The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - What Do We Really Know About Iran's Nuclear Assets

Episode Date: April 20, 2026

When the Iran War started it was hard to know why Donald Trump ordered the attack. Lately he's settled on just one reason and had all his people parrot the same line. Nuclear. So what do we really know? 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. What do we really know about Iran's nuclear assets? That's the question. We'll be asking Dr. Janice Stein today. It's Monday. It's a Dr. Stein day coming right up. And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here.

Welcome to a new week. Welcome to Monday. Welcome to Dr. Janice Stein in just a couple of minutes time. It's our regular Monday program. A couple of things first, though, as we always do on Mondays. We give you a sense of what the question of the week is. For Thursday's, your turn. So are you ready?

This is, well, this could be, in a way, kind of a multiple-choice answers. It's, well, actually, we only want one answer from you, right? Because you've got 75 words or less to give it. But here's the question. What do you worry about most these days? Is it wars? Is it affordability? Is it climate change?

Canadian unity? It could be any of those, or it could be something else as well. So we look forward to hearing from you on what that answer is to this question. What do you worry about most these days? So, yes, 75 words or fewer. Have it in by Wednesday. 6 p.m. Eastern time. Include your name and the location you're writing from.

And you write to the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at Gmail.com. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say on that question. What do you worry about most these days? All right. There's one other thing I wanted to mention. because I know I get a lot of letters

from those of you who have you know answers to the question of the week but also I probably get 30 or 40 letters a day from many of you who just have ideas about who we should have on the program what we should discuss all of these things and I find them interesting

I want you to know I read every letter but what I don't have time to do is to answer every letter. And some of you get quite detailed in what you write to me, and I enjoy them, I read them. But once again, I don't have time to answer them all. I answer some, but I don't answer them all. But I keep them all in mind. The other thing to keep in mind about the program is I'm a big believer,

and always have been in this business in a degree of continuity. I like people to know it's Dr. Stein on Mondays. It's good talk on Fridays. It's your turn on Thursdays. And so on and so on and so on. And, you know, as I've told you many times,

we have a highly successful program here and I don't like to mess with success. Also, it's still kind of a hobby show. I do this in the morning, early morning, and then I have my day where I actually do things other than the podcast. So to be able to pull this off, I believe in continuity, I believe in regulars, and that's the way you're going to keep doing it, at least for now.

But I listen to what you have to say, and I keep a lot of, list of some of things you suggest in case we, in case we change things. But I can tell you right now, we won't be changing anything for the rest of this season. So that takes us up to end of June before the big summer break, which I'm looking forward to. But it's been another highly successful year, best year we've ever had on the bridge. We continue to rank. at the top of Canadian political podcasts, at least according to the Apple rankings. When I look at those,

we're always at the top. Almost always at the top. And I appreciate that because that means the overwhelming majority of you are happy with what you hear and the various opinions that you get on this program and the way it is. So I just want to let you know that. okay

I read your letters but don't assume that means you'll get a reply because I just literally don't have time for that to answer all the letters that come in okay it's time for Dr. Janice Stein it's been another remarkable week trying to make sense

of what we're witnessing on the Iran war and the attempts at a real ceasefire and some of the crazy stuff that's coming out of the White House. So obviously there's tough to talk about there, but there's also a couple of other things happening in our world that Dr. Stein wants to talk about, and we'll talk about those as well.

But let's get started. Let's hear from Dr. Janice Stein, from the Monk School, the University of Toronto. Here she is for this week. All right, Janice, you're the person who deals in conflict resolution. So I watch these negotiations or this attempted negotiations and everything goes back and forth and you never know what's going to happen in the next hour in terms of whether they'll actually ever negotiate. What's going on here?

Like in terms of conflict resolution, what's happening here? Peter, in all candor, I've never seen anything like this. Never. I ransacking my historical memory to see, okay, what's the closest to this? I can't think of anything because it's amateur hour. We have people who believe, they know everything and they can do this, first of all, and second of all, the experienced people, the diplomats, the intelligence, community. They don't know anything. They're part of the problem rather than the solution.

So we really have a group of business people without any detail of knowledge or not much of this of Iran or the Gulf for that matter, winging it. And then we have this unique president who posts from 11 o'clock at night, six three or four in the morning. and I would guess that the Iranians are hopelessly bewildered by this performance like all the rest of us. You know, it is strange. When you look at the American delegation, although you never know for sure until they sit at the table who's actually there, with the exception of the two real estate developers from New York City,

they're there. One of them, the president's son-in-law, who, you know, is handling billions of dollars for the Saudis. He's sitting at the table, and this guy Whitkoff is sitting at the table, and maybe J.D. Vance, who just finished a successful week of bashing the Pope. I mean, there's a real diplomat for you. And then you look at the other side, the Iranians, who are getting hammered or got hammered in the war,

if you believe the American Pentagon about what they've done to Iran. And it seems pretty accurate in terms of the devastation that's being a wreak there. But they don't sound, they don't look like amateurs. They look like they actually know what they're doing, as opposed to the Americans who are supposed to be the victors. So first of all, they're not amateurs. The Iranians are not amateurs.

They are very experienced. negotiators, very tough negotiators, and there's a whole cadre of that that negotiated with the Obama administration on the ones had John Kerry and Wendy Sherman on behalf of President Obama for two years. They are highly trained. And when they come, they come with a delegation of 20 or 30 technical experts, you know, people who are experts on nuclear issues. People who are expert on navigation, people who are expert on sanctions. So they bring their eight team to the table. But what is going on, Peter among the Iranian delegation,

that we probably haven't paid enough attention to that's only obvious when some of the Iranians started to talk just a little bit after the negotiations two weeks ago. there's fierce political infighting going on inside Iran now let's set the scene 40 senior leaders killed this is only a second time in Iran's history that they've the first one was you know 40 years ago when Khomeini replaced the original Supreme Leader Humany it's been 40 years

his son, Mastaba Khomeini, is by all accounts, injured. We don't know how badly has not been seen in public. So what's going on? A fierce fight between

so-called moderates, names that may now be familiar to people, Gulli Buff, the Speaker of the Parliament, others, who even before the delegation went to Islamabad two weeks ago

were in a fight with the Revolutionary Guards about people they wanted on the delegation and Ghalibov resisted fiercely because he knew that they were hardliners and that he and

actually the foreign minister would not be able to make hit sessions if the hardliner element to the revolutionary guards were in the room Well, there must have been that story is out somehow. And one of the terms that the Trump administration laid down this time was,

we're going back to the table only if the people in the room have the authority to make an agreement if one is reached, which is the giveaway, that there was this kind of infighting going on inside. So anybody who thinks the administration in Iran right now is solid, free of infighting, there are no factions, I think misreads deeply what goes on when you decapitate a leadership like this. I think a big problem for the United States is they don't know who they're negotiating with. Exactly.

Yeah. So it's bad on both sides. Correctly, right? It's bad because the Americans are sending business people. with no experience, keeping the experts out, and it's complicated on the Iranian side because they're patching over these political differences, but boy, they're bubbling right beneath the surface,

and it's an advanced picture, I think, of the infighting we will see inside Iran once the act of fighting is over. How about the real estate agents? How much real experience are these two? guys have. I mean, they, they, you know, you could argue that they were instrumental in the Gaza agreement, such as it is, took place. They have failed in the, uh, Russia, Ukraine, uh, end of things. So, I mean, are these the two guys you, you want to have at the table? I mean, what, you know, let me try to make the most charitable case I can't.

and then say no, those are not. And I certainly don't want them there alone, which is functionally what we've got. You know, diplomats like everybody else have their culture. So they work very carefully, very slowly. They bring documents with them to the table and technical experts who can solve. And, you know, Peter, it's interesting because there's a culture, an international culture around how you do this.

So I'll give you a document and you'll say, no, I don't like this phrase or I don't accept this phrase. And then you'll put some square brackets around it. So that's a signal to me that you can't accept that. We'll work our way through the whole document once and we'll have square brackets from you, square brackets for me. then we'll go to round two. And we'll focus on the material that's in the square brackets and see how many we can reduce. So it's very deliberate.

It's very linear. And it breaks off and only when the heads of the delegations asked for pauses to consult their experts. Or, and this is what, when it gets really creative, when the two negotiators, the negotiators for each side, develop a relationship because you're spending a lot of time in a room together. And you take those famous walks in the wood together. You break away from your own delegations and you break away from the principals back home. And you push to see, can you explore, can you find room to make an agreement?

So it's a cautious. Here's the risk. Here's what they're managing for. They are managing against making an agreement that doesn't get over the line. That's the primary thing that's wrong. Now, you take two businessmen like these wheelers and dealers, frankly. That's what real estate people are in New York, right? And real estate deals in a funny way are some of the easiest to do.

And I'm not diminishing the scope and magnitude of what they accomplish. But they're easy because you have a paw you can divide. You're talking about territory or a building. Yes, the financing can be very elaborate and complex and deals will fall apart. But basically these are for, you know, people who have higher risk tolerance. So I would tell you, Wickev and Kushner have higher risk tolerance. The worst thing for them in the world is not failure. It's missing a deal.

That's the worst thing in their lives. Oh, we left a deal on the table. We could have made one and we didn't. And so if you ask me who the ideal team is, it's to have one or two real estate guys on the team, backed up by a formidable team of professionals and experts. What we've had is Kushner and Witkoff not supported by the experts. When they went to Islamabad two weeks ago,

there were for the first time technical experts, but it was still driven by the three of the three of the, them by Whitkoff question of events. You know, you mentioned money as part of all this. Yeah. Over the weekend, you know, it appeared at least for a moment, like the U.S. had put, basically put money on the table, $20 billion for Iran,

which hearkened back to the way, Trump used to trash Obama for the 400 million of that deal, you know, more than a decade ago, that Obama's people, and you mentioned Wendy Sherman and others who had worked on that deal. And Trump has continually said, and has even said in the last few weeks, you know, Obama loaded up a plane with $400 million in cash and dumped it on the Iranians to, and that was what cemented the deal. Well, 400 million, it's a lot of money, but it's nothing compared with $400 million. 20 billion. Yeah. So I don't know how long that's going to sit on the table or whether it was ever on the table.

Who knows, frankly. Who knows? You know, we also hear that Iran has put on the table, no enrichment at all for five years. Right now, that is a significant difference from the Obama agreement. Right? There was no period of no enrichment in the Obama deal. And the Obama deal, most of the restrictions expired after 10 years. So what's the Trump team?

You know, what's the dream story they can tell about an agreement they're going to reach? Because eventually they will in one way or another. What's the dream story that the Iranians renounce enrichment for a period of time? the Iranians put five years on the table. The Americans said no 20 years. So, you know, that's real estate negotiation. Once each side puts a number on the table, usually, you know that both sides are willing to negotiate.

The hardest part of it all is to get people to put any number on the table. So that would be a significant difference. The second difference would be, I think, that most of the restrictions would not expire in 10 years. And that's why you get this language otherwise. It's for a lifetime. It's a lifer. Because, frankly, to me, I strongly supported the Obama deal.

I thought any agreement was better than nothing, but it was too short. If you're really concerned about a breakout, 20 nuclear weapon 10 years is a very short period of time. And we're almost there, frankly. Those 10 years have gone by. But let's face it, I mean, there are no deals that will last a lifetime. Ever.

You know, there are no forever deals. You can get a lifetime deal, but you can't get a forever. Exactly. But let me, seeing as you've raised the nuclear thing, I want to, I want to probe on that. Oh, so just to finish the money, which you asked me and I didn't really answer. So the money issue, how can the Trump administration justify this? Well, they're going to tell you. you didn't put any money on the table.

They're just going to lift the sanctions. But in a way, wasn't that what the Obama deal was all about to? Exactly. Exactly what it was. There's no difference, Peter. Right. Okay. You know, when this war started eight weeks ago,

they couldn't, the American side couldn't keep their position straight as to why they were doing it in the first place. They were all over the map. They had all kinds of different. Everywhere. One of them was nuclear, but it was just one. Yeah. And they didn't really play it hard because they had a problem playing it hard.

They said they wiped it out a year ago. Like completely obliterated it. There was nothing. Obliterated at all. Yeah. Right. So, but in the last two weeks, it's the only reason they give for this. Everybody you hear, whether it's from the White House or from the Republican side in Congress,

they only talk about nuclear. We have to take, we can't let Iran have nuclear weapons. Yeah. So I need you to tell me what we're supposed to believe Iran really has. So the best, most reliable person on this is Raphael Grossey, who is the, Secretary General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. She was the one whose inspectors were inside Iran right after the Obama deal until Trump tore it up unilaterally. The Iranians never violated.

And they speak and the Iranians did not expel the inspectors for at least a year after. So he's got the underground, you know, detailed reports from inspectors who are in there every six weeks, every two months looking what are on that. So what do we believe? We know three things. First of course, they have enriched uranium to 60%. There is no peaceful reason. And he says it over and over to enrich uranium. to that level.

Nobody does it. There are no reasons. There are no peaceful uses of urine. 21st and there's the ceiling and in fact it's lower. And the Iranians have never been able to explain why they're enriching to that level. And he can't explain it either. Secondly, he's inspected the centrifuges, which spin to enrich. and he acknowledges they have doubled and tripled their centrifuges.

And they're better, they're more advanced. They're more efficient all the time. So that too is a massive investment. Do we assume all those centrifuges were destroyed in whatever happened last summer? Or do we know? We assume that all the centrifuges that were in three places, Fardo, Natanz, and all. Isfahan were likely destroyed, not because they were directly hit by, you know, bunker

buster bombs, but because the shock from the impact would wreck the machines. They're very sensitive and that they would not be functional. What nobody knows, and Grossy doesn't know it himself, is whether there are underground sites in the mountains, that hide both centrifuges and small amounts of enriched uranium. And it's entirely possible. Hart, you can't see it from satellites. Pictures won't tell you because it's underground. And one of the really interesting things,

Peter, that we have seen, is on very local issues, like missile launchers, which are all along, the straightforward mootes on the banks. We've seen Iranians pull them out. There are pictures of Iranian satellite pictures of Iranian. And they're pulling them out of underground caves, launching a missile and rebearing them.

And in the two weeks, almost now two weeks of ceasefire, the Iranians dug out some of them, additional missile launchers that were buried underground. So they have buried a lot of stuff in underground than in caves. I don't think anybody could rule out that there are a small number of very efficient centrifuges inside Iran that have never been seen by anybody. And there could be a small stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Where are the rumors, where this is, it's at a place called PRISA.

axe mountain inside Iran. Nobody knows. Do we know... Iranians know. Yeah. Do we know with certainty that they have, excuse me, that they have enriched uranium

that could be used? Yes. We know that with certainty. Yes. Raphael Grossi again. His inspectors saw the highly enriched uranium, the uranium that was enriched up to 60%. Now, after that, the bombing in June, in which Donald Trump

claimed he obliterated it, what did he really mean that that highly enriched uranium, which nobody has seen since June of 25, is buried under mountains of rubble. the Iranians sealed the entrances to all those sites and there was no satellite evidence at all and Grossi has said this in public there's no satellite evidence that any of those entrances have been disturbed.

Hmm. So it's there. People say now experts, who haven't seen say it's stored in gas canisters, which would be very, how do we know what we know? You know, what I'm saying, right? That's always a good question.

How do I know? Because a group of military experts speculated, all serious people speculated what a raid on Isfahan, which is the, on the Isfahan facility, which is the most likely one that holds probably more in rich uranium than anything else. What would be required to get at that uranium and to move it? And how difficult it would be to move it. And so that's how all the detail about where it's stored, what it looks like,

how risky it would be to attack and then how careful you would have to be when you were moving. in Mr. Uranium that you did not have a leak or caught any, you know, problem with radioactivity. So just to tie the nod on this discussion. So last summer when Trump claimed, and it echoed by Netanyahu, that the nuclear facilities that Iran had had been completely obliterated, he was either ill-informed or he was lying. I don't think he was ill-informed.

I don't think he was ill-informed. And I would say, if I phrased it this way, as a result of that war, that highly enriched uranium cannot be accessed because it's buried so deep under rubble. And if anybody tried to do it, we would know about it. That would be an accurate statement.

That's not Trump language. Right. But it's rendered unusable. Let me put it to you that way. So how does that square with his claims today that they were, or he's made a number of times the last few weeks, that they were, you know, hours away or days away or the most two weeks away from being able to access a nuclear weapon?

or a dirty bond, whatever. Yeah. Look, I don't think that's accurate. There's no expert that thinks that's accurate. To do that, they would have to dig out some of that, Ereem, unless, unless there's hidden stuff somewhere that none of us know about, right, that the intelligence community knows and hasn't talked about,

which is always possible. But let's rule I'm going out, because that's, you know, who the hell knows? So, I mean, really, who knows? So they would have to dig that out, the Iranians. We would see from the, from satellite, because those sites are monitored 24-7. You'd see bulldozers.

You'd see trucks pulling on. You'd have to remove, and they sealed the entrances after, you know, June 2025. but there's no evidence whatsoever. So there's no way if you have to do all that, and then you have to make the weapon, and they've never tested a weapon. You have to make it. You have to load it on a delivery vehicle,

and you have to test it. I think that's entirely inconceivable within a two-week period. Just seems like if this is now the primary reason, the war started. He hasn't made the case for it. I agree. Look, I agree. You know, who are the people that are most concerned

about Iran eventually getting an nuclear weapon, right? Because it is conceivable that if they continue to enrich and they could access the uranium, that they could, they're very, very accomplished scientists inside Iran. It's a very, very sophisticated scientific. It's a very educated population, you know, with a great tradition, great culture, and a really great scientist community. It's conceivable they could do it in a year, Peter. I mean, it's not, that's a short time, but it's not two weeks.

So who's most worried about that? The Israelis, obviously, for sure, who have nuclear weapons, let's just add. Right. And the Saudis. because the Saudis have said openly if were the Iranians ever to get a nuclear weapon, we'd be next in line. And that's partly, so we're filling the picture here,

that's partly why the Saudis signed a defense treaty with the Pakistanis, who have nuclear weapons and who are known to be least concerned, let me put it that way, least concern about sharing that technology with their friends. Okay, we're going to move. So that's the normal. That's the whole nuclear debate right now that is roiling everybody because that would functionally mean that we would have nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

That's really mistakes. Okay. We're going to move on. but I got to say the thing I still find, you know, kind of contradictory in this whole thing. Trump is the same guy who kissed up and wrote love letters to the North Korean leader. Yeah. Who was making nuclear weapons and has them. Yeah.

And he never said boo about doing anything with them. Yeah. You know, he made certain threats. But he didn't look like he was very threatening when he was there, harm and arm. arm with the guy. Now, let me say, you know, for the right, I find Trump's statements on this incredible. But there, but there is a bigger story here. The same story is true in Asia, that the South Koreans came to the Biden administration

and said, we want a nuclear weapon. And by the, oh, no, that's not a good idea. Don't do that. And tightened the American, South Korean, the guy. commitments that the United States made to South Korea. Biggest fear that the United States has hot since John F. Kennedy is that there would be widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. And in a funny way, the Russians and the Americans agreed on that.

That's one of the big things they didn't. There's been a degree of proliferation since then. I mean, look at it. Or, that's all. Right. You know, JFK, and this is one of those. We all come back to it. JFK predicted that there would be 50 nuclear weapon states

when by the time we got to the next century, which for him was 40 years away, they're nine. Far and less than anybody thought, because the United States really put its shoulder to the wheel on this one and tried to deal with the security concerns of those states that lived in the neighborhood of a proliferator. okay so it's not a new problem is what I'm trying to

trump himself utterly incredible and it's just it's just the excuse that he's landed on for Iran now even though the moment he's focused and it's interesting we've never discussed today the Strait of War moves

which was created by the war it wasn't an issue before the war It was fully open before this war started. Iran closed. And, you know, again, even the Iranians say we have our nuclear weapon now. It was there in plain sight. It's the Strait of Hormuz. Right.

Because we close it. We get the world's attention and the global economy just takes a tremendous hit. What's happened since is. Trump blockaded from further out so it's safer. So the American ships are not within range of Iranian missiles. And then they seized an Iranian boat, boarded it, and have declared a global blockade. They did that on Sunday against Iran,

which means they can seize vessels, Iranian vessels anywhere on any ocean. and we saw them do it to Venezuela. So Sunday was a day when the tensions wrapped up. Okay. We're going to take our break and come back and we've only got a few minutes. But we have three or four issues that I want to get at least a minute from you on each of them. Okay.

And we'll do that right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Monday episode, Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School, the University of Toronto, with us, as she always is on Mondays. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167, Canada Talks, are on your favorite podcast platform. Okay, Janice, Sudan has now entered the fourth year of the brutal civil war that's going on there, which is probably worse than any of the other wars that are taking place, whether it's Iran,

whether it's Ukraine, whether it's, you know, wherever it may be Gaza. all of this has been much worse in Sudan, but nobody seems to care. No, I don't know. It's really astonishing, Peter. I'm so glad you brought it out because it is the worst war. It is the largest humanitarian disasters of this century. 20 million people are more displaced, 20 million, right, who are displaced. starvation. We heard so much about famine and starvation in Gaza, legitimately so.

But the numbers in Sudan dwarf because Gaza is a small population of 2 million people. Food aid isn't getting through. There is acute hunger, the worst child malnutrition anywhere in the world. in the worst number of reported cases of rape, which is a wartime crime, frankly. So, you know, Tom Fletcher, who's the coordinator for the UN, described it as, which is three are just a horrific phrase. He called it a laboratory of atrocities.

And you're right. You know, who's talking about it? you know we we've talked with you about this and and sam nut about this as well about why does nobody care what is your answer to that i mean there are there are a lot of different possibilities for that but how do you how do you respond to that so look i i have to say the western media drive so much of global attention because, you know, these are the best news organizations in the world. They are the ones with the best tradition of objective reporting.

And so in a funny way, where the United States is, where Europeans are, is where reporters go. Right. You know that when we had forces in Afghanistan, we had terrific coverage. and when we have them in Europe, which we do now in Latvia, Canadian reporters will go there. But when they come home, we don't go back and we don't spend a lot of time. You know, Brian Stewart was a rare exception in that way

that he went to Ethiopia and wrote about famine when almost nobody else was there. So I think that's a big part of it. Look, the second is who are the powers who are supplying both sides here? You know, one is the former military government that seized, you know, that seized power and a coup. The other is the inheritors of the Gen Janiweed militia that committed the, frankly, genocide in Darfur. So who's pouring the money in the arms? The Emirates, the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the Russians.

In none of those countries do we have vibrant media that are free enough to criticize their regimes. So they are not writing the stories. And so this stays beneath the radar for long, long periods of time until an atrocity story is written. You know, I probably shouldn't use the phrase, nobody cares because the people who do care are the people who are there working. and the aid workers who are remarkable what they do. They're heroes. Yeah. But no money, Peter, no food, no medicine.

I mean, they make the most, you know, or not enough a trickle. They make the most agonizing decisions every day. But something who lives or who dies. Yeah. Yeah. You mentioned Gaza, which gets no play anymore either. No. focused on Iran.

But does that mean things are okay in Gaza? Or is it still a mess? No, no. Nothing's happened, frankly. Okay. Almost nothing's happened. So if you took an aerial photograph of Gaza today, it would look like the last the time we talked about it, tense.

There's no permanent housing. Everybody's still intense. Where that ceasefire line is drawn is where it is. The mediators, who in this case, were and the Board of Peace, you know, which received so much attention. Well, Trump's busy with other things, and those two mediators are busy by other things. They made a proposal to Hamas to disarm. There's a hint of an interest because nothing can proceed until Hamas signals its willingness to disarm.

But what does that mean? There's at least a hint of a response to that proposal. but if you look at the life, the average gas and family is living right now. They've just come through a horrific winter with cold and wet rains that flooded all the tents, Peter, no progress. Beneath the rate. Right. Last point. You know, if the Iran War had gone the way Venezuela went, which is, I am sure what Trump thought was going to happen,

and it would have been all over in a couple of days. Three days, he thought. Yeah, he'd be in Cuba by now, if not a month ago. But he's not, although he still drops the odd hint about Cuba. Is that still in play? So I'm actually worried about that one. You know, I don't take that off the agenda. And it's for two reasons.

Cuba is such an obsession with Marco Rubio. It's such an obsession. There eventually has been a blockade of no energy has gone in except for one Russian shipment, which brings us back to this curious relationship that exists between Trump and Putin. None of us can figure out. But if this turns into a defeat for Trump, which, you know, if that's, if he can't sell it to the American public into his own base, Because there's a limit to what people are going to believe, frankly. And despite all this spin, he can't sell it.

I think it is likely that he will after Cuba before them interms. I think that's right on. It's not even on the back burner. It's on the burner right behind it. So what are you saying? You're saying you think he will do it? Yes. I do.

Especially, especially if he can't sell the Warner Roth as a victory. If he comes out of this tasting defeat and he smells that the public thinks it's defeat, he will want to change his channel and change that channel well enough in advance of the November mitchers. Well, it sure smells like a defeat right now, no matter what happens, you know. It's just the whole way it's being conducted and his inconsistency. It's incompetent, either it's incompetence of the highest order. It's a humiliating display of incompetence that leads people all over the world to say, how did Americans elect this guy the second time when they got a preview in the first

Well, sure giving us lots to talk about every week. And it's that time where we've got to say goodbye for this week, but knowing full well that there will still be lots to talk about seven days from now. Thanks, Janice. Take care. Have a good week. mute. Dr. Janice Stein from the Mug School to University of Toronto on her regular Monday appearance with the bridge. you know, as much as I'm always fascinated by what she has to say

and feel better informed at the end of our conversations than I was at the beginning. Man, it's sometimes depressing. It really is. It's depressing about the kind of leadership we're seeing, you know, from Washington. It's depressing given what we're seeing happening on the ground. it's depressing, especially so when you talk about Sudan. You know, and we try to talk about it, you know, every few months. And we've had Dr. Samantha Nutt from Warchaw, Canada,

on the program a number of times because she's been there more than a few times. And passionate in her discussion of what's happening there. And it's actually scary to listen to her. sometimes. We once interviewed her while she was on the ground in Sudan. And, you know, I'm glad we're informing people, but I'm so depressed that nothing's really changing on any of these fronts. I mean, we've talked about Ukraine since the war started. We talked about Gaza since that started. We've talked about Iran since that started.

We've talked about Sudan for four years. Nothing's changing. The only thing that's changing is that more and more people are dying in all of those locations. And we will keep talking about it. All of them. All right. That's going to do it for this day. You heard at the beginning of the program today, our question of the week,

basically what's on your mind? What are you worried about these days? Is it war? Is it affordability? Is it climate change? Is it any number of different things? But what's the one thing you worry most about? Okay, I don't want a whole collection from you. I just want to know the one thing you're worried about.

You know where to write the Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. You know the conditions under 75 words. Includes your name and the location you're writing from all of that. So I'll look forward to reading what you have to say on that, and we'll see what we end up with on Thursday's your turn, along with the random renter. Tomorrow it's Raj and Rousseau for their every second Tuesday appearance. Lots to talk about with them.

And we'll do that on tomorrow's program. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening today. See you again in, well, less than 24 hours.