Welcome to today's podcast sponsored by Hillsdale College, All Things Hillsdale at Hillsdale dot ed or. I encourage you to take advantage of the many free online courses there, and of course I'll listen to the Hillsdale Dialogues, all of them at q for Hillsdale dot com or just Google, Apple iTunes and Hillsdale Grace America. Good Thursday to you from the Relief Factor Studio West. I'm beginning the program with the former Israeli Ambassador the United States, former Deputy
Prime Minister of Israel, doctor Michael Oran. You can follo him on exit d R Michael Orran, Ambassador Oran. I think we're about to get into a battle with Iran. I don't care about the talks tomorrow unless they give them the Assaud option and Hamini capitulates, which I don't see happening. That's where I think it's going. What do you think.
I think so too.
I think so too.
Let me dug down a little bit and just what's happened of the last week.
Because we sort of opened with that drone approaching the USS Lincoln. I'm getting shot down at a champ by Iranian missile boats. Try to take over an American tanker, American flag tanker in the Gulf of for moves.
Why would Heron do this big question?
Why would he ron try to provoke the United States into launching a war now?
And the answer is this, I think the Irinians understand what.
You understand, Hugh, that these negotiations are going nowhere that maybe they can conceive part of their nuclear program. What is their conceed It's it's half destroyed at least already. And secondly, you know they're not going to give up their support for terrorist groups. They're not going to give up their missile program. This is in their DNA, It's who they are. And so the question is when does
the America strike. And since America's building up his forces very rapidly in the Middle East, now that.
The hw Bush aircraft charriage is on route in approaching.
The area, the Irrinians would rad to have this, have the America attack earlier or rather than later.
And they think they can maybe survive it, and they maybe.
Can cause prohibitive damage to American naval vessels and forces in the Middle East and force and cease fire.
They are relying on the experience they.
Had last summer when the Ryans fired rather performatively at Katar, and Trump quickly called for ceasefire.
They were going to make up his calculation on this.
But that's what I'm thinking to me, there's no other reason why this drone approached the USS Lincoln. Why these missile boats try to take an American flag tanker is to provoke the United States into a military confrontation sooner rather than later.
So, Michael, why would they want to do that because we've already got there a lot of force. I assume they will strike at Israel. Israel will join in. It will be an overwhelming punishment that I think will end up with regime decapitation. Do they not believe that?
I think that right now they understand that the United States position military deployment in the Middle East is not as a height.
It's far from it.
Right now, you have one aircraft carrier there, best of my knowledge, the aircraft carriers about ninety planes. Of those about seventy warplanes. You have other planes safe in the area, You have bases. But listen, even generally, even in President Biden on October eighth, twenty twenty three, cent two aircraft carriers off the coast of Lebanon the Ford in the Eisenhower and that was considered a formidable force, not a force for war, but war.
For preventing war. And you need a much bigger build up if.
You're going to take on a country of ninety million people that is more than the size of France and Germany combined. It is a very huge country, armed with thousands of rockets, many thousands of drones, and then it has positions throughout the Middle East. It has all these proxies.
And you know all.
The difficulties the US Navy had in fighting the Goodies.
I have a colleague who was an officer in the US Navy was involved in that in that campaign, told me it was the biggest combat operation that the US Navy has had since World War Two.
Messages from the Hoodies alone.
And had a very difficult time because they were firing between thirty and forty rockets at US Naval vestas every day, and they had to do all these face if maneuvers. In fact, at one point one of the airplanes off the aircraft carrier went into the ocean because they were moving so fast trying to swivel to avoid these oncoming rockets.
Well, you're going to get that from many.
Different directions from Iran, from the Syrian and Iraqi Iran backed militias.
They also have rockets, and it's going to be a big challenge.
The last time we spoke here we talked about I said, remember the Sheffield right and the HMS the British destroyer that was hit by an Exocet missile file by the Argentinians during the Falklin Boards of nineteen eighty two. I think we also have to remember the coal and two thousand, the US naval vessels that was hit by a suicide speedboat in Odden Harbor and Yemen in two thousand. Iran has many, many of these speedboats. The hooties are perfectly willing to blow themselves up.
They're big on market. So you're going to have you coming at something like the USS.
Abraham Lincoln is going to have all the thrones, all these rockets, all these missile boats coming at you. It is going to be quite a challenge. So in order to meet that challenge, you have to build up, build up anti missile capability which is unrivaled anywhere in the world, and that takes time, and I think dat armies understand that, and they don't want to give President Trump at that time.
So ambasorin, I don't think Trump will go until he has everything there. But as Admiral Montgomery said on this program the day or Friday before the Monday we last talked, no doubt we have one or two Ohio class Tomahawk missile carrying submarines. We have all of the Air Force assets that have been moved to the variety of bases, and we have the Israeli Air Force, and we have
the first carrier and the second carriers en route. If we cannot decapitate a regime or overwhelm it with force, with that, then the United States isn't a superpower and we don't have to invade. We're not going to invade. If we can't do it, that can't be done. What in fact Israel to do if we begin that campaign.
Before I answer that, let me tell you.
Let me tell you about whether America, what America can and cannot do. I think the expectation is not just a whole. The expectation is that once America acts against the regime, that the people once again rise up. Typicular they see that the regime's hands are tied, that it's on its hind legs, they'll rise up again. And that is where the regime gets its koudi gras, not to say, from American missiles, but from its own people, as.
It should be, by the way, and here we get to the reason why nine Arab and Muslim.
Countries pressured President Trump to go back to the negotiating table even after the Iranians have balked at meeting with the President and other Arab Middle East term representatives in acre Instable this week, and they move the talks to Aman. It's interesting, Hugh, that these these nine countries share Israel in America's interest in removing the nuclear threat from around, removing the ballistic missile capability from on, and stopping Iran support for terrorist groups throughout the.
Middle East of the world. That we all agree on.
That there's one point we are not on the same page, and it's this.
It's this.
These countries want to see a weakened, emasculated Iran. They don't necessarily want the Iranan regime to fall, because if you see a regime falling as a result of a popular uprising, that won't be good.
For those countries.
They aren't democracies and they don't want that precedent, so they would like to see just Iran, you know, sort of defangt toothless.
But I think the United States and.
Israel together care about the Iranian people and care about run Asi, and that sets us apart. Now as to what Israel do. Israel defend itself. Israel has immense capabilities. We're talking about an air force. The number of actual airplanes we have is classified, but it is in the hundreds plus other capabilities. We also have submarines.
We also have a.
Navy, and I measure that all of these assets will be brought to bear. We will also have to spend a tremendous amount of energy on missile defense because the audience have these missiles.
They are quite large.
I think the last time I spoke on the Protram, I talked about the warheads, which are about twenty times the size of a rocket that has follow a rocket that.
Hamas will fire.
That our safe rooms can be of little utility of protecting us in the face of these massive rockets.
They can take down a neighborhood, and we're going to have to have quickly quickly to locate the launchers.
The point is Iran may have one thousand, five hundred ballistic missiles left, but it doesn't have one thousand, five hundred launchers. If we could knock out the launchers very very quickly, those missiles will be useless.
So doctor Oran, I also have a friend in the United States Navy who is deployed in the Gulf during Round one with the Hooties, and it was an annoyance, but this officer was not worried about attacks on carriers, although I am and I thought, I've been repeating your warning about the Sheffield ever since you made it to me. It reminded me of nineteen eighty two about it with brit Hume yesterday. I do believe that everything has to
go at once in order to decapitate the regime. And I don't think it's a ninety million, ninety two million person regime. I think it's one hundred and fifty thousand members of the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Just finished reading a book on them, Empire of Evil by Mark Soliski, which came out four years ago, but the numbers are probably still the same. They're ideological, they are corrupt. They are completely glued to Hamani. They can't give up, and
that people will kill them. So it's one hundred and fifty thousand people. You got another half million people in the Iranian army, but they are not as ideologically fanatical as that. Do you think what John Thune told me yesterday, The objective of this ought to be regime change, not occupation. Regime change. We have one minute, doctor worn.
Listen, I have to be very cross this year because we don't position.
There are by people already saying that Israel's pushing America into this war, and it's for Israel's interests. It's all thattayak who's doing And I don't want to push anybody into any war. But the question of regime change are not regime change almost a mood point, because if the Iranians theoretically were agreed to give up their nuclear program, give up their missiles, and stop supporting his Balla Alhaja Musk and al Kudz force which operates tear around the world,
then it's not the same regime anymore, is it. It's basically a regime change, as if the regime is incapable of making those changes. What alternative is there. It's kind of a moot point.
I agree, and I also think I agree with britt Hereman yesterday. Having built up this kind of force in the Middle East, not to use it would significantly deteriorate America's deternity. Doctor Orm. We'll talk again next week. I appreciate the special appearance on the Thursday. Stand by me, Welcome back America. Open source Intel reporting at this hour, the US air lift activity for the Iran operation has hit at least one hundred and two C seventeen and
C five flights into Sentcom as of February five. That includes fifty eight arrivals at our air base in Jordan, thirteen arrivals at our air base and cut Her, twelve arrivals at our air base in Saudi Arabia, nine arrivals at Diego Garcia, which is a British Indian ocean territory which does have quite a lot of our stuff there. I didn't think that the Iranians had a missile capable of getting to Diego Garcia, but no chances of being
taken there. Kuwait seven arrivals, Bahrain three arrivals. I started thinking that's low and pending flights twelve and I would guess they're going to go to Bahrain. So that is a build up without precedent. I think bigger than the one before midnight hammer by a lot. And Prime Minister Netanyahu warned his Knesset today that the conditions for the collapse of the regime are mounting, and I do think that is a partial explanation for the schizophrenic activity coming
out of Iran. Some members of the regime, senior military members, spokespeople, are attempting to intimidate the United States via their statements, and they're showing of pictures of missiles and stuff like that, pronouncements that are poking the bear, and then actions by Iran to actually poke the bear, like attacking the Abraham Lincoln with a drone. They could do drone swarms, they could put up a lot of drones, but the Lincoln can move, and I'm not sure their drones are that good.
But all of our ships will not be sitting around waiting for a drone to find it. The airbases can't move, which is why the THAD Theater Altitude Deployment System and the Patriot missiles are being deployed to our stationary basis they have a GPS. Very very likely that America will be hit hard, not continental the United States, but our bases and our people at sea and on land in the region if this begins, and I think it's going to begin, because I don't believe the Iranians are going
to give up anything that they have. They have to capitulate. Basically, if they give up what they has been demanded of them, they will have to capitulate. I am afraid that the Special Envoy is invested in envoying, but mister Widcoff has pulled off a lot thus far this year, so hopefully he will continue to do so. We'll talk with Jim Tallan after the break. Donald Trump at the prayer Bakfast today Cut number twenty.
Under the Trump administration was standing strongly behind the Americans of faith, stopping the attacks on our values, our traditions, defending religious liberty.
Cut number twenty two.
The Department of Justice recently charged individuals from for storming a church in Minnesota during a worship service and trampling on Americans First Amendment rights.
I watched that.
Type and you know that was violent.
I saw the people sitting there Pam and they were scared. They were well, some were scared and some were holding up their hands like I believe in God.
But they were violent people.
Screaming your parents and Nazis. Your parents had Nazis. The people are sitting and I thought the minister was great, he was so calm and good.
They's screaming at him.
Terrible right in the middle of.
A church service.
It's got to be illegal. I mean, Pam is doing it. I'm not doing it, but Pam is doing it. And I'll tell you people are happy with the job that's taking place because they're bad people.
They're bad people.
You have on one Trumpeter in particular that just I watched his performance.
It was terrible.
They tried and use freemo, repressed.
And alls to get out of a criminal event.
They were. That was a horrible thing to witness. And if we allowed that to go, and you wouldn't, You wouldn't be able to have a church.
No, everybody would be afraid to go to church.
He is not wrong about that. Coming up, Senator Jim Talent from a senator from the very jointing to talk about Iran. Stay tuned, Welcome back, America. I'm Hugh Hewett, joined by a former United States Senator, Jim Talent, who's on the Reague Institute Center for Security.
Uh.
Center, Talent, your assessment of what's going on with Iran?
I think the odds that we're going to strikech are very very high. You uh, there's You've been talking all day about the three things that we want. No nukes, no support for the proxies, and no ballistic missiles. Well, the new program has pretty much gone. Their economies collapsed. I can't imagine they're sending much money to Hesbalaut, but
they still have a substantial ballistic missile arsenal. So the big win for the administration is if we get some kind of regime realignment or recalibration, if somebody wearing a military cap takes over from Homine and decides to play ball with us. But if they don't, we're going to go after the ballistic missiles directly. That's what I think is going to happen. And you know the issue is when your guess is as good as mine, they're certainly getting ready now.
Center Talent at the Regan Institute Center for Peace through Strength. It believes in muscular foreign policy. But we haven't seen a build up like this since the invasion of Iraq and two carrier groups, all of these fads and patriots, no boots on the ground planned and not that we know of, and certainly doesn't look that way. Are you still nevertheless worried about American casualties at our bases and on our ships?
You always worry you.
I remember as a kid listening to your old boss, Dick Nixon talking about the Vietnam War and how much casualties it he had gone down, but he said, you know, one casualty's won too many.
So and we all feel that way.
But that's why we have send coom planners, Admiral Cooper, That's why we have the Joint Staff under General Kine, That's why we have the Undersecretariat for Policy in the Department of Defense, you know, to prepare to advise the President whether there's something like this can be done within an acceptable margin of risk. And I think clearly they've told them that they can, that they can do it.
And my experience through the years is that when we're in a basically non competitive environment in the sense that the air defenses have not proven effective and we're going up against a non peer competitor, and we have time to build up. We're very good at this, so I have a fairly high confidence level. But of course you're gonna worry until it's over, and nobody can guarantee there won't be any losses. I mean, that's just not possible.
But these are substantial Americans secure already interests that we can gain by this operation, and I think the President's decided he's going to do it if we don't get a diplomatic solution.
I think he's right.
Ambassador ORNs twice in a week reminded me of the British ship the Sheffield, which was hit by an Exocet missile in the Falklands conflict in nineteen eighty two. It was a lucky hit, but it killed a lot of British sailors anyway and sunk the ship. What is the threat to the Lincoln or any of the destroyers or support ships, do you think.
Well, it's obviously the anti ship crews and ballistic missiles, but we know about that. I mean, those ships have very sophisticated air defense systems. We're going to take out the launchers as quickly as we can. They're going to try and achieve tactical surprise. And with all due respect to our allies, the Brits, you know, our navy, which and they had a much better navy in nineteen eighty two, but nowhere near even relatively speaking, as good as ours now.
So this is why you people who all my former colleagues and colleagues who want to be president, these are the kind of decisions you got to make. I think it's time to do this. I think I think the administration is determined to eliminate the Iranian threat, which has been with us for fifty years. It's necessary to do that to achieve our vital national interest in the Middle East.
Read the National Security Strategy, page five, and I think I think the President is determined, and we got the best guys and gals in the world, and if we have to do it, I think will be successful.
Now. Britta Hume was my guest yesterday, Jim, and he said, and after many years of watching presidents, if a president leans this far forward as President Trump has, if nothing happens, his deterrence is injured. Do you agree with him?
Yes, oh, absolutely, And the president knows that. I mean, that's why he would not have said this as often as he's at it if he did not intend to order a strike in the event the diplomatic channels fail, And I'm not quite as down on that as some other people are. I think part of this may be
to pressure this regime. Well, there's no question the president's got leverage because he's in this case, it's military leverage, and he's increasing the pressure on the regime, which is one reason I think why this is going on for weeks. Imagine what that's like in their bunkers view, especially since so many of their people have already been taken out. And I know again there's concern about what they might do in response, but you I bet anything, we're holding
secondary deterrence in reserve. In other words, if they respond and attack Americans, they know we can come back with even more. And what about the Israelis. If they don't go in in the first wave, they may go in in the second. So you know, I'd much rather be on our side making these decisions.
Then on the Mulla side.
I'm going to talk with you about timing after the break, But can you run through what you would assess the response to an actual hit on a carrier or a destroyer that took a lot of sailors lives.
Well, we go in with everything then, and that would probably trigger an attack on directly on the Iranian economy. You've talked about Cark Island and I can't pronounce it either, by the way, the way the Iranians do. You've talked about that, I mean at that point, and again the president's warned that about that, and we've seen how sensitive he's been in the past to taking American casualties.
So we're going very heavy then.
You know, the power of an aircraft carrier task force, not to mention the submarines, not to mention the long range precision strike aircraft.
We've got the V two's.
If we have targets that don't have effect of anti air defenses, they're just helpless.
You I'm doing my math in my head. And if the Israeli Air Force gets involved, it's five hundred bomb delivering precision munitions every cycle from the ship to the sea and from the Israeli Air Force. But it's an incredible amount of firepower.
It will turn, you know, eight hundred sorties into several thousand sorties and just be absolutely devastating. And so again, they've got to be thinking about that too, before they unleash, you know, hundreds of missiles at US.
Stand by Cenator Town. I'm going to ask you about timing when we come back to the u ushef stay turned in America. Welcome back to America. I'm Hugh Hewett, Centertor of Talent, is still with me because I wanted to talk to him about the window in which he believes battle with Iran will begin. What's your estimate, Center of Talent.
Well, let's look at the reasons for the delay. I think there were three.
One of them is so we could build up that's got to be near completion now you've been tracking the forces that have been coming into the region. The second was diplomatic because, as doctor Warren said, our allies and partners want all the things we want with their round, but the Gulf States in particular, probably nbs IS, they're nervous about whether a military conflict will destabilize the region. And I think the third reason is the president is
letting the regime sweat. I mean, he's seeing that they've been pushed to the edge.
We locked you there, Jim, and we don't know.
Yeah, I don't know how much.
You.
Yeah, they're pushed to the edge and we're waiting to see if they'll break. I mean, as I said, they're the ones who are sweating at this point. Yeah, we're concerned about our servicemen and women, but we've done this kind of thing before, So I think those are the reasons. And I think once we get the force package in place, it could happen at any time.
And do you think the present beat us to the punch because they have been known to go first before.
Well, to me, the two questions about this you other than timing, and I have little doubt that the administration will seek to engineer a tactical surprise, which they did with Midnight Hammer. They'll do that again. To me, the two questions with this are are the Israelis going to join in initially with us? They certainly will if Iron
attacks them in response. And then the second is are we going to attempt to decapitate the highest levels of leadership Omane, the Mullahs, the IRG commanders, I mean a lot of them have already been killed. Are we going to do that or are we going to hold that back to use for secondary deterrence? Those are tactical questions, as is timing, and you unless you're read into these briefings every day, I mean, you just don't know. But I think they'll they'll try and engineer a tactical surprise.
It's going to be interesting to see how they try and do it.
Maybe the discombobulator will be deployed. Jim Talent, do you think that's an ends.
Could be?
We have a lot of ways of breaking the kill chain, and the Navy is particularly good at it and always has been electronic countermeasures, jamming the radar. I mean, there's there's all kinds of things. We're good at that and which is one of the reasons we haven't had the kind of disaster you're talking about. So again, it's it's up to the president to decide whether we can do this within an acceptable margin of risk.
But I think.
Clearly he has decided, and I would be surprised if that's if that's not a well founded decision.
Center Jim Talent, always good to talk to you.
Following or fencing, we have seen the Iranian leadership wiring money out of the country. So the rats are leaving the ship and that is a good sign that they know the end may be near.
Welcome back to America. I'm Hugh hewittt that with Treasury Secretary Scott Besson on what the molocracy is doing right now. I'm joined by Noah Rothman, senior writer at National Review. No I just talked to Ambassador Oran, who believes they Iranians attempted to bake the United States into striking too soon yesterday or this week with the attack on the Lincoln by the drone and the attempt to seize the oil ship. They took two cargo ships today or two
freighters today? What do you think? What's your assessment of what's going on over there.
So that was a very interesting interview with Ambassador Oran. I hope your listeners caught it. That they didn't, they should catch up with it. He painted a pretty dire situation, very dire scenario, and it concerns me. It's the worst case scenario, and we've talked about it previously, the notion that the Iranian military or the IRGC will throw everything they can at US assets, particularly naval assets, but also its bases and its partner bases around the region, and
it would be a significant challenge. They would attempt to in my view, engineer sinking of a US warship, but that would require a lot of assets. Now here's the other situation scenario rather that the ambassador did not bring up. Is that that situation, that scenario where Iran looses all its munitions, all its ordinance, sacrifices future deterrent capability. This is a regime that is hyper focused on survival. It
has a long time horizon. It is not necessarily going to sacrifice all its missiles, all its drones in a one off strike because it won't have them to deter future aggression against future adversaries. We can anticipate that a US operation will begin with, as Ambassador orre And said, the striking of missile launch facilities and production facilities. So Iran can be certain that its capabilities will be damaged for the foreseeable future. It will take a long time
to spin up those productions facilities. So what it's got is what it's got, and if it uses them, it won't have them in the future. The turn capability is something this regime would like to preserve, so we can't rule out the prospect of a calibrated response akin to what it marshaled after the operation that destroyed its nuclear facilities in June.
Yeah. No, the Iranians demonstrated in two thousand and twenty when President Trump ordered Sillimani to be killed, that they can hit a United States base. They hit Ali Sad with array of ballistic missiles, and so they if there's a GPS attached, we know they can hit it. Because they hit Ali Sad. They injured a few American soldiers that were left on the base, but we had warning
of it and we evacuated beforehand. What would be the response if they actually did a serious casualty figure on America, much less taking out a carrier, which is five thousand people, which is the nightmare scenario. What do you think the response from America would be.
Well, the nightmare scenario that you just discussed would require a very significant response, a response that would involve, basis in the United States sending B twos with mops and five thousand pounds bombs to attack regime targets, to attack military targets as well as IRGC targets. We would make an example of the Iranian nation.
That is not.
Because we would want to communicate to our adversaries in Beijing and Moscow. What happens if you attack a carrier not because of iron. That is the worst case scenario. That's almost inconceivably bad for American prestige and American determ capabilities. But a smaller response is possible to think about. And the notion that the United States will not experience casualties or fatalities in that response is not something you could rule out. And how would Trump administration response, I think
that depends on how the American public response. Would the American public regard this as an operation of choice, not of military, an ass and therefore something we invited on ourselves, or do they think it's an absolute imperative to get rid of this regime by whatever means are necessary and whatever comes after it is a good.
Problem to have.
I hope the American public would respond with the latter assumption. But the President needs to make this case to the nation. President needs to enlist the public in this project because it is a national project. And the sooner he comes before the public and says why we're doing this, the better.
I agree with that, by the way, because the first part of that case is to announce how many people we think they murdered. I think it's over thirty thousand that hasn't sunk in Noah, and I don't know that the American people have their arms around that yet. That this regime is capable of murdering thirty thousand or more of its own citizens in forty eight hours, and that therefore, if they ever got a nuclear weapon or of ICBM that could hit the United States with a dirty bomb
or whatever, they would do it. There's just nothing they wouldn't.
Do, absolutely, And that is so to say the scale of the bloodshed, because it communicates to the public how this regime views its own survival. It compelled its own security forces to sign their death warrants with the execution of their neighbors in the streets in January. This regime regards survival, its own survival, their personal survival, as an imperative, and nothing else compares, including the survival of the citizens
to which it is ostensibly dedicated. There's nothing that it wouldn't do in order to preserve its own stability, its own existence, and that does mean attacking the United States with whatever weapons it has available, attacking the United States on its own soil engineering, assassination campaigns, on American soil, killing Americans by scores. That is what this regime does, and it will not shy away from doing that. And if it has no legitimacy at home, it has no
mechanism to rein it in. There's no domestic trigger that the Iranian people can pull to impose some circumspection on this regime. It is moderated and guided purely by the Islamic Republic's Supreme leader's own sense of morality, and we've not seen very much of that. It is really a force that is untethered to anything beyond what this very cloistered group of clerics is telling themselves.
It's a very dangerous regime. It's a twelfth mm End Times regime, and I would encourage anyone to read deep on this. Noah, you did post on your ex account a picture of our base encatter that shows the deployment of Patriot missiles over the last three weeks. I think that explains why President Trump hasn't moved yet. And the dispatch of the George H. W. Bush carrier tells me the same that tomorrow's meeting may or may not produce a second meeting, But I don't think it matters in
the end. You share my fatalism about this, Oh I do.
Yeah, we gave a little bit, and I kind of wish we hadn't, But I understand why. The idea being to keep the Arab States on board with the diplomatic track. But we're too far apart. We are talking about the nuclear program, which is under several tons of lightly irradiated rubble, it's not really worth talking about. But we are also talking about the ballistic missile program and the proxy terrorist groups.
The problem is that we want those things to go away forever, and the regime wants them to exist forever because they regard them as essential to their own survival. So we're just too far apart to meet in the middle. But Ambassador Orang's point is extremely important that the Arab States are not democracies. They do not necessarily want to see this regime fall from popular pressure. This is not
like the Arab Spring. We're talking about some conditions that are sue generas very unique to Iran, so they have a little bit less to be worried about in Riad,
although they should be worried about their own people. But it is important for us to be able to communicate and convey that what we want to see happen to the Islamic Republic is an implosion, not an explosion, and that will require sustained US power and presence in the region for the foreseeable future and a soft landing space for this regime elements of it that are willing to either exile themselves or to work with a successor government, because we do not want to see the collapse of
this regime into civil war and chaos and disunion, because our partners abroad do not want.
To see that.
That might be distasteful, but it's real politique that we will have to consider.
Well said as always, nosc Rothman. Follow him on x from National Review. Nosc Rothman on Welcome Back in America. I'm juq and Eliana Johnson is the editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon. You can follow at Eleian at y Johnson on AX Freebeacon dot com. She's also almost daily contribute to the commentary podcast Eleana. I haven't listened to the commentary podcast from this morning, but yesterday just the last little bit was devoted to what's going
on in Iran. I opened the program with Ambassador or In today who says, be very very very sure you know what you're getting into, because this is going to be very ugly if we get into a shooting match with Iran. What do you think about that?
I think that's right, and I think the President's aware that this is a risky undertaking, which is part of the reason he's taking his time. We did devote quite a bit of time to talking about Iran today and actually had a debate about whether the President wants to engage in diplomacy as an off ramp and is really reluctant to do something, and whether the Iranians, in harassing the USS Abraham Lincoln with a drone, we're trying to, as the ambassador suggested, force the US to act by
taunting the president before it's good and ready. So I'm not sure which one of these two avenues. I actually argued the second that I think the President is reluctant to act, but will end up choosing action because it's the least worst option that he's presented with. But many of my colleagues believed that the Iranian actions in sending a drone over the USS Abraham Lincoln were intended to force US action before they're ready because they know this is going to be quite messy.
As the ambassador suggested, Well.
That's my take is that President Trump's going to go when he wants to go, and that he's got a big window. He tried to prevent a masker by posting about it, but he couldn't. And any regime that will kill thirty thousand of its own people in forty eight hours, we cannot underestimate whatever they're doing. And they're probably lying up their ducks as well. But I've talked to naval officers and I believe that they are confident in their ability to quickly suppress fire. But that doesn't mean that
a ship doesn't get blown up. Because the Sheffield in the Falklands was a lucky shot from Argentina with an aging EXO set. We know that the Iranians, when they have a GPS can hit the GPS. They hit the Alis Sad base after Solimani was killed. What do you think do you think Americans are ready for this?
Well, I heard Noah Rothman say that President Trump needs to make the case to the American people. I think it's I think that's absolutely true, because I think there are plenty of elements of the president's own base that are skeptical of this, and I think it's worth speaking to them, as well as the Americans who aren't a member of the president's party and attempting to persuade here about why this is in the American interest. I also think he should speak to the fact that in diplomacy,
in action is action. Hovering in the background of all of this are the degradation of American credibility that Barack Obama achieved by failing to act in Syria in twenty thirteen, and that the Biden administration eroded over his four years.
And I think President Trump knows as his people prepare to meet in Oman and negotiate with the Iranians, that there's no such thing as real, honest negotiations with these people, and that he does not want he tore up the first nuclear deal, but that he does not want to be the second coming of Barack Obama. He's worked quite hard to restore American credibility, and that's hovering in the background here. No action is a deliberate choice in an action, and I think he should speak to that.
And no action would be the destruction of the deterrent that he's rebuilt, and it was destroyed by the JCPOA, it was destroyed by the Redliner Ratier, it was permanently damaged by Joe Biden's catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan. But I also think even if those had not happened, when a massacre on the scale happens the United States, it's a non nuclear power. The United States represents the West. It
really can't just not notice it. Eleon, and they'd killed Americans for twenty for forty seven years, they cannot not pretend that they're trying to kill us. Now.
Well, he the president, chose to speak up when Ron was killing its people, which is why I think his crediblit, he's on the line here when he speaks, if and when he speaks to the American people, I really do think he should speak more to the fact that this is a regime that for the past fifty years, you know, since nineteen seventy nine, how many, yeah, fifty plus years, for the past half century plus, has devoted itself wholly and entirely to murdering Americans, has American blood on its hands,
and that weakening the external threat of Iran every action we take aimed at its nuclear ballistic or its support for its terrorist proxies, itself weakens and degrades the internal standing of the regime, because that is what this regime is now.
One thing that has to be done and hasn't been done yet. It was done by President George HW. Bush before Desert Storm. It was done before George W. Bush ordered the invasion in Afghanistan and then the invasion of Iraq, which was to prepare the Americans for the worst case. I mean, when we went into a rock first time in nineteen ninety one, they were telling us one hundred thousand Americans could die. The second time, they were also worried about what could happen in Iraq more than Afghanistan.
Does anyone have that sense of my gosh, your stomach is in knots over this, because mine is well.
I think that's what's led to this long pause and deliberation inside the administration. We have pretty good reporting that three weeks ago or so, the President was prepared to act and called off an operation. And I think he's grappling with this because all of the operations he's been involved in, the assassination of customs Solimani, the Maduro operation.
They have not led to the deaths of American servicemen and the withdrawal from American from Afghanistan's President Trump has compared the operations he has ordered favorably to the withdrawal from Afghanistan that led to the deaths of thirteen American service members. And we know that this president does not want the blood the bodies of American service members on his hand, and you have to imagine he's wrestling with that quite hard.
I agree, but very quickly, Eliana. If he bring Hume on the program, he actually said he can't back down now or his credibility is shot in the American deterrent. It's a shot. I agree with that, do you.
I think that's a black and white way to put it, but I asolutely I'm not totally there, but I think it absolutely would degrade the deterrent that he's spent the past year rebuilding from the degradation that took place during the Obama and Biden administrations.
It would hurt Eliana Y. Johnson on X, editor in chief of The Washington Free Beacon, participant in the commentary podcast. Thank you for joining me. As always, Eleiana great to speak with. You don't not read the Washington Freebeacon go every day. Check out what they put up for you at freebeacon dot com, and do not miss one episode of the commentary podcast. I'm joined by Josh Kraashauer. He is the editor in chief of Jewish Insider. Josh. Welcome, I want to read to you for it from Open
Source Intel that came out about fifteen minutes ago. Islamic Revolutionary Guard General Yadullah Havani told Al Maya Dean first unveiling the Kormashar four missile was a direct message to the United States. Two, Iran will not trade away its military capabilities at the negotiating table. Three the US returned to talks in a weakened, in humiliated position, and four the general says US power in the region has weakened. What is that message?
I think it's a combination of a lot of bluster and a lot of intransigence and anyone expecting a breakthrough to come out of the talks between the United States and Iran and scheduled this Friday, scheduled tomorrow in Oman, I think is very optimistic.
They're definitely going.
Through the motions but there's been no sign publicly or privately from the Iranians that they're willing to make the concessions, even the basic concessions about their nuclear program, that the Trump administration has demanded. And it looks like, you know, the Iranians seem to be trying to buy some time and trying to perhaps delay the inevitable, or perhaps trying to buy time to you know, the delay inevitable and indefinitely.
But we'll see.
I think the Trump administration is pretty committed to going through with military action if they don't get any buying from the Iranians on any any kind of diplomacy.
Josh I talked to Ambassador Orran at the beginning of the program. He laid out a potentially very dire set of reactions to a battle with Iran, including strikes on our basis and perhaps on our carriers. That the Iranians are pretty good at targeting their missiles. What do you think is the risk level that the American people are aware of?
Well, I think I think Michael Orian laid it out pretty pretty directly. You look at the public hue in Israel and as opposed to last year with the war against the strongard in Israel to dost some the Iranian nuclear The public opinion in Israel is a lot more mixed.
In fact, it was just a very respected survey that came out this week showing fifty to fifty in Israel between folks are who want Israel to know essentially be publicly behind any ulitary strike, and another half predominantly from the outside of it, that are much more wary about the consequences. And make no mistake that if the US duk age and does strike Iran militarily, Israel is probably a brunt of the constas.
Now Prime Minister and you know who addressed the Kinessa today, and it is reported that he said there is a build up of conditions toward a critical mass that could bring about the downfall of the Iranian regime. I don't know if that's correct. Have you ever read Empire of Terror by Mark Zelenski, Josh, it's about the IRGC. I have none. Well, the IGCS one hundred and fifty thousand strong.
They are a very small portion of the ninety two million Iranians, but they run everything, and they're so deeply encrusted on the regime. I don't think regime change is a question of killing the Ayatolla. I think it's a question of killing most of the i er g C. Do you agree with that?
Yeah, I mean, look, there's a lot of from Israel to the Golf States. There's not an expectation that even if you know, Committee disappeared or you know, was killed, that there would be an automatic transition to a democracy or much more humane government that the IERGC in a life and they have, you know, they would natural inheritors.
So you know, there's a certainly the Golf States are and in fact, I think part of the US delay, they're getting a lot of pushback I would imagine from the Golf State allies.
Saudi Arabia ue.
You know, the allies in the region are very worried about but what could happen if there is a long, long, long term or more days of engagement against Iran and Iran I've seen what they do and what they what kind of what kind of damage they can.
Cause of the region.
Yeah, our friend Noah Rothman posted pictures over at his ex account nosc Rothman of our base and cutter two weeks ago in today and the difference is Patriot Air Defense batteries have been deployed. I also saw online the account of the traffic of the big C seventeens that can carry the FAD systems anywhere in the world. They
were up and flying again last night. It's clear that every air defense asset that we've got is deploying to our bases in the region, because we remember the Iranians hit Ali Sad base on the nose when they wanted to after Solimani was killed, so they can hit our bases. Do you think the American public is aware of the actually the cost that this could bring with it. Well, yeah, they have.
I mean you just let it out Q, both in Iraq and Katar that they've done it, and it hasn't been that long ago, so that that memory runs fresh.
And look, I.
Think there's been a lot of debate.
We've talked about this on the show qu on whether Trump is actually going to.
Go forward with military strikes.
Obviously said he would after Iran slaughtered thousands of its own citizens, but the reality is it wants to negotiate with the I and it's gave a notable interview to Makan Kelly this week where he was sort of expressing out loud that the president was sort of bewildered that Iran can't even reach the Iyatola to directly negotiate in the same way he has with other enemies like Vladimir Putin or in the first term, with North Korea as a leader. So, I mean, I think it's a frustration.
I think Trump would love to do some kind of deal, and that's what's driving a lot of the conversations and the meeting in Oman tomorrow. But ultimately they have been in transgend and that's who the Iranian regime is and has always been.
You know, I want to close on that point. There is no negotiating with this regime. They just murdered at least thirty thousand of their own people, and some estimates I've seen go twice and high and even higher. What can you expect? I mean, really, just because Barack Obama felt for this doesn't mean all American presidents are obliged to call for this. That's right, Hugh.
And look, I think it's a little bit of a mixed message and that yes, these negotiations are about nuclear and about the enrichment maybe missiles, but that's certainly been the sensible focus.
But Trump has said.
It was about, you know, the slaughter, I mean, the human rights abuses, the slaughter of your own citizens, the support for Rubio sectoristic Rubo. It's also about the support for tapes across the region in the world. This is a reventeous regime that has caused untold around the world, and I think it's important, you know, focus on that big picture. I think Trump sometimes can kind of get into the narrow details of a nuclear negotiation, but it's a lot more than that, all right.
I think he's also pretty good at throwing a lot of dust into everybody's eyes about what is going on and when it's going to happen. He's done it, certainly to everyone in the United States. I assume the Iranians are Justice continued Josh Cross, our editor in chief of Jewish Insider, always a pleague to talk to you. Come to the on this Thursday. I will be returning later in the program to the topic of the loving battle with Iran. But there's some domestic news going on as well,
and for that I have Sarah Bedford with me. She is the investigations editor at the DC Examiner Washington Examiner. You can follow her on ex at Sarah C. Bedford. Hello, Sarah, how are you in very very cold beltwey Land.
I'm great, Thanks for having me. Yeah, still pretty cold here.
Yeah. I'm going back on Sunday, and I'm hoping it will warm up a little bit before then, because going from California to the Belway is going to be quite the trip. Sarah, the Leader was on with me yesterday lear Thoon, and he said the Democrats have not yet made their demands on the DHS appropriations bill. Has anything changed in twenty four hours? Have they laid out what they want yet?
Yes, Democrats have since laid out ten demands that they have for the DHS funding bill, and to be honest, most of them are non starters with Republicans. One of them, sort of as expected, was to require ICE agents CBP agents to get a judicial warrant before.
They go to someone's home.
That would effectively end the way that immigration enforcement is conducted now. With an administrative warrant through administrative courts, it's a totally different type of law enforcement, and to bring that in line with the criminal justice system would grind enforcement to a halt. So that's one that's totally a non starter with Republicans. Another one is to end the
DHS's the Trump DHS's policies on sensitive locations. The Trump administration said ICE, you can go to places like pulling areas, polling places, schools, churches. That way, illegal immigrants who know that the law enforcement is coming for them can't hide out in those locations and know that they're untouchable. If you take away the ability for ICE to go to someone's house or their school, or their workplace or a
polling place, where is I supposed to arrest people? And on top of that, it ends what democrats call racial profiling, which is going to places where legal immigrants tend to congregate, such as outside home depots.
I wouldn't even be allowed to do that.
So if the Republicans were to concede to these Democratic demands, it would effectively end immigration enforcement altogether.
And that's why they're non starters.
Are there any demands that they made that Republicans appeared to consider reasonable.
Republicans have shown a willingness to consider requiring body cameras for agents, and the Trump DHS has already said this is something they want to do. They're rolling it out in Minneapolis. They're willing to roll this out nationwide if the appropriations are there, to get cameras for everyone, because a lot of the agents say that the body camera footage would end up validating their version of events. The agents themselves don't seem to be that opposed to getting
body cameras. In fact, Tom Homan, who's in charge of the situation in Minneapolis now, said what he heard from the rank and file.
Was that they wanted to have cameras.
So that's one that the Republicans could concede to the Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Did the list include regularization of the Dreamers, the three million people who came into the United States as a minor, not brought by their own free will, but who were brought here.
By other people.
That's certainly something Democrats want, but it wasn't part of the appropriations package. That would be really difficult to do through appropriations, But certainly amsty for full swaps of people is something that Democrats would want to do policy wise, if they had control of government.
You know, I'm going to differ with you, Sarah. I believe the appropriations process is amendable in regular order, provided that you get over sixty votes in the Senate. So if they really cared about the Dreamers and coupled it with I wrote about this at Fox News today, coupled it with a sanctuary city funding cut off for the Republicans, they could get the Dreamers regularized. They've been talking about it for twenty years. Why not ask for it?
Well, it's a great question, and a lot of their demands had to do with sort of defanging ICE and CBP. Other things that the Democrats wanted is to prevent ICE agents from ever being able to wear masks, and not only that, but having to wear IDs visible on their uniforms at all times with a serial number that these ICE observers would be able to take down badge numbers and make individualized reports. But you do have DHS saying that threats against these agents are up something like one
thousand percent. I mean, they're getting an insane number of threats against these agents, and so that's why the administration argues they need to protect these people's identities.
So this is basically a dead on arrival list of demands and no room to negotiate, nothing to talk about. That means DHS won't be funded. What does that? What's the schedule call for shutdown.
They have until February thirteenth, so next week to get this done. The one thing Republicans have going for them is that DHS.
It's not just Ice and CVP.
You have FEMA in there, you have TSA in there, things that Democrats know they can't let go without funding. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already gave Ice millions billions of dollars through twenty twenty nine to conduct a surgeon deportation. So allowing another shutdown for DHS wouldn't defund the stuff that Democrats hate.
And because you do have.
FEMA and TSA in there, Democrats will also feel pressure to reach some kind of funding deal.
And last question, Serre Betfort, have they named their negotiating team? Do we know doing the actual cut and paste of any deal on DHS appropriations.
We have a leadership leadership at both parties.
You have a keen Jeffries, you have Chuck Schumer Thune out there right now being.
The public face of negotiations.
In terms of the rank and file, you know you've had at least the appropriators be more willing to play ball with each other.
Susan Collins in the Senate for example, and others.
So but right now, you know, because this is the ballgame for Democrats, you have leadership being the again the.
Public face of the negotiations.
Yeah, okay, I'm going to shift topic on you quickly because that's not going anywhere, and unless they sing a new tune, there's going to be a shutdown and they're going to end up being embarrassed like they were last year. Is there any concern in the Congress about the looming battle with the Iran that you've picked up?
Republicans are? They are so far for the.
Most part, backing Donald Trump and acknowledging you know, of course he has the authority to do any sort of limited immediate strikes. But if you're talking about a sustained military action, you do have some Republicans saying, if it's going to be a sustained situation, whether boots on the ground or a bombardment or anything, then we're going to want Trump to.
Come talk to us.
So Republicans are just sort of cautiously waiting to see what Trump is going to do.
Sarah see Bedford from the Washington Demmer always going to talk to you. Thank you, Sarah, follower at Exit Sarah C. Bedford dot not dot com. Sara see Bedford on x. Philip Valboni is editor in chief and the founder of Global Post, which you can find at GlobalPost dot com. I don't want to make the Kanu that mistake GlobalPost dot com and the lead story today is about our neighbor to the south, Mexico. Hello, Philip, how are you?
I'm good, Hugh. I love the conversation about the discombobulator. It's a tough active folk it is.
I don't want to get hit by one, but you know, we might have to use it in Mexico. After I read the lead story today, it does not appear that President Schinbaum is doing enough that the Trump administration wants done. Or is she? Did I read it the right way?
Well, the President has talked about possibly using special forces to attack the drug cartels. Obviously President Shangong, president of Mexico, does not want that to happen. I mean what we wrote about today was, I mean for the horrific violence that the drug cartels have been visiting on the Mexican people. One hundred thousand killed over the last twenty years. Ten mayors in the last year alone. Of course, the drug cartels are wreaking havoc in America as well. We have
lost one hundred thousand drug overdose deaths a year. The peak was two thousand and twenty three. Last year was a little bit less. But it's a tremendous tragedy. And President hump doesn't think that the Mexican government is doing enough, and it's hard to argue that he isn't right about that.
I did not I had missed until I read a Global post today the Ryan Wedding story. Do you want to tell people about that? Because I did not realize that a Canadian former Olympic snowboarder was involved with the Sineloa cartel.
It appears that that is the case.
And apparently an elite FBI team, although we're a little uncertainty about this, went into Mexico and extracted mister Wedding and brought him back and obviously he is going.
To go on trial.
But he had been involved with the Sineloa cartel allegedly for a long time, ten years or more, in you know, funneling all these drugs up across the borders. Pretty amazing story. I had not heard about it before. Until I read it in the newsletter this morning.
Now I want to read the opening to this and it's at GlobalPost dot com if you want to read it. By the way, if you're a student or an educator, it's free for you to sign up for GlobalPost dot com if you just love foreign news, Philip, did you note, by the way, Jay, the Washington Post basically closed their foreign gurel.
I sure did, and I know you used to write for The Post, a once great newspaper. I mean, it's really a sign of what has been going on for twenty years that declined and coverage your foreign news.
The Post is another example.
They eliminated seventy five percent of their foreign team. Pretty shocking. And it's why we're here. That's why Global Posts was created. Why I started it is to help Americans know the world better.
Yeah, it occurred to me when I was reading the brief today that you're going to fill in and if people love knowing about the world, they should go to GlobalPost dot com, especially if you're a teacher or a student. It's free, but anyone who cares about the world, you can subscribe to it at GlobalPost dot com. The headline is in the cross here. Mack Mexico walks a tightrope as US threats mount and Philip and his team are pretty good writers. Great lead, but a tragic one. You're
up on Marror. Carlos Manzo was attending Day of Death Day of the Dead celebrations in his city's historic center in November when a lone gunman shot him to death. Manzo, forty, became heir of the town in the western state of mccoaugh Khan in September twenty twenty four. Was an outspoken critic of the Cartels, pursuing a no leniency approach to
finding them. Just a few months before his murder. The mayor said his efforts were inspired by his outrage over local suffering in the region taken over by these criminal groups. I don't want to be just another mayor on the list of those executed, Manzo said, But I don't want the municipal police to continue becoming statistics or the honest and honorable citizens who are victims of this social cancer amount. I don't know who runs for office in Mexico, Philip, do you.
I know? I mean, this has been going on for twenty years, Hugh, and so many you know, courageous people have died, you know, trying to come back these cartels, and.
They're still.
Very, very powerful, and they're still you know, spreading corruption among you know, the military and the politicians.
Uh, I mean.
Something, something needs to change, because this can't go on, you know, any longer.
Really, Now that the Post notes GlobalPost dot com, right analysts say she has gone further Claudia Scheinbaum, the President of Mexico, than her predecessors in combating the cartels, but warned that progress remains uneven, though the government's moved to decrease the already miniscule security brought budget or its reluctant to target politicians, but link to the cartels are alarming. What has she done?
She has apparently, through their you know, their law enforcement people, has reduced the flow of fetanyl across the border. I think that's one of the things that she has cited. They have increased their cooperation with the DEA and other you know, law enforcement people in the United States. But these efforts have gone on know in her priors, prior administrations, her predecessor and others.
Nothing seems to be able to break the power of all that money.
The billions and billions of dollars that these cartels make from selling drugs in the United States, and that money is paying off people, and it's extremely difficult to break. I mean, you have to break the cartels. And I think that's why, I mean it's tempting for the President to want to use special forces. Most people think that would not work, that it would. It's not as simple as going after one person, although you could get out some of the.
Leaders, but we've done that before.
But you really have to break an organization of thousands and thousands of people, many of them just foot soldiers. And plus you know, going into Mexico would produce a big anti US reaction in our neighbor to the south, which is a great trade partner, important trade partner. So I don't know, it's been it's been persisting for a long time, and it doesn't look like we're making the progress that we deserve to.
Well, it is difficult to imagine pulling out the cartels. By their roots, they're they're deeper and wider, I think, in fact, than the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Court, which is at one hundred and fifty thousand Phillip In the last minute that we have. Do you expect that the United States is going to initiate a battle with Iran?
I wouldn't be surprised.
I don't think the Iranians are going to give up the opportunity to make Nubleo weapons. I don't think they're going to give up power, and so I think it may very well come to that.
I think the next time we docked the Global Post ll app stories about what we did in Iran or the imminence of it. I'm given the president till Saint Patrick's day. Because of the back to back the Olympics followed by Ramadan, there is a second carrier group going. That's a lot of strength to marshal and then not use. Philip Elbonie always go to talk to you, editor in chief of Globalposts GlobalPost dot com. If you want to
learn more about it, Hi, it's you, Hewett. You've heard me talk a lot about Consumer Selluler, how you can switch your carrier and save money without sacrifice. That's because Consumer Cellular uses the same towers as the major carrier. You'll save money every month on your bill without having to sacrifice the quality of coverage. Right now, you get your second month free plus Folks that are fit to get two lines of unlimited talk, text and data for
sixty dollars a month. That's an addition to the second month totally free using promo code Q and are you tired of your wireless company telling you have to talk to an AI robot, download an app, or Horizon pay ten dollars to talk to someone when paying your bill? Yeah? No thanks. Consumer Sellular ranks number one for network coverage and customer satisfaction. According to ACSI, whether you're switching online or over the phone, you'll be working with an actual
human being based right here in the US. So switch and get your second month free plus two unlimited lines of sixty dollars. If you're over fifty, go to Consumer siler dot com, slash hue, promo Hugh or call one hundred eight or call one eight hundred four one one forty four fifty four one eight hundred four one one forty four fifty four. That's one eight hundred four to one,
one forty four to fifty four. Don't forget My code is Hugh, Joined by Jonathan Williams, President of the American Legislative Exchange Council ALECALEC dot org slash u if you want to sign up for the Alex newsletter. Jonathan joins me a couple of times a month to talk about what's going on in the stage. Jonathan, I'm going to start at the with the Save Act because it's on everybody's mind. I got criticized yesterday John Thune about it because I know what the leader said, which is he'll
vote for it when it comes up. What do you think about the say back. I don't think it's got sixty votes.
Well, you know, regardless of the vote counting HU in Washington.
I think it's got the broad backing of the American people, which is the important thing. I mean a lot of times we're here talking about common sense ALEC policy ideas. I mean, this has to be right up there with the ninety percent issue. To say that Americans say that citizens only should be the ones that are voting, and we need to have valid voter ID just as the states are working on.
This is a really important item.
Now, you know, if that's where, if that's the plank that some of the progressive Democrats in the Senate want to walk in an election year, that's I think that's up to them. But I mean, the American people are pretty strongly in favor of something as common sense as this.
ALEC kids for a long time had the only Citizens Vote model policy. How many states have adopted that, Jonathan.
Well, you know, we're in a number of states this year.
We just adopted this is last year as a model policies. We're in the infancy of it, but we're seeing tons of states introduce it. We've had our task Force director of our New Process of Procedures task Force out of testifying on the policy. Kansas has been a real leader in this area, and so be on the lookout because I think you're going to see a lot of states get across the finish line this session.
I would actually prefer to be done at the state level because then there is no constitutional issue about whether or not the Save Act works when it's mandated by Congress without a spending clause attached to it. So I hope states follow your lead on the Model Act. Let's go to the census next, John, what is this new census data telling us about twenty thirty in the reapportionment.
Well, when you look at the political side of it, really bad news for if you're in California, right, I mean, they're doubling down on just silly economic policies with his wealth tax and making things even worse. But if current trends continue, California is going to lose potentially four or more US House to stricts in the reapportionment of twenty thirty.
And keep it in mind, California has been a.
State, as you know, since eighteen fifty. In every single decade they gained multiple.
Seats in many of those decades.
They only lost their very first seat in state history in the last of reapportionment in twenty twenty. So for conservatives out there that don't want another Nancy Pelosi in Congress, that's probably very good news. But it's once again reiterating the point that we make every single year here in rich states, poor states, which is Americans continue to vote with their feet away from states Lake California with the high taxes and big government policies.
I'm afraid they're going to start leaving Virginia. John, I'm a Virginian year of Virginia. Even though I'm in California for a few weeks and I teach here every other year, I'm a Virginian and I know that Spanberger was not my choice. But Governor Spanburger ran as a moderate. Is she governing as a moderate?
Well, the legislature still certainly not governing as a moderate with all the different bills being introduced on it's the tax increases, bringing back a death tax, as we've talked about, the regional greenhouse gas initiative, you know, and those things are not making it tour desk in many cases yet, so the jury is still out, you know.
We'll see what she does with some of these. I mean during the campaign.
For instance, a massive issue for job creation in Virginia is the right to work status right or you're going to have a forced union workforce.
This is something that she said she would not sign during the campaign. We'll see if she actually follows that.
And as you know, you governor's got a lot of times let laws become law without their signature.
So there's a way to wheeze a lot of that, I suppose.
But it's a good point that she did campaign as a moderate against wins seers, and based on what's happening with her party there in the Virginia General Assembly, she's going to be put to that test.
Offully soon, Jonathan, do you think that they are more likely to make big mistakes in Virginia because they feel that it's not as mobile a population as California. The California's population was very mobile, and the people who made incomes left and now the billionaires are leaving and the capital is mobile. But if you're working for the federal government and you're in the northern suburbs of Virginia, you got to stay there. They are they indifferent to those people?
Well, there is that argument to say, where are you going to go? Maryland or DC?
And we can be arguably worse, Although some of the proposals you see out of Richmond right now would make Virginia the high tax state in the region. So you could see a reversal of the folks that have left Maryland and DC over the years to escape to the freedom loving side of the Potomac, as we used to call it in Virginia.
You could see a reversal of that.
But keep in mind, I was just with Governor Patrick Morsey this week in Charleston, West Virginia, and you had Virginia losing population, Glenn Young and trying to address that. West Virginia had lost population uninterrupted for one hundred years, and this most recent batch of census data showed that West Virginia actually gained six thousand residents on net from the other states. And so Harper's Ferry just west of the metro DC area here in Jefferson County, West Virginia.
I think it's a great bet if you're a real estate investor in Jefferson County right now, because I think that's going to become the low cost, limited government area for people that still want to commute to the DC metro.
Well, you anticipated me. I say West Virginia for last because I knew you were there in the last week. And I think you're going to see not a few people head for Harper's Ferry and beyond. It's not a bad commute. My general manager of the Salem station in the Beltway lives there and drives in every morning. It's not terrible commuteses like California commute. Actually, So what's going on in West Virginia that's attracting everyone besides the taxes?
Well, you know, and.
Governor Morrisey wants to continue to cut taxes this session too, to make that differential with Virginia even bigger. The other big thing is that this coming school year, the Hope Scholarship Plan that you've talked to our great board member, a Senator Patricia Rutger, who's really the heroin of national school choice movement. As the first universal school choice state with that Hope scot Ship that becomes truly universal and
available to all families this coming school year. Now there's some efforts from some big government folks in West Virginia that would like to impede its progress and try to weaken it during this legislative session, but thankfully people like
Senator Rutger and Governor Morrisey are standing strong. So you have that combination of school choice which benefits obviously families and kids, and you have the lower taxes, limited government regulations, and it becomes a really unescapable value creation to live on the West Virginia side of the line versus the
Virginia side of the line. You know, you got access to Dallas Airport, and especially for those commuters as we are talking about you that maybe only need to come to d C two or three days a week, it becomes a whole lot more manageable. So you know, I'm a big fan of what's going on in West Virginia, and I think the folks in Richmond how to pay awfully close attention to that question.
Jonathan. By the way, Senator Rucker is one of our favorite guests that the annual ALEC get together. She and Danny Perez are one two punch the speaker of the Florida House. But how many people are using the Hope Scholarship? Do you have an actual head count yet of how many people have raised their hand in West Virginia and said I want that.
You know, it's a really impressive number.
I think they've cleared to ten thousand student hurdle here, which is really important as they continue to build progress and it becomes truly universal in this coming school year, I think you're going to see those numbers added toe and you add that to the great new numbers just out of Texas this week yesterday that you might have seen reported where they've already had a couple of tens of dozens of individuals now joining that new education freedom plan that they just opened up.
Yeah, I did not know that, but it's the greatest thing going on in the country's education freedom and in fact The incentive that Ted Cruz put into the Big Beautiful Bill is working all across the United States. I'm sure ALEC is helping it do that. Go to ALC dot org. Shoot if you want to hear from Jonathan and his colleagues over at the American Legislative Exchange Council about what's going on in the state and the states are great sponsor. Love talking to Jonathan