The Tucker Carlson Show - Tucker Confronts Ted Cruz on His Support for Regime Change in Iran

Episode Date: June 18, 2025

Senator Ted Cruz demands regime change in Iran. He’s not interested in the details. (00:00) Why Does Cruz Want Regime Change in Iran? (07:49) Was Regime Change in Syria Beneficial to the US? (12:31) Was the Iraq War a Mistake? (34:17) Does Cruz Think It’s Okay That Foreign Governments Spy on America? (58:09) How Does Funding Israel Benefit the US? (1:18:42) What Really Is an Isolationist?  Paid partnerships with: iTrust Capital: Get $100 funding bonus at https://www.iTrustCapital.com/Tucker Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today. Hillsdale College: Take a free online course today at https://TuckerforHillsdale.com PureTalk: Go to https://PureTalk.com/Tucker to make the switch Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether it's a family member, friend or furry companion joining your summer road trip, enjoy the peace of mind that comes with Volvo's legendary safety. During Volvo Discover Days, enjoy limited-time savings as you make plans to cruise through Muskoka or down Toronto's bustling streets. From now until June 30th, lease a 2025 Volvo XC60 from 1.74% and save up to $4,000. Conditions apply. Visit your GTA Volvo retailer or go to volvocars.ca for full details. Senator, thank you very much for spending the time to have this conversation. It's good to be with you.

So you've come out for regime change in Iran, as distinct just from taking out the nuclear sites. What does regime change look like in Iran? Somebody else in charge. How do you get there? Look, that ultimately has to be a popular uprising for the people. And it's not a complicated question. Is America better off with a country that has a leader who hates us and wants to kill us, or to have a country with a leader who likes us and wants to be friends with us? Well, definitely the latter is better.

Of course. And so that's not a complicated statement. Look, I believe you look across the world when you have countries that have dictators that are viciously anti-America. Venezuela, Maduro hates us. Would we be better off with Maduro out of power? Absolutely. I want our enemies out of power

and I want our friends in power. I could not agree more. The question is, how do you get there? Of course. We've been trying to kill Maduro for quite some time. We have troops there. I don't know that we've been trying to kill Maduro. We have.

And I think you know that. I don't know that. Okay. Well, as a statement of fact, we have. We do have massive sanctions. We try to pressure him out of office. Yeah. I'm not aware of that.

I'm just saying there's a lot of pressure coming from various parts of the us government on that government and it's still there yeah same the country of various sisters cuba you know 1959 we've been working on that hasn't worked so it's it's we both agree it's hard to do it absolutely is hard and look i think you're reasonable to ask how do we produce that and and i think there's a distinction between what your objective is and the means to get it. There are all sorts of things I would say we would be better off. We'd be better off in China without Xi there. Should we invade China and topple Xi? Of course not. Better off with no national debt. You know, there are lots of things. But it's good to say, all right, what are our objectives? And so with the Ayatollah in Iran saying you're for regime change, I don't view as complicated.

I mean, the guy literally leads mobs chanting death to America. So that's not good. Definitely not good. But the reason I think it's important to get a little more detailed about how that might happen is because there's military action in progress, which we're supporting. And the president has said clearly, including last night, that he is focused on eliminating the capacity of the Iranian government to produce nuclear weapons. You are saying we need to use military force to affect regime change. I have not said that. Oh, I must have. No, I have not said that once. I don't think we need to use military force to do regime change. I said I support it. I would like to see it happen.

You asked me how should it happen. A popular uprising. So what I've advocated for. All right, let's step back a second. You and I, we've known each other a long time. I would say we agree on about 80 percent of the things on Earth. For sure. And there are a lot of things and we can get into the nitty gritty of foreign policy

as much as you want. There are a lot of things on which you and I agree, not just a little bit, but violently. I totally agree. I was rooting for you in your last campaign. Well, thank you. Look, you have been heroic on on the border. You've been one of the clearest and best voices in the whole country on securing the border and the absolute crisis we're facing. And in Texas, I see it and live it every day. In COVID, in fact, you may recall in the middle of the COVID lockdown, I was out walking my dog when the whole world was shut down and we were living in lunatic times. And I called you and said, Tucker, your nightly monologues are the single best thing on television. Like I watch them like like an injection of crack.

OK, I'm mixing my metaphor because you don't inject crack, but but you get what I'm trying. No, I mean, it was you were standing up and speaking like, what the hell are we doing in a way that we desperately, desperately needed? And so whether it's securing the border, whether it's the insanity of COVID lockdowns and the vaccine mandates, whether it is the Second Amendment or the First Amendment, you and I agree on a ton of stuff. The 20% where we disagree, I do think is meaningful. And it's mostly in the foreign policy space. And what I would say, if you'll allow me to get a little theoretical, and then I'm happy to get specific. I hope you will. Yeah. For a long time, people have perceived two different poles of Republican foreign policy.

There have been interventionists, and those have been people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, George W. Bush. And there have been isolationists. And then the most prominent of those have been Ron Paul and Rand Paul, and there are others. And people perceive those are the two choices. You've got to be one or the other. I've always thought both were wrong. I don't agree with either one. The way I view my own foreign policy—

I'm with you, by the way, for whatever it's worth. I'm with you by the way for whatever it's worth I agree with you I don't know who set up that binary but there are lots of choices actually people sort of naturally fall into I think they want to classify people and they're like okay you're one or the other and you've got to be all or nothing

and the interventionist it seems have never seen a country they didn't want to invade and that doesn't make any sense to me and the isolationist I think don't take the threats to America seriously. And I think that's naive and it doesn't work. And so my view, I consider myself a third point on the triangle. non-interventionist hawk, which sounds a little weird, but what do I mean by that? I mean the central touchpoint for U.S. foreign policy and for any question of military intervention should be the vital national security interest of the United States. How does this make America safer? How does this protect Americans?

If it does, we should be strong. And actually, another way of conceiving what I'm saying, I'm speaking theoretically, but Reagan referred to it as peace through strength. And actually, I think Donald Trump's foreign policy is very much what I'm describing, a non-interventionist talk, where he understands that, and I think this is historically true, the best way to avoid war is being strong. That weakness and isolationism, I think, encourages war. So going back to regime change, because you said that the single criterion for making decisions about America's foreign policy is America's national interest. Yes.

That's it. Yeah. Which is also America first. That's another way of putting that as well. I guess the definition of it. It's hardly breaking news. The U.S. dollar has been gravely devalued by Washington money printing. You print money out of thin air and the currency becomes weaker.

You can purchase less with the same amount. The entire system is backed by nothing but the government's word. What is that worth? People around the world are beginning to ask. So one of the results of this is that a lot of people want to invest in crypto. Many don't know where to start. That's where iTrust Capital comes in. Their platform makes the crypto game smarter, easier, safer, and you can understand it. With iTrust Capital, you buy and sell crypto inside a tax-advantaged IRA. That means the

same long-term tax benefits of a retirement account paired with the freedom to invest in digital assets. They also offer secure non-retirement accounts, use an airtight security system, and have real human beings, experts on call if you ever need them. You just call up and you can talk to them in person. Creating an account is very simple. It takes just a few minutes. Click the link below or visit itrustcapital.com to start today. The question is... No frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum points on your first five orders. Shop now at nofrills.ca.

This episode is brought to you by DAZN. For the first time ever, the 32 best soccer clubs from across the world are coming together to decide who the undisputed champions of the world are in the FIFA Club World Cup. The world's best players, Messi, Haaland, Kane, and more are all taking part. And you can watch every match for free on DAZN starting on June 14th and running until July 13th. Sign up now at DAZN.com slash FIFA. That's D-A-Z-N.com slash FIFA. Are we watching that now? So I think we are. And from what you've said publicly, I think on Iran in particular,

you and I disagree. And all right, let me contrast it when Obama was president. When Obama was president, you remember he talked about wanting to have military action against Syria. And at the time, I tried to keep an open mind to it. I said, OK, let me listen to the commander in chief. Describe to me how this is in America's interest and what your plan is. And Bashar Assad was a bad guy. He was killing his own citizens and he had chemical weapons that were very dangerous. I could conceive of a commander in chief laying out a plan for, OK, we're going to go in and say, grab the chemical weapons and leave.

Like, I could see that if there was a real threat to America and there was a plan to prevent that, I could see supporting that. So I wanted to hear what he had to say. And I listened both in classified briefings and public questioning. And number one, their public defense of it was incoherent. So John Kerry said, we're going to engage in an unbelievably small strike. I think that's a quote. I'm like, okay, and to do what? At the time, there were nine major rebel Islamic groups in Syria. I'm like, OK, I agree. Bashar Assad's a bad guy. You topple him.

And one of the nine other groups takes over. Seven of them were affiliated with radical Islamic terrorism. You had al-Qaeda and al-Nusra. I'm like, wait, how is it better to have lunatics who hate us in charge? Assad's a bad guy, but I don't want worse guys in charge. Obama administration couldn't give an answer to that. And ultimately, when you press them, John Kerry in particular, I pressed and he would say, well, we need to defend international norms. What the hell is an international norm? I don't know what

it is, but I'm not interested in putting U.S. servicemen and women in harm's way to defend one. Amen. So I opposed the Syria attack and opposed it vocally. And it was interesting. Rand and I agreed. Rand's a friend of mine. But we agreed with that position for different reasons. What I was asking is, I think the question we should ask, how does this make America safer? The Obama administration couldn't give me an answer, so I opposed it. I think Iran is very different. Let me ask what you think of how Syria wound up, because Bashar al-Assad now lives in Moscow. Yeah. He was taken out by our allies, and he's been replaced by a radical Islamist who was affiliated

with ISIS. So is that a win or no? Unclear. Look, Syria's a mess, so I've consistently opposed. But we had a secular leader in a religious and ethically diverse country now we have a religious extremist islamic religious extremist who's overseeing the purge of of christians and alawites is that better that doesn't seem well look one of the things you said is you said he was taken out by our allies i don't think that's right israel didn't take assad out what happened and i'll tell you what about? Turkey didn't take him out. So, it was interesting. I had a long- How did Assad get kicked out?

Yeah. When Netanyahu was in D.C. a couple of months ago, he and I sat down for a couple of hours. He's a good friend of mine. And we talked actually about Syria. He made an interesting point that I've not heard anywhere else, in that he said he believes what toppled Assad was when Israel took out Nasrallah. Nasrallah was the head of Hezbollah, and they took him out. And he made an interesting point. He said, it's fascinating how a charismatic leader, and Bibi said, look, Nasrallah was a very effective terrorist leader. And when they took him out, that power base was supporting Assad. And that ultimately, in Bibi's analysis, removed the support from Assad and toppled him. But they weren't trying to take out Assad. My view now, I don't, it is very confusing, and I don't know that anyone really knows all the details, but you don't think that Israel or Turkey or NATO ally Turkey played any role in toppling Assad? I don't know. I don't know that they did. Look, my understanding of that, they clearly took out

Nasrallah and Hezbollah. They've decimated Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is waging war on them. So decimating Hezbollah was very good for Israel and very good for America, too. I mean, Hezbollah hated us. I would put Assad in the category of an unintended consequence, and whether it's good or bad, I don't know. I think time will tell. For the United States. Yeah, for the United States. I think time will tell the new leadership there. You're right to be concerned. Let me step back and let's talk regime change generally. I mentioned Syria. I also oppose the Iraq war. I think the Iraq war was a serious mistake. And we have a pattern, and going back to this binary of the interventionist and the isolationist, the interventionists advocate over and over again,

there's a bad guy, there's a dictator who's doing bad things to his people. And they say, let's go topple him. And you have dictators in the Middle East who are killing radical Islamic terrorists. We come in and topple them. The radical Islamic terrorists take over and they start killing Americans.

And my view, how the heck does that help us? Like Saddam Hussein was a horrible human being. He murdered and tortured people. Unequivocally bad guy. But it got much worse after we toppled him. And you ended up having ISIS rise up. I mean, that was the cause of ISIS was toppling Saddam Hussein. Same thing in Libya. You had Gaddafi, another horrible guy, that under Obama, we toppled him. And you ended up having radical Islamic warlords taking over. And so, and it's the question I asked in Syria. Okay, well, what's the plan? And how is this good or bad for the United States? And so I don't think, with Iran, I view Iran as very different from Iraq. But up to that point, you say we disagree. I don't hear really anything. I'm not quite sure what happened in Syria, but I don't know.

So, right. But other than that, I don't hear anything I disagree with at all. Yeah. Sounds like we're in a complete agreement. I wonder, though, is there a successful regime change that the United States supported that you're aware of in the last hundred years? Sure. Defeating the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union collapsing, winning the Cold War, that that was the most consequential step for U.S. national security interests of our lifetimes. Okay. So you would classify that as a regime change that we affected?

Absolutely. Okay. And look, you and I are in my office. We're sitting next to a painting of Reagan in front of the Brandenburg Gate. And up top are the words, tear down this wall, in German, in the style of the graffiti. Right. And I think those are the most important words any leader has said in modern times. And if you look at how Reagan waged the Cold War, and Reagan is very much my model for how to, I actually think how Reagan took on the Soviet Union is exactly how we should take on China. Now, starting from the point, look, Reagan was not an interventionist. In eight years, the biggest country Reagan ever invaded was Grenada. He was very reluctant to use U.S. military force.

