Menu
In this episode of Washington Watch, we delve into significant and complex national and international issues. From direct talks with Iran involving military repositioning in the Middle East to the sweeping changes in Colorado’s legislative approach to parental rights around gender identity, the conversation is intense and multifaceted. Notably, the episode offers insights into the internal budget discussions taking place in Washington D.C., weighing the pros and cons of significant spending cuts and how it impacts the political landscape. Host Tony Perkins brings expert voices into the discussion, including former military leaders and policy analysts, to break down ongoing
SPEAKER 09 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Washington Watch with Tony Perkins starts now.
SPEAKER 15 :
We’re having direct talks with Iran, and they’ve started. It’ll go on Saturday. We have a very big meeting, and we’ll see what can happen. And I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious.
SPEAKER 03 :
That was President Donald Trump yesterday during his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Welcome to this April 8th edition of Washington Watch. Thanks for tuning in and making us part of your day. The U.S. has moved significant military assets into the Middle East in advance of those direct talks with Iran. We’ll discuss what this may mean with FRC’s Executive Vice President, retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. And while President Trump has a knack for negotiations, can you negotiate with the Iranian mullahs? We’re going to talk with Dr. Eric Bordenkircher, research fellow at the UCLA Center for Middle East Development. On the domestic front, House leadership is pressing forward on the next steps for the budget.
SPEAKER 04 :
We cannot delay the country. Can’t afford for us to delay a month or longer. to wait on the Senate getting where we are. We’ve got to continue to move forward, and the bill that we have before us allows us to do that.
SPEAKER 03 :
That was House Majority Leader Steve Scalise earlier today. Suzanne Bowdy, Editorial Director at The Washington Stand, joins me with the latest on the budget battle. And this alarming development in Colorado.
SPEAKER 14 :
This is the most egregious bill I have seen this entire session. The idea that misgendering your own child is considered a course of control, which is another word for abuse, child abuse, because you wanna get your child help instead of affirming their delusions, and you can lose custody of your child over that. This is the most disgusting bill I’ve seen so far.
SPEAKER 03 :
That was Colorado State Representative Jarvis Caldwell arguing against House Bill 1312, which could affect child custody if you misgender your child. That passed the House and is now in the Colorado Senate. FRC’s Meg Kilgannon will join me with more details. And it’s out, episode eight of FRC’s God and Government. In episode eight, I explore what the Bible says about economics, wealth, inflation, and the proper role of civil government in the economy. This is, given what’s happening right now, a very timely discussion. But you can only find it exclusively on the Stand Firm app. The God and Government course is at Stand Firm, at the Stand Firm app. If you don’t have the app, you can text the word course to 67742. 67742, the word course, and I’ll send you a link. All right, House Speaker Mike Johnson says he’s moving ahead with a plan to vote this week on the Senate approved budget resolution despite reports of opposition from some of Republicans in the House. In fact, yesterday we had the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, Andy Harris, saying he’s not for it, which I think is representative of many in the Freedom Caucus. He can only spare, the House Speaker can only spare three votes How will he be able to move this forward for a vote tomorrow? Or could it take longer? Here to discuss the latest is Suzanne Bowdy, Editorial Director and Senior Writer for The Washington Stand. Suzanne, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks, Tony. All right, give us the latest.
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, if anybody tuned in yesterday, I hope you did. You heard from Andy Harris about the Senate, which over the weekend passed its version of budget reconciliation framework. Now, If you’ve been listening to the show, then you know that both chambers of the capital right now are trying to come up with a plan. It’s really like they’re trying to write the rules for a game they haven’t played yet. And the big game is how do we do the federal budget? How do we do tax cuts? What are the floors for spending offsets, the debt ceiling? Trump’s tax extensions. They’re trying to come up with a plan to go at this to see what they can do. And the two chambers have very different ideas about what should be done. On the Senate side, what they passed is objectionable to a lot of the House members, largely because the floor for spending cuts is so low. If you heard Andy Harris yesterday, he said, we’re coming at it from a floor of $2 trillion worth of spending cuts. And you hear the Senate saying $4 billion with a B, which is a drop in the bucket many House conservatives think into what they should be doing.
SPEAKER 03 :
That’s almost a rounding error when you consider the size of the budget. So, House Speaker Mike Johnson, as… Repeatedly, we’ve seen him when he’s been at these tight points, he’s kind of pulled out the Trump card. And today he did the same. He had President Trump met with the House Freedom Caucus and some others. How did that go?
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, I think they hoped it had gone better than it did. After the meeting, there was a readout that said a lot of the more hardline conservatives were still not in favor of the Senate plan. They don’t think that it cuts deep enough. I know that Ralph Norman had concerns, Chip Roy as well. And as you said, the House can only afford to lose three votes. And I think Mike Johnson has a really tough job here because what happens in reconciliation is the two sides have to come to an agreement on a plan. And that plan is how they go about unlocking this process to actually do the work. So we’re at the very beginning of this process right now.
SPEAKER 03 :
So let’s unpack that for just a moment, Suzanne. So the Senate only has $4 billion in cuts. The House had $1.5 trillion with hopes for more. So how can they work within that framework? I mean, are they limited then within that framework for only $4 billion if they take the Senate?
SPEAKER 13 :
No, and I think that’s one of the points that Mike Johnson is trying to make. Look, this is just a shell. It’s a skeleton. So if the two sides come together, if we agree on this skeleton moving forward, then we can make it whatever we want.
SPEAKER 03 :
At the end. So this is just kind of like the start, what we end up at the, and this is the point the speaker made earlier or over the weekend in the conference, as he was at the conference call with the members on Sunday, is that this is where we start, but it doesn’t mean this is where we have to end up.
SPEAKER 13 :
Absolutely not. And I think that’s what Trump emphasized today in those meetings, which is that, look, I can bear down on the Senate to get more cuts. In fact, a lot of the people that left the meeting said Trump assured us that we could get more than $4 billion. I think a lot of members’ concerns are, well, yeah, you say you’re going to cut $4 billion, but we have absolutely no assurance of that if this is the plan that’s at the table.
SPEAKER 03 :
But wouldn’t the flip side be true as well, that even if they adopted the House version that calls for the $1.5 or more trillion in cuts, that doesn’t guarantee that’s where they end up.
SPEAKER 13 :
No, and I think that the House conservatives in particular would like that to be as much as $5 trillion.
SPEAKER 03 :
But they’re not locked into that by this framework. So it’s just a starting point, a reference point. What they end up with is based on what they can get agreement to at the end of the process.
SPEAKER 13 :
Right. And you can see both sides’ point of view. Obviously, there’s a lot of wiggle room in this process to do more than what’s being laid out right now. As a lot of people have said, the real work starts now. We’re really just getting on the train. We haven’t even left the station yet. But you can also see the side of the conservatives who think that, well, that’s great. You’re making all these promises. How do we hold your feet to the fire when it really comes down to making these reductions? And you add to that the debt ceiling. You add to that whether the tax cuts are permanent or just an extension. There’s just an incredible amount of controversial issues that at some point both sides are going to have to sit down and really hammer through, whether that’s now or whether that’s you pass the shell of a plan and then you come to the table later. Regardless, there’s going to be hard work in negotiating on both sides. This is not where either side is going to end up. It’s going to be a process.
SPEAKER 03 :
What about Congressman Andy Harris’s point yesterday on the program that, all right, we really don’t need this budget resolution right now to start the process. We can go ahead and our committees can start doing this work now while we’re still having a conversation about what the framework looks like.
SPEAKER 13 :
And that’s what they did in 2017, the last time the Republicans tried to do a reconciliation bill. They said, OK, we’re going to punt on this issue of the resolution, the plan, the framework, which ultimately they will have to do. You can’t unlock the process without it. But they went ahead and negotiated, went to their appropriators and said, hey, let’s get together. Let’s huddle. Let’s see where we can make cuts. There’s been suggestions of going. I think Ron Johnson was on the show last week saying we can go line by line by line and the appropriators can cut. We can talk about it. So there are many avenues with which to take with this.
SPEAKER 03 :
I don’t see at this point a way forward for this bill, for this budget resolution that came over from the Senate to pass the House this week.
SPEAKER 13 :
No, and complicating matters is, and this is a little inside baseball, but you have to have a rule passed before they can even get to a vote on the plan. And guess who are the gatekeepers of the rule committee? They are these very hardline conservatives who are not going to say, OK, sure, let’s vote on this rule. And then it’s open season on the budget resolution if they sincerely have problems and don’t believe that the Senate is going to make further cuts.
SPEAKER 03 :
And in their defense, in the defense of conservatives, rarely does something turn out more conservative than it starts in this city. Right. And not kept. And usually things turn out bigger, not smaller in this city. However, that said, let me be the other side of that coin as well. We’re in the era of Trump where things are different, much different than what they’ve been before.
SPEAKER 13 :
And Mike Johnson has really benefited from having Trump to come in behind him and alongside him and say, hey, this is what I want done. You two need to work it out. Both sides need to come to the table and unify. In this situation, I really do think that Trump is the Trump card. I mean, I do think that he will come in and strong arm senators if he needs to, to get a little bit more just to bring the House to the table.
SPEAKER 03 :
But that is a big difference.
SPEAKER 13 :
Oh, absolutely. Trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars worth of difference.
SPEAKER 03 :
I mean, that… I would have to agree with the House that the House leadership, well, the budget chairman, Chairman Smith, this is not even, this doesn’t even look reasonable. This is not a reasonable counteroffer of $4 billion.
SPEAKER 13 :
No. And earlier today, Thune said we’re speaking in completely different languages. I think he’s right. Now, the Senate does have to deal with the reconciliation process itself. It does have a very complicated mechanism for getting this bill to the floor. Ultimately, it has to originate in the Senate. But at the end of the day, there’s going to be no bill if they don’t make some concessions.
SPEAKER 03 :
Now, the Freedom Caucus met with the president today. The president’s meeting, in fact, right now, the Republicans are gathered for an event here in D.C.
SPEAKER 13 :
Right. And Mike Johnson was saying, look, I really hope we can get to a rule vote later tonight. I don’t know if that’s the case. If they can punt it to tomorrow, maybe they’ll have more success in bringing members together overnight. But it is looking a little bleak to get something through in the next couple of days.
SPEAKER 03 :
So what does that do with the rest of the agenda items that kind of got derailed last week?
SPEAKER 13 :
Over the proxy voting.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah, there was the proxy voting issue last week. That was a rule. That was actually a rule that brought everything to a halt. That was taken down when I think nine Republicans joined with the Democrats to defeat that rule, which, as you said, it’s… you know there’s a lot of in the weeds stuff happens here but in order to have a floor vote you have to adopt a rule first that rule went down chances are the same thing could happen here
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, exactly. And you have all these bills that are waiting in the wings. I mean, the SAVE Act is on ice, which is an election integrity bill that we care very much about. A lot of things are being held up because they need to make moves very soon to get the reconciliation bill on the president’s desk by Memorial Day, which is Johnson’s goal. Whether that can actually happen is another conversation.
SPEAKER 03 :
I do think the urgency is there, given what has happened to the economy based on the tariffs. The certainty of the tax cuts being extended or being made permanent, I think is essential.
SPEAKER 13 :
Well, and businesses right now are just waiting to see what is going to happen with the tariffs, what’s going to happen with the tax cuts. They need to plan in advance. So I think you see the volatility in the market right now, and a lot of people are just skittish waiting to find out what any of this means for their future.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, 30 seconds left. We’ve got to go to a break. But, Suzanne Batty, how can people keep up with this via the Washington Stand?
SPEAKER 13 :
Sure, yes, go to WashingtonStand.com. We’ve got a lot of analysis on this and other issues.
SPEAKER 03 :
Or better yet, download the Stand Firm app, and you’ll have that feed right there on the Stand Firm app. Suzanne Bowdy, always great to see you. Thanks for joining us. Thanks, Tony. All right. All right, folks, do go to the App Store and get the Stand Firm app, and that way you’ll have the steady flow of information from the Family Research Council, news and commentary from a biblical perspective, the Washington Stand. All right, don’t go away. When we come back, more Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 10 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. That’s why FRC President Tony Perkins went to Capitol Hill to testify on behalf of persecuted Christians in Nigeria. Islamist terror groups target Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria with brutal violence. Representative Chris Smith, who chaired the hearing, said 55,000 people have been killed and 21,000 abducted in the last five years alone. The congressman also stressed that 89% of Christians in the world who are martyred are from Nigeria.
SPEAKER 02 :
Yet the government of Nigeria has failed to make progress against religiously motivated persecution of Christians despite religious freedom being enshrined as an essential human right in their constitution.
SPEAKER 10 :
Tony Perkins called for the United States to send an unmistakable message.
SPEAKER 03 :
This is systematic religious violence. Nigeria must be redesignated a country of particular concern. The Biden administration’s removal of this designation was a reckless mistake that emboldened the very terrorists who are slaughtering Christians.
SPEAKER 10 :
Redesignating Nigeria will enable the U.S. government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians.
SPEAKER 03 :
These are not just numbers. These are fathers, their mothers, their children, their families.
SPEAKER 10 :
Bishop Wilfred Anagabe risked his life to speak out, sharing firsthand accounts of the danger faced in his church district in central Nigeria.
SPEAKER 01 :
We live in fear because at any point it can be our turn to be killed. But to remain silent is to die twice. So I have chosen to speak.
SPEAKER 10 :
FRC is calling on President Trump to act now to promote religious freedom around the globe and speak up on behalf of Christians in Nigeria.
SPEAKER 06 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to The Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at The Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 12 :
Download the new Stand Firm app for Apple and Android phones today and join a wonderful community of fellow believers. We’ve created a special place for you to access news from a biblical perspective, read and listen to daily devotionals, pray for current events, and more. Share the Stand Firm app with your friends, family, and church members, and stand firm everywhere you go.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks so much for joining us. All right, on Sunday, the Colorado House of Representatives passed a bill that would treat the so-called misgendering of a minor as child abuse, an action that could result in kids being removed from their parents’ custody. And they did so after Democrats executed a move that prevented Republicans from debating the legislation. It was House Bill 1312. So what does this tell us about the hold that the transgender movement has on certain states and parties? Joining me now to discuss this, Meg Kilgannon, senior fellow for education studies here at the Family Research Council. She previously served at the Department of Education during the first Trump administration. You know, at a time when we see talking about the Trump administration moving to define male and female and to protect parents and children from this transgender ideology, Colorado’s like going all in the other direction.
SPEAKER 11 :
I think the technical political term might be buck wild. It is unbelievable what they’re doing there in this regard. They have passed a bill about having documents be able to be changed, your birth certificate, driver’s licenses, state ID cards, all of that you can change to your new name and your new gender. And then this bill regarding parental rights is really, really concerning. You’re basically saying that if a parent does not adopt the name that a child chooses for him or herself, that if a parent calls a child by the name that they gave them the day they were born, That that parent is guilty of child abuse and that the implications of that are that the child could be removed from your custody for deadnaming, quote unquote deadnaming, or not agreeing that your son is in fact your daughter or vice versa.
SPEAKER 03 :
I mean, this is incredible.
SPEAKER 11 :
It’s really chilling. So there’s that, and then the fact that they don’t allow debate on the topic, which tells you that they know they’re wrong, right? They know they can’t defend it.
SPEAKER 03 :
But that is how the left operates. Right. And unfortunately in Colorado, you’ve got all those folks fleeing California that have brought those values to Colorado and has tremendously changed that state over the last two decades.
SPEAKER 11 :
And legal marijuana.
SPEAKER 03 :
Yeah.
SPEAKER 11 :
That has changed the state a lot, too.
SPEAKER 03 :
They may have been smoking that before they went into this bill, but… Here’s the reality. So this, it, let me just read an analysis. House Bill 1312 penalizes debt naming or misgendering as discriminatory actions and to mandate the courts to include such claims in determining the allocation of parenting time in custody cases. So this could clearly be used in a divorce situation where custody is being determined about the children. So the children then become a pawn and this, a parent who cares about their child and refuses to play along with this make believe damaging ideology will be penalized by the courts in Colorado.
SPEAKER 11 :
Right. We know this is such a destructive ideology. It tears apart families. There are cases of divorce that are caused completely by this topic where the child is online, decides they’re a different gender. One parent goes along, another parent refuses. And so now Colorado is weighing in on the side of the parent that’s going along and saying that the parent who doesn’t agree doesn’t have a right to see the child.
SPEAKER 03 :
And that passed by a vote of 36 to 20, I believe.
SPEAKER 11 :
Very close. There were a few Democrats.
SPEAKER 03 :
One Democrat.
SPEAKER 11 :
Right.
SPEAKER 03 :
That voted with the Republicans.
SPEAKER 11 :
Party line vote, essentially.
SPEAKER 03 :
But that wasn’t the only thing that they weighed into over the weekend there in Colorado. Also, abortion drugs.
SPEAKER 11 :
Right.
SPEAKER 03 :
What did they do on that?
SPEAKER 11 :
Right. There was a bill to – it’s a form of a shield law. They would make it possible for drugs to be prescribed, and the name of the doctor wouldn’t be on the prescription, simply the name of the practice that the prescription was made from.
SPEAKER 03 :
So this is the – we’re talking about the mifeprestone, the abortion pill, those – That that’s not required on the prescription.
SPEAKER 11 :
The prescription, right.
SPEAKER 03 :
And what’s the purpose there? So that the doctor’s not identified?
SPEAKER 11 :
So that the doctor’s not identified. But as a person who takes prescriptions occasionally, if I need to ask a question about that, who am I supposed to call? Right. I can’t, I can call the practice, right? But I don’t know what doctor actually prescribed it. It’s a very, very dangerous, very dangerous practice.
SPEAKER 03 :
And it goes further in that this provision also prevents Colorado residents and businesses from complying with out-of-state civil, criminal, or regulatory inquiries about individuals or entities involved. in the prescription and distribution of these abortion pills. This is just what we saw in my home state of Louisiana in New York, where a New York doctor, without even seeing the young woman, gave a prescription that was solicited by the mother to bring about an unwanted abortion through this pill. That’s what we’re talking about.
SPEAKER 11 :
That’s what we’re talking about. That’s exactly what we’re talking about.
SPEAKER 03 :
This points, once again, Meg, to the need of the federal government to address this issue because they created the problem under the Biden administration, two aspects of this. One, the FDA loosening the requirements for in-person consultation before prescribing these abortion pills. And then secondly, the Department of Justice saying that the Comstock law does not apply to the abortion pill, meaning they could be mailed They’ve been sent through the U.S. mail.
SPEAKER 11 :
Absolutely. It’s incredibly dangerous for women to take these drugs when they are unsure of how far along they are in their pregnancy. These drugs were approved through use at 10 weeks. That is very early in pregnancy, and it’s very easy to misunderstand how far along you are in your pregnancy, especially if you’re young and you’re under a lot of stress. Obviously, you’re very stressed if you’re considering this dire situation. resolution to your situation. So this is just, we’ve got to get past the point where we decide that it’s okay to kill people to solve problems, including with abortion pills.
SPEAKER 03 :
The states, as we’re seeing here with what Colorado is doing, is influencing pro-life states, states that have passed laws to protect women and their unborn children. Those laws will be undermined by what Colorado is doing, what New York is doing, what California is doing. And so this is where the Trump administration, the Department of Justice, and the FDA have to step in and address this issue.
SPEAKER 11 :
For the sake of women’s health. Yeah.
SPEAKER 03 :
Meg Kilgannon, thanks so much for joining us and bringing us this update from Colorado.
SPEAKER 11 :
Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right. All right, folks, on the other side of the break, we’re going to move into foreign policy issues. We’re going to talk about what’s happening in the Middle East as the U.S. is posturing itself with a military buildup. Could this be to influence the talks that President Trump said are going to be taking place with Iran over their nuclear buildup? Well, what impact might those actions have on the debate or on the discussion rather? Well, retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin joins me next. Don’t go away.
SPEAKER 08 :
Everything we do begins as an idea. Before there can be acts of courage, there must be the belief that some things are worth sacrificing for. Before there can be marriage, there is the idea that man should not be alone. Before there was freedom, there was the idea that individuals are created equal. It’s true that all ideas have consequences, but we’re less aware that all consequences are the fruit of ideas. Before there was murder, there was hate. Before there was a Holocaust, there was the belief by some people that other people are undesirable. Our beliefs determine our behavior, and our beliefs about life’s biggest questions determine our worldview. Where did I come from? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens when I die? Our answers to these questions explain why people see the world so differently. Debates about abortion are really disagreements about where life gets its value. Debates over sexuality and gender and marriage are really disagreements about whether the rules are made by us or for us. What we think of as political debates are often much more than that. They’re disagreements about the purpose of our lives and the source of truth. As Christians, our goal must be to think biblically about everything. Our goal is to help you see beyond red and blue, left and right, to see the battle of ideas at the root of it all. Our goal is to equip Christians with a biblical worldview and help them advance and defend the faith in their families, communities, and the public square. Cultural renewal doesn’t begin with campaigns and elections. It begins with individuals turning from lies to truth. But that won’t happen if people can’t recognize a lie and don’t believe truth exists. We want to help you see the spiritual war behind the political war, the truth claims behind the press release and the forest and the trees.
SPEAKER 03 :
This is Washington Watch. I’m Tony Perkins, your host. Thanks so much for joining us. You can find out more by going to Tony Perkins dot com or better yet, download the stand firm app and you can have Washington Watch right there in your pocket anywhere you go. All right. The United States is posturing itself to have more firepower and military influence in the Middle East. Head of Israeli prime minister’s office. Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington yesterday, reports showed that the U.S. moved certain military assets into the region. This has raised questions on potential military action against Iran. In advance of direct talks that the president announced would be taking place this weekend regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons, efforts. Here to talk about this is retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin, Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council. General Boykin spent the last four years of his 36 and a half year military career serving as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He was also one of the original members of the U.S. Army’s Delta Force. All right, General, let’s start with this. There’s some significant military assets, two aircraft carriers, B-2 bombers, some significant military hardware in the region. What does that tell us?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, it tells us that President Trump is serious about this. This is not just a show of force. I think he’s serious about it. Now, I don’t think he wants it to turn into a shooting war, but I think that he’s ready to do that. And I think that he and Mr. Netanyahu probably talked about that. And we’re going to talk about it some more.
SPEAKER 03 :
And the timing of this, moving these assets into the regions, the B-2 bombers that are in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, parked out in the open, obviously so that they could be detected and seen. Is this a kind of a flexing of the U.S. muscle prior to these conversations with Iran coming up this weekend?
SPEAKER 16 :
Well, yeah, I think it is. There’s no question about that. And the other thing that they’re moving in there is air defense systems. And they’re getting the most modern air defense systems along with some of the older ones, but they’re putting those in there too. So if anybody was to try and hit some of our stuff at Diego Garcia or Djibouti or any of those places where they’re taking this stuff, they’ve got the air defenses to stop that.
SPEAKER 03 :
And there’s the Navy’s in rotation with their aircraft carriers. They have held one over. So you have two aircraft carriers in the region. I mean, that’s quite significant.
SPEAKER 16 :
Tony, you’re a maritime guy. You’re a Marine. You’ve been on ships before. And you know that when they move a carrier task force, it’s not just one ship. It’s a task force of many ships. It’s massive. Yeah, it is massive. So that’s serious. And again, I think it shows Donald Trump’s resolve. I think it shows that he is serious about this. He doesn’t want war. Because he campaigned on stopping wars. But at the same time, he has a responsibility to protect our country as well as our allies.
SPEAKER 03 :
I’m going to talk a little bit more about this coming up on our next segment of the program. You have a long history in understanding Iran. You were a part of the effort to rescue the American hostages during Ronald Reagan, well, prior to Ronald Reagan, during Jimmy Carter’s administration. Can you negotiate with the mullahs?
SPEAKER 16 :
No. You and I stood in the office of one of the Middle East leaders. And he looked us in the eye and said, you need to understand that Iran has a bloodlust. Right. Meaning what? Meaning they want to kill. And no, can we negotiate with them? Not in good faith. Supposedly, when Barack Obama closed the deal on the JCPOA, they had negotiated in good faith until the— inspectors went and found out, well, there were certain facilities that they couldn’t go into, which was not part of the JCPOA agreement.
SPEAKER 03 :
The most recent reports overseeing what information they can get a hold of of the nuclear situation in Iran is that they’re three to four weeks from being able to have nuclear weapons.
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, they can apparently, according to what we’ve seen, they can have as much as almost 400 pounds of enriched uranium, weapons-grade enriched uranium, and that would build seven weapons, seven warheads. That’s dangerous.
SPEAKER 03 :
The hopes, as what we’ve seen comparison to is Libya, that there would be a dismantlement of their nuclear capabilities and that would be overseen. Do you think that’s possible?
SPEAKER 16 :
I don’t think it’s possible with the Iranians. Now, I think the Iranians would potentially come up with something else that they think would appease Donald Trump, but I think he’s too astute, and he’s got Netanyahu working on his side, and he’s on Netanyahu’s side. So I think that that would be very difficult.
SPEAKER 03 :
I mean, I could see them delay tactics to try to wait out Donald Trump, thinking he’s going to be gone and they’re going to get another like Joe Biden. But this is the window, is it not, in which decisive action needs to be taken to stop?
SPEAKER 16 :
Yeah, I don’t think that Donald Trump wants to go down in history as the guy that left Iran with everything they needed to destroy Israel. So I think that if they can’t come up with some agreement, I think it ultimately is a reasonable chance that they can find a solution, but I think that it’s also a good chance that we’re going to wind up seeing a strike over there on their facilities. And that’s the last straw.
SPEAKER 03 :
All right, General, thanks for joining us. Folks, stick around. We’re back with more after this.
SPEAKER 05 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful 13-part series that equips you with biblical truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. From the Ten Commandments in classrooms to the immigration crisis of America, we’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. New episodes available each Monday. To view the series on the Stand Firm app, text COURSE to 67742.
SPEAKER 08 :
The world is hurting. Streets are filled with crime. Families are broken. Sin is celebrated and God is mocked. Everywhere we look, the wages of our sin are on full display. As Christians, we know that surrender to God’s will is the solution to our biggest problems, but not everyone agrees. Even in church, we hear people say the most important thing is to be tolerant, that we shouldn’t impose a morality on other people, and that loving our neighbor means celebrating what they do. But you can’t do that. It’s not that you don’t love your neighbor. You do. But you care about God’s opinion more than your neighbor’s opinion, and this makes you different. In fact, sometimes it makes you feel alone, like you’re the only one. But there is good news. You are not alone, not even close. Research has found that there are 59 million American adults who are a lot like you. There are millions of people around the country who are born again, deeply committed to practicing their faith, and believe the Bible is the reliable Word of God. But that’s not all. They’re also engaged in our government. They’re voters. They’re more likely to be involved in their community, and they’re making a difference in elections. The problem is that a lot of them feel alone, too. We want to change that. FRC wants to connect these 59 million Americans to speak the truth together, no matter the cost. If you want to learn more about this group and what it means to be a spiritually active, governance-engaged conservative, or if you want to find out if you are one of these sage cons yourself, go to frc.org slash sagecon and take the quiz to find out. The world is hurting, and we have the solution. We can’t do it alone, but we can do it if we work together. That’s what we’re working toward every day. Join us. Go to FRC.org slash S-A-G-E-C-O-N, SageCon, to learn more. That’s S-A-G-E-C-O-N, SageCon, to learn more.
SPEAKER 03 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for tuning in. By the way, as I mentioned yesterday, episode eight of God and Government is out. We’re talking about economics. So God and government, you can find it exclusively on the Stand Firm app. So if you don’t have the Stand Firm app, text the word course to 67742 and I’ll send you a link and you can take a look at what the Bible has to say about the government’s role in economics. Our word for today comes from Ezekiel 18. There the Lord speaks through his prophet. The word of the Lord came to me saying, what do you mean when you use this Proverbs concerning the land of Israel saying the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge? Now, this saying claimed that the people were suffering judgment for their ancestors’ transgressions. Matthew Henry explains that this is common for humans to place blame on others, even on past generations, using that to question God’s fairness. Yet scripture shows each individual is accountable before God for their own choices. This truth does not deny the influence our parents, grandparents, or environment can have. Genetics and upbringing shape our experiences, and we often feel the consequences of choices made by those before us. However, the Lord clarifies these factors. He says that does not excuse personal responsibility. We each can choose to turn to Christ who offers forgiveness and transformation. As 2 Corinthians 5.17 reminds us, anyone in Christ becomes a new creation. Old things pass away and all things are made new. To find out more about our journey through the Bible, text Bible to 67742. That’s Bible to 67742. Well, yesterday during a post-meeting press gaggle with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump told reporters that the U.S. is dealing directly with Iran and will have a very big meeting on Saturday. While Iran later confirmed the talks were set for Saturday in Oman, the president Foreign Minister for the Islamic Republic referred to them as indirect high-level talks. Well, what does that mean? And what are the expectations for the meeting? Well, here now to discuss this in studio is Dr. Eric Bordenkircher, a research fellow at UCLA Center for Middle East Development. He publishes extensively on the Middle East politics and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Dr. Bordenkircher, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me, Tony. All right. First off, let me get your high level readout from the president’s comments yesterday that they’re going to be involved in direct conversations with Iran.
SPEAKER 07 :
Well, according to him, he said direct conversations. You talk to the Iranians and they want indirect dialogue. We’ll see what happens when they get to Oman.
SPEAKER 03 :
It seems that they should be eager to want to talk to the United States if he’s opening that door.
SPEAKER 07 :
You would think that. But this is the Iranian regime in Tehran. And They think that they like to call the shots often and have a pretty big ego.
SPEAKER 03 :
So we were just talking with General Boykin, retired Lieutenant General Boykin. He’s of the mind that you can talk, but don’t expect much from the mullahs in Iran.
SPEAKER 07 :
I more or less agree with the general. I would imagine the Iranians may try to drag Trump along here for a little while. And then also, too, I mean, on the Iranian side, there’s an element of trust. Trump pulled out of the deal. What is this guy capable of doing? So I’m sure there’s a level of apprehension on their end. But obviously, there’s a great deal of distrust on our side as well.
SPEAKER 03 :
Now, you know, when you go into these negotiations, and the president is really good at negotiation. I don’t think anybody can question that. But usually you go in with, you know, like you’re dealing with a reasonable man, you know, you kind of game it out what people are going to do. There are certain individuals in countries that we deal with that do not respond in a rational man theory or according to the rational man theory. I mean, the president last time began conversations with North Korea. Kim Jong-un, and that didn’t really lead to any results. In fact, the guy is more wild today than he was back then.
SPEAKER 07 :
Correct. Yes. Yes. I mean, you’re dealing with regimes here that are willing to do anything to stay in power. I think one of the things we need to think about with the nuclear issue in Iran is that when Iran gets a bomb, there’s regime protection and allows this regime to stay in power forever. indefinitely. So I think there’s an element of that involved here that they know if they get this weapon, it allows them to stay in power.
SPEAKER 03 :
So is this the window to deal with this? Are we in that window?
SPEAKER 07 :
I believe so. I can’t imagine that this is going to drag out a whole lot longer.
SPEAKER 03 :
Talk about how neighboring countries view Iran and where they come down on this issue.
SPEAKER 07 :
OK, well, with the regime protection that a nuclear weapon would provide allows Iran then to continue to insert its fingers into these other regimes. At the end of the day, the Iranian regime is a revolutionary regime. It came about as a revolution and has sought to extend that revolution, protects it through the Revolutionary Guard. And the Revolutionary Guard also looks to project that into the region. And initially when that revolution happened, it was – the Iranians believed that it would appeal to all the Muslims in the Middle East. But ultimately it only appealed to the Shia Muslims in the Middle East.
SPEAKER 03 :
So the Sunni Muslims are concerned about Iran.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes.
SPEAKER 03 :
And their ability to exercise that power if they had a nuclear weapon.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, and to create problems. So for the Saudis, the Saudis have a Shia community within their borders, and that Shia community is largely within the area where a lot of their oil fields exist. So this could cause a problem. We’ve seen it cause a problem with Hezbollah in Lebanon, what it’s done to the Sunnis and what it’s done to the Christians there and to just Lebanon in general over the last 25, 30 years.
SPEAKER 03 :
So, Eric, let’s talk about what would a post- nuclear power Iran looked like? Let’s say the nuclear capabilities were eliminated either voluntarily by dismantlement or by direct military action destroying it. How does that reshuffle the Middle East?
SPEAKER 07 :
I mean, I don’t think there’s going to be a voluntary dismountment at this point. You don’t think they will follow the path of Libya like Libya did? The Libyan model, I think we need to keep in mind the Libyan model is the Libyans were willing to give up all their equipment and equipment related to nuclear procurement. The Iranians believe, and this is to an element of the revolution and ideological, but also from a civilizational element, that they’re this great historical civilization. And at least the public line is that we deserve to have the capability to create peaceful nuclear energy. Now, obviously, that’s a joke because Iran has a lot of oil under its feet. So, but, you know, on a public level, there’s this idea that we’re a great civilization, and among the great civilizations, we should be allowed to have this technology and do what we want with it. Now, the problem with that, and so the Libyan model wouldn’t allow that. It’s just you can’t have that at all. Right now, there’s this kind of belief that, well, as long as we don’t go through some thresholds, then we can have this nuclear energy. Everybody knows that’s a facade. Yeah. And then the other problem too, not just with the regime protection or regime security, but this can trigger then nuclear perforation in the region itself. So a place like Saudi Arabia, for example, the Saudis have expressed concern about this and they’ve expressed an interest in acquiring nuclear technology as well. And the Obama administration and the Trump administration work to prevent this from happening. But that element is out there as well, and not just the Saudis. I’m sure then the Egyptians would want it, probably the Turks as well. And with all these elements and actors like the Houthis out there, you don’t know who could get something in the wrong hands.
SPEAKER 03 :
If Iran and their nuclear capabilities is eliminated, That strengthens the hand of Israel in the Middle East.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, the Israelis. Because at the end of the day, this is an element of hegemony here and who controls the region. And the Iranians believe that through this nuclear power that they can project their hegemony and power over the, you know, there’s a Persian Arab element here as well that the Persians will control. project power over the Arabs. There’s a line in House in Sand and Fog with Ben Kingsley and you see he’s a Persian, an Iranian general who had left during the revolution, but he still holds this contempt for the Arabs and he makes a comment about how the Arabs were You know, lizard eaters. So there’s this kind of element too, but then the Israeli element, Jewish element as well, and the anti-Semitism and the rhetoric that comes out of Tehran, you can’t ignore. You have to take it at what they say.
SPEAKER 03 :
I think some of those who are projecting what would happen if Iran is denuclearized and that power is taken away from them is a little rosy. I mean, everything kind of falls in place. You get Saudi Arabia becoming friends with Israel. I mean, I do think there’s some element to that. But I do not think you’re going to see peace in that region of the world just by eliminating the threat of Iran.
SPEAKER 07 :
True. And if the Iranian regime disintegrates and dissolves here, you don’t know who’s going to come into power, possibly elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And the other thing, too, that I think people don’t often realize is that Iran is a very heterogeneous society and that there are a lot of – various ethnic groups within Iran itself. So I believe Iran has a possibility of fragmenting across a bunch of different lines and then starts to create problems for other countries like Iraq, for example, and their Kurdish community up in the north and the Turks. And you have Kurds in Iran and then Azeris and then Balooks and whatnot. So this element starts to emerge like an Iraq issue.
SPEAKER 03 :
Is there also the risk that in their wake emerging to take that mantle of Islamic power would be Turkey?
SPEAKER 07 :
You could see the Turks trying to fill that void. And I think they’re already trying to do that now with what’s going on in Syria.
SPEAKER 03 :
Because I think short of the nuclear threat that Iran poses to Israel, I think Turkey is a growing concern among Israeli leaders.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yes, due to their presence in Syria and their interest in managing the Syrian situation at this time. Part of that is also due to the Kurdish question out in northeastern Syria. And they see that the Kurdish element there poses a threat to their security. But I think their interests extend beyond just the Kurds in Syria at this point.
SPEAKER 03 :
So what’s your sense in terms of the resolution of the Iranian issue and nuclear capabilities?
SPEAKER 07 :
I don’t have a very good feeling about how it’s going to go down. I wonder if there is going to have to be several strikes here, not an all-out war, but an attempt to kind of aggressively push this to being resolved.
SPEAKER 03 :
I don’t have high hopes. Well, as I was talking about earlier with the general, when we look at the capabilities that Iran has from their nuclear program, the latest reports suggest that – I guess it was the IC – The ISIS that was there doing their evaluation, not having access to everything, but they have made clear that they’re just weeks away from being able to convert the current stock of 60% enriched uranium into weapons grade uranium. That’s just a few weeks away.
SPEAKER 07 :
Sure, sure. That’s nuclear capability. Then there’s another step in regards to putting this on a missile. I don’t know what the timeline is on that. I think sometimes we get this mixed up. It’s nuclear capability, but then there’s another element there. And I believe that the administrations have tried to go on after Iran’s missile manufacturing as well to kind of mitigate or curtail this, too.
SPEAKER 03 :
The Israelis took out some of that in that last airstrike. But I think it’s to a point where everyone should be a bit concerned about what Iran is doing.
SPEAKER 07 :
I think very tenuous and similar to what we saw in regards to the attacks on Israel. And we don’t know whether it would blow up further. There’s a little bit of a back and forth, but not much. We have American troops in the region. We still have them in Syria. We have them in Iraq as well. We have them in the Gulf. So that’s another concern to think about as well.
SPEAKER 03 :
Eric, let me go back to the press conference or the meeting yesterday at the White House between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. That was kind of a hastily called meeting. There were several things on the agenda, the tariffs, Iran, Hamas, and actually Turkey was a part of that conversation based upon the readout of the meeting. Where do you see the Israel-United States relationship?
SPEAKER 07 :
I mean, at the moment, I think it’s quite strong. It was a little disconcerting to see Trump talk so positively about Erdogan, but that might be also to kind of embellish and brush Erdogan’s ego to a certain extent and maybe warm him up for some kind of negotiations. Because I think Trump has this idea, you know, this… MO of trying to be warm and friendly, whether it be with North Korea or Putin, for example. But it looks like that the Americans are going to have to mitigate some kind of modus vivendi between the Israelis and the Turks in Syria at this moment.
SPEAKER 03 :
We just have about a minute left. Syria, I mean, that is constantly evolving. Where do you see that moving?
SPEAKER 07 :
I think Syria is going to look a lot like Lebanon. I think you’re going to have a state, but you’re not going to have a very strong nation. So the sectarian, the ethnic identities are going to start to compete with the national identity, which is what you often see in Lebanon, what we see in Iraq, and what we could possibly see in Iran if the regime dissolved there. And what often happens is these regional actors will then provide security, provide support to these various elements, and these various elements will fight it out.
SPEAKER 03 :
Which makes it dangerous for Israel.
SPEAKER 07 :
True, yes.
SPEAKER 03 :
So that’s why they have a vested interest in resolving this the right way.
SPEAKER 07 :
Yeah, well, the Israelis have, I think, recognize this and have courted the Druze community down in southwestern Syria, too. So they know this game, and they’ve played this game before. They’ve had a policy to deal with the minorities in the region. They’ve reached out to the Christians in Lebanon, for example, initially. But it’s been a tough policy to pull off.
SPEAKER 03 :
It’s going to be very interesting to see how all of this plays out just in the, I think, days and weeks ahead. Eric, thanks so much for joining us. My pleasure, Tony. Thank you. All right, folks, we’re out of time for today, but I want to thank you for joining us as well. And until next time, as the Apostle Paul says, keep praying and keep standing.
SPEAKER 09 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council and is entirely listener supported. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information on anything you heard today or to find out how you can partner with us in our ongoing efforts to promote faith, family and freedom, visit TonyPerkins.com.
