The Paikin Podcast - World on Edge: Did the Iran War Achieve Anything?

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

Let’s review this, shall we? The United States and Israel decided to unilaterally attack Iran. There were a number of justifications for the attack: stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, deterring Iran’s ability to export terrorism, punishing the Iranian regime after it killed tens of thousands of its own citizens, having greater control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, enhancing Israel’s security from its most dangerous neighbour, and if they got really lucky, precipitating regime change. Has any of that happened? What has, in fact, been achieved? Janice Stein breaks it all down on this episode of World on Edge Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcast Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OhwznCIUEA11lZGcNIM4h?si=b5d73bc7c3a041b7X: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social Email us at: [e-mail] 

Let's review this, shall we? It was on February 28, 2006, that the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel unilaterally began an attack on Iran. There were numerous justifications for the attack, stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, deterring Iran's ability to export terrorism, punishing the Iranian regime after it killed tens of thousands of its own citizens, having greater control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, enhancing Israel's security from its most dangerous neighbor, and if they got really, really lucky, maybe even precipitating regime change.

Has any of that happened? What has, in fact, been achieved? We'll tackle those and other questions on World On Edge coming up next on the Paken podcast. Happy to welcome back to the Paken podcast, Janice Stein, founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, and we want to say just off the top here that we are pulling Janice out of a conference that she's attending at Mars in downtown Toronto.

So the audio will not be as crisp as it normally is, although the pearls of wisdom surely will be. Hello, Janice. How are you today? Thank you. I'm good, Steve. And thank you for putting up with the disruption. We are happy to get you out of that conference for a little bit because we've got an important topic to dive into here. And you heard the checklist I went through off the top. And I want to go through it with you. now. One by one by one by one. Can I give you the header? Give me the headline, sure. None of them have been achieved. Okay, no, let's go down the list. Okay. You've kind of, that's a bit of a spoiler alert, I guess, but we're going to go through these and we'll see whether

anything has been achieved at least a little bit in any of these areas. For example, the number one reason given was to deter Iran from being able to produce its own homegrown nuclear weapons program. What's the status of that after all these months of war? There's really no progress on that, Steve, from the time this war began on February 28th. There was a prior 12-day round in which the United States joined the attack with Israel and bombed the three known nuclear sites and buried much of the centrifugal. and allegedly, we don't know for sure, the highly enriched uranium. In the wake of that war, the Iranians sealed it off, piled sand in front of all the entryways.

That's exactly where we are today. So on that score, this war did not change the status quo. You have heard Donald Trump say that the agreement that he has, at least advertised that he has got with the Iranians, is far superior to the so-called JCPOA that the Obama administration managed to negotiate a decade or so ago. What's the truth on that? So far, no story because there is no agreement on the nuclear issue. We have a framework agreement for 60 days in which the nuclear issue will be negotiated. Nothing is agreed to yet, Steve, not even the return of the inspector.

the U.S. said the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who were really valuable in this process. You know, I've said they said they were going back. The Iranians said they were not. So really the negotiations over the nuclear programs haven't even started. Tough to say that it's better than a deal, which they haven't started to negotiate yet. We know full well that Iran has been the chief benefactor behind Hamas and Hezbollah. Has Iran's ability to support these proxies been deterred as a result of this war? Difficult to argue that it has.

And here again, let's just look at what has gone on. As these ceasefire negotiations have developed, the Iranians have said, Leszbollah in Lebanon is part of, of the ceasefire, and Israel has said they are not, and the United States has said Israel has the right to self-defense. There you go. Twice now, fighting between Hezbollah and Israel have delayed the ceasefire talks. This past weekend, it looked like we got somewhere,

but for this ceasefire to work, Steve, this is the immediate short-term issue. Iran will have to tell his boa, stand down, buddies, stop firing over Israel's northern border. And Trump will have to tell, Bibi Netanyahu, stand down, buddy. There are bigger issues at stake here. Wait and see, hold your breath on that one. It has been quieter for the last two days. But boy, this is a really volatile front. Well, as we sit here taping this, we have heard on at least one of the last one.

occasion. President Trump apparently told Prime Minister Netanyahu, stop it. Stop with the military incursions into Lebanon. We've got an agreement with the Iranians stand down. And Netanyahu, at least it appears to be, wasn't really welcoming that news too much. Is Israel, in your judgment, more secure today as a result of all of these months of war? So that's a longer question, right? will it be more secure in the future? If there is, if, big if, if there is a negotiated settlement, and negotiations will resume between Lebanon and Israel at the White House, where Hezvala withdraws north of the Latani River.

