The Brian Kilmeade Show

From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmead. Thanks so much for being there, everybody. It's the Brian Kilmead Show. We have a lot to discuss this hour, a lot of moving parts, and I can't wait to do it.

Ambassador, excuse me, the editor of the National Review is going to be with us in 35 minutes. Rich Lowry, what about this isolationist wing of the Republican Party? How are they dealing with it? I'm shocked, and we'll go over that. I'm shocked at how Democrats just pretending as if Iran hasn't been a threat and the number one nemesis in the Middle East and beyond, sending over assassination squads to kill President Trump, killing what they've done in the 80s and 90s, and even today.

I'm shocked, but I'm used to it, but I'm not used to the isolationist wing of the party rearing its ugly head yesterday, truly hurting the President at least for a day when a counterterrorism official Joe Kent comes out and says the Israelis pushed us into this war, pushed President into this war, and Iran was no imminent threat. Big three. Number three. three. I don't know if they'll join, but I agree with you.

I think they account. I think... They import eight to nine percent of their fossil fuels from the Gulf and certainly from Iran.

So, you know, our hope is that they'll be cooperative. That is garrison. That is Jamison Greer. Larry Kudlow last night talking about China really should get into escorting ships. Why?

They're getting their oil from there. What we're doing with Venezuela to balance it all out. Number two. Let's admit the truth. Everywhere people go, they're asked for a Social Security card.

In fact, one way to prove you're a bona fide person who can have a job is to ask for a driver's license and a Social Security card. That is Chuck Schumer in the 80s, excuse me, 1996, talking about the need for voter ID, which means he should be in support of the Save America Act. The debate begins today. Sadly, not one Democrat outside John Fetterman is on board. Number one.

Let's turn this situation around and assume a situation in which the United States is under attack from a major enemy, bombing at will. They've killed the president and wiped out his cabinet. Do you think anyone would be saying that this is a stalemate? I don't think so. Taking them apart, limb by limb.

And angry President Trump noted: NATO allies are not helping us out with the straight of Hermuz. Experts will continue to say that maybe NATO is slitting their own throat by doing so.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are being taken out one by one. We look at the blotter, and it's only going to get worse for them thanks to Israel and U.S. intelligence on that outlaw country. Um We'll talk about all that now with Ambassador Dennis Ross, William Davidson, Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near Race Policy, author of Statecraft 2.0, and I would argue knows as much about that region than anyone in this country with experience with Democrat and Republican administrations. Ambassador, how do you think this conflict's going so far?

Look, militarily, it's extraordinary. We're a little over two weeks into this. Supreme Leader is gone. Ali Laranjani, who was actually appointed by the Supreme Leader after the June War because he had lost. everyone else who was around him at that point.

This is a guy who was Unique in the setting of the Iranian leadership because he had, I would say, tentacles into every faction. The Iranian elite has been characterized by factions for really for as long as it's existed. And he, with the principles, with the hardliners, with the IRGC, with those who might have been portrayed as being more pragmatic, he was kind of the glue.

So, you're taking out the guy who the Supreme Leader depended upon the most. You're taking out the guy who was fundamental to creating coherence right now in terms of decision-making.

So, the fact from a military standpoint, what we're succeeding in terms of weakening them with regard to their capacity to build missiles, a nuclear capability, their ability to threaten their neighbors has been dramatically reduced, not disappeared, but dramatically reduced. The coherence of their leadership has been Dramatically shaken as well.

Now, do we have an answer at this point to deal with the one issue that gives them a lot of leverage, the Strait of Hormuz? The answer is not yet. And this war cannot end as long as they're in control of who can enter and who can leave the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Ambassador, not only do we have to reopen that strait, it no longer can be in Iranian hands. It's got to be internationalized.

I don't know how exactly how to do that, but to make that an international waterway, I think we would get global support on that. They can't continue to threaten, mine it, and do this. This is not a new thing. 100%. Look, there's supposed to be when it comes to international waterways.

It is defined as a casus belli, an act of war. to blockade international waterway. This is a waterway where 20% of the world's energy supplies come. This is a waterway where probably 20% of the fertilizers have to come, where a lot of aluminum goes through. When you blockade this, it's not just the issue of petrochemicals.

It's also the question of fertilizers which are fundamental to agriculture worldwide.

So we will see a huge fallout from this and your point, which is right, from now on, since they've demonstrated that they intend to manipulate this for their own benefit, they have to understand that this from now on will be opened internationally. We should get a Security Council resolution to that effect so that it has the aura of international legitimacy to it. But we were it's pretty clear, I mean, it's going to be up to the United States right now to make sure that they can't keep it closed. I understand I have to say, I understand at one level the desire to not allow oil prices to go through the roof, but When we say we're allowing the Iranians to export their oil at a time when they're not allowing any of our other partners in the Gulf to export their oil, we're telling them they have the whip hand. We're telling them that, boy, this is really a good source of leverage for them.

You know why we're doing that, Ambassador? Because it would make the price of oil higher if we stopped it, but I'm with you. Fundamentally, if they're allowed to export their oil, the little money that they have coming in comes in. Exactly. Looks it's Ryan, think about the following.

You know what their position has historically been? If we can't export our oil, no one else can.

So right now, they're allowed to export their oil and others can't. That's not something that should be permitted.

So that's got to be a change of policy. What about the downside and upside of taking Carg Island? We took out the military installations.

Now it's a choice, right? Look, I think it's a real legitimate question, because you have to ask yourself, what are the points of leverage we have on them to stop them from controlling who comes in and out of the Straits of Hormuz?

Well, one is, you know, you convoy the ships. The problem is, they may have a thousand small boats, all sorts of drones.

So it's not so simple, you can convoy, but to think that that's going to be 100% answer, I think, is an illusion. Two, you can go ahead and you can occupy some areas along the coastline that would make it difficult for them to do that. Here, I think the idea of putting boots ashore within Iran proper strikes me as a kind of slippery slope. Easy to get in, maybe not so easy to get out. Three is you take control of Carg Island.

And you basically say, okay.

Now you no longer will be able to to do this unless You know, this is unless we have an understanding that everybody can move in and out.

So I'm not saying there is no option that's cost-free right now. We have to be aware of that. Of the options we have, I start with the convoy to see if that's sufficient, but I certainly don't rule out the idea of taking over Cog Island. This is the key to 90% of their revenue. And whoever this regime or whatever ultimately will replace it, which I do think in time, it's only a matter of time.

It doesn't mean the next two weeks, six weeks. Even six months, but if you ask me within 12 to 18 months, after this is over, there'll be a different regime. uh within Iran. You think there will be? I think there will be.

I mean, look at the number of people that are killed. I mean, let alone what happened in 2015. I mean, they just yesterday, I'm sure you know these names better than most of us, but they just killed Ismail Khattab, who was in charge of the sleeper cells. And basically, he was blood is all American blood is on this guy's hands, and he was in charge, played a key role in the crackdown of the protesters. As, by the way, Larry and Johnny's the one who ordered it.

Yeah, sure. Look, when I say the regime is going to collapse, I'm saying it not because at this point we have necessarily given ourselves a high level of confidence that the structure of the system itself is fragmenting. We're not seeing signs of that yet. We're not seeing major defections. We're not seeing major defections of units.

I mean, one of the things I hope that we will continue to do is isolate units, cut them off from all communications, because that will demoralize those units on the one hand, and that may limit those who can actually carry out a crackdown on the public at some point when it's back on the streets. But the tentacles of this regime reach down to probably 15% of the population who have a stake in preserving it because they understand without this regime, they're in deep trouble.

So even though we're clearly Decapitating it, at this point it's not collapsing. But when the war is over, they were not this regime was not capable of answering any of the grievances that had built up over time with the Iranian public. Which is no water and the devalued currency. It's almost worthless. And and no electricity.

They were having to shut down constantly businesses, schools, government because they didn't have electricity on top of the absence of water. Complete corruption, complete mismanagement. They had completely, you know, they had lost 85% of their public. And the public was beginning to lose its fear. And that's why you don't kill up to 36,000 in two days.

Unless this is basically a kind of killer-be-killed attitude on the part of the regime. That wasn't a sign of their strength, it was a sign of their weakness. They will be in even less of a position to address all the needs of the public. The fundamental governance, water? There's nothing more fundamental to governance than that.

So none of that has gone away. When this is over, sooner or later you're going to see cracks in the regime because the restiveness of the public is going to re-emerge. That's why I say it's days are numbered when this ends. But we can't end it so long as they're in control of the Straits of Homos.

So, Ambassador is a guy that spent most of his career trying to bring some semblance of Middle East peace? How problematic was Iran? And when people say no imminent threat, does Dennis Ross agree? If you ask me was there a threat tomorrow from them that we had to deal with in terms of, for example, a nuclear shoot? No, because of what had been done last June.

But if you ask me, were they an ongoing threat? I mean, the term imminent needs to be replaced with ongoing. Were they an ongoing threat? They were an ongoing threat. Was it a guarantee that they were going to try to recoup from last June?

The answer is yes. across the board. You know, they were, it wasn't just ballistic missiles. It was also, even though they had a shortage of resources, they were putting money back into Hamas and weapons. Back, I mean, not just Hamas, but Hezbollah.

You know, they were continuing with the Houthis. They were continuing with the proxies within Iraq.

So they were an ongoing threat. They were a source of threat to the region and to the world. And the notion, I'll tell you, it's. Henry Kissinger once wrote, he wrote this actually in his dissertation, that when peace is your most important priority, you make yourself vulnerable to the most ruthless. And what he meant by that was when you were so preoccupied to have peace, then the ruthless understand they can always get you to concede something to them because you're so anxious to preserve calm that they can extract from you.

Well, that was exactly Iran. And the answer to that is not to continue to allow them to extract from us.

So I want you to hear Olivia Beavers, Wall Street Journal, say this politically what this means, Cut 14. This is a big looming question. The White House hasn't entirely been clear about what their timeline is like. They haven't been clear about why they jumped into the conflict. And it's, I think, hurting Republican messaging in terms of how they're going to structure it.

They do want this war to end quickly. And they also want to avoid it having an impact on consumers because, as we've talked about on the show multiple times, voters, when they are impacted, will vote how their pockets feel. And the price per gallon has jumped, I think, from $65 to $100.

So that's just where it might be starting to go. Your thoughts about the political side of this. Look, there's no escaping the fact that prices are going to go up, and it's not just going to be oil prices, but there's also no escaping the fact that as long as the Iranians had a kind of stranglehold on the Strait of Hormus, they could have applied this at any point. It's true in the past they didn't because it was committing suicide on their part, because they couldn't export their own oil. That's the paradox of today.

To keep oil prices down, we're allowing them to export their oil when others cannot.

So, yeah, that would be a way to do it and explain a timeline, but you don't want to put a timeline on an operation that when you're dealing in war. You don't just say, okay, I'm going to be done in a week and a half, but you give ballparks of what your objectives are. And maybe they could be clearer on that. That's something, sure, communications-wise, but the way Trump runs, it's really counter to almost every other White House. It's true.

