The Brian Kilmeade Show

Hi everyone, it's Brian Kilmead here. Are you tired of those uncomfortable dress shirts, especially when they bunch up under a sweater? If so, then you must check out Collars Co., makers of the dress collar polo. Listen up. These shirts are four-way stretch, buttery soft polos with firm dress collars on them, so they give you the dress shirt look, but extremely comfortable polo feel.

You can wear them with anything under a sweater, with a blazer, or by themselves as an elevated polo. They work for any occasion. These polos are perfect, whether it's in the office, on a golf course, or a night out. Collars Co. is exploding and have gone viral on social media thanks to the 1 million investment they received on Shark Tank from Mark Cuban and Peter Jones.

You don't have to worry about collars that flop down and spread out. They stay firm and sharp all day. It's an amazing array of sweaters, quarter zips, pants, and outerwear. If you're looking for the performance dress shirt or polo that looks great all day, check out collarsandco.com. Use promo code Brian for 15% off.

of any purchase of a hundred dollars or more, that's promo code BRIAN. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead. Hi, everyone.

So glad you're there. We got Mark Thiessen this hour, Ambassador Dennis Ross. Kind of interesting, we already heard from Mark Rubio this morning. He's over at the conference in the Philippines, APEC, and he's already spoken out mostly about the fight in Iran as well as Ukraine. The president today will allow the Dodgers to come to the Rose Guard and hopefully they all show up.

A California team showing up. This is great. Shows you what the difference is between the first term and the next. That used to be something that we would know about. Also today, Caroline Levitt will give a press conference or press briefing at eleven.

So let's get to the big three. Number three. Let's consider who's on Abdul Al-Syed's team, right? He's been endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who also was supporting Graham Plattner. Abdul Al Syed and Graham Plattner campaigned together.

They fundraised together. Yep, that is Congresswoman Slotkin. More left-wing pushback on Bernie and the DSA by other Dems. But is it too little, too late as Michigan could be next to put them into the Senate race? I'm talking about the DSA.

Number two. You know, I think when I make decisions about my life, they aren't just rooted in polls. They're rooted in what people need, what is best for the country. Yes, thank you, AOC. She's just trying to make our lives better.

Thank you. New political, new polls are in. We review as we evaluate who has the edge for the midterms while we see stunning new New Hampshire polls that have that woman leading the pack. Number one. The Houthis have largely stayed out of this fight, which has been hugely helpful.

And so for the Houthis to now be joining into this, they're clearly doing it at the direction of the Iranians.

So this is an escalation. Yep, that's Rebecca Heinrich. She's great. Day 12 of bombing and intensity and the stakes are amping up as both sides get the Houthis involved. That's going to affect the price of oil at least for a day.

Now, the president made it clear on Tooth Social. I'll just paraphrase. He said, We taught the Houthis a lesson, they stayed out of it.

Now, if they get back into it, they're going to pay a price. Mark Thiessen, they hope. To they hope to shut off the Red Sea. And their problems really with Saudi Arabia, and those two have been going at it for like the last 10 years. Yeah, President Trump is, look, the first thing he did almost when he came into office was to take on the Houthis who were trying to threaten shipping through the Red Sea.

And it is as a result of that that they've stayed out of it so far. We've been in combat on and off for half a year now with Iran, and they haven't done anything. It would be a big miscalculation on the part of the Houthis to try and engage in conflicts. But they are. I mean, yet they shot at two Saudi troops yesterday.

Do you think it's just a one-off?

Well, we'll see. We'll see. Again, we launched a heck of a bombing campaign on the Houthis and set them back dramatically.

So, you know, I'm sure we have, and by the way, we have a lot more combat power in the region now than we did at the start of the Trump administration. Donald Trump's not somebody they want to mess with.

So it's pretty clear that pause that we had allowed the Iranians to rearm, and they did. Don't you think that's pretty clear? Yeah, yes. I think the pause in major combat was a mistake. But look, Donald Trump wanted to give the Iranians every opportunity to end this peacefully, and credit to him for trying to do that.

But I think the problem, what I think he's come to realize is that they have what in divorce courts are called irreconcilable differences with the Iranians, right? President Trump is not going to accept a bad deal that doesn't verifiably force them to give up their nuclear program and also open the strait without any Iranian control of the strait. And the Iranians are never going to give them that.

So return to combat was inevitable.

So I wish we could have finished this months ago, but I think we're going to finish it now. And good for him for doing it. Do you think there's a plan in place?

Well, I think there's a pretty clear pathway to how to end this thing on American terms. And as long as there's no, I have no, quite frankly, if we ended it today, it would be imperfect. But as long as there's no deal with the Iranians in which they don't give up what they need to give up and we give them billions of dollars to rebuild and strengthen their regime, they've been weakened dramatically. And I think we're going to weaken them more. We stopped the combat at the 20-yard line, right?

You know, whatever it was, 10 months ago or however many months it is now. And so, you know, we got to finish, we got to bring it into the end zone. And quite frankly, because of the pause, they brought a lot of their ballistic missiles out of where they had hidden them in these tunnels, which means they're open targets now.

So I think we should finish the combat operations, maintain the blockade indefinitely. Once we finish combat operations, we can open up the strait pretty effectively. And then what we should do is we should arm and train the Iranian people to overthrow their regime, just like we did in the 1980s with the Contras in Nicaragua, with UNITA in Angola, with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. We provided non-lethal but certainly significant support to solidarity in Charter 77 and in Poland and Czechoslovakia. We liberated 400 million people at the end of the Cold War without putting any boots on the ground.

We have muscle memory. We know how to do this. America has done this before. And so I think that's what we need to do now with Iran.

So how do we open up the straight militarily? Do you think that there's a plan in place for that? Cooper has a plan to do it. We could do it tomorrow. We can't do major combat and open the strait at the same time because we need to focus on one than the other.

So it needs to be sequential. But absolutely, we can open up the strait. A combination of we can escort ships, certainly, but electronic warfare, anti-drone technology, and other things. We can do it.

Now, the problem, of course, you have is that we can do it with 99% certainty. But for some shippers, 1% risk is more than they're willing to take. And so there's going to be some that won't want to go through even with 1% risk. If you told the special operations team, you've got 99% certainty of completing your mission, they would say, I'll take that any day, right? But with a shipper with a ship that's worth a billion dollars over a course of years in terms of shipping, they might not be willing to take 1% risk.

So that's a problem. But for many, we'll be able to open. open it up pretty effectively.

So why do you think the Iranians have been able to hit our bases? You know, it's a good question. I think that we need to have a we should have a plan to protect those bases. I mean, look, we were able to protect Israel from a barrage of hundreds of Iranian missiles. You know, now some get through, but we have pretty effective defenses.

So I think, you know, I hope that we have been taking, that we took the time of the ceasefire to prepare just like the Iranians did, and I'm pretty sure that Admiral Cooper did. And, you know, sometimes something's going to get through, even the best defenses. There's no way to have risk. There's no such thing as risk-free war. But I think we can largely protect our bases and we can largely protect Gulf infrastructure if we're 100% certainty, but certainly significant.

General Keith Kellogg yesterday on what he thinks we should be doing now, cut eight. decapitation. That means we make it to them unfathomable to come outside because we're going to target every one of them as we go forward. And I think we've started to do that, or we have done it in the past. I think the President should keep doing it because he's on the right track.

And that means kill their leadership. You know, the guys in charge. Let them know because they certainly talk tough and they are certainly ruthless. Yeah, I mean, I think again, I think that we need to we've taken out, you know, gosh, two layers, two and a half layers of the Iranian leadership. We need to take out more.

A lot of the negotiators who we were dealing with, the only reason they were alive is for the purpose of negotiating, and they didn't make a deal.

So we have no reason to keep them alive. I think there was a lost opportunity during the Khomeini funeral where these guys came out of their bunkers for the funeral and we guaranteed their safety. I'm not sure that was a good idea. I think we should. But they can't live in a cave forever.

And so we can watch them, we can monitor them. And Israel knows where these people are. They're very good at taking out leadership. I think Israel should take the lead. We should bring Israel back into the operation, and we should give them the lead on leadership strikes.

So Yesterday Reuters reported that our CIA headquarter or our CIA offices were hit in Saudi Arabia, and it's speculated that the only people that could provide the coordinates to know exactly where in a building the CIA offices was, is where it was hit, by the way, is the Russians. How long are we going to tolerate Russia sharing information with Iran?

Well, I think that President Trump has lost his patience with Vladimir Putin. Putin is getting his the technical term is getting his ass handed to him by Ukraine right now. If you just look at the images over the weekend, there was a cloud of smoke over Moscow so thick that it blotted out the sun. I mean, this war is now coming to his home. And so, you know, I think that this is a time to help Ukraine as much as we can in terms of setting back the Russians.

And, you know, that'll be a deterrent to them doing that kind of thing. Yeah, that would be an interesting thing to see happen. I also hear on the Ukraine front that the Russians are beginning to get in place security forces preparing for some type of insurrection in their country. That's how upset they are with the way it's going. And I think with 22 of 35 refineries on fire and a huge Amazon facility, the last one hit, they're beginning to feel it.

What does Mark Tessa know about this?

Well, first of all, the Russian people are starting to feel the war for the first time. You know, the cloud of smoke over Moscow was everybody, you know, that was their Wildberries is their equivalent of Amazon.

So, you know, lots of people, their entire businesses were blown up because they're shipping all their products through there. But that also, the Wildberries is a logistics system.

So they use the Wildberry logistics to ship body armor, to ship, you know, all sorts of military products as well. And that was damaged by the strikes. But I think the Russian people, you know, they don't have a lot of say in their country, but they're starting to get frustrated because they were told this was a special military operation. It was all the way over there. There was no cost.

And now Moscow and St. Petersburg are getting hit on a regular basis. And truthfully, if I were the Ukrainians, I would start dropping leaflets over civilian neighborhoods, send drones, and leaflets that say, if this was a Russian drone and And you you in Atlanta flying over Kiev, you'd be dead right now. We could kill you if we wanted to, but we're not because we're civilized. Because the Russians are sending drones over Kyiv, and they're hitting schools, and they're hitting hospitals, and they're hitting civilian neighborhoods, they're hitting churches.

So the Ukrainians are hitting things that don't kill civilians, might make their lives more difficult by taking out a lot of facilities they need for gasoline and for commerce. But they're not killing civilians. But I think they ought to use some psychological warfare, too. Mark Thiessen, I got to ask you about your column. You said if Mondami makes a move with the ICC has declared that.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal. We don't subscribe to the ICC, and we know he's not. The Mondami says, I'm going to look to have him arrested, and then he admits the next day, I can't.

So you said if he does make the move, he is the one who's going to get arrested. No, that's exactly right.

So he said, well, I don't have the authority to do it. It's not just that he doesn't have the authority to do it, it's that he would go to jail if he tried it.

So, first of all, we passed after the ICC was put in place, we passed something called the American Service Members Protection Act, which explicitly makes it a crime for local officials to cooperate with the ICC.

So he's prohibited from doing that. He could be held in contempt of court if they got an injunction on that. But then there's also another law. It's 18 U.S. Code 112, which is for the protection of foreign officials and official visitors to the United States.

And it holds that if you imprison a foreign official who is a guest of the United States, you're subject to three years in prison. And if you do it with a deadly or dangerous weapon, which the New York police presumably would do, up to 10 years in prison, and threatening to do it in order to intimidate a foreign leader is six months in prison.

So he's already violated that because he's trying to intimidate Netanyahu into not coming to the United States and carrying out his official duties, which is against the law.

So he's already violated that law. He could be prosecuted for that. But if he tried it, the only person who would be going to jail would be Netanyahu. And on top of that, both laws authorize the President of the United States to use military force to free anyone held under a warrant from the ICC, which means that I don't think the New York police want to go up against U.S. Special Operations Forces.

All right. Mark Thiessen, I warn you out. I feel bad for everybody else that interviews you today because you're going to have to say, as I mentioned earlier. That is true. Right.

That is true. I covered everything. I'm going to have to get a butterfly refresher to get ready for my next interview. You're talking about Starbucks. I did not come up with it, I just enjoy it.

Yes, absolutely. You like all the tough guy drinks over there. Thank you. Yes, it's the butterfly. Mark Thieson, thanks so much.

1-866-408-7669. It's a way not to have coffee, but yet get a little bit of a lift. That's all. Keeping you informed, engaged, and always a step ahead. It's the Brian Kill Me Show.

Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Foxnewswineshop.com with code FNRadio20. 20% discount excludes wineclub offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 or older to order.

Please drink responsibly. If you're interested in it, Brian's talking about it. You're with Brian Kilmead. There was a UNH poll that came out that had you surging in 2028. When you see that, what do you think?

I feel very, you know, humbled by the support of everyday people. I think that, you know, polls go up, polls go down. That's kind of part of how all of this works.

Okay. I'm just humbled. AOC is here for the people. It's not me who wants the office. I want to help people.

Please tell me one thing you've done for the people of Queens. Tell me a piece of legislation to make our country better. Tell me anything you've done except for be a gadfly on the side talking about how bad the country is. She's out without charisma. She's good in front of the camera, fantastic on social media, but she's about an inch thick, about an inch thick.

She only knows broad issues that Bernie Sanders whispers in her ear. But this is noteworthy, July 2026, the month they were in, when asked in New Hampshire, they did a poll. Who's your favorite Democrat? She's got 22% of the votes. It was at 15 a few months ago.

21% for Buddha Judge. He drops two. Mark Kelly goes to single digits. He was now at nine. He was at 10.

And then goes Gavin Newsom's at 8. Gavin Newsome was at 15. And then Bernie Sanders is at 6. The guy's 100 years old, really. But you know who you don't see?

Nothing from Rahm Emanuel. You see nothing from Bashir. You see nothing from Shapiro. At least these people are out there doing things. I don't know what AOC does except for self-promotion.

Really? She went to that international conference. She went to that Munich security conference. You know how she botched the North Korea question? She really doesn't know much of anything.

It's not that she's not capable. I think what makes it worse is she doesn't put the work in. You really got to round yourself off. If you're good at foreign relations, you got to make yourself good on the economy. If you don't have a law degree, you got to brush up on the Constitution.

You got to be ready to. Push your weaknesses. But the people, the AOC right now, has got to feel good. You see that poll, that's going to help her money-wise.

Now, the Democrats have something to think about. They have to decide where the first primary is. People in New Hampshire, guess what? Joe Biden says you're too white. He went to South Carolina.

And now the party's got to make a decision between Nevada and South Carolina to open up. They're bypassing New Hampshire, and they're not going to Iowa.

So, yet AOC will probably say, hey, can we go back to New Hampshire? Radio that makes you think this is the Brian Kill Me Show. Iran is in the worst place, is in the weakest place it has been through a combination of both military and diplomacy in its war against the United States. In Lebanon, you have the Lebanese government, you have the President here yesterday and today. You have Lebanon negotiating with Israel for the first time.

You have the Assad regime is gone. Probably the most hope in Syria that we've seen in a generation. You just had the Iraqi President here in Texas signing deals with American oil and gas companies. And the Iranian regime is literally cratering economically, militarily, and at war, frankly, with its own people, in addition to the region. Yeah.

That is Ambassador Michael Waltz, who knows much about foreign policy. As anyone, as well as being a Green Beret. Ambassador Dennis Ross knows as much about anybody in all these countries in the Middle East as anyone. He's William Davidson, Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And most importantly, he's worked for Democrats and Republicans and just wants peace.

He doesn't care about the party. Ambassador Ross, welcome back. Your thoughts about what Mike Walsh just said.

Well, I think there's a kind of an objective reality which you captured for real. There is no doubt if you measure this in objective terms, Iran has. probably never been weaker internally. Uh and subjectively is the problem because they think they're winning. And so long as they think they're winning, and they're controlling the straits.

We have a problem. What's interesting when you look at this, what I'm describing, and what Mike Walsh was describing, if you can get beyond this war, then the inner contradictions within Iran are going to come to the fore, number one. Number two, if we can really succeed in producing an Israeli-Lebanese peace agreement based on the framework, meaning the Lebanese army will have to act against Hezbollah, it will need help from us. You know, Hezbollah pays its fighters three times, so the Lebanese Army is able to pay its fighters. We need to get maybe the Gulf states to make up that difference.

To invest in Lebanon right now as a way of allowing President Oun to show that his way is working so that the Lebanese army can actually take on. Hezbollah. If the outcome of Lebanon is a peace agreement, it sends a message to the whole region. Iran does not have leverage or the ability to intimidate. If you improve things between Syria and Israel, which I think is also possible, another sign of that.

If the Board of Peace can begin to act on the twenty point plan. In Gaza and lead to the disarmament of Hamas, another manifestation that Iran has no sway in the region.

So there is a way to take advantage of what are the objective signs of weakening, but all those things, we have to be able to do all those things. It means we have to invest in all that, we have to mobilize others to support us.

So there's a, it's kind of a full court press you need to be able to pull off. to overcome what right now is the Iranian subjective sense that they may be they may have the upper hand and that others in the region may be feeded and may be feeling that right now. But I am surprised, and I think it's pretty clear during the pause and the MOU, which you and I were both more you too and Thought was ridiculous, some of the provisions in that, as if you said, you told me it's as if the Iranians wrote it.

So that pause, the Iranians were able to reconstitute a lot. And that's what we're seeing now with these Gulf states being rocketed, don't you think? Absolutely. There's no question. Look, what they did.

during the that clause. They dug out. You know what? We and the Israelis before the ceasefire had destroyed a significant part of the inventory of launchers for ballistic missiles. You can't fire a ballistic missile without the launcher.

And a significant part of the ballistic missiles that were exposed. But what they did is they buried both the launchers and the missiles in these deep underground tunnels, really underground cities. And we ended up Bombing the access points of that, but they were able to protect more than half of the launchers and the missiles. And the net effect is what we're seeing in terms of these attacks.

Now they're exposed, and it's got to be constant. We've got to stay on top of them because, whatever you think about this war that's been stopped and started over the last five months, letting up is not going to work, and trusting the Iranians is never going to work. And now there's a different accurate, there's a different texture to it, a different challenge. It looks like the Houthis are intent on stopping the Saudis from using the Red Sea. I want you to hear what Marco Rubio said a few hours ago, Cut 55.

Yeah. Their foreign minister, who the other day said something about their policies, an eye for an eye. The President's policy is a head for an eye. I mean, honestly, that's what it's going to be. I mean, they will pay a very heavy price.

And he went on to say this. I hope that they'll stop. They shouldn't really do that. They got suckered into this by the Iranians. You know, the Houthis largely were smart and stayed out of all this throughout the conflict.

But they now apparently have gotten themselves suckered into this going after Saudi Arabia and their ships. And by the way, that's, you know, I was reading reports a few hours ago that there is actually a Saudi fuel ship that's flagged Chinese. It's a Chinese ship. Are they going to blow up the Chinese ship? And this becomes a problem for China.

This will become a problem for the whole world. But I hope that will de-escalate because I think the House, frankly, got snookered into this thing by the Iranians. And they were smart to stay out of it, and they should stay out of it, and they should stop. We'll see what happens there. Obviously, it's not a positive development.

So that's going to really affect the price of oil. The market's down about 700 points. But this is a problem, I think, almost separate. It looks like the Saudis and Houthis were sparring separately, right? Yeah.

One of the things, but it th the where where you found the connection is that the the Saudis didn't want the the Houtings to be Connecting to the Iranians again. They didn't want flights from Iran coming into Sana'a because those flights carry arms. And so the Saudis wanted to stop it, so they bombed. an Iranian plane on the runway. What you're seeing is less the Houthis being snookered into it and more the Houthis responding to the Saudis.

One of the reasons I think that the Houdis didn't involve themselves earlier was because they had their own relationship with the Saudis where I think they are obviously getting some payoff as a way of ending what was the war between the two. But when the when the Saudis were saying, look, we have a ceasefire with you, but that's based on you not. Acquiring all sorts of weapons from the Iranians, and suddenly you see these fights beginning again, and the Saudi are saying that's not part of the deal.

So that's what they did that, and the Saudis responded to what to these Iranian planes. And now the Houdis think: okay, we have leverage on you. You don't get to tell us about this. We're going to do how we define what is important to us. One thing about the Houdis, they're not.

They may be an instrument that Iran can use But they're not a complete proxy, they have their own interests and they operate on the basis of their own interests.

So I think what we're seeing here is less. A function of them doing something as a favor to the Iranians. And more The it's in the context of their relationship with the Saudis.

So the regardless, so they're going to just aim for the Saudi ships. But here's the thing, according to reports, the Saudis are now putting about eight million barrels of oil through that strait because they can't use the Hammuz Strait.

So they redirected and recovered.

Now what?

Well, look, you put your finger on something. This really does. The Babdomandeb and the Strait Abhimus combined. represent close to 30%. of the world's oil.

So that's even a more severe uh block on what could happen and and raise the price of oil. The the look, we we were bombing the Houthis at one point and then stopped. Uh That is something they have to understand that they can pay a big price. It's not just what the Saudis can do to them, it's clearly what we can do to them as well. I know you're not a military guy, Dennis.

I know you're not a military guy, but if you're us, if they do this again today, how much do we endure before we start doing what we did that sent a very strong message in 2025?

Okay. I think the fact is we we won't be able to tolerate it for very long. We hit them hard, the Israelis hit them hard. Uh and I think one of the reasons the Israel and Somaliland formed a relationship was because it put the Israelis in a position where they could be across. The you know, on the other side of the Red Sea from the Huji is much more uh accessible To being able to take the kind of shots at them that could actually harm them.

The question is: whether, you know, how you manage this and whether or not there is a a quiet diplomatic way to manage this. What you heard the Secretary of State saying was kind of a public message. There could be and probably should be a private message going to them that sort of says, if you continue with this, you will leave us no choice. We will act and you know that we can do much more to you. That's what I would be suggesting right now.

You think we have a back channel to the Houthis? I think we have been able to communicate with them directly and indirectly.

So, right now, what would you recommend? I mean, I'm not seeing a lot. I'm frustrated. I really don't see a lot of what we're doing. I only hear about the damage done to our bases.

So, it looks like, and if you listen to the New York Times podcast, the Daily, which is extremely popular, it seems like Iran is the only one attacking. And we know it's actually not the case. Do you believe we got to do more? Not sell me, tell me. about what you're doing and what the plan is.

Well, I think that's been you know, this is an issue you and I have talked about for a long time. What exactly are we trying to get done right now when your objectives are not stated clearly? It leads to a kind of confusion. Not only does it mean you're not necessarily applying the means that you have to the objectives that you seek to achieve, but you also create a degree of confusion about what your purposes are. I mean, that helps to create doubts about what you're doing.

I think it would be much better if we were clear on what we're trying to get done. What we hear, the central command constantly saying we're trying to degrade the Iranian ability. to attack ships or threaten ships in the straits. I think the if if we're going to be using force right now, the purposes of force should be to make it impossible or to to make it as costly as possible for the Iranians to launch ballistic missiles, cruise missiles or drones. I would be going after only those targets.

I would be going after every one of the tunnels where they've kept their inventories. I would be doing as much as I could be doing to raise doubts in the Iranian mind how long will they be able to fire their missiles, fire their cruise missiles. and use their drones. The more it becomes clear to them that these become wasting assets, the more they'll have an incentive to look for a way out. Right now, What they see, they're still limiting what they're attacking, which tells you they themselves.

Are either husbanding their resources or hoping to keep this contained in a way that ultimately leads to some kind of an agreement with them having an edge. Think about this, Brian. They're not attacking Israel. Why do you think they're not attacking Israel? They don't want to be attacked back.

Yes, and they know how hard the Israelis would hit them. I mean that's very that in itself is a telltale sign. I'm always looking for the indicators. What indicators tell me something about the behavior of those that we're dealing with? The fact that they're not attacking Israel suggests they understand that's too costly to them.

Okay, that tells you already they understand something about costs. True. If you're Israel, if you're the U.S., do you get Israel involved without being attacked, or is there too much of a risk to that making it You know, within the Gulf, you might lose some Gulf allies with that. I think the real reason that we're not asking the Israelis is because we too are trying to keep this somewhat contained. And I think there's a fear, and I'm not saying it's an illegitimate fear, but I think there's a fear if you bring the Israelis back into it, it's going to drive the Iranians to go after the Gulf State energy infrastructure on the grounds that they may be getting closer and closer to a point where they could be losing everything.

So the closer they get to that point, the more they will lash out as a way of saying, okay, we can hurt you even that much more. We can drive the price of oil way up if we can hit facilities in Saudi Arabia or the UAE where those facilities are crucial and they'd be taken out of commission for, say, six months. I suspect that's the reason we're asking. We're telling the Israelis not to act. The Israelis, for their own reasons, would like to act because they think that Iran right now represents too much of a threat again.

Really, they pick up on the logic of what you were saying earlier. The fact is, that pause allows the Iranians to reconstitute in a way that is a threat. And the Israelis would like to go after and set those facilities, that capability, way back. Dennis Ross, I only got 90 seconds left, but I got to ask you: when the first term Trump got ridiculed for allowing the Saudis to get rocketed by the Iranians, and we really didn't help except give them patriots, and then we got our drone shot out of the sky and we didn't do anything. They thought, wow, that leg makes us look weak, killed Salomani, makes us look strong.

How is our reputation now in the Gulf being that we reinvigorated the attack? I think it's mixed because In the end, you had a duality on the Gulf side. On the one side, They didn't really want a war that might expose and threaten them. On the other side, their attitude was, look, if you're going to do this, then finish the job.

So from their standpoint, they got exposed, they paid a price, and they see now an Iranian regime that seems to have an edge or a lever on them because of their control over the straits.

So it's a duality. The proof that it's a duality is the Saudis did this deal on the on their nuclear industry with us, which is reflecting their desire to have a long term American stake in them. Thanks so much, Ambassador Dennis Ross. A very interesting time. Copona, all your knowledge of every single one of those countries.

Thank you. My pleasure. Always good to talk to you. All right. Meanwhile, 1-866-408-7669.

I'll talk to you just around the bend. Ah! Giving you everything you need to know. You're with Brian Kilmead. Breaking news, unique opinions.

Hear it all on the Fry and Kill Me Show. Hey, we are back. I mentioned 1-866-408-7669.

So much going on. We also have midterm elections coming up. And right now, more issues and things lean left as predicted. But the fact is, in July, anyone who thinks that the Republicans can't hold the House and keep the Senate is not paying attention because everything is extremely close. It really depends a lot, I think.

On what happens and how this war ends. John Youlston on the Fox News Radio app. Hey, John. Good morning, Brian. How you doing?

Great. I wanted to talk to you how disappointed I am in JD Vance and what we was talking with Joe Rogan. Very upset. The MOU was a joke, and I'm very surprised that he would even put something like that forward. And I think Even though the politics are wrong, even though the timing might not have been great, Donald Trump is doing what's right for this country.

And anytime I think of these Iranians or the people he's dealing with, I think about the 11 and 12 people on the deck of that ship back when Obama was president with guns to the back of their heads by the IRGC.

So I need, I hope Trump finishes his job. And I think Jodi Vance is wrong. They may need to kill their way out of him and get rid of this leadership. And he called out his predecessor, Mike Pence, and he said, for those people like John and me, and John, know what he said? For those people who don't like that agreement, what is your idea?

How about anything? How about finishing the job is my idea. And don't talk to people who can't even follow through on a bad deal. They had the deal of a lifetime and they blew it. Wally and St.

Pete Beach. Hey, Wally. Hey, Brian, I just It's the whole Iran war, I believe it was just wrong to get involved. We are the best when we're a counter punching country militarily. And you have to look at certain things and know that the Strait of Hormuz was going to be the strong point.

At our Achilles heel. And that's what Americans, I'm from the bureaucrat class. No, I hear you. I hear you. I just think the president addressed a problem that every other, seven other presidents punted on.

And this was closer and closer to a nuclear weapon. He saw them reconstituting again and saw an opportunity, and he took it. And now he's going to finish it. From high atop Fox News headquarters in New York City, always seeking solutions, never sowing division. It's Brian Kilmey.

Hi, I'm so glad you're there. Brian Kilmey from Midtown Manhattan, heard around the country, around the world, where I've just learned that crime is down. And then you look at the stats and it's not. Murders are down, that's good. But everything else is up, thanks to our ridiculous mayor, who rather than address issues in the city, rather just get into international relations and try to arrest another head of state.

When you have the UN in town, it's pretty hard to pick and choose the leaders that fit your criteria. But not like Netanyahu is not unusual for a guy that lives on being anti-Semitic and those who follow him, I have to say as well, too. Lucas Tomlinson coming up at the bottom of the hour. Rebecca Heinrich standing by.

So before we get to Rebecca, and by the way, Marco Rubio has already spoken from the Philippines. We'll bring some of his clips. Let's get to the big three. Number three. Let's consider who's on Abdul Al Syed's team, right?

He's been endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who also was supporting Graham Plattner. Abdul Al Syed and Graham Plattner campaigned together, they fundraised together. That is true, and that's how they should be linked. More left-wing pushback on Bernie and the DSA by other Dems, but is it too little, too late? As Michigan could be the next place in which a radical emerges.

Number two. You know, I think when I make decisions about my life, it's they aren't. just rooted in polls, they're rooted in what people need, what is best for the country. Right, she's always giving back. New polls are in.

We review and we evaluate who has the edge in the midterms as a party and see some stunning New Hampshire polls that has the voice of AOC, number one. Number one. The Houthis have largely stayed out of this fight, which has been hugely helpful. And so for the Houthis to now be joining into this, they're clearly doing it at the direction of the Iranians.

So this is an escalation. Yep. Day 12 of bombing and intensity is picking up on both sides as the Houthis are now involved and try to shut down the Red Sea as it relates to Saudi Arabia. And that voice you just heard joins us now, Rebecca Heinrich, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Rebecca, welcome back.

Do you think we were better off in the ceasefire, or do you think we're better off confronting Iran like we are right now? Confronting Iran right now, Brian, I mean, the ceasefire essentially permitted the Iranians to try to regroup. And during the MOU, because we relaxed or we relieved sanctions because of the waiver, the Iranians were also able to replenish some of their coffers so they can buy more weapons and that kind of thing.

So we are much better off with President Trump's direction to reinitiate military operations against the Iranians, especially what they, their military equipment and weapons that they're using to terrorize the Strait of Hormuz. But now, as you just heard, the Iranians have clearly initiated the House to begin attacking in the Red Sea. But they're just going after Saudi Arabia. They are. They're going after the Saudis.

Now, this is a long time back and forth between the Saudis and the Houthis and the Red Sea. But yeah, but so far, they're terrorizing the Red Sea. But they did hit a tanker, and it looks like what I've been saying is the Saudis have got to become more muscular. This is right in their backyard. They cannot just only go after the Houthis.

They have to understand that the Houthis are backed by the arena. Saudis know this, Brian. It says that the Saudis have been so reluctant to directly get involved on the side of the United States against the Iranians. But I think the time is now.

Well, listen, Sunni Shia, and these two have been rivals. We saw that with the WikiLink exposure, and you knew it ahead of time, but I really became clear that you see the rivalry brewing underneath that Saudi Arabia and Iran say one thing publicly, but behind closed doors, they hate each other, and Saudi Arabia would do anything to neutralize them.

So I understand, too, that in the big picture, Russia's providing intelligence that allowing them to hit things like a certain part of a building where the CIA head offices are. There's no doubt they're helping with coordinates, isn't it? Yeah, that's right. And just on your first point there, too, yeah, the Saudis' longtime enemy is the Iranians. And that's why I'm hopeful that we can get normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel eventually, because Saudi Arabia and Israel have the same number one enemy, and that's Iran.

But to your point about the Russians, I mean, anytime you see the Iranians doing some pretty exquisite targeting, you've got to wonder if they know where something is specifically like the CIA building. The Iranians are not good at targeting on their own, and we've taken out so much of their ability to do any kind of good targeting anyway. But what it should tell all of us is they're getting help from a more sophisticated power that has the technology to do that. In this case, I'm very concerned about the Russians helping.

So the President said, I'll take it out of power plant. Not saying necessarily a nuclear plant. I'm taking out a power plant every time you attack a civilian vessel.

Well, they attacked two yesterday.

So do we expect two power plants to blow up today? I mean, let's hope that we begin to see much more increased retaliatory responses on the part of the United States. I saw that Secretary Rubio said: look, it's not going to be an eye for an eye, it's going to be an eye for a head, especially if you hit an American. If you kill an American, the United States is going to go much bigger against you. And so far, our listeners should understand that even though it seems like the United States is launching like really robust strikes right now, I mean, they're pretty heavy.

I mean, we're doing a good job, but they're still scoped. Our target list is still very limited to hitting things exclusively that the Iranians can use against the straight. But what I have been arguing for is to expand the military operation, go after the IRGC, go after these IRGC buildings, go after the dual-use facilities, as you mentioned, Brian, the energy stuff and bridges that the IRGC is primarily using to continue their war effort.

So I know we blew up the IRGC barracks.

So that looks new. Are you talking about the strike that was yesterday? Yeah. Yeah, so that to me was new. I noted that because that would be an expansion beyond what has really been the last 10 days, just going after military equipment, launchers, a surveillance tower.

And it really, we really haven't been going after the IRGC people and where they've been operating from.

So I did note that. That would be, to me, it looks like an indication that potentially President Trump may be persuaded we've got to expand this thing. Because again, the IRGC is still committed to the Islamic Revolution. These people do not want a deal. They do not want to cooperate with the United States.

They're still committed to killing as many Americans and Israelis and anybody else who helps us along the way. Rebecca. I don't understand. The Iranians blew the deal of a lifetime. For the first time in years, they were trading their oil at full market price.

Right? Say they had 60 days to at least fill up their coffers. I'm talking about they could be the most evil person in the world. I didn't think they were stupid.

So now they're just, now they put us into a point where we have to attack back. They made it easy for Donald Trump. Yeah, it's remarkable because you and I, Brian, I mean, as soon as we saw the details of the MOU, we were both like, this is wild because this is going to, I mean, we were told that the White House said, like, look, until the Iranians perform well, they're not going to get any kind of economic relief. But there was a sweetener in there, which was immediate lifting of sanctions that the Iranians could get their oil on the market. And who started buying it?

The Chinese.

So to your point, the Iranians could have just kept doing that and making a bunch of money in the meantime. And then they could get back to their terrorist activity if that's what they wanted to do. But they're so committed. They're so committed to the Islamic Revolution. The IRDC cannot help themselves.

And there's another provision in the MOU I was concerned about, and that's provision five. And I knew that the Iranians would interpret it as them having control of the strait, managing it. And so they were never going to stop firing at any kind of commercial traffic going through the strait of Hormuz. And of course, the United States was not going to let the Iranians control the strait.

So here we are. General Keith Kellogg said. said this about what he worries about cut 11. Here's the fear I've got. We've all seen sports.

We've all played in sports. The fact that if you leave an inferior team on the board, ready to fight into the fourth quarter of the ninth inning, something can screw up and you end up losing the game. And that's what they're doing. They're playing for time right now, close this deal out. Finish them off, let's go on to the next problem.

So do it now. Don't grow. You know, we are bringing more assets to the region. See, I don't know militarily, you know, it's easy to say, go hit them, then you got to wait. You need things in place.

It seems like we're getting a lot in place. Are you convinced that Cooper is the right guy with the right plan?

So I think that Admiral Cooper is the one who has had many very good operations for President Trump to choose from. And my understanding was he has basically been told to sit down and kind of cool his heels during the negotiations and the ceasefire and the MOU.

So he need we need to see more of Admiral Cooper, I think. From Admiral Cooper. We need to hear kind of the different options that he has. Because remember, we heard from him a lot, Ryan, in the beginning of Epic Fury.

So I think he's going to be giving the President different options, letting him know what things we would need in place to go much bigger, to finally seize control of the Strait, but also to get the IRGC much more degraded. There are too many IRGC militia that are still alive and still terrorizing not just the Strait, but I believe it's the IRGC that's controlling the Iran regime right now. Whoever is negotiating with the Americans at this point, those people are not in charge. Do we have a plan in place to arm the civilians? I don't know if we have a plan, Brian.

I do know in the beginning during Epic Fury, President Trump himself alluded to this idea that he wanted to, he wanted to arm the Iranian people so that they could take hold of their own future and eventually, maybe immediately, but then medium term, long term, overthrow the Iran regime so it wouldn't be the United States, it'd be the Iranian people. That plan, I think, was stopped because there was concerns among some people around the president that it could potentially escalate or maybe these people couldn't be trusted with the weapons or maybe these weapons could be routed somewhere else.

So I think that it was put on ice. I certainly hope that President Trump revisits that and understands that the best hope for an Iranian government that is actually peaceful in the long term is going to be one in which the Iranian people can seize control of the regime. What about people who say we don't want another Libya, so we shouldn't really do that? Yeah, so I am one of those people who is very reluctant to pushing out a country like Libya. I mean, you can see the effect of that and all of the different, you had terrorists that basically were like thrown across the region and were leaving the region.

You don't really have that with the Iranian people. The Iranian people are trained in self-government. It's only been 47 years that the Islamic Republic has taken over. And so the Iranian people want to stay in Iran. They want to stay in Iran.

They want to take back control of their own country.

So I'm not as concerned about that possibility. I certainly do not want to see a civil war, which is why I think it makes a lot of sense that you get, I mean, my ideal situation, Brian, would be that you have members of the standing army who are not committed to the Islamic Revolution. That's not the IRGC. Those guys are just, those are Persians. If you can get some orderly transition where you have those people are heavily armed, the Iranian people are armed, and that they can take control of our government, I think that that's the best case scenario in the short and medium term.

But that's not a quick answer. before the midterms. No, it's not. But again, I remind people, good policy makes good politics. These people are not, I mean, getting Iran right is not going to be on the same timeline as American politics.

But Americans understand that. I mean, we can understand that. That's why I think it's so good for President Trump to kind of get out in front of the camera and explain what we're doing here. And he'll say when reporters ask him, do you care about the midterms and politics? And he says, of course not.

I want to do the right thing. But I think that we are overdue. Maybe it's Secretary Rubio.

Somebody needs to really level with the American people to understand what's at stake here and that this is going to be on a different timeline than our own midterm elections. All right. Rebecca, I appreciate you pulling over and talking about it. And today, I would love to hear that we're hitting the Capitol. And we're expanding our targets because if we're going to be in, we might as well win.

Rebecca Heinrichs, thanks so much. Thanks so much, Brian. All right, back in a moment. Real talk, real guests, real insight, where curiosity meets conversation. It's the Brian Kilmeat Show.

The fastest three hours in radio. You're with Brian Kilmead. It's a completely different ideology. than those that we have seen? Or is it perhaps just a different nomenclature than we've seen?

I think part of it is that words have lost their meaning over time. There we go. This is where I'm getting to is If If you go back to some of the Democrats that we most admire. FDR. LaGuardia, you will see a lot of democratic socialist principles in their vision.

And if you think about a lot of what we've come to accept as just the facts of life across our country, a lot of it is also still driven by democratic socialist principles.

So it didn't really answer the question. Do you want to abolish the Senate? Do you want to abolish the presidency? Did FDR and LaGuardia want to do that? I mean, do you want to prevent make billionaires illegal, let alone trillionaires?

I mean, these are some of the wacky things that they actually want to do. They they don't like our history.

So I mean, I that's the other thing I get worried. Domini goes on, and Jon Stewart's trying to make him normal by giving him an idea of how to framework, how to put out a framework that doesn't sound so wacky and scary to other Democrats, let alone other Republicans. And he's barely able to answer the question even when Jon Stewart's trying to coach him.

Now, I give credit to some people that are stepping up. I was shocked. Governor Jared Polis. who, you know, pretty much an enemy of the Trump administration. Made it clear he is not a socialist.

Cut 38. I do see socialist threats to our system. And frankly, as somebody who's a Democrat, I see them from parts of the Trump administration, Jean. I see the government buying 15% of Intel, right?

Socialism means, as you know, it's an economic theory, government ownership of production. The military buying 10% of a company called MP Materials, a critical mission. That's again, China does this. Talk about Maoists, Chinese defense ministry owns part of companies.

So I'm against socialism, whether it comes from Republicans or Democrats. I'm a proud capitalist. I started several businesses. I think job creation, economic success is exactly what helps end poverty in this country and across the world. And we need more of it, absolutely, from Republicans and Democrats.

So, meanwhile, Mondami doubles down Cut 32.

Now, if today you and I were to introduce the idea. Of A building that lends out books for free. We would be slandered in the same way that so many new ideas are slandered today, and yet that's the library. And the same thing with the fire department, the same thing with public schools. And it's to say that a lot of politics has been a debate about who deserves what.

And I would prefer politics that debates how we can deliver that to everyone. But you can't with other people's money. I mean, deliver what? I mean, pick things up, pick up the garbage. Who's paying those people?

It's gonna be tax doors. Who are you taxing? Oh, rich people. How do they get rich? By doing the best they can to earn money, how do you incentivize them to build more companies and earn more money?

You don't take it. That's going to just have the most successful, smartest people say okay, if I'm going to work. 50 hours a week and produced a billion dollars, and you're going to take 60 to 70 percent of it. I'm not doing it.

So that's the whole principle of this idiot, this new prime minister over in the UK. The first thing he does is condemn Margaret Thatcher, who's been dead for 20 years. Who had died of Alzheimer's, who was leader of prime minister, a leading conservative thinker in the 80s. Along with Reagan.

So first thing I'm going to do is condemn somebody who hasn't been president since the 80s. And why? Because he brought free market principles and a sense of accountability and meritocracy to society. He believes, I believe, that he does not think that anyone successful earned it. He believes that the people that were successful somehow cheated, and that's what's panicking people on the left.

Jon Fetterman's always been sensible ever since ever they're now they beat his stroke, cut forty. Look at the kind of people that were winning. We had the one in Colorado and the one in New York and then across the country. Look at El Syed. He calls Israel as a rogue state and he's equated Hamas and Israel's government as well.

That's their feature. They're running on just below the surface of just Jew hating.

So that's the other thing I wanted to bring up because there's one thing that goes right through, whether it's AOC or Bernie Sanders or El Saeed or this guy Rab in Philadelphia. They all hate Israel. And if you take AIPAC money, Uh that is third rail. The Fund ICE, some say abolish prisons, hate Israel. How do they all link together?

Islamists are linked with these socialists. The talk show that's getting you talking. You're with Brian Kilmead. Can the IAEA account today? for all of Iran's enriched uranium and verify that Iran has not moved nuclear material or equipment to undeclared locations.

Iran is not allowing the inspectors access to the sites. In contravention of its obligation to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

So that is Michael Waltz yesterday, Ambassador to the United Nations, taking Gregory Meek's call, the congressman, about the inspection problem that Iran's going through. They keep saying. War of choice. I've never seen anything like it. Usually there's a conflict if it goes wry, then people start being critical.

We're used to that, but not in the beginning. But they have a problem with everything Trump does. Lucas Tomlinson joins us now, Fox News anchor, Fox News correspondent.

Now, you know, Lucas was just filling in for Lawrence today and tomorrow, right? Just the last two days.

Okay. It's great to see you. You're not doing tomorrow? Not doing tomorrow. Maybe you could change that.

Not take the train back. Maybe we can get you off that answer. Stay in a holding pattern.

So, Lucas, it's true. I mean, Iran's never complied. They never come clean on their nuclear goals or ambitions. And even when they said they would allow inspectors in, they had to give them like a one month in advance notice. I mean, we're not going to.

Use the JCPOA. Right, right. And when I was at the Naval Academy, if you said you were doing a room inspection, but will come by in a month. Come on. Right.

It gives you all the time in the world to get the stuff out the door. That's some of the fundamentals that were wrong with it that Trump ripped up and got into this. But when you look at this now, I was just talking to Rebecca Heinrich, she feels as though. Or Attacks have been somewhat limited. She says expand the targets.

Yes. Start doing some. Do you feel the same way? I do. Israel, when they respond, it's disproportionate.

Remember how this war started? Iran, they didn't just kill the supreme leader, they killed most of his family. There's a reason we haven't seen Mustafa Hamani, the new Supreme Leader. He's most likely badly injured because look what happened to everybody else in that room. When Israel responds They took out the South Pars field.

We talked about this morning on Fox and Friends. They took out Iran's gas fields. They took out, remember those oil terminals outside of Tehran? You know, early days in the war. It's perhaps one of the reasons Israel has not been attacked since this war started up again, major combat operations.

Israel's not been attacked since early June. What the US is doing is more pinpoint these strikes.

Some people would like to see air power not applied like a rainstorm, but a thunderstorm. Uh so Lieutenant uh General Keith Kellogg weighed in, and he says he knows exactly what he would do, cut eight. Decapitation. That means we make it to them unfathomable to come outside because we're going to target every one of them as we go forward. And I think we've started to do that, or we have done it in the past.

I think the President should keep doing it because he's on the right track. And the one who has the intelligence, though, that's the Mossad. Of course.

Now, you have Tomahawk cruise missiles, 1,000-mile range. If you don't like how you're dealing with Iran's leaders, perhaps you need to go to the next group. And what do you do with the former group? Perhaps that would be a location for a Tomahawk strike. Right.

So, the Speaker, are you into the belief that there are two schools of thought? The IRGC speaks differently than the foreign minister and they almost have a rivalry, or do you think they're playing good cop, bad cop? I think the IRGC is like the mafia. They have economic and political interests. About half of Iran's oil wealth flows through the IRGC.

They don't want to give this up.

Some people call Iran led by a theocracy run by mullahs. I disagree. I think it is a military junta today. It is the general. Running the country.

And while the Parliament speaker, I mean, when's the last time Iran's parliament met or did something significant? You know, they're figureheads, they're talking, but they have no power. And we saw that with the Memorandum of Understanding. Thing was signed. Twenty days in, Iran is opening fire on three oil tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz.

That was, I believe, to embarrass President Trump at the NATO summit in Ankara. While we talk about 12 straight nights of airstrikes, This R Start to the war really started on July 7th when President Trump touched down in Ankara. That's when those oil tankers were hit. And that was the first night of airstrikes was back on July 7th. And they said they were upset that we hit back during the funeral.

Well, the funeral never ended, by the way. Right. It was what, what, three weeks ago? The funeral was going on. But we responded to them hitting it.

Right. No tankers had been hit in many days. A ceasefire was being observed. As part of the memorandum, Iran targets three oil tankers, one from Saudi Arabia, one from Qatar. It was very serious.

The president was forced to respond.

So when you look at what's happened since that time, evidently, the MOU, they thought after signing the MOU that they would be in control of their side of the strait and that would be enough. We kept going through the other side of the strait. And that angered them. Right. So there's two shipping channels in the Strait of Hormuz.

You have the side to the north by Iran, traffic separation scheme for those nautical types listening. And then to the south, the Omani passage. This paragraph five of the MOU. That's been at the contention. In the language of the MOU, it said safe passage.

Iran interpreted that as they'd be going through the Iranian passage. They didn't like seeing ships moving through the southern passage around Oman. And if you look at all the ships attacked, that's what they were doing. They were going through the southern passage.

So, what is the reaction from the Gulf states? And have you noticed a place that you were broadcasting from, the UAE has not been hit? For a while, they were the only Gulf state getting hit.

Now, they're one of the only ones not getting hit. What changed?

Well, the UAE is only 45 miles, its closest point to Iran. And also, they were housing American troops. Al-Dafa air bases, where most of the fast movers at one point from the U.S. Air Force were based.

So, any. Any base housing American troops, that was a target. UAE, I spoke to an Arab official. He says that they want to see the missiles added to the next level of negotiations, not just happy with reopening the strait, not just happy solving the nuclear problem. They want Iran's ballistic missiles added to it as well.

But the UAE had not been attacked. Israel has not been attacked.

Now UAE did lost some strikes during the course of this war. That perhaps motivated them. Also, perhaps not confirmed, but some payments to Tehran as well.

So, I want to talk about the political side of it because as it gets closer and closer, we noticed yesterday or two days ago, the speaker came out and said, Let's wrap this thing up. I think he's looking at some polling that if this goes on a long time, it might be trouble in the midterms. Do you feel the same way? Sure. And you can understand now, Barksdale Air Force Base, which is in Speaker Johnson's district, you have B-52 bombers.

Some say those need to be sent back to Britain to be able to launch strikes over Iran. Listen, you look at presidential approval ratings over the years, it always tracks with the price of gasoline. We remember when it was down to $2.87.

Now we're seeing it north of $4. That's always going to be a problem for the incumbent. Here's Steph Kite of Axios, Cut 18. I'm on the hill most of the time and there is uneasiness. It's not easy to see uneasiness on both sides of the aisle.

Exactly. Republicans I talk to as well are unsure how we come out of this. And they're looking at the election and they're now starting to come to grips with the fact that this could continue to be an issue, a top issue, going into the midterm elections at a time where the Iran war is not popular. And so many people I talk to point to gas prices. Republicans say we need gas prices to go down for us to have a chance in November.

And that's not looking likely at this point. There's not that you said this inaccurate, but the only thing that people don't factor in, what if we're successful, how this ends, if this is as successful in five months in and four months out. If it ends and the president can build off that, and we just watch the slow descent of the price of gas, they go, well, it was up 15 cents rate.

Okay. Where's it heading? Why was it up? Those are easy answers. And no one doubts that this administration wants to production to go through the roof.

There's no question about it. Again, the midterms are going to be tough. I think one of the most incredible statistics of the House of Representatives midterm elections, Ronald Reagan won 44 states in 1980, 49 states in 1984. At no time did the Republicans ever control the House of Representatives in his eight years in office. Americans do enjoy divided government.

History does not bode well for the midterms.

However, because of the way the electoral map has been set, we saw the 16 toss-up districts. Republicans The war is uneasy. Let's face it, when you're in the interior of the country, Iran having a nuclear weapon is probably not the top issue. In fact, we just had some Fox News polling saying 45% of respondents, voters, say it's the cost of living, and that's where this war has impacted that. But you're right, Brian.

Everybody loves a winner. President Trump can be successful in this endeavor. The U.S. military, if strikes are ramped up and we do find Iran. Coming back to the negotiating table.

This could be a very positive momentum going into the midterms. Right. And I think everything is still up for grabs. The other thing I want to talk about, Lucas, if we can, is this whole socialist movement. The one thing that struck me over the last two days We had Nate Silver come out and said, I'm just doing a study just to confirm what I always knew that these socialists are not some angry group of minorities who feel that America is biased.

These are a bunch of angry, yes, white people, highly educated, underachieving, downwardly mobile is the term that they are. Downwardly mobile. I love that one. And I saw James Clyburn weigh in. He's obviously an African-American leader whose parents grew up in undersegregation.

He said this. I saw a picture of El Saeed's rallies. It concerned me coming out of Michigan. I saw it. I didn't see a single person that looks like me, meaning black.

Tells me a lot, all I need to know.

So don't tell me that socialism balances out power and allows people to have an equal shot, especially those people who are the so-called non-elites or, let's say, working class. This has nothing to do with that. If we went to a job site here in Manhattan and asked the workers about socialism, we'd probably get hit in the head with a hammer, right? Or they'd say, move aside. The working man isn't prescribing this.

He's too busy working. Think about Trotsky, Lenin. These were men of privilege. They didn't work. You can sit around in a coffee shop and dream about this stuff, and it's easy to talk about other people's money, right?

And we're seeing, doesn't Mandami follow the same profile as what I just described? I mean, this is the problem. Too many people, too much time on their hands, not enough time in the workforce. I don't know if working on a rap video counts, but this is the problem. But this is not what Americans want.

Al-Saeed, remember, he said that maybe we shouldn't talk about how many being killed because it might upset some of the voters, might make them sad. Big Shia population. In Dearborn, it's a problem, but You know, we saw what happened in Arizona. The socialist candidate out there got crushed, Kai. And is this a problem in deep blue districts?

Is it as much of a problem nationwide? Or is this like sometimes unruly children, they're best to be ignored? Here is what AOC said about their concerns. As you know, he her mentor is Bernie Sanders, Cut 42. I think when you look on the ground, Abdul Al-Syed enjoys the support locally of many.

black elected leaders and black community leaders throughout the state of Michigan. And you know, I also think that the community is nuanced. I don't believe that it's a monolith. What do you think? I think in that part of Michigan, I think it probably is a little bit more monolith.

We're not talking about Detroit here, but I'll say some of this listen, people are angry. What we are seeing is, frankly, some anti-Semitism spreading. I mean, if you had told me or if I had asked you 20 years ago, there'd be this problem with anti-Semitism, you might say, no, no, no, that's so yesterday.

Now, some people say this was always under the surface, this and that. But really, what we've seen since October 7th, which is frankly rather sick, this backlash against Israel, against Prime Minister Netanyahu. We heard Mandami say he'd have him arrested if Netanyahu came here. And so we talked about, you know, Vladimir Putin has spoken to the UN, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashir. And the list goes on and on.

It didn't Prime Minister who's entitled to come and speak at the UN. But back to Michigan. You know, no Republican has won a Senate seat there since 1996. I mean, it's a great question. I think Mike Rogers is going to win.

Okay. I really do. We're on the record. We're going to play this clip. But El Saeed and Stevens, Haley Stevens, there's a real, nobody thinks that whoever wins, the other is going to rally to their side.

So if El Saeed wins, there's going to be a lot of disenfranchised people. This Hassan Piker guy is a huge problem. And then if Stevens wins, the Muslim community is going to run because they're going to be mad at the prospect of not being angry that they don't have a possible first ever Muslim Senate. We saw it happen in the presidential election, right, in 2024, you know, when President Trump went, you know, when Kamala Harris, you know, she didn't win. I mean, this is what happened.

It's one of the reasons. She did not win Michigan. And how much has it changed in two years? Lucas, thanks so much for coming by. Great job this week.

Now you're going to, unless you're stopped. Mm-hmm. You have to hop on Amtrak and go home. And see your family. I have to see the family.

I've been overseas over 80 days this year. I got to see the family. But I have to say, this is going to sound like a lot of smack. Brian Kilmead is one of the hardest-working men I've ever met in my life. To see this man working in the stairwell on the commercial break, reading not just the next topic, probably planning this show, planning a show on Sunday.

I was so in awe. Nobody else. Thanks so much. It's a lot of fun. There's so much to read, so little time.

Back in a moment. Where big stories meet bigger conversations. Stay informed and energized with the Brian Kilmeet Show. He's so busy, he'll make your head spin. It's Brian Killmead.

You haven't embraced that socialist label despite embracing a lot of those same policies. Why not? Because I'm just not a socialist. Like, I don't fight for a label. I fight for people.

And maybe it's just because I'm too much of a scientist. Like, I'm an empiricist. Show me solutions that can work to solve problems, and I'll be for them.

Okay, uh that is El Saeed. Most everything he represents and says. Are socialist principles. Same with Graham Plattner. Do you know he was not a member of the DSA?

So the DSA has 120,000 members, but they are supporting those candidates.

So he's like, well, I'm not that, but what you say is exactly that, the fund ice. Uh basically uh to fund Israel. Ma if you take APAC money, you should be disqualified. And then you have the severe examples of people saying you should ban prisons and eliminate the border. But I think that the next big The big moment is going to be next Tuesday at the Michigan at the Michigan primary because I think that Stevens, Haley Stevens, is just a bizarre character.

I mean, you listen to her talk. She is absolutely out to lunch. And then she makes things worse by saying, I sound like everybody in Michigan. If I'm in Michigan, I'd say, excuse me, do not include me in your presentation. But she used to work in politics as an operative behind the scenes, and now she's in upfront.

And now she has money pouring in, a lot of money pouring in, because they're afraid El Saeed is going to win because the guy is a flat-out radical. There's no question about it. It's not that he's Muslim or not Muslim, it's what he believes is the problem.

So. In the big picture, Republicans are still in shouting distance of the House, and I think they're still in good stead to keep the Senate, although it's not a layup. Britt Yume weighed in from what he saw from the polls that Fox just put out. Cut 29. The truth is, there's not much good news for Republicans in this whole poll we did.

Underwater on the economy, as you showed, underwater on affordability. Those two issues are front and center for sure. And the other thing is, of course, that on the question of intensity of voter sentiment, it appears that Republicans are down. But if you add the people who are very likely, those are extremely likely to vote, the difference for Democrats is very slight.

So Republicans can take some faith and some hope for that. But, you know, with the unpopular incumbent in this particular presidency in its first midterm, the weight of history is pretty strong. And the party in power in the White House has historically, with very few exceptions, done very poorly in the midterm like this one. Yeah, but I just think it's so far from over. And you know one thing they're in dead heat in?

30% approval rating for Democrats and Republicans. In Congress, 30% approval rating.

So that, if you're both at 30, And then it gets down to performance. The only thing, and I said this to Lucas, what people are not understanding is that you have this conflict. Think about this. We thought it was getting late in the spring. And now we're in July.

We still have months to go. You saw how quick the gas prices dropped when they went into the truce. When they get a real truce or a real end in a positive way, and then you watch all these prices go down and you realize, well, all these other things that are in play from the Trump accounts on down. I think a lot of people are going to say, what did Democrats stand for? Oh, they don't like Trump.

and they are socialists. Good luck with that. Brain kill me, show. From the Fox News Radio Studios in Midtown Manhattan, it's the fastest growing radio talk show. Brian Kilmead.

Hi, everyone.

Brian Kilmead here from 48th and 6 in Midtown Manhattan, where we're waiting for Press Secretary Carol Ann Levitt to do another press conference. She had one last week coming. I think she had six weeks of maternity leave. Just amazing. And she's back in action now with two little kids at home, and she's traveling with the president too.

Pretty amazing. I know it's not easy on the administration because. Because Susie Wiles is also going undergoing cancer treatment, and it just wipes her out. Obviously, she's finishing up chemo. She plays such a vital role, but even more than usual with Chief of Staff, she keeps everybody going, and she knows exactly, knows the president inside and out.

Knows, and she has this thing. that very few other people have. She definitely has a president to respect. She doesn't chime in on everything he does. When she says stuff He really listens.

And I don't know anyone that could fill those shoes in that level. And you have to have somebody around you that you respect and listen to. I'm not saying he doesn't, but I think there's nobody like her.

So between that and Caroline Levitt being out, I hope Caroline came back. I think that's gotta gotta be a part of the reason.

So let's get to the big three. Number four. Yeah. Let's consider who's on Abdul Al-Syed's team, right? He's been endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who also was supporting Graham Plattner.

Abdul Al Syed and Graham Plattner campaigned together, they fundraised together. It is true. And for him to get a pass on that or say, well, it's just because I don't agree with everything Hassan Piker says, they work out together. They're best friends. Piker, if you didn't know, got invited to a college speech and dressed like Mao.

Number two. You know, I think when I make decisions about my life, they aren't just rooted in polls. They're rooted in what people need, what is best for the country. Yes, she's running for Pope. AOC.

New polls are in. We review as we evaluate who has the edge for the midterms, what party that is, and a stunning new poll in New Hampshire. Believe it or not, has the Queen's Congresswoman. In first. Um Number one.

The Houthis have largely stayed out of this fight, which has been hugely helpful. And so for the Houthis to now be joining into this, they're clearly doing it at the direction of the Iranians.

So this is an escalation. Day 12. of bombing and intensity and stakes are amping up. As both sides, and now the Houthis are in. Trying to shut down the Red Sea has a lot to do, not only has it to do with our security fortunes, the result there, has a lot to do with our election fortunes.

Joining us now, Dr. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation. Kevin, I have to tell you, there's some panic on the right that this war is still going on five months in. And even Speaker Johnson surprised many on Monday when he said, okay, let's wrap it up. How do you feel?

Exactly the same way. In fact, I was talking to Speaker Johnson earlier this week, and he and I have the same sentiment, which is first and foremost, the president has prosecuted this conflict, I think, perfectly. I think we, well, Heritage absolutely supports the conflict. But another thing is also true, Brian, and you and I have talked about it over the summer, and that is there are real economic and therefore political consequences in the United States of continuing this war. Having said that, I know that the president, as a great successful CEO, as a very successful president, is going to figure out how to conclude the conflict.

Let's be honest, though, just to conclude my own comments here, that if this war ended today, we will already have set back Iran's military capability by 20 to 25 years. My military expert colleagues at Heritage, led by Bob Peters, insist that this is the case. We've obviously denuded their nuclear capabilities. It's murky how far, but the point is, we've got to give the president another few weeks in order. To wind this down, I think if we get past Labor Day, Brian, just to be really candid, even though I'm very supportive of this conflict, it's going to be a real political and economic problem for the United States.

But I also think. How this ends has everything to do with how it's viewed. And if you end with basically Would be viewed by most, some people will never say it, with a win, with this administration getting the uranium out. Having an eye and a limit on their missiles, and obviously that would result in us supporting the proxies. If it gets to that point with the straight open and it's a win, along with gas prices going in the right direction and all those other economic principles in place, I think that has a lot to do with it.

If it seems like we left early and they are emboldened in the region, I think that could be worse. I agree with that entirely. And so I think what is going to be instrumental here is that our so-called allies are going to have to step up and help us police the Strait of Hormuz. They're also going to have to step up and offset this new threat from the Houthis in the Red Sea. I think that that's probably going to be pretty effective by us and our allies.

We need a little bit of time to get that done. I think it's going to happen. But you're absolutely correct, especially in the history of our republic, Brian. It isn't just that a war continues or that a war ends. It's the perception of how that has happened so that the American people can understand that this was a victory.

I want to be really clear. I think we're on the cusp of a victory that isn't just for 2026, but for the entire 21st century. Donald Trump has succeeded in resetting geopolitics in a way that the Americans are going to reap the benefits of well after he has been president. Therefore, I think your point is really important for the near term, that how this conflict ends, especially given how silly some of the commentary is. Washington and New York media is vital.

You know, they keep saying President Trump is a war of choice. I think it's the previous president who chose not to have this war, but Iran has declared war on us, and they've made that clear. It's the president's one who went for kinetic action in the big picture.

So we'll see what happens, because I think the current situation where they hit us, we hit them, that would be not only tedious and dangerous, I don't think we benefit from that. No, we don't. And we don't benefit from it because obviously it increases significantly the risk of loss of life by our own servicemen and servicewomen, as we have seen tragically in the last week. And less importantly, but still significant, is that kind of back and forth looks to the American people, including increasingly to the president's MAGA base, as something that isn't going well. It reminds me a little bit of the beginning of the Tet Offensive in 1968.

I don't think we're anything near there, but the point is that there are examples in recent American history, fairly recent American history, that the president I know is aware of and is trying to guard against.

So yesterday it was announced, and the president clarified even more: we're going to do a nuke deal with Saudi Arabia, and Congress has got to okay it, at which time they're going to build nuclear energy, nuclear energy facilities. We're going to be the ones doing it, and they're going to be allowed, in theory, to be enrich in country. UAE has a nuclear program. They enrich out of the country. Are you comfortable with that?

Mm-hmm. Totally comfortable. I was talking about this with my colleague, Dr. Victoria Coates, who heads up our foreign policy division. Victoria was one of the co-architects of the Abraham Accords.

And she said, Kevin, you know, the reality is if the Saudis wanted to get a nuclear weapon today, they would just go buy one.

So, how much better that they're actually developing a program in concert with the United States? It's a way of strengthening an alliance. It's not to say that the Saudis are perfect. None of our allies are perfect, but it is a way of saying that this is part of the program to reset geopolitics in the Middle East. We are gratified.

We were expecting yesterday the following. Therefore, we were gratified this morning to see that one of the conditions would be that the Saudis formally join the Abraham Accords. Yeah, that's a good thing to add. But know what I worry about, and I know you think about, is MBS. No one predicted that he was going to rise.

Those experts that look at the Royal Family never said, keep your eye on that guy. And not only did he rise, we know he had that horrible incident with the Washington Post columnist, no excuses there, but he is really economics first. I don't even think he's particularly religious. He actually went into the curriculum and got Wahhabism out of it.

So he was a pleasant surprise. I do worry about a government. of somebody else coming in and saying wow I don't like America, and I have a nuclear program where I'm allowed to enrich. I worry about the next guy. Yeah, look, I agree with that, and hence my comment about the Saudis not being perfect.

Having said that, I do think that it is worth that risk, given the ability of the United States to continue to keep parameters around a government like that. I think there's a real opportunity here with this deal, especially with the apparent condition that the Saudis have to join the Abraham Accords, that the changes we've seen under MBS are not going to be temporary, but they themselves are willing to make permanent commitments to. Obviously, you've got to trust but verify. I think this president is once again in the Middle East. Establishing peace, not just for the near term, Brian, but I really mean it when I say for the rest of the century.

This deal could be an important part of that.

So, Kevin Robertswith is president of Heritage Foundation.

So, Fox came up with a poll. President Trump's job performance they have at 34 percent. Job performance on the economy, 33 percent. The condition of the economy, only 24 percent of the country thinks it's excellent, down from 26 in June. And it was roughly the same thing back in April.

Now, the good news is both Congress, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, both have 30 percent approval rating. How do you, if we're here we are in late July. What do you think this means for November? Yeah. Look, you have to account for the fact that I'm an unbridled optimist about the United States.

But having said that, looking at some of the polls, having a lot of meetings this week on Capitol Hill, I think the Iran conflict will wind down by Labor Day, I think, in a satisfactory way, in a way that would please you and me. I think what Congress is going to do, if you think about the great work Speaker Johnson did yesterday and muscling through all of that legislation, is provide a salve for some of the economic pain that Americans are feeling. And if the Iran conflict comes to a conclusion, then basically all of the other economic indicators that were pointing green and even towards a Trump boom prior to the war will be lights out. Is that enough time between, say, early September and early November for American voters to feel it? I think so, because a lot of it is going to be perception.

Just as you made the good point, Brian, about the perception of how the war is coming to a conclusion, if American voters understand that the war is in our rearview mirror, they understand that the President and Congress are focused on a domestic economic agenda. And Congress is actually passing legislation. By the way, we need John Fune to step up. The ball is in his court to get that done. Then I think the midterms will go well.

And I think 2028 will go well. I really believe it when I say it, that this is the beginning, not just of a golden age, but a golden age for conservative policy reform.

So, what did the House produce yesterday? The House passed basically the framework for Reconciliation three point zero, a supplemental budget bill that also included, very importantly, major provisions of the Save America Act, which would require the common sense uh uh effort of having voter ID. That is really important, and it's supported by 85% of the American people. The problem is that almost immediately, Leader Thune has said it's almost dead on arrival in the Senate. That's the kind of commentary that tells me he's protecting a few of his members rather than wanting to do the will of the people.

I know Leader Thune to be a smart guy, an affable fellow, someone who loves this country. I think it's time for him today to hear from a lot of people, anyone who knows him, not to berate him, but to encourage him and say, Sir, this is an opportunity not just for good politics, but also for really good policy for the American people. Does he really think Susan Collins would be hurt? By having to vote uh for this because Reconciliation, and then you have voter ID, which is popular. I I I don't understand why she was against it anyway.

You know, I'm not sa I know she's a moderate from a very blue state. But who else would he be protecting? Mitch McConnell. Yes. In fact, not just protecting McConnell, but listening too much to McConnell's advisors who are playing politics like it's the 1980s.

They need to understand that the Save America Act is the most common sense reform for a broken election integrity system. But in addition to that, Brian, if you think about what the House attached that to yesterday in the legislation, it's an economic agenda, limited to be sure. I mean, I lead a big conservative organization. We always want more reform, right? But is it a single?

And does that allow us to get some more hits between now and election day? Absolutely. The Senate needs to be playing ball rather than protecting its members.

So I don't know if you saw the poll on the left, and New Hampshire has a new frontrunner, even though they're not going to be. The first primary for Democrats because they think it's too white. But AOC up with 22, Pete Butterjudge with 21, back into single digits is just about everybody else. Did you ever think AOC would be leading the polls in any state? I'm not lying when I say this.

I absolutely did. I've been worried about her. Since she joined Congress. And I remember telling my wife, I said, that young lady is not smart. We disagree with all of her politics, but she's very dangerous.

And I think what a lot of Republican political operatives in DC have made the mistake of is discounting her political ability, discounting the popularity, the political ability of your new mayor in New York. I can say that I disagree with them wholeheartedly, right? While also recognizing that they're a real threat. Why do I think that? Because it's clear to me that AOC and Mamdani and their ilk are offering a set of solutions, clearly ridiculous solutions, socialist and even communist, but the offering of the solutions are about the issues Americans care about, affordability, the economy, whether elites have succeeded in doing their jobs or whether they failed us.

Until and unless Republicans, conservatives stand up and offer an ambitious, audacious agenda, just like what we were talking about regarding Congress, we're going to continue to see AOC and people like that leading polls. winning races.

So on the other side, they did a poll in New Hampshire. In October 2025, J.D. Vance had a lead over everybody else, 51 to Marco Rubio for five, and then Rand Paul and some other.

Now it is it looks like he has lost 17 points. And It's 3626 over Marco Rubio. What's happening on the right? And what about JD Vance's book tour? What has that produced a lot of divergence between him and the President, it seems?

You know, on the first question, obviously, I mean, you know this, it's early. It isn't to say that we can discount polls. It gives you a snapshot of what people are thinking. And I think what's happening is that Republican voters who are doing this polling realize that we've got a really strong bench on the political right in the United States and that it's premature for them to decide who their horse is going to be. And, you know, I travel the country a lot visiting with everyday people.

And what I hear categorically from every single person, Brian, all parts of the country, is that they love both the vice president and the secretary of state. They have both done a superlative job. The vice president's book tour, I think, has gone really well. I think that he is a model for the rest of us who do those kinds of interviews, not just to speak to friends like you, but to be willing to go out and mix it up with unfriendly networks. It's great.

And I think we need to continue to do that. I think a lot of the chatter, a lot of the pushback, the criticism has really been not only unfounded, but perhaps has an agenda behind it regarding 2028. Heritage's job isn't to decide who the nominee is going to be in 28, but we certainly play a big role in terms of ideas and policies. And I can tell you, the overwhelming percentage of conservative voters want someone in the mold of Donald Trump, whether that be J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, or another member of the Congress.

I always believe that Rubio doesn't run if J.D. does. He said that explicitly, and I know the secretary to be a real man of his word. I don't think he thirsts to be president. I really don't.

I think Rubio's indifferent about it. If it happens, it happens. I don't think he thirsted to be vice president. Just my opinion. Kevin Roberts, always great.

Thanks so much. Thanks for having me. Take care. Yeah, there's no dog days of summer. There's so much going on.

Back in a moment. Keeping you informed, engaged, and always a step ahead. It's the Brian Kill Me Show. Information you want, truth you demand. This is the Brian Kill Me Show.

Hey, we are back, and I went a little long, but there's so much to talk to Kevin Roberts about, too. And there's a divide on the right that has been overshadowed by the divide on the left because it's much more pronounced on the left. And you see Van Jones speaking out, making a lot of news. Jared Polis went on with Donald, with John Hannity last night. He's a Democratic governor, said I'm a capitalist.

Vetterman's always been out there. But there is a problem a little bit on the right, not that it's unusual, who disagree with a lot of what's going on. And without Donald Trump in there, without regulation, you're going to see. Without Donald Trump in there regulating things, and without that one beacon of sanity, we'll see what happens. Go to BrianKillme.com.

I'm going to be on stage this fall with my new book, United States, in Red Bank, New Jersey, on the 16th of October, and the 17th in Westbury. November 7th, Clearwater, Florida. November 8th, Jacksonville, Florida. And Chesterfield, Missouri. November 21st.

Frank. From his mouth to your ears, it's Brian Kilmead. We're not going back to business as usual in the strait. I think you see the entire region, all the countries that aren't named Iran, saying, Okay, we can't be held hostage by these monsters anymore. We're going to build alternative infrastructure.

Starting with Saudi petroline that we've discussed, there are other projects underway already, other ways to move energy. The new deal that we just signed last week with the Prime Minister of Iraq to restart that pipeline that goes up from Iraq up through Syria into Europe eventually. You know, everyone else is moving on. And so, you know, I think what Iran is going to have is nobody caring that much about them anymore. Yeah, that's Victoria Coates weighing in, former key member of the foreign policy team on the Trump with Trump weighing in on what's happening with the Strait of Hormuz.

Yes, it's a battle now, and now if the Red Sea goes down and the Houthis try to block it, that'll be a huge problem. But the big picture is everyone is working around the strait right now as if they're not going to get access. Joining us now, a person who knows dollars and cents, Taylor Riggs is co-host of the big money show, and you see her all over the channel. In fact, she opened up on Fox and Friends, and that's at the top of your resume. Am I correct, Taylor?

Always. Yes, that was this morning.

So, what do you think about what Victoria said? Have you already seen movement? We have. Yep. So we've talked about how Saudi Arabia is doing that east to west pipeline.

We have heard in the last three weeks Japan say we want to reduce our reliance on the Strait of Hormuz to zero. You've had a lot of countries in the sort of Gulf nation say that we're going to sort of fast track pipelines. Chevron is one of those that said we want to go in and get pipelines to get out of the Strait of Hormuz.

So the good news, there's good and bad news. The good news is that Iran had one bullet. They shot it. But now everyone knows that that's their leverage point. If we start to take away their leverage point, And the strait of Hormuz becomes less important, then that is good.

That means that they can't hold us all hostage. The bad news is these pipelines take years, if not a decade.

So it's nice that we're talking about and fast-tracking these pipelines, but we can't do that next month. We're looking at like years from now to reduce our reliance on the strait. I'm glad we're starting now, but we could have some pain in the interim if we don't start to open things up. Man, the Saudis adjusted quick, didn't they? They did.

Because they have 8 million barrels, they say, going to pipelines out the Red Sea now. Yes. Yep. And that is through that east-to-west pipeline that they have that gets it out through the Red Sea and avoids the Strait of Hormuz completely. But they've had that pipeline for a while.

So, again, they didn't just build that last week or last month. But it is good news. And we've talked about the Saudi Arabia-U.S. nuclear deal and sort of the access that they get to American technology and American companies will benefit from that. And sort of how do we think about power and oil and then maybe nuclear in that region?

And then, of course, there's whole enrichment angle, which we can get to or not later. But I think this is sort of an interesting move from the president to bring in non-NATO allies in that region as we think about who is on the team U.S., who's on team China. Iran is clearly on team China. We're trying to pull these other Gulf nations to team U.S.

So, what's the market reaction been since the Houthis? Started blocking or hit two tankers, two Saudi tankers.

So, up until this, we kept thinking, okay, oil's been stable. The stock market's looking at earnings. And then, I think in the last couple of days, when we got news about the Red Sea being the new choke point, that's when you started to see significant flare-ups again. Oil hit 100 overnight. And again, we really don't want it to be at 100, and you definitely don't want it to be at 120.

For a while, we were down there in the 80s, and that is easily manageable. 100 definitely is showing that the world feels nervous about the Red Sea. You're also seeing a significant equity sell-off today. I would caution, though, that we're getting a lot of big tech earnings last night. And so some of the big declines in technology is coming from some of the earnings.

Yeah, I do think so. I mean, I think Tesla is down 10%. Alphabet said that they're raising CapEx because they want to build more data centers. And I think the market's thinking, how are you going to do that when yields are the highest since January? When a 10-year yield is coming in at $4.68, and you want to fund $80 billion in debt to build a data center, you're going to the cost of borrowing just went up a lot for you.

So the equity market's falling on some of that. But I think the equity market's also looking at. this conflict in Iran and getting a little bit more nervous as the price of oil goes up. But I don't think equity market is only down because of Iran. There's a lot of other economic issues in the U.S.

So I want you to hear Chris Wright talk about these data centers, Cut fifty one. Part of the Rate Payer Protection Pledge is if you're going to use a gigawatt of power, build help support the building of more than a gigawatt of power. It's not just covering your own costs, it's improving the economics and the economic opportunities for the community around you. And the signers of the Rate Payer Protection Pledge have embraced this.

So that's, we know 40% of all the new data centers are being protested. One of which was, I don't want my utility bill to go up because the data center is sucking all the power.

So they say you got to, this is almost a voluntary thing, right? You have to have your own power and add to the grid of that state. You know me, I don't want more regulation, but I do think that I want more than just a pledge. We have come full circle with big tech. I think I was not a fan during COVID when a lot of us felt censored for having different opinions.

And then, of course, big tech has been cozying up to the president. And then I think there is a lot of good within AI and good in data centers. But I think a lot of people don't trust big tech. And they're looking at Mark Zuckerberg and they're thinking, yeah, a little pledge doesn't really work. We need more than that because we don't trust you.

So I do think that this needs to be something more than a pledge. And I have been arguing that. I think you should have representatives from these big tech companies go to these local city council meetings, hear what people are upset about, and then tell them how you are contributing back to the grid, how you're upgrading infrastructure, how you're relying on your own water you're not pulling from the system. This is actually a really interesting backdoor way to start privatizing our utilities, which I love. The utility sector is extremely regulated, government top-down.

If we could have big tech come in there and sort of privatize it and create competition, I love that. But this is a not in my backyard issue. And frankly, I understand a lot of the frustration from people. Do these data centers. in order to function optimally, have to be near a population.

No.

So, I mean, they don't.

So, for example, if I want to help Boston, do I have to build something near Boston? I don't. Can I bring it into a rural area of Massachusetts? Yeah. I think you're I mean, I think so.

You're seeing tons of data centers go up in rural areas, and they are self-contained. They're bringing in their own portable water and their own portable electricity. Maybe they're have we had one instance where they were building transmission lines to pull in energy. But as long as they're contributing back to the grid, then I think people are more okay with it. I'm confused.

Where was all this outrage during like solar power and wind farms? I don't know. I'm getting tons of outrage on data centers. I didn't get twice as, I mean, I got half the comments on solar power. I worry that it's synthetically generated.

It's not Mr. and Mrs. Johnson going to a town hall and being described, don't like the noise or don't like their bills. I worry about outside forces because we've already seen how it can manipulate through TikTok, especially exactly. Yeah.

I mean, if this were China, China is probably promoting solar powers because they build all the solar equipment.

So they're thrilled, which is why I never saw outrage over solar panels. And now all of a sudden, I'm seeing outrage 10 years later for data centers. They have these huge solar farms in New York with you. She will not build a data center in New York. Will not frack in New York.

Tell me why. And what's interesting about New York is they didn't learn their lessons about fracking. When they banned that a decade ago, six, eight years ago, whatever it was. Everyone thought, like, okay, great, good for you. And now our power bills go up because we're having to import it.

And they banned the constitutional pipeline in 2020. And so we thought they would. Can you describe that again? Where does that come from? And how Massachusetts and New York don't have it.

Pennsylvania does. And therefore, our bills are higher than theirs. Yes. Just asking a pipeline. That's it.

Yes. And so, I mean, again, I understand that I don't want to look out my beautiful window or have the government come in and use eminent domain to take my property. I totally get that. But if I can build a shrub around a data center and it's off a highway where no one has to see it, and it helps power us in the future. And jobs and tax dollars into the coffers of your city.

I know. But all the pushback I get is those are temporary jobs. Once the data center is up and running, you've destroyed my land and then you don't need my electrician anymore. You don't need my HVAC or my plumber anymore. It's all temporary.

Again, I'm not saying that I want to ban data centers. That's just Just, I'm getting massive hate from someone, some entity, some people out there who are really not happy about this.

So, I had, I know you got to run, I had Mike Rowe on, and he is pro-data center. He's going to put all those jobs in play. And I also had Joe Lonsdale on when I filled in for Jesse on Sunday, on Monday, and everyone's writing me about data centers, pro and pro and con. I go, where did this come from? I just did a whole show.

That was the one segment. I never thought twice about it. It was good, but that was all I got the next day.

So I sent it to my team. We're doing it again this weekend. Totally, because people have so many mixed feelings on it. And again, for me, I want big tech to go down to the local level and talk to people in their community. I don't need meta put out a big national ad today about how they're evident to AI.

Exactly. But that's because not one person on technology has communicated to people about data centers. They have to come out and tell us the why and the importance and where. Come on this program. We've certainly invited them because there's a lot of people that are really angry.

I will end on an optimistic note. We call this like the NIMBY, not in my backyard. SpaceX wants to do data centers in space, and then that's fine. You'll never have to look at them. They'll all just be circling us in space.

That'll be fantastic. And SpaceX can do it. Taylor Riggs, co-host of the Big Money Show. It's starting today. You'll be trying to start at one o'clock, right?

Yeah, exactly. At one until. Two. Noon to two Eastern. Oh, one to two.

Taylor Riggs, thanks so much. The headlines, the stories behind them, and the people who make them only on the Brian Kill Meat Show. A talk show that's real. This is the Brian Kilmead Show. Sponsored by Previgen.

Previgen made for your brain. They're going after trans people in sports and they're using this as a wedge issue because we love sports and we don't want our little girls to be unsafe in sports. And it's like, unsafe from who? But okay. But now we're using this as like an overarching thing.

When really what we're attacking women, we're saying, if you look like this as a woman, you can play. Yeah, that's Megan Rapino, the one who first had taken knee with the women's national team. She's um Angry. Angry person who was very good soccer player for years, left by missing a penalty kick in her last game as the team loses their final game. And that era was really not well liked.

They weren't. They were not a likable group. They were successful, but not likable, not like those 99ers. And now she's coming out for trans men in sports. It's absolutely nuts.

It's a 90-10 issue, as you know, and she would not be on the team if trans men were trying out for the women's national team. As you know, a high school, a college All-Star team or a high school team could beat the women's national team. Boys, men. It would be no it's no contest. You want a trans man playing the WNBA or in soccer or running over your daughter or you?

It's crazy. It's nuts.

So, Sophie, uh Sophie Cunningham at the WNBA of the Indiana Fever came out, and she is the so-called bodyguard for Caitlin Cork. And she has been speaking out about this. And by the way, she's not a Republican. She's not a conservative. She's just a logical person.

And here's what she said about it. I said what I said. I think it's kind of common sense. And I think I'll always believe in that. I think it's really important to protect children and that's little girls who are also involved in that category.

And so I stand on what I said, and I'll always believe that. And what she said in 2022, and before we really knew who she was, she came out and said, Of course, you should not have trans men in women's sports. And she got a lot of blowback for it. That was 2022. Most of the country is sobered up, except most Democrats.

Outside Rahm Emanuel, if you ask a Democrat what they think about trans men playing in women's sports, they'll punt, they'll say it never happens, they'll say it's rare. I like to take it on a case-by-case basis, let states decide. They just punt on it, they have no guts. But the so-called MAGA Barbie, which is mislabeling, she's just a popular athlete, a good athlete. Who stands out because she's fearless on the court and she's playing with and teammates with the most famous female athlete in the world right now, and that is Caitlin Clark.

So she spoke out about it again. If you were to put money on any female athlete being a personality, having a podcast that you care about, or being an A1 guest, I'm sure. A fantastic guest here, and I imagine on any late night show, you should pick her out. Not only that, the fact that she's attractive does not hurt either. We see the just wrapped up now the press briefing with the press secretary, Caroline Levitt, as she is back in the fray, and she is now has to get the messaging out.

Everything on the Saudi deal, get the messaging out on the Iran war, get the messaging out as it comes to the election. The President of the United States was in Georgia yesterday going to bat for his cause and talking about the Trump accounts and everything else. Got a big crowd, but I know they say technically his approval is at 34 percent. I think it's more like 43%, 44%. I think that Fox tends to pull him low.

I don't show why. It just seems to happen like that. But I think that he'll be a factor. Once the war comes to an end, but it's got to be a successful end. But the most interesting thing is going to happen on Tuesday next week, and that is the Michigan primary, as Haley Stevens takes on Hassan Abdul El Syed.

So he'd be the first Muslim senator. I think Mike Rogers beats both of them. One of the reasons, they're not going to come together. Their camps hate each other. The candidates hate each other.

Haley Stevens is a bit of a comedy show if you see her delivery and her whole presentation. She is extremely left, but she's just not a socialist. Here she is, the fact of which she said earlier. Of saying Uh I don't know. Uh sounding like she's basically swallowed a gallon of helium.

And then speaking, you Here she is talking about the viral video that came out. That she's trying to push back on, but instead of doing that, to her credit, she embraced. Here she is when she got confronted by TMZ. Because I saw that video, which was legendary. I think it's widely considered like a legendary video.

But you know what I saw that you did? You took it, and then we're like, you know, I'm gonna lean into it and I'm gonna make it a campaign ad.

So tell me through that process. I am authentically Michigan. That's the deal. And look, this internet, it's been. I don't know, it gets wild.

We all know that. But you know who I sound like? I sound like the people who I talk to in Michigan who are getting screwed right now. by Donald Trump. Right.

When in doubt, don't bring up your enemy. Don't bring up Mike Rogers. Bring up Donald Trump. We'll see how that plays. Carl Rove looked at the polls and talked about what the midterms will mean, cut 30.

In the Republican seats that are up for grabs, three of the four seats were won by Donald Trump in 2024 by double digits, Alaska, Iowa, and Ohio. Maine was won by Kamala Harris and is historically Democrat. The Republican there, Susan Collins, is enormously strong. Last time around, she didn't lead in any significant polls. She was down by six in the average going into the election and won by eight.

So that'll be helpful if the Republicans want to hold the House. That's Maine, but they also can flip Michigan. And I think the better matchup for Mike Rogers is El Saeed, Cut 32. This is a battle for, if you will, for the future of the Democratic Party. And if he does win the nomination in this very critical battleground state, it could have huge ramifications for the future of the party.

If he wins in November, it gives a big boost to the Democratic Socialist movement. If he loses, it will be a commentary on how the far left of the Democratic Party is unable to win in battleground states in general. I think they're 100% right. Don't forget One Nation coming up Sunday at 10 o'clock. I know it's early, but you've got to get planned your whole weekend around my schedule, Sunday at 10, Eastern o'clock.

Don't forget the Fox Nation's live stage shows coming up this fall. Don't forget Red Bank, New Jersey, Old Westbury, Westbury Music Fair. That'll be in Clearwater, Florida, a few weeks later, and also in Jacksonville and then St. Louis. BrianKildy.com for tickets.