The Last American Vagabond - Exposing the Iran War Hype: Lessons from a One-Sided Debate with Naomi Wolf

Episode Date: March 14, 2026

In a live debate over whether America should bomb Iran, one side brought facts and history; the other brought interruptions, patronizing lectures, and recycled empire talking points.On Tuesday, I participated in a debate on whether the US should be bombing Iran with Naomi Wolf—a feminist author, journalist, former Rhodes Scholar, and CEO of Daily Clout. To say that the interaction was a disappointment is putting it mildly. The tactics she employed are tried-and-true methods of the old dying legacy media. Her attempts to use logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks against me revealed that she was either ill-prepared for the discussion or thought she would be able to distract me and the audience from the topic at hand. Neither worked.I encourage all readers to watch the actual debate for yourselves. This analysis and breakdown of some of the debate’s finer points is intended to elaborate on some of the points I made and highlights her attempts to deflect from the subject of the debate. This isn’t about me or Ms. Wolf personally. This is about war propaganda being pushed in the mainstream corporate media, as well as the mainstream alternative media, where Ms. Wolf is firmly entrenched. This isn’t about our personal squabbles, but about destroying propaganda from the US empire, which hopes to convince the American public that yet another war is worth supporting and dying for.This is especially relevant because Naomi Wolf is well-known in vaccine-skeptic circles for her work dissecting the COVID19 Pfizer documents released under a court order by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Wolf collaborated with former Trump advisor Steve Bannon and volunteers from his “War Room” website, leading to the publication of the book The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity.I have never interacted with Wolf before last week, when I stumbled across a tweet in which she responded to critics calling her out for supporting the US military’s bombing of Iran on February 28th:“I am not supporting “war.” In this case of Iran, regime change is necessary, just as it was with regime change in Germany post WW2,” she wrote. “The United States has a right to defend itself from serious national security threats; and as a woman, I do not think that anyone serious can be an apologist for a regime that enslaves half the population and that tortures and murders its own people en masse.”I responded to her by stating, “Yes, you are just repeating state talking points and falling for the latest empire expansion.” She followed up by asking if I would debate her live and, if so, to email her. Thus began several days of back and forth emails attempting to come to an agreement on the terms of the debate.Despite her inviting me to debate, she initially asked for my resume, my location, my “real name,” and my work history prior to journalism. While I was annoyed at the whole conversation, I play along in the interest of having a debate that I hoped would be educational.For the last 2 days I’ve been emailing Naomi back and forth to set a date for this debate.First, she doesn’t want a moderator. Second, she’s been asking for my resume, my age, etc - running a background check or something.Third, she only wants it streamed on her channels,… https://t.co/8nNiS0OPA9— Derrick Broze (@DBrozeLiveFree) March 3, 2026Once she was satisfied that I was, indeed, who I said I was, we hit another snag: she refused to agree to a moderated debate. I’ve seen enough online debates devolve into shouting matches, so I was cautious about going forward without a moderator. She also didn’t want me streaming the debate to my own channels. Ultimately, she agreed to allow me to stream the debate, and I agreed to forgo a moderator. I also had to agree that I would not make clips of the conversation because she feared being taken out of context.After all these negotiations, I wasn’t exactly optimistic—but I remained hopeful for an honest debate. I was unfortunately mistaken.Are We Debating Iran or Where I Live?I was still hopeful that the debate might be a fruitful discussion between two intelligent people with opposing views. I did my due diligence to understand Ms. Wolf’s positions on Iran and anticipate her arguments. When the debate finally began, she offered me the chance to make an opening statement. I stated:“My basic position is that the US getting involved in this conflict really doesn’t represent—not only what Donald Trump and his administration claim to be, America First—I don’t think it’s about actually representing or defending American interests. Especially while there’s plenty of issues at home that Americans heard Trump campaign on and that are not being addressed.And I also think, in a broader picture, it really represents Israeli Zionist interests, not American interests.I think we have to take into consideration the fact that there’s been no congressional, Constitutional approval for this conflict—as with every conflict for the last decades. Trump is continuing that same practice as Obama and Bush before him, Biden of course as well And that, generally, it’s not in the US interest.There’s also a history of US interference in Iran going back to the 50s—Operation Ajax—which I think is relevant in terms of understanding why Iran is the way it is today. And, overall, I don’t think Americans need to be dying for this conflict, which, as I said, seems to be more about Israel’s desire for the Greater Israel Project and removing their claimed enemies than anything that represents American interest or America First.”Almost immediately, it became clear she was not interested in a serious debate on the agreed topic—should the US be bombing Iran? Wolf thanked me for my statement and then said I hadn’t presented any evidence for my claims. Silly me—I thought it was just an opening statement, and that after her opening we would get into the details. After making it clear she believes the US bombing Iran is justified and that she is a “MAGA Trump voter,” she shifted to discussing my location and if I vote in US elections.“I will note that you live in Mexico and I don’t know if you vote in US elections. Do you?”For a moment this caught me off guard, because I certainly didn’t sign up to debate my choice to leave the US in 2020 or why I am a principled non-voter. Nevertheless, I told her the only time I voted was in 2004, when I was 18 and foolish enough to think voting would change the course of American politics. Her response?“Well, if you don’t vote, why are we having this debate?”I quickly informed her that the idea that one must vote or live within a country to have an informed opinion on policies that impact people worldwide is, respectfully, ridiculous. She repeated this silly framing for several minutes, bringing up my living in Mexico at least 8-9 times. Despite my efforts to redirect the conversation back to the topic at hand, it would take another eight more minutes before we actually heard her arguments for why the US should be bombing Iran.Standing For Peace and Against Regime Change WarsHer arguments were essentially that Iran has been the aggressor by directly or indirectly attacking Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Qatar, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, and ships in the Red Sea. Wolf noted these attacks have been criticized by Arab states, including those supporting Palestinians or opposing Israel. She repeated talking points about Iran’s nuclear program being a danger to the world. Finally, she said the US strikes on Iran are justified because they help counter a “murderous, insane, deranged, irrational” regime.My initial response was to ask her how long Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed Iran was about to finish nuclear weapons. She said she didn’t know, so I informed her that Americans have heard such unsubstantiated claims from Netanyahu since 1992.As a member of the Israeli Knesset, Netanyahu stated that Iran was three to five years away from being able to develop and produce a nuclear bomb. He repeated these claims with varying timelines in 1995, 2002, 2009, and onward to the present day. Wolf said she wasn’t concerned with Netanyahu but with the United States. However, it’s disingenuous to pretend Netanyahu’s statements have had no impact on US foreign policy toward Iran.I also brought up the fact that in June 2025, Trump claimed US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had “completely obliterated” all of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. In fact, on June 25, 2025, the White House released a statement titled “Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated—and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News.” Almost immediately, it was clear that Trump was, once again, exaggerating or outright lying. A leaked classified report indicated that the bombing set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months at best.The point is that the Trump administration lied in 2025, so there’s no reason to trust similar claims now when we’re told Iran is once again close to nuclear weapons.Before addressing her claims about Iran’s attacks on various nations, I reminded Ms. Wolf that I did not come to the debate to defend Iran, Israel or the United States. I do not stand in defense of any government. I stand for the people of Iran, the people of Israel, the people of America—all those opposed to these wars, who recognize that only the regular working-class people suffer from them.Regarding Iran’s strikes, I noted that they were responses to preemptive US and Israeli attacks launched without provocation. I pointed out that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially stated that the US military needed to attack first because they knew Israel was planning to bomb Iran, and the US feared retaliation against American bases..@SecRubio: “The president made the very wise decision—we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we… pic.twitter.com/Jp5rqpRH4T— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) March 2, 2026“The bottom line is this: The president determined we were not going to get hit first. It’s that simple, guys,” Rubio told the press.REPORTER: Any evidence Iran was about to attack the United States ?WHITE HOUSE: The president had a feeling.REPORTER: The president launched a war on a feeling ?WHITE HOUSE: That is what Jared Kushner told the president and it was final. pic.twitter.com/3lhb16Gu4E— The Kremlin (@The_Kremlinn) March 11, 2026I then asked Ms. Wolf how she can speak about violations of international law and national sovereignty when the US and Israel have proven time and again that they do not care about international law or national sovereignty. Instead of addressing my question, she pressed me on my statement about supporting the people of the world and not their governments, asking if I care about dead children in Cyprus or Saudi Arabia. This attempt at tugging on heart strings didn’t faze me. I told her I oppose any child dying—including those in Gaza killed by Israel or the children killed after the US dropped a Tomahawk missile on their school last week.Unfortunately, I said, this is the result of people like her supporting war. As war expands, we see more death and injury. The US has acknowledged up to 140 troops have been injured and seven have died. Iran claims the number of dead American soldiers is actually much higher but getting accurate reports from either country is difficult—especially in wartime. We are also seeing deaths of innocent Iranians, Israelis, and civilians from nations caught in the crossfire of this senseless conflict.I argued that the US bombing of Iran is illegal and unconstitutional because Trump has not sought Congressional approval for launching a new war—continuing the pattern of Biden, Obama, Baby Bush, Clinton, Senior Bush, and so on. Ms. Wolf claimed that the bombing of Iran was legal under the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR).I noted that the WPR does not grant the President the ability to launch wars indiscriminately without Congressional approval unless there is an immediate threat to the United States or responding to an attack. I also referenced the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison which established the doctrine of judicial review, allowing courts to declare laws or executive/government actions unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, if “repugnant to the constitution”.Ms. Wolf patronizingly explained how government works, as if to an elementary student: when a bad law passes, “we the people” pressure representatives to change it. I almost expected a Schoolhouse Rock video on how a bill becomes a law. Her response also entirely missed the point of why the War Powers Act requirements were not met.Frankly, Ms. Wolf is naive to believe that the US political system currently functions as intended or even in the way she describes. Any American paying attention for 15 minutes understands that many forces are at play, corrupting the American Republic to such a degree that it’s laughable for Wolf to tell me, “If you don’t like bad laws change it from within the system!”Additionally, her claims about the War Powers Resolution are also incorrect. As former US Representative Justin Amash outlined in a twitter post, the WPR does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60-90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours. Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly:“The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”The act does not grant the President power to take unilateral offensive military action. Thus, the US military’s offensive attack on Iran is not covered by the WPR and is unconstitutional.One of the most frequently misrepresented federal statutes—often falsely used to justify unconstitutional presidential war powers—is the War Powers Resolution (or Act) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1550).If only more people would read it.Contrary to what you may have heard about the War…— Justin Amash (@justinamash) June 22, 2025The History of US InterventionWhile Ms. Wolf wanted to focus on what Iran is currently doing in response to the US/Israeli attack, I thought it important to remember the history of the US military and intelligence apparatus interfering in Iranian politics. If the advocates for war want to have a conversation about foreign policy, we must acknowledge that the US has a long-documented history of intervening in foreign nations, overthrowing their leaders, and funding counter-protest movements while stoking unrest.The most prominent example of US intervention in Iran is 1953’s Operation Ajax. On August 19, 1953, then Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in a coup funded by the UK’s MI6 and the CIA. Mosaddegh, a proud nationalist, sought to strengthen Iran and weaken foreign influence—especially British control over Iranian oil—by nationalizing the British controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).After Dwight D. Eisenhower’s election, he authorized Operation Ajax leading to the overthrow of Mosaddegh. The coup strengthened the power of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, who was more easily controlled by foreign influence. The Shah would eventually be overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which transformed Iran into an Islamic republic as it remains today.Crazily enough, the Shah’s son, also known as Reza Pahlavi, is living in the United States and has been touted as the “Crown Prince of Iran” and the “transitional leader of the Iranian opposition.” He is slated to speak at CPAC 2026 later this month. He appears to be the Western establishment’s preferred puppet if the current leadership is eventually overthrown.The US government efforts to interfere in Iranian politics persist in 2026. The Grayzone recently reported on Congressional testimony from the head of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) where he appears to be taking credit for encouraging unrest in Iran.“What we’re seeing today, the Endowment has been making investments over years that have ensured that there have been secure communications, including Starlinks… that allowed information to go both in and out of the country,” NED director Damon Wilson stated in late February to the House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. Wilson was interrupted by Rep. Lois Frankel, who stated, “You know what, I’m going to interrupt you – we’d better not talk about it.”Throughout the remainder of the debate, Ms. Wolf was patronizing, constantly interrupting me (and accusing me of interrupting her), and continuing to repeat state talking points. She emphasized the Iranian government’s reported abuses against women, citing Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. She spoke of “systemic violence, rape, second-class status, flogging, and torture of protesters.” Her goal was to illustrate that the Iranian people are suffering and that Iranians in exile support the US bombing of Iran, and thus skeptics should too.This nearly made me lose patience. To be frank: the US government doesn’t care about Iranian women or protesters. I pointed to selective outrage from US politicians—condemning harms to women and children only when it serves corporate/military goals. I noted Trump wouldn’t rule out seizing Iran’s oil this week, showing this is about more than helping women. The US doesn’t care about protesters; they’re just pawns in a game played by those at the top of The Pyramid of Power. This war is about serving Israeli interests. This is not about trying to save the women of Iran.I reiterated this with one of my final statements:“I don’t think anybody really buys the idea that the US is just this moral nation after we’ve seen them turning a blind eye to what’s happened in Gaza, what’s happened in other nations. Nobody buys that the US is some upstanding moral nation in the world. I don’t think anybody buys that fairy tale anymore.”Conveniently, Ms. Wolf said we were out of time.In the final moments of our discussion, she defended the US strikes on Iran by claiming that the US is under imminent threat by terrorists who are allegedly linked to “Iran-funded ISIS“. She also invoked the terror attacks of September 11, 2001:“My family lived through 9/11. I came here a few days after and I’ll never ever ever forget that Iran is an imminent threat. You know, extremist regimes like the ones that attacked us on 9/11 are real threats.”I couldn’t help but interject and state that the US wasn’t attacked from outside the country, but from within. I called the 9/11 attacks a false flag event to which she replied “Oh my God.” I also told Ms. Wolf that it’s surprising that someone as well researched as her would not have looked into the truth about the 9/11 attacks, especially as someone who has been a guest on The Corbett Report when James Corbett has produced some of the most well done documentaries on the subject. She wasn’t interested in continuing that dialogue.The CIA-ISIS ConnectionOne final point relates to my statement about the relationship between the CIA and ISIS (the Islamic State). When Ms. Wolf was invoking the violence of ISIS and arguing that Iran was involved in funding them or that the threat of Islamic terrorism was justification for US intervention, I stated, “ISIS [is] the creation of the CIA. ISIS was funded through the US foreign policy in Syria, in Iraq and elsewhere.”To which, Ms. Wolf replied, “What is your source for that?” Now, I don’t have a problem with a request for sources—I pride myself on providing my sources in my documentaries, books, and articles—but I was honestly surprised that she had never heard this information or seemed to be unaware of what I was referencing. So here’s what she seemed to have missed...In 2013, former US President Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin training and arming so-called “moderate rebels” who were fighting to remove Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. The program, known as Timber Sycamore, involved the CIA’s Special Activities Division providing money, weapons, and training to the opposition groups fighting the Syrian government during the Syrian civil war. The effort was supported by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Turkey, and the UK.As veteran journalist Seymour Hersh reported in April 2014:“The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida.”As Hersh notes, some of the weapons ended up in the hands of extremist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS itself evolved directly from al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). In this way, the CIA’s funneling money and weapons to Syrian rebels led to the expansion of what became known as ISIS. There’s also the fact that some of the rebels from groups like the Free Syrian Army would later defect to ISIS, bringing with them the weapons provided by the CIA.Timber Sycamore is reminiscent of another Obama era program known as Operation Fast and Furious where the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed licensed firearm dealers to sell weapons to illegal buyers in hopes of tracking the guns to Mexican drug cartels. Many of these weapons would end up inexplicably lost in the process and in the hands of some of Mexico’s most dangerous cartels.Additionally, a report from Belgian research group Conflict Armament Research concluded that “international weapons supplies to factions in the Syrian conflict have significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to ISIS forces.” The group analyzed more than 40,000 weapons, ammunition, and materials used to manufacture improvised explosive devices which had been left behind by ISIS forces between July 2014 and November 2017. They used serial numbers to trace the weapons back to their original owners and found that “the main drivers of illicit weapon supplies are not the companies and states that manufacture weapons, but the governments and entities that acquire weapons lawfully and subsequently divert them to unauthorized users.”So, whether by some deep state conspiracy, or simply the failed bumbling policy of the CIA under the Obama administration, the US government directly contributed to empowering and funding what became known as ISIS. This allowed warmongers and compliant media pundits to use the fear of ISIS to justify more bombing campaigns and calls for war.Building a Coalition of Anti-War Activists Before Its Too LateUnfortunately, people like Ms. Wolf continue to parrot these same claims in the name of attempting to justify the US and Israel bombing Iran. In the end, this debate wasn’t simply a personal clash between two journalists—it was a microcosm of how war propaganda persists: through selective outrage, historical amnesia, and fearmongering dressed up as moral necessity.When even vaccine skeptics who rightfully questioned COVID1984 echo state department lines on regime change, it’s a stark warning about how deep war propaganda infects even the most independent minds. If voices like Naomi Wolf’s continue to amplify empire talking points without applying the same scrutiny given to other obvious government psyops, the cycle of endless intervention and death will continue.Donald Trump was elected to his second term in office after successfully building a coalition of disaffected, politically homeless Americans who largely rejected previous administrations’ thirst for war and empire building. Now that Trump has revealed himself as yet another warmonger in sheep’s clothing, we must build a true coalition of non-partisan anti-war activists who question every justification for war, especially when it comes wrapped in appeals to women’s rights or imminent threats. We must stay vigilant, reject the fearmongering about Iranian sleeper cells, and prepare for the possibility of a false flag.It’s time to build the anti-war movement America needs now more than ever.The Last American Vagabond Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Hey everyone, it's Naomi Wolf with a very exciting debate today. And I'm going to let Mr. Derek Brose, my debate, I guess, opponent, go ahead and introduce himself. Then I'll reintroduce myself and then we'll just get started. The subject is the U.S. strikes on Iran justified or unjustified. Mr. Brose, please. Excuse me. Thank you for that introduction. And Iommi, and thanks for having me on here.

And for everybody who doesn't know my work, my name is Derek Brose. I've been independent investigative journalist for the last 15 years, originally based in Houston, Texas, now living in central Mexico. I write for The Last American Vagabond. My main website is The Conscious Resistance. You can find my journalism, documentaries, podcasts, etc. at theconsciousresistance.com. Awesome.

Well, thank you so much for being here. And the reason we are doing this is that I was commenting supportively on social media about the attack, President Trump's attack, this administration's attack on Iran for various reasons that, you know, I hope to get into. And Mr. Brose was critical of my posts. And I'm old school. I, you know, don't think people sniping at each other on social media

is really a way to understand anything or gain a deep recognition of multiple points of view, enhance our understanding that things can be seen from multiple perspectives, create our own point of view from hearing, you know, a good principled debate. So I invited him to debate, and he kindly agreed. So we're going to go ahead and debate whether or not the strikes were justified. And do you want to begin, Mr. Brose? Sure, that's fine with me. And, yes, first I just want to say, I agree with you.

I definitely don't think social media is the best way to communicate. complex ideas and much do prefer things like this, whether in written form or face-to-face like this. So my basic position is that the U.S. getting involved in this conflict really doesn't represent not only what Donald Trump and his administration claimed to be America first. I don't think it's about actually representing or defending American interests, especially while there's plenty of issues at home that Americans heard Trump campaign on and that are not being addressed. And I also think in a broader picture,

it really represents Israeli Zionist interest, not American interest. I think we have to take into consideration the fact that there has been no congressional, constitutional approval for this conflict. As with every conflict, you know, for the last decades, Trump is continuing that same practice as Obama and Bush before him,

Biden, of course, as well. And that, yeah, generally, it's not in the U.S. interest. There's a history of U.S. interference in Iran, going back to the 50s, Operation Ajax, which I think is relevant in terms of understanding why Iran is the way it is today. And overall, I don't think Americans need to be dying for this conflict, which, as I said, seems to be more about Israel's desire for the Greater Israel Project and removing their, you know, their claimed enemies than anything that represents American interest or America First.

Gotcha. All right. Well, thank you for that. You know, you've said a lot of things that you haven't presented evidence for. And, you know, I hear your perspective. I guess what I would say is that I absolutely believe that the strike is justified. I am also an American first MAGA Trump voter. I also agree with you that many, you know, many issues. have to be dealt with here at home and that our first priority is looking after our people. I will know that you live in Mexico, and I don't know if you vote in U.S. elections, do you? I've never voted other than when I was 18, and I was foolish enough to think that voting was going to fix things. Well, if you don't vote, why are we having this debate? I don't think one needs to vote to have an opinion on matters in the U.S.

I mean, I think if your argument is basically those who don't vote, shouldn't have a an opinion, well, then you're talking to about more than a third of America because there's actually more Americans who don't vote for either party who don't participate in presidential elections than there are that vote for either party. Do you think that's a good thing? I think it's a sign that more and more people are questioning these systems and realizing that there is a unit party, including MAGA, including the current establishment, the current administration, that they agree on war, they agree on surveillance, they agree on supporting Israel, you know, regardless. I think those are things that more and more Americans are questioning. And that's in a large part why people,

I think, mistakenly believe that supporting Trump and RFK and his coalition was going to lead the change. And now Trump is, you know, very quickly losing that base of supporters who, who believe that there were going to be no regime change wars, as he claimed. And as many people who are now in his cabinet, including Tulsi Gabbard claimed. I guess I just don't understand how you respectfully can speak on behalf of Americans who are left behind, as you put it, by a policy of not putting Americans first if you yourself won't put Americans first. Well, I don't think this debate is about me or my personal life, but I don't see how I'm not putting Americans first.

My family's Americans. they all live in the U.S. I did make a choice to leave the U.S., but that's really neither here nor there as far as why the U.S. should or should not be bombing Iran. I think that's kind of irrelevant. Well, respectfully, I kind of think it's relevant because you're not in this country. You're not affected physically. You and your family are your immediate family with you in Mexico or whoever you're with are not affected by the threats. All of my family is in Texas. I there. If the U.S. is attacked or if so, if there's a draft or anything relating to war, my family would be directly

affected by it. And again, I mean, if you want to deflect the issue to where I live, instead of rather talking about Israeli influence over American politics, I mean, we could do that, but that's definitely not why I came here. And I don't think that's what the focus of the debate is or why people are listening right now. No, well, that's certainly not, you know, my intention, obviously is not to deflect, but to me as a patriot and as someone who does put America first, you know, the basis of my argument that these strikes were absolutely necessary to protect the American people comes from my being in the, you know, in the game and not abandoning this country and living here, wanting to make it better, working to make it better, and I vote, you know,

and I go to a lot of trouble to vote because I don't, I know as a former political consultant that if people don't vote and if people leave this country and talk about it, you know, in the safety or security of other nations that are not targeted, you know, by our enemies that we're targeting the United States, it leaves our country weaker. So that's why Mexico is absolutely affected by U.S. foreign policy and what happens in the U.S. 100%. I mean, I'm not thousands and thousands of miles away. And nevertheless, again, there, we could talk about the value of voting and politics if you want, but that's not really why I came here. But the idea that voting is the only way for Americans to affect change is just, I think, ridiculous notion and that more and more people are questioning that notion, especially after they voted for red, they voted for blue, they went back and forth.

And now they're like, okay, well, either way, I'm getting more war. I'm getting more Zionism. I'm getting more, you know, outsourcing of American energy and America, you know, the economy. There's all kinds of issues we could talk about that. As you, as somebody who voted MAGA, I'm sure you do care about. But I think that's really just an easy way for you to kind of avoid the topic. So I outlined my main arguments and you said I didn't provide any evidence. That was an opening statement.

So I'm happening to get further into them. But maybe you should outline why you do support the war or why you do think that you should be wrong. I'm happy to. But before I do, I'm just, you know, I'm just processing because a lot of people will either be inspired by what you're saying or not. or inspired by what I'm saying or not, to me it is absolutely fundamentally important that you left this country and that you're standing outside of this country, outside the borders of this country, outside the problems of this country, you know, from a completely different country, like you left us and you're, you know, taking the liberty, which everyone has,

of telling Americans what they should do better or differently. And to me, let me finish, please, Mr. Brose, to me, let me finish, please, Mr. Brose, to me, as a patriot, our number one responsibility is to stick with our own country, defend our own country, put America first. If it's got problems, solve the problems. If this administration is not doing what we think it should be doing, we need to stay here and vote them out. We need to clean up our election system. We need to make sure our kids have enough food. Make sure the schools are good. Make sure the roads are good. Make sure our borders are secure and make sure our defenses are strong. And so to me it is absolutely, you know, of critical importance that a young, bright man like you who once ran for, I believe, mayor of Texas or city council. I'm sorry, city councilor of Houston, you know, made the decision to abandon this country. To me that matters. Now I'm happy to go on to my, you know, opening statements if you want me to. But like to me, I would never, ever abandon this country. And I don't think anyone should abandon this country who's an American. I think we should stay and fight for it.

Well, I wouldn't frame me making a choice for myself and my family as abandoning, but I know that's helpful for your argument to frame it that way. I don't think a patriot would support war for a foreign nation, fighting for Israel. And, you know, as we've seen, you know, U.S. soldiers, Marines speaking out, saying they don't want to die for Israel. And, you know, I think also if you want to stick on the point of Americans moving out of Mexico, moving out of the country, there's plenty of Americans who don't live in the U.S. who still vote. You know, I'm one of them who doesn't vote because, like I said, I think it's a, little naive at this point with everything we know to think that voting is going to fix things or that

anybody gets into the White House that isn't controlled. So I let go of those childish things long ago and instead I fight for my community. I would probably argue and I think those who follow my work probably know whether I live in the U.S. or not that I do more than probably most Americans living there voting every single year, every two to four years to fight for the U.S. and to fight for individual liberty and for the principles of the founding of the country. So you know, why not I think my place is- You know, and run for office and actually serve your community. How does it help us to have a great-

You don't need to run for office to serve your community. There's many more ways to do that. I think that, I think this is a little silly, Naomi. I think that you're better than this to understand that there's many ways a person could serve their community that don't involve politics. You're right. I did run for Mayor of Houston two times, not because I wanted to win, not because I wanted to be a politician, but to spread the message that I believe in.

And I was successful at doing that, and I'm grateful for that time. But it also showed me how even corrupted politics is on the local level and how much Zionist influences even on the local level. So I did learn quite a bit of that, but it wasn't with the intention of becoming a politician. That's not my path. My path is as a journalist, as an author, and as an advocate for real change within our own communities and encouraging people to vote with their actions, to vote by making themselves as free from these systems as possible.

Because I think the more energy we put into these failed systems, which are controlled by APEC, both parties, both major parties, then we're just wasting time, money, energy that could be better served elsewhere. So I'm happy debate politics or voting and strategy, if you like, but that's not why it came here. Well, I mean, you don't get to choose in a debate what your opponent. I mean, the topic is called debate on Iran bombings, not debate on why Derek moved to Mexico. Okay, we'll leave that aside. I think it absolutely matters, you know, if someone who's debating a U.S. strike on Iran, who is an American who says your opening statement is it doesn't put America first. You didn't put America first. Okay. All right, let me move on to the reason I do

support this. You said that this strike supports Israel. And I would just note that the countries that Iran bombed include Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Qatar, the countries hit by Iran in the last few years or via Iran-backed proxies in the region include Israel, but also Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Qatar, and ships in the Red Sea. And there have been condemnations of the attacks in every direction, by the way, including Cyprus, in the wake of our attack from Iran, from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan, I'm sorry, the United Kingdom,

and even including the Palestinian Authority, which called the strikes from Iran on the Arab states a, quote, violation of Arab state sovereignty and of international law. So it's certainly the case that it would help Israel, I'm conceding that for sure, to not have a murderous insane regime in the region building nuclear warheads or building nuclear capabilities that can go beyond civilian use. And I'll get into the evidence for that in a minute. But I think you have to note that all of these Arab countries,

who support, for instance, the struggle of the Palestinian people, also were attacked by this insane, deranged, irrational regime run by Mullahs who do not make decisions about geopolitics the way that you and I might, and all of them, including many of Israel's enemies, united with Israel in condemning these attacks. And all of them were made vulnerable in a way that violated their sovereignty,

violated international law by Iran attacking them. So all these people are now aligned in the region against this murderous, destabilizing, unstable regime that is building nuclear capability. Now, let me talk about the nuclear capability of Iran. Under ordinary circumstances, I totally agree with you. You know, we should put America first. I prefer peace. for sure there's a long history.

You and I come from a similar background of being exposed to far left analysis of geopolitics, what's really driving the world. I, a thousand percent, you know, come from your worldview, and I've moved away from it, as I've learned more. I used to believe that all wars, you know, all proxy wars that the U.S. fought were, you know, really just about oil or about capitalism and about greed, and really we should just make peace all the time. and always use diplomacy. I think that's now a very naive perspective, respectfully,

especially in the case of Iran. Iran was assembling a nuclear capability that not just the U.S., not just Israel, but many, many, many allies and non-allies were very, very apprehensive about, and you're younger than I am by a generation or two. You may not know how dangerous nuclear warheads are. You know, a nuclear strike can destroy life on Earth for, you know, multiple continents, you know, and several nuclear strikes can destroy life on Earth forever.

So when I say I support taking out a regime that was building nuclear capability that could wipe out the children that you're invoking in your opening statement here in Brooklyn or around the United States, absolutely. They need to be protected from an unstable psycho regime that's building the capacity. beyond civilian capabilities to take out their enemies with nuclear warheads because they will use it. They've shown that they will use indiscriminate force. So our, I'm sorry, our allies have said that Iran should never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Macron said Iran's nuclear escalation threatens the stability of the entire region. That's France. That's not Israel. The German Foreign Ministry said Iran's enrichment levels are far beyond any credible civilian use, and I hope you really understand what that means, Mr. Brose. It means they're building for attacks. The House Foreign Affairs Committee said Iran's nuclear program poses a grave threat to global security and an completely independent body. The International, the IAEA, which monitors atomic energy escalation, the International Atomic Energy Agency,

Director General Raphael Grossey said, Iran has enriched uranium to near weapons-grade levels and has enough material for several nuclear weapons if further enriched. And in addition to that, a really important book that I recommend that you read by Jamie Glazov called United and Hate documents that Venezuela, which you may note President Trump also just struck and did a regime change, much as we don't like regime change, unilaterally. Venezuela was working with Iran to get the materials for them that would further enrich their uranium, further build their capacity to take us all out with a nuclear warhead. So to me, it's common sense. It's not ideological. It's not left or right that this completely unstable regime run by people who believe more in an afterlife than in making things safe and secure and positive for their people, which I I haven't even gotten into in this life and have shown their willingness to attack their allies

as well as their enemies, you know, indiscriminately with no thought to what this will do to people like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, right? Also a major power. They are building warheads that and they've targeted us as the great Satan. They identify us, us, the United States, not us, Israel. as an American. They've said very clearly that they want to wipe us off the face of the earth and they're partnering with Venezuela to take it even further. So they've been given the chance to deescalate. They've been given the chance to obey the treaties. They've been given the chance

to have their facilities inspected. This is, I don't know how familiar you are with the situation. I'm very familiar. Can I respond to this? You've been talking for quite a bit. There's a lot to respond to you. I let you finish Mr. Brose. But you, you know, Iran did not abide by international law and treaties in D.S. civilian level, and they were posing an immediate imminent threat to life in the Western Hemisphere, if not life on Earth. Absolutely, they needed to be removed from threatening all the people on the planet. How long has Netanyahu been claiming that Iran was about to finish their nuclear weapons? I really don't know. I don't really think about it.

Can I just finish? Can I just finish? My concern is not Netanyahu. My concern is the United States of America. I get that, but it's the same messaging. It's the same thing we've been hearing for 30 years from people like him who clearly have an influence on U.S. foreign policy. So you might not want to hear about what he has to say, but he's in Trump's year as well as previous administrations. So it's a relevant point because you're bringing up all this nuclear weapons talk. And they've been telling us that for the International Association of Atomic Energy. Sure. I know. I heard. heard the sources you made. So let me go ahead and respond. There's been talk of this for 30 years since the 1990s. And even just last summer, Trump himself with the strike they did in the so-called 12-day's war, he claimed that they'd completely obliterated all of Iran's nuclear capabilities. But one year

later, we're, I guess, told to forget that or we're not supposed to remember that. So I have trouble buying this messaging from them. I don't, you know, I don't think it's probably accurate. It seems like propaganda. Your first point you were making about how Can I just jump into that? I'd like to respond to what you said, because you did sort of a long monologue, and there's a lot of things that I'm trying to remember to respond to. So if I could, it might be easier if you take it point by point next time, because you did say a whole lot,

and I'm trying to do my best here to respond to all the different talking points. Now, you're talking about the various Arab nations who are condemning Iran's attack on them. And I want to make it clear. Of course, I'm not here to defend Iran or Israel or even the United States. I'm not here to defend any government. As far as I'm concerned, I stand for the people of Iran, the people of Israel, the people of America who are against these wars and who recognize that is only the regular people, the people who in the United States thought MAGA was going to be for them who will suffer because of these wars. So I'm not here defending Iran or their leadership

or their policies or any of those things, much more, you know, any more than I'm defending the U.S. and Israel. But what I am saying is that, you know, you talk about how Iran, responding to the U.S. attacking, because let's be clear, it wasn't Iran attacking the U.S. out of nowhere. It was the U.S. attacking Iran, which we've since learned through Marco Rubio. He said that the U.S. needed to attack first because they knew Israel was going to attack Iran, and they were worried that Iran would respond to them and hit American bases. And so they said we needed to hit them first. There's no way we're going to let them hit us first. So Iran was attacked first. That's clear as day. I don't think there's any

denying that. And in response, whether we agree with it or not, they're trying to hit as many U.S. allies and American military bases that are within their reach. So, you know, talking about violations of international sovereignty and law, what about the sovereignty of the Iranian nation? I mean, do they have any, you know, any ability to decide their own future? Obviously, I support the people in Iran who resist their own regime for their own reasons. Like I said, I support the people. But the U.S. government, the U.S. military is not or were not intended to be. be the policemen of the world who go around and decide which regimes we take out. Because clearly, we're not against all violations of human sovereignty. People can talk about, you know, the Iranian

protesters being killed or rounded up and things like that. But then American foreign policy sure is pretty quiet about what happened in Gaza and elsewhere. I mean, there's selective outrage that only comes in whenever it serves the alleged American interest, which really, I think, are corporate interests and the people who actually run the U.S. government. It's not American interests like the American people on the ground, like the people listening to this. They're not being benefited anyway with seven dead U.S. soldiers so far. They're not being benefited anyway by the U.S. bombing schools or hospitals or desalienization plants or things like that.

And they're definitely not benefiting from Iran responding and bombing American bases. That's not serving any of our interests. So, you know, we're going to talk about Iran's response to that. We have to at least acknowledge that they're responding to what the U.S. and Israel initiated. And can I just ask you, Mr. Brose, if Iran is responding to what the U.S. and Israel initiated, why did they attack Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Qatar, and ships in the Red Sea over the last few years? Do you talk about prior to this initial conflict?

Prior to this and now. You know, this time around they attacked... Well, I think they're just lashing out. I'm not here to defend who they're attacking. They're clearly lashing out. But is that a meeting with you? What about the children in Cyprus? What about the children in Saudi Arabia?

No, it's not okay for me for any children to die. Like the children dying in Gaza or the children who died from the U.S. Tomahawk missile hitting the school just last week. None of that is okay with me. I'm not here to, as I said, to justify or defend the death of children or any people, but that's what is going to come with supporting war. That is what is going to happen as war expands. There will be deaths on all sides. The number of the countries I described to you were attacked prior to this by Iran. I'll list them again.

Yes, and the U.S. has been interfering in Iran for here. This didn't just start last week. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Qatar, and ships on the Red Sea. Iran was the aggressor. The U.S. has been interfering in Iranian politics for decades. This didn't just start last week or even last summer. This has been going on. The U.S. caused Iran to attack Lebanon. The U.S. calls anything, but again, you have to, if you want to talk about foreign policy, we have to acknowledge that the U.S. has a history of intervening in foreign nations,

including Iran, and trying to overthrow their governments, trying to install protests. Like, yes, there's legitimate resistance to the Iranian regime. But also, there's pretty good evidence that through the National Endowment for Democracy, which we know is it been an extension of the CIA, the U.S. has also been trying to stoke protest movements there to put in a compliant regime. And even, you know, Trump himself, they've said they really have no plan. I mean, now they got rid of one bad guy, right? Well, he's replaced by his son who might be even more hardline. Is that helping the situation? Is that America first? Or is that just going to lead to more

conflict that could last decades? You know, Trump is saying, we're calling on the Iranian people, overthrow your regime. This is your once in a lifetime opportunity. That could lead to civil war. It could lead to more deaths. Like, is that which you are, you know, standing for? You think that that's going to help America or that's going to help the Iranian people. I listened to your interview about United and Hate. I've read through that book. I understand your concerns about the way women are treated in Muslim nations and in places like Iran. I understand and see and recognize those concerns as well. But the U.S. bombing, intervening is not going to help. And as I said earlier, this is absolutely, whether you want to talk about Israel or not, this is absolutely about Netanyahu

in the Greater Israel Project. The Israel has been trying to overthrow Iran. for decades. And of course, we could debate why that is. And, you know, they say this is their big enemy. But it's just the fact of the matter. So my view is that the U.S. should have no involvement. And this isn't our fight. This isn't our battle. And again, back to the Constitution, which MAGA at least pretends to care about, there's been no constitutional congressional approval. They tried. We saw the war powers vote last week. And it got voted down by both parties. So Americans are sick, including Americans, not living in the United States, are sick of both parties being a uniparty that supports war and that only benefits the military

industrial complex. Right. Well, thank you for all of that. Let's just note that, you know, I generally agree that there shouldn't be foreign influence on U.S. policy. I agree that, you know, we should always put America first. I just think it's very interesting that we give the Ukraine $31.7 billion a year in aid to Ukraine, as opposed to Israel, $3.3 billion. Jordan gets $1.7 billion.

Egypt gets $1.5 billion. Even Ethiopia gets $1.5 billion, half of what Israel gets. And Pakistan gets billions as well. So, you know, I agree with you that there's too much lobbying. influence from Israel, but even greater than that is the lobbying influence from Qatar and Turkey. So, you know, this is, I think, a bigger problem with the one that you're identifying. You're singling out Israel as if it's not a much bigger problem. Guitar is not in the White House.

Mr. Brose, I let you finish. Do me a favor. Let me finish. 2025 foreign lobbying spending, Saudi Arabia, $68 billion. China, $56 billion. That's on our elected officials. Turkey, 54 billion, Japan, 48 billion. Liberia, 25 billion. Marshall Islands, 20 billion. Bahamas, 18 billion.

How much did Israel spend on lobbying? And they shouldn't do it. I agree with you. $17 billion. So they're way down at the bottom of the list below the Marshall Islands and the Bahamas. So if you care about this country, come back to America, help me pass some legislation to ban foreign influence of any kind. on our elections, but you won't do that.

Did Marco Rubio say he bombed that the U.S. did this for the Marshall Islands? Or for Israel? Did Marco Rubio say that the U.S. was doing this for the Marshall Islands or for any of those other nations you met or for Israel? I mean, I don't think that that's the point that I'm asking you to call attention to you. Well, you want to talk about all the funding elsewhere, but again, clearly Israel has an outsized influence. But I just showed you that Israel is at the bottom.

of the list of people. You pulled up one metric that really doesn't, you know, what about the fact that Netanyahu is as allies with Trump, Kushner, Whitkoff? I mean, you've got the whole Trump clan who are deeply tied into Israel. And they're putting out AI videos about how they're going to remake Gaza and all these sort of things. There's clearly a huge Israel influence and Israel and Iran are definitely connected.

So I hear your point, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter of the influence that Israel has on American foreign policy. And what I just said was the Secretary of State of the United States. States, Marco Rubio said that they initiated this attack because Israel was going to attack and they wanted to do it first before there was any potential attacks on American bases or American interests. So there clearly is a huge, I don't think it's debatable at this point, but I mean, you can debate it. I think people can clearly see what's going on here. Because, you know, I've given you a list of billions and billions of dollars coming into our country

from foreign sources. You're not complaining about Turkey's influence. You're not complaining about Pakistan's influence. You're not complaining about Egypt's influence. Katar has far outsized influence. All of these are bad, but you're, I think, irrationally... I didn't say I'm supportive of any of those. You're just choosing to sort of focus on those ones, but I'm talking about which the ones that are relevant to our discussion today, which is about Iran and Israel and Iran's relationship. Many of these other countries also objected to being attacked by Iran. I think that the whole picture. I think that you are not in a strong position by getting rid of the whole picture of

foreign influence and the whole picture of, you know, what what the lobbying of our country looks like. It looks very selective to me. Let me, but I, you know, look, I agree with you that we should only be operating in our interests. I will also say if you look at World War II or World War I, we have allies and we have allies for a reason. And up the street in Gracie Mansion yesterday and over the weekend, there were three IED bombs that were placed by people trained by ISIS, which is funded by either Iran or out. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. This is my home and I get to say it. There are. That's why I wanted a moderator because I knew you would do this.

Finish my sentence? Come on. Interrupt me constantly and claim that I'm interrupting you. But go ahead. What I was saying is ISIS is the creation of the CIA. ISIS was funded through the U.S. foreign policy in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere. What is your source for that? I can send you an email if you like. I think this is pretty heavily documented that the U.S. funded moderate militias in Syria, which evolved into what we know as ISIS, both in Iraq and in Syria. I mean, this information's been out for a decade now.

This happened under the Obama administration. Okay, so what's your source? I just told you the source. Do you want me to cite on New York Times? report or something. I can pull that up real quick. Anything at all. I just gave enough information for anybody can look it up. If you've never heard this information, I'm surprised, but it's out there. The U.S. absolutely funded so-called moderate militias in Syria and Iraq. I mean, go back to John McCain, Obama administration, and many of those militias evolved into what we call ISIS, which ISIS

also sure seems to serve Israeli interest occasionally. It seems like they pop up in places that are convenient to the Israeli narrative. But like I said, continue on. I mean, you want to talk about these other countries? I thought we were here to talk about Iran and whether or not the U.S. should be bombing them. You still haven't responded to me about the fact there's been no congressional or constitutional approval or the fact that Trump said he was not going to start new regime change wars. How does that feel to you as somebody who said they're a MAGA voter? Is that something you, obviously you're willing to, you know, turn a blind eye to that and keep supporting it? but the man said there was not going to be regime change wars.

So the war powers resolution of 1973, which is S-440 of the 93rd Congress, requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying forces and limits. Their state is 60 to 90 days unless Congress declares war or authorizes an extension. Now, I built a site called Bill Cam that anyone can check where you can see upcoming bills. There are multiple bills that have been introduced by, Democrats to stop President Trump from his action in Iran, but the House and the Senate both declined to pass those bills. So we still have a democracy in America. I know you left America, but our elected officials sitting on Capitol Hill have chosen to let the president lawfully

continue what he's doing, which is constitutional, according to the war powers resolution, from 1973, which is the law of the land. And the gang of six was notified within 48 hours. And many legal scholars have concluded that the action is within standard article to guidelines and justifications. And President Trump wrote a letter to Congress explaining that the strike was to protect U.S. forces in the region and defend the U.S. and its allies and acting in self-defense, which are all standard Article 2 justification.

So respectfully, the Constitution is a, you know, a document that has like, there's the Constitution, there's laws, right? So there's the Constitution, which says that only Congress can wage war, and I agree with that. And then we also have laws that are passed that are the law of the land. And the War Powers Act does allow the President constitutionally to do what President Trump did. I'm with you. I don't want any additional wars. What about when the laws don't align with the Constitution?

I don't want anyone to die unnecessarily. But I do agree, as I said in my introduction, that Iran was posing an immediate threat. And I do want to go back to what I was saying, please. Just one quick question on the War Powers Act, if you don't mind. What happens when the laws that have been passed are not aligned with the Constitution? The Constitution that sets itself, you know, anything that's not aligned with that is essentially Nolan Void. So they passed the War Powers Act, yes, but then after 9-11, we get the authorization for military force in 2001, right? And every conflict since then, they've tried to use that. And every

year it keeps getting renewed. But no president has gone to Congress directly and put this to a vote, said, okay, we want to start a new conflict, which clearly, I mean, technically it's not a new conflict because this has been years and years of the U.S. interfering with Iran. But still, the point stands. The president has not trump Obama before him, Biden, Bush, it's etc. Clinton have not brought these conflicts to the Congress to say, put this to a vote in front of the American people. And then at least we could see those representatives that you want us to vote for and to support. We could put them on record to see where they stand. And instead, the closest we get is this war powers resolution, which didn't pass anyway. So I guess we kind of

see where they stand. But the point is, if the laws aren't aligned with the Constitution, and they just keep using old resolutions from 50 years ago to justify what they're doing now, I don't see how that is making America great, how that's America first. So, Derek, respectfully, it's not the president that brings laws to Congress. I'm aware. But if the laws that have been passed are not aligned with the Constitution as it was signed in the founding document of this country, then how are those laws constitutional themselves? So using those as justification doesn't quite meet constitutional muster. I mean, respectfully, we have a system for that, and I'm not laughing at you.

I just think before it to be like that. Yes, we have a system that is imperfect and that is clearly corrupted by corporate and other interests. And that's kind of the point. Can I just finish, please? Because it's important. Like, it's important for a bright young person like you with a lot of, you know, leadership potential to really understand how America works. Because it is quite beautiful.

If a law is not constitutional, it gets challenged in the court. and it can go all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then the Supreme Court's ruling creates the new law, right? That's how our system works. So when you said, you know, we're using old laws, many of our laws are old. I mean, laws, you know, 1964 was when an Equal Rights Act got passed that we still use. What I meant is that it hasn't been. They haven't brought up a new approval for the wars.

The old approval is from 2001 or you're saying 1970. they're supposed to be an approval for war. The president's supposed to get approval for that war every single time, not using some 50, 60-year-old justification or 9-11. So if you're talking about old laws, the Constitution goes back to the 18th century. I get it. I know you're trying to lecture me like I'm some naive young kid or something like that,

but that's not going to work here. You understand what I'm saying. They did not get justification. They did not get congressional approval for this war. That's what the Constitution requires. Even if they did it other times and they did it unconstitutionally, that doesn't change what's happening. happening. I mean, I'm just pointing out the facts. And I'm not imagining that the Constitution's all of a sudden

going to be followed because it's never really been followed and definitely not followed by the current administration or the previous administration or either party. But at least that should be on the record that they're not following the Constitution. And thankfully, people like Thomas Massey are at least trying to put that on the record. Okay. Derek, the way our system works is, and I can show you these bills if you go to Bill Cam and search War Powers Act, right? Or Iran, you'll get a bunch of bills that have been introduced by Democrats to do exactly what you say, and that's how our system works, right? The Congress decides if the War Powers Act is a bad law, and then they get rid of it by passing a new law or amending it. That's how our system works. Multiple bills have been introduced. Congress, which is elected by the people,

and Senate, which is also elected by the people, have chosen not to pass them. So that you could tomorrow pass a bill to pull everyone back from Iran. But the people's representatives have chosen not to pass those bills. And I showed you with the Article 2 information that there is a limited provision within the Constitution. It's Article 2 of the Constitution, I believe, that allows the President to do limited strikes like the kind that you're describing. Now, I agree with you. Many wars that the U.S. wages around the world are illegal or unconstitutional. I actually wrote that book in 2007 called The End of America. where I talked about the proxy wars.

And if you haven't read it, I recommend it. I'm familiar with it, which is why it's astounding that you're defending this. So some wars are legal and some wars are necessary. And now let me speak to your point earlier. And I'm speaking as a woman now. And respectfully, I really recommend that you connect with Iranian women leaders in exile or feminists who used to live in Iran who are now in exile. or who had to flee because they were arrested by the regime, tortured by the regime,

raped by the regime. You said that the imams are, you know, you implied that they were the democratically elected representatives of the Iranian people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I never said that. Okay. Well, you said that, you said they had legitimacy. I never said that either.

I said that I don't support the Iranian government and I don't support the way that they treat the people. And I've read accounts of women who have been raped and. abused and, you know, for various things that you're discussing here. Nothing I'm saying is in defense of the Iranian regime. So please don't try to turn this into that's what I'm saying, because I think everybody listening here can clearly see and hear that I've never once said that I'm defending the Iranian regime. I'm defending the U.S. Constitution and against the U.S. being involved there. Okay. Well, I do want to give you some information or give our listeners

some information about the status of the people in Iran in relation to. to this regime and why the many people in Iran are cheering, including emigrates and exiles all over the world, who are Iranian here in New York and in Los Angeles and in London and in Paris and in Brussels, all over the world, Iranians are cheering that the US and thanking President Trump for these strikes and thanking Israel.

So Amnesty International notes that Iranian law treats women as second class citizens, in every way, divorce, custody, education, property rights, and that the imams, they say an amnesty is an independent global organization. It's not left. It's not right. It's not even American. The imams are waging a, quote, war on women in Iran. They're subjecting women and girls to surveillance, beatings, systemic sexual violence, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and rape in detention for things as,

minimal as defined compulsory veiling, like if your hair shows, you can be arrested, detained, disappeared, raped. There's documented rape and other sexual violence to punish women protesters who were protesting in the, quote, women life freedom uprising. So these are women, you say you're on the, you know, the part of the resistance against tyranny. These women are trying to resist tyranny. They're being arrested just for protesting. They have no rights to protest. they are systematically raped. Human Rights Watch, a completely different organization, also nonpartisan, also global,

also says that women are treated as second-class citizens in the law. And Human Rights Watch also confirms that authorities sentenced women to long prison terms and flogging, which is beating with whips, which can kill people, for protesting compulsory veiling. There are, there are, there, If you're raped in Iran and you complain that you were raped, you get punished, right? There are, if you date someone and you before marriage, you get punished.

If you resist domestic violence, you get punished. So women in Iran, by the millions, are coming out into the street to celebrate the strikes on the regime. no one likes bombs, but they're asking the bombing to continue. And if you have questions about this, I interviewed the representative of one of the emigre organizations, which is interestingly led by a woman. And they talked about that life under the regime for women who are 52% of the Iranian population. So the majority of the people that you're so concerned about, it is not life worth living in Iran. they are begging the international community to get rid of that regime so that they can have rights.

So if you're talking about the violation of international law, flogging women, beating women, raping women systematically, torturing them in detention for exercising their voices or for, you know, showing their hair inadvertently under a veil, that violates international law. So I would say if you really care about the people of Iran and you should, you should side with me and the many feminists I've interviewed the many women leaders who represent the women of Iran and the girls of Iran who are just as victimized and join forces with me in helping that country get to a democratically elected administration that will protect the rights of women as is guaranteed by international law. You don't seem to acknowledge that women have rights to the law to not be raped, to not be beaten, to have a vote.

I think you've made your point. And Iran is violating all of that. So obviously I don't support the rape of women. Again, it's not the U.S.'s fight. There's plenty of nations around the world where we could list very similar, you know, abuses and atrocities. Can I continue now that you had your monologue atrocities that are happening around the world? And nobody's calling for the U.S. to go bomb there and get involved because, again, they're doing this for Israeli interest. And not only that, the U.S. is not intended to be the policemen of the world.

So as much as I do not support those things, whether they have been or wrong, Mexico, the U.S., Canada, or anywhere else in the world, it's not our fight. And not to mention, yes, you can find videos of expat Iranians elsewhere outside of the regime cheering. And you can also find people in Iran if you go follow the accounts in Iran and you could claim their propaganda, just like I could claim the videos of people cheering outside of Iran or propaganda. People within Iran who don't want the U.S. to be bombing them. That doesn't mean they support their own regime. Some do, some don't.

Again, we could argue whether they've been propagandized or if they're brainwashed or whatever. but the point is we could find Iranians that say they support it. We could find Iranians who don't support it. So I don't really think that's a strong argument. And also, I'm not sure how it helps feminism or women for the U.S. and Israel to be bombing schools and hospitals, including, again, the Tomahawk missile, which has now been attributed. Tomahawk missiles come from the U.S. that bombed the school, which was mainly made up of girls, young school girls, that happened just last week. I don't see how any of those actions are helping women around the world, how bombing them. And then also, you know, you talk about the current leadership.

Again, I mentioned Operation Ajax earlier, 1953. When the U.S. and the U.K., the C.I. and MI6, came in to overthrow what was then a democratically elected leader because Iran was nationalizing their oil, they got it. They did a coup. They put in their own leadership. And that history directly leads us to the 1979 revolution and to the current leadership. So you can't talk about the problems of the current leadership, which again, I'm not here to. to cheer them on or support them. But you can't give this historical take

about the current leadership without looking at the circumstances that led to the people in power now and how things got that way. It's directly related to the U.S. and UK intervening because of oil. I mean, so even one more point, please, even just in the last 24 hours,

Trump has floated the idea of the U.S. seizing Iran's oil, saying that's still on the table. So this is clearly about more than just helping poor girls and women and helping those. the U.S. doesn't give a damn about these protesters. They don't give a damn about the military, the leadership.

They don't care about these people. This is about Israeli interest. This is about oil interest. This is not about trying to save the women who you rightfully speak for and who are suffering in those ways you talk about, not only in Iran, but in other parts of the Middle East. It's not about helping them. I don't think anybody really buys the idea that the U.S. is just this moral nation.

After everything, we've seen them turning a blind eye to what's happened in Gaza, what's happen in other nations, that the US is some upstanding moral nation in the world. I don't think anybody buys that fairy tale anymore. Okay. Well, we're unfortunately at the end of our time. I certainly acknowledge that in every conflict, resources like oil are probably an important motivator. I don't think it's beautiful, but given that, again, Iran was building nuclear warheads that it stated it wanted to use to take out the West.

I do think that a big chunk of the world's oil supplies and safer hands not in a homicidal regime's control. And I will just return to the point I made at the beginning, which is you're probably right. that U.S. foreign policy isn't primarily motivated by the suffering of Iranian women. I just raise that point because you seem to think that the imams represented the popular rule of the people and they, you know, don't for 52% of the people, clearly. I'm not arguing that they do. All right. Leaving that aside, I'm acknowledging to you that you're probably right,

that securing a big chunk of the world's oil so that it's not in the hands of homicidal maniacs who want to take us out is a motivator of the Trump administration. I can't say that it's not, but I'm going to go back to my main two points, which is that this strike happened to a rogue regime that not just the United States, but I mentioned France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and international nuclear warhead monitors all warned was building up a a capability to destroy all life on earth. And that's number one. And number two, you didn't let me finish this,

but it is important. Iran is a fully documented funder of terrorism around the world, including in the United States. And the investigation is just starting out. There have been many new escalations of national security threats in the United States from groups aligned with Iran and just over the weekend, Gracie Mansion, there were three IEDs that could have killed a lot of people. And I, you know,

I live in New York and I lived through 9-11, or my family lived through 9-11. I came here a few days after and I'll never, ever, ever forget that. Iran is an imminent threat, you know, extremist regimes like the ones that attacked us on 9-11 are real threats. Israel has its faults. We weren't attacked from outside the U.S. on 9-11, just FYI. Oh, my God. All right. It's a false flag event. I would assume somebody as well research as yourself, it would have looked into that by now, especially people as a New Yorker,

whatever the genesis of that, you know, we weren't, we weren't helped by the funding and support and training of terrorists around the world who want to take us out and who are doing a good job, killing 3,000 people,

you know, down the street from where I lived on 9-11. And, you know, endangering New York police officers and peaceful protesters on your side of the discussion outside of Gracie Mansion. And so it is important to protect our national sovereignty. We need to obey international law. We need to obey the Constitution. I agree with you entirely about that. We shouldn't have any unnecessary wars.

There should be no dead soldiers that could be saved. But in this particular case, and I object to proxy. wars. I was one of the first reporters in Guantanamo. I'm generally on your side. In this case, I think the Trump administration had no alternative, and I think it is really critically important that we not be in the crosshairs of the nuclear warheads of a genocidal, homicidal regime that sees the United States as a country to destroy. And with that, I will let you have the last word. Well, thank you for the last word. Thank you for having me on. I appreciate it. It's been interesting to say the least. Yeah, I would just reiterate, you brought up that point there at the end about

these investigations going into Iranian, like we're hearing now just conveniently in the last day, ABC reports Iranian sleeper cells planning this and that. And we had a gentleman, Pakistani man just arrested and sentenced for allegedly being, you know, plotting some assassination of Trump that was allegedly tied to Iran. Conveniently, there was FBI informants all around him, which seems very much like everything we've seen since 9-11, FBI entrapping some hapless individual who had no means, had maybe a motive and some angry person, but really had no means, no financial means or otherwise, then FBI informants show up and start promising that they can supply them with bombs or connect them to hitmen. And then they make an arrest and they tell the

whole world, look, we caught a terrorist. It seems to me to be the same tried and true playbook they've been doing for two decades. So overall, I stand by what I've said that the U.S. is not following the Constitution. They have not got congressional approval. This isn't in the interest of making America great again or America first. This is to serve Israel. and Israel's greater Israel project. It's not the U.S. job to police and go around and try to solve every conflict on the world. This is going to lead to more American deaths, more dead soldiers, and hopefully it doesn't go into a wider conflict. The Trump administration themselves seems to be admitting that they really have no plan.

It went from regime change to maybe we'll get the oil. Maybe it's going to take this long. There's even an article over on the Daily Cloud that talks about that, that it doesn't seem like the administration has an off-ramp for this. So I think overall this is going to be another American blunder. Hopefully it doesn't last, you know, years or even decades. Hopefully it's resolved some way that doesn't involve more American deaths or unnecessary civilians in the Middle East because those people matter too. The women, the children, the young boys, the people who have been killed already in Iran

and elsewhere who are caught up in this conflict. Their lives do matter too. So thank you for giving me some time to make my case. Thank you so much, Derek, Mr. Brose. And thank you so much for this really rare and wonderful opportunity for two people. who disagree on a lot of things, but also agree unexpectedly on a number of things to have a real old-fashioned debate instead of just sniping on social media, being cheered on by our respective, you know, echo chambers. I really appreciate you coming on. I think you did a very creditable job representing your point of view. I trust that people who watched will, you know, leave enlightened by what Mr. Rose said, and also I hope by what I said. And let's agree that, you know, peace and justice should prevail. Shall we end there?

That works for me. I hope peace and justice do prevail. All right. Thank you so much for coming on, Mr. Brose. And do you want to tell people where they can find you and how they can support you? Sure. You can find my work at theconsciousresistance.com. That's where my podcast, documentaries, books, et cetera, are.

I'm on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, et cetera. Just search my name, Derek Brose or The Conscious Resistance. And again, thank you for having me on. Thank you very much. And everyone you know where to find me, I'm at Daily Cloud. Please support us if you want to see really interesting, enlightening debates like this and independent journalism. And over on Substack, I'm Outspoken. And you know, you get the media that you support. So if you support what Derek Rose is up to, you should support his work. If you support what we're up to here at Daily Cloud. And on Outspoken, you know, you get the media that you support. You should support our work, support both. Why not? Let's keep the discussion going. And thank you again, Mr. Brose, for such an enlightening conversation and debate.

I appreciate it. Take care.