Will Cain Country - Iran: Nuclear Disarmament or Forever War? (ft. Jack Posobiec)

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

Senior Editor at Human Events and Turning Point USA Contributor Jack Posobiec joins Will to discuss the implications of a war with Iran, going over the race to maintain drone supremacy, how it compares to past Middle East conflicts, and what this recent operation means for the region’s future. Jack and Will also discuss Israel’s role in the conflict and whether a new war threatens to further fracture the MAGA base.Plus, Will and The Crew react to some of the backlash from Will’s interview with General Jack Keane on ‘The Will Cain Show’ yesterday.Subscribe to ‘Will Cain Country’ on YouTube here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Will Cain Country!⁠⁠⁠Follow ‘Will Cain Country’ on X (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), Instagram (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), TikTok (⁠⁠⁠@willcainshow⁠⁠⁠), and Facebook (⁠⁠⁠@willcainnews⁠⁠⁠)Follow Will on X: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@WillCain⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Nukes, missiles, Israel, China. What's this really about in Iran? And a tense interview with General Jack Keene on The Wilkane Show. This is Wilcane Country streaming live at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel. The Wilcane Facebook page, always available by following us at Spotify or on Apple. Behind the scenes of what has amounted to the most negativity of, ever received in my time at Fox News. What really went wrong? What really went down in my interview yesterday on Fox News with General Jack Keene? But let us answer the big questions. What's this

really about in Iran? And to help answer that question, we're hanging out today with the senior editor at Human Events and a contributor to Turning Point USA. It is Jack Posobic. What's up, Jack? Well, what's up, Will? I guess it's just your week for interviewing Jacks, huh? I hope this one goes a little more smoothly than what happened yesterday. Slow down there. Slow down there. Don't start patronizing now. Okay.

Yes, I'm sorry. No compliments. No obsequious respect granted. No, no, I deserve no respect whatsoever. I can be accused of patronizing. I'll break that down. I'll give the audience behind the scenes of what happened, including some self-criticism, which I deserve.

in that interview. But we'll break down exactly what happened a little bit later in the show. But I do think I kind of want to pick up that conversation right here with you, Jack. I'm not patronizing you. I do respect your POV on this. And it's interesting. The point of view, I give no cares whatsoever about whatever's coming out of the mouths of Democrats. I care nothing about what's being said from the left.

The left is openly partisan, openly going to root against President Donald Trump, no matter what the action is, no matter the choice. I am somewhat interested in, I don't know that it's a huge divide, Jack, but there's a real conversation, like an interesting, important conversation as I think that there is at the outset of any war about, you know, motivations, goals, exit strategy, long-term objective. And I'm curious how you read the situation here today, just, and to be fair, 72 hours into this war. Yeah, sure. I mean, there's a lot there, obviously. You know, going into it, of course, we were told at the state of the union, President Trump brought up again. And I noted that, you know, we're really looking to see what he would say about Iran. And he noted that the nuclear facilities were still totally obliterated. He used that phrase again, which he had used back in June.

So we knew that those facilities were destroyed in Operation Midnight Hammer. But at the same time, we also saw this massive military buildup, like the sort of Damocles. going over Iran and USS Gerald Ford was on its way over. The Lincoln had already come in on station. And so it was this very dramatic buildup to which I think a lot of people, myself included, said, hey, it looks like we're going to do something here. And I know there are some people who thought that it was just lunder or bluster, I should say. And I thought, you know, I think you don't send that much material if you don't mean to actually pull the trigger.

And that's exactly what the president did. And we were hearing that, you know, come out of the White House. as well. And so when it comes down to, I think your point and your questions were absolutely astute to say, what is the goal? What is the commanders defined end state? What is the exit plan? I love that this isn't Iraq and Afghanistan style again, where we're seeing these massive troop deployments, the muse of marine expeditionary forces heading over, National Guard troops being called up, all of that that we saw for a huge boots on the ground style regime change war like we did in the 2000s. This doesn't appear to be that. But at the same time, we want to know, okay, is this just about nuclear? It's

clearly about leadership at this point, certainly from the Israeli side. They're targeting every single leader they can find or anyone who's willing to raise their hand at this point. I mean, that's just obvious. And the, you know, BV was out last night on Hannity talking about it. And so that seems to be where they're coming from. The question I think remains, though, is President Trump, he says he's open to working with new leadership. And the piece that I hear coming out as well is this this Venezuela model and that's that's kind of where I'm hanging my hat on so the venas what was the Venezuela model all right it's going to be different for different countries apples oranges a little bit but the idea was you don't go in and have this massive war you don't go in and

have this huge you know we're going to break the regime and bring up the you know the the opposition and do all these different things what you do is you take out the top leadership then you work with the next leadership and you hear president Trump has said that over and over We can find the right people to work with that we want to work with them. And so I think the Venezuela option could potentially be the best option here. You go in quick, you change the leadership, you come back out, and you work with the people who are in place. That being said, to your point, there's a huge conversation and a huge divide, I think, in MAGA and in the America First movement, you typically see this on the age range. you know, it's typically around like, I keep trying to figure out the exact number.

It's like 45, 50, right around there, where people are either super four, super pro intervention and say, let's go in, let's take care of it. Let's let's free the people. Let's be those liberators. And then the younger folks, and this was what, you know, your friend of mine, Charlie Kirk used to talk about all the time because he would spend four hours at a clip on those college campuses talking to Gen Z, talking to college kids. and they just, they don't want to see this. They want, you know, they want Epstein arrests. They want deportations. They want economic relief.

