Loading summary
Transcript73 lines
- [00:04]
Rachel Elihu
The telegraph.
- [00:09]
Amazon Pharmacy / Creon Advertiser
Amazon Pharmacy presents painful thoughts 20 more minutes to kill in the pharmacy before my prescription is ready. Maybe I'll grab some deeply discounted out of season Halloween candy. I never had a chocolate pumpkin with raisins before. Those were raisins, right? Next time use Amazon Pharmacy. We deliver. And no, those were not raisins. Amazon Pharmacy Healthcare just got less painful.
- [00:40]
MIDI Health Advertiser
This podcast is supported by MIDI Health. Are you in midlife and feeling dismissed, unheard or just plain tired of the old healthcare system? You're not alone. For too long, women's serious midlife health issues have been trivialized, ignored and met with a just deal with it attitude Mental health. Many of us have been made to feel ashamed or forgotten. In fact, even today, 75% of women seeking care for menopause and perimenopause issues are left entirely untreated. It's time for a change. It's time for miti. MITI is not just a healthcare provider, it's a women's telehealth clinic founded and supported by world class leaders in women's health. What sets MIDI apart? We are the only women's telehealth brand covered by major insurance companies, making high quality, expert care accessible and affordable for all women. Our clinicians provide one on one face to face consultations where they truly listen to your unique needs. We offer a full range of holistic, data driven solutions from hormonal therapies and weight loss protocols to lifestyle coaching and preventative health guidance. This isn't one size fits all care. This is care uniquely tailored for you. At midi, you will join our patients who feel seen, heard and prioritized. You will find that our mission is clear to help all women thrive in midlife, giving them access to the healthcare they deserve. Because we believe midlife isn't the middle at all. The beginning of your second act ready to feel your best and write your second act script? Visit joinmitty.com today to book your personalized insurance covered virtual visit. That's joinmitti.com the Care Women Deserve.
- [02:21]
Rachel Elihu
The US has signaled that it is prepared to act unilaterally in its own interests, even to the detriment of those traditional allies and partners. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars we end.
- [02:36]
Danish or Greenlandic Official
Right now, all eyes are on Washington, but who's actually watching Europe at the moment?
- [02:45]
Rachel Elihu
The deepening ties between China, Russia and North Korea would certainly have some in.
- [02:50]
Roland Oliphant
Washington concerned sometimes use strong language.
- [02:54]
Rachel Elihu
We're going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transitions.
- [03:01]
MIDI Health Advertiser
The IDF will continue to uphold the.
- [03:03]
Rachel Elihu
Ceasefire agreement and will respond firmly to any violation of it.
- [03:08]
Roland Oliphant
I'm Roland Oliphant and this is Battle lines. It's Friday 16th January 2026 and what a start to the year it's been. We've had commando raids in Venezuela, protests in Iran, and of course the discussion of a US annexation of Greenland. It promises to be a tumultuous year. And to discuss all this, we've brought in Somebody Looks at the World in the Round. Rachel Elihuis is the Director General of the Royal United Services Institute, one of Britain's leading think tanks in defense and foreign policy. Rachel, welcome to Battle Alliance.
- [03:44]
Rachel Elihu
Thank you.
- [03:44]
Roland Oliphant
Very pleased to have you here. Actually, why don't we start off before we get into the nuts and bolts of what's going on, why don't you tell us about you. Who is Rachel Elyhus and how did you come to be running rusi?
- [03:56]
Rachel Elihu
Well, I've had the pleasure of running RUSI for about a year now and I'm American. The accent gives me away every time. I came most recently from NATO where I was working in the US delegation, so working very closely with the UK delegation to NATO as well as then Secretary General Stoltenberg and the NATO international staff. And prior to that I had a long career in Washington, in the Pentagon, working security and defense issues, including in the UK Ministry of Defense. So I feel, though not a Brit, I have an appreciation for the political environment here and what matters to UK security and defence interests.
- [04:32]
Roland Oliphant
Makes you very well placed to observe these very strange goings on with what we thought was a pretty solid transatlantic alliance. Let's maybe, let's maybe have a look at that press conference from, from the White House yesterday.
