The Megyn Kelly Show - Trump's Successful Iran Mission, and the MAGA Case For and Against Strikes, with Emily Jashinsky and Victor Davis Hanson | Ep. 1093

Episode Date: June 23, 2025

Megyn Kelly begins the show by breaking down the consequential and successful U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, Iran’s decades-long threat to Americans, President Trump’s decision to take this action at this time, the current divide in the MAGA movement, and more. Then Victor Davis Hanson, author of "The End of Everything," joins to discuss criticism against Trump and his administration from both the far left and the MAGA right over the strikes on Iran, the hypocrisy from Democrats compared to how they reacted to Obama's actions, Trump's rational approach to foreign policy, the precision and professionalism of Trump’s secret Iran nuclear mission, how the operation reflects a level of military competence rarely acknowledged, why the action doesn't constitute entering a war, and more. Then Emily Jashinsky, host of "After Party with Emily Jashinsky," joins to discuss Iran’s retaliatory strikes on U.S. bases following the Trump administration mission, whether this was actually a coordinated effort to symbolically respond without escalating the conflict, the conservative and MAGA case against Trump's Iran actions, the potential the strikes have a negative affect on America and Americans abroad and domestically, Ariana Grande’s social media post sharing AOC's call for Trump to be impeached, the potential for celebrities to get political in another war-like scenario, her new MK Media show launching tonight with Tucker Carlson, and more. Subscribe now to Emily Jashinsky's "After Party":Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/after-party-with-emily-jashinsky/id1821493726Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0szVa30NjGYsyIzzBoBCtJYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@AfterPartyEmily?sub_confirmation=1Social: https://afterpartyemily.com/ More from VDH: https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/victor-davis-hanson/the-end-of-everything/9781541673526/ Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on goldPrizePicks: Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/MEGYN & Download the app today! | Use code MEGYN to get $50 after your first $5 lineupGround News: Use the link https://groundnews.com/megyn to get 40% off the Vantage subscription to see through mainstream media narratives.Just Thrive: Visit https://justthrivehealth.com/discount/MEGYN & use code MEGYN to save 20% on your first orderFollow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM channel 111 every weekday at noon East. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. I'm back from vacation and ready to dive back into one of the most consequential news cycles in recent memory. My God, what has happened? I left for eight, nine days and all hell broke loose. It's been an insane time here in our country.

I just like the news could not be bigger. I'll just take one quick moment to say thanks to all of you for the lovely messages while we were gone. We had a great vacation with my family in Greece where we went through the Saronic Islands which are just so beautiful. I just can't say enough about that area of the world. And the Greek people were absolutely lovely.

So highly recommend. And thank you for your patience while I've been gone. I have a lot of feelings about what's happened, and it's probably going to take us the next five days together to get through the current news, as well as a couple of the big stories that hit while we were gone. But I just want to start with my overall thoughts. VDH is going to be here in a second, and I'm going to get into some headlines about this Iran deal. Actually, I'll just bring those to you now, and then I'll tell you my own thoughts. First of all, as you by now know, on Saturday, President Trump took decisive action. He bombed three of Iran's nuclear sites in a stunning display of American might and military

power. The president says he now wants peace. Vice President J.D. Vance said the U.S. is not at war with the Iranian people, but with Iran's nuclear program. But there's more breaking news today with the reports of Israel now dropping bombs on Iran's capital city Tehran on targeted sites within it, as well as on access routes to the Fordo nuclear enrichment site. Wonder why, right?

Like who's trying to get in there and what are they trying to do? That's of course where one of the sites in which the US dropped bunker busting bombs from B2s as part of Operation Midnight Hammer, great name, over the weekend. With all of this going on, Iran's supreme leader is reportedly hiding out in a bunker and has suspended all electronic communications with his commanders. This is so interesting. This is exactly what made it so difficult to find Osama bin Laden when he was hiding

out in the Abbottabad compound. He wouldn't communicate with most people because he knew that it would likely be traced and he'd be found. And ultimately the CIA found him because there was one person who would come in on foot. And once the CIA identified that guy as someone who was close to bin Laden, they started following him and that's how they found him. So this guy's clearly taking a lesson from history, though President Trump has already said, we know where he is. So query what the truth is, but in any event,

he's determined to try to conceal his location amid assassination concerns. Forget the fact that Trump is saying, we're not going to kill him right now, but he's got Bibi Netanyahu to worry about. And I've heard no such assurances from the Israelis. According to the New York Times, the Supreme Leader is giving orders only through a single trusted aid.

President Trump's administration appears 100% aligned on the actions so far, but the president has faced criticism for the move from Democrats, the media, and even some within the MAGA movement for this attack on the Iranian facilities. Okay. So in just a bit, Emily Jashinsky is going to be here. She's the host of the new MK media show, After Party with Emily Jashinsky. More on that in just a bit. And we'll get to Victor in one minute. But I just want to give you my overall thoughts on it before we bring in a true expert.

So I don't cloud his expert analysis with my own armchair. As for the division between the MAGA more isolationist wing and the more neocon wing that still is very much present and not dominant, but president and large within the Republican party, I'll say this clearly the, I don't know, you don't have to be a neocon to be in support of what President Trump just did. Iran is an enemy of the United States. Iran has been the number one sponsor, state sponsor of terror against the United States for the past 46 years.

Iran is not just theoretically chanting death to America as some absolute fools have been suggesting over the past few days. They have actually been causing death to Americans for decades now, decades. Our Marines, our Air Force, members of our military, all over the world, including most recently in Iraq and beyond there. So, and not to mention what the Houthis have been doing. I mean, Iran has several arms to it that are sponsored by it and assisted by it from Hamas to Hezbollah to the Houthis and beyond who have been doing its bidding. It is ridiculous to suggest that Israel started this war with Iran.

Israel was attacked by Iranian proxy Hamas. That's how this whole thing got started. And if you ask me the reason we did what we did this weekend, it's because it all starts with 10-7 in that the Iranian proxies have been greatly weakened by Israel over the past two years, greatly weakened. I mean, Hezbollah's in tatters, Hamas is too. The Houthis just got bombed by President Trump for weeks, six weeks, by the way.

No one was saying he didn't have authorization to do it, just like they didn't say Obama didn't have authorization on the thousands of strikes he did that didn't have specific congressional authorization beyond the authorization of use of military force that was passed after 9-11. Both presidents, many presidents have used it. So from Bush to Obama to Trump and now Trump again. So Iran has been killing Americans for a long time.

And the reason I think we had an American president who was willing to listen to the Netanyahu claims of right now it's imminent, the nukes are imminent, is because Iran was so weakened, it made sense now in a way it didn't before. It was in a way less provocative to bomb Iranian nuclear sites right now than it ever has been before. And it poses danger, sure, to our US troops, especially on foreign military sites, but less now than it has in decades. And so while I look at the isolationist right, for lack of a better term,

and I think, okay, I see they've lost this one for sure. There's no question my friend Tucker and others did in Bannon, did not want this to happen. They said they lost this one. They had every right to be concerned and they have an ongoing right to be concerned. Their objections are based on some very real and unfortunate recent history, what happened in Iraq, chief among them.

The absurd failed nation building we tried under President George W. Bush, which was continued under Barack Obama. It was a nightmare and even our troops have had it. You know, like look at the interviews we did here on this program with Sean Ryan. Look how Rob O'Neill has turned on it. Look how Pete Hegseth has turned on some of these missions.

Not the sacrifice, of course, made by our troops, but just the folly of thinking we could swoop into the Middle East and create some democratic republicate, republicate in any way resembled our own or had shared values with us. So we're a little jaded when it comes to Middle East meddling, understandably. And the other piece of it that is real is Bibi Netanyahu is suffering right now when it comes to some large factions of the American people with looking like the boy who cried wolf.

All right. Now I'm sorry, but I've been in the news business for 20 years now and every single one of them, I've heard him say that Iran is months at most a couple of years away from getting a nuclear bomb. Every single one of them. We pulled a little montage of it over the years, but I mean, we could have gone back to the 1990s with Bibi doing this. Here's just a sampling. The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran. Only the United States can lead this vital international effort to stop the nuclearization of terrorist states.

But the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close. They're very close. They're six months away from being about 90% of having the rich uranium for an atom bomb. By next spring, at most, by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. You don't want this Iran to have neither nuclear weapons

or the capability to make nuclear weapons to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb in short order in a few weeks or a few months. They could do that unless that's changed. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks once it makes that decision.

Okay, so he said it a lot. And I think a large portion of the American populace is reacting to that in not believing him and not believing him when he says it now. And our president acts in response. And clearly our president is responding to the Israeli intelligence. There was a New York Times report out just this weekend talking about how the Israeli intelligence showed it was it was dated. Actually, this is wait a minute. This is this is last Wednesday. Israeli intelligence was showing that Iran was making cruder and faster efforts to get a nuclear weapon.

And the weaker the Iranians got, the closer they were moving to the bomb. In other words, it sounds like it was an act of desperation, like we're going down, we need it now. In terms of the enrichment of uranium Iran was days away From where it needed to be but there were other components. It's still required to complete the weapon. It points out in the same Report however that contrary to Israeli claims senior administration officials within the Trump administration Were unaware of any new Intel showing the Iranians were rushing to build a nuclear bomb. It seems clear to me that Trump was listening to BB's Intel and not to our own. And there are flaws with our own because we've had a director of national intelligence, not

Tulsi, but we've had an office of DNI that since Obama was there to do one thing and honestly the end of George W. Bush to to just say Iran doesn't mean it. Iran's not actually going to do one thing, and honestly, the end of George W. Bush too, to just say Iran doesn't mean it. Iran's not actually going to do a bomb. Don't worry, because there's zero appetite, especially even at the end of Bush, to bomb Iran or to get involved in a new Middle East war. And so they use the DNI office for years to be the excuse for not doing anything about it.

Oh, there's nothing there. Don't worry. They don't really mean it. They're not going to do it. Don't worry. And the Israeli intelligence, and I don't know whether it's real or not, to be honest with you, but it's certainly been consistent saying they're inches away. And what we saw most recently was the IAEA, which is the international monitoring organization when it comes to nuclear behavior, which was going in, though it was given more and more limited access at the Iranian nuclear sites, saying they have 60% enriched uranium, which absolutely no domestic energy program needs.

You need about 10% to do domestic energy or under. You don't need 60. They're moving towards a bomb, absolutely 100%. And we're enriching enough energy to have, according to the reports, nine or 10 of them already. We were pretending we didn't see it. That's my take on it. And not just mine, but many smart experts who've been watching the region. Because nobody had the appetite for a war with Iran. And President Trump doesn't have the

appetite for a war with Iran. There's nothing inconsistent, not one word, in the way Trump ran for office and the way he's handled this crisis. He was never an isolationist. I'm sorry he wasn't. Part of MAGA is far more than Trump is. We discussed this when I interviewed Marco Rubio talking about the factions of the party. Trump's got a foot in both camps. And Trump has not been shy about using American power where it made strategic sense. And he thought that it would

well serve the United States. There was a tweet that Noah Pollack put out just this weekend, which is excellent. It reads as follows, this endless war shrieking is ridiculous. Trump bombed the Houthis for six weeks, then ended it. He fought ISIS for around two years, defeated them, then ended it. Trump killed Soleimani and did not engage further. He degraded al-Shabaab in Somalia for three years and then ended it. Trump's record of not dragging us into another endless war is impeccable. There is something in between targeted military strikes and endless war. And Trump and yes Netanyahu saw the opportunity for it in bombing the nuclear sites of a now weakened Iran

whose proxies are in no position to fight back the way they would have been even five years ago. So I don't think they have the capacity to respond in the way some are fearing. And I don't think they are inclined to go that route. I know they're martyrs. I know they love the jihad. They hate the infidel. They mean death to America. But I think they understand that escalating this will risk everything they care about. And for sure from, from, you know, the ayatollah's ability to go on, though he's already 86, to the Islamic regime in general.

So that's my own back of the envelope take. Now let's bring in somebody who is an expert in warfare and has been studying this whole thing very closely, Victor Davis Hansen, senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and author of The End of Everything. He joins me now. We are days away from what has been dubbed by some the Rio reset. What some worry could be a threat to the US dollar's global dominance in over 80 years. On July 6th, BRICS nations, that's Russia, China, India, and Iran, and some more, are expected to

unveil their plans to circumvent the US dollar, thus cratering its value. Some report that they've already been laying the groundwork as their central banks have been methodically divesting from the US dollar and US bonds in favor of gold. How can you protect your IRA or 401k from the fallout from this landmark shift? One option is to diversify with gold from Birch Gold Group. Historically, gold has been a safe haven in times of high uncertainty, which is right now. Get a free info kit on tax sheltered gold IRAs by texting the word MK, letters, to 989898. July 6th could mark a monumental shift happening among nations that control one third

of the world's GDP. Arm yourself with information to diversify your retirement savings. Text MK to 989898 and claim your free info kit from Birch Gold. Victor, so great to see you. Thank you for doing this. Your thoughts on it all.

I agree with all of what you said. One thing about the clips with Netanyahu, they were in our splice with actual action. For example, they had the Stupnik's virus that destroyed 6,000 enrichment devices. And in addition to that, they had, as long ago as 15 years ago, began assassinating the first generation of nuclear physicists. And then everything slowed down, as we remember under Trump.

He cost them $100 billion in oil and by having the embargo and the sanctions. So each time Bibi said that, he was trying to alarm us. That's true, but the Israel was taking to action, sometimes in concert stealthily with us. I think you're really right about the degraded sense of Iran. If we had said the day after October 7th, with less than two years, the formidable shock troops of the Middle East terrorist corps Hezbollah are going to be neutered and humiliated, no one would have believed this. If we had said the strongest outpost for Iran as far as a nation

state is Syria, and it's the depot for terrorist munitions and it's going to be gone. The Assad dynasty is going to be gone. We wouldn't believe you. If somebody had said Russia is going to be out of the Middle East finally after John Kerry and Obama have invited them in, they're going to have no footprint anywhere in the Middle East and they're going to be bogged down in their own war. No one would have believed this. If we'd said, as you mentioned, the Houthis, which was designated a terrorist organization by Trump in the first term, then that rubric was relieved. If they're going to be sort of inert now, and Hamas is gonna be a sub-Duranian remnant,

no one believed this. But the main thing is, no one would have believed this if you said in 20 months, Israeli and American pilots are going to be flying at will all through Iranian airspace there's going to be no ability to knock anybody down they have no air defenses and they basically lost all momentum if not the program itself and nuclear acquisition so it's kind of a surreal I think a lot of us think when we say forever wars or be careful, we're talking about on Iran in two senses, one pre October 7th, but even that pre October 7th had this formidable

reputation. But one thing we knew about the Iranians, they weren't popular anywhere in the world. Even the Chinese and Russia who have a long history of anti-Islamicism, whether it's the destruction of Grozny or in the case of the Chinese, the Uyghurs, they didn't want them really to have a bomb. They were useful, a useful asset, but they didn't incur any goodwill. Nobody liked them. And they were really the reason why the Americans, after the threat of Bin Laden, faded, why we were even there in the Middle East anymore. It was for all the turmoil.

But they had this formidable reputation. You don't dare do, even Ronald Reagan was afraid to really retaliate directly at Iran, who sponsored the Marine barracks murder and the destruction of our embassy in Beirut. And they had this reputation, but it wasn't based on reality and it was kind of shattered this last two weeks

and I think that we're still stuck with the idea that they can do all of these formidable things, but they actually are in a state of panic right now. And that's, and if, I agree with everything Rubio said and Vance, we don't wanna get into nation building, et cetera, et cetera. Trump has kind of tweaked that a little bit. But I think the biggest danger just to finish for the Iranians is the military, because they have taken out

the top 20 or 25 generals with the closest ties of theocracy. And everybody else, the subordinate generals, know they're going to be on the list, and their time is coming up. They know that the people of Iran are not only angry, but humiliated that over the last half century almost, they've spent probably a trillion dollars on nuclear acquisition, subterranean enrichment, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, the Houthis, and it's all up in smoke, and they're impotent, they're being humiliated every day. So if there's going to be a regime change,

I'm not sure it's gonna be the people. I think it's gonna be somebody in the military who's gonna say to the people, we didn't do this, they did, the theocracy did. And I even think that's probably a small chance, but nevertheless, there's a lot of turmoil and a lot of impotence on the part of Iran right now.

And it's a very different situation. We shouldn't be stuck in pre-October 7th Iran fears about what they're going to do. I mean, they're going to try to do something, but it's not going to work. I think that's right. That's exactly right. You can't look at today's Iran and equate it with the Iran of five years ago even. And when you're equating the possible retaliatory danger, which is what the commander in chief has to factor in.

He's, he doesn't want to see American troops get killed or American civilians. And you know, the, just the danger has gone down. It's not eliminated and it never will be. And what you're getting now, Victor, what we're at risk of seeing now is these, you know, people who didn't want to see it, some of the more extreme ones, when and if Iran does anything to retaliate and we suffer any American losses.

I told you, you see, it wasn't worth it. And I just like, you can't run a country that way. No, I mean, the last day that Barack Obama was in office on January 19th of 2017, his Parthian shot to us was, he unilaterally, without congressional authority or consultation, sent B-2s, the very same bombers that Trump sent. He sent them all the way to Libya to bomb Libya.

And he had been bombing Libya since 2011. the very same bombers that Trump sent, he sent them all the way to Libya to bomb Libya. And he had been bombing in Libya since 2011. And it didn't result in anything but chaos and destruction and killing. And I had gone to that country in 2007. And whatever we said about this monstrous Gaddafi, his children were starting to take over and he was anti-Islamic at that point.

He wasn't good, he wasn't bad, but it was better than the alternative we have now. No one said a word on the Democrat. Tim Kaine was the head of the Democratic Party, the DNC, I think in 2015, and he didn't say he had never said a word about any of this. And you know, you make a good point about the MAGA. They agree, they have good points, but the base that is skeptical, but they have good points, but the base that is skeptical, but they agree with 85% of the Trump agenda. And they're going, they can't go anywhere because the alternative is democratic insanity. So they're going to offer criticism.

And you know, Tucker, our friend Tucker, he said in that tumultuous debate with Ted Cruz, he was surprised when Ted Cruz suggested that Tucker might not know that they tried to kill Trump. Well, that alleged Afghan assassin was indicted, he was indicted by the Biden DOJ in November of 2004. And he, it's pretty clear the evidence that's mounted that they did try to kill him. And Tucker responded to that by saying, if that were true, I would support nuking Iran. That was what he said so I mean he he has

criticisms, but he he's a Jacksonian in a way too and so that's what Trump was and you're absolutely right He never ran on anything other than in a cost-benefit analysis, I'm going to find a way to maintain, preserve and enhance deterrence for the U.S. So we don't have to get in forever wars. And sometimes that means Soleimani, that means Baghdadi, that means ISIS, that means taking out the Wagner group. But these are self-limiting situations that on a cost of benefit analysis help our strategic stability and safety. That's all he was. He never said anything else. He was not an

isolationist and he wasn't an interventionist. And I think people forget that about him. The critical left, some on the right now trying to challenge this like President Trump didn't have the constitutional authorization ability to do that. It's so absurd that not only did he have the right under Article 2 of the Constitution to drop these bombs, you have a very strong case he had the duty to do it to protect the homeland. There's actually a very strong argument there and he 100% had the ability under the authorization for the use of military force, the AUMF that was passed after 9-11 with Congress's approval. That is a congressionally approved document that both sides of the aisle rushed to approve

post 9-11. Even though they didn't technically, we didn't, Bush didn't even need it then. He could do what he needed to do. We'd been attacked. So that's still in place and it allows the commander in chief to respond to any threats and including anticipated threats. And there's no requirement that it be imminent, none whatsoever.

So it'd be great to update that for the more modern day warfare we're facing and like how it's all weird, you know, insurrectionists who aren't exactly, you know, necessarily state sponsored in all cases. Andy McCarthy makes a great point on this in his own podcast, which everyone should listen to from this past Friday. But there's no question that this was authorized and was not extra legal in any way, Victor. No, and there was de facto president Obama used predator drone assassinations constantly and even he even joked about it the White House correspondents He said if anybody wants to date my daughters be careful. It's called predator It was kind of a sick joke

And then of course we had John Brennan who lied under oath and then when he was asked Are you killing collaterally and well, no we haven killed. And then he had to retract that and apologize for perjuring himself. And then we get into Joe Biden. I mean, there were 300 attacks essentially all over the Middle East that he didn't respond to. But finally he did a little bit, four or five times. But he did, no one on the left said, you can't hit back or you can't preempt unless you have congressional authority. So, and the same thing with the Houthis, both Biden and Trump, but Biden anemically responded or preempted and attacked the Houthis.

So it's kind of, I mean, there used to be a Democrat, there used to be people within the Democratic Party that were to the right of Donald Trump, believe it or not. You can see those old clips of Hillary Clinton asked when she was contemplating a run for the presidency, what would you do about Iran and the nuclear? She said, it sounds horrible, but I would obliterate it if they were getting a bomb. And I'm not condoning what she said,

but that was a strong wing of the Democratic Party, and that is completely vanished now, and partly because there's kind of a nihilism, not a kind of, there is a nihilism now in the Democratic Party. Whatever Donald Trump says or does, it has to be evil and stopped at all costs. And the result of that extremism

is they've become characters of themselves. They really have. They're not serious people. Andy pointing out in his own podcast, the following, that there was an 1863 US Supreme Court ruling, note the timing, that if the United States is under threat from an external force, the president has the duty, the duty to act and to use whatever force is necessary to protect the homeland. That's a constitutional interpretation long before the AUMF. Then came the AUMF, which made very clear that any organization that aided the attacks

or those who perpetrated them and any move necessary to prevent future attacks on the United States is authorized by this congressionally approved document. Congress has the power to declare war. We're not doing that. In fact, we're doing exactly the opposite. The New York Times came out with a headline the night of the bombings that read it was America enters war with Iran. Well, that's not quite right, New York Times. And JD Vance clarified it, Victor, by saying we're not at war with Iran. We did not go to Congress. We did not need to do that because we're not declaring war on Iran.

We're doing targeted strikes. And you just made reference to it, Victor. But here's just a little montage of Barack Obama doing exactly the same. I don't remember AOC or the likes of AOC demanding that he be impeached as we're seeing now, but here's just a montage of him and his military strikes and him talking about them. Last night on my orders, America's armed forces began strikes against ISIL targets in Syria. Today at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Today I authorize the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians. What? Libya? You didn't, this is what you're pointing out, like Libya? What? To protect Libyan civilians? What? Civilians, absolutely. You know, you can pointing out. Like Libya. What? To protect Libyan civilians? What?

Civilians. Absolutely. You know, you can always see- Spare me. The viability of any operation you can judge by the poverty or the persuasiveness of the critics. And so, as you start to look at all these different critics, the Arab world, everybody said the Arab world would go up in flames. but what's happening in the Arab world was unspecified. They privately communicated to the Iranians who were right across the Gulf, we didn't have anything to do with this, we're innocent. Then they have public announcements that they deplore the escalation, they would like calm, and then they're privately, frantically saying to us and the Israelis, if you're going to do this, please end it. Don't leave a wounded Iran on our doorstep. So we

support you only if you destroy their complete nuclear program and defang them. Then you look at China and Russia. China, they get 80% of their pre-embargoed oil. They buy 80% of Iran's oil they get 50% from the Gulf the last thing in the World they want is any more upheaval. So they're not saying anything other than everybody calm down Russia There's tied down in Ukraine and they're just the opposite they don't They don't really mind that there's turmoil because every time there is the price of Russian oil goes up and they profit. And so Medved said all these crazy things that maybe somebody will give a nuke. He's just kind of a bulldog. Just to tell the audience, Medvedev, who used to be president during like the two years

of Putin couldn't be, has come out to say, we'll just give him a nuke now. We'll give him a nuke now. Go ahead. And he's not going to do that because he knows that Australia and South Korea and Taiwan and Japan could have nukes in one week if they wanted. They would all work much better than the Iranians. And we're the only people who really tell them you're under the nuclear shield. If we had said tomorrow, we can't protect you countries, we suggest you go nuclear in the way that North Korea went nuclear with its patent China. They would go ballistic.

So they're not gonna, that, there's no real threat there. And everybody said they're gonna have World War Three, it's not gonna happen. And then you, you've mentioned the American left. They don't have a persuasive argument, they're contradictory, they're hypocritical. The MAGA people, I think we've all said that they have some legitimate concerns, but they're not going to turn on Donald Trump. They understand that what he did and what he represents and what he will do is in line with 85% of the things they say. And so they're going to voice their complaints and then they're going to get back in the

fold. And so- Because Victor, the reality is like you can, as burned as many people feel in this country from Iraq and Afghanistan, the reality is Donald Trump can as burned as many people feel in this country from Iraq and Afghanistan. The reality is Donald Trump has a country to run and to keep safe. And you cannot wave off ongoing and future dangers out of fear of the so called forever war or because we made bad decisions in the past.

You have to factor those in and allow them to shape what I want and what I don't want out of this. But you can't just cower in fear and Neville Chamberlain your way through foreign policy for the next 30 years because of those two awful outcomes. And they're not they're not at all synonymous or even close to what he's doing. And the Democrats, I mean, if we had this conversation three weeks ago, they were using the opposite argument. They were calling him a taco. Trump always chickens out.

He gives deadlines, he gives threats about use of force and terrorists, and then he always chickens out. That whole smear is completely vaporized now. Nobody's even talking about taco. So it's whatever they they throw whatever they think might might stick but the the only real essential question is is the world at large and the United States in particular safer now or before Trump did this and I think I think it's it's clear that the Iranians may try to redo it, but they don't have any physicists,

they don't have command and control, they don't have the infrastructure to do it for years. And more importantly, people say, well, they can do it, they can rebuild. Well, if you have a normal president, he can do the same thing much more easily than they can rebuild again. And he can do it again. He can just say to them, in five years, if you do this, we're going to have even bigger bunker busters and we'll do it again, because we do not want you to destroy the Middle East

in the way that you've done. And so we have a lot more options and we and we have a lot more assets and capability if we have the right president there. And no one. The one weird thing about it is, Megan, finally is that each one of those clips that you showed of Barack Obama was kind of a machismo, I'm the tough guy, under my order I did this, and they all accused Trump of that, but he was the only president, and I'm not just trying to

defend him, but when he talked about Ukraine or Iran, he was the only one in my lifetime who said, the first thing he said, this is a complete waste of human life. This killing is terrible. We're killing all these young people. And when they said, why didn't you hit after Soleimani? He said, I didn't want to kill a bunch of people. And then they said, why didn't you hit them after Saudi?

I didn't want to kill them. And then when he said, we're not at war with it. We don't want to kill Iranians. We don't want to kill them. And then when he said, we're not at war with it, we don't want to kill Iranians. We don't want to hit civilian targets. I had, it was very ironic that the so-called warmonger, maybe it's because of builder and he thinks that as a builder it makes no sense to blow things up you should build, but maybe he's actually a humanitarian beneath all of that crude verbiage in all of that crude verbiage in raggedoccio in a way that so-called suave,

humanitarian community organizer Obama wasn't. He was actually kind of boasting that he had, and that's why he joked about killing people with predators, and he thought it was kind of, I don't know, he was very insensitive to the effects of what he did. And Trump actually is much more worried about killing people for no reason.

And you saw the same instance activity with Biden. And, Victor, Trump met with Steve Bannon. He met with Charlie Kirk. He met with his part of his base. Yeah, he and Tucker's out. Trump did hear out the other side. He just decided against them. No, he didn't.

And you saw the same thing in Afghanistan with Biden. We had the Marines killed. Nobody really. I mean, Biden looked at his watch and people and it was all and then we killed an innocent, you know, this was I think Milley said this was a righteous hit and we killed a family of Afghans and he was calling it righteous strike until he had to withdraw that. So this idea that Trump they're calling him a war criminal, This idea that Trump, they're calling him a war criminal, he's the first president that actually, he measures very, he would have never attacked,

whether you support him or oppose him, he would have never attacked Iran on the day that Israel did. He waited until their assets were attrited. And the weird thing about it is, everybody said we're the puppet of baby Netanyahu. The Israelis were the ones that destroyed Hamas, they destroyed the capabilities of Hezbollah, they created the conditions under which the Assad dynasty evaporated. They hit the ports, they hit the airfields of the Houthis. They destroyed the Iranian defenses.

They depleted a lot of their missiles. And after that, we went in. And the result of that is because that had happened, the ability of all of these terrorist tentacles to hit us is much less than it would be otherwise. Yes. Trump's detractors want us to believe. He just wanted in on the action. He saw Bibi with all these military accomplishments and he wanted to glom on, that's not it at all.

Trump is, he cares about American personnel. He cares about Americans. He doesn't want for both humanitarian and political reasons, a bunch of Americans getting killed on foreign bases or domestically, it was that BB created a runway that was far more clear for US action than I think even Trump expected. That plus the weakening of all their process. I think Trump had a discussion with him. I think he said, you know what?

This is your existential enemy right on your doorstep. We're going to help you, but we don't like to help. We've had been burned by allies that don't help themselves. So show me what you're going to do." And he did, and then he said, at some point, and it was kind of smart to say, we're gonna have a 1 to 14 day window, because it reified the idea that he could carry out a threat, because they were saying at that time, he's just talking, he won't do it. And he knew that each day he waited, the window of surprise was closing. It gave him time to assemble the assets. It showed that he wanted to negotiate.

He gave a window for, if it was possible for Israel to maybe to take out. And he waited and waited. And still an offer him. Still an offer him if the Ayatollah would take it. And he wouldn't take it. And Trump said publicly, I get the feeling that they are jerking us around, which clearly they were.

I've got to ask you quickly, Victor, because I know we're up against the clock. Yeah. Just a minute, because I know that you study this stuff for a living, the magnificence of the American military. And I get it. I understand people are like, we just, we had fancy tools and we wanted to use them.

It was so much more complex than that, but it was from my standpoint, beautifully executed by the Pentagon. I tip my hat to Pete Hegseth, who has come under withering fire for the first four months of the administration, but not a word leaked out of this. The Pentagon went into lockdown. It didn't leak our boys. Yes, the New York months of the administration, but not a word leaked out of this. The Pentagon went into lockdown.

It didn't leak. Our boys, yes, the New York Times, and Jennifer Griffin of Fox got upset that Pete used the term our boys, because apparently there was one female pilot, I guarantee you, she's a tough badass, who doesn't give two shits whether they're referred to as boys,

went over there and got business taken care of. Here is just a bit from Pete Hegseth, an oppressor yesterday morning at eight, talking about how it was done. Sa-5. Iran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities. And our boys in those bombers are on their way home right now.

We believe that'll have a clear psychological impact on how they view the future, and we certainly hope they take the path to negotiated peace. Your thoughts on that piece of it, Victor? I mean, if you were a stranger from a strange land and somebody told you that they're going to take off from a base in Missouri and then they're going to refuel several times and fly 7000 miles for 16 hours. And then they're going to drop these huge 30,000 pound bombs

through a hole the size of our target, the size of a kitchen table. And as they get into Iranian airspacespace they're going to meet fighter escort and they're only going to be there 25 minutes and then they're going to go all the way back and they and after and the defense secretary who has been accused of having AIDS that leaked leaked leaked leaked is they're not going to know anything about it because there were reporters at the Missouri base just waiting to see those things and then then there this elaborate ruse, not just that they were going to Guam, but apparently three of them peeled off to go to Guam.

It was it was brilliantly planned. There was no leaks. And it's a funny kind of forever war when no Americans are killed on the first day of hostilities and apparently very few Iranians and probably no Iranian civilians. So everything about it was professional and I think it reflects in a way we don't talk about it but we were if we had this conversation a year ago Megan we were 35 to 45 thousand recruits down in the. And the military was not honest with us. The Obama generals, excuse me, the Biden hierarchy,

they were saying, oh, it's because people are out of shape or they're in gang activity or we have to compete with private interests. It wasn't, it was a sense of DEI and weaponization of the Pentagon and Lloyd Austin, Mark Milley testimonies, the humiliation in Afghanistan and the particular demographic that had traditionally generation after generation joined the military and had died at double their numbers in the demographic

and in Iraq and Afghanistan at the point of the spear in combat. They weren't doing it. They just said, you know what? I'm not gonna send my grandson to go over the end of the Pentagon and be indoctrinated and have all the DEI and trans, I'm just not gonna do it. And then go to a place like Helmand and be on the front lines and be ridiculed as a white racist or, they're not gonna do it.

And that's all ended now. And there's a sense that the military is back to its original mission, which is battlefield efficacy. And I think it's really improved the morale of the military. And I think they know they're going to get the weapons they need, yeah. Very proud of them. That was perfectly executed.

I mean, not for nothing, but on our way over to Greece, it was like a very long flight. For the first time, I finally got around to watching Top Gun Maverick, which so many people have been pointing this out, but I get the references now. But it was, it was like the mission in Top Gun Maverick was basically the mission that our guys just had to do. It's very eerie in the way that movie Contagion with Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow really like completely nailed what would happen

during the COVID-19 lockdowns. I know him. This movie completely predicted our military situation. Yeah. The thing about you said just finishing, you mentioned that there was an anger that they didn't, they said boys instead of women. If she was, I think she was the only female pilot in the B1 program that was. Yes. Would you, you know that if there is such a thing

as Iranian terrorist cells, you wouldn't want to be identified as the only woman. That wouldn't be too hard to find. You could go on the internet and say, which woman, is there a woman in the B2 program and find her name. So I mean, that would be silly to identify who she was. That's just ridiculous.

These people on the left have, you can't say you guys anymore if there's a woman in the crowd. Well, guess what? We do and we don't want to be lectured. All right, quickly, regime change. President Trump sent out a tweet last night saying, you know, well, what if, what if, why wouldn't they want regime change? You know, if this current leadership stays the way it is, my God, make Iran great again.

Then today, Caroline Levitt went on Fox and said, basically, he was talking about an initiative from the Iranian people. The president believes the Iranian people can control their own destiny. JD Vans, Marco Rubio, both made clear were not interested in regime change. I haven't heard Netanyahu sign on to that. So what do you think is likely to happen when it comes to possible regime change? Yeah, I think what the confusion was with the aim of the mission versus the consequence. It wasn't the aim of the mission, but if that was a consequence, Trump had said, I'm not going to oppose it just because that wasn't my intention. I would welcome it if that's a

consequence. Real quickly, we had the Green Revolution in 2009. Obama sat mute for 11 days. It was crushed. It's kind of like the Aesop's fable of belling the cat, the mice want to be warned when he comes, but the first mouse who does it's going to get killed. No one volunteers. So it's very hard to protest because it's a terrorist police state. That said, as I said earlier, I think there's a lot of military people that are now going to come into positions of command and control to replace the most obsequious pro-Iranian and not that they won't be themselves, but they know they're going to be targeted to be killed.

They know that people are angry that they've been humiliated. If you're an Iranian and you're walking the streets of Tehran and you look and there's a mushroom-shaped conventional bomb cloud at Qam or Natanz or anywhere near you, or you see pictures of it, and then you say to yourself, those were billions of dollars that we never had for streets, for sewage, for water, for health care. And then you hear about Hamas and Hezbollah getting all this money and becoming completely ineffective and impotent.

It's one thing to waste money, but it's another thing to waste money and be humiliated in the process. And they've been humiliated, the military and the theocracy. And I think a lot of people in the military are going to start pointing fingers at somebody and saying, the people are very, very angry, and we can't protect them when we were impotent. But it was the other people who were killed, and it was the theocracy.

And the longer that Khamenei is in seclusion and not visible, it's going to be very hard for him, because he's in a Nasrallah, lose, lose. Nasrallah did that. And finally, people were saying, is he chicken that he wants us to get killed? And then when he started to communicate with people, he was killed. He was killed. I think he knows if he keeps hitting Israel, they're going to kill him. The Israelis will, if he keeps doing it. And he knows that. And by the way, just the whole talk of like,

if there's regime change, they're gonna descend into civil war. We're getting ahead of ourselves. We're not pushing for a regime change. We're not. No. I think Trump, Caroline made that clear. His tweet was ambiguous and she's cleared it up.

And all of his top emissaries are saying, it's a no, that's not our thing. We didn't break it. Yeah, we didn't break it. We're not responsible for it. it's a no. That's not our thing. We didn't break it. I mean, yeah. We didn't break it. So let's go slow. Yeah. Yeah.

Let's go slow and we'll cross that bridge when we get closer to it. We broke the nuclear program, but we didn't break the society itself. It's their business to do what they want. Victor, so glad you made the time for us this morning. It's wonderful speaking to you. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. Thank you. Didn't you want to hear from him? I was dying to hear. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you. Didn't you wanna hear from him? I was dying to hear from him so much on this. There's a lot more to go over. There are a lot of political implications to all of this and there's other news too. And there's also the launch of a new MK media show

with Emily Jischinsky, who I know you guys love and so do we. She's the host of the newest one. It's called After Party with Emily Jischinsky. It's gonna air live. It's gonna be our first live streaming show on YouTube and we'll be right back with her. Basketball season may be over,

but the action doesn't stop because baseball's just heating up over on PrizePix, a place to cash in on your favorite spots and sports. With millions of members, PrizePix has made daily fantasy sports accessible to all. The app is really simple to use. You pick two or more players across any sport. You pick more or less on their projection.

And you could win up to 2,000 times your cash. Step up to the plate and add your favorite players to your lineup with PrizePix. Whether it's strikeouts, home runs, or hits, make your picks in less than 60 seconds and turn your sports takes into real money all season long. Join PrizePicks, America's number one daily fantasy sports app available to play in more than 40 states, including California and Texas. Download the PrizePicks app today and use code MEGAN

and get 50 bucks instantly when you play five bucks. That's code MEGAN on PrizePicks to get $50 instantly when you play $5. PrizePix, run your game. Must be present in certain states. Visit PrizePix.com for restrictions and details. We're talking Trump and Iran, the MAGA moment and more with the next MK Media Podcast Network star Emily Jeschinski.

You know Emily, of course, well, she's been on this show more than nearly any other guests, 35 times actually. You know, hers is one half of the lovely EJs. And now she's got her own show on the MK Media Network. It's called After Party with Emily Jaschinsky. What's different about this one among other things is it's gonna be live on YouTube. It's our very first streaming show at 10 PM Eastern and it premieres tonight.

Here's a taste of the trailer. Hey everyone. It's Emily Jushinsky, your host for an exclusive after party. And the VIP guest is you starting June 23rd. I'm inviting you into my home twice a week for an exciting new show, direct from MK media. It promises to be something that's largely lacking in the conservative space, a free-form, unfiltered, authentic conversation

about pop culture and the news after the sun goes down. Don't bullshit us, you are not brave. We'll talk big picture politics. Whatever consultant came up with that was actually onto something, even if their idea was wasted on a doomed candidate. Media. So even by their own objectives, they're too dumb.

Current trends. And we'll share a lot of laughs, too. It appears that he has been completely outsourcing his business to a 24-year-old who's, like, to put it crassly, sleeping with him. After Party with Emily Jushinsky, the late-night show you didn't ask for, to a 24 year old who's like to put it crassly sleeping with him. After party with Emily Jushinsky, the late night show you didn't ask for, but we'll forget. That's amazing. So excited. Okay, don't forget it's live tonight on YouTube, 10 p.m. Eastern.

And her first guest is our pal Tucker Carlson. You heard his name mentioned a couple of times in the first hour. He's all over the news these days. So a great guest. Again, that'll be live. So uncensored, unfiltered, and breaking. Go ahead and subscribe now on YouTube and on all podcasts and social platforms to support and enjoy Emily's show, afterpartyemily.com. EJ, congrats, great to see you, and how excited are you for tonight? I'm so excited. Thank you so much for your support. I'm really grateful. I can't believe your team counted

how many times I've been on the show. This is an incredible number, 35 times. How much we love. It's amazing. Oh my gosh, every time it just makes my day. So thank you. Really excited and so excited to have Tucker on. Could not think of possibly a better guest

to jump on live tonight. So we're really excited. Yes, yes. That'll kick it off with a bang. And it'll be great to hear him respond to, you know, him being in the news so much over the past week. He's obviously had his own show, but it's different when you get to ask him

and he's very forthcoming. I think you guys will have a great exchange. I'm looking forward to watching it. Okay. You're going to have a lot to talk about right now. There's news breaking out of the white house. President Trump, we believe right now is in the situation room dealing with what looks like Iranian retaliation against not one, but so far two. This is one on 3 PM in the afternoon. We are recording this. It's 1.03 p.m. in the afternoon. We are recording this. It's live on Sirius XM Triumph Channel 111. Attacks on our bases. Iran has launched six ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, according to open source

Intel, The New York Times saying, per Jonathan Swan, a senior White House official confirms they're aware of a potential attack by Iran against the American base in Qatar. Quote, the White House and the Department of Defense are aware of and closely monitoring potential threats to al-Udeid air base in Qatar. In addition, open source intel reporting explosions reported at US al-Assad air base in Western Iraq, and also reporting, quoting the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Operation Fata's blessing against the American Al-Yudid base in Qatar has begun. The New York Times' Eric Schmidt goes on, the main base in Qatar, Al-Yudid Air Base, the forward headquarters of US CENTCOM has 10,000 military and civilian personnel.

It's heavily fortified by an array of air defenses that have been on high alert in recent days anticipating an Iranian retaliatory attack. This is posted by Breaking 911, an online news source purporting to be air defenses seen activated over Doha, Qatar, after Iran fired a barrage of missiles at it, likely targeting again the Al-Yudid air base where US forces are stationed. Let's watch.

And for the listening audience, it looks exactly like what we've seen over Israel in recent days where you can see the missiles getting fired and then in that case, Israel's Iron Dome thwarting many of the missiles, not all. And I don't know what the protections are over our air bases in these areas. You've got to think that the United States, which is largely responsible for Iron Dome over Israel to begin with, has done as much to protect American troops at these outposts, these airbases in Qatar and Iraq, but we will see. Now this is also just coming through. Hold on. Alarms have been reported at Ali al-Salem Air Base in Kuwait. Yeah, so one in Bahrain, one in Kuwait. Reports of three direct

hits on the US base in Qatar, reports Charlie Kirk. No initial reports of US casualties. Let's pray that's true. So we're seeing the Iranian response right now, or at least the beginning of it. Emily, what do you make of it? Well, yeah, that last question is really critical. No casualties so far. So right now, or at least the beginning of it. Emily, what do you make of it? Well, yeah, that last question is really critical. No casualties so far. So right now, the question is whether this is a carefully choreographed back and forth between the United States and Iran.

If Iran responds in a way that does not, for example, kill American troops, then perhaps a larger conflagration can still be avoided. I tend to think the possibility of that is tragically very low. And I'm still incredibly deeply concerned about the risks to the lives of Americans or 40,000 American troops in the region. So if Iran has its nuclear program almost totally destroyed, that's also a critical question

I know you talked about that earlier in the show, but if that happens, they've spent decades building this up What do we expect from them retaliation wise? Do we expect them to actually come to the negotiating table or do we expect them to escalate? with more and more military strikes and then if American if Americans die in all of this you can expect a much more robust response from the American president from the American military and that's where this becomes An all-out war. So what's happening right now is I mean basically we're seeing the future of this conflict in real time Depending on the reports that we're getting in minute by minute right now to determine whether or not this escalates.

Mm-hmm, I mean, this is of course the concern that the JD Vance says, we're not at war with Iran, we're at war with their nuclear program. The thing is Iran has a say, they have a say in that. And if they don't just accept that we blew up their nuclear program, or at least most of it, and they fight back by doing things like this and American blood and treasure is spilled, military or not, I mean, civilian is next level because of course, you know, it's not that we're okay with our military getting killed, but it's

a different matter to kill American civilians, which we did not do in targeting around nuclear sites. Then, yeah, the president's got to respond. Our president's got to respond, even though we know Trump doesn't want war with Iran. I believe him that he doesn't want war with Iran, but he's not going to sit back and not respond. Right. And yeah, exactly. And that's where it's, if you're the American president, you have to respond.

Even if you have dubs in your ear saying this is the time to get to the negotiating table and this is the time for peace. Well, if you are somebody who believes in the doctrine of peace through strength, which Donald Trump absolutely does, then you're going to feel as though you have no choice but to retaliate. Especially if the lives of American soldiers or God forbid American civilians are lost and so what we're looking at right now over Qatar and Kuwait is critical. There's also potentially Now that Iran has been damaged very heavily on the military level the potential for attacks on the homeland domestically there's a potential for

Sleeper cells to be activated in the United States, certainly, because Iran now has to rely on asymmetric warfare, given the attacks that they have faced from Israel and the United States in the last couple of weeks. So this is a really, really dangerous time, and not just as we're looking at those images of what's happening over the skies of Kuwait and Qatar. This is a very, very dangerous time throughout the entire world. And we're just, again, we're waiting minute by minute, kind of bracing ourselves to see what comes of this because we could end up just in the next couple of days into a full blown sort of post 9 11 war. Obviously things are different. It's not apples to apples with Iraq or Afghanistan. But this

could escalate into something that looks much more familiar to us very soon. But this could escalate into something that looks much more familiar to us very soon. I just don't know how Iran's going to do that. They've just been so hobbled by Israel. And I believe that they will launch things like this against the air bases in the region to try to make a point. But their ability to continue this on and on, highly questionable. I mean, Israel's taken out all of their top commanders of the IRGC, certainly of their nuclear program. They've cut off the head of every single snake growing militarily in Iran. It's going to be a very difficult matter for them to conduct any sort of ongoing warfare

against anyone, nevermind the United States of America. I hope so. And I actually, I think the best case scenario of all of this, the best case scenario of the strikes, and again, I sort of in the position where it was like, I hope that I'm proven wrong when the strikes were launched because to me it seemed like a, it's a smaller percentage possibility that what happens from all of this

is we see retaliatory strikes like we see right now There are no American casualties no American deaths and Iran ends up at the negotiating table I am one of the people that believed that was a smaller possibility But if that's actually what plays out Then that really is the best-case scenario then you do end up going to the negotiating table because Iran realizes that as you said I mean the head of Hezbollah the the head of Hamas, Israel has absolutely done significant damage to Iran's operations, terrorist operation worldwide. And inside Iran too. Not just the proxies, but inside Iran with respect to the Revolutionary Guard. I mean, they did their homework on who is running Iran's military program, and those

people are almost all dead. And the Ayatollahs in hiding and not communicating with anybody, they're not in a strong position. This is the one thing they do have. They have ballistic missiles. And you can thank Barack Obama for that, by the way. This is Barack Obama's doing. He's the one with his ridiculous Iran agreement who made sure they would have access to their ballistic missiles.

The same agreement that Tommy Vieter and these other pod save America guys are out there praising, like it was going to set us on the road to peace until the evil Trump blew it up when he became president in term one, but that's what we're watching rain down on our guys right now. Emily just adding to this, again, sourcing open source Intel, which has been right about everything so far. That doesn't mean they're always right.

I don't exactly understand how it works. Sirens continue to sound at US bases across the Middle East, including in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman. Now that would make sense because when one of our bases in the region is under attack or possibly two, they would be sounding the alarm at all of them, getting everybody on high alert. And again, the president's in the situation room right now.

I'm sure Secretary Hegseth is there. He's probably got Radcliffe of the CIA there or coming. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, they're all gonna be there momentarily if they're not there now, trying to figure out what our response is gonna be. Because you do, I mean, I do think it matters in these moments, Emily, that President Trump does not want a forever war.

He doesn't want an open war with Iran, but he's not afraid of them either. Right, and he has to sort of walk that line right now. And it's the same thing with Vice President Vance and Secretary Hegseth, both people who have openly been talking about ending forever wars. If DNI Tulsi Gabbard is there, she is another voice from that section of the MAGA movement and actually from American politics. So we know that there are a lot of people with politics. So we know that there are a lot of people with an ideology that's different than what was in the Situation Room in 2003, 2005, even honestly 2009. So there is something different. And I know that might sound like cold comfort to people maybe who have relatives, family members serving

overseas right now, but I do think there's definitely something to be said for that. I don't think the president or even, you know, elected officials, JD Vance, on the cynical political level, I think they realize that the American public is both not in favor of a long entanglement in Iran, in the Middle East, but on the other hand, the American public has complicated opinions on this and also doesn't want to see American service members or American civilians be killed and not retaliate. So it's an incredibly difficult question, both in substance and in the political side of it. So they have a lot to balance right now because every move, if they want to get to the peace table every move is going to be absolutely critical And who knows what's happening behind the scenes the back channel communications between other Arab countries between Arab countries and other partners in the region Who knows what the Israelis think is best in you know, their next moves and how that may compare and contrast with what the American

President thinks is in his best interest. So there's just so much we don't know about. We won't for days to come. We'll just be able to tell based on what's happening playing out in front of us. I mean, the other problem we don't, we have is we haven't seen the intelligence that Trump has seen. We don't, you know, it's hard to be super critical of the guy when we don't know everything he knows. We know some, we know what the New York to be super critical of the guy when we don't know everything he knows. We know some, we know what the New York Times has reported in the first hour we talked with BDH about their report saying that Israeli Intel showed Iran was accelerating its nuclear efforts and actually the IAEA confirmed that.

They not only confirmed 60% enrichment, but the IAEA confirmed acceleration by Iran. I just wanted to point this out because I didn't get to it in hour one. They did see a step up. IAEA Director General, Rafael Mariano-Graci has previously warned that Tehran has enough uranium enriched to near weapons grade levels to make several nuclear bombs if it chooses to do so. And regarding its centrifuges, verified that Iran had increased the number of operating cascades by 12 to a total of 27 at its underground nuclear plant in Netanz. Said that they had significantly increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium and that it was of serious concern. And that was as of this past November. So

both the Israeli intelligence, which of course we know has been pushing in one direction, but also the IAEA has said that Iran did accelerate, has been accelerating in recent months, making it look like they wanted that bomb. Like they felt things falling apart and were getting ready to gin up their last best weapon. And that could be what President Trump was looking at when he said, let's take them out. Because what we had from Tulsi was a report in March

that was only cited in part by reporters looking to embarrass her. Kaitlin Collins of CNN got in Trump's face on Air Force One and said, oh, your director of national intelligence said that the Ayatollah had not restarted its atomic weapons program and is not making a nuclear bomb. And Trump said, well, I've seen different intelligence and I don't listen to her. And the truth is Tulsi did say that in a report,

just like every DNI has said, every DNI has said that for years now, but she also added the second piece, which is, but they are enriching uranium at a seriously dangerous level and one that is totally inconsistent with a domestic energy program. No one who's using nuclear or uranium for domestic energy needs 60% enriched. What you need to get a bomb is 90% enriched and it's pretty easy to go from 60 to 90.

It's much more difficult to go from 0 to 10 and from 10 to 60 like they did and already had accomplished. So that's where we are right now where you've got intelligence going to the president from our own domestic sources that is mixed from Israeli sources that's not mixed and from the IAEA that has really no reason to lie in a way that makes Iran look bad. That may have been a further alarm. So I don't, you know, it's, it's very hard to sit in our armchairs and question Trump's decision. One of the things the hawks and the doves, this is an interesting point, may agree on going forward is that if it seems, and the New York Times has reported this and other

nuclear experts have pointed this out in the last day or so. If it seems as though Iran did move some of its nuclear material in trucks, the reports of trucks leaving the sites and transporting stuff out on, I think it was Friday. And so if that's the case, you may have the hawks and doves agreeing actually that Iran still has nuclear capabilities, that they weren't significantly damaged, that you have to do a lot more work. I mean, they were significantly damaged, but not totally destroyed. Meaning, if you're going to spend the millions and millions of dollars on these strikes with the intent of utterly destroying and decimating Iran's nuclear capability, then there's still

a lot of work left to do. And I'm actually kind of interested in that, Megan, going forward. The intelligence, it's obviously from the armchairs here in the U.S., really difficult to understand as civilians what's going on behind the scenes. I totally agree with that. So I'm just curious going forward, like, to what extent the people who want more involvement in Iran, they want an escalated military presence from the United States and the people who say, wait a minute, let's stop doing this, actually agree that Iran still has some measure, some

capacity to start enrichment really rapidly. That's the thing that JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard had pointed to is that the enrichment was at a level such that you could very quickly go from zero to 100, from civilian to military use. And so I think that's one of the big questions on the table right now is to what extent does that ability still exist? The other question is, after Israel began with an attack in Iran, I mean, again, they didn't begin this war. They were attacked on 10-7-23 by an Iranian proxy, Hamas.

But when Israel attacked Iran directly, we did see a response from Iran that was, I mean, it's significant. They're raining down missiles on them. But there's been a question for a while now about whether Iran has the capacity to really unleash hell on Israel or anybody else at this point. And like what they're doing right now at these military bases may be a check the box situation

where it's like, we need to do something. We're not gonna just let them attack us, but we're gonna make sure that we minimize casualties. And they've done this before. They did this with the United States, I think it was 2020, in 2020. And this, as I say it, the New York Times reports as follows. Iran coordinated the attacks on the American airbase in Qatar with Qatari officials and gave advance notice that the attacks were coming to minimize casualties, according to three Iranian officials familiar with the plans.

There it is. The officials said Iran symbolically needed to strike back at the US, but at the same time carry out in a way that allowed all sides an exit ramp. They described it as a similar strategy to 2020 when Iran gave Iraq a heads up before firing ballistic missiles at an American base in Iraq following the assassination of its top general, Soleimani. And by the way, the open source Intel reporting Iran's Supreme National Security Council says it launched as many missiles as the number of bombs used by the US in its strike. If that's what this is, and by the way, Qatar is saying that its air defense systems have

successfully thwarted the attack and intercepted the Iranian missiles, so they do have Iron Dome of their own. And there's no loss of American life. This won't escalate things at all. If they make an effort, they launched the same number of bombs we launched and none of our guys gets killed because they gave an advance warning and they evacuated the areas or they were ready for them,

that's, I guess, about as good as we could hope for, Emily. Yeah, I mean, that would be hugely vindicating to President Trump and it would prove me wrong. It would prove, if that turns out to be the case and these indications are actually really positive, like a rare glimpse of optimism amidst all of this turmoil, if that's what happens and it looks like it's going in that direction,

that is vindicating for Donald Trump. It proves people like me wrong. And so that's a really, really good sign because that would signal that it was similar to what happened after the killing of solomani That it was this kind of choreographed back and forth iran knew it had to retaliate Now one of the things that concerns me is there are reports just in the last couple of weeks that iranian nationalism is rising Because of the strikes in israel meaning that their own public may desire something that looks more that looks different than this that

You know, maybe this could be coupled with sleeper cell activity in the American homeland I don't want to sound too pessimistic because this is really good news as awful as it is to watch this happening and praying right now That it remains the case. Everyone is safe and there are no casualties But that would be vindicating for people who said it was possible to do a targeted precise strike Nearly destroy all of Iran's nuclear capabilities set them back significantly and then get them to the negotiating table This is the type of thing that should signal They're ready to talk more with Steve Witkoff and with the Trump administration. I would assume that's what this indicates.

It's not necessarily the case. It's not a given, but this is obviously in the most twisted way, a positive sign if this reporting from the New York Times is born out. I don't even know what we're going to be discussing now. What are we going to be discussing at the negotiating table? What we wanted was for them to end their nuclear program. They jerked us along and so we ended it. I mean, we annihilated it.

It may not be, you know, a hundred percent gone, but it's 90% gone. That's my back of the envelope guess. They're still assessing the damage and all that. But I mean, let's face it, it's been absolutely devastated by these bombs. It's not still in operation. They can rebuild. But the point is, what are we negotiating? Stop dropping ballistic missiles on Israel?

Okay, good luck with that. I mean, that's- Inspectors, I think that's one of the things. You know, like Israel's gotta negotiate that. That's kind of between them. And like, look, Israel's got that one handled. What are we negotiating? What we care about is the Iranian nuclear program

and we just took care of it. So I just like, the Ayatollah is not going to behave in good faith and we've seen that. Trump treats everybody like they can be negotiated with, to his credit. And he went in there saying, let's talk it out. We can have a beautiful Iran with a thriving economy. Let's do this thing.

Same as he did in Saudi Arabia and everything. And then he realized that he's dealing with a bunch of radical Islamic jihadists whose mission in life is to martyr themselves and kill the infidels like us, not the Iranian people, but those who run its regime. And eventually that resulted in a big number of bombs getting dropped on Iran's nuclear facilities. I just don't know, what is there left to talk about with these people? I think going forward, the Trump administration will probably want, and this was at issue in the Iran nuclear deal, they'll probably want inspections. That's going to be one of the

sources of back and forth. If Iran, if that's the case, and they are at the negotiating table, they'll say, we need to be able to inspect more clearly, more reliably, what you're rebuilding going forward. But if you're Iran, I mean, that's the other massive unanswered question, open question right now, is how does Iran see all of this in its own interest if it wants to? I assume that Iran has every intention of rebuilding its nuclear program. I mean, this is a decades long enterprise and sort of they saw as a centerpiece of their negotiating power the world over. And obviously that's, from the American perspective, a massive mistake.

But I don't know that they've been dissuaded from using it as a bargaining chip going forward. So yeah, I mean, that makes it seem like any negotiations would be dead on arrival. I don't know what they could talk about at this point. I think that's a really great point because it's like, well, if they're in the process of rebuilding, why are we even going to talk to them after just spending hundreds of millions of dollars risking American troops lives to basically almost destroy the program completely? And by the way, Israel assassinated all the heads of their nuclear program. So it's going to be a little tougher to rebuild than it would have been five years ago. Like the same

you will about the Israelis, they don't eff around. Like once they've decided you're a problem for them and they go in militarily, it's not gonna go well for you. They did their homework. They obviously have a lot of intel inside of Iran, which is their chief enemy,

which exists to destroy Israel. And has been saying that this Ayatollah has been saying that for decades now, dying to kill Israel and Israel finally had enough in the wake of everything that's happened over there So I just don't I'm not sure what the next step is going to be and I'm not sure what What Iran has left to offer us that would you know? I mean, I guess everybody's looking for an off-ramp if that's true. That'd be great

They say they won't do it anymore and they allow more inspections. You know, they've kind of stopped allowing as many inspections, but they still have allowed some by the IAEA. They say that they'll allow more and that they won't do it anymore. And we pretend that's real. And then we don't bomb them anymore. And we get out and they stop retaliating against our bases.

Okay, I guess that would look okay. But the most important thing that needed to happen just happened on Saturday night, which was, you which was the bombing. I don't know, when you say they would prove you wrong, are you in the camp of those who don't believe we should have dropped the bombs on Saturday? Yeah, and just because I think the risk,

and I don't think this with any 100% certainty. I think anybody who said that they knew for sure what would happen if Donald Trump struck the Iranian sites was wrong. I mean, there was no way to know for sure what would happen if Donald Trump struck the Iranian sites was wrong. I mean, there was no way to know for certain what would happen. I thought the probability was unacceptably high that this would pull us into just inevitably onto the slippery slope of escalation. So I would be surprised if Iran's response is exactly what the New York Times is reporting

now, but I wouldn't be shocked because to your point, their leverage has been significantly damaged. The thing that still gives me an enormous amount of concern is just what you laid out, their intention for what Iran should be as they see it on the world stage because of Islamism, extreme Islamism, like all of that gives me really, really serious pause about whether even if we see a kind of carefully choreographed response where they are telegraphing that they're about to do it, they give this advanced notice and there are no deaths, no casualties. If we see that, I still am really nervous that something's going to happen here in the United States.

I'm still really nervous that there's going to be more provocations going forward because I just have a hard time believing that they're willing to just completely capitulate. At the same time, your point is really compelling about their lack of leverage and the amount of leverage that they've lost in negotiations, which by the way, were ongoing in the last few months with the Trump administration. So, I don't know what's going to happen, but I'm still pretty worried about escalation, though this is a good, good sign. Let me ask you this, because I'm curious about this. I spent the week off, as you know, but I listened to everybody.

I was listening to my Neocon friends over at commentary. I listened to all of Tucker's podcasts, which are 100% the other way. Listen to Bannon, you know, all of it. And so I, I find the difference in opinion very compelling, very interesting, very sincere. I'm like, I have almost no tolerance for the people who, you know, look at Tucker and just say he's an anti-Semite. That's such bullshit. He doesn't want another Middle East war. It doesn't make him an anti-Semite. It's ridiculous.

There are a lot of people with a very good faith belief that this is the wrong move for us and that's okay. This nonsense from like AOC that he should be impeached is just absurd. Absurd. There's no, okay, get back to me when you've read the constitution or get a law degree because you sound like an absolute fucking idiot. There is absolutely no ground to impeach the president. He 100% was within his constitutional authority and his congressionally authorized authority to do what he did on Saturday.

Okay, but as for whether it's a good idea, that's a debate we should be having. And look, if we could get congressional approval of the specific action, fine, I'm okay with that too. If you wanna bring it to Congress, go ahead and see how that goes. I don't think it's necessary, but go for it if you want to.

In any event, I am curious as to what you think he should have done. Like let's say he was in a position where Bibi comes to him and says, they are accelerating. I know I've said this 10,000 times for the past 25 years. I know I've said, but I'm telling you this time it's real. And he has reason to believe Netanyahu because of the compromised state Iran is in, having seen all of its proxies get beheaded over the past year.

You know, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis more recently, it's not doing well. And its scariest arms have really been hurt as a result of their attack on Israel and Israel's response and what we did to the Houthis and the naval battle that we saw just a couple months ago. So let's say Iran was in a panic and that data was real. Like it's accelerating and we actually do believe. And you totally believe that they

will use a nuke against Israel and possibly against the United States. Although that just, I mean, that's guaranteed self-destruction. But he, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush have all said that Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon. It's just this president, forgive me, but he had the balls to actually do something about it. I mean, I said to my friend in texting the other day, I'm like, the wrong administration officials got the nickname big balls. It's Trump. This required massive balls.

The guy's got a very steely spine and zero F's to give. Like he can't be pushed around. He can't be scared. He had a near death experience that changed his view, I think, of his own consequential life and in our place in the world. Anyway, for all those reasons, Trump did what nobody else would do. So what would you have done if they, you know, like, what should he have let them do? Just if he believed that Intel, just let him, let him get it. We, I think you're hypothetical about the Intel is what's most difficult for me because I, you know, if you, if you are just a civilian and you have to rely on the reporting and the fog of war strategic leaks about what the Intel is. So for example, my colleague Sagar has reported

that we don't have any American intel, we have Israeli intel that Americans are relying on because Mossad has an impressive operation in Iran, no doubt about it. That sounds clear. Right, and that's really, again, difficult for a civilian to sit back and say- Because we've been told for 25 years,

they're gonna have the bomb within a year, six months, weeks. We ran that, but it's out of BB. So it has a boy who cried wolf feel to it. And you're talking about American lives potentially. Yeah. And, you know, I was rereading some of the reporting from like Judith Miller and others back in 2003 about, you know, the lead up to the Iraq war the other day.

And again, I get it's not apples to apples But when you're reading it, you just realize how eerily similar the pattern of selective leaking is There are some people who do I think for you know, unfortunate reasons It's not that they're bad people but that they prefer military action who are strategically leaking things in a way that was Push us down the slippery slope and we'd start coming in. I accept all that and I don't disagree. But let me ask you about the IAEA report about 60% enrichment. Even Tulsi's testimony, Tulsi's very dovish testimony that there is zero reason why they'd

be enriching this much if it were purely for domestic energy purposes. No one seems to be disputing that 60% enrichment thing. There's zero reason for them to do that unless they're making a nuke. And in fact, the reports are they probably already have enough for nine or 10 of them at least. So what about that? Because do you think that's made up to by the warmongry military industrial complex crew?

They got the IAEA to say that? That's what's so hard for me. I mean, I genuinely don't know. And I'm not an expert on nuclear proliferation, but from the outside, whether or not they're able to go quickly from A to Z is a hugely important question. If like where they are right now puts them in a place,

we're just in a matter of, and this is critical because even Tulsi Gabbard said this, the quote was weeks or months. Okay, but months could be, you know, 15 months. It doesn't have to be. Okay. But let me, okay. I'm going to give you the floor back, but what doesn't have to be imminent. I think what Trump is thinking is they're weak. They're the weakest. Now they've been in decades. All of their favorite arms have been cut off or severely hobbled. So there's no better time. They can do the least damage to our

troops at these outposts and God forbid domestically now that they've ever been able to do, at least in the past 46 years, they've been killing Americans throughout that entire time. Undisputable, undisputed, indisputable that they've been killing hundreds of American Marines, American Air Force, American personnel at base after base throughout those 46 years, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Okay. so now you've got your chance. That's what's different. To me, the reason we have a president willing to accept that Israeli intel, and again, maybe it's real

because Iran's in a different position right now. It's possible they really did say, holy shit, pedal to the metal, we need this. But even if they didn't, I think the difference is we have a president who looked at the scenario and said, now is the time that I've got to be honest. Like there's no, there's never been a better time.

And I know what everyone else has always known, which is of course they are building toward one. And here's the other thing that we haven't talked about yet that gives me a little bit of pause. And again, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I do think also there was a sudden And JD Vance was posting about this last week There was a sudden shift From Israel and then from the United States that I am very curious about because there were diplomatic

options being explored by Steve Witkoff who I think has done a really a options being explored by Steve Wittkopf, who I think has done a really, a really brave thing over the last several months, last six months since Donald Trump was inaugurated and opened up some important conversations. So I'm curious if the diplomatic options were actually exhausted. And again, I get obviously all of the challenges of having negotiations with Iran, but the sudden change to me, I'm

Without getting back into the intel conversation. I'm genuinely curious if that was based on intelligence that had changed very suddenly or if because Israel moved to the strikes We ended up not having diplomatic options that we could continue pursuing and then The diplomatic options are now off the table in a way where they could still be explored if in this situation. I mean, that to me is a huge question about going back to what Donald Trump should have done. Could Donald Trump have said to Netanyahu, we are close to having a deal that is better than risking escalation with Iran?

I'm curious about that. I don't know. Again, it's hard from the outside Iran. I'm curious about that. I don't know, again, it's hard from the outside, but I'm genuinely very curious. It sounds like, well, it sounds like what we're hearing from the reports is that our intel went to Trump and said, it's done, Bibi's gonna do it, including Radcliffe at CIA said the ship has sailed. He's doing it with or without us.

And Trump accepted that as a reality. And Israel's obviously in a very difficult position right now. It's been attacked brutally and it's at war with everybody. And I realize that's a lot of American detractors over here of President Trump's decisions feel like we're being led around by Israel. We're fighting wars that aren't ours. And I am open-minded to that too.

I mean, I understand it's like, we got our own problems. Like we can't be fighting Israel's problems, but it is an American problem if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Like I think that is potentially problematic. I don't think it's the same as like, well, Israel has one. Well, I mean, they're not radical Islamist jihadis. Do you not understand the difference?

Like go, do two minutes of research on what radical Islamic jihadis want to do to the United States or any America. And I'm, I have zero tolerance for the people who say it has nothing to do with our values. It's the fact that we've been too bellicose and too warmongery in the middle East. Bullshit.

Do your homework about radical Islam. They want to kill all of us, all of us. It is not just a fucking chant, death to America. They actually want it to happen. They've been working to kill American troops for the better part of five decades now, and it's not going to change. They've made really clear what they want and how they feel about us. So they cannot have a nuclear bomb. They cannot. In the same way ISIS, when it was around, could not have a nuclear bomb.

Like the people who are dedicated to killing America, this is not a good idea. So I think Trump saw an opportunity and took it. And I totally believe he's anti forever war. And I believe that Tulsi and JD Vance and Steve Witkoff, all of whom I think are much closer to Tucker's view to your view too, were probably much more slow rolling on this. Like probably much more like, well, wait, maybe it's not a good idea, but they're all standing behind him now. Not for nothing, but here's what Tulsi actually testified to

at that March hearing before Congress, SOP 15. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's the second part. It's unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. Of course, there's no reason for 60% enriched uranium if all you want is your lights to

go on. By the way, it's one of the richest oil countries in the world. It does not need nuclear energy. And why would it do it when it's so controversial, given the fact that it's a wash in oil, right? It's just, I mean, to me, it seems very clear, but anyway, okay, standby. We have more with Emily Jushinsky.

She's not only our friend, she's the host of After Party with EJ. And you've got to tune in tonight, live at 10 on YouTube to see her interview Tucker. Very interesting to hear his POV in the wake of what we just saw with Iran's retaliation. These days, it feels like everyone has an agenda, the media, big tech, but let me tell you about ground news. They do not filter the news. They show how stories are being shaped, spun or ignored entirely. So you can decide

what to believe. Ground News is an independent app and website built to give users control over their newsfeed. It aggregates coverage from across the political spectrum and breaks down how each outlet is framing the story, including bias ownership and what key details might be missing. If you're tired of being told what matters or what doesn't, it might be time to take the power back. Ground News is offering 40% off their unlimited access vantage plan for a limited time. This offer is available exclusively at groundnews.com slash Megan. That's ground, G-R-O-U-N-D, news, N-E-W-S dot com slash Megan.

Don't let anyone else decide what you get to see. Take back control of your news feed today. Let's be real. Our modern world, it's toxic. From ultra-processed foods to environmental chemicals, our bodies are under attack every single day. And one of the biggest casualties? Our digestion.

Millions of people suffer with indigestion, bloating, and stomach upset. But here's some good news. We don't have to just accept this. See, our ancestors had an answer to this all along. Bitter foods. Did you know bitter foods could help you? Bitter herbs and plants have been used for centuries to stimulate digestion, support detox, and keep the gut thriving. I want to tell you about Just Thrive Digestive Bitters. With a powerful blend of ancient, time-tested bitter herbs, Just Thrive Digestive Bitters. With a powerful blend of ancient, time-tested bitter herbs, Just Thrive says just one dose before meals

can wake up your digestive system, and Just Thrive says it helps you break down food properly and help with bloating and sluggish digestion. So consider ditching the modern toxins and getting back to what our bodies were designed for. Consider Just Thrive Digestive Bitters available now at JustThriveHealth.com. Use code MEGAN to save 20% off your first order.

That's JustThriveHealth.com, promo code MEGYN. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch the Megyn Kelly Show on Triumph, a SiriusXM channel featuring lots of hosts

you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are, no car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast and more. Subscribe now, get your first three months for free. Go to siriusxm.com slash mkshow to subscribe and get three months free. That's siriusxm.com slash mkshow and get three months free. That's siriusxm.com slash MK Show and get three months free.

Offer details apply. Emily Jashinsky is back with me now. She's the host of After Party with Emily Jashinsky, live on YouTube at 10 PM Eastern, kicking off tonight. Go subscribe now to After Party Emily. That makes you sound like a fun girl. After Party Emily on YouTube. You know, when we were coming up with names for the show,

the amount of times that we were bouncing them back and forth and we're saying, okay, so that makes me sound like a stripper. Like it happened like 10 different times. We would come up with a really good idea. And then be like, no, can't do that. Wait, that reminds me, Doug just sent to our family text chain, there's this website that gives you your pirate name, your pirate name.

And this is how you come up with it. You gotta give your, okay, your first name is Emily. It starts with an E. So your first name and your pirate name is Broken Emily. What's the first letter of your middle name? B. Broken Knuckles, that's your second. And then your last name is a J.

The Gasly, Broken Knuckles the Gasly, that's your pirate name. I mean, we should just call the show that. Why didn't we go with that? Mine is Filthy Guns the Hideous. And another idea for the Megyn Kelly show, go with that. Mine is filthy guns, the hideous. Another idea for the Megyn Kelly show. You can change the name. It's never too late. Anyway, so it's going to be very fun. It's going to be a huge hit.

And I haven't, I have a suggestion for you on your first guest after Tucker, maybe tomorrow or the next show. And I think that person should be Ari, Ariana Grande because she's got a lot of thoughts, Emily, a lot of thoughts on Trump's bombing of Iran. And she has endorsed the AOC tweet saying that he should be impeached. Ariana Grande, who, as far as I know, has done nothing other than sing and dance, which is fine. She seems to be very good at that, would like us to listen to her political opinions now,

in particular her constitutional opinions on whether he's gone too far. And the reason she's qualified to make this conclusion is because of the segments she did for years on Nickelodeon as follows. Sometimes I wonder if you can get juice from a potato. Did that air on Nickelodeon? Come on, give up the juice.

Yikes. I'm thirsty. In another video, Ariananna is pouring water on herself in what seems like a very sexual manner. And people started saying, this feels inappropriate for children. That's from the Quiet Onset documentary about the Nickelodeon problems.

And she was exploited as a young person. It's not nice. It's actually quite sad. But now she's decided to take that troubled youth and turn it around to make constitutional judgments about our president. Your thoughts? Well, I would love to know if she ever got juice out of the potato because that is genuinely a good question that I hadn't thought of before. But other than that, I mean, we're about to go back to, I mean, this depends obviously on what the escalation looks like. And we

just talked about that. And I know you talked about that with VDH. But if we all remember, Zoomers don't, what it was like though, in around 2005, when public opinion on the Iraq war started to change, it was just a constant onslaught of celebrity armchair punditry about what's happening and the president. And again, like some of the division that people sense in our politics today, it's amusing to some extent to hear Zoomers like be so exhausted and fatigued with it because I mean, people remember what it was like in the mid 2000s and it was really, really ugly. I feel like we have amnesia kind

of culturally about how ugly politics and culture was during that time in the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. And it was a lot of that fueled by celebrities wading into these waters in really divisive ways that were also very, I think, offensive to everyday Americans. I mean, we don't have to relitigate what happened with the Dixie chicks But part of what did happen there is people took offense the fact that they were overseas and they were talking about the American president In a way where they were speaking to an audience in I think was London It was in England and it was just infuriating to a lot of people who like literally burned Dixie chicks CDs

and I don't think that stemmed exactly from a literally burned Dixie Chicks CDs. I don't think that stemmed exactly from a disagreement with the politics of what they said as much as it was like, how dare you? How dare you trash talk the American president to people in the UK? So things could get really ugly culturally very soon too. I think that Ariana Grande needs to put more thought

into how to add one half an ounce of fat back onto her body than she does thinking about President Trump being impeached. Obviously she is in the middle of a crisis. I'm sorry, but this woman looks ill. She is beyond skinny. She looks dangerously thin and someone needs to do an intervention to help her.

I'm not saying this to be snarky. I genuinely think someone needs to help this woman. She's obviously troubled. And I think weighing in on this is just her latest folly. She was caught on camera a couple of years ago saying, I hate Americans. Now here she is talking about Trump needing to be impeached. There's a lot that went on, I think,

on that Nickelodeon set that's never been fully threshed out. And I think Ariana Grande should work on her own wellbeing and keep her constitutional thoughts to herself. Okay. Emily Jushinsky tonight, say again, how they can find it. You go to youtube.com and you type in what to pull up the show. That's right. Afterparty with Emily. You can go to afterpartyemily.com. Again, does sound like a strip club, but you can find all of your information there. If you listen to podcasts, it'll be there. Head on over 10 PM tonight, live with Tucker, all kinds of questions for him. So it's going to be a lot of fun.

So you get, you have some fun with Emily and you get some of your best friends there. When Tucker Carlson shows up live to respond to whatever the hell is happening in the country at that point. I can't wait. I will be one of the ones tuning in. Thank you so much, Em. Thank you, Megan. All right. See you tonight. And we are back tomorrow with our friends from the fifth column.

Can you imagine them on all of this? I cannot wait. We'll see you then. Great to be back with you guys. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.