And the Lebanese army comes in, and that is in fact what the negotiations in Washington are focused on, so-called pilot areas, Steve, where the Lebanese army will come in, the Israeli army will withdraw. But that depends on his ballot, not coming back to those pilot areas, and not challenging the Lebanese army, because it's much stronger than the Lebanese army. Can you tell? If they get there, that, you know, that is progress.

There's no question. So far, not baked in. Can you tell whether his, or Hamas for that matter, respect whatever agreement the United States and Iran have made so far? Isbalah is really, I think we do know that, Hisbalah is far more dependent on Iran now than it was before October the 7th. And why is that? Because there's been fierce fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. its command structure, as you remember, when those pagers went off, its command structure was disrupted, it was tough to communicate.

Now, they've recovered from that to some degree, but they are still dependent on the run for financing and to clear routes for resupply. I think if anything, they have less autonomy now than they did before, October the 7th. So what Iran agrees to with the United States will have to matter to his bar here. I think Israel, same kind of situation. You know, the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump,

badly afraid is a polite way to describe what's going on here. Trump's language is over the top. He yells and screams. We probably couldn't say those words on TV unless you tell me I can. I tell you you can. What kinds of things have been said? Well, fucking crazy, for one. We need to make sure that Netanyahu stays sane.

These are, this is the way, that's the quality of the conversation between these two leaders. So that vaunted relationship that Netanyahu bragged, frankly, both at home to his domestic electorate and abroad that he had, with the president of the United States, that's fractured. Is it permanently broken? Who knows? But it is going through a really rough patch. Let's look at the next metric by which we want to judge the last four months of war. We know that America and Israel assassinated a whole senior level of Iranian political leadership.

When you are seeking regime change, that's usually a pretty good start. How would you judge how much regime change has in fact taken place? That's a failure, Steve. There's no other way to look at it, in part because Ali, the Ayatollah, who was assassinated, expected to be assassinated and planned for exactly that eventuality in the period between June of 2025 and February. So he said the following, Okay, Janice, if I'm taken out, you step in. And if you're taken out, Steve Pagan steps in after you. And if Steve Paken is taking out, the producer of the Pagan podcast, steps in after you.

He planned three or four levels down. So there was a seamless transition when that really large number of leaders was taken out, assassinated, and who took over? Everything we know, and we know a fair amount, Steve, is that the clerical control, the Ayatollahs, are less powerful now, and the Republican guards. And then especially militant faction of the Republican guards, led by Bahidi, are now in charge of running the show.

So it's worse? Yeah, it's worse. Now, the Ayatollah's son, who originally took over, but who was damaged, who was injured, I guess, wounded in a blast. He hasn't been seen in months. Do we know his status? So let's talk about the Ayatollah's son, Moshhtabakhane for a moment. His father was killed. His wife was killed. One of his children was killed and a sibling was killed in that tactic. Just imagine that Bapurz had placed his central role now in decision-making and has to sign off on any agreement, even a ceasefire that has reached with the United States.

Nobody's seen him. Nobody has heard him speak. Senior Iranian Republican Guard leaders and the Speaker of the Assembly, Ghalimath, speaks of him constantly and says, that Moshabakhamani has signed the ceasefire agreement, but nobody has seen him directly or heard his voice. Do we know if he's even alive? And the intelligence services believe that he is, so they may have information that is not public, but it is astonishing that once the ceasefire is in place, we don't even have a recording of his voice

that is being wasted to the Iranian people. I mean, it doesn't take much nowadays for artificial intelligence to create a fake voice that sounds just like him. So, I mean, you know, how confident are you in the intelligence, which is as to this guy still alive? Well, you know, how good this is the CIA, frankly, which is assessed that he is a lot. They must be picking up visits that people are making or whatever it is. But I think it is, I personally think it's remarkable that we haven't seen him. He was, you know, he was badly injured. Apparently a leg was badly injured and he lost the leg.

