The Brian Kilmeade Show

From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead. Yeah. Hi everyone, so glad you're there. It's the Brand Killman Show, an important show coming your way on this Wednesday.

Dennis Ross might be joining us. He's in transit right now. Bottom of the Yow, Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, is going to be with us too. We have more primary results to go over and the President of the United States has already spoken a couple of times at the G7. He met at one-on-one with a bilateral with the Egyptian president al-Sisi.

And that was productive. He's got some personal things. I thought Al Cisi pointed out something interesting through an interpreter this morning. We covered it on Fox and Friends. He said, I went off, I tried to get your attention at the dinner last night, but you didn't enjoy the end of your meal because you were constantly being approached by different world leaders.

For those people who think that Trump is isolated and looked down on, you just, I know it's America and we got the huge portfolio, but it's just not the case. I think people have really gotten to like him or respect him or both. Big three. Number three. We gotta face facts here, man.

We have a real problem in this country right now. This stuff now is at home. We have essentially a homegrown like Hezbollah from the far left, and they're being radicalized online. Hi, that is Paul Morrow talking about the UFC plot that was thwarted, thankfully, at the White House. We have the evil plan and what we know about the would-be attackers as the DOJ indicts Antifa for their role in Minneapolis, that chaos that we saw this winter.

America is being attacked from within. We will discuss. Number 10. Like I said then, I'm the only candidate who doesn't owe a thing to the political establishment. I don't care what special interests want, how much they beg, how much they give me.

I can't be bought and I won't back down. That is Rick Jackson, very successful in the primary. The economy beginning to boom, and midterm fortunes beginning to sway GOP's way. We have the primary results last night. Number one: The Wall Street Journal editorial board, which has been supportive of this administration's efforts against Iran, said the world is more likely to see this as a strategic retreat.

Have you won the war with Iran? Yes, we have, and I think that's a mistake from the Wall Street Journal editorial board because what does this deal fundamentally do? It ensures that Iran won't get a nuclear weapon, and it ensures the straits of Hormuz are open. Really? I'm not sure.

We have not seen the text yet. That is J.D. Vance. He owns this. Details emerging about the Iran-U.S.

deal, and I see little reason to be pleased. The question is, did the VP actually tell Trump what was in it before Trump was talking about the contents of it? Because some things just don't seem to be adding up.

Now, the other thing is the overall objective the president did approach. He said, look, the strategic oil reserves were running low in our country and around the world. There was pressure on oil and gas to not create a bunch of economies. Since we already achieved a lot of our goals, this would actually give them a shot at reviving the economy to the point where the Republicans could do very well in the midterms. And around the world, he was getting pressure.

What about the reality of that pressure? Let's bring in Dennis Ross. As you know, he knows as much about the Middle East directly than anybody probably in America. William Davidson, Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mr.

Ambassador, welcome back. I know you're in Tel Aviv right now. What are they telling you about this deal that's probably two days away from being officially released.

Well, generally, they're unhappy about it for a variety of reasons. There is a text that has been published that has basically emerged from a couple of different sources, and the text is the same. The language on the nuclear infrastructure, nuclear program is reduced to simply: in this next phase, in the 60 days, They they will address the fate. of the enriched uranium. That's all it says, the fate of the industry uranium.

So there's no understandings on what's actually going to happen. with the enriched uranium. The only thing I will say that is positive, the language was the enriched uranium, not only the highly enriched uranium. Both are bad. The highly enriched uranium is worse because it's near weapons grade.

But they have if they have, say, 11 to 12 bombs worth of highly enriched uranium, they probably have four bombs worth of low enriched uranium.

So at least they're talking about the fate of all the enriched uranium. But that means there's no real understanding. There is language that that the Iranians Say they won't acquire, procure, or develop a nuclear weapon, but that's the same language that was in the JCPOA.

So there's nothing new there.

So on the nuclear issue, it's hard to see that anything has been achieved, number one. Number two, I'll now tell you what I think is the what concerns me the most. What concerns me the most is that we have gone along with the Iranian interest in linking. The opening of the Strait of Hormus. to Lebanon.

And what that means, the reason Iran is insisting on that is not to save the Lebanese government, but to save Hezbollah. And I think one of the things that the President will need to do as this goes forward is to de-link these issues. The Iran wants to link the issues not only because it wants to save Hezbollah, but because it wants to show the rest of the Middle East and all the Arab states, you see, we're not walking away from any of our proxies. We're still going to use the proxies. And we've got the, in a sense, we've got.

the Americans to accept that this is legitimate for us to tie these issues together.

So for me, that's a really important issue to de-link. Lastly, I think the Strait of Hormus was open before February 28th, so the fact that we're reopening it is getting us back to the, I would like to say, February 27th, but if you again you read the language here, it doesn't do that. Iran is committing in the MOU to allow the volume of ship traffic to go back to what it was. on February 27th. But it says nothing about Iran not managing the Strait of Hormuz along with Oman, which is what they're saying they're going to be doing.

Yes, there's no reference to tolls, but there's also Iran in this document doesn't concede anything Other than, okay, the US is going to lift its blockade, which was hurting them, and they will allow the ships to go back to what they were doing, those same volume ships that was going on, which look, I understand that this was the Iranians discovered during this war that they were able To have huge leverage over the global economy and over oil prices. The one thing, Brian, to bear in mind. From 1987, 1988, Uh until This war The Iranians never sought to to control the straits because Ali Hamani understood that would mean a war and that could threaten the survivability of the regime. In a sense, my preference would have been for us not to focus on regime change, but to focus on weakening all their military capability and their ability to build anything new. If we had, say, two weeks just focused on that, by the way, which the President says now, he wasn't focused on regime change.

Regime change made them understand, or decapitation made them understand they had nothing to lose.

So that's when they went to control the straits when they'd never done it before. We could have weakened their capacity to threaten others without having the straits close. I would have preferred that to have been the approach, but we are where we are. We are where we are. They say there will be waivers immediately allow Iran to sell oil.

Is that how you understand it?

Well, Brian, not only do I understand it, there's already two big tankers that have carried Iranian oil out. Yep. Because we have lifted the blockade.

So yes.

So yes, they we are we the language says we would immediately begin the process of lifting the blockade, and we've allowed two big oil tankers to carry Iranian oil out.

So then we understand after 60 days We don't know what's going to happen with the straight, but there might there's talk that there might be a Okay. That Oman and Iran might be charging fees instead of tolls. Same thing.

So that would not actually work.

Now the President's come out and said this language is not final. I don't think he read it, Ambassador Dennis. I don't. I think that he trusted these guys, whether you like it or not, he's got a lot on his plate, the vice president, Steve Wydkoff, and Jared Kushner, to achieve his goals and said, okay, good, it's done in the time frame I needed it.

Now I could go to the G7 and we could talk about getting everything flowing again. The markets will rise again and oil will drop again. But I think he's realizing now how bad this deal is.

Well, I have no idea. You may be right. He didn't read it. It's about a page and a half. It is 14 points.

And he did do an electronic signature. The formal signing hasn't taken place yet. Hard to believe that he will try to renegotiate it at this point. We'll have to see. For me, I guess what I would I would like us to focus on three things as we and make and make our objectives very clear.

Number one, be very clear on what we have to have. In terms of the Iranian approach to their nuclear infrastructure. And one has to be, you know, bear in mind on all three of these issues, there is a level of international support that we can use to also make it not just unilateral. pressure, but collective pressure. The Secretary General, director of the IAEA, says there is no justifiable civilian purpose to have sixty percent enriched uranium.

No justifiable civilian purpose. Let's focus on that should be destroyed. Let's build an international consensus between that being destroyed. Let's focus on them not rebuilding these underground nuclear facilities. Because that again, the fact that they do it indicates a kind of intent.

On the second thing, on the issue of the Strato Force, it is an international waterway. We cannot allow the precedent to be set. That neighboring countries can have control politically and economically over international waterways. If you allow the Iranians in Oman to be, quote, managing. The Straits, that means they now determine what happens in the Straits.

It's no longer a national waterway. That is, again, something that you can mobilize the rest of the world because it threatens everybody else's interest. If every choke point now becomes the province of the bordering country to determine what they'll do with it, we are all dramatically worse off.

So that's the second thing. And then the third has to be delinking, as I said, of Lebanon from this deal. If we come out with that, we can come out better off even if we're not dealing with directly with the ballistic missiles and the proxies, at least directly. Yeah, I mean And also, you have to de-link Israel. They were not worn in on this.

And it's ridiculous to think Israel doesn't bomb people that aren't attacking them. Has Egypt been bombed? Has Jordan been bombed? Has UAE, Kuwait, cut? They're not.

And there's reason to believe that Qatar and Pakistan are double dealing too.

So I understand you got to have lines of communication open, but We can't trust they set up a $300 billion fund. What is the criteria for Iran to get that money? And what are they going to use it for? And then we're going to unfreeze $24 billion of the Iranian frozen funds. For what criteria do they have to establish or is there established that would allow them to get that money?

The language by the way on that. Uh Brian is During the 60 days, We, we, the U.S., commits to working with The golf partners and others to come up with a $300 billion reconstruction and habilitation fund. That's the language.

Now there's nothing there that says here's exactly what is required of the Iranians if they do it. Again, one of the concerns I have about having done, as you know, a lot of mediation in this part of the world, I would always bring the parties together and I would go through each point and I would have them in front of me acknowledge what that they had the exact same interpretation of what the words meant. I'm not sure anything like that has been done. I know, because I think you have three inexperienced people. and one in the vice president that really doesn't w but believe in the conflict at all.

So and he was saying things that just can't possibly hold up if this if everything that we're reading is true. Because he was on about six shows yesterday. And this is what he actually said. Here's an example, cut four. The agreement's actually very simple.

It says, one, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Two, the Straits of Hormuz are open. And number three, there are all of these benefits contemplated that the Iranians can get if they behave. If they stop developing terrorism, if they stop funding terrorism, if they stop supporting the rebuilding of the nuclear arms program, they actually can get some real benefits. If they don't do any of that stuff, they don't get anything.

And I think that's where a lot of the misunderstandings come from: you've got Iranian propagandists out there saying, well, we get all these things. And they leave out the fact that they only get those things if they fundamentally transform themselves as a country.

So the United States wins either way. As the President said, either they get nothing, we destroyed their nuclear program and the Straits of Hormuz are open, or they fundamentally transform themselves, and that's a big win too. It's really up to them.

So what do you think about that, which fundamentally transformed themselves? There's nobody who believes they've fundamentally trans got to for transform themselves. Would Well, I I'd say a couple of things. We already discussed the fact that they're already allowed to sell their oil.

So they've already gained something. Yeah, they're allowed to sell their oil. We have lifted the blockade, but they're gaining something already, number one. Number two, There is no language in this MOU that suggests any of that. Maybe it's what we intend to do.

