The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Is This Moment The Most Serious Rift Ever Between Israel and the US?

Episode Date: April 8, 2024

Last week's phone call between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu marked a new chapter in US-Israel relations and is not a good one. What will happen now? Is the rift fixable? Dr Janice Stein is with us for her regular Monday discussion. Also in the conversation, Is Russia really as powerful as some NATO allies are making it sound?

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Monday, the beginning of a new week. Is the rift between the United States and Israel the most serious ever? Janice Stein is with us. That's coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here in Stratford, Ontario today. Not a bad place to watch the eclipse. Now, depending on when you're listening to The Bridge today, you may be listening to it before the eclipse passes through your area, or you may be listening to it afterwards. That's the beauty of podcasts. You listen whenever you want. Now, the first airing is

on Sirius XM, and that will be before the eclipse. So there's a lot of action here in southwestern Ontario, especially around Niagara Falls, which is not that far away from Stratford. But also, you know, you're still going to see it here in Stratford, perhaps not as clearly as you will in Niagara Falls, and who knows what the weather's going to be. Those are all things that we'll just have to wait and see. But there's, you know, a lot of excitement. I saw a number of the television reports out of Niagara Falls over the weekend of crowds building. Now, it was a beautiful weekend,

so there are going to be crowds in Niagara Falls anyway. But there seemed like there were a lot of people who were getting ready to watch it from there because that's one of the kind of key primary zones for both Americans who come up to Niagara Falls, New York, or Canadians who go down to Niagara Falls, Ontario. So we'll see and we'll hear the reports and it's all very interesting and it is one of those things that none of us are going to see again in our lifetimes.

So if you do look up, be careful. Wear those proper eye covers. They're sunglasses, I guess, in a way, but they're special ones, and the approved ones are the ones you want to use. Anyway, enough about the eclipse, because most of you will hear this after. You'll already know what happened. A bit of housekeeping, as we usually do first thing on Monday morning, we'd give you, remind you of the question of the week.

Well, this week's question of the week is the same as last week's question of the week, because we had so many entries under the category of name the one Canadian television program, past or present, that's had a real impact on you. What would it be? Well, I mean, we're getting used to this each week of getting lots of responses from you and lots of responses from people who are regular listeners to the bridge but have never written in before. But they're writing in on these questions, and that's great. I had letters over the weekend from people saying,

I just loved listening to that. I didn't enter the contest, which I had, but I just loved listening to that. I didn't enter the contest, which I had, but I just loved listening to it. It took me back down memory lane for a lot of programs I'd forgotten, a lot of programs that were good, a lot of Canadian-produced programs that were pretty special.

There were the obvious candidates came up a fair number of times, but there were all kinds of ones that many of us had forgotten, but forgot no longer. Now, because there were so many, we never got to them all last week. So we extended a couple of days to see whether we could get enough for this week as well. Well, we sure did. Don't bother sending in new ones.

The nominations are closed. They're done. They're over. But we have a program ready for this Thursday. Second week of these. Your choices for a Canadian television news program or television program, not news. It could be any kind of program that you watched.

And what was it? And why did you like it? So we'll hear that second week of those on Thursday along with the Random Ranter. And lots of reaction to last week's Random Ranter, too. If you didn't hear it, you probably might want to dial back and listen to it. Okay. Mondays have been, for some time now,

our conversation with Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto, Global Affairs Specialist, Middle East specialist, conflict management specialist. Janice brings years of experience and knowledge to the table on the issues, two main issues that we've been discussing for quite some time now. One, Israel-Hamas after six time now. One Israel Hamas after six months now since the October 7th attack on Israel

and the fallout, which has been considerable. And the dynamic in terms of the whole story changes almost on a daily basis, and will continue to do so this week as negotiations start up again on a ceasefire. And we talk about Ukraine-Russia as well, as we're into the third year of that war. Janice has been terrific on keeping us, you know, kind of at full speed on understanding these stories and the direction that they seem to be going in every week. All right. Now, for me, let's get to our conversation, this week's conversation, with Dr. Janice Stein.

After a week like the one we've had, Janice, it makes you wonder whether we have now entered, for the first time since 1948, a very different kind of relationship between the United States and Israel. Is that overstating where we are right now, or is that accurate? I think that's accurate. This is, by orders of magnitude, Peter, the most serious rift between the United States and Israel. You know, there have been two earlier ones, just for the history buffs who listen to us. there's the rift in 1956 when General Eisenhower ordered Prime Minister Ben-Gurion to withdraw after Israeli forces had reached the canal. He complied within 24 hours. And then the last time was President Bush and Secretary Baker when they were getting ready for the Madrid Peace Conference.

And those were rocky roads, but he complied as well. Never, ever seen anything like the conversation that took place between Biden and Netanyahu on Thursday. Any print version doesn't capture the color of it, frankly. Fury on Biden's part, in part because the chef involved in World Food Kitchen is very well known at the White House and very well regarded and very well respected.

This became personal now, and for the president's wife, it became personal, and he functionally gave an ultimatum to Netanyahu, even though up and down they tell you oh we never do that we don't tell other countries what to do we just tell them the consequences um now i i you know sometimes i have trouble deciding who to believe on these you know readouts of the conversations between leaders because you know we're not all listening it's it's it's not like it's uh played out on television um so how do we determine this are we hearing this from both sides that it was that kind of a conversation that it was that straightforward on the part of biden because you know the the biden spinners want us to believe that for sure yes they do uh but you know they had a large number who dialed

in for that conversation which is not usual you know usually you have one or two others and one is there to listen um and take notes there's never a call from a president or a prime minister where somebody isn't listening on the phone even though you may not be aware of it. But the vice president dialed in. Jake Sullivan, the press's national security advisor, dialed in. Tony Blinken dialed in. He had his whole team on that call listening to every word, even though he was the only one who spoke.

And so that's where the color is coming from. Some of them are talking just a little bit, and that's where the full force really became clear. And, of course, there's no leakier place than Israel. And there are a couple of reporters that have proven extremely reliable, and they used words like you just did, that this is the most serious crisis in the relationship between the two countries. So there's convergence on both sides here.

Now, that's different from how much impact will this all have. Okay, and I want to get to that. But just before we do, to continue to put it in context, you know, we as Canadians like to think that, and we claim all the time, that the U.S.-Canada relationship is, you know, the strongest in the world, and we've been friends forever, and we'll always be friends, et cetera, et cetera etc and there's a certain degree of truth to that but i think it's also fair to say that since 1948 since the creation of israel there probably has been no tighter relationship for the united

states than the relationship with israel yeah i think it's just later, actually. It's quite interesting. The first 15 years, that wasn't the case, largely because the Arab governments were very well represented in Washington, very longstanding relationships with Saudi Arabia. But that began to change under JFK for the first time. And since then, I think that's absolutely accurate. This is an extremely close relationship because it's not only government to government.

It is society to society, and it has only become more important paradoxically as innovation took off in Israel and Israel began to produce products that are technologically valuable to the United States. And as the relationship with the Arab world got worse after the invasion of Iraq, the United States repositions military equipment for the whole region inside Israel. And so there is really now, there is strategic value to that relationship that there wasn't in the early days. So that's why this rift takes on a wholly added color

in the context of that. All right. Well, let's talk now about, as you suggested, what difference will it make? on a fully added color in the context of that. All right. Well, let's talk now about, as you suggested, what difference will it make? I mean, obviously there was tough talk was incoming for some time. You could feel it was about to happen. But then the terrible incident of the missile attack on the aid group took place at the beginning, you know, about a week ago now.

And that added a whole new impetus to the discussion. So as a result of the tough talk, what's happened? Well, on the ground, two things happened immediately. First of all, Israel reopened the Erez crossing, which was attacked on the morning of October 7th, and that's why they refused to reopen it. It's symbolically really important inside the country, especially since there are still hostages.

They nevertheless reopened it, and that is the easiest way for development assistance and food and humanitarian aid to get into northern Gaza, which is most at risk right now. They also now have agreed to use our store, the port that is close by, to reposition and move humanitarian aid more quickly. And what's so clear from the conversation, Peter,

is the Biden administration set targets. In other words, we're not interested in any announceables. We want to know how many trucks are crossing every day by the end of the week. It was that kind of tough talk. Now, what's actually going to happen very interesting video came um that i saw on saturday evening which near the air is crossing and you could hear the gunfire uh on the other side in gaza and i would assume that Hamas is able to read out

just as well, maybe not quite as well as you are, but nevertheless, they understand the pressure that Israel is now under. And the, you know, the frontline reporters were saying, this is not going to be easy. Even if you, and we talked about that last week, even if you get the shipments, if you speed up the inspections,

you remove all those barriers, you've still got to cross the border into Gaza and you've got to distribute this aid. And to do it under fire is going to be a challenge. So I think it's important that we not assume the problem is solved just because the Israelis will no longer obstruct the fundamental problem there. There's no police force to provide security. I mean, if anything, you could argue that what this will do will embolden Hamas.

There's no question. There's no question. I mean, if you actually look at Israel's strategy over these last two months, it's through its own doing, which is astonishing when you think about it, put itself in a position where it is now completely dependent on Hamas. Because the second thing that Biden said is, I want to cease fire and I want to cease fire now. Instruct your negotiators to go to the table. And I think by the next morning, some of the people on that call had said, well, it's not that easy. And he sent messages to the emir of Qatar and the president of Egypt saying, press Hamas to get a ceasefire.

But why would Hamas agree to a ceasefire now? And we're really talking about Sinmar as opposed to the political wing. Why would he agree to a ceasefire now when effectively he sees this rift deepening between the united states and israel israel be finally being pushed which is exactly of course what he wants and he will smell frankly weakness the um you know i mean let's face it if hamas wants to cease they're going to have to release the hostages. That's right. Or if Israel says, all in on a cease fire, we'll sign tonight.

But they've got to release the hostages. That's the only condition we ask for. Release the hostages now. But Israel won't say that either. No. You know, and again, what's the problem? And the negotiators are back in Qatar, and we're going to go through. now. But Israel won't say that either. No. And the negotiators are back in Qatar and we're going to go through another. What are the, I think,

there's three issues on the table and nothing more. One, release the hostages. And it's not even clear that Seymour would release all the hostages. Because I think it would be fair for the two of us to speculate that when he does

that, he's dead man walking. And so I think he would release all the elderly, the sick, the women, the everybody, but I don't think he would agree to release all the hostages.

The second big issue, he wants a permanent ceasefire and a commitment by Israel to withdraw. Biden asked for an immediate agreement to a six-week ceasefire. He didn't ask for an agreement for a permanent ceasefire. Where the talk got really tough, I want that six-week ceasefire now, and it wasn't tied to a release of the hostages, all the hostages. That's a change in the Biden position. I think Israel would agree to a six-week ceasefire in a minute right now, but I don't think Hamas will.

So at the end of the day, we're like, is anything really any different than it was 10 days ago? Well, that's why I'm skeptical, Peter, that this is the breakthrough that, um, that really moves this forward.

Um, there's only there. And there's a third piece to this story which we have to put this last piece of the jigsaw puzzle in. We talked last week about the Israeli attack on the Iranian

embassy in Lebanon and the last few days US intelligence, Israeli intelligence are signaling that they expect an Iranian attack on Israel in the next few days. And people have the bizarre experience. Israel is jamming signals, GPS signals inside Israel. So if you were in Jerusalem this week

and you turned on your phone for GPS directions, they would tell you you're in Cairo. Now, why are they doing this? We've talked about this between Russia and Ukraine because the missiles that would be incoming would get these jammed signals and would misread and would go off course. And people are stockpiling gas and food and their whole country is on heightened alert.

All leaves have been canceled. Now, if there is a major retaliation, that is going to change the dynamic again between Israel and the United States. Because the United States would have no option again but to support Israel. Were Iran to attack, it would take the spotlight off Gaza. The United States would have to support Israel. There would be a much greater risk of a wider war,

especially if the attack were not against an embassy somewhere else in the world, but against Israel proper. And that all the focus on humanitarian assistance, the spotlight was shift. So I can only imagine the amount of back channeling that's going on, on, on this to try and prevent that from happening. There was a desperate attempt by to prevent Iran from retaliating. And again, if you're into Iran,

and these are, you know, the Iranian decision makers have been, I think, among, we don't usually talk about them this way, they've been among the most sophisticated since October. They've been able to have a self-disciplined strategy. They've pushed their proxies up front. They reined them in when they needed to when they were attacking U.S. troops

and there were U.S. casualties, and they've stood back. I think they have to hope that they understand how overwhelmingly it is not in their interest to attack Israel proper, especially as this pressure is now building on Netanyahu. They could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here. And we'll have to wait and see frankly you know I'm almost hesitant to bring this up but I'm going to bring it up anyway we've talked often about for the last you know year or so about how

an accident can change everything and you know and turn something into a much worse situation. And clearly, that was part of what happened in this past week with the missile attack on the aid group. Now, what I wanted to say here, and I don't want this to sound like i'm trying to uh defend the mistake theory um that it was just a mistake uh it clearly was a horrible incident and it was um you know the the early investigation anyway seems to suggest it was just that it was bad um you know bad decision making on the part of a number

of officers and they're all going to pay the price for that but I think it's also worthy for us to recall and to remember that in war I mean I know Netanyahu said this the other day and he got it pasted for it but in war horrible things happen mistakes happen and can turn a situation into a much more difficult situation we tend to forget yeah that the first canadians who died in afghanistan they weren't killed by al-qaeda they weren't killed by the taliban they were killed by the americans Yep, that's right. It was a terrible, horrible accident. And there was four Canadians who lie buried as a result of it. That's right. That's right.

I'll never forget that incident because we had just deployed. And, you know, just to add to what you're saying, Peter, soldiers are killed by friendly fire. And their own forces mistake them for targets. And so this is actually a frequent occurrence in war. But when I read the details of the investigation, I think two points are worth noting. One, the Army said that their own soldiers

broke their rules of engagement. Right? Now the rules of engagement are, if one person identifies a possible armed target, they need a second identifier. You need two.

You cannot make that kind of decision based on one identification and the two who were fired broke that rule of engagement it is not uncommon that soldiers break rules of engagement this just happens in battle too

however, and there's the however part of all this I think the rules of engagement That'll do. However, and there's the however part of all this, I think the rules of engagement, this is not the first breach. When these breaches happen, the superior officers have to clamp down. These rules are here for a reason. I think the rules of engagement that the IDF has been using are too loose or not tightly enough enforced. And here I believe

there will be a change coming out of last week that is a result of the catastrophic consequences of this. There will be a tightening of the rules of engagement and the message will go down, especially when you fire officers for doing this.

Everybody sits up, pays attention and pays far more attention to the rules. And that is all to the good. These rules of engagement were not tightly enough enforced. All right. Two other things briefly on Israel Hamas before we take our break. One is, and, you know, I've received a number of letters over the last six months from a couple of people who say, you never talk about how Israel is using AI, artificial intelligence, to target.

And I said, you know, my reply has usually been, well, you know, we don't know enough about it. Well, it seems to be more on the docket now as an issue. The UN Secretary General brought it up. What do we know? So here's what we know, and this is a great way to ask that question because an investigative reporter for an investigative magazine uh in israel called 972 which is the area code uh it released a detailed investigation of the use of an AI program called Lavender,

which he alleges in his reporting is used to create targets. And then the IDF responded with a detailed denial and rebuttal of these allegations. So that's where we are in terms of the evidence. What it appears is that Lavender is a large database in which you match all kinds of AI generated, you know, facial recognition information, all kinds of information, all integrated against targeting information that you get.

And when they used it, not in the battlefield, but when they used it as they were training the data, there was a 10% error rate. Now that's very high, if you think about that as a wartime tool. So the rebuttal that came back is, yes, Lavender exists. Yes, it is being trained all the time. But no, we don't yet use it for targeting. It is one piece of information among several others that we use to make a targeting decision.

And the reason that has some credibility is, again, there are representatives of the attorney general that in most units that have to approve these targeting decisions. And I doubt that statement would have been issued in that way. So the fairest way to summarize this, we're getting an early window into what the future battlefield will look like. Everybody should be scared. A 10% error rate is huge. Even if you get it down, Peter, to 2% or 1%, to me, that's still large. And what the alarming feature of it is, how fast it works.

What we saw happen to the World Food Kitchen is because that decision was made too quickly. And they didn't take that extra step of looking for a second identifying piece of information. This is where we're going in warfare. This is what we're all worried about when we talk about autonomous weapons and making sure that there's a human in the loop. And this is battlefield. Just let your imagination go to autonomous missiles and autonomous warheads

and just imagine what could happen. This is the, I think, the most frightening area for AI, the one that most needs regulation, and the one where we're least likely to succeed, because just imagine now sitting down with Russian military, US military, and Chinese military, and trying to put this genie back in the bottle

before it gets away from all of us. I think we're too late. It certainly appears that way. Okay, here's the last question on Israel-Hamas. We don't want to leave the impression that it's just America. There's the United States that's putting this pressure on Israel because it's coming from all over now. Everywhere.

You know, including Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau made some tough comments today. But when I look through all of them, or not today, but the end of last week, when I look through all of these comments, the one that sticks out to me is Lord Cameron, the former British Prime Minister, who's now the Foreign Secretary for Rishi Sunak, he said over the weekend that our support for Israel is not unconditional, which is pretty out there.

Yes, it is. Yes, it is. And when they're all lined up now, Yes, it's putting enormous pressure on Netanyahu to deal with this and deal with it now. It's interesting because, of course, the foundation of that strategic relationship that you talked about earlier, Peter, when we were talking about the U.S., Israeli religion, was based in part, yes, on what we would call shared values in the broadest sense of the term, whether it's shared democratic values. There is, of course, a large Christian community that shares values,

especially the worldwide evangelical community. So however you define shared values, there is a sense of shared values. And what the abysmal humanitarian performance is putting at risk, frankly, are those shared values. You could call that soft power. It doesn't really matter what we call it, but it shows how important it is.

That even beyond any strategic asset, even beyond any technological innovation, any concrete material advantage, which we assume drives governments and their choices, there are these value concerns which are important, and they're shared by domestic publics who don't understand why it's so hard to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza right now. They're just seeing these awful pictures of Gazans on the verge of starvation.

And that matters in foreign policy just as much as the bullets do. All right. Okay, we're going to take our break. When we come back, there are a couple of things to note on the situation in Ukraine with Russia, and we want to mark those because they affect everybody now in terms of the comments that have been coming out over the last few days. They affect everybody, not just in those two countries.

So we'll do that, deal with that when we come back. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Monday episode with Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School, University of Toronto. We've just spent a good half hour dealing with the latest in the situation in Israel in their war against Hamas. We're now going to look at the situation in Ukraine and Russia. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. All right.

A couple of weeks ago, we heard, I think it was the British Defense Secretary, somebody we'd never heard from before, we weren't aware of, warning that everybody should prepare for war that there was no preparations going on and there should be um and that sort of you know made a few headlines and then everybody moved on well uh this week last couple of days actually one of the um the major Ukrainian military chiefs, Maxim Zorin, issued a troubling warning to the Western partners, that includes Canada, on the situation that is unfolding, continues to unfold. The West, he said, must urgently prepare, create serious defense systems that could counter Russia because it will undoubtedly open its mouth

and try to swallow the rest of Europe. That's pretty tough talk, and it's been echoed by some others, including the British chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, also talking in a similar vein about the nature of the situation out there right now, that nobody's taking Russia seriously enough. I mean, when the Russia-Ukraine war started, it's been going on for some time, but this latest version of it

in the last couple of years, there was this sense, well, you know, the Russians really aren't that much of a threat. I mean, they're a threat to Ukraine, but even that was overstated at the time. Now we're talking about look out, Russia's going for the big swallow, not just Ukraine. What do you make of this? I'm going to run a limb here, Peter, and I'm going to say I think that's hyped. Okay. Okay, in all honesty, I think that's hyped.

It's hyped except for one eventuality, that Russia sweeps through Ukraine. Then that's a different world. Because everybody would have no choice. They couldn't take the risk that I was wrong. And people like me who think that's hyped are wrong. And why do I say it's hyped? You know, we talked last week about the strain that Ukraine is under. Five to one artillery advantage. I come back to artillery again on the battlefield.

The Russians have launched mechanized assaults against hills around the town that Ukraine lost. Still haven't taken it. Now, if you're going to launch, you know, a breakthrough assault and pour everything into it, right now is the time for Vladimir Putin to do that. And we're not seeing anything like that happening on the battlefield. I'm actually astonished at the very limited successes that Russia is having on the battlefield, given

the momentum that they have and the advantage in artillery and missiles that they actually have. So that's why I say it's hyped. Now, one other thing happened this week, and it wasn't the Ukrainian who said it, but boy, did I sit up in my chair when um soltenberg said this is the nato it was lincoln at the end that was sore it was anthony blinken which makes it even more important and he said that at the end of the press conference they gave right after the biden uh nathaniel meaning everybody was preoccupied with that. But I

actually kept listening and he said there is a pathway to NATO membership for Ukraine. And I have to tell you my jaw dropped when I heard that because just imagine you're a Vladimir. So I want to talk about this shoe on the other side of the foot for a moment. You're Vladimir Putin. You're sitting in the Kremlin.

You know, Zelensky is talking about running out of ammunition. The United States bogged down in the Middle East where the last three presidents have tried to get out of and turn to the important things in the world, like the last three presidents have tried to get out of and turn to the important things in the world like the Indo-Pacific. They can't do it. The Middle East sucks them back in. And then they say there's a pathway to NATO membership

for Ukraine. To me, that was like waving a red flag in front of Putin and saying, well, if you're going to do this, do it now before there is any kind of opening for Ukraine. Now, that pathway will extend 10 years, but it strikes me as just literally, you know, deaf, to any possibility of reaching an arrangement with Putin right now when Ukraine has in fact lost momentum. And isn't this the moment diplomacy to go to Moscow and say to find, well, you don't do that by saying there's a pathway to NATO membership for Ukraine.

You actually encourage Vladimir Putin to do all the things that that British defense secretary is worried about. Didn't they? I thought it was astonishing. Hasn't it not always been assumed that if there was a negotiated settlement to ukraine russia it would have to include that ukraine would not join nato yes that's correct that's right and that's why uh i found an utterly astonishing statement. And this made by U.S. Secretary of State, whose Congress is deadlocked.

Now, Mike Johnson, the speaker, is finally, it looks like, moving off dead center. And by the way, interestingly enough, the stories on Canaparo Hill are that the military assistance will go to Ukraine, not to Israel, which is also part of these calibrated signals that we're hearing about a much more serious tone. But that finally looks like it's unlocking.

But here's the Secretary of State who can't deliver anything. In part, the Western alliance is this weak because of this divided Congress, and he opens the door to the thing that Vladimir Putin fears the most. Now, I know I'm going to get email literally half an hour after this goes on the air saying, what's wrong with you? Don't you understand that Vladimir Putin is a voracious, you know, endless monster who wants to gobble up every piece of territory and say, why are you wasting your breath? Well, I think that's, again, not an accurate picture of an authoritarian leader who spent two years slogging in a battlefield.

You know, we'll have to mobilize additional troops. Has lost any opportunity of working with the West. Has condemned Russia, in fact, to be a fourth-rate power when this is all over. This has been very costly for him. There's been no walk in the park. I think again, it's, you know,

it's too bad Henry Kissinger who nobody would accuse of suffering from a surfeit of morality. But what he was was pragmatic. I can only say he would never have made

that statement. Never have made that statement, never have made that statement. No, no. In fact, one of the last things he did before he died was put forward the proposal that they had to be adamant about it, that he'd never join. That's correct. That it's just never to be in the cards. I mean, it's like throwing a lit torch into a stack of hay when you don't have a fire extinguisher anywhere in the cards. I mean, it's like throwing a lit torch into a stack of hay

when you don't have a fire extinguisher anywhere in the neighborhood. Now, you know, the other thing that's worth mentioning is the Europeans had their ritual conversation that NATO was going to take over and NATO was going to put in place an operational plan

to supply Ukraine. And all this leading up to the 75th anniversary celebrations. We just had the second anniversary of the start of the most recent round of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. NATO's 75th anniversary is coming up in July. What do you think the odds are that our European partners will actually get their act together and coordinate their military procurement and get a line, supply line, so that they could meaningfully supply Ukraine.

I don't think that's going to happen for the 70th. I'm not sure it will happen for the 100th. No, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. And for Tony Blinken, it's funny because he's, he's so much admired for everything he's done. Maybe he's just taken one trip too many in the last few months. Cause I don't know when he sleeps,

but he seems to always be in the air heading over the, an ocean somewhere. He's, he's exhausted. And don't forget, he's been the point person along with Bill Burns on the Middle East. Yep. And it is the most recalcitrant region.

And it has exhausted better men than Tony Blinken. That's true. All right. We're going to leave all these thoughts with our listeners. I'll try and sort out. We've given them a lot in the last 40 minutes. But as always, Janice, it's great to talk to you and it's great to learn from you. So we appreciate this and we'll talk again in a week.

I sure hope this week is better than the last one, Peter. That's all. And if the Iranians could sit on their hands for a week, it will be. Yeah, that really would be a problem. If that didn't occur and that they got off their hands, unless it's just sort of a token response. Anyway, we'll see. Time will tell.

Thanks, Janice. We'll talk in a week. Dr. Janice Stein, University of Toronto, Munk School, and always somebody who opens our mind to thinking through this process. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you disagree, but the fact of the matter is, as we try to do on the bridge every day, we try to give you options on the way things are unfolding. And whether that's on international affairs or on domestic politics,

that's what we do. You don't have to agree, but we implore you to think about it, right? And draw your own conclusions. That's what it's all about. All right, that's going to wrap it up for this Monday. Another great conversation with Janice Stein. And tomorrow we look ahead to, we're going to talk about the country's new defense policy. It's planned for the future.

It's pretty interesting. And there's lots of room to talk about it. And that's what we'll do tomorrow. Wednesday is our encore edition, of course. Thursday, as mentioned earlier, it will be part two of your choices on the question of the week. Your favorite Canadian TV program, Pastor Present. And Friday, of course, Good Talk. We'll be back along with Chantelle Hebert.

So that's the week ahead for The Bridge. Hope you'll join us. Until then, I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. Talk to you again in 24 hours.