Joyce's No Restraint Podcast Ep. 337 President Trump using his time in office to address long standing issues that none of his predecessors seemed capable of fixing

What's the secret recipe to making money topics interesting? I think you start off by relating money to your everyday life, like more vacations, more living, less worry about your next paycheck. And that's how we built the Stacky Benjamin Netanyahu Show, the personal finance show. It's full of good times, great laughs, and big lessons. Whether you're paying off debt, building wealth, or just trying to stop hemorrhging money at the grocery store. We got you. Find the Stacky Benjamin Netanyahu Show wherever you get your podcasts. The greatest money show on earth, now part of the Gamut Podcast Network. This is the Joyce Kaufman podcast, honest, straight and unapologelic, with your host, Joyce Kaufman. Welcome to this edition of the No Restraint Podcast. I'm your host, Joyce Kaufman, and I've got a lot to talk about, and most of it has to do with the usual suspects. The Democrats and the mainstream media, who would actually root for failure in Iran rather than give Donald Trump even breathing room to undertake what is turning out to be one of the most sophisticated missions that the United States of America has ever unleashed on the bad guys. And that's to be sure who we're talking about. The Iranian regime are the bad guys, and we're the good guys. Israel, they're the good guys. The Hezbollah and Hamas and all these other terror proxies, they're the bad guys. And fake news CNN is at it again. While U.S. forces are delivering a crushing blow to obliterate Iran's terrorist regime, including decimating islands filled with weaponry, while then the CNN hack journalists are peddling Democrat-sourced fiction to undermine the decisive victories in Operation Epic Fury. CNN alleged the Pentagon and the National Security Council did not plan for Iran's willingness to close the straight of war. poor moose wrong As press secretary Karoline Leavitt has made crystal clear, the military has planned for this exact contingency for decades. Operation Epic Fury is deliberately designed to annihilate Iran's navy, missiles, drones, and launch capabilities precisely to eliminate any meaningful threat to global shipping lanes like the Strait of Hormuz. And thanks to President Trump's commitment to energy dominance, America is fully prepared. to crush short-term disruption and emerge stronger than ever. CNN further alleged that top Trump officials acknowledged this to lawmakers in a classified briefing. Wrong. Actual briefing participants torched this lie.

Senator Tom Cotton, as chairman of the Intelligence Committee, let me make clear, whoever leaked this lied, CNN should do some fact-checking. The U.S. has planned for Iran to try to close the strait for decades. Senator Tim Shihi, I received a classified briefing from the administration. It is categorically false that they did not plan for Iran closing the strait of Hormuz. Lawmakers and national security officials have known for years that this was Iran's plan once their backs were against the wall. Under President Trump's brief and bold and resolute leadership, Operation Epic Fury continues to advance its clear objectives, destroying Iran's ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity, obliterating its Navy, severing its support for its terrorist proxies, and ensuring the regime can never threaten the free world with nuclear weapons. No amount of CNN hackery will change that. The ongoing war in Iran is highlighting a widening gulf between center and center-left voters in Israel and Democrats in the United States. While Democrats in the U.S. are mostly opposed to the war, Israelis are overwhelmingly supportive of the effort. Recent polling from Israel has shown that 92.5% of Jewish Israelis and 81% of Israelis overall support the war. The divide was particularly evident in an exchange on X this week between Yair Zivan, a centrist and top advisor to Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid and Matt Duos, a foreign policy advisor to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a former confidant of Senator Bernie Sanders, whose post prompted the exchange. Bernie Sanders on X condemned the Israeli operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, saying the U.S. cannot continue to be complicit in Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's wars. Zivan said in response that he was writing from a bomb shelter and that Israel is under attack by fanatical terrorists who want to murder us, arguing that Bernie Sanders' humanity never seems to extend to Israeli lives. Duss responded that Israelis are under fire because your fanatical prime minister and my president launched a reckless and unnecessary war. Bernie is trying to stop it. What's your boss doing? Zivan, who also edited a book on centrism, responded that the blame for the attacks lies with the fanatical regime in Iran and fanatical terrorist organization in Lebanon sworn to the destruction of Israel, rather than with Benjamin Netanyahu. He followed up later, saying that the war should be a last resort, but is sometimes just and necessary. Zivan told Jewish insider that most Israelis agree about the need to take on Iran.

For us Israelis, this war is just and necessary. The vast majority of Israelis, left, right and center, understand the absolute necessity of removing the Iranian threat which is hanging over us, Zivon said. After Hamas's October 7, 2023 attacks, no one should expect us to wait until it's too late to defend ourselves from terror. I think most of our friends in the U.S., on both sides of the aisle, understand the importance of what's happening for Israel's national security. Elon Musk Goldenberg, the senior vice president of J. Street, which has strongly opposed the war in Iran, acknowledged the divide between Israelis and the American left in an op-ed last week, but argued that Israelis are mistaken in their outlook on the war. Just because the Israeli public supports the war doesn't mean it's a good idea or in Israel's interest. 72% of Americans supported invading Iraq in 2003. That didn't make it a wise... decision, Goldenberg said. Americans and Israelis see this conflict through very different strategic lenses, because American and Israeli interests and perspectives are not perfectly aligned. Israelis, Goldenberg continued, see Iran as their primary geopolitical enemy and as the primary threat to their homeland, which is not the case for Americans. He argued that aggressive Israeli views are also being driven by the trauma of the October 7th attacks and that the set of acceptable outcomes from the war are different for Israel than for the U.S. for strategic reasons. Ten days after the beginning of the U.S. Israeli air offensive against Iran's terrorist regime, the ultimate outcome of the joint campaign remains uncertain. Iran's government and military have largely been decapitated, with the country's ability to inflict terror on the region drastically reduced. Further damage has been done to its ballistic missile and nuclear programs, yet it's still unclear if the theocratic tyranny in Tehran will fail and fall, as both American and Israel want and expect. What is clear is the focus of the opposition. Its campaign primarily revolves around one issue, and it isn't the Jewish state. That comes despite attempts by right-wing and left-wing anti-Semites to advance the big lie that the United States was forced or led into the conflict by Jerusalem. Many of the war's critics from both ends of the political spectrum are united by their antipathy for Israel, plain and simple. Common threads also tie the opposition when it comes to their disinclination to holding the Islamic Republic accountable for its behavior to arguments attempting to delegitimize Israel's war on Hamas after the Palestinian Arab terror attacks in southern Israel on October 7th of 2023. But as critiques of the Iran war start to harden, it's obvious that Israel's role as America's partner in the conflict

is not the main factor driving the opposition. Opinion polls taken during the first week of the war made one thing obvious. The decision to strike Iran appears to be opposed by a majority of Americans. A deep dive into the numbers finds that the main driver of opinion on the conflict is partisanship. An overwhelming majority of Republicans, as high as 84% in an NPR Maris poll, are in favor of military action. against Iran, while 86% of Democrats and 61% of independence are against it. That led to an overall result of 56% against the war and 44% in favor of it. When asked what they think about Iran, 70% of Republicans perceive Iran to be a major threat to the United States. However, Only 27% of Democrats see it that way. The roots of that disagreement can be traced back to the debate over former President Barack Obama's appeasement of Iran that culminated in the 2015 nuclear deal. As late as 2013, most congressional Democrats were quite hawkish when it came to efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and punishing it for being the world's leading state sponsor of terror. Once Obama made support for the nuclear accord, a litmus test of personal loyalty to him, his party dutifully fell in line. That also materially contributed to the reasons appealed and appalled by a document that would have guaranteed that a country committed to their destruction would have eventually acquired a nuclear weapon. That's right, the people and the government of the Jewish state were supposed to accept that. As much as that decade-old argument about a failed diplomatic attempt, as Obama puts it, to allow Iran to get right with the world, set up the current divide about how to deal with Iran, that isn't what is determining opinion about the conflict. And while the post-October 7 surge in anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel is connected to the debate about Trump's decision, it doesn't entirely explain it. It's really all about Trump. Disapproval of the war is different from the debate about Israel that has been simmering for the last 30 months. The willful refusal to acknowledge reality with respect to the genocidal Palestinian war to wipe out the Jewish state isn't the same thing. And it's amazing to me how many Americans, and in particular how many American Jews and American Democrats are willing to say that maybe the Holocaust wasn't so bad, and maybe it's an overstatement to think that Iran would like to see another Holocaust take place during our lifetime. Jews since the Holocaust have been told over and over again that they're safe no matter where they end up, and soon that will be followed by a willingness to buy into Hamas propaganda.

that claimed Israel's war of self-defense was a genocide. A lot of that had to do with the influence of toxic ideologies that falsely claimed that Israelis and Jews were white oppressors who were always in the wrong. and that Palestinians were people of color who were always their victims. While there is some superficial comparison of attitudes about the war against Iran to the one against Hamas, outside of the extreme left, the anti-war argument isn't centered on a disingenuous attempt to transform the Ayatollahs and their minions into third-world victims of racism, as is the case with the pro-Palestine crowd. What it all boils down to is a belief that anything done by this president has got to be misguided and manipulative. A classic example of how this works was a so-called news analysis published by the New York Times on March 8th, which tried to make the argument that the U.S. Israel strikes on Iran were analogous to Russia President Vladimir Putin's 22 invasion of Ukraine. Even if the article by former Times Moscow Bureau Chief Anton Trollinovsky had been framed as an opinion piece, which it is, despite the analysis label and its layout in the newspaper's news section, it was absolutely argued and devoid of context or sense. Its only point was to paint Trump as no different than Vladimir Putin. Whatever one thinks about the Russia-Ukraine battle or the U.S.-Israel operation against Tehran, simply put, there is no comparison between these two events. A long-standing dispute between Ukrainian nationalism and the Russian imperial ambitions dates back to the Tsarist era. Ukraine was not a nuclear or terror threat to Russia or any other country. Its government was not driven by a messianic belief in its right to impose a particular religion on the world, it was not building missiles and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons to destroy another nation, as was the case with Iran's attempts to eliminate Israel. Having relentlessly promoted the Russian collusion hoax for years, only to see it eventually exposed as a partisan conspiracy theory, the Times is still seeking to revive belief in the notion that Trump is a fascist thing. not unlike Vladimir Putin. This article is particularly egregious example of journalism having no shame about letting their Trump derangement syndrome affect their work. But even a dispassionate look at most of the liberal mainstream media's war coverage shows that it has more in common with how they treated the Russian collusion hoax than their coverage of October 7th and the multi-pronged war that followed. The consistent theme that colors arguments about Trump's right to authorize U.S. airstrikes, America's relations with allies, his statements about the war and uncertainty about its outcome, is the belief that the specifics about the threat from Iran are not as important as the liberal detestation for the president. The point being, if you've spent the last decade believing that he is a fascist, neo-Nazi authority,

then it doesn't really matter if the position he's taken is one that all of his 21st century predecessors have essentially endorsed, though he is the first to act on it. Interestingly, even many of Trump's most vociferous critics at outlets like the Times and elsewhere aren't trying to whitewash the Iranian regime, even though many of them were cheerleading for appeasement of them during the Obama and Biden presidencies. Most agree that the government that slaughtered tens of thousands of its own people in January and that engages in international terrorism is awful and at least a potential threat to the United States. And so, even if the war is being waged in defense of American interests and global peace and Iran's leaders are murderers who have been waging an Islamist terrorist war on the West for the past 47 years, they simply cannot get behind any initiative undertaken by the Trump administration. Let's concede that reasonable arguments can be made about the limits of presidential power and the fact that wars are no longer preceded by declarations passed by Congress. There are also reasons to doubt whether an American push for regime change will work even in the worst of countries. Nor can anyone be sure that a change would lead to an improvement over the current situation, though it's hard to imagine anything worse than the Islamic tyranny that has existed in Iran since 1979. The debate about the war isn't so much about those concerns as it is one rooted in the belief that Trump is simply beyond the pale and must be opposed at all times and at all costs. His opponents relentlessly doubled down on the fascist argument throughout his first term and during his time out of office and continue to do so, despite his triumphant return to the White House after winning the popular vote and the electoral college. in 2024. While the anti-Trump resistance narrative was quiet for a while after the resounding defeat of former Vice President Kamala Harris, it has returned with a vengeance. Discussion of the war in Iran is only the latest manifestation of it. Some of it can be understood as an automatic backlash to a president who is unlike any of the men who preceded him. As one Washington Post article conceded, Trump's conduct as a war leader isn't very different from the way he operates at other times, so it's hardly surprising that reactions to his Iran policy would not change. Like the situation in Israel and many other democracies, 21st century democracy in America is the function of a bifurcated society in which left and right no longer read, listen, or watch the same media. They essentially avoid each other on social media or in any other places where public discourse takes place. And with politics now playing the role that religion used to have in most people's lives, it's no wonder that partisan divisions have hardened into inflexible beliefs on which no compromise is possible. Trump's unorthodox style still grates on his opponents and delights his supporters. The former still seems unable to grasp that his

political rise was powered by the failures of both Republican and Democratic Party leaders to cope with new challenges and by the arrogance and contempt of Obama and the credentialed elites he led toward much of the American electorate. On Iran, as on other issues, such as illegal immigration and the de-industrialization of America, Trump is merely confronting a long-standing problem that his predecessors helped create and then ignored. The same was true of his approach to Israel, where he swept aside establishment thinking with respect to decisions like moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and declining to let Palestinian intransigence get in the way of his 2020 Abraham Accords. The refusal to give him credit for that diplomatic achievement was proof of the belief among his supporters that even if he cured cancer, his opponents wouldn't applaud. Finding the appeasement of Iran and taking decisive action to ensure that it can no longer threaten America and the West is not quite the same thing as curing cancer. Still, the tone of critiques of his decision is not dissimilar to the way his peacemaking efforts have been dismissed by those who now oppose the war. they blame him for not making the case for war while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the arguments he has made justifying military action they accuse him of acting on an authoritarian whim however The long build-up to the offensive, along with the last attempts the administration made to get Iran to come to a diplomatic agreement, makes it obvious that the decision was the result of a long, deeply considered process. faulting him for failing to build bipartisan support for his policy ignores the fact that his opponents have no interest in playing the role of loyal opposition. Instead, they forge ahead as a resistance to a presidency they believe is inherently illegitimate. They're also ignoring the clear evidence, as retired U.S. Army officer and military expert John Spencer points out that the doom and gloom predictions of Trump opponents about the war are misguided. While nothing is certain to date, the strategy employed by both the U.S. and its Israeli ally seems to be working, and those of the Iranian government are failing. Success isn't guaranteed, but there is no reason to think it is another Iraq or anything like the disaster Trump haters are sure is in the works. Both left-wing hysteria about alleged Trumpian authoritarianism and the anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering of right-wing opponents of the war, such as far-right podcaster Tucker Carlson or Megyn Kelly, should be seen for what they are.

Most of what passes for anti-Iran war arguments aren't about the actual situation on the ground and are fundamentally unsurious. The arguments about Iran, Islamist terror, and the war to destroy Israel have been largely overridden by those about Trump. in its frustrating to those who see these issues as transcending politics. The struggle to resist Iran's Islamist terror shouldn't be bound up with the derangement that Trump inspires in his opponents. Israelis are dodging missiles shot by the Islamist regime and its terrorist auxiliaries, while Iranian civilians weigh whether a renewed struggle to overthrow their tyrants is worth the risk. And while this is happening, we in the United States ought to be able to have an open conversation about these subjects. That dialogue should not be determined by feelings toward the president. Rather, it should focus on the clear threat the Islamist regime poses to the West and to the United States. At the moment, that doesn't seem possible. Yet Iran war critics need to take a breath. They need to stop thinking about whether U.S. failure in the war will help the Democrats in the midterms and start focusing on a subject that ought to unite Americans rather than divide them. Thanks to Jonathan Tobin and many of the other great analysts out there who are asking all of us to stop for a minute and think about what is actually happening and how we need to support our military, regardless of how we feel about the current commander-in-chief. The Department of War on Saturday released the identities of the six American service members killed in the Thursday crash of a Boeing KC-135 strato tanker in Iraq. The six service members killed in the February 28th attack in Kuwait were identified by the Department of War as Captain Cody A. Cork, age 35 of Winterhaven, Florida. Sergeant First Class Noah Tejans, 42 of Bellevue, Nebraska. Sergeant First Class Nicole M. Amour, 39 of White Bear Lake, Minnesota. Sergeant Dickland J. Cody, 20 of West Des Moines, Iowa. Major Jeffrey R. O'Brien, 45 of Indianola, Iowa, and Chief Warrant Officer 3, Robert M. Arzan, 54 of Sacramento, California. Sargeman Benjamin Netanyahu and Pennington of Glendale, Kentucky died of wounds sustained during the March 1st attack at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, on March 8th, according to a press release from the Department of War. Major Sorf Lee Davies, 46, from Cambria Heights in Queens, New York. died on March 7th due to a medical incident at Camp Owering in Kuwait, according to a war department release. The KC-135 first entered service in the United States Air Force in 1956, according to an Air Force fact sheet. It is capable of refueling aircraft, both by use of a boom, which plugs into the receiving aircraft, as well as a probe and drogue system in which the aircraft being fueled maneuvers a probe

into a drogue locking mechanism trailing the fueling aircraft to initiate the transfer. Of the 414 KC-135s in its inventory, 167 are on active duty, the Air Force's website states. The veteran aircraft are being replaced by the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus tanker, which is based on the Boeing 767 airliner. Normally, a KC-135 carries a crew of three, a pilot, a co-pilot, and a boom operator. The aircraft are not equipped with ejection seats, and the Air Force remove them from aircraft in 2008, citing the rarity of mishaps and accidents involving the type. Operation Epic Fury is something we should be proud about, not something we should constantly be questioning. And in any case, we all must agree that this has so much more to do with their dislike of the president than it has to do with anything fallible. about the United States or the Israeli military as they conduct Operation Epic Fury with almost an unreal amount of decency towards human life. Please stop all this fighting and start thinking about what's best for the world. I think it is a world without Iranians with nuclear weapons. May God bless you. May God bless Israel. And may God bless the United States of America. This has been the Joyce Kaufman podcast. Available everywhere you get your podcasts.