TR Live Iran

Where did China get its, its cheap oil from? Venezuela? Gone. Iran? Gone. China is on the ropes as well.

But there is no reason why the US has to continue to fund an organization that is put on the same level. I mean, equality is such a bullshit concept, and I just don't understand why people, when they in their own life try to practice inequality.

I still think that there is a place for a big brother in the world, if you, if you want to use that term.

Now, I imagine that the Chinese are not going to want to invade Taiwan under conditions where the Americans are saying, you know, we're quite happy to box our enemies.

America is winning, winning, winning economically, militarily, culturally, socially. This is the era of America.

How do you see the global order changing since Maduro was displaced Since this Mexican drug leader was captured or just eliminated, since the Ayatollah and all of his friends in Iran have been taken out, and Russia's in this stalemate with Ukraine at the moment, China's been absolutely dead quiet. If you were in government anywhere in the world, what would your move be? And how do you see things breaking down internationally? This is the stuff that people really are trying to derive from all of this chaos? And it's not chaos. This is just the natural state of human beings. But how do you see things breaking down and building up in the next couple of months?

America is winning, winning, winning. America is the superpower economically, militarily, culturally, socially. This is the era of America. Russia, it's actually losing ground. Against the Ukrainians, couldn't win that war, and is in very desperate shape. And now with Iran going down, it's going to get no more, um, drones and missiles from Iran. Russia's in really bad shape. I would not be surprised if they came to the table to agree a deal. Another win for Donald Trump. Secondly, China. Where did China get its cheap oil from? Venezuela, gone. Iran, gone. China is on the ropes as well. And China was deflating in any case, losing its population, deflating. Its Belt and Road strategy was unwinding. Yes, doing well in AI, militarily large. But America, look at the practice America gets every single year with its, you know, air power, with its sea power. The Chinese generals have never fought a war. Chinese soldiers have never fought a war. The last time China fought a war was in Korea in the 1950s. China stands no chance against America. Let's not get it wrong. So China, weak. Russia, weak. This is the American era. And even though I think this issue, the Middle East war that I call it, because a lot of Arab countries are now on the side of America. And supporting America. This, even though Donald Trump and Israel did it because they had to, because they were given a God-given opportunity to sort the problem out, and they're doing it incredibly effectively. The secondary positives are weakening Russia and weakening China. It's the greatest chess move of all. And if I can make one final point, people talk about, yeah, but there might not be regime change in Iran. What's it going to do? Well, did America do regime change in Venezuela? No. America decapitated a monster and got American interests aligned. And I think the same is going to happen in Iran. We may not see an Iran in America's image, but we're definitely going to see an Iran kowtowing to America's interests. And that's what it's all about. I don't think there'll be boots on the ground, but I'll you'll see a government in Iran that is probably dollarized, but certainly behaving itself in a meaningful way under American pressure. This world is going to be in a much, much better shape. Thank you, Donald Trump.

I don't think I'm as enthusiastic about America as Rob clearly is here, but my question relates more to your point about the changing world order, Gareth. I don't think there's any doubt that the world order is, is changing. Um, everyone even instinctively can, can feel that. And just a couple of years ago, um, this now goes back to when Trump, right, um, assumed office back in, in 2016, right? This is his first term then. My sort of thing was I was critical of them then because what I got from them was, or their, their posture appeared to be this America First, you know, this nationalist posture, were looking more inwards. And I was concerned because part of what made America the leader of the free world, what gave it legitimacy on the global stage, was that it wasn't this inward-looking country that only cared about itself. You know, it was very, very much rooted in other countries, you know, foreign policy of interventionism. It was very committed to this idea of exporting its values to the rest of the world and sort of providing this imaginative framework, if you can call it that, you know, or a model for the rest of the world to replicate and to emulate. And what has been interesting for me is even though we're still hearing this rhetoric of saying, you know, we've been ripped off by the world, we need to look more inwards and take care of ourselves, they are still very much involved in other parts of the world. I mean, the Iran thing is a good case study of that. There's also the Venezuela thing, which people could argue are human rights interventions and Those are valid arguments. So I think my point is, with the world order changing, the point that I'm trying to make is I still think that there is a place for a big brother in the world, if you want to use that term. And I think America can continue playing that leadership role. I think it is an important leadership role that they play. What concerns me about other players like China is They strike me as the kinds of countries that only want to come into your country, expect whatever they want to extract, and then, you know, be on their way out. But they don't strike me as people. If, if I look at China, it doesn't strike me as a country that has a clear model that we can emulate culturally. It still remains a mystery to me. There is a political system there, of course, in China. They've made a lot of economic progress, but it remains a mystery to me. To, to some degree. And so the, the point that I'm making is, with the world order changing, I think there's still a place for, for the USA to be the leader of the free world, to, to, to play that role and to keep advancing, um, its values. Because if I look at the other contenders like China, I am not seeing a clear model that can emulate. I'm seeing on the economics, I'm seeing maybe on the politics, but culturally, um, I'm, I'm not getting anything concrete. Um, from them. So going, going forward, I think America has a role to play in terms of leadership.

Mark, changing world order.

So it's interesting, the sort of one line is that while America flexes its muscles and, you know, takes out people like Maduro and the Ayatollah, the claim is that it sends a signal to Russia and China that, you know, um, the rules don't matter anymore and you can go and invade Taiwan and you can, you know, have free roll in Ukraine. I don't think that's really what's being sent. I think the message is, uh, America is back on the global stage. Uh, and, uh, the America first stuff means prioritizing American interests, but that doesn't mean an isolationism as we're seeing. Um, and I imagine that, uh, the Chinese are not going to want to invade Taiwan under conditions where the Americans are saying, you know, we're quite happy to box our enemies and we strongly suggest you don't do that. Um, I also think that we haven't abandoned, uh, international law. People still will make reference to those rules, you know. Um, the Israelis have said this is a preemptive strike, you know, that's to rely on, uh, Section 51 of the UN Charter. Um, so it's not just a might is right scenario that we're finding ourselves in. I do think that people have become frustrated with a lot of these international organizations. And one reason why you might think that the UN is just not the body that it started off is that as you've added in more and more undemocratic dictatorial countries, and if you have a one state, one vote policy, um, you know, you wind up with these like very obnoxious regimes exercising power in the UN.

Yeah, I mean, I couldn't agree with you more. Sorry to interrupt you, but I think that the UN should be expelled from New York. Trump should build a Trump hotel there or let Mamdani build low-cost housing for poor people, but there is no reason why the US has to continue to fund an organization that is put on the same level. I mean, equality is such a bullshit concept, and I just don't understand why people, when they in their own life try to practice inequality, even inside of families, people are trying to live their own independent, individual, unequal lives. And yet we have this nonsense facade that we put up about how equality is so important. The UN lets the dictator of some banana republic stand up and swear and curse about the evils of the United States or of Saudi Arabia or of China or of Russia when these people have no business being there. I mean, how often has South Africa had a prominent role on the Security Council, for example? Well, we have no means of providing security even to our own people. Thanks to high and extraordinary levels of crime here. It's a joke. It's all performance.