Leighton Smith Podcast #290 - June 25th 2025 - Ramesh Thakur

is one aspect that we can cover now. That is that the accusations that the military action taken by President Trump is illegal constitutionally so based on the need for a president to see congressional approval first. Now, while there's a little more to it than that, we don't need to dive into the minutia. Now, there are two articles I'll referred to, and each of them is independent of the other, but there is a bit of crossover as well.

George Treatment published War and the Constitution on June twenty three, which would be June twenty four. Here, the US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has raised an important constitutional issue. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war. It was a wise and appropriate principle. Wars that perhaps the most consequential actions a nation can take. They can put a nation's very survival at risk and endangered military

and civilian lives. Wars also reshape the economy and must bind nature place some limits on citizens constitutional right to control government actions. Congress is designed to be the representative and guaranteur of the right of citizens to govern themselves. Therefore, the idea was that the US could not wage war without the consent of Congress, nor avoid war if Congress deemed it necessary. As commander in chief of the military, the President could decide how a war would be waged,

but not whether there would be a war. The last time the United States followed the Constitution in going to war was in December nineteen forty one, after the Pearl Harbor attack. Now again then goes into quite a bit of history of how things have gone basically since then, but in referring to time the time factor, he says, But the nature of time and war has changed dramatically, especially over the last twenty years. A modern Pearl Harbor might defeat the US military in a few hours. Another

critical change is in communication and transparency. A congressional debate over going to war in the eighteenth century could unfold without the knowledge of the would be adversary. Even if a spy were present, it would take substantial time to relay the information. Today, by contrast, congressional debates are by nature public. Even if a secret session were called, spies in Washington could immediately alert the target nation, introducing a

danger of a preemptive strike on US forces. When you're getting the picture, but he gets more specific. A congressional debate over the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would have eliminated a fundamental necessity of war, that is, surprise. It would also undermine a fundamental element in diplomacy. This reality has, since the end of World War II, shifted the power to initiate war from Congress to the commander in chief.

If war is imposed on the US, it must respond, long before Congress is convened to debate and vote on its response. If the US initiates war. Surprise is essential for success. Further on, former declarations of war have become globally obst elite. It talks about the last eighty years Congress has been sidelined not by conspiracy, but by the speed and complexity of modern warfare.

to imagine a solution. Let's not forget that George Friedman was a professor of war at the War College in Pennsylvania for a number of years.

That's where the Claude Reigned School of Constitutional Law comes from, the movie where the word shocked was thrown about. Just in case you didn't know, Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked. Schumer insisted that no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war, with erratic threats and no strategy. Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by

democratic presidents. In twenty eleven, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya. He says, I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges I have long criticized. He goes on the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. This has not happened

since World War II in nineteen forty two. Over one hundred and twenty five military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach. By the way, Hillary clipp was also involved in one such action. The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent power to conduct such attacks under their Article I authority as the designated Commander in Chief

of the Armed Forces. The WPA, which is the War Powers Act, bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than sixty days without congressional authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further thirty day withdrawal period, and it gets very complicated with different days for different things from what have you. Obama also defied

the War Powers Resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in twenty thirteen. Let me just repeat that for emphasis. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in twenty thirteen, but Congress refused to approve it.

of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is tury. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on brightline rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors. This is all part of the claud Rain's School of constitutional law.

Members will once again express their shock and disgust in the use of the same authority that they once accepted in prior Presidents Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them, if history is any measure. So that's where we'll leave it, and after a short break, Ramesh. Thekur Buckerlan is a natural

oral vaccine in a tabletorm called bacterial i sate. It'll boost your natural protection against bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three day course of van Buckeland tablets will help your body build up to three months of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take bucolan well, the whole family from two years of age and upwards. A course of Buckelan tablets offers

cost effective and safe protection from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days after you take buccolan and lasts for up to three months following the three day course. Buccolan can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter or all year round. And remember Buckelan is not intended as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions of doses have been taken by

Kiwis for over fifty years. Only available from your pharmacist. Always read the label and users directed, and see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker Auckland.

why does an oil rich country need nuclear power? And if he ran second question, if I Run has enriched uranium to sixty percent, have they even started building the nuclear power plant yet or are they just focusing on an enrichment program. Now, with your background and experience with nuclear matters, I'm guessing that you're in a position to comment on that, we'll get onto your background shortly.

