Russia Mobilizes, UK Budget Flop, and Iranians Revolt

In this episode, we discuss the latest updates on the Russia-Ukraine war, in particular Russia’s mobilization of an additional 300,000 troops from a partial draft. Putin has also revived his nuclear weapons threats. We explain why we should take them seriously.

Britain has a new Prime Minister who has proposed a very controversial budget that combines tax cuts with increased government spending. We discuss this issue in the context of Britain’s long-term economic decline.

Finally, this week has seen widespread protests throughout Iran. We explain the cause and significance of these protests, as well as the latest status on a new nuclear deal with Iran.

Topics Discussed in this Episode

• Anita’s trip to the American Political Science Association (APSA) Conference
• Russian Mobilization and the Nuclear Threat - 07:00
• UK Budget and the Market’s Reaction - 27:00
• Iranian Protests and Nuclear Deal Update - 50:00

Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode

Russian Mobilization and the Nuclear Threat

• Putin’s Draft Draws Resistance in Russia’s Far-Flung Regions (NY Times)
• Memo to the President (The Atlantic Council)
• Escalation Management and Nuclear Employment in Russian Military Strategy (War on the Rocks)

UK Budget and the Market’s Reaction

• What kind of prime minister will Liz Truss be? (The Economist)
• Britain’s chancellor offers up a reckless budget, fiscally and politically (The Economist)
• Pound plummets to 37-year low as Kwarteng unveils ‘growth plan’ for UK economy (Independent)

Iranian Protests and Nuclear Deal Update

• What’s behind the protests in Iran? (WaPo)
• The Supreme Leader is Still Alive, but When he dies how will his succession play out? (The Atlantic Council)
• Let’s Be Honest About the Iran Nuclear Deal (Foreign Policy)

Follow Us

• Show Website: www.kelloggsglobalpolitics.com
• Show Twitter: @GlobalKellogg
• Show YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgJeUZcTUGsNwTh-us65cIA
• Anita’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/arkellogg
• Anita’s Website:https://www.anitakellogg.com/
• Anita’s email: anita@kelloggsglobalpolitics.com
• Ryan’s email: ryan@kelloggsglobalpolitics.com

Follow Us

• Show Website: www.kelloggsglobalpolitics.com
• Show Twitter: @GlobalKellogg
• Anita’s Twitter: @arkellogg
• Show YouTube

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics, a podcast on current events in US foreign policy and international affairs. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg, an international relation scholar specializing in the relationship between economics and national security. I'm here with my co-host, Ryan Kellogg, an expert in energy investment and policy.

Ryan Kellogg: I'm glad to be back. So, this is episode 19 and we're recording this on September 24th, 2022. 

Anita Kellogg: On this episode, we discuss the latest updates on the Russia Ukraine War. In particular, Russia's mobilization of an additional 300,000 troops from a partial draft. Putin has also revived his nuclear weapons threats.

We explain why we should take them seriously. Britain has a new Prime Minister who has proposed a very controversial budget that combines tax cuts with increased government spending. We discussed this issue in the context of Britain's long-term [00:01:00] economic decline. Finally, this week has seen widespread protests throughout Iran.

We explain the cause and significance of these protests, as well as the latest status on a new nuclear deal with Iran. But first, our attempt at banter 

Ryan Kellogg: Our attempt? So anyway, you got a lot this week. You just got back from Montreal for a political science conference, of the big one of the year.

Anita Kellogg: The ASPA brings all the political scientists together from the US 

Ryan Kellogg: Yep all the big wigs. So, what did you enjoy? What happened? What? What were the kind of takeaways for you? 

Anita Kellogg: As usual, there's always a lot of like new and exciting research that usually is in its early stages.

Hasn't come out yet, but I of stuck to the China geopolitical area this time. Talked a little bit the frustration on the hand of people doing some really good, interesting work. Looking at the internal dynamics of China's political [00:02:00] policies are really frustrated because they haven't been able to go to China and do any of that research for three years.

And the political climate doesn't seem promising. Even once Covid policies and China end. Whenever that distant future is. So, the frustration on losing our ability to gain insight on how political decisions are being made in China, how business decisions are being made, and even the political up and downs of particular fortunes of politicians in China.

So is that, but I also, I met a lot of interesting people who are doing different types of work and a couple of them I hope will be in our podcast in the future. And then there was Montreal itself, which is beautiful. Really surprised by how dominant French is. Like you almost never hear anyone speaking English.

Certainly not any of the local Canadians. [00:03:00] I think there's less English in public there than there is in Paris, which of course is for tourism reasons. But you couldn't help but feel like Quebec French is really political and many people know. Canada has two official languages, English and French. And Quebec though has wanted its independence, has voted several times almost to become independent from Canada.

Ryan Kellogg: It sounds like it was a great trip. I am a little disappointed. It sounded like from an outsider's perspective, the most dramatic thing that went on during the conference and that we actually covered in one of back episodes is the absolute roasting of, Mearsheimer. That was the big thing. He came, he's on this panel and basically everybody piled on against him. And I think, gosh, who is Drezner provided the Twitter blow by blow commentary on it. So yeah, I guess you didn't get involved. [00:04:00] You were too wrapped up in all the things that you're busy with.

Anita Kellogg: First of all, APSA, you have to understand is thousands. Tens of thousands, maybe. I can't remember the actual number, but it's a really high number political sign, so most of us could not be in that room now. I do regret not just seeing where Mearsheimer was on the ballot, on the sheet, and then going to see the controversy.

I'm sure that was already a very crowded room, but I saw Drezner doing it in real time as well. That's so my okay. No one was talking about it. Yeah, in the circles. I was like, it's not a surprise. Yeah, this is what entertains us or something. There's always these sorts of events usually with Marsh Heimer at the center.

Ryan Kellogg: Oh, okay. Okay. So, this isn't his first time. I thought this was a real big comeuppance of, following the Ukraine and, oh no. Oh, okay, this is, just an annual tradition

Anita Kellogg: I got the impression that it was surprised that the opening speaker was just like no holds barring, like just went after him.

Oh, yeah. [00:05:00] Yeah. So, I feel like maybe the demeanor of that was. Slightly new, but certainly hasn't, it's not new to have critiques of me Heimer to his face at an APSA conference. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay. I interpret it more as the kind of the cage match equivalent for political science conference and it would be the talk of the town.

But sounds like you guys are professionals and you're busy with other things. 

Anita Kellogg: It’s a really big conference. I only wish that the rest of it was that entertaining sometimes, but it's unfortunate. I think that he gets as much attention as he does though because it's easy fodder and is not really at the heart of what people are doing in the research.

So, I guess research sounds boring so he gets all the attention because it's easy to take shots at him and he must love it. I'm sure. Yeah, I just have a feeling that he loves being attacked and being able to attack right back and obviously we're used to it, so yeah, no, my experience is [00:06:00] more boring 

Ryan Kellogg: You're not immune from getting burnt by the fireworks too. You had some combative exchanges from some kind of rude audience members yourself.

Anita Kellogg: There's just this, every once in a while you have these senior scholars who just really like to talk down to people who are not as published as they are, and one of them went after me and was, did not seem to have as much knowledge about the topic as he seemed to think he had, but there's that too.

Yeah. You learn to have a thick skin in academia. People may not know that, but you get used to people 

Ryan Kellogg: Trying to oh, yeah, no, you guys are vicious. Yeah, I've heard the stories. 

Anita Kellogg: So, there's that, yeah. Now onto the story. So, I feel like our first story of the day should almost just be permanently called the Russia Ukraine update, because that's exactly, that's pretty much what we do on every episode.

Hopefully someday the war will be more resolved, and we don't have to do that. [00:07:00] But for the near term, it seems to be the case. So, there's a lot more activity recently, particularly when it comes to Russia's response to the Ukraine in counter offensive and its success. I'm going to just begin really quickly just with the fact that Putin has mobilized 300,000, re service, but not everybody seems to have actually had prior military service.

So, it's definitely a concession of how bad things are going in Ukraine and causing a lot of political upheaval within the country with what is essentially a draft. You want to take it from here? 

Ryan Kellogg: In the last episode we talked about this is a kind of a pretty clever feint by the Ukraine military, where all the focus around the world was on their, on the south, on Kherson, on positioning themselves for Crimea.

They still put significant forces there but end up [00:08:00] largely being a faint, hid this counter offensive in the north and is really extraordinary. The amount of territory that they captured within a 10-day period, 1200 square miles around the country's northeast. But essentially the shock of this and the fact that it really shattered the defensive lines of Russia, it really compromises their position in the Donbas region led to this response by Putin and I've even read it was an article on there, led some speculation that this was done after consultation with she to take this different tack. But I don't think there's any kind of real substance behind that. But the main thrust of it though is what you talked about, the mobilization of 300,000 reservist and the issuance of referendum for the four regions, which are going on currently.

Again, these are all staged referendums. Very similar structure as what happened with Crimea [00:09:00] in 2014, but they're currently being held in these territories to effectively annex these areas and for them to officially become part of Russian territory. And that's really done in order to raise the stakes so that Russia can declare that wealth.

Ukraine continues its attack; it's attacked directly on Russia. They of course, use that as a not so veiled threat to use nuclear weapons in response to such an attack, but from a more pragmatic point of view it also allows the Russian government to send in conscripts to these, because these are Russian territory, not Ukraine anymore.

So, under Russian law, they have a lot more flexibility what they can do with conscripts going forward within the military in terms of deployment, because even they're bound by the agreements that they've made. The other reason for mobilization was they actually had a number [00:10:00] of short-term contracts for their soldiers coming up, and they weren't going to be able to extend those or weren't going to re-up voluntarily.

But the partial mobilization basically puts an indefinite commitment to the people currently deployed. All in all, it's a real mark of desperation of the fact that I've seen estimates where essentially Russia's deployed 150,000 troops during this period, and over half of them are either killed in action or wounded, which is just extraordinary to have a 50% attrition rate at this stage.

But yeah, I mean I think obviously there's, everything's an estimate, but just judging by how quickly, those lines collapsed, and this latest offensive just points to that lack of manpower, lack of willingness to fight.

But I think either way it could be half of that and that would be brutal, devastating losses for any sort of military and obviously, triggered this [00:11:00] this need for mobilization. I think where a lot of people have been focused on is, back towards, the end game towards what's being signaled with the idea of annexing these territories and the nuclear threat being waved around.

Anita Kellogg: I wanted to talk about some of what's going on inside of Russia with the draft get these 300,000 people. So, you've seen some protests within Russia. You've seen a lot of people fleeing the borders to avoid being drafted. Some things that stuck out to me when I was reading the New York Times article that will be in the show notes was where a lot of the drafts are disproportionately coming from, which are these very rural areas.

Where a lot of the men are hunters and fishers and farming, so they're not really part of the industrial base. They're not in manufacturing. The part of having these communities, though, lose so many of their [00:12:00] men during this time is that people in Russia are going to starve as a result because they rely on them for food and for preparing for winter.

A lot of these areas are in very remote, cold areas of Russia. And so that relationship. But of course, you do this because these are the people with the least amount of political power. Even if you are being totally cruel and decimating these little cities and villages, they're still little and they don't have the political capital to raise, rise up against Putin.

That it's not surprising. But one of the slightly surprising things is the way that the proponents of the war inside Russia, and sometimes I think we forget, is not just Putin that is driving this war. There are a lot of pro war voices in Russia still, and they were happy with the draft, but they thought it was very chaotic and they felt like it was unfair.

Instead of acting with proportionality, only [00:13:00] selecting, very small number of men from different villages and areas, that you weren't having these villages who were. Seeing half and more of all their 18- to 60-year-olds.

Ryan Kellogg: No, I think it's a good point. And you saw the same thing shortly after the counter offensive, even on Russian State tv.

 Equivalent to the Five. People that are fully on Russian propaganda fully support the Putin regime, but very critical. Talk about the decision making, the fairness for the troops. Just, all these sorts of cracks being seen for maybe, they allow it to occur to have some sort of pressure valve release amongst even his supporters to prevent any sort of consolidation around an opposition. But yeah, I thought, that definitely stood out. The fact that you have full on supporters questioning this and then, and what, and another [00:14:00] article goes counter to what, when they rolled it out, they said, okay, this is going to be proportional to the population.

So naturally, Moscow, St. Petersburg are going to have more, more affected, more reservists called up. But what you've seen, at least how it's been rolled out so far is yeah, it's targeting these small, poorer, rural areas. They don't have political power. I think the other interesting thing is the number of people that are excluded.

Again, these are people that are relative elites, those students, people in critical, more powerful industries, it finance media, they're all excluded from being 

Anita Kellogg: called up as far as, and in a practical sense, there hasn't been really people being called out in any white-collar job. So those were very specific ones that Putin said were exempted.

But in general, you haven't seen really, at least it wasn't reported that white collar individuals’ jobs were being called up. And like I said, even when it comes to other kind of blue collar [00:15:00] labor if it's making widgets in a factory and stuff like that, so far you haven't seen that happen either.

So, I just think that's interesting to note. It is logical though, from like Putin's standpoint, because even though support in rural areas have been important to him, like I said, these are, you're not going to see massive riots, protest protests, Yeah, 

Ryan Kellogg: exactly. 

Anita Kellogg: And so, if you're concerned with your own survival, I think that's a very logical way to go.

The other thing that really jumped out at me is that the way Western countries are reacting to the Russians who are trying to flee Russia, and it is not with open arms, right?  So Finland essentially is closing its border to Russians, fleeing and won't accept Russian on tourist visas from any country, including other European countries.

And I think it was Latvia that is talked about not granting asylum or refugee status to any of those fleeing. And this comes on top [00:16:00] of like discussions already in the EU, talk about trying to ban all Russian tourists and I just thought that was interesting because some of the logic before, which I disagree with.

People were like we shouldn't let them still enjoy life if they're not going to remove Putin from office. And I think that's, It's not like a democracy. They can't just vote him out. But that was the logic people were talking about. And this though, I mean it's two Western countries benefit if men are fleeing and not wanting to partake in the army.

I don't understand why then we're saying we don't want these men to become part of Putin's army, the Russian army, but why then are we not giving them any place to stay? So that's how I feel about it. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, no, I think fully supported. But yeah, let's move on to the last part of this, which has been a lot of focus around, people in the US security area and we've [00:17:00] talked about before again coming up, are we sleepwalking into a nuclear war?

So, this is really driven by the fact that Putin made veiled threats saying, hey, continue along this path. These territories are now part of Russia. You attack us. Then we'll use tactical nuclear weapons in response. And that's always been the fear because if the Russian military behaves similarly, that we saw in this counter offensive and collapses in the south, if Crimea is threatened which is the crown jewel of Putin's legacy, then will that result in a full-on nuclear attack in order to, basically part of the Russian nuclear policy is to escalate, to deescalate. So, this be seen as the theme in order to have the west back off and for Ukraine's support to collapse

Anita Kellogg: I think what's notable here is even if Putin hadn't made that specific threat, I [00:18:00] think that we should still be talking about this issue because this mobilization is notable because of the fact that.

When Putin's on his back foot, he's not winning and he's not willing to negotiate, try to find a way out of this in negotiations. So, he's here's my chips on the table, I'm going all in. I'm going to win this offensive and I'm going to use everything that I can. So that's what gets, makes it dangerous because what happens, yes.

If they aren't winning and if the losses seem to be mounting up, it's hard to see how Putin remains political power and nuclear weapons. That's the very last attempts to maintain power and win. And it's always, it's the most logical reason why somebody would use nuclear weapons. And what's significant here is there's been so much discussion.

We don't want to get into a [00:19:00] nuclear war. if we get directly involved in the conflict because Putin uses, a tactical nuclear weapon. These are weapons that are smaller, so they don't cause the kind of damage that we saw in Hiroshima and but are more localized. But okay, so does the US want to get in the war then and does that lead to a larger nuclear war?

But one of the things that Biden has been emphasizing and is certainly something that arms control and nuclear experts have been, is breaking the taboo of u first use of a nuclear weapon, no matter how small it is likely to have horrible consequences on the whole going forward future of conflict and nuclear weapons.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, definitely. And I think it's landing on, what should that response be? And I know the US it's been reported I think by the Washington Post, that over the last month, the US and its back channels to Russia have been signaling in a kind of vague way. There'd be severe consequences of any use of nuclear [00:20:00] weapons.

But it was interesting because the Atlantic Council put out a much more explicit sort of strategy and recommendation on the different options that the US could take. And ultimately, I think what it landed on, it varied from essentially a conventional strike, targeting specifically the units that launched the nuclear weapon, which would become the weakest response.

The response that they landed on was more official US NATO involvement directly in the war on a conventional level. And then the most severe response, obviously, is the retaliatory strike, but then landing on what would be an appropriate target within Russia. Then when it lead to an escalatory situation.

Ryan Kellogg: And they didn't they thought it should be like a mix of that one. Oh, and also essentially the idea would be then it would be much more likely [00:21:00] that you could ramp up the sanctions to a global level that India and China would turn against Russia at that point. 

Anita Kellogg: I think there is more possibility of that. I don't know that the sanctions as in economically harming the economy really matter as much as to Putin as much as the perception of loss. I think the optimistic thing though is there are also reports of secret talks between the United States and Russia about this nuclear issue.

And so, I think we have every reason to believe that the US has settled on something specific. We certainly hope it has like a specific response telling Russia, this is what we are going to do if you do this. Yeah, very. We need a very clear signal. I don't know why we don't necessarily make that public, but there can always be lots of different reasons why you have your diplomacy more secret instead of public declarations, particularly on something as sensitive.

But I think a lot of people want this reassurance that the US [00:22:00] has decided on a particular action and that Russia knows that would be the reaction. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, because I think, and I think one of the things that was bandied about is this difference in yield between the two weapons. So, the tactical nu, which you mentioned much less powerful than the Hiroshima Nagasaki, which itself isn't very big versus of what's the makeup of NATO's Arsenal.

And that just because. If the US has to respond with a nuclear weapon that is by its nature escalatory, because it's a bigger, more destructive weapon, that's a deterrence because us and NA would deter itself because they don't want to get into that escalatory ramp up. So, the idea is that without that clear communication, without that very explicit, this is the consequences of you doing X, that Russia could interpret as well, you're going to self-censor anyway.

So, this is a viable path to go forward with [00:23:00] this lower yield right weapon. Targeted for, specifically on Ukrainian forces or Ukrainian city. 

Anita Kellogg: Yes. I guess you could think that although I was reading something that was saying that it's false that the US and NATO don't have smaller nuclear weapons.

Ryan Kellogg: And I think they do. Yeah. And that was the other contradiction. They have much fewer of them, but they still have hundreds of these tactical nuclear weapons. 

Anita Kellogg: There's a lot of people who are just, who are experts in something, but suddenly have become experts on Russia and China, even though they're not necessarily familiar. 

Ryan Kellogg: Hey man, maybe they were around Mar-a Lago and just in the basement or reading too.

Anita Kellogg: It could be, could have been there for real, considering that some of the paid bills were by other countries.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, [00:24:00] just chilling there. Eating a Big Mac with Trump. 

Anita Kellogg: However, those, the Washington people would rather speak without knowledge than pay the huge membership fee.

Ryan Kellogg: That's true. What is that? A hundred thousand. Yeah, but that's, we have 200,000 now. 

Anita Kellogg: I know you. Yeah, it went up. Yeah. But that's what's kind crazy because anyone from any country can pay that fee and could have found those papers. 

Ryan Kellogg: Oh yeah.

Anita Kellogg: I think a lot of people speak from a position of not having direct knowledge of how the US is talking about it and going about it. We're just, we're speculating with less knowledge than Russia has, but it's still something that it's important for people to see. This is a real threat. It does have to be taken seriously, and unfortunately that seems to be the case.

Yep. Exactly. Onto our next topic. While most people have been focusing on the Queen [00:25