And he was disfigured, you know, from shrapnel wounds. But that is a long time ago. And I'm surprised that there's been no address or no appearance whatsoever be for the Iranian people. That is consistent with the fact that the Republican guards are now firmly in control. So this is, you know, there's no question a more hard-lawing regime. Because the, you know, Ali Khomeini, his father, issued a fatwa. Remember, against the development of nuclear weapons. And a fadua, a religious order from the Supreme Leader had great authority.

He was cautious. that Thadua died with him. And we'll be back right after this. All right, let's check another metric on whether or not any progress has been made as a result of the last four months of war. The Western countries, I think it's fair to say, wanted to have more control over the shipping

and the safety thereof through the Strait of Hormuz. What's the status of that today? That's a really astonishing story with long-term implications. You know, what happened in the street? Every intelligence briefing that the president received brought up the fact that Iran could close the straits. Now, why hasn't Iran done it at any time prior to this? There were two rounds of fighting because it was, in a sense, the race in the whole.

They would only do that if they felt it was an existential threat to the regime. this time with a massive attack against the Iranian leadership, and the president said so openly, it was clear the objective was regime change. Once the objectives, regime change, you don't hold back, you don't wait. And so they close the streets with, you know, inexpensive missiles that they had buried along the coastline. And all it takes this four or five missiles that you fire, and I'll tell you who decides to close this street.

Lloyd's of London, who pushes the insurance premiums through the roof and at times won't even insure the tankers, which means they don't move. This was a nuclear weapon for Iran because it's true, the United States respond with the blockade and cut off Iran's capacity to export oil. But the leadership must have made a calculation. This is all our war against the regime. We're going to close the straits because even though we're going to suffer, they're going to suffer more because the whole of the global energy caught me is going to be disrupted. And it was. It was.

I wonder if there hasn't been some kind of silver lining discovered here. And by that I mean the following. Okay. Iran can't make the nuclear weapons it was trying to make right now. it may have been deterred a little bit or a lot. We'll still figure that out somewhere down the road. But they certainly have figured out how to flex some muscles by the control that they're exercising over the straight. Is that maybe one positive development that's emerged from this in as much as they actually don't need to create a nuclear weapon to create havoc right now.

They just need to close the straight. I think there's no question about that. And Mohamed Gulli Buf, the speaker, I've said the street is on nuclear. weapon. He said it explicitly. But think about what that means. Let me talk about two other straits, just for a second, Steve, because this was coming in a way. It was not a surprise. So why is that? Because with inexpensive missiles, you could close down the waterway. And the United States could not reopen it, not because it doesn't have the military assets to reopen it, But because the damage that he would inflict on the global economy was so great.

He would have taken weeks to open that straight, and Donald Trump didn't want to pay the price. Straits of Malacca goes by Indonesia, 30% of global trade goes through that straight. For a couple of dozen of cheap missiles that you can manufacture at home, you can close the street. Let's move on to one other. that Taiwan's strict. What does it tell us about China's capacity to enforce a blockade against Taiwan? It can simply close the street

and in so doing, disrupt the whole global supply chain for computer chips. So that's why I say this was coming. This is a powerful asset now for any country that sits astride a straight through which important traffic moves because of the change in battlefield technology

which started with the Ukraine War. We've had a revolution in military affairs, not the first in history, but boy, when they occur, are they disrupted. Sheep technology can take very expensive military technology to defend against, and it now favors, the battlefield now favors smaller, weaker countries that are innovative and nimble and can move these drone missiles around.

This is really a hinge military development in world history. Is it not what we're seeing between Russia and Ukraine and what we're seeing in the Strait of Hormuz? It's a complete rethinking of everything we thought we knew about the power of the military. Fair to say? Yes. And look, this happens in history. history. Let's go back to the Middle Ages for a moment because it's a fun period to talk about. Thinking about the feudal lords in their castles who built a moat around their castle.

And the knights couldn't cross without being mowed down until somebody invented long-range guns. And then those moths reflusts because you can stand on the other side and fire those long-range guns at castles. So that struggle between the offense and the defense who has the advantage is all this human history. But when that balance changes, like it has changed now, and the offense, a cheap, inexpensive offense, gets the advantage against much more expensive legacy platforms, it is a hugely disruptive force in world politics. And that's what we're seeing. Back on the path here. One of the reasons America said it needed to go into Iran was because the Iranian regime was killing tens of thousands of its own citizens who were political opponents of the regime. Do you believe the Iranian government today feels more deterred from killing its own civilians as a result of American and Israeli intervention?

