Walker Wildmon: Welcome to At the Core here on American Family Radio. Glad to have you with us on today's program. I'm Walker Wildmon here on American Family Radio, AFR.net, and the AFR app. Those are ways you can keep up with the program. You can also subscribe to the podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. Walker Wildmon: Today, we're going to jump right into the news of the day, and we're going to break down the midterm election results and really look ahead at what went wrong, what we can do better as conservatives, and what the Republican Party can do better to ensure that this level of defeat doesn't happen again, or at least doesn't happen again in our lifetime. Walker Wildmon: I want to focus on what I think was the inflection point of the first half of the Trump administration. I believe, and there are polls that back this up, that the Iran war was the inflection point in the Trump campaign to reelect Republicans during the midterms. I think the Iran war was the inflection point. Let me explain. Walker Wildmon: Before the Iran war, I'm talking about the day before the Iran war, inflation was at 2.4%. On Election Day, it was 3.7%. Thirty-year mortgage rates before the Iran war were 5.98%, a multiyear low. On Election Day, November 3, 2026, they were 7.24%. Gasoline, national average, was $2.98 the day before the Iran war. On Election Day, it was $4.16. Walker Wildmon: You can quote GDP numbers, you can tell me about wage growth, and you can tell me about the stock market, but at the end of the day, voters care about what they see and about their pocketbooks. GDP and stock market success do not necessarily equal immediate economic benefits for the American working class and American voters. That's where the disconnect is between Wall Street, Washington, D.C., and Main Street. I just told you the numbers before the Iran war and after the Iran war. Walker Wildmon: I don't want to suggest that the entire Iran operation was a waste of time. That's not the position I'm taking here. But the reason I'm going to spend the majority of the show dissecting this issue is because this is central to our debate as a conservative movement as we head into 2028. Walker Wildmon: What happened here with the Iran war was a fatal mistake for the Republican Party, President Trump, and the entire movement. It was an absolutely fatal mistake that is going to take conservatives years to recover from. Recovery is possible, but it is a serious setback. Walker Wildmon: Let me break down the few sides that we have here within the conservative movement and within the Republican Party more broadly. Walker Wildmon: The first position is that of people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. Their viewpoint is off the deep end, and I vehemently disagree with it. At times, it is pretty much an antisemitic viewpoint. This viewpoint casts doubt and skepticism on everything that the Israeli government does and pretty much finds a reason to blame Israel and the Jews for every problem that America faces. Walker Wildmon: I wholeheartedly reject that viewpoint, and I could give you a hundred reasons why. But just to keep things moving along here, that's one element within the Republican Party, for better or worse. Walker Wildmon: There are people like me who are a little bit more rational and middle of the road. We would agree that we need to be an ally of Israel. Being a chief ally of Israel, and having Israel as our ally in the region, works to their benefit. It has spiritual significance. Generally speaking, being allies with Israel historically has been a good thing for America. Walker Wildmon: Anything that we can do to weaken Iran is a good thing within reason, and I'll explain that. Walker Wildmon: The third element that we have here within the Republican Party and the conservative movement, if you will, is people like the late Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, Mark Levin, and others. We'll read some of their quotes today. Walker Wildmon: This is the element of the party that thinks Iran is an evil regime, which I would agree with, but that America should go to whatever lengths necessary, militarily or otherwise, to topple the regime and bring about regime change to install some form of representative democracy in Iran. That is their viewpoint. That is their position. Walker Wildmon: They have nearly said verbatim that they are willing to do anything and everything, no matter the consequence, to achieve full regime change in Iran, to such an extent that they think it is possible. Walker Wildmon: Those are your elements. You've got the anti-Israel crowd over here on the left. You've got people like me and most evangelical Christians here in the middle, and we understand the biblical significance of supporting the nation of Israel. We understand the practical, modern importance of being allies with Israel, how it helps America and helps them. We also don't like Iran, and when we're willing to combat Iran or weaken Iran when necessary, we generally support keeping Iran at bay. Walker Wildmon: But if you ask me whether I think we should go into an all-out war with Iran, then I would begin hesitating. Then you have the full-blown neocon class that thinks we should do regime change at every turn. Every time we don't like someone, we should do regime change. Those are the three elements. Walker Wildmon: I want to go through how this Iran war began and then dissect a lot of the falsehoods that are circulating out there. Let's go back to the Situation Room in early 2026. This is February 11, 2026, before the United States went all in on the Iran war. Walker Wildmon: In the Situation Room sat, among others, to name a few, Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, General Dan Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and others. Walker Wildmon: Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a presentation. I'm going to read from this New York Times report verbatim, and then we'll provide commentary. Walker Wildmon: The presentation that Mr. Netanyahu would make over the next hour would be pivotal in setting the United States and Israel on the path toward a major armed conflict in the Middle East, one of the most volatile regions. It would lead to a series of discussions inside the White House over the following days and weeks, the details of which had not been previously reported. This is according to the New York Times, in which Mr. Trump, the president, weighed his options and the risks before giving the go-ahead to join Israel in attacking Iran. Walker Wildmon: In the Situation Room on February 11, Mr. Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic. Walker Wildmon: Besides, Mossad's intelligence indicated that street protests inside Iran would begin again. With the impetus of the Israeli spy agency helping to foment riots and rebellion, an intense bombing campaign could foster the conditions for the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime. The Israelis had also raised the prospect of the Iranian opposition crossing the border from Iraq to open a ground front in the northwest, further stretching the regime's forces and accelerating its collapse. Walker Wildmon: Mr. Netanyahu delivered his presentation in a confident monotone. It seemed to land well with the most important person in the room, the American president. Walker Wildmon: Prime Minister Netanyahu, his advisers, and his military team were in the Situation Room with President Trump. The only person of significance missing from this meeting was Vice President J.D. Vance, who was on an international trip and unable to make the Situation Room meeting, or unwilling to be in the Situation Room meeting for fear of future political fallout, maybe. The vice president wasn't there. Walker Wildmon: Netanyahu made this one-hour pitch on why the United States should get neck-deep in a war with Iran, aiding Israel and eventually taking over the war against Iran, which we have now done and are still in. Walker Wildmon: Following this meeting, the prime minister left, and the vice president returned to the United States. On February 12, the president and all of the American officials who were in this meeting, along with Vice President Vance, gathered again in the Situation Room. Walker Wildmon: This is where it gets interesting. When we come back from the break, I'm going to further delve into the assessment from U.S. officials on what an Iran war would potentially look like. Ultimately, we know what the president decided, but starting with this conversation the next day after Netanyahu left, here was the beginning of this February 12 meeting, according to the New York Times. Walker Wildmon: The results of the U.S. intelligence analysis were shared the following day, February 12, in another meeting for only American officials in the Situation Room. Before President Trump arrived, two senior intelligence officials briefed the president's inner circle. The intelligence officials had deep expertise in U.S. military capabilities, and they knew the Iranian system and its players inside and out. Walker Wildmon: They had broken down Mr. Netanyahu's presentation into four parts. First was decapitation, killing the ayatollah. Second was crippling Iran's capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Third was a popular uprising inside Iran. Fourth was regime change, with a secular leader installed to govern the country. Walker Wildmon: Listen to this. The U.S. officials assessed that the first two objectives were achievable with American intelligence and military power. Let me remind you of the first two proposals by Netanyahu: decapitation, killing the ayatollah, and crippling Iran's capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Walker Wildmon: These intelligence officials assessed before President Trump that the third and fourth parts of Mr. Netanyahu's pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion, were detached from reality. Walker Wildmon: So, as oftentimes as we want to blame the deep state, which consists of these permanent bureaucrats, here we have somewhat of the deep state in U.S. intelligence officials telling President Trump that the Israeli approach to an Iran invasion and conflict, this presentation and this level of optimism by Netanyahu, was, quote, detached from reality. Walker Wildmon: This is important. The Iran war, whether we like it or not, and whether this fits a political narrative or not, led primarily to the massive defeat of Republicans during the midterm elections. The Iran conflict led to massive energy disruptions, which led to a spike in energy prices, which trickled down to higher inflation and higher interest rates. That's a fact. Walker Wildmon: Welcome back to At the Core here on American Family Radio. On this edition of the program, we are breaking down one of the pivotal elements of the midterm analysis and this massive Democrat sweep and victory around the country that we're still somewhat trying to digest and think through. Walker Wildmon: What I'm focusing on today is the Iran war and the different factions within the Republican Party and their different viewpoints on the Iran war. Hopefully, by the end of this, I'll provide somewhat of a clear picture of what we're dealing with. I think this is going to be litigated in the media and within the Republican Party for the next six to twelve months, if not through the 2028 presidential cycle. Walker Wildmon: Back to this New York Times report and back to this meeting. We'll link to this in the show notes, by the way, so you can digest this for yourself. Walker Wildmon: When President Trump joined the meeting in the Situation Room on February 12, the day after Netanyahu left, CIA Director John Ratcliffe used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister's regime-change scenarios. CIA Director John Ratcliffe called Netanyahu's position and Netanyahu's presentation, quote, farcical. Walker Wildmon: The CIA director was telling the president of the United States that the Israeli presentation of regime change was, quote, farcical. At that point, Secretary of State Rubio cut in and said, to keep this PG, in other words, it's fill in the blank. Walker Wildmon: Mr. Rubio cut in after Ratcliffe said it was farcical and described the Israeli presentation. He said, quote, in other words, it's blankety-blank. Walker Wildmon: Mr. Ratcliffe added that, given the unpredictability of events in any conflict, regime change could happen, but it should not be considered an achievable objective. Very important. Walker Wildmon: Several others jumped in, including Vice President Vance, who had just returned from a foreign trip and also expressed strong skepticism about the prospect of regime change. Walker Wildmon: The president then turned to General Caine and said, quote, General, what do you think? General Caine replied, quote, Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell, and their plans are not always well developed. They know they need us, and that's why they're hard-selling. Walker Wildmon: President Trump quickly weighed the assessment. Regime change, he said, would be, quote, their problem. It was unclear whether he was referring to the Israelis or the Iranian people, but the bottom line was that his decision on whether to go to war with Iran would not hinge on whether parts three and four, which were regime change, of Mr. Netanyahu's presentation were achievable. Walker Wildmon: Mr. Trump appeared to remain very interested in accomplishing parts one and two, which were the decapitation of the ayatollah and the leaders and their military capabilities. Walker Wildmon: General Caine, the man Mr. Trump liked to refer to as “Raisin Caine,” had impressed the president years earlier by telling him the Islamic State could be defeated far more quickly than others had projected. Mr. Trump rewarded that confidence by elevating the general, who had been an Air Force fighter pilot, to be his top military adviser. Walker Wildmon: General Caine was not a political loyalist, and he had serious concerns about war with Iran, but he was very cautious in the way he presented his views to the president. Walker Wildmon: As a small team of advisers who were looped into the plans deliberated over the following days, General Caine shared with President Trump and others the alarming military assessment that a major campaign against Iran would drastically deplete stockpiles of American weaponry, including missile interceptors, whose supplies had been strained after years of support for Ukraine and Israel. General Caine saw no clear path to quickly replenishing these stockpiles. Walker Wildmon: He also flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the Strait of Hormuz and the risk of Iran blocking it. President Trump had dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before it came to that. The president appeared to think that it would be a very quick war, an impression that had been reinforced by the tepid response to the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025. Walker Wildmon: That's the end of me reading this New York Times report, but the point here that I want to get at is that pretty much everyone in the room, at least those quoted in the New York Times report, was skeptical of a successful military operation against Iran. The president was warned by multiple people about the potential fallout should this Israeli plan that was presented to the United States not go as expected. Walker Wildmon: Fast-forward to the question, what should the president have done? Here's the problem that we all need to understand. There are some problems in the world where the solution we desire is quite unachievable. Not all problems in the world have a quick fix or a clear solution that is achievable. The Iran problem is one of these. Walker Wildmon: Do I think that the United States should have done nothing, let Iran run over us, let Iran build nuclear weapons, and let Iran continue to wreak havoc in the region and around the world? Do I think that should have been permitted? Of course not. Walker Wildmon: Do I think an all-out war with Iran was the best route or the best option? I don't think it was. Walker Wildmon: Here's another argument that I want to pick apart, the gaslighting argument of, “Well, Walker, if you're against the Iran war, then you're for Iran having nuclear weapons.” I completely disagree. I think that the United States and the Israelis have had and continue to have nonmilitary or subversive covert operations to continue to keep Iran at bay without an all-out war that is now going on ten months. Walker Wildmon: How do you know that? I know that because that's what we've been doing for thirty years. How do you think we've kept Iran from having a nuclear bomb up until now? That's because our special operators, the CIA, and Mossad have all been taking out their scientists every other day of the week. Walker Wildmon: This notion that it's all-out war, regime change, or Iran nuking New York City, and that you have to pick between one or the other, is, to use CIA Director Ratcliffe's word, a farcical approach. Walker Wildmon: This is gaslighting. I don't have to pick between the two, my friends. The United States has not been picking between the two for the last thirty to forty years of Iranian terror in the region. Walker Wildmon: Unfortunately, this is what is being posited as the only two options forward. You either are for Iran having a nuclear weapon and killing millions of people, or you're an antisemite, you don't support Israel, you're against America, and you should be banished from the conservative movement. Walker Wildmon: I don't think it has to be either of those. Here's an example. Vice President Vance put out what I think was a pretty good assessment of the midterms and the role that the Iran war played in voting tendencies. Here's what Ari Fleischer, a former Bush adviser, said in response to the vice president's assessment, which I covered earlier in the week. Walker Wildmon: Ari Fleischer said, “Mr. Vice President, please allow me to present a different perspective. The problem was not the Iran war. It was the ceasefire. If you start a war, you need to win it and finish it. Otherwise, don't start. Walker Wildmon: “This war should have been over six months ago, with the Strait of Hormuz wide open and oil flowing. The second and third tiers of Iranian leadership should have been destroyed, and we should have supported pro-Western forces who could have taken leadership. Walker Wildmon: “We stood on the brink of a new, more peaceful Middle East, and then we blinked. We had a chance to not only deny Iran nuclear weapons but to get rid of the world's biggest supporter of terrorism. Instead, we had a ceasefire, which was followed by months of ‘Will we or won't we finish the job?’ Every day was a different message. There still is. Is the war over? Is it about to begin? No one knows. There is confusion and inconsistency. Walker Wildmon: “In June of 2025, America was not involved. This was an Israeli versus Iran issue. No one forced the United States to attack Iran then or in February of 2026. It was a decision made by President Trump. In my opinion, according to Ari Fleischer, it was the right decision. Walker Wildmon: “Once the decision was made, we should not have stopped until the regime fell. Instead, you, talking about the vice president, negotiated a ceasefire that didn't last, didn't work, and left us in no-man's-land with higher prices and our troops still deployed. Walker Wildmon: “Our troops could have been home. The Navy could have returned to its base with a peaceful regime in place, new alliances for us, and gas prices at three dollars a gallon. No, Mr. Vice President. It's not the war. It's the so-called ceasefire.” Walker Wildmon: There are some things I agree with there, but not a lot. Here's where I disagree with Ari Fleischer. I disagree with Mark Levin and everyone else who says that we didn't go far enough. The United States didn't go far enough. Walker Wildmon: Do you hear yourself? The United States did not go far enough militarily. The United States has had ten thousand troops, multiple aircraft carriers, and has dropped over ten thousand bombs on Iran in the last nine months. You cannot, with a straight face, say, “We didn't try. We didn't go far enough.” We have bombed Iran into oblivion. Walker Wildmon: When they say we didn't go far enough, what they're saying verbatim is that we should have had regime change. That sounds wonderful, and on paper I would agree with you. I would agree with Ari Fleischer on paper that the best outcome regarding Iran is regime change: ayatollah out, Western-friendly government in. I've talked about it on the program. That is a dream world, peace in the Middle East, at least for now. Walker Wildmon: The problem is that appears not to be practically achievable. You say, “Well, it could be achievable with boots on the ground.” I say Iraq and Afghanistan, but probably on a worse scale because of the terrain and because of the level of military forces that are currently in Iran. Walker Wildmon: My point in bringing all of this up and litigating all of this on the program today is to hopefully educate people like Ari Fleischer, Mark Levin, and even the vice president, specifically those who say we didn't go far enough and should have had regime change. If we had regime change, the Republicans would have won the midterms. It would have been less bad. Walker Wildmon: I completely disagree with that because I don't think regime change is achievable in any short-term, practical manner. Walker Wildmon: First off, we've tried this, folks. The idea that we can just walk into Iran, that the Islamic government full of jihadis is just going to lay down its arms, and that Marines are going to walk into Tehran and take it over in fifteen hours, then install a representative democracy of Western values into Tehran and turn it into a beacon of hope and liberty in six months, is complete fantasy land. That is so untethered from reality. Walker Wildmon: This is what concerns me with this element of the Republican Party. Don't get me wrong, I've got my own issues with this antisemitic, anti-Israel element of the Republican Party as well, which is a major issue that is going to have to be addressed. Walker Wildmon: But this notion that we didn't go hard enough, that we didn't go fast enough, and that we weren't aggressive enough with Iran is lunacy. What planet are we living on here? We have been absolutely hammering Iran for months. Walker Wildmon: Before the United States launched this full-out assault on Iran that has now turned into what is known as the Iran war, we had actually taken steps without going into all-out war to counter Iran. Walker Wildmon: Going back to June 2025, in the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran, the United States jumped in toward the tail end of it. We sent B-2 bombers overnight to bomb multiple Iranian nuclear facilities directly. President Trump, within twenty-four hours, declared that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated. Walker Wildmon: Then a ceasefire was negotiated. Iran stopped firing missiles, Israel stopped firing missiles, and the United States stopped bombing. That was 2025. Walker Wildmon: That counters the talking point, “What did you want? The United States to just sit on our hands and do nothing?” No. Bombing Iran's nuclear sites in 2025, I'm good with that. We did it, it was strategic, it was targeted, there was a purpose, and then we came home. We negotiated a ceasefire, and Iran got the message. Walker Wildmon: Fast-forward to February 2026, and we say to ourselves, “That's not enough. Let's go back.” Fast-forward ten months later, and we're still there. Ari Fleischer and Mark Levin are saying we should have gone harder, bombed them harder, and done regime change when I don't think that is practically possible. Walker Wildmon: Welcome back to At the Core here on American Family Radio. I'm neck-deep into this midterm discussion, and I'm really focused on what role the Iran war played in the midterm results. Walker Wildmon: There's been an online debate that is still going on among conservatives about whether the Iran war played a major role in the midterm election results. Some are saying that it didn't, that voters weren't that concerned about the Iran war. Let's parse this out, and then we'll jump back into the implications for the future of the Republican Party and what some of the top contenders for the 2028 presidential bid are going to have to deal with. Walker Wildmon: Did the Iran war play a major part in influencing voters during the 2026 midterms? I would say yes. But I will qualify that by saying the implications of the Iran war on the economy were more important for voters. Walker Wildmon: There is public polling to suggest that the American public, at least a large portion of it, supports keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I think you can find data to suggest that. But when you pair that with the domestic effects on the economy, that's where you lose voters. Walker Wildmon: This is the point I've been showing. These are the numbers I shared earlier in the program about where inflation, mortgage rates, and gas prices were before the Iran war and where they were on Election Day. That is Exhibit A to show you what voters were thinking and what voters were feeling. Walker Wildmon: To answer the question, I do think the Iran war played a part in how voters voted on Election Day, and I think the effects on the economy were the determining factor. Walker Wildmon: Back to the debate about what the United States should have done. Let's Monday-morning quarterback this, because after all, that's what we do. Walker Wildmon: The president apparently was convinced that the Iranian nuclear threat was real. As I've said on the program, even the Iranians in the negotiating meetings were telling U.S. representatives, including Witkoff and Kushner, that Iran did in fact have the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. As a matter of fact, they were weeks away from having nuclear warheads. That's what the Iranians said, and that's a quote. Walker Wildmon: Let's assume, and let's not be cynical here, that the Iran threat was legitimate. Let's assume the Iran threat is and was what the president, Secretary Hegseth, General Caine, and everyone else in the administration told us. That is, Iran was very close to having nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities. Walker Wildmon: If the United States did not act, Iran would have a shield of ballistic missiles to keep us from preventing them from having a nuclear weapon in the future. Let's assume all of that is true. I don't have any reason to suggest that it isn't true. The question is, what do we do? Walker Wildmon: Whether I'm right or wrong, I don't know. I'm not the president. I don't have access to classified information, and who knows the future. But what I am suggesting is that I don't believe all-out war was the only option on the table to keep Iran from sending a nuclear warhead into Tel Aviv or New York City. I just don't think that. Walker Wildmon: I do not think it was at that scale. Walker Wildmon: The president and his administration, but specifically the president, bombed Iran in June 2025 and told the American public on plenty of occasions that the Iranian nuclear threat and Iranian nuclear facilities had been decapitated. Then, the next year, he came back and told us we had to go to a twelve-month war with Iran because of the nuclear threat. The two don't go together. They are mutually exclusive. Walker Wildmon: You can't say on one hand, “The threat is gone. We bombed them. They can't get a nuke anymore,” and then six, nine, or twelve months later come back and say, “We've got to send ten thousand troops and drop ten thousand bombs in Iran because they're going to get a nuclear weapon in eleven days, ten days, or fourteen days.” Both can't be true. That's a problem that is going to have to be explained. Walker Wildmon: As far as where we go from here, and the reason this is important, if we don't as conservatives and as a Republican movement understand how furious voters are at this decision-making and how it affects the economy, then we are bound to repeat the same mistakes. Walker Wildmon: According to Ari Fleischer and Mark Levin, if it were up to them, the United States and the Republican presidential candidate in 2028 should run on a campaign promise to continue and further the war in Iran, decapitate the Iranian regime, and create regime change. That's what they're saying. Walker Wildmon: That should be the righteous position. That's the popular position. That's the morally virtuous decision. The correct decision on foreign policy is not to end the Iran war but to figure out how to get out of this. The proper decision, according to Mark Levin and Ari Fleischer, is to go back, go deeper, put boots on the ground, go into Tehran, and take over the government. That will fix all of our problems when it comes to Iran. Walker Wildmon: I don't know what world they're living in when, according to this New York Times report, General Caine, Secretary Hegseth, CIA Director Ratcliffe, Vice President Vance, and Secretary Rubio all concluded and verbalized to the president that the plan of regime change was, to quote Ratcliffe, farcical. Marco Rubio had other choice words that I won't repeat on air. Walker Wildmon: Ari Fleischer and Mark Levin are claiming that they know more than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and everyone else in that room, and that regime change is actually attainable. It is attainable swiftly and quickly, with no net loss on the American side, and we can be back home in a matter of months. Walker Wildmon: I don't know how people do this with a straight face. I do not know how, after thirty years of Middle East quagmires, these political operatives and conservative commentators can tell us with a straight face that regime change is still a viable option in the Middle East. This is baffling. Walker Wildmon: I'm not even litigating the morality of it, the just war theory, or whether we should or should not do it. I'm not even diving into that. I'm assuming that Iran is bad and that we have to combat them. What I am talking about is the practical approach: what is the most likely scenario of success on behalf of the United States, and what does that look like? Walker Wildmon: What I'm telling you is that regime change is completely unachievable. Regardless of what you convince me of, and no matter how scared you make me of Iran, which you can do pretty easily by talking about nuclear weapons, you can easily convince me that they are bad and evil. But you cannot convince me that we have to put Marines into Iran. You cannot convince me of that. Walker Wildmon: The problem we're having in the conservative movement is that there are different factions that fail to reason through this as I am. I do think Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, and others have the rational ability to talk through this pragmatically and not take an extreme position one way or the other. Walker Wildmon: I think it is very unfair for these neocons, these people who want regime change at every corner and want to bomb everybody and their third cousin, to suggest that those of us who have a more pragmatic and rational approach to foreign policy issues are somehow anti-Israel, are against our allies, or are okay with the ayatollah dropping nuclear weapons on New York City. That is so unreasonable. How do you even have that discussion? Walker Wildmon: This is where we are as a party. My point in all of this is that denying the role of the Iran war in the midterm elections is just putting your head in the sand. This is going to have to be litigated publicly, and the voters are going to have to decide. Walker Wildmon: What's so unfortunate about it all is that before the Iran war, the economy and all of these issues were coming together very well for a very positive second term for the president. Walker Wildmon: Another thing I'll mention is that I have been very vocally supportive of the president and still will be and still am. But one thing I do want to warn the conservative movement about is this other zero-sum game of either you're full-out MAGA or you're a traitor, and this other notion that the president can do no wrong. Walker Wildmon: According to this New York Times report, President Trump was one of the only people in the room who liked the idea of going after Iran and thought it was actually doable and achievable. Walker Wildmon: I saw another post about how President Trump should fire every adviser and get a whole new team, that everyone who advised President Trump on Iran should be fired. According to this report and all the evidence available to us, President Trump was all in on this. Walker Wildmon: According to his own statements, President Trump was the fanboy of the Iran war. It was the greatest thing ever. “We've obliterated them. Best military operation in American history. We have obliterated Iran. There's nothing left of them. Their navy is at the bottom of the sea. They can't do anything. We are dominating Iran.” A lot of this is true. Walker Wildmon: My point is that President Trump was his own fan over this. He perpetually told everybody that this was the best decision and that he saved the world from Iran. Walker Wildmon: As conservatives, we can't keep making excuses and excusing the president from all these decisions and saying, “Let's just blame these anonymous advisers.” No. At the end of the day, he's the commander in chief. He's the president. He sits at the head of the table. He makes the decisions, for better or worse, good or bad, right or wrong. That's where the responsibility lies. Walker Wildmon: President Trump has had this unique ability to skirt accountability within the party. Voters have been captured by President Trump, for better or worse, and his base has been very supportive of him at all costs. I think on most days that's a good thing, especially when he's under attack from the left. Walker Wildmon: But listen to me closely. We cannot carry this passive, noncritical approach to the party leader, which currently is President Trump. We cannot carry that into the future with other leaders and other generations. Walker Wildmon: In the grand scheme of things, it is very unhealthy for the conservative movement and very unhealthy for the Republican Party because it doesn't allow us to course-correct. We haven't been able to course-correct on a few of the bad decisions President Trump has made, although they have been few. We haven't been able to course-correct because we can't criticize the president. Walker Wildmon: We can't criticize the president because MAGA is going to cancel us and we'll be called a traitor. That's not fair, and that's not healthy. Walker Wildmon: We ought to be able to have healthy, intense, logical debates about policy and foreign policy, about whether this was a good decision or a bad decision, and about whether we should do that in the future. This is all fair game. Walker Wildmon: Because we disagree with one decision that one politician or one leader makes, it doesn't throw the whole thing out. Of course not. When they do things that are good, we should applaud them, support them, and get behind them. We can have these debates. We should all be able to be adults. Walker Wildmon: That's what we have to learn in order to lead and elect a new generation of American conservative leadership.
Walker Wildmon: Welcome to At the Core here on American Family Radio. Glad to have you with us on today's program. I'm Walker Wildmon here on American Family Radio, AFR.net, and the AFR app. Those are ways you can keep up with the program. You can also subscribe to the podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. Walker Wildmon: Today, we're going to jump right into the news of the day, and we're going to break down the midterm election results and really look ahead at what went wrong, what we can do better as conservatives, and what the Republican Party can do better to ensure that this level of defeat doesn't happen again, or at least doesn't happen again in our lifetime. Walker Wildmon: I want to focus on what I think was the inflection point of the first half of the Trump administration. I believe, and there are polls that back this up, that the Iran war was the inflection point in the Trump campaign to reelect Republicans during the midterms. I think the Iran war was the inflection point. Let me explain. Walker Wildmon: Before the Iran war, I'm talking about the day before the Iran war, inflation was at 2.4%. On Election Day, it was 3.7%. Thirty-year mortgage rates before the Iran war were 5.98%, a multiyear low. On Election Day, November 3, 2026, they were 7.24%. Gasoline, national average, was $2.98 the day before the Iran war. On Election Day, it was $4.16. Walker Wildmon: You can quote GDP numbers, you can tell me about wage growth, and you can tell me about the stock market, but at the end of the day, voters care about what they see and about their pocketbooks. GDP and stock market success do not necessarily equal immediate economic benefits for the American working class and American voters. That's where the disconnect is between Wall Street, Washington, D.C., and Main Street. I just told you the numbers before the Iran war and after the Iran war. Walker Wildmon: I don't want to suggest that the entire Iran operation was a waste of time. That's not the position I'm taking here. But the reason I'm going to spend the majority of the show dissecting this issue is because this is central to our debate as a conservative movement as we head into 2028. Walker Wildmon: What happened here with the Iran war was a fatal mistake for the Republican Party, President Trump, and the entire movement. It was an absolutely fatal mistake that is going to take conservatives years to recover from. Recovery is possible, but it is a serious setback. Walker Wildmon: Let me break down the few sides that we have here within the conservative movement and within the Republican Party more broadly. Walker Wildmon: The first position is that of people like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. Their viewpoint is off the deep end, and I vehemently disagree with it. At times, it is pretty much an antisemitic viewpoint. This viewpoint casts doubt and skepticism on everything that the Israeli government does and pretty much finds a reason to blame Israel and the Jews for every problem that America faces. Walker Wildmon: I wholeheartedly reject that viewpoint, and I could give you a hundred reasons why. But just to keep things moving along here, that's one element within the Republican Party, for better or worse. Walker Wildmon: There are people like me who are a little bit more rational and middle of the road. We would agree that we need to be an ally of Israel. Being a chief ally of Israel, and having Israel as our ally in the region, works to their benefit. It has spiritual significance. Generally speaking, being allies with Israel historically has been a good thing for America. Walker Wildmon: Anything that we can do to weaken Iran is a good thing within reason, and I'll explain that. Walker Wildmon: The third element that we have here within the Republican Party and the conservative movement, if you will, is people like the late Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, Mark Levin, and others. We'll read some of their quotes today. Walker Wildmon: This is the element of the party that thinks Iran is an evil regime, which I would agree with, but that America should go to whatever lengths necessary, militarily or otherwise, to topple the regime and bring about regime change to install some form of representative democracy in Iran. That is their viewpoint. That is their position. Walker Wildmon: They have nearly said verbatim that they are willing to do anything and everything, no matter the consequence, to achieve full regime change in Iran, to such an extent that they think it is possible. Walker Wildmon: Those are your elements. You've got the anti-Israel crowd over here on the left. You've got people like me and most evangelical Christians here in the middle, and we understand the biblical significance of supporting the nation of Israel. We understand the practical, modern importance of being allies with Israel, how it helps America and helps them. We also don't like Iran, and when we're willing to combat Iran or weaken Iran when necessary, we generally support keeping Iran at bay. Walker Wildmon: But if you ask me whether I think we should go into an all-out war with Iran, then I would begin hesitating. Then you have the full-blown neocon class that thinks we should do regime change at every turn. Every time we don't like someone, we should do regime change. Those are the three elements. Walker Wildmon: I want to go through how this Iran war began and then dissect a lot of the falsehoods that are circulating out there. Let's go back to the Situation Room in early 2026. This is February 11, 2026, before the United States went all in on the Iran war. Walker Wildmon: In the Situation Room sat, among others, to name a few, Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, General Dan Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and others. Walker Wildmon: Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a presentation. I'm going to read from this New York Times report verbatim, and then we'll provide commentary. Walker Wildmon: The presentation that Mr. Netanyahu would make over the next hour would be pivotal in setting the United States and Israel on the path toward a major armed conflict in the Middle East, one of the most volatile regions. It would lead to a series of discussions inside the White House over the following days and weeks, the details of which had not been previously reported. This is according to the New York Times, in which Mr. Trump, the president, weighed his options and the risks before giving the go-ahead to join Israel in attacking Iran. Walker Wildmon: In the Situation Room on February 11, Mr. Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic. Walker Wildmon: Besides, Mossad's intelligence indicated that street protests inside Iran would begin again. With the impetus of the Israeli spy agency helping to foment riots and rebellion, an intense bombing campaign could foster the conditions for the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime. The Israelis had also raised the prospect of the Iranian opposition crossing the border from Iraq to open a ground front in the northwest, further stretching the regime's forces and accelerating its collapse. Walker Wildmon: Mr. Netanyahu delivered his presentation in a confident monotone. It seemed to land well with the most important person in the room, the American president. Walker Wildmon: Prime Minister Netanyahu, his advisers, and his military team were in the Situation Room with President Trump. The only person of significance missing from this meeting was Vice President J.D. Vance, who was on an international trip and unable to make the Situation Room meeting, or unwilling to be in the Situation Room meeting for fear of future political fallout, maybe. The vice president wasn't there. Walker Wildmon: Netanyahu made this one-hour pitch on why the United States should get neck-deep in a war with Iran, aiding Israel and eventually taking over the war against Iran, which we have now done and are still in. Walker Wildmon: Following this meeting, the prime minister left, and the vice president returned to the United States. On February 12, the president and all of the American officials who were in this meeting, along with Vice President Vance, gathered again in the Situation Room. Walker Wildmon: This is where it gets interesting. When we come back from the break, I'm going to further delve into the assessment from U.S. officials on what an Iran war would potentially look like. Ultimately, we know what the president decided, but starting with this conversation the next day after Netanyahu left, here was the beginning of this February 12 meeting, according to the New York Times. Walker Wildmon: The results of the U.S. intelligence analysis were shared the following day, February 12, in another meeting for only American officials in the Situation Room. Before President Trump arrived, two senior intelligence officials briefed the president's inner circle. The intelligence officials had deep expertise in U.S. military capabilities, and they knew the Iranian system and its players inside and out. Walker Wildmon: They had broken down Mr. Netanyahu's presentation into four parts. First was decapitation, killing the ayatollah. Second was crippling Iran's capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Third was a popular uprising inside Iran. Fourth was regime change, with a secular leader installed to govern the country. Walker Wildmon: Listen to this. The U.S. officials assessed that the first two objectives were achievable with American intelligence and military power. Let me remind you of the first two proposals by Netanyahu: decapitation, killing the ayatollah, and crippling Iran's capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Walker Wildmon: These intelligence officials assessed before President Trump that the third and fourth parts of Mr. Netanyahu's pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion, were detached from reality. Walker Wildmon: So, as oftentimes as we want to blame the deep state, which consists of these permanent bureaucrats, here we have somewhat of the deep state in U.S. intelligence officials telling President Trump that the Israeli approach to an Iran invasion and conflict, this presentation and this level of optimism by Netanyahu, was, quote, detached from reality. Walker Wildmon: This is important. The Iran war, whether we like it or not, and whether this fits a political narrative or not, led primarily to the massive defeat of Republicans during the midterm elections. The Iran conflict led to massive energy disruptions, which led to a spike in energy prices, which trickled down to higher inflation and higher interest rates. That's a fact. Walker Wildmon: Welcome back to At the Core here on American Family Radio. On this edition of the program, we are breaking down one of the pivotal elements of the midterm analysis and this massive Democrat sweep and victory around the country that we're still somewhat trying to digest and think through. Walker Wildmon: What I'm focusing on today is the Iran war and the different factions within the Republican Party and their different viewpoints on the Iran war. Hopefully, by the end of this, I'll provide somewhat of a clear picture of what we're dealing with. I think this is going to be litigated in the media and within the Republican Party for the next six to twelve months, if not through the 2028 presidential cycle. Walker Wildmon: Back to this New York Times report and back to this meeting. We'll link to this in the show notes, by the way, so you can digest this for yourself. Walker Wildmon: When President Trump joined the meeting in the Situation Room on February 12, the day after Netanyahu left, CIA Director John Ratcliffe used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister's regime-change scenarios. CIA Director John Ratcliffe called Netanyahu's position and Netanyahu's presentation, quote, farcical. Walker Wildmon: The CIA director was telling the president of the United States that the Israeli presentation of regime change was, quote, farcical. At that point, Secretary of State Rubio cut in and said, to keep this PG, in other words, it's fill in the blank. Walker Wildmon: Mr. Rubio cut in after Ratcliffe said it was farcical and described the Israeli presentation. He said, quote, in other words, it's blankety-blank. Walker Wildmon: Mr. Ratcliffe added that, given the unpredictability of events in any conflict, regime change could happen, but it should not be considered an achievable objective. Very important. Walker Wildmon: Several others jumped in, including Vice President Vance, who had just returned from a foreign trip and also expressed strong skepticism about the prospect of regime change. Walker Wildmon: The president then turned to General Caine and said, quote, General, what do you think? General Caine replied, quote, Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell, and their plans are not always well developed. They know they need us, and that's why they're hard-selling. Walker Wildmon: President Trump quickly weighed the assessment. Regime change, he said, would be, quote, their problem. It was unclear whether he was referring to the Israelis or the Iranian people, but the bottom line was that his decision on whether to go to war with Iran would not hinge on whether parts three and four, which were regime change, of Mr. Netanyahu's presentation were achievable. Walker Wildmon: Mr. Trump appeared to remain very interested in accomplishing parts one and two, which were the decapitation of the ayatollah and the leaders and their military capabilities. Walker Wildmon: General Caine, the man Mr. Trump liked to refer to as “Raisin Caine,” had impressed the president years earlier by telling him the Islamic State could be defeated far more quickly than others had projected. Mr. Trump rewarded that confidence by elevating the general, who had been an Air Force fighter pilot, to be his top military adviser. Walker Wildmon: General Caine was not a political loyalist, and he had serious concerns about war with Iran, but he was very cautious in the way he presented his views to the president. Walker Wildmon: As a small team of advisers who were looped into the plans deliberated over the following days, General Caine shared with President Trump and others the alarming military assessment that a major campaign against Iran would drastically deplete stockpiles of American weaponry, including missile interceptors, whose supplies had been strained after years of support for Ukraine and Israel. General Caine saw no clear path to quickly replenishing these stockpiles. Walker Wildmon: He also flagged the enormous difficulty of securing the Strait of Hormuz and the risk of Iran blocking it. President Trump had dismissed that possibility on the assumption that the regime would capitulate before it came to that. The president appeared to think that it would be a very quick war, an impression that had been reinforced by the tepid response to the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025. Walker Wildmon: That's the end of me reading this New York Times report, but the point here that I want to get at is that pretty much everyone in the room, at least those quoted in the New York Times report, was skeptical of a successful military operation against Iran. The president was warned by multiple people about the potential fallout should this Israeli plan that was presented to the United States not go as expected. Walker Wildmon: Fast-forward to the question, what should the president have done? Here's the problem that we all need to understand. There are some problems in the world where the solution we desire is quite unachievable. Not all problems in the world have a quick fix or a clear solution that is achievable. The Iran problem is one of these. Walker Wildmon: Do I think that the United States should have done nothing, let Iran run over us, let Iran build nuclear weapons, and let Iran continue to wreak havoc in the region and around the world? Do I think that should have been permitted? Of course not. Walker Wildmon: Do I think an all-out war with Iran was the best route or the best option? I don't think it was. Walker Wildmon: Here's another argument that I want to pick apart, the gaslighting argument of, “Well, Walker, if you're against the Iran war, then you're for Iran having nuclear weapons.” I completely disagree. I think that the United States and the Israelis have had and continue to have nonmilitary or subversive covert operations to continue to keep Iran at bay without an all-out war that is now going on ten months. Walker Wildmon: How do you know that? I know that because that's what we've been doing for thirty years. How do you think we've kept Iran from having a nuclear bomb up until now? That's because our special operators, the CIA, and Mossad have all been taking out their scientists every other day of the week. Walker Wildmon: This notion that it's all-out war, regime change, or Iran nuking New York City, and that you have to pick between one or the other, is, to use CIA Director Ratcliffe's word, a farcical approach. Walker Wildmon: This is gaslighting. I don't have to pick between the two, my friends. The United States has not been picking between the two for the last thirty to forty years of Iranian terror in the region. Walker Wildmon: Unfortunately, this is what is being posited as the only two options forward. You either are for Iran having a nuclear weapon and killing millions of people, or you're an antisemite, you don't support Israel, you're against America, and you should be banished from the conservative movement. Walker Wildmon: I don't think it has to be either of those. Here's an example. Vice President Vance put out what I think was a pretty good assessment of the midterms and the role that the Iran war played in voting tendencies. Here's what Ari Fleischer, a former Bush adviser, said in response to the vice president's assessment, which I covered earlier in the week. Walker Wildmon: Ari Fleischer said, “Mr. Vice President, please allow me to present a different perspective. The problem was not the Iran war. It was the ceasefire. If you start a war, you need to win it and finish it. Otherwise, don't start. Walker Wildmon: “This war should have been over six months ago, with the Strait of Hormuz wide open and oil flowing. The second and third tiers of Iranian leadership should have been destroyed, and we should have supported pro-Western forces who could have taken leadership. Walker Wildmon: “We stood on the brink of a new, more peaceful Middle East, and then we blinked. We had a chance to not only deny Iran nuclear weapons but to get rid of the world's biggest supporter of terrorism. Instead, we had a ceasefire, which was followed by months of ‘Will we or won't we finish the job?’ Every day was a different message. There still is. Is the war over? Is it about to begin? No one knows. There is confusion and inconsistency. Walker Wildmon: “In June of 2025, America was not involved. This was an Israeli versus Iran issue. No one forced the United States to attack Iran then or in February of 2026. It was a decision made by President Trump. In my opinion, according to Ari Fleischer, it was the right decision. Walker Wildmon: “Once the decision was made, we should not have stopped until the regime fell. Instead, you, talking about the vice president, negotiated a ceasefire that didn't last, didn't work, and left us in no-man's-land with higher prices and our troops still deployed. Walker Wildmon: “Our troops could have been home. The Navy could have returned to its base with a peaceful regime in place, new alliances for us, and gas prices at three dollars a gallon. No, Mr. Vice President. It's not the war. It's the so-called ceasefire.” Walker Wildmon: There are some things I agree with there, but not a lot. Here's where I disagree with Ari Fleischer. I disagree with Mark Levin and everyone else who says that we didn't go far enough. The United States didn't go far enough. Walker Wildmon: Do you hear yourself? The United States did not go far enough militarily. The United States has had ten thousand troops, multiple aircraft carriers, and has dropped over ten thousand bombs on Iran in the last nine months. You cannot, with a straight face, say, “We didn't try. We didn't go far enough.” We have bombed Iran into oblivion. Walker Wildmon: When they say we didn't go far enough, what they're saying verbatim is that we should have had regime change. That sounds wonderful, and on paper I would agree with you. I would agree with Ari Fleischer on paper that the best outcome regarding Iran is regime change: ayatollah out, Western-friendly government in. I've talked about it on the program. That is a dream world, peace in the Middle East, at least for now. Walker Wildmon: The problem is that appears not to be practically achievable. You say, “Well, it could be achievable with boots on the ground.” I say Iraq and Afghanistan, but probably on a worse scale because of the terrain and because of the level of military forces that are currently in Iran. Walker Wildmon: My point in bringing all of this up and litigating all of this on the program today is to hopefully educate people like Ari Fleischer, Mark Levin, and even the vice president, specifically those who say we didn't go far enough and should have had regime change. If we had regime change, the Republicans would have won the midterms. It would have been less bad. Walker Wildmon: I completely disagree with that because I don't think regime change is achievable in any short-term, practical manner. Walker Wildmon: First off, we've tried this, folks. The idea that we can just walk into Iran, that the Islamic government full of jihadis is just going to lay down its arms, and that Marines are going to walk into Tehran and take it over in fifteen hours, then install a representative democracy of Western values into Tehran and turn it into a beacon of hope and liberty in six months, is complete fantasy land. That is so untethered from reality. Walker Wildmon: This is what concerns me with this element of the Republican Party. Don't get me wrong, I've got my own issues with this antisemitic, anti-Israel element of the Republican Party as well, which is a major issue that is going to have to be addressed. Walker Wildmon: But this notion that we didn't go hard enough, that we didn't go fast enough, and that we weren't aggressive enough with Iran is lunacy. What planet are we living on here? We have been absolutely hammering Iran for months. Walker Wildmon: Before the United States launched this full-out assault on Iran that has now turned into what is known as the Iran war, we had actually taken steps without going into all-out war to counter Iran. Walker Wildmon: Going back to June 2025, in the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran, the United States jumped in toward the tail end of it. We sent B-2 bombers overnight to bomb multiple Iranian nuclear facilities directly. President Trump, within twenty-four hours, declared that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated. Walker Wildmon: Then a ceasefire was negotiated. Iran stopped firing missiles, Israel stopped firing missiles, and the United States stopped bombing. That was 2025. Walker Wildmon: That counters the talking point, “What did you want? The United States to just sit on our hands and do nothing?” No. Bombing Iran's nuclear sites in 2025, I'm good with that. We did it, it was strategic, it was targeted, there was a purpose, and then we came home. We negotiated a ceasefire, and Iran got the message. Walker Wildmon: Fast-forward to February 2026, and we say to ourselves, “That's not enough. Let's go back.” Fast-forward ten months later, and we're still there. Ari Fleischer and Mark Levin are saying we should have gone harder, bombed them harder, and done regime change when I don't think that is practically possible. Walker Wildmon: Welcome back to At the Core here on American Family Radio. I'm neck-deep into this midterm discussion, and I'm really focused on what role the Iran war played in the midterm results. Walker Wildmon: There's been an online debate that is still going on among conservatives about whether the Iran war played a major role in the midterm election results. Some are saying that it didn't, that voters weren't that concerned about the Iran war. Let's parse this out, and then we'll jump back into the implications for the future of the Republican Party and what some of the top contenders for the 2028 presidential bid are going to have to deal with. Walker Wildmon: Did the Iran war play a major part in influencing voters during the 2026 midterms? I would say yes. But I will qualify that by saying the implications of the Iran war on the economy were more important for voters. Walker Wildmon: There is public polling to suggest that the American public, at least a large portion of it, supports keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I think you can find data to suggest that. But when you pair that with the domestic effects on the economy, that's where you lose voters. Walker Wildmon: This is the point I've been showing. These are the numbers I shared earlier in the program about where inflation, mortgage rates, and gas prices were before the Iran war and where they were on Election Day. That is Exhibit A to show you what voters were thinking and what voters were feeling. Walker Wildmon: To answer the question, I do think the Iran war played a part in how voters voted on Election Day, and I think the effects on the economy were the determining factor. Walker Wildmon: Back to the debate about what the United States should have done. Let's Monday-morning quarterback this, because after all, that's what we do. Walker Wildmon: The president apparently was convinced that the Iranian nuclear threat was real. As I've said on the program, even the Iranians in the negotiating meetings were telling U.S. representatives, including Witkoff and Kushner, that Iran did in fact have the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. As a matter of fact, they were weeks away from having nuclear warheads. That's what the Iranians said, and that's a quote. Walker Wildmon: Let's assume, and let's not be cynical here, that the Iran threat was legitimate. Let's assume the Iran threat is and was what the president, Secretary Hegseth, General Caine, and everyone else in the administration told us. That is, Iran was very close to having nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities. Walker Wildmon: If the United States did not act, Iran would have a shield of ballistic missiles to keep us from preventing them from having a nuclear weapon in the future. Let's assume all of that is true. I don't have any reason to suggest that it isn't true. The question is, what do we do? Walker Wildmon: Whether I'm right or wrong, I don't know. I'm not the president. I don't have access to classified information, and who knows the future. But what I am suggesting is that I don't believe all-out war was the only option on the table to keep Iran from sending a nuclear warhead into Tel Aviv or New York City. I just don't think that. Walker Wildmon: I do not think it was at that scale. Walker Wildmon: The president and his administration, but specifically the president, bombed Iran in June 2025 and told the American public on plenty of occasions that the Iranian nuclear threat and Iranian nuclear facilities had been decapitated. Then, the next year, he came back and told us we had to go to a twelve-month war with Iran because of the nuclear threat. The two don't go together. They are mutually exclusive. Walker Wildmon: You can't say on one hand, “The threat is gone. We bombed them. They can't get a nuke anymore,” and then six, nine, or twelve months later come back and say, “We've got to send ten thousand troops and drop ten thousand bombs in Iran because they're going to get a nuclear weapon in eleven days, ten days, or fourteen days.” Both can't be true. That's a problem that is going to have to be explained. Walker Wildmon: As far as where we go from here, and the reason this is important, if we don't as conservatives and as a Republican movement understand how furious voters are at this decision-making and how it affects the economy, then we are bound to repeat the same mistakes. Walker Wildmon: According to Ari Fleischer and Mark Levin, if it were up to them, the United States and the Republican presidential candidate in 2028 should run on a campaign promise to continue and further the war in Iran, decapitate the Iranian regime, and create regime change. That's what they're saying. Walker Wildmon: That should be the righteous position. That's the popular position. That's the morally virtuous decision. The correct decision on foreign policy is not to end the Iran war but to figure out how to get out of this. The proper decision, according to Mark Levin and Ari Fleischer, is to go back, go deeper, put boots on the ground, go into Tehran, and take over the government. That will fix all of our problems when it comes to Iran. Walker Wildmon: I don't know what world they're living in when, according to this New York Times report, General Caine, Secretary Hegseth, CIA Director Ratcliffe, Vice President Vance, and Secretary Rubio all concluded and verbalized to the president that the plan of regime change was, to quote Ratcliffe, farcical. Marco Rubio had other choice words that I won't repeat on air. Walker Wildmon: Ari Fleischer and Mark Levin are claiming that they know more than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, Secretary of State Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and everyone else in that room, and that regime change is actually attainable. It is attainable swiftly and quickly, with no net loss on the American side, and we can be back home in a matter of months. Walker Wildmon: I don't know how people do this with a straight face. I do not know how, after thirty years of Middle East quagmires, these political operatives and conservative commentators can tell us with a straight face that regime change is still a viable option in the Middle East. This is baffling. Walker Wildmon: I'm not even litigating the morality of it, the just war theory, or whether we should or should not do it. I'm not even diving into that. I'm assuming that Iran is bad and that we have to combat them. What I am talking about is the practical approach: what is the most likely scenario of success on behalf of the United States, and what does that look like? Walker Wildmon: What I'm telling you is that regime change is completely unachievable. Regardless of what you convince me of, and no matter how scared you make me of Iran, which you can do pretty easily by talking about nuclear weapons, you can easily convince me that they are bad and evil. But you cannot convince me that we have to put Marines into Iran. You cannot convince me of that. Walker Wildmon: The problem we're having in the conservative movement is that there are different factions that fail to reason through this as I am. I do think Vice President Vance, Secretary Rubio, and others have the rational ability to talk through this pragmatically and not take an extreme position one way or the other. Walker Wildmon: I think it is very unfair for these neocons, these people who want regime change at every corner and want to bomb everybody and their third cousin, to suggest that those of us who have a more pragmatic and rational approach to foreign policy issues are somehow anti-Israel, are against our allies, or are okay with the ayatollah dropping nuclear weapons on New York City. That is so unreasonable. How do you even have that discussion? Walker Wildmon: This is where we are as a party. My point in all of this is that denying the role of the Iran war in the midterm elections is just putting your head in the sand. This is going to have to be litigated publicly, and the voters are going to have to decide. Walker Wildmon: What's so unfortunate about it all is that before the Iran war, the economy and all of these issues were coming together very well for a very positive second term for the president. Walker Wildmon: Another thing I'll mention is that I have been very vocally supportive of the president and still will be and still am. But one thing I do want to warn the conservative movement about is this other zero-sum game of either you're full-out MAGA or you're a traitor, and this other notion that the president can do no wrong. Walker Wildmon: According to this New York Times report, President Trump was one of the only people in the room who liked the idea of going after Iran and thought it was actually doable and achievable. Walker Wildmon: I saw another post about how President Trump should fire every adviser and get a whole new team, that everyone who advised President Trump on Iran should be fired. According to this report and all the evidence available to us, President Trump was all in on this. Walker Wildmon: According to his own statements, President Trump was the fanboy of the Iran war. It was the greatest thing ever. “We've obliterated them. Best military operation in American history. We have obliterated Iran. There's nothing left of them. Their navy is at the bottom of the sea. They can't do anything. We are dominating Iran.” A lot of this is true. Walker Wildmon: My point is that President Trump was his own fan over this. He perpetually told everybody that this was the best decision and that he saved the world from Iran. Walker Wildmon: As conservatives, we can't keep making excuses and excusing the president from all these decisions and saying, “Let's just blame these anonymous advisers.” No. At the end of the day, he's the commander in chief. He's the president. He sits at the head of the table. He makes the decisions, for better or worse, good or bad, right or wrong. That's where the responsibility lies. Walker Wildmon: President Trump has had this unique ability to skirt accountability within the party. Voters have been captured by President Trump, for better or worse, and his base has been very supportive of him at all costs. I think on most days that's a good thing, especially when he's under attack from the left. Walker Wildmon: But listen to me closely. We cannot carry this passive, noncritical approach to the party leader, which currently is President Trump. We cannot carry that into the future with other leaders and other generations. Walker Wildmon: In the grand scheme of things, it is very unhealthy for the conservative movement and very unhealthy for the Republican Party because it doesn't allow us to course-correct. We haven't been able to course-correct on a few of the bad decisions President Trump has made, although they have been few. We haven't been able to course-correct because we can't criticize the president. Walker Wildmon: We can't criticize the president because MAGA is going to cancel us and we'll be called a traitor. That's not fair, and that's not healthy. Walker Wildmon: We ought to be able to have healthy, intense, logical debates about policy and foreign policy, about whether this was a good decision or a bad decision, and about whether we should do that in the future. This is all fair game. Walker Wildmon: Because we disagree with one decision that one politician or one leader makes, it doesn't throw the whole thing out. Of course not. When they do things that are good, we should applaud them, support them, and get behind them. We can have these debates. We should all be able to be adults. Walker Wildmon: That's what we have to learn in order to lead and elect a new generation of American conservative leadership.
Walker Wildmon examines whether the Iran war became the pivotal mistake behind the Republicans’ 2026 midterm defeat. He connects the conflict to rising energy costs, inflation, mortgage rates, and the growing divide between Washington, Wall Street, and Main Street, while assessing competing arguments from Ari Fleischer, Mark Levin, and Vice President J.D. Vance.
The episode also revisits a reported White House Situation Room debate involving President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu, senior intelligence and military officials, and Vice President Vance. Wildmon argues that regime change in Iran was not a practical objective, challenges the idea that conservatives must choose between total war and a nuclear Iran, and calls for a more candid, accountable debate within the Republican Party and the broader conservative movement.
Live
Did you know American Family Radio is listener-supported? Your monthly financial support will allow us to continue upholding Godly values through our numerous channels, like American Family Radio, One Million Moms, The Stand magazine, and many more.
Become a Great Commission Partner TODAY to help AFR transform culture by rebuilding the family. When you donate today, you’ll get access to:
