We get to more on this in a moment. First, remember when AI was just complaining about customer service chatbot. Well, now it's showing up in boardrooms, strategy meetings, investor calls, quarterly planning sessions. At this point, every business is asking the same question, how do we actually use AI to become more efficient, more productive and more competitive? And while there are plenty of companies promising magical AI solutions, the reality is that AI is only as good as the information that feeds it. That's why NetSuite is interesting. NetSuite by Oracle is the number one AI cloud ERP trusted by more than 43,000 businesses. What makes it different is that it brings together the core systems running your company, financials, inventory, commerce, HR, CRM into a single source of truth. Instead of spending time chasing spreadsheets, reconciling reports, manually moving information between systems, NetSuite can intelligently automate routine tasks. To deliver actionable insights, help reduce costs, and support faster decision making with confidence. Whether you're in software, healthcare manufacturing, financial services were any number of other industries. NetSuite can be customized to fit the way your company actually works. Whether your company generates millions or hundreds of millions in revenue, NetSuite helps you stay ahead of the pack. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get our free business guide demystifying
[email protected]/shepiro. That guide is free to you at netSuite.com/shepiro. Again, netSuite.com/shepiro. We'll get to more on this in just one moment. First, a lot of people think that investing is only for rich people. This is a dumb idea. It turns out that everyone thinks that you have to have everything figured out before you start investing. You need a finance degree or a gigantic amount of money. Or you need to monitor the markets all day long like you're in Wall Street. Well, because of that, a lot of people delay investing for years. And that's one reason why apps like Acorns have become so useful. Acorns is a financial wellness app designed to make investing feel much more approachable. The idea is simply helping people start building healthier financial habits over time. One thing Acorns does very well is making the process feel manageable. You can sign up in minutes, connect your cards, automatically invest a spare change through their roundups feature where everyday purchases get rounded up and the difference gets invested automatically. Acorns also lets users set up recurring investments, starting at just a few bucks and choose from diversified portfolios based on different goals and risk preferences. Financial wellness is all about sustainable habits. Acorns also keeps everything centralized in one place, which matters because most people already feel overwhelmed by financial information. Sign up right now. Acorns will boost your new account for their $5 bonus investment. Join the over 14 million all-time customers who've already saved and invested over 27 billion dollars with Acorns. Head to acorns.com/shapiro or download that Acorns app to get started. Pay non-client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns. Tier 2 compensation provided. Potential subject to various factors such as customers account agent investment settings does not include Acorns fees results do not predict to represent the performance of any Acorns portfolio. Investment results will vary investing involves risk Acorns advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. The important disclosure is at acorns.com/shapiro. It's more on this in a moment. First there is a point where enjoying good food starts feeling like a budgeting exercise. You find a restaurant you love. The bill arrives to realize that trying a new restaurant has become a pretty serious financial commitment. That's one reason that Cook Unity caught my attention. The experience is surprisingly close to what people actually want from restaurants in the first place. Genuinely good food made by real chefs. Cook Unity is the first chef-led meal delivery service that prepares meals in small batches inside local microkitchens across the country instead of producing them in giant factories. Honestly, you can tell because meals don't feel mass produced. The food tastes like somebody actually cooked it because somebody actually did. Cook Unity works with Michelin, Stardust chefs and James Beard award winners, food network personalities who create meals that are then prepared in local kitchens and delivered fresh never frozen. My wife and I we'd like to order out Vietnamese sometimes and food is really good. Cook Unity probably has it and probably has it better to be honest with you. There are hundreds of meals to choose from. The menu is constantly changing whether you're looking for high protein options gluten-free meals, pescaitarian dishes, Mediterranean food, Italian food, Mexican food, Thai food or just something different from your normal routine. There are lots of options. Taste what happens when real award winning chefs make fresh small batch meals just for you. Go to CookUnity.com/ben or enter Code Ben before checkout to get 50% off your first order. That's 50% off your first order by using Code Ben or heading on over to CookUnity.com/ben. So, what the hell is going on with these negotiations with the runt? Well, here's the thing. They're not over. In many ways they have not actually really begun. Now, I have made it perfectly clear. I think the president is making a mistake and the MOU stinks. But let's be clear what it isn't. A deal. It's not the end of the world. It's not even the end of the story. It's President Trump as a pragmatist. I made a disagree with him, but that's what's going on. We'll get to the full breakdown in a moment plus Russia bombs a church and the horseshoe right is oddly silent. Plus, Don Lemon blames JD Vance for America's affordability problems. This is the Ben Shapiro show. Okay, so let's start with the basics. The opening of this Iran war was good and righteous and militarily successful. That is all real. The fact is that the president of the United States went after the military capabilities of the Iranian regime took out the top level of the entire IRGC and the Iranian regime itself, including the Iatola, destroyed their Air Force, destroyed their Navy, destroyed the vast majority of their ballistic missile launchers and facilities to develop new ballistic missile launchers. All of that was very good. Second, the MOU that President Trump just signed, if taken a face value is a total mess. It is a massive problem. We'll talk about that in a minute. Third, we probably should not take the MOU at face value because it's not the end of the story. What's in the MOU is not where things are likely to go. So let's start with this. Why exactly did President Trump sign this crappy memorandum of understanding with Iran? And the answer is because the elections aren't a few months and he's worried about the economy. This is not a secret. The president is basically saying it himself. Here is the president yesterday flanged by Howard Letnick and Marco Rubio, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State. Looks as though he wishes to Homer Simpson himself into the wall behind the president because he obviously is deeply unhappy with this MOU. I didn't want to see economic catastrophe. If you tip this going, that could have happened. But all I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shut up like a rocket ship. Never went down. They didn't like it. The stock market is more brilliant than anybody there is, including the people on this stage other than me, of course. Let's see. I don't know. What do you think, Scott? Is the stock market more brilliant than you? No, sir. Oh, that's it. That's a terrible statement. The stock market is quite