Ep. 1246: Is Paleoconservatism Isolationist?

A Clanahan Academy.com is your gateway to a real history education.

Go to McClanahanAcademy.com, use the coupon code podcast, and take 25% off every class

every day at McClanahan Academy.

Get a real history education, I'll see you in class.

If you like this podcast and you want it without advertisements, head over to patreon.com

and become a member of the Brian McClanahan Show for 10 bucks a month.

You get all the podcast ad-free, including video, and you also get a special Q&A podcast.

I'm only going to answer your questions, your listener-generated episodes, through those

Q&A.

So, head over to patreon.com, get this podcast ad-free.

No ads, not even things like this.

And you really do help support the Brian McClanahan Show with really cool stuff on the

back end.

If you like this podcast, don't forget to follow me on social media.

Find me on Twitter, now X at Brian McClanahan, also on Facebook at Brian McClanahan, and

on YouTube where you can watch the podcast at Brian McClanahan.

It's a great time.

I'd love to see you there.

What is the correct paleo-conservative position to take on the war in Iran?

We'll talk about that on this episode of the Brian McClanahan Show.

It's time to think locally and act locally.

Welcome to the Brian McClanahan Show.

Welcome back to the Brian McClanahan Show.

Glad to be back on the program.

Very glad to be here.

All right.

Well, I was going to try to avoid Iran for an entire week, but there was a piece that was

published in Chronicles and Paul Gottfried had sent it around and made me aware of it, and

it stems from something that happened over the weekend where some statements were made

about whether he is sufficiently conservative enough on the Iranian situation.

Another person that had been involved in this is Tom Fleming, who used to edit Chronicles

magazine.

And now Paul Gottfried is the editor of Chronicles magazine.

So both of these individuals have been heavily involved in what's called the paleo-conservative

movement for a long time.

Tom Fleming is actually very good friends with Clyde Wilson.

I've met Tom a number of times.

I enjoy talking to Tom.

He and I, and of course Paul as well, are in line on many, many things.

And so the war in Iran has simply been an interesting issue.

I'll put it that way on how to respond to this attack on the Iranian government.

For many people of a certain age, particularly if you were an adult in 1979 when the Iranian

revolution took place, and of course the American hostages were held for over 400 days, there

is no love loss for the Iranian government.

And even if you weren't of sufficient age to be an adult at that time and really remember

it, there still is no love loss for the Iranian government.

We know that the Iranian government has not been the best government in the world.

They've often times been suspect in their positions on a number of issues.

And of course domestic terrorism and international terrorism are both those things.

But to pretend like the Shaw was any better because again women could wear mini skirts

and not cover their heads is also stretching the truth.

The Shaw's regime was oppressive, and of course the United States by helping eliminate

any opposition of the Shaw certainly helped bring that government back into the fore.

And the Iranian people recognized it, I mean look they wanted them out.

And the only place he could go was of course the United States.

But the Shaw had an image.

This is royalty.

And he was treated like that.

He was in popular magazines and everything else.

So there's all these images that always this is what Iran was like before of the 1979.

This is what it's like after.

Exima is unpredictable.

But you can flare less with epglyce, a once monthly treatment for moderate to superior exima.

After an initial four month or longer dosing phase about four and ten people taking epglyce

achieved itch relief and glare are almost glare skin at 16 weeks.

And most of those people maintain skin that's still more glare at one year with monthly

dosing.

Obglyce, LibriKizumap, LBKZ, a 250 milligram per two milliliter injection is a prescription

medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least

88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe exima.

Also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used

on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies.

Epglyce can be used with or without topical corticosteroids.

Don't use if you're allergic to epglyce.

Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe.

Eye problems can occur.

Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems.

You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with epglyce.

Before starting epglyce, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.

Ask a doctor about epglyce and visit epglyce.lily.com or call 1-800-LilyRx or 1-105-5-5-9-7-9.

Ever seen a musical so good you didn't want it to end?

Like you could live inside it forever.

Then you're going to love Schmigadun.

Get your one way ticket to Broadway musical paradise!

Have you ever felt trapped at a musical?

Like you literally couldn't escape.

Then you'll hate to miss Schmigadun because you'll never want to leave and you can't.

But the important thing is you'll never want to.

