Unresolved Issues in the Iran Deal

ACAS powers the world's best podcasts. Here's a show that we recommend. Go touch grass. You have probably heard this phrase. Maybe you have even said it Beneath the sort of lighthearted nature of this meme is something very real and important a growing sense that staying in touch with our humanity and being present in our bodies Matters more than ever in today's digital world. My name is Manouche Zamarodi, and I am taking over as host of Ted Talks Daily this week to explore what technology is actually doing to your body and mind In special interviews with scientists, doctors, parents, artists, and more, we're going to dig into your physical and mental health on test we think about our bodies differently now, how we relate to new innovations that are amazing, but also a little scary, and how we can live a healthier life in this high tech era. Tune in on Ted Talks Daily, wherever you listen to podcasts ACast helps creators launch, grow, and monetize their podcasts everywhere A Cast Duck Welcome to the Andrew Neil Report with me Andrew Neil Coming up on today's show as the Ro over UK defense spending continues. We'll also hear from the former Director of UK Special Forces for his takeake not just on UK defence problems, but on what Europe needs to do to prepare for world on America for its defence as it always has And speaking of America What to make of Donald Trump's peace plans with Iran? Is it peace in our time not worth that paper is written on I challenge Trump ally Carla Sands. over her support for the so called meemorandum of understanding between the U. S and Iran This is the Andrew Nle repeport Listen and follow on your podcast apps to get full episodes every Thursday and subscribe to us on YouTube to get video clips from the show week Now, the British ral over defense spending comes at a bad time for Europe as well as the United Kingdom There's a lot of global realignment going on under Donald Trump, Europe no longer Figures is much for America as it has since World War I He lookves elsewhere in the globe, particularly to the western hemisphere And of course, he thinks you're rightly should be doing a lot more for his defense. but it goes a little bit deeper than that. when I speak to the Trump administration I'm struck not just by They're indifference towards Europe, but actually, and this is not too strong a word, a Europe They're almost Visceral hatred for Europe. Now no other Excuse me, no other U. S. administration has ever had this disagreements? yes but never a kind of hatred for Western European democracy. But according to the Trump administration, European allies are sponges taking America for suckers. notot just the MGa crowd saying that Even Markco Rubo, the seecretary of State even ask this question. Existential question. whyy? Is America even in NATO You could say All this will revert to normal once Trump goes. I say some bet on it JD Vans, the vice president, Well, he's even more down in Europe than Donald Trump And the Democrats, well, they're increasingly moving to the left. They're no fans of defense spending. They want to spend American tax dollars on other things But if it is on defense, And they have to make a choice between the Pacificans And Europe E in America I can't afford to do both these days. probably choose the Pacific We're in a situation now where it's not just that Europe will have to do more for its own defense That's been a long time coming I had a long time overdue that we will have to share more of the burden with America The problem is it may go much further than that. We might have to look after ourselves essentially without America No, it may not come to that Be no be as serious as that But I would suggest it would be prudent to plan for that And if we are to do that, there is much to do Now sometimes This debate, the commentary takes place as if Europe is totally defenseless without America. that We've got nothing unless America is there to protect us In truth He's not nearly as desperate as some make out. The European NATO allies, even without America are hardily defensive. European NATO allies of two million active military personnel versus one point three million Russians in uniform They can muster one thousand six hundred fast jjects Vvers is about a thousand Russians one hundred frigates and destroyers against about twenty five Russian frigates and destroyers. The Russia is way ahead in subs The problem with that it looks good on paper. is that many of these European capabilities, well they depend on US military support. The United States still provides about sixty percent of NATO defence spending ook of its firepower Now overall, I see calculations that say America accounts for forty percent of NATO's military capacity problem is But that forty percent is the most important military capacity, not just the firepower Cand and control, satellite intelligence Heavy lift, which Europe is short of, airborne AWax for surveillance, air to air refueling. coast. miss our defense So if Europe is to fill at least part of that gap And then the worst case scenario, all of that gap Europe needs to get serious And he needs to start asking some Fundamental questions. post America How should European security be restructured Who should lead it if America wanders off, either overnight O over time military capabilities do we require if America will be missing in action. Now there are those who say plenty of voices, even in the United Kingdom that let's all do it through the European Union. unites the big European economies. Well, in my view That would be a big mistake. a very mistake First of all, the European Union has no. military expertise was speaking of It is no past experience in military matters. It was never designed to play a role in the military. It's tried to do a bit recently But basically there's just no track record there. Also, it includes isreland, which is neutral Spain doesn't seem that interested in the defence of the NATO borders. And Hungary, which at least until recently seemed more pro Kremlin than it was pro NATO The European Union is too slow, It's too cumbersome T bureaucratic. It doesn't U react quickly and it always needs unanimity If we were to wait on it as a reaction, military reaction to deal with the Russian threat. Well, we'd probably all be speaking Russian before Brussels gets his act together. More important, it doesn't include military powers vital. to any post NATO America. Britain Canada Norway Let me tell you something about A better way forward And that's to adapt what's called the North Atlantic Council Now the North Atlantic Council is NATO's main decision taking body And it needs to be reformed and reconfigured to prepare post America NATO. A the moment The North Atlantic Council is dominated by the United States The Supreme Allied commander Europe is always an American. It's been that way since Nature was formed in forty eight forty nine And Europe has always played second fiddle to U.S. leadership. But of course Europe is represented on North Atlantic Council. I would suggest in this world that we may now be moving forward to in which we have to lookook after our own defense and not depend on America to anything like the extent we do that what I would call a new concept Ccert of Europe needs to emerge within the North Atlantic Council And this would include all the major European NATO allies Plus Canada the leading European military palace Britain France, Germany, two or three others Well, they would need to replace American leadership and assume collective leadership Won't be easy N easy to do collective leadership except for we de bar there being one king on the hill. But we have no real autarative And as we do this Why not make the first new European Can Allied, Commander Polish would send a signal to Mr. Putin, wouldn't it And then we can have the Secretary general, the civilian part come from Western Europe And we need to make sure that Canada was fully integrated into all this and Turkey. as much as it wanted to be No At the moment, you' ro. Because you sometimes get the impression that you guys doesn't spend anything on defense at all Combine, the European NATO allies spend about three hundred fifty billion pounds on defence That's three times what Russia spends, one hundred and ten billion they spend the economics of that don't quite work on a simple comparison because Truth is the Russia gets a lot more bang for its buck on defence than Europe gets Europe is dwarfed by the sheer scale of Russia's military industrial complex. It has far lower costs a man and machines Plus of course Europe, the NATO allies there, they squander resources with duplication national priorities over what would be in the collective interest. Just think The United States is thirty three types of weapon systems across ten major categories. Europe hundred and seventy four For every dollar spent by Europe It gets a lot less military capacity than the US or Russia Now this is important And we need to P this right becausecause there's a crying need for Europeans, NATO allies to rebuild their military industrial capacity and in the process rebuild their stockpiles of shells, ammos, drones, transport, logistics, and so on It ain't going to happen overnight. It is a ten year program, maybe more But we need to get started Uh, and who knows If he's done on a big enough scale It might even pep up Europe's stagnant economies Now some European countries get it. Germany. Poland The Baltic States, Scandinavians They're all serious about rearming. I don't think ass a good instance, they're all much closer to Russia than we are and some don't Italy, Spain And sadly Surprisingly for some Germany will double its defence spending to about one hundred fifty billion euros by twenty twenty nine, taking it to three percent of his GDP and it won't stop there Poland already spends close to five percent of his GDP And there is a massive increase in Polish tank corps fighter jets And it's heading for a regular a military of three hundred thousand two hundred thousand. Reservice The British Army at the moment. seventy six thousand Even the peace loving Swede only recent members of NATO considering conscription Now of course there's still much to do and there's a big argument about what any new money should be spent on a really big argument because we have a long way to go The Bundesberer, which is the German military, Last year it had six hundred drones It would last about a day in Ukraine A there it plans ten thousand this year big increase except that Last year Ukraine built five million drones. And this year, It's building ten million I think you can see We have a long way to go Things are changing for the better. As I say, there are Countries that get it, the rearmament is underway The need not to depend on America as much is well understood in pretty much every major European capital So I say to my American subscribers Europe is stebing up to the plate. Allegatedly So maybe not buy enough But things have changed And it would be helpful if instead of abandoning us as we do this He stuck around and helped the transition this shift in the burden from the United States to the European NATO Allies, Canada and Turkey Now the tragedy in all of this I'm afraid is Britain Britain is still Probably the most important military power in Europe. and With a global reach and of course, a special relationship with America We should be playing a leading role in this major reconfiguration, this major redesigning of Europe to bear more of the burden We bring formidable military resources to it. A lot of them been hollowed out. They're still formidable intelligence, special forces and of course We're a nuclear power One of only two No With France, Canada, Germany, Poland, The Scandinavians We should be leading the way with them But we have a government In the United Kingdom, att a time of great peril, which plans to increase defense spending Ultra zero point zero eight percent between twenty twenty seven and twenty Thirty That isn't one percent. That isn't ero point one percent of GDP It is zero point zero eight percent overver three years, at a time British intelligence and European intelligence thinks Russia will becoming ever more dangerous and may even Try as luck crossing the borders of a NATO country zero point zero eight percent. is almost a joke if it wasn't so serious Now, Prime Minister Ki Oam is unlikely to be around for much longer But when he goes and if he goes soon zero point zero eight percent should be engraved on his political tombstone as the indication that he was unfit to be Prime Minister. I'm Andrew Neil and this is the Andrew New repeport So what exactly does Europe? What does Britain need? and how' you go about convincing the people Governments The defence now needs to become a priority. One man who may have the answers H is Major General Jonathan Schw, former director of UK Special Forces, former Assistant Chief of Defence Staff at the Ministry of Defence in London, author of Britain Perilous world the strategic defense and security Review we need Major General Shaw, welcome to the Andrew New Report Thank you. Yes, good to be here. Let's begin with an overview. What do you think If you accept my premise that not only will Europe have to do a lot more and me end up having to do nearly all of it for his on defense What do you think Europe needs to start doing to cater for this geopolitical shift in American priorities Yeah, good question. I agree your fundamental premise that we need to start planning for a post United States NATO, if you can call it a NATO. and So let's start with that premise. The first thing we need to do then is to defence seriously and take defence and the overall threat more as a collective measure rather than as a bunch of individual nations And that has profound implications all the way through. I mean, there are two points in there. First of all, The threat we face from Russia is not just about the military. It's not just defence in classic MOD military terms, it's also security And one of the arguments you need to that needs to be spelled out in showing how serious the threat is is that we are already engage with Russia almost on a daily basis in terms of their subversion, their corruption of people, their sponsoring of disorder The cutting of cables We are already engaged in conflict, if not in actual war. So we need to take this extremely seriously And as you said in your premise, we may be a long way from Russia, but we are still being interfered with by the Russians. and that is happening now and it is not that So what does NATO need to do? It needs to act collectively One of the thing that I find very depressing is that Everyone's still competing to be the boss without actually wanting to be the boss. They just don't want anyone else to take charge. And that's a particularly pathetic way to be And so we all talk about needing leadership But actually what we need is a lot more followership. And that's that's in pretty scant supply as well Um As you say, there's enough money U But it's a question of how that money is spent If we go right back to, K Stama made a very good start as Prime Minister by kicking off that strategic defence review. And actually if you read the strategic defence review and you took it seriously, You what we wouldn't be doing too badly. And in fact, when the paper came out, Kirst Armer signed up to the whole thing, without exception. He signed up to everything that George Robbererson had written And the tragedy is that we have a labour party We have a labor party that is committed to welfare and we know that now And I'm afraid this all goes back to that very early stage in in the government's life where they lost the battle on welfare cuts becausecause where streeting knows damn well that the current levels of welfare are unaffordable. And I'm afraid once we started going tipping our hand as it were to the being scared of the back benchers who are old welfed junkies as far as I can see Um, then we've lost the battle because we haven't been prepared to put theoney the money where the mouth is, cutting welfare and signing up to the strategic deffense review and paying for it Be having signed for it, he's done the intellectual hard work. He knows what needs to be done. He just cannot do it because he is hamstrung by the Labour Party back benchers. And that comes back to something you mentioned, know what happens when Kir Starmer goes I mean, I fear whoever takes over from him will be faced with the same parliamentary logic. So I don't see it getting any better as long as this government is in is powerower, quotes, unquote. Well I don't think you will get any better from Andy Burnham who's really never said anything about defense in his political career and knows nothing about defence too And you're right about the curreon mood of the British Labour Party is to prioritize welfare and various other things over defense spending Um and that Kus St Armmer and I doubt Andy Burnham are prepared to take on their back benches u to switch resources from existing spending on other things I defense But I also wonder whether their heart is really in it You know, I look at Kio Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the British Chancellor and I think to myself They didn't come into politics to spend more on defense. That's not what got them out. They're not really of bed in the morning. They're actually not really that interested at the end of the day. and they're certainly not prepared to go out on a limb against their own party to spend the kind of money that Britain needs to spend Correct. I agree with that One of the saddences of the SDO and What I said before was that The countries spend enough money collectively, but that's a deception because every nation create its own little defence force. And if you put the whole lot together, the sum of the whole is less than the sum of the individual parts.. And you know this is the advantage that the United States as a military has and that Russia has and that China has. It's one organisation and it has a coherence because it is one big entity The problem with NATO without the Americans is that all the glue has gone And America did provide the glue Not least communications, which I think you mentioned earlier, but it's absolutely crucial. commommunications, Sar, heavy lift, all the unsexy stuff Yet every nation seems to insist on making its own tank or its own weapon or its own this And so it has the sexy bit in the shot window, but it doesn't have the coherence as when you put the whole lot together And the trouble with one of the problems with the strategic Dfense review was that it it It justified itself on the basis of national economic recovery which sort of means that putting your national cake ahead of what NATO really needs. You know, maybe better that Germany provides a whole lot of our defense cope or that the Italians provide a lot of our helicopters or some such thing like that whichich would not do the British economy any good at all, but it would do NATO without the Americans a lot of good So we need to get grown up about this and recognize that defence is much defence capability is more important than national economic recovery. That may be a hard pill to swallow, but if you're really serious about defence and prioritizing it, then that's what I think we need to do Well, I remember Rachel Reeves, the chancellor in the UK saying they didn't under this government Britain would become a military industrial superpower and the then She signs off an agreement on increasing defense spending by zero point zero eight percent over three years I mean, how you become an industrial military superp wasas that suggests to me that they have no idea What they're talking about I would suggest, Major General, that the consequence of this because if you're at a period when NATO has to be radically reconfigured You would expect Britain Given its history, given its military, given its position in Europe and its relationship with America and Canada. to be in a pivotal position to do this, not to do it alone. of course, it would need to be an alliance with the other major military powers of Europe But we'd be there. We'd be Part of the vanguard And I would suggest to you We're not I couldn't agree more. That's exactly right U Yes, but for the reasons we've said, I don't think their hearts in it. I don't think that's what they thought they got elected for eter, etcera etca Um One of the difficulties is that it's not entirely clear what you mean by defence capability If you look at what's happening in Ukraine and if you look at the reason that Al Kanaine resigned, it's all about drones, it's all about technology. It's not about big platforms and all the traditional stuff that we've normally bought And indeed, I think one of the most interesting lessons that I took out of the Venezuela raid that the Americans did. highighly successful raid was the age of the platforms You know, the C one hundred thirtys, the Black Hawks, the other stuff I used to fly around in those twenty thirty years ago. You know, these is old old platforms. What was new was the technology on those platforms. And that's always been the great debate. It was the debate in the Navy when we made that dreadful decision to buy aircraft carriers. Two of them Yeah two of them, neither of which works properly and neither of which we can afford U and The contrary I came was that what we needed was lots of cheaper platforms on which you stuck very clever gizmos And that's how you become a technological superperower because you link the power of AI, you link the power of modern technology and drones to these basic platforms of which you have quite a number The trouble with technology in the way it's advancing is that it's advancing so fast that everything you actually buy is already out of date, technically. And that's very difficult to plan for. But you just need to invest in the capacity set it These people feel confident enough to create a flexible framework We need to go to Ukraine and work out how on earth they do it because they are innovating like crazy and they are beating the Russians to the technological development punch. And that's what we need to do on a national scale. So You know, I mean it's easy enough to state the concept that you need to be able to innovate at mass at speed It's quite trggy to do and that's why I'm not going to tell you how to do that because Iven've been to Ukraine and explored how they do it. But that seems to me the way sort of thing we need to be investing in. It doesn't inde. And the Germans have got a lot to learn there too. They're still kind of tied to old platforms as part of their engineering tradition is that they're kind of culturally attached to things that are heavily engineered and big and beautiful machine tool precision and all the rest of it. whereereas that's probably not what is required as Ukraine has shown Tell me this we look at the wider challenge facing Europe to get its defense, U collectively together at the moment You've got the European Union on one side. I said, I thought, that's not the way forward for defense NATO, of course, is was formed for defensive military purposes It's dominated by America. What institutions do we need? What reconfiguring do we need to do Is it through NATO? Is it through the European Union? Is it something entirely new? to begin to knock heads together and have a more collective approach to the defense of our continent Yeah, it's a great question Um And I think the answer will emerge if and when the Russian threat becomes even more Ptinent I mean, we'll see how that goes. att the moment, it seems that Ukraine is on a bit of a winner. and There are really interesting questions about the very survival of Russia itself. U You're optimistic about Ukraine from what you say Well, they're on they're on upswing at the moment. I mean, I'm dangerous of s of extrapolating conclusion of victory because you know, General Bony Fuller described it in the nineteen twenties. You know this is the constant tactical factor at play, whereby for the moment, Ukraine is seems to be technologically one step ahead But it's not so long ago that the Russians were one step ahead So, you know, these technological advances soon get caught out and the Russians could be backack in ascendancy But the way technology is at the moment We're on this sort of you know forty mile or forty kilometer U, death zone is not exactly a front line and it's not really moving very much. It's a death zone because the drones have such a paralyzing effect on the. front lines. So it's very difficult to see how Russia advances. It's very hard to see how Ukraine's advances. So a stalemate looks absolutely on the cards at the moment Are we not in danger in Britain of being left behind? when you look at the money that Germany is now I mean, Germany will very soon if it hasn't happened already be by far the biggest spend a defence spender in the continent, one hundred and fifty billion euros. The poes spending proportionateally way more than we're doing. They seem to get it They're in the driving seat now we should be sharing that driving seat with them. We would be useful If we played a role in that driving seat but we're not and they're not going to wait for as I'd suggest No, and I'm rather glad they're not waiting for us because I have a hard feeling they'll have about three years to wait before we got a government that does anything. But funny enough, I don't even see the reformer making great noisise No. about defence. I just don't think it's in the national psyche. And it's interesting that again, if you go back to the strategic defense review, Ker Stahmer acknowledged the need to ate not just an MOD response to this new threat but a national response. a whole of society response to the security and defense threats that we face. And it was absolutely right. So I go back to the fact the Stategic Defense Review was actually quite a good document. And actually, that's the extraordinary thing that this government has done the intellectual hard yards. What it hasn't done is implemented it Anyway, stage one of all this was to have the conversation with the population to explain to them why there was a threat both of security and defence and why the whole of the nation needs to get involved in this response. That's how you change the national mood to make people recognize that if people want welfare, they've got to invest in preventing warfare so that you're retain the government system you want Because if you lose the welfare side, then you won't have any welfare You know, welfare doesn't come as a free good. It has to be paid for by security And if you don't invest in it, and that's the sort of argument that needs to be made and hasn't been. Someone's got to do it. and the government has failed miserably. I can only think it's because someone suggested there weren't any votes in defence, so best not make too much of a noise about it. But that's just irresponsible frankly. That's not leadership, that's pathetic followership. No, it's a return to the nineteen thirties The governments in the nineteen thirties, even as they were trying to appease Hitler, actually increased defense spending by a lot more than the Starmer government has done. I mean and of course, the previous storory government as a la of responsibility as well. I mean, I think the difficulty we face and it's not just Britain is that it's quite hard for a A left wing human rights lawyer from North London provide a rallying cry for the country to rearm prepred to defend itself because we kind of know his heart's not in it and half the time. He doesn't know what he's talking about But I would suggest that's a European problem I mean, in France, you basically have a lameed duck president now who's seeing out his final year without a majority in the French National Assembly, unable himself to increase defence spending by very much because France is running and even bigger national debt and budget deficit than we do German government's doing the right thing In many ways, but that coalition led by Chancellor Merx is weak Spain as the prrime minister doesn't seem that interested in NATO defense at all And even Maloney plac your point about reform U Mrs. Maloney in Italy, she doesn't seem that although she comes from the populous right, She doesn't seem that interested in defense either. It seems to me Certain only the East Europeans and the Scandinavians and the Baltics that are not taking this seriously. And I think that's for the reasons you've already stated I mean, we shouldn't forget that you know that Poland and Sweden only came across because of this threat and that really should have jolted us into into taking this threat really seriously I mean, when I go all about this, Sometimes the retort is Yeah, well, look at how much money the MOD waste. Look at the Ajax. armored vehicle. Th Surveillance planes that we bu and then they never took off. We them to the Nacker's yard before they flew An hour the waste, we don't have proper communication systems Everything is always over budget takes twice as long Look at the aircraft carriers Look at the look at the The submarines now mean we've got what five Hunter Killer submarines. All five are currently somewhere in maintenance. They're not out at sea at all We've become very for what money we have We've become very bad at procuring things And we always seem to want the biggest and the best, like the Americans have. Except that we can't afford the scale that the Americans have Very true. I wouldn't disagree with the word of that. Um Yeah, we have we have a real problem on procurement we keep over designing things I think in many ways though, the answer could lie in what I said before was if you stick to Lots of simple platforms. on which you stick expensive, new innovative bits of technology. And that would solve, you know it wouldnt it would alter the way you conduct things, but it would give us a more sustainable and predictable future But it is a problem, you're right So overall, are we now condemned just to tread water for the rest of this? decade, a decade which the intelligence services and international commentators tell us is likely to become more dangerous, not less dangerous is the It' the overall outl because even Europe was traditionally we were in the vanguard of military spending, Europe would try to wouldn't even try to catch up Have we handed that position over now to the rest of Europe Are we counting ourselves out of the script It looks like we are, doesn't it? I mean The irony is that Precisely because of that historic legacy Our leaders like to posture on the world stage and indeed, the world expects us to be making growth statements. The trouble is we're just not following it up with action anymore U an our in in capacity Um to generate to service our small fleet of ships and not be able to produce a single frigate was just hugely embarrassing. when you know, our posturing was exposed as just that posturing And that's in danger what we're doing. And I think that the some of the other European leaders I've had enough of that Kia Starmer strutting the world stage, talking the talk but not walking the walk, which is why he's not as revealred as he was even only several months ago Mor Johnan, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you for your expertise. Thank you for going for. Thank you very much. These huge issues. We're going to come back to them, not go away Other others may not think it's important as I do, but I do. there's nothing more important I'm the son of an army major. So I take these things seriously. Major General Jonathan Shaw Thank you for being on the Andrew the Andrew report Thank you very much Torevadaona Is that a word In the twenty twenty six Kyiaportage Turbo hybrid, it might as well be. because it can be one road trip It's all about turbocharged power and hybrid efficiency working together. so you get the thrill of quick acceleration and the satisfaction of fuel efficiency Book a test drive and keep the adventure going Kia Movement then inspires. Call eight hundred three three threety four Kia for details. alwaysways drive safely The U. S. and Iran have reportedly agreed what's been called a memorandum of understanding to end the war in Iran It's meant to provide the basis of what would then be sixty days of negotiations to flesh out a more comprehensive peace agreement Let's hear from someone who was close to the US. president to give us her view of whether or not this is a good deal. Carla Sands was an economic advisor to Mr. Trump during his twenty sixteen campaign forormer U. S. ambassador to Denmark Chair of the Foreign Policy Initiative and a senior fellow att the America First Policy Institute. Carosant, welcome to the Andrew Nw Report Thanks for having me, Andrew. I appreciate it C look it, can you tell there's a new view What is Donald Trump achieved with his Memorandum of understanding Well, what he's achieved, we have to really look back to last summer to today And you can see that the Iran arrmy, the military, the Navy decimated their ability to create nuclear weapons right now not. They do not have it U because of his actions. I mean, the Iran The Mulla regime, we could call it now maybe the IRGC regime It's brutal. it's corrupt It's an exporter of terror And it's never been weaker Then in my memory, and this happened, I think they took over in the late nineteen seventies. So you could say in forty seven years, they haven't been weaker It's undoubtedly undoubtedly been bloodied and it's taken a bit of a thumping Yeah, but it's still there. Its grip on Iran would seem to be as strong as ever. the hardliners now seem to be in charge And it's still strong enough to fire missiles and drones at the Gulf States and even at Israel and Still strong enough to deter Any possibility of a ground invasion by the United States Those it Really as weak as you think? It still controls the straight of hormose, too Well, I would say the United States controls the strait of Hormz. We're not going to let a rogue regime like Iran control such an important waterway So we've stopped from moving their energy We're getting energy out, but they haven't been. We've been stopping their ships So They they're actually on their knees They don't have that long Now that the strait will open, it'll give them a lifeline because they were going to have to start capping their wells if they didn't have anywhere to put the energy that they were producing. They're a huge energy country so rich, the capabilities. I mean, they were losing hundreds of millions of dollars every week keeping the stay closed. It's a very rich country. and the problem is that they were enriching themselves, the leadership And then they weren't building any infrastructure. They were spending the rest of the money to create terror around the world through their sponsorship of the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah other actions right out of their embassies. So it's a shameless evil dangerous regime that President Trump has weakened He's working to get a deal where they they have no nuclear capabilities and they agree to it and that they don't have the ability to create missiles that they leave the straight alone. They don't try to toll the straight And you know, there are people within Iran also that are looking to have a non nuclear democracy. They're fighting for it. This group called NCRI, the National Council of Resistance of Iran are fighting so that the people have equality. Clean elections you know, equal justice and also freedom of religion and that women would be able to you know equality with men, which is pretty revolutionary I mean, the argument is not that this is a decent regime, it's obviously an evil regime.. The argument is is it really on its last legs as you say Because our understanding is there's nothing in the memorandum of understanding about is missile arsenal and it still has missiles despite supposed to be obliterated It's still repressing the Iranian people What's the evidence? that it's conceceded anything to America to get where it is now. Yeah, certainly, this is a very belligerent regime and they're going to have to be brought lower to get the deal that President Trump wants. I think that this temporary pause lets energy flow help save some of the countries in the world that don't have stores. so that their economies aren't destroyed so that they have the ability to transport and they get the fertilizer they need. These are all important issues Oping the straight will let the steam out, if you will. Countries like Saudi Arabia are already doing workarounds They went from six hundred trucks moving energy to three thousand So there are countries that are adapting. There's something called the IMEC, the India, Middle East European Cridor that bypasses this strait. I think this you know, I talk to people who are advocates for this growing transportation new corridors, but also it is about It's also about cyber and then it's about goods, but the energy is the key. And I think that this will now happen quicker and will certainly happen because of what Iran has done showing that they're really not a reliable partner to any country Well, except that we know now that the Gulf States courourting around again becausecause they're worried that Iran has survived the American attacks U they worry that America or Suttle at some stage And we don't know if the Strait of Hermz is going to open on Donald Trump's terms The FARS News aggency, which is basically a mouthpiece for the regime in Tehran issued a statement saying that the Strait of Hermz will remain regulated by Iran in coordination Wizle manan. So that's not Free navigation of the seas at all No, it's not. And another concern is that they have imported because of their close relationship with the Chinese Communist Party and its leader, they've imported civilian surveillance throughout Iran. so it makes it harder for the people to overthrow this evil regime And you're right about what they're saying, but let's not forget There are internal conversations and then there are external conversations and posturing And certainly, if President Trump intends to sign something or Vice President JD Vance intends to sign something on Friday in Geneva That straight will open. And I think it will be good for the other countries that are so impacted. We're not so impacted. because we have so much energy. And President Trump has done an amazing job keeping energy costs not skyrocketing of controlling and releasing and working to get energy out with our military in spite of Iran's actions. So It hasn't been as devastating by far as it could have been. That's President Trump and his team's work this is going to be very difficult because this is just like the first step, this is the first chapter in a book because Iran is going to be harder now, I think, to get to the table. once they begin to have income flowing, they're now prepared for what's coming because certainly they will have to be brought to their knees to give up their nuclear ambitions. This is something that's hardwired for them. President Trump does not run to the knees I mean, America and Israel between them have fired forty thousand missiles mixture of forty thousand missiles and bombs. on Iran They're not on their knees. they're still there becausecause he's been very gentle with them There's no stomach. I mean, you know this better than me There's no stomach in the Trump administration from the president Dan For more military action against Iran on a large scale N He' He is the president of life. He's not a war president But he has left Carg Island untouched. He hasn't dropped bombs on Karg Island and taken out their ability to store or export oil. No, he hasn't attacked Carg Island because To do that would probably mean even less oil on the global market and therefore higher gas prices at the pump for the United States I mean the war went on for four months. And I still don't see what has been achieved evenven in this memorandum of understanding that Iran is going to do that will be a great concession to the United States. Our understanding is that it leaves nearly every major issue up for grabs for the sixty day talks It does not deal with Iran's missile arsenal or its ability to replenish it. It does not deal Um with Financing the proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis That's not been resolved either And it certainly doesn't deal, other than to say, we'll now talk about it about Iran's ability, capabilities still to make a nuclear bomb So What's been decided? Nothing. Well, I do think that they're going to open the Strait of Hormuz And they're going to come to the table and have credible talks I don't think you should think that the United States will not take more action President Trump does have the stomach to take care of business But I believe that this is actually a good step. It's going to be very ugly to get this finished is my personal opinion. and we're only in this first chapter of a book. I mean, it sounds to me that given the scale of the agenda and the issues which remain unresolved. far as I can see, every issue. remains unresolved The missile capability The nuclear capability The financing of the proxies throughout the Middle East region ability to attack the Gulf states and still the ability. to attack Israel The continued control so far, we'll see what happens of the strait of Hermz All of that is being left For sixty days of talks. I you know all these things Cla better than me. That is not going to be resolved in sixty days I mean the Irinians have A masters at spinning things out, asked President Obama Yes, but President Trump is not President Obama. He's a strong U.S. president. No, he hasn't got as much He's got a lot more than President Obama had. President Obama What has he got? I mean, Iranresident Obama did a deal. Iran has been more enriched and reanium now than it had under President Obama President Obama gave them basasically a road to get to a nuclear bomb. President Trump is saying it's off the table. You can never have a nuclear weapon And so President Trump is saying he wants the dust He doesn't even want to leave it there. Now some experts say just leave the dust We don't need the dust, or let the Iranians harvest the dust and give it to us Because why would we send Americans in to get that? That's not a good thing. But President Trump has actually weakened them so much And I know that President Trump will take the next steps needed to get to a good place. He's not going to blink But he is letting the air like he is letting some pressure out with getting the straight open Do I think this trade's going to open? I think Iran has no choice They have to or they're going to start having to cap wells. So they're only doing this in their own self interest. And that's how every country behaves, is it not When President Trump took over. from President Obama ninety seven percent of Iran's enriched uranium had been shipped out to Russia It had very little left. And there was a limit of three point six percent enrichment when Mr. Trump Caned the Obama agreement Since then Under Trump and under Biden and now under Trump again It has enough enriched uranium which could quickly be upgraded ten to twelve nuclear bombs That's right. Where's the improvement You know, they were going to get to a nuclear weapon under under Obama's agreement, under the JC ched it all out. It was a ter They were enrich They were enriching fast. There are movies made about this. They were not letting the nuclear movies Exiners examine the the the enrichment, they They didn't allow the folks from the nuclear assessment to even come in and take a look at the what they were doing They didn't comply with anything they agreed to. These are not people that keep any agreement. haveember thatue They agreed to ship out ninety seven percent of therich uranium to Russia They did comply. It was only after Mr. Trump abolished that agreement and the agreement was flawed. I'm not arguing for a moment it was perfect. definitely flawed in a number of areas But it was only after Mr. Trump abolished that agreement that they began enriching I will let me ask you this because I'm puzzled as to what happens Supposing in these talks Iran says We're going to continue enriching uranium. Maybe don nott know because It's a bit bombed since last June, but we're going to carry on doing that We're going to rebuild our missile inventory I we're going to carry on regulating which basically means controlling The Straight of Hverz What does America do Well, first of all, we will not let a country stop the free transit through any strait And really, Europe should have been stepping up much more on this issue. Europe even denied sending their their the ships that can take out the mines from the ocean m sweepers. It's yeah, the mes sweepers so egregious. how How our NATO allies didn't stop in this period. And I will say this the UK said that they would send a ship and then the ship was unable to even sail. And the UK now can't get their military budget in a good place. Sure. The prime Mister doesn't have the will the they're notare aware of It's a travesty. and I think it's going cause I think it's going to cause NATO to be reshaped by. This is allies that are willing to cooperate and those is not deflection cannot expect European allies pile in on America's side when you didn't even consult them about going to war in the first place when they weren't asked about it, and they didn't want it So you cannot start a war. No Europe, you'd rather do deals with the Mullas and let them continue to torment and torment. What do you expect ninety million people you didn't consult to join you in a war that they didn't want. Mes sweepers The mweper capacity Britain has now is a fraction It's for itselfl. It's a capacity issue rather than anything else. But yes, your' aind is re Wh the war is going on. no European country is going to place mind sweepers into a war zone. If that is a war that they played no part in starting did not want to start. And were not asked to be involved in. forty seven years later and that regime, every U. S. president on both sides of the aisle has let that regime torment those people and export terror around the world, including killing thousands of Americans. It's unconscciable. I understand it took to Trump to get that to actually try to take down that regime And I really credit the president. I mean, I was in the G White House. And I remember there his head of security and he was talking about Iran. And I said, well, are you going to drop those bunker buster bombs and take out their if this was very early in their nuclear efforts? And he said, no, we're going to leave that for the next team That's how presidents on both sides of the aisle looked at this. They didn't want to touch it. They would just rather tap tap along and give them money. Remember Obama flying in billions of dollars of cash. I to back a place. It's unbelievable But President Trump is now talking about allowing Iran to export its oil That's going to put billions back into the Iranian coffers He's even indicated that some of the frozen assets abroad could now be unfrozen no idea what Iran is doing in return But for that, it seems to be I don't not n gets everything, we get nothing I think you should not be naive and I think that our Secretary of Treasury, Scott Bescent, will have a very tight hand on the Capitol and how it's used. My suspicion is it's not going to be free reign for these people because we know their game, and I don't think President Trump's going to let it continue ee you sereriously think that Iran is no. so cowd that it will do what America wants I think that it will do what America wants. And if it doesn't, do you seriously think President Trump is going to start mass bombing and Missile attacks? I do not believe President Trump will do mass bombings. Like I said, he's not a war president. He loves life. But do I think individuals I didn't mean the caret bb bombing. I meant the kind of bombing They were doing from Fbruary the twenty eighth onwardoods plus the missile attacks. I mean, everything I hear out of the White House is President Trump He just wants h her there It hasn't worked as he thought it would Israeli Prime Minister Tldam If we attacked the regime will fall, it didn't Uh and he's kind of locked into a conflict that's going nowhere. It's a bit of a standoff There's no appetite for boots on the ground You would just like to get out.t don't you feel that I'm not sure. I don't think he will leave I don't think he will leave Iran as a dangerous presence in the Middle East. No.