Ian Bremmer Says There Is No Iran Deal

Summary

The Chris Cuomo Project

Episode: Ian Bremmer Says There Is No Iran Deal
Date: July 7, 2026
Host: Chris Cuomo
Guest: Ian Bremmer

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Chris Cuomo interviews geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmer to untangle current myths and realities regarding the so-called “Iran deal,” Israel’s role, the changing landscape of U.S. alliances, the influence of AI on geopolitics and the midterms, and the dynamics driving American political polarization. The conversation offers a critical, nuanced perspective on how international events and domestic politics are deeply interconnected, moving from big-picture geopolitics to granular analysis of U.S. political trends.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. There Is No “Iran Deal”

• No Substantive Deal Exists ([02:20]):

  • Ian Bremmer: “A deal brings us back to the Obama JCPOA, the nuclear deal... We're nowhere close to that. All we're talking about is getting the strait reopened. And it mostly is… That's not a deal. It’s not a deal at all.”
  • What’s been accomplished: Reduction in fighting, reopening of Strait of Hormuz, partial return to status quo but with Iran receiving substantial financial benefit.
  • No new nuclear agreement has been negotiated or agreed to by Iran.

• Financial Leverage and Loss of U.S. Advantage ([03:32]):

  • Iran has secured financial rewards by regaining access to oil markets and having assets unfrozen, all without making substantive nuclear concessions.

• Analogy with Previous Trump Foreign Policy ([05:41]):

  • Comparison to Trump’s failed tariff war with China—initial bravado, but forced retreat when the economic fallout hits home.
  • Notable quote ([06:49]):
    Bremmer: "Trump, who can throw a big punch but can't take one, has a glass jaw, had to back down. That's what we've now seen. He's 0 for 2 on his big swings."

2. Narrative Manipulation and Political Blame Games

• Shifting Blame to Israel & Netanyahu ([12:53]):

  • Cuomo highlights a growing narrative from Trump’s circle—the suggestion that Netanyahu and Israel misled the administration about the threat posed by Iran.
  • Cuomo warns this line can fuel antisemitic interpretations.

• Bremmer’s Response on Blame ([14:31]):

  • "We need to do everything possible to ensure that Prime Minister Netanyahu's failures have nothing to do with the way people think about the Jewish people."
  • Netanyahu is portrayed as acting in self-interest, not Israeli or Jewish collective interest; both Israelis and Trump have reason to distrust him.
  • Trump is ultimately responsible for his foreign policy, not Bibi.

3. Israeli Public Sentiment and Security Realities

• Shift to the Right in Israeli Society ([19:28]):

  • After October 7, Israelis largely reject two-state solutions, support ongoing occupation until Hamas and Hezbollah are fully disarmed, and generally blame Netanyahu for policy failures but want aggressive military responses against threats.

• Ally Dynamics—Complex, Not Binary ([21:14]):

  • Allies have their own interests—even close ones like Israel, Poland, or Japan. Intelligence from Israel is valuable but often filtered.
  • Trust at its highest only among "Five Eyes" (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand).

4. The Iran Situation and U.S. Politics

• Midterm Impacts Likely Minimal, but Policy Failure Looms Large ([23:56]):
  • The Iran war/failure will likely fade from dominating midterm politics, but its inflationary aftermath will persist.
  • “As a failure on foreign policy, it's by far the largest we've seen since the Iraq war. So it's major and it's costly... Inflation's gonna be higher in November than it would have been if Trump hadn't decided that he wanted to go all in on Iran.” — Bremmer ([24:36])
  • Forecast: “There will probably be no deal.” ([25:30])

5. Israel, AI, and Geopolitical Leverage

• Israeli AI Capabilities: Hype vs. Reality ([26:21]):
  • Israel is advanced in intelligence, surveillance, and some AI development but relies heavily on partnerships with U.S. firms.
  • Big tech AI leadership remains with American and Chinese companies. Ukraine is emerging as a key AI military innovator.
  • U.S. should prioritize broader collaboration, especially with Ukraine, to leapfrog in warfighting tech.

6. The Urgency and Challenge of AI Regulation

• AI Compared to Electricity—But Faster and More Dangerous ([28:50], [29:47]):

  • Cuomo likens AI's impact to the invention of electricity but warns it’s a more powerful, society-altering force that moves faster.

  • Bremmer: Responds that only crises (e.g., drone attacks, bio incidents) will likely spur serious government intervention. Current regulatory responses are reactive, not proactive.

  • Notable Quote ([31:20]):
    "Bremmer: The technology is moving too fast. The government leaders don't have the capacity, don't know what they're doing. The companies have spent an awful lot of money to ensure that they can mostly self-regulate in areas... The threats... are too many for the US government... to know what they should put resources into, what they should regulate, what they should govern."

7. AI’s Economic and Political Influence

• Trump Siding with Tech Titans ([32:59]):

  • Cuomo argues that Trump has chosen to align with AI/tech industry leaders, favoring their interests due to their economic weight.
  • Bremmer: “The kleptocracy, the self-dealing, the billions and billions of... manipulation of the stock market... there’s no swamp being drained.” ([33:57])

• AI Is Outpacing Regulation ([36:03]):

  • Even when government intervenes (e.g., Treasury on Anthropic’s Mythos), it's narrowly focused and occurs post-crisis.
  • Bremmer: “I accept the electricity analogy. Except this is much bigger and bigger than electricity... there's no ability for the government to work in lockstep with the technology.”

8. China, AI, and Global Power

• Electrostate Model, but Not Primed for Domination ([36:54]):

  • China leads in energy storage, EVs, solar panels, robotics, some biotech, but its economy is internally troubled and not catching up to the U.S.
  • Bremmer: “Their AI, the safety around AI and their models is going to have the same riddled with the same problems as the us... Application side, they’ll have military industrial advantages, but that doesn’t mean global supremacy.”

• On Chinese Technological Talent ([38:20], [39:27]):

  • Chinese universities and STEM programs are world-class; fewer students come to the U.S. because their own infrastructure and political dynamics have changed.

9. Horseshoe Polarization and Political Extremes

• America Is Mirroring Global Extremism Trends ([41:39], [42:20]):

  • The far-right MAGA movement has been met, and possibly surpassed, by a new, college-educated, left-wing "mega" movement.
  • Both right and left are rebelling against the establishment, driven by economic anxiety, anger, and a sense of little to lose.

• Pragmatism vs. Populist “Sexy” Politics ([44:35]):

  • Bremmer and Cuomo note that pragmatic solutions aren't as attractive or "sexy" as calls to “disrupt” or embrace “socialism.”
  • Generational divide: Younger voters, especially college educated, are driving these changes. “At some point you have to ask what is it that they are seeing that the old guys aren't seeing?” — Bremmer ([46:43])

• Prediction for Midterms ([46:43], [47:05]):

  • Expect disruption on both sides; both MAGA incumbents and establishment Democrats could lose. Anger and demand for change dominate the electorate.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On U.S. Leverage and Trump’s “Big Swings” ([06:49]):

  • Bremmer: “Trump, who can throw a big punch but can't take one, has a glass jaw, had to back down. That's what we've now seen. He's 0 for 2 on his big swings.”

• On Netanyahu and Blame-Shifting ([14:31]):

  • Bremmer: “We need to do everything possible to ensure that Prime Minister Netanyahu's failures have nothing to do with the way people think about the Jewish people. ... The buck stops with Trump.”

• On Israel’s Popular Sentiment After October 7 ([19:28]):

  • Bremmer: “Despite the fact that the Israeli people blame Netanyahu for falling asleep at the switch... they absolutely support continued military operations in Gaza and in Lebanon against Hezbollah.”

• On AI Regulation and Crisis Management ([31:20]):

  • Bremmer: “The technology is moving too fast. The government leaders don't have the capacity... Too many vectors of threat for the US government... respond post-crisis. And that of course should worry us.”

• On AI Compared to Electricity ([36:03]):

  • Bremmer: “I accept the electricity analogy. Except this is much bigger and bigger than electricity. ... There's no ability... for the government to work in lockstep with the technology.”

• On Polarization and Generational Political Change ([46:43]):

  • Bremmer: “Almost everyone we know under 30 [voted for the far-left]. At some point you have to ask what is it that they are seeing that the old guys aren't seeing? Because they are the future and they're sick of 80 year old Trump and 80 year old Biden telling them this is the way it's gonna go... I'd like to see the next president under, under 50. I'd like that. I really would.”

---

Timestamps of Important Segments

• [02:20] – Bremmer explains why there is no Iran “deal.”
• [05:41] – Analogy to Trump’s failed tariff war with China, “glass jaw.”
• [14:31] – Bremmer responds to blame-shifting on Netanyahu and Israel.
• [19:28] – Israeli public attitude toward military action and Bibi.
• [23:56] – Iran’s likely non-impact on the midterms, inflation as key legacy.
• [25:30] – “There will probably be no deal” on Iran.
• [26:21] – Bremmer breaks down Israeli AI capabilities.
• [28:50] – Cuomo and Bremmer discuss analogies for AI’s societal impact.
• [31:20] – Bremmer on governments’ inability to proactively regulate AI.
• [36:03] – Bremmer views AI as outpacing government capacity.
• [41:39] – Horseshoe polarization and U.S. political radicalization.
• [46:43] – Generational divide and prediction for midterm disruptions.

---

Flow, Tone, and Speaker Style

• Chris Cuomo presses for clarity, challenges assumptions, and brings a characteristic urgency and skepticism about media narratives.
• Ian Bremmer is analytical, blunt, and occasionally wry, providing historical context, analogies, and sharp criticism of both foreign and domestic political actors.
• The tone is fast-paced, conversational, but dense with substance, reflecting mutual respect and familiarity.

---

Conclusion

This episode is a masterclass in critical thinking for listeners wanting to understand the true state of U.S.-Iran relations, the shifting sands of global alliances, the unstoppable advance of AI, and the surging forces of American political extremism. Cuomo and Bremmer together cut through “the noise” to provide actionable insights for anyone seeking to interpret the headlines—and the subtext—of this volatile moment.

Transcript

[A]

Are we anywhere close to a deal with Iran? Is this really Israel's fault? Is what's going on somehow related to AI? Is AI everything? And is AI going to drive the midterms? And is what we're seeing in the midterms right now, horseshoe polarization that has been seen all over the place in the world. Are those things real? Yes. And here's what you need to know. There are answers to each and all of these things. The noise is actually distracting from real signal. There are answers. How do I know? Because I got the guy who has them. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. Ian Bremmer, this guy travels the whole world all the time for Gzero Media and he is a leading international geopolitical thinker and understanding of the diplomatic, the socioeconomic, economic, the straight economic, the political, the political economies, all of it in real time. That's what he does. How does he see where things stand with Iran or not, Israel's role or not, what it means back here at home now and at the midterms? And what is happening here and what is actually driving it and where does it lead us? So many questions. Why? Critical thinkers have questions and the problem is that people throw answers at you that really just suit their agenda. So what is a clear eyed analysis? What is the deeper look? How is it all connected? What does it mean? That takes us to Mr. Ian Bremmer. Ian Bremmer, as I live and breathe, I don't think I've ever had more need for your perspective, both in terms of what's happening to, to America, from America abroad and at home. And I've been following your feed even more closely than always and you are very tuned in. So let's start abroad and move into home.

[B]

It's always good to see you, Chris. Happy to do it.

[A]

Pleasure, brother. So the Iran deal in quotes, is that even the right word?

[B]

No, it's not the right word. It is because a deal brings us back to the Obama jcpoa, the nuclear deal. And it makes us think about is this a better deal, is it a worse deal? We're nowhere close to that. All we're talking about is getting the strait reopened. And it mostly is right. I mean, that's why oil prices are coming down and the ships are going through. It's not 100%, and some of that is Iranian chippiness and leverage. And some of it is it just takes time to actually unstuck the waterway. And we also have virtually, I wouldn't say no Fighting, but very limited fighting compared to where we were before the ceasefire. That's not a deal. It's not a deal at all. But it does get us closer to the status quo ante, where we can put behind us the disastrous missteps of the last four plus months.

[A]

The argument is, no, no, no, no, no, not, not disastrous. Got us to a better place. Something had to be happened. They were about to have nukes and now we're going to get a better deal than we've ever had before.

[B]

Yeah, that's the argument. I don't see it. If that were to happen, I'd be delighted, of course, as would you. We'd certainly love to see the Iranians come to the table and give up all of their enriched uranium stocks and willingly allow inspectors in to ensure that that is indeed happening and not engage in en going forward. I am very skeptical that will happen. That has not happened. They have not agreed to that. They haven't come close to agreeing to that. And they've gotten a lot of money for a country that hasn't agreed to any of those things. Right. They've gotten money from being able to now sell once again, as they did at the beginning of the war, their exported oil at pretty significant rates. And also we're seeing significant amounts of their assets being unfrozen. That's. Well, before we talk about some possible in the future nuclear deal that no Iranians have agreed to, and there haven't really been serious negotiations since the war started.

[A]

Why are my friends in Riyadh and in Amman saying, I can't believe you people agreed in the MoU to treat the regime as a sovereign? Is this really that unusual? And why is it something we don't really talk about at home, but seems to really piss off my friends in Saudi Arabia and Jordan?

[B]

Well, I think they're surprised in a way, because the war was predicated on the notion that the regime itself was illegitimate. That's why it was decapitated. Trump did say he was going to change the regime, did say he would choose the next supreme leader. That was a moment of overconfidence. Shall we say Jews?

[A]

Did you just slip in the Jews?

[B]

Oh, no, my friend. I didn't say anything about the Jews. This isn't Tucker Carlson.

[A]

I said I knew it was the Jews.

[B]

I said Jew. Oh, Jews. No, we're just first. We're on Saudi Arabia and Jordan. We can get to Israel eventually, if you like. And remember, antisemitism and anti Zionism are two different things, though there's frequently overlap. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about why it was that Trump decided to do this extraordinary deal with an Islamic republic that he considers to support terrorism and is illegitimate and has killed thousands upon thousands of its own citizens brutally back in January. And the answer is because they had the leverage. And if you talk to White House officials privately, that's what they tell you. And even Trump publicly said it was going to be an economic catastrophe if the US Continued the boycott. Well, if the Iranians know that Trump felt that way, and they do, then why would they possibly give him anything? And so the Americans were stuck, and Trump was stuck, going cap in hand to Iran, basically saying, what do I need to do to get you to reopen the strait that had been open before? That is the problem. And it's very analogous not to Vietnam or Afghanistan. It's analogous to Trump's first big foreign policy mistake, where he thought he had leverage and he didn't with the Chinese, where he hit them really hard with all of these tariffs and essentially a boycott. And then the Chinese hit him back really hard. And suddenly he realized, within weeks you were gonna have factories shut down, just like within weeks you were gonna have oil prices over 150. And in both cases, Trump, who can throw a big punch but can't take one, has a glass jaw, had to back down. That's what we've now seen. He's 0 for 2 on his big swings. His big swings. Venezuela was a big win. Wasn't a big swing. These were big swings. Decapitation against the Islamic Republic and an effort to bring the world's second largest economy to its knees. 0 for 2.

[A]

A for effort.

[B]

No, A for effort. I mean, I for incomplete. You know, you gotta actually show up at these lectures, right? You gotta actually turn in your work. And I mean, you know, he looked really good in the first class, no question. He had great stuff in the first inning, right? I mean, high and tight, he was throwing some heat. A second inning, I don't know where that pitcher was. You know, they were calling up triple A ball, and by the fifth inning, he was gassed and they had to pull him and they had to bring in somebody else. What? I don't know what metaphor you're looking for here, Chris, but there are plenty.

[A]

They say, well, hold on. You're ignoring the only thing that matters. They were weeks away from a nuclear weapon. It was imminent. Somebody had to do something. Trump finally had the knockus to get it done.

[B]

The Nakis. Yes. I mean, look, I think no one questions that Trump has the nachos, at least until he gets kicked in him, right? Nobody questions that. But there was no sense that the Iranians were intent on developing a nuclear weapon. Because if they developed a nuclear weapon, they were going to get blown up, right, by the Israelis and probably by the Americans too. They saw that last year in June with the 12 Day War. And so no, they definitely had. Ever since the Americans pulled out of the jcpoa, or should I say the Trump administration, unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA in the first term, the Iranians started building up their advanced uranium, enriched uranium stockpiles. So yes, they got much closer to a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon capability, if not intent, because of the withdrawal. And then the Americans blew em up once and frankly, there was good argument that the US should have done it again. As the Israelis say, mow the grass. Right, and that is ensuring that you continue to constrain their capabilities. Now that is not a decapitation attack against the Supreme Leader and all the top military leaders. That's not taking out energy infrastructure and driving black rain across all of Tehran. That's not taking out their navy. It's none of those things. It's making sure that the weapons capacity that they are getting closer to, they get farther away from, as the Americans did a year ago. Why didn't the US do that again? There's literally no one in the Trump administration making the argument that they needed to go much, much bigger, radically bigger. Because of course, what was impressive about the 12 Day War, and remember, the US didn't start it, the Israelis started it. Even though it was so urgent, Trump didn't wanna be a part of it to begin with until it was successful. And then he said, okay, now I'm gonna get involved. But at that point, the Iranians talked really big against the Americans. They did hit the Israelis and they killed a fair number of Israeli citizens with their ballistic missiles. They weren't striking at the US the one strike they had against the American Qatari base, they gave the Americans a heads up through Turkey and Iraq hours before to ensure that this did not escalate. So I mean, the Americans understood that not only did you have a reason to hit the Iranians in a strategic way, in a surgical way, when they're developing their enriched uranium stocks and they are enriching at a higher level, but also that the Iranians don't hit back. Now, what Trump then decided to do in February, out of an extraordinary overabundance of confidence coming off of Venezuela. And his win there is. He wasn't gonna just mow the lawn again. He was going to change the Iranian regime. Also on the back of all those Iranians that were killed by the same regime, he was gonna remove the Supreme Leader and their leaders. And his presumption, which was wildly wrong, was that they would then bend the knee, as he expected the Chinese would, and they would do whatever possible to cut a deal with Trump and that he would be able to get them to align with U.S. investment and oil flows and all of that stuff, like we're seeing from Delsey Rodriguez in Venezuela. And when that did not happen, when instead the Iranians broke glass, pull lever, because they're facing an emergency of regime change, Trump has literally no plan, none, zero. So that's the problem. That's the problem.

[A]

You keep saying, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Yeah, but what I'm hearing more and more from the Trump administration, and I don't know if you'll remember this, but when we were first talking about this, I was worried. I didn't know that I'd be right, but I was worried that they would come to the conclusion, somebody's gotta own this and it ain't gonna be us. That fucking Bibi Netanyahu, man, he duped us. He lied to us. He told Trump and we told Trump, you can't trust this guy. He's not your friend. Trump said, well, I want to give him a chance. I love the Jews. And Bibi said, they're weeks away. Bibi said, we can take them all out, and if we don't, this is the moment they come for us. And Trump trusted him, and Bibi played him. Sneaky Jews. That's what I'm hearing more and more from the people around the president. Is it true? Is it effective?

[B]

I hope the people around the president aren't telling you sneaky Jews. That would be really very, very disturbing.

[A]

No one around the president has said anything like sneaky Jews. That is how it will be heard by the feast of haters looking for meat on the bones of their anti Zionism.

[B]

Well, you and I need to do everything possible to ensure that Prime Minister Netanyahu's failures have nothing to do with the way people think about the Jewish people. And Bibi has been looking out not for the Jewish people. He hasn't even really been looking out for Israel. He's been looking out for himself. I mean, October 7th, most of the Israeli voters blame Bibi for that. You and I have talked about this for years now that he was the one that was facilitating money to Hamas so that he wouldn't have to deal with a two state solution with the Palestinian administration. He authority. He was the one that took Israeli Defense Forces away from Gaza's security towards the west bank, supporting his far right, even fascist, if you will, coalition partners that are taking, taking land, supporting the settlers in the west bank, taking his eye off the ball. He's the one that's trying to take away an independent judiciary in Israel, leading to a million people on the streets and a general labor strike that included a whole bunch of people in the armed forces and in intelligence that weren't at their desk jobs so that they could protest what they thought was a guy that was trying to destroy Israeli democracy. So lack of trust for Bibi is nothing new. Bibi looking after himself to ensure he doesn't go to jail and he stays in office is nothing new. And Trump is more aware of that than most leaders because Bibi's been trying to play Trump for years and years and years. And Trump does. Trump. Trump was the one that forced Bibi to accept the phase one Gaza deal, which Bibi didn't wanna do. And then Trump went to Israel and he addressed the Knesset and Bibi is booed. And Trump gets multiple standing ovations because he's far more popular in Israel than Bibi would ever be. So the idea that Trump is incapable of saying no to Netanyahu and that he was somehow hoodwinked by the Prime Minister of a far, far smaller country that relies on the United States for intelligence and advanced defense, and still billions of dollars of aid in defense every year, I don't accept it. I accept that he was one of several that were sort of whispering in Trump's ear, we've gotta do this, we've gotta do this. You're gonna look so great, you're gonna look so wonderful, sir. But if there's one thing I've seen this term is that everyone around Trump is competing to tell him how brilliant and wonderful he will be if only he listens to his own instinctual genius impulses. And that is a bad way to run a country, it's a bad way to run a cabinet, it's a bad way to run alliances. I mean, Mark Ruta in NATO has been doing very similar things in that regard with Trump's ego to Bibi Netanyahu. I mean, I think with better outcomes and which outcomes that are more aligned with US interests long term. But I don't think that Trump needed a lot of convincing again on the back of wild success in Venezuela, on the back of thousands and thousands of Iranians getting killed and him thinking, I'm gonna have another big win and then I can do Cuba after that. And they may not give me a peace prize, but nobody else could have done what I did. I did the Abraham Accords first time around. I'm gonna have a string of strategic victories this time around. So I'm unwilling to lay this at the doorstep of the Israeli Prime Minister. I think that he deserves some credit for it in the same way that Pete Hegseth deserves some credit. But frankly, in the same way that a lot of people even like J.D. vance and J.D. was obviously skeptical, but was he willing to air that skepticism? And we know from JD's signal conversation on the war that Trump was planning on launching against the Houthis in Yemen that JD was telling people internally, I think this is a bad idea. He's being advised badly. This is not really his interest. And Stephen Miller and Pete Hagseth and others are all going hooah. This is gonna be awesome. Thumbs up bombs to these guys. And Vance never brought it up to the president. So does Vance not deserve some credit for this Iran war when he's the sitting vice president and he has a track record of not even telling the president what he actually thinks when it's bad for the United States? I think Vance deserves some credit. There's enough credit to go around. But the buck stops with Trump. I mean, he's the guy that we elected and he's the guy that ultimately made the decision and pulled the trigger.

[A]

Two steps sideways. One step sideways. What should people know about the Israeli people's sentiment about Bibi and about how much you should do against Hamas and Hezbollah?

[B]

Oh, well, so not the Iran war, but Hamas and Hezbollah. I mean, I think that the Israeli people have moved towards the right on their political spectrum across the board since October 7th. So I mean, their view is never a two state solution. Maintain occupation, including in southern Lebanon, unless and until Gaza Hamas operatives and Hezbollah operatives are fully disarmed. That's what they want. And that has not happened. That is certainly not happening. The Lebanese government does not have the capacity to make that happen. And so that means maintain occupation. Look, there are plenty of Israelis that live in the north of the country and they are facing rocket attacks and increasingly sophisticated drone attacks from Hezbollah. It's not just that the Ukrainians that know how to do this stuff, there are a lot of IDF soldiers in occupied southern Lebanon that are now getting killed because Hezbollah now has that capacity. So I think despite the fact that the Israeli people blame Netanyahu for falling asleep at the switch and having culpability for October 7, and despite the fact that they blame him for a war that is not making them more secure with Iran, they absolutely support continued military operations in Gaza and in Lebanon against Hezbollah. Those are broadly popular positions among the Israeli citizens today.

[A]

Does that make them warmongers who are not good allies for the United States?

[B]

No, I think that the fact that you have countries around the world that have priorities that focus squarely on their direct national security interests and those interests do not completely line up with those of the United States does not make a country a bad ally. It just means the Americans need to be clear sighted. There are lots of countries around the world with very different security needs and priorities. Frontline NATO states dealing with Ukraine and Russia, like Poland and the Baltics, have very different perspectives on what they should spend, what they should do, how they should support Ukraine and how Russia should be damaged. To the views of the Spaniards or the Italians or the Canadians, for example, Japan feels differently from Australia. Right? I mean, you know, the Indians are a good strategic partner, but they're hedging much more than those allies I've mentioned have been. And then when you talk about the Gulf states, I mean Israel in terms of their level of intelligence sharing with the US Israeli intelligence on Iran is considerably more sophisticated in most areas than the US and the Americans rely on that and have relied on that for a long time. Having said that, Americans in the intelligence operations at senior levels worry that what the Israelis give the Americans is cherry picked and is filtered and that you shouldn't rely on it without also checking the best sources that you have yourself and with your allies, you can't just go in and say, oh, that's what they said. So we should just accept that as God's truth. But you know, that's also, I mean, the Saudis, the Emiratis, all of these countries have different interests to the United States. Doesn't mean they're not aligned. But they also spy on the US and the Americans spy on them. Right. And I mean the level of trust is greatest among the five eyes. And that's, you know, of course the US and the Canadians and the Australians and the Brits, I mean, those are the, and New Zealand, those are the closest relations, I think as allies. Everyone else is farther from that. But Israel's been pretty close.

[A]

All the white guys stick together. When we get close to the midterms, what is the most reasonable assumption of where the Iran situation stands and its materiality to the moment of the midterms?

[B]

I don't think. I mean, look, I saw Jon Ossoff sent me a text yesterday with his latest video on Iran, and I thought he did a pretty good job with no exaggeration of just all of the promises, all of the war goals and all of the failures that Trump made. And it's very powerful today. I don't think that speech is likely to play in November. I think prices will come down. I think the US Will be Iran in the rearview mirror. There'll be Cuba to talk about. There'll be Mexico, there'll be Venezuela. There'll be a host of domestic stuff, and the US Will also be in midterm fever. So I don't think it will be as big of a deal, but it's, you know, as a failure on foreign policy. It's by far the largest we've seen since the Iraq war. So it's major and it's costly. And even though no American ground troops were sent, Americans did die. A fair number were injured. And the costs are real. Food costs are gonna be with us. We'll see more inflation for another year because you lost the growing cycle with the lack of fertilizer. So we're at over a four handle for the last print on inflation. Inflation's gonna be higher in November than it would have been if Trump hadn't decided that he wanted to go all in on Iran.

[A]

No deal.

[B]

I think affordability will be an issue for Trump. And Iran is kind of, you know,

[A]

it's part of that proxy, and there'll be no deal.

[B]

And there will probably be no deal. I mean, not definitely and not 60 days, but there will probably be no deal. Yeah.

[A]

Why Israel matters, AI is also why they matter. They are very sophisticated, as evidenced by not just their own developmental development capabilities, but their relationships with China and Russia. When it comes to AI, relationships that the United States does not have, how big a piece of the puzzle is that for the United States interests, you better stay close to Israel, because Russia, Russian isn't just the third most common language in Israel. They have real ties there. They have real influence with them. And the Chinese.

[B]

Look, I mean, there's no question that there are some capabilities, some surveillance capabilities that the Israelis have developed, but they're also developing it with American companies, with Palantir, with scale, AI, with Andril, with companies like this, the Israelis would have a hard time doing all that by themselves. And there are a Lot of security measures that help ensure that those efforts are not, they're being ring fenced, they're not being shared with American adversaries. And I think that there's a fair amount of confidence that that is indeed the case in operation. I think when you look at what the hyperscalers are doing today in terms of advanced AI models, the Israelis are not remotely close to the United States. No one is close to the Googles and the Microsofts and the anthropics except the Chinese. That's it. Now, I mean, from a defense perspective, I could increasingly ask whether Israel is a particularly important ally to the US because of their intelligence capabilities and experience and history in the Middle East. But in terms of actual advanced AI capabilities in warcraft, you could increasingly make the argument that the Ukrainians are catching up fast. And the Americans told the Ukrainians you don't have the cards and kick them to the curb just a year ago. And that was an enormous mistake. The Ukrainians today are the most powerful military. No one else is close in all of Europe, number two in NATO. And the Americans should be working closely with the Ukrainians to share that technology and that experience because those are war fighting capabilities that will leapfrog a lot of the legacy systems that the Americans have been spending billions upon billions of dollars for, for generations, but will be mothballed with AI. And so I wish the US was a little more foresightful in leaning into relationships with allies more broadly and the things that they are bringing to the table.

[A]

You said in NATO, but they're not in NATO and they're not going to be in NATO anytime soon. If we want to end that war with Russia, it's almost certain to be a precondition.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

AI. When you look at it, the argument I'm making is it's not to be seen as the latest technological advancement that will ultimately add more jobs than it will take. I think it's different. I think it's more akin to electricity, which is it is an entirely new power source that we don't know what it will mean. But as is electricity, it is not to be controlled by Ian Bremmer. It is to be controlled by the government, by the American people, heavily regulated in terms of how it's allowed to be adapted and not left just to commercial and profit concern. Yes or no? Doable or not?

[B]

Yeah, yes, and probably eventually doable in certain areas after crises force it. Look, we almost had a JetBlue plane. We had a drone hit on a JetBlue plane. We have no idea if it's just an enthusiast or if it was an actual malicious attack. But you're gonna see AI powered fleets and swarms of drones that are gonna be, at some point they're gonna take down a commercial plane. At some point there's gonna be an incident against a world leader, there's going to be a mass casualty event in an open air stadium. These are AI capabilities that right now the US and other countries do not have adequate defenses at scale. You could stop attack on the President, but you're not gonna be able to stop attacks. Broadly, there are concerns about bioweapons that can and will be developed by people that have access to AI again, tinkerers and terrorists. And OpenAI foundation is starting to spend real money in creating air filtration systems and masks at scale and other capacity to respond to a bioterror incident, which they expect at some point will probably come from their and other models that the US government, other governments will inadequately be able to respond to. Look, we just talked about Ukraine and the Russians are now on their back foot and I'm delighted that that's true. But the reason it's true mostly is because Elon Musk decided that he was going to cut off Starlink to the Russians back in February. Now I'm very glad he did that, but I don't think it is the place of one guy that happens to own a company to make that decision. That decision should be made by the government, by the U.S. government. Right. And it's not being so I didn't, I wasn't comfortable when a bunch of social media companies deplatformed a sitting American President. That decision should not be made by individual CEOs of companies. I don't care whether I agree with the decision or not. I don't want the decisions to be made by those companies. And what I see is that the technology is moving too fast. The government leaders don't have the capacity, don't know what they're doing. The companies have spent an awful lot of money to ensure that they can mostly self regulate in areas that might affect, might touch their profitability. And the threats. The threat profile from exploding AI technology that's getting so much better and more advanced on a monthly basis, never mind a yearly basis, is that there are too many vectors of threat for the US government, for example, to know what they should put resources into, what they should regulate, what they should govern. So as a consequence it's very targeted, reactive post crisis. And that of course that should worry us.

[A]

A bridge idea Here that will take us to the domestic is that Trump has made his choice. He's bringing the Tech Bros to China. He's bringing the Tech Bros to the G7. He has chosen the AI guys over the American people. This is a huge talking point and organizing point on the left and it has real traction. People are afraid of AI and he's already made his choice that he's going to be on their side as opposed to our side of regulating them and holding them back. Because he sees that they are holding up the stock market. As people should know, you basically have a handful of companies overwhelmingly AI related that are what is supporting and driving the Dow Jones Industrial Average. What do you think of that?

[B]

You know, he's obviously putting Jared and Wyckoff and Lutnick over the American people. He's putting himself over the American people. The kleptocracy, the self dealing, the billions and billions of preferred deals and the manipulation of the stock market and all of these sudden huge spikes in in targeted investments before a political decision is made that we don't have any clarity on deserves to be fully investigated and at some point of course will, and by then everyone's pardoned and he assumes that he and those close to him will bear no consequences. So I certainly think that there's plenty of willingness to put folks above the American people. There's no swamp being drained. But I think when it comes to the AI companies, when I saw the response made by the Secretary of Treasury, Scott Besant to Anthropic's Mythos model, that was a concern that this model can unearth cyber vulnerabilities in the financial institutions and in the US national security arena. And therefore the government has to take control because this is gonna be a disaster otherwise. And that's what they did. My point is that decision came after the anthropic raised the alarm bells. It was only done in the financial industry and only in the United States and not with allies, because that was the guy that happened to be aware, be capable and take action where you'd want to have the water companies and the power companies, all of which also have software vulnerabilities that would have been unearthed by the same model that didn't happen. So again, my point here is that it is reactive, it is responding to crisis and it is very narrow and that will be inadequate for the state of play. I mean, we all want American companies to do well in AI. They are holding up the economy, they are driving productivity. It's extraordinary what they can do. I accept the electricity analogy. Except this is much bigger and bigger than electricity. Yeah, well, in terms of how much faster it's moving. Yeah. I mean, you know, we were electrifying, you know, sort of over generations AI, we actually have uptake among the entire population on the planet that's been globalized over the course of just a few years. I mean there's, there's no ability to, for the government to work in lockstep with the technology to create the regulations. It's too fast.

[A]

Is AI what allows the Chinese to dominate the world and puts us in a position of subservience?

[B]

I don't think so. I mean, I think the Chinese are certainly investing in a lot of big long term technologies and they're creating an electro state. I mean, so they're investing at scale in batteries and EVs and solar power panels and that helps them a lot to make cheaper energy which can power the data centers, which will allow them to have more effective compute. Even if their semiconductors are behind those in the United States, that's impressive. They're ahead in robotics, that matters. They're doing really well in biotech, that matters. But their economy is not only smaller than the U.S. it's also pretty weak. They don't have a lot of consumption. They've got serious problems in bad corporate debt. The real growth is not 4 to 5% as they say publicly, it's more 1 to 3%. All of the experts generally say that. So it's not like they're catching up to the United States. And I think that their AI, the safety around AI and their models is going to have the same riddled with the same problems as the us they're focused more on the application side. They will have big advances in industrial and military applications for AI. And some of those things I think will help them grow over time and some of those things will be great for the planet.

[A]

An AI guy who is Chinese American, yeah. Said to me, we have a gross assumption here in our culture that we need to correct. And I said okay, what is it? He says, you know, you probably grew up thinking that the Chinese kids were better at math than you. And I said, well a lot of people were better than math than I, but okay, I'll give it to you. I probably did think that. And he said, the Chinese as a development and technological people are stupid compared to us. We are way better. The Chinese who are any good at this are here. That's why they steal all our shit. Because they take the easy route, because they can't Compete with us, the people we have here. Now of course he is grossly generalizing, but is there anything to that? And what does it miss if not?

[B]

I travel to China pretty frequently. I don't know how anyone could understand the world today without doing that. I think that the rate of improvement of their own technological capacity in house in country is world class, world standard. It's the Europeans that are falling behind. It's the Japanese that are falling behind. It's the Canadians that are falling behind. China has a very different model. It's very much state directed. The capital and the preferences and the laws, they're picking winners and losers, but they are educating huge numbers of engineers. There are huge numbers of stem, STEM educated graduates matriculating from China every year. And yes, some of them have. A lot of the advanced ones have come to Columbia where I've taught them and they've come to mit, they've come to Caltech. But fewer Chinese students today than five, ten years ago. In part because their own universities are getting better. Like Tsinghua for example, where I've given lectures at Tsinghua and the questions I get and the students are every bit as talented as what I see at Columbia or Harvard or Michigan or you name it. And also because America has seen to be somewhat less welcoming to the Chinese, both legally and in some cases politically than we have been over the past years. And some of that is smart because we don't want Chinese coming here and sort of basically getting trained in advanced systems and using that for the Chinese military. Some of that is stupid because we do want Chinese to come to the US and stay and have families and have great work life and become part of what always has been successful in the United States. But yeah, I think that that wasn't just a generalization. I would take issue with the idea that they don't have talent.

[A]

The horseshoe issue, polarization that is going on in American politics right now where you had the right fringe MAGA absorb the Republican Party and now it is being met and bettered by the fringe movement of the Democratic Party that I call mega, that is bigger and deeper and has college educated people in it. That will be the reaction formation to it. Is America going through what we have observed elsewhere in the world in terms of battling extremes and where does it leave us?

[B]

Yeah, and I think it's kind of like what happened at the end of the Gilded Age, which is you had a very serious backlash on the left and the right. In that case it led to the New Deal and the creation of A new administrative state that invested massively in infrastructure and created the bones that allowed for a working and middle class that could thrive and flourish for generations. So I do think that a lot of Americans are going to oppose the establishment and they're going to demand something that feels like a political revolution. Some will be on the right, some will be on the left. I think that what we're seeing on the left is a moving away from the identity politics that was very narrow and a moving towards economic populism and anti corruption and anti AI. And obviously to the extent that that becomes more and more extreme, it will endanger some establishment capabilities. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Like in the same way that you knew that there was a lot of waste in usaid, but you didn't want to shut down America's ability to limit Ebola outbreaks for example, and you ended up doing that too. There are a lot of people that abuse the American regulatory system and enrich themselves at the expense of the us. You don't want the Americans to destroy competitiveness and entrepreneurship because they're going after people that are capturing the regulatory environment. And so for me, I don't mind seeing sort of a non dom tax on people that have pied a terrors in the US But I don't want to see Americans or New Yorkers demonizing the people that are actually building wealth building companies in New York that make New York wonderful. Could we pay higher taxes? Sure. Could those things be targeted at better education for example? At improving public transit for example? Yes, do those things. That's fine.

[A]

But you are too pragmatic and not sexy enough. Socialism is.

[B]

Oh we know I'm not sexy enough.

[A]

Disrupt.

[B]

I could even open another button and you're not voting for me.

[A]

Disrupt. It is sexy. Get rid of the establishment is sexy. Socialism for some is sexy. Does it have to be sexy to work?

[B]

Well, I mean I'm not sure that Mamdani, he talks a good socialist game, but the people he's put in office so far in terms of those that are around him actually implementing policy do not seem very socialist to me. As a New Yorker. The streets I walk down still seem very business oriented and capitalist in orientation. I haven't felt shaken down by this government yet. But now look, as a New Yorker, I'm used to lots staggering incompetence from our mayors, right? I'm used to it. I'm used to talking a big shop and then like we just all get on with doing New York shit. And I mean look, it's been a great run for New York the last few months. I mean look, we had the, we got the World cup, we got the Knicks, we just had Pride Day. I mean, you know, the weather's good. I mean it's a staggering time to be in New York right now. So I mean, fuck it, Mamdani, all he has to do is tie his shoes in the morning, jump into a pool with a suit on and we're all good with Mandani. Right? It's fine. But, but we need to, we do need to understand that, you know, even though you didn't vote for mom Donnie, because you know you're biased and most people that you and I know over 50 didn't vote for Mom Donnie. Almost everyone we know under 30 did. Almost everyone. And at some point you have to ask what is it that they are seeing that the old guys aren't seeing? Because they are the future and they're sick of 80 year old Trump and 80 year old Biden telling them this is the way it's gonna go because it hasn't gone so well for them with those people. I'd love to see far younger people in Congress. I'd like to see the next president under, under 50. I'd like that. I really would. Whoever it is.

[A]

I think that you're going to see different people coming in. I think you're going to see Democrat. What's going to make this unusual if it stays that this dynamic is you're not just going to see MAGA lose, you're going to see sitting Democrats lose. So it's going to be a two in one. It's going to be the MAGA primary phenomenon.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And a MAGA as the majority and status quo owner defeat. I think both are going to happen in the midterms. The question is then what for the people voting for the change, that is a luxury. I just need to stop this. I don't care how you put out the fire, I'll deal with that later. I got to deal with the fire. It burns, it hurts. That's where we are. And people who think it's not going to happen because of the word socialism is missing the moment. Ian, I love you. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you for the brain food as always.

[B]

Talk to you soon.

[A]

Told ya so smart. So sees it all helps a critical thinker with food for thought that really kind of connects these ideas how what is happening and not happening in Iran is related to what's happening here vis a vis Israel, but also the economy and what that militates us in terms of the mega movement versus the MAGA movement and what we're seeing in our politics and why it is and what it's motivated by and why so many sophisticated people seem to want to destroy capitalism. Unless you're wrong. And that's not really what they want to do. They want to force it to change. The same way MAGA wanted to put a virus into the political corpus in the form of Donald Trump. Not to destroy our politics, but to make it sick, give it a fever that when that fever breaks, hopefully leaves it in a better place. I think that's what we're seeing with the mega movement. Now. That's not what the democratic socialists want. They want systemic change. And that's what they're pitching. Even though they're very sotto voce about it, they're very quiet. Why? Because they know it's a scary thought and that people in America are conditioned to not want that. But the reality of the economy and wanting it to change is more powerful than the fear of what you will change it to. Just like with maga, get rid of these illegals. We never really talked about how. Then you start seeing the how with the ice. You don't like it so much. Well, let's get rid of ice. Equally extreme. Equally extreme. But that's what a horseshoe polarization is about. Where the fringes wind up being the closest points of contact. Middle, centrist, moderate, weak.

[B]

All week.

[A]

I want extreme, I want muscular response. So much so that I will prefer a man for president in my polling that I know can't even run because he wasn't born here, so why would I even say him? Because I'm so angry. I reject the status quo so vehemently that not only am I going to take out maga, I'm going to take out members of my own party because they're not real ones. It's happening at once. We didn't see that with maga. First they went after the left, the establishment, the Hillary people, right? Then they had a cleansing of their own. This is both happening in real time at the same time. Why? Because that's how reaction formation works. The pendulum doesn't swing from one side and stop in the middle. It swings all the way the other way. And that's what we're seeing now. People are angry, just like in 2015. In fact, there are more of them. And those college educated people are going to make a difference. Young college educated people, specifically and especially. So you got to see how it all fits together and you got to get a feel for that vibe and Ian Bremmer did that for us and that's very nice because we are critical thinkers. That's why I sell the swag. That's why you should get it. Thank you for subscribing and following. I don't know why I say that. Don't you already subscribe and follow if you're here? If not, please do and subscribe to Cuomo Crimetime also. It's doing very well, and it should because I'm giving you a look at the cases that are dominating true crime, but in a different way. I'm showing you perspectives that are being missed intentionally, sometimes and unintentionally in the main. Why? Because I've been covering it for a really long time and I have great access not just to people who know it well, but the people who are players in these stories. So please subscribe to Cuomo Crimetime so we can keep doing it. Thank you for subscribing and following here. Checking me out at Sirius Radio in the morning and News Nation at night. My brothers and sisters, the challenges are real. All right. Brand yourself as an independent, as a free agent, as a critical thinker that you are different than these mouth breathing, fringe fealty playing mobos. Let's get after it.