But the fact is On the issue of terrorism, where's anything said? We've by linking Lebanon to it, you're protecting Hezbollah. How is that consistent with giving up terrorism? I mean, Hezbollah is not just what they do against Israel, it's worldwide.

So, I think there's, I mean, I hate to say this, I mean, genuinely, I hate to say this. It seems like there's a lot of wishful thinking there.

Now maybe it'll be borne out. Maybe when we negotiate this, we'll say, okay, you're not we will not provide anything more. But the the problem is, on take the issue of the strait of Hormuz. What if they begin to disrupt it again? Will we go to war over it?

You know, I can see people saying, oh, so there's a couple ships, they say, well, we think they're carrying environmentally hazardous material.

So we don't want to let them go through. Are we going to go to war over that? I mean, let's get back to your question. What's the criteria? We at least, at a minimum, We have to have a very clear set of criteria in our mind in these negotiations, number one.

Number two, it is very important, I think, for the President to have some understandings with Prime Minister Netanyahu over what Israel can do and what they can't do. This should not be left vague. It should be very clear.

So, and by the way, the Iranians need to know it. You know, I'm a very big believer. One thing you don't do in negotiations, and I have a lot of experience in this. I know you do. There's no such thing as.

constructive ambiguity in private. Maybe in public, each side has to say things a certain way. But in private, everything has to be understood exactly the same way. There can be no ambiguity. Ambiguity leads to misunderstandings, a sense of betrayal, and basically, it's the source of a lot of trouble.

So I would love to see there be very clear understandings with the Israelis that the Iranians need to know about. Because one of the things I really would, I will tell you, I am convinced. Iran in the end, if they thought that what they stand to gain from us was being put at risk by linking things to Hezbollah, they would give up Hezbollah. But what they have succeeded in doing is they have succeeded at this point in saying, look, this whole deal depends upon Israel not attacking Hezbollah. It's exactly the reverse of what it should be.

And the President's putting way too much pressure on Israel. It's not there. Israel would not be touching Lebanon if Hezbollah wasn't there. Thanks so much, Ambassador. There's so much going on, and you're right in the middle of it, right over in Israel.

Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Back in a moment. Don't go anywhere. Brian Killmead will be right back.

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop. With Mint, you can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying, no judgments, but that's weird.

Okay, one judgment. Anyway, give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of $45 per three-month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra.

See full terms at mintmobile.com. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead. Hey, we are back. And just got to remind you, coming up, I'm going to be in Pensacola History of Liberty Labs, the last of this show until we convert it to Uniting the Six, Uniting the States, Six Crucial Moments that Forged the American Miracle.

That's going to be coming up in the fall. I'm going to be in Clearwater, Florida. I'm going to be in Red Banks, New Jersey, going to be in Westbury, Long Island, and of course, St. Louis, Missouri.

So go to BrianKilme.com for tickets if you want to be a part of a great inspirational, motivational, and patriotic night as we celebrate year 250. One thing the president's got to get up on when he comes back. We gotta fix. The reflecting pool, it's green again. It's got algae everywhere.

I'm not an allergy expert. But the place is clean, the pipes have been fixed. Why is the algae back? If you are now algae expert, call the president. When we come back, the latest on the primaries.

with Mr. National Review Rich Lowry. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Foxnewswineshop.com with code FNRadio20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion.

Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 or older to order. Please drink responsibly. Radio that makes you think. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

We are back. I want you to hear what Hillary Clinton had to say about. Joe Biden. Huh. Dropping out when he did.

Cut 32. When you look back on his decision to run, Did you make a terrible mistake? He made a terrible mistake. He made a terrible mistake for himself, his legacy, and for the country. He had said that he would not run again.

And you know, counterfactual narratives are always a bit tricky, but I believe if he had Kept To that plan and said. And say the Late summer of 23, that he wasn't going to run, that he was going to pass the torch to the next generation, we would have had a real contest.

So that is Hillary Clinton at the 92nd Street Why, being interviewed by New Yorker magazine, now acting so tough. Joe Biden was being selfish by running.

Now, let me bring you back to June 27, 2024. After his horrible debate performance, Hillary Clinton urged, instead of urging for him to drop out, She defended him, saying he should stay in the race. I'll be voting for Joe Biden, she said.

So that was 2024.

Now in 2026, oh, he should have dropped out. He was selfish. Joining us now, somebody not surprised by this double dealing, the lack of guts among Hillary Clinton, is Rich Lowry, National Review. Hey, Rich, are you amazed at the Biden blowback now? How many people are turning on him and don't think we were recording things earlier?

Yeah, like two years later, all of a sudden they have courage and foresight on this issue. They all knew this privately. I don't hang out with a lot of Democrats, but you'd be in the green room with them, and they'd say, what are we doing here? This is going to be a debacle. And then the red light would go on in the camera, and they'd say, wow, he's sharper than ever.

So she's right in what she's saying now, but she was wrong before. Yeah, she was. And that just to bring up where we're at. I want you to bring in somebody else, and that's James Carville. Talking about this president, she actually went on to say that anybody would have beat Donald Trump if Kamala Harris, if they had a normal primary process, if she emerged, she would have beat him if they went through the normal process.

But, Rich, she went out of her way to make sure the process wasn't normal after she lost to Obama, didn't she? She made sure there was a glide path to the nomination by paying off the DNC debts and making sure that they worked for her, not Bernie Sanders. And then I don't know her role, but the party's role in making sure that Sanders didn't win, that Joe Biden got anointed.

So she's the problem. Yeah, the Democrats have basically rigged the process for three candidates in a row, and all of them have been comprehensively terrible.

Now, not so much rigged for Biden in 2020. He was left for dead and had to come back. I think that was the one impressive thing maybe that he did in his entire career. But he was just a placeholder and was a debacle as a president. But it was rigged for Hillary and it was rigged for Kamala, and both were terrible candidates who lost to Donald Trump.

So, before we talk about Trump, his approval rating is around 42, 40 percent going into the primaries. But things are beginning to go a little bit towards the Republican way. Certainly, this peace deal lands, the price of oil is going to drop, and that means gas will drop and diesel. But listen to what James Carville is predicting: cut 35. Trump has no earthly idea of what's coming up.

They're not telling him. The vote against him in November is going to be like breathtaking. I'm telling you. This guy By Easter of 2027, he is just going to walk away from this job. Just going to walk away.

because he doesn't have any idea of what it's gonna be like. When he comes to grips with the massive, I mean, it's going to be massive rejection of him. Anybody that has anything to do with him, anything that he has anything to do with. I mean, he says some crazy stuff like Kamala Harris will win in a landslide. But is this the craziest thing yet?

Well, they fantasized about this in the first term, that somehow he just he'd quit or he wouldn't run again because he didn't really like the job. He likes the job. He really liked the job. He's devoted the last 12 years of his life to doing the job, winning the position so he could do the job.

So no, he's not walking away after a bad midterm.

Now, look, he might be right. I mean, he's outlined the catastrophic scenario for Republicans. I think that's. Possible. I wouldn't bet on it.

I think the spectrum is somewhere between a narrow loss of the House and it's something that's much, much worse that he's talking about.

So I think it'll be a bad midterm, but the idea that Trump's going to curl up and go away because of that is lunatic.

So let's take a look at this Iranian deal as we know it. The president's saying that they're going to get the enriched uranium.

Now he says, well, we know where it is. We're not in no rush to get it. And then we find out their immediate sanctions relief today, as it was pointed out. This reporting that we let Iranian oil tanker get by because we're going to begin to release the blockade by Friday.

So when you hear this. Memorandum uh memorandum of understanding, what concerned you most?

Well, I think it's disappointing, but as we talked about in recent weeks, I didn't have high expectations. I don't think we if we weren't reopening the straight by force, we were going to have to basically deal for just the straight. And I think that's what happened. I would have preferred just a trade of the blockade for the straight kind of straight up. Instead, we're giving them oil sales as well.

I don't like that, but I wasn't around the table. Maybe that was necessary. The rest of it, you know, you read what seems to be the memorandum of understanding or version of it, and it's pretty horrifying. But then you look at it with a lawyer's eye, nothing's really agreed to. Everything that we say we're going to do, it's based on progress or on a final agreement without those terms being defined.

So maybe there's some side agreement here we don't know about and makes it work look a little better or a little worse, but I would say it's basically a deal for the straight and everything else is to be determined and might not actually happen. I'm worried about the $300 billion Arab fund. Yeah. $300 billion is probably not much for Qatar. They know they're going to be able to generate more.

But the $300 billion, if they get that, that's going to allow the Irani regime to start building more ballistic missiles, get off their back and start relieving some of the economic pressure. I want to know the exact contingencies for them to get it. Does it go into an escrow account? Where does that go? I hear then we're going to unfreeze $24 billion.

Where does that go? Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think we don't know. It's not clear whether they know, the parties know. It's not clear whether it's actually been written down or agreed to.

So I kind of think the best case is we've done what we've done to reopen the strait. Price of gas is going to go down. Economic stress around the globe related to this will alleviate. And then then we just sort of Stick with what we have. We've eliminated a lot of their stuff.

It's going to be hard for them to rebuild and don't shower them with money. But hopefully, if we negotiate in the proper way, we're only showering them money if we really get concrete further progress on the nuclear program. But I'm just a little skeptical about phase two here. I'm not sure it's going to happen. I'm not sure.

I think the president put a lot of power to the Vice President Witkoff and Kushner. I think it's another deal that falls short.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, it it's it's uh it definitely falls short. But again, I I don't think we won the war. And I I think you don't win the war, you're not going to have a great piece. And I think a big problem here, Brian, at the outset was the options were limited because the politics were so bad because Trump never made the case for it publicly.

He didn't go to Congress.

So he felt constrained in what he could do. We could have reopened the straight as a theoretical matter, It just would have been protracted and risky. And I just I don't think he thought the American public would stand for it, so we get this instead. Yeah, I guess so. Uh the the basically uh we're finding out too if Israel's gonna be told to get out of Lebanon and they shouldn't.

Yeah, this is a diplomatic victory for Iran to have this included in any form. Again, I'm sort of skeptical. Are we really going to end the Hezbollah-Israeli war based on one clause in this memorandum of understanding that's really about something else? I kind of doubt it.

So I haven't liked the way he's been shooting at Netanyahu, Trump. I don't like this being included, but I'm not sure how meaningful it will be at the end of the day. Right. But 60 days will bring us to August. And that would be even more challenging with the election coming up, right?

Yeah, there'll be an extension. If I had to bet, there'll be an extension.

Now, the potential downside here, right, is. Trump knows the timing. He's kind of vested in this deal. And maybe he gives more than he should just to keep it going. And, you know, the Iranians can always, the strait's now a major point of leverage more than it had been before.

If things, negotiations aren't going their way, they could say, oh, wow, this mystery projectile just hit a ship, a tanker in the strait last night. That's terrible. You know, wow, how did that happen? You know, so they're definitely, it's not a great deal. There are definitely downsides here, but I'm not as catastrophic about it as some of my hawkish friends are.

Right. Because the big story today that the people who are in support of the war said we ended too soon and the deal is too good for Iran. And we're going to see what's happening over the next 60 days. But I love, and I'm being sarcastic when people say as long as they behave, what does behaving mean? And when has Iran ever behaved?

Ever. If they get any of these funds, they'll they'll be devoted to rebuilding the missile capacity and supporting terror groups. It's like dealing with the Haz. It's just baked into the cake. It's what they're committed to religiously and ideologically.

So they're not changing. And I just think You know, it's Trump's nature to cut be over overly optimistic about everything, and JAD sort of has to be the same way. But to say it's really cool how they regret, you know, the forty-seven years' war with the United States, come on, please. Right. Here's Ryan's previous cut eleven.

The question will be, are the Democrats going to condemn a peace deal or are they going to condemn peace, an open strait, and an actual nuclear agreement that has consequences?

So that's what he's wondering how the other side's playing it. Thank you.

Well, they're going to say, look, uh it was a mistake to tear up the JCPOA 'cause you have a version of the JOCPOA JCPOA here and what was the war about? And th that's not a crazy point. You know, I I think it is like the JCPOA except We have destroyed a lot of stuff, and Obama didn't do that. I think even if the Iranians had a free hand to restart right now their nuclear program, they wouldn't be able to do it for years. And I think that's the core achievement at the bottom of what Trump's done here.

Except for the pickaxe facility, I don't think we did anything except cave the entrance. Yeah, I've never understood why we didn't do more there. I just don't know what our intelligence says or what that would be a major oversight if it's a major facility that we could have hit.

So I don't know.

So let's look at what we know from the primary season. Republicans are going against an unpopular party, which is in the minority. The generic ballot has Democrats up five, but that could close quickly. Rich, where do you think this race is at? First for the house.

I think the the margin in the House is so narrow. They can lose three seats.

Now maybe th they can lose nine because they're probably about plus six net net on the gerrymandering. That's still a real narrow margin when your President's at forty or forty two.

So I'd expect them to lose lose the house. Um I d I don't know how big the margin is, but that I expect Hakeem Jeffries to be speaker come next January. Until we move over to the Senate and we look at individual races, Mike Rogers, the best chance to flip. I guess the hardest hold might be Texas. And it's going to be very hard holding North Carolina with Mike Watley going against a popular Democratic governor.

Yeah, I assume Republicans will lose North Carolina. And let's say Susan Collins lost, which I think you have to favor her in that race. And there are no Republican pickups. Republicans don't win Michigan.

So then Democrats to win the Senate would have to win two out of four of Texas, Iowa, Ohio, and Alaska.

Now, some of those states, they're competitive or they're pulling ahead, but those are red states that are very tough.

Now, Susan Collins wins in Maine. Then you got to win three out of those four. That can happen in a really good night, but I think it's an uphill climb.

So my guess is Republicans lose the House. And lose the Senate seat or two, but maintain control of the Senate, which is absolutely essential. Right. I think the craziest thing in this cycle is what's going on with these socialist victories. And they're getting a lot of them.

They're about to get a socialist mayor in D.C., they got a socialist mayor right here in New York, more communists. They're getting a socialist candidate, Congressman Rabb, over in Philadelphia. They might be getting a socialist/slash radical El Saeed over in Michigan as a nominee.

So when I look at the Democratic Party, if I'm pulling left and I want them to be successful, I'm worried as for the country if they are successful, but what do you think the chances are? that these people who want to vilify billionaires And pay for everything through government. could win. They're generally weaker candidates than a more mainstream Democrat would be. Certainly in Maine, Graham Plattner has huge vulnerabilities.

There's still more to learn about Saib up in Michigan, but I think he'd be a relatively weak candidate. But the problem is, if it's a real kind of wave year, it doesn't matter. If you bring in the moderate candidates, you bring in the radical candidates, and that's what I worry about, is some of these characters are going to win. And this is really clearly the direction of the Democratic Party.

So it could be very bad in terms of who they nominate in 2028, in terms of this president. If they actually nominate someone of this ilk and elect this person, it'd be the most left-wing president ever in America's history. But the upside for Republicans could be it's also an easy foil, relatively easy foil to run against.

So I think Democrats need a Bill Clinton style kind of 1992 candidate that moderates on some cultural stuff. Kind of has an appeal to voters that they've turned their backs on for a long time, but that doesn't seem to be the mood of the Democrats. Fox News did a poll. They said the U.S. is moving away from capitalism and more towards socialism would be 35, 38% a good thing, 61% said a bad thing.

That's just lack of education and the vilifying millionaires and billionaires. They have to pay their fair share. Suddenly, Bernie Sanders, a fringe candidate most of his life, a fringe voice, is now mainstream for the Democratic Party. Yeah, no doubt about it.

Now, I still think there's a downside. Even in that poll, you'd rather see the numbers more strongly against socialism. But that S-word is still fairly toxic. And even if you're a socialist, calling yourself a socialist explicitly, I think is a very bad idea, certainly in a presidential election, a national election in 2028.

So I want to look at Georgia and the Senate race there. Congratulations went out from President Trump to Mike Collins.

So happy, highly respected Congressman. Mike Collins will win the Senate race. John Ossov said Donald Trump's handpick candidate, Mike Collins, is a bigot, anti-Semite, an extremist currently under federal investigation for illegal misuse of taxpayer dollars.

So Osov is ready to go. Yes, I just hate to say it. I think that those guys down in Georgia Warnock and Osoff are pretty hard to beat, both in their own ways are pretty good politicians.

So I think that's it's going to be an uphill climb there for Republicans. All right. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Rich Lowry, a National Review, 1-866-408-7669.

So much going on. You forget even there's a primary going on while the president's at the G7, making a lot of news. And he's going to stick to the end. We're for a special dinner at the Versailles with Macron, don't move. Keeping you informed, engaged, and always a step ahead.

It's the Brian Kill Me Show. Breaking news, unique opinions. Hear it all on the Brian Kill Me Show. Yeah, it's kind of disturbing to see how so many people from the 20-something to 30-something generation seem to not be patriotic and be going against capitalism. Guys, ladies, go compete.

Get into it. Ari Fleischer was asked this question on America Reports, Cut 31. The young people thing is a fascinating thing. Why are they giving up on capitalism? How many are there?

But remember, Donald Trump did very well with young people in the twenty twenty four election.

So Nothing's locked in stone with that group. What is seems to be a locked-in trend is socialists are increasingly winning inside democratic cities. They are. The question is: they're winning in Democratic cities if you get through the primary. Are they going to win the Senate race?

That's what AOC is looking to do. If she decides to take on Schumer and not take on the presidency, she'd be the first real socialist outside Bernie Sanders in the Senate. And she is actually, she, to me, seems to be running for president because she's really picking on people that don't have a radical past that she has to defend. Like, if you ever hear her. Talk about platinar.

I haven't really been following it much. It's, you know, that's not really, it's up to the people of Maine. No, instead of Bernie Sanders saying, he's my guy, or Elizabeth Warren, he's my guy.

So she's picking out people who are socialists but don't have problematic personal lives. That's somebody that's being very careful. The guy that's in trouble is Gavin Newsom. Why? Check out that investigation on him.

They think it's Trump just making stuff up. He's got real problems, him and his wife, the money that they got, using campaign funds. Take a look at that case. We're going to discuss that more. This isn't Trump.

This is coming from a state investigation. From Hayatuff. Fox News headquarters in New York City. Always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kelmead.

All right, from 48th and 6th in Midtown Manhattan, where in 24 hours we'll see a raging parade in New York City, hopefully without violence. 53 years it's been, most of this town is crazy for the Knicks. And Pete, what did you tell me about the ratings for Game 5 for people that get mad at me for talking about a New York story? I've been rated since Game 5 when Jordan won his final, six and final championship. And so you're talking about the 90s?

Yes.

Okay. When now we've plus, now there's so many networks, so many options, so many streaming services, that even says more. About how big it is. But I'm getting yelled at, as you know, Molly Hemingway, because A lot of people do not like New York. And anytime New York does well, somebody's angry, like in 49 states.

I mean, there's an aspect of that when it comes to the Yankees because they're winning every year. But as you just said, the Knicks haven't won in forever.

So it's exciting. Thank you.

So, Molly, how dare you interrupt? I haven't even introduced you yet. That's Molly Hemingway. Big three. Number three.

We gotta face facts here, man. We have a real problem in this country right now. This stuff now is at home. We have essentially a homegrown like Hezbollah from the far left, and they're being radicalized online. And it's crazy, that's Paul Morrow, the UFC plot thwarted.

We have the evil plan and what we know about the would-be attackers as the DOJ indicts Antifa for their role in the Minneapolis chaos this winter. America's being attacked from within. Does that worry you? It does me. Number two.

Like I said then, I'm the only candidate who doesn't owe a thing to the political establishment. I don't care what special interests want, how much they beg, how much they give me. I can't be bought, and I won't back down.

So Rick Jackson weighing in after his primary victory in Georgia, the economy beginning to boom and midterm fortunes beginning to sway GOP's way ever so slightly. We have that and some primary results. Number one. The Wall Street Journal editorial board, which has been supportive of this administration's efforts against Iran, said the world is more likely to see this as a strategic retreat. Have you won the war with Iran?

Yes, we have. And I think that's a mistake from the Wall Street Journal editorial board because what does this deal fundamentally do? It ensures that Iran won't get a nuclear weapon and it ensures the straights of Hormuz are open. Not really. J.D.

Vance weighing in with Nora O'Donnell last night, as he did with Guttfeld and The View and Fox and Friends. Details emerging with the Iran-U.S. deal, and I see a little reason for us to be pleased. Question, did the VP? He actually tells Trump what was in it before he started appraising it because President Trump, now, according to reports, is saying the deal that has been written is not final, even though I think he electronically signed it.

A little bit chaotic. Molly Hemingway joined us, editor-in-chief of the Federalists and author of On Alito, the justice who reshaped the Supreme Court and restored the Constitution. The President of the United States, quite popular at the G7. When I was doing Fox and Friends, he did a one-on-one, a bylaw with the Egyptian president.

Now he's with Modi of India.

So we'll see what happens. He praised him as a great leader and says they have a great relationship. But it was going afoul originally. Molly, welcome back. Great to be here with you.

All right, first off, I guess the number one story percolating throughout the G7 is this deal. It's kind of weird to announce it on a Tuesday and say, we'll give you details on a Friday. It's going to only invite innuendo and And speculation.

Well, or maybe it's that we just haven't been signing a lot of deals recently when we're in conflict, because it seems that this is really more a framework for ongoing. Disputes And getting both sides to agree to that framework is not insignificant. It doesn't mean that everything's resolved. You're beginning to get things resolved. You're beginning to see how the strait will be reopened.

Iran always claims that it will not build a nuclear weapon, so I'm not sure how big the concession that they won't do it here is, but it provides the framework for ensuring that there is inspection of that to make sure that they're going to follow through with what they said. And they get immediate sanctions relief. We saw ships come through reportedly today, according to the Washington Post. And we just had Dennis Ross on from Israel who just said they are coming through because they could beginning to release both blockades. And the problem is, after 60 days, there's talk of the Iranians and Omanis.

Charging a toll, but they're not going to call it a toll. They're going to call it a fee. That's international waters a toll. That would be insane. Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Well, the MOU that Iran agreed to said it would be toll-free, but how that is, you know, the specifics, of course, matter a lot.

You just pointed out that Trump said that not everything is final in there, but that's actually true. It's not final. There will be a lot of. moving around of things as the two sides argue here. The threat of force that the United States has is a powerful threat.

What was accomplished already with the complete takeout of the regime, of the destruction of so much of their infrastructure, that's not nothing. And knowing that the United States can come back and do more is not nothing. And so the United States does have a strong hand here. Unless you want this to go on in perpetuity, you have to have some kind of framework like this. The devil will be in the enforcement and the details, which are forthcoming, which will be in the days to come.

Right. Do you believe that J.D. told the President everything? I think it's really people always say, oh, Trump is controlled by Israel or Trump is controlled by J.D. Vance.

I think that people who observe Trump knows he's not controlled by anybody.

Well, I'm not saying he's controlled. He has articulated repeatedly that he wants to see a deal. In fact, if anything, it's taken way too long to get this. MOU done. He started talking about it in April, right, when he said it would happen in a couple weeks.

So he cares a lot about this because he knows that bringing this portion of the war to a close is very important for his economy and very important for the midterms. And to have it keep on going on past Independence Day, I think would be politically very difficult. And on that note, Republicans who should be getting You know, if past is prolonged, should be getting wiped out in the midterms. They're showing some surprising strength and having the economy. improve and having gas prices Be lowered right now will be huge for those midterm elections, which are also a concern.

So, is your belief get me to November 5th?

Well, I think. Like I said, we can always come back, right? And if we need to come back, maybe after the midterms would be a good time to do it. But also, it gives Iran a chance. I mean, we did such a great job of taking out their entire leadership structure that it made things difficult for negotiations because they were afraid to meet in person because every time they did, we would just take them out.

And so we're getting different arguments from different sides, and they do have some radical elements.

So giving them a chance to actually get control over their leadership team and see how they operate. Uh that might be in everybody's. Do you belie? There's some stats show that I mean, there was a five, the NBC did a poll. I think there's a five-point gap.

The Democrats are more favorable by just five points. Than Republicans compared to 2018, the last midterm that Trump had, where I think it was almost double digits going into the election. What other signs do you see that Republicans are hanging in there?

Well, they had some huge successes with the elimination of those affirmative action congressional districts that for decades of federal judges had said you had to create districts, congressional districts, to benefit the Democrat Party. And the Supreme Court finally weighed in and said that's obviously unconstitutional to create race-based gerrymandered.

So they've gotten many seats from there. And one of the things that always seems to help the political parties in the United States is the other political party.

So even though Democrats should be doing well, their own extremism, their own embrace of a radical fringe is keeping normal voters away from them. They can't find a normal man to run for office in the Democratic Party to save their lives. And it just is very toxic for a huge swath of the American voting electorate.

Now, having said that, they still have. Have a huge upper hand in that they have a unifying message of hatred for Donald Trump. And rich, and the rich. And well, yes, even as they are, even as they are the party of the ultra-wealthy. And the Republicans haven't really given their own voters a reason to show up and vote.

And that enthusiasm is huge for Republicans in a way that it is not for Democrats. The Democratic Party has done such a good job of moving to ballot operations. Basically, it doesn't matter if you want to vote or not. A ballot will get into the box. They do a good job of harvesting ballots.

And the Republicans keep on having this antiquated notion that enthusiasm will drive the day.

Well, if you're, if they're. going to be that way and if they're not going to invest in ballot harvesting operations they better give voters a reason to vote for them.

So I want you to hear, and after this soundbite, I think we can marginalize this guy. Here's James Carville on his predictions: cut 35. Trump has no earthly idea of what's coming. They're not telling him. The vote against him in November is going to be like breathtaking.

I'm telling you. This guy By Easter of 2027, he is just going to walk away from this job. Just going to walk away. Because he doesn't have any idea. What it's going to be like.

when he comes to grips with the massive I mean I mean, it's going to be massive rejection of him, anybody that has anything to do with him, anything that he has anything to do with.

So President's going to walk away from a job that he a if anybody would say he absolutely loves. I think James Carville is correct that there will be that enthusiasm among the Democrats to vote against Trump will be huge. And that is something that should concern Trump and other Republicans. But Trump does best when he has opposition. One of the problems he's had is that his current opposition is in the Republican Party who could you know that control the Senate and it's very difficult for him I guess to go to war against the Republicans in the Senate.

It won't be any trouble for him to go to war against a Democrat-controlled chamber if it's the House. It won't be fun, and I do think people should be aware of turning the government over to Democrats would be like going back to those days of the first Trump administration when it was just constant conspiracy theories about Russia and shutting down the government with You know, these fake stories causing problems for anybody who worked in the Trump administration. And I do believe we've seen, even in the last couple of years, there is a strong hatred and willingness to violate every norm to go after not just Trump, but anybody who supports him, disbarring attorneys or running shoddy investigations against anyone who showed support for Trump. People should not forget what that's like and how awful that is. Remember Michael Flynn, Monica Crowley, others who had their lives temporarily ruined, and Michael Flynn still hasn't bounced back because of these ridiculous attacks on Trump.

So tell me, bring me inside this story. Jay Clayton's been nominated to be the next DNI to take over for Bill Pultey, who was put forward and rejected by both sides of the aisle for his lack of experience. And they said, okay, we'll pull him back. And they said, okay, we'll fast-play pacejack Jay Clayton. Today, the president said from the G7, wait.

Forget Clayton, don't even have a hearing for him unless you're going to pass. Uh the Save America Act.

So, the Save America Act, in case you don't know, is a voting act that says you've got a voter ID, you've got to have no more, basically, no male in voting, no men in women's sports, and that's got to be taken up.

Now, the problem is, for Jon Thune's perspective, they don't even have every Republican vote. They got 48 overall because they lost Murkowski, they don't have Collins, they don't have Mitch McConnell, who's in hospital right now. How do you feel about that linkage?

Well, it was part of the original deal. I mean, this is how Trump figured out how to operate. You nominate someone who will not get through, which will ma or even float the name of someone who Republican senators maybe don't like just as much as Democrat Democratic senators don't like in order to get them to play ball on a different candidate who would still be. to your preference. This deal was that they would Do what they needed to do with FISA reauthorization in exchange for getting a more preferable candidate.

But you have to. Hold the calendar in such a way that you make sure you're getting what you want before you give the other side what they want. I don't know exactly how this is something that Mitch McConnell probably would not have mistaken how to handle, but they need to make sure they get what they they need to get the concession from the Democrats before they give them the non-multi-nominee. But how are you supposed to dislodge the Democrats? I watched.

Last night is we were hearing this debate, and I just don't see how you get all to get those Republicans to switch, let alone get 60 votes from From Democrats. Get to 60. It seems that when I was younger, we talked about the Senate as the preeminent debating body in the world. And the last time they debated publicly, I mean, it just doesn't happen anymore.

Sometimes you need to have some debates publicly, not handle everything in backroom deals, and go ahead and just work more than two and a half days a week, which is currently what many of the senators are doing as they invest more of their time in running for reelection or raising money. But speaking of what we talked about with the midterm elections, you need to give Republican voters something, a reason to vote for you too. And sometimes that means showing your work, demanding things of Democrats, getting those concessions publicly, and You know, what does John Thune control? He controls the calendar, so it shouldn't be that difficult. Right.

But yeah, I mean, he just says it's a math problem.

So what does how do you get Murkowski to your side? How do you get Fetterman to your side? How do you get anyone? Because remember, the infrastructure deal that Joe Biden put out did get Democrat, did get Republican support. The gun legislation reform did get Republican support.

But we haven't seen that yet with Trump.

So this is the area for the backroom dealing, right? You look at someone like Nancy Pelosi, who you may not like her politics, but she was ruthlessly effective in getting majorities to do what she wanted to do.

Sometimes that meant making some difficult calls, threatening people, reminding people that where their spouse works might be a privilege that she had granted them, playing true hardball. This is what people want in strong Republican leadership for the goals of the voters who actually are responsible for reelecting them.

So you can give Lisa Murnkowski things. You can, and certainly the Democrats are offering her things constantly, and they might even offer her a chairmanship if that meant that she would switch sides. And she's not a Republican in any real sense. Except for voting for who the leader is.

Well, she knows she has power, and she knows that that means that she should be able to get some goods out of it. All right. So when you look at the whole thing, so maybe there might be something go on behind the scenes. Senator Thune and company, go ahead. I just want to say one other thing.

The current deputy director of DNI is fantastic, and so there's not like the world's biggest rush in getting anybody confirmed. He's someone that. Oddly enough, and this doesn't happen a lot in the intelligence community, everybody should like Aaron Lucas. Career guide, but smart, thoughtful, and well-respected by many people. Right.

And it's pretty clear with that position now. The CIA seems to have a lot more control than the DNI. Without the DNI, it doesn't have a budget, kind of supervises all the agencies. DNI has always been about collating information, making sure that information is being shared properly. And also, because of the problems with the intelligence community in recent years, having that transparency that allows people to have greater trust again in the intelligence community after the leadership of the IC behaved so poorly and caused people to distrust them.

Molly Hemingway, thanks so much. You went outnumbered today? I am. I thought so. Watch Molly at noon.

This is the Brian Killmeat show. 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. The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead.

So we're waiting on the President of the United States to have a press conference in, let me see. In a couple of hours, and they're going to go have his private dinner with Macron, and they're going to celebrate America 250. And of course, historically, there's nobody better to celebrate with than France who helped deliver us to the Revolutionary War win.

So that is great. It's good to see them getting along. For those people who think President of the United States has hopelessly isolated us in a place where we're never going to recover, have you seen what's going on? All of them want to get one-on-one time with the president. All of them.

Now, I know it has a lot to do with us, being you, and the economy, and our military, and everything like that. But whether it's a Middle Eastern nation that was invited there on the president's behest, or whether it's a Western European nation who wants to meet one-on-one, even Canada, who we've been at odds with, you saw a lot of that quality time that they're having.

So, those people who say the president upset everybody forever with Greenland and with his attempt to say we're going to take it by force if we have to. And the Iran war, it's just not the case. People disagree, but the nations are getting along, and also people realize America's pretty indispensable. And also, I think the President's charismatic. I think people want his attention.

They want to sit down and find out what's going on, what he's thinking. And now he can help. You heard Egypt. He's like, can you help me with Ethiopia? They put a dam up and it's hurting the Nile River.

President goes, yeah, I guess I'll handle it. Really? Out of everything he's got going on, the Egyptian leader goes, Can you help me with the Nile River? Like, all right, let's do it.

So here we go again.

So for those people who say we're isolated, I think the evidence proves you're wrong. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. I believe if they renegote on this deal, action will be taken. But I can't square some of the things that are coming out of the administration from reliable sources.

That's what I find so disturbing. When I heard it from the Iranians, Sean, I dismissed it. I said, well, that's the same nonsense we're always hearing. But when I hear from administration sources some of the things that you have heard and what's in this deal, that makes no sense whatsoever. It's not defensible.

I think what the president should do is just let's release it and let people see what's out there so we stop debating about something none of us has seen. Yeah, I got it read to me, and it is, you know, it's not great. And I just know this. Mm-hmm. The best ally we have is Iran because they they'll go back on a bad deal for them and a good deal for them because they're not trustworthy.

I mean, Vice President kept saying in various outlets yesterday in the four Fox shows he was on, If they don't behave, they don't get the money. When have they ever behaved? Ever. Ever In any way, they're not interested in doing that. And we just wiped out I know people don't want to acknowledge it.

We wiped out their leadership, killed the Ayatollah, injured their new supreme leader to the point where he's been defaced and defiled and deformed. And you think they're going to try to fi get themselves in line? No. Guy that knows this better than me is Vice Admiral Robert Horwood, who grew up in Iran, senior adviser with the Iran Policy Project and at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. Vice Admiral, welcome back.

I mean, we're just speculating on this, I think, sixteen-point plan. It's about two pages. Bud, what's your take? But let me give you the facts as I understand it. Right now, the President controls everything.

He has all the cards and his bargaining position has never been stronger. The Iranian regime has been never been weaker because of the strikes, but more importantly, and why the President is so strong, he controls all the money. The blockade is just strangling them economically. But he's hearing the rest of the world and the world economy.

So he's willing to work as part of this deal to open up the Straits of Hormuz. But what he needs from the Iranians is a signed document. It's not clear who's speaking on behalf of Iran and if they have the authority, but an acknowledgement that the Straits of Hormuz are open for business. You disavow any claims. It's international water.

You're not going to charge surcharge.

So if he gets that, Then you get the world economy back on track, at least for short term, which allows those thousands of ships that have been trapped. Inside the Arabian Gulf or the Persian Gulf, depending on which nomenclature you want. To get out.

So when they get out, he's achieved one of his most important objectives. Number two is the nuclear program. They need the nuclear material surrendered to us, either by taking it on the ground or handing it over and avowing that they will never sign or pursue any nuclear program.

So if he can accomplish those two things, then he's got times on his hand to deal with all the other objectives. It's not clear to me, this document, if those are the caveats and that's what he's going to get from this arrangement. And that's what he needs and wants. All right. So obviously, you don't have all the cards because if they go 60 days and they just say, okay, 60 days are up.

We're going to start tolling because they say they're going to use it. They use the term fees with Oman. And then we find out that they're beginning to build ballistic missiles, which, by the way, there's no provision not to. And they're allowed to get some money in and get everything going. And they start feeding that money to Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

And they know it's close to an election. And the president doesn't want to bring the economy down three months before an election.

So, maybe they're going to feel emboldened because August is going to be here 60 days later, and they feel as though the president doesn't want to risk the price of oil. Right, of course, that's the risk. But again, I think the president is more focused on the objectives and getting long-term peace and stability in the region on behalf of the Arab nations, on behalf of us, and the world economy.

So I think he understands all that dynamics. And don't forget, at any day he chooses, if he thinks he's being played and this president moves very aggressively and quickly, he can shut it all down. And you talk about money. The only money they're going to get out of the current arrangement is the ability to sell their oil again. And that's going to take some time to get back on the market and work that.

So that timeline of them getting money from their own oil sale, freeing up their oil, aligned to this timeline, puts us in the position to be able to shut it down very quickly and really make that initial money they will be able to gain somewhat irrelevant because it's not on the scale they need to get their country Back on track.

So that's a strategy you could assess from what we're seeing. That's their strategy. But it's not clear from the documents or what anyone's saying at the moment. What about the $300 billion? What does that look like to you?

Because I like to see some language that says it's an escrow account, that they have some control over it, that it can't be used for anything that doesn't involve infrastructure or something to that nature. Or do you just say, hey, we can't get everything we want. If they get $300 billion from Qatar, so be it. No, you're exactly right. That's the bargaining power by controlling the money.

So they don't get any of that money until everything else is accomplished. That, I believe, is the strategy, until they have acknowledged that the straits are international waterway. They have no control. They can't tax anyone. They're not going to threaten it.

Not until they hand over the nuclear material and vow they will not have a nuclear program should they get any money. But once those two are accomplished, then you can talk about how the money will be applied.

So you're right, that's not clear in the current situation, but I hope that's the strategy being applied here. I guess so. What are the reports inside Israel? They seem very disturbed. They were not brought into this negotiation yet.

They're told not to attack Hezbollah. And now the foreign minister came out a few hours ago and said basically the deal is off if Israel doesn't back out of Lebanon.

Well, that's why this is also nebulous and tentative. And Israel can't back out Lebanon. They've had this problem for decades. And I'm in and out of Israel a lot. And you could watch every time I visited how deeper the defensive, how deeper the offensive was on their border and that territory right onto their border.

So they needed to take that ground just to ensure their security.

So that's going to be a tough pill for them to swallow. And I don't think they're going to give it. But again, one of the very tenuous Components of this deal that make it very difficult to bring to fruition at the end of the day. Yeah, I just can't see it happening. And Netanyahu is not going to he's never not hit back when Hezbollah has hit them.

And he's that's just not his policy. When the President said, I'll have Syria take care of Hezbollah, are you kidding? Syria? They don't have an army. They don't have missile defense.

Hezbollah's got the missiles, I'm sure everyone knows. And Brent, you're exactly right, but you've hit the point. All right. Every time this doesn't get passed, every day the Iranians do not get relief from the blockade. They continue to be strangled.

So if it's not gonna get signed this week, we have to wait. That's more pain, more leverage we have against the Iranians.

So the president's always said he's not gonna sign a bad deal. And if we can't solve certain components of this, such as the Lebanon and the Hezbollah component, it doesn't get done.

So again, we're going to have to watch and see. And like it's been for the last 120 days, this is going to be high adventure. Admiral, do you believe that Qatar and Pakistan are double dealing? No, I believe they're looking after their own national security interests. And both of them are close and near to Iran and have significant strategic threats at hand.

So I think they're being fair and honest brokers. But again, at the end of the day, that's somewhat irrelevant. We've got to do what we need to do. And that's the president's decision.

So they can be accommodators. They can be commit sirs, you know, give their two cents. But at the end of the day, we need to do what's in our own best interests as they are. Right. And getting that price of oil down, the market's up significantly, over $52,000.

It's up 160,000, 70 points. And we know, I think when I started this show, oil was $74 a barrel. When it gets down to 65, that's the break point where oil and gas producers don't want to go any lower than that.

So then we're going to feel it at the pump. And I know you're in military speak, but the president will lose considerable power. If he doesn't hold on to both chambers of Congress.

So he has to look long-term, Admiral, right? Without a doubt. If you solve this problem for decades to come and you bring that. Iranian market back onto the game for everyone, not just China, you changed the whole dynamic.

So that's why we have to have the long-term approach to this. A government in Iran who renounces nuclear weapons, who renounces any threats to the Straits of Hamut, who renounces funding Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and others. That's the end state that is, and we have to be focused on the objectives that get us to that long-term stability by meeting those objectives. Yeah, I just think that we have to have also a program, probably led by the CIA, that begins to arm the people. And I think it would help because this current government is presenting a problem to the entire region.

Brian, I hope that's been going on for the last hundred and some days since we started this invasion. I think that, and again, Iran has been fighting us asymmetrically, and they never attacked us directly. They were killing our people in Iraq, killing our people in Afghanistan, attacking us through their surrogates, going after our internet, after our institutions with cyber activity. We've got to play the same game against them. We've got to fund people.

We've got to communicate. We've got to do everything we can to undermine this regime unless they acknowledge and move to those objectives. Admiral, we know you have contacts in Iran. I know the internet's back up for the most part. What's that contact been like?

It's always good. He's very, very well. Several of them are very brave to communicate, but they're very hopeful. They're concerned about this agreement, and they know very well you've got 70 million people who are pulling for the end state we've just talked about. They want a government that's going to use their resources to take care of them and not murder them.

And they're hopeful we will achieve that as the end state. And look, we are where we are now because of the president's aggressive manner. He took Venezuela, he went into Iran. We wouldn't be where we are today. And I don't think he's the type of president that's gonna be satisfied with anything but ensuring his legacy that he brought long-term peace and stability to the region that has been lacking for over five decades.

So the military always tells me: we don't go to war alone, we go to war with the State Department. Because diplomacy matters in war.

So having said that, do you believe we should get a different team to work on Ukraine and maybe Gaza and now this? We have the same two guys doing everything who are very talented, very successful, but now deep in diplomatic relations. And I'm just or nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. Would you like to see more teams involved in this? Capacity is always an issue, and that's one of our strengths against other nations.

We have such deep benches and such professionals who know how to do this.

So, yeah, if you look at what's happened with the National Security Council from Trump's administration, it's been shrunk considerably at a time when they probably could have the biggest impact, where you have staffs coordinating with the whole agency, State Department, Treasury, Justice, the Intel community, OSD, and others to get the best policies and programs.

So, I think the shrinking of that organization and placing it all at either State Department or Department of War has been a shortfall. We could strengthen that organization, have capacity at a time where it really matters to get your best strategies from the policies you have.

So I think there is work to be done in that lane.

So, Admiral, it's been great talking to you through this. And now we've got 60 days to go over this. And the President's going to be having a press conference very soon. We'll be carrying a lot of that. I can't thank you enough for all your insight.

Appreciate it. Always good to see you, Brian. Same here. Back in a moment. It's Brian Killmead.

He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead. I expected them to be absolutely vicious, and they were only a little bit vicious. It wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Joy Behar even said during the break, not joking, she said, you know what?

You're like pretty good for a Republican. And I was like, whoa, that is a way better compliment than I expected from Joy Behar. I gotta say, I thought that Sonny, the woman to my left, was gonna call me a racist. In reality, it was Whoopee, the woman to my right, who called me a racist.

So. Expectations were defied.

So that was J.D. Vance, who was on Fox and Friends. He was on the five, he was on Gutfeld, he was on CBS. And he was on the view. If this book is not a bestseller, it's never going to be a bestseller.

And it talked about his conversion. I think the name of it is Communion. Is that it? Communion.

Meanwhile, he's got the other headline news where he led the negotiation for this Memorandum of Understanding that's going to be released on Friday.

So you got news, news, news, news. Oh, my book is out, my bio, and are you running in twenty twenty eight? And the answer is Clearly, yes, he's running in 28. Clearly he's unbelievably talented and likable, I believe. But in just the terms of his foreign policy, I just don't I don't see eye to eye with it, not that he has to live to impress me.

It's just now where I'm at, and I think that the fact that he goes along and supports President Trump even though he's not in support of it. For example, Joe Biden always said when he was on his game and all his instincts are bad, But he made it clear that when it came to Obama and Afghanistan, he never would have surged in Afghanistan. And we knew he goes, but I'm vice president. I'm there to support the president. He did say, J.D.

Vance, he had some regrets. And here's the one regret: cut 39. In the book, Mr. Vice President, you make a mea culpa of sorts for calling Democrats childless cat ladies. Oh, man.

Cross-boneheaded comment. You say that in the book, that it was boneheaded, which it was. Thank you.

What were you thinking when you said that?

So, Joy said when we were all fair that I'm fine, which I think is about the best endorsement that I'm going to get out of Joy Behar for a Republican. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Graded on a curve here at the View. But, you know, I guess one of the things that I try to do, and I'm always, you know, all of us are always learning. You know, you said you were a lapsed Catholic. I'm a bad Catholic.

I think all of us, that's why we need grace as Christians, is because we recognize that there are certain things we've got to work on. But here's what I'd say about that.

So did that comment actually shed light on something and start a discussion, or did it just close people down? And when I make a comment that just closes people down, instead of trying to appreciate the point that I make, that's a mistake, right? And that's on me to do better.

So, you know, childless cat ladies were in the country, but he evidently said it multiple times.

Okay, that's something different than Trump. You will not, you know, Trump will somebody never have made a mistake.

So that's good. And also, I love, if I'm working with J.D. Vance, I love Dayson Levio. I love it because number one, he's not running, so they're not forced to kill him because they're big-time Democrats and they'll be for any Democrat. But If you come off likable and understanding, what I would have said to him at the end of that is I'd like to come back.

And then you create a dialogue.

So it's hard to hate somebody that keeps showing up. Right. And he's so charming, and he's. He is, I think, one of the best ones in adversarial situations. I mean, look at his debate performances.

I mean, he's. He's just amazing at it. Actually, Rachel was on with Will yesterday and she said something like, J.D. Vance gave everyone, like every man in this country, a lesson in how to deal with their wives in an argument by being on the view. I thought it was a good line.

That is a pretty good line. The other thing that he's going to have to think about doing is whether he wants to run with a fourth kid who's under three, he's going to be under two years old, right? Because he hasn't even been born yet or shaped. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

48th and 6 in Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world, where in 24 hours the Canyon of Heroes will entertain the New York Knicks first championship in this city. I mean, the Liberty one, but no one really follows college pro basketball for women right now. It's just not a big deal.

Sorry. And you have one big star, Caitlin Clark, and you seem to despise her.

So I'm really, I don't consider the Liberty a big deal, but the New York Knicks will experience the Canyon of Heroes. I think the whole country will watch. I had a chance to go to California. I had a chance to go to Florida. And I asked people, are the Knicks a big deal?

Everybody says it's a big story.

So stop getting mad at me. People are writing me, say enough of the Knicks. I just say, I'm... If they win next year, it's not going to be a big deal. But 53 years is a big deal.

So the big deal in this country right now is what's happening with us in Iran.

Now, for people that said it was a great move to go into Iran like me, because I've seen them be a problem. I know what our military is capable of. I'm disappointed what I'm hearing about how the secession of violence is coming to fray. Why? Because Iran's the problem.

We're not the problem. Nobody the Gulf states aren't the problem. Israel, ladies and gentlemen, is not the problem. Iran is the problem.

So, the deal to land this plane to get to 60 days of intense negotiations, I find a little disturbing. We don't know the details of it, which shows me, not a formality. To me, that shows me that there's a lot of things they don't want people to hear about this thing because they don't want the markets affected. The market's over 52,000, first time ever. Gas, the price per barrel of oil is getting lower and closer to the 65 level that we were at.

That nobody wants to see it go below because that's when oil and gas companies begin losing money. I don't want that to happen either. Either do you. A lot of it's in your 401k portfolio. But when I look at what Iran has, they're the ones who couldn't bring water to their people.

They're the ones who have heavily sanctioned on their oil. They're the ones who could not do international banking. They're the ones who took any revenue and gave it to their proxy terror groups, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. Not us. It was them.

We don't give money to terrorist groups. They do. People have to understand who the bad guys are. It is not us. Understood?

So people might not, even our allies who didn't want us to do the job, they recognize that Iran is the problem. That's why they had snapback sanctions in play. They're immediately, the Iranians are going to get a waiver on exports and allow to export their Iranian crude oil and petrochemicals. That's a big give. I know you got to give something to get something.

Are we going to get the straight open? For 60 days. Yeah, but for how long? I think they're gonna toll it. After 60 days, they could toll it along with their money.

Really? No, we're going to call it fees and environmental costs. Forget that. That can't happen. That's why Senator Lindsey Graham, big fan of the president.

The president endorsed him right away. He got through his primary, which is great. But He's worried about the deal, as we know it. Senator Thune wouldn't comment last night on the deal because. We don't know the details of it.

Here he is talking about it. Cut six. We haven't seen the details and so yeah there's a lot of online chatter out there and some versions of it but I think until the White House actually furnishes us the specific memo that it's hard to react one way or the other. I think a lot of our members are hearing things and obviously they're responding to that but clearly like anybody else we want to see the devils in the details.

So he's waiting. We're all waiting. And it's only going to be a page and a half. I don't have any problem with it being a page and a half. This is the criteria needed to start 60 days of negotiation.

So the foreign minister gets on television yesterday of Iran and says, I want Israel out of Lebanon. Tough. What are you talking about? Israel wasn't in on the negotiation. Why should they be restricted in Lebanon?

Why are they in Lebanon? They don't want the land. Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Anti-Israel people out there. I'm not going to say anti-Semitic.

Let's say you're anti-BB, anti-Israel, anti-Semitism I can't help you with. But let's say you don't agree with their tactics, you're not paying attention. The only reason they're in Lebanon, and to point they're at, is because they have to allow people to safely go back to their homes in northern Israel.

So now the foreign minister says no, no deal. Unless Israel backs out of Lebanon.

Well, they're not going to do that. And the President's getting mad at Bibi Netanyahu. They're responding to attacks from Hezbollah. And for the President to come out and say Syria should take care of Hezbollah. Syria can't take care of Hezbollah.

They have this thing called ballistic missiles, and Syria can barely. You know, get the buses to run on time. They have no missile defense. They can't touch Hezbollah. They are an enemy of Hezbollah.

You're right, Mr. President, but they can't do anything about it. One of the things that I have a problem with in terms of the memory of understanding is calls for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened in the near term. Good. The MOU stipulates that, quote, Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no change for six no charges For sixty days.

Sc well, no charges for sixty days. Forever. You can't charge for international waters. You really set the precedent that'll set? You really want to charge for international waters?

Anything close to the coast of your country, I'm going to charge for? These guys just got bombed 13,000 times. Why are they dictating any conditions? It's absolutely insane to me.

So I just wonder if Witkoff, Jared Kushner, And the Vice President have fully been candid with the President of the United States. When he says things like this, cut one. There's so much interest in the text of the document. Why not release the document? Why not release it?

I'd like to get a formal setting first before we do that, but I have no problem with that. It's good documentation. Here's what it says. Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, that's what it says. It won't have one.

Goodbye. to develop They will not have a nuclear weapon. Really? Well, number one, we got to get the uranium out. And right now they said they were in a rush to get the uranium out.

And now, in some of the texts, reportedly, the Iranians say, we'll hold it and we'll downblend it to no longer weapons grade. But they still have it. Uranium experts tell me it's easy to up, you know, if this is a term. to upgrade it to back to weapons grade. If they keep it, why would they keep it?

You can't keep it. That's a non-brainer. And what about the pickaxe facility? The pickaxe facility is inside of a granite mountain. We've been unable we collapse the entrance, but they can clear out the entrance.

What are they going to do there? And when it comes to inspections over the next 60 days, we have to have direct inspections. If you don't want Americans, it's got to be people that we trust, whether it's Britain or France, to go in there. And if you start doing the Saddam Hussein, don't look here, don't look here, not allowed in, then we go back to war. And after 60 days, it'll bring us to August.

In August, Iran will have leverage because the President's going to get oil and gas down low. The economy is going to be rolling. And does he want to slow it down leading up to the midterm elections? The answer is no. Cut to.

Actually, I'll not only release it. I'll probably have a press conference and read it to you word by word.

so that the press covers it accurately. Because it's a It's a very important document and uh unlike Obama who could have destroyed the Middle East with a horrible JC Yeah. It is the worst agreement. That was a road to a nuclear weapon. Mine is a wall against a nuclear weapon.

I mean I see these people say, but we already had one. He paid a fortune for it. We paid nothing. Yeah, President's always comparing the JCPOA, and so is Barack Obama, who's doing a ton of interviews now to get publicity out for his monstrosity of a library that he has. And I'll discuss some of the library a little bit later because it's way over budget.

It does not revitalize inner Chicago. And number three is it's very late. And evidently, there's a whole bunch of black construction workers who are saying they never got paid. He left office in 2016. It is ten years ago.

10 years ago.

Meanwhile, Rebecca Heinrichs talked to me today. She's a foreign policy expert who just got off a trip to Ukraine, but really focused on the Middle East, extremely fair and knowledgeable. And as I talk to her, you're going to hear a clip from some some of the action that took place And then you'll hear my interview from Fox and Friends, because I wanted to bring it back. It was tough catching up to her afterwards.

So here's my interview with Rebecca Heinrichs. Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Rebecca Heinrich joins us now. Rebecca, can we just start on the Israeli portion of it? Israel has to, I guess, stop fighting back against Hezbollah, who's lobbing missiles at the northern part of their country. This makes absolutely no sense.

It makes no sense. And we also know, Brian, that there have been diplomatic attempts over and over again since the early 2000s to try to get Hezbollah to disarm. They will not disarm. It has never worked through negotiations and diplomacy. At this point, if this is tied to this deal, the United States would essentially be restraining Israel, our greatest ally in the region, and the reason that we had such success in Epic Fury.

So Israel must defend itself. It cannot be restrained. It has to be able to even go on the offensive to preemptively take out these Hezbollah cells, even if they're in Beirut. I would expect Israel to continue to do that. They're not going to wait until they get hit before they can respond.

Yeah, you can't blame Netanyahu for this. They're defending themselves. They just happen to be very good at defending themselves. It's not their fault that they're this strong and this devastating. And Syria is not equipped to take out Hezbollah, even though they'd love to.

They have no missile defense. Hezbollah's got rockets. Let's talk about the deal. What concerns you most about what we now know about this deal as we wait two days for the formal reading of the deal? Mm-hmm.

Well, first of all, Brian, I just want to say, I mean, Epic Fury was so successful, and Economic Fury is so successful, and President Trump was right to initiate it. And we really have the Iranians in a vice, which is why I'm concerned that we would permit the Iranians access to their oil as we relieve this blockade. They would essentially have billions of dollars back into the IRGC coffers. I know the vice president continues to say this will be conditions-based, but as far as I can tell, this isn't even going to be put in escrow accounts to trap it to make sure that the IRGC complies. We have no reason to believe that they will, so they will be flooded with cash almost immediately.

My second big concern is that the deal does recognize Iranian governance with other Gulf states over the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, the Iranians will say they just want to collect environmental tolls. They're not going to call it tolls, they'll call it fees. That's tolls. Brian, that's worse than before Epic Fury. The United States cannot permit Iran to have coercive control over the Strait of Hormuz.

And so, to me, those are the two big ones tied with, I think, The fact that once you relieve sanctions, you really lose your leverage to enforce what we want on removing and dismantling Iran's nuclear weapons. And what we're going to do is they have frozen funds, so it will be $300 billion. It looks like they get it up front. It looks like they're going to be selling oil right up front. And it looks like after 60 days, they charge tolls.

With Oman, there's no way, because that's going to set a precedent for international waters and waterways around the world.

So that every Big and small power does not want this to be a new trend. That'll blow everybody's budget, correct? Yeah, I'm very concerned about that. I mean, to me, geopolitically, I think President Trump, again, had an incredible opportunity to wrest control of the Strait of Hormuz away from the Islamic Republic of Iran. China backs Iran.

So the United States is in this Cold War, this great competition against the Chinese. We do not want China and its proxies to have coercive control over major waterways. If we set this precedent, you would expect the Chinese to be looking to do it in its region of the world as well.

So I'm concerned about that. One more point, Brian, on the $300 billion. It is true that it's not going to be American taxpayers that are going to go to this fund, but the language that I've seen of the MOU says that the United States would help essentially get investments in Iran. Remember, Iran has not changed. Iran is still conducting industrial scale executions.

They execute minors, little girls as little as nine.

So this regime has not changed. It's devoted to the Islamic Republic, and we should not be giving any economic relief. Until this regime is gone or it demonstrates completely different behavior. And the thing is, everything that you said, I think the President would say. I'm just wondering if the people that negotiated this have informed the President about what's in the page and a half he's going to read publicly on Friday.

Yeah, I mean look President Trump Initiated Epic Fury wing to wing with the Israelis. It was brilliant. 47 years of terrorism. Only President Trump finally took the fight to the Iranians, demonstrating incredible military competence, military capability. I applaud him for that.

And so he won the war. But the details of this agreement, as we've seen them, it does not look like we are the victors. It looks at best as though it is a tie, or in fact, that the Iranians did pull some wins out, and there's no reason for it. The United States has the economic, the military advantage. President Trump was right to put the squeeze on them.

And he continues to say it's no deal or it's a good deal. And I would just say we were in a much better place before we saw the details of this MOU. And unless President Trump can change this at the last minute and get good deals here, I would say that this Memorandum of Understanding is worse than not having it. Right. Next 24 hours, he could go in and do that.

I hope he does. Rebecca Heinrich, thanks so much. Appreciate it. When we come back, the price of oil. The price of gas, the price of diesel.

I talked to energy expert Phil Flynn next. You listen to Brian Kill Me Chow. It's Brian Kilmade. The more you listen, the The more you'll know. It's Brian Kilmead.

When you talk about the straight, how it affects people at home, a lot of people just don't care about Iran. They just don't care about foreign policy. It's not this generation, it's every generation. They just don't care more about domestic issues. And I understand that.

People with paycheck to paycheck, if gas is $2.85 and the next month it's $4.20 and you're driving for a living, and especially if you're in sales or things like that, you're on the road, it affects you and your bottom line.

So we booked Phil Flynn this morning. I think he's one of this nation's premier experts on oil, gas, and especially diesel. And I just wanted to know what he thinks the pattern is in terms of decreased oil sales. And we begin with the president talking about what he hopes, and then Phil chimes in. Here's my interview.

It's already partially opened. It's going to be opening up soon in full over the next day or two. And the market has gone while and oil has come Tumbling down, and it's getting to very close to where it was before the crisis. You know, the reason oil stayed low is because we were taking ships out every night that you didn't even know about. Our Navy did a great job.

Nobody knew. What was happening? That's why oil didn't go to $300 a barrel. Investors like the news. With the Dow hitting a record high of topping $52,000 for the first time in history, Fox Missouri contributor and oil trader Phil Flynn joins us now.

Phil, when we see the price per barrel go down, we're wondering if it's going to be the same thing when we get to the gas station. What do you think? Absolutely. You know, Brian, I was so excited today. We saw gasoline prices at $4.02 a gallon, which sounds high from where it was a year ago, but a lot lower than where it was just a few weeks ago, and a lot lower than it was under President Biden when it was over $5 a gallon.

And we're probably going to fall below $4 a gallon. That's going to be a big help for inflation pressures. Diesel prices are going to come down. That's a good price and a good boom for businesses.

So this is real positive. And if we reopen the straight, we get a flood of oil, and that means more downside pressure. What could you say about diesel? Because people like you have told me that if you want food. Prices go down, trucks deliver those food to the grocery stores, and they run on diesel.

How's that going? It's doing a lot better, right? And diesel is a soft spot in the petroleum complex, you know, partly because of the green energy movement. You know, we close refineries, nobody wants dirty diesel, you know, except the economy, right? And that has really tightened supply.

So when there's a disruption, they're the ones that get hurt the worst, and the economy gets hurt the worst. But one of the untold stories that have kept diesel prices down is the fact that we have, you know, increased production from Venezuela. They make heavy oil. That makes diesel. And the other thing is the heroic actions by U.S.

refiners who raised productions of things like jet fuel to all-time highs. All of those things came into play that kept these prices from getting way, way higher and not keeping them from hitting all-time highs.

So, Phil, educate me. Why don't we, what would stop it from going down? The price of oil goes down, so is the price of gas. Are there certain things built into the system that prevents gas from going down as quick as the price per barrel? There is.

I mean, it's just the way the market works. A lot of times when you're looking at the retail side of the market, you know, they're always behind the curve a little bit. And when prices go up quickly, they generally lose money, right? And it takes a little bit of time. But I would say in this scenario, we're starting to see prices start to accelerate on the downside for gasoline.

And the competitive pressures in America, demand for gasoline is pretty good, even with prices at this high.

So when prices come down, the competitive pressures will bring those prices down. All right, Phil, we're going to tap it into you a lot to see where this is all going because the politics is playing into the prices at the pump as usual. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show. Actually, I'll not only release it, I'll probably have a press conference and read it to you word by word so that the press covers it accurately.

Because it's a It's a very important document and Uh unlike Obama who could have destroyed the Middle East with a horrible J C P O A It is the worst agreement. That was a road to a nuclear weapon. Mine is a wall against a nuclear weapon. I mean I see these people say, but we already had one. In those words, he paid a fortune for it.

We paid nothing. So, the President of the United States over in the G7 is going to have a press conference shortly. We'll be covering it. A lot of news coming out, everything going on. I mean, the attempted assassination for the UFC event would have been a devastating, would have been a devastating attack on the most, maybe some of the most successful people in the country.

That was about 20 people could have been involved. It was unwound by a mom that found out their son was involved. Thankfully, called authorities, the FBI cracked down the Secret Service acted. Five are under arrest, and hopefully, they're going to get all the 23. We're following that.

The President of the United States also commenting. Making news over there with just different meetings that he's having with G7 leaders, Arab leaders, Gulf state leaders, as well as a one-on-one with the Egyptian leader, and he had a bilateral with the Indian leader, Amodi. And now he's going to have a press conference about what would be his memorandum of understanding with Iran. Joining us now, a guy that helped me out on Fox and Friends a short time ago, former senior advisor, now currently a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Worked with Rich Goldberg, worked with the president of the first term, Rich Goldberg.

Rich, welcome back. Hey, thanks for having me, Brian. Hey, Rich, we're just trying to find out what they're going to be giving us on Friday. And I think one thing is pretty clear: the president wants to land the plane economically, but in turn, wants a good deal in the short term to negotiate a better deal in 60 days. From what you know, did he do that?

Well, I think that if you just took a snapshot of the deal itself, I understand why critics could harp on: well, how much money are you paying? Is it just Hormuz for Hormuz? Are you going back to the pre-war status quo basically that Iran was already exporting X number of barrels per day to China and getting paid for it? The Hormuz was open. Only now you have that status quo plus all of the strategic gains of the actual military campaign.

They can-enrich uranium from last year.

Now they can't produce a ballistic missile. Their defense industrial base lies in ruins, and hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars of damage done to their economy.

So if they're sort of bleeding out right now, And this is a short-term band-aid that helps us get the relief that we need in the energy market and the economy by getting Hormuz opened. Then it's really just about how much do they benefit from it? Does it solve their problems prematurely? Do they have an incentive to continue making concessions, or are we relieving them of that incentive up front and therefore harder to get further concessions? And how long will this be stable for if the Iranians at some point perceive they've gotten enough money and want to ask for more money, otherwise they'll threaten to close the strait again?

But if you zoom out and you look at the full picture, the President is correct. It doesn't take this deal to enable him to say he has stopped them from getting a nuclear weapon. He already did that. The deal now is trying to capture those gains, get Hormuz open, so that we don't walk ourselves into strategic losses in our economy by keeping Hormuz closed.

So Iran would be allowed to immediately resume oil and fuel exports. In fact, some ships have already gone out. The U. S would grant sanctions waivers covering oil sales, banking services, transportation insurance needed to facilitate those sales. The U.

S would lift its naval blockade, of course, in Iran of Iran ports and ease restrictions of maritime commerce. Frozen Iranian assets could become accessible under the framework, I think $24 billion at first.

So what happens? They have a $300 billion fund, not American taxpayers, but cutter money, revenue. For the most part, I imagine some other Arab countries might have contributed, but how they get it, where that money is kept, what they use it for, is going to be some of the questions people will have. Yeah, I mean, Brian, let's be very honest. You know, I think it does the president disservice to have messaging, talking points, messengers to go out to the media and try to dress this up as something that it isn't.

Until proven otherwise, the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard Corps, is a terrorist organization with a lot of American blood on its hands, and they continue to say they're going to take their money and pour it back into all the illicit activities, and they want death to America. If that has changed, show us that has changed before you try to give them more money to pour back into terrorism and missiles and trying to reconstitute. And so it does matter, you know, $5 billion, $10 billion, $50 billion, $300 billion. If this is still a state sponsor of terrorism, if the IRGC is still a terrorist group, if they're still going to try to reconstitute, you want to limit that revenue as much as possible.

So how you provide this relief, how much relief, does matter whether or not this is a good deal or not. I mean, just look what they did with the money. I listened to Saudi Arabia said that when they got the money from the JCPOA, they put it right to their terror organizations. They were looking to make things better for the Iranian people. And we did say help was on the way about two months ago when the Iranians were stepping up, speaking out and getting killed by the thousands.

It's true. I mean, the Iranian people are nowhere to be found in this conversation.

Now, I will say they sort of come into the conversation in an interesting way. The demand continues to rise inside the country as the bombs have stopped. And that's factoring into the calculus of the regime. They're bleeding out financially because of the blockade, because of the war itself, because of Operation Economic Fury that the Treasury Department's. Been waging.

And as more and more people come out to their normal lives and are driving more and more and saying, hey, why is gasoline being rationed here? Why aren't we getting paid? Why is the bank about to collapse? This creates a lot of angst and the potential for people to rise up again. And so what I hope is that even if we are providing a band-aid on a mortal wound, We find all kinds of ways to keep that economic pressure on.

If I was doing this, I would let them sell their oil, but make the payments go into an escrow account. Don't let the money go back into Iran until you see more behavioral change. That still gives them some pressure on their production and their storage and lets them put m uh oil out to market, but doesn't let them reap billions and billions of dollars of cash.

Now maybe they won't go for that and we still need Hormuz open. I mean you gotta find other ways to keep squeezing them and then covertly provide support to the Iranian people because that creates pressure up and ultimately if these guys choose to be terrorists forever, it's not gonna change, you know, a long term, the threat from Iran until we see the Iranian People take their country back. I want you to hear what the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Corney said because he's at loggerheads with Trump, and I think he's trying to get the USMCA renewed and updated. Cut five. We're very pleased with the deal that's been struck.

It sets the groundwork to ensure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. It sets the groundwork for a reintegration over time of the economies in the region. It sets the groundwork for a solution in Lebanon, which we discussed today.

So it's positive. Of course, it has to be followed through, it has to be implemented, and I think one of the things is the president. Helped create that deal, led creating that deal. The rest of the G7 and the broader community need to help implement it. Yeah, now, um.

It's very interesting that he said that he wants this done too. Listen, it's so funny that when there's actual crisis, when there's actual brink of nuclear weapons, when the Iranians are on the brink of a missile breakout to shield a nuclear breakout, Kearney's nowhere to be found, Starmer's nowhere to be found, Macron is nowhere to be found. When the Strait of Hormuz is under attack with their supply of oil and gas, they're nowhere to be found.

Now that there's a deal, now that there might be sanctions relief, now that you might get back into a different picture, now they're showing up. Oh, this is wonderful.

Sorry, Kearney. Guess what? The president already. Did a deal to take nuclear weapons off the game board. It's not the MOU.

It was called Operation Midnight Hammer and then Operation Epic Fury. You weren't a part of it. But what they could do right now, which I think will be helpful long term, because I think we should be betting that this doesn't go to a comprehensive deal. That's the right analytical bet. Hope it does.

I hope it does. But these folks are probably going to take the money And then ask for more and try to turn this into a protection racket at some point. And this will likely then come back to a confrontation. But it would be helpful to get the British Navy, the French Navy, other Allied Navies into the Gulf right now During a ceasefire. Have them take responsibility for securing their own supplies so that it's not all on us.

And then if we'd have to go back to a blockade, if we have to go back to a confrontation, we're not in this alone. We shouldn't have been in this alone. Right. They were upset that we took the strike without telling them, but we had an opportunity to get all of them at once, and we did. And that has been totally underappreciated.

How many people we've wiped out, how much damage was done with the 13,000 plus strikes. But the last before we go, Rich, is what they're asking of the Israelis. They're telling the Israelis don't hit back on Hezbollah. I mean, come on. That's impossible.

than not to hit back on a terror organization which lives to eliminate you. And to leave Lebanon. The one thing we cannot do is, in any way, subsidize. The reestablishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran's hold on the Middle East. That means their proxy networks, their terrorist groups, the OG flagship Hezbollah in Lebanon.

For 20 years, we've heard the Lebanese armed forces are going to step in and disarm Hezbollah. There's a UN Security Council resolution on it going back to 2006. Has never happened. Would love to see it happen. We've been paying a lot of money to the Lebanese armed forces for it never to happen.

So until I actually see a Lebanese army member. Fire a shot against Hezbollah. I'm not going to believe there's any force on earth who will do anything to defang a terrorist organization except the Israeli defense forces. And so we cannot handcuff that ally. I think it's great to try to calm tensions.

If you can get peace between Lebanon and Israel and actually change the face of the Middle East, that'd be great. I don't know what happened to the whole idea of no deal until Saudi Arabia and Qatar joined the Abraham Accords. Nobody asks about that anymore. Would love to see that too. But if that doesn't happen and Iran tries to take the resources and build back up their terrorist proxy, their terrorist organization, which has killed hundreds of Americans, by the way, we're not going to be in there on the ground, nor should we be.

It's on Israel's border. They're willing to go do it. And take out that threat. We can't handcuff them and stop them from doing that. And Rich Goldberg, I think the problem is with the Abraham Accords, Saudis came back and said, not until we get this the Palestinian situation resolved.

Back to zero.

However, one thing I think is pretty clear is that Jared Kushner and Steve Woodkoff did a really good job on Gaza, getting those hostages out. President used his leverage and then trying to rebuild. But now they're going to focus on that. And maybe there's going to be something where the Palestinians step up and try to take control from Hamas. We'll see.

Because one thing about the Israelis, they keep taking out Hamas leaders. Anybody involved in October 7th? With that attack, they've been doing a great job eliminating them one by one, and that is their leadership. Yeah, I think that's totally right. And a lot of credit to the negotiating team.

By the way, a lot of credit to the energy team for getting us through this past few months, American energy dominance policies of the president. Honestly, the president should give a presidential Medal of Freedom to Secretary Bergham, Secretary Wright, and the members of his Energy Dominance Council for keeping the market the way it is and keeping the world coming to America for our oil and gas. What an incredible thing. The president deserves to be on Mount Rushmore or something for what he has done to save the world from a nuclear weapon from Iran already. But remember, your example on Gaza.

It was a deal to get the hostages out, and we've never seen Hamas disarm after that. And so if the hostage here is Hormuz, we might get the hostage out, but I don't have high expectations for what comes next. Either do I. Rich, we'll see. I know it's not easy negotiating with these guys, but that's why we decided to finally get fed up and with the President is the only President to go ahead and take the fight to them.

Rich Goldberg, thanks so much. Appreciate it. You bet. All right, we'll take your time out. We'll come back, talk a little bit about what's going on at the G7, see if the president starts his press conference, and also discuss what's happening with the primaries yesterday.

You listen to the Brian Kilmey Show. Real talk, real guests, real insight. Where curiosity meets conversation is the Brian Killmeat Show. Uh From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmead. Sponsored by Previgen.

Previgen made for your brain. Right at the cut, what a ball that is. Bestie on the turn. Options either side. Lead up.

Jesse, there's your goal. Alexis McCall show the decks and on the save. The rebound is Messi's second goal. Nico Gonzalez, Leono Messi, Leono Messi. Sir!

First career. World Cup hat-trick ties the all-time goal-scoring record. And Argentina sold the place out here in New York, New Jersey, MetLife. He scores three goals. People say when he decided to join the MLS, his World Cup career was over because the competition is not good enough.

He should be in a high-ranking league, be in the Premier League, go over to England, stay over in Spain. But the question has now been answered. After spending, I think, two or three years in Miami, FC, where he's basically running things. He scores three goals for the first time in his career in the Argentina's first game. They beat Algeria three, nothing as they go to defend their world title.

So pretty cool when great players play great in great times, and it's great for opening game. Remember, You don't have to play great every game. You can still win a World Cup. They lost to Saudi Arabia. And they lost to Saudi Arabia in Qatar.

Not many people thought RGT was going to bounce all the way back. And win the World Cup. And then the US has a fantastic win. But if you saw Australia play against Turkey A. Turkey, it's a new name.

Turkey. You see how fast they are, how physical they are, how confident they are. That's going to be a tough game. And everyone thought it would be the U.S.'s easiest, and we'll see what happens in Seattle on Friday. 16 million people, 16 million people watch the USA game in game one against Paraguay.

That is flat out amazing. Put it this way: I love hockey players in ANSL. I wish them the best. 4.5 million for the deciding game of the Stanley Cup finals.

So compare 16 million to 4.5 million. You can say what you want, and I hope there's not that many naysayers left out there. Fox, I know I'm biased, but they've done a fantastic job in their coverage. Also I would bring up Brazil gets a huge number. I think Argentina might get a bigger number than the U.S., but game two against Australia should be huge.

I know Australia is watching. They can't wait. They got some bulletboard material, not from the American players who have been deferential to Australia, but to America's broadcasters. Like Alexei Lawless and others say, hey, this is going to be a big win for the U.S. And other people say the experts say they'll have no problem with Australia.

Obviously, they're world-class players. When you look at the NBA finals at the New York Knicks and San Antonio Spurs, the average was $24.5 million across ABC and ASPN with 33 million homes. The massive audience shares the highlights with the least popularity surge for the championship series. They were struggling in the regular season. But think back to 98, Michael Jordan's final championship with the Bulls.

They got about the same mark year over year. Growth viewership was up 15.7% compared to 2025, Game 5.

So this matched Jordan's peak of his career with that fantastic Bulls team. Series, over the five game series, they averaged twenty point eight million viewers, making it one of the highest rated finals since 98.

So that is pretty great news.

So it's good, and I'll tell you what. I was just reading this story about sports radio. And for the longest time, sports radio would just mock the World Cup. Nobody cares about soccer, except for once in a while you have a hoax that would care about it. I got news for you.

Hockey's done. The NBA's done. Football is off. Major League Baseball is, I don't know, you want to talk about baseball for three hours a day? Eight hours a day, 12 hours a day?

I don't even think baseball players want to talk about it. Your only choice is to watch the World Cup and understand it. But I think you don't have an obligation to be an expert. Just observe it. What I think is fantastic is, and you must be seeing some of this on social media, there's so many tourists here who are taking the time in between games.

Sometimes you get four or five games, your team's not playing. You don't want to spend $5,000 for tickets to games, you don't really care about the teams.

So you travel. And people are loving the country. The stuff that we take for granted, how diverse the North is from the South, from the West, from the East, the different food restaurants. Popularity, how nice people are outside New York City. That's what people are noticing, and they're putting it up.

It's kind of good. Just goes to show you what bad PR we get outside our borders. Brian, kill me, Joe.