Asmongold TV - They want to DELETE Iran's supreme leader.. | Asmongold TV

Episode Date: July 19, 2025

They want to DELETE Iran's supreme leader.. Asmongold show for all of his stream highlights, competitions, reactions & more. ----------- Keywords: streamer content, world of warcraft, streaming highlights, video game analysis, gaming culture Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

They do want to get rid of the supreme leader, which is a little bit worrying. The breaking news this morning, just a short time ago, Israel's defense minister, said that Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatoll al-Iqqamani, cannot be allowed to continue to exist. This after Iran struck a hospital inside Israel, the defense minister said, quote, a dictator like Hamani who's heading a state like Iran who set himself the goal of destroying the state of Israel, he can no longer continue to exist. With us now, the former Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, retired Army Burger General, Mark Kimmel, General. Great to see you. This is the Ayatollah right here. This is the most explicit language.

They're thinking about trying to actually bomb this guy. From a senior Israeli official calling, really for the ouster, calling for essentially regime change here. What significance do you read into that statement? And how would that change the type of military operation we're seeing? Well, it's an extraordinarily significant. statement that means that the Israelis are subscribing

to the policy of regime change and how would that change the mission well it would just add on to the mission that is classic yeah it's just going to add in more shit you can't force another country to change its government I mean like you can

but like the success ratio we've had with that and I think that that exists with that is very low I think it's too risky to do that mission creep and well I appreciate everything that Israel has done up to this point about taking out the nuclear facilities. My question to Israel would be, okay, if there's going to be regime change,

are you taking over the day after operations yourself? Talk to me. That's a really good question, by the way, that this guy's bringing up. Because it's like, okay, so, and obviously Israel would say no to that. So it's like, okay, so it's just going to be chaos and like nobody's in control. That sounds like a great idea. Yeah. Or why I listening to retired warhawks, I don't think that he's a warhawk. I think that this is the exact opposite. I feel like this. I feel like that question really damages the credibility of the idea of killing the main guy. I think that's the opposite. About that, because you also say this is something the entire world needs to think about more, the day after management. Well, I do. It goes back to the

Colin Powell comment, the old comment about if you break it, you buy it. We saw that in Iraq. We saw that in Afghanistan. I'm not saying that it should be necessarily completely taken off the table, but there ought to be some considerations and a lot of planning because it's easy to do the regime change, but putting it back together is much like Humpty Dumpty. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, and we've already tried this.

multiple times and it's pretty much not worked every single time. I mean, I'm sure there are some cases where it kind of worked or it wasn't as bad, but like in general it's too risky. And it's also, you know, there's a certain degree of it too that is, like this is going to sound like, I don't like making arguments like this, but like it's kind of a morally bad thing to do or an ethically bad thing to do for us to decide that their government, for us to decide what their government is. I think that it's understandable for us to try to, you know, like protect ourselves.

But for us to try to decide how a, you know, a foreign, a sovereign country leads itself. I think that's a little bit weird. In the type of conflict this is, and we can see all the strikes that have taken place. And this is, I think, just now a fraction of them. It's not very democratic. No, it's not. The nature of this operation, Israel is over here. I mean, it's not like there are troops at the border of Iran, Israeli or otherwise, waiting to go.

in to occupy. So if there were to be regime changed, if the regime were to fall here, I'm not even sure I understand what would happen, how there would be an organization to run the country. Yeah, exactly. No, I agree. And people seem to think about Iran as a homogeneous nation. Well, that's that's not true. Persians only make up about 65 percent, I think, is the number of the population. You have Kurdish areas. You have Armenian areas. You have, you have Armenian areas. You have the areas out by Afghanistan. And we could unintentionally, Israel could unintentionally be putting Iran into a civil war. That's an extreme case. But I don't necessarily believe that the right answer is bringing in expatriate Iranians who out of the country for the last 40 plus years as the solution.

We saw that in Iraq and the expats didn't make things better. Well, I mean, it's got to be a decision made by the people there. I mean, you can't put somebody else in. It's reasonable to even like even to get rid of somebody, but you can't install a new government. You did have some experience with that to be sure. One of the other things that people talked about for years in the run up to a conflict like this between Israel and Iran. It could spiral into a regional conflict. But what they meant when they were talking about that was the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, all of Syria, you know,

allies of Iran, even Hamas, and Yemen, but now so many of those Iranian proxies are weakened. So when you talk about a possibility of a regional conflict, does that still exist in the same way? We're seeing someone different. Is the U.S. stepping down as a superpower by stepping to a side? Will that have consequences too? I think that being a superpower and like being a global superpower, meaning that you have to micromanage countries across the world. I think if somebody else wants to take on that burden, let them go ahead and do it. I don't think that, you know, really us doing that,

like did the war in the fucking Middle East for the last 20 years? Did that help the United States? I feel like it didn't. Well, I put it in a different way of looking at this. Yeah, obviously didn't. October 7th and its aftermath created this once in a generation, opportunity for the Israelis to attack into Iran. The great fear before that was if they attacked into Iran, you would have all of these proxies with hundreds of thousands of missiles, Hezbollah,

Hamas, the Houthis, raining down missiles along with Iran into Israel. That wouldn't work. That was, in fact, a deterrence to Israel from attacking into Iran. After October 7th, the way that Israel has methodically taken out the missile capabilities of all those countries. Then they understood all they had to worry about was Iran's capabilities. They could handle it. And that's why they've attacked. Yeah. General Mark Kim, it always great to have you on. Thanks so much for being with this. Radiclice this country? No, I think it does. And like that's the thing is like when you have something like this happen, it is going to radicalize the entire country. Because at the end of the day, he might be a psycho, but he's their psycho. He's,

They're a crazy guy. And if we kill their crazy guy, it's an attack on them. That's it. They have to do it themselves. I don't want to see Israel kill the main guy. I think that the government there has to fall on its own. Trump is our psycho. Asmon is pro-China.

Am I pro-China? I don't know if I'm pro-China. This morning. Joining me now, CNN Global Affairs Combinator and former Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Supreme. People said there's something happening like some kind of crazy shit. Give me a second. Let me make sure I look at this.

Yeah, it looks like there's nothing. I mean, if there was anything, it would have happened. Anyway, let me go back. I'll pull this up. Yeah, no, I got baited a little bit, right? Singh and Dana Stroll, research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. Thank you both so much for being here, Dana.

I'm going to start with you. We have just heard from Israel's defense minister. after an Iranian missile struck in Israeli hospital. He said Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, cannot be allowed to continue to exist. We know that Donald Trump had vetoed a plan that Israel had before all of this to take out the Supreme Leader. Does this change the calculation as Trump weighs whether to get the U.S. militarily involved in this conflict?

It absolutely should. So first of all, whether or not the Israeli Minister of Defense, Minister Katz, actually speaks for the Israeli government and Prime Minister Netanyahu is something that needs to be rigorously questioned at this moment in time. But this is an expansion of the Israeli objective from taking out and dismantling Iran's nuclear program to regime collapse or regime change. Very different, not what President Trump is talking about when he talks to the American people. And so his national security council. Yeah, that's the thing is that this is the reason why I think a lot of like, you know,

right-wing people are against this. is that like us micromanaging Iran's government doesn't really seem like America first. Now, you could make an abstract argument that it is. And I think that that argument works in terms of like a nuclear weapon, sure. But like whenever you get into like more of the nuances, that's when I think it falls apart. To the extent that they're actually running a regular process should be discussing exactly what the implications are. for the United States joining, giving this very big change in the Israeli mission. Yeah, going from saying this was about taking out Iran's nuclear capabilities

to talking about regime change, and it is not the first time. Sabrina, how should the president be going about determining if the U.S. should get involved? Well, I think what's being presented to the president is a number of different options, most likely by the Central Command Commander, who is going to have different points. of what U.S. involvement could look like. Ultimately, I think as you've been discussing, you know, today and throughout the week, this is also a political question for the president. Does he want to draw the United States further in to a larger, wide-scale war?

Because there's no guarantee that, one, even using one of those powerful bunker busters to destroy that nuclear facility in Ford O, that it would fully be destroyed. But two, Iran will retaliate. And the U.S. has significant interest in the region, including multiple bases throughout the Middle East. And if Iran does strike one of our military bases, you know, there is air defenses there, but they are not at the capacity that Israel has with its iron dome. Yeah, sure. I wouldn't expect it. In the past, Iran has used its proxy groups like Hezbollah or Shia militias in Syria and Iraq to attack American forces. See, this is the point that I was making before is that they literally like, bro, their people, they're people.

paying the people that are attacking us and other things and destabilizing the whole area. Like they're not doing it directly, but they're doing it indirectly. That's what's happening. One retaliates to the United States directly. That really will pull the United States into this war. And ultimately, I'm not sure that's what the president seeks at this time. Dana, you had brought up the idea of mission creep when talking about regime change. What are some of the potential pitfalls?

If this turns in... We do the same thing? Well, sometimes we do. And I think that that's a bad thing, too. I think in general, like, it's bad. I mean, I don't know why. There's always people that, like, there's like the... I think it's like a false, I don't know, like,

false intelligence with that. Like, oh, yeah, we do that too. Well, what about that? Like, it doesn't matter what we're doing. And also, by the way, I'm going to advocate what's in our best interest. Like, and so is there a double-s-examination? standard? Absolutely. Yeah, because I don't want there to be an equality between us and Iran. And I think it's in everybody's best interest that that's not the case.

To a mission about trying to change the regime in Iran. Well, first of all, the United States has been here before. We've attempted this in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And whatever the military said before, how it articulated its military. objectives and then what the political leadership of the United States thought they were doing, what we found over and over is that we don't actually understand the internal dynamics, the different centers of power within these countries that are so far away from America's borders and rarely do things go as planned. So we're not really talking about regime change anyway. What Israelis are talking about is regime collapse. And nobody actually knows exactly what would

happen on the other side of that, nor do we have any. nobody has any idea. And there's a good chance that it's going to spawn two or three more terrorist groups that are going to come out of that. I think that's pretty high probability it's going to happen. I mean, Iran has a population. It's like over like 92 million people or something like that. If 15% of people support the government over there, then that's like, what, 12 million people, something like that that would be effectively to them, their leader just got killed by a foreign power. I've got a pretty good feeling they're not going to be particularly. happy about that. And having over 10%, I mean, like, yeah, it's an overwhelming majority of people that are not in favor of the guy that are against the government, sure, but like it's not one dimensional.

Any confidence that the current thug mafia government in Tehran wouldn't be replaced by just another set of goons committed to the nuclear program to exporting terrorism to all the ways in which Iran is a real destabilizing force.

So somebody's a genuine question. How did Geng Khan take over so many places and install people without having uprises all the time? It's actually really easy. So he did the same thing that Saddam Hussein did. If there was a terrorist or somebody causing problems in Iraq, Saddam Hussein would just simply kill them and kill their whole family and blow up their house. You can do that. But you have to be absolutely fucking brutal.

you do and so like that that's that's the way that you that's the way that you deal with it so with gangis khan i assume that if there was a problem he would just go in there and just kill everybody and that would be it would be over the problem would be solved and because everybody knew that would happen well then they didn't let bad things happen take everyone exactly that that's it right i'm not kidding like that's literally what would probably happen you overwhelmed everyone Yeah. I mean, I don't know how people think that like wars used to happen back in the day, but of course that's what happened. Romans did exactly the same? Well, everybody did this. No, Genghis let the people of the conquered practice their own culture, but under his own law? Yeah, of course. Yeah, under his own law. We're talking about if they defied that. Without any articulation of exactly what the United States seeks and whether or not it could deliver or affect any sort of change that would keep the Middle East more peaceful. and stable, better for Israel, better for the United States. We should really be thinking twice

about joining a mission if the objective is regime collapse. Sabrina, what level of military force do you think it would take if the United States did get involved to just effectively knock out Iran's ability to continue with this nuclear program? Well, I mean, that's just a few ships, right? Well, you're already seen some assets move into the region. The Department of Defense announced another carrier strike group moving into the region. And so that's going to really bolster the force posture within the area that Central Command operates in, which is the Middle East. And you're also seeing more fighter squadrons move in to different bases around the country. These are assets that are going to be used to protect our military installations across the Middle East, but of course to also protect

Americans. We have to think about the many Americans, not that just live in Israel, but across the Middle East. These are some of the assets that will be able to defend. defend and protect the skies. But at the end of the day, you know, Iran being able to retaliate against one of our bases will draw the United States into this war. And that is going to commit more assets to the region. And I think what we have to think about here is we can't take our eye off of what's happening in the Indo-Pacific. And with these different carriers moving into the region, you are stressing the system and you are pulling assets away from what is this administration's priority theater, which is China.

So it's just a calculation that the president is going to really have to think through. Yeah, Sabrina Singh, Dana Stroll. I don't think they know what they're going to do yet, honestly. And, like, that's probably why they're trying to just get Iran to come to the table and negotiate with them, honestly. I think that's the main reason. Yeah, I mean, like, we'll see what's going to happen. But, you know, like, that's what I would assume. And what about the tariffs?

I mean, that shit was like last month, man. Like, isn't it crazy how much things have shifted? like people are not even thinking about tariffs or any of that other bullshit anymore they're thinking about all this other crazy new shit and uh it's been a whole lot like i've been kind of actually surprised to see like how big of a difference there's really been but uh yeah it's been a a whole lot