The Dispatch Podcast - The Right-Wing Revolt Against Supporting Israel | Interview: Curt Mills

Episode Date: August 11, 2025

What happens when America’s Middle East policy collides with conservative skepticism? Jamie Weinstein goes head-to-head with Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative, to unpack the politics, power plays, and high-stakes history behind U.S.–Israel relations. The Agenda: —Why some on the right don’t back Israel —Israel-Iran tensions —Israel’s endgame in the region —How U.S. politics gets shaped from abroad —The problem with “forever wars” —Epstein, Mossad, and the right-wing connection The Dispatch Podcast is a production of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Dispatch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and weekly livestreams—⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch Podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is Kurt Mills. He is executive director of the American conservative magazine. He is a representative of what you might call the Tucker Carlson right or the American conservative right or the Steve Bannon right, whatever you want to call it these days. We brought him on to give what that world is talking about, which is, I think, probably different from the dispatchian world. I was a little bit mean to him over the last probably. month or so on Twitter. So I thought I'd have them on the podcast to have these conversations in real life. They're frustrating at times. We'll let you determine whether he elides or answers directly some of the questions we have there or perhaps I was misunderstanding in some instances. But I think you're going to find this one. Interesting. It's certainly a worldview that probably is not heard too often in these quarters. So without further ado, I give you Mr. Kurt Mills. Kurt Mills, welcome to the Dispatch podcast. Thanks for having it, man.

Well, Kurt, this is our second attempt at this. Last time, a few weeks ago, my internet failed in my attempt to do this. And then you went off traveling for a little bit and were finally able to do this. I really appreciate you joining. As I mentioned, the beginning of our last failed attempt, I probably have some mean tweets about you online, and I felt, well, might as well have you on the podcast and talk about what I think is a very different view than me and a lot of people perhaps at the dispatch. Let me start here. After the October 7th, 2023 attacks, there were a lot of commentators on the right talking about it, particularly Jewish commentators. There was Tucker

Carlson going around saying, why are they focused on a foreign country? What happened there? We have fentanyl problems in the United States. And I associate kind of the Tucker wing of the party being kind of the American conservative and Steve Bannon. They're kind of in this oasis. But now you see on Tucker's podcast almost entirely like devoted to Israel, it's hard to get an episode that doesn't mention it or focus on it. Your Twitter account, you know, seems pretty devoted to the topic of Israel. Why is this wing so interested in Israel? Well, I don't, I confess, I don't really remember what Target was saying around 24 months ago on this. I mean, the most pointy thing that stands out to me was Trump's messaging on it, which was far from clear. I mean, if you might

remember a controversy where he literally complimented the military prowess of Hezbollah. The fissures on the right aren't just generated by the media. They've been generated by, I think, the statements that have been made by Trump over the years, the changes of the Republican Party and the conservative movement over the last 10 years, I just not prepared to comment on anything that Tucker said in October. And I also think Bannon's messaging has evolved in the last year. And so, again, I don't remember him saying anything to this effect, at least so stridently, two years ago. In general, I think a lot of the right deferred to Israel in the first three to six months of the war. war. So again, not to just try to avoid the technicality. To answer your question, though, why I think Tucker shows a little more ballast than you present it, but I'll take your point about my own public commentary. I think it's being driven by Israel, which is that this is a forever war and this is a forever war in which a foreign government is continually leveraging its ties and influence in the United States to get the U.S. involved. If this was, and I know people who don't share much

perspective, you know, repeatedly point out, you know, there's a lot of wars going on. Why do I not talk about this? Why do I not talk about the Congo-Rwanda war or the arguable genocide in Sudan? I think the answer is very simple. None of the parties in that war in general are asking for U.S. largesse to back a belligerent in the war versus the Israelis are. There have been, you know, obviously the Saudis in Yemen, the death toll there is much greater. They buy American F-16s and whatever the newest model is. I mean, if this was 2017, 2018, you can go, I would, I played a little straighter than I back then than I do now and just reporting wise.

But like, you know, if you go back to 1718, I was covering the Yemen War. I mean, I don't see any major difference. I'm against this. I'm against this in Russia, Ukraine. I'm against this in Israel, Palestine. I'm against Israel, Iran. I'm against intervening in civil wars for dubious national interest. is a pretty clean principle.

We'll get into kind of delve into some of those in a little bit. But I went back and tried to see what you tweeted after October 7th, and a lot of it was just analysis. But you did write an article, and it kind of ties in with the recent Iran strike. You wrote in the article, the heads of Saudi and Iranian governments, which were blood enemies at the beginning, at the beginning of 2023, just spoke on the phone on the need to oppose crimes against the Palestinians and pledge Islamic unity.

This stuff couldn't have a more summer 1914. That's a tweet. That actually wasn't an article, alluding to World War I. Recently before the Iran strike, I don't know of you particularly, but kind of the wing kind of warned about a potential World War III. I think this has become like a fake light motif. I mean, I think Carlson went pretty out there, but like not everything is World War III. Not everything is World War II. The idea that it didn't happen doesn't really like falsify the critiques. If you're alluding to a potential World War III, it does kind of suggest that perhaps. I think the U.S. do an Iran war. I mean, I think the U.S. could do an Iran war would be extremely costly. And I think we would be on the hook for rebuilding and handling the refugees from said war. I don't know if that would be World War III. It could be. But I think it would be like, the Iranians on the table right now is a better deal with the JCPOA or was on the table before the Israelis sabotaged it. So like, like, why would we do this? And then Israel, Palestine,

I think we've had a response to October 7th is from Israel at this point. And the actual source of instability there is that the Israelis will not give the Palestinians a state and their ancestral homeland, which, I mean, like, if that's what you think U.S. foreign policy should be about, expelling the current issue with what Israel is doing there. I mean, this is what's going. I mean, like, fundamentally, I think they want to annex the West Bank and they want to annex Gaza, redevelop it, and they're appealing to the president's vanity to try to get that done. And I think from there, I think they want to continually erode any Muslim power that gets in their

way. So the biggest Muslim power that's in their way right now is Iran. And if they topple Iran, I think they'll go to Egypt, Turkey. And I don't see this getting any better. I mean, to an extent, Netanyahu maybe a stabilizing force of Israeli politics, I think the future looks a lot more like Prime Minister Smotrich. Your interpretation of Israel's attack on Iran, their nuclear program. Well, we'll attack to try to draw in the Americans. But okay, yeah. They do a plan to do their own war. I still don't think we're sure of whether it might, I think the recent David Ignatius column in the Post suggests that the U.S. wanted to wait to see how successful Israel strike was and then decide what they were going to do, which would explain the initial Rubio statement the night

of the war. So we don't know to what extent there was coordinated. Well, I mean, Secretary of State's different things if in 12 hours. Rubio immediately, yes, just that the U.S. had nothing to do with it. So, like, I disagree with the, you know, I mean, I went on the Aramette show with the night of the attack. He was suving it for Jimmy Dore. So, This is sort of like, I don't know where Jimmy's politics are, I don't know. But like, Aaron Mate, I think it's fair to say, like, left-wing anti-war kind of person. And, like, you know, I had a argument with him at the time being like, you know, this wasn't coordinated in any real way between the U.S. and the Israelis.

That gets me in trouble among other restraint, anti-war voices, et cetera. I think, like, the forensic evidence is that Netanyahu gambled. The initial attack impressed the president of the United States. He wanted a piece of the action. And then once you realize that the consequence of a piece, of the action was a potential war, he got out and then started castigating Nanyahu again. I think that's the Ignatius piece said. Kind of neither here there.

My recollection is that the president wanted to see how the initial, it wasn't saying, don't do it. You know, I didn't get a yellow light. I think they had a yellow light. I guess my larger question is your interpretation of why Israel wanted to strike Iran's nuclear program doesn't account for any real fear by Israel a nuclear Iran. Yeah, I don't think they're not afraid of it. I mean, I think it is a fundamentally, like, fabricated issue.

Do you think among Israelis themselves? Because that's where I see a big disconnect here. I can't cycle-analyze the man on the street in Tel Avivate. You can talk to people in the, in, that understand is really politics. But, I mean, again, self-selecting. I generally talk to journalists and then people associated with the government. So, like, these are, these are by definition, I think, more plugged in people, one would assume. And, you know, I think in general, the Iran nuclear issue has been.

an issue meant as a stalking horse or a substitute for talking about Iran regime change. And the evidence of that is any time Iran is interpreted as weak, all of a sudden, you know, make Iran a great again, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and how loosely, how loose the talk is. And then additionally, the arguments against reasonable deals that keeps the Iranians at very low levels in enrichment that have above ground inspections, American inspector, these are all things. Iranians have been open to. Why do you think Iran Israel cares about Iran at all? I mean what makes them even care about Iraq? Oh, I mean, I think Iran is a

nationally, you know, one of the most powerful countries in the Middle East. I think Iran distrust, I think Israel just trusts basically every other country in the Middle East for somewhat understandable reasons. And then I think Iran is, it's not in the world system. You know, it's an Islamic power. There's no, it's in the name. There's, there's, there's, it's, it's, it's unambiguous. It's, it's, it's, it's, Your explanation does not account for them funding terror groups that have targeted Israel,

that has the law, which had put hundreds of 200,000 of missiles on Israel's border, calling the elimination of Israel. If things don't occur in a vacuum, like, I don't think, like, the Islamic Republic would exist if Israel had come to a accommodation to the Palestinians in the 60s. Political Islam itself is an outgrowth of Israeli militarism and arrogance. What did Israel do to Iran to get them to be defensive or offensive by putting proxies all around Israel? I mean, I think it's a well-documented fact that political Islam began rising throughout the region in the 60s and 70s. There was an attempted revolution in Saudi.

They occupied the whole waste sites. The government put it down. Some of these, most of these revolutions failed. The one in Iran did not, which is, you know, again, like not what people would have predicted. You would have predicted a Sunni power would become like this. It's very similar to communism. He would have predicted Germany or France would become like this, not agrarian Russia. That's the way it happened.

Just to be clear, in that explanation, why Iran cares about Israel or Israel cares about Iran, the genesis here is not anything Israel did to Iran. Like, Israel didn't say after 79, let's start a war with Iran. Israel did not reach an accommodation of the Palestinians, making the Palestinian issue a war cry throughout the Muslim world. And I think political actors capitalized on that. And I think the Israelis, if they wanted to maximize their safety, would come to an accommodation with the Palestinians.

But that's not really what they're about. They're about a larger, greater Israel, which they feel makes them safer. And a lot of that is born clearly, and I say this is a Gentile American, clearly born out of anxiety from what happened in World War II, and a lot of that is very sympathetic. I also fail to see how this is an American issue.

and I also fail to see how this is in the interest of the Israeli people. What I see is capital flight from Israel. I see people leaving. I see the country we come isolated. I think the stock market just hit an all-time high after the Iran war in Israel, and they have a pretty large tech boom. But I kind of still want to focus on this. Iran, which is a Shia power, as you mentioned,

doesn't seem that concerned about other Muslim suffering. I mean, they are seen by the Arab Street in a lot of ways is, far less corrupt than the Arab leaders. They are the protector of Hamas, in a sense. Are they allies with China? Iran? Yeah. I think they're very loose allies.

I think the axis of autocracies are overstated. They're friends with Iran. I mean, I'm not saying that they're going to go to China. I mean, I guess my point is they didn't care too much about the Uyghurs, the Muslim Uyghurs. So this is not like a power. Yeah, obviously, there's hypocrisy. So like, this is my answer. So like, if one being like arch-eastern,

enemies, like let's say the relationship between Israel and Iran is like a one. And let's say like the relationship between, I don't know, the United States and France is like an eight. Then I think the relationship between Iran and China is like a six, maybe a seven. And then accordingly, China's a big dog. And so like, yeah, there's going to be hypocrisy. You can get to be anti-Israel and you don't get to be anti-China on the Uyghurs. The bank gets back to my original point, I guess. trying, like your explanation of why Israel is worried about Iran, that why they attacked Iran initially gave no prospect that they cared about the threat from Iran. And my initial point was, why does Israel care about Iran in the first place?

And it's because Iran started a conflict with Israel by funding proxies and terror groups surrounding them. But that doesn't seem to jive with you. You seem to think it's only I didn't say the first part, and I didn't concede the second part. Do you not see the reason why they care about Iran being the fact that Iran made Israel its enemy, number one? Is it that like significant? Iran is a revolutionary state that gained currency and legitimacy with the own population as a defender and opponent of the West and Israel's. So you believe they gain legitimacy within their own population? I'm not sure that's true.

I'm not sure. I think that they might gain legitimacy with a Sunni-Ary. I'm not sure the people within Iran, what is your evidence for that? The Shah was requisitely unpopular. There was obviously a base level. I mean, go back to the Shah's own interview with Mike Wallace in 1976. He's castigating the Israel lobby. He's castigating Israel's overstretch.

He's obviously, he's a monarch, and whatever he wants. He's backed by the CIA, and even he felt the need to do this. So obviously he mis-managed, the situation. He's not, his family is not in charge of Iran. A revolutionary group came in, took over, and, you know, this was political tender for them. I don't think that's controversial. Well, I mean, I think it's a little more, they joined, like, communists to take over and then killed the communists and the more left-wing activists. My fundamental point was, it doesn't seem like you think there's a real threat that Israelis feel about Iran or should feel about Iran.

I can't speak for a foreign country. Number one, this is not America's business. But now that we have to talk about this because this country endlessly funds Israel and endlessly supports Israel diplomatically, that I guess I get to have an opinion on Israel. And from sitting here in Washington, D.C., this doesn't seem that rational for Israeli national interests. A lot of people say the exact same thing. I routinely point this, at feeble to this all the time, the WikiLeaks disclosures of Colin Powell, Colin Powell, writing to his friends,

you know, one email talking about Bill Clinton's paramours. Next email, he says, the Israelis know that they have 200 nuclear weapons that they don't disclose, and they're all trained on Tehran and the Iranians know that. And so we can get into the Iranian nuclear program and we want to talk about it. Fine.

I'll concede your point because I think you get my jit. I mean, throughout the region, what do you think their goal is here? I have any opponent and then get suffocant partners at any level. And by Israel, I mean, the greater, I would say, Israeli center-right to far-right project, for lack of a better term, because I don't know anything being in common of these people. What's interesting is in your early October 7 tweets, you seem to project where I think it was a true opinion, which is

that, oh, maybe Netanyahu is going to be this restraining force. Because throughout Netanyahu's career, the, I mean, I think the Obama, I don't know if it was himself or through someone else called him, I think, a chicken shit, I think it was the term, to Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, that he was not actually willing to get into long protracted wars. But yet now you think this is his goal is to expand to greater Israel. I take it from what I've seen in your tweets. I mean, you'd have to point me to exactly what I said. I mean, I think in the context of, I think Israel was owed a response.

I mean, they were attacked. I think Netanyahu had been the leader of the country for 25 years. I thought he was politically underrated at that point. Remember, the assumption was that he wouldn't be in power very long. I said publicly that I thought he would be. And then additionally, I observed that Netanyahu is relatively moderate within his own coalition. But, I mean, that doesn't put aside that like Netanyahu has three decades,

maybe four decades of a record of advocacy of trying to get the United States involved in the region militarily. And this was observed by James Baker, Secretary of State, when I was one years old. We'll get to that in the second. But let me just ask you this. if on October 7th, someone were to tell you, less than 24 months later, the Iranian nuclear program would be in tatters, which I think it is. I don't know if you agree with that. The Hezbollah, which had hundreds of 200,000 rockets in its north, would be decimated, not really as a real

functional threat anymore. Would you consider that a success for Israel in its fight after October and then we add two more things there because I think they're relevant? That in the 24 period while they're doing that, they have not lost a single member of the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are still intact, and that from reports, there is still potential, depending what occurs and how the Gaza war ends for Saudi Arabia and others to join the Abraham Accords. If that was what you were told that would happen 18, 22 months after October 7th, would you consider that as a success for Israel? Well, I think that's a very smart framing.

I'm not sure it's an honest framing, and I think you know that. They have paid a press. They have isolated themselves globally. I mean, by my account, they basically have a section of the American right wing. That section happens to govern the country at the moment, so it's very, very useful. But I think we all know it won't govern the country permanently, and it won't be the right wing status quo forever, very conceivably. And then additionally, you mentioned the Abraham Accords. I think they have very much made it unlikely that the Abraham Accords get substantially

expanded with the one member they want, which is Saudi. And number two, they have inflated or depreciated the value of what it means to be in the Abraham Accords. It's going to be all for not if Ahmed al-Shara's Syria joins this thing and people just sort of pro forma joins this thing. And it's not really a real defense pact. And I see a Muslim world that is far more united around, I don't want to say united around Iran, but like against an on war. I mean, like, I mean, go, go back to where we were 10 years ago. Israel actually had allies in air capitals without formal agreements, right? Like, UAE, Saudi, were advocating very hawkish, hardline stuff that would be manna from heaven for the Israeli right wing. And

they tried a lot of the stuff. The blockade on Qatar, the Yemen war, these things were catastrophes. They were, they were amateur hour. It didn't work. And I just, I fail to see how this works. Yeah. Israel has had a lot of tactical success. I don't think that can be denied. I just don't see the strategic framework, and I don't have to do any of the strategic framework from a guy who makes decisions day in from day out. Smart guy. Wouldn't want to be on his wrong side. I guess probably am, but like day in, day out. But I don't see any long-term strategy for Israel here. And I do think in the long-term, Dan Yahoo may be remembered as the greatest enemy of Israeli people. Certainly after October 7th, his failure, I think a lot of people would in Israel,

probably agree with you. First of all, I mean, there's a lot in there. You think that Netanyahu wants America to put boots on the ground to do... I'm clear. I mean, like, don't build up this, like, straw mad what I'm saying? Like, they want America to do something about regime. What do you think they want him to do? They don't know. Like, they will, they will go in on the initial strikes with Iran in theory. They will try to get the Americans involved as much as possible. And then they will urge them to get involved as much as they have an appetite for. And then if Iran is a mess, we know what they'll do, which is, at least by the record of the war on terror in the last 25 years, which is they're not going to be that involved. And they're not going to accept refugees.

And they're not going to spend money on rebuilding this country. That's going to be America's problem. I mean, I mean, I hear that. It seems like what we just saw is the opposite of what you suggested, that Israel led a strike. America came and delivered, you know, the thing that the only America could do to set back Iran's nuclear program. Iran was so coward that they did a performative response. And now Israel and America under a position to monitor, because they seem to know everything that goes on in Iran, you don't think so, nuclear progress. And this is, you know anything. We didn't know if they had weapons. We didn't know that Saddam Hussein was writing novels and barely running the country. We don't know anything about Iran. At what point when you admit that

Iran was a, I mean, this seemed to be a stunning success both for the U.S. and Israel. I think we know that Israel has a powerful military. I think we know the U.S. has a powerful military. Did you really, do you think that they could do that to Iran without losing it? I mean, do you think Israel and the U.S. could mount that type of operation and sophistication? Yes, I think the Israelis are more militarily powerful than the Iranians. I think the Americans are more militarily powerful than the Israel is. I don't think we need to war game in real life with real lives and real dollars to see that that's true. And I don't see what the point of this is. I think this is non-fosifiable. Is there anything that you could, you know, in five years looking back, say, I was wrong about, you know, Israel and the U.S.

in Iran? Like, is there anything that would say, you know what? Donald Trump was right with, you know, what we should do in Iran, I was wrong. Whatever Donald, I mean, Donald Trump has had a lot of opinions. And so, like, I mean, this is very cleverly phrased. If Donald Trump fires J.D. Vance and supports him and makes Mark Levin the vice president, and if they bomb Iran and they send commandos in there and they make Mark Levine or Mark Levins' crony or the Shah in charge of Iran, and it is a glorious democracy with full representation, and there are zero refugees to Europe. Who's calling for this?

I'm saying, what do you say, in retrospect, say that Trump was right about Iran? What is your hypothetical that you want me to say? saying that there is no, like saying this operation, if it doesn't lead to Iran secretly developing nuclear weapon, which I think, I think you've... But it's not over. Like, this isn't like, this isn't like, it's not like they have one ask. Like, it's not like, oh, hey, we really, really, really, really, really, really want you to bomb Ferdale.

And then it's over. That's, you know that that's not going to happen. There may be, I think Trump has hinted that there may be more strikes. This month, a new war in the fall. And then they want to occupy Gaza by October 6th. and then guess who they're going to call for all of this, the United States of America. Well, actually, I think Donald Trump put his hand up even before anyone asked and said he wanted to build Trump a Mar-a-Lago version in Gosner. I don't think the Israelis ever asked for that.

I don't think they ever asked him to do that. He said up their grinning like an idiot. What are you supposed to do? He's supposed to fight his like. You can say no. You can actually say, no, that's actually not in our country's national interest. I think that's irresponsible. I'm not sure that's good for Israeli self-image.

We shouldn't do that. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important. Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain, on top of everything else, is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam,

just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on trust pilot and thousands of families already applying through ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's E-T-H-O-S dot com slash dispatch. Application times may vary, rates may vary. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, you're writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch a website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI. which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design.

You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. You tweeted, I think this was the day we're supposed to do the recent interview. Like someone said something that Pakistan's next. Bibi's going to attack Pakistan next.

You go likely Turkey. You think Israel wants to attack Turkey. Oh, for sure. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I mean, all things. I mean, Israel being, again, like, a contingent of the country that wins most of its elections. So, yes.

So what is the contingent of the country that wins most of the elections? I mean, the center right. I mean, I mean, it was the last time Labor won an election. What's a pretty divided government, but they're, you know, they're, it would say it's based on Netanyahu Bennett, my entire adult life. So you think Bennett and Netanyahu want to attack churches? I won't know their brains, but like my, my understanding of, of the intellectual sphere on the right in Israel is that, yeah, they're very concerned about heroin.

I have been told that at some of these meetings that Daniaou's had with White House officials that he talks more about Turkey than Iran. You could view that as she cares more about it. I don't. I think he views Iran as a Fedocompiliate and get Turkey up next. The reason I wonder this, because, I mean, it's not, to me,

my understanding reality of Israel on the ground. I mean, Israel is mainly at this point a reservist force. These people have jobs. There's an economy, a vibrant economy they want to get back to. They seem, you know, I think the polls show that a plurality at least wanted the attack on Iran because they saw it as a threat, but they're not looking to go to endless conflicts. I'd like to go back to an economy. Do you see that this is a garrison's game? Yeah, it's very convenient to have that opinion, especially if another country will do

terror wars for you. What wars has America done for Israel? I think that it's very clear that Iraq was heavily influenced by Israel. That's interesting. And then I think in general, I think our posture in the region has been motivated by being dishonest brokers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And basically, very, very, very serious people that have studied the issue and have looked at, I mean, I'll just give him, do you think David Petraeus is a liar? There was a very famous controversy 15 years ago. I mean, not very famous, but notable controversy 15 years ago, he said, you know, the biggest problem we have for occupying Afghanistan, and I didn't know this when I was in

the military, you know, is that this Israel-Palestine thing is really a big deal in the Muslim world, that Arafat's pictures is in tents and cabins and houses in Afghanistan. And it affects our ability to build a durable peace in this country. This happened in 2010. You're saying that in houses in Afghanistan, they had Arafat's picture. I believe that was something to that quote. Look it up. Petraeus. I'll look it up. I think it kind of aligns the point. That doesn't mean the Afghan war is because of Israel. But it leads to my question because it's a good tie-in and then we can continue on this part. I think we are in this region for three reasons. historically, we are in this region for access to oil. I think we are in this region for

navigable tradeways, and I think we're in this region for Israel. I don't think that's an actually ethical reason to conduct foreign policy, but we're not going to talk about the 1950s. I think Suez is fake as basically exposed this spring. It's not a major U.S. tradeway. I think the vice president was correct during Signalgate. Secondarily, I think we are a net oil exporter. We don't need to We can figure it out here at home. And number three, I don't think we should do everything Israel asks us. So you tweeted a clip of Netanyahu testifying before Congress in support of the Iraq war.

Should be noted, he was not prime minister at the time. And I think the official Israeli government certainly didn't think that was the top priority. They still were more worried about Iran. And you wrote, it's irrelevant that he was wrong. It worked for him. He pumped and dumped W. he will gladly do the same to Trump. You also had tweets blaming Mark Levin for tricking kind of Trump on Iran.

Maybe Trump, but I think he's an influential lobbyist. Well, I guess why do you take these where I think are minor people? Let me finish. Levin on Iran, Bibi, who was not the prime minister at the time on Iraq. And you know, you say these are the difference between war and peace. these figures. So the greatest, the most significant Israeli leader of the last 40 years. He wasn't at the time of Iraq. He was a former prime minister. But he was not, he only served a few years. He was probably the Israeli who had the greatest ties to the United States and also

Israeli who had the greatest ties to American conservatives. What percentage do you think that played in in Bush is deciding to go, Netanyahu's support for going into Iraq? George W. Bush deciding to go to war in Iraq. I think Netanyahu has deep ties to the American right? And I think that everybody knew that Nanyahu was going to eventually come back. And I think he had, he was, I think he was pretty persuasive. Is there any history, any history book, there's been a lot written about Iraq that said that, that, that Bibi Netanyahu was pivotal. I didn't say that. You keep setting up these questions.

This is what you said. It's irrelevant. He was wrong. It worked for him. He pumped and dumped W. And he will gladly get the same with Trump. The suggestion is that like W, he pumped. He was the one that was getting W involved in Iraq.

It's not a false question. It's like blaming like the most insignificant or not very significant figures for American choices. I think the Israeli right and neo-conservatives pumped and dumped up you. How about that? And Netanyahu was a representative of that perspective. That's what I meant to communicate. Okay, so forget Netanyahu for a second. I can skip back to George.

George W. Bush was the president. Dick Cheney was the vice president. Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of State. these people are not dummies, they're independent actors. You don't think... I don't know Bush, but yeah. I actually don't think he's a dummy at all, but he could be wrong, but I don't think he's a dumb.

Usually mediocre for an American president. And I think if he wasn't a president's son, he wouldn't be president. I think that's true, but, okay, then you have a higher opinion of Dick Cheney, I'm sure, in a higher opinion of Gahn Rumsfeld. I think Cheney's who are, like, evil. Don't they have agency any of these three figures? We can go through all of them. I mean, like, I mean, I think Bush, George W. Bush, to be clear, wanted to distinguish himself from his father.

There was always beef between the Reagan people and the H.W. people. And the Reagan people were generally speaking, more neoconservative. And after 9-11, especially with all of the sort of like, you know, received wisdom that part of what bossed HW the election in 92 was that we didn't go all the way of the bad debt. I don't remember how many times I heard this as a kid. Like, we should have finished off Saddam, we should have finished off Saddam, we should have finished off Saddam. George W. Bush wanted to be more like Reagan, who had been reelected, and was a god in conservative circles versus his wimp loser father. This is a bit of a simplification.

And that was the cast of mine for W. Cheney, I think, authentically changed. If you look at Cheney's comments in 93-94 about why they didn't go in, he said, you know, the Gulf War only cost, you know, I think low hundreds of numbers of Americans, but for the people who lost their family members who lost, you know, levelins, that wasn't a cheap war and we didn't think it was worth it. That was a good man. That was a good secretary of defense. I think he got spooked after 9-11, and he changed. Rumensfeld is interesting and probably the person I have the most color on. I think that Rumsfeld didn't make a lot of decisions in his career

out of genuine conviction. I think he generally made decisions out of power politics. I think that's revealed in the Arrow Morris documentary that's very good on him. The known unknown, I think it's revealed in his book.

And additionally, I think he was the least committed of the administration to rebuilding Iraq and staying there a long time. So for him, the decision was least dangerous, which of course, you know,

destroyed his legacy, destroyed his later life. He could travel internationally easily. He was wrong. So, yeah. I guess this ties into, you know, so you had a,

the day we were going to do the podcast initially, a few weeks ago, there was a commentator who said Israel is pushing the U.S. for more strikes on the Houthis, and you commented, one wonders where these whoever wars come from, a true mystery. I mean, I guess, hey, what do you mean by that? And the issue is like, well, you know, it's Levin on Iran. It's Netanyahu, which your whole explanation you just gave there, which may be right, had nothing to do with neoconservatives. It had three figures, unless you consider Rumpfell neoconservative. Neoconservatives are a real thing. I don't want to talk about like, you know,

Panorrets and Crystal in the 30s or the City College in New York, it's like boring. It's like 100 years ago, literally at this point. Neoconservatives were a real set of intellectuals. They gained currency in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. They gained super preeminence by the early 2000s. And they were staffers in the Reagan administration. They were less prominent in the Bush administration.

H.O. though, I mean, very famously William Crystal, cheap staff at Dan Quayle, so they weren't visible. And then they were around when the U.S. struck on 9-11, and they were hyper prolific in the 90s building policy for what America should do now that it had won the Cold War. And so political actors, you know, came to sympathize as that. I view them as the brains and thought, I mean, they were the smart set. I mean, remember the, you know, James Mann phrase for the Bush cabinet, Vulcans. They were seen as extremely brilliant. And I think all the people

are brilliant. They're hardworking. They're interesting. They're intellectual. I just think, like, some of them have dual loyalties, and I think they're wrong. Well, thank you for sending the duos, because that leads me. I mean, when you say, when you portray Levin as they're responsible for Iran, you're playing

BB responsible for Iraq, you say one wonders where the forever worlds come from a true mystery talking about Yemen. What war is Israel? Forever war is primarily responsible? Israeli foreign policy creates a forever war scenario of the United States. It's not controversial. Anger writing for the Israeli hard line creates a forever war posture for the United States. And we wonder why we're still in this region. Explain that. I actually don't understand what

you're saying. Underwriting for the Israeli hard line. The Israelis want to occupy Gaza. How is that going to happen? Are you saying generally they want to occupy Gaza or right? Because they didn't want to occupy Gaza until our COBRA 7. where became an issue where they had to go in. Like, instead of talking about the Bush administration, which I'd love to do, but I assume our time is somewhat limited. Let's do August 8th to October 7th. So that's the next 62 days.

What does this look like? Net Yahoo has said he wants to occupy Gaza. I think maybe he is playing semantics and he wants to liberate Gaza. He wants to take over Gaza. How is he going to do that? As far as I can tell, he has a few options. Kill everybody. He hasn't killed everybody.

And I know the Gintensica of everybody. And actually, I think it's almost, I'm not even sure I think it's a smart move to occupy Gaza. But that has another here nor there. One wonders where forever wars come from, a true mystery. Which forever wars are, is Israel responsible for? Afghanistan, Iraq? What do you blame Israel for here? I mean, I think, I mean, I think we, U.S. involvement on the side of Israel being a dishonest broker in the Israeli-Palest conflict was a huge motivating pitch for people to join al-Qaeda.

I mean, I mean, it's literally like the first line of bin Laden's, you know, I used to debate. I think it's not nearly as big as you're suggesting. How, I mean, there's like one main Palestinian that was part of the Arab Afghans. I think you're intentionally doing this. I don't know. So I'm just, I mean, it comes to me like you're intentionally doing this. You know it doesn't matter literal Palestinians of the hijackers. You know the Palestinian issue was extremely motivating to radicalize Saudis and

Egyptians who flew planes into the buildings. So actually, I mean, if you want to talk about the Egyptians that were part of al-Qaeda, they're motivated by American support for the, for the dictatorships in Egypt. And that was that's why they joined al-Qaeda. But again, which wars do you think forever wars in America has been involved in the main ones? I can tell are Afghanistan and Iraq. Is Israel responsible for? Responsible is strong. I think Israel, I think U.S. being in lockstep with Israel, generally speaking, has created a scenario in which we are in those wars. And yeah, let's go down the line. Afghanistan, Iraq, very clear, in my opinion, our involvement in Gaza today, Iran. I mean, Libya is probably murkiest, but, you know,

I mean, Gaddafi was part of the, yeah, I mean, he had weird ties, is perplexed with the Palestinian, you know, cause. So you think Libya because of Israel? No, I think that's too simplicity. I said Libya is the most tenuous one. But yeah, I think it had something to do with it. Sure. I don't think any of those have any, like, relation. And I would say, why? Why? I know you don't. No, but I mean, even your link that you're trying to make is that the reason Al-Qaeda was mad at the U.S. and therefore attacked us has something to do with Israel. And therefore, that's why we go there. What was the innovation of Al-Qaeda? I mean, the innovation of al-Qaeda was they wanted to go on offensive jihad, international. because America propped up dictators in their region, including Saudi Arabia, which I don't think we were propping up because of Israel. I told you that the U.S. historically has three motivations for being in the region. Access to resources, navigable trade lands, and Israel. I think I wouldn't

have done foreign policy the last hundred years the way we did it. I think it was a mistake. But I think basically two of those rationales are off the board, and they've been coming off the my entire lifetime. I think it's now basically just Israel. Before I turn to a couple more issues in closing, tell me if this is fair for my takeaway. I'm going to guess you don't think it's fair. But on one hand, you know, Israel's irrational. They shouldn't fear Iran. They're just trying to break up powers in the region. On the other hand, you know, if U.S. didn't support Israel, we wouldn't be attacked and be in all these wars. It's like Israel can't, What should Israel do?

It should work to a two-state solution. And you don't think they have. Not really. And to the extent, and to the extent that they have tried, they have assassinated leaders that have signed deals. I mean, Israel, having contributed that assassination openly. I mean, I don't want to get into this. I think that the evidence from 37, 48, 67, 1997, the evidence of, it was a country that

was birth in terrorism, number one. But from there, I think after, after 1967, they didn't. became a tyrant. But when you say they're, to put a fine point on it, they're responsible for our forever wars. You just mean very loosely. I'm not sure where I said responsible. I said from the emanate. All right. Let's close on a few topics, not necessarily outside it, but you had a tweet just, well, I guess it's somewhat tangentially related, but I'm interested in Epstein. You tweet earlier today, it was a picture first time I saw it of Epstein wearing an IDF shirt. He said, just a fun random sweatshirt Epstein is wearing here.

You and many others, Tucker and others, you know, really are confident that Epstein was part of Mossad. What is... I think he's a prime suspect. I don't know. I'm not... I guess why is my question? Because all of the evidence is publicly available.

Please give it to me. We don't know him at his money. We know he has one confirmed client for his personal firm, Lesley Wexner. We know that his paramour slash accomplice is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, who is buried the Mount of Olives and is basically confirmed a facade agent. And we know that he has access to, had access to some of those powerful people in the world. And we know that he was running probably some sort of extortioned blackmail

scheme. All of the properties had cameras in them as far as, as publicly available, wasn't invited. I think it stinks. And I think the most obvious ties are to Israel. It's entirely possible that it's greater. It's entirely possible as you. U.S. intelligence, we don't fully know, but clearly it ties to Israel, and he wasn't shy about that, and I think it's weird that the government's covering it up. Do you think it's, I mean, does Israel usually, like, when they do secret agents, send, like, a former prime minister to, like, visit his, visit him and pick a guy who. Not in the massage meetings, you might have guessed. I know, but, I mean, as an intelligence, our top intelligence agency, it seems unlikely that, like,

you would have top leaders openly meeting with someone who's a top secret agent. Would you not? I actually generally don't understand the question. If you're a secret, I mean, Israel just had a bunch of secret agents in Iran. I think they created Jay Gaspi, effectively, mixed with, you know, a sex predator, and that had intelligence purposes very plausibly. But what do you think? I mean, I think back, like, okay, well, one, I find that odd that, like, Brock would and, again, it could be.

I have no idea. But, like, Barak, Aoud Brock would meet with him openly. They would pick a guy who, like, the Jewish, most Jewish-sounding name of all time and not someone who wasn't Jewish to be a Mossad agent. And then I wonder, and maybe you, like, what do you think they got from it? I mean, Israel really opposed the Iran deal in the 2000s, and every Democrat basically went on board and supported it. Wouldn't that be a moment where, like, you pull out your cards and get people to, like, we have these pictures of you, like, don't support this Iran deal? You mean, like, why did they, like, use sexual blackmail in this, like, I mean,

that's the implication what they were doing, right? I mean, I didn't. I mean, I didn't. the allies that they had were like not that pro the JCPOA. I mean, the people that I've talked to were pretty not very confident that if Hillary had won the JCPA would have last. I mean, I think the JCPOA was basically, and

this is where like the people that like are insane and coming after me, I think are somewhat correct that the JCPOA was like an Obama and his syndicate thing. Like Obama really care about Iran. He wanted an Iran deal as the

a lynchpin a foreign policy legacy of the second term. I think, you know, Kerry was super bought in. I think the Israel lobby has been pretty hard on Kerry, even though he's probably like the most prominent Jewish American. John Kerry? He's Jewish. By blood. I think he found out while running for president.

Well, fair enough. But I just, I mean, I think like, I mean, it didn't save him anyways. But the point, the point is like, yeah. You're joking about that with the Kerry thing, right? I mean, what am I just talking about? You think that? I know that. But I don't think.

It's a, well, this is a kind of an interesting tangent. The fact that he might have Jewish blood, you think that shapes his thinking in any way. No, no, I, if anything, he's hated more because he's, like, seen as a scab by probably, like, you know, I don't think anyone sees him as Jewish. I, okay, I, my only point is I believe he's literally half Jewish or a quarter Jewish. I think he found, I'm almost certain he found out we're running per president. Like, you know, for people who, like, you know, routinely, like, cite the Third Reich as, like, you know, the all-powerful example, like, That wouldn't have passed muster in the Third Reich.

He would have been in big trouble. But so, yeah, I think if he had been president, he would have been, by heritage, didn't say his impacts his thinking anyway, the most Jewish president in American history. And I believe by heritage, he was until Blinken, the Secretary of State, the highest-ranking Jewish official in American history. By blood. I think Manowen-Albright technically found out she was Jewish too later later in life. I mean, have you ever asked Steve Bannon about his connection to Epstein?

I mean, that seems to be like the get that everyone wants. I mean, Steve stopped responding to me. He's going to do the podcast. He doesn't seem to be stopped responding to everybody. Everyone's blaming Israel. And the person that seems to know most about Epstein, maybe of anybody, is Steve Bannon. And yet we can't. Have you talked to him at all?

Sean probably knows more. No, earlier days maybe, but maybe the last 10 years or 15 years. At certain extent, the earlier days are more important. But yeah, I've not asked to it. No. Isn't it a little odd that I've not asked him? He's like, he's like, no, he's leading. No, for Steve, he's leading the charge on the war.

room about Jeffrey Epstein, and yet he probably knows more about Jeffrey Epstein outside of Donald Trump, perhaps, and Jolene Maxwell. I don't know what he said on his, he's obviously said a lot on Israel. I'm not sure what he said on Epstein, actually. I'm not familiar. I don't think it's that odd. I mean, I'm happy to like, since you're asking about, I mean, I think, you know, Steve is attracted pretty clearly to powerful, interesting, smart people. I think he's a collector of people like that. And I think it makes sense when, you know, Bannon was out of the Trump circle in the 1718 period that he was attracted to someone like Epstein wanted to meet him. Steve always had this filmmaker thing he made, I believe five movies, something like that. So making an Epstein movie,

the Epstein exile movie was probably super attracted to him. And for Epstein, you know, Bannon was big deal then, big deal now, like it made sense as a partnership. I don't know much more than that. I know Michael Wolf saying a lot about it. I tend to believe most everything Michael Wolf says, frankly. So I would turn you to him as a better resource. Let me close in these two questions. Correct me if I'm wrong. I am assuming you voted for Trump.

That might not be the case. Some journalists don't vote. Do you regret voting for Trump? Final question. There seems to be, from my perspective, and I think a lot of people that read this magazine, an anti-Semitism problem on the right right now in media. Do you see that at all, or do you think that is made up?

In the media, you mean in my magazine? I didn't say your magazine. I'm thinking most explicitly places like Candace Owens and other places like that. I don't think our magazine has an anti-semitism. I wasn't suggesting your magazine. Yeah, I think there is a pretty overt anti-Semitism on some corners of the right. Sure, yeah. But I think there is overt hatred of all races in all stripes across the political spectrum.

There is a ton of anti-white stuff on the left, way more than anti-Semitic stuff on the right. And to the extent that my perspective is called woke right by imbeciles, I would submit that people that I don't agree with on the right have all the hallmarks of woke that are on the left. They want speech codes. They want to shut down debate. And I commend you for not shutting down debate today. They are open to violence to preserve their political projects.

They cry racism. That all seems pretty woke to me. With that, Kurt Mills, thank you for joining the Dispatch podcast. You know,