Asmongold TV - "Is the US now at war with Iran?" | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: June 23, 2025

"Is the US now at war with Iran?" Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. ----------------------------------- ---- Keywords: twitch streamer, gaming commentary, world of warcraft Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Vice President Vance, welcome back to meet the press. Thank you, Kristen. Great to be with you. Thank you for being here on a monumental Sunday. My first question, Mr. Vice President, is the United States now at war with Iran? No, Kristen, we're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program. And let me just say, Kristen, that we're incredibly grateful and proud of the American Air Force pilots who did an incredible... Which, by the way, I want to say that this is exactly what I said we should do.

So like from my perspective, this is like the cleanest 100% dub that could possibly happen. Like I was saying this exact thing. Say thank you. Yeah, this dude is an idiot. Hey, I'm sure you're smarter than the vice president, man. For sure. 100%. The job last night.

The operation was really extraordinary. These guys flew from Missouri. They didn't land a single time. they dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East or ever stopping other than to briefly refuel. And of course, they did that in the air. So it's really incredible operation, a testament to the power of American military. And I think what shows what can happen when you have that great American military in the hands of capable presidential leadership. What we- It's kind of crazy that

they were able to pull this off. And they've had so many other, like, because you think about all the other guys that they killed over there. And, like, then you think back about the, you know, the fuck-ups that we had, too, under, like, Biden. Oh, my God.

It's a totally different universe. Did as we destroyed the Iranian nuclear program. I think we set that program back substantially. And we did it without endangering the lives of the American pilots. Yeah. That's an incredible thing. And I think we all should be proud. Whatever, whatever,

whatever our politics, we should be proud of what these guys accomplished, a very, very high-impact mission. That's true. It worked. Yeah, at the end of the day, they did something and it worked. Under a lot of pressure. Mr. Vice President, let's talk about what happens next. President Trump posted on social media, quote, any retaliation by Iran will be met with force greater than what was witnessed tonight. If Iran retaliates against the U.S., as it is threatening, what will the United States response me. You can't even destroy Israel. Like, are you dumb? They're so dumb. Well, Chris, that's ultimately going to be the president's decision. But what we've said to the Iranians is we do not want to- People going against this, legit anti-Semitic. There's a lot of people who are caught in the

idea that support against Iran is support for Israel. But Iran is an independent existential threat that even if Israel didn't exist would still need to be dealt with the same way. war with Iran, we actually want peace. But we want peace in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program. And that's exactly what the president accomplished last night. I really think there are two big questions for the Iranians here. Are they going to attack American troops or are they going to continue with their nuclear weapons program? And if they leave American troops out of it and they decide to give up their nuclear weapons program once and for all, then I think the president has been very clear, we can have a good relationship with the Iranians.

We can have a peaceful situation in that region of the world. We have to step back a little. They were bombs of peace. Iran needs to understand that. But, Kristen, remind ourselves that we negotiated aggressively with the Iranians to try to find a peaceful settlement to this conflict. It was only when the president decided that the Iranians were not negotiating in good faith that he took this. See, this is the thing that people don't understand,

is they were getting bullshitted around constantly with these guys well they tried to bide for time and make a bomb so they could use that for negotiation tactics. This is clearly what they were trying to do. That's obviously what was happening. He didn't take it lightly,

but I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations, and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be be a threat to its neighbors, not to be a threat to the United States. And if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears. Well, let's talk about the possibility of negotiations. I mean, the Iranian foreign minister responded to the strikes this morning saying Israel and the

U.S. have, quote, blown up diplomacy. Mr. Vice President. There was never any diplomacy to begin with. Diplomacy was simply a vehicle for them to delay them facing consequences for building a nuclear weapon. They never went into this with a goal of diplomacy. Is there any real hope for diplomacy or is diplomacy dead at this point? Well, I think the foreign minister is exactly wrong. We didn't blow up diplomacy. We only took this action, Kristen, when it was clear, as the president said that the Iranians were tapping us along. I think it's important for the American people to appreciate here that if you go back to March of this year, we had the entire administration engaged in this diplomatic effort. And frankly, in March of this year, we had,

some optimism. How do we get from... Yeah, we were, you tried to work with them. They didn't want to do it. There to now. And the answer is we felt very strongly that the Iranians were stonewalling us. They weren't taking this seriously. They were trying to draw this process out as long as possible so that they could rebuild their nuclear weapons program without the threat of American action. We had a limit... I love the way he answers questions. Somebody said in chat, I think this guy is great. I'm a very big fan of J.D. Vance. He answers the questions completely. He answers exactly what they're asking, and he does it in a way that seems at least thoughtful.

