Asmongold TV - CNN keeps making this about Trump.. | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: September 12, 2025

CNN keeps making this about Trump.. Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. -------- Keywords: pc gaming, mmo gaming, streamer podcast, world of warcraft, gaming culture Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Oh, this is some actual footage from Iran. Moments ago, this post on truth social. Perhaps the key line is the first sentence. We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. And he seems to say American equipment is overcoming Iranian defenses. CNN's Jeff Zellini is at the White House. First and foremost, what do we make of that post? And just before we came on the air, the president put it up there about we have,

control of the skies over Iran. Thanks to Israel, taking credit, but okay. The reality is that Israel could not have acted unless America ensured their survival. If America wasn't helping Israel, Israel would not exist. Dan, that word is the central point there. We, of course, joining the longtime ally of the U.S. Israel, but using that construction, we certainly implies that the United States is working in a partnership, in cooperation, with Israel. And now this is the most declarative. And by the way, this was totally obvious right from the

beginning. Anybody who thought that Israel was acting independently was so delusional. Of course they knew, of course Trump knew this was okay. Of course he gave them the go ahead to it. Of course it just happened to coincidentally be the day right after the negotiations hit the day after his deadline. Oh, wow. How many coincidences do you need before you can realize that this is clearly what's happening. The president has said yet about the question that is hanging over this entire debate here at the White House. The president, of course, flying back overnight to Washington from the meeting of the G7 leaders in Canada. He believed that this was an urgent moment that he needed to be back here for just a few moments ago. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived here at the White House. So we do believe

that there will be that meeting convening at some point in the situation room. But again, the central question. How directly will the U.S. be involved in ferreting out and perhaps just... I'm betting that the U.S. is going to bomb the nuclear facilities and then they are going to bomb the rest of the military by proxy through the Israeli military. That is what my guess is of what's going to happen. That they are going to focus on only destroying the nuclear facilities and then besides that, leaving everything else to Israel. That's what should happen? Yeah, that would be a terrible outcome.

Okay, well, that's what's going to happen, I think. Drawing Iran's necessary involvement. That is really a central question, not only for the Trump foreign policy, but certainly for the world. And this is something that the president, when he was being sworn into office on inauguration day, he talked about being a peacemaker. He talked about ending long wars.

of course, that has been the anthem of his really last 10 years in American political life here. But by saying we, that clearly is implicit there. But he's also responding to the vice president, to J.D. Vance, who offered some commentary just a short time ago as well. Pushing back against this growing divide inside the MAGA movement, some supporters of the president believe the U.S. should not be involved at all. And a very interesting window into part of the administration's thinking coming from Vice President, Let's read a part of it together. He says this. Well, it's very simple.

The dichotomy is completely evident. They don't want to, a lot of people that are like Trump supporters and people that are against the war don't want to get into the war because we've been in a war for 20 years. And it didn't go anywhere. That's the spineless isolationist. Well, that's the reason. And I think that also, they don't think that Iran. is going to do anything.

Like, I think that any of the people that are advocating for, let's not have a war with Iran and let's not have any intervention against Iran at all, not a single one of them would admit that Iran, like, if you said like theoretically, right, guaranteed Iran will use this nuclear weapon, do you still support not doing anything? I think all of them would say no. You see kind of what I'm saying here? Speaking of the president, he may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president.

The vice president goes on to say, and of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. True. I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. Well, boy, Dana, there is a lot packed into that. Of course, 25 years would include the Bush administration and beyond. And this is the central question facing this president now. Is he going to engage and get the United States engaged in a wider war? Or is he going to essentially watch from the sideline?

I don't think so. I think Trump has planned to do this for a while. And I think that going to the Middle East and meeting with all those other countries surrounding Iran was about securing their allegiance to the United States over Iran. And he was going to do that both diplomatically and also financial. with perhaps a bit of help. But we do believe that those decisions will be made in the coming hours. Pretty obvious. Beginning with a meeting in the situation room at some point this afternoon. Before I let you go, Jeff, I just want to underscore, because a lot has happened like in the last 10 minutes.

But I want to underscore that last point that you made. And that is that the vice president of the United States is not only speaking for the White House here, but he's clearly speaking to the. The president's MAGA supporters who are really pushing him not to get involved because they're saying, remember, you're an America first guy. And it is Vance, who has historically been one of the leading voices opposed to the U.S. getting involved in foreign conflicts. Yeah, I think a lot of people have thought that themselves, too. Absolutely. Really was a remarkable lengthy post that he put out for many reasons, especially the internal GOP politics.

it's certainly why is it the west and the UK can't stay out of a conflict for more than 10 years is there more to it than we're being told when was the last war-free decade i mean i don't know i'd have to think about it maybe the 80s like if you don't count desert storm i think that was in like 91 or something and so yeah probably like over over 30 years I mean, in one hand, it's sending a message to the dissenters out there, Tucker Carlson and others, who've been critical of the president and just the idea that the United States would deepen its engagement. So the vice president basically told them to pipe down and they should follow and trust the president. But Dana, I think that's a little bit reductive and patronizing for him to say that. I mean, obviously, like, there has to be a degree of trust that they have. But at the same time, like, I don't think that, I don't think that, I, I, I don't think he's saying like you're not allowed to have an opinion. Obviously, there's going to be people that have different opinions. So speaking potentially to divisions inside this own administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, of course, has been much less of a disciple of the American First agenda, at least by brand. So it's very interesting that the vice president decided to put out that very lengthy statement before there is really a meeting or before there is a decision. but certainly I'm told it's a design to quiet the outside dissenters. But even more, he, of course, has a seat at the table here.

It's to perhaps push the president in one direction as well. Yeah, it's pretty obvious. Yeah, yeah, really, really fascinating kind of events in the last few minutes. Jeff, thank you so much for reporting it and making sense of it for us. And we have a terrific group of reporters here at the table. Can you actually intervene in Trump's decisions? No. Stephen Collins, CNN, and J. Lee, Tyler Pager of the New York Times.

and CNN's Lauren Fox. I just want to pick up where I just left off, Stephen, with Jeff. And I would even, you know, perhaps go a step further, which is that not only is Vance sending a message to Maga World to Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon will hear some of what they have been saying in the last 24 hours in a second, but also maybe laying the groundwork for what's to come. He knows what's to come. And that's why he's sending that message now.

Certainly. And I think Jeff is right. This is a message to the MAGA world, but it's also a message to Trump and his political conscience. He's saying effectively, you can go ahead and still be compatible with everything you've stood for. Remember in 2016 campaign, the moment that the president took down Jeb Bush, it was over the Iraq war. He said, it was a big, fat mistake. You've got to suck into a war. That was a forever war.

Yeah, but the reason, see, a lot of people misunderstand this. It's not about the fact that you had the war. It's about the fact that you lost. That's what it's all about. That's the big reason. Like, the reason why, you know, like they looked bad for that, no, it's not. It absolutely is. Wait, what?

Yes, absolutely. Magida, thank you for the 20 subs. I appreciate it. Yes. Yeah, the winner writes the history. Exactly. It wasn't decisive. Yeah, it wasn't decisive. It was an entanglement. It took forever. It wasted tons of money. And there was no real outcome that was beneficial that was tangible. Trump demands Iran's unconditional surrender thoughts. Yeah. No, it's not. They lied to get us into the war. Well, that's what I'm saying too also, is that, and but again, if they had lied to get us into the war and we had won the war in a way that was definitive and that it actually stopped something that was problematic, like if they actually did have nukes or any weapon to mass destruction, I don't think you'd see the same level of complaints by it. A lot of things are justified by their outcomes and not by how they start. Like, and that's a historically they're justified. Now, in the in the time, that it's happening, it might not make sense. But if you look back on it 10 years, 20 years,

what will really be seen as the good and evil part of it is about how it ends. It's like the whole idea of history is written by the victors. Yeah, the winner writes the history books, exactly. It's hard to say how, you know, it's so endemic to Trump's appeal. When you talk to people at Trump rallies, the idea that, those days are gone. Yet Trump, if he goes ahead, we don't know how it's going to end up. It could start with Chokinor. It will have all sorts of reverberations. He becomes the interventionist that he always decried. And that's why there's so many splits right now in the Republican Party

and the Maga. People are very afraid of that. And one of the most interesting sentences from that long statement we saw from the vice president, I thought was where he said he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. I mean, Dana, that is not an outright rejection of the use of the American military. It actually sure sounds like he is priming the American public for the possibility of the U.S. getting directly involved. We're not saying that we know for sure this is going to happen, but all of the body language that we are seeing from this lengthy statement certainly suggests that this possibility is very much out there. I mean, you couple that with President Trump suddenly deciding to.

cut short a foreign trip and a lot of signs are headed in that direction. I will just say one reason that I think this just is so remarkable, the possibility, the potential of this kind of intervention is that President Trump as a candidate and right before he was sworn in was so determined to not have wars on his plate as he was getting sworn in. He didn't want the war in Ukraine. He certainly didn't want the conflict in Gaza. He didn't want this war to be fully blown out. between Israel and Iran. And now he tried to negotiate with Iran and it didn't work. That's clearly what happened.

Like they tried to negotiate and get them to come to the table. They didn't come to the table. So Trump blew up the table. Yeah, that's obviously what happened. I mean, I don't think he went into it wanting this to happen, no. But this is the outcome. Trump's live soon? Yeah, I know.

Here he is. A couple days in with the, you know, the fires being exchanged. I'm waiting on it. Seriously, apparently contemplating the possibility of the U.S. Yeah, as Stephen said, becoming an interventionist country. And Tyler, as I bring you in, because you cover the White House on a daily minute-by-minute basis, I do want to bring back what we started with at the top of the hour, which is a brand new post from the president himself. Of course.

Where he said, we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment. and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made conceived. Do you think that, do you think Trump's critics will be glazing him if we get a quick W with no American lives spent and the people of Iran take back their nation? I think that if, if, I think that it's very simple. If Trump wins this and this comes out in a, like, if the outcome of this is positive, Trump looks amazing.

If it's negative, Trump completely destroys his entire. legacy. Like he loses his trust from his base. Obviously, the people that hate him are justified. This is a big make or break it. This is a massive make it or break it. It's a big gamble. Yeah. Very big gamba. Huge gamba. But if he does win this, I think that it will, I think it will have a reverberating effect beyond just his presidency. I think that it will inform the next presidency as well. manufactured stuff. Nobody does it better than the little U.S. He doesn't care. It's his final time. Yeah. And I think this is part of this effort. What's the worst case scenario? I mean, there's a lot of

worst case scenarios, honestly. The president and his allies laying about how this fits into the America First policy. He's under fire from some critics, Tucker Carlson. Do you think doing nothing would have been the smarter choice? I don't know. I mean, like, the thing is that ideally in my perfect world, I think that we should have just helped Israel just defend themselves while Israel attacked Iran. I think Israel was doing it fine. I didn't think that we really needed to get involved, but I also don't know where the nuclear facilities are.

I have no idea. So like if the only way, like I'll say this, if the only way for us to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities would be to have the U.S. bomb them with like our special bombs, then yes, I would support that. Absolutely. But that would be the only circumstance. And I just simply don't know the answer to that

because I mean this is like a top secret classified thing, obviously. And I also wouldn't support any sort of collateral civilian damage, bombing things, like the U.S. bombing things that are inside of urban areas. I don't support any sort of, you know, boots on the ground. I don't support any, I don't even support the U.S. like going directly to war with Iran's military. Here we see him fashioning about how this is America first. I mean, we're saying Trump's alive.

Are they saying it? Let me go back and double check. Okay, we're going to have this open. You know, I'll just go back to that. To what you were saying, not only did he not want these wars, his inaugural address was all about being a peacemaker. Peace through strength. We've talked to sources who said he's very obsessed with winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, saying, I mean, the thing is also peace through strength does mean sometimes exercising that strength.

So it's not only remarkable that he doesn't want more conflict, it's that he's inserting the... So basically, you support bombing the nukes and getting the... the nukes and getting the fuck out of there? Yes. Yes. I think any further military interventions stands to alienate the Iranian people, and it stands to destabilize the country. Yep, drop it and bounce.

U.S. potentially into a greater conflict. And the update on the Iranian old that was supposed to happen last night? From the point that you just read of the vice president's statement, it didn't happen. That sounds a lot like former presidents justifying previous. military actions, that actions overseas are in part to protect American interests, not just at home, but all around the world. And so it's just so interesting to see that language being used by two politicians who have made their name promising no forever wearers, no forever wars,

and promising not to engage in an additional military conflict. Right, especially, again, from J.D. Vance. You can never, like, you can never write a blank check like that. And this is the same, the same perspective that I have on this is what I said. Do you remember when Elon Musk was saying that he was like a free speech absolutist? I was like, well, you shouldn't say that because there's plenty of parts and types of free speech that you disagree with and you think is bad. Like, for example, posting like your Jets current location. Like that's just the first one because it puts you in immediate danger, at least in your mind it does. So like it's I think that a lot of people, like, and this is a big problem that people's messaging has is that

there's always this issue of people usually overshoot with their messaging. And because they overshoot, then it seems like they've kind of written themselves into a corner because they're speaking in absolutes. Who is effectively the ambassador because he has such credibility with that part of the Republican Party, the newer part of the Republican Party, as opposed to what used to be most of the Republican Party, which is more hawkish. What's your take on the claims U.S. intelligence that Iran was at least two to three years away from developing a nuke? Would you rather abort a baby in the ninth week or the third? Or the ninth month or the third? That's my viewpoint. Does it matter?

Yeah. Yikes? Am I wrong, though? Am I wrong? Hey, you guys know I like to make, I like to use the worst possible metaphor in order to communicate, right? Obviously, I love doing that. But yes. Absolutely. 100%. Yeah, that's it.