The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Raging Moderates: War in Iran Backfires as MAGA Turns on Trump

Episode Date: March 4, 2026

Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov dig into the growing cracks inside Trump’s MAGA coalition as U.S. strikes on Iran spark backlash from the right. JD Vance once sold Trump as the president who “started no wars” — now, with American casualties rising and only a quarter of Americans backing the strikes, that promise is under pressure. From Capitol Hill to conservative media, the movement is split: is this still “America First,” or something else entirely? Scott and Jess break down the White House’s defiant message to Republicans, and what this fight could mean for the midterms — and for Vance’s credibility with the anti-war right. Then, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem faces Congress for the first time since the killing of Alex Pretti in Minnesota. Lawmakers press her on DHS enforcement tactics, detention policies, and whether national security is being compromised amid escalating tensions with Iran. What kind of oversight should Congress demand right now? Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov Follow Prof G, @profgalloway Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod Subscribe to our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@RagingModerates Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Before we start today's show, we have an announcement. Raging Moderates is now five days a week. What a thrill. First word, your second word. Welcome. Jess and I will be putting out episodes every weekday evening covering the biggest stories in politics, and you won't want to miss a single thing. So make sure you're subscribed to Raging Moderates on YouTube

and wherever you get your podcast. Now, on to the episode. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway. And I'm Jessica Tarlev. In today's episode of Raging Moderates, we're discussing MAGA's division over the war in Iran.

That's a segue. And Christy Noem faces lawmakers for the first time since Alex Pretti's killing. If you aren't already, please make sure you're a subscriber to our YouTube page to get up-to-date coverage on everything that's happening.

All right, let's get into it for years. Vice President J.D. Vance Pitch Donald Trump is the president who started no wars, the break from the Bush-era Hawks. Now, there are U.S. strikes on Iran and American casualties climbing. Some inside MAGA feel betrayed. Others say this is still America first.

Let's watch how Vance is explaining the attack. Set back just a little bit. If you go back to Midnight Hammer in the summer, what the president wanted to do with that mission was eliminate Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. And we did destroy the nuclear enrichment facilities during Operation Midnight Hammer over the summer. Now, here's the thing, Jesse. We destroyed Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon during President Trump's term, We set them back substantially.

But I think the president was looking for the long haul. He was looking for Iran to make a significant long-term commitment that they would never build a nuclear weapon, that they would not pursue the ability to be on the brink of a nuclear weapon. And after months, really almost a year of painstaking diplomacy, what the president determined is he didn't want to just keep the president or excuse me, keep the country safe from an Iranian nuclear weapon for the first three, four years of his second term. He wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon. And that would require fundamentally a change in mindset from the Iranian regime. Talk about a word salad. Okay.

Now let's watch Nick Fuentes and how he's responding to the situation. And now we're in a regime change war with Iran. That's the breaking point. I'm out. I'm done. I am off the Trump train. I am not voting in 26. If Rubio or Vance are on the ticket in any form in 28,

I'm voting for a Democrat. Say whatever you, say whatever you want. Do your worst. So, I mean, grain of salt with anything Nick Fuentes says, and he's a professional shitster, and he does a good job of it and has made himself a lot of money on his brand of racism and anti-Semitism and all of that. But he is expressing what a lot of the America First Wing of the MAGA Party, which we used to think was kind of the totality of it that the Rubios of the world and the Lindsay

Grams were reluctantly coming along, right? Because it was going to be a more isolationist Republican administration than we'd ever seen before. And they're realizing not so much that the Rubios and the Lindsay Grams have won out. And people like Megan Kelly, Nick Fuentes there, Matt Walsh are sitting there, Tucker Carlson, you know, scratching their head saying this is not at all what we were promised. Now, you know, get in line for all of the things that are happening to you that are not what Donald Trump promised. But this one has pretty severe consequences. I mean, as of today, we have six service members that have been killed. May their memories be a blessing. We are continuing to get conflicting stories about the rationale

for doing this. I mean, Marco Rubio gave probably the most cogent press conference. And I want to ask you about what he said there because it, I don't know if the administration was happy that he came out and said it, but when he was pressed by reporters about the imminent threat, the idea that we were only going to strike Iran if we were facing an imminent threat, he said the imminent threat was that they were going to strike us if they were attacked and that Israel was going to attack them. And the America first wing of the party, and it is how it even sounds. to me, has taken that and run with the notion that we switch gears to be on Israel's timetable. And obviously, there's huge military buildup in the region that's been going on for weeks or months. We obviously intended to do something. But it feels like we have been caught very backfooted. Like the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem has said, we can't help you. We're sorry. We can't evacuate you. CBS is reporting about those six troops who died in Kuwait.

that they didn't have the warning system set up. It was like a makeshift facility. And they had been asking for more drone defeat capabilities, but none came. The Wall Street Journal is talking about the U.S. officials who have been in briefings with access to classified information. And they say that administration's assertions are incomplete, unsubstantiated, and flat out wrong, that there's no evidence to support Trump's claim that Iran could rapidly develop a missile capable of striking the U.S. So, like, how do we look at all of this and think that this was well thought out or that we have a real plan and are carrying it out. So I've equated our military interventions to bond films, and that is they always start amazing, right? We always, bond films always nail the openings. The credits are top of the line, even. Well, the opening is always awesome. Yeah. Every bond film, and then it goes on to either be, Skyfall was great, casino royale was great. So call that Kosovo in Kuwait, or even I'll say Venezuela where things go really well. Or it goes on to be awful, die another day, a view to a kill, basically Iraq or Afghanistan.

So as always, and I'm curious, if you perceive the same vibe shift I've seen in just 48 hours, started awesome. all this military hardware, we immediately take out the equivalent of the president, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs. We see all these inspiring short-form videos of Iranian citizens rising up. And then all of a sudden, it becomes clear, and you pointed this out, the majority of Americans don't support this. 7% of Democrats, 54% of Republicans, and it feels like the Republican, sides waning even faster. And it feels like there's been a dramatic vibe shift based on one thing, and that is the incompetence of the administration. And whoever, I don't know who's head of comms, but you should be able to answer three basic questions. Why are we doing this? Why are we doing it now?

And what are the objectives? Why are we doing this? I think the biggest error to date was from a secretary Rubio, who I would have said 48 hours ago was the leading Republican candidate for president, when he said exactly what you said, he basically said, Israel is now dictated foreign policy for America. He said, well, Israel was going to attack them, and we knew if they attacked them, they're going to respond, so we had to attack first. Like, okay, so let me get this, the tail wagging $1.1 trillion of military spending in the most powerful country in the world is Israel. You're saying that they are dictating our military interventions in foreign policy? That was an incredibly poorly thought out statement. You know, if they had said something along the last,

the lines of. We have a tremendous opportunity to vastly diminish the nation of Iran's ability to continue to be the primary sponsor of terror and to unlock incredible economic prosperity and also bring stability to the region and we're going to vastly diminish their kinetic capabilities. And when the following objectives are achieved, we're out of there and we're doing it now because, let's be honest, we have an opportunity to do more damage and achieve our objectives at a lower risk right now because they're on their back heels. Russia's busy, Hezbollah's weekend, they just don't have any, you know, they don't have any support or backup right now. So that's why now. And then what also came out that I thought was sort of weak sauce was they did identify that statement.

We're going to, you know, get rid of the nuclear pair. We're going to ensure their, you know, missile defenses are taken out. We're going to take out their Navy. Right now, it comes across, their communications come across is defensive and improv. They're literally, there's reports they've reached out to a bunch of traditional journalists where Trump is real-time workshopping his messaging. So they feel as if it's defensive. And Jesus Christ, no one thought to like answer these basic fucking questions before you deployed one of the largest military actions of the last decade.

You didn't think through to have a fairly cogent answer for why. what are the objectives and why now? What it does appear to me, though, is that now that the regime is going to survive. And I still think this could have huge benefits by diminishing or neutering the kinetic capabilities of Iran. I think that's a good thing and worth a decent amount of risk. But essentially, the administration looks weak. And if I were in Iran, I'd be saying, all we got to do is wait out these guys. There's no political capital or will to put boots on the ground, which I understand. And without boots on the ground, there's never been a regime change. And if I were in Iran, I'd be saying, all we've got to do is wait out these guys. There's no political capital or will to put boots on the ground. And without boots on the ground, there's never been a regime change. And ever in the Middle East. And these guys appear to be already taking a flack or incoming from their own party, much less the Democrats, or only 7% support this. So I think the Trump administration through incompetence and poor messaging and poor framing of the words they choose has said to the Islamic Republic, just wait this shit out and you're going to be fine and it's going to be back to normal. So I think that the, and I'm wondering if you sense this, I sense a dramatic vibe shift in the last 48 hours that is leaking a lot of advantage in power back from the U.S.

and its allies to the Islamic Republic. I now think in Kalshi's odds every day that the Islamic Republic falls, that the regime falls by the end of March is going down every day. It feels as if in the last 48 hours has been a substantial vibe shift. What do you think? Totally. And it's not good news if you've only been doing this for 72 hours and 48. of them have been a vibe shift. Right? Like that's not particularly strong odds of success

or bringing over the American public to support an action as important as this since President Trump has said multiple times that they are open to prolonged conflict and boots on the ground. Those are statements that give people PTSD in this country

and for good reason. And you listen to Keir Starrmer, the UK Prime Minister, speaking about this yesterday, he may have gotten himself out of all of the Epstein trouble that he was in with his defiant speech where he said, we're not going to fight your illegal war with you. You know, France is out there. Macron comes out, says we're going to be building up our nuclear arsenal and we're not going to even tell you exactly what we're doing used to be something more transparent. Spain kicked us out of their bases that we were using.

And I think two things are important. So Dan Kane, General Dan Kane, who's the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, there was a lot of reporting in the last week. he was really nervous about doing something and that we were underestimating the Iranian pushback that we were going to see. And it seems like he was completely right. So if the U.S. or if Israel thought that the IRGC or whatever remained of it were going to, you know, scuttle right to the negotiating table afterwards, they were sorely mistaken. And reporting shows that Iran feels like they can dig in for 60 to 90 days, frankly. And not only we're going to deplete our own, arsenal, all of our Gulf State partners need backup from us. They need money and weapons to

keep doing this because Iran is firing everywhere, you know, to countries that they don't get along with, but some that they actually have a pretty decent working relationship or peaceful coexistence to some degree. So I think that that is a really huge problem here. And then there is the issue of, which is something, you know, we talk about a lot, you know, the relationship with the U.S. and Israel. And I saw B.B. was on Hannity last night. He said, you know, hogwash to the idea that this is going to be a prolonged conflict or that they pushed us into it. And I don't see any other way to read it. I don't think that makes me anti-Israel or not a Zionist or any of that. It just seems like the facts on the ground based on what the Secretary of State and Mark Warner, the vice chair of Intel on the Democratic side,

came out and confirmed that. He said, I'm extremely pro-Israel. But this is a new frontier if we are shaping foreign policy based upon their timetables. And they just blew up right before we jumped on here. There was a meeting, I think 88 people, to select the new head of the IRGC, who's going to become the new Ayatollah, I guess. And Israel blew that up. So Israel is going about their business. And they live in an existential threat scenario, right, every day from Iran. And I understand that.

but we are now in bed together in a way that is making people who are supportive of Israel very uncomfortable. And I worry that it's going to feed a vicious cycle and degeneration of U.S. Israeli relations. We've already seen it, obviously, on the Democratic side. It's now people are more sympathetic with the Palestinians than the Israelis for the first time in history. The same thing is going on in the kind of America first wing of the Republican Party. And it's not what I expected, I guess. And I don't want to be naive. But hearing that, like you said, coming out of Rubio's mouth was jarring to me.

They sound very defensive and like all of a sudden they're on their heels. And the response, typically they say Republicans have fallen in line. They're just falling out of love right now. So some Republican responses, Senator Chuck Grassley on X, President Trump gave Iran plenty of negotiable opportunity. I don't know what that means. Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky on X, this is not America First. When Congress reconvenes, I will work with Representative Roe Kona to force a congressional vote on war with Iran.

You know, if they just, if they had said we see an opportunity to vastly diminish the kinetic capability and restore, which likely decreases chaos and terrorism and increases the likelihood. of the Iranian people being able to choose its leaders or bring stability to the Middle East, they could have left it at that and created an off-ramp. But my understanding is in the last four days, we've seen, I'm willing to put boots on the ground. Well, of course, don't be stupid. It's not going to be boots on the ground.

We want regime change. No, not necessarily regime change. And now it feels like they're on their heels saying with these four objectives they've outlined, which, quite frankly, they could say they've already achieved and leave tomorrow. It feels as if they're setting themselves up for the ability to declare victory and leave, which I would argue is not the right message to be sending to the Islamic Republic right now, that, okay, we're getting shit, we had our macho photo moment, we're going to be out soon,

and we're going to declare victory, because basically, if either of the Islamic Republic, I would just be saying, oh, okay, they're already, The core confidence of the Russian people is they will lose a million people and still keep fighting. And I say this with some admiration, you know, we lost, I think, 400,000 people in World War II. The Russians lost 20 million, and they would have kept fighting if they needed to. We do not have the same endurance or willingness to suffer. And that's good in some ways and bad in others. But it feels already as if the administration is on their heels.

and in my view, sending kind of signals of weakness, basically saying, all right, we're looking, we are already looking for an off-front, as opposed to if they just said, we are here to so vastly diminish the nuclear and kinetic capabilities of Iran that they are no longer a shorter, medium-term threat in the region, and have absolutely no hopes of ever rebuilding their nuclear program, they would at least have been consistent and created an open-ended opportunity to say, no, we're not sure when we're going to leave, and I think they would have gotten more people on board. They come across is really, in my opinion, incompetent, weak, inconsistent. The one thing I would like more discussion on is that my sense is there's been a huge strategic blunder here on the part of the Iranians by attacking essentially all of their neighbors. And basically, the attitude is you're either with us, you're against us. So if you aren't going to defend us, we're going to attack you. And a lot of the attacks, in my opinion, while they make for dramatic video, have been more, I mean, they went after the largest refinery in Saudi Arabia, but Saudi Arabia has its own armaments. To me, it seems that

was a very dumb move, that they had an opportunity to create a wedge in between the Gulf states in America. And instead, what they've essentially done is isolated themselves. And what's interesting is that the markets appear to be saying commodities markets, silver spiked, oil spiked, it's already coming down because I think the market is basically saying interpreting America's comments is they're looking for an off-ramp. They're looking for an excuse to say, declare victory and leave, and that it'll be business back to usual pretty soon, including the fact that the I or Jasee will not fall, that the Straits of Hormuz will be open again, that this is not going to be a long-term war. Is it a taco?

Oh, that's actually the right. Isn't that? That is a, exactly the right description. I hadn't thought of that. Say more about what you mean there. Well, I mean, I'm not queen of the tacos. I know it was a British journalist who did it, who said it. It's Robert Armstrong. He's not British. He's American. He works for the FTA. Oh, that's what it. British newspaper, American. Yep. Stans for Trump always chickens out. Right. Trump always chickens out. I mean, there are, I hate to use that for this analysis because there are six dead American service members. And there are, I think, 115 dead innocent Iranians from a strike there on a school, dozens of school children dead.

So I'm not trying to minimize any of that. It's not like when Trump says, I'm taking Greenland tomorrow and then just sits there and watches, you know, TV and drinks Diet Coke. But if we are, which the reporting indicates, looking for an off ramp, which would come in the form of some sort of diplomatic negotiation that we had the opportunity to do over the last several weeks. and there is, you know, significant reporting that there were breakthroughs, at least on the precipice, and that it is now Iran that is pulling back and saying, you don't get to get out of here in five seconds or less, right? Like, we can go longer than you think that's 60 to 90 days. I think that's exactly right. In looking for the off-ramp, this is the most extreme foreign policy example of what Trump has done, you know, with tariffs, for instance, or various threats.

So anyway, I don't know if it fits in that category, but it feels a little taco-y to me. Well, also with drawing from the JCPOA, and it was clear now that all these talks using the nation of Oman to act as mediators, that that was all just a head fake. That was all bullshit. And the problem with tearing up agreements from previous administrations and also not entering into good faith negotiations, and I think the Iranians and most of the people in the Gulf would argue that those negotiations were at times. total head fake. What's your credibility around restarting negotiations again or what is the paper you can get parties to agree to worth the paper it's written on? So, you know, I don't think we come across as steadfast. I don't think we come across as a committed. I think we look, Republicans immediately when there's pushback from Republicans, it looks as if the Trump administration is panicking and

didn't anticipate it and is already trying to create off ramps. And if I'm the IRC, I'm like, like, oh, they're blinking already after, after, you know, just 72 hours, they're blinking. And all we got to do is hunker down. And it's back to business as usual. Well, they know we weren't prepared because we didn't even make plans to get Americans out of harm's way. So they know that we're on the back foot, at least, you know, on that level. All right. Let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Welcome back quickly. We're going to review Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Nome's Capitol Hill testimony today. facing lawmakers for the first time since the killing of Alex Preddy in Minnesota. She was grilled by both parties over DHS enforcement tactics, detention policy spending, and whether department funding lapses we can encounter terrorism efforts after U.S. strikes on Iran. Let's watch this exchange between her and Senator Amy Klobuchar.

We were relying in the hours after that incident that was so horrific on information we were getting from the ground from our agents. I just asked if you had anything you wanted to say to the parents or to the family of Renee Good after. you called them domestic terrorists. I can't even imagine what they have gone through in the loss of their son and the loss of their family members. But how about specifically calling them domestic terrorists without any evidence of that? Sir, ma'am, I did not call him a domestic terrorist.

I said it appeared to be an incident of. I think the parents saw it for what it was. I mean, she's awful. She's ghoulish. She's awful. I've gendered this before. I'm going to gender it again. Watching a woman do this is worse to me than watching a man do it, especially a mother and a grandmother. And I don't know, I guess it all stems from the fact that Trump never apologizes. Every once in a while, he says, you know, I didn't do that, but I wouldn't have or something like that, like the ape video about the Obamas. But I really think she could have just said, which she's. shouldn't have used that language. And it's a tragedy that they're dead. Because that's what, you know, Tom Holman when he showed up, he's like, I wouldn't be here if mistakes weren't made.

Republicans, you know, Senator Kennedy actually raked her over the coals on this and the $200 million that she spent on advertisements to essentially promote herself. He said, like, you just effectively promoted you. Like, it's not a sign of weakness to recognize reality and show you have a little bit of soul. And maybe it just gets, it gets you off the hot seat for five seconds, a little bit of reprieve. And then people can fan out with their talking points and say, you know, this is the stuff we really want to dig in on. And she recognized that a mistake was made when it comes to this. Yeah. So I was like to think of the person who's in the room, but not in the room. I think probably the reason we bombed Iran and who is in the room giving these testimonies,

whether it's Director Patel or Secretary Nome, you know who's in the room that's not on the room? Is Roy Cohn? Roy Cone is President Trump's sort of ideological mentor. And Roy Cone's attitude was interrupt, attack, never give an inch, never admit defeat, never say you're sorry, double down, double down, attack, attack, attack. And that's what he wants. You want Secretary Nome interrupting the senators. look at the complexion and the demeanor and the decorum his appointees and who they're all playing to a party of one what does he want interrupt be an asshole accuse them of shit call them failed lawyers never admit you're wrong and it is so incredibly unproductive it also really damages our brand it makes us look like assholes it makes a mockery of our elected leaders in the senate these these gatherings it makes them look like food fights they just

cheap in everything. And also, I think a lot of us who feel very disturbed by Trump, like, rattled more than we've been rattled before. And I think there's a lot of us had kind of a last draw moment. My last draw moment was absa-fuck-and-lutely when Secretary Nome described an ICU nurse taking care veterans as a domestic terrorist. I just thought, in brandishing a weapon with plans, with an intent to massacre federal agents. I just thought, I remember when I saw it and I read it, I couldn't find anyone to complain to, and it was too late. It was in the morning here, so it was like three in the morning

for all of my progressive friends in New York that I could call. I think that one moment, that was like the low point. That was just, okay, it has gone too far. And Senators Murkowski, Tom Tillis, have all come out and actively asked for her resignation. And then all of this like bang busts in the sky. guy bullshit where she appears to be flying around on a $70 million plane. With her private cabin?

Yeah. I mean, it really is a South Park episode. It's so obvious. Well, I think it's obvious. If you think about crisis management, it's acknowledged the issue. Yeah, this was a tragedy. I take responsibility. Top guy gown is to take responsibility and it overcorrect and say, I apologize, this

was wrong. and we're putting in place protocols and safeguards to make sure that good people are not, that we're going to ensure, you know, she could even say, and that the good people of ICE aren't put in situations that end up with murdered people and that someone exercising their First Amendment rights is not killed. I'm personally committed to making sure this doesn't happen again. But instead, we have a presence like, no, double down. Never admit you're wrong.

But I think she, there's few people that are more happy about our strikes in her on right now than Secretary Nome, she does not want a lot of attention on her testimony because she knew it was going to be rough. But I'll be curious if the calls for her resignation after today increase. Have you heard anything from people you know around the general sense or evaluation of her testimony? Well, I think who is going to go is such a moving target depending on the bad news of the day, because we were talking after Alex Prattie and Renee Goodwin murdered, like it has to be Christy Dome, you know, then it chips at gears were like, oh, Pam Bondi was completely insane. Then Howard Lutnik, you know, the photo in the Epstein files of him with Epstein and three men,

not with his nannies, his kids and his children, as he said, but just walking around in his holiday best. And I think it was Politico reported that President Trump has confronted him about how much his sons are profiting, how much money they're making during the Trump administration. And I don't know if he's like, only my kids, right? the ones that should be able to make money off of this. So I thought Lutnik could be in there. And apparently he was very unhappy with Cash Patel's behavior in Milan. And I'm not surprised because Trump is sober. Right. He doesn't even drink. So I think the idea of the FBI director, you know, crushing beers behaving so unprofessionally stuck out to him. And it was at least reported that he

was upset about the jet travel too. So, you know, you can go in any direction, which I think means no one is going anywhere. And on that note, yes. Yeah. All right, before we go, if you're watching us on YouTube, make sure you hit subscribe. As a reminder, Raging Moderates is now five days a week with new episodes dropping every weekday evening on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and everywhere else. That's all for this episode. Thank you for listening. We'll see on Thursday, Jess. Yeah, I'll see you later.