The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Israel & Iran Attack Each Other, the World Pauses & the G7 Meets

Episode Date: June 16, 2025

It's a very dangerous moment as Israel attacks Iran and Iran responds by attacking Israel. What could happen next, and where will it all lead? 

And although there are Peter Mansbridge here, you're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. Israel and Iran attack each other. The world holds its breath. The G7 meets Janis Stein on all of this coming right up. And although there are Peter Mansbridge here. Welcome to another week. Welcome to Monday and Monday's main Dr. Janice Stein. And Dr. Stein will be with us in just a few moments time.

Lots to clearly talk about given all the events of the last three or four days. And given the fact that many of the world's top leaders are meeting in Alberta at Kananaskis for the G7 right now and you can be sure they'll be talking about some of these events of the last couple of days. Especially the Israeli attack on Iran and Iran's response. But before we get there, it's Monday. It's Monday of the last week of the season for the bridge. It's been another incredibly successful year, partly due to the events that we've been witnessing

and partly due to the fact that you kind of like the way the bridge has been dealing with the issues and talking about them and with the guests we've had including especially on days like this on Mondays where Dr. Stein has been with us. But whether it's good talk, smoke mirrors and the truth, whether it's your turn, all of these things have contributed to another banner year, the most successful year in the five-year run of the bridge, like summers, and especially the bridge's host, who is looking forward to his 77th birthday in a few weeks, and summers are part of the package for me. But at the same time, if something untoward happens or the stories are so big,

we will figure out a way to getting back. And there'll be a couple of special good talks during the summer, end of July, end of August. And we're back at it full time on the day after Labor Day, so the Tuesday of that first week of September. However, we still have a week to go. And part of that week is your turn on Thursday. So here's the question for this week. And it's a summer question. It's, it's what are your plans for the summer? It's been a crazy year between elections, between the threats from Donald Trump, between the world stage, lots of things have been happening.

So how do you plan to spend the summer? What is your plan? It could be one specific plan or it could be a couple of plans. So we want to hear what you plan to do this summer with your family, with your kids, with your spouse, with your partner, with you know with your pets. Like what's your plan? However you have to have that plan in 75 words or less, right? That is the condition, the major position and condition for the bridge's Your Turn program. So you could tell us about, you know, a trip you're going on. You could tell us about a book you're planning to read or a movie you want to see or a person

you want to stay in touch with or you haven't seen for a long time. It could be any number of things. You tell me and tell us. 75 words or less, ensure that you leave your name and the location on the email you send to themandsbridgepodcast.gmail.com, themansbridgepodcast.gmail.com. And this is important. You have to follow all those conditions,

plus you have to have your entry in by noon Eastern time on Wednesday. Now, for some reason last week, there was a fair number that came in after that. There's nothing I can do about it. We have a process in terms of checking these letters, vetting them to ensure that they're real and the facts in them are real. So we try to do as best we can on that front. That's why we have these conditions. Noon Eastern on Wednesday is the deadline. Anything comes in after that, it's not going to make it. And there's no guarantee if it comes in before that will make it. It'll depend on how many. Last week we had lots and lots of letters. We had to narrow it down to a certain group and even then we didn't get to them all because They were very emotional. It's about fathers. If you didn't hear it, you you want to go back and listen to it

It was it was really good Anyway, so there's your deal Question of the week. What's your plan for this summer? What do you plan to do? Look forward to hearing what you have to say. Okay, as we know, it's been a big week on a number of fronts. And on, well, in every week, we rely on hearing from Dr. Janice Stein. This week is no exception.

In fact, it's the real deal. So let's get right to our conversation with Dr. Janice Stein, the head of the Monk School at the University of Toronto. Here she is. All right, Janice, Iran, Israel, and we're gonna start. What can you, what's your sense of where we are in this story right now? We're at the end of the first phase, Peter, but we're nowhere near the end of this round between the two of them. This is the most violent episode for both of them

in their long history of enmity. Both of the civilian populations are absolutely shocked by the violence they're experiencing, and there's no sign on either side that they're ready to stop. sign on either side that they're ready to stop. Well, in many ways it does not come as a surprise that this has happened. I mean, you've been giving us the heads up, the kind of warning that this could happen for at least the last month you've been telling us that. Given where we are now on, I think it's day four, is it going, militarily speaking, is it going the way as expected or not? Yes, to me, in a sense that the Israelis achieved a tactical surprise, which is astonishing, frankly, that they could have. Because even if the Iranians expected the attack on a Monday

or a Sunday rather than a Thursday, you still don't leave your top leadership exposed and congregated in one building the way they did, which is what enabled Israel to wipe out so many of them in one strike. So, but that tactical surprise doesn't translate Peter into a strategic game. The strategic purpose of this can only be one of two things. Really cripple the capacity of the Iranians to enrich. Not for two months, because look at this price, not for four, but really set it back. Frankly, there's very little progress on that.

All that Israel has been able to do so far is to grade the above ground facility at one of three crucial sites at times. And how do we know this? We know this because the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, is monitoring for radioactivity. And that's how we would know.

They're not finding any damage whatsoever at Fardo, which is deep, deep, deep in the mountainside, nor at their third installation at Boucher. So yes, there's been significant... The second goal really is to inflict damage on the number of missiles that Iran has because Iran is able to manufacture on its own 3,000 missiles a year. That's a lot of missiles as we're seeing and it's actually the missiles that I think are the bigger threat in this war rather than a nuclear weapon.

And there there's been the Israelis have succeeded. They and how have they done that? Bombed missile production facilities, the manufacturing of new missiles taken out anywhere between 20 to 30 percent. But that still leaves many, many, many ballistic missiles. And Iran still has the capacity to fire them as we're seeing. Exactly. Okay, you've raised a number of points and I want to follow up on them in no particular order, but let's start on the nuclear situation. Because as you say, to get at

the heart of their nuclear program, you've got to go deep. These are buried well within the mountains in Iran. The Israelis know where they are. They have or thought they had the capability to bomb deep. Either they're missing their targets or they can't bomb as deep as they need to bomb. Do we have any indication of that? I mean, these bunker buster bombs that the Americans have had, or at least claim to have had for pretty much decades since the Persian Gulf War. If those are the ones the Israelis are using, they're not working on this.

So the doubles are not the ones that, Israel doesn't have that. The bunker buster bombs have to be delivered by an aircraft that Israel doesn't have, the B-52, and it's a 30,000-ton bomb that goes very, very deep. The United States has never given that to Israel. The largest bomb that the United States has ever given Israel is 2,000 bombs. And that's what did so much damage in the first, in the early weeks in Gaza, if you remember.

They don't have that capacity. I think the plan was different, Peter. I think the plan was to achieve a tactical success, which they did, and then go to the White House and say, we've done it. We've, we've taken the hit. We're not asking for open-ended American involvement. We just want you to do one thing. Use your, use your B-52 bombers to bomb Fardo, which is under the ground. And I think they've asked, and I think Donald Trump has said, it's not clear whether he said no or he said not yet.

And what would be the resistance there? Why would it be? I mean, I know he's trying to play this game of we're not involved, we're not doing anything, which lasted like a few hours until it became clear that they in fact were, but why wouldn't they be doing this? So first of all, they got to make it and it's not only Trump, you know, it's Rubio, it's officials around him. They make the distinction between defensive support and offensive support. So they're all in on the defense support.

They are helping to intercept and shoot down those Iranian missiles that are coming in, and they're sending more forces to the Gulf to do that. That's different from an offensive action which would bomb, I mean it's that one site in Iran, maybe two which would require that kind of bombing. That would put the United States in a position of engaging in offensive action against Iran. I think Donald Trump, there is an intuition here with him, let's not

call it a well thought through policy, but there's an intuition here that he wants to preserve the opportunity to make a deal to get to a negotiated arrangement with Iran and if they engage in any kind of offensive action, that door will slam shut. Well, you know, just to finish that story, what's holding Iran back from the deal? It's a distinction between giving up all enrichment, any capacity to enrich, even for peaceful purposes.

And the Americans actually put quite a creative proposal on the table, which Iran rejected. Here's the proposal. Let's have a regional enrichment center, you know, for the Middle East. Other Arab governments, Saudi Arabia, which is very interested in civilian nuclear technology, can join in and there'll be an agreement on how much enriched uranium Iran gets for its peaceful nuclear program.

And it could even have been on Iranian territory. So they went quite far, the Americans. Iran turned that down just before this last episode. So that's the big divide. That's what's holding up an agreement right now. And if you listen to the statements that are being made right now by the Iranian government, that is still the bright red line for them. The other point I want to bring up was the whole strategy behind the attack itself.

It reminds me of Second World War, that in some ways this is a modern-day version of what the RAF did at Pena Munda in 1943, where aware that they were, because of the underground, that the Germans were developing V1 and plans for V2 rockets in this northern German area of Peenemunde, an island, that they attacked it to knock out their weapons testing system. But it was more than that. They weren't just going for the hardware. They were going for the human power. They were going for the scientists. I mean, war is ugly and basically they wanted to murder the scientists that the Germans had, including Werner von Braun, who was at a time had been in Peenemünde. So that there were two targets.

And in a way, last week, the Israeli attack was two targets. It was the top level scientists and military commanders. And as you said, some of them were all in the same meeting at the time, which was kind of bizarre, that they would leave themselves open to that. But here's my point on that. The immediate feeling on Thursday night, Friday morning was the Israelis have got a huge advantage now and this could

be over in a hurry because they wiped out the command and control. Well, the Iranians reacted almost immediately. Now whether they had a two-tier system of immediate follow-up to a next level of command, they did not seem to hold back. They were very quick in response. You can argue about how effective it's been, but they're responding. And as you said, there are lots of missiles

and they're firing them. So what did that tell us in terms of how quickly they responded? You know, that's, I think that's really key. Let's talk about the scientists first, and then let's talk about the command and control. That's really a great analogy to Piedmont. Here's the difference. I think Peter in Piedmont, this was new technology that had never been tested, right? It was

in the development stage. And this was a group of scientists who were in the lead and the knowledge was not widely shared. You could say the same thing about the nuclear bomb when the United States developed it. So it's just, we know it was just a small group of scientists in both cases. With nuclear weapons. That's not true. That knowledge is widely available. And so yes, there's a cadre of

Iranian scientists who've been involved in this program for years. Many of them were killed years, many of them were killed in this attack, but they're not that difficult to replace as the designers of the rockets would have been or the nuclear or the atomic bomb would have been. And so I think, yes, it's important, but it's not of the same order of magnitude. The same thing when you looked at what happened with the military commanders, really such a significant number, and their intelligence command as well, and the Republican guards,

and the Republican guards, the expeditionary forces. Why those matters so much, the Republican guards? Because they're the group that sustains Khamenei in office right now. This is a very unpopular regime inside Iran. And there were some pictures by the way of, you know, coming out over the weekend of the Iranian shearing actually because, but Khamenei immediately was taken to a secure zone and replaced these people. So they had thought clearly what happens if there is a decapitating strike.

And they had a second term, maybe they have a third tier in place that the supreme leader just moves points right away. They go up, and there was some breakdown in command and control. It took a while for those first hundred missiles, and we know from Iranians that the original plan, the original response to any Israeli attack was a thousand ballistic missiles right out of the gate in an effort to overwhelm Israeli aircraft, you know, air defense and really have a significant impact.

They haven't been able to do that. So it did degrade the response in very serious ways, but it didn't eliminate it. It did degrade the response in very serious ways, but it didn't eliminate it. And Iran, if we want to use very conservative numbers, you're really conservative. I think these are too conservative. 2,000 anti-ballistic missiles. I think there were probably more, closer to three, but let's say 2,000.

They fired 500. That leaves 1,500. Now some have been destroyed by Israel in these attacks. There are still 1,000 ballistic missiles left inside Iran that can be deployed and fired. That's why this is not over. Well, on that point, where's your concern? What are you worried about in terms of what happens now? I mean, obviously, everybody is watching the countries surrounding that area in the Middle East and wondering what they're going to do about what's happening and other countries as well like Russia. What are you worried about right now in terms of what could be happening and what are you watching for? The biggest worry I think has to be that around now races to develop a nuclear bomb. If they were just days away, weeks away and their uranium is all underground enriched

at very high levels, it's not inconceivable that while this is going on, there are teams that are racing now to develop a bomb. Because this is all a war between the two of them in the air, not on the ground, but neither of them can launch any kind of ground attack, but it isn't all a war in the air and it's regime survival that's at stake. And not because the Israelis will go after Khamenei, although they wanted to do that despite what they have said in public, the Americans in Malik, that they asked for permission to assassinate Khamenei

and Donald Trump said no. So he stopped. But Khamenei is in a weak position. If he makes a concession, and that's what makes this so hard. If he makes a fundamental concession in which he gives up the capacity to enrich unsupervised or on Iranian soil, there's a real risk that the Republican guards would move against him. That's the real problem. It's not the Iranian public, it's the Republican guards. And in that

sense, it could be the end of his regime. A desperate leader is always very dangerous thing. Always. And I think that's the biggest risk that they race to and announce that they have a nuclear bomb. Then it's a wholly different issue. Frankly, it's not usable by the way. It's not they've never told they would not be tested. They wouldn't have married it to any delivery system. So and that takes months. So I do not agree that this was a break, that they were on the verge of breaking out

with a usable weapon, that's not correct. But this, nearly the announcement that they've weaponized the uranium, that's probably the most escalatory and biggest risk. You know, Trump has said all along that he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon So at what point does he say you know if your theory that they're racing to try to say they Don't think they are I mean, I don't know

Well, if he becomes convinced they are and they're close to a door, they've achieved that. What does he do? Is that when the B-52s come out of the hangars or wherever they keep them? I guess they're too big to be in a hangar, but they're big. They're big. And we don't, the Americans don't have hangars. They should have learned from what the Ukrainians did to the Russian strategic bombers that they better do something about that pretty quickly, but they haven't done anything. But yes, that's the risk that if the Americans become persuaded that that's happening, or if the Iranians do it and say they're doing it, then I think the United States, no question gets involved. And look, what's the, you know, what's the most worrying thing that happens

if this really escalates up? When you bomb enriched uranium sites, you have leaks of radiation. Now, if it's way deep in the mountains, that's one thing. If it's close to the surface, that's another thing. And I think that's why Israel has not done more at the tons in which the enriched uranium is much closer to the surface. Okay. Last question on this. Using your scale of threat, what do we compare this to? Is this like the Cuban Missile Crisis? Where are we? No. No, it's not. I think it's important. It's way below because in the Cuban Missile Crisis? No, no, no, it's not. I think it's important. It's way below because in the Cuban Missile Crisis, there were actual operational tactical nuclear weapons that were armed and could be fired and could be used, number one. And number two, neither side knew

that the other side had them, which made both of them willing to take risks that in retrospect, and we know this for a fact, because when these decision makers found out, they said, oh my God, was what they said, if we had known that we never would have done this. So that was far more dangerous than what this is. But this is the, this is a moment Peter, I think it's a game changer moment in the Middle East. You look back over these last two years,

there's a thread to follow here that although these militias are independent of Iran, they all got support and finance and military advice from Iran. So, you know, so you look at the attack by Hamas, you look at Israel's attack on Hezbollah, you know, the Iranians were right to invest in Hezbollah. It's not likely that Israel would be able to do

what it's doing now if Hezbollah were fully armed and operational. And they're not. The Lebanese government has finally said to Hezbollah, don't you start because it will be the last thing you ever do. So this is the game changer moment in the Middle East. The Middle East restructures itself now, depending on who can endure longer in this conflict. Okay, let's leave that situation as is for the moment. We're gonna take our break, come back, talk G7. That's right after this. Welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge for this Monday. Monday's main, Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto, and Janice is with us.

You're listening on Series XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favourite podcast platform, glad to have you with us. G7, as we go to where the first round of bilaterals and stuff is happening, and it's a big one, Trump and Carney are talking together this morning in Alberta, a couple hours behind us in terms of the time zones, etc. As soon as this attack happened at the end of last week, you sort of saw the whole nature of the G7 changing somewhat because as always, you get the most powerful leaders in the world sitting around together and no surprise, they'll talk about what may be happening at that moment in the world. But there are other items on the agenda too. How does the G7 turn out to be a win for the G7 countries, if that's possible? And how does it turn out to be a win for Canada as host,

if possible? Give us your thoughts on that. You're absolutely right Peter, that when this started there was chagrin on the faces of Canadian officials. It's like throwing a grenade into a carefully orchestrated package. And all I was to say was this was the last thing we need. What's a win for Canada? This is going to sound very minimal, but I really think it is. If Cardi can orchestrate two days of meetings If Carney can orchestrate two days of meetings without Donald Trump blowing up, if Carney can keep him at the table for two days and he leaves in a civil manner, I think that would be a huge win for Carney. There are every single issue that is on that agenda and that's why some stuff isn't on the agenda to avoid that blow up. There's no final communique which is unprecedented

in the G7. They're going to agree on what they can agree on. And there'll be pieces, short little statements issued at the end if they can. All that's designed to keep them at the table. And it really matters to Canada, not in terms of our reputation as a global convener or all the, you know, all the language that we love to use to talk about ourselves in the world, our role in the world. That's not why this matters right now. It matters because we are in intense bilateral negotiations with the United States over an economic and security deal. These are our most basic interests at stake right now.

And if Donald Trump blows up, that will complicate that bad thing. What are the blow up possibilities? What are the issues that could turn this into a... There are three, okay, that are absolutely just, it's like throwing a match into a pile of dry wheat on the prairies, except this is in the mountains, fortunately. One is Ukraine, and Vladimir Zelensky will be there tomorrow. Korn has to be very careful with the other six. And this is not what Canadians want to hear frankly,

when it comes to Ukraine. And this prime minister is very much in support of Ukraine like his predecessor. But he has to be very careful that the, he and the other five don't gang up on the president and force his hand with Zelensky at the table. And Trump in private is better sometimes than Trump in public, but there's a real risk. They can't push too far.

They really can't. The second one, they've taken off the table, which is climate. They've just taken, can you believe this Prime Minister, but he's had to take it off the table, completely gone. Then there's Iran, Israel. Now here, I think with, you know, with some luck, because Britain, France, Germany, have all been pushing very hard since Friday for de-escalation. Well, what does that mean? It means that there has to be a face-saving way for Iran to come back to

these talks. That's really what it means. So is there something the British and the French and the Canadians and the Germans could do to reach out to Iran here and help the Iranians climb back down to go back to talks. That's, I mean, that at least there's a possibility where Donald Trump might see that as helpful, that there's clear differences between Trump and the other Europeans. And then the big one is trade and tariffs. And keep that off the multilateral table.

Don't have a round table with everybody talking about that at once. Let people talk bilaterally with him one on one, but don't gang up on him in any kind of situation where it's six to one, because that's the situation most likely to provoke him. If we can, I'm looking for tomorrow afternoon, he gets on a plane at the end, he's civil, he doesn't make any nasty comments about his Canadian host, big way. Okay. So here's the question that I know that some of our listeners are listening to, are thinking as they hear you go through your analysis of where we are. They're saying,

why are we sucking up to him? Why are we pussyfooting around him? Why don't they just gang up on him and tell him he can't do this? We could do that. We could do that if we didn't want a trade deal which preserves the auto sector. We could do it. We could do it if we're willing to say bye bye to half a million jobs in Ontario in the car parts manufacturing sector. We could do it. But when you put it that way to Canadians, they

don't want to do that. And that's the dilemma for us. We are more dependent on the US market than any one of those other five countries because we live so you know, we're so close and the economies are so integrated. You know, the energy sector, and you were last week, Peter, at a big conference on the energy sector. We know how important it is to us on all kinds of energy as we move through the transition.

You know, that's a product that we could sell to others in the world, frankly. If we reduce what we sell to the United States, it would take time, but you could at least imagine that their customers in the Indo-Pacific that want RLNG, their customers in Europe, certainly, who want to wean themselves off Russian gas. And it would be more expensive for them, but you can imagine that's a product we could sell. Car parts? There are no customers

because this is a North American industry, right? The Germans are not gonna buy car parts. The Japanese are not gonna buy car parts. So we have a sector that employs half a million Canadians that is totally, to be blunt now, that is totally dependent on the decisions of the orange hair guy. Yeah.

And that's what's on the table. That's what this bilateral deal is about. Right. It's about how bilateral deal is about. Right. Right. It's about how much do we do on security, particularly in the Arctic, which is a North American problem. It's not only a Canadian one,

and it's not an American one, it's a North American one. And do we preserve an integrated auto sector? Those are the two big ones that are real that they're talking about back and forth in their documents. Okay, here's the last question for this weekend, for this season as we wrap things up and head out for the summer. Such a quiet summer period ahead of us, right?

We will reconvene if necessary, let's put it that way. But here's the last question. Who's our Canada's, Carney's, biggest ally at this table? They're sitting around for the next couple of days. I mean, you know, Stammer from the UK stopped in Ottawa on the way there. They spent, you know, a fair amount of time together in meetings and going out drinking beer and watching a hockey game on television. Does that immediately say Starmor is our biggest ally? You know, I'm going to be at the center on that one because we will think that, right? There's some very, first of all, Mr. Carney is so comfortable with Britain. The governor of the Bank of England knows everybody

and he's very well regarded in England frankly. Yeah, and people know him, the public knows him from the time that he was governor of the Bank of England and he's held it in very high regard. So you'd think that. Well, I don't think it is Starmer. And I think it's not because Starmer went and did his own bilateral trade deal with Donald Trump first

before everybody else. And when the going was really tough around the 51st state earlier on, I think there was hope that Stormer would say something to Donald Trump about Canada and he didn't. Because he was pursuing his own bilateral trade deal. So I think there's a little bit of distance there now. Well, we like you, but we know how far you'll go and it's not far enough for us, frankly. So who is it, Macron?

Well, again, he was a very weak president with a very short shelf life, to be honest, in France. Germany? So that's why you hear in my voice, Peter, certain skepticism about like-minded Europe, and those are the prime minister's words, as close allies of Canada. I think this is a harder world than that. And I suspect over the next year or two, we'll see much more emphasis on the Indo-Pacific,

where there are real growth opportunities for this country's economy as, let me put it this way, as the prime minister genuinely thinks hard about how he rebuilt the Canadian economy, the answer's not in Europe. Well, that'll get people thinking. Yeah. You know, Japan's at the table, the official G7 table, and India and Modi is coming, and with all the controversy attached to that.

You know, let's just say, it's really interesting who, this is where I read the tea leaves, who did Prime Minister Qaenei choose to invite as his guest, right? Because that tells you where the forward thing, first of all, Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, then Narendra Modi, Claudia Scheinbaum from Mexico. These are new partners, new in which he clearly wants to make a mark. And I think that's where we should be looking as Canadians. With all the controversy that goes with it, none of those three to be direct here have sterling record.

Mohammed bin Salman is way at one of the end of the spectrum, but even the other two leads semi-authoritarian states. The Saudis coming, I mean one day they're up, the next day they're not coming. No, he's not coming, but Modi's coming and Scheinbaum is coming. Right. Well, it should be an interesting couple of days. We'll see where we're at after they're over. And we'll see whether there are any blow-ups or departures earlier than scheduled. You never know with these things and you never know with a certain guy. Listen, Janice, you know, I hope we get our summer undisturbed, but it's a crazy world out there right now, who knows.

Oh, yeah. You know, I must say we start the year and there's something every week and you think, well, we'll get to the summer. It will quiet down. Given what's going on right now, Peter, there's no chance. It doesn't seem like it. Well, you and I will talk and we'll make judgments about whether or not we need to come on and do something. I know last summer, which seemed pretty quiet compared with where we are now, there were a lot of calls for, where's Janice? Where's Janice? So we'll see. Let's see how things go.

The intention though is to try and have a little downtime for the summer. We'll talk again soon. Thanks Janice. Have a good summer everyone. Dr. Janice Stein, Munk School, University of Toronto. We are so lucky. We say that every week.

I know you all agree. She gives us lots to think about. Okay, that's going to wrap it up for this week for the launch of the bridge for its final week before we take our summer break. Lot's coming up tomorrow, Smoke Mirrors of the Truth. Bruce Anderson will be back with us for tomorrow, along with Fred DeLorey. Wednesday is our encore edition, haven't picked it yet,

but we'll find something good. Rick Mercer, we've run that three or four times in the last couple of years, which we ran last week and it was you know Very well received yet again Thursday's your turn. You heard the question of the week and all the rules attached to it at the beginning of the program today The question of the week is what's your summer plan? You got to have your answer in before noon Eastern time on Wednesday 75 words or. Name and location are really important.

Make sure you add them to that. The Mansbridge podcast, gmail.com, that's where you send it. Friday, the random ranter will be on, of course, on Thursdays. Well, Friday is good talk with Rob Russo and Chantelle Bair. That's it for this day. Look forward to talking to you tomorrow. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

We'll see you in about 24 hours.