Ep. 1743 - My Honest Take On The War In Iran

The Toyota Tundra and Tacoma are built to keep going,

backed by Toyota's reputation for legendary reliability.

Step into a Tundra with the available iForce Max Hybrid Engine,

delivering impressive torque and serious towing power.

Or take a look at Tacoma with an available power lift gate,

so gear goes in fast and the adventure keeps moving.

Toyota trucks are built to last year after year, mile after mile.

So drive one home today, visit Toyota.com to find out more.

Toyota, let's go places.

Today, the Matt Walsh show, the United States attacks Iran,

was this a smart move?

Will it benefit American citizens or do most to another Iraq-style

quagmire or something else?

And why did we launch this attack?

Was it necessary?

We will break everything down.

Today is fairly and objectively as we can on the Matt Walsh show.

We are going to discuss today, of course, the military operation in Iran.

It will not surprise any of my viewers and listeners to learn

that I am quite skeptical of this operation,

as I am usually skeptical of military interventions

in far off countries on the other side of the globe.

That's my position, and I'm not going to abandon it now,

even as certain segments of the base become inflamed with war fever

and demand that the rest of us fall in line.

I'm not going to do that.

I'm also an American patriot.

I love my country.

I wanted to succeed, which means that I'm not rooting for this to be a failure,

obviously, nor am I weeping over the poor Iranian regime and its leaders

who are now scattered in many pieces across the desert sand.

Good riddance to them as far as I'm concerned.

You wouldn't know it based on what you see on social media, especially X over the weekend,

but there is actually a lane for people in this camp in the camp that I'm in.

There is a lane for people who are skeptical of military intervention

and regime change wars, especially ones in the Middle East,

but also aren't siding with the Iranian regime and actively rooting for America to fail.

Not only does that lane exist in real life,

but it's where I would estimate a great majority of normal Americans live.

Now, with that in mind, I want to discuss this issue as fairly and objectively as I can.

One thing we know for sure is that it is never more difficult

to recognize the limits of what you know and to ask honest and good faith questions about what

you don't know than it is during a once in a generation war in which millions of lives,

including American lives, can be potentially changed irreparably.

It's not natural for a political commentator or a politician to admit this, but it's true.

For decades, Democrats have pursued a policy of appeasing Iran on the theory that money

and diplomatic concessions would forstall the development of a nuclear bomb.

On the other hand, Republicans have been split between two factions.

The Neocon axis of evil hardliners who chant bomb Iran on the one hand

and the America first proponents on the other, many of whom voted for Donald Trump,

precisely because he promised to keep the United States out of needless regime change wars.

Now, every single one of these factions at the moment has reason to be furious.

And therefore, they have an incentive to confuse the public about what's actually happening

in Iran. Democrats didn't get their peace treaty where the Mullahs and the Supreme Leader

hold hands and announce that they'll never attempt to build a dirty bomb ever again.

The Neocons didn't get their full-scale ground invasion, complete with boots on the ground,

a new democratic Iranian constitution drafted by the United States and lucrative nation-building

contracts, at least not yet. And many America first voters, myself included,

are wondering how exactly the invasion of Iran will advance the interests of the United States.

We should not do anything at all, anything outside the borders of our country,

or within them, unless it will first and foremost benefit American citizens. And the benefit

must be a net gain, which means the reward for Americans is greater than the cost we must pay

to procure it. That has to be the deal, or whatever you're doing is a bad idea with no exceptions.

Is that the case here? Well, other than a three-am address from Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago

on Friday night, which broadly argued that Iran has been a threat to the United States for many

decades, that case was not sufficiently made in the lead-up to this operation. And I would

states say that it still has not been made. And it certainly hasn't been subjected to any kind of

rigorous scrutiny. Now, you can make the argument that because the beginning of the war in Iran was a

highly sensitive military operation involving classified intelligence that could change at a

moment's notice, it's not prudent for the White House to lay out its case in detail ahead of time.

After all, the president is the commander-in-chief of the military for a reason. And he's entitled to

deference when it comes to national security. But there are two major problems with that argument.

First of all, US military deployments to the Persian Gulf over the past few weeks have been

extensive and very obvious. So this was not a surprise attack or anything close to it.

There's no reason why the president couldn't have addressed Congress, explained the status of

the negotiations with Iran, and then outlined a plan of action in case those negotiations failed,

including some suggestion of what would happen after Iran's government was toppled.

That didn't happen even though the president had a chance to do so during the State of the Union.

But even if you give the administration a pass on that, which you might,

you still have to wonder why the silence persisted. There was no senior administration official or

cabinet member appeared on any of the Sunday shows the other day, more than 24 hours after the

attacks began. It didn't seem interested in explaining how the war is going, why they felt they

had to strike at this moment or what Iran will look like in five months or five years.

Over the weekend, information came mostly through press releases and truth social posts.

Then this morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Dan Kane held the first press conference

to discuss the mission, more than 48 hours after the start of the war. When asked if the U.S.

will put boots on the ground, this is how Kane replied.

You mentioned during the briefing, General Kane, that there would be additional troops

sent to the region. Could you say how many troops currently are involved in this operation and

how many additional troops are planned to go in in this next phase?

I don't want to talk specifics because that would tip the enemy off.

And then Pete Hegseth said the same thing when asked if the U.S. already had boots on the ground.

Are there currently any American boots on the ground in Iran?

No, but we're not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do.

I think it's one of those fallacies for a long time that this department or presidents or

others should tell the American people this and our enemies, by the way. Here's exactly what we'll do.

Here's exactly how long we'll go. Here's exactly how far we'll go. Here's what we're

willing to do and not do. It's foolishness. And so President Trump ensures that our enemies

understand we'll go as far as we need to go to advanced American interests. But we're not dumb

about it. You don't have to roll 200,000 people in there and stay for 20 years. We've proven that

you can achieve objectives that advance American interests without being foolish about it.

Now, when a reporter asked how long the mission would last, this is what Hegseth said.

I think the question about four weeks is the typical NBC sort of got you a type question.

President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take

four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could move up. It could move back. We're going to execute at his

command the objectives we've set out to achieve. Okay, so then what is our objective?

Is it regime change? Here's what Hegseth said. Turns out the regime who chanted death to America

and death to Israel was gifted death from America and death from Israel. This is not a so-called

regime change war. But the regime sure did change and the world is better off for it.

Now, a lot of people on the internet are saying that this is the Iraq war 2.0. The administration

and war hawks are saying that it isn't. So it's important to lay out some historical

context for those of you who don't remember what happened in 2003 or weren't born yet or too young.

Back then, the Bush administration would often use the Sunday shows to make the case for

a regime change in Iraq. They would fabricate information on occasions as it turned out.

But they were also grittled over and over again. They knew that Meet the Press was not friendly

territory for them. They knew that the Sunday shows were biased in favor of the left,

but the Bush administration still felt compelled to make their case before a hostile and skeptical

audience one way or another. Just days before the invasion, Vice President Dick Cheney went on one

of the Sunday shows and said, I think the invasion will go relatively quickly weeks rather than months.

Two weeks later, after the situation spiraled out of control, the Washington Post reported that

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz told reporters that defense officials made assumptions

that turned out to underestimate the problem, beginning with the belief that removing a

Saddam Hussein from power would also remove the threat posed by his bath party. In addition,

they aired an assuming that significant numbers of Iraqi army units and large numbers of Iraqi

police would quickly join the U.S. military and its civilian partners in rebuilding Iraq.

Now, back in the present day, yesterday, the Washington Post reported that, quote,

inside the Pentagon and among some members of the Trump administration,

there was deepening concern Sunday that the Iran conflict could spiral out of control.

Iran and Iraq are two different countries, that's true, and a lot of things about those two

situations are different, but they aren't as different as the proponents of this war would

have you believe. It definitely is not unreasonable to wonder if and to worry that the early days of

this conflict and the stated reason for it resemble very closely those events in 2003.

So the reasoning we're hearing so far simply is not good enough. I acknowledge that the White

House has accessed all kinds of information that I don't have. They could have reasons for doing

what they're doing that I don't know about or understand, but that's an argument we've heard

before, not just during Iraq. I mean, much more recently, it's what we heard during COVID when

all the people with more information than us chose a course of action that was disastrous for the

country and we still haven't recovered. The trust the experts logic died with COVID and it's

never coming back. From now on and forevermore, the experts will need to make their case clearly

and coherently explain exactly what they're doing and why they're doing it and what the end

game is and what information justifies whatever course of action they've chosen. Just simply

trusting that they have it all under control is not going to work anymore, at least for those of us

with a memory that stretches back farther than last week. To the extent that an objective has been

clearly laid out, stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons appears to be the primary one,

but the problem is that we were told that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated. That's the White

House's own phrasing. Still on the website, you can go check it. Just a few months ago,

it was obliterated. So how could Iran's nuclear program go from total obliteration,

annihilation to a matter so urgent that we have to go to war over it in the span of like seven or

eight months? That's a problem. That doesn't make sense. It just doesn't. This is a question that

still has not been even close to coherently answered. It is a fundamental hole in the logic behind

this entire thing. Now the question about the end game, on the other hand, it is very important.

This at this point is by far the most important question. Whatever the reason is that we got into

this thing and that's still not clear, we are hearing different things. What exactly is the end

game? How do we get out? When do we get out? What are we trying to achieve? The Iranian people rise

up and take control of their government is what we've heard. That's what Trump said in his address

on Saturday night. That's what he called for. Well, okay. What does that mean? Which people?

How are they taking control? What happens after they do take control? Are we sure the new people

whoever they are will be better than the old people? How are we going to make sure of that? How

are we going to make sure of that while also not putting boots on the ground? Or are we going to put boots

on the ground? Even though we were told many times that would not happen. None of this has been

explained and it needs to be. It's just a basic matter of life that generally speaking, the most

ruthless and violent forces will be the ones who seize the crown. That's the lesson of history,

not just Iraq, but all of human history. What exactly is the mechanism by which by which we plan

to ensure that the secular pro-Western factions in Iran who are by definition not barbaric killers

somehow managed to fill the power vacuum and prevail over the factions that are barbaric killers?

Now, I'm not a foreign policy expert. I admit that. I'm just a common sense guy. I'm also a student

of history. Someone explained it to me, to all of us. If you blow up the government, how is it not

very likely that militant killers who are as bad or worse than the old regime fill the void? How is

that not just a possible scenario, but actually the most likely scenario? However much trust you

may have in Donald Trump as a administration. This is the reality he must contend with. It's perfectly

reasonable for Americans to be skeptical of regime change wars in the Middle East. We can hear

all day long. This is totally different for Iraq. It's totally different. Okay. I mean, that's

so you claim the Trump himself was skeptical of regime change wars in the Middle East.

And the idea that we're obligated to just assume it's a good move because Trump decided to do it

is asanine, not to mention un-American. And that's especially true since at the moment,

powerful voices in the conservative movement are calling for a long war in Iran,

which is explicitly contrary to what most of Trump's voters want. Here's the Wall Street Journal

editorial board, for example, quote, it's too soon for Iran off-ramps. The first two days of the

U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran have been a striking success, but the response of the Iranian regime

has also revealed the reason it was necessary. The biggest mistake President Trump could make now

would be to end the war too soon before the Iran, by far Iran's military and his domestic forces

have been more thoroughly destroyed. Yes, the biggest mistake would be ending the war too soon.

Now, we can't have a short and contained conflict, say the neocons, like the operation in Venezuela.

Instead, we need an open-ended war. We need to stay until we eliminate their capability of

engaging in acts of terrorism, which is when exactly? And where have we heard this before?

I mean, again, everyone says it's totally different. It's totally different. Okay, it sounds a

lot like the argument that got a stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq for an entire generation.

It sounds a lot like that. I mean, it's pure gaslighting to tell us that we shouldn't

draw any comparisons at all. So before that happens, the Trump administration needs to answer

some questions. In addition to clearly establishing a timeline, the need to tell us,

is it true as some anonymous sources have claimed that Iran was beginning to work on dirty bombs

that could kill American citizens? Now, here's one of the posts I'm talking about. This is from

Andrew Colvet of Turning Point, USA, in response to something I wrote and actually said, quote,

in calling around a number of contacts today, it was clear that there was growing urgency and

concern in DC, even among the most stridently anti-war voices that Iran was beginning to work

on dirty bombs while making urgent appeals to China for hypersonics, which can sink US carriers

in the region, which carry 5,000 servicemen. Now, while I don't fault Andrew, of course, for

sharing what he's hearing, the problem with this kind of information is that it's totally useless

for the rest of us. There's no one going on the record who's saying that. In fact, we have some

reporting that suggests totally different, suggests the opposite, actually. This is from CNN,

which is not a trustworthy source of information, but where are the trustworthy sources? That's always

the question. But here it is, quote, Pentagon briefers acknowledged a congressional staff in a

briefing Sunday that Iran was not planning to strike US forces or bases in the Middle East,

unless Israel attacked Iran first, according to multiple sources. This undercut's Trump

admins argument on Saturday that Iran was planning to potentially strike US preemptively

and pose an imminent threat. Now, none of these claims in either direction are reliable because

no one is answering these questions on the record with any specificity. In that sense, these reports

are even less reliable than the narrative that led us into the Iraq war. 2003, Colin Powell and

Donald Rumsfeld went out in public. They told the United Nations and meet the press that Iraq had

WMD and that we knew precisely where those WMD were. If they could lie on camera, then there's

absolutely no reason to trust, and they did lie, as we know. Well, if you've got government

officials that are going to go lie on camera, well, there's no reason then to trust anonymous

sources who tell various media outlets or turning point that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a

dirty bomb or hypersonics. Nor is there evidence that Iran wasn't going to attack first. We need to

actually see the evidence and someone in the administration needs to explain it to us.

Now, it does appear that as Trump suggested at Mar-a-Lago that Iranians are happy that their

Supreme Leader has been killed. Iranians living in Los Angeles, who, you know, a lot of these people

shouldn't even be in the country, took to the streets in celebration. So maybe they can go back home.

I mean, that's what we're hearing. A lot of people are going to go back home. I'll believe it when

I see it. I don't think that's actually going to happen. And there were similar scenes in

Tehran, as New York Times reported, large crowds of many women dancing and sharing,

shouting, woohoo, hurrah, drivers passing by, honk their car horns, fireworks, a lit up the sky,

a loud Persian dance music filled the streets. Many residents from their windows and balconies

joined in a chant of freedom, freedom. Well, that's good for them, but we don't fight wars for the

freedom of Iranians. I mean, of all the reasons you could possibly give to justify this war,

and there have been a bunch of reasons offered, many of them conflicting. The worst thing you could

say is that, well, we're freeing the Iranian people. Their freedom is not relevant to us.

It may sound cruel, but to put it as frankly as possible, the question of whether or not

Iranians are free should be of no concern to us whatsoever. That's their own issue to sort out.

What's relevant in terms of mission objectives is whether these people, I mean the right people

among those people, whoever the right people are, which hasn't been explained, will rise up

and as Trump suggested complete the mission in Iran, whatever that mission is exactly.

Is that going to materialize? How sure are we that it will?

We need the administration to answer those questions. They also need to provide assurances if they

can that this new power vacuum in the Middle East will actually be filled by pro-Western secular leaders.

Has it worked that way at any point in the last 40 years when we've overthrown a Muslim state?

What's the batting average on that? What's the batting average in overthrowing a Muslim regime and

then having someone better filled avoid? What's the batting average and if that ever does happen,

how long does it take generally? How much money has to be spent by Americans and lives lost to get

us there? Now we all know what happened when the Obama administration along with France and the UK

overthrew the government of Libya. More than a decade later, that war has produced millions of

refugees, many of whom ended up in Europe, the economy of Libya, which was once a relative bright

spot in Africa, has been destroyed, militia violence is commonplace, slave markets returned.

Maybe that would be considered a success in Iran. Maybe that's what they're going for. I'm not

being sarcastic, that could genuinely be the goal. It could be the case that the United States has

decided that if Iran is reduced to a dysfunctional violent hellscape with no functioning leadership,

then America will be safer after all, dysfunctional third world countries typically aren't capable

of building nuclear weapons. But if that's the goal, and I don't know if it is, somebody needs to

tell us that. And then we should debate the pros and cons of that rather risky approach.

We should ensure that refugees from Iran won't end up in Europe and the United States where they

can commit terrorist attacks. We should have some way of determining whether Iran's dirty bombs

or the material to make them will end up in the hands of terrorists. And by the way,

what happens if Israel is not on board with our approach, whatever it is? Because right now,

they don't appear to be. Instead, Israel is currently vowing to use the full weight of their

military to go after Iran, which leaves open the possibility of a ground invasion. What happens then?

What happens when Israel decides that they want to put boots in the ground on the ground?

Does that force us in it into it? Would the Trump administration assist in that kind of operation?

Right now we have no idea. Would Russia and China get involved in that case so far?

They've shown no interest in the conflict, which is a good sign. It means that World War III probably

isn't about to start. Will that continue? And definitely will it continue if ground forces are

involved? And maybe the most important unanswered question, the one that has immediate ramifications

for every American is whether or not Iran has sleeper cells in the United States that could

activate at any moment. We have no real guidance on that point whatsoever. The administration

hasn't shared any intelligence with us one way or another. Our consulate in Pakistan just came

under attack, but it appears US Marines were ready for the rioters. The Marines opened fire and

prevented the attack from becoming another Benghazi. Thank God. But in Austin, Texas, a terrorist,

sympathetic to Iran, and we know that he had a caran and clothes that said property of Allah

was able to murder several American citizens two nights ago. His name was Diaga Diagni. He's a 53-year-old

naturalized US citizen who was born in Senegal, was living in Fluegerville, Texas. The social media

feed was full of deranged posts, many of them anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. He also mocked the idea

that Islam could be a threat to the United States, which is reminiscent of that transidentifying

gunman in Rhode Island who insisted that trans people aren't actually dangerous psychopaths and then

went and demonstrated that in fact he was one. This is someone who obviously should not have been

allowed into the United States, much less granted citizenship. We should have taken one look at him

and sent him back to Senegal, but that's not what happened. This is from Fox's Brook Taylor,

quote, Diaga Diagni entered the US on March 13, 2000 on a B2 tourist visa. In June, 2006, he adjusted

to lawful permanent resident based on a marriage to a US citizen. He naturalized his US citizen on April

5, 2013, under the Obama administration. In 2022, he was arrested in Texas for collision with

vehicle damage. In other words, he remained in this country for six years on a tourist visa,

which is illegal. Tourist visa's last six months, not six years, but instead of being deported,

he was allowed to marry a US citizen and become a lawful permanent resident.

And then the Obama administration made him a citizen. It's reminiscent of the story of Billy

Shamimmer. So you might not remember this one. Billy was born in Kenya. He overstayed his visa,

married a US citizen, got a green card, and then slaughtered 18 elderly women.

Precisely, no lessons were ever learned from this incident. But there's an easy solution here.

First, we need a blanket ban on all third world immigration. There's no reason why we should

allow any foreigner from Kenya or Senegal or Somalia or Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or anywhere else

in the third world to step foot in the United States period. And certainly, they shouldn't be allowed

to come in the United States under the pretext of being a tourist. Okay, there are no tourists

from the third world. They have no money to spend. And foreigners from third world countries

statistically speaking overstay their visas at extremely high rates. So just cut it off.

End the entire stream. Third world migration offers no benefits to this country at all. Not a single

benefit. And we know it. We all know it. So end it all in the farce. That's our only choice.

And secondly, of course, we need to intensify our efforts to deport and denaturalize as many

foreign-born residents as possible. Any foreign-born resident, any naturalized citizen who is clearly

anti-American needs to be gone. Angry lesbians and Antifa manage to make this administration

back down in Minnesota. That's just a fact. That's what happened. And it can't be allowed to happen

again going forward. The stakes are simply too high. We need to ruthlessly deport any illegal alien

no matter how elaborate their sob story may be because it's a matter of national security. And we

need to denaturalize anyone who, like this terrorist from Senegal, is on social media talking about

bringing death to America. That should be one strike in your out. Just one social media post like

that or public statement as a naturalized citizen where you're expressing hatred for America or its

people, you should be gone period. These are people who lied on their application for citizenship.

They defrauded this country. They are a threat to us. They need to go.

Now keep in mind when we talk about the potential downstream negative effects of wars in the

Middle East. This is one of them. Okay, even if World War Three does not materialize, which

you probably won't, we still have to contend with all the millions of third world anti-American

invaders who are already in our country. And could lash out at any time as one of them already

has less than 48 hours into this thing. That's part of the cost of an operation like this.

