The Munk Debates Podcast - Friday Focus: Iran on the brink and the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize

Episode Date: October 9, 2026

Rudyard and Janice begin today’s show with Trump’s mixed messaging on Iran. While Trump has suggested that military action may be delayed until after the midterms, reports indicate that the U.S. military is preparing for potential strikes. With Trump’s statements increasingly difficult to take at face value, the focus shifts to more concrete signals, such as military deployments. Meanwhile, Iran’s economy is under mounting pressure, with oil exports halted and the economy in free fall. Having challenged Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. appears to have gained leverage, while Tehran shows signs of wanting a deal.In the second half, Rudyard and Janice turn to the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Navanethem Pillay, the South African jurist who chaired the UN commission that concluded Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. Is Oslo’s Nobel Committee increasingly using the prize to send political messages, including messages critical of Israel? Is this part of a broader effort by liberal institutions to push back against great powers retreating from the liberal, rules-based international order? And by taking a position on such a contentious issue, is the Nobel Committee influencing public opinion at the expense of due process and open debate?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.

That signal has no content to it. Move on. If you're worried about an American attack, go look at the number of troops that are in the Middle East. Go look at the number of shifts, chips that have been pulled out of the Indo-Pacific. Let's pay attention to things that really have a signal in them because Donald Trump is absolutely meaningless. It's like just turned down the volume because it's all static. Welcome to Friday Focus. It's the 9th of October, 26, and I'm here in studio with Janice Gros Stein, my co-host.

Hey, Janice. We are laughing, Roger, because we've already done that 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 3 times this morning. Yes, we've had a few takes to kick off the show, but we are finally underway. So here we go, down a shoot of international events. So I thought, Janice, if you were okay to play along, we'd jump around. a bit this week, a kind of hop scotch for international affairs. I want to start picking up where we left off last week on Iran, a great discussion, lots of positive feedback from the viewers and listeners. What do you make of President Trump's sudden declaration this week,

really just 24 hours ago, that he would not be attacking Iran before the midterms? This coming 24 hours after credible leaks were coming out of the Pentagon that the president and his staff had ordered detailed war plans to resume bombing. You can't make this stuff up. You just cannot make this stuff up. You know, in my field international politics, we have ruined forests writing about credit. credibility. What makes what a leader says believable to the other side? Because it's really a fundamental way of managing a conflict. Donald Trump breaks all the records because he says one thing on

Monday, reverses himself on Tuesday, bluffs his way through it on Wednesday. And if it weren't laughable, which it is at this point, it would be serious because what's the way? the upshot of all this. That's what I'm going to ask you. What do the Iranians think of this? Nobody, not only the Iranians, nobody pays any attention to what he says. Nobody attaches any way to it. So why does that matter? Well, the Iranians don't believe it. The Israelis don't believe it. The Russians don't believe it. The Europeans don't believe it. Is it don't believe it that he won't attack or don't believe that he has credible threat now to force the Iranians to the bargaining

because he's told them he won't attack. I'm just hopelessly confused here. All of it. All of it. In other words, here's what's really happened, and that's what makes this. I really think people will study this for years to come. It's not a reliable signal anymore.

Right. Okay? So it's noise. It's static in the background. You don't really pay attention to it because it's not a reliable signal. That signal has no content to it. Move on.

if you're worried about an American attack, go look at the number of troops that are in the Middle East, go look at the number of shifts, chips that have been pulled out of the Indo-Pacific. Let's pay attention to the things that really have a signal in them because Donald Trump is absolutely meaningless. It's like just turn down the volume because it's all static. Yeah, I don't want to impute any kind of grand strategy to this, but there are worsen forces around the president this. week that we're making themselves noticed. First, this continuing sell-off in U.S. bonds. And by sell-off, I mean the borrowing costs for the United States at longer duration debt, steadily ratcheting up again as the week went on. Oil prices, similarly not ratcheting up until

the announcement Wednesday that the war plans could be back in foot, then a 5% increase in one day on Brent, which is the kind of international price of oil. I wonder, Janice, if part of this was somebody getting to the president and saying, look, we are less than 30 days out from the midterms. Your war plans that you've ordered, because I guess you were feeling your oats on Sunday after a round of golf at Maralago or whatever, has now, you know, served up a double whammy to you. you, sir. You know, mortgages are soaring in the United States in terms of the cost of origination. The housing market is stagnated. Borrowing costs of the heavily indebted U.S. consumer are picked

up with these rising bond yields and the price of the pump is going up. So what do we get from the president? We get something we've always get from him, which is a taco. It was a Thursday taco, not a Tuesday taco, but a taco nonetheless. Is that a through line maybe to understand why the president has now tied his hands, and maybe quite possibly the bond market and oil prices have effectively tied his hands until after the midterms. Well, we know, we know that the one or two measures that Donald Trump pays attention to, bond prices,

that's one, he really cares about that, and inflation. I mean, those are the stock market. I should have said the third one, too. That's what he really cares about. but he thinks his legacy depends on those three things. And you're absolutely right. They were all going in the wrong direction for several days this week.

And let me just say, Rudyard, it wasn't only what the president was saying or doing. There was a war going on between the Saudis and the Houthis, which is not directly part of the war between the United States and Iran, but it's linked. There's no question about it. But it's a much older conflict. And this is just ignited it again. Two people killed at the Riyadh airport that announced today as a result of a missile attack, I think, on Thursday or Wednesday.

And that's right the attacks on. That's serious. It is serious. And that's the kind of end of the tourism plans for the kingdom to move away from oil to become a kind of Walt Disney of the Middle East. It's the end. Look, it's a serious blow to, you know, Crown Prince's been summer. But it's more than that, right, because it's the other side of Saudi Arabia. So if you've got problems in the Strait of Homoos, all of a sudden you now have problems on the western side of Saudi Arabia, which they were using to push oil out.

And that's why you're seeing the increase in the price of Brent crude, as you just said. But that doesn't matter to Donald Trump. He's looking at this, and he's seeing everything move in the wrong direction. Including his approval numbers. They're down at Nixon levels after Watergate. After Watergate. That's how bad it is. So maybe that's finally registered with him.

Maybe he actually cares now about what's going to happen come November. Look, I don't know a single strategic studies, you know, expert, whatever that means. Yeah, why would you take the threat off the table if you're trying to bring them to the table? It makes no sense to take the threat off the table. but it certainly makes no sense to attack before these midterms. There is nobody who thinks that there is going to be a large-scale attack before these midterms. Do you think they were close to a deal? Because there were some more rumors that there was a bit of momentum out of the UN General Assembly

that Qatar was shuttling messages back and forth. Again, I hate trying to comply logic to what makes us simply be institutional chaos. but the ordering of these war plans to resume strikes, I wondered if that wasn't, in a sense, a tell to try to say to the Iranians, look, we are really serious here. Maybe we're close to an agreement. The sequencing seems to be the problem now, less about the elements of the deal. It's more about the sequencing.

Maybe that was a flex to say to the Iranians, okay, you guys need to get serious. You need to come to the table. You need to put, as part of those seven, steps, enrichment, and stockpiles in there somewhere and probably higher up than you want Iran. But it didn't sound as if for Marco Rubio and especially J.D. Vance that uranium had to be at the top of that list of seven, maybe unfreezing Iranian assets, sanction relief, reopening the Straits of Hermuz could come first.

But then why do that? And then suddenly reverse yourself to take that threat away that might have legitimately been creating pressure for the Iranians to concede on either the ordering of those seven demands or the timing with which they would unfold. I agree with you that there was something going on here. There are talks going on in the background. And the six or seven elements of what will ultimately be some sort of deal here, are known to both sides, right?

So you're right about that. So it's about the sequencing, about the ordering, and where in the sequence. And is enrichment and stockpiles in there? Yes, I think it is. I think it is, too. The ratings are saying it's not, but. But I think it is. It's just maybe at the bottom of the list for them, where the Americans want it somewhere towards the middle.

By the way, that's an important point to think about. That's a change from the memorandum of understanding that they originally signed because it was not. But what's really changed here is how bad the Iranian and equal. economy. You know, you're getting these statements, which, wow, if you're monitoring what Iranian officials are saying, because honestly, I've paid more attention to that right now than I do to Donald Trump. Their president, Peseschkin, is talking nonstop about the terrible situation in the Iranian economy, and he's warning his colleagues in the government. And that's effectively the hardliners, that there's going to be some sort of explosion.

If this continues, why is that? Roger, we're seeing stuff happen now inside Iran that we didn't see before. For instance, civil servants and teachers are resigning because they're not being paid. The unemployment rate is through the roof, especially for young people. And it's the young people who will take to the streets eventually. So there is a full-blown economic crisis inside Iran because they can't export their oil. There's black market stuff going on.

You know, there's a great story yet about the role that Malaysia is playing where oil is offloaded from one triple flag tanker to another. So some is leaking out for sure. But this is the toughest time the Iranians have ever had. They cannot hold on forever. That's why we're seeing what we're seeing. So Donald Trump, if you would only stay quiet, don't use your threat, just stay quiet.

Let Rubio and some of the people who are actually can sustain focus for more than a minute. Deal with this and go campaign for the next four weeks. That would be the best thing he could do to help get this one over the line. Based on what we talked about last week and what's happened this week, Do you think the Iranians, because they're under so much pressure, go for some kind of October surprise? I note that this week there were tankers for the first time hit outside of the immediate strait of Hermose, that they were targeting shipping that was, in a sense, coming in and transiting out of the straight, expanding potentially the zone of kind of jurisdiction that they wanted to impose.

that seemed like a direct flex against the Americans who are, you know, with Apache helicopters and air support and U.S. destroyers are getting a certain quantum, a lot less than used to go through the straight, but certainly not zero. It's more than, it's more, it's a significant amount from when you look at the numbers, and I'm looking at numbers for you that come out of England, out of the shipping insurers because they're the ones that closely monitor. Estimus range that, you know, anywhere from around two-thirds of what went out before, it's now going out.

So it's really, let's just call it, let's name it. The United States has defeated the Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, which is actually, and that's a naval achievement by the United States, which is really significant, and we don't talk about it. That's what they've done, and that's why the Iranians are feeling the pinch that they're feeling right now. Look, the temptation by the hardliners in the Iranian government will be to escalate. That is truly playing with fire here because if there's a significant hit against any installation which has more than a few Americans in it and their American casualties,

Rudyard, I think that would change everything in Washington, especially in a pre-election period. So it's dangerous. Everybody here is playing with fire. Just a final question before we move on. Is it possible after the midterm elections that counterintuitively the conditions would be better to return to the memorandum because, I don't know, the president would be less concerned about seeming concealatory prior to the midterms, assuming maybe I thinking correctly that the American voting public would somehow punish him more for seeming weak in the face.

I think this is more about the president's own psychodynamics and the degree to which he always wants to look strong and never look weak, and it's more about him, surprise, surprise, than the other, you know, 340 million Americans who are suffering under high gas prices. prices, high boring costs, and return of inflation. So could there be a different scenario after the midterms where, frankly, the president has lost one or both houses of Congress? He feels little or no burden about how he is perceived or what his actions entail, other than his monuments and looking to the history books for the next two years to try to cement

whatever legacy, he's going to come up for himself? I think counterintuitively, you're right. I think in this case, there's more chance that they will get this done after the midterms rather than before. I think Donald Trump hates this war, has won it out. Just is looking for a way to get out that will not be as possible. punishing in his mind as he thinks they are now. I think after the midterms, we are going to get a Donald Trump that is, I'm going to say,

it's liberated, right, whatever that means. For good or worse, yeah. For ill and for good. And I think largely for ill, frankly, I think he's going to be completely unrestrained. It might be bad for Canada, but good for Iran. That's right. That's right. Exactly what I'm saying.

Exactly right. metaphorical. You're right. That's where I am in my head. You read my mind. Yeah. Just before we go to break and go behind the curtain to talk exclusively to our monk members and donors about the latest Nobel Peace Prize and what that all says about this high honor and the debate that the prize has elicited. I just want to talk briefly about the news today that for the first time since 1936, the U.S. government is indicating that it will televise live the firing squad execution of a U.S. soldier who perpetrated a horrible terrorist attack against a military base and installation well in uniform, and that this would be the first military execution by firing squad since. World War II. This comes on the heels, Janice, of a botched U.S. execution by lethal injection

this week that left the inmate now partially paralyzed but alive after an effort to inject her with lethal drugs to affect a death sentence. Wow. We seem to be Not in Kansas anymore. I think it's barbaric, right here. I think it's gruesome. It's the worst revolting kind of political theater to film Death by Firing Squad. It represents the very worst of this regime

that we have in the United States, frankly. you know, the death penalty is gone in most developed democracies. The United States is an outlier here. The first story is bad enough that, you know, of an inmate who received lethal injections, which failed and left paralyzed for life probably in a hospital. But that at least you can attribute to error. This, incompetence and error, right?

This to film a firing squad to me brings back, you know, visuals of 100 years ago, literally, of some of the ugliest regimes in the world that did this kind of thing. They used to do it under the Nazis in Germany. They would film this. I think there's, I don't have strong enough words to say about how, disgusting. This isn't implorable. Monk school scholar Timothy Snyder has written a lot about authoritarianism and one of the key

factors, one of the hallmarks of an emerging authoritarian regime is the choreographing and theatrics of violence and how authoritarian regimes historically have used public displays of violence as a key part of their strategy to both, I guess, communicate what they think is their own power and strength and also in not so unsubtle ways, to communicate to their opponents in civil society, their brutality and the threat beneath the surface, that that brutality represents.

I don't expect Pete Higsef, who has announced this ghastly plan to have read on tyranny or any of Timothy Snyder's other books or to really have the capability cognitively to assimilate much or any of Timothy's arguments. But nonetheless, it seems as if, as you said, Janice, that we're in a kind of phase here in the United States

as this Trump presidency confronts the midterms, confronts its own kind of entropy, collapsing under the weight of excessive corruption, a failed foreign war, broad inflation at home, failing tariffs. I don't know. Does this presage something worse to come? Well, to me it does. I mean, that was the lead-in to what we were talking about. Just a minute ago, Richard, what will Donald Trump be like as a president after the midterm? But Tim is completely right, that this is political theater of the most gruesome kind, designed really to terrorize the population, right? Designed to show how there are no limits to what the regime will do.

That's why you televise it. Not bad enough that you do it. It is political terror because you televise it. and in some really frightening ways, these are the worst fears that some of us have about what the Trump presidency will look like in those last 27 months when there's nothing to lose anymore from it.

You know, if I had to think of what the two or three symbols of this administration would be, that would be one, and then put next to it, gilded arch in Washington, right, which is grandiosity, you know, littered with gold, embossed all over it. Those are the two iconic images, I think, of this presidency, and both of them are designed to cow a democratic public, both of them. Yeah, we've gone just a matter of months from the spectacle of a bare-knuckle UFSI. UFSI.S.

fighting spectacle on the lawn of the White House on the 4th of July to, you know, the live televised execution. I just feel for those soldiers who will, I guess, be ordered to, order to kill someone and then carry, you know, the moral shame, the moral injury of that with them to further the spectacle of the administration. I mean, that gets pretty sinister. I feel desperately sorry, Richard, for what is an honorable American military. There are many who are deeply proud of the military and honor it sometimes at the cost of their lives.

And to have this degrading spectacle and to be, even for those who have to execute the order, it's um it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's an experience that it is so nightmarish but think about the military you have to watch it and the people in the chain of command right up to general cane have to acknowledge that they too share that moral injury because they are they are in that chain of command and affecting uh this order on behalf of the administration you know let me go out on a limb here if i were general cane i would resign. At this moment, I would resign and say this dishonors the American military, frankly. I don't, you know. No, he seems unfortunately to be, again, a strange, somewhat pliable character in this kind of Trump constellation. He's not as bad as some of the flacks and hangers on, but as we've seen through this Iran war, he certainly lacks, it seems, an ability to stand up to the president in the way that other

Chiefs of Defense have. Let me prolong this discussion for just a minute or two. Because this is the story of how we destroy democracies, one step at a time, right? And it happens only if people like General Kane go along in the hope that this is some nightmare and it will go away. As you take steps that cross every boundary of decent. and respect for democratic institutions and you degrade your own institutions.

If somebody doesn't have the moral fiber to stand up and say, even my career is not worth it, I speak out against this. That is how democracy dies. Yeah, in darkness. Let's take a quick break. We'll come back on the other side. We're going to have a little bonus segment for our monk donors and members. to talk about the Nobel Peace Prize awarded just now in the last few hours.

If you're not already a monk donor or monk member, head over to our website, www.munkMUNK DebateswithanS.com. Grab the membership level that's right for you, and we'll send you a link to listen to this, the back half of Friday Focus. Thank you for listening to the first half of the Friday Focus podcast. To get access to the full episode right now, Become a monk donor. You can do that for just $50 a year.

That's less than a dollar a week. You also get advanced access to full-length editions of our weekly monk dialogues with Andrew Coyne, exclusive live streams of our main stage debates and all kinds of other great perks and privileges. Simply go to our website, triplew.munkdebates.com. That's MUNK Debates with an S.com. Click on the join button on the top right-hand corner of the screen. Again, that website, triplew.munk debates.com. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations.

Rudyard Griffiths 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.