I would just say though, it would be if the President from the very beginning had framed this in terms of this is why we have to do it. This is why ultimately it's not only a benefit for our security, but for the world's security. And if this had been reduced to a repeatable mantra, the public would have understood. But when you're shifting or the objective seems to be fluid and always shifting, it becomes hard to understand, well, why are we doing this? And there wasn't the initial answer on why it was imminent was the wrong answer.

The Secretary Rubio's answer that it, well, it was the Israelis. You were started, you were referring to Joe Kent. I mean, this whole notion that somehow the Israelis brought us into this war. It's crazy. It is crazy.

And in some ways, it's also insulting. We can't define what's in our own interests. Of course, we can define what's in our own interests, and we have. And we're doing something that addresses the national interests. But you need a kind of consistent explanation that allows the American public to understand why this is important.

And when it shifts all over the place, it's hard to understand that. And I think that's one of the problems in terms of the framing of how we've gone about this. No doubt about it. And you can't you could dislike Donald Trump, but to think that he's taking orders from anybody the best example is Elon Musk. Elon Musk gave $240 million to his campaign.

The first thing the President did is get rid of the EV mandate.

So, I mean, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that he does his own thing and then say he doesn't do his own thing. Ambassador, I know it's a fascinating time for you who wrote so extensively in this area. And hopefully, this is going to continue on this path and we get to fang this regime once and for all. Ambassador Dennis Ross, thanks so much.

Always good to be with you, Brian. Thank you. Back in a moment. From breaking news to big name guests, Brian brings you insight you won't hear anywhere else. You're listening to the Brian Kill Meat Show.

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 FoxNewsPodcasts.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. A radio show like no other.

It's Brian Killmead. Hey, you know what? The other big story that I didn't bring up is NATO not joining.

Now look, normally they would get a year ahead of notice and there'll be a UN resolution or attempt to get some ratification, but that's not the way Trump operates. Plus, Iran's an ongoing threat, and he wanted to be able to act and take out those 40 leaders right away, and he did. I think it's more like 50. And he actually wounded the new supreme leader, the son of the Ayatollah, the 86-year-old Ayatollah. But For France, say, yeah, I'll help you with convoys through the Strait of Hermuse after the war.

The UK says, not my battle, Germany, not my battle. Uh this is the president that was really wary of NATO anyway. This is evidently, according to Lindsey Graham, he's never seen the president angrier because we've got to get the escorts going. But my thing is, even if you're escorting the ships, The danger is the drone attacks and the swift boat attacks. And we just gotta find a way to neutralize that, or else we'll end up with a destroyer destroyed.

in the tiny strait of Hermuz. But we're doing that. I don't think it's gonna be much longer. But I think we have to find a way. Said when this is done, not open up the straight of removes, no longer put it in Iran's control.

They can never have control again. But yet Europe will benefit, but they don't want to help. Sick me. Join Fox in supporting our troops from daily needs to global emergencies. Help us be there for those who serve.

Visit go.fox/slash Red Cross to donate to service to the Armed Forces today. The more you listen, the more you'll know it's Brian Kilmead. Let's admit the truth. Everywhere people go, they're asked for a social security card. In fact, one way to prove you're a bona fide person who can have a job is to ask for a driver's license and a social security card.

And that voice sent it very crisp, but it is the unmistakable voice of Senator Chuck Schumer. It was so crisp because it was 1996.

Now he kind of just stares down at his paper with his thick glasses and says the exact opposite. Just like he used to say, we need a border. Of course, we need a border in our country. We can't let everybody else in.

Now he says the exact opposite.

So the Save America Act primarily makes you have voter ID. It adds some other thing about women in sports and trans rights. We shouldn't have added that in, in my view. But it also gets rid of mail-in voting, which I think is a negotiating point. But some Republicans are not for it.

And every Democrat outside John Fetterman is not for it. Save America Act does not have Murkowski on it, does not have McConnell on it. And Senator Tillis is not going to vote for it. And the question is, is it going to move forward even with 50 plus votes? Joining us now is Rich Lowry, editor of National Review.

Hey, Rich, what's the future of the Save America Act? I don't I don't think it has fifty votes. McConnell just hates any federalization of voting. Murkowski, Alaska is weird 'cause it has a lot of r r rural areas. Antillis, you know, kind of has a B in his mind about Trump one and two.

North Carolina has mail-in voting.

So Th this I I think the talk of eliminating the filibuster try to pass this is is Mistaken. One, I think, a mistake to get rid of the filibuster and put that loaded gun on the table for Democrats going ahead. But two, it doesn't have 50 votes.

So that's the fundamental problem. Yeah, I mean, the filibuster is not going anywhere. And at least 20 Republicans are not for getting rid of it. And of course, you shouldn't get rid of it. And that the Republicans should be like Democrats.

If they are happy that legislation is passed, when Democrats get in power and eventually they will, they'll just reverse everything. It'll be like an executive order. Laws will be like executive orders. Yeah, it's worse than that because you kind of think of things that are. Republicans want, and what would they be, and would they have 50 votes for them?

I don't know, maybe some national abortion restriction or national law, you know, reversing a lot of gun control at the state level. None of that would have 50 votes. Whereas if they get the majority and the president and will eliminate filibuster, they're going to make D.C. a state, they're going to make Puerto Rico a state, they're going to pack the Supreme Court if they can. And these are huge, irreversible things.

So they'll definitely try to do it if they get unified control, but it won't necessarily be easy. Because if they get control of the Senate, you're going to have to have a couple Democrats in red states. And going that radical path will be very difficult for them.

So, look, I know people are very frustrated by this president of the United States top of the list, but it's just not going to happen.

So, Rich, you heard what I bumped in with. 1996, Chuck Schumer, of course, you need voter ID. I mean, these people just show you they never leave, number one. Number two is. They have the same philosophy on the border.

They totally reverse themselves on the border. Of course, you need good borders, and they reverse that. How does Chuck Schumer? uh square uh square Chuck Schumer of today with that Chuck Schumer. I don't think he can.

And I was going to mention the border because you can go back in the 90s. You can go back to Obama and have them all talking about how horrible illegal immigration is, which they won't really say today.

So the party's just gotten more radical. And if you're a Chuck Schumer, you go with the flow. And he may not be radical enough, right? AOC, if he doesn't run for president, I think he's ripe for the picking for a primary challenge from her. Yeah, I think so.

But now that he was told he was weak, he doesn't give in on anything, and he just has a ridiculous stand on DHS. I mean, what's going to break it on DHS? The Republicans can't agree to judicial warrants, can't agree to take masks off. They're not possible. I think they may have to find a way to do it on their own, maybe with the reconciliation bill.

I don't know what the timing would be on a reconciliation bill, but the president wants a lot more. Defense spending, and now they need this spending, so maybe put that in a reconciliation package. But if, Brian, it's just so outrageous for legacy media coverage, not blaming, putting the heat on Democrats at all when we had this major disruption of American life at the airports, caused entirely for partisan political reasons. If Republicans were doing it, it'd be a national crisis. And here, Democrats are feeling no pressure whatsoever.

I want you to hear what Kevin Hass had said as it relates to the war and the economy, because I think he'd made one of a rare mistake cut for. If it were to be extended, it wouldn't really disrupt the U.S. economy very much at all. It would hurt consumers, and we'd have to think about, you know, if that continued, what we would have to do about that. But that's really the last of our concerns right now because we're very confident that this thing is going ahead of schedule.

We've really got a plan for every corner of the disruption, from fertilizer to getting fuel to the West Coast and so on. And we're highly confident that we've got this thing under control. And that it'll end soon. I mean, putting consumers, I know he says he's got to win the war. But putting consumers last, that's not the buzz term you need.

No, but I think he's right that the White House is thinking weeks, not months, here with this conflict. The big problem, Brian, obviously, this isn't breaking news, is the straight of Fermuz.

Now there are kind of workarounds. We have this Iraqi deal to send oil through Kurdistan. The Saudis have a pipeline.

So it might mitigate some of the damage, plus Excuse me, the Iranians are letting some oil through. You know, they're owing oil and stuff destined for China.

So the price of oil is not catastrophic or apocalyptic, but it the longer the supply is constrained, the more problem you're going to have. And then it becomes just a military question. Can we clear the strait? In a reasonable time frame. And I'm not sure.

I'm not sure what the answer there is.

So I want you to hear the negative coverage towards this conflict, even though we're wiping out using AI, we've never been more accurate, more effective. We're wiping out all their leadership, combining with an unbelievable fighting force with Israel. But almost all the press you see is negative. In fact, Apple has their news feed supposed to be fair. There's not one positive story there, and there's no conservative outlet quoted like the National Review or anything you might think of Fox News Digital.

Here's what Britt Hume said: cut 10. Let's turn the situation around and assume a situation in which the United States is under attack from a major enemy. And that enemy is ranging freely over our skies with no resistance, bombing at will, sending missiles at will, attacking our vessels, attacking our ballistic missile systems, attacking our aircraft at will. That they have wiped out, they have killed the president and wiped out his cabinet and countless officials in the echelons below. And we have responded as the United States by shutting off a major waterway that we need for our economy.

Yes, it harms other economies as well. Do you think anyone would be saying that this is, as Walter Russell Mead put it today, a stalemate? I don't think so. Do you think so? No, it's it's obviously not a stalemate, but uh i in the military proficiency and technical proficiency have been off the charts.

Now, I've been skeptical about forcing a regime change from the air. I'm still Still skeptical of it. But if there are any military tactics that might do it, it's what we're seeing now. Just before we came on, Brian, I was looking at the guy in Intel, the head of Iranian intelligence, the Israelis, they're hitting security checkpoints headed by the militia that killed some thousands of people just a few weeks ago.

So that's really extraordinary. And I think this, again, the question's straight. If we can find a workaround and/or open it on a reasonable timeframe or just get the Iranians at the end of this conflict to agree to fully open it up, I think it's all upside. I think that's the only fly in this waiting at the moment. Yeah, I say within the next two weeks that we just continue to do that, and one day we're going to be opening up whether it's we're there or not.

Still fighting or not, there's going to be the Iranians have a chance to take back their country because 90% reportedly are not happy with their regime.

Meanwhile, there's no water? And their real is is worthless. I mean their their currency is worthless.

So these people were failing anyway. Yeah, it's a society in collapse. But the the question always is, no matter what that ratio of opposition is, whether it's eight eighty, twenty, ninety, ten, the twenty or ten have the guns.

So what you need to do is have them decide, well, actually, we're not going to shoot anymore, or you have some people with guns saying, we're with the people now, and we're going to fight the other people with the guns. Otherwise, you know, they'll just massacre people. This is why the Shah fell. He didn't want to do this. But the Iranian regime has no compunction about it whatsoever.

