TRIGGERnometry - Mehdi Hasan Debate on the Iran War, Immigration and the Israel Lobby

The war in Iran, what do you make of it?

Right now I think it's a disaster. I don't think it was legal. I don't think it was justifiable.

And I think a lot of innocent people are dying as we speak without any real justification.

Israel's war goals and interests are actually very clear.

I'm very unclear as to what the US wants.

Well, if it is the nuclear program, this is not the way to do it.

Negotiations are the way to solve most experts say you cannot bomb away a nuclear program.

It's in people's heads. All of the available evidence suggests he is losing.

What do you mean?

Strategic experts will point out that a country like Iran wins simply by surviving.

We have to admit that there have been fundamental failings on the left.

For instance, having an open border.

There's no open border, Francis.

That doesn't mean it's open. They just mean they managed to come in illegally.

That just means that the border wasn't as secure as you want to be.

Hold on a second.

Open border means I can just walk into America.

Sorry, you triggered me with open border.

This episode is sponsored by our friends at Hillsdale College.

Right after this episode, go check out their incredible online courses

which are absolutely free at Hillsdale.edu slash trigger.

MediHassam, welcome to Trigonometry.

Before we get into the meat of the interview of Iran,

domestic policy, all the good stuff.

Tell us who you are and your journey through life.

That's a big question.

Thanks for having me, guys.

My name is MediHassam.

I am the editor-in-chief of a media company called Zateo.

I've been a journalist here in the US and in the UK for the past 25 years.

I'm old.

I used to be at MSNBC.

I've done shows for Al Jazeera.

I've worked at Sky News.

I've worked all over the place.

So I do interviews.

I do shows.

I write books.

And I'm stuck in the middle of all the current controversy right now here in Washington DC.

So what I find very interesting is you're from the UK.

You're left wing.

What brought you to be on the left?

To be on the left.

Yes.

I grew up in a very political house.

So where my father, my late father, who passed away last year,

was very, very political, loved, Harold Wilson, immigrant from India to the United Kingdom

in the 1960s.

He's arrived in 1966, a great year to arrive in England.

And yeah, I grew up in a house all where we were taught to give a damn about what's happening in the world.

I care about causes both distant and nearby.

I've always cared about justice.

I'm also a Muslim.

As a Muslim, you're taught from a very young age to give a damn about your society, your community,

about a world bigger than yourself.

So justice, I guess, justice has been something that I've cared a great deal about.

So, yeah, I was an angry young man in my teens and probably, you know, they say you grow

out of it if you grow old, but I didn't.

Absolutely.

For an officer, what brought you to the US?

Why not stay in the UK and focus on UK, and be angry there?

The moral outrage.

The, I mean, one, there's a history of British people coming to the US, both in the media,

in entertainment across the world, you know, to look at different opportunities.

I was always fascinated by United States.

I'm sure both of you guys, you're here in DC.

US politics is fascinating.

It affects all of us around the world.

Also, my wife is American and they say a happy wife is a happy life.

So at some point when she said, you know what, we've done a good gig in the UK.

Why don't you come try live in the US?

So I moved to in 2015, just as Donald Trump was coming down the golden escalator.

So it's been an interesting 11 years.

Well, it has.

And as we sit here in DC, big things are happening globally.

The war in Iran, what do you make of it?

Right now, I think it's a disaster.

I don't think it was legal.

I don't think it was justifiable.

I don't think it was necessary.

I think it's self-destructive.

I don't think it's in the US's national interest.

And I think a lot of innocent people are dying as we speak without any real justification.

Why do you think it's happening?

Many reasons.

One of the main reasons was expressed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio before he tried

to walk it back where he said that we were told, this is Rubio's words, I'm paraphrasing,

that Israel was about to attack Iran.

And if they had attacked Iran, Iran would have attacked us.

So we decided to attack first, which is kind of insane on multiple levels.

Number one, if you thought Israel was going to attack Iran, just stop Israel from attacking Iran.

It's your client state.

Number two, imagine if you're at home and you're like, my brother's about to get drunk

and drive the family car and wreck it.

I'm going to wreck it first.

It's a bizarre argument, say.

They were going to attack so we attacked first.

So Israel plays a big role in this.

I don't think it's the only role, Joe Kent, who has just quit the Trump administration,

director of counterterrorism.

He wrote a letter saying, it's all Israel.

Israel manipulated us into what?

I think that takes away too much responsibility from Donald Trump, from Lindsey Graham,

from the US government and Hawks in the US who have long wanted a confrontation with Iran.

This has been building for years.

I mean, we're all, I think of a similar age group.

You know, we're all old enough to remember the Iraq war.

We're old enough to remember George Bush, Dick Cheney.

They wanted to go into Iran at the time too.

They didn't.

George Bush was smart enough not to do that after the disaster in Iraq.

Benjamin Netanyahu is on the record saying, I've dreamed of attacking Iran for 40 years,

Trump's the first president to let me do it.

I, those are all points that I wanted to discuss with you, but I say I'm not very clear

on what you, why you think it's happening because I agree with you.

A lot of people talk about Israel, but as you said, Israel is a client state of the United States.

And quite a lot of people act as if it's the reverse now, which doesn't make a lot of sense

to me just from the understanding of how these dynamics work.

So, so why, why would President Trump, who's on the record repeatedly saying no more foreign wars,

no more forever wars, who got rid of all the neocons within his administration from the first one?

Why would he do this now?

I think now is the good question, Constantine.

It's about the timing because Donald Trump is not an anti-war.

I never accepted the bullshit state that he was anti-war.

I was one of the people in 2024 said, don't buy this crap that he's running on.

He went to Michigan and told Muslims, vote for me.

I'll know we know wars in the Middle East.

No Muslims will die if you vote for Kamala Harris and Liz Cheney.

They're going to bomb the whole of the Middle East.

I never bought that stuff.

I remember his first time.

He was pretty belligerent.

Why not?

Why didn't you buy it?

Because in his first time, he expanded drone strikes.

He killed Hassim Soleimani.

You know, he bombed Somali at a rate.

We never talk about countries like Somali.

There was nothing in his first time that said, this guy is not totally happy with war.

He also surrounded himself and, you know, look at the people he hired.

Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, look at his best friend in the Senate, Lindsey Graham,

a man whose never met a country he doesn't want to invade.

So, I never bought that.

And unfortunately, I've been vindicated in his first year.

He bombed, I think, seven countries in 12 months last year.

He just bombed Nigeria on Christmas Day.

We've all just moved on from that randomly.

He started this year with Venezuela regime change, Maduro.

And then Iran, the timing is interesting.

I was talking to Senator Chris Van Hollen at an anti-war Democrat yesterday.

We were trying to get to the bottom of this.

What is in it?

Very hard to get inside Donald Trump's head.

Very hard.

But what is going on in there?

Is it just Benjamin Netanyahu playing for a fall partly?

Yes.

Netanyahu has kind of admitted it.

Is it the old belligerence of Donald Trump with a country that won't bow down to him?

Is it Whitkhoff and Kushner screwing up the negotiations?

Not understanding what was going on, which a lot of reporting is suggesting.

Is it just Jared Kushner and others trying to make money out of this?

We see Kushner's, you know, a lot of, we're trying to follow the money

is often an explanation to a lot of what's going on.

Is it him trying to distract from domestic economic woes?

We've seen this before.

Unpopular leaders at home decide to start a foreign war

to distract the public attention.

Zateo, my company, did a poll of the American public recently.

Found 52% of Americans think the Epstein files

was one of the reasons Trump went to war.

You might think mad conspiracy theory.

A majority of Americans believe that is one of the reasons he went to war.

So I think it's a mix of things.

Israel, obviously, played a big role in that.

And I think now he's in it.

He's doubling down, tripling down.

He could just declare victory.

People at Tucker Carlson have called him or called proxies of his and said,

just say mission accomplished and go home.

Just at a kill come and I degraded their military blah, blah, blah

and go home like you did last year after the 12-day war.

He won't do it.

He's quadrupling down as we speak.

So why do you think that is?

If we're going to spend an hour doing psychodilizing,

Trump is going to be difficult.

I think he is someone who does not want to accept defeat.

He's the worst thing in his life is to be a loser.

The guy doesn't accept he lost a 2020 election.

Still ranting on about that.

The idea that he would lose to the Iranians and he is losing right now.

Let's just be very clear.

All of the available evidence suggests he is losing.

What do you mean?

The goals, what are his goals in Iran?

We don't know because he's never really stated them.

But if it's destroying Iran, he's failed.

He posted a couple of weeks ago.

I've destroyed 100% of Iran's military capability.

Okay, then what are we watching every day?

Land on Gulf countries.

What are we watching happening in the strait of hall moves?

He's alienated his allies at Iran's nuclear enrichment.

Whatever they have still left over.

They still have.

They're still hitting Gulf countries.

Gulf countries are furious.

So I think he's losing.

And you know, people like strategic experts will point out

that a country like Iran wins simply by surviving.

Right?

Because they're the weaker, smaller power.

So I think he's in a bad state.

I don't think he's going to give up because he can't handle the defeat.

And by the way, it's a US-Israeli war, right?

And a lot of people have pointed out that the US and Israeli interests are not the same.

Our strategic interests are not Israel.

That's very clear that they're not.

And I think that divergence is one of the reasons people keep saying, you know,

Israel tricked Trump into this war.

But I'll bully it.

I think one of you would guess on your show recently talked about how he bullied him.

And that's what they lose me because I don't understand what this supposed mechanism is

by which Israel bullies America.

Well, I don't know by the word bully, but let me just say in terms of trick or manipulative.

This is not a conspiracy theory.

The beauty of these Republicans, and you're a DC.

I know you're going to be speaking to Republicans.

The only redeeming feature of the Republican Party right now is they just say the quiet part

I'll have.

People like me don't need to speculate or come up with theory.

They just say it.

So Lindsey Graham told the Wall Street Journal that I went to Israel and Israel showed me

Intel that made me think we've got to go to war.

That's bizarre.

The United States said it went to a foreign government for Intel.

Then he says, I set met with Netanyahu and I coached him his words, not mine, on how

to persuade Trump to get into this war.

Again, bizarre.

The United States Senate on a foreign leader is discussing how they're going to coach,

how they're going to persuade manipulate a sitting president into war.

So they're saying this stuff out loud.

I'm not absolving Trump of responsibility, but nor am I saying Israel didn't play.

Would we be in this war?

Were it not for Israel?

No.

I think that's very clear.

If we stop the war tomorrow, just one last point, if Trump was saying we're done, we're

over.

But one of the reasons I think he's not, it's because he's been told the Israelis aren't

stopping.

And therefore, as long as the Israelis go, we go.

Well, all I'm doing, Matt, is trying to pass logically the things that people are saying

including.

Logic and Trump doesn't always go in the same sentence.

Well, sure.

Fine.

But what I guess what I'm saying is this, if President Trump didn't want to do this,

he wouldn't do it.

Agreed.

We are in 100% agree.

He could very easily say to Iran, we have nothing to do with this.

And in fact, we're not even going to shoot down your ballistic missiles if you shoot

them at Israel, because we'd want no part on this.

And then none of this will be going on.

So that's what, that's the bit where people lose me when they talk about Israel.

I mean, every country wants to manipulate the United States into doing what they want.

They've been doing it well.

Well, but it's easily manipulated.

Russia wants him to make the easier for them in Ukraine.

Ukraine wants it to make it easier for them to defeat Russia.

China spends huge amounts of money shaping US foreign policy for China.

So does Qatar.

So do lots of countries.

So I guess the thing that I'm trying to get to the bottom of, because it's such a big

talking point in the US right now, is what is the supposed mechanism by which this tiny

country of Israel has this outsized power over the President of the United States?

So a couple of things.

One is, it's not mutually exclusive, is it Constantine, to say that Donald Trump has responsibility.

He's a grown man.

He may not act like a grown man, but is a grown man and has to take responsibility for

decisions he makes.

That's not mutually exclusive.

It's saying, but the Israelis also tricked him, manipulated him, lobbied him, bullied him,

pressured him.

Both of those things can be true at the same time.

All I'm asking is, what is the mechanism by which I have?

But we accept that both those things can be true.

Of course.

So now we come to what is the Israelis doing?

You would accept that.

You just listed a bunch of countries and the Gulf, the Qataris have a lot of influence,

the Emirates have a lot of influence.

The Russians sadly have a lot of influence with Trump.

You would accept that none of those countries come close to Israel's influence.

I don't think there's any question mark about Israel's influence on American policies.

The question you're asking about is, how?

What's the mechanism?

No one would deny.

I mean, you know, you watched the Ted Cruz interview with Tucker Carlson that went viral,

not long ago.

Cruz says, I came into politics to defend Israel.

They don't say that by any other country.

I've never heard in America say, I came into politics to defend Belgium.

Never heard it.

Never heard anyone talk about any other country away.

You should check once more thing if I may.

That's not necessarily evidence of Israel having influence.

It might well be a case of there are lots of people who are live in America who believe

for whatever reason, for religious reasons, or for geopolitical reasons,

that this is a country with which America should have a close alliance.

So 100% I agree with you.

There are Christian evangelicals in this country who believe that the rapture will happen

when all the Jews are gathered in this place.

And they are even more hardcore pro-Israel than a lot of pro-Israeli Jews.

That's 100% true.

But there are also a bunch of people in American politics.

I know I've met them.

I've interviewed them.

They tell me this on and off the record who are supporting Israel because they're worried about being primed.

They're worried about losing their jobs.

They're worried about being called anti-Semitic.

They're worried about being targeted by APAT.

They're worried about being targeted by their political opponents, et cetera, et cetera.

The idea that there isn't a very, very powerful pro-Israeli is absurd.

Just as there is a very powerful gun lobby, just as a very powerful farmer lobby, right?

It's funny that when we in this city, people are happy to say,

you're owned by the gun lobby.

But for good reasons, because of anti-Semitic tropes,

people don't want to say you're owned by the Israel lobby.

There is a good reason.

There is a good reason for it.

But the fact is, there is an Israel lobby that has massive oversized influence

on the market politics.

The distinction I'm trying to make.

And I think it's an important one.

And it's good that we're exploring this, which is,

I think the reason people worry about calling it the Israeli lobby versus the gun lobby

is the Israeli lobby implies some kind of foreign influence, right?

Whereas the point that I think you and I are both making actually an agreement on

is there are lots and lots of Americans for whatever reasons,

there are personal reasons,

view this as an important strategic alliance of the United States

or a religious world view or whatever.

So, and I think that's where the distinction becomes difficult.

I think you're in good faith over stating the other part of the argument.

Maybe for arguments, say, what devil is that?

Because, well, I'm saying, let me give you one example.

When you ask democratic voters, do you support what Israel's doing in Gaza?

Eight percent according to one poll said we support it, right?

Democrats don't support it.

The vast majority don't support it.

When you go look at Democrats in Congress,

the vast majority do support it.

There's an absolute discontent.

The numbers are reversed.

And why is that?

That's exactly my point.

Why is that?

It's not because they're out all out for self-inducence

because they are, they're lobbied by various lobbies,

the military industrial complex, which also has interest in war,

the pro-Israel lobby, vast influence that do,

there's money in politics that influence a lot of positions in this country.

You're in this town, this whole town is very corrupt, right?

The way you influence people is through money and the same thing with Israel.

By the way, you mentioned foreign lobbying.

Well, I said Israel lobby, not Israeli lobby, the lobby for Israel.

That can be Americans.

But let's just be clear, there's a long history of people trying to get

the pro-Israel lobby to register as a foreign agent

just as some pro-Arab lobbies have to register as foreign agents.

You go back to RFK, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

He wanted to register the precursor to APAC.

Senator William Lee, he's a very famous Democrat senator in the 70s,

said we should register as a foreign lobby.

So there's been a debate for a long time

as to where the APAC and other such groups should actually register

because they do seem to coordinate with the Israeli government.

So that's a separate issue.

But look, I take your point.

There are many Americans who support Israel.

But if you look at the polling constant,

and you're in DC at a time when in astonishing polls,

I never thought I'd seen my lifetime,

that Americans have now switched.

They are now supporting Palestinians more than they've supported Israel.

First time in my lifetime, I never thought I would see those polls.

Sadly, it took a genocide and tens of thousands of Palestinians

to get Americans to switch their positions.

But again, if that doesn't translate into Congress, into the presidency,

then you have to ask, why do we have a Democratic crisis?

Well, 70% of Republicans support Israel over Republicans,

but the American public, independence and Democrats.

Yeah, yeah.

But the Republicans are in power, so that would explain why.

But they should also respond to public opinion.

It's not like when Democrats about the only follow the base,

they spend their whole life chasing swing voters.

Don't worry about that.

Well, but look at Kamala Harris' election campaign.

She didn't go to the left.

Interesting.

So, but coming back to the Democrats, it's an interesting point you make.

So your contention is Democratic politicians fear A-PAC and...

Yes, we're meeting in DC just after a bunch of primaries in Illinois,

A-PAC dumped millions of dollars to defeat the critical...

Lots and lots and lots of millions of dollars.

I agree. We said that.

But your claim is that the reason Democratic politicians ignore their voters' concerns

about the Middle East, for example, is because of something like A-PAC.

Yes.

Okay, fair enough.

And so, how do you think this conflict will go on from here?

