He Came for Me on CNN… It Backfired Badly

way for him to kind of reassure Americans and hopefully win back some voters for the midterms. The idea that he was reassuring Americans that this won't be a forever war was contradicted by what we were just talking about. They're setting up perpetual oversight in the air so they can perpetually see what Iran is doing.

And there's a chance we might have to perpetually strike them over and over, just like we did eight or nine months ago, just like we did again, and if we don't actually get the enriched uranium, this will turn into a military treadmill where every eight months or so we're continuing to strike them over and over. And I want to make this point again, the main weapon system that were actually a threat to us are still intact. You obviously know better than I do, but their Navy was gifted to them 55 years ago. It's ancient. Their Air Force was gifted to them 55 years ago. It's ancient. Their Air Force could have lapsed run around it by one of our planes. So I see people at this table or on TV sitting here and trying

to pull all these examples of how we've won. Oh, we destroyed their Air Force. We destroyed their Navy. This isn't a substantive win in any meaningful way. We destroyed an ancient Air Force. We killed an 86-year-old Supreme Leader who had cancer

and replaced him with a 30-year-younger son who is more extreme, more radical. They're purging the moderates right there. I think that Iran's thought process right now is, you know what, we need to back off the nukes, no more nukes. Iran's thought process is we need to accelerate. We need to at some point get nukes and stop this from happening.

Let me play, this is a reaction, just a moment ago.

Do you agree with his military assessments? completely clear yet just in the objectives that are left. There's about 3,000 targets left. So we've struck 13,000 targets. The Suncow commander said there's 3,000 left over the next two to three weeks. What that encompassed would be the remainder of the industrial base associated with the missiles and the drones.

The missiles I think we can really get to. I think the problem in the long range is going to be the future afterwards if they don't if they're not able to get everything else. And then to your point about the nuclear piece, it is a persistent perpetual stare afterwards if the highly enriched uranium doesn't come out of there which will require

persistent monitoring. The alternative to that would be a very large ground operation with a very significant risk to US forces. That facility where most of it is stored is 300 miles inland, completely surrounded by mountains, 15 kilometers outside the third largest city in the country that would require probably a large blocking force, somebody going inside to get it.

And I think there's a trade-off basically between the risk to US forces and having to actually do that. Did you guys just see that? Scott Jennings tried to turn that military analyst against my talking points, but the military analyst on the panel ended up backing me up and Scott Jennings just had to eat it. This is another heated CNN debate that you guys are going to love.

Make sure you drop a like. Help us get to 2 million subscribers by following below and watch until the end.

Thank you. There have been no efforts since then to rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement. So Tulsi Gabbard is under oath. The president is giving a speech at the White House. But I think it's an open question how truthful he was being about that particular statement. And it's important because the nuclear material is still in Iran.

It is still in Iran and we've done nothing to get it out.

If the goal of the war is to stop Iran from developing nukes, then we have no way to actually verify if they have enriched uranium. If the goal of the war is to defang their ability to fund proxies in the Middle East, they are now more rich because they're tolling people through the Strait of Hormuz, and that is making them a lot of money. We've created an environment where Iran is gaining money due to the sanctions lifted

on oil. Iran is gaining money because they're going to start tolling ships. And on top of that, this administration is not just changing objectives every single day. They're lowering the threshold for what victory is considered as. So first, it was regime change, as you said. Israel named this Operation Roaring Lion,

which indicates the return of the Shah. It's regime change. Then they realized that's a really hard task. We're going to just talk about weapons of mass destruction now. That one kind of works sometimes. And they realized, OK, we have no way to actually verify that as well. So now we're in a situation where people on TV

are listing off, oh, we've destroyed their Air Force. We've destroyed their Navy. Their Air Force was gifted to them 55 years ago by the United States. So was the Navy. were not significant threats to the United States. They were ancient. They were ancient as hell. They were old. So what have we gotten from this? We've destroyed their ancient fleets.

We haven't actually secured the enriched uranium. And they're richer for it. They have control over the Strait of Hormuz and can continue to exert control over the Strait of Hormuz.

I'm not seeing the American people.

Well, I saw the president's remarks and I see what you said, Tulsi said. My understanding of how they positioned it was that the bombing we did last summer was at a specific location. But the president's remarks tonight, I interpreted as they were trying to rebuild, or at least in the early stages of attempting to rebuild in a different location. Well that would contradict what Tulsi Gabbard said. I think what she said was that at the sites we bombed, those were shuttered, but they were trying to rebuild. I mean the exact

words are, there has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.

So he's not talking about the sites, She's talking about their enrichment capability. Okay, well, I heard the president tonight say that our belief is that we bomb them, they try to rebuild, and then of course, we know they told our negotiators that they had enough enriched uranium to build 11 nuclear bombs.

So that is the data set that he was working off of when he made the decision. I also heard him say tonight that we're planning to do at least initially satellite monitoring on the nuclear material at the moment because it's buried. And so if they make a move towards it,

we'll be able to know that. Now, I think what went unsaid tonight, but what I assume is happening in the background in these diplomatic conversations, is that part of the way this is going to end is hostilities will cease at some point, we'll have some kind of diplomatic end that has to include

getting the nuclear material. He didn't say that tonight. I hope that would be a great scenario if it works out that way.

He didn't say that. And he also didn't say he was on the ground tonight. He did not say that. And it's more than just that he didn't say that. He actually proposed an alternative, which you just pointed out, which is that we would just perpetually surveil and bomb them if they ever attempted to get the nuclear material that is still in their territory.

Christiane Amanpour was on earlier tonight. It's a, talking about this, it's called a mow the lawn scenario. That's great for Israel because they're right there. But for us, are we really going to just perpetually be poised to bomb

Iran until the end of time? I mean, at this point, you have the Saudis and the Emiratis wanting to enter into this conflict, proposing resolutions at the UN Security Council to reopen the Strait of Hormuz through the United Nations. So this is not just us going it alone. I mean, that monitoring is relatively easy. We don't even need to be there. You can have the B-2s flying from Missouri all the way across the pond with some KC-135s

refueling them and mow that lawn relatively simply. I think this is the challenge that I don't get about the black pill of the folks who would just think that this is all doom and gloom. I mean, when you were talking earlier, it's like the US is losing. We could end at any point. I never said we're losing. I just said there's a cost-benefit analysis to happen here.

And I see the cost as so high, and the benefit is we destroyed some 55-year-old air force. Like, what's the benefit here? And thousands of ballistic missiles have been moved ship through the Strait of Hormuz? Why won't we even try to escort a ship through the Strait of Hormuz?

What tonight was about, ultimately, what really the president was trying to do tonight is to not box himself in to try and declare a victory with a slow exit at some point. He is reading the polling right now. He may control the battlefield out in the Middle East. He is losing the living rooms across America. You look at polling. More than half of Americans do not believe they are benefiting financially because of this war.

You look at Republicans and Democrats. They don't want this war. They want to get out of it as soon as possible. And when foreign policy is the thing over here, and suddenly you see it showing up in your grocery bill, in your airline fees,

and then also, you then also at home in typical costs for home folks, they start to feel that.

And when you feel it at the gas pump, it becomes a real issue for America. Yeah, Donald Trump had a very good chance tonight to explain his rationale to the American people and lay out what we've gotten. But again, every single weapon system that was actually a threat to us is still intact. You just gloated that we took out thousands of their missiles.

OK, so I keep hearing this line we took out thousands of their missiles.

OK, so I keep hearing this line. We've taken out their missiles. We don't have a Navy anymore. We've taken, again, OK, their Navy and Air Force was 55 years old. What does taking out a 55-year-old Navy mean?

They were constantly harassing ships in the Gulf.

They're still harassing. They don't have any ship left. No, I'm saying, my point is that the main thing that we care about, which is the Strait of Hormuz, which is the global oil supply, they are still, as Trump said, Trump made this point himself, it doesn't take a lot to terrorize ships in that strait. And they are currently doing it right now.

And if you look at launchings of Iranian drones and missiles, It went down dramatically at the beginning of the war, but it's actually been pretty steady for the last several weeks. They're still able to launch a bunch of drones and missiles every day, and that's all it takes to prevent ships from going through the Strait of Hormuz.

I've asked conservatives time and time again, if we've won so decisively, why can't we open the Strait? And they can't give a sufficient answer. They have their conventional Navy, which we've destroyed. Then they have the IRGC Navy, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy. That one is the one that wages asymmetric warfare. And I guess I'll just say one more time, if we've really taken out both of their navies and won so decisively, how come gas prices are very likely to spike another, I don't

know, 20, 30 cents? We have seen in the past four weeks one of the most significant tactical military achievements since the Gulf War. I mean, just a incredible show of strength and of force. I'm talking about the initial one, the happy one that we like to talk about in 91, right?

The shock and awe that brought back the American sense of pride in the wake of Vietnam and the defeat there. The fact that the American people are not supporting it has very little to do with what's happened. It has everything to do with the fact that the American people are not supporting it has very little to do with what's happening. It has everything to do with the fact that it is trailing in the polling

to Donald Trump's approval rating, as is the operation in Venezuela. The operation in Venezuela is 30 points more popular

in Venezuela than in the United States.

So wait, so what are you suggesting?

I'm saying that Donald Trump and his-

You think this is a Trump thing,

that's because Trump is so unpopular? I think that if there was capitulation from day one and Trump was getting a parade down the Grand Boulevard in Tehran, he would still be sitting

at the similar approval rating.

Because if he does this, he's not.

Don't you think Americans are rational about paying a dollar more per gallon of gas? I mean, that seems actually quite rational. I mean, I don't share your skepticism of the American people. I think they understand, but they don't think that this,

I think they are saying very clearly, they do not think that this step needed to be taken. And that's actually Trump's own fault, because he told them a year ago that he had already done the job. He had already neutralized the nuclear program.

So then for him to come back and say, well, we need to wage a war, that seems like a bait and switch. I think Americans are rationally saying, what on earth is that about? And when Trump says NATO is a paper tiger,

Putin's like, music to my ears.

I just want to see you challenge him on that

and show they're not a paper tiger. Who's this defense? Can I just point out, there's a fact that I learned the other day that I think is very interesting. When NATO was being negotiated in about 1948, the United States, specifically us, we asked for a new clause, Article 6. That limited the geography of the defense.

So the geography of NATO's defense is limited to Europe and the United States. So this is not even a task that, number one, is in NATO. Number two, as you said, it's a defensive alliance. Also, I just want to read off, I think it's worth reading off some of the quotes we've gotten from Trump. In January of 2026, he said, it may

be a choice between preserving NATO or seizing Greenland. He refused to rule out the use of military force. He also threatened, he actually threatened to impose a 25% import tax on all of the European Union if they didn't just give us Greenland. Why was he concerned about Greenland? He was concerned because he was unsure whether or not the Europeans could be relied upon in a difficult moment where they were putting the squeeze to. When is the only time Article 5 has been invoked?

Yes, it was post 9-11. Who are they helping? Us. You're talking about the geographic constraints. You know what is within the geographic constraint is Ukraine.

We bore a lot of that heavy lifting,

now we're working with NATO.

Hang on a second. So are you suggesting that Trump was threatening to attack Greenland because he was worried that the United States or that Europe wasn't going to hold up its end of the NATO bargain? I'm not sure I'm following that argument.

Let's blow up NATO to save NATO. No, the argument for why we needed to expand our facilities in Greenland was that the Danes were unwilling to expand on the current terms of our defense agreement.

No, that is actually totally not.

Yes, in 2004, the Iwate-Iku Amendment

to the original defense agreement. I'm sorry, Peter, that is revisionist. That is revisionist. In what sense? Please. Trump never once, this is in the reporting, he never once brought up expanding our military engagement in Greenland with the Danes in private, despite all of the public things that they were saying.

It never came up once.

In 2019, Carla Sands, the ambassador to Denmark,

did bring that up, and it caused a massive rift. His administration never brought it up in conversations with the Danes, okay? And then on top of that, he could have asked for what he ended up getting. He backed down on his threats because the Danes then said, let's just talk about expanding the base, that you have an existing treaty that allows you to do that. And Trump said, okay, yeah, I'm going to back down on the threats.

Why would he do that if he could have just had the conversation in the first place? Trump wants Greenland.

They shut down this conversation in 2019.

Trump wants Greenland because he believed there were critical minerals in there. He claimed falsely that the Chinese and the Russians were already trying to get on to Greenland. That's not, that is not true. Okay. There's an Arctic threat, but it's not true that they are there, that they're trying to get into Greenland. So Trump created the Greenland problem. He could have asked the Danes to expand the bases. He didn't.

He did not ask them to do it. And then he threatened them. And then when he was forced to back down, he then took the option that was always on the table. That is called, that's why on Wall Street they call it the taco trade, because he is backing down every time. And

that's exactly what happened here.

You know why NATO should care about this? It was just a couple of weeks ago that we learned that Iran has ballistic missile capabilities that can reach most of Europe. On top of that, does no one else here find it agitating that we spend billions and trillions of dollars over decades, we have U.S. troops stationed in all these bases with all these allies. And then when we decide that we need to do something

that is in our national security interest, you have supposed friends of the United States saying, you can't use these bases, we're not gonna permit this, we're not gonna help you on that.

It is agitating. I don't think it's agitating. But bottom line. Doesn't NATO have a say in how you deal with a threat? Why doesn't Europe look at this ballistic missile threat a little more seriously? Don't you think NATO ought to have a say? European countries ought to have a say in how you address that threat.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the threat. Shouldn't they be consulted? Aren't they not right to wonder why weren't they consulted before Trump decided to wage a war? It sounds like you think it's in their defense.

Well it is.

Shouldn't they have been consulted? It is in the defense of all of Europe now that we see that the ballistic missile threat is real.

No one can deny that.

Should they have been consulted?

Consulted? I mean, look, we decided it was in our national security interest. Oh, okay. Why they don't understand that it is in theirs is beyond me. And I think that's what leads to the president's agitation with them.

They're too stupid to realize that they're under threat.

If it's about our national security interests, that makes sense, right? And we can decide that. But if it's in theirs, they should be consulted. If this war is about Europe's security, shouldn't Europe be consulted?

It's about our national security, but along the way here, what we've all learned is that Europe is under threat. And my point is, why are they too dumb to realize that these ballistic missiles can reach most of the Europe's capital? I thought the missiles were gone. You just said this was our national security interest. It is our national security. Okay, so then why is the onus on Europe to clean up our mess? The onus is on Europe to defend themselves, and the onus is on the President of the United States to defend the national security of the United States. But we're all in a Western civilization is in this together and these fanatics have missiles that can strike most of Europe and they have nuclear material as well.

I think this is a disagreement about what alliances are. I mean if we are really in this together, which is, I think you're right, that's what it's supposed to be. Shouldn't there be mutual trust? Shouldn't there be mutual consultation? Shouldn't there be an agreement, an alliance, a coalition that was formed beforehand, not after the fact?

He used the phrase booze on the ground tonight, but he did talk about the satellite survey. I thought that was noteworthy.

Well, well, of course. I mean the satellites are the, it is noteworthy for exactly the reason that you're pointing out because What it really means is that we're committing to a long-term commitment of essentially bombing Iran forever if they ever try to get This material and I think that is important for the American people to understand. We're not taking it off the table We're just saying that we're gonna continuously have to deal with it forever, which seems to be

kind of where we were before.

Well, I think we're definitely in a different position than where we were before. To Alex's point, to Scott's point, their Air Force is not capable of defending Iran's homeland, so to speak. The United States and Israel has done a good job with that.

I do think President Trump tonight was very methodological. He was trying to make a point that this is not going to be a forever war. I think that's the reason you saw him reference World War I, World War II, the Korean War. I think he was trying to reassure Americans who are concerned that this can turn into something prolonged,

that this is not his goal. His goal is to ideally get in and out. And he told us originally that the time frame was four to six weeks. We're at the, what, four and a half week mark now. So if this operation does conclude in two to three weeks like he said it would, that would just be a week or so out of his initial time frame, which I think for President

Trump would be a success, both militarily, that we got in and out within six to seven weeks, and also that he can say, look, I told you we were going in for this x, y, z. told you we were getting out here. I pretty much met all of those goals, just as I said. And I think that might be a way for him to kind of reassure Americans and hopefully win back some voters for the midterms.

The idea that he was reassuring Americans that this won't be a forever war was contradicted by what we were just talking about. They're setting up perpetual oversight in the air so they can perpetually see what Iran is doing, and there's a chance we might have to perpetually strike them over and over, just like we did eight or nine months ago, just like we did again.

And if we don't actually get the enriched uranium, this will turn into a military treadmill where every eight months or so, we're continuing to strike them over and over. And I want to make this point again. The main weapon system that were actually a threat to us

are still intact. But their Navy was gifted to them 55 years ago. It's ancient their Air Force was gifted to them 55 years ago It's ancient their Air Force could have lapsed run around it by like one of our planes So I see people at this table or on TV sitting here and trying to pull all these examples of how we've we've won Oh, we destroyed their Air Force. We destroyed their Navy. This isn't a substantive win in any meaningful way We destroyed an 86-year-old Supreme Leader who had cancer and replaced him with a 30-year-younger son who is more extreme, more radical.

They're purging the moderates right there. I think that Iran's thought process right now is, you know what, we need to back off the nukes. No more nukes. Iran's thought process is, we need to accelerate. We need to at some point get nukes

and stop this from happening. Do you agree with his military assessments? I think the two pieces that are not completely clear yet, just in the objectives that are left, there's about 3,000 targets left. We've struck 13,000 targets. The Suncow commander said there's 3,000 left over the next two to three weeks.

What that encompassed would be the remainder of the industrial base associated with the missiles and the drones. The missiles, I think we can really get to. I think the problem in the long range is going to be the drones, because you only need a couple of those to be able to strike ships. So that's going to be a perpetual problem from an asymmetric standpoint for shutting down or keeping the straits held at risk if

they choose to in the future afterwards, if they're not able to get everything else. And then to your point about the nuclear piece, it is a persistent perpetual stare afterwards if the highly enriched uranium doesn't come out of there, which will require persistent monitoring. The alternative to that would be a very large ground operation with a very significant risk to US forces. That facility where most of it is stored is 300 miles inland, completely surrounded by mountains, 15 kilometers outside the third largest city in the country.

That would require probably a large blocking force, somebody going inside to get it. And I think there's a trade-off basically between the risk to US forces and having to

actually do that. actually do that.

Let me add a third scenario.