptides and supplements by going to. joy andblok.com/tucker. and using the code Tucker at checkout. This is one of the biggest discounts any. of our partners have ever offered. That's joyblo.com/tucker. If you talk to people around Trump, um, which I still do, they will say, you. know, he just got convinced, he just got. over his skis and Venezuela played a hu. January 4th kidnapping of Maduro played.

a huge role in this. It was easy, minimal loss of life, minimal expense, you know, huge upside glory. and he was. told by not by US intelligence agencies. but as you know since you were there but. by MSAD that this would be similar in. Iran. Just kill the Ayatollah and it'll. be it'll work. That's their view. Okay. Or they say that's what they think. Who. knows what they really think. But. anyway, it's impossible to believe that.

after the Israelis sabotage Trump's. effort to get a negotiated settlement to. this. we don't have a negotiated. settlement because of the Israelis and. Trump hated that and sent his vice. president out to criticize them and like. there was this moment if you I know you. remember the summer was like oh gosh. Trump finally gets it but now we're back. to where we were in the opening days of. the war. So like you can't argue that. he's been fooled at this point. He knows. perfectly well but he's still doing. their bidding despite the fact it's.

destroying him. So like what. >> I mean this is yeah this this is what I. can't wrap my head around either. I. would think from his business. perspective and then just him probably. being mad at everyone who gave him this. advice. If it were up to him, he would. pick up and leave. And look, President. Trump is is very politically savvy. I. know that all his critics then would. come after him and they'd be like, "Oh, you're retreating all this narrative, that narrative." I mean, nobody can. drive a domestic political narrative. like Donald Trump. And so Trump knows. that. So there's there's no reason why.

he wouldn't just pick up everything and. say, "Hey, we're going to deal with this. later." And then come back and say, "Hey, I won the war. Don't listen to the. fake news that says I lost." And then he. would just simply switch the topic. We'd. still have to deal with all the thing, all the ramifications from the war. But. I think we could do that quietly. Why. he's not doing that, I have no idea. But. that points back to why I think we do. need to assess all of the potential. external factors and you know even the. factors that are much darker and some. would even say are kind of. conspiratorial because at the end of the.

day nothing that we're doing right now. is logical whatsoever. Our relationship. with Israel, the way that we're letting. them continue to sabotage these deals, the fact that we're just staying locked. in this mess. I mean, President Trump. has been cutting business deals his. entire life. uh for him not to be able. to assess that right now the Iranians, they're not primed for a deal. Like the. Iranians are not going to give us a deal. on a piece of paper, you know, that he. wants. That doesn't mean that we can't. work out some arrangement where the. straits of Hormuz are open back up. again. I would think President Trump.

would understand that and and I think he. does understand that. So why he's not. just simply walking away before this. escalates and gets even worse, I I truly. don't know. I don't think it's the most. obvious answer. you know, people are. saying like, "No, Tra Trump is just a. he's a captive of his own ego." And, you. know, I'm sure some of that is true to a. certain extent. Um, however, he wants to. be politically successful. He he doesn't. want to get, you know, blown out in the. midterms. He's saying right now like, "Oh, yeah, the midterms I don't really. care. That's Republican's fault." He's. saying all that, but I I don't think.

that that's actually his heart. I think. he wants to be successful. So, for him. not to pick up and walk away, there's a. much deeper and and darker answer there. I I I I fear uh that I think we should. continue to probe and ask about because. anytime we ask about these these. questions and we say, "Hey, there's. something influencing President Trump. that's not just his ego. It's not just. bad information." You know, we are. attacked to a certain extent because. people don't want to they they don't. want to look into those those dark. places. But I think the more that we. look into those, hopefully we can put. some light and try and and hopefully.

figure out who actually runs our. government. >> Yeah. I mean, I I talked to Trump as. much as anybody in the weeks before this. war began. And my strong view then and. now was he didn't want to do it. So. that's that's that's my opinion based on. a lot of convers a lot of conversations. with Trump about this. So maybe I'm. wrong. Maybe he was lying. Maybe he. secretly really wanted to do it. But I I. feel like I knew him well and I didn't. see any enthusiasm at all. Only kind of. resignation and dread. So, you know, I I.

think anyone who dismisses questions. about how that happened as conspiracy. theories uh is a liar. That's what I. think. Um so, one of the darkest things. I've ever seen shouldn't have surprised. me, but it still did. This week, Keith. Kellogg, former general, um, Fox News. contributor, former negotiator for Trump. in the Russia Ukraine conflict, is in. Ukraine and starts telling the. Ukrainians. that they need to start drafting women.

and feed their women into the meat. grinder of this war and exterminate all. their women because that's honorable or. something. Um, did you see this and what. do you make of it? Yeah, I I saw it and it's it's. disturbing. I think it's disturbing. anytime American officials go over to to. Kiev and and basically are allowed to. continue to pressure our government to. support this war. I mean, that to me is. a decision that the president should be. making. I mean, we can't stop, you know, individual civilians from traveling and.

speaking their mind, etc. But I think. for us to try and pressure this war to. continue and we know it's going to. result in some kind of an escalation. I'm sure we'll get to this, but we just. had the CIA director in in Russia, you. know, yesterday, there's there is some. form of escalation that's brewing. I. mean, you can see that in the way that. the two conflicts are becoming blended, but also, I mean, just this has been a. stalemate. Russia is kind of grinding it. out and and winning. The only reason. Ukraine is remaining afloat, number one, I mean, look, I respect the Ukrainian. people for fighting um for their.

territory. Like, can't underplay that. whatsoever and um you know that they. they have every right to do so. However, the only reason Ukraine is still afloat. is because of the support that the. United States government has given them. and then also you know the UK and NATO. etc. Um, but we are are essentially. using them as a proxy because we still. have this obsession with trying to hurt. and bleed Russia. And so we're using. these young men and now these young. women basically as our proxies. And you. get people like Kellogg, the former Vice.

President Pence over there saying like, "Oh yeah, we need more young Ukrainians. We need young Ukrainian women to go out. there and fight and die and basically be. cannon fodder because the West has some. kind of obsession, you know, with with. Russia or really wants to accelerate us. more closer towards a third world war. It's just sick and it's insane. And and. then again, this is another one where. you wonder like what what is the actual. point? Why are we telling more. Ukrainians to go into the meat grinder? >> Why are we inspiring genocide in. Ukraine, which is what we're doing? like. just exterminate the entire Ukrainian.

population and then the president, the. sort of non- Ukrainian president of. Ukraine, who's not elected by the way, won't have elections, has created a. police state, banned the biggest. Christian denomination, like this. Bolevik takeover of Ukraine. That guy's. like, "Oh, we'll just import Indians. into Ukraine." It's like to replace the. Ukrainians killed in this totally. pointless war that he could have gotten. out of but didn't. I mean, it does raise. questions like what is this? And it. seems to me like the extermination of a. population. That's what it looks like to.

me on purpose. >> Yeah, there's no other way to read it. I. mean, it's we it's definitely on purpose. because we have been encouraging them. We've been funding it. It's definitely. the extermination of a population. because Russia is massive. They can pour. way more bodies at this conflict than. the Ukrainians can. So, the Ukrainians. have just ran out of bodies. And. Solinsky is saying, "Yeah, we'll import. more for I guess he's taking a playbook. out of the West, like we'll import more. foreigners to replace all of our native. Moran people. Um, and then let Black. Rockck do the reconstruction." I mean, the whole thing is absolutely sick. And.

again, too, like the just the stakes. I. mean, the fact that we are uh pushing a. nuclear power, one of the world's. biggest nuclear powers, they have the. most nuclear weapons. They're the. world's biggest natural resources. producer, massive land mass. We are. pushing them to a point where they feel. that they need to use nuclear weapons. That's not a justification for anything, you know, Putin's done, etc. But why are. we pushing them? What gain do we get. from this? As a matter of fact, like I. would say that the war in Ukraine, who. controls the Dombas, doesn't matter to. anybody in America. It's debatable if it. matters to really anybody in in Europe.

that's not even close to their borders. It definitely doesn't matter to us, but. we're paying for this. But if this goes. sideways, if our calculation is. completely wrong, if Putin isn't. restrained, or if for whatever reason. some of the hardliners inside Russia, you know, take over or gain more. influence of Putin and he uses a nuclear. weapon or a limited nuclear weapon. Well, you you know, where are we? Or, you know, what if in the scenario we. just discussed, us or the Israelis use a. limited nuclear weapon inside Iran? What. message does that send to Putin? Putin's. going to say, "Oh, okay. Well, America,

if you guys set the new norms, I got you. loud and clear. Those are the new norms. I'm going to use one now on Kiev. And. then where are we? And at the end of the. day, for what? What gain? What what are. we getting out of this? It's absolute. insanity, right? We're upon, as the. Ukrainians are, in a in a larger in a. larger plan, obviously. What was the CIA. director doing in Moscow this week? Well, one would hope that he he was. there um you know trying to cool. tensions and and saying that hey, we're.

going to tell the Ukrainians to back off. on all the targeting of infrastructure. and targeting civilians uh that they're. doing and we would hope that you would. do the same. And hey, maybe because of. the energy crisis in the Straits of. Hormuz, let's stop targeting energy for. the sake of the world economy. Uh if. we're going to put a favorable lens on. it, hopefully that was the message. Uh, however, considering the fact that we. may be uh at least wanting to keep. escalation in Iran on the table, I I do. think that, you know, he's saying to the. Russians like now is not the time. You. better back off. You better you better.

not escalate. You better just take all. the hits that you've been getting. You. better just keep taking those on the. chin because, you know, the Ukrainians. have been targeting a lot of energy. infrastructure inside Russia. They've. targeted Russian civilians. They've done. targeted assassinations uh of political. officials. So I I you know the Russians. at some point are going to have to. respond. So I would imagine we are. asking the Russians if not demanding. that the Russians don't respond outside. of the battlefield in inside Ukraine. Now why the Russians would feel any.

obligation whatsoever to listen to us at. this point I don't know. I mean this is. a big problem with the sanctions package. the Biden administration threw at the. Russians kicking them off swift. you. know, the the you know, the the thought. process there was we were going to. really hurt Russia, but in really. hurting them, we kind of took away a lot. of the leverage that we had. Uh if we. were still doing a lot of trade with. Russia, we'd have different levers that. we could pull. But right now, since. we've taken away a lot of those. different options, we're basically at. this, you know, this kinetic almost. kinetic phase, pre-kinetic phase, where. we just say like, if you do this, then.

we're going to do some other kind of. kinetic action. So again, it's it's very. dangerous. And again, I I don't know why. the Russians would really take us very. seriously at this point because. President Trump said he was going to get. a peace agreement. We never stopped. funding the Ukrainians. We never stopped. sharing intelligence with them. The. Russians know what we're up to inside of. Ukraine. So I I just don't know why the. the Russians would really listen to any. American official right now at this. point based on our behaviors. So there's. a lot going on in the world, as we often. say. A new war in the Middle East, closure of the straight of Hormuz, the.

global energy crisis. If you're not convinced that you have an. obligation to think about the future, nothing will. Stability can disappear. really, really quickly. That's. unfortunately true. Most Americans have. no idea where the basic necessities of. life actually come from. But we can tell. you this, probably not your backyard, and that's a problem. Global supply. chains are unreliable. So, [music] you. need to make sure you've got what you. need to protect your family if the. systems break down. And they could, not. forever, but they could definitely break.

down. And that is the reason that we. built last country supply. We're not. crazy, okay? We're not living in. bunkers, but people need to think about. self-reliance, becoming self-reliant on. their most basic needs: food, water, energy, light. So whether you're a. seasoned prepper or simply want to. become more self-sufficient, and both. are great, go to. lastcountriesupply.com/tucker. for supplies you can trust, things you. will need when you need the most. That's.

lastcountryuppupply.com/tucker. Why do you think I mean I my read from. talking to him a lot about it was that. Trump was sincere in his desire to get. this conflict over. He blamed Biden. correctly for this conflict, the Russia. Ukraine war. He didn't think it was good. for the United States. He said in public. repeatedly, "It just drives Russia to. China. That's a threat to us. This is. terrible. We should be friends with. Russia." like or at least not at war. with them and I can fix this in a day.

He said that many of course was silly of. course but he did want to fix it but he. never really tried very hard and now. he's prosecuting a war against Russia. Like how did that happen? Do you have. any idea? I I I would say he never got full. control of the CIA and our intelligence. apparatus and the military-industrial. complex. I mean, the military-industrial. complex in terms of the weaponry that we. were sending over to Ukraine, that's. come back to bite us now that we've. gotten into basically a conventional.

fight against Iran. But at the time, that was a cash cow for the. military-industrial complex. But also. post war on terror, post Afghanistan. withdraw. I mean, the CIA was looking. for, you know, a new mission. The the. whole intelligence community was looking. for a new mission. They found one. Biden. gave them one with this proxy war inside. Ukraine. And so because the president. didn't go in and you know I would say. micromanage that all being shut down in. order to get the Ukrainians to the. negotiating table. All of that just kept. turnurning in the background. And and.

that's a big thing that I learned in. inside government especially in the. first Trump administration when Trump. tried to get us out of uh Syria that. cost my late wife her life. Uh and then. also in Afghanistan. The same thing. happened. I mean the president said I I. want out of these conflicts. Go make it. happen. you know, at one point in time, he's having to pass handwritten notes to. his aids because he doesn't trust the. system. I mean, he should have learned. that you have to micromanage these. things almost, you know, like a psycho. You have to go in and say like, I want. these done here, steps 1 through 10, and. I'm going to be supervising every single.

step if you're going to be serious about. actually making the intelligence. community and the Department of Defense. do what you say. So, this is a big. problem in Ukraine. came in and he said. he wanted negotiations but he didn't. aggressively go and shut off all the. offensive capabilities that we are. giving the Ukrainians and the Russians. saw that and and right you know that's. where you have Putin saying like okay. well the president may have changed out. but the men what whatever phrase Putin. uses the men in the dark suits are still. in charge you know because he sees that. even though Trump came in and Trump uses. much different rhetoric than than Biden.

and may have the best of intentions at. the end of the day the battlefield. realities didn't change in Ukraine so. Putin just said okay you know like I I. don't really care. Might be a new guy. He might say he wants some talks, but. we're not changing what we're doing. This is existential for, you know, for. his country. So, he's going to continue. on. And I think President Trump got. really frustrated that Putin didn't. automatically change his behavior. But. the reason why Putin didn't change his. behavior is because we didn't change the. intelligence apparatus that was propping. up Ukraine and going on the offensive. against Russia.

>> Yeah. I don't I don't think one in a. thousand Americans understands that. we're at war with Russia, that we're. running that war with Russia. Um, and. that we're doing it in a way that's. totally outside of civilian control. Like, no elected leader has control. over our government and o and and over. this war. I mean, that that that's not. democracy. It's not. And this is a huge problem. Um, we need people who understand how. the intelligence community works and. functions. A lot of times even guys like.

like Ratcliffe like even though he was. the DNI before he doesn't have a. background in the intelligence. community. So when he comes in the. intelligence community is great at. receiving him and making him feel like. you know he's the number one you know. spy master he runs the CIA etc. But you. know he doesn't understand the nuts and. bolts of how it actually runs. And so. the apparatus keeps on churning and. doing what whatever it is that it wants. to do. and it's already set on an. azmouth and ran by people who have. viewed Russia as an existential threat. to America, you know, for a wide variety.

of reasons now, but but for decades. And. they got the mission of a lifetime when. Biden allowed them to go over and. support the Ukrainians. And so even even. really if if we look at it, you know, charitably and say that Rackcliffe came. in there and attempted to do everything. he could, he's one of two political. appointees at the CIA. And so without. those two having intimate knowledge of. how the CIA runs in particular, you. know, a lot of the the pointy edge. programs of the CIA, uh they didn't. really have the ability to go in there. and start changing things. And then the. president immediately got frustrated and. thought that, you know, you know, Putin.

was just trying to rub it in his face. And so then we're at this point where. the president says, "Okay, well maybe I. will go with what the Europeans are. saying." And then you get the. military-industrial complex that comes. in and shows him all the incentives um. for continuing the war. And then next. thing you know, we're now here in almost. the second year of the Trump. administration and the wars, you know, becoming more and more dangerous, potentially going nuclear and. potentially expanding past the borders. of Ukraine. >> Do do you think either one of these. conflicts, Russia or Iran, is fixable in.

the short term? >> In the short term, with the right. leadership, um I I think they are. I. mean, I still remain optimistic. Um, even though you know, President Trump. might not uh like like me or you very. much, I still think he's very capable. If he decided uh to reclaim his agency. and he took some some drastic measures, I think he could turn them around. I. think if he if he pulled our troops and. our blockade uh out of the Middle East, if he with withheld the Israelis, like. seriously started pulling away a lot of. aid from the Israelis and went to the. Iranians and said, "Hey, if you guys.

want sanctions relief, if if you want. your assets unfrozen, let's talk shop. about how we open up the Straits of. Hormuz and we'll work out everything. else there." And I think that would take. down the tensions. There' still be a lot. of diplomatic work we'd have to do, but. that would take down the tensions. That. would take down any potential of the war. expanding. It would get the Straits of. Hormuz opened back up again. It would be. clunky. It wouldn't be pretty, but I. think it would work. And I think. President Trump could could do that. He. would just have to again micromanage it. almost like a psychopath. And then I. think Ukraine is going to be a little. bit tougher of a lift, but I still think.

that he could do it. I think he could. take down the tensions in Ukraine. Could. could he completely end the war? That I. don't know. I'm a little bit more. skeptical on it because I think the. Russians, again, they they view this as. being existential to them. Um, but I. think if we made it very clear that we. don't think who controls the Donbass is. existential to us because it's not. There's no world that exists where who. controls the Donbass or Crimea Crimea is. existential to America. If we made that. very very clear and we stopped all the. support that we are giving to the. Ukrainian government um and we exerted. the control that we should have over our.

NATO partners to stop that and simply. said, "Hey, we're we're walking away. from this. We're happy to help broker a. ceasefire." I think that would take down. the potential of this thing becoming, you know, a nuclear event or expanding. into into a wider war. So again, I I I. really think that President Trump, if he. decided to put his full, you know, full. super political powers against both. these problems, I think he could do it. And why he's not doing it, especially in. the latter part of his presidency, I. simply just don't understand. >> Yeah. Well, as as you said, that's the.

question of our era. You were the first. person to raise it in public, and I hope. that we get to an answer just for future. generations. Joe Kent, thank you very. much for that. It's great to see you. >> Absolutely. [music] Thanks,