It's very hard to know. We're in uncharted waters.

I've said since 2003, both as a private individual

and when I became a public figure in 2009, I've said this consistently that

I was against Iraq war, and I think it was one of the big disasters of my lifetime.

But Iran would make Iraq look like a walk in the park.

It would be Iraq on steroids, give much bigger country,

much harder to topple, way more region on international ramifications.

And we're seeing that now.

We're a couple of weeks into this war,

and we're seeing the oil price spikes, economic repercussions globally,

the attacks on natural gas facilities.

I'm not an expert on this stuff, but the experts are saying this could have

10-year, 20-year ramifications to rebuild some of this stuff.

The environmental consequences in the region, the public health consequences,

of course, the acid rain in Tehran.

Of course, the blowback, you know, in this country,

I always joke that, you know, Americans have the memory of Gulfish, right?

Eight seconds. It was hard to remember about the last week, let alone last year.

People in the Middle East have very long memories, right?

Americans don't know who Muhammad Masadek is.

Most Iranians will tell you that's the Prime Minister in 1953

that the US overthrew and brought back the Shah and then the Shah led to the revolution, etc, etc.

When we talk about blowback, we need to have big picture.

God forbid, three years, five years, a year from now.

Some bomb goes off somewhere, kills a bunch of innocent Americans.

We say, why? Why? Why do they hate us?

And they're like, come and I.

We're like, come and I who? Who's he? We've forgotten about him already.

I mean, this is my worry. We've seen this with every invasion.

The invasion of Iraq brought about ISIS.

The invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982 brought about his balar, right?

These illegal wars, these wars of choice, these occupations,

they lead to blowback, unintended consequence, what the CIA calls blowback.

And I really worry about that when it comes to Iran.

We don't know what's going to happen next to quote Donald Rumsfeldt.

I mean, we're, we're, there's the known unknowns.

We know there's some bad shit coming. We don't know what it is.

Most people think they're informed.

In reality, they're selectively informed.

Modern media doesn't just tell stories.

It quietly decides which ones you never hear about at all.

That's why I use ground news.

It's the only app that compares how the same story is covered across the political spectrum

and show you what whole audiences are not being told.

The blind spot feed is one of my favorite features.

Every day, it flags upwards of 20 stories that are being ignored either by the left or the right.

Follow along at ground.newslashtrigonometry.

Take this story.

A major US poll found that Republican voters' confidence in Trump's economic leadership

has dropped sharply during his second term.

That is not a minor data point.

If you only read right-leaning publications, you would have missed this completely.

On the other hand, look at this.

The UAE drops UK from scholarship list over radicalization concerns on university campuses.

That's a significant story.

Yet, coverage from left-leaning outlets was almost nonexistent.

Ground news puts all of this in one place.

Headlines, bias breakdowns, ownership and context.

So you can actually understand what's going on,

not just react to what you're told.

Go to ground.newslashtrigonometry to get 40% off their unlimited vantage plan.

The same one we use and stop being managed by the media.

Many there'd be people who go, well, look,

you've mentioned Hezbollah, Iran,

funds Hezbollah, they fund Hamas, they effectively destabilize the region.

I'm done say that I agree with this, actually.

But they would say, look, if we deal with Iran,

long term we're going to get a better, more prosperous, more stable Middle East.

What would you say to that?

I would say Benjamin Netanyahu said exactly those words in front of Congress in 2002.

He said, if you invade Iraq,

there'll be positive reverberation throughout the region.

What happened? We got ISIS.

We got Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We got 27 bombings in London. Tony Blair was warned.

If you invade Iraq,

there will be bombings at home.

The Joint Intelligence Committee told him in 2003, he ignored those warnings.

We got more terrorism, more global, more violence, more regional instability, more refugees.

That's what I fear is happening now with Iran.

In terms of destabilizing the region, look,

this is where we get to, like, where do you start the clock?

I would say, yes, of course, Hezbollah and Hamas destabilize the region.

But they would argue, and many people would argue,

that destabilizing began with Iran, they are a reaction to Israel's actions.

Depends where you want, like I said, 1982.

Israel invaded southern Lebanon.

There was no Hezbollah in 1982.

So look, Iran does play a role that is maligned.

I've never defended blindly Iran.

Iran does bad things. No one's debating that.

Many countries in the Middle East do bad things.

We are not invading Saudi Arabia.

I think we would all agree around this table.

Does bad things have done bad things?

We are not invading and trying to topple Saudi Arabia

or bombing their oil fields and gas facilities.

And I'm glad we're not.

So I don't think this war is a solution to the problem.

By the way, what is the problem?

Donald Trump will not tell us what the goals of this war are.

It changes every day.

Marco Rubius says it's degrading the Navy.

First, it was a nuclear program that they obliterated last year

in the 12-day war, apparently.

There's a lot of evidence that the nuclear material

may well have been removed prior to this, right?

But I'm saying this war was not about the nuclear program

because it does nothing to you.

That's actually the thing that they have said

that makes sense to me.

Like, I think I'm actually kind of with you in terms of

I don't understand what the goals of this thing are.

I don't know.

If we take it, the nuclear stuff

and degrading the military, that's fine.

But then why are you killing their leaders?

That's the bit I don't understand.

Well, interestingly, they're not killing their leaders, right?

They killed Khamenei, but these raids are doing much of the killing.

They've killed the intelligence minister.

They killed Ali Larajani.

Now, let's just deal with what Israel wants,

because what Israel wants is pretty clear to anyone watching.

They want an unstable, weakened Iran that does oppose a threat to them.

They don't care if it's a democracy,

they don't care if it's a dictatorship,

they don't care for civil war.

They just want Iran off the table, right?

And therefore, they're killing people

who might do a deal with Trump.

They've done this before.

Last year in the 12-day war,

they tried to kill a guy called Ali Shamkani, who survived.

Then they killed him now.

He was a negotiator who had Trump had been praising

and reposting on social media.

They killed him, because they don't want Trump to do a deal with this guy.

Why not?

Because they don't want to negotiate a solution.

They want to keep going these rallies

until they wipe out everything they want to do.

Yeah, they want to degrade Iran.

They don't want Donald Trump to do one of his deals.

That's the worst thing they could have.

They didn't want the JCPOA,

the Iran nuclear deal,

the Obama signed that would resolve the nuclear program

for at least 15 years.

They were dead against that deal.

But so has Trump himself?

Yes, and Trump pulled out of that deal.

And then what happened?

Enrichment went up.

Then Biden came back in,

said, let's try and go back into that deal.

The Israeli's attack in a tense in 2021.

They enriched up to 60%.

Then last year, they went to Iran to negotiate.

They had a meeting schedule for Sunday.

The Israeli's bombed on Friday.

This year, they negotiated in Geneva.

The Iranian Minister came to DC and said,

a deal's on the table.

Apparently Jonathan Powell from the UK said,

there was a deal to be done.

Guess what happened?

The US and Israel bombed the day in the next day.

There's a history of Israel in particular,

but also the US bombing every time we're close to a deal.

Every time there's a negotiation in place.

And this is why we just come back to the nuclear point.

Because I agree with you,

it's very clear that there's a difference

between the interest of the United States

and the war goals of the United States

and the war goals and interests of Israel.

And Israel's war goals and interests are actually very clear.

I'm very unclear as to what the US will.

Well, if it is the nuclear program,

I think we're both unclear.

But if it is the nuclear program,

I don't think they know.

But if it is the nuclear program,

this is not the way to do it.

That negotiations are the way to solve Israel.

There was the most experts say,

you cannot bomb away a nuclear program.

It's in people's heads.

It's scientific expertise.

You cannot kill every scientist.

You can destroy the nuclear material.

And then they can just end the war.

And then years later, they can rebuild facilities

and enrich again.

And then you're just mowing the lawn as Israeli say,

going and bomb every couple of years.

But we had a JCPOA.

We had a deal that was working.

The IAEA said Iran was in compliance with it.

In which uranium they had under the JCPO, 3.64 percent.

You know how much they have now?

60 percent.

You know, you want to go back to logic.

Logic tells me that was a failure to get out of that deal.

I mean, I also don't think there's any huge evidence

that negotiations produce nuclear non-proliferation.

I just think this is a very...

Come on.

I think it's an entire history of the post-war era.

Well, if you look at Ukraine, for example,

Ukraine was forced to giveaways nuclear weapons

and made itself very vulnerable.

And I've been on record as saying,

I think that in and of itself

and the fact that we haven't supported Ukraine properly,

we'll lead to more nuclear proliferation.

I agree with you on that.

And I think on this issue too,

I don't see what the incentive would be

for a run not to pursue nuclear weapons.

Well, we're in agreement, but not just Iran.

So I interviewed, again, if you guys remember the Iraq war,

do you remember Muhammad al-Barradah?

He was ahead of the IAEA.

Yes.

Him and Hans Blix went to the UN as a Donan Vader arc.

We can...

We were both against the one.

Exactly.

That's what I'm saying this to you because I know you understand.

He said we can guarantee this arm over.

He was ahead of the nuclear watchdog,

spent his life opposing nuclear proliferation.

I interviewed him recently.

I said, if you were in the Turkish government right now,

which Israel is saying is next,

would you try and get news?

And he said, yes.

I was astonished.

This is a man who's devoted his life

because, as you say,

everyone now has an incentive to get news.

But why would you not?

No, my point was even broader than that, Medi,

which is that I think everyone always has the incentive

to get news.

And that's where I don't think negotiating with Iran.

So that's where we just...

Hold on, let me finish the point, though.

I don't think that's...

In that situation, I don't think Iran has any interest in that.

Iran is very clearly the reason the Gulf Arab states

and Israel all want Iran degraded

and all supported this conflict, by the way,

and are still encouraging it, the Gulf states,

especially internally.

The people at the top, the people on the street may not,

is because Iran wants to dominate the regions.

Perfectly legitimate thing for Iran to want to do.

But that being the case, the fact that they find proxies

to facilitate that process, of course, they'd want nuclear weapons,

and I don't think they'd negotiate them away.

Well, they already did negotiate them away.

According to US Intelligence, they suspended whatever nuclear weapons research

they were doing in 2003 after the fall of Saddam,

because they didn't want Bush to invade them.

There was also a fatwa from the late Ayatollah Khamenei

saying that nuclear weapons are haram forbidden under Islamic law,

which is ironic.

People are now saying, I hear supporters of Khamenei saying,

that was a mistake.

He should have actually gone to Iran.

But under him, they did enrich more Iranians.

But they didn't build weapons.

In rich Iranians, they're right under the NPT.

Every country has a right to enrich the uranium.

No, not to 60%.

That was a bargaining chip.

But they did.

That was a bargaining chip.

Why did they enrich to 60%?

Because they're saying, if you keep pushing us, if you keep...

Israel attacked them, so they went to 60%.

They only went to...

You say, Israel wants...

Iran wants to dominate.

This is why it's so important for your viewers

to understand the timelines here.

I know we, in the West, we're kind of brainwashed

by some of our media and politicians

to believe that every Iran is this Hitler country.

And again, I'm saying that.

But I didn't say you said that.

I said, some in our media and politicians

brainwashed those over the years.

Triggered on pretty great show.

It hasn't been in for decades.

I'm talking about the last 30, 40 years.

Have been told Iran is the great...

You know, just like Iranians say, the great Satan,

Iran is also the great rogue state in the Middle East.

Actually, when you look at it,

Iran is the country that is actually now being bombed

was attacked from 1980 to 1988

by our allies Saddam Hussein,

attacked with chemical weapons,

lost half a million people,

had their planes shot down by the United States of America.

And then they agreed to a negotiated deal

with the American government in good faith.

And with the EU, by the way,

the JCPO was with the US and the EU.

Iran stuck to that deal, Trump tore it up.

Trump violated that deal by pulling out of it.

As I said, they then began to increase

enrichment only after the deal was done.

So I don't accept your premise for New South.

Of course, they want to get nuclear weapons in the rich.

No, they signed the JCPO,

which it says in the first paragraph,

we will never get nuclear weapons.

That's what they signed on.

But then it took that money

and used it to fund the proctorum.

Okay, but now you're moving the goalposts.

I just want to stick with your nuclear point.

No, no, you made a very strong point

about nuclear.

They have incentive to get nuclear weapons.

I'm saying there's no evidence of that.

Steve Zat reverse.

The incentive is cleared.

You're saying now they have an incentive for sure.

They just got a tag.

They always.

Well, of course, I mean, if you want to be,

strategically, yes, there was a right.

But that's the irony is they didn't.

That's the irony.

If they did, if they did, they'd be fine.

I tell you how many I would be alive,

chilling with Kim Jong Un right now.

If he had got nukes like Kim Jong Un,

did let's just be very real about that.

There's a reason why Pakistan and North Korea,

which destabilize their region much more

than some would say Iran are fine because they have nukes.

We're in complete agreement.

But Iran didn't get nukes.

This is a great irony here.

They didn't get nukes.

They got a tag.

The leader got killed.

And now I'm hearing you say,

because they wanted to get nukes.

Steve Zat opposite.

If they had gotten nukes, they didn't much say for place.

Instead, he put out a fat to us saying no nukes.

He signed up to the JCPA,

which many Iranian hardliners were against.

How many I signed on to a deal

that people in his own country

said we shouldn't sign on to?

They then stuck to the deal,

according to the IEA,

Trump then tore up the deal.

They then marginally increased the richman to 20%.

They then got attacked by Israel in 2021,

increased to 60%.

You got attacked during negotiations.

And again, this year got attacked during negotiations.

And one last point, the Gulf countries, it's just not true.

The Amani foreign minister just wrote a piece

for the Economist magazine.

Aman got bombed by Iran.

And even he's saying,

it's very rational for Iran to do what it's doing.

This is an Israeli war that America has been dragged into.

America needs to be independent from Israel.

The Qataris, I've spoken to very senior Qataris privately,

who of course are mad that Iran are bombing their gas fields.

But they know who they blamed.

They know who started the war.

It was Israel and the United States.

And they're reaching out to the US,

telling the US, stop this.

So maybe the Saudis, maybe the Emirates want his war,

but not all of the Gulf countries.

That's just not true.

Fine.

So it's really interesting that you're talking about,

you know, the bombing of facilities, gas facilities, etc.

Because one of the worries for me, Medi,

is how this is going to affect ordinary Americans.

And I don't actually think that we've been focused on that enough.

So let's talk about the stroke of all moves.

Let's talk about why it's so important.

Let's talk about why shutting it down

is not potentially catastrophic.

It is catastrophic for the global economy,

but for Americans and Brits and the West in particular.

It's a disaster.

This is what, so we just ran a piece by Elan Goldenberg,

who was a senior official on foreign policy under Barack Obama

and Joe Biden.

He conducted war games for the United States government.

And what would happen if they attacked Iran?

Because they were doing the JCPO,

they had to have a backup.

In case it all goes pear-shaped,

if we go to war, there's Obama time.

He says the worst case scenario of the war games

is what's happening right now.

That's kind of scary when you hear someone who's in government saying that.

He wrote that piece for us and he said,

look, the straight of homies was always going to be the Iranian leverage.

It was always going to be the choke point.

When Donald Trump comes out and says we didn't know they would do this,

we didn't know they would attack the Gulf countries.

I mean, it's idiocy of the highest order.

It's like COVID all over again.

He mishandled a major national crisis

because he was incompetent,

not just ideologically doing the wrong thing.

And again, we have these people at Hexath and Trump

who are completely out of their depth, running this war

and saying stupid things like,

well, we didn't know about the straight of homies.

I just saw reporting the other day

that the Brits and the Poles and the Germans

all have mind-sweeping carriers that could have been of use.

The Brits pulled ours out.

I don't know what the where the German one is.

But meanwhile, Trump is just attacking all the allies.

We don't need anyone from NATO.

We don't need you.

He's doing all caps late night in insane deranged posts on truth social.

He doesn't know how to run a war.

He doesn't know how to keep allies on board.

Again, I'm going to have to go home and take a shower

after praising George Bush.

But even George Bush, a war criminal who should be in the hage,

created a coalition of the willing with a bunch of countries.

Not the big countries, but some...

What was it called? New Europe, Rumsfeld called it.

This guy can't even build together a coalition.

He didn't even tell his allies before he decided,

as you say, to create massive economic chaos

for everyone in the world.

And we're speaking on a day, Francis,

where the Treasury Secretary just announced,

we may un-sanction Iranian oil.

Isn't that...

I don't say hilarious because such a tragic war

and people are dying.

But bizarre that three weeks into this war,

the result of this war is Iran's oil is un-sanctioned.

That's insane.

And but let's go back to the straight of homies.

Can you explain for people who are listening?

Who, you know, they've got families, they've got jobs.

Why is it so important?

And why is closing it so disastrous?

So it's where the majority of that region's oil and gas

goes out of the region, goes out to China and India,

into the Indian Ocean.

It's very narrow, I think it's 25 miles at its narrowest point.

It means that the Iranians can shut it down

with like one guy on a boat,

with like a rocket launch.

It doesn't require a massive Iranian military presence.

There was a moment the other day where Hexas said,

we're run by such incompetence.

Peter Hexas, the defense secretary said,

no, no, it is open.

You can go through with the ship,

as long as you don't get attacked.

Well, you will, so it's not open.

The whole point is all these planners, military planners are saying,

you can't open it up.