He didn't respond after the 83 barracks bombings. You're right. He made the judgment that the risk exceeded the benefits. And that's a very rational decision to make. And it's reflected. Trump has made those same decisions where he is willing to use military force, but but he very much asks, OK, is this good or bad for America? Does this endanger U.S. servicemen and women or not? And one of the points about the Cold War, look, nobody in their right mind wanted a shooting war between America and the Soviet Union.

The two biggest nuclear powers on Earth firing bullets at each other is really unhealthy for human beings. Same thing is true with China. Nobody with any sense says, hey, let's go to war with China. That's really dumb, and a whole lot of people could die. But the Cold War showed we've got lots of tools, short of sending the Marines to fight against a regime. And one of the most important tools is the bully pulpit. And so when I say I support regime change, I actually think just

simply laying out what the Ayatollah does. And so I spend a lot of time, I speak to Iranian dissident groups. I speak out against human rights abuses. I think shining a light on the depravity of leaders is a really powerful tool that America has. Should we limit our activity to that? It depends. Because the U.S. government pays opposition groups, militarized opposition groups in Iran to overthrow the government. We've done it in a lot of different places, as you know. I'm not saying it's bad, but that's very different from what you're describing. You're saying we're making a moral case, as we did for seven years with the Soviets. Our system works, yours doesn't. And I think we made a credible case for that,

and we beat them over 70 years economically. And that was a huge part of it. Right. I think everyone would agree that was the main part of it. We didn't beat them in Vietnam or North Korea. The main part of it, but it was tied to a military buildup. So I think it was two things. It was, one, the clarity. So Reagan came in and he described the Soviet Union as an evil empire. Right.

And all of the intelligentsia in D.C., all the Democrats, all the media, they're like, what a horrible thing to say. You can't say that. Reagan went to the United Kingdom and he said, Marxism, Leninism will end up on the ash heap of history. People were horrified. They asked him, all right, what's your strategy in the Cold War? He said, very simple. We win, they lose. And that was all viewed as sort of a Philistine simplicity.

And I think it was exactly right. And laying that out, speaking, do you know the backstory behind the Berlin Wall speech? Yeah, I do. Yes. You probably know Peter Robinson, who was a speechwriter. Yes. So three times the State Department deleted those words from that speech. And three times Reagan wrote it back. And the state department argued, they said, Mr. President, you can't say this. This is too bellicose. This

is too provocative. And my favorite, they said, this is too unrealistic. The Berlin Wall will stand till the end of time. And Reagan said, look, this is the whole point of the speech. And less than three years after Reagan gave that speech, the Berlin Wall was torn to the ground and it wasn't knocked down by American army tanks. We didn't shoot missiles at it. It was shining truth and light that tore it down. It was also rebuilding the American military. It was what was then pejoratively called Star Wars, where the Soviet Union, their economy couldn't match our military buildup and it bankrupted them. That's an example of peace through strength. We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very

safe country. Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia. Yeah, good luck. So most people, when they think about this, want to carry a firearm. And a lot of us do. The problem is there can be massive consequences for that ask kyle rittenhouse kyle rittenhouse got off in the end but he was innocent from the first moment it was obvious once on video and he was facing life in prison anyway that's what the anti-gun movement will do they'll throw you in prison for defending yourself for the firearm and that's why a lot of americans are to Burna. It's a proudly American company. Burna makes self-defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust. They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty-handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rock-hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles.

And they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away. There are no background checks. There are no waiting periods. Burna can ship it directly to your door. You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Burna pistol. Visit BurnaBYRNA.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get yours today. Burna.com. At Desjardins Insurance, we know that when you're a building contractor, your company's foundation needs to be strong. That's why our agents go the extra

mile to understand your business and provide tailored solutions for all its unique needs. You put your heart into your company, so we put our heart into making sure it's protected. Get insurance that's really big on care. Find an agent today at Desjardins.com slash business coverage.

Nothing hits like playoff hockey. The road to the cup starts on FanDuel. Your home for live bets all playoffs long. With new features like live SGPs, build a parlay any game, any period. Or stack multiple matchups onto one slip with Same Game Parlay Plus. What's better than playoff hockey? Overtime play playoff hockey get more from the game with live overtime markets download fan do it today and get more playoff action with north america's number one sportsbook please play responsibly 19 plus and physically located in ontario if you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you please contact connects

ontario 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge i wonder i mean is there anybody who was alive in 1989 who wouldn't trade that America for the one we live in now? There's not one person, I don't think. Oh, sure. But I mean, just the basic metrics, debt, suicide rate, life expectancy, it was, I wonder why after that victory, America didn't thrive in the way that we thought that it would, that I thought that it would. My family was involved in that. I mean, we were very focused on it in my house. Like, we won. And I wonder two things. Why didn't the United States kind of declare victory and make some sort of arrangement with Russia that allowed, like, mutual prosperity rather than continuing a Cold

War? And second, I wonder why the United States didn't get a lot better. Like, why don't we have better infrastructure? Why don't we have fewer homeless? Why do we have all these drugs? Like, if we won, why does our country look like this? I walked across from Union Station this morning, as you do, I'm sure, every day. And all those people lying in the street and sleeping outside. It's like, what is that? Look, there's no doubt there are really dangerous forces in our society.

Some of it is politics and some of it is culture. And one of the mistakes people make in politics is thinking everything is politics. So the political answer, which I happen to believe, is we went much further down the road of liberalism. You look at Bill Clinton, who inherited the peace dividend of the Cold War being over and moved us more to the left, and then Obama accelerated it a lot. And so there are lots of bad economic policies, but I also think they're cultural things. You know, the loss of faith, the loss of family. I know what you're going to say and I agree 100%.

I bet there's not one word that I would disagree with. All I'm saying is, I think it's important to step back and ask. But I actually think Russia has very little to do with it. Well, that's kind of the point that I'm trying to make, which is like we're all sort of focused on beating our adversaries abroad, but what is victory worth if our own country becomes what it is now? And maybe we're spending a little too much time focused abroad and not enough time focused on the people sleeping outside Union Station. So, look, I absolutely think we need to focus at home emphatically and we need to focus on prosperity. We need to focus on reducing the debt, reducing spending, empowering people, low taxes, small businesses, American

free enterprise. It's the most powerful force for fighting poverty the world has ever seen. I'm a thousand percent there. I also recognize it is a dangerous world. And part of the responsibility of leaders, part of President Trump's responsibility is to keep America safe. Let's go back to where we started. But can I ask, you've been in the district a long time in D.C., so have I. And the city's way more dangerous and Congress runs this. No, no, it's a complete crapple. So I'm saying like the date, no Iranians ever going to kill me, but I could get carjacked here. And I just don't understand how the Congress could run the city and focus on the dangers of Iran when the city is like garbage. It's garbage. But Congress doesn't run the city. We could. Congress does run the city. It's in the Constitution. It's in the Constitution, but they've given home rule. So it's a Democrat.

You can take it back. You control the Congress. I'd vote for it. but it is a question of math. Okay, but I'm just saying, like, why, how can people ignore, it's like, if my own kids are drug addicts, but I'm focused on my neighbor's kids, it's like I'm neglecting my own kids. And there's a sense in which the Congress is neglecting the country that elected them in favor of this relentless focus on other people's problems. That's the way it feels as an American. Look, there are lots of problems in America that we need to fix. Why is D.C. a pit? Because you have a mayor and a Democrat city council that won't let police officers arrest bad guys. And in every city you see across the country, whether it's New York, whether it's Chicago, whether it's L.A., whether it's San Francisco,

if you have Democrats, we see the L.A. riots where they won't let people be arrested all right then why not work in regime change here I'm when I use the bully what do you think I do every day and you see a Republican senator stand up and say I just walked to work this morning over people dying of drug ODs we're going to shut this place down unless they fix it there's they're mad about Putin like what did Putin do to Washington? Nothing. Look, in terms of regime change, let's talk this week. The riots in L.A., I've made very clear that the cause of those riots are Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass. And when you elect communists who hate America, who stop law enforcement from arresting criminals, you get what you get on the street. I agree.

My in-laws are Californians and they're wonderful people. Heidi grew up on the central coast of California, and I remember I was texting with my mother-in-law, and I think I sent her a video of criminals going into a store and just looting in California. And her response, she said something like, well, this is really terrible. I wish we could—it's a shame we can't do anything about this. I said, yes, you can. Go in and arrest them. Throw their butts in jail, put them in handcuffs. And it stops. Exactly. And so we know how to fix these things.

And D.C. is is I think D.C. voted, if I remember right, 92 percent Democrat. Democrat policies don't work and they destroy every community that they are in charge of. Then why don't Republicans assert their constitutional authority over the city? Don't they control the Congress? Yes, I'd be all for it. Who's against it? Susan Collins is really vocally against it. So on questions of home rule.

So, for example, let's take an issue you and I care a lot about the covid lockdowns. I had a couple of years ago in the middle of them. D.C. was proposing, the D.C. school district was proposing throwing out of school any child that was not vaccinated. And at the time, if I remember correctly, it was something like 40 percent of the African-American students in D.C. were not vaccinated. So they're talking about literally throwing out 40 percent of the kids at public school. And so I had a vote on the Senate floor to say, look, they can't throw kids out of school for this. And we ended up having a big argument. And part of the argument was home rule, where there was and Susan was the most vocal Republican. It's like, no, no, we have to let D.C. run. And I'm like, why? Constitution gives us the power to do it.

And it ended up, by the way, every single Democrat, all of them voted in favor of the D.C. public schools being able to throw out 40 percent of the black kids from school. I said, look, you throw a kid out of school. You got a 14, 15 year old boy. You throw him out of school. You know what's going to happen next. He's going to join a gang. He's going to engage in crimes. He's going to engage in drugs. He could be dead within five years if that kid doesn't get an education. And the Democrats were more than happy to say, we don't care. Right now, our religion is get the vaccine or we're to hell with you. But can you, I mean, I, again, once again, I couldn't agree with you more, but can you feel the frustration of people, including your voters, every American, at the emphasis on foreign countries and the

threat we supposedly face, a lot of which is fake, obviously, over the kind of slowly unfolding tragedy of what's happening to our country, the dollars spent, the aid packages to Ukraine to pay the retirement of civil servants in a country that we have nothing to do with, the aid packages to Ukraine to pay the retirement of civil servants in a country that we have nothing to do with, the endless support for Israel, very expensive. When people are literally buying groceries on credit in the United States, can you feel like nothing against Ukraine or Israel or any other country? All right, let's stop. You said the support for Israel, very expensive. How much support do we give to Israel? Well, you tell me, you vote for it. It's about 3 billion a year is the military assistance.

Is that the only assistance? Yeah, we just have military assistance. Israel does not have additional assistance. There's an MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding, and it's 3 billion a year. So what is it costing to support the bombing campaign to protect Israel right now from Iran? So I don't know right now, but I'll tell you this. Let's go back to the touchstone on foreign policy, American interest. Our support, our military support for Israel is massively in America's national security. And it benefits us enormously. Well, before we can make independent judgments about whether or not that's true,

and I'm certainly open to it, I think we need to know what it costs. So what's the annual cost of defending Israel? Do you know? Three billion a year. No, no, no. That's the aid. But I mean, the cost of the weapons, for example, the cost of U.S. personnel there, the cost of moving ships to the region, which we're doing right now, the cost of moving tankers to the region, all of that. Do we know what the cost is? So look, the last week, I don't know. And there's some lag when the administration on the Constitution, the commander in chief has control of the armed forces. And so President Trump has made some decisions that will know the cost over time. But I don't know the last week that that I don't have visibility on that. The annual cost is three billion. That's that's it's a 10 year memorandum of understanding. And that's that's the principal driver

of the cost. But let me make a point. We get massive benefits from Israel. Israel shares the Mossad as one of the best intelligence sources on the planet. The enemies of Israel, the people who hate Israel, they all hate us. It's almost a perfect overlap. And so if we tried to recreate, if we're just trying to defend America, we tried to recreate the national security benefits of our alliance with Israel, it would cost, I don't know, $30 billion, $300 billion. So can you elaborate? And again, I'm going into this as someone who's always liked Israel and still does. But I also think at this point, given where we are, it's fair to ask rational questions about what the benefits are. Good. So does Mossad share all of its intelligence with us? Probably not, but they share a lot.

We don't share all of our intelligence with them, but we share a lot. It's a close alliance. Do they spy domestically in the United States? Oh, they probably do. And we do as well. And friends and allies spy on each other. And I assume all of our allies spy on us. And that's OK with you?

You know what? One of the things about being a conservative is that you're not naive and utopian. You don't think humans are all. Part of the reason socialism doesn't work is the mantra from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs doesn't work. As a conservative, I assume people act in their rational self-interest. So it's conservative to pay people to spy on you? It's conservative to recognize that human beings act to their own self-interest. And every one of our friends spies on us. And I'm not... Do you like it?

That's my question. I'm not asking whether they have motive to do it. Of course they do. I understand that. And I'm not mad at them. You're an American lawmaker. So I just want to know, hold on, I want to know your attitude. You said that your guiding principle, in fact, the only

principle, the only criterion. I said guiding, the overwhelming, I wouldn't say only. Is it in America's interest? Is it in America's interest for Israel to spy on us, including on the president? It is in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel because we get huge benefits for it. And you want to see the clear... But I just want to stop on this one for a second. It takes place, as you know, including on the president of the United States and several precedents. And I just want to know if that's okay and why is it okay? Wouldn't an American lawmaker say to a client state, you're not allowed to spy on us.

I'm sorry. I know why you want to. I'm not mad at you, but you're not allowed to. Sure. And I don't care for it. I don't want to be spied on by you. Is that,

it's kind of weird not to say that, but you don't seem able to say that. Sure, I would say don't spy on us. They're going to anyway. And by the way, the Brits are, the Canadians are, like, I don't think.

Well, I'm not for that at all. I think it's disgusting, but we don't actually pay their, you know, we're not their most meaningful sponsor. We're not sort of paying for the operations of the British government. I got to say, and this is, it's weird. We're talking about isolationists, the obsession with Israel. Why is Israel? I don't think I'm obsessed with Israel.

Okay, but I think a lot of people are. And like the question, Israel spies on us. Well, so does every other country. Why are you mad at Israel? I guess. No, no, no. I'm hardly with Israel. Okay, but I think a lot of people are and like the question, Israel spies on us. Well, so does every other country. Why are you mad at Israel? I guess, no, no, no. I'm hardly the one who's, I've never taken money from the Israel lobby. Have you? Taken money from the Israel? From AIPAC. So AIPAC raises a lot of money

for me, but it's actually a misnomer because the people who raise money are individuals. So it's not the PAC itself, but they're individual members who believe in the American-Israeli friendship and relationship. Is the APAC a foreign lobby? No, it's an American lobby. It's the APAC stands for the America-Israeli Political Action Committee.

What is it lobbied for? So, to be honest, not a whole lot effectively. Listen, I came into Congress 13 years ago with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate. I've worked every day to do that. AIPAC, a lot of times, AIPAC, I wish were much more effective. Like, there are folks online who are in the fever swamp of terrified of AIPAC. And AIPAC... I'm not terrified of AIPAC at all. You're the one who seems a little uncomfortable when I'm asking. No, I'm not uncomfortable at all.

I'm just asking what AIPAC does. My understanding, having known a lot of people who work for AIPAC, is that it lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government. Oh, okay. America has thousands of colleges and universities, and a lot of them, unfortunately, are basically just scams. It's one of those things nobody really wants to talk about, but everybody on some level knows that it's true. What's an

impressive college in 2025? There aren't many at all. Hillsdale is one of them. It is the exception. They cut straight through the woke garbage. They give their students a real education, an actual education. Meet a Hillsdale student and ask yourself, is this the best educated 22-year-old I've met in a long time? Yeah, because they don't have propaganda in their education, just the truth, facts, history, English, math. If you think it sounds good, because it is good, think of this. Hillsdale is offering over 40 free online courses you can enroll in today. There's no catch at all. You don't have to pay anything. I'm not going to hit you up for anything. It's free. You can learn about the Constitution, the Bible, the basis of Western civilization, Rome's rise and fall, early Christian church, things that

actually matter, not one dime. Free. They have a new class called Understanding Capitalism that teaches Americans basic economic ideas, describes our own system, a system that is falling apart. A lot of people want you to hate, but for 250 years has been the best and most productive in the world. You'll understand the basis of our economy from founding till president. Hillsdale is not afraid to preach the message our country has forgotten, which is freedom is good, Christianity is good, markets are good. And they make this country better by raising well-educated students. We endorse this as a college hater. I love Hillsdale. Go to tuckerforhillsdale.com to sign up for Understanding Capitalism today. The course is Understanding Capitalism,

zero cost, just the truth. That's tuckerforhillsdale.com to enroll for free. Beemo VI Porter MasterCard and get up to $2,400 in value in your first 13 months. Terms and conditions apply. Visit beemo.com slash VI Porter to learn more. Hey, we know you probably hit play to escape your business banking, not think about it. But what if we told you there was a way to skip over the pressures of banking? By matching with a TD Small Business Account Manager, you can get the proactive business banking. By matching with a TD small business account manager, you can get the proactive business banking advice and support your business needs. Ready to press play?

Get up to $2,700 when you open select small business banking products. Yep, that's $2,700 to turn up your business. Visit td.com slash small business match to learn more.

Conditions apply. When was the last time APAC took a position that deviated from Prime Minister Netanyahu? All the time. Okay. Let me go back and give a little history. If you want to do a deep dive on AIPAC. I don't. I want to do a shallow dive. I want to get to the core question. AIPAC is lobbying for a foreign government. It's not. It's lobbying for the united states it is lobbying for a strong u.s israeli relationship okay and so it's not has nothing to do with the foreign

government it it wants america and israel to be closely allied okay but it's lobbying on behalf of the interests of another country so that's not true true at all. And it's not true. No. How much contact do you think AIPAC leaders have for the government of Israel? No idea. I imagine some. I think the government of Israel is often frustrated with AIPAC because AIPAC's not nearly strong enough. Do you think there's any coordination between the government of Israel and AIPAC? Do they talk? Sure. If you're lobbying for more U.S.-Mexico trade, would you talk to people in the U.S. and Mexico and the government? Sure. So I'm not mad about that. There are a million countries that lobby Washington. I like a lot of those countries, including Israel. But AIPAC are Americans. They're not Israelis.

There are tons of Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments. I know them. I'm related to some of them. I know how it works. I'm from here. So my question is not, is it outrageous that foreign governments lobby the United States? They all do. Okay. Including Israel. My only question is why don't we admit that is what's happening. You're denying it, but it's true. And why aren't they registered as a foreign lobby? Because they're not. They're not a foreign lobby. No, they're not. And this is that there's a fever swamp. Look, it's not a fever swamp. These are very reasonable questions. And you've accused me of being obsessed with Israel, which I'm not. I actually haven't.

I've said isolationists are. And being feverish about it, which I'm not at all. I'm just I find it's a very tender spot when you ask it. And I don't know why. So, Tucker, all right, let's go back. I was first elected to the Senate in 2012. I came in in Obama's second term. And I actually saw AIPAC be badly wounded in a way they never came back from.

And the second term is when Obama did the Iran nuclear deal. And the Iran nuclear deal, I think, was catastrophic. And AIPAC went all in lobbying against it. Yeah. And they failed. And I was the leading opponent of the Iran nuclear deal. Oh, I know. They definitely failed.

Yes. They failed. And what happened, the Obama White House told every Democrat, when I got here, there used to be real bipartisan support for Israel. That has largely disappeared. And it's the Obama nuclear deal that caused it, because the Obama White House told every Democrat, pick, you either stand with Israel or you're a Democrat and you stand with the Obama nuclear deal that caused it, because the Obama White House told every Democrat, pick.

You either stand with Israel or you're a Democrat and you stand with the Obama White House. And almost every single Democrat member of Congress said, I'm a Democrat first to hell with Israel. And then I watched as AIPAC, every one of those Democrats got reelected and AIPAC did nothing about it. And it dramatically reduced AIPAC's influence. I agree. I watched it happen. And by the way, I told AIPAC, I said, look, the analogy, if the NRA was supporting a bunch of politicians and cared about the Second Amendment and you had politicians that vote to confiscate people's guns and the NRA turned around and raised money for the people who voted to confiscate guns, you know what? No one would ever care what they said again.

Sue, you're making the case that AIPAC is not as powerful as people say it is. And I completely agree with you. I've watched that and I'm not making the case that AIPAC is all powerful and they're running everything and putting fluoride in the water. I'm not making that case at all

because it's not true. I'm only trying to get to the question of what AIPAC is. And I don't think you're being straightforward about it. AIPAC is lobbying on behalf of the interests of a foreign country and they're not registered. And you're saying, no, that's notAC is lobbying on behalf of the interests of a foreign country and they're not registered. And you're saying, no, that's not true. You're saying that they don't coordinate with the Israeli government. And coordinate, they talk with them. I don't know

what they do. I can tell you. But why don't you care? Isn't it meaningful if a foreign government. Hey, I talk with Israel all the time. I talk with foreign countries all the time. But the law is, and a lot of people have been prosecuted under this law, that if you are lobbying on behalf of foreign government, you must register. That's it. It's really simple. And I don't know why, if I'm working for Malaysia or Qatar or Belgium, and I'm working on behalf of its government's interests through a group of Americans who are representing the friendship between those two nations, I have to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. And if I don't, I can go to jail. People have gone to jail, including people I know.

So I don't understand why we don't just be honest and say they're lobbying on behalf of foreign government. They're coordinating with the government. You know that that's true. That is not only not true, that is false. They're not coordinating with the Israeli government. Do you know how AIPAC raises money? What?

For elected officials, like what they do, like what the actual mechanics is. I mean, they go to people who are sympathetic to Israel and raise money and then send it to candidates who agree with them. So what they'll do is, so in my last election, AIPAC endorsed me. And they'll host a fundraiser. And they'll host a fundraiser in Dallas or Houston or Atlanta or New York or L.A. And they'll do a fundraiser and they'll get someone who will host it. And it's usually a business owner, lawyer, doctor, someone who hosts it. And you get typically at an AIPAC fundraiser 30, 40, 50, maybe 100 people who live in that city.

Right. Who care about a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. And if they have, you know, 50 people, each of them writes a $1,000 check and you raise $50,000. Yeah, I've been to an AIPAC fundraiser. I know what it looks like. But that is not, and by the way, there's no representative of the Israeli government there. You have when you're in Dallas, you're meeting with- This is such a false and silly conversation. I know all this. I know all this. The question is, is our AIPAC's goals shaped by the goals of the Israeli government to any extent?

Okay, that's different from lobbying on behalf of. It's a simple question. Are AIPAC's goals shaped by the goals of the Israeli government? And I'm just going to ask you that question straightforwardly. And if you say no, I think we both know that's not true. Are they shaped by? Are they coordinating with the Israeli government? Are they talking with them?

Yes, Israel directing them. You want to talk about FARA, the law on lobbying on behalf of someone. It is I will say, is foreign influence over our politics. No. And you began, and it's so transparently obvious to everybody. I don't know why you'd be embarrassed of it. You've said that you are sincerely for Israel. I believe you. I don't think you have some weird agenda. You seem to be sincere. By the way, Tucker, it's a very weird thing. The obsession with Israel. When we're talking about foreign countries-

It's hardly an obsession. You're not talking about Chinese. You're not talking about Japanese. When we're talking about foreign countries, it's hardly an obsession. You're not talking about Chinese. You're not talking about Japanese. You're not talking about the Brits. You're not talking about the French. The question, what about the Jews? What about the Jews? Oh, I'm an anti-Semite now.

Senator, you're asking the questions, Tucker. You're asking, why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy? That's what you just asked. Senator, I am hardly saying that. And I have many... That is exactly what you just said. Well, actually, I can speak for myself

and tell you what I am saying. Good. On behalf, not simply of myself, but of my many Jewish friends who would have the same questions, which is to what extent, and it's interesting you're trying to derail my questions by calling me an anti-Semite, which you are. I did not. Of course you are. And rather than be honorable enough to say it right to my face, you are in a sleazy feline way implying it or just asking questions about the Jews. I'm not asking questions about the Jews. There's nothing to do with Jews or

Judaism. It has to do with a foreign government. Isn't Israel controlling our foreign policy? That's not about the Jews? You said, I'm asking you. And by the way, you're the one that just called me, I think, a sleazy feline. So let's be clear. It's sleazy to imply that I'm an anti-Semite, which you just did. No, I just said, why is that the only question you're asking? You answer it. Give me another reason. If you're not an anti-Semite, give me another reason why the obsession is Israel. I am in no sense obsessed with Israel.

We are on the brink of war with Iran. And so these are valid questions. But you're not asking about Iran or the Ayatollah. If I can finish, you asked me why I'm obsessed with Israel. Yep. Three minutes after telling me that when you first ran for Congress, you elucidated one of your main goals, which is to defend Israel. Yes. And I'm the one who's obsessed with Israel.

I don't see a lawmaker's job as defending the interests of a foreign government, period, any government, including the ones that my ancestors come from. So that's my position. That does not make me an anti-Semite. And shame on you for suggesting otherwise. And I mean that. And that's low, and you know it's low. So why don't you just answer my questions in a straightforward, rational way.

You certainly have the IQ to do it. Shame on you is cute, by the way, Tucker. It is. It's not cute. I'm offended. I'm obsessed with the Jews. You just told me that you ran... You just called me a sleazy feline. It is sleazy to imply that I'm an anti-Semite for asking questions about how my government is running. Do you want to count how many questions you asked about?

What about the Jews? What about Israel? What about AIPAC? I never asked about the Jews. This has nothing to do with the Jews, whatever that means. This has to do with a foreign government. And once again, shame on you for conflating the two. They have nothing to do with each other. I'm talking about the influence of the foreign. Israel. They have nothing to do with each other. I'm talking about the influence of the court. Israel and Jews have nothing to do with each other?

All Jews are an attack on all Jews, which I am not, nor would I ever be undertaking now. I'm not attacking anybody. By the way, that's who Iran wants to kill, is all the Jews and all the Americans. And I'm totally opposed to that, okay? But now, because specific decisions need to be made. We can talk about those decisions. And I plan to. Good.

