Just War Or Just Talk

Transcript

Welcome And Why Iran

SPEAKER_02 0:46

Welcome to the Darrell McLean show. I'm your host, Daryl McLean. Independent media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one planet, nobody is leaving. So let us reason together. Why, why, why are we in this conflict with Iran? Why are we so before we get into this question? I gotta tell you a bunch of the fights that I've been having on my front with people in the religious conservative movement and uh people in the religious right. Let's start off with my conversation this morning with turn Tony Perkins from the Family Research Center. So, and I and we're gonna get into this because I have made it my business, because I am in this um wing uh religious whatever that anytime they say anything about anything, I am going to make sure that I respond so that people know that there is a different type of analysis here. So Tony Perkins says, and I quote uh uh I'm sorry, he he goes and says this on February 28th, the United States launched a major air naval offensive against the Iranian Islamic regime, Operation Epic Fury, which reportedly resulted in the death of the Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Klemaney. On Sunday, the Iranian Assembly of Experts appointed his son as his successor, evidently doubling down on the regime's hardline vision for the country. Meanwhile, the repercussions are starting to be felt here at home. The operation has already claimed the lives of seven U.S. service men and women and set the price of oil above$100 a barrel as ships avoid the dangerous Straits of Hammuz. Security concerns are also rising that Iran may attempt to retaliate through terror attacks against Americans, regurring concerns about potential sleeper cells operating here in the United States. While Americans at home continue to watch and weigh the serious undertaking, I want to share the insights of recent guests on Washington Watch who helped bring a biblical clarity to the difficult scenarios like the one currently unfolding in the Middle East. Last week I spoke with ethicist Dr. Mark Levich about the long Christian tradition known as Jess War Theory, moral guidance developed by believers like St. Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquintis to help answer difficult questions. The Iranian Islamic regime has long demonstrated exactly the kind of evil funding terrorism and taking lives across the world, threatening Israel's very existence and brutality and oppressing its own people and protests that preceded this military intervention. Thousands of Iranian citizens were reportedly killed and tens of thousands were imprisoned. I would encourage you to watch this segment in its entirety, which you can do so on YouTube, Rumble, and Stand Firm app. It also is a link in the comment section below. But I want to share with you the comments from Dr. Levinci made during the show. Quote, sometimes I am challenged as a Christian ethicist. How can you advocate killing someone made in the image of God? But the real question is what am I supposed to do as a Christian and as an ethicist when one person made in the image of God is kicking apart another person made in the image of God without justification, and they won't stop. As a former Marine and police officer, I've wrestled with these very issues where there will always be nuance, and given the situation, this is an excellent starting place for us to begin to think biblically about how we why Americans should ever act militarily. Additionally, I believe in here's the thing that I always they always quote, Romans 13, 4, gives us the key to biblical insight and how we are to understand the role of the government. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of one who is in authority? Then do what is good and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is a servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. As we wrestle with the complex and troubling realities of the war, we must pray and seek the facts and examine them in the light of Scripture. At this point, I believe the actions of our president have been justified, but we must continue to pray that he will be guided by godly counsel and lead our nation in the course of action. We also need to be praying for men and women in the military who are following the president's orders. In moments like this, it is more important than ever that there is a clear biblical voice in public square, helping believers think clearly, pray faithfully, and respond wisely to the challenges facing our nation and the world? Will you join me in committing to pray for our nation and our leaders and the men and women serving in harm's way? So, what did you not hear in that? Just right off the bat, why aren't we praying for the people in Iran? Why are we paying for the civilians in Iran? Why are we paying for the 93 million Iranians who are gonna bear the brunt of the so-called Christian nation of America bombing them to smithereens? Where was your thought and prayers for the now 165 dead girls at school? They were, oh, they were so liberated by our bombs. This is a bunch of crap. Every single time that there has been a war launched by the United States of America, there's some kook with the Bible saying it was justified. Every single time there has been anything unjust done in the 250 years this nation has come into existence, there has been somebody holding a Bible justifying the behavior. Every single time. Do not believe these people. So I responded to Tony in a less passionate way than I'm responding right now, and I said, and I will quote, Tony, I appreciate your instinct to bring scripture and Christian moral tradition into public life. Christians should wrestle with war morally instead of waving flags and shouting slogans. On that point, we do agree. But invoking just war theory does not automatically mean a war is is justified. It does not automatically mean the war is justified. When you actually walk through the classical framework developed by Saint Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, the case for this strike looks extremely weak because it is extremely weak. Just war theory requires several conditions to be met before war is considered morally legitimate. Just cause last resort, proportionality, legitimate authority, reasonable chance of success, and discrimination between combatants and civilians. The question Christians should ask is simple. Which of these conditions were actually satisfied in this case? Just cause. Just cause traditionally means responding to a direct and immediate act of aggression. Iran has certainly acted aggressively through proxies and hostile rhetoric, but that is not the same as an imminent attack on the United States of America that would require immediate military force. If this was a preemptive rather than defensive, it becomes a war of choice, not a morally necessary war. So it does not meet the Just Cause Act. Next, last resort. Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquintis both insisted that war must come only after diplomacy and containment have been tried and have clearly failed. Yet we moved to a decapitation strike against the head of state and the head of a sovereign nation, which is actually against international law. A strike like that demands overwhelming evidence that all other options had been exhausted, and that case has not been made at all publicly. The next condition would be proportionality. Seven American servicemen and women are already dead. Oil prices have already surged past$100 per barrel. The street of Hermoods is already destabilizing global energy markets. Retaliation risk terrorism at home and wider regional war has already started to ensue. Just war theory requires that the anticipated good outweigh the foreseeable harm. And right now, the consequences appear to be far more multiplying faster than the supposed benefits of this action. The next thing is what we call reasonable chance of success. Removing a leader does not remove a regime, nor does it change the ideology. History teaches us this lesson repeatedly. The assassination of a leader actually often hardens the regime rather than weakening the regime. We may have simply created a martyr by murdering the Ayatollah while empowering a successor who is even more aggressive than the one that we have assassinated, the 86-year-old person who all intents, all news reports have this have been saying he wanted to die as a martyr, and we gave him what he wanted. And here is the deeper theological problem here. Romans 13 absolutely affirms the government bear the sword and restrain evil. But Romans 13 does not mean every use of the sword is righteous. Governments are accountable to God for how they wield the sword. And the same scripture that affirms the authority also warns rulers against bloodshed and unjust violence. So we will be held accountable for those 165 dead children. You know, I say this to the all lives matter, all we care about the innocent, oh right the life crowd. Yeah. When you die, God's gonna ask you about the 165 dead children that you cheered on with your bloodthirsty BS. Christians should be very cautious about baptizing military action after the fact. Especially if every single time you've been alive, you have cheerleaded every single war that your country has done. You are not talking about Christian morality or just war theory. You are just championing your country's foolishness. Period. You are just doing nothing more than saying that might equals right, and because you have to be sitting in a country, that your country is right, and because you're sitting in it. And you better pray, you better pray that there is no God. Because there is, if there is one, you will be judged by the same standards of which you judged. And oh, the wrath of God will be on top of your head. You are the reason the Gentiles blaspheme because you're nothing more than bloodthirsty warmongers. You don't worship the God of life, you worship the God of death, you worship the God of war, you worship the God of bloodshed and mockery. You are the reason the Gentiles blaspheme. Because every time you open your mouth, it's killing some innocent kid in a country you can't even pronounce and can't find on a map. If that's your Christianity, keep it. It is unuseful. Christians should be very cautious about this type of stuff. Calling a war righteous does not make it righteous, and this feels less like the reluctant use of force envisioned by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and more like a familiar pattern of modern geopolitics, escalation, regime change, regime targeting, and the assumption that the military power that you have can solve all political problems. Christians should pray for their leaders, and our troops absolutely should be prayed for. But prayer should not replace moral clarity. Supporting the soldiers does not require endorsing every damn war that every damn politician puts them in. And when they want to come around me and talk about just war theory, I would, I be, I am steeped in that tradition. And I know that it is very rare that just war theory criteria has been clearly met. And when we talk about the criteria of just war theory, if it's not clearly met, then the most faithful Christian response may not be celebration or justification. It's going to have to be hard, fast, sober dissent. And that, my friends, is how we have to start this show. Sadly, because I'm tired of the a bunch of foolishness from Christians. Now we're gonna go to something different here, where has no religious um background uh that I know of is now having amnesia. Uh uh and and now uh coming on this train and saying, I don't know why they did it, and admitting that he was duped. He was wrong. Everybody's dead, but at least But at least at least our pundits can say, hey, I was wrong, I was duped. And then what? Do you give up your show? Do you stop acting like you have some sense of moral clarity, some analysis that we all need to listen to, or do you say you were wrong and then play that now continue to listen to me game? If you were this damn wrong and it cost this many people their lives, and you and now people are being blown to smithereens, I don't get it. I don't get it. And the the religious people annoy me the most only because I've always said the Bible, as much as I like it, is not a good book for public morality. Because there's a reason why King and the clan can hold the same book. Because you'll read it and you'll get exactly what you want out of it. Which is why everybody claims to be some type of Christian and it means absolutely nothing. They can't agree on anything. Forty-five different thousand uh versions of it, and everybody is claiming that they speak for God, and uh I I don't think God is is uh pleased with this foolishness, but I do digress.

SPEAKER_09 17:50

Something very near and dear to my heart these days, looking back a little bit on what did all these people say who are currently in power about war with Iran whenever they had a chance to make their pitch to the American people. So we've super cut a few of the people who are currently in power. And some of the things that they said in the past compared to what you see on your screens today. So, without much more, let's take a listen.

SPEAKER_08 18:16

I also know the cost on the American people. You know, the trillions of dollars that we've spent since 9-11 alone on waging these wasteful regime change wars, how those wars have undermined our national security, and how they have strengthened terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda. So when we talk about a potential war with Iran, which is looking like we are walking very dangerously down that path, um, what I think is important for the American people to know is that a war with Iran would make the war in Iraq look like a cakewalk. The devastation and the cost would be far greater than anything we've ever experienced before.

SPEAKER_03 18:55

Our interest, I think, very much is in not going to war with Iran, right? It would be a huge distraction of resources, it would be massively expensive to our country. And again, I'm not saying we stick ourselves into the Middle East and and start a war here, but like we recognize, okay, Israelis, Gulf Arab States don't like Iran. So let the Israelis and the Gulf Arab States provide the counterbalance to Iran. America doesn't have to constantly police every region of the world. We should empower people to police their own regions of the world, right? And I and one, we would save a lot of money, two, we'd save a lot of focus. But unfortunately, I think Harris, she's got this weird thing where I actually think she kind of likes war. Maybe she feels like she feels like a tough guy about it. I don't know why it is, and they seem to be sort of sleepwalking us into war with Iran. It's like the dumbest of all possible worlds.

SPEAKER_07 19:46

I've been a recovery neocon for six years now. Like the foolishness with which we ricocheted around the world, intervening, think it was in our best interest when really we just overturned the table and created something worse in almost every single scenario has led to almost I mean, the hubris of of the Pentagon is that they want to now tell other countries how to do counterinsurgency based on what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you kidding me? So you really have learned nothing. Okay, nothing. So yeah, you're right. That trust, the trust there that our political leaders or our generals would have our best interest in mind is totally broken. It's totally broken. I will tell you, you're not gonna have a war with me, and you're not gonna have a third world war with me, then I can tell you my turn too.

SPEAKER_04 20:34

It's off the wagon again. Neocon relapse.

SPEAKER_09 20:37

He's out of recovery. Uh he's uh he needs to start back into the 12th. He needs to make amends first, right? Isn't that part of the 12 steps? There's a lot of amends that are currently today. But I think the the most potent one, I mean, Tulsi, Donald Trump, uh, obviously. I mean, he's looking. Trump actually, um, I would not defend. He said various different things to many people in the whole time. But JD, Pete, JD and Tulsi, to the most extent, are the ones who are like, yeah, you're full of shit. And that is the one which honestly is so galling. Because, okay, I can say this in Tulsi's case. How many times have we interviewed this woman? I mean a lot, right? He sat across from the desk, looked in the eyes. What did she always talk about being an Iraqi, a medic in Iraq, right? She talked about brothers and sisters. I believed it. It was maybe I'm super naive. I believed it when I looked her in the eyes that she would talk about that. I mean, she took a lot of shit. She went to Syria to meet with Assad. It was like, you know, basically a force out of Congress, a whole donor machine. Hillary called her a traitor, like she suffered politically. And so to go from that, and then by the way, can we put uh E2 up on the screen here, where she literally was selling t-shirts saying no war with Iran? You know, when we first started rising and go around the country, I would meet a lot of Tulsi people, right? She spoke to a lot of folks whenever it came to the no war, anti-war position. She went on Rogan, the no war with Iran t-shirt. Like they this was a real constituency, and I remember meeting a lot of these people across the country. So then I'm gonna have her as the director of national intelligence in the situation room while the war with Iran launches. It's unbelievable. Then let's take the vice president. I mean, did you hear what he said there about it would not be in our interest? I think he believed I mean, I used to think he believed that who the hell knows now. But secondary was that whole thing about Kamala who likes-that's literally how Donald Trump and the hexent are acting right now. P Hexnet is literally acting like a movie character. Whenever he's like, We are winning and screw you media for reporting on the deaths of American soldiers. Donald Trump is like Iran is two weeks away from a nuclear weapon. Clearly, he loves the theater of limited military operations, which are now spirally out of control. It's like I mean, look, okay, you could say, I told you so, and that's Fair, uh, certainly at this point. But I don't I don't know. I mean, are we just never supposed to believe any politician? Like, they really they I can tell you this in Tulsi's case, in JD's case, much more limited extent on P. I had been told by multiple people that he actually was scarred by his experiences with Iraq and Afghanistan and had rethought a lot of stuff on Ukraine. I said, okay, I believe you. Don't believe it anymore. But in a lot of these cases, and it's not just the public officials' names that you would know. I'm talking about deputies and other people all over the National Security Council. I've met these people for years. I knew, I mean, we were at conferences and other things where no Iran war was like anathema. That was like the one thing we're like, we're not doing this. And so then to not only see them in power, but working behind the scenes to execute this, you're like, what the fuck? I mean, is this so it was just all a joke. The whole thing was a joke. Or it's just a cult. Trump is in charge, and uh, yeah. I mean, look, I mean, there's a lot of egg on a lot of face, mine included. I I gotta tell you, it has been one of the most serially radicalized things that has ever happened to me because I've read many times in books about politicians being liars and narcissists and all that. Okay, uh, and so what you what do you do? You have it, I I mean, I've lived here for a long time. I had an appropriate level of skepticism. A lot of the people who are working in this White House who said that they were against war with Iran took immense, immense like professional hits for being against a lot of the so-called neocon consensus. So, what do you conclude by that? You're like, okay, you have a track record, you must believe it. And then they come into power, and it's the opposite. It's it's so crazy, I'll tell you that. You know, on a personal level and on a policy level, I mean, uh God, it's it's it's shocking. Like, I never, ever, ever, ever, ever thought I would be sitting here watching this and watching these people do.

SPEAKER_04 26:23

Yeah, I mean, I um this is not to do, and I told you so.

SPEAKER_09 26:27

No, it's not the point.

SPEAKER_04 26:28

This is not the point, but it's fair.

SPEAKER_09 26:30

I deserve it. We didn't, I'm I'm being serious, we deserve it. We deserve egg on our face. If we sat on the camera and we said, we don't think this is going to happen, and it happens, we gotta eat shit. That's how the world works. That I'm sorry. And for all the people who want to move past it, we can't move past it. We have to sit, we have to grapple with reality. The people we defended, the people we thought were gonna come into power who were gonna do something, did not do it. Okay? Period. End of story. And that is the genuinely the greatest professional disappointment of my entire life.

SPEAKER_04 26:59

I think the reason, the the reason why I, you know, didn't buy into the peace candidate and all that stuff is because I I know Trump is a liar, and many politicians are. Trumpists take it to an extreme degree, let's say. But I looked at the track record from the first term, where they were very hawkish towards Iran. You had the maximum right pulls down of the Iranian nuclear deal, you have the maximum pressure campaign, you have the assassination of Qasim Solomani, which in and of itself risked a war with Iran. And so that was the track record I looked at. Yeah. And then the other piece that I looked at is the who he was getting money from, right? And since Mary Maddelson was, you know, such a one of the largest donors,$100 million into his campaign, you know, the combination of the track record and the money, and the fact that, you know, I mean, listen, I I don't have a personal relationship with JD Van, so I just see him as a cynical political operator. All of these, Tulsi had already changed her stripes on any number of things, so I didn't take her seriously either. RFK Jr. Are you kidding me? What a joke. Like, obviously, he shape shifted a million times. And so the the reason I'm saying this is just for the future for all of us as we evaluate, okay, candidates that we like and what they're saying versus what they're likely to do. The things to look at are what's the track record and where does the money come from? Because at the end of the day, those are gonna be the things. And then you layer the Epstein files on top. That's another factor that I don't think I fully processed, you know, how potent that would be in terms of apparently um getting us to this place. Um so that was, you know, that was how I was ultimately looking at it going in. But I have a I have tons of empathy for people, especially like regular people who don't follow the stuff day in and day out, who were watching the Biden Harris ticket committed genocide in Gaza. Liz Cheney. Kamala, Kamala's campaign with Liz Cheney. She, you know, went out of her way to do her whole like, you know, most lethal military ever, and I you know, went after transnational gangs or whatever. Like she tried to do the whole like I'm hawkish too posturing. And, you know, and then you've got all this peace candidate rhetoric coming from the Trump campaign. Um, it took looking, you know, back at knowing the track record and knowing where the money was coming from, and Trump, as to your point, Sag real quick, he was never consistent about what he was gonna do. Can I explain this? Yeah, because this is important.

SPEAKER_09 29:15

So when you we just talked about Solomon and all this, yeah. Here's here was here was the experiment, and this is what I believed. I always thought Trump was a retard, I'm gonna be honest, okay? Uh literal retard. But what did want to come away from the first Trump administration? The people around Trump, the staff made the decision, right? Basically. So you had John Bolton, Jet Mattis, Jim Kelly, all the or sorry, uh John Kelly, yeah, all these people. Okay, so the pr the promise was, and this was the project, the project was we're gonna replace those people so we have better policy. And the idea is Trump is basically like this archetype who gives shits about the ballroom and not much else. And then the staff will run the show. That's what I thought was gonna happen based on the first term, okay? And so what what did I know? I knew the people working in the world. So yeah, money and all that. I think look, I always knew the Israel thing. You can go back and check what I said. I literally said if you're pro-Israel, it should vote for Trump. And if you're pro- I was like, if you're pro-Palestine, you should not vote for Trump. Go back and look at what I said October of 2024. I am I we we were all very clear on it. But we were, we were believed, we had a belief in two things: Ukraine and definitely Iran. And the reason why was that the new patch people, the type of people, the vice president included, led a project in the United States Senate and behind the scenes for years specifically against Ukraine and Iran. Yes, I was there. I remember it. And so that there you go. That's the where the belief, the belief came from. Well, you did this, this, and this. You took a lot of hits professionally over the years, even picked fights, organized this entire group and staff of people who all told us over the years that you were going to do something. And then you came into office and now you're doing the opposite, right? And look, let's be also fair in this regard. Trump is a big boy, and uh maybe he's just wanted to do it. Maybe these people were against it. I'm not, I don't know. Uh, but at the very least, it's not just that you couldn't stop it, but then you have these people who are out there defending it. And the truth is, is that not only uh have we watched how people are so untethered from what they previously said in the past, but that they're willing to literally go and openly humiliate themselves on television. So do we have like the Stephen Miller? I think you were about to toss that too. Yeah, yeah, yeah, E5.

