Leighton Smith Podcast #318 - March 4th 2026 - George Friedman

Media around the world has been engrossed with reporting, speculating, and arguing the case over the war with Iran.  

While it may have been ‘out of the blue’ for many, the conflict came as no surprise to those following the developments in the Middle East. 

George Friedman, Chairman and Founder of Geopolitical Futures, exploits knowledge he’s accumulated over decades, providing his opinion on why US President Donald Trump made the decision to attack Iran. 

He provides the answers others can’t. 

And as always, we visit the mailroom with Mrs Producer.  

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail] OR [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks EDB. Follow
this and our Wide Ranger podcasts now on iHeartRadio. It's
time from all the Attitude, all the opinion, all the information,
all the debate still used now the lighton Smith podcast
powered by News Talks EDB.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast three hundred and eighteen for March four,
twenty twenty six. Oh what a difference a few days makes.
Shortly we're talking to George Treatment, the executive chairman and
the founder of Geopolitical Futures, with whom we have spoken
many times over the last three or four decades. I
want to begin, though, with a commentary from a book

(00:48):
that most people probably are unaware of, and why would
You Be was published twenty one years ago in two
thousand and five. The author is Kenneth Timmerman. The book
is called Countdown to Crisis Becoming Nuclear Showdown with Iran
twenty one years ago and under the heading of what
if if the Ayatolla got the bomb? I'll begin on

(01:12):
page three, but Iran's race for the bomb is just
part of the story. This book is about the threat
from a regime that has vowed death to America since
its foundation. And regularly announces that it'll turn the Persian
Gulf into a sea of blood, quote unquote and destroy
Israel with nuclear missiles. It is a story about capabilities,

(01:34):
but also about intentions. Iran's clerics did not get out
of the terror business when they freed the US hostages
in nineteen eighty one. They merely got better at hiding
their traces. Since then, they've launched a series of attacks
on America through proxies and secret intelligence networks. I have drawn,

(01:55):
says the author. I've drawn on previously classified documents and
fresh eye witness reports to tell the stories of several
of these attacks and the Iranian leaders who ordered them.
Despite clear intelligence showing Iranian government involvement, the United States
has never never retaliated. I believed this was a deadly mistake.

(02:17):
Dramatic new evidence presented here for the first time suggests
that Iran may have been responsible for the destruction of
TWA Flight eight hundred off the coast of Long Island
on July seventeen, nineteen ninety six. Multiple warnings of impending
Iranian terrorist attacks flowed into the US intelligence community beforehand,

(02:37):
but they were not considered actionable, and so were ignored.
Similar intelligence information revealed here for the first time shows
that top Iranian officials were directly involved in the nine
to eleven plot, meeting with high level al Qayeder operatives
and providing them with passports, safe haven, intelligence assistance, secure communications,

(02:59):
and training in explosives and airline hijacking. Many readers will
demand to know how the United States missed the collaboration
between l Kaida and Iran. The short answer is we didn't,
but the conventional wisdom within the intelligence community dictated that
Iran's clerics could not possibly work together with Osama bin

(03:21):
Laden because they came from bitterly opposed sects of Islam.
This short sighted concept had deadly consequences. Another important thread
in this story is the regime's ruthless elimination of its
political opponents, those who might challenge the system of absolute
clerical rule. But murder is just one tool the ruling

(03:44):
clerics used to disrupt the opposition. As I relate in
this book, the regime has infiltrated and successfully manipulated virtually
every opposition group, both at home and in exile, through
false flag operations, fake reform movements, false promises, and financial inducements. Meanwhile,

(04:05):
the United States consistently failed to help the opposition to
organize effectively, yet another failure that can be told. For
the first time, Iran's ruling clerics realize that their regime
is vulnerable, especially from within, where two generations of young
people born since the revolution now thirst for Western style freedoms.

(04:28):
The Muller's greatest fear is that Iran's youth, helped by
the United States, will stage a revolt or a referendum
to usher in secular government. This is one reason that
they have acted with such determination to slow the march
of freedom in neighboring Iraq lest it become a poll
of attraction and an example to Iran's youth. And it

(04:50):
is why they are desperate to get the bomb, which
they view as the ultimate insurance policy against an American
or Israeli attack. Now that sets the story for what
has broken out recently. There has been much more in between.
Of course, the book was written twenty one years ago
and a lot of war has passed under that bridge. Now,

(05:10):
having set the stage shortly, we'll talk to the executive
chairman and the founder of Geopolitical Futures, George Treatment Buckerlan
is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form called
Bacterial Life Sate. It'll boost your natural protection against bacterial

(05:33):
infections in your chest and throat. A three day course
of seven Buckland tablets will help your body build up
to three months of immunity against bugs which cause bacterial
cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan 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

(05:57):
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 intense 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

(06:17):
have been taken by Kiwi's 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,

(06:49):
George Friedman, Welcome back to the Laten Smith podcast. Good
to have you here, Good to be here, except you
wouldn't think it was good because of the purpose of it.
I would imagine your take at this at the beginning
to kick us off, your take on how this came about,
why it's happened.

Speaker 3 (07:07):
Well, you begin with the fact that Trump came into
office obsessed with the nuclear program in Iran. You'll remember
that he already attacked the nuclear program. He didn't destroy
it completely, but he heard it profoundly. Remember also that

(07:27):
preceding the war, there was an extended negotiation between the
United States and Iran where the United States was insisting
that Iran stopped its nuclear program and in turn offering
certain things to the Iranians that they would do that
the Iranians refused. Therefore, the question here is why are

(07:48):
we so concerned about that nuclear program? And there's a
good reason right now. Inside of Iran there are groups
like the remnants of al Qaeda and other groups like
Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist groups will called him.

Speaker 4 (08:04):
Al Qaeda was the group that.

Speaker 3 (08:08):
Took the nine to eleven attack on the United States,
where suicide bombers attacked the World Trade Center, destroying it
and causing many casualties. That group is not at the
moment very powerful, but it indicates something about Iran that
it supports that group, it has given it a place

(08:30):
to be in Iran, and that it is supporting many
of the Islamist groups that we would call terrorists in
the region. So you consider that there was such a
thing as nine to eleven, it would not be unlikely.
Although I don't know what Trump is thinking, and those
people who think they know it don't, but I would

(08:53):
think that Trump's obsession with the nuclear program of Iran
had something to do with the fear of a nuclear
nine to eleven. So these were the groups that they're supporting,
They are the groups that are there. This was a
non nuclear catastrophe. Imagine if Iran got a nuclear weapon,

(09:18):
placed it on a board on a boat, that boat
would be flying a foreign flag who knows who, and
would sail into York Harbor detonating a nuclear weapon. Given
the people, the groups that are in Iran, given the
groups that are supported heavily by the Iranian government, he

(09:40):
looked at the nuclear program obsessively.

Speaker 4 (09:44):
He attacked it.

Speaker 3 (09:45):
First, then went into deep negotiations, and when those negotiations failed,
that's when the war began. So from my point of view,
not knowing his mind, what I see is that obsession
not totally unreasonable with the possibility of a nuclear nine
to eleven, and what he was doing was negotiating, likely

(10:11):
in good faith, on this with the Iranians. When it
turned out that the Iranians would not, under any circumstances
agree to ending their nuclear development program, he was forced
to face a decision either allow the nuclear capability to
develop as it would and then live with it as

(10:35):
we'd have to, or try to destroy that system. Now
we failed at his first attempt, that was one of
the first things he did as presidency was to attack
the nuclear capability, So this time he decided to engage
in war to destroy.

Speaker 4 (10:54):
The government that was plenty to do this.

Speaker 3 (10:58):
The reason I'd say this is not because he's ever
said it, nor is it a popularly held view. But
get in his obsession reasonable would the nuclear program that
they had, given that he engaged in negotiations with the Iranians.
Given that those negotiations failed recently, the decision to go

(11:18):
to war had to do a great deal. With the
nuclear possibilities around.

Speaker 2 (11:24):
That would be a valid reason to go to war.

Speaker 3 (11:26):
Yes, I would think so. I mean nine to eleven
was carried out by the kinds of groups, particularly the
one group that carried out Al Qaeda is in Iran
at this time much weaker, not likely to be the
one to do it, and certainly the idea that if
they obtained a nuclear weapon, that would be a direct
threat against the United States. And one of the things

(11:47):
he said yesterday was interesting. He said, it's a threat
to Israel, but it's also a threat to the United States. Now,
how could it be a threat to the United States?
They probably don't have ICBMs. But I think that somewhere
in his thinking, possibly at the top of it, out
of it, there is this idea that this is the

(12:10):
group that launched a nine to eleven suicide attack. What
if they decided to do it again. It's unlikely that sake,
but it had happened. If it are probable, it would
be catastrophic. Therefore, when we take a look at all
the talks that have had his attempt to destroy the

(12:31):
nuclear program, we could suddenly find a rational reason.

Speaker 4 (12:36):
Why he had to act as he did. I may
be wrong, but that's how I read it.

Speaker 2 (12:42):
How many different ways are there of reading it. I mean,
that's a pluck out of the air number. I know,
but there have been multiple interpretations of how and why
and all the associated questions. How many groups are there
in Iran that you talk about, al Qaeda being one

(13:03):
of them.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
And not the most important by any means, but there
is Hesbolah. Hesbola is a major military force in the region.
It also has the same basic principles as al Qaeda,
which was the attacker. And Hesbelah is primarily supported by
the Iranians with money, and they're all over the Middle East.

(13:27):
They're in Lebanon, for example. Today the United States began
striking at Lebanon, where Hesbolah is stationed as well. So
when we take a look at the situation, there are
two explanations. The prominent one is that he's irrational. He
randomly does things that you can't predict him, and you

(13:48):
can't understand him. That may well be true. Mine is
that when I take a look at the map, when
I take a look at the world, I'm really worried
about a nuclear dinal eleven, and I'm not sure that
he isn't as well, given an obsession with the nuclear weapons,

(14:09):
Given that he failed to negotiate an end, and I
think he also saw an opening because of the various
genuine uprising against the current Iranian government in the streets
that was brutally suppressed by that government. So when he
looked at it, he called immediately for the people to

(14:31):
overthrow the government. I think he was motivated by the
idea that they could or would, and that's where we
stand right now. But the two schools of thought are
that he really doesn't know what he's doing. The other
is that he does, and there are people who would
explain it differently in that school. But this is my

(14:52):
explanation of why he came into office so concerned about
that nuclear program.

Speaker 2 (14:57):
Does it matter to you who's right with regard to
whether he knows what he's doing.

Speaker 3 (15:04):
Well, it's very easy to dismiss him as crazy, or
dismiss him as stupid, or dismiss him in many different ways.
But I'm a believer in democracy. He was elected by
the Constitution of the United States, and if you take
that assumption that he's a moron, then you have to

(15:25):
assume the.

Speaker 4 (15:25):
American voters are morons.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
And I'm kind of loyal to my country and I'd
rather not think that way, because I don't think that.
There were various reasons that he was elected, and I
think one of them may well have been his attitude
to how to treat the rest of the world, and
this was a particularly telling thing, an important thing, far

(15:49):
more important than NATO, far more important than Ukraine. This
was something that he focused it on, and I think
that was if he did that, I support him in
making a decision.

Speaker 2 (16:01):
There are any number of theories, of course in existence.
You've only got to spend a little time on the
NPT and give around and find out what they are
and who's behind them. I want to quote you something
from Victor Davis Hanson, who who wrote an article Trump's
way of war. But it begins this way. Trump's doctrine

(16:23):
is simple, strike first at the guilty, strike hard from AFAR,
skip the nation building, and end wars on America's terms.
Does that sound like a reasonable approach.

Speaker 3 (16:36):
Well, yes, except for the content of why why was
Iran a threat? Why go to war with it? Not
just this is how you should go to war, which
is without limits, designed to win achieve your goals. What

(16:57):
I'm talking about is completely compatible with what he said,
save that I'm trying to explain to myself and to
you why I think he was forced to decide to
go to war and then talk about how he executed
the war, because I agree that if you've got to
go to war, go to war, and if you've got

(17:17):
to talk, talk, The fact of the matter was he
had extensive discussions with the Iranians on this issue and
he was rebuffed.

Speaker 4 (17:27):
Therefore he acted.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
This gave me the opportunity of pulling some books off
the shelves, America's Secret War, which was published in two
thousand and four or five. America's Secret War was one
of them. The Next one hundred Years published in two

(17:50):
thousand and nine. And then you've got The Storm Before
to Come, your latest book, which was I think prolific
on its release and unrecognized thanks to COVID, or unrecognized
the way it should have been thanks to COVID. This
current incident, this scenario that we confronted with, does that

(18:12):
fit in with your theories in the Storm before the Calm?

Speaker 3 (18:16):
The Storm before the Calm was about the internal processes
in the United States.

Speaker 4 (18:21):
Simply put, the.

Speaker 3 (18:22):
United States has a fifty year social and economic process
where it goes in the disaster fuel into a crisis,
a storm, and the last one occurred in the nineteen seventies.
We remember in nineteen seventies with Richard Nixon deciding to
end the gold standard, freeze, wages, the Iran War, violence

(18:45):
all over the place. Okay, now we're fifty years later.
There's also an eighty year cycle of changing the institutions
of the United States. So we were founded in eight
seventeen seventy six. Eighty years later there was a Civil
War that established the federal government to being controlled of

(19:07):
the states. After that there was the Great Depression, in
which the federal government was created as it is now
now eighty years later. That federal government, I argued, was obsolete,
unable to govern because of its size, its fragmentation, and
so on. So what I predicted was that during the

(19:29):
twenty twenties, and I preated that in the next hundred years, well,
we would enter a period of storm. We entered that
period of storm, because to invent something new, you first
have to destroy the old. And we go through two
stages in these crises. The first is a storm that
we're in the middle of right now, Okay, And in

(19:51):
that storm, it feels like the United States is on
the verge of collapse. Going back and past, you can
see that both of these cycles in twenty into twenty
twenty thirty they peaked. This was really the first time
that they repeat at the same time, so it was

(20:11):
a more intensive crisis than normally. The idea of foreign
policy doesn't really go into this, except for example, fifty
years ago with the Vietnam War. The country was torn
apart between the pro war and anti war factions, and
you could not be on both sides, and each side

(20:32):
hated the other. So what I predicted was.

Speaker 4 (20:37):
For the calm.

Speaker 3 (20:38):
I said the twenty twenty four election was going to
open up the crisis full time. This would be the storm,
and after the storm tore things down, new things will
be built. And this is our model. We ran that
we are in an invented country.

Speaker 4 (20:57):
And we reinvent ourselves periodically.

Speaker 3 (21:00):
I don't know why the cycles fit every year, where
I could go back to the beginning how it works.
So when I look at that, that's the internals. This
is an external thing that had little to do with
the cycles. It just makes a storm more intense because
at this point, anything that a president would do in

(21:20):
regardless who would be president, he'd be worried about nine
to eleven, he'd be worried about the Europeans.

Speaker 4 (21:26):
And so on and so forth.

Speaker 3 (21:27):
He'd be changing things, and he would be held in
contempt because one of the principles of this is at
this point American society divides, each side has total contempt
for the other.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
Okay, that's true.

Speaker 4 (21:43):
Go back to the seventies and you'll see it.

Speaker 3 (21:47):
And so the storm is what we're in, but historically
we have succeeded in coming out much stronger and better
for it.

Speaker 2 (21:57):
Your suggestion was that the twenty eighth election will be
the sorting out point.

Speaker 4 (22:03):
Yes, that's what I said.

Speaker 3 (22:04):
In the next time of years, then I said, twenty
twenty four election is going to be the start of
the storm, and then in twenty twenty eight we'll kind
of get to it. So one of the ways to
look at this is that we have about two more
years of internal unrest to be facing until we work

(22:25):
out what happens. And then just as Ronald Reagan took
over the presidency and calmed the situation to a great
extent and created this new period we're in, so to
Roosevelt did so on and so forth.

Speaker 4 (22:41):
But the question of Iran is outside this model. This
would be.

Speaker 3 (22:51):
Happening under any circumstances. But given that it's happening now.
The people who dislike the President Trump, I hold him
in contempt, are upholled at what he does everywhere. At
the same time in the supporters that it would leak

(23:11):
a little bit, that's normal worship him in many ways.
So it's it's us and we're in not New Zealand.

Speaker 2 (23:19):
And the New Zealand is not you. Certainly, look, I
want to I want to drag in a couple of
media stories. Do you have Do you have any thoughts
on the on the belief that smartphones, and I'm talking
specifically Apple phones, because that's what I've got listening to

(23:44):
your conversation and respond accordingly, particularly with advertising, I don't know.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
That I wouldn't be surprised though it was true. I
couldn't care less who heard my conversations because they need
to hear about how I disliked Apple.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
So it's fine, but there are but there are plenty
of people who do care. And the reason I the
reason I asked you that question is because as you
started speaking a moment ago. This came up on my phone.
I wasn't touching it, but it's in front of me
and we're using it to record through no strategy, no deterrence.

(24:22):
What is Trump's endgame? This from Paul Kelly from The Australian.
Donald Trump has a contemporary's presidential predecessors, seeing himself as
a powerbreaker for the ages. With his attack on Iran,
he now aspires to a new method of revolution, revolution
by aerial bombing. There is no textbook for this, just

(24:43):
Trump's genius. So what is Trump's endgame? Is the question
he's asking. So would you care to address him?

Speaker 3 (24:52):
Well, sir, From the beginning, that's nonsense. There's Trump's invention.
During the Vietnam War, we continually bomb Hanoi hoping that
they would capitulate. Okay, So the idea that this is
a unique event in history of warfare, you know, bombing
the other education forgets what the Germans did to London

(25:13):
and so on and so forth. So putting that aside,
you know, the question is what is his intention if
we simply take away this issue of what's going on
right now in Iran? He has two fundamental principles in

(25:33):
terms of foreign policy, one, reducing our presence in the
Eastern hemisphere and focused in the Western hemisphere. Second, however,
not ignoring threats from the Eastern Hemisphere that might occur
and dealing with them swiftly. Now, when you take a
look at the fundamental principle, he wants to get away

(25:55):
from dealing with the Russians. Let the Europeans deal with them.
The Russians have shown they're militarily incompetent in Ukraine. So
given that his view here is that it's fundamentally important
to deal with the events in Iran. Now, he doesn't
explain very well why this is fundamental. I suspect in

(26:19):
part he's trying to terrorize terrify the American public. But
if you, for a moment are willing to concede that
he's not a moron, then you might try to understand
why he doesn't want the Iranians to have a nuclear program.
I don't like him much, I don't like his personality

(26:42):
and various things, but I would trust that any president
under the circumstances that would see a country like Iran
with al Qaeda being under his guidance. With Hezbola, there
developing nuclear weapons would have some concerns. They would say,
why did you go to war? Well, he didn't go
to war. He had long negotiations with the Iranians offering

(27:07):
many things. So this is not a sudden burst into warfare.
This is the end of a extended conversation between the
United States and Iran where the Iranians refuse to get
let go of this the clear program, and therefore the
fundamental question should be why did they refuse to do
that when this didn't have to happen. So when I

(27:30):
look at the situation there, other people will look at
it differently. I see a situation where there is a
low probability danger that has a catastrophic outcome if it materializes.
And as a president of the United States, his job
is to protect a nation.

Speaker 2 (27:48):
So you come in at the low end. I come
in much higher than that, because I think that is
a serious threat from an organization, well, from a country
or a government, call them what you want. That has
had the elimination of Israel on its books for as

(28:11):
long as I can remember, and the second most most
popular target is the United States, and it's death to America,
death to Israel. Now you can't tell me that this
wasn't a serious threat under the regime as it's been

(28:32):
to date and is likely to continue unless there is
a victory of shall we say, magnificent effect out of
this squabble this war.

Speaker 3 (28:46):
Well, from my point of view, even if it wasn't
such a major threat, and I grew with you that
it was, the possibility of being wrong had such catastrophic
effects that even if it was an unlikely thing, it
should have been handled. And again I want to emphasize
that he did not come out of nowhere on this.

(29:10):
He came out of this after negotiations were broken off
by the Iranians. And therefore I look at the possible
outcome and however improbable, that can't be allowed to happen.
So whether we think it is probable improbable given its nature,
we agree.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
Okay, So there's a second example, and this gets back
into the thick of things. I would send something just
a short while before we met up on zoom and
I haven't had a chance to look at it in
its entirety, but it's a video of two people having

(29:53):
a discussion. One is the interrogator, if you like, The
other is a retired American general, and as I understand it,
the outcome of this discussion suggests very strongly that America
is very low on required ordinances, very low, and that

(30:17):
this is the prediction that Trump will pull out because
of it.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
I would suggest that the retired general may have some
insight into this, But I don't think the president and
the people around him are so reckless to enter war
that they're like to lose. So when we take a
look at the American capacity of building these weapons, which

(30:42):
is substantial, I would like to think and I do
think that the war preparations began with the weapons in
hand and the massive numbers of weapons that now being produced. Remember,
we build our own weapons, and we build them fast,
and drones these days are not very complex to build.

(31:04):
So I would argue, I've heard of these people saying
that we're running out of the weapons, but I'm also
familiar with the American production system of these weapons, and
I suspect that we will be able to cover the
gap all right, at least I hope. So I don't
think that the military or the president would be so

(31:26):
reckless just to go to war that he's got to
rune out of weapons with.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
There are a lot of questions that people are asking,
and one of them is why did Iran attack its
surrounding neighbors and do it viciously and continues to do it.
What led them to do that? Because the downside to
it is well, pretty obvious, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (31:50):
Well it stopped properly understood just how many allies the
United States have in the I'll call the our world,
even though the Arabians are Persians, So we have bases
in most of the Gulf coast countries, we have bases
in Saudi Arabia, we have bases all over the place.

(32:12):
And these countries are allied with us, and we've guaranteed
to defend them.

Speaker 4 (32:16):
And so on.

Speaker 3 (32:18):
So one of the problems that the Iranians have is
that we don't have to fly in aircraft from the
United States. We can fly them in from the United
Arab Emirates and carry it. Therefore, from a military standpoint,
they're doing the right thing. They are attacking the bases

(32:39):
inside of these countries that the United States has, and
that's rational from their point of view, and to some extent,
trying to undermine the governments of these countries by inflicting
some pain on the citizens. Well, but really it has
to be understood that when you go around Iran is

(33:00):
surrounded by American bases that were many times built because
these countries feared Iran. They allied with the United States.
So this is not a case where Iran is surrounded
by neighbors who are appalled by what's happening, surrounded by

(33:20):
allies to the United States, and that's why they're attacking
these other countries.

Speaker 2 (33:24):
So are these countries in a position to retaliate to
what Iran's doing to them?

Speaker 3 (33:30):
Do you have some substantial ons Kuwait, for example, that's
mistakenly brought down two American airplanes. So they have anti missiles, missiles,
anti aircraft missiles. They have bought lots of weapons, not
on theoretical fears, but on the general fear of Iran.
So when we start talking about Iran, you have to

(33:52):
understand how isolated it is in the region politically, Politically.
It attacks Saudi Arabia because of the air base there,
but also because it was a competitive to Saudi Arabia
in many ways, with a very different ideology in Saudi
Arabia to say with the Dull States. So when you

(34:14):
look at the Middle East. Did you look at a
map of all the bases the United States has. That's
a signal of how many lies the United States has
in the region. So this is not an isolated ward.
Now do they have the ability to engage Iran? Well,
Iran is a very large country, has always been as
a substantial population. So many these countries are small, and

(34:36):
many of them have depended in the United States for
doing these things. And you see relatively little criticism coming
from these countries from their governments on what's going on.
The criticism is primarily coming from outside the region.

Speaker 2 (34:51):
I was sent this by a listener to the podcast.
The Abraham Accords brought Sunny Arab states into the same
trench against Iran, beyond what the United Nations could ever
have achieved in a month of Sundays, no small thing.
Note that Iran has already hit those same partners in

(35:12):
the accords. Somebody please tell these international rules based order
parrots to catch up with reality. Trump ended your effing order.
Now sit down, shut up, and learn something important so
that the free world can continue to be the free world.
Is there sense in that, Well.

Speaker 3 (35:31):
There's a great deal of sense in that. In the
sense that asiphrom ideology in the free world and these things, okay, One,
the United States president is obligated to protect the American people. Secondly,
that the Iranians are not only threats to the American people,
but are imminent threats to their neighbors. Groups like Haswala okay,

(35:57):
are not only threatening Israel, they're threatening other modern countries. So,
for example, Saudi Arabia is totally hostile to these terrorist
groups and is very hostile to Iran. So when you
look at it, one thing that's apparent is that the
region is not appalled by what's happening, but I think

(36:21):
in a certain way relieved even if they're under fire,
because they understand if the Americans were there, they'd be
a different position. The Abraham Accords was, in principle a
very good thing. It didn't work out, not because of
Israel so much as for many countries not wanting to
join it so openly. It was a good first step.

(36:45):
But what's ignored is, aside from the Abraham Accords, the
intense close relationships the United States has not only with Israel,
but many of these other countries, Arab Islamic countries that
fear Iran.

Speaker 2 (37:02):
Let's take a look at some of the side effects
of this, or the direct effects. Shipping disruption of course,
and the fact that the Strait of Humus is now
now closed. Whether it's official or unofficial doesn't make any difference.
How long can that state of affairs be retained?

Speaker 3 (37:24):
Well? The price of oil will go up, of course,
be retained well enough. Are we going to abandon the
region to rein in control because of that? By the way,
the closure was declared by the Iranians threatening to sink

(37:46):
any ship where they have the capacity of doing so,
ignores the question of what the US Navy, which is
also deployed in the area, expecting some action like this,
what they would do in retaliation. So it's they declared
it closed in the sense they threaten any ship that
goes through it. On the other hand, the US Navy

(38:09):
is going to have a voter on this too.

Speaker 2 (38:11):
Yes, But at the same time there is the issue
of insurance and the insurance ships not being able to
you know, oil carriers not being able to ensure their
ships through the straits of whom was being denied. Insurance
is on the cards being announced.

Speaker 3 (38:34):
As most of the wars do. It will have economic
consequences for other countries, who, on the one hand, do
not take the risks that the United States takes in
these matters. Claims that another outcome would be possible. Well,
the countries in the region who are also affected by
not being able to get their oil out rally. So

(38:58):
we have to take a look at the question of
in two ways. One, what else could we do? What
else could the region do when the Iranians absolutely refused
to abandon a deulear program. Secondly, what price is being paid? Well,
the United States take a price in weapons and lives

(39:18):
and so on and so forth, and the risking of them.
At the same time, if we left, the people in
the region would be facing an Iran triumphant. So yeah,
war has a cost, and it's really not a tragedy
of prices go up and prevent catastrophe of Iran.

Speaker 2 (39:38):
You've been to a Ran in the past, I think
a long time back, yes, in need, how much has
Iran changed since you were there just briefly? And the
outcome of this if it were to be successful, if
Trump's successful or the West is successful, however you want
to frame it, what do you think the unfolding will be.

Speaker 3 (40:00):
Well, when I was there, it was during the time
when the Shah of Iran was still in place. He
was alive the United States, and he was relatively secular,
somewhat opposed to the Islamist forces. He was overthrown by
the Islamist forces. And if you'll remember, the American embassy

(40:21):
was seized by the Islamist forces and the Americans hold
hostage and so forth. So this is a very different
Iran than under the Shah, from the standpoint of Islamic extremists,
a much better Iran, from the standpoint of the West,

(40:42):
a much more dangerous one.

Speaker 4 (40:44):
So there it is.

Speaker 3 (40:46):
So when you look at the region, it is deeply
divided internally in some countries, but externally between those countries
that are very oriented.

Speaker 4 (40:56):
To the West and the United States, which.

Speaker 3 (40:58):
Is the majority, and then Iran, which went its own
course in a very different way.

Speaker 2 (41:05):
I'm gonna ask you to do something based on based
on him history. You've got you've got the Arabs, the Muslims,
and you've got the Persians. And the only place in
the world where where this this is applicable, of course,
is is Iran. And there is a difference between the two.

(41:26):
What is the what is the nature of that difference,
what effect does it have on the country, and is
that a good reason on its own to take care
of the government of Iran, who considers themselves to be
the owners of that country. Best described by somebody recently
along the lines of it's a it's a gang of

(41:48):
thugs that has captured a country.

Speaker 3 (41:51):
Well, First of all, the Islamic world is divided in
two major parts, the shades of the Sunnis, and each
of these countries are one or the other divided.

Speaker 4 (42:03):
Between the two.

Speaker 3 (42:05):
There's tension within Islam, It's that one thing, but there's
also a tension in the Islamic world between those groups
Shiite or Sunni, particularly Shiite, that are hostile not only
to the United States, not only to Israel and so on,
but hostile to governments that are not radically Islamists okay,

(42:30):
And many of the countries are overwhelmingly Islamic in nature,
but are not Islamist in the sense of the extremes
that some.

Speaker 4 (42:41):
Islams go to.

Speaker 3 (42:43):
So when you look at Hezbollah, okay, you're looking at
a non state actor, a massive army. It doesn't only
attack Israel. The Saudis are quite concerned about them too,
so the Gulf States. So Islam, like Christianity, is divided

(43:04):
into various groups. As in Christian history, they were tensions
within the groups between Protestants and Catholics, nations and so
on and so forth. But at this point in history
where that tension has to a great extent died down
in the Islamic world, it's now in a way peaking,

(43:24):
and it's always been there, and it happens within countries.
But it's also true that the Shiites can be allied
with its Muslims, with Sunnis so long as they have
the same radical program of imposing Islamic law on the community.
So when the Saudis joined didn't join, but was going

(43:47):
to join the Abraham Accords, it was not that it
was not an Islamic country, but it wasn't the kind
of Islam that was in Iran. So there would be
a big difference at this point in history between the
groups and the countries and how they approach Islam, Saudi
Arabia in one way around another.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
Questions being asked by most people, and I know Trump's
response to it, and I hope, I hope he's correct.
How long could this go? On and what would the
result be? And there's a third part. Is it likely
that the Persians will oblige Trump and rise up against

(44:34):
the against the leftovers in the previous administration.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
Well, every war is entered with the assumption that the
strategy of their side will cause a rapid defeat of
the enemy. That's a kind of normal thing. In this
particular case, the enemy, the Iranians, have a tremendous amount
to lose. But you've put your finger on the great

(44:59):
weakness of Iran. Iran is deeply divided. We saw major
demonstrations being held against government in recent months. We saw
the government brutally killing many people in the streets. I
think one of the reasons that Trump felt it was
possible to do this is what he stated on the

(45:21):
first day the attack began. Let the people of Iran
rise up and overthrow. Notice that what he did militarily
is basically decapitate the countries they call it. He cut
off the ruling segment, the highest levels, Hmeny downward. Knocking

(45:43):
out that element created a possibility of the people going
to the streets again. If you remember, he urged the
Iranians to take control of their country, going to streets
and take it over. Well, they didn't choose to go,
or they were prevented from going by the military. But
there's something important to understand about Iran's military. There are

(46:06):
two militaries in Iran, the IRGC, the Republican Guard, the
Islamic Republican Guard that is truly tensely is labist. There's
another army, the army that they inherited from the Shah
of Iran, that's primarily secular, is much larger. The IRGC

(46:31):
gets all of the weapons that can be used against
other countries. The other army, the Army of Iran, is
both secular and well armed and designed to defend the
country from others. So I think one of the hopes
in all of this is that as the IRGC is
reduced in power through American attacks, the army might emerge.

(46:57):
It's interesting that in the US government there's never a
public discussion of the army of the secular army.

Speaker 4 (47:09):
At the same time, we have not attacked that army
at all.

Speaker 3 (47:12):
So I think the endgame from the American point of view,
and this gets complicated, is to see the IRGC, which
is the foundation of national security for the Islamists whither
away through multiple attacks, and the army itself, which is
not hostile to the Western world, which is secular in

(47:35):
many ways, coming to power. So in this discussions you've had,
everybody is focused on the Islamist IRGC. No one talks
about the army itself, which is larger than the RGC
than not as well armed, and what they will do.
So there is something else going on in this operation

(47:55):
weakening the IRGC to the point where the army may
take over. And I think the first hope was that
the public would go out in the streets as they
had done for many, many ways before this, to oppose
the regime. But if that didn't happen, Plan B, which

(48:16):
I think is in place, is weakened the IRGC and
opened the door for the army, which has not been
attacked at all, to take over.

Speaker 2 (48:27):
Is there an ethnic difference between those two armies.

Speaker 3 (48:32):
Not really Ethnically, they are all Persians, most Iranians are.
They're not Arabs. There are Arabs of course in Iran
and so on and so forth. There's a fundamental ideological difference.
The army is not ideological, if you will, It is

(48:55):
not Islambist by nature. It is a professional army that
was created first by the British and then supported by
the Americans.

Speaker 4 (49:06):
And it survived.

Speaker 3 (49:08):
Know, the Islamis overthrew everything they could not and did
not want to overthrow that army.

Speaker 4 (49:14):
So it's sitting out there. It's very large, much larger
than the RGC, and.

Speaker 3 (49:19):
I think that is the end game that the United
States is hoping for, having lost the hope of an
uprising inside of Iran people.

Speaker 2 (49:30):
All right, we have left Israel out of this in
the main. But finally, as far as this shall we
say segment is concerned, what are the dangers to Israel
if America loses this?

Speaker 3 (49:45):
Well, I mean America can get tired of this. It
can't be defeated. So as in the Vietnam War, we
were not defeated.

Speaker 4 (49:54):
We just left because we couldn't win. So the idea of.

Speaker 3 (49:58):
Defeating the United States is a very difficult thing to
imagine because American power is substantial. On the other hand,
if the United States were not involved in this, yes,
Israel would be having to be much more risk taking
at aggressive in area. Because I talked about nine to
eleven from the Israeli point of view and nuclear Iran

(50:24):
would be a catastrophic event, so they would have to
do it. But the Americans and Israelis in this case
have common interests. They don't always match on Daza. Certainly
the American view is not the Israeli view. But in
stopping Iran from having nuclear weapons, Israel stands with Saudi Arabia,

(50:46):
the Air Emerts, gut her and all these other countries. Okay,
so there is a huge coalition here. Most of the
week Israel not but not strong enough to take on
around alone.

Speaker 2 (51:00):
What about net In Yahoo and the campaigns, the internal
campaigns against.

Speaker 3 (51:04):
Him, well, Neda Yahu, in the eyes of many Israelis,
first failed to run intelligence properly to detect the Hamas attack.
AMA's attack was being panned for many months, perhaps years,
and intelligence Undern's control and his responsibility in some ways

(51:30):
failed to detect them. So there are many people who
criticized that you on that basis. There were many Israelis
who were appalled, particularly the army, of what was ordered
of them to do in Gaza. So there was a
lot of tension in the military as well and in
the country. Israel regards itself as part of the West,

(51:53):
the actions in Gaza isolated them in many ways for
the West. And so there's a deep divide in Israel
as many countries between Natio who say I did what
was necessary and I saved Israel for that, and he
said at the other side, which said, well, you let
Israel fall into a trap by failing to stop Abas.

Speaker 4 (52:18):
And then you went way too far.

Speaker 3 (52:21):
In isolating the world Israel like many countries where he
is divided.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
Indeed, finally a few this is changing the this is
changing the topic to some degree. Anyway, a little prior
to this war breaking out, you write a piece in
response to claims that were being made in the United
States headed the US Supreme Court and geopolitics. I'll read

(52:51):
the opening lines. I'd like to begin by issuing a disclaimer.
I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but
I would like to share some simplistic thoughts on the
virtue of the United States, just briefly. Do you want
to cover that off?

Speaker 3 (53:08):
Well, briefly, you know what I said. We have a
superb system of government. Congress makes the laws, the President
must operate under those laws, and the Supreme Court judges
whether he does or not. It is a bowels of powers.

(53:28):
Every president pushes against Congress to do things, many have
done things a Supreme Court overruled. Trump is not different.
He's somewhat more extreme, but at the same time he
is constrained. So one of the lovely things about the
United States is how negative the numbers are in him.

(53:51):
He went very far internally in the United States especially,
and therefore at this point his popularity ratings are very,
very negative. He may recover, but the American system rebounds
itself nicely. The Supreme Court acts, and ultimately Congress does,

(54:13):
even if it's a Republican one. Because at this moment
it appears clear that the Democrats will take over Congress.
So is the balance of powers that's so superb in
the United States. Now, we could all discuss and argue
over what this means and so on and so forth,
But from my point of view, chaos in the United

(54:34):
States is a norm at times, and the system continues
to operate. So at this moment, Trump is discovering that
he has great powers in foreign policy, far less in Minnesota,
where he carried out those attacks. So it's for me

(54:55):
a lovely system that was invented by Thomas Jefferson and
the founders of the country. It's a machine and it
works and also allows incredible disarray in the country within
the country, disagreement within the country, and yet constantly overcomes
it over the centuries. So I am a patriot in

(55:17):
that sense, but I also marvel sometimes other countries could
not take the stress Americ we do.

Speaker 2 (55:25):
Interesting. And on that note, I'll say, so was this conversation.
You've been very erudite and explain things that a lot
of people will appreciate me included.

Speaker 3 (55:36):
So great, see what hopefully I was right?

Speaker 2 (55:41):
Well, time will tell you've been right before, so it
wouldn't be unique. So on that note, we will talk again,
I presume at some stage, but we'll see how things go.
But I suggest that trying to pick the result of
this is just a waste of time. You've got to
write it out and see where it goes and concludes.

(56:04):
So thank you, we appreciate it, take care, take care
of yourself, and now enter the mail room and missus

(56:26):
producer Podcast number three hundred and eighteen three one eight.
How are you doing late?

Speaker 3 (56:31):
No?

Speaker 5 (56:31):
Great?

Speaker 2 (56:31):
Thank you and you sound good good? Well do you
always do? Today? You sound even.

Speaker 5 (56:36):
Better lots of exercise.

Speaker 4 (56:38):
That's what it was.

Speaker 2 (56:39):
Shall I go first? Why don't you thank you? Many
people believe that the most effective way of battling the
climate change scam is to demonstrate that man made carbon
dioxide has no effect on the climate. My own belief,
says the author, is that this is a waste of time,
because what you're doing is attacking the central belief of

(57:01):
a cult. I think it's better to attack it from
the edges and so undermine people's confidence in the central argument.
No matter what New Zealand does, it will not will
not change the world's climate. Yet many prominent people tell
us directly or imply that this is the case. This

(57:21):
is misinformation, and it provides good grounds for an attack
on the scam. The other one is to point out
that vast amounts of money have been squandered in futile
attempts to reduce carbon dioxide levels. Apart from things like
carbon taxes, we also have the extra cost we pay
for electric cars and for providing them, and for providing

(57:45):
them with charging points, the extra costs of using intermittent
wind and solar powerents instead of burning coal and gas,
and in particular the huge cost of trying to have
enough wind and solar power to get us through a
dry year in every normal year, it just represents surplus
power on the system. Also, apart from costing us a

(58:09):
huge amount of money, it also tends to destabilize the grid.
Bryan Well said, and thank you, Leyton.

Speaker 5 (58:16):
Penny says, congratulations Layton on your well deserved inclusion in
the New Years on his list, thrilled for you. I
never miss an episode of your podcasts, but haven't written
for ages. However, when it's Shane Jones on offer, I
can't keep quiet. I adore him. I listen to him
every Saturday morning on Best of the Country. He mainly
makes me laugh like mad but he's also extremely eloquent

(58:39):
and articulate, rather like yourself, but funnier. He began with
an observation on the iniquity of social media and its
effects on our youth, and went on to discuss the
troubled and troubling youth of Northland, describing with an analogy
of youth wanting to take the elevator to the top,

(58:59):
not negotiate, and work at climbing the staircase. Says Shane,
I like to put them in their place. Lucky kids
who have an uncle Shane and their family. He obviously
takes a sessions with you very seriously. I was waiting
for some Shane Jones levity. We finally got a chuckle
out of him when you pushed him on Winston's ability
to actually stay breathing. Sorry, I'm a bit behind with

(59:22):
my listening catching up. Now that's from Penny.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
Very good. I shall consider passing that on to the
much mentioned mister Jones. Now from Paul from memory, you
have in the past commented on activism or similar in
the judiciary, and just wondering if you have seen the
appointment of a High Court judge with strong Marie connections

(59:45):
and possible bias. According to some of the comments in
the link. Justice Amakura Kawaru has today been sworn in.
This was on the twenty fifth of February. Has today
been sworn in as the first High Court judge of
Nati Fatua, Oreki and Napui descent. She will go to
the High Court with solid grounding in Ti Kunga marii.

(01:00:08):
This is a quote by the way, she will go
to the High Court with solid grounding in Ti kangamari
which more and more is being interpreted in the courts.
It's accompanied by an address on one news. I mentioned
this to somebody who who is in the world of legaldom,
and their only comment was appointed by a so called

(01:00:31):
conservative government. That's all laden is from Rod.

Speaker 5 (01:00:35):
He says, I just listened to your latest podcast three
one seven and in your mailroom, doctor Caroline Wheeler's name
came up. I felt compelled to reach out because I
feel a personal weight regarding her current situation. Back in
twenty twenty one, I caught COVID and was in a
very bad way. My wife was caring for me incredibly well,

(01:00:56):
but when she tried to reach out to a regular doctor,
they were unreachable. We rang the ambulance and the paramedics
advised us that the hospitals were overrun, and they said
the treatment you're getting from your wife is better than
what you'll get from the hospital. You're better off at home.
In desperation, my wife turned to social media for help
and was given three doctors' names, to which doctor Caroline responded,

(01:01:20):
she spoke to my wife multiple times a day and
I was prescribed I've a mecton. Over the following days,
they spoke two or three times a day. Within twenty
four hours of starting the treatment, I began to respond
to it. I truly believe she saved my life. Given this,
I find it hard to understand how someone can be

(01:01:41):
found guilty of serious professional misconduct for prescribing a medication
that has been used for over fifty years and is
not a banned substance. In my case, it was a lifesaver.

Speaker 2 (01:01:52):
That's from Rod Rod. I can only suggest to you
something you've probably heard before many times. Follow the money,
and there are people who are very protective of their
positions too, when when they lose control, they run amok.
So that's my contribution to that. Last week I read
a letter from Kerry, otherwise known as Kiwi Kerry. He

(01:02:17):
lived here for a number of years, quite a number
of years, and then went back to Louisiana and lived
in New Orleans. And I read the letter out and
he made a comment or to and I asked him
a question. I just flicked an email back to him
and I said, where are you now? So he responded
on March the first, he said, I'm an hour east

(01:02:37):
of Metro in Picka Yune Metri. In case you don't know,
is the suburb of New Orleans and it borders on
Lake Pontre Train. So I'm an hour east of Metri
in Picka Yune, MS on the state line one fifty nine.
What's a miss anyway? Lake David estates two acres half

(01:03:00):
in pine, eight hundred square feet commercial greenhouse. You lucky man.
That is a junkyard right now, or maybe not so lucky.
I want to get I want to get by beehives
back before I start learning how to grow food or
about growing food. I finished work at the end of
twenty twenty four learning how to be a loose end.
So Lake is a retirement home. Still have my metry

(01:03:24):
home because of grandkids. I'm still not vaxed. We'll never
get any injection again. After my five year education in
farmer epidemiology, virology, vaccinology, allopathic corruption. Still following Malone, McCulloch
and Brownstone. That is the Brownstone Institute Daily. My daily

(01:03:45):
news source is Bannon's war Room. Legacy media is dead
to me. My latest insights are about Earth's six thousand
year cycles. You will appreciate the science and common sense
sends me a couple of a couple of references like
the disaster Cycle documentary if you want to follow, and

(01:04:07):
the Proof Science Connect the Dots, both on YouTube. I
follow Ben weekly. He must be one of them. He
does a three minute soul of weather report every morning.
You will enjoy learning about this and thinking about consequences.
It's worrisome for our children and grandchildren, but not for us.
Wishing you and Carolyn all the best. Keep up the

(01:04:27):
good fight. Missing New Zealand every day he does. He
every time he writes, he says how much he missus
New Zealand. Well, it's great to hear from you. And
can I come because there's a good chance it could happen.
Can I come visit you out there?

Speaker 5 (01:04:41):
Perfect later? This is from Kevin. I have listened to
your on news Talk Z'B and your podcast since they began. However,
I have received none this year since you returned from
your holiday. Glitch in the system, I guess, so I've
signed up again. I mentioned it as it may have
happened to others and you may not be aware. Keep
up the good work. Hope this finds you and missus

(01:05:02):
Producer in the very best of health. That is a
hole when you were away, And that's from Kevin.

Speaker 2 (01:05:07):
Kevin, thanks, thank you for that. It happens not infrequently,
and it's different things. And I flicked that off to
you would know this by now, Kevin. But I flicked
that off to the management of problems in the office,
and I think has probably been well. I know it's
been addressed. Whether it's solved or not, it's another matter.

(01:05:27):
But let me know if you still have an issue
now from Jin there are people, this is a quote.
There are people wailing in the streets of the West,
sodden with tears and outrage at the assassination of wait
for it, Iran Supreme leader Ali Kameni, reports Alexandra Marshall
from The Spectator. The Western left would rather cry foul

(01:05:50):
over the assassination of Iran Supreme Leader Iotolda Ali Kameni
then celebrate the demise of the terrorist leader. They would
rather uphold a virtue signaling international law that keeps Camenie
alive than a strong law that encourages the dedication of
his terrorism. Stephen Daisley, also from the Spectator, reminds us

(01:06:13):
that international law is utterly toothless against the tyrannical regime
that is, as Jim Allen also said, completely overruled and
rigged by the Guardian Council. Stephen was right when he said,
if international law says a kamenee should still be in place,
maybe international law deserves to be detonated along within. And

(01:06:36):
despite a large number of Iranians celebrating the death of
the tyrant Western leftists, the likes of Helen Clark, Chris Hipkins,
Marrima Davidson all condemned the war against terrorism, these two
faced hypocrites have forgotten that we voted for a regime
change from their leftist ideologies just three years ago. Long

(01:06:56):
may it last for the second term this year.

Speaker 5 (01:06:59):
Cheers and late lastly from me, VICKI says many congratulations
on the New Year's honor awarded to you. She says,
I look forward to listening to more fabulous podcasts than
twenty twenty six and beyond.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
Vicky, that's lovely good to hear from you, and I
hope that you're well. And the reason I say this
is because Vicky was the was the agent that set
up set in play the idea that I should write
a book back in twenty twelve, No, maybe it was
even twenty eleven, because it took me two years to get.

Speaker 5 (01:07:32):
Your head around it. Yes, thanks so much, Vicky.

Speaker 2 (01:07:36):
You were very successful, so was the book, and I
thank you again. Finally from Susan, who I haven't heard
from for a while because she used to be very,
very prolific, prolific. Yes, I'm listening to the Banking Association
person on the radio this morning. What date was this?
Twenty six feb this morning, and getting more and more frustrated.

(01:07:59):
The Banking Association claims no one uses cash anymore, without
ever mentioning that this situation has been brought about by
their insistence that cashless is the way to go. Someone
needs to call them to account. I would love to
use cash more, but almost all councils, government departments, public libraries,

(01:08:19):
et cetera will refuse to accept it. Given look, if
you want to use cash that's legitimate, legal tender and
they don't want to, they don't want to accept it,
then don't pay. Whatever it is, don't pay because if
I mean, if it's if it's rates or whatever, don't

(01:08:39):
pay because they are obliged to accept it and they've
got no footing to say otherwise. Given the RV and
z's work on digital currency, I was surprised that they've
come out with a proposal for a requirement that banks
provide cash services. I wonder whether it's a red herring

(01:08:59):
by George. You don't know, you don't know what you're saying,
but I'll tell you in a minute, perhaps designed to
invoke discussion or to reveal the level of consumer interest
in the cash issue. Still loving the podcast. Thanks for
all the work and keeping us informed on lots of subjects, Susan,
As always, I appreciate your correspondence. What I was going

(01:09:21):
to tell you was what I will tell you is
so coincidental. The interview next week covers exactly what you
are asking for, and it's already in the bag, so
it's already done. But those things you mentioned where you
were surprised, et cetera, et cetera. Wonder if whether it's
a red herring. I've already I raised that question in

(01:09:43):
the discussion. Anyway, that's next week. Thank you, missus, producer,
Thank you so much later and see you next week. Also,

(01:10:10):
so finally, let us stay with a bit of consistency,
not exactly attached to what we've discussed in this podcast,
but connected. As you'll see, the headline is Trump accepts
White House Correspondent's Dinner invitation for the first time. He
announced on Monday that he'll attend. Look, this is an

(01:10:33):
example of how things change, but some things never change,
and life goes on. President Donald Trump announced Monday that
he will attend the White House Correspondent's Dinner for the
first time as president, after declining to attend during his
initial term in office due to his view that the
majority of the media is unfairly biased against him the

(01:10:55):
president it was the President also did not attend in
twenty twenty five, the first year of his second presidential term. Quote,
the White House Correspondence Association has asked me very nicely
to be the honoree at this year's dinner, a long
and story tradition since it began in nineteen twenty four

(01:11:17):
under then President Calvin Coolidge, Trump said in a post
on truth Social In honor of our nation's two hundred
and fiftieth birthday and the fact that these correspondents quote
unquote now admit that I am truly one of the
greatest presidents in the history of our country. It will

(01:11:37):
be my honor to accept their invitation and work to
make it the greatest hottest and most spectacular dinner of
any kind ever. This guy never gives up. Trump criticized
the press for its coverage of him in his acceptance,
pointing to it as a reason for his absence from
past events because the press was extraordinarily bad to me,

(01:12:01):
fake news all right, from the beginning of my first term.
I boycotted the event and never went to as honore,
He wrote, However, I look forward to being with everyone
this year. Hopefully it'll be something very special now. The
annual dinner, which celebrates the First Amendment, is set to
take place on April twenty five at the Washington Hilton,

(01:12:24):
outside of which John Hinckley Junior attempted to assassinate President
Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty one. It's it's a little scary,
I think anyway. Trump was the first president to skip
the event since Reagan, who was recovering at the time
from an assassination attempt. The event is The event also

(01:12:45):
serves as a fundraiser for journalism scholarships and awards. I
think he should take over the management of that as well.
Trump made headlines in twenty sixteen when he roasted his
campaign opponent Hillary Clifton ahead of election Day at the
annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner. Anyway, he's going

(01:13:06):
to go to the Correspondence dinner. I can't wait to
see that. Cancel whatever you're doing and make sure you
watch it, because I think it will be a very
very entertaining function. Now that will take us out for
podcast number three hundred and eighteen. But let me just
entially before we go. I already had this week's podcast

(01:13:27):
interview done and then along came the Iran War and
I felt compelled to cover that rather than what we
were going to do. So we arranged the interview with
George for seven point thirty this morning and got up
at five o'clock and took a cold shower. That's to

(01:13:49):
wake you up. See, So that's the story. Next week
will be this week's intended interview, and it has to
do with the things that mattered to us, all of us,
one way or the other. And I think it's very good.
But we shall but in the meantime, we'll say if
you'd like to write a US latent at news talks

(01:14:10):
at b dot co dot nz or Caroline at news
talks ab dot co dot nz, don't be hesitant, get
it off your mind, and we'll say thank you very
much for listening, and we shall talk to

Speaker 1 (01:14:29):
Thank you for more from News Talks B Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio