Will Cain Country - Operation Epic Fury: Trump’s Plan to End Iran Threat (ft. Brett Velicovich)

Episode Date: March 2, 2026

After weeks of negotiations, the U.S. military carried out a decapitating strike against Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and at least 40 other top officials. Former Special Ops Intel and Fox News Contributor Brett Velicovich helps Will unpack the latest developments in Operation ‘Epic Fury,’ explaining the Iranian regime's 40+ year history of undermining U.S. interests, the critical role drones now play on the battlefield, and most importantly, what happens next.Plus, Will and The Crew see what the Willitia has to say about the situation in Iran and discuss whether the criticism of these actions comes from a place of legitimate concern or just anti-Americanism.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

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk, business. When the weather cools down, Golden Nugget Online Casino turns up the heat. This winter, make any moment golden and play thousands of games like her new slot Wolf It Up and all the fan-favorite huff and puff and puff games. Whether you're curled up on the couch or taking five between snow shovels, play winner's hottest collection of slots, from brand new games to the classics you know and love. You can also pull up your favorite table games like blackjack, roulette, and craps, Or go for even more excitement with our library of live dealer games.

Download the Golden Nugget Online Casino app, and you've got everything you need to layer on the fun this winter. In partnership with Golden Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem call ConX Ontario at 1-866-531-2600. 19 and over. Physically present in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. See Golden Nugget Casino.com for details.

Please play responsibly. Iran, a powerful display of American badassery. Everyone likes seeing America kick ass. But for how long? regime change is a stated goal in Iran. But to what cost? We break down. The War with Iran today on Wilcane Country.

It is Wilcane Country streaming live at the Wilcane Country YouTube channel, the Wilcane Facebook page, but always here for you at Spotify or on Apple. 2,000 pound bombs dropping from B2 bombers. Tomahawk missiles launched from American carriers. The United States has launched war on Iran. The Supreme Leader Ayatollahom. and top 40 officials have been eliminated. And what's being described as one of the world's most accomplished decapitation efforts in modern warfare.

But what does it mean about the long-term future of the United States and the Middle East? What does it say about our investment, our involvement, and the potential for another quagmire this time in Iran? And what does it say about the overarching strategy? Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Russia, in dealing with the ultimate enemy, China. Ten foils, Pat, two a days, Dan, hanging out with us here today on Will King Country. There is a lot out there floating around in the conversation. There is criticism, obviously from the left. criticism from the right. And there is concern. But one thing I want to start this conversation with is when it comes to the criticism, I have a little trouble, fellas. It's like, look, Bridget Fetasy, who's a friend of the program here and who is a comedian who often appears on Joe Rogan experience said, I don't care if you're left, right, or center. But if you are anti-American, I'm against you. And okay, this is where like,

words and propaganda starts come into play. What does it mean to be anti-American? But I have noticed, and I don't want to over-index the conversation as it takes place on X, but I have noticed that I feel like the criticism of American action has veered away from skepticism or conservatism. What I mean by that is let's be careful. Let's be full of wisdom as we take our next steps into the, this conversation wherein we're always the bad guy. And of course, that's come to be expected from the left, literally in the moments before the United States takes military action in Iran.

The people are on the streets of New York. The signs have been printed. They're by the same organizations that turn out against ICE. It's fast. And that paid protest is inherently answer. American because the cause is fungible. The cause doesn't matter. As long as you are on the other

side of America. And I don't have a lot of tolerance for no, on the other side of this particular regime. You guys have seen. Have you not seen? And it's not just from crazy commentators like, we need regime change in America. Like, I'm seeing that from people

who I just can't recall at the top of my head, but Patrick, you could probably, I mean, I feel like I'm seeing that from the type of people that used to have national television platforms, either as a guest with some regularity or as a host. I'm not just talking about the Keith Overman's of the world, but I'm talking about people who were taken seriously saying things like we need regime change in America. But the point that I'm getting to ultimately is it's not just coming from the expected

corners of the left. I'm seeing that from elements of the right, or if not the right, people who supported President Donald Trump, say, in 2020 or definitely in 2024. And now all of a sudden, they're saying this is not what we signed up for, which is a legitimate conversation to have about the validity of this next military action. But it's veering into, why is it in your characterization, America is always the bad guy? It doesn't matter what we do. We are always the bad guy. And when I start seeing that and feeling that and hearing that, I don't think you are a voice that I have that much interest in hearing from anymore. And I'm seeing that. I'm seeing that from some of the people that I feel like you're a big fan of, Patrick. I'm not a fan of anybody, Will. I don't put

people on pedestals. No, you were more accurate with your first statement. I think you have an active dislike of everybody, a general malevolence, a distaste. What's the word that's escaping me right now. It's really difficult to be the man of the people, you know, the voice in the chat, but also just not like people at all. I just don't want to be around. People like you, though. What do you call like

an old person that kind of hates everybody? Not grump. Crumagin. Like, yeah, we're close. We're close. A malcontent. Is it a malcontent? That's a $5 word.

Is this a general malcontent? No. It sounds right. Kermudgeon? Do you get what I'm getting at, Patrick, though, beyond your general malcontent nature? I feel like there's this prevalent anti-Americanism that is bled over from the left into the right. I would agree. Because like there's a...

I'm rooting for Iran. You know, and you know what? Let's get to it. I think it has to do with Israel. If we're being honest, this attitude towards Israel. That's it. So you think that's all of it? You think it's added on the left and the right?

For the left, a lot of it. That's what I've seen is why are we helping Israel, you know, be the aggressor? That was like the number one thing I saw. From the left and the right. Okay. You know, we've had these conversations on this show, and we've had very open dialogue about whether or not the United States is always acting in America first and whether or not an ally, even a strong ally like Israel, should be,

driving a policy that doesn't answer that question. You some saying, like, Israel's interest in our interest won't always be one and the same. And that is a legitimate conversation that needs to constantly be had and asked. But significant percentage of the right have moved farther in that Israel is always wrong. And therefore, if we're on the side of Israel in any particular action, we are the bad guys. We are in the wrong or we are captured. And it's like, okay, first of all, what are we doing? Why are we in Iran?

Why are we dropping bombs in Iran? And I would argue there's two main reasons. Okay, there's two main reasons. One I find more compelling than the other. I'll ask you to which one you think I find more compelling. Number one, because Iran for decades has been an open and avowed enemy to the United States of America. Rhetorically, yes, of course, every single one of us have seen the death to America chance. More than that, there's the multiple bombings of Beirut in 1983, driven by Iranian proxies that killed almost 300 American soldiers, 241 Marines in one particular action in 1983.

They captured a station chief of the CIA in 1983, tortured him to death. Every soldier who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan will tell you that when they encountered the enemy, the enemy was almost always armed when they're at their more sophisticated level. with Iranian weapons, Iranian bombs, Iranian munitions, that Iran was the man behind the curtain in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And so Iran has been playing the role of not just antagonist, but open aggressor to the United States on levels that this should be no surprise. I think there's very legitimate questions about how much they've tried to assassinate President Trump. How much they have been involved in the assassination attempts of President Trump. So that's one reason.

The stated reasons are their nuclear proliferation, were they continuing to build their nuclear proliferation back with the negotiating in good faith and that kind of thing. But then there's the second reason, I believe, and that is this is all about China. All of this. The global chess board is being manipulated by President Trump and his administration and take a look around. from taking out Nicholas Maduro and taking Venezuelan oil supplies off the market to China, and then now doing the same thing with Iran. That's 20% of the Chinese oil supply, which they were buying at a discount.

They still have the ability to get oil from Russia and other places. And I did see a study. They're moving more and more into renewables, which is going to make China even more popular with the left. I mean, solar and wind. But we'll soon see what happens with Cuba. President Trump is clearly maneuvering the chess board in a way that favors the United States in any potential conflict with China. And putting us back on the front foot in a way where we weren't so, we're not so reactive as we have been over the past five to six years. Which one of those two do you think is the more compelling America first answer for me?

I think it's the second one about China, because I have to believe that what we see about what's happening with Iran, we don't know everything. What you believe about Donald Trump, whether you like them or not, it doesn't matter. They have the information. They know what's going on around the world. They know what they need to do for us. And I like to believe that. And, you know, people can push back and left might not. Be careful.

You don't think, you're saying the podcasters might not know more. Yeah. I'm pretty sure they don't know more. than the President of the United States. You know, I say that dismissively because it is funny on its face. But that doesn't mean just because all of a sudden we know the Secretary of War, we know the President of the United States, that these people who have the power don't deserve to be questioned. Of course they deserve to be questioned. And listen, we live in an age today when everything is conspiratorial.

The projection of competence onto everyone you might disagree with is insane. Like even Patrick, right? Anybody that does something that you disagree with, you are granting them that they are geniuses. Like capable of secrecy and manipulation at levels of unimaginable. When the truth is, most mistakes are from incompetence, not competence. And the main thing that drives incompetence is hubris. When we went into Iraq, I believe it was then the Secretary of Defense said, this was a war of weeks, not months. And of course, it was a war that lasted decades. So hubris

is the place that you look for the mistake. And so even on this, what I believe is in America first goal of repositioning the global chessboard away from China toward the United States, always needs to be analyzed and the administration needs to be questioned as to how big of an element is hubris in this entire thing. What I will say, so for example, I'm not saying this will happen. But in World War II, the United States cut off the oil supplies to Japan. We put an embargo on oil going to Japan, tried to control Japan through economic measures. That was such an existential threat to Japan that it basically kicked off them attacking Pearl Harbor. You box a tiger into the corner, what does the tiger do? So how much can we box China in before

they react aggressively is a great question, and we need to always be put to the test of hubris. It's the major human flaw. But it's more that than conspiratorial. It's more that than extreme competence. It's more that than the United States is a captured regime to Israeli interests. That's why we're once again in the Middle East. But let's ask this with somebody who knows a lot more than us. Brett Velikovic is the founder of Poweris.

He's a former Special Ops Intel, Fox News contributor. And he joins us now. Brad, can we start 30,000 feet? What is the point of what we're doing in Iran? Well, I think at this point, we've just had enough. I mean, the Iranians have been attacking us right now for decades. They've been at war with us covertly for years. I remember when I was in Baghdad, Iraq, I saw soldiers right in front of me get killed by Iranian bombs. We were not at war with them. We were at war with al-Qaeda, but yet they were at war with us. And they continued being at war with us. And I think the administration finally had enough.

They proved America is done playing nuclear roulette with the Iranian regime. You just don't negotiate anymore with hostile terrorist nations that openly defy international norms. And I've said it time and time again, you can only deter them by using overwhelming strength. That is the language that the Iranians understand. and prior administrations didn't do anything about it. And I think that's what we're seeing today. Iran was also warned, by the way, that this was coming multiple times. They didn't listen.

President Trump chose diplomacy as the first tool, Will, not the last tool. And I think the world needs to acknowledge that. He exhausted nearly every single diplomatic effort to even the very last minute before this military operation. But Iran, as usual, chose defiance over peace. They continued to play games as if the U.S. wasn't paying attention, as if all of a sudden we've turned our backs on their decades of evil, as if our intelligence services didn't see them trying to reconstitute their nuclear program in secret or build long-range missiles that were designed to kill Americans.

And, well, Iran's regime has a 40-year plus track record of pushing right up to the line and then betting that the United States is not going to respond. That gamble probably worked when administrations issued these warnings without any follow-through, but not today. I think today's proof that we're not going to abandon our red lines anymore. We're going to enforce them. with overwhelming military might. And we're going to ensure that they're incapable of doing this again.

Okay. Well, the stated goal of President Trump is regime change. I had General David to portray us on yesterday. He confirmed. He said, yeah, I mean, the goal is regime change. I'm just putting this through like some level of critical thinking. Brett, when I follow up, would that, okay, if I take your premise that we've had enough, we've just had enough.

And so now we're done playing this game with you, Aram. Does that necessitate regime change? Couldn't we have continued in Operation Midnight Hammer type of actions and continued to just suppress, suppress, suppress, Iran? Is cutting the head off the snake necessary to be done with Iran? Do you see what I'm saying? Like, because we do have to acknowledge. No, it's a good point.

regime change is a big, it's a big one. Regime change is a big one. We all know what happened in Iraq. We all know what happened in Afghanistan. I don't think anyone wants that, but we have to be honest with who we're dealing with. And the fact is that the Iranian people, they want change. They want freedom. And when the Iranian people fear their own rulers, like the Ayatollah, more than the U.S. military,

I think that's when it's time to do something. That's when freedom begins to win. And the fact is that you've had these hardliners at the top that act as if they're speaking for the Iranian people. But that's just not the case when you talk to the average person out there. They hate their own oppressive rulers more than anyone else. And when the Ayatollah was killed, we're looking right now at a potential collapse of the pillars that have kept this very violent anti-American regime in power. That could finally create real space for real change inside Iran.

That's potentially going to leave the freedom for millions of people. The Ayatollah is more than just a religious figure. He was the mastermind behind a revolutionary regime that crushed protesters, young men and women who just wanted freedom. And they backed terrorist aggression across the region. This is a man who spent more than 35 years backing terror proxies from Hezbollah to Hamas, threatening America, our allies at every turn. And I think people finally now have the opportunity to rise up and do something about it. Don't let critics tell you that this military action was reckless. I don't think this is going to be some sustained long year-end campaign. But yes, the fact is that the Middle East dynamic now has

change. Global power has shifted. This was very calculated. It was strategic and it was necessary. We're not out there anymore to start random wars. We're out there to dismantle threats before they reach our shores. And we have to cut the head off the snake to do that so that we can actually affect real, real change. Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Kane Country. Keep up to date with the very latest in Iran. Follow and listen to the Fox News hourly update podcast. and dive deep with the Fox News Rundown Podcast. Get them now at Fox News Podcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.

This is Ainsley-Airhart. 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 foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Complete coverage of the latest in Iran continues on Fox News Radio.

And listen to Brian Kilme. Fox Across America with Jimmy Fela, Will Kane, and Guy Benson. Download the Fox News app and click listen. Okay. I want to come back to how long. You said this won't be a real long. I hope you understand. I'm not arguing with you.

I am asking questions that I hope are important questions that people are asking of themselves, you know, as well. So the thing you just said, which I just, for the record, I agree with you. The Iranian people, the Persian people, they're not the same. as the Iraqi people, certainly not the same as the Afghans. They have a history of a civilization that was much more advanced prior to 1979. The appetite for, I will use this word, but I'm a little hesitant to use it, but the appetite for democracy seems to be a bit higher than it would be in some place like Iraq, and again, certainly more so than Afghanistan. But I am a little hesitant because we heard similar things in those places. The people want this. The people want

this. And the question is, on the hubris front, you probably heard me talking about it ahead of time, like, we're not, we haven't been good at this, Brett, of what comes next. We just haven't been that good. We're good at taking out what is, not good at anticipating or controlling what is next. And so the how long thing you introduced and the regime change element of this, it's like, okay, I have no doubt that in the matter of a couple of weeks, we can totally neuter the existing regime or destroy it. But what next? Right. No, it's it's a great point. I think you're right. We've been bad at that. I think the difference is hopefully we are not putting humans and boots on the ground because that then becomes more of this religious fight where people potentially will come just to try and kill Americans

from being on Arab land. That is something that I think was a major mistake. And I Iraq and Afghanistan, so I'm hoping we can do a lot of this from the air, because there has been a complete structural shock to the regime, right? Their internal system in Iran, it's highly centralized around the Supreme Leader. I don't think President Trump, he had an opportunity, I believe, to kill the Ayatollah many months ago when the Israelis, you know, we're doing stuff in there. He chose not to because this is a religious leader. And it's very difficult to understand what is going to happen religiously with Shiites out there and potentially getting them to rise up against us because we've removed him.

So that is something that is uncertain. Removing that node, it just creates this uncertainty across the board inside the clerical establishment, across the proxy networks. I think the key question here is not emotion. It's command and control. Who gives the orders? Who controls escalation? That uncertainty will either fracture the regime or trigger a major retaliation.

And that's the strategic moment we're in. And I've said before there was no doubt that the Israelis probably knew exactly where he was. Trump said no. He chose restraint. But at this time now, you know, we are in a situation where there are a lot of unknowns. And it's tough to say how they are going to respond. But regardless, I think that this was necessary. and, you know, again, the Iranian people, I go back to them.

There's images of them celebrating. Okay, I want to come back to the Iranian people in a minute, but you're talking about the what next in the short term. I was actually talking about the what next in the long term, like what type of government should we be completely successful in this operation, and I have no doubt that we will be. What type of government fills the vacuum? Let's stick with the short term, which you kind of introduced there.

Okay, from my position, you take out like 40 of the top leaders, and we've hit IRGC, Revolutionary Guard, headquarters. We've hit thousands of targets. Like, how degraded do you think that they are at this point from a command and control structure? I think they're in complete disarray. I mean, they formed a three-member council yesterday after the Ayatollah was killed. It was made up of these clerics because they have no idea necessarily how to control what's going on. The regime is scrambling.

This is unprecedented chaos in the Islamic Republic. There was no smooth succession. Who's calling ballistic missile? Who's launching? Who's launching? Who's giving orders? You still have generals. Okay.

Right now they're conducting the war? The Soleimani's of the world. There were a lot of other coulds force officers who were in charge that still have that mindset that they will fight to the death for this regime. And they are seeking revenge. The old guard right now. now in Iran is desperately trying to cling on. They're vowing revenge, but that decapitation strike,

it really cracked their main foundation wide open. I don't know who's left. Their leadership's in disarray. And Trump's right. The Iranian people right now, it's their greatest chance to take back their country. But you're going to have these Kuds Force officers running around, not just in Iran, but with all their proxy groups

that we've been following for years, lighting off Shahid drones, firing missiles, and we have to be careful, right, about their response. Iran still does have some asymmetric tools. They've got proxy militias in Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and Lebanon, cyber capabilities, maritime disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. But the risk right now is not this big conventional war. I think it's this distributed retaliation, right?

Iran likely will continue to use their proxy groups, which are managed by these Kuds Force officers to launch Shahid attacks. I will tell you I'm very surprised that some of these drones are penetrating defenses. That's very surprising to me because we shut them down completely when they did a counterattack against Israel months ago. And now it does seem some of them are getting through. But I think the U.S. military expected this. Their posture is designed to blunt that with missile defense, rapid response aviation,

drone coverage. The next 72 hours is about this force protection and it's about deterrence signaling. And I think the Iranians are going to have a limited response because the command and control is in disfrey. Let's talk offense and defense on that for just a moment. So let's stick with defense because you just talked about what you described as disorganized. I think that's a fair word, fractured retaliatory response. It seems like we're best positioned to deal with the ballistic missile response, the big warfare response. What seems like the hardest for us, and this is in your area of expertise, is the drone stuff, the low and slow, below radar, ability of some of these drones to get through.

What is the defense capability on that? Like, you don't, do you shoot those down? Is it drone warfare? We launch our own drones to try to intercept them? Is it, is it cyber attack trying to disrupt their signals? Like, how does that work in keeping a drone from hitting one of our ships in the sea? It's a bit of everything. There's no one-size-fits-all solution. It's very expensive. The Iranians are firing drones that probably cost $20,000 with 100 kilograms of payload and we're shooting them down with million-dollar missiles. But what comforts me, I'll tell you, is that I think leading up to this, our leaders built in the background of the action, the most formidable and largest American military force in decades in that region. Aircraft carrier strike groups, warships, our most advanced fighter jets, long-range attack drones were used. for one of the first times, surveillance assets.

That's more firepower than Tehran has ever seen. Not because we want war, but because peace through strength is the only piece at last. And when it comes to these Shahid drones, one of the issues I will tell you is that Iran has learned a lot from the war in Ukraine. They've been providing their drones to Russia. They've learned how to add counter-drone equipment onto these things,

how to add electronic warfare for very cheap and very low-scale. They are producing these things. mass. So they have thousands of these. And they are difficult to shoot down now because they're not just flying in the air without some sort of countermeasures, which used to be the case many years ago. They are constantly iterating on this technology. They're able to get around jamming. And I think we're starting to see that. So from a defensive standpoint, the drone angle worries me the most. Like I can't imagine. Yeah, let's stick with the drone. I can't imagine their technology, even though they've been testing and trialing in Ukraine. So have we. I mean,

and I mean, we've got Andrew. We've got Palantir. We've got, I like, I have to imagine we're every bit of, you'd be surprised how limited our drone capability is. What, what is? And even with some of the companies you mentioned, I'll tell you, have, I've personally seen issues with those at war. But that's another, that's for another story. But what I will tell you, is one thing that was really impressive. Are they superior? Are they superior to us in their drone warfare? When it comes to long-range, one-way attack drones, absolutely.

We outclass them when it comes to surveillance, predators, reapers, 60,000 feet and up capabilities, stealth technology, we outclass them. But the reality is that we only have so many of those in our arsenal. We need long-range, one-way attack. that's what the Iranians have perfected because they've had to do it on the cheap. Now, I don't know if you've paid attention, but you may have heard about what's called the Lucas system, which was used for the first time to strike Iranian targets. Let me tell you what's so impressive about that. The U.S. basically stole Iranian Shah-head technology that was downed in

Ukraine and reverse engineered it, built it in America, and then sent it back to strike the very regime that initially built that. So we got pretty smart when it came to using their technology against them. It's wild that we would have to do that, Brett. It's wild that we'd be behind them. Well, we are, unfortunately. And there's a whole other conversation about how big defense prime contractors have destroyed our drone industry. I think Hegseth's trying to bring it back. He recognizes it. But when it comes to things like shotheads, the Iranians do have us be in that. regard because they're using it every single day at war. How much are we going to see, how much in Ukraine and how much in this war,

Brett, will we see drone-on-dron warfare? So what's the countermeasure to drones is actually other drones up there fighting drones? A lot. If you go to the front lines of Ukraine, 70% of attacks and people being killed or injured are from drones. And those are drones that are, you know, flown basically like. guided artillery rounds. And we are in the era of drone warfare and not just against humans, you are using drones now

to take out other drones, interceptor drones, counter drone warfare where those things fly in the air and they almost act as homing beacons to strike other drones out of the sky. We're going to see this at an unprecedented level. The Middle East has been stockpiling it. The UAE, Qatar, Saudis, they're all buying drones in the thousands now. because they see the writing on the wall, that's the future of warfare. We don't need humans in the loop. Essentially, that can be hurt or killed, you know, based on the technology that we have.

So we're going to see a lot more kinetic strikes sort of as a layer to our offensive posture. And that's why, frankly, we just need more money poured into our defense industry to do that. And that's going to also require counter drone companies to get better as well. Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back. on Will Cain country. Okay, now offensively. What is, we're like, what are we, 72 hours about into this war? We, we did, we, we successfully executed the decapitation.

Now to your point, it's this, they're not done. There's these Cuds forts and IRGC officers who are dedicated to the cause. They're launching what I would assume is a somewhat uncoordinated retaliation. What's our next offensive? What are we doing offensively? Going after them? I mean, I imagine our intel's got to be pretty good. So identifying and striking that next level of officer class?

Well, our intel is very sharp. And when you pair that, I mean, when I did this work in the targeting world within the special operations community, we were hunting. And we had a level of intelligence at my disposal that you couldn't even imagine. So every time they fire off something, we see where they launched it from, and that now becomes a target. I didn't have the luxury of working with Israeli intelligence at the time. It seems that our defense, our war department, it has that now. So you are now pairing some of the most sophisticated intelligence systems and surveillance assets that the world has ever seen together. And I think that is going to be used to destroy them significantly and build the time and space for the Iranian people to do something.

And basically, you know, the U.S. military has been preparing for the Iranians to block the Strait of Hormuz. I think everyone's talking about that. That has always been this sort of trump card the Iranians have tried to use to scare the U.S. But frankly, so I think there's a plan to stop that. but in reality, that's a double-edged sword for them. Roughly one-fifth of the world's oil flows through that corridor. Iran depends on that same system to survive. And so any serious disruption is not just going to provoke us.

It's going to provoke Europe, Asia, the Gulf states overnight. I don't even think China or India would tolerate that. And the fact that Iran has been just launching these drones literally into hotels in downtown, Dubai, is not a good look for them. because they are going to get people who normally would stay out of this to rise up and start striking and share their intelligence information as well. So I think we're going to see a pretty historic operation here over the next few days striking targets that people dreamed about striking for years. One more question then before I get to the Iranian people. Yeah, you brought up a men to go, we'll talk about boots on the ground.

But like one of the things you said it's a negative about that potentiality is, you know, the religious angle that comes in there. Now, I will say, you know, Iran isn't Arab. It's Persian. So it's an outlier on the ethnic front compared to everyone else to their West. And they're not Sunni. They're Shia. And everybody else is Sunni, everybody else, in that entire region. So I don't know where I know that Iraq, you fought, you had sectarian warfare, you fought Shia, you fought Sunni, it was a mess.

It was all the above. I do wonder how much there would be a religious rallying cry into Iran. I shouldn't dismiss it because it's happened with every war over there, right? Iraq, Afghanistan, whatever it may be. But I just wonder if Iran is a bit different. They could be. I don't want to get ahead of our skis here with the attack that happened in Texas. but there was real talk that maybe that was connected based on what the shooter was wearing on his shirt.

But we may have a rallying price. Yeah. You'd be surprised how many Shiites run around Africa. I'll say that. Yeah, yeah. Oh, really? I looked it up just because I was curious. It said Senegal was 95% Sunni.

Yeah, absolutely. These guys are running around everywhere. But you're saying it's, go ahead. It's tough to, I mean, we were hunting these guys in Kenya at one point. I remember, you know, operatives of the Iranian regime, South America. There are any, anyone that wanted to hurt us, these guys had their hands and claws in that. So there is this potential for this rallying cry around the Iranian regime. I think what makes it so different is you have this youth.

I think almost 40% of that country is under the age of 35. Last time I checked, you have youth who wants better relationships. They also are spreading the message around the world that the Ayatollah needed to go and that there needed to be change. And that helps when before it was this holy war against us. The Sunnis, when we were in Iraq, it was a holy war against us. That's why Iran came in there to try and strike us. They saw it as religious and us being in their backyard. If we put boots on the ground, I think that changes that dynamic versus doing everything we can from the air.

And I hope our leaders don't choose that option. But again, there better be a plan in place to put someone in power who respects and understands that you can't create this turmoil anymore in the Middle East. You can't toy with nuclear Armageddon. You can't threaten American interests. I think Venezuela was a good example of how quickly we were able to do that. I don't feel threatened by them anymore. It seems that because we took out Maduro that they are compliant. And whoever we put in power there or support behind the scenes needs to operate at that same level of understanding that we'll come back in there should they come out again.

Okay, so that's the conversation I've been putting off. So, okay, so yesterday, General David Petraeus said to me, you know, regime change is difficult without boots on the ground. I don't think he was calling for boots on the ground. I think he was just acknowledging a reality, which is, it is difficult without boots on the ground. It seems that the play is that you're hoping, and President Trump actually been pretty open about this, he's like, Iranian sees the moment, sees the moment, is that the regime change happens from within. that happens from the street level. Now, to their defense, Iranians have at various times tried to stand up, and they have hoped that Americans or others would support them militarily and give them

that moment. And they were crushed. They got crushed several times. But this seems different. This seems like the green light is on for the Iranian people. There's a level of destruction that I would think now that would inspire. the Iranian people to do more than celebrate. And I'll grant you what you said a minute ago,

celebrating in the past has been an act of defiance that would have gotten you the death sentence. But it's going to need to be more than celebrations. And I'm just wondering when we see that from the Iranians. Well, I think our intelligence services, as well as the Israelis, will help with that. I think what happens next is we have to embolden them, empower them, be forced multipliers for them.

We have to unleash devastating, strikes in this military campaign that are so destructive to the regime's leadership that it's at a level that's visible from outer space. I mean, our militaries of finest in history that are unleashed to win. But in the end, it's the Iranians that are going to make change. And you're right. They, for the first time, I think, have the ability to not necessarily fear they're going to be cut down or shot in the middle of the street.

Their images showing Iranians celebrating all across a country, not because of war, but because they hate their own oppressive rulers more than anyone else. And that's a sign we're not just striking at their military. We've struck at the legitimacy of a very brutal regime. The Iranian people want better relationships with the West. They have the potential to be our biggest ally. It's their choice now. And I think it's important that we collectively separate the terrorist regime

that is the Iranian leaders from that of the majority Iranian people. The regime has spent decades suppressing protests, imprisoning dissenters, exporting violence. But inside Iran, there is a young, connected population that has repeatedly demonstrated against corruption and repression. So this strategic pressure on the regime is not the same thing as hostility towards the Iranian people. Long-term stability in that region is going to depend on that distinction. And a lot of what comes next, I believe, will be done by our intelligence services by proxy

to help the Iranian people rise up again and give them the strength to take over. So if you were making a projection, Brett, what do you think it looks? like. This is where we got to be careful with humility and hubris and all those types of things, but that doesn't mean that people didn't sit in a room and have a game plan and hope that the game plan, probably with, you know, backups and options, A, B, and C, and if-thens and all that. But is it weeks of bombing laying the groundwork for the intelligence agencies to put into place a takeover by some group of Iranian people? I'm sure it's got to be violent to some extent. They're going to have to stand up, you know, armed at some point with the Iranian people,

but that we spend a couple of weeks weakening the existing regime so much that that can then stand up? I think we'll see a couple of weeks of this. I think there's probably been an order given behind the scenes to tell the Iranian people just to hold, wait. We don't want to hurt you accidentally in this. We don't want to strike targets that may stop you from going out there and rising. up. I think success here isn't regime changed through invasion. Success is really degrading the regime's capacity to threaten its neighbors, limit their nuclear breakout, restore this credible deterrence. And if this escalation can be contained, you know, and their proxy networks are weakened,

that's going to reshape the regional balance that only favors the Iranian people for rising up and fixing this. And so I think they've been told to just hold until our major forces have completed their action. And then that's when we're going to see something, you know, start popping up internally. And I've got to think that there's a plan for that. I don't think this military action was reckless. The military has a number of what we call con plans for everything.

And this plan has been dusted off and reworked literally for decades since I've been. I was in the military. So there's officers out there that know exactly what needs to take place next. And I don't think that this was a decision made overnight. This is months and months of planning. But at the same time, I think this really was a time when we had an opportunity to really reshape what that regime was doing. And now is the time to stop them. Two quick questions, or I hope they're quick topics.

Okay, chaos. Let's talk about chaos for a minute. What you described the moment ago is pretty scary. These CUDs guys, these IRGC guys who are dedicated to the cause, who now no longer have a command of control structure. So to some extent, they become free radicals in the system. And right now that free radical system is focused on retaliation in a somewhat conventional war. When I say somewhat, I mean like launching the drones, launching the ballistic missiles. But I do wonder, look, I don't remember off the top of my head, Brett, what? Iran was capable of enriching uranium to what level they were. But I think it was to a level where it could be weaponized, at least in the form of a dirty bomb and that kind of things. So how big is the risk of the chaos here and the free radicals of these dedicated guys within the cause, being able to abscond with serious weaponry that can do asymmetrical damage on the world stage? So terrorism, you know, whatever, that's nuclear capability,

dirty bomb, most likely, whatever it might be, in Europe, in America, where the fight goes away from Iran. I think from a nuclear standpoint, it's tough because there's so many sensors around the world that are in place that can sniff out any movement of nuclear material. But that being said, you know, you're right. We can't forget about the other side of the Iranian regime beyond nuclear warheads and missiles. I mean, there are credible reports, even recent analysis from our own colleagues at Fox News, that Tehran may be operating a shadowy chemical weapons program and may even be, have used such chemical agents against its own citizens before during anti-government protests. You know, if verified, that's something that makes me nervous that could get out. I mean, it underscores why this regime, frankly, can't be trusted with advanced military, you know,

capabilities like that of any sort. But right now, this is unprecedented chaos for the Islamic Republic. And yes, we've degraded their missile programs or weapons factories, their command and control, but the risks are high. It's unpredictable retaliation. There could be civilian suffering, energy uncertainty. But in the end, we're going to be able to stop them. I think the real danger is, isn't us taking military action in that region. The danger is allowing the world's leading state sponsor terrorism to cross the nuclear threshold. Okay, last thing. When I started this conversation with you, we were talking about sort of the goals and the

justification and the reasons. And your first answer to me was because we've had enough, basically. We've had enough. How much of this, though, do you feel like is part of a larger global chessboard reordering from Venezuela to Iran? I don't know what's going to happen in the Russia-Ukraine war. what this will do to that. I mean, Cuba, I don't even know how big of an important player Cuba is when it comes to China and these other things. But how much of this do you think is about China?

A lot of it is about it. We've pretended we had these red lines with previous administrations and then when people cross them, we haven't done anything about it. Our enemies watch that. That's probably one of the reasons why Russia went into Ukraine. They didn't think we'd do anything. And so this is about deterrence. It's about sending a signal to others. It's about showing China that we're done messing around. That level of resolve here, it sends a message to adversaries everywhere that the U.S. is not going to stand by and let hostile regime bolster their missile arsenals, back terrorism, threaten American lives, and global instability is rising. But strength backed by precision weaponry and a clear strategic intent is what is going

to prevent wider conflicts. And when a government prioritizes ballistic missiles over its own citizens' freedom and prosperity, you know, and instability is frankly inevitable. The Revolutionary Guard, they built a shadow empire on terror networks. And we have to dismantle that. And I think other people are paying attention because, you know, strategically we're seeing countries realign themselves. China, Russia, it's almost this new axis of evil that's coming together to, you know, try and make it so America isn't the superpower that we've always been. And I think this is important for us to pay attention to. They need to be put in place. They need to be checked. We have Taiwan on the horizon. We have all these other countries that we're hearing potential

countries may go in and take over. And now they're going to think twice on whether or not America is going to strike back. And so it is very much about realigning, especially the Middle East. I think, if anything, Arab nations will probably want to work closer with us, especially as they've been getting struck by Iranian rockets. And in the end, that's only going to to help project our power throughout the world and bring back America to be seen as the strength that we once were. I mean, I would sit in diplomat meetings. I got to tell you, Will, like in certain countries. And our diplomats were laughed at because no one believed that they would do the things that they said they were. Because strategically, we left

Afghanistan. We left everyone behind. And those conversations, were real conversations that came up in meetings as to why these countries should help us, why they should listen to us. And I think that's going to change now. They're going to start listening in and be on our side. Do you think they knew that with the election of President Trump? Do you think Iran was really fearing the election of President Trump? You think they were behind the attempts to get rid of President Trump? Probably. I think the Iranians, though, have a bit of bravado. Persian pride is real. They think they're invincible. And We've had multiple situations where they've crossed that red line and prior administrations have done nothing.

I think with President Trump, they finally saw that he stuck to his word. And his unpredictability, frankly, is a winning strategy. A number of times, I think when during Operation Midnight Hammer, he said he would give them two weeks to discuss. and then in 48 hours went in because he saw them just talking. Iranians are very good at talking and they can out-talk you any day of the week. And so prior diplomats have basically gotten sucked up under that and have lost, frankly, it on the diplomatic spectrum. And so I think President Trump realized that the only way to go in there and do something

and show them a language that they understand. was with this military might. All right. Awesome conversation. Thank you, Brett. I appreciate the time you gave us here today. Appreciate you, well. Good to see you.

Let's take a quick break, but we'll be right back on Will Kane country. All right. Brett Velikovic, founder of powers and former special ops intel here with us today. We'll see what you guys think, both Tenfold Pat, Two-A-Day Stand, but also I want to go in some of your comments.

Yeah? Yeah. What are you fascinated? by the drone technology that the iranians have over us is a wild thing to think about yep it's crazy it really is i mean you mean you think we have the best but we don't i you just assume on everything really technology and weaponry that we have the best i mean he said it i mean that's a product of having our our defense industrial complex be commandeered by you know a handful of big weapons contractors who make a ton of money on big weaponry.

Yeah, big weaponry. And warfare is moving to small weaponry. $500 drones. But I'm a little surprised. I'm surprised at what he said about, like, our premier technology companies, you know, Andrew, Palantir and so forth. I would have assumed they are cutting edge, you know, not Iranians. And we've talked about the Lucas drones. This was the first time the United States has ever used Lucas drones in this warfare here,

which are one-way attack drones. But him telling us that we got that by capturing Iranian drones on a Ukrainian battlefield and reverse engineering it. I'm just shocked we would have had to do that. That's crazy. You know? That's how we got most of our other technologies. I thought that's why we were taking in people from across the world on H-1B visas.

Because that's the idea. So is the H-1B thing not working? Like, should we have taken more Persians in? What's going on? Where are they getting it? From China? The Iranians? I don't know.

Probably China. Timu. Audubos on YouTube says, it's not an American to question the actions of the federal government. Just read the Declaration of Independence. I totally believe Audubose. I'm not talking about questioning the actions of the federal government. I'm talking about the tone.

And I'm really trying to the ten-fold pat here because I think he sees a lot of the same stuff I see. But we may not be 100% the same page on a lot of these things. I feel like some of the ten full of these things. of the critics of this action are rooting for American failure, and that I consider to be anti-American. Do you disagree with that characterization, Pat? I do not. I think you're right. I mean, I think we see it very similarly in a lot of ways. I do think that there are legitimate criticisms just because of the way the Iranian conflict

has been ramping up for the last two, three decades. It was just like constant, you know, bomb, Iran, that kind of thing. I think it's reasonable to question it. But, like, I'd also think that, hey, maybe the president has some knowledge that we don't have. I agree. And the Beach Boys. The president and the Beach Boys. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, man.

Well, to be fair, it was a remake. Andrew Polly says, always down to hear Will Spitt and Facts since his day's on first take with ESPN, American media's best common sense voice. Well, thank you, Andrew. Yeah. I actually have breakfast with an old ESPN colleague of mine this morning. It's great to see him. Regular listener and viewer here to Wilcan Country. Norby. Eddie Curtis says, everyone complaining about us helping Israel were also the same people who put Ukraine flags in their bios. Do they realize that most of drones in Russia come from Iran? It's interesting. It's pretty good.

It's interesting. Oh, the twisted web we weave. It's interesting. Sarah Jordan says, I always come back to this thought and question situations like this. Could you imagine if Kamala Harris were a president? I mean, oh, man. Well, I mean, what you would say is, I wouldn't say this, Sarah, this wouldn't be happening. Right.

I feel pretty confident about that. So, you know, for everybody that seems to think this is the violation of every promise that President Trump has made about being the peace president. Have you seen videos? There are also videos circulating for President Trump in 2016 saying specifically when it comes to Iran. I believe his direct words, I think I'm quoting him directly was, I'd bomb the shit out of him. I'm sorry. I don't care. I'd bomb the shit out of him.

But what he said in 11 was interesting. From start to finish. When he's criticizing him about it. Yeah, I've seen that tweet going around. Yeah. But things change. But Kamala Harris would be striking some deal that continues to send power. ballots of cash. We would give them nuclear weapons.

The President Agreed. I fear about sleeper cells in America. Go ahead, Pat. Former President Obama did give them literally, what, millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, back. With the deal? So, like, one of the last things he did. Yeah. Of course he did.

And she also was part of the administration that botched the Afghanistan withdrawal. Like, you're not going to trust anybody with foreign policy. It's going to be them. God, it would be a mess. Tim Morris says on Facebook, the only allies Iran have now is the UN and the Democrats.

Dem should go visit Iran. You know, I did see a poll. I did see a poll. I don't know. I can't quote who did the poll. And I'm not sure how this polls with the American people. And it said something like only one in four are supportive of this. I do wonder, because you look at Democrats in the way that they have,

at least in the paid protests, and really honestly, I think a lot of the rhetoric from a Democrat politicians who've gone on air over the last couple of days. And I just, I'm sorry. It comes off as very, it sounds like such a generic slur to say anti-American, but the, just always casting us in the light of the bad guy. And in this case, Democratic politicians are saying things like, well, the mullahs and the regime in Iran, they're bad, bad guys. But, you know, so is Trump. And this is a bad war.

And I don't know how that's going to pull. play electorally. What happened in 2022? Did you watch the video I sent you, all the celebrities being like, we stand with Iran and we're with Iran to get their leaders out and we need to protect the people of Iran from their leaders? I'm like, so now what are these people Trump fans? No, I didn't see it.

Yeah. So back then, they were for the Iranian people getting rid of their leaders because they're oppressive. And so now where are those people? They're on the opposite side of this. They're saying, why are we getting rid of their leaders for them? This is pretty hypocritical. Suzanne Widmer says on Facebook,

every time the Middle East comes up, people get real loud, real fast. Strong statements are easy, but what's the actual plan? I'm way more interested in the strategy behind it, not just to flex on TV. Let's talk real outcomes. I think we just did, though.

I think we did that. I hope we served that conversation just now with Brett Belichovich. Bryce, explain how we are the good guys in this. Robert Miguel, cutting Israel off would be America first. Crystal Steel, no new wars, no new wars, no new wars, no new wars. Those are the criticism.

Nor Medina. Every Republican president loves starting wars. I don't know, Obama did a lot too. I think that's where most of the people get their arguments is they see kind of historically it's like, you know, a president starts wars. They go when they bomb things. But it's like I do feel like Trump's, Trump is. doing that differently, you know? It's a little more strategic, I would agree.

So I'm just thinking about this criticism, the different things that are said. And here's the thing. While none of these, all of these are one sentence. So, you know, I can't give a ton of credit, nor can I really criticize these simple declarative statements. I can't say they're wrong. I can't say they're right. What I'll say is, I understand the point of view, and I think there is some legitimacy.

And I think 20 years of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. gave the American public a very, very righteous skepticism of military adventurism. I really understand that, and I'm actually with you. Let's start with the good guys proposition. Here's the thing. We're the good guys because we're our Americans. Is that too simple for you? If your brother broke a federal law, would you help him get to Mexico? Would you help him out of loyalty? Would you help them out of familial connection? To some extent, what I'm suggesting is the analysis isn't and doesn't have to be deeper than that. We are Americans.

And in these moments, we are together. And we fight together. We have to constantly ask ourselves, is this right or is this wrong? I'm getting to one of these other criticisms this moment. But we are the good guys because we are the guys. Do you understand that kind of loyalty what I'm talking about? Do you understand that simplicity? Like, if you think we're the bad guys, maybe this isn't the place for you.

Like, if you can't buy into the project, if you can't buy into the leadership, if you can't buy in to the founding principles, if you can't buy in to the culture, maybe this isn't the place for you. Now, there is also political leadership that always deserves to be questioned. That is not one in the same. American and political leadership is not one of the same. Look at how we criticize administrations based upon who's in office. But to the point of like cutting off Israel would be America first. Well, this is where now we ask if the political leadership is serving the good guys, our team. And the answer to that is whether or not they're serving the interest of Americans.

That doesn't mean being isolationist, and it certainly doesn't mean being pacifist. I don't think. I think it means answering that very difficult question, that very simple but difficult question. Is it serving America first? And I think that I don't think it's an open and shut case. I don't think it's an easy end of the conversation, but I think that there are available avenues of pursuit to see this. Patrick, you just texted. I mean, I think you're pretty strict on analyzing things through that prism.

Understanding the long-term threat that is China and understanding resetting the global chessboard from Venezuela to Iran and how it positions us against China, I think, is America first. Because the thing is, like, there's a saying, and it's escaping my fingertips, but you may stop caring about the world, but the world does not stop caring about you. So if you choose to withdraw, if you choose to be isolationist, that doesn't mean that events stop happening. Events keep happening. And you look up one day and you're the UK, right?

You look up one day and the point isn't to be the American Empire. We should be the American Republic. But is the American Republic defendable if China is the primary player on the world stage? If China dictates the world's economy, if China dictates the world's economy, if China dictates, world trade. It China dictates culture inside of America. Is that a true American Republic? And so to some extent, it requires us to consider events outside of our borders and roles and players on the world stage in order to be America first. It doesn't mean, I'm with you, trying to export democracy to Iraq. And that's one thing about President Trump, and I heard

Secretary of Warped Hex to say this this morning. This is where you have to trust the leadership that this isn't Iraq. This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't under the guise of making Iraq, you know, a Jeffersonian democracy. It's putting people in place that serve America first. I think Venezuela is the best example of that. I get into these debates with some people. This weekend, I was at a soccer practice and the guy said to me,

yeah, but I hear from people in Venezuela, and Venezuela is not that different than the way it was. was before. Maybe for Venezuelans, but it's different for Americans. Do you see what I'm saying? Our goal wasn't to impose a Jeffersonian democracy on Venezuela. Should that happen over time because it serves America first, that's good. But the zombie Maduro regime, and that's what I would describe, it's a zombie regime, as Brett Kellel Belikovic just said, that's complicit to the United States, serves American interests, serves America first. And I think that's going to be the same analysis applied to Iran.

I really do. I mean, like, whatever happens next, is it going to satisfy the people that want to see the world as a utopia of democracy? No. Unless that's best for America. If that's best for America, then yes. If it's not best for America, then no. That's the way I think this serves or begins to answer the question of whether or not, this serves America first.

Yeah, like all the Democrats complaining about it, yeah, it's all nice and peaceful and well and good to just sit back and not be the aggressor, but you've got to realize people hate us and want to do damage to us as well. So sometimes you have to jump up front. Those are the same people that were complaining about

these regimes. Or just dominate us. Exactly. Or just dominate us. China just wants to dominate us. You know, sometimes when you say they want to hurt us, I think we envision terrorism, right? But there's no doubt that China wants to dominate the 21st century. Yep.

And the way the United States dominated the latter half of the 20th century. Okay, fine. Well, we, what does the world look like under Chinese dominance? Is that? Communism, they'd like it. Well, is that conducive to our vision of the American Republic? Probably not. It's just, right?

Yeah, it's just crazy. Do we get to be citizen farmers over here protected by two oceans while the rest of the world? falls under Chinese dominance, I don't know that we get to do that. Yeah. That's why I worry about the Western Hemisphere control of China, you know, down in South America as well. I mean, it's like if they're in our hemisphere, you know, that's right in our backyard. Yeah, people don't see the danger in it. They just want everything to be peaceful and we could just mind our own business and go about our ways.

They don't realize so many things are happening around us that they don't even see that could be catastrophic towards our country. Yeah. I was just thinking of an analogy in your life because you realize like in your life as well. Like people don't behave. I mean, do people leave you alone? Do they just engage in, you know, free commerce? Yeah, maybe, maybe on small levels. We're world super power. Eric, Eric David says, why are we not using direct energy weapons yet? I don't know if that's sarcastic or not. like what does that say about direct energy weapons right remember the conspiracy that we used them on lehina

for whatever reason for real estate purposes yeah we tested them out there for this yeah which eric by the way i don't know if you're sincere or sarcastic but that was total bullshit we didn't use direct energy weapons in hawaii but maybe that's a good question like why would we not use them then in Iran if we had them? And we could do that to Lana. Why didn't we just do that to Iran? I'd try it out. I guess the answer to that

is we could drop nuclear bombs on Iran too. We're not choosing to do that. But again, back to the analogy, but we would do it on Hawaii, but not on Iran. Can I ask you have you guys seen... What are they? Hold on real quick. I did see a post that space lasers

are being used. Did you guys see is that Israel is starting to knock down missiles with some type of laser type technology, not just intercepted missiles. I don't know what's true anymore. By the way, they say in war the first thing that dies is the truth. That's what it's called. That's right, Connor, Iron Beam. Yes.

