← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Loading summary
Transcript49 lines
- [00:03]
Jamie Rubin
This is a global player original podcast.
- [00:06]
Christiana Onour
Unpredictable. It's erratic under this administration. It's chaotic. And nobody quite knows how to rely on the United States anymore.
- [00:14]
Jamie Rubin
The United States thinks it has the dominance of escalation. It has the power. It can dictate terms to the Iranians.
- [00:22]
Christiana Onour
The other seduction is covert action. You can get carried away by, by killing a whole bunch of people at the top.
- [00:28]
Jamie Rubin
So when they look at the war, they don't think they're losing. I don't think either side wants to go back to war right now, really.
- [00:36]
Christiana Onour
MAGA is splitting over this war. Hello, everyone. We are back with another episode of the X Files with me, Christiana Onour
- [00:47]
Jamie Rubin
and, and Jamie Rubin again here in New York in what I call Carmela's kitchen.
- [00:52]
Christiana Onour
And I'm in London, which is often the center of, you know, the transatlantic alliance on the transatlantic side. So the questions today, are we heading for a return to war? Guys, when this ceasefire expires on Wednesday, will either Iran or the United States be able to get past their severe mistrust? Not only that, get past a very bizarre negotiating posture. Both of them have come at it very differently and we'll explore that. And, you know, we'll also talk about Pope Leo Xi Macron and how they are now displaying no fear. That's my, my, you know, shorthand towards Trump and standing up to him. It's, it's, it's actually quite interesting. So shall we get started? Jamie? We, as we record and when this drops, will be a day or two before the expiry of the ceasefire. Can I just start by asking you, when you plan for another round of talks, how smart is it for one side to aggressively interdict the other side, that is the United States, you know, attacking and landing boarding an Iranian flagged tanker, or rather cargo ship, near the Straits of Hormuz? I mean, I guess that's what I'm asking.
- [02:12]
Jamie Rubin
Look, I think that question cuts to the heart of the problem in this negotiation. It seems to me there are two different approaches and they are based on two different assessments of the battlefield. This is a classic case where there's the use of force and there's diplomacy. The Iranians seem to be signaling in the last few days de escalation. They announced the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. The thing that they know the President of the United States and the whole world wants to happen because the whole world is suffering from that closure. President Trump responded by saying, well, it may be open for us, but it's not going to be open for you and put in place a system to blockade the strait. So they responded to him by saying, okay, you're not going to close it, you're going to close it for us. Well, we're going to close it for everyone else. So they tried to signal de escalation. And Donald Trump's approach to the negotiation is to try to constantly threaten escalation and to conduct escalation. So we got back to nowhere. That is their approach. They want to slow this whole process down. That's what the Iranians are good at. Let's slow everything down. We're not going to give everything up immediately. We're going to negotiate. We're going to negotiate carefully. And instead, Donald Trump's response, which I don't think if he wants the Strait of Hormuz open, the right response was to say, okay, it's only going to be open for us.
- [03:48]
Christiana Onour
But, you know, it's just constantly putting pressure on. And there's a lot. I've been talking to a lot of officials connected more with the Middle east. Right. So not the US Side. Many of the countries who are involved in this attempt to broker a ceasefire, Iranians, those close to the Iranians, et cetera. And there is a very deep and troubling realization they've come to, which is that couple of things. Even if President Trump keeps signaling that he too wants an end to this war, somehow with a negotiating, they believe that Israel is in Trump's ear and doesn't want it and is telling him all the reasons why they shouldn't have it. That's Whether that's true or not, I don't know. But that's what they believe. Both the Iranians and the Middle east and the wider Arab and, you know, Pakistani and that group, then they also. I've heard essentially there are two different kinds of approaches to these negotiations. The Iranians, as you know, because of you, you're in the Biden administration, etcetera, they come with all their experts, including their nuclear experts and their sanctions experts and their hundreds of pages of, of negotiating points. This particular American group are more business people. We know that. Right. Kushner witkoff, you know, J.D. vance is not. But he has also never engaged in this kind of negotiation. So they come with a five page, you know, business plan in order to get through this. And it's just, it's just like this. They're. They're crossing ships, crossing in the night. They haven't managed to establish the kind of even basis for negotiations while they sit around the TABLE as you know, in the last round, the four Americans were Avance, Kushner, Witkoff, and it's been publicly reported the commander of centcom, that's a military force that's sitting for the United States, the superpower in these negotiations, for one reason only, to say we can go back and do this and more. So all of that leads to, from what I have been told, a pretty lack of trust and lack of lack, you know, you know, they don't want to surrender. So the latest, Jamie, is a couple of very senior Iranian officials have told sort of a Middle east based website that is close to analyzing stuff that comes out of Iran and monitoring it's called drop site. So basically, the Iranians have said that if Trump resumes bombing, Iran will cut off all diplomatic channels and focus entirely on fighting and that conditions for any future deal will be far harder. There's, there's more, but this doesn't look like at the moment, as we speak, that it's heading anywhere constructive.
- [06:48]
Jamie Rubin
I start from a slightly different perspective in that I don't think either side wants to go back to war right now. So I think, and I'm willing to predict, and I hope I'm right, but I'm willing to make the prediction that the ceasefire does get extended at a minimum. That's the minimum expectation I would have from this week. Whatever happens, whether it's done through the Pakistanis with a team there or not a team there. Because I don't think either side wants to go back to war. The problem is that each side is looking at the situation from a different perspective. The United States thinks it has the dominance of escalation, it has the power, it can dictate terms to the Iranians, forgetting that as a result of this war, Iran now has two things. When it used to just have one thing, it used to just have the nuclear weapons issue. Will they go nuclear now? It has the nuclear weapon, so to speak, of the Strait of Hormuz, so they don't feel weaker. They lost a lot of missiles, they lost a lot of ships, they lost a lot of capabilities. Their people suffered. But from their perspective, they now have a card, a piece of leverage. This is what Trump doesn't seem to understand. They can open and close the Strait
- [08:07]
Christiana Onour
of Hormuz, but then Trump can block or not blockade their ports.
- [08:11]
Jamie Rubin
Right? So then you're in a pain threshold question. How long can each side be in a position to suffer from the closing of this strait? And here's where you get to the big issue. I don't think the President is in a position right now to have the Strait of Hormuz closed indefinitely, forgetting all the damage it's done to the rest of the world, which I suspect is not high on his list. It's not good for his domestic political circumstances. He ended the war, he agreed to a ceasefire without the Iranians doing anything on the nuclear issue. He stopped the war because he realized it had played out as far as he could, because he's not prepared to actually escalate.
- [08:59]
Christiana Onour
So just very quickly, the on this drop site, these senior Iranian officials are basically saying that their position is pretty much what it was know on the table before the war started, the day before on enrichment, voluntary suspension for less or about five years. That offer was put down in Geneva solely to demonstrate goodwill and the necessary degree of flexibility on the uranium stockpile. Iran rejects transferring its highly enriched uranium. You know, the stuff that Trump calls the nuclear dust, which we all think has been buried somewhere in the last round of bombings in June or July, but offering to dilute it with a transparent mechanism to fully verify the process. On the broader nuclear framework, it wants low level enrichment for peaceful things that it's always wanted. And on the overall deal, Jamie, you know that they want a comprehensive agreement with a firm non aggression guarantee from both the United States and Israel, which everybody seems to acknowledge over there that's pretty much impossible. And they also want sanctions relief. So essentially these are the same, mostly the same positions that were on the table at the end of February. And the Strait of Hormuz is something that wasn't even an issue before the, before the war started.
- [10:20]
Jamie Rubin
So what I try to do is boil down each of the issues. So let's start with do both sides want to start the war again? I think the answer to that is no. Yeah, do. Is there a solution to the nuclear issue? Well, yes, but it's going to take a long time to negotiate. One could foresee a solution to the nuclear issue for the time being if Iran did certain things to remove the threat from that 60% uranium, which is the urgent threat that's buried and doing the kinds of things you suggested. Plus I think they would have to agree to remove it from the country. But let's get back to that in a moment. But Nevertheless, Iranians have $20 billion of frozen assets around the world that you could envisage trading for solving the 60% just to get started. But to resolve the nuclear issue, that's going to take months and months and months and months of negotiation. So I think we have to start from saying, what's this? First step, ceasefire, continue it. Second step, get the Strait of Hormuz opened and then focus on the nuclear issue.
- [11:31]
Christiana Onour
Okay, So I was speaking to General Stanley McChrystal, who is, you know, the general's general, the grunts Grant. He has been there all over this part of the world, commanding US Forces in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and has had a really exceptional career. And I asked him about the disparity and how is it not possible that the United States and Israel, the two huge superpowers, had found themselves in this stalemate, despite the massive wholesale damage and destruction they are causing on Iran. But they, you know, the regime is still in power. He said, I think there are a couple of seductions that we are, you know, fall prey to. One is the idea of shock and awe, of air power. As you and I talked about at the very beginning, there is no historical precedent for regime change from the air. He basically said that, you know, we have really got people who will come and make the argument that if we bomb enough, we can figure it out and fix it. But then he said to me, if you can't do that after 40 full days of air power, it's unlikely to happen. Then he said, the other thing is about commitment. He said, the differing levels of commitment by each side. If we're very committed to something, we sometimes discount the. The level of commitment from the opposition. And if you apply it to Iran, for instance, they're not going anywhere. We potentially can lose heart, we can lose enthusiasm for that part of the operation. They're much less likely to do that. So the idea that we can have an effect and change somebody, change their attitudes, he said, has not been borne out by history. So I think that's actually really, really interesting. And then, Jamie, the most interesting thing that we're watching and witnessing is that warfare has changed before the United States, even in the first. You, obviously, the first Gulf War, but the Iraq War was supremely powerful because no other opponent had the wherewithal to challenge a military superpower. But of course, that was designed to go to war against the Soviet Union. Right? That was America's war effort was tailored to go to war against the Soviet Union. Now everybody and their brother, non state actors, state actors, has the kind of stuff that we're seeing, missiles and drones and other such things that can do a similar job, but for much cheaper and with much more agility. So I actually think that's really interesting. And a lot more people will be getting that kind of technology.
- [14:04]
Jamie Rubin
Well, I Think you're right. And that is why the Iranians, despite what they may have thought or the US Military may have thought, I don't know, found out how easy it was, relatively easy because of the global economy, because of insurance rates, because ships don't want to take risks, to use their new power, their new piece of leverage that they didn't have before, and that is closing the Strait of Hormuz. We can do grave damage to their missiles, to their navy, to their production facilities. The Israelis were able to kill their leaders, but because they now have the key to opening and closing the Strait of Hormuz, they have a new piece of leverage. So when they look at the war, and this is what McChrystal, I think, is quite rightly pointing out, they don't think they're losing. They think they lost a lot of capability, but now they are in a position to continue the war and to close the Strait of Hormuz. And they don't believe that President Trump is going to escalate to ground troops or to the power war.
- [15:19]
Christiana Onour
Okay, let's just stop. Let's just stop for a second. Because Trump has again threatened massive power plants and bridges, the same terminology. But there are people who believe, including in Iran, from what I gather, they are preparing for some kind of potential ground incursion, whether it's on Hog island, whether it's on the mainland, whatever it might be. They are already factoring, factoring that in. So I think that's, you know, that's important for us to note because we really don't know where this is going. And because, you know, you were talking about the Israelis and, you know, killing leaders and scientists and all the other thing that Stan McChrystal told me was the other seduction is covert action. And you can get carried away by killing a whole bunch of people at the top and thinking that's going to actually cause. And he said, look at, look at the Bay of Pigs. You know, the famous covert U. S. Military, actually, they don't always work. No. And that. Let's just explain what it was. That was in the early 60s, you know, President Kennedy inherited this plan stupidly. Now history says went with it instead of, you know, taking a look back at it to try to overthrow Castro by covert action. It was called the Bay of Pigs, and it failed spectacularly. And that was in their backyard.
- [16:34]
Jamie Rubin
And Christian, if I could jump in there, because I think you're exactly right to bring this up. And it was a combination of COVID action and the American military that allowed us to do Maduro so easily.
- [16:45]
Christiana Onour
Right.
- [16:45]
Jamie Rubin
And this is what Trump thought was going to happen in Iran. This is why this is so hard to figure because anyone with any understanding of the Iranians should have been able to tell him that the regime is not going to be overthrown by a few airstrikes to its leaders. And they didn't believe that because they thought the combination of COVID action and military capability worked so well in Venezuela. He thought this was going to be a repeat. I really honestly believe that's what he thought.
- [17:20]
Christiana Onour
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he did. He kept saying it. Couple of notes there. You mentioned, you know, Venezuela, you know, if you read about Venezuela now and about Cuba, Jamie, you know, they've got, they've changed a lot in Venezuela. But the thing that Trump said he wanted, which was the oil and making it a friendly place for American oil companies, hasn't come through. American oil companies have. Not yet, actually.
- [17:42]
Jamie Rubin
That's going to take a long time.
- [17:44]
Christiana Onour
Right, right. So that's one thing. The other thing is Cuba. If you, if you see the U. S sent a delegation from the State Department to Havana this month to have talks. The idea of regime change by force appears to be going onto the back burner in Cuba and they want to negotiate a complete change in the behavior of the Cuba, which I think is really interesting.
- [18:09]
Jamie Rubin
The big beneficiary perhaps of this difficulty in Iran and the complexity and the, what President Trump learned from it is that the Cubans are not going to be next on the target three days after the war in Iran ends because the next guy that comes in the Oval Office like Marco Rubio and say, okay, now let's do Cuba. I don't think he's going to get the same reception.
- [18:33]
Christiana Onour
Just as we head out of this segment before we come back to the next segment and we're going to be talking in the next segment about those leaders who are standing up to President Trump on their, on their merits and on the issues. A new BBC investigation. So I'm in the UK and obviously the BBC is the big, big kahuna over here. They have done a business investigation into all sorts of investments pouring into various oil related, you know, tools, so to speak, just minimally ahead of Trump announcements, usually on the Iran war, but usually announcing moves towards de escalation which causes the price of oil to drop. And BBC apparently has showed two clear examples of oil trades that made huge, huge profits when the price goes down. Now the White House hasn't commented on this. It's previously denied any insider trading. But you Remember also the FT and others brought this up, you know, when there was similar kind of bets made and exact over so called Liberation Day and the tariffs. There was, you know, April last year and over the Maduro capture. So I think that's also an issue that's being raised over here in the UK and, and elsewhere. They're doing some very good investigation on the financial, who benefits financially from all of this? And just to say, Jamie, the Times has done an incredible investigation, geolocating and painstaking evaluating the amount of civilian infrastructure damage that's been done to Iran. And the Iranians say, you know, 730 plus locations, maybe more. The Times has done a couple of dozen of hospitals, clinics and schools and universities. And it's, it's very grave. The amount of civilian infrastructure that's already been hit in Iran is very, very grave. And just one thing, Jamie, and this will drive you nuts, obviously because of being a diplomat, in a sad way. There was the annual DIPLOMAC summit in Antalya, Turkey. Turkey.
- [20:35]
Jamie Rubin
I went there once, many years ago
- [20:37]
Christiana Onour
and dozens and dozens of leaders and officials from all over that part of the world, including, you know, Americans, headline in Turkey. Middle powers ponder diplomacy with a rogue United States. Basically accepting that the US Remains an essential player all over. But as everybody's telling me, you know, it's unpredictable, it's erratic under this administration, it's chaotic and nobody quite knows how, how to rely on the United States anymore. But still knowing that it is the
- [21:10]
Jamie Rubin
major power, that's the biggest question of our time. And we're going to be struggling with it long after Donald Trump is gone. The fact that he has damaged the credibility and trust that we've built up over all these decades.
- [21:24]
Christiana Onour
So one more from my favorite general, Stanley McChrystal. I think he said this is going to turn out very badly because I think we're becoming heavy hated in the world. And that's something that will take decades to fix. And I just find that very sad because all the military operations, wars and things that I covered, the US Went at it to be the good guy.
- [21:46]
Jamie Rubin
The soldiers who fought in those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they believed in their cause and that's why it was so outrageous to them. And I can't imagine what McChrystal thinks when Pete Hegseth and the White House turned war into a game, some sort of stupid video game that, you know, you kill the other guy and you wipe him out. They believed they were doing the right thing. Sometimes we did and sometimes it didn't work. Out well, but I think, I believe that our intentions were at least explained and were well intentioned, even if their, their implementation failed dramatically.
- [22:24]
Christiana Onour
And Hegseth has really been pushing the limits of aggressive behavior to the press calling us Pharisees. This is, these are the bad guys in the Bible who were against Jesus. They resented his power. They didn't believe that he was the prophet and the son of God and, and the scribes and the Pharisees were the hypocrites and the bad guys. And there's hexes standing on the podium calling us the bad guys who want to see. I don't know what. I don't know. I don't know what.
- [22:52]
Jamie Rubin
Just for telling the truth about the war, Just for speaking candidly and doing their job in a democracy.
- [22:59]
Christiana Onour
Yeah. Well, this leads me, of course, into the next segment because part of all of this is the rupture or the standoff or the spat, however you want to put it between this White House and the Pope. When we come back, we'll talk about that.
- [23:20]
Grainger Announcer
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery. So you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [23:53]
Christiana Onour
Okay, we are back. We're talking about some of the world leaders who are basically talking back to Donald Trump in a way that is not ad hominem, that is simply about ministering, in the case of Pope Leo, to the mission of being the vicar of Rome and some of the other world leaders who are talking from the perspective of their own national interests. So, Jamie, this week the Pope has been very front and center, upping his mission statement, which is for peace and against, and against war. And it's caused a big, big hubbub because at the same time, President Trump was depicted as a Jesus like figure and all of this is going crazy. He was depicted online. I mean, he posted on Truth Social with Jesus hugging him. There's just, and this war, according to Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, is, he's portrayed it as almost like a crusade. It's a war for Christian values and done in the name of Jesus. And the Pope has really pushed back on that. So I think this is really interesting. And when asked, he said, I Am not afraid. He. He said all this in Africa. And in Africa, he actually spoke out against, do we want a war? A world that is run by tyrants. And he was already speaking in the middle of a continent in which many leaders of are, in fact, unelected tyrants or autocrats and dictators who run out the clock and have one election and never another one. So his position, you know, he's not going to get invaded. He doesn't need to worry about getting tariffed. There's a very interesting leadership that he's demonstrating right now.
- [25:36]
Jamie Rubin
Look, you, as I know very well, are a Catholic and the Pope is the leader of your religion. But to me, the Pope has been a moral voice to the world, all the popes. And one thing that they generally don't like is war. And so the idea that he would be speaking out against a war, particularly a war where there was no buildup or urgency or effort to bring in the world's understanding, it wouldn't come to the Security Council. You know, none of the things that you do to try to justify and make a war justified, we're done. So for the President to be shocked that the Pope is going to be critical of war, especially when the President is saying things that are so dramatic, where he's saying the destruction of civilizations back to the Stone Age, I mean, these are things that, you know, I can't imagine any Pope, any Pope. The reason why it hurts is because he's an American. And so the President knows that this matters to Americans. And I want to tell you one funny story I heard that sort of shows you what we're dealing with here. When the picture came out of President Trump in the guise of Jesus, and the White House press secretary was trying to deal with it, her response was to say that this was a doctored photo, that meaning it was false, it was, you know, manipulated. But I think then what happened is that President Trump heard her use the word doctor and not doctored. And so then he came out and said, oh, no, no, I was just pretending I was a doctor and healing the sick, because that's the kind of interaction you could imagine a president having with his press secretary. And that the kind of response that a press secretary might come up with to, you know, justify this thing by saying it was a mistake, it wasn't real, and then he misheard that and then said he was a doctor.
- [27:53]
Christiana Onour
Yeah, I mean, it's. It's pretty troubling. Just, I know that many people view Marjorie Taylor Greene in various different ways, but she Has. She was on my program this week. She said that that was blasphemy. I mean, it wasn't just Catholics who were offended. It was many American Christians who are very, very offended and people all over. But she also said when, you know, when he said, bomb them back to the Stone Age about Iran, she wrote, she tweeted, 25th Amendment, I. E. You know, we got to get rid of him. But anyway, we can't have a massive discussion on that. It's just that, really, MAGA is splitting over this war. Okay. So it's not just the Pope, but it's a lot of other world leaders. I mentioned Antalya and all the Middle Eastern and regional leaders who gathered in Turkey to figure out workarounds. This president, really. And it's happening in Europe as well.
- [28:41]
Jamie Rubin
Well. Right. President Macron is, I think, becoming one of those world leaders who's decided that he cannot any longer just speak behind the scenes politely to Donald Trump and needs to speak out. And he's basically asked the President to not talk so much because he's realized that if we're going to get this war resolved, the president's swinging back and forth with the daily tweets or multiple daily tweets, you're not going to be able to resolve the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear issue, and perhaps even the war is going to restart, because he understands that that chaotic response doesn't yield the result. I think all European leaders probably are breathing a big sigh of relief from the defeat of Hungary's prime minister that we talked about last week, which signals that the right wing is not necessarily on the ascendancy. So Macron is speaking out, and I think that's important. And I think it shows you what happens when you engage in a war. This is not like just some tariff dispute. This is a war that's affecting Europe and majorly affecting the rest of the world in real economic terms that are really affecting people's livelihoods and all over the world. And so I think President Macron is ready to stand up. He's not going to insult the President. I think he's smart enough. He developed a relationship with him. I think he'll be able to maintain a relationship with him, but he's just not prepared to simply be polite and say nice things about President Trump anymore.
- [30:20]
Christiana Onour
Yeah. And this weekend, he and the Prime Minister of Britain, beleaguered Sir Keir Starmer, had a sort of a meeting. They don't want to be cut out of any Strait of Hormuz deal. Should one happen. But. Okay, let us come back with our recommendations.
- [30:40]
Grainger Announcer
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe, and running smoothly. Call 1-800-granger. Click granger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [31:13]
Christiana Onour
Okay, we're back very quickly with our recommendations this week. I am just going to say, Jamie, you are rustling papers and you shouldn't be rustling papers, so stop rustling papers. Jamie. I watched last night with our son Darius, an old film called Love and Other Drugs. It was with Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway, and it was really great. It was really, really good. And it was about a pharmaceutical salesman trying to, you know, trying to make his fortune that way. It was as Viagra was coming onto the market. But more importantly, his girlfriend, played by Anne Hathaway, had Parkinson's, even though she's very, very young. And it was about that relationship and what you do when, you know, you have that medical condition between you as very young people, and does it keep you together or drive you apart? And it was very, very, very good. And we loved it very much. So that's my recommendation. A bit of a blast from the past.
- [32:10]
Jamie Rubin
This time I'm going to do something a little different. I read an article that I think if you read it, it's one of those long, big New York Times article. I'll try not to rustle too much paper. You know, one of those full page articles came out last Saturday over the weekend about a guy named Samuel Sampson.
- [32:28]
Christiana Onour
Oh, yeah.
- [32:28]
Jamie Rubin
So here's. Here's a young man, five years out of college who's been given the job of transforming our relationships with Europe. So the European American relationship is what I've worked on my whole life and what has been the pride of American foreign policy at its height in the years in the 90s, Europe and the United States were really, really, really bonded in a. In a real way where we agreed on X, Y and Z and we got things done together. This, Mr. Sampson, is now going around Europe interfering in the domestic politics of European countries in a way the United States has never, ever, ever done before. If they want one article to understand what has turned 180 degrees about the simple functioning of the State Department, where your job is to be a diplomat, work together with other countries and manage disagreement, instead is lighting fires in every single country. The people he meets with are shocked. So it's an in depth article that explains how they're interfering on abortion, on immigration, on censorship, every single political issue that the Trump administration, what we used to call domestic politics, he's taking all of that, bringing them to Europe and then expecting to change Europe. And, and that's why the Europeans look at us and go, wait, who is this country now?
- [34:03]
Christiana Onour
All right. Well, on that unhelpful note, certainly from our perspective here in Europe, I still, I still in my head view the UK as part of Europe. I, you know, I'm still, I still haven't got over Brexit. So thank you all for listening. Remember, you can always listen to our podcast for free on Global Player and you can always see us on YouTube. You just search for Christiana Manpour presents the X files on our YouTube channel. And we'll see you later in the week on Thursday with our usual and every week bonus Q A segment. All right, see you.
- [34:40]
Jamie Rubin
Bye. Bye.
- [34:41]
Christiana Onour
Bye.
- [34:48]
Jamie Rubin
This has been a Global Player original production.