And it's just, we already knew this going in, Brian. But this what's happened the last couple of weeks has just demonstrated this is a dangerous regime that can't stand, right? The idea that they're right on the Strait of Hormuz and can turn that off, and we'd want them to have nuclear weapons and proxy forces all around the region, you know. Dominating to some extent for other countries. It's just crazy.

So no matter how this ends, the regime's going to be significantly defanged, and that's a very good thing. I think so, too. And I think that Saudi Arabia reportedly told the president, make sure this regime is crippled when you're done. And that's fine with us. Ishmael Khattab is the one you were talking about.

Not only is he a guy in charge of with America, he also has American blood on his hands. He is in charge of sleeper cells. And he got elevated in 2022. And we put sanctions on him individually in 2022. That's how bad we knew this guy was.

And Al Rajani, La Rajani on Friday was taunting us, and on Monday, he's dead. And it's amazing, Brian, because they're trying to hide, right? They know what's happening and they can't hide, which is really extraordinary. And I think someone had a story the other day, might have been the Wall Street Journal, that Israeli agents are calling directly to security officials in Iran and saying, don't fire on the people, join the people, because we know who you are. You're on our blacklist, and we'll come and get you.

And one of them came back and said, please help us. We're with you. And that is the front story in the New York Post today. The Wall Street Journal got access to our targeting on purpose. It was open to them, as well as Israeli targeting and their approach.

And what they did is they bombed the headquarters. And if they're there or not, okay, but they can't go there anymore. And after that, they figured they're going to set up checkpoints. They bomb the checkpoints. A lot of them are in white tents.

Others go underneath tunnels. They bomb the tunnels. Excuse me, like. Overpasses. And then they're told to go to sports complexes to meet, and they're bombing the sports complex.

They knew what they would do if this stuff was done. And that's how they're taking them out.

So the Besiege, who is the security force, the plainclothes security force, they're under siege. The question is: they're told to shoot to kill. Last night, reportedly, the Iranis were told not to go out to celebrate their fire festival. They did it. Anyway, and that's the beginning of the pushback, and it could come quickly.

Yeah.

Well, these regimes, they're always very enduring until they're not.

So I'm skeptical that we'll we'll see something happen in the next couple of weeks on a real con convenient political time line here in terms of the military campaign. But if it happens, I think it's probably six months from now or a year from now, which given the regimes that lasted fifty years, is not that long to wait if it falls. Joe Kent came out yesterday as counterterrorism official and says, I'm resigning. I can't support this war. It was no imminent threat.

We're doing this for Israel. I'm sickened, but not surprised. He's doing a podcast interview today. This guy failed twice to win Congress. I appreciate his service, but he was never on board.

She was never on board. Look, I respect resignations like this. If you have a big disagreement with the president, the president's in charge, you go. But I think the letter was disgraceful. I think the idea that President Trump, who's talked in tough terms about Iran for 50 years, and obviously we've never had a president who is more in charge or prides himself in being in charge of everything, then this president is being led around by a foreign country.

Literally, what they're accusing him of is treason. He is putting American blood and treasure at stake because he's overwhelmingly concerned with another country's interest. It's disgraceful. And Tulsi, she put out a statement yesterday, tried to cover herself. She thinks exactly the same way.

So I think that whole thing was a mistake. Neither of them should have been there in the first place. How strong is the isolationist wing of the party? You're not part of it, but you notice it. Yeah, I think they have prominent voices, and it's some fraction of the Republican Party now, more than I would like.

But when Trump says when stuff comes up that's controversial internally, I'm mega, he's right. You know, 90% of Republicans support this. And the average Republican in the street, you ask him or her, do you like Iran? No. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon?

No. You know, would it be great if it went away? Yes.

So I think that's all sort of common sense sentiment out there that the president's expressing. Right. You know, I thought Dennis Ross, who was our last guest, said pretty well. It was not so much an imminent threat, but a persistent threat. It never stopped being potentially growing.

Yeah.

So, all right, we'll see what happens, Rich, because it doesn't look like the vice president's on board with this, and he was considered the odds on favor to get the nomination, and the president realizes it. And you saw his statement in the Oval Office. I'm not for Iran getting a nuclear weapon. I'm not for interventionist wars. But those were dumb presidents, this is a smart president.

That's not what, to me, that's a dumb statement. Number one, we don't have dumb presidents. Barack Obama was not done. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. George Bush had a master's from Harvard.

The two-term governor. You might not like their decisions or leadership, but don't say dumb. You know, and plus he doesn't talk like that. He's trying to talk like Trump. Yep.

Yeah, no, I agree with all that. Clearly, he's he's not on board, he's kind of ducking in and covering, and we'll we'll see whether the president remembers. He does. I'm sure he does, especially he contrasted with what Marco Rubio's doing. I think that he's not going to forget this.

Um personally. Lastly, just on NATO. You're surprised NATO hasn't offered any ships to escort? I'm not surprised. I think they are, yeah, they're not like this president.

They're still mad about Greenland and You know, it's not as really going to be at the forefront of an operation, right? Anything important that happens in Ontario around the world, we have to do it, not our allies. But I think it's extremely unwise for them not to say, when you start doing this, we'll be there with you, you know? Or, you know, our minesweepers are on the way that we'll get there in 60 days or whatever it is if they're actually worried about them being in action. But just showing more cooperativeness and willingness, I think it's It's it's short-sighted.

And look, this is a huge interest of theirs as well, right? That that more oil goes directly to Europe and they're in more jeopardy than we are.

So I don't like what they did. I understand why they did it, but I don't think it's a good call. Rich Lowry, thanks so much. Appreciate it. Thanks, Brian.

All right, we'll come back and have a few calls when we get back. If I can squeeze in on the other side, you'll listen to the Brian Kilmead show. In a world of noise, get the signal. Sharp, informative, and always on point. You're listening to Brian Kilmead.

Yeah.

If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead. Will be woolen. I live on the 17th floor of this building, and it is very hard to go out, come back, and now I have to climb 17 floors. And when I get there, there is no water because there has been no electricity all day.

That's a woman named Gladys from Cuba, and she looks miserable. Why should she be happy? No water, no oil, no gas, no electricity. China's rushing in solar panels, evidently $117 million worth and been since 2025. Good luck with that.

You're not going to have solar panels even in the Caribbean. You've got to get something else. And they're finding that out right now. We found that out before. Because of the ongoing embargo since the 60s and now the shutoff of Venezuela, Mexican oil and gas, Cuba is looking elsewhere.

They're in conversations with our Secretary of State, and I think the President's got on too. There's going to be an exit ramp and there's going to be a new government there shortly. And guess who the loser is going to be? It's going to be that country called China, who in 2023 set up a listening post and bragged about it 90 miles from Miami and said, hey, guys. They're our ally.

Soviet Union fell apart. Russia can't do much.

Now they've got their hands full with the ridiculous war in Ukraine. And we're going to be the listening post here. You're about to lose it. You lost Venezuela? You lost Bolivia.

You lost Chile. You lost Argentina. All right, you're about to lose Nicaragua. Hold on to Brazil. They basically sacrificed their future for you guys and that corrupt idiot named Lula.

So little by little, this president's taking over Central and South America. And if I could quote him, he's not going to get credit for it, but historians will credit him for it as soon as he gets through Iran. and totally defangs that country. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

Hi, everyone. Welcome from 4826 in Midtown, Manhattan, where the St. Patrick's Day Parade ended, I think, 10 minutes ago. This is the Brian Kilmead Show. We've got a big hour coming your way.

Jason Riley, the Well Street Journal columnist, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow is aboard, as well as bottom of the hour, we'll have Senator Dr. Roger Marshall with us, and we have a lot to talk about. Right now, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen is going through his paces. You ought to see some of this stuff. We'll pull it back.

Him and Ram Paul hate each other. Evidently, Mark was. Senator Mullen made some comments after Rand Paul got beat up. He doesn't like that.

So Rand Paul made it all about himself. That's all it is.

So he's chairman. He went first. Usually the Republican likes a Republican, not this time.

So obviously, that'll be a no. And now Mark Peters is talking to him still.

So before we get to that, let's get to the big three. Number three. I don't know if they'll join, but I agree with you. I think they account. I think...

They import 8 to 9% of their fossil fuels from the Gulf and certainly from Iran.

So our hope is that they'll be cooperative. Is China going to help us escort ships to the Strait of Bermuda? They should, judging by how much oil they get from the Strait.

Meanwhile, from Venezuela to what's happening in Iran and soon Cuba, this is all about Iran, excuse me, China. And they are going to be the big loser, I'll explain. Number two. Let's admit the truth. Everywhere people go, they're asked for a social security card.

In fact, one way to prove you're a bona fide person who can have a job is to ask for a driver's license and a social security card. That is Chuck Schumer. In 1996, the Save America Act will have voter ID in it. Not one Democrat outside John Federman will vote for it, and some Republicans are not for it. Why is it when between 75 and 85 percent of the American public want voter ID?

Let's look at it. Number one. Let's turn this situation around and assume a situation where the United States is under attack from a major enemy, bombing at will. They've killed the president and wiped out his cabinet. Do you think anyone would be saying that this is a stalemate?

I don't think so. There you go. That is Britt Humes. Astounded that almost all coverage has been negative about a persistent enemy in Iran to this point. And it's getting pummeled every day with more leaders being lost to assassination on almost an hourly basis, even though they started off losing 40 in one place.

Joining us now, Wall Street Journal is Jason Riley. He's a columnist with the Wall Street Journal of Manhattan Institute Fellow. His new column is Reconsider Your Failing Strategy, Mr. President. What do you think is failing, Jason?

Yeah.

Well, I support Donald Trump going into Iran. I've been a longtime supporter of taking out the regime. I think they're bad for the neighborhood. I think they're bad for the world. I think Trump is right that they're the chief sponsor of terrorism and a threat to our allies in the region.

My issue was with the messaging. And that column was actually a couple weeks old. But what I was getting at there was the sort of inconsistency coming out of the White House in terms of the aims of the war. Was it taking out the nuclear program? Was it regime change?

Was it something in between? The president seemed to be going with something sometimes referred to as strategic ambiguity, which I understand in terms of keeping the opponent. On our toes, but it can also confuse things back home in terms of selling what you're doing to the public as well as to your allies in Congress who have to explain what you're doing to their constituents. I think the president's done a better job in the past two weeks of getting on a more consistent message about what we're trying to do. But that's initially what I was taking issue with.

Yeah, so the Strait of Formuza has got to get open. Are you surprised no NATO allies have said, okay, we'll get some ships there? Obviously, you can't do it immediately. It takes a while. You got to fit the ship.

You got to get the crew. Are you surprised, though? I am surprised because if Iran can sort of veto any activity in the strait anytime they're threatened, that bodes very badly for the future. And it's the reason, Brian, that so many other presidents before Trump have avoided doing what President Trump has done because they know that Iran does control that strait. They know that strait is an outlet for so much energy in the world and that so many countries around the world are dependent on having access to that strait.

