The Munk Debates Podcast - Munk Dialogue with Andrew Coyne: the end of Pax Americana and the Liberals are one seat closer to a majority government

Episode Date: April 8, 2026

Can the fragile ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran hold? In the span of twenty-four hours Trump went from threatening to end their civilization to considering a joint venture to toll the Strait of Hormuz. America's inability to open the strait without a ceasefire is a confession of weakness, one that China will take advantage of. This war is a strategic defeat for the U.S., and Andrew believes we may look back at this affair as the beginning of the end for Pax Americana. In the second half of the show Rudyard and Andrew turn to domestic Canadian politics where longtime conservative MP Marilyn Gladu crossed the floor to the Liberals, bringing Mark Carney one seat closer to a majority government. Gladu is widely considered one of the most right-leaning of conservative MPs. How wide can this Liberal tent stretch before it collapses? And should voters have a say in whether their MPs leave the parties under which they were elected? Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to full episodes of Munk Dialogues with Andrew Coyne. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up.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.

If it really is all about just retreating back into the Western Hemisphere, and if they're feeling very bruised and humiliated, people who are bruised and humiliated act even more irrationally sometimes. And I'm worried that Trump will be now feeling he has to lash out and show what a tough guy he is, and he'll do something crazy with candy. Fragile ceasefire announced a war between the United States and Iran. Some strange details. emerging a toll booth being set up on the Straits of Hermuz. Iran in charge? Maybe the United States,

President Trump, a partner in this operation? What does it all mean to break it down? We're joined by regular Monk debate contributor, Andrew Coyne, columnist of the global mail. Andrew. Hello. Well, once again, I say with some regret, we need to catch up on the Iran war and some kind of remarkable statements out of the president's lips in the last few hours. As we record this program, what are we today? Andrew, the 8th of April, 26th. The president seems to be indicating Andrew not only, I guess, is his administration open to the idea that Iran could be charging tolls for boats, transatlantic.

the Straits of Hermuz, but that the United States might participate in such a scheme, that this could be a good thing, and that there would be a lot of money to be made. Andrew, I'm struggling here on multiple fronts to understand just what's happened in the last 12 hours, and particularly this whole concept of a Straits of Hermuz for the first time ever, told by Iran possibly in partnership with the United States. Well, the fact that it came out of Trump's mouth seems to me to suggest extreme dubiousness as to whether this is anything more than a figment of his imagination. I'll wait to see, you know, if Iran says it.

But where are we out here? You know, 24 hours ago, 12 hours ago, whatever it was, Trump was saying he was going to end civilization as we know it in Iran, meaning he's going to wipe out, I mean, the only possible construction you have is where he's going to wipe out millions of people by God knows what means. And now today he wants to go into business with him. So this is just, you know, ridiculousness. The extremity of that threat, the only reason the whole world wasn't in more of an upper than it was is nobody really believes anything that Trump says, including that kind

of thing. I mean, you attached a non-zero probability to it, yes, which made it terrifying, even on its own. But at the back of your mind, I think even those of us most skeptical of Trump would have said he can't possibly be about to do that. So instead, what happened is they cut this deal, whatever this deal is, nobody seems to know or say or agree what it is. allegedly with the intercession of Pakistan, although in perhaps the most opera buff element of it, the statement from the Prime Minister of Pakistan, when he first posted it, he foolishly, or without checking, he had concluded the line at the top remarks for Pakistan Prime Minister. And if you read the wording of it, it very clearly was written by people in the Trump White House.

It had all that clumsiness and lack of grammar, et cetera. So they basically laundered it through him. They laundered their own capitulation, basically, because if you look at the state of play right now with this ceasefire, the Iranian regime is still in place. The nuclear, the enriched uranium is still in place in the possession of the Iranians. you know the most of their a good chunk of their missiles apparently still seem to be operational

because they're still firing them and Iran's in charge of the Strait of Hamos and as you say there's this there's this 10 point plan that Iran put forward not the 15 point plan that Trump had put forward most of which was cobbled from the the Obama nuclear deal but this this was the 10 point plan that Iran

put forward, which Trump, in his own statement said, was a workable basis for negotiation, or terms to that effect, that includes things like Iran would charge a toll. So, yeah, there was a certain amount of reaction about this that the net effect of this war was to strengthen and enrich Iran, that the U.S. and Israel and Western democracies got nothing. This is a net loss, a strategic defeat, which is the term that people are using. And so no kidding, Trump perhaps having heard all this, tries to jump out in front and say, oh, well, actually, this is what we wanted all along and we're going to get a chunk of it. Well, let's see.

I would be very dubious. But either way, whether Iran's charging the toll or the U.S. is charging the toll or either of both of them are, it's not an acceptable state of affairs. You know, the rule is supposed to be the free, you know, freedom of the seat. So this is, as I say, my best of the state. is Trump made this up on the spot. Yeah. Iran is, as a recording, is indicating they're going to charge during the ceasefire a dollar per barrel of oil paid in Bitcoin.

So we are truly, I don't want to enter in some very, very gray zone. But I want to come back to you on something you just said there, because I think in all seriousness, there's something really quite serious that's happening here, which is, Andrew, is it not one of the fundamental tenets of the post-war order, over three-quarters of a century, has been free and open navigation of the seas. It's been the basis of globalization. It's been the basis of the incredible rewards of economic expansion decade after decade. And that that guarantee of freedom of navigation and open sea lanes,

for trading commerce was in no small part underwritten by the United States, particularly by the preeminence of the U.S. Navy and naval forces around the world. So what does it mean, Andrew, when probably one of the most important nautical transits, at least to the economy globally, is the Straits of Hermos. And we are now picking that geography, that transit, to basically undo, renounce, I don't know, walk away from 75 years of not only like naval and security doctrine, but a kind of a whole thesis about how the world works, how globalization functions. I don't know.

Am I wrong here? Is there something really big at stake? Oh, yeah. I mean, we may look back upon this affair. It's hard to call it a war. as the beginning of the end of the American Empire, of the Pakistan, I mean, it's been teetering all through the Trump presidency,

but it's essentially a confession of weakness is they cannot open the strait. They threaten to obliterate Iran and basically Iran called their bluff. And so that adds to the toll, pardon the use of that word, from this war, which is not just that you've left the mullahs in place and more embittered and dogmatic than ever and probably more determined than ever now to get nukes. And now with this major new source of revenue,

if this thing holds, if this is part of the final settlement of this. But you've also weakened, if not destroyed many of the pillars of American power. So first of all, there was the whole falling out with NATO. again, NATO was already in a lot of trouble after the Greenland piasco. And in a lot of trouble after it became clear that Trump was not necessarily willing to uphold Article 5 obligations to come to the aid of a country if it was attacked. But this surely puts the final bullet in its head where Trump, having made this mess in the Strait of Hormoz, demanded that the rest of NATO bail him out. And when they properly refuse, since that is not the part of,

point of NATO is not to be joint venture partners in crazy military adventures in any part of the world. It's supposed to be a defensive alliance. Trump then turns around and makes them look like ingrates and that after all I've done for you, you won't do this. So NATO is on its last leg surely as a result of this, but perhaps most devastatingly of all is it is punctured the veneer or whatever the word I'm looking for of American power, of American invincibility. They threw everything they had at Iran, America and Israel, and they certainly did a lot of damage, but the regime is still standing. And not only is it still standing, but it now has controlled the Strait of Formos. The Gulf states that were depending upon the U.S. to protect them are, you know, licking their wounds after all this.

As I say, NATO is effectively destroyed. So the damage that has been done to the central pillar of the post-war war, of American ability to project power, to have allies that would trust it with that power and nestle under the U.S. umbrella as a result, nobody trusts the Americans anymore, and even worse, their enemies don't fear them. Yeah.

It could not be a more complete catastrophe in that respect. Yeah. What's interesting, though, Andrew, is that, you know, neo-isolationists like Tucker Carlson, are, are, have been, you know, strident critics of this war. But they're also now in a bizarre way cheering on this Pyrrhic victory because they believe, Andrew and I, I worry that they might be right that as you said, Trump through, not through choice, but through his own mistakes and miscalculations.

And now it's seemingly some kind of humiliating. attempt to resolve this crisis with Iran by affording Iran all kinds of benefits that it didn't previously have, has ended up alienating its Gulf allies, as you say, eviscerating what was left, the tattered remains of the transatlantic relationship with Europe, has awarded China a huge increase in its relative power, because Iran is, in a sense, the client state of of China and Iran's missile program was underwritten by Chinese technology and precursor chemicals for its rockets. I'm sure that relationship continues, which means in effect that China probably has no small say in the future of the Straits of Hermuz and whatever policy is enacted there

by Iran. So, Andrew, I wonder, you know, is Tucker Carlson right? Has Trump effectively brought about the American first agenda, or let's call it for what it really is, America alone, because the damages to America's international relations and partnerships to longstanding convention and treaty, these last 13, 14 months is irreparable. And as Tucker and others would like, America will now shuffle back to this continent, the North American hemisphere, and like China and Russia attempt to assert its dominance over it? It's worse than that, Roger. Lay it on me.

Lay it on me. You're absolutely right that both China and Russia have in various ways emerged, strengthened from us. Even if Iran has suffered damages, the enhancement of its strategic position is obviously to the benefit of China and we'll see what happens with oil prices, but the relaxation of sanctions on Russia,

if that continues, and I don't see why it wouldn't since everything Trump does seems to be to try to be to the benefit of Russia, then Russia gets some benefits out of this as well. To give any credit at all to the Trump people, credit to the point of having some core beliefs, is they seem to have this extremely narrow, I might say, almost childish understanding of the source of American power, that it's all just military might and beating your chest and intimidating. people, and that's the source of American power. It's not about alliances. It's not about soft power. It's not about the American example. It's not about America's economy. It's just bluff and bravado and blackmailing and stonewalling and all these kinds of things.

And if any of them were capable of learning, this would be an object lesson in the limitations of that. They tried to just bully Iran, a non-nuclear. clear middle power. They, you know, basically isolated alone itself. I mean, they were getting some aid from China and Russia, but mostly this was just Iran facing up to them. And they, as I say, huffed and puffed and couldn't blow the building down. So that is going to, certainly other people are going to learn lessons from that, even if they

don't. So it's not just America alone. It's America weakened. You know, it is striking the pattern where the only people they really seem, before I ran anyway, the only people they really seemed keen on intimidating were their friends and their allies, because going after anybody who wasn't would be tougher because people would put up more of a fight. So they broke that pattern with Iran, and they've had their hat handed to them. So, you know, what's left is, and this is part I worry about is, if it really is all about just retreating back into the Western Hemisphere, and if they're feeling very bruised and humiliated, people who are bruised and humiliated act even more irrationally sometimes.

And I'm worried that Trump will be now feeling he has to lash out and show what a tough guy he is. and he'll do something crazy with Canada. Not crazy of invasion, but, you know, it's very clear. I've been reading some sort of MAGA, what for one of a better word, I'll call intellectuals, that they really see Canada as a problem, or if they've decided they're going to say, they think of Canada as a problem,

that we're this woke dystopia, that we're under the thumb of China, and that we're somehow as a result of all this, a threat to American interests and American security even. Well, these things have a way of filtering through to the White House and White House behavior, and there really does seem to be some sense that they need to bring Canada to heal. They need to teach us a lesson. And I think we should be bracing ourselves for what that might mean.

As I say, when people have been humiliated, as they certainly appear to have been in this conflict, then that's when they're sometimes the most dangerous. Yeah, well, said. we're going to talk with you about Canada on the other side of a short break that's coming up momentarily where we're going to reconvene with monk members and donors. So if you're not a monk member and you're enjoying these conversations with Andrew, we'd love to see you on the other side of a short break coming up. We're going to talk about the latest floor crosser here in our federal parliament,

Mark Carney's imminent majority. And what that could all mean in terms of how our prime minister manages Donald Trump and the White House and the Canada-U.S. relationship in the aftermath of this war. But before we go to break, Andrew, I just want to get your thoughts on something that kind of concerns me, that if we look back at the last 24 hours and we situated in a pattern of the last 12 or 14 months, I have a concern that we seem to be seeing from this president an increase in the frequency and intensity of his self-made crises. You know, we just celebrated, marked a week or so ago, the one-year anniversary of his tariff day, Moses-like pronouncement in the White House Rose Garden with those tablets of tariff rates.

We, you know, we then went on to have a kind of faux trade war with China, which he capitulated in the face of Chinese dominance on rare earths. We then had the whole Greenland fiasco that, again, he manual. manufactured a crisis and then suddenly at Davos for reasons we don't totally understand, might be to do with whether Europeans buy American treasuries or not, suddenly backs off on Greenland. We then had Venezuela to start the year. And now Iran. Is there a concern, Andrew, just to get right to the nub of this, that unfortunately this president, this man is in some form of mental and psychological crisis and decline, and that we are seeing this play out in terms

again of the increasing frequency and heightened intensity of these manufactured crises, which are now becoming increasingly global, having broader and broader impacts, and drawing in more and more people, nations, events, factors, and forces into what is a a giant psychodrama unfolding before us. Yeah, I mean, look, he's always been a drama queen. He's always thrived on attention and drama and crises. But it's getting, I've always said, he's on an escalatory spiral. His behavior gets worse and worse and transgresses more and more norms.

In the last few days, you've had, you know, this whole business with saying, you know, get out of the fucking straight. and then this extraordinary statement where he threatened to eliminate a civilization for all time. That is genocidal. It's frankly, Hitlerian. It's whether he meant it or not, it's just so far beyond anything, any civilized person, let alone a political leader, should ever be threatening. I don't care what war you're fighting. You don't threaten to wipe out the population of the country that you're in conflict.

with. Obviously, as I say, there was a, more than likely he wasn't going to do it and was saying it as a transparent bluff, but there's enough erraticness in his behavior that you had to treat it seriously. And some very serious people were attaching non-zero probabilities to the possibility that he might in fact mean nuclear. Let us think what a catastrophe that would be, not just obviously for Iran, but for the world. This is the biggest taboo that exists on this earth, is the taboo on the use of nuclear. And let me give you an example of that.

Vladimir Putin, who is perhaps the greatest monster in the last 100 years, the last 80 years since World War II, could have used nukes against Ukraine. I mean, obviously there would be consequences if he did. but rather than use nukes has suffered the loss of 1.2 million men. Now, granted, he doesn't attach a lot of importance to human life even on his own side, but it just shows you how ingrained the idea is that you do not use nukes under any circumstances except the most far-fetched existential crisis where your own population is at risk of being wiped out.

I don't think anybody thinks that that's impossible to conceive of Trump doing. and the fact that we attach any kind of possibility or probability to it is extremely worrisome because if he is on this escalatory spiral, if he has to keep transgressing further and further, if he has to keep doing the worst possible thing in any given situation, while the terminus of that is very clear, the worst worst possible thing is using nukes. And if he's as out of control and diluted and, you know, haunted by demons and everything else that appears to be going on inside his brain, that is the most worrisome phenomenon we can possibly imagine.

So you're right, as we've discussed this many times, to be concerned about the state of his mental health, and it's far more than a concern about himself or the government of America or Americans generally, it's very clear that the peace of the world is now at risk because of it. Yeah. Okay. On that sober note, let's take a break,

say goodbye to our complimentary listeners and viewers are going to join Andrew on the other side. a short bonus segment of the show. Going to dive a little bit into Canadian politics, some floor crossings to discuss, and an imminent majority for Mark Carney. What does it all mean? Well, that for Monk members exclusively after this short break.

Thank you for listening to the first half of our Monk Dialogue with Andrew Coyne. To get access to the full episode right now, consider becoming a monk donor. For just $50 a year, less than a dollar a week, you will get 72-hour advanced access to all of our premium podcasts, including Friday Focus with Janice Gross-Stein. You also get our live streams of mainstage debates and all kinds of other great perks and privileges.

Simply go to our website, triplew.munkdebates.com. That's MUNK DebateswithanS.com. And click on the join button on the top right-hand corner of the screen. Again, that website, www.w.w.com. 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.