#180 - Oil and water

Like Donald Trump is shitting his gossip fuck from him

because if they had have done ABCD, FG differently

and he had have made slightly different calls,

it could have been an eight, nine, or a tenet, you know.

Whereas you're at a seven

with the difference being Donald Trump's incompetence.

Hi, I'm Andy.

And I'm Roger.

And welcome to the middle

where we try to have thoughtful conversations

about awkward topics on our search to find the middle.

We're gonna give you last week's news today.

So it's just Logan, we should put up a t-shirt.

I am tonight announcing my candidacy.

Taylor Swift.

Look, my biggest issue with marriage

is that I think that it's fundamentally

flawed institution that is built on the oppression of women.

I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny.

Having truly rational conversations

about controversial issues is risky these days.

Hey, Roger.

Andy, how you doing?

Yeah, not too bad.

How do you think they're afforded

to fly the Artemis II rocket

with the cost of fuel at the moment?

I don't know.

It's when I was reading the,

whatever the blurb was on NASA though,

they had a lot of pride in the diversity of the crew.

I'm like, D.E.I. is still alive in NASA, right?

Like the first female to escape the Earth's orbit,

sorry, Sanchez or whoever the Katy Perry

went up on Bezos' thing,

whatever, what was that called again?

Blue, blue orbit, blue...

I want to see Blue Origin.

Blue horizon on it.

Some kind of blue thing.

But yeah, first female astronaut

and first brown astronaut,

woman, sorry, a person of color.

So there you go.

Just to be fair,

the so-called brown astronaut.

Okay, that was not on the official NASA blurb.

Okay, but the least qualified person on this mission

is actually like the white guy.

He's never been to space.

Oh, wow.

Where the rest of them have.

But yeah, it's...

Derek and NASA is responsible for that

blip in the fuel trading market.

Like they don't Trump gave them,

like, hey, just like got to buy all your fuel.

Like just before I announced this truth social tweet.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, yeah, it's interesting to see,

but I only can only assume that

whatever the rocket fuel that they need

is a very, very specific type of refinement

that there's not even really fuel as we know.

Pretty sure it's just the...

Shell.

Like the premium, you know, like ethanol.

Not the E10 stuff,

but they're just usually the premium stuff, don't they?

Well, speaking of, okay.

What's your mentality around the quality of petrol that you use?

Well, to be fair, I drive a 13-year-old Toyota Corolla.

There wasn't always a 13-year-old.

So did you...

Yeah, give it to me.

Like, what's the theory here?

You just...

No, I've always just gone like standard.

Like, I think it's a con.

I think even if there is some benefit

of like going premium,

even if there is a benefit,

it's almost certainly going to be overpriced

for that benefit.

Yeah, see.

Yeah, that's what I wanted you to admit.

Because I feel a little bit differently.

So I...

And I think it's because, growing up,

I had that luxury sports car

that physically required high octane.

So you actually had to feed it 95 and above,

because it had a turbo engine and a bunch of other things.

So I've been programmed to think that actually,

I tend to always get the...

I take the same approach as trying to find a bowl of wine

at a restaurant.

Give me your second cheapest bottle of wine, right?

That's kind of how I approach it.

I think that the 95,

and there are some tests actually,

that the 95 compared to the 91,

or, you know, the next best option,

gets you a little bit further as well.

So it's actually more...

You get actually a bit more out of the car.

So just to be clear,

you're not talking about the premium one.

You're talking about the basically just not E10, right?

Clear, you're not talking about whatever that...

They've all got like their own different brands,

but like the 98 kind of...

Yeah.

Or like the really high expensive one, right?

That's right.

So in New South Wales, you got three options, right?

91, 95, and 98.

Usually, there's three kind of options.

98 is super premium,

and 91 is the bargain basement, right?

And it might be E10 with the ethanol added,

but it may not be.

So I sometimes...

Yeah, well, sometimes the E10 and the E...

Whatever the... sorry, the 95 is like...

They're virtually...

Not just similar price, right?

In fact, I've even been like once and seen...

The E10 is more expensive, which...

Really?

Yeah, well, I assume it was some kind of...

Price of grain?

Like sequencing error where they hadn't adjusted one,

but they had adjusted the other.

But yeah, if it's two cents difference,

then you wouldn't get E10,

but I wouldn't pay like 30 cents more for...

No, there's never 30 cents more.

Well, whatever, right?

Yeah.

Anyway, there's...

Probably is now.

Well, actually, ironically,

at my local petrol station,

the only thing available in New South Wales

is actually the 91.

So there's all I've been able to find

for the last two weeks.

All right, so let's check back in,

because we talked about around some episodes ago,

but probably quite a lot has happened in the meantime.

Yeah.

I can't even remember what the conversation we had back then

was, it seems like E10 and E10.

Like many people we got distracted by the Epstein files.

Oh, and just on that,

you did see Pam Bondi is gone.

Well, I wouldn't say he's just the Epstein files

that haven't landed so well with Pam Bondi,

but anyway, or Pam Bondi for Easter eggs.

So what's your take? How's it gone?

How's this operation going for the US at the moment?

Yeah, I mean, all these...

How's it gone?

Well, I mean, if you just look at the facts

on the ground, I think that you can spin a case

through it going very well for the interests of...

Iraq.

America and Israel.

So I'll kind of give it the pro case first.

Very few.

So just to be clear, this is not your view,

this is just your China.

I'm trying to lay it out, because to be honest,

the view is obscured at the moment, right?

For many people, and myself included.

So the purpose of petrol prices?

Yeah, I mean, often too much ethanol.

But the pro case is that there's been hardly any,

you know, almost a rounding error of casualties

on the American side, okay?

They've...

Have their stated objectives of degrading Iran's military

and all these kind of things have been pretty much achieved, right?

So they have reduced their missile capacity,

they've hit out a lot of their manufacturing base,

they have to capitated probably three rounds

of the Iranian leadership at the moment.

And, you know, they've done it.

They've kind of destroyed the navy.

They've sunk so many boats, right?

And ships and everything.

And degraded a lot of the capacity of that.

So, yeah, in a way, right?

Like in a military sense.

It's been a success.

And they've done that without, like I said,

any casualties and have largely protected

the allies in the region of the Gulf state.

So they have helped a lot and made sure that most...

most of the missiles and ballistic kind of interference

have been intercepted and dealt with.

So from that side has been good, right?

And we have to remember that, you know,

Iran has shown the world exactly what it is

throughout the course of the last couple of years

and also throughout the course of this war,

attacking this and everything around the Gulf

and how they've treated their own civilians

and all this kind of stuff.

So from that side, I think you could make

a mount case that's going very well.

You sound a little bit like JD Vance or Marco Rubio

as though if you utter those words,

that it can actually be true.

Like...

Which parts?

Well, because none of that's true, right?

Like what you just said.

Like has not been a success, right?

No, no, but they're just...

From what I said, though, around the military side.

How was that nature?

But they haven't destroyed their capability

to hold the global economy to ransom.

So...

Or to threaten their neighboring...

No, there's not the state of goals.

States and countries, right?

Well, I don't know quite what the state of goals are

because there seems to be a different one every time

we hear from Mr. Butterstick over there.

But, you know, I think...

Like what's the measure of success, right?

The measure of success is not going into this.

Could not have been,

we will be happy if we can get a third

of their missile capability destroyed, right?

Like that will be a good success for us.

Where it makes no material difference

to their ability to threaten the things that matter to us, right?

Maybe if you're Israel,

the equation might be a little bit different

because they're at the end of the day,

like for them it's like existential, right?

But if you're the United States

and you're thinking,

well, let's get into this thing, right?

There's no way that...

You can't have a partial victory

or an almost there, right?

You need absolute complete annihilation

for this to have been a success.

And they are so far away from that

that it almost defaults to absolute,

like complete an utter failure, right?

And...

Well, do you have anything to back that up?

Well, have you been to the petrol station recently?

What does it have to do with...

Because that is the military capability of Iran?

Because the reason we are in the situation we're in

is because Iran retains the ability

to have the noose around the rest of the world's neck, right?

On this issue, right?

And if you're Donald Trump right now,

you can't be thinking this isn't a success.

Like, in terms of the military,

it's probably in the way that he thinks

every, like, his shit stinks beautifully, kind of thing.

But like...

I think you're definitely undercooking this, mate.

So all the things that I've read,

and again, this is just one side

of what success means is true.

So you said,

oh, I'll be happy if there's a third,

there's like credible sources

that over 80 percent

take a good eight.

The ballistic missile capability has been degraded, right?

Like, that is actually a good thing.

That's...

Okay, but they don't have regime change.

They don't have...

They didn't say that that was part of their view, right?

Well, I've kind of heard that.

And the other thing is,

if you're Israel, maybe that matters.

Okay, if you're Israel,

maybe it matters what...

Like, the strength and power of this massive neighbor

that basically thinks that your country

shouldn't exist anymore.

So maybe,

maybe if you're Benjamin Netanyahu

and you're considering this

and you're considering like,

this question,

it might be different.

It might be different conversation, right?

But if you're the United States,

how is it in your interests

to have poked the bear in this way

such that, like,

we are literally fucked.

Like, the global economy is fucked,

basically.

Because we're fucked.

The global economy is fucked,

because of this.

Yes.

The adaptations happening, right?

Like, if you think that

that is going to be a wise-scale thing

for an extended period of time,

like, that's just...

20% of the world's oil and gas

and all these other critical resources

come through this part of the world, right?

How can you possibly

say that this is a success?

That's just one dimension, right?

So that's what I'm saying.

You need to look at this

from all the different views.

Imagine I'm a voter in America.

What do I get out of this?

Why is this good for me?

It's a very good view.

Because, essentially,

you've got a country

that is very oppositional towards you,

shouting death to America,

over and over for the last,

God knows how many decades.

You've got teraproxies,

causing problems all over the world

and threatening you.

You have 90 to 90%

of oil being funded

at discounted rates

to one of your biggest competitors,

it is being China.

So you've got a bunch of things happening

and the fact that if they get

nuclear weapons,

they can hold even more ransom

to the and take up air time

for the geopolitics

that your country's proposing, right?

So there's a lot of things

that benefit them.

And I'm not convinced by any of that.

I'm just seeing the price of petrol

at the bazaar.

Well, then you're needed.

And you can say,

oh, yeah, well,

there's all these things now.

So you're a selfish idiot, then.

Like, the only way

this mate would have made sense, right?

Is if they now,

let's give Donald Trump his dues

for Venezuelan.

It was a very clean operation.

They got what they want,

they got the man,

they extracted him out.

And in fact,

that's probably what emboldened him

to do this one, right?

And that's the only way

this could have been a success.

Like, as in,

go in, get the itola,

you know,

regime change,

like popular uprising.

It's really quick operations

done like a week,

you know,

a couple of strategic bombs here and there.

I mean, a week's a bit rough.

Well, whatever, right?

And everything's back to normal, right?

That's the only scenario

with this approach,

this suite of tactics,

like,

it could have been a good call, right?

And everything else you've just mentioned,

like, sure,

like you might say in isolation,

this one thing,

this, this,

yeah, okay, they've like,

all right,

we've degraded certain capabilities

by X percent or whatever.

But like,

what about the second,

third, fourth round implications of this, right?

Like, what about the stability of that region?

Like, what about the Gulf states

who have a credible amount to lose from,

from this right?

So it's completely disrupted the equilibrium.

And if you can't completely destroy Iran,

do you think that they're not going to,

like, rebuild and restore?

Like, of course,

of course they are.

And they're going to be even more assertive, right?

And that's why now,

like, the Gulf states are saying,

like, you've got to finish the job

because you can't leave this fucking mess

on our doorstep.

And it is a fucking mess on their doorstep.

And the problem is,

they're not going to have the result to see it through.

So it's just creating this massive,

like, hot mess in this region.

Petrol prices,

fuel prices now,

like, you could argue on one level,

well, that's a very selfish way of looking at it.

Well,

not really because this is the own goal

we're talking about.

Again, if you're Israel,

it might be a different story.

But if you're an average voter in the US,

and certainly if you, you know,

in countries like Australia

and the rest of the world,

this is like a complete disaster.

No, I mean, I don't agree on that.

Well, I'd like to not,

I'd like to think that people have

a bit more resolve than that.

And to kind of understand

the trade-off that's happening.

And also, if anything,

the Gulf states have shown

greater support for the action

than what was anticipated

is bonded them together against Iran.

Like, look at what's actually happening.

Right.

When's the last time you've had

all the Gulf states,

and even people like

Qatar and others

that have been playing

both sides for a long time,

supporting the action.

And you might say,

oh, that's because they have to now

and all this...

That's not getting bombed.

They're getting...

There you go.

They're getting...

Can you say that again?

They're getting bombed.

Yeah, but...

Do you understand what's happening here?

Mate, roll in the dice on Iran.

Those odds are pretty good

that you're going to get

something better than what was there.

I don't know.

That's true.

I don't think that's true.

Kill 30,000 of your own citizens.

I think you can mount like

a humanitarian case.

But again,

I think you've got to come back to you

for your goal,

like you can have a goal

to trigger regime change

to change the situation.

Any number of...

You can have those objectives,

but it's certainly not

the best way to achieve this.

I didn't hear any...

any kind of suggestion

of what would be a better way,

bringing into the fold of nations.

I think history shows

that you can't force

regime change

from...

from without, right?

It has to become from within.

And every time

America has tried to do that,

it's completely failed, right?

Even Venezuela.

Would it be possible

to get the man?

But not the regime, right?

Yeah, but if you cut the head off...

How is it going to work?

Are they going to put boots

on the ground to do that?

No, they're not.

They're not going to have the

resolve to do that.

And if Donald Trump puts these

however many...

You know, these got circling

the region at the moment

on the ground?

Yeah, sure.

But for how long?

Like, what another...

Marga that's like completely

opposed to, you know,

forever wars.

Like, is this...

Are they going to...

Like, is this actually

what you as that

middle of the road

American voter wants?

I don't think so.

So...

I don't think people...

There'd be a large cohort of people

that understand that

if there's 30,000 people

that have their own statistics

that have been mowed down,

protesting the...

theocracy like this.

There's been...

putting them under the boot

for this long

and taking away rights

and pushing them backwards.

And if the president says

it helps on the way,

but actually,

you owe it to...

to do that.

Right, so I think that that's

also an angle here

that you can't forget

that people

are on a vast for help.

So, just to, like,

tease us out a bit, right?

So, I think,

if you said to me

that, like, hey,

like a quick,

easy kind of

low-hanging fruit,

get them while they're a little bit weak,

there's a popular

uprising as it is

that, you know, they're already

a little bit depleted.

Let's get them

while we have this

window of time now.

Let's go and go

go hard, go sharp,

go quickly.

And even if it's not

regime change,

even if it's some

version of just, like,

look, we'll just, you know,

to

billisate them somehow, right?

Like that,

that is

a calculus you can

genuinely, like,

have a conversation about, right?

You can't bring a

ideological

I'm against

all kinds of war,

like, against

to that, right?

Or I'm against

Donald Trump

in every scenario.

So, like, that's just,

I just not going to

support that.

So, if that's

kind of where you're coming from,

I don't disagree with that,

right?

But I think if even

Donald Trump knew where we

would be today, before he

pushed the button, if he knew

that we would be where we are

right now, there's

no way he would have

pushed the button.

No, that's not true.

That's not true.

You're not taking it

in any of the accounts

of actual real threat

as well, right?

Like, okay, maybe we should

start a bit further back.

Do you believe that

it is a reasonable

goal to prevent

around from achieving

a nuclear weapon?

Yeah, but that's,

that's not,

that's not,

do you think

that that's credible?

Because not everyone does.

Yeah, of course,

of course.

And look, I think

one of the problems

in this space, right, is

for one, there's

a lot of different things

going on, right?

Like, there's not a lot

of, like, clarity, right?

But I've just asked

our friend,

ChatGPT,

a question, right?

Because I think

one of the problems

in this space is, like,

to really have good instincts

about where this war

sits at, and like,

the progress,

whether it was good call,

not good call, whatever,

you actually kind of need

to know a lot of shit

about a lot of different things,

right?

And there will be people

who would spend their entire

career life-focusing

on this question,

and still would

not be short, right?

Yeah.

So, I asked our,

our good friend,

what do strategic analysts

say about the war

in terms of its success,

and whether it was

good call, right?

To tell me if there's

anything in this statement

that you would,

you'd disagree with.

A pretty fair read

of current commentary

is that analysts

are split into a few camps.

Some think the war

was a defensible call,

if the real objective

was to heavily degrade

Iran's missile,

drone, naval,

and nuclear capabilities.

Because there is evidence

those capabilities

have been damaged,

and even ratings

agencies like Fitch

are describing the

operations as having

reduced security threats.

Others think that even

if they were tactical gains,

the war is varying

towards strategic failure,

because Iran remains

able to retaliate.

The US lacks a clear exit

strategy,

and the conflict

may end up strengthening

hard liners,

rather than producing

a stable and state.

So, in some respects,

that's a pretty

almost a near enough

representation

of the conversation

we just had.

Well, I think I need

Lee.

And I think I paraphrased

that my view to

this is just the military

side right and

degradement.

So, I agree with that.

But can I just pin you

on the one thing?

Do you think this has gone

better or worse than

Donald Trump would have

anticipated before pressing

button?

Because I can't

believe you would say

that he would think

it's gone better,

or even on par.

So, if I channeled

Donald Trump,

I think that the

military side has gone

how he's wanted,

like obliteration

and a destruction

and all that.

I think that where

it hasn't gone,

and he's been

surprised, is that

they're still

limping on.

And they're not

coming to the table

to either surrender

or make a deal.

So, in that respect.

Don't you think

they're related, though,

in some respects?

Because the way I

would see that equation

is that because the

military side,

or like the actual,

like, okay, in terms

of, like, how did we

get the targets?

Did we, you know,

that we went after a

shore?

But actually, like,

Donald Trump

wouldn't have got

into the room saying,

I want you to get that.

I want you to get that.

I want you to get that.

He would have got in.

I just want you to, like,

fuck them over until they

come and meet me,

and I can, like, extract

all the stuff that I want

out of them, right?

That's what he

would have gone into the

room with, right?

Yeah, and look,

I mean, to some degree,

that has always

starting to happen.

Now, what is not,

I think what has

been a huge, maybe,

um, miscalculation

is just how far

the asymmetry reaches

when it comes to

the state of homeless

and how, um,

cheaply they can

disrupt the security

clearance or the security

areas of other

neighboring states.

So, so, what I mean

by that is that, from

what it sounds like,

some dude in a dinghy

with, like, a rocket

launcher can still

fuck over the,

the state of homeless,

right?

But see, this is not,

like, where this is,

and we, like,

we haven't even really

gone into the

incompetence of Donald

Trump and his

administration, unlike,

but this is no

different to the

Pyongyang

can get sold

with or without

nuclear weapons, right?

And that shouldn't

require any great

foresight to have,

no, there's,

worked out where we were

going to be,

mere weeks after.

It's neither,

it's neither the whole

picture, though, right?

Like, all the,

all the whole game, you know?

So, all I'm saying is,

yeah, I think that,

that was probably,

could have been better

prepared for, right?

And communicated,

and so on,

but that's just not Trump

style, right?

Um, and I guess it's

probably the difference

in someone who believes

that they can

bully their way

to a deal of some

sort, and dealing

with proper

theocrats, proper

like hardliners, right?

Like, and dealing

with jihadis,

and all these

kinds of things.

And it's probably

that is,

that that plays into

this, right?

That actually, you know,

you can cut the head off

the snake, but sometimes

there's two little

baby snake heads that

pop out, right?

And, and can you deal

with that?

Or not, you know,

obviously, Israel

understands that

a lot better than

probably, um,

Trump does, right?

All right.

So, I want to do

two more things.

I want to, first of all,

get you to outline your,

because I think you started

off with your pro-case,

so how to give your

chance to give your con-case,

um, because you triggered me

with your pro-case.

Um, and then I want to

react to some,

to a message you sent me,

uh, a week or two ago,

and come back to that

and, and see what, um,

because I think that's

you got triggered by, uh,

yeah, and by it.

So, let's get the, um,

now that I've had a moment

to calm down, um,

let, give me your, um,

warm heart up

with some con-case.

Yeah.

And this has all sorts

of mirror imaging,

imaging,

then, or alignment

with the Israel

and Gaza problem,

right?

Where, a similar thing,

you can absolutely dominate,

uh, an asymmetric war,

and from a military point of view,

you can crush them,

absolutely crush them,

right? And, and expose them.

No air defenses,

is flying,

loitering around,

and just taking out targets,

taking out individuals,

capability on shows amazing.

But, if you go further abroad,

and you look at the strategic priorities,

of safety in the region,

your own brand,

your ally network,

it's in tatters,

right?

So obviously, like,

take, he doesn't take a genius to realize

that there's real, real damage

to the alliance,

you know, the post-World War II alliance,

you know, that I think that,

as much as they talk about this axis of evil

and all this kind of stuff like that,

uh, America are losing their friends,

you know,

and no one's coming to help.

No one's helping.

I mean,

no one's doing anything.

NATO is not doing anything.

The UK is doing less than nothing, you know?

So I think that,

strategically,

the way the system works is through allies.

And through this kind of,

that's why they call it hard and soft influence.

And the USA's got plenty of hard influence,

and hard power.

But what about the soft power?

And how do you maintain that?

Right, and what kind of damage is done?

Now, pardon me,

says that the system will sweat it out,

and that's kind of one of the good parts of democracies

that you change, you know,

there's a new boss in town.

But, um,

another part of me is maybe not so sure.

So I think you can,

there's legitimately,

you can step back and say,

hey, there's a lot of,

um, there's a lot of own goals there.

And then, if you go a little bit outside of that,

and actually think about just the general global economy,

and it's back to your points,

that hey, like, um,

if you take out the moral aspects of what you should be doing,

or how you should be helping the Iranian people,

and you put all that to a side,

and yeah, people are going to be poorer.

There's going to be more conflict.

And as a result, you know,

what's that stat?

Whenever the GDP goes down,

a percentage point,

100,000 people die, right?

For various reasons around,

you know, poverty and other things like that,

and, uh, conflict and up, you know,

there's a bunch of things that could happen.

So yeah, that's all,

that's all the play as well.

Yeah, I mean, obviously,

I agree with all of that.

But again, like,

I can't, for me,

the critical question is like,

if Donald Trump knew this is

where we would be taking into account all of the above,

not just that did you,

you know, did you,

did the military operation land in the targets,

but the broader, you know,

whether it's that,

they've got like this rusted on group of people in control

in Iran that, you know,

are going to, you know,

to your point, you know,

the dinghy can hold a oil tanker

and the global liquid petroleum market to...

There's kind of a reason to do something as well, though.

Yeah, but, uh,

you know, one of the things from,

like the Iraq war, right?

I think you could, could have learnt,

is that sometimes stability

in whatever form it happens to be

and is, is better than instability.

And, um...

Which is the problem down the road?

Well, not necessarily.

Like, I can see the case for some sort of, you know, action.

But for, for whatever that action was going to be,

and that's for people more acquainted with the situation

and the various levers that could be pulled

and all of that than, than, than me.

But I think there's no way

that the man you want in control of that is, is Donald Trump.

I agree with that.

I agree with that.

And, like, you would want to do it with our lives.

And you would want to do it methodically.

And you would want to have a calculated,

like, it would have to be a calculated risk.

I don't think this has been a calculated risk.

This has just been a, you know.

Let's go. Let's have a crack, you know.

But wouldn't you say that about anything, right?

Like, there would be a more optimum way to do things.

But maybe, it can't be done.

Maybe the best way is the way that can be done.

We'll be like, you know, the crazy man doing it.

Okay. Every year in Australia,

we have a race,

a horse race called the Melbourne Cup.

And as antiquated as the sounds to our listeners

from other countries,

virtually every Australian,

above the age of 18,

and even some school-aged kids,

we'll have a bet of some description on the Melbourne Cup,

on a horse race,

when you have people who've never,

who don't bet on any other horse race,

any other time of the year.

But for that, once a year, they'll do that, right?

And there's a few ways you can bet on the Melbourne Cup.

One is you can pick the horse whose name,

you think sounds the best, right?

Or you've got a lucky number.

The other is you could just say,

I just have a rule of thumb.

I go for the favorite,

the second favorite,

or something like that, right?

But, you know, you want to,

you want to actually like,

if this were a war,

you want to be like going with the guy

who's actually like,

studying the form,

and you have some insight,

can actually make sense of

all of those numbers in the form guide

that tell you all these

weird and wonderful things about the horses.

Because on average, they're going to be

making better decisions than

the lucky number pickers

and the ones who like funny horse names kind of thing.

And I kind of feel like Donald Trump

is a funny horse name kind of guy, right?

He doesn't think very thoughtfully.

He doesn't take advice.

He surrounds himself with

useful idiots who just tell him that he's great and wonderful.

And that's not the recipe for success

with something as complex

and multifaceted as this.

And even just like,

yeah, okay, there's the decision to launch in.

Okay, yes.

That's a binary,

go, no, go decision.

But now there's also like,

really complex tactical decisions

that have to be made.

And he can't make this.

Well, I think he,

well, I don't mean tactical

in the military sense.

I mean, tactical in the geopolitical sense.

And he's,

and he's utterly inept to do that.

Well, and,

yeah, and we're failing as a result.

We don't know yet.

Like, I mean,

there's the other thing to say,

like, so you're going back to the question.

I think,

you asked me if Trump knew

everything that was going to happen.

And what do we week five?

Six?

I don't know.

If you knew everything was happening,

he would never take that.

He would never greenlight it now.

And I think that that,

I would agree with that

if we are 12 months in.

But not six weeks in, right?

We don't,

this is, this isn't such,

it's a blink of an eye.

Like, look at how long these conflicts go for.

This is,

well, that's a blink of an eye, right?

I think that's where your proposition fails.

Because I think Donald Trump never thought

that this would be

longer than a,

a few weeks, right?

I think he thought,

you said straight away

that it is going to be, you know,

like months, not days.

No, he's saying,

ah, it will be over

when I think it is,

when I fill it in my bones,

when, you know,

a few more weeks to go,

you know, like there's,

this is,

but then this is,

this is not like bacon or pie.

You know,

I know it's not,

but I think he thought it was.

I think he thought,

I think he thought,

this was like,

going to be a little bit like Venezuelan, right?

And it could be,

it could be more,

well,

but it's not in so many other ways

because,

and maybe again,

this is like a superficial

and, you know,

first world problem kind of way

of thinking about things,

but like already global oil markets

are fucked,

and they're going to be for some time,

like months and months,

because even if

the straight is reopened overnight

tomorrow,

there's already enough

that's happened

that it's going to have

tail risk,

like all the risk for,

like insurers are not

going to insure vessels

through the straight.

Production's been halted.

You've got all these

flying consequences, right?

And I just kind of feel like

Donald Trump would not have.

Because he's so vain,

if he knew that his popularity

would drop

to the kind of record

lows they're at now,

which I believe he's

more unpopular

than he's ever been

at any other time

of his presidency

in either era,

you know,

so he's more unpopular

than he has ever been,

right?

When he came off,

like to be fair,

it's not true, though.

It is, though.

It is.

He's approval rating

is lower than it has been

at any time

since he's ever been president.

You're reading

the man wrong,

okay?

He doesn't care about

those polls.

What he cares about

the TikToks

of Iranian people

doing the Trump dance.

He cares about

the Israelis flying the Trump flag

and having a Trump tower

in the middle of Tel Aviv.

I think he cares about

that stuff.

This is devotion.

This is like

God-like worship

from a select people.

I think he cares about

the war.

I think he cares about

that, but he cares about

the polls too,

because he wants

by that.

You know how enticing

it is to a man like Trump?

Yeah, but he wants

of Iranian people

doing the Trump dance.

Yeah, but there's,

there's,

it's the whole stuff

he cares about, right?

He cares about

everyone loving him.

He just writes

the other people off his

ideas.

Yeah, but there's

the kind of pathology

works.

But it's different

when you win the election

or, you know,

there are fewer

idiots than people

who voted for me.

But it turns out like

the idiots that voted

for him and our

minority, right?

So I kind of think

that's, um,

and it's all how it ends,

right?

That's all part of it.

All right.

Let's, let's,

let's move on to, um,

something you were triggered

by, I think.

Uh, you know,

you used last weeks.

So there's a series

of headlines, um,

and to be fair,

I don't know the date,

actually, I can,

I can try and find

the date.

You sent it to me

on the 10th of March.

So it's a little bit

out of date now

in terms of the headlines.

But I'm,

I'm just going to read

just for our listeners,

the, um,

the headlines,

because it was a,

it was a screenshot

that you kind of reacted

to in, and well,

I'll let you,

you can speak in your own

words,

how it made you feel.

But this is like

an ABC News

screenshot.

And the headlines are

opponents of

a round regime

where two weeks of

bombing has

backfire.

Trump says

war in a round

will be over

when I fill it

in my bones.

The US is no

longer directing

the war against

a round.

So let's,

I'll just pick those

three headlines.

There's a few others

in there.

And then,

I guess your comment

to me was,

the ABC headlines

so balanced at

shocking.

And then I,

you know, I think I

kind of said, well,

come on, this war

is a bit of a

clusterfuck.

Balance doesn't

mean that you have

to have some articles

saying it's a great war.

I'm not sure what

the balance we had

to find was.

Well, look,

it wasn't a nice

slated thing.

You know, I was just

seeing the headlines.

There's not one thing

as a counterbalance

to the positive,

the achievements

or the positive nature

or why perhaps

that this is,

this is in the suit

of liberation

of the Iranian people.

Right?

Or even, I mean,

we've totally forgotten

about the Israelis

as well, right?

They get,

they literally have

iron dome shooting

these missiles down

by proxies or around,

like constantly.

You know, so there's

a lot of things that I

think that aren't

giving the Australian

people a balanced view

of what's going on.

And as a result,

things get very warped

and the zeitgeist is

100% to get mixed up

to things.

And I think that a good

mental exercise

would be, you know,

if the Obama,

the Obama presidency

was doing exactly

the same thing.

Say the JCPOA broke

down and they had

to go into intervene

and the similar things.

They'd be gone,

oh, man,

how are they

doing this without

civilian casualties?

And they're, you

know, anyway.

So, you know what,

it's triggering to me

in the same way

that I felt about some

of the free Palestine

stuff.

You know, I just think

that sometimes

this is exactly what

the terrorists want.

Right?

This is exactly

what the jihadists want.

You know, it's part

of their strategy

in an asymmetric

war to lower

support for intervention

using media

and propaganda

and trying to leverage

community reactions

to degrade support

for any kind

of intervention.

And it feels like, you

know, we are playing

into their game

from all these angles.

And that's what just

really gets me.

Right?

When it comes to this stuff

that people have forgotten,

you know,

they're using their

strategy.

Oh, I think that's

a little bit offensive

in some respects.

So, like, it's kind of,

like, to kind of play

up that string of headlines

to being, like, the ABC

falling for some kind of

jihadist propaganda.

I think it's

legitimate reporting

on the actual

things that are going on.

And, and like,

The opinion headlines.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue

that there's not, like,

views expressed

in those headlines

because there are.

But, like,

there's no longer directing

the war against Iran

after they came

the way it's all

and the, and the,

make up.

But I think what's

fun and success for Iran.

This war has been a

great success for Iran.

Okay.

You'd have to click the

link and actually read

the article.

But let's just

limit ourselves

to analyzing the,

the headline, right?

And I've got no idea

what the actual article

says.

U.S. is no longer

directing the war against

Iran.

The point of that heading

is to say that they've

lost control of the

situation, which they have

because Iran is not

bending the needs

to the United States.

I'm just...

Okay.

They were...

Suppose they're

bending the needs.

The United States is

bending the needs.

You said...

No, no.

Iran is not bending the needs

to the United States.

It's a war.

It's two weeks.

But like...

The whole

presumption, I believe, was

that this would be over very

quickly.

And that's the whole premise

of this thing.

This is...

And we haven't even

talked about how Donald Trump

is the party of no more

forever wars, no more foreign

in...

Like he was literally

elected on a platform

of no more wars, right?

And this idea that

oh, we're two weeks in

and nothing...

You know...

This is...

The context of an article

like this...

is this is a guy who

did not want to commit

America to more wars, right?

And you can say, well,

it's only two weeks in.

But...

Any war, if you...

I mean, when you say, oh, well,

it's, you know,

asking 12 months' time,

like the fact that you're

committing to a war

that would last 12 months

is like, precisely

against the whole spirit

of what many people

in the United States

elected him for, right?

So, I think that's the context.

I think that's relevant

as well, right?

Do you know that...

Having all of those

headlines without

any bouncing headlines

to the other side of the equation

was it was...

which was really mainly my point

that if you picked up the ABC

and you scroll through

all the headlines,

yes, you can make an argument

that this is, you know, opinion

and there's a certain angle on it,

but it's all...

But, you know,

there's a lot of

legitimacy.

But where's the other side?

I'm going to say something about

don't want you to react to it in a...

All right.

I want to hang off everything.

You just say...

Hear me...

Hear me out, right?

I don't think

Donald Trump has earned

the other side, right?

Because to have earned

the other side,

I think you have to have

explained to...

Not to us as Australians,

but at least his own people.

What he is

they're trying to do.

Bring him and his allies

along the journey

and give a sense

that, hey, we do have a clear

sense of purpose

of what we're trying to do

such that the focus

isn't on him

and what the fuck is he doing?

What the fuck are we doing?

What the fuck's going on here?

And it's actually...

Yeah, okay.

I get it now.

We're going to have a shared

unified,

visual mission

against the enemy,

which is Iran, right?

And you're right.

The enemy should be Iran.

We should be

viewing Iran as the enemy.

But you can't do something

like this.

Not explain it.

And expect commentators

to clean up your mess.

You've got to...

You've got to set the narrative.

You've got to...

give clear reasons why.

And that's...

The work hasn't been done.

And that's why I think you can't...

He hasn't earned it.

The administration has not earned

the right to balance

because they're not making the case

for themselves.

I get it.

But I think the argument is flawed

because it's not about

like earning the right.

It's about the national broadcaster

trying to help Australians

and the community make sense of it.

Right?

Something that is a little bit more

to the tune of

right or wrong people.

You know?

We're wrong people running it

or something.

Something like that, right?

Like some kind of

view to help provide

a bit more clarity

instead of reading this and going,

oh man.

We should not have done this.

Right?

Like this is just

everything's fucking up

and I don't understand why

and all this.

Like don't you think

that should fall into

the remit of

a public broadcaster?

Because what you just said

around...

around should be the enemy.

100% public disagree on that.

I don't think there's a lot of

sympathy for Iran

just to be clear.

I think that people see

Iran a little bit like

North Korea, right?

So if there was like

some sort of an attack

on North Korea

from Donald Trump,

I think people would

rightfully go,

why the fuck did you do that?

Like why the fuck did you

open that?

Like this is like

the piece of shit

in a plastic bag

sitting on your doorstep

that for better or worse

it's better just

leaving in the plastic bag, right?

And if some decade comes along

it opens the plastic bag

and smears the shit

everywhere.

Yeah, the shit is the thing

that we're rightfully

like, you know,

aggrieved about.

But it's the person

who opened the plastic bag

who has agency

who made a bad decision

that we're focusing our attention on.

So I don't think

anyone's under any illusions

that Iran is this.

They are.

I made.

They are.

Well, I disagree.

I don't think so.

The sympathies run deep.

They see Iran as Palestine, my friend.

No, I don't think that's right.

I don't think that's right.

I don't think that's right.

I think that's right.

And I think that's what

the media has helped.

Confusion.

No, Confusion.

I don't think that's right.

I think that's actually quite wrong.

And quiet.

I think that misses the mark for me.

Like, I don't see that as

the case.

I think, yeah.

I don't, I completely disagree

with that.

I think there's probably

some young confused people

who don't know the difference.

But I think anyone with

half a brain, half an education

knows there's a difference

between what's going on here

and Israel-Palestine.

I want to ask you a question.

Now, because I think that,

even that framing that you've just

thrown in is quite telling, actually.

So I, you know, you would be

quite upfront, I think.

You're quite invested in the

Israel-Palestine thing, right?

Yeah, I think you would probably

agree that you've got

reasonably strong views, right?

Yeah.

About it.

I don't think it would be a

surprise to anyone that you're

pro-Israel in the context of,

you know, since October 7th, right?

So as you are too.

With limits, right?

And I think there's lines

that have been crossed that maybe

have or haven't been crossed

for you.

I don't know.

But, um, okay.

So then, I think you see this

very much within that context, right?

I think you see what's happening

now.

And I think you've even said

this line before, like, almost like

the next chapter, right?

Another chapter in the...

Yeah, that's correct.

Yeah.

So I don't see it that way.

I see it quite independently.

I see it as this is a different

movie we're watching, right?

And so I think that's where we

might have some different kind of

coming from it, from a slightly

different perspective.

Yeah, it explains me why

you think they aren't related.

Because they're just different

orders of magnitude in scale, right?

So it's not that they're not

related.

It's that going after terrorists

in Gaza is quite different to

opening up a front with, you know,

a country that can, like, grab us by

the balls and squeeze them pretty

hard, right?

So they're quite different

things, right?

That's where I'm.

No.

So I guess my question, just to cut

to the chase, is, do you think

seeing it in that, in that way, right,

is the third act or whatever, do you

think that clouds your judgment

or aids your judgment?

It was blind, but now I see

Hezbollah, Hamas, the Huzis, they

are almost 100% funded by Iran.

They are Iran.

This whole thing is linked.

How can it not be?

They're fighting the war that's been

going on, the conflict that's been

going on, the garsons and the

Palestinians are caught in the middle

of this gigantic proxy war that

is happening, and not just

between Israel, but between

lower the Gulf states and a lot

of the Western powers and on a

global stage with China and

all these other, these other players

is the same thing.

So how, so if you're asking me,

does my knowledge of that cloud

my judgment versus assist?

I'm going to go with the latter.

Well, it's not just knowledge, though.

It's like, I just, I feel like

it's hard to take off your,

and I'm not saying you're

necessarily like team Israel

in some, like, you're barricading

for a sports team, but like,

it's a perspective, right?

It's a little bit like the,

you know, the thing about where,

do you want to be an organ donor?

And it's like, you opt in or you

opt out, right?

And if you opt in, have to opt in,

then you're less likely to be an organ

donor that if you have to opt out, right?

And I kind of feel like,

at the margin, so I'm not necessarily

making a claim of like,

it completely sways thinking on this, right?

But if you view it as like,

the third chapter or the third act

or whatever, then your starting

point is it has to be a consistent

story with the first and second acts, right?

Which means that, okay, in the first act,

this is my view, second act,

this is my view, third act,

like, I'm going to have to,

to have a slightly different view

or a different view,

I also have to be convinced

of some floor in my understanding

of the first and second acts,

whereas, like, said for me,

like, I don't, like,

I understand what you've just spoken about

and the relationships,

but I don't see it necessarily,

like, I see it distinctly, right?

And I think it's quite possible to

have all of the views that you might have

about Israel and, you know,

the stuff that happened in Gaza

and all that sort of stuff,

while coming to a completely different view

on this one.

Yeah, that's cool.

And look, I'm happy to,

to kind of put on the table my thoughts

around the greater narrative

and how these are all connected.

But again, I think that allows you

to see reason.

But if you're saying that makes you

just hardens you up against the possibility

for other other theories,

then I actually want to hear the theories.

Like, I want to understand what they are

so I can judge them, right?

Like, so if there is something

that has been obfuscated or clouded by this,

I'm like, I'm up for that discussion.

But these ABC headlines don't say that.

They just talk about the incompetence of Trump,

which I will put my hat in the ring

and agree with that.

And you'd rather someone else

have some more experience doing this,

with a bit more candor

and a bit more communication skills.

But nothing's brought to me

on the other side of substance

around trying to create some clarity

for the Australian people

that actually there are elements

of this intervention that are important

and that actually you're not going to get

any peace in the Middle East

without dealing with this problem.

I think though,

where perhaps your sense around this

and this is what I would probably say

that I would probably observe

is from a couple of things you've said,

is I do think,

and this is just my view,

you don't obviously,

I'm not necessarily trying to convince you,

otherwise.

But like, I get the sense

like your instincts around things

like the public's attitude towards Iran.

Like, because you see this is,

there's a continuity between this

and Israel, Palestine,

that you kind of,

and it's so easy to like,

typecast people who are opposed

to Trump for this war,

are the same kind of people

who would be out there,

like, free, free Palestine

from the river to the sea,

that kind of thing, right?

And no doubt there's like,

overlap and all that stuff.

But I think mainstream,

mainstream Australia,

aren't like that.

Like, I think mainstream Australia,

like me,

who think that this is like a total cook-up

and like, could have been,

could have gone well,

and if it had gone well,

we'd be saying,

oh, okay, actually, that was, you know,

but this was,

this was the role of the dice

that like, he had to roll

or one or two,

but three, four, five, and six

looked pretty shit.

So it probably shouldn't have

rolled the dice in the first place, right?

And it's got nothing to do

with your attitudes towards

Israel or Palestine.

It's just, it's a different conflict.

It's a different set of circumstances.

And just to give you,

think something you've sort of,

sort more put forward of like,

well, what's the other side

for like, what do we do?

We just do nothing, kind of thing,

or let it, you know,

how do we deal with this thing?

And like, you know,

I think that's hard to answer.

But I don't think we had any great urgency,

like, I don't think we had any,

like, there was no imminent thread,

like, it wasn't like,

we have to do this right now or else.

This wasn't like,

sometimes buying yourself more time

is the best thing you could do, right?

So whatever that looked like in practice,

you know, like,

we're pretty dulled in.

I mean, you've probably

done a little bit more of research

or, you know, reading or whatever,

you've done on this than I have

to understand it.

But I'm pretty dulled in,

but I don't really understand

why it had to be done this way, right?