Jillian And Dave Came For Ana. It Didn't Go Well... For Them
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖The US and Israel are actively pursuing regime change in Iran, using economic pressure and co-opting internal protests.
- ❖Jillian Michaels and Dave Rubin's claims that the 'war with Iran' ended after US strikes are dismissed as 'brain dead' and ignorant of ongoing geopolitical maneuvers.
- ❖Iran's restraint after a US strike prevented a larger conflict, while Israel's reported unpreparedness for retaliation halted a more recent 'imminent' US attack.
- ❖Organic protests in Iran, initially driven by economic frustrations (exacerbated by US sanctions), were allegedly hijacked by external actors like the exiled son of the Shah and Mossad.
- ❖The host differentiates her criticism of US-funded Israeli actions in Gaza from the Iranian regime's actions, stating the US is not forced to support the latter.
Insights
1Regime Change, Not Nuclear Prevention, as US Goal in Iran
The host argues that the US ripped up the Iran nuclear deal not to prevent nuclear weapons, but as a pretext for regime change. She draws a parallel to the Iraq War's 'weapons of mass destruction' justification.
Trump ripped up the nuclear deal which prevented Iran from building nuclear weapons. It's about regime change, much like the war in Iraq and the WMDs we didn't find in Iraq, it's the excuse to go to war to spur regime change.
2Iran's Restraint Averted Hot War After US Strikes
Following a US strike on Iran's nuclear sites, Iran showed 'tremendous restraint' by conducting symbolic retaliatory strikes that avoided casualties, preventing a full-blown war. This restraint, not US policy, was the key factor.
Iran surprised us because they showed tremendous restraint following what Trump did rather than go to war with us. You know, they did some BS, you know, strikes on US military bases after telling the US to evacuate the troops there so no one gets killed in order to provide lip service to their people, make it seem as though they did a response to what the US carried out. They don't want war.
3US and Mossad Allegedly Fuel Unrest and Protests in Iran
Political scientist John Mearsheimer is cited, claiming the US played a principal role in creating terrible economic conditions in Iran through sanctions, then decided to foment and fuel massive protests. The Jerusalem Post and comments from Trump and Pompeo are cited as evidence of Mossad and US involvement.
When these people are protesting, right, they're protesting because of the terrible economic conditions. But who played the principal role in creating those terrible economic conditions? it is the United States of America. So that's the first step. Then the second step is we decide at some point that we're going to fment massive protests and we're going to fuel those massive protests. There's a very famous piece that came out in the Jerusalem Post on December 29th that makes it clear that Mossad was deeply involved in what has been happening in Iran. Furthermore, there are comments by President Trump and uh former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that make it clear that the United States has been involved from the get-go in terms of fueling this crisis.
4Jillian Michaels' 'Experts' are Zionist 'Simps,' not Foreign Policy Experts
The host critiques Jillian Michaels for relying on Dave Rubin, Coleman Hughes, and Scott Jennings as experts on Iran, labeling them 'hardcore Zionists' and 'simps for Israel' who lack foreign policy expertise.
many times I because I didn't know enough about any of this at the time which is why I often wanted somebody like you Dave or Coleman Hughes or Scott Jennings to provide the other point of view cuz I was like I'm not an expert in this. I don't know. I can't refute the things you're saying. Dave Rubin is an expert. Dave Rubin is an expert. Scott Jennings and Coleman Hughes are both hardcore Zionist. Coleman Hughes does work for the free press. So [laughter] hardly experts, certainly simps for Israel gets whatever they want whenever they want. That that's for sure. Man, it is embarrassing to call Dave Rubin though an expert.
5Israel's Unreadiness for Retaliation Halted Imminent US Strike
Trump backed down from an 'imminent' military action against Iran because Israel was not prepared to withstand an attack from Iran, according to Israeli press reports.
He ultimately backed down though after it became clear that Israel was not ready to withstand an attack from Iran. And you don't have to take my word for it, Jillian. Why don't we go to the Israeli press? It's Israeli, so you'll probably trust it. Report. When he asked Trump, meaning Netanyahu asked Trump not to strike Iran, Netanyahu said Israel not fully ready to defend itself.
6Organic Iranian Protests Co-opted by External Actors
Initial organic protests in Iran, driven by economic frustrations, were quickly co-opted by 'provocateurs' and 'agitators,' including the exiled son of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, and Israeli interests. This co-option led to violence and undermined the original movement.
As they note, testimonies from the scenes of the unrest, some spoken directly to the FT, in addition to those smuggled out through intermediaries, reveal a muddied account of the turmoil itself in which agitators mingled with genuine protesters. ... That changed at p.m. on Thursday, January 8th, when mass crowds appeared to flood the streets in response to a call by Resza Palvi, the exiled son of the Sha deposed in the 1979 revolution that brought the Islamic Republic to power. ... the opposition abroad hijacked our protest, said one woman who joined in the rallies and opposes Palivi. Otherwise, things were moving forward and we might have gained concessions from the regime. Instead, the violence and crackdown pushed people back with nothing to show but death. Deaths and destruction.
7US Funding of Israel Creates a Moral Distinction
The host argues that her criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza (funded by US taxpayers) is not hypocritical when compared to the Iranian regime's actions against its own people, which the US does not fund and actively sanctions.
So in the case of Israel and their mass slaughter campaigns in the Middle East, uh we the American people for the most part... are against it. But we are forced through our federal government... to send our resources to a genocidal regime known as Israel so they can carry out the mass slaughter of innocents in the Middle East... Now, in the case of what the Iranian regime does against its own people... we're not forced to support it. We're not forced to fund it. In fact, the US government has implemented crushing sanctions against Iran.
Bottom Line
The US actively creates the conditions for unrest in Iran through sanctions, then leverages those conditions by fueling and co-opting organic protests for regime change, rather than allowing internal reform.
This suggests a cynical and self-perpetuating cycle of foreign interference, where US policy generates the 'problem' it then purports to 'solve' through intervention, often to the detriment of the local population.
Policymakers and the public could demand greater transparency and accountability for the long-term, unintended consequences of sanctions and covert operations, advocating for policies that genuinely support self-determination rather than imposed change.
The only factor preventing a US military strike on Iran was Israel's reported lack of preparedness to withstand Iranian retaliation, not a shift in US strategic intent or a de-escalation of tensions.
This implies that US military actions in the region are heavily influenced, if not dictated, by Israel's security calculations, potentially sidelining American national interests or public sentiment.
Advocacy groups could push for a re-evaluation of the US-Israel relationship and its impact on US foreign policy autonomy, particularly concerning military engagements in the Middle East.
Key Concepts
Regime Change as Pretext
The idea that stated reasons for military intervention or aggressive foreign policy (e.g., preventing nuclear weapons, promoting democracy) are often pretexts for a deeper, unstated agenda of overthrowing a government and installing a more favorable one. The host applies this to Iran, arguing the nuclear program was an excuse for regime change.
Co-option of Organic Movements
A process where genuine, grassroots protests or social movements, often arising from legitimate grievances, are infiltrated, manipulated, or redirected by external actors (foreign governments, intelligence agencies, exiled political figures) to serve their own geopolitical or political objectives, potentially undermining the original movement's goals and leading to unintended consequences like increased violence.
Lessons
- Critically evaluate media portrayals of foreign protests, considering potential external influences and the distinction between organic movements and co-opted agendas.
- Investigate the historical context and alleged motivations behind US foreign policy decisions, especially those involving military intervention or economic sanctions, to identify potential hidden agendas like regime change.
- Challenge the narrative that US military aid to certain countries is solely for defense, and consider its role in enabling actions that may conflict with American values or lead to broader instability.
The Four-Step Regime Change Playbook for Iran (as described by John Mearsheimer)
**Step 1: Create Economic Hardship:** The United States plays the principal role in creating terrible economic conditions through sanctions.
**Step 2: Foment and Fuel Protests:** The US decides to foment massive protests and fuels them. Mossad is deeply involved, and US officials like Trump and Pompeo confirm involvement in fueling the crisis.