I think the answer would be two fuld to that. Firstly, it's always a sensible policy for any country to aim for energy security by a mix of different sources of energy, and nuclear if you can afford it and have the technical means, plays an important part for pretty much every country, except for self destructive limitations by Australia, where we have one third of the world's known uranium reserves, are happy to export it to mind it and export it to

other countries for economic reasons, but by law prohibited for ourselves. So that's the first part. The second part, of course, is nuclear is indeed the most green emission friendly sort of energy we have in terms of its contributions which are minimal, and it's it's essentially very safe, it's reliable, it doesn't involve additional transmission lines and all that can be tailored to existing grid and provides based load power, so I think there are good reasons for that. However,

this is where you get into the second question. I'm not sure that Iran has actually and I know it as research reactors, research reactors. I don't know if it has nuclear power plants or not. But that's in a sense irrelevant because to get nuclear energy as a source of power, you do not need to get beyond a five percent enrichment at the most. The Iranians have been

enriching up to sixty percent. Now that's slightly misleading, because what you have is if you take the benchmark of the now abandoned twenty fifteen nuclear deal with their arm they were limited to three point six seven percent enrichment, which has no militarily sensitive implications whatsoever for weapons production. To get to weapons grade, you need to enrich to ninety percent. Now. The reason that is completely misleading is it's not a linear progression in terms of the technical

challenges to go from five percent to ninety percent. Once you cross five percent, and once you've got to twenty percent, you have effectively overcome all the technical challenges, and then it becomes a matter just of keeping on spinning the centrifugures to purify the uranium. More and more so as you separate what's called you two thirty eight and collect you two thirty five, which is what you need to make bombs, and so that's a matter of time rather

than any technical challenges remaining. So at sixty percent enrichment, let me put it this way, you are effectively at ninety nine percent weapon grade achievement already with your purification. And that's why that is a concern. And no other country has even tried or is engaged in this level of purification for the purposes of getting energy. It doesn't make any sense. So clearly the intent was to achieve the capability. Having said that, we have to be very

clear and careful. Then in the last few days with the strikes, there's been a lot of and you'll have seen the reports on how Trump said that his Director of National Intelligence, toul Sie Gabbard, essentially didn't know what she was talking about, and she's wrong when she says they are not weaponizing. I went back and checked on her actual statement, and the intelligence community assessment on which there is consensus across the fifteen or sixteen different agencies,

is quite clear cut. One Iran has not in fact authorized the making of weapons. Two that said, they have since the deal collapsed in twenty eighteen, broken free of the constraints to the deal, and been engaged in expanding the number of centrifugears, in increasing the purity of enrichment all the way to sixty percent, in acquiring stockpile, in upgrading the quality of centrifugures from the first generation to

which they limited to my advanced centrifugures. And none of this makes any sense than as an an intent to acquire the technical capability to proceed to rapid warm making if and when the political authorities in charge direct them to do so. So it's the two part thing there.

They were rapidly advancing to acquire the capability the materials, building infrastructure, but there's no indication to suggest that they had actually decided to cross that threshold, and not the least because I suspect they wanted to avoid provoking precisely this sort of military strikes. Okay, it's slightly complex, but that's where it stood, all right.

had the interim deal with Iran. In that period, the number of centrifugures that Iran had multiplied from one hundred and sixty three to nineteen thousand. Okay, this is under sanctions. Before the deal of the nineteen thousand, around eleven thousand were installed but not in operation, and around six seven thousand whatever eleven and a half to seven and a

half were actually being operated. The deal got the numbers of installed centrifugures by two thirds from nineteen thousand to six thousand something, and the number of centrifugures in operation cut it down to half to five four thousand, five thousand something like that. From memory. More importantly, the stockpile of envesed uranium at five percent purity or between five and twenty percent from memory was cut by ninety eight percent,

from ten thousand prologram to three hundred kilograms. The Iraq heavy reactive plant that was making usonium, which is the second part of way to the bomb, that was closed down entirely, the dismantled and separated fuel. The instructure touched in infrastructure in other words, was put under international IAEA inspection.

IAEA inspectors were given unprecedented access for inspection, which could be delayed via a small amount, but not indefinitely postponed because there was but appeal procedures in place for that as well. And the IAEA also put on electronic oxy to monitor that the facilities that were under safe storage

were not in fact being breached. So there was an effective dismantlement control inspection region put in place, and the goal was essentially to widen to lend in the timeline from detection to the capacity to acquire weapons if a decision was made to cross, and that changed from a matter of weeks or months to at least one year during which you could do things in response. Since then

they have acquired more enriched material uranium. They have installed more advanced centrifuges distributed between four THOUGH and the Tance, mostly in four THO, but some also in the TANS, and they built up the nuclear Science Center in Isfahan, particularly with Chani's help. So we believe that the capacity has reduced to the timeline to a matter of weeks, maybe three weeks, maybe just over a month, but not

much longer than that. And after the strikes this has lended again possibly two one to two years, but had not been eliminated, and that was the concern that they wanted to degrade its capability, so that we the outside of the international community, and particularly Israel because it's the most exposed to this, had time to react to that, and that's again where we think things stand at the moment.

To be clear, for the have been attacked by the so called MOP, the massive ordnance penetrator, the GBU fifty seven is a technical name, which is a thirteen thousand or thirteen and a half thousand kilogram bomb with the biggest ordinance we have in the world. It's been used by the way previously they used in Afghanistan a smaller version of that. I forget what it's called GVU forty

three or something. So this is the first time it's been used and it's been successful, but it will take time to assess the damage with any reliability, and they had sufficient advance warning that we have good reason to believe that most of the material in which uranium and the tooling require the infrastructure was in fact moved out

Furdo and taken somewhere else. They're called that. I think they're talking about another mountain fortress called Pickaxe or something which people have suspected but not known about before this. So the capability has been, as I said, severely degraded, but Iran has retained the capacity to reconstitute the program. The regime is still intact, it's not been toppled. And Iran, I think, was so badly weakened that his response to

the US strikes was symbolic more than substantives. And they gave advance war in the Americans that they were willing to hit their base in Qatar. So all the signs are that Iran was desperate to take a face saving off ramp, which they have taken. We know that this strike on Iran using American military capability and technical capability has been the goal and ambition of a Prime Minister nad and Yahoo for over a decade to before the Iran dealing in twenty fifteen. Left alone. The Hamas attack

in Clover twenty twenty three. And in a sense you could argue that they have succeeded in maneuvering on manipulating Trump into doing their job for them, Hence the F bomb word by Trump, but his frustration when the ceasefire began to be violated Toby both sides, and he just

blew up in exasperation. So surprisingly, Trump has been more effective than any predecessor, both hitting, hitting hard, restoring the credibility of American deterrence if you like, and yet at the same time, so far at least limiting his involvement to what he wanted to do in time and in targets. They didn't hit all the targets that they could have. They haven't destroyed Iran's capacity to export oil, and they've given them ways out provided they don't actually start weaponizing

and reconstituting it Israel wanted. More So, Trump has been just as exasperated at Israel. So there's some signs that Trump doesn't deserve more credit than perhaps he's been given. He's made it difficult for the Democrats domestically to really criticize him on this. Nonetheless, I think you know, if you're dealing with the Middle East, the ghosts of history are very prominent, and we need to be a bit careful of the sohol law of unintended and particularly perverse consequences.

evidence of significant, if any, civilian casualties. So what he did was a mix of strikes using deception, a misdirection in terms of timing and calendar decoy is being sent over Hawaii when in fact the direction of the travelers the other way around, A mix of the what I think there was seven B two planes involved the two bombs eats, so fourteen of these mops, the GBU fifty seven plus Tomahawk missiles fired from c essentially at Isfahan facilities,

the scientific infrastructure, and then saying we're not going to do anymore unless you choose to escalate. The fear of attritional escalation for the moment has abated. It's controlled and managed escalation where they have demonstrated both the intent and

the capability. Helped im miserably by the fact that the air differences and the missile launches were totally destroyed and degraded by Israel in the two weeks leading up to the US attack, and the fact that, as I said, Iran's retaliation was limited and signaled in advanced The underlying, more important and more crucial strategic signaling is we don't

wish to escalate. We accept what you have done, and okay, it's a defeat for us, it's a meliation for us, but we retain the capability, and that gives a sufficient face that we can accept it. That seems to me to be the condition at the moment. One other thing, I think the most important recent example of this law unintended purpose consequence ironically enough is the Hamas attack on

seventh October twenty twenty three. That was barbaric, that was savage, And on the military front, I think they achieved more success than they would have dared to dream of. On the political side and strategic site, it has been a tremendous setback for the entire cause. Hamas has not quite finished, but close to it has. Vola is nearly finished in Iran, Asad is no longer even in serior, let alone in power. He is hiding somewhere in Russia. Buthis are still around,

but badly affected. Israel has demonstrated unbelievable capability in terms of intel, in penetration and precision attacks using pages and talkies and the airplanes and extraordinarily extraordinary attack So it's so it's king of all the surveys in that sense, and they have been able to attack Iran directly and shown that Iran is, in fact, compared to Israel, still a paper tiger, but you know, you can get paper

cups as well, which are not very pleasant always. So all that helped Israel achieved complete air dominance and the Americans were able to come in and attack without fearing any damage. To themselves. So it's a good one two combination in team. But do not under estimate the extent to which Israel is still dependent upon American goodwill as well as the American supply chain.

by the Security Council in twenty fifteen. It involved dismantlement and suspension of Iran's program in return for sanctions lifting and assistance with nuclear weapons with the sorry lifting of sanctions and development of the economic development. And there was a ten to fifteen year period in which there was

an opportunity to pursue diplomatic pathway to the things. This was unilaterally abandoned by the United States under Trump one in twenty eighteen, the IAE had repeatedly certified that Iran was in compliance with the deal. So in twenty eighteen is the US that puts herself into a position of

non compliance. And I've seen states from Ayado La Kameni after that, as well as from the North Koreans saying this means you cannot trust the Americans to honor a deal that has been signed and other other parties and compliance with it. You take the example of Kadafi in Libya who agreed to internationally supervised nuclear disarmament and then

was attacked, taken out, and killed in twenty eleven. At the time that Trump pulls out, he was engaged in discussions with the North Koreans, and essentially the North Koreans and the Iranians and the Russians and Chinese said, what is the point of even entering into negotiations with the US when a successor administration can just pull out and there's no consequences for them. So this effort at abandoning agreements solemnly made after years of negotiation, that is a

problem on both sides. And the longer term consequence of this is going to be whichever regime is in power in Iran, and we have to be careful on that that it's not personalized or individualized to one leader or regime. Whoever is in power in Iran and other countries are going to conclude one the regional bully in the Middle East has been defanked good. The overpowering bully in the global neighborhood is out of control. We better look after ourselves and should we then look at acquiring by Hoko

by Krok nuclear weapons for ourselves. So it's that two stages thing that varies me as well. That the message sent out is we don't care about international law. We don't care about international rules, We don't care about agreements that we have negotiated and led on. We have the bomb, we have the military power. You don't like it tough That not necessarily a good message to send. So I

feel very conflicted in this sense. And in that sense also, I think actually going directly after Iran and targeting nuclear scientists and the political leadership is a mixed message being sent in terms of however, you're into the necessity of some sort of a rules based order that is governed by norms.

I have set for you. Then we will react, and we will react with the means and at a place of our choosing, with targets of our choosing. So he's restored that credibility, and that is good. I think restoring the timeline between having the capability and weaponization that is good. I mean, there's no question but that Iran has been a destabilizing force in the least and the number of

statement statements it has made about destroying Israel. You can't blame Israel, given its particular history and what happened in

October twenty three from being genuinely concerned about that. But having said that, the danger for Israel has been it has relied almost entirely on military means, and I think there has to be a much more sustained effort, with pressure on all sides to resolve the underlying political problem, which is, how do you reconcile the existence of Israel and it's right to exist as a legitimate state with diplomatic relations with its neighbors, with some sort of recognition

of the decades of suffering of the Palestinians, Because you cannot have a regional solution that depends primarily upon humiliating the Palestinians and leaving them weak and disenfranchised and marcialized, and you cannot have a solution that ignores Israel's legitimate rights to existence within scure borders in peaceful relations. Now there's no evidence that Israel is privately accept that, provided

the other side is as well. But I don't think that undermines my claim about the one country that has over the decades kept expanding its effective borders defacto borders is in fact Israel. It hasn't drunk. So I think we need to somehow try and square that circle. It's not easy, and I've said to you before, you know, if you think you understand the Middle East, you've been misinformed.

It's the one thing that has eluded everyone. But because of his peculiar individual traits, Trump potentially has a better opportunity to achieve some lasting legacy there than most precedents I can think of in my time, which goes back a long way. So yes, I do congratulate him, including for his restraint and not expanding it and the fact that he has expressed his exasperation publicly with regard to

Israel as well. That may give some hope to the other side that, okay, maybe we should look for a deal. And this is a rare opportunity because he's only got another tween and a half years or so to go, So it depends on how it works out. From now but essentially short term unqualified congratulations, medium to long term wait and see, but still unbalanced on the positive rather negative side, would be my assessment, and.

he said. Firstly, we have to go back to October twenty change its feet, because until then we'd have repeated cycles of attacks and retaliations, and each time Israel has had to re establish its escalation dominance, re established deterrence, but also deterrence based on escalation dominance, the capacity, the demonstrated and known capacity to control every run of the escalation ladder that the other side wanted to go to.

So Israel was military dominant, and given the population dynamics, even if you look at Israel and Iran, what you've got nine million or so in Israel and ninety million in Iran, so it's only one tenth year in in population. And then you had all the others that did the

asymmetry is very powerful. And then narrow geographics, all that exists. Okay, so they'd gone through it started repeatedly, but what they experienced in October twenty three, and I don't think most Western publics have really registered the fact that that actually was a mini holocaust. And the way to grasp it is take the entire American casualty tour in Vietnam War from start to finish, from the early sixties, mid sixties through to whenever it was until they came out of Vietnam.

The entire casualty was around fifty to fifty four thousand American troops killed soldier skilled in that war. If you scale up israel population to the US, then what happened on seventh October was not an Israeli version of nine to eleven. It was as if all the American casualties in Vietnam was suffered in one day. That's the scale

we're talking about. Plus the fact that these were not primarily military, they were primarily civilian casualties, and the grotesqueness of the attacks and the sexualized violence and then the hostage taken. So you have to get trying grasp that and internalize that to understand the trauma of that on Israel and what it did was, I think it tripped their internal taculus that deterrence. Restoring deterrence is no longer enough. We have to go all out and defeat the enemy.

And they've defeated the enemy piecemeal, compartmentalized the threats, went after them one by one, first Hamas, then Hesbela, then Iran. So from that point of view, that is a change in the fundamental underlying strategy on which the secrecy arrests, and you can't blame them for that second factor. That is important, and that is important for our Western publics

to come to terms with. I think the widespread anti Israel descending into anti Semitic demonstrations on our streets and within our political system now has had the effect of bringing home to israelis that element of strategic and loneliness. They paid a very heavy price for that in the Holocaust, and it meant we are on our own and we had better take care of this potential, not just existing but potential threats and possible threats in the future as

much as we can now. And if you're going to be criticized like this anywhere, we might as well make sure that the criticism is worth it in terms of the security achievements we can implement today. So I think are the demonstrations and the widespread nature of the demonstrations has been counterproductive in freeing Israel of trying to worry about Western public opinion. It made them more determined to do what they want to do on their own, regardless of the cost in pr if you like in the West.

So that if we don't understand that, I don't think we understand that dynamics of the Israeli decision making, and therefore you're not going to be able to.

minister of any wrong. I think she's confident, but this was never her portfolio in opposition, and I think on this she has been learning on the job and is still out of her debt as well. I think, yes, they should have gone there, should have watched the video. I think they they have fallen into the track of some sort of a moral equivalence between victim and perpetrator, which is about to what happened in October twenty three

and not seeing the video. But you know, Greater Thurnberg and company they refuse to see that video as well, if you remember.

end up being my representative. Well because of the preference vestiers. Look, the system is much more to blame for that and what you see. And this is a general problem. I think we have talked about this across the West, that there is a disenchantment and disillusionment from the existing political systems and the so called uniparties or the so called blob. No matter who you vote for, you get the same

policies regardless of what their promise in the campaign. So two thirds of Australians did not vote for it, voted for parties other than Labor and other than Albanesi as my minister, and what I've actually referred to this in writing this. Australia is the second example in recent times, following the UK of loveless landslides. But they make the mistake of misinterpreting two thirds of the people putting against them as a powerful mandate because of the number of

seats they have in parliament. Albanesi has more seats in Parliament for Labor and more parliamentary control despite having significantly lower vot share than Kevin Rudd had for example. So I think we need to be careful that. You know, it's the system where let me put it away, voters propose the preference system disposes.

completely different government formation. Well, it can't be the case that it is people's choices being reflected in government. It's the system. Ramesh.

what you've just described. So then taking all that into account, my question for you is, in your opinion, what is the best system we could have.

New Zealian politics, and they disagreed fundamentally on this. Anthony was very much in favor of retaining the first but the post not the least, because he said it's the most effective system for being able to throw the buses out. If you don't like that, you've seen that validated in many countries by now. But I know that I don't like the Australian system. I don't think it's one the other. I think in the zeally at the time my sense was I would have struck a compromise between the two.

I would have had fifty percent of the seats elected on first past the post and the remaining fifty percent on some sort of proportional so that you can't try to combine the two to get the benefit support.

them in line much better too. Well, what about the Swiss system. I like the Swiss system, but I'm not sure that you can replicate that with I guess because in Australia and New Zealand, but I also look at the bigger countries. So yeah, But the basic point is there's two things we need to address. One is other existing systems in the different countries delivering the best outcomes, and there's no reason to believe that something that worked

sixty years ago is still good for contemporary conditions. The second one is how do you ensure integrity of promises made in campaigns with policies enacted as government. And that's where a lot of the problem comes in as well.

we'll get a more hawkish regime. We are familiar with the distaste in the US, well, unhappiness in the US and distaste in Israel with the twenty fifteen utility. But that was a controversial decision in Iran as well. The strongly nationalists within Iran. We're not happy with that that. They said, you know, we don't trust Americans. This is sipping from the poison chalice yet again, and they felt

vindicated when Trump pulled out in twenty eighteen. So I think the chances are that if the regime was displaced, the regime of the Atholas was displaced, it would be some version of the IRGC. The revolutionary regards who take over power, and the reports indicate that some powers were transferred to them by Athola, how many fearing assassination, the chances of a genuinely democratic outcome would be smaller rather than greater, from Afghanistan, through Iran, through Libya's Syria even

already today. Interventions and even out of a Spring revolutions created euphoria in the short term, but have left the legacy of dysfunctionality, societal breakdown, economic breakdown, po little breakdown, chaos, and anarchy. And you're really going to have to be an very strong optimist to believe that we'd get a different outcome in Iran, and the consequences given this population would be even worse in terms of the refugee max

mass refugee outflows and the internal civil wars. So i'm very You know, we didn't like Saddam Hussin, but he kept the lid on. We didn't like Asad, but he kept the lid on. We didn't like Adafi, but again he kept the lid on. It's hard to argue that has followed in each of these has been better than the things the regimes are replaced. So I'm a bit variable going down the path. Yet again we've been down that,

we've seen that movie. It's never got well before. So if now I think we should also to be fair, remember that the West has a very bad history in interfering in Iran, going back to the overthrow of their

democratic government and installing the Shah in power. I think there were many people outside of the West who who for decades argue that preservation or democracy in the West seems to require oppression of people's aspirations in the rest, and there is an element of truth to that as well as having said that, I mean I've been to Iran.

There's no question but that there's very little love for the regime, for the regime of the Atolas amongst the population, and they very much wanted to have the same sources of not just lifestyles but core freedoms that we take for granted in the West, and not to tay for granted but deride and and and mock in the West. Now,

so that part is there. You know, we've never been fully happy with the extent of democracy in Singapore, but if you think about it, for Singapore, it has produced a lot of good results with a few of the disfunctionalities of full fledged liberal democracies in the West or non democracies elsewhere. Did you spend time in Singapore, Well, I've I've been visiting on an offense state for a short period. Sim it's Jim Allen I'm thinking of. Actually he taught it for a bit. He was in Hong Kong.

Not not not to Singapore. He was in Hong Kong. I know he's in Hong Kong, all right. Well, somebody was in Singapore. He spent some years in Hong Kong before he came was in New Zealand. All right.

We'll see how that plays out. I suspect it will strengthen the relationship between China and Russia. I'm not sure it has any lasting significance for shaping Chinese behavior visa VI Taiwan. People are saying it will show the American credibility, but I don't think that lessons translate across the regions. Conversely, I think it doesn't necessarily work to advantage to have America distracted yet again by a major crisis in the Middle East, as opposed to focusing on the Indo Pacific.

Russia has clearly kept at its war in Ukraine. President Zelenski has kept making odd statements, you know, don't forget us, don't forget us, we need help still, et cetera. But I think the American the trumpetministration is less receptive to his pleas than has been the case for the past things. The other important factor is it shows the strategic irrelevance of the Europeans as well when it comes to major decisions.

I'm not sure how many of them are even consulted some or maybe given information in advance, but they've essentially been shown to be hangers on rather than shared decision making at the table. So we'll see as we speak how this plays out with the Native summit in the Netherlands. Now I don't know they're meeting at the Hague or in Amsterdam, whichever it is, it's I think it confirms that there's the United States and then there's the rest.

It's not going to diminish Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy. He's most susceptible to flattery, but I think that's not a lasting benefit. He's prepared to change his mind. He has shown the ability to keep a secret, and after all the telegram gate and stuff like that, that was a question mark. But in this they managed to retain the details secret until the operation was actually implemented. So

that's something for the good as well. It's an opportunity if you think of the tremendous upheavals, it is an opportunity for significant long term geopolitical game changing decisions for the Middle least for Europe, less so I think for the Indo Pacific, and that's probably a good place on which to land with is that it has broken the existing mold. What will be the new contrast of the Middle East and Europe and the North Atlantic. Let's fait

and see. I think we are in a better position now than we were at the start of the year. I think the Trump administration deserves considerable credit for that for all the criticisms directed at them. I'm not sure that it has any major implications long term for what happens in Russia and China, but if it does, it's going to make them more careful with regard to challenging

or provoking Trump. I think they will be not necessarily on the best behavior, but on less verse of a behavior than they have been or were under the Biden administration. Very interesting.

actually were a defense against overt weaponization. I have no reason to doubt that their statements that possessing little and using nuclear weapons is contrary to core Islamic doctrine, paralleling the arguments that the Catholic bishops have been in the past, for example, about nuclear weapons and that they were under pressure.

When I was in Iran, I went to Isfahan and I was taken to the points where they were subjected to a chemical weapons attacks by So I'm saying, if you remember, and the point made to me was beyonder great pressure as victims of weapons of mass destruction, which the West tried to minimize or deny initially, beyond under great pressure to go down the nuclear path. But if we don't want to do that, but as a compromise, we sort of investing in the capability if we ever

do decide to go down that part. That was the message, not as explicitly as that, but that was the message I got from that. So I think there is reason to believe that as well. I think they're going to have to work out a more intet I think to the Iranians, the Palestinians, Serians obviously a different category. In Lebanon, our message has to be you're defeated for the foreseable future. You're not going to be able to challenge Isuel militarily,

accept that reality and move on. I think to Israel the message has to be you can't have a permanent future based on military superiority. The demographics work against you. It goes against everything we know about history to believe that one country can keep nuclear weapons forever and no other country in the region can get it again or

can't get it. Ever, that's not going to happen. There's been no web, no category of arms in history that has remained restricted to a few if it's proven to be effective, either in deterrent or in its operational functions, So that also the periferation thing is going to be have to looked at. I think one of the biggest casualties of this is in fact, the lantice work of international institutions and the norms and rules of laws centered around them. So I don't think the UN comes out

of this looking very in very good health. That's going to have to be looked at as well. So, yes, the old system is gone, possibly forever. What's going to be the new one? At this stage we don't know. Do we have faith in our leaders to reshape a new order? I wish I could answer yes on that, but I don't see the equivalent of the leaders at the end of the Second World War who put in

place a system that did deliver for everyone. And I mean everyone, and produced a lot of good outcomes across the board economically, socially, health wise, politically for most of the world. I don't see that category of leadership anywhere in the world. At the moment, I thought you might have been toward Trump a little. I do that he's better than the alternatives, and I think it's a volatility

and unpredictability that varies me. But he seems to be behaving much better, behaving in the sense of foreign policy decisions as well, much better in the second term, perhaps having learned from being so bar and being moderated by

its first the experience of the first administration. Right, I think we have to acknowledge the great geopolitical weight, the gravitational pull, the normative weight to the United States and pin a hope in its ability to lead the rest of the world towards a less dangerous and less unstable and less unpredictable future. And there are you know, they're all saying every challenge, in every every challengeing crisis is also an opportunity. So maybe he will lead the way to reconfiguring.

Where did you cover off and get that knowledge?

That one of the big reasons they haven't been used since nineteen forty five is that in fact they are not usable, and there's all sorts of arguments about that their only purpose can be deterrence. Even then, there are major question marks about them. But having said all that, it's a foods gold of an ambition to believe that you can disarm those who already have the weapons one

by one. I think it has to be a global effort and a global treaty with a robust inspection and verification system in which all parties have confidence.

vias of Pakistan. So I think the risks of nuclear weapons used by bad actors or by accident or by misinformation and missignaling the risks out for any potential benefit.

from getting it. Well, that didn't work. We may not have the twenty countries you think the weapons that people are President Kennedy feared in the sixties, but we do have more than five. We have nine at the moment. You'd have to be someone completely ahistorical to believe that it can be restricted to nine if you don't actually address getting rid of it. One final point on that.

Up until twenty seventeen, I didn't accept it, but I could see that there's a basis for arguing that the five countries that had them under the NPT, that's the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia, that their possession was at least legal, even if you're not legitimate in terms of the NPT, because there was no deadline

set under the NPT for them to dismantle. But after six of the NPT does require them to dismantle disarm, And to argue that the treaty that came into if what was it nineteen seventy I think in negotiated and signed in sixty eight in operation since nineteen seventy, so fifty five years later, that they haven't violated ALTOST six.

It's a very difficult argument to make. But regardless of that, in twenty seventeen we have TPNW, the Treaty for the Prohibsion of Nuclear Weapons, which does make it very clear that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, in other words, as far as the international community concerned, possession of nuclear weapons by any state is contrary to existing international law and certainly international maniteer in law, and we want it dismantled. It doesn't mean you can get

it immediately. It's an aspirational treaty because no country that has them, and no country that shelters under them, including Australia, as signed it. But I think you know, and much like what I was saying about Israel, if you want to have a vision for a path forward, it has to be a world free of nuclear weapons and the threat of use of nuclear weapons because and I prefer to make the argument starting from the point that they haven't been use because they're not usable and the impact

is negative rather than positive. And if you start from that, you then say, well, how can we make it into a credible system that reassures everyone, and then we can more correctly dismantling it.

off in all sorts of different directions. It would have been like a stew But nevertheless, like you say, save it for another day. So Ramish, you're a good man and I appreciate it. Thank You's been a pleasure.

and courage. At nearly all of them, he has consistently maintained that he will never let the Islamic Republic of Iran acquire nuclear weapons. This is simply because he knows that the regime will use them on Israel and the United States. At these same rallies, Trump has also consistently stated that he will not involve the US in New Forever Wars, the force of his focus being America first.

And then she has Then she's sent an address which is Olivia Pearson p I E. R. S O N dot org slash blog slash Trump acted to fulfill a long term promise, and I think it's probably worth worth listening to later.

As for you asking him whether he wants to be remembered as badly as Jabsinder and be forced to live overseas, I doubt he cares. She had her Harvard position lined up, and I'm sure lux Flakes has a globalist position lined up too, now that he has Prime Minister of New Zealand on his CV. And that's from bromwan.

as many will know, deforms the Earth's crust. Claims of sea level rise in these and other places, as pointed out in your article, is very ill advised and misleading to the public perception, while all the while we are all getting blamed for what are natural processes. Nature will have the last word whether humans are here or not. We just aren't that important in the greater scheme of things, as you know reclimate matters. I can't blame people for

absorbing the constant messaging hammering us every day. There is just so much of it and is pervasive. The credibility behind the messaging is very shaky given how many it can be proven to be wrong and over such a length of time. Our New Zealand government is one of the worst for what it is doing to the place in the name of a false god. I have a great week from bread. This government's really no different to the previous government, is it?

These so called renewables are heavily subsidized. I would suggest you contact an electrical engineer who can explain this better than a retired electrician. And that's from George.

still manage to return for a second presidential term. I'm beginning to believe that indeed history writes us. People who unjustifiably hate Trump call him a fool. But what they don't realize is that ultimately God will have the last laugh, because in a world that has turned completely upside down, he often chooses the foolish in order to shame the wise. You don't have to love Trump to accept the fact that he has done a lot of good in the world in just a short time since becoming Potus two.

And here is a recent development that should get those self righteously wise people's nickers. In a twist, the government of Pakistan has formally recommended Donald Trump for the twenty six Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his decisive diplomatic interventions during the recent India Pakistan crisis. As George Friedman mentioned, Trump is literally redefining cultural norms, taxes, foreign policy, policy, allies, and so on. Trump is a purported fool who is

unpredictably effective. If being a fool would make the world a better place than long live the fools of this world. To quote the indomitable Thomas soul. Thomas sol once said that a fool can put on his coat better than a wise man can put it on for him. The implications of that undermine most of the agenda of the political left. Thank you, Jim as always very good. As to the answer of your question, there's no answer this

question at the bottom. It doesn't matter. Wants to know if you managed to take me to the beach last week.

the end of European history. After the thesis an antithesis of domination and enslavement, the warring clans and machine gunning of millions, the populations of Europe will transcend their inglorious arrogance and be at one with the enlightened nations.

theology of sorts, whether it's saints and devils. Despite the bloodshead and the bankruptcy the torture of the tears, the disciples continue to believe that diversity is strength. Their faith endures and has only grown deeper in the face of adversity because of this core conviction it is better to be dead than racist, as the most recent example, and really what triggered this commentary. I want to quote you something that was published on the twenty first of June.

Broadcaster Selina Scott was viciously attacked and robbed by a gang in broad daylight last week. She revealed the EXITV News at ten Anchor seventy four. Bravely fought back, but said the ordeal left her chatter and traumatized. She said she was leaving a Waterstones in Piccadilly, Central London. I know that shop, I go there when she was struck on the back of her right knee and thought that

she'd been stabbed. A gang of around seven or eight men and women in expensive sportswear and seemingly of East Asian origin who were in front of her, then turned in head derrin. They tried to grab her designer backpack, which she tightly held onto. Another group then barged into her, and she realized she was being attacked from both sides at the same time. Selina managed to keep hold of the bag when she fought back, and the gang walked

off laughing. She later realized they'd managed to unzip the bag and take a purse which had her driving license, cards and cash. Miss Scott, a TV icon since the nineteen eighties who famously at a viewed Donald Trump, slammed the lack of police presence to deter or catch the criminal thugs. She said she walked up and down some of London's busiest central areas and did not see a single officer. The journalist wrote in The Mail on Sunday that the events were so swift and practiced that it

was clear it was a coordinated assault. She added, I was right by a busy bus stop, although no one would have known what was going on. It was slick, brief and clearly engineered to have in the middle of the crowd. I still feel shattered after what had happened. I can't believe it happened to me. I am mentally resilient and physically fit, but if they attacked me in such a brazen way, they can attack anyone. You're left feeling not just traumatized, but stupid that you have somehow

let it happen. I'm also furious about the lack of police on our streets. No wonder the gang who set about me have a sense of impunity. They can do anything they want because they know that no one will stop them. So we know that this has been going on all over England. Actually plenty of it in London, plenty of it up north. There are many articles that I could quote from. It's just that that one. I read it and I thought I would to respond to it.

And the article before that, by the way, was written by Charles Bentley Aster and what I read was only the first two paragraphs of about five pages. But I suppose you could say that what the real trigger was. The real trigger was a book that I have mentioned more than once over the years, published in twenty eleven,

Delectable Lie. A liberal repudiation of Multiculturalism. Now, before you get exercised about some sort of reference to multiculturalism and here we go again or whatever, let me point out something to you. It's written by a Muslim in Canada, a Muslim in Canada. I quote you from the back of the book. My point is that although multiculturalism once seemed a very good idea, at least to politicians and others smitten with the ambition for unity, it is increasingly

shown to be a lie, a delectable lie perhaps. Yet a lie. Nevertheless, that is destructive of the West's liberal, democratic heritage, tradition and values based on individual rights and freedoms. This could have been foretold as Indeed, those philosophers and historians of ideas who viewed freedom as in measures more important than equality in the development of the West did foretell. They admonished people against the temptation to abridge freedom in

pursuit of equality. Do we do that in this country? Do you think now? The author Salem Mansur is alm m An su R is a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario. He is the author of a number of other books, Islam's Predicament, Perspectives of a Dissident Muslim, and co editor of Indira Rajiv Years the Indian Economy and Polity nineteen sixty six

to nineteen ninety one. It's also nationally syndicated columnists for the Sun chain of newspapers in Canada and the recipient of the Stephen S. Wise Humanitarian Award, Profiles Encourage in two thousand six. You know, it's not a matter of race, It's a matter of and I've decided this a long time ago. It's a matter of culture. Basically, people can change their cultures, but they can't change their race, and the two should be considered separately. Speaking of race not

being being able to be changed. A very fine example of that, while belief and culture can is ion hersey Eli and I've been reading quite a bit of her commentaries, Blake. They are worthy of your time. More power to her. And I know you'll say that we should get her on the podcast, and I don't disagree. So that will take us out for podcasts number two hundred and ninety. We love you, mail, please keep it rolling. Latent at NEWSTALKZNB dot co dot z, Caravin at newstalksb dot co

dot zid nice things to me, complaints to her. We shall return for podcasts two hundred and ninety one very soon. In the meantime, as always, thank you for listening and we shall talk soon.