brilliant. And every time we said something amazing, like we're going to settle, it would go up. And every time we said something negative, like guess what, we're not going to be able to settle. You would go down very big Peter, right? Very, very big. Tell us you something. Well, yes. I mean, the stock market will always pick the option that is least likely to lead to conflict because conflict is costly. That does not mean that conflict is immoral or wrong. But that's the reason why the president did all of this. The president was being told by people near him that if he had bombed Carga Island or the South Park's gas field, that this would have caused some sort of international depression. So again, this is all economic calculation for the president. Just like I knocked out Carga Island, I knocked out everything but the oil. I said, 25, it was so complete. The only thing there is the pipes coming with you up because I didn't want to ruin the world market because they do a lot of money. But I didn't want to do that. No, it would have been so easy. It would have been easier and I would have satisfied a group of 10 percent of the people, but it would have been the wrong thing to do. And it could have caused an international depression. Well, I mean, I disagree with that. Again, this is President Trump being a pragmatist and I hardly disagree with his pragmatic assessment of the situation I've made that clear for months. I think it was a gigantic mistake to cease fire back in April. I think we should have bombed Carga Island then and ended the war. It yes, would have caused an economic shock. And then the economic shock would have been over and it would have ended the Iranian regime. But President Trump didn't want to do that. He was concerned about oil prices in the midterm. That's why he's doing this MOU. So what does that mean for what comes next? Well, it means that after the midterms, once those elections are over and again, the president is deeply concerned about the economic health of the country right before the election. He believes that if the economy is doing better, if oil prices are lower, and that means that maybe Republicans hold the house, it means that Republicans hold the Senate. Okay, well, what does that mean for after the midterms? Well, I do trust that President Trump will start to enforce red lines after the midterms. The president was threatening just that yesterday. If they don't honor the agreement, or something's already been mentioned in the agreement, it's a member end of a understanding, but we have an understanding of certain things without writing it. And if they don't honor that, we'll probably go back to bombing them until they honor it. You know, it's amazing what bombs can do. Okay, and the president, again, his inclination is to do that. And then, who's asked, you know, about enforcement mechanisms, and he said, what am I supposed to do? Take them to court? So you're threatening to bomb Iran if they don't comply, but there's nothing enforceable in the deal itself. Is that correct? Does it have to be? I let him know. He said, look, if you don't adhere to the agreement, I don't want to do that. But we're going to bomb the hell out of you. And I don't think that they're going to fear from the agreement. What else am I going to do? Am I going to say I'm going to take you to court? Let me take you to court. Let me just let me sue you. No, we're going to bomb the hell out of them if they violate the agreement. Now, the president was asked about the fact that the vice president negotiated what I I think it's a pretty terrible MOU here. He said, listen, if it doesn't work out, I'll blame it.
Jaydees joking. Now the vice president says that he hopes that Iran is not lying but he doesn't trust anyone well then i i think that um if he doesn't trust anyone then probably this mo you was not a great idea but here we go. Kia which basically allows you to lie in righteousness if you will there is a. hoody bea which is all the treaty of hoody bea which mahamid sign in the six century with basically says that's a way for them to retool and to rearm and this is part of their mindset it's a theology how concerning is that to you well you know i i certainly hope that they're not lying but it's not concerning to me because i don't really trust anybody and i think this is one of the things the president has told us to do in this negotiation is don't trust any words that are written on paper which is what i think you know both the good and the bad of of this entire negotiation meaning. i should say the bad that the good things for america and also the good things for our and fundamentally only happen through action. are coming up we'll get to the real problem with the mo because again i don't think it's going to turn into a real deal so what's the problem with the mo you will explain in a moment first as an organization grows time becomes most valuable resource everybody wants more of it nobody has enough of it that's especially true when you're trying to fill an important role is most people don't wake up excited to spend hours sorting the resumes coordinating interviews trying to figure out which candidate's actually. match what they're looking for that's why tools like zip recruiter have become so useful zip recruiters matching technology helps employers quickly identify qualified candidates for the roles they're trying to fill making the process faster and more efficient from the very beginning there's screening questions help surface candidate to meet your requirements you can immediately see how many qualified job seekers are available in your area that's exactly why so many businesses use zip recruiter the platform helps simplify one of the most important parts of running an organization by helping employers connect with qualified candidates quickly and efficiently there's a reason zipper crew is the number one rated hiring side based on G2 well you're filling a single role or planning for the future having the right tools makes a giant difference four out of five employers who post on zipper crew got a quality candidate within the very first day daily wire is one of them tried for free today at zippercrew.com slash daily wire that zipper crew dot com slash daily wire zipper crew is the smartest way to hire. Okay, so what does this say it says again the MOU is not in fact a deal is an ideal to end the war it is in fact a memorandum of understanding which is a vague term sheet now with all of that said I think the optics on this MOU suck I think that the president is making a giant mistake by signing this MOU because we could have just achieved the lowering of the gas prices without signing a total MOU. If you wanted to bribe the Iranians to temporarily open the straight which is effectively what this does we could have done it by just walking away from the straight and letting them told the ships which by the way would be the practical fact of the MOU's will get to a moment. Again, my biggest problem with the memorandum of understanding is not the terms themselves mainly because I think the vast majority of those terms will never be implemented or come to pass. My problem is the optics and I hope that the Iranian optic win here is temporary because here's the thing we wrecked them we handed them one of the most giant L's in human history we literally killed their entire leadership class and then did it again and destroyed their entire Air Force and their entire Navy and their ballistic missile launchers. We put their economy on life support we blockaded all of their ships we projected power it made America look strong and now because of this it looks as though we just allowed a nation without nuclear weapons again the entire point of this was to deprive them of nuclear weapons they couldn't hold the world hostage you now they're holding the world hostage over the straight