Transcript [00:00] Since the start of this war with Iran, [00:02] even before it, there were a lot of [00:04] voices in the America First movement and [00:06] the MAGA movement that were saying this [00:09] is Israel's war. This is Israel dragging [00:12] America into a war. That America's [00:14] fighting a war on Israel's behalf and [00:18] that this is a sign that Israel controls [00:19] American foreign policy. And that was [00:22] even before the war started. Well, this [00:24] has ramped up significantly in the last [00:28] day because of remarks that were made by [00:31] Secretary of State Marco Rubio in um [00:35] when he was visiting Congress yesterday. [00:37] Okay, so we're going to take a look at [00:39] those, but first I want to show you what [00:41] is being said about his remarks. Okay, [00:44] so uh on the America First, right, uh [00:47] there there are people. So here's [00:48] Savannah Hernandez. This is a perfect [00:50] example. Everyone is sharing this exact [00:52] same clip. Okay, so here's her tweet. [00:55] Um, here's her tweet. Oh, here. Let me [00:58] do this. One of our viewers mentioned to [01:01] me that when I'm showing you guys stuff [01:02] on the screen, I should do this and it [01:04] would be much more helpful. And I agree. [01:06] So, I'm going to try to remember to do [01:07] this as often as possible. So, here [01:09] here's what he writes. Here's what [01:11] Savannah Hernandez writes. And this is [01:12] just typical. You could you'll see [01:14] similar stuff all over social media [01:17] using this clip and quote of Rubio. I'm [01:19] going to show you other examples uh to [01:22] to say exactly what I just said that [01:24] Israel has dragged America into a war [01:26] that was not really in American [01:28] interest. Okay. So, here's Savannah [01:30] Hernandez. So, and she's a pretty [01:32] popular social media person. She's got [01:34] 728,000 [01:36] followers. And as you see here, her [01:39] banner picture uh on her on her Twitter [01:42] on her ex is a picture of her with [01:44] Tucker Carlson. So, that gives you a [01:45] sense of where she stands. but she's [01:47] very popular in the America First [01:48] movement. Look what she writes. Crazy to [01:50] hear Marco Rubio say that Israel knew [01:54] that if they attacked Iran, the United [01:56] States and our servicemen were going to [01:58] pay the price, but they didn't care and [02:00] forced our hand leading to the death of [02:03] Americans. Infuriating to hear and and [02:06] then you [02:08] >> The second question that been asked is [02:10] why now? Well, there's two reasons why [02:12] now. The first is it was abundantly [02:14] clear that if Iran came under attack by [02:16] anyone, the United States or Israel or [02:18] anyone, they were going to respond and [02:20] respond against the United States. The [02:22] orders had been delegated down to the [02:24] field commanders. It was automatic and [02:26] in fact it bared to be true because in [02:28] fact the within an hour of the initial [02:31] attack on the on the leadership [02:33] compound, the missile forces in the [02:36] south and in the north for that matter [02:37] had already been activated to launch. In [02:39] fact, those had already been [02:40] prepositioned. The third is the [02:42] assessment that was made that if we [02:44] stood and waited for that attack to come [02:46] first before we hit them, we would [02:49] suffer much higher casualties. And so [02:51] the president made the very wise [02:53] decision. He we knew that there was [02:55] going to be an Israeli action. We knew [02:56] that that would precipitate an attack [02:58] against American forces. And we knew [03:00] that if we didn't preemptively go after [03:02] them before they launched those attacks, [03:03] we would suffer higher casualties and [03:06] perhaps even hire those killed. And then [03:08] we would all be here answering questions [03:09] about why we knew that and didn't. going [03:12] back. [03:12] >> Okay. And that's the end of the clip [03:14] that she posts. And again, if you look [03:17] at all the America First social media [03:19] posts that are making this argument and [03:22] freaking out because Marco Rubio said [03:24] the quiet part out loud and said that [03:26] that the only reason we're going to war [03:28] now is because the Israelis were going [03:30] to attack the Iranians. And when the [03:32] Israelis attack the Iranians, the [03:34] Iranians would attack the Americans. And [03:35] that means that they were that the [03:37] Israelis knew that they were dragging us [03:38] into a war and we had no choice but to [03:40] go to war. That is the argument that [03:42] they are making. And it sounds a lot [03:44] like that's what Marco Rubio just said [03:46] in that clip. Okay. And it's not just [03:49] social media posts. Here's a piece that [03:51] ran today