Today on Sekulow, as JD Vance leads negotiations in Switzerland. Is he auditioning for a larger role? Keeping you informed and engaged.
Now more than ever. This is Sekulow. We want to hear from you. Share and post your comments or call 1-800-684-3110. And now your host.
Welcome to Sekulow Will Haynes here. I'll be joined by Jordan Sekulow in studio as well. And we've got a lot to cover today, folks. We're going to be talking about the latest round of talks in Geneva, Switzerland as the vice President. Leads negotiations there.
We're going to talk about kind of the political implications here at home as well, because you're seeing now. During the war phase of this, it was Pete Hagseth as well as Marco Rubio that really went to the front lines of it and were taking center stage, if you will, to lay it out to the American people, but also doing all the work behind the scenes. Obviously, as Secretary of State, doing a lot of the diplomatic heavy lifting when it comes to the Gulf states as well as the Iranians.
Now we're seeing a different person rise to the front, and that is. The vice President of the United States. Not typically something you see a vice President actually taking the lead on. The vice President many times does a lot of domestic work, but even constitutionally, a vice President of the United States is a very limited role and kind of up to the administration to define what that other work involves.
Now you're seeing JD Vance leading the negotiations with the Iranians in Switzerland.
So I want to point this out as well because this morning, We had J.D. Vance giving an update saying that they are going to agree to nuclear inspectors. We're going to talk about what spin you're already seeing from the media, but I want to point to this. This is bite three from the vice President. This is him talking about what's going on.
Let's go ahead and roll this from the vice President. Yesterday was a very, very good day. We made a lot of good progress. We did exactly what we wanted to do, which is accomplish four things for the American people. First, we wanted to build a mechanism for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open.
It is open. We've seen, of course, gas prices and oil prices come down, millions and millions of barrels of crude and natural gas flowing through the Strait of Hormuz that weren't flowing before. But we also wanted to make sure that we actually set up the coordination mechanism so that we could demine the Straits of Hormuz, so that when there are the conflicts that inevitably come up, we can make sure we work through them rather than that leading to escalation. And that is exactly what we did yesterday. Jordan, you're already starting to see this layout.
We're going to talk actually in the next segment about some of the spin you're seeing from the media, which is kind of ridiculous at this point, even if you're not. Thinking that this is going to end up in a broader deal, just the prejudging it to some degree, I think it is getting a little out of hand. But right now, the politics of this, the vice President, he is taking center stage on a very big foreign policy issue. We were talking just before the show, and you know, you saw Secretary Rubio, he took a major position in the lead up to the conflict with Iran. Of course, the Secretary of War, Secretary Hags, had a key role there to play.
So you saw those two kind of side by side in coordinating the initial strikes with the tough talk, coordinating with our allies in the region. When I say that, I don't mean just Israel, but going to those Gulf states to build an alliance that encircled Iran and got us to the point today where they're even willing to negotiate with the United States. And I don't think without that military action, they would be.
Now, listen, it's going to be a messy next 60 days, Will. We know that. This is not a final deal. And so, you're trying to work towards an actual, a real kind of treaty kind of situation. This is an MOU, Memorandum of Understanding for 60 days.
And so, could it go bad? Absolutely. Are there points in there that kind of are the toughest ones that you could just kind of rat off your head right now and say, is that really going to happen? Is that going to happen? Sure, but that's all hypothetical over these next 60 days until it starts happening.
So, will Iran keep its end of this memorandum of understanding? They're going to get to make that choice. The United States, you know, will. But will Iran? Because if they don't, we'll be back to as President Trump said, well, we're back at war.
That's right. And we want to hear from you. Do you think that the vice President will be able to get the United States across the finish line with Iran to something bigger than what we have now? Call us 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back with more on Sekulow.
Folks, welcome back to Sekulow. Will Haynes here, joined by Jordan Sekulow in studio. And we're talking about J.D. Vance, the Vice President of the United States, and his now role leading these negotiations between the United States and Iran over the future of U.S.-Iranian relations, if you want to put it at the most basic level, but the permanent end to this war and what the goal is, the permanent denuclearization of Iran. But I also want to point to this because One, you're seeing the way that already the MOU is being spun.
Obviously, we've discussed here our hesitations about some of the stuff, the things that we are, I've said, cautiously optimistic or skeptically optimistic about. That we're optimistic we're even here, but we're skeptical that the Iranians can ever fully agree to something that would be great.
Now, we have. a situation right here already, where you've been seeing the US media wanting the United States to fail at every corner of this. But you you have a headline like this from Washington Post, you know, where democracy dies in the darkness, right? It says, Vance says Iran agrees to nuclear inspections. Comma, as under Obama deal.
So, right ahead, and I want to play for you what the vice President said so you can hear it directly from him, but right there. This is one of those things where every single statement you're seeing is prejudged. Because They don't know that it's like that. There was very rigid guidelines about what the IAEA could do under the Obama deal. It was one of the big criticisms of it that we don't know limitations on where they could go, how far in advance they had to schedule.
So kind of like no surprise inspections. And if you've ever been involved in any kind of business before where you have to meet certain standards, basically 24 hours a day, seven days a week, facilities that process food, process things that people eat or medical supplies, anything that people ingest in the United States, from a restaurant down to a major factory, at any time. You you can have the the f the Federal agency or the state agency that tests to make sure you're up to par with the rules, they can do that at any time, right? They don't have to give you three days to get everything in order. And so it's like, well, how do they do it when what's it like when they know we're not supposed to be scheduled to come that day?
You've got to allow that kind of flexibility. If not, and you're saying you can look at these three places, but not the three underground. And again, we know that those ones the further underground, the further that they are, have always been on kind of like a no see list. Those are the ones they don't want to sing because, again, it would relate to military actions. I hope and pray That Iran gets to a day and its current leaders.
It's a little hard for me to accept, very hard for me to accept actually, a day that they are really going to give up a nuclear weapons program after the amount of money they've invested into it. But. We also know they've been hit harder than they ever have before militarily, I mean, since the 19 late 80s. And so they haven't had to take this kind of widespread destruction they're now trying to rebuild. And we're on, you know, leader number three, person number four in this position, number five in this position.
So a lot remains to be seen. But Clearly, President Trump has put this on the shoulders of Vice President Vance. You're exactly correct, Will. If the President decides. How much power really to delegate to the vice President and when.
And so sometimes those can be domestic issues that are close to the vice President's heart because the President has is, you know, at a time of when we were dealing with like the widespread terrorism that came to the United States, you kind of had Dick Cheney handling foreign policy, President Bush, of course, handling terrorism domestically, but also other domestic issues. And then you can have VPs that do the opposite, where the President does most of the foreign affairs and the VP does a lot of the domestic.
So again, it's a major moment for someone like Vance. Marco Rubio has gone through a couple of those moments as well, knowing that there is not an incumbent President, President Trump, who can run again. And let me tell you, those campaigns, after we get through the midterms, they are beginning. And they start. And we're not that far away from that.
I mean, just think about a little more than a year, actually, less than a year really from those campaigns having to start getting going. And actually, a lot of people starting to announce their exploratory committees. Oh, yeah, you know. Things where they're saying, hey, we're not announcing, we're running, but we have a Presidential exploratory. It's running light.
It will start right. And that will start very soon. It's a little tougher for the ones who are in the administration.
So watch what happens after the midterms, see who's still there. But again, putting him on a stage like this, I think President Trump giving him the opportunity to be a world leader. On one of, if the not, toughest issue of our time. And then, can he be successful? And I don't think we judge this as success getting to the 60 days.
I think you can usually get to this. Most countries will agree to, all right, 60 days, they'll stop bombing us and we'll figure out what we're going to do. We're going to figure out our leadership. It's whether any of these provisions that are in place for these 60 days remain in place for the future in an actual document that is not temporary.
Well, and there's a couple of things I want to point out here. One, we're going to play this sound from Vice President Vance announcing kind of the nuclear inspector situation because I think it's important. And that is a big step. That is part of what. The entire point of the 60-day negotiation is that the MOU outlines.
But there's another angle to this as well. Because as we see in that Washington Post headline, that as it was under the Obama JCPOA, When you think back at that, One, we know that it was kind of a joke, the negotiations that they had put in place, because even the IAEA was saying they were cheating. They were hiding the ball in many places, they weren't complying.
So, yes, that's also why we have concerns that any sort of deal Iran would. Not necessarily comply with. Here's another key point. This is from Axios that. It says Vice President Vance said coordination between Iran, the U.S.
and the IAEA for such a visit, talking about looking at the sites bombed back in Operation Midnight Hammer. Would take place this week, maybe as soon as today. And that's also another Component to this is that The Obama regime, the sanctions regime, and the JCPOA, the deal. All relied on UN Entities. And when you think about how corruptible the UN is to put any faith in their inspecting capabilities, yes, they have the technical capabilities.
But then you even look at what happened with October 7th and that, It was Hamas operatives that also were employed by the UN that were taking part in this. Putting all your faith in a corruptible UN is the worst of American foreign policy. What I like here is that not only is it the technocrats that have the ability at the IAEA, but you have The US being a part of this type of inspection. Let's listen to byte one and hear how it was framed by the vice President. Just this morning.
And this is probably what we're most excited about as Americans. The Iranians have agreed to invite IAEA inspectors back into their country. That is a major milestone for the American people and the first step in permanently denuclearizing or permanently ending a nuclear weapons program in Iran. And that's exactly what we wanted to do. That's exactly what we asked to happen.
We made a lot of great progress on other nuclear talks. And that leads me to the final thing that we wanted to accomplish, which is actually set up the process for the technical negotiations that will follow. Jordan, we have two very capable individuals that have been at the forefront of this. We have the vice President, J.D. Vance, who is very smart, very capable.
And we have been critical of some of his foreign policy positions, not everything, but definitely there's some issues that we have daylight with the vice President on. And Marco Rubio. It's not as though Marco Rubio is gone from this, even though the press wants you to think of that. Just now, he's traveling to the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain between Tuesday and Thursday to work with our allies. This isn't just a competition between the two.
This is actually seeing our government be nimble. And be using all of the executive branch in a way that you would see just a lead negotiator under previous administrations. I don't care which one, Republican or Democrat. This is such an all-in effort that it's actually kind of refreshing to see the leadership style that's taking place here. Yeah, so you've got different people with different big ideas.
As you said, Will, it's not like everyone listening or watching our broadcast right now agrees with all of Secretary Rubio's foreign policy or all of J.D. Vance's foreign policy, but you put those two together and they are then working through this with both our allies. That's what a Secretary of State would do, and that's what Marco Rubio is doing right now. And then allowing Vice President Vance to kind of step up onto the world stage again to try and bring this conflict to a real close where we could have a long-term solution for at least. Peace in the region when it comes to Iran not funding all of their terror proxies, like Hezbollah.
Hezbollah fired first at Israel.
So when people said, well, Israel didn't abide by this, and Bibi had to get this phone call from Trump. It wasn't Israel that fired first. Israel was fired on. And they fired back in response defensively. You're gonna still see that if Hezbollah doesn't follow the commands.
Of Iran, which is to get them to stop it. Same with the Houdis, same with the other groups. That is the question was ultimately. Are there those in Iran that have enough power to ultimately sign a deal like this and make it kind of long-lasting? Over the next 60 days.
That's right. Does that person exist and who is it? I'm not sure we know yet. That's right. And give us a call at 1-800-684-3110.
What do you think about the media pitting the Secretary of State and the Vice President against each other? Do you think it's a play that'll work? We'll talk to you in a segment. Welcome back to Sekulow. We are going to take a little bit of a pivot here and tell you about a case that the ACLJ is working on right now and kind of the details that are pretty shocking.
But once again, if you want to call in about what we were talking about, the negotiations going on in Switzerland by the U.S. and the Iranians, by the Vice President of the United States, go ahead and call us at 1-800-684-3110. Do you think that J.D. Vance is the right person for this job to go and negotiate with the Iranians? Do you trust anything?
That can happen with Iranians. Call us, one eight hundred six eight four three one one zero. But I also wanted to bring this up. We're in the summer, so a lot of times school isn't on the mind of everyone going back to school. But we always know that This is the time period as school districts are preparing for the next year.
This is where the next constitutional violations are being thought up right now. We know that it's always in August and September when we get the most influx here at the ACLJ as a new school year starts, as new teachers are brought in, as new administration of schools are brought in, that there's going to be a lot of constitutional violations of students around the country. And that's why you can always go to aclj.org/help. Get in touch with an attorney if you feel like your constitutional rights are violated. But This is one that is just so crazy to me because we have a student in Washington State.
who we have now where this is the third time we're having to represent her in second grade She was being stopped for searches when she got to school. where the the vice principal would go through her backpack to make sure she wasn't carrying contraband. What was the contraband for this second grader? Bible tracts. Bible verses on paper, telling people about Jesus.
Then we had this same student we had to help last school year, earlier in the year. Where she was getting in trouble for telling others about Jesus. Uh but yet A lot of other protected First Amendment activity was allowed to go forward. She was pulled out of math class for this violation of telling people about Jesus when it was friends wanting to have conversations with her.
So that's the second one. We're in three-strike territory. This is where the same student, end of sixth grade, Obviously, you're like, wait, we're in June. How did this just happen? Obviously, up north and west coast, sometimes they go later and don't go back to school.
Still in school. They have a assembly. That is just uh labeled as an inclusion assembly at the beginning of June. Student goes. and quickly finds out that it's not just a rally or some sort of entertainment assembly, but it is a very detailed kind of indoctrination type assembly.
that she feels uncomfortable with. And she immediately goes to a teacher and says, Hey. I'm uncomfortable with this. This goes against a lot of the things I believe. Can I opt out?
Can I go somewhere else? That teacher first is agreeable, understands, and can tell she's upset. Uh Takes her out, and then another either teacher or administrator says you have to go back in and says this, says they aren't forcing their belief on you, they're just informing you. And will not let the student stay out of the assembly. The sixth grade girl goes back in weeping.
Feeling like she is violating something that she does by doing this, which she's not supposed to be doing. And they allow this sixth grader to just weep in the bleachers of the school, clearly in emotional distress, and no one will help her. This is now, once again, another violation of her free exercise of religion. You don't check your beliefs at the schoolhouse door. And Jordan, we're sending another letter saying, hey, this time, Three strikes and you're out.
Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, it's happened at the elementary level twice, now at the middle school level. And so, you know, again, starting with the tracks you might have been giving out in second grade, then to the Don't Say Jesus, remember that. I mean, that's what she was literally told as a fifth grader, now in sixth grade, you've got to go to this inclusion seminar, and it's mandatory.
Now, the initial teacher that she spoke with who saw her crying didn't think it was so mandatory that she couldn't remove her and I guess understood her concerns. That teacher had to then move on with her day. And so it was another teacher that then saw her in the hall and said, nope, get back in there. You don't get to decide. They're not telling you.
You have to believe this. Again, this is the problem with what's going on in so many of our nation's schools right now is that instead of just learning, and I mean, again, part of the process of socialization, you can teach to sixth graders that because people are different than you, you don't have to dislike them. You don't have to be mean to them and how you treat people who are different and maybe don't look like you or even believe in the same things you do. Leave it generally like that. They're going to start figuring it out.
They're having to at that age. But just shoving things down their throat saying, this is something you've got to celebrate that you have to support. And you're being told something else at home, something else at church, and then something else at school. That is very tough. When you're talking about a sixth-grade mind, especially a student that it seems like has had a target on their back since they were just a little kid in second grade, Will.
And that's why, again, the ACLJ, ready to fight back with this student. And hopefully, again, we're able to get this wrong righted with the school district so that it doesn't happen to other students in the future. And so this young lady can look back as she gets older and look back and say, you know what, that school district back at home, that will never happen to kids in the future again because I took a stand and my parents took a stand and we weren't afraid to say, no, this isn't right. And there is a reason why we've been successful both times so far and why I believe we will be this time as well. These students do not give up all rights and parents don't give up all rights to their students when they go to school that day.
And unfortunately, we have a lot of school administrations and a lot of school districts will who do treat it like once we've got your kid. We are in charge of teaching them morals. We are in charge of teaching them what is right and what is wrong. And it was, again, she had to be there because they weren't forcing her to believe anything. Again, we're talking about sixth graders.
How about we learn and get our standards up to the rest of the world educationally? And then see if we have time for some of these other extracurriculars. That's how I'd like to be operating in these school districts because it'd be a lot better for America to have students coming out of those with knowledge on how they can best take care of their families and themselves, not on just social issues of the day. And think about this. The sixth-grade girl who is now, this is the third time.
That she has been in some ways harassed by this school. I mean, having daily searches of your backpack as if you are a criminal. If you are bringing something illegal to school, that's what she was dealing with in second grade. Then being told she cannot Speak the name of Jesus at school. How dare you say that at school?
Had to get that resolved twice.
Now, being told by a teacher: one, you have to commend this girl for being so strong and brave. That she will continue to stand up for her beliefs when the school district seems to want to do nothing but beat her down? But imagine being told this as a sixth-grade girl when you already have all the pressures. Everyone talks about how terrible middle school is growing up. Being told by someone in a position of authority You have no choice.
That should sink in and that should terrify you. when they are telling children, no. You're articulating well. Why this is making you uncomfortable, et cetera, and then being told by someone in a position of power. You have no choice.
Oh, she does have a choice. And the ACLJ is fighting back, and that's why you support this organization. It's for students like this. Is for fighting for people who may not have the resources or means to run, hire a law firm. They know they can come here.
And we will fight for them as long and as far as it takes. Support us at aclj.org. Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. Welcome back to Sekulow, second half hour of the broadcast.
We're still discussing one, what is going on in Switzerland, but also, if you missed the last segment, if you're just joining us, go back and watch it later. It's about a girl in Washington that we have been. Representing at the ACLJ and have been fighting for since she was in second grade.
Now, this is a third incident with the same school district. She's in sixth grade. We've essentially told the school district: you got to knock this off. This is three strikes and you're out. If not, you're going to federal court.
We have to have a real Real in writing situation here that shows that they are not going to continue this targeting of the student. And if they don't, We have other options at our disposal. But we are also talking about what's going on with the negotiations. Vice President Vance saying major progress in Iran peace talks. There's also a lot of chatter what it means domestically as he takes the forefront, as well as Marco Rubio, both eyed as big contenders in.
The uh the 2028 Presidential race. But I also think we should point out As everything seems to Kind of pivot here on the world stage and how we've been told that this was a war of choice by the President, that it was unnecessary. And now that there's talks, it's like, oh, but he's just getting us back to the JCPOA, even though we haven't seen the text of it. It all kind of boils down to this point to me as well. Because At the same time.
The vice President of the United States is negotiating with the Iranians. Which just even That concept, that the second highest position in the United States. Is across the table from the Iranians making negotiations. It's not just the Jake Sullivans of the world conducting American foreign policy. You have The left and the media fixated on things like the reflecting pool.
Like, that is their gotcha moment. I think that tells you all you need to know: their entire storyline. Of this Iranian war, even though they'll keep saying it was a failure, that we're not going to get anything out of this. I think it shows you how unserious they are about those talking points, that they are so concerned with the reflecting pool in D.C. And they're not, but they're going down there.
People like Jonathan Carr, like peeling off, oh, this part's peeling off. There's, you know, there's ECA, there's again, environmental issues going on here.
Something got into the water system. That's why they were being cleaned in the first place and being repainted.
Okay, this is something we can get done. This is not an issue of national security. It's not a major partisan issue. It was part of getting Washington, D.C. kind of dressed up for the 250th anniversary.
So updating some things. And again, it's water that sits there. And they'll be able to remediate the problem, the issue, but they love the obsession over that. And then, of course, flipping to the Iran situation, all we got is coverage about the warmonger President, how could it be regime change? Is he giving all of our authority over to Israel?
That just was nonstop and how horrible Israel was, how horrible the United States was. And so now that they're into these peace talks, well, they can't talk about that unless they're comparing it to, well, I think Obama could get it, was better at this than Trump or Vance. They want to go back to then turn people's attention to the waiting pools basically in Washington, D.C., and say, well, they tried to paint them dark blue so they look better for the 250th anniversary. And some of them are going to have to be redone because of chemicals and other issues that you'd have to deal with when you're dealing with sitting bodies of water.
Well, and once again, I think this is something to take to heart, too, because. As you look at this. If someone can't offer you nuance on an issue, especially as complex as the Iranian talks are right now.
Something we hear have been very reflection pools. I would say we've been very nuanced about, but if they see something as high-level and complicated as talks with Iran as a binary choice of win or lose. Then Then you are not being forthcoming with your audience that you're talking to. I don't care if you're a commentator, if you're a media outlet, or you're a politician. You're being disingenuous.
If you are saying you are unable to give a nuanced look at this, you even look at Hillary Clinton last week saying the Gaza plan is working that President Trump put forward. I never thought that I would say someone was being nuanced. It'd be Hillary Clinton. We'll be back in just a bit. Welcome back to Sekulow.
We are going to touch on this as well because I think it's fascinating to look at the politics over across the pond, as they say, in the UK. Historically, Especially with the relationship between the United States and the UK, Americans have known the UK prime minister. That's been kind of one of the foreign leaders that you could probably go man on the street style and say, Do you know who the leader of England is? And you'd get a. A significantly better response than if you named any other U.S.
ally, even Canada or Mexico, our neighbors, right? And the fact is, is that this morning The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has announced his resignation. And Jordan, the number of prime ministers they've had recently is insane. Six in the last seven years. And they're about to have a seventh.
So it'll be seven in seven and a half years. It started out with David Cameron, who had a long run. Theresa May, who had a bit of a less long run, but was there for a while. And then Boris Johnson. Then you had Liz Truss, who was only there for about a month and a half.
Rishi Sunak, who was only there for, I think, about 600 days. And then Kier Starmer around this 800 to 900 day mark. Again, different parties that you're going back and forth.
Sometimes the same political party maintaining control for. In fact, when you look at those, I mean, it's one, two, three, four, five. Five of those seven have been, five of the six in the seven years have been Conservative Party. But now it's starting to hit the Labor Party the same way these movements were dividing up amongst the Conservative Party in those previous six years. But just think about it.
That because typically in the past, though, though again, it's a system that is much easier to remove the prime minister than it is in something like the United States, where we have a President who serves a number of years, it's still to have that kind of instability. Uh, and be a world power. It's tough to see how, once you get past the David Camerons and maybe Teresa Mays or Boris Johnson's, that you ever had time to really get anything constructively done if you only had a year and a half there or less. I mean, basically, if you only had a year and a half there or less, all you were constructively doing was trying to politically survive.
So the deals you were making were just deals you had to make. Right. The leader of the country, the prime minister, was there shorter many of these. Than a US congressional term. Yes.
Just think about that. But okay, so we look at that. We know last night President Trump put out on True Social that this is going to happen. He said Kier Stahmer will resign as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He failed badly on two important subjects: immigration and energy.
Open the North Sea oil. I wish him well, President DJT.
Now, here's what's interesting: is that then the media had to run and be like, what does he know? Or is he just saying this? And they're like, they have not spoken since the G7, which you also have to think of. The leader of Britain was at the G7 just a week ago. Here's what's fascinating to me.
is that if you look back at 2016, The collapse of the EU when Brexit happened, when England said, hey, we're getting out. A lot of people pointed to that as kind of a foretelling of what happened in the United States with the Trump election. When it's like the establishment and the rule of political order kind of all broke down, and England said, We're out of here. and they voted for Brexit overwhelmingly when the poll said it wasn't going to happen, et cetera. Then you saw the Trump surprise election in twenty sixteen.
If you were among the political class, that there is no way he will be able to get this done. My curiosity here, especially when it is focused on things like immigration, and if you have followed any of that and the free speech issue I'd put there as well, they have been attacking their own citizens for speaking up about community safety in many points because it could offend migrants that many times are there not in a traditional way. You could be thrown in jail there. Right. I mean, for things like just.
Just saying, you know, we believe that like the immigration has been mishandled or we have not invited people in to be a melting pot so that they are socialized into our community.
So they become part of the greater England or the great, again, any of the, wherever specific area you may be discussing. But instead of doing so, we just say, here you are, and you create your own little mini version of your country and your state for, you know. For some time, that's all immigrants do that because they come without knowing the language full, you know, best.
So you'll see little areas. You may have little town this, little place there, all over cities, big cities in the U.S. But ultimately, those communities grow, change. And while some of the remnants stay, it's almost like a historical look back that they stay because people always like to kind of a taste of home, if you will, or that feeling of home that they fled for various reasons. But they want to be integrated as Full nationals of their new country.
And you've got, that's a very important job when it comes to immigration, should be the top goal. And the UK, it looks like it's like, come here and basically create your own country inside. Then you start conflict from those who have maybe lived there for generations. It's not a racial thing. It's not necessarily religious.
It's just, hey, you're trying to start a separate country within my country and impose values that aren't British values. They're not English values necessarily. And we're kind of letting you do that.
So while they'll have a lot of free speech to a lot of radicals who are coming from other countries, those in England, I mean, you can be hauled off to prison. By saying the wrong thing. And again, not just like a slap on the wrist, but they literally show up at your door and take you away because you retweeted someone who they don't like. Right. And I think make sure you don't hit that Donald Trump like button.
That's the big question, right? And also, they're barring people for going to visit England that are going there on travel visas from places like the United States because of their social media history, et cetera. But I think it's important to also think about this as we look ahead of the midterm. The party of Keir Starmer, the Labor Party, is kind of analogous to the United States Democrat Party. It's what they would call center-left party.
The conservatives are more center-right. And then they have other factions in England. The parliamentary system is a little bit more complicated. But if you were to do that comparison of a Democrat-Republican, it's the Labor Party that Keir Starmer, the leader of, is now losing support within his own party. It does raise questions of if in the midterm we could see surprises with a complete collapse internally here, because a lot of the same issues that bogged down the prime minister in England, the immigration issue, the free speech issue, The energy issues, things of that nature.
Are the very same thing that caused the collapse over there of their party, and now this prime minister resigning. We'll keep an eye on it. We'll keep you updated, but it is interesting to start to see. Is there some sea changes going on in the global political realm that could affect even things here? But I think we want to hear from you in the next segment.
We're going to talk about this. We'll talk about even our case that we talked about earlier, if you have questions about that, or the topic, the main topic, Vice President Vance leading these negotiations. Do you think that. He will be able to get a breakthrough with the Iranians. Do you think in this 60-day period we will see something signed?
I don't even know if we can. Come up with what a good deal or bad deal would look at at this point. Do you think we'll even get to a signing ceremony? in let's say 60 to 80 days, if they have to bump it a couple times to try and get across the finish line. Call us, 1-800-68-4-3110.
And do you also trust the administration and the negotiations that they would do? That they know all the issues with the Obama deal. They know all the issues with the Iranians. They've been the ones saying it for so long. Do you trust that they know what they're dealing with and that if they get to a deal, they are confident in what they have put into that deal that they will be able to force the Iranians to live up to it?
Iranians aren't going to live up to it on their own, but can the mechanisms that we create and put in place can it hold them to account? Right. And will the countries surrounding Iran join us in doing that?
So that, again, it's not just up to the United States and Israel to make sure Iran goes forward with this deal. Or if there is a hiccup in the deal, that the U.S. and Israel have to go right back to war footing. Are there going to be the allies in the Gulf states that have been good allies during this process who will make sure, along with us? That Iran is staying within these parameters and is there as an enforcement tool as well.
And I think, again, reading off these 14 points is not going to tell us anything about what we're ultimately going to get to, or if we get to anything long term. Um, but at the end of the day, as you've heard from President Trump and other leaders, you want to give it a shot so much as Iran is open to trying to get to that actual long-term agreement in 60 days. If you can't, and 35 days from now, all hell breaks loose in this region of the Middle East. Are you? I'm not concerned about the United States or Israel being there.
And I think we're going to be there with a larger amount of allies than we would have been before this conflict began, which is interesting as well. That's right. Give us a call: 1-800-684-3110. I see a lot of you calling in, still have a few phone lines open. It is the final segment of the broadcast, so we will try to take as many of those calls as call in and we can get to 1-800-684-3110.
I see a lot of people saying they don't trust that we could even get there. Call me and tell me, 1-800-684-3110. But right now, consider supporting the work of the ACLJ. You get this broadcast every single day for free. We break all these issues down, but it's not just this.
It's not just the media. It's that legal side. It's fighting for that girl in Washington State against her school district that repeatedly goes after her. Go to aclj.org and support our work today. Welcome back to Sekulow.
Will Haynes here, Jordan Sekulow in studio. Final segment of the broadcast, and we're going to take your phone calls. Let's first go to Doug calling from Colorado on line one. Doug, you're on Sekulow. Hey guys, thanks for all you do.
The Iranian people themselves, we're not getting a lot of a I'm not finding a lot. As far as what the situation is on the ground with people in their daily lives, with their creature comforts. I know it's a huge country. It's one and a half times. the size of Texas in a very diverse you know, peop a group of people different people there.
But I think their thirst for freedom can be enough to where this will help us to get over the line to where Iran would be forced to work with us When it comes to this peace deal, I want to get your thoughts on that.
Well, Doug, I mean, so here's kind of where, and we broke this down quite a bit last week.
Some of the issues arise with people like us that really have yearned for a free Iran, a Persian people, as well as the other ethnic groups that are there. I mean, I know and have friends in our lives that have families that fled Iran, that are persecuted groups. I'm talking about Kurds, Baha'i, other minority groups within Iran that were not. Persian Muslims that were a part of the Islamic revolution, or in some way a protected class in Iran. That, yes, there is something that we have always fought for and hoped for.
And one of the things that we hoped for even was if it wasn't regime change by toppling everything, sending boots on the ground, because America hasn't had a good track record of that. Was that it would give the support to the people to take back their country. Here's one of the concerning items in the memorandum of understanding.
Now I understand why Iran would want this in here and also why we would sign it if we're negotiating with a country, right? Like This is kind of a boilerplate statement, but also gives me concern for the future because of us that do want a free Iran. It's point two. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs.
Now, we know Iran interferes in ours all the time. They send assassins here to try to kill people. But that does, as far as a statement of understanding, we're saying we're not going to meddle with your internal affairs. At some point, Will, and I think this gets to what the caller is saying, too, is we have got to get a much better understanding from our government. And I'm not saying to do that right now because it might put these Iranian negotiators in danger in their own country.
But at some point, you're going to have to explain to us. Those who have been defenders of the administration, those who are usually on the side of the administration, but maybe this time are not, or just questioning, I think that's fine to question. Who are we actually negotiating with? That can six months from now or two years from now. Feel we can feel confident that part three of that 14-point deal, that part three will be followed.
Or, like, part two. And so, who is the person putting their name on this piece of paper for the Islamic Republic of Iran? And do they have the long-term power? And political will to be someone that the next set of Iranian leaders will even respect, or will they just reject them and say, wasn't our names on there? They signed it because they were weak, because they were weak towards the Americans.
We reject all this, and then we're back to where we were before this conflict began, which no one wants to do after such a successful military campaign that it's brought Iran to a level where they are actually picking up the phone and telling Hezbollah to knock it off. But is that going to continue past the unknown real leaders that are signing these deals? Is that going to even last a year or two? I'm not talking about a decade yet, but a year or two, or for my kids, for my family, even for me. Because these things have been so short.
For our own generation? Or is this just a band-aid to get us to another election cycle? And that is what I think the American people want to know. If we went in there and used this kind of force, what has this brought us? That was Doug's exact point.
How has this benefited the United States? Not just did it benefit the Iranian people at all? I'm not so sure. The Ayatollah being in charge with a stronger Islamic Revolutionary Guard doesn't seem to be benefiting the Iranian people. Will it benefit our ally like Israel or the Gulf states that were being fired upon by Iran?
It may benefit some of those Gulf states. I'm not sure if you're Israel because Hezbollah didn't take the lead when they were part, you know, mentioned in the initial deal. What did they do immediately? Fired at Israel, who had to fire back. And so Iran had to go back to Hezbollah and say, knock it off for 60 days.
At what point do those Hezbollah leaders say we're stronger than the Iranian leaders? And so, you know what? We're going to take our battle where we want to take our battle. They're the ones that are negotiating with the great Satan, the United States.
So, let's not listen to them anymore. I mean, so this again, to me, needs to be handled by, I get we've got J.D. Vance.
Okay, so we've got the vice President, we've got the President's name on there, too. Who is doing this for Iran? Right. That can long, that I could have any long-term confidence, and long-term for Iran for me is a few years. And that's not like a decade, even a few years of confidence that this will hold.
And that's kind of the rub here, right? Is that we actually have an administration that tells us what's going on. Yeah. But also to a certain point, they aren't going to.
So it gets a little. This is a unique situation. Yeah, it gets a little difficult when they're like, we're telling you as much as we can, but also you need to trust us to some degree. Because normally they're like, hey, we're going to show you the proof. And that's where it does get a little bit more interesting as you go along.
Let's try to get to, we'll try to get both, but we know we're going to Robert online three from Texas. Robert, you're on Sekulow. Hey, you know, my answer to your question is I don't see why Iran is incentivized to make a good deal. a deal that gives the U. S.
and the West more security when we just tear those agreements up. And like you're like you're speaking to. Does it just get us to the next? To the next President, to the next blue or red guy that's gonna change the red Versus the blue, I don't see the benefit of this. Yeah, Robin.
I think I would say to that point, and I want to try to get to the other color, but we may not get to you, Dan. Here's what I think. One, as we come to the end of this and we see We took military action and we got to negotiations. And some people are like, well, what was the point? Here was the exact point.
Because the Barack Obamas of the world and really anyone else. would say Make a deal with us, make a deal with us. They took away the credible threat of military force against Iran. You knew. That Barack Obama was never going to attack Iran.
And maybe that's what a lot of people celebrate about him, but why would they ever care to make a deal? What we have seen is that this administration had the resolve to follow through with what they were saying. It's like, if you keep doing this, we're going to bomb it into oblivion. And they did.
Now, make a deal. The reason the JCPOA was so weak, in many cases, it may have had strong language. But it was so weak because they didn't believe America would do anything about it. And they didn't do anything about it for a very long time.
So that's why you had to rip it up, because it didn't really do anything but give them the pathway.
So you even told the screener they have a bigger reason to build a nuclear bomb. No, because now they actually know that our intelligence, if we see it happening, The American people will stop us. And that's what I think the difference is here. Yeah, exactly right. I think that, again, We showed we will act.
Now that's new for your rod. We showed that we will act with unbelievable force that they can't prevent.
So, they know we can go further, they know we can go longer, and they know that they can't really do anything about it.
So, that they have to keep in the back of their minds. It's whether or not they're religious fanaticism. will actually make it past their reasoned mind and thinking. Thanks for watching, Sekulow. We'll talk to you tomorrow.
