Asmongold TV - The United States is joining the war.. | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: August 5, 2025

The United States is joining the war.. Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. ---- ----- Keywords: reaction videos, streamer reactions, gaming hot takes, world of warcraft, twitch streamer Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump has maybe, maybe we're going to get involved. I mean, I do think that this entire situation, if he does this wrong, he's going to pretty much lose the majority of his support, or not the majority of his support, but he will lose a lot of support. And he'll lose a lot of influence. China will go overt if USA gets involved. I think China, I don't know if they're going to do that or not. Define wrong outcome.

wrong outcome is, I mean, if they don't get what they want, basically, right? If they get pushed into a war, if we have troops deployed, like I think that if for whatever reason, troops get deployed into Iran, I think this will create a massive divide. It will be very, very, very bad if that happens. There will be blowback, yeah, and it makes sense that there would be blowback for that too, right? I mean, it definitely does. You could easily see why. You can have hard enough, and Iran crumbles its win. If it's not effective enough, they roll out the hypersonics.

They've been hiding. Things are going to get messy. Ground war. Yeah, we'll see. But anyway, this is what he's talking about. Box News Alert, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that President Trump privately has approved an attack plan for Iran, but is not yet given the final order. Will the U.S. get involved?

Should we get involved? And what would it look like? David Burke, retired lieutenant colonel is a top of an instructor and Marine Corps officer. David, great to see you. Colonel, you have some experience here. although we've never dropped this 30,000 pound bomb. What could it do? Wait, so they never even used it?

Yeah, this would be the first drop in combat, but we're worried. What if it doesn't work? Familiar. A lot of testing with this bomb. This is a massive weapon designed to penetrate deep underground, hardened targets, well-protected targets like the one you're discussing, and take them out. So you say it's probably, even though we have some options,

if you could take a look at this full screen, we're going to use the B-2. And we're going to have, is it going to be one 30,000 bomb per fighter jet? Each, each B2 can carry two. It wouldn't surprise me if you had a single drop from an aircraft, but it can carry two. I think you would tell me yesterday that the first one penetrates down and the second one will go into the hole. Oh, that's a likely scenario. Having multiple bombs is probably going to be required for this situation.

Absolutely right. You got it. So, okay, so let's advance. Oh, okay, I can advance myself. I did not know that. You think it's going to hit on an angle, but yet it's going to glide. You said that this is going to be a little bit different. It's not going to be the World War II, open up the hatch, and it falls to the ground. Describe how it's going to penetrate.

Yeah, this is a smart weapon. Has a GPS antenna in the nose. It has a really good guidance system to get exactly where it wants to be. This is a massive bomb, Brian. It's 30,000 pounds. Now, not a lot of explosive, but a lot of weapon itself to penetrate into the ground. and that first bomb is going to hit the target, dig deep into the ground, and then detonate. Colonel, so take a look at this.

This, I imagine, is an animation of the bomb going deep. This is the first one in that scenario. With the second one know exactly how to get into the hole, the first one leaves behind. Yeah, I mean, this is a tough problem. The way you're describing it is exactly right. It's a very difficult scenario, but that, as you're describing it, is exactly what the intent would be. has put that second bomb right through the hole of the first penetration, get deeper into that target, and do even more damage with the second weapon. So, Colonel, what you said is it'll penetrate about 200 feet.

So it goes about 200 feet, but there's about 300 feet of concrete. It's got to get through, let alone what the mountain challenges have. So the first one gets through. What's the second one look like? Second one looks very similar in terms of the glide path. And the way you're describing it, this is what we call weaponeering. This is the professionals thinking about how deep is this target? How deep does the bomb have to go? How many weapons does it need? What's the angle? All those things you're describing is exactly right. This is the problem that they're addressing. And that second bomb in a perfect world goes right through the initial hole that the first bomb created and penetrates even deeper to the target to do the damage. It goes, yeah.