They want to say, hey, where's the guy who said, we're going to focus on domestic first, America first? That's what they want. They're very, very wary of anything to do with overseas. I think you're so right to talk about the generational divide. And there's a lot there, Jack. And I just want to have a conversation with you back and forth on this. First, okay. And this is a point of clarification.

on my point of view on this. I am part of this generation, even though I'm on the older end of it, who is like definitely opposed to the idea of an Iraq and Afghanistan model. Now, I think most people are, even the boomers, are probably opposed to that. But what we have to understand is that historically war spiral. They start small, they end big. Or if they end at all, or they drag forever in big ways. So that's why I push for, let's just clarify our objective so it's not mission creep, scope creep, and before you know it down the line, we're bogged down in something that we were or we have been in the Middle East for a long time. That's the historical background. I will say, I believe President Trump. Like, I don't think he's a hypocrite. I don't think he's

betrayed anything. I don't think he thinks he said Iraq and Afghanistan were dumb. I think he still believes that. There's nothing about him that wants that to be the third act here. And ultimately, I do trust that in him. And by the way, the Secretary of War and many others involved in the decision making here. And so I think there's a lot of trust that this isn't what will happen. But I still think it's worth asking. And the reason I think, Jack, that they're not, if I'm being honest, I don't think they're completely clear on the objective. And I think that's by design. I think there's a China objective in here that nobody wants to talk about out loud, not publicly, not public office holders.

There's a real play here that repositions the chessboard and weakens China. But the other side of this is I do think they want regime change. But when you say regime change, people think Iraq and Afghanistan. They think that means you're exporting democracy and nation building, wherein the real outcome is more like what you described, this zombie Venezuela model most likely, where if the people out there that are like talking about Reza Pavlavi and democracy in Iran, they might be disappointed in how this administration ends this thing. Because to your point,

they just want somebody that works with America in the way that America requires. And that might not be, in the end, you know, Iranian democracy. Yeah. I mean, remember, this is a part of the world that doesn't have a lot of experience with democracy to begin with. So, I mean, the idea that you're just going to turn the page and suddenly this like Jeffersonian democracy is going to, you know, come flourishing forth. I mean, we tried it, right? What else could we have done in Iraq, which is right next door, by the way, you know, it's full of, full of, uh, Shia Muslims as well, that, you know, it's, it's been, you know, been there, done that a little bit. And, uh, look, I think President Trump is smart to look at those lessons and learn that and say, look,

we're not going to go in with the gender studies programs. We're not going to go in with the pallets of cash, you know, that Obama sent over, right? If they picked up our Navy guys, my Navy shipmates down there at Kashim Island off of those SWIC boats when they were you know, we're caught up in 2016 with the, you know, the guns on the back of their heads. You know, that was probably the worst day I can remember of my entire military service, just being in the Navy on deployment, by the way, and seeing that being done and looking at our president, just doing nothing. So, you know, it makes sense from one perspective to look at that and say, all right, we can't

treat these guys with kid gloves. But at the same time, the question is what comes next? And that's what, that's what Charlie always warned about. And there was a clip I was playing when he was talking to you just a couple of months ago that, you know, we have to be very careful of what comes next year. And CIA actually put out an assessment, which I thought was kind of interesting, that, you know, you could get a position where the IRGC takes over. And, you know, maybe they have a frontman who's sort of up as the new Ayatollah, but he's nowhere near as influential as Homania is or may even be Homanie's son, who we're told at least is still alive. Of course, that information is a little bit hard to come by, Fogar War. So caveat, caveat, caveat on all that succession plan kind of stuff.

But the point being is, yeah, I told it was almost 90 years old. So I have to imagine there was kind of a succession plan already in place. If you understand anything about Shia Islam, that's the whole point of Shia Islam. Martyr, succession. It's the whole reason they split from the Sunnis. And when you look at it, the IRGC might then become even, and this is what the CIA was saying. They might even be more pragmatic to say, look, we don't want this war. with the United States.

We don't want to see this war with the Gulf partners now coming on board, Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, possibly sending in material, sending in their fighters, UAE. So look, can we have a situation where we stay in power? The oil keeps flowing. We keep the Chinese customers, you know, keep those shipments going, keep everything they want happening. And we get to keep pretty much everything we want with the exception of this nuclear stuff. And, you know, probably in the back of their mind, they'll think they'll probably try it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try to develop nuclear weapons in secret as well. And quite frankly, I think that a lot of countries are going to be looking at that now because they've seen the different ways that America determines whether or not their relations are with different countries. Look at the North Korea example. Look, North Korea got nukes and we sat down and had peace talks with them. Russia has nukes. China has nukes. Pakistan has nukes.

But if a country doesn't or gives it up, like Libya, they've been, you know, they get decimated. So I think a lot of these regimes, if they find themselves in the crosshairs, and this is regardless the president, I'm just saying from their perspective, they're going to say, you know what, it might make sense for us to have a couple of those, a couple of those on the shelf if we need it. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation over the war in Iran with Jack Posobic on Will Kane Country. This is Ainslie Earhart. Thank you for joining me for the 52 episode podcast series, The Life of Jesus.