**Step 3: Massive Disinformation Campaign:** A disinformation campaign convinces the West that protests are internal and that the US/Israel have no involvement, while sending messages inside Iran that the regime is finished and protesters are on a roll.
**Step 4: Military Intervention (Coup de Grâce):** The United States military (and likely Israeli military) intervenes once protests reach a certain point, attacking critical infrastructure and elites to deliver the 'coup de grâce' and finish off the regime.
Notable Moments
Jillian Michaels and Dave Rubin's video claiming the Iran conflict was over, prompting Ana Kasparian's rebuttal.
This video served as the direct catalyst for Kasparian's detailed counter-argument, highlighting a perceived lack of understanding of complex geopolitical issues by her former co-hosts.
Dave Rubin's live on-air walkout from a previous show with Ana Kasparian when she criticized Benjamin Netanyahu.
This past event is used by Kasparian to underscore Rubin's alleged inability to debate critical foreign policy issues, particularly those involving Israel, and to question his credibility as an 'expert'.
Ana Kasparian's heated exchange on Piers Morgan's show with a pro-regime change Iranian-American.
This moment illustrates the direct confrontation of opposing viewpoints on US-Iran policy and the emotional intensity of the debate, particularly regarding the co-option of protests and the comparison of casualties.
Quotes
"To argue that this potential regime change war with Iran is over, it really sounds like something an oblivious fitness guru would say. While talking to Dave Rubin of all people, of course."
"Trump ripped it up because it's not about preventing the nuclear weapons from being obtained. It's about regime change. The nuclear weapons, much like the war in Iraq and you know the weapons of mass destruction that we didn't find in Iraq, it's the excuse to go to war to spur regime change."
"The only thing that prevented a drawn out devastating regime change war in the US where our our soldiers would risk their lives on behalf of Israel... The only thing that prevented it was Iran's restraint."
"When these people are protesting, right, they're protesting because of the terrible economic conditions. But who played the principal role in creating those terrible economic conditions? it is the United States of America."
"It is embarrassing to call Dave Rubin though an expert. Same with the other two, but Dave Rubin in particular stands out. But anyway, uh none of the three people she listed are foreign policy experts, nor are they political scientists."
"The opposition abroad hijacked our protest... Otherwise, things were moving forward and we might have gained concessions from the regime. Instead, the violence and crackdown pushed people back with nothing to show but death."
"I don't care what any Zionist thinks about my views on Iran because their views on Iran are the most irrelevant thing on the planet to me. They have an agenda and that agenda is to get our soldiers to fight a regime change war in the Middle East in Iran on Israel's behalf."
"Our own country is being destroyed and it's going down the toilet. ...the White House regardless of who's running it could be Democrat, could be Republican, doesn't matter. Um is governed by the Knesset and the Israeli prime minister."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Col. Jacques Baud: What a US Ground Invasion of Iran Would REALLY Look Like
"Colonel Jacques Baud dissects the strategic futility of a US ground invasion of Iran, arguing that current troop levels are insufficient and such an action would backfire, exposing US allies and potentially leading to Iran's nuclearization."
Robby Soave GOES OFF On ANNOYING Liberal Black Woman Making Emotional Trump Deranged Arguments!
"The host dissects a heated foreign policy debate, arguing that 'left-wing' emotionalism and 'Trump derangement' prevent a rational understanding of US sanction strategies against Cuba and Iran."
Will Venezuela Be Trump's Vietnam?
"An expert breaks down three perilous pathways for Venezuela under potential US intervention, from a 'Panamanian model' to a 'Libyan-style civil war,' and the broader geopolitical fallout for Latin America."
PBS News Hour full episode, April 10, 2026
"This episode covers high-stakes US-Iran peace talks amidst ongoing conflict, Hungary's pivotal election challenging Viktor Orban, the accelerating decline in US birth rates, AI's disruptive impact on jobs, and Palestinian Christians observing Easter under Israeli restrictions."