So where's it coming from? I understand they're not going to be deployed in theater. It's probably going to be coming from the U.S. wouldn't work for us to tell us exactly where. But what would go get refueled mid-air? They're probably in place. Probably that situation's in place right now. How many fighter jets you think, how many B-2s you think will need? Two, right? Probably. Yeah, I would not be surprised if you had multiple B-2s. The great thing about that aircraft, this is a remarkable machine. I think the longest B-2 flight is something like 44 hours. So our ability to launch from the United States, if we choose to, or a forward-deployed base, getting the target back is absolutely in the wheelhouse of the capability of this aircraft.

And I would expect to see multiple aircraft on this mission. For a guy that knows how to do these flights, What's the challenge for the pilot? Listen, there's a lot of challenges. Obviously, any time you take an American aircraft, American aircrew, American systems, and fly into enemy territory, there is risk. The great thing about these B-2 crews, they've been practicing and preparing for this. Their entire careers, they are more than capable of doing this. This is things they've prepared and trained for.

So once the mission starts, their focus on that, there are certainly risks associated with the mission itself, but these are highly trained, highly capable people that are more than ready to do. this. And just by the way, you told me off camera that it's not something you get the Israelis trained up on quickly. It'll have to be an American pilot. So they don't know how to fuck do you. They can't handle these bombs, bro. It's got to be us. And by the way, it doesn't detonate when it just hits the surface. We decide when it detonates. Colonel, thanks so much. I appreciate it. We'll look at a great being here. Thanks for having me.

Yeah. I'll look at, there's a video. I think that CNN put out the video about how this is how the bomb works, right? And so this is what they're trying to do with this bomb. The impact spreads freedom. It does. As President Trump weighs U.S. involvement in strikes on Iran, here we go.

A massive bunker buster bomb is likely the only weapon capable of destroying a key Iranian nuclear facility. But as CNN's Brian Todd reports... Maybe I'm retarded, but why couldn't they just send a missile, like a guided missile inside the fucking... Like, if you sent... I don't know, maybe this is stupid. But like, if you sent it inside the interest,

and it blew up the entrance, the entrance collapsed, you would effectively destroy the thing, right? Multiple doors? Oh. So they got a, yeah. Of course. Even this massive bomb may not be able to penetrate around

Fordo Fuel Enrichment Plan. Long tunnel with four doors. Yeah. And extends deep underground. So it's not like the Death Star. It's a sophisticated, frightening piece of weaponry designed to hit targets like some of Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities deep under ground. It's not like the death's so deep, and no other bomb would be able to certainly destroy them.

The GBU 57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator, also known as the Bunker Buster, the largest non-nuclear bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal, designed the Air Force says, to reach and destroy weapons of mass destruction in well-protected facilities. I feel like, I mean, we paid our tax money for this shit. I mean, like, really, if we're not going to be able to be able to be. going to use it to blow up a nuclear facility, like, why don't we just get a refund on these? Like, I mean, yeah, like, I mean, this is what we, that's what we, that's literally why we bought them, right?

Carverbuster is roughly 20 feet long, weighs 30,000 pounds with 6,000 pounds of high explosives. The Israelis don't have them, nor the means to deliver them. Only the U.S. does, and there is no public record that they've ever been used in combat. The United States has never encountered a target that required. a bomb of this size. We have other very, very large bombs, such as the Moab, which is the mother of all bombs, as they say. That mother of all bombs, weighing more than 21,000 pounds, was dropped by U.S. forces on ISIS targets in Afghanistan in 2017. But the bunker buster, even heavier. Experts say the bunker buster has a thick, hard shell designed to withstand the impacts of the ground

and plunged to the, oh shit, it is really big. God damn. The depths it needs to reach. With explosives in a fuse that also needs to be robust enough to penetrate the ground. The bunker buster doesn't have the biggest blast area, experts say, because it's designed to burrow into the ground before exploding. The only plane that can carry the bunker buster, the B2 spirit stealth bomber. That shit looks so fucking cool, bro. Like, I'm gonna be honest, that looks badass. By a two pilot crew, capable of flying about 6,000 nautical miles without refueling and

eluding in enemy's most sophisticated defenses. The likely target of the bunker buster if the U.S. were to get involved in this conflict, Fordo, an Iranian nuclear enrichment site, buried deep under a mountain beneath possibly 300 feet of rock. A key question, could the bunker buster really damage Fordo significantly? Experts say the bunker buster can penetrate about 200 feet into the ground. I mean, couldn't you just keep using them until you did? I mean, I feel like, yeah, if, I don't know how many of these we have, but like, yeah, if two doesn't work, then you use three. Yeah, I mean, that, I mean, that, that, 50 million dollars each. I mean, for, in terms of like government money, that's not that much. Maybe more, but if the key targets at Fordo are about three.

