Charlie Kirk on Trump and Iran: “It is very conceivable that if he bombs those two cities, that is not a new war”
Published
Citation
From the June 18, 2025, edition of The Charlie Kirk Show, streamed on Rumble
CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): And so the base is now declaratively saying no regime change, no regime change. Now this is what Nikki Haley said, quote, the U.S. should not engage in regime change in Iran. Our focus should only be on our national security. The Iranian regime has threatened the U.S. with nuclear production for years. We should support Israel in eliminating Natanz and Fordo sites to prevent the threat of atomic bomb against the U.S. The Iranian people should decide who they want for their leader. That's their decision, not ours. Stay focused.
So, look, I agree with actually 90% of that. I think, again, it's not her call of whether or not we should eliminate the nuclear program in those two cities. I think that's for President Trump to make. I think that we need to also differentiate — for everyone keeping score online where they say, oh my goodness, Donald Trump started a new war. It is very conceivable that if he bombs those two cities, that is not a new war. Now, Iran could retaliate and then what happens after that, but I trust President Trump a 100% in this moment. He's a man made for this moment. Understand —
ALEX MARLOW (GUEST): Yeah, I agree with you.
KIRK: He's been through all of this. He took he took out Soleimani. He took out ISIS. He is able to navigate this. Alex Marlow.
MARLOW: Yeah, yeah. You're right on this. And Trump is the man for the moment. Thank God. Literally, thank God, that he's the one in charge because he's the only one who's gonna be able to, I think, balance all the various factions here, and it's an incredibly nuanced debate. And I don't think anyone on either side should be talking to us in childish ways, because this is not an easy one. This is one where there are many different gradations of what the appropriate response could be, and, I'm up for hearing that debate out, which some people are trying to have. Iran is believing death to America — that became a prominent slogan since 1979. They hate this country. They hate our people. And in general, I think the people of Iran deserve better than the current regime. That said, what America has tried to do regime change in recent years in Middle East, all it has done is enriched America's defense sector and destabilized the region and not done anything to help. That is a huge — there's a huge component of Trump's base is aware of that and doesn't want any part of it. So, now we're talking about regime change off the table.
So what are the nuances of what we can do in between? Of course, standing up to Iran if they're taking proactive attacks on America or our allies in the region is something where we're gonna provide defense capabilities. No brainer. Do we want to leave on the table, perhaps we could do something to take out, for example, that Fordow nuclear facility, which should not be operational. Everyone agrees it should not be operational, and it is only operational because we have not chosen to destroy it. I want to hear that debate. And I don't know, I'm not saying we need to do anything right now, Charlie, but what I am saying is let's not take that off the table. Let's not broadcast to the bad guys that we're willing to let them get away with anything.
But overall, I feel like people are starting to find an equilibrium. The JD Vance tweet yesterday was perfect. That was almost my exact position on the issue. I'm sure you covered it on the show to this point. But it feels like sanity is winning out at this time, but we have to be very vigilant on this because there's a lot of deeply interested parties on all sides here who are trying to prove some sort of a long standing beef, and trying to settle it their way. We can't have that right now. This is a very nuanced moment.