The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - What's The Real Reason For The Attack On Iran?

Episode Date: March 3, 2026

It's been four days since the attack by Israel and the United States on Iran, and the reason for why keeps changing. Today, with her weekly commentary Dr. Janice Stein of the Munk School at the University of Toronto, shares her assessment of what's going on. 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 is the real reason for the attack on Iran? Dr. Janice Stein with her thoughts on that question. Coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Tuesday. Yes, this is Peter Mansbridge. And yes, this is Tuesday with Dr. Janice Stein.

As you know, usually it's Mondays with Dr. Stein and her thoughts and commentary on all events foreign. and how they shape our world in this changing world that we're in. But this week, Mondays was occupied with our major interview, feature interview with Pierre Pollyev. And that was yesterday. So today, Dr. Stein will be with us in just a few moments' time to talk about Iran. A couple of thoughts first, though. one, thank you very much for all your comments about the Polyev interview.

I got a lot of them yesterday. Most people finding it interesting, not necessarily buying into some of the things that Polyev seems to have changed on. But nevertheless, they were intrigued by his answers on a lot of the questions we asked. and it has received a fair amount of play, other media picking up the story and running with it over the last couple of days. So that's interesting

and a nice little moment for the bridge and the, you know, the fact that we were able to get Pierre Pauliev on the program. So we appreciate that and we're hoping as we try for other feature guests on occasion on the program. We're kind of built in a certain continuity. You know what it is.

in terms of each day of the week and what we offer. But there's always room for feature interviews. So hopefully we'll have more of those. But again, thank you for your comments. And there were a considerable number of them. Second point before the discussion with Dr. Stein is our question of the week. I was tempted to ask about Iran, but because it's changing every day, I think we'll wait another week or so before we ask an Iran-based question.

However, we did need a question for the week, and we have one that in some ways flows out of the conversation with Polyev, but really flows out of the events of the last year. The question finally, to you, the bridge audience, is this. Do you think the change in the nature of our relationship with the United States is permanent? or could some semblance of the old relationship return at some point in the future? That's the question, and you were obviously ready for it, because we just asked it yesterday, and we've been swamped. We've already got more than enough answers,

but not all the answers that are sent in get on the program. So we're always looking. So don't be shy if you want to send something in as well. but you do have to accommodate the conditions we place on these. And one of them I forgot to remind you of yesterday, and many people took advantage of that, is I forgot to remind you it's 75 words or less. So if you were over 75 words, you're either going to get dropped or edited,

depending on what we can do with the letter you had. But most, most people recognize that 75 words or fewer is a condition of the program. That's one. Two, include your name and include the location you're writing from. Have it in by 6 p.m. Eastern Time tomorrow. And finally, what's the final thing? You know, what is the final condition of the letters? We have length, we have location, we have name, we have the time, the address.

The Mansbridge Podcast at gmail.com. The Mansbridge Podcast at Gmail.com. All right, that's it. I know you're waiting. You're waiting for Dr. Janice Stein, and your weight is to be rewarded right now. Here she is, Dr. Janice Stein from the Monk School at the University of Toronto. All right, Janice, one of the good things about waiting to talk about this is if there's something about war that we've seen over and over again, is it's complicated, it's confusing, it's contradictory, and we've seen all of that in the first four days.

We've also seen, from the Americans, a different reason every day for four days as to why they're doing this. in Iran. Yeah. And I'm puzzled because we've gone from regime change to, it's all Israel's fault. Yeah. So what do you conclude after four days of this as to what the reason is? So I think the key reason here, Peter,

Trump gone involved very early on with Iran. It was on his right on screen. it was the Obama deal, right? And we can think back to Trump one. He came to the White House. He wanted out of that deal literally in the first month. He was already on the top of his radar. The adults in the room talked them back.

They talked him back for a year. Gone. The worst deal. I can remember hearing you say it, the worst deal ever. He was convinced when he came back, that he would get a better deal. The negotiations really did not succeed. He couldn't move the yardstick in a way that he's, you know,

struggle to do on Ukraine. And the frustration built in his team. And then the January killings happened inside Iran. And he made a commitment. He said, help is on the way. And if you kill, if you kill any of these people, he drew a red line. Paradoxically, in the same way that Obama drew a red line in Syria. And I think from then on, he was in.

He needed, the generals needed time to move assets. But he was really in from that moment on. I was expecting something. This is a massive attack. And as those assets accumulated on the ground, it was clear. This is going to be no pin-prick attack. But this was a thing with him that was independent of the advisors around them. Look, you know, Mr. Netanya was one of this for 15 years.

But that was never enough. It was never enough. I don't think it was enough this time, too. This was a Trump thing. Well, let me talk about that for a minute because I mean, I'm like a lot of people who have sense over the last couple of days that Netanyahu's actually leading Trump around like he's on a leash. Yeah. You know, go here, do this, do that.

I'm going to do this. So you have to do that. How much of that is real? This is how I would describe it. I don't think anybody leads Trump around on a leash. Not even the guys in the room with him. You know, the closest I've seen anybody do this is General Kane, whom he seems to have very, very, very high regard for and gives him a lot of scope.

And he's the head of the American forces. He's commander of the Joint Chiefs, right? He's like our CDS in Canada. And you know, that's who General Kane is. And, of course, is Trump just because, you know, he succeeded for Trump twice once in Iran and June and another time in Venezuela. And he also talks back to Trump in a way that nobody else really does. So I think with Netanyahu, their interests are aligned. but Trump has said no to Netanyahu repeatedly.

And if I look even, and this is, you know, trying to get inside the head of Trump. You know, I say something is just a waste of time for a whole variety of reasons because it's so hard to find a logical threat. But this attack, it's now come out 10 days ago, was planned for last Wednesday. He halted it.

for until Thursday to wait for the outcome of that meeting in Geneva, where Steve Wilcoff and Jared Kushner were, to wait to see if there was a deal. And at the end of that meeting, they called him and told him they were convinced Iranians would not make a deal. And that's when he said, okay, it's a goal. He authorized it on Friday.

Well, what about what? Is there, there's more than, you know, there's more than one factor that feeds in with him, but ultimately it's about him. It's about his deal over and over. Well, what about Rubio just yesterday saying, you know, in forceful terms, saying, listen, you know, Israel was going to attack. Yeah. And so we had to attack as well because if Israel had attacked, they would, the Iranians would have come after us right away.

that's a compelling argument that's a compelling argument and Rubio is not Trump there's a logical thread there that you can follow look at how these relationships are so complex Nathaniel always wanted to do this back in the fall

he told Zamir who is the equivalent to General Kane in Israel there had to prepare for an attack against Iran. They bought. They told them, and they really talked back. They said, no, they couldn't do it alone. And you can't really go to war there

over against the will of the senior generals. It just doesn't. You can't do it. No prime minister can do it. No prime minister can do it. As the fall went on, and it became, especially after January, when it became clear, because there's very close relationships between the Israeli military, the American military, no, it's like ours.

In a way, beneath the surface, these officers talk to each other all the time. After January, when it became clear that Trump was beginning to change his mind, that's really when the planning accelerated because all of a sudden they had an American part. So what we always saying was true, but only part of the truth, because they would have attacked, but they weren't going to attack unless they were reasonably confident the Americans would go with them. And the Americans say, well, they're going to attack because Israelis were going to attack. So there's a bit of a secular logic going on. The two of them together reinforced each other. There's no question.

Where do you think the American military is, the General Keynes and the others, in terms of, I mean, these guys, they're all, you know, as much as people like to think, you know, the military is hawks and they want to go in and kick, but it's usually the opposite. Usually, yeah. It's resistant. They know what it's going to mean, you know, the six dead we've seen already as of the timing of this recording. is going to continue to go up. So they know what it's going to cost in blood,

what it's going to cost in armaments, everything. And there has been this sense, I don't know how true it is, I'm wondering what you're hearing, that they were more than just the normal resistant to this. They were doing the thing we talked about last week. You know, this isn't Venezuela. You know, this isn't going to be over in a couple of hours.

I think there was a lot of resistance, Peter. I really do. For Kane to come out and say, they're going to be American military and casualties, and Trump has repeated that. So he was told that. And the second thing, how does this work without any forces on the immigrant?

There's no example in history, in recent history, I can think of it. Well, you did, where you did, change from the air. In fact, there's a limit to what you can do from the air, no matter how deficit in the air strikes are. No country has surrendered, frankly, as a result of only air strikes. And, you know, this is the president who campaigned on the biggest disaster, that, you know,

Biden's disasters, Obama's disasters, these never-ending wars. Trump made his campaign in, you know, that's really round over and over again, no more forever wars. The generalist told him this time, you can't do this from the air. It will not be enough. You will not get regime.

So the resistance came from them, and he pushed. And that's why you've got this very odd compromise, which I'm going to say, and it's just instinct here, Peter. it's not going to hold. Once you start a campaign of strategic bombing like this, the pressure builds, the pressure builds, the pressure bill. And there's boots on the fact.

Yeah, and you even hear yesterday was the first time you started hearing, like, you know, it's not out of the question. I think it was Vance who said something like that. And you know what he's talking about when he says that? He's talking about special operations forces, RG, you know, I'm assuming special officers are already in there. Of course, there's tons, there's special operations sports on the ground. There's intelligence people all over on the ground.

Of course, that are. You know, I agree with you about air power and the limits of air power. And we saw what happened in Iraq. We saw what happened in Afghanistan, lots of air power at the beginning and then in the ground force. The only time that I can recall where air power did it alone was Kosovo. Yes, that's true. Now, limited, smaller operation, obviously. Yes, that's true.

But it was a pretty convincing bombing campaign for a month or six weeks or so, and then that was it. Iran is just an order of magnitude. You know, it's a huge army. It's a huge regular army Alongside it are revolutionary guards Who are much more aggressive And alongside them Are the besiege these guys on motorcycles

That we see in videos Who were out shooting in the crowds like that You know, what's different this time, Peter? Frankly, The population's turned against the regime Inside around they're unarmed, they're disorganized, some, there are some we could come to those after, but they are, they've lost legitimacy with their own population.

And if you have, if there's, you know, if there's this kind of all-out attack, what we're seeing, I think, is from Iran, one disrupted commanding control, the foremester literally said we can't we are not communicating with the military because it was clear that he disapproved of those attacks on the Gulf so the command and control messed up very difficult to meet

because look at the intelligence that was available about when they were meeting they can't meet, they can't use any kind of electronic communication because they'll be tracked. So there's, and what's going on, and I don't think we've ever seen this

quite like this, Peter. Khomeini left orders, which he gave to the military and Republican guards in the event of the death. So we are seeing pre-delegated orders now, largely, about the attacks that are going on. difficult to think how an army is so disconnected from the political echelon.

Political echelon can't meet. How do you want to walk? Somebody can crack here. We tend to look at these situations, whether it was Iraq or Afghanistan, and assuming that the existing armed force would kind of crater when the government cratered.

Right. It would, you know, cut and run almost. These are battle-hardened people in Iran. I mean, they had that war with Iraq. They ran Iraq for, what, 10, 12 years? Eight years. Hundreds of thousands of people killed. Yeah.

And they kept going. They've been sitting waiting for kind of 20 years. Is this Revolutionary Guard, unlike the others? Is this one in for the long game? So this Revolutionary Guard runs the Iranian economy. That's the best way than describing. Sanctions are a problem for everybody in Iran, but not for the Revolutionary Guard. Think about the sanctions as huge tariffs that's imposed on the economy.

And so if you're running the cement business or the pharmaceutical business, you've got a huge advantage because what you make is the only thing that's available to the Iranians. I've seen estimates that they control 60% of the Iranian. Everything is riding for them on this. There is no future for the Republican guards, for the Revolutionary Guards, if they lose control Peter. So they're all in. They're all in. They're loyal to the Supreme

Leader, but beyond loyal to him. And there's no way forward for them for a second reason because they were on the streets shooting at people. People know who they are.

There's video, which we don't talk about that. Are they armed? I mean, they're armed. in the moment, but are they armed for the whole long haul? So that's part, that's the story here, that what they have, what Iran has are ballistic missiles,

no air force, no air force. You could see the Air Force of Iranians had when two planes were shot down over the Gulf. These are Soviet fighters. that's what they've got. They have no air force, really. You know, they don't have, this is not the Russian or the Ukrainian army with infantry that's battled hard, and they haven't fought.

Since the end of that war, which would mean it was 1989. That's a very long time. They've invested massively in one thing, ballistic missiles, and that's really their defense. they have thousands of ballistic missiles, Peter. We don't know how many missile launchers they have, but few. So every time they pull out a missile launcher to launch a missile, that's what those two air forces are doing right now, hunting missile launchers. And they're movable, right?

The missile launchers they have. They're mobile. They're mobile. You're never going to get them all. You're never going to get them all. But the prime target of the campaign, and it's an airing campaign, actually, unlike most of what you see. Okay. The prime target of the air campaign, or the final missile launchers, every time there's a volley, there's a, you know, there's leaves a trail, find it, get it.

That's one. And the other thing are the Revolutionary Guards and the Basiche. not very interesting what is not being attacked from everything I can see not the foreign ministry both guys that's intact

both guys saw as their building they still can connect they can give a press conference he could do an interview and not the Iranian military not the regular army that's called designing regime change from the air

which is where I think the mythology she is, but that's what it's about. There are conflicting theories about missiles and interceptors. Yeah. The missiles that Iran is using,

some say they're going to run out, and it may not be long before they run out. Not the missiles are going to run out. It's the missile launchers. The launchers. They have thousands of, and they can make them, but it's the launchers. Okay. Versus interceptors, where the rumor is, The Americans and the Israelis are going to run out of interceptors.

Yes, yes. So, you know, if you made me describe this war in one line, which, thank goodness you don't make me do it, but if you made me do it, I would say this is a battle of who runs out first, Iran, of missile launchers, or the United States and Israel of interceptors. are either of those in the near

offing here you know we kept waiting for people to run out of weapons in the Ukraine here they're under the fifth year and they're not running out or at least there's no evidence and you know they innovated I mean that's the thing about right they innovated they stood up the manufacturing sector it's unboothed I mean it's astonishing what they were able to but the Russians innovated too

and that's a clunky old machine So the original numbers I saw were, and I checked, were 150 missile launchers that few. I checked. And the answer that came back, nobody knows really how many they have. I understand that 250 have been destroyed. How many more are left? Nobody knows. But they're not large numbers.

The interceptors is a real issue, despite, I don't know if you notice that it was so full this morning had a long classic thank you for

your attention to this matter post in which he talked about the fact that they had stocks

and they would not run out which means they're aware that this is the big issue and

for every missile that you launch it costs the missile interceptor that you send up 10 times this expense, at least. So a million dollars for an interceptor against at the most

$100,000 missile or less in the Iranian case because they're making some of them now inside around themselves. So the numbers don't favor the interceptors. In addition to that, they drew down all those stocks in June, Peter. And this is just a storm sheet to me. The Americans can only make something like

of the most advanced interceptors 24 to 36 a year. What? Yeah. Of the highest altitude of the fat missile. That's all the capacity in a year. Yikes. So you see, this is the story from a military perspective and the technology perspective,

this is the story of this war. From a political perspective, and you're right at the beginning, you put your finger right on it, the confusion about what the goals are. How do you know when you succeed it? you know, that's going to cost all the chaos. You know, if this regime survives in Iran, they won. They just have to survive this. Because the Americans don't have a set of goals.

Well, if Carney's looking for a business that Canada could gain leverage over the U.S. and make itself indispensable, it should probably be building interceptors. Advanced manufacturing of interceptors. Exactly. Let me talk about it. One other comment about the regime change issue, okay? Because that word is thrown around. How many had unique authority in that country?

Two supreme leaders since 1979. That's all. He was chosen by the first Supreme leader. And you know, when I talk to Iranians in the diaspora, which I do all the time, because Canada has the third largest Iranian diaspora in the world. And they're differing views, but the majority of them left Iran because of this regime. So they're strongly opposed, is putting monthly. But you know when they talked about how many, they were saying, the supreme leader.

that's how they talked about it. Even when they wanted them overthrown, they talked about it that way. He had unique religious authority and political authority and the Republican, the revolutionary guards were built up.

You know, they were loyal to him. He's not replaceable people. This regime has already changed. Whoever the successor is is going to have nothing like his authority. They're going to have to knit together

three military institutions that compete with each other in the face of a population that they'd lost. Imagine if they came to you and said, we want you to be the next Supreme Leader. You go, really? Yeah.

Really? Do I want that? Yeah. Okay, let me ask you something about the people because you almost have to worry. wonder whether Trump was being a bit naive on Saturday within hours of the bombing and the takeout of Hameini when he said regime change, here's your chance, rise up to the people, expecting like, I don't know what he was expecting, but it sounded like he was expecting

them to be out on the streets that afternoon while the bombs were still falling, right? Yeah. And they were going to demand power to the people. are they being naive about that? Oh, this reminded me, you know, George Bush would just report the invasion of Iraq when he expected that the Iraqis would breed American forces with flowers and that statue was pulled down

and he declared victory. It's unbelievably naive, frankly. You know, in Tehran, right now. There are besiege in the middle of the bombing,

which is intense by the way. It is very, very heavy bombing. There are besiege at all the intersection

to prevent protesters from coming out to the street. The closest they got was when the announcement came,

when the Iranian and it was Iranian, Iranian state television is off the air for all intents purposes.

So it's the foreign ministry and there's a huge internet shutdown, as you know, which creates its own complications. But when the Iranians announced that Khadani was dead, that's when those videos came out through Starlink, because there's Starlink terminals that have been smuggled in of Iranis that took the streets and celebrated that the Supreme Leader was dead. After that, nobody's in the streets. There are besiege at every checkpoint. There are checkpoints all over that city,

just designed to stop protest. And many, many people living there on who could leave have left the city. So telling people to go out into the streets, when the bombs are falling and the besiege are still in place, that's, frankly, just fantasy. We've got to take a break, but let me return to one of my first questions and put it this way before we take the break. Your answer to the question, who's really leading this war on the side of those who were up against Iran? Is it Tel Aviv or is it Washington?

It's Washington, but Tel Aviv is more than fully aligned. And one of the things I think that we haven't seen yet is when Trump is ready to stop, is he going to be able to dial his friend down? Because he may be ready to stop much, much, much soon. Yeah. You know, listen, we both have watched Netanyahu for a long time. He is in the sunset of his years. This has been his goal forever to take out Iran.

He's not going to back off now. That's one of the issues, right? Let's talk about one other thing, that there are elections scheduled for October in Israel. Everything is riding on this now. for those elections. If he succeeds, it's a whole different sort in the election.

If he fails, that's it for him. That's the end of his career. So I think the biggest, the biggest issue the Americans are going to face with the Israelis is getting them to stop. Because, you know, Donald Trump was hinting, oh, I'm going to talk to the Iranians.

There was a message that came through to me. They want to talk. His thing power, he's impatient, he does not have long-term strategic patience, which is what you need in this kind of situation. So my hunch is he won't want to stop. They're talking for weeks. What is that?

Once you start something of this order of magnetic, the big question is always, how do you stop it once you start it? That's where I think they're going to have problems. Yeah, I never believe any of these forecasts. And not just because it's Trump, but in any government, they don't know. If they have no idea, they have no plan, frankly, they have no idea, they haven't articulated any goals. Or they change their goals every day. Or they change their goals every day.

And let's just add that some of the reasons they gave are clearly not true. It was no amendment threat. There's no evidence that the Iranians were working on ballistic missiles that could hit the United States. And there's no evidence that they restarted their nuclear program. Right. Okay. There are questions to raise about where we are on all this. And we'll do that right after this.

And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge, the Tuesday edition with Dr. Janice Stein. That's right. on Mondays, but this week because of that special Poliyev interview yesterday. Janice held off a day. And I don't think really at the end of the day it was a bad idea because things keep changing. It's good.

Yeah, we, yeah. Here's where things bring us to at this point in our discussion. Mark Carney, who's, you know, I'm not sure where he is today, I think he's you know he was traveling to India now Australia he's bopping around the world as he has done so often this year but he was very quick out of the gate to support the attack on Iran I'm going to be careful how exactly he phrased it you know

whether you say he was supportive of Donald Trump or whether he was supportive of the attack on Iran did he come out too quick on that? You know, he and the Australian Prime Minister. So people have asked me, why did he do this, right? I, you know, I watched the Prime Minister during that hellish long war on Gats, right?

And he over and over and over came back to the violence against civilians. And the death rates among Palestinians and the, and frankly, the suffering that Palestinians were undergoing. I think January, just like for Trump, it was a trigger. For him, it was a trigger. You know, Peter, we don't talk about it much because it was so fast. And we don't have good numbers on how many Iranians were killed.

We just don't have reliable numbers. The estimate's goal from $7,500 to $15,000 to more than $15,000. It'll take it. But it seems like this was in $40,000 the most concentrated treat of killing. by a regime of its own citizens since Rwanda in 1994. No, it's blackout and people with machine gun in the streets. I think that's where he started from. And then, now, people are going to say, well, that's naive.

Yes and no. Of course, there are interests involved here. we have the fourth largest Iranian diaspora. Third largest Iranian diaspora is Los Angeles, Berlin, and then it's Canada. That diaspora abhors this regime and can't wait. It's been waiting for three decades for this racing to be over. Secondly, we are right before the Kuzma negotiation. So there is domestic politics.

there's always domestic politics, always domestic politics. And there's trade. So the interests align. But I think the trigger was the importance about what happened in January. And, you know, there's every reason to be abhorrent about that, even where there's still a lot of conflict around what exactly happened and how many people lost their lives and all that. beyond words of support, what can we do?

So we're not going to get involved militarily, right? I mean, I think there's no chance we're going to get involved militarily here. Absolutely none. You know, one of the real issues is the United States has pulled its assets from all over the world and put them in this one place. it's going to be a problem for Ukraine. This is a problem in the Pacific, if anything happens. So we are, and look in our neck of woods, this is a problem for us in the Arctic,

where we have other words that we have to really pay attention to. I don't think there's any chance that we're going to get involved in militarily. there's not much we can do on the ground in Iran because the bombs are falling and there's no access you know you saw that Canadians been asked to leave virtually everywhere in the Middle East has have Americans which tells you that we are only at the beginning of stages is a national alert in which Americans are asked to leave Egypt we have two American U.S. embassies that are now closed The Saudi embassy was attacked yesterday. So the level of insecurity,

it's about the region, is really large. If you track flights, you know, there's a civilian flight tracker, which you can see, there's no flights over the Middle East. It's like, you know, you see everybody going around. I don't think there's very much, honestly, you know, whenever there's a conflict, like in the Middle East.

We retreat to that saying, it's all about oil. Well, it's about oil. It's about oil here. It's about oil. It is about oil, too. It's about oil in every way. First of all, one of the, you know,

what stopped Donald Trump over Greenland? Only one thing stopped them. It wasn't when anybody said her. I'm telling you, it wasn't what the leader said. It was when the Norwegian started selling. US treasuries. It was their sovereign wealth fund that's old US treasuries and

the bond market spoke, right? And that's not with Donald Trump on. We're already beginning to see in energy markets. There's a spike in the price of oil. LNG exports from two of the Gulf exporters are on hold. There's 80% of the

traffic through the straits of Hormuz is down without, it's not going through, it's considered too risky, and it's the insurance companies who pile of huge insurance premiums when under these kinds of situations. So this is Donald Trump's nightmare. The oil prices go up, there's inflation, stock markets go down, that's what you're saying. I happened to be with an energy economist a few days ago, and they said, and you know how economics talk about these things? Well, if this is two or three weeks, we'll price it in, and there won't be any disruption. But if it goes longer, that's an entirely different problem.

So I think we're only seeing the beginning of this. The other thing is you take a Ronian oil off the market. that's a billion barrels. Who wins and who loses, Peter? Russia wins, big time. Big time. China loses, big time, and the Chinese are already. This is the most active the Chinese have been inmediating

because they don't want to see this because they're the biggest buyer of Iranian oil. So if this goes on, If this is not for a week, but goes on much longer, you have significant displacement of LNG and oil, and there are big winners and losers, and Donald Trump is a loser. It's always about oil.

We've only got a minute left. Point the Stein compass forward. What do you see? What should we watch for in the next week? Okay. You know, if we, We see any crack in the revolutionary guards, any crack whatsoever. There are guys, they're always guys, but there are guys who say,

I don't want to see the construction of the entire economy here and all this assets. I will lose big. We cannot stand up against this pressure. We need to stop this. is there what I'm looking for Peter is there a dulcie Rodriguez that's the Venezuelan number two who took over for Maduro who was really kind of Maduro herself that's what I'm looking for and who makes contact

with some intelligence people that are on the ground right well we'll see because if something like that's going to happen it's probably going to have to happen soon. That's right. Or that person or people will have no credibility the longer. That's right. That's right.

Okay, we're going to leave it at that. And obviously, this one we'll be talking about for a while. This is not going away. You know, this is the biggest roll of the dice. The biggest. Yeah, well, rolls of the dice. Don't always turn out well. Nope.

So let's see where this one goes. The house went. The house went, right. Okay, we'll leave it at that. Janice, thanks so much, and we'll talk again in seven days. We will. Well, there you go. Another informative.

Another informative session with Dr. Janice Stein, one that makes you think, right? We always say that. Makes you think. Don't always have to agree. and in some cases we don't and you won't and that's okay but at least we're all thinking about it okay that's going to wrap it up for for this day for this Tuesday tomorrow is a special well it's not special

it is the more butts conversation it's just not on a Tuesday as this week has all been shuffled around tomorrow is more butts and this too is an interesting conversation It's nothing about the moment we're in now with Iran. It's nothing about Pollyev. Well, actually, we do a couple of questions on Pollyev later.

But the main thrust of Moore-Butz conversation this week is on something that Jerry wanted to talk about. We were all talking about it a week ago. Sports in politics. Politics in sports. So that's what we're going to talk about tomorrow. With Jerry Butts and James Moore. Hope you'll join us.

All right. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening. We'll talk to you again in less than 24 hours.