175. TRUMP CALLS FOR IRAN CEASEFIRE – WILL IT HOLD?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Rest Is Politics: US – Episode 175

Title: TRUMP CALLS FOR IRAN CEASEFIRE – WILL IT HOLD?
Date: April 8, 2026
Hosts: Anthony Scaramucci (“The Mooch”) & Katty Kay
Guests: Mark Polymeropoulos (ex-CIA, national security expert), Mike Froman (President, Council on Foreign Relations)

---

Episode Overview

This urgent episode analyzes President Trump’s surprise call for a ceasefire with Iran after weeks of intensifying military confrontation. The hosts and expert guests break down what’s in the controversial 10-point ceasefire proposal, assess winners and losers in the region and globally, and question both Trump’s capacity to govern and the resilience of U.S. and allied institutions. The conversation is frank, opinionated, and marked by deep concern about America’s global standing, Israel’s future, and the fragility of world order.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The 10-Point Iran Ceasefire Proposal

• Trump agrees the 10-point Iranian proposal is “workable,” but many terms are harsh for the U.S.
  • Main points:
    • Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz (with all passage coordinated by Iranian military)
    • Acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment
    • Commitment to non-aggression
    • U.S. withdrawal of forces
    • Lifting major sanctions
    • (More details covered at [00:08]-[01:50])
• Trump grants a 2-week window for the ceasefire, with doubts that further extensions can happen.
• Katty Kay: “Any passage through the Strait of Hormuz has to be coordinated with the Iranian military.” ([01:51])
• Israel is “not happy” with the deal and there were more missile strikes on Tel Aviv even after ceasefire announced.

---

2. Winners and Losers of the Ceasefire

• Winners: Iranian regime (prestige/play for survival), China, possibly UAE (if Iran’s Strait control endures)
• Losers: Iranian people (“threatened with having their civilization wiped out,” >3,000 dead), Israel (strategic and reputational loss), President Trump (appears to have accepted terms worse than could have been gained 10 days ago)
• Quote:
  • Katty Kay: “The Iranian people tonight … can sleep a little easier … Another winner is China. … I think the losers, the biggest losers are the Israelis.” ([03:39])
  • Scaramucci: “Iran has been decimated…billions of dollars of damage … but it has survived and controls that economic strait.” ([04:49]-[07:15])

---

3. Israel’s Position, U.S. Politics, and Public Opinion

• Israeli leadership (especially Netanyahu) is blamed for goading Trump; Israel’s influence over U.S. decision-making is controversial.
• Guest Mark Polymeropoulos: “All my former Israeli friends … are not happy right now, period. … The Israelis will see this as having degraded some Iranian military capabilities, but two things have not happened. We haven’t actioned at all the entire nuclear file … they will have to go back to mowing the lawn … no wars end in the Middle East, it’s just time for rest and resupply.” ([13:01]-[14:21])
• U.S. public support for Israel drops significantly—Pew poll: only 32% positive, down from 47% three years ago; “60% of Americans have a negative opinion of Israel.” ([17:24])
  • Among ages 14-49: 84% of Democrats negative, 57% Republicans negative.
• Netanyahu is seen as a significant loser; his sway over Trump is dissected and critiqued.
• Polymeropoulos: “This kind of bromance … ends up being something that’s going to hurt them down the line.” ([19:36])

---

4. Trump’s Mental State and Questions of Removal

• Trump’s behavior, public threats to “end a civilization,” and erratic social media presence become a focal point.
• Scaramucci: “The President needs to be removed from office. … If we were on a board of directors … would you vote for that removal?” ([27:01])
• Polymeropoulos: “He acts unhinged … I’ve always asked my friends … their assessments of Donald Trump … they say, well, go watch the Sopranos, it’s a mob boss. … Now he looks like someone who’s unhinged.” ([21:24])
• Only a handful of Republican senators have objected to Trump’s genocidal rhetoric; widespread silence from GOP.
  • Katty Kay: “How many Republican senators came out and said the President cannot talk like that? … Basically crickets.” ([31:56])

---

5. NATO, America’s Standing, and Global Impacts

• U.S. commitment to NATO is called a “red herring”—the alliance is described as effectively dead or on life support.
  • Scaramucci: “NATO has died on this front to the great delight of Vladimir Putin.” ([09:38])
• The hosts compare the episode to the U.S. “Suez Canal crisis moment”—a sign of imperial decline.
• Scaramucci: “The United States has created its Suez Canal crisis moment … a metaphor for end of empire … tremendously damaged the United States.” ([34:39])
• Allies, including Gulf states, are wary; U.S. military bases and credibility in the region are damaged.
• “Who the hell is going to trust the U.S. with this type of pendulum swinging decision making?” ([35:53])

---

6. Intelligence and Policy Failures

• Discussion that U.S. failed to anticipate or heed warnings about Iranian capabilities and the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
• Polymeropoulos: “We’re really good at killing people. We’re not really good at answering key questions from policymakers on strategic intelligence against hard targets.” ([23:36])
• Scaramucci calls for major systemic reform, drawing parallels to previous periods of American crisis and renewal.

---

7. Will the Ceasefire Hold? Future Scenarios

• Audience polls: 78% say ceasefire will NOT hold; 94% believe Israel will try to provoke Iran.
• Mike Froman (CFR) is cautious but sees ceasefire as “an agreement to begin to talk.” Underlying issues—nuclear ambitions, Strait control—remain unresolved. ([40:02])
  • Froman: “A ceasefire is better than no ceasefire … this is really just the beginning of a conversation about these fundamental issues where I think the U.S. and Iran are in quite different positions.” ([40:02])
• Questions about Iranian enforcement/control: local commanders may act independently before orders filter through (ongoing missile strikes). ([54:20])
• Froman: “All they have to do [in Iran] is survive as a regime … less motivated to abandon long-standing objectives than the US thinks.” ([53:24])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Katty Kay: “Donald Trump has now given himself another two week extension. It’s hard to see that he could keep giving more extensions.” ([01:51])
• Scaramucci: “Iran has been decimated. … They’ve had billions of dollars of damage … but they survived.” ([04:49])
• Scaramucci: “That system, as we know, is NATO … NATO kaput, okay?” ([10:09])
• Polymeropoulos: “The idea of threatening, kind of, genocide … Armageddon, what he did the other day … he looks like someone who’s unhinged.” ([21:24])
• Scaramucci: “The President needs to be removed from office. … If we were on a board of directors of the business known as the United States … would you vote for that removal?” ([27:01])
• Katty Kay: “60% of Americans have a negative opinion of Israel … I don’t think I’ve ever seen poll numbers shift that fast.” ([17:24])
• Froman: “This is really just the beginning of a conversation about these fundamental issues … [US and Iran] are in quite different positions.” ([40:02])
• Scaramucci, direct: “Stupid war, Katty K. And if you knew everything at the end, what I just listed, you’d be like, okay—a guy’s stupid … a stupid war.” ([60:35])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Time | Segment Description | |----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:08 | Breakdown of Iran’s 10-point ceasefire proposal and initial reactions | | 01:51 | Immediate winners/losers of the ceasefire: Iran, US, Israel | | 08:16 | Viewers' comments: “Has Iran humiliated America?” | | 09:38 | NATO’s apparent decline and transatlantic uncertainty | | 13:01 | Mark Polymeropoulos on Israel’s military, political, and reputational fate | | 17:24 | Public opinion on Israel, Pew polling discussed | | 21:24 | Trump’s state of mind—“unhinged,” calls for removal | | 27:01 | Debate over 25th Amendment/impeachment | | 31:56 | Republican silence and inability to rein in presidential behavior | | 34:39 | The “Suez moment” and American decline | | 40:02 | Mike Froman on the durability and limits of the ceasefire | | 53:01 | Froman predicts likely short-term return to “status quo ante” | | 54:20 | Missile strikes on Israel continue during ceasefire | | 56:21 | Ceasefire described as an economic decision—markets, tech sector impact | | 58:32 | Key Republican players; VP JD Vance’s negotiating role | | 60:35 | War characterized as “stupid” and a loss for all involved |

---

Tone & Language

The language throughout is candid, urgent, and at times darkly humorous, with a combative edge. Both hosts do not mince words about perceived governmental failures and worries over Trump’s conduct and the future of American democracy and alliances.

---

Conclusion: Why This Episode Matters

This episode serves as a high-level, in-the-moment assessment of a major global crisis, mixing insider accounts, polling data, and direct policy analysis. The hosts and guests spotlight the risks of Trump’s unilateralism, declining U.S. prestige, the fracturing of old alliances, the uncertain security future for Israel, and the volatile situation in Iran. It’s a must-listen for anyone tracking U.S. foreign policy, political accountability, and the fate of Western alliances.

---

For further detail, dialogue, or insight, note the timestamps to locate particular exchanges. Conversational tone holds true to the podcast’s spirit, with Scaramucci’s blunt directness and Katty Kay’s seasoned correspondent skepticism.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Politics, us we are on a live stream primarily because we have another taco situation. And just to update people that are have decided maybe rightfully to turn off the local news and their Twitter feeds and so forth. United States is agreeing to a 10 point proposal, or at least the President of the United States, Donald Trump is saying that the 10 point proposal is workable. And a lot of that proposal is probably not the best sorts of things for the United States, including it looks like the Strait of Hormuz will likely be in the control of the Iranians. And so again, I don't want to report propaganda here, but what is on the table on that 10 point plan? I will tell you it was a commitment to non aggression, a continuation of Iran's control over the Strait and acceptance of uranium enrichment. And of course that's basically something that the war started over, not wanting to accept that. Other proposals, lifting all primary and secondary sanctions, a termination of all UN Security Council resolutions, excuse me, a termination of all Board of Governors resolutions and a withdrawal of US Combat forces from the region. So again, I'm not saying the United States accepting all of those, but that's what's going on right now. But what was clear, and I think your reporting was probably better on this, I'm going to flip it back to you, but was clear that the Pakistan president was looking for a way out. He didn't just want to taco himself on Twitter, so he got the Pakistani Prime Minister to taco for him. So go ahead, tell us how he did that. Katty.

[C]

I like the fact that tacoing is now a verb that has become so ubiquitous in Donald Trump's second presidency with tariffs and now with Iran that it's now a verb. So Donald Trump has now given him a two week window himself, another two week extension. I think it's hard to see that he could keep giving even more extensions beyond this two weeks. So a lot has to be resolved in this two weeks. There's quite a lot of distance between the Americans and, and the Iranians. But what the Iranians have repeated, from the Supreme National Security Council to the Foreign Minister to one other group coming out of the Iranian government, is that they have control of the Strait of Hormuz, at least for this two week ceasefire. And any passage through the Strait of Hormuz has to be coordinated with the Iranian military. The Pakistanis are very involved. I have heard from somebody with knowledge of the conversations that Israel is not happy with this ceasefire deal. This two week ceasefire deal. We have seen guys, some missiles Coming into Tel Aviv this evening after the ceasefire was announced, I don't think that necessarily means that the Iranians are still from a centralized command position trying to attack Israel. Remember that we said on the podcast on Monday how all of the decision making had really got devolved down and it may take a while. I think even the White House has just said this. I think think I'm right, Anthony, that the White House has just confirmed that they would expect it to take some time for the news of this ceasefire to reach all of the people in Iran who have been launching the missiles, because communications, of course, have been spotty. So, yeah. So Israel, here are the winners.

[B]

Right.

[C]

I'm going to do an Anthony Scaramucci, see if you agree with me. The winners are, first and foremost, we should be thinking of the Iranian people tonight. 93 million people were threatened this morning by the President of the United States with having their civilization wiped out. Whether he was planning to do that or not, whether we're all inside Trump's psycho bubble of a brain, I don't know. But at least for the Iranian people, this means that they can sleep a little easier tonight and for the next two weeks. Another winner is China. Another winner has to be, at the moment at least the Iranian government, the Iranian regime, which we can separate out from the Iranian people. The UAE will be happy if this ceasefire holds and if it lasts more than two weeks. They're not going to like it if they're in the pocket of the Iranians going forwards and Iran has permanent control of the Straits of Hormuz. And I think the losers, the biggest losers of the Israelis, they didn't want this to happen. They're not happy with this happening. And I think President Trump, I think it's very hard to argue that President Trump is in a better position than he would have been if he hadn't done this 10 days ago. He could have done this same deal, it's based on the same 10 point plan as 10 days ago. I've gone on a bit long, Anthony, what do you think?

[B]

You know, listen, I'm just going to tell people that the unvarnished truth, some people are not going to like me for this, but I've broken it down into four different categories. I want to talk about Iran first. Iran has been decimated. To say otherwise would not be able to understand the story. They've had billions of dollars of damage done to their infrastructure. Their intelligence has been degraded. 40 to 50 of their top political leaders have been killed. They have. Their navy's been Destroyed lots of their Air Force, etc. They've got a ton of missiles on the side, they've got a ton of drones.

[C]

IRGC still has boats, so there is slightly military structures.

[B]

And so that Mosaic defense doctrine that you and I have talked about has held the country together.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

So the Iranians are basically planning for this attack caddy for 20 years. And so the Khomeini that died is now looking down or up from hell, wherever he's looking from and saying, okay, all of that planning worked. We were able to survive and the regime was able to survive the onslaught of the Israelis and the US and we figured out quickly that the choke point that we have, which is we can control the Strait of Hormuz and knock out 20% of the oil, you don't have enough pass through on the pipelines that have been built and the entire global economy has been crippled by us as a result of which, as we said, Tech Bros Were calling up the President saying we really don't like our data centers bombed by the Iranians. So you got to figure out a way to get out of this.

[C]

As they did as we reported over Greenland as well, the Tech Bros Were calling today.

[B]

So Iran has won and it has

[C]

lost just by surviving, I guess. The Iranian people, I think have lost an awful lot. They've lost more than 3,000 people have died.

[B]

But, but it, it has something that's very important in that region culturally. Number one, it survived.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

Number two, it's got control of that economic straight. And if they're going to be charging $2 million a ship, depending on how many ships go through there, they're going to be making between 30 to potentially $80 billion a year. Single point estimate at 50 billion. That is a tremendous exponential sum of money.

[C]

Again, I'm not saying that's a lot of money.

[B]

And they've already made a lot of money. They've already made a lot of money on the increase in the, in the, in the gas, oil and gas prices. So Iran has been hurt tremendously. And I'm telling you as a market participant, the markets are up and buoyant energy is down tonight. And the market is usually, as I always say to people, there's madness in crowds. Gaddy, but there's also wisdom in crowds. By 3, 4 o' clock this afternoon, I was calling you, Tony Pastor Fiona Golhanger and telling you before, before 8 o', clock, Trump is going to announce a deal because the markets were trading in that way. Okay, not me. I'm not saying that I'm just talking about the wisdom of crowds.

[C]

So.

[B]

So something's telling you that there's some bad stuff in Iran. They've been weakened. And everyone that's going to beat their chest right now and say that regime is going to hold and everything's wonderful in Iran, I don't believe that they've got a prestige win for right now.

[C]

Yeah, we're getting a lot of comments coming in saying that the Iranians have humiliated America.

[B]

We're going to get there. Okay.

[C]

Yeah, come on. Iran is completely humiliated America. And I think that is the case.

[B]

Okay, so this is truth central, so we're going to definitely get there. Can we go to NATO? Okay, so I want to go to NATO first and then I want to

[C]

go to US Then we've got a guest to introduce. You stand.

[B]

Okay. All right. But let's go to NATO. As I dropped my pen. Let's go to NATO. So tell me about Naito category.

[C]

Well, I think the NATO has got. It is in a position now where it's pretty clear how pissed off the Americans are with it. Actually, some NATO countries have been helping in a quiet way, have been facilitating some of the flights and takeoffs Trump laid into NATO. There was speculation that Trump was going to pull out of NATO. He didn't actually pull out of NATO. Following a conversation with President Alexander Stubb of Finland, Mark Rutte is coming on his way to Washington. I actually think this debate about whether America is going to pull out of NATO or not pull out of NATO, you and I have discussed this is a bit of a red herring as well, because they've effectively downgraded NATO. I mean, if a NATO country were to be attacked, there is very little guarantee, I think today as we're speaking, that America would come to the Article 5 defense that NATO applies.

[B]

Okay, all right. I don't know if everybody can see that. That is a tombstone. Everybody see the tombstone? And so NATO was created on April 4, 1949. And I believe we now have the tombstone there. NATO has died on this front to the great delight of Vladimir Putin and the great delight of others. Now, again, I'm not saying, if you notice, I have to dash there caddy. I'm not saying I think it's dying, but it's uncertain.

[C]

Not quite sure of the date of death.

[B]

But. But NATO is on. NATO is on life support because Donald Trump wanted to put it on life support. And what's happening now is. Is the NATO guys are saying, okay, you know what? You want your bases out of Here, no problem. You're telling everybody we're freeloaders. We're actually paying billions and billions of dollars to upkeep those bases. Lots of services are going to your troops from those bases. You're telling everybody we're freeloaders. We're actually not freeloaders. Like, I'm going to drop the economic analysis in the chat so Fiona can put it out to show people that there's no freeloading going on. But I've got Naito kaput, okay? And that's unfortunate. Maybe an American president comes after Donald Trump can figure out a way to revive it or to restate it similar to it. Yeah, but that, that system, as we know, is Naito. And by the way, Mark Rudda again, if you're going in for an ass kissing festival, do not go in for an ass kissing festival in Washington. Stop embarrassing yourself. Call Mark Carney before you show up at the Oval Office to embarrass yourself. Don't embarrass yourself.

[C]

Before we get to other points. Yes, Anthony, we have a couple of points.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

Will the conditional ceasefire hold? We asked you guys, 78% of you say no. I want to ask our guests that because we've got some guests coming on. 22% say yes. Are we going to be back in that position in this two weeks time? Will the Israelis try to provoke Iran to break the ceasefire? We've asked you. 94% of you say yes. 6% of you say no. That may reflect some of our listeners, Sherry, but certainly my reporting this evening is that Israel is trying to undermine this ceasefire. Should we go to our guest, Anthony?

[B]

Okay, let's go to our guests. But I do want to get to Israel and the United States before we

[C]

get to those with.

[B]

Let's go to our guests.

[C]

Let's bring in Mark Polymorphoulos Mark Polymeropoulos I should have said that. Right. We first saw each other at 5 o' clock this morning.

[B]

Mark.

[C]

It's been a very long day. Mark is an ex CIA officer who served in the region and is a national security expert. Mark Anthony and I are going kind of through the winners and losers, which may sound a little bit callous on an evening like this. I was saying that the Iranian people are probably the biggest losers, winners at least tonight because they get to sleep a little safer in their beds after all these weeks of bombing. What do you make of Israel's position? I know that you follow Israeli politics closely and national security and Israel's moves closely. What was the question? Anthony wanted to Ask about Israel. So let's bring you into that conversation about how Israel has come out of this ceasefire arrangement. What do you think?

[D]

So, you know, first and foremost, all my former Israeli friends from Mossad, their External Service Unit 8200, their signals intelligence service are kind of sending me messages wildly not happy right now, period. Now, you know, in the grand scheme of things, I think the Israelis will see this as having degraded some significant Iranian military capabilities, certainly the ballistic missile inventory, the Iranian navy. I mean, there's a lot of damage that has been done to the Iran's national security structure. But two things have not happened. We haven't actioned at all the entire nuclear file. And that's something that the Israelis will worry about and we can get to about, about the United States as well, because that was actually an original war aim. But number two, I think, you know,

[C]

the Israeli is just quickly Mark, in the, in, am I right, Anthony? In this 10 point plan that the Iranians are referring to tonight and that the Iranians are saying that perhaps potus, this is coming from Iran, POTUS has accepted general framework of Iran's 10 point proposals. One of those 10 points, I think I'm right is that they should be able to hang on to their uranium, that they should be able to continue the enrichment of their uranium.

[D]

Right. And that 10 point plan, that 10 point proposal TRUMP tweeted out, that's going to be the basis. A lot of good things are in there or something that he said it's workable.

[B]

He said it's workable, Mark.

[D]

So that's, that's a, that's a problem. But the last part of it I think is really important. And you know, regardless of what happens, the Israeli, and the Israeli doctrine is going to be going back to mowing the lawn. And we've talked about, I'm sure you've talked about it a lot. And that's what they do either in Gaza or in Lebanon. And that's the essence that they're going to have to go back at some point. So it's going to be imperfect for them. They certainly would have liked to see this go on much longer. Degrade the Iranians as much as possible. They would have wanted regime change as well. But this the old adage and caddy, you're a Middle east hand, you know, just like me. The old adage of there's no wars that end in the Middle east, it's just kind of a time for rest and you know, an R and R, you kind of rest, you resupply and you get ready for the next round. And I think that's what the Israelis are going to have to look at it. I will say that I think one person who has lost in this significantly is Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, who clearly has been egging on President Trump. There was this incredible New York Times expose today that certainly, I don't know if you've talked about it, but that's probably worth an entire show. But it shows, it demonstrates how much influence Netanyahu and frankly, the head of the Mossad, David Barnea, had on President Trump. And so in Israel, I think they're not going to be thrilled. And of course, they're getting hit right now with ballistic missile attacks. I think Katie and Anthony, maybe you made the statements, we're not sure how much all of this has filtered down to kind of the lower levels of the irgc. We're not sure their command and control. But there's also ongoing attacks at other places in the Gulf. And so I think that my Israeli friends are like, hey, great, great ceasefire. We're still getting hit right now, right?

[B]

Mark, just go to Israel for a second. So did you read the New York Times article today about the setup in the, in the Oval Office? So how do you think Israel came out of that, number one in terms of the perception of Israel in the eyes of Americans that read that article or at least learning about that article. And then how do you think Israel is going to do, let's say, six, 12 months from now? So the first thing is how do you think they're doing with the US Citizens right now

[D]

in terms of US Citizens who are still stranded there in Israel?

[C]

I mean, in terms of their reputation,

[B]

talking about the prestige, the prestige, all

[C]

of the polls that are showing that Israel has really plummeted in American, you

[D]

know, I've pleaded with my Israeli friends, I've talked to Israeli diplomats. The number one issue for the Israeli embassy in Washington, for the entire Israeli Foreign Ministry, which doesn't get a lot of, you know, nobody talks about it, is the, the, the incredible diminished support in the United States for kind of the US Israeli partnership. And I think, and that in the political polling, and I'm sure you all have talked about it, it's now it's across both sides of the aisle. The Democratic support was caving. Now it's happening Republican for young Republicans as well. And, and I think there's huge questions in the future in terms of how much aid the United States is going to give to Israel. Politicians are, can openly run on kind of this platform of not doing this. And it's fine.

[C]

So with that mark, one second, can I just get, I want our team to put these poll numbers up. It's a new Pew poll. We'll put it in the link or something later, guys. 60, 60% of Americans have a negative opinion of Israel. That's up from 4, 42% of Americans in 2022. I don't think I've ever seen poll numbers shift that fast. Amongst ages 14 to 49, 84% of Democrats have a negative opinion of Israel, 57% of Republicans, 57% of Republicans and Caddy. That's the Pew poll, by the way, which if you, I know people bitch about polls, but the people actually is the one that is reliable.

[D]

And look, and you see, just, you see, you know, for example, Joe Kent, the former head of the National Counterter Terrorism center, who's come out now in this kind of virulent anti Israel stance. He's getting platformed all over on the right, whether it's Tucker Carlson, whether it's Sean Ryan, you know, every kind of major kind of, you know, right wing podcast is having him come on. And so, you know, Netanyahu, and going back to that New York Times piece, is this incredible. Now, countries do try to influence presidents, but what it appears is that Netanyahu has, you know, some kind of charm over Trump. And then you have David Barnea, the head of the Mossad, in essence saying that, yeah, we can actually go for regime change as well. President Trump's advisors, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Marco Rubio, both said this is nonsense, but it didn't matter. So in essence, it looks like Netanyahu really did convince Trump to go forward on this.

[C]

Now, I don't know. I read the piece a little differently, Mark, because it's pretty clear from the piece, too, that Trump also wanted to do this and he had advisors around him, General Kaine, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who put some of the negatives to him, but never said to him, you actually should not do this. This is a very bad idea. So I agree with you that Netanyahu weighed in and that reporting from this Situation room, all of you who have not read it, it's very worth a read just for the drama of it. It's going to make a great book when they come out with it. But I do think, you know, to suggest that Trump doesn't have agency here, I agree, is, I think, is a fallacy. President of the United States, here's the piece on this.

[D]

So I agree with you, but that's not the way people are going to see it. People are reading that piece and saying, aha, I knew it is really sway over this president. Israel has, you know, has convinced us to start another war, which is. And I'm not sure that's fair, but that's the way it's going to be seen. And politically, this is disastrous for Israel. I keep telling my Israeli friends that Benjamin Netanyahu is not, you know, kind of the savior for you, and neither is Donald Trump as well. And so at the end of the day, I think that Bibi is a big loser in this, and the Israelis are going to get some blame in kind of the American, both sides of the American political. I've been a big supporter of Israel. I've worked with Mossad for a long time. I'm trying to advise my Israeli friends. But this kind of bromance, this romance, the state of Israel and Netanyahu, it certainly has with, with Trump, I think, ends up being a bit of something that's going to hurt them down the line. You know, things are going to come up. There's going to be votes in Congress, there's going to be a lot of new representatives. If the Democrats take the House, every one of those Democrats who, in those, in those formerly Republican seats are not going to be voting for future aid. And I think that's.

[B]

That's a problem, Mark, for, for the viewers and listeners. How many years were you in the CIA?

[D]

I was in the CI for 26 years. Served most of my time in the Middle East.

[B]

Meet a lot of world leaders.

[D]

Sure.

[B]

And interacted with a lot of world leaders at a lot of different levels. Large companies. Sorry, large countries, small countries.

[D]

Right.

[B]

How would you assess the state of mind of the President of the United States right now, given the eroticism of his communiques on truth, social media, the barking at the press conference, et cetera?

[D]

Anthony, that's a great question, because that's what we did. You know, CIA, you know, does a lot of things in terms of, you know, we recruit spies, we try to. We have liaison relationships with other countries. There's a, There's a unique kind of niche thing that we do is psychological profiles of foreign leaders. And it's really important because that's what's presented to our policymakers when they go meet with someone. So other countries do this, too. And I've always thought, and I've asked all of my friends, you know, you know, again, I know intelligence officers from all over the world you know, their assessments of. Of Donald Trump, you know, and some of them would say, well, you know, go watch the Sopranos. It's a mob boss. You know, everything's very transactional. And we all kind of laughed at that. But now he looks like someone who's unhinged. And the idea of kind of threatening, kind of genocide or, you know, Armageddon, what he did the other day, there is. There's actually a piece in the Wall Street Journal, I think it was yesterday, which. Or maybe this morning, it talked about how foreign leaders are kind of looking at Trump and saying. Looking at America, looking at Trump, saying, he's really out of his mind right now. He's totally unhinged. And we're only at the end of year one now. Is it age? Is it, you know, his paranoia? Is it his vindictiveness after everything that he has gone through? But I don't think that, you know, for all the criticisms that we had over, you know, kind of President Biden's mental capacity, I think it's very valid to look at Trump right now. He acts unhinged. And, you know, the United States is a great world power. We have enormous military, political, economic clout. And this is. I think this is scary for a lot of. A lot of our allies, like, he's not reliable. What. And the question they ask is, what do we do?

[C]

Right. Mark, can I ask you about Iran a bit while we have you And I want to try to understand, because you've. You and I have spoken about this over the last few weeks, what intelligence questions you have about Iran? What. What. How much do we know about? How much don't we know, and how much more do we need to know to ensure that we end this whole awful enterprise with something that is better and safer for the region and for the rest of the world? What are the questions we need to be asking?

[D]

And so that's how you judge the CIA, by the way, is that if we can answer a certain set of questions. And one of the things, Katie, you and I talked about was, you know, we became very good in the global war on terrorism, at manhunting. It's something I did. It's the find, fix, and finish mission. It's taking. It's finding Osama bin Laden and removing him from the battlefield. And the CIA was great at this tactical intelligence. I remember sitting down with Bill Burns, the former CIA director. Before he took office, he was my ambassador in Jordan. So I got to see him. I retired, but I went to see him at Langley and He said, what do I need to do? And I said, we're really good at killing people. We're not really good at answering key questions from policymakers on strategic intelligence against hard targets. So it would be right now in Iran is, you know, what is the status, of course, of the Iranian leadership? Who, you know, who has the power?

[C]

Yeah, it's weird that after, it seems to me, weird that we still don't know that. We've had speculation that he's injured. We haven't actually seen him in public. Is he actually still alive?

[D]

Great question. And that means we have to have a penetration of senior members of the Iranian kind of inner circle. So. And that's hard to do. Now, again, can we get. Can we find, fix and finish Iranian leadership put a hellfire missile somewhere or, you know, a Tlam missile. Sure. But I'm talking about recruiting an agent who's going to answer those questions. Number two is what are Iran's, you know, you know, plans and intentions right now in the negotiations? So, for example, the CIA would need to steal the secret of the paper that the Iranian Foreign Ministry, the irgc, whoever it is, is going to write as they go into discussions in Islamabad, which apparently is taking place in several days. We need to have that information for our policymakers. I don't know if we can do that. And I say that because we have been so reactive into so much that has happened. And so either the President's daily Brief has really good intelligence in it and everybody's ignoring it, or we're actually not able to answer those questions. Those questions are hard. But we've been so disjointed and incoherent on our policy, on things that we should have, like the idea that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed by the Iranians. I mean, that is basic 101 stuff. I don't know.

[C]

Yeah. And you look, and you've said to me in the past, Mark, that it's pretty clear that Trump was given this intelligence. He would have been given the intelligence from the intelligence community that this is the prospect, this is the risks of the Strait of Hormuz being shut. This is the risk of allies being retaliated against. I mean, they, they know this stuff. They would have presented that to him. And maybe he chose to not listen

[D]

to them or, or they didn't do it, or they were scared to do it. In that New York Times piece, going back to that critical pieces, you saw a little bit of dissent, some of the national security team, but not all that Much. I mean, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Kane, he gets the pdb. So does Marco Rubio, so does Pete Hegseth.

[C]

So for those of you that don't know, the PDB is the president. Scaramucci.

[D]

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

[B]

No, it's Presidential Daily Brief. You know, it's a. I got it on an iPad. You know, I read it. But you know those guys, Mark, they wanted to go on the Record to say Rubio said it was bullshit. Yeah, they went on the record. Ratcliffe said it was farcical. Right, let's listen. You know, I think the President is very unwell, and I think the President needs to be removed from office, like, tonight. And I think that this is a crisis for the country now because we're so polarized in a different time, in a different era, with different people in the Congress and different people in the Cabinet, they'd be looking at each other and saying, okay, he has to be removed. You could take the high crimes and misdemeanors. Okay. Or you could go the 25th Amendment route. Of course he would contest it. I just want to point out to viewers and listeners outside the United States, if the President were to contest the 25th Amendment, usually, like, if he was incapacitated, then he can't contest it, and then they remove them once they get the vote of the Cabinet and the vice President has to initiate it. But let's say that he contests it, which he likely would. You would need, and I want to repeat this, you need a two thirds vote in the House, and you need a two thirds vote in the Senate. That's a higher standard than the impeachment because it's just 51 in the house and then 2/3 in the Senate. But the President needs to be removed from office. I am an American. I love my country. I'm a patriotic American. An objective reading of this. If we were on a board of directors of the business known as the United States, and we looked at a CEO acting with this level of erratic behavior. Okay. Would you vote for that removal, Mark?

[D]

Absolutely. And one of the things that I, that I always wonder is, you know, so, you know, obviously, and Anthony, you saw this too. You know, one gets into positions of power, and I think the first thing that one should do is have a resignation letter in your desk. You know, you know, you can't be afraid of losing your Cabinet position or your position somewhere senior in government. And it would. It would, you know, it would. There's no way these individuals behind the scenes think Trump is sane now, because he's not. Because you just like those of us in Washington and New York too, you watch him kind of obsessively because he is actually, you know, he's out there a lot. He's definitely not well and he's not making sense and everything is an incoherent ramble. If you see him in that two hour press conference the other day was yesterday, which started off with him talking with a Easter bunny rabbit and he's talking about war with Iran and then meshes into two hours of just. He was all over the place. I'm going to obliterate Iran. I love the Iranian people. I mean, it's crazy stuff. And so. But the question you have to. Or I would think that when you go into a senior position is you have to be able to lose that position for the, for the betterment of the country. Now, I don't think anybody has that kind of moral character and fortitude because people get absolutely, you know, you know, with power and so they're not going to want to lose. Marco Rubio is a perfect example. Marco Rubio, who I briefed. Caddy, you and I have talked about this on set. I mean, I briefed him as a senior intelligence officer. He was great on foreign policy. He was incredibly promoted.

[C]

He was one of the best people in the Senate.

[D]

NATO. And he looks like an alien right now.

[C]

Supported NATO, supported Ukraine. Okay, Mark, we. We're going to wrap it up there. Thank you for joining us this evening. It was great to get your insight, particularly all of your insight from your. Your more sad body.

[B]

You're looking good. Everything looks good about you, Mark. But the red sock sign behind. Red sock sign. Not looking good, New Yorkers. Okay.

[D]

We were all looking like we're in good shape. There's a connective tissue that we have over somebody we all know who's, you know, who perhaps you know, would. Would like a shout out, but that's for you guys.

[B]

All right, I'm gonna give a shout out. I'm gonna give that a shout out. Gonna give her a shout out.

[C]

Keeps us looking. As you know.

[B]

I'm giving a shout out to Ray Solomon, but Ray Solomon is. Go Goots. Okay. Or as the Greeks would say, Tre Lowe's. Go ahead, look it up

[D]

the other day. So I gotta go.

[B]

I say that with great affection. He's an awesome.

[C]

Thanks.

[B]

He's an awesome human being. Ray Solomon.

[C]

This is worth knowing. TikTok shop helps you discover good value products and surprise deals fast. No endless searching, just smart finds. Download TikTok now, One of the things that I've been texting you about that has surprised me. And before we get to Mike Froman, who we're going to bring in, who's the President of the Council on Relations, Foreign Relations, in a few minutes, we're going to bring him into the program. I just want to talk a little bit of domestic politics with you, Anthony. One of the things that surprised me today, this is the President of the United States saying that he's going to end a civilization. How many Republican senators came out and said, the President cannot talk like that? That is threatening genocide on another country. Whether or not he's doing this for leverage is frankly irrelevant. The President cannot threaten to end a civilization. How many Republicans?

[B]

What is the number? Caddy? Three? Two Tillis?

[C]

I. By my count, it's actually only two, maybe three Tillis may have joined them. Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Lisa Murkowski, who actually had to think about it for about eight or nine hours. And I don't know if Tillis has done it as well. Maybe he has. You've had a couple of Republican congressmen, but basically crickets from the Republican Party. And at what point, what do they need to be able to say this? Okay, Mr. President, we understand you need leverage. We understand that's the way you operate. And the White House is already trying to spin this ceasefire as this is the genius of the 5D Pratt chess that the President plays so well that no one else can play. But he threatened a whole civilization with death.

[B]

Listen, listen. It's embarrassing. It's intolerable. He has to be removed from office. He's not going to be removed from office. He won't be removed because of the state, because of the state that the country is in. And so the country is going to have to heal and repair and then redeem and then eventually renew itself from this. The country's going to have to look at this situation and say, we got somebody very mad, very deranged, a mentally ill guy in the position and we had norms and standards as opposed to direct guidelines and rules.

[C]

What if it's not about one individual? What about. This is the question I hear recently and particularly in the last few weeks. What about if this is actually about an American system that doesn't work? Because the whole point of the system, balance of the American system, was that you would be able to prevent a president. I accept that in the whole civilization,

[B]

the system needs reform. I accept exactly what you're saying. And this is my point. You've heard me say this Every 80 or so years, America gets dunked. We got 80, 17, 76, civil war. We got dunked and we got dunked again. Eighty years after the Civil War, with the Depression and the Second World War, now we're getting dunked again. The country doesn't have the cultural history of the European countries, the result of which, every time we lose a generation of memory in this country, we go into the tar pit and we got to pull ourselves out of it again. So we will do that. But the system is going to need massive reform, constitutional amendments and all kinds of things. And weirdly and optimistically, the Trump era, which is kind of come to an end, will hopefully lead to this reflective reform. But I want to go to the United States for a second.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

And I just want to say three things and get you to react to them. The United States has created its Suez Canal crisis moment and just, just remind everybody what happened. The French and the British government were in a fight with Nasser and the Egyptian government and there was a Mexican standoff. And Eisenhower stepped in, who was by nature an anti colonialist. And he stepped in after the fighting was not going well for the French and the British. And it was a metaphor for supposed power that was actually hollowed out or the supposed power didn't understand its position in the world.

[C]

It was a metaphor for end of

[B]

empire, metaphor for the end of empire. And what the United States did here has tremendously damaged the United States. You know, I love the United States with my whole heart, Caddy. My, my grandparents love this country in a way that I cannot describe to you, which is why I'm never leaving the United States. I would like to help you.

[C]

Never leaving Long Island.

[B]

I'm not leaving Long Island. I would like to, I'd like to fix the United States. But I'm just letting you know we have to have an honest moment in the country to understand the prestige hit that the United States has taken as a result of the stupidity of these unilateral actions by Donald Trump with the assist of Benjamin Netanyahu. And I'm just going to say these three things quickly and get your reaction. Number one, we've heard our standing in the world as a superpower. Number two, we hurt our standing with those golf allies. A lot of our bases, US Newspaper, the New York Times reporting. A lot of our bases are almost uninhabitable as a result of what happened. That's not me saying it. That's the New York Times saying it. Number three, and this is the most important thing, who the hell is going to trust the United States with this type of pendulum swinging decision making? So those are the three things. And again, I'm telling you the market's telling you that the United States could win and that the markets are going to stabilize. And Iran has been so badly weakened that you may end up toppling that regime. It's possible. But I am telling you that we've had our Suez Canal moment and we, we have denialism going on in our leadership.

[C]

So we've got a poll. We asked you guys, is this the end of the American empire? 74% of you say yes. I suspect that number would have been pretty high if we'd asked you that question even before this fiasco in Iran. But I think you're right, Anthony, up until you had the tariffs last year, that dominated last year's relationships with America and around the world. We began the beginning of the year with this military triumph of Venezuela. We then had Greenland and the fiasco around Greenland, which did enormous damage to relations with Europe. And now we have this. And here, the real problem with this for the United States is that it risks looking like a paper tiger. It can spend a billion dollars a day or whatever it has cost the American military. They can rescue a pilot with extraordinary prowess. But effectively, as we stand tonight, the Iranians are saying now this is Iranian propaganda as well. This is the ten point plan. But the president has referred to that ten point plan. The Iranians have got the uranium, the sanctions relief, the reparations, the stopping of hostilities and control of the Strait of Hormuz. I doubt in two weeks time if this holds. And by the way, you guys are very skeptical that this will hold. And we're going to ask our next guest about that. I doubt they'll get all of that. But it's very hard to say tonight that America looks like they've come out of this looking like an empire, looking like a superpower, because a small country that has been obliterated with weapons degraded has managed to bring Donald Trump to the table on Iran's terms tonight because six weeks ago Iran did not control the states.

[B]

Before we go to our next guest, how are we doing with Putin? How's he feeling about all this?

[C]

I think that's, that's the other person to talk about because I gave my list of who you know, geostrategic winners. Russia is obviously, we can't end the

[B]

show without talking about Israel because I have a, I have a statements I want to make. Katie K. On Israel, I know you

[C]

have a show to do.

[B]

Let's bring in Mike Frank, the President

[C]

of the Council on Foreign Relations, who we spoke to when we were in Davos as well. Mike, it's great to have you back again. Thank you for joining us.

[A]

Thanks for having me.

[C]

Okay, what we've been asking our audience, where we end up in two weeks time, does this actually hold? They seem to think that it doesn't. You're the President of the Council on Foreign Relations. Unfortunately, perhaps not the President of the United States. Does it hold? Well, look, where are we in two weeks?

[A]

This is an agreement to begin to talk, as you said, and it's about to talk about the underlying issues, like Iran's nuclear aspirations, what kind of military they're going to have, what kind of control they're going to have over the Strait of Hormuz, et cetera. So all we've agreed to today, and I don't think we should underestimate what's been agreed to today, a ceasefire is better than no ceasefire. It's good for the bombing to stop. It's good for, for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened, assuming that the Iranians actually follow through on that. But this is really just the beginning of a conversation about these fundamental issues where I think the US And Iran are in really quite different positions. So will it last? I mean, first of all, what does it mean for the Strait of Hormuz to be open, assuming coordination with Iranian armed forces and technical capabilities, which is some of the language that's used in the Iranian statement, and that it may

[C]

seem take some time.

[A]

They're suggesting, are they going to charge, are they going to charge a toll? Are they going to let every ship out? Are they going to control which ships get access or priority? So there are a lot of questions there. And shippers are going to have to make the judgment about whether they are willing to take the risk of going into the Strait of Hormuz and take supplies out of there, given the uncertainty there. But again, it's a good and a good step forward, at least to get the two parties to talk. It doesn't make the underlying issues any easier to resolve.

[D]

However.

[B]

Mike, it's always good to see you. By the way. You know, Mike and I know each other 30 plus years. You know that, right? We were, we were in law school together.

[C]

So young. What were you in kindergarten?

[A]

He doesn't have any gray hair. I don't really understand this.

[B]

Well, I have a really, I have a really good colorist. I have a really good colorist down the block from that beautiful apartment you're in right now.

[C]

So we can send you him if

[B]

you need him, referral. And after Maduro got taken, I was using Maduro black, but this is Latin American dictator brown. That's the color, by the way. I had had to tone it down at the request of Katty K. It was hard to look at. Okay, but serious question. I want you to talk about Israel for a second. Okay. I am a fan, I'm a supporter, I am a Philo Semite. I'm not shy of that. I'm happy to say that. But I think they've gotten hurt here, public opinion wise in the United States. Katty can give you the polling data about how Americans feel about the relationship. I think this New York Times article for Netanyahu was a disaster. I'm just being objective here. And what kind of advice, first of all, do you agree with any of that? I feel like I can read you these polls. Only 32% of registered voters now view Israel positively, down from 47% three years ago. Six in ten Americans now hold an unfavorable view of Israel. That's up 20 points since 2022. The partisan breakdown is a little bit more devastating. The Democrats are harder on Israel, frankly, than the Republicans. But you know, listen, I. What, how, number one, do you agree with any of that? And number two, how would you help Israel in this situation?

[A]

Well, look, I think it's a tragic situation. I imagine your polls are correct, at least directionally. And Israel's reputation has over the last few years, over the course of the Gaza war, because of the way it was prosecuted, but also because of the reporting on it and the protests and all that, I think has really led to, as you say, an isolation of Israel internationally and a decline of the coalition of support that has traditionally been there for it domestically. And I think that it's a tragic situation because Israel has been a very important partner of the United States in the region, very effective in going after Iran's proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others. Very important in terms of stabilizing the situation in Syria and of course, very important with regard to Iran itself in terms of attacking its nuclear capabilities and setting that back in a substantial way. And while a lot of the neighbors in the region will say critical things, I think they are secretly quite supportive or behind the scenes quite supportive of the US And Israel working together.

[C]

Gulf states.

[A]

Absolutely, because Israel is fundamentally change the security situation in the region with the US Support and sometimes the US Involvement.

[C]

How does what's happened over the last six weeks and we don't know how this story ends, right, Mike? I mean, it's very hard to see. I find it hard to see in two weeks time America going back to bombing. But they may have to if the Iranians don't stand by this. But I think Trump clearly wants out. He wants this over with. He wants to close the door on this because chapter but how has what's happened in the last six weeks changed Israel's relationship with countries in the region, particularly those Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. Gulf states who had already signed onto the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia that was looking at signing onto the Abraham Accords.

[A]

Well, look, I think it's instructive that no country that signed the Abraham Accords pulled out of the Abraham Accords during the entire post October 7th Gaza war, nor in the current situation. And just like some of the countries, including Saudi Arabia, may be critical or urging the United States and Israel to step back, privately they have been urging the United States to, quote, finish the job, whatever that means. I think it's a threat.

[C]

Well, actually the Gulf states and Israel are sort of on the same pages.

[A]

Well, I think that's right. And the fact that Iran decided to retaliate for the Israeli and US Strike strikes by striking a number of other states in the region, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, even Oman, I believe, has I think driven other countries to say, all right, Iran really is a threat to our security and in some ways driven them closer to the United States and Israel, even if they can't really admit that publicly to their publics.

[B]

Mike, everything you say makes sense to me. I want to talk about Netanyahu for a second and I want to talk about his polling in the U.S. 50% of the Americans do not trust him on world affairs. And 50%, 59% of the Americans say that he's become the face of bad things. Mike, I don't want to go into all the bad things, but my point is Israel is a democracy. Is he the right leader right now to be running this country? And is there a chance that they will change leadership? I mean, Churchill after the war they went with Clement Attlee as an example. What are your thoughts on that?

[A]

Look, I hardly comment on politics in the United States, let alone the politics of another country. I think it's important, though, that we separate the individual from the country and from national interests. We need to be doing in the region what is in the US national interests. And to a certain degree those may be aligned with Israel. In other cases, they may not be identical. And we need to, I think, just keep a clear eye on where our interests lie and make sure that we're following them. I think it's unfortunate that when this most recent conflict with Iran broke out that there was a portrayal that the US had been dragged into it by Israel. The US should be deciding whether to deploy military force and putting our soldiers at risk for U.S. interests. I think we do do that and I think it's important that as the administration laid out what their military objectives were vis a vis Iran, that we steady focus on those, even if they're different than what Israel wanted. And we had Bridge Colby, top Pentagon official at the Council of Foreign Relations at the beginning of the war and he laid out what the military objectives were and indicated that Israel may have different objectives, including regime change, which may

[B]

go beyond what the US Wanted. I think it's a really fair answer and I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. So I'm now going to flip the question to a different side of the conversation. I've made you the war decision making czar. You are in the Situation room. It's, it's 39. He does this, it's 39 days earlier than to today, but that's cool. Let me give you, let me give you the good news. Let me give you the good news. You're the war decision making zor. You're going to make the decision to go into war. But I have arrived with the position paper and I've said, Michael, before you make the decision, this is where we're going to be on the 39th day of the war. The strait's going to be closed. This is going to be the economic damage. $2 million a ship to get through the strait. Yes, we will have degraded them and potentially been more secure from military structure. But this is what's going to happen to our bases. This is how everything's going to unfold. And we're going to be in a 15 day Mexican standoff organized by the Pakistanis. So I've now given you clairvoyance and I've told you, here you are 40 days later, here is everything. Would you have made the decision based on everything that we know today, hindsight not being 20 20, hindsight being 20 10, would you make a decision?

[A]

I've been in the Situation Room not always for decisions like that. And you wish you had clairvoyance about, about, about the future. I hope that the decision makers or the advisors around the president did lay out, including the risk that The Strait of Hormuz would be closed and the impact it had on the global economy, because that seems to have maybe not caught them by surprise, but sort of changed the dynamic. Look, Anthony, Iran has terrorized the region and worked against US interests for 47 years. We've tried engagement, we've tried sanctions. We crossed the threshold last year working with Israel to bomb their nuclear plants. And I actually think the most likely corporation course going forward is that we will be, to Katie's point, we probably will be bombing Iran regularly every time we see them rebuilding their missile capability or trying to rebuild a nuclear capability or trying to close the Strait of Hormuz again. And I think we just have to realize that we are fundamentally different interests there and provide as long as this revolutionary regime exists in Iran, we're likely to to be in a conflict with them that requires this. So that's a long way of not answering your question, Anthony, other than to say I think there were important military objectives that the US Laid out. I feel like there was potential that the administration did not take sufficient account into the nature of asymmetric warfare. Henry Kissinger wrote an important article in Foreign affairs once upon a time about Vietnam, which basically said the Vietnamese just have to not lose. The US has to win. And the same thing could be applied here. The US has to basically wipe out all of the missiles, all of the drones, all the capabilities. What Iran has shown is that no matter how significantly their military capabilities are degraded, if they survive and have a small number of projectiles, they could wreak a fair amount of havoc on the global economy. We are not immune to that, even though we are a much bigger energy producer than we were a decade or two ago, and therefore the pain is felt by us. And I think what the Iranians have shown, like the Chinese showed on critical minerals and like the US Showed it is control over the dollar financial system, when you've got these choke points, you can really use your leverage in a disproportionate way to bring others to the table. And that's exactly what Iran is demonstrating.

[C]

You want to if other countries that have control of choke points are going to be looking at their choke points

[B]

a little bit more.

[A]

Absolutely.

[C]

As a result of this. Okay, we have a couple of minutes left, but I want to bring up a question that's come up several times and throw this forward just two weeks forward. I'm actually demoting you either further and making you Vice President Lady Vance. So you've gone down from President of Council on Foreign Relations to Warsaw To Vice President of the United States, you are the person, the point, your running point on these negotiations for the next two weeks. Where are we Michael, in two weeks time? Does this turn itself into, from a temporary ceasefire into something that is long term and sustainable and we can bring those American forces home and we get back to something like the status quo ante or do you think bombing starts again and if we are back to something like the status quo anti what does it look like?

[A]

So look, I think we're likely to get back to a certain degree to where we were before, but with the new factor that the Iranians have now realized or demonstrated their capability of using a choke point as leverage anytime in the future.

[C]

So you think the two weeks turns into something more permanent? You don't think we're back to the war in two weeks time?

[A]

I think there's going to be a re looking at our negotiating objectives. For example, the President has said Iran has to commit not to pursue nuclear weapons. Well, Iran has committed to that for a long period of time. I think we have to figure out whether they have any ability to refine uranium for any purpose whatsoever, even for just medical purposes, for mri, MRI machines and things of that sort, or excuse me for radiation machines, X rays. And so I think we need to sort of look at all of our objectives and see if it's truly negotiable or not. I think we underestimate, we tend to underestimate how much pain the Iranians are willing to go through. They went through an eight year war with Iraq, a tremendous cost to their people, their economy, their country. I think they feel like again, all they have to do is is survive as a regime and therefore they may be less motivated to abandon their long standing objectives than the US thinks.

[B]

So as we're speaking Michael, the news is reporting that Iran is still bombing Israel, still sending missiles into Israel. So is that a breach?

[C]

This could be what we talked about that they don't, that not all of the commanders know yet. Right. This could be a communications issue. We don't know.

[A]

I think that's right. We really don't know.

[C]

But it's possible.

[A]

Yeah. I mean given the decapitation of so much of their civilian, religious and military intelligence and military leadership, I don't think we have great visibility into how decisions are being made and communicated down. In fact, we know that at least at some point the previous Ayatollah had given instructions that if something were to happen, local commanders had the authority to act on their own. And so this may well Be, as Kadi said, sort of folks just acting on their own before it's been fully implemented. And I would hope the US would create at least a degree of patience to make sure that Iran has a chance to fully implement what they have allegedly agreed to.

[C]

Okay, Mike, thank you very much.

[A]

Thanks for having me.

[B]

Great to see you.

[C]

Mr. Froman, I'm very tempted to ask you how you like your tackers, but

[B]

we will pass chicken. He likes chicken tacos like the rest of us. We like chicken tacos.

[C]

Oh, harsh. Mike, thanks very much for that.

[B]

Wasn't, that wasn't a criticism of Frohman, that was a explanation of the President. So.

[C]

Well, look, there's a ton to talk about, right?

[B]

So can we, let's go to these questions. Is that okay? I'm going to go to some of these star questions.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

So do you believe NATO will persevere without the U.S. arguably there's a greater need. I think NATO will persevere without the US or maybe the US will still be in NATO, but not functionally. No one will believe the Article 5 promise while Donald Trump is President Anthony's ceasefire purely economical decision by Trump. That is a clear yes. Katty, you want to chime in on that one? Yeah, that's a yes. Triple yes. What we said yesterday, we said he's not going to do it and I told you why.

[C]

It would tank the American economy. The tech Bros don't want him to do it. It's costing an awful lot of money and Americans are much more concerned about what's happening at the pump. So when is Trump's deadline on Iran? I think we're looking at two weeks time, but I think effectively it's over tonight. It was interesting to hear Mike agree with that. It seems, I think it's unlikely that Trump's going to want to go back to bombing in two weeks time. Now he just has to negotiate the most elegant terms of surrender, effectively, or withdrawal, perhaps. We don't call it surrender withdrawal that he can. Anthony, is this going to be a long term war?

[B]

No. Could there be extended bombings as Mr. Frohman said? Possibly, but I don't think so. I think that, I think this is going to be. This is going to be it. I think the, I think the, if anything, I'm worried about the long term tenure of Donald Trump. I think he is really, I know people think I'm exaggerating. I think he's really unwell. You know what's interesting is if I asked Frohman, which I wouldn't have asked him this question because I know Michael for 30 plus years I would have said Trump, is he meshuggah, is he crazy and should he be knocked out of office? He wouldn't have answered the question cuz he's at the Council of Foreign Relations. He's a diplomat. But Polly Maropoulos answered the question. He said bye bye. The guy's nuts, okay? And this is the problem now. I think we got to get everybody over the threshold of diplomacy and into the nut category so that we can handle this in a bipartisan way. And again, you know, if you're a Republican, if you're a Republican out there, JD Vance will be your president. He's a Republican.

[C]

There is no sign that there is any bipartisanship coming. You've got every Democrat in the country up in arms about the President threatening to destroy.

[B]

And by the way, they the same, they gave the same pushback. Those Democrats have no standing because they gave the same pushback with Joe Biden. Joe Biden wasn't even functioning. So this is an embarrassment of both sides and diving at both sides. Let's go to this question. Where are the President? Where are the President's men? Katie, you answered that. What happened to Rubio and Vance? So this is where is Marjorie Taylor

[C]

Greene, my new Vance is swanning around Hungary. You might ask why he's swanning out around Hungary trying to support a MAGA Viktor Orban when he's got negotiations to sort out. But I am told that Vance is going to be the point person on these negotiations. He didn't want to have anything to do with the beginning of the war or as little as possible. But he is now prepared to be the person that tries to oversee the end of the war. So he's going to be negotiating that Rubio actually we have not heard very much from for the last few days. We know that Rubio, I mean I've known Rubio for years. I have interviewed him very many times. I was with him when he was very first running for the Senate when he was young and accessible and very candid. There is no way he would have wanted this to happen the way that it happened. Our reporting, both of us, is that there was a big split in the White House and Vance on Rubio were on the side of please don't do this, it's not a good idea. They got overruled by the President with the influence of Netanyahu and Hexith, by the way. And whereas MTG will end with her, she is the one that has come out very opposed to this war. And particularly today, one of the few Republican voices, I don't know if she still calls herself a Republican, but one of the few Republican voices to come out and say that the president should be removed from office on the grounds of insanity because of the tweet threatening the end of a civilization. So that's where they all are. And I suspect you're not going to see more partisanship. They will try to brush this under the rug from the Republican point of view and they will fall in line. They'll call this a victory. They'll say, well done to the president for playing 3D chess and getting the Straits of Hormuz back open, even though the Straits of Hormuz were open before this all started. So watch the next two weeks. It's going to be an interesting two weeks of negotiations. Guys, we will be back later this week. Thank you very much. Those of you who are worried that Anthony and I are up at two in the morning, little secret. I'm in Washington D.C. anthony's in New York. So actually it's only nine o' clock for us.

[B]

I'm not. I'm not letting you out here without me answering the Frohman question. Okay?

[C]

Okay.

[B]

Stupid war catech. And if you knew everything at the end, what I just listed, you'd be like, okay.

[C]

It's hard to believe that any of them would have.

[B]

A guy's stupid.

[C]

Stupid. Actually think the president, if he'd known where he was going to end up,

[B]

he also would have stupid war catech. And it's really. It's really bad on all fronts. And a lot of reparation, a lot of work needs to be done to

[C]

repair humiliating for the United States.

[B]

And it's a facts. And we have to, you know, we have to tell the truth here on this network. Okay.

[C]

Okay. Bye, guys.

[B]

We'll see you soon.

[C]

Thanks for joining us. Hi, it's Steph McGovern here from the Rest is Money. Now, obviously there are big economic consequences to all the geopolitical turmoil. Listen to us. To find out how investors are reacting and whether we're heading to a financial Armageddon. I'm talking to Karen Ward, a chief market strategist at J.P. morgan Asset Management. Listen to the Rest is Money. To get her take.