Yeah, we spend more for like, you know, like gay Sesame Street place. Yeah, I mean, that, yeah, that's not, it's not that much. Three to four million each. Yeah, that's cheap for the military. Yeah. Over feet under? One bomb isn't going to penetrate that. You're going to have to have multiple hits at the same spot. Drop a bomb.

Another B2 comes in, drops another bomb in the crater of the first. Another key question is, would a strike on the Fordo nuclear facility cause a large radiation leak? Three experts who spoke to CNN say a radiation leak would probably be limited to the immediate area. And a strike would probably not pose the same kind of catastrophic consequences. that bombing a nuclear reactor would. Brian Todd, see on at Washington. Well, that would be good,

because if they did, that would be real bad. Yeah, that'd be real bad. Oh, shit. Probably? Yeah, I mean, fuck, I'd go with probably. I mean, that's it. Yeah, probably.

With Jennifer Kavanaugh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at the foreign policy. You know what? I heard that whenever they dropped the first nuke, they didn't know what the fuck was going to happen. Yeah. said all right well let's see what this does

think tank defense priorities I asked her what US involvement in this conflict could just winging it yeah so I think it's probable that Netanyahu was hoping that if he started this war and was successful initially tactically against regime targets and other nuclear facilities that the United States

would see this as an opportunity to join in and to which is damn that thing's big that makes sense too It definitely makes sense. Accomplish what has been a long time U.S. goal of ending the Iranian nuclear program. Yeah. I think it's important to note, however, that there's no guarantee.

But even if the United States does use these bunker-ruster bombs, it would finally eliminate Iran's enrichment capabilities or forever end its pathway to a nuclear bomb. How could you stop anything forever? That could only be accomplished by political means, not military means. It's interesting you say that because, Joe Sirius Saryone, who is an expert on nuclear nonproliferation and all things Iran and all things nuclear program in Iran, he explained how these bunker busters actually work in any kind of attack on the photo nuclear site there in Iran. Here he is. Listen to this. The first aircraft, a B-2 rather, is the only aircraft that can carry this munition, has to drop one in a precise location, followed by another B-2 who would drop another in. the crater and that might not be enough so you might have to do it a third or a fourth time just keep

doing it so you know in the words of you know the u.s intelligence CIA boss from like in the iraq days it's not a slam dunk that u.s involvement here would actually destroy the photo nucleosite completely certainly not with a airstrikes there would have to be a ground component some kind of ground raid to ensure that that facility was fully eliminated and that iran's stockpiles of highly and rich uranium were either rendered unusable or inaccessible. And right now, no one is talking seriously about sending ground forces. No, nobody was relying only on air power. No, no, no, absolutely not.

Not going to happen. Yeah, because if we send troops over to Iran, we are going to be there for 10 years. It's going to be 10 more fucking years of micromanaging, another Middle Eastern country. Look, I was trying to be optimistic. I was being optimistic with 10. Okay, y'all want to say 20? Fine. It'll happen. We just won't know about it.

Yeah, I don't know. We need a new war to get the economy back up. That's a good way to look at it. That's true. I mean, yeah, I mean, we could get another one going, right? Sure. But, like, I feel like we need a shorter one, right? Give a word chance.