- [04:47]
Danish or Greenlandic Official
It's not solved. We didn't manage, but I, honestly speaking, I didn't believe that that was doable. We didn't manage to change the American position. It's clear that the President has this wish of conquering over Greenland. We made it very, very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom. There's a government in Greenland with support from 3/4 of the Greenlandic population. The Premier made it very, very clear yesterday that Greenland for the time being and for foreseeable future will remain within the Kingdom of Denmark. And therefore this is a common position that we want to work with our American friends and allies, but it must be a respectful cooperation and it must respect the red lines.
- [05:39]
Rachel Elihu
My first impression, having not been at the meeting was that I think the Danes and the Greenlanders thought it went reasonably well. I'd summarize it as an agreement to disagree and a bit of a stalemate, but I think that's enough for now. Given the heated rhetoric that President Trump has been using in recent days around his desire to conquer Greenland.
- [06:00]
Roland Oliphant
I mean, it's now out in the open, right? They're talking about. The Danish government is officially saying this is a question of conquest.
- [06:07]
Rachel Elihu
It's important to reflect on the fact that the idea of this meeting in Washington was actually something that the Danes and Greenlanders proposed, which tells you a little bit about their nature. They're extremely direct people, unlike some of the countries that have been put on the hot seat by the Trump administration. They were not just going to ignore the problem and hope it went away. They made this very deliberate decision to go to Washington and confront the Trump administration and make their position very clear. So the day before the visit, you saw the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, and the Prime Minister of Greenland, Jens Friedrich Nielsen, come out together alongside one another, with Prime Minister Nielsen saying very clearly that given the choice right now, Greenland chooses Denmark, Greenland chooses NATO, and Greenland chooses the European Union over the United States. It couldn't have been clearer going into that meeting. So it's frankly remarkable that the US Then came in with that same position, that desire to get or conquer or own Greenland.
- [07:06]
Roland Oliphant
I was wondering if we could get into the. Some of the rationales for this and then we can get into the responses for that. So I was just listening before I came in, I was listening to the US Ambassador to Belgium. I'm afraid I forget his name, but he was on Bloomberg Radio this morning saying that the case he made was look for a whole host of reasons, reasons that are so secret and sensitive that I can't discuss them on the radio. Greenland is critical for security, and only America can answer those challenges. Do you have any idea what he's talking about, these top secret, sensitive security developments that make this so critical?
- [07:52]
Rachel Elihu
No, I frankly don't. I mean, we can go through the rationales that have been thrown out there, because I think there have been several. The one that we hear most is the one that you've just alluded to on security, the idea that Greenland is being overrun by Russia and China, and if the US doesn't step in, the Greenlanders wind up in the hands of those two countries and the disinformation continues and tries to paint the Danes, who are, under their constitution, institutional agreement with the Greenlanders. Responsible for security and defense policy of Greenland. The reality is if you look at the intelligence or even open source information, you'll see that there is very little Russian and Chinese military presence in and around Greenland. The only Russian and Chinese military presence there is, is in the Russian Arctic, further east up around the Kola Peninsula, where the Russians have quite a lot of their capabilities. They've done some, you know, demonstration exercises together with the Chinese and invited them into their area of the Arctic. But in and around Greenland, that's frankly false. The other thing that's false is that Denmark has not provided for the security of Greenland. Just in 2025 alone, the Danes pledged, I think it's US$13.7 billion towards Arctic security. And that includes things like fighter jets, satellite surveillance, maritime surface vessels. So I think security, we have to take that the table. And frankly, if the US did have a security concern with the way the Danes were focusing on providing for the security of Greenland, they could fix that tomorrow because Greenland, like Denmark and the United States, are all members of NATO. There's also a bilateral defense agreement between the US and Denmark from 1951 and a US base there with about 150 to 200 US personnel. So if there was a security dilemma and the US Wanted to send more forces or capabilities, there are treaty agreements, both international and bilateral to allow for that. And then another rationale, another rationale would be economic. Greenland is home to some strategic resources, such as rare earth minerals. And so if we look at the Trump administration's and President Trump in particular's language around Ukraine or Venezuela or the Democratic Republic of Congo, a common thread there is that all of those countries have some sort of strategic, critical resources. And so you could say that one interest in owning Greenland is to have the ability to exploit those natural resources. They're very difficult to get to. And again, Denmark and Greenland have been open to US companies coming in and working together with them to extract those resources. But those offers have not been taken up by the United States.
- [10:49]
Roland Oliphant
I mean, we had General Ben Hodges on the other week. He's great, kind of discussing the similar question. And then it comes up, so what is the reason?