in the Federalist, a very [03:54] popular, very influential online [03:56] magazine in the America first movement [03:58] and it's written by John Danielson. He [04:01] writes for them a lot. how Israel chain [04:03] ganged the Trump administration into war [04:06] against Iran. Now, let me just sum up [04:08] what he says to you in this piece. Okay, [04:10] so um here's the argument he makes. [04:13] First, his core claim is that he argues [04:16] that President Trump didn't [04:18] independently choose war with Iran. [04:20] Okay, that he allowed Israel to drag the [04:22] US into it. like uh like I've been [04:25] saying he says the administration gave [04:26] shifting and sometimes contradictory [04:28] explanations in the early days of the [04:31] conflict right that you know they [04:32] weren't being clear about why we're [04:34] going in you know sometimes Trump was [04:36] talking about the nuclear sometimes they [04:37] were talking about the ballistic [04:38] missiles they were talking about the [04:40] oppression of the people it wasn't clear [04:41] it was shifting he says but he doesn't [04:44] even mention the specific arguments they [04:46] were making other than the nuclear it's [04:48] very interesting in the piece so [04:51] yeah he says there that they that they [04:53] weren't being clear, that the real [04:55] driver wasn't a clear American interest, [04:57] but Israel's planned action. And again, [04:59] he doesn't give any uh actual arguments [05:02] that were made other than to say that [05:04] they weren't clear. Now, the piece then [05:07] quotes Marco Rubio as from the clip that [05:11] I just shared with you. It also quotes [05:13] Speaker Mike Johnson, who right after [05:15] Rubio stood up to the same microphones [05:17] and made the same case because he heard [05:19] it in a briefing from Rubio. [05:22] Um, and then Davidson goes on to mention [05:25] re that there was reporting that Prime [05:27] Minister Netanyahu was pressing Trump [05:30] hard in the days before the attack and [05:33] worked to prevent the diplomacy the the [05:36] negotiations from working uh and from [05:39] from moving forward which would derail [05:41] Netanyahu's plans for war. Okay. So this [05:44] was presented as evidence that Israel [05:46] was actually steering all the events [05:48] that are happening now. Davidson then [05:50] introduces the concept this term chain [05:53] ganging which is very effective [05:55] rhetorically also you give people like [05:57] oh there's this this uh there's this [06:00] term of art in the foreign policy world [06:02] that we're now witnessing it's a [06:04] maneuver by Israel now this term it's an [06:07] international relations term it [06:09] describes a situation where a smaller or [06:12] weaker allies vital interests drag a [06:15] larger power into a war that it would [06:17] otherwise avoid. It's called chain [06:19] ganging. Okay. And so the claim is [06:21] that's what happened here. Israel chain [06:23] ganged the Americans. He argues that [06:25] also that this isn't a new tactic by [06:27] Israel that Israel did the similar thing [06:30] uh to Obama uh regarding Iran's nuclear [06:33] program also threatening to attack and [06:35] causing America or trying to get America [06:37] to attack. And finally the conclusion of [06:39] the piece is that if everything that [06:42] we're saying is true then the United [06:44] States wasn't leading events. it was [06:46] entrapped by Israel's [06:49] by Israel's calculations and Israel's [06:51] interests and that his in his final [06:54] sentence he says that raises serious [06:56] questions about what America first [06:58] should mean in practice. Okay, so that's [07:00] the piece by by Davidson again making [07:03] the case that Savannah Hernandez made in [07:05] a two-line tweet but you know you know [07:09] writing you know turning it into a whole [07:10] article and I cannot stress enough he [07:12] doesn't uh he talks about the nuclear [07:16] and I did a little uh a little check [07:18] after reading the piece just to make [07:19] sure I didn't miss anything. I checked [07:21] for the word ballistic missiles. Okay, I [07:25] searched for it and I found that the [07:28] word ballistic doesn't appear even once. [07:30] The word missile appears once right [07:33] here. If Israel, and it's from the it's [07:37] in the quote from Mike Johnson. If this [07:39] was a defensive measure, if Israel f [07:41] fired upon Iran and took action against [07:43] Iran to take out the missiles, then Iran [07:46] would have immediately retaliated [07:48] against US personnel and assets. Okay? [07:55] Yeah, that's the that's the only place [07:57] that the word missiles appears. [08:01] Okay. [08:04] In the in the entire piece, which means [08:06] there was no discussion in the piece of [08:10] the ballistic missile threat. And I also [08:13] searched for the word proxies. Doesn't [08:14] appear. Doesn't mention that at all. It [08:16] only talks about the nuclear. Okay. [08:20] Now, I went to the actual full clip of [08:25] Marco Rubio speaking, and that's what I [08:27] want to show you now, okay? Or or the [08:29] relevant portion of it. At the end of [08:31] it, they start talking about some other [08:32] domestic related uh issues of domestic [08:35] politics that relate to what's going on [08:36] in Iran and regime change issues which [08:38] are not relevant to this conversation. [08:40] But we're going to watch now the first [08:43] eight minutes of Marco Rubio and let's [08:46] see what he actually said in full. All [08:48] right, we had to cut into this break. [08:50] Secretary of State Mark Marco Rubio [08:52] speaking on the Hill. Let's listen. [08:53] >> United States conducted this operation [08:55] with a fair clear goal in mind. I [08:57] haven't got a chance to see a lot of [08:58] reporting. I don't understand what the [09:00] confusion is. Let me explain it to you [09:02] and I'll do it once again as clearly as [09:04] possible. Perhaps you'll report it that [09:05] way. The United States is conducting an [09:08] operation to eliminate the threat of [09:09] Iran's short-range ballistic missiles [09:12] and the threat posed by their navy, [09:14] particularly to naval assets. That is [09:16] what it is focused on doing right now [09:18] and it's doing quite successfully. I'll [09:20] leave it to the Pentagon and the [09:21] Department of Ward to discuss the [09:23] tactics behind that and the progress [09:24] that's being made. That is the clear [09:26] objective of this mission. The second [09:28] question I've been asked is why now? [09:30] Well, there's two reasons why now. The [09:32] first is it was abundantly clear that if [09:34] Iran came under attack by anyone, the [09:36] United States or Israel or anyone, they [09:38] were going to respond and respond [09:40] against the United States. The orders [09:42] had been delegated down to the field [09:44] commanders. It was automatic and in fact [09:46] it beared to be true because in fact the [09:48] within an hour of of the initial attack [09:51] on the on the leadership compound the [09:54] missile forces in the south and in the [09:56] north for that matter had already been [09:58] activated to launch. In fact those had [10:00] already been prepositioned. The third is [10:02] the assessment that was made that if we [10:04] stood and waited for that attack to come [10:06] first before we hit them we would suffer [10:09] much higher casualties. And so the [10:11] president made the very wise decision. [10:13] He we knew that there was going to be an [10:15] Israeli action. We knew that that would [10:16] precipitate an attack against American [10:18] forces. And we knew that if we didn't [10:20] preemptively go after them before they [10:22] launched those attacks, we would suffer [10:24] higher casualties and perhaps even hire [10:26] those killed. And then we would all be [10:28] here answering questions about why we [10:29] knew that and didn't happen. [10:31] >> All right, that's what we saw in the [10:33] clip Savannah Hernandez chose. All the [10:36] America First people who all the [10:38] especially the anti-Israel people saying [10:39] that Israel dragged America into it. Cut [10:41] the clip there. [clears throat] [10:43] Watch what happens next. [10:44] >> Going back to the purpose. The purpose [10:46] of this is to destroy that missile [10:48] capability. Why does Iran want that [10:50] ballistic missile capability? What they [10:52] are trying to do been trying to do for a [10:54] very long time is build a conventional [10:56] weapons capability as a shield where [10:59] they can hide behind it. Meaning there [11:01] would come a point where they have so [11:03] many conventional missiles, so many [11:05] drones can inflict so much damage that [11:07] no one can do anything about their [11:09] nuclear program. That is what they were [11:11] trying to do is put themselves in a [11:13] place of immunity where the damage they [11:15] could inflict on the region would be so [11:16] high that no one can do anything about [11:18] their nuclear program or their nuclear [11:20] ambitions. They are producing by some [11:23] estimates over 100 of these missiles a [11:26] month. Compare that to the six or seven [11:28] interceptors that can be built a month. [11:30] They can build a hundred of these a [11:31] month. Not to mention the thousands of [11:33] one-way attack drones that they also [11:35] have. They've been doing this for a very [11:37] long time. And by the way, they've been [11:38] doing it under sanction. You see the [11:40] attacks they're conducting right now. [11:42] They're attacking airports. They're [11:43] attacking hotels. They're hitting not [11:46] just military bases. They're attacking [11:47] our embassies directly. They're [11:49] attacking facilities that have nothing [11:51] to do with war or with military. And [11:53] that's a weakened Iran. That's an Iran [11:55] despite years of sanction. Imagine a [11:57] year from now or a year and a half from [11:58] now the capabilities they would have to [12:00] inflict damage on us. It's an [12:02] unacceptable risk, especially in the [12:04] hands of a regime that's run by radical [12:06] clerics. The Ayatollah is a radical was [12:09] a radical cleric. That entire regime is [12:13] led by radical clerics who don't make [12:15] geopolitical decisions. They make [12:17] decisions on the basis of theology, [12:19] their view of theology which is an [12:20] apocalyptic one that has to be taken [12:22] very seriously as well. So that was the [12:24] purpose for what this operation is all [12:26] about. That's what it's focused on. As [12:28] the president said earlier today, it is [12:30] on or ahead of schedule. I will defer to [12:32] the department of board to discuss uh [12:34] the progress being made at a tactical [12:35] level. But it was the right decision and [12:37] an important decision for the safety and [12:39] security of the world. [12:43] [laughter] [12:47] >> Does Congress have to weigh it? Does [12:49] Congress have to weigh it? Is the [12:50] president [12:55] threat? Did you tell lawmakers that [12:56] there was an imminent? There absolutely [12:57] was an imminent threat and the imminent [12:59] threat was that we knew that if Iran was [13:01] attacked and we believed that it would [13:02] be attacked that they would immediately [13:04] come after us and we were not going to [13:06] sit sit there and absorb a blow before [13:09] we responded because the department of [13:11] war assessed that if we did that if we [13:13] waited for them to hit us first after [13:14] they were attacked and by someone else [13:16] Israel attacked them they hit us first [13:18] and we waited for them to hit us we [13:20] would suffer more casualties and more [13:22] deaths. We went proactively in a [13:24] defensive way to prevent them from [13:26] inflicting higher damage. Had we not [13:27] done so, there would have been hearings [13:29] on Capitol Hill about how we knew that [13:31] this was going to happen and we didn't [13:32] act preemptively to prevent more [13:34] casualties and more loss of life. [13:42] >> Israeli action. [13:43] >> No, first of all, two things I would [13:44] say. Number one is no matter what, [13:46] ultimately this operation needed to [13:47] happen. That's the question of why. [13:48] >> Hold on. I'm going to continue, but [13:50] listen to what he just said. Let me play [13:52] those couple seconds again. [13:58] >> We went proactively in a defensive way [14:00] to prevent them from inflicting higher [14:02] damage. Had we not done so, there would [14:04] have been hearings on Capitol Hill about [14:06] how we knew that this was going to [14:07] happen and we didn't act preemptively. [14:09] >> Sorry, I went back a little far, but [14:11] listen to what he says after this [14:12] question. This is the key to the whole [14:14] thing. [14:15] >> More casualties and more loss of life. [14:21] the US was forced to strike because of [14:23] an intended Israeli action. You know, [14:25] first of all, there two things I would [14:26] say. Number one is no matter what, [14:27] ultimately this operation needed to [14:29] happen. That's the question of why now. [14:31] But this operation needed to happen [14:33] because Iran in about a year or a year [14:35] and a half cross the line of immunity, [14:36] meaning they would have so many [14:38] short-range missiles, so many drones [14:40] that no one could do anything about it [14:41] because they could hold the whole world [14:42] hostage. [14:43] >> Okay, look at we're going to continue [14:45] with this, but listen to what he just [14:47] said. when he says why now in the [14:50] original clip that we saw from Savannah [14:52] Hernandez and that people like Davidson [14:55] and Federalists are talking about and [14:57] saying the only reason America's in at [14:59] war is to protect Israel's interest. [15:01] They're taking the why now the timing [15:04] issue that Rubio started the press [15:06] conference with out of context. They're [15:08] talking about it as though saying like [15:10] why are we going to war now meaning at [15:12] all you know you know this year or Rubio [15:16] is saying the why now question is about [15:19] why on Saturday you know we were having [15:21] negotiations and and all of the military [15:23] assets are coming and why did we launch [15:25] the attack now? But he says, "Of course, [15:29] we had to do this and we had to do it [15:30] soon because in a very short amount of [15:33] time, Iran would would be because [15:36] because of the speed with which they're [15:38] making their ballistic missiles." And he [15:39] also did a great job of connecting the [15:41] ballistic missile threat with the [15:43] nuclear threat. We'll talk about that [15:44] more in a minute, but let's let's let [15:46] him finish. This is such a key point. [15:49] >> Damage they're doing now, and this is a [15:51] weakened Iran. Imagine a year from now. [15:54] So, that had to happen. Obviously, we [15:55] were aware of Israeli intentions and [15:57] understood what that would mean for us [15:58] and we had to be prepared to act as a [16:00] result of it. But this had to happen no [16:01] matter what. [16:05] >> Secretary, President Trump said [16:07] overnight that his top choice is to now [16:09] run with Iran were killed in strikes. [16:11] Does the United States have a firm plan [16:13] for how they intend to handle this power [16:15] vacuum in Iran to ensure that the IR [16:18] does not take? [16:18] >> So, two things and two things can be [16:20] true. Number one is our mission and our [16:22] focus is the destruction of their [16:23] ballistic missile capabilities and their [16:25] ability to manufacture them as well as [16:27] the threat posed by their navy to global [16:28] shipping. That's their objective. That [16:30] said, we would not mind, we would not be [16:32] heartbroken and we hope that the Iranian [16:34] people can can overthrow this government [16:36] and establish a new future for that [16:38] country. We would love for that to be [16:39] possible, but the objective of this [16:41] mission is the destruction of their [16:42] ballistic missile capabilities and of [16:44] their naval [16:45] >> capabilities. [16:48] So are you saying based on that are you [16:50] saying that there is no responsibility [16:52] no plan for the US to at least play a [16:54] role in whatever government comes [16:56] >> I mean we might we'll see how [16:58] circumstances play out but you I'm [16:59] telling you what the objectives of this [17:00] operation are the objectives of this [17:02] operation are to destroy their ballistic [17:05] missile capability and make sure they [17:06] can't rebuild it and make sure that they [17:08] can't hide behind that to have a nuclear [17:10] program. That's the [snorts] objective [17:11] of the mission. That said abundantly [17:14] clear. We would love for there to be an [17:15] Iran that's not governed by radical Shia [17:17] clerics. As I've said myself repeatedly [17:20] for years, um the leadership of that [17:23] country does not reflect the people of [17:24] Iran. And I think that's been pretty [17:26] apparent in the protests that you've [17:27] seen. If there's something we can do to [17:29] help them down the road, we'd obviously [17:30] be open to it. But that's not the [17:32] objective. The objective of this mission [17:33] is the destruction of their ballistic [17:35] missile capability. [17:38] >> Has not gone well for the United States. [17:41] regime change has not gone well in the [17:43] United States for many many decades. How [17:45] do you assure the American public that [17:47] things will not get worse for the next [17:49] regime that comes in that replaces the [17:51] >> Well, we would love to see this regime [17:52] be replaced and ultimately as the [17:54] president has said no, no, but let me [17:56] finish my answer. As the president has [17:58] said, he would love for the people of [18:00] Iran to take use this as an opportunity [18:02] to rise up and remove these leak. [18:03] They've been wanting to remove them from [18:05] a long time. We've seen successive waves [18:06] of protests and we've seen them [18:08] slaughter people. Okay? But the [18:10] objective of this mission is to make [18:12] sure they don't have these weapons that [18:13] can threaten us and our allies in the [18:14] region. That's why we're doing what [18:16] we're doing now. And while we would love [18:17] to see a new regime, the bottom line is [18:20] no matter who governs that country a [18:21] year from now, they're not going to have [18:22] these ballistic missiles and they're not [18:24] going to have these drones to threaten [18:25] us. That's the objective of this mission [18:27] is to deny them the ability to use [18:29] ballistic missiles to threaten their [18:31] neighbors, to threaten our bases, to [18:32] threaten our presence in the region, and [18:34] ultimately as a shield behind which they [18:36] can do whatever they want with their [18:38] nuclear uh weapons ambition. We were not [18:40] going to let them hide behind that. And [18:41] that's why this was such a critical [18:43] mission to undertake now while they were [18:44] at their weakest point and not a year [18:46] from now where they could inflict even [18:48] more damage and perhaps already be [18:50] behind that point of immunity. [18:52] >> Okay, there you have it folks. There you [18:55] have it. So now when we go back to, you [18:59] know, to what, you know, to what [19:01] Savannah Hernandez and company were [19:02] saying, "Oh my gosh, Rubio said, Rubio [19:05] said that the only reason we're in this [19:06] is because the Israelis were going to [19:08] attack and they dragged us into a war." [19:11] Rubio just laid out that we had to do [19:14] this and we had to do it soon. It had to [19:17] happen within the next few It had to [19:19] happen imminently because of the [19:21] ballistic missile threat. And that the [19:23] ballistic missile threat is not just [19:24] about whether they have ballistic [19:26] missiles that can reach the United [19:27] States now or or or you know what [19:29] they're building. It's that the [19:31] ballistic missiles provide a shield [19:33] behind which they can rebuild their [19:35] nuclear. So Iran was thinking very [19:37] strategically. They got their nuclear [19:39] hammered. They know that that was the be [19:40] in Trump's bonnet was the nuclear. So [19:42] ever since the 12- day war, they've been [19:44] spending billions of dollars. All the [19:46] money they're making off selling oil to [19:47] China, they're spending it building [19:50] ballistic missiles. And that's what the [19:51] United States was focused on in the [19:54] negotiations. But the Iranians, the [19:56] Iranian negotiators, the regime [19:58] negotiators, [20:00] the Iranian people are wonderful. The [20:02] Iranian regime negotiators were refusing [20:04] to discuss the ballistic missiles. We we [20:06] talked about this in the weeks leading [20:08] up to this war beginning that this was a [20:11] major issue that for the Americans the [20:13] ballistic missile issue was a critical [20:15] issue and they kept bringing it up and [20:16] the Iranians kept saying that they [20:18] refuse to discuss the ballistic missiles [20:20] and the ballistic missile capability [20:22] provides a as he puts it perfectly it [20:25] provides a conventional weapons shield [20:28] behind which they can rebuild their [20:30] nuclear. So it's connected to the [20:32] nuclear and Iran is at their weakest. [20:34] exactly the points he lays out. This [20:36] this had to happen now. They couldn't [20:39] wait a year. And as he laid out earlier [20:41] in it, the production pace of the [20:44] ballistic missiles was ramping up and [20:46] was way ahead of the ability to produce [20:48] receptors that could that could defend [20:51] against these ballistic missiles. So [20:53] when he said at the beginning, why now? [20:55] He didn't mean why did we attack now [20:58] mean that the entire purpose of this war [21:01] is because Israel was going to attack [21:02] them. What he's saying is that in the [21:05] immediate moment on February 28th, the [21:08] day that the war started, the reason [21:09] that it started that day was because [21:12] where things had reached, the [21:13] negotiations were stalling. The Israelis [21:15] were getting impatient because they they [21:18] were not going to allow this this this [21:20] charade to go on with these negotiations [21:22] where the ballistic missiles were not [21:24] being negotiated on. And meanwhile, Iran [21:26] is producing over 100 ballistic [21:28] approximately 100 ballistic missiles [21:29] every single month. And the Israelis [21:32] were like, "Listen, we are going to take [21:34] matters into our own hands. We're going [21:35] to look after we're going to look after [21:36] our interests. We plan to attack their [21:38] ballistic missile capabilities. Oh, Iran [21:41] is threatening that they're going to [21:43] attack American interests." Okay. [21:44] Meanwhile, and those American assets [21:46] were ramping up and increasing. We saw [21:48] the massive amount of American military [21:51] assets that had been moved into the [21:52] region. So, the question of why now? And [21:55] it was why was the attack right now? [21:57] That's the question he was answering. He [21:59] wasn't answering a justification for [22:00] going to war. This guy Davidson in the [22:02] Federalist took Rubio's answer and [22:05] twisted it to mean that this was their [22:07] entire justification for going to war [22:09] was that Israel dragged us into it. No, [22:11] he says America was planning to go to [22:13] war. Anyway, I I hope I've made my case [22:16] pretty clearly here. Now, um the same [22:20] guy, Davidson, wrote a piece uh last [22:22] week. He wrote a piece that was [22:23] published uh on the 25th, on February [22:26] 25th, just a couple days before this. [22:28] White House officials. I'm sorry. Uh I'm [22:30] sorry. This piece, sorry about this [22:33] wrong one. On February 27th, a day [22:35] before, Trump said, "We obliterated [22:37] Iran's nuclear program last June. So why [22:38] are so what are we going to war about?" [22:41] And he in this piece, he says, "The [22:44] administration's justifications for [22:45] action against Iran keep shifting. Why [22:47] can't we get a straight answer?" And in [22:49] this piece, he never once mentions [22:52] anything other than the nuclear. [22:56] Not even once. [22:58] says, "President Trump accused Iran of [22:59] restarting its nuclear program and [23:01] working to build missiles that would [23:02] soon be able to reach the United [23:03] States." Okay, that that's the only time [23:05] he mentions the missiles that that that [23:07] that Trump mentioned in his State of the [23:09] Union address that they're building [23:10] missiles that could reach the United [23:11] States. But that's not what the [23:12] negotiations were about. As I've pointed [23:15] out, there were four items on the [23:17] American negotiation uh uh uh on on on [23:21] issues list. There were four issues. [23:23] There was the funding of the proxies. [23:25] There was the ballistic missiles. there [23:26] was the nuclear there was the nuclear [23:28] program and the enrichment and there was [23:30] the treatment of the Iranian people and [23:32] he makes no mention of any of those [23:35] things and says that the administration [23:36] is not being clear about why we're going [23:38] to war. So think about how two-faced [23:40] this is. He says the administration is [23:43] not justifying why we're going to war. [23:45] And then he's writing a piece about that [23:47] and never once mentions three out of the [23:51] four three out of the four negotiating [23:55] points that the Americans were insisting [23:57] on. So it's it's what we call a straw [23:59] man, Mr. Davidson. A straw man is where [24:02] you put up an argument as though it's [24:05] what you're debating, but it's not what [24:07] it's not what the other side is actually [24:09] claiming. So he's saying, well, they're [24:10] saying it's all about the nuclear. [24:14] They're saying he's saying, well, [24:16] they're saying it's all about the [24:17] nuclear, but it's obviously not all [24:19] about the nuclear because, you know, [24:22] because why are we going to war if we [24:24] already destroyed their nuclear [24:26] and he never once mentions that the [24:28] administration has other items on its [24:30] agenda. Uh, I also wanted to share this [24:32] piece in Politico from a few days before [24:34] the war. White House officials believe [24:36] the politics are a lot better if Israel [24:38] strikes Iran first. Okay. And this is an [24:41] interesting piece in light of what [24:43] happened a few days later and it relates [24:45] to all of this, which is that in the [24:47] context of the days leading up to this [24:49] attack, there was some speculation [24:53] about the Israelis attacking first and [24:55] whether that was politically better [24:58] because they knew it would draw an [25:00] attack on the Americans. But then when [25:02] they assess that the attack on the [25:03] Americans would be too costly, they [25:05] decided to then preempt it and go in [25:07] together. That's what now becomes clear. [25:10] So this also this seems like a strange [25:12] story originally and I didn't really [25:14] think it made much sense uh at the time [25:17] because why would the Iranians drag the [25:20] Americans into it if Isra if only Israel [25:23] struck them? Why would Iran strike [25:25] American assets and drag the Americans [25:26] in? But this is what they're the the the [25:28] the assessment that they're sharing [25:31] claims and it obviously has to do with [25:33] the fact that all these military assets [25:34] were moved into the region. So they had [25:37] some intelligence that indicated that [25:39] the Iranians were willing to attack [25:40] American assets. But again, I hope I've [25:43] put this matter to rest that this whole [25:45] issue of Israel dragged America in based [25:48] on this selectively edited clip of Marco [25:51] Rubio ignores everything else he said [25:55] about the reasons why this war has to [25:57] happen, why it's in America's interest, [25:59] and why it had to happen now. Meaning [26:02] now as in not not next year. So it had [26:06] to happen now. But when he said now in [26:09] terms of the day he was talking about [26:11] this threat of an is of a retaliation [26:13] against Israeli attacks. I hope I'd made [26:15] this clear and uh yeah. So please share [26:20] this one with people especially if you [26:22] have America first friends who are [26:23] making this claim that Israel's that [26:25] Israel dragged America into a war and [26:27] they show you this clip of Rubio. Show [26:29] them this video to set them straight. [26:32] Thanks for watching. Please make sure to [26:33] check out all the great content we're [26:35] putting up at Israel 365 News Videos and [26:38] keep watching this channel. We're going [26:40] to keep bringing you updates on the war.