SPEAKER_04 31:14

I mean, and this is too. I think Stephen Miller is actually an un an important character, we'll just call it, in all of this. But I mean, he was as clear as he could be. And here, the first one he's responding to Chen Kierry says, I don't know how I can be more clear. Trump will end and prevent war in the Middle East. He wants peace. Harris and her neocon cabinet want war and more war. Um, the another one, Kamala will send your sons to war. Another one, if young men don't want to be drafted to fight in Kamala's and Cheney's Third World War, they better get out and vote for Trump. Another one. Kamala's top military advisor is Liz Cheney. If Kamala wins, Liz and Dick are running foreign policy and they will invade the Middle East, okay? Now, I think another thing, Stephen Miller is extremely influential. Extremely influential. They call him the Prime Minister internally. We got a glimpse early on in those signal conversations when they're debating about the Yemen strikes, and Stephen Miller comes in and says, the boss wants this, so we're doing it, and it's end of story. No one says a word or peep, there are no more objections raised. It's that's it, it's a done deal. And Stephen Miller is a racist who absolutely hates Muslims. And I think that is a part of the story here, internally, of what's going on. You have not only him, but you know, we're gonna talk with Emily about Pete Hegseth, who's like wrote a whole book about how he's itching to do Crusades 2.0 because he wants American Christian warriors to fight against the Muslim hordes. And so that is an important strain of ideology in this administration as well. But there's no doubt that they lied to the American people. We talked, we did focus groups with the AOC Trump voters, and I was surprised. You know, I thought Gaza was important, but I was surprised at how many of them brought up war and peace, and not just Gaza. They genuinely believed some of the rhetoric coming from Stephen Miller. And, you know, I mean, it is fair for people who are who are looking at this to have some belief in you've got all of these figures within Trump world saying, absolutely not, no more war with Iran, we got to learn the mistakes in the past, blah, blah, blah, to put some credence in that, even as you know that, you know, Trump is a liar, blah, blah, blah. So it is a disgusting betrayal. It's not that it was not predictable. Many people did predict it, saw it coming, etc. But there's it, that is true, and it is also true that it is an extraordinary betrayal of the American people and what many people, many people genuinely thought that they were voting for with this administration.

SPEAKER_09 33:50

And look, put E7 up there on the screen. They said they were a peace ticket. Now, you could say, okay, yeah, you shouldn't have believed it. I just gave you the whole thought process. I'm not even gonna say, oh, they're super anti-war. I never believed that. I said, okay, the two things which are actually winnable are Iran and Ukraine. Those are the two things. I was like, I think we can get that based on Trump and everybody else who was coming into the administration. There were some early signs, the Steve Witkoff stuff, remember? Cease fire with Israel. That was good. You're like, oh, okay. And then we start to get to where we are. It was pretty obvious by Midnight Hammer that they were totally in control. And from what I've heard, Tulsi, I mean, I'll give her a little bit of credit. She spoke up against the 12-day war. From what I know, guess what? She got nuked, basically. Do not invite to Venezuela.

SPEAKER_04 34:31

And then she's growing on her way back. She has to resign because her whole brand, I mean, she literally sold t-shirts that said no more, but she's got nothing left now. She's done.

SPEAKER_09 34:39

Right. Her only chance is to continue to suck up to Trump.

SPEAKER_04 34:41

The only she needs, I mean, if she wants to preserve any shred of dignity, soul, whatever, you would have to resign, but apparently that shred of dignity has been. She's gone all in.

SPEAKER_09 34:51

If anything, she's gone all in. I hope she got a lot of money from those t-shirts because when the Democrats are in power and this Fulton County stuff is happening, I hope you have a lot of money to survive some subpoenas. You're gonna be looking at two,$300,000 in legal bills uh from whenever that comes up. Good luck to you and to the Gabbard family. But if you think also about all the others, I'll make the case, right? And this is what I always hear behind the scenes. What are they supposed to do? They can't do anything, they don't have any real power. I'm I have bullshit, in my opinion. Tulsi, you can resign. There are a lot of other people, Pete Hexeth and others. I mean, they literally said the opposite in cases. But and look, to be fair, there were also clips of them floating around out there where they were very hawkish. Pete Pete in particular. I chose not to believe it. There were many people who assured interviews and other, the positioning. They're like, it has changed, it's legitimately different. I mean, Stephen Miller's on television today. The Trump doctrine is side isolationism, America first does not mean America alone. We're all, you know, our great, powerful military, Iran. To be honest, I I mean, I actually think he was against some of the wars previously. I remember talking to people who knew him. I mean, that's why it's so crazy. But what you have to do now is all about just pleasing Trump. And from that point, Trump, I guess, Trump has literally, in many cases, almost never inserted absolute and total control over any real foreign policy portfolio. He really was relatively blank slate, deal maker, etc. Again, that's why I thought the staff would be highly, highly influential. But clearly on Iran, he was the primary mover here. I don't think he was pushed into this. I just want to be that very clear. He was the person who made the ultimate decision. And I'm still trying to figure out that story. Um, right?

SPEAKER_04 36:32

I still don't know. I I feel like he also has bought into some of the like messianic hype around him himself after surviving the assassin.

SPEAKER_09 36:42

Like you said, I mean, he's a gambler who keeps, he's like on a hot roll on a crap stable. Like he keeps getting, but ultimately, again, if you read enough history, it's like, oh my god, stunning success, stunning success, stunning success. And you start to believe all the hype, and then boom, you slam into a brick wall, and then you invade Russia, right? And whatever ends up happening. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 37:02

Yeah, no, I mean, it's um, I think he's he talks about his own mortality a lot.

SPEAKER_08 37:08

Yeah, lately.

SPEAKER_04 37:09

He's thinking he apparently does not believe he'll be getting into heaven, um, based on what he said. I would say if there is a heaven, I think that's probably pretty accurate assessment. Um, and he's thinking about his legacy. And so, along with, you know, some stupid arch and friggin' ballroom and the drapes, the other thing that he wants to establish as his legacy is like these wars. That's that's what he's decided, that's his way to make his mark on the world. And so um, so here we are. And that's a good transition to talking about some of the, I can't even call them religious undercurrents because at this point it's such a dominant talking point. And I, for me as someone who is like, I'm not a religious person, totally secular person, I don't factor in when I'm thinking about geopolitics that you have these like fanatical religious zealots who are ideologically committed to you know, this like end times ideology, many of whom are in high positions of power here in Israel, and also like Iran is literally a theocracy. And so we wanted to bring in Emily to um you know to shed some light on the specifics of what this ideology is and just how influential it is has been in bringing us to this place.

Housing Bill Basics And Speaker Math

How Wall Street Captured Housing

Religious Language In Iran War

SPEAKER_02 38:26

So if you want to hear what Emily has to say, you can go to that show in its entirety and listen to it. Of course, that was breaking points with Crystal Ball and Sega Ingenetti. Uh of course, as I have said many times, uh we sponsor that show, uh yearly and um, etc. etc. But I do have uh two show questions today. Uh show question number one: what is the housing bill headed to the house for a vote? And question two, will Mike Johnson get reappointed to stay the speaker of the house? So let me go ahead and give it the technical answer before I explain my opinion on it. The bill getting attention right now is actually called the 21st Century Road to Housing Act, and it just passed the Senate with a huge bipartisan vote about 89 to 10, and now goes to the House for approval before it can go to the president. The main piece inside of it is it limits on Wall Street buying houses, uh, large institutional investors owning the original 50 plus home would be restricted from buying more single-body homes. That idea is to stop big firms from competing with uh families in their starter homes. Number two, uh, it was a push to build more housing, cut some federal red tape and environmental review delays to speed up construction. Three, more financing for affordable housing, allows bank to invest more money in affordable housing development, expands financing tools for multifamily housing and rentals. Uh, number four, it manufactures a modeler, uh, housing expansion modelers rules so factory-built homes can be built and approved more easily. Number five, the grants for homelessness and local housing programs, so it gives cities more flexibility in using federal housing funds. And number six, the controversial investor rules. Some versions require corporate rental companies to sell homes after several years favoring individual buyers. Now, the political reality is even though it's passed the Senate easily, the House could change it because some conservatives say it interferes with the markets. Real estate investors and rental developers are pushing back as well, and leadership may negotiate changes before the final passage. So the bill's future is likely negotiation, not a straight up or down approval. The question two will Mike Johnson stay the speaker of the House? Short answer, probably, but it's not guaranteed, and here's why. The math. Right now, the House numbers are razor thin. 217 Republicans, 214 is Democrats, and three vacancies. The Republican recently left the GOP to become an independent, which shrink Johnson's margin even more. So, what that means is this the Speaker elections are already very brutal. Uh and if just three Republicans affects Johnson could lose the gavel because Democrats will obviously vote for their own leader. Now, factors helping Johnson is he is still has a strong backing from most of the GOP leadership. Former pre uh um he um uh uh he is supported by President Trump, at least publicly, and many Republicans fear another speaker um would cause chaos, like it did with the former Speaker uh Kevin McCarthy. Now, the factors working against him is the Freedom's Caucus. The Freedom Caucus members consistently threaten leadership, and this uh majority is historically tiny. Any spending fight or a war vote could trigger a revolt. So my read is like this. If the vote were held today, Johnson would likely survive, but by inches, the bigger damage isn't the vote itself, it's a motion to remove him later if the conference fractures. In other words, he's the quarterback, but the locker room isn't exactly united. So the takeaway is this the housing bill, the bipartisan attempt to increase supply limit Wall Street home buying and boast affordable housing. And Speaker Johnson likely to stay for now, but his majority is so thin that any small rebellion could topple him. Now let me get into my political analysis on this thing, because uh I actually have a lot of deep uh thoughts about this from the uh more libertarian perspective. So I'm pretty sure we all have noticed how in Washington everybody suddenly becomes a free market purist, right up until the point that the markets start to hurt ordinary people. Then all of a sudden, the conversation gets complicated because right now, this thing Congress is debating, this housing bill that tries to deal with the problem of millions of Americans, and that they already feel um it deep in their bones that housing is broken, not a little broken, deeply broken. And the reason that is is something that nobody in either party really wants to say out loud. The housing market in America isn't really a free market, it hasn't been for a long time. It's a financial market, and there is a big difference. A housing market is where families buy homes, a financial market is where corporations buy assets, and over the last 15 years, those two things got quietly blended together. So after the 2008 crash, Wall Street discovers something very powerful. Single-family homes are the perfect investment, predictable appreciation, reliable rent, government-backed mortgage systems, and a Federal Reserve that keeps flooding the system with cheap money. In other words, the game was rigged before the ordinary buyers even showed up. Now, some private equity firms started buying houses the same way they buy stocks. Not one at a time, thousands at a time, entire neighborhoods at a time, and suddenly the young couple trying to buy their first home is competing with another family. They're competing against a a giant hedge fund that can make a cash offer in 30 seconds. Now, politicians are acting surprised, but this didn't happen in the shadows. Everybody saw it happening, the economists saw it happening, the realtors saw it happening, the renters living next door to the corporate landlords definitely saw it happening. The only people pretending not to see it were the people writing the policies that they allowed in the first place. Because the truth is that this crisis didn't come from the pre-market, it came from crony capitalism and a manipulated market. Federal policies that inflate asset prices, zoning laws that are choking housing supply, regulations that make small businesses disappear while giant developers survive, and a monetary system that turns housing into speculative chips into a casino. Then we wonder why homes cost what they cost today. You can't run a casino economy and expect church picnic prices. Now, the bill Congress is debating tries to do a few things. It tries to limit some corporate home buying, it tries to make building easier, it tries to push more affordable housing into the systems, and those things are um they might help a little. But let's be honest, the problem didn't start because Americans suddenly forgot how to build houses. Americans used to build houses faster than almost any other country on earth. The problem started when the housing stopped being about shelter and started being about financial engineering. Because once homes become an investment vehicle, something has changed. Prices stop reflecting what families can afford, and they start reflecting what investors can leverage. And investors can leverage a lot more than I can. Investors can leverage a lot more than a single family can, and investors can leverage a lot more. And more than likely, you can. So now, while Congress debates this, there's another political drama playing out, and that is, of course, whether Mike Johnson keeps his speaker job. And yes, he will probably survive for now, but this majority is so thin, we might as well be written in a pencil. There are four angry members that can bring this whole thing down, which means Washington is operating in permanent survival. And when politicians are in survival mode, solving long-term problems becomes almost impossible. But out here in the real world, people don't live in political survival, they live in economic reality. Rent is due, mortgages are due, families are trying to figure out if they can stay in the communities where they grew up. And the deeper question behind this whole housing fight is actually a philosophical one. What is a home supposed to be? It is a place where human life happens. Or it's just another asset in a class, in a portfolio. Because the answer is the answer. Because if the answer is asset class, then the future is easy to predict. More consolidation, more corporate ownership, more renters, fewer neighborhoods that actually belong to people living in them. But if the answer is that a whole is supposed to make our communities, then the system we built over the last 15 years needs some serious rethinking. Not because we hate markets, but because real markets require real competition. And when a hedge fund is bidding against a school teacher, that's not a competition. That's conquest. And if America still believes in the idea of a middle class, then the house on the corner can't just be just be another sticker symbol on Wall Street. It has to make this into a fair system. If we're gonna have a middle class that can have a fighting chance, then the neighborhood has to belong to the people who live inside of the neighborhood. Because the strength of a nation isn't measured by the size of an investment portfolio, it is measured by how many ordinary families can afford an ordinary life. And right now, that is the real housing crisis. Right back with more on the Deroba Clay Show.

SPEAKER_04 49:12

Increasingly, American officials and military commanders are framing our war with Iran in religious holy war terms. Um, you also obviously have the uh Israelis framing things in religious terms. You have the Iranians, which is literally a theocracy. So to help us understand what the hell is going on with all of this, we can think of no one better than our own co-host, Emily Cheshinsky, who also is host of After Party with Emily. Great to see you, Emily. Great to see you. Thanks for having me, guys. Yeah, of course. I need you to I need you to explain all of this to me because it's very disturbing and very confusing to me. So I'm gonna run through a bunch of things that have just happened on the American Christian nationalist side, and then you can break down for me, you know, what they're thinking, how deep this ideology goes, etc. So let's go ahead and start here with Lindsay Graham, who has been a primary mover and shaker in terms of for years, but especially under this Trump administration pushing towards this war, and he is explicitly framing it as a religious war. Let's take a listen to that.

SPEAKER_06 50:14

This is a religious war. Who wins it at the end of the day? To the radical Islamic terrorists who want to kill all the Jews because God told them to, who want to kill me because I'm an infidel? Who want to purify Islam? Uh, to reject moderation and make everybody a jihadist. This is a big deal. I'll deal with section 230. So, what we're facing right now is a moment of decision that will set the course of the future of the Mideast for a thousand years.

SPEAKER_04 50:46

It's a religious war, and if that's not enough for you, here is Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, framing this also in terms of his problems with the Iranians' religion.

SPEAKER_00 50:54

We have been, and they say the quiet parts out loud. They wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and they'd like to take us out as well. We're the great Satan and their analogy and their and their misguided religion, and there was no way to appease them.

SPEAKER_04 51:07

Misguided religion. Okay, we've got uh Senator Kramer when confronted by Code Pink activist Media Benjamin, also talking about our religious obligations to Israel. Let's listen to that.

SPEAKER_01 51:19

Listen, the United States and Israel are ironclad partners. We need them in the Middle East, we need them strong. We have biblical responsibility too as well as allied responsibility. Israel, we should never, we should never sever that relationship.

SPEAKER_04 51:34

Biblical responsibility to Israel, this United States Senator obviously just took a vote on War Powers resolution. He says our responsibilities there are biblical. Let's take a look at F6. There's a report that uh military commanders, multiple of them, are telling troops that President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to Karas Armageddon and mark his return to Earth. So uh you have a bunch of complaints coming in to uh nonprofit organizations saying that you know this whole separation of church and state thing is not being held true to, as you have a number of military commanders framing this war as, you know, a biblical religious conflict. Uh you have the let's do flattened F5 next, guys. This is Paula White. This is Trump's spiritual advisor to uh get a sense of the uh you know what's going on here beneath behind the scenes, the type of you know, spiritual guidance that the president of the United States is receiving. Let's listen to that.

SPEAKER_05 52:30

Strike and strike and strike and strike and strike and strike and strike and strike and strike and strike until you have victory for every enemy that is aligned against you. Let there be that we would strike the green, for you will give us victory again. I hear a single abundance of green, a hearing a single victory, and here a single shiping and singing, and here a single victory, angels meeting a speech. Africa right now, Africa right now, from Africa right now.

SPEAKER_10 53:10

And finally, the Secretary of Have you seen the remix of that clip, by the way? Yes, and it will be fingers.

SPEAKER_04 53:18

Um finally, the Secretary of War, Pete Heggseth, who has the you know Crusader Cross, he was uh deemed an extremist and not allowed to participate in uh protection for the Biden uh inauguration because of the uh his tattoos. Here he is talking about um, you know, the some of this biblical prophecy and including the miracle of reconstructing the third temple of Solomon. He also reportedly at a bar previously was chanting Kill All Muslims. So this is our Secretary of War, Pete Hexes.

SPEAKER_07 53:48

And today, Jennifer and I and others had a chance to go see the western wall of the Temple Mount, the Western Wall tunnels, uh, so much of the old city. And as you stand there, you can't help but behold the miracle before you. And it got me thinking about another miracle that I hope all of you don't see too far away. Because 1917 was a miracle, 1948 was a miracle, 1967 was a miracle, 2017, the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital was a miracle, and there's no reason why the miracle of the re-establishment of the temple on the Temple Mount is not possible. I don't know how it would happen. You don't know how it would happen, but I know that it could happen.

Dispensationalism And Third Temple Claims

SPEAKER_04 54:39

So, Emily, why is this increasingly being framed as a religious conflict holy war from the American side?

SPEAKER_10 54:48

Well, what's interesting about that last Hexeth clip is that was around the time where the embassy was moved officially by the first Trump administration to Jerusalem, and that's when we saw a lot of this flaring up as well. A lot of people speaking just like Pete Hexeth did, and Hexeth in that clip is somewhat careful. He doesn't say why there should be a third temple, which from the dispensationalist position. So if you're an evangelical Christian, there's a a sect, it's sort of in it's sort of informal, it's taught in some seminaries, but it's kind of a pop culture thing too. Um, there's a a movement called dispensationalism, and it's been around a while. Uh, it's had waning popularity in America through different periods, but uh it's not just about the end times, but basically prescribes different dispensations of history, and one of those dispensations would be the third temple getting rebuilt and that ushering in the end times. And one of the easiest ways to think about it is you substitute everywhere in scripture for pol where everywhere you see in scripture Israel, you substitute that for the the nation, the current nation of Israel, so political Israel. And if you read scripture that way, uh that the nation of Israel that was established uh in the last 100 years, you can see why people, especially when the embassy was being moved to Jerusalem, uh, look at this uh in evangelical circles as being fulfillment of scripture. Now, I'm a non-denominational evangelical, uh, I grew up Missouri Center Lutheran, so we weren't dispensationalist, but it was a huge pop culture movement at the time in the 90s. And so a lot of people uh in conservative Christian circles grew up with like the left behind books, the movies. Uh they're very, they were very popular at the time. Um, and Pete Hex says church is not dispensationalist. I don't know where he was going to church in 2018. I think that's why he was careful with it. Uh so some of this is flirting with people who are dispensationalist. The movement has kind of been waning since the 90s, since the the early aughts. There aren't a ton of people, like even there aren't a ton of people I know in evangelical circles who are still dispensationalist uh my age, but it's a lot of boomers, uh, a lot of people who, you know, that's that's how they've always seen Israel. The last thing I'll just add on this point, because there's a lot more to talk about, but the last thing I'll add on this point is if you grew up uh, you know, part of your part of your life, there wasn't a country called Israel, uh, then again, you could see how it's easy to read into some of this, the fulfillment of scripture when suddenly there is a country called Israel uh that kept surviving after all of this conflict. So that's where some of this is is coming from. I think it is theologically very misguided, um, but that's a little bit of a background on like the movement um that fuels some of this.

SPEAKER_09 57:42

So let's get into the nitty-gritty. Uh so Tucker uh did a whole episode about this uh today, which I also recommend people go and listen to. Why would the third why do they even want the third temple to be built? Because as he was saying, it's actually kind of violates their own scripture about the way that they see Jesus uh as the coming of God, and that but it's very important in the Torah and to the rebuilding of the temple to like Jewish theology, uh, and that there's kind of basically an intersection within the dispensationalist framework about bringing about the end times and apocalypse and the return of Christ to Earth. So get into some of that because you know, obviously not exactly my area of expertise.

SPEAKER_10 58:27

No, that's exactly right, um, because that's part of this big debate in Christian circles about dispensations. So there's something called premillennial dispensationalism, there's something called post-millennial dispensationalism, and then there's amillennials. Uh, but what that means is you're reading into scripture, and a lot of these prophetic verses are uh they're they're vague, and that's part of the, I think, theological problem with uh carving out dispensations, is it's very clear in the gospels, for instance, that you're not going to know. There will be signs, but you're not going to know. Uh, so if you're reading really specific things into the dispensations, I mean my perspective on that is it's it's not prescribed in the gospels, it's not the way that Christ talked about the end times, but uh there are different dispensations. So if you're a premillennial dispensationalist, you believe that uh this ushers in a millenarian time where Christ returns and the Jews are uh Ryan will will say, you know, a lot of Christians he he'll say it's like using Jewish people as cannon fodder for the apocalypse. That's that's how Ryan's described it before. I think the terrible way that a lot of evangelicalists would say it is actually that they believed the Jewish people are going to be protected and are going to be by when Christ returns, are going to be um ushered in to the true church uh with Jesus. And that's where this particular plot of land, uh, which is the Temple Mount, as you mentioned in the sagar, if you have a third temple, then Christ returns, it's a sign of the return. Um, and you can read into Daniel, you can read into the book of Revelation, you can read into all kinds of different um prophecies. I mean, that's why Numbers 19, the Red Heifer, which Ryan and I have covered before, uh, that's why there's the temple institute in Jerusalem that is preparing things like the Ark of the Covenant uh to exact biblical proportions, the red heifer to exact biblical proportions, because they believe they want to re-enter the temple, and you can't without the red heifer, for example. So that means that they're fully intent on building the third temple, which then brings us into conflict, obviously, with Islam, um, where you have the Dome of the Rock, Al-Aqsa, on that exact same territory, and people who are willing to fight to the death to protect that from being rebuilt. So a little bit of a tangent, but basically there are dispensations that people believe in, and part of it is the Jewish people rebuilding the third temple, that ushering in the apocalyptic reign of Christ.

SPEAKER_04 1:00:49

Yeah, well, and look, here's my it's a free country. People can believe whatever they want to believe. It becomes my problem when policymakers are asserting that this ideology is being used to justify an end another endless war in the Middle East. And you know, partly I think all of us have been trying to read the tea leaves and get whatever intel we can, read the reporting about like what is going on here, why, even though the political people and the military people and all our allies in the region and the Europeans are like don't do this, why we still did this? And I'm curious for your view on how influential this religious ideological view is. Like, how many people in high levels of the Trump administration are in favor of this war because they want to like precipitate the end times, like these military commanders are telling our troops?

SPEAKER_10 1:01:32

Yeah, I wonder about that too. I I have I think it's sort of less the dispensationalists and more the people who believe that you have to see uh it's overlaps with dispensationalism, but people who believe that you have to literally interpret Israel as the modern nation-state of Israel in scripture. So that's where I would look at a Pete Heggs, for example, and say, I don't think that he's a dispensationalist. He goes to Doug Wilson to church. Um, I don't think he believes that we have some moral obligation to usher in this dispensation of the end times. I do think he believes very strongly that everywhere we see Israel in scripture, we're not just talking about the lowercase end nation of the Jewish people. We are talking about the literal political nation-state of modern Israel. And I do think there are a lot of people. Mike Huckabee, uh and Huckabee has played very carefully with dispensationalist rhetoric. My strong guess is that Mike Huckabee is a dispensationalist, but he's also like, I've I've gone back to when he ran for president uh in the 08 cycle to try and decode uh and get him like explicitly saying, talking like a dispensationalist. He does talk like a dispensationalist, but he's been careful uh to or whether or not to like fully embrace that politically. But I'm pretty sure Mike Huckabee, you could probably put him in that vein. You can definitely put him in the vein of somebody who substitutes the nation of Israel in Scripture for the modern political nation-state of Israel. And I actually think that's probably even more powerfully driving the people in the Trump administration's policy toward Israel. We know Donald Trump doesn't. I mean, Paula White can say whatever she wants to Donald Trump. He doesn't believe anybody, he thinks it's wacky. Um, there's like no question in my mind.

The Temple Institute And Donor Power

SPEAKER_09 1:02:55

Yeah, but it's like a temple around alliance. But I mean the speaker of the house, you know, you've got a senators, we just played for you. They believe this stuff. Inside Israel, too. I want to flag this, like you said about the Temple Institute. Let's go ahead and put F7 up on the screen. So here you have soldiers of the IDF, and they're tweeting out the Temple Institute, saying soldiers of the IDF are fighting with all their might, hearts and souls for the land of Israel, the people of Israel, and the God of Israel. This soldier made that clear when he attached an arm patch depicting the holy temple and the word Devir, ancient Hebrew for the holy of holies. Can we show the patch, guys, please, just to show everybody what they have uh on their arm? And then you also had uh previously members of the IDF and others put, for example, like greater Israel patches on their uniform to signify what they are voting for. So can you explain why this is so significant, like you just said, to these Temple Institute? What is the Temple Institute? Why is it so powerful?

SPEAKER_10 1:03:41

Yeah, the Temple Institute is a really important aspect of all of this because it's this physical manifestation of the theology here of uh people, I would argue, like a Bank of year who goes and prays um on the Temple Mount. So that's not, you're not supposed to do that, uh, but has been pushing the limits, pushing the limits, pushing the limits. This is actually what was cited by Hamas when they talked about Operation What? Al-Aqsa flood. That is what they called October 7th. Part of their uh justification uh for that awful, awful attack uh was that they saw encroachment on this area. Uh, and so that's where this gets really like politically and on a human level very scary, because this is sacred ground, obviously, to three faiths and eschatologically significant for three faiths. Um, for people who are supportive of the Temple Institute, which is funded by billionaires, they have literally been going through the exact specifications in verses like Numbers 19. Uh, they have been, you know, you mentioned the holies of holies. That's supposed to be in the temple. That's where God resides, um, in the temple. That's where you have to build that place. This is throughout the Old Testament. You build that place for God. This is the Ark of the Covenant has been uh built to specifications by the Temple Institute. They have made preparations for Israel to take that ground, basically, and rebuild the third temple. So it's actually not a crazy abstract thing. Uh, this is in motion, it is funded by politically significant billionaires. Uh, and people try to keep at my sense is that in Israel, far-right politicians try to kind of keep a little bit of distance from it because it's such a hot, hot, hot, uh kinetic question uh from the Temple Institute itself. But this is happening, uh, and there are people who are obviously supportive of it. And so if Israel were to get this ground, they would be rebuilding the Third Temple and expecting uh in in some cases to uh be like operating with Third Temple Judaism, like immediately. And I think a lot of far-reach Jews absolutely would support the religious Jews, would absolutely support that. I mean, it is in their scripture, so that's where this can come to a head very, very quickly in very, very ugly ways.

SPEAKER_04 1:05:38

And do those donors overlap with Republican Party or trick Donald Trump donors?

SPEAKER_10 1:05:42

My guess is probably uh the Washington Post did a long story back in 2013 on who was funding uh the Temple Institute, and I would assume that some of the same people have since been active in the Trump world. Um, one of the reasons I would assume that is because we saw, again, some of this overlap when he moved the embassy to Jerusalem. Uh that was, and then obviously with Mike Huckabee now being the ambassador, he's not just an advisor, he's not just like Paul White, he's literally the ambassador to Israel, which is yeah, so yes, I would assume so. Um, but it's I I think they try to be kind of low-key. So it's it's hard to note exactly.

SPEAKER_04 1:06:14

One person who hasn't been that low-key about certain of his views is Pete Hegseth. Uh, just to go back to him because he is the Secretary of War. Um, he reportedly, I don't know if it's true or not, he's pushing for a ground invasion in Iran. He wrote a book in 2020 called American Crusade. Um, in it, he argued that, quote, Christian crusaders pushed back the Muslim wards in the 12th century. American crusaders will need to muster the same courage against Islamists today. And so he's been quite explicit about his view for that he wants another like Crusades 2.0 and that he views it in explicitly religious terms. So talk to us about what we know about his ideology, as he's clearly a key influential figure behind the scenes making important decisions about how this all unfolds.

SPEAKER_10 1:06:54

And just by the way, while you're saying that, Crystal, I did look up uh some of the Temple Mount donors. Yes, the the instinct that you had is correct, it's not entirely surprising, uh, overlap with Trump world. One of them actually quit the Columbia University Board of Directors over post-October 7th uh things on that campus. So uh Hegzeth, I think, I mean, this is again, right now, post-October 7th, um, there are people who are actually in the bucket that are critical of uh Israel from a Christian perspective that might be more like aligned with actually Tucker on this, but who are frustrated with Tucker uh for urging more, I don't even know what the right word is, um, tolerance of Islam. Maybe that's the right way to put it, uh, because you know the Rod Dreyer writes about this a lot. Uh, he's an Orthodox Christian, but he writes about how the civilizational conflict uh between Islam and Christianity is inevitably coming to a head in the 21st century. So a hexit is in that bucket, I think. It's not necessarily an eschatological end-times type thing, but it is definitely um Christianity has been uh too permissive of the spread of Islam, would be the line, uh, for too long. And our but you you need to sort of prepare uh for that fight because it's inevitably surging in the years ahead. That's how I would describe the perspective of people like Key. I think that makes sense.

SPEAKER_09 1:08:05

Yeah. Uh well, crazy stuff, uh, at least from my perspective, you know, like you say, free country, you can believe uh anything you would like. It is a little boring uh whenever it starts to affect our foreign policy.

SPEAKER_10 1:08:14

Go ahead. Well, I was just gonna say also we didn't even cover the eschatological perspective of like the IRGC, uh, which has in recent years been looking specifically at a lot of this, as like the the Ma'Tism and Alf Imam, and we could have uh Muslim guests explain this better than I can, but that particular slice of land, which is in contest right now, is so tied up in some extremist eschatologies, uh some mainstream eschatologies around the world, so it's such a fragile situation, this.

SPEAKER_04 1:08:41

I do want to ask you one question about that though, because obviously we assassinated Aisola, who was not only a political leader, but also a Shia religious leader. You know, I've seen some analysis that, you know, basically like, okay, you've now turned this guy who was an old man and probably dying within the year, you've now turned him into a martyr. And this is going to have significance for Shia Muslims not only in Iran, but across the region. You may see some signs of that already since we have riots in Bahrain, which is sort of a 50-50 roughly Muslim Shia Muslim country. So, you know, what do you make of that analysis and the significance of our uh assassination of the ayy Tullah?

SPEAKER_10 1:09:13

Yeah, stuff about like Ma'Tism is often peddled by neoconservatives who are pushing for exactly what just happened. War with Iran, heightened conflict with Iran. I look at that as actually evidence to the contrary, which is that you are not going to bomb away this theology that is not deeply ingrained by your own uh arguments in the IRGC, which is uh, you know, it's not 100% support of Iranians, of course not, but it's not an insignificant portion of the country either. We see people weeping in the streets over the death of the Ayatollah. So it's it's not like you're bombing away uh entire swaths of Iran that are supportive of the Ayatollah and this theology. So that to me is also, I mean, completely backwards, but it's you end up again with potential for an ISIS to come out of a power vacuum where you have radicalized people who are even, because they feel like this just confirmed what the Ayatollah was saying about uh him being a martyr and him being a uh a historic religious figure, which obviously he is, but in that kind of theological sense as well. So it's it's so dangerous, it's so dangerous, and that has been used as evidence why we should act. Um, I think it's scary that you would have anybody with nuclear weapons who has that eschatological claim on the land. There are many countries uh at this point uh who have people in their countries with those types of beliefs. United States, Israel. Um, so missiles in the hands of people who believe that uh destruction of Jewish people uh helps bring about the Mazzi, who helps bring about that uh dispensation in Islamic theology. No, it's not comfortable to learn the rest of the world either. But did you just make that more potent? Serious question. Um, obviously, serious question.

SPEAKER_09 1:10:42

Yeah, and what I had read is that I mean, look, I don't know, he's 80, he was 86, right, when he died, but he had multiple quotes on the record where he's like, my greatest fear is that I'll like don't have exactly, but he's like, my greatest fear is I'll die of old age and I won't get to be a martyr. And so he was like a year left. He basically said something like that. He's like, My greatest fear isn't woken to die as a martyr. And he did, right? And now he did. And so now went. And so you've got all these Shia Muslims in Iraq, in Bahrain, elsewhere, we're gonna look at who knows who they're gonna elect. There's some reporting now that his own son might be selected, even though the Ayatollah himself had put him, like he had said some things about how he didn't want like familial succession necessarily, but they might do it as a political statement. I mean, if you kill my father and what didn't they kill his granddaughter and his daughter? And so my sister and his wife, you know, her what daughter, and all that, yeah. What do you think my beliefs are gonna be? Right? It's it doesn't take a genius at a personal level, and then combine that with religious faith, one of the most important Shia leaders in the world, to say, oh man, you know, this could have some serious consequences. Anyway, I mean, we've talked for a long time. Uh, thank you. We appreciate it. Uh, you're our religion correspondent.

unknown 1:11:39

Yeah.

SPEAKER_09 1:11:40

Thank you guys so much.

SPEAKER_02 1:11:41

Hey, so um um I may do a show myself talking about this topic because I was in the dispensationalist camp for a long time. I consider myself to be a sort of a leaky dispensationalist, um, as articulated mostly by the late Dr. John MacArthur at the Master's College of Seminary, teaches dispensationalism, and if you are into Grace to you, uh, etc., um, and you're into the the MacArthur Study Bible, etc., you know that uh he was a dispensationalist as well as his father. Uh you can go uh read some of the writings of the late Dr. Charles Feinberg uh to get more of a view of uh um what dispensationalism is. Dr. Charles Feinberg was a Jewish male converted to Christianity, and he synthesized a lot of the dispensationalism that uh MacArthur ended up uh uh taking in. And MacArthur's father, Jack MacArthur, was also a dispensationalist, so it's it uh I I could see why Emily said it was like a boomer thing because Kirk Cameron and the Left Behind series, and that is when I got into it when I was growing up. And uh it is uh the very difficult part of the text. I've called it sometimes uh Full Dispensationalism. Full dispensationalism. I wrote a piece a while back where I called it uh uh basically heresy, and I somewhat uh uh definitely still stick to that. But at any rate, the show has run a lot uh longer because uh I think I said some of what I wanted to say in this vein. So I'll see you on the next episode.