But I just want to get a sense of whether you think, having described yourself as an America first person, whose only criterion for judgment on foreign policy is America's national interest, to what extent you're influenced by a foreign government, which gives you a lot of money through its lobby, and you're claiming this has nothing to do with the foreign government. They're not coordinating. Yes, they're spying on us, but it doesn't bother you. And I'm sort of wondering, like, what is this? This is one of the weirdest conversations I've ever had.

I'll tell you what, and I'll answer any question you like, but let's try to— Are you going to call me an anti-Semite again or no? Let's try to ratchet down the temperature a little. You're the one who went to motive. I'm asking honest questions. I'm— Just asking questions. Yes, that is what I'm doing.

Let's try to ratchet down the temperature a little bit. Picture the house of your dreams. Maybe it's got an outdoor pool, a huge front porch, an inviting fireplace for a cold winter's night. No matter what you prefer, there's little doubt that an American flag waving out front enhances the whole thing. What better way to welcome your guests than with a flag outside your home? But wait, there's a problem. The American flags you're likely to buy at some

big stores were made in China. An American flag made in China? Come on. Pure Talk, America's wireless company, believes every American deserves an American flag that was made in America. And that's why they're determined to give an allegiance flag, the highest quality American flag, to a Thank you. Text, plenty of data. You can enjoy America's most dependable 5G network while cutting your cell phone bill in half for real. Go to puretalk.com slash talker to support veterans and to switch to America's company. Wireless from Pure Talk. It's one of the saddest things about this country. The country's getting sicker.

Despite all of our wealth and technology, Americans aren't doing well overall. Obesity, heart disease, autoimmune conditions, all kinds of horrible chronic illnesses, weird cancers are all on the rise. Probably a lot of reasons for this, but one of them definitely is Americans don't eat very well anymore. They don't eat real food. Instead, they eat industrial substitutes, and it's not good. It's time for something new, and that's where masa chips come in.

Masas decide to revive real food by creating snacks how they used to be made, how they're supposed to be made. A masa chip has just three simple ingredients, not 117. Three. No seed oils, no artificial additives, just real delicious food. And I know this because we eat a ton of them in my house. And by the way, I feel great. So you can still continue to snack,

but you can do it in a healthy way with chips without feeling guilty about it. Masa chips are delicious. They taste how a tortilla chip is supposed to taste. But the thing is, you can hit them really, really hard, and I have, and not feel bloated or sluggish after. You feel like you've done something decent for your body. You don't feel like you got a head injury or you don't feel filled with guilt. You feel light and energetic. It's the kind of snack your grandparents ate. Worth bringing back. So you can go to Masachips.com, Masa's M-A-S-A, by the way, Masachips.com slash Tucker to start snacking. Get 25% off. We enjoy them. You will too. Remember in 2020 when CNN told you the George Floyd riots were mostly peaceful, even as flames rose in the background? It was ridiculous, but it was also a metaphor for the way our leaders run this country. They're

constantly telling you, everything is fine. Everything is fine. Don't worry. Everything's under control. Nothing to see here. Move along and obey. No no one believes that crime is not going away supply chains remain fragile it does feel like some kind of global conflict could break out at any time so the question is if things went south tomorrow would you be ready well if you're not certain that you'd be ready you need ammo squared ammo squared is the only service that lets you build an ammunition stockpile automatically. You literally set it on autopilot. You pick the calibers you want, how much you want to save every month, then they'll ship it to you or they'll store it for you and ship it when you say so. You get

24-7 access to manage the whole thing. So don't let the people in charge, don't let CNN lull you into a fake sense of safety. Take control of your life, protect your family, be prepared. Go to AmmoSquared.com to learn more. And did you ever see an Eddie Murphy movie called The Distinguished Gentleman? No. It's a great movie. It's actually a fun comedy about politics. And Eddie Murphy in the movie is a con man who gets elected to Congress. And he's literally a con man who the congressman dies. He has the same name. And so he runs and they get elected. And there's a there's a scene in the movie where Eddie Murphy

is a freshman member of Congress and he's sitting down with a sleazy lobbyist and he's asking the lobbyist, all right, what should my positions be on? I think they were talking about power plants and electrical transmission lines. And and the lobbyist like, well, what should my positions be on? I think they were talking about power plants and electrical transmission lines. And the lobbyists like, well, what do you believe? And Eddie Murphy's comments said, I don't care. Whatever gets me the most money, I'll do whatever gets me the most money. And the lobbyist says, no, no, pick a side. Doesn't matter what you pick. If you pick one side, we'll go shake down everyone who supports that size and they'll give you money. If you pick the other side, that's fine. We'll just go to the other side and shake down that. That's a little bit the way it works.

And you often get leftists in the media who say, for example, if you support the Second Amendment, as you do and I do, well, you're just bought and paid for by the NRA. And that actually is backwards. I believe in the Second Amendment because I believe in the Constitution. Now, am I proud that the NRA supports me? Sure, because people who care about the Second Amendment want to support leaders who fight for it. But it gets it backward. Look, AIPAC, when I ran for the Senate, AIPAC didn't

support me. I supported Israel before they supported me. I'm happy to have their support because they share my objective. No, but you're missing it. I'm not suggesting that you're bought and paid for. I'm not saying that. I think your views are sincere. I want to go back and take the transcript because you just said a minute ago, are you I'm slightly paraphrasing, but are you lobbying for a foreign government because they pay you a lot of money? That's basically what you said. So you are suggesting

that. Let me just be clear about what I think. Your views seem totally sincere. Yes. You take money from people who agree with you. Yeah. I believe that. I'm only trying... I didn't take money from people who disagree with me. Yeah. I believe that. I don't take money from people who disagree with me. I'm only trying to get to the question of to what extent is the U.S. government influenced by other governments? And it's a lot. Of course.

It's hardly just Israel. It's hardly just Israel. I don't think Israel is the main one. There are lots of governments. China is a massive influence on this city. And it's a huge problem. As you know. I couldn't agree more.

And there are lots of other, the UK, which is a truly sinister place, in my opinion, as an ethnic Brit, I can say. I think it's, that's my view. Maybe you disagree. I think they're on the wrong path. I love the Brits, but their government is gone off the rails.

I'm just saying, I don't think Israel's the only one. But it's the only one where you're instantly called an anti-Semite for asking questions. And it's also the only government that no one will ever criticize. And I find that- People criticize Israel every minute of every day. Like, the only government that people will not criticize, Rashida Tlaib just tweeted out calling Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal. Rashida Tlaib?

You said no one will criticize. I'm talking about Republicans that I would vote for, including you. And I'm saying, you know, whatever. I don't even like talking about Israel. What I care about, I never do because it's not worth being called anti-Semites from AIPAC recipients. But now we are on the verge of joining a war. And I just want to be clear about why we're doing this. All right. So and let's get into Iran momentarily,

but you suggested it was a strange thing that I said a minute ago that when I came into the Senate, I resolved that I was going to be the leading defender of Israel. And what you didn't ask is why. So let me tell you why. No, you said I was obsessed with Israel

and you had just told me that like your driving motive to get to the Senate was to defend Israel. I'm like, I don't think I'm the one who's obsessed with Israel. Okay. I don told me that like your driving motive to get to the Senate was to defend Israel. I'm like, I don't think I'm the one who's obsessed with Israel. I don't even think about Israel. Tucker, words matter. And you know that. I said I resolved to be the leading defender of Israel. And you said your driving motive, the reason you're in the Senate. You want to be the leading defender of Israel. I would think if I ran for Senate, I'd be like, there are people dying of drug odies on the street. My driving motive is to fight for Texas and America and to fight for jobs and to fight for the Constitution. And you played a very,

very careful word game of eliding. You're the one who said it, not me. So you still haven't asked why, but I'm going to tell you why. Okay. And the reason is twofold. Number one, as a Christian, growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I want to be on the blessing side of things. Of those who bless the government of Israel? Those who bless Israel is what it says. It doesn't say the government of, it says the nation of Israel. So that's in the Bible.

As a Christian, I believe that. Where is that? I can find it to you. I don't have the scripture off the tip of my, you pull out the phone and use the Google. It's in Genesis, but so you're quoting a Bible phrase. You don't have context for it. You don't know where in the Bible it is, but that's like your theology. I'm confused. What does that even mean? Tucker. I'm a Christian. I want to know what you're talking about. Where does my support for Israel come from? Number one, because biblically we are commanded to support Israel.

But number two. Hold on. No, no, no. Hold on. You're a senator, and now you're throwing out theology, and I am a Christian, and I am allowed to weigh in on this. We are commanded as Christians to support the government of Israel? We are commanded to support Israel. And we're told- What does that mean, Israel? We're told those who bless Israel will be blessed.

But what, hold on, define Israel. This is important. Are you kidding? This is a majority Christian country. Define Israel? Do you not know what Israel is? That would be the country you've asked like 49 questions about. So that's what Genesis, that's what God is talking about. The nation of Israel, yes. So is that the current borders, the current leadership? He's talking about the political entity called Israel?

He's talking about the nation of Israel. Yeah, nations exist, and he's discussing a nation. A nation was the people of Israel. Is the nation God's referring to in Genesis, is that the same as the country run by Benjamin Netanyahu right now? Yes, yes. It is, okay. And by the way, it's not run by Benjamin Netanyahu as a dictator.

It's a democratic country that elected. But he's the prime minister. Right. But just just like, you know, America is the country run by Donald Trump. No, actually, the American people elected Donald Trump. The same principle is silly. I'm talking about the political entity of modern Israel. Yes. And that is you believe that's what God was talking about in Genesis. I do. But but that country's existed since when? For thousands of years. Now, there was a time when it didn't exist, and then it was recreated just over 70 years ago. But I'm saying, I think most people understand that line in Genesis to refer to the Jewish people, God's chosen people. That's not what it says. Okay, Israel,

but you don't even know where in the Bible it is, so I don't know if we can... I don't remember the scriptural citation, but, okay, I keep... It's like Genesis 16 or something like that, but yes, it's in the earlier part of the book, but the point is... All right, Tucker, you keep interrupting me before I finish my sentence. No, it's just important to know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're... So, you're saying as a Christian, if I believe in Jesus, I have to support the modern state of Israel? No, I'm not saying that. I'm explaining for me what my motivation is.

Okay, so I'm just trying to understand. You said God tells you to support the modern state of Israel in the Bible, in some place in the Bible that you heard about but you don't know where it is. That's your theology? You're going back, am I a sleazy feline again? I mean, don't be so... If you accuse me of anti-Semitism again, I will say that, but I don't think you will. Try to be a little less condescending. I'm trying to have a conversation.

You're throwing this stuff out, and it's my job to figure out what you're talking about, and I don't understand. But you're not letting me... Okay. I'm sorry. I want to be polite. Okay. That is, for me, a personal motivation, but I also, what I was about to say,

I don't believe my personal faith, not everyone who I represent is a Christian. It's not an argument for me to give that we should do this because of my faith. And so as an elected official, I don't give that as the reason we should support Israel. That is a personal motivation for me, but I don't think it as the reason we should support Israel. That is a personal motivation for me, but I don't think it is the reason we should. The reason that I am the leading defender of Israel is because Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, an incredibly troubled part of the world, and supporting Israel benefits America. And the clearest illustration of that is what is happening right now. Let me just make this point.

Okay. And then I'll just ask what you mean. That's it. Look, Iran, I think the most acute national security threat facing America right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran. I think China is the biggest long term threat, but acute and near term is a nuclear Iran. OK. And I think Israel is doing a massive favor to America right now by trying to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. And the reason I view Iran differently, we talked before about Iraq. I opposed the Iraq war. We talked about Syria. I opposed military intervention in Syria. The reason for that is those did not pose a threat to the United States. I think Iran is markedly different.

Number one, the Ayatollah is a religious zealot. He is a lunatic, but a particularly dangerous kind of lunatic because he's driven by religious fervor. When he says death to America and death to Israel, I believe him. And I think Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon because there is a very real possibility they would use a nuclear weapon. So you want to ask how does supporting Israel benefit us? Right now, this tiny little country, the size of the state of New Jersey, is fighting our enemies for us and taking out their top military leadership and trying to take out their nuclear capacity. That makes America much safer.

So the president has said repeatedly Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and he will do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He said that like a hundred times. He clearly means it. I think he will use force to affect that if he feels he has to. I think he's been really clear about that. I don't know, but it seems that way. Do you feel that? Do you think that's correct? Whether he would use force to stop a nuclear weapon, I think he's been really clear about that. I don't know, but it seems that way. Do you feel that? Do you think that's correct? Whether he would use force to stop a nuclear weapon, I think he has put that option on the table. He certainly suggested, I mean, I have literally no idea what's going to happen, but just reading his statements, he's made that really clear. So what he has been very clear about, and I spoke with the president on Sunday, is he has been very clear to Iran that if they attack U.S. servicemen and women, there will be real consequences and I think very serious military.

By the way, this is a sidebar, but I just can't resist. The prime minister of Israel said that Iran tried to assassinate Donald Trump twice. Yeah, I read your newsletter this morning and. But do you believe that's true? Again, I think it was sort of a word game. What is true is Iran is trying to assassinate Donald J. Trump, and they have hired hitmen. Now, you pointed out...

No, he said that they had tried twice to kill him, and I don't know that... I don't have any evidence that's true, but I sort of wonder if that is true, why aren't we at war with them already? Okay, and I read your newsletter this morning, and I thought it was... It was playing word games to draw a political point.

How's that a word game? It's my president. Can I tell you? Yeah, please. Okay. You rightly pointed out there's no evidence that this clown in Butler, Pennsylvania, who shot the president, was working for the Iranians. I don't think he was.

There's no evidence of that. Although I would like to know more about who he was and what's going on. But I don't find it plausible that he was working for the Iranians. So was that caused by the Iranians? No. But what is true and what your newsletter didn't acknowledge, is it true or false that Iran is currently trying to murder Donald J. Trump and has paid hitmen to do so?

Well, that's that's the question. And I don't know the Butler, Pennsylvania thing. Let's just put that aside. I don't know. So Netanyahu misspoke poke when he said those two assassinations were because of iran but what he was saying that is right is they're actively trying to murder donald is there okay so you're aware of a plot to kill trump yes that iran is paying for and by the way when when uh it has been over the last i'd say 18

months to two years in the united states States? In the United States, yes. And let me point out. Has anyone been arrested? For the Trump attempted assassination, no. But they are also actively paying Iranian hitmen to murder Mike Pompeo when he was President Trump's first Secretary of State, the first term rather. John Bolton, when John Bolton was National Security Advisor to President Trump, and a guy named Brian Hook, who was Assistant Secretary of State. Right. During the Biden administration.

Wait, but hold on. Can we go back to Donald Trump because he's the president? No, no, it's a big deal. What do you mean? When, no one has been arrested for these assassinations on Trump. Yes. They've hired hitmen. How do we know that? All right, let me break it down. People have been arrested. So the reason I brought up Pompeo, Bolton and Hook, who are under active assassination attempts. No, no, no, because these are interrelated. So let me make a bloody point. Under the Biden administration, the State Department was spending two million dollars a month providing security for Pompeo, Bolton and Hook. And they did arrest Iranian hitmen at John Bolton's apartment complex who rented, I think, the apartment next to him and

were actively trying to assassinate him. And they went and arrested them. So, yes, they caught Iranian hitmen. Now, it so happens Iran's not very good at it. And so they but they are actively trying. And in fact, what about Trump? He's the president. If there's an plot to kill Trump by the Iranians. OK, so that's a huge deal. So you dispute that the Iranians are trying to kill Trump? Of course. I mean, that's the most important question. The prime minister of Israel just said there have been two assassination attempts against Donald Trump by the Iranians. And I think it's a very fair question. Maybe you disagree to ask, what are you talking about? Okay. And I agree with you that he misspoke.

So there weren't those two attempts? There were two attempts, but the clown in Butler, Pennsylvania and the other guy on the golf course were not connected to the Iranians. That's the part that that he misspoke. But by the way, when you speak all the time, occasionally what he said that was accurate is that Iran is actively trying to murder Donald J. Trump and his paid hitman. OK, but right. OK, that's fine. And he was conflating it with it with the two. I understand. I understand. But I just want to pull that thread because it's so important. I voted for Donald Trump. I campaigned for Donald Trump. He's our president. And we're on the cusp of a war. So if Iran, if there's evidence that Iran paid hitmen to kill Donald

Trump and is currently doing that, where is that? What are you even talking? I've never heard that before. Okay. Where's the evidence? Who are these people? Why haven't they been arrested? Why are we not at war with Iran? That's a great question to ask. How do you know that that's true? We know that it's true because we have been told that by the military and our intelligence community for the last two years. We meaning who Congress has in the public. I mean, we've had multiple testimonies. I can send you testimonies. Do we know the names of the people or where this happened or what they tried to do to kill Trump? We do not. We have not apprehended an Iranian hitman trying to kill him.

We know that Iran is trying to do so. In the United States? Yes. And by the way, like Iran. This just seems like a huge headline and you're acting like everyone knows this. I didn't know that. Iran put out a whole video about murdering Trump. Right. But I've never heard evidence that there are hit men in the United States. I mean, trying to kill Trump right now, we should like have a nationwide dragnet on this and we should attack Iran immediately, if that's true.

Don't you think? No. If they're trying to assassinate our president? They have been for two years. Then why aren't we at war with them? Well, we are trying to take out... Why don't we just nuke Tehran if they're trying to murder our president? There's nothing that you could do that would be worse for the United States than murdering Trump. And I just don't understand

why you're not calling for the use of nuclear weapons against the Ayatollah right now. I'm serious. If you really believe they're trying to murder... The use of nuclear weapons... Whatever it takes... What do you mean? You don't know why you're not calling for the use of nuclear weapons against the Ayatollah right now. I'm serious. If you really believe they're trying to murder him. The use of nuclear weapons. See, that's part of the problem. What do you mean? You don't seem to take the allegations seriously. I do. If you believe they're trying to murder Trump, we need to stop what we're doing and punish them.

Can I ask something? And I mean this sincerely. So, all right, 20 years ago, you were, I think it's fair to say, in the interventionist world, you were a vocal defender of the Iraq war. I was a promoter of the Iraq war. And you now, and I think you think you were mistaken. I think you were mistaken. That's OK. Look, people change and learn. And that's that's part of the journey of being human. Your views have moved, though, in my view, they've gone way too far the other end. And so I'm totally confused. I'm saying, hold on. This is one of the weirdest

conversations I've ever had. I'm saying if it's true that Iran is trying to murder Trump, we need to move militarily against Iran immediately. That's not isolationism. That's the most that's a cult of violence, which I am calling for. If we believe that Iran is trying to murder our president, we need to strike Iran. Okay, but isolationists say things like, well, then just nuke them, which is what you just said, which is kind of a weird. Because I'm upset, because I'm taking you seriously. You don't take your own statements seriously. I take my statements very seriously. So I've asked you, where's the evidence this is true? And you've said, well, they're trying to

assassinate Brian Hook or something, which I'm against, by the way. I'm against hurting any American, period, no matter. So you dispute that they're trying to murder. I'm not disputing it at all. I'm not disputing it at all. They literally arrested the hitman with Bolton. I'm not. I don't know why that's even relevant. I'm asking about the president of the United States.

Wait, it's not relevant that Iran hired hitmen to murder cabinet members in Trump's administration. That doesn't go to. I've already said that they're willing to spend money to do that. I'm totally opposed to that. It's awful. I am against killing anybody, actually, and especially foreign government. I'm asking about your allegation and the prime minister of Israel's allegation that Iran is trying to murder the president. Killing terrorists is a good thing. Killing people the president. Killing terrorists is a good thing. Killing people who are trying to murder Americans is a good thing, because if you're America first, you want to protect America. And so taking out killing Osama bin Laden was a fantastic.

But you don't really believe that they're trying to murder Trump. Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Why aren't you calling for military action against Tehran right now? Because they're not very effective in terms of hit men. Their hitmen are not very effective. I do think... Oh, so they're hitmen, but not the bad kind, the efficient kind? No, they're just... What are you saying? They're a weak country who is on its knees, and I think we need to...

Then why are we so afraid of them? Why are they the biggest threat if they're a weak country that's on its knees? Because they're trying... I'm trying to keep track. They're trying to develop... Be a little less snarky. I know, you're right. That is a problem that I have.

I'm sorry. They're trying to develop nuclear weapons. They are close to developing nuclear weapons. And even a weak country with a nuclear weapon. Look, I believe there is a very real possibility if the Ayatollah develops a nuclear weapon that he would detonate it either in Tel Aviv or New York or Los Angeles. And that would be utterly catastrophic. And I don't know what the chances are of that. Let me compare and contrast Iran to North Korea.

Can I just ask one last question about trying to kill the president? You sincerely believe, you promise, that right now the Iranian government is trying to murder our president. Yes. You sincerely believe right now. Absolutely. And yet you are not calling for military action against the government that is trying to murder our president. Yes. And she'll be like right now. Absolutely. And yet you were not calling for military action against the government that's trying to murder our president. Can you explain that? I don't think they're very effective. I do think we should. By the way, America is. You're willing to take that risk? I think we should protect the president and we should take out our enemies. Israel is doing that right now.

But aren't they? Why would we outsource it to Israel if they're trying to? And by the way, your first question was why are you for regime change? That's a pretty good example of why I'm for regime change. Okay, so you're saying we should just go in and take out the government of Iran. Why would we outsource it to Israel if they're trying to murder our president? Okay, you sound like the isolationist. What I'm saying on any military judgment is there needs to be a cost benefit analysis of what are the risks versus what are the benefits. In this instance, I think it is enormously in America's interest to do what

Israel is doing right now, take out Iran's senior military leadership and take out their nuclear capacity. That is benefiting America, and it is a good risk reward. I would oppose invading Iran and putting boots on the ground to topple the government. If the risk got severe enough, I would support that. But I think the relative risk is not severe enough to justify that step at this time. What I would absolutely oppose under any circumstances is invading Iran and then staying and trying to turn them into a democracy. And part of where Iraq really went off off the rails is not only did we topple someone who was fighting radical Islamic terrorists, who's a bad guy, but then we tried the vision of interventionists. It actually

overlaps with the vision of a lot of Democrats. Let's go promote democracy in the world. And it is our military's job to kill the bad guys, to defend America. It's not their job to defend international norms. It's not their job. So I have zero desire for the U.S. military to turn Iran into Switzerland. Look, would it be nice if they suddenly became Switzerland? Sure. If I could wave a magic wand, great. But I'm not going to send your kids or my kids to be in front of guns to go make that happen. Well, bless you for that. I think that's a that is the lesson that I learned from Iraq. I promoted that war. Apparently, unlike you, I was dumber. And I think that you just articulated the main lesson of it, which is it's hard to do that. And we're not good at it. But I will. And so we are agreeing on that. I will say as a vehemently agreeing as a corollary, that doesn't mean that that horrible, evil dictators are OK. And going back to Reagan in the Cold War, we have lots of weapons.

I am happy to highlight the brutality, the oppression, the human rights abuses of regimes, even though I don't want to invade them, because I think the bully pulpit of American leadership is really powerful. And I think dictatorships are terrified. So I've spent 13 years in the Senate. One of the things I do frequently is highlight dissidents in Iran and North Korea and China. In Venezuela, people are being tortured. Miriam Ibrahim in Sudan, who was sentenced to 100 lashes and then to be killed for the crime of being a Christian. And I repeatedly went to the Senate floor and shined a light on the government of Sudan. It was corrupt. It was evil. I practically begged Barack Obama, say her name.

Ultimately, I felt that way with the J6 prisoners. Look, yes. And look, there is power to speaking out. And ultimately, the international Obama never did say her name. He would not say her name. Ultimately, there was enough international condemnation. The government of Sudan let her go. And so she was not executed. And I actually I met her.

So she had a two year old son, Martin, and she gave birth to a little girl named Maya. And she was in leg irons in prison waiting for the death sentence. They were not going, Martin, and she gave birth to a little girl named Maya. And she was in leg irons in prison waiting for the death sentence. They were not going to kill her until she gave birth. And they told her, we will not kill you if you will renounce Jesus. And she refused. And I met her, she was in DC speaking at a conference after she was released, obviously. And she's a tiny woman, a small woman. I asked her, I said, when you were in that prison cell with your kids, how did you have the strength not to just give in to despair? I mean, I've never been threatened with murder unless I renounced my faith.

And she just said to me with a real peacefulness, she said, Jesus was with me. And I mean, thankfully, you and I have not faced that circumstance, but I do think there is a responsibility. There's still time. There is, and I hope we don't. And actually, I'll use another example. John McCain, who you and I disagreed with on a lot of issues, I respected and admired him for his service and time as a prisoner of war. I think his policies I disagreed with vehemently and fought against them.

But the man fought for America and he was thrown in prison and he was tortured by the by vietnam and he was given the opportunity to be released early uh and he turned it down because he thought it would be dishonorable to lead before his fellow service veteran women and when i first got here there were no women there but okay man you're right uh when i first got here mccain hated my guts, and he actually referred to me and Rand as wacko birds. I remember. I have up on the shelf, I have a baseball cap that a grassroots supporter gave me with a picture of Daffy Duck and labeled wacko birds, which I liked and laughed with. But when he did that, I went to the Senate floor and I gave a speech praising John McCain. And it was the day he had like attacked me publicly.

And it happened to be it was the 40th anniversary of his release from the Hanoi Hilton. And I was consciously, I just talked about what a privilege it is to serve with someone who suffered for his country, who served. And I didn't get into where we disagreed on policy on that speech. I just said, you know, the man is an American hero, and I'm proud to serve with him. But that was meant to be a statement also, that if you attack me, I'm going to praise you, not for things that are not praiseworthy. If I disagree with you, I will not be shy about saying it. But for things that are praiseworthy.

I remember that. It was 2013. Yeah. And I felt the same way. I went to his cell at the Hanoi Hilton and I... Oh, wow. I agree with you about McCain. I just want to end by asking you specifically about what's going to happen next in Iran and what should happen next. So you've called for regime change. You said you don't favor the U.S. military participating in any kind of regime change. You said you don't think, and bless you for saying this, that the U.S. military should try and turn it into Belgium. Yeah.

Thank God. But there is a third option where it turns into Syria, where it's this open wound, and it causes massive migration and further destroys Europe, as Syria has. Yeah. And that's a huge cost. And where lots of people die and religious minorities get murdered in Syria again. Are you worried about that? Sure. And listen, lots of bad things can happen.

But going back to what we talked about, the principle of defending America, I agree with President Trump that Iran with a nuclear weapon is an unacceptable risk to America and we need to stop it. I agree with President Trump and I'll make a point. But he's not for regime change. He's not. So he and I disagree. Look, I think he thinks it would be better. He has not said he's for it. And you know what? Look, it is consequential when the president of the United States says I'm for regime change.

So I understand why he hasn't. What he has said is he's drawn a red line and said Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. And the only acceptable outcome is complete dismantlement. So they have centrifuges there. They're enriching uranium right now. They're trying to develop a nuclear weapon. He said they must have complete dismantlement. I led 52 senators, Republican senators, in a letter where we said we agree with President Trump. That's the red line, complete dismantlement. I agree with President Trump. I agree with him supporting Israel, taking out Iran's military leadership, taking out their nuclear capability. And I'll point out, look, if you look the first term, I am hard-pressed to think of a single foreign policy decision

Donald Trump made the first term that I disagree with. And that's not entirely accidental because I spent a lot of time the first term in the Oval Office with him. And what happened in the first term often is you would have in the administration, you had interventionists in the administration, you had isolationists, and they disagreed. They would fight within the administration, you had interventionists in the administration, you had isolationists, and they disagreed. They would fight within the administration. And often what it would give is an opportunity for me to come in and say, hey, there's a middle path here that President Trump

agreed with frequently. And it's worth noting in the first term, he most assuredly was not an isolationist. Look, he took out General Soleimani, which I emphatically agree with. And in fact, I introduced a resolution that we voted on the Senate floor commending him for taking out General Soleimani, who was the leader of the IRGC and who was responsible for killing over 600 American servicemen and women. When Trump came in, ISIS had a caliphate that had grown up under Obama that was about the size of the state of Indiana. And Trump came in and utterly decimated them. They killed the terrorists, took away their caliphate and defeated them. And he also took out Baghdadi, the head of ISIS.

I mean, those are not the actions of an isolationist. But at the same time, I don't know what isolationist is. It's just a slur designed to control. I mean, I've never met an isolationist. I don't even know what that means. OK, Rand Paul is my colleague. Rand is an isolationist. And Tucker, you've become one. And I don't mean it as a slur. You consistently say you have said, actually, I want to read from your newsletter, because if you ask what an isolationist is, Your newsletter a couple of days ago, you wrote, Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, and we're hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see. There are several people in leadership in Iran that will not be coming back,

Trump said, following the strikes. It's worth taking a step back and wondering how any of this helps the United States. We can't think of a single way. Okay, that to me is the essence of isolationism. And let me just ask you, when the Ayatollah chants death to America, I believe him. Do you not believe him? Do you think he doesn't mean it when he says death to America? Well, I think he hates America, for sure. And I'm opposed to that.

And do you think he's willing to act on it? It's not just hate America. He also is leading a country and trying to develop a nuclear weapon. I think under certain circumstances, for sure. So the question is, do you act in a way that makes that more or less likely? And that's a tough call. It's something that you can debate. One of the ways you shut down debate is by calling people names like isolationists,

pretending they're like pro-Nazi or something, or as you did, claiming I'm an anti-Semite. That's not a way to get to a solution or have a rational conversation. That's a way to make people be quiet. And I'm against that. Okay, so if you don't like the label isolationist, how would you? Look, Rand, and I serve with Rand. Rand is a friend of mine. But Rand opposes every military action in every circumstance.

Of course I don't oppose every military—this whole thing is infantile, and you know that it is. It's a way to call people names and make them be quiet. So which of Trump's military actions do you support, or do you disagree with them all? And make them be quiet. Give me another name. If you don't like that—I'm not trying to have you be quiet. We've been talking an hour and a half. I'm asking, if you don't like the name isolationist, how would you describe it? I would describe myself in the same way you falsely described yourself in this conversation. Falsely? Yes, falsely.

What did I say false? You said that the only thing that matters in a foreign policy decision is whether it helps the United States. I didn't say the only, I said the predominant. That's what I understood. Okay. So let me revise what you said and apply it to myself and say the only thing that matters is whether or not it serves the United States. And I feel very stung by what happened in Iraq, if I'm being honest, possibly because unlike you, I guess, I supported it. And I saw us get drawn into it in a way that nobody anticipated. And I saw the cost just about $3 trillion.

And the cost on so many levels to the United States was just so profound. And I felt like, gosh, it reminds me of Kaiser Wilhelm in 1914 saying, my men will be back by the time the leaves turn. And of course, that destroyed Christian Europe. So it's like, you don't really know where these things are going once the shooting starts. That's my only point.

And calling people names, anti-Semite, isolationist, to get them to stop talking is not the way to serve your country. That's all I'm saying. So I'm trying to have a real and serious conversation. And look, a lot of this has been contentious. I wish it had not, because as we started out by saying, you and I agree vehemently on 80 percent of the issues. This discussion is focused on the 20% where we don't. You know, I will say, look, on Iraq, you look at the 2016 presidential campaign where you had 17 Republicans running. If you set Rand aside, and his views are on one side, there were only two candidates on that stage that opposed the Iraq war. Me and Donald Trump were the only two.

Everyone else thought the Iraq war was a great thing. I think it was a disaster. So you and I agree on that as well. In my view, you went, I think your foreign policy has gone too far. So, I mean, let me ask you, is there a military action Trump has undertaken that you agree with? Because I've not heard anything. A military, look, I would say it's

really simple. I believe in self-defense. That's why I keep firearms at home. I think it's morally justified to defend yourself, your family, your property, your nation. And so to the extent that you can deter a threat through violence, violence always being the least appealing choice, violence always being, if I can finish, always being a tragedy, I think you can justify the use of violence and self-defense. That is my personal view, and that applies to me and to the country that I live in. Those are my views. That's not an isolationist view. It's not an anti-Israel view. It's not an anti-Semitic view, with apologies. It is, I think, a pretty common sense view. But my problem is that lawmakers in Washington are light on detail with these things. And they speak, as you do, entirely in moral terms.

These people are bad. These people are... I'm not speaking entirely in moral terms. I'm not interested in killing bad guys. I'm interested in killing people who are trying to kill us. If we had... That's different. I'm not engaged in morale.

Are you now? Because you told me that the government of Iran is presently trying to assassinate Donald Trump. And that is undisputed. There's literally nobody who disputes that fact. Then why don't you support military action right now against Iran? We are engaged in military action right now. Why don't you support offensive military action? We're bombing the crap out of them. Israel is, and we're supporting them. Israel is.

Okay, so why shouldn't the U.S. military defend its own president? I don't understand that. Look, and it goes back to... Because you don't really believe it's true. That's why. Everyone, Kate, nobody disputes it, Tucker. I'm disputing it. Did you land on the moon?

What other conspiracies do you not believe? Was 9-11 an inside job? I mean, like, what? So I've asked you the names of these people. I don't know the names of the Iranian hitmen. I know it because the U.S. military and the intelligence agencies have testified before Congress repeatedly. And what did they say? Iran is trying to murder Donald Trump and has hired hitmen. Do I know the name of the hitmen? No, I'm sorry. And I don't think we do either because we would apprehend them if we knew their names. Then why don't you take it seriously enough to support killing the Ayatollah in response to protect our president? But you don't. This doesn't even make any sense.

And you're calling me an isolationist. If I believed that that was true, I would support military action against the government of Iran. Okay, that's interesting because there is- You can't kill our president. All right, out of 535 members of Congress, military action against the government of Iran. Okay, that's interesting because there is literally- You can't kill our president. All right, out of 535 members of Congress, I am not aware of one who disputes that Iran is trying to murder Donald J. Trump. That's not, even the looniest Democrat doesn't dispute that.

So I don't, you're saying if you believed what is, I think, a fact that they are trying to. You think it's a fact? Yes. What is the fact exactly? That they've hired Hitman. In the United States? Yes.

Americans? Yeah, he's not in Iran. So they haven't hired Hitman in Iran. No, but are they the Hitman American? I don't know. Oh, okay. I'm telling you what. And by the way, I'm not the CIA.

I'm not the Department of Defense. I'm telling you what they have told us. I'm not disputing it. I'm merely saying. We are. I'm not. I'm saying the logic train has a massive hole in it. If you believe that's true, then you should, by definition, support killing the people trying to kill our president. But you don't support that. Now, Tucker, I'm wondering what's going on here. Tucker, you took offense to the word isolationist, and I genuinely don't mean it as a pejorative. I

disagree with it. But if you don't like that term, I don't know how else to describe what is a coherent foreign policy that says we're surrounded by two giant nations. By the way, isolationism has long been a school of foreign policy. I believe in self-defense. I'm not into the slurs, the anti-Semite stuff. I just don't like that. I'm telling you what I believe. So, but is there a single military action Trump took that you agree with? So, do you agree with taking out General Soleimani? Oh, I don't know. It turned out better than I thought, I guess. I mean, you said at the time it would, like, lead us to World War III. I thought, I was worried about it. I've seen that. Well, but that proved not the case. I was wrong, as I have been many times. Did you agree with taking out the ISIS caliphate? But my, well, if we took out the ISIS caliphate, why are they running Syria right now? And you're for that.

Why is that? What do you mean? I didn't say I'm for that. You don't seem to have a problem with it. I didn't say that. ISIS is now running Syria. You're like, ah, we'll see. No.

I mean, I know why. By the way, I didn't push Assad out. Assad toppled. It's hilarious. You know why I don't care? Assad is bad. But no, ISIS runs Syria. But that's fine.

We'll just kind of wait and see on ISIS. Not a big deal. Not a big deal they're trying to kill Trump. Hold on a second. I want to get back. You know why I don't care and you do your trademark smirky laugh. I know why you don't care. What are you even talking about?

Why don't I care? I don't know why. You tell me. Because you think it's okay because they're not making angry noises or something. But by your own standards, ISIS is so immoral that they must die. But now they're running Syria and you don't think that we should take military action against the government of Syria? Because why? They're ISIS. What I said is I don't know how good or bad it'll be.

Look, I wasn't pushing Assad out. He fell. He fell on his own in part because he was heavily supported by Hezbollah. And when Israel took out the Hezbollah leadership, he lost his base of support. But the current ISIS leadership, you don't think is bad? You can't say it's terrible that ISIS runs a country? I am concerned about it. Concerned? Aren't you horrified? I want to see what they do. Oh, so you've got a wait and see attitude on ISIS now?

On the government of Syria, they are not actively, that I am aware of, trying to murder Americans. And that's a real dividing line. Are you trying to murder Americans or not? I'm just saying it's a little weird that we waged this war against ISIS and now they're running a country in the Mediterranean. I think that people would be very, very upset about that. But you don't seem very upset about that. By the way, did you agree with Trump taking out al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS? I'm totally opposed to ISIS. And what I care about is results, actually.

And if taking out the head of ISIS ends ISIS, I guess I'm for it. But now ISIS runs Syria. So I'm wondering, how does this work? I mean, my point is— You weren't at the time—I mean, I've taken so many different positions over the years, some of which have been wrong. I really do my best to be honest and correct if they are and admit that I was wrong. I'm not one of these people who's like I've always been consistent. No, my views change all the time because the facts change all the time.

You're not going to get consistency from me. You're only going to get sincerity. Well, look, I will say this. And look, I believe you're sincere. Yeah. But I'm not God. I'm just some guy watching trying to figure out the right thing for America. And I think because you believe you were mistaken and I agree previously, I think you've overcorrected. Overcorrected? I'm worried about turning this mess in Iran into a much larger mess.

That's the concern. And by the way, that's a reasonable worry. Look, I know it's reasonable. And I know you've been like you're like ready to call me all these names for asking. You're just asking questions. Yes, I am. So here's my question to you. If the Ayatollah is killed in Iran and he very well could be. Yeah, very well could if there's a war. So I have just read in the paper this morning that Israel tried to take him out twice and Trump told them not to. I have read that. I don't have independent confirmation one way or the other. Do you think that they should take him out? So I actually talked about it. As you know, I do a podcast every week, Verdict with Ted Cruz. And I actually talked about it in the latest podcast.

And I said, look, I've seen the reporting that says that Trump asked them not to take out the Ayatollah. And what I said, the podcast is I think it's reasonable for them to decide not to try to take him out. What they've done is targeted just about the entire top level of the military, the people that actually conduct the war. I can see an argument that taking out both the head of state and a religious leader could make him a martyr and could cause more problems than it's worth. And by the way, if you take out the Ayatollah, I don't know if the next guy isn't just as bad. And so I am. What happens to the country? I don't know.

But you mentioned before, I want to go back to this. You said something like you, like most other politicians, are engaged in moral terms. And let me be clear. I am talking about national interest. I am talking about protecting America. So there are bad guys on planet Earth that I don't think we should take out, even though they're bad guys. I'll talking about protecting America. So there are bad guys on planet Earth that I don't think we should take out, even though they're bad guys. I'll call them bad guys, but I'm not willing to use U.S. military force to take them out. In this instance, what Israel is doing is

taking out their capacity to build nuclear weapons. Why? Because they judge the risk is too high if they got nuclear weapons. I understand that. I mean, I understand that. I think it's in progress. I think it'll probably be achieved, probably with U.S. military support. Who knows? But the president said he's for that. And by the way, where the military support is most needed is Fordow, which is the under, it's a bunker that's built under a mountain. And Israel's taken out most of the rest, like the Tans, which is their big enrichment site. They bombed the hell out of it.

Fordow was deliberately built deep into a mountain so that Israel couldn't take it out. And there's an active discussion because the U.S. has bunker buster bombs that are big enough to take out Fordow. 30,000 pounds. And Israel doesn't. So the one military piece. Nor the aircraft to fly them. Correct. Israel doesn't. So the one military piece that nor the aircraft to fly them. Right. Right. But here's I guess what bothers me is that I said two weeks ago, the real goal here is regime change in Iran. It's not I think that's Trump's goal. It's your goal. It's Israel's goal.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just saying it's important to be honest and not lie and not attack people for telling the truth. So I believe I've been assiduously honest in this. But but words matter. You said the real goal here is regime change, and it's your goal. And I want to be clear. Well, you said it was your goal. I want to be clear because words matter. Do I support regime change and would I like a government that doesn't hate America and isn't trying to kill us in Iran? Yes, that's a good outcome. Is that the objective of these military strikes? I don't think necessarily. I don't know if it's Israel's. It's not my objective.

Should it be the U.S.? If Israel decides we're going to decapitate the government and try to foment an uprising against it, should the United States participate in that operation in any way? Look, I have not called for killing the Ayatollah. And there is nations in war generally refrain from attacking and killing heads of state. Now, the Ayatollah doesn't. He's trying to kill Trump. We talked about that. But we shouldn't punish him for it. Look, there has been a longstanding nations in war have refrained from from killing heads of state.

I have not publicly called for killing the Ayatollah. What I've called for is doing whatever is necessary to stop him from getting nuclear weapons. In the first Trump term, what that meant was maximum pressure. So in the first Trump term, I spent a lot of time urging the president to withdraw from the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal that Obama had. President Trump agreed with me. He did that. And then I urged him to end the oil waivers and to sanction the hell out of the country. And it ended up crippling their economy. So Iran at the time was selling two million barrels of oil a day,

one million barrels, I'm sorry, one million barrels of oil a day. When President Trump ended the oil waivers, it cut their sales to 300,000 barrels a day. At the end of the Trump term, the Iranian economy was in shambles. They had massive inflation. I think the regime was teetering. I think it might have fallen. I would use economic sanctions and I would use moral suasion to try to effectuate. If you topple, OK, so you topple the regime and by whatever means, what happens then?

How many people live around, by the way? I don't know the population. At all the way? I don't know the population. At all? No, I don't know the population. You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple? How many people live in Iran? 92 million. Okay.

Yeah. How could you not know that? I don't sit around memorizing population tables. Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government. Why is it relevant whether it's 90 million or 80 million or 100 million? Because if you don't know anything about the country... I didn't say I don't know anything about the country.

Okay, what's the ethnic mix of Iran? They are Persians and predominantly Shia. Okay, this is cute. You don't know anything about Iran. Okay, I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran. You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of the government. You're the one who claims.

You don't know anything about the country. No, you don't know anything about the country. You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump. No, I'm not saying that. You're the one who can't figure out if it was a good idea to kill General Soleimani and you said it was bad. You don't believe they're trying to murder Trump. Yes, I do. Because you're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation.

And if you really believe that. We're carrying out military strikes today. You said Israel was. Right. With our help. I said we. Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them. Well, you're breaking news here because the U.S. government last night denied, the National Security Council spokesman Alex Pfeiffer denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity. We're not bombing them. Israel's bombing them.

You just said we were. We are supporting Israel. This is high stakes. You're a senator. If you're saying the United States government is at war with Iran right now, people are listening. We are not bombing them. Israel is bombing them. Why do you do this snide, oh, okay. What do you mean? Because this is super high stakes stuff. This is a huge country that borders a lot of other important countries all world's energy comes from there

so we have let me don't want another disaster you don't want to be reckless the ayatollah refers to israel as the little satan and america is the great satan do you believe him when he says it's the great satan do you think of course i do you think if the ayatollah could murder both of us right now that he would i do i believe him okay i i assume no good faith in the part of the Ayatollah could murder both of us right now that he would? I do. I believe it. Okay. I assume no good faith in the part of the Ayatollah. And if your implication is like I'm pro-Ayatollah or something. No, it's not good faith. It's that. Just saying you're a lawmaker. You're a powerful person in Washington.

This is the most powerful country in the world. If you're calling for toppling in government, it's incumbent on you to know something about the country and to think through the consequences of that. And you haven't and you don't. And I'm saying that's reckless. OK, you are you engage in reckless rhetoric with no facts. And to be clear, I'm not calling for the overthrow of a government. You are put out a newsletter attacking Donald Trump and calling him complicit. I can reach Donald Trump. Yes, you have. And by the way, I campaigned for Donald Trump. Yes. This is like after anti-S, I campaigned for Donald Trump. OK, yes. And this is like after anti-Semitism, this is the last refuge.

You're an anti-Semite and you hate Trump. OK, I love Trump. I will read. You put out a whole newsletter saying Trump has abandoned America first. And here's what Trump said in response. Well, considering that I'm the one that developed America first and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one who decides that. For those people who say they want peace, you't have peace if iran has a nuclear weapon so

for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about iran having a nuclear weapon that's not peace that was directed at you man this is you got me busted no i'm just saying look i'm my views look i i like Trump. I campaign for Trump. I know Trump. I talked to him last night. I'm not against Trump, and you know that. But you're against his foreign policy. I think that we should be very careful about entering into more foreign wars that don't help us when our country is dying.

When you say don't help us. And our country is dying. Look, yes, focus on our country. I'm all for it. But the naivete. You don't even know how much money this costs. You don't know focus on our country. I'm all for it. But the naivete... You don't even know how much money this costs. You don't know anything about the country whose government you want to overthrow. And you're calling me

reckless. I want to stop a lunatic who wants to murder us from getting nuclear weapons that could kill millions of Americans. You say, I can't see how that benefits America in any way. That is bizarre. And by the way, isolationism, your foreign policy

is the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. And it doesn't work. I'm a big leftist. This is so silly. Now I'm Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Okay. Let me just say one last thing. So how is your foreign policy different from Jimmy Carter's? Seriously. Please.

May I ask that question seriously? I don't even know what you're talking about. Jimmy Carter's. Seriously. Please. But may I ask that question seriously? I don't even know what you're talking about. Jimmy Carter? So what century is this? I am the product of the last 25 years watching carefully, being involved in the periphery, and I see an unending string of foreign policy disasters that have impoverished and hurt our country. An unending string. An unending string. They would include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and our inability to stop the Houthis, by the way, in Yemen, which exposes us as weak, and I grieve over that. So these are failures.

You helped preside over some of them as a member of the Senate. What failures, foreign policy failures, have I presided over? Well, we were unable to beat Russia in the war that you supported against Russia. You've been spending the last three years telling us that Vladimir Putin is evil and we're going to beat him with other people's children. And a million of those kids are now dead. You've never apologized for that. That was a full failure. By the way, look, the level of number of falsehoods you lay out just in one statement are rather.'t supported the war against russia uh are rather stunning so the war against russia was caused which i have explained in great detail by joe biden's weakness but you supported the war if you want to talk we can talk russia and ukraine i'm

happy to talk about it i do you think that's been a success no it's been an absolute disaster okay but you supported it shouldn Shouldn't you apologize? No, you should apologize. I'm not going to engage in the demanding of apologizing. I'm like, that's my point. All these failures and no one ever says I'm sorry. Does it matter or do you just throw out, like, if you want to talk, we can talk. Okay, I do. I want to know why that seems like a true disaster for the United States. You have supported it.

Do you believe Joe Biden's weakness caused the war in Ukraine? I think Joe Biden's aggression caused it. His aggression? What aggression? He demanded that Ukraine join NATO. How does that help the United States? It is a terrible idea, and I have vigorously opposed Ukraine joining NATO. Okay, so that's what caused the war. No, it's not. Do you want to know what caused the war? Look, you do the dismissive. You're not actually interested in facts. You're like, okay. Okay, tell me. It seems super obvious.

You're absolutely right, and I'm sorry. That is a tick of mine that is wrong, and I mean this with sincerity. I'm sorry to do that to you. I just think it seems so obvious that sending Kamala Harris to the NATO Security Conference to say you're going to join NATO is what triggered the invasion days later. OK, so can I this will take a few minutes to lay out because it's complicated, but I think the facts matter.

I think two things caused the war in Ukraine. Number one, I think Biden's incredible weakness and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Now, I believe we need to leave Afghanistan, but not with the incompetence that led to 13 servicemen and women being murdered by terrorists there. The way Biden did that was disastrous. And I think our enemies looked to the commander in chief and said, this president is weak. And when that withdrawal was so disastrous, I said publicly at the time, the chances of Putin invading Ukraine have just risen tenfold. Right. But secondly, and this is critically. I agree. That was awful. The withdrawal. And it was a major cause of our enemies all said, hey, this president is weak. And so it invited. And by the way, look, I despise war and I think weakness and isolationism produces war because it invites aggression from our bad guys. It's why I agree with Ronald Reagan's peace through strength.

The best way you avoid war is being strong enough that your enemies don't want to mess with you. But let's get back to Ukraine and Russia. Look, Putin didn't wake up two years ago and decided he wanted to invade Ukraine. He's wanted to invade Ukraine for decades. Putin has referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union as, quote, the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. And Putin has long been explicit. His desire is to reassemble the old Soviet Union and, in fact, reassemble the Russian Empire that was even bigger than that. If you want to reassemble the Soviet Union, the natural place to start is Ukraine. Do you really believe that Putin has territorial designs on Eastern Europe?

Yes. What countries? He has said that you can go and read his... Hold on. I don't want to lose the narrative of what happened, so we can go back and do that, but I don't want to lose telling the story first. So let me explain this, and then if you want to go back, we can take all sorts of digressions, but just give me a couple of minutes to lay out the facts of what happened.

He has wanted to invade Ukraine a long time, and he's done it before. In 2014, he invaded Ukraine, invaded Crimea. When Barack Obama was president, he invaded the southern portion. He did not invade the rest of the country. Why? And the reason is the principal source of revenue for Russia is oil and gas and the natural gas pipelines run right through the country of Ukraine. And he didn't want to jeopardize his ability to get gas to Europe. Right. So in 2015, Putin started a project called Nord Stream 2. Did anything happen in 2014? In terms of what? Wasn't there a coup in Ukraine run by the Obama administration? Let me finish telling, I told you, we'll take lots of digressions in a second. Let me finish telling the narrative. 2015, Putin began building Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 2

is an undersea pipeline that runs from Russia to Germany. The entire purpose of Nord Stream 2 is when it was completed and turned on, it would let Russia circumvent Ukraine and get its gas straight to Europe. In 2019, Nord Stream 2 was almost complete. And the conventional wisdom in Washington was this is terrible, but there's nothing we can do about it. I didn't believe that. So I drafted sanctions legislation that was targeted to stop the pipeline. My legislation passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed the House and Donald Trump signed it in law. Why would, can I just ask, why wouldn't you want Germany to have cheap energy? Because it empowers Russia. And I believe

in making our enemies weaker and our friends stronger. Has blowing up Nord Stream made Germany stronger? Not being dependent on Russia has made Germany stronger. So you think Germany is stronger now than it was four years ago? I think not being dependent on Russia. Germany has all sorts of problems, and many of them are domestic to their own politics. Hold on, let me finish. I'm trying to... No, but what you're saying, it doesn't... Germany seems so much weaker now that its energy costs have spiked, and the manufacturing sector is collapsing because of that. Let me finish. I'm focused on America's interest. I don't want Russia stronger because I believe Russia is our enemy. You and I disagree on that. We can talk about that.

But I want our enemies weaker. I don't want to go to war with Russia, but I want our enemies weaker. I don't want Europe dependent on Russia. I don't want Putin rich with oil and gas revenues and able to invest in his military and pose a threat to America. So the sanctions legislation that I authored, it passed. Putin stopped building Nord Stream 2 literally the day that President Trump signed my sanctions legislation into law. He signed it, if I remember right, at 7 p.m. on a Thursday. Putin stopped construction at 6.45 p.m. So the sanctions legislation worked and it killed the pipeline. The pipeline lay dormant for over a year, just a hunk of metal at the bottom of the ocean. Joe Biden came into office. He was sworn in on January 20th, 2021.

Putin resumed deep sea construction of Nord Stream 2 four days later, January 24th. He did so because Biden had foreshadowed weakness on this issue. That foreshadowing was accurate because several months later, Biden formally waived the sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and let Putin complete the pipeline. In January of 2022, I forced a vote on the Senate floor to reimpose sanctions on Nord Stream 2. The week of the vote, President Zelensky in Ukraine publicly called on the Senate, please pass this sanctions legislation. It is the last best hope of stopping Russia from invading Ukraine. At the same time, the government of Poland put out a formal statement from the foreign ministry to the Senate, calling on the Senate to pass my sanctions legislation and said, if you do not, Putin will invade Ukraine. The day of the vote, Joe Biden came to Capitol Hill. It's the first time in his presidency he had done that. He went to the Democrat senators lunch and he personally lobbied them on this issue. Not any other issue. This was

his number one issue that he came to lobby them on. They came out of that lunch. Every Democrat had voted with me twice against Nord Stream 2. Forty four Democrats flipped their vote. They voted in favor of Russia, in favor of Putin. And four weeks later, Russia invaded Ukraine. That was the direct cause of the war. And if Trump had been president, there would be no war. So may I ask, I, of course, disagree with your analysis completely, but I want to be respectful. So tell me what you disagree with. It's such a long conversation. I've spent the last couple of years on this, and I just respectfully disagree with your analysis. But I don't doubt your sincerity that you believe that Putin is our enemy, that Western Europe should not be allowed to use Russian energy. I mean, you seem

to really believe these things. My question is about results, because I think it's relevant to what we're seeing now in Iran. You look back after having you personally voted to send billions and billions and billions of U.S. tax dollars to Zelensky to support his civil service in the war against Russia and all this stuff. Can you say that what you did worked? So I can say what I did personally, sanctioning Nord Stream 2 worked and prevented a war. And if Trump had still been there, if the sanction had been in effect,

there would be no war. I'm in favor of avoiding wars. But once the war broke out, you voted to fund it to the tune of billions and billions and billions. And to be clear. And did billions and billions. And to be clear. And did that work? OK, to be to be clear what I voted for, I voted for the initial tranche of funding and then I voted against the subsequent one. So it hasn't worked. So I've been in between.

I haven't been on the full Ukraine, full throated hawk side or the anti from day one. I voted for the initial tranche of funding because I wanted Russia to lose. I think the Biden administration administered it in a horrible way. I think they wasted a ton of money. And I think what they did was actually incoherent because they were funding

both sides of the war. And I was very vocal. And among other things, flooding $100 million to Iran, which was used, among other things, to help the nuclear program, but also to make drones that Russia used to fight. So here's my concern. I'm not going to defend the Biden administration really did a lot to wreck the United States. Yeah.

The most damaging administration where we sit now, Russia is stronger. It's closely allied long term with I don't know that Russia is stronger. I don't think that's right. OK, I think it's pretty obvious that it is, but it's certainly not destroyed. And it's allied long-term with China. Maybe. Look, there's no doubt Biden's foreign policy drove Russia into the arms of China, and that's concerning. They also have a long history of animosity. Western Europe is weaker and more in debt.

The United States is weaker and much more in debt. Look. Hold on. You and I are agreeing on a lot. We're agreeing. We're agreeing. Here's my question. Have you questioned any of your previous assumptions? Did you play any role in this at all? Are you responsible at all? Of course. And like you, you said, what if you learned of like you? You said you've changed your mind. I voted for the first funding of the Ukraine war and I voted against every subsequent funding stream because it wasn't working. And I looked at what was happening and said, this is not working. And had the money been spent in an intelligent way and not wasted and had it been successful, I might have been willing to fund more.

But it wasn't successful. So I voted no. And the war is going to end. Look, President Trump campaigned on ending the war. I think he's frustrated because Putin has been less than eager to reach a deal to end the war. But it's going to end. You're not going to see another dollar coming from Congress. Do you think Zelensky wants to end the war? I think Zelensky has behaved horribly. I think his Oval Office meeting will go down in history as the worst Oval Office meeting of any leader that has ever come to the Oval Office. I think he behaved like a pompous ass. And I think he is unrealistic. I think Zelensky spends his time with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck

Schumer in The New York Times, and he believed he was going to the Oval Office as a resist figure. And I think he's doing real damage to his country right now. You described him many times as a resist figure. And I think he's doing real damage to his country. You described him many times as a hero. Do you? I don't believe I don't recall ever using the word hero. I will say, look, I'm not I'm not a Zelensky cheerleader and I'm not in the business of saying everyone we support has to be a sage and everyone we oppose has to be a villain. I'm not in the morality game. I'm in the U.S. interest game. Why did I

want Nord Stream 2 stopped? Because it would strengthen Russia and Russia's our enemies. It's entirely U.S. interest. Did you support the industrial sabotage against it, blowing it up? So I think you believe America did that. Is that right? Of course. OK, I think the chances of that are zero. You think Russia did it? No, I think Ukraine did it. OK, so I don't know. So I don't know who did it. In terms of the theories that have been put out there, the idea that Russia blew up their own pipeline never made any sense to me at all. That just I can't even articulate why they would do that. The idea that Biden did that. Look, I could see it being in U.S. interest to do that, to blow up Nord Stream 2.

I just think Biden was too weak. I don't believe Joe Biden. But are you and I guess you and so that the Norwegians, the Ukrainians, NATO, whatever. Look, that seems me to, you know, who benefits? And it leads me to think either the Ukrainians blew it up or Ukraine's allies. I don't think Biden did because I just Biden was so weak. I don't think he would give the order. I find that implausible. But you're in favor of it. Look, I was in favor of stopping it. I think I think blowing it up is a was a good thing. So so I'm I'm supportive of that. But I don't think America did that.

I don't think Biden gave that order. But in general, I'm giving that order. But he wasn't in office. Yeah. And you think that the largest act of industrial sabotage in history helped our allies in Western Europe or other fellow NATO members? I got to say, I don't understand. For some reason, you are really invested in defending Russia. And I don't get that. I'm not attacking you with that. I'm genuinely like I don't get why you're so passionate about defending Russia. Actually, I was defending Western Europe, the home of my ancestors. And that, you know, tripling their energy costs and destroying their industrial base. No, not like.

You just accused me of being an anti-Semite, an isolationist, and a Russia lackey. I've not called you a neocon once, which you are, but I haven't said that. I think that's absurd. Yeah, those neocons that oppose the Iraq war. But, like, that's dishonest. Okay, but I haven't called you that because name calling. Well, you just said which you are, so you just called me that. You just did. I guess what I'm saying is you're triggered because I use name calling. I get it. I was triggered when you called me names.

And I'm triggered once again that you're calling me a Russia defender when in fact I'm defending Western Europe. And I don't think that you think Putin's our enemy. Well, he's literally our enemy. You are funding a war against him. Do you think he is our enemy? You're saying we're his enemy. Do you think Putin is our you're saying we're his enemy do you think putin is our enemy i think it is a tragedy that your policies your policies specifically yours helped drive putin into the arms of china forming a block that's larger than so you won't answer that question i don't he is literally our enemy right now that is a tragedy for the united states you're saying but you won't say he is our enemy and look like I don't know in what sense I don't want to be enemies with Russia.

It doesn't help us at all. It may help some people in the United States, but in general, I don't want to be. I don't want to be at war with Russia. I don't think it is in our interest to be at war with Russia with China. That is a disaster. But listen, no doubt. And I want Russian China attention. So I agree with you there.

But but I think Putin is a KGB thug. I think he is a bad man. Now, I don't want to go to war with him over that. But but I'm not naive. And like I watched. He's a bad man. He's a bad man. OK, look, I watched your episode where you went to the Russian grocery store and i'm was that disloyal do you think it was just weird it was like a promo video for russia and i don't understand i'm well i'm not attacking you when i ask why because i'm genuinely like i don't like when you call me and it's something you weren't attacking me you were just noticing no but may i ask you a question so here well let me just answer yours by saying the united states the biden administration with your, full support, began this war on Russia in response to their invasion of Ukraine. And one of the things they did was they kicked Russia out of SWIFT, the International Financial System. And my first response was this is going to really hurt the U.S. dollar, which it has. And I hope someday we can have a conversation about that. It's really, really hurt the one thing that we needed

which was to retain dollar uh supremacy so i was interested in the in the economic condition by the way that's a reasonable point and a serious conversation i'm aware i'm aware and i was but i can agree with you like like no no but i was accused of being i think it's weird that you went to a russian grocery store and said it was prosperous no my point is it looked like a commercial it looked like a commercial isn't this wonderful it was prosperous. No, my point is that those- It looked like a commercial. It looked like a commercial. Isn't this wonderful? No, it was an argument against the efficacy of sanctions. Sanctions against Russia, which you casually and enthusiastically imposed, scoring a little moral victory every time, had no material effect that helped the United States. Russia is backstopped by China,

and I recommend that you go there and see it. It is way nicer than Washington, D.C. Way nicer. To me, that's a tragedy. I was horrified and angry at my leaders, including you. It's like, I want to live in a country that's nice with low food costs and no homeless people. I don't understand why that's too much to ask. So do I. Instead, I get worse with Iran. No, I just want lower food costs. How's that? So, look, it's a weird argument that you do often,

which is, listen, things are crappy in America. Liberals have done bad things to America, so we shouldn't worry about any enemies around the world. No, not liberals. Republican senators, they don't care about us. They're focused on other countries. You wrote that in- And our country is dying, and you don't care because you enemies around the world. No, not liberals. Republican senators. They don't care about us. They're focused on other countries. You wrote that. And our country is dying and you don't care because you're focused on Iran or Putin. So you believe that I don't care about America. I guess you believe Donald Trump doesn't either. Like nobody cares. I believe

that your focus is way too on other countries. It's way too focused outward. The money that you send abroad could be used here and should be. What money that I send abroad, by the way, I emphatically agree with Ukraine. You don't even know. I emphatically agree with with Donald Trump's, for example, dramatically slashing USAID. I think the only reason we should be deploying that is to benefit U.S. interest, national security interest, and keep Americans safe. And so how much did you vote to send to Ukraine? Look, you're in about 80 billion dollars. 80 billion. Yeah. So so you're in you love just giving these broad characterizations that are not accurate. I I'm I'm genuinely puzzled. Look, I don't want to go to war with Russia. I but I don't think they're our friend. I think Putin. I agree.

I think Putin is a murderer. I think he's a liar. And I think he does not wish well on America. OK. And there's a difference between saying that just like Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an evil empire and Putin was in the KGB. Look, my father was imprisoned and tortured in Cuba. I hate communists. It was actually Batista that tortured my dad. My aunt was imprisoned and tortured by Castro. I hate communists. I think communism is evil. And so I think there is a value to there is nobody who stands up to communist China more in the Senate than I do because I think they're evil. Do I want to go to war with China? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. But I think we have all sorts of tools to stand up to our enemies. And I think China is engaged in a thousand year war

against the United States. They're trying to defeat us. We're so all over the map. We're family in prison in Cuba and China and all this stuff. I just, I agree with you. I'm totally opposed to communism, always have been. I don't think that Putin loves us. I'm distressed by the moral condition of most leaders around the world. Most of them, they all kill people. I'm against that. I'm just saying, I wish the focus here was more on the United States. Can I say something? I actually don't agree with that statement, they all kill people. There's a moral relativism. So I don't thinkald trump is a murderer he doesn't kill people we don't have concentration donald trump a murderer you just said world leaders all kill people and and there's a moral relativism i'm hardly a moral but you are you just that statement was the essence of an anti-semite and isolationist

a moral relativist i'm okay no did you just say world leaders all kill people? I'm saying I'm against killing people in general. So. And hyperventilating about how Putin was in the KGB or whatever. I just want to serve American interests and pushing into China is not in our interest at all. And you helped do it and you haven't apologized. And by the way, you're the cheerleader. I helped drive him into China. You did.

It's a complete lie. You funded the war against him. No, I authored the legislation that shut down Nord Stream 2 that prevented the war. And if Trump had still been in the White House, we would have had the war. And look, the comment you made, the reason things like moral relativism are so dangerous. Oh, everyone kills people. No, there is a difference. The United States, we don't have concentration camps. We don't torture and murder people. You look at China where they've got a million prisoners in concentration camps. You look at Putin, where he's got prisoners in Siberia. He tortures and murders his political opponents. Donald Trump doesn't do that. America

doesn't do that. And by the way, what are you even talking about? Don't do that. I see the game. It's like I'm distressed. I'm distressed. No, I'm responding with facts. You don't like the facts. I don't even know what facts you're talking about. I'm not saying that Trump puts people in concentration camps. I campaign for Trump. I love Trump. So did I. Okay, so this has nothing to do with Trump.

I'm merely saying- When you said every world leader kills people, it puts them all in a- Just want more emphasis on what's happening inside the country. That's it. Is there a moral difference between America and our enemies? Is there a moral difference between America- You're choking us, Pierce. And what is it?

Articulate it. It's valuable to say why. Why are we a better country founded on better values than China? I'll tell you. What's the difference? I'll tell you why. Because the whole purpose of America is to protect the God-given rights that each person possesses by virtue of being created by God. Amen.

By being human. That's the point of our founding documents. And no other country articulates that in the way that we do. And that's what I love about America. My family's been here a long time. I'm never leaving. So I really love the country, despite going to a Russian grocery store, despite asking questions about AIPAC. I love America, is the truth. And I love Trump. But I just want more emphasis on America. That's it. I emphatically agree with America first. I think Donald Trump does as well.

And I think his foreign policy has been vigorously protecting that. And I agree with the president. Good. Well, I appreciate your taking all this time. Sure. And I know you didn't mean it. When you call me those names. Thank you, Senator.

We want to thank you for watching us on Spotify, a company that we use every day. We know the people who run it, good people. While you're here, do us a favor, hit follow and tap the bell so you never miss an episode. We have real conversations, news, things that actually matter. Telling the truth always. You will not miss it if you follow us on Spotify and hit the bell. We appreciate it. Thanks for watching.