So that's a really complicated question. But during the war, during the anti-fighting. Iranians went into their homes. There was no way any Iranian would go into the streets to protest against the government when their cities were being bombed. So the real test for the Iranian regime is when the fighting stops when the war is over.

And why is that? Because the Iranian economy was so degraded during this war. We talked a lot about the pressures on Donald Trump, the midterm elections, the price of gas, what it was doing to the stock market, all of those kinds of factors which he pays attention to. But Steve, you know, inflation is 300% in parts of the Iranian economy. Cooking oil, you need cooking oil and cooking gas, 250% more expensive. You read the stories about how the middle class, which was big, and it's a very highly educated

country degraded as a result of the most. People are struggling to make a limit. I think the biggest risk to the Iranian regime is stopping the war. Big time. Right? So I don't think the final story has yet

been written to answer your question. It was clear to me that during the war there was no chance of it happening. But the economic grievances. Here's one example, which I think is so telling, the anger at the regime, the

alienation is so great that Iranians are not gathering to watch parties for their sovereignty. Okay? Doesn't that tell you a lot? Tells you a lot. That's the street speaking, and they're not doing it for two reasons. They don't have any money. Right? They don't have any money. That's what they say over and and also they understand that anybody on that team did not speak out against the regime.

You're not sharing. Here's something I truly don't understand and that I need your help to better understand. The United States of America, we are told, spends more on defense than the next, I don't know what, six, seven, eight countries in the world combined. And yet, despite a war that has only lasted four months, and despite the fact that the America, I don't think America is at war and dropping significant munitions anywhere else in the world at the moment, we're told that American weapons stockpiles are running quote unquote dangerously low and that the United States, despite its massive

expenditures on defense weaponry is in a difficult position right now. How can, how can that be the case, Janice? It's a really good question, and it has to do with, I think, two or three things. It's not budget. Okay. One, it's a reliance on very, very expensive legacy systems. So, Patriot missiles, for example, 30, you know, I can't remember the cost. I think it's $30 million for each missile.

If I might we have to check and we'll fix it in the show notes if I'm working. wrong for to take out a bullet have a look while we're chatting i'm checking it right now yes perfect because i'm not sure at all but look that's what you need to take out a missile that costs at the most 15 or 20 000 to make look at the imbalance right and so factories in the united States were only making 10, 12, 15, 20 batteries of Patriot missiles a year. Well, when you have thousands of cheap missiles that are being fired, you can't keep up. So that's really a problem. It's not all ammunition stocks, but it's the whole interceptor system, which was very expensive. it's some advanced ammunition that they used at the rate that they did not anticipate.

But boy, what a heads up to the American system that this alliance on a very, very expensive technology? And it's a heads up in Canada, too, if we only hear it as we ramp up our military spending. The second big factor here, and this we share in climate with the United States is our pro-German systems. The farthest, the last words I would use about the procurement system in the United States or Canada is nimble, fast, and flexible. It doesn't work that way. The United States has taken measures to move much more quickly, but they're still not in place. And so the White House convened an emergency meeting of manufacturers of missiles. Does that a double, triple what you're producing?

If they rely on this expensive technology, they're never going to get there. So the real challenge is how fast can they innovate? Who's doing the innovation? I'm going to give you one guess because there are. There are already solutions to this. Who's going to be the leading innovator here? I think the Ukrainians are, aren't they? You're right on.

You're right on. And how do they do innovation? and this is, you know, I know I'm going off tub, but it's just such a fascinating story. The manufacturer is maybe two kilometers behind the front line. They give the drone operator the product in the morning. The drone operator goes out and do netting, fires off the drone to, oh, that worked well this way, but it's not good this way, goes back to the manufacturer. manufacturer goes back and it can be toy garage or more complex in the institution and has the product back in the field iterated in 48 hours talk about beta testing that's really something well necessity being the mother of invention as well i got the i got the info for you here

apparently a single patriot pack three interceptor missile costs anywhere between four and five and a half million u.s dollars and you can bet that they've gone through a boatload of those over the last four months. A 10. Yeah. So that's the whole pack, is that right? That cost four or five million. And so I was off there. But even at five million, they're taking out missiles.