The chances are quite high that even with U.S. involvement, it would be impossible to achieve what Israel has set out as its strategic objective of eliminating finally this nuclear capability. And even if it was successful, if they were able to take out the facility and other facilities completely, there's still the matter of Iran's intellectual property. They figured this out once. They can figure it out again. Yeah, that's why you blow it up again.

that's why you have to blow it up again, kill the guys to do it again. And you just keep doing that until it stops happening. It's pretty simple. Yeah, I mean, that's the reason why they haven't built one. Like, we've literally done this for 30 years. Like, in my opinion, I think that if Iran was completely uninterrupted, they probably would have built a nuclear bomb a long time ago. And it's only because we've been intentionally blowing up their shit,

killing their scientists, and setting them back with, like, cyber attacks, bombs, et cetera. They would have already built this. I mean, we've already been doing this for a while. Grock said nukes in 2015 of no intervention. Maybe. But here's the thing. Without foot on the ground, these bombings wouldn't stop them.

They just rebuild with better defender underground facility. Well, then you bomb that one, too? I mean, like that, but that at least sets them back. He delayed several years, even a decade. I mean, they're limping along anyway, right? Because the thing is, like, the, what do you call it? The government over there, nobody likes them. Like, nobody likes them.

And so, like, they're on a timer. And, like, as soon as that timer's over, they're done. But it's only through political means and diplomacy. Yeah. That says me. The challenge of Iran's nuclear weapons can be dealt with in a final and lasting way. The Israeli military says its jets attack the nuclear facility at Iraq, which it says Iran could have used to try to develop nuclear weapons and Iranian state news agency says no major damage was done. I want to bring in

our international security editor, Nick Payton Walsh, but joining me now. Nick, this attack was during a series of raids overnight. We've seen the evidence that... Nobody likes Putin. He's been there forever. I think that a lot of people in Russia like Putin, actually. Like, I don't know. I mean, what is, I mean, I think a lot of them like it. I'm pretty sure they do. Yeah, I think a lot of people do. Do they have a choice? Well, I mean, in the same way that Iranians have choice, yeah. At least the ballistic weapons capability still exists in Iran. We've seen the evidence of that where Nick is in Bersheva in Israel. So there are still military and nuclear targets, one assumes, for the IEF.

From those that you are speaking to in your sources, what can we expect next from Israel in Iran, particularly based on the latest rhetoric from Israeli officials, including the Defence Minister? Look, I think the Defence Minister's comments will raise again the issue of the decapitation of the Iranian government. But I should just put in some context there

that even if they did take the extraordinary decision or have the capability to kill the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khomey. That doesn't suddenly spell an overnight end to theocratic government of the Ayatollahs there. He will be replaced, possibly, by his son, who appears to be doing some of the work already. And so it isn't a dictatorship in which the disappearance of one individual means everything crumbled. It's not Syria's Assad, Syria. And so I think it's important to... Well, then you just kill two of them.

I mean, like, you just... what a dumb answer like okay wow well if we kill one guy it won't work well all right well then what do you need to do like and also by the way i don't even think we should do this to begin with like i i i don't yeah what about two what about three what about four you know whack them all though eventually it works yeah reintroduce theocracy they keep coming yeah it's got it's got to happen from the people there like i mean we can't we can't be going over there and blowing up their guys like Israel can do whatever the fuck Israel wants to do but like in terms of the U.S.,

I feel like we've had our share like we did this with Saddam Hussein, we did it with Gaddafi, I think there was somebody, I mean, we installed the Shah, I'm pretty sure, in 1953. So in Iran, so like we've tried this multiple times. Like we just need to stay the fuck out of it. Yeah, stay the fuck out of it.

Like get rid of their nukes and then leave. Let them do what they're going to do. Iran needs to have a civil war and just overthrow their government. That doesn't work. I mean, that's what they have to do, right? Iran has massive arsenal ballistic missiles and drone stockpiled. They barely touched. All spread out in underground facilities.

They're very prepared for long, drawn-out war and can wait patiently until Israel's interceptor missiles. Supply is depleted. Maybe, but I think that also, like, I mean, I just, I don't think that Iran has some master plan. And the reason why is because if they had a master plan, the people that were deciding that master plan would have been able to avoid getting killed. Like, if you keep killing all of their top guys, it's pretty obvious who has the intelligence advantage, right? I mean, really, really. I mean, it's pretty obvious that Israel has the intelligence advantage. So the fact that they have like this extravagant, big thing, uh-huh,

yeah, sure. Put any move like that within that kind of context, it may well, indeed exacerbate or you actually believe that they will tell you if they're really dead yeah i saw the video and there was like a a fucking missile and it showed like a guy and then the missile hit and he wasn't there anymore i i feel like he's probably dead like i would assume he dead i mean maybe he parried it but like i don't think that i don't think that works the same way it doesn't like elven ring why israel allowed to have nukes but iran can't because israel's on our side and Iran's not. I mean, that's really the answer. Like, uh, Israel decides, denies IEA inspections and refuses to sign the United Nations nonproliferation treaty. Iran has.

I also think, by the way, um, I don't think we should let them do that. I think we should force them to either come, come to an agreement or at least come to some form of, uh, uh, of, of, of capitulation, right? Like, I, I agree with that too. Yeah, Iran's a terrorist thing. Yeah, sure. Also, Israel doesn't threaten anybody with nukes. Well, I don't think anybody... The best case scenario is that Israel and Iran don't have nukes. That's the best case scenario. Does anybody disagree with that?

Right, obviously. Obviously, that is. Broken record? Yeah, you're right. Let's move on. Speaking to some experts yesterday, worsen the hardline nature of what Iran seeks. But it's the nature of the targets that Israel is openly talking about.

talking about striking now that gives you some idea how far down a target list they necessarily are. Hitting the Iraq heavy water facility. That's something which many experts believe was no longer involved in any potential chase of a nuclear weapon. Yes, it could have been involved in the creation of plutonium, giving another path toward the bomb. But ultimately... Israel needs the nuke. They're the only democracy over there? If Israel needs a nuke, then Saudi Arabia needs a nuke.

And if Saudi Arabia needs a nuke, then Iran needs a nuke. And if Iran needs a nuke, then maybe Qatar needs a nuke. And then now everybody needs a nuke. Like, no, no, fucking no. Strongly disagree with you? Well, I mean, that doesn't, who cares? Yeah, no more fucking nukes. Like, I don't think, how do people not understand this?

It's insane. It seems to have been inactive. So the Israelis working through potentially parts of nuclear infrastructure that people accept are not actually a potential imminent usable threat right now, potentially removing things that could. I don't think people don't get, I think that again, well, let me just get through this. Be a problem down the line and removing Iran's ability to pursue anything nuclear for decades. They appear also to destroy between a half and about two thirds of Iran's missile launch. So that takes out of the equation, potentially, the scale of the volleys that Iran can fire at Israel. What got through last night may have been a new type of device, may have been a particularly bad night for Israel's air defenses.

Who knows? Injured at that hospital certainly too. And horrific scenes for the Israeli public to endure. But not a marked change in the sort of lethal casualties Iran was able to inflict on Israel. So Iran clearly working with a much reduced military capability here. And so that puts into question how long, frankly, Tehran can have this conflict go on. Not long. Not potentially experienced some kind of existential crisis in its missile inventories, military infrastructure that keeps being. Or civilian sentiment, right? I mean, they might not like this either.

I mean, eventually a lot of the people there that don't even like the government, I mean, there's a chance they could have an uprising. I mean, what is the probability of that? I would say it's probably a low probability because it's extreme, but it's possible. and we have another I would just pull this up real quick your experience a future world

dictated by Islam why would you're not even why would you even why would you even what we're talking about at all like you're just you're bringing up something

that's totally different like why I don't know why people go and do something like that it's weird he's right though not really I mean I don't

I think I've made it pretty clear I'm not a religion enjoyer right like I've made it super fucking clear. It's a bit like this and its political command.

Becky, I should point out, in a week since this began, they're now on their third commander of the IRGC's ground force of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. That's the pace in which new leaders are being taken out. Unimaginable, frankly, just a month ago.

And so I think many eyes now look towards tomorrow and Geneva where the European Union's E3 is there known, UK, France and Germany, along with the EU foreign policy chief, a meeting with Iran's foreign minister Abbas Arachi. Now, that may well be something, which is an entire separate sideline. I was speaking to one Western diplomat who knows what's going on in those talks and said

that they'd be happening in consultation with the United States. Indeed, David Lamy, the UK Foreign Secretary, I think is meeting with Mark Aribio, the US Secretary of State just today. But describe the talks as something which should be used to kind of feel the room. work out indeed what is possible. But I think it's possibly diplomacy here. However bad the deal Iran has to accede to is that give them possibly a chance of slowing the Israeli onslaught, but ultimately with Israel having control of the skies over Iran and the ability to hit what it wants at will, why would they necessarily stop now? I think the weakness of Iran is in is what's going

to, the dynamic that's going to do. It's a, just a second, sorry about this. Oh, this is, yeah, I guess I probably should watch this one. Just a short time ago, Israel's defense ministers. Give me one second. I'll go back and look at this. Sorry, I got distracted. So the Jewish guys, I want to see inside the base. Yeah.

And so anyway, if I go in and I think about this, I mean, let me finish it. Is what's going to, the dynamic that's going to dictate the duration of this. Nick Payne Moll, she's up. I mean, they're getting, they're stalling out with negotiations again. Yeah, I think so. I mean, that's a possibility. Iran could have anything at will. They keep saying that's just not true.

Do other Middle Eastern countries complain about not having nukes? Well, like one guy, I think like the guy in Saudi Arabia, MBS, the crown prince, said that like, well, if Iran is going to make a nuke, then we have to make a nuke. And like, honestly, I understand that. Yeah. Right? I mean, yeah, I totally see where he's coming from because Iran and Saudi Arabia don't get a lot. long. He did say it, yeah, and I get it. And so, like, is it a good thing? Because this is the problem, right? It's like, as soon as you have one country that's doing it, now, now, see, you've got a

domino effect. This is how it all goes down. This is the reason why you can't let that shit happen. That is the reason. Yeah, Israel doesn't have nukes, though, buddy? I don't know if they do or not. Yeah, I have no idea if they do or not. I mean, if, if I had to guess, if Israel had nukes or not, I would say they probably do. I think that they do. Now, I don't know that, but I would assume that. He didn't say if Israel has a nuke, they do. From a security perspective, Israel is surrounded by hostile states. Nuclear weapon can be a deterrent. If they do have nukes at all, there's pros and cons. Yeah, but at the end of the day, like, we'll think about this, like, think about this, like, reasonably.

If Israel used a nuclear bomb, Israel, like, everybody would be wanting the U.S. and whoever decided to do that to go up on, like, fucking war charges. I think that there is a global consensus, at least maybe from everything that I've seen, that nobody should use a nuclear bomb no matter what. And so what do you think would happen if every country had nukes? I don't know, honestly. I have no idea. Why is the word buddy? Make a statement sound so aggressive. I don't know. Yeah, why if I would Americans care if Israel has a deterrent or not? Yeah, sure. Israel would not use a nuclear bomb unless they were going to be destroyed. Your logic doesn't hold. Yeah, but if Israel, like, I would, am I crazy for saying I would rather have Israel be destroyed than have them fire off a bunch of nukes that could potentially destroy a huge area, contaminate the majority of the Middle East, kill millions more people?

and also probably still get destroyed in the process. Like, I don't want to have a doubt. Like, yeah, I don't want that to happen at all. That's insane. You're reasonable. Yeah, I feel like so many people are idealistic with these types of things. And the idealism, I think, is a huge weakness. It's a weakness that holds people back from being able to come from a solution at all.

Erlon's motive is not a deterrent. It's offensive. Well, it's both, right? I mean, obviously is both. So, yeah, I wish none of us had nukes. stuff is scary? Yeah, it is. I'll read a few more of these, but yeah, I mean, it seems like they probably can, it seems like they can probably hit the facility. And if they can't hit it with the first one, they're going to hit it with the second one. Apparently, this bomb can go through 200 meters

of reinforced concrete. That's crazy. That's like 600 feet of concrete. And so, and this is built on a mountain side. So yeah, I think that honestly, like, yeah, they're able to destroy it. So yeah, no offense, it's publicly known that Israel has nukes, estimated 90 nuclear warheads. Why do you go fuck about the Middle East if it's none of our business then? If it's none of our business, let them nuke each other to hell. Well, I mean, let them nuke each other to hell. So the problem is that that's not what's going to happen. So this is the issue, right?

And I've re-explained this like five times. And I apologize if I'm repeating myself. But, you know, there's going to be new people in the chat every day. People are going to have new opinions, et cetera. So I will repeat myself with this again before we get into this. So think about the issue that we have in the current conflict in Ukraine against Russia. And think about the fact that we can't use certain things and we can't be aggressive towards Russia in certain ways because of the fact that Russia has access to nuclear weapons. And because Russia has access to nuclear weapons, the amount of ways that we can negotiate with them and effectively deal with them, you know, deal with them.

are limited. And so because they have these things that effectively control our negotiating power, it is basically allowing them to attack Ukraine. I think that if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, we probably would have seen the end of the Russia-Ukraine war years ago. But because they have such advanced technology and nuclear weapons and other types of capabilities, this creates a deterrent that allows them to do what they want. I think that the same thing will happen with Iran. I think that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon, Iran will use it in the exact same way. They probably will not use the nuclear weapon immediately because then that would probably be signing their own death warrant. But what I think they would do is they would become more aggressive in the area.

They would do more funding towards terrorist organizations. They would try to intercept more trade. They would fund more types of things that destabilize the entire region, which our entire economy is based around, right? like the Houthis intercepting these ships, costs millions and millions of dollars. And so the problem is that if Iran has a deterrent, that's a big problem if we want to deter Iran. We want to deter Iran.

So if they have a deterrent, that's bad for us. Do you see kind of like what the issue here is? Billions of dollars? Yes, exactly. And also this is going to affect other countries in the area also. You're a warmonger? No, I'm not. the only one who's not a warmonger. I'm the only person who's not because I see a war happening

with this as a result. And I think that is if Iran makes a nuclear weapon and we let them make a nuclear weapon, then you're going to see Saudi Arabia pursuing a nuclear weapon. And are we going to tell Saudi Arabia, you can't do this after Iran, one of their enemies, because they're a different Muslim, like Iran is Shia and I think Saudi Arabia is Sunni Muslim in general. And so like they don't see eye to eye with everything in general. And so what happens is that you have this massive distinction and of course they're going to make a weapon so they can be on an even playing field against their opponents, which makes sense. But is that a good thing? And then also what about all the other countries? So now you have all these Middle Eastern countries that are all building up and

making more nuclear bombs. This makes any sort of conflict in that area infinitely more risky. it's infinitely more risky. And then in the process of building those weapons, you're going to have the countries that have access to them potentially use them. We don't know if they're going to use them. Iran has said multiple times that if they had a bomb or if they could, they would destroy Israel. They said they would do that. And so really people that think that this is a warmonger take are, I think, so incredibly short-sighted and naive. They're so naive. And I don't understand how, I think that a lot of the pushback against, you know, the pushback against this is actually not, what do you call it?

It's actually not about like anything specifically about Iran. It's, it's about Israel. I think people are pushing back against Israel in general. Yeah, God, I hate news. Yeah. And so people are mad at Israel because they think that Israel, the way that Israel is dealing with Palestine is bad. But the fact is that, I mean, Israel is just simply, Israel is not really, the problem with Iran is not like 100% Israel, if that makes sense too. These people hate America too? Yeah.

And anti-Semitism is the reason. Sometimes in some cases it is. I mean, absolutely. Iran is in a country like Pakistan or India. Their narrative is to actually use the bomb. Yeah, I mean, that's what they said. You're not a warmonger when this is defense. When someone says they want your death to you or your country over and over and wants nukes,

that's not a warmonger by us. Yeah, exactly. And so when I hear people that are accusing me or other people like this of having that viewpoint, it doesn't really make sense to me. Because if somebody, and also, by the way, if this was happening to you on a personal level, you would immediately be, you would immediately have the same viewpoint that I do. You would immediately see it the same way that I do, where it's like, okay, well, yeah, somebody says they want to kill me. Well, I want to call the police or do something to have this person stopped.

Obviously. Like if somebody said like, yeah, I'm going to make a gun. I'm going to come to your house and shoot you. Then, yeah, absolutely you would want to react to it proactively. Of course.