That's the other thing that proponents of this war needs to contend with and they're not. I

haven't heard any of them. You have to honestly contend with this. It's not enough to say, oh yeah,

there's not going to be World War Three because China is not getting involved. Russia doesn't care.

I think a lot of that is premature, but what about here? Because what's happened over the last

20 years? One of the differences between now and in 2003 between now and Iraq is that we have

permitted a tidal wave of immigration from the Muslim world. So in many ways, we are a worse position

to do this kind of thing now than we were in 2003. A lot worse actually. We are much more susceptible,

much more vulnerable now because of the invasion that has happened over the last 20 years.

And that has to be part of the calculation. It just has to be. You start doing this in the

Middle East. We have a bunch of Middle Eastern people here who are still loyal to their homeland.

What is that like? That is a very volatile situation, which is why before I could even theoretically

support a regime change war in the Middle East, it would need to be preceded by a mass deportation

operation to remove every third world Muslim militant and potential militant from the country.

Our own safety must come first always.

Rate it T for Teen. Hey everyone, it's the best in the world. CM Punk, back to shake up

WWE 2K26. This year, the show never stops. You're running the greatest spectacle on Earth

with the biggest roster we've ever had over 400 superstars and legends from every era.

Stack the tables, break the rules, burn it all down. And yeah, my very own showcase.

Telling my story, the weight should have been told. Because when the show never stops,

anything is possible. Available March 13 pre-order now.

Now right now, the attitude in the Republican Party is very different. Here's Ted Cruz.

This is from just a few days ago, for example, watch.

Plus taking the time to speak on issues like immigration.

My approach to immigration for a long time, I'd have summed up in four words. Legal? Good.

Illegal? Bad. I think most Texans and most Americans agree with that.

Is one of those cases where the simple approach is wrong. The fact that a foreigner has complied

with our laws does not mean that the law is correct. It doesn't mean the law should remain

unchanged. In fact, there's compelling evidence, which you can see all over the place,

that the law needs to change immediately. Now, it's one of the great betrayals of the Bush

administration that even as they waged war in the Middle East, they allowed millions of foreign

Muslims to enter the United States. At the time, the Bush administration's argument was that

Islam is a religion of peace, and that extremist represent a tiny fraction of the Muslim population.

Never mind the fact that worldwide, the vast majority of Muslims support Sharia law.

Bush administration was very concerned about, you know, being called racist, so they just

opened the floodgates. Now, 20 years later, we have Muslim politicians like Rashida Taleeb

who wrote the following post on social media in response to the attack on Iran. Look at this.

So she's referring to the United States as they, both the US and Genesidal Israel don't care

about the laws. This is who they are, she says. This is who they are. Doesn't even pretend that she's

an American. And why should she? The people who elected her despise this country. She's

giving them exactly what they want. So as Zoran Mamdani, the Muslim socialists who's now in

charge of New York, where a quarter of the population can't even speak English. Here's what Mamdani

wrote. You can see it here. Quote, today's military strikes on Iran carried out by the United States

and Israel mark a catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression, bombing cities,

killing civilians, opening a new theater of war. Americans do not want this. They do not want

another war in pursuit of regime change. They want relief from the affordability crisis. They want

peace. So it's not that we don't want another war when he's talking about Americans. Instead,

Mamdani says they don't want another war. Again, he doesn't see himself as an American because he

knows he isn't one. And he doesn't even have to pretend. And also pay attention to the other

language that they use. They call this an illegal war as if international law actually exists.

This is not a genuine good faith objection. I think there's a lot of reasons to be skeptical of

this, to be opposed to it, as I've already laid out, calling it an illegal war is meaningless.

Americans, people who actually care about this country aren't interested in talking about

international law. That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters, I don't care if it's a

illegal war. I don't care about that. What I care about is how this will benefit the people

of the United States of America. Now, given the lack of information, you have to be open to

the possibility that this might have some benefit. Lacking information, as we discussed,

nobody can make an absolutely definitive proclamation with any credibility.

But we also have to be very open to the possibility that the war might undermine everything

the Trump administration has achieved to this point. Now, sure, if the conflict ends up as a

major success with a minimal loss of life and a new pro-Western Iran, then Donald Trump

can claim victory and we'll go down as a hero. That, we can't say that's an impossible outcome.

Is it likely? Well, it seems unlikely to me. But who knows? And right now, we're nine months

from midterms. Some polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose going to war with

Iran, although you also find some mainstream polls showing that Americans support the war,

if it means eliminating Iran's nuclear capability. So to some extent, it depends on how you ask

the question. But really, the polls aren't the best indicator because people are generally,

this is the important at key point. People are generally supportive of invasions in the early days.

The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were popular at first. They ended up destroying Bush's

presidency and led to eight years of Obama, which means that most likely, this is the key point.

This operation in Iran is right now as popular as it will ever be. And no matter which poll you look

at, it's still not that popular. There's a low ceiling politically on this kind of thing.

And that's a bad sign. So what happens if this war becomes a quagmire and gives a

Democrat party a new platform to run on? What happens if the Wall Street Journal gets what they wish,

what they want? A war that continues for years and years until Iran isn't capable of committing

acts of terrorism, however that's defined. Right now, according to most generic congressional

ballots, Republicans are roughly even with Democrats in the congressional races. That could change

very quickly. And if this war costs Republicans and midterms, and then the presidency,

it will not have been worth it. Almost no matter how it turns out in Iran,

if it means Democrat rule at home, it was not worth it because Democrat rule here at home

means tyranny for our people. Freedom for Iran in exchange for oppression for Americans

is not a good trade. That would be just about the worst deal of the century.

So it's not enough for the president to talk about the USS Colbombing, which took place more than

25 years ago. It's not enough for him to talk about the attack on Israel in October of 2023,

either. Why do we, as Americans, need to do this? What's in it for us, for our country, right now?

Whatever the answer is, we are right now staring down the possibility of another

indefinite conflict in the Middle East, one that could cost trillions of dollars, resulting

the deaths of more Americans, how many we don't know. And in the end, accomplish nothing.

It won't necessarily turn out that way, but certainly could. And to me,

based on what we know right now, that does not seem to be a risk worth taking.

It's a major risk. The downside is extraordinarily high.

To me, it does not seem worth taking. Less than a year ago, we were told that Iran's nuclear

capacity was decimated and totally obliterated. We were told that.

Those reassurances didn't last long, so how do we know that this time, despite recent history,

everything will be different. And if we are told this whole thing was a smashing success,

how do we know what actually was? That's what they told us in June.

The answer is that we don't know. We have no idea. And before the administration escalates

this war even further, and before any more Americans die, they have an obligation to tell us.

Now let's get to our five headlines.

This episode is sponsored by Equip Foods. People often pick up protein bars, assuming that they're

making a quick and healthy decision. But if you've ever taken the time to actually read the label,

and you're probably surprised to see how much sugar is actually in these bars,

finding a protein bar that tastes good and is made with quality ingredients might feel like a

more daunting task than actually just working out. Now, answer Equip Foods Prime Bar, the first

grass-fed beef protein bar made with only real food ingredients and absolutely nothing to hide.

Starting today, my listeners will receive an exclusive discount on Prime Bar, which has become

our team's favorite protein bar on the market, with 20 grams of protein in every bar.

I've tried a lot of protein bars in the market, and none of them taste like real food. They taste

artificial and strange, but Prime Bar actually tastes like real food, and it's good, with just

11 clean ingredients, including collagen, beef, tallow, and colostrum, naturally sweetened with

dates and honey. You get 20 grams of clean protein without the bloat, no way, seed oils, gluten,

or artificial drunk. They're third party tested for heavy metals, microplastics, and pesticides,

so they can actually back up their cleanest bars on the market claim. If you want to try the cleanest

protein bar on the market that already sold out once, go to Equip Foods.com slash Matt Walsh.

Use code Matt Walsh to check out to get 25% off one time purchases, or 40% off your first

subscription order for a limited time that's EQUIPFoods.com slash Matt Walsh. Use code Matt Walsh at checkout.

We've tried a lot of coffee over the years. Our sponsor, Seven Weeks Coffee, is the one my wife

and I landed on. I personally love their medium roast. It's super smooth with a sweet, nutty taste

perfect for starting the day. My producer McKenna also stocks up on their coffee, and it's a big

fan, but it's not just great coffee. It directly pushes back against the abortion culture.

Seven Weeks Coffee is America's pro-life coffee company on a mission to fund the pro-life movement

one cup of coffee at a time. Why are they called Seven Weeks Coffee? Well, because it's Seven Weeks,

a baby is the size of coffee bean, and it's the same time that a heartbeat is clearly detected on

ultrasound. They've built their business around saving lives by donating 10% of every sale to

pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations nationwide. They've now raised over $1.5 million

and saved thousands of lives. Now let's talk about the coffee itself. It's mold-free, pesticide-free,

shade-grown, and low-acid, and it's organically farmed. It's coffee that tastes better and feels

better because they did it right. So go to Seven Weeks Coffee.com, say 15% forever, when you subscribe

plus, get a free gift with your order. And exclusively from my listeners, use code Walsh for an extra

10% off first order. That's a 25% total savings on your first order plus a free gift, just use code

Walsh at checkout. Okay, well, this is supposed to be the part of the show where we run through

other headlines. The problem is that there really aren't any other headlines because everything's

about Iran, so we'll be reaching a little bit here. But it is what it is. So we'll start with this

in much less important news, or maybe not, maybe even more important news. The NAACP image awards

happen this weekend. And there is a point to be made here, which I'll get to. As expected, there

were a bunch of speeches from rich and famous black people talking about how oppressed they are,

which we knew was going to happen. Ryan Kubler, who's the guy who directed the centers,

right? And he expanded on the theme of oppression watch.

We just want to say thanks. Thank you to you guys, man. It's a lot of, since our people have been

here over four centuries, there's always been a lot of lies told about us. And a lie, no matter how

powerful the person is saying it is, it's still a lie. And the truth, and the truth, no matter how

little power the person has that saying the truth, it's still the truth, and the truth is y'all

they love, y'all are beautiful, and y'all are powerful and mighty. And bless y'all. Thank you all so much.

Okay, so a lot of lies told about us, what lies exactly he doesn't say. So there's a lot of that.

But then there was this from Michael B. Jordan, the actor, a very famous actor, of course.

And here's what he says, listen.

Y'all really don't understand how much this means to me. Being here, I used to come here when I was

a kid, when I was about 15 years old, sneaking in through the back as best I could. And I always

love being here, man. It's felt like a reunion of sorts, you know, being from New Jersey and

and coming out here during the summers. And this is a place where I always felt encouraged. I

always felt like I could, I was being celebrated and nourished. You guys poured into me. Even

my small successes, even when I was a kid, you told me it was okay to keep going because I felt

seen here, I felt comfortable, I felt like I felt the love. And yeah, I just want to thank the

NAACP. I want to thank a man. I love being black. I love y'all.

Okay. So I love being black. He says, and here's the thing. I'm fine with that. I have no issue

with Michael B. Jordan or any other black person saying that. Actually, I support it.

I support it. You should love being who you are. You should love the parts of yourself that are

innate that are fundamental to your identity. I mean, I'm not big on the whole love yourself,

stick, not really my style, but you should love yourself as a child of God. And you should love

how you were made. So yes, you should love being black. If you are black, that's fine. No complaint

for me. The problem though is exactly what you're already thinking. It's the thing that comes

immediately to mind. It's the most obvious thing. And the problem is that we all know if let's say,

I don't know, Chris Pratt got up at some kind of award ceremony and was standing up there and said,

man, I love being white. I love being white. God bless. See y'all later. It would be the scandal

of the century. It might even be the top headline on CNN right now, even with everything going on

with that. It might beat out there and war. It might be that big of a deal. By the way,

it'd be an enormous scandal. He would be condemned from all corners as a racist and forced to

apologize. We all know this is the case. And even more absurd people, including a lot of white

people who have no problem with what Michael B. Jordan said, people would take issue with the

statement conceptually. You know, they would act like it's absurd. They would say, well, what do you

mean you love being white? Why do you care what color you are? What does that mean? You didn't

choose it. Why do you act like you're proud of it? They would act like it's fundamentally ridiculous

for a person to love being the race that they are. And it would certainly act like, so it's

ridiculous. And so they would assume that, well, the only reason you're saying that is because

you're actually trying to convey that you hate other races or you think other races are inferior.

And that's how it would go. And that is the totally irreconcilable hypocrisy in our racial

conversation in this country. And a lot of people, white people are just done with it.

You know, this is, in a sense, the kind of like modern social contract. I don't really,

I don't like that term, but if there is a social contract, then this is the contract,

the social contract and the modern age, which says that white people will just tolerate,

even actively affirm and celebrate these ridiculous ludicrous racial double standards.

This contract that says that, you know, every other race except whites are allowed to say and do

a whole bunch of stuff that white people can't say and do. The contract that says that, you know,

every other race is allowed to love themselves and be proud of who they are.

But white people can't. And the only reason ever given for that is just sort of gesturing towards,

well, it's about the history. It's about the historical context. Never mind the fact that the actual

history of our country is that white people as a group, generally speaking, have been most

responsible for building, establishing, maintaining, fighting for, inventing, pioneering,

basically every good thing in our lives. And for that effort, the reward is in a very literal

sense, this kind of second-class citizen arrangement. But the thing is that increasingly white people,

especially younger white people, especially white men, are just bowing out of this arrangement.

And that's what the media is noticing and that's what all the frantic hand-ranging about

the rise of what so-called white nationalism and all this stuff is all about.

It's really just people bowing out. It's them, it's people looking at this contract and saying,

I'm not signing that. But I don't, what? Oh, so the contract is like, there's all these rules I

have to follow, but nobody else does because of the color of my skin. No, I'm not just not doing it.

Why should I? Why should I do that? Oh, you're saying that like every other person with different

color skin can say this. They could say, but I can't. No. And that's all that's happening. People

are saying, that's a bad deal. That's a bad deal for me. I decline. I decline to take part. So,

hey, guess what? I love being white. I love being white. Happy to be white. White people are great,

they've done great things. They've been a blessing to the world. Go ahead and tell me I can't say that.

Go ahead and explain to me why everyone else is allowed to say that, but I can't. Go ahead.

But you can't explain it, and you know you can't. So, shut up or don't shut up and keep whining,

it doesn't really matter. But that's what I'm doing. And that's exactly what's happening. And this

is the reason for it. My show's proud to be supported by Grand Canyon University and affordable

private non-profit Christian University based in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona. At GCU,

academically rigorous industry driven programs are built to provide you with practical skills and

career readiness. They believe education shouldn't be a privilege, but an affordable path forward.

Because of this, GCU has kept tuition at the same rate on its traditional campus for the past 17

years, and we'll continue that into the 2627 academic year. Plus, they awarded over 404 million

dollars in institutional GCU scholarships last year to support and encourage education.

Grounded in Christian truth, GCU works to empower the next generation to lead with integrity,

serve with purpose, and help transform their communities. So, take action and find your purpose

at GCU, visit gcu.edu to learn more. All right. I've also been meaning to mention that

episode two of my new series, Real History, is out right now. And this is, in this episode,

we talk about the history of the American Indian and the real story of the American Indians,

which is a theme that we've talked about. We come back to that on this show quite a bit.

It's something that's important to me, which is making the case that we, in fact, do not live

on stolen land that we deserve to live here. That we built this country. This whole story

of a country built on oppression and subjugation of so-called indigenous people is not true.

And in the second episode, we deal with that whole thing. We lay out the real history,

the real history of the American Indians and of the Indian Wars and all the rest of it.

So here's a clip from the episode where we talk about why the Indians were called savages.

And today, we're told that, well, that was all just pure bigotry and racism. But there is a reason

for that. In fact, they earned that moniker. Listen. So just how savage were the Indians?

We get into specific details of some of these raids, but for now, we could focus on perhaps the

most gruesome detail of all. Evidence of cannibalism among American Indian tribes.

According to Keely's book War Before Civilization, at 25 sites in the American Southwest,

anthropologists have discovered cannibalized human remains, dated from roughly the year 900

to 1300 hundreds of years before Columbus arrived. We know they were consumed because the assemblages

of disarticulated bones share a number of features, butchering cut marks, skulls broken,

long bones smashed for marrow extraction, bones burned or otherwise cooked, and disposal with other

kitchen refuse. And there's a lot more to it than that. If you watch the episode, you'll find we

go into gruesome detail about what the first the European pioneers and settlers and then Americans

discovered when they came across these these native tribes. And that is, and it doesn't really

matter where they came across them. If it was in, if we're talking about continental United States

or the Mesoamerican, Mesoamerican tribes, we're talking about the South America,

all across the hemisphere, let me even up into the into the Arctic, the encounters with

the Eskimos, the Inuits, as we call them now. You find this sort of thing, just brutal savagery,

and this is the story across the entire hemisphere. And there's a reason for getting into it. It's not

just for shock value. That's not what it's about. It's to give you a sense of what it was like,

what they were dealing with when they were trying to build a civilization. I mean, you get to this

part of the world. You want to build a civilization here where one previously did not exist and it

advanced modern civilization for its time. And but what you're encountering are these tribes

that are living 5,000 years in the past, 10,000 years even in some cases. And when you actually look

at the history and you look at what these what these tribes were doing, the whole story, the whole

narrative about the noble, the noble savage, these peaceful people, Pocahontas, right, singing to

the to the to the birds and the bees and the trees, all of that melts away. And you see how utterly

absurd it was. And you also begin to understand, you can you know, there's so much emphasis that's

been put over the last many decades on empathizing with the the native people, the so-called

indigenous people. We have to be empathetic to them. We have to understand their plight. And there's

been so much emphasis put on that. Now, nobody ever talks about it being empathetic or trying to

understand in context the settlers who came here, the Western, the Westerners and what it was

like for them. See this through their perspective. I mean, just imagine what it's like, you you

you cross it in ocean, you come to this new land that you've never seen, you know, nothing about

there, no maps, you have no context for it, it's a wilderness, mostly an empty wilderness, by the way.

The most of the hemisphere was empty, wide, wide swathes of land that were empty, not claimed by

anybody. And that's often forgotten. You don't know what what to expect. And then you encounter,

again, without any context, it's it's really hard for us to put ourselves in this mindset because

of all the because of all the context we have now, because of all these things we take for granted.

You know, all the kind of dogmos that we have that are ingrained in us, embedded in us.

You know, the idea of like universal human equality, everybody is equal.

That's a it's a really modern notion. And people 500 years ago, 400 years ago, 300 years ago,

they didn't have that. They didn't take that for granted. So you don't have any of that

framework in mind, right? You don't have any of that kind of scaffolding. And you get here and you

encounter people who are running around naked or in loincloths, murdering each other brutally.

And in some cases, eating each other. What conclusions would you draw about these people?

What language would you use to describe them? Would you conclude that they are savages?

Yeah, I think so. And when you when you when you start to be when you try to actually be empathetic

in that way and understand things from their perspective, what you realize is that actually in many

cases, it's it's the it's the lack of brutality on the part of the European and American settlers

is pretty surprising and admirable. There was much more restraint than people realize.

And in fact, much more restraint on the side of the Europeans and the Americans than on the side

of the Indian tribes. Anyway, we get into all this in the episode and in much more detail.

But in order to watch it, you have to become a subscriber. So go to dailywire.com, become a

subscriber and watch. You can support what we do. We can't do things like this. It takes

actually takes a lot of time, a lot of research, a lot of effort to put together things like this.

And can't do it without your support. So go to dailywire.com, subscribe,

become a member, support the show. And that will do it for the show today. We'll end it there.

Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed.

They told you the Indians were peaceful.

They told you colonialism was evil and that Joseph Carthley was a bad guy.

And guess what? They lied.

For half a century, generations of American school children have been taught to hate our history,

hate our country, hate themselves. Time to set the record straight. And since no one else

is going to do it, I will. Who sold us the slaves? What were India and Africa like before Europeans

arrived? What caused light flight? Some of the most well-known stories from American history

are designed to demoralize you. Trail of tears. Smallpox blankets myth. The red scare. It's all

baseless. It's time for a lesson on what they're not teaching in public schools. On the real history of

slavery, of colonialism, of the Indians, of America, and the world. It's time for real history

with Matt Walsh. Now streaming only on Daily Wire Plus.

Rinse snows that greatness takes time, but soda's laundry. So rinse will take your laundry and

hand-deliver it to your door, expertly cleaned. And you can take the time pursuing your passions.

Time one spent sorting and waiting, folding and queuing, now spent challenging and innovating

and pushing your way to greatness. So pick up the Irish flute or those calligraphy pens or that

daunting beef Wellington recipe card and leave the laundry to us. Rinse, it's time to be great.