Raging Moderates: War in Iran Backfires as MAGA Turns on Trump

Raging moderates is now five days a week. What a thrill!

First word, your second word.

“Welcome, Jess and I will be putting out episodes”

every weekday, evening, covering the biggest stories in politics, and you won't want to miss a single thing. So, make sure you're subscribed to Raging Moderates on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Now, onto the episode.

(upbeat music) - Welcome, Raging Moderates, I'm Scott Galois. - And I'm Jessica Tarlev. - In today's episode of Raging Moderates, we're discussing magas division over the war in Iran.

That's a segue. And Christy Known faces lawmakers for the first time since Alex predies killing. If you aren't already, please make sure you're subscribed to our YouTube page to get up to date coverage

on everything that's happening. All right, let's get into it for years. Vice President Chatey Vans, pitch Donald Trump is the president who started no wars. The break from the Bush era Hawks.

Now, there are U.S. strikes on Iran and American casualties climbing. Some inside maga feel betrayed. Others say this is still America first. Let's watch how Vans is explaining the attack.

- That back just a little bit. If you go back to Midnight Hammer in the summer, with a president wanted to do with that mission, was eliminate a random ability to build a nuclear weapon, and we did destroy the nuclear enrichment facilities

during Operation Midnight Hammer over the summer.

Now, here's the thing, Jesse.

We destroyed Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon during President Trump's term. We set them back substantially.

“But I think the president was looking for the long haul.”

He was looking for Iran to make a significant long-term commitment that they would never build a nuclear weapon, that they would not pursue the ability to be on the brink of a nuclear weapon. And after months, really, almost a year of pain-staking diplomacy,

what the president of the term is, he didn't want to just keep the president or excuse me to keep the country safe from an Iranian nuclear weapon for the first three, four years of his second term. He wanted to make sure that Iran could never have a nuclear weapon,

and that would require fundamentally a change in mindset from the Iranian regime. - God talk about our word salad. Okay, now let's watch Nick Phantase and how he's responding to the situation.

- And now we're in a regime change war with Iran. That's the breaking point. I'm out. I'm done. I am off the Trump train.

I am not voting in 26. If Rubio or Vance are on the ticket in any form in 28, I'm voting for a Democrat. Say whatever you say whatever you want, do your worst.

“- So, I think grain of salt with anything Nick Phantase says,”

and he's a professional shitster, and he does a good job of it and has made himself a lot of money on his brand of racism and anti-Semitism. And all of that, but he is expressing

what a lot of the America first wing of the Macoparty,

which we used to think was kind of the totality of it that the rubios of the world and the Lindsey Grams were reluctantly coming along, right, because it was going to be a more isolationist, Republican administration, then we've ever seen before,

and they're realizing not so much. That the rubios and the Lindsey Grams have one out and people like Megan Kelly, Nick Phantase there, Matt Walls, are sitting there, Tucker Carlson, scratching their heads, saying this is not at all what we were promised.

Now, you know, get in line for all of the things that are happening to you that are not what Donald Trump promised. But this one has pretty severe consequences. I mean, as of today, we have six service members that have been killed, made their memories be a blessing.

And we are continuing to get conflicting stories about the rationale for doing this. I mean, Marco Rubio gave probably the most cogent press conference. And I want to ask you about what he said there, because it, I don't know if the administration was happy

that he came out and said it, but when he was pressed by reporters about the imminent threat, the idea that we were only going to strike around if we were facing an imminent threat, he said the imminent threat was that they were going

to strike us if they were attacked, and that Israel was going to attack them. And the America first wing of the party, and it is how it even sounded to me, has taken that and run with the notion that we switched gears

to be on Israel's time table. And obviously, there's huge military buildup in the region that's been going on for weeks or months. We obviously intended to do something. But it feels like we have been caught very back-footed.

Like the US Embassy in Jerusalem has said, we can't help you. We're sorry, we can't evacuate you. CBS is reporting about those six troops who died in Kuwait, that they didn't have the warning system set up.

and they had been asking for more drone defeat capabilities, but none came. The Wall Street Journal is talking about the US officials who have been in briefings, and with access to classified information,

and they say that administrations assertions are incomplete, unsubstantiated, and flat out wrong, that there's no evidence to support Trump's claim that Iran could rapidly develop a missile capable of striking the US.

So, like, how do we look at all of this and think that this was well thought out or that we have a real plan on archering it out? - So, I've equated our military interventions

“to bond films, and that is always start amazing, right?”

We always bond films, I was nail the openings.

- The credits are top-of-the-line, even. - Well, the opening is always awesome. - Yeah. - Every bond film, and then it goes on to either be Skyfall is great. Castino Royale is great.

So, call that Kosovo and Kuwait, or even I'll say Venezuela where things go really well, or it goes on to be awful, die another day, a view to a kill, basically a rock or a Afghanistan.

So, as always, and I'm curious if you perceive the same vibe shift, I've seen in just 48 hours, started awesome. All this military hardware, we immediately take out the equivalent of the president, the secretary of defense,

the joint chiefs, we see all these inspiring short-form videos of Iranian citizens rising up. And then all of a sudden, it becomes clear and you pointed this out, the majority of Americans don't support this.

7% of Democrats, 54% of Republicans, and it feels like the Republican side is waning even faster. And it feels like there's been a dramatic vibe shift based on one thing, and that is the incompetence of the administration.

And whoever, I don't know who's head of comms,

“but you should be able to answer three basic questions.”

Why are we doing this? Why are we doing it now? And what are the objectives? Why are we doing this? I think the biggest error today was from a secretary

Rubio, who I would have said 48 hours ago was the leading Republican candidate for president. When he said exactly what you said, he basically said, Israel is now 14 policy for America. He said, well, Israel was going to attack them,

and we knew if they attacked them, they're going to respond, so we had to attack first, like, OK, so let me get this, the tailwagging $1.1 trillion

military spending in the most powerful country in the world.

Israel, you're saying that they're dictating our military interventions in foreign policy. That was an incredibly poorly thought-out statement. If they had said something along the lines of, we have a tremendous opportunity to vastly diminish

the nation of Iran's ability to continue to be the primary sponsor of terror and to unlock incredible economic prosperity and also bring stability to the region. And we're going to vastly diminish their kinetic capabilities and when the following objectives are achieved,

we're out of there, and we're doing it now because let's be honest, we have an opportunity to do more damage and achieve our objectives at a lower risk right now because they're on their back heels, Russia's busy, hezbollah's weak and they just don't have any--

they don't have any support or backup right now. So that's why now. And then what also came out that I thought was sort of weak sauce was they did identify that statement. We're going to get rid of the nuclear power.

We're going to ensure their missile defenses are taken out. We're going to take out their Navy. Right now, it comes across-- their communications come across as defensive and improv. They're literally-- there's reports that

we've reached out to a bunch of traditional journalists where Trump is real-time workshopping his messaging. So it feels-- they feel as if it's defensive. And Jesus Christ, no one thought to answer these basic fucking questions before you deployed one of the largest military

actions of the last decade. He didn't think through to have a fairly cogent answer for why what are the objectives and why now? What it does appear to me, though, is it now that the regime is going to survive?

And I still think this could have huge benefits by diminishing or neutering the kinetic capabilities of Iran.

“I think that's a good thing and worth a decent amount of risk.”

But essentially, the administration looks weak. And if I were in Iran, I'd be saying, oh, we got to do his way to out these guys. There's no political capital or wealth with boots on the ground, which I understand.

And without boots on the ground, there's never been a regime

change ever in the Middle East. And these guys appear to be already taking a flack or incoming from their own party, much less the Democrats are only 7% support this. So I think the Trump administration

of the words they choose has said to the Islamic Republic,

just wait this shit out, and you're going to be fine. And it's going to be back to normal.

“So I think that in a wondering, if you sense this,”

I sense a dramatic vibe shift in the last 48 hours that is leaking a lot of advantage and power back from the US and its allies to the Islamic Republic, I now think in Calshis odds every day that the Islamic Republic falls, that the regime falls

by the end of March is going down every day. It feels like, as if in the last 48 hours has been a substantial vibe shift, what do you think? - Totally. And it's not good news if you've only been doing this

for 72 hours and 48 of them have been a vibe shift. - Right, that's not particularly strong odds of success or bringing over the American public

to support an action as important as this,

since President Trump has said multiple times, that they are open to prolonged conflict and boots on the ground. Those are statements that give people PTSD in this country and for good reason. And you listen to a cure stormer, the UK Prime Minister,

speaking about this yesterday, he may have gotten himself out of all of the Epstein trouble that he was in with his defiant speech, where he said, "We're not going to fight your illegal war with you." You know, France is out there, Macron comes out says,

"We're gonna be building up our nuclear arsenal and we're not gonna even tell you exactly what we're doing used to be something more transparent." Spain kicked us out of their bases that we were using. And I think two things are important.

So Dan came, General Dan Kane, who's the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. There's a lot of reporting in the last week that he was really nervous about doing something and that we were underestimating the Iranian pushback

that we were going to see. And it seems like he was completely right. So if the US or if Israel thought that the IRGC or whatever remained of it, we're going to scuttle right to the negotiating table afterwards,

they were sorely mistaken. And reporting shows that Iran feels like they can dig in for 60 to 90 days, frankly. And not only are we gonna to plead our own arsenal, all of our Gulf State partners need backup from us.

They need money and weapons to keep doing this because Iran is firing everywhere. To countries that they don't get along with, but some that they actually have a pretty decent working relationship or peaceful coexistence to some degree.

“So I think that that is a really huge problem here.”

And then there is the issue of which is something, we talk about a lot, the relationship with the US and Israel. And I saw VB was on Hannity last night. He said hogwash to the idea that this is gonna be a prolonged conflict or that they pushed us into it.

And I don't see any other way to read it. I don't think that makes me anti-Israel or not a Zionist or any of that. It just seems like the facts on the ground based on what the Secretary of State

and Mark Warner, the Vice Chair of Intel in the Democratic side came out and confirmed that he said I'm extremely pro-Israel. But this is a new frontier if we are shaping foreign policy based upon their timetables. And they just blew up right before we jumped on here.

There was a meeting. I think 88 people to select the new head of the IRGC who's gonna become the new Iatola, I guess. And Israel blew that up. So Israel's going about their business.

“And they live in an existential threat scenario, right?”

Every day from Iran and I understand that. But we are now in bed together in a way that is making people who are supportive of Israel very uncomfortable. And I worry that it's going to feed a vicious cycle

and degeneration of US Israeli relations. We've already seen it obviously on the Democratic side. It's now people are more sympathetic with the Palestinians

than the Israelis for the first time in history.

The same thing is going on in the kind of America first wing of the Republican Party. And it's not what I expected, I guess. And I don't want to be naive. But hearing that, like you said, coming out of Rubio's mouth

was jarring to me. They sound very defensive in like all of a sudden they're on their heels. And the response, typically, they say Republicans have followed mine. They're just falling out of love right now.

So some Republican responses, Senator Chuck Grassley on Acts, President Trump gave Iran plenty of negotiable opportunity. I don't know what that means. Representative Thomas Massey of Kentucky on Acts. This is not America first.

When Congress reconvenes, I will work with Representative Rokana to force a congressional vote on war with Iran. You know, if they just, if they had said,

the Connecticut Pability and restore it, which likely decreases chaos and terrorism and increases the likelihood of the Iranian people being able to choose its leaders or bring stability to the Middle East. They could have left it at that and created an offer out.

But my understanding is in the last four days, we've seen, I'm willing to put boots on the ground. Well, of course, don't be stupid. It's not going to be boots on the ground. We want regime change.

No, not necessarily regime change. And now it feels like they're on their heels saying with these four objectives they've outlined, which, quite frankly, they could say they've already achieved and leave tomorrow.

It feels as if they're setting themselves up for the ability to declare victory and leave, which I would argue is not the right message to be sending to the Islamic Republic right now. That, okay, we're getting shit.

We had our macho photo moment, we're going to be out soon. And we're going to declare victory because basically, if either of the Islamic Republic, I would just be saying, oh, okay, they're already-- the core competence of the Russian people

is they will lose a million people and still keep fighting.

And I say this with some admiration, we lost

“what I think, 400,000 people in World War II,”

the Russians lost 20 million. And they would have kept fighting if they needed to. We do not have the same endurance or willingness to suffer. And that's good in some ways and bad in others. But it feels already as if the administration is on their heels

and in my view, sending signals of weakness. Basically, saying, all right, we're looking-- we are already looking for an offer. As opposed to, if they just said, we are here to so vastly diminish the nuclear and kinetic capabilities

of Iran that they are no longer a shorter medium-term threat in the region and have absolutely no hopes of ever rebuilding their nuclear program, they would at least have been consistent and created an open-ended opportunity to say,

no, we're not sure when we're going to leave. And I think they would have gotten more people on board. They come across as really, in my opinion, in competent, weak, inconsistent. The one thing I would like more discussion on is that my sense

is there's been a huge strategic blunder here on the part of the Iranians by attacking essentially all of their neighbors.

And basically, the attitude is you're either with us here

against us. So if you aren't going to defend us, we're going to attack you. And a lot of the attacks, in my opinion, while they make for dramatic video have been more-- I mean, they went after the largest refinery in Saudi Arabia,

but Saudi Arabia has its own armaments. It, to me, it seems that was a very dumb move that they had an opportunity to create a wedge in between the Gulf States and America. And instead, what they've essentially done

is isolated themselves. And what's interesting is that the markets appear to be saying, commodities markets, silver-spike, oil-spike,

“it's already coming down, because I think the market”

is basically saying, interpreting America's comments, is they're looking for an offer-up, they're looking for, and excuse to say, declare victory and leave, and that it'll be business back to usual, pretty soon, including the fact that the IR just evil not fall,

that the streets of Hormuz will be open again, that this is not going to be a long-term war. Is it a taco? Oh, that's actually the right, isn't that? That is exactly the right description.

I thought of that, say more about what you mean there. Well, I mean, I'm not Queen of the Tacos. I know it was a British Journalist who said it. It's Robert Armstrong. He's not British, he's American, he works for the F.T.

Oh, that British newspaper, American. Yep.

Stan's for Trump always chickens out.

Right, Trump always chickens out. I mean, there are, I hate to use that for this analysis, because there are six dead American service members.

“And there are, I think, 115 dead innocent Iranians”

from a strike there on a school, dozens of school children, dead, so I'm not going to minimize any of that. It's not like when Trump says I'm taking Greenland tomorrow, and then just sits there and watches TV and drinks die of coke. But if we are, which they're reporting indicates,

looking for an off-ramp, which would come in the form of some sort of diplomatic negotiation that we had the opportunity to do over the last several weeks. And there is significant reporting that there were breakthroughs, at least on the precipice, and that it is now Iran,

that is pulling back and saying, you don't get to get out of here in five seconds or less, right? Like, we can go longer than you think, that's 16 and 90 days. I think that's exactly right. - In looking for the off-ramp, this is the most extreme foreign policy

example of what Trump has done with tariffs, for instance, or various threats.

but it feels a little taco-y to me. - Well, also, we're trying from the JCPOA, and it was clear now that all these talks using the nation of Oman to act as mediators, that that was all just a head fake.

That was all bullshit. And the problem with tearing up agreements from previous administrations, and also not entering into good faith negotiations,

“and I think the Iranians and most of the people in the Gulf”

would argue that those negotiations were a total head fake. What's your credibility around restarting negotiations again, or what is the paper you can get parties to agree to, worth the paper it's written on? So, I don't think we come across a steadfast,

I don't think we come across as a committed. I think we look Republicans immediately, when there's pushback from Republicans, it looks as if the Trump administration is panicking and didn't anticipate it,

and is already trying to create off ramps. And if I'm the R, as you see, I'm like, "Oh, they're blinking already after just 72 hours, they're blinking, and all we got to do is hunker down, and it's back to business as usual."

- Well, they know we weren't prepared, because we didn't even make plans to get Americans out of harm's way. So, they know that we're on the back foot at least, you know, on that level. - All right, let's take a quick break, say with us.

- Welcome back quickly,

“we're gonna review Homeland Security Secretary Christi-Nomes,”

Capitol Hill testimony today,

facing lawmakers for the first time

since the killing of Alex Pretty in Minnesota. She was grilled by both parties over DHS and forced metactics to attention policy spending, and whether department funding laps as weakening counterterrorism efforts after U.S. strikes on Iran,

let's watch this exchange between her and Senator Amy Klobuchar. - We were relying in the hours after that incident that was so horrific. On information, we were getting from a graduate. - But I would like to say to the families

or to the family of what I do at the time, is that you called them domestic terrorism. - Can't you imagine what they have gone through in the loss of their son, in the loss of their family members?

- Absolutely, we're calling them domestic terrorists without any evidence of that. - Sure, I did not call him a domestic terrorist. I said it appeared to be an incident of. - I think the parents sought for what it was.

- I mean, she's awful. She's foolish, she's awful. I've gendered this before I'm gonna gender it again. Watching a woman do this is worse to me than watching a man do it.

Especially a mother and a grandmother. And I don't know, I guess it all stems from the fact

that Trump never apologizes.

Every once in a while he says, you know, I didn't do that but I wouldn't have or something like that like the ape video about the Obama's. But I really think she could have just said, we shouldn't have used that language.

And it's a tragedy that they're dead.

“Because that's what Tom Holman, when he showed up,”

he's like, I wouldn't be here if mistakes weren't made. Republicans, you know, as Senator Kennedy actually raked her over the calls on this and the $200 million that she spent on advertisements to essentially promote her style.

He said, like, you just effectively promoted you. Like, it's not a sign of weakness to recognize reality and show you have a little bit of soul. And maybe it just gets, it gets you off the hot seat for five seconds, a little bit of reprieve.

And then people can fan out with their talking points and say, this is the stuff we really want to dig in on. And she recognized that a mistake was made when it comes to this. Yeah, so I was like to think of the person who's in the room

but not in the room. I think probably the reason we bombed Iran and who is in the room giving these testimonies whether it's director, Patel, or Secretary now. You know, who's in the room?

It's not in the room. It is Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn is President Trump's sort of ideological mentor. And Roy Cohn's attitude was interrupt attack.

Never give an inch, never admit defeat.

Never say you're sorry, double down, double down, attack attack attack. And that's what he wants. He wants Secretary now interrupting the senators. Look at the complexion and the demeanor and the decorum,

his appointees and who they're all playing to a party of one. What does he want? Interrupt, be an asshole, accuse them of shit, call them failed lawyers, never admit you're wrong. And it is so incredibly unpredictable.

It also really damages our brand. It makes us look like assholes. It makes a mockery of our elected leaders and the Senate, these gatherings. It makes them look like food fights.

They just cheapen everything. And also, I think a lot of us who feel very disturbed

And I think there's a lot of us had kind of a last-traum moment.

My last-traum moment was absent-fuck-and-lootly when Secretary Nome described an ICU nursing care veterans as a domestic terrorist. I just thought, in brandishing a weapon with plans with an intent to massacre federal agents.

I just thought, I remember when I saw it and I read it, I couldn't find anyone to complain to and it was too late. It was in the morning here, so it was like three in the morning for all of my progressive friends in New York that I could call.

“I think that one moment, that was like the low point.”

That was just, okay, it has gone too far. And Senators Murkowski, Tom Tillis, have all come out and actively asked for her resignation. And then all of this, like, bang busts in the sky bullshit

where she appears to be flying around on a $70 million plane.

- With her private cabin? - Yeah, I mean, it really is a South Park episode. It's so obvious, well, I think it's obvious. If you think about crisis management, it's acknowledged the issue.

Yeah, this was a tragedy. I take responsibility. Top guy down is to take responsibility and it over-correct and say, I apologize, this was wrong and we're putting in place,

protocols and safeguards to make sure that good people are not that we're gonna ensure, you know, she gets him say in the good people of ice on put in situations that end up with murdered people and that someone exercising their first amendment

or rights is not killed. I'm personally committed to making sure this doesn't happen again. But instead, we have a presence like,

no double down, never admits you're wrong.

“But I think there's few people that are more happy”

about our strikes in Iran right now than Secretary Nome. She does not want a lot of attention on her testimony because she knew it was gonna be rough. But I'll be curious if the calls for her resignation after today increase.

Have you heard anything from people you know around the general sense or evaluation of her testimony? - Well, I think the who's gonna go is such a moving target, depending on the bad news of the day

'cause we were talking after Alex Pretty and Renee. Good, we're murdered like it has to be crispy dome. You know, then it shifts, it gears are like, oh, Pam Bondi was completely insane. Then Howard Lutnik, you know, the photo

in the Epstein files of him with Epstein and three men, not with his nanny, his kids and his children, as he said, but just walking around in his holiday best. And I think it was political reported that President Trump has confronted him

about how much his sons are profiting, how much money they're making during the Trump administration. - I don't know what he wants. - Oh, the my kids, right? They're the ones that you're able to make money off of this.

So I thought Lutnik could be in there. And apparently he was very unhappy with Cash Patel's behavior in Milan. And I'm not surprised because Trump is sober. Right, he doesn't even drink.

“So I think the idea of the FBI director,”

you know, crushing beers, behaving so unprofessionally, stuck out to him and it was at least reported that he was upset about the jet travel, too. So, you know, you can go in any direction, which I think me and no one is going anywhere.

And on that note. - Yes. - Okay. - All right, before we go, if you're watching us on YouTube, make sure you hit subscribe.

As a reminder, raging moderates is now five days a week. With new episodes dropping every week day evening on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and everywhere else. That's all for this episode. Thank you for listening.

We'll see you on Thursday, Josh. - Yeah, I'll see you later. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)