and now it looks like we've allowed a nation and Islamic tyranny that just murdered tens of thousands of its own citizens without nuclear weapons or a functional Air Force or a functional Navy. Or a functional ballistic missile arsenal to call the shots and that's a mistake. It's a mistake I trust will be reversed by the president because he's a pragmatist and I don't think president Trump wants to look weak right now he does look weak I trust that after the midterms you will course correct and reestablish America's credible red of force for now however it's not a good look even if we understand the pragmatic concerns about the oil prices. It is just not a great look to sign an MOU next to Emmanuel Macron ever saw we think of a time in history when a treaty ever saw has gone wrong quick quiz question. Here's the president doing this yesterday. Here he is signing the agreement which of course the Iranians immediately touted this. MacMood Pazeskin who is the leader of the president of Iran people cheering. Here's a Pazeskin holding up a copy release this photo he's very excited. In fact United States and Iran signed the deal ahead of schedule they were supposed to sign on Friday originally supposed to be the vice president signing it in person. There's still supposed to be a meeting between the vice president and Iranian parliamentary speaker Muhammad Kali bath on Friday. A president Trump admits that we only had a military victory there was no diplomatic victory here. A wise man once said in January of 2020 Iran never won a war but never lost a negotiation. That was who said that Donald Trump. That's what I thought you were going to say. How do you go back to the United States and convince us kept full American public that this deal is a man here they lost military. Okay yes they did they did lose militarily but diplomatically they certainly think they won. Muhammad Kali bath who again is a mass murdering piece of trash. Literally yesterday was walking around grinning ear to ear talking about how what they wanted to achieve the military action they got through negotiation several times over. So by not giving an answer says the interview we took advantage of and he says what do we want from there you saw until two o'clock in the morning. From the president of the United States agree to a ceasefire not only in Zahia he says lying about Lebanon but a ceasefire for all of Lebanon. He's claiming they won in Lebanon and with that manner he did not talk to Nitenyahu about it. This negotiation was a struggle again the Iranians believe they won the negotiation and they are grinning about it. Kali bath is grinning ear to ears that a good optic look for the United States the answer of course is no. The president also claimed that China was great during this negotiation spoiler alert they weren't they were using Pakistan as their cut out and by the way China and Russia were resupplying Iran throughout the conflict Russia was providing Iran a target list of American targets during the conflict but here is the president going out of his way to compliment China. So I think China's been terrific I tell you that before they could have been bad they could have sent in to try and block or break the blockade they could have sent in an oil ship with six destroyers alongside of it on each side get into that president she helped me he tried to help and I think he probably helped get it. Well he certainly helped the Iranians Kali bath himself tweeted out that Iran was committed to a win-win partnership with China again the optics here not great. And the terms of the MOU if taken from an optic perspective are very not great so the MOU for example says. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war again this would be the United States signing up Israel and the UAE without either of them being signatories. To clear up on signing this memorandum of understanding an immediate and permanent cessation of all military activity on all fronts including in Lebanon now again the vice president says that's not true. He says that Israel still has freedom of action the Israeli say it's not true they still have freedom of action that's not what the Iranians believe obviously and saying that all military activity will be will stop. Immediately and permanent permanent are we taking the threat of force totally off the table this is why I say the MOU is just an empty piece of paper. The MOU also says the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each other. That's weird because the Islamic Republic of Iran still chance death to America which isn't really respecting our sovereignty. And as far as the territorial integrity of Iran what happens when Iran re-initiates a gigantic terror war in the Middle East. Because here's the thing none of this is going to actually become a full agreement none of this will become a full agreement. This is most likely to end up like the gossipy steal remember the gossipy steal happened last year remember this. The president helped broker a deal or stage one was going to be the release of all of the hostages alive and dead. And the Israeli pull back to particular areas stage two was underpants nomes and then stage three was world peace. A bunch of stuff was supposed to happen in stage two the Palestinians were going to moderate come also get in turn over its guns all the rep none of that ever happened. We are still at stage two and we will be at stage two forever. Because stage two.
one was the whole thing. The MOU will be the same thing. The only thing that will actually happen here is that oil will flow out of the straight and we will bribe them to do it and they will told things. That is what's actually going to happen here. So if I don't believe that the rest of the MOU is ever going to become reality, including for example a $300 billion investment fund, then why bother focusing on it? The answer is, because if you do not wish for this MOU to become reality, then there must be pushback against the terms of the MOU. There are a lot of sycophants in the influencer class, some of whom actively fan boy to Ron's ring the war, who would love for this trash MOU to become reality in all of its aspects. And that should not be the case. My hope and belief is that the MOU is a stopgap, a poorly drawn messy, optically bad stopgap, but a stopgap nonetheless. But the people who are cheering it want the thing to go into full force and effect. I understand the vice president who negotiated it is cheering the deal pretending it's great all the way around. But so is Lindsey Graham, who's hawkish. I assume because the senator knows that it will never go to stage two so he may as well not get on anyone's bad side. He tweeted out yesterday, I just had a very lengthy and productive discussion with Steve Wittkov, again, one of our genius negotiators, about the state of play regarding Iran. After this discussion, it is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States and as much as the straight of hormones will begin to open and hostilities with Iran will stop. Now again, notice what he say. He wants the straight open, but as far as the rest of it, he skeptical it will ever come to path. Right? Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable verifiable deal with Iran, regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying. The signing of the MOU is an essential step to expand the Abraham Accords and normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Again, none of that's going to happen. JD Vance, of course, thanked Graham and suggests the president's coalition is uniting. He says, "The president's coalition is uniting behind his leadership and vision for a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world." Again, no one here, it's funny. He says, you know, what the coalition is uniting. Okay, the coalition's uniting. I would just like to point out at this point that no one threatened the coalition except for the people who are actively against the war from the start. I disagree with the MOU. I think it is bad in a wide variety of ways. I also have never called the president the anti-Christ. I've never threatened to form a horseshoe coalition against the Republican Party. I've never suggested that the president is a pedo protector. Now, when JD Vance has the coalition is coming together, again, there's only one side of the coalition that was ever quote unquote threatening to leave in this way. But here's the thing. The MOU is not a good MOU. So, given the fact that I don't think the MOU is ever going to become a real deal, why am I pushing back so hard on it? I'll explain in just a moment. First, as America prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our founding, it's worth asking a simple question. How do we get here? The answer isn't all that complicated. For 250 years, Americans have been willing to defend this country its freedoms and its founding ideals. Generation after generation stepped forward when duty called. That's why Puritalk is partnering with America's warrior partnership to raise 250 grand for veterans. America's warrior partnership works to prevent veteran suicide by helping veterans access housing, transportation, counseling, VA benefits, and other essential services. They focus on practical solutions that help veterans build stable successful lives after service. This month, you can help. When you switch your cell phone service to Puritalk, you'll have the opportunity to round up your bill in support of America's warrior partnership. Puritalk will match donations until they reach 250 grand. You'll be supporting a great cause while saving money on your wireless service. For just 34.99 per month, you'll get a limited talk, a limited text, unlimited high-speed data, and a fraction of the price charge by the major carriers. As we approach America's 250th birthday, let's remember the men and women who helped make those 250 years possible. Head on over to Puritalk.com/pero and make that switch to Puritalk again, Puritalk.com/pero to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Puritalk. The reason I'm pushing back against the MOU is because if it turned into a real agreement along these lines, it would, in fact, be a disaster, a full deal that looked like the MOU would be a disaster. An MOU that looks like an MOU is just a mistake that is correctable. If it became a full deal, it would leave Iran permanently in control of what people have described as an economic nuclear weapon, the straight, that they could close it literally any time. It would give them hundreds of billions of dollars so they could later develop a bomb, all while allowing them to fund terrorism and rebuild their ballistic missiles. It would be the JCPOA if it became a full deal, but likely weaker. It would be bad, not just because what Iran would do, but also because of the signal it would send to the rest of the world. That a rag-tag group of terrorists can push the most powerful military and the most militant president off the ball with some mines and some drones and some ugly words. So what do you think China would then do about the time on straight or Taiwan itself? What do you think an expansionist Russia would do about the Baltics? If you would like a world where America loses its global foothold and of course there are some who actively want this, then make the MOU a full deal, all of which is why I believe that it won't become a full deal. Again, because there are people who are saying that they want this thing to become a full deal, it's necessary to point out that the MOU is bad and the president shouldn't have signed it. And certainly he shouldn't be out there saying the kinds of stuff he's saying to defend it. I know that President Trump as a pragmatist thinks correctly most of the time that actions matter and words really don't vary matter very much, but when it comes to the signals you send to the rest of the world about America's role in the world, words do matter. So when the president defends backing off of all the rationales for the war in order to cut the temporary deal, that actually can have long-term negative impact. It can be reversed if the president re-establishes the credible threat of force after the midterms, but the stuff that the president is saying right now is not good and it is not useful. Again, the president is now, after having said on April 17th that we would get the nuclear dust. This is President Trump saying this, April 17th. The USA will get all nuclear dust, you know what the nuclear dust is. That was that white powdery substance created by our B2 bombers, those great B2 bombers late one evening. Seven months ago, no money will exchange hands in any way, shape or form. Iran will be, and you know how we're going to get the dust, right? Iran, we're going to take it anyway, but taking it, taking it that way is slightly more dangerous, but we're going to get it anyway. Okay, he was saying that, April 17th, fast forward a couple of months and he is now defending, leaving the nuclear dust there. And it's actually not valuable, not a lot of value, but we'd like to get it psychologically, but nobody's touching it. We also have cameras, that's what space forces, we have the best, we have the greatest military in the world, by the way, but I'm proud of space force because I started it. We have space force cameras on every single door, every, well there are no doors. It's been pretty much shattered, but every area of that, if somebody walks in and he's got a badge with this name on it, like Mohammed something, which is about a 50/50 guess, Mohammed something, they can tell the name. So again, first we're getting the nuclear dust, then we're not getting the nuclear dust. The MOU it says, itself says that there be onsite dilution of the material under the supervision of the IAEA. So again, this is why if the MOU went into effect, it would be a giant fail diluting nuclear material in Iran under the IAEA, that doesn't mean a thing. You can water the uranium and then they can re-vivify that same uranium five seconds later when the inspectors leave. Or how about ballistic missiles? So again, March 2026, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that one of the goals was to destroy Iran's ballistic missile capacity. The purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where it can hide behind. Meaning, there would come a point where they have so many conventional missiles, so many drones, and it can inflict so much damage that no one can do anything about their nuclear program. That is what they were trying to do. It's put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they could inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions. Okay, so again, that was back in March, fast forward to yesterday, and the President was actively saying that Iran should have some ballistic missiles because Saudi Arabia has ballistic missiles, which again, that's really, really quite silly. I would like for our enemies not to have things to hurt our allies. That seems like baseline. So we'll be working on a parallel effort with the Gulf nations to address non-nuclear issues, such as the conventional ballistic missiles, which we'll be talking about, and support them. They have to have some because other people have some, they've got to have some. Somebody said, "You shouldn't give them one." I have guys, I like some of these guys, but I don't think this, I don't think this is hard. Sir, you shouldn't let them have any missile. I said, "Well, what am I going to do? I'm going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can't have them." Yes sir. Yes. Can't this work that way, you know? It doesn't work that way. Yeah, it doesn't work that way. That's why I'm talking about blue-moss. They heard a little location, but they don't blow up the planet. No, missiles absolutely are a problem. In fact, it was the ballistic missile umbrella, set up by Iran in the first place. That was the rationale for the war. Then of course, the President doubled down on that later. Again, it is a
the president selling the deal right now that is the biggest problem because I don't think that there will ever be a full deal. Same thing with regard to terrorism. So back in May, again, this is just a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who again looked quite unhappy at this presser yesterday as well, he should. He said that the problem is not between Israel and Lebanon when it comes to Lebanon, it's his blood, his terrorist group. The problem with Israel and Lebanon is not Israel or Lebanon, it's Hezbollah. Hezbollah operates from inside of Lebanese territory. They terrorize and attack Israelis, but they also are inflicting tremendous damage on the Lebanese people. Okay, but then yesterday, the president said that, yeah, we sent a copy of the memo of understanding to Israel, which tries to bind Israel according to Iran. And then he said he felt a little bad for Lebanon. Well, I mean, Lebanon is not the party under attack, his bala is the party that is being attacked because they have spent the last several years firing missiles and rockets into northern Israel and then drones at Israeli troops trying to defend Israel. We did send a copy to Israel, by the way. They've been a good partner. Again, I think they could do better with respect to Hezbollah. I'm not saying they shouldn't protect themselves. I'm saying, when two drones are shot into the desert and dropped harmlessly, you don't have to knock down buildings in Beirut. They could behave better. And frankly, they could do a better job. I love them as a partner. They were terrific, but they could do a much better job with Hezbollah. On that, I don't think they're doing well. And I feel very bad for Lebanon. Hey, he's being told that I assume by his ambassador, Tom Barich, over in Turkey, who is in Thrall to Erdogan, which is why the president has been suggesting that Syria should reinvade Lebanon, which did not go well between 1970 and 2005. By the way, Iran is openly promising at this point to help Hezbollah the minute its assets are unfrozen. According to the New York Post, Tehran reportedly promised the inflow of cash to Hezbollah as soon as possible, paving the way for the group to rebuild its military wing and political arm in war-torn Lebanon. Hezbollah's communications office confirmed Iran's public support for the terror group, which is propped up for decades, including a $1 billion transfer just last year. And then when it comes to the straight, again, the reality is that the MOU, if carried into full force and effect, if it became the deal, the MOU would leave Iran in control of the straight. Quote, "The Islamic Republic of Iran will hold a dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, with a view to determining the future governance arrangement and maritime services in the straight of Hormuz." In consultation with the other states bordering the Persian Gulf and in accordance with the applicable international law, and the sovereign rights of the coastal states and the straight of Hormuz. So, Iran and Oman will toll the straight. Now, the president, again, suggested that the straight would never be open if we kept bombing for another three months. Well, I mean, we could have done project freedom, which is a thing the president himself tried to do a couple of months ago that lasted for less than 12 hours. Let's say we went another month, another two, three months, maybe weeks could be another three months, could be whatever. What do you have left? That may be nothing, but you don't have the straight will never be open. And the straight is not fully open. The straight is under the thumb of the Iranians. And they may temporarily hold off, I'm closing off the straight, they may temporarily hold off on tolls so they can keep tapping the president along, but that's what's happening. We are bribing them to keep the straight open and that will continue presumably. And then the MOU, of course, talks openly about funding mechanisms for Iran. It specifically says many things. It says the United States of America undertakes to allow use of funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran that have been frozen or restricted upon implementation of the MOU, not among a pontifinal deal, not upon a final deal among a upon the implementation of the MOU. We are supposed to start unfreezing their funds and assets. And the president yesterday full on defended this. He said we have to give them back their money. What does he, I mean, frozen funds are frozen because they are a terrorist organization. What the difference is between giving Iran US dollars and unfreezing US dollars for them. Well, the unfreezing is the easy one to answer. We have taken a lot of their money and we have their money. We have taken their money. It's their money. And we froze it. At a certain point in time, I guess we're going to have to give it back. Okay. No, or we don't. Or we actually don't have to do any of that. Now again, the reason that I am railing against an MOU that I think will never turn into a full deal is because the defense of the MOU by the president is wrong and he shouldn't be doing it. Second, it's a bad deal. Shouldn't be negotiated by the VP and the president should never have accepted it. And three, the optics of the situation are bad. And I think that it is very important that people who are telling the president that if this MOU were to go into full force and affect it would be good. I'm misinforming him and if he believes them, he is making a large scale mistake. This is all very clear to Republicans five seconds ago. This is all very clear, including the president. To flash back to September of 2015, here is Senator Marco Rubio talking about what would happen if Barack Obama's JCPOA became law. I do want to be recorded for history's purposes. But I know what was going to happen in regards to this if it goes through. Iran will immediately use the money that it's receiving in sanctions relief to begin to build up its conventional capabilities. It will establish the most dominant military power in the region outside of the United States. It will create the price of us operating in the region. They are going to build anti-access capabilities. Rockets capable of destroying aircraft carriers and ships. Continue to build these swift boats that are able to come on us, these fast boats that are able to swarm our naval assets. And they will make it harder and harder for US troops to be in the region. They will also work with other terrorist groups in the region to target American servicemen and women. And they may or may not deny that they are involved, but they will target us and raise the price of our presence in the Middle East until they hope to completely pull us out of that region. And so he was right then. That remains right now. The president should listen to the Secretary of State. And again, I trust that all of this is basically just a delay ploy until we get past the election. But it is important that it not become permanent because again, at the very beginning of the week, I spelled out that there was sort of a good case scenario for the MOU, a bad case scenario and a mediocre case. The good case scenario would be that before the original goals of the war, it does not do that. The bad case scenario is that it would actually reverse the goals of the war. And the MOU text appears to do many of those things. The mediocre case is that it opens the straight and doesn't do much else. I think that will be the practical effect that's still not great. It is mediocre. The thing that will have to be reestablished is the credible threat of use of force by the United States when Iran continues to violate all the basic principles the United States went to war to stop in the first place. I assume that will be done after the election. The biggest thing is that that MOU cannot serve as the framework for a full deal along those lines. That is the biggest thing because that's what would turn the current situation from mediocre, maybe a delay tactic, maybe a pragmatic move to lower oil prices into a permanent L. All right. We'll get to more in a moment. Let's see. I'm going to eat healthier, more fruits, more veggies less junk. And then life happens. A meeting runs long. The kids want something completely different for dinner. And grab whatever is convenient. Suddenly it's 9 p.m. Your nutritional master plan has somehow turned into coffee and a protein bar. Welcome to being an adult. That is one of the reasons I like balance of nature. They don't pretend life is perfect. They make it easier to get more of the things we all know. We should be getting fruits, veggies, fiber, whole food ingredients. Their whole health system is made from real fruits, veggies, spices, fiber. It's become a regular part of my routine. In fact, it's become pretty popular around the daily wire offices as well. Gotta mention those freeze-dried snacks, they're awesome. They're convenient. They travel well. Kids love them. Unlike many kids snacks, they don't somehow end up covering every surface of your house. Next week, I will actually be speaking with Dr. Howard who's the founder of Balance of Nature. We'll be talking about the foods you ought to avoid, foods to implement into your daily life and a lot more. So, if you've heard me mention balance of nature, but you haven't checked them out yet, now would be the time. Visit balanceofnature.com today. Subscribe to the whole health system to get an additional 10% off your subscription with promo code Shapiro. As balanceofnature.com, promo code Shapiro. Balanceofnature.com, promo code Shapiro. Already, meanwhile, over in Eastern Europe, in Ukraine, the war between Ukraine and Russia continues. So, just the other day, a Russian strike slammed into Keiv's dormitian cathedral is what that looked like. So, this is a picture of a cathedral that was built, you know, a thousand years ago. The Russians just struck it. I didn't hear any catterwalling, by the way, from the same group that keeps saying that Ukraine is not Christian and that Russia is super-duper Christian and that Ukraine is attacking Christians and all the rest of it. I didn't hear a single tweet about the fact that Russia purposefully hit a historic church in the middle of Ukraine. That's weird. It's weird. They all went totally silent, strange. Almost as though they are totally dishonest about what it is they're pushing, these particular folks. But, according to the Wall Street Journal, the site that met Bishop Avrami when he arrived at the dormitian cathedral here shortly after 2 a.m. on Monday, was like something torn from the pages of the Bible or Ukraine.
in his own bloody history. The roof of the main cathedral at the Kiev monastery of the caves, one of the eastern orthodoxy's holiest sites and overseeing it by Avrami, was ablaze minutes after a Russian explosive drone struck, as the flames ate away at the roof of the roof's wooden frame. The bearded 41-year-old clad in black-castic formed a rescue team of police officers and first responders for a daunting mission to save what they could from inside. What followed was an hour's long battle to rescue Ukrainian religious heritage, which Russia has long laid claim to and in a vicious trist was now destroying. Again, I didn't see that as big news on the woke right. No, nothing. Zero's abzilch, Russia great defender of Christianity slamming into a millennium old cathedral. Nope, yeah, I missed it as well. They are very upset, however, at the fact that the Ukrainians have now been pummeling Moscow. And again, the post-American world, if what we are actually ushering in, if the vision of some on the woke right and their accolades in the government come to pass, post-American world will be a world where our erstwhile allies arm up and defend themselves. I am significantly less worried about those allies. And I am worried about an America that retreats from the world and leaves the world at the tender mercy of Russia and China, pretending that they are our friends. That would be an enormous mistake for Americans. It would mean shutting off of waterways. It would mean everything gets more expensive. It would mean that America's capacity to ensure our safety would drop significantly. It would mean influence in areas of the world much closer to home from places like China and Russia. It would be not good. And well, Ukrainians are not giving up. According to the New York Times, as Ukraine escalated its efforts to bring the war home for Russians, the strikes on Thursday appeared to be the largest drone attack on the Russian capital since Vladimir Putin launched the war more than four years ago. No deaths were immediately reported, but large-scale assault seemed likely to feed fear as among Russians that the Kremlin's ability to isolate society from the impacts of the war was sharply eroding. For days, lines have formed and rationing has been implemented at gas stations in dozens of Russian regions as persistent Russian drone attacks on oil refineries and processing facilities have threatened a fuel shortage. Ukraine has taken particular aim at Crimea, a peninsula that Russia illegally annexed in 2014 with a range of strikes aimed at cutting off the region's supply lines. The Russian economy has also begun suffering from the cost of the war in a way that the Kremlin had managed to avoid for years. And Zelensky cited, as a rationale, a response to that attack on the Pachersk Lavra monastery complex in Kiev. Here is some of the footage of targets that were hit in Moscow as well as occupied Ukraine. You see the smoke rising from oil and gas facilities in Russia here? And cars driving in the foreground because this is actually a pretty populace area. Again, a massive strike by a drone blew the roof off of one of these oil facilities. Again, this is the Ukrainian's doing significant damage in Moscow. That is why whenever you hear that the Ukrainians are going to quote unquote lose the war or that they're going to give up the ghost, the answer there is no. And the idea that Russia is unbelievably strong is also not true. But the world will become a more chaotic place. You'll miss American hegemony when it's gone. Now, Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, is still ripping into the NATO allies suggesting that they need to increase their spend. He is right about this. Here's the Secretary of War yesterday. But make no mistake about it. This will be a real review. It will be designed to ensure that NATO is moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe leading. Stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe. Stepping up to ensure our forces are postured for America's global needs. And stepping up to make sure that our access, facing and overflight are clearly delineated and assured. Any other country would do the same. So he is right about that. And I think that realistically speaking, these European countries will be forced to. They're not going to have a choice. They will be in fact forced to up the anti and rebuild their militaries. So the fact that Ukraine is still with standing this. Remember, we are now four years into this war. And Ukraine is still with standing, the Russian onslaught. The best thing that the United States could do is continue to provide arms to the Ukrainians. Yes, it is bad if the Russians expand further into Ukraine. No, Ukraine is not the bad guy in the war. And no, it is not good for America if a country that suggests that it wants an entire civilization overturned in Europe, directed against the United States, or to gain more power and credibility around the world. The push for multi-polar world order is inherently a call for America to recede from global affairs, not for the benefit of Americans, but because the idea is that America is somehow a line factor on the world stage. And as we saw when Joe Biden pulled that out of Afghanistan, as I fear we will see, if the MOU were to become a full deal, as we have seen with regard to the weakness of Barack Obama, weakness begets aggression from people we do not like. That is true for the Europeans, which is why they should arm up. It is true for the United States as well. Otherwise, honestly, what's the point of having a military that we spend trillions of dollars on if the idea is that we are simply going to back away from the rest of the world inherently, and that any minor threat is going to result in American concessions at the negotiating table. I mean, well, on the immigration front, the DOJ is taking significant action. They are now prosecuting 15 members of the Minnesota anti-ice group. According to the Justice Department, they announced that 15 members and associates of direct action in Minnesota have been charged with various federal crimes, including conspiracy to impede a federal officer, multiple counts of interest state stalking, interest state threats, solicitation to commit a crime of violence, multiple counts of assault on a federal officer and destruction of government property. So this does mark one of the first sort of investigations and prosecutions of one of these antifa-associated groups. Over the last 24 hours, federal agents with Homeland Security conducted a coordinated law enforcement operation culminating in the arrest of 14 direct action at Minnesota members. They call themselves damn. And this makes perfect sense. I mean, obviously, antifa has been fostering violence in chaos in our streets for years on end. There are some antifa riots happening outside of the St. Paul Minnesota courthouse. Now, people spray painting the doors and attacking ice officers and then being tear gas and all the rest of it. So just wonderful people, wonderful, wonderful people. These are the people that we have been assured by Democrats are the freedom fighters. These are the people who we ought to respect. The people who are going after courthouses because members of antifa who act in violence against police officers are being arrested. Meanwhile the Democratic Party increasingly enthrall to the Democratic Socialist of America. Congressional candidate in New York's 13th District endorsed, of course, by Zorn Mamdani, a person named Daryaliza Avila Chivalye says that all deportations are wrong. Literally all of them. All deportation is wrong. Is that something you still believe? That phrase, yes. I still believe that all deportations are wrong. Even if we're talking about illegal entry to the country, someone who may have committed a crime. So when we're talking about things like illegal entry, we're actually talking about administrative laws. Right. We're now talking about criminal law. Let me concede the question of people who have not committed a crime because I think that that's not really the question. Like if we're saying all deportation is wrong though, that would seem to also include people who were convicted of breaking US criminal law. Is the deportation of those people wrong? Yes. The reason I say that is because we have a criminal system. It isn't perfect. But it exists. And it is one that if we accept as the process by which we want to engage with these issues, right, the issues of harm, issues of criminality, what have you, then we need to make sure that it is one that isn't also discriminatory on the basis of where people were born. You know, points for consistency. That's for consistency that we can't discriminate based on where people were born. So that means we can never deport anyone because if there's a right to free speech for an American citizen, that means that they're and if an American citizen were to be arrested for say murdering somebody and go to an American jail, why should we deport somebody who murdered American citizen if they're from Venezuela or something? admirable consistency in hatred of the country from from these democratic socialists of America and it's amazing to me the Democrats continue to humor this nonsense, but they're not just humoring it. They're bending in its direction. So representative Seth Molten from Massachusetts again, I know representative Molten. He is in my opinion far more moderate than he likes to let off publicly sometimes. Here he was suggesting that ice needs to be prosecuted. And that's why I have been so clear. I was the first in this race to say that ice not only needs to be abolished, they need to be prosecuted.
continue to embrace the most radical aspects of the immigration agenda. They must really believe that President Trump is so unpopular, they can say anything, which is a move. I do not think it is a smart move. It seems to me that the American people always and forever will select the candidates that they believe is more rational, close to the center, more norming. That seems like that's just what the American people do. They bounce side to side on the perception of who that is. But do they really believe that they need to elect people who take sides with those who say that no one ever should be deported, who defend rioters at courthouses and act in violence against ICE? I do not think so. I do not think so. Okay, onto the affordability crisis. So people keep talking about an affordability crisis. Don Lemon is blaming JD Vance for affordability problems, which is a hell of a take. This is a bizarre take here from Nollemann. Instead of saying that the birth rates are down or that people can't afford to have kids, right? That he's saying that this country is now anti-family and anti-child. This country is not anti-family and it's not anti-child. It's because of your horrible policies and because you have done such a terrible job with the economy that people can no longer afford, as you said, Daniel, to have children. That's what you should be saying and that's how he should have been corrected. Said, I don't know anyone whose anti-child or anti-family. I'm not anti-child or family unless I'm an airplane and a kid is screaming, but I'm just saying. I mean, first of all, people should get over kids screaming on airplanes otherwise people can't travel. But let's be very clear. What's hilarious about this is that Don Lemon and JD Vance are quite similar in economic matters. The vice president is not exactly a small government conservative. He is a large-scale advocate of government policy designed at fostering a lowering of family class. Now, my opinion is that many of the proposals that he puts forward are actually not useful in generating more child-bearing and rearing. And that actually both Lemon and Vance are wrong. And the reason why people are not having kids is not because of affordability issues. The reason people are not having kids is because they just don't want to have that many kids. They see them as a net cost. They do not feel a religious obligation to have children. This is why you may notice that many of the poorest communities in America, if they are religious, have lots of kids. It turns out that many of the poorest places on planet earth have lots of kids. The actual reason why people are having fewer kids is that as countries get richer, people have fewer kids because they start to see kids not as some sort of economic asset, but as an economic cost. And unless you have a religious obligation to have kids, and kids are very difficult, and kids are very time consuming, they're also the greatest thing in life. I have four, almost five. Like kids are awesome. They are terrific. But the reason why westernized countries have fewer kids is because of irrelevant. That is the actual reason. But all this ties into, once again, this idea that the government can solve all problems, which is not true. There's a really good piece over at the dispatch of a publication that I have mixed feelings about. And the author is Aaron Brown, Michael Mendelssohn and Cliff Asnes. They talk about affordability and what they make the argument, they make a really interesting argument. They say basically everyone is lumping into one term affordability, a bunch of discrete problems. So what they say is, quote, there are two serious affordability problems in America. They look nothing like each other and they need opposite solutions. The first is the destitute tale. A real but small share of Americans are in genuinely miserable financial situations. They have more bills than they can pay. They're one mispaycheck from eviction. They frequently have literally zero money. The unemployable woman with the worthless degree from a fraudulent for-profit college is in this category. So as a 58-year-old's got laid off from a manufacturing job exhausted his savings, can't get hired anywhere and watches his wife work double shifts of Walmart. These people need money. The institutions that make their lives worse. The for-profits that produce unemployable graduates, the medical billing systems designed to confuse people into paying twice, need to be regulated or eliminated. Both of those statements are true, neither is insurious political dispute. But there's another group of people. And that group of people are people who are essentially middle class and they can't afford to live in big cities. These are people who have student debt but also make a high income and the affordability in New York is just difficult. They say the first example when it comes to the deeply poor is a redistribution problem requiring cash transfers and safety nets and regulatory crackdowns on the worst predators. The second is a supply problem and requires zoning reform, occupational licensing reform, and breaking up the entrenched cartels in housing, healthcare, education, and childcare. The packages don't overlap. And the point that these authors make is the Democrats are fond of using these solutions for people who are legitimately dirt poor to apply to people who just can't afford a nice apartment in New York. And Republicans are fond of using these sort of clear up the economic skies and allow people to flourish argument for people who legitimately can't take care of themselves. Now, I think that the second critique is not really true. Republicans have, particularly on the local and state level, very often advocated for welfare systems that take care of the poorest. The biggest, the hardest problem in that area is trying to construct a public policy that doesn't allow people to free ride. That doesn't actually incentivize people not to work, for example. This is why Republicans were for welfare reform, not welfare elimination back in the 90s. But when people pretend that the affordability crisis in America is all is all a problem of the government just grabbing more money and spewing it out in random directions. That is not true in this latest. In other cultural news, LeBron James is making some weird statements. And by the way, we do have a YouTube coming out for Father's Day on Fatherhoods. You're going to want to check out our YouTube channel. I have some words about Fatherhood. But LeBron talked about how he can't have a stay at home wife. And somehow this is bad. To have a stay at home wife. I think personally, me today, if I was not in a relationship today, I could not have a stay at home woman. It's not like for me who I am at 40 and what I got going on just come home and just seeing somebody just sitting on the couch every day just sitting there just chilling. That wouldn't float for me. So being where I am today, knowing how she is, she's home with Zuri sometimes. Oh my come home, she's not there, she had work. Boom, she may be on the roll with Bryce at college. She doing all these things. I think that's what I think is just who you are and where you are. At that point in your life, what kind of moves you. And I think everybody is different. I mean, I'm just confused at his perception that stayed home wives basically do nothing all day. Like that is not true. That is not true at all. So my wife, the doctor, she took off time after the last baby. And I assume that she will take time off after this baby, which means that she'll probably have a several year consecutive not being in the workforce pattern here. And you know what? Not only is that her choice, I think it's been a very good choice for the kids. I think it's been great for the kids to know that mommy is always there. And then mommy takes care of the issues and that mommy is always there to organize the day and to teach them and to educate them and to make them better people. The bizarre argument that it's sort of bad to have a stay at home wife. Again, this is coming from a person whose wife is as well educated as any woman in America. I know I'm sure at some point want to go back into the workforce, but the notion that somehow it is bad to have a stay at home wife is it's a bizarre take. It's a bizarre take from LeBron James. It turns out that it's actually quite important for a woman to be in the home. And it's why the vast majority of women when given the choice actually like a part-time life. In other words, they like to drop the kids off at school, go to work and then come home before the kids get home from school. If they could opt for it, this is the life that polls show the vast majority of women would seek. One of the problems with our society more generally is the fact that we have made that non-normal. Now that again is a problem of choices. That is not a problem of the economy per se. That is a problem of choices. Some people like to portray that as an economic issue that you know we need a constructed economy whereby a woman can stay at home and the family can survive on a single parent income. The reality is that economically speaking the sort of bizarre time in American history was in the 1950s. And that was because the rest of the world was destroyed. Before that if you go back to say 1900, half of the American economy was agriculture. The stay at home mom was still work again. It is work to take care of kids. It is work to take care of the home. It is work to organize lives and educate children. These are all things that are work. They are not compensated work in the same way but you actually can put an economic value on these things. Because for example if mom is working and dad is working, usually you have to hire an auntie. Usually you have to hire somebody to clean. Usually you have to hire somebody to babysit. Usually you have to hire tutors. All these things have economic value. Now it shouldn't be measured in economic value because the true value of staying at home is non-economic in nature. If you are spending time with your kids you can put a price on anything, literally anything but because all prices are a system of evaluating trade-offs in terms of time. What that said is it more important that mommy be there for the kids than that mommy work a few more billable hours? Of course the answer on a sort of raw moral level is yes. And so these sort of bizarre notions
that a woman is only truly, fully herself when she is working a lot outside the home. And that LeBron is putting forward here that that is a misnomer. It is, it is just wrong. Already folks, the show is continuing for our members right now. We'll take your questions. Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member. If you're not a member, become one. Use coach Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us. [MUSIC]
PodcastTranscript AI