B (4:49)

to their face, in some instances, in

C (4:51)

some instances to their face, and in some instances to their political detriment. And in the case of Ukraine, not a traditional ally, but to the potential danger of the existence of their country, then expects the allies to set aside all of that and then send their assets, their militaries, their personnel to risk death in the Strait of Hormuz to help Donald Trump with a problem that he has manufactured entirely of his own. So all of that then, is for Trump's political purposes, which seems to be the only thing that concerns him. When I call him a sociopath, I mean by that, that he's a person who doesn't seem to take the existence of other people seriously. When there were expressions of concern to him over the American soldiers who had died in this war, he seemed completely uninterested and merely remarked that that's what happens in wars.

A (5:52)

The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now, we're doing this for.

C (6:04)

There seems to be a complete lack of empathy, even pretending empathy or sympathy for the dead and wounded that he's responsible for ultimately. I mean, the Iranians killed them, but they were there in prosecution of Trump's war. So the only thing that does seem to matter to him are two things, the share market, Wall street and what's happening in the markets. And as a. Some sort of wealth barometer, I suppose. And second, his political stakes, his political fortunes, and they have come under increased strain because of this war. And the strain is showing inside the MAGA movement itself.

B (6:43)

And I guess a really notable one happened just about eight or 10 hours before we're recording this on Wednesday morning, and that's that Trump's counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, has quit. And not only has he quit, but he has lobbed some really damning accusations against Trump with regards to his decision to pursue this war. So tell us what he said and yeah, whether you think this could actually hurt Trump politically.

C (7:08)

Yes. The resignation of Joe Kent, terrorism chief, is the first high level MAGA official that Trump had appointed who has now quit in a state of protest at Trump. Mind you, he didn't do it at the outset of the war. He's waited two and a half weeks. So if you like, he's a weather vane that indicates which way the political wind is blowing. And the fact that in MAGA it's blowing, it's increasingly against Trump. He accused Trump of, first of all, running into this war simply because the Israelis wanted it, which has instantly been branded as anti Semitic. So that's another dispute, another divide. A lot of the MAGA people are anti Israel and a lot of the MAGA people have taken had already formed the view that Trump was gulled into this war by Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. And that was fueled a little, at least by Netanyahu. He said he'd brought at the beginning of the war, he said he had brought Trump brought America into the war.

B (8:08)

That's right.

C (8:08)

Which Trump resisted and said, no, if anything, I forced Israel's hand. So that's a point of contention. But it does give enough ammunition to the people who want to criticise him within the MAGA movement as being some puppet of Netanyahu, which Kent's picked up on. But Kent's gone further and said that the country has been lied to, that there was never any threat, no imminent threat to the US From Iran. This is really damaging.

B (8:33)

I mean, that's sort of the killer blow in his resignation letter, right? I don't know how much damage it's going to cause. But tell us why that is such a big deal.

C (8:40)

Because it means the war is not being fought for any legitimate national purpose. It still leaves open the option that Trump has gone to war as he'd originally claimed, to support the protest movement in Iran, that he was doing it in pursuit of regime change, which he sometimes returns to that and sometimes doesn't. But to suggest that he would go to war at this scale and with these consequences for this long are just to support the protest movement in Iran doesn't satisfy the MAGA movement. Whatever happened to America first is what they want to know. So for Kent to say that there was no imminent threat, that the country has been lied to, effectively calling Trump the liar, is damaging. And of course, it's consonant with many of the facts as we see them after the break.

B (9:35)

Is this gonna be a forever war? Peter?

C (9:39)

I doubt it.

B (9:40)

Why?

C (9:40)

Well, there are two things.

A (9:46)

The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about. Get real time scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.

D (10:16)

Bring incredible sound into every corner of your home with the new Wimsound smart speaker. Get high resolution audio with a 1.8-inch touchscreen, smart control and modern design in one powerful speaker for just $299. From Quiet Mornings to to lively family gatherings, Whim sound makes every moment sound better and feel better too. Create a home filled with sound you love. Ready to upgrade your sound shop now at Amazon and search whimsound. That's W I I M S O

B (10:45)

U n d your column that just came out on Tuesday. This is just of course, one day before we're recording this. You know, you argued that there are still very clear winners in this war. Who are these winners and does this still stand today? Cause of course this changes day by day.

C (11:02)

Well, looking at the two main combatants, it's difficult to say either of them is winning. The Iranian regime may still be standing. The Ayatollah is dead. Long live the Ayatollah. His son has simply taken over. And the regime is in place with no real sign yet of it cracking. There is some internal dissent, but its grip on power isn't cracking, and it is being hit and hit hard. It will be, at the end of this, a diminished, weakened country, a poorer country. So it is suffering, there's absolutely no question. But is America winning? You can't say America is winning with this economic war, this petrol and inflation war that they're now suffering with the loss of not only some of their service people, but an enormous stockpile of munitions being sacrificed. The first two days cost US$11 billion, plus, according to the Pentagon, and that was. We're now two and a half weeks into this war, so it's hard to see that the US is actually winning. And if the nuclear capability of the regime was the target of Trump's original intention, which was one of the many and varied explanations he's given, then he has yet to explain why the US has not yet attacked those facilities or tried to seize the estimated 400 kilos of enriched uranium that the Iranian regime has. So it's hard to see that either of them is winning, but that doesn't mean that no country is winning. And my point, Samantha, was to say that in the constellation of global power which is affected, whenever there's one big shift like this, it redistributes power around the world, and that's what we see. And I'm positing that there are three principal winners so far from this. One is Israel, which gets the US support in this war to conduct a war against Iran, and now against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, which, of course, we

B (12:57)

know Netanyahu's wanted to do both for a very long time.

C (13:00)

Yes, very popular among Israeli Jews. We saw a poll this week that said 93% support this war that Netanyahu is prosecuting against Iran, and 82% amongst the Israeli population as a whole. So it's hugely popular. It's working for Netanyahu politically, who faces a. He faces an election later this year. It's doing a lot of damage to the principal enemy, the strongest and most important enemy of Israel. And he gets political cover from the US as well as military support. So it's a big win for Israel. The next one, I would suggest, is Russia. Russia wins from this war. Putin gets a large bonus for the funding of his war chest out of this oil crisis, because first, the price of oil has gone up by more than 40% since the war began. But secondly, because Trump has allowed a relaxation of the sanctions against Russia, which has now allowed Russia to ship more oil. There's an oil and trading information company, Kipler, which estimates that directly into the Russian government's coffers there's an extra US$150 million flowing per day that this war is running. So over the course of a month, they estimate it would be between about three and a half and five billion US dollars, pure unearned bonus for Vladimir Putin. At the same time, of course, this diminishes the stock of weapons available for the Ukrainians to get. Trump doesn't give them any. But the Europeans buy them from the US and supply them onto Ukraine. Well, Trump is now eating up so many of those munitions, which now brings us to the third winner, and that is China, because Trump is doing a number of things that support China tremendously. Just on that last one, the munitions stock. So Trump has been transferring military assets out of the Indo Pacific to the Middle east to support this war. The second category of material that Trump is moving out of the Indo Pacific are missiles and missile batteries and air defense systems. He's moved them out of Japan and move them out of South Korea to the Middle east, again weakening the defenses of the US and its allies, or the countries that formerly were considered to be allies in the Indo Pacific. And at the same time, all of the political attention as well as the military effort of the US is concentrated in this Middle Eastern war from which Trump will emerge with much depleted stockpiles of munitions. Now, if you're Xi Jinping, this is looking like an America that is very distracted and that is offering you an opportunity, should you wish to take it, of more freedom to move in the Indo Pacific than China has had for years. Then we come to a point that Mick Ryan, a well known military strategist, former Australian Major General, has made to me that Trump was supposed to be having a meeting with Xi Jinping at the end of this month. That's now been postponed because of the war.

B (16:08)

Yes, at Trump's request.

C (16:10)

At Trump's request, request. But Mick Ryan's point is, at that meeting, with all of this going on and all of these advantages falling China's way, Xi Jinping will be looking into Donald Trump's eyes, as disconcerting an experience as that may be for most people and wanting to ask this question, is this man going to fight China if I take action either to claim Taiwan or to Claim more territory in the South China Sea, or to start an incident with one of its neighbors, Japan, the Philippines, whom it's pressuring, which I

B (16:42)

guess just to wrap up, Peter, brings us back to the United States. As you've mentioned before, we know that Donald Trump, he campaigned on this vow, you know, no more forever wars. But it would seem that Trump's window for pulling back from this war and being able to declare a victory, it seems like that window is over. So is the United States. Does it look like it's likely that it is becoming embroiled in a forever war? Because it's expanded, Right. The targets keep expanding. Iran's hit, I imagine, more than 13 countries now. You've got an airport in the UAE which has been hit. So this really is expanding. Europeans are being pressured to join. Obviously, NATO has said no, but I don't know how long they'll be able to say no for. So is this going to be a forever war, Peter?

C (17:31)

I doubt it.

B (17:33)

Why?

C (17:33)

Well, there are two things. First, your point about declaring victory. There are still possibilities of being able to declare victory. Who knows what's next? If the regime cracks, he can declare victory. If the Israelis or the Americans manage to inflict serious damage on the nuclear development facilities of Iran, even though Trump claimed he'd obliterated them last June, then he may be able to claim victory. Out of that, he may redefine victory and simply say, we've destroyed their navy and all of their missile launchers, therefore that's victory, and pull out. So those options remain open to him. But on the other side of it, which is the ability to continue the war, I don't think it's a forever war because politically, well, the allies. Politically, it's very popular for the allies to stay out of this war, which they didn't start, weren't consulted on and have no interest in joining. But second, the pressure on inflation, prices, gasoline and petrol prices in America makes it politically difficult and economically damaging. It's a measurable, it's a tangible economic harm that will become more evident and more painful as the weeks go by. Plus, at some point the US Runs out of munitions. It doesn't have an infinite or Trump has declared the opposite, but it does not have an infinite supply of missiles.

B (18:57)

It'd be able to go for a while, though, right?

C (18:59)

Well, we don't know exactly, but experts say they depending on the munition, that they have weeks rather than months. At this rate. At this rate. And they're already reapportioning them from other parts of the planet. And Trump's been urging the US Defense contractors to accelerate the pace of output so it's straining their supply.

B (19:23)

Wow.

C (19:23)

So for all those reasons, I think this is going to be a shorter war than a forever war.

B (19:28)

Okay. Well it is such a fast moving space. So much has even happened since you last wrote about this, and that was only a couple days ago.

C (19:36)

Indeed.

B (19:36)

So we are so lucky have you on weekly because God knows what will be happening.

C (19:40)

It's a dizzying pace.

B (19:41)

That's right.

C (19:41)

And it's always a pleasure to talk these things through with you, Samantha.

B (19:44)

Thanks, Peter. In other news today, the response of China, Australia's largest single supplier of jet fuel to the war with Iran has put a question mark over future fuel supplies for the nation's aviation sector. A radical option to shutter tobacconists and sell cigarettes only in places like supermarkets has been put on the agenda by the Albanese government as it reveals new laws to rein in the runaway black market. And lastly, whether you're a cheese fiend, spicemeister, or just like yours, vinegary experts at good food taste and rate all the crisps that matter. You can read more@the age.com or smh.comau Today's episode was produced by Chee Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. If you like our show, follow the Morning edition and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening.

E (21:00)

Do you love sexy, chic fashion? Of course you do, which is why you're going to love Flor de Mall. This is confident, grown woman energy. Everything they make is intentional. You put it on and you instantly feel pulled together. No overthinking and the quality is obvious. Real silk, beautiful French lace fabrics that feel luxurious, which matters. Their flared corset knit dress is a knockout. It snatches your waist and gives you a polished, effortless look. It works during the day, it works at night, and it photographs beautifully. Celebrities like Taylor Swift wear it because it just works. And the lingerie is where they really win. The Sedu Su plunge bra is famous for a seamless, supportive disappears under clothes and comfortable enough to wear all day. Their bodysuits are essentials too. You throw one on with jeans and suddenly you look styled. Fleur de Mall is luxury that earns its price. Shop their stores in soho, Williamsburg and West Hollywood or explore everything @fleur de

F (21:59)

mall.com Jack Harndale was helping his daughter Emily lift an awkward dresser up a staircase when he slipped and fell backwards. A week later, Emily asked him how he was doing.

C (22:09)

I'm good.

F (22:11)

Truth was, he wasn't good. Jack needed help. Then the darndest thing happened. Emily called Pacific Source.

A (22:18)

My health plan.

F (22:19)

Jack learned that Pacific Source provides members with support beyond healthcare. In Jack's case, we got him in touch with the local food bank.

C (22:27)

You guys do that?

F (22:28)

Yes, we do. Jack. Pacific Source Health Plan.