Get tickets at www.schmigadunbrogway.com

All of that of course is based on propaganda and whatever people want you to see.

And so we don't always know exactly what's going on in Iran at all times.

There are people that are against the Islamic regime.

There are people that are for it.

And Iran itself.

That's like saying there are people against Trump and people for Trump in the United States.

Of course there are.

It's always going to be there.

You're always going to have factions that oppose and say these people are the worst or

these people are the worst based on their own positions.

So I'm not being a relativist.

What I'm saying is that this is a foreign state and the traditional American position has

long been non-intervention.

That is what the founding generation and Americans generally up until about the 1860s pursued.

Non-intervention in the world.

We take care of ourselves.

We should want other countries to have freedom and liberty and these kinds of things.

But also recognizing that those things are really dependent on a political culture which

the Iranians have never had.

You go back all the way to the Persian Empire.

These people had believed in authoritarian government.

It's what they had always had.

You had some Greek influence at times.

But did they really ever embrace that?

Or did they simply, their political culture was simply tied to authoritarianism?

Which you saw both with the mullahs and, of course, the Shah.

It's authoritarian.

So the correct response, non-interventionist response, if you want to say that there's

a correct anything is, well, Iran should govern Iran.

Let Iran take care of itself.

And look, I think that generally this is where conservatives have fallen in many different

places around the world.

But it doesn't mean that you, as Paul Gottfried is going to call us in this piece or say in

this piece that he is not an isolationist, no.

Non-interventionists are not isolationists.

They don't live in a bubble.

Isolationism will be closing off the borders entirely and not really caring what happens

anywhere else.

That would be more Napoleonic than anything.

The continental system.

Of course, Napoleon certainly being interested in foreign affairs, but only because he wanted

to occupy other parts of Europe.

And of course, meddling in the United States, which got the United States into a war with

Britain in 1812.

But the statement I made on social media was that we elected John McCain in 2024.

And a lot of conservatives were upset with me for saying that.

And they accused me of calling Trump a neo-conservative.

I didn't call Trump a neo-conservative, but McCain's foreign policy certainly won.

Now the retort to that as well, this is a limited strike.

It's only going to last a little while.

Trump has come out and said, this thing's going to be over in just a few weeks.

It's not going to last long.

We're not going to put boots on the ground.

And so maybe we won't.

I'm very skeptical of that.

I don't think it's possible not to have it.

Trump has insisted on regime change in Iran.

And that's probably coming at some point and the only way is going to happen effectively

is for the United States to get directly involved, just like we did in Iraq.

So he's talked about taking over the straight of our moves.

And that's going to involve, well, boots on the ground.

You can't do it any other way.

And so all of these conservatives that are saying, well, I trust Trump and I trust the

objectives and I trust X, Y, and Z are going to be disappointed, I think, when this

war spirals into a larger conflict.

It already has in some ways.

We've seen oil at $100 a barrel, though it did come down as I'm recording this.

We'll see what happens.

Iranians are saying they want $200 a barrel, which would mean, you know, $5 or $6 a gallon

gas in most of the United States.

And of course, more than that in other places like California where they have excessive taxes.

But you're looking at very expensive gas prices, which of course, it's not just filling up

your car.

It's all the secondary expenses that come out of that.

Everything's going to get more expensive food, you know, any kind of goods that have transportation.

All of it will go up.

Not inflation is just price increases based on cost.

So the war could cause those problems.

It could also spiral into a larger conflict in other areas.

So there are many concerns about this war.

And of course, the civilian side of this is bad as well.

What wars do the civilian populations as horrible?

And we're seeing that.

So a lot of the criticisms of people that would, you know, say that this is a John McCain

type foreign policy, of course, are also saying, well, you've been, you're only saying this

because you're not for an Israeli first foreign policy, or which is what it's criticized.

It's what it's called.

And Pat Buchanan was very clear about that.

Israel has its own foreign policy.

The United States has its foreign policy.

And the two shouldn't meet.

And if this is driven by Israel wanting a certain situation in the Middle East, well,

then we shouldn't be involved.

If it's driven entirely by the United States and that said in Rubio, as I said, said one

thing, well, Israel is going to attack anyways.

We had to attack and then he backtracked on that and he tried to cover because I think

he was honest at one statement and not in the other because he realized what he did.

As Donald Trump said, Marco Rubio is a choker.

Well, they were going to do it anyways.

And of course, Trump is trying to provide cover now for a couple of days.

Well, we had all this going on.

They were doing this, this and this.

No evidence.

Just statements.

And if you trust Trump, I mean, that's, that's your prerogative.

I don't trust anybody in power to say the things that are true.

I don't care whether there are or D. I don't think they're going to.

And I think an on interventionist foreign policy is best for Americans, best for

Americans.

We'll see what happens here.

Again, I could be wrong and all the people singing the praises of this war could be

right.

I just don't see that happening.

So after I made that statement, we elected John McCain, Patrick Casey, who writes for

Chronicles magazine, immediately criticized me, said, I didn't know what I was talking

about, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't think you really knew that I knew Paul got freed or I don't think you knew much

about me, but he was making statements.

It's a social media and I get that.

And so I called him a moderate neoconservative.

And he didn't like that very much.

He thought I called him a neoconservative.

I said, no, I called you a moderate neoconservative because in his profile, he says he's a moderate

paleoconservative.

But I think once you adopt the position that you have in this regime change, you become

a moderate neoconservative.

This is a neoconservative foreign policy that we're seeing.

It doesn't mean Trump's neoconservative.

I would put this back on Rubio more than anybody else.

I think Marker Rubio is directing American foreign policy and Marker Rubio essentially

is a neoconservative.

Maybe not to the extent of John McCain, but certainly in that group.

And I've said this before on this show, that's the issue.

I don't know if Trump can control this situation the way he thinks he can and maybe he can.

Maybe it's going to be over.

I just don't see it.

So God for read published a piece at Chronicles explaining his position, which brought me into

it, which is the only reason I am responding to it.

And by the time you get this, it'll also be an email.

Maybe you've heard it before you get the email, but there'll be an email that I'm going

to produce.

I haven't written it yet where I will talk about some of these things in written form so

that people can have it.

So let me get to the piece because again, I think it's important to understand where

God for read is coming from in his position.

He says, in the last few days, a debate has erupted on ex questioning whether I've

soldied my reputation as a reactionary by failing to oppose President Trump's use of

the military in the latest conflict with Iran.

I don't know, I mean, is the debate, I didn't click on the link, but let me open that up

because what I don't know what, oh, it goes back to me.

And of course, Casey is misrepresenting my position that I called him in the Eocon,

I said, he's a moderate in the Eocon, or I call Paul Gottfried in the Eocon, or I

call it anybody that supported this war in the Eocon, no, I said John McCain's foreign

policy one, we elected John McCain because you cannot get around the fact that the Eocon

foreign policy is driving American foreign policy and it has been four decades.

Other presidents were restrained, whereas Trump was finally duped into doing what other

presidents would not do, whether it was Biden or Obama or Bush, Bush wouldn't attack

Iran either.

So, I mean, Reagan didn't attack Iran, George H. W. Bush didn't attack Iran, and you can

say that was a mistake, maybe that's your position, it was a mistake not to do it.

But regardless, I wasn't really debating Paul Gottfried's position, I was simply saying

as Casey and suggested I didn't know anything about Paul Gottfried that, well, I knew Paul

Gottfried, it's simply that.

That was the response, it wasn't that I said Paul Gottfried wasn't reactionary enough,

I never made that claim about Paul, I could pause in title to his opinion.

Honestly, I think that we can have debates about these issues and I don't hold it against

anyone, if they want to say that the war is correct and just, I mean, there are people

that I like that have this position, okay?

And again, I don't hold against Paul, I don't hold grudges that way.

You want to disagree with me, fine, that's your prerogative, I'm not always right.

But I mean, to say that there was a debate over Paul was not the issue, it was over Casey

saying I didn't know what I was talking about.

And I didn't know anything about paleoconservatism or neo-conservatism, I mean, there was this ridiculous

statement.

That was my retort and I think that this got lost in that somehow because Casey took

it in a whole different direction.

I wasn't saying anything about Paul Gottfried.

In fact, if you look at what I said, I said Paul Gottfried, who I conversed with, Regles

entitled his opinion, that's it.

And so he took issue with the fact that I called him a neo-con, I said, my response was,

I didn't call you a neo-con, I said, you're a moderate neo-con.

You can have a neo-conservat position.

He called him, see, I think he missed the joke.

He calls himself a moderate paleoconservative, whatever that means.

So I said, no, you're a moderate neo-conservative.

This is how social media works.

I don't think that people get that.

Social media is there to equip what's made for.

It's not made for long form debate, but regardless.

I wasn't questioning Paul's position.

He said, supposedly, I should be opposing all military actions taken by the current

administration since I was one of the most prominent opponents of neo-conservative

interventionism.

However, as a defender of the traditional right, I should be viewing for an intervention

as a means of increasing the power of a rogue managerial therapeutic government at home.

Finally, if someone who viscerally lows our present anti-discrimination regime,

I should want to focus all our energies on combating this bureaucratic monstrosity

while avoiding the distraction of foreign confrontations.

Now, all of that came in the comments, I think, because I never said anything about this stuff.

Again, I never said anything about Paul Gottfried's position until Casey brought it up,

and I didn't even say anything about Paul Gottfried.

He did.

I never criticized Paul Gottfried for anything in this way.

Again, Paul's entitled to his opinion.

So is Tom Fleming.

So is Clyde Wilson, who's been part of this, and I've seen what Clyde's written on this,

and it's the exact opposite of what Paul is saying about the war.

So is Lou Rockwell and any of these other people that have been around for a long time

talking about these issues, all of them.

They're all entitled to their positions on this, and we can have, again, a debate.

But this all started because I said we elected John McCain in 2024,

and people jumped all over me for that.

They're the ones that reacted in a visceral way to a simple statement.

And Casey was pretty, I mean,

flippant and dismissive, to be honest.

Said I didn't know what I was talking about, which is why I responded the way I did.

In other words, he started the snarkiness.

When he said I didn't know what I was talking about,

again, I don't really think he knew who I was.

So Gottfried says I also have a record of opposing past American use in the military

from the Iraq War to World War I, the bloodbath of the Civil War.

Should we therefore assume that I would oppose all military involvement,

no matter what the situation, not so fast and again, paleoconservatives are not pacifists.

I mean, what he's basically describing there is people would think you're a pacifist.

No one would say you should oppose all military involvement, no matter what.

That's not true at all.

There are certain situations where military involvement is necessary.

Was it necessary in Iran as the real question?

Fandool is dropping bonus bets into everyone's account for the tournament.

All you have to do is opt in to claim your bonus.

But don't wait, these bonus bets are only available for a limited time.

Fandool, play your game.

21 plus and present in select states.

Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable bonus bets which expire seven days after receipt.

Max bonus $500 unless otherwise specified, restrictions apply.

See terms at sportsbook.fandool.com, gambling problem called 1-800-Gampler.

That's the question, of course, he goes into World War II.

And there are a lot of, you know, paleoconservative positions for years have been, you know, conflicted

on World War II.

When I say conflicted, it's not pro-German, but it's understanding that maybe this war

shouldn't have been as broad as it was or could have been another way around this.

I mean, that's Patrick, as Patrick Buchanan's position.

That maybe Hitler and Stalin could have slugged it out and both those totalitarian thugs

would have worn each other out in the United States wouldn't have needed to get involved.

There's that.

I mean, so there's maybe a third way and this is the, this is where we talk about things

like the U.S. Constitution.

There's a third way.

There's another way besides centralization or, you know, R&D.

But there's this other thing out there, it's the Southern tradition, in other words, there's

another way.

But no one would say that all military involvement is wrong.

I mean, if the United States is attacked directly, of course, there's military involvement.

You punish those people.

Now, we can all look at, you know, what was the reason why we were attacked or what caused

that, you know, was it, I mean, and then you get into conspiracies and other things.

But the fact is, I mean, if the United States is attacked, the U.S. has to respond.

And if Iran had actually physically attacked the United States, no one would say a thing.

And then, of course, well, they did in 1979, you know, we didn't pay them back for that.

And of course, you're looking at civilians, which, of course, American civilians are

attacked all the time and, well, nothing's done.

So, I mean, American civilians being attacked on a regular basis by illegal aliens in

the United States and for many administrations, nothing's done.

And you could even criticize the Trump administration for not being sufficiently aggressive enough.

Now, Trump would say, I'm trying, you know, keep getting blocked.

But anyways, we have all kinds of things to complain about here.

But I think it's a, it's a straw man to say that anyone said that we should oppose

all military involvement, no matter what.

I mean, nobody said, I didn't say that.

I don't know who said that.

That would be a complete quaker, a pacifist position.

And last time I checked, the Paleo's weren't quakers, right?

It says, not so fast, although I deplore the brutal bloody excesses of World War Two

and would have favored if possible and negotiated removal of the Nazi government,

I believe the US was justified in dislodging Hitler from power.

And of course, when you look at the fact the United States was attacked by the Japanese,

now whether Roosevelt knew this was coming or not, if you believe Charles Tansel,

which I tend to do, I tend to believe him.

But regardless, the United States was attacked and reprisal was necessary,

and the Nazis declared war on the United States.

So the United States had to respond to that.

And I think Godfrey is right.

There's some kind of way to get rid of Hitler without going in and

destroying Europe, which is what Charles Limberg said was going to happen.

Europe was going to be destroyed by that war, and it was.

And fearfully remade in a direction that has allowed for some of these leftist takeover

of the world, you see.

In some ways, the communist did win that war.

Certainly would be also been better if, following Sean McMekin's back mirror view

in Stalin's war, we had treated the Soviet tyrant as an aggressive enemy much earlier than we did.

Again, I get it. I mean, nobody is saying this at all.

And short, I'm not quite the military isolationist I'm supposed to be,

even if I have repeatedly worn against allowing the odious neo-conservatives anywhere near the State Department.

Well, again, no one is saying that your isolationist is your superior paleo-conservative.

You're non-interventionist. I think we need to get these terms correct.

Isolationism is something entirely different from non-interventionism,

and we need to understand that.

On the other hand, I mean, when there are situations that warrant it.

And look, the communists are at to the world trying to do something to protect

the future of Europe and the Americas and everywhere else from Soviet totalitarianism.

I mean, it's something we should have thought about.

We created the mess with the Soviet Union because of Franklin Roosevelt.

Neoconservative hostility toward me furthermore had more to do with their intolerance of descent

on the right than it did with my supposed isolationism. At the time of the neo-conservative

incited war against Iraq after 9-11, all the centers on the right were slammed in national

review as unpatriotic conservatives. But not all opponents of that foolish venture stood in

unchanging opposition to all military intervention. I personally believe that even if we're

burdened with the leftist woke ruling class, we do have a right to defend ourselves against

enemies who finance and abet international terrorism. Well, again, no one is saying otherwise.

The question with Iran has come down to, and I've said this,

where was the attack? Where was the immediate attack that would say they were going to attack us,

show us the evidence, or they did attack us, show us, I mean, then that, then we have the ability

to go in and wipe them out. And again, as Pat Buchanan said, we could take care of Iran in a day

practically. And I mean, look, the United States essentially did in terms of their Air Force,

their Navy, some of their military capabilities. I mean, they still have things, but it's not like

it was. So, I mean, this is a strange statement. In the case of Trump's use of military force

in Iran, the jury is still out on his political outcome. And I agree. From government reports,

it seems that the military operation is expected to last about four weeks. It'll be longer.

And the Iranian people will then be left to establish a post-Khamenei regime, which they're

trying to do. Of course, the Americans and the Israelis keep taking out all the leadership.

And the United States is going to have to get involved in this. He's already talking about

regime change. This piece has already dated because Trump has now, since he wrote this,

is saying, we're going to have regime change. What is that entail? Are we going to pick the

person that runs Iran? Are we going to support, are we going to back them up militarily? Because

that might have to be the case. So, what's different between this and picking the Shah

over Moussa Dig in 1953? Because that's what happened. The Shah will then consolidate power

in a way that would eliminate essentially the parliament and anything else that would oppose him.

And it was brutal. And so, we picked the Shah. I mean, what's the difference?

Trump has assured us that he is not preparing for any kind of American ground war.

Of course, he's going to be sure us that way. So, I'm waiting to see if that's the case.

And again, I think it comes down to trust. Do you trust Trump? Do you trust the current

administration? I don't. I just don't trust them. It's not that I don't agree with what Trump

does in certain cases. I just don't trust any of these people because of the imperial presidency.

He says, I see the president. So, I'm waiting to see if that's the case, right? He said,

if Trump is assured us, he's not. So, I'm waiting to see. If we see, if I see the president

asking the foundation for the defense of democracies or some other neo-con front group

about how to deal with Iran, I may change my mind. But so far, this has not happened. It makes me

nauseous to see the frenzy jubilation with which the neo-conservative occupied Murdoch media have

greeted this military operation. But I tried to avoid taking positions,

dictated by always being on the opposite side of my adversaries. And that's not what I did either.

I didn't take any position based on what the neo-cons are saying about this.

I'm just looking at it for what it is. John McCain's foreign policy is winning,

because McCain wanted to bomb Iran every single day of his life. That's what he wanted.

And I think Trump finally gave into that. That's it. That's all I said. We elected John McCain,

because John McCain was singing bomb, bomb, Iran. And that exchange on expatement,

Brian McLean and Patrick Kacer regarding my view of this military action,

Kasey may be closer to my position than McLean. I didn't actually say anything about

Gottfried's position. That's the thing that's strange to me. All I did was put a picture up,

because he said, I don't know who's that with Paul Gottfried, because I know Paul. His

argument was, I don't know anything about Paul Gottfried or anything. I didn't even bring

Gottfried into this until Kasey did. So I never said anything about Paul's position. That's the

strange thing about all this to me. Although I value the friendship of both of these

discussions equally, Brian may be reading too much in my remarks about the interwar right

on a panel in which the two of us participate. The observation made by Albert J. Nock and other

libertarians of his persuasion that there's attention, if not outright incompatibility,

between a constitutionally limited state and a large military is essentially correct.

Unfortunately, that bridge was crossed a long time ago, just like the construction of a large

welfare state, which is not likely to be rewrote even by a right-wing populist. Well,

I mean, look, I agree with that to an extent. First of all, it characterizes me as a libertarian.

And I'm not. But the fact is, I think that we're down a path that's very hard to come back from,

but that's why I continually hammer it. We need people to understand. I mean,

it's why I did the show on the war power's resolution and how the president is not following that

in any way. And then I also did one on how the war power's resolution is unconstitutional.

It's all a problem. We have unconstitutional government. We have the imperial president.

And see, and I agree, a right-wing populist is not going to change that because they want it that

way. A right-wing populist is not going to be a strict constructionist. That's what I'm pushing

for. It's not going to be a Washingtonian or a Jeffersonian in foreign policy.

You've been there, settling in for an evening of TV only to waste half the night scrolling.

Enter Fire TV. Entertainment with zero effort required. Fire TV serves up personalized

recommendations from across all your apps. Not sure what to watch. Just tell Alexa Plus what you're

in the mood for and she'll pull up the perfect recommendation. Problem solved. Stop the scroll,

start the show. Find what you're looking for with Fire TV. Subscriptions may be required.

This episode is brought to you by Nordstrom. Spring calls for a wardrobe refresh,

and Nordstrom has the best styles of the season. From dresses and denim to stand-out tops and

accessories, find the trends and essentials that feel right for you. Discover new arrivals from

brands you love like Wave, Princess Poly, Mango, Adidas, and Free People. Plus free shipping and

returns and free styling appointments make everything so easy. Shop in stores at nordstrom.com

or download the Nordstrom app. That's the issue. That's my entire position.

And to say something about John McCain, of course, is to embrace the Imperial presidency and

in a way in foreign policy, which I mean Trump has done as well in other cases.

Trump is an imperialist. I mean, that statement is correct. People have said it. That's what he is.

Is he a neo-conservative? I wouldn't describe him as such,

although he can have neo-conservative positions. But certainly, the people in his administration

would tend you to lean in this direction. He says, we can still benefit, however, from the

interwar rights justified warning against the use of military to wage ideological crusades.

Those perceptive critics looked at the American political situation after Woodward Wilson's

ill-conceived crusade to bring democracy to the world. That enterprises of argument and articles

and reviews may have prolonged the European bloodbath while permitting the brutal suppression

of the Senate home. And again, yeah, I mean, look, I agree with that.

He said, I would also distinguish between enthusiastically backing the attack on Iran,

and giving the Trump administration provisionally the benefit of the doubt.

I'm taking the second course, since the threat represented by the now mostly overthrown

Iranian regime may have been great enough to justify the use of force. The Iranian government

has sponsored international terrorist activity consistently for the last 47 years. It was also

working to build nuclear weapons to use against countries that Iran's clericists leadership mark

for destruction. Clericalists, excuse me. It seems to me to be true, despite the unfortunate fact

that Neocon windbags are saying the same thing. Now, the one problem I have with this statement

is that Trump said he took out their nuclear capabilities, but clearly he didn't. So we launched

an attack without any congressional involvement. This is the question that I go back to these things

to take out their nuclear capabilities. It didn't work. Now there are weeks away from building a

bomb. We've been told there are weeks away from building a bomb for decades. Were they really

weeks away from building a bomb? I don't think so. If we took out their nuclear capabilities,

how are they weeks away from building a bomb? Again, it doesn't make any sense. The justification

here does not make any sense. To say that they've been sponsoring terrorism for 47 years

is a statement that, again, that's made over and over again. I'm sure they have in many different

ways. Of course, the Trump administration through their press secretary put out a long list of

Americans and servicemen, women that have been attacked by Iranian IEDs and other things constructed

in Iran. But one thing I found interesting, and apparently the initial attack which wiped out

the Iranian leadership, while Trump said we launched it, it's against American law. If

when I understand we didn't actually launch that attack, I might be wrong about this. But what I'm

getting out of this now is that the United States didn't fire that strike. I believe Israel did.

We gave the go ahead. Because it would have been illegal for us to wipe out the entire leadership

of the Iranian government. This is what I'm understanding. Now I could be wrong about this, but I've

read this and I can't remember where I saw it. But if that's the case, I mean that's even a more

interesting situation because then Israel launched the strike and then the United States back them up.

You see, Trump gave them the go ahead. So who's really directing foreign policy at that point?

Godfrey concludes he says, I want to deny others the right to criticize his military involvement,

nor do I expect anyone on the traditional right to support Trump's action simply because he's our

guy. We on the real right do not require Neil Conn litmus tests, and others associate with our

magazine our free to hold views about this military operation that differ from mine. But please

spare me Senator Schumer's partisan compliment or partisan complaint, excuse me, that Trump has

not revealed the scope of this military engagement. I am struck and said by how well coordinated this

military action has been and how often cabinet officials have laid out its scope. Again,

I think this piece is even dated because they keep moving the goalpost. Initially it was,

we're going to be in there for two to four weeks. We're going to do this, this, and this. And then

it became a little longer than that maybe eight weeks and then its regime change and then they

keep moving it because they have to. And yeah, the problem is the left comes out and says

idiotic things too and because they're just going to oppose Trump because it's Trump.

I mean, that's it. We got the R&D syndrome in Washington and among most political commentators,

if it's R and you're a D, it's bad, if it's a D and you're an R, it's bad. I mean, this kind of

stuff is just idiotic. But so I'm not supporting Chuck Schumer at all. I mean, do I think that

when they make statements at times like I'm worried about the overall, you know, lasting

impact of this shirt, I mean, I'm worried about that too. It doesn't mean it's just like he said,

well, just because the Neocons are doing this and this doesn't mean I support the Neocons,

just because people like Chuck Schumer are saying this doesn't mean I support Chuck Schumer,

but maybe there's something to some of these things. That's the only statement.

Moreover, considering how the shameful way the last two democratic administrations bestowed

unfrozen Iranian assets on a rogue regime and did everything possible to ignore the progress of

its attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, democratic politicians would do well to shut up.

So, I mean, yeah, we can criticize the Obama administration, the Biden administration for

other handled Iran. I mean, certainly. But the fact is, just because you're maybe some people on

the left are saying what you're saying, too, doesn't mean you're a leftist, just like Paul is

saying, well, just because some of the Neocons are saying what I'm saying doesn't make me a Neocon.

I've never accused Paul Gautfer to be a Neocon at all. And the only reason Paul Gautfer

got dragged into this is because, well, Patrick Casey recommended to it. I didn't.

That's the whole thing that's interesting to me. So, I think the non-interventionist position is

really where I am. And I wouldn't call Paul Gautfer to an isolationist. I would never call a paleo

conservative an isolationist. It's never been the position. So anyways, I just had to

clear this up again. I'm going to write something about it so that you can read it,

besides listen to it. See you tomorrow on the Brian McLean handshow. See you then.