And so that is really what kept a lot of presidents from acting in the way that Donald Trump did. I do think it's very short-sighted on the part of our allies in Europe in particular not to cooperate here. Whether they like it or not, Donald Trump's going to be president for the next three years. And also, they're much more dependent on this oil than we are. We're largely energy independent in the U.S.

Yes, our gas prices are going to go up because it's a global market for oil. But if you're in Europe, and especially if you're in. Asia, you are much, much more affected by the lack of movement of tankers through that strait. And I think it's very, very short-sighted on the part of Europe and Asia not to cooperate.

So a couple of things, Jason. Uh I think that Dennis and I'm stealing it from him. Uh You know, we just had a great guest on and he was just talking about He was just talking about it's not an imminent threat, it's a persistent threat. Almost my entire adult life, Iran's been a pretty consistent threat. And then, when they started pursuing and advancing on nuclear weapons, it became a chronic and immediate threat almost on a daily basis.

They were rebuilding in their two sites. They bragged and they just confirmed on Sunday to Margaret Brennan of Faith the Nation, they got 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. Excuse me. For the longest time, they denied it. We were making it up.

So that is an ability to make a weapon quicker than anybody thought, and they are rebuilding it two separate sites, let alone getting 200 missiles a month, mostly from financed by China.

So this threat was getting worse by the day that had to be addressed. Oh, absolutely. And the other thing, Brian, is that Iran hasn't hidden their animosity toward the U.S., toward Israel. I feel like Donald Trump is the first president to simply take them at their word. They want to destroy Israel.

They want to destroy the United States. They want to sponsor terrorism and mayhem wherever they can to reach those aims or those goals. And that's what they've been doing. They've been very honest about what their goals are. And there's just been a reluctance on the part of American presidents before Trump to take them at their word.

So, I mean, the assassinations of the key leaders, they're going so deep now. They got the head of the besiege. They got the head of counterterrorism. They got the Al Ratlau Rajani effectively running the entire country. They killed the Grand Diato and 40 of his constituents in the same shot.

But a lot of people are characterizing this. As a negative, a lot most of the press is, as a matter of fact, listen to some of it, cut nine. It's becoming clear all the time, frankly, that the Trump administration was not prepared for this war to last.

Now, are we any closer to finding out what the plan is here? Here we find ourselves again in a situation where we could actually win every single battle. And still lose the warrant. And that's about 85% of the coverage. It is, it is, and I think it's off base.

I think there was a strategy, there is a strategy. I do think they anticipated what's going on in the strait. You had to. Like I said, that has been why other previous presidents have been reluctant to get involved here.

So I think they did anticipate it. And the point is, it just takes time to do. One thing that struck me was the strike on Karg Island recently, Brian, taking out the military operations there. That is an important island in the strait where a lot of the oil production is done by Iran. And I'm wondering if we're laying the groundwork there for ground troops to go in and secure those facilities.

I would not be surprised. And one thing that I've heard out of President Trump that I like in terms of the messaging that we've been hearing as time goes on is that he's not putting time limits on how long this will take and how long we will be there, because that can simply tip off the enemy. You tell them if they can hold out until a certain date, then they'll be okay. I do like the fact that. Trump is saying, hey, we might be there a while.

This might take a while. He hasn't even ruled out ground troops. And this action on Carg Island, I think, may be laying the groundwork for that.

So it's interesting. The Wall Street Journal, you guys did a tremendous job getting information from Israel and U.S. about our targeting and what we've been up to. Evidently, they have a plan. And the Iranians said there's a sense of disorder right now, and it's beginning to take hold.

One of the things they're doing is bombing headquarters of the IRGC, there's 31 of them, and bombing headquarters of the besieged. What's going to happen? Either they're dead in there or they're not going to go there anymore. Where are they going to go?

Well, they were told to go to certain sites. The Israelis found out about those sites and bombed them out. And for those survivors, the last place they're supposed to go is sports complexes, at which point they wait for them to show up and they bomb the sports complexes. There is a plan to take out these evil security forces. uh on the ground with the Israelis.

Yes, absolutely. There is a plan. The Israelis have a plan. The U.S. have a plan.

They're cooperating. I think what a little bit of what is going on here with expectations early on that this would be very quick. We chop off the head. The people would ride in the streets, take over the government, and so forth. That has not happened as quickly as some people hoped it would happen.

And that's why I think you're hearing a lot of the second guessing right now. I think that's happening too.

So the economy's paying a price. And that's tough for the President. You know, he's all about the numbers. He's a man from your business, from the Wall Street Journal.

So the President's hoping that by the time we get to April, this thing is over and we begin to rebuild. From what you know from the oil and economic experts, how long will it take to get things back online if the Gulf if the straight is is secured.

Well, it won't happen overnight. I think you're going to see these high oil prices, I think, persist probably through the summer. And what I've been told by sources in the Senate is that you mentioned April as a goal. I think that that's sort of the leash that Congress and Trump's allies in Congress are giving him. Maybe till the start of the summer season, Memorial Day, they'll want to see things start to wrap up by then before people start getting in their cars and making long trips and these high oil prices or gas prices really start to hit people.

So I do think he has some time here. In terms of how long it will take to recover, I think that will go well into the summer. I think this is not something that can be turned around overnight. Save America Act is front and center. They're beginning to debate it.

The Save America Act is really about you know, a voter idea. On that point, the American public is clearly in support of it. I just played you to start the segment. What Chuck Schumer said, you know, we need voter ID, you need it for everything you do, that was 1996. But there's almost no chance this is going to pass.

So why are we doing this, Jason?

Well, I think it's about more than voter ID. I think you're right in terms of the public's view of voter ID being practical and logical, telling people who you are before you're able to cast a vote. I don't think most Americans have a problem with that, and that's what the polling shows. But there's other things in there that I think have created some controversy, Brian, including this effort to ban mail-in voting. And there you're getting pushback from a lot of Republicans.

States from Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Georgia, Kansas. These are Republicans who are saying, hey, you know, these voting procedures are something that states should be able to handle and traditionally have been able to handle. And they don't want a federal takeover of their voting procedures.

So you're getting pushback there. The other way you're getting pushback is because some Republicans want to end the filibuster in order to pass the SAVE Act. And they're worried about what the consequences of that will be, moving to a situation where you just have a simple majority to get things done. Once Democrats have a simple majority to get things done, and what they could push for, say, pushing for Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C. to become states, pushing for Obamacare subsidies that basically turn health care into a single payer plan and so forth.

So these are other things that are making the bill controversial. It's not just about the voter ID, but I think there's general agreement on the voter ID aspect of this. Yeah, I just think too, normally you'd go in and work on it. For example, set up rules for mail-in voting. Murkowski came out and says, some of my constituents have to go 400 miles in order to vote in person.

Can't do it.

So obviously you need mail-in voting for armed forces overseas, need it.

So let's just set up rules for it because it's not going to go away. Florida makes it work. Right? I mean, no one complains about Florida.

So then that had to be counted, verified. There are things that could happen. And to me, in the past, We'd work on that. Yeah, you work on that. But evidently, I talked to people in the Thune camp.

As soon as President Trump made it clear it's his priority, Democrats said we're not going to pass it.

Well, yes, that's remind me of the wall. The president ran on building the wall, even though they were for it. They're like, I can't let them win.

So I only gave them $1.4 billion to build like 10 miles of the wall.

Meanwhile, now they're going to finish the wall. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is not a loyal opposition, Brian, when we're talking about Democrats today. These are knee-jerk opponents of the president's agendas. They were lost on day one.

Jason Riley, thanks so much. Thank you. Consequential times. Back in a moment. It's Brian Kilmeid.

Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified.

So today you'll have your chance. Today I'll give you that chance to clear the record. Tell it to my face. If that's what you believe, tell it to me today. Explain to the American public how a man who has no regrets.

about brawling in a Senate committee can set a proper example for over two hundred fifty thousand men and women. Sir, I think there's everybody in this room knows that I'm very blunt and direct to the point, and if I have something to say, I'll say it directly to your face. I can set it aside. If you're willing to set it aside. Let me earn your respect.

I'm going to earn the job. And they went back and forth. Evidently Senator Mark Wayne Moen said something to the effect of: I understand somebody why someone would attack Rand Paul when Rand Paul got assaulted from behind and They have not spoken since and they've gone at it constantly. He brought up the the fight that he almost had with that uh that agent, or I think his name is is it uh I forgot it's Feshawn O'Brien. Sean O'Brien, who s runs a He runs a union.

They almost got in a fight famously. He was taking his ring off. They never got in a fight.

Now they became good friends. He's over his right shoulder. But Rand Paul made it all about him. He made it all about that one confrontation that he feels as though Mark Wayne Mullen was taking light of, and that's what it was about. Normally, a Republican chairman, it would be an easy QA.

Not this time. It got personal, it went for way too long, and there's no answer. Markway, Mullen, and Rand Paul don't get along. They have totally different philosophies. Senator Mark Wayne Mullen likes to get things done.

Rand Paul likes to talk in theory. He's a party of one. He has deep convictions. I give him credit for that. But he has no lawmaking ability.

He has no interest in passing anything. He has interest in attacking, getting his point across. And they have totally different approaches. And I guess some of that frustration came out in the past when Mark Wayne Mullen was at a podcast.

Now, why am I bringing this up? He's trying to get confirmed as DHS secretary. Bernie Marino came back. Adam Hard said, great guy, great family. I got to run to Dover.

I want to be there when the bodies come home after with the war in Iran still going on. But he said, this is a great man. I'm sorry you have to go through all this. He's going to do a great job at DHS, best ever. He's not going to throw Christy Noome in the street, but clearly Christy Noome was overhead.

She didn't do a good job. Communication was terrible. $220 million on ads. Are you kidding me? I wouldn't think that would be for a presidential campaign.

Unless, of course, you're Kamala Harrison liked to waste money, but you shouldn't be wasting it like that. I mean, that's one thing you would do. But he wants to keep that relationship going.

So that's important. Mark Wayne Mullen's going to skate through. My hope is he gets 10 or 15 Democrats to vote for him, and it gets to work right away. I also want to see these judges passed. The SAVE Act is going to be front and center, so Congress will be doing things.

I'm not sure they're going to be accomplishing anything, but they're going to be doing things for sure. And also, at the same time, we'll bring back some of these highlights. Busy day. Our Intel heads are now. testifying in front of the intelligence committee led by Tom Cotton, chaired by Tom Cotton.

This is a time when they're not supposed to be politics. It's supposed to be: tell me about the threat in the homeland. There were four attacks last week alone. We're fighting with the number one sponsor of terror right now. What's it going to mean at home?

But my think is, my thought is: Donald Trump's a terrible person. Why could you work for Donald Trump? I'll bring back some of those links.

So there's a lot going on. I'm so glad you're here to get it all. You'll listen to the Brian Kill Meat Show. Coming up next, when we come back, a senator steps out to talk to us, Roger Marshall. Don't move.

Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show.

