The Munk Debates Podcast - Friday Focus: A historic week in geopolitics signals the unravelling of America's global dominance

Episode Date: April 10, 2026

Janice and Rudyard believe this war was a strategic defeat for the U.S. with Iran now in control of a chokepoint through which 25% of the world's energy flows. Is this the end of freedom of navigation in international waters? Iran is proposing a toll for passing through the Strait of Hormuz using cryptocurrency which could erode an important U.S. strategic chokepoint: the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. Meanwhile America's major allies - NATO members, Asian countries and the Gulf States - have lost confidence in America's ability to protect them. How will China take advantage of America's strategic blunder? Can J.D. Vance use this conflict to advance his own political ambitions? And will the U.S. make serious concessions to Iran about tolls, sanctions, and enriched uranium? This week, geopolitics shifted beneath our feet—and it may mark the start of America's decline.   Thank you to this week's new curators Stephanie G and Suzanne L for making the full edition of this Friday Focus available to all paying and non-paying subscribers. To beome a Munk Donor, Supporter, or Curator go to https://munkdebates.com/membership/    Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a competition in endurance and will. And right now, the Iranians, because this is everything to them, and this is not everything to Donald Trump, is it not? The Iranis are willing to endure much more pain than Donald Trump is, and that's the best predictor of what will come out of this. Welcome to the Friday Focus podcast. We're catching up with Janus Gross Stein, once again in Mary Old London, at the UK Defense Conference.

Janice, you are racking up the frequent flyer points. I am. I am and I will tell you, Roger, the highlight of the day, I saw a great white pelican in St. James Park. Wow. So we are taking advantage of Janice still being with us late in the evening on Thursday, the 9th of April, to record this because she's flying back tomorrow.

So we wanted to get an episode in that could drop to you, our valued Friday focused listeners on Friday, as Janice is winging her way back to Mary Canada. Well, Janice, what to say? A week that was. We can really say, I think, record and to be wholly honest with our, listeners are monk donors and others.

You and I have probably exchanged 50 texts in the last 40 hours, which we normally don't do. I think we both think this was a historic week. Jen, as you have characterized this in some of your public commentary as a strategic defeat for the United States. What are the elements of that defeat that you're seeing? as a long-standing observer of the Middle East of U.S. presidents of the exercise of American power in the post-war period. What has you concerned about, I guess, not simply the president's decision to try to push for a ceasefire. I think we were all on side for that, but the particular conditions within which it's happened, and then we can get into some of the seeming peculiarities,

at least that the president might be willing to consider on the part of affording Iran, possibly some real concrete advantages coming out of this conflict. So I think there are three elements that are really concerning to me now, whether those three elements are in any final agreement or not, you and I know, every ball is still up in the air. But based on what I've seen up to now, here are the three. The first is Iran is now in control of a strategic choke point, a waterway, the Straits of whom moves through which about 25% of the world's energy flows.

The United States has spent 200 years defending freedom of navigation international waterways. If that turns out to be where this ends, that alone is a strategic defeat, frankly. And it changes so much about the ongoing way the world self-organizes around strategic waterways. That's enormous. The second thing that is really striking is that the dollar, as the world's reserve currency is in part, and that is the U.S. strategic choke point, that it controls the because it is the reserve currency. And it was able to sanction Iran all these years because it has that choke point. Well, Iran is proposing that the tolls that it will impose on tankers transiting the

straight will be denominated in cryptocurrency. If you think about the petrol dollar, regardless of what we think about crypto, and I'm one of the leading skeptics, but the petrol dollar economy has been in place for 100 years. Denominating oil transactions in crypto or in Chinese currency eats away. at the U.S. strategic point. So Iran gains one, and the U.S. is diminished. And the third, I think, worrying element in the picture that we see right now

is the loss of confidence that NATO members have Asian economies that are dependent on oil and gas and the Gulf states who paid the price. price for this attack, all of them depending on an implicit U.S. security guarantee and none of them feeling that the United States took that into consideration when it made its decision. Yeah. So given all this, I guess I just have this skepticism that in fact, these negotiations that will begin as soon potentially again, the date that our listeners are tuning into this program,

Friday the 10th of April, again, we're recording late in the night on Thursday. I don't know, Janice, how does the broader American security establishment, the military, what's so-called foggy bottom, all the intelligence agencies, the so-called Boland, lob, except this. I mean, on one hand, I guess you could say it's wildly and wonderfully

democratic that one man, the president of the United States, gets to make this, this set of decisions that would lead to. And I agree with you, a kind of a blunder of strategic proportions for the United States. Normally, Janice, when countries are in a, in a strategic trap like this, this, unfortunately, our moments were. they have to push through, that there's simply, there aren't these types of choices because you can't, and you won't accept the strategic loss because of its scale, its scope, its size. You know, the President of the United States command, he's the commander in chief of the world's most powerful military. He appoint, in this particular case, is quite interesting, because he fired. the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when he became president the second time.

And General Van Kane is his choice. So he appointed him. And it was a really interesting story in the New York Times based on leaks and Maggie Haberman, who, you know, there must have been people very close to the president who leaks in order for her to get this granular detail. But she's really a very, very good reporter on Donald Trump. And there is a description of the exchange that General Kane had with the president. And from everything, and again, this is one source, that's all. But from really close reading of that exchange, General King didn't say,

if you go ahead with this, Mr. President, the straits of her moods will likely be close because the military, the U.S. military, has wargained that time and time again, it is no surprise to them. He said something much lower down on the register. Well, it could be that the states might be closed. President laughed it off. He didn't come back in, which is what I would do if I were in the room and trying to get somebody's attention. At that point, you say, no, it's very likely.

And there's no way we would be able to force open that straight. So that you make the choice, you don't make the choice, but you make the choice as hard as possible. I don't think he did that. So long story short, people around Trump work for him. And they can do one of two things. They can execute his orders as commander in chief or they are disloyal, except if he's telling them to commit a war crime. they're disloyal. Or they resign, right here.

And we haven't seen a single resignation. Yeah. Very few. Yeah. Again, no merit or credit here. But if you look at Vladimir Putin, who's similarly blundered into a giant strategic mistake. Like Trump, he thought that he would overwhelm Kiev and he would capture Ukraine or have it submit to him in a matter of days. But he, you know, he did what most great powers do in these situations.

He, he, to the horrible cost, to Russians and to Ukrainians, most of all, is continued to prosecute this war because to, to internalize the blunder into, into a strategic setback was something, you know, that he, that he and the Russian, and security establishment, others are just unwilling to accept, and they paid a horrible price for that. So again, I just, I mean, what does it say about the United States if they are, in fact, willing to internalize the mistake in a way that makes this, as you say, consequential to the future of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency, that as we've discussed previously on other shows,

will give China immense influence over Iran, over the straits in the Gulf, an area that the United States has had geopolitical preeminence for the better part of half a century, the extent to which European allies feel betrayed and alienated and are peeling away from the United States and who's there? Probably China to some extent. At least economically, Europe will become closer to China

because China will now have another card to play, which is a silent hand in the management of the Straits of Hermos vis-a-vis its role as the patron state to Iran. It's client state. I mean, these are, these are massive costs. Yeah. Look, you know, there's two stories we can tell here.

There's three. You just told one that if you're a great power, you double down and you fight through it. And Vladimir Putin has, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin have fought each other to a draw, frankly. That's what they've done. And this is one of the longest wars, longer than World War, too, between Ukraine and Russia and both of them have paid a master.

The second thing is you do what Donald Trump is hoping to do, which is get at the negotiating table, what he didn't get in this 38-day war. And he's claiming victory. If you read what he says on social, he's claiming victory. And he's claiming victory in the time we had that Pete Hanks at this week. So what are they doing? Counting numbers of ships destroyed, counting numbers of senior Iranians killed, the cinema's game. And that takes me to my third story, and that's why this is so tough. You know, General Westmoreland did that too.

General Westmoreland was a commanding general for the American in Vietnam. And he would come home every month. He'd go see the president and he would have body counts, right? But those body counts didn't mean anything. He was losing the war. But what did the United States do in that war record? It doubled down every time and every time and every time. And we've done that.

The United States done that three times. It's done in Vietnam, it's done in Iraq, and it's done it in Afghanistan and it failed. So that's why it's so important to think so carefully before you start one of these. because frankly, all the options after that are terrible. So, Janice, let's talk a little bit about the negotiations because in a sense, the stakes are very high. It seems, and you correct me, because you're the deep expert in the Middle East, it seems as if the Ukrainian, that's not the Ukrainians. I get my conflicts confused.

There's so many of them. The Iranians seem to be, if not, confident in their position. They're certainly not coming to these talks in any. way behaving or acting, let alone speaking, obviously, like a defeated power, that they feel that despite everything that's been thrown at them, they now have laid this strategic claim. Maybe a, and now have it to the straits or for a moose, and maybe now in a sense have a strategic asset that is mightier than the atomic bomb they were never able to build. So give us a sense of the dynamic of that negotiation.

I mean, could you see the United States making significant concessions to Iran, let's say on this, this kukamemi idea about tolling the Straits of Hermuz, on lifting sanctions, on enrichment? Because right now, it seems as the president is, and he just can't, he don't know what to believe, but he seems to say that Iran's 10 points is not the real 10 points. there's something else out there that nobody's seen, and certainly the Iranians or nobody else are confirming and that the Iranians have agreed to virtually everything and that it will be a very successful negotiation where the United States will achieve all of its key objectives. So, first of all, I think it's so important. Don't believe anything you hear right now. There is massive confusion about who agreed to what here.

you know, the Pakistanis, Munir, who is their chief of the defense, the most powerful military officer, has a very good relationship with Donald Trump. He's been to the White House twice. Trump met him and has hot confidence in him, and he's the mediator who put this deal together along with a foreign minister. But just to stop you on that, there is some reporting that the Pakistani's prime ministers tweet announcing the ceasefire had forgot to remove text at the top of it that indicated, you know, here's the text for the Pakistani Prime Minister. And the implication was that this text was written by somebody else, possibly the White House,

desperate for an off ramp in literally the hours before Donald Trump's 8 p.m. You know, deadline to end Iranian civilization as we know it. So, I mean, to what extent really are the Pakistanis anything other than a proverbial beard right now for the Trump administration to rush into a negotiation because the Iranians stared them down? You know, that story, I think, is accurate. It's been verified by more than one source, published by refutable reporters. I tend to believe it. Donald Trump won't. Yeah, it is wild.

Everything about the story is wild, frankly, but Donald Trump wanted a ceasefire. And so here's, I think, the most important thing to remember about all of this right here. Donald Trump's pain point is higher than Iran's pain point right now. Okay. And that's what this is. This is a competition in endurance and will. And right now, the Iranians, because this is everything to them. And this is not everything to Donald Trump.

This is not. The Iranians are willing to endure much more pain than Donald Trump is. And that's the best predictor of what will come out of this. Now, I do take comfort from one thing. Donald Trump does not want to go back to war right now. But it's also clear the Iranians do not. This is the first time again and everything is leaked. And who knows?

It'll take months first. for us to get a better story. But apparently the supreme leader weighed in this time, or so the Pakistanis are saying, and that was what gave the green light to the Speaker of the Iranian parliament to actually engage in negotiation. So what are they doing them when they tell us that story? They are now giving that the ultimate religious authority. They are making it legitimate. They're justifying.

What does that tell me, Rudyard? They don't want to go back to war right now either. None of us have any idea of how battered the Iranian economy is, how many, we know something about casualties. We don't know how many missiles are left. We really don't. I suspect that we're, if I were a gambling woman, which, you know, and I don't even bet on the prediction markets, frankly,

I'm going to tell you that we're going to get a prolonged pause now. We're not going to get any kind of agreement by the deadline, but that we just enough of a fig leaf of a framework. It will continue on and on and on and on because neither Donald Trump wants to get by the elections. The Iranians want to regroup and reorganize and restock and do all the other things. I think we're in a pause, but this does not solve any of the underlying issues. Well, just if we're in a pause, though, I mean, can the table? Trump presidency survive Iran controlling the Straits of Hermannus.

You know, again, again, so a lot of this. And I mean, there's so many dimensions to that, right? I mean, survive internationally in terms of its alliances, it's, it's, it's partners, because they do matter. They buy U.S. treasuries. United States is a, is a debtor nation. It requires, in fact, it maintained all these open sea lanes for the better part of 75 years precisely for that purpose.

It wasn't just about the freedom of trade. It was about everyone else buying American goods and services, but also investing all their savings in American bonds, which is the exorbitant privilege of having the global reserve currency. So I don't know, there's an economic dimension, a geopolitical dimension, and then a domestic political dimension in the United States. States, where if it becomes more and more a subject of public debate, as it is in the last 48, 72 hours, that this is a strategic blunder for the United States, that this is a loss

on a variety of axes. You know, how does that play out? And does this president have a breaking point, possibly, a moment where he isn't willing to be de-bearded, defrocked, you know, exposed, the curtain pulled back. I don't know, Janice. Do you think there's just endless appetite for this administration and this president to capitulate? Look, you know, just a quick comment about somebody you said, Render was just so right that the United States derives exorbitant and privilege, every hegemon abut from controlling the reserve currency. Why in the United States get that privilege?

Two reasons. Because it's got uniquely deep and liquid capital markets. It really does. But there's another reason. Because it provides security as a public good to its partners. That's the job. And so all this argument that we've heard are, oh, we're paying, you know, and others are taking advantage of.

Actually, that argument would never. withstand scrutiny. The United States derives enormous privilege and the price of it is you pay for global security. So the big problem here is they didn't provide security to any of their major

allies. No, they made everybody more insecure. Correct. In terms of energy, in terms of So how might this work, how might this work on the Straits of hormones? Okay. How do you find a face-saving device here?

Well, the Iranians tell you that there's a narrow two-mile channel. And you have to coordinate with the Iranian Navy before because they don't want you to hit a mine. So that's what coordination with the Iranian military means. Oh, and that toll, well, you know, that toll is just to pay the expenses for that kind of monitoring. And you see where I'm going, right? But does that pass the smell test in terms of, you know, American politics in terms of, you know, I don't know, a whole series of pressures on the administration who, you know, yes, there's the midterms coming up. Yes.

You know, who knows, this inflationary surge that we're going to feel as a result of what's happened already may well. skewer them come, come November, you know, as that as higher costs, food costs, fertilizer costs, energy costs, you know, push through through the system. But I just go beyond that. I just don't know if how an American administration continues to lead politically and exert kind of power, both domestically and abroad, if they're seen to have just scored this, this epic own goal on themselves,

whoever it's dressed up or, or, you know, papered over, the realities are the realities that Iran's ballistic missile program is intact. It will be rebuilt by the Chinese. They did it once. They'll do it again. For sure.

The president has dropped all language about Iranian proxies. They're no longer seemingly talking about that. He's mused as recently his last 48 hours about cooperating with Iran to run the toll booth together because the Americans could make a lot of money on this. I mean, these are. That would be the kiss of death. That would be the kiss of death. No sanctions.

They're saying possibly they're going to remove all sanctions on Iran. I mean, the Iranians are going into this negotiation, Janus, hearing. a lot of things for the Americans that they must really like. Yeah, they are in a far stronger negotiating position than they were before the war. And that's how, you know, analysts make a determination who's one. Who comes out of this in a better negotiating position? And you could just see the wind is at the, they have the wind at their back, the Iranians. You know, I think the politics in the United States working so many complex ways.

One, the midterms, as you said. But the inflationary damage is done already. We are not going to avoid the inflation. And certainly by November, I'd be very surprised if it didn't ripple through the economy. Second thing is, where's MAGA on this? Well, MAGA is split. And I think that's what's making the calculation is so complex for the president. There are some elements of MAGA who didn't want to go into this war.

We're vociferous about it. And, you know, Tucker Carlson went to the White House three times to tell the president don't do this. So who knows what the split is? Is it 50-50? Who knows? Frankly, we don't know. But I think there are elements within MAGA who are relieved to see the ceasefire. But there are other elements who understand that this is a net strategic loss for the United States and are very uncomfortable.

You know, what happens to the Republican senators who told the line all this time, but privately are critical? But for the first time, spoke up when he issued the threat that he did just the morning before the ceasefire. They worried that the American military, American servicemen were going to be ordered to commit what was clearly awkward from. I mean, there was no argument about it. and their loyalty was the American military. So the current inside the Republican Party today, it seems to me, are pulling in so many different directions that it's hard to know how this plays out in terms of domestic politics.

Yeah. Okay. Well, look, what are we going to, what are you going to be on the watch for in the days to come in here? I want the negotiations. Look, I think everybody. needs to ceasefire at this point. There is no point in, because if they go back to war, they're going to go back at a higher level of intensity and velocity.

And that is in nobody's interest. And certainly it's not in the interest of the global economy. It's not in the interest of the states who live in the region. So what am I hoping for? And then what am I watching for that by Saturday we get some sort of really vague, framework that we're going to keep working on and they agree both sides to renew it for another month while they do the work. In other words, Roger, that they kick this down the road. And the longer they kick it down the road, what we know from experiences, it's hard to restart. It's not hard to

restart after two weeks, but it's hard to restart after two or three months. Yeah, I, you know, again, we we don't talk as in the show about percentages, but, you know, more scenarios and probability and, you know, probabilities in terms of fat tales and footh entails. What's your intuition here, Roger? My intuition is something is going on with Vance. You know, that Maggie Haberman piece will put a link in it for listeners because they they should check it out. He's clearly, I don't know, there's a lot of speculation.

He was the person that provided a lot of the detail for that article because it takes you right inside the situation. Right in the room. And, you know, somebody is, is, yeah, is trying to reframe this in a hurry. There's a lot of buzz, and it's not just amongst Democrats, about the 25th article of the U.S. Constitution, which would allow the removal of the president. on the basis of a vote of his cabinet. That's not likely right now,

but there's, again, talk that Vance is, you know, trying to position himself as, you know, the kind of MAGA you actually would want if you were a Republican who wasn't, you know, completely bonkers. So Vance's role in these negotiations will be very interesting. And I just, I don't, I wonder if he is going to accept, you know, being the equivalent of, who was the German prime minister in the First World War, who had to provide the complete and abject surrender on that famous train car to the French, French and other kind of marshals. of the Allied forces.

I don't know if he wants to have that role. I don't know if he wants to kind of star as the great capitulator and allow Trump to, you know, even as early as today, fire off these kind of bizarre tweets about his army being ready for its next conquest. That seems like a pretty crappy deal. division of labor. Not that vice presidents don't often get the spade work.

But this seems particularly egregious. Oh, I look, you know, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes rendered. That's for sure. And here's the irony of this, that normally it's Jared Kushner and Steve Wickcock who lead these negotiations. Well, no. The Iranians have feel betrayed by those. two twice because they were in the room with them and then Donald Trump went to war.

So he's sending Vance because Vance, they know, because it's leaked now, opposed this war. So he's credible to the Pakistanis and to the Iranians. That's why he's sending J.D. Vance. is that his mandate to no matter what lead a negotiation which avoids any return to war because that's the only way you can tell a coherent story right now. And if so, that gives us a good preview of what we might expect to see sometime this weekend.

If he's the guy that doesn't want to go back, no matter what, And it's there to make a deal no matter what the cost and no matter what the terms, if that's who he is. Yeah, he also desperately, because he's such a shapeshifter, he wants to be president of the United States. And I don't know how you make a deal like this that in a sense codifies a strategic loss for the U.S. and then have any claim in any future nomination battle to the top.

job you open yourself up just to a a career ending vulnerability for someone who has shown a lot of raw ambition to say the least from hillbilly elegy uh to you know maga warrior um this is someone who's pretty focused on the prize last word to you this was this was awake whether they come very rarely but they do come in which the tectonic plates can shift in international politics. You know, I'm here in London with a group of, a large group of experts. There isn't anybody who's not stunned by what has happened. And whether you're from London, whether you're from Europe, whether you're in the Gulf, whether you're in Asia, the big question for everybody is not so much what happens in this war.

The big question is, what is the value of a U.S. security guarantee? How do we know that he will keep his end of the bargain? Yeah. No, great analysis. You go back through history, you look at the end of big empires, and it's usually wars. Yeah. And sometimes it's not even big wars.

People have postulated the Boer war was ultimately. what signaled the end of the British Empire. You know what somebody said to me today, I read a very senior person, and that's, of course, because it's in London. Is this Suez? Yeah. Right?

When Britain and France persuaded Israel to invade and occupy the Suez Canal and Dwight Eisenhower forced them back, and that was the end of the British Empire. That was the end. it was obvious to everybody. I was a very senior, British, very experienced person who said,

was this week to ask in the United States. And then, you know, he caught himself as well, and we went into our usual hygiene answers, but that's what came to mind for him. Yeah. Is this the confirmation that, yeah, Yeah, a thesis that long postulated that Pax Americana would not survive the 21st century. Yeah.

That was one of our monk debates with Henry Kissinger. We framed it a little bit differently. It was about, will the 21st century belong to China? Looks a little bit more like that will be the case today. You know, one of the thing we didn't say, Roger was really interesting, is foreign minister Yang. of China. Yes, the Pakistanis played a huge role. But Foreign Minister Young, we picked up the phone and called to Zeskian and said,

you need to accept the ceasefire now. One of the rare times that China put its thumb on the scale. No, and the president helped me inform everybody of this fact. Yes. Yes. The indispensable role that, you know, his geopolitical competitors played in ending the war. It's an odd tidbit to broadcast to the world.

Yeah. Okay. Well, I will be surprised if you and I go 48 hours without talking, Richard, this week. Well, I guess you do have Wi-Fi on airplanes now, so maybe I'll be as you head over Greenland. Be careful. the president has also said that his interest in Greenland is reawakening after this stunning you know epic victory in the Middle East now onto the Danes I joke uh janas thanks for finding time for us late Thursday night in in London and viewers and listeners thanks for tuning in we're going to make

this entire episode available to the community And just thank all of our valued monk donors for their support. And let's dedicate the episode to our new curator. Stephanie G. and Suzanne L. Thank you. Both you've made it possible for us to share this show with everyone, hopefully to bring us all up to speed a little bit smarter, and a little bit more informed on a wild week in geopolitics.

I'm Rudyard-Griffiths Chair of the Monk Debates. We'll talk to you soon. Bye-bye. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk charitable foundations. Rudyard-Griffis and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.