Today on Secula, we have breaking news as Iran fires missiles at Kuwait. 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 Haines in Studio. I'll be joined by Jordan Sekulow momentarily as well. And we've got a lot to talk about. As the conflict with Iran starts to heat up more, what did we see?
We saw overnight that Iran. Once again. firing a barrage of missiles at Kuwait this time.
Now Kuwait is a very strategic point for the United States with a very large military presence there. And they have been a frequent target of the Iranians throughout this conflict.
So much so that Iran has multiple times targeted the civilian airport of Kuwait.
So much so that a portion of it was shut down, not just because of the ongoing conflict, but because of it being destroyed. by Iranian missiles and drone attacks. But what we see is that overnight, Kuwait's air defenses intercepted the incoming missiles and drones after sirens sounded across the country, according to Kuwait's Ministry of Defense, which described the attack as a blatant Iranian aggression. The Iranians on their part, took credit for it.
So they were doing it because of the proximity of these locations they tried to hit that were to U.S. military personnel. All of this at the same time, you see that President Trump is going out there and making the statement. That this renewed U.S. campaign.
against Iran won't last long. What does that mean? Does it mean that the economic D-Day and sanctions that we talked about yesterday with Secretary Mike Pompeo are working to the point that they think Iran is contained? It's no longer the threat. They've destroyed enough of their infrastructure militarily.
And they've destroyed their economy successfully. We've also seen renewed calls by the President for the people to rise up.
So going back to that idea that even early on We talked about of weakening the regime, weakening the IRGC, and allowing the people to take their country back. Are we at that point? The entire time we were saying it could be that is the plan all along. We don't know. We have to wait and see.
We're only not even a full year into this, where there's already been the comparisons of Vietnam or those that have all along been saying that we've just been doing Israel's bidding. We know that that is not the case. We know it's not true. You also can't make a Vietnam comparison to something that's not even 12 months old yet when that war lasted for 20 years, multiple presidencies. And we don't have a single boot on the ground in Iran.
So the comparisons there. Not even a place you can start. But we are going to talk about this because after a month of quiet, we have seen the U.S. and Iran trading fire. We are seeing Iran going back to their playbook of hitting Gulf neighbors.
Instead of directly attacking the U. S. vessels, I think that tells you something about their capabilities and what they are confident they can do. But we're also going to talk about some other things during this hour. We're going to share a video with you That you can share, that we encourage you to share as we try to flood the zone with information about Pastor Saw to bring him home ahead of Xi Jinping's visit here later this month, just a few weeks away.
as well as some interesting Conversation that A very famous I'd say formerly conservative. Commentator Journalists have put that in quotes. has been putting out on the internet. It's gonna surprise you, and I think it tells a lot more about the story of this person's evolution. then maybe they'd like you to know.
We'll be right back with more on Sekulow. Jordan Sekulow will be joining me in studio as we go over all of this, but I want to hear from you, whether it's on the Iran conflict, whether it's on our work here, trying to bring Pastor Sa home. Or maybe even about some of these candidates like Abdul Al-Sayed, that's now starting to sound like. He may have the backing. Of someone that Many of us listened to for a long time.
Give us a call, 1-800-684-3110, to be on air. 1-800-684-3110. We'll be right back after this break with Jordan as we break this all down on this beautiful. Thursday in September. We'll be right back with more.
Welcome back to Sekulow. Will Haynes here, joined in studio by Jordan and Jordan. The Iranians have decided to try to ratchet things up again. The United States did a very specific strategic strike at what looked like mine-laying vehicles, boats, craft that were taken out. Near the Strait of Hormuz, and then Iran decided now is the time to start launching rockets and missiles at our Gulf neighbors, as they like to do.
I think it, one, it tells you a lot about the Iranians that they're not saying, let's try to hit these aircraft carriers, let's try to hit the very strong Navy that the United States has in the region. But at the same time, they are still going after military personnel. They are still trying to hit bases and radar systems in Jordan, in Kuwait, in Bahrain, in Iraq.
So, Overnight, they hit Kuwait. That's been a very favorable target for them to try and hit. While Kuwait does have very good anti-missile systems, they haven't had to use them as much as places like Israel, so therefore a little bit untested. But right now, we're even looking at this, and Iran seems to be. Weakened to the point where not even their missile attacks are able to get through it all.
Yes, I mean, and we're also seeing that while they threaten these larger attacks and they put out these social media videos and you see their propaganda online that they're going to shoot off ICBMs, and there's a lot of talk for those who are anti-the position of the Trump administration here inside the United States that we are somehow running out of ammunition and we can't figure out how to produce more if we need to. I don't really believe that as well, by the way. If we need to produce more ammunition, we've got plenty of companies in the United States that can do that very quickly. But that look where Iran is having to go. They're choosing.
Easier targets. And like you said, Will, even then, having a tough time striking them.
So while there's the economic kind of noose around Iran that continues to tighten, and that's through the Treasury Department, and we've seen a lot of talk about that the last two days, they are still instead of trying to make friends. With their neighbors in the Middle East. They are still treating anyone who works with the United States at all as an enemy. And again, you can see how long term we are building a coalition against Iran that could prevent a kind of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard from expanding its work because these were countries that in the past kind of had to do, had to keep things as neutral as possible.
Now they've been hit by Iran.
So they can treat Iran as a real enemy, as a real threat. And so we're building a major coalition in the Middle East. And I don't think it gets enough attention of countries, not just Israel and the U.S., but of most of the Muslim world in the Middle East. to take on Iran and to make sure we at a minimum Are containing their abilities to get a nuclear weapon and their abilities to carry out more violent attacks outside of Iran.
Well, and once again, I think that it does show the strength of the United States being the leader here. Obviously, you've had all the influencers that have wanted to say that Israel drug us into this, but I think that goes to show the cooperation between countries like Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, ones that are not signatories to the Abraham Accords at this point. have by almost by by sheer necessity Right. With the state of Israel. And I think that that is something for the long term, for the world.
Leads to a more peaceful world. Just in and of itself, the fact that these countries have begun to have to, out of necessity, share intel, share military, not secrets per se, but just military plans so that they don't end up harming each other. They have become on the same side in this conflict.
So I think even there, If it were to cease today, And we contain them with the destructive economic sanctions that we have in place. As Scott Bessant says, we're going to keep adding to them every week. I think if you're going to maybe bring down the military side of the conflict, I think you've got to up the economic sanctions because Iran knows how to survive that. And then, if you let them do business around the world, they'll fill their coffers again. And we know instead of taking care of their own people or the prices of normal goods there, they're going to get that money to their terrorist proxies.
Who actually, what we've now seen will, when they can't get money to their terrorist proxies, Iran itself is not nearly as good as some of those proxy groups were at carrying out combat and military operations.
So, with Hezbollah without as many resources, it doesn't pose the same kind of threat. Of course, Hamas really doesn't even exist as an entity now. And yes, it's brought forward those other countries who were no fans of Iran, by the way. It wasn't like the Saudis love the Iranians or the Qataris love the Iranians. Iranians, but I mean, they were right across the straits from each other, the Gulf from each other, the Persian Gulf, if you want to call it that, the Arabian Gulf, depending on where you are in the Middle East.
But this gave them the opportunity to say, you know what, and to their people. We need to be working with countries, if we're just talking about business and safety and security, that aren't going to be the type of countries that turn on us because of who we do business with and then start shooting missiles at our buildings. And that's what Iran is. And it's why it's not a good partner. It's not a good neighbor.
And it's why I think even the countries like North Korea, Russia, and China, they don't really ever fully partner with Iran. They sell things to Iran.
So they will economically benefit and use Iran, especially when Iran has nowhere else to get its goods.
So they'll buy their gas, the oil cheap. They will take advantage of the sanctions that are on them right now to kind of price gouge them. But at the same time, I don't think they want to be, they're not going to rely on Iran either. At the end of the day, those countries aren't, Iran isn't going to be the hill they die on. No, no.
There is no... And we've seen that, right? Iran is going to be the first hill that dies, and they'll just walk away. And that's what we've seen. We've even seen the.
Mm-hmm. The economic support that China continues because they like being the only ones that can get the oil and no one's going to really mess with them. I think a lot of that is going to be constrained now by these new economic sanctions. I think it also goes back to the constraints, the maximum pressure campaign that the President did in his first term with Mike Pompeo. Worked to a large degree.
It contained Iran. They were put in a place where they weren't able to really do much of their adventurism and exporting of terror. But what did Biden do? Started signing waivers day one that allowed them to go and do things like October 7th, allowed them to build up these missile programs.
So I think that using these tools, the economic tools, with the kinetic force that we have shown we're willing to do. Because at the end of the day, if the economic sanctions are only that, and there's still no real Credible military threat behind it, as we saw from Barack Obama and Joe Biden, then they are going to continue to break the rules. With a dead Ayatollah, an IRGC that is cash-strapped, I do think you could see real momentum, especially for an overthrow internally.
Well, and see, and that is what people have been talking about. It's like, what would an overthrow look like? Even President Trump has expressed some frustration about at what point will the Iranian people take this opportunity, the best opportunity they've had in a long time, and maybe ever since the 1979 revolution, because they've got the military, they've asked for the U.S. to intervene so many times. We finally have.
We did tell them to stand back for a while, and we're still kind of in one of those situations where the conflict can get pretty heavy quickly. But the President has said. And this is a learning experience, I think, for the United States. Is it Will going to be a country that. The citizens will rise up.
Or is this going to be an ongoing problem that we must contain? And we can handle it either way. I'd much rather work with a friddly new Iran that is a lot more like the Iran of the early 1970s and 1960s, that allows women to have the same rights, that isn't radicalizing and basically being the number one sponsor of terror in the world. And could go back to, again, kind of. Becoming part of the world economy, part of a good factor in the Middle East and in that part of the world.
But if the people have been too radicalized, I think we have to be ready for option two. Option two is they're not going to overthrow this government because the resistance isn't as big as we hoped. Because we're learning through this. We've never really tested it before. And because of that, we will have to go with containment.
Now, containment doesn't have to be nearly as significant as what's been going on, but I think it's very important, Will, that whoever the President is in the future too, to continue that, if you have to continue that containment, is it's got to have that military threat there. And that means the bases there need to be well armed, and we need to keep this coalition in the Middle East together. And we will get to your phone calls as well. Russ is calling from New York. We'll get to him in the next segment.
So, Russ, hang on. We'll get to you right away. But if you have questions about this, if you want to speak into this, if you wish that we are getting out now or anything. I mean, the President is saying that. This renewed U.S.
campaign won't last long. What does that mean? Give us a call, 1-800-684-3110. But we've got a lot of other interesting angles on this as well. And some has to do with some very popular.
Conservative, if you want to say, broadcasters, former broadcasters, now on podcasting and their own network, if you will. that are saying some very strange things that I don't think The vast majority of people who claim to be a conservative will agree with. And that person is Tucker Carlson. and whom he is now deciding may be the better candidate. in a hotly contested Senate race.
We'll get to that as well.
So go ahead and give us a call at 1-800-684-3110 if you want to talk about any of these topics on air. Welcome back to Sekulow, and I think it's an interesting time. Because we talk about this economic angle of the Iranian conflict, and we know that Xi Jinping is coming later this month. to meet with the President here in Washington, D.C. And One of the main suppliers of funds to Iran at this point is China as they are able to a little bit.
More easily negotiate around U.S. sanctions. Smaller countries may not be willing to. Do it as brazenly as you see from the folks in the Chinese leadership.
So, I think we can tie that to this case with Pastor Saw, and we'll do that in a minute. But I want to go to Russ on line one from New York. Russ, you're on Sekulow. Go ahead. Oh, thank you very much, Will.
And I have a question for Jordan. But my question for you, Will, as a historian, is about the War Powers Act. Because I just heard that the War Powers Act was intended for an attack on the U.S. mainland when Congress can't meet and until Congress can approve it.
So my question for you, Will, is should Trump be able to continue the hostilities by calling ceasefires every 60 days and then renewing it? Or is that sort of some kind of slick forever war trick? And what I want to ask Jordan, but what I want to ask Jordan? Hello, can I ask Jordan? Because, Jordan, I want to ask you, do you think there'll be an overthrow or a rally around the flag effect?
And I want to let you know, I'm MAGA left. I'm for Medicare for All. No war, no tax cuts for billionaires on borrowed money. And the MAGA left will welcome you, Jackson Hinkle, and all of us.
So I'll listen to your answer, fellas. Thank you. First of all, if you're trying to get us to join your side with Jackson Hinkle, No, thank you. I think that is the worst way that you could pitch yourself. But one, I think.
The War Powers Act, as it's written, I mean, there weren't hostilities for over a month. The Constitution isn't meant to hamstring the Commander-in-Chief from protecting the America.
So, I mean. I would say that's something that's been litigated. It's been argued over ad nauseum. Yeah, it's not a cute move to get around the role. I mean, this has gone through courts many, many different times.
And what the courts have said is: the President has this power. This is how it works. And so those advising the President know exactly what needs to be done, what you have to provide to Congress at different points. And it has a system in place like that. And then at what point do you have to go and look forward these resolutions, which, by the way, we haven't seen a War Powers Resolution Act.
We've seen authorizations of the use of military force. AUMFs were utilized during Iraq and Afghanistan. And even President Obama utilized those to continue when they were looking for and then successfully took out Osama bin Laden that he had that ability to carry out.
So he wasn't seeking a new AUMF from Congress. And so I think, again, the War Powers Act, it would. In some instances, it'd be great, but we also know that because now all issues become these like political issues, that we have to still have a country that can act and a leader that can act quickly to protect us and our allies and our interests. And remember, I say us because we have U.S. troops all over that region, and we have to be able to protect them.
We shouldn't have to wait for Congress to approve that. And again, If you look back in our shorter term history, we have not been using the War Powers Act as much as we, I'm not sure when the last of it was, honestly, because of the authorization of use of military force, the AUMF.
Well, and once again, I think Russ, one, Russ has called before. And what I appreciate about Russ is that he's not, he doesn't get on and trick the phone screener, even though he may not agree with us on everything. He listens and he's thoughtful. And even if it's a question coming from the other side, he's respectful in it.
So congratulations on getting through and being able to have a conversation. We're not afraid of that. When people do, though, lie to the phone screener, yeah, you're probably going to get dropped and not be able to make a statement. But also, the. The fact that I think he speaks for a lot of people.
In one way, because there are a lot of people. He says he's the MAGA left. He's for things that. Medicare for all. He wants no wars.
And once again, that is something that President Trump obviously ran on: lowering prices, no new wars. This is obviously something that we have been very vocal in support of this conflict with Iran. But I do want to go back to that War Powers Act question one once again, because. They also did bring resolutions in Congress that failed.
So, in some ways, by not moving forward and limiting the President's authority, as they had. ability to through resolutions They, in a sense, also allowed it to continue within Congress that there's. It's not as though Congress didn't have any say in this. And there are many in Congress that by not pushing for and approving these war powers resolutions, getting through both the House and the Senate to limit it, to end the hostilities, they are allowing it to continue.
So it's not as if Congress had no part in this and it's just President Trump acting alone. That's right. Congress can act. And we've actually seen members of Congress, even on the right, be defeated or leave office because of their disagreement with the President on this. And it was interesting to see, I think, in Thomas Massey's race that he lost after building a significant war chest and was fairly popular, even though he took this line.
But he had become almost a Democrat vote, like anti-Trump on everything almost. And so he did not, he lost his primary.
So that there were even the Republicans that were starting to take those views, there's less and less of them in Congress, and there'll be even less of them when the new Congress comes in in January.
So, you've got that on top of the fact that we'll say, like, no one's stopping Congress from trying to intervene. They aren't intervening, I think, because they all do understand, even if they don't like saying it publicly, that this is the right thing to be doing. Because Iran has become a threat to not just Israel, the United States through their terror proxies. Enough is enough. And it's time for the rest of the Middle East to come on board.
And it has united the Middle East in a way that could you could go back to like 2002, 2003, 2004. Do you think 20 years later, 22 years later, we'd be in a coalition? With almost every functioning government in the Middle East right now against Iran.
So you leave out like the Yemens, which are the failed states, and some of the ones that are like Turkey who've got these weird NATO interests there. But I mean, countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the list goes on and on, not just about having military bases there, but going on airstrikes against Iran and Iran responding. And so let's keep the long term is let's keep that coalition together, which means that it could be less U.S. involvement. There will always need to be some on the military and security side, but really empower that region to, if Iran in this regime does not fall.
To encircle that regime with enemies. And that then tells us Russia, Russia, and China: do you really want to only do business with Iran and lose doing business with Saudi Arabia and these other countries, Kuwait, and all these other countries that you've been doing business with before? Because they've lost Venezuela. They may be about to lose Cuba. And then they are on the precipice of being in a position where doing business with Iran is too dangerous to their other financial interests.
We will continue this discussion, and you can call and join this discussion at 1-800-684-3110. But this, I can't believe the first half hour of the show has already flown by. We'll be back with more after this very short break, so stick around. But if you want to read the work or see more of the work of the ACLJ, I encourage you to go to aclj.org and just look around. We have incredible content from our attorneys, from Secretary Pompeo on a piece that just came out.
We talked about it yesterday: how the U.S. wins the war in Iran. Check all of that rich content out at aclj.org. There's no paywall, it's all free, all because of those that support the work of the ACLJ. Check it out.
Keeping you informed and engaged now more than ever. This is Sekulow. Welcome to Sekulow, second half hour of the broadcast. We've been talking about the renewed strikes that Iran has placed on Kuwait and other Gulf neighbors, other allies of the United States, as well as the U.S. retaliating to those attacks as well.
I'm going to go to Ronald, who's calling from Georgia online three. And if you want to be like Ronald, go ahead and give us a call: 1-800-684-3110 to be on air. But, Ronald, go ahead. You're on Sekulow. Yes, thanks for taking my call.
I I remember back in uh World War II days, we used to drop leaflets telling the population what we were trying to do. And we want to have get them have their human rights and government that they can work with.
So is does anybody know if we're doing anything like that, dropping leaflets?
Well, I don't know specifically if we've done that in Iran.
Now, that's something that Israel does quite often in the conflict with Hamas in Gaza. You see that all the time.
Now, the mainstream media doesn't like to report that. Israel is dropping leaflets, telling people when there's going to be a strike, when there's going to be things. They are telegraphing to the citizens. And what does Hamas do? They make sure they contain people.
They make sure they don't let them get away from their military targets or they place their military targets within schools and hospitals.
So that is something that is used still to this day in the region.
Now, I don't have any specific intel on whether we've done that in Iran at this point. I know that early on there were Starlinks and things that Elon Musk was able to get in to get some internet access. Our leaders, I think I point to our leaders.
So it hasn't been leaflets. It's been people like President Trump utilizing social media and members of our military, high-ranking, about what citizens in Iran should be doing. And I remember early on in this, it was, you know, this is a time to stay safe. You let us carry out, and it'll be clear when there's a time for you to hit the streets. And I think what's confused that a bit is that while we've had some ceasefires that have lasted a few weeks at a time, there hasn't been a long-term.
Lull.
So, when you go right back to firing going on and military action, you certainly wouldn't want to tell the people of Iran, okay, now is the time to do it. And then the next day, you're having to go in and launch serious weaponry in areas that could be heavily populated.
So, I think that's probably been one of the issues. But early on, if you remember with this, the US position was: let us do what we can do militarily, and then you will have the opportunity to take to the streets. And again, we're learning and figuring out: is this an Iranian population at large which is willing? to risk their own lives if given the right situation. To attempt to overthrow this government for some kind of regime change.
It's not going to be the U.S. leading the regime change. It's going to be the Iranian people. And if they don't, unfortunately, I think we have to look at the other option, which is the containment option we were talking about, Will, in the first 30 minutes of the broadcast, is that we don't want Iran to ever get back to a place of where it was from October 7th. October 7th, where it had the kind of resources and abilities to fund terrorism at the top level around the world and keep its people relatively happy and satiated.
And even if there were protests, they were allowed to go in and kill those protesters, and the world kind of did nothing. And so we don't want an Iran that gets back to that situation. And we we can't have an Iran that is firing off missiles and drones at our Middle East allies and neighbors and coalition partners.
Now, I think if we can use this coalition. It may be more long-term than any of us thought. But what a coalition it would be to bring the U.S. and Israel together with many of the Sunni countries of the Middle East to not just talk about containing Iran, but effectively continue to contain Iran and weaken their abilities to fund terrorism around the world. I think Jordan, you just laid out perfectly.
Why even this conflict could make the region safer, even if the IRGC does still control Iran? But at the same time, you're seeing this conflict do some strange things to people who traditionally were conservative. You see them turn on Jews in Israel. You also see them embrace very strange companions here in the United States, candidates, We'll tell you when we get back who that is. Welcome back to Sekulow.
We've been teasing this for the majority of the show, and I have a feeling some of you are going to want to call in on this at 1-800-684-3110. But just when you thought it couldn't get any more bizarre on the types of things that Tucker Carlson is willing to say. You have this from a recent episode of his show, and this is where he has Sagar and Jetty on and they're talking about the race in Michigan versus Mike Rogers versus Abdul El Syed.
Now We know that Abdul al-Sayed has made The entire race about Israel because Haley Stevens was getting money from APAC. And so she's a foreign agent. And he won. Obviously, the APAC money. Wasn't as effective as he likes to claim, but The end of the day, that's what happened.
Now, Mike Rogers, who is a supporter of Israel, conservative, very much a, I would say, a more hawkish Republican, has a history on the Armed Services Committee, had a long career in Congress, but now is running for Senate. Here is how Tucker Carlson and his guest frame Abdul Al Syed. In Michigan, Let's play bite two. I watch his campaign now. It's America First.
The amount of times he says he doesn't even, when he talks about Israel, He says Israel is committing a genocide, but ultimately, I want to make sure that you don't pay more for healthcare. I don't want your tax dollars going abroad to fund this barbaric military. He stands in front of a giant American flag. It's almost Trumpian in terms of a lot.
Well, it's literally Trumpian. Exactly. It's literally Trumpian. Abdul Al Syed is literally Trumpian. This is someone who campaigned openly with Hassan Piker.
This is someone who adopts basically every platform of the DSA, but still tries to say he's a capitalist. He is for abolishing ICE. He is for defunding the police. He makes the argument that of all tries to make Israel the entire spotlight of his campaign. He would refuse to reject people like Hassan Piker with all their statements about America deserving 9-11.
That's not very Trumpian. First of all, Second of all, he also said he wouldn't. Vote for Mike Rogers if he had a gun to his head. Those were his words. I never thought.
Now, I understand that we talk about Trump derangement syndrome, but the Israel derangement syndrome that has infected some members of the. What used to be conservative right is so bizarre how far they will go. I can understand saying, I don't like anyone in that race. But to effectively embrace What what Abdul Al Sayed stands for Is unbelievable to me. I think he's going to be some kind of helpful vote for President Trump in his final two years in office.
I mean, the truth is, this is, again, even when you kind of sometimes you have to like hold your nose when you vote because you have to look at the big picture. And the big picture is a numbers game in Washington of who, especially when it comes to the House and the Senate. And you don't want to lose control if you've got control. And we barely have control, conservatives, of the House and the Senate. And it's going to be tough to retain both of those.
So anytime you're supporting the other party, you are putting that in jeopardy, especially if you're acting like supporting that other candidate is somehow the more pro-American move because he agrees more with your foreign policy, which I think has gotten so twisted from Tucker Carlson. We've called it out. It's his obsession. It's every other broadcast or every single broadcast. And I don't like always constantly highlighting it, but I do think.
If you have friends and family, that I know his podcast was initially very popular, kind of a little conspiracy theorist and a little, you know, lots of different topics and guests, but now it's like 100%. I'm just trying to train people to hate Israel and also kind of be pro the Muslim world. And I mean, so it's very bizarre coming from someone who. Used to have at least these beliefs, but he's now said that those were really just put on him by his corporate overlords, as he would like to say. And that now he's seen the light.
And the light is that I guess radical Islamic groups and their candidates who blame and have to take down their tweets on 9-11 because they don't want people to see it, that those are better candidates than a long-term Republican members of the House like Mike Rogers for Senate in Michigan, someone that Michigan Republicans have wanted to see take on a bigger role in our country a number of times. And he's been close. And I think that this is just, again, confusing the base of the Republican Party. And we'll. Tucker Carlson isn't doing this because he cares about who.
I don't think he cares about who wins or loses, but does he really think more of the Al-Sides as members of Congress would be good for his kids and grandkids' future? Really? Like, that's the direction we want to go is more Abdul Assad.
So basically, socialist and anti-Israel, anti-Semitic. And guess what comes right after that? They don't really like Christians either because he tried to use, he's tried to use that in debates too on canon law and things like that, which is kind of just absurd. But Let's just look at reality. Does Tucker Carlson really believe those people are better?
And that's those are the kind of leaders he wants his kids and grandkids to grow up in in the United States of America. I can't imagine if you could actually get an honest answer out of him and not just the role he plays on his podcast, that he could answer that as yes. But on his podcast, he's playing this role.
Well, and I think trust this is the interesting contrast right now because Van Jones, who was early on in the Obama administration, was the green job czar, and he became the target of Glenn Beck and conservative media and was quickly that was the first person to get the attention and had to leave the administration six months in to President Obama's first term in 2009. And when you look back and you think, man, that was like the far left. Here's what he had to say about Abdul Al Sayed. And I want to contrast what Tucker Carlson is saying and what Van Jones is saying by three. These people are incredibly dangerous.
The Abdul uh who You know, I work with at CNN. I know Abdul. Um His positions. On Israel and foreign policy are insane. They're not reasonable reactions to anything.
Look, some Democrats are going to say that we should condition military aid, that Israel's gone too far in Gaza and the West Bank and in Lebanon. You're going to put some conditions on you. I think that's a defensible position if you're a Democrat. That's not Abdul's position. There are people who say We shouldn't be paying for any of the Uh military.
Yeah, we shouldn't be giving milk. That's understandable, but I think indefensible because It's not charity. We're building a strong defense sector here, and Israel is. Protecting a lot of Western interests in that region. But I can I can I can get why you would say, no more A.
They got to pay their own way. That's not Abdul's position. Abdul's position. Is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel, including defensive weapons. Once again, That's an insane position.
This is coming from who was. Considered the most radical member of the Obama administration.
Now, that's been almost 20 years. People mature. People grow up. Maybe he was a little bit more aggressive as a younger. Green jobs are.
Or maybe. He's a rational human being. That can see, hey, maybe I don't like some of these things here, but is this a defensible position? And can point out within his own party, by the way, Van Jones wants nothing more. than a a majority in the Senate and House.
But he's going to call out. What is an indefensible position? That is what I think we can learn from Van Jones: calling out people that consider themselves conservatives or members of the right. For having indefensible positions. And I think Tucker Carlson saying that Abdul Al-Syed is very Trumpian is an indefensible position to have.
Yes, it is. I mean, it's a joke. And it's the only part that is, I think, why we have to cover it is because we know that the podcast has a lot of listeners. I think he confuses a lot of conservatives by the way he talks. And he still has that tone that you think, okay, this is a voice I used to like and trust.
And he wasn't afraid to ask tough questions. But now he's putting out like the propaganda of the Muslim world. And again, I go back to just looking at these candidates. If Van Jones is concerned about him, and you think about this kind of where the left has gone from, like if Van Jones was the radical left in the Obama years, look at the radical left now. I mean, they're not even signed up with the Democrat Party.
They run as Democrats, but they really are, you know, socialists. How socialist are they? And they're not afraid of attacking Israel. But one of the reasons they're.
so upfront about their attacks on Israel. is because of young conservatives. And so it's young conservatives that we need to also be talking to directly about why supporting Israel is important, about why it's not just like a blank check or something like that, but why we do it, how it again benefits the United States. And I think we can do a better job of that and we can change this younger generation who is taking on this Tucker Carlson viewpoint, even on our side of the politics. We'll be back with more of this.
If you want to call us, 1-800-684-3110, and we'll talk to you on air. Welcome back to Sekulow, final segment of the broadcast. If you want to be on air to talk about the Iran situation, Or if you want to talk about the Tucker Carlson situation. 1-800-684-3110. We will be discussing both of them in this segment.
I did want to read this for you, Jordan, because we did see earlier this week that Vice President Vance, who obviously has ambitions for 2028, went to the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas. He went there to kind of make amends, to be in the room, to show that he isn't anti their position on Israel or even anti-Semitism. Here's a fascinating quote. This is out of an article from the New York Times titled, Can J.D. Vance Win Over Skeptical Jewish Voters?
Okay, so this was before he went, he had this closed-door meeting with individuals.
Some of the audio leaked. Uh but here was a quote that the New York Times got from Nick Fuentes. About J. D. Vance.
It says Mr. Fuentes told the Times: J.D. Vance panders to the far right. but simply doesn't want the baggage of associating with the far right. Adding If he has a problem with quote anti-Semites, then he should start by disavowing his best friend, Tucker Carlson.
So sometimes truth comes from the most unlikely of sources. Not that I run around quoting Nick Fuentez ever. But there you have it. I think that kind of lays out what we're seeing. I think it's interesting.
One, the New York Times headline is interesting because it's, you know, can he court Jewish voters? I think it's more simple into a Republican Jewish voters because it's not like we've seen yet this massive move, though we might start seeing it because of the candidates, these Al Syeds, the Mandamis, the others that have gone through primaries that Jewish voters feel like they may have to start looking at other parties that they traditionally wouldn't have. But yes, it's very tough to keep that relationship, Will, with Tucker Carlson at the same time telling people that you don't support this anti-Semitism, that you're trying to get to the young people in the party that we've talked about a lot here who have taken on some of those Nick Fuentes positions, and that we need to have a conversation with them about why that's wrong. And we need to lay it out in a way that might be different than how we laid out support for Israel for previous generations, that they need to hear it as a more strategic way and a more economic way, a technological way, and that they just aren't going. To accept it like maybe their parents and grandparents did because of the way that they understood the relationship.
I'm all for that because we have seen that move on the far right. I mean, that's not good as Nick Fuentez has done.
So that I like that from J.D. Vance, but I think he gets in a good dig because you cannot do that and at the same time continue to give a major profile to Tucker Carlson by going onto his broadcast.
Well, and I think it goes back to what we were talking about with the Van Jones issue. Van Jones and I and you, politically, policy-wise, probably agree on almost nothing. I don't, I haven't gone through everything he would claim as policy ideology. Very, very little. And even in that bite we played in the last segment, where he's talking about, you know, these could be defensible positions of saying we don't want certain kinds of weapons or putting conditions.
Like, I don't know where he lands on that, but he's saying those are defensible. That's the old school when people say, You know, like you can have issues with the government of a country without being anti-Semitic. It's more what Van Jones was doing. Should there be conditions on some of the military aid?
Now, we would disagree with that if that was a position you were necessarily advocating for. But They've taken that line of saying, oh, we are just disagreeing with Netanyahu and adopted that. To cover for their true anti-Semitism. Right, which is they don't want any support going. They don't really care who it is.
And so, yes, they'll pick someone to focus on now to kind of build support for. But as you said, it's not even reasonable discussion.
So, the reasonable left, and again, on foreign policy issues, they know that Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They know it's actually a very liberal country. And I mean that in a way that would have a lot of things that were more in common sometimes with Democrats. It's a much smaller country, so it's hard to make comparisons. It's kind of apples and oranges when you talk about a country that's the size of some of our smaller states.
But they also are the tip of the spear for the United States in the fight against terrorism and not just Iran, but others who would want to hurt us and military technology.
So, whether you're talking about David Sling or the Iron Dome, all of those technologies that we helped create with Israel, Israel first implemented.
So, we would. Know if they would be good, tech, uh, good technologies to keep our own troops safe and maybe even civilians safe if ever necessary, uh, to implement. And so they know they're at the tip of the spear, they need that support. And by the way, that support all we've talked about a number of times, all of that support that gets to Israel, it all goes back to the United States. I mean, the money doesn't, it's so we can fund those programs like Iron Dome and David Sling and others to continue to have this partnership because we don't have that many partners in the world who are in conflict regularly.
They are. And because of it, we're able to test on a real battlefield our technologies.
Well, and once again, I think that's great for Israel, but it's just reality. I would respect someone's argument much more. And Ray from Pennsylvania, we're about to take your call, so hang on. But I would respect someone's position a lot more if they were saying, hey, I don't support military aid to Israel because I want to stop subsidizing. Big defense contractors in America, right?
That's a realistic, that's a reality-based argument. I disagree with it because I think it, as we've said, it strengthens our technology, it builds that. But at the end of the day, that's really, that would be a more legitimate argument of saying like, hey, I don't think that we should be subsidizing these industries because you're giving money to Israel to buy from our companies here. But no one's saying that. What are they only saying?
The anti-Semitic argument, you never hear the one of saying, stop subsidizing American companies. If they did, I would maybe respect and say, maybe you're not coming from an anti-Semitic point of view, but you never hear that because they only are coming from an anti-Semitic point of view when it comes to that argument. And let's go ahead. Go ahead. We'll take Ray.
Yeah, Ray is calling on line one from Pennsylvania. It all ties in. Go ahead. You're on Sekulow. Good afternoon, gentlemen.
Yes. I just wanted to say that I believe because I know how I feel, I stand behind Donald Trump, but the American people are paying for this war now with higher prices. Nothing is coming down. And It is time for us to finish Iran off. We bragged about taking out their Navy and other military facilities.
Well, they still have weapons and they're still fighting, and they are just hanging in until November. Because if he loses the Senate or the House, he is going to be a lame duck President, and nothing will happen except Iran will then begin to rebuild. And they don't care about Israel. They don't care about us. They'll destroy whoever they have to destroy.
It's time for us to take out Pickaxe Mountain and any other installation, bridges, doesn't matter, whatever it is. Stop waiting for the people. To rise up, we need to do this. Yeah, well, I think President Trump has expressed some frustration on the people rising up because we've seen that over many years now. People asking us to take these actions so that people on the ground could rise up and overthrow the regime.
Whether or not there's been enough military action targeted at that, we don't really know. Has it been more targeted at the military? But I do think you get to a reasonable point, which is people don't like these things going on forever. That's why Donald Trump got elected President. They're not always anti-going into Iran, but they want to see what is the clear path out.
So give me the one or two options. I think we've gone through them today. One is a full containment policy.
So it's not an active war, but you're containing them. The people just aren't going to do the overthrow. The second is actually the overthrow by the people. I would love to see that, but I can't force that. Neither can the US can't force that to happen.
So either of those work. Let's get to them as quickly as possible. Thank you everyone for watching. We'll talk to you tomorrow on Sekulow.
