Radio Show Hour 1 – 2026/07/25

[00:00:00] You're listening to the Liberty News Radio Network, and this is The Political Cesspool. The Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program. And here to guide you through the murky waters of The Political Cesspool is your host, James Edwards.

[00:00:30] Welcome back to the night's live broadcast of TPC. It is Saturday evening, July the 25th. I'm your host, James Edwards, along with Keith Alexander. Let's give you a quick snapshot, a preview of what's coming up tonight. We will be talking at length about the story that everyone is interested in, and that is the Shiloh Hendricks guilty verdict in Minnesota. That'll be coming up in the second hour, full coverage, full hour, second hour tonight.

[00:01:00] And then in the third hour, we'll go to Mike Wharton, chairman of the Southern Cultural Center in Wetumpka, Alabama. He's going to be promoting their upcoming national conference, which is going to be happening in the middle of August, middle of next month. Just a couple of weeks from now, actually. You'll have the chance to meet Team TPC. We will be there broadcasting live, so stay tuned for more information about that later on in the broadcast.

[00:01:21] But first, a busy night begins once again with Patrick Martin, our Middle East expert, a man who, of course, as you know, through his many appearances over the years, and especially this one, he has two master's degrees. It's one in Islamic studies. He has spent time as a government contractor working in 78 different countries. A lot of time spent in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East.

[00:01:47] And wouldn't you know it, we are going to be tapping into his expertise once again tonight as the Iranian and Ukrainian tinderboxes ignite even further. Patrick, it's great to have you back on. I really appreciate it. Well, it's great to be back, gentlemen. Thank you very much for the invitation. And again, I always love hearing your voices and contributing where I can.

[00:02:08] Well, you have become both friend and family over the years at events that we have done in person and collaborations on the book, of course, the honorable calls, events we've done together, and, of course, on the radio. And truly, truly, I do thank you. You have made more appearances this year than any other guest, and obviously for good reason because this is an ever-evolving, maddeningly, ever-changing scenario over there.

[00:02:34] But to lend us your talent on Saturday night, you are a family man, you're a businessman, you have multiple business interests. So I do appreciate every time you give us an hour on the weekend. So, as a matter of fact, you gave us two weekends in June. I was looking back on the archives. And on June the 20th, the broadcast notes read, peace with Iran is within reach, and Jewish leaders are furious.

[00:03:04] And then just a week later, one of the surprises of the summer, we teamed you up as guest co-host with Ron Unz. And on that show, the 27th of June, almost a month to the day ago, you and Ron Unz were talking about how it appeared as though President Trump had capitulated to the Iranians. What happened? What happened to that memorandum of understanding? Where are we now a month later, Patrick, and how did we get there? Well, I think the first group was mad about the second.

[00:03:34] So our first conversation, back in earlier June, is very clear that certain key leaders around the world, but largely from Israel and so forth, were upset with the MOU in general. I do think that there was a few things that happened. First, I think the problem for the Trump administration is they really don't understand, especially Trump, doesn't understand where we're at from a true logistics perspective. We're out of stats. We don't have those tactical high-altitude aerial defense systems anymore.

[00:04:03] We don't have the rare earth elements to replace them. We've gone through our systems. We're actually buying older Patriot missile systems, defense systems, the second iteration of that lineage. So we're in bad shape. We're in very bad shape from a pure supply chain, military supply chain perspective. And I personally believe what they've been trying to do is find ways to soften up Iran for the potential for a ground invasion now.

[00:04:32] Because the MOU was clearly – it was a surrender. There's no question about it. The U.S. looked like it was about to surrender. And when you add up all the fact that it was really a loss on paper, I know Trump really couldn't absorb that. Certainly his masters can't absorb that.

[00:04:50] And when they saw what was going on, they realized at this point that the only way to really break Iran is through true regime change, which would mean approximately – everybody keeps talking about tens of thousands of troops. You know, you'd need hundreds of thousands of troops, probably a million troops, truly. And you'd have to have a commitment to stay in Iran for the better part of the next 50, 60, 70 years.

[00:05:15] And I say that because, you know, a lot of folks will talk about how Iran was not very Shiite and it didn't have a religious background and that it was one sort of secular Iran. A lot of people misunderstand Iran and Iranian history. It's deeply interwoven with Shiite identity. And in 1979, there were two – 78 and 79 – there were two revolutions that occurred at the same time. One was the socialist revolution that was upset about the 1953 overthrow of Mosaddegh.

[00:05:43] But the one that actually succeeded was the Islamic revolution, which had more popular support around the country. That's it. That brought in the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. And that was a conservative revolution that was angry about the 1963 white revolution, which nobody likes to talk about because it's politically difficult to challenge. The assumptions that came out of the white revolution, such as women's rights, the ability to have to wear hijabs, the ability to vote, and so forth.

[00:06:11] So you have a country that was already conservative to that majority. It would almost be like somebody visiting New York City today and thinking that was representative of the United States as a whole. And then going back and saying, well, the U.S. is really super liberal and has a bunch of leftist policies and so forth that simply doesn't exist. So Iran would require a commitment. And Iran, as I said in earlier shows and earlier conversations, is built like a hive that overlaps each other. It's built to be impenetrable. It'll bend but not break.

[00:06:42] It is built to push out invaders. And that's exactly what's going to happen. And so I think what occurred is when the MLU had such pushback from certain elements, the War Hawks, the Israeli Israel lobby and so forth that pushed back on the MLU, you then had the flip side of that was, well, Trump then needed to have a victory. And began asking his military, can you soften up the areas where we would invade? And you could see that with the strikes and so forth.