A listening experience that will provide hope, comfort, and understanding of the greatest story ever told. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with the senior editor at Human Events and a contributor at Turning Point USA, Jack Posobic. No, you're totally right about the incentive from the Iranian side. Yeah, you can look at the countries that don't have nukes and what happens to them and the ones that do in the way they're dealt with from a negotiation standpoint on the world stage. you know, Matt Walsh tweeted this and it spoke to me. It's like, look, I was all for Venezuela and for that matter, even Greenland, because you can do the calculus of how it serves America first. Low cost, high reward potential. And that's the prism. In the end, that's the prism. How does it serve America first? That's it. That's it. It's not inherently ideological. It's not utopic. It's pragmatic and its priorities in line of this. This is what your job is an American politician to serve Americans first.

This is a little harder the way it's being described right now. But if it's described, hey, this is going to be a low impact in term of American investment lives. And the outcome is going to be we have this zombie Iranian regime that is no longer a threat to the region or threat to Americans. Or for that matter, a democratic regime, even if it's that. and we cut China off from the building global empire of connections that they're making. I think that's a pretty compelling argument on the basis of America first. It's possible. I think it would be a very tall order for China to totally get cut off here.

You know, certainly there's pressure points there, obviously, and during any conflict, you're going to see if the Strait of Hormuz gets bottled up, that strategic choke. I mean, that's the choke point of all maritime. choke points is the Strait of Hormuz. And for China to be able to not have access to their oil shipments through there, it's going to be hugely crippling for them. Also, you could even sort of make the argument that that's why President Trump did Venezuela first, because now we do have a source of oil coming out of Venezuela so that the United

States, U.S. allies working with this new regime in Venezuela are able to keep those oil shipments going. Anything out of this trade of Hormuz, oh, well, we don't have to be. to worry about it because we have Venezuela now. So suddenly that gives Trump a lot more leverage there. Not saying he did that on purpose, but if he did, it's actually pretty smart. And when it comes to China, they're going to have to figure out how to play ball either way. Look, the Chinese don't care who's in charge of Iran. They care about the oil. They care about the natural resources. The Chinese will work with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In fact, for the first country, I believe,

to recognize the Taliban government taking, retaking over Afghanistan after the fall of. of Kabul in 2021. And so the reason, by the way, that they focus on Afghanistan so much, again, resources, but also you look at the map, Afghanistan right next to Pakistan, Pakistan next to Iran, Pakistan ties directly to Xinjiang, where the Uyghurs are, the Uyghur Muslims. What does China want? They understand the Strait of Hormuz problems. That's why they've been trying to build this Belt and Road initiative. They want pipelines. They want pipelines and road connectors and rail connectors so they can get their oil shipments from Iran even faster than by sea, by putting an entire corridor, pipeline corridor, rail corridor.

It's mountainous. It would have to be like a little bit rail and pipeline to be able to go through the entire Hindu Kush directly into China. The problem is the Chinese border right there is exactly where the Uyghurs are. And that's why the Chinese are so repressive to the Uyghur minority there in Xinjiang province because that's exactly where they want to put their pipelines through. So again, it really all comes down. down to oil. It all comes down to feeding the dragon. And so can the president put pressure on China?

Absolutely. The question is, is China going to play ball because they've got huge incentives to keep that oil flowing. Well, and there is some reporting out there to suggest the Chinese were in the process of beginning. While we had destroyed a lot of Iranian capabilities, the Chinese were on the precipice of reinvesting in Iran, helping them build back up. Here's the question Fuget, how much of this from President Trump's perspective do you think is grand strategy, meaning it's all connected? Venezuela, Iran, maybe it's about China in the background, but everything that we're seeing that can look chaotic, and this is honestly often the story with President Trump, is actually connected in some grand strategy.

Oh, I think he is a grand strategy guy. I think President Trump is a big picture guy and had the honor of being on Air Force One with Peter Ducey. the other day and we were traveling with the president after the board of peace. And I asked him, actually, I said, would you ask the president, not Peter? I asked the president, would you want China and Russia to be in that board of peace with you? And he's, and he looked at me, said, absolutely, I want all the countries in because you need all the countries in to make these decisions for the world. And so he definitely views the world as this chess board. He certainly understands the role that Iran plays vis-a-vis China, but also Russia.

as well because keep in mind even though china has this tight relationship with iran russia iran is directly in their backyard uh russia was the country of soviet union at the time that actually built the iranian that busier nuclear reactor that's there one of the thing may have been hit today may not have been we'll see what's good what the status of that is but they have a huge relationship with the iranians iran also supplying a lot of the drones to these one-way attack drones kamikaze drones for Russia's fight in in Ukraine. So again, all of these strings, you know, even if he wasn't thinking about it that way,

it's still intrinsically connected. But we know the president. We know the way that he looks at foreign policy. He absolutely understands the chess board and understands that these are the kind of things that, look, Russia might come down and sue for some kind of stability here as well because they don't want to see chaos and turmoil in a civil war right on their backyard.

