Tim Miller: MAGA Influencers Don’t Know How to Defend This War

Nearly home.

Isn't home where we all want to be?

Reba here for Reelter.com, the pros number one most trusted app.

Finding a home is like dating.

You're not just looking for a place to live.

You're searching for the one.

That's where Reelter.com comes in.

Like any good matchmaker, they know exactly where to look.

With over 500,000 new real listings straight from the pros every month,

you could find your perfect match today.

Rent style with a pool, barned a minium with an inlaw suite.

Reelter.com's got them.

Modern craftsmen with a big yard and a tree house out back.

Reelter.com will have you saying, yep, that's the one.

No more swapping.

It's time to start finding.

Download the Reelter.com app today because you're nearly home.

Make it real with Reelter.com.

Pros number one most trusted app based on August 2025 proprietary survey.

Over 500,000 new listings every month based on average new for sale

and rental listings July 2024 to June 2025.

Some crimes are never forgotten.

Others are lost to history.

Those are the ones we focus on in crimes of the centuries.

A history meets true crime podcast revisiting murders, trials and frauds that once dominated

headlines.

I remember hunt your host and a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.

If you like true crime that feels both cinematic and historical, find crimes of the centuries

wherever you get your podcasts.

Hey everybody, Tim Miller from the Bullwork here.

I went back to the Lions den of the Peers Morgan show.

And on the plate today was a Ron just a little behind the curtain for you.

I had been booked to discuss Candace's documentary series trying to pin the Charlie Kirk murder

on either the French Legionnaires, Erica Kirk herself, the Jews or some combination of

the three.

But you know, when we went to war with Iran, more serious conversation prevailed.

So we focused on that.

One thing when we get to the clips here, the most interesting part of this panel was it

is going to be hard, I think, for the Trump world to find a lot of strong surrogates

for their effort here.

And I think that while a lot of mega voters at least earlier are going to give Trump

the benefit of the doubt because they're in a cult.

And if you look at polls right now, you know, he's below where he usually is on stuff.

It is kind of in the 70s, but 70% of Trump voters are for this, you know, among the kind

of the commentary it, among the Trump mega podcast class, all these guys have like spent

years talking about how terrible the Bush and the Neocons are and how we need to focus

on ourselves and they position themselves as isolationists.

And you know, there's some shameless people, right?

Like there's some people on Fox, they'll just say whatever, they'll just, you know, cat

turtle totally, you know, do a 180 and say, yes, sir, Mr. Trump, sir, whatever you want.

But a lot of these folks like, they've built audiences, they've got brand, they've got

credibility.

They're not going to just all the sudden say, hell yeah, I want to overthrow the Ayatollah.

And I think that that like, you know, so we're going to see this kind of mega crack up

happening that will and Sam we're talking about at the elite level first, and then it'll

be interesting to see how that trickles down to the base voters and to the audience.

But in this group, for example, you know, peers gets this guy Ben Ferguson, who's like Ted

Cruz's butt boy on his podcast, he goes on CNN sometime like a real like a sea list influence

or like it's just be honest.

He's the one that is getting all red faced and you know, kind of dress like a Republican

for the 1990s.

That's the guy they found to defend what Trump is doing.

I don't think he does so that compellingly.

You can judge for yourself here in a minute.

Then you have Jack Posovic.

I thought he's the most interesting case because Jack is like about as shameless as a pro

pro Trump grifter as you can get, but a couple months ago, he did his documentary, Tails

of regime change documentary that goes back and you know, looks at all the failed regime

change efforts, said Bush did and Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you look at the picture, I didn't watch the Jack Posovic documentary.

I will say that if you Zalensky's picture is in there for some reason, I don't really

know why what would be there.

That was where we're trying to do regime stability, but defending existing regimes.

But anyway, so Posovic's been out there, you know, as like a mega JD Vance type isolation

estimate, a first commentator also, you know, a Trump toe sucker.

And so I was kind of fascinated that he showed up for this thing and he ends up being very,

you know, he has hedging a lot.

I guess let's just say he's talking about how younger voters in the magazine don't like

this older Republican voters do.

He's basically talking about how it's going to be event dependent and if Trump gets

out, it could be okay.

So he was, it was not, you know, kind of the apology, the unapologetic Trump supporting

Pizzagate Jack that I've come to know and not love.

And so then he had Ferguson, he had Pizzagate Jack and then he had Dave Smith, who's kind

of like a pure mega isolationist.

He's been very radicalized anti-Israel, I mean, like on the show, he's, he's like talking

about how America are the biggest terrorists in the world.

So a little much for me.

But you know, he's one of these horseshoe figures, you know, that is so far right that, you

know, he ends up sounding like CodePink at times.

So then you had me and then somebody else who's a Democratic influencer on there.

So like of that trio, you know, basically, like Trump, not just Trump voters, but Trump

apologists, like, like passionate Trump voters and passionate Trump commentators of the

three of them, like one strong against one strong for one law flight.

That's not a good sign.

I go, they're only three days in, you know, the military operations say, you want like

the first 24 hours is pretty impressive.

And so like things haven't even really fully gone sideways, yet.

I mean, obviously we have the four deaths of American soldiers and that's horrible and

tragic, but just like as much as they could do sideways, like, and they're already hemorrhaging

key advocates.

So it's something we're going to keep monitoring on here.

Most of the back of fourths will show you is between me and that guy Ben Ferguson since

he was really the only one I kind of defending this nonsense.

He was doing so just as in coherently as the Trump administration is because you can't

coherently defend it because they don't have a coherent plan.

So I'll leave that.

I'll leave you with that.

Subscribe to the feed here and enjoy the fireworks.

Tim Miller, it seems like there's a lot of hoops being jumped here to try and explain

what is to me.

I've known Donald Trump a long time.

It's been a clear change in his attitude towards meddling in foreign countries and foreign

wars and in particular in the Middle East.

And he might have perfectly good reasons for doing it, but he's certainly a very different

rhetoric now that he's using to what he was using when he was campaigning to be re-elected.

This problem it seems to me with the attack on Iran is, Iran is a massive country.

It has a very ruthless, very large regime, which basically extends to all aspects of Iranian

society.

There are at least one and a half million revolutionary guard, regular army, paramilitaries, possibly

as many as two million, none of whom at the moment appear ready to throw in the towel

as Donald Trump has asked them to.

So if people do rise up in the way that Donald Trump would like, his utopia is that all

these airstrikes bully the regime in such a way that the people sense their moment and

they rise up and they overthrow them.

But at the moment, they would be facing a lot of them immediate death, as we saw when

the recent protests were repressed.

And that seems to me to be the fundamental flaw here in what Donald Trump wants to happen

and the reality on the ground.

A lot of that sounds right to me, peers.

Look, I mean, this is obviously a betrayal of his campaign promises.

I mean, that the mega-sporters could spin it however they want, but that JD Vance and

that clip you played was just very blunt about this and there's nothing that has changed

on the ground, but making Iran a bigger threat since fall of 2024.

In fact, Iran's been degraded a lot since fall of 2024.

And so this is a total betrayal of his own voters.

But to the actual plan here, I think what Ben just laid out is totally incoherent.

Right?

If the idea here is that this is a moment where the Iranian people have an opportunity

to grab their own freedom and we're going to help them, okay, well, that requires troops

on the ground.

I mean, that would be a coherent objective, at least we want to free the Iranian people

from the Ayatollah.

We're not saying that we're going to do that.

Pete Hegseth was out saying that this is not a regime change operation, and we are

not doing democracy promotion.

Pete Hegseth said that.

So we can't both be on the side of the Iranian people and also not be interested in a regime

change war and democracy promotion, like you have to do one or the other, the Iranian

people cannot overthrow, just like you really think.

Self-matters above anything else, there's no doubt about that, and sometimes being told

you're fine with no real plan is simply not good enough, or superpower puts you in control

with all the data you need.

One simple lab test, either at your home or a local lab, measures more than 100 biomarkers.

I'm a superpower app that you see everything from heart to hormones, vitamin levels, and

even environmental toxins.

You get a personalized, actionable plan, which is tailored uniquely for you.

You get this the year you stop guessing about your health, not only a superpower reduced

their price, just to just $199, but for a limited time, our viewers and listeners get an additional

$20 off with the code PIRS, head to superpower.com, and use code PIRS at checkout the $20 off your

membership.

And after you sign up, you're sure to mention that I sent you.

Tim, I would simply say to you, Syria.

I mean, in Syria, very recently, we saw the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad very, very quickly,

and it was actually driven by the people.

Now there are legitimate concerns about the leader of the rebel group, but so far, you

know, you would say tentatively it's been an improvement on what the Syrian people were

enduring under a sad, but you know, it's going to be a long, long, short, what's that?

PIRS, but certainly, but that was it, but my point being the United States objective was

achieved there without boots on the ground, wasn't it?

Well, do you not know?

That was Turkey's objective.

Yes.

If I in the United States, that was not our objective.

We were like, Turkey armed a rebel group in Syria, is that what we're going to do?

Okay.

Again, that would be a coherent plan.

Like, we have picked a group on Pompeo, said, over the weekend, we like the MEK, or

the Kurds, or whoever.

We're going to arm them and provide them weapons intelligence.

That's what Turkey did.

And I think they ended up having kind of catastrophic success in Syria.

I don't even think that Turkey planned on that group, so easily toppling the Assad regime.

Again, maybe that could happen in Iran.

The point that I'm trying to make peers is that there is no coherent objective being

offered by this administration.

Like, you have been Ferguson on right now, saying that what they want is freedom for

the Iranian people.

That's not what Pete Hankseth was saying this morning.

No, that's not true.

That's not true.

That's not what I said.

That's not what I said.

I'm just going to do one more thing that you can talk about.

One more thing.

Donald Trump said that he'd like you point into Venezuela and talk about how successful

that is.

This is very different from Venezuela a couple of reasons.

Number one, four people have already died.

That didn't happen in Venezuela.

And number two, we had a clear successor.

Donald Trump told the New York Times that we had two or three successors in mind.

All of them are dead.

They've all been killed.

He said to the Atlantic, or to John Carl, I think, at ABC last night, that we don't

know who the successor is now.

So this is very much not of Venezuela's situation.

It is not.

I mean, for Venezuela about troops on the ground in response to that.

And I think you're intellectually honest enough to understand that.

I don't think I have to explain to you like a third grader.

I think you're now just trying to act like Venezuela and Iran are the same thing.

They're very different places that is obvious.

You are the one that said that in Venezuela was very simple.

We had troops go in and take out the leader.

And then we left.

That's the same thing that we're talking about now.

Well, four troops have died in this case.

It's already very different than that.

It's already very different than that.

Four troops have died.

Again, it's already very different.

And we don't even have the successor.

I'm dying for a political point you're trying to score.

I know you don't like the president.

I know you don't like this plan.

But let me also say this about what's the plan?

What is the plan?

There are two objectives here.

I'm going to tell you the two objectives.

And so you put words on.

I'm out.

Number one is to make sure you take out a regime that's sponsoring terrorism all over the

world and it's made it very clear that they want to do what they did in Israel, also in

America and other places.

So it's a national security standpoint there.

It's also a national security standpoint with oil and the street of hormones as well.

That's very clear.

They're worried about that area as well.

And the third is yes, when you get rid of someone like this, of course you want the people

to be able to be free in their country and not be able to be killed in the streets like

we've witnessed.

We're tens of thousands of them have been exterminated in the last month while they

tried to stand up to their regime.

So there can be multiple things here.

Is that different than Venezuela?

Of course, because every nation is different.

I think you should know that.

Yeah.

OK.

It doesn't sound like a man because we don't know how this is for a regime is.

Hang on.

Hang on.

We're not bringing in the other panel members.

I mean, I would categorize it, Tim, more as a massive role of a dice by Donald Trump.

I think he's been persuaded about the timing by Netanyahu and the Israeli government.

He's been itching to do this now for a very long time.

I'm not saying that Trump doesn't think it would be a good thing for the world.

I think he probably does.

But I think the timing is so fascinating to me.

And the reason I say a role of a dice is because politically the downside of this goes

even remotely wrong or just gets stuck for the next few months is so clear to me.

This could absolutely cost Trump everything in terms of political power come November.

And once he becomes somebody without control of the house, as Ben said, your ability to

do anything just gets paralyzed until the end of your turn.

So the stakes are incredibly high.

But there is another way to look at this, which is Trump has been pretty uniquely successful

in doing precision attacks on the foreign stage, whether it's Silimani, when he took

him out, whether it's Al-Baghdadi, when he took him out, whether it was the 12-day

war last summer, timing again, whether it's bringing a ceasefire to Garzaun, nobody really

thought there was a chance of that.

As well.

Again, Trump has gone in and done quick surgical strikes on places.

It's been a very different philosophy to boots on the ground, years and more and so on.

And that's probably emboldened him to do this.

And he's probably calculating that he, by taking out the entire hierarchy of this regime,

which appears to be what's happened.

To the extent where the next two, three, four and five people, they thought might be potential

next leaders apparently all got killed too.

On the ex-president, Act Medina Jedi, who I once interviewed, has been killed apparently.

So complete wipeout of all the sort of top names in the Iranian regime, he's calculating.

This could lead to a domino effect where you could see the regime getting toppled because

actually a number of the revolutionary guards perhaps turn on it, the army, regular army

follow, suddenly the people feel that this is moving the right way, and as we saw in

Syria, boom, suddenly they're, I'm not saying this will happen, but I'm saying we have seen

this happen in different places around the world, and it can happen very quickly if people

feel like if the one supporting the regime, believe it's going down and the people sense

that these things can change very quickly.

So you could be in a position by the summer where Donald Trump actually has affected genuine

change there, the people have risen up and Iran is removed of a 47 year repressive regime,

and that could play well for Trump, and they could lead to the Abraham Accords having Saudi

Arabia join it and others, because I do think the big strategic era Iran has made is

attacking the Gulf States, and I think the moment they've done that, they've lined up

all these plays like UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others, lined up now behind an America

Israel, you know, a pact going into Iran, which I didn't think I'd ever see.

So I think a lot of things are possible here, Tim.

You're response to my thoughts.

Yeah, go.

I look just how strained that hypothetical case of how it could possibly go well is.

I think speaks of the just political disaster and the danger of this situation for Trump.

I like sure.

Yeah, obviously he's high on his own supply because some of these other, you know, one

of strikes have gone well.

This is obviously very different than that.

Yes, obviously he's big influenced by MBS and BB to a degree that they might be just

kind of walking around the dog park at this point, convincing him to get into this.

But this is such a different scenario than all of those other scenarios, as mentioned

earlier, and thanks Dave for the update on the language, but like four American troops

are already dead.

And again, like for what, like in your strange scenario, the best case scenario is that maybe

in the future, there'll be an internal struggle in Iran and a regime that we like better,

but we don't know who it is.

We'll be taking control.

If you pulled the American people just two weeks ago and said, hey, would it be worth

four American deaths for the possibility that maybe Iran might get a better regime, but

we're not sure who it is?

I think that would be like a 20 to 80, you know, only 20% of the country, like Ben and

a couple of his buddies would be for that.

I most of the Republicans wouldn't be for that.

And look at this panel, Jack was one of Trump's biggest supporters, like he's hedging

on this, you know, in his answer, Dave was one of Trump's biggest supporters.

He's even more hostile to immigrants.

He's calling us terrorists.

I'm not even that far.

Like among Trump's own base, this is a disaster, independent voters.

You look at polls of all ages, last independent poll.

I saw had 19% in support of this one independence.

And the best case scenario you can point out is that like maybe there'll be some new leadership,

but we don't know who it is and we're not supporting a particular person.

Like that's a crazy, that's crazy.

It's a crazy risk.

And sure, yeah, the Arab states are with us for now.

But are they going to continue to be if, if, you know, their hotels and their oil reserves

are being bombed or do the people of UAE and Qatar and Saudi as on board with this as

their leadership?

I'm skeptical of that.

What about our European allies, oil prices in Europe are up 50% today.

And this thing is already a disaster.

We're on day three and they have no plan for getting out of it.

It's like we're going to bomb them for four more weeks and hope that something good happens.

Good luck.

Some crimes are never forgotten.

Others are lost to history.

Those are the ones we focus on in crimes of the centuries.

A history meets true crime podcasts revisiting murders, trials and frauds that once dominated

headlines.

I remember hunt your host and a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.

If you like true crime that feels both cinematic and historical, find crimes of the centuries

wherever you get your podcasts.