That costs a thousand to $1,015 times each. It doesn't work, Steve. Very asymmetrical warfare, as they call it. let's if I can get you to look at domestic U.S. politics at the moment because I think we can say with some certainty that that the constant groaning of the American public about the price of gas and about Trump's promise not to get Americans involved in overly ambitious foreign wars. Those things were speaking loudly to him lately. In which case, well, let me throw a couple of quotes your way. Here's Ted Cruz of Texas. This is not some far left, you know, Ted Cruz of Texas.

Giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. He said that in reference to the $300 billion fund that President Trump wants Iran to be able to tap into to rebuild its country. Okay, that's one quote. But he's not alone on this. Here's Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, another senator. Again, Red State, Republican. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades. If this is what Republicans are saying about this war,

what does that tell you about how smart Trump's presidency is right now? Well, big picture, this was the most ill-considered, unstrategic war that any expert could have told him would not achieve his objectives. Okay, this is not a surprise, frankly. Let me just tell you that that $300 billion, dollars is not real. It's like the hotels on the Gaza River,

it's a promise that investors are going to come and invest $300 billion. That is not real. What is real? There's $24 billion of Iranian frozen assets. That's real. Which he will unfreeze.

Which he promised to unfreeze once a nuclear agreement is finally reached. Now, so to be fair, what are they doing? They have lifted the sanctions. So if all none of it has gone for pay, they have lifted the sanctions against Iran in order to enable Iran to sell oil into the global market. Well, if you're worried about the world supply of energy, there's some sense to doing that. And beyond that, let's look at the history here, Steve. You know, So JPCOA, the Obama deal, there was a promise that investment would flow into Iran. It actually didn't for a whole variety of complex reasons.

If you want the Iranians to stay at the table now, after Trump broke his word and interrupted negotiate, first of all walked away from JCPO, even though the United States was a signatory, and Iran did not break that agreement. Iran did not violate it. He walked away. And after that, two rounds of negotiation, without saying anything, he started bombing. So you're at the other end of this table and you're asking yourself, do I sign an agreement with these dudes or do I not? Do I trust them? You have to provide some incentives for Iran to continue these negotiations and stay at the table. So all the people are saying, The United States is flooding Iran with billions of dollars. I actually don't think that's a fair criticism. Okay. Having said all of that, it's hard to imagine that after four months of war,

with the United States dropping significant munitions on Iran and doing something to counteract all of what Iran has been trying to do over the last many years, has, I mean, something surely has been achieved from an American slash Israeli point of view. Can we say that? It's really hard. I mean, so what can we argue, right? Just as the world is dependent on the straight,

any time that straight is blockaded, there was an answer, which is an American blockade, which hurts the wrong. So I think it's important to remember that, that this is a nuclear weapon that hurts the user, just as well as the targets, which is not the conversation we're having about that in large parts of the world. Second of all, Iran bombed its closest allies and neighbors, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain. There's a long memory about those kinds of activities in that part of the world.

Now, look, it's ambiguous because you could say, well, what are the Saudis going to make of all this when this is all over? How helpful was it to have an American base or American and military installations? What the United States do to protect Saudi Arabia or the Emirates? Not a lot. Is it the better strategy to reconcile with Iran? But the Saudis tried that, and it didn't work very well. So it's conceivable to argue that we're going to have a Gulf that is more divided than before, and that's to Iran's disadvantage rather than advantage.

But these are small wins in comparison to the cost. The United States way more leverage, if it had continued to negotiate, the Iranians have put on the table. Just think about this. Before February 28, the Iranians have put on the table and offered to pause all enrichment for five years.