The window in which we could take out this fordo nuclear facility in particular. The president decided to take it, but we didn't blow up the diplomacy. The diplomacy never was given a real chance by the Iranians. And our hope, Kristen, as the president said, this is, I think this is the messaging confusion that right now is the, I think it's a missing piece for a lot of people's understanding of this conflict is that they thought that there was a that there was ever a potential that you could negotiate with these people in the first place but the reality is that they had never wanted to negotiate and a negotiation technique was simply used as a diversion from them achieving their goals said repeatedly is that this maybe can reset here the Iranians have a choice

they can go down the path of peace or they can go down the path of peace or they can go down the path of this ridiculous brinksmanship of funding terrorism of trying to build a nuclear weapon and that's just not something the United States can accept. I want to say something, Kristen, just to the Iranian leadership. Look, they have tried to build a nuclear weapons program. That program is now destroyed. They tried to build a conviction. Well, they've been trying to do it for 30 years and you just keep blowing it up. Like at a certain point, they're not going to stop. Like, this isn't going to be the end of it. Everybody knows this. isn't going to be the end of the nuclear program. It just delays it by a really good amount, right?

Which is like, all you really have to do. And so why did Iran ever voice their hate for America? They'd have been better off pretending to be friendly? They should have. Yeah. Intational missile program to attack neighbors in the region. That missile program has shown to be a failure. They have funded terrorism aggressively in the region and now most of their terrorism proxies are destroyed. The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they're dog shit. And this is, yeah, it's like, oh yeah, no, the Iranians planned for all this. They knew all this stuff was going to happen.

No, they moved all the uranium out. No, the soldiers weren't, the scientists weren't there. Meanwhile, they're getting killed every day. The scariest if, as if they had succeeded, it would have triggered a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Well, that's another component, too. This is like a second and a third order effect, is that if Iran, had developed nuclear weapons in the Middle East, then you would have had Qatar, UAE, the probably maybe Syria, obviously Saudi Arabia. Even the Crown Prince said that Saudi Arabia would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran pursued nuclear weapons.

And I don't blame him. I think he's right. He would have to do that. And it's like, how could we look at that and be like, oh, yeah, that's bad. Like, of course he'd want to do that. Jordan, yeah. That's the last thing you need. It's a domino effect.

No, that's complacency, to be honest. We can't let these guys have a second chance. We cannot destroy the regime ourselves. You have to let it fizzle out on its own. You cannot force another group of people into accepting what you think their worldview and their government should be. You have to let them come to that conclusion on their own. We have had a basically zero percent success rate in doing this. Let's stop doing it.

They should follow President Trump's lead and give peace a chance. If they're serious about it, I guarantee you the president of the United States is too. So has the administration received any messages from the Iranians since the attack overnight? They should say thank you. Well, Kristen, I think as we sit here, it's been about 12 hours since what happened last night. We have received some indirect messages from the Iranians. And it's possible, of course, that some of like... What is the message? Is like the message like, fuck you, man. Like, I wonder what they actually say.

Colleagues in the administration received something early this morning and I haven't heard about it. But look, our expectation is we're going to learn a lot about what the Iranians want to do, how they want to proceed over the next 24 hours. Again, I just can't be clear enough here. The president has said he wants now to engage in a diplomatic process. But if the Iranians are not going to play a ball here, they didn't leave as many options as, as, As it pertains. If they were going to play ball, they would have. They're not interested in that. Now they might fuck around a little bit and maybe give you, you know, throw you a bone, but

their goal is not to be friendly. Last night and they won't leave us many options in the future. If Iran disrupts shipping in the Strait of Formoos, which of course handles about a quarter of the world's oil trade, would that be a red line for the world's oil trade? Would that be a red line for the United States, Mr. Vice President? Well, Kristen, I think our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That is really what the president has said we need to get rid of. But what about the Strait of Moose?

