DEBATE: Has Trump Surrendered To Iran? - Melanie Phillips

Trump is giving Iran the ability to become again the great threat to the region and to the world. You don't negotiate with people who believe they are put on earth by God to destroy America. This is an Islamist war against the West. It cannot be lost. If it's lost, the West is lost. They're not building into continental ballistic missiles because they want to hit Israel. They're doing it for America. So what would you have Trump do? If you go to war, you have to do properly. When you say properly, it's a euphemism for putting boots on the ground. Yeah. You effectively want what happened to Nazi Germany and World War Field, what happened to Japan because there's no other way to do that. There has to be boots on the ground. The boots need to be the Iranian people. This episode is sponsored by our friends at Hillsdale College. Right after this episode, go check out the incredible online courses which are absolutely free at Hillsdale.edu/trigger. Melanie Phillips, welcome back to "Trigger Number 3." Delightful to be here again. Well, it's wonderful to have you on. We want to talk about the Middle East, the war with Iran, the potential deal or not deal that may be happening. But right as we sit here recording this, it's only a day since Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister has announced that he's voluntarily, entirely voluntarily leaving office almost certainly handing over to Andy Burnham. And before we get into the Middle East stuff, we just wanted to get your perspective on what's happening here in Britain. Well, as you say, Mr. Burnham looks like he's going to become the Prime Minister. I think among the British public, the niceties of the British Constitution aside, they are furious that they elected somebody they thought was going to be in power for five years, so Keir Starmer. And now they find some other bloke is going to be Prime Minister, and they didn't vote for him. And they feel a bit short-chain. So I think that's quite dangerous for Andy Burnham. If he's going to, he's, I think he's got a bit of a dilemma. If he's going to continue with the manifesto commitments laid out by Keir Starmer and enacted by the Keir Starmer's government, he's going to find himself in exactly the same position of total unpopularity and manifest incompetence and worse. That Keir Starmer found himself in. If he decides that he wants to junk all that and do something very different, then he's got a problem because he has no standing to do so because that's not the agenda on which the Labour government or it's the Labour Party, one it's stonking great majority. So he, in all honor, he would need to call the general election very fast. And for what I read, he doesn't want to do that. So it looks like he is, I think, probably going to fall between the two and he's going to tough it out. He's going to become, you know, crowned as Prime Minister. And he's going to, I would imagine, change the agenda in certain respects from what Keir Starmer was doing, for which he will have no mandate. And I think that's going to get him starting off on the wrong foot as far as the public is concerned. Do you have an explanation in your head for, I mean, Keir Starmer by metrics is literally one of the least popular prime ministers, I think the least popular prime minister in British history, which even as someone who was never a huge fan of his, I actually find quite difficult to understand in terms of his own performance, I get the sense and correct me or just disagree with me if you disagree. His deep unpopularity is a product of the reality of the country and where it's at. And the fact that to change that, you have to drastically change direction, which we're not doing. And I extrapolate from that that going forward. Whoever replaces him will inevitably end up in the same position all likely worse. Yes, I mean, I think people really, really don't like being taken for mugs and being treated with contempt. And I think that's what they thought he was doing because, you know, in answer to all kinds of questions at different times about why is this all that going wrong and what you're going to do about it? He, you know, he was slippery. He wouldn't answer. He refused to answer. He changed the question. He changed a premise. And people can see this. And they can't stand that. They really can't do with that. Plus, he has a very unattractive public persona. He is very wooden and robotic. His main problem is he's not a politician. He's a lawyer. And he's not a public performer. Now you look at Andy Burnham. He's all, he's all performance. I mean, that's what he does. You know, I mean, you know, the black bomber jacket and the black t-shirt. And I'm so hip and, you know, hear my fluttering, long eyelashes. I mean, and everyone loves it. I mean, I think it's pathetic. But everyone loves it. And then you have Keir Starmo, who's like, oh, and everyone thinks, what a complete idiot. But he's not an idiot at all. But he doesn't have the politician's skill at being fly. He's not, he's not, he's not flying to certainly not to his credit. The real problem is, you compare it with, I mean, I, I think, Kenny Battenock is doing tremendously well. She's saddled, unfortunately, with the entire conservative party, for whom nobody in their right mind would vote. So okay, fine. So that's her problem. But when you look at what she is doing, she's cutting through now with the public, as far as I can see, who are really warming to her, because they find her refreshingly direct, honest, straightforward. She doesn't disassemble. She doesn't pretend that she hasn't understood the question. She doesn't change the subject. She's very direct, if necessary. You know, she will give you, you know, will walk between the eyes. If you ask a question that she thinks is, is, is really bad. And people warm to that. They want politicians who actually are people of integrity. And they don't find it. So you have a situation in which, you know, they will vote for these parties led by people that they despise or don't much like. And they will like somebody whose party they despise. So you have a, but of a mismatch at the moment to add to Britain's other woes. If you look at, since Brexit, I think we've had six prime ministers. We're going to be onto a seventh pretty soon. That, to me, is a political crisis, isn't it, Melanie? Well, Britain is an ongoing political crisis. Britain is an ongoing crisis. Britain is the society, which is basically going down fast. And it's been going down for many years, which I've been charting for many years, because I've been around for a while. You know, it's been going down because it's been knocking out the bedrock institutions of the society, particularly, I would say, it's education system. If your education system, which is all about transmitting a culture between, for one generation to the next, that's how you continue the culture. If you decided, as I recall, back in the, whenever it was the 80s, the seven as whenever it was, you decided that you can't do that because your culture really stinks. It's racist to do that because you can't, you can't have a hierarchy of values, you can't say your culture is better than any other, and so on. If your, if you turn your education system into a de-education system, then you've had it because, you know, you're, you're going to produce what we've ended up with, which is young people who are now middle-aged people, who know nothing and can't think for themselves. Plus, the fact that, you know, there was an onslaught on the traditional family, and an onslaught on the very idea of the nation itself, so nobody, you know, one thinks it's a big joke of the idea of fighting for it and so on. This is all a society in decline. And then you have this tremendous allied issue of mass immigration. You know, you have a society that's hollowed itself out, and it's then, you know, to see meat for a culture to come in and say, actually, you know, we've actually, we've actually now got an opportunity to take this over, which is basically radical Islam. And so you have this building issue, this erosion on one hand of a society that won't defend itself, won't promote itself, creates a kind of vacuum into which is marching Islamic radicalism, okay? Many, many Muslims in Britain are absolutely fine. They've, they've signed up to the whole western thing, but we know that there's a very large number who are not doing, who do, who do not want to do that, and want Britain to adapt to Islam rather than the other way around. But they see their opportunity, and they are marching in demanding more and more that Britain should adapt to Islam. And the British people can see that the, all the, the arms of the state, the government, politicians that are across parties, and the whole cultural elite are not only refusing to, to draw red lines, cultural red lines, but are coming down like a ton of bricks on anyone who stands up and calls attention to this and defames them as being, you know, Islam, a phobic racist, fascist, and so on. And so the people are a boiling point. We can see it, you know, in various things that have happened on the streets. It's a very dangerous situation, and we have virtually entire political class which is saying we're not going to go there, which is making it far worse. So this is what Mr. Burnham is going to inherit, and he is going to be the head of a party which, among other things, no longer knows what it is. You know, the Labour Party came into being as the political arm of the trade union movement as the political arm of the working people of Britain. It then had a kind of transmogrification and has become the party of the intellectual elites of the intelligentsia, the university educated people. And consequently, you know, non-educated to high level people have been left high and dry because the agenda of the intellectual elites is to despise the nation's state, to despise the West of despise Britain and to want liberal universalism, transnationalism and so on. So that's Labour having abandoned the people. And then you have the conservative party, which never was very good at thinking about anything at all, being composed traditionally of extremely stupid people. And then, you know, it just saw this great sort of cultural change coming at it. And it decided to throw in the towel. It said it couldn't stand up against it. Nobody could stand up against it. You couldn't stand up against cultural change. And they brought into it over successive conservative prime ministers, successive conservative administrations. So the people were literally abandoned. This is what Mr. Burnham, if he comes prime minister, is going to inherit. Now, this would test anybody. Does one have confidence that Mr. Burnham is such a statesman that he is going to stand back and meet these challenges? I have to say that I may be being very uncharitable, but I'm not holding my breath. He likes oasis. Well, I suppose that's all that matters, really. I actually think it's a good point to move on to a bit at least. But, Melanie, thank you for that. There's one thing that I wanted to mention, because one of the bans that people like, yeah, yeah, it's storm roses, but let's not focus on that. But there is one thing that you were talking about. No political party wants to go there. I would put it to you, Melanie, that there is one political party who wants to go there and they're called Restore and they got 7% and make the field. Yes, this is true. When I say no political party, I meant no respectful political party. I meant no mainstream political party. It's true. What I've described to you just now has produced an insurrectionist tendency, which once was Nigel Farage. Then he stopped being the insurrectionist because he's now got his own insurrection, which is Restore. That's another story why Nigel Farage is no longer the kind of go-to person for people who say the entire political establishment has failed us. Why do you think that Nigel Farage has that insurrection in his hands? Because I hear people saying Nigel Farage has become the establishment. And I mean, I pay fairly close attention to political discourse in this country. He doesn't appear to me to have massively changed any of his opinions as far as I can tell. You clearly disagree, but I guess I perhaps challenged me on this too. My sense is the general election is far away. People are desperate for change, and so the longer there is no change, the more extreme the rhetoric needs to be to satisfy the urge is kind of my perspective on it. You clearly feel different. Well, I don't know. I think there is a very ugly mood that's building in the public, and I think that Restore is meeting that ugly mood with ugly rhetoric of its own, which I think is whipping it out. But why is it building? Because people are getting so furious. Then I think we probably agree then. Yeah, but Nigel Farage, he has the most consequential politician since Mrs Latcher. Arguable even more so than her in some respects. And he was, to a large extent, still is the go-to guy for standing up against the political mainstream and saying I am in tune with the public of thinking. And to a very large extent that is true, but I think people have picked up that two things. First of all, on a couple of issues, and I can't now recall which ones, but they were certainly, I think one of them, at least was a welfare issue, he changed his position. And he changed it. It would appear in order to appeal to a sectional population that he hadn't been appealing to. And that's death, because this is a guy who was supposed never to do that. And people, I could hear it. People immediately said, oh, he's just like the others, isn't he? You can't do that. You know, the Nigel Farage's unique selling point is that's what I think, and I'm not changing it for anybody. That's why people like that. I know what you're talking about, because I think the issue is essentially Nigel Farage is a thattery. He wants a small government. And he's won a lot of people in the Red Wall who want big government. And it's just putting it very generalised and bluntly. Right. Right. And I guess what you are pointing to is a lot of people see that as a typical politician. Exactly. Exactly. And the second point is this, that on this tremendously important issue of Islamisation, which is so neurologic and so dangerous for any politician to get into, I think, and I've thought this for a long time, he has flinched. He has flinched, because I can feel he's, I mean, I saw him once saying, you know, there's a lot of Muslims in the world. We've got to work out how to how to write this. And I thought, oh, dear, I mean, it's very difficult how to write this because you can be very careful. You know, you've got a lot of Muslims in the country who are fine. And but an awful lot who are not fine. And it seems to me pretty obvious there are certain red lines you lay down. And, you know, every minority in the country has to basically live within those red lines. And every minority has done except for this section of the Muslim world. And so you have to lay down those red lines. Now he hasn't done that as far as I know. And that's what he needed to do. So people are listening for him to say this and he's not said it. Along comes a restore. And it's saying, I think really terrible things. You know, it's, it's, it's, it's, you know, it's raising a question. Are they talking about throwing out not just foreign nationals who are doing terrible things? Are they talking about throwing out British citizens? Also, no, of course we're not, but they've talked about dual nationals. All to me, that is throwing out British citizens. So this is extreme stuff. But the people who are looking to Nigel to say, here's the red line. Are not hearing that. They're hearing restore saying, we're going to throw them all out. And because of the mood in the country, they're saying, yeah, he's now our guy. I think this is fantastically dangerous. Because I think that the people that restore has has a crew to itself, not necessarily its leader, about whom I don't have a very strong view. I know he fell out badly with, with Nigel Farage. But the party has attracted some extremely unsavory individuals. So has reform, actually. And it hasn't really got to grips yet with weeding everybody out as much as it should. But restore is, is, you know, there are many more who are more objectionable. But unfortunately, because the rhetoric is, is, is more akin to what people want to hear, because they're not hearing it. Even from Nigel Farage, they've been gravitating towards restore. I think Nigel Farage can pull that back by laying down red lines. My final point, however, is I'm not sure whether that's really how he thinks. You say he's a kind of unreconstructed fatterite. And that's really how I've, I've always thought of him as an unreconstructed fatterite, who has a thing about mass immigration and stopping the boats. But unreconstructed fatterite doesn't feel me with a great deal of enthusiasm quite frankly. Because unreconstructed fatterites think in terms of economics. They think in terms of the market, the free market. I mean, no, that's partly why we are where we are, because people have forgotten what it takes to make a society in which we look after each up. And again, I don't hear that from Nigel Farage. I may be doing him a great disservice. But people are listening for this. They're listening and they're not getting it. So I think that's partly why the shine has come, kind of come off him. I think he can put the shine back on, but it requires some, some really kind of strategic thinking or strategic rethink about why he's, he's kind of losing ground. I think he can make up that ground because he has to stand on ground, which is basically decent and responsible and proportionate. And I think he can do that. But it's a narrow line that he has to tread. I have people in my life who depend on me. Most of you listening do too. And if you're honest with yourself, you've probably had that moment where you think, what happens to them if I'm not around tomorrow? It's not a fun question, but ignoring it does not make it go away. This is why I think today's sponsor is worth paying attention to. Through ethos, you apply in minutes, receive a quote instantly and get same-day coverage. No medical exam, you just answer a few simple health questions. The whole process is 100% online and you can get up to $3 million in coverage with some policy starting as low as $30 a month. Ethos has 4.8 out of 5 stars on trust pilot with over 4,000 reviews. Take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through ethos. Give your free quote at ethos.com/trigger. That's ETHOS.com/trigger. Application times vary, rates may vary. And moving on, we're going to talk about the Middle East. So you have been a very, well, at the start of the war, you were very in favor of it and you thought at the beginning, reading your subset, which is excellent, that actually the Americans and the Israelis, they, there were some massive wins. Let's just put it like that. And then as it's progressed, you become more and more critical. Uh-huh. Why is that Melanie? Well, because America, IE President Trump, turned on a dime and went the other way. He basically gave up. He, as far as I can see, he's the only American President, ever to have gone to war against the Iranian regime, which I think is good. It's taken America 47 years to do so. 47 years ago, the Iranian regime came to power and declared war in America. And in the intervening decades has killed hundreds, if not more than hundreds, of Americans and injured many more, attacked endlessly, American interests. And at every stage, America and the West have said nothing to see here, move along. And some of us said over many, many years, um, the Iranian regime will never stop, will never, um, resile from its aim to, first of all, destroy the state of Israel as a precursor to destroying America and the West. It will never resile from that. It is already waging war. Uh, though longer it goes on, the worst, the eventual war will be for all of us. Uh, scroll on. We get to, uh, President Trump amazingly going to war against the regime with Israel. And as you say, achieving these amazing successes. Uh, but then to his obvious horror, uh, the Iranian regime having taken this tremendous punishment, it lost its air force. It lost all its air defenses. Uh, its navy was at the bottom of the sea. Uh, it, uh, uh, the threat, uh, numerous nuclear scientists were killed. Um, much of its nuclear program was reduced to rubble and buried under, underground by, by bombing. Um, it lost a, uh, large numbers of its ruling IRGC people and others, uh, who were killed by any conventional standards. It was on the ropes. It should have said, okay, that's it. But it didn't. It said, we are continuing. And here we are, we're gonna, we have now taken the straight of hormones. And everybody went, oh, where did that come from? I mean, how stupid is that? But anyway. So President Trump looked at that and said various things. He said, we're gonna take the straight of hormones. We're gonna bomb a hard island. We're gonna do this. We're gonna do that. It's like King Lear, isn't it? You know, I will do such things on the blasted Heath. Um, and of course he didn't do any of them because presumably his generals came along and said, sir, we can take car, but it's gonna take boots on the ground and blood in the water. And he said, I'm not doing that. He wanted a war done in three or four weeks. The Israelis, I have to say, as a caveat, I don't know whether this is absolutely true because I only know what I'm reading and what I'm hearing. I'm trying to form a conclusion based on reading very widely, listening to a lot of people. What I'm reading, what I've read is that the Israelis said to him right at the beginning, in our view, the only way to neutralize the Iranian regime is to take them out. And we can only do that with a war that lasts a year. And Richard Trump said, you've got to be kidding me. No way. Three weeks, four weeks, max. And the Israelis said, well, then you can't do this. But we will adapt to whatever you want to do. And so they did what they did. So along comes, you know, they've done what they've done. They've made these amazing gains. The Iranians still have a car, Ireland and they have America by their throat. That what do you do? If you're Trump, you say, oh, we won. That's it. That's it. Let's have a negotiation now about the terms of winnings. Excuse me. He had said, you know, they have absolutely surrendered. They are begging for a deal. Well, which is it? Which is it? Have they surrendered? Or if they've surrendered, it's not a deal. If they've surrendered, why is there a negotiation? What is there to negotiate if it's an absolute surrender? None of it made any sense. It was all total rubbish. Bottom line was quite clear. He wanted out. He wanted an end to it. And he wanted to be able to say, we've won. And consequently, they're now giving them everything. In this famous memorandum of understanding, which is not a deal. It's, you know, it rushes in 60 days of negotiation. What is that to negotiate? America doesn't negotiate with those people. It's non-negotiable. So you have this ludicrous situation. And he has to find a scapegoat, this scapegoat is Israel, because there is this complication in Lebanon. Now people in Britain have very little idea about the relationship of Lebanon to all of this. They have very little idea because the media never tells them anything that is important to know about this whole Iranian war. But Lebanon is very important because Lebanon houses the Chisbalah, which is the proxy army of Iran. Chisbalah is an unwanted guest in Lebanon, but nevertheless has established itself a such a powerful force it can't be easily dislodged. From Lebanon, the Chisbalah has over many, many years been firing missiles into northern Israel, potentially causing northern Israel to become depopulated. So Scrolon, and we get to a ceasefire in Lebanon a couple of weeks ago, was it something like that? And the Chisbalah behave as Iran and the Chisbalah always behave when they sign or when they agree to a ceasefire, they ignore it. They ignore it. A ceasefire is merely a means of weakening the other side and they just ignore it. So they continue to fire missiles at Israel in the last couple of weeks and they continue to attack Israeli troops and they kill five Israeli soldiers. I think it was last week. None of this is reported in Britain. Instead, we can Israel says we've got to fight back. And President Trump says you're not going to fight back because if you fight back, the Iranians are telling me that in order for my deal to be done, you've got to come out of Lebanon and Israelis say sorry, we can't do that. In the British media, this is Israel breaking the ceasefire and being aggressive. Now, this is wicked, wicked stuff, in my view. And greatly adds to the fact that for an unpleasant number of British people, they really do believe Israel is the aggressor in the region. And that's another issue, but it's related. They just don't know what's going on. So you have a situation where President Trump is using the Israelis as the scapegoat to explain why Iran is not cooperating. Otherwise, it would be, they would just be all friends together. This is ludicrous and it's tremendously dangerous because everybody with half a brain and some knowledge of what's going on, including the Gulf states who are inclined to be the great allies of the West against Iran, while looking on an absolute horror. They know exactly what's happening here, that Iran is being allowed by America to reconstitute itself as a power in the region and in the world. And they are absolutely in the firing line because Iran has been chucking the ballistic missiles at them as well. So they are horrified. They can see what's happening. They can see that Trump is giving Iran the ability to become again the great threat to the region and to the world. And it is beyond tragic and infuriating that so many people in Britain can't see this. Malini, hold on a second. Let me give a wide perspective of where we come on this issue from and how we've covered this over time because I think we may find that we vary rarely but we disagree profoundly on the issue for reasons are articulate and then we'll get into it. So when the 12-day war happened, bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, wonderful. Francis and I are So completely in favor of this, Iran shouldn't get a nuclear weapon or what wonderful. When this conflict started, we were in the US and we were talking to all kinds of people on the show, people who were for it, people who were against it and hearing the explanations. And we were also talking to people off the air, people who work in administration, people who know how these decisions were made. And at that point, Francis and I, I think it's fair to say, shifted our perspective on this whole issue. And for one reason, which was that we were persuaded by arguments that were made by people like Robert Payp on our show, who explained that basically this situation that we currently find ourselves in was inevitable. And it was inevitable because of what he calls the escalation trap, which is essentially that no matter how much the United States raises the stakes, the Iranians have an ability to inflict more damage that the US cares about more than they care about the damage has been inflicted on them. In other words, if you take, if you put boots on the ground in Carg Island, then you lose 300 Marines. Well, that's bad enough for an American audience, for an American public that's very tired of war, let's be honest, after Iraq and Afghanistan. But then the Iranians will retaliate by destroying desalination plants in the Middle East and doing other things that are much more damaging and, of course, keeping the straight closed. And so Robert Payp's argument, and we were persuaded by, you know, if people talk about audience capture, like our audience didn't like us having that conversation. But we just look at the logic of people's arguments and his argument made more sense. And interestingly, Batya and Gassagon, who we love and respect that we had on the show, she came on saying how we're all wrong, Robert Payp is wrong. She's now done a mere kelp on her show, saying actually, you guys were right about this she was messaging me about this other day, sorry that it's taken a long time. What I'm trying to lay out here is this, what would you have Trump do? What's he supposed to escalate further, put boots on the ground, okay, fine, let's say we do that. Robert Payp's argument is the moment you do that, it becomes for Iran, not just a war survival of the regime, but a war of survival, right? In which case they go harder, they do more damage. And now, final point, the global economy has pretended to absorb the shock when it comes to oil, fertilizing, all these other things quite well, mainly because we've run down our stockpiles of these things. This goes on any longer, the global economy is really going to suffer. And final, final, final point, the midterms. When we had Ted Cruz on our show during that America trip, he said, look, if we're still talking about this when the midterms come around, we have failed very badly. And that timeline, and I thought at the time, if the Iranians know that you worry about the midterms, they will hold out until the midterms and then you're screwed and then you can't do anything. Okay. So the bottom line is this, if you follow the Robert Payp argument, and many make a similar kind of argument, you're basically saying, there is nothing that can be done against Iran because it will always have the upper hand. And so what follows from that? You have to negotiate. No, no, no, no, no, there's no negotiation with Iran. They will always win. They will always win in negotiation for the same reason. We all know they will take pain and we won't. So they'll win. So what the Robert Payp are saying is, that's it, we just have to put up with it. So it'll become a nuclear power. Well, okay, okay. We have to have to deal with it. His argument is slightly more nuanced than that, Melanie, which is his argument is, you have to give them things that they want so they take a very long time, but who knows if they'll eventually get nuclear weapons. You have to manage it over time. And it's a chronic problem instead of an acute problem. It's been managed over 47 years. And they don't have a nuclear weapon. Only because the Israelis put it back, but they were very nearly at it. And they were very nearly at producing so many ballistic missiles that nobody could have challenged them as they marched to the bomb. That was the dual thing. But it's a chancel of complete despair. It's that it's the siren song of appeasement. It was exactly the same in the run up to the second world war. People said we cannot take on the Nazi war machine. It is too strong. And that's why we had a, the second world war was as terrible as it was. Now, Iran is weak. And it's been weakened by all the things that we've been talking about. And yet it's so strong. It's so strong that President Trump is basically saying, have everything. How come this being? Because Iran is not strong, Iran is weak. And Iran's strength is because America is weak. Because America will not do what it takes. It will, President Trump will not commit for, let's say it's a year, let's say it's a notion. That's what the Israelis apparently said. He will not commit for a year. He will not commit boots on the ground. He's worried about the midterms. You can't fight a war like this is pathetic. It's Mickey Mouse time. So what should he do? What should he have done? I'm not a military expert. We're talking about desalination plants. I'm also seeing this. I mean, I don't know what you do about that. I've seen no idea. But there are certain things that President Trump could have done and could still do. Why is it that Iran is making such a business about Lebanon? Why is Iran making it almost a condition of our even taking part in these negotiations in Switzerland? It's a condition that Israel has to leave Lebanon. Why is it so important to them? Because it's so important that Hasbullah remains. Because Hasbullah is vital to Iran. If you eliminate Hasbullah, then Iran is not just weakened. It's like cut off of the needs. Right? I'm not a military person who I'm hearing. Now Israel can do that. It's very difficult, but it can do it. But it can only do it if it has America's full-hearted support. The reason why Israel has never been able to win its wars ever anywhere in Lebanon, for example. It's called mowing the grass. Or it's ever been able to do it to push it back in Gaza, mowing the lawn. Or it's been able to do ever is push Hamas back. It's still there, thanks to President Trump. It's still there, still firing, still attacking Israeli soldiers. Okay? It's much weaker. But it's still there because America said to Israel, "Stop. There's a bigger game here. We're playing. You're not going to get in our way." And it's saying so in Lebanon. Stop. So the ridiculous situation has been created by Trump, by his mismanagement of this. That The Hasbullah is being used by Iran as leverage to separate America from Israel. And if Trump had any kind of mental wear with all, he would understand that the Hasbullah is his leverage through Israel against Iran. He would be using, he would be backing to the hilt. What Israel is doing to Iran to let to a Hasbullah in Lebanon, not just because of Israel. And this is a terrible thing that's coming out from JD Vance and all those people. But this is war is only being fought for Israel. It's ludicrous, ludicrous. The war against Iran is a war for America and the West. Israel is its principal, well, not defender, but sort of a point of attack, but by which America can attack Iran. It's a resource, a military resource, a priceless military resource that America has. And instead America has thrown it away. It's blaming it and it's stopping it. It's stopping it from hitting Hasbullah, which will hurt Iran. In order that Iran should stay in Switzerland and negotiate a deal which gives Iran everything, this is crazy, this is crazy. So I mean, this war has to be fought properly. I don't know whether it would be able to succeed in a short space of time or whatever. Well, I do know is that if you are stopping the ally on which you depend, let's not mince words, Israeli boys have been dying for America. Israeli boys and girls are risking their lives for America, for the war to defend America and the West. And yet Americans like JD Vance are suggesting that the Israelis are just so ungrateful for what we've done for them. Excuse me, this is a war for the West. It cannot be lost. And what Trump has done so far by appearing to give Iran so much by descending from a great height on America's great ally, Israel, instead of using it against Iran, what he's done, which is appalling, is to diminish America in the eyes of the entire world as a force for defending civilization. People have now rightly concluded there is nothing that America, there's nothing that can make America risk its own people to defend itself. And therefore, it's open season. It's open season for all bad people. You say quite rightly, there is this infernal calibration of pain. Iran will take infinite pain. And consequently, that the West will always get a disadvantage. That is absolutely right. And it's the same argument with the Islamists beyond Iran. So Islamists will take-- I mean, this is what they say. We love death. You love life. We win. What are we supposed to say? The peeps, what are his name is, would say, well, that's right. So what do we do? Well, we have to take pain. And because we collectively in the West have so much-- we are strong. America, it's firepower is infinitely greater. So, but if we're not prepared to take pain, they win. It's simple as that. And that's what's happening. America is not prepared to take pain at all. The only pain is being suffered by the Israelis, losing boys and girls. OK, they didn't care about that. But America's not prepared to take pain. So Iran wins. America with its superior firepower takes pain. It's prepared to take pain in which I don't just mean losing its people. I mean, investing in the time it takes-- so if it takes a year, it takes 18 months, whatever. OK, this is something that we have to win. We're in it for the long term. Forget the midterms. We probably lost-- they probably lost the midterms anyway. Forget the midterms. We are defending civilization here. Brackets, they never made the case to the American people. He has never made the case to the American people. No idea what this is about. OK, so long way of saying-- long way round of saying, if you're not going to fight the Islamist war against the West, if you're not going to defend the West because you're going to say they have all the cards, then it's over. Then why are we even discussing this? Why are they even going to Switzerland? Just say, well, let's all have a nice life. And let's all be happy that they are going to get the bomb. It'll be no different from North Korea. We're all living with North Korea. That worked well as well. So either you do that. But if you go to war, you have to do it properly. It's not being done properly. In my view, it can still be pulled back. It can still be pulled back. And maybe Trump won't pull it back. I resisted Korea team for years because I assumed it was for people who spent three hours a day in the gym and refer to themselves in the third person. Turns out, Francis Foster was wrong on this one. The research on Korea team has moved way beyond the gym. For years, it was a preserve of bodybuilders and sprinters. But it turns out, Korea team is something your body makes naturally and uses as fuel. Not just for your muscles, but for your brain, your energy levels, your mood, your memory. The problem is that from your 40s onwards, your body produces less and less of it. And you feel it. The slower recovery, the afternoon fog, the sensor you're running on slightly less than you used to. Talk to anyone who actually knows this stuff, and they'll tell you the same thing. Not all creatine is equal. And most of it isn't doing what you think it is, the formula matters. Specifically, where it actually gets into your cells and activates once it's there. That's exactly what Kuala Kreatin Plus is built around. Two clinically studied forms of creatine, combined with electrolytes and sea salt, designed to solve the whole problem, not just half of it. I've just started taking it. And once you understand how the formulation works, you wonder why nobody built it this way sooner. Go to KualaLife.com/trick for 50% off and use a code trig for an extra 15% on top of that. That's Q, U, A, L, I, A, L, I, A, E, dot com/trick, code trig. Thanks to KualaLife for sponsoring this show. But Mel, what you're, when you say properly, it's a euphemism for putting boots on the ground. Yeah, it's necessary. Which, but it is necessary at this point, right? Because I don't know. Maybe, exposing America continued its blockade. Okay, I was reading, it was causing Iran incredible angst because they were running out of everything. Money, food, whatever. And that's why the pressure started coming on from Qatar and Pakistan, you must do the deal. Because those people don't, you know, Qatar and Pakistan are the proxies for Iran. So there was pain coming from Iran. They had to have, they had to have movement. So if there's pain, increase the pain, increase the pain. Well, if there was pain of the type we described, then that would be reflected in the negotiations. But the negotiations reflect the reality I would put it to you, which is the pain is disproportionately being felt by the West. Once you have negotiation, there is no pain that they have. Once you have negotiation, they've got you. What I'm saying is when in this negotiation, you're seeing which side is actually winning the war. And it's not America, it's not Israel. I'm saying by definition, once America goes into negotiation, they've lost. OK, so what, but here's the problem though, what you're really advocating ultimately for is boots on the ground. The game theory of this is the moment you put boots on the ground, they up the level of violence. They start destroying your allies in the Middle East. And if you, then you need to put more boots on the ground on the actual Iranian coastline, you've got these giant mountains. And you're now in a, in a massive war of the exactly the type that Russia is stuck in in Ukraine, where you've got a powerful country fighting against a smaller, but also powerful country. And it's a giant bloodbath for years, which by the way, will still end in a negotiation. That's what's going to happen in Ukraine. With that? There's not going to be Ukraine and flag flying over the Kremlin. And I don't think there's going to be a Russian flag flying over the Kiev either. OK, but this is like JD Vance saying, is it heard last year? All wars and the negotiations. That's not true. I mean, hello. But, but Melanie, but what you're saying, then, is you effectively want what happened to Nazi Germany and World War II, what happened to Japan, because there's no other way to do this. Yes. OK, correct. So you want Iran to be bombed into the ground? Not necessarily bombed. I'm neutralized. If it can be done through, you know, economic starvation. It can't. No, hang on. By itself, no, as we, as we have constantly been told, in order to get rid of the regime, there has to be boots on the ground. The Iranian people, despite the fact that Trump said, if we're on the streets, and that was terrible, what happened then? That was also unforgivable. Yeah. They have to be armed. And the IRGC had to be very much more weakened, right? So, but basically, to get rid of the regime, you have to have an uprising from the people. You have a some, some boots somewhere. So you may need some American boots on the ground, but you, you, you have to use these things, like on a minute, again, I'm not a military person. I don't know how much would be, how much would necessitate boots on the ground, how much would be brought about by economic leverage, how much we brought about by, by, by bombing. I, I can't tell all those things. All I know is you have to have the, the, um, the appreciation of what is required, of what the stakes are, and what you are, what you are, and what, what your aim is, and you have to follow that through in some way, which has not been done because President Trump's, who knows what's in this man's mind, but as far as I can see, what was in his mind was, was something much faster that he thought, you know, he thought he would bring a round down, he'd bring the regime to its knees and so on, because by conventional, and by conventional standards, he did. Nobody in the administration seems to have the faintest idea of what they're dealing with. They haven't got the faintest idea of the ideology that they're dealing with. I mean, well, I read these remarks by JD Vance. I, I mean, I can't believe that I'm reading the Vice President of the United States, saying something so stupid. He is saying, you know, I'm, I'm, first of all, Trump is saying, it's a different regime, the regime has changed. These guys are really nice guys, excuse me. I mean, this is ridiculous. JD Vance says, you know, you know, we're, we're, you know, if they, if they come on board, we're going to give them money, and then they're going to invest that money in American farmers, they're going to buy American farm produce with the money we will release them. What? We wanted to make sure that we set up a process where if, if we ever unfreeze Iranian assets, we can ensure that those, that that money, that Iranian money, goes to help the people of Iran and not to fund terrorism. So, Jared Kushner actually came up with a, with a very interesting solution with the Qataris, where basically, again, if there is any frozen Iranian assets that are unfrozen, Then we have approval over that process. process, the Qataris have approval over that process, and then the money would actually go to buy American soy, American corn, and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people. And if Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they're going to go to make American farmers richer and to feed the Iranian people. That's a very, very good and very classic Trump deal that's great for our people, great for the people of Iran, and fundamentally again, will contribute to this regional security architecture that we've built, and that we're going to work very hard to ensure that it endures. What are they talking about? They seem to have no idea that what they're dealing with is apocalyptic messianists who believe that if they bring about the apocalypse on Earth, they will bring into being the Shia Messiah, the 12th Imam. That's what they believe, and they're negotiating with these people? What do they think they're negotiating? The negotiation means, from the Iranian point of view, we're just using this as another tool, so they have no idea what they're dealing with. They seem to have no memory of the, to me, infamous JCPOA negotiations which led to the JCPOA, the nuclear deal broken by Obama in 2015. I remember those negotiations. I remember what the West was saying. I remember what the British Foreign Secretary at the time said to me, we're stopping them getting the bomb, and I said, but it's written in the Sunset Clause, they will get the bomb, you are giving them the bomb, no, no, they're not going to get the bomb. It's like, whoa, I mean, there it is, they're giving them the bomb after what it is 12 years, 15 years, and we're being told they're not going to get the bomb. I'm hearing the same thing with Trump, we've won, they've surrendered, and so we're negotiating, it's ridiculous. So yes, I do see it as like Nazi Germany and Japan, I do see it like that. It has to be a proper defeat, which would be complicated, difficult, costly, and take time, but if you don't have the mental, psychological, political resilience to follow through, then it's worse than useless because what's happened, when I say worse than useless, what's happened is America's advertised its impotence, and does thus potentially emboldened all the bad guys in the world, China, Russia, North Korea, and all the Islamists all lined up. They can all see America as a paper tiger, it's not going to do anything, even with this crazy guy Trump who bombed Iran, he's not going to follow through, have terribly, terribly dangerous for everybody in the West. So the stakes have been, I might have, you've got much, much higher. The problem is as well, Melanie, is we're talking about America, look, the American population, not wanting boots on the ground. Correct. And you said Trump didn't explain it to them. I think the real issue is as well, it's just one of geography. For Israel, geographically, existential, for obvious reasons, but when you're in America, let's say you're in California and you're on the Pacific, I believe it seems a very long way away. Of course, and it's always was the case in Britain, not so much now, but when I was younger, I recall people, you know, a general view about America, which was very, very disabliging, we remember collectively, we remember how slow they were to come on board in the First World War and the Second World War. And then they came on, like conquering heroes in the Second World War and said, we want it. And our boys and girls were dying. And they couldn't give us, they couldn't care less, because as exactly as you're saying, there is this isolationist tendency, it's always been in America, it's so enormous. They think they're invulnerable, they think they're a world in time unto themselves. You can kind of understand it. And it's only when something really cataclysmic happens to them, Pearl Harbor. Without Pearl Harbor, they wouldn't have gone involved at all. Or it would have been left to the tender mercies of 9/11. They woke up and then they went back to sleep again because of the apparent disasters of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iraq War. So we could understand why they retreated. But since then, any responsible president would have told them, if you're going to war, it's no small thing to put it mildly. And you have to prepare your people. You have to take your people with you. You have to tell them why this is America's war. Why is it America's war? This Iran declared war on America in 1979 and has waged war ever since it has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans. What more evidence does anybody need? It says death to America, it means it. It is trying to build intercontinental ballistic missiles, which would be tipped with, even if it was not tipped with nuclear weapons, which could reach America. It's already, they already almost reached Diego Garcia, we saw. They're almost there. They're not building intercontinental ballistic missiles because they want to hit Israel. People don't believe that they think they can destroy America, because they know that America won't fight. That's why they think they can destroy it, but they're building the armory. That's what I mean, it's just what I mean, what more does America need? But Americans have never been told this. If Americans have lost hundreds and hundreds of their service people, they've been totally humiliated. The taking of the Iranian hostages, Iran's taking of the hostages, which was the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency, it's all there in their immediate past history, but a response or president would have pulled this together and said, "Because circumstances have now become as they are, we now think through our intelligence and through our allies intelligence, our Israel, that they are within spitting distance of getting a nuclear weapon and even more important. They are about to have the capacity through missile production, which means that we could never stop getting a nuclear weapon. So we now judge this is the moment when we have to act, because they are not just a threat to us. They have been at war with us for more than four decades. That's what he should have said. But isn't the problem, we go back 23 years to 2003, WMD, where essentially the American public felt and they were right, that they were light. And once that happened, that has a demanding effect on politics, on public discourse. Agreed. Agreed. I have a different view about the Iraq war. I'm probably the last person on earth to think that it was a correct war to fight, and that if it hadn't been fought, we'd have now Saddam the same as a nuclear power. But anyway, and also I believe that there were WMD, and I believe that American incompetence lost them. It lost them and it couldn't admit it. But that's neither here nor there. What you're saying is correct. It was a debacle. Americans believed that they had fought it for nothing, and that it was a terrible mistake. It was hubris and nemesis. The hubris was to say, we'll bring democracy to the Middle East and then everything is going to be great. I would argue, sorry to interrupt, Melanie, that it's worse than that. When you talk to a lot of Americans, they go, we would like to. I know they were like, they were, they were, they were like to, and Britain believes, you know, Blair lied, people died. I know, I know that's a belief, it's absolutely corrosive. Okay. So they're what follows. So we'll never be involved in the Middle East ever again. That's really smart. So then the Middle East says, okay, we can take them out now. I mean, what are they talking about? I agree with you. This is the problem. It requires political leadership. It requires statesmanship to say, okay, then now there is this problem that we have inherited from 2003, the debacle, but we are up against an Islamist world which intends to conquer us because it understands our weaknesses and it will not stop. It will not stop. It thinks it's on the cusp of winning against us. And it's doing it in all kinds of different ways, but this is one of the ways it's doing it. And so we have, as the president of America, I have to tell people, this is what we're facing. This is statesmanship. This is leadership. I mean, hello, does nobody remember what this is anymore? Are people saying that's simply impossible? In which case? I mean, I would argue that one of the problems is, we don't have that caliber of politician. Let's just be honest about it. That's no reason to say we shouldn't have them. I mean, we should be demanding that we do have them. You get the politicians you deserve, Melanie. We also need to take responsibility, both the British, British and the American public. I agree. You get the politicians you deserve. Well, yes, but they're against a council despair. OK, I agree with you. We get the politicians we deserve. The society is going to hell on our handcart. We have rubbish politicians because it's a rubbish society. Great. What do we do now then? Say, oh, let's go and have a beer? What are you talking about? We have to change it. We have to protest. We have to demand. We have to say, wake up. These people's understanding of Western civilization comes filtered through other people's interpretations of it. That is fine. Up to a point, but it is not the same as going to the source. And the source, as it turns out, is freely available. Hillsdale College runs a free online course called Great Books 101 Ancient to Medieval. It is taught by actual Hillsdale professors, and it takes you to Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, Augustine, Dante and Chorsa, not as a cultural tourism exercise, but as a genuine introduction to the arguments these works were written to make, and why these arguments still hold. You, the trigonometry audience, are not generally the type to accept a summary in place of the real thing. The same logic applies to the books that built the West. If you want to understand what Homer actually argued, or why Augustine's thinking still underpins half of Western political philosophy, you should read them not illistical about them. This course is the right place to start. Because knowing that Hillsdale is releasing a full course on Homer's Odyssey this July, Great Books 101 is a natural place to start before that lands. Go to Hillsdale.edu/trigger to enroll. It's totally free. That's Hillsdale.edu/trigger. Look, Mel, you know how much I respect you. We've had on you on the show many times. But the floor in everything that you are saying that I see, and I mean this with all sincerity and respect at the same time, is the moment I present to you the military reality as described by someone who is a military expert like Robert Pape, you say, well, I'm not a military expert, but ultimately what this comes down to is it's clear from this conflict, and it's clear from people like Robert Pape's analysis anyway, prior to this conflict, which is why they were so against it at the beginning, is that the only way to win this war was always going to be the Nazi Germany, the countries in Rubens scenario, because you can't remove the regime by bombing from there. As you correctly said, and this is one of the things that, you know, I think President Trump has done some very, very good things for America and the world, actually. But on this issue, I'm horrified, telling Iranians to rise up, and then the cavalry doesn't arrive. Terrible. It's a terrible thing to happen. Great. The reason all of these things are happening, as I am most persuaded by, I can only give you my logic based on the conversations we've had at this time, is that there was no way of overthrowing the regime by bombing, the people rising up, and even if they were somewhat armed, also extremely unlikely. And so ultimately, you would end up putting boots on the ground, that escalates, and you are in a full-scale 10-year war that ends inevitably like Vietnam, right? Now, the other factor here is we're not in the position even that we were in in 2003. The debt that our countries are all running is such that we basically can't afford the standards of living we currently have. And so in a democratic society, none of these things are sustainable. And therefore, I mean it again with all respect. You strike me as being a bit utopian here, which is very unlike Melanie, the Melanie Phillips I know and love. Well, it was utopian to think we should have, you know, fought the Nazis. People said it, this is ridiculous, you can't do it. But anyway, listen, the original war aims were not regime change. I mean, certainly as far as the Israelis are concerned and certainly President Trump never said regime change. What were the goals? The Israeli said it would be very nice if we weakened Iran to such an extent that the people then could do this. And we think we can, we think we can. But our immediate goal is to neutralize the, the nuclear threat completely and to neutralize the ballistic threat completely, right? Now, they got part of the way with both of those things. They didn't finish it. It didn't finish it. And also the proxies. The proxies. People would argue they didn't finish it because you can't. You can't do it from there. I mean, the US own assessment is the missile program is still largely intact because you can't do it from the air. And that's why you need boots on the ground and that's why you get escalation and that's why you get into a trap. Hence, look, the difference with Nazi Germany was that this was a regime that was aggressively expanding into our backyard it was destroying our allies right here. And Britain held out long enough for a Hitler to do something very stupid, which has invaded the Soviet Union. There may be good reasons for why it did it actually in terms of, it was about to be invaded himself and for the US to get involved in the war. And Britain's heroic stand during the Battle of Britain is what allowed the rest of the Western world to come together and defeat them. But the question always was, in this situation, do we have the appetite to do what we did in World War II in the sense that's right. And I don't think that it's just an equal comparison because let's be honest, for all of us in the West, this is very, very far away. Oh dear, it's not, of course it's far away, that's the problem, isn't it? It's far away. There are Iranians in London, in Britain, who are threatening and making plots, which are security, it's a British security service, is busily trying to get on top of. They're here, they're in Britain, they're in America, they've tried to kill President Trump twice, they tried to kill John Bolton and Mike Mike Pompeo. They are waging war now, they're not far away. And they're making sure through their ballistic missile program that, we're trying to make sure that they are not far away in terms of military capacity, but I mean, I have a different perspective because I live mainly in Israel. And the Israelis have said throughout that they were, well, the impression they have given me, certainly, is that with America behind them, or at the very least, not stopping them, they could achieve this, not regime change. They could achieve the permanent defeat of Iran as a threat, a military threat. But they haven't finished the job, they've left it half done, or three quarters done. You don't leave a war, three quarters done, but the fact is they can achieve, they think what they're doing. Now, you've talked to people in your, on your show, and there is no shortage of people saying the kind of things that you've been talking about, but there's also no shortage of military people saying the opposite. Well, I'm not a military expert, I can't tell. Well, I do know is that it's a council of despair to say, and to sure fight defeat for Western civilization to say this thing is just too big for us. Let me give you counter-argument, which is the Russians are basically doing all the exact same things in Britain. They're poisoning people on our streets, they're killing British citizens, they've done all this, and we've been very cowardly about it nonetheless. But no one is calling for us to, you know, bomb Russian to the ground, even though they've invaded Ukraine, right? Because we recognize their reality that Russia has a nuclear weapon, and that means that it. That's right. If you like it, like it. It's a nuclear. Of course. But the Shreya of Amur's effectively has turned out to be Iran's nuclear weapon, that they have wielded against the West so powerfully that we don't have a counter that we're prepared to use. But we do. Which is what? It's on the ground. We do. Which leads to escalation. You block the Iranian ports. But you're cutting off your own legs. You use their weapons against them. But they're prepared to take the pen and we aren't. Well, they are and they aren't. They are in the sense that they're prepared ultimately, I believe, to sacrifice the entire country and themselves, because they're bringing about whatever. But they also want to defeat America, and so they want to be able to continue to. They want to be able to continue in order to continue to do that. So the blockade weapon was having an effect, they're not going to say, well, it's. [BLANK_AUDIO] It's our role on this earth to all basically get exterminated and so we don't care anymore. I mean, they are in the business of trying to destroy America in the West. That's what they intend to do. So I think that the American weapons of leverage are not to be sneezed at. It all boils down to the will to do it, which isn't there. So if the will to do it isn't there, then Iran wins. Coming back to the Israelis, they are always in the business of mowing the lawn as I say. And the only reason they've done that is because the world has always stopped them from doing what they needed to do, always. In every single, after every single war, the world has made Israel snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And that is just the fact, the pressure put on Israel by America through even friendly presidents is always more or less intense. But basically Israel cannot be allowed to get in the way of America's perception of its own foreign policy interests or national interests. So that's, I think, something to bear in mind. But as I say, living in Israel, you get a very, very different perspective because Israel is on the permanent attack from Iran. This at the moment through Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Israelis are, despite the catastrophe of October 7, where the entire political and military upper echelons of Israel got it so terribly, terribly wrong, their analysis was so flawed, but that's another story. But nevertheless, they are to put it mildly battle-hardened. But they have always been confident that they can literally bring Iran to its knees, the regime, if they're allowed to do so. And instead of using that as the great weapon, and the Israelis are prepared to lay down their lives for this, and Americans are not. Okay, Israelis will do that, but they have to be allowed to do it. And they're not. So this, to me, is not just defeatism. It's more kind of suicidal. Well, you say that, Melanie, but isn't, I mean, look, what you say makes perfect sense from an Israeli perspective, makes perfect sense. And if I were Israeli or the Israeli Prime Minister, that's how I'd be thinking. But this is not a wall for Israel. Well, hold on a second. This is a wall for America and the West. I know you say that, but what I'm trying to. It's true. Melanie, let me just explain what I'm saying, because you've got to separate the three things, right? You're saying the West doesn't allow Israel to. America doesn't allow Israel to do what it needs to do, which is true, objectively true. From an Israeli perspective, it doesn't allow Israel to do what Israel needs to do. But it's not random, it's not by accident. The reason that Trump, in this instance, is gone to negotiations is he was always on the clock, he's discovered that he put himself in an escalation trap in which America is not prepared to bear the pain that it would require to quote you to let Israel do what Israel needs to do. And there are a lot of people in America who might say, "Well, we understand that Israel needs to do this." And we were happy for Israel to do what Israel wants to do, but we're not prepared to pay the cost of that because on a rational calculation, it is not worth it to us. And I'll be honest with you, if I was sitting on a porch of my nice house in Ohio, I would struggle to be persuaded by your argument. I really would. And that's why I think a lot of Americans are. Because on your porch and in Ohio, you would have no idea why it was important for America. You would have no idea this is actually a war for the free world. You would think it was simply a war for Israel, or I'm not saying it's a war for Israel at all. I'm saying Israel is the great military resource for America. To achieve what? To achieve defense against a regime that intends to take it out. But Iran, even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't be able to take out America. No, okay, if Iran were to attack America, America would destroy Iran in a day. Yeah. Okay. But does anyone really want that to happen? No. Well, what I'm saying is from an American perspective, the calculation might be even, as unpleasant as it is, and I don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, it will tolerate Iran having nuclear weapons over having to flatten the entire country to get rid of this regime. Well, if it's prepared to tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon, it has no idea what it's dealing with, because it's not North Korea, it is not Russia, bad as they are, and polarizing as they are, as we can all see, because the world can't do anything. Neither of them is an apocalyptic messionic regime, which will use these weapons to destroy the West. Now, people in Britain, I can see your faces. You don't believe it. Believe it. Believe it. That's what they are. And Americans do not understand that. The British certainly, they have no idea about it. I first said this on National Television in 2013, and there was uproar in the studio. Nobody can believe it. And that's why we are where we are. People think, "Oh, negotiation." And they give you bit, and you give them a bit, and then everybody goes home. You're not dealing with Russia, you're bad as it is. You're not dealing with North Korea terrible as it is. You're not dealing with China terrible as it is. You're dealing with something different. There will be people watching this, and look, I have a lot of empathy for your position who say, "Is there a reason that you're saying this because you're terrified of Iran having a nuclear weapon because it threats that it presents to Israel more directly?" That's because I'm a Jew, and everybody will say, "And she lives in Israel." And so, I mean, this is the JD Vance. This is the Groypers. This is Tucker Carlson, that the Jews only behave as they do in their own interests and put the rest of us at risk. This is. I'm not saying you're saying that. But this is the argument that it's coming. No, this isn't. No, no, no, no, no. This is not fair. No, it is fair. No, it's not. This isn't fair. We're talking about states, right? It's perfectly rational for the state of Israel to pursue a foreign and military policy that benefits the state of Israel. And it is. And there's nothing wrong with that. What people are saying is, it's not necessarily the case that the interests of Israel and the interests of other Western countries are always alike. Of course not. And so, what I think Francis is saying in this instance is that the argument that an Israeli would see it, or you say yourself, "I live in Israel, I see it from a different perspective." Of course you do. And that's perfectly rational for an Israeli to think. But I think this alliance is being stressed by the fact that the interests are not perfectly aligned. And I think that's natural in any alliance. And sometimes you come to a point where the needs and preferences of the two countries are not the same. And so, when Iran closes the strait of almost, that hurts America and President Trump as an individual far more than it hurts BB Netanyahu on the state of Israel. And so, for America and President Trump to sustain that damage, to their reputation, to their political prospects, to all sorts of other things, in order to benefit Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel. That's the problem. That's where you're falling into the trap. It's not to benefit Benjamin Netanyahu. It's to benefit the issue of the strait of whole moves is that it gives Iran a weapon against the West, which is what it's fighting. You don't appreciate, you don't seem to appreciate, that it is a war against America and the West in which Israel is a very crucial element for Iran. And for America, Iran perceives correctly that Israel is the greatest threat to it because it knows that Israel will use its massive far power against it, given half the chance. So, it's very frightened of Israel and it will not do anything to promote, to provoke Israel hitting it. Okay? And it is undoubtedly in Israel's interests, for obvious reasons, to have what to defeat, an enemy which threatens to wipe it off the map. We're all in agreement about that. But my point is that as a result of that, people can't see beyond the Israel thing and they can't see that Israel is the essential weapon for the defense of America and the free world against Iran. They can't see it that way around. They get hung up on the fact that, you know, It's the straight-of-hall moose issue doesn't hurt Israel. It hurts America. Well, actually, it doesn't hurt America as much as it hurts Europe, but that perhaps one side. So, it doesn't hurt Netanyahu. So, of course, Israel is not bothered. But the straight-of-hall moose is a weapon by Iran against the free world. It's not against Israel. It's against America. But they're using that weapon because of a war that is being fought partly for Israel. No, it's not being fought partly for Israel. It's being fought for Israel because if Israel were to go down, America is next. America sees Israel as its indispensable, forward salient. It's unsinkable aircraft carriers, how they describe it. Israel is essential to the defense of America and the free world. That's why America is interested in saving Israel, not because they love Jews. Many of them do not love Jews as we are increasingly seeing. It's in the American national interest that Israel remains in existence and able to fight, because it's fighting for itself, of course. But if Israel were heaven forbid to be obliterated, America is then undefended in the Middle East, and America is next. We have an Islamist war being waged against the free world in very many non-kinetic ways, in terms of cultural, whatever, fine. But also in kinetic ways, and the Iran is the tip of that sinitar, as it were. And it's just awful to me that people just get so hung up on this idea that it's all about Israel. To a certain extent, it is all about Israel because if Israel were not to be there, America is next. America depends on Israel to defend itself. This war is being fought in defense of Israel for Israel's own purposes, of course, to prevent itself from being annihilated. But if Israel were annihilated, America is next, and that's why America defends Israel. That's the only reason America defends Israel. I thought quite true because Evangelical Christians love Israel for biblical reasons. But nevertheless, it's perceived to be an America's national interest. It's essential that Israel continues to exist. It's that way around. And so, yes, of course, the interests of Israel don't completely correspond to the interests of America. No one's interests completely correspond. I mean, the allies in the Second World War. They're very much not the same as you. But they all basically had one interest, which was to defeat Nazi Germany. Right, it's the same thing. It should be the same thing. Hmm. I think the other challenge that Israel faces is the public perception challenge, particularly amongst young people, particularly in America. So, absolutely right. Absolutely right. Well, this is, I mean, this is in large measure. There are many things contributing to that. But in large measure, it's the way in which Israel has been framed presently, I mean, by by being saying framed, presented over the last several decades by the entire establishment that creates a cultural consensus. And the opposing view has not been advanced. Why hasn't it been advanced? A lot of that is to do with the truly pathetic nature of Israel in trying to put its case across. It doesn't. It doesn't for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't. And Jewish communities in the West have not put it either. Partly because they're frightened. They've always been frightened. And partly because they themselves are ignorant or signed up to ideologies that hate Israel. But basically, you have a whole apparatus which is the apparatus which passes for conscience now in the West. You know, this is basically a, okay, America's religious still. But nevertheless, in Europe, in particular, Britain and Europe, you know, it's these are post-religious societies. And the nearest thing you have to morality and conscience is the whole humanitarian human rights establishment. UN, United Nations, which stands for peace and justice. And all its satellite bodies and its courts and the international criminal court and the international court of justice. And the European Court of Human Rights and the whole human rights establishment and the great NGOs who stand for compassion, delivering aid to the oppressed, standing up for the oppressed, amnesty, human rights watch, oxfans, save the children. You know, it's sort of, it's almost a sort of no-brainer. It's axiomatic. If you are, you know, the sort of middle-aged or elderly grey-haired lady who has been cartied off from Palestine action support demonstrations. You can see it in their faces. I mean, they're upstanding their church wardens. This is conscience. They've been taught as a matter of conscience that Israel is diabolically evil. So the support of the destruction of Israel and the hatred of Israel and Israelis as diabolical, demonic, is now what passes for conscience in the West. This is the terrible, terrible reality we're up against. And there is nobody in public life, apart from, you know, heroic individuals or podcasts putting the case. There is nobody actually to say, um, this is completely monstrous. This is completely monstrous. This whole thing is based on a set of lies. You know, there's rampant anti-Semitism we can see. Jews are being murdered. Jews are being attacked in Britain elsewhere. There has not been a single politician to stand up and say, this whole thing that is gripping the West against Israel and the Jews is based on a lie. And this is the lie. They won't say it. Marco Rubio has come very close, actually. He has come very close, but he's constrained by the fact he's, you know, he's, he's, yes, but he has come close. But I mean, who in Britain thinks about Roman Marco Rubio? He's only, you know, a dreadful, trumpist, licks battle, whatever. He's part of the, you know, the axis of genocide, doesn't he? I mean, you know, like, you know, but there's nobody in Britain saying it. Yeah. It's also Israel doesn't help itself. Oh, and you know, for instance, Ben, having Ben Gavir and some of the things that he says to get Ben Gavir, this goes back decades. They will not make the case. But I'm saying the likes of having Ben Gavir. It doesn't help. It doesn't help because people can just easily go, this is what he said on a speech. How can you possibly defend it? And then you read it and you go, it is in defense. Well, right. It's not that far of what the mullahs are saying, right? In terms of the way he says it. Can you explain to people, I mean, when we had Netanyahu on, we challenged him about this. Oh, yeah. And I'm aware that people like us who don't understand Israeli politics very well. We try and compare British parliamentary democracy to Israeli democracy. So we don't quite understand how people with very different views can be in the same cabinet, etc. But why do you have these, like, genuinely odious people in Netanyahu's cabinet? Because they're under, I'm afraid there are other genuinely odious people, also who are in the cabinet. Because Israel is a fundamentally politically, Israel is a political basket case. It is totally, politically dysfunctional. It depends on a system of proportional representation so extreme that it produces major dysfunction in that it produces coalitions in which every Prime Minister is absolutely dependent to gain power on awful people being with him, basically. And what they need is political reform. But it means that Netanyahu is dependent on a whole, if you forget Ben Gaveir and Smotrich, although they are different from each other, and they always class together, but they are different. He's dependent on the ultra-religious, and this is another discussion. But the ultra-religious have him over a barrel. Because if they were to walk out, he is finished. I'm not sure about Ben Gaveir and Smotras, I mean, the whole thing is so arcane in terms of numbers, but, you know, certainly the people that he always depends on are the ultra-orthodox, the ultra-religious. And to put it mildly, they do not appeal to the vast majority of Israelis, not least because they refuse to allow their own boys to be drafted into the army. And can you imagine? I mean, people are losing their sons and their daughters. and these people are refusing to serve. and the Prime Minister refuses to act against them. So there are other examples that I could bring of a severe dysfunctionality in which all kinds of people, people with all kinds of noxious agendas are in government. Now, it is, it's just like Israel is a scapegoat for the world. So, you know, the bengavirs and smot riches are the scapegoat, because they're not running the policy. What people object to is, what people are objecting to is Jewish power. They object to the fact that Israel is powerful. They don't think it should be powerful. They just don't, they simply-- I think there are definitely some people who object to Israel be unpowerful, but there's also some people who just look at a senior minister and a government saying these horrific things. But they don't know anything else. That's all they see. Why do they all see? Because that's what I'm afraid the Israeli media bring out. I don't know if that's fair, Melanie. I mean, look, if someone in the British cabinet was saying those same things or in the American administration saying those things, people would be horrified and there would be rightly, I think, asking how come this person is there? Still there, saying these things over and over. And, you know, Smotroche and Ben Gavir, I mean, they take a delight clearly. Ben Gavir takes a delight at least in saying all these horrific things, taking these, you know, obnoxious photos, opportunities, etc. I think, you know, there's some very normal sensible people who look at that and are horrified without fearing Jewish power or Israeli power. I think it's that to dam the whole of Israel and the whole of the Israeli government that everything the Israeli government is doing and Jews who support Israel. I'll tell you why because, I mean, is that really rational? There are some people who are just anti-Semitic, of course, there are there some people who are anti-Israel, of course there. But there's also some people who, like I said, if during the middle of the Iraq war, the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom stood up and said we need to wipe Iraqis out as a tribe or something like that. There are a lot of people who are not anti-British, who would be like, well, what the fuck is going on here? Well, yes, but again, it's decontextualized. I mean, I mean, Ben Gavir is, you know, he's a flamethrower. Terrible. But what people always ignore is that the people he's talking about are determined to eradicate Israel. Nobody ever mentions that. If somebody in the British government cabinet were to say exterminate these people, everybody would say that's how can they possibly have that person in the cabinet? If somebody were to say exterminate them because they are trying to exterminate us, everybody might say, well, that's terrible, that's extreme, but you can see he's driven to say that. By these circumstances, nobody ever puts this in context. Israel and its politicians are always, always presented in this country in Britain as aggressors, as people who don't care about human life, as people who will mow down the innocent, and the whole of Israel is defamed by this. I think you make a good point in that everybody in the West is sitting in the comfort of their own homes that are not being bombarded by missiles, that are not experiencing invasions like October 7th, etc. But I do think these far ultra-right people in the cabinet is as for reasonable people as a separate issue, which is I fully appreciate as much as anyone can with that actually living through it, that Israel is dealing with a horrific external threat, and I've said this before, if I was the Prime Minister of Israel, I'd hope I'd be as restrained as Benjamin Netanyahu October 7th. I don't know that I would be. Precisely, what happened? But that does not explain why you have these crazy people in the cabinet saying these things. Yes, yes, yes, yes, you're right, but you're wrong. Ok, that'll be the title of the episode. I mean, I'm old enough to remember, in 1982, Ben Gavir and Smotchrich were nothing, they weren't around, and out of the woodwork in Britain came the accusation that because the Israelis were trying to defend themselves, probably, I can't remember now, the details of that war in Lebanon, it's always a war in Lebanon, but they were trying to defend themselves against being exterminated by these people in Lebanon, or threatened with extermination, you're attacked, blown up. Suddenly, out of the woodwork, Israelis were called Nazis. In terms, there was no Smotchrich, there was no Ben Gavir, they were Israelis. It doesn't matter who's in like Israeli cabinet, there is a strong swell of feeling, which has been swelling and swelling and swelling in Britain and in the West, to defame and to cast Israel as uniquely a uniquely demonic force in the world. And that obtains as a view and has swelled as a view, regardless of who is the prime minister, regardless of who is in the cabinet, regardless of anything Israel is doing, if Israel tries to defend itself by killing the enemy, that's it, they're Nazis. So don't tell me that it's because of Ben Gavir and Smotch, loathsome as they may be, it's irrelevant. People in this country hate Israel because they have been taught lies, defamatory lies, which have poisoned the entire atmosphere and have basically made them lose their minds over the state of Israel. And that is a terribly serious situation, not just because of what it means in terms of policy towards Israel or attitudes towards Jews, but what it means about what's happened to the British mind, to the British mind that it can no longer distinguish in truth and lies, and that its sense of morality, its sense of conscience, has been linked to the extermination of a country for daring to defend itself. That is a terrible thing. I'm sure you would agree. Absolutely. Of course you would. Melanie, it's been a pleasure as always. Thank you for coming on the show and for having, you know, in modeling to the world a disagreement done in good faith. Final question is always the same. What's the one thing we're not talking about that we really should be? Oh my goodness, you didn't tell me that was coming. What's the one thing we should be talking about? You've been on the show about seventy-four times. I can't remember your thick questions. Is it? We're not talking about? Yes. Okay, they need to get back to Biblical religion. How's that? Sounds good. Yep, next installment. All right, head on over to TriggerPod.co.uk where Melanie is going to answer your questions. Melanie, can you please explain why prominent British journalists are so openly ignoring the mounting evidence of the behaviour of radical Islam? [Music]