Well, there's a solution that is to fund the government and not defund law enforcement, which is what the Democrats want to do. They are back to that theme, which didn't serve them very well in the past. But they don't want to fund ICE. our customs and immigration enforcement. They don't want to fund Border Patrol, which is tasked with securing and making sure that the border is secure, which is something during the Biden era where millions of people just flocked into the country.

And President Trump has secured it, shut it down, and now the Democrats don't want to fund the agency that's tasked with doing that. That is Jon Thune, as level-headed as you get. Joining us now is Senator Roger Marshall. And right now, we have ICE, and we have. Uh we have border Border Patrol and we have TSA and Coast Guard not getting funded.

And other agencies just not getting funded because they don't like the way ICE acts. Joining us now is Senator Roger Marshall. They don't like the proceeds. They actually wanted to fund it. Senator Marshall, I cannot believe this is still going on.

And it doesn't seem like you guys are close, right? Spring. Yeah, yeah, but I know we're not close at all.

So think about this.

So the Democrats like this issue. They are the party to defund the police. It took them 18 days to respond to President Trump's offer. 18 days. They wouldn't sit down with the White House.

They still won't sit down with the White House. And even at the member level, this should be done through appropriations. Our appropriations chairwoman, Susan Collins, the Democrats will not sit down with her the same way with Chuck Schumer.

So they want this issue. They think it's a political winner for them. They're appeasing their base. Right now, the vocal minority of the Democrat Party, the radical vocal minority, is running that Democrat Party. And the radical media is complicit with them as well.

The legacy media on the left is complicit. And Right now you said, okay, we'll have some type of identification on the uniforms. We're going to no more roving patrols. Chrissy Noam is now out. Hopefully Senator Moen is in.

And now Bavino's fired, essentially, retired. And now they say, also, body camps, you got it. You're not going to give on these two areas: masks. And judicial warrants. And that and that's why you're not paying people forty thousand dollars a year to sit there and leaving airport lines two and a half hours?

Yeah.

Yeah, Brian, you nailed it.

So what separates us are the issue of the ICE agents wearing masks and then the warrant issue between a judicial versus administrative. Look, I've talked to these ICE officers. Their families back home have been doxxed. Their kids are being threatened. Their spouses are being threatened.

They need to have a much more clearly identifiable uniform on. They need to have their name and ID, all those things possible. But unfortunately, because they're being doxxed, they're not safe. And then on the warrant side of things, you and I both know if there's, let's just say there's 20 million, there are, there's probably 20 million illegal aliens in the country right now. There's no way we had the opportunity we could really go through this judiciary.

No way. supposed to administer, it's not practical. And they know it.

So take the win. I mean, if I'm a Democrat. I say hey guys. We did really well here. But we've made progress in four or five areas.

We're getting a new guy in charge, going to be less flamboyant. No one is not going to waste $220 million on ads. And we could take the win. You could run on, go run on that. But in the end, you're going to run on hoping that Republicans get blamed because most of the media...

Is Leans left. Is that correct? They just feel as though they got away with the 45-day shutdown. They'll get away with this. Yeah, so let's think back when Chuck Schumer finally gave in and funded the government.

He got crucified on national news. He got crucified by his base as well.

So I think they're all so living in fear of their base. And don't forget the fundraising part of this.

So they're raising money off of this.

So between their radical base, which is leading the tail wagging the dog, fundraising, and then the national media loves this story as well. And then you have Chuck Schumer running for his political life as well. I think that's the summary. This is every time the Democrats delay this, they're choosing their politics over the safety, security of America.

So here's the debate on the Save America Act that you guys are going to be debating once you're done with the confirmation hearing of Senator Moen. Back and forth on the Save America Act, Cruz, Scott, and then we have Senator Schmidt and Senator Lee. They're going to bat for this. Scott 27. If we were voting on the merits of what was good for America, what was good for democracy, what was good for American citizens.

The vote would be 100 to nothing. Because this question cuts to the very core of who we are as a country. To survive, a republic needs its citizens to know and trust that their vote is secure. That their vote matters. And that they can trust the outcome.

Democrats don't feel that way. Listen to Klobucher and Padilla, Cut 28. This bill. creates chaos, but Maybe that's not the motivation of some of my colleagues. But I do believe it's the motivation of the president who basically said, quote, It will guarantee the midterms.

More actually representative of the content of the bill would be To save Republicans from the consequences of their Actions Act.

So I assume that they think that by contriving voter ID, that it's going to it's going to be Republicans are cheating. Yeah, so again, the theme here is: we want to make it easier for American citizens to vote and harder to cheat. Think about this, Brian. At least 60% of Americans have concerns about election integrity. That's a big number, 60%.

Well, why do they have that concern? I think number one is we now have 50 million. Non-American citizens in the country, 50 million non-American citizens in the country, half of those are illegal. There's at least four states that are allowing them to register to vote. And granted, it's supposedly for local elections.

But when you start seeing that happening, you have concerns. And then when you have unsolicited mail-in ballots go out, it gives American citizens concern. If I vote, I don't want an illegal vote to cancel me out.

So we do have a real problem here that the perception is reality in this case. But they want to make it, you know, their emphasis is making it easier to vote. But we want to make sure that it's legal citizens only. I think that's the battle here. And of course, this is truly a political issue for them.

They're not doing what's best for the country. I think, Senator, personally, they just don't want to give Trump a win, especially because if they, for example, mail-in voting, there's a lot of Republicans for mail-in voting the right way.

So there are compromises within mail-in voting that you could do.

Now, I don't know why we added the other thing about. guys in women's sports. I don't think that should we should pile on, even if I agree with the policy, just keep it to voting. But it doesn't seem like you guys came to bat and you didn't vote for it, but Senator Cassie and some others did for the infrastructure bill.

Some Republicans came across on gun reform under Joe Biden. This would be something, it's so overwhelming, where Democrats could come across the aisle. Has there been an attempt? Yeah, yeah, so I think your point is well taken. The question we should be asking is: why won't 10 Democrats come across the aisle and vote for voter ID?

I've only heard one or two even say they're in favor of voter ID. We're giving them a free pass by adding on these other parts of the bill. But this is what my philosophy would be: let's do the vote on the bill as it is now, these three pillars, proof of citizenship when you register, voter ID, and then verify your mail-in ballot some way, somehow. And then if they vote against that, then let's remove one of those pieces at a time and see where they are and eventually get to at least let's at least get a win with voter ID here. I'll fight like heck to get all of them, but let's get them on record and maybe we could get 10 of them to cross the line to at least vote for voter ID.

But you're probably not going to be here now, right? Yeah, I'm afraid not. I think now it's all tied up in the procedures and the part, and I'm afraid that maybe some Republicans have overpromised. There is no easy way for us to get rid of these filibusters. And I don't know if you want to dive down into that, but even though we have at least 50 Republicans that support the SAVE Act, there's probably at least a third of the Republicans which would never touch the filibuster.

And for good reason. Small states like mine, when you're in the minority, the filibuster protects you.

So it's much easier said than done to change those Senate rules. I'm not for brawling at the filibuster. I'm just not. I just don't think that's the way it should be. I'm not for when Democrats do it, and I'm not for Republicans do it.

It'll be like every law you guys passed is like an executive order. The minute the other side gets in, reversal, reversal, reversal. I don't think it's good for the country. I think we'll end up with two more states if Democrats get in there and if they were able to overturn the filibuster.

Meanwhile, I want to talk to something else. When it comes to the Iran War, I'm fully behind. It. I understand about it. A persistent threat, never stopped really my whole adult life.

And now, with the nuclear equation, 460 kilograms of uranium. Buried, not accounted for. And then you see the assassination attempts, the ballistic missiles. You had Joe Kent, a counterterrorism official with Trump, come out yesterday and said, Israel forced Trump into this war. We're fighting for somebody else.

I resign. What are your thoughts about that? Yeah, so number one, of course, I'm going to support the troops. I served, my dad served, my brother served, my son is serving. I am supporting our troops.

I would also add that I hate war. President Eisenhower said I hate war as only a soldier who lived it can with all its brutality, futility.

So I'm hoping this war is over soon. My depth of gratitude goes out to all the soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice and to the Gold Star families. But I'm behind the president on this one. Look, 47 years you're describing, you and I lived through this. You're not quite as old as me, but I do remember being in college when the Iranians stormed the embassy, held out 144 days.

I was in medical school, I think, when they killed 241 Marines. And then since 2023, 160 attacks by Iranians on American military forces. There's been an imminent threat for 47 years. Maybe though, history books will write the question. Why didn't another president stand up sooner to these bull I think that's what history will finally show.

I wish we didn't have to go into war, but I do think that it's justified and hopefully it will protect generations in the future. Do you worry about a. A fringe with involved in the Trump administration that don't believe in this. I mean, you have Joe Kent, who was Trump, you know, he got through. I mean, he's got a questionable past.

He goes on the podcast of Nick Fuente, he's a guy who loves Stalin and Hitler. I have no idea why any human being would ever do that. And then you have. him going to do a podcast today and doesn't believe that Really, Iran's a problem, I guess? Doesn't believe that Russia's a problem, I guess?

Do you worry about that so-called isolationist wing of your party being in the Trump administration? Look, I'm glad to have that voice there. And I'm probably more isolationist than you are. I'm probably more cautious going into war than you are. But once we make the commitment, then we need to do it.

But I'm against boots on the ground.

So I think it's good that we as Americans should have this debate. I think it should be very hard for the president to engage our soldiers in any type of war, put their lives on the line.

So I do want the president to be thinking twice about this as well. And at the end of the day, you know, the commander-in-chief makes a play call, and then we need to support him or her.

So, yeah, you like to debate, like Casper Weinberger and George Schultz famously, like Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, they used to debate back and forth, very smart people to debate back and forth. But none of them left and wrote a letter condemning the administration that hired them. How were you concerned at all about that letter? Gosh, you know, Brian, in my world, it was a blip on my radar screen. I mean, I read the letter, it was brought to my attention, but onward we go.

Yeah, it just goes around the world, though. I hear you, but to be honest, I didn't lose much sleep over it. I think that there's a big swamp up here. It's hard to get rid of all of them. It's hard to figure out who's who going into these things.

And this guy had a very unique situation. He lost his spouse in one of the desert wars as well.

So I think he reacted from his heart. I respect where he's coming from. I think the president's doing the right thing at the end of the day. But again, I just can't point out enough that I hate war. I grew up in the Vietnam era.

What I hated was the troops weren't being supported. Regardless of how you felt about the war, I want these troops to be supported. I want these gold star families to know that I'm so grateful for their loved one dying for our freedom. I can appreciate that. But can you also appreciate the fact that you can't just say, I don't want war, you could say, what happens if we don't?

You know, you could even say, everyone says, I guess, consensus opinion now, we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Or just know we still have Saddam Hussein in power, and he wasn't going away. And You have to play out both sides.

So if you say, I don't want war, just say you know. Within a few years, they'll have a nuclear weapon. They'll have 200 they were adding 200 ballistic missiles a month for China. And the problem Wasn't going away. Hezbollah was going to get finance.

