Tucker Carlson: We Are on the Brink of a WORLD WAR That Ends With The Use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. [00:00:10] Speaker B: Ratan. Welcome to a brand new season of Going Underground. On this season premiere, I'm joined by one of the greatest English language journalists in the world, Tucker Carlson, who championed Donald Trump when vested interests wanted Trump in prison. Today, disillusioned by Trump's failure to end forever wars, whether it be the proxy war on Russia through Ukraine or the genocide and wars here in the Middle east, he has a 10 point plan for the USA to gain its spirit. He's in his studio in Maine. Tucker, thanks so much for coming on Going Underground. I can kick off by the fact our editor in chief 14 years ago was listening to you every night. I don't know how that's contaminated her. And I could talk to you about Hunter S. I could talk to you about Hunter S. Thompson because Ralph Steadman, he actually drew me on this show many years ago when he came on the show. But alas, the world is in flames. So I got to start by asking you why you think the United States Vice President felt it necessary to defend not only the concept of friendship, but his friendship with you in particular. [00:01:13] Speaker A: Well, I mean, we are friends and have been for a long time. And so I, I think the point he was making is that friendship is, you know, more important than politics. And I certainly agree with that. I hate to lose friends over political or ideological disagree sense. I was grateful to hear him say that. But he's under enormous pressure to. It's not about me really. I have no power, I'm a podcaster. But he's under enormous pressure to disavow his previous positions on war. And his position is the majority position in the United States, which is war should be fought defensively. If the United States is at, you know, risk of being invaded or if it's been attacked, you know, it's within bounds to, to respond, to protect yourself, but that it's counterproductive. In fact, it may even be evil to prosecute regime change wars around the world, particularly on behalf of another power, Israel. Like nobody supports that. And J.D. vance is on record repeatedly attacking that and now we're doing that. So it's put him in a very difficult position, particularly since presumably he plans to run in 2028. So that's what this is really about. It's, it's an ideological battle being fought in Washington. And I'm not a, I wouldn't say a central player in this. I'm just sort of a metaphor. [00:02:28] Speaker B: I think I want to get into those wars in a bit. But tell me, tell me about why you Know him. I mean, he once said of you, you are the only powerful figure who consistently challenges elite dogma. How have you known J.D. vance through the years, and who is this man? [00:02:51] Speaker A: Well, I met him at a speech. We were both speaking to a group out in California about 10 years ago, and I happened to be sitting in the audience when he spoke. And I didn't know much about him, but I was so impressed by how smart he was and how thoughtful he was that I introduced myself after the speech. He had no. That I was aware of political ambitions at the time. He was not a U. S. Senator. He was a writer and a tech investor. And so we became friends, we swapped texts and. And I had him on my show at Fox News repeatedly and sort of watched his political career begin and then watched him become vice president. So we've. But we became friends before he entered politics. And I said, he's an interesting person and a decent person in contrast to almost every other politician I know. Likes his wife, cares about his family. Those sound like normal things, but they're not in politics in any country, and especially not in ours. [00:03:49] Speaker B: So I suppose when I ask, why are his friends in the administration, within the administration, leaving? I mean, what was your reaction when you heard Army Secretary Dan Driscoll was leaving? Andy Baker, James Braid, these are all names associated with the close contact with JD Vance. Sean Cooks, he was his policy advisor, his Middle east advisor, Wesa, Massenane, they've all gone into fundraising. Look, they've left the Trump administration. What do you make of that? [00:04:20] Speaker A: I. I know Dan Driscoll, and like Dan Driscoll a lot, I, I was sad to see that, but. Because I think the Pentagon needs moderating voices, sensible voices. But I wasn't surprised. I mean, for one thing, people do tend to leave administrations at about this point, but people are probably living in larger numbers now because it's a disaster. I mean, there's no other way to describe the administration. And it's a disaster in a pretty unusual way. It's not simply that they've taken a wrong turn, but they've almost systematically. The president and his advisors have almost systematically betrayed the people who voted for him in 2024. I mean, you can go through the list, and it's easily discoverable on the Internet of promises, very specific promises by Donald Trump over the past 10 years, and they have basically done the opposite on every single one. And so I don't know why that is. I, I do think the shooting in Butler, Pennsylvania, in 2024 was a pivot Point, and not in the way I thought it was at the time. I think Trump changed after that. I don't fully understand the mechanism that caused that change, and I don't want to pretend that I do, but I think all of this is traceable back to that day. That's my strong sense. But in any case, whatever the reason, [00:05:35] Speaker B: I mean that, that was before he appointed his voters. Completely in fairness, he appointed these people that you respect after Butler, Pennsylvania. So he was still pointing good people. [00:05:44] Speaker A: But he also hired. He did. And. But he also hired Marco Rubio as his Secretary of State and Mike Walls as his National Security advisor, and John Ratcliffe as a Director of Central Intelligence. And these are all people who, whatever their merits as human beings, have views that are the opposite of the ones Trump ran on. So in appointing those people to those key positions, he betrayed his voters. And I was aware of that at the time. I was shocked by it. I didn't understand it. It was not what I expected at all. Howard Lutnick is running the transition. Really? Who's Howard Lutnick and how did he wind up running the transition? You know, he had no role in the campaign. He was a big donor to Hillary Clinton. [00:06:26] Speaker B: It. [00:06:26] Speaker A: And at the, at the time, and of course I, I had a front row seat to all of this. I was completely confused and I thought, well, why would you appoint people who are not just opposed to your positions, but have basically made their public careers in opposition to your positions, have exactly the opposite, the 180 degree view of what you just ran on. I didn't understand it, and I still don't fully understand it. But it turned out to be once again the greatest betrayal that I'm aware of in the history of American politics. [00:06:57] Speaker B: I want to return to that betrayal in a moment. But then you mentioned that perhaps JD Vance is going to become president. Do you think he is setting up his campaign fundraising and all those different elements and infrastructure required of your American political process to do that? I mean, is that why we're seeing exits from the Trump administration? People are going to throw their lot in with J.D. vines? [00:07:26] Speaker A: Well, I don't know is the truth. You know, I haven't had a lot of contact with the administration since the war. [00:07:32] Speaker B: I mean, Driscoll, February Driscoll, for instance, Army Secretary. [00:07:37] Speaker A: Well, I think the Pentagon is completely out of control. I mean, it's completely out of control. [00:07:42] Speaker B: He might serve in a J.D. vance administration, presumably. [00:07:46] Speaker A: Well, I mean, if, you know, Dan Driscoll is the kind of person you would hope would Serve, you know, it's at some role in the federal government because he's sensible and smart and has, I think, the country's basic best interest in mind. He's not a lunatic. He's not pushing for more war. When the US has lost its defensive capacity, when you no longer have the ability to stop incoming missiles and you're still taking an aggressive posture, that's just crazy behavior. I don't. When, when you're openly in meetings in the Pentagon discussing the offensive use of nuclear weapons against a country you began the war against. It's so nuts. I never thought anything like this could happen under any administration. The discussion, and this is a fact, the discussion of using offensive nuclear weapons against Iran, and that was in PowerPoint presentations in the Pentagon. And I'm not guessing about this, That's a fact. So any organization that would allow that is by definition out of control. If you ran the Pentagon and you found out that one of your subordinates had suggested using nuclear weapons against Iran, you would. Well, I would first fire the person and then figure out a way to file criminal charges against him. Because you're suggesting destroying the entire world. And you didn't create the world. You don't have a right to do that. That's a crime. It's certainly the highest moral crime I can imagine, the gravest. And so again, that was not only tolerated, it happened repeatedly. So who could work in a place like that? [00:09:18] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, having said that, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll did stay on for quite a while after that reported comment that you, you revealed and come to think of it, on Ukraine, which up until the Iran war was the issue when it came to prospective nuclear Armageddon. What did you make of 2025? Trump tried to kill Putin in Sochi. It's reported 8 September 2025, Putin had been doing a brick summit call and that attack on SOI couldn't have happened without Driscoll, without Jim Rad, who you mentioned earlier, without Trump, surely. [00:10:02] Speaker A: Well, I, I don't know that Dan Driscoll would have been involved in that. I mean, the federal government, the US Government is the largest human organization in history as a one point, you know, 5 trillion dollar budget just for the Pentagon, 7 trillion overall. So it's like it's impossible to keep up with it. But big picture, the CIA is running the war. The U. S. Intelligence services are running the war out of Ukraine against Russia. Trump said that he would bring that to a close within a day. I think he said that to me repeatedly. In private and in public. And instead, he's accelerated it. Of course, the United States is at war with Russia, and the only kind of conceivable end stage, if this continues, is a nuclear exchange in which everyone is killed. So this is, again, a kind of lunacy. Why is he doing it? Well, I don't think Trump is making this decision independently, from what I know, because I've talked to him about it an awful lot. He likes Putin, respects Putin. It's not personal or anything like that. It's a product of what all of this is caused by. And that's the fact that the US President is not really in control of the US Government. He's an employee, too. He doesn't have sovereignty. He is a slave to more powerful forces. And in this specific instance, you know, the war against Russia has now become of a piece with the war against Iran. I mean, you had Ukrainian attacks on Iranian assets. So the wars have merged into a global war that does not serve the United States. It risks the existence of the United States. It's something that Trump, I think, very sincerely said he opposed, and now he is leading it. And so, again, we're getting to a structural problem, which is that the United States does not have sovereignty. The elected leaders of the United States don't make the most important decisions. Whoever you vote for, you get John McCain, famously, and that's terrifying. Is it fixable? I'm not sure how I. There's nothing I've ever been more worried about than where we are now. [00:12:01] Speaker B: Yeah, but I mean, specific. I do. I will get to Iran, but, I mean, he may be being held hostage by the Israelis over Iran or whatever. You can't possibly, given your knowledge of Trump, think that Trump would have sanctioned an assassination attack on Putin in Sochi. Who is controlling that, that decision? [00:12:21] Speaker A: I don't. I don't know the. I don't know the answer to that. I know that the same people who push for the war in Iran are very eager to defeat Russia, whatever that means, break to take control, comma, once again, of Russia, and that that is the goal. And they're deeply offended by the fact that Russia has sovereignty. They're deeply offended by the President of Russia. Again, these are, these are deep currents here. And I'm not sure I fully understand the psychology of it all or the goals, but it's obvious that, again, the same people we call them in the U.S. broadly speaking, the neocons who pushed us into this regime change war in Iran have been pushing the US Toward regime change war against Russia for decades. The problem is it's not even conceivably winnable. Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal. Of course. Russia is the largest country in the world. Russia has deeper industrial, military, industrial capacity. The United States does. The whole thing is nuts. So anyone who's doing that clearly seeks the destruction of the United States. And I do think, unavoidably, I've. I've concluded this, that that is the goal. It's not simply to kill the Ayatollah and kill Putin. It's to destroy the United States. I don't. I don't see another explanation. And I. So I've come to believe that reluctantly, but based on evidence. [00:13:45] Speaker B: Yeah, we'll get to the morality of all that. But then it's not as if there's such a deep state that we can actually see the personnel. I mean, we mentioned Jim Ratcliffe earlier, but then we've got Elbridge Colby, the number three in the Pentagon, and people have come on this program and said, this guy is a knowledgeable person. And actually, there are quite a few of these individuals. They've appeared on your shows in the past that would never have allowed some of the decisions that seem to have been made. [00:14:17] Speaker A: That's right. [00:14:18] Speaker B: So how do you explain. Well, they're thinking, I mean, it's better to be inside than outside, clearly. Better to be inside than outside. Is that it? [00:14:27] Speaker A: Again, we're. We're watching a system that has been in place for quite some time, probably at least, well, 63 years since the assassination of the American President, John Kennedy, but whose outlines have never been as clear as they are now. I mean, Bridge Colby is a perfect example. I know Bridge Colby well. He's not only knowledgeable, he's also decent and wise. He's a. He's an excellent. He's a good person. In addition to being totally qualified for the job he holds, it's inconceivable that Bridge Colby signed up for his current job at the Pentagon, hoping for a third world war. I mean, that's just kind of the opposite of what he has said in public for 20 years, although publicly recently. How did this happen? [00:15:08] Speaker B: It's a nuclear doctrine change. That's what he was in the news for recently, for changing nuclear doctrine over China. [00:15:15] Speaker A: I. There are so many things going on right now that I think it's just very important to focus on. The biggest ones. And the biggest one by far, I would say, in tandem with the rise of AI and the threat from biological advances that that poses. But in tandem with that is the Use of nuclear weapons. That's the end. That's the end of the world, of humanity, of all living things on the planet. And so anyone who is talking about using nuclear weapons is by definition a criminal and a lunatic and should be removed immediately. And I am just staring slack jawed in amazement and horror at the fact that no one in Washington, 100 members of the Senate, 435 members of the House, nobody seems to think this is weird that we are openly discussing using nuclear weapons. I mean, this is, it's not about, you know, that's a good idea or a bad idea. This is like ergotism or mass hysteria or some sort of spell that has settled upon the leadership class of the United States where people are talking about, you know, the mass suicide of almost 10 billion people. Like, what are we even? So, yeah, I couldn't be. And you just await sane people to speak up and break the spell. But in my country, they have not yet arrived or in Europe, by the way, I was just in Britain yesterday and if you talk to anyone in the UK where you're from and you know this, they sort of take it at, you know, even normal people, even smart people, wise people, people with, you know, good intentions take it as sort of like a given that there's going to be a war against Russia and they will somehow win. It's like you're, you've gone crazy. I don't know what to say. That's just so far from conceivable reality that it's, it's hard to know how to assess it. Like, what are we watching here? We're watching like a hallucination, a mass hallucination. [00:17:09] Speaker B: Except every other day on your show you do trace how the post 45 consensus was systematically destroyed through art, culture, politics, civic life in every way. And, and you think that's really what prepared Western Europe for its fate? To be able to say we can defeat Russia. If Russia fires a nuclear weapon, we can fire one back. [00:17:33] Speaker A: Well, I mean, there's clearly a supernatural component here. I'm just going to say that. And I'm sure viewers will scoff. No, I mean, there's a spiritual component to all of this. You don't, you don't intentionally embrace ugliness, you know, in inflicting suffering on other people, suicide. I mean, these are kind of the hallmarks of the civilization I grew up in now. And what is that? You know, we're, what you're seeing is advanced nations aggressively acting against their own interests and even against the possibility of having Descendants. You're watching mass suicide. So what is that? Like, where does that come from? Who's the beneficiary of that? No human being can benefit from nuclear war. So what's, you know, what's the force impelling this? You know, and I, and I sincerely believe that we are, in ways that I do not understand, watching a spiritual conflict play out in the temporal world because there's no identifiable human motive for this. Like, if you have a nuclear exchange, do you get richer? No, you die. So how could you possibly want that? Because you're being acted upon by unseen forces. That's, that's the only conclusion I can draw. I'm trying to approach this from a rational perspective. I'm trying to use reason to understand what we're seeing. And I don't think that it's possible at this point. [00:19:00] Speaker B: In fairness, if you're an individual in a NATO country, you probably don't know that your country's bombing churches in Gaza. Synagogues in Tehran. Exactly. Or mosques in Lebanon. I mean, I, I don't know. I mean, how do Americans know that synagogues in Tehran or, or churches in Gaza? [00:19:22] Speaker A: And, and because you've spent your life in the news business, you know how this works, which is, you know, only a small percentage of the population has any idea what the facts are like. Just, just the incontestable facts that the, that the Ukrainian government is a totalitarian government where there's no free speech, freedom of movement. It's not an elected president. They've banned the largest Christian denomination in the country, put priests in jail. People have literally no clue. I was at a dinner party in the UK three days ago with, again, smart, worldly people who've been around, very well educated, highest level educated. They had no idea. They sincerely believe that Ukraine is this scrappy little collection of freedom fighters, you know, pushing back against a land grab from this, you know, expansionist power that wants to recreate the Soviet Union. They believe exactly what they've been told on BBC and by NBC News. And it's kind of hard to believe that could be true, but it is true. They just don't know what's happening. They have no clue. It's the information vacuum. I mean, the irony, of course, is that the Internet was supposed to leave us all highly informed. We would know what was happening because you could communicate instantaneously around the world. And yet the opposite has happened where people know less. In fact, people know so little that it's. Well, we're on the brink of a nuclear war, you Know, it couldn't be more dangerous that ignorance has gotten us to a point where we could all die soon. So I, you know, it's not what I expected at all. [00:20:51] Speaker B: Well, maybe it's just the elite classes that, that are ignorant, who knows? But you've, you've mentioned Israelism in the past. I understand it. I mean, I don't know whether those elite tables in London know that Russian Orthodox Christian churches have been destroyed in Ukraine in the first place. But there seems to be this idea of turning Christianity itself, changing the way it's perceived in NATO countries, obviously to Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism. We know that the switch from the Christian heartlands of the United States and how that has changed over the recent years. [00:21:32] Speaker A: I mean, Christian Zionism and I, this is not an attack on anyone. There are a lot of perfectly decent and friendly and very nice Christian Zionists and I, I've met them. But as a doctrine, Christian Zionism bears very little resemblance to the Christianity described in the four gospels in the New Testament. I mean, it's just not the same religion any more than Rabbinic Judaism is the same as Talmudic Judaism or is rather is the same as Torah Judaism. So it's like these are just kind of very different religions. And because people have no grounding at all in religion in general, it's a secular society here in the United States and in Europe, they don't know the difference. You know, all Jews are the same, all Christians are the same, all Muslims are the same. You know, they, they just don't understand the distinctions. And so Christianity as it's practiced in public in the United States is very different. I mean, you literally have Christian leaders or self described Christian leaders in the United States endorsing an offensive war against a weaker country, a war of choice. That's inc. There is nothing in the Gospels that suggests that's okay. In fact, I would say all four gospels make the opposite demands on us. That we forgive those who persecute us, that we turn the other cheek. That's what Jesus says. But you would never know it from listening to people like Franklin Graham, some of the largest evangelists in the United States. So, yes, the religion itself, from my perspective, has been distorted beyond recognition. I, I, it's, Christianity is now a religion of war, according to Trump's spiritual advisors. Have they not read the New Testament? It's the opposite of that. It, again, I, I just stand with my jaw open, asking myself, can this be real? But it is. [00:23:23] Speaker B: I mean, Marx wasn't anti religious. He called religion the sigh of the oppressed. But there are these crypto Marxists, or together with the deep State, literally thinking that they want to destroy Russia because Russia's gotten more Christian since the fall of the Berlin Wall. I mean, is that your contention? There are, there are voices there who. [00:23:45] Speaker A: I think it's. [00:23:45] Speaker B: I don't like Russia's Christianity. [00:23:49] Speaker A: Well, I think that's central to this, to this program, of course. I mean, I think the two things that Putin did that provoked the west to, to declare this war on Russia, to basically push Russia into invading Eastern Ukraine to create a pretext for the war that we're currently enduring. The two things that deeply offended the leadership class in the United States and, and I would say in the west more broadly. One was kicking out the oligarchs, sort of taking control of, you know, the Soviet Union falls in the summer of 91. The state industries are immediately grabbed by a dozen people for their own enrichment. They become more powerful than the state. Putin comes in 26 years ago and says, no, you know, that's not a democracy. That's not a country with sovereignty. And he, and he kicks a lot of them out. Those same people have funded the PR campaign against Putin ever since. That's the first thing. The second thing that Putin did was of help rebuild Orthodoxy Christianity within Russia. And that was deeply provocative because there's nothing that the elites in the west, certainly in the United States, dislike more and are more threatened by than traditional Christianity. Why is that? Well, because, of course, your loyalty will be to God rather than the state. And so by definition, it's a threat to the totalitarian aims of leaders. You know, you can't, you can't accept certain things if your religious faith prohibits them. And that's why I would say sincere religion of any kind is a threat to the state, a totalitarian state anyway. That was incredibly provocative. The fact that he declared Russia with a huge 20% or something, Muslim minority, but an inherently Christian country. Yeah, that was. I mean, nothing he's done before or since has been more offensive to leaders in the United States than that, let [00:25:40] Speaker B: alone perhaps some historical desire for winning the Cold War that was kind of already won. [00:25:49] Speaker A: Well, I don't know. I mean, I, I have always felt that the, you know, Russia between 1917 and 1991 was aggressively anti Christian. In fact, the very first things the Bolsheviks did during the Civil War was to round up priests and nuns and crucify them and gouge their eyes out and bury them alive and murdered tens of thousands of clerics, closed a Lot [00:26:16] Speaker B: of propaganda as well about that because they obviously helped Christianity in Latin America, famously the liberation theology of Latin America. [00:26:25] Speaker A: Or they, or they distorted it and hollowed it out and took its spiritual power and left it only with like failed revolutionary movements. There's another way to look at it, but they certainly ended Christianity in Russia for 70 years. And that was totally fine with the leadership class in the United States. I mean, they, they supported that, of course. They in fact financed it. American bankers financed the Bolshevik revolution, as you know, in the civil war against, against the White Russians. So, and the British, they were happy with that. Always the British, always the British. You know, can I just say one thing? The fact that Britain is more than any country responsible for the existence of the State of Israel and has supported Israel from independence in 48 until now, and then the Prime Minister of Britain says, you know, we just don't support what's happening in the occupied territories. And the Israelis immediately shut down Heathrow Airport, which apparently they did. It's like, I don't understand how the Israelis can hate Britain as much as they do when Israel wouldn't exist without Britain. I mean, it is like the most ungrateful betrayal I can imagine. There wouldn't be Israel without the Balfour Declaration and without, you know, the immediate post war support of Britain. And yet the Israelis murdered, of course, famously hundreds of Britons in modern Israel, in Jerusalem, they blew up the King David Hotel, they murdered diplomats, and the Brits continued to support them all this time and they deviate on one question and all of a sudden they're enemy number one. I mean, it is, it's an amazing thing to watch. [00:28:06] Speaker B: Well, the power of Israel, some might say. You spoke to Trump the night before the Minab massacre and the assassination of Iran's leadership. Why did Trump do it? [00:28:17] Speaker A: Why did Trump, I don't know why [00:28:18] Speaker B: go ahead with it and why is it none of us can answer this question? And it seems even with good sourcing, people just say they don't know why. I heard you. I can't believe you asked Joe Kent one of Trump's counterterrorism up until he, he quit. Why, why would he do this? [00:28:42] Speaker A: Well, look, the only thing that I can add, the only first hand knowledge I have about this, these decisions comes from many conversations, not three, but, you know, dozens of conversations with Donald Trump about this topic. A regime change, war against Iran. I talked to him about a lot in person and on the phone for years, 10 years. And with, you know, an accelerating frequency in the final months before this war began. And my conclusion is that he did not want to do this. He fully understood the risks, not simply to America, but to himself and his political legacy. He knew exactly what could go wrong. We talked about it, and he didn't want to do it and he did it anyway. So that, that's what I know for a fact. And, you know, we can speculate as to why he would do, or any president would do something that risks his own presidency, his own reputation, his own future, and that of his children. Why would you do it anyway? And I. Logic suggests that it would take a lot of force to convince someone to do something he knew was a bad idea and that would likely hurt him. What was that force? I. I don't know. Joe. Ken has suggested that the Butler shooting was directly related to this. We know the Trump administration, Donald Trump himself, shut down the investigation into that shooting. Why would you do that? It doesn't make any sense at all. That is a fact. And the American media is totally uninterested in asking questions about this. They're happy to ignore it. I don't know why. It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. [00:30:23] Speaker B: Yeah, I think you, you spoke to the author, Silver, as we did, who talked about the strange case of Butler and why and how it came to be that Trump might shut down an investigation into his own assassination. Did you, did you speak to J.D. vance about Iran ahead of time? There were leaks to the New York Times, of course, saying that he and Rubio, of all people, might be against the war in Iran. [00:30:50] Speaker A: Rubio is not against the war in Iran. That's a, that's a lie told by Rubio's staff after the fact. Marco Rubio is both the Secretary of State and the National Security advisor. Did nothing to deter Trump, dissuade Trump so Marco Rubio can claim all he wants. I was against it. He was not against it. That's not true. He and John Radcliffe, the Director of Central Intelligence, allowed this to happen. J.D. vance was, of course, opposed to it. He had said so in public many times. That, that's widely known. That's why they, they're mad at him and that's why they're trying to get him to disavow me. I had nothing to do with it. I'm just an observer. I'm not in a decision making role anywhere. And so I'm just, I'm just here to watch and to give my opinion. That's it. So, you know, the. JD Vance must disavow Tucker Carlson because he's a Nazi or something. That's really just an attack on J.D. vance. It doesn't hurt me at all. None of those people have any control over me whatsoever. I've already been fired from my job. You know, I don't have any investors. [00:31:55] Speaker B: But so out of the lot of them, it was just J.D. vance that was against the war, as far as we understand. [00:32:01] Speaker A: That's correct. As far as I know, yes, that's correct. And he's certainly the only one, as far as I know, who expressed that. Now, I, you know, I wasn't there for every conversation he had with Donald Trump about it, but it was widely known that J.D. vance was opposed to this. And who wouldn't be opposed to it, by the way, if you took it across section of Americans, Republican, Democrat, liberal, black, white, Hispanic, I mean, just a cross section, and asked them in mid February of last year or this year, are you for a regime change, war against Iran? The overwhelming majority would be against it. And yet somehow in the White House this winter, there was really nobody willing to stand up and say to Trump, I'll resign if you do this and I'll attack you if you do it. That might have made a difference. But, you know, we don't, we'll never know. [00:32:54] Speaker B: I mean, one recent economic survey said American households are having to pay $1,000 each to fund it. I mean, it's costing the American treasury hundreds of billions of dollars. And average Americans at the gas pump are having to pay more money. Every American is paying for this war. [00:33:12] Speaker A: And that's just the, that's just the beginning. I mean, the United States government spends about $7 trillion a year. It takes in about 5 trillion in tax receipts. So that's a $2 trillion trillion doll annual deficit, which is getting bigger. How can the US do that? Well, because it has the reserve currency, it has the US Dollar, and so it can float its debt and just continue to spend more than it brings in. This war threatens that arrangement, which is the key to American prosperity. Why is that? Well, because the value of the dollar is the result of, of the deal made in the early 1970s between Henry Kissinger and the Saudis where oil trades will be settled in dollars. If that changes, then the US Loses its status as the holder of the global reserve currency and the entire system collapses. So the risk here is much higher than $8 a gallon diesel fuel, which is about what it is in California this morning. That's a disaster. But it's nothing compared to where we're headed. So this is the biggest mistake any American president has ever made ever. And you know, and it, it brought me to this place. I like Trump. I've always liked Trump. He's hilarious. I've known him well for a long time. I never thought it would be an RT attacking Trump. That's how serious this is. This is crazy. [00:34:37] Speaker B: I mean, you mentioned Saudi Arabia there. Do you think the people who are supporting the war realize that Israel might have wanted to weaken GCC countries? I know you've said in the past that MBZ is the greatest leader you've ever met as the president of the uae, where I'm talking to you from, do you think people understand that that's another motive? Because the aim has been to weaken GCC countries that were seen as increasingly powerful and running societies that other people wanted to live in and emulate. [00:35:15] Speaker A: You know who does understand that? The answer is no. If people don't know what the GCC is in the United States and they couldn't name the six countries in the gcc. [00:35:23] Speaker B: I meant around the Trump Cabinet table. I meant around the Trump Cabinet. [00:35:27] Speaker A: I'll tell you who does understand it. Trump understands it. Because I told Trump that, I told him that explicitly. I said the point here is Israeli regional hegemony. That's why they're pushing this. They want to control their region. And by the way, every nuclear armed power wants to control its region. Pakistan wants to control Kashmir. Russia wants to control Belarus. I mean that's just the way. That's the nature of great powers. They want to control. We have the Monroe Doctrine. China wants the South China Sea in Taiwan. It's all understandable. It's just important to know that. So what does Israel want? Israel wants to expand its borders and it doesn't want Iran getting in the way or its proxies has bal. Hamas. It doesn't want the GCC because as you said, they're building these kind of amazing societies there. Hundred. There were hundreds of thousands of Britons just in Dubai because there's so much opportunity there that's a massive threat to Israel. So they spend a lot of time trying to get the six countries to fight with each other, which is pretty easy since Arabs like to fight with each other. Sorry, true. And, but Israel also accelerates that. And this war, the point was take Iran out as a regional power, take the, you know, scramble the eggs of the gcc, reduce their power and get the United States out of the Gulf, get the U.S. out. I told Trump this. I said that's the point. It's this is actually aimed at us. It does not help Israel to have all these American bases in the Gulf. Paradoxically, I mean, often people say we built them for Israel. Well, actually, from an Israeli perspective, those are control mechanisms. Those are leashes that we use to constrain Israeli behavior. And they don't want to be constrained because they have a greater vision of their future. So I said this to Trump and he agreed. [00:37:16] Speaker B: So, yes, this is before his visit, before his visit to Saudi and, And to the uae, which is very early in the presidency, his first foreign visit, [00:37:25] Speaker A: or this was about February 20th, that I had this conver. I can check my calendar. But that was about. It was in the Oval Office, me and him. And I said that to him and I had just come back this year. And by the way, I should. Of this year, this was eight days. This was a week before the worst. Yes. And I had just landed from the Gulf, where I've spent a lot of time in the last 25 years. And I, and I love. And you know who else loves the Gulf, Loves the gcc, Loves, Loves Qatar, loves the Emirates, loves Saudi. Trump. He's friends with all the leaders and he likes them personally. That's real. So when you see Trump going on. Well, of course he took a plane for the Qataris, but. But it's more than that. It's not just transactional. He likes them and they're incredible. You're there. You know, they're incredibly gracious people. I mean, incredibly gra. The most gracious, actually. Who doesn't like the Gulf? Everyone who visits likes the Gulf and, And Trump does. So Trump had no motive and no desire to hurt. [00:38:27] Speaker B: This is just making it become more and more mysterious. You know that. [00:38:31] Speaker A: I know. How do you think I feel? I can barely. I'm. I've been tormented by it. Why did he do this? There's no. If you. Even now, if you were to say to Trump, what do you think of NB Said, what do you think of mbs? What do you think of the Emir of Qatar? He would say, oh, my gosh, great, guys, I love those guys. And he would mean it. And yet he unleashed a sequence of events. Knowing that this could happen that badly damaged those countries badly. Why did he do that? That is the question that the American media studiously ignore. And I would love to know the answer. And I hope at some point historians find an answer. [00:39:09] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, you mentioned Butler earlier. Maybe we'll return to that in a moment. I mean, we were talking also about morality. And Trump, when confronted by reporters about the deaths, the killings of all those schoolgirls at the elementary school in Minab. 168 young girls. Just said, first of all, that it was the Iranians that did it. And there's apparently some sort of investigation morality wise. How do you think Trump deals with that? How does J.D. vance deal with that? [00:39:40] Speaker A: You know, it's. It's a stainless steel on our nation. I'm American. I'm very American. I love America. I've been here my whole life. I'm not leaving. So I feel shame as an American, not simply that it happened, but that the US Government hasn't apologized for it. Awful things happen in wars, consistently. The civilians are killed. But the fact that the US Government, that the Secretary of Defense are now Secretary of War and the President and Secretary of State have not apologized for this is shameful. It's shameful. And I think that every American should feel shame knowing that I don't know. So Trump is obviously, in some ways, you know, does not possess a finely honed moral sense, obviously. But in the time that I've known him, which is a long time now, he's never been enthusiastic about killing. Trump has always had a kind of gut level reluctance to kill civilians. Trump has always had a gut level horror of nuclear war. He's talked about it a lot, including with me in public and a lot in private. Nuclear war terrifies Trump. [00:40:46] Speaker B: Seeking peace with Kim Jong Un. [00:40:48] Speaker A: Seeking exactly. [00:40:50] Speaker B: Peace with. No Democrat would ever think of seeking peace. [00:40:54] Speaker A: I was, I was there. I was with Trump and Kim Jong Un during that conversation. I saw the whole thing. And Trump has always feared nuclear weapons. He understands their power. He's the president. He is the. He has the unique ability to unleash them. And so he's been briefed on what they do and what they can do, and. And it horrified him. I've talked to him about this a lot. And so the fact that Trump would first of all begin this war, this war of choice, done at the behest of Israel, by murdering the head cleric, not simply in Iran, but of Shia Islam, of an entire religion, world religion, like killing the Shiite pope, an elderly man, and do it during negotiations in a sneak attack like Pearl harbor, that he would do something like that and then find out that, yes, we initiated a double tap on a girls school and killed almost 200 little girls and not apologize for that. I mean, I don't even know what I'm looking at. Who is that guy? You know, that's a huge change. I never thought he was capable of that. I feel like I know him very well. Very well. And as I've said, and I mean it, I've always, always liked him. He has a sentimental streak to him. That is sweet and it's endearing. I've always thought it was real. You know, he likes little kids. He doesn't want people to get hurt. He would often say, I'm the peace president. He seemed proud of that. That all seemed real to me. I believed all of that. I gave a speech at the Republican National Convention the night he spoke, saying, this is a guy who really believes in peace, who is not going to shovel trillions of American tax dollars to foreign wars. I believe that. And it turned out to be the opposite of the truth. I, And I still don't understand it. [00:42:37] Speaker B: I mean, Trump's only reason, avowed reason for the war is not the Israelis are going to kill me, or Miriam Adelson told me to, or I know Leonid Radzvinski, you're an expert on recently, the biggest APAC donor. He says it's because it's to stop Iran having nuclear weapons, which we know is a ridiculous reason. [00:42:58] Speaker A: Nonsense, nonsense. But then, and he knew it was nonsense. [00:43:01] Speaker B: But then Rubio said avowedly, very swiftly after the attack, look, we had to do this because Israel was going to attack Iran, and then Iran would have attacked Israel. [00:43:10] Speaker A: Yeah. So I believe, and I can't prove this, but I believe that Trump sent Rubio out to say that. I don't think Marco ever would have said that on his own. I don't think any Secretary of state would say something like that without talking to the president. That would be completely reckless. Marco was not reckless. Rubio is actually, whatever people may think of him, as, very smart and very cunning and canny and, And I believe [00:43:34] Speaker B: he looked like an idiot. He looked like an idiot when he said that clearly to the MAGA base. [00:43:38] Speaker A: Of course he did. And he knew that he would. He knew he would look like an idiot. And to admit something like that in public, that the United States just began a regime change war because it was pushed by a country of 9 million people, which is a client state of the United States, like that was. It was all so shocking that he would say that. He said that. I believe, because Trump, within three days of the war starting, realized, oh, wait, Iran is not collapsing. The Israelis told me that once the Ayatollah was dead, the whole country would fall in on itself. The government would fall. Once that whole top leadership layer was assassinated, that the protesters, the pro democracy Forces in the streets of Tehran would take over and it would spontaneously become Belgium, and, and everything would be fine. And when that didn't happen, Trump blamed BB I believe this is true, and on the base of some evidence, I, I can't be certain of it, but I believe that is true. And he ranted about it and Marco went out, Rubio went out and said this. So Trump, Trump is not stupid, despite appearances, and he understands exactly how he got played. But now he's doubled down and basically used the Department of Justice, not to improve the life of the average American or to bring colorblind justice, but to initiate this bizarre witch hunt against anti Semitism, which is, they're now telling us is America's greatest problem. There is anti Semitism. Anti Semitism is bad. I'm opposed to anti Semitism, as I often say, it is not even close to America's biggest problem, and yet it is the fixation of the entire Department of Justice. So, again, I don't know exactly what we're looking at here, but it's very dark, very. It could not be darker. That's my view of it. Because it's detached from reality and it's dangerous. [00:45:30] Speaker B: I mean, Trump notoriously didn't go after all the people that wanted to see him in jail and lied about things to try and get him into jail. [00:45:37] Speaker A: That's right. [00:45:39] Speaker B: I just thought of that because everyone is calling you an anti Semite now. Every other day, it's, are you gonna do anything about it? I, I see it. [00:45:49] Speaker A: I don't, I don't. I mean, it's, it's a, I don't care. If I was an anti Semite, I would just say. [00:45:55] Speaker B: So you don't see something dangerous about this routine defamation of who you are? [00:46:00] Speaker A: Well, I think for sure someone will try to kill me. I mean, that's already happened, actually. So of course. And the point is to kill me. I know that. I'm not going to whine about it. I don't come from a culture of whine whining. And in the culture that I'm from, men don't whine about things like that. And I knew, I know the risks. And I'm, I'm a Christian. I'm not afraid, but I'm not doing this because I enjoy it. I, at all. I, there's nothing I've enjoyed less than what I'm doing right now. I'm doing this because I think that the world is on the brink of destruction. And I think that not because I'm crazy, but because the evidence proves that we are on the brink of a nuclear war, of a world war that ends with the use of weapons of mass destruction. That's a fact. And so if the price to me is, you know, I get called names that are not true, I get slandered and some wacko tries to shoot me, I don't want that, of course, but I have no choice, because I sincerely believe what I'm saying. It's true. What I'm saying is true. That's my perspective on it. Maybe I'm totally deluded. I hope so. I hope I've just gone. I've. I hope I'm the crazy one and everything I'm saying is false and that this is all going to turn out great and nothing really is at risk right now, I hope. And by the way, if that turns out to be the case, I will grovel. I will grovel before my own audience and say I was completely wrong, by the way. I've done that before. I've been completely wrong about many things, and I forced myself to admit it. And in this case, I will be delighted to admit it if I'm wrong. [00:47:36] Speaker B: No, but you kind of know that you've been vindicated now, because, you know, even the elite classes in the United States, the neocons themselves, are so worried about what's happened in the Strait of Hormuz. So given that. Given that you have been vindicated so obviously, don't you think Trump will give you a call? Or does he not need to give you a call to say, okay, you were right, Tucker, because there are these other people that believe the way the world works is the way you said it is. And they're inside, they're not outside. I mean, we mentioned Elbridge Colby at the Pentagon, Russell Voort, you interviewed him a while back. I mean, there's some sensible people that are in the administration that presumably would say the same things you are, let alone the Vice president. So he doesn't need to call you, but do you think he'll call you? [00:48:34] Speaker A: No, I. Maybe I don't care. No one needs to call me. [00:48:38] Speaker B: Well, it's about World War Three. They. I mean, you have to. You have to care. But there is no easy way out [00:48:45] Speaker A: saying is, it's not. It's not about me. I don't care what anyone thinks of me other than my wife and children. So it's not. It's. It's not like I'm. I need to have someone apologize to me or anything like that. I don't care. At all. I, I do know that there are a lot of sensible, smart, rational people in the administration. I talk to some of them still. And their view, as you can imagine, because I know you talk to a lot of people, their view is, well, I'm in this job, I disagree with everything that's happening around me, but I'm going to try to make some small difference since I'm here and I respect that. You know, I don't think everyone who disagrees with a policy has to resign. I'm glad Joe Kent did. I'm, you know, but I think that there are people who think, well, if I can make this a little better, I'm going to. And that's a sacrifice that I'm going to, I'm going to make. And again, I think that's a virtuous position. [00:49:37] Speaker B: Yeah, hitting the big pharmaceutical companies, Robert Kennedy or something like that. But, but, yeah, that's right. But you, you think that Trump himself must have regrets about it. I mean, you kind of intimated that when you said he to push Rubio out there to make that ridiculous press statement. He must know because he's being told the price of gas at the petrol station, how it's affecting his midterm polling, how it's affecting the economy. [00:50:05] Speaker A: Well, so I think Trump is in hell. I mean, I think Trump is being tormented right now. Of course he is. And I think that makes this moment even more dangerous, because what's going to happen is that the Republicans, Trump's party, are going to lose very badly in the midterms. So in less than two months, the first Tuesday in November, they're going to be repudiated. He's going to be repudiated. This war is going to be repudiated at the polls and he will lose control as part of talk. [00:50:29] Speaker B: But, you know, he's done that before. You know, he will be listening also to his own private, bullying people who will be going, yeah, they always say this, that you're going to do badly in the midterms at the latest results, but you're going to beat through. You're going to, you know, like you destroyed Marie Taylor Green and Thomas Massie. You have the power to be able to overcome these odds. [00:50:51] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, maybe, but it doesn't seem likely at all. It seems certain, in fact, that the Republicans will lose control of the House and likely of the Senate. I would, you know, I mean, again, I've been wrong many times, but I think that's very likely. And that will put Trump in a incredibly difficult position where nothing that he wants is going to get through the Congress. He will likely be impeached. He'll be, in other words, under attack in the United States. He'll also be a lame duck. He can't run again and he's 80. So what is that? What does that leave him with? Well, leaves him with one set of powers, executive war powers. Under our Constitution, the Congress has to sign off on all wars, but that's been dropped. We're just ignoring that now. And we're allowing presidents to prosecute any war they want for any reason without any oversight from the Congress. That those are just the new rules. [00:51:41] Speaker B: They always have. [00:51:41] Speaker A: That may always have. I think, I think you're right. I mean, Korea, which lasted three years, the Korean War from 1950, 1953 was a police action, you know, so you're right, but it's gotten worse. And both parties are in favor of war, of course, because they're all neocons and they're all getting richer from these wars and they're all like part of this strange death worship cult that has taken over my country. The public is not, but our leaders are. Anyway, the point is Trump is going to be immeshed in all kinds of political battles domestically after November 3rd. And I'm worried, very worried, that his only outlet, the only way he'll be able to express his authority to affect power, do something, will be by accelerating the war in Iran. And we're not in a position to do that. You know, we don't have. Our military is not capable. Our famous world's greatest military can't even keep the straight open. So what will that look like? I mean, any acceleration in this war will be a disaster for us. But I'm, I'm worried that he'll be tempted to do that. [00:52:49] Speaker B: So that's just after the midterms. [00:52:52] Speaker A: That's correct. That would be, well, the first Tuesday in November. So, yeah. Listen to. [00:52:57] Speaker B: So yet again, I mean, you've done a whole series on 911 and how it helped. Yeah, the aftermath helped to coerce the United States into the war in Iraq. So Israel, yet again, I mean, that's 25 years this weekend since 9 11. So Israel again is having this impact on US politics in destroying a president. I think the first president that you personally have ever had any faith in. [00:53:26] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, that is kind of a consistent theme. I don't want it to be at all, by the way. I think it's much bigger than Israel. Israel is a tiny country with no resources. We we tend to overstate the power of Israel as a nation state. It is, does seem to be the only country in the world with actual sovereignty, which is to say a country that can do whatever it wants. Which is interesting. But I do think it's bigger than Israel. I mean I know some of the leaders of Israel, including the current Prime Minister, and these are not geniuses. I mean they're clever. I think Netanyahu is very clever politically. He certainly tireless and you know, he has a lot of qualities that have allowed him to be the longest serving prime minister in the history of the country. But he's not omnipotent, he's kind of a buffoon in some ways. He's not that smart at all. So it's not just Bibi, it's not just Israel, it's elite power with, I [00:54:18] Speaker B: mean I, I, you mentioned assassination, the threat of assassination to you. But I mean, and, but it is your contention that, that your friend Charlie Kirk, it was suspicious, the timing with which he was saying we're going to allow voices on stages of a turning point USA to attack Israel. And he was being threatened. [00:54:41] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:54:42] Speaker B: After that. [00:54:42] Speaker A: Well, me specifically, it was about me, which is, the whole thing is kind of bewildering to me since I'm, I've never been a particularly strident. Well, I haven't been anti Israel at all actually. I mean you could, I've been on television for 35 years. You could go back and I've never attacked Israel. I don't, I've never had strong feelings. [00:54:58] Speaker B: Even now you say it's a great country. [00:55:01] Speaker A: Oh yeah. I, I think that less because I'm annoyed, but like I've never made anger at Israel, much less Jews, like the center of my world. I'm not mad at all Jews, of course, my closest, I mean, whatever. I, I'm not an anti Semite, never have been. I'm not going to become one. And I'm not an obsessed anti Israel hater. So it's a little bit strange to be sort of cast in that role. It wasn't my choice, I can promise you that. But they've been almost monomaniacally focused on me. I'm not sure why. And I think partly it's because I'm not an anti Semite, I'm not a Nazi, I'm anti Nazi. And so that I think makes the criticism maybe more dangerous. If you can look at, point at someone and say, well look, he's clearly just motivated by hate. Well, I'm not motivated by hate. At all. I don't hate. So maybe that's the reason. Whatever it is, Charlie, any, I'll just say this. I. I don't know exactly. Charlie Kirk was murdered a year ago. And I don't know exactly what that was. But I'll say that anyone telling you he does know exactly what it was is deluded or lying. I don't know why in this world where so many things that we thought were true have turned out to be false, I don't know why anyone would have full confidence in the incomplete version of events the federal government has given us. Like, where does that confidence come from? Why are you so certain that's true? And why are you mad at anyone who doubts it? What is that? I don't know. I've always been an open minded person. I remain one. And I, I would be very happy if it turns out that Charlie Kirk was murdered by some crazed lone gunman who was upset about trans rights or something. But as a good friend of mine once said to me, the United States has this situation where we have a lot of lone gunmen, a lot of crazy lone gunmen, but none of them ever kill anyone who opposes institutional [00:56:56] Speaker B: or [00:56:57] Speaker A: who supports institutional power. They only kill people who are a problem for the deep state. It's kind of weird, isn't it? Like, what are the odds of that? You know, we have a president who talks about, you know, limiting the power of CIA and preventing Israel from getting a nuclear weapon at Dimona. And that guy gets killed by a lone gunman. And then you have his brother who's about to become the Democratic nominee in 1968, who's like, wait, we're going to get to the bottom of what happened to my brother. And then he gets killed by another lone gunman, a Christian Palestinian. Kind of weird. And then you have a civil rights leader who all of a sudden pivots and starts talking about economic inequality and he gets killed by whom? A lone gunman. And then you have Charlie Kirk, the single most important organizer on the American right, with the largest base of young supporters, who's like, wait a second, why should we be following Israel into another regime change war? And he gets killed by another lone gunman. I mean, it's just kind of a pattern that I notice. And maybe it's all real. Maybe I'm the crazy one, maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist. But I do think it's worth pushing a little bit and asking like, what do we know? And the fastest way to find out what we know is by declassifying the Government documents that tell us more, but they never have and they never will. So don't expect me in the face of that kind of unjustifiable secrecy to buy your story, because I don't. [00:58:17] Speaker B: You and Charlie Kirk were desperate to create a, I mean perhaps regain, but create a great America. We were. You're obsessed by the decline of the United States since the aftermath of World War II. Of course. Whatever Israel has done to the United States in foreign policy, whatever tragedy Israel's done in Gaza, the war in Iran and so on, the benefits that come out of all that tragedy arguably have been bricks to the bricks countries. Power is moving to the bricks countries. They've had the daily summit. Do you think people in the beltway understand that all their policies have been directed to benefiting the BRICS countries? How isolating Russia has helped to isolate the United States and NATO countries? [00:59:10] Speaker A: I think they refuse to believe it. I think it's too damning an indictment of the last 80 years of our history. They can't metabolize it. They refuse. I mean I got fired over this, I think from my last job the second Joe Biden. The Biden administration kicked Russia out of Swift. I mean, and it was very quickly after the war began. I said the obvious. I'm not a genius. I just connected some pretty simple dots. If we're using the US dollar as a weapon of war, there's no greater incentive for countries to de dollarize, which is to say get rid of our debt than that. Don't do that. If you want to continue to hold the world's reserve currency like that's crazy. It's self destructive behavior. I said that immediately. And you know, [01:00:02] Speaker B: doesn't understand that. I mean surely he understands. [01:00:05] Speaker A: So I think he does understand. That's a very smart point and thank you for saying that. I, of course he understands. You know, Rupert Murak's a lot smarter than I am, that's for sure, and much richer. So of course he understands that. There's a sense in which all of this American and UK German policy, it's really those three countries that are driving all of this. Those policies are all designed to hurt those three countries, particularly the United States, but also Britain and Germany. And it's like this is self harm we're watching. The goal is to destroy the west, obviously. It couldn't be more obvious to me now why, what's the motive? I don't understand it. That's why I think there's a spiritual component here. But the effect is to destroy the west is to dethrone the west is to topple American empire, all empires. [01:00:55] Speaker B: The only other explanation is they're old Russian Chinese agents, Trump, and all European, because all they do is to benefit Russia and China. This is the real Russia. Russia. [01:01:06] Speaker A: True. That is so true. And that's why I was so anxious to go to Russia after the second I got fired. I went to Russia because I could. And the first thing I found was, like, a thriving city. I didn't want to find that. I didn't want to discover that Moscow is not just nicer than New York, but much nicer than New York, infinitely nicer than New York, much bigger than New York, and much nicer. I didn't want to find that, but I did. And that fact, and I was attacked endlessly for saying this, but it's just true. I, I didn't make it up and I didn't create it. I just observed it and reported it. That fact tells you everything. It tells you everything about where the world is going, and I'm sad about that. I like the United States, by the way. I would defend many components of the British Empire in that it brought literacy, ended slavery, built beautiful buildings, effective infrastructure. There were good things. Everyone hates to hear this, but it's true. Not all empires are the same. And yet the. The US could have been a great, I think, a force for good in the world, but now it's ending, and it's ending in the worst way. These things do end, but it doesn't have to be the following, given all of this. [01:02:16] Speaker B: So that means that when you left fox, Trump knew that that could also be a reason. So he must have pretty clearly understood. And I know we spoke earlier about Russell Voort, the director of Office Management and Budget, a complicated, secret department that seems to be incredibly powerful. All these people would understand that. Throwing Russia out of swift. And I, I don't suppose Russia wants to be back in SWIFT after the latest BRICS summit. No. Is going to reduce the power of the US Dollar. [01:02:44] Speaker A: What. [01:02:44] Speaker B: What did, what did Donald Trump say? I mean, did you speak with him about the Swift situation and why that was going to. [01:02:50] Speaker A: I did. I did. And I spoke and I said this, you know, during the year or so between the invasion and me getting fired, I think I worked at Fox for like a year and two months after the war in Ukraine began. And I said this many, many times. And Trump would call me and agree with me, or I'd have dinner with him and he would agree with me, this is bad for us. And Trump would always Say the net. And he said this in public many times, the net effect of our war against Russia is to drive Russia into the arms of China by necessity. And when the two countries are united, you have the world's largest landmass coupled with the world's largest economy and, by the way, the world's largest nuclear arsenal, and you have an unbeatable block that the United States cannot hope to match. So just like on the grossest terms, just like population, economy, size of the nation state, we're done. [01:03:48] Speaker B: It's not only not fair, he. He showed that he understood that by initiating the Anchorage summit in the first place. So there were all these different machinations going on in the Trump, in this Trump term, and then suddenly it stopped. And then, as I mentioned, there was this assassination attempt on Putin, and he's now saying the American people are making money at the war on Russia through Ukraine rather than thinking about the geopolitical move. [01:04:21] Speaker A: That's just the saddest and dumbest and actually on some level, kind of offensive justification for failure. He again and again and again said, I will settle this war. It's terrible for us. I did multiple interviews with him on camera on this topic because I've been monomaniacally focused on this for almost five years, and because I think it's so important. I mean, it's, it. There's a war in Europe in which over a million people have died. Ukraine has been destroyed as a country. I mean, this is just inherently important, what's happening, apart from its effect on the US and so Trump got this. He understood it, and. But again, the very same people who pushed him to war in Iran have kept the United States at war with Russia. And you can't say it enough. The US Is at war with Russia through proxies, whether it's Germany, uk These are all proxies. There are American troops in Germany and the UK Right now. These are occupied countries, countries occupied by us. They're American soldiers in those countries and have been for 81 years. So this is an American war against Russia, and Trump is prosecuting it. These attacks on Russia are being targeted by the US Intel Agency, CIA, and nsa. And everyone knows this. Putin knows this. I've talked to him about it, obviously. And we all pretend, oh, no, the, the Brits are doing it. Britain doesn't exist as a nation anymore. They're not doing anything without us. And Trump is doing this, and he's doing it because he's being pushed by these same people. It's so important to them. It's so important to them that Putin not run Russia. Somebody needs to write a book about this. You know, I mean, and these are the heirs of the Bolsheviks. And also, one last thing. The irony is that these same people who control our foreign policy establishment will often tell you that Putin's real goal is to rebuild the Soviet Union. Clearly not his goal. Russia doesn't need the territory. The whole thing is stupid. But it's. Putin is actually anti Bolshevik just on the merits of it. Read what he says. These people are the heirs of the Bolsheviks. They have the same worldview as the Bolsheviks. These American policy makers, these are the people who want to rebuild the Soviet Union. A secular state that they control, an anti Christian state that they control. That's just a particular type of Bolshevik. [01:06:46] Speaker B: I mean, we get into a big, big discussion which would just be on, on that. But having said that, you mentioned the troops in Europe, and again, Trump does mention them from time to time as regards the waste of money and the tens of thousands of troops. And actually he's just put nuclear weapons, stationed them in Britain, as I understand it, secretly. Does he realize that at least that might be something that he could achieve in this term, as well as his immigration promises? China's spending a third of its GDP on military that the United States does, and all that other money is being spent obviously on infrastructure for the Chinese people instead of on all these bombs, let alone Chinese troops in some other continent. Is that an understanding that Trump may make real? [01:07:40] Speaker A: Well, he said it many, many times. I mean, of course he understands all of this, acutely understands it and has articulated it and it's on tape so you can find it. And I actually have found it, and I was there for him saying this in a lot of cases. So, no, he absolutely understands it. But our system, the American system of government is sclerotic. It can't actually respond to present danger to, to real threats, even to existential threats like AI and nuclear war. It's frozen in place, paralyzed. And that's part of the problem. [01:08:16] Speaker B: Although Trump was able to make executive decisions on I'll meet Trump, I'll meet Putin, I'll meet Kim Jong Un. He could just say executive order. Thanks to Obama's use of executive orders, after his poor midterms, Trump can now start doing things like, we're going to withdraw the troops from Western Europe. You're in London recently. So presumably horror amongst elite classes. If the American troops leave Britain, you [01:08:42] Speaker A: know, ultimately, I think American troops, well, they will leave Europe because we can't sustain our footprint anymore because we can't afford it. So, yes, that will happen. The question is how? But you have to resolve this, the. The war against Russia first. And I don't think there's any way out for European leaders. That's the truth. I don't think Merts or Burnham or any of them have any resolution to the real problems. Like their populations hate them. I spent a lot of time in Europe, and. And you. I mean, you know this. Well, you're. You're British. So, you know, they hate their leaders. They hate them all. And they're broke and these countries are dying demographically, and they've really betrayed their own populations. They've not made life better for their own people, and they know that. And it's true of America as well. And so I do think they see war as kind of the only resolution. It's the only way to wipe clean the debt. It's the only way that they can gin up popular support. It's the only way that they can, barring that institute, you know, total control over their populations using technology. Only when you're at war can you justify police state actions. And. And that's what they're going to. Britain, particularly Britain, which is a police state, more Britons go to jail. Many more go to jail every year for Facebook posts or social media posts than they do in Russia, which has a much bigger population. So, like, these are police states. And war allows the government to justify. I mean, I don't know if you've been following what's happening to George Galloway, former member of. Longtime member of Parliament and a Labor leader in Britain. I mean, he just got debanked. RBS just debanked him. After a lifetime of banking with them, he's been basically barred. Sorry. Yeah, exactly. [01:10:28] Speaker B: They're two different ones, but they're kind of allied to the states, actually. [01:10:32] Speaker A: Bank of Scotland. [01:10:33] Speaker B: Yeah. And. But. [01:10:36] Speaker A: So you're following this, but like George Galloway, I mean, how can that even happen? [01:10:42] Speaker B: Well, I don't think we can make this show in Britain because, I don't know, we might say the word genocide when it came to Gaza. The British censorship agency, Ofcom, wouldn't allow it. But having said enough British bashing, Tucker Carlson. We used to run your country, as you know, and I have family there. That's why, actually, come to think of it, there are serious issues here because, as I understand it, he's a friend of yours, Milo Yanopoulos. Milo Yanopoulos. There's. There are characters in who say they're friends of Donald Trump. That tweet intermittently against you. And then they tweeted against this guy, Milo the. She also tweeted against the gray zones. Max Blumenthal, Laura Loomer. Are there censorship organizations in the United States that are allied around the Donald Trump circle, let alone the usual suspects like Anti Defamation League or other groups that hate your first amendment and your fourth Amendment? [01:11:53] Speaker A: Well, the ADL is aligned with the Trump administration, of course, closely aligned with the Trump administration. And yeah, I mean, they. The secretary of State Marco Rubio pulled the green cards of immigrants, the United States who were here legally. It's hard to get a green card, as you know, pulled their green cards and deported people for criticizing Israel and said, so we're not going to put up with that. So meanwhile, we have tens of millions of people here illegally. Not, not much has been done to change that. But criticize Israel and you get as a legal immigrant deported as a college student or someone with a job. It's. Yeah, the whole. The power of the U. S. Government has been harnessed on behalf of Israel. And I never thought I would say that. I can hardly believe it's true, but it is true. And I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I don't know what the end game is exactly. I don't know how we walk back from this. I've never seen a more aggressive display of identity politics. Identity politics being the idea that certain groups have more rights than others. There's never been a more anti American idea than that. The whole premise of our system, that's [01:13:05] Speaker B: across the board to an extent. I was particularly talking about this woman, Laura Loomer, because when you were friends with Donald Trump, you never used your friendship to tweet against people and showed some kind of power against individuals. But based on your friendship with Donald Trump, that seems to be occurring. There seems to be people around Donald Trump who can. Then I suppose I'm getting to the point of asking the dread question, who is Laura Loomer? [01:13:33] Speaker A: I haven't the faintest idea. I mean, this is someone who seems un. I don't read anything that person writes and. But who seems unbalanced to me. But I'm not a. I'm not licensed to make that diagnosis. I would say, though, that, you know, it's. It's hard to believe that the president could have people like that in his orbit and that, I mean, she has bragged in public about getting Milo Yiannopoulos deported because he criticized Israel. I mean, that's, that was the criterion there. I Mean, you could go to, you know, the parking lot of any hardware store in any morning of the week and find 100 people who are here illegally. This guy misses a meeting with the immigration authorities. You know, his visa expires three months ago, and they arrest him and put him in jail and then put him on a plane back to the U.K. i mean, it's, he was, he was deported because he criticized Israel. The Tate brothers are in prison with no bail. Not because they're sex criminals, obviously, we don't have a problem with those, Jeffrey Epstein, but because they criticized Israel. So, again, I don't want to think this, but the evidence is overwhelming. It's a fact. That is the operating thesis of the administration. We defend Israel. Anyone who criticizes Israel must be destroyed. I mean, Trump's been attacking me. Not that I care, but it's just, it's sort of remarkable to me given how well I know him, how well I've always gotten along with him, given how, you know, how much I've supported him over the years. I criticize Israel and, like, that's it. But Israel is, is a foreign country. So criticizing Israel is no more morally significant to an American than criticizing Madagascar or Spain. It's just, it's a, it's another country. You can have any opinion you want on it, but no, no longer. [01:15:24] Speaker B: What's going to happen to you then? Because if the CEO Greenblatt of the Anti Defamation League and Ted Cruz quotes working behind the scenes to take revolting lunatics like you down, and this is all, by the way, aside from if the Democrats get anywh power, because their hatred of you is long lasting and their desire to censor voices that don't conform. So, so what is going to happen to people like you? [01:15:51] Speaker A: Well, I mean, that's not in my hands. I mean, you know, if things continue at the current trajectory, I think it's pretty obvious what's going to happen to me. But nothing good. But, you know, we're not in charge of history, and I, I can't see the future. That's been proven to me many times. And so, you know, I have no idea. But I just see my obligation as pretty clear. Just say what you think is true and as fearlessly as you can. And I, I feel privileged that I'm in a place where I can do that. I know an awful lot of people who, who can also see what's happening but aren't free to say so because their jobs depend on lying or, you know, they've, they've got A mortgage. Most Americans are. Are drowning in debt or just. This is a deeply indebted country, and so that, you know, debt is slavery. You're not free to make independent decisions. You're not sovereign when you're indebted, and I just happen not to be. And that's true wealth. I would say I don't have a ton of money in the bank, but I owe no money to anybody. And so I feel like because I have that privilege, I should just say what I think is true. Just finally, always. [01:17:01] Speaker B: And I'm going to just finally. Tucker, do you think in this Chinese century, then the Chinese will treat the Americans better than the Americans treated them? Do you think we are about to go into a Chinese century because of what mistakes have been made by successive European and American leaders? [01:17:21] Speaker A: Oh, I doubt it. I doubt we'll be well treated by our new masters. No, I don't. I don't have any expectation of that at all. I mean, I don't. You know, I hope my grandkids aren't working in a lithium mine. [01:17:34] Speaker B: I don't think that's on the cards. [01:17:37] Speaker A: No, I hope not. But I. No, I don't think the Western nations will be treated well. I don't think defeated nations ever are treated well, ever. It's just the nature of it. I don't think we've treated the Brits well. We didn't even, strictly speaking, defeat the Brits. They just defeated themselves by joining a totally pointless war over Czechoslovakia and Poland. I know it's unpopular to say that, but it's true. They destroyed their own country. Churchill destroyed that country and back Stalin. Really. And so we didn't defeat Britain, but we've treated them like we did. And we. [01:18:09] Speaker B: Stalin won the Second World War. In fairness, he did. Do you think. [01:18:14] Speaker A: I'm not. I'm just saying you can't make a more. You can't say that you're like on the side of the angels when you're arming Stalin. So, like, we. We should all sort of decelerate a little bit with the moral posturing. You know, I'm on the right side. You know, we're on the side of light, they're on the side of darkness. It's like you sent weapons to Stalin. So spare me the lecture that. That's my view. [01:18:36] Speaker B: Yeah, I would have done that. But I mean, the mysteries. Next time I speak to you. [01:18:40] Speaker A: But you're not lecturing me the neck. [01:18:42] Speaker B: But the next time we speak, will these mysteries be cleared up? Because, I mean, there are a lot of mysteries in this whole conversation. These complete. [01:18:50] Speaker A: I hope so. [01:18:51] Speaker B: Complete switches of policy, complete switches of perspective on the part of the executive. And is J.D. vance just going to change on a dime, turn on a dime, like Trump did? [01:19:05] Speaker A: I assume you got into this business for the same reason I did, which is you're curious. You want to know how things work. Like, what is this? And so I'm tormented by my curiosity. I don't know if that's good or bad, but I am. And I. I really would like to know. I don't know that we will. I have no idea what the future holds. I don't think AI will make it any easier to understand. Hope I'm wrong there, but it's. But I last thing I'll say is we need to stop pretending that this war was the result of a conventional lobbying campaign where two sides make the case and the decision maker chooses the wiser course. That's not what happened. I was there. That's not what happened. This war and the continuation of the war against Russia by the United States, those are the result of real pressure, like, real pressure not calling up, hey, will you do me a favor? But real pressure. And what was the nature of that pressure? Unknown, but it existed. [01:20:06] Speaker B: Tucker Carlson, thank you so much. [01:20:09] Speaker A: Thank you. [01:20:11] Speaker B: And that's it for this Going underground special.