Americanswers! Why does Trump want to take Iran’s Kharg Island?

Summary

Americast Episode Summary

Americanswers! Why does Trump want to take Iran’s Kharg Island?

Date: March 30, 2026
Hosts: Justin Webb (London), Sumi Somaskanda (Washington, D.C.)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Americast dives deeply into listener questions about the ongoing US-Iran war, with a special focus on President Trump's threat to seize Iran's Kharg Island—the country's crucial oil export terminal. The hosts explore the ramifications of such a move: global economic risks, the potential for escalation with China and Israel, internal US political maneuvers, and the broader consequences for American power. Notably, the hosts interrogate the lack of clarity in the Trump administration's strategy, the role of military advisors and Congress, the specter of insider trading suspicions, and the challenge of civilian casualties in war.

---

MAIN THEMES & SEGMENTS

1. Trump’s Threats and Mixed Messaging on Kharg Island

Main Discussion: (03:03–07:41)

• Trump, in a Financial Times interview and on Truth Social, threatens to "take" or destroy Kharg Island, Iran's oil export terminal, while simultaneously suggesting negotiations are promising.
• Justin: “He could seize Kharg Island… but he also says he might not do. It’s complicated, isn’t it?” (03:17)
• Sumi: Frames this as Trump using a carrot-and-stick approach; highlights the contradiction between military build-up and claims of successful diplomacy.
• Trump mischaracterizes Iranian political shifts, presenting them as substantial regime changes when, in fact, the core leadership remains.
• Quote – Trump (impersonation/reading): “We've had regime change if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they're all dead… so I would consider that regime change.” (04:33)
• The hosts note the deliberate narrative construction from the Trump administration and question whether Trump genuinely has a plan or is acting chaotically.

---

2. Global Ramifications: China and the World Economy

Key Q&A: Steve, listener question (08:26–10:20)

• Q: Could seizing Kharg Island drag China into the conflict, given its dependence on Iranian oil?
• Sumi: China is affected but not as much as often portrayed; they've stockpiled oil and diversified energy.
• China maintains a diplomatic, stability-focused posture, calling for de-escalation, and is unlikely to be drawn directly into the war.
• Justin: “Donald Trump doesn’t want to antagonize China… I don’t think it’d stop [oil] necessarily going to China...” (09:26)
• Both agree that China is watching nervously but remains on the sidelines unless the economic order is severely disrupted.

---

3. US-Israel Relations and Escalation Risks

Key Q&A: Jules, listener question (10:29–12:35)

• Q: Can the US de-escalate if Israel is pursuing its own agenda?
• Right-wing US voices blame Israel for the conflict, but Trump strongly rejects that.
• Israel has acted independently, extending operations into Lebanon and against other regional actors (e.g., Hezbollah, Houthis).
• Sumi: There may be Israeli pushback if negotiations allow Iran to retain nuclear enrichment capability—potentially hindering any peace deal.
• US leverage on Israel likely remains, as seen in previous Gaza ceasefire discussions.

---

4. Authority, Blame, and Decision-Making in the White House

Key Q&A: Greg, listener question (13:13–15:35)

• Discusses whether sending in Marines and airborne troops is “playing into the hands” of Iran, risking high US casualties and domestic backlash.
• Justin: “If it did lead to large numbers of American deaths, my goodness, it would certainly lead to that pressure. Don’t think there’s any doubt about that.” (13:29)
• Both suggest Trump and SecDef Pete Hegseth are seeking quick, high-impact operations—possibly seizing Kharg Island—but with minimal American losses.
• Congress would only significantly intervene if operations led to heavy US casualties.

Blame-Shifting and Roles:

• Trump is publicly highlighting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s advocacy for the Iran operation ("Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up and you said, let's do it..."). (19:10)
• Sumi: “Feels a little bit like he’s setting him up to take blame for any sort of problems that arise…” (20:19)
• Notably omits other known hawks (e.g., Marco Rubio), raising questions about intra-administration dynamics.

---

5. Civilian Casualties and Accountability

Key Q&A: Finn, listener question (21:56–25:30)

• US bombing of Shajera Tayeba Girls elementary school is no longer widely covered in US media.
• Trump administration downplays both US and civilian casualties as part of the “fog of war.”
• Former CIA Director David Petraeus (via interview with Justin) argues for full, transparent, independent investigations of such incidents:
  • Quote – Justin summarizing Petraeus: “There must be a full investigation carried out by an independent inspector, and that investigation needs to be timely and it needs to be published.” (24:22)
• Pete Hegseth, normally outspoken, is much more cautious on civilian casualty incidents.

---

6. Insider Trading Allegations and Ethical Oversight

Key Q&A: Derek, listener question (26:55–32:16)

• Allegations of over $1.5 billion in questionable oil trades timed with government announcements—possible insider trading within or around the Trump administration.
• Sumi points out the pattern of key Trump market-moving announcements just as financial markets open.
• The White House denies any wrongdoing; investigates slow-walked or stymied due to political control of agencies.
• Justin: “Because of the way the Trump administration organizes itself, we cannot see a role for the normal authorities in getting to the bottom of it.” (28:19)
• Congress could, in theory, pursue these cases—especially if Democrats reclaim control—but the issue may fade by then.

---

7. Polarization and Accountability

• Justin: “Is it fair to say… that American politics is now so divided and people feel themselves to be part of a team… everything that that team does, they then back and everything the other team does, they oppose…?” (30:46)
• Sumi: Affirms the deep polarization, making bipartisan accountability efforts extraordinarily difficult—even for issues as serious as war crimes or financial corruption.
• The information ecosystem ensures that efforts for accountability are viewed through partisan lenses.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Trump (impersonation/reading):
  “We’ve had regime change if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they're all dead… so I would consider that regime change and frankly they’ve been very reasonable.” (04:33)
• Sumi:
  “This is the administration now shaping this narrative that the regime has been changed and that it can work with this new regime. But as we know, Justin, it hasn’t.” (06:54)
• Justin:
  “The weird thing about Donald Trump is you’re never quite sure whether he himself has got a plan behind the scenes where he knows what he’s doing, or whether it genuinely is chaotic.” (06:07)
• Justin:
  “If it did lead to large numbers of American deaths, my goodness, it would certainly lead to that pressure.” (13:29)
• Petraeus (summarized):
  “There must be a full investigation carried out by an independent inspector, and that investigation needs to be timely and it needs to be published.” (24:22)
• Sumi:
  “If there is a larger ground troop operation that leads to significant American losses, this is where we have to bring this in. And we’re talking about senators as well.” (15:07)
• Trump (impersonation/reading, on Hegseth):
  “Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up and you said, let’s do it because you can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.” (19:10)
• Sumi:
  “I think the team A and team B scenario… pretty aptly describes the current state of U.S. politics.” (31:27)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Trump’s Kharg Island Threats and Negotiations: 03:03–07:41
• China Question – Will They Get Involved? 08:26–10:20
• Israel’s Independent Agenda: 10:29–12:35
• Marine Deployed Risks – Congress’s Role: 13:13–15:35
• Blame-Shifting to Hegseth; Trump’s Decision Making: 19:01–21:13
• Civilian Casualties & School Bombing: 21:56–25:30
• Insider Trading & Ethics: 26:55–32:16
• Political Polarization & Accountability: 30:46–32:16

---

Style & Tone

The discussion maintains an incisive, sometimes wry tone befitting the BBC, with hosts grounding speculation in on-the-ground reporting and good-faith listener questions. They neither sensationalize Trump’s unpredictability nor minimize the seriousness of the conflict’s consequences. They use sharp, illustrative quotes and make clear when quoting Trump or sharing listener questions.

---

For Listeners New to the Episode

This episode provides a comprehensive, nuanced look at the increasingly complex and volatile US-Iran conflict under President Trump, the stakes for global security and oil markets, and the fractious state of American politics. The hosts critique the lack of transparency and clear strategy in the administration, while highlighting how polarization, legal ambiguity, and the “fog of war” continue to undermine accountability both at home and abroad.

Transcript

[Justin]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Schwab Advertiser]

Self Directed Investing, Trading, Full Service Wealth Management, Automated Investing, Financial Planning, Thematic Investing, Retirement Planning.

[Justin]

Phew.

[Schwab Advertiser]

And to think, that's just a small taste of what Schwab offers. Because Schwab knows that when it comes to your finances, choice matters. No matter your goals, investing style, life, stage or experience, Schwab has everything you need all in one place so you can invest your way. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[Pocket Hose Advertiser]

This podcast is sponsored by Pocket Hose. I gotta tell you, being a homeowner, there's so many things you have to think about all the time. For example, I have to replace my hoses every single year because they're weak. They get tangled and there's kinks. Then I found the pocket hose ballistic. This is the upgrade I've been looking for for a long time, man. It's reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests. You that means no kinks. It's not going to get tangled. It also comes with this pocket pivot which gives you total freedom of movement. And the spigot has like a 360 degree rotation, which is pretty cool. There's also this upgraded UV coating they added for free. So your hose basically looks brand new all the time. Right now, when you get the new pocket hose ballistic, you'll get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle. Go to pockethose.com podcast that's pockethose.com podcast for your two free gifts with purch. Pockethose.com P O-A S-T

[Justin]

There is a lot to catch up on with the US War with Iran. It continues to be the single biggest issue you ask us about. So today we are answering your questions, which include what happens next after Trump threatens to seize Iran's Kharg Island? Is there a risk of countries like China being dragged into the conflict? Was there insider trading after billions of dollars were made predicting the price of oil? And is Donald Trump looking to shift responsibility for the war onto his defense secretary? Welcome to America.

[Donald Trump (Impersonation or Quoted)]

Answers

[Sumi]

AmericasT. AmericasT from BBC News.

[Donald Trump (Impersonation or Quoted)]

You hear that sound? Oh, I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.

[Pocket Hose Advertiser]

We didn't start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.

[Sumi]

This is a big cover up and this administration is engaged in it.

[Autotrader Advertiser]

This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.

[Donald Trump (Impersonation or Quoted)]

I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.

[Justin]

Hello, it's Justin in the worldwide headquarters of AmericasT in London, England.

[Sumi]

Hi, it's Sumi here in Washington, D.C. so no match.

[Justin]

Orly this week is around the UK apparently using as many different modes of transport as possible, which is a very British thing. Sumi, it'd just be a road trip for you, wouldn't it?

[Sumi]

Unfortunately, yes. I think there's not a whole lot of other options besides planes and cars here. But I'm curious to hear what Matt is undertaking.

[Justin]

Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll doubtless report back if indeed he gets back. Let's get to the serious stuff now and start with what's actually going on at the moment, or at least what Donald Trump says is going on at the moment. So he's done this interview, hasn't he, with the Financial Times in which he says he wants to take Iran's oil. He could seize Kharg Island, Kharg island being this huge terminal where almost all of Iran's oil goes through in order to get to get to other countries. But he also says he might not do. It's complicated, isn't it?

[Sumi]

It is. We've heard this back and forth from President Trump a few times. We've heard him say it's a bit of a carrot and stick approach. On the one hand, he's saying negotiations are going well with Iran and that the Iranians have acted particularly reasonably, the new regime, as he's calling them, even though it's the same regime with a new supreme leader. And at the same time, look at what's happening with this massive military buildup. We have seen not only the Marines on their amphibious ready ships arriving in the region, but also the reports here in the US that the Pentagon's considering several thousand more and all of that following.

[Justin]

So this interview with the Financial Times in which he seems to be threatening to use some of those troops or maybe not, following on from comments that he gave to a bunch of reporters on Air Force One in which he talked about the negotiations and he appeared to think they were going well.

[Donald Trump (Impersonation or Quoted)]

I would only say that we're doing extremely well in that negotiation. But you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them and then we always have to blow them up. I think we'll make a deal with them. Pretty sure whether it's possible we won't. But we've had regime change if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they're all dead. The next regime is mostly dead. And the third regime, we're dealing with different people than anybody's dealt with before. It's a whole different group of people. So I would consider that regime change and frankly they've been very reasonable.

[Justin]

And then bring us up to date with the latest sumi because we can now see a further kind of musing on that, can't we? By him on social media.

[Sumi]

That's right, Justin. We've seen him on Truth Social saying that the US Is in serious discussions with what he says is a new and more reasonable regime to end the military options, and said that progress has been made, but if for any reason the deal is not shortly reached and he adds, which it probably will be, and if the horror Moose Strait is not open for business, which will conclude our lovely quote, stay in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants, oil wells and Harg island, which you mentioned a moment ago. Go. And he said this will be in retribution for our many soldiers and others that Iran has butchered and killed over the old regime's 47 year reign of terror. So again, similar messaging. But this is a very clear threat, isn't it?

[Justin]

Yeah, I mean, it's both raising the stakes and lowering them in a sense, isn't it? Because on the one hand he says it's all going fine behind the scenes with whoever it is that he thinks he's talking to, but on the other hand it also suggests that he'll go for broke in a way that would, I mean, really do enormous damage, not just to Iran, but to the world economy, which presumably he knows and people are telling him. So I suppose the real issue for all of this is that he's running these two tracks together and it's not necessarily something that people don't do in wars. But it's just the weird thing about Donald Trump is you're never quite sure whether he himself has got a plan behind the scenes where he knows what he's doing, or whether it genuinely is chaotic.

[Sumi]

And what I find really interesting about that latest Truth Social post is he keeps saying new regime versus old regime. Right. And so clearly this is the administration now shaping this narrative that the regime has been changed and that it can work with this new regime. But as we know, Justin, it hasn't.

[Justin]

Yeah, I mean, that's the point, isn't it? That it's just, it's not clear there's the speaker of the Parliament, isn't there, who they seem to think they can do some sort of business with. But there's no evidence from him or indeed from other Iranians that necessarily there is a sort of group of people who are in charge and in a sense can hand the country to Trump in the negotiating sense and say, this is our country, we now want X, Y and Z. That that just doesn't seem to be there. And that is ultimately, I suppose, what he needs.

[Sumi]

It is, and I think it really underlines as well, as much as President Trump has wanted to paint this as a massive military success, and we have to say that the US Military has achieved a lot of those objectives that it set out to achieve with the ballistic missile capabilities of Iran and the nuclear capabilities. That economic piece has been really hard for the president to achieve, knowing that the Strait of Hormuz still remains a really big bargaining chip for the Iranians and one that they can continue to wield even as these positive negotiations, as President Trump has described them, are ongoing.

[Justin]

And I want to start with a really interesting question we've had, which is slightly takes us not off topic, but it introduces a new topic to all of this or a new side to all of this. And Steve has sent us a voice

[Steve (Caller)]

note as Trump is now openly talking of seizing Kharg Island. What risk is there that this could bring China into the conflict? And if China takes as much as 80% of Iran's oil, is this significant for them?

[Sumi]

This is a really interesting one because China is indeed impacted, as is most of Asia, by the Strait of Hormuz being essentially closed. But China's actually, over the years, stockpiled millions of barrels of oil. It has electrified its economy, and it has reduced its dependence in that way on that oil. That isn't to say that it isn't impacted, but not in the way that perhaps many of us had anticipated. And because of that, China has taken a step back and really again painted itself as a beacon of stability in the region as a trading partner and as a global player that is actually asking the US and partners to wind down this war. So I don't see China getting pulled in, but I don't know. Justin, what do you think?

[Justin]

Yeah, I think that's right. And I think also as well, Donald Trump doesn't want to antagonize China. And if he were to seize Khaak Island, I mean, this is the kind of optimistic take from the Trump administration's point of view. So they seize the island. It's not then attacked in a way that makes it unable to function from Iran itself. And that's a big if. But if that were to be the case, then the oil would continue, presumably that is there at least to flow for a bit and possibly in greater volume than it does at the moment. And I Don't think it'd stop it necessarily going to China. And remember, he is about to go to China himself, isn't he? And wants to have decent relationships with Xi Jinping. So I think on balance, the answer to Steve's question is probably not. China probably isn't going to be brought into the conflict. But they'll certainly be watching all of this nervously, I guess.

[Sumi]

Yeah. Anything that upends the global economic trading regime is going to be watched closely by China. But at this point, they're not as impacted as the others.

[Justin]

We had a question from Jules on discord saying how can the US De escalate the war when Israel appears to have its own independent agenda?

[Sumi]

That's been a big question here, Justin. You've seen in the right wing influencer circles here that there are a few voices like Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, who have said it is Israel that dragged the US into this war. I know President Trump rejected that, but do they have the same agenda right now? The war has extended into Lebanon, of course, with Israel continuing to strike Hezbollah, the Houthis also now entering global conflict. So it's hard to see whether they actually align completely on what their end goal is.

[Justin]

I mean, that's true, except that when it comes to the ability of the US to de escalate the war, if Israel has its own agenda, if that agenda sumy, was to go on, I mean, they could make the case behind the scenes, couldn't they? But I can't. Is there a realistic possibility of Israel saying to the United States, no, we're not letting you stop this war because we've still got things to do?

[Sumi]

I can't imagine that would be the case, especially because President Trump would pressure Benjamin Netanyahu as he did when it came to the Gaza ceasefire. What I think is a possibility is remember how diametrically opposed Israel was to the nuclear deal that was brokered under the Obama administration? If there's some sort of negotiation here with Iran to end this conflict that allows any sort of enrichment for the Iranians, which we know that they're going to drive a hard bargain on, that could be something that Israel definitely then pushes back on. So in negotiations, I see them perhaps levying more pressure on President Trump.

[Justin]

Yeah. And do we know what JD Vance is up to? It's something we've approached on a couple of pods recently. We've mentioned him quite a bit because you mentioned those influences. But at least they're outside the White House, although they may have some considerable influence on it and on his supporters. But J.D. vance is. Well, I mean, is he on maneuvers or not on maneuvers, one wonders.

[Sumi]

It's hard to say. We haven't seen a whole lot of him, have we? If we've seen anybody out and about on this war, it's been President Trump himself, and it's been the Defense Secretary, Pete Hexseth, who I know we're going to talk about. But J.D. vance obviously had different ideas about what a war in Iran would end up involving, and President Trump even has referred to that. He's been more out and about on the domestic agenda. We've seen him make a few stops to tout President Trump's domestic economic agenda, and I think that's a space that he's going to continue to occupy rather than the foreign policy piece.

[Justin]

Yeah, we have got a Hegseth question, haven't we?

[Sumi]

Yeah. Greg and Wiggins sent us this email. Does Trump hegseth sending Marines and airborne troops into Iran play into the hand of the Iranians? That would lead to large numbers of American deaths and therefore huge pressure from their own countrymen to end the war.

[Justin]

Well, if it did lead to large numbers of American deaths, my goodness, it would certainly lead to that pressure. Don't think there's any doubt about that. I think Greg and Wigan has got it 100% right. The question, I suppose, is whether they do it in a way that doesn't lead to widespread death. I mean, for instance, Sumi, they go in and do a specific task, and then, however dangerous and difficult that task is, they're then out again. It seems to me, in those circumstances to be really brutal about it, he could afford to take some losses, some American losses. If they could argue that what they did, whether it's taking Carg island or getting hold of the nuclear material or, I don't know, taking someone out of the country, then if they could get out themselves and it was a done deal, I could see that being still sellable in America. But if it happens, as Greg in Wigan suggests it could, and let's face it, it could, then I would have thought, not so much.

[Sumi]

I can't imagine that any operation that they launch now with ground troops in any form would involve putting the troops in harm's way. In a sense that you would see huge American losses. That's not something that President Trump, I think, has any appetite for. They've been very careful to say that. Remember, Secretary Rubio even said we can reach our objectives without those ground troops. But no, that would not certainly be something that President Trump would be able to defend. And that's a point where you'd also see Congress start to rise up.

[Justin]

Well, that's an interesting point, you reckon, because we, on a whole range of subjects people have been asking us for, well, where's Congress? You think Congress might suddenly be there?

[Sumi]

The lawmakers I've been speaking to have said also Republicans have said if there is a larger ground troop operation that leads to significant American losses, this is where we have to bring this in. And we're talking about senators as well. If this is a limited military strike involving ground troops to, as you said, take Harg island. Less so because the president can make the argument that they've gone in and come back out. But anything beyond that, Yes, I do think there's real nervousness in Congress.

[Justin]

That's really interesting. Olive oil on discord. I suspect olive oil isn't this person's real name, but anyway, who knows, Maybe it is. Trump says he's winning the war in Iran. If the status quo is winning, what would losing look like? Olive oil asks what is the worst case scenario over the next three months?

[Sumi]

I can't imagine a way that President Trump would talk about the war in Iran in any way that would involve losing. He will talk about having carried out real military success. But I think part of what you're seeing right now is that narrative being challenged with some losing on the economic front. Look at what Iran has been able to that economic cost that it's been able to exact by closing the Strait of Hormuz. There's that. And then the question we just answered a moment ago about severe American casualties, that would be a real case of quote, unquote, losing for the Americans if this war stretches on for another two, three months. You could also make the argument that that is, in a way, Iran successfully defending itself from the US And Israeli attacks. And whether that's losing, hard to say, but certainly not winning for the Trump administration.

[Justin]

I'd add two things to that. Number one, it looks as if Iran at the moment or those who are still around in Iran at the top and who've not been killed and who may or may not be willing to do a deal with Trump, they actually think they're winning at the moment, I think it is fair to say, because they give every sign. And it may be that they don't actually know what's going on because, of course, communication is incredibly difficult. They're trying to keep themselves alive. They know they're hugely penetrated by Israeli intelligence and by the Americans abilities, too, to kind of eavesdrop on what they're doing. So it could be that they don't know the extent to which they're losing, but at the moment they don't think they are. But the other point I'd make is that let's not get carried away with ourselves and suggest after however many days it is now, that somehow, oh, the whole thing's a complete disaster. In military terms. Yeah, I think it's right, isn't it? Sumi, you can't yet say that America is not winning this war. Indeed, in military terms, it's been pretty successful. It's just that America loses its wars. You think of, you know, did they win or lose in Iraq in 2003? Did they win or lose in Afghanistan in military terms, initially, certainly in Iraq and in Afghanistan too, they don't lose because they've got incredible military might. It's what happens next that causes the loss.

[Sumi]

And this has been one of the major problems with US Involvement in these types of wars is after initial military success, planning what happens next has become a huge, huge issue. And that's going to be no different here in Iran. If you leave a hardened regime with most of Al Khamenei in place, with the Iranian people continuing to be suppressed and Iran still posing a threat to the rest of the region, then I don't know how you can say that the US has achieved any sort of long term success. But that's something that the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been talking about, that military success. And we have a question, I think, from Kristina from Tooting in South London, who emailed Donald Trump seems to be publicly emphasizing the role of Pete Hegseth and the decision to go to war. Do you think this is a genuine reflection of how the decision was made or a political attempt to shift the blame as pressure goes?

[Justin]

Let's listen to what Donald Trump actually said. So he was talking last week, it was in Tennessee, about the decision whether or not to go to war with Iran.

[Donald Trump (Impersonation or Quoted)]

I called Pete, I called General Kaine, I called a lot of our great people. We have great people. And I said, let's talk. We got a problem in the Middle East. We have a country known as Iran that for 47 years has been just a purveyor of terrorists, terror, and they're very close to having a nuclear weapon. And Pete, I think you were the first one to speak up and you said, let's do it because you can't let them have a nuclear weapon.

[Justin]

Oh, the first one to speak up, Yes. I mean, if it doesn't go well. You don't really want that hanging around you, do you? On the other hand, if it does, and it might still, then you very much do. Is it political? Is, is Donald Trump separating himself? I mean, you can't be sure, can you? But it is quite marked, isn't it, that Pete Hegseth is now very much publicly named as a person who was keen to go ahead. And behind the scenes we know that J.D. vance certainly wasn't because Donald Trump said, didn't he, a few days ago, that Vance wasn't as enthusiastic as the others. So you can see real differences there that will become realer, bigger if it doesn't go well.

[Sumi]

Feels a little bit like he's setting him up to take blame for any sort of problems that arise going forward. Especially because he didn't mention Marco Rubio, did he? And Marco Rubio's always been an Iran hawk. We understand that he supported this war, so why would he not have then said Marco also was one of the first to speak, so it feels a bit like he is singling Pete Hegseth out here.

[Justin]

And we should mention as well that when he said, I called General Kaine. That's Daniel Kaine, who is Raisin Cain, the what is he the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

[Sumi]

Yes.

[Justin]

So the most senior military person. We don't know what the advice was because it was his job, really, wasn't it? And that is your job as chairman of the Chiefs of Joint Staffs to say to the President, okay, Mr. President, this is what I think the risks are. This is what I think the advantages are to set it all out there. And Trump is keen on him, isn't he? So he would have taken his advice, you assume?

[Sumi]

Well, in the week before the U.S. israeli attacks began, I don't know if you remember this, Justin, but there were a few leaks to US Media here that Dan Kaine had actually warned that there would be severe complications in going into a war with Iran. It appears that he was raising some of the points that we've seen now. The Strait of Hormuz, Iran lashing out at the U.S. s regional allies. So the attacks went ahead anyways and appeared to be very well coordinated and planned. Perhaps those leaks were to kind of raise that flag in the media ahead of the war. But it appears that Dan Kane did raise those issues with the administration.

[Justin]

God, that's interesting. Okay, let's go to voice note now, which we've had from Finn.

[Finn (Caller)]

With so much happening in such a short space of time, it Seems that everything has gone quiet about the investigation into the bombing of the Shajera Tayeba Girls elementary School. Whilst preliminary investigations indicated that this was a US strike. Are Donald Trump and the administration hoping that other events make this quietly fall from the minds of the American people? What does the MAGA base think of such a strike? Just a casualty of war? Or do they believe it was the Iranians, as Trump initially speculated? Does this still get any attention in the US media?

[Sumi]

It doesn't get much attention here in the US media. You've seen that, Justin. It's kind of been something that got a lot of attention as the investigations were going on. And Pete Hexseth said that the Pentagon was investigating, but since then there's been very little discussion of it. The way that the Trump administration has even talked about US casualties is to say this is war. And so that is also how they talk about civilian casualties, although making the point that they have said the US would never deliberately target civilians.

[Alex Canceroitz]

Yeah.

[Justin]

I talked the other day to David Petraeus. Guy was director of the CIA, but before that was a senior military officer in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And he was interesting about it, Sumi, because he said, I mean, he didn't at all dismiss it. I didn't get the impression that he thought anything other than this was a mistake that had been made by the United States and Israel. I didn't get any impression at all that he thought there was a serious possibility that it was anything else. He did say very clearly, though, when these things happen, and he accepted that they did happen under his watch in Afghanistan and in Iraq, you think of wedding parties that were blown up, all sorts of awful things happened to civilians in war. This is what they. David Petraeus would say, I think, if he were here now. But the really important thing, and he really stressed this, there must be a full investigation carried out by an independent inspector, and that investigation needs to be timely and it needs to be published. So that is the view of a very senior former military officer who is by no means an opponent of this war. I mean, he talks happily about what Trump is trying to achieve, etc. In he's not someone who's against Donald Trump, he's not someone who's against the war. And I wondered whether, when I was talking to him, Sumi, I just wondered whether he reflected a kind of instinctive view among the American military officer class. We know these things happen. We are better than our opponents because when they do, we're open about them.

[Sumi]

Yeah, I think that's an interesting point that General Petraeus makes there. And I also found interesting that for all of the statements that Pete Hexseth has made and all of the press conferences he's given where he's bragged about US Military success, he's been really careful in talking about this strike because when he was asked about this, he said, we are investigating. When President Trump tried to blame the Iranians, he was then reined back on those comments because it does appear that the investigations have indicated that this was a US Strike by mistake. So we'll have to see if there is a timely investigation. But there seems to be some agreement there that this is something that the US Military must carry out quickly.

[Justin]

Yeah. And worth saying, of course, at the moment that Iran is targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure right around the Gulf and in Israel as well. And the United States would claim that it, because it doesn't do it on purpose, that it is still fighting a different sort of war to the war that the Iranians are at least trying to fight. But it is a really interesting point. Then it will be, and I think to Fin's point as well, that it doesn't have a lot of cut through to people because there is so much else happening. But at some stage there will need to be a report landing on the desks of senior people in the Pentagon and presumably Donald Trump's desk as well, and they will need to publish it and they'll need to hold their hands up. Or will they not? In which case, I think people like David Petraeus will think that they've behaved very badly indeed and may well say so. Anyway, we had another one about. Actually, lots of you have asked about this. Derek asks this. There have been stories of highly questionable trading activities shortly before recent announcements in the American Israel war with Iran. Some estimates value this at 1.5 billion billion. Have such trades been detected? Are there insider trading laws in America? Are these federal crimes capable of presidential pardon? Well, that's an interesting point. Or are they state offenses? Are many people in America bothered? He asks.

[Sumi]

Well, it has gotten quite a bit of attention in US Media. I'd like to point out that the truth social post that we read out at the start of this conversation, Justin, was made about negotiations going very well and being reasonable just before markets opened again. So that seems to be a bit of a pattern that we see from President Trump and also on Fridays or Sundays before markets open. Further comments from him. Yes, insider trading is a crime. The White House, in the last instance of this, where President Trump wrote just before markets opened, that negotiations were taking place. The White House has said that these are completely baseless accusations and that the White House is well aware and everyone who works in the White House is well aware of the ethics and the ethics violations that would be involved with insider trading. So that's what they've said about that. But, of course, people are watching these numbers. I mean, we're talking about huge, huge sums of money, millions of dollars in oil contracts that were traded just before that first announcement last Monday. And questions are being asked. And of course, the Democrats have said they want an investigation, but who would carry out that investigation? The sec. And at the moment, of course, we have President Trump's allies also running these agencies. So right now, it doesn't appear that we're going to get a closer look into what exactly is happening, which is staggering, actually.

[Justin]

I mean, it is worth saying that there is at least an allegation and a serious cogent allegation of something that is completely criminal, as you say, should not happen. And yet what we are saying to people is that because of the way the Trump administration organizes itself, we cannot see a role for the normal authorities in getting to the bottom of it. I mean, am I right in saying that? Sumi, that seems to be a state of affairs, that it is worth just

[Sumi]

underlining there could be a role for Congress. Again, we've talked about, where is Congress in all of this?

[Justin]

You're really getting them going, aren't you?

[Sumi]

If it's just the Democrats calling for an investigation, and it doesn't go anywhere

[Justin]

after the midterms, let's say the Democrats win the House, and let us say, which is not impossible, is it because of things going wrong for Donald Trump, they win the Senate as well. Does that change things?

[Sumi]

Of course it does. Because not only does Congress have the power of the purse so they can rein in spending for President Trump's agenda, they can also launch a number of investigations. And remember that President Trump has in the past said one of his concerns about the Democrats winning back the House and then possibly the Senate is he fears that they might even launch impeachment proceedings against him. And so a lot could change for President Trump's agenda, including in a war like this, his ability to actually wield his presidential power could be reined in if the Democrats take back the House and then also the Senate.

[Justin]

And I suppose in a way, the evidence will still be there, because what they would need to do is subpoena bank records and all the rest of it. And if large sums of money have been made and you could see who had made those sums because you would be able to if you told the various financial organizations they had to pony up all the information. I suppose in theory they could get to the bottom of it eventually.

[Sumi]

They could remember that this will then be perhaps a year from now that these investigations are taking place. How much interest is there at that point in such an investigation? Have we moved on to another massive topic that Congress is that consumes Congress at that point? That could also happen that we move on from this and these questions of our allegations of insider trading are simply lost in the swirl of the fog of war. But it is important to keep an eye on it because if there is any sort of indication that there's been unethical behavior, that is something that should be followed up on.

[Justin]

Is it fair to say, is it too cynical to say that American politics is now so divided and people feel themselves to be part of a team and everything that that team does, they then back and everything the other team does, they oppose the idea of there being political support from independents, from independent minded people to have some sort of an investigation. Whoever, wherever it goes and whoever finds themselves in trouble with it. Is there a so away from the legality of it and the technical side of it and whether Congress can do it, could there ever be a head of steam, do you think that builds up and said, no, this is an outrage?

[Sumi]

I don't know. I think the team A and team B scenario that you've just painted there pretty aptly describes the current state of U.S. politics. And that's also just how the information sphere, as you know well, is divided here. So if you're getting your information from Fox News and right wing media, you will see perhaps any push to get accountability on these questions as politically motivated. If you watch left wing media here, Mississippi now, for example, you will see any push from the Trump administration to deny these types of investigations as a clear sign that something illegal has taken place. And so that makes it really difficult for there to be any sort of bipartisan movement at this moment on accountability on these issues.

[Justin]

Okay, we're going to leave it there, I think. Sumi, we've been through a number of questions and thanks so much for taking part. It's really nice to have you on the pod. And for the time being though, until we answer more questions, which I think is going to be relatively soon.

[Sumi]

Bye bye, bye bye.

[Podcast Host/Closer]

Thank you for answering our call and continuing to send us your messages. We do do read every single one and love to hear your thoughts. Feedback and questions. So please do keep them coming. You can send us an email ameracastbc.co.uk the WhatsApp that's 443-301-23-9480 and you can get involved in the AmericasT Discord server. The link to that is in the description. And don't forget to subscribe. That way you'll never miss an episode episode. So until next time, goodbye.

[Autotrader Advertiser]

Are you really buying a car online on Autotrader right now?

[Sumi]

Really?

[Autotrader Advertiser]

At a playground?

[Sumi]

Yeah, really. Look at these listings from dealer.

[Autotrader Advertiser]

Wow, your search can really get that specific.

[Sumi]

Really?

[Autotrader Advertiser]

And you just put in your info and boom. Cars in your budget.

[Sumi]

Mom needs a second.

[Autotrader Advertiser]

Honey, you can really have it delivered.

[Sumi]

Really? Or I can pick it up at the dealership. One sec sweetie. Mommy's buying a car.

[Autotrader Advertiser]

Mommy, I think your kid is walking up the slide.

[Sumi]

Kyle. Again? Really? Autotrader? Buy your car online. Really?

[Schwab Advertiser]

Momentum doesn't appear overnight. It's built, refined, repeated. Puerto Rico understands momentum. As companies rethink supply chains and reshore operations, they're choosing a location that already delivers life saving medicines, advanced manufacturing and global scale innovation. As a US jurisdiction operating under federal law with competitive tax incentives designed for long term investment, companies don't just relocate here, they scale here. Not culture or business. Culture and business. Puerto Rico. It's not what's next, it's where. Visit investpr.org business Ever wonder why we make the choices we do and how to make smarter ones? Introducing Choiceology, an original podcast from Charles Schwab. Join Wharton Professor Katie Milkman, an award winning behavioral scientist and author of the best selling book how to Change as she shares true stories from Nobel laureates, authors, athletes and everyday people about why we do the things we do and how to make better choices to help avoid costly mistakes. Each episode covers the latest research in behavioral science and dives into themes like the power of self control, shaping your mindset for success, navigating new beginnings and why starting over can feel so hard. Listen to Choiceologywab.com podcast or wherever you listen.

[Alex Canceroitz]

Hi, this is Alex Canceroitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology Podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts.