← TRIGGERnometry
Loading summary
Transcript343 lines
- [00:00]
A
Quick interruption. Here's a helpful tip. Thinking about updating your home? TikTok is full of simple DIY and decor ideas.
- [00:08]
B
Small changes, big results.
- [00:10]
A
All in quick, easy videos. Download TikTok now. Fox News is now streaming live on Fox One. When it matters most, turn to the voices you trust.
- [00:24]
B
We go beyond the headlines, bringing you
- [00:27]
A
the stories you won't hear anywhere else.
- [00:29]
B
Live coverage, sharp analysis, real perspective at
- [00:34]
A
home or on the go. Stay connected when it counts. Stream Fox News on Fox 1.
- [00:41]
B
Download.
- [00:41]
A
Today,
- [00:47]
B
The war in Iran. What do you make of it?
- [00:50]
A
Right now, I think it's a disaster. I don't think it was legal, I don't think it was justifiable, and I think a lot of innocent people are dying as we speak, without any real justification.
- [00:59]
B
Israel's war goals and interests are actually very clear. I'm very unclear as to what the US wants.
- [01:04]
A
Well, if it is the nuclear program, this is not the way to do it. Negotiations are the way to solve. Most experts say you cannot bomb away a nuclear program. It's in people's heads. All of the available evidence suggests he is losing.
- [01:16]
B
What do you mean?
- [01:17]
A
Strategic experts will point out that a country like Iran wins simply by surviving.
- [01:22]
C
We have to admit that there have been fundamental failings on the left. For instance, having an open border.
- [01:27]
A
There's no open border, Francis. That doesn't mean it's open. That just means they managed to come in illegally. That just means the border wasn't as secure as you wanted it to be.
- [01:34]
B
Hold on a second.
- [01:35]
A
Open border means I can just walk into America. Sorry, you triggered me with open border.
- [01:40]
B
This episode is sponsored by our friends at Hillsdale College. Right after this episode, go check out their incredible online courses, which are absolutely free at Hillsdale. Eduardo
- [01:53]
C
Mehdi Hassan. Welcome to Trigonometry. Before we get into the meat of the interview, Iran, domestic policy, all the good stuff. Tell us who you are on your journey through life.
- [02:02]
A
That's a big question. Thanks for having me, guys. My name is Mehdi Hassan. I am the editor in chief of a media company called Zateo. I've been a journalist here in the US and in the UK for the past 25 years. I'm old. I used to be at MSNBC. I've done shows for Al Jazeera, I've worked at Sky News, I've worked at all over the place. So I do interviews, I do shows, I write books. And I'm stuck in the middle of all the current controversy right now here in Washington, dc.
- [02:27]
C
So what I find very Interesting is you're from the uk, you're left wing. What brought you to be on the left?
- [02:34]
A
To be on the left, Yes. I grew up in a very political household where my father, my late father, who passed away last year, was very, very political. Loved Harold Wilson, immigrant from India to the United kingdom in the 1960s, arrived in 1966, a great year to arrive in England. And yeah, I grew up in a household where we were taught to give a damn about what's happening in the world, care about causes both distant and nearby. I've always cared about justice. I'm also a Muslim. As a Muslim, you're taught from a very young age to give a damn about your society, your community, about a world bigger than yourself. So justice, I guess justice has been something that I've cared a great deal about. So, yeah, I was an angry young man in my teens and it's probably, you know, they say you grow out of it as you grow older, but I didn't.
- [03:16]
C
Absolutely. Fair enough. So what brought you to the us? Why not stay in the UK and focus on UK domestically and be angry
- [03:22]
A
there be moral outrage. The, I mean, one, there's a history of British people coming to the us, both in the media, in entertainment, across the world, you know, to look at different opportunities. I was always fascinated by the United States. I'm sure both of you guys, you're here in dc. US politics is fascinating. It affects all of us around the world. Also, my wife is American and they say a happy wife is a happy life. So at some point when she said, you know what, we've done a good gig in the UK, why don't you come try live in the US? So I moved here in 2015 just as Donald Trump was coming down the golden escalator. So it's been an interesting 11 years.
- [03:54]
B
Well, it has. And as we sit here in dc, big things are happening globally. The war in Iran, what do you make of it?
- [04:06]
A
Right now, I think it's a disaster. I don't think it was legal, I don't think it was justifiable, I don't think it was necessary. I think it's self destructive. I don't think it's in the US's national interest and I think a lot of innocent people are dying as we speak without any real justification.
- [04:22]
B
Why do you think it's happening?
- [04:25]
A
Many reasons. One of the main reasons was expressed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio before he tried to walk it back where he said that we were told this is Rubio's words I'm paraphrasing that Israel was about to attack Iran, and if they had attacked Iran, Iran would have attacked us. So we decided to attack first, which is kind of insane on multiple levels. Number one, if you thought Israel was going to attack Iran, just stop Israel from attacking Iran. It's your client state. Number two, imagine if you're at home and you're like, my brother's about to get drunk and drive the family car and wreck it. I'm going to wreck it first. So it's a bizarre argument to say they were going to attack, so we attacked first. So it's. Israel plays a big role in this. I don't think it's the only role. Joe Kent, who has just quit the Trump administration, director of counterterrorism, he wrote a letter saying, it's all Israel. Israel manipulated us and does what? I think that takes away too much responsibility from Donald Trump, from Lindsey Graham, from the US Government, and hawks in the US who have long wanted a confrontation with Iran. This has been building for years. We're all, I think, of a similar age group. You know, we're all old enough to remember the Iraq war. We're old enough to remember George Bush, Dick Cheney, they wanted to go into Iran at the time, too. They didn't. George Bush was smart enough not to do that after the disaster in Iraq. And Benjamin Netanyahu is on the record saying, I've dreamed of attacking Iran for 40 years. Trump's the first president to let me do it.
- [05:36]
B
Those are all points that I wanted to discuss with you, but I still, I'm not very clear on what you. Why you think it's happening. Because I agree with you. A lot of people talk about Israel, but as you said, Israel is a client state of the United States. And quite a lot of people act as if it's the reverse now, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, just from the understanding of how these dynamics work. So why would President Trump, who's on the record repeatedly saying, no more foreign wars, no more forever wars, who got rid of all the neocons within his administration from the first one, why would he do this now?
- [06:09]
A
I think now is the good question, Constantine. It's about the timing. Because Donald Trump is not an anti war. I never accepted the bullshit shtick that he was anti war. I was one of the people in 2024 said, don't buy this crap that he's running on. He went to Michigan and told Muslims, vote for me, there'll be no wars in the Middle East. No Muslims will die. If you vote for Kamala Harris and Liz Cheney, they're going to bomb the whole of the Middle East. I never bought that stuff. I remember his first time. He was pretty belligerent.
- [06:30]
B
Why not? Why didn't you buy it?
- [06:31]
A
Because in his first term, he expanded drone strikes, he killed Qasem Soleimani. You know, he bombed Somalia at a rate. We never talk about countries like Somalia. There was nothing in his first term that said this guy is not totally happy with war. He also surrounded himself with, you know, look at the people he hired. Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth. Look at his best friend in the Senate, Lindsey Graham, a man who's never met a country he doesn't want to invade. So I never bought that. And unfortunately, I've been vindicated. In his first year, he bombed, I think, seven countries in 12 months. Last year, he just bombed Nigeria on Christmas Day. We've all just moved on from that randomly. He started this year with Venezuela, regime change, Maduro, and then Iran. The timing is interesting. I was talking to Senator Chris Van Hollen, an anti war Democrat, yesterday, and we were trying to get to the bottom of this. What is in. Very hard to get inside Donald Trump's head. Very hard. But what is going on in there? Is it just Benjamin Netanyahu playing for a fall? Partly, yes. Netanyahu's kind of admitted it. Is it the, you know, the old belligerence of Donald Trump with a country that won't bow down to him? Is it Witkoff and Kushner screwing up the negotiations, not understanding what was going on, which a lot of reporting is suggesting? Is it just Jared Kushner and others trying to make money out of this? We see Kushner, you know, a lot of. Would Trump follow the money is often an explanation to a lot of what's going on. Is it him trying to distract from domestic economic woes? We've seen this before. Unpopular leaders at home decide to start a foreign war to distract the public attention. Zateo, My company did. A poll of the American public recently found 52% of Americans think the Epstein files was one of the reasons Trump went to war. You might think mad conspiracy theory. A majority of Americans believe that is one of the reasons he went to war. So I think it's a mix of things. Israel obviously played a big role in that. And I think now he's in it. He's doubling down, tripling down. He could just declare victory. People like Tucker Carlson have called him or called proxies of his and said, just say mission accomplished and go home. Just say, I killed Hamani, I degraded their military, blah, blah, blah, and go home. Like you did last year after the 12 Day War. He won't do it. He's. He's quadrupling down as we speak.
- [08:19]
B
So why do you think that is?
- [08:22]
A
If we're going to spend an hour doing. Psychoanalyzing Trump is going to be difficult. I think he is someone who does not want to accept defeat. He. The worst thing in his life is to be a loser. The guy doesn't accept he lost a 2020 election. Still ranting on about that. The idea that he would lose to the Iranians. And he is losing right now. Let's just be very clear. All of the available evidence suggests he is losing.
- [08:41]
B
What do you mean?
- [08:43]
A
What are his goals in Iran? We don't know because he's never really stated them. But if it's destroying Iran, he's failed. He posted a couple of weeks ago, I've destroyed 100% of Iran's military capability. Okay, then what are we watching every day? Land on Gulf countries. What are we watching happening in the Strait of Hormuz? He's alienated his allies. Iran's nuclear enrichment, whatever they have still left over, they still have. They're still hitting Gulf countries. Gulf countries are furious. So I think he's losing. And, you know, people like, you know, strategic experts will point out that a country like Iran wins simply by surviving, right? Cause they're the weaker, smaller power. So I think he's in a bad state. I don't think he's gonna give up because he can't handle the defeat. And by the way, it's a US Israeli war, Right? And a lot of people have pointed out that the US And Israeli interests are not the same. Our strategic interests are not Israel.
- [09:31]
B
That's very clear that they're not. And I think that divergence is one of the reasons people keep saying, you know, Israel tricked Trump into this war. But. Oh, bullied. I think one of your guests on your show recently talked about how he bullied him. And that's where they lose me, because I don't understand what this supposed mechanism is by which Israel bullies America.
- [09:51]
A
Well, I don't know about the word bully, but let me just say, in terms of tricked or manipulated, this is not a conspiracy theory. The beauty of these Republicans, and you're in D.C. i know you're gonna be speaking to Republicans. The only redeeming feature of the Republican Party right now is they just say the quiet part out loud. People like me don't need to speculate or come up with theory. They just say it. So Lindsey Graham told the Wall Street Journal that I went to Israel, and Israel showed me intel that made me think, we've got to go to war. That's bizarre. United States senator went to a foreign government for intel. Then he says, I met with Netanyahu and I coached him, his words, not mine, on how to persuade Trump to get into this war. Again, bizarre that a United States senator and a foreign leader is discussing how they're gonna coach, how they're gonna persuade, manipulate a sitting president into war. So they're saying this stuff out loud. I. I'm not absolving Trump of responsibility, but nor am I saying Israel didn't play. Would we be in this war were it not for Israel? No, I think that's very clear. And by the way, if we stop the war tomorrow. Just one last point. If Trump was saying, we're done, we're over, one of the reasons I think he's not is because he's been told the Israelis aren't stopping, and therefore, as long as the Israelis go, we go.
- [10:49]
B
Well, see, all I'm doing, Mehdi, is trying to pass logically the things that people are saying, including logic, and Trump
- [10:55]
A
doesn't always go in the same sentence.
- [10:57]
B
Well, sure, fine. But I guess what I'm saying is this. If President Trump didn't want to do this, he wouldn't do it. Agreed.
- [11:05]
A
100% agree.
- [11:05]
B
Very easily say to Iran, we have nothing to do with this. And in fact, we're not even going to shoot down your ballistic missiles if you shoot them at Israel, because we'd want no part in this, and then none of this would be going on. So I. That's what. That's the bit where people lose me when they talk about Israel. I mean, every country wants to manipulate the United States into doing.
- [11:25]
A
They've been doing it well, but he's easily manipulated.
- [11:28]
B
Russia wants him to make it easier for them in Ukraine. Ukraine wants it to make it easier for them to defeat Russia. China spends huge amounts of money shaping US Foreign policy. If it can, so does Qatar. So do lots of countries. So I guess the thing that I'm trying to get to the bottom of, because it's such a big talking point in the US Right now, is what is the supposed mechanism by which this tiny country of Israel has this outsized power over the president of the United States?
- [11:58]
A
So, couple of things. One is, it's not mutually exclusive, is It Constantine to say that Donald Trump has responsibility. He's a grown man. He may not act like a grown man, but is a grown man and has to take responsibility for decisions he makes. That's not mutually exclusive with saying. But the Israelis also tricked him, manipulated him, lobbied him, bullied him, pressured him. Both of those things can be true at the same time.
- [12:16]
B
All I'm asking is what is the mechanism?
- [12:18]
A
But we accept that both those things could be true.
- [12:20]
B
Of course, yeah.
- [12:20]
A
So now we come to what is the Israelis doing. You would accept that. You just listed a bunch of countries and the Gulf, you know, the Qataris have a lot of influence. The Emiratis have a lot of influence. The Russians, sadly, have a lot of influence with Trump. You would accept that none of those countries come close to Israel's influence? I don't think there's any question mark about Israel's influence on American policies. The question you're asking about is how.
- [12:38]
B
What's the magic?
- [12:38]
A
No one would deny. I mean, you know, you watched the Ted Cruz interview with Tucker Carlson that went viral not long ago. Cruz says, I came into politics to defend Israel. They don't say that about any other country. I've never heard an American Senate say I came into politics to defend Belgium. Never heard it. Never heard anyone talk about any other country.
- [12:54]
B
I'll interject once more thing, if I may. That's not necessarily evidence of Israel having influence. It might well be a case of there are lots of people who live in America who believe for whatever reason, for religious reasons or for geopolitical reasons, that this is a country with which America should have a close alliance.
- [13:10]
A
So 100%, I agree with you. There are Christian evangelicals in this country who believe that the rapture will happen when all the Jews are gathered in this place and they are even more hardcore pro Israel than a lot of pro Israeli Jews. That's 100% true. But there are also a bunch of people in American politics. I know, I've met them, I've interviewed them. They tell me this on and off the record, who are supporting Israel because they're worried about being primaried. They're worried about losing their jobs, they're worried about being called anti Semitic, they're worried about being targeted by aipac, they're worried about being targeted by their political opponents, et cetera, et cetera. The idea that there isn't a very, very powerful pro Israel lobby is absurd. Just as there is a very powerful gun lobby, just as a very powerful farmer lobby. Right. It's funny that when we in this city, people are happy to say you're owned by the gun lobby, but for good reasons, because of anti Semitic tropes, people don't wanna say you're owned by the Israel lobby.
- [13:55]
B
There's a good reason for it.
- [13:56]
A
There is a good reason for it, of course, but the fact is, let outlaw, there is an Israel Lobby that has massive oversized influence on American politics.
- [14:02]
B
The distinction I'm trying to make, and I think it's an important one and it's good that we're exploring this, which is, I think the reason people worry about calling it the Israeli lobby versus the gun lobby is the Israeli lobby implies some kind of foreign influence. Right. Whereas the point that I think you and I are both making actually in agreement on is there are lots and lots of Americans who for whatever reasons, their own personal reasons, view this as an important strategic alliance of the United States or a religious worldview or whatever. So. And I think that's where the distinction becomes difficult.
- [14:35]
A
I think you're in good faith overstating the other part of the argument. Maybe for argument's sake or devil's advocacy. All I'm saying is, let me give you one example. When you ask Democratic voters, do you support what Israel's doing in Gaza, 8% according to one poll, said we support it. Right.
- [14:48]
B
Democrats don't support it.
- [14:49]
A
The vast majority don't support it. When you go look at Democrats in Congress, the vast majority don't support, do support it. There's an absolute discount. The numbers are reversed.
- [14:56]
B
And why is that?
- [14:57]
A
That's exactly my point. Why is that? It's not because they're out all out for self. It's because they're lobbied by various lobbies. The military industrial complex, which also has interest in war. The pro Israel lobby, vast influence that do. There's money in politics that influence a lot of positions in this country. You're in this town, this whole town is very corrupt. Right. The way you influence people is through money. And the same thing with Israel. By the way, you mentioned foreign lobbying. Well, I said Israel lobby, not Israeli lobby. The lobby for Israel. That can be Americans. But let's just be clear. There's a long history of people trying to get the pro Israel lobby to register as a foreign agent, just as some Arab pro Arab lobbies have to register as foreign agents. You go back to RFK, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He wanted to register the precursor to AIPAC. Senator William Leahy, very famous Democrat senator in the 70s, said we should register as a foreign lobby. So there's been a debate for a long time as to whether AIPAC and other such groups should actually register. Register because they do seem to coordinate with the Israeli government. So that's a separate issue. But look, I take your point. There are many Americans who support Israel. But if you look at the polling, Constantine, you're in D.C. at a time when in astonishing polls I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, the Americans have now switched. They are now supporting Palestinians more than they support Israel. First time in my lifetime. I never thought I would see those polls. Sadly, it took a genocide and tens of thousands of Palestinians to get Americans to switch their positions. But again, if that doesn't translate into Congress, into the presidency, then you have to ask why do we have a democratic crisis?
- [16:16]
B
Well, 70% of Republicans support Israel over Republicans.
- [16:20]
A
But the American public and the Republicans, Independent and Democrats.
- [16:23]
B
Yeah, yeah, the Republicans are in power, so that would explain.
- [16:25]
A
But they should also respond to public opinion. It's not like when Democrats about they only follow the base they spend their whole life chasing.
- [16:30]
B
Swing voters don't know about that.
- [16:32]
A
Well, but look at, look at Kamala Harris's election campaign. She didn't go to the left.
- [16:37]
B
Interesting. So, but coming back to the Democrats, it's an interesting point you make. So your contention is democratic politicians fear AIPAC.
- [16:45]
A
And yes, we're meeting in D.C. just after a bunch of primaries in Illinois. AIPAC dumped millions of dollars to defeat the critical.
- [16:52]
B
Lots of lobbyists dumped millions of dollars.
- [16:54]
A
I've agreed. We said that.
- [16:55]
B
But your claim is that the reason Democratic politicians ignore their voters concerns about the Middle east, for example, is because of something like aipac.
- [17:04]
A
Yes.
- [17:05]
B
Okay, fair enough. And so how do you think this conflict will go on from here?
- [17:11]
A
It's very hard to know. We're in uncharted waters. I've said since 2003, both as a private individual and when I became a public figure in 09, I've said this consistently, that I was against Iraq war and I think it was one of the big disasters of my lifetime. But Iran would make Iraq look like a walk in the park. It would be Iraq on steroids. Much bigger country, much harder to topple, way more regional and international ramification. And we're seeing that now. We're a couple of weeks into this war and we're seeing the oil price spikes, economic repercussions globally, you know, the attacks on natural gas facilities. I'm not an expert on this stuff, but the experts are saying this could have 10 year, 20 year ramifications to rebuild Some of this stuff, the environmental consequences in the region, the public health consequences of causing acid rain in Tehran, of course, the blowback, you know, in this country I always joke that, you know, Americans have the memory of goldfish, right? Eight seconds. It's hard to remember what happened last week, let alone last year. People in the Middle east have very long memories, right? Americans don't know who Mohammad Mossadegh is. Most Iranians will tell you that's the prime minister in 1953 that the US overthrew and brought back the Shah, and then the Shah led to the revolution, et cetera, et cetera. When we talk about blowback, we need to have big picture. God forbid, three years, five years, a year from now, some bomb goes off somewhere, kills a bunch of innocent Americans. We say, why? Why? Why do they hate us? And they're like, we're like Khamenei Hu, who's he? We've forgotten about him already. I mean, this is my worry. We've seen this with every invasion. The invasion of Iraq brought about ISIS. The invasion of southern Leb in 1982 brought about Hezbollah, right? These illegal wars, these wars of choice, these occupations, they lead to blowback. Unintended consequence, what the CIA calls blowback. And I really worry about that. When it comes to Iran, we don't know what's gonna happen next. To quote Donald Rumsfeld, an Iraq war architect, there's the known unknowns. We know there's some bad shit coming, we don't know what it is.
- [18:56]
B
Most people think they're informed. In reality, they're selectively informed. Modern media doesn't just tell stories, it quietly decides which ones you never hear about at all. That's why I use Ground News, it's app that compares how the same story is covered across the political spectrum and show you what whole audiences are not being told. The blindspot feed is one of my favorite features. Every day it flags upwards of 20 stories that are being ignored either by the left or the right. Follow along at Ground News Trigonometry. Take this story. A major US poll found that Republican voters confidence in Trump's economic leadership has dropped sharply during his second term. That is not a minor data point. If you only read right leaning publications, you would have missed this completely. On the other hand, look at this. The UAE drops UK from scholarship list over radicalization concerns on university campuses. That's a significant story. Yet coverage from left leaning outlets was almost non existent. Ground News puts all of this in one place. Headlines, bias, breakdowns, ownership and context. So you can actually understand what's going on, not just react to what you're told. Go to ground news trigonometry to get 40% off their unlimited vantage plan, the same one we use and stop being managed by the media.
- [20:10]
C
Mehdi, there'd be people who go, well, look, you've mentioned Hezbollah. Iran funds Hezbollah. They fund Hamas. They effectively destabilize the region. I don't say that I agree with this, actually. But they would say, look, if we deal with Iran long term, we're gonna get a better, more prosperous, more stable Middle East. What would you say to that?
- [20:29]
A
I would say Benjamin Netanyahu said exactly those words in front of Congress in 2002. He said, if you invade Iraq, there'll be positive reverberations throughout the region. What happened? We got ISIS, we got Al Qaeda in Iraq. We got 20 years, we got seven. Seven bombings in London. Tony Blair was warned, if you invade Iraq, there will be bombings at home. The Joint Intelligence Committee told him in 2003. He ignored those warnings. We got more terrorism, more blowback, more violence, more regional instability, more refugees. That's what I fear is happening now with Iran in terms of destabilizing the region. Look, this is where we get to like, where do you start the clock? I would say, yes, of course Hezbollah and Hamas destabilized the region. But. But they would argue, and many people would argue that the destabilizing began with Iran. They are a reaction to Israel's actions. So, you know, depends where you want. Like I said, 1982, Israel invaded southern Lebanon. There was no Hezbollah in 1982. So look, Iran does play a role that is malign. I've never defended blindly Iran. Iran does bad things. No one's debating that. Many countries in the Middle east do bad things. We are not invade Saudi Arabia. I think we would all agree around this table does bad things, has done bad things. We are not invading and trying to topple Saudi Arabia or bombing there oil fields and gas facilities. And I'm glad we're not. So I don't think this war is a solution to the problem. By the way, what is the problem? Donald Trump will not tell us what the goals of this war are. It changes every day. Marco Rubio says it's degrading the Navy. First they said it was a nuclear program that they obliterated last year in the 12 Day War.
- [21:45]
B
Apparently there's a lot of evidence that the nuclear material may well have been removed prior to this strike.
- [21:51]
A
But I'm saying this war was not about the nuclear program.
- [21:53]
B
Because that's actually the thing that they have said that makes sense to me. Like, I think I'm actually kind of with you in terms of. I don't understand what the goals of this thing are. If I. If we take the nuclear stuff and degrading the military, that's fine, but then why are you killing their leaders? That's the bit I don't understand.
- [22:14]
A
Well, interestingly, they're not killing their leaders. Right. They killed Khamenei, but the Israelis are doing much of the killing. They've killed the intelligence minister, they killed Ali Larajani. Now, let's just deal with what Israel wants. Because what Israel wants is pretty clear to anyone watching. They want an unstable, weakened Iran that doesn't pose a threat to them. They don't care if it's a democracy, they don't care if it's a dictatorship. They don't care if it's civil war. They just want Iran off the table. Right. And therefore they're killing people who might do a deal with Trump. They've done this before. Last year in the 12 Day War, they tried to kill a guy called Ali Shamkhani, who survived. Then they killed him. Now, he was a negotiator who Trump had been praising and reposting on social media. They killed him because they don't want Trump to do a deal with this guy.
- [22:52]
C
Why not?
- [22:53]
A
Because they don't want to negotiate a solution to this conflict. They want to keep going, the Israelis, until they wipe out everything. They want to.
- [22:58]
B
Yeah. They want to degrade Iran.
- [23:00]
A
They don't want Donald Trump to do one of his deals. That's the worst thing they could ever do. They didn't want the jcpoa, the Iran nuclear deal that Obama signed, that would that resolve the nuclear program for at least 15 years. They were dead against that deal.
- [23:10]
B
But so was Trump himself.
- [23:12]
A
Yes. And Trump pulled out of that deal. And then what happened? Enrichment went up. Then Biden came back in, said, let's try and go back into that deal. The Israelis attacked Natanz in 2021. They enriched up to 60%. Then last year, they went to Oman to negotiate. They had a meeting scheduled for Sunday. The Israelis bombed on Friday. This year they negotiated in Geneva. The Omani foreign Minister came to D.C. and said, A deal's on the table. Apparently, Jonathan Powell from the UK said there was a deal to be done. Guess what happened? The US and Israel bombed the next day. There's a history of Israel in particular, but also the US bombing. Every time we're close to a deal every time there's a negotiation in place.
- [23:45]
B
And this is why we just come back to the nuclear point because I agree with you. It's very clear that there's a difference between the interests of the United States and the war goals of the United States and the war goals and interests of Israel and Israel's war goals and interests actually very clear. I'm very unclear as to what the US Wants.
- [24:01]
A
Well, if it is the nuclear program, I think we're both unclear. But if it is the nuclear program, I don't think they know. But if it is the nuclear program, this is not the way to do it. Negotiations are the way to solve Israel. There is no. Most experts say you cannot bomb away a nuclear program. It's in people's heads. It's scientific expertise. You cannot kill every scientist destroyed the
- [24:19]
B
nuclear material and then they can just.
- [24:20]
A
And then years later they can rebuild facilities and enrich again.
- [24:23]
B
Sure.
- [24:23]
A
And then you're just mowing the lawn as the Israelis say, go in and bomb every couple of years. But we had a jcpoa, we had a deal that was working. The IAEA said Iran was in compliance with it. Do you know how much enriched uranium they had under the JCPA? 3.64%. You know how much they have now? 60%. You know, you want to go back to logic? Logic tells me that was a failure to get out of that deal.
- [24:42]
B
I mean, I also don't think there's any huge evidence that negotiations produce nuclear non proliferation. I just think this is a very.
- [24:48]
A
Come on. I think it's the entire history of the post war era.
- [24:53]
B
Well, if you look at Ukraine, for example, Ukraine was forced to give away its nuclear weapons and made itself very vulnerable. And I've been on record as saying, I think that in and of itself and the fact that we haven't supported Ukraine properly will lead to more nuclear proliferation.
- [25:06]
A
I agree with you on that and
- [25:07]
B
I think on this issue too, I don't see what the incentive would be for Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.
- [25:14]
A
Well, we're in agreement, but not just Iran. So I interviewed again, if you guys remember the Iraq war. Do you remember Mohamed ElBaradei? He was head of the IAEA.
- [25:21]
B
Yes.
- [25:21]
A
Him and Hans Blix went to the UN and said, don't invade Iraq. We can disarm.
- [25:24]
B
We were both against the one.
- [25:25]
A
Exactly. That's why I'm saying this to you because I know you understand. He said we can guarantee disarmament. He was the head of the Nuclear Watchdog spent his life opposing nuclear proliferation. I interviewed him recently. I said, if you were in the Turkish government right now, which Israel is saying is next, would you try and get nukes? And he said, yes. I was astonished. This is a man who's devoted his life to. Because, as you say, everyone now has an incentive to get nukes. Why would you not?
- [25:45]
B
No, my point was even broader than that, Mehdi, which is that I think everyone always has the incentive to get nukes. And that's where I don't think. Negotiating with Iran.
- [25:54]
A
So that's where we disagree.
- [25:55]
B
Hold on. Well, let me finish the point, though. I don't think that's. In that situation. I don't think Iran has any interest in that. Iran is very clearly the reason the Gulf Arab states and Israel all want Iran degraded. And all supported this conflict, by the way, and are still encouraging it. The Gulf states, especially internally, the people at the top, the people on the street may not, is because Iran wants to dominate the region. It's a perfectly legitimate thing for Iran to want to do. But that being the case, the fact that they fund proxies to facilitate that process, of course they'd want nuclear weapons, and I don't think they'd negotiate them away.
- [26:34]
A
But they already did negotiate them away. According to US Intelligence, they suspended whatever nuclear weapons research they were doing in 2003 after the fall of Saddam because they didn't want Bush to invade them. There was also a fatwa from the late Ayatollah Khamenei saying that nuclear weapons are haram forbidden under Islamic law, which is ironic. People are now saying, I hear supporters of Khamenei saying that was a mistake. He should have actually got.
- [26:53]
B
But under him, they did enrich more
- [26:54]
A
uranium, but they didn't build weapons. Enriching uranium is their right. Under the npt, every country has a right. Enriched uranium. No, not to 60%. That was a bargaining.
- [27:01]
B
But they did.
- [27:01]
A
That was a bargaining chip. Why did they enrich to 60%?
- [27:04]
B
Because they're saying if you keep pushing us, if you keep.
- [27:07]
A
Israel attacked them, so they went to 60%. They only went to. You say Iran wants to dominate. This is why it's so important for your viewers to understand the timelines here. I know in the west, we're kind of brainwashed by some of our media and politicians to believe that every Iran is this Hitler country. And again, I'm not saying that, but I didn't say. You said that. I said some in our media and politicians have brainwashed those over the years. Trigonometry is a great show. It hasn't been here for decades. I'm talking about the last 30, 40 years. Have been told Iran is the great. Just like Iranians say, the Great Satan. Iran is also the great rogue state in the Middle East. Actually, when you look at it, Iran is the country that is actually now being bombed, was attacked from 1980 to 1988 by our ally Saddam Hussein, attacked with chemical weapons, lost half a million people, had their plane shot down by the United States of America, and then they agreed to a negotiated deal with the American government in good faith and with the eu, by the way, JCPO was with the US and the eu. Iran stuck to that deal. Trump tore it up. Trump violated that deal by pulling out of it. As I said, they then began to increase enrichment only after the deal was done. So I don't accept your premise when you say, of course they want to get nuclear weapons and enrich. No, they signed the jcpo, which says in the first paragraph, we will never get nuclear weapons. That's what they signed on.
- [28:15]
B
But they then took that money and used it to fund their proctor.
- [28:18]
A
But now you're moving the goalpost. I just want to stick with your nuclear point. No, no. You made a very strong point about nuclear. They have incentive to get nuclear. I'm saying there's no evidence of that. It's the exact reverse.
- [28:27]
B
The incentive is cleared.
- [28:28]
A
You're saying now they have an incentive for. Sure, they just got attacked.
- [28:31]
B
They always do.
- [28:32]
A
Well, of course.
- [28:32]
B
I mean, if you want to be the.
- [28:33]
A
Strategically. Yes, there was a. But the irony is they didn't. That's the irony. If they did. If they did, they'd be fine. Ayatollah Khamenei would be alive, chillin with Kim Jong Un right now if he had got nukes like Kim Jong Un did. Let's just be very real about that. There's a reason why Pakistan and North Korea, which destabilize their region much more than some would say, Iran are fine because they have nukes.
- [28:51]
B
We're in complete agreement.
- [28:52]
A
But Iran didn't get nukes. This is a great irony here. They didn't get nukes. They got attacked, the leader got killed. And now I'm hearing you say it's because they wanted to get nukes. It's the exact opposite. If they had gotten nukes, they didn't have a much safer place. Instead, he put out a fatwa saying no nukes. He signed up to the jcpa, which many Iranian hardliners were against. Ham and I Signed onto a deal that people in his own country said we shouldn't sign on to. They then stuck to the deal. According to the iea, Trump then tore up the deal. They then marginally increased enrichment to 20%. They then got attacked by Israel in 2021, increased to 60%. And then last year got attacked during negotiations, and again this year got attacked during negotiations. And one last point. The Gulf countries, it's just not true. The Omani foreign minister just wrote a piece for the Economist magazine. Oman got bombed by Iran. And even he's saying it's very rational for Iran to do what it's doing. This is an Israeli war that America has been dragged into. America needs to be independent from Israel. The Qataris, I've spoken to very senior Qataris privately, who of course are mad that Iran are bombing their oil gas fields. But they know who they blame. They know who started the war. It was Israel and the United States. And they're reaching out to the U.S. telling the U.S. stop this. So maybe the Saudis, maybe the Emiratis wanted this war, but not all of the Gulf countries. That's just not true.
- [29:56]
B
Fine.
- [29:57]
C
So it's really interesting that you're talking about the bombing of facilities, gas facilities, et cetera, because one of the worries for me, Mehdi, is how this is going to affect ordinary Americans. And I don't actually think that we've been focused on that enough. So let's talk about the Strait of Hormuz. Let's talk about why it's so important. Let's talk about why shutting it down is not potentially catastrophic, is catastrophic for the global economy, but for Americans and Brits and the west in particular, it's a disaster.
- [30:28]
A
This is what. So we just ran a piece by Elan Goldenberg, who was a senior official on foreign policy under Barack Obama and Joe Biden. He conducted war games for the United States government. And what would happen if they attacked Iran because they were doing the jcpo. They had to have a backup in case it all goes pear shaped. If we go to war, this is Obama time. He says the worst case scenario of the war games is what's happening right now. That's kind of scary when you hear someone who's in government saying that. He wrote that piece for us and he said, look, the straight Hormuz was always gonna be the Iranian leverage. It was always gonna be the choke point when Donald Trump comes out and says, we didn't know they would do this. We didn't know they would attack the Gulf countries. I mean, it's idiocy of the highest order. It's like Covid all over again. He mishandled a major national crisis cuz he was incompetent, not just ideologically doing the wrong thing. And again, we have these people like Hegseth and Trump who are completely out of their depth running this war and saying stupid things like, well, we didn't know about the straight Hormuz. I just saw reporting the other day that the Brits and the Poles and the Germans all have minesweeping carriers that could have been of use. The Brits pulled ours out. I don't know where the German one is. But meanwhile, Trump is just attacking all the allies, saying, we don't need anyone from NATO, we don't need you. He's doing all caps, late night, insane, deranged posts on Truth Social. He doesn't know how to run a war. He doesn't know how to keep allies on board. Again, I'm gonna have to go home and take a shower after praising George Bush. But even George Bush, a war criminal who should be in the Hague, created a coalition of the willing with a bunch of countries, not the big countries, but some. What was it called? New Europe. Rumsfeld called it. This guy can't even build together a coalition. He didn't even tell his allies before he decided, as you say, to create massive economic chaos for everyone in the world. And we're speaking on a day, Francis, where the Treasury Secretary just announced we may unsanction Iranian oil. Isn't that, I don't say hilarious, because it's a tragic war and people are dying. But bizarre that three weeks into this war, the result of this war is Iran's oil is unsanctioned. That's insane.
- [32:13]
C
And, but let's go back to the Strait of Hormuz. Can you explain for people who are listening, who you know, they've got families, they've got jobs. Why is it so important? And why is closing it so disastrous?
- [32:24]
A
So it's where the majority of that region's oil and gas goes out of the, goes out of the region, goes out to China and India, into the Indian Ocean. It's very narrow. I think it's 25 miles at its narrowest point. It's. It means that the Iranians can shut it down with like one guy on a boat, right? With like a rocket launcher. It doesn't require a massive Iranian military presence. There was a moment the other day where Hegseth said, we're run by such incompetence. Peter Hegseth the Defense Secretary said, no, no, it is open. You can go through with a ship. As long as you don't get attacked. Well, you will. So it's not open. The whole point is all these planners, military planners are saying you can't open it up. As long as Iran is a country in that region, they will always have that leverage to shut it down because it doesn't require much on their part to take out one tanker and then which country, which company is going to go into that place. So there's, you know, it's two lanes, literally, it's two lanes straight from one going that way, one going that way. It's very easy to shut down. So this was always the Iranians key leverage point. And apparently Trump didn't know about this, didn't think it through. He posted the other day calling it the Strait of Hormuz, spelled S T R A I G H T. That's the President of the United States. So we're in a very disastrous position. The Iranians can hold out. We don't know how long the Iranians can hold out. But the longer they do us at home here in the US you guys in the UK are gonna feel the pain. You know, 104, 110, $120 barrels of oil. Who knows how high it's gonna go? And the repercussions for a country, this country, where affordability was the big political issue at the last election. Inflation.
- [33:43]
B
Well, you should be very excited about this, Maddie, surely, because, remember you asked
- [33:47]
A
me at the beginning why I'm on the left. I believe in justice. I don't want people to suffer just to win my political.
- [33:51]
B
I meant, I was kidding, obviously, but I meant politically. The Democrats, I think, are on course to win the House and the Senate.
- [33:56]
A
Maybe the Senate. Definitely the House.
- [33:58]
B
Y. And you imagine. I mean, it's clear, I think, I think whatever you support the conflict or the President, Trump or you don't. I think it's very clear. This is the biggest gamble of his political career, 100%. And if it doesn't go the way he wants, I mean, the Republicans surely would lose the presidency at the next election. Counterargument. Bush and Blair were reelected after.
- [34:21]
A
The real counterargument is there's three years to go. Francis and Trump years are like dog years.
- [34:25]
B
Francis has him, but that's fine.
- [34:27]
C
I know what tries to say, it's
- [34:29]
A
all right, it's all right, because I'm.
- [34:32]
B
So you did that politician thing where you tried to name people by name, but you Got us confused.
- [34:36]
A
It's because I was thinking about the next three years as I said it, and what the point I was making when I confused you both was it's three years to go of Donald Trump. Three years is. We've just had a year. It feels like 10 years. The idea that anyone can know what will happen in the US a year from now, let alone three years from now, insane. Anyone who tells you they know what America will look like in 2020 is a liar or a fool. It's just too much change. Too much happens here. So anything could happen between now and then. That's why people who say, oh, it's gonna be Vance or Rubio. No, it might be neither of them. It might be Trump again if he doesn't wanna leave.
- [35:05]
B
Do you think that's a realistic possibility?
- [35:06]
A
Yes.
- [35:07]
B
You think there's a possibility?
- [35:09]
A
100%. Not that 100% that he will stay, but 100% there's a possibility that he would try. That it would try.
- [35:14]
C
Let me say this because I know I'm not alone. At some point, your body just stops bouncing back the way it used to. You train hard, you travel, you push yourself, and suddenly recovery takes longer. You wake up stiff joints complain, skin, hair, nails. Things don't look or feel quite right anymore. So many people listening to this know exactly what I'm talking about. What surprised me is that this isn't just getting older. In some vague sense, a huge part of it is collagen. Your body starts producing less of it from your mid-20s onwards. Collagen is basically the glue that holds everything together. So when your levels drop, you feel it everywhere. That's why I started using Bub's Naturals Collagen peptides. And I've stuck with it since I've added it to my routine. Recovery is noticeably better, joints feel stronger, and my skin and hair have improved. I genuinely feel better now than I did a few years ago. And that's not a placebo effect. It's fixing something fundamental. It's also effortless. I put it in my tea, coffee, or any drink. No taste, no smell, no clumps. You forget it's even there. And Bubs isn't just another supplement brand. It was created in honor of Glenn Bub Doherty, a former Navy SEAL who was killed saving Americans in Benghazi. The brand is built around discipline, self improvement and doing things properly. They also donate 10% of all profits to charity through the Glen Docherty Memorial Foundation. The product itself is clean. No sugar, no fillers, no third party tested NSF certified for sport whole 30 approved, sustainably sourced from grass fed pasture raised cattle. Over 100,000 people use it and it was named best collagen of 2024 by health.com if you recognize yourself in what I've just described, this is worth trying. Live better, longer. For a limited time, get 20% off your entire order@bubsnaturals.com with code TRIG. Or click the link in the description of this episode. That's B U b s naturals.com code trig. And when they ask where you heard about them, tell them trigonometry sent you Once more for 20% off. Use code trig@bubsnaturals.com the reason I wonder
- [37:31]
B
about that is to me, that's kind of terrifying. It is. But then I talk to. We talk to people all over the political spectrum, but we have a lot of friends who are on the right and they all say, if that were to happen, I'd be on the streets opposing it.
- [37:44]
A
So again, I have a longer memory than most. In 2019, I wrote a piece for the Intercept saying Donald Trump loses next election. He will not accept the results. He will try and stay in office. He will start a riot. I wrote that piece in May 2019. People laughed at me. I was not an American at the time. They said, you're a Brit. You don't understand American politics. Secret Service will march him out. His party will never accept it. January 6th happened. He still doesn't accept the result. He's still trying to fiddle with that result and the next result. Donald Trump should be taken seriously and literally. I do take him seriously and literally when he says again and again, should we suspend elections? Will this be the last time you ever have to vote? Should I stay on for a third term? He's not just joking. I'm not saying he isn't joking, but he's not just joking. In that weird head of his, there's stuff worrying. You're a close Ukraine watcher. Remember when Zelenskyy came to the Oval Office and not the time he got berated, but the other time, and a journalist said, why haven't you had elections in Ukraine? And Zelenskyy said, how can I have elections? We're in the middle of a war. And Trump jumped in immediately, oh, if you're in a war, you don't have to have elections. I'll have to remember that. Ha ha ha ha. And people chuckled. And I'm thinking, that's Donald Trump's brain working there he's thinking, hmm, there's a war. Maybe we don't have to have elections. That. And you've got people like Steve Bannon, who I do take seriously, making it very clear that they're working on a plan to try and keep him in office in 2020. That doesn't mean they're gonna succeed. That doesn't mean he's gonna do it. But to pretend, when he shows world leaders, merch Trump 2028, that we shouldn't take this guy who. Who already tried to stay on in office, already incited an insurrection. Yeah, we should take that seriously. This is a party that doesn't believe
- [39:03]
C
in democracy anymore, but we're talking about democracy. And I'm looking at the Democrats. I'm not someone who's on the left or the right. And I'm looking at the Dems, and I don't see any candidates. I don't see any particular ideas. I don't see. I don't see any challenge, if I'm being honest. Mehdi, what am I missing?
- [39:18]
A
That's a good question. I mean, look, I've been very critical of the Democratic Party for my own position on the left. Look, there's not great candidates. I agree with that. There are candidates. It depends who they're up against. If you're up against a Ruby or a Newsom, then. Yeah, sorry, a Ruby or a Vance, then Gavin Newsom or a JB Pritzker or whatever it is could do a decent job and easily be competitive. I don't rate those Republican candidates, but, yes. Do I wish there was a more dynamic Democrat? Yes. Do I wish there was a more charismatic Democrat? Yes. Do I wish there was a more populist Democrat? Yes. Do I Wish Bernie was 20 years younger? Yes. Will AOC run? We don't know. It'll be interesting to see. I think there will be about 30 people running. I think it's going to be. Do you remember the 2016 elections where the Republicans had to have a kiddie table debate the night before because there were too many candidates like Lindsey Graham and the losers they went the night before. I think they're going to have a Democratic version of that because it's going to be. I think everyone and their dog is going to run this time, but you
- [40:06]
C
look at Gavin Newsom and people are going, oh, you know, this guy's the next candidate. Look, you look at California, it's a shit show.
- [40:12]
B
He's got great hair, though.
- [40:13]
A
Yeah, he looks the part. Donald Trump would make him a running mate if he was a Republican because he always goes for visuals. Yeah, look, I'm not disagreeing with you. I think there are Democrats. But look, again, three years to go. I'm of the Donald Rumsfeld known, unknown, unknown, unknown. There could be someone none of us have even thought about who emerges. You know, Barack Obama was elected in 04 as a senator and then ran for president in 08 and 1. There's a guy, Jon Ossoff in Georgia who's about to be in a very tight Georgia Senate race. He's Jewish, he's young, he's centrist, he's not on my side of the political spectrum. He's very charismatic. He could be the candidate if he wins in Georgia, he could change things around. We don't know.
- [40:49]
C
Do you think when you look at people like Zoram Hamdani, do you think
- [40:52]
A
that I wish he was born in the US So he could run for president. Go on.
- [40:56]
C
Do you think he. That could be the future of the Democrat Party, that kind of very left wing progressive politics? Or do you think that in order for the Dems to win, they need to be more pragmatic and they need to attack the center?
- [41:09]
A
I don't know what the center is anymore, to be honest, in the crazy world we live in now, and I know you guys are based in the UK where there's five parties now fighting for dominance. I think the old, old, old ways of thinking about politics are gone. What does the center mean in the age of Trump? I think what matters is are you anti establishment or are you pro establishment? I don't think it matters. I think left and right is less rele then are you anti establishment or pro establishment? Are you a populist or are you not a populist? I think that's what Mumdani proved in New York. He got all. Mumdani got a bunch of Trump voters. So did aoc. There's Ocasio Cortez. Trump voters. They exist. There are Trump Mandani voters. Why? Not because they agree with his socialist policies, but because they see him as an outsider. They see him as someone who takes on the establishment. They see him as someone who speaks his mind and doesn't talk like a consultant with boring talking points. That is gonna be the person who emerges and is really gonna occupy the ground, center or left come 2028, if that person exists. I think Americans are fed up with politicians. They're fed up. We talked about moneyed interest early. They're fed up with money in politics. They're fed up with Foreign wars. We didn't talk about the fact that this Iran war is the most unpopular war of my lifetime. I've never seen a war in the US where the public doesn't get behind it. Once troops are committed, they're behind it, even if they're skeptical. Like Iran. Nope, not this time. They are consistently anti war. The American public, consistently anti war, consistently anti billionaire, consistently anti establishment and anti DC who is the candidate in either party who's gonna monopolize? Trump did a great fake con job of being. I'm gonna be the outside guy, even though gives tax cuts to billionaires, enriches himself. But he played the part to some people, of being. I'm the guy who's gonna go shake things up and burn it down. Who's actually gonna do that and who's gonna do it on the left?
- [42:40]
B
Well, there's a couple of points I wanna jump in. I mean, one of them is the anti war thing. It's an interesting point about the broader sweep of the entire country. The Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of this war.
- [42:51]
A
We agree.
- [42:52]
B
And the Democrats overwhelmingly against it. And I imagine that's partly to do with the person who was doing it. I think a lot of Republicans support it.
- [42:59]
A
Oh, they would be opposed to if Kamal Harris was bombing Iran.
- [43:02]
B
Likewise, a lot of Democrats would probably support it if it was 100%.
- [43:05]
A
Chuck Schumer would be behind this war if it was a Democratic president.
- [43:08]
B
So I don't think that's a reflection on the war as much as it is.
- [43:10]
A
But the public. But you're talking about politicians. I'm talking about the public as a whole, whether Republican or Democrat, are tired of this war.
- [43:16]
B
No, no, I. I know the polling
- [43:18]
A
shows Republicans are behind Trump, but I think that's because it's Trump.
- [43:21]
B
That's what I'm saying.
- [43:22]
A
But I don't think they think a lot. I think there's a general.
- [43:24]
B
I also think a lot of Democratic voters are against it because it's Trump's war.
- [43:28]
A
Agreed. But I also don't think they would be enthusiastically for it. The voters. I think voters across the board. I've not met enthusiastically pro war people in this country outside of media green rooms.
- [43:38]
B
I have. I mean, we've met people who just go, you know, you support your country at a time of war. I support the president. There are lots of people like that.
- [43:46]
A
There's polling that shows that a significant minority of Republicans would bomb Agrabah if given the chance from Aladdin.
- [43:51]
B
So, yeah, there's a poll that should be. Well, as long as they're trying to develop nuclear weapons. We're all in fact, well.
- [43:57]
A
And we agree that Iran wasn't developing nuclear weapons.
- [43:59]
B
I'm kidding. But I think France's point about the center versus not the center. I guess if you take something that we have explored quite a lot on our show, which is the cultural dimension of all these conversations. You could see at the last election, some of the, you know, this was talked about endlessly about the trans ad that Trump ran, et cetera. I guess the question is, is the Democrat Party going to move away from that or more lean into that? I mean, Mamdani, I think actually really didn't go into that at all and tried to stay on the economic issue as much as possible.
- [44:32]
A
I'm not sure that's quite true. But yes, he definitely led with economic issues, but he was super anti ice, which used to be an unpopular position in the Democratic Party. Now everyone finally gets behind Abolish ice. Well, some do. The leadership don't. The public is now getting behind the Bolsheisist. By the way, both of you say you're centrist, but I noticed, I couldn't help but notice both of you say Democrat Party, which is a Republican phrase.
- [44:51]
B
Is it?
- [44:52]
A
Democratic Party is what it's called by the Democrats. Democrat Party is like a smear used by Republicans.
- [44:56]
B
This is just an ignorance, FYI for you.
- [44:59]
A
Just good to know. I just wanted to let you know that is something in right wing circles that is used that's interesting to bring.
- [45:03]
B
Anyways, it's an ignorance thing on our part.
- [45:05]
A
Fair enough. I was just flagged because I'm hyperspace. I'm hyper attuned to this stuff.
- [45:10]
B
All right, the Democratic Party.
- [45:13]
A
Look, I do think Mamdani ran definitely on it. Populist platform, economic issues first and that is the way forward. But he didn't shirk away. He went, you know, Tom Homan was the guy who runs the border stuff. Mumnani was caught on camera screaming at him at a protest in Albany during the campaign. People said, this is gonna destroy Mum, Dad. He looks like a crazy mad leftist Muslim. Didn't hurt him. Actually. It put him ahead of the curve on where public opinion has gone on ice, which is very anti ice. So I do think you can walk and chew gum at the same time. I think the problem in the Democratic Party is they don't know what they believe. And when you look at the polling. To go back to your point, Francis, not Constantine, to go back to your point, the polling shows that people think The Republicans are extreme now, but the criticism of the Democratic Party is no longer that they're extreme left. That's not the criticism. When you ask Americans what is the number one objection you have to Democratic Party, they're weak, they look weak. That is what American people tell pollsters. And they're right. They are weak. Anytime Trump does something, they either roll over or they write a sternly worded letter. They don't know how to fight. Mamdani showed that you can fight some people, the people who are standing out in the Democratic race. You asked about presidential candidates. There's a guy called Ruben Gallego, senator from Arizona, very centrist, borderhawk, Latino, ex military veteran. He's gonna run for president too. He has a great line right now. He says, Donald Trump ran on exposing pedophiles and stopping wars. He's protecting pedophiles and starting wars. That's your bumper sticker. Democrats just run with that. He has been very anti ice too, even though he's in a border state. So I do think, why do I like Gallego right now? Not because he and I on the same part of the political spectrum. Cuz he's fighting, cuz he's standing up, cuz he's taking strong stances. He doesn't look weak. That is the problem for the Democratic Party right now. They've looked weak for so long.
- [46:44]
C
And I also think as well is like, let's be honest, we live in the age of populism.
- [46:48]
A
Yes.
- [46:48]
C
I think in order to be elected, you have to be a populist. You have to have a populist message.
- [46:52]
A
I agree.
- [46:53]
C
And I don't see that from the Democratic Party. You see, I got it right, Mehdi.
- [46:56]
A
But not just the whole party. The leadership of the party, surely. Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jefferson. These people are useless. They should be gone. I don't know why the hell they're there, but I say there are others. There are Ruben Gallegos, there are AOCs, there are Mamdanis, there are Ro Khanas. There are people who are taking a more popular stance. Whether they win the nomination is who knows? The Democratic Party, you know, the Israelis used to always say about the Palestinians in a very derogatory way, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. That was their lie, which is false. But I would say that about the Democrats. They always. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. There is a moment now for this party, but they just won't take it because they've got losers as leaders and they Always go towards this, quote, fake center ground. Look at the people they put up. Joe Biden in 2020 was the candidate. He only won cause of COVID Let's just be very honest about that. Had there not been a pandemic, Trump would have been reelected in 2016. Hillary Clinton defeated by Donald Trump. You know, this is a problem. They put up these people who are not the right people, and then they say, oh, we gotta try the centrist playbook again. We gotta be pragmatic when it hasn't worked. And what does work is populism.
- [47:54]
C
It's populism. And it's also economics. Because when you see the average person, they go to the supermarket and they're thinking, everything seems to be going up, apart from my wages. And there's an anger and a frustration to that. They also see billions being spent in overseas wars. And the question that a lot of people would ask fairly enough, in my opinion, is why is the money being spent over there? Yes, it should be spent here or whatever else.
- [48:18]
A
That's what Trump ran on. That was maga, right? America first. And I think you'll see a lot of Democrats now borrowing that language. The smart ones are saying exactly what you just said, Francis. That's why are we spending. I think they just asked for $200 billion. Trump has just asked for the war. That's insane. $200 billion. You could just give free, a free community college to every American with that money. Just insane numbers. And I think that's only gonna get worse over the coming years. And look, my thing is Republicans are evil geniuses, right? They know what they're doing. I wrote a book about debating and persuasion. One of the first chapters in the book is you don't win people over by giving them facts, statistics, policy papers, polls. That's not how you convince people. You go to people's hearts, right? You get their emotional heartstrings and you pull them. The Republicans are master that. They appeal to our dark demons. They're like, you need to hate that person. You need to be mad at that person. They're migrant, the Mexican, the trans kid, right? It works. It's evil genius. It works. The problem for the Democrats or the Labour Party in the UK is they don't have a positive version of that. They don't have a way of actually inspiring people with the same emotional messaging, nor do they have a way of channeling people's anger in the right direction. People are angry, but don't channel that anger towards the undocumented migrant who's not the reason your wages haven't gone up. Who's not the reason that you've been lost your job, even though that's what you're told. Channel it at the people who actually are screwing you over. The people who are getting massive tax cuts from Donald Trump. The people who are not paying their taxes, avoiding taxes, stashing their money offshore. The people who are running big tech companies and screwing over your kids with ridiculous algorithms and nonsense. Channel the anger that way and I think you'll win.
- [49:42]
C
Look, it's a good point, but also as well, we have to admit that there've been fundamental failings on the left. For instance, the border having an open border.
- [49:49]
A
No open border. Francis, where's the open border?
- [49:52]
C
Well, Trump has closed it, but before there was an open border.
- [49:55]
A
What's your definition of an open border?
- [49:56]
B
Well, you lose millions of illegals coming in.
- [49:58]
A
That doesn't mean it's open. That just means they managed to come in illegally. That just means the border wasn't as secure as you wanted it to be. Open border means I could just walk into America. Nobody could do that.
- [50:07]
B
Well, hold on. If millions of people are able to walk into my house and I say, I've got an open door policy to my house and go, that's not an open door policy. It just means people got in. I mean, come on.
- [50:17]
A
No, no, I'm being very serious. If you want to use your house analogy, if you opened your house door and said, everyone come in, no, I'm not going to stop you, then fine. That is an open door policy. If people come into your house in the window in the middle of the night while you're calling the police that you left open. Well, did they leave open?
- [50:32]
B
Clearly, because the moment Donald Trump was elected, he closed the window.
- [50:35]
A
Wait, he was closing completely? Which is ridiculous because now you can't even claim asylum, which is a legal right. Joe Biden actually deported more people than Trump did in his first term. He actually detained the deportation.
- [50:45]
B
What do you want to write? Deportations. Hold on, let's just focus on the open. Yes, Mehdi, let's just. We're having a great discussion and we're really.
- [50:50]
A
Yeah, sorry, you triggered me with open border. Clearly. Yeah. Yes.
- [50:54]
B
But actually, I think we should talk about the issue and we don't get triggered about it. When you buy seafood, what do you worry about most? Nutrition, sustainability, taste. I've asked all of those questions. This is why Wild Alaskan Company caught my attention. It is the best way to get wild caught perfectly portioned nutrient dense seafood delivered to your door. You have not tasted fish this good. When we first got a delivery from Wild Alaskan company it stood out immediately. The care that goes into it, the packaging, the clear sourcing, their attention to detail. You can tell this is a company that does things properly. What makes wild Alaskan company special is how they source everything. 100% wild CAW never farmed. No antibiotics, no GMOs, no additives. Just clean, real fish frozen off the boat to lock in flavor and nutrients like omega 3s. You get flexible shipments, expert cooking tips, and a box that genuinely feels like it's come from people who care about what they're sending. My favorite variety is their Pacific halibut. Firm and meaty, it cooks beautifully in a pan or on the grill and goes with almost anything. And there's no risk. If you're not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan company gives you a full refund, no questions asked. Get seafood you can Trust. Go to wildalaskan.comtrig for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.comtrim for $35 off your first order. Thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode. Under the Democrats, like under both labor and conservatives in our country, numbers went up. It's not just that numbers went up. I always give the stat. I came to Britain in 1996. When I came to Britain, 55,000 people a year net were coming in legally. More people now come into Britain illegally every year. Now, to me, you can argue about language, but when you have that and in this country, in the United States, literally millions of people coming in illegally and you can see that when there's a change of administration that stops, you can disagree with ICE at the extremes and I think probably all of us do. But that to describe that as an open border policy, I think it's quite reasonable, don't you?
- [53:11]
A
No, because open borders suggest anyone can walk into America. And that's right.
- [53:14]
B
And they did.
- [53:14]
A
Millions of people did and millions of people didn't. Millions got detained. Millions of people got mistreated in camps. I mean, Joe Biden was not some dove on the border. Biden and Harris put together the most draconian border security legislation, which by the way, Trump told Republicans not to vote for cuz he wanted more people to come in so he could win the election. But they put together. I'm on the left. I was criticizing Biden and Harris for being hawks on certain things. For example child separation for Example, putting children, you know, all this stuff. They borrowed a lot of Trump policies for the first year of the administration. They kept the same rule that Trump used under the pandemic to just kick people out, which was a nonsense rule. Did a lot of people come in? Of course they did. Record numbers, Katie, Millions. But again, why? Was it just because of an open border or was it because of push factors? Not just pull factors. What was going on in Central America in 2021 and 2022, the actual crises that drove people out. Not just economic migrants, but, yes, refugees as well.
- [54:01]
B
This is where you trigger me, with all respect, because I walk around the United States, core trigonometers keep triggering each other. So that's why we're having this discussion. I mean, as I walk around the cities of the United States and we travel here regularly, I'm shocked by the number of homeless people. Right? And you could say, well, look, the push factors, you know, the people who don't have somewhere to live. So that's why they're coming into your house. No, they're coming into your house. Cuz you've left the door open. And that's what was happening under the Democratic Party.
- [54:29]
A
So it's not quite true. So let's look at the numbers. When Biden left office, right, in 2024, there were fewer people coming in than in Donald Trump's last year of offense in the first term. That's just a fact. Go look at the numbers. The trends were down. You've got to look at trends. Clearly there was a peak. I'm not disputing that. In 21, 22, huge peak. I was at MSNBC, we covered it all the time. But the point is, if it was an open border, why didn't they stay? Why didn't it stay up, up, up? Why did it come up?
- [54:49]
B
Because they realized it's a problem and they were trying to deal with.
- [54:51]
A
Then we agree there wasn't an open border.
- [54:52]
B
No, there was an open border.
- [54:54]
A
Okay. For one year they were really bad at border security. Yes, let's concede that.
- [54:58]
B
Okay, so France, remember how we started this conversation? Francis actually was. I think you guys were agreeing a lot. But he said the left had failings. Right. And one of those failings was the failure to enforce the border. And you've just conceded that it, I mean, in your telling, it's one year, I would argue it's a longer thing.
- [55:15]
A
Fine.
- [55:15]
B
And it's interesting to me because I wrote about this in my book, actually, that the Democratic politicians and left wing politicians in our country talked about the importance of border security and managing immigration well and carefully for decades. And then there was this moment which meant, you know, let me present the argument and you tell me what you think about it. My sense is there was a cultural view that immigration, good illegal immigration, isn't illegal immigration. It's all asylum seeking. There is nobody who's trying to get in illegally. Everyone's trying to just find their way to a better life. And there was a cultural shift which a lot of people call woke, where that was perceived as the morally right thing to do. And that's why across Europe and the United States, people in power, not just left wing, by the way, but across the political spectrum, did leave the. I mean, you argue with the quibble with the word open, failed to have the border policies that the people of their countries repeatedly voted for. And that is one of the reasons Francis, I think, is arguing the left got the kicking that it did.
- [56:21]
A
Well, can I untangle those two things? One is the electoral thing, which is a much more complicated issue. I don't have time to talk about why did they get the kick in different places, there's incumbency, there's inflation. We've talked about many things. Populism. Agreed. Clearly, immigration played a role. I'm on the left. When you say the left failed, you might not like this to know. True Scotsman fallacy. The left hasn't been in power right. And Tony Blair was not the left. Gordon Brown was not the left. David Cameron and George Osmond were not the left.
- [56:47]
B
You can't play this game.
- [56:47]
A
I can because I criticize them from the left. If you tell me that there was open border, I would say Tony Blair spent his whole life being hawkish on border. He's tried to. He gave asylum seekers vouchers. I spent most of the 2000s attacking Blair for being cruel to asylum seekers. Gordon Brown talked about British jobs for British workers. People say you sound like Nick Griffin if you remember 2010. And then, for example, here in the U.S. biden and Harris were way to the right of me on the border. Kamala Harris said, do not come. She went to Central America, said, do not come. Doesn't sound like someone with their door open to me.
- [57:14]
B
But they did leave the door open.
- [57:15]
A
That's a separate argument. But she went.
- [57:16]
B
In practice, you can't have the analogy.
- [57:17]
A
Okay, so in practice, people got in. I've never disputed that. Your argument was you left, you opened the door, said, come in. No evidence.
- [57:23]
B
My argument is the fact that people at one point Were not able to come in and then they were. Is evidence of a shift in policy. Is that a fair claim?
- [57:32]
A
I don't know about its policy because the Biden administration did copy a lot of Trump policies. For example, they got rid of Remain in Mexico, whereby Trump took people and said, you've got to go to Mexico and make a claim. You can't do it here. He got rid of that. People said, oh, because of that, the numbers went up. I don't agree with that. I think the numbers went up.
- [57:45]
B
Why did the numbers go up?
- [57:46]
A
I told you. Because there were push and pull factors. A, the economy was opening up. Let me finish sentence. The economy was opening up after Covid. The US Economy, despite Trump's claims, was amazing on Biden's watch in terms of growth and jobs, record jobs growth. So when you have record jobs growth, people come for work. You need people from abroad, legal immigration. And number two, there was a lot going on in the Northern Triangle, in all these Central American countries. A lot of crises, some crises that we've caused were people coming in. So there were many, many factors. Was it also liberal bias? Maybe. But this idea that the left, you said the woke, you know, want virtue signals to be, you know, everyone's.
- [58:22]
B
I didn't say virtue signal.
- [58:23]
A
Ok. Implication being they want to look good by saying everyone's an asylum seeker. No one's illegal.
- [58:27]
B
No, no, that wasn't my implication. Feel free to answer once I just address this. It's not an implication thing. I think it's a change of worldview that happened. People changed how they thought about this
- [58:36]
A
issue on the ground. Maybe. I wish it changed in government. This is what's amusing me, listening to you guys. I wish these people existed in power. They don't. Joe Biden wasn't that person. Hillary Clinton wasn't that person. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't those people. Keir Starmer is not that person. You know, Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmoud are to the right of David Cameron
- [58:54]
B
in many ways on this talk like they are.
- [58:56]
A
Well, talking's bad. Cause it has effects on the public and on our discourse. So when we. I wish these people existed. That you're telling me exist? Yes. There are people on the left who I know and I'm part of who did take a much more open border stance, who did say, actually a lot of these people are asylum seekers and you shouldn't demonize them all. I'm not sure I saw that in policy or in government. I wish maybe I missed it, but I Didn't see Joe Biden make the case emotionally for refugees and asylum seekers during his administration.
- [59:20]
B
But I'm just a little confused here, Matty, because you look, your point about push factors. I think it's true more people want to leave countries when there's economic problems, et cetera. But you can't deny that policy shifts change the number of people who will come through a door, depending on whether that door is a jar of clocks.
- [59:40]
A
But if the alternative policy, as France has said, was will Trump shut the border, do I agree with that? No, that's ridiculous. Do I believe in building a wall? No, we have to allow. We have to allow migration into this country because we need it for the economy, and we have to allow asylum seekers in this country because it's the legal thing to do. It's our obligations under multiple international conventions and US Law. He's blocked all of that. Would you agree that people should have a right to asylum in the U.S.
- [60:01]
B
i think my view on asylum is very simple, and this was true for Ukrainian people in my family, which is that you should apply for asylum in the area that you're in, and then if you're approved, you get to travel to the country. We shouldn't have people crossing.
- [60:15]
A
So you would change all international law and US Law?
- [60:17]
B
Absolutely.
- [60:17]
A
Okay. But right now we haven't changed that under our current legal obligations, people should have a right to claim asylum. Hold on.
- [60:23]
B
The solution to asylum is actually very simple, which is you set up asylum processing centers near the countries where there's war and conflict and so on, and then you filter out the people you want to come.
- [60:33]
A
So what's in. So I don't necessarily fully disagree with you. What's interesting is a lot of these solutions require people with good faith, good intentions, competence, funds half the problems of the immigration system in this country. If you talk to immigration lawyers, as I do, they're not all open borders advocates. They're saying, why do we not have enough judges to process the claims? Why is there a backlog? Why do people disappear into America when they arrive? Because there's no court hearing, there's no court date. Why is there no fully funded system of lawyers and judges? It would cost a trivial percentage of what we spend on ice. So it's linked. Because if you deal with that, then you deal because you've said policy and election. So I'm coming to that. One of the reasons why immigration has worked for the right is because it looks like chaos. And it is chaos. It is, but it's manufactured chaos. So when Biden and Harris put a bill together, not one I agreed with, but a draconian bill to really shut down asylum claims and immigration at the border, Republicans voted against it for political reasons. Because there was election coming up.
- [61:22]
B
Yeah.
- [61:22]
A
So they don't actually care about solving the issue at the border.
- [61:24]
B
A bigger conversation.
- [61:25]
A
It goes back 20 years. Marco Rubio, who's Secretary of State right now, who's now a hardcore hawk because he works for Trump, he was a guy in favor of amnesty. Right. Marco Rubio, whose grandfather was deported, he was in favor of an amnesty for migrants country today. MAGA would destroy him if he dared say that. But that was part of the solution. What do we do? About 15 million people in this country. You can't just deport them all.
- [61:42]
B
This is a totally separate point. I think the way. Sorry, I'm talking for Francis Allay. But I just want to.
- [61:48]
A
That's why I called you Francis.
- [61:49]
B
That's right. I want to get to the bottom of this. Across Europe and the entire Western world, there was a gigantic shift. Shift within our lifetimes from what I would consider sensible immigration policy, which is you welcome in the people that you've. You've looked at. You've looked at your background. You think they're going to be a positive addition to your country. You do it in numbers that are manageable. You give people an opportunity to integrate. You do it in a way that is not disruptive to the existing population of the country, that people don't feel unsettled. The infrastructure is not under pressure. That's what we had for the entirety of my lifetime. And everybody agreed? Yeah.
- [62:26]
A
I'm not sure I agree.
- [62:27]
B
Well, that was my experience. And then suddenly, at some point, whatever happened, that changed. And you got to a position where lots and lots of people effectively advocated for or tacitly supported a policy whereby we didn't enforce the border in the way that we used to and we allowed mass flows of immigration from all over the world.
- [62:49]
A
So you're mixing together different things. Here's where you're 100% wrong.
- [62:51]
B
Okay?
- [62:52]
A
You can't enforce a border if you're in the eu. Let's not forget that. What you're talking about the period.
- [62:56]
B
Forgive me, when did you move to the UK 1996.
- [62:59]
A
Okay. So early 2000s. You will remember Tony Blair as Prime Minister. Huge debate about Eastern Europeans.
- [63:04]
B
Well, he failed to introduce transitional controls, which is why we got a million people instead of 13,000.
- [63:09]
A
But it was still part of an EU debate. You accept we were in the EU, there was free movement, Right? So there was free movement within the eu. You can have a debate about what deals he should have done with the French and others. But the EU was, the EU was the issue. It wasn't people from Iraq, Syria at the time. I mean, they were there, but they weren't the big issue.
- [63:23]
B
Right.
- [63:24]
A
And then we voted for Brexit. Apparently the British public did this mad thing where they voted for Brexit. And what happened? Numbers went up from other parts of the world, as you know. You know better than me, you're living there. So this is a problem with these kind of populists on the right who kind of sell you a bill of goods is Brexit vote didn't solve the problem of immigration, because you can't be King Canute and just say, we're not going to ignore the state of the world. You mentioned, like massive flows, first of all, massive compared to who? Compared to the developing world. They take the bulk of the refugees
- [63:50]
B
compared to the entire history of countries.
- [63:53]
A
And I'm saying you have to take a global perspective and say these numbers are minuscule compared to what a Turkey or an Iran or an Afghanistan or a Pakistan has had to deal with. The vast majority of refugees live in the developing world. A few of them manage to get into Europe and then we lose our minds. And by the way, a lot of these people who are coming in, where were they coming in from? Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya. Hmm. Do we have anything to do with those countries? I think we do. So I do think those of us who said, you know what, we do have a moral responsibility, we helped fuck up a lot of these countries. Let's just be very honest about that, either directly or indirectly. It's funny that you have Richard Tice and Farage now backing this war in Iran and saying, we stand with the Persian people, apparently. And you can fact check this. I read this a second. I don't live in the uk, so I read this online. The second or third highest number of people on the small boats coming across are Iranians. So the irony of them saying that we support Iran while also being the people who turn away people fleeing the regime in Iran is not lost on me.
- [64:45]
C
But the problem is Mehdi is a public perception of the Democratic Party.
- [64:51]
A
Yeah.
- [64:51]
C
And they saw, and I agree with
- [64:53]
A
you, they think it's weak.
- [64:53]
C
Yeah. And they saw what happened under Biden and they're thinking to themselves, I don't want to go back to that. I don't want that to happen again. And that's gonna be their real challenge. Because, look, as someone who's half Venezuelan, I saw, I walk around the streets of New York and then you see what's happening with some Venezuelan, a minority of Venezuelan people trend their agua, et cetera. People will quite rightly ask, why are these people here? Why didn't we get rid of them under Biden?
- [65:22]
A
So it's interesting you should say that. There's the funny thing about the American public. We talked about this earlier. Eight second memories. When Trump was. When Biden was in office, they were super anti immigration.
- [65:30]
B
I agree.
- [65:30]
A
Look at the polling. It was definitely a problem. Right now look at the polling right now. A year into Trump, they're more pro immigration than American public's been for decades. Support for immigration is now up, I think near record highs. Why? Because Trump went the other extreme, and now they're not thinking about the Biden era. They're looking at ICE agents shooting people in the street. They're hearing horrific stories of their friend's grandmother being pulled from her garden while gardening by masked agents of the state. So actually, the Democrats are in a very, very strong position on this issue now because Trump has been so typically fascistically extreme that actually the immigration issue is. Now, I know you mentioned earlier, like, talk about the border, not interior. It's actually all about the interior now. It's all about ice. It's all about Stephen Miller and his white supremacist rhetoric and this plan to make America white again. The White House put out a post, one of these memes, the Department of homeland security saying, 100 million deportations. Think about that. That's insane. 100 million deportations. U.S. citizens are getting deported. People like me are getting deported. People who are born here are getting deported. That's just insane. So that's turned the American public actually against what the administration's doing and actually made them much more positive about immigration. And as the economy tanks further, I think you'll see a lot of businesses also remembering the virtues and values of immigration. So, look, there is a problem. I don't deny that. But, you know, when we talk about the public, we also have to accept that the media plays a big role in this. Right. A lot of what the people think about immigration. My favorite poll, when I lived in the uk, there was polling done in the uk, I think, by Gallup, that if you ask people in the uk do you think immigration's a national problem? Yes, it is. Do you think immigration's a problem in your community? No. Why is that? Because in their community in their lived experiences, they're not seeing gang members on their streets. They don't have immigrants causing them problems. But they hear from the Daily Express and the Daily Mail and Tory politicians, and now reform politicians, that it's a huge problem nationally. Same thing in the us. You ask Americans what proportion of the country is migrant or Muslim. They give you massive percentages because they think that immigrants have taken over the country. You're in the us. Ask Republicans. I'm sure you're interviewing prominent Republicans. Ask them about Muslims in the uk. They think Muslims run the uk. They think London has fallen to an Islamic caliphate. Right. This is the kind of insane rhetoric that Elon Musk pumps with his algorithms. So I do think a lot when you talked about public opinion. I think public opinion is something you should change. I don't think politicians should just blindly follow public opinion. They should lead. One of the things Donald Trump was able to do is get his entire base to switch their views on Russia, switch their view on tariffs and free trade. That's what Democrats should aspire to do, try and change people's hearts and minds.
- [67:50]
B
We're at a strange moment where people are pouring their most private thoughts into AI, health issues, business ideas, political opinions, things you wouldn't even tell some of your friends. And you're just meant to trust that none of this will be stored, analyzed or eventually used against you, because tech companies have always handled power responsibly. Obviously, there is another problem, too. You've probably noticed that some AI tools now decide what you're allowed to ask. Programmers at these companies get to decide what isn't, isn't acceptable for you to think about. That's where our sponsor, Venice AI, comes in. If you like AI but don't like surveillance or censorship, Venice is for you. Venice lets you use powerful AI models anonymously. Your prompts are submitted on your behalf, so they're not tied to your identity, and your conversations are encrypted and stored only on your device, not on some company servers. That alone puts it in a completely different category from most mainstream AI tools. You can use open source models for writing, coding, images, even video, all in one place. You can switch between leading models depending on what you're doing, whether that's sharpening an argument, preparing for an interview, or generating ideas. Because your conversations stay on your device, no corporation or government can spy on you or use your data for profit. You get the power of modern AI without handing over your private thoughts. Venice was founded by Eric Vahees, a longtime privacy advocate. So privacy Here is not a marketing add on. It's the point. If you want AI without surveillance or ideological guardrails, go to Venice AI Trigonometry or click the link in the description, use our code trigger to get 20% off a pro plan. That site again is Venice AI trigonometry.
- [69:24]
C
I agree with you, but the problem is for me is going to be are they going to put together a coherent package to actually make that happen and are they gonna prioritize economics? Cuz to me, if you wanna win this election, you focus on economics particularly.
- [69:38]
A
It's very hard for me to say what you focus on three years out. We don't know what the biggest issue. I mean, in 2017. If you had said to me Trump's unpopular Democrats just lost with Clinton, what should they focus on in 2020? And if I'd said to you they should focus on a virus from China, you would've said, don't be silly.
- [69:52]
B
Yeah, well, I remember we had a guest on the show actually very much to your point about how Joe Biden was won because of COVID We asked him who's on course to win before COVID happened, and he said, if nothing changes and it will. Yeah, then blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So I agree with you, Maddie, before we go to substack and ask you questions, we always ask the same question to all, I guess at the end. But I want to ask you about one other thing before we, we do that. In the time we've been here for a couple of weeks now, in the time that we've been here, there have been four. I don't know if you necessarily describe them as maybe, I think they were four terrorist attacks committed by what we understand to be an Islamist. Do you see that as part of. You talked about blowback. Do you see that as part of the blowback or is there another reason this seems to be happening with increasing regularity in the United States?
- [70:39]
A
Yes, a good question. It's very worrying. It's one of the things that keeps me up at night. I think the more we see that, the more we're gonna see real fractured relations in communities. Islamophobia right now is already off the charts in the Republican Party. They're looking for any excuse. I don't know if you've seen the tweets from Andy Ogle saying Muslims are not part of American society.
- [70:54]
B
I didn't say that.
- [70:55]
A
This is a Republican congressman who said Muslims are not welcome in America.
- [70:57]
B
And there's another Islamist and there's another one. He keeps There's a guy called Randy Fine.
- [71:01]
A
He said if I had to choose between dogs and Muslims, I'd choose dogs. So there's some real, I mean, if you talk to Muslims who lived there after 9 11. I didn't, I moved here in 2015. But if you talk to Muslims in my wife's family, friends of mine, they will say the Islamophobia now is much worse than after 9 11. After 9 11, George Bush went to a mosque and said Islam's peace. Donald Trump would never do that. And so in a climate of Islamophobia, of course, Muslims, any self identified Muslim who carries out an act of terror against a synagogue or against a university or whatever it is, is of course it's gonna be a morally wrong and a criminal act, but it's gonna be a real disaster for community relations, for the political debate, for some of these cultural issues we talked about. I don't know what is motivating all these people. It's very hard to say. The guy who attacked the synagogue in Michigan recently, there's reporting that his two brothers were killed, their kids were killed.
- [71:48]
B
They were two Hezbollah people.
- [71:49]
A
That's what some people, some people say not, we don't have a confirmation, different media outlets. Some say Hezbollah, some say no, we don't know. But clearly he may have been. It sounds like he was pissed, right, about what happened in Lebanon. That doesn't justify what he did. But that sounds like that. There was another attack that same day or week in Virginia on a college campus from a guy who had been linked to isis, who had been released from prison. Again, don't know. People say he was mentally ill. Muslims, we always joke that we don't get to be mentally ill. Right? It's only the white mass shooter, he gets to be mentally Muslims. We never have any mental illness in our community. We are just all Islamists. But look, this is a country with a lot of violence, right? Gun violence is a thing of norm. Mass shooters are. So the night we went to war with Iran, there was an attack on an Austin bar. There was a mass shooting that also is believed. Some people are reporting. I don't.
- [72:34]
B
Well, he was wearing a T shirt saying Property of Islam and he had
- [72:37]
A
a flag, an Iranian flag, whatever. So some links, yeah, but when that story came first came out, most people just shrugged and said, oh, another mass shooting in a bar. It's just normal in this country. And then you throw in the political or religious angle, then it becomes a big news story.
- [72:48]
B
I think, to be fair. And I actually, I Mean, your point about mentally ill. I haven't heard a Muslim be described as someone had real mental illness.
- [72:56]
A
No, there's a famous Family Guy meme.
- [72:57]
B
Yeah, I'm familiar with it. But on the other hand, I also think that if you have a white guy and there's any connection to white supremacy, that also gets amplified. Right.
- [73:07]
A
Sometimes.
- [73:07]
B
So when a mass.
- [73:09]
A
If you look at the studies, actually, not really. It's like 8 to 1 ratio of, like, how much we talk about the motivations and religion of a Muslim shooter versus a white shooter in a lot of studies done in the past.
- [73:18]
B
Well, the point I was going to make is if someone is wearing a T shirt saying Property of Islam, or if someone is a member of isis, or if someone is. Expresses allegiance to. I'm agreeing with you.
- [73:29]
A
It's bad for Muslims.
- [73:30]
B
Let me just finish. So if someone expresses those views, it would be natural for us to talk about that. Likewise, if someone expressed white supremacist beliefs while committing a shooting, like the guy in New Zealand or whatever, or the
- [73:45]
A
people who attacked the Capitol who Donald Trump pardoned on day one, many of them wore Camp Auschwitz T shirts, carried Confederate flags.
- [73:50]
B
Right. And people focused on that. So.
- [73:52]
A
And Trump pardoned them.
- [73:54]
B
Well, hold on, but you're derailing my argument. I'm not a Trump advocate. Right.
- [73:58]
A
I apologize.
- [73:59]
B
So my point is, the reason I asked you about this is this is obviously something that we have had to deal with in Europe extensively.
- [74:07]
A
Yes.
- [74:07]
B
And it feels to me, I don't think it's being talked about in this way here in the US but it feels to me like it's coming to the U.S. do you agree?
- [74:16]
A
I worry that you may be right, especially.
- [74:19]
B
Why is that?
- [74:20]
A
Like, I mean, I don't want to make it all about blowback, because it's not. But you can't. I mean, correlation is not causation. But I was a MSNBC anchor for three and a half years. I can count on. I did two weekly shows. Sometimes I used to do a nightly show. I can count on one hand, the fingers on one hand how many times I talked about ISIS or Al Qaeda. Not because I was ignoring the story. It wasn't a big story. It went away. We stopped talking about. We were only talking about the far right and white supremacists because the FBI said that was the biggest threat to the homeland. We'd just seen an insurrection. We kept arresting nutjobs who wanted to, you know, militia members who wanted to blow shit up, who thought Covid was a way of this government Taking over America, all of this stuff. Right. So I think people got complacent, certainly in my community thinking, ah, nobody thinks Muslims are terrorists anymore. There aren't any Muslim terrorists anymore. Now, as you say, there does seem to be an uptick. Is that to do with Donald Trump becoming president? Is that to do with the war in Gaza, the genocide in Gaza? I know we haven't talked about it today, but US Intelligence warned Biden in year one of the genocide that this will be a generational recruiting event for Islamist and jihadist groups around the world. This will be a threat to the United States. Obviously, I don't need to be an intelligence member to say that. It's just common sense. If people spend two years watching a Gaza journalist, some people, some more unhinged people, some more extreme people will say, I want to take revenge, I want to blow shit up.
- [75:31]
B
Well, why is that? I mean, I don't see the same being done by Russians or Ukrainians who've also had to deal with various things who might blame Americans for something or whatever. Why is that?
- [75:42]
A
I'm not sure that's a good analogy. For example, Ukraine. I mean, why would a Ukrainian feel the need to go blow themselves up in Russia when they have an army that's fighting Russia and killing Russia?
- [75:51]
B
They might say, oh, America, you know, didn't give us the help they need. Or the Russians say, we're at war with you. Why doesn't that happen?
- [75:57]
A
I think the analogy between America not supporting Ukraine as much as Ukraine might want, even though America has basically kept Ukraine alive, is not the same as America farming and funding a genocide in Gaza for two and a half years on our phones.
- [76:09]
B
Take the Russian example. The narrative in Russia. I know this because I have family and I follow what's happening in Russia. The narrative in Russia is we're at war with America. Yeah. I don't see Russians blowing themselves up or throwing nail bombs or shooting people in bars up and down America, I
- [76:25]
A
think, because they think that they can do the damage they're doing in Ukraine. I mean, this is the difference. And you could say the same thing about Jewish people and Israel. Well, they have an army that's bombing Gaza. Look, this is not, I'm not saying some crazy theory. This is something that's been testified to by history. Take Sri Lanka, for example. The people who invented suicide bombings were not Muslims. The Tamil Tigers perfected it as a mass weapon. Right. That was people who believed they were under occupation by Sinhalese. Right. So this is. And Robert Pape, who is an expert on suicide terrorism, has talked about this, that there's a clear link between foreign occupations and foreign wars and suicide terrorism in particular. Suicide terrorism. But look, is there a problem where certain Muslim groups are exploiting political conflicts? Yes. I spent 20 years opposing jihadists and Islamists and pointing out that there is no justification in Islam for this kind of violence. But, you know, explaining something is not the same as justifying it. I don't justify what they do. I think it's reprehensible. But I understand how they work and the mindsets and how they. You know, and this guy in Michigan is an example of that. I don't agree what he did. He's probably mentally unbalanced. But, you know, people say, well, what would you do if you lost your family? Well, I wouldn't go attack a synagogue. But that's. People act in an unhinged way after tragedies happen in their lives. That's not to justify it. Is it going to get worse? I hope not. But you know, again, violence begets violence. We've seen that in Palestine. We've seen that with Hamas. Right. Who knows what's going to come out of the.
- [77:41]
B
But isn't that the exact logic that justifies America bombing the shit out of Afghanistan after 9, 11?
- [77:47]
A
It doesn't justify it. But it explains it, right? It does. I mean, so. So if you ask me, why did America bomb Afghanistan? I wouldn't come up with some. I wouldn't say it's for the Bible or Christianity. I would say they did it because they got attacked and they wanted to attack back and make a show of force and do whatever they want to do. It doesn't mean I justify. I didn't agree with the war in Afghanistan, but I understand it. What we refuse to do with our opponents and our enemies, especially the Muslim ones, is try and understand the mindset. We don't try and understand why Iran's doing what it's doing, why Hamas is doing what it's doing, why Hezbollah's doing. You don't have to agree with it, but they're not all crazy people. They actually have their own strategy. But some people suggest, oh, they're all just messianic people. You did say Constantine, so I'm gonna bring this up. Cause I watched you on Rogan. You did say on Rogan. Oh, well, my Iranian guests tell me there's a twelveish Shia Islam and they're Messianic and they wanna bring about the end of the world. That's not true. I'm a Shia Muslim. I'm telling you, Shia Muslim is not messianic. I mean, it is messianic in that we expect a messiah to come, just like Christians, a Mahdi. But there's no evidence that Shias in Iran are trying to bring about the end of the world. And that's why they want nuclear weapons. So that kind of thinking is not helpful.
- [78:43]
B
I was quoting specifically.
- [78:45]
A
Yeah, they're wrong, I'm telling you.
- [78:46]
B
Well, they're wrong. I'm only quoting them. And I think I made it clear that some people say that I'm not. I mean, I think we had this conversation with someone else the other day. I'm not convinced of this idea that they want nuclear weapons, and the first nuclear weapon they get, they're gonna drop it on television. I'm not convinced about that. I think there are some people.
- [79:05]
A
Although Israel has nukes. Can I just remind we haven't said that in this whole conversation. Israel illegally has nukes.
- [79:10]
B
You keep throwing stuff in.
- [79:11]
A
That's not the conversation. It is relevant. Come on. We spent an hour, half of the talk, talking about Iran's nuclear program. I forgot to point out to the viewers, Israel has nukes.
- [79:18]
B
Mehdi, when we had Yossi Cohen, who was the former head of Mossad, I literally made a joke which exposed the fact that Israel has nukes. Of course, Israel. Everyone knows Israel has nukes. No one denies it here. Right. But what we've done here is we've derailed the conversation we're actually having. The point I was making is I suspect Iran wants nuclear weapons for the same reason that any country would want them, as we talked about earlier. Anyway, appreciate you coming on.
- [79:43]
A
Thank you for having me. Thanks for the conversation.
- [79:45]
B
Thanks for the time.
- [79:45]
A
Apologies for confusing you both. You look so similar.
- [79:49]
C
You're more offended by that.
- [79:50]
A
I don't know who's more offended by that.
- [79:51]
B
We're both offended by that.
- [79:53]
A
Yeah.
- [79:53]
C
Final question is always the same, Eddie. What's the one thing we're not talking about that we really should be?
- [79:57]
A
I think if we're going to talk about war and conflict and World War 3 and the future of the world, I think we've got to talk more about AI. There's a study that came out of King's couple of months ago that said when AI was asked to resolve various conflicts, in nine out of 10 cases, it said use nukes.
- [80:11]
C
I mean, it's more effective.
- [80:13]
B
It's a cow. And, I mean, I grew up watching
- [80:14]
A
Terminator 2, so I worry about Skynet all the time.
- [80:16]
B
Yeah, yeah. No, I think AI is insane and I think think in war especially. Well, and actually, before you get to the nuclear thing, I mean, they are already talking about the next phase is autonomous drones. And I think and the school in
- [80:30]
A
Iran, there's a lot of reporting that suggests that was hit because of AI.
- [80:34]
B
Really? The Minnan, it was right next to a military base, wasn't it?
- [80:38]
A
But it's the AI that didn't have. Whatever didn't do the sufficient checking is I'm not sure, but that's what's been reported.
- [80:42]
B
I mean, historically speaking, civilian objects next to military facilities always get hit in war. Tragically, you know, in a lot of
- [80:50]
A
American schools, on a lot of American military bases, we wouldn't allow.
- [80:54]
B
No, no, no, of course. Well, obviously it's terrible that it happened.
- [80:56]
A
AI is doing. And in Israel and in Gaza, something we didn't talk about, AI was used to kill a lot of innocent Palestinians with a 10% error rate. The Israelis admit this. It's like 1 in 10 of the AI attacks they accepted was maybe not a militant, but he did it.
- [81:10]
B
Mehdi, thank you very much. Head on over to triggerpod.co.uk where we ask Mehdi your questions.
- [81:16]
C
How do you reconcile the progressive left simultaneous alliance with transgender ideology and with Islam? How are these compatible?