Arguing against war with Iran, Charlie Kirk calls Mike Waltz's ouster as national security adviser a “positive development”
Published
Citation
From the May 1, 2025, edition of The Charlie Kirk Show, streamed on Rumble
CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): Now Mike Waltz and I had a fine relationship. He knew that we had significant disagreements, and that's what I really want to emphasize and mention here is that Mike Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, represented a neoconservative view of foreign policy.
Now what is a neoconservative view of foreign policy? Well, neoconservativism is actually a outgrowth of Marxism from the 1940s and 50s, which it is a Trotskyite-Stalinist way of viewing the world, which is that we are going to expand the state to such great lengths and we're going to bring American values by force to the rest of the world. The architects of the Iraq War, the architects of the Vietnam War. Mind you, yesterday was the fifty year anniversary of the fall of Saigon. Neoconservatives brought us into Vietnam.
And so it is actually very fitting that a neoconservative falls the day after Saigon fell 50 years ago, something to think about.
And so there's a major internal battle happening and it is manifested with this Mike Waltz / Alex Wong situation.
Overall, this is a positive development for President Trump's administration. Mike Waltz knows that I don't see eye to eye with him on many things. I've said that to him in his face. It's nothing personal.
I just don't think we should go to war with Iran, and that is actually what I want your emails today. I'm gonna read them all. I might not respond to them all, but I'm gonna read them all.
You are representative of the conservative base. You are in the front lines of the MAGA movement. Do you support military strikes against Iran if they are developing a nuclear bomb? It's a very important question because, look, war with Iran, of course, is what Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham want. They've wanted that forever.
But what is instead being proposed is, well, what if we just do limited air strikes? You gotta also just take a step back.
Wait a second. Why are we trusting our intel agencies so quickly? We've only been in charge for a 101 or a 102 days. We're all of a sudden gonna trust the Biden hold of our intel agencies that are telling us Iran is close to a nuclear weapon after they have lied to us at every single corner and every turn?
The battle is over Iran, and there are people in Washington inside the Pentagon and inside the administration who want to launch military strikes on Iran. Often, they say it'd be easy. Just one strike in and out.
Now pause. How often have they actually been correct about the one in and out thing? Has that ever actually been the case? Oh, yeah. We're just gonna do some strikes in Libya. Oh, really? Libya has been a catastrophe. Libya has been a disaster ever since we removed Gaddafi. By the way, Gaddafi is a really interesting example as to why Iran wants nuclear weapons. Remember, Gaddafi voluntarily denuclearized. Remember that? Gaddafi voluntarily denuclearized, and then he got sodomized in the streets of Libya, and we still have troops in Libya.
And here's the honest truth — America cannot and absolutely does need — does not and cannot afford a war with Iran. Military strikes against Iran would be war against Iran, period.
And I want someone to make the argument why that is a good idea. I've heard all the arguments, and Mike Waltz represented a coalition of people in Washington DC that were largely sympathetic that. Oh, it's just a couple military strikes. Again, when have any of these people ever proven that it's just a couple military strikes? It's always a further quagmire that gets us involved in these unnecessarily conflicts.