The Megyn Kelly Show - America Begins War With Iran - What it Means for MAGA and More, with Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rich Lowry, Charles Cooke, and Sohrab Ahmari | Ep. 1263

Episode Date: March 2, 2026

Megyn Kelly discusses the bombing of Iran over the weekend, four U.S. service members who have already lost their lives, why she's skeptical and concerned about Trump's war on Iran in collaboration with Israel, and more. Then former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to discuss pro-war propaganda being pushed out on social media and throughout the establishment press as America begins war with Iran, whether this foreign policy action is an abandonment of MAGA principles, the reality of America First, the parts of the right that are celebrating today, and more. Then Sohrab Ahmari, U.S. editor of UnHerd, joins to discuss why he opposes the war, America's recent history of failed Middle East regime change wars, the cheerleading of the war on Fox News, what would happen if Trump declared victory and ended the military action in Iran, the potential for American "boots on the ground," and more. Then Rich Lowry and Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review join to discuss celebrations around the world and in Iran after the toppling of the Ayatollah, the case for the war as beneficial to America and the world, the need for more information and explanation from Trump and his administration about why he's taking this action, the political ramifications with the action in Iran as the midterms approach, the impact this will have on China and Russia, and more.   Cooke- https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke Lowry- https://www.nationalreview.com   Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order. PureTalk: Save on wireless with PureTalk visit https://PureTalk.com/MEGYNKELLY Cozy Earth: Visit https://www.CozyEarth.com/MEGYN & Use code MEGYN for up to 20% off     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow  Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show. The war on Iran has begun. Where it ends and what's ahead for the United States remains unclear at this hour. U.S. Central Command, which oversees our military operations in the Middle East, announcing early this morning that now four U.S. service members have been killed. That's up from three yesterday, one service member succumbing. to his or her injuries. Just a short time ago, President Trump gave an interview to the New York Post where he did not rule out potentially sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. The president saying, quote, I don't have the yps with respect to boots on the ground, like every president says,

there will be no boots on the ground. I don't say it. I say probably don't need them or if they were necessary. First and foremost, I, Megan Kelly, am praying for the troops. I mean, that's where my mind immediately went. The guys and the gals who have to actually carry out this mission, why again, and put their lives on the line for whom again, are the ones who are on my mind, and I prayed for them mightily yesterday and the day before. And I hope you have and will continue to as well.

Look, there are massive divisions over what we've done here, and people are going to change their minds over the coming days and weeks, one way or the other. but my own feeling is no one should have to die for a foreign country. I don't think those four service members died for the United States. I think they died for Iran or for Israel. I think, I understand how this helps Iran perfectly well. I get it.

I mean, I hope. Long term, we'll see. But they seem rather jubilant. 80% of the country does not support the Ayatollah. He was a terrible, terrible man. No one's crying that he's dead. No normal. person. But our government's job is not to look out for Iran or for Israel. It's to look out for us.

And this feels very much to me like it is clearly Israel's war. Mark Levin wanted it. It's his war. Ben Shapiro, Lindsey Graham, Miriam Madelson. That's obvious. They're the ones who've been pushing us into this. But in case you had any doubt whatsoever, the Washington Post is reporting it explicitly this morning, explicitly, about why we did what we did and when we did it. In the briefing on Tuesday for the gang of eight, which consists of the leaders of the House, the Senate, and each chamber's intel committees, a secretary of state, Merco Rubio, indicated to lawmakers that the mission's timing and goals were shaped by the fact that Israel was going to attack with or without the United States, according to a person familiar with

the outreach to lawmakers. So the only debate that seemed to be remaining was whether the U.S. would launch in concert with Israel, or if the U.S. would wait until Iran retaliated on U.S. military targets in the region and then engage. That sounds perfectly right. I think you knew that before you heard me read it from the Washington Post. So Israel said they were going to do it. Tucker Carlson said this on the show on Thursday. He said exactly that. And sure enough, that was the position that we were in. And it would explain perfectly why President Trump seems to be having so much difficulty clearly defining why we are doing this. I mean, I don't know about you, but I have found the explanations lacking. I woke up on Saturday morning like the rest of you to his videotaped

announcement where he was wearing the hat, did not walk away with a clear understanding of what we're doing. It was restatements of things we've known for years. Yeah, we hate it around. They hate us too. Like, we've known that. Why are we doing this now? What is the catalyst. Obviously, President Trump does not want to say we did it because of Israel. What he said instead was, quote, our objective is to defend the American people. Okay, so far, that sounds good. Why do we need defending? By eliminating imminent threats, he said, from the Iranian regime. Okay, we're under imminent threat now. What is it? What's the imminent threat from the Iranian regime? We saw CNN Scott Jennings, who's always

talking with the administration, parroting this over the weekend, posting on X, quote, Senior Trump admin officials telling me that credible intel indicated Iran planned preemptive missile strikes against U.S. military targets in the region and against civilian targets as well. Failure to act would have resulted in mass U.S. casualties. Does that make any sense to you? I mean, stop and think about it for a minute. I'm close to this administration in many ways as well, but I don't allow them to use me like a fool. Does it make any sense to you that Iran was planning preemptive strikes against us and our civilians, knowing full well of the massive military assets we had moved into the region, aircraft carriers, and so on?

Obviously, it doesn't. And sure enough, now today, it's all over. I mean, the Washington Post, U.S. intel assessments that Iran's forces were unlikely to pose an imminent threat to the U.S. mainland within the next. next decade. Okay. Again, the attack came despite U.S. intel assessments that Iran's forces were unlikely to pose an immediate threat to the U.S. mainland within the next decade. And beyond that, CNN and Reuters report that Trump administration officials on Sunday acknowledged in closed-door briefings with congressional staff to whom they're obligated to brief, to speak and give their intel, quote, there was no intelligence suggesting Iran planned to attack U.S. forces first,

or to strike our bases in the Middle East. Okay, so there was no indication of an imminent attack. I don't know why Trump said that other than to try to justify the actions. But now we've heard it from several different reporting centers that there was none on the homeland, there was none on our outposts, there was none on our forces, and there was none on our bases in the Middle East.

President Trump cited a long list after that of terrible things that Iran has done to the United States or its forces over the years, dating back to when I was eight. Okay, so I mean, I realize the 1979 taking of the hostages for 444 days was bad, but literally, I was in third grade. And it seems like a, why now? Why now? Why when we are so fatigued with Middle East War, would we be retaliating against them now? So like, give me another reason, please, because it felt very much like a kitchen sink approach. if we're going back, probably involved in the USS Cole, like all these, you know, the attacks in

Beirut. Like, this is ancient history. There is nobody under the age of 50 who even has an active knowledge of any of that stuff. As for what they've done with like the Houthis and all that, like, first of all, a lot of these wrongs have been on the books or a long time. And many of them have already resulted in sanctions or retaliation by the United States, which leaves us asking, again, why are we doing this and why now? President Trump mentioned he felt like we were getting tapped along by the negotiators dealing with our nuclear representatives, Kushner and Whitkoff, which I believe. I'm sure they did.

That's all they ever do. But Trump himself told us that we obliterated that program. That was his word, obliterated. Last June, we obliterated their nuclear program. Like not four years ago. Seven months ago, he mentioned that they still had, quote, ambitions to make a nuke, which I believe. So is this about bombing them out of their ambition? Is that why four service members are dead and their families are grieving them today?

Because Iran had ambitions? That can't be it. I just, I don't understand fully what's going on here. I do believe Trump doesn't want to get us into a. another forever war. And I believe he wouldn't willingly submit to Quagmire. You know, in his mind, he thinks he can do this. He's been all over the board on the timing of it too. But generally, he's saying four weeks or so. And he thinks we can do enough damage to them over the course of four weeks that we can achieve what? Again, I don't, I don't know.

Is that going to bomb them out of their ambition? We don't know who's taking over. The Ayatoll is dead. Again, it's a great thing. Nobody would, it's like, truly, it's like finding out that somebody like Hitler has died. There's only one correct response. Yay. But, you know, regime change wars and taking out another country's leader is full of danger, too. Reportedly, there were family members of the Ayatollah that were also killed. There was at least one report that also a granddaughter of his. I just, I pray for the Trump family. I don't want anything to happen to them. And we increased the risk of that with this behavior. He's already, I mean, Trump said he tried to kill me twice. I got him first.

So, I mean, clearly Trump believed the reports that the Iranians were planning on murdering him, assassinating him. There has been some speculation that they were actually behind a thwarted attack, not any of the ones that we actually know about, like the one in Butler or the one on his golf course, but another. So I get it. You know, I got him before he got me. Okay. Maybe you can make the case for like one targeted bombing of the Ayatollah if that's what we wanted to do. But this is well beyond that. We're going to be there for a month. We've taken out 40 plus members of the regime. What are we going to do about all the other members of the regime? Because right now Trump is saying, we think they're going to put down their arms, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard members,

which is the most vicious group they have over there and joined with the Iranian patriots in the streets, he said. They are? Based on what? Because they were literally shooting the Iranian protesters in the face a couple of weeks ago. I don't, I've got serious doubts about what we're doing. I support the president. I voted for the president. I campaigned for the president. As you know. But that doesn't mean, and being a conservative or being a Trump supporter or being part of MAGA does not mean you have to accept another Middle East war without questions. And anybody who tells you that can suck it. There's nothing unpatriotic or unsupportive of one's conservatism

or general adherence to MAGA-type principles to say, I would like to be better convinced that this is worth the sacrifice of American blood and treasure. That's where I am. That's where a lot of people are. And over the next two hours, we've got a series of guests who will talk us through all of the angles. Our two, we are going to have two of our favorites from National Review, who are, national review is definitely neocon. And they will defend the president and explain to us why they think this makes sense, and the president deserves that here.

And there are millions of Americans who are behind this. If you spend two minutes on X, you will be persuaded that all of America supports this, which isn't true. So Rich Lowry's here. So is Charles C.W. Cook. They'll explain it to us all. We're also going to be joined in just a bit by Iranian-American journalist, So Rob Amari. He's terrific, and he's been writing a lot about, you know, what the risks are, what the benefits are, and how we should be thinking about this conflict.

But we start today with a detractor, somebody who does not like what she's seeing, and that view will also be represented on this program. And that is former U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet. And now they're messing with your credit card. They say your credit card and the security it offers are under attack, and that Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more afford.

The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks, with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guard your card.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card. It's great to see you. Thank you for being here. I sense your aggravation, your frustration as I watched your Twitter feed, and you're in the minority on X, which again, It was just, I mean, X is completely saturated in neocons, the pro-Israel crowd, and people who would love to cheer lead us right into another Middle East ground war that's endless. I was grateful for your contrary perspective. Marjorie, thank you for being here today.

And give me, give us your overall view on why you're against this. Well, thank you so much for having me, Megan, and I completely agree with everything you said in your intro. I'd also like to point out that X is saturated in bots as well. and paid social media influencers who just echo whatever their money tells them to say the money that they're getting paid for. And so I think that just like our media has been nothing but propaganda for as long as you and I can remember, I think social media has turned into the same thing. What I do know is most Americans, and it's being proved in polling that's coming out, most Americans are completely against this war. Because like you said, the president has made no case for it.

We live our ordinary lives and we don't feel threatened by Iran. We don't walk around thinking that in any moment an Iranian ballistic missile is going to land on our head. We don't. Here's what Americans, and I want to read off this list, this is what Americans are focused on. 72% of Americans can't afford health insurance. 58% of Americans can't afford car insurance. 67% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. 31% of Americans can't afford their back taxes.

50% of Americans are in credit card debt, massive credit card debt. That's where we are in America. And I campaigned with the president. As a matter of fact, I was one of the only Republicans that was out there for Donald Trump when the rest of the neocons, by the way, that are just cheering him on now, had abandoned him and were trying to beat him in a primary and stop him from being president and again, I was out there on the front lines for Make America Great Again. And Make America Great Again was supposed to be America first, not Israel first, not any foreign country first,

not any foreign people first, but the American people first in our problems. And the, you know, God bless the Iranian people. I hope to God that they can have a government that is for them and that treats women fairly. But what we have seen happen right now is we have seen, seen over 100 little girls killed at a school from a bomb. And I don't know whose bomb it was, but they're dead today because America and Israel attacked Iran. So that's not really good for Iranian women. And our president is saying that the Iranian people are all of a sudden going to topple their regime. Well, I don't think the Iranian people are going to be toppling their regime when they're getting blown apart by the United States and Israel in an unprovoked attack.

And yes, it was unprovoked. And Pete Hegsafe said this morning. morning, Megan. He said that we didn't start this war, but I hate to argue with the Secretary of the Department of War. America and Israel definitely started this war, and you can't lie that away to the American people. And so, you know how I feel right now? I am irate. I am furious about this. We are nearly $40 trillion in debt. How much is this war going to cost us? We have seen enough of our American troops dead and murdered for foreign countries. And now we've had four dead and murdered, just like you said, for Israel and for the Iranian people, not for the American people. And I don't want to see any more dead and murdered. Our military is filled with some of the greatest people

from our country. And God bless their families who are probably losing their minds right now, terrified that their son or daughter or their husband or wife or brother or sister may come home in a flag-draped coffin. And then we have the president who, by the way, Megan, this really needs to be said. Donald Trump has said repeatedly on camera and in interviews, he doesn't think he's going to heaven. Well, I want to ask a question, a serious question. What is in his mind? What is his mental state?

If he doesn't think he's going to heaven and he has a man towards the end, he's in the fourth quarter, he's towards the end of his life, how does that pan out for the rest of us when we have a president of the United States who doesn't think and is convinced he's not going to heaven. What does that mean his decision making is? He already said to the New York Post today that he doesn't care about the polling. He doesn't care about what the American people think, and he may put troops on the ground. He took a, oh, this is going to be a few-day war, to now it's going to be maybe four weeks or more. I want to say, what is happening to the man that I supported, you supported, the man that denounced what happened in Iraq,

the man that said no more foreign wars, no more regime change, promise it on the campaign, J.D. Vance promised it, Tulsi Gabbard promised it, all of them promised it. And we're a year in, a year in, and we're in another fucking war. And we've got American troops being killed. I think it's time for America to rip the Band-Aid off. And we need to have a serious conversation about what the fuck is happening to this country. And who in the hell are these decisions being made? for and who is making these decisions? The president on the heaven thing has said he was being cheeky about that, that he actually doesn't have worries.

But I understand your greater point. Who is making the decisions? Because the president Trump that was talking to us about going in and, you know, we're going to, the Iranian people, they're going to thank me, you know, like, I did you a favor. I made you a promise and I lived up to it. He was talking to the Iranian people, not the American people. Yeah. I made you a promise and I lived up.

What do you mean? They didn't vote for you? That's right. They weren't on the campaign trail for you. No. We're the ones who are putting our best and bravest at risk right now. And he says the Iranian people are, it's up to them to now sort of take the baton and, like, install a new leadership.

They have no guns. They're sheltering in place because we're bombing their country right now. How are they, like, what is the plan for them to, like, then take the baton and install a new leader? Like, how are they going to do that with the IRC still intact? And they're still being Iranian leaders. Not everybody was wiped out. And his comments to the press today seem to be they're going to lay down their arms and join with the Iranian patriots. No, they're not.

Based on what? Based on what? So if that doesn't happen willingly, just by like the grace of God, okay, we're going to do it, then we are going to have to do it. Or Israel's going to have to do it. And the more Israel fights, the more we have to fight MTG because that's what got us into this mess to begin with. We saw they were going to head and do it. And we felt like we had no choice because they were going to attack our bases first thing as soon as Israel did it. That's right. No, you're absolutely right. And I heard an analyst say today

that, that, okay, we've killed approximately maybe 40 or more of their top leadership and the Ayatollah. Well, guess what? The cleric ruling class is about 50,000 deep in their government. I mean, are we going to kill all 50,000 of them before they can bring a new government in? And while this is happening, Megan, we're bombing them. We are bombing them. We are bombing them. and killing their people and destroying their buildings and wreaking havoc on their entire ability to function in daily life. Do we really think these people are going to be saying,

oh, thank you, America, thank you, God bless you. We're killing them and killing their children. So I think we're radicalizing a whole new generation of Iranians. That's what I worry about too. That don't remember like me and you, we don't remember. We were kids when the last regime was, was taken out, and this new regime was put in. And I think this whole thing is this is not what we voted for, Megan.

It is absolutely America last. It's the same bullshit we've seen for decades now. And I don't think the president is being tongue in cheek. I know that man very well. And he repeatedly and repeatedly says he's not going to heaven. The same way he repeatedly says that he's going, what do you think? Should I run for president again? You know, I think that started out as we could take it as a joke.

but I don't think he's joking. And I know you're not willing to go there, but I am. I really want to know what is his mental state and who is he doing this for? Because it's not for the American people. He's lying. He's gone back on what he promised, no more foreign wars, no more regime change. And I want to know where the hell is J.D. Vance? Where is he?

Where is Tulsi Gabbard? Because if they stand by and are silent and they're turning back on the same words they said, it's all on video. All of them are on video saying it, just like I'm on video saying no more foreign wars, no more regime change. I'm on video on campaign stages and at Trump rallies saying the exact same thing. But where's JD and where's Tulsi? And the president... Well, I'm sure behind the scenes, at least JD has worked to stop this, but he's lost. I mean, that's got to say it. What's obvious now is any detractor. The same way Tucker went in and tried to talk Trump out of this, and he lost and admitted the Mark Leviv. of the world have won. I mean, Mark Levin and Lindsay Graham, forgive me, spent the entire weekend with a massive heart on. There's just no, you can see it in the commentary. They were thrilled. They were gleeful. I mean, they were just overly excited at the fact that we were now risking American troops' lives for Israel. And what does Lindsey Graham do to go out there and, like, quell anybody's concerns that that's what we're doing? You know, he just keeps doubling down and doubling

down. And now he's mentioning Cuba. Hold on. Do we have that? Yes. Here he is on FNC's Sunday night. This is SOT 16. Is President Trump finished the job that President Reagan failed to do? I am a big admirer of Ronald Reagan, but I'm here to tell you that Donald Trump, in my opinion, is the gold standard for Republicans, maybe any president when it comes to foreign policy. Maduro, everybody talked about him? Well, Donald Trump's got him in jail. Cuba's next. They're going to fall. This communist dictatorship in Cuba, their days are numbered. The Iranian regime, the mothership of international terrorism is about to collapse. The captain of the ship, the Aitola, is stone cold dead. Cuba's next. They're going to fall. This is after Trump on Friday. We played this bite on our show on Friday, saying maybe we'll have a friendly takeover of Cuba, which we don't know what that means. So now they're talking about Cuba. And let me just give you one more. more, MTG. The former Prime Minister of Israel, Neftali Bennett, was at the Conference of Presidents

of Major American Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem on February 17th. And listen to what he said then, Sot 20. A new Turkish threat is emerging. I want to be very clear. Turkey and Qatar have gained influence in Syria, are seeking influence elsewhere and everywhere throughout the region. And from here I warn, Turkey is the new Iran. Erdogan is sophisticated, dangerous, and he seeks to encircle Israel. And while some senior Israelis were on Qatar's payroll, Qatar and Turkey are nourishing the Islamic Brotherhood monster that is growing. And eventually, might be.

become as dangerous as the one created by Iran. Turkey and Qatar are gaining influence not only in Syria, but also in Gaza, through the front door, and everyone, and trying to create a new choke ring. Turkey is trying to flip Saudi Arabia against us and establish a hostile Sunni access with nuclear Pakistan. So where does it end? I shared that on my social media as well. I think Israel, and I'm talking about the government of Israel.

I think these people, they literally are trying to start World War III. It's completely out of control. It will never end. War will continue when Israel is pushing the United States and demanding that we wage war with them. It will continue as long as we're alive. It will never end. And Lindsey Graham, I saw him, I saw a video of him this morning, and he was choking back tears, swallowing back tears. Because he was saying he was so proud of President Trump for declaring war,

and going to war with Iran. He wasn't choking back tears for the American military members that have been killed and their families who are mourning their deaths right now. He's choking back tears because he's so happy about war. Megan, I can remember on a campaign stage in Lindsay Graham's home county where he was born and went to elementary school where he's from.

I stood on that stage and spoke before him. And I said, no more foreign wars, no more regime change. And I said, we're going to end the war in Ukraine. The crowd went nuts, thousands of people. Then Lindsey Graham came out right behind me and spoke right after me, and they booed him for 10 minutes on stage. That was a little over, I think it was about a year and a half ago. It was during the campaign.

They booed him in his home county for 10 minutes straight. But when you watch a video like that from the former prime minister of Israel, all I can think about is the military industrial complex. Those guys are lighten up their cigars, drinking their whiskey and patting each other on the back because all they can think about is how much money they're going to make off the American taxpayers, making bombs, building new aircraft, building new drones, and building all kinds of military equipment just to kill people all over the world. While the American people, all they want is to be able to fucking afford a house, afford health insurance, and be able to maybe, maybe live

the dream like the baby boomers did and live a family that can live on a single family income and not have both parents working themselves to death, so their children have to live in daycare and grow up in daycare. And that's the reality that we're in, Megan. It is America last, and it makes me want to vomit. I don't even know if I ever want to vote again. I am so disgusted. Democrats destroyed this country for four years, and now Republicans,

and we didn't vote for the Lindsey Graham's and the Mark Levins. And fucking Laura Lumer, she needs to go over there to Israel because they need 100,000 reservists, and she's 32 years old, so she should go fighting that war, too. That's not MAGA. That is not MAGA. That's not America first. This isn't what we voted for, and I can tell you right now, neither party. Neither party gives us anything.

It's back and forth, and it's the Uniparty always wins. And this time, this time, it's not even the Uniparty for America. It's literally Israel first, Israel first, and then where is it going to stop? we had the chance to vote for Ron DeSantis for Nikki Haley during the presidential primary. I was there. I moderated the debate. We absolutely had that as an option right in front of us. And the Republican Party resoundly rejected them. I mean, they completely were against Nikki Haley. They thought she was way too much of a neocon hawk. And you had Trump over there saying no more Middle East wars where I'm going to keep us out of war. I'm the dove president. And look at us. Like you point out, a year in, a year into it.

Now we've, this is a second strike on Iran. We did one strike targeted, said we obliterated the nuclear program. I think most Americans were like, okay, it was risky, but we move on. Yeah, that's right. I'm glad it's gone. And now we're back. We're back in there talking about possible ground troops. Yeah.

And we don't know for how long, maybe four weeks, but maybe longer. And the quagmire doesn't come because the president says, I would like a quagmire. I think I'm, I would like to spend 20 years in Iran. It comes because the retaliatory attacks are escalating. They attack more of our people than we can't just pull up and say, okay, it's over. Right. Because they've escalated too. And the Iranians are starting to escalate.

Like, they get a say as well in how long this goes on. Absolutely. I think what we're seeing, it's like you said, who's going to stop? I think what we're going to see is complete annihilation for whoever is annihilated. Is it going to be Iran? Likely so. They're just Israel and America. We're going to keep bombing them.

until they are completely annihilated because President Trump himself said last week, he said he was, I forget his exact quote, but it was basically, it was, oh, he said for once and for all, for once and for all. So he's not going to stop, which means when will it stop? This is, I'll say it again. Americans do not care about a foreign country and their war. We are so done with it. And we thought, we thought, we thought, we. We thought 2024. We have our own worries. Yeah. Okay, look, let's take this down to something simple. Social Security is going to be bankrupt in seven years. You and I've been paying into Social Security all our entire lives. We aren't going to see a Social Security check at this point. We're just not going to see one.

The millennials who that generation, they're like dual working parents, they're never going to see a social security check and they're paying into it. And our kids, Megan, you can forget it. They won't even know what a social security check is. It'll be like, oh, yeah, that was something our grandparents got. They won't even know. I mean, it's absurd. But, oh, no, no, no, no. They, we got to go fight this war in Iran. We got to destroy. We got the Ayatollah. A bunch of people are having to Google search. What is an Ayatollah? They don't even know what the Ayatollah is. It's so out of control. It is mind-numbing. It is infuriating. And I think, I really think both parties need to be burned down. Both parties need to be burned down because Democrats can't pretend like they're against this war.

They're all for it too. They funded and got all into the Ukraine war. They've been into the wars for years. And so have the Republicans. We have no representation in Washington. He was funding Israel, you know, without question for the past four years is one of the reasons why his party wound up turning on him because the Democrats have to become anti-Israel. But no, you're right. Both parties love war. I mean, that is clear. And the military industrial complex always wins. Yeah, whether the American people do remains to be seen. MTG, thank you.

Thank you, Megan. Look, I realize a lot of you may be feeling very differently. Your hour is second hour. You will hear that POV definitely expressed because I'm not looking to change hearts and minds on it. I'm just looking to be honest with you about where I am. But I think you deserve and the president deserves to have himself defended, this action defended. And I'll be honest. Doug and I are split on this. Doug is in support of it. Doug supports the president and Doug

can't stand Iran and what it's been doing. Neither can I. I don't like Iran. It's leadership at least. But and I certainly, I have Iranian friends, you know, Iranian Americans who are very much grateful to President Trump for getting rid of the Ayatollah for at least giving them a shot. I returning Iran to something that looks more democratic. And I get all that. And I have empathy for them and I celebrate their happiness. But we're talking about using the American military and putting their lives at risk. And let's be honest, ours too. Because if you don't think we're going to see retaliatory terror here on the homeland, you weren't paying attention for the past 20-plus years. Already we had that attack in Austin. That looks like a crazy man. I'm going to be honest.

He was wearing an Iranian flag and a t-shirt praising Allah. But so yes, related, linked, obviously. But I'm talking about more methodical, well-planned attacks on soft targets. I mean, for the young people, and we have a lot of young people watch the show. You're probably in high school when this stuff happened, but I'm telling you, we covered it on Fox. I was there night after night in the prime time of Fox discussing this terror attack and that terror attack and another terror attack, and it wasn't by loons. It was by ideologues, radically Muslim ideologues, who hated the United States because of its foreign policy, because of its foreign entanglements. And it's settled down. It's settled down somewhat over the past, whatever, let's say seven years. And it's about to start

back up again. We don't know who the hell came into this country under Joe Biden. Who the fuck came across the border? We have zero clue. You don't think that there's going to be some Iranian pro-Iatollah sympathetic to the leadership of Iran terror cells. I mean, I realized Cash Patel's putting out statements saying we're on it, we're watching. They are always watching it.

They were always watching it, even when we got attacked over and over and over. So I just, I don't want to get hysterical about this. Okay. It's not yet World War III. and President Trump, I believe, doesn't want Quagmire long-term war and we'll do everything within his power to keep this thing tight and use an overwhelming amount of force to make sure that if there actually is a threat there willing to unleash against us, it is minimized, hobbled, if not completely eliminated. But there are massive risks to what we're doing. And my own take on it is it's not worth it, not to us American citizens. Again, different POVs coming up. Up next, Sora Abari, which, who unlike virtually any of us on the program today, actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to Iran, the interior of it, and what is likely to be the reaction and the risks. If you are looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider Riverbend Ranch. Their steaks are not only delicious, they also contain real high-quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein and contains all-neutral.

nine essential amino acid your body needs to function. It also keeps you fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it is raised and where it comes from. That's where Riverben Ranch stands apart. For more than 35 years, River Bend Ranch has been building an elite black angus herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. All Riverben Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the USA. They never used. growth hormones or antibiotics, and the beef is processed at the ranch in their award-winning USDA-inspected facility. No shortcuts, no middlemen, just incredible, healthy, flavorful beef

shipped directly to your home. Order today at reverben ranch.com. You don't want to go to the store, have to wait for products that may or may not be what you want. Is it grass fed? Is it organic? Like, what is it? Just go to riverbeder ranch.com. Take care of it in advance. It'll be in your freezer, super convenient, and you know you're getting quality. Use the promo code Megan to get 20 bucks off your first order. As one nation, we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives. We pray for the full recovery of the wounded and send our immense love and eternal gratitude to the

families of the fallen. And sadly, there will likely be more. Before it ends, that's the way it is, likely be more, but we'll do everything possible. Why? Why should there be any? Why? Can you imagine the families of those four fallen service members, American service members? Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show. Here with me now is Sareb Amari. He's the U.S. editor of Unheard. He was born in Tehran, Iran. And like I said, unlike most of us, actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to the dynamics inside that country and what's next there. So Rob, thanks for being here. So your thoughts on where we are now and where it's likely to go. Thanks for having me, Megan. So let me start since you mentioned my background. Yes, I'm an American of an Iranian background. And I've got to

tell you, if the regime change operation or the war, whatever they're calling it, panned out the way that the president laid out in his initial speech and the various advocates for this war had envisioned, then, you know, as an Iranian American, I'd have an easier time because I hate this regime. You know, it's driven me and my family into exile, and I would get to go back, presumably. But it's as an American, as an American by choice that I oppose this war for some of the reasons that you laid out with Marjorie in the previous segment. The bottom line is I thought that after two decades of failed regime change wars, the United States was going to focus, especially under Trump and under this kind of populist conservatism on domestic reconciliation, building up

at home, restoring our hollowed out industrial capacity, rethinking how we do immigration and admitting far fewer people, and that takes real work, not just, you know, some of these ice raids, but that takes legislation that the president hasn't done. All that, you know, and, of course, being prepared for the real challenges of the 21st century, for the most part, they lie in East Asia. That's where America's future challenges and opportunities are. It's China. It has to do with, you know, the fact that in a few years, more than half of global GDP

will be in the Asia-Pacific region and forget, you know, the region. that I left behind. It's the mess of a region that I left behind. Why go back in, especially on these premises of we're going to give Iranians freedom. How are they, as you said, as Marjorice, as others have said, how are we going to achieve that? What's the metric? How is that going to be possible without boots on the ground? And then today I hear both the president and Secretary Hegset, whom I'm admire on other fronts, I've got to say, I mean, I've interviewed Pete and respect him. I actually think people underestimate him.

But, you know, talking about if necessary, we'll have boots on the ground. I mean, this is, it's like taking an unpleasant time capsule back to 2003. Even the same language. I mean, I heard someone on Fox News, one of these Republican lawmakers, highly intelligent Republican lawmakers said, you know, it'll be up to the Iraqi people, excuse me, the Iranian people to determine their destiny. It's like, oh, my God. So honestly, Fox News is insufferable right now.

Insufferable. I was there for 14 years. I've already told my audience. If I were a Fox News anchor right now, I'd know exactly what to do. Cheerlead. Cheerlead. That's it. It's all about rah, rah, rah, ra, go military.

That's what's patriotic. Praise the president. Support the troops. Support the war. Day in, day out. I mean, this morning, what do they put on? Mike Pompeo to kick off the day's coverage. Lindsay Graham, all over Fox News over the weekend.

That it's utterly unhelpful to go, like today, obviously I've come out and said how I honestly feel because I owe that to my audience. But today we're going to have both sides on to help people actually make up their own minds. You will not find that over on Fox News. They've got one mission. And that's to support these military groups, the military itself, and President Trump. It's just folly. It's folly. And it's a fool's errand too, because it's like, I already did.

20 years of that. I did 20 years of marching us blindly into war and cheerleading it and not being the one to carry the consequences. But I've interviewed enough soldiers missing legs and soldiers who almost killed themselves due to PTSD who don't see any value in what they did over there, especially after we gave it up under Joe Biden, that I know now more caution is needed. Cheerleading may make you feel good, may spike your ratings, Fox News, but it doesn't necessarily help the guys who are actually going to have to put those boots on the ground and go fight this war, which, as I point out, is not necessarily going to be. be the cakewalk that our administration is suggesting, Sorab. What do you make of the Iranians'

response so far because they seem to be fighting just as hard as they possibly can? Yes. I think this, it's surprised even me. And I was obviously, to be clear, I was a war skeptic. I was a skeptic of going to war with Iran before it happened. But even for me, the degree to which they've actually held it together is surprising. It reminds us that Iran is not Iraq. It's much bigger. It is not an artificial state whose borders were basically drawn by European imperialists 100 years ago just by kind of randomly going, okay, here's Iraq, here's Lebanon. That's not the case with Iran. It's a resilient, systemic, civilizational state. And so even though the Supreme Leader was killed early on in the attack, they have in place

various people who are prepared for each role. There's someone else, waiting to take command. They have been firing on all cylinders, really have set the Gulf on fire, gone a long ways was really closing the Straits of Hormuz. They've, you know, are raining fire on Israel. And that, by the way, the images from Israel

of the civilians... Which is where all the oil from the Middle East has to pass the streets of Hormoros to get out and ship out. The images from Israel really just break my heart as well because, you know, it's just... I grew up during the Iran-Iraq war, the latter years of around North Bar, I only have vague memories of this. But that kind of city-to-city missile warfare is really, really awful because you can't predict

where it comes from, you know, and what the consequences are, even just the sound. I have empathy for what the Israelis are going through, but their government is doing this to them willingly. I feel like we, and they knew what they were getting. Bibi Netanyahu, you know exactly what you're going to put him in office. We were told by this president, he wasn't going to do this. His whole candidacy, the first and the second, were all about how he wasn't this guy

and promised not actually explicitly promised not to do this. So I feel like if we wind up being Israel with terror attacks raining down on this city or that and they don't usually come from the air here, they're usually at a nightclub or a school or a church or some other soft target, we really didn't ask for this. You know, we the people, our government may have,

but we the people did not want this. Yeah, I think the real terror threats right now are to U.S. facilities in the region because Chamin, like him or not, was not just the head of state of Iran. He was also the spiritual leader of many millions of Shiites, many of whom outside the country respect and revered him more than those inside the country, to be honest. But at any rate, there are Shiites in Bahrain. There are Shiites in Saudi Arabia. There are Shiites in Pakistan. There are Shiites in Lebanon, of course. And so that's where I think the immediate terror threat to U.S. facilities, U.S. citizens, U.S. interests are. Again, I think it's one of several consequences that weren't thought through.

Certainly when I saw images of attacks on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, U.S. facilities in Erbil and and Basra, these are places in Iraq. That's one of the areas where I just thought, like, did they think this through that there's, you know, Bahrain, for example, U.S. ally is actually a mind of minority state. It's only 20% Sunni, and they rule over 80% Shiites. So if the Shiites there get angry, is Bahrain stable? Probably, and it'll take a great deal of repression. But just, you know, it's one of those Pandora's boxes that I don't think should have been opened willy-nilly. And I think they did it based on vibes and the kind of false assurances of men like Beebe and men like Lindsey Graham here in the United States. Not so much anyone even in the

cabinet, I think. I think it's really the outside figures, you know, like the Mark Levin, Tucker was here on Thursday pointing out, BB's been to the White House seven times in the past year. Seven times. I mean, that's incredible. The Laura Loomers. Again, yeah, a country of nine million versus our own, which has got 350 million. And we have a lot more worries on our hands these days than foreign policy in the Middle East. Can you talk about, you've written a little bit about possible balkanization within Iran. Like there's not, there are all these different factions inside of Iran. And it's really not that clear how things will go now that there's not the strong hand

at the top. Yes. So Iran, often a lot of Iranians like to describe themselves as Persian. And I think the reason they do that, Iran is a very old term, actually. It goes back millennia. And it means land of the Aryans. But some Iranians, because Iran is associated, especially Iranians in the diaspora because Iran is associated with the Ayatollahs and terrorism and so on, like to describe

themselves as Persian. But Persian is really, there's only about 50%, 51% of the country that's Persian. You have Kurds there. You have Azeris. You have lords. These are different ethnic and linguistic groups. You have Arabs, Baluch, Turkmen, Azaries, and others. And look, Iranian identity, national identity is multi-ethnic.

And it's off, it's holding together. However, there are separatist impulses among these various groups. And the Israelis and others have been encouraging that, even as they tell the Iranian diaspora types, that they want a unified Iran to be ruled by the son of the former Shah. We can go into him later. But at any rate, you know. Well, that's a joke, isn't it? I mean, my belief is that this Reza Balavi is a joke and that the Iranian people would never accept him.

Well, look, in a country of 92 million. he has some support. I won't deny it, but I just think he's a fundamentally unsurious person. You can't, you know, you can't really blame him either. He's lived most of his life in the West in the United States. He hasn't a past said it. He's like, I don't, I'm not sure if I want to move back to Iran. He's kind of a reluctant. He's kind of a reluctant Shah. You know, his daughter, for example, his children reportedly haven't been taught Persian. So imagine wanting to be a king of a country where your own children haven't learned the language. So, you know, there are downsides. And by the way, it's not like I want necessarily liberal democracy in Iran.

Yes, Iran has a monarchic tradition stretching back millennia, but how are you going to implement it or bring it back off the back of airstrikes that are right now devastating the country? And he hasn't actually expressed any sympathy for the Iranian civilians who have died. You know, you don't have to. Right. You can say it's ultimately the regime's fault that this is happening, okay. But he won't even say, like, I'm sorry about the people who. who've lost their lives so far in the bombing. So to get back to the fracturing, it's a real danger because, you know, there are these groups.

And you have a regime that has all these stockpiles of conventional and maybe material they can use to prep non-conventional weapons. And you have like ISIS-style Islamists, Sunni Islamists in Iran. What would happen if, you know, the regime collapses and there's no clear authority over the weapons and material. How can you forestall the ISIS types from taking that stuff over? So there are like really nightmare scenarios. How many refugees would a collapse of the state feed into not just the neighboring Arab states, but of course to Europe, a Europe that's already fed up with refugees from Afghanistan and Syria and elsewhere? I mean, these are, you know, I mean, the state collapse scenario is very real and very dangerous.

You could have a scenario where the map of Iran looks like something like Syria did, you know, where it's all these different zones controlled by different foreign powers, different ethnic and sectarian factions. Do you really want that in the Middle East? And Trump right now is just saying, well, you know, I had two or three guys who I thought could take over in the same way Delci Rodriguez took over in Venezuela when we took Maduro out and brought him up here. And then he said, oh, but they're all dead now. Actually, they had a long list of people, and I like the top two or three, but they're dead. So I guess we're going to have to keep looking down the list. It just doesn't seem like it was well planned out. And we don't, like the regime, we got to carry this over so right, because I got to take a break.

So please, I understand you can stay a little bit, which I appreciate. But what I want to talk about is the fact that the regime is much wider spread and ingrained than just Maduro. at the top and taking him out in Venezuela. So I'm not sure we're talking about apples to apples. By the way, his regime is still technically running Venezuela. But I mean, how many are we going to have to kill in order to make way for the Iranian people to take over and restore Iran to its former glory? That's next. Stand by. It's time for a little spring cleaning. And here is a place to start. Go drag your old dated wireless contract out of the closet and beat it with a broom. The freshen things up approach is coming to you. And you need it. You need it. I need it. The American people need it. And it's

brought to you this spring by Pure Talk, who gives you unlimited talk, text and plenty of data for just 25 bucks a month with no contract, no cancellation fees, and no overseas customer service. If you ever need help, you're going to be talking to a real live American based here. Maybe you will like them as much as Lois. Lois wrote quote, switched to Pure Talk a few years ago, amazing. coverage and clarity as Verizon or AT&T at a fraction of the price. Award-winning customer service just upgraded to an iPhone 16E and the support and deals were superb. Why anyone is still getting ripped off by the big guys is beyond me, writes Lois.

Right on, Lois. Want to make the switch? Dial pound 250 and just say, Megan Kelly, and switch to Peartock. Dial pound 250, say Megan Kelly, and you will also save 505% off your first month. You're going to love him. Turns out the regime who chanted death to America and death to Israel was

gifted death from America and death from Israel. This is not a so-called regime change war, but the regime sure did change and the world is better off for it. Secretary of War, Pete Hexeth, this morning

from the Pentagon. A joint presser was held along with the chairman of the joint chiefs, Dan Raisin-Kain, to justify some of the actions that we've taken in the Middle East this weekend and to answer some questions. There was another interesting exchange where the Secretary Hegsteth made clear this is not a forever war. This is not Iraq, is what he said. Let's listen to Sadd-11.

We set the terms of this war from start to finish. To the media outlets and political left screaming endless wars. Stop. This is not Iraq. This is not endless. I was there for both. Our generation knows better and so does this president. He called the last 20 years of nation building wars dumb. And he's right. This is the opposite. This operation is a clear, devastating, decisive mission. Destroy the missile threat. Destroy the Navy. No nukes. That's the messaging coming out of the Pentagon. Welcome back to the Megan Kelly Show. Back with me now, Sarab Amari, U.S. editor of Unheard. So here's the thing,

Sorev, I asked you about exactly how do we affect regime change anyway when the Iran is so deeply, the regime is so deeply entrenched in Iran. And here is what President Trump told the New York Times. When pressed on his plans for a transition of power, Mr. Trump said he hoped Iran's elite military forces, including hardened officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who have held substantial influence and profited from the existing regime would simply turn over their weapons to the Iranian populace, quote, they would really surrender to the people if you think about it. That is what Mr. Trump said to the Times. Thoughts on the likelihood of that happening. Yeah, I did think about it, and it's a preposterous thing. Like, why? First of all, I mean, a lot of

people, including apparently President Trump, are under the impression that all these Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, you know, officers and the Basij paramilisha, all these groups really don't believe this stuff that they believe about, you know, being servants of God and on a mission to advance, you know, Islam and so on and so forth. It's all, they're all just cynical. And sometimes I'm tempted to believe that, too, but over the past, especially over the past 48, 72 hours, I've actually become all the more convinced that, no, they, like, at least some of these people, a substantial number of them really believe this stuff. They are committed to the project of this regime to the Islamic Republic.

So they're not just going to give up. And then, too, their whole existence is because the regime exists. Like, their whole, they draw material benefits as well as spiritual and ideological ones. So why would they, you know, give up their wealth? in return for an uncertain future in which there could either be civil war or they and their families could be targeted by the new regime, whatever that new regime might be. You know, they're just going to give up their weapons if you think about it. I'm sorry, that's just one of the silliest things said by U.S. president at a moment that demands absolute seriousness from the commander-in-chief. What is this, though?

It sounds irrational, if you think about it, Megan. I mean, what about at this point? What if Trump just declared victory? We got rid of the Ayatollah. We killed 40 of the top people, you know, pushing for nuclear weapons in Iran. We gave the Iranian people at least a shot. If Israel or somebody else wants to do boots on the ground at this point or help them out or give them guns, meaning the citizenry, great, we're out. We did our part. I mean, how can the United States cut its losses at this point? Yeah, I think they should be looking for an exit path. Today, Bloomberg reported that in Doha, the Qataris and the Emirates are looking to help Trump find an off-ramp out of this. I actually think the Iranians will continue to go because in Iranian discourse, now the belief of the regime is that that was the mistake they made at the end of the 12-day war, where they believed they had the missile advantage over Israel and they accepted a seat. peace fire and therefore Israel got emboldened to do its own attack and of course to draw the US into a second operation against Iran.

So the Iranians may calculate that they're going to just, you know, fire everything they have or much of what they have of these different types of missiles and they're now using the more advanced ones, even as interceptors, US and Israeli interceptors are becoming depleted, they're going to fire everything they have so that they basically to try to ensure that, you know, they basically to try to ensure that there's not a future attack like this again. So again, it has to be hopefully an exit path, you know, and again, raises the question of, would Israel keep going if the U.S. pulls out? I don't think so.

I think so much of the Israelis freedom of action depends on their sense that the Americans will back them. So look, if I were to be asked what the end game of this war is, I think it will be a kind of a muddle where we definitely bruise the Iranians and the Iranians will also be able to claim that they definitely held their own. And everyone claims a quote unquote victory. I hope, I really pray that what Secretary Hexeth and President Trump said about putting troops on the ground, potentially, quote unquote, if necessary, does not pan out. By the way, to really do regime change, that's what it would be required is to put troops on the ground to come. kind of secure the country. That's what all the military experts say. Well, that's just a, that's just a crazy

thing to do. Not just, you know, in terms of the, for the strategic and military reasons we've been discussing so far, but just politically speaking, I mean, is the Republican Party politically suicidal to do something like that already that Reuters Ipsos poll found that only one in four Americans supports this, this operation? That is only going to get worse with boots on the ground. Like, why? And especially because, you know, voters, including myself, would have a just cause to say, hey, we thought we were voting for, quote, the peace ticket. We thought we were voting for the kind of new, more restrained Republican Party, not the one that puts us on a time travel machine back to 2003, including with 2003 style rhetoric about

freedom, freedom in the Middle East. Oh, give me a break. Didn't we try all this? The only way they make those polls go up. because we saw a difference this morning between a couple of polls in terms of the American people's support for what we're doing. The way they got a higher rating in the one poll in support of this was to say, do you support taking out the Iranian nukes with U.S. military power? And then you'll get a majority of Americans saying, yeah, actually, I do want that.

Nobody wants Iran to have a nuke. But that actually hasn't been President Trump's main message because he told us seven months ago he obliterated them already. He's been reduced to arguing about what their ambitions are, and he didn't like the way they were negotiating at the table, which that whole negotiation to me, so, Rab, you tell me, but it seemed pretextual. Like, our demands were so extracting on the Iranians, it seemed like we knew there was no way they were going to, you know, give us the promises we were demanding. And it seems like we'd already decided with Israel, we were moving military assets to the region as we were having the negotiations, that unless they just completely went belly up, we were going to do this. So I don't know. I mean, I just feel like we made our decision a while ago about what we were going to do. And so now what is going to happen? If President Trump does spend the next month there

with troops on the ground possibly, with air power, now what? I mean, is there any chance we do get rid of enough of the regime that somehow the Iranian people get the Iran of 1978 delivered back to them with the women without the hijabs and like girls prancing in the streets and like normal clothing and going to schools and, you know, feeling free and looking Western and a country that isn't like a hotbed of hatred toward America and terrorist acts in the Middle East. Well, I mean, I should say the Iranian women have stopped in core urban areas they've stopped wearing the hijab ever since the 2022 uprising.

And that's a credit to their courage by basically defying the regime for. so long that in certain places the regime feels like it can't enforce the hijab norms in other places. They're so devout that they still wear the hijab no matter what. But to your larger question, I think what we're looking at, certainly where the trends are heading and I think where a lot of Israeli strategists would prefer is a kind of Syrianization of Iran, where, you know, you have maybe a government that can only control the capital in certain outskirts. of the capital, then you maybe have ethnic strife to the northwest and, you know, to the south, into the west where the Kurds, the Azeris, and the Arabs and Baluchis are. Then you have,

you know, potentially remnants of the regime, right? Not all of them are going to give up. Some of them are going to form the, like the Shiite liberation front, whatever they're going to call it, the party of God. And they're going to try to menace the newly established government that can only govern like around Tehran, the capital. So something like a combination of Iraq and Afghanistan, right, where the old Afghan government that we held up for, tried to uphold for about 20 years, could only control Kabul and its environs. So something similar, but all of that, even that assumes a degree of, of heavy degree of U.S. investment in reconstruction, security, et cetera, to try to hold that outcome up. If you really want a full,

unified Iran to hold together, then you do need those like hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to like build a new country. But I was pretty sure I didn't, you know, vote for nation building. They might call it something else now. If we do democracy building in Iran, I mean, there's going to be a full revolt here in the United States. Like you're going to get massive amounts of registered Republicans not voting. I don't, I don't know that they're going to run to vote Democrat, but they're not going to vote because like that building democracy, if we, if we've learned anything, anything from the past 20 years, we should have learned that we can't do that. And I realize Iran is not the same as Iraq. Everybody keeps lecturing us on how it's not the same.

And I realize that's true. There is a desire for democratic rule, some form of it in Iran that didn't exist in Iraq. But, I mean, is it large enough, Sarab, that we actually have a shot of going over there and getting people, you know, to have the Democratic elections and to live free, like a constitutional republic, like, you know, is there a better shot at that? than there was in Iraq? There is a secular population. I'm not sure they're small D Democrats. I think from what I've learned about studying Iranian political history and political culture

is that fundamentally it's an authoritarian culture. People will say that that's an unpopular thing to say on my part or I'm being, you know, not all, you can't just say that about a whole culture. But everything I've learned about Iranian political history tells me that Iran, in order to keep together requires a strong central authority embodied in a, you know, kind of a person, a visible principle of unity, like a living, breathing principle of unity. For most of its history, 2,500 years, 3,000 years, that's been a Shah or a king. The Islamic Republic essentially is, in part, a monarchy, except instead of a king, it has a, instead of someone who wears a crown,

It's someone who wears a turban. And so, I mean, I think, so that's the, if you want to keep it together as a cohesive state. And then the question falls back to who do you, whom do we have who could serve that role who's not part of the Islamic Republic if the vision is really total regime change. And I, you know, I can't think of someone. Maybe there was one the president had in mind, but we killed him. Right. That's what he keeps saying. So, Rob, thank you.

Sure. Thanks for all you've written on this and for coming on. I'm sure we'll be talking to you again soon in the coming days. Okay, up next, our pals from National Review who feel very differently about this whole thing

and their rational, smart, America-loving guys. So we want to get their perspective as well. That's next. What does comfort that really carries you from morning to night feel like? For many, it's cozy earth. It starts with their essential socks.

They're soft, breathable, and thoughtfully cushioned to support you step by step from the first step out of bed to the end of a long day. With multiple styles, they fit seamlessly into everyday life. And when the day winds down, that same comfort shows up at night with cozy Earth's comforter. It's luxuriously soft, light, and naturally temperature regulating, so you stay cool, calm, and comfortable all night. No heaviness. No overheating, just deeper rest. That's what sets cozy Earth apart. Every piece is crafted with intention and attention to detail,

designed to quietly elevate the every day. They're very good at that. And it is completely risk-free with a 100-night sleep trial and 10-year warranty. So you can sleep on that bad boy for nearly, well, over three months. If you don't like it, whatever it is, the socks, the comforter, send it back in for a full refund. Discover how care in every detail transforms simple routines into real comfort. Head to cozier.com. Use my code Megan for up to 20% off. That's Megan for up to 20% off. And if you get a post-purched survey, be sure to mention you heard about cozy earth right here. Hey, everyone. It's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel

on Sirius X-M. It's called the Megan Kelly channel. And it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Morin Callahan, Emily Dyshinsky, Jesse Kelly, real clear politics and many more. It's bold, no BS news. Only on the Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 111 and on a SiriusXM app. Our objective is to defend the American people

by eliminating eminent threats from the Iranian regime. For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted death to America and waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder, targeting the United States are troops and the innocent people in many, many countries. It's been mass terror, and we're not going to put up with it any longer.

Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terror, and just recently killed tens of thousands of its own citizens on the street as they protest it. It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular, my administration, that this terrorist. terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again. They can never have a nuclear weapon. They've rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. We're going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated. Part of the messaging that we woke up to on Saturday morning, morning after U.S. forces had invaded Iraq by air and taken out the Ayatollah among some 40 other

regime leaders in addition to reportedly somewhere around 200 dead, some portion of those civilian, though we're not sure exactly what the numbers are. We've also lost for American service personnel so far. And President Trump saying expect more in the process of this war. He used the term war that we've launched. Welcome back to the Megan Kelly show. Videos are flooding social media from all over the world of celebrations. All right? So I've made my own position clear, but there's no denying that the vast majority of Iranians are thrilled that this terrible, terrible man, the brutal supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Kamenei is dead. Many of them are coming from inside Iran where this guy's iron-fisted rule is known.

more, but not just from inside Iran. There is this one, there's an ex-user of Vahid online who captured this video of Iran's tearing down a statue of the Ayatollah in southern Iran, the user writing, Am I dreaming? Hello, New World. Watch. Statue falls. Fires are burning. Jubilant, mostly young men celebrating in this particular video. I mean, the scream, it doesn't sound like a scream of jubilant. but we understand from the context that it is. Women specifically have been at the forefront of a lot of these celebrations, defying decades of enforced hijab laws.

We just discussed that with Sorab, like this crowd dancing without the headdress to music in the streets of Karaj near Tehran. There was extraordinary video out of London showing what we presume are Iranian expats dancing in the streets next to Israeli expats living there. So that was quite a sight. Here domestically, we saw Iranian Americans take to the streets across the nation in large cities to celebrate the fall of the Ayatollah and the chance. It's something better for many of their family members who are still there. We have friends who are among those cheering this for that very reason. Had to leave Iran because of the brutal regime, but not all the family members did.

And therefore, they haven't been able to see their family members. Their kids haven't been able to see their grandparents and so on. And now there's the possibility that things are changing. I said at the top of the first hour, there's really no disputing that this does provide good news to the Iranians. I mean, the death of the Ayatollah seems like it's good news for the Iranians, no matter how you look at it. It's the question of whether it's what's going to happen next. And putting American troops on the line in this way will long term be good for America. And that's where we bring in Rich Lowry, editor-in-chief of National Review,

and Charles C.W. Cook, senior writer for National Review, and host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast, You can find all of their work by becoming an NR Plus subscriber, which you should absolutely do because you will be smarter and you will thank me. Guys, welcome back. All right, Rich, take us down the neocon route and make the case for why this was the right move. Yeah, so I'm not going to play labels with you, but I've never considered myself a neocon. That's said. I'm supportive of what Trump. I actually don't consider you a neocon either.

I think, like, National Review has neocons at it. That's true. But I'm not a neocon myself. But I agree. I've never put you or Charles in that in that. Yeah. So that aside, I'm supportive of what President Trump's trying to do here. This regime has been at war with the United States for nearly 50 years, has blood on their hands up to their elbows. And the rule, unwritten rule, has been they get to hit us and we don't get to hit them back directly. Trump made it clear. He's not going to accept that rule last year with the June raid. And now has made it even clear. So I think it would be a very good thing. And I think this will happen if we flatten their nuclear capabilities or missile.

capabilities and significantly diminish their military. And it'd be a good thing if you get a more reasonable or a different government. Now, I say all that with misgivings and criticisms, some of which overlap with what Sorab was saying. One, it's kind of crazy that there was basically no public, sustained public case for this in advance of this major military operation. He got the State of the Union addressed last week where this was an afterthought, you know, came in maybe the 95th or 100th minute. and I think even if he technically has legal authority, he should have gone to Congress to get an authorization. One, two, obviously, is extremely difficult to do regime change from the air. And even if you do affect regime change, you have no idea and very little control over what's going to come next.

Now, I think it's likely, you can imagine some scenarios where what comes next would be worse for us, but hard to imagine. Hard to imagine. And there's some chance he'll get a more reasonable posture from the regime out of this. he'll get a Dulce Rodriguez-type candidate, even though, you know, he said we've maybe killed, killed some of those in the initial days or a popular revolution. But you don't know what it's going to be. I mean, this total guesswork behind what's behind door number three here. And then finally, the rhetoric, and we heard it in the clip you played from him at the top there,

95% of which I agree with from President Trump, but the idea there was any imminent threat from Iran or some breakout that was going to happen in days or weeks such that we had to do this now, is preposterous. It's obviously a target of opportunity. It's not true. Drew his attention first when you had the revolt and, you know, tens of thousands of people gunned down in the streets and then given what's happened over the last year or two, basically held harmless against air attacks. So it was a target of opportunity. I understand why it's doing it. I hope it succeeds. But I'm not, you know, there are problems I have with this as well.

Charles, how do you feel about it? Well, I'm agnostic. I, hope it works out. I'm not against it. I'm not a cheerleader for it. I think that this should have gone through Congress, and I think it should for a couple of reasons. First, I believe that that's how the Constitution expects us to proceed, but also I think it's good for us as a polity to have the argument. I know a good number of people who live around me, some on my street, who came out on Saturday morning and said to me, oh, you follow politics. What's this thing in Iran? And that seems a very strange setup for an incursion of this importance. The objectives of this seem to be all over the

place. Trump has said over and over again a whole bunch of different things. He's been quite prolux on the phone with various journalists. But each time he's changed. the reasoning. Now, all of those reasonings are good, right? They are that the Iranian theocracy is a dictatorship. It is. That Iran is effectively at war with the United States and has targeted us for 45 years and killed our people and paid other people to kill our people. It has. And that Iran is trying to destabilize the Middle East, including what it wants to do ultimately, which is nuke Israel. That's also true. But it would be good, I think, if we had one coherent message as to what it is that we're doing here.

So I worry, first off that we don't, and I worry that the public hasn't been prepared for this, which is going to lead to, and in fact, already has led to deaths. But that doesn't mean that I'm against it. I don't know, is the honest answer. I don't know how this is going to end. I mean, I don't know how this is going to end. And I really would have liked a sustained debate in Congress or otherwise so that I could have heard lots of different people making the case as to whether it was a good or bad idea,

what the risks were, what the risks of not going in were. The one thing I am sure about, and on this rich, and I absolutely agree, is that the notion that this was a defensive act is ridiculous. Again, that doesn't mean I'm against it. But this was not defensive. It was not timely. The president was not in the same sort of circumstance as he would find himself in if, say, United States were invaded. This is a choice. This was a change in American policy in the region.

It wasn't that we suddenly had to act. Funnily enough, the last two times you could make that case. You could say Iran is too close to getting a nuclear weapon for our liking. We are going to act. We did. And you could say the Iranians are gunning down the people of Iran in the street and we're going to go in on a humanitarian basis right now. But this time, this is different. And I just don't like the sleight of hand, even if I'm open to being persuaded that the action is necessary. You know, Rich this morning, Brigham was tweeting about imminent threat saying, why should we wait for an imminent threat? If we waited for it to be truly imminent and Iran when it comes to a nuclear weapon or, you know, ballistic missiles that could hit the

United States, we'd be criticizing the Trump administration for not doing something earlier. I think the reason we're debating it is because Trump said there was an imminent threat and that's the reason we did it. And then all this reporting immediately came out saying, no, there wasn't. And Trump's own officials had briefed Congress on Sunday saying there wasn't one. So it's like the president created that own, you know, his own messaging problem there by offering that as a rationale. But putting to the side the fact that, you know, the president probably shouldn't have said that. What about Brits point of why would we wait until it was an imminent?

threat before we took action. Yeah, I agree with that. I think that's a sound point, but I don't think you need an imminent threat in order to do this. In fact, you want to do it for its imminent. You want to do it when their air defenses are down. You want to do it when the regime is weak. So there are all sorts of reasons you do it now, but it is just a target of opportunity. It's not driven by imminent. So don't say it's driven by imminence, but every U.S. government, this is where they go. They go two places, places naturally. One is a war for freedom. One, it's an imminent threat, right? And here on the regime change part of it, I think there's still ambiguity about what he's really going to settle for. As Charlie says, he said different things in different interviews, which suggests his state of mind

is up for grabs about this as well. And they certainly, it is a war for regime change at the moment, but that doesn't mean that Trump, would you be shocked if two days from now, he says, we've destroyed all their nuclear capabilities or missile capabilities. They have no Navy anymore. And I gave the Iranian people a chance and hopefully they'll take advantage of it. But we're stopping. I wouldn't be totally shocked by that. No. No, I'm really hoping that's what he does. Yeah. So we'll see. I think it's very much an open question. But I just remember, Megan, being in Iraq, in 07 and 08 as a journalist. And we had 150 guys on the ground. And we have a president, this guy named El Maliki. Now, there's a democratic element because we actually had elections in Iraq, but we didn't have control

over him. And in fact, we knew he was a bad guy. He knew as a tool of Iran. And with 150 guys on the ground, we couldn't change that or we couldn't control them. So again, this is opening up door three without knowing what's behind it. I'm inclined to do that because I think this regime is so terrible. You know, you can imagine awful outcomes, civil war, you know, would be terrible for the Iranian people. Not sure it's actually worse for us. But I think this regime, anti-Americanism in its DNA, arguably the most anti-American regime on the planet, again, with blood on its hands throughout decades since the inception of the regime. So I'm willing to see what's behind that door.

But again, I'm not confident of the outcome or whether we'll be able to do it. I mean, Richard, this is funny because I told the audience this in the first hour that Doug and I, my husband and I are disagreeing on this one, friendly, loving disagreement. but he's very much in favor of what Trump is doing and I'm not. And the point Doug made, and it was a fair point, was Trump's not starting a war. They've been at war with us. He's just the first president who's willing to acknowledge it and engage. Yeah, I agree with Doug.

Can we get Doug on? I get a little more support here. I think that's definitely true. But can you expand on that? Because, I mean, of course, as a news anchor, I have been covering all these years the number of times that Iran does attack American properties or troops stationed here, there, elsewhere, or through its proxies, is constantly, like, I don't mean to minimize it, but just like a dog, like a junkyard dog in a car lot, biting us, constantly,

hurting us, constantly, constantly. So it never blows up into a full, like, they take us out or they do a massive attack on the homeland. But he is responsible for the death of Trump said thousands of Americans. I don't know what the number would be, but certainly in Iraq, Iran caused a lot of American servicemen and women to die. Yeah, 603 is the technical number. I don't know how they arrive at that. But I think Trump also, on this question, is this consistent with Trump and his philosophy? People who expected him to be an isolationist were wrong. They're neocons who thought he was an isolationist. They're wrong. They're people on Trump's own side. They thought he's in isolationists. They're wrong. As we've seen over the last year or so, the reflex is towards action.

And I think the major theme in the second term is there a whole bunch of things he kind of thought about or wanted to do the first term, whether it's, you know, can I fire a bunch of federal workers and kneecap federal departments and agencies that I don't like? No, sir, you can't do that. Can I prosecute my political enemies? No, sir, you better not do that. Can I kill drug runners in the Caribbean? No, sir, you can't do it. And this may have been something he thought about as well. Certainly he's been consistent, very consistent. They can't have a weapon. And going back to 1980, he's saying, let's just take them out in this regime. is terrible. So I think this is one of those things where you figure out. There's a sound bite making its way on the internet right now of Trump back in 1980s saying, why would we let them have our hostages for 444 days? It's inexcusable. Keep going on. Right. So I was just going to say this is just one of those things where he figured out, you know, I can do it. No one's going to stop me. Now that doesn't mean, you know, that's not the affirmative case on the merits for doing it. But that's just explaining his his mindset here, I think.

For part of it. The, the, he told Jake Topper, Charlie, that we haven't even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn't even happened. The big one is coming soon. Today, Tapper reported that on somebody else's show on CNN saying he'll have full coverage during his show. So the big one is coming soon. The big wave hasn't even happened yet. I mean, how much more of this do you think the American people will sit back and quietly allow without congressional approval without a full-fledged press conference by the president where people get to pepper him with questions? Just a few got asked. with Pete Hegseth and Raisin Cain this morning. But that's a lot to expect for people to just sit back and have their weedies over

without really getting to inquire much. I think it depends on how successful it is. Unfortunately, I think that is the standard. I have my own rules that I believe are granted in the Constitution. I don't think most people are committed to or attached to those as an abstract principle when it comes to war. I think Trump does have a couple things on his side. having criticized him, I'll make a couple of devil's advocate defenses of him.

The first is he tonally did make it seem as if he would not do this. Clearly, if you were half listening to Trump during the campaigns, both of them, you would have thought that he would not get involved in the Middle East proactively like this. But the big criticism that he has had and that many of those who were, attracted to Trump have had was of full-scale ground wars, where we sent hundreds of thousands of troops to a country. We invaded. We put them on the ground there.

And we left them there for a long time to keep the peace or advance other objectives. In Trump's defense, he hasn't done that. This is a very different way of engaging in the world. We also saw it in Venezuela, where he got in with these very, very quite. quick, very sophisticated, very successful attacks, and he achieved a goal. So I think some of the cavilling I've heard that, oh, it's the same old, I think that isn't quite right. Second, I keep seeing people quoting the campaign from 2024 saying that if Kamala Harris is elected, your sons will be drafted, and then say, aha. Now, I think that was a hyperbole. I don't think

that would have happened either. But no one's been drafted here. Will to be accurate. No, no one's being drafted here. No one's been drafted in America since the 1970s. So the big question to answer your question, I think Trump's going to have to answer, is how many dead Americans is the public going to put up without a debate, without press conferences, without congressional involvement? And we're already at, is it four? That's a lot of people relative to the norm.

It's not a lot of people relative to World War II. But you don't normally hear about American soldiers being killed. And that's going to quite rightly be a focal point for the media. So I think if that's it and we spend another week and get a whole bunch of other things done, maybe people will be happy with it. But if it's for tomorrow as well, and then four on Friday and four on Saturday, I do think at that point the administration is going to have to re-evaluate. And to finish, I would note that Trump is not doing, in my view, the proactive work,

that he needs to do to persuade people who aren't sure whether they approve of this or not. And I say that as someone who is one of those people. I just don't think it's good enough. I don't think you can have a press conference in the early hours of the morning on a day where people who are unprepared for it wake up to learn that we are in his words at war and then have him disappear. And the next thing we hear is that four people are dead. He can win this if he does it really well.

But it's not just going to happen because that vacuum is going to be. filled by Democrats and critics who are going to hammer him and hammer him and hammer him. And if Trump's his great communicator, we're always told that he is, then he should remember that and convey his position here. Because if he doesn't, I think he's going to be underwater on it, even if it's the right thing to do. I mean, I'm not sure he actually can do it in a way that's really going to persuade. I mean, obviously the Warhawks, especially on the right, are going to accept kind of anything he says because they're just looking for a fig leaf. They wanted this for a long time. so it doesn't matter what he, what rationale he puts behind it.

But, you know, today the Washington Post is reporting that it was really Israel and the Saudis who were leaning on Trump to do this because the Saudis hate Iran. It's their Sunni. Iran's Shiite. They don't get along. They never have. Publicly, the Saudis are like, no, no, we oppose this. It's wrong. You can't use Saudi Arabia for anything connected with this.

But behind the scenes, they were reportedly not only in favor of it, but pushing for it. And there's been nobody pushing for it more than BB Netanyahu. That's obvious. That's why he's been at the White House seven times this year. And the Washington Post reporting that the attack came despite U.S. intelligence assessments that Iran's forces were unlikely to pose an immediate threat to U.S. mainland within the next decade. Reuters and CNN matching that reporting. And Wapo going on to say that in the briefing for the gang of eight, Secretary Rubio told lawmakers that the attack, hold on a second, I lost my –

the missions, timing, and goals were shaped by the fact that Israel was going to attack with or without us. So they were going to go in and the United States understood that as soon as they did it, we were going to get the retaliation. Because we're viewed as the big devil and they're viewed as the little devil by Iran. And I guess Trump would rather be sort of in on the offensive move there, Rich. But, you know, he can't go out to the American people and say, I did it for Israel. I did it because I wanted to have Bibi's back because he was doing it and we were going to get dragged in one way or another. He definitely does not want to say that. And he hasn't even mentioned Israel.

