Video of Theo Von Sounding Alarm on Possible War With Iran Takes Off Online
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Podcaster Theo Von, whose viral interviews and political guests have made him a notable figure in the online "manosphere," is under renewed spotlight after publicly questioning the United States' support for Israel and the potential for war with Iran.
His commentary on the situation was revealed during the June 18 episode of his podcast, This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von, which has since circulated widely on social media.
"I don't trust the Israel leader at all. I don't believe anything that guy (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) says. And I don't think that our soldiers should have to go and defend stuff that they start," Von said in the viral clip shared on X, formerly Twitter.
The clip was viewed over half a million times in under 24 hours.
He continued: "I'm not a soldier so I'm obviously speaking out of term, I'm not even brave enough to serve, so there's obviously that element. But that is kind of how I feel, I guess."
Theo Von speaks to Jake Paul during President Donald Trump's inauguration at the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025.
Theo Von speaks to Jake Paul during President Donald Trump's inauguration at the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025.
Jasper Colt/Pool Photo via AP
Why It Matters
Von's remarks reflect a growing division within right-leaning media and political spheres over foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and the threat of a new war in the Middle East.
Von, 45, has over 4 million subscribers on YouTube. While he is a pro-Trump media ally, Von is among a group of conservative and libertarian-leaning commentators urging restraint in foreign affairs. His concerns come at a time when President Donald Trump has publicly considered escalating U.S. involvement against Iran in support of Israel.
What To Know
Von's political visibility surged after he interviewed Trump in August 2024. His predominantly younger, male audience parallels a surge in votes seen for Trump in the 2024 election: 56 percent of young men voted for Trump in the 2024 election, per the Associated Press.
Now, Von's stance aligns him with figures like former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who have also expressed concerns about deepening U.S. military commitments overseas.
In the June 18 podcast episode, Von said, "it feels like they're trying to push Trump" to go to war with Iran.
"It's like, who makes that choice? Does he make that choice and then what do we get? You know, what's the win for us? We're just involved in some other thing while we have suffering here at home," he said.
"That guy really scares me. I don't know why we support them. I don't understand that. I wish they would really give us a better explanation, especially after the massacres in Gaza," he added.
Von, who has said he is a centrist politically, has been vocal about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He previously stated that there is a "genocide" in Gaza and that the U.S. is "complicit."
In May, Von joined Trump during a trip to the Middle East. The president embarked upon a high-profile tour of key Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
During a visit to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Trump delivered a speech to U.S. and Qatari troops. Von spoke to the troops before Trump took the stage, delivering a routine that included jokes about drugs, disabilities, homosexuality, terrorism and Qatari culture.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump told reporters on Wednesday: "I'm not looking to fight. But if it's a choice between fighting and [Iran] having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do, and maybe we won't have to fight."
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, said in a public address: "The Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage. The U.S. entering in this matter is 100 percent to its own detriment. The damage it will suffer will be far greater than any harm that Iran may encounter."
Tucker Carlson, in a tense interview with Texas Senator Ted Cruz: "You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of the government and you don't know anything about the country."
What Happens Next
Despite the vocal opposition from several prominent figures in conservative media, Trump has not ruled out military action against Iran.
For Von, the backlash or support following his comments may shape his role in ongoing political discourse, particularly as the 2028 election cycle nears.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
26 minutes ago
ICE agents denied entry to LA's Dodger Stadium amid anti-immigration enforcement protests
As anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests continue in Los Angeles, dozens of federal ICE agents were seen near Dodger Stadium on Thursday, in what appeared to be a staging area, but were denied entry to the famed ballpark. The agents were dressed in tactical gear and gathered on the street that leads into the stadium in the Elysian Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. The official Los Angeles Dodgers social media account took to X on Thursday, saying that the agents were not allowed to enter the stadium grounds. "This morning, ICE agents came to Dodger Stadium and requested permission to access the parking lots. They were denied entry to the grounds by the organization. Tonight's game will be played as scheduled," the organization said. The Department of Homeland Security responded on X, saying the officers' appearance at the stadium "had nothing to do with the Dodgers." "CBP vehicles were in the stadium parking lot very briefly, unrelated to any operation or enforcement," DHS said. A small group of protesters was also seen near the stadium on Thursday as demonstrations in the city, which began on June 6, continue for nearly two weeks. The Dodgers organization had previously been facing growing criticism from protesters for not speaking out about the immigration raids that have been frequent in Los Angeles. "The largest economic engine in this area is silent! Wake up! Do better! We know you can!" Raul Claros of California Rising said at a news conference, pointing to Dodger Stadium behind him. The demonstration comes after reports of a string of ICE raids in Los Angeles on Thursday, including one outside of a nearby Home Depot on Sunset Boulevard earlier in the day. Los Angeles City Council District 1 workers alerted the Los Angeles Police Department of the ICE staging near Dodger Stadium, local officials told ABC News' Los Angeles station, KABC. The Police Department then notified the Dodgers organization, which allegedly told the ICE agents to leave the property, according to KABC, however, small group of federal agents were still at the location shortly after 11 a.m. This comes as President Donald Trump has recently instructed ICE officers to do "all in their power" to oversee the largest mass deportation program in history. "In order to achieve this, we must expand efforts to detain and deport Illegal Aliens in America's largest Cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, where Millions upon Millions of Illegal Aliens reside," Trump wrote in a lengthy social media post over the weekend. In the first 100 days of the second term of the Trump administration, ICE made over 66,000 arrests, according to the federal agency as deportation efforts have since continued.
CBS News
27 minutes ago
- CBS News
What to know about the MOP and the B-2, the bunker-buster bomb and plane that could be used to strike Iran
B-2 Spirit Bombers: The planes that could be used to target Iran's Fordo nuclear site Israel's strikes against Iran have killed a number of its top nuclear scientists and battered its nuclear facilities, but complete destruction of Iran's ability to make weapons-grade uranium is believed to be out of reach — unless the U.S. agrees to help. At least one key uranium enrichment site, Fordo, has so far been unscathed. Located 300 feet beneath a mountain and protected by Russian-produced air defenses, Fordo is believed by military experts to be key to Iran's nuclear program. Nuclear non-proliferation experts say this is where Iran has tried to enrich uranium for weapons purposes and expand its stockpile of enriched uranium. Israel's best chance at destroying the facility at Fordo could lie with a U.S.-produced bomb that's so heavy that it can only be dropped by a U.S. plane. At a hearing Wednesday, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire raised this with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "It's being reported that the president is being asked to consider providing the bunker-buster bomb that is required to be carried only by the B-2 Bomber and would require a U.S. pilot," she said, asking Hegseth whether he had been asked to provide President Trump with options for striking the Middle East. He declined to answer. Mr. Trump is considering joining Israel's offensive against Iran, and approved attack plans Tuesday, but has not made a final decision, CBS News has reported. The White House said Thursday that the president would make a decision on whether to order a strike within the next two weeks. Sources told CBS News that the president had discussed the logistics of using bunker-buster bombs as he weighs whether to wade into the conflict between Iran and Israel. Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb In this photo released by the U.S. Air Force on May 2, 2023, airmen look at a GBU-57, or the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, at Whiteman Air Base in Missouri. U.S. Air Force via AP, File The bomb that Shaheen was referring to is the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, known as a MOP. It is designed to attack "deeply-buried facilities and hardened bunkers and tunnels," according to the Air Force. It's guided by military GPS and is meant to reach and destroy targets in well-protected facilities. The MOP measures about 20.5 feet in length and 31.5 inches in diameter, according to the Air Force. It weighs in at just under 30,000 pounds, including about 5,300 pounds of explosive material. The Air Force says that the MOP's explosive power is over 10 times that of its predecessor, the BLU-109. It's designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding. The warhead is encased in a special high-performance steel alloy, which is meant to enable it to carry a large explosive payload while maintaining the penetrator case's integrity during impact, according to an Air Force fact sheet. Boeing developed the GBU-57, and as of 2015, the aerospace company had been contracted to produce 20 of them, according to the Air Force. Because of the GBU-57's weight — it's the heaviest bomb produced by the U.S. — the B-2 Spirit is currently the only aircraft in the Air Force that is equipped to carry and deploy it. B-2 Spirit A U.S. Air Force B-2 Spirit stealth bomber lands at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. Steve Parsons/PA Images via Getty Images One of the key attributes of the B-2 Spirit is its stealth — it's able to evade air defenses and reach heavily defended targets. It's aerodynamically efficient and its internal weapons bays can carry two of the GBU-57 bombs. Because of what the Air Force refers to as the plane's "low-observable technologies," the B-2 Spirit has a "high level of freedom of action at high altitudes." It's built with a combination of "reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures." This, along with composite materials, special coatings, wing design and other classified processes, make the B-2 difficult for even the most sophisticated defense systems to detect and track. Without refueling, its range is about 6,000 nautical miles. The B-2 took its first flight in 1989, in California, but now, Whiteman Air Force Base, in Missouri, is the only B-2 base. It's been used for airstrikes in the Kosovo War, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The prime contractor for the B-2 is Northrop Grumman. For years, some lawmakers and defense experts have suggested that the U.S. provide Israel with GBU-57 bombs and jets capable of carrying them — but the idea is controversial, with critics arguing the move would be provocative.
The Intercept
29 minutes ago
- The Intercept
How Democratic Leaders Quietly Support Trump's March to War With Iran
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Some Democrats are fighting to stop war with Iran, but party leaders are silently acquiescing or, worse, supporting an attack. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., conducts a news conference in the U.S. Capitol in Washington on May 20, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images As President Donald Trump barrels toward a direct war with Iran, the most powerful Democrats in Congress are issuing statements that are at best tepid and confusing. At worst, they are cheering escalation. Even with some Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for a War Powers Resolution and other legislation to stop Trump from attacking without congressional approval, the Democratic Party's most powerful politicians refuse to mount any meaningful opposition to a strike. Many outright favor direct U.S. involvement in yet another regime change war. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, where he is the minority leader, presents himself as a major opponent of Trump. As recently as June 15, for example, he boasted about his participation in the No Kings Day mass protest against Trump. Yet when it comes to the prospect of a direct war with Iran, Schumer is not only supporting Trump, but less than three weeks ago was goading the administration to be 'tough' on Iran and not make any 'side deals' without Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's approval. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 2, 2025 'The United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response,' he said in a follow-up statement released on June 13, after Israel attacked Iran. 'The Iranian regime's stated policy has long been to destroy Israel and Jewish communities around the world.' Schumer did include a perfunctory nod to talks — 'a strong, unrelenting diplomatic effort backed by meaningful leverage.' The 'meaningful leverage' in question, however, is bombing Iran — something Schumer tacitly supports. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the most powerful Democrat in the House, responded to Israel's attack with a toothless statement that was vaguely supportive of war and packed with every pro-Israel cliche in the book. 'Our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad,' he said. 'It is clear that the Iranian regime poses a grave threat to the entire free world. There is no circumstance where Iran can be permitted to become a nuclear power.' Jeffries, too, mentioned diplomacy, but with no urgency. 'As soon as is practical, it is imperative to find a rigorous diplomatic path forward and avoid any situation where U.S. troops are put in harm's way,' he said. As with Schumer, 'diplomacy' is a box to be checked, a vague normative preference, but not a demand — and certainly not a requirement. A host of powerful Democrats issued strikingly similar statements. They repeatedly reinforced every premise of Trump's pending bombing campaign, namely the alleged imminent danger posed by Iran. This premise is undermined by U.S. intelligence assessments and leaks to both the Wall Street Journal and CNN, which suggest Iran hadn't decided to make a bomb and would be three years away from producing one if it did. If all of the statements look similar, it's because, according to DropSite and the American Prospect, many members of Congress are simply copy and pasting approved language from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the flagship pro-Israel lobby group. These outlets found that, in statements on congressional websites and social media, nearly 30 members of Congress used nearly identical language about how they 'stand with Israel' and another 35 gave their unequivocal support in similar terms but without the magic words. Among the influential Democrats pledging their unflinching support for Israel was Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Like many others, Meeks hauled out a talking point about how 'Israel has a right to defend itself' — meant to front-run any discussion of Israeli aggression by asserting the premise that any and all military action is inherently defensive. It's a dubious premise in most contexts, but especially Orwellian in this one since Israel preemptively attacked Iran based on claims of an 'imminent threat' in direct contradiction of US intelligence. Even if one thinks Israel has a 'right to defend itself' in the abstract, under no neutral reading of international law is Israel doing so by bombing another country without legal basis to do so. The decidedly unhelpful approaches by powerful Democrats don't end there. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, influential members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, both issued mealy-mouthed statements trying to split the baby between 'diplomacy' rhetoric and reinforcing every pretense for U.S. involvement in Israel's bombing of Iran. These non-positions — or worse, positions in favor of unprovoked, almost certainly illegal war — are notable precisely because there are some lawmakers who are at least trying to do something to stop a direct, all-out conflict between the U.S. and Iran. According to the latest count by Prem Thakker, 37 members of Congress have thrown their weight behind some kind of effort to stop war. These fall into two camps. The first is a resolution in both the House and Senate that invokes the 1973 War Powers Act, which says that only Congress can declare war, a principle that has been routinely violated by U.S. presidents. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., is leading this push in the Senate, where few cosponsors have signed on. (Someone with knowledge of the effort told us that the organizers aren't accepting co-sponsors in a bid to gain bipartisan support first.) Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are leading the sister effort in the House, and it has 28 supporters total, including Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. D-N.Y. A total of 27, or 12.7 percent, of House Democrats have lent the bill their support. There is another effort afoot, too: the No War Against Iran Act that was already in motion before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, though it was introduced after the attacks began. The Senate bill, spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would prevent federal funds from being used for a war that's not approved by Congress. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., are among its eight Senate supporters. Democratic leaders, however, are leaving their colleagues out to dry. Schumer, for instance, declined to join Sanders's bill as a cosponsor — despite having cosponsored the same effort in 2020. This tacit and open support for Trump's war aren't limited to active leadership; the upper echelons of the party establishment have been noticeably silent. Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement. Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama haven't publicly opposed Trump's reckless threats and build-up to war with Iran. Obama, for example, has re-emerged into the spotlight — but made no mention of Iran or Trump's push for war during a public appearance this week. Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — despite frequently criticizing Trump for his military parade, detainment of a U.S. senator, and anti-abortion policies — hasn't spoken in opposition to a US war with Iran. And, likewise, 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, who has been speaking out against Trump, has yet to publicly criticize Trump's build up to bombing Iran. Surveying these responses — somewhere between muted disinterest and consent — there's only one plausible conclusion: Democratic elites by and large agree with both Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran and Trump's direct involvement in this potentially catastrophic regime change war. It's unlikely most Democratic hawks will come out in open support of an attack that carries such political risks; like with Iraq 20 years ago, things could quickly go off the rails. Yet, even as party leaders seek to burnish their credentials as the 'resistance' to Trump, they're tacitly, and sometimes openly, giving Trump a green light to lurch America into yet another open-ended war of choice. Join The Conversation
