Mark Thiessen joins us now. You know he's a a famous Washington Post columnist. Former speechwriter, Fox News contributor. Mark, are we going back to war? Do you think it's just a matter of time?
Well, the the ceasefire wasn't the end of the war, it was a pause. To give the Iranians a chance to negotiate a deal. And so if they haven't negotiated a deal and they haven't capitulated when it comes to their nuclear program and their ballistic missiles and their support for terror, then we should go back to war and we should finish the job. Admiral Cooper was about 14 days away. From finishing all the military tasks that President Trump assigned him.
We've got about 80%. Of what we intended to hit. We need to hit 100% of it, and then the war can be over without an agreement.
So I think we need to do it. What is your take on this the evaluation of the bombings that took place already?
Now we had a chance to examine those satellite images. We have seen the bulldozers arrive at a lot of the things that were buried underground. How successful was this? Do you think there's been an evaluation already at the Pentagon?
Well, I think if you talk to most military experts, they will tell you we've taken out 70 to 80 percent of their military capacity, right? But 20 to 30 percent is a lot. And we know after Operation Midnight Hammer that he immediately started rebuilding, and they will do the same thing unless we damage them more. The good news is President Trump, the ceasefire wasn't a mistake. Even if we don't get an agreement, because it allowed us to do two things.
One, it allowed us to steam ships through the Strait of Hormuz to enforce the blockade.
So now we will have military action plus blockade.
So Operation Economic Freedom and Epic Fury and Economic Fury. And this other thing it did, it allowed us to rearm and reload.
So Jack Keene tells us that we have double the firepower. right now in the Persian Gulf that we had at the start of the war. And also the third thing is they've brought some stuff out from under that they had buried away to protect it from the first barrage of attacks.
Well, now that's exposed.
So, you know, and I think we're just, we just have to realize that the regime has not moderated. Valdez is in charge. He's the IRGC is completely in charge. And until we eliminate those leaders and until we eliminate their capacity to fire at us, we can't call this a success yet. I hear you.
So the question. is a few questions. Number one, are they all on the same page? You know, famously, pretty, no one's really denied it. J.D.
Vance was not for this action. And that's fine. You don't need a bunch of yes men around you. If I'm president of the United States, I do not need someone to say whatever you want, whatever you do. Ultimately, when I make a decision, get on board.
But J.D. Vance was asked that. And then the Atlantic story that said he's concerned that we're running out of munitions, cut three. Most of these reports I ignore. This one I actually read because it, you know, it ascribed views to me and things that I had allegedly said that I am just 100% certain that I have never said.
And in particular, there's a lot in that story, Will, and you know how this game works, that is attributed to people who describe themselves as Vance advisors. You know, an advance advisor could be a staff member that I see every single day. It could also be a random person off the street that I've talked to once at the White House Correspondents Association dinner. What I feel confident about, Will, is that nobody who actually knows what I think, nobody who's close to me, was speaking to that reporter because if they did, then it would have been a totally different story. Because his head of staffer, unnamed staffer, says that he's concerned about us running out of munitions and for the direction of the war.
So, first of all, we've still got plenty of munitions. We've used a lot, and we're going to have to restock them. But we have plenty of munitions. And two more weeks of bombing is not going to decisively impact our munition stockpiles in a way at a cost that outweighs the benefit of decisively ending this conflict. Look, this war can only end.
In a positive way for President Trump, in one of two ways: the Iranians capitulate at the negotiating table, or we finish the military task. Those are the only choices. Anything short of that is a stalemate, it's an imperfect victory, and so we need to do one of those two things. And quite frankly, we're going to have an easier time forcing them to capitulate after two more weeks of bombing. Because that'll give Trump a lot more leverage, because we can then say, okay, we destroy the Carg Island.
Or you give us what we want.
So the question is, with unable to get any oil out, theoretically, we stopped them at the blockade, turned around 44 ships. Mohammad Baghdar Gabbalaf, he is the Speaker of the House. He mocked the U.S. pressure campaign, says oil infrastructure has not collapsed despite predictions, criticized the U.S. strategy as junk advice, blames the U.S.
actions for rising global oil prices.
So the President says he talks to these guys almost every day. I don't know if this guy's one of them. But How to is that a two-faced attitude? Do you think they really believe that? First of all, he is an evil dude, and second of all, he's not in charge.
There are more evil people that are in charge. He was the guy that was put forward to negotiate with us as sort of the quote-unquote moderate. A moderate in the Iranian regime is like a moderate Nazi, right? They're all Nazis. And so none of them want to capitulate.
He's putting on a brave face, but the reality is we can keep this blockade forever. You know, there's no timeline on this. And Trump is right that at some point they're going to run out of oil storage. And an oil well is not like your bathtub. If you shut it off, the water just stops, and then you turn it on, and the water comes back on.
If you shut off an oil well, then it does damage to the oil capacity.
So they're facing permanent damage to all these things. But the problem is, Brian, they don't care about that. All they care about is survival. They don't care. This is a regime that massacred 42,000 people in two days to remain in power.
Do you think they care about oil wells? All they care about is surviving. And so, unless you can threaten their survival and the blockade doesn't threaten their survival, then nothing's going to get them to capitulate.
Well, the one thing I would say is: if you can't pay your army, there are about a million soldiers, that's going to be a problem.
So that's when you'd be ripe to have some type of uprising if no one's getting paid at all. They've lost about 2 million jobs since it started.
