Latest / The Morning Edition / Peter Hartcher answers your questions about Iran, Trump and the state of the world

Transcript

Peter Hartcher answers your questions about Iran, Trump and the state of the world · The Morning Edition

• 0:00
  S1: Hi, it's Samantha Selinger Morris here, and you're listening to
• 0:03
  S1: a special episode of The Morning Edition. Regular listeners will
• 0:07
  S1: know Peter Hartcher. He is our international and political editor
• 0:10
  S1: and a weekly voice on the podcast, helping us to
• 0:14
  S1: dissect and process the extraordinary times that we're living in now.
• 0:18
  S1: Every week we get a lot of comments from you.
• 0:21
  S1: So we put the call out for the questions that
• 0:23
  S1: you are dying to ask. Peter Hartcher about the state
• 0:26
  S1: of the world and politics either here or abroad. Hey, Peter.
• 0:32
  S2: Samantha, good to see you.
• 0:34
  S1: We're very excited to have you.
• 0:36
  S2: I'm very excited to be here.
• 0:37
  S1: Okay. Well, I'm glad to hear that because we're going
• 0:39
  S1: to start off with a big question, something of a
• 0:42
  S1: moral one. Harriet Dodger has written. You say no right
• 0:46
  S1: thinking person would want Iran to have nuclear capabilities. Don't
• 0:50
  S1: you mean West thinking person? Others would argue that Iran
• 0:54
  S1: has just as much right to have nuclear weapons as
• 0:56
  S1: the US and Israel, who aren't exactly behaving like trustworthy
• 1:00
  S1: or responsible international citizens right now. What do you say, Peter?
• 1:06
  S2: Well, the first thing I'd say is that among those
• 1:09
  S2: who think Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons is Iran itself.
• 1:14
  S2: Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty it
• 1:18
  S2: signed in 1970 and has remained a signatory ever since.
• 1:22
  S2: So it's committed in an international binding treaty, which it's ratified,
• 1:26
  S2: not to acquire nuclear weapons. And they've consistently said that
• 1:31
  S2: they don't intend to make nuclear weapons, that their uranium
• 1:34
  S2: enrichment processes are for nuclear energy production, not for nuclear weapons.
• 1:41
  S2: So that's the first point. The Iranians themselves have said
• 1:44
  S2: they shouldn't have them and don't want them. That has
• 1:47
  S2: started to change in the last few weeks. Late March,
• 1:52
  S2: a group of legislators in the Iranian parliament sponsored a
• 1:57
  S2: new bill that would begin the process of withdrawing from
• 2:01
  S2: the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. It's not yet gone anywhere, that bill.
• 2:06
  S2: We don't know what will happen with that, but it
• 2:09
  S2: is a sign of some in the Iranian power structure
• 2:13
  S2: saying because of this onslaught from the Israelis and the Americans,
• 2:18
  S2: that they need to just lose all restraint and acquire
• 2:21
  S2: nuclear weapons. Mind you, it would not be. Well, two points.
• 2:26
  S2: This regime is not a regime that I think has
• 2:31
  S2: any moral equivalence with the Australian government, the US or Israel.
• 2:37
  S2: Those countries, at least at the very least, are all
• 2:40
  S2: democratic with elected leaders. Iran is a dictatorial theocracy which
• 2:48
  S2: butchers its own citizens when they dare speak out against
• 2:51
  S2: the regime in the most horrid way. And we saw
• 2:54
  S2: that in a large scale in January. So I don't
• 2:57
  S2: accept that there's any moral equivalence. But there is the
• 3:01
  S2: nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and its obligations as a matter of
• 3:05
  S2: international law that the Iranians have signed up to. And
• 3:08
  S2: I would also add that there are consequences of any
• 3:12
  S2: country acquiring a nuclear weapon. For example, India, Pakistan, one
• 3:17
  S2: gets the bomb, the other gets it immediately. If the
• 3:21
  S2: Iranians get the bomb. And one of the reasons the
• 3:24
  S2: US has been involved in trying to prevent them for
• 3:26
  S2: so many years has been that it would be not
• 3:29
  S2: only a threat to Israel, but also a threat to
• 3:32
  S2: US Gulf allies who have been pleading with the US
• 3:36
  S2: to contain and, insofar as possible, crush Iran. So if
• 3:40
  S2: the Iranians did acquire the bomb, you'd see the Saudis
• 3:43
  S2: acquire one within weeks. The UAE also, there would be
• 3:46
  S2: a proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East. And finally,
• 3:50
  S2: I'd say that we know from the long history of
• 3:55
  S2: American custodianship, of nuclear weapons, that they have been a
• 4:00
  S2: trustworthy and credible manager of that capability, and they use
• 4:05
  S2: that capability on behalf of human liberty in the world,
• 4:09
  S2: in prevailing over the Soviet Union, if they are not defended,
• 4:12
  S2: if they had not extended what's called extended deterrence, otherwise
• 4:15
  S2: known as the nuclear umbrella over Europe and other allies,
• 4:20
  S2: including Australia, then the outcome of the Cold War would
• 4:23
  S2: have been a very different one. So I'd just like
• 4:26
  S2: to put that in a bit of context. We have
• 4:29
  S2: good reason to be grateful for the functioning of the
• 4:35
  S2: US deterrence and in the functioning of so called mad,
• 4:40
  S2: mutually assured destruction, which kept the planet safe and free
• 4:43
  S2: of major international war longer than at any time in
• 4:47
  S2: modern history.
• 4:48
  S1: Well, thanks, Peter, for that one. Now, this brings us
• 4:51
  S1: very neatly to a question sent in by Christine Vickers,
• 4:54
  S1: because she has mentioned that the U.N. just this week
• 4:57
  S1: is discussing the Non-Proliferation treaty that you've mentioned before. And
• 5:01
  S1: she wonders if it's time for Australia to consider developing
• 5:05
  S1: nuclear capacity in light of the changing world order and
• 5:08
  S1: the emergence of what she calls, quote, potentially a rogue
• 5:11
  S1: state in the form of the USA, all of which
• 5:14
  S1: she says has brought about the need to rethink the
• 5:16
  S1: concept of deterrence. So what say you? Peter? Is this
• 5:20
  S1: a strong argument for us considering carefully developing our nuclear capacity?
• 5:25
  S1: Because like you say, there. Yes. There is no moral
• 5:27
  S1: equivalence between the United States and Iran. But obviously many
• 5:32
  S1: would agree the U.S. is behaving under Donald Trump in
• 5:35
  S1: an incredibly erratic and sometimes frightening way.
• 5:40
  S2: Yeah. I find it unlikely that Donald Trump will launch
• 5:43
  S2: a nuclear war. He he has said many times, and
• 5:47
  S2: people who've worked for him have told me privately that
• 5:50
  S2: his greatest single fear is nuclear war. But we have
• 5:54
  S2: to look at it now from a broader perspective. There
• 5:58
  S2: is a case that Australia should look at the question
• 6:00
  S2: of its nuclear protection, nuclear deterrence. Australia decided that it
• 6:06
  S2: would move towards acquiring nuclear weapons in the 1960s, and
• 6:09
  S2: to this day there are concrete footings in the bush
• 6:13
  S2: at Jervis Bay on the New South Wales coast, where
• 6:16
  S2: they started to build a nuclear reactor that was going
• 6:18
  S2: to be manufacturing uranium and plutonium for that program. But
• 6:23
  S2: the Australian government, in the end, accepted the good faith
• 6:27
  S2: of the US in promising to extend the umbrella over us,
• 6:30
  S2: to protect us. So on that basis, Australia signed up
• 6:34
  S2: to the policy of extended deterrence. Other US allies submitted
• 6:40
  S2: to the same. The only one that didn't is France.
• 6:43
  S2: France kept sorry. And the Brits, the Brits and the
• 6:45
  S2: French both kept their nuclear weapon capability. That's based obviously
• 6:50
  S2: on trust that the US will defend us. And the
• 6:53
  S2: concept is that if a country were to attack Australia
• 6:58
  S2: with a nuclear weapon, then the US would respond in
• 7:01
  S2: kind by attacking the aggressor country. Now, does anybody think
• 7:05
  S2: that Donald Trump would be prepared to risk a nuclear
• 7:08
  S2: retaliation on the US in order to defend Australia in
• 7:12
  S2: a nuclear war? I don't think so. He's shown a
• 7:15
  S2: new level of disdain, disdain for US allies and treaty
• 7:18
  S2: obligations that we've never seen from the US. Other US
• 7:23
  S2: allies think they do. So, for example, in South Korea,
• 7:26
  S2: there's a very active debate. About three quarters of the
• 7:29
  S2: South Korean public have said they are in support of
• 7:32
  S2: South Korea acquiring a nuclear bomb, because just across the border,
• 7:34
  S2: of course, North Korea has the bomb. There's also an
• 7:39
  S2: active debate underway in Japan now, which is pretty extraordinary,
• 7:42
  S2: given that Japan is the only country ever to have
• 7:45
  S2: felt the full force of nuclear arms in in war,
• 7:49
  S2: it's not a popular concept, only about a sixth of
• 7:52
  S2: the public support the idea in. According to opinion polls.
• 7:56
  S2: But the Takaichi government is a much more hawkish government
• 7:59
  S2: than Japan has seen since Shinzo Abe and Takaichi people
• 8:04
  S2: are said to be reconsidering the whole question of whether
• 8:06
  S2: Japan needs nuclear weapons. Australia has to consider the same
• 8:10
  S2: the same question. We are not immune. The country, the
• 8:14
  S2: two countries that posed a threat or potential threat are
• 8:17
  S2: North Korea, which has the range as well as the
• 8:19
  S2: nuclear capability developed, by the way, to perfection since Donald
• 8:24
  S2: Trump went to meet Kim Jong UN and then dropped
• 8:27
  S2: the whole thing and walked away. And China, which has
• 8:31
  S2: engaged in the biggest nuclear expansion that we've seen since
• 8:35
  S2: the Cold War and has somewhere between 3 and 400
• 8:39
  S2: nuclear warheads already in place and is estimated by the
• 8:43
  S2: Pentagon to have about 1000 in place by the end
• 8:46
  S2: of this decade, in the next four years. This is
• 8:49
  S2: obviously a very sensitive. It's a complete taboo in our
• 8:52
  S2: political leaders. You will not hear discussing this, but defense
• 8:56
  S2: planners and strategists do discuss this behind closed doors. The
• 9:01
  S2: argument isn't that Australia wants to attack somebody with nuclear weapons,
• 9:05
  S2: or even that we really, seriously fear a nuclear attack.
• 9:08
  S2: The argument is that if we get into some sort
• 9:11
  S2: of armed skirmish with China, which is entirely possible if
• 9:15
  S2: you have a look at the aggressive way that they
• 9:19
  S2: repeatedly encounter Australian Navy and Air Force assets in international waters,
• 9:24
  S2: then it could escalate quite. You can quite easily imagine
• 9:28
  S2: it could escalate into a conflict in that conflict, no
• 9:32
  S2: matter how good our forces are, no matter whether other
• 9:35
  S2: countries come to our aid or not, you don't have
• 9:40
  S2: the capacity to escalate as much as the opponent does
• 9:44
  S2: if the Chinese Communist Party has nuclear weapons, they will
• 9:47
  S2: always be able to out escalate an Australia that doesn't.
• 9:50
  S2: So the question is, do we need to get a
• 9:53
  S2: nuclear capability just to make our conventional forces credible? That's
• 9:59
  S2: the question, which nobody has yet answered. But the way
• 10:03
  S2: the world is developing, the way our allies are reacting
• 10:07
  S2: and the way the Americans are behaving, and with the
• 10:09
  S2: threat building in China and North Korea, it is a serious,
• 10:13
  S2: a very serious, very delicate and difficult question that a
• 10:16
  S2: grown up country should be able to talk about.
• 10:18
  S1: It's interesting in particular, because I think that our armed
• 10:20
  S1: forces have in recent years sort of struggled to attract
• 10:23
  S1: enough people to join. Right? Peter.
• 10:26
  S2: That's true. Although that reversed in the last in the
• 10:29
  S2: last period, the government announced just in the last week
• 10:31
  S2: or two that they'd actually achieved their net increase and
• 10:37
  S2: achieve some of their targets. So that's improved. But we
• 10:40
  S2: still have a small yeah, it's essentially a peacetime a
• 10:43
  S2: defense force structured for peace time, which. Which the Albanese
• 10:46
  S2: government is trying to expand and better equip. And that's underway.
• 10:50
  S2: But it's still it's still not a not the capable
• 10:54
  S2: military that a country needs. And if it can't rely
• 10:57
  S2: on the US, which is what all of our defence
• 10:59
  S2: planning was structured around.
• 11:00
  S1: Very interesting. Now, this one is about the Iran war,
• 11:03
  S1: but in particular about how Donald Trump fits into it.
• 11:05
  S1: So this is by Lynn Moorhen. And she asks, Is
• 11:08
  S1: Donald Trump gaining financially from the war with Iran or
• 11:13
  S1: from the Middle East wars? Who else benefits financially from
• 11:16
  S1: the wars in the Middle East?
• 11:19
  S2: I've maintained that Trump has two overriding aims in this presidency.
• 11:25
  S2: Number one is his personal enrichment, and number two is
• 11:29
  S2: the consolidation of authoritarian power insofar as he can possibly
• 11:33
  S2: manage it in these years. So as part of that,
• 11:38
  S2: what we see is Trump's negotiating team that he sends everywhere,
• 11:44
  S2: sends to Russia, to Ukraine. He sends to tries to
• 11:49
  S2: send attempts to send to Islamabad to negotiate with the Iranians.
• 11:54
  S2: Wherever there's a peace talk, he sends Jared Kushner and
• 11:57
  S2: Steve Witkoff. Kushner is not a member of the US administration.
• 12:03
  S2: He's not a government official. He calls himself a volunteer.
• 12:07
  S2: Steve Witkoff has been signed up as an official of
• 12:11
  S2: the administration. Witkoff is not a diplomat. He was a
• 12:15
  S2: New York Real. He is and was a New York
• 12:18
  S2: real estate billionaire. And Powell of Trump's. This is not
• 12:21
  S2: a traditional American diplomatic negotiating team. This is the family
• 12:26
  S2: and the crony Kushner is the family. Witkoff is the crony,
• 12:32
  S2: as far as we can tell. Wherever they go in
• 12:35
  S2: and hold negotiations, there are always some sort of sideline
• 12:39
  S2: negotiations over business deals and profits. Now, to get a
• 12:44
  S2: full picture of how much the Trump family Trump organization
• 12:48
  S2: Trump personally is making out of the Iran war and
• 12:51
  S2: the Lebanon war. Uh, it'll take it'll take longer to
• 12:56
  S2: tease out all of the details and entanglements. Uh, we
• 13:00
  S2: do know, though, that before the war started, according to
• 13:04
  S2: Trump's own financial disclosures last year, he made more than
• 13:07
  S2: $20 million personally from his Arabian Peninsula Gulf Arab investments
• 13:14
  S2: and projects. The value of the projects in which he's
• 13:17
  S2: invested is a total in that region in the Gulf
• 13:20
  S2: Arab states of 17 billion USD. And he's always looking
• 13:25
  S2: for more deals. We know that Jared Kushner, he runs
• 13:30
  S2: a big investment fund called affinity. Affinity has some 6
• 13:35
  S2: billion USD in it. Almost every dollar of that is
• 13:38
  S2: from one of the Gulf Arab states investing in his
• 13:42
  S2: projects or Trump related projects. And Trump has a raft
• 13:46
  S2: of other business and financial interests which he has been
• 13:50
  S2: feeding as a part of his presidency. There's the crypto ventures,
• 13:56
  S2: which he's indulged in at the same time as he's
• 13:59
  S2: deregulated the crypto industry. There's the drone businesses. Just in
• 14:05
  S2: the last couple of months, his sons Eric and Donald Jr,
• 14:10
  S2: have invested, have bought three companies that manufacture drones. At
• 14:15
  S2: the same time, Trump has passed a new regulation stipulating
• 14:19
  S2: that no foreign companies are allowed to sell drones to
• 14:22
  S2: the US anymore, because quite a few were. So this
• 14:26
  S2: will assist his sons in tendering to the Pentagon. And
• 14:30
  S2: he's also. Trump's also announced another 1 billion US dollar
• 14:34
  S2: emergency drone top up fund and they will be tendering
• 14:39
  S2: for that business. So we'll see how that goes. And
• 14:42
  S2: those drones, um, will be sold to the Pentagon. So
• 14:45
  S2: it's not necessarily a direct relationship to the Iran war,
• 14:49
  S2: but it's certainly a direct relationship to Trump's military decisions
• 14:53
  S2: and his family business ventures.
• 14:57
  S1: Now, Peter, I imagine a lot of listeners might be
• 14:59
  S1: listening to that and hearing that and thinking as I am,
• 15:04
  S1: that of course, that's more of the sort of corruption
• 15:07
  S1: that you might hear, you know, from an impoverished nation
• 15:11
  S1: elsewhere in the world. So is that I mean, I
• 15:14
  S1: know I'm asking a broad question, and each deal would
• 15:17
  S1: have its own complications, but is there corruption there? Is
• 15:20
  S1: this legal? Is it unlawful? Are these the sorts of
• 15:23
  S1: things that are going to be pored over by legal
• 15:25
  S1: experts for years and could potentially lead to charges later
• 15:30
  S1: down the path?
• 15:31
  S2: It's possible. There's there are House and Senate committees that
• 15:36
  S2: scrutinise this stuff. The Democrats are all over it. Some
• 15:40
  S2: of the businesses are entirely legitimate. Some of the conflicts
• 15:43
  S2: of interest are not. Jared Kushner, he hasn't been shy
• 15:46
  S2: about this. When he was asked by an interviewer, is
• 15:50
  S2: this a conflict of interest for you to be carrying
• 15:52
  S2: on all these investments with the countries and companies with
• 15:55
  S2: whom you're negotiating? And his answer was, some people call
• 15:58
  S2: it a conflict of interest. But Steve Witkoff and I
• 16:01
  S2: call it the benefit of experience and relationships.
• 16:05
  S3: What people call conflicts of interest, Steve and I call
• 16:08
  S3: experience and trusted relationships that we have throughout the world.
• 16:12
  S3: If Steve and I didn't have these deep relationships, the
• 16:15
  S3: deal that we were able to help get done that
• 16:18
  S3: freed these hostages would not have occurred.
• 16:21
  S2: So that's his response to that accusation, which is reminiscent.
• 16:24
  S2: I don't know, you're probably not old enough, Samantha, to
• 16:27
  S2: remember when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was the premier of Queensland and
• 16:32
  S2: notoriously corrupt Premier. And there was a satirical sketch about
• 16:37
  S2: his one of his ministers, Russ Haynes. Russ Hinze, rather.
• 16:42
  S2: And in the satirical sketch, uh, the the reporter is
• 16:46
  S2: interviewing Russ Hines and he says, Minister, you own racehorses
• 16:49
  S2: and you're the minister for racing, which in real life
• 16:52
  S2: he really was, to which the fictitious Russians replies, that's right, son.
• 16:58
  S2: The reporter then says, And Mr. Hines, you own gravel
• 17:01
  S2: pits and you're the Minister for roads. And which was
• 17:04
  S2: also true in real life. And then the fictitious the
• 17:06
  S2: fictitious minister says, that's right, son. And then the reporter says, well,
• 17:10
  S2: isn't that a conflict of interest, Minister? To which the
• 17:13
  S2: fictitious rusyns replies, no, son, that's a confluence of interests.
• 17:17
  S1: Amazing.
• 17:18
  S2: I was reminded of that, listening to Jared Kushner's answer
• 17:21
  S2: about whether he was indulging in conflicts of interest. The
• 17:25
  S2: House one of the House committees in the US looking
• 17:28
  S2: at Trump's business personal enrichment, has put the figure at
• 17:32
  S2: around 3 billion USD so far. The New York Times
• 17:34
  S2: puts it at over $4 billion so far, but is
• 17:39
  S2: only about a third of the way through this term.
• 17:41
  S2: So the term is young.
• 17:44
  S1: That's extraordinary. Okay. Well, Chris from South Yarra in Melbourne
• 17:47
  S1: has a really interesting question about a political factor that
• 17:51
  S1: might or might not determine when the war in Iraq ends.
• 17:54
  S1: So he wants to know if you think the Iranians
• 17:56
  S1: will wait out the Trump presidency and allow his successor
• 18:00
  S1: the victory that he craves so much. So I think here, Chris,
• 18:03
  S1: might be asking if the Iranians will perhaps agree to
• 18:06
  S1: a diplomatic end, to the war or open the strait,
• 18:08
  S1: maybe even curb its nuclear activity, but only to Trump's successor.
• 18:13
  S1: What do you think, Peter?
• 18:16
  S2: I don't know that they conceive of it in those terms.
• 18:21
  S2: We have to remember that the people of Iran are
• 18:24
  S2: suffering horribly in this war. And even before the war,
• 18:28
  S2: the reason that there were all those street protests in
• 18:31
  S2: January was because the economy was in such a shocking
• 18:33
  S2: mess with inflation, even on the official measure, no doubt
• 18:37
  S2: understating the problem 50% inflation. Just imagine 50 living with 50% inflation.
• 18:42
  S2: So the people leading those protests were shopkeepers. Business people
• 18:48
  S2: spread to ordinary families. And since then, they've had this
• 18:52
  S2: continuous bombardment from the US and Israel raining down on
• 18:56
  S2: their cities and towns, horrible suffering. Now their oil revenue
• 19:03
  S2: is being cut off even further than it was before
• 19:07
  S2: through this interdiction operation by the US. Conditions for ordinary Iranians,
• 19:13
  S2: most of whom haven't been able to leave the House
• 19:15
  S2: in recent months, are absolutely dire. The regime itself isn't
• 19:21
  S2: in a very happy condition. They can't move about. Normally
• 19:24
  S2: they're expecting Israeli or American missiles through the ceiling at
• 19:28
  S2: any moment, so it's not as if they're enjoying the defiant.
• 19:33
  S2: The appearance of defiance that they are generating, but they
• 19:36
  S2: are not enjoying their daily lives. I would submit to you.
• 19:41
  S2: I think the moment that they can negotiate an acceptable
• 19:44
  S2: end to the war, they will accept it. Whoever the
• 19:46
  S2: US president is and whoever the Israeli prime minister is,
• 19:50
  S2: Trump has talked about infighting in the Iranian leadership that
• 19:54
  S2: can't decide what their negotiating priorities should be. Not everything
• 19:58
  S2: Trump says is a lie. That is actually true. We've
• 20:01
  S2: seen that borne out in Iranian state media just in
• 20:04
  S2: the last few days, where there are there's emerged a
• 20:08
  S2: factional war within the power group, where one ultra conservative
• 20:13
  S2: faction says that the negotiating team that Iran has sent
• 20:19
  S2: to talk to the Pakistanis and the Americans has exceeded
• 20:22
  S2: its brief, has crossed a red line set by the
• 20:25
  S2: previous Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini by even discussing nuclear capability
• 20:31
  S2: with the interlocutors and with the Americans, and therefore undercutting
• 20:36
  S2: the credibility of the Iranian negotiators. So they're under pressure,
• 20:40
  S2: and the pressure is showing. So it's not I don't
• 20:44
  S2: think it's a it's such a clinical, comfortable and planned venture,
• 20:50
  S2: as that question implies. I think it's it's messy, painful.
• 20:53
  S2: The Iranians would like to get an end to it
• 20:55
  S2: as long as they can do it on dignified terms.
• 21:00
  S1: After the break.
• 21:03
  S2: The countries that can afford. And rich countries can afford
• 21:06
  S2: to buy hyper expensive oil, will continue to be able
• 21:09
  S2: to bid for and obtain it on the world market
• 21:12
  S2: using cash, trade leverage and other means. It's a tough
• 21:16
  S2: reality that when there's a problem in the world, the
• 21:19
  S2: poor countries always suffer more.
• 21:31
  S1: This is from our social media accounts. This is one
• 21:34
  S1: podcast listener didn't give their name but has asked if
• 21:36
  S1: Australia or more pointedly, the Albanese government quote, doesn't have
• 21:40
  S1: the guts to support the USA in freeing Iran. Why
• 21:43
  S1: should they have a say along with a bunch of
• 21:45
  S1: other hypocrites in anything to do with Iran's future? End quote. Now,
• 21:50
  S1: I'll just couch this by saying that you and I
• 21:51
  S1: have discussed that Australia has provided limited defence military support
• 21:57
  S1: to playing a Wedgetail aircraft to help protect Australians and
• 22:01
  S1: other civilians in the UAE. But what do you say, Peter,
• 22:04
  S1: to that one?
• 22:06
  S2: Well, Samantha, I suppose there's a matter of having the
• 22:09
  S2: guts to do something, and then there's having the brains
• 22:11
  S2: of whether to do it or to refrain. Uh, Australia
• 22:15
  S2: is unique among US allies. We're the only country that
• 22:19
  S2: has fought alongside the US in every war since, and
• 22:24
  S2: including World War One. This is the first one where
• 22:27
  S2: we have not participated directly in the conflict. As you say,
• 22:31
  S2: Australia has deployed some defensive assets to help protect the UAE,
• 22:34
  S2: which is a military partner of Australia and hosts a
• 22:37
  S2: military air force base, which Australia uses. And the reason
• 22:42
  S2: that we have not participated. Well, I would suggest there's
• 22:45
  S2: a couple. One is Trump launched into this war without
• 22:48
  S2: asking Australia or any other ally apart from Israel. There
• 22:52
  S2: was no consultation whatsoever. Second, this war and the way
• 22:56
  S2: he's conducted it is inimical to Australia's interests. It's is very,
• 23:01
  S2: actually very harmful to Australia's interests. First, the war was
• 23:04
  S2: launched without warning. In a region where there are hundreds
• 23:07
  S2: of thousands of Australians, tens of thousands in Dubai and
• 23:11
  S2: Abu Dhabi alone, living and working, as well as the
• 23:14
  S2: tourists and holidaymakers, all of whom were put at risk.
• 23:17
  S2: All those Australian citizens were put at risk by this
• 23:20
  S2: outbreak of hostilities without warning from our from our great ally.
• 23:26
  S2: Not to mention the oil effect, the economic effect, the
• 23:30
  S2: fact that inflation in Australia is now running high. The
• 23:34
  S2: reserve Bank is going to have to crank interest rates
• 23:35
  S2: higher than it was. Economic growth will suffer. We may
• 23:39
  S2: run out of fuel and fertiliser depending on how long
• 23:41
  S2: this thing goes on. Plastics and bitumen. This is a
• 23:46
  S2: major crisis that our supposed ally has imposed on us
• 23:50
  S2: without consultation. Now, in those circumstances, put that aside and
• 23:56
  S2: then say, well, what about the the goal itself? The
• 24:00
  S2: Americans are trying to achieve in Iran? Well, it would
• 24:04
  S2: be we could make a better assessment if we knew
• 24:06
  S2: what the American goals were. Trump, as we've discussed before
• 24:09
  S2: and is widely recognized, wanders all over the place, contradicts
• 24:14
  S2: himself almost daily on what his objectives are and what
• 24:17
  S2: might satisfy those objectives. So are we supposed to support
• 24:21
  S2: a war waged against. And the other. One of the
• 24:24
  S2: other consequences for Australia, of course, is that the US,
• 24:27
  S2: by running down all its own missile and weapons stocks
• 24:31
  S2: quite dramatically, is not only producing shortfalls in its own armoury,
• 24:36
  S2: but its ability to resupply Australia and other allies when
• 24:41
  S2: we are buying their equipment and munitions through US defence companies,
• 24:47
  S2: that's impaired, impaired our defence readiness. It's taken a lot
• 24:51
  S2: of hardware and attention away from what we consider, and
• 24:55
  S2: the US had long considered the primary threat, which is China,
• 24:59
  S2: and tied up all these assets expended, all these munitions
• 25:03
  S2: in a war in which we were not consulted and
• 25:06
  S2: in which we have no interest. Now, there could be
• 25:08
  S2: an interest if we knew what what the interest was,
• 25:11
  S2: we could there could be a cause if we knew
• 25:12
  S2: what the cause was. But the Australian Government has taken
• 25:16
  S2: the same position that other allied governments have taken. And
• 25:19
  S2: that is, we will help clean up the mess. We
• 25:22
  S2: will help with escorting oil shipments and commercial shipping through
• 25:26
  S2: the Gulf after the hostilities. But we're not going to
• 25:29
  S2: risk our citizens, our defense forces, in pursuit of a
• 25:33
  S2: war that is conducted on such an impulsive and unexplained basis,
• 25:39
  S2: distracting from our our primary national interests in defending our
• 25:44
  S2: own country and our own region and our own munitions
• 25:47
  S2: supply against a crisis which could, which could and may
• 25:52
  S2: well occur directly affecting our own territorial and commercial interests.
• 25:57
  S1: Aside from that, Peter. No, I'm just kidding. That's that's
• 26:00
  S1: aside from that great idea. Okay, so this next one
• 26:04
  S1: is about Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his highly publicized
• 26:08
  S1: trip overseas to procure extra oil and fuel than what
• 26:12
  S1: can be procured through the normal channels. So Ken has
• 26:15
  S1: asked if this is extra oil and fuel that he's procured.
• 26:19
  S1: Does that mean that Australia is obtaining a more equitable
• 26:22
  S1: share of global supply? And if that is the case,
• 26:25
  S1: who loses out as a result? This was something of
• 26:28
  S1: concern or of interest to a number of listeners and
• 26:32
  S1: viewers and readers and other listener. Mark Spartacus has also
• 26:34
  S1: raised the issue of whether Albo has outbid poor countries
• 26:38
  S1: for this extra fuel. So what's going on here, Peter?
• 26:41
  S2: Well, I'd make a couple of points, Samantha. One is
• 26:43
  S2: that he goes on these shopping trips, which is just
• 26:46
  S2: an extraordinary state of affairs that you have to have
• 26:48
  S2: your national leader shopping around the region to secure such
• 26:51
  S2: a basic, fundamental, essential.
• 26:55
  S1: Weight. Peter, I'm going to interrupt you there because the
• 26:57
  S1: reason why we love having you on weekly or having
• 26:59
  S1: you on at all is, of course, you have been
• 27:00
  S1: reporting for, you know, for decades and some. So in
• 27:04
  S1: your reporting career, have you ever seen one of our
• 27:06
  S1: leaders have to do this, have to go shopping for
• 27:09
  S1: our basics?
• 27:10
  S4: No, no.
• 27:12
  S2: The system of international trade, which the US presided over creating,
• 27:18
  S2: of course, establishing the GATT, which became the World Trade
• 27:21
  S2: Organisation and enlarged that system over the years of. Most
• 27:25
  S2: notable expansion was when China was added in the year 2000.
• 27:29
  S2: Has worked really well for the free trade globalization system,
• 27:34
  S2: worked for those decades. It's come apart because both China
• 27:38
  S2: and the US have decided they want it to come apart,
• 27:40
  S2: to serve their own political interests. And as part of that,
• 27:44
  S2: Trump's impulsive, very badly conducted war on Iran, together with
• 27:50
  S2: Israel and Iran, of course, has now created this unprecedented
• 27:56
  S2: in modern. Our modern history threat to an essential, I
• 28:01
  S2: should say, since World War Two was the last time
• 28:04
  S2: that our supplies of essentials were at at risk because
• 28:08
  S2: the Japanese. Establishing massive military bases in PNG and the
• 28:13
  S2: Solomons was in the process of trying to interdict, to
• 28:16
  S2: completely sever our lifelines to the world. So that was
• 28:20
  S2: the last time there was a threat to Australian fuel
• 28:23
  S2: supplies in any really meaningful way. When Albanese goes on
• 28:27
  S2: these shopping trips to try to get guarantees that they
• 28:32
  S2: will continue to supply us, he's giving them guarantees that
• 28:35
  S2: we will continue to supply them because Australia is the
• 28:39
  S2: world's second, sometimes biggest, sometimes second, sometimes third biggest exporter
• 28:43
  S2: of LNG, which they rely on very heavily. All those
• 28:47
  S2: countries Japan, Korea, the Malaysians, the Indonesians, China, they all
• 28:54
  S2: buy large quantities of Australian LNG. So Albanese is giving
• 28:58
  S2: them security of supply. At the same time, they're promising
• 29:01
  S2: security to us. So it's not a one way street,
• 29:06
  S2: but there is a there is a serious risk, though,
• 29:08
  S2: that as this war progresses, if this is perpetuated much
• 29:13
  S2: longer that some countries will, will will be unable to
• 29:17
  S2: get oil, petrol fuel at all and they will be
• 29:20
  S2: the poorest countries because the world oil supply is not
• 29:23
  S2: going to stop altogether. There's still a fair amount of
• 29:26
  S2: oil swishing around in the world system. It will be
• 29:28
  S2: a question of price. So the countries that can afford
• 29:32
  S2: and rich countries can afford to buy hyper expensive oil
• 29:37
  S2: will continue to be able to bid for it and
• 29:39
  S2: obtain it on the world market using cash, trade leverage
• 29:42
  S2: and other means. It's the poorest and weakest countries, as usual,
• 29:46
  S2: that will suffer if this continues. Australia has already acknowledged
• 29:51
  S2: the suffering potential suffering of the Pacific island states, which
• 29:55
  S2: are among the poorest as well as the smallest countries
• 29:58
  S2: in the world. Import all of their fuel and those
• 30:01
  S2: countries have turned to Australia to ask for help. Penny
• 30:05
  S2: Wong has said Australia is cognisant of that and will help,
• 30:08
  S2: but we've yet to see how that help will or
• 30:12
  S2: will or might materialize. But yeah, it's it's a tough
• 30:16
  S2: reality that when there's a problem in the world, the
• 30:19
  S2: poor countries always suffer more.
• 30:22
  S1: Okay, well, speaking of tough realities, I want to turn
• 30:24
  S1: to a question brought to us by Andrew Mackenzie. He
• 30:27
  S1: says the U.S. economy, particularly the stock market, appears little
• 30:31
  S1: damaged by Trump, neither by his tariffs nor his war
• 30:34
  S1: in Iran, the skyrocketing health costs in the U.S. and
• 30:37
  S1: so forth. So Andrew asks, why are all the economic
• 30:40
  S1: consequences of the Trump regime decision so easily passed to
• 30:44
  S1: the rest of the world? At what point will the U.S.
• 30:46
  S1: public feel some consequences for their choice of leadership?
• 30:50
  S4: HMM.
• 30:51
  S2: Well, I'd make two points. First is that there is
• 30:55
  S2: some pain being felt, some considerable pain being felt in
• 30:58
  S2: the US. Already, 55% of Americans in a Gallup poll
• 31:03
  S2: I saw a couple of days ago said that their
• 31:06
  S2: personal financial situation was getting worse. That's a record high.
• 31:10
  S2: The price of petrol is in the US about $4.20
• 31:14
  S2: a gallon, which is regarded as exceptionally high. 77% of
• 31:18
  S2: Americans said in a poll last week that they thought
• 31:22
  S2: that the high cost of fuel was a real concern
• 31:26
  S2: for them, and 7,078% rather, and 77% blamed Trump, at
• 31:30
  S2: least in part, for that. So there is pain. Inflation
• 31:34
  S2: is rising. Ordinary people are paying higher prices not just
• 31:38
  S2: for petrol, but that's spilling through. Together with his genius
• 31:41
  S2: tariff plans into higher prices for American consumers across the board.
• 31:47
  S2: So that's not great. And of course it's especially bad,
• 31:51
  S2: especially unhappy if you're a poor American, because Trump's so-called
• 31:55
  S2: big beautiful bill has severed a lot of assistance programs
• 31:59
  S2: to low income people while redistributing wealth to billionaires and
• 32:06
  S2: the rich. So there is some pain. But the second
• 32:09
  S2: point I'd make is he's right about the stock market.
• 32:13
  S2: The US stock market is booming. Uh, in spite of
• 32:17
  S2: all of that. It seems to be a paradox. The
• 32:19
  S2: explanation is that most of that boom is fueled by
• 32:24
  S2: the frenzy over data centers and AI. That's where hundreds
• 32:30
  S2: of billions of dollars is going in capital expenditure on
• 32:33
  S2: the ground to build facilities. And many, many hundreds of
• 32:37
  S2: billions more are chasing that investment and potential returns on
• 32:42
  S2: it through shares in the share market. Now, does that
• 32:46
  S2: mean that they've got they've discovered the nirvana of economic
• 32:51
  S2: of stock market and investment success and and where the
• 32:54
  S2: poor cousin. Well, before we leap to conclusions, I just say, Samantha,
• 33:00
  S2: that we've seen this before, when the so-called when the
• 33:04
  S2: tech bubble was running in the US in the late
• 33:08
  S2: 90s and up to 2000. That was the assumption. The
• 33:12
  S2: conclusion at that time was only America can have a
• 33:16
  S2: profitable future like this. The rest of the also rans,
• 33:19
  S2: because we dominate, we dominate all of the tech. the.com boom. Right.
• 33:25
  S2: And there was a huge boom going on in those stocks.
• 33:28
  S2: Australia was regarded as a real a real dud left
• 33:31
  S2: behind country because what did we have? We had a
• 33:34
  S2: bunch of rocks under the ground. You know, who cares?
• 33:37
  S2: Now that was the case until that bubble burst. Then it.
• 33:41
  S2: the.com frenzy turned into the tech bust. The tech bubble
• 33:46
  S2: became the tech bust overnight and investment returned to big
• 33:50
  S2: time to hard commodities. So suddenly countries with resources were
• 33:56
  S2: back in fashion. So commodities, iron ore, coal, oil, LNG, tungsten,
• 34:02
  S2: copper all of these things suddenly became fashionable again. I
• 34:07
  S2: can't see the future, Samantha, but I would strongly suspect
• 34:10
  S2: that we are going to see something similar, potentially when
• 34:14
  S2: the US monetary policy cycle turns and interest rates start
• 34:17
  S2: to come start to go up in the US, but
• 34:19
  S2: maybe from some market based shock, maybe another Trump genius initiative?
• 34:24
  S2: We don't know. But I wouldn't I wouldn't yet conclude
• 34:27
  S2: that this is a permanent new condition of the world.
• 34:30
  S1: Okay. Well question about a permanent condition or not. This
• 34:33
  S1: one comes from Michael McClellan and this is about the
• 34:36
  S1: United States. This is a biggie. He asks, Is Donald
• 34:39
  S1: Trump the cause or just a symptom of the US
• 34:42
  S1: decline into becoming a failing empire? And is it recoverable?
• 34:48
  S2: I think Donald Trump isn't the cause, but he is
• 34:51
  S2: the accelerator. He's a culminating point of trends that we've
• 34:55
  S2: seen going on in the US for decades. It's now, what,
• 34:59
  S2: 28 years since the US Congress was able to pass
• 35:03
  S2: a normal national budget on time and in whole, a
• 35:06
  S2: dysfunction which no other developed country suffers. It's been ten
• 35:11
  S2: years since that intense, hateful political polarization created a really
• 35:21
  S2: noticeable nastiness, and what I think has resulted over long
• 35:27
  S2: period in a change to really to to the American persona,
• 35:32
  S2: which was always upbeat, positive, confident, generous, and now is
• 35:39
  S2: is much more fearful and angry than I've seen it
• 35:41
  S2: in my life. And I think Trump is a product
• 35:44
  S2: of all of all of that. For example, he didn't
• 35:47
  S2: create Fox News. We can thank Rupert Murdoch for that.
• 35:50
  S2: At Fox News incubated Trump. His style, his politics suited
• 35:55
  S2: that larger, angry, divisive right wing project that was already
• 36:00
  S2: underway in in America. He's carried it, carried it to
• 36:03
  S2: a new high or a new low, depending on your viewpoint,
• 36:06
  S2: and has accelerated the underlying collapse of any sort of
• 36:12
  S2: unifying policy practices and the the traditional upholding of the
• 36:18
  S2: American place in the world. So yeah, I think he's
• 36:22
  S2: it's late stage imperial collapse when Trump is back at
• 36:28
  S2: the is back at the at the control stick. And, uh,
• 36:32
  S2: who knows just how far he'll take it and whether
• 36:35
  S2: whether the US can recover. I assume the US can
• 36:38
  S2: recover because these problems are man made. Therefore the solutions
• 36:42
  S2: are also man made. There's no inevitable or, you know,
• 36:45
  S2: predetermined outcome here. But I would point out that some
• 36:49
  S2: of the damage is done is not easily reversed. Trust
• 36:53
  S2: is a hard won commodity. He's done enormous damage to
• 36:58
  S2: trust in the US, especially among allies, the virtual empire
• 37:03
  S2: which the US built up, which in which countries cooperated
• 37:08
  S2: with the US not because they were militarily occupied or
• 37:10
  S2: economically coerced, but because they wanted to be US allies.
• 37:15
  S2: That was the genius of the American empire, is that
• 37:18
  S2: countries queued up to become friends and allies of the US. That's, uh,
• 37:24
  S2: that empire is now obviously in tatters and is very
• 37:29
  S2: hard to recover, especially when rivals, most notably China, are
• 37:34
  S2: building their own alliance systems and partnerships. We talked just
• 37:38
  S2: last week, Samantha, in the podcast about the Alliance. It's
• 37:42
  S2: not a formal alliance, but it's a battlefield cooperative that
• 37:46
  S2: has emerged. So the the allies are getting the US
• 37:50
  S2: alliance based structure is getting weaker at the time when
• 37:54
  S2: the autocratic allies are getting stronger. So very hard for
• 37:58
  S2: a quick recovery from from all of that, I think.
• 38:02
  S1: Interesting timing as well. We're recording this on Wednesday, not
• 38:05
  S1: long after King Charles has visited the United States and
• 38:09
  S1: gave a speech to the joint sitting of Congress. This
• 38:12
  S1: was the first by a British monarch in 35 years,
• 38:15
  S1: and I think many found it notable that he spoke
• 38:17
  S1: about the value of remembering friends and fostering compassion and
• 38:21
  S1: fostering peace. And I know many politicians globally have sort
• 38:26
  S1: of been tearing their hair out at all the alliances
• 38:29
  S1: that Trump has torn up. Apparently, Trump has reverence for
• 38:32
  S1: King Charles, so I don't know how much that will
• 38:34
  S1: sink in. Peter. That message.
• 38:37
  S2: Well, look, the Brits have got this diplomatic card. They're
• 38:40
  S2: playing it. They're playing it hard, and good luck to them.
• 38:43
  S2: They need it because of Trump's hostility. But it's. Can
• 38:46
  S2: I just say it might be nice optics, but it's
• 38:50
  S2: not really working because at the very same time that
• 38:52
  S2: this visit is on, just in the last couple of days,
• 38:55
  S2: Trump has said that if the British persist in taxing American.
