Original Broadcast Date: August 10, 2026
Watch the original episode hosted by Mr. Fuentes on Rumble: EPISODE #1732
Monday’s America First focused heavily on the continuing war with Iran, with Fuentes arguing that the conflict has entered a new stage in which Tehran increasingly holds the leverage while Washington faces growing pressure to find an exit.
He also examined a report describing extraordinary security precautions taken during President Donald Trump’s departure from Turkey, reportedly because of intelligence concerning a possible Iranian assassination attempt.
The central argument of the episode was straightforward: the United States may still possess overwhelming military power, but Fuentes believes it no longer has a realistic way to force Iran to accept Washington’s terms.
Iran Begins Dictating Terms
Fuentes opened the main discussion by describing the war as strategically stalled after 164 days.
“There is no strategy. There is no tactic. There’s no plan.”
He rejected the Trump administration’s claim that a recent planned escalation was canceled to create space for diplomacy.
Instead, Fuentes argued that the United States pulled back because American commanders believed further strikes would not materially change Iran’s position.
“The real reason we stopped our offensive against Iran is because we are too weak.”
According to Fuentes, the change is significant because Iran is no longer acting like the side seeking relief.
He argued that Tehran is now presenting Washington with conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz rather than asking the United States for a negotiated settlement.
The demands discussed during the episode included lifting the U.S. naval blockade and sanctions, withdrawing American forces from positions around Iran, releasing frozen Iranian assets, paying reparations, and ending attacks against Iran’s regional allies.
Fuentes described the position as an ultimatum.
“They hold all the cards.”
He emphasized that an agreement between Iran and Oman over shipping arrangements in the Strait would not necessarily mean that Hormuz itself would reopen.
That distinction matters.
Iran could settle the technical question of how ships eventually transit the waterway while continuing to keep it closed as leverage against the United States.
What an Eventual Settlement Could Look Like
Fuentes stopped short of assuming Iran expects Washington to accept every demand.
He said Tehran could instead be beginning with maximalist terms because it believes the United States is increasingly desperate to end the war.
From there, he speculated about the likely outline of a future settlement.
Iran could emerge with greater influence over traffic through Hormuz. Some U.S. military positions near Iran could remain closed. Washington could also increase pressure on Israel to reduce military operations in Lebanon.
Fuentes argued that sanctions and frozen Iranian assets would likely remain among Washington’s most valuable bargaining tools.
The broader point was that the negotiating environment has changed.
The United States entered the conflict expecting military pressure to produce Iranian concessions.
Fuentes now believes Iran is attempting to determine how much Washington will concede in exchange for an end to the crisis.
Why Washington Needs an Exit
Fuentes divided the American problem into three areas: military resources, energy and politics.
The military problem received the most attention.
He argued that months of fighting have depleted both offensive and defensive munitions, including long-range strike weapons and interceptors used by Patriot and THAAD systems.
He also argued that improving Iranian missile capabilities make interception increasingly expensive and difficult.
The Strait of Hormuz creates another problem.
Fuentes explained that Iran does not need to defeat the U.S. Navy in a conventional battle to influence commercial shipping.
It only needs to remain capable of periodically striking vessels moving through the narrow transit corridor.
Even occasional attacks could drive insurance costs high enough to discourage shipping.
That means reopening Hormuz by force would require the United States to suppress Iran’s ability to launch missiles, drones and other anti-ship weapons from a huge number of possible locations.
Fuentes argued that this is not realistically achievable.
“It’s impossible to prevent all the missile strikes, intercept all the missiles.”
He therefore concluded that Washington is facing a war it cannot easily escalate and cannot comfortably sustain.
“We cannot go on economically, militarily, politically.”
In Fuentes’ view, Iran understands this and is increasingly willing to wait.
Time, he argued, is now working against Washington.
Iran’s Strategy Is Endurance
One of the most important points in the episode was Fuentes’ argument that Iran does not need to defeat the United States outright.
It only needs to survive longer than Washington can comfortably sustain the current situation.
Iran can watch American ammunition levels, energy markets, domestic politics and the approaching midterm elections just as easily as anyone else.
Fuentes argued that Tehran therefore understands the pressure facing the administration.
That helps explain why Iran is now willing to issue demands.
If Washington ultimately needs Hormuz reopened more urgently than Iran needs immediate sanctions relief, then Tehran has leverage.
Fuentes described Iran as increasingly controlling the “timing and tempo” of the conflict rather than merely reacting to American attacks.
The Gulf States Also Want the War to End
Fuentes then widened the discussion to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states.
He argued that these countries face growing risks whenever they allow the United States to use their territory, airspace or infrastructure in operations against Iran.
The result, in his view, is that many governments in the region increasingly want the conflict contained.
If the United States, Iran and the Gulf states were the only major actors involved, Fuentes suggested that pressure for a settlement would likely continue to grow.
But he argued that Israel has a different strategic interest.
The “Strategic Imperatives”
Fuentes returned to a framework he has used repeatedly throughout his coverage of the war.
Instead of focusing primarily on optimistic diplomatic statements or media reports describing talks as productive, he said he looks at what each government actually needs to accomplish.
“I always go back to these strategic imperatives.”
For Iran, he argued, the priorities are maintaining leverage through Hormuz, reducing the U.S. military presence near Iran and securing an end to attacks against Iranian allies, particularly in Lebanon.
For the United States, the priority is ending the war without appearing to surrender.
