Post from Truth Social

Hello America, I'm Mark Levin, and this is Life, Liberty, and Levin Saturday. Welcome to the program. You know, President Trump has done something no president dared to do in the last half century. He, with our ally Israel, and their great Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has destroyed the Iranian regime's military, the immediate nuclear threat, and most of the missile systems which were used to terrorize surrounding nations. If I told you that would have been accomplished in a few days, or even a few weeks, you wouldn't have believed me. And yet for some reason we act like this hasn't been a spectacular military success. That said, the knowledge on how to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs, along with assistance from countries like China, Russia, and North Korea, and the internal militia and security forces of Iran, seem to ensure that sometime in the future, Iran will be able to reconstruct these weapons systems, rebuild its military, and internally increase its mass murder of even the most peaceful voices of dissent. So what do you do after you defeat an enemy's military and take out the top tier of their leadership? What do you do? Because that's where we are. Well, let's first look at what we said we will not do. No ground troops. Why? Because there's virtually no political will in our country to send ground troops into Iran. And I would argue there's no need to send in our ground troops for reasons I'll explain in a moment. President Trump has not only led a historic military victory against Iran, but he has asserted control over the Strait of Hormuz. Thereby controlling Iran's ability to sell its oil and choke the Iranian economy in hopes of forcing the regime to make a deal or collapse. Those are two very distinct objectives. To make a deal or collapse. So the question is which is preferable? So let's dig into this further. If the goal is to take down the regime, two of three most important conditions have already been achieved. The destruction of virtually its entire military capacity and economic control over their economy. These are two historic successes on their own. If the goal is to get a deal, the issue is not only what kind of deal, but can the deal stick? That is, how do we know if the enemy will adhere to the terms of a deal, especially after President Trump leaves office? Well, let's look at the Iranian regime's record. Rather than recounting the scores of examples, evidence, if you will, that the regime has violated every deal it has ever signed with any international organization, any country, or any group of countries, there simply is no evidence that the regime has ever honored any deal. Even the Obama nuclear disastrous deal, which ensured that Iran would have a nuclear weapon within 10 to 12 years of its signing, was violated by the Iranian regime, even though it would hand them nuclear weapons effectively. Why would the Iranian regime violate a deal that ensures it would have nuclear weapons in a decade or so? Because it felt no obligation to adhere to any deal, and it wanted to develop nuclear weapons to break out as fast as it could. So to be clear, even a deal in which the Iranian regime would in fact be able to secure nuclear weapons was violated by the Iranian regime repeatedly and in scores of ways. Monitoring, unannounced inspections, and the like were all eventually defied by the Iranian regime. So it's important to understand the ideological mindset of who and what we're dealing with. They're not of a Western mindset. The regime has learned from past experience with our country and with the current opposition in our country, from the Democrats, the media, and the radical isolationists, that all they need to do is wait us out. We have an election in November and they see that election as possible, if not likely, to change our government, at least one part of it. That is, with the election of Democrats in the House, for example, they know that that party stands for appeasement, radical pacifism, and isolationism. They've heard what they have to say, they have heard what their media have to say, and they also know that the Democrat Party will try to undermine President Trump, including his foreign policy, and especially in Iran, where the Democrats actually funded the regime and its war-making power under the Biden administration. Even more, they watch these debates over the War Powers Act, articles of impeachment against the Secretary of War, then declarations of impeachment against the President should the Democrats win the House, based in large part on what the Democrats falsely claim as constitutional and legal violations, and they claim that this is a war of choice, that it is a blunder, and that it is an illegal war. So the Iranians say, let's just hang in there. If the Democrats take the House, that's an American regime change, and if the Democrats take the presidency, wow, we're free to roll. Three years hence, if a Democrat is elected president, the Iranian regime figures it's no longer bound by the terms of any agreement, no matter how great the terms, because it simply will not be enforced, and we won't have the stomach to enforce it militarily, will we? You have a courageous president who's taking actions, who's ignoring the polls and doing what's right for the security of this nation in the world. Unfortunately, that's rare. The Iranian regime also knows there's a Marxist-Islamist alliance and presence in our country, and in fact, the Iranian regime is a Marxist-Islamist technological regime, and they and their allies helped fund it in our country and around the world, and it's very loud, and it's very violent, and it has the Democrat Party by the throat. And it, along with the neo-fascist isolationists, the neo-fascist isolationists will claim that Israel is behind any effort to enforce an agreement with Iran, and Israel is dragging us into another war. We hear it now, right? We cannot ignore the dark storm clouds of anti-Semitism that are now hanging over our country and have a strong foothold in the Democrat Party, the media, the academia, and this radical isolationism. Then there is the ideology of the Iranian regime, which, remember, is a worldwide Islamist revolution. That's its belief. Again, it is a Marxist-Islamist, worldwide revolutionary movement. As the Blair Institute has said, just like communism, a state was never the objective of the revolution. The organs of the Iranian state served the revolution, not the other way around, and the end goal of the revolution was never a state. It was the expansion of the revolution. The revolution does not exist to perfect the state. The state, or in this case the so-called Republic of Iran, is simply a means to support and perfect the revolution. Where the two conflict, the revolution is prioritized. This is something people in the West, in our country, simply don't seem to be able to get their heads around. They go on the failure of the administration of former US President Barack Obama and the new European External Action Service, the EEAS, to properly read Iran's intentions and their persistence in viewing Iranian political developments through the prism of Iran's relations with the West, severely constrained the Western negotiating position. This is key for any deal, any negotiation. To not understand that you're negotiating with a revolutionary Marxist-Islamist movement that seeks to destroy the West, at all costs, at any costs, even in their own disruption, is to completely misconstrue and misunderstand what you're negotiating with and what you're up against. This is not a nation-state negotiating with a nation-state. It is a nation-state, the United States of America, negotiating with a revolutionary audiology that seeks global dominance. And they go on to explain that these agreements with the Iranian regime do more to tie the hands of the West than the hands of the regime, which feels no obligation to adhere to any agreement with the West. And this has consequences, as an example. If we make a deal with Iran, does that mean Israel can't defend itself against Hezbollah? Are we going to have a situation where the Iranian regime survives, Hezbollah survives, and Hamas survives? Is this all being taken into consideration? Let's hope so. Okay, so you say, Mark, okay, well, what if there's no deal, or if a deal short of the unconditional surrender that we had mentioned earlier? And if you're not going to send the ground troops to destroy the regime, well, then what are you going to do? This is where I turned a more recent history in what I call the third leg of victory. In addition to the historic military and economic actions, there must be steps taken to destroy the regime internally. After all, the Iranian regime has an elaborate police state, an internal security force that is armed and well-trained and is critical to the revolution. In fact, the regime has been importing militia from Iraq and elsewhere to reinforce its internal security force. So what do we do about this? We can't defeat it from the skies. We can't defeat it from the seas. We can't defeat it alone by economically choking them off. Even though some people have suggested that. The way we have dealt with this in the past, during the Reagan administration and as part of the Reagan Doctrine, as I've explained here now, three or four weeks in a row, is to train and arm the people. And in Iran, you have millions and millions of people who are desperate to overthrow the regime, who are courageous, tens of thousands who have died. What other proof do they have to provide?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.