Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 3/18/26: Trump Threatens To Leave NATO, US Iraq Embassy Hit, Ben Shapiro Crash Out

Episode Date: March 18, 2026

Ryan and Emily discuss Trump threatens to leave NATO, US Iraq embassy hit, Ben Shapiro crashout.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Hi, it's Joe Interesting, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast, where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And today I'm talking with my dear friend, Krista Williams. It can change you in the best way possible. Dance with the change. Dance with the breakdowns.

The embodiment of Pisces' intuition with Capricorn power moves. So I'm like delusionally proud of my charge. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast, starting on February 24th on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip, a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F-1 romance novels, and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas that have made Formula One, a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm Clayton Eckerd. In 2022, I was the lead of ABC's The Bachelor. But here's the thing. Bachelor fans hated him. If I could press a button and rewind it all I would. That's when his life took a disturbing turn. A one-night stand would end in a courtroom. The media is here. This case has gone viral. The dating contract. Agree to date me, but I'm also suing you. This is unlike anything I've ever seen before.

I'm Stephanie Young. Listen to Love Trapped on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere. else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent

news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. All right, good morning and welcome to breaking points, to the thousands of new premium subscribers that we have. We should show people around a little bit, right? Apparently the floors just got cleaned. Yeah, so somebody complained. They said Whenever there's the over the head shot, they can see that the floor is kind of a mess. So you know what? We clean it up for the new guests. We listen. So, you know, you're welcome.

Promise us made. Promise us kept. That's right. And thank you for the suggestion. There's a comment section on YouTube. You're welcome to, you know, so, you know, for a long time viewers, be nice to everybody in there. Anything you know? If we need to tidy anything up, just let us know.

Mac apparently reads every comment and we'll act on it quickly. Yeah, let them know how this works. There's also a Reddit. you've got to be careful over there, I think, right? With Reddit. No comment on the Reddit. Did you see that because AIs are training themselves on Reddit threads, they keep telling people that no matter what their question is,

the answer is you should break up with that person. No, I didn't see that. It's a math question. They're like, yeah, you should leave them. Two plus two equals get the hell out of that relationship. Anyway, so welcome, thank you. And we hope you stick around because only that first month was free. You didn't have to pay after that.

Yes, but it's worth it to help us keep doing the independent journalism, cleaning the floors, apparently. And we've got a big show today, Donald Trump, threatening to pull out of NATO directly in comments that he made in firm reporters at the White House yesterday. A hit on the embassy in Baghdad, the massive green zone that we have in Iraq. We're going to break down the details on that. We have lots of footage from around the Middle East. But, Ryan, that in particular seems to me like it's going under the radar in the news cycle right now. We went to war, as some people might remember, in 2003 in Iraq. We were going to take that country off the chessboard.

Mission was accomplished. And now they keep Iraqi militias there, like bombing our embassy there and firing at our bombers as they go over top and refueling jets, giant mess. Meanwhile, Trump seems to be trying to get the Iraqi prime minister out of office, like some more regime change. So, yeah, we'll get into that. Right, and we have more fallout from Joe Kent's resignation. Soccer and Crystal were able to cover that quickly yesterday,

but it continued to rage in the news cycle throughout the day yesterday, as it should, of course, when you have a top intelligence official resigning over whether or not an imminent threat was an appropriate predicate for the war in Iran. He questioned whether or not there was an imminent threat, and so yesterday this was swirling online. The president commented on it, so we're going to bring you that clip as well.

Then we're going to do an update from Cuba, where the electrical grid, if you haven't been following this, suffering across Cuba, protests across Cuba, we are going to break that down, Ryan. Yes, and I'll be going there this weekend. That's right. The kind of group of journalists are going. And so if you are a premium scrubber, you're helping send me to Cuba. That's right. Whether how that makes you feel is up to you. Don't worry about it.

Well, but as we know, facts over feelings. That's right. We'll see. There will be a camera crew. We will have some updates from Ryan next week for sure. Rokana is getting called out by Jonathan Greenblatt. Perhaps not surprising, but it's turned into a very ugly war. And Greenblatt is leveling some really ugly charges against Rokana. We will have updates on that. And it's a Wednesday in a midterm cycle, which means we have some election results, the much-watched cat Abu Ghazale, Daniel Biss race. That was last night and the numbers are in. Should we spoil it?

Yeah, BIS won. But APEC took some losses, well, in that race, and then in a couple others, and also notched a couple of wins. We'll talk about that, plus the role of AI and crypto in the Senate race and in the House races. All right, we'll break it down. Let's start now with NATO, Donald Trump yesterday, in a bilateral conversation in the Oval Office of St. Patrick's Day.

So he was with Irish leaders at the White House yesterday. Here is Trump getting asked about NATO. and whether or not the U.S. should pull out of NATO, particularly, at least Donald Trump took the direction, the conversation in that direction. Let's roll A1 here. Are you rethinking the United States' relationship with NATO possibly getting out? Well, I've disappointed in NATO that we spend trillions of dollars on NATO. Think of it. Trillions over the years. Many trillions of dollars. It's one of the reasons we have deficits and we help other countries.

And when they don't help us, I mean, it's certainly something that we should think about. I don't need Congress for that decision, as you probably know, I can make that decision myself. I'd work with some very smart people. And I'd always deal with Congress anyway, but I don't need Congress for that decision. But, you know, when you say rethink, I have nothing currently in mind, but I will say that I'm not exactly thrilled when we help them with your, Ukraine. Look, Ukraine would have been over in one day if we didn't help. Frankly, Ukraine would have been over in the first day. They had the best equipment in the world. It was our equipment. I think NATO's making a very foolish mistake. And I've long said that, you know, I wonder whether or not NATO would ever be there for us. So this is a, this was a great test because we don't need them, but they should have been there. Great. So he doesn't have any plans at the moment is what he said, but also doesn't necessarily need Congress to do it. And he's very upset at NATO.

He's mad, but he's not mad. He doesn't need them, but he would like them. They're not that important, but they're very important. This is, so the president also posted, lest you think that was just a comment in the Oval Office, he says, the United States on true social has been informed by most of our NATO allies that they don't want to get, don't want to get involved with our military operation against the terrorist regime of Iran in the Middle East. This, despite the fact that almost every country strongly agreed with what we are doing and that Iran cannot in any way, shape, or form be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I'm not surprised by their action, however, because I always considered NATO, where we spend hundreds of billions of

dollars per year protecting these same countries to be a one-way street. We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us in particular in a time of need. Fortunately, we have decimated Iran's military. It goes on and on to say that. We do not need the help of anyone. Then he signs off. Thank you for your attention to this matter, President Donald J. Trump. So Ryan, this This is obviously over the Strait of Hormuz conflict. How much of a breach after all of the breaches, after all of the sort of chips that have already been put into the foundation of the U.S. NATO alliance, how much do you think this particular dust up yesterday matters? I think what it shows, right, is that he is really flailing, that his idea for this war was very very very very very very very.