Fuentes argued that Israel has a different objective: maintaining enough military pressure to permanently weaken Iran and its regional network.
That, he said, is where the interests of Washington and Israel begin to separate.
Israel and the Risk of Continued Escalation
Fuentes traced the current conflict back to the broader regional war that followed October 7, 2023.
He argued that Israel has systematically targeted Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian-linked groups in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and eventually Iran itself.
His interpretation is that these campaigns form part of a larger Israeli effort to weaken Iran’s regional influence before confronting Tehran directly.
That is Fuentes’ analysis rather than an independently established fact, but it is central to understanding the argument he made during the episode.
He also connected the conflict to Israeli domestic politics.
Fuentes argued that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strong incentives to demonstrate a meaningful military victory before Israel’s upcoming election.
In Fuentes’ framework, that creates a growing conflict of interest.
Washington needs de-escalation.
Iran wants concessions before providing it.
Israel, he argued, has reasons to keep pressure on Iran and Hezbollah.
“For us to win, we need to shut the war in Iran down and shut the war in Lebanon down.”
Fuentes described this as a potential collision course between the United States and Israel.
The Trump Security Report
The episode then turned to a report concerning President Trump’s departure from Turkey.
According to the account discussed on the show, Trump publicly boarded the former Air Force One aircraft in Ankara but was later secretly transferred by catering vehicle to a smaller military aircraft.
The original aircraft departed with journalists and White House personnel aboard, effectively serving as a decoy.
The reported reason was concern about a possible Iranian threat against the president.
Fuentes considered the precautions extraordinary.
He then questioned what Iran would strategically gain from assassinating Trump.
His argument was that Iran currently benefits from the existing political situation.
American public support for a dramatically larger war is limited.
An Iranian assassination of the president could instantly change that.
“Why would they do that?”
Fuentes argued that such an event could create public support for precisely the kind of overwhelming escalation that Iran currently has reason to avoid.
Fuentes Raises Questions About the Intelligence
From there, the episode moved into its most speculative section.
Fuentes argued that Israel would benefit strategically if an attack on Trump caused the United States to fully commit to a larger war against Iran.
He also focused on reports that intelligence concerning Iranian threats against Trump had come from Israeli sources.
Fuentes did not claim that an attack was definitely being planned.
He repeatedly qualified the argument as speculation.
“I don’t want you to think I’m saying… there’s going to be a false flag.”
Instead, he said the circumstances should be evaluated together: the assassination intelligence, Trump’s unusual security precautions, Israel’s interest in continued escalation and the political calendar surrounding the war.
Fuentes described repeated public warnings about Iranian assassination plots as potentially creating what he called “predictive programming”—a narrative that could cause the public to immediately assume Iranian responsibility if something happened to Trump.
He ultimately acknowledged that such a scenario remains unlikely.
“I think it’s unlikely, but it’s a possibility.”
His broader prediction was not that one specific event would occur, but that another provocation could emerge if the war continues moving toward de-escalation.
A Broader Critique of Modern American Life
Before the main Iran discussion, Fuentes spent part of the opening monologue describing frustrations with customer service, automated systems, phone applications and the increasing difficulty of speaking directly with employees.
The repeated joke was his attempt to bypass automated phone systems:
“Human being. Human being. Human being.”
But the segment reflected a broader criticism.
Fuentes argued that everyday American life has become increasingly impersonal, bureaucratic and technologically mediated.
“Can a human being do a job for a customer anywhere?”
He connected those frustrations to a wider concern about cultural, demographic and physical changes in American communities.
The Emerging Populist Left
Fuentes also briefly discussed Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed as an example of what he considers an emerging form of left-wing populism.
His argument was that Democrats have become more disciplined about emphasizing health care, affordability, corporate power and economic issues while placing more controversial progressive cultural positions in the background.
“They’re just now putting it on the back burner.”
Fuentes compared this presentation to some forms of working-class populism on the right while arguing that the underlying ideological differences remain significant.
He again described himself as neither aligned with the progressive left nor with conventional pro-Israel Republicans, but as an American nationalist.
The Main Takeaway
The central argument of the episode was that the war is increasingly becoming a contest of endurance.
Fuentes believes the United States still possesses overwhelming military capabilities but lacks a practical method of forcing Iran to surrender its leverage over Hormuz.
Iran therefore does not need to defeat America conventionally.
It needs to maintain enough military capability to threaten shipping while waiting for ammunition shortages, energy pressure and domestic politics to make continued U.S. involvement increasingly costly.
That, according to Fuentes, is why Iran has shifted from seeking negotiations to presenting demands.
At the same time, he argued that Washington’s growing need for de-escalation increasingly conflicts with Israel’s desire to continue pressuring Iran and its regional allies.
The Trump security report added another layer to that concern because an attack against the president could completely alter American public opinion and provide political justification for a much larger war.
Fuentes did not predict that such an event would happen.
His broader warning was that another catalyst could emerge before the conflict is finally resolved.
The framework he offered for watching what happens next was simple: ignore the rhetoric, identify what each government needs, and watch where those strategic requirements collide.
“I don’t go off of a feeling. I don’t go off my gut.”
After 164 days of war, Fuentes’ question is no longer simply whether another round of fighting will occur.
It is whether Washington can find a way out before something happens that pulls it deeper in.
This article is an independent recap. AF Observer is not affiliated with or endorsed by America First or its creators.
Truly appreciate your work.