The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway - Winners and Losers in the Israel-Iran Conflict — with Ian Bremmer

Episode Date: June 26, 2025

Ian Bremmer, the president and founder of Eurasia Group, joins Scott to discuss the Israel-Iran conflict, the role President Trump played, and what could come next on the global stage. This marks Ian’s 13th appearance on The Prof G Pod! Follow Ian, @ianbremmer. Algebra of Happiness: take a step back, stop complaining. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Enzo. No, not right now. Lots of us feel like we understand our dogs. But scientists who actually study dogs say we might be a bit overconfident. We're just not as smart as we think we are when it comes to understanding our dogs. This we can't explain it to me. Do we actually know what our dogs are feeling? Or are we just fooling ourselves?

New episodes every Sunday. Hey, this is Peter Kafka. I'm the host of Channels, a show about what happens when media and tech collide. And this week, I'm talking to Emily Sunberg, whose Feed Me newsletter is a thriving one-person business with mega fans and lots of subscribers. This is a story about a media company that's taking off.

A very wise person once told me, once you turn certain levers on, you can't turn them back off. And I don't need to right now. Like everything's working. I don't need to give more of my personal life. That's This Week on Channels, wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. Episode 354, 354Z, a code serving Quebec, Canada. In 1954, Elvis Presley recorded his first song and Godzilla premiered in Japan. So Godzilla walks into a bar and the bar collapses. Okay. Here's the thing about watching Godzilla have sex. You can see it coming a mile away.

That's better. Go! Go! Go! Welcome to the 354th episode of the Prop G Pod. What's happening? I am back in London after being in the south of France for a week, my favorite conference by far, Kam Lyons. But anyways, what else is going on? So we have bombed Iran. I think the three pillars of power or political energy,

if you will, are one, a raw kinetic power. It just helps to have more tanks and more planes. That's the reality of the world. The world helps to have more tanks and more planes. That's the reality of the world. The world is shaped by economic policy and military might. Anyway, one kinetic power, two alliances, and three competence. So if you look at the parties here, Israel, Iran, and the US, the US has the most kinetic power. Israel has the most confidence. What they've been able to do with their army and a population that is one-ninth the size of Iran's, a smaller economy, and one-fortieth of the landmass is they have been able essentially to assert their power across not only Iran, but all

of their proxies. In terms of alliances, this is where things really break down. And that is while the US has the most kinetic power as demonstrated by our B-2 bombers, and we are the only ones that have that ordinance of a bunker buster. And I do think that's a flex. I'm a believer that if you're going to spend more money on the military than the other 10 nations combined, that unless you're going to get off your heels and onto your toes and be more offensive and proactive about asserting that power

and protecting your interests abroad, I get the argument that we shouldn't be going and bombing other nations, fine. Then if we're not going to, on a regular basis, assert and flex our power across the world, and some people would argue we do that with 700 military bases overseas, basically saying, don't fuck with us,

and nine aircare strike forces, that we do that as 700 military bases overseas, basically saying, don't fuck with us, and nine air care strike forces, that we do that as a deterrence, I believe that if you in fact are going to have this isolationist complexion as the far right has, then let's cut military spending to 200 billion and spend that 600 billion on many of our other domestic worthwhile needs. So I'm a believer in flexing our power on a regular basis.

And if that makes me a war hawk, that makes me a war hawk. And I do believe that you can threaten Israel with extinction. You can maybe even try and move towards enriching uranium, but you can't do both and not expect to be attacked. So here we are, a demonstration of unbelievable kinetic power. The problem is around alliances and competence when it comes to the US, and that is typically after an attack like this, the next morning, Germany, France, Britain would weigh in with either support or thinly veiled support to show that we represent the West.

And in this instance, the only countries that have weighed in on this so far are Russia mocking us saying, in fact, we did not diminish the capabilities, the nuclear capabilities that we're claiming. And two, China putting out press releases, basically saying that this is an administration you can't trust and increasing this terrible brand association we've developed since Trump came into office of toxic uncertainty.

And I think that's important, whether it's sharing intelligence, whether it's giving you the sense that if Iran strikes back, they will have to deal with several nuclear powers or several armies or several nations. Also the biggest mistake I think you can make in strategy is assuming that you're boxing against a speed bag. And I've told this story several times, but that won't stop me from telling it again. When I first moved to New York, I was bored and I was lonely and I was

looking for some sort of outlet. So I worked out a lot. And one of the things I did was I started boxing and I hired a trainer. Uh, and he convinced me mostly because I was paying him that I was really good, that I had good hand speed and good reach and convinced me to enter into this, you know, this, this little tournament of this gym I worked out at, or trained at. And so I'm 6'2", 190 pounds, so I went into the 190 pound weight class, and my first opponent was 5'7", 192. And it ends up to 5'7", 192 is basically Mike Tyson. And I remember the bell ringing, and that's the last thing I remember. And then the next thing I

remember, or the first thing I remember after the bell ringing was bright lights. And specifically I was on my back looking upwards at bright lights. And if you're watching this on YouTube, oftentimes I sit like this or stand like this or face like this because my nose goes to the right. And by the way, that's a lot to go to the right. Daddy has a real nose. I remember when I was 13, my nose grew and the rest of my body didn't. And I used to cry to my mom, my nose is so big and she'd be like, no, sweetheart,

you have a strong nose. Anyways, love you, mom. But my nose goes to the right because I was hit so hard and it hasn't gone back. And one of the biggest mistakes you can make in geopolitical strategy is to believe that you are boxing against someone you're paying or a speed bag that won't hit back. And there is no doubt about it, an 86-year-old theocrat, Ayatollah

Khomeini, who is the supreme leader of Iran, this is really frightening. And also the IRGC, just distinctive Israel's incredible competence and what has been so far, it's just literally running over them, not once, but twice, basically taking down their air defenses and overwhelming them. To think that they're not going to hit back in some fashion is just to wake up and realize your nose still bends to the right.

So in terms of kinetic power, absolutely incredible demonstration of strength here. I think it was the right move, given the scenario we find ourselves in. I think there's a decent argument that maybe we shouldn't be in this scenario, that if we had stuck with the JCPOA, there's a decent argument we wouldn't be in this situation.

But the context, given where we were in this moment, I think it was the right thing to do. The question is, are we going to create a lot of soft spots, a lot of weak tissue, and perhaps the situation won't turn out as well? We're more vulnerable now because we don't have the same alliances. And quite frankly, we don't have the same competence.

We don't have the same level of intelligence. We don't have all of our most powerful people on message with each other. It sounds like they're not even communicating with each other and nobody, including our allies or even our enemies, knows what the fuck to believe that comes out of the White House because they're contradicting each other. And we have people running the military and making these decisions. When you have Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hexeth in a room making these decisions, we should all be

worried. So the gross incompetence demonstrated so far around tariffs, around trying to address our immigration policy, to believe that that doesn't seep into our military policy is somewhat geopolitical and defense strategy is somewhat naive. So where do we sit? We sit in awe of our incredible military and what they were able to pull off. But at the same time, I think this is a time to be concerned that we're not

boxing against a speed bag and we are poorly advised and we have demonstrated incompetence, the likes of which we haven't registered since the end of World War II. And to believe that that does not make us less safe is naive. Well, that was cheery. All right. Anyways, with this, we have our conversation with Ian Bremmer, the escalating conflict involving Iran is our topic, and what could come next on the global stage.

A quick note, we recorded this conversation with Ian on Tuesday, so if any major headlines have broken since then, they may not be covered here, or we'll try and ping back in. Anyways, here's our conversation with Ian. Ian, where does this podcast find you? Briefly I am in Barcelona, which is a lovely place to be and doesn't seem everyone's kind of on vacation today. What should we talk about? Here we are.

It looks as if we had, actually, you know what, I'd like to back up and just have you give us your sense of the state of play here around this military operation, attack, bombing, how you would frame it, what you think we might be missing in the lead up to this. And if you were to go very meta, what inspired this US action? And then we'll get into some of the ramifications and how it was carried out. Well, I guess the big backdrop, there's the Iran backdrop and there's the Trump backdrop

and they're different, right? The Trump backdrop is he came in as president, really, really wanting to make peace between Russia and Ukraine. He got the Ukrainians to the table by strong arming them, thought he was going to sweet talk the Russians, completely failed on the latter front, and so couldn't do it. And then really thought that he was going to hit China and the world hard on tariffs and they were all going to want China and the world hard on tariffs and they were all going to want to do deals with him. It's taken a hell of a lot longer to get to yes and particularly with the Chinese it did not go in any way the way he

expected to. Xi Jinping was not suddenly oh I've got to talk to this guy I've got to engage I got to fix this not at all they gave back as hard as they got. So the context is that Trump, the dealmaker, wasn't getting the deals done. In fact, even a few days ago, India Prime Minister Modi, in a ceasefire agreement that the Americans did play a constructive role in though at the margins, came out and publicly embarrassed Trump and said, no, actually, you did nothing at all, which is kind of a shocking thing for Modi, who has a reasonably good relationship with Trump to do

for domestic political reasons, but still. So the backdrop on Trump is, he's not gotten his deals done. He's really itching to make something happen. He wants to show that he can win on the international stage and Iran suddenly was where he was putting a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of attention. So that's the background for him. The backdrop of Iran among countries that have heft on the geopolitical stage is that

they have lost more influence, both regionally and globally than pretty much anybody over the last year. And they're close to friendless, right? I mean, they engaged with the Russians and they sell oil to a bunch of countries, but nobody's out there willing to stand up for them. And the proxies that they had in the region that provided some deterrence and scared their enemies from taking steps against them have been blown up, principally by Israel, also

a little bit by the United States in the case of the Houthis, over the course of the last year and a half. Hezbollah, of course, most spectacularly. And then you have Bashar Assad, also aligned with Iran, overthrown by his own people with help from Turkey. So Iran, which has been a formidable adversary of the United States globally, and has been trying to develop nuclear capabilities,

which unacceptable to the US and pretty much everyone on the global stage, but in a far, far weaker position and with an 85 year old ailing supreme leader. So they looked like they would be more willing to cut a deal, but they also looked much more vulnerable to military strikes. And that was the state of play for, let's say, a week ago before the Israelis attacked. That's the context that I think we need to know before we think about what's going to happen on the ground. we need to know before we think about what's going to happen on the ground when the Israelis start striking, when the Americans then join in, and then when the Iranians respond and do virtually nothing. So this is an outsider's viewpoint.

You studied this, you're much closer to it, you have much deeper sources, so very open to being wrong here. My impression of what led up to this was very base. And it was Trump deciding he wanted some of that macho, he wanted to bask in some of that macho light and he was inspired by the success of the idea of taking out air defenses and taking out much of the senior command of the RGC's military personnel and thought, I want some of this, and was inspired to come in and jump on the metal podium and flex his muscles. Is that too reductive an analysis here?

Scott, you're completely right, but you're taking the baton from the time frame that I left it off. We have to keep in mind the broader context, which is that Trump, when he met with Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, in the White House the day after Liberation Day, so as the first foreign leader he welcomed to the White House, he said during that meeting that he was going to start engaging directly with Iran, directly, Iran negotiations, which obviously the Israeli government was very disturbed by, but it's not like they can stop.