As long as Iran is a country in that region,

they will always have that leverage to shut it down

because it doesn't require much on their part

to take out one tanker and then which country

which company is going to go into that place.

So there's two lanes.

So the history is two lanes straight of them.

One going that way, one going that way.

It's very easy to shut down.

So this was always the Iranians key leverage point.

And apparently Trump didn't know about it.

They didn't think it through.

He posted the other day calling it the

straight of hall moves spelled S-T-R-A-I-G-H-T.

That's the president of the United States.

So we're in a very disastrous position.

The Iranians could hold out.

We don't know how long the Iranians can hold out,

but the longer they do,

as at home here in the US, you guys in the UK

are going to feel the pain.

You know, $110, $110, $120 barrels of oil.

Who knows how high it's going to go?

And the repercussions for a country,

this country where affordability was the big political issue.

The last election, inflation.

Well, you should be very excited about this,

Maddie, surely.

Because remember, you asked me at the beginning,

why I'm on the left?

I believe in justice.

I don't want people to suffer just to win my political.

I meant, I was kidding, obviously,

but I meant politically.

Yes.

The Democrats, I think, are on course to win the House and Senate.

Maybe the Senate.

Definitely the House.

Yeah.

And you imagine,

I mean, it's clear.

I think I think whatever you support the conflict

or the President Trump or you don't,

I think it's very clear this is the biggest gamble

of his political career.

100%.

And if it doesn't go the way he wants,

I mean, the Republican surely would lose the presidency

in the next election.

Counter-argument Bush and Blair were elected after.

The real counter-argument is,

there's three years to go, Francis,

and Trump is like dog ears.

Francis is him, but that's fine.

It's all right, it's all right.

It's all right.

There's, because I'm so...

You did that politician thing

where you tried to name people by name,

but you got us confused.

It's because I was thinking about the next three years

as I said it.

And what the point I was making,

what I confused you both was,

it's three years to go with Donald Trump.

Three years is...

We've just had a year.

It feels like 10 years.

The idea that anyone can know what will happen

in the US a year from now.

Let alone three years from now.

Insane.

Anyone who tells you they know what America will look like

in 2020 is a liar or a fool.

It's just too much change, too much happens here.

So anything could happen between now and then.

That's why people who say it's going to be Vance or Rubio.

No, it might be neither of them.

It might be Trump again if he doesn't want to leave.

Do you think that's a realistic possibility?

Yes.

You think there's a possibility.

100% not that he will stay,

but 100% there's a possibility.

He would try.

Don't we try.

Let me say this because I know I'm not alone.

At some point your body just stops bouncing back the way it used to.

You train hard, you travel, you push yourself,

and suddenly recovery takes longer.

You wake up stiff, joints complain,

skin, hair, nails, things don't look

or feel quite right anymore.

So many people listening to this know exactly what I'm talking about.

What surprised me is that this isn't just getting older

in some vague sense.

A huge part of it is collagen.

Your body starts producing less of it

from your mid-twenties onwards.

Collagen is basically the glue that holds everything together.

So when your level's dropped, you feel it everywhere.

That's why I started using

Bubs Natural's collagen peptides.

And I've stopped with it.

Since I've added it to my routine,

recovery is noticeably better,

joints feel stronger,

and my skin and hair have improved.

I genuinely feel better now

than I did a few years ago,

and that's not a placebo effect.

It's fixing something fundamental.

It's also effortless.

I put it in my tea, coffee, or any drink.

No taste, no smell, no clumps.

You forget it's even there.

And Bubs isn't just another supplement brand.

It was created in honor of Glen Bob Dockety,

a former Navy suit who was killed saving Americans in Benghazi.

The brand is built around discipline,

self-improvement, and doing things properly.

They also donate 10% of all profits to charity

through the Glen Dockety Memorial Foundation.

The product itself is clean.

No sugar, no fillers,

third-party tested,

NSF certified for sport,

whole 30 approved,

sustainably sourced from grass-fed pasture-raised cattle.

Over 100,000 people use it,

and it was named Best Collagen of 2024 by Health.com.

If you recognize yourself

in what I've just described,

this is worth trying.

Live better longer.

For a limited time,

get 20% off your entire order at bubsnatures.com

with code trig,

or click the link in the description of this episode.

That's b-u-b-snatures.com code trig.

And when they ask where you heard about them,

tell them trigonometry send you.

Once more for 20% off, use code trig at bubsnatures.com.

The reason I wonder about that is,

to me, that's kind of terrifying.

It is.

But then we talk to people all over the political spectrum,

but we have a lot of friends who are on the right,

and they all say,

if that were to happen, I'd be on the street opposing it.

So, again, I have a longer memory than most.

In 2019, I wrote a piece for the intercept,

saying Donald Trump loses the next election.

He will not accept the results.

He will try and stay in office.

He will start a riot.

I wrote that piece in May 2019.

People laughed at me.

I was not an American at the time.

They said, you're a Brit.

You don't understand American politics.

Secret service will march him out.

His party will never accept it.

January 6th happened.

He still doesn't accept the result.

He's still trying to fiddle with that result,

and the next result.

Donald Trump should be taken seriously and literally,

I do take him seriously and literally,

when he says again and again,

should we suspend elections?

Will this be the last time you ever have to vote?

Should I stay on for a third term?

He's not just joking.

I'm not saying he isn't joking,

but he's not just joking.

In that weird head of his,

there's stuff worrying.

You're a close Ukraine watcher.

Remember when Zelensky came to the Oval Office?

And not the time he got braided,

but the other time.

And a journalist said,

why haven't you had elections in Ukraine?

And Zelensky said, how can I have elections?

We're in the middle of a war.

And Trump jumped in immediately.

Oh, if you're in a war, you don't have to have elections.

I'll have to remember that.

And people chuckled.

And I'm thinking,

that's Donald Trump's brain work in there.

He's thinking, there's a war.

Maybe we don't have to have elections.

And you've got people like Steve Bannon,

who I do take seriously,

making it very clear that they're working on a plan

to try and keep him in office in 2020.

That doesn't mean they're going to succeed.

That doesn't mean he's going to do it.

But to pretend when he shows world leaders

march Trump 2028 that we shouldn't take this guy

who already tried to stay on an office,

already incited an instruction.

Yeah, we should take that seriously.

This is a party that doesn't believe in democracy anymore.

But we're talking about democracy.

And I'm looking at the Democrats.

I'm not someone who's on the left all the right.

And I'm looking at the Dems.

And I don't see any candidates.

I don't see any particular ideas.

I don't see, I don't see any challenge

if I'm being honest, Mety.

What am I missing?

Good question.

I mean, look, I've been very critical

of the Democratic Party for my own position on the left.

Look, there's not great candidates.

I agree with that.

There are candidates.

It depends who they're up against.

If you're up against the Rubio and Newsom,

yeah, sorry, a Rubio or a Vance,

then Gavin Newsom or a Jamie Pritzker

or whatever it is could do a decent job

and easily be competitive.

I don't rate those Republican candidates.

But yes, do I wish there was a more dynamic Democrat?

Yes, do I wish there was a more charismatic Democrat?

Yes, do I wish there was a more populist Democrat?

Yes, do I wish Bernie was 20 years younger?

Yes, will AOC run?

We don't know.

It'll be interesting to see.

I think there will be about 30 people running.

I think it's going to be,

do you remember the 2016 elections where the Republicans

have to have a kiddie table debate the night before

because there were too many candidates

like Linti Graham and the Losers.

They weren't the night before.

I think they're going to have a Democratic version of that

because I think everyone in their dog

is going to run this time.

But you look at Gavin Newsom

and people are going, oh, you know,

this guy's the next candidate.

Look, you look at California.

It's a shit shot.

He's got great hair, though.

Yeah, he looks the party.

He's Donald Trump would make him a running man

if he was a Republican

because he always goes for visuals.

Yeah, look, I'm not disagreeing with you.

I think there are Democrats,

but look, again, three years to go.

I'm of the Donald Rumsfeld,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

There could be someone none of us have even thought about

who emerges.

You know, Barack Obama was elected in 04 as a senator

and then ran for president in 008 and 1.

There's a guy, John Ossoff in Georgia

who is about to be in a very tight Georgia Senate race.

He's Jewish, he's young, he's centrist.

He's not my side of the political spectrum.

He's very charismatic.

He could be the candidate if he wins in Georgia.

He could change things around.

We don't know.

Do you think when you look at people like Zora Mandani,

do you think I wish he was born in the U.S.

So you could run for president.

For sure.

Do you think he, that could be the future of the Democrat party,

that kind of very left wing progressive politics?

Or do you think that in order for the Dems to win,

they need to be more pragmatic

and they need to attack the center?

I don't know what the center is anymore.

To be honest, in the crazy world we live in now

and I know you guys are based in the UK

where there's five parties now fighting for dominance.

I think the old, old, old ways of thinking about politics are gone.

What does the center mean in the age of Trump?

I think what matters is are you anti-establishment?

Are you pro-establishment?

I don't think it matters.

I think left and right is less relevant

than are you anti-establishment or pro-establishment?

Are you a populist?

Are you not a populist?

I think that's what Mandani proved in New York.

He got all, if Mandani got a bunch of Trump voters.

So did AOC, there's Ocasio-Cortez Trump voters.

They exist.

There are Trump Mandani voters.

Why?

Not because they agree with his socialist policies,

but because they see him as an outsider.

They see him as someone who takes on the establishment.

They see him as someone who speaks his mind

and doesn't talk like a consultant

with boring talking points.

That is going to be the person who emerges

and is really going to occupy the ground, send to all left,

come 20, 20, if that person exists.

I think Americans are fed up with politicians.

They're fed up.

We talked about moneyed interests earlier.

They're fed up with money in politics.

They're fed up with foreign wars.

We didn't talk about a fact that this Iran war

is the most unpopular war of my lifetime.

Like, I've never seen a war in the US

where the public doesn't get behind it.

Once troops are committed, they're behind it,

even if they're skeptical like Iran.

Nope, not this time.

They are consistently anti-war the American public.

Consistently anti-war, consistently anti-billionaire,

consistently anti-establishment and anti-DC,

who is the candidate in either party who's going to monopoly?

Trump did a great fake con job of being,

I'm going to be the outside guy,

even though he gives tax cuts to billionaires in riches himself.

But he played the part to some people of being,

I'm the guy who's going to go shake things up and burn it down.

Who's actually going to do that and who's going to do it on the left?

Well, a couple of points I want to jump in.

I mean, one of them is the anti-war thing.

It's an interesting point about the broader sweep of the entire country.

The Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of this war.

We agree.

And the Democrats are overwhelmingly against it.

And I imagine that's partly to do with the person who was doing it.

I think a lot of Republicans support it.

Oh, they would be opposed to if Kamal Harris was bombing Iran.

Likewise, a lot of Democrats would probably support it if he was being done.

The Chuck Schumer would be behind this war if it was a Democrat person.

Right.

So I don't think that's a reflection on the war as much as it is.

But the public, you're talking about politicians.

I'm doing what?

The public as a whole,

whether a Republican or a Democrat,

tired of this war.

No, no.

I know the polling shows Republicans are behind Trump,

but I think that's because it's Trump.

That's what I'm saying.

But I don't think they saw the war.

I think there's a general principle.

I also think a lot of democratic voters are against it because it's Trump's war.

Agreed, but I also don't think they would be enthusiastic for the voters.

I think voters across the board, I've not met enthusiastically pro-war people

in this country outside of media green rooms.

I have.

I mean, we've met people who just go,

you know, you support your country at a time of war.

I support the president.

There are lots of people like this.

There's polling that shows that a significant minority of Republicans

would bomb Agra Bar, if given the chance, from Aladdin.

Yeah.

Well, as long as they're trying to develop nuclear weapons,

we're all infected.

Well, and we agree that Iran wasn't developing nuclear weapons.

I'm kidding.

But I think Francis Point about the center versus not the center.

I guess if you take something that we have explored quite a lot on our show,

which is the cultural, cultural dimension of all these conversations,

you could see at the last election some of the, you know,

that this was talked about endlessly about the trans-add, the Trump ran, et cetera.

I guess the question is, is the Democrat party going to move away from that

or more lean into that?

I mean, Mamdani, I think, actually really didn't go into that at all

and try to stay on economic issues as much as possible.

I'm not sure that's quite true, but yes, he definitely led with economic issues,

but he was super anti-ice,

which used to be an unpopular position in the Democratic Party.

Now, everyone finally gets behind a bullish ice.

Well, some do, the leadership don't.

The public is now getting behind a bullish ice.

By the way, both of you say you're centrist by notice.

I couldn't help but notice.

Both of you say Democrat Party, which is a Republican phrase.

Is it?

Democratic Party is what it's called by the Democrats.

Democrat Party is like a smear used by Republicans.

This is just a niche.

It's just a niche.

It's just a niche.

Good to know.

I just wanted to let you know.

That is something in right wing circles it is used to.

That's interesting.

To bring that.

It's an ignorance thing on our party.

Fair enough.

I was just like, because I'm hyper attuned to this stuff.

Yeah.

All right.

The, look, I do think Mamdani ran definitely on it.

Populous platform, economic issues first.

And that is the way forward.

But he didn't shirk away.

He went, you know, Tomahoman was the guy who runs the border stuff.

Mamdani was caught on camera screaming at him at a protest

in Albany during the campaign.

People said this is going to destroy Mamdani.

He looks like a crazy mad leftist Muslim.

Didn't hurt him actually.

He put him ahead of the curve on where public opinion

has gone on ice, which is very anti-ice.

So I do think you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think the problem in the Democratic Party is they don't know

what they believe.

And when you look at the polling,

to go back to your point, Francis, not constantly.

To go back to your point, the polling shows

that people think the Republicans are extreme now.

But the democratic, the criticism of the Democratic Party

is no longer that they're extreme left.

That's not the criticism.

When you ask Americans, what is the number one objection

you have to democratic party?

They're weak.

They look weak.

That is what American people tell pollsters and they're right.

They are weak.

Anytime Trump does something, they are the rollover

where they write a sternly worded letter.

They don't know how to fight.

Mamdani showed that you can fight.

Some people, the people who are standing out

in the Democratic race, you asked about presidential candidates.

There's a guy called Ruben Geiger, Senator from Arizona,

very centrist, Bordeaux, Latino, ex-military veteran.

He's going to run for president too.

He has a great line right now.

He says Donald Trump ran on exposing pedophiles and stopping wars.

He's protecting pedophiles and starting wars.

That's your bumper sticker, America.

I've just run with that.

He has been very anti-ice too, even though he's in a border state.

So I do think, why do I like Geiger right now?

Not because he and I are in the same party because he's fighting.

Because he's standing up, because he's taking strong stances.

He doesn't look weak.

That is the problem for the Democratic party right now.

They've looked weak for so long.

And I also think as well, it's like, let's be honest,

we live in the age of populism.

Yes.

I think in order to be elected, you have to be a populist.

You have to have a populist message.

I agree.

And I don't see that from the Democratic party.

You see, I got it right, Mendy.

But not just the whole party, the leadership of the party.

Sure, Chuck Schumer, Hikim Jafiti's people are useless.

They should be gone.

I don't know why they're held there there.

But I said, there are others.

There are Ruben Geiger, there are AOCs, there are Mamdani's,

there are Rokanas.

There are people who are taking a more popular stance.

Whether they win the nomination is, who knows?

The Democratic party, the Israelis, you're still always

say about the Palestinians in a very derogatory way.

They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I was like, it's just false.

But I would say that like the Democrats,

they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

There is a moment now for this party,

but they just won't take it,

because they've got losers as leaders.

And they always go towards this quote, fake center ground.

Look at the people they put up.

Joe Biden in 2020 was the candidate.

He only won because of COVID.

Let's just be very honest about that.

They'll not be the pandemic.

Trump would have been reelected.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated by Donald Trump.

This is the problem.

They put up these people who are not the right people.

And then they say, oh, we've got to try the centrist

playbook again, we've got to be pragmatic

when it hasn't worked.

And what does work is populism.

It's populism and it's also economics.

Because when you see the average person,

they go to the supermarket and they're thinking,

everything seems to be going up apart from my wages.

And there's an anger and a frustration to that.

They also see billions being spent in overseas wars.

And the question that a lot of people would ask,

fairly enough, in my opinion, is,

why is the money being spent over there?

It should be spent here or whatever else?

That's what Trump ran on.

That was Maga, right?

America first.

And I think you'll see a lot of Democrats

now borrowing that language.

Smart ones are saying exactly what you just said,

for instance, why are we spending that?

I think they just asked for $200 billion.

Trump has just asked for for the war.

That's insane.

$200 billion, you could just give free community college

to every American with that money.

Just insane numbers.

And I think there's only going to get worse

over the coming years.

And look, my thing is Republicans are evil geniuses, right?

They know what they're doing.

I wrote a book about debating and persuasion.

One of the first chapters in the book is,

you don't win people over by giving them facts,

statistics, policy papers, polls.

That's not how you convince people.

You go to people's hearts, right?

You get their emotional heartstrings and you pull them.

The Republicans are master that.

They appeal to our dark demons.

They're like, you need to hate that person.

You need to be mad at that person.

They're migrant, the Mexican, the trans kid, right?

It works.

It's evil genius, it works.

The problem for the Democrats or the Labor Party in the UK

is they don't have a positive version of that.

They don't have a way of actually inspiring people

with the same emotional messaging.

Nor do they have a way of channeling people's anger

in the right direction.

People are angry.

But don't channel that anger towards the undocumented migrant

who's not the reason your wages haven't gone up,

who's not the reason that you've been lost your job,

even though that's what you're told.

Channel it at the people who actually are screwing you over.

The people who are getting massive tax cuts from Donald Trump.

The people who are not paying their taxes,

avoiding taxes, smashing their money offshore.

The people who are running big tech companies

and screwing over your kids with ridiculous algorithms

and nonsense, channeling anger that way.

And I think you win.

Look, it's a good point.

But also as well, we have to admit

that there've been fundamental failings on the left.

For instance, the border having an open border.

There's no open border, Francis.

Where's the open border?

Well, Trump has closed it.

But before there was an open border.

It wasn't.

What's your definition of an open border?

Well, you lose millions of illegals coming in.

That doesn't mean it's open.

They're just being they managed to come in illegally.

That just means the border wasn't as secure as you

wanted it to be.

Open border means I could just walk into America.

Nobody could do that.

Well, hold on.

If millions of people are able to walk into my house

and I say, I've got an open door policy to my house,

it goes, that's not an open door policy.

It just means people got in.

I mean, come on.

No, I'm being very serious.

If you want to use your house analogy,

if you opened your house door and said,

everyone come in, no, I'm not going to stop you,

then fine, that is an open door policy.

If people come into your house in the window

in the middle of the night while you're calling the police,

that you left open.

Well, did they leave over?

Clearly, because the moment Donald Trump was elected,

he closed the window.

He closed the company, which is ridiculous,

because now you can't even claim asylum,

which is a legal right.

Joe Biden actually deported more people than Trump did

in his first term.

He actually detained the deported.

When I talk about deportations, hold on.

Let's just focus on the open metty.

Let's just, we're having a great discretion

and we're really, sorry, you triggered me with open border.

Clearly, yes.

But actually, I think we should talk about the issue

and we don't get triggered about it.

When you buy seafood, what do you worry about most?

Nutrition, sustainability, taste.

I've asked all of those questions.

This is why Wilder Laskin Company called my attention.

It is the best way to get WildCorp perfectly portioned

nutrient-dense seafood delivered to your door.

You've not tasted fish this good.

When we first got a delivery from Wilder Laskin Company,

it stood out immediately.

The care that goes into it, the packaging,

the clear sourcing, their attention to detail,

you can tell this is a company that does things properly.

What makes Wilder Laskin Company special

is how they source everything.

A hundred percent WildCorp never farmed.

No antibiotics, no GMOs, no additives,

just clean real fish, frozen off the boat

to lock in flavor in nutrients like omega-3s.

You get flexible shipments, expert cooking tips,

and a box that genuinely feels like it's come from people

who care about what they're sending.

My favorite variety is their Pacific Halibut.

Firm and meetty, it cooks beautifully in a pan,

on the grill, and goes with almost anything.

And there's no risk.

If you're not completely satisfied with your first box,

Wilder Laskin Company gives you a full refund.

No questions asked.

Get seafood you can trust.

Go to wilderlaskin.com slash trig for $35

of your first box of premium WildCorp seafood.

That's wilderlaskin.com slash trig

for $35 of your first order.

Thanks to Wilder Laskin Company for sponsoring this episode.

Under the Democrats, like under both labor

and conservatives in our country, it's not just

that numbers went up, I always give the stat.

I came to Britain in 1996.

When I came to Britain 55,000 people a year

network coming in legally,

more people now come into Britain illegally every year.

Now to me, you can argue about language,

but when you have that and in this country

in the United States, literally millions of people

coming in illegally and you can see

that when there's a change of administration that stops,

you can disagree with ice at the extremes

and I think probably all of us do.

But to describe that as an open-border border policy,

I think it's quite reasonable, don't you?

No, because open-border suggests anyone can walk into America.

That's what it's like.

And millions of people did.

And millions of people didn't.

Millions of people got detained.

Millions of people got mistreated in camps.

I mean, Joe Biden was not some dove on the border.

Biden and Harris put together the most draconian

border security legislation,

which by the way, Trump told Republicans not to vote for

because he wanted more people to come in

so he could win the election.

But they put together, I'm on the left.

I was criticizing Biden and Harris for being hawks

on certain things, for example,

child separation, for example, putting children,

you know, all of the stuff,

they borrowed a lot of Trump policies.

For the first year of the administration,

they kept the same rule that Trump used

under the pandemic to just kick people out,

which was a nonsense rule.

Did a lot of people come in?

Of course, did it record numbers?

Yeah, it did.

But again, why was it just because of an open-border

or was it because of push factors, not just pull factors,

what was going on in Central America in 2021 and 2022,

the actual crises that drove people out,

not just economic migrants, but yes.

But this way you're triggering me with all respect

because I walk around the United States.

It's called triggering, exactly.

So that's why we're having this discussion.

I mean, as I walk around the cities of the United States

and we travel here regularly,

I'm shocked by the number of homeless people, right?

And you could say, well, look, the push factors,

you know, the people who don't have somewhere to live,

so that's why they're coming into your house.

No, they're coming into your house

because you've left the door open.

And that's what was happening under the democratic party.

So that's not quite true.

So let's look at the numbers.

When Biden left office, right, in 2024,

there were fewer people coming in

than in Donald Trump's last year of office in the first term.

That's just a fact.

Go look at the numbers.

The trends were down, you've got to look at trends.

Clearly there was a peak.

I'm not disputing that.

Okay.

In 2021, 22, huge peak.

I was at MSN because we covered it all the time.

But the point is, if it was an open-border,

why didn't they stay up up up?

Why did it come down?

Well, because they realized it's a problem

and they were trying to deal with it.

No, there wasn't open-border.

Okay, for one year, they were really bad at border security.

Yes, let's concede that.

Okay.

So we remember how we started this conversation.

Francis, actually, I think you guys were agreeing a lot,

but he said the left had failings, right?

And one of those failings was the failure to enforce the border.

And you've just conceded that it,

I mean, in your telling it's one year,

I would argue it's a longer thing.

Okay.

And it's interesting to me,

because I wrote about this in my book, actually,

that the democratic politicians

and left-wing politicians in our country

talked about the importance of border security

and managing immigration well and carefully for decades.

And then there was this moment, which meant,

let me present the argument and you tell me what you think

about it.

My sense is there was a cultural view

that immigration good, illegal immigration,

isn't illegal immigration, it's all asylum seeking.

There is nobody who's trying to get illegal.

Everyone's trying to just find a way to a better life.

And there was a cultural shift,

which a lot of people call woke,

where that was perceived as the morally right thing to do.

And that's why across Europe and the United States,

people in power, not just left-wing, by the way,

but across the political spectrum,

did leave the, I mean, you argue with the quibble

with the word open, failed to have the border policies

that the people of their countries repeatedly voted for.

And that is one of the reasons,

for instance, I think, is arguing,

the left got the kicking that it did.

Well, I can untangle those two things.

One is the electoral thing,

which is, it's a much more complicated issue.

I don't know if we have time for talk about why

did they get the kicking in different places?

There's incumbency, there's inflation.

We've talked about many things.

Popularism agreed.

Clearly immigration played a role.

I'm on the left.

So when you say the left fail,

you might not like this to no true Scotsman fallacy.

The left hasn't been in power, right?

And Tony Blair was on the left.

Gordon Brown was on the left.

And Cameron and George Johnson were on the left.

You can't play this.

I can, because I criticized them from the left.

If you tell me that there was an open border,

I would say Tony Blair spent his whole life

being hawkish on border.

He gave asylum seekers vouchers.

And then I spent most of the 2000s attacking Blair

for being cruel to asylum seekers.

Gordon Brown talked about British jobs for British workers.

People say you sound like Nick Griffin, if you remember,

2002.

And then, for example, here in the US,

Biden Harris will wait to the right of me on the border.

Kamala Harris said, do not come.

She went to send her back, because I do not come.

Doesn't sound like someone with their door open to me.

They did leave the door open.

That's a separate argument.

She went in practice.

You can't answer that.

Okay.

So in practice, people got in.

I've never disputed that.

Okay.

Your argument was you left.

You opened the door to come in.

Well, my argument is the fact that people at one point

were not able to come in.

And then they were.

Is evidence of a shift in policies?

Is that a fair claim?

I don't know about its policy, because the Biden administration

did copy a lot of Trump policies.

For example, they got rid of a remain in Mexico,

whereby Trump took people and said, you've got to go to

Mexico and make a claim.

You can't do it here.

He got rid of that.

People said, oh, because of that, the numbers went up.