Now, talk about inappropriate. Here's the German chancellor talking to, I think, high school kids, Cut 11. At the moment, I cannot see what strategic exit the Americans are now opting for, especially as the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully, or rather very skillfully not negotiating and letting the Americans travel to Islamadad, only to leave again without any results. This entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian state leadership, especially by these so-called revolutionary guards. Humiliated, being outmaneuvered, So, if you thought that, pick up the phone and call the president and say, listen, I think you're being manipulated here or you're being humiliated.
And they'll have it out. And then, you know, the story probably ends there. Or maybe he says, I talked to the president and I think he's being humiliated.
Okay. But that does irreparable damage. The president's taking that extremely personal, and he should. I take it personal. I do too.
I mean, I just don't understand why they're opining on a war that they have steadfastly said that that's not their war.
Okay, if it's not your war, then shut up. No one asked you what you think about the negotiating strategy. And I think, look, I think all the European reaction to this struggle has been pathetic. Because all we really asked them to do is hold our coats while we went and destroyed a nuclear program and a missile program that we discovered during this conflict can actually reach every country in Europe except Portugal, those missiles, because they lied about the range of their missiles. We are once again defending them without their help, and that's fine if they want to do that.
But then we need to take the people who have denied us, the fact that we have to fly around Spain. To get there is absolutely pathetic.
So, I think what this will do, it's going to end up being a forcing mechanism to do something that we should have done anyway, which is reassess our global force posture. And I think we need to do a reassessment of why do we have troops in Germany? The reason we have troops in Germany is because that's where World War II ended, and then the Cold War began. We had Eastern West Germany. We had a threat of a Soviet invasion across the Folda Gap.
Well, that's not the line of contact anymore. The line of contact is the border of Poland.
So, why do we have troops in Germany other than sunk costs?
Well, let's move them. Let's move them to Poland. Let's move them to the Baltic states. Let's move them to Finland. Let's move them where the actual line of contact is.
And let's reward the countries like Romania, like Croatia, like Greece, like Poland, like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, that have actually stood with us. When we needed them, and that is they are under threat by Russia, they are, yeah, and they're they happen to be the one the most loyal allies, and two, the ones that are under threat by Russia. And you know, we don't need to have bases in Germany anymore. Why do we need why do we need troops in Germany? Um, other than the sunk costs of the infrastructure, right?
So, we have medical facilities and things like that, but we can move those, and I bet you Poland would be happy to pay for it to build new hospitals. And they said it all these countries would say thank you. Come, come. In fact, Poland said we will name the base after Trump, which was that's the key.
So I want you to hear Roe Conna yesterday. His heart goes out to those who support Donald Trump, Cut 17. You know what I'm sad for? I'm sad for all the people who voted for Trump. I'm sad for them because you betrayed them.
You've betrayed a lot of that MAGA base. And you know who knows that? J.D. Vance knows that.
So do you really think his heart goes out to Trump supporters? I don't think his heart goes out to Trump's supporters, but I also, Trump hasn't betrayed the MAGA base because if you look at every poll. They all the mega base supports 90% of the mega base supports what he's doing in Iran. And if you look at every poll, the MAGA base is not isolationist. The MAGA base, they are hardline when it comes to defending Taiwan.
They are hardlined when it comes to pushing back on Russia. I mean, they support what he did in Venezuela. MAGA Republicans are not isolationists. This is like a myth. This myth of a MAGA fracture with Trump is just insane.
It doesn't exist.
Well, he lost a lot of high-profile podcast support. Yeah, I know. That is a shame. But he's got you, Brian. Right.
He doesn't need those guys. Because this is a podcast and a radio show. I know it is. With American Home Shield, you can now video chat with live repair experts for help with home fixes over the phone. American Home Shield, don't worry, be warranty.
Visit ahs.com/slash listen for 20% off any plan. Available as a benefit with select plans. Mark, let's talk politics for a second. Put in perspective what the Supreme Court did yesterday with the redistricting, deciding that it is unconstitutional to set up a district on the basis of race. Yeah.
So, all of this, these race-based districts were responds to Jim Crow America that doesn't exist anymore, right? And the court has, whether it was constitutional to begin with, there's no need for it anymore. And this is actually going to benefit. Our political system in a number of ways, one of which is it's going to create more competitive congressional seats. Because right now, it's not just the Democrats who benefit from having these racially gerrymandered districts, Republicans do too, because all those voters are segregated, and I use that word intentionally, segregated in black districts.
And wouldn't it be better for the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and the country if they were spread out among other districts so that both parties had to compete for their votes? That's how they could voters of these other districts. That's how Chuck Schumer said, listen, cut 32. And today we're ramping up our efforts. We see the need for it just today in today's Supreme Court decision.
which was a despicable decision that is a return to Jim Crow. Taking decades of hard work, sweat, blood, and tears, and even people dying. for the right to vote. to prevent racial discrimination in the right to vote. Fine.
So is he is that hyperbole? You know what you know what's Jim Crow? Electoral segregation. Right? We just got to we got to segregate the the black voters in their own districts.
They can't vote with white people. That's what the Democrats support. They're the party that supported Jim Crow in the 50s and 60s, and they're supporting electoral Jim Crow today. I think that the best thing for this country is for us to have multiracial districts where we all live in harmony together and we all vote in harmony together, and everybody has to compete for everybody's vote. Because when black voters are segregated in black districts, Republicans don't have to compete for their votes.
They just write them off. We're never going to get their votes.
So why do we need to do anything for them other than out of the goodness of our hearts?
Well, now it'll increase the power of black voters because all of a sudden you'll need black votes in order to win districts that you thought were safe before.
So it's great for America. It's an end to electoral segregation. Go get them, Mark Teason. Thanks so much. Appreciate your time and thanks for your testimony.
Take care.