Instead, he just throws the kitchen sink at us, which then we accurately perceive as not true because kitchen sink rationales never fly. Yeah, I think Trump's very much senior partner here. And if you want to tell Bibi, no, you just don't know. You know, he did it towards the end of the 12-day war when Israel was reportedly. ready to launch a strike, not apparently directed at the Ayatollah, some people thought, but at a high-level official, and Trump said, no, we've had enough. So I think Trump's very much senior partner here. He's ultimately driving the car. And I think a key insight they had going back to the first term was actually kind of the old conventional wisdom. You can't be pro-Israel

because all the Arabs are going to hate you and you're going to alienate all your Arab allies. It's totally wrong. They all hate Iran, no matter what they say publicly, and this It's true. It has no friends. We don't want this to happen. Can't we talk or behind the scene saying, go. You know, this is the main threat to the region. And that's why you have this unprecedented military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel and actually the Gulf states joining in. What do you make of the possibility, Rich, that this, I don't know if it's the main goal, but a secondary bonus, is to help cripple China when it comes to.

Iranian oil. Already we took out kind of, took control of Venezuela's oil and that this is some sort of long game play to weaken the Chinese. I think there's a little to that. I think that's a, it is a strategic benefit if everything goes right here. I think this is mainly about Iran. I think Trump hates this regime, hates what they've done to Americans, considers it a threat and considers it totally intolerable that they could pursue and get a nuclear weapon. And it's coming the conclusion, it's not, this regime, at least under conditions as of four or five days ago, was never going to give up its nuclear ambitions. So this is what you had to do. You've got to flatten it all and hopefully get a new regime or more reasonable regime. I think everything else

is the side issue. What do you make of the fact that neither Russia nor the Chinese stepped in to help Iran? Do you find that interesting, Rich? Like, remember the new axis of evil, you know, like they're all together and they're having the meetings and now this new coalition. And it seems to me, both China and Russia are like, see ya, you're on your own. Good luck. You know, I hope your meetings go well. You know, your daylight meetings go well. And I do think this is, again, this is all side benefit stuff, but just the proficiency we have demonstrated militarily, the Venezuelan raid, and then this, if you look at one of our main adversaries, and China's the main one, but Russia's up there, they tried to do this four years ago in Keith. They sent in the special

forces in a raid that was supposed to decapitate the government and send in a long column of armor, such as March into Kiev, you know, and it'll be done in a week. The way maybe we'll be done in Iran, it was a total debacle. So I do think it's a useful message that no one else on the planet has these sort of capabilities. Okay, but here we are in day two, you know, I guess Saturday's one, Sunday's two, or the day three of this thing. And now you had Trump, just as we came to air, saying, I don't have the yips when it comes to boots on the ground. I'm actually kind of good with that. And I think that. think to your point, Rich, he's talking about limited.

He, he, I believe Trump that he has zero desire to get it, get us into the long quagmire 20-year situation. I don't believe the president would ever allow that. The problem is unforeseen consequences. Like, that presumes we're going to be like, we're sending in troops, including on the ground, and then we'll decide when, when it's over when we leave. But we just don't know whether that's going to be possible. How hard can Iran fight?

They're fighting very hard right now. They did not just roll over. And reportedly, that's going to be possible. contrary to what was expected by us. What if, what if, God forbid, Russia or China did get involved? I don't think they will. But, like, yeah, I'm just saying you just, you don't know where it's going to go. And that's how you wind up with 20-year wars.

Here was Pete Heggseth on the topic of boots on the ground just this morning, Sat 10. Secretary Hexsaf, I had two questions for you. First, are there currently any American boots on the ground in Iran? No, but we're not going to go into the exercise. of what we will or will not do. I think it's one of those fallacies for a long time that this department or presidents or others should tell the American people, and our enemies, by the way, here's exactly what we'll do. Here's exactly how long we'll go. Here's exactly how far we'll go. Here's what we're willing to do and not do. It's foolishness. And so President Trump ensures

that our enemies understand we'll go as far as we need to go to advanced American interests. But we're not dumb about it. You don't have to roll 200,000 people in there and stay for 20 years. We've proven that you can achieve objectives that advance American interests without being foolish about it. Now, will we be bold about it? Are we willing to be decisive about it? Do we put months and months of planning into what kind of effects we want to achieve? Absolutely. But going forward, why in the world would we tell you, you, the enemy, anybody, what we will or will not do in pursuit of an objective? We fight to win.

We fight to achieve the objectives the President of the United States has laid out. and we will do so unapologetically. Thank you. That's a good answer, Charles. But the question is if we actually do have to put boots on the ground because the president doesn't have the so-called yips and because we are not effectively accomplishing regime change, which he has suggested as a stated goal, then I do think American attitudes could change.

And one of the things I've been hearing from many online is they do not think this will have been worth it. if it costs the GOP, the House in 26 in November, or the presidency in 2028. Your thoughts on it? Well, the boots on the ground line, as you say, can mean anything. It's possible they'll need to send in small groups of elite forces to do discrete things as they did in Venezuela.

If we had 200,000 people headed to Iran, we would notice, I think. And he's quite happy, Hexeth, to rule that one out. So I think Trump is partly intimating that he has been told that a limited use of special forces might be necessary. And he's partly being Donald Trump and saying, as he loves to say that he's not scared, that he's not intimidated, that he will do anything that he wants to do. Working out which is which with Trump is always quite difficult. The problem with foreign policy is that it doesn't map particularly neatly onto democracy

in the sense that by definition, a lot of what we do in our foreign policy has to be based on lies, spying, a clandestine collection of information that is not released. most of the impetus for this action will never ever be seen, at least not by the midterms or by 28. So it's quite hard to calculate politically what the consequences will be there or what the consequences should be there. I think it's in a sense, either brave or stupid of Trump to do this right now, even George H.W. Bush waited until after the midterms.

Trump is not. He's effectively saying, trust me. The last thing is, there will be a lot of gamesmanship here, Megan, where people, if the Republicans do lose, say, the House, which I expect them to, and they expected them to two weeks ago in November, will say, ah, it's because. And then they will insert the thing that they dislike to explain it. So, you know, I don't like tariffs, right? So I would say why it's because it's obviously because of the tariffs. Those who oppose this will say, oh, it's obviously because of the foray into Iran.

I think it's a difficult balance. But when you are the commander in chief, you really have to take the politics into account and do your best to shape those politics. As I've said, I don't think Trump's doing a particularly good job, but not be subordinate to those politics, not be a slave to those politics. because there are some things you have to do when you're in office that will be unpopular, or at least that will take a lot of work to make popular. So I'm never as persuaded by the sorts of criticisms. I know you're just passing them on from the internet rather than making them yourself that you mentioned there because that is not leadership.

And you need more leadership than followership in foreign policy than in domestic politics, in my view. Well, one thing you're going to get for sure is you've got some significant faction of the MAGA faithful, rich, that's against this. The majority of Republicans, according to the polls so far, depending on which one you look at, may support it. The vast majority of Democrats are against it. The majority of independents are against it.

But you're going to get the media. Fox News is going to cheerlead it, newsmax, and so on. CNN and MSNBC, I don't know that they're going to know what to do. because they tend to be pro-military industrial complex, but they hate Trump. So this is a tough position for them. And so far what we've seen, let's just take the Washington Post, is a very odd tact. Here's where they went. Ayatollah al-Kamani, Iran's supreme leader, is dead at 86.

Okay, so first of all, it's just so generic, just like old man dies at 86. With his bushy white beard and easy smile, Kameni cuts a more avuncular figure in public than his perpetually scowling, but much more revered mentor and the previous Kameni. And he was known to be fond of Persian poetry and classic Western novels, Rich, especially Victor Hugo's Le Miserables.

That's so sweet. I'm so glad I'm getting to know him. And they describe him as a closet moderate. Listen to what they said about Charlie Kirk when he was killed. Charlie Kirk, fiery voice in conservative politics, killed at 31. Frequently generated outcry with provocative statements, commenting that he thought twice about flying on planes with black pilots because he questioned whether they had the job because of the airline's DEI goals.

Not only is that a smear of what Charlie actually said, because he and I discussed it at length right after he. He said it. But notice a difference in tone there, Rich, and approach? Charlie is not cuddly, but the Ayatollah sure was. Yeah, these obituaries and the disparities. A vuncular. Yeah, how they write about dictators and how they write about American political figures on the right who just say things they disagree with, you know, who haven't killed anyone, haven't blown up a building, apartment buildings with Americans in them or embassies with Americans. It's so disgusting. and the Washington Post is supposed to be getting better, you know, at this. But that obituary was stomach turning. They've got a long, long road to go.

Listen, guys, I appreciate you coming on. I mean, I think it's to your credit because I know Trump's not your favorite president, but you're defending him because you believe in what he's done here, which is one of the things I love about NR because even if you don't like Trump, you'll say what's real in terms of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and well worth the subscription. Thank you both so much. Thanks, Megan. Talk soon. Thank you. And thanks to all of you at home. I'd love to get your thoughts on it. I'd love to keep my finger on the pulse of how the audience feels. I mean, I just think this is a difficult one. This is tricky.

It's not quite as easy for me anyway as the strikes Trump undertook in June. We don't know where it's going and we, that one was over before you knew it and no Americans died. This one, we already have four Americans dead. And I think about their families. In any event, I end as I began, pray for the troops, pray for President Trump. And his cabinet. They need it now a lot. We'll see you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.