take the win. Yes. No, he didn't take the win. He wanted more and, well, we'll see now what happens in terms of whether he can get it. As the world looks at the United States of America today, do they see, four months after the beginning of this war, an international partner who is more or less reliable than before the war started? Oh, I think there's no doubt. It's less reliable. The president has been so erratic. even in his speech the posting that goes on between 11 o'clock at night and 2 o'clock in the morning

when he's alone in the White House the tone of it the over-the-top threats that he makes which he then doesn't carry up and the fact that he wanted this war to stop as soon as there was pain from

domestic politics Steve if your time on what are you thinking when you watch on this? What are you thinking? you're probably thinking this is a guy we can't rely on because he's going to cut and run as soon as things get sticky yep that's what you're thinking okay if you look back at history and we'll just take a few examples here surrender at appomatics i remember well i wasn't a lie for it but i remember what the history taught me that looked like um hitler dead musolini dead japan signing an unconditional surrender we know what surrender looks like this doesn't look like this doesn't look like

like that. Right? No. So in the German, and you know, Appalachians is not dissimilar, but in the German and the Japanese cases, the Allies committed massive ground forces. You don't change regimes from the air. You just don't do it. And that's why I say any expert would have said to Donald Trump, this is not going to work.

If that's your real goal, it's not going to work. It never doubt. Strategic bombing usually unites a country behind the existing leaders. You know, Japan, Germany, four years, four and a half years of grand forces. Very heavy price and an unshakable irrevocable commitment because, you know, FDRN with St. Churchill saw Nazi Germany and Japan as, you know, major, major threats that they were committed to ending. And remember after the surrender, Steve, there was occupation. Germany was occupied. Japan was occupied. And so the regime changed.

They didn't snap their fingers and say the regime change is here. They changed the regimes, but they stayed. And in a Japanese case built an entirely different system of government. regime change is very demanding. And when you tell people in advance, you're going to overthrow them. They don't have any incentive. Nicholas Christoph was writing in the New York Times the other day that the decision to start this war was the initial wrong decision by President Trump.

But he added that Trump's decision to end the war when he did was a good decision because it became clear that none of the things that Trump got into the war. war to do and to achieve we're going to happen. So better to stop the war now, cut your losses, and move on. Fair to say? Yes, I agree. You remember. You probably don't. You're too young, but the pictures as the last helicopters were leaving then Saigon. Chanis, I was 15 years old. I remember it very well. Absolutely. Look at that shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan in the for it actually doomed Biden's pregnancy in many ways. Hugh Trump got it, that there was no in here,

and in fact his aversion to a forever war kicked in. And yes, this is a really bad story, but it's a bad short story. Let me just say this. After Vietnam, there were reams of books written about U.S. to coin. And then after Iraq in Afghanistan, in another forest, literally the number of trees that were sacrificed by people proclaiming the decline of the United States. And again, we're hearing that. A defeat like this does not end. If the United States declines it is not because they fought and lost this war, it's because

of much steeper structural factors. It's interesting that you say they lost the war. Now, they didn't achieve the aims they set out to achieve in the beginning, but is it fair to say that they actually lost the war? Yeah, I think it is because a much of regional power rather than a global power who had nothing like the military assets, the United States has with Stoich, the attack, you know, stood up a regime in the face of an onslaught. and comes out of that, what do you think the likelihood is, Steve,

that this president will go to war with Iran again, no matter what it does. Maybe not Iran, but maybe Cuba. I mean, who knows? But if you're the Iranians, you want you fly. Okay, let's in our remaining moments here, just pivot away from the Middle East for a moment and talk about the other major international development

on the world stage this past. Well, I mean, it transpired just the other day, but this train's been coming for a long time. Great Britain is going to have yet another prime minister. And I don't know, what is this? Seven in the last seven years? It's some ridiculous. Six years. That's insane for the mother of all parliamentary democracies.

Janice, I guess my question for you to start this off with is Kirstarmer clearly had been suffering badly, both in terms of popularity, in terms of leadership, in terms of his ability to get anything done that he wanted to get done. Did he have any alternative other than to resign? No. No. And he, look, we've seen this cycle since Brexit. So this is how destabilizing Brexit has been to the politics and economics of the United Kingdom. That's a strategic disaster, Brexit. I saw one statistic, Steve, which blew my mind, and I bet it's going to blow yours. Britain, the average level of incoming Britain today is the equivalent of Mississippi. I saw that myself. Isn't that crazy? Isn't that crazy?

Isn't that? And if you take London out, because London raises it, it's poorer than Mississippi. Britain has impoverished itself in the most stunning ways. And it starts with Brexit when it cuts itself off from that market. And then it just goes downhill all the way as no leader can really cope with economic consequences that are so destabilizing. And that's a big part of what you're getting. But it does go to show you that voters are interested. I guess some voters, sometime, you know, if the moment is right, they're interested in more than just their economic well-being. There are other factors, cultural factors, sovereignty factors that are at play as well.

And politicians ignore those at their peril, right? Yeah, look, immigration has become the ballot question. Several times in Britain, it's the ballot question. I believe in France. You know, there will be an election in April. next year in France. It is a huge issue in Germany. Those are not economic issues. Those are cultural issues. And Europe is paying a huge price, a huge economic price for those issues. And whether, you know, the next British Prime Minister, who was a very popular mayor,

can reverse this. Boy, does he have a tough road to climb here? Well, let's finish up on that. I want to ask you about a, about Britain's future because clearly Starmor did not have the leadership chops to get the job done. I mean, almost from the very beginning. Do you believe Britain is fundamentally an ungovernable country today because of Brexit or has this new guy got a shot at things? So, you know, the honest answer I can give you here is what I know about political leadership, right? And not much should any thing. So don't put any weight in what I'm going to say.

I actually think leaders are misjudging publics now. And you would know better about this, I see, so you got away in before we close this off. Because you really would. I actually think the next Prime Minister of Britain has to say to the British people, we're in a tough spot here. There ain't no easy fixes. We've been here before. We can get through this, but we need to put aside the usual politics.

We need to sacrifice. This is a moment of crisis for our country. We have to reestablish ties with Europe. We're not going to make it on our own. We've got to change the way our economy is organized. And you're either with me in this one or we fail. We need some Churchillian language here. And the writs have always responded to that.

They care about their country, they know their country's history. And look, I believe that is true in Canada, that this is a moment. It is not politics as usual in this country. It's on business as usual. The stakes are higher for us. But leaders are paying too much attention to politics. and leaders have to lead. Leaders have to lead.

Well, since you've put it to me that I need to comment on this, let me say two fast things. Number one, Andy Burnham is the guy who's going to take over, the former mayor. And we will watch in the days ahead to see whether or not he takes you up on your challenge to come forward with some more Churchillian-like language as opposed to try and be cute from a political point of view.

The second thing is we're having that discussion right here at home right now, and it's funny you raise this today because I just had put up on the TVO website where I also contribute columns, a column from a guy named Don Drummond. The column is about Don Drummond, whom you know, of course, a former deputy minister of finance in Ottawa, and he's now at Queens University, has been there for 15 years, and he thinks politicians in our country need to start scaring that you know what out of people so that we get serious about getting our economic house in order. And he believes, he says, you know what, if you are straight with the public and you tell them the size of the challenge,

people are not stupid, people are smart, they will meet you if you're honest with them. And, you know, if you go forward together in a coordinated, unified approach, big things can happen. And he referred to Brian Mulroney on free trade. He referred to the getting the books in balance under Jean-Cretchen, Paul Mark. Martin, we need a national project right now to get this country going in the right direction. So Don Drummond's a pretty smart guy. And if he's saying it, I'm listening. I agree with him. I agree with him. And I think that's exactly what Britain needs right now. Well, we'll see if Andy Burnham becomes prime minister, as everybody suspects he will.

And if he gives that creed a cure in the days ahead. Janice, let me do a little business here just before we sign off. You know that one of the other things we're doing on this podcast is a monthly, I guess we've done it a few times. now. We're doing a one-on-one with former Ontario Premier, former UN ambassador, Bob Ray. And people seem to enjoy it. Here's Glenn Coutth from Toronto who says, I'm happy to support your podcast because anything that lets me hear from two people, Steve Paken and Bob Ray, who exemplify the civility we need more of in our society, he's for that. So Mr. Ray will join us again in the month of July for his one-on-one. And Glenn, thank you for going to our Patreon page. That's patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast, where you will have an opportunity to see web

exclusive video, where you have an opportunity to shell a few bucks our way, helps us keep the lights on, helps us keep doing what we're doing right now. We think we're doing something somewhat distinctive on the Canadian scene. Glenn, thanks for helping us out. Patreon.com forward slash the Paken podcast. All of our shows are archived at stevepaken.com. Janice, any last words? All good. All good. Enjoy the weekend. You betcha. Peace and love, everybody. We'll see you next time.