Venezuela-esque. He's going to go in, or Israel's going to go in, actually, Israel carried out the first strike, and they hit the Ayatollah, they hit the top leadership, and yada, yada, yada, that was going to lead to something better. Netanyahu obviously had a much more sophisticated and thought-out plan. Netanyahu's plan is, we're going to hit them. They're going to hit everyone back, because they said that out loud many times. They sent it even in a letter to, like, the United Nations. It wasn't just like drop site reporting or posts. It was like they put it in a letter that said, we're going to hit all the bases where the United States has forces. And even if these are our brotherly countries, we're going to hit them.

So Israel knew that they would do that, knew that that would mean that we would respond with, you know, considerable overwhelming force in response. And the idea is then you degrade Iran's, you know, military and economic infrastructure. for a generation. So at least Israel had an idea. Trump seemed to have no idea and seemed to think that it wasn't even possible that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz. And now he has this idea that he's going to get the Europeans to help him open it back up, which I'm so confused here. I thought we have a trillion dollar military, right? Aren't we like the biggest, most well-funded military and the history of the world. And we need France and like Britain to send ships up and down the Strait of Hormuz. Like we can't do that ourselves. Well, I think to your point, you're right.

He likely didn't anticipate that this would happen. And also apparently we can't do it ourselves. That, you know, it's a very, it's a very tight spot there and they can fire from the sea or from the land at the ships there. Here's a question for you. Speaking of our in a event, ability to do this. The USS Gerald Ford, right? First, it had this massive sewage problem. Now it's got this problem where the drier area caught fire burned up to 600 bunks. So like sailors are now sleeping on floors, on tables. They're investigating whether or not it was sabotage from the sellers themselves. There was some reporting that the sewage blockup came from t-shirts and clothes that were flushed down the toilets.

I don't know anybody that accidentally flushes t-shirts down a toilet. You ever met anybody that does that? Not off the top of my head, do I remember meeting somebody who does that? Now, who's on this ship? Thousands upon thousands of, I would suspect, very angry 19-year-olds who were sent to Venezuela to do that operation and then told they were going to go home. And instead of that, sent all the...

way across the world to now do a war with Iran, and they know that war started killing 160-plus little girls at an elementary school. Alternate possibility, or it could be a combination of both, the infrastructure on our aging military equipment because of the ridiculous defense industrial complex is horrible. You can get the best toilet Lowe's has to offer, and if you flush t-shirts down it. Do you know how hard it would be to get a government contract for better toilets on the USS? Yes, they already have $25,000 toilets, sure. But even those, you flush T-shirts down, they're going to clog up. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't rule that out at all.

Wouldn't rule either possibility out at all, or a combination of both. Trump was also salty. We played a little bit of him talking about Ukraine, but he was also salty about Ukraine. We can rule this next element in the amount of money that the U.S. has put it into that conflict. When they say it was a threat, but we're not going to help, I think they're very foolish. You know, it's interesting,

because I could say this, that what's happening in Ukraine, we're probably in there for $400 billion. We don't spend any money anymore. They buy it from us and they pay full price. But Biden gave them between $350 and $400 billion of equipment in cash. Somebody's enough to find out about the cash. And you could say that wasn't a threat, you know, we're helping them. So we helped them, and they didn't help us.

And I think that's a very bad thing for NATO. So, Ryan, I got to say he's making a solid point there in the sense that he is correct that we put a lot of money into the war, continue to put a lot of money into the war in Ukraine, which is an approximate threat in a way for these European countries. that all want U.S. backing Ukraine. They're all backing Ukraine. It's much closer home to them. Actually, technically so is Iran.

But this is his point about NATO in general that even people in NATO have conceded that they should have been putting more money into NATO. They should have been meeting their NATO commitments. Since he took over his first term, this has been the big fight. And he's not incorrect that Ukraine was a much, much bigger threat.

The incursion into Ukraine was a much bigger threat. threat, or they at least saw it as a much bigger threat to themselves. But everyone in the U.S. Defense establishment also wanted to back Ukraine in the same way that everyone in the U.S. Defense established. It's the same, it's not as though, I mean, Trump sees it as, oh, we were doing them a favor. But the U.S. defense establishment sees it as they're doing us a favor because they think Putin's going to take over all of Russia. Right. We're not in all of Europe. Yeah, we're not in the business of doing charity for anybody, including Europe. Yes. Right. The money is funneling right back into our weapons industries.

And we love strategically to be able to, quote unquote, bleed Russia. And our new conservatives are still stuck in 1973 and truly believe that this is the Soviet Union that Putin wants to. Actually, they believe maybe it's even pre-Soviet Union that he wants, he has his designs on all of Europe. he's going to march into, you know, Paris if you give him the Donbos. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are out of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart.

And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on I Heart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Hi, this is Joe Winterstein, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast, where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And I just sat down with a mini driver.

The Irish traveler said when I was 16, you're going to have a terrible time with men. Actor, storyteller, and unapologetic, Aquarian. visionary. Aquarius is all about freedom-loving and different perspectives, and I find a lot of people with strong placements in Aquarius are misunderstood. A son and Venus in Aquarius in her seventh house spark her unconventional approach to partnership. He really has taught me to embrace people sleeping in different rooms, on different houses, in different places, but just an embracing of the isness of it all. If you're navigating your own transformation or just want to chart-side view into how a leading artist integrates astrology, creativity, and real life, this episode is a must listen.

Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Why hasn't a woman formerly participated in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade? Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age? What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly pop up? up every year. He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 23 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman, and these are just a few of the questions I'm

tackling on no grip, a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guest and I will go deeper into the wacky mishap, scandals, and sagas, both on the track and far away from it, that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to no grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. There is an interesting development this week that suggests how kind of but hurt isn't the word, but like how deeply kind of America's national security complex is struggling with how this war is going, that a column in Al Jazeera, written by a professor in Doha, went mega-viral among our elites here in the United States because it told them

the opposite of what they've been absorbing, which is that we're losing, and this has been a strategic catastrophe of epic proportions. And the headline is, you can put up A4, the U.S. Israeli strategy against Iran is working, here's why. So this went everywhere. But if you read it, you're like, wait a minute, I don't think these points are true. It's not that you can agree or disagree with the argument that's being made, but they're just fundamentally actually incorrect. And the key one, and I'll read it from it here, the guy says, but this framing inverts the strategic logic. Closing the straight of her moves was always Iran's most visible retaliation. card and always a wasting asset. About 90% of Iran's own oil exports pass through Karg Island and

then the strait. China, Tehran's largest remaining economic partner, cannot receive Iranian crude while the strait is shut. Every day the blockade continues, Iran severes its own economic lifeline and alienates the one major power that has consistently shielded it at the United Nations. The closure does not just hurt the global economy. It accelerates Iran's isolation. So this essay just ripped around the national security establishment here in the United States. I'm saying, wait, maybe we are doing okay. It was in playbook yesterday.

Oh, my God, I did not see it was in playbook. Of course it was in playbook. It's everywhere. People are absolutely loving this. Like, oh, my God, thank you. Yes, we are actually whooping them. Except you're like, wait a minute. No, this was the exact flawed reasoning that led them to think they would.

wouldn't close the straight to begin with because they said, then they're not going to be able to get their own oil out. As if closing the straight builds like a wall across the water that no ships can get through. And they just like, it's closed, it's up, sorry, can't get through. Guys, that's not what it, there's no drawbridge that went down or something. Like, that's not how this works. What they're saying is if you're a ship that we don't want to get through, you can't get through. but if you're a ship that we're okay with getting through, go ahead. We'll tell you how to get through. And so they are exporting at least one million barrels per day. Iran is. And they're now telling

ships that if they trade in yuan, that they can get permission to go through. So there is plenty of Iranian oil going through. It's like, this is a really interesting moment because like, are our elites really this dumb? Or are they just so desperately, desperate for delusion that they're willing to not notice that this piece includes just straight up falsehoods? What do you make of this number that I see going around a lot in some of the same circles?

Iranian ballistic missile launches have fallen by more than 90% from 350 on February 28 to roughly 25 by March 14, according to publicly available data. Dron launches tell the same story for more than 800 on day one to about 75 on day 15. And the reason I want to get your take on that, Ryan, is actually because of the next element. Let's put Trey Yinks, who is the chief foreign correspondent for Fox News up on the screen. He said, new, Israel estimates it will take, quote, a few weeks to destroy the ballistic missile threat from Iran. Quote, it will take a few weeks more, a senior Israeli military official told Fox News.

They still have the capability to launch missiles. The official added that Iran aimed to launch tens of missiles a day at Israel but aren't able to do so. This is due to Israel in the U.S. striking the missiles and launchers belonging to the regime. We are hunting them, the official added. So on the one hand, we have news here that their missile capacity has been decimated. Launchers decimated. Drone, same thing. On the other hand, there's still several weeks to go.

I was hearing last week that this was just a two-week bombing run. That's all it would take. And here when we're getting competing things from these Israeli and U.S. sources. So I think to be objective about this, the answer is yes and no to that to your question here. So yes, we're seeing a massive decrease in the number of launches of both drones and ballistic missiles since day one. But people should ignore the percentage because on day one, they said they were going to make a theatrical point. Right. And that they were going to, you know, hit everybody extremely hard.

So they launched a huge number of rockets and drones. There was never an intention to keep up this, to keep up that massive day one pace. So for Israel and the U.S. to take credit for that massive reduction, misunderstands that, like, they also they didn't even have the capacity. Let's say they have 2,500 to 3,000 ballistic missiles. If they're doing 350 a day, that's less than two weeks and they're done. like even if Israel doesn't take out any of their capacity to launch. So there are finite limits to what they have. And so they calibrate that. And so they reduced the amount that they were shooting. Israel has also been, you know, and in the U.S. have completely like smashed Iran's air defenses, particularly in the west and the south, I think less so on the east over the mountains, you know, closer to Pakistan. And so, yes, they've had some serious, you know, tactical successes there. but they're still shooting them. They still have, they're now moving into their more sophisticated ballistic missiles.

The drones are much easier to import and also to produce. So they can, I think they can keep that up indefinitely. So the idea that they're going to completely eliminate all our capacity to project power, I think is foolish. Because they still have the capacity to rebuild. Yeah, you can, like, and they have, for 40 plus years, they've been developing a weapons industry to withstand a bombing campaign. And so they have entire factories under mountains. So what are you like, what are you like? Ground troops only. Right.

I guess, yeah. I mean, yes, you would, right. That's that, that really is it. And so I'd, I'd point people to Yemen. Yemen is much smaller and much poorer. And the U.S. spent many billions of dollars bombing them to smithereens during that short war, that they said it was going to go 90 days. And after a couple weeks, Trump said, that's it. Like, let's reach a deal. Huthies have said they'll stop firing at our ships.

We'll stop firing at them. If they stopped firing at our ships, call us over. And what he said afterwards was like, they were much tougher than we thought because their missile production and launch capacity was inside the mountains. And so ask yourself this.

Let's say you're, you know, Israeli defender here and you're thinking this through, like, if the U.S. with all of its firepower can't stop the Houthis from shooting. Without ground troops. Without ground troops. How are you going to stop the Iranians, a much bigger, wealthier country that has been planning for 40 years? Jeremy Schaul was saying yesterday that, you know, the underground capacity that they have makes what Hamas built in Gaza look like. look, JV. So, and also, it's such an asymmetrical conflict.

It doesn't take that much to continue causing chaos in Dubai. Which is why they needed the... Or to keep the straits closed. Just, you know, one drone hitting one ship, boom. And that's why all the bluster at the beginning of the war was about the Ayatollah being killed because they were expecting, again, it's Bay of Pigs-esque, they were expecting this takeover of the government. They were expecting people to rise up with much more force

than has happened so far. And when they say they didn't really need that to happen, you know, the Kurds, immaterial, whatever, to your point, that's the ground troop. Those are the ground troops that the U.S. was hoping would accomplish this on the, like that's when, to all this points about their infrastructure, that's what they needed to have happen.

And they're downplaying that now. But that's where you end up getting the goalposts, continuing to be shifted further and further out. Right. Yeah. And the idea that the Kurds were going to lead a revolution there, I think was fantastical. Or the Shah's supporters were going to,

or some combination of both. They tried to pull off, and we'll talk about this in the next block. They tried to pull off a major demonstration, anti-government demonstration yesterday. didn't really seem to materialize. You've got the Baloch down in the south, but they're not interested in kind of taking over the country.

We've got the Azeris next to the Kurds, but they're not, like, that's not going to work. Peseshki and Khamenei actually has some roots in the Azeri population. So it's like that's probably not going to fly. Well, it's okay with the Trump administration because here is economic advisor, Kevin Hassett, on CNBC yesterday, saying, this work would go on forever and our economy will be just fine. Maybe not for you, but fine. U.S. economy is fundamentally sound, and that if it were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all.

It would hurt consumers, and we'd have to think about, you know, if that continued, what we would have to do about that. But that's, like, really the last of our concerns right now, because we're very confident that this thing is going ahead of schedule. In the same breath there, he said it wouldn't hurt the economy, it would hurt consumers, Ryan. And that's really the last of our concerns. That's perfect. Saying that it won't hurt the economy, it will hurt consumers is actually the perfect distillation of how people... Actually, a lot of the people has it has spent years criticizing. Think about the economy.

Stock's going to keep going up. That's the economy. The economy is the markets. The good news is that you, don't really do much consumption anymore anyway, because you have no money. Something like, what, 80% of the, I don't know if we have the latest charts,

huge portion of consumer activity is now done by the top 10 to 20%. Yes, it is like 80%. So that's one reason they don't actually care as much about the consumer economy because we have systematically destroyed the consumer economy

by making sure that people don't have money to spend. I would also then like to ask Kevin Hassett, what was all of the Liberation Day about then? If the consumers aren't the economy, what was that about? You never thought you'd hear a White House telling the public, hey, a wet person shouldn't be afraid of the rain. Don't worry. It's going to get worse.

But that's the last of our concerns. But I mean, him saying that and saying it rather poorly suggests that they were not prepared for a long-term impact. And they now are trying to downplay. the obvious harms that would come from long-term impact or from a longer war, more drawn-out war and are kind of doing this on the fly. That's my impression of what we're getting from this, is that they didn't expect in a midterm year to have to defend a wartime economy. And now the goalpost keeps getting shifted. Israel's saying, oh, three more weeks, three more weeks. That's

what they're telling Fox News. And Trump is saying, we could keep doing this as long as we want. We've already won, but we're going to keep going as long as we possibly can. Yeah. And granted, we gave the nastiest possible interpretation of what he said there. I don't think he earned the benefit of doubt, so I don't feel bad. But he did say, tucked in the middle there, we can do something about the consumer concerns, which what he's implying there is that they could do some sort of stimulus, I think, like some kind of government intervention that's going to help consumers, which I don't know if that's actually true, if they could actually have the will to do that or the plan to do that, but he was suggesting

that they could do that. So, okay, even if consumers do get hurt, we can do something. We'll help you guys out, don't worry. So you feel better? Does that help? I hope you feel better. Canadian women are looking for more. More out of themselves, their businesses, their life.

elected leaders and the world around them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on I Heart Radio or wherever you listen to your podcasts.

Hi, this is Joe Winterstein, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast. where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And I just sat down with a mini driver. The Irish traveler said when I was 16, you're going to have a terrible time with men. Actor, storyteller,

and unapologetic, Aquarian visionary. Aquarius is all about freedom-loving and different perspectives, and I find a lot of people with strong placements in Aquarius are misunderstood. A son and Venus and Aquarius in her seventh, Spark her unconventional approach to partnership. He really has taught me to embrace people sleeping in different rooms, on different houses,

and different places, but just an embracing of the isness of it all. If you're navigating your own transformation or just want to chart side view into how a leading artist integrates astrology, creativity, and real life, this episode is a must listen. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you. you listen to your podcast. Why hasn't a woman formally participated in a Formula One

race weekend in over a decade? Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age. What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year? He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction.

And how did a 2023 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman, and these are just a few of the questions I'm tackling on No Grip,

a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport. In each episode, a different guests and I will go deeper into the wacky mishaps, scandals, and sagas, both on the track and far away from it, that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years.

Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, let's move on to the embassy in Baghdad, Ryan, really striking footage coming out of Iraq yesterday. Let's put B1 up on the screen. Maybe, Ryan, you can tell us what people are seeing. Yeah, this is, so you're seeing a lot of footage emerge out of Baghdad where regular people are on the streets are just are capturing these incredible kind of air battles between the green zone air defenses and the drones that are. coming mostly from Iraqi militias. And as you see there, that one didn't, but wasn't stopped.

And you saw a massive explosion inside the U.S. Embassy compound there. So these Iraqi militias were empowered by us during the 2003 invasion. Iraq is a Shia majority country and had been run by a Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein, when we toppled Saddam. We then allowed the, you know, the political rise of the Shia population, which is very closely aligned with Iran. Iran sent its own kind of forces and support into Iraq. They were saying at the time, ironically, because you'll recognize this reasoning, it's better for us to fight them there than to fight them here. Very American argument. We have to fight them in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iran so that they don't fight us here in New York.

York City. Except when our politicians say that it sounds absurd because it's like they're not fighting us here. What are you talking about? Now there was 9-11, but they're not otherwise not invading the United States. Well, I mean, the great irony is that you create the ISIS comes out of the post-9-11 Middle Eastern conflicts and very intentionally takes the fight here. Or they inspire people who take it here, yeah. Yeah. And so the Iranians felt like this was a way to stave off an attack on Iran was to keep keep us bogged down in Iraq. And I guess it worked for 23 years. And so all of the strategies inside Iran who were forecasting that the U.S. and Israel were intending to attack Iran at some point. And so we need to stave that off as long as possible.

They've been shown to be correct there. Our kind of occupation of Iraq was expected then to enable us to project more power, you know, throughout the, throughout the region. We built one of the biggest, or one of the biggest embassies, the Green Zone in the world in Baghdad. We can put up B2 here. And so the Iraqi militias have this very ripe and nearby target that they can, that they have always threatened. Like if you hit Iran, the big, the big strategic vulnerability that the U.S. has always had, is this, what you're looking at right here. This is the green zone. And so this is an Iraqi drone that they published this video of them flying for something like two minutes kind of uninterrupted throughout the green zone using technical, using a communication that are

unable to be jammed because they're so close. Like Iran couldn't do this because they're too far away, but because the Iraqis are right nearby, they can just do this. And then those drones go in and they hit whatever they want to hit. You know, they have kind of free reign. And so you're seeing like massive explosions and huge risk to whatever service members or Americans are still there. You know, a lot of them obviously were evacuated knowing that this was going to happen. And meanwhile, the U.S. attacks continue to be completely insane, or the U.S. and Israel, which we do B3 here, we put up this.

So we start the war by hitting a girl school, which on, if you looked at it on a satellite image, you could see chalk on the, you could see purple chalk on the, you know, near the playground. You could tell it was a school. It was marked on Google Earth, literally. as the school that, like, Google Earth had the name, like, of the school on there. Now, we've hit a boys' school that's called Shahed Khomeini Elementary Boys School in Shiraz-Iran. And people are like, how did we do this again? And Trita Parsi points out that Shahed is in the name of the school.

Hopefully we're not hitting everything named Komeni. Yeah. But Shahed is a very common name, but commonly used word, but it's the brand of the drones that Iran sells to Russia and Iran is using to hit U.S. bases. So the most logical explanation here is that an intern or AI or a combination saw the word Shahhead and we're like, oh, ha ha, we found one of their factories. Let's bomb it. Instead, they bomb in elementary school.

reminds me of another one treata flagged where they've been hitting all of the different police like headquarters that they can find they bombed in Tehran a thing called police park which that's just the name of a park

it's like trees benches grass and we dropped a massive bomb on police park just because it's labeled police schools are close in Iran right now so that's the silver lining here right so Right, because the girl's school was hit before they understood they were getting attacked.

It was right away, yep. Yeah. Which, again, for all the people who said Iran hit it, Iran wasn't even firing yet. Because Iran, like, we started the war, and then Iran responded a few hours later. Immediately it was ridiculous. Right, it was like only one side was firing. We're like, it must have been them. Yeah.

Ryan, there's this dropside article we wanted to talk about, too, before we can put this up on the screen, the political uncertainty, as you all write about in Iraq right now, is hanging over the conflict. Break this down for us. Yeah, so for people who followed the kind of Iraq War 20 years ago, remember the name Noriel Maliki, who was, you know, something of a U.S. ally. Yeah. We always had some, there was always a little, you know, he wasn't a curveball or whatever. He wasn't like a total, like, American plant, but he was, like, American ally.

But because there is some actual democratic pressure and expressions in Iraq now, as they're actually, you know, anyway, he is responsive to a lot of the anti-American hostility. And so he's become less of a reliable ally. than the U.S. would like in that place because the U.S. is like, hey, waiting. I thought we do a war, we install people, like, they're supposed to then just do exactly what we say. Because we don't seem to acknowledge that Iraq is an actual democracy in the sense that they have elections. Oh, we acknowledge it. That was our mission being accomplished. Because every day I'm told that there's only one democracy in the Middle East.

Yeah. Every time, wait a minute, didn't we, didn't a whole bunch of Americans die to make another one? What about Lebanon? I constantly hear about them having elections. Because they can't ever form a government's name of another election, another election, another election. What is that? Why doesn't that count? Is that not the Middle East?

Anyway, never mind. The only democracy is the one where half the population isn't allowed to vote. So we're now in a place where we're destabilizing Iraq to a very significant degree. I mean, we've roughly been in that place for 20 years. But yes. Kind of re-distabilizing, I guess, would be the word for it. You've got Mukta Sadr, who was a powerful Shiite, is a powerful Shia cleric, was a key nationalist figure during the kind of insurgency against the U.S. occupation.

And he has been encouraging, again, the Iraqi population to unite along Sunni and Shia lines, not to understand who the enemy is, and he means the U.S. and Israel, Sistani, who's another major figure, kind of the, maybe the most revered Shia figure, both in Iraq and Iran, issued a fatwa of sorts that didn't go all the way to saying that all Shias ought to fight, you know, on behalf of Iran against the U.S. and Israel, but kind of got very close to that. And so this is, you know, we spent, we lost thousands of American lives and spent, what, trillions of dollars as part of this strategic play to, like, take over the Middle East. And the place where we did it is not remotely kind of reliable for us at this point.

And you continue to have these like crash landings where you've got refueling jets flying over Iraqi airspace, and then the militias are firing at them. It's already, like, an impossible task to try to refuel a jet. Like, just the idea of that at, like, 500 miles an hour or whatever you're going and trying to refuel a jet. They're the best of... And then you've got the, then you're getting shelled from the ground. Yeah. Yeah. So we had one crash. We had another one doing emergency landing recently. So, yeah, it's, it's not good for us. There's a real, like, poetic tragedy to the side-by-side in Iran and Iraq right now, watching the prior experiment in nation building, which this president condemned.

I don't even need to say this. It's so obvious. I don't actually have to explain it. But watching that experiment continue to crash and burn while you've just started another experiment that's even, that's fueling the continued spiraling of the prior conflict. it's just heartbreaking. Yeah, it really, it really truly is. And let's make it worse. Yes.

Let's put the next element on the screen. This is a Guardian report. UK Security Advisor attended U.S. Iran talks and judged deal was within reach. Ryan, this reminds me of some of the reports we got early in the Ukraine conflict, as Nafthali Bennett, who then retracted his claim and others would say, listen, these negotiations were really close, but U.S. didn't want Zelensky to make a deal. earlier. This actually kind of reminds me of this. Yes. The difference here is that there's still some reasonable debate over whether or not

Putin was serious about and was actually willing to go through with, even if the U.S. said, okay, we'll accept all these terms. I think he probably would have been. But there's some reasonable debate about whether or not he would have been. It really isn't reasonable debate here. And one thing I, this Guardian reporting makes me proud of the drop site reporting that we did in the run-up to the war because what I've always tried to make our North Star is to tell people things in real time when they're still actionable. Yeah. Rather than doing the really impressive TikTok reporting about what happened in the past. That's such a good point. When it's too late. Yeah. And you all, in the U.S. media you get so much of the, and the UK too, get so much of the,

post-mortem. Here's what, post-mortem stuff. I don't want the, I don't want the mort. Like, I don't want that. Pre-mortem. Pre-mortem. So that you don't morton. Yes.

That's the whole point, right? Step in the mort. To give people the information. So Jeremy had a piece where, you know, he didn't use the word surprising. It was like, unbelievable, I think, was the word that was used to describe what, the Iranians were offering in these talks. And so what the Guardian is reporting here is that Jonathan Powell was one of the top Britain's national security advisors sat in on the U.S. and Iran talks. And they write, he, quote, judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear program was

significant enough to prevent a rush to war. The Guardian can reveal Powell thought progress had been made in Geneva in late February and that the deal proposed by Iran was, quote, surprising, according to sources. And so he's saying, We heard unbelievable. He's saying surprising that like the concessions and we also heard that the concessions they were making would like be stunning and surprising, et cetera to like the 2015, 2014 Obama era negotiators that they that Iran went far beyond what they had offered previously. And instead they went nowhere. One source said that there was quote widespread concern about the U.S. expertise on the talks

represented by Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Steve Whitkoff, Trump's special envoy on several issues. The Guardian is reporting here what we kind of already saw in public that, like, Whitkoff and Kushner didn't really know what they were talking about and didn't understand? This is nuclear stuff.

I don't blame them for not understanding, and I wouldn't. I mean, I blame them, but yes. You're supposed to have a technical advisor. So this guy, Powell, brought a technical advisor with him. who would translate to him, like, what all of these things mean. And Whitkoff, whenever he would go out and publicly talk about things, he would say, like, industrial grade. And it's like, well, what is it?

There's no such thing as industrial grade. Like, that's not even a word that people use. There's weapons grade. I think that's what you mean. Like, so what it really fueled was the idea that they were just not remotely serious about, about reaching a deal. that it was, that they were just going through the motions. And so, um, well, so is some of that then crossed wires or, because I mean, we don't know what Whitkoff and Kushner would have

agreed to if they had been accurately informed, I suppose. Maybe that's an impossible. But maybe they were told, forget it. Like, we're not actually making a deal. So it doesn't matter. Yeah. Um, there's, they quoted, well, they, they quote a Gulf diplomat in the guardian saying, quote, we regarded Whitkoff and Kushner as Israeli assets that drag, the president into a war he wants to get out of. That might be a little generous to the president. Like, their assignments, if they were serious about the talks, find somebody who understands nuclear physics and the nuclear industry.

And they take notes. They sit next to you. They take notes. And then you talk about it later. As you hear Whitkoff talk about it now, like, you're like, God, because he'll say things like, they told us they have. 11 bombs and they're and they're proud of that and the Iranians afterwards like that we didn't say that we said we have a certain amount of material at 60 percent you know if that's at 60 percent

it could go higher and make bombs or we can have you know we can dilute it if you'd like we can have Russia take it like we're willing to this is what we have yeah and we're willing to then you suggest things we'll suggest things to make it so that you feel comfortable that it doesn't get weaponized. So this Guardian report pops the same day that as we covered earlier in the show, NATO basically says, no, we're not doing the straight-of-form-use thing, not happening, which may have been intentional. It may have been a strategic effort to kind of explain or to flesh out the reasoning without, you know, explicitly saying we were there and we thought that this war never had to happen, that there was actually an achievable goal on the table that

probably would have been better than war, whatever the end of the war actually looks like. So that's actually possible. It's the reason this is popping in The Guardian. Could be, yeah. And possible it explains. There are all kinds of explanations for why the NATO countries might not want to get involved with the straight of her moves, but this would be one of them. Yeah, no, yeah, it certainly could be. Also, like, there's no military solution, really. Well, like, if there was a military solution to it, the U.S. would be able to carry it out on its own. Well, so this is, let's put B6 on the screen.

the Washington Post report from John Hudson yesterday. Senior Israeli officials have told U.S. diplomats that Iranian protesters, quote, will get slaughtered if they take to the streets against their government, even as Israel publicly calls for a popular uprising. According to a State Department cable, not an anonymous source, a State Department cable reviewed by the Washington Post. Very significant, Ryan. Yes. And B8 kind of backs that up. If we can put up this, this is a drop site report from from last night, as Israel calls for an uprising in Iran, besieged militias vow to crush opposition to the state. So that's sort of backing up Israel's claim. So the security services in Iran are signaling very publicly at this point that they're going to see protests at this point

as insurgency, basically. That, you know, there were several days of protests in December, January, or, you know, early January that were met with a very hands-off response. And then by like the third day or so, there was this massive crackdown. As, and as the Iranians say, like the Israeli infiltrators, Massad, et cetera, started firing at security forces. They fired back. Either way, there was a couple of days where it's like, hey, if people are upset about the currency crash, we're going to allow these protests to go. And then at some point they didn't.

Now they're saying forget it. Like the second that there are protests, there's going to be a crackdown. So this is a rare case of kind of Israeli intelligence and kind of Iranian public statements aligning. So there was supposed to be some protests last night. It didn't seem to be much that materialized. And you can imagine why. Like if you're, it's clear that it would be. be very difficult to mask that amount of people.

Even as the Israelis are bombing, they're bombing the heck out of Basij, checkpoints and others. Energy supplies in UAE. And so, yeah, so now Iran is like, is retaliating against energy infrastructure. There's been this alleged dispute within, between the U.S. and Israel, where the U.S. has been telling Israel not to bomb Iranian oil infrastructure. They hit it anyway. And their argument was now Iran is going to bomb all the Gulf oil infrastructure. But now Trump is out there. They hit Karg Island, but they hit parts apparently away from the infrastructure on the island.

After, of course, Brian Kilmead instructed the president to do this in Fox and Friends. We covered that last week. Yeah, go ahead. And Iranians keep saying, you're in this place, oil island. Then Iranians keep saying, if you want to take oil island, please make a day. Yeah. Putting thousands of American troops on one little island where the Iranians can just fire at them from three directions would be just a military catastrophe. Canadian women are looking for more. More to themselves, their businesses, their elected leaders, and the world are of them. And that's why we're thrilled to introduce the Honest Talk podcast. I'm Jennifer Stewart. And I'm Catherine Clark. And in this podcast, we interview Canada's most inspiring

women. Entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, politicians, and newsmakers, all at different stages of their journey. So if you're looking to connect, then we hope you'll join us. Listen to the Honest Talk podcast on IHeartRadio or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Hi, this is Joe Wintersstein, host of the Spirit Daughter podcast, where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And I just sat down with a mini driver. The Irish traveler said when I was 16, you're going to have a terrible time with men. Actor, storyteller, and unapologetic Aquarian visionary. Aquarius is all about freedom-loving and different perspectives,

and I find a lot of people with strong placements in Aquarius are misunderstood. A son and Venus and Aquarius in her seventh house spark her unconventional approach to partnership. He really has taught me to embrace people sleeping in different rooms, on different houses and different places, but just an embracing of the isness of it all. If you're navigating your own transformation or just want to chart-side view into how a leading artist

integrates astrology, creativity, and real life, this episode is a must listen. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcast. Why hasn't a woman formerly participated in a Formula One race weekend in over a decade?

Think about how many skills they have to develop at such a young age. What can we learn from all of the new F1 romance novels suddenly popping up every year? He still smelled of podium champagne and expensive friction. And how did a 2023 event called Wagageddon change the paddock forever? That day is just seared into my memory. I'm culture writer and F1 expert Lily Herman, and these are just a few of the questions I'm tackling on no grip. a Formula One culture podcast that dives into the under-explored pockets of the sport.

In each episode, a different guest and I will go deeper into the wacky mishap, scandals and sagas, both on the track and far away from it that have made F1 a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to no grip on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's talk about Joe Kent. He had enough. Saga and Crystal covered this yesterday. obviously one of the highest-ranking intelligence officials in the Trump administration, Joe Kent, resigned with a letter. We're learning more and more. We're getting the post-mortems, as Ryan mentioned earlier in the show, about what exactly went on behind the scenes. As Joe Kent, who was in charge of counterterrorism work, close to Tulsi Gabbard, he posts his resignation letter yesterday, delivers it to the president.

apparently behind the scenes, J.D. Vance had told him on Monday to just think about it. Just think a little bit about this because they had a conversation when Joe Kent said he was going to resign. Trump gets asked about this in the Oval Office yesterday. After the news breaks, this is C-1. Your director of National Counterterrorism, Joe Kent, he just resigned today. He said he can't support your conflict with Iran. What's your reaction to that? And did you talk to him?

Well, I read his statement. I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security. I didn't know him well, but I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy. But when I read a statement, I realized that it's a good thing that he's out because he said that Iran was not a threat. Iran was a threat. Every country realized what a threat Iran was.

The question is whether or not they wanted to do something about it. So in his resignation letter, Kent said he did not believe Iran posted an imminent threat. You may remember, Tulsi Gabbard herself, testified in Congress. What was that last April, Ryan, before midnight hammer, that Iran was not building nuclear weapons. Tulsi Gabbard's actually set, again, to testify in front of Senate intel today around 10 a.m., so we'll be getting more from that. But this is Tulsi Gabbard's statement. We'll put this up on the screen.

Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our president and commander in chief. As our commander in chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat. And whether or not to take action, he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people, and our country. The office of the director of national intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence, provide the president and commander chief with the best information available to inform his decisions. After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat,

and he took action based on that conclusion. So, Ryan, reading between the lines of that, it's not hard to see Tosi Gabbard is hardly embracing the claim herself that Iran posed an imminent threat. I saw Glenn slamming this as cowardly. I think Sager did as well. You know, to be honest, I have a totally different take on this, which is basically that I think it's good. there are remaining people in the Trump administration who, when these decisions are coming across

a transom, they're skeptical. And I would imagine that both Tulsi Gabbard and J.D. Manns were privately skeptical. If it's the case that they were not skeptical, that's a problem. That's significant. If they were sniffling and saying, oh, yes, this intelligence does appear to show an imminent threat, and that's what they were advising Donald Trump because they could tell that's what he wanted behind the scenes, that's terrible. I think it's... It was a brave decision from Joe Kent, too. So I don't know what's happening behind the scenes. The problem on the Tulsi point, though, is there's no evidence that she has any influence in there.

She's been apparently cut out of briefings. Right. So if you're, and Kent probably was too. If you're, so if the argument for staying in is that you're going to use your, you're going to sell your soul and like it's to base yourself. But internally you're going to be able to make the argument. That's one thing. but if you're also cut out of the process, like, you know,

Saga probably has more influence in there than Tulsi at this point. Well, they'll, they would replace her with a, like, total stooge at some point. So if I had to, like, do I think it's a profile in courage? Likely not. I'm not saying that. But I also am not, like, clamoring for some ceremonial resignation, though I think what Joe Kent did in specifically citing

his disagreement being over the question of an imminent threat was brave as well. So I'm not coming down hard on either side of it, but I also just don't think it's the worst thing in the world to still have somebody who may be. Like, we have a chance that she's being skeptical behind the scenes. Whoever her replacement would be, I'm sure that's not true at all. But a second one, the last thing Tulsi has to do to me is that's the only power she has left is to make a, a principled resignation. Yeah.

Because then you'd have two back to back, which would tell the public something more than just the one? Yeah, and she's testifying in front of Congress today, which by the time this airs, what I said may age poorly. Maybe she's saving it for there, and she's going to just go full worth and resign right there in front of Congress. But what I just said may age very poorly in the next, like, hour because she's probably going to go to Congress today

and agree that there was an imminent threat. somewhere or another, even though she didn't in her statement after Joe Kent. Probably right. Yeah, it may age poorly in just an hour's time. We never lost money betting on Tulsi to Cave. The reports yesterday were coming out of a place like Fox News where people were just citing anonymous administration officials. Did you see this happening all day?

Anonymous administration officials were saying that Kent was, quote, a leaker, a known leaker. They leaked that he was a leaker. Incredible stuff. And it was getting passed on seriously by people who are otherwise skeptical of the media, but are generally supportive of Trump's war, being like, see, this is Kent had to go, Kent had to go. And it's like, maybe apply a little bit of skepticism to anonymous leaks about someone else being a leaker. But that, yeah, I saw Fox News had that yesterday.

Other news outlets had that yesterday. Just completely ridiculous. Completely ridiculous stuff all around. Ben Shapiro, not a fan of Joe Kent's resignation letter. Let's roll C3. Joe Kent put his job at the National Counterterrorism Center and issued a scathing letter designed to undermine President Trump. The letter is deeply, deeply conspiratorial.

It states openly that, quote, Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. Now, that is conspiracy trash. It's also kind of strange since President Trump has said that it's conspiracy trash. So apparently Trump is so deeply, deeply enthrall to those strange, powerful American lobbies. We're not going to say it. We're not going to say it. That he apparently has been so bamboozled by them that he's still under the impression that he's his own man.

But here's the thing. President Trump is his own man. He makes his own decisions. And as for our usual arrangement, Trump's critics are cowards who are simply unwilling to acknowledge that Trump is the one making the call. But Joe Kent continued, quote, Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First Platform and sowed pre-war sentiments to encourage a war of Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posted imminent threats of the United States and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory.

This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq War that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women. Again, the idea here seems to be that President Trump is a moron misled into war by nefarious Israelis and unnamed influential members of the American media. Don't say it, don't say it. Again, apparently, President Trump has no agency and no thoughts. Kent's letter is replete with this conspiratorial idiocy, including, as we just saw, the idea that it was Israel that forced the original Iraq war, an idea totally and utterly unsupportable by any evidence given the fact that the actual prime minister of Israel at the time,

Ariel Sharon opposed the Iraq war. This stuff is brain rot. Now listen, we should all be thankful for Joe Kent's long and honorable military service. We can also be glad that he's leaving, since his ideology is the same as that of Tucker Carlson, the guy who says that the war is disgusting and evil and who has been busy sexting with the mullahs.

Tucker Carlson calls Kent a personal friend and quote the bravest man I know. Frankly, I think that it is a good thing that Kent is not in this position. We cannot have a director of counterterrorism who is somehow advocating preemptive surrender to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism in the middle of a war. In that letter, Kent also talked about his wife being killed, and let me read exactly from the letter, quote, in a war manufactured by Israel, and his wife was killed in an ISIS bombing in 2019 in Syria.

So Kent really going all the way in. I would argue there's more evidence to say that Israel fueled Syria and civil. war. Then there is that they drove us to war in Iraq. We had our own motivations to go to war in Iraq. But there were plenty of other reasons that Syria descended into civil war that weren't Israel. Although Israel certainly did fuel it and a benefit from it and annihilate the Syrian military after Al-Shara took over, etc. But it is interesting that he's laying everything on Israel there. This is pretty this pretty maximalist take. Yeah. Well, but then at the same time, to dismiss it as entirely conspiracy trash,

it's basically like the same level of CIA intentionally calling things conspiracy theories when you have the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the House, saying, we struck when we did because of Israel. That is just the plain fact. They said that. They have, of course, fleshed the point out by saying it was the precipitating factor of the when it happened. That was the reason for the exact time. And so, yes, there's nuance to it. But they literally said that. And so to claim that what Kent is building here in the argument is just conspiracy trash, that's completely ridiculous. Now, I've said before,

like, I'm, I think we should put blame, plenty of the blame on ourselves because there are a whole lot of people here in the United States, whether because they support Israel or they have other reasons for wanting to take down Iran. They want to take down Iran. They've been wanting to do this for decades. We didn't just do this because of Israel, but it would be, the actual conspiracy theory would be to say that the actions of Israel had nothing to do with when we attacked. Yeah, and I feel like what's a little bit of what's going on here. You tell you. me on the right is they they're new to this kind of anti-war posture and they're kind of feeling their way around it and it and Israel is something that they can hold on to and feel stable in

their criticism of U.S. war efforts and so it's just kind of simpler to say Israel made us do all of these things rather than looking in Medusa's face and staring it down and saying oh no no Like, yes, they're along for the ride, but they're a client. And the U.S. itself is quite capable of driving all of these, you know, horrific adventures without Israel. Is Israel gladly along for the ride and instigating at times? No doubt about it. But to put all of the blame over there feels like a way to kind of wash ourselves of some of the responsibility. Well, I think the anti-war left comes to its position from an anti-war.

like a generally like anti-imperialist and often, especially the modern left, anti-American, anti-Western perspective, whereas the anti-war right comes at it from a pro-American perspective over and over again. And that's where the people like... Yeah, and that's going to be hard as you learn more. It's a different square to circle. Yeah. That's where the people like Ben Shapiro are used to dismissing everybody who's anti-war as anti-American.

And so that's how, you know, Tucker Carlson's constantly, like, called an America hater. Right. Or Joe Kent probably, even though he served his country, his wife died for this country, is going to be called an America hater too. People on the anti-war left in the, like, 60s and 70s, who many people were veterans, got used to being called anti-American. In some cases, they would legitimately qualify as anti-American.

But from the right, I think that's a good point, Ryan. It's coming at it from different angles. Right. They're like, I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-Israel. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You have a scapegoat. Don't blame the king, blame his advisors.

Don't blame his advisors. You have a scapegoat, absolutely. And in some cases, is that genuinely, not just a trope, but actually anti-Semitic? Yeah, of course it is. I don't think it's anti-Semitic from Joe Kent, although he's been accused of that plenty of times. He had a big falling out with Nick Fuentes. I think they had a call about whether Fuentes would back him in that congressional race.

And he didn't? No, and they've, like, Kent is absolutely no fan of, of, of, Flintes and has spoken out against that sort of thing. But he's pretty hardcore and like the dissident right, put it that way. So that's an interesting, I think that's probably true, Ryan, that if you are the pro, if you're coming to this anti-war position from a pro-American perspective, you're looking for scapegoats. And none of this is to excuse or say that Israel's advice here or Israel's role here is innocent. It's not to say that at all. It's to say that we might be elevating them beyond what they what they deserve. Not in this case though. Now I think Trump

deserves a blame for going along with this, but Israel drove this war. Like this one, certainly compared to Iraq and Syria, you could say I think they were a driving force of it. Yeah. Yeah. But then you're getting into semantics. And that's the thing where it's like, this is with a conspiracy theory label is frustrating because it's ultimately labeling a semantic debate a conspiracy theory. It's elevating something that is a question of like, is Joe Kent literally saying the only reason for this war, it didn't have anything to do with Donald Trump? He's not saying that. He's saying that Israel played a major role in pushing us into this war. And he's using like what he would probably argue is persuasive language from his perspective to make the point.

But it's not completely like when you have the Secretary of State on tape saying what the Secretary of State said, it's not a conspiracy theory at that point. to say that they were part of what drove the war. And so maybe what you want is for him to use more careful language, that's the criticism that Ryan just made. And it's entirely fair. But to go and call it a conspiracy theory, that's actually, I mean, again, that's the conspiracy theory. And it's tricky because he's right about this one.

And so, and this is the one that we're in right now. He's right about the, yeah, right, right, right. He's correct about this one. Yeah. It's Joe Interesting, host of the Spirit, podcast where we talk about astrology, natal charts, and how to step into your most vibrant life. And today I'm talking with my dear friend, Krista Williams. It can change you in the best way possible.

Dance with the change. Dance with the breakdowns. The embodiment of Pisces intuition with Capricorn power moves. So I'm like delusionally proud of my chart. Listen to the Spirit Daughter podcast starting on February 24th on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to. to your podcast. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than No Grip,

a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F-1, including the story of the woman who last participated in a Formula One race weekend, the recent uptick in F-1 romance novels, and plenty of mishap scandals and sagas

that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to No Grip on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. I'm Clayton Eckerd. In 2022, I was the lead of ABC's The Bachelor. But here's the thing.

Bachelor fans hated him. If I could press a button and rewind it all I would. That's when his life took a disturbing turn. A one-night stand would end in a courtroom. The media is here. This case has gone viral. The dating contract. Agree to date me, but I'm also suing you.

This is unlike anything I've ever seen before. I'm Stephanie Young. Listen to LoveTrapped on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.