 There's no point in fighting a war that you're not interested in winning. There's no point in fighting a war that you're going to lose. There's no point in fighting a war where you care more about the civilians of the enemy than you do about your own people. Now, I'm not, I'm not urging Donald Trump to go fight a war against Iran. God forbid, I'm just telling you what should happen. If you had a president with balls, if you had a president who had a strategy, if you had a president who knew anything about warfare and knew anything about them at least. Yeah. Iraq and Afghanistan had been disasters and I told you they would be disasters in 2002 when they started. I am on record. You can find videos of me. You can go read my book. Winning Than Winnable War. Winning Than Winnable War is a book I wrote three essays in. Ilan Jona wrote the rest of the essays. One of the essays I wrote is with Ilan. He edited it. It's his book. That book articulates a proper foreign policy, a proper way of winning a war with Iran, with Iraq, with Afghanistan. And by the way, it predicts the rise of ISIS. It predicts the defeat in Afghanistan. It predicts Iranian influence over the entire Middle East. It predicts a defeat in Iraq. All of this is predictable. All of this was predicted by me and my colleagues at the Iran Institute. A lot to talk about today. There's a lot of stuff going on. And of course, the main thing in the news is the assassination, the killing by the United States of Soleimani, whatever his name is, Soleimani, the Iranian leader of the Kurds Brigade, one of the leading generals, maybe the most important leading general within the Iranian military, one of the most feared figures in the Middle East, one of the most influential, one of the most influential certainly Iranians, members of the Iranian regime in the Middle East and one who has had a long and by Iranian standards, very successful military career. And so let me just say, good riddance. I'll say that the killing of Soleimani is both a good thing, a commendable thing. It's good to get rid of evil and to destroy evil. And at the end of the day, fairly meaningless. So in terms of the long run, in terms of the Middle East, in terms of US strategy, in terms of 4D chess, will have very little impact on where things go, very little positive impact on where things go. And is at the end of the day, not a strategic decision. So let's get into it and let me try to explain and let me try to justify why I think that even though this is a good thing, killing of an evil guy is always a good thing, particularly one with American, the blood of Americans on his hands as some commentators have said today, this should have been done years and years ago. It is really a sign of American weakness that it has taken this long to happen. And at the same time, it is insignificant in the big picture in terms of, you know, Yuan and in terms of the threats that the United States and the civilized world faces in the Middle East. So who is the Soleimani guy? He was born in Iran. I think it was born in 1957. So that would make him 62, 62. What am I talking about? Yeah, 62, 63. He joined the Iranian military with no formal training during the Iran-Iraq war. He distinguished himself during the Iran-Iraq war as a committed soldier. Remember, this is the war immediately after the Iranian Revolution. He actually actually, sorry, he joined the military before the Iran-Iraq war. He joined the military during the Iranian Revolution. He joined the Revolutionary War Guard. The, you know, the special forces, the portion of the Iranian military that is responsible for the preservation of the revolution, that is responsible for the preservation of the Islamic Republic. He excelled during the Iran-Iraq war, even though he had no formal training, and became the commander of the Kurds force, QDS, you know, the elite force within the Revolutionary Guard in the late 1990s. He was then post-911 responsible for, once the regime of Hussein was destroyed by the Americans, he was basically responsible for, you know, working with the Shiites within Iraq, establishing Shia militias, Shia militias that then went on under his command to kill Americans, Shia militias that were instrumental in partially working with Americans and partially working against Americans in defeating the Sunni Intifada, the Sunni kind of uprising, and instrumental really in gaining political control over Iraq for the Shiite majority in the post-Iranian invasion. He was then, he has been throughout the 90s and the 2000s, he was Iran's representative in bolstering the Hezbollah. Hezbollah is Shiite terrorist organization based in Lebanon that really dominates and holds hostage, if you will, Iranian politics has been at war Hezbollah has with Israel since 1983, and Hezbollah with the Iranian support was responsible for the death of, I can't remember any more, how many? I think it was 144 Marines in Beirut in, it was at 444 Marines in Beirut in 1983 when a suicide bomber drove a truck bomb into the Marine barracks in Beirut. So all of that was facilitated, made possible, supported by and orchestrated by the Iranian, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard of which Suleiman was a major commander. He had been rumored to be a candidate for the President of Iran a number of times, but has always stepped back and not run. He has remained a military leader. He has, every time there being student demonstrations in the streets of Iran or any kind of semblance as a move towards more liberalization within Iran through internal revolution, he has been at the fourth he was, he's dead now, he was at the forefront of those arguing for clamping down, for making sure that there was no revolution, making sure that the Islamic Revolution sustained itself. He is supposedly behind, most of the Hezbollah was against Israel. The Hezbollah's attacks against American interests, both in Saudi Arabia and in Iraq. And he is also responsible for Iran's support for the Syrian regime, Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime, in bolstering the Syrian regime, in supporting it both militarily with weapons and with the support of Hezbollah, of course, in together with the Russians in making sure that Bashar al-Assad remained as a dictator of Syria. I'd say, lastly, that he and his troops are probably more responsible for the defeat of ISIS than anything that the West has done. He was at the front lines of the fight against ISIS. Remember ISIS is Sunni. Remember that ISIS came out of the Iraqi insurgency. It came out of what was called al-Qaeda of the Levant, al-Qaeda of Iraq. Al-Qaeda of Iraq spent much of the insurgency attacking Shiites. Indeed, it was al-Qaeda of Iraq that declared Shiites as apostates and enemies of the Sunnis. Al-Qaeda, bin Laden's al-Qaeda kind of disassociated themselves in al-Qaeda of Iraq because of their attacks on Shiites. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Pakistan has always tried to be friendly with Shiites. Indeed, it was quite friendly with the Iranian regime before and after 9-11. But al-Qaeda of Iraq targeted the Shiites as part of this long-term big disputes between Shiites and Sunnis. There's no point in getting into what the difference is between them. Anyway, he was instrumental in the defeat of ISIS. Indeed, ISIS was stopped and ISIS was defeated ultimately, probably more through the effort of the Iranians than through the effort of any other force out there. They had an interest, both because they wanted to preserve the Syrian regime, which is kind of not exactly a Shiite, but it is a subgroup within the general Shiite religion. And of course, they're wanting to preserve the Iraqi control of Iraq by their Shiite government. So Iran, by defeating ISIS, preserving Syria, has basically established control over, if you think about it, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. It has a whole arc, and of course, its support for Hamas has significant control over the Gaza Strip. So it has the entire futile crescent is controlled by the Iranian regime, and much of that, much of that was achieved through the efforts of this guy, Suleiman. He was also responsible probably for the arming and support for the Shiites in Yemen who have taken over much of that country and have ultimately attacked, you know, all at war with Saudi Arabia. So Suleiman, he was a major force within Iran, a major force within Iranian military, a very competent military officer who is responsible for the deaths, particularly after the invasion of Iraq, but since then over the last, you know, 18 years of many Americans. And is a major, has been a major force to destabilizing the Middle East and attacking the interests of the United States and the Middle East. Now, given all that, he should have died and good for anybody to have killed him, so good for Donald Trump to have killed him. But it changes nothing. The fact is that he has already been replaced. There's already been an announcement out of Iran for the nomination of the head of the Islamic God. So there's already somebody to take his place. Killing one person never really changes the dynamic. It's not going to change the dynamic in the Middle East. I need the headphones in a little bit because I'm going to show some video of Donald Trump. It's not going to change the dynamics of the Middle East. It's still true that Iran controls Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and Yemen. And it's still true. Even on Afghanistan front, the East, the Western provinces of Afghanistan are controlled by Iran. So Iran has massive influence throughout the Middle East and throughout the region, throughout the Islamic world. It is the dominant player in the Islamic world. It is the number one sponsor of terrorism around the world. It is the number one sponsor of radicalization throughout the world. It's building mosque, Shia mosque around the world in Saudi Arabia. Are the dominant players in terms of, and again, Saudi Arabia, it's less the regime and more the people and the religious organizations, but they are the dominant players in attacking the West whenever and wherever they can. So Iran, nothing about Iran has changed. Iran now knows that Donald Trump is willing to kill some of its operatives. They'll be more careful next time. They won't be quite as easy a target. It's important to note that the killing was done on Iraqi soil where the United States has a significant military presence and a day after or two days after the American embassy in Iraq was attacked by Iranian supporting militias. It was not an attack on Iranian soil. It was not attack on Iran. I think the leadership, the Iranian leadership still feels fairly secure in themselves and in their ability to command their forces and command their influence throughout the Middle East. I don't think anything has really happened to undercut their confidence in all of that. It is, there's nothing strategic here. I mean, unless this is intended to provoke the Iranians into doing something more substantial that then leads to war, which will lead to taking over Iran, that would be kind of a 4D chess move, if you will. But then why is America playing games? If America wants to take out the Iranians, just take out the Iranians. I mean, there's been plenty of provocation. I have argued many, many times throughout two decades that Iran declared war on the United States in November 4th, 1979, when it took the American embassy in Tehran since then and held hostages for over a year. That is a declaration of war when you take somebody else's embassy. That is a declaration of war. I would say since then Iranians, Iranian intelligence, Iranian military, and Iranian terrorists backed by the Iranian regime have killed Americans all over the world and have been engaged in terrorist activity all over the world, including attempts to commit terrorist activity on the United States soil, attempts that for the most part have been, I think in all cases that we know of, were stopped before people were arrested and were stopped before they actually killed anybody. But they've attempted to do that, again, an act of war. So Iran has engaged in acts of war against the United States for 40 years. And all we can do is assassinate one of their generals. I mean, this is, again, a sign of weakness, a pathetic response to a regime that has been flaunting their willingness to kill Americans, have been flaunting their willingness to attack American interests everywhere and anywhere in the world, flaunting their willingness to stand up to the United States everywhere. I mean, they attacked, they mined the Straits of Homoes, they were American tankers, among others, traveled through and oiled to the United States, traveled through. They took a British ship, they seized a British ship, a Britain, which is an ally of the United States. And of course, they attacked the largest refinery complex in the world in Saudi Arabia in a massive attack, no response to any of that. They even shot down a U.S. drone over the Persian Gulf, no response to any of that. So the U.S. has played it weak, whether under Bush, under Obama, or under Trump. This is the first act of any kind of serious act against the Iranian regime that any administration has taken in decades, maybe ever. And it's good, it's good if it was within some kind of strategic context. But Trump has made it clear, he made it clear immediately, today indeed. He has made it clear that his intention is not regime change in Iran, and I'll get to that video in a second. But the fact is that the only way, the only way to put an end to the bloodshed, to put an end to the killing of Americans, to put an end to regime that acts strategically and constantly against American interests is regime change. Now, my preferred methodology of regime change is internal regime change, is to do whatever's possible to being about an internal revolution within Iran. But as a precursor to that, or as assistance to that, it wouldn't harm to take out the entire leadership of the Iranian regime. Starting with the supreme leader, Khamenei, should be assassinated immediately. And indeed, the entire ruling council of clerics should be eliminated as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. Thus encouraging the Iranian people to rise up against them and establish maybe what potentially could be a pro-western regime in Iran that would not be religiously fanatic, and that would not be supporting terrorism all over the world. In other words, the solution here is not to kill a general, the solution here is to destroy the regime, to flatten them, to do as much damage as is necessary. And I'm not going to specify how much, but as much damage that is necessary to bring about regime change in Iran. I don't think that requires occupation. I don't think that requires, given that some way a significant percentage of Iranians want regime change. I don't think you need to occupy it. I don't think you need to send ground troops. Maybe you do. Again, we'll let the generals decide exactly how they want to do it. But regime change is essential. Regime change is necessary. And if a lesson is learned or taught at the same time, if Iran has made an example of what happens when you kill Americans, all the better, all the better. But none of that is going to happen. None of that is going to happen. The Israelis have been playing this whack the mole game of killing military leaders for decades. Every time they kill the Hamas military leader. And guess what? The next day there's another Hamas military leader. And then they kill that Hamas military leader. And the next day there's another one. And they do this over and over again, decades, and nothing happens. Nothing changes. Nothing is fixed. I mean the day when they start killing the political leaders, instead of killing Gisbala, for example, military leaders, it is Nazrallah, the spiritual and political and Islamic leader of Gisbala, which should be assassinated. Then you might get a response. Then people will know you're serious. But just killing generals is weakness, shows no commitment to actually win. These are people who are plotting constantly to kill, in the case of Israel, Israelis, in the case of Americans, Americans. It would be absolutely an act of self-defense. Absolutely an act of self-defense to crush the Iranian regime. And I have been calling for this since, well, at least since 9-11. But really way before that, I just didn't have a voice way before that. Again, Iran declared war on the United States November 4th, 1979. Let me also say this. The Iranian military is unbelievably weak. It would not stand any chance against the United States in any dimension. The casualties, if the war was done right, would be minimal. And yet you would rid the world of one of those evil regimes of the last 50 years. They still don't have nuclear weapons. But one day they will. And when they do, it'll be much more difficult, much harder, much bigger challenge. Look at North Korea. We tiptoe around them. We walk in eggs around them. Because God forbid we can't, we can't take on. We can't take them on because they got nukes. They could turn South Korea into glass. The Iranian military is not. Iranian military fought the Iraqis when they were weaker to a stalemate in a 10-year war that killed well over a million people. Stalemate with Iraq. The Iraqi military that we just walked all over. The Iranian military since then is significantly weaker. It does not have. In 1980 to 1990, when they fought the Iraq war, they had American weapons that America had sold the Shah. Today they have none of those weapons. They have some Russian weapons. They have some self-made weapons. But they are weak. The weapons are pathetic. The Americans walk all over them. The reasons we haven't won the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is because we don't know how to fight. I'm not, by the way, let me just be clear. I am not suggesting we fight a war with Iran today with this president and with the kind of ideas that our military has in their heads. I have no willingness, no interest in fighting a war in Iran under the same terms that we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. There's no point in fighting a war that you're not interested in winning. There's no point in fighting a war that you're going to lose. There's no point in fighting a war where you care more about the civilians of the enemy than you do about your own people. No, I'm not urging Donald Trump to go fight a war against Iran. God forbid. I'm just telling you what should happen. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to Iranbrookshow.com slash support, or go to subscribestar.com, Iranbrookshow, and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next...