Hamas was going to get finance again as the Iranians stood up. Do you think that's also an important part of your decision making? Oh, absolutely. So, on the other hand, I'm a big Eisenhower fan, as you can imagine, being from Kansas. You know, his belief in peace through strength.

And when you hit someone, you hit them real hard as well. And you know, I'm the doctor here. I'm always going to weigh the benefits and the risk. And in this case, I think that the benefits outweigh the risk. I think the benefits of taking on Iran and hopefully eliminating their future ability to fund an armed terrorist is absolutely worth the risk that we're taking.

And then we talk about the desert war.

So I was in the Army Reserve at the breakout of that as well. Fortunately, it was over pretty quickly, and I didn't get overseas orders. But we have hindsight now, right? Hindsight's always 20-20. But now I'm living with so many of these veterans with all of their challenges that they have as well.

You want me to balance the federal budget? We need to stay out of these wars. We're going to send over $400 billion on veterans this year, a lot of it from health-related issues from those wars. But that's the dollars and cents side of this thing. Of course, war isn't about dollars and cents, it's about our blood and the greatest treasure we have, which is our young women and men who are serving in the armed services.

Great point. It also, when I think about it, when I get a leader in anything that makes the harder decision. Than the conventional decision. This goes against their political fortunes, polls. I always have additional respect for that.

And that's what I think we got here, don't you think? Right, I do.

So, you know, courage is doing the right thing when it's not popular, especially when it's not popular in your own party. But I feel like the party is coming along now. I feel like the MAGA base is coming along and getting behind our troops as well. You know, the other thing I liked about President Eisenhower, he didn't make a decision based upon tonight's headlines. He was always thinking the long game.

What's the impact of this for 10, 20, for 40 years? And that's my prayer every day is that I would do justice, that I wouldn't worry as much about the headline. I got to survive politically, but I try not to worry about the headlines tonight. Instead, I want to do the right thing. And to your point, I think President Trump did what he thought was the right thing, especially in this moment of military advantage that we had, that God had given us this military.

We may never have this big of an advantage going forward for decades. He had the opportunity to strike and strike hard, and he did. Senator Roger Marshall, always great to talk to you. Thanks for the conversation. We're back in a moment.

Yeah.

Both sides, all opinions. It's Brian Killmead. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. Al-Qaeda and ISIS pose the biggest threat to U.S.

interests overseas in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia where these groups operate. In the Middle East. AQAP in Yemen, ISIS-K in South Asia, and ISIS in Syria are among the most likely groups conducting external plotting.

So that is a little of the intelligence experts being questioned by the intelligence committee all together at once. And right now, you have Senator Warner, who's become ridiculously political, all talking about FBI and why was the DNI at the FBI, I wouldn't say raid, but investigation into what happened in 2020, the ballots and 2020 election. And Warner's just obsessed with this. It's like the January 6th thing. He just keeps going back and forth, but Tulsi is not budging.

The thing I find most interesting now, and I'm a fan of Tulsi Gabbard, I just know that when you go to work for somebody, Got to agree with him. And you got to go along with him. And if I don't agree, I would never leak to the press. And I'm not saying that she did, but evidently Joe Kent did. And there was a meeting.

With Joe Kent, Vice President. J.D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard, at which time I assumed they were trying to talk him out of resign. But I think they're all agreed they're from the isolationist portion of the party, which you might, and it sounds like Senator Marshall is very comfortable with, and I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that debate.

But when you leak to the press, not good. From home. Fire tough. Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division.

It's Brian Killmead. So glad you're there. It's the Brian Killmead Show coming your way. There's so much going on. I'm watching In the Breaks, I'm watching Senator Mullen's confirmation hearing.

It's explosive, it's real, it's authentic. I think he winged his opening and he nailed it. We also have a lot of personal stories and personal attacks from a Republican.

So that's, and also, you got the intrigue of all our intel chiefs telling us, well, fresh off a week last week, we had four. Uh domestic Attacks. And we had four domestic Islamic extremist attacks, let's be honest. And then you had factor in Houston, Austin, and you see what's going on here. And then you see politics being played, but facts are.

Uh or uh facts were a tough thing to get past. Because the little thing about the danger, it's hard to play politics, although Senator Mark Wayne, Senator Senator Warner is. Martha McCallum's coming in and Carl Rove is standing by.

So let's bring in Carl right away. Carl, it's one of those days where there's so much going on and a war to cover. Your thoughts, first off, you don't think Senator Mullen, from what we've seen, is going to have trouble getting confirmed, do you? No, in fact, I thought it was interesting that there was an observation made by a Senate insider that if this were not a record vote, that he'd probably get 80% of the Democrats voting for him. He's likable.

He's a nice guy. They know that they can have a conversation with him. They know that he's a reasonable guy. But politics is going to dictate that this is, again, a 53, 47 at best vote with the R's lining up behind him and the Ds. With one exception, not lining up behind him.

Pretty much Secretary Noam was the wrong person for this, right? Yeah, well, that was proved out. And we're going to hear today a lot of questions raised by both Republicans and Democrats, especially the Democrats, about her tenure there. But even the Republicans are going to raise questions about her handling of FEMA contracts and this gigantic, I guess it's nearly $30 billion effort to build detention centers.

So this is a chance, though, for both sides to get a restart. I'm sure Mullen is going to seize those moments. The question to me is going to be, do the Democrats realize this is a wonderful moment to get an off-ramp from a Box Canyon, I hate to mix my metaphors, that they got themselves in by opposing DHS funding? It's incredible what's going on right now. I was interviewing one of the CSA workers, he makes $40,000.

And he's not getting paid, he's going to work anyway. But he literally can't peep we have 343 have quit. And they might be able to get their jobs back, but they simply said, I have to go earn money.

So, who knows what you could do as a day worker, you know, at some type of Uber driver or something to that nature. But if you're making $40,000, you're most likely living paycheck to paycheck unless you're in a very affordable state.

So it's incredible what's happening, being that you're not trying to form TSA or the Coast Guard, you're trying to reform ICE. And it's not working. I mean, this, but why, why are it seemingly people don't think it's a 50-50 problem? I really can't fault Republicans here. Yeah, look, the Democrats, if they were smart.

If they were smart, they would seize upon the Mullen Cut information areas. Yeah, no, here's the deal: they ought to go on the offense. Senator Mullen, if you are confirmed, will you sit down with us and in good faith work on coming to an agreement on ICE reform? If you're confirmed. And of course, he's going to say, of course, I'm going to talk with you.

Then go ahead and let you go through the confirmation process, but go ahead and fund the DHS, including ICE, and then sit down with the new secretary and say, here is what we want to achieve. And suddenly the Democrats would be on the offense because people would say, well, they funded the government. Shutdowns are losers for whoever forces them. And that way they could be sitting there saying, look, here's what we want to. They put the focus on what their demands are.

And if their demands are reasonable, the American people might say, yeah, okay, those are reasonable. Those are reasonable requests. But, you know, they have made a bed that is really uncomfortable to lie in over the long haul. And they don't seem to realize that they're hurting themselves. What happens if there's a major event?

What happens to people going to the airport and having to stand in lines? What's happening to those TSA workers? Workers, as you point out, who don't make in many cases very much at all, what happens to their lives?

So, Democrats are making a mistake on it. Whether or not they use this as an off-ramp is yet to be seen. It's unbelievable.

So, Carl, just real quick on the Senate race, it doesn't look like the President's going to endorse Paxson or Cornyn.

So, we're going to have to wait till May. Is that a problem? No, because look, Cornyn has money and Cornyn has momentum and Cornyn has the issue. He spent most of the primary sort of reintroducing himself to the people of Texas, letting them know what he had achieved in the last six years. Spent some money on keeping Wesley Hunt from becoming the lightning in a bottle.

But the smallest amount of money he spent was on detailing Paxton's record. That is going to change. And Cornyn is going to come out and tell the people of Texas what the Democrats are going to be saying about this guy in the fall: that he is a crook with mistresses who abused his office in order to keep his girlfriends happy and in order to keep the people who kept his girlfriends employed happy.

So this ain't going to be a pleasant primary runoff for Ken Paxton. And Cornyn's got resources and going to start deploying them pretty darn soon. And I say that. Just to be clear, I'm a longtime friend of John Corner. We've known each other for decades, and I consider Ken Paxton one of the most reckless people I've ever seen in politics.

The girlfriends, the corruption, the favors done for guys who end up in jail, the mismanagement of his office, the stupid things that he's allowed to have happen make him a target both in the runoff and, more importantly, in the general election for the Democrats.

So they say it's between one and four points for both men against. Uh the the Democrat.

So wh why why is it so close? We thought that Cruz was close too, and it ended up being a two decisive wins. Is this that close, Carl?

Well, it won't be close if it's Cornyn, but if it's Paxton as the nominee, you can. But the polls say they're both close. Yeah, but here's the point. The case against Paxton has not been prosecuted. That's my point.

And the stuff that's out there is so bad and so voluminous that you can count on the Democrats spending $100 or $200 million telling people about all the girlfriends and all the abuse and all the corruption and the $200,000 remodel of his home and the eight houses that he's bought, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And that stuff has not been litigated thus far in the primary.

So as Chuck Schumer thinks Alaska's in play and Dan Sullivan's in trouble, Carl, do you think Dan Sullivan's in trouble in Alaska? I think Schumer's desperate. But look, it's cheaper to try and buy a seat in Alaska than it is in Ohio or Michigan or something, even Maine. But Dan Sullivan's not taking it for granted. And Chuck Schumer has gone after him twice before, and each time has come up short.

Let's talk about Iran. Here's the president yesterday on when this is ending, cut one. If we left right now, it would take 10 years for them to rebuild. But we're not ready to leave yet. But we will be leaving in the near future.

We'll be leaving. In pretty much the very near future. But right now, they've been decimated from every standpoint. And again, We've had great support from countries in the Middle East, great support, but we've had no support from, essentially, no support from NATO.

So a couple of things. On the European on the Gulf states, The latest they've been uh they've been um not equivocating, number one. And number two, Saudi Arabia's message. Cripple this regime. Cripple Iran.

So NATO, I could anticipate what you're going to say about NATO. The President has to plow the ground, work the relationships in order to use them. But having said all that, being the President, it is different the way he does with international relations. Are you surprised they aren't saying it is in our interest to help with the Strata Formuzz?

Well, first of all, they have limited resources to help in that problem. And second of all, the president insulted them, saying they've never come to our aid. And these are countries who had men go into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside U.S. troops and died.

So he's got some bridge building to do there. But let's go back to your central point. One of the critical mistakes the Iranians have made is to launch attacks upon the civilian infrastructure of the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. And they have turned people who are adversaries into lifelong enemies. These are people who are wary of getting in the middle of a conflict.

And when they were attacked by Iran, and using the thing, well, you've got a U.S. base, but we're going to attack downtown Dubai. Or the Dubai Airport, or Saudi Arabia's energy facilities. That was a mistake, excuse me, this hayfeet sees hay fever season in Austin. But yeah, this is a big, critical mistake by the new leadership, and they will come to regret it deeply.

Carl, as this is playing out, I cannot believe how many higher-ups working with the Israelis is really something else. I mean, they just took out another key leader who was on charge of the sleeper sales precision strikes and was sanctioned in 2022. He's got American blood on his hands, Ismari Khatib. They just took him out. We know about Ali Larajani.

We know about the head of the U.S. Uh GC.

So we're seeing all Solomani, right? Yeah, and the Solomoni, yes, yesterday too. And then we know that in looking at the Wall Street Journal today, a place where you have an editorial, we're seeing the takedown of all these leaders. And there's a tactical way in their doing it: blow up that headquarters, flush them out, find the bridges where they hide out, then find the tents and the checkpoints, and then watch because their plan was to meet at sports complexes. And guess who knew about it?

The Mossad, the IDF, and RCIA. And we're blowing them up there. We're beginning to take down the apparatus. Don't you see it? Yeah, I agree.

In fact, you left out one important element. Yes, our intelligence agencies know it, but how do they know it? Because there is a robust opposition inside Iran that is helping to provide essential details that are allowing we and our Israeli allies to systematically knock out the next round of leadership. Can you imagine somebody saying, God, geez, I might be promoted. And they need to get excited about that because they're going to get promoted into a slot that puts them a target on their back.

So a couple of things that are happening as we begin to do it, we're trying to see if these people can stand up and take their country back. But yet it seems like there's so many people on the left who are kind of rooting for failure. Hakeem Jeffries actually said it. And so far we're seeing over and over again the media combining with the Democrats to say that the President's in some type of quandary or quagmire, cut nine. It's becoming clear all the time, frankly, that the Trump administration was not prepared for this war to last.

Now, are we any closer to finding out what the plan is here? Here we find ourselves again in a situation where we could actually win every single battle and still lose the war. And that's constant drumbeat. I'm sure, Carl, you saw Apple News, which was supposed to be fair. Remember?

There's not one conservative columnist. Nobody's covering anything positively. We saw Facebook a few weeks ago has basically the same thing. It's tough. I mean, you can't complain about the refs.

I understand it. But we can point it out. Yeah, look, first of all, the American people are seeing the success of it.

So if you say, do you approve or disapprove of what the U.S. military is achieving, the numbers are higher than if you put the word Trump or administration into it.

So we're deeply polarized, but the American people can, with their own eyes, see what's going on. I want to touch on one thing, though, because I'm writing about it for tomorrow's column in the Wall Street Journal. It's not simply the left. We have an anti-Israel, anti-Jews on the hard right. And it's not just the neo-Nazis like Fuentes and not only the question the Israeli crowd in the form of Tucker Carlson, but also Megan Kelly, our former colleague, and Candace Owens, who is such a crazed lunatic, it's unbelievable.

Now, but the interesting thing is I'm going to write in tomorrow's column about a poll done by the Vandenberg Coalition of Trump voters that said, identified people who said, I'm a Trump voter. And then are you a Trump, a MAGA Trump conservative? Are you a traditional conservative? Are you a moderate Republican? Are you a libertarian?

And what's interesting is all of those groups. are strongly supportive of what the President is doing, and the most supportive group of all Are self-described MAGA Republicans and MAGA conservatives. That is to say, the people whom Carlson et al., Fuentes et al., claimed to be speaking on behalf of, disagree most vehemently among all those groups with the notion that this is somehow a put-up job by Israel and that we shouldn't be doing it. It's a joke to think that this president. Who's going to be bullied by anybody, someone in his own party, even if it's a friend?

You don't attack a country at a friendship. It's a persistent threat to America. And if you remember, Benjamin and Yahoo. What backed up President Trump and said, listen, we're not ready to fight yet. We don't have the interceptors.

And he wanted to hit three weeks ago before he actually hit. And it was Netanyahu who said, We're not ready yet because we know we're going to be targeted the minute you go in there.

So people just remember the facts of the story. Exactly. And they need to remember the thing that you touched on. For 47 years, this has been a regime that has chanted death to America, which has tried to kill the president. Several presidents of the United States, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, which intruded into the Iraq war by providing sophisticated devices designed to kill Americans in their vehicles that we had that had been designed, the anti-IED vehicles.

They came up with a special projectile to attack Americans. These people hate us, and they want nothing better than to extinguish America. Their leaders believe an apocryphal vision of, you know, one of the reasons they're pushing for a nuclear weapon is they have this apocryphal vision in which the hidden Mahdi, the hidden Imam, appears after an apocalyptic war against the United States. I mean, these people are our enemies, and to believe that somehow or another that we can benignly leave them to their devices and allow them to do whatever they need to do. Because we don't need to worry about it because we're protected by miles and miles of other continents and oceans.

We're kidding ourselves. If you look at the drudge report, You would think that we've lost every troop and every plane, and we haven't hit one target. Uh, and the whole world's turning and turning on us and laughing at us. I think anyone looking at that military display. Uh our first AI war.

They're in awe of what's taking place. And we haven't even seen it all. Uh, so we're seeing it. Carl, thanks so much. I look forward to your column tomorrow on the Wall Street Journal, and I appreciate you wearing a tie for me.

So do our audience. I mean, you look great in a tie. And to wear that, thank you, man. Thank you. You know, I got up this morning and I said I'm going to be on with Kill Meet, so I'd rather bring my A game satorially.

And it's hard for me to do that. But you, on the other hand, you always look great. You always have the great tie, the great shirt, the great smile. And me, I'm just a, you know, I'm a Rube from Texas. What the hell?

I have a higher opinion of you than you have of yourself. We've got to work on your self-esteem, though. Carl Roe, thanks so much. You got it. Back in a moment.

From the Oval Office to the front lines, he talks to the people making history. This is the Brian Kilmeat Show. Yeah.

The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. Hey, a couple of minutes with Martha McHale. Martha, you were just saying there's so much to watch today. Senator Mullins' confirmation, the brawl with Rand Paul.

I know.

Now we're watching all our tastes like this. I'm running from studio to studio. I kind of wish I was like at home in my PJs just watching hearings all day because these are very substantive. This is very important, the hearings that we're going through. You know, one to find a new director of the Department of Homeland Security.

The other, I'm just watching John Radcliffe talking right now, a person who we used to hear from quite a bit. He is the director of the CIA. He's extremely tight-lipped, very professional, and is working hard to keep the country safe.

So these are very substantive, important things that are happening right now. You know, he's going to be one of the MVPs. When they write about this administration, they're going to say that John Radcliffe is one of the MVPs. Absolutely. Absolutely.

Because intelligence has been so key to these operations in Iran, in particular, in June, and then again now, and in Venezuela. I mean, look at the incredible intelligence effort that went into that very Successful Venezuela operation. And John Ratcliffe is a serious, smart person, a Notre Dame graduate. He knows these things very deeply and is very committed to keeping the country safe. And don't you think it has a lot to do with what we're going to see in Cuba shortly?

I do. I think you're going to, it feels to me at this point that the Cuba solution looks quite different actually from what we've seen in other places. I think that watching what's going on in Iran, Cuba looks at that. They look at Maduro, who's about to make an appearance in a New York City courtroom, and they're like, hey, maybe there's another path here. Maybe we can make nice now and open up relations, get some trade moving, and move on.

Condo in Moscow. Might be a better choice than a prison cell in Brooklyn. Absolutely. More with Martin McCallum so she can watch, so she can watch the hearings. Exactly.

We'll be watching in the break. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. Certainly the repression forces have been doing everything to prevent that from happening. insisting don't come out, don't even come out to go shopping tomorrow, don't come out for any purpose whatsoever, or you're going to be shot at.

What? We've cleaned up a lot of these people on the streets, too. It remains to be seen. It would be a A good thing certainly for them to protest, but certainly if it's going to mean Death and destruction for them. Certainly, based on what's happened in the past, they'll give it a second thought.

General Jackson. As this regime gets weaker, and it is getting significantly weaker every day, the possibility of more protests at some point where they can't repress them anymore gets more real. And that's the path we're on. And by the way, the head of the Revolutionary Guards Besiege militia was killed yesterday, Salome, same last name as the other killer. And they also just took out one of the people that we personally sanctioned in 2022.

His name is Esmiel Khattab. He's the head of the sleeper cells. He also has American blood on his hands. He was a key player with the secret police that they have. Martha McCallum, my guest, her show is going to be starting at 3 o'clock today.

Martha, the big question I have to average everyday people is: when are the Iranian people going to rise up? Last night they had a fire festival. They were told, don't go out of the house. They did. They went out anyway, and they weren't shot.

And the question is: is the besieged still there to shoot them? They're still unarmed. I know you can't predict what's next, but I am noticing that the Israelis get it. They're not coming out unless this besieged Melissa can be repressed. I think that's true.

And people in this country, Iranians in this country who are in touch with people on the ground there, tell me that they will not come out until there's a clear signal that it is safe for them to come out. They have recently watched 30,000 people be massacred in the streets. They had to come, they had to pay for the bullets that went into their bodies in order to be shown their loved ones' body.

So. I think people have to sort of just take a breath. I keep hearing people saying, why aren't they running out? Why aren't they coming out? I've asked this question myself.

But. Think about the fact that When Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in front of Gorbachev and said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It was not for another three months that people actually started climbing up on the wall and tearing it down.

So, these things, I think the seeds are planted, and they have had been burned so many times, the Iranian people, through every former president in our lifetime, they've been burned, coming out and protesting, and then getting no support.

So, they're going to wait, I think, until they feel that the time is right. That attrition is clearly happening in the Besiege and in the IRGC for sure, but they keep popping up. It's like whack-a-mole.

So, it looks like the Wall Street Journal got access. To hit some of the strategy that Israel and the US has already put together, who they're hitting and why, and where they're hitting, and the progress they're having. And it's pretty impressive. It is really impressive. And what they're doing is, they're not asking for you to give them credit or discredit, they're just doing it.

And the Israelis actually hit all the police chiefs. And they have a different term for it and said, Look, you're on the blacklist. You could die. Or you could put down your weapon, stop going to work. And one of them came back and said, We're with you.

Show us where you are, we will fight with you.

So, there's stuff happening. We have a great partner. Israel is unbelievably prepared, resourceful, and tapped into that country. Absolutely. I mean, there's a piece this morning about how the.

President Trump and B.B. Netanyahu, who have different endgame strategies here. I think there's obviously this effort to sort of drive a wedge between them. They have been on the same page. This is an extraordinary effort.

I remember the Secretary of War, Pete Hagseth, coming out and saying, you know, these are the two most powerful militaries in the world. And when you put them together, you're getting an incredible, you're getting an incredible outcome because of that. I also thought that Wall Street Journal piece was very interesting. And what it goes to, what I found. Really hit home with me is that now you have the people that have been implementing terror on their population are terrified.

They now are affected by the money. I'm talking about the ones who are still out there. They are now afraid. And that is part of this strategy. Because if you are Pazehkian or you are some of these remaining Aragashi officials, the foreign minister and the current president, you are very worried about what's going to happen, where are you going to put your head down on a pillow tonight?

I think there is an effort to figure out who future leadership might be, and maybe that's why some of these people are passed over for the moment. But there is terror in the hearts of all of these upper echelon Iranian officials, and I think it's interesting that she was finally on the other foot. Foreign minister texted Steve Witkoff over the weekend. He goes, Oh, I didn't.

Well yeah, you did. I mean he got the text message. These guys are such liars. It's unbelievable.

Yeah, then he said that we're not in communication at all. I don't know if they were going through an intermediary. You think he got a text directly from He evidently said Steve Woodcock said he had texted him. I saw that there was some suggestion that they were in touch, and President Trump was saying they're reaching out. We're so used to the Iranian leadership not telling us the truth that I think and they've done it to their own people for 47 years.

So it's hard to know. I mean, it's a couple of things. You know, they talk about the first Persian Gulf War. Yep. And when.

President Bush stopped and stopped on before going to Baghdad, left, but left Saddam way too much military. And they ended up what and they when they told the Shiites to rise up, they were all annihilated and they never forgave us for that. It hurt us in two thousand three. That's right.

So now you tell people to rise up. When we're saying, listen, don't rise up yet, but the time's coming. That's interesting. If they somehow say, look. I give.

I get it. We're going to stop at the nuclear program. I worry about them saying we have enough weaponry.

Now we're going to kill anybody that wants to speak up, any woman that wants to take off her veil, any per woman that wants to go get a job or go to school. I understand there's limits to what we can do financially and everything. But I do say, how close are we to giving these people just what UAE has? They could be wealthier. Or Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, just what they have. You're never going to get what we have, probably. Yeah, I mean, the difference is that this is really sort of one of the last theocratic regimes. Everything about the way that they rule with an iron fist is built into. There their faith, right?

It's built into uh To their system of law. And so, you know, you have this sort of society that has people who just walk up and down the streets. And if, you know, your hair is sticking out of your hijab, you can be taken into custody and are. There are layers of people in Avian prison who used to be people who worked in the government, what we would call the administration. But if they think they're starting to maybe go a little bit off script, they just throw them in prison.

So it, you know. I think it's understandable that it's going to take them a little while. I do think if they get a clear signal from the Israeli and US government that it is now safe for them to come out and that there's some sort of structure to protect them in the streets, then they will be ready. And I don't want to get my hopes up, but can you imagine the scenes where we wake up one day and we find out they're in the streets, especially last night. I wonder if a video exists, because last night we have a great guest who you should have on too, said that they were in contact with people, said they were told not to go out, and they did anyway.

And nobody was there, nobody shot, and they didn't see any sign of security. That's what you need. They're too scared to come out. But if they come out, if they're just hiding. And we move out.

But I know that there's a finite president's taking tremendous political risks in doing that. Would you say this is the riskiest thing you've seen a president do? 100%. I mean, this is the act that we've heard about our entire lives. And I think that, you know.

You look I was thinking about President Trump talking about the Churchill bust in his office the other day. I think you can I know they have their differences, but you can look at Zelensky in a similar mold of not being afraid to take bold action. And President Trump Is taking bold action to an issue that has been talked to death. I heard one person who has advised prior administrations in the State Department and out of the State Department saying, This isn't how this is done, kind of very upset that this was done the way that the president began the operation. You have to go through layers of advisors and people all signing off on a plan.

We have been doing that for forty seven years, and it hasn't worked. With the UN backing? Absolutely. And also this argument that, well, of course, Europe is mad because they weren't consulted. It's like does anyone think that if Europe had been consulted on this, that that meeting That morning would have still happened.

There's no way. You have to maintain operational security. You have to maintain confidentiality in this kind of operation, or it's not going to happen. They would have scattered, you know, they would have scattered all over the city. What about the Germans coming out and going, well, it's not our war?

Really? But they're taking your people. And do you know if they could get a missile to reach you and they might have one? 100%. They would do it in a second.

100%. Consider they give it to their friends. I cannot. You know.

Well, what's happening in Europe? You know, politically, it's impossible for them to make these moves. But what does that tell you? It tells you that they have allowed. people who do not, you know, sort of support Western culture necessarily to dominate their countries.

So they don't have the kind of say that they used to have. They don't have a clear perspective on, yes, of course, we should be supporting the United States in this effort against Iran because it's too politically difficult for them.

Well, you know what that means. a huge Muslim presence in their countries. Yes, they feel they have such a large voting bloc that will be against taking any action in that region. And so th this is how far down the line it's gone. The countries have changed dramatically.

And I think the the alliances that President Trump looks toward now Is more Israel, the Saudis. You know, I think I'm really also watching Japan and South Korea. They have a lot at stake here, too, with this energy source from the state of Formuzz. And I think it's high time that people stand up and be counted. And yes, it's the boldest move I've seen ever on the part of a U.S.

president. And so much of this has to do with China, if you think about it. Since FDR, probably. Sis FDR. Yeah, I mean, by the way, after we were bombed, there's still people in this country who said, don't get involved in that war.

Absolutely. And, you know, if I may, just really quickly, I mean, think about that. The United States did not want to be involved in World War II. There was a clear and present danger in World War II, right? And so it's not.

This is a Nazi rally in Madison Square. Exactly. But I think we all have to remember the perspective on it because I'm okay with there being a debate in this country over whether or not this is a good thing to do. That's what we're all about. And there has never been anything like this, any kind of kinetic action, any kind of war.

Where a country, our country, hasn't had a very fulsome debate over it. And I'm okay with that. But the President has authority to take this action. He's decided that's what he's going to do. If that has election consequences down the road, so be it.

Yeah.

I want you to hear like I'll give you an example. The Libya situation came out of nowhere.

Next thing you know, Gaddafi's in trouble. Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice contact Obama and say this is the time to act.

Some Republicans join in it and they act. They had absolutely no plan. It went on for what, seven months? And yeah, it went on for seven months. And after Gaddafi was overthrown, there was absolutely no plan or idea to replace him.

And Russians probably have the most influence now to this day.

So I want you to hear Jamison Greer on is this all about China, which now it looks like their meeting's going to be put off at least five weeks, cut 36. What's the current tariff? The average is probably somewhere around 35. But certain goods, steel, aluminum, autos, you know, it's higher than that. It's $45.50.

So that's where we're looking at with China. It's still higher than the rest of the world. And you're going to leave that in place for the time being?

So those are those are We have tariffs from Section 301 from the first term that you know all about. Those are still in place. We have national security tariffs on auto, steel, and aluminum. Those are all still in place. And then we have a baseline 10% right now, which is a temporary measure that the president's allowed to have.

So those all build on each other, and they protect our economy. Our trade deficit with China went down by 30% last year, 3-0. That's the most we've had a decline in one year with China in a really long time. Pretty impressive. And then you consider the loss of influence of Venezuela, soon Cuba, and now Iran.

The president goes in with tremendous leverage. And the belligerence that Joe Biden got when he took office, remember when his people were blown up in Alaska, verbally, blown up in Alaska, how dare you? And all these retributions? We're not seeing that now. Martha McCallum, do you believe the President's got a lot more leverage when he meets with China?

I do. I mean, China's largest fuel source is Venezuela and Iran. Both of those are being. severely limited, severely limited from Venezuela dramatically. And in Iran, they're letting some ships go through to try to gauge the price of oil overall.

It's interesting though, because China gets Most of its energy from coal. More than 50% of their energy comes from coal. But the way that they use these transactions during sanctioned oil transactions in these countries, Iran and previously Venezuela, is as a currency fluctuation to strengthen the Chinese currency and weaken the dollar.

So they're playing this as a currency game. Clearly, they need the fuel that comes through the Strait of Hormuz, but just keep in mind, it's interesting to note that most of their energy still comes from coal. And I guarantee you, it is not the kind of clean coal that we have worked to develop in this country. Yeah, and by the way, they get discount oil from Venezuela, from Iran, and from Russia. They're not paying full price anywhere.

Right. All right, well, more with Martha McCalman in a second. Martha will tell us who's on her show at 3 o'clock.

Sometimes she's tight-lipped, but maybe she won't be so tight-lipped. Stick around. Big guests, bold opinions, better information. This is the Brian Killmead Show. Information you want, truth you demand.

This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Sponsored by Previgen. Previgion made for your brain. Marco Rubio is hot, hot, hot like a summer heat wave. I mean, just take a look here.

Over the last six months, Chance Rubio is the 2028 GOP presidential nominee. He was just at 7% six months ago. Hello, up like a rocket. 27% chance now. What is that?

That's quadrupling his chances in four months' time. Marco Rubio's chances, according to the Calcium Prediction Markets, way, way up. CNN, going over the numbers. And just says Rubio's fortunes are going up. If you think about the role he's played, being loyal to Trump while showing great initiative and having huge responsibility, it kind of makes sense.

Martha McCallum, would you be surprised by those numbers? Um yeah. Yeah.

I mean, I I I think it is um Interesting, just listening to them talking about all of these attacks. We were listening to Mark Waymall and all of the attacks that we've watched happen also across the country in recent days. And you think about Iran talking about. Uh asymmetrical. Attacks on the country.

I think it's the other sort of layer that we have to keep a close eye on as well. Right, Martha, who's going to be on your show? Are you going to refuse to tell me?

So I know. I'm going to tell you. General Jack Keene will be joining us. We're particularly interested in these 5,000-pound bombs that have been dropped on either side of the Strait of Hormuz, on the Iranian side, I should say, of the Strait of Hormuz, trying to go after the missiles that are attacking ships in the Strait. And we also are going to talk to Jon Thun about the Save America Act and find out where that stands, as well as the Mullen hearing that's going on this morning, which has been really compelling.

It has been compelling, along with the intelligence briefing that's taking place. And we're going to see what's happening with the war. We got up today to find out another high-ranking, two high-ranking officials have been killed. You wonder how long until these people can actually step up. And one of the things you have is the Israelis have a lot of allies on the ground who are telling them a lot of information.

There are some of whom are subject to arrests. There were 500 arrested after the 2025 hit in June. A lot of people thought to be collaborating with the Israelis, but they know. That's their, this might be their one ticket to freedom to give information on these officers and wonder how close we are to watching these Iranians take back the streets. I mean, I don't think we've ever been in a situation where the Israeli infiltration has been as strong as it is now.

And we saw that in the June bombings as well. It would never have happened without the cooperation of intelligence on the ground deep inside of Iran. That's another thing that has these guys' head on a swivel because they don't know. You know, these people are blending in so well, so completely into the population. And they've been turned, so that makes it very unstable as well.

So we'll see. I think the time will come. As Netanyahu said, the time is coming soon. Join us at Foxing Supporting the Troops. Go to go Fox/slash Red Cross to donate to service to the Armed Forces today.

It helps the families of anybody fighting overseas. Go to the Red Cross. Thanks, Brian.