Iran War Endgame: Who Really Runs Tehran?

Not every sale happens at the register.

Before AT&T Business Wireless, checking out customers

on our mobile POS systems took too long.

Basically, a staring contest where everyone loses.

It's crazy what people will say during an awkward silence.

Now transactions are done before the silence takes hold.

That means I can focus on the task at hand

and make an extra sale or two.

Sometimes I do miss the bonding time.

Sometimes.

AT&T Business Wireless, connecting changes everything.

Welcome to the PAS Report Podcast.

If you're tired of censorship,

outraged by government abuses,

and thirsty for real insights,

then you're in the right place.

Get ready because here,

the fight for freedom never ends.

Here's your host, Professor Nick Teardano.

What's up, everyone?

So when it comes to the war and I rang,

if you listen to the media, the punting class,

the bureaucratic class, the Democrats,

you would think the United States is getting decimated

by the IRGC that we're in a quagmire

and the operation is a mess,

that it's worse than Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

And it's all lies, of course.

If this exact military campaign

were being carried out by any other president

other than Donald Trump,

the media would be calling it a master class,

a modern warfare.

It's the same media that praised Joe Biden's farm

policy doctrine of don't when it came to the Iranians.

And how well did that work out for us?

Let's be honest.

The don't doctrine didn't just fail.

The don't doctrine invited this conflict

as did President Obama giving billions of dollars

to the Theocratic regime

for the Iran nuclear agreement

that didn't really do anything.

You look at it, that money was used

to spend on the same missiles and drones

that we're seeing Iran launch today.

But if this were a Democrat president,

they would be praising the precision.

They would be talking about the intelligence breakthroughs,

how the entire Iranian government has been infiltrated.

They would be highlighting the degradation

of Iran's military capabilities.

They would be framing this as a textbook example

of how to project power on the world stage,

especially with how they full scale invasion.

But because it's Trump,

because they suffer from stage five TDS,

they can't do that.

So instead, they want to lie.

They tell you this is chaotic.

They tell you which reckless.

They tell you it's another Iraq.

They tell you we're on the brink of disaster.

The TDS has deluded them to the point

where they can't even see what's right in front of them.

They don't even care.

And you're going to want to hang tight

for segment three because, whoa,

there are a lot of Americans rooting for us to lose.

But when you look at the way the media has portrayed this,

they operate with hatred rather than strategic analysis.

It's disgraceful.

So I'm here to give you the reality of what's going on.

This has actually been one of the most precise

and effective military campaigns that we've seen in decades.

And we are going to talk about Iran today.

What is at stake?

What are the risks?

How do the American people feel about this war?

And most importantly,

what does victory actually look like?

I'll get into those who actively hope for America

to lose this campaign.

So welcome to the PAS report.

I'm your host, Nitro Dano.

Make sure to follow and subscribe to the podcast

so you don't miss an episode.

Share this episode with three to four other people

because they need to understand what's really going on.

They need to get the truth.

If you want to know the truth,

understand that Iran's military infrastructure

has taken significant damage over 90% of Iran's

missile and drone capabilities have been degraded.

Their launch capacity has been reduced.

Key facilities being hit.

You have missile and other production,

a drone production facilities being destroyed.

Senior leadership figures taken out.

Their replacements, what's happened to them?

Oh, they've been taken out too.

You have the United States and Israel demonstrating

how deep the intelligence penetration goes.

It goes into the highest levels that is regime.

That is not failure.

That is not a quagmire.

That's what operational success looks like

in the early stages of a campaign

that is designed to cripple the adversary's ability to wage war.

And sure, Iran can launch a dozen missiles

or so a day.

We see it.

And the media is like see, see,

Trump underestimated Iran's capabilities.

They say it's proof that nothing has been achieved.

Meanwhile, we've hit over 10,000 targets in Iran.

And that's why I say the media in the punting class,

they don't do analysis anymore.

Instead, they do narratives.

And the narratives are we start with Trump.

And it always starts with how bad and terrible things are.

You go on the drudge report in today's day and age.

I don't know what the hell happened in that guy.

But you go on it.

We're already defeated.

They are so broken by Trump that they now

recoil the idea of American victory itself.

And we see this distortion.

It's actually disturbing at this point.

It really is a sickness at this point.

It doesn't mean that I'm cheerleading.

Trump's decision to attack Iran

with that the American people are behind the war effort.

They're not.