Do you think, okay, so you hate to get ahead of your skis on what's happening with Iran, but understanding that these things are all connected in some way, let me ask you about two countries. What do you think is, what happens with Russia? Does this incentivize Russia in any way to seek peace in Ukraine? Well, it could. You know, the thing with Russia, though, is they're definitely seated in for a long war in Ukraine. They've made that signal very clear. They've made it very clear that they're not interested in really seeking a quick piece. They want their red lines. They've decided that they're going all in

terms of what they have decided is important for Russia's long-term future. And Putin looks as this as his legacy. He looks at his legacy of restoring Russia to great power status after the years of Yelton and the years of Russia being the old man of Europe and all this. So I don't know if it will definitely make them sue for peace. However, it could seriously impact their ability to make war if they lose connection to the Iranian drones. Right. We talked about that yesterday with Brett Belichovich here on the show that it's pretty shocking that those Iranian drones were of higher technological capability than what we're producing here at home, the one-way attack drones. That's just shocking to me. The way they're designed is it's just not the way we think. In the U.S., we think the biggest, the most capable,

the most powerful, what's the most advanced, you know, what's the smartest with AI and all the rest. Whereas in with Iran, with the Shaheds, they're basically thinking, you know, what's what's the dumbest, cheapest, fastest way that we can fight? And I've talked about this on human events as well, that, you know, dumb weapons can beat smart weapons if you have enough of them, right? It's cheaper because it gets into this war of attrition situation. And by the way, you know, President Trump has definitely been sort of, I should say, throw up. shade, as the kids say, at some of this saying that, you know, well, the United States has plenty of interceptors. The United States can go long, et cetera. But at the end of the day,

the facts of the matter still are what they are. Missile interceptors are very expensive, and these drones are very cheap. It's technological guerrilla warfare. It's like what's old is new again, just this time with drones. The other country I was going to ask about is Cuba. Like, it's kind of, do you, there's funny memes out, you know, Cuban leaders looking out their windshield, like from the Goodfellus scene where Henry Hides looking out his windshield looking for black helicopters. Do you think Cuba's on the agenda list? I don't know that they're a huge player in the grand strategy thing, but they are 90 miles off the coast of Florida. So, I mean, if you are Cuba, I do think you should be wondering the same question I'm asking you right now. Are we next?

I mean, I think yes. I would say they're on they're on the list. There's real questions as to what the efficacy of the Cuban regime is now. You've got, you know, we haven't had a Castro in power for a couple of years now. So for the first time ever since the revolution, there hasn't been, there's not a Castro in power. There are some talks going on behind the scenes between Marco Rubio and Castro's grandson. Obviously, we know the Secretary of State being Cuban himself. This is something that he's a long time been a focus of him. long time focus of his family, his community down there in Florida. Wouldn't surprise me at all as from a personal perspective, you know, I, I, uh, when I served, I actually spent a year at Guantanamo Bay. And so I've, I've spent time sort of in Cuba, but not really. We used to have it because you can't go off base. So we used to have this joke that, uh, Guantanamo Bay close, but no cigar get it. And, uh, you know, so I've always wanted to be able to, you know, I've always sort of

had that, that vision that you could be able to go back to have stable relations with Cuba. And Cuba would certainly benefit from better relations with the United States if they were able to actually open up their country to more liberal reforms and actually drop the totalitarian communism that they do have. I mean, you look at Cuba, it's totally stagnated from the 1950s. And yeah, there's a couple of resorts that the Canadians and the Brits go to on the, you know, on the west end of the island. But the rest of it is severely underdeveloped. And, you know, I actually remember saying that when we were on base, you know, we go down to the southern coast and say, guy. This is even before Trump came in, but it's similar to what he would say. You look at some of that

coastline, and it's just pristine, it's gorgeous, it's the Caribbean front, and there's nothing there. There's just nothing. And it could really be a beautiful place. Let's take a quick break, but continue this conversation over the war in Iran with Jack Posobic on Will Kane Country. Welcome back to Will Kane Country. We're still hanging out with the senior editor at Human Events and a contributor to Turning Point USA, Jack Posobic. All right. So here's the other country that everyone is talking about, Jack. And it's interesting in the way that it's both the left and the right, a segment of the right. And that country is, of course, Israel. It's like this entire debate over Iran becomes a proxy for the debate over Israel. And it becomes like, if you're skeptical of Israel, then you think they're driving American foreign policy. And then you ask, is this serving America? If you're supporter of Israel, on the other hand, then you ask no questions. and this is great and this is so forth. Rubio, I think we have this. We can play it.

This is Rubio, and this fed into, I don't know if this is a meta-debat or it's an overt debate in this entire thing over Iran. But here's Rubio. The president made the very wise decision. We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those cases. killed. And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that indeed.

You know, I think the, I don't know what your perspective is. I think the space that's left out of that debate over Israel is whether or not Israel interest and American interests can align and still serve America first. It seems to be that's the ground that people aren't willing to consider, right? It's either you got to be anti-Israel or pro-Israel, or what about this position as well where we can be partners when it serves America first? Yeah, and I think, look, I mean, I don't know if the Secretary of State would want to redo that statement or not there, but, you know, it does seem to, it certainly sounds like just on its face of it. It sounds on its face of it that the U.S. had to get involved because the junior partner in this relationship was going to take an action, and that would have involved, that would then fall back on us. By the way, this goes back to similar situations that happened guns of August.

And this is how World War I started, right? It was smaller partners getting involved in wars and getting involved in conflicts, and then it drew the larger powers in. So, I mean, these are historical conflagrations that have taken place in these dynamics because of military alliances and because of military partnerships that have gone in. We have seen things like this in the past. And that's the real danger here. The real ultimate danger is the risk of escalation and the risk of this spiraling into a wider regional war. And we are seeing elements of that, by the way, with the Saudi's. Qataris and the other Gulf states, the Emirati is coming online. Now, that being said, when you're

talking about the debate with Israel, look, there are times when Israel's interests and America's interests align, and there are times when they defer. So we just spent all this time talking about a stable Iran. But when it comes down to it, a stable Iran is in America's best interests in terms of the global strategy, a stable Iran plus, you know, this, you know, with more of a pro-America bent to it. You can actually go back and find. back in the 1950s. It's crazy. We throw the pictures up sometimes of Dwight D. Eisenhower, visiting Iran, and they've got like American flags flying. And it's like, wait a minute, that's Tehran. What's going on? Right. And it's, you know, that that's something that obviously

would be in America's best interest. But from Israel's perspective, they would be benefited from a more unstable Iran. They would be benefited from an Iran that's fighting itself that is then having these different groups, whether it's the Kurds, whether it's Mek, whatever opposition, the Azeris coming online, who knows, and vying for power in Iran because that speaks to their ability to maintain safety for their own state at home, because if Iran's fighting itself, then they can't power project to Hamas Hezbollah the rest. So there are times when they align, and then there are also going to be times where they defer. And case in point, that's why the objectives of this operational,

are so clear. I suppose it's our version of a special military operation. And that's why if we're just focused on nuclear program, that's what J.D. Vance said last night, then that's going to be totally different than Israel's focus because they are going for leadership. They're going for total change. They're going to want to stay longer. We are going to want to stay until the objectives are met. Right. That's such a great point. It makes me feel more validated. even in asking those questions yesterday, what is our objectives? Because to your, and Israel's in charge of the, the, the, we've said this. This is a bifurcated mission in some way. We are attacking missile capabilities. That's what we are doing. Israel is attacking on behalf of regime change. And I think this morning they, they killed five more or so in the succession lineage. And that difference in objectives will define the timeline. It's such a great point of how long are we committed. And are we committed to something that's beyond the affirmative answer of serving America first? Well, and that's where the president's going to draw the line.

And look, you know, I was, you know, I was asked this interview yesterday, and I'll say it again. Donald J. Trump is not George W. Bush. J.D. Vance is not Dick Cheney. And that's why when people try to draw these direct parallels to Iraq and Afghanistan, I say, oh, Rumsfeld said this. And then Pete Higgs-Seth said that, et cetera. Well, those are different people. They're different people at a different time with different lessons.

They remember what they said in 2024. Okay, this isn't like, you know, some big hoodwink, gotcha, you know, the mask is off kind of moment. No, they remember all of this, but they believe this is in America's best interest. The real question here is, and I think it's truthful, is when does the president decide when the operation is done? because Israel can't continue these operations longer than the United States is providing this ballistic missile defense. That's why, by the way, the Ford Strike Group is off the coast of Tel Aviv right now, because you've got not from the carrier itself, but from all the destroyers around it, you've got additional layers of defense to the Iron Dome.

But again, those stockpiles are finite. And as great as the United States is, realities, reality, physics or physics, you can't change those. They're very expensive. There's SM3 missile interceptors. Those air interceptors. They are a finite resource. The THAAD batteries, Patriot missile batteries. Again, there's only so many of those.

And by the way, we've sent a lot of those to Ukraine over the last couple of years since the war started. So already we're kind of playing catch up from behind. And so that's why this air war can only go on so long before we get to a point where, again, those dumb, you know, quote unquote dumb. Drones and rockets and missiles that Iran and their proxies have do eventually to start to become much more capable. Okay. Last thing for you, Jack, who knows?

Polling is all over the place. And again, we're like days into this war. I did see a Reuters poll today. It was like 40-something percent disapprove. I'm just roughing it here. 25 percent approve, 29 percent. don't know yet, don't know for sure on what we're doing in Iran. You bring up the generational divide and the MAGA divide.

What is your sense? And I think turning point, turning point is going to have great exposure to the younger generation and how they feel about this. What is your sense right now? And I think, I'm going to caveat this one more time. I think it's really difficult to know this early. And this is the kind of thing. This kind of goes back to my interview with General Keene.

Like the truth is in the early days, people don't love critical questions. It's like it's fly to flag time. And I get it. I'm ready to fly the flag, you know. But as time goes by, those questions become more compounded and important. So I don't know how much right now matters in how people feel, but it's going to matter sometime pretty soon. What's your sense of in MAGA on the right of how people feel about this? Well, I just go back to that there is this divide.

you know, it's it's very much age defined, not 100% age to find. I mean, you can always find, you know, certain examples where you're going to buck the trend where someone younger is super supportive, someone older who's super against, but at the same time, it, by and large, is this age divide. But I would say this. And I would offer as an example that if victory is achieved and victory is achieved quickly at a low cost, and by the way, I don't want to refer, I don't want to anyone to misconstrue that I'm saying that that's the six Americans who have been killed are a low

cost. I'm just saying that compared to Iraq and Afghanistan. Very clear about that. If it's come, if it comes in at a, at a much lower clip than what we saw in those forever wars, then I think President Trump is going to show the entire world that the United States could have been achieving this for years. And here's a guy who was a businessman that comes off of, you know, the private sector line, gets into government, who's never served in government and is better at foreign policy than all of the people who were supposed the supposed experts were. Because he didn't, didn't try these crazy schemes with pallets of cash and jic poas and iran nuclear deals he just went in punched him in the face and came up with a new deal and then came home so if he achieves victory

if he achieves victory victory is always popular there's no question about that victory is always popular with the american people i think venezuela is generally seen as popular i think that uh operation midnight hammer is seen as something that gives him credibility on the world stage to be able to do these things quickly, swiftly, smartly, and come home. All right. Last question for you, Jack. This is from a viewer. Okay.

Tracy Marie Ball. Please ask Jack if he plans to run for office before you get off this interview with him. It's important. Okay, Tracy, it's very important. Interview's not over. Jack, are you going to run for office? What can I say? I love what I do.

I love what I do every day. That's a yes. I know how to read. answers. But there are there are times when when I see the people of Pennsylvania calling out for better leadership. Well, John Federman's been kind of okay lately. So, you know, I don't know. Normally I would say Federman's a good shot, but I don't know. But then again, Josh Shapiro, oh, I just can't stand that Josh Shapiro. So, uh, wait, wait, I'm trying to figure out your threshold, Jack. So Senator and Governor, that's, are you, is congressman? Is that no,

too many congressmen? You got to go. Well, the problem is I'm from, I'm from the wrong part of Pennsylvania for that, right? So I'm from, I'm from like the southeast where it's more, where you have more like blue and purple kind of districts, whereas it's like the T of the Pennsylvania, right, is the middle is, you know, is where all the red is. And I'm just not from that part. Right. So then you got to go statewide is your point. Exactly. So not that I've looked at this at all. I don't know idea what you're talking about. Tracy, I think you got your answer. All right, Jack, so senior editor at human events and contributor to Turning Point USA. Always good to see you, Jack.

Thanks for the time. God bless, man. Thanks, well. All right, take care. All right, coming up. Yes, my interview with General Jack Keene. You want to hear just one? You want to hear just one of the responses?

Where is it, Patrick? It's right here. Hold on, I got it. I thought I had it because this is a good one. Your views technology? Yeah, right here. Sirs. I presume that's to you two

I don't know Maybe to the Murdox It appears Will Kane Show is leaning way left And should be on CNN not Fox I'm changing channels I'm very disappointed Ralph Mason How dare

I mean this one genuinely confuses me Like I am leaning way left By what definition I'm just curious Ralph Ralph curious. Pat blames it on me. You're muted, Patrick. By what definition? Like,

trying to clarify the objective? You can talk about it. Is a lefty thing to do? Yes. Yes, it is. Go ahead, Patrick. That's left. Oh. Yes. Yeah. Clarifying the mission. Asking questions. Who wants to ask questions?

The left. Thank you. I do. Thank you. It's a little broader. than clarifying the mission. We're too simple. If you can go on after morning Joe next time.

Me and Will are, you know, coming to a middle socialist. All right. I'll tell you what. We're going to address all of this. There was a lot more. I saw it. Don't worry, everybody. I saw it. We'll get to that. Behind the scenes of the General Jack Keene interview

coming up on Will Kane country. Every single day, thousands of women hear the same devastating lie. That abortion is their only option, that they're alone, that there's no hope. But everything changes the moment a mother in crisis walks into a pre-born network clinic and sees her baby on an ultrasound. That's one moment, that one moment, it doubles her chance of choosing life. Because it's not just an image on a screen, it's hearing her baby's heartbeat, maybe for the very first time. And in that moment, she realizes the life

growing inside her is not a problem to be solved. It's a life to be protected. Let's be there for her in that beautiful moment with love, prayer, and support. One pre-born partner, put it this way. Knowing my gift could save a life was the most meaningful act of love I could give. So for just $28, you can partner with my friends at preborn and provide one life-saving ultrasound. $140 provides five ultrasounds and five chances for life. This year, let's make it the biggest baby-saving year in history. Take a stand. Be bold. Speak for those. who can't speak for themselves. Call pound 250 and say baby.

That's pound 250 and say baby. Or visit preborne.com slash freedom. That's preborn.com slash freedom. Behind the scenes of our interview on Fox News, coming up next on Will Kane Country. Disappointed. Everyone is more than disappointed with my interview with General Jack King yesterday on Fox News. It is Wilcane Country.

at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page. We'd love it if you follow us on Spotify or on Apple. Ten full pat, two a day stand here. Okay, I'd say in six years at Fox News, this is absolutely the most negativity I've ever received pretty much over anything that I've ever said. I cannot go beyond that because I was on ESPN for five years. And there was some... There was one thing.

some broad huh there's one thing that could outshine this on ESPN yeah on ESPN what was it you know what I'm talking about certain pay gap situation

there's so many no that just went viral that wasn't that wasn't like a yeah I don't think this is the same this actually wasn't that viral this isn't that viral it was on the Irish star mega viral

they wrote an article about it I don't know what that is it's their Irish newspaper really You made it. It's international. This is an international situation. Yeah.

It's an international incident. No. I mean, if I tried to think of my most negative moment on ESPN, it would probably be, I don't know, there's so many. Towards Kellerman. Maybe Kevin Durand. It was all the Dallas Cowboys stuff. Going to the White House? No.

It was definitely not that. It was definitely not that. Yeah, it was Kellerman and Stephen A. when Kevin Durant, I can't remember now if he chose to visit the White House or not visit the White House under Trump. Maybe Bubba Wallace. Could have been Bubba Wallace? I don't know. But this was overwhelming. Facebook, X, email, poor Patrick's receiving all the emails, YouTube. And the general sentiment is that I was disrespectful to the general.

general. Okay. Now, it's interesting to me that I was disrespectful while saying I respect him. But trust me when I say this, I do not think that my performance was by any means perfect and full of its own faults, which I'm ready, willing, and capable of analyzing. But first, for anyone that didn't see it, this is how it went down. I asked the general, you know, because I want to know the objective of the mission. I think when you ask that question, people think that means you doubt that there is an objective or you think that there isn't objective. No, but that's, I just, I don't think that has been clearly answered.

I truly don't think that's been clearly answered. That doesn't mean I don't think there's an objective. In fact, I do think there's an objective, one that they're not saying out loud. But I think that we also have a right to ask, a duty to ask, what is the objective? Because of what we just talked about, Jack Posobic. We can't, A, have mission creep,

B, repeat the mistakes of the past. C, I don't think we will because I trust the men in charge. But I think Jack made a great point. D, about junior partners reshaping the objective as we go, and then therefore we get wrapped up into things that we didn't originally intend. So it's very good to be clear at the outset. This is the objective. So I asked that. He ends.

Timing. Which part? Timing. Questioning it right after it happens. People don't want to hear it right away. I totally agree. I totally agree. I don't know that that makes me wrong, Dan.

There are things that I did wrong. That doesn't make me wrong. Not at all. Because you have to ask now, what's the point in asking it when you're three weeks down the road? Right. Like now's when it matters. But I also understand people's feelings, and they don't feel that way right now. They feel, as I do, like we're badass and patriotic.

But the general said he thought the objective was very clear. He kind of was, you know, real pointed with me. I think it's pretty clear. I don't still, even after the answer. And this is how it went down. So that is the mission here. It's pretty clear. Well, it's not 100% clear to me, General.

And that's not to suggest that I don't support 100% what is happening, nor that I 100% offer my support. I just think I want to ask a couple of critical questions. And I hope you know how much respect I have for your service. And I think it goes without saying to anybody watching how much respect I have for the men making's decision. You don't have to patronize me. Just ask the question. Go ahead. Come on. Ask it. To be clear, General, I'm not patronizing you. I'm trying to have a very serious conversation in front of the American people. The men making these decisions have my utmost respect. This is less about you than everybody making these decisions. And this is about the American people understanding the investment that lies before them. Do we understand the objectives? We've seen the price in the past of having unclear objectives. And maybe you do and maybe the Secretary of War does, but I think the American people also need to understand. All right. So from there, it actually, I would say, went better, right?

Meaning we just had a normal exchange back and forth. I clarified, does this require boots on the ground? He said he doesn't think so. And then at the end of the interview, General Keene said this. I tried to play games with it and try to make it clear. And we've done that in the past. And we're not doing that here. Well, I appreciate that. I one hundred percent appreciate that. And I think it also, though, puts it incumbent upon the ability to ask and answer these questions. And I, you know, I'll, I appreciate you spending some time with me today to address some of these questions. Thank you, General. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I barked at you. That's all right, Jim. I think for the General and everybody else watching, I think these are times from questions are critical. I think the general has the utmost capability of answering those questions, as do many of the people making these decisions. You know, that was awesome of him to, and I think he was sincere when he apologized. And that's like the second time I've heard that.

And he goes, it's my fault, you know. He didn't just give me an obligatory apology. He said, you know, I shouldn't have done that. It's my fault. Well, everybody, at least 95%, thinks I was disrespectful to the general. Here's what I don't think I was disrespectful to the general. I certainly never meant respect. I was actually offering my respect.

The other word I keep hearing is his word, patronizing. Maybe that was patronizing? I don't know. I don't get it. Would you do this for me? Look up the, we'll look up the definition of patronizing. Isn't it like, isn't it like giving unnecessary or fake compliments or something like that? Apparently kind or helpful, but betraying a feeling of superiority, condescending.

Well, I definitely don't think I was condescending. I didn't feel condescending or superior. Now, here's where I fail. When he said that, I will tell you I got, yes, I got my hair up a little bit because it's like, whoa, why are you personally going after me? Like, I'm not doing this. And so my face changed. My tone changed. I was a more aggressive, I think.

Or I don't even think I was aggressive because watching it back, I was, what is the word? pointed? I was kind of pointed. Was I defensive maybe? And I wagged my finger. You should never wag your finger. I didn't wag it. I raised my finger. And these are all failures of communication on my behalf. And I have to recognize no matter what it was intended, what is received is something different. And if 95% of the comments think and feel a certain way about the way that I was received, that's on me. It's not on the 95% of people that saw it a certain way. And I had a failure of communication there. That is without a doubt. As to whether or not I'm a lefty or this, that, that, I don't even know what to do with that. I don't know what to do that. I'm a, I'm, I'm,

somebody who I feel like is very emblematic of the entire right for the past 20 years. And I didn't just abandon it all of a sudden because my friends and, um, my country is going a certain direction, which by the way, I'm not against. I don't know if that has to, I'm just like, hey, let's just be clear. So we're, we win. I want to win. What's a win? Let's define a win. I would do that in anything, in a sports game. You know, if you got in a fight with somebody and they tell you, well, this guy, he said, this, this, this and this about you, right? That's kind of, this is what Iran's done for 47 years. That's a rationale, but that's not an objective. There's a difference between a rationale and an objective. Like, you still want to have a

clear objective. And that's what I'm trying to get to. I don't have any idea how that makes me a lefty. you know, I shouldn't have gotten defensive. I shouldn't have gotten, you know, when he said I was being patronizing, I shouldn't have been so displeased with that. But I'll give you a taste. I think you guys didn't send me enough negativity, to be quite honest. We wanted to...

It really shouldn't have been hard. It's our fault. Well, we wanted to, you know, protect you a little bit. What do you mean protect me? I'm just kidding. There's no... I mean, it was pretty much the same thing. over and over again.

It was the same thing over again. Okay, here we go. Here's a good one. Alexander Royale says, you yelled at a general. That's why. Show some respect. Really? I yelled at a general?

I don't think I yelled. I've heard Will yell and it's not yelling. I mean, I'm really open to that. You don't yell. Self-criticism, but I don't think I yelled at him. I wonder if Will Kane puts his phone any close. to his face when reading it. Yeah, I do. I hold it close. This is just general attack will day. Fine. Yes. Jason. I just thought that was funny. My left eye does all the eye up close. Do you think glasses?

You have the one eye that sees far away. Yeah, but the doctor told me this is, yes, but the doctor told me this is what people ask for when they get corrective LASIC. So it's like, he's like, why do you want to change it? Like one eye does all the up close and one eye does all the far away. So yeah, I got to hold it a little close on the one eye. Suzanne Nico, regular member of the Willis, she says, I will say it was nice at the general. Apologized for jumping on Will. Most people wouldn't do that in real time.

I agree. It was super big of him to do that. Christine said, Will handled the patronizing comment very well. He must not have liked the question. Will was asking for all of us. Thanks, Will. I appreciate that. Go ahead, Dan.

I think General Keene was like a little, just like, get to it. Get to it. Like, I don't know as much about the patronizing point. That was a lot of criticism. It was TV, Will. You only have four minutes, digummit. Yeah.

You know? You want to be cut off like Tell me. Well, I didn't have four minutes. I blew through all the, they wrapped me so many times. Like,

I'm not wrapping. But I think you was just like, I think he was just being a little like, come on, get to the appointment, kid, you know. It could be. I saw a lot of criticism of me

on that front that I asked long, drug out questions. Which at that, but at that point it wasn't a question. Now it's like, okay, we're having a conversation. I'm telling you I'm not be patronizing.

This is why I'm asking this question. and following up on it. Joshua Egnor says, I voted for a president with some balls that others didn't have. And Patty Smith said, from all your comments and your show, you seem to be leaning towards forever.

I don't know what that means. Forever War. Leaning towards forever? Forever War? I'm leaning towards Forever War? Apparently. I want Forever War? Apparently.

Emmanuel Kipps check on Facebook says Trump thinking war is the solution. while Charlene Hansen says he got rid of the evil dictator. Anyway, the long and short of it is. I mean, I definitely failed yesterday. No. I think people watch that and they saw General Keene,

which I have very much respect for, and I probably shouldn't say that because he's going to think it's patronize him. But see, I did it because I felt like I had to also. So I get where you're coming from and why you said that yesterday. Very much so. And I think they took what he said and he said patronizing. So that's stuck in their head. Like, wow, he's been around.

He's a general, you know, he's correct. And I think that's what really stuck in their head. And they didn't want to hear what you had to say anyways. So I think the combination of the two really created that 95%. Well, and my tone. and my face I had resting forever war face

Can I see a question about the behind the scenes a little bit? So after that segment happened and you went to break did our wonderful producers at the show like say anything to you or did you say anything to them or was it just kind of like let's move on?

Oh I mean I definitely said something to them I was like I can't remember what I said but I will be honest so if you guys really want to know how I do I saw the negativity almost immediately. You look at it. And my perspective is share it. Share it immediately.

Be open, be transparent, be like I always try to be authentic. So, I mean, and I have to advocate for that. I think the instincts are different because I'm a little different than people on this. Like if you say something negative or disagree with me, I want to address it. I want to either own it or rebut it. right and so at the end of the show you know we put up some of the comments says like will cane is a punk and uh it was another one or two i can't remember but like i want to own it i mean this is what also why we're having this conversation right now i don't think i handled that perfectly

i don't think i did that exactly right i don't think the substance of what i was doing was wrong whatsoever i definitely wasn't trying to be disrespectful i did get defensive when i was called patronizing um and the general apologized and you know I'm sure in his mind that was that. It's over. I didn't think he thought Twitter twice about it at all. He's probably not reading the comments. I think he'd be upset that people are getting upset at you.

Maybe. Definitely. I don't know. I do find it interesting that a lot of the people outside of the audience who was mad at me, like the people on X who are grabbing it are the agenda behind them and their position on this war, I think undercuts their arguments for the war. Sure. Do you know what I mean?

Like, these are very legitimate questions. They just are. And I think a lot of these people are talking. And if you think, and shutting down questions like that, and that's not with the audience. The audience didn't like the way I did it. That's different. And they have a legitimate perspective, the audience. The others are shutting down the questions.

They're doing it because of the substance of it. And that's super suspect to me. Like it's suspect to shut whether or not it was COVID or war or whatever. If you shut down the questions, we got a problem. We just have a problem. That means there's something more. And we're just well past that. I think in America, just somehow questions are wrong to ask on very, very important issues.

I mean, I thought we all learned that. I thought we all did. I thought we all thought that. And we're on the same side on that. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe that means I'm a lefty ready for CNN. For the record, I would apologize for my tone and my defensiveness. And I would do that differently.

Probably not a whole lot else. And that's what it is when you, I guess, watch this show and the other. All right. And for the record, I appreciate all of you, even those that are super mad at me. Constructive criticism. Thank you. That's going to do it for us today here on Will Kane Country. We'll see you again, same time, same place tomorrow. Listen ad free with a Fox News Podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts and Amazon Prime members. You can listen to this show ad free on the Amazon Music app.