Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:03]
A
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:05]
B
Are you surprised, Jamie, that after a mere 21 hours, they didn't come up with a resolution of 47 years of hostility? I mean, the whole thing is arse backwards, in my opinion. Unless there's some phenomenal 5, 6, 7 dimensional chess being played on a whole new world order.
- [00:22]
A
So now we've turned an air war into a blockade war. How it's going to turn out, we really don't know.
- [00:28]
B
We're talking about an issue, the Strait of Hormuz, which was not an issue one hour before this war was launched. And now, all of a sudden, it's the issue.
- [00:37]
A
Donald Trump has opened a Pandora's box.
- [00:40]
B
Do you think the guy's lost his marbles? Hello, everyone. It is the latest episode of the X Files with me, Christiane Amanpour here
- [00:51]
A
in London and Jamie Rubin in New York in Carmela's kitchen.
- [00:56]
B
Yeah, and I think all our experience as reporters in the field for my case, members of the administration, in your case, probably needs to come to bear extremely, extremely strongly in this episode because things are going nuts. So, okay, they send. Let's just get started and ask about what is the deal now that there's no deal between the United States and Iran? Where did things go? And then we're also going to be talking, of course, about the incredible election result in Hungary, if you believe in liberal democracy as opposed to illiberal democracy, and what it all means. And then, of course, we'll have our recommendations in the last part of this episode. So, Jamie, let's get started. No deal. They sent, you know, J.D. vance. They sent what I'm going to call the hapless Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who are responsible for the last two failed negotiations, which were then followed by war with the Iranians. And I'm quoting, by the way, an official on hapless. Let's just say it again. Hapless, because they came out of this with nothing first. Are you surprised, Jamie, that after a mere 21 hours, which is marathon, but it's only 21 hours, they didn't come up with a resolution of 47 years of hostility?
- [02:10]
A
No. Obviously, the way you put it, I'm not. But here's the larger point.
- [02:15]
B
How else could I put it? Is there another way?
- [02:18]
A
No, not at all. I'm just laughing at it because it's. It's tragically funny that we expect J.D. vance, who probably didn't even want this war, to walk in with the United States set of proposals which require Iran to Capitulate. That's what President Trump still thinks Iran is going to do, capitulate on the nuclear issue, on the Strait of Hormuz, on everything. And instead, the Iranians have realized that they have a new card that they didn't have before. And I think we all need to recognize and we need to say it out loud, they have an important control of the Strait of Hormuz, and thus a stranglehold, to a degree, of. On the global economy. They are using that power, and President Trump and his team of hapless negotiators. And I think you're absolutely right about that, and I need to commend you for talking about that. In a past episode, I've reread some more accounts of what happened when Witkoff and Kushner tried to negotiate the nuclear deal. And it's absolutely clear that they didn't understand that Iran was making significant concessions. They were prepared to postpone enrichment indefinitely and figure out a solution to the remaining uranium. They just wanted this technical question of the right to enrich. That's where a diplomat, a real diplomat figures out, okay, they're going to give us everything they want. They just want to be able to say they have a right that they're not going to exercise. And Kushner and, and Witkoff didn't get it. And people who were present have now started to talk about it, and people who understand it have started to talk about it. So this hapless duo and Vance went in with a capitulation proposal, and the Iran said, no, we're not capitulating. And President Trump has to make some hard decisions now.
- [04:15]
B
Yeah. So let's talk about that, because again, as we're talking, imagine that for want of an understanding of what was being said at the table, a war was started, number one. Right. Given what you've just said and given what others have said about the nuclear issue. Also, you saw what Vance said at the end of these 21 hours that the Iranians, something like, chose not to accept our terms. Well, you probably saw the former foreign minister, Javaz Zarif, who immediately posted. Bingo. Anybody who thinks Iran is going to bend to anybody's terms is mistaken. It's got to be a negotiation, not a capitulation. So there's that. On the other hand, Jamie, Trump is basically saying, and his people do believe that they have won because they have again, degraded Iran, degraded its military, degraded its economy, degraded its infrastructure and all of the rest of it. And they think they can now do as you say. Well, we're going to discuss this. Pull off a blockade of Iranian ports. Tell me how that would work and what's going to happen with that sort of posturing by the United States, which does have the world's most important navy.
- [05:29]
A
Remember how ironic this is? Think about it. The United States was the country that helped the world and led the world by keeping the seas open. Freedom of navigation was something the United States regarded its navy's mission as. And now we're closing it. We closed it in Venezuela to try to pressure that government. We closed it around Cuba, but then of course, let the Russians sail through when they needed some oil. And now we're closing it in the Strait of Hormuz. So this has turned American foreign policy on its head. Freedom of navigation is what we used to do. Now we're threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. And I think we can do that. That it will be costly if the Iranians choose to attack American ships and then the war will be back on. And so what I think is really happening, Christiane, is the Trump administration doesn't want Iran to be the only controller of the Strait of Hormuz. What they didn't like was that Iran was going to collect tolls. And so the United States said, I'm not going to let Iran just be the only winner of this new question. The Strait of Hormuz, we're going to close it too. Now, the obvious solution that is very Donald Trumpian is that the two sides are going to negotiate the sharing of revenue from opening the Strait of Hormuz. And think of how nutty that is. Now, the hardest question is, will anyone help the United States? Think about it. Well, Iran and the United States will be blocking the Strait of Hormuz and, and damaging the global economy.
- [07:05]
B
Well, from here they are saying no. That would be here in the UK which at one point did have a great navy. You know, they don't want to have anything to do with it while it's in this particular phase. They would like to help, you know, in the future, but not when officially they're still at war. I know there's meant to be a two week ceasefire, but they're not really. And I also read that it's one thing to open the Strait of Hormo, it's another thing to sustain that opening because apparently it's not possible, even according to the most optimistic American analysts and former admirals and this and that. You need actual help to do that. Not to mention the fact that the Strait is overlooked by very high ground and potentially could have some. As we said last week, the people who control the high ground essentially control the war. But America is obviously very strong militarily, so I do not know how that would look. And as for them sharing the revenue, I think that is just a whole nother turn everything on its head.
- [08:08]
A
Well, I think you're exactly right. It won't be easy to hold the Strait of Hormuz. When people, naval experts looked at it, you would have to have a massive de mining operation. You would have to have ships in the area for a long, long time. And what the Iranians proved with drones and other small arms capability is even if you have the great technology, it doesn't take much to scare off the shipping industry. Remember, this is all about the question of how much insurance ships should pay to go through in and out. And they're not prepared to take much risk. And so the risk of an Iranian drone hitting a ship is always going to be there until you get a negotiation.
- [08:52]
B
And on top of everything else, it's been written a lot that the US Is saying that the Iranians don't know where all the mines are. So they, you know, they've essentially lost sight of their own minds. So according to, according to the US but, but even now as we're speaking, the Iranians are saying, don't even think about this. You know, you have to go through the Revolutionary Guard for anybody to get through the strait. By the way, what about the other countries, Jamie, like the Gulf states? Are they going to be happy that the US Is now blockading the strait? Look, it's actually, they say, just so that we're clear, they say we're not blockading the strait, we're not blockading the Gulf. Were blockading Iranian ports.
- [09:35]
A
Right. Which shows you what the issue was. The issue was they don't want Iran to continue to earn revenue by allowing oil and making decisions as to which ship can come in and out. Iran was making money during this war. Iran was able to ship its oil. Iran was making money from allowing certain ships in. Iran was choosing to let Chinese ships in or French ships in if it was negotiated. Once France disagreed with the United States and they saw this could be an area to create a divide between America and France. In other words, they were in control. So now we've turned an air war into a blockade war. And how it's going to turn out, we really don't know. Everyone wants the Strait of Hormuz open, especially the Arab countries, the Asian nations, they're dying.
- [10:22]
B
I mean, metaphorically but when it comes to their energy, they are in deep doo doo. Deep doo doo. Really? Worse than they ever imagined. Worse than we talked about last week when we talked about energy rationing in the Philippines and elsewhere. It is catastrophic for them now.
- [10:39]
A
Exactly. And look, this is what the problem is when your adversary is the leader of the axis of resistance. Remember, resisting the world, resisting the United States is part of the DNA of the Iranian revolution. They have shown they can take a lot of pain and still come out
- [10:57]
B
standing, except their economy is really floundering. And you know, Jamie, we talk about the many, many ironies of all of this. Yes, nobody wants the Iranians to make hay out of this, but in fact, it was the US who lifted sanctions on Iranian oil when the oil prices were spiking as they were bombing them. I mean, the whole thing is ass backwards, in my opinion. Unless there's some phenomenal five game, five, six, seven dimensional chess being.
- [11:24]
A
There is no chess.
- [11:25]
B
Whole new world order.
- [11:27]
A
No, you're absolutely right. And listen, this war has done something for me personally. You know, I've tried to find a way to see my way through what the President and his team are up to, to try to analyze what Rubio and the civilians are doing on one side and the military is doing on another and try to figure out exactly what the rationales for these things are. And unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that it's not going to be possible to do that because there is no logic. Think about it. A week ago, President Trump said he didn't care about the Strait of Hormuz. Let's let everyone else take care of it. We don't need it. We've got our own oil. Obviously he cares about it. Obviously the world cares about it. What he's struggling with is the mistake that was made in letting Iran have a big say in which ships go in and out of the Strait of Hormuz and thus have a stranglehold on the world economy, which he does care about. I don't see us solving the Iranian US Issue. I think the best we can do is prevent the war from restarting and figure out a tolerable way to open the Strait of Hormuz. That doesn't give Iran all the advantages, which is what it wanted.
- [12:42]
B
Meantime, it has a very, very significant disadvantage. Obviously, a huge amount of its infrastructure, including civilian infrastructure, like schools and hospitals, universities, pharmaceutical companies, all those kinds of things that have been for civilian use and for their economy. Many, many hundreds of them have been bombed. According to the New York Times potentially a million people have lost their jobs. This is catastrophic for the country, for the people. Could lead to more protests. Who knows how the Iranian regime would react to that. But it's absolutely catastrophic for the country. You know, even as we were all. And the rest of the world was outraged over his. We're going to wipe out civilization. Remember that? The Iranian civilization. That's what we were talking about last week. But it's very, very bad inside ir and they obviously want the sanctions lifted. They obviously want what they, you know, their assets frozen, assets elsewhere unfrozen, and they obviously want, you know, want reparations. Whether they're ever going to get that, I don't know. But I'm just mindful. Jamie, it is now almost 20 minutes, almost the entire of our first segment, that we are talking about an issue, the Strait of Hormuz, which was not an issue one hour before this war was launched. And now all of a sudden, it's the issue.
- [14:04]
A
Exactly. Donald Trump has opened a Pandora's box that should have stayed closed. Iran always had the theoretical capability to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz. And it's something the American military planned for and was concerned about, but it never actually implemented that threat. And the entire shipping industry now has to make an adjustment and decide whether they're going to let Iran's threat. And it's not that hard to implement with drones and modern technology, on modern satellite technology and identification technology. They have these speedboats that can come in and out and, and threaten ships.
- [14:42]
B
Those are the irgc.
- [14:44]
A
Yeah. It's not going to be easy to, to simply declare it open, free and safe the way it was before the war. And that was your point, and you're absolutely right.
- [14:54]
B
Yeah. And, and you know, we're being told by people who monitor all this financial stuff that we haven't even really felt the height or the peak of the economic pain that, that, that the world is going to feel. Prices in the United States, as I said, terrible problems in, in Asia, problems over here. Look, you know what? President Trump is going to be 80 at some point or another. I don't know when, but, but that's old. And people are starting to talk about in the press that this has not only been a miscalculation by the United States, even though they are, and they do believe they've, they've had a big victory here. But also, you know, some, some articles have started to question his, quote, quote, quote, his sanity. Do you think the guy's lost his marbles or some Mental acuity. Honestly, we wake up today to find him, at least here on this side of the, of the Atlantic. I mean, a long post against Pope Leo. It's just like, seriously, I mean, really, it's just out of, out of, out of the realm of whatever we've heard by any president before regarding a pope. And people are beginning to wonder, does he have anybody who tells him he's also started talking about Greenland again.
- [16:10]
A
Jamie, it's not an easy thing to be an American and to have watched my country taken over by someone who has said the things that Donald Trump said, whether they're a result of what you're calling, you know, a loss of his full cognitive capabilities or not. I'm not a doctor. I'm not even going to analyze it. What I can tell you is that because President Trump has dominated his policymaking and really exercised the power of the presidency in a way that no president before really has. In previous presidencies, the president had real cabinets, real advisors who made real decisions and made real, gave real advice and made consensus decisions. They were brought to the president's attention. That's how decisions would have been made before this war and would have said, well, do we want to risk having Iran close the Strait of Hormuz? Because that's what they're going to do if we start this war. Everyone knew it, who stayed, but they played it down, and they played it down, and they didn't take it into account. And so what I can say is, what's unfortunately happened is this wild swings back and forth by the president on every single subject from capitulation to Stone Age to, you know, we care about the strait. We don't care about the strait. We're pulling out of NATO. We're not pulling out of NATO. All of these wild swings, unfortunately, now have become government policy, and so people don't know which way to turn. The simple previous ability to be a diplomat and say, here's what the United States thinks about a subject is gone.
- [17:47]
B
But do you think it's worse than, you know, how. You know, how he's constantly berating Biden. You work for Biden, but you know, what happened at the end of that administration and how he showed that he was just too old and too tired and, and maybe not too focused enough to be president or to run for the presidency. I'm sure you have your own ideas, but given that that is what Trump came into, it's extraordinary that he's behaving like this right now. And now his mental acuity is Being debated.
- [18:18]
A
Well, look, President Biden slowed down. There's no question about it. President Biden was different by the end of his term than he was when I worked for him for all those years as a senator and at the beginning of his administration. But, and this is the point I was making, President Biden understood that the presidency and the government of the United States in foreign policy is not a one man job. And so he was able to delegate decision making to a group of people who were responsible officials from the mainstream of American foreign policy, whether that was Tony Blinken or Lloyd Austin or Jake Sullivan or, or, you know, the director of the CIA. These were normal officials and they gave him collective advice. Sometimes he said yes, sometimes he said no. But he wasn't demanding that every single one who worked for him agree with every single thing he said. And he wasn't swinging from one side of the fence to the other and making statements that went from one extreme to the other. He did slow down, no question about that. But Tony Blinken told me that when it came to foreign policy and he had to a decision, he made a decision. And in the end, I think we're going to be, all of us missing those days when Russia and China saw the United States leading the world and we didn't have this war in Iran and we had an America that was respected and an America that was admired and feared as a result of the decisions that we made to help Ukraine and to support, whether you like it or not, Israel in its war against Hamas. So those were the good old days
- [20:01]
B
when you, oh, I'm not. Because I'm not going to accept the hate when you say those were the good old days because that was a catastrophe. The whole Israel, Gaza, I know, everywhere, Israel, Syria, Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah. I mean, I can't even Israel, it's, it's an issue even for Trump, who wanted them to, as he said, check their attacks on Lebanon while they were trying to get some kind of a ceasefire with Iran. In any event, when we come back, we are going to talk, Jamie, about something is making at least liberal democracy and those who believe in liberal democracy, which the actual real term, as opposed to authoritarian democracy or illiberal democracy, people in Europe are happy and you can imagine Ukraine is happy, the EU is happy. Russia is not happy. The US Trump, Vance will not be happy. Why? Because the Prime Minister of Hungary, 16 years in office, was finally toppled in a very fair election, overwhelmingly and convincingly by an opponent, Peter Magyar. We'll talk about that after the break. Back with the second segment of the X Files discussing something that affects really all of Europe, certainly the Russia, Ukraine war and the United States of America. And that is the defeat over the weekend of Victor Orban, who was Hungary's illiberal, illiberally democratic prime minister for 16 years and really influenced a lot, not just in Hungary, but for right wing movements all over Europe and certainly was an inspiration to those in the United States. And also he was very close to Trump, to Vance, to Maga and all the rest of it. Jamie, what do you think? Let's just say for America, look, I'm
- [21:56]
A
a Democrat, everyone knows that. I obviously would like to see change in my country. What I think is crucial about this, and really a big deal is what Orban did to Hungary was try to break all of the guardrails. He tried to defeat the systems of liberalism with a small L that make democracy and the rule of law successful. He worked on the courts, he worked on the political parties, he cracked down on the press. By the end, people thought that roughly 80 or 90% of the media in Hungary was roughly, was government controlled. So he used every or either controlled or influenced. Exactly. And so think about it. Despite all of that effort to destroy the democratic way of life that we believe in, in the United States and around the world, Victor Orban tried every trick in the book with packing the courts, trying to change the Constitution, putting people in jail, doing whatever he could. The people finally spoke and said they'd had enough. And I, and when we get to our recommendations, I'll get back to this in a minute. And what it tells you is that despite all the pain and all the suffering that the world went through with Viktor Orban there and damaging Western foreign policy, and we can talk about that in a second because this is the best news the Ukrainian people could possibly have that Orban is gone.
- [23:26]
B
Well, let's explain why, though. First of all, for Ukraine, Orban was always seemed to be against Ukraine and always definitely pro Putin. And he really did keep taking Putin's oil despite the sanctions. He more importantly stood in the way of an EU consensus many times, including this latest time, to stop something like 92 billion euros of aid loans going to Ukraine. They desperately need it just to keep the government going. He was very, very, you know, tricky like that, and sort of, again, sort of held Europe, which has to operate on a total unanimity and consensus really was very, very difficult, not to mention for the, for the Hungarians themselves. But you know what, Jamie? In the end, you know what it was that done him in. It was the economy. He was not providing for the people in the way that he had promised to, in the way that they expected. And his opponent, Peter Magyar, who was from his party, Fidesz, then broke with him and, you know, launched this other party and, you know, wow, it's incredible.
- [24:33]
A
That's what's very interesting about it in two ways. So on Ukraine, let me just point out. So I worked for the Biden administration and I saw Europe getting increasingly strong and powerful in terms of its willingness to support Ukraine, in terms of military assistance, standing up to Russia's threats, providing Ukraine financial and military wherewithal to keep the war going, to show Putin that he can't win this war. And they have done done that successfully. But every month, every six weeks, an elaborate dance had to be played to figure out how to get around Hungary. Because Orban used his power to block sanctions on Russia or to block aid to Ukraine anytime he could. And when he did that, the European Union couldn't find easily workarounds. Now, occasionally they did, and much assistance did flow. But now Europe is going to be able to stand united, which is why the leaders of Europe are saying the heart of Europe is now beating again, because Hungary is in the middle of Europe and certainly is considered a central European power. And Europe is now going to be able to show its strength on the issue of Ukraine. And I think that's crucial for American politics. I don't know whether there's an analogy, but I certainly hope my Democratic colleagues understand that Viktor Orban was not beaten by an ideological opponent from the. He was beaten by what you might call a Hungarian centrist, someone who adopted the phrase Magyar is his name. I guess it's pronounced Magyar. I'm not sure about that.
- [26:12]
B
Don't try.
- [26:14]
A
I won't try. But the point is that they found someone who could win. And I believe that when the Democrats come around to nominating a nominee in this country, they are going to have the same sense of importance that what matters is we have someone in who's going to return us to the way we used to do business. Remember, Hungary was at the forefront of the fight against Moscow throughout the communist period. And then somehow in some warped around the corner, I guess they call it the horseshoe effect. Orban somehow became a Putin ally. It was mind boggling to watch. Madeleine Albright, who I worked with very, very closely, knew Orban as a young man and worked with him in the great rev that overthrew communism in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. She worked with him and thought he was a, you know, really respected him. She could never understand what happened to this man.
- [27:14]
B
Well, what happened, apparently, if you read the profiles on him, and there are many very interesting ones, and he is a really interesting figure for the, for the massive transformation he went. He was that kind of person for a long time who believed in all that. Liberal and Democrat. When we say liberal is with a small L, which for, you know, interested viewers and listeners means freedom. Okay? Freedom, liberal freedom. That's what it means. From the Latin. No, not left, not radical, not radical chic, not radical left. Anyway, it was after he lost one of his elections that he became surrounded by, you know, people who do this for a living. How do I win after having lost? You know what I mean? And they go to culture wars and they go to Christian family values and they go to, to immigration, and they go to all those things. And he eventually stood for a white Christian European nation, and that is what he stood for. And it played out in many of the refugee crises, certainly in 2015. You remember there was the razor wire, they wouldn't let them in, etc, and that translated around Europe to Le Pen, to AFD and also to maga. And I actually think it's really, really interesting that JD Van. I don't know what they were thinking. Why do you think Trump sent J.D. vance to, to campaign for, for him?
- [28:35]
A
Which there's a reason.
- [28:37]
B
But also people say in Hungary, the, the experts were saying this might not be a good idea because even the right wing in Europe is distancing itself from Trump right now. Or some of Trump's policies.
- [28:48]
A
Exactly. Here, here. You know, earlier, by the way, the
- [28:51]
B
far right, I meant to say.
- [28:52]
A
Yes, earlier in the first section, we talked about trying to ascertain what makes the Trump administration tick. One thing that definitely makes it tick is how they have personalized foreign policy in the past. The United States might have secretly hoped that Orban would lose. And I remember being in meetings in the government where we had preferences, but we didn't believe it was our job. Did you really? Yes, we didn't believe it was our job to state those preferences. What the Trump administration does do, in terms of economics, in terms of business, in terms of his family, in terms of himself and his friends, has personalized American foreign policy. They actually judge decisions in Europe based based on whether it's good for the right wing parties rather than the centrist parties. If it's good for the right wing parties, that's an advantage for them in a stated and open way. And that's never happened before.
- [29:48]
B
We've, but you know, that's part of their national security doctrine. Remember, it's part of what J.D. vance, you know, launched, launched that broadside against Europe and his allies when he first came in 25 to the Munich Security Conference, basically accused, you know, the Europeans of crushing freedom of expression of people like, you know, of other European nations. And he was talking about, you know, right versus, versus centrist.
- [30:16]
A
Before we leave Hungary, though, I should say that we, we should not expect the government of Hungary to move that far on some of these ideological issues. They're going to be in the center on immigration, on perhaps LGBT issues and other issues where the Hungarian people spoke. They'd had enough of Orban, but they still have a pretty strong conservative approach and at least for Ukraine, that's why I say the big victors are Ukraine, because I can't imagine this. Magyar has made clear that he believes being part of the EU was one of the great things that Hungary had and he will no longer be the blackmailer of the EU Council when they're trying to make decisions on Ukraine.
- [31:06]
B
Yeah, hopefully that $92 billion or euros will be unfrozen right now. Interestingly, of course, Putin would have been shocked and horrified to lose his ally. But Dmitry Peskov, his, you know, his, his right hand man and spokesman came out and said, you know, know, the, the, the Hungarian people have spoken. I love that from the Russians who don't let the Russians speak, but the Hungarian people have spoken and we will work with the next government. So that's the first, first gambit out of the blocks from, from the Kremlin. And I just wonder what you think it means for J.D. vance, who's put a lot of personal capital into backing, you know, people like Orban, not to mention, you know, whatever he did in Islamabad with, with the Iran thing. But, but remember, remember we've still got an issue with, with the far right in Germany. AfD may win a very important local election and may govern one of the important states near Berlin. And here in the UK next month we've got a local elections where reform, which is, you know, the, the inheritor, the heir to the Brexit party, a lot of the same policies as Orban and that, that they stand to win big in these local elections.
- [32:20]
A
Coming up, J.D. vance and the Trump administration are going to continue doing what we just discussed. They're going to continue to use the power of American foreign policy to support right wing candidates. They've made that clear in simple programs. They, whether it's public diplomacy, whether it's where he shows up, whether it's economic assistance, whatever it is, they are, they believe they're. Their victory in the Democratic election in the United States gives them the right to support right wing candidates around the world. That's what they're going to do. Now, sometimes there may be other candidates that win and they'll do business with them. But this is not going to stop J.D. vance from doing the support for the far right in Europe. It's not going to change their views on Rubio's views on immigration and Western values and all of these highfalutin phrases they use. What they forget about all this is that the Europeans have been America's strongest allies for generations. And it's more about the what's happening in Iran that affects our relationship with Europe than all the rest of it. And that's what is a real tragedy right now.
- [33:29]
B
Okay, I just want to wrap up this segment before we go to our recommendations on a little note, which is that Trump, as I said earlier, woke up with a diatribe against the first ever American, American, Pope Leo, and basically said, get on side or get lost. I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but Pope Leo is anti war and Trump thinks that he should back his war. Pope Leo is for peace, as most Christian prelates would, would be, as you would expect. And you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Remember, an American president, also a Republican, that would be Ronald Reagan in the early 80s, really supported Pope John Paul II and the Solidarity movement in Poland, which overthrew eventually the Communist regime. So what's good for the gander is good for the goose or vice versa. Trump is just pissed off. I think I can say that on this, that not everybody in the world is supporting his war on Iran. Shall we take a break and come back with our recommendations?
- [34:31]
A
Let's do that.
- [34:38]
B
Okay. We are back with our recommendations. And you know what? I'm gonna go first this time because I can barely contain myself. I discovered Bill Nighy, the actor, and his podcast, which is called Ill Advised. And I just love it because it's literally, as he says, the most inconsequential stuff ever. But it's such a relief, Peace, it is such a relief. And you just laugh at the, at them taking the most inconsequential stuff super seriously. And he speaks so brilliantly. He's a great actor. Remember, he played in many, many things, but including love, actually. And people have been in this war, essentially Comparing the Hugh Grant Prime Minister character in Love actually with Keir Starmer in that they stood up against an American President asking, you know, know a little too much of. Of them. So, Bill Nighy, ill advised. I like it.
- [35:36]
A
Got it. Well, I think people know by now who watch us that I like to try to find things to give me some inspiration from a positive sense. So over the weekend we were able to watch an advance screening of a documentary and you're going to get a kick out of this, Christiane, I'm sure. And it's called the Day Iceland Stood Still.
- [35:59]
B
Oh, I've seen it. I've heard it on my show. I've interviewed the Icelandic Prime Minister. It is brilliant. Go on, Jamie, take it away.
- [36:06]
A
It is absolutely brilliant. And it's. The Day Iceland Stood still was a day when all the women of Iceland, roughly 92 or 93%, had what they called a day off. And the reason why I think it was so important to use that phrase day off is because that was the compromise world word that the women's groups came up with. This began from the left, from a women's liberation movement. I think they were called the, the Red Stockings and they wanted to call a strike. And at that time in the 70s, strikes were, you know, associated with the left and it was thought of as a word that would lose the right wing. And there was a big meeting of all the women and the group of women that were from the right side of the spectrum said, we're not going to participate in something that's a strike. And someone said, well, what if we just call it a day off? And the women. This is a part of the film that I thought was really important for our politics because it showed you what a compromise can do to change the world. Because by doing the word day off, they then got 92% of the women to do this and it changed Iceland forever. And now Iceland is the most, most, I think, by all the standards, the most gender equal country in, in the world in terms of its governance, in terms of members of parliament, in terms of the way its judges are picked, all of that. It's, it's got roughly half and half. Not exactly, but roughly. And people think that that all grew out of that moment when the women, their power to take a day off.
- [37:46]
B
Yeah.
- [37:47]
A
And show the men that the country stops.
- [37:49]
B
Yeah. I mean, literally day off was domestic as well, I. E. Household chores and taking kids to school and doing and teaching and all, as well as professional jobs. Yeah.
- [38:00]
A
So it's a movie directed by Pamela Hogan. I think it's going out to various documentary festivals and I just urge people because it's a great watch for two reasons. One, it shows you what the power of the people is. We talked about that with Hungary. It's something we haven't talked a lot about in recent years because Democratic choices haven't been so wonderful from my standpoint. But maybe it will inspire people and to understand how important compromise is to achieve something. By choosing the word day off, they were able to succeed.
- [38:38]
B
Absolutely. I'm still dying to go to Iceland. I haven't been. I'm dying to go to Iceland. I really, I just love the whole idea of Iceland and that film. I'm glad you brought it up because it was wonderful. Wonderful. Right, Jamie, that's it. Thank you everybody, for listening. And remember, you can always listen for free on Global Player, but you can also always watch everything on YouTube. You just search Christiana Manpour Presents and you'll be able to watch everything. And don't forget, we will have our bonus episode coming on Thursday. That's where we love to answer your questions and see what's on your mind. So do just keep sending them in on our email and on our social media at Amanpur Pod. We're on. Right, that's it for this week. And we'll see where the standoff between the United States and Iran leads.
- [39:24]
A
Goodbye from New York. This has been a Global Player original production.