If we are being honest,

it would be irresponsible not to point out

that the majority of the American people

is skeptical of this war.

And I understand why you have a majority,

59% that are against it.

That's real.

That's not something that we could dismiss.

It's not something we can ignore,

particularly as we head into the midterm elections.

And it's completely rational.

We live through Iraq.

We live through Afghanistan.

We were routinely lied to and manipulated.

We were told that we were making progress

that security forces could protect those countries.

They could protect their governments

that the governments are stable.

They're not in danger of collapsing.

And sure enough, it was all lies.

It was all BS.

We were promised clarity.

And what did we get?

We got mission creep.

We were promised quick outcomes.

And we got decades of drift.

Instead of fighting a war on terrorism,

the mission shifted it morphed

into spreading democracies

in countries where democracy isn't compatible.

And what does a democratic

Afghanistan even look like in the first place?

I don't even know how you measure something like that.

So I get why people are upset.

People are still upset of the fact that

if the 20 years of war,

millions of dollars spent,

thousands of soldiers coming back

and flagdraped coffins,

tens of thousands wounded,

somewhat life-filtering injuries,

what did we get for that?

We got a Taliban that's better armed

and equipped today than they were on September 10th, 2001.

So I get when people hear Iran,

they don't hear strategy.

They hear warning signs.

They hear here.

We go again in other Middle East and war

and other forever war.

And then you lay on top of that

the way the Iran war has been covered.

And it's no wonder why 59% of people are against it.

From day one, the media didn't nest.

What are the objectives?

They didn't ask what's been achieved.

They didn't ask what capabilities have been degraded.

They didn't lay out the risk versus reward.

They didn't talk about the bigger picture

that the geopolitical landscape

and how that landscape changes dramatically

if we win and it changes dramatically if we lose.

Instead, they immediately went to

Trump's end over his head.

He doesn't know what he's doing.

He doesn't think things through.

That the Iranian government is more trustworthy

than this administration.

And that Iran posed no threat whatsoever

to the United States despite a 47-year history

that says otherwise.

See, that's not journalists.

That's narrative setting.

It's narrative warfare.

And it matters because almost nobody

is talking about the other side of the equation.

Look, I understand the fact

that Americans don't want this war.

And I also understand the debates

surrounding whether the president had the proper

authority to start the war.

I get to talk about Article 1, Section 8.

And whether Congress should have played a role

because they are the ones

that have the war-making powers.

Those are legitimate points.

Those are legitimate concerns.

We could debate.

We could debate whether or not

this was necessary.

That's fair.

That's fine.

But we also need to recognize

that those debates don't change the fact

that we are at war now.

It doesn't erase that fact.

We can demand that Congress does its job

on the Article 1 Section 8

while still demanding that our Commander-in-Chief

finishes the job on the Article 2.

We can have the debates,

but we can also hope for victory

because I don't think people understand what's at stake.

I don't think people realize

what happens if we lose.

What happens if Iran is able to absorb these strikes

and they're able to survive

with enough of its infrastructure

still intact to rebuild

and continue holding this region hostage.

Continue to strangle hold

that has over its people.

Continue to work with the proxies.

What happens if the regime comes out

it is battered but still standing?

And what if others conclude,

well, you can withstand American forces?

If every hostile actor watching

learns the same lesson,

they've learned too many times before

that America can hit hard,

but it doesn't know how to finish a job.

What does that do to us?

What does a post-war IRGC

control Iran look like?

How does this symbol the in our adversaries?

See, those are the real stakes.

But they don't get discussed

because acknowledging them

would require those that hate Trump

to admit that victory actually does matter.

It would require admitting

that not every use of force is reckless

and not every conflict

is going to be Iraq and Afghanistan.

And there is something else

that we have to be honest about time.

This entire narrative of Quagmire

is built on the fact

that this operation didn't wrap up in a week.

Think about how absurd that is.

We have been engaged for about a month,

a month, a military terms that's nothing.

That's not a forever war.

That is not some endless occupation.

It's the opening phase of a campaign.

But because we live in a country

with a 10-second attention span,

if something isn't resolved immediately,

all of a sudden it gets labeled the failure.

That's not strategy.

That's just impatience,

masquerading as analysis.

And here's the catch.

You can have the Mr. Class of Military Strategy,

but if it breaks the back of the American family,

it gets politically dangerous

because we are in a midterm election year

and we have to acknowledge that.

That's exactly what the Iranians are counting on.