[00:07:08] The problem is, Iran's been preparing for this for the better part of the last five decades. And they still have 30 of, last we see, 30 of 33 fully intact anti-ship batteries with YJ-20 hypersonic Chinese missiles. On top of it, you'd have to have completely disarm the Houthis, which, by the way, those operations are currently ongoing right now. So you'd have to make sure the Red Sea was clear.

[00:07:34] And then you'd have to be able to bring your ships closer to where Iran is. And in order to land Marines or have some kind of amphibious landing, you would have to bring Marines into Karg Island, where those anti-ships would be torn to pieces upon even trying to arrive. You'd have tens of thousands of Marines at the bottom of the Persian Gulf within seconds. So do you have the political appetite to do that? And it sounds like Trump does. It sounds like Trump wants to do this. And I think you've got military pressure right now saying, don't do this.

[00:08:03] And you have other folks in there saying, do it. And from, again, a pure logistics perspective, you see where the Iranians have been striking out. They're striking Jordan. And they say that Jordan doesn't have the anti- ballistic missile defense systems that anybody else has. Well, Jordan is within pretty close geographic proximity to Israel. They're aligned. They're joined at the hip. And yet they're getting no, at all, ballistic missile defense support. Kuwait has been torn to pieces.

[00:08:33] UAE is torn to pieces. Qatar is torn to pieces. Bahrain is torn to pieces. You've lost all your military bases. You've lost all your signet, your tactical signet. Now the Jordanian forward advanced operations, they're being torn apart. The Iraqis have just read the room and have decided now to join forces with the Iranians. They're actually bridging the two governments even closer and tighter, which makes a lot of sense. They have a majority Shiite population. So when you look at this whole scope here, there are no really good options for the United States except to get out.

[00:09:03] And instead, every time the U.S. talks about getting out or talks about an MOU or talks about a peace treaty, we completely tear it up and we violate the terms of those treaties, which in turn translates into greater and deeper levels of mistrust by the Iranians. So at this stage right now, the Iranians will accept nothing but a complete and total surrender by the United States. There's going to be no other choice or try to invade us and see what happens. And that's exactly what the U.S. government has been considering. And it's going to fail.

[00:09:33] And you can see again where they're striking. The geography of Iran is by nature really is a fortress. And, you know, to get mountains, big, broad mountains, we're really not ready for that. It doesn't matter how many 10th Mountain Division guys you've got trained. It doesn't matter how many folks you're willing to sacrifice in an 80-second airborne aerial assault on top of Marines coming into cargo, maybe behind the scenes and so forth. How many Delta Force or SEAL teams do you want?

[00:10:02] The entire country is equipped and ready for war. And as I've mentioned before, our troops may be better trained, better repaired, and have better weaponry. But in the end of the day, it only takes one guy with a rifle on top of a roof who's committed to a law to take out one or two troops. And you multiply that up by 90 million. And now you have a lot of debts. And they're coming back home in body bags. And they're coming back home with coffins draped in U.S.

[00:10:32] Like, assuming they even come back home if they die in Iranian soil. And if that occurs, you've now lost the U.S. I mean, you've completely lost the American population, which already did not like this war and really would be against it. So you've got a military logistics issue that I think Trump does not truly understand, does not truly appreciate. You have a genuine strategic issue that cannot be overcome given the geography of the area and given who you've lost as far as allies and capacity.

[00:11:02] And then you have the realities, the political realities back home, domestic realities. And so I think the MOU is sort of a hope to bluff, a hope to build some additional resources. I think there was some desire to kind of get out. I don't think Trump understood how much pushback he was going to get from his handlers. And as a result, you now have a situation that is just really bad.

[00:11:27] And the more we continue to bomb here, the more we continue to try to at least pretend like we're going to land, the more the Iranians are going to say, come and get us. And there's really going to be no good option other than surrender and really surrender in front of the rest of the world. I would take a slightly different view to that. I think that the reason we can't resolve this matter is because of the Israelis and Netanyahu in particular.

[00:11:55] They're not going to allow us. And they have to, you know, have a kind of limited type of victory without boots on the ground. They've said that they're not going to put boots on the ground, but they have the chutzpah to tell us that we're going to do it. And I think that is an irritant to Trump.

[00:12:18] You know, and I think if they took out Karg Island, that would end their ability to get money. And I don't think either the Russians or the Chinese have the will or the resources to replace the money that Iran makes from Karg Island. But the problem is the same old problem.

[00:12:44] We are under the thumb of the non-Irish, as they say. And unfortunately, our problem, you know, who's coming by next week? Guess who's coming to dinner? It's Netanyahu again. I couldn't believe it. I mean, if that's true, he spends more time in D.C. than Congress does. Well, he's going to be. Really? He's probably got his tapes on hand, you know, of Trump's shenanigans on Epstein Island or something.

[00:13:13] Or else he's got something else on him. But it looks like it really does look that way, Keith. I don't mean to cut you off. I just want to tell you, I agree with you about who's pushing back. I do think there's part of this has a little bit to do with Trump's narcissism as well. And it's truly misunderstanding of the military strategic realities and logistics realities. Well, he's gotten good and irritated at Netanyahu several times.

[00:13:39] And I think that basically, yeah, I think they're going to try to do what he would, his instinct to do if he did not have to deal with Jewish power and influence. And Netanyahu particularly would be to do like the American Gov, like Nixon did. He said, how do I end this war? And he said, declare victory and get the hell out. I mean, Patrick, I guess it goes back to, I mean, nobody can read his mind. Perhaps Trump isn't even of his own mind. But who knows what he truly believes?

[00:14:08] I mean, you go back to candidate Trump in 2015, 2016, even in the most recent election. He's anti-war. He's anti-foreign entanglements. He's almost Buchanan-esque in his foreign or Washingtonian in his foreign policy. I mean, it doesn't even pay to ask this question, but I'll ask it quickly. We've got to move very quickly because I want to get into some other things here. But do you think Trump even has an opinion on this?

[00:14:34] Or do you think he's got an opinion, but basically they've got him by the short hairs of the Israelis? I mean, again, your guess is as good as anyone's. Yeah, I would say, I would bet that he doesn't have somewhat of an opinion, but here's what I think he's getting. He probably has a number of military and intelligence professionals who have been telling him from the beginning, this is a bad idea. Don't do it. And it's fired a lot of those folks. They've never done. But there's still a number of them that are there that are saying, you really can't do this.

[00:15:04] And then you have the political influence from the non-Cherokee, who are a different tribe, that are saying, do this. Right? So you have that. You have Warhawks in the U.S. You've got the 495 Beltway, you know, Beltway Bandits and so forth that circle D.C. and make a lot of money on these kind of defense contracts. So there's a lot of pressure coming from one end. And then there's just, I think, with Trump who, you know, there's something interesting about Trump

[00:15:33] that I think needs to be pointed out here. Trump has gone bankrupt a few times. Usually he's gone bankrupt when he has double, tripled, and quadrupled down on a casino that has failed. And this is in his nature. His nature is, I will win at all costs. I mean, we've seen this from him before. And in many ways it's an endearing quality of many of his supporters who say, wow, this is a guy who just keeps on fighting. But there are times when you have to realize that the fight is either not worth it or you've got to cut your losses.

[00:16:01] You know, you're sitting at that poker table and you've got no more chips. And that's really where they're at right now. And yet his personality type has been one to push forward to a point where he has collapsed. And the problem in this case is he's not playing with chips this time. He's not playing with bank money. He's not playing with the Bank of Japan's money. He did in the past when he went bankrupt in casinos and so forth. Now he's playing with the lives of U.S. troops and really the future of the United States as a whole. So, again, when you look at it, there is a personality issue, I'm sure.

[00:16:30] I'm sure there's outside influences as well. He's got some folks that are saying, don't do this. And I'm not so sure that he truly appreciates the total cost that's going to be involved, especially when you have somebody like Hegseth, who's really just a parrot. He's really just there talking head. And, again, the logistics are just simply not there. We are simply not structurally designed as U.S. military to have the kind of war that we're currently fighting. We're just not there yet.

[00:16:55] And I don't think we've ever really increased our strategic aimmanship, let alone our logistics capacity, to meet these new future wars. And it's surprising because we've been in Ukraine, essentially through our proxy, the Ukrainians, for the last three years and learned nothing. I'm going to talk about that in a second, too. Very quick, Keith. Yeah, I'm just going to say this. What we need to remember, though, Patrick, is that America is basically invulnerable to attack except for nuclear ballistic missiles.

[00:17:23] You know, we've got two large boats called the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean and a polar ice camp. America could walk away from this at any time. But, unfortunately, we are truly under the thumb of the Jews. And there doesn't seem to be any way that anybody can do that. You know, look, since 1912, American presidents have had to deal with Jewish power and influence.

[00:17:48] The only guy that really got serious about trying to tell them what to do wound up being killed by them. Okay? JFK. And, you know, most people would rather live rather than die. But on the other hand, we are really developing an anti-Jewish political movement in America now for the first time where people are out of the closet. We see it in the polls on the left and the right, especially on the youth of the left and the right. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Gen V is the future, and they are not happy.

[00:18:18] And, furthermore, you know, we just don't know that the Congress is not voting for this new money and whatnot. I don't know. Things may come to a head, but I think that the reason Netanyahu keeps coming over here is to try to stoke the fire and tell Trump one way or another that he has no other choice than to do what they want. Now that the two militaries are folded together, what does that mean? Yeah. Yeah, well, I mean, that's it.

[00:18:44] I mean, you know, they say they're not willing to fund the war, but yet at the same time you have Section 219, which will fund the war. So, I mean, you have whether we like it or not. So you've got, again, I go back to the same thing. We have a military and logistics capacity that's simply up there. It's gone. And we are just not ready for this kind of war. We were not ready for this kind of war. We have the best... It's like Afghanistan all over again. And it's actually worse if you think about it,

[00:19:14] because we were in Afghanistan. You know, it was the graveyard of empires. Folks saw kind of what we wanted to do to some extent. But at least there was some kind of cause in the beginning and so forth. And there was sort of a nation-building idea and what have you. And it was just kind of a trap, a quagmire in that regard. But it would not have resulted in, say, 250,000, 300,000 deaths. You go to Iran, you're going to have 300,000, 400,000 deaths.

[00:19:40] We will exceed the death toll of the war between the states if we decided to go in there and attempt some kind of long-term regime change. And there's simply no political appetite for that. Well, Patrick, let me bring this up. And again, I just have to reiterate how astonishing it is. Well, I say astonishing. I mean, this thing has swung and swung wildly from one poll to the other almost on a weekly basis.