I think that would be suicidal, Kristen, for the Iranians themselves. I mean, their entire economy runs through the Strait of Hormuz. If they want to destroy their own economy and cause disruptions in the world, I think that would be their decision. But why would they do that? I don't think it makes any sense. I don't think that it makes sense for them or for anybody else. What would make sense is for them to come to the negotiating table

to actually give up their nuclear weapons program over the long term. She's trying so hard. No, I mean, to be fair, I respect her trying hard to answer that question because he was being initially evasive about it, and now he's answering it directly, which is, and I do feel like it's very important because, and the reason why she's asking that question, this is the reason why, is that.

that if now it's like, okay, well, now at first they couldn't have a nuclear program. Now it's the fucking, this like passage here too. And it's like, what's going to be after that? And so like trying to make sure that there is not this Russian nesting doll of red lines that they will inevitably cross that will just keep us entangled with them forever. I think it's a good question. And that's the reason why she's asking it. Again, if they're willing to do that, they're going to find a willing partner in the United States of America.

Mr. Vice President, when did President Trump exactly make this decision and did he coordinate with Israel? The president, honestly, Kristen, I don't know that any of us. Nobody knows. Nobody knows. Nobody knows what he's doing. He made the decision except for the president himself. But if you back up a little bit, we engage. in this diplomatic process. I think that he decided to him in a dream, probably by mid-May, that this process was not going anywhere. And so he decided to issue some private ultimatums to the

Iranians. And then eventually, of course, we decided to destroy the Fordo nuclear facility. So, so they already knew that, so did they just think he wasn't going to do it? I bet that's probably what it was. They thought he wasn't going to do it. And some of these other facilities are I think one of the things that you saw from the president's team, and I really am proud of all of our guys that the senior team, is an operation of this magnitude, multiple B-2s, 14, 30,000 pound bombs, and even an hour after the attack, the entire media, the, you know, some of our enemies all over the world, they had no idea this was happening. And that's because you had a coherent team. The reason why is they didn't tell any Democrats. There's a line behind the president's vision. There weren't any leaks. I think that made our troops safer as they carried out this mission. And so it's really a testament to the entire team that we were able to do something like this at this scale without anybody noticing it.

But Mr. Vice President, if I could just try again, can you give me a specific date when President Trump said go? Was it Thursday? Was it yesterday before the B-2s left? When exactly? He's probably not going to answer this. Did President Trump give that green light, that go? Well, the final decision, Kristen, of course, is made right before. And I'm talking about minutes before the bombs were dropped.

And of course, well, that was last night. And the president made very clear that the purpose here is to eliminate. They're not going to give a timetable of when exactly they made the decision, because then enemies could potentially evaluate their language and their behavior and reverse engineer when they've made. a future decision? Like it's it would be stupid to say when they did that. Iranian nuclear program. Obviously. So I think that he himself over time decided this was necessary. But of course, he had the ability to call off this attack until the very last minute. He obviously decided to proceed. And I think that we did great things for the American people

because of it. You know, the president says the nuclear enrichment sites were quote, completely and totally obliterated. There is some question about that, though. this morning. Do you have 100% confidence that Iran's nuclear sites were totally destroyed? You can't, you can never give 100%. Well, Chris, I'm not going to get into sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground there in Iran. No, because they have other nuclear facilities beyond that that we didn't even attack at all. So no, it had nothing to do. Absolutely not. That we didn't destroy all of it. We just, we just destroyed a lot of it. Trump's tweeting. I'll look after You've seen a lot and I feel very confident that we have substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon.

And that was the goal of this attack. That's why it was the success. And of course, what happens next, again, Kristen, is up to the Iranians. Substantially delayed by years? What does substantial mean, Kristen, I'm not going to get into sensitive intelligence here, but I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many, many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear. weapon. But again, our goal is that they're never able to develop a nuclear weapons program.

And that is a conversation that we're going to have with the Iranians and also with our allies in the region. So Iran, again, has said that it would retaliate if the U.S. got involved. There are some 40,000 American troops in the Middle East. The Pentagon is on high alert. Is the U.S. bracing for Iran to target American troops in the region? I mean, he's not going to, what, what time do you think that you're going to bomb them? Like, we're of course, Kristen, doing everything that we can to keep our people safe. I think that we're prepared in the event that the Iranians do retaliate. But my message to the Iranians is it would be the stupidest thing in the world if they did.

If you look at what happened last night, we had an incredibly targeted, precise, surgical strike on the nuclear facilities that are the targeted. of the American operation. Our national interest is for Iran to not get a nuclear weapon. Our strikes last night facilitated that national objective. If the Iranians want to enlarge this by attacking American troops, I think that would be a catastrophic mistake. And as the president said last night, the Iranians would be met with an overwhelming force beyond that. So this is a very delicate moment, Kristen. I don't want to pretend that it's not. But I think the Iranians, if they're smart, they're going to have to look in the mirror and say, hey, maybe we're not so good at this war thing. let's give peace a chance let's drop iranians are a religious dictatorship don't be stupid be rational

you'd really be surprised how rational crazy people become when they're faced with certain death it's crazy it's like a switch flips in their head and they just stop being crazy yeah it's it's wow what a shock up our nuclear weapons program and start to make some smarter decisions we're of course hoping that's exactly what the iranians do And I have a number more questions, so I want to keep moving. How concerned is the administration that Iran or Iranian proxies could carry out a terrorist attack inside the United States? Well, unfortunately, Kristen, we know that a lot of people who we don't have full accounting of were led in over the last four years under the Biden administration. We know that some of those people were on terrorism watch list.

We feel very confident in our FBI and law enforcement that we're on top of this situation. But yeah, we're looking at this very closely. we're doing everything that we can to keep our people safe. And this is one of the reasons why border security is national security is if you let a bunch of crazy people into your country, those crazy people can eventually take action. We're going to do everything that we can to make sure that doesn't happen and to keep Americans safe. Mr. Vice President, can you rule out that getting involved in this conflict won't eventually lead to U.S. boots on the ground? How can he guarantee anything? Well, the president's been very clear, Kristen, we have no interest in a protractive.

conflict. We have no interest in boots on the ground. The president has actually been one of the fiercest critics of 25 years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East, which is why he did we did. A very precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest. And that national interest is Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. It would be a disaster for us and for our allies in the region. So I don't fear that this is going to become a protracted conflict because I think that we have a president who knows what's in America's interest. and is willing to do the things necessary to accomplish. I'm going to be honest.

I think the fact that we were in the Middle East for that long was completely by design. I think that we just dragged it out because we had a bunch of people that needed to make money in the defense industry. I don't think that it takes 20 years in order to do this. I don't. I think it's ridiculous. Like, it's just the entire, like, how is it the Desert Storm one took three days and the second one took 20 years? Why did this happen? Well, it's because it was supposed to happen that way.

So the entire, like, the, the worry of us being entangled in a conflict in the long term is predicated on that long term conflict being necessary in order to get the resolution that we wanted. I don't think it was. I think we were just wasting time, wasting money, wasting lives so people could get paid. war is money yeah like literal military industrial complex who do you support in this and what outcome would you like to see happen I mean ideally I I mean the best outcome to me would be if the Iranian people overthrow their tarmanical government and they're able to decide their own future that you know is up to them the majority of them don't support their government

and whatever that future is I mean I can't see it being worse than what it is now And so, yeah, I think that that's the best case scenario. Because the Iranian people aren't the problem. It's their crazy government. That's the problem. And the Iranian people agree with that. They don't like their government. But it's hard to fight against it when they have such overwhelming force in that country, right?

I mean, like, this is the police, the military, everything. So, like, how do you push back against that? You can't really. That interest. As you know, after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in Israel this week, Israel's defense minister said the Ayatollah quote can no longer be allowed to exist. Does the United States support Israel killing Iran's leader? Well, look, that's up to the Israel.

What do you think you're going to say? Damn, what are these questions, man? But our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. in their nuclear program and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here. We believe very strongly that there are two pathways. There's a pathway where Iran continues to fund terrorism, continues to try to build a nuclear program, attacks American troops. That's the bad pathway for Iran and it will be met with overwhelming force.

That's the bad part. There's another pathway on the table here. There's a pathway where Iran integrates itself into the international community, stops funding terrorism, and stops trying to pursue a nuclear weapon. It's crazy that like we don't even want them to do anything. We just want them to stop doing things. Just stop funding terrorists. Stop trying to build nuclear bombs. That's it.

I don't think this is unreasonable. This is, it's such an easy W for them. Why are they fucking this up? This is a reset. This is an opportunity for the Iranians to take the smart path. We certainly hope that they will. A couple more questions and we're almost out of time. Director of National Intelligence Tulsa Gabbard said in March that, quote, Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

Democratic Senator Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, said he was briefed on Monday that, quote, the intelligence hasn't changed. So why launched this strike now? Has the intelligence changed, Mr. Vice President? Well, a couple of things about that, Kristen. So what Tulsi said back in March is that Iran was producing highly enriched uranium that was only consistent with them wanting to build a nuclear weapon. There's of course. So unless you're putting the pieces of the nuclear weapon together to make the nuclear weapon, you're not making a nuclear weapon. But if you're making the pieces, like, for example, like if you're making bullets,

well, that doesn't mean that you want to use a gun. Well, no, you're just making bullets. Like, how can anybody, how can anybody be this stupid? Open question about whether they were weeks away, whether they were months away, but they were way too close to nuclear weapon for the comfort of the president. of the United States, which is why he took this action. Now, there's another element here, too, Kristen, which is that we had a narrow window of operas.

And here's another component is that if Iran is fucking and dicking around with, they don't want to negotiate with Trump for any form of nuclear, I don't know, like, what's the word for it, like a nuclear restraint, why else would they not want nuclear restraint other than to bomb people with nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. Yeah. How would this be such a, if it's such, what would be making a discussion or a, a negotiation with this so complex? Yeah. So if they don't have any nuclear weapons, then why would they not want to have a inspector come in and just see, oh yeah, it looks like you don't have any nuclear weapons. All right, that sounds good. 60 days, they couldn't figure something else out?

Well, yeah, because they're trying to do it. Duh. We might not have been able to carry out this attack six months down the road. And so when you recognize, on the one hand, the Iranians are trying to get a nuclear weapon. And on the other hand, we have a narrow window in which we can set that program back a very long time. It would have been irresponsible, I think, for the president not to take the action that he did, which is why Fordow was destroyed last night. And just to be very clear, did the president say, go?

based on U.S. intelligence or Israeli intelligence? Both obviously, right? I mean, it's obviously going to be both. Well, of course, we share intelligence with a lot of agencies, British, Israeli, and so forth. But it was our intelligence that motivated us to act. And I think on the intelligence, Kristen, the thing that I would really emphasize is the way in somebody says, in your opinion, why can the U.S. say what other countries may or may not have while the U.S. has nuclear weapons and forbids other having them? Well, you answered your own question. it's because we have nuclear weapons and they don't.

That makes us the decision maker. Which the Iranians seem to be stonewalling us. That was not, by the way, our consensus back in March of this year. We saw the Iranians making some concessions. We thought the conversations were actually productive. By mid-May, everybody in our intelligence community and the president's senior team, looked at ourselves and said, the Iranians are not being serious. They're no longer making concessions.

They're no longer actually responding to some of the offers that we're making. making. If you- What kind of, people are complaining about that reasoning? Yeah, welcome to the real world.

It's not a Reddit discussion. It's not a Reddit debate. It's not a, oh, but that's not fair. The goal isn't to be fair. The goal is to win. Life's not fair.

That the Iranians are rushing towards a nuclear weapons program while simultaneously refusing to negotiate. How could we do anything but take serious action against this program? Do you and President Trump trust the U.S. intelligence community and its assessments?

Oh, of course we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts. And most importantly, we trust what the intelligence was telling us about the Iranian stonewalling the negotiation. I think that is really the hidden story here. Well, this is the thing is that, I mean, I've always said, I mean, Trump quotes a lot of mob bosses. He talks about Al Capone. he, I mean, again, like, he basically uses mafia techniques constantly. I mean, he's a New York real estate agent. Like, what do you think the probability is that Trump has dealt with the mafia a lot, right? And like one of the things that whenever you're dealing with any, any group of people and you, for whatever reason, can't have a governing body enforce the outcome of what's being discussed, you have to go based off of whether somebody is operating above the board or not. And the, The moment that you feel like somebody is not operating above the board and they are acting in bad faith, you can't deal with them at all anymore because there's no way for you to remedy that situation should you be right and they take advantage of it. That's the issue, right?

What do you mean above the board? Well, if somebody is acting in a way that is disingenuous, if somebody is lying, if somebody is misrepresenting things, if anything like that happens. Like, for example, you know, you're going to buy or sell something and you say, you know, show up alone and then they show up with 30 friends. Like that's immediately, it's off, right? It's off. Like, this is it. Because, again, you have violated the nature of the agreement. Even though something might not go wrong, the fact that you're willing to not completely work inside of the confines of what was agreed upon, the level of trust that you need to operate off of there has to be at 100.000.

percent. And the moment that you get to like at least below 90 percent, you might as well just not trust them at all. Like really? Like yeah, you can't trust them at that point because at that point there's always, and this is the thing. There's two, this is the concept, right? There's known unknowns and unknown unknowns. There are things that you know that you don't know, and there are things that you don't know that you don't even know, right? The completely mystery things. So my perspective is that if your known unknowns are below a certain ratio, you should expect the things that you don't know anything about to be at an even lower ratio below that. And so that's really, yeah, exactly.

And this is, again, it's common since Boondock's moment. I don't think it's from the Boondocks. I think it's an older quote from like, I don't know, like, it's like a military general or something like that. I don't remember exactly who said it, but it's not from Boondocks. Samuel Jackson said it. Yeah, yeah, no, for sure. Oh, I'm too stupid to understand. No, and so do you guys see kind of where I'm coming from with all this?

You guys see what I'm saying? What if that's the same logic that they're following, they hate the West? Sounds good. Okay, fine. Go ahead. I don't care what their logic is. Whatever they think is the right thing is that that's their own prerogative. It's not, like, we don't need to beat them in the argument.

All we need to do is make sure that they don't. don't cause a problem for us. This isn't a debate. We're not arguing about this on equal ground. There isn't like a, well, we're going to argue about this and then whoever has the better argument wins. That's not how the world works. The media has got to report a little bit more here. The Iranians stopped negotiating in good faith. That was the real catalyst, I think, to what the president ultimately decided to do. If we were having a productive negotiate. Yeah, they were getting fucked around and lied to. And at the end of the day, if somebody is fucking you around and lying to you, okay, well, then discussions are off. It's that simple.

I think that this could have gone in a much different pathway. Unfortunately, the Iranians decided to stonewall us and we saw the consequences of that last night. Mr. Vice President, very quickly, as you know, this is dividing lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Many Republicans supportive, but Congressman Thomas Massey saying this was unconstitutional. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying it's grounds for impeachment, saying the president should have gotten congressional approval first. What do you say to members of Congress who say it was unconstitutional for the president to act unilaterally? That's crazy. Wow.

Well, I'd say two things, Kristen, and this is very important. First of all, the president has clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the worst weapon of mass destruction of them all is nuclear. The idea that this was outside of presidential authority, I think any real serious legal person would tell you that's not true. And the second thing is, Kristen, I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents,

and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives. So this is not. Well, the reason it went retarded last time is that the people that were running it were retarded. So now we have somebody who isn't as retarded and it's probably not going to be as bad. That, I mean, you know, that's pretty, all right, I got it. Sure. You would 100% not support the bombing if Biden did it, even if context was exactly the same. Okay.

Like, at that point, how do you expect me to argue against that? Yes, I would. And then you're going to say, no, you wouldn't. Why would I waste my time trying to explain that to you? It's not going to be some long, drawn out thing. We've got it. We've done the job of setting their nuclear program back. We're going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years.

And that is what the president has set out to do. Simple principle. Iran can't have a nuclear weapon that is, animated American policy over the past 130 days. It's going to continue to be a driving force of our policy in the Middle East for the next three and a half years. Vice President J.D. Vance, thank you for joining us on a pivotal day. We hope you will come back very soon. Very big day. Thanks, Kristen. Good morning. Huge day. We thank you for. I'll make you guys. I'm going to link you guys a video. And yeah, I got you guys. Yeah, you guys were against American invention in Iran.

If I was not mistaken, did you change your mind? I was okay with us bombing the nuclear facilities. I was not okay with us entangling ourselves in a long-term war with Iran. I don't think that it really serves the United States best interest to do that. And I think that, again, all it's going to do is it's going to radicalize Iranians against America even more than they already are. I think it's going to create and make things even worse. And so nobody wants that. Yes, exactly. And that's it. And so, yeah, mass shooting today in Wayne Michigan Church. Yeah, I saw about that, but I'm not sure. I'd have to look back and find it more. Trump just tweeted strongly implying an Iranian regime.

Well, anyway, I'll look at that in a second. But yeah, I think this is a very good interview. Yeah, definitely. And yeah, Netanyahu said 196, Iran is six months away. Trump in 2030, I always said war with Iran was a bad idea. People don't talk about that, but I was the only one. Probably true.

And if Iran's guess we phone planes of the United States and drop bombs, would we consider that an act of war? Yeah, I mean, again, Iran can think about it however they want, but like the idea and I think that a lot of the premise that a lot of these people and the chatters misunderstand is that they think that this is a that this is a negotiation on equal footing it's not it's the same as it's the same as russia and ukraine in my opinion this is my opinion russia is the obvious aggressor they are the obvious one who is wrong they are the

obvious bad actor and the only reason that they have not been crushed by everybody in and America coming together to unilaterally shit on them for invading Ukraine. The only reason why that hasn't happened is because they have nuclear weapons. That's the reason. And if that wasn't the case and they didn't have that capacity for mass destruction, this war would have been over years ago. And that's also the reason why Trump has to play games with Putin. That's the exact reason.