While the media is distorting reality,

the economic effects on ordinary Americans,

like you and I,

we feel it.

The American people feel it,

gas prices rising,

and most ordinary Americans,

it hits their economic livelihoods immediately.

I mean, I fill up about twice a week.

A month ago,

it cost me $32 to fill up my tank.

Now it's about $52.

So you're talking about $40 a week,

$160 a month.

And because of God's grace,

I can absorb the hit

because I do all right.

But that's still $160 that I'm not able to put

into other parts of the economy.

And other people have it a lot more difficult than I do.

Other people live in a paycheck to paycheck.

They're trying to decide what bills can they afford to pay

and which ones that they can't just, they can't pay.

And if the high gas prices continue,

it's going to lead to another bout of inflation.

The price of everything else is going to increase.

So we could talk all day about strategy,

about Iran, about the Middle East.

But most Americans are not living in that world.

They're living in their wallets.

They're looking at what a cost to fill up their tank.

They're looking at their grocery bill.

They're looking at their monthly expenses.

And the higher gas prices go,

the less disposable income people have.

That affects everything.

It affects spending.

It affects consumer confidence.

It affects how people vote.

So we cannot pretend that politics doesn't matter here.

We are.

We're heading into the midterm elections.

Historically, the party in power almost always lose the seats.

That's the rule, not the exception.

We could look at the last 100 years of data,

50 midterm elections.

And there are only two exceptions to the norm.

1998 and 2002.

So Republicans were already facing an uphill battle

on these midterms.

You factor in the lack of enthusiasm

among the Republican base.

You see the lackluster performance

of feckless Republicans at both in the House and the Senate.

You factor in how Democrats in the fall left,

they are energized.

They are engaged.

Just look at how many people turned out

for the No Kings rally.

And all you Republicans and conservatives out there,

you can make fun of those No Kings rally or you want.

The lack of diversity is stunning.

You can make fun of a fact that it seems to be

all old people, white old people, particularly women.

But those people are turning out to vote.

If they're going to waste their time

on a Saturday to go protest,

they're going to go vote when election day comes.

You add the rising gas prices into that equation

and it's a nightmare scenario for Republicans.

You have what?

A five seat majority for vacancies in the House?

That's not a lot.

And if gas prices stay high heading into the summer and beyond,

Republicans are going to take a huge hit.

There's no way around that.

And that's where this actually does get dangerous.

We begin to see the much bigger picture,

much more complicated picture.

What I worry about is does the administration

start making decisions based on political pressure?

Does the administration begin making military decisions based

on the political climate and potential political outcomes?

Did they start thinking about the polling, the headlines,

the next spike at the pump?

You already have Republicans in Congress that are very nervous.

And to me, they're weak need.

You see this through.

Does the president believe that what's at stake here is far too important,

so important that this is a fight worth absorbing the political cost for?

Because if you start making military decisions based on

short-term political pain, you're not just weakening your own position.

You're teaching your adversaries exactly how to beat you.

And this is what Iran is hoping for.

They are hoping that the internal domestic pressure forces Trump to back off.

They're going to try and wait us out.

They're going to drag it out as long as they can.

They're going to raise the cost.

And they're going to let the American media spew their garbage,

spew Iranian talking points because they want that fear amplified.

They wanted the political pressure to continue to build.

And they think that the Trump administration will blame.

That's how you lose without losing on the battlefield.

And that's why this moment actually matters.

Because this campaign, based on what we can say,

it's doing real damage to Iran's war-making capability.

We are achieving the four strategic objectives that have been laid out by the president.

The question is not just what has been destroyed.

The question also becomes, what does victory look like?

What comes next?

Even if the Trump administration is successful at achieving the mission,

will the media, the Democrats, the Punditry class,

will they still frame it as a failure?

What does this mean for America?

Because when you hit a regime this hard,

when you eliminate leadership,

when you degrade infrastructure,

when you expose how deeply penetrated their system is,

you don't just weaken them, you destabilize them.

And it's going to bring us to another round of questions.

Who's actually running Iran right now?

Because if the regime is no longer functioning the way it used to,

everything changes, strategy changes, diplomacy changes, and game changes.

And that's what we're going to talk about next.

So hang tight, we'll be right back.

President Barack Obama.

Virginia, we are counting on you.

Republicans want to steal enough seats in Congress to raid the next election

and wield unchecked power for two more years.

But you can stop them by voting yes by April 21st.

Help put our elections back on a level playing field and let voters decide not politicians.

Vote yes by April 21st.

Paid for by Virginians for fair elections.

And that's what we see happening right now inside Iran.

Because the real question isn't just about what's been destroyed.

The real question is who is actually running Iran?

Who's calling the shots?

Who's given the orders?

Who has the authority to negotiate?

And who, if anyone, can still impose discipline on a regime

that is cracking under pressure?

These aren't some side questions.

These are the central questions right now.

I don't see a real center of authority in Iran.

And so the conflict can get more volatile in the short term

as a governing structure becomes more fragmented.

It also makes diplomacy more difficult.

And remember, war is not a substitute for diplomacy.

It's a tool of diplomacy.

We know that there is this deep-seated paranoia

among the officials in Iran and who wouldn't be paranoid.

You see your entire senior leadership get wiped out.

They get replaced and then they start getting wiped out.

Internal betrayal becomes more plausible

and you look at the signs.

You have a newly elevated Ayatollah.

Nobody has seen him visibly yet.

There's been no way that he has projected any sort of power or control over that country.

He's issued two statements.

Those statements were read out loud on air.

You haven't seen him in any commanding public appearances.

There's no images that have been released of him.

No audio, no demonstration that the Ayatollah

is the new figurehead that he's actually in command.

And in a regime like Iran,

that actually matters.

Authoritarian systems survive on projection.

They survive on fear.

They survive on the appearance of control.

They need that image of continuity.

They need their people, their elites, their enemies to believe

that someone is firmly at the helm.

Because once that fear begins to evaporate,

well, that becomes the main threat,

because now people may rise up.

And when you have a country where 60% of people

absolutely despise its government,

another 20% don't like it.

You have that many people that despise their own government.

When the face of the regime goes quiet at the exact moment,

it needs to step forward and show it's still in command.

It shows you.

That the structure, the theocratic structure is broken.

It also invites speculation.

Is the new Ayatollah injured?

Is he hiding?

Was this a fake out?

Is he even really the new leader of Iran?

Is he even relevant at this point?

We have reports that say he's been severely disfigured.

Other reports say that he's an ICU,

had both like Zapitated.

Some speculate that he may have actually been killed.

So even if some of the reports are wrong,

the uncertainty itself is devastating to the theocratic structure.

Uncertainty in dictatorships becomes an existential threat.

And with it, you see the psychological impacts.

Once people inside the regime stop knowing who's truly in charge,

the whole system begins to shift,

the system begins to fragment.

And you may see competing factions, ambitious individuals,

who want a jockey power, no unified command structure,

people making their own decisions.

These decisions aren't really based on any coherent strategies.

And that is what makes this moment so important.

For years, most people thought about Iran as a rigid,

centralized theocracy.

One supreme leader at the top,

you have the guardian council, the clerics beneath them,

politicians stay in their lanes,

and the IRG see keeps everything in order.

They they continue to carry out the Ayatollah's decrease.

But that may no longer describe reality.

Iran is no longer functioning as a coherent top down regime.

And I will guarantee you, every single person inside the theocratic structure

is asking themselves, who can I trust?

So this fragmentation is a problem for Iran.

Power doesn't flow through formal titles anymore.

It flows through force,

which brings me to the most important player in all this,

the IRG see, the Islamic Revolutionary God Codes.

It's not just part of the Iranian state.

It's moments like this that the IRG see would become this state.

Because when the system begins to fracture,

ideology gives way to covert coercion.

Formal process gives way to raw power.

And the IRG see is the one with guns.

They're the ones with the intelligence networks.

They're the ones that know the loyalists.

They're the ones that target the civilians, them in the besiege.

They they're the ones that will eliminate any rivals.

Anyone who represents a threat

not necessarily to the theocratic power,

but to the IRG see command structure.

If there is one institution that benefits from some of this chaos,

we have to understand it is the IRG see,

because they don't rely on legitimacy.

They rely on power.

They rely on force.

They're the ones that control the weapons.

They control the networks.

They control the enforcement mechanism.

Now Trump says his administration officials are in talks with Iranian officials.

He doesn't say publicly who they're actually dealing with.

Why do you think that is?

Why?

It's probably because if that information comes out,

the IRG see will kill whoever is no negotiating with America.

That's why that's why we hear the mixed messages coming out of Tehran.

Back channel talks, denials, conflicting statements, strategic ambiguity.

It's all over the place.

And that's important.

I'm going to get to back to that in a minute.