[00:20:09] But when you go back a month ago, you and Ron Unz, some of the best commentary, prescient insight that I've heard anywhere. Anyway, we're talking about this MOU. And before that, we were talking about the fact that peace is nearly at hand and the Israelis are apoplectic. And then now here we are talking about ground troops a month later. That is something. But here is a question for you that's come in from the audience, and I'll try to get to some more.

[00:20:37] Listener in Texas, if you wanted to, it's a question and a comment, I guess. And tell me what you think about this. If you wanted to destroy the military industrial complex and Jewish control of America, how would you go about it? That is, how would it conceivably work? The listener answers his own question by writing, The destruction and subsequent abandonment of our bases in the Middle East is proceeding nicely. Reportedly, we're moving assets from the damaged base in Jordan to Israel.

[00:21:07] Let the retribution begin that will ultimately sink greater Israel. Now that Russia has become more aggressive in Ukraine, expect Trump to use this to put more distance between ourselves and Europe and to further jeopardize NATO and ultimately require our European allies to demand that we depart from Europe. Once we move our remaining undamaged assets back home from the Middle East and Europe,

[00:21:35] the need to spend money for the military industrial complex will substantially be reduced. With any luck, we will retire our presence from Japan, Korea, and Taiwan within the next couple of years if China presses the issue convincingly. And then we have even more stuff, further mitigating the need to spend our money. And we'll go back to the Monroe Doctrine, basically. We will then need to deal with our corrupt Congress critters if they don't pull a façade.

[00:22:04] I think what the listener is asking here is if what is happening with all of these repeated apparent blunders, is it by design or happenstance, could this turn out – is there any way conceivable that this turns out in our favor, ultimately? I guess is the ultimate. A silver lining question. I would say this. The problem you have here – I agree with a lot of what has been said there

[00:22:33] and what the ultimate impacts will be. So I agree there that there will be a sort of retrenchment, as such a return to the Monroe Doctrine-type idea and so forth. The Japanese are not going to want to get rid of the U.S. because China is there. And the Japanese, in fact, have just recently embraced the doctrine of removing their previous handcuffs on their nuclear weapons program. They're actually now proceeding to find themselves their own nukes,

[00:23:00] which is a massive turnaround given what occurred during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. And the overall public opinion has shifted in Japan to one in which they believe that their own defense needs to be rebuilt and that the military needs to come back to its pre-1945 form, which is extraordinary. It's all right. So the Asian side, I think it's going to stay around. But that said, it's true that, you know, leaving the Middle East – now, Europe is a little bit different in its character because I do think there's some pressure there on Europe.

[00:23:30] I've for long been against NATO. But that said, NATO does give the United States some forward projection capacity. The bigger challenge for the Europeans is going to be that when you remove ourselves from NATO, it means that Turkey and Israel are going to start going to blows right away. And Israel has already said this, and that will probably suck the United States back into the region on behalf of the Israelite's ally. Well, it's not necessarily going to happen.

[00:23:57] And what I would think is, you know, what are the advantages of being a world hegemon for America? Yeah, see, that's where I was going to get. So I don't see us being able to decouple very easily simply because the political powers are still there. Now, in a few generations, maybe a generation or so of voters that might shift, but it's still there. Very clearly, I mean, it's all what happened with, say, Thomas Massey's getting primaried is a good example of this. I think the other issue is this.

[00:24:24] The defense, the industrial complex, understands that the politics of it, Congress likes to bring back pork back to its districts. And to do that, the defense industrial complex goes to powerful congressmen and says, I will put a factory in your backyard. I will put a base in your backyard. And that has handcuffed the U.S. military strategically. We will be right back with Patrick Barton. We're going to continue on this. We're going to also talk about Ukraine and Russia. Your daily Liberty Newswire.

[00:24:54] You're listening to Liberty News Radio. News this hour from Town Hall. I'm Mary Rose. While President Trump critics complain about the economy, new job market data points to something very different. Fewer Americans are losing their jobs than at any time in decades. In the week ending July 18th, a record low number of workers filed for unemployment insurance.

[00:25:21] Economists say it reflects the lowest level of weekly job losses in nearly six decades. Even though the labor force is roughly twice the size it was in 1970. But it's a good news, bad news story. Companies are profitable and laying off almost no one. Yet many job openings remain unfilled. Labor force participation among prime age men remains historically low, raising a key question. Where will the workers come from? Ron Taylor reporting.

[00:25:48] Former state lawmaker and logger Troy Jackson has secured the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Maine. Jackson will face longtime GOP Senator Susan Collins in November in a race that could decide which party controls the U.S. Senate. Jackson replaces Graham Plattner, who won the Democrat primary in June, but then withdrew from the race amid allegations of sexual misconduct. Jackson was selected by hundreds of delegates who came together for a first-of-its-kind gathering in Bangor, Maine.

[00:26:16] He won the support of almost all the delegates who gathered there to clinch the nomination. Bob Agner reporting. Scrutiny of the WNBA intensifies as mounting discord around the league looms over all-star festivities. And President Trump said he will host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House next week as he weighs U.S. military options in Iran.

[00:26:40] Tuesday's meeting will mark the first face-to-face talks between the two since the Iran conflict began in late February. It comes as the president says he's close to a decision on whether to launch a massive attack on Iran. More on these stories at townhall.com. Larry Elder here. When it comes to supplements, two things matter most, that it works and that you can trust it. Rather than just tell you about Relief Factor, we'll let our customers do it.