But X is full of nonsense. Like yesterday, I was like, oh, my God, they sunk a U.S. carrier. You know, oh, my God, they've done this. And U.S. CENTCOM is putting out, like, truth lies. but like X is really giving you some stuff that's not, not real stuff going on right now. The aliens join DRA. You got to be super careful. Go ahead, Patrick.

I don't know if you've seen this, but speaking of X, this is a little bit disconnected. Have you seen the Jim Carrey stuff? Oh, yeah. So there was, there's a belief that like, what does that have to do? Wait a minute, wait a minute. It's a distraction. Did he not Jim Carrey, that it's a clone or a double? No, no.

Or it's just bad plastic surgery. But this is what happened, okay? So Jim Carrey allegedly goes to this thing, and people are like, this isn't really Jim Carrey, it's a person wearing a mask. And people are like, there's no way this is Jim Carrey. And then it comes, this guy posts something on Instagram and it goes viral on X. And it was like, oh, yeah, I was a guy wearing a mask. And then the group that put on whatever the word show was, it's like, no, no, it was definitely Jim Carrey. We worked with him for like three months, and he like got, he had to learn French and everything.

So it's all like, I don't know what to believe anymore. Was it Jim Carrey? It's just bad plastic surgery. It's probably what it was. He had a facelift. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. The story is he doesn't look like himself. He looks like a different dude, okay?

Right? He's got bad, bad plastic surgery. It's bad news. But Patrick, if one were trying to impersonate Jim Carrey, why would you get a mask that looks like that? It doesn't look like Jim Carrey. Right. You get a mask that looks like.

It wasn't an accurate mask. Just shoddy work. It's probably from China. I think that's what it is because the guys, other masks don't look very good either. So I don't know. This is wild to be. We've already talked about you can get masks. You can get amazing masks now. So I would think if you're willing to do this whole dupe on people, you wouldn't go with T-Mu masks.

You'd go with like a good one. This is how bad, by the way, for anyone that hasn't seen it. This is how bad Jim Carrey's plastic surgery is. I know. I feel bad. Someone told him like, maybe you should try this. And it just did not go well. It could be that incompetence thing you were talking about earlier.

The guy's just not good at being. It should scare you off. Do not touch your face will. Do not touch your face. Will. Yeah. I mean, if Jim Carrey, everybody gets the like, you know, Demi Moore, Tom Tom Brady

A few others out there And you're like Wow, that's some quality stuff They got done there Right? Why couldn't Jim Gary Go to the same guy? Like what happened?

Can't he get that level? And if he can't and he isn't It makes you scared like Is it a roll of the dice? Yeah. Are you getting cut rate? Jim Carrey's a rich dude He shouldn't be getting cut rate.

Someone's pointing out that Jim Carrey wasn't a movie called The Mask So it's not out of the rebel possibility. But there's other famous people besides Jim Carrey that this is not gone super. I'll give you one. Sirina. Bradley Cooper's isn't awesome. Right?

He's got a different thing going. His look is different now. The problem is, though, with these surgeries, so I learned this for my wife because she works in the industry, Tom Cruise had it done two at one point. He showed up a baseball game, and his face looked crazy. So what happens is right after you get the surgery, you look weird for a while and then it kind of like settles, you know? So he probably had it done recently and it'll kind of settle back to normal a little bit. There's just puffiness.

There's... Whoa. How long is a while? Because I would stay inside until it comes back to normal. I know. But sometimes you have reactions you don't know about. You know, your body rejects it, that kind of thing. Look up Tom Cruise after the show at a baseball game.

He looks like a completely different person And then he was back to normal But you really shouldn't do it anyway Because like you're losing your look Like you know Jennifer Gray The actress from Dirty Dancing She got her nose done years and years ago And then she couldn't

She wasn't Jennifer Gray anymore She just looked like a normal person Totally agree Totally agree You may look objectively better Sure But it's not you But where

I will say there are people I think Demi Moore looks like the same person You know I thought she got really really good Oh dude Her face is so different. And Landman? It's crazy.

I didn't even know it was her. I didn't know it was heard until halfway through the season. I'm not kidding you. See, it's not like I had told a commini who's a bushy white beard and easy smile. It's just, you know, nice to look at. Jesus, Patrick. I didn't say that. You reading from the...

It was New York Times. The New York Times. New York Times. I was like, back to me wrong. That's their obfitting. obituary of the Iatola. That is their obituary. Why in the world do they do that? And every time. People were putting Scott Adams side by side with it, right? Wasn't Scott Adams they put side by side, but it's not from the same publication. So you got to be fair.

No, that was Huffpo. Yeah. You got to put it from the same publication to show how they treat one person versus another. But they did it with, they did it with another like objectively bad person. Was it Osama? Was it the previous Ayatollah? The previous Ayatollah died what? In the 80s or 90s? I can't remember. It was Abu Bakar al-Baghadi,

astir religious scholar at helm of Islamic State. So ISIS dies at 48. Yes, yes, austere religious scholar. And this was Wapho. Easy-smiling Ayatola. Is that the story, sorry to be naive about this, but I don't really know the whole history back then. this is the story of what's the Ben Affleck movie where they take over the what's the movie

Argo that's this story where he becomes it comes into power that's Iran right yes okay yeah that's what happened in the 70s and then he got into power got it just checking yeah for the audience not for me I knew that's interesting it's you but not for you that's just for the audience If you need to put major world events in the, if you need to put a major world events into the context of a movie that you've seen. I wasn't alive. Argo. Argo is a good movie about 1979. Yeah, there you go.

I think of several. By the way, my wife is texted in. Misanthrop. That's what you are, Patrick. You're a misanthroat. Is that the word, though? We shared cassidias together and she's calling you a misanthrope. Oh, yeah.

That's true. No, she's just helping me with my vocabulary. We're going to call them missing throw. She knew a word I was looking for. It just... Missing throw, Pat. No more tinfoil. Missing throw Pat.

All right. That's been us breaking down these major world events. Let's get more in a perhaps more serious tone. Wouldn't it like that or not? Should I talk about this like this on Will Cain show on Fox News Channel like we do on Will Cain Country? In the meantime, this is the place you've got to go for this stop. That's a dude. for us today. Please follow us on Spotify or Apple. We'll see you again next time.

Listen to 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.