True. And then there were a series of five direct negotiations facilitated by the Omanis between Witkoff and others and the Iranian leadership on the nuclear file. And there was a really sincere effort by Trump to get to yes. And, you know, they could have had not just a redux of the old Iranian nuclear deal.

People say that. Actually, there wouldn't have been a sunset clause. The Obama deal, 10 years later, it's done. It's over. If the Iranians at that point want to develop nuclear weapons capabilities, they're no longer in any way constrained by the deal. And meanwhile, they've benefited from the sanctions being off. They've taken all of their hundreds of billions of assets that are unfrozen,

all of this stuff. The deal that they were going to cut with Trump would have been that JCPOA without a sunset clause. So it would have been a permanent deal. And further, there was a willingness of the Iranians to really reduce the amount of enrichment that they would be doing. They weren't willing to bring it to zero. That's what Trump was frustrated with. There were many in the administration that said that there can be no enrichment at all. The enrichment has to be done by a consortium outside of Iran that will be

determined and maybe in an interim period, um, it can still happen in Iran, but the deal will require eventually there's zero. The Iranians hadn't been willing to accept that. And that was when the Israelis start striking. And Trump does give them a green light because he's frustrated that it's not moving fast enough. But what's really interesting here is Trump and Netanyahu had at least two conversations,

direct conversations, between when the Israelis struck and when the Americans, they might've had more, I'm just not aware of them. But in those conversations, they were quite contentious. And Trump was pretty agitated because Bibi wanted him to cut off negotiations with Iran. And Trump said, absolutely not, the whole point. You're going to war now,

that's gonna sort of loosen these guys up the supreme leader I want to now talk to the supreme leader and give them another chance to do this deal now that he shows that we've actually Got a fist in our glove. I want to get to yes. I want a negotiation. So even up until the end Trump was still trying to get the supreme leader directly involved and to get to yes. And it was after that didn't happen, and in part it didn't happen because the Supreme Leader is in hiding, the Iranians have wisely shut down their internet because it allows the Israelis to engage in surveillance and better target them and the rest. Um, and, and that's when Trump decided for exactly the reasons that you suggest

because Israel is, you know, getting all of this benefit from showing that they're winning against this major adversary in the U S is doing none of it. And that's when you saw Trump start to post online, you know, we've got control of the airspace. No, it was the Israelis. We know where the Supreme Leader is and we can take him out. But there was never an intention of the Americans

to assassinate the Supreme Leader. That wasn't the plan. But you could then see over the week that Trump is like, no, no, no, this can't just be the Israelis. I get credit for this. I get credit for this. I get credit for this. And so then you have this spectacular military strikes

with the B-2s flying 36 hours back and forth. No American casualties from the attacks. No American casualties from the Iranian response. So then Trump gets his big win. And it is a big win. Absolutely. In fact, it's a bigger win from my perspective than when Trump ordered the assassination of Qasem

Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Defense Forces, towards the end of his first term. And the Iranians did virtually nothing in response. This guy was a massive war hero for the Iranian people. You'd think that this would potentially lead to all out war, not at all. And, and, and now you've got a very similar situation with a lot more at stake with the Americans doing their best to take out these critical Iranian nuclear facilities.

So it appears to me there's just a matter of 24 months. It's gone from I think most people or a lot of people would say that the superpower in the Middle East was Iran. See the superpower it feels today is clearly Israel. All of their proxies have had their hands cut off. When I say all of their, I mean Iran's proxies. Their air defenses have been totally neutered, and it appears that anyone on an order from Tel Aviv can be killed, that the Mossad has totally penetrated the security apparatus at the highest levels of the Iranian regime. What do you think are the prospects of the Islamic Republic falling in the near term? In the near term, very low. You can't bring about regime change from an air campaign. Militarily, it would require a major ground war,

which the Israelis are not gonna do and probably incapable of. It'd be overstretched at this point and it would be politically disastrous at home. And the Americans certainly want no part of that, right? I mean, Trump said he was gonna end wars. He's fine with, you know, a short term bombing campaign, but he absolutely doesn't want a Ken Burns style

war with American men and women on the ground fighting and coming back in body bags. Absolutely not. And so a regime change would then have to come from the 90 million plus Iranian citizens who don't support the Iranian regime. I'd say only about 20% of Iranian citizens are kind of hardline, hardened supporters of the military and theocratic dictatorship, led more by the military than the theocracy, frankly, these days. But the Iranian government has enormous capacity to repress, far more than Assad did in Syria. These are well-trained forces.

They are well-resourced forces. And the government is absolutely willing and capable. And we don't yet see any internal signs of major demonstrations or uprising, despite the fact that over 30 Iranian military leaders have been targeted and killed in the Israeli operations to date over the past week. Then one of the things that struck me was the lack of support from allies that we traditionally hear from after this type of attack incursion, whether it was Bush expelling Hussein from Kuwait, the next Bush going into Iraq.

Typically the next day we get statements of support from our allies. And this time, the only things I saw were China saying, they're at it again, destabilizing the world, Russia claiming that we are vastly exaggerating the effectiveness of these attacks. Did that strike you as unusual and disappointing that we don't have, we don't appear to be either garnering or even seeking the support of our allies when we do something like this? Well, first of all, you and I are now talking, I'm in Europe right now, when the NATO summit is just starting and Trump's a part of it. And NATO is looking stronger than it has before because there's a lot more money going in from the Europeans, a lot bigger commitments.

And frankly, almost all of the Europeans came out publicly in favor of the Israelis to defend themselves and critical of the Iranian regime and their nuclear program. The Finns, I think, were the only Europeans, at least the only in the EU, that came out and condemned the Israeli strikes, most notably the French, the Brits, the Germans, the, you know, the core military allies. All were supportive.

And I guess I take on board the fact that it wasn't as full-throated in support of the US and the US wasn't really seeking that. It was more unilateralist and the Japanese condemned it, for example. But I was looking at the contrast between the response to Israel and then the US striking Iran with the war in Gaza over the last year and a half now plus. And there, I mean, the Americans are mostly by themselves in supporting Israel. And as you and I have discussed before, the vast majority of the world's governments and

population believes that Israel is now conducting an unjust military intervention and occupation that amounts to ethnic cleansing with lots of war crimes that is absolutely radically different from the response to what Israel did in and to Iran. Iran, of course, you were targeting, it was military targets, overwhelmingly, and I mean, there was a civilian energy target, for example, but overwhelmingly, it was military targets. The regime is seen as actively supporting terrorism. It is widely understood that the vast majority of the Iranian people oppose the regime. Not to say that the majority support Israeli strikes. There are some that would want anything to happen that could remove the regime, but I wouldn't call that a majority.

But the rest of the world, either were supportive of Israel in the US, or they had condemnations that didn't matter, that didn't amount to anything, that no one was prepared to stand up for Iran here. So for me, that was kind of the shock, was how different it was, despite the fact that Israel has taken so much criticism

globally for the continuing war in Gaza that Iran is a very, very different story. We'll be right back after a quick break. 2025 marks 50 years since a trailblazer named Jan Todd decided to go to the gym with her little boyfriend. I had started going with Terry to the gym just because, you know, he's your cute boyfriend and you love him and you like you want to spend all your time together. Not thinking about being an athlete at all. Jan told WHYY in Philadelphia there were no other women at that gym. It wasn't considered appropriate for ladies to lift weights.

Some gyms even banned it. The idea of a woman having muscles was seen as somehow being somewhat transgressive. There must be something wrong with you if you want to have muscles. Anyway, feeling spicy that day, Jan squatted down and deadlifted 225 pounds, which is a lot of pounds. She went on to lift more weights, set a bunch of records, model in magazines, and inspire other women to lift weights.

More recently, millions of women have started, but why now? Answers on Today Explained, every weekday, in your feet. Support for the show comes from Aura. A common piece of advice for staying healthy is listen to your body. But that's easier said than done. What is your body actually saying? Aura Rink can give you incredibly rich data about your body, including long-term trends and feedback on the stats that matter for actually making you feel better over the long run.

It helps you understand what your body needs by tracking over 30 biometrics 24 hours a day right from your finger, then delivers personalized insights and recommendations to help you improve how you feel every day. Because that's what it's really all about, improving how you feel, instead of just focusing on activity and performance. Aura emphasizes balance and rest. It also focuses on metrics related to mental health, heart health, stress, and other areas that are critical for helping you live better and longer. And Aura Ring looks like a regular piece of jewelry. It's subtle, comfortable, stylish, waterproof, and has a battery that lasts up to eight days.

That means you actually wear it. Getting old has never looked so good. Now give Aura the finger. Learn more at Aaring.com. buds? Well, there is. It's called Groons. Groons are a convenient, comprehensive formula packed into eight delicious gummies a day. It's not a multivitamin, a greens gummy, or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. In a Groons daily snack pack, you get more than 20 vitamins and minerals plus more than 60 whole food ingredients, all of which help you out in different ways. For example, Groons has six times the gut health ingredients

compared to the leading green powders, like biotin and niacinamide, which help with thicker hair, nails, and skin health. They also contain mushrooms, which can help with brain function, and of course, you're probably familiar with vitamin C and how great it is for your immune system. On top of all that, Groons are vegan

and free of nuts, dairy, and gluten. Get up to 45% off when you go to gruns.co and use code profg. That's G-R-U-N-S.co using code profg for 45% off. There's a fear that we have a perfect sort of, or the term wag the tail was invented to describe this situation. That Bibi Netanyahu is literally running to stay out of prison, and that he's done the political calculus. And the only way to perhaps ensure he stays out of prison is to get people to rally around the flag under the auspices of war. And whether you agree or not, whether this was the right thing to do, do you believe we're in that situation where Netanyahu distinctive the situation or the merits or lack thereof of this type of military operation is in fact just

constantly on a war footing trying to stay out of jail? I think it is a factor Scott. I wouldn't say it was dispositive. The Israelis have been talking up the threat as existential from Iran's growing nuclear capabilities for decades now. And so has Bibi directly. And he did it famously at the United Nations when he brought that graphic of the bomb that he was showing and he's done it with, you know, investor meetings and I've seen him do it live. I mean, all sorts of times, right? So and now that the Iranians have gotten weaker

and that Israel's had so much success in going after Iran's proxies, they were clearly beating the drum for we should do more against them. And I saw that in the Biden administration, I'm seeing that in the Trump administration. Now, the timing here, though, did play a role in that the far right members of Bibi's coalition had declared a vote of no confidence. They were going to leave the government over a separate issue. It was over this longstanding issue in Israel of whether or not the religious right would receive exemptions from serving in the military. And of course they are some of the people's, the demographics that are arguing most

about Israeli expansion of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and all of this stuff, and yet they don't serve in the military. And that has been a real cause of anger for a lot of the Israeli population, including Likud voters, which is of course Netanyahu's party. And he was increasingly trying to like find a way to square the circle of that. And you know, kept stalling on it, stalling on it. Finally, there were going, there was going to be this legislation passed that was going to, you know, put significant fines, penalties on those that didn't serve.

And the right-wing parties were going to bolt as a consequence that would have brought the government down. It would have led to another election Months away and if BB had lost that election and decent chance he would have Then he'd be out and he'd be facing jail time now once the war with Iran was on the table and you know he brought that to Trump and Trump gave him at least the flashing yellow light if not you know probably a direct green to go ahead and attack and towards the end it was certainly a green that then brought the far-right parties to vote in favor of Bibi continuing to head the government. So the vote of no confidence didn't pass through,

and he's up in charge again. So yes, I think the timing of the war starting was linked to the likelihood that otherwise his government would have fallen. But I would not call that the principal driver of Iran's vulnerability to and Israel's decision to attack the nuclear program and the military leadership. I know that's a little nuance, but I hope you see the difference there. It feels as if so far the Iranian response has been similar to the response to the attacks on Hezbollah has been somewhat performative.

And that is I need, I, being Khomeini, need to show that I still have my mojo, but I do not want to risk escalation. And that it's mostly, and it looks, the oil markets have yawned, the stock market doesn't care. It believes that the market, and it gets it wrong, believes that, okay, they've had their weak flex attacking or sending missiles into US installations in Qatar and Iraq, but they're not meaningful enough to escalate. Is that your sense of what's going on right now? That is not my sense of how the Iranians responded to Israel, right? Lots and lots of drone strikes, none of which got through, and missile strikes, many of which got through, about probably 5% of

their missile strikes. And, you know, their hope was that they were going to deplete Israeli interceptors to a degree that they'd be able to hit Israel harder. So they were trying to kill a lot of Israelis. And they wanted to hit military targets, but I mean, they were also aiming for anything they could hit, right? I mean, they were going for urban centers too. And they just didn't have the capabilities.

But this was not, I mean, they were, the Israelis are, you know, assassinating their leaders, they assassinated also the lead nuclear negotiator. They were hitting so much military capability, including lots of the ballistic missile launchers that are critical to Iran's own deterrence. They hit the nuclear program above ground, all of those things. So Iran was not, in my view, restrained in how they hit Israel back. But Iran was restrained in every other way. They certainly have the ability to block the Straits of Hormuz for a period of weeks if they wanted to. Now the U.S. has a massive amount of naval and air power that they've redirected to the Gulf.

In fact, more right now than at any point since the war in Iraq. And so it wouldn't be, you'd be able to escort some tankers pretty quickly, and you'd be able to get the straits cleared probably within a month. But they didn't do any of that. And they didn't launch any attacks against Gulf energy production, nor did they authorize or order their proxies to do so. They didn't go after US bases in the region

until after the Americans were involved, nor did they try major cyber attacks or assassinations against non-Israelis. So, I mean, all of this, you know, sleeper cells, people talk about potential terrorism, nothing, nothing. And then, then when the Americans are directly involved and launch attacks, including against Fordow, which is the crown jewel of Iran's nuclear capabilities, Iran's response, as you suggest, is purely performative.

It is purely for their own domestic popular consumption. And they launch a whole bunch of missiles at the Al Udeid base in Qutzer, which is the most well defended U.S. base in the entire region. FAD missile defense, Patriot missile defense, cuttary defensive capabilities, and US air defense destroyer capabilities right off the coast. And they tell the Americans through the cutteries in advance.

So it is very obvious that they are intending to do everything possible not to further escalate, not to risk American casualties. This is frankly, given the briefings that Trump had received over the course of the week as he was thinking about these strikes and how vulnerable US servicemen and women in Iraq were to Shia militias attacking, how vulnerable American servicemen and women in the base in Djibouti Would be to the Houthis launching short-range missiles just across the Red Sea Channel Trump was actually given a fair amount of pods about ordering these strikes

Because he was worried about Americans getting killed and didn't want a broader war He was also concerned that he might not be able to fully take out Fordot. That was the other thing that made him wait and gave him some concerns. Maybe I don't want to do this because, I mean, he was, there was a lot of back and forth internally with Trump and with his broad suite of advisors

on whether or not he wanted to do this. But the Iranians, again, to be clear, Scott, the Iranian response was as restrained as humanly imaginable, given what the United States and Israel over the course of the week had done. In terms of options on the table for Khomeini and his government, one, respond or create

chaos in the Straits of Hormuz. Two, overt aggressive acts against the United States, whether it's going after military installations in the region or illuminating terror cells, what have you. Or three, continuing to attack Israel. It strikes me that if they shut down the Straits of Hormuz, they're alienating the wrong people. They're being heavy handed with the wrong people. That would mostly hurt China and India. The US doesn't get that much oil through the Straits of Hormuz. Now, if it spiked oil, obviously we would feel that at the pump,

but it feels to me they'd be, they would be being heavy-handed with the wrong people. Two, it seems as if they're not looking to gin up or escalate with the United States. So isn't, isn't it likely that 90 plus percent of the ire or response will be focused on one place and one group of people, and that's Israel? I don't think of it exactly that way. I mean, first, I agree that it's very, very unlikely that they're going to hit the straights or the Americans going forward. And of course, if oil prices go up, I mean, yes, the Chinese are buying the oil, but I mean, oil is a global market.

And that could potentially bring the world into a one quarter recession, which is a problem. And certainly Trump, as you know, you've seen Trump saying, don't you dare write all caps, like don't fall into our enemy's hands, don't do that stuff. I mean, he's angry about that potential just as he was angry about the Israelis subverting the ceasefire earlier today. You know, the reason I don't think of it quite the way you framed it is because I'm not convinced that Iran will continue to have the same capacity to formulate

thoughtful restrained policy over the next six, 12 months that they have over the last month. If Iran starts getting desperate, if they can't communicate well, we saw with Hezbollah, the Israelis took out their ability to communicate. They scared the leadership, they decapitated the leadership. And so, I mean, Hezbollah was no longer able to formulate, you know, sort of strategic policy for the organization as a whole. What happens if that's true with Iran? I mean, you know, if they kill the supreme leader, which some Israelis in leadership have said they are inclined to do, though Trump would be very angry about it, at least as long as a ceasefire is in place. But beyond that, you know, with all the military leaders getting killed, you know, and not being able to effectively communicate, what happens if the command and control structure

in Iran starts to break down? What happens if we start to see rogue actions from smaller numbers of Iranian leaders? You know, that's a very different situation. That makes it much easier to pay off some Shia in Iraq to take pot shots on American bases and kill 10, 20, 50 American servicemen and women. Right. That makes it much easier to pay off and support a suicide bomber or five or 10, you know, in, in the Middle East or in Europe, or maybe even the United States, that makes it much easier to harass tankers, to blow up a couple that would cause a spike in oil prices. I mean, all of those things, I think, become more plausible as the Iranians get weaker and more vulnerable. And even though I don't see the Iranian regime collapsing I that's there's a very big different distance between

The regime is gone To the supreme leader together with a coherent military leadership for the IRGC are Able to sit down and figure out, okay, here's what we want to do to respond to Israel and the rest. That's my worry. It's more of a like pregosian kind of worry. Like what happens if some group inside Iran decides we got nothing to lose? Because desperation leads to very different kinds of decisions. Right now the Iranian leadership doesn't feel adequately desperate for me to be that worried about it, for the markets to be that worried about it.

I'm not confident that that will continue to be the case in three months time. We'll be right back. Support for the show comes from Indeed. Hiring is hard and slow, but Indeed helps make the process easy and fast. With Indeed Sponsored Jobs, you can stand out from the crowd and connect with the right person in record time. With Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster. And when you look at the numbers, they say it makes a big difference.

According to Indeed data, Sponsored Jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs. Their data also says that in the past minute alone, 23 hires were made on Indeed worldwide. There's no need to wait any longer. You can speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. And listeners of the show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com slash prop G. Just go to indeed.com slash prop G right now and support our show by saying you heard about indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash prop G. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring indeed is all you need. Support for the show comes from SoFi Small Business Lending. If you run a small business, you're probably dealing with cashflow, trying to find capital

for new opportunities, or thinking about other ways to expand. SoFi Small Business Lending Marketplace is your new best friend. No more chasing bankers or wasting time in a branch. SoFi's marketplace offers a fast digital solution in one single simple search. SoFi matches you with vetted providers for your business in just minutes. Search for quotes that meet your specific needs and you can find an option that works for you. You may receive funds as soon as the same day you're approved.

Say it's working capital you need or a line of credit or an SBA loan or equipment financing, SoFi's Marketplace can help you find all of the above. It's already helped thousands of small businesses find the funding they need. SoFi also offers business owners curated tools, vetted business bank accounts, business credit card recommendations, and a ton of resources to help you scale your business

like a boss. SoFi, now helping you get your business right. Visit sofi.com slash profgpod and see your options in minutes. We're back with more from Ian Bremmer. Let's talk a little bit about the Trump administration and their approach to this, our intelligence community. Let's talk a little bit about the Trump administration and their approach to this. Our intelligence community, it strikes me as inconsistent, sclerotic, and they can't

even support one another. They can't even get on the same page in terms of messaging. Tulsi Gabbard comes out and says, we have no evidence that they're enriching uranium. Trump says she's wrong. Secretaries Hec-Seth and Rubio claim we're not interested in regime change, and then he starts tweeting what feels like supportive tweets regarding regime change. I just want to acknowledge up front, I have a bias here. I'm not an enormous fan of the president, but it strikes me that we come across as inconsistent and that our intelligence community, it comes across as just very unprofessional.

And in the eyes of the world, while our military continues to be in my estimation, the most impressive competent organization in history, that our intelligence service in the way that the Trump administration acquits itself around communications here, that it comes across quite frankly as amateurish. Your thoughts?

In the tweets. I mean, you know, maybe if he knows he's not going to get a Nobel peace prize, he wants a Nobel for literature. I don't know, but it obviously doesn't, doesn't go over well internationally. It seems childish. It seems anti-diplomatic. Um, so, I mean, some of it is style as opposed to decisions and results. So, I mean, some of it is style as opposed to decisions and results. Some of it is the way he antagonizes individual allies.

I think those things are important. I think like you've got a great friend like Canada, you shouldn't be antagonizing them the way Trump has, even though he's done a better job with Carney than he did with Trudeau. Ditto, the Nordics, I mean, Denmark, the Green Greenland thing our top friends in the world and NATO I mean do everything we asked them to do. I mean, you know Afghanistan more people per capita They said than the Americans and you know, this is the way we treat them completely wrong, right? So that undermines us and a lot of the way that he handles the decisions around Iran Even if you agree with the decision

Is is problematic. But I will say a couple of things that should give you at least some comfort. So Trump doesn't like to read, right? He doesn't like reading long policy memos, but he's been receiving the president's daily brief consistently and frequently, much more than Biden did in his last year, much more. He likes his briefers. He feels like they're giving him good information that make him smarter when he's talking to

foreign leaders. He brings his briefers on Air Force One. Biden didn't do that. That's kind of interesting. He doesn't have a great relationship with Tulsi, but Tulsi's talking to Marco Rubio all the time, like, I mean, every day and sometimes more than that. And that has been helpful to ensure that, you know, sort of the intelligence is largely on the same page

with the conversations that Trump is having with principals, whether or not Tulsi's always in the room. I think that's been helpful. So it's not like Trump is having with principles, whether or not Tulsi's always in the room, I think that's been helpful. So it's not like Trump is rolling in without any understanding of what the better minds, with access to all of these military intelligence resources, know in half. The problem is that Trump is so driven by id.

He's so driven by personal grievance. He's so driven by his own confidence that his instincts are right. And he's not thinking about the second and third order consequences. And he doesn't have a lot of the policy experience or interest to get those things as right as he should. And he has some quite competent people around him. He has some that clearly aren't competent at all. And he's not relying on them enough to make decisions because he doesn't have, you know,

sort of favored individual advisors in that way. He has, you know, a constellation. He has a chorus of voices on every issue, which include advisors, and it includes the Mar-a-Lago crowd, it includes former personal employees, and people that text them, some of whom gave a lot of money to the campaign. And one of the amazing things about Trump

is that so many people have direct access to him. One of the most concerning things about Trump is that so many people have direct access to him. And some of those people like Laura Loomer, making policy decisions for who should and shouldn't be fired in the National Security Council, like that's insane, right? So there are real problems with having Trump making decisions the way he makes them

that are consequential for life and death, that are consequential for the global economy, that are consequential for the future of the American democracy. I think there are huge problems that you and I share in that regard. Now, I mean, I do my damnedest. I have my personal views,

but I also recognize, because my career is about understanding global politics, I understand that, you know, everyone has an opinion. It's not a big deal, but that's not, nobody cares really about what I like or what my bias is. What they care about is, on the basis of my experience, what my analysis is. And so in that regard, I probably come across a lot as more even handed and certainly much more willing to praise a Trump decision that I think is successful.

Even if I'm not particularly inclined to like the guy, because what I like, who cares what I like? Like, I mean, it just doesn't, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Well, you're trying to be a critical thinker. You advise big corporations and investors, try and bring this down to a very tactical level. If you're talking to,

if a large multinational corporation contacts, you raise your group and says, okay, how should we be thinking about the world and the winners and losers differently this week than last week? To the extent you can recognizing you don't have a crystal ball, how do you think this plays out? Who are the winners and losers to you politically? And are there firms or economies or shifts in the landscape that you see coming that weren't visible or apparent seven days ago? Well, there's the Iran question, there's the global question. The Iran question, there are very clear winners and losers. Israel, very clear winner.

The Gulf states, very clear winner. The Gulf states, very clear winners. And Trump gets a clear win here. And I think those things matter. Globally, we are still in a position of extraordinary uncertainty. And so much of that uncertainty is being driven by the most powerful country and by the president of the most powerful country.

And markets hate uncertainty. They like good policy. They can deal with bad policy. They hate uncertainty. And there is so much uncertainty on so many issues. There's fundamental uncertainty on how the Americans are going to handle illegal immigration in the US that has major consequences for lots of multinational corporations. There's fundamental uncertainty as to the nature of globalization and US trade

policy with tariffs that are now at 1940s levels and that with massive pushback from the courts that's going to last for months and months until the Supreme Court finally rules. And this is a very, very hard environment for companies to operate in. There's massive uncertainty around the relationship between the US and China, not just on trade, but also export controls and technology and critical minerals. I mean these are these are huge macro issues That affect almost every company in almost every sector and they are dealing with greater macro uncertainty Politically for their business then they have at any point since they've been running their businesses professionally That's the problem. So we've taken we've taken a significant amount of uncertainty out because of what's happened in the last

seven days in Iran. I think that people can have a fair amount of confidence that oil is going to be trading in a band between, broadly speaking, 45 and 75 for the coming year, because the market's going to be largely oversupplied with comparatively low demand and and that was absolutely not ex ante the presumption of a lot of major players until the last week so that's a big deal that's a big deal but none of the other uncertainty is off and in fact in some way you could even make the argument

that Trump now with this win is gonna feel more confident that he can do more in other areas. I wouldn't go that far. I think that these things are separate. And I think he thinks of trade separately than how he thinks of Iran. And Lord knows he thinks of Russia separately than how he thinks of Iran.

He can learn as he has successes and failures in different areas. But the uncertainty globally is still extraordinarily high. But implicit in that statement is that you think this was a good move because if you believe that the world is less risky today than it was seven days ago, that implies this was a good move. And when you use that band of 45 to 75, you believe that actually all prices are going to come down because of what are they now 70, 72. So it sounds to me like you feel this was a win that the world is a safer place. And I think it was, um, on balance.

Uh, we were in a better environment than we were a week ago. That does not mean that I think it was the optimal move. Remember, I think the tail risks of Iran's leadership being desperate and therefore doing catastrophic things have gone up. They were probably 2% before. Now they're 5 or 10. I don't like that. I think you could have gotten to this outcome with these oil price ranges if the Americans, after the Israelis had struck, had actually,

instead of jumping on board and taking out or trying to take out the three nuclear facilities if they had leaned into negotiations. I think that was a more optimal outcome with, with less tail risk and with a better long-term trajectory, but I ain't drunk and he's ultimately the guy making the decision and some of those decisions are being made for very personal reasons that I don't think are particularly appropriate in the President of the United States. So last question before we let you go, Ian. And I can't imagine how busy you are this week. So very much appreciate you coming on.

I know. But you know I love having our conversation, Scott. So likewise, brother. By the way, 12th time you've been on the show. So. Is it really? It is the 12th time, yes. So, we've all been very focused on this over the last week.

And my belief is that it's always the shit you're not focused on that gets you. Is there anything in the world right now because our focus has been diverted away from, because of what's happening in the Middle East, do you think is a bigger deal in not getting the attention it warrants? Oh, the China stuff is a bigger deal, and it's not getting the attention. It's getting much less attention. US-China relations, enormous mistrust, and not Taiwan, that's not near term, but the Americans making it harder for the Chinese,

making the Chinese feel like they're being contained in developing their technologies. The Chinese do everything possible to resist that, to find ways to skirt around it. Massive efforts to get more trade flows with other countries that have historically been more mistrustful of China than they are of the United States. That's playing out in Southeast Asia. It's playing out in India. It's playing out in South Korea. So particularly Asia, less so Europe, but Latin America too, and the global south. This stuff is very important and the Chinese are so capable technologically.

AI, they're much closer to the US than the Americans thought they were a year ago. The biotechnology and ability to develop new drugs and what they're doing with world-class hospitals and testing. You always thought 10, 20 years ago, you thought the Chinese were like essentially at least the second world country,

if not a third in some of those areas, now they're first in competing with the United States. Critical minerals, supply chain, and post-carbon energy, the Chinese are way ahead of the Americans. We see that playing out with the electric vehicle market, but it's happening everywhere. And so this is a really, really capable competitor at scale. And the United States is right now doing a lot of stuff that is not long-term in terms of policy. And that worries me a lot. And it is not getting anywhere near the attention it should be giving. Ian Bremmer is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, the world's leading political And that worries me a lot and it is not getting anywhere near the attention it should begin.

Ian Bremmer is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, the world's leading political risk research and consulting firm and GZERO Media, a company dedicated to providing intelligent and engaging coverage of international affairs. He is also the author of 11 books, including the New York Times bestsellers, Us vs. Them, The Failure of Globalism and The Power of Crisis, How Three Threats and Our Response Will Change the World. He joins us from Barcelona. And my producer just corrected me, Ian.

This is your 13th appearance on the pod. There's more appearances than books I have done and clearly that is the more important metric. There you go. More important metric. Get on it. You need to write a few more books. Oh, God, no. I need to do more Scott Convers important. There you go. More important metric. Get on it. You need to write a few more books. Oh God, no. I need to do more Scott conversations.

There you go. At the end of the day, what am I gonna get more value from? What's gonna make me happier? We're down with that. If I don't speak to you, I will hopefully, we'll break bread and have a drink sometime this summer,

but very much appreciate your time today. And I think this is a, when this is how much when this thing broke out one of the first thoughts I had was oh my gosh Ian must be Ian must be writing so much right now and in so demand and talking you must be working 19 hours a day right now. Sunday was rough man Sunday was rough there's no question today's a little bit easier, thank goodness. I feel like I've caught my breath, and pretty soon you and I will take some sun and we'll have some drinks, and hopefully a lot of this will be in the rear of your merit.

Let's hope so. All right, my brother, safe travels. Be good, sir. How's your roof happiness? One of the things I really I'm working on because I really don't like it about myself is I have a tendency. I hate complaining. I think one of the things about trying to be a man is you absorb more complaints than you complain. Right. I think that's a signal you're doing well. You people trust you enough and they're comfortable enough to complain to you. And but at the same time, you don't complain a lot. And I think that's one of the keys to being a man in a relationship.

And that is, you know, why do people want to be in relationships? Why do people want to be in romantic relationships? Do they want to have a partner? Do they want to have procreate? Do they want to have affection, sex, economic security? All of those. But I think as much or more, they want someone to notice their lives. They want someone to notice their lives. They want someone to witness their lives. It's like, whenever I travel alone, I inevitably get upgraded to some

fucking crazy suite in a hotel. But it's as if I didn't stay there. Cause if I don't have to share with someone, it just didn't happen. It doesn't matter. When I was younger and I didn't have a girlfriend or a serious relationship, I used to call my mom whenever anything good happened to me, cause I needed someone to witness my life. I needed someone,

and now it still feels like it doesn't happen sometimes, but you need people to register, you need people to notice, you need people to witness your life. And so I think to absorb complaints and witness people's lives means you're meaningful in their life. I oftentimes, I don't like this about myself,

feel sorry for myself. I manage to think, oh my God, I can't believe how many fucking podcasts I have to do. And I have to ramp up and be engaging and smart and try to be funny. And none of these people know how hard it is and da da da. And then I'm like, what the fuck am I doing complaining to myself like this or

complaining to other people? And I have this complaint volcano, this complaint inoculation, this complaint destroyer, whatever you want to call it. And it's a photograph. And it's a photo. I only own two pieces of art. One is a Grayson Perry called Map of the Politician. And this other piece, I call it art because I spent a shit ton of money on it, but it's a photograph. It's a photograph of Otto Frank. Otto Frank is the father of Anne Frank. He hid with his family in an attic in Amsterdam.

There's this photo of him when he returned to the attic where they were hiding out. It's this picture of this man in a suit, this older nondescript man in what is clearly an attic. And it's this black and white photograph. And literally all I need to do, literally all I need to do

when I'm feeling sorry for myself is I go to the stairway on my second floor where this photograph is, and I look, I force myself to look at that photo for 60 seconds, and I realized I have no fucking problems. I just realized how petty and stupid and quite frankly, unforgivable my self-wallowing complaints are. And I think everybody needs something that they can count on to give them

perspective such that they don't fall into the downward spiral of feeling sorry for themselves and to recognize that if you live in America, if you have people in your life that love you, if you have a job, if you have healthcare, if you're not under threat of persecution, if there's very unlikely you're going to be rounded up and separated from your family, that you are in the top 1% of people who lived in this planet in terms of your blessings. And that might be staring at your children when they're sleeping. I used to get a lot of comfort and gratitude and perspective when I would just walk into my boys' room and see them asleep when they were little. It might be spending time with someone else. It might be reading

history, whatever it is, try and identify the things that give you perspective or a thing and then force yourself to think about that thing, look at that thing, because you want out of that spiral. You want to recognize constantly how fortunate you are. What is that one thing? What is your photo of Otto Frank? What is that one thing? What is your photo of Otto Frank? This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez. Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the Proficy Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network.