I don't agree with that.

I think the numbers are coming.

The numbers are coming.

I told you, because they were push and pull factors.

A, the economy was opening up.

Let me finish sentence.

The economy was opening up after COVID.

The US economy, despite Trump's claims, was amazing on Biden's watch

in terms of growth and jobs.

Record jobs growth.

So when you have record jobs growth, people come for work.

You need people from abroad, legal immigration.

And number two, there was a lot going on in the northern triangle.

In all of these central American countries.

A lot of crises.

Some crises that we've caused were people coming in.

So there were many, many factors.

Was it also liberal bias?

Maybe.

But this idea that, you know, the left, you said, you said the woke,

you know, want to have virtue signals to be, you know,

everyone's.

I didn't say that to you.

Okay.

But that implication being, they want to look good by saying,

everyone's on a silent seat and no one's illegal.

No, no, no.

That wasn't my implication.

You feel free to answer once I just address this.

It's not an implication thing.

I think it's a change of worldview that happened.

People changed how they thought about this issue.

On the ground, maybe.

I wish it changed the government.

This is what's amusing me.

We got, listen to you guys.

I wish these people existed in power.

They don't.

Joe Biden wasn't that person.

Hillary Clinton wasn't that person.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't those people.

Keir Starmer is not that person.

You know, Keir Starmer and Shabbana Mehmouda

to the right of David Cameron in many ways on this issue.

They talk like they are.

Well, talking's bad because it has effects on the public

and on our discourse.

So when we, when we, I wish these people existed

that you're telling me exist.

Yes, there are people on the left who I know and I'm part of.

Who did take a much more open border stance?

Who did say actually a lot of these people are asylum seekers.

You shouldn't demonize them all.

I'm not sure I saw that in policy on government.

I wish maybe I missed it.

But I didn't see Joe Biden make the case emotionally

for refugees and asylum seekers during his administration.

But I'm just a little confused here, Mehmouda,

because you, you, I have to look at your point about push factors.

I think it's true.

More people want to leave countries

when there's economic problems, etc.

But you can't deny that policy shifts

change the number of people who will come through

a door depending on whether that door is at a jar of cloth.

Of course, of course.

But if the alternative policy as France has said

was will Trump shut the border?

Do I agree with that?

No, that's ridiculous.

Do I believe in building a wall?

No, we have to allow, we have to allow migration

into this country because we need it for the economy.

And we have to allow asylum seekers in this country

because it's the legal thing to do.

It's our obligations under multiple international convention

and US law.

He's blocked all of that.

Would you agree that people should have a right to asylum

in the US?

I think my view on asylum is very simple.

And this was true for Ukrainian people in my family,

which is that you should apply for asylum

in the area that you're in.

And then if you're approved,

you get to travel to the country.

We shouldn't have people crossing.

So you would change all international law in US law?

Absolutely.

But right now, we haven't changed that.

Under our current legal obligations,

the solution to asylum is actually very simple,

which is you set up a filing processing centers

near the countries where there's war and conflict and so on.

And then you filter out the people you want to come.

So I don't necessarily fully disagree with you.

What's interesting is a lot of these solutions require

people with good faith, good intentions,

competence funds.

Half the problems of the immigration system in this country,

if you talk to immigration lawyers as I do,

they're not all open borders advocates.

They're saying, why do we not have enough judges

to process the claims?

Why is there a backlog?

Why do people disappear into America when they arrive?

Because there's no court hearing.

There's no court date.

Why is there no fully funded system of lawyers and judges?

It would cost a trivial percentage of what we spend on ice.

No, it's linked because if you deal with that,

then you do it because you said policy and elections.

So I'm coming to that.

One of the reasons why immigration has worked for the right

is because it looks like chaos.

And it is chaos.

It is.

But it's manufactured chaos.

So when Biden and Harris put a bill together,

not one I agreed with, but a draconian bill

to really shut down asylum claims in immigration and border,

Republicans voted against it for political reasons

because those elections coming up.

Yeah.

So they don't actually care about solving the issue at the border.

Which is a bigger conversation.

It goes back 20 years.

Marco Rubio, who's secretary of state right now,

who's now a hardcore hawk because he works for Trump.

He was a guy in favor of Amnesty, right?

Marco Rubio, who's grandfather was deported.

He was in favor of an Amnesty for a migrant country.

Today, Mago would destroy him if he did say that.

But that was part of the solution.

What do we do about 15 million people in this country?

You can't just deport them all.

This is a totally separate point.

I think the way, sorry, I'm talking for Francis Leibh,

but I just want to...

That's why I called you Francis.

I just want to get to the bottom of this.

Across Europe and the entire Western world,

there was a gigantic shift within our lifetimes

from what I would consider a sensible immigration policy,

which is you welcome in the people that you've looked at,

you've looked in the background,

you think they're going to be a positive addition to your country.

You do it in numbers that are manageable.

You give people an opportunity to integrate.

You do it in a way that is not disruptive

to the existing population of the country,

that people don't feel unsettled.

The infrastructure is not under pressure.

That's what we had for the entirety of my lifetime.

And everybody agreed.

That was my experience.

And then suddenly at some point,

whatever happened, that changed

and you got to a position where lots and lots of people

effectively advocated for or tacitly supported

a policy whereby we didn't enforce the border

in the way that we used to.

And we allowed mass flows of immigration from all over the world.

So you're mixing together different things.

Here's where you're 100% wrong.

Okay.

You can't enforce the border if you're in the EU.

Let us not forget that what you're talking about the period

would forgive me.

When did you move to the UK?

The 1996.

Okay.

So early 2000s, you will remember Tony Blair's prime minister

huge debate about Eastern Europeans.

Well, he fell to introduce transitional controls,

which is why we got a million people instead of 13,000.

But it was still part of an EU debate.

You accept we were in the EU.

There was free movement.

Yeah.

Right.

There was free movement within the EU.

You can have a debate about what the deals

you should have done with the French and others.

But the EU was the EU was the issue.

It wasn't people from Iraq, Syria at the time.

Sure.

You know we're there, but they weren't the big issue.

Right.

And then we voted for Brexit.

So apparently the British public did this mad thing

where they voted for Brexit.

And what happened?

Numbers went up from other parts of the world.

As you know, you're no better than me.

You're living there.

So this is a problem with these kind of populist

on the right who kind of sell you a bill of goods.

Is Brexit vote didn't solve the problem of immigration?

No, I didn't.

Because you can't be King Canute and just say we're not going to

ignore the state of the world.

You mentioned like massive flowers.

First of all, massive compared to who?

Compared to the developing world.

They take the bulk of the refugees in the world.

Compared to the entire history of our country.

And I'm saying you have to take a global perspective

and say these numbers are miniscule compared to what

a Turkey or an Iran or an Afghanistan or a Pakistan has had to do it.

The vast majority of refugees live in the developing world.

They do a few of them managed to get into Europe

and then we lose our minds.

And by the way, a lot of these people who are coming in.

Where were they coming in from?

Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Libya.

Do we have anything to do with those countries?

I think we do.

So I do think those of us who said, you know what?

We do have a moral responsibility.

We helped fuck up a lot of these countries.

Let's just be very honest about that.

Either directly or indirectly.

It's funny that you have Richard Tyson and Faraj now

backing this war in Iran.

And so we stand with the Persian people.

Apparently you can fact check this.

I read this a second.

I don't live in the UK.

So I read this online.

The second or third highest number of people on the small boats

coming across Iranians.

So the irony of them saying that we support Iran

while also being the people who turn away people fleeing the regime in Iran

is not lost on me.

But the problem is, Medi,

is a public perception of the democratic party.

And they saw.

And I agree with this a good week.

Yeah.

And what they saw what happened under Biden

and they're thinking to themselves,

I don't want to go back to that.

I don't want that to happen again.

And that's going to be their real challenge.

Because look, as someone who's half an Australian,

I saw a walk around the streets of New York

and then you see what's happening with some Venezuelan.

A minority of Venezuelan people trend their Agua, etc.

People would quite rightly ask,

why are these people here?

Why didn't we get rid of them under Biden?

So it's interesting to say that there's the funny thing about the American public.

We talked about this earlier.

Eight second memories.

When Trump was, when Biden was in office,

they were super anti-immigration.

I agree.

Look at the polling.

It was definitely a problem.

Right now, look at the polling right now.

A year into Trump.

They're more pro-immigration than American public.

It's been for decades.

Support for immigration is now up.

I think near record highs.

Why?

Because Trump went the other extreme.

And now they're not thinking about the Biden era.

They're looking at ICE agents shooting people in the street.

They're hearing horrific stories of their friends.

Grandmother being pulled from her garden

while gardening by massed agents of the state.

So actually, the Democrats are in a very, very strong position on this issue now.