The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Is Anyone Winning This War?

Episode Date: April 6, 2026

We've entered the sixth week of the Iran war, and despite threats and counter threats, talks of ceasefires, there's still no end in sight. Is anyone winning this war? Dr. Janice Stein joins us again for her regular Monday talk about our changing world. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Who is winning this war in Iran? Is anyone winning this war in Iran? With talk of a ceasefire once again getting close, we ask that question. Who's winning? It's a Monday with Dr. Janice Stein.

Coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here once again. Welcome to Monday. Welcome to yet another week. right here on the bridge. And as we always do on Mondays, we bring in Dr. Janice Stein to talk about our changing world

and what's changing more than the situation. In Iran, the war in Iran, who is actually winning this war? Is anyone winning the war? Those are some of the questions we're going to ask. At a time when there is another move towards a possible ceasefire, talks continuing. We'll see where that one ends up.

We've seen this movie before. Okay. Before we get there, we have our normal Monday housekeeping duties to perform, which include the question of the week for this Thursday. For this Thursday's your turn. This is the question this week. Because while war takes place on Earth, in space,

we have four people rocketing towards, the moon. Getting awfully close now. And one of those four is a Canadian. You know him by now. Jeremy Henson. London, Ontario. He's on board that spacecraft.

And it's sure nice to see those pictures from inside the spacecraft of the four astronauts, three of them with the stars and stripes on their shoulder. And the fourth one, the Canadian flag. That's pretty nice.

And I think we can all be proud of that. But the question for the week is this. What do you think of Canada's efforts in space? Overall, the story of Canada in space. Is it too little? Is it too much? Is it a complete waste of time and air? energy and money.

What is your feeling about this? Because I'm sure that when you look at those pictures, you feel a sense of pride. But at the same time, are you a little kind of edgy about it all? You tell me in your answers to that question. Things are open now for your comments at the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge podcast at Gmail.com. your name and the location you're writing from. You must do that.

You also must keep them under your entries, under 75 words. So it's 75 words or fewer. And once again, most people write these in like 20 words. They're pretty good. But nevertheless, 75 words or fewer. And you have to have it in by 6 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday. And of late, a lot of the entries come in on day one like today.

And it makes no difference how soon you get them in or how late you get the main. You will be looked at and it will be judged on the final list of questions that actually appear on the program. All right. That'll do it for our housekeeping. So let's get to our discussion. It's another good one this week. They're always good with Dr. Janice Stein. So let's get at the discussion.

Right now. Here she is, Dr. Janice Stein from the Mug School at the University of Toronto. All right, Janice, you know, there's talk as there often is of ceasefire and U.S. arrangements being worked out. Let's see where those lead.

In the meantime, I want to take the big picture view, the helicopter view, if you wish, and try to determine who's winning this war. I mean, when it started, we all assumed it was going to be fairly straightforward

and not last a long time, but here we're now into the sixth week. And I got to tell you, when I look at it, I go, I don't know who's winning. It's a great question. And the answers are not so clear, Peter. Just from what you've just said,

what a cautionary tale about people who star wars. Right. Right. And they're going to be fast and they're going to win and it's clear. We've been living with this, you know, people who started World War I thought it was going to be six weeks. And it would be over. And it almost never works that way.

It's very rare. So much about, I think, the judgment after the fact about who won will be the way it ends. I can say this, that if Iran ends up controlling the states, the street of Hormuz, that is a massive defeat for the United. States. It's a massive defeat, Peter, because it really undermines the principle that these top point waterways are international. Think about the Straits of Taiwan.

This would be a license for China to say, well, if Iranians can do it, we can do it too. and it would be very, very hard to argue against that fact. So if, and it's a real possibility that the Iranians and this war in control of those straits, it is a huge strategic defeat for the United States. And right now, that's where we are. the Iranis were not in control of the strait at the beginning of the war. They are now. You know, there's a real lesson for us in this.

When you talk about the control of straits of international waterways, at least what many people believe are international waterways, whether it's Taiwan or whether it's the Persian Gulf, Canada's got this kind of lonely claim that the Northwest Passage is Canadian Waterways, waterways. You're the only one. We'll make that claim repeatedly.

And the United States and everybody else has known this is an international waterway. The difference is that we've never blocked the straits, right? We've never blocked the Northwest Passage. In fact, sometimes, you know, it's debatable, but you can argue that we, we didn't even know, know, we don't even know exactly what's going on in this area we claim to be ours. Yes, yes. But that is going to get better. That is getting better.

Our underwater's domain awareness is getting better, Peter. But you're right. It is a lesson for us because it, controlling what everybody else thinks is an international waterway, but a waterway that we kind of claim. as our own or Iran says, you know, we control the Gulf because we're the most important power. Or China says, it's an internal waterway between China and Taiwan. And we Canada, by the way, have joined maritime expeditions, frigates that have sailed up

that waterway just to make that point. To China, no, this is an international waterway. it matters so much particularly in the Gulf because 20% of oil and liquefied national gas travels through that waterway.

Now, you know, what happens? Peter, sure Iran end up controlling this waterway. And I think, by the way, that's a far bigger issue by the United States than the nuclear, than the enriched uranium.

that a nuclear program. This is me much. But shouldn't really end up in that position? What happens over time? Markets adjust. Right. So, you know, what do I mean by this? The Saudis already have a pipeline that goes over land,

sort of the Emirates, that exports oil through the Red Sea, right? So what will happen is that there will, be massive investments in one alternative infrastructure to export that oil. There's overland routes. And it won't be 20% anymore. It'll be 10. It'll be 8.

But that's a five-year lease project. And the price of oil goes way up during this period. causes inflation everywhere. And probably the one good thing that will come out of this, there will be a huge boost to renewable energy. This will probably push us much faster through the energy transition

than the otherwise we want. It'll be more costly. Why do I say this? When did we really first start down the path to renewable energy after the oil embargoes in 1973? in 1970.

You know, this kind of underlines what a miscalculation was taking place in Washington. I mean, assuming, perhaps they assumed the war was really going to be over in, you know, 48 hours or something, and it would never get to the straight of war moves.

But that's like such a miscalculation that there was no plan B to deal with that situation or to a to deal with it. It's worse than that because they actually thought the war would take three to four weeks. Remember those early? Yeah, I know I know he said that, but I thought he was just saying that to show that when it ends in five days how brilliant they were. Well, that could be too, right?

But I think, you know, General Kane told me that. But what a huge, almost unbelievable miscalculation not to say. that Iran was so obvious not to think that Iran would do this and not on day if you're going to take this gamble well then on day one you put in place you know you do those it would be difficult at the best of times to secure that straight and the reason is the Iranians have missiles in caves right along the shore right so digging out those missiles but at the very least you try your best to secure that you put naval you put marines in the morning you start this you put marines in so you make it very very clear that there's a cost you're going to have to kill americans if you do this we've all known that in modern warfare you know objective number one is to knock out command and control of the other side. So on day one, back, you know, six weeks ago almost now, the Americans and the Israelis took out a degree of the commanding control by wiping out the leadership, whatever it was, 40, 50 people killed in one major strike.

but that did not knock out command and control. And there was good information before the strike period. And I say it was the informationist of I knew it without access to any classified information other people knew as well. So the Iranis actually talked about this, that Khomeini, after the 12-day war, because commandant control really did break down then. He designed this leadership structure that had two components,

four levels down. So if they take me out, there's a successor to me, and if they take my successor out and go down another. And he had put that in place. And then he decentralized commandant control, had spread it out across the Iranian provinces. So commanders have plans to fire, even if they didn't get orders.

That's what's happened, in fact, and that's why, in a way, it's so difficult to do two things. You can decapitate the leaders like that. You make communication very difficult. But he anticipated that that was coming. You planned for it. And now part of the problem that the mediators are happening is nobody's meeting in person. there's you know career communication virtual communication is risky and the orders are there

even if you don't get something a signal from the top you go that's why it's very very difficult now to communicate in a systematic way with iranis now this too it should not have been a strategic surprise should not you know the big mystery to me with where with general cane and and all of this. I'd get what Donald Trump didn't pay any attention. When he was told that the straits might be a choke like and the only ones would go for it. He laughed apparently.

He said, don't worry. He seems at times, and who knows, I mean, I don't know, but it seems at times that he listens to Heggseth more than he listens to Kane. Well, yeah. And that's unbelievable. Yeah. I mean, I have to say the level of incompetence, you know, just bravado. But he has no deep knowledge whatsoever of how a complex organization fights, even his own, right?

It's just to all be tough. Well, I don't know how smart or stupid to Hexeth is, but he must realize he's being set up here. If the war is deemed a failure, which no matter what its outcome is, it seems to be being described as that. Somebody's going to pay the price. Yeah, and it's clearly Hexa. Yeah. I mean, it's clearly Hexat. He takes the fall, especially as they move into an election period.

And, you know, he's fired to cabinet members. Now, he'd held off doing that because he didn't want the reputation for the chaos that he had in his first term. But he's fired too high, high profile women. I can't imagine that he had assessed their wives. Now, and again, you wouldn't see how this is going to be spent. If there is a ceasefire in which the straits reopened. And there's some inspection. some inspectors go back in and verify where that enriched during your midst.

And there's a deal. And the Iranis gets sanctions relief. Then that's better than it was before the war started. But it's not better, Peter, than it was, before Donald Trump walked away from the agreement. in his first term because they were inspected. Yeah, I mean, he keeps referring to that deal in certain terms, which are... The worst agreement ever made by any president of history, Barack Obama. Yeah, he said the same thing about the deal that he signed with Canada on trade.

Yeah, yeah. But in terms of the Iranian deal, It seems at times that they, you know, and you kind of suggested that what they're aiming, what they're heading towards is not as good a deal as the one he ripped up. Well, there was one big problem with the Obama deals, right? And there was a sunset cost. It lasted fundamentally for 10 years. And then the Iranians could enrich fundamentally without restraint.

we were almost at the end of the 10 years it's not wrong we never say it's 2027 will be the end of the 10 years that's not much of a constraint on a program like this it's a very very short-term view I would imagine coming out of this it's a forever you know look you know I think for for the Iranians

they've gotten one they need nuclear weapons for they have a strategic choke point which brought Donald Trump to the table and that's any time they can reassert their control over the straight of our moves. They're getting all the benefits of nuclear weapons with another risk. So I'm not one of those who's convinced

that they will race to a nuclear weapon when this is over. The risks are just too great. If they do it, the Saudis do it. and you have a very different Gulf. Nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are there only to prevent the very worst thing,

which is raising change and invasion of the homeland. They've got a weapon now. Let me go back to some of those opening statements. I mean, the sense that they'd knocked out when they hadn't command and control,

the sense that they, within days were saying, we have control of the skies, their air force is wiped out, their Navy is wiped out. Now, the Air Force clearly has not been wiped out, or their ability to defend themselves against the Air Force of an invading country. After what we witnessed this weekend, now it was only one incident. And, you know, the Americans are pumping it up as they always do at a time of war

for obvious reasons in terms of at home. the feelings of the people. They've created this hero in the injured American air crew who were rescued over the weekend. And, you know, it'll be months, if not years before we find out what the real story was on that. As we've witnessed in past wars, they really pumped them up for at-home spirits. But they clearly didn't knock out Iranian air defenses. So from everything I understand it, who knows, Peter? Who knows, right?

Because we're getting. That plane was taken down by a shoulder-head anti-aircraft missile, right? One out of 7,000 bomb runs. Right. Right. And you can never eliminate that. I mean, somebody has a shoulder-head missile. so that they'd fire off.

And probably the planes were, say, in the last week to 10 days, they've had some of the old lumbering planes and fly slower and are easier targets because they were so confident that they'd eliminated virtually everything. So I think, to be fair, they virtually, I mean, you know, air superiority doesn't mean you eliminate every shoulder and had a little missile. It's not possible in our cell and they have been able

those those defenses were knocked out in the June and they haven't been replaced because the Russians have not been able to replace them. So you can't claim that really as a massive success for this war.

But I think they have and look from everything we understand there's something called you know militaries love these acronyms CSAR

combat search and rescue which is how do you rescue somebody who you're really worried the other side will cease because you can imagine that you're I mean the United States they're pumping in a

subpoise as an incredible story but just imagine if he'd been captured and paraded but Iranians would have done fundamentally the same things so the states were very high for both of them

there were fire fights on the ground because they sent in fairly launched a number of aircraft just to protect the group and they had

special forces on the ground well you've seen those guys you know what they're like yep And the Iranians knew where they, you know, fundamentally knew where they were, but not exactly. So there's no question that even for them to succeed, there's a high-risk operation, the capability of Iranian air, you know, air defenses are degraded, intelligence must be degraded, which we knew beforehand.

And there was a limited area where this probably could have been, this special officer and the Iranians couldn't control it. Well, listen, there's no doubt that the Americans have this image and story and history of never leaving somebody behind. It really matters. And it matters an awful lot for the spree de corps, all that. And, you know, and good for them that. they managed to pull this one off.

I'm hesitant to believe the whole hype story yet on how this all happened, but, you know, it will eventually come through. You know what this story says to me though, Peter, and this is, I think,

the story of the American performance, and Israeli performance throughout this whole six weeks. They are tactically brilliant. They're training, their capacity to execute. they are tactically brilliant. The performance is sometimes in the U.S. military is just astonishing. The strategic incompetence of leadership, the political leadership, is astonishment.

And tactical brilliance doesn't win wars. Okay, I want to pick up on that point. But I'm going to take our break first. We'll be right back after this. And welcome back. you're listening to the Monday episode of the bridge. That means Dr. Janice Stein from the Monks School of the University of Toronto. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks,

or on your favorite podcast platform, and we're glad to have you with us wherever you're joining us from. Picking up on that last point that you made about the, you know, the brilliance of American forces and Israeli forces. I mean, they're two of the most trained forces, military forces in the world. And, you know, they know what they're doing. And they usually do it extremely well. So let me ask you this, because it's being said of this particular war,

that the U.S. attacked Iran with no clear reason for doing so. True. And, you know, they kept changing the reasons why. True. No clear strategy when they attempted. happened and no exit plan. Now, is that a fair criticism or is that over the top? No, I think it's absolutely fair.

There was no imminent threat. There was no imminent threat. You know, Iran, since it's had the enriched year and before last year, has had a breakout capacity. That's not new. and there was no indication in the weeks leading up to the war that the Iranians, there's no evidence that I've seen that the Iranians had made any effort to access or move that uranium. So there was no imminent threat, Peter.

And there were, let's not forget there were negotiations going on. Iranians had come to the table and they're very difficult to get some stable, and they had come to the table. So I think that is absolutely right that there was no interest. And no exit strategy. Because they didn't worry at the political level about how you know. I mean, you just just, I really think in Donald Trump's case, it's what's happened in the last 24 to 48 hours. That's how he thinks.

And so, you know, what happened in Venezuela, persuaded him that this could be short, fast, they would crumble. The Iranian regime would crumble. It was under assault. There'd be an equivalent to Dulcie Rodriguez. And he made those comments. He said, some of the people that were on our list to talk to were killed in that first strike. But what kind of confidence is that, by the way? In the first place. And no plan, no real plan to exit and no forth a document

to this trade of former. So that is a level of strategic incompetence, which is mind-barred. You know, you mentioned Venezuela. It's interesting. The New York Times this morning has a piece that basically argues things really haven't changed in Venezuela. But they change for Trump. Well, they changed for Trump. I mean, it looked like a big victory for Trump.

And as usual, you know, people move on and nobody's looking at Venezuela anymore. But the fact of the matter is the American oil firms that were supposedly going to go in there and change everything around and make Venezuelan oil exports much more, you know, workable and profitable. That's not happened. They haven't poured a whole bunch of money in there. Nothing that, even with the increase in the world price, nothing is trickling down to the Venezuelan people. No. According to New York Times, it's going to, you know, as it often does, it's going to the elite. and the banks and this and that,

but it's not changing the life of the ordinary Venezuelan. And nobody talks about Venezuela anymore, other than, oh, a great victory, all done in 24 hours, and boom, boom, the guys in jail in New York. It's interesting to remember that because, you know, I'm sure if Trump manages over this next while to get some kind of a ceasefire or some kind of a deal with Iran.

He'll want to move, he'll want to move away from this story as fast as possible. It'll be finished. That's right. This is the last one of the Gulf. Right. Until the next one.

Well, you know, the United States is not going back there. Not just present. I know any circumstances, he's not going back there. But usually at least to go back there, there would have to be,

evidence that the Iranians were moving to convert that in the rich uranium and were in the post of making bomb otherwise they're not going back there. Has this been as big a failure for or an apparent

failure for Israel as it has been an apparent failure for the U.S.? I think less but still a failure still a failure but less because their expectations, I think.

Their objectives are not completely aligned here. They certainly were hoping for regime. But I think living in the region, the expectations are just different. And their goal really, for them the most important thing is to get some controls around the region and around the nuclear program. That's the key.

And I think the failure is in the wishful thinking that Iran could be constrained over the long term from supporting Hezbollah, which is on that. Probably the biggest tactical threat to Israel is right on the northern border. And that war, even if this war stops, there's no necessary follow on the war in the north stops. I just don't know what either Netanyahu or Trump can point to if the end result of this is, you know, there's no regime change. There's no regime change. Iran still controls straight of Hormuz, perhaps even more in control of it now than it was before.

Oh, there's no question. They were not in control. the tankers were moving through Iran was not you know Iran was not collecting tolls $10 million a day on each tanker and U.S. tankers

were not barred. There's a huge difference between what is said a negative difference for the United States in comparison to what was before. So my point on Israel is the same

though. What's the victory? I mean, sure, they pounded them for six weeks and there's been all kinds of damage and there's going to have to be rebuilding. But the same people are in control. Yeah. So let's look at the Gulf for a second. The Saudis, the Emirates, the Kuwaitis, Bahrainis. They're lost to Iran now. And they weren't before.

They've lost for a decade. You know, for the Saudis. this is such a setback for Mohammed bin Salman in 2030 but it's much, much worse for the smaller ones because they have no capacity to guarantee their own security. It's not a victory for the United States in the Gulf because who is the security guarantor for all these Gulf states? It's the United States.

And what are the United States do to protect them when the Iranians began to do this? In fact, the U.S. bases on their soil were liabilities, not assets. But, you know, the Bahrain, there's talk in a sense now about the Gulf states coming together to form a defensive alliance, which effectively under the table. They would be using Israeli equipment and technology and know-how. So what do Israelis get out of this, which they didn't have before. is effectively they're going to have, you know,

you know how important the Palestinian issue has been in the Gulf States. Given this experience for them, they are more likely now after this is over to open up to Israeli military technology and partnering and intelligence sharing. That's a change for Israel, which is a pause. That's the only pause. you know there's another

victim or potential victim as a result of this war and that's NATO now you know you look at what's happened to that alliance especially with the way the Americans relate to

NATO now I mean Trump was always sort of anti-NATO but like now it's really quite something. Has this war destroyed NATO? Well, I think Donald Trump has done that, right?

I think the damage to NATO is enormous. I don't think it matters whether Trump withdraws from NATO or not. You know, he can't functionally because he has to be approved by Congress's treaty. He was ratified. So he can't unilaterally withdraw from him.

But the damage she's done, it's, you know, no European country now believes that the United States would honor Article 5, which is the commitment to come to the assistance if the member is attacked. And if no European believes up, why would Russia believe that? So regardless of what you don't need to do anymore to deeply undermine the credibility. in the Nailant. I think Trump has done this. I think this war put the nail in the coffin there. I'm sure Europeans will

and Mark Ruta in particular who see. Secretary General of Nato has tried to paper over this roof between the United States and Europe. He's going to hang on. He knows that Trump will not withdraw and I'm sure that he's hoping for a different president.

But if you're in Vilnius or you're in Warsaw. And there's a democratic president in 28 and he says we've turned the page, we're back. Biden said that. And then look what happened. So I think Europe, and this has been a discussion

that's on, you know, very well for 30 and 40 years and Europeans have talked on and off about, you know, taking responsibility for their own defense. And the U.S. was very ambivalent about that. because all the European spending or most of the European defense spending is spent in the United States on American weapons technology.

So despite Trump's claim that they do nothing, well, they buy a trillion dollars worth military equipment Europe as a whole from the United States. That's not nothing. And that, you know, for the military, for the primes as they're,

so-called for those big companies that make advanced milk equipment. Losing those customers would be devastating, frankly. And he just missed that whole argument.

But I can't imagine the Europeans are now not going to move aggressively to fill in every capability that they can. The one that they cannot is the nuclear one, but the British and the French would do their best.

But I think we are going to see, and this is a huge loss of the United States, accelerated spending by Europe to look after their own defense. The Germans are going to leak, the Germans. So imagine looking at Europe in which German is the lead military. You know the famous line about NATO? NATO was created to keep the Russians out, the Germans down and the Americans in, right? And there's a lot of truth to that. There's a lot of truth.

Well, the Germans will not be down. The Americans will not be in, and Europe will change fundamentally. It's hard to imagine how Trump can ever again have a relationship, a real relationship with Macron after he insulted Macron's wife and insulted France. I mean, Macron is not Ted Cruz. No. You know, and we all know what that relationship. relationship was like.

And as you say, Starmer, I mean, the one thing I can't believe about Starmer, I go hot and cold on Starmer. But the one thing I can't, I can't accept about Starmer is that once again now, he's letting the king travel off to the U.S. after the things that Trump has said about the UK. I can't believe it and I can't believe what the king, our king, supposedly, is going to trot around the U.S., glad-handing with these people

who have been crapping all over us. I mean, I just, I don't get it. You know, it's really because there was a leak this past weekend, which is what? I actually had thought, and I think you know, talked about it, that it was the

change intervention on behalf of Canada. Right. I saw that. Did you see that? I've gotten at the time that's the most important part of that visit, because it was that party visit was almost immediately after he was elected. Yeah.

And I know, the king, the king is very invested in the family. His mother was, and the king, is and here's what kind of i think there was a conversation with don't trump about canada that the king so this is their biggest asset that britain has is the king believe it or not yeah i i accept that i accept that and i recognize that it's quite possible that he had an influence on him in that conversation but so much has happened since then and it's not just about canada anymore it's what he said about Britain.

I don't know. You try to imagine what would it have been like, you know, if it wasn't Starmer, if it was even Bojo, you know, Tony Blair, some of these other former prime ministers, what they would have said to Trump. I can't imagine what they would have sent the king. Could you?

Either any of those two, Tony Blair or, Ross Johnson. Right. I can't. It puts him in a terrible, and it makes him unfairly looked weak, to be honest, it puts him in a terrible, terrible position.

But on the other hand, you know, the visit was scheduled, Peter. Yeah, but schedules can change, you know. They would have had to catch. You know, Trump changed his schedule to China, so. Yep. Whatever. So if you look at this, the United States lost, NATO lost, Europe, lost, Israel, lost.

Russia wins. Iran, Iran, it's not, it's really mixed because they, in the end, you have to live in their own neighborhoods, which is quite lower. You have to live in your own neighborhood. but they now have a look at over those that straight. And everybody in that straight has a different few of them now as a result of it. Okay, we have a less than a minute left here. The next 24 to 48 hours could be critical in all this or is this just another moment where they will come and go? No, look, it could come and go, that's for sure.

but it is critical and whether it's, you know, 4872, it's critical because the chief of the Pakistani military and Pakistanism is a key player. It's underrated in all of this. It's really, really important, Moonier, he has a good, he met Trump at the White House and Trump likes him.

He has a good relationship with the Iranians and most important Pakistan and Saudi Arabia assigned a mutual defense tree. So all of a sudden, Pakistan's the key player. And from everything we understand it, there's just leaked material. There's the outline of a political arrangement here,

which is the only way this war can end. This war cannot end through the use of military force. That has to be in agreement. And there's no end to it for Iran, and there's no end to it to the United States. less there's an agreement. So this is kind of the bare bones, 45-day ceasefire,

open up the straits, and let's come to some agreement on supervision of the uranium, of the enrichment process, and an end to sanctions rate. Those are the four, those are the key elements in any deal, no matter who mediates. The Egyptians are involved,

but Turks are involved. Interesting, not a European in sight, Peter. Right. Relegated to the spotlight lines, right? And so the real question, does Iran, does Iran give this a try? Because the United States already, already, if the Iranian don't give it a try,

we're in for serious destruction of the energy infrastructure. power infrastructure inside Iran as well as in the Gulf. You have to ask yourself if you're making the decisions for around what's, what's enough for us? Because in the end, it has to be an agreement. There has to be an agreement. There's no other way to end it. You know, the other side of that coin, of course, is that degree of destruction is a war crime.

Yes, it is. Yes, it is. And the Americans have to face. Yes. Yes. It would be a war crime. There's no question about it. But remember, the Iranians are not members

the international criminal court. The Iranians have committed, you know, the same crimes when they're bombed desalination plants and LNG fields. So, you know, share the glory. Yeah. Right? And so that's what.

the question. If Iran if there's that order of magnitude destruction for Iran ahead, isn't it better? And it'll be on, and this is the other thing to watch for, Peter, if this agreement doesn't go on some version

of what, and there'll be a, you know, if it goes, it'll be a 45-day ceasefire. And Iranians are worried that it will be like Gaza. You'll get all the fireworks to the seasings. And then nothing will happen and this will stretch on because Trump will move away. And they have every reason to be concerned about this.

But if it's a no, the onus will be on Iran that rejected the ceasefire proposal. Well, if they want to keep Trump involved in the after a deal of some kind, they just have to promise them a, they can build a casino in Tehran. I call it the Trump casino, right? No kidding. Yeah, you put your name on it and go. old letters. Right. Okay. So we'll see. This is a big week.

It's a big week and it means then when we talk again next Monday, everything will be resolved. It means everything will be much worse. Or there'll be a glimmer of life here. Let's hope. All right. Thank you, Janice. We'll talk again in seven days. Dr. Janice Stein, her weekly conversation about all things worldly.

And of late, there's been almost nothing else to talk about other than the Iran war. We did talk about Ukraine a little bit last week as well. And we touched on the Venezuela situation today. But the main focus has been on Iran. And as we always do at this time each week, we thank Janice for her time and her thoughts. and the way she inspires us to think through things as well. And as always, we don't have to agree with Janice. But the whole idea of provoking thought is a good one.

And this topic is certainly one that I know many of us care about. All right, you heard the question of the week. It's about Canada's efforts in space. What do you think of them? Too little, too much? a waste of money, a waste of time? Your thoughts on all of that? As we watch, our guy, head towards the moon.

Going to be going backside of the moon very soon. Once again, they don't land. They're just going around the moon. For the first time in 50 years, it's a fantastic voyage and the pictures of being spectacular. But your thoughts on whether it's worth it. I'd love to hear from you. You know all the rules and the conditions and where to write and how much to write and when to have your answers in. So go for it. That's going to do it for our

time for this day. We'll be back again tomorrow. Raj and Russo join us tomorrow with the latest of what they're hearing on the Canadian political scene. That's tomorrow's The Bridge. Looking forward to being here to talk with you then. I'm Peter Manning. which thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again in less than 24 hours.