However, a fact that no one can deny is that strong regimes don't hide in moments like this.

They show the leader.

They want to project control.

They want to project power.

They want to reassure the system is still in control.

But we do need to know more about the negotiations that the Trump

administrations engaged in.

See, the Iranians have always been good negotiators.

They've always been good at talking and wasting time.

So is this just another delay tactic?

These intermediaries speaking on behalf of the nation, they do no longer control.

Can they make decisions?

Are these people with titles, but no real power?

And I could tell you now that we don't want to see the IRG see consolidating power,

because they're just as fanatical as the itola was.

But there's something else going on.

We need to look at soldiers themselves, ordinary soldiers.

There are ports that lower-level soldiers,

mid-tier officers from the IRG see, from the besieged paramilitary forces,

that they're starting to defect.

They are deserting.

We're seeing a rising number of desertions in the Iranian regular army.

And there's always been this friction between the Iranian army and the IRG see.

So while the IRG see is warning against any disobedience,

it's clear that the cracks are forming.

Soldiers haven't been paid.

And the question is, how long can you hold units together

if they're not getting paid?

If they can't trust the chain of command or there is no chain of command,

how many of them are starting to realize that the regime may be dying

and it's losing its grip on power.

So they're not going to go down with a sinking ship.

That there's massive, external, but also internal pressures in Iran.

So fear is really important.

The IRG see has to instill that fear.

Whatever is left of it.

Whatever is left of the Iranian regime.

Fear is driving all of this.

Imagine what it must look like from the inside.

Senior officials dead, their replacements dead,

the highest levels of the state,

penetrated by foreign intel agencies.

America is real showing that they could essentially reach anyone,

target anyone anywhere.

And they could do it in an extraordinary precise way.

That kind of penetration doesn't just kill people.

It destroys trust from within.

And as that trust collapses, especially in authoritarian regimes,

everything starts to rot from within.

Because anyone and everyone is now a suspect.

And that level of paranoia tears systems apart,

creates new incentives.

If you're a politician outside the IRG see structure,

what do you do?

Do you trust the IRG see to protect you?

What do you fear that they're actually going to kill you to try and consolidate power?

Do you assume the clerics still have real control?

Do you conclude that the men with the weapons now make the decisions?

Do you stay loyal to a regime that is devouring itself?

Do you start thinking about self-preservation and survival?

Self-preservation is a powerful force.

And that's why I talk about fragmentation.

Because it's more than just a theory, it's a reality.

Survival is a dominant instinct.

People do not act like loyal servants of the state anymore.

They hedge, they reposition, they maneuver, they protect themselves.

They try and anticipate who is going to win the internal struggle for power

and who's going to be buried by it.

And under those conditions, things that seemed unthinkable actually become possible.

So are we going to start sea sabotage from within?

We're ready hearing reports of independent roaming groups,

targeting besiege forces at the checkpoints, targeting IRG see forces.

This is really important.

You're seeing the destabilization within the theocratic regime.

Are those that we're in negotiations with?

Are they possibly giving us positions of IRG see forces?

And I want to be careful here.

I'm not saying I can prove that high level.

Iranian political actors are feeding us a target list.

I'm talking about the political class members of the parliament.

And it is a possibility that they see the writing on the wall and they just want to survive.

If the regime is fragmenting, if the IRG see is attempting to consolidate power,

sideline politicians, if fear is overtaking loyalty,

then internal betrayal becomes far more plausible than most people realize.

That is not fantasy.

That is how regimes under extreme stress behave.

And that is why the battlefield picture alone is not enough anymore.

This is no longer just about bombs and missiles and destroyed facilities.

This is now about whether or not we are seeing the Iranian regime teeter on the brink of collapse.

More important, what replaces it?

And before we go to break, I want you to think about five things that the experts on the news

won't tell you.

If the new Ayatollah is healthy,

why hasn't he sat for a single 32nd video clip?

If the regime is unified, why is the IRG see hoarding blood and medicine

while regular army soldiers bleed out?

The most important, if the Iranian regime is devouring itself,

why is the American media still trying to feed us this quagmai nonsense?

What does victory look like?

And finally, why do so many Americans want to see us lose this war?

And that last one, the domestic rot here at home,

is going to be a key focus in next segment.

So everyone, hang tight and we'll be right back.

Welcome back to the PAS report podcast.

Now, before I get to the demented morons out there that want to see the United States lose,

we have to look at that question of what does victory actually look like?

Because if the Trump administration cannot or will not define victory, guess what?

The media is going to define failure for them.

Compending class will define failure for them.

The anti-Trump and anti-American crowd will define failure for them.

Before long, you'll see a campaign that was able to cripple the enemy's capabilities,

destabilized its command to control structures, destroy the government, expose deep fractures

inside the regime, somehow that will be sold to the American people as a failure,

as a mistake, simply because the regime still has a pulse.

That's how narrative warfare works in this country.

And the left has a monopoly on narrative warfare.

Republicans are absolutely terrible when it comes to controlling the message.

See, victory, it doesn't mean that you need a full-scale occupation of Iran.

It doesn't mean that you have to march into Tehran,

try and build this amorphous idea of a democracy,

doesn't mean another Iraq or Afghanistan.

Secretary-State Barcarubio said this week that the United States can achieve its military

objectives in Iran without ground troops.

And that the goal is to dismantle Iran's missile and drone capabilities, stop

this port for the proxy networks, destroy its Navy and Air Force,

and remove the nuclear material from Iran.

Now, I tend to suspect we will use ground troops in two ways.

The first way is to take Kargaylin, that is the lifeblood of the Iranian economy.

And that is where most of Iranian oil is distributed through.

I have no doubt that Trump wants to control Iranian oil because he knows it's going to do two

things. It will eventually topple the theocratic regime, but more importantly,

it's actually a game-changer. President Trump has stated several times in the past that oil is

a resource worth fighting for. So if we factor U.S. oil production, then it's oil and oil

production, and now maybe Iranian oil production. That's about 40% of the world's oil supplies.

Listen, whether we say it out loud or not, if you have 40% share on the world's oil,

you're not just influencing energy markets, you're reshaping the global balance of power,

you're putting America in a position that's able to squeeze its adversaries,

that's able to control the price of oil, that's able to dictate terms in a way,

few nations in history ever could just take a look at China.

Do you think China will be able to hold us hostage over rare earth minerals if we can hold

them hostage over energy? I have said it several times since the war began that there is much

more than meets the eye here. And then the other area where we're probably going to have to use

ground troops is the special operatives. Send them in to get Iran's nuclear official material

out of the country. So when we look at ground troops, yeah, we may not do any large-scale ground

invasion, but I do believe ground troops are going to be necessary despite what the administration

says. But getting back to this idea of victory, what does victory constitute? Well, victory means

the regime's war-making capability is so badly degraded that it can't reconstitute it,

or if they can reconstitute it, it's going to take them decades to recover from.

See, every future president, if we are successful here, should be thanking Trump.

Because what would more time have done? More time would have led to more Iranian missiles,

more robust systems. We've already seen because it is war. You have the intel analysts.

Oh, Iran can't launch off ballistic missiles that could hit Europe. Sure enough, they can.

It reminds me of North Korea. The North Koreans don't have the technical know how to build

the nuclear bomb and sure enough, they do a nuclear test. Well, they could do a nuclear test,

but they don't have the capability of launching an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Sure enough, they show they have that capability. Yeah, but they don't know how to weaponize a war

head with nuclear material. Sure enough, they do. So they were wrong every step at a way.

So for those that are sit there and want to say that Iran didn't pose a threat or whatever it

may be, the truth of the matter is Iran would have continued to build out its stockpiles.

They would continue to be able to hold the region hostage. So we're talking about destroying

a military infrastructure that's going to take them decades to recover from. We're talking about

an Iran that no longer is able to threaten the region the way it once did. We're talking about

making it so difficult for the IRGC to restore their ability to project terror at scale through its

proxies, cut off that proxy network. We're talking about when it comes to victory, the regime

either loses total control of its apparatus or the apparatus is so badly broken that it can't

simply wait out the news cycle can simply rebuild their military capabilities. You now have the

Gulf States reportedly telling Washington that a ceasefire alone is not enough that Iran's capabilities

must be permanently degraded with the several countries looking to join the war effort. So there

is a path for victory even if the regime doesn't fully collapse. It could be isolated, but there's

another battle going on and these battles actually more dangerous. This is the one taking place

here at home. You have a faction in this country that doesn't just oppose Trump. It recoils at the

idea of American success, especially if Trump is the one delivering that success. And that's what

ties all this together because this is a threat. You see it in the street. You see it in the

pundit clash. You see it in the old intelligence media apparatus. You see it in the parts of the

foreign policy established that have been responsible for every disastrous foreign policy decision

for the last several decades. They're more alarmed by the prospect of American victory than they are

by the Iranian regime itself. We're seeing this alliance between demented leftists in the deep

state. And I want you to listen to this clip. Protests happening in Philadelphia take a listen to

this. Until we have done everything in our power to bring the United States to its knees. Let us not

lose sight of the enemy wherever you as military base not crumbles. For every U.S. soldier who

returns home in the casket will share. But every waking moment in direct confrontation with

Zionism and they rely on a stronger audience state to maintain their fighting capacity.

Do you hear Americans?

I mean, what do you even say to that? A mere protest outside City Hall screeching that for every

U.S. soldier that returns home in a casket will share. Think about how depraved that is,

how demented that is. That's not anti-war. That's not pacifism. That's anti-American.

And it shows that how deep the moral and cultural rot is in this country. And I want to thank

Senator John Fetteman because he is the lone Democrat that came out and condemned it.

And he was right to do so. Where are all the other Democrats? Why aren't they speaking up? Why

aren't they condemning this? Are they too cowardly? Or do they actually agree with the anti-American

garbage that's spewing out of these idiots? But it shows you that it's not really about Trump. It's

about America itself. You listen to John Brennan. Take a listen to his clip.

Iran. Like they are an authoritarian regime who's known to lie. But like, I'm confused.

What is going on? Help me calm me down. Well, I tend to believe Iran more than I do. That's crazy.

Because he could not acknowledge the truth even when it is he's slapped in the face with it repeatedly.

Another episode. And not for nothing. This is a guy that should be in prison. He's routinely

undermined our constitution. Undermine the United States as old. This is a guy who

lied to Congress about spying on Americans. A guy who in 2015, John Brennan CIA caught spying

on sitting members of the United States Senate Intelligence Committee. You have his fingerprints

all over Operation Crossfire Hurricane targeting a political opponent and then a sitting president.

I want you to think about a former CIA director going on national television saying that he believes

I ran more than Trump. See, only in these people's sick and deluded minds would you trust a

theocratic tyranny than as a history of lying and pushing propaganda. You may not like Trump.

I get that. That's fine. Teach his own. But to come out there and say the mullahs are more

trustworthy. You must be smoking some hunter-biting great stuff to be this delusional.

And I really want that to sink in a former header CIA man who held one of the most sensitive

positions within the national security apparatus is rhetorically siding with an Iranian regime over

an elected president of the United States during a conflict. That's not analysis. That's level five

TDS right there. Then you have the foreign policy class to people that have routinely gotten

it wrong over the decades and there's an article in foreign policy magazine that argued that a

United States victory in Iran would be bad for Washington and the rest of the world. See,

they suggested that the greater danger is not American failure, but American success on the Trump.

Again, think about how warped and deluded that is. Think about the mentality behind that. Not

war might go too far. Not that the objectives of the war should be debated,

but that an outright victory would itself be the bad outcome. And that tells you exactly how twisted

the lens has become. Direct quote from the article quote, it is impossible to cast an Iran

ruled by Islamic clerics with a record of domestic and international violence as heroic.

But the possibility of Trump being able to destroy another country and impose his personal

whims and authority on yet another nation has become more frightening than a stalemate or

even an embarrassing end to the war for the United States. If Trump is unbridled now,

just imagine how wildly and dangerously inflated his sense of impulsive what will driven

prerogative and impunity would become in the wake of the defeat of Iran. Neither the United States,

nor the world can afford to have a US presidency mutate into a cancerous dictatorship that continues

to ride rampant and roughshod over the rest of the world. End quote. These are the same idiots

responsible for Iraq, Afghanistan and a myriad of other foreign policy failures. They would rather

put troops in harm's way to spread an amorphous idea of democracy to countries whose culture

is not compatible with democratic principles. They'd rather go to war to force countries to accept

women with penises than to fight a war and do what is in America's interests. I'm sorry.

But anyone wishing for a defeat a United States defeat is revealing how their hatred for Trump

is so consuming that they would rather see America weakened. They'd rather see our troops

in danger. They'd rather see our adversaries in Bolton. Then admit that a US victory would maybe serve

our national interests. And the truth is these experts aren't worried that Trump will fail,

they terrified that he may actually succeed, succeed where they failed for decades.

They'd made a career out of a managed decline at the United States and they can't handle a

president who may be a blowhardt, who may be a narcissist, who may be someone that's crude and

crass. They can't handle a president who actually believes America can still achieve victories,

that America can be strong, that we could still live in a unipolar world.

And then you look at the protest industrial complex, the no kings movement,

the organizers who use the conflict in Iran, the war in Iran is another domestic mobilization to

hundreds of thousands of people turning out for the no kings events over the weekend,

organizers explicitly tying these protests to what they call an illegal war in Iran,

to the rising gas prices, to the general anti-Trump resistance. And it was amazing to watch these

protests throughout the country. You know, in the New York City protests, they were waving

communist flags chanting, there is only one solution, a communist revolution. Think about that.

Think about that. Another protest, they're waving theocratic Iranian flags.

So I guess no kings, but a theocratic tyranny is just fine. You know, nothing says,

fighting tyranny like waving the flag of a regime that actually jails, torches, and

executes people for what? For dissent. Nothing says, fighting authoritarianism, like calling for

a system that's maybe a little authoritarian in communism. They talk about no kings.

How long did Mao serve in power? How long did Stalin serve in power? How long did Fidau

Castro serve in power? How long have the Kim Jong's and their regime served in power? How

long did Maduro and Chavez serve in power? So those systems are fine. It's really America. That's

the problem. You know, they want to summon moral outrage for a democratically elected American

president, but somehow they can't find the same passion for any regimes that are built on

repression and terrorism, any regimes that have crushed dissent. That's not important.

I mean, you got to, you got to be a certain level of stupid to buy into that, but it does tell us

that it's not really about opposing authoritarianism. And this is where I want to be really blunt.

You have a faction in this country so consumed by hatred for Trump that it's lost all basic loyalty

to the United States. These people are not merely anti-Trump. They are anti-American.

Whenever America's success interferes with their political religion, they want to bash. They want

to demonize America. They never give America the benefit of doubt. They never give America credit

for the good things it's done. Instead, they bash the entire system. They bash our founding,

our history, our constitution. They would rather see this country humiliated and destroyed.

They'd rather see America's enemies empowered than to see us succeed, especially if Trump may

get credit for that success. They are so broken by Trump that they can't even imagine American

victory. See, that's not dissent. That's cultural rot. And it's the rot I routinely talk about

because it's a threat to the fabric of this country. And listen, this isn't about criticism of

the war. There are clear constitutional arguments. And I believe those criticisms are fair.

You could debate whether we should have attacked Iran or not. There are arguments on both sides.

We can debate whether Iran was really an imminent threat that required a military response

in the first place or whether we should have waited and continued with the diplomatic track.

That's all fair. None of what I'm saying means every critic of this war is anti-American.

Not even close. I get the legitimate concerns about mission creep and energy prices,

escalation, what happens next. I get those concerns. We talked about some of those concerns

in segment one. I've talked about them on previous episodes. But there's a major difference

between asking hard questions. There's a major difference between engaging in robust debate about

whether it was worth it or not. And a political media class that seems to be emotionally invested

in wanting America to fail. That distinction matters. Because in the same country, people can argue

over strategy and still want their country to win. In a healthy political culture, former intelligence

officials like John Brennan would not instinctively lend rhetorical credibility to Toronto for Washington.

In a serious media environment, protesters would be covered when they cheer dead American soldiers.

They wouldn't just get waived away as anti-war demonstrations.

That's what's at stake here. Not just whether Iran's military capabilities have been

hit hard, not just whether the regime is fragmenting and maybe on its last breath.

But whether the United States still has the political clarity to recognize success,

defying a serious end state, would stand the domestic faction that would rather see America fail

than America succeed. Because the battlefield has already exposed Iran's vulnerabilities.

The next test is whether America has the confidence to finish what it started.

Whether the media class, the activist class, the anti-Trump establishment, whether they succeed in

turning strategic successes into political surrender. And that's going to be the most revealing

battleable. Now, if you found the content of this episode informative, make sure to give the

P.A.S. Report a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Make sure to share this with three

to four other people. We have to break through the noise. We have to break through the left-wing

ecosystem that wants to continue to push out lies. I want to thank you for joining me and I'll

be back with more great episodes at a P.A.S. Report Podcast.

Thank you for listening to the P.A.S. Report. Don't forget to rate, share, and hit that

subscribe button. That way you'll never miss an episode. For more exclusive content and updates,

visit us at P.A.S. Report.com and follow Professor Giordano on all social media platforms at P.A.S. Report.