[00:27:08] We hear from people every single day whose lives have changed, and we'd like you to hear a few of their stories. Joni shared that before Relief Factor, her husband couldn't open his hands in the morning and had to give up playing guitar. Now he wakes up with flexibility, and he's back to playing music. They are both recommending Relief Factor to friends as a way to enjoy things they love again. I know that feeling. I take Relief Factor every single morning for my back issues. I don't take it. The back issues come back.

[00:27:32] Now they make it easy to find out if you'll be the next person telling us Relief Factor helps you enjoy what you love. Three weeks for just $17.76. Simply go to relieffactor.com, relieffactor.com, or call 800-4-RELIEF, 800-4-RELIEF. You'll connect with our friendly local team, and they will do everything they can to help. We hope you'll soon be sharing your story with us as well. relieffactor.com, 800-4-RELIEF. Hey friends, it's James.

[00:28:01] Did you know that every issue of the American Free Press now features my own published Q&A interviews with one of your favorite guests from the radio program? That's right. The American Free Press has officially partnered with TPC to expand our audience into the realm of print media. I encourage you to read it for yourself by subscribing today at AmericanFreePress.net. Did you know that regular TPC contributors like Nick Griffin and Jose Nino also have their own exclusive, insightful, and hard-hitting columns published in every issue of the American Free Press?

[00:28:28] I love this paper and read it as soon as it lands in my mailbox. Whether you prefer to receive the print edition or a digital subscription, the choice is yours when you subscribe at AmericanFreePress.net. We are advancing, but we need to be wise and well-informed. Enhance your intellectual ammunition today by subscribing to America's last real newspaper. If you enjoy listening to this broadcast, you'll love reading the American Free Press.

[00:28:52] Subscribe today by calling 1-888-699-NEWS or by visiting AmericanFreePress.net. Hey, folks. It's your friend Harry Cooper here. You know, it always feels like home when I'm on this show, and I want to invite everyone to check out Sharkhunters. Head on over to Sharkhunters.com, where we tell the honest history of World War II without propaganda. And we've always worked to bring former enemies together as friends.

[00:29:20] There's no other source available that publishes this history like Shark Hunters because we got our information, photos, and memories directly from the warriors who fought the battles. Sharkhunters.com has an unmatched collection of more than 300,000 photographs right from the veterans themselves. The Shark Hunters magazine will keep you up to date on real history, so send us an email to sharkhunters at sharkhunters.com,

[00:29:47] and we'll send the current issue of our magazine by email. No charge, of course. What are you waiting for? Head on over to sharkhunters.com, and I'll see you there.

[00:30:09] A couple of shout-outs are in order here as we continue on, or I should say right before we continue on with the incredible Patrick Martin. I will tell you, this is better commentary than you see on Fox News or anywhere else. What Patrick does here on TPC. On this issue, there is no better pairing than Patrick Martin and this issue and what we were able to get out there. Now, I will say more people are hearing it tonight.

[00:30:38] We would like to welcome a new affiliate station, AM 1470 WBCR, just outside of Knoxville, Tennessee, in Alcoa County, Blount County, Maryville, Tennessee, AM 1470 in East Tennessee. I want to thank the young lady who had a hand in putting together that deal for us, and it just goes to show that we operate on an elevated plane here at TPC,

[00:31:05] and we are moving the needle in very real ways. But I do want to thank Carol in East Tennessee for helping us with that. She is so special to the program and to me personally and to our family. Just incredible people all the way around in TPC Nation. And we want to welcome this new AM affiliate carrying us for the first time here tonight. Also, a big shout-out to the buddy boy, Justin, in downtown Memphis, Tennessee.

[00:31:35] Keith, he's tuned in on our flagship, AM 1600 WMQM. And with that having been said, two quick questions, Patrick, on Iran, and then Keith's going to set the table as we transition into Ukraine and Russia. But, I mean, trying to predict what's going to happen with Iran day-to-day is sort of like going to Sam's.

[00:32:01] Well, they just tore down Sam's Town, but any of the casinos in Tunica, Mississippi, and putting it on roulette. Of course, I'm the guy that puts it all on double zero green on roulette, so what do I know? But, in any event, this is a question, a two-part question for you. Well, I had it, and then I closed it. So, number one, Patrick, how long before Iran goes after the aerial refuelers in Israel? And number two, is the U.S. fighting a 20th century war against a 21st century opponent?

[00:32:31] Give us a minute answer on that. We're going to go to Ukraine. Yeah, the first question I would say is this. Right now, it's interesting that Iran is currently abiding by the MOU, as with Israel, and Israel is as well. And I think part of that is because Israel has a larger purpose in its decision to attack Lebanon, and it just recently attacked it back this evening, launched air strike.

[00:32:59] So it would be questionable how Iran views that, because Iran may decide to take out those tankers after all. The Iran, Israel has maintained its almost entire FAD inventory. In fact, it used almost nothing. And during the course of this Iran war, we've used up our own supplies. We allow them to keep theirs. So Israel does have some significant FAD reserves available at this moment. Plus, they have their Iron Dome and so forth, what have you.

[00:33:26] But for the most part, they have some protection. Now, that protection weakened significantly while the Iranians probed it in the last series of strikes, approximately six weeks ago or so. So I'd be curious to see what happens next. I think it's only a matter of time before the Iranians decide to do that. And again, tonight's strikes may actually encourage that to occur. And my question is really, where's the strategic reasons for the Israelis to have done this?

[00:33:56] I think there's a part of them, a desire, the city of America simply off of their property, off of Israel, out of Israel in general, and really out of the region, to be fair, unless they're going to create chaos in Iran. So there's that. As it pertains to us fighting a 20th century war against a 21st century opponent, we're really fighting a 20th century war against a 14th century opponent.

[00:34:24] What I mean by that is that the methods of speed, small units, tactical asymmetry, strategic asymmetry in general, and hitting areas of where your typical defense would be located is a tried-and-true method that had occurred throughout centuries from the Mongols, from Amir to Mor,

[00:34:49] came from areas that were very fast troops that come in, smaller units, attack with a level of ferocity to those sort of defensive strongholds to weaken a much stronger force and then eventually take that stronger force down. And in this case here, they're simply just using modern technology to achieve those objectives. They're using drones versus, say, men on horseback. But it's not really changed much. And so the U.S., in some ways, if you kind of think of it this way,

[00:35:17] for those history buffs that are out there, Battle of Agnacourt had heavily armed knights, French knights, decided to go up against English bowmen, longbowmen, who were able to strike them down. And this kind of heavy-weighted knight was, and it changed warfare truly in Europe forever. And so you see that now. You see this heavy, bulky U.S. Navy come in. You've got this heavy, bulky logistics-dependent Marine Corps coming to reach an army unit

[00:35:48] that are being dispersed around coming in and really coming slowly, trying to be methodical about it so that they can make this fast break. And they simply just cannot keep up with the sheer number of mobile ballistic missile systems, even if they're not very strong, even if they're not very powerful. They're still capable of creating damage, and more importantly, wearing down through a form of attrition the kind of ability to maintain your resistance capacity.

[00:36:16] So when you have that happen, this is where you really begin to wear them down and destroy it. And that's where we're at right now. So with that having been said, what else can we do except wait and see? As commentators, we'll wait and see what happens here and hope that some calmer heads prevail. But in the meantime, we'll have people like Patrick Martin here to help us make sense of it all or to at least break it down with insight and analysis.

[00:36:42] Now, I want to shift gears ever so slightly to Eastern Europe where you're equally well-suited, having spent time there, equally well-versed in the politics, the geopolitical nature of what's happening there. Keith, as you know, we had reposted an article by paleoconservative political theorist and commentator William S. Lind earlier this week at thepoliticalcesspool.org. Everybody should check it out.

[00:37:12] It's entitled The War That Matters. Break it down for the listening audience what Lind is conveying in the piece, and then we'll let Patrick tear it apart. Okay. Well, Patrick, I think William Lind would say that this is another characteristic example of fourth-generational warfare where America is in second-generational warfare mode still.

[00:37:41] It seems like Ukraine has had a lot more success against Russia than you would expect because they've totally embraced drone warfare. Also, you ask yourself why aren't the Iranians putting their military against Israel? Israel seems to be getting totally off of it.

[00:38:09] So what Lind's position is is that we are focusing on the wrong war. He said that the actual, what the really important war is is the one on Ukraine because if Ukraine wins, there's a chance that Russia will fragment. And if they do, they've got the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and who's going to wind up with it?

[00:38:37] Probably it's not going to be focused in one nation. It will be all over the place. And then we've got a multiplicity of problems about trigger-happy countries that will like to use those nuclear weapons, and the genie will be out of the bottle. What do you think about that? Yes, I read Lind's article, and I've got a lot of respect for Ms. Lind. I disagree with the overall premise that Russia is going to lose Ukraine.

[00:39:08] Here's a couple reasons why. The Russians really came in with a strategic objective of taking eastern portions of Ukraine and reabsorbing them into the Russian Federation, largely because of ethno-Russians that happened to be there. There's a lot of political abnormalities that have occurred. And the Russians themselves have long tried to do this if there was any chance of Ukraine joining NATO. Kiev, meanwhile, has been the hotbed of intelligence operations

[00:39:36] and really these sort of counter-Russian operations, as well as really any kind of counter-conservative movement-type operations as well throughout Europe. Any of those larger conservative movements, right-wing populist movements that were beginning to emerge in Europe, whether it be Greece, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, were being fought out of Kiev. It was really ground zero for a lot of that.

[00:40:02] So Kiev is important, by the way, from a strategic perspective to both Putin but also to many of the populist right in Europe. Now, that said, it's true. The drones are now beginning to manufacture. They're inexpensive. They've been very effective in bringing the war home to the Russian population. But there's a difference here that has to be understood. The Russian mindset is not one that takes a strike and then wilts. This is not the United States.

[00:40:32] This is not the kind of U.S. The United States will wilt politically when it begins seeing body bags come home with U.S. troops. When it starts seeing those American flag-draped coffins, you'll lose more and more support for war. That's what happened to Afghanistan throughout the Iraq. Russians are a very different breed. They will get angrier, and they'll want to fight more. Now, I think he talks about this a bit, and that Putin's hands will be tied, and eventually he'll be replaced by somebody even more bellicose. I don't think it's going to happen. The Ukrainians still need to develop these drones,

[00:41:01] and their manufacturing sites are clearly within reach now of Russian hypersonics, and the Russians have fired four missiles this evening at those manufacturing sites. So really, it's a race at this stage. The Russians have plenty of resources to continue to strike Ukraine, and they may even embrace a tactical nuke if they choose to do so on Ukraine itself to force them to surrender. And then is it getting out of the bottle then, if that happens? I don't know about that.

[00:41:30] The appetite would have to be to say, if you decide, if you're the United States, then you decide, first of all, what can you do to Russia? You really can't, at this stage, dare from a pure economic perspective. You have no more economic leverage. You have no more diplomatic leverage. You have no leverage on them. Patrick, Patrick, you don't have moral leverage, because there's been two nuclear bombs dropped in history, and the United States dropped them both. Right. So you really don't have, exactly right, you don't have leverage on the Russians at all. You have nothing to come back to the bargaining table with.

[00:42:00] You have really wrong leverage against Russia, though, because I kind of get the sense that Trump secretly would like for Russia to win it and get it over with. Well, that, again, is trying to understand what may be in Trump's mind, and nobody does. But see, for example, like in, go ahead. I was just going to say this. Israel is very vulnerable. We could have, you know, the Iranians could have a nuclear bomb without knowing it.

[00:42:25] They could put a ballistic missile into Demona or at one of their nuclear power plants in Israel, and then they would have a Chernobyl and several Chernobyl engines over there once. If you wanted to punk Israel, it'd be all too easy. You'd have to have somebody that wasn't a puppet of theirs, though. Well, I don't think Iran is alive. Iran, basically, you know, I'm wondering why they're pulling their punches against Israel. Well, they tested the waters around Demona, and I think that was part of a warning, Nate.

[00:42:54] We can get to this in the past. But, you know, going back to the Ukraine question, the Russians have the ability. So one of the things, the Americans completely misread the war. I said it was very early on. They're going to go to a slow siege. And this is not the kind of war. We're used to Blitzkrieg-type fighting where we go into Iraq, and we hit Baghdad within, say, a week or so, and we move fast and so forth. That's not really Russian policy. They're more like an ink plot that keeps growing. And they have not wilted at all. The defensive posture has not changed.

[00:43:23] So their position just keeps growing and growing and growing. It's only a matter of time before those drone facilities are completely destroyed. And there's only so much the Ukrainians give you to rebuild them. So it's only sooner rather than later, I think, the Russians will get stronger. Now, one of the other things, too, to remember is this. Ukraine was integral to Soviet defense systems during the Cold War. And the placement of aerial defense systems throughout Ukraine were placed by Soviet generals.

[00:43:51] They knew where to put these items to create maximum aerial defense. That's why the Russians did not use their air power, because they know that those same places now have American anti-aircraft missile systems in the locations that they had themselves strategically placed. So they had to be very careful and very cautious about putting their own aircraft into the airspace. They've been relying upon ballistic missiles. They've been relying upon the use of ground troops.

[00:44:20] This is beginning to slowly erode. And again, we have to remember, the U.S. no longer has fats. The Ukrainians don't have fats. The Ukrainians are beginning to run out of these ballistic defense systems. So it's only a matter of time before those manufacturing sites. And there was a pretty big discussion around whether Lindsey Graham was killed in one of the factories as well.

[00:44:41] It's been sort of a conspiracy theory that he died in one of the factories and they flew his body back because the Russians targeted a particular factory at the time. Regardless, the Ukrainian factories can only operate while they continue to receive supplies, which they really don't have, and keep those factories running under the barrage of Russian missiles. So sooner or later they're going to run out. Meanwhile, the Russians have ballistic missiles ad nauseum.

[00:45:10] They can continue to soften up. And really, when you think about it, the Russians themselves have really been pulling their punches. They have not struck Kiev in any meaningful way. They can. They haven't. They've been trying to avoid some of the larger civilian locations for quite some time. And ultimately, if you continue to strike civilian locations in Russia, the gloves will come off by the Russians. And they don't need to use nukes to do that. They might use attacking the nuke.

[00:45:38] But Putin can just simply up the ante, which he's been somewhat resistant to do. He's actually rather controlled, very measured, very disciplined with regard to this. And part of that has to do with his overall political goals in Ukraine, as well as his desire to, at some point in time, take control of some of those energy resources, reminding folks that Putin's master's thesis, as I understand it, was on the economics of energy.

[00:46:09] So he understands how this works. He understands how energy sectors work. He understands how maintaining control of eastern Ukraine, taking control of eastern Ukraine, even really half the country, to be honest, will give Russia's long-term political objectives something, an amazing chip with regard to power. The real question is, and when you talk about Trump and whether he's interested in continuing to support Ukraine, I think here's the deal, whether he wants to or not. Again, getting it said is one thing.

[00:46:39] But we continue to support Ukraine. We continue to support them with billions of dollars. We continue to support them with, again, weapons that we are dwindling quickly. We don't have really anymore. And so if he really wanted Russia to win, he would just stop the support. He would say it's over. Well, let me ask you this, if I could. It would seem that a simple explanation is that Ukrainians are masters of drone warfare.

[00:47:05] Neither the United States nor Russia is at their level. In fact, you know, the Iranians were known for it. They're the ones that first started providing drones to the Ukrainians. Do you think that it's something as simple as that, or is that a factor? What do you think? What I think they're going to do is mention those drone, again, those drone manufacturers will, manufactured facilities will be just targeted.

[00:47:32] And it's a lot longer time to put them up than it is to take them down. So when you think about that, just from a pure, again, pure strategic perspective, and, again, materials are important, logistics is important here, you, if you're the Russians, you're just going to start targeting those, and they are. They're already beginning to do that. They have been doing that. So I agree with you that it's incredibly impressive that the Ukrainians have been able to do, given the fact that they've lost so much manpower and really have lost so much in general

[00:48:01] in the last three years, four years. But at the end of the day, they're just definitely not going to be able to match the Russians. And if you're striking like they struck St. Petersburg yesterday in the civilian area, I believe the Ukrainians killed a few children, a small school, kind of a religious school, I think it was an Orthodox Christian Children's Center or something. If you do that, the Russians are just going to get angrier, and they're going to get mad.

[00:48:30] Well, I've heard reports that a million people have died in that Ukrainian-Russian war so far. Oh, no, I agree with you there. Isn't that sounding? I thought, Keith, that was a good battle during World War II. Well, the thing is, we talk about we're in a war that we're losing, and we've had 18 casualties. You know, come on, what are we talking about? This is crazy. Yeah, you know, you're talking about, and you think about Stalingrad and so forth as well.

[00:48:58] You ask the Germans, you ask the French, what happens when the Russians begin to fight back? And it's never good. And so, you really, at this stage right now, again, it's been very controlled. It's been very measured. They have really wanted to just control eastern Ukraine. And the more the Ukrainians use drones on their civilian sectors, it's just going to really get a point where Putin will then be able to go to the Russian people and say, we are going to strike civilian sectors as well.

[00:49:27] And the Russians will applaud it, which they have not been able to do, really have not done much of. So that doesn't change it. Patrick, I appreciate your expertise on both affairs in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. And it comes from the time spent there on the ground as a professional and your education and everything else, which is why you are so heavily featured on this program.

[00:49:53] Our most featured guest through nearly eight months of 2026. Hard to believe that we are now approaching the days of summer. It's going fast. But, yes. But, interestingly, so you're saying that, contrary to, I wouldn't say popular opinion necessarily, but American propaganda, that Putin is doing what he wants to do.

[00:50:17] This is the war he wanted to fight, and he is not about to be deposed or assassinated or lose this thing. This is going according to his design? Well, we really don't know from our media what the truth is. We don't know whether Russia is really getting the raw end of this or not, among other things. Well, I remember, you know, I would just say this, Patrick, very quickly.

[00:50:43] I mean, Charles Bosman, who is, of course, an American journalist. He's the editor-in-chief of Russia Insider. He's a Pennsylvanian. But he lives, he has spent most of his time in the last several years in Moscow, living there full-time with his family. He's started to come back a little bit more to the United States recently. But we had him on in March of 2022. He's been on since then as well. And I like Charles. I know Charles.

[00:51:12] I've broken bread with Charles. But he was on on the program. I remember the show. I went back to look up the exact date, but I remember this conversation. We only have two minutes remaining. But March the 19th of 2022, and this was just a few days after this whole thing kicked off. And at that time, when he appeared, Russia had already encircled Kiev. I'll still call it Kiev. And he said that it would be over in a few days.

[00:51:40] Now, you know, we've all made predictions that have gone awry. I think we're all scratching our heads about why Russia hadn't put the quietus on them yet. So a final two minutes on that, and then we'll let you fly. Yeah, as I said, from the very beginning of the war, I actually wrote articles about this and so forth. In February 2022, March 2022, Russia was not going to win this fast. Russia wasn't even looking to win this fast.

[00:52:08] It was going to be a slow siege-type warfare. It was going to be a plot. It was slowly spreading a plot of Russian resolve. And, again, a lot of it had to do with the strategic designs of the Soviet Union and U.S. military capacity that had been put in those same places, so more advanced weaponry that had been put in the places where these very carefully thought-of strategic locations were defensively for the Ukrainians. So I didn't think that was going to happen. And sure enough, it's just been a very slow, methodical roll forward.

[00:52:38] And I think that's really what Putin has wanted. Well, at what point do you think that this may be resolved in any discernible way over there? I think it will get resolved when you see these drone manufacturing sites begin to wear down. They get destroyed more and more. And when you begin seeing a raider strike on civilian centers by the Russians, which, again, they've been loathed to do today.

[00:53:06] So if you begin to see not just the drones being struck down, but also power facilities that are knocked out, you begin to see roads knocked out, you even begin to see some civilian targeting with weaponry, which, again, the Russians have been, for the most part, trying to avoid. That's when you'll see this war begin to end. Again, it will be – and a really calculation will be simply this. Who is going to be able to continue to provide the material support necessary to the Ukrainians,

[00:53:35] capable of continuing this war? And the United States is not the answer anymore. We can't even provide it to ourselves. And that's when it's going to end. Patrick, we've got a question under the wire. We're going to shift gears to Shiloh Hendricks and that guilty verdict out of Rochester, Minnesota, in the second hour. But a question under the wire as the music is about – there it is. We've got 30 seconds. Is the U.S. lying about casualties in Iran? Yes. Yes, 100%. Interesting. Very interesting.

[00:54:02] Well, we'll have to tease you with that, ladies and gentlemen. And then the question is, what's the real hazard count? What would you think, if you had a hazard to guess? I would say probably around 1,000 troops have been wounded in the state of the deaths. We don't know the Special Forces Operations Special Office community, but I would say some of our goals are around 50 or 60. Well, whether you're talking about 18 or 1,000, you're going to be talking about a lot more. If it's boots on the ground, Alex Jones was calling for that.

[00:54:29] Patrick texted me last week, which was the impetus for this conversation tonight. Could be any day. But you never know. I mean, because this thing has been so topsy-turvy. However it goes, we'll have the expert opinion, and we'll have people like Patrick Martin. Nobody else has got talent like this. We'll be right back. Thank you, Patrick. God bless you. We'll talk to you again soon. Gentlemen, thank you. God bless.