- [10:57]
Rachel Elihu
The only reason I can think is, I guess it's been called an expansion of the Monroe Doctrine. If we use a really uncomfortable term. We could say it's a desire for Lebensraum. It's Trump looks at the map, he looks at it from a certain perspective, and he thinks the US Needs Greenland. I mean, this has been an obsession of his since his first term. The first time he mentions it is in April 2019. So it's persistent, but it's really not based on any real security or economic requirements on behalf of the United States.
- [11:29]
Roland Oliphant
It's a prestige thing, you think.
- [11:31]
Rachel Elihu
Prestige. I mean, you know, if you look back at past presidents who've expanded the territory of the United States, you know, that's a good legacy.
- [11:41]
Roland Oliphant
There have been some recent European responses to this. The French say they're opening a consular. The British, I think that's a whole other discussion, the state of the British armed forces. But we're sending one soldier to be part of a joint reconnaissance unit or something. Have you been following that? Can you tell us anything about this European response to put more troops into Greenland?
- [12:06]
Rachel Elihu
I have, and I think it's a smart move because one of the complaints of the Trump administration has been that the US Always has to provide for European security. And Europeans talk a lot, but they don't really step up with any sort of meaningful military capabilities or presence. So I think it's important, even if it's just, as you said, a handful of forces who are there for exercises, it's an important signal to the US that, all right, we hear you. You allege there's a security gap, so we're going to step forward, we're going to be present in the region. I think the trick is now the Europeans, having made these announcements around more diplomat presence, more military presence, they have to follow through, because if they don't follow through, we'll be back to where we were with an easy opening to criticize the Europeans for their lack of commitment.
- [12:56]
Roland Oliphant
You've worked in the Pentagon, you've worked in NATO, you've worked in the British Ministry of Defence. You understand how this alliance works. Talk me through the consequences for the North Atlantic alliance if America goes ahead and either, I don't know, annexes it by force or, I don't know, they're talking about buying it, force, the Greenlanders and the Danes to accept a deal they can't refuse.
- [13:20]
Rachel Elihu
Well, I think it's important to say straight up front that I really don't think that the US would militarily annex Greenland. US Public opinions against it, bipartisan voices in the Congress have come forward to say what a terrible idea this is. And a lot of US Industry have very deep economic ties with the Kingdom of Denmark. And so I just think for all those reasons, there are enough voices in the United States to think this is a terrible idea, that it won't happen. But if I sort of entertain the premise and sort of think through that. Danish Prime Minister Meta Fredrickson said NATO would be. Everything stops. NATO would be gone because the alliance doesn't really have a provision for what you do if one ally attacks another. But if you look at the current situation, the one absence has been a statement from NATO Secretary General Mark Ruda. And my guess is the reason for that is the fact that the US Is a member of NATO. And so he's a bit constrained in what he can say from that particular platform. So the response has had to come from the European Union or allies and partners on a bilateral, regional basis. So I would fully expect that if we went down that dark, unlikely road, that there would be not just sort of an attempt to push back militarily, but also economically. I mean, one of the reasons that the Trump administration really does not like the European Union is because they might not be a great military power, but there were pretty formidable economic power, and they could create real difficulties for the United States if we brought sort of economic measures to bear as the result of a military invasion.
- [15:10]
Roland Oliphant
You said that there's no provision for a conflict between two members of NATO. In all your time working there, were there ever kind of scenarios that were thought through about this?
- [15:20]
Rachel Elihu
No. I mean, there are always tensions in the alliance. One recent one that I could mention would be when we were having conversations around how to support Ukraine. The Hungarian government was very much against providing economic and military support to the Ukrainians because their government that is somewhat closer and sympathetic to the Russian position. But that's something we work through. There are mechanisms to get. Normally you need consensus, but consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity. So you can sort of talk through some of these obstacles and get to a position that allows the majority of the NATO member states to move forward. But, no, I mean, and even tensions between Greece and Turkey, who are sort of always in each other's backyard and being accused of air incursions and things like that, it's never gotten to the point where you would even think that there would be a military confrontation, because I think all Those allies, all 32 allies, realize that the net benefit to all of them of a collective security guarantee is worth more than undermining one another's security, even if they have disagreements.
- [16:31]
Roland Oliphant
I know we're in the realm of hypotheticals here, but I feel like it's worth pushing down this line because, okay, if the Americans go ahead and conquer Greenland, take it as they say they want to do, saying that's the end of NATO. Okay, so what does that world look like afterwards? And I suppose what I'm, what I'm really wondering, given what you've just said about, you know, Greece and Turkey managing their, their conflicts, about, you know, there's all kinds of little things in Europe and we could talk about Hungary and the very large Hungarian diaspora in neighboring countries and kind of unresolved tensions over the end of the First World War. Does that mean that Europe becomes a more dangerous place? And what does it actually mean in practical terms if we say NATO's over?
- [17:10]
Rachel Elihu
Even if the US would invade Greenland, withdraw from NATO, I think something that looked more like a European version of the alliance would emerge. Already in a European Union context, you have something in the Treaty called Article 42.7. It's not a collective security guarantee like NATO's Article 5, but it does speak about coming to the assistance of other member states. So I could see a path for Europeans to sort of take over the rump of NATO, take over the command and control and try to create something European out of it that provides those same security guarantees. You know, you look around the world, you know, you mentioned Iran, Venezuela, Syria, you name it. I mean, there' sit's not an easy geopolitical environment in which to be a small state, state or even a medium sized state or frankly even a large power. Even the United States is frequently having its interests undermined by countries like China or emerging powers like India or Mexico. So it's a rough world out there and there's strength in numbers. So even in this darkest scenario, I would expect that Europeans would find a path to recreate some sort of NATO and step up double time to create the military capabilities that create that strong deterrent effect.
- [18:38]
Roland Oliphant
Why don't we step back a bit and take a bit of a macro view? I mean, you sit on top of rusi, which of course deals with, with everything, right? I mean, you have people who look at this kind of thing, you have people who look at air defense systems, you have people who specialize on Iran, on, on, on, on whatever. So you're, you're kind of in charge of the world in a way. Where does this fit in, in your view? This, this particular Greenland thing fit into everything else that's going on in the world? Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine. Is there, is there any sense you can make out of the chaos or when you look at all this, do you just see a, kind of, a whole number of things just happen to be happening at the same time?
- [19:21]
Rachel Elihu
No, I see a lot of connections and that's one of the things I love about working at rusi, you know, I think we're best known for our work on sort of international security and military sc. But two of our largest programs are on illicit financing and sanctions and economic security and on cyber and emerging technologies. And some of the trends that we see in the more traditional military and international security field of reorganization of the U.S. role in the world. Reorganization or diminishment of multinational fora for working through challenges is happening in various sectors. It's happening when we look at trade, it's happening when we look at the international monetary system, it's happening when we look at industrial patterns and cooperation. So I think it's not unique to look at what's happening in Greenland, what happened in Venezuela, what happened in Iran, and tie it back to a United States that has signaled very bluntly that it is no longer interested in being the world's policeman or being the guardian or keeper of international security agreements, international laws, rules and norms any longer. And I'd take it a step further and say that in many cases the US has signaled that it is prepared to act unilaterally in its own interests, even to the detriment of those traditional allies and partners. Now look, that's the right of the US Administration. Trump was democratically elected by the US people. And so we have to accept that and we have to deal with the US that's in front of us rather than the one we wish we had. And we have to adjust. I think what you see going on right now, whether it's Greenland or Ukraine, is another good example, is countries realizing that this change has been so sudden and so shocking that they can't adjust quickly enough. They can't simply walk away from the relationship with the United States. And so they have to make these small term accommodations even as they slowly try to diversify their relationships, whether that's economic, security and defense or trade, to be more independent from and less tied to the United States. And we can talk about the UK because I think the UK is in a uniquely difficult position, not a member of the European Union and really prioritizing this uniquely close relationship with the US in a number of fields, intelligence, defense, technology. And what does that mean for the choices here?
- [22:19]
Roland Oliphant
What do you think it does mean?
- [22:20]
Rachel Elihu
Well, right now I think the United Kingdom is able to sort of ride both horses. And in fact, I will have to say Prime Minister Starmer has done a very good job in managing the US President and being almost a translator and smoother over of some of these more contentious issues. And you've got to use what you have as a nation. And he's been smart about drawing on Trump's perception of the UK as not Europe, not the European Union. And you saw the royal visit here. They're almost, I mean, what was the language that they used for the United Kingdom? A historic relationship or something like that? So the UK Is being given a bit of pride of place. But again, if we really face what we know about the interest driven foreign and economic policy of the current US Administration, that could change at any time. And we saw the tech companies come over and make a very nice deal with UK tech, only to turn around and say, actually, if you want those deals to go through, you're going to have to compromise your data privacy and other policies. So I think the UK has to be very careful, but it's made a good job so far of really trying to manage the US and use its unique position to kind of help keep NATO on track and keep the transatlantic relationship in place until there are better alternatives.
- [23:58]
Roland Oliphant
If you could put yourself in the shoes of Greenlanders or the Danish government, what advice would you give them for how to deal with this challenge from Trump?
- [24:12]
Rachel Elihu
I completely agree with their directness. In this first year of Trump. I think some nations have been so shell shocked that they have tried to just accommodate rather than standing up for their own interests. That was a tenable position when we thought we were dealing with somebody who was transactional and there could be a quid pro quo. What I think we see now with all the rhetoric around wanting to own Greenland, and also, if we go back to Vice President Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference last year, which was about values and imposing a narrow set of values on Europeans, and even suggested some election interference and attempts to intervene in a way that would create European governments more sympathetic to the current U.S. administration. That's really troubling in that environment. It goes beyond transactionalism and you really are, in a way having to stand up for, not to overstate it, but the existence of a European. And in that I do include the United Kingdom way of life and outlook on life. So I think the Danes were smart. The Greenlanders were smart, number one, in being quite direct and taking the fight head on. I think they were very smart in terms of rallying support in the United States. That is the best break on President Trump's behavior. Not all the international support, which he can easily dismiss. They already have a disdain for international rules and norms and organizations. It's much better to get bipartisan statements from the US Congress talking about how ridiculous this idea is. The US Military has worked very closely with the Danes for decades and they have been a check and a break on the worst instincts in this particular scenario. So I think they've been pretty smart. It's so hard. But as ever, you just have to keep a calm head and stick to the facts. Push back on the disinformation and rally your friends around you and follow through. Follow through on the security commitments that they said they would make. Follow through in supporting Greenland in its eventual goal of independence because that is something that's worthy supporting. And with that approach, I think we can keep this on the rails.
- [26:39]
Roland Oliphant
Coming up, America's role in the world is changing, but what do Americans themselves make of all this? And what do Donald Trump's MAGA base really think of his foreign adventures?
- [26:59]
MIDI Health Advertiser
This podcast is supported by MIDI Health. Are you in midlife and feeling dismissed, unheard or just plain tired of the old health care system? You're not alone. For too long, women's serious midlife health issues have been trivialized, ignored and met with a just deal with it attitude. Many of us have been made to feel ashamed or forgotten. In fact, even today, 75% of women seeking care for menopause and perimenopause issues are left entirely untreated. It's time for a change. It's time for miti. MITI is not just a health care provider, it's a women's telehealth clinic founded and supported by world class leaders in women's health. What sets MIDI apart? We are the only women's telehealth brand covered by major insurance companies, making high quality, expert care accessible and affordable for all women. Our clinicians provide one on one face to face consultations where they truly listen to your unique needs. We offer a full range of holistic, data driven solutions from hormonal therapies and weight loss protocols to lifestyle coaching and preventative health guidance. This isn't one size fits all care. This is care uniquely tailored for you. At midi, you will join our patients who feel seen, heard and prioritized. You will find that our mission is clear to help all women thrive in midlife, giving them access to the healthcare they deserve. Because we believe midlife isn't the middle at all. It's the beginning of your second act. Ready to feel your best and write your second act script? Visit joinmidi.com today to book your personalized insurance covered virtual visitors. That's joinmitty.com the Care Women deserve Are.
- [28:38]
Kuo Advertiser
You still running your business with one creaky old phone system, missing calls, losing track of messages, and scrambling to keep up with your team. It's time to break up with the past and say hello to Kuo. Kuo is the number one business phone system with 4.7 stars across 3,000 reviews on G2. Quo brings all your business phone calls and texts into one app for your team. No more juggling devices or being tied to a landline. Quo's built in AI logs calls, creates summaries, automates follow ups, and can even answer and route calls so you never miss an opportunity. Whether you're a solo operator or leading a growing team, Quo keeps you connected and helps you deliver standout customer experiences. Join over 90,000 businesses using Quo and see why it's the 1 business phone system for customer satisfaction. Level up your workflow with quo get started free plus get 20% off your first six months at quo.com business. That's quo spelled q u o.com business and if you have existing numbers with another service, quo will port them over for free. Quo no missed calls, no missed customers.
- [29:47]
Amazon Pharmacy / Creon Advertiser
Amazon One Medical presents painful thoughts do.
- [29:53]
Rachel Elihu
They ever actually clean the ball pit.
- [29:54]
Roland Oliphant
At these kids play gyms? Or is my kid just swimming in a vat of bacteria, catching whatever cootie of the day is breeding in there? A cootie that'll probably take down our whole family.
- [30:07]
Amazon Pharmacy / Creon Advertiser
Luckily, with Amazon One Medical 24. 7 Virtual Care, you can get checked out for whatever ball pit itis you've contracted. Amazon One Medical healthcare just got less painful.
- [30:21]
Roland Oliphant
Welcome back. You're listening to Battle Lines with me, Roland Oliphan. I'm in the studio with Rachel Eliju, the director general of the Royal United Services Institute. Can we turn to Iran, which is the other huge topic of the week, really? I spent the weekend watching it and most of this week and the writing part of my job kind of on the phone too, to Iranians and Iran watchers and trying to get a grip on this. It's difficult to work out what Donald Trump's play is there. One Iranian put it to me. He said, look, just the other day we had him tweet out, keep protesting, help is on the way. So I left work that day kind of thinking, okay, there's going to be US strikes overnight. I wake up in the morning, nothing's happened. I wake up up this morning, nothing has happened. And I began to get a little bit from one or two Iranians I know getting a little bit of disappointment, even anger coming off that one person said to me, look, everybody, every Iranian who dies now, from now on can blame Donald Trump because something like the eighth time that he's promised to do something and he hasn't that or implied that he would do something. I'm just wondering why you think he's being so cautious. What do you think is going on there? And I don't for a minute mean to suggest that he's not facing a really knotty policy dilemma, though it's not.
- [31:53]
Rachel Elihu
As if the US has not shown a willingness to strike Iran in the past. I mean, we've seen strikes towards assassination, strikes in support of Israel. So there's certainly a precedent there, maybe drawing on my Pentagon background. It's a complex environment in order to use military action to get a political effect. So, I mean, if I were on the Joint Staff or in Central Command, who owns the Middle east from a military perspective, I would be advising against strikes unless there were very clear targets that could really help the opposition continue to come out on the streets and make a difference. Otherwise, you do run the risk that you hand the Iranian regime, regime a card whereby they can use the US As a scapegoat. See, they don't have your interests in mind. The reason we have an instable economy is because the United States continues to undermine our security and strike us. So I think you've really got to be careful with the use of military strikes to political ends in this particular situation. I'm not convinced that's how the President is thinking about it. He's focused on any number of issues. We're talking a lot about foreign policy now. Venezuela, Iran, Greenland. But let's remember, that's a bit of a distraction from some pretty severe problems at home. We're a year into the presidency, his numbers are plummeting, inflation is not going in a good direction. You see a lot of pressure on the Fed to lie about the figures. So midterms are coming up in November of this year. Let's not discount the fact that this foreign adventurism could be a result of a pretty poor record and opinion of the President and his performance on the domestic side.
- [33:46]
Roland Oliphant
We should get to that, I think. I suppose it's quite telling that we end up talking a lot about America, where we sit down and we say, okay, what's the state of the world? And we're turning to not so much Vladimir Putin's ambitions or Xi Jinping's ambitions, but how America has changed, but just sticking on the Iran question. I suppose one thing that struck me in conversations with various people over the past couple of weeks is, you know, if we're really as both practical and perhaps a little bit cynical about this. Do you think the United States or the west in general really wants to see the fall of the regime in Iran or would it be more convenient for them to see it kind of defanged but stable, regardless of what that means for ordinary Iranians?
- [34:39]
Rachel Elihu
No, I have not worked Iran policy directly, let me just say that. But no, I believe there's genuine interest in seeing Iran be a more stable, more positive contributor to the region. Not necessarily because we're so interested in Iranian domestic politics, but because a more stable and responsible Iran would have a positive effect on the region, on relations with Israel, Lebanon, Egypt, even the Gulf states. And that is one less problem for the United States to deal with. Let's also remember that most of the trouble that the Iranians cause is in terms of use of their proxies in other areas. So enabling the Houthis to strike US ships in the Red Sea, that has an impact on global trade and economics. So, so the US has an interest there. The US also has an interest in non proliferation and making sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. That would upset the strategic stability that benefits the United States right now. So no, I think it all points to a net benefit to having an Iran that's more democratic and more stable. But in all these cases, Venezuela or Iran interventionism alone is not going to create stability, democracy, economic prosperity. So where's the follow through? We're very quick to get involved. The US is very quick to get involved. But let's make sure that we keep an eye on what the ultimate goal is and what the best outcome is.
- [36:27]
Roland Oliphant
No, I suppose what I was getting at was really a Venezuela scenario. I mean a Delsey Rodriguez for Iran would, because I, I suppose a lot of Iranians, those on the streets, the people who we've been able to talk to, they're quite blunt. They're like, we want a whole lot to go. Yeah, but there is definitely, you know, if you look at what happened in Venezuela, might there not. And, and if you look at the national security strategy that came out in November, which explicitly says we are not interested in telling you how to run your country, we're just interested in our, you know, in, in our interest. Is there not potentially a, I'm wondering if you see in American behavior preference for the idea of maybe removing the Ayatollah, but leaving the rest of the regime in place.
- [37:20]
Rachel Elihu
I'm sure there are voices in the US administration that think that are putting that option forward. But the other option they're putting forward is that the Shah's son, Reza Pahlavi, could come in, you know, he's based in the US for several decades, that he would come in for an interim period and create a bit of stability, huge Iranian diaspora in the United States that is probably pushing this alternative. So I wouldn't discount that as an option as well.
- [37:49]
Roland Oliphant
Tell us a little bit more, in your view, how these domestic politics affect all this. Maybe let's talk about the MAGA base. People who are meant to have been, you know, very skeptical of intervention, very skeptical of adventures abroad. And in a way, we've had some interesting conversations, actually, with some younger conservative Americans, really quite thoughtful people who talk about how, you know, described how the MAGA phenomenon was to a large degree, a backlash, conscious, unconscious, against the adventurism of Iraq and Afghanistan and how that all went wrong, in a sense, that the country was betrayed. What do you think domestic America is making of all this? Or do you think they're really thinking about it?
- [38:40]
Rachel Elihu
If you look back over the history of the us, there's always been an isolationist strain. We have the benefit of geography that if we so choose, we can largely, or we could largely ignore getting involved elsewhere in the world. I think that's changed a bit because today's problems and today's economies are transnational and interconnected. So what happens in Melbourne can affect what's happening in Madison, Wisconsin, for example. So the isolation is a bit of an illusion. But it's not just Republicans or the MAGA base who thought that the US had gone too far in trying to become the world's policeman or enforcer of the international rules and norms, to the detriment of taking care of problems closer to home. The defense budget continues to skyrocket. And while more basic problems about cost of living, education, jobs, health care, revitalization of critical sectors, all of that has been left by the wayside. When I was younger, the Democrats were the party of the working class class. Frankly, they did very little to address some of those problems I just alluded to. And so there was an opening for the MAGA crowd to come in and present themselves as the new face of trying to address some of these problems and getting us out of the interventionism that they saw coming, not just from the Democrats, but you'll remember, sort of the neoconservative Republicans who got us into all the entanglements in Iraq.
- [40:25]
Roland Oliphant
And my conversations with kind of openly MAGA Republicans, they seem to hate neocons more than they hate Democrats.
- [40:33]
Rachel Elihu
Could be. Could be. So I would say this is something that is a shared concern, but the answer to it is not to sort of tear apart our alliances and partnerships. To say it in a straightforward way, allies and partners are America's sphere of influence, and they give us credibility. They give us influence throughout the world. And when that goes away, I think we're gonna be surprised about what's missing and how our own influence and credibility diminish.
- [41:04]
Roland Oliphant
What's your own background? Where are you from in America?
- [41:06]
Rachel Elihu
I'm from the East Coast. I'm from Maryland, but currently live in Northern Virginia. So that general area around Washington, D.C.
- [41:14]
Roland Oliphant
Kind of beltway land.
- [41:15]
Rachel Elihu
Exactly.
- [41:16]
Roland Oliphant
Okay.
- [41:17]
Rachel Elihu
It's quite nice. Things other than highways.
- [41:20]
Roland Oliphant
Well, I mean, I'm just thinking, if you think back to, you know, your old haunts and your old neighborhoods, I don't know if you still go there or your parents still live around there or anything, but I don't know your take as an American on the just mood on the American street in a way. Where do you feel like the country is?
- [41:37]
Rachel Elihu
It's a difficult question because there is some truth to the accusation that the coasts of the United States, east, west, as well as sort of the upper Midwest, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, that there's a bit of a bubble and there's a bit of a more internationalist view and that we're out of touch with the concerns and the interests of everyday Americans. And I think throughout my lifetime, that gulf sort of grew, and you did get a class of more traveled and educated people that sort of forgot where they were from and forgot what mattered to ordinary Americans. And so there is a little bit of reconciliation and cross talk that has to happen. That's not going to happen at the federal level. We haven't talked about it today, and it's extremely depressing. So I try not to think too much about it. But we've also seen the disbanding of trust in the civil service. We've seen really hardworking people in the military and the civil service and foreign service officers lose their careers and their livelihoods, have their families disrupted. And that's just not how we want to treat our fellow Americans. And it's going to create more of a gulf in the society. I think where it starts is in cities, in communities where people know each other and they know each other on a personal basis, not because of which way they vote. And I see some promising younger voices ahead of the midterms who are focusing more on those pocketbook and domestic issues and and they're taking back the American identity and they are making it less about whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, but whether you are looking after the Constitution and U.S. interests.
- [43:38]
Roland Oliphant
Rachel Ellejos, thank you so much for joining us on Battle Lines.
- [43:42]
Rachel Elihu
Thanks for the opportunity.
- [43:43]
Roland Oliphant
That's all for this week. I hope that gave you plenty to think about. We'll be back on Monday with our usual start the week episode. Obviously over the weekend there's a lot to watch, especially events in the Middle east and Iran. Until then, that was Battle Lines. Goodbye Battle Lines is an original podcast from the Telegraph, created by David Knowles and hosted by me, Roland Oliphant and Venetia Rainey. If you appreciated this podcast, please consider following Battle Lines on your preferred podcast Apple app and if you have a moment, leave a review as it helps others to find the show. To stay on top of all our news, subscribe to the Telegraph, sign up to our Dispatches newsletter or listen to our sister podcast Ukraine the latest. You can also get in touch directly by emailing battlelinestelegraph.co.uk or contact us on X. You can find our handles in the show. Notes the producer is Peter Schevlin and the Executive Producer Producer is Louisa Wells.
- [44:49]
Rachel Elihu
Lunch was great, but this traffic is awful. Um, can we stop at a bathroom? Are you alright? I keep having stomach issues after eating like diarrhea, gas and bloating, abdominal pain and sometimes oily stools. Sound familiar? Those stomach issues may actually be a pancreas issue called Exocrine Pancreatic insufficiency or epi. Creon pancrelipase may help manage epi. Creon is a prescription medicine used to treat people can't digest food normally because their pancreas doesn't make enough enzymes.
- [45:18]
Amazon Pharmacy / Creon Advertiser
Creon may increase your chance of fibrosing colonopathy, a rare bowel disorder. Tell your doctor if you have a history of intestinal blockage or scarring or thickening of your bowel wall, if you are allergic to pork or if you have gout, kidney problems or worsening of painful swollen joints. Call your doctor if you have any unusual or severe gastrointestinal symptoms or allergic reactions. Take Creon as directed by your doctor and always with food. Do not chew capsules as this may cause mouth irritation. Other side effects may include blood sugar changes, gas, dizziness, sore throat and cough. These are not all the side effects of Creon. Call 800-633-9110 or visit creoninfo.com to learn.
- [45:44]
Roland Oliphant
Learn more.
- [45:44]
Amazon Pharmacy / Creon Advertiser
That's creoninfo.com I'm asking my doctor about.
- [45:47]
Rachel Elihu
Epi and if Creon could help.
- [45:49]
Amazon Pharmacy / Creon Advertiser
You know how powerful you are, and when it comes to your network, you need one just as powerful. Take your phone to your local Total Wireless Store and we'll give you one line for just $25 a month. Getting more for spending less. Now that's a total power move. Visit your neighborhood Total Wireless Store for new single line customers who activate on a BYO device on the Total 5G Unlimited plan. Requires auto pay enrollment to receive the full discount, which applies the month after enrollment. Available online and in Total Wireless retail stores. Requires a compatible unlock device and SIM check compatibility@totalwireless.com.