• 39:01
  S2: The big tech internet companies, social media companies that are
• 39:05
  S2: extracting revenue without paying tax. If they continue to impose
• 39:08
  S2: a 2%. Propose a 2% tax on these US companies,
• 39:12
  S2: the US will retaliate. They call it foreign coercion, and
• 39:15
  S2: they're going to put what Trump said. He said we
• 39:17
  S2: might put a big tariff on Britain if they keep
• 39:20
  S2: doing that. Now, just in the last 24 hours in Australia,
• 39:25
  S2: the Albanese government has announced not the same thing, but
• 39:29
  S2: a similar imposition on those same companies where they use
• 39:33
  S2: the proprietary material of Australian media and news companies where
• 39:37
  S2: they use it without compensation. The federal government will demand
• 39:41
  S2: that they pay compensation at a rate somewhere between 1
• 39:44
  S2: and 2% to 2.5%, depending on the details here. So
• 39:48
  S2: maybe we'll be the recipients of the same treatment quite soon.
• 39:53
  S2: So yeah, you can you can play nice. You can
• 39:56
  S2: produce your king. This, of course, helps expose the. The.
• 40:01
  S2: The claim that the British monarch is also. Which he.
• 40:05
  S2: He is in a legal constitutional sense, the King of
• 40:07
  S2: Australia because he's not there representing Australian interests. He's representing.
• 40:11
  S2: He's essentially a diplomatic and trade asset for the UK.
• 40:16
  S2: He's not not doing us any any diplomatic or trade favours.
• 40:20
  S1: Although I believe he gave a nod to Aukus and
• 40:22
  S1: and supported that. So I think he did not.
• 40:25
  S2: He did. And of course that's British equity. They're one
• 40:27
  S2: of the three partners. So he's there. He's advocating for
• 40:30
  S2: the British interest as well. It's great TV to watch,
• 40:34
  S2: but it's at core where the fundamentals apply. It doesn't
• 40:39
  S2: seem to be helping the British with their with their
• 40:41
  S2: arguments with America.
• 40:43
  S1: Indeed. Now, Peter, I just want to wrap up with
• 40:46
  S1: what I'd call a wild card. And this is about
• 40:48
  S1: your writing. Now, a number of listeners and viewers and
• 40:51
  S1: readers wrote in just to say, don't have a question.
• 40:54
  S1: Just love Peter's writing like Lindsay Armstrong said, no questions.
• 40:57
  S1: Just great. Congratulations to Peter for outstanding reporting. Karen also said,
• 41:01
  S1: I don't have a question. Just wanted to say how
• 41:03
  S1: much I truly appreciate Peter's insights. But Ashley Berry, who
• 41:06
  S1: also says she enjoys your writing, she thinks you're at
• 41:09
  S1: the top of your game, but she wonders why such
• 41:11
  S1: short paragraphs. Peter. Is it because we have such short
• 41:15
  S1: attention spans?
• 41:18
  S2: Well, I'd never really realized that I wrote short paragraphs.
• 41:23
  S2: This is why I must say I'm flattered by all
• 41:24
  S2: those very kind, very generous, uh, undeserved comments. Um, I
• 41:30
  S2: did see a statistic in I don't know if you
• 41:33
  S2: see Harper's magazine, they have the Harper's Index, that one
• 41:36
  S2: page of astonishing, generally astonishing statistics every month. I did
• 41:41
  S2: see one recently that said that the average number of
• 41:46
  S2: words in a sentence in a New York Times best
• 41:49
  S2: selling selling book now is 16, a century ago. It
• 41:54
  S2: averaged 22. So our sentences are getting shorter along with
• 41:57
  S2: our attention spans. Maybe I've been an unwitting perpetrator of
• 42:02
  S2: this abbreviation of attention spans. I do look, one conscious
• 42:08
  S2: thing I do remember is early in my career, I
• 42:12
  S2: read that style classic called the Strunk and White The
• 42:15
  S2: Elements of Style, how to write. And I remember one
• 42:18
  S2: of their iron rules was, if you can say it
• 42:21
  S2: in four words, don't use five. So for somebody as
• 42:24
  S2: verbose as me, it's been a struggle, but I try
• 42:27
  S2: to keep to that. I try to keep to that
• 42:29
  S2: at some level, at least when I'm in print. And finally,
• 42:32
  S2: I'd say whether it's long, broad brush strokes on the
• 42:38
  S2: on the canvas or, you know, Aboriginal style dot painting,
• 42:42
  S2: you can make a beautiful picture either way. A matter
• 42:44
  S2: of style.
• 42:45
  S5: Oh.
• 42:46
  S1: I love that, Peter. Well, I've got lots of things
• 42:48
  S1: today because I really want to thank all the viewers,
• 42:50
  S1: listeners and readers. They sent in so many questions, so
• 42:53
  S1: many great ones. And if we didn't get to your question,
• 42:57
  S1: we plan on doing another one of these with Peter
• 42:59
  S1: sometime down the track. So thank you so much to
• 43:01
  S1: all of you. And of course, Peter, thank you so
• 43:04
  S1: much to you. I don't know how you keep this
• 43:05
  S1: all straight in your head, but so much appreciation for
• 43:09
  S1: your time.
• 43:10
  S2: Well, yeah. And thank you to everybody for the questions,
• 43:12
  S2: some of which give the old gray cells a bit
• 43:14
  S2: of a run around the paddock. Much appreciated.
• 43:17
  S1: Love that. Thanks, Peter.
• 43:19
  S2: Thanks, Samantha.
• 43:27
  S1: In other news today, Colleen Lamar, the mother of Bo
• 43:31
  S1: Lamar Condon, the police officer accused of the double murder
• 43:34
  S1: of couple Jesse Baird and Luke Davies, has been charged
• 43:37
  S1: by police. She was arrested yesterday morning and is accused
• 43:41
  S1: of allegedly attempting to influence a key witness to change
• 43:45
  S1: their evidence. The City of Sydney is investigating avenues to
• 43:49
  S1: ban property investors from using their second homes as short
• 43:53
  S1: term rentals, and this will likely provoke debate. But we
• 43:57
  S1: have named the best 50 Australian films of all time
• 44:01
  S1: with the aid of 24 experts including directors, actors, critics,
• 44:06
  S1: curators and authors. The full list is on our websites
• 44:10
  S1: and you can add your recommendations. So far, the castle
• 44:14
  S1: is topping the list of reader recommendations. You can read
• 44:17
  S1: more at the age.com.au or smh.com.au. Today's episode was produced
• 44:25
  S1: by Kai Wong. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and
• 44:29
  S1: our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick.
• 44:33
  S1: If you like our show, follow The Morning Edition and
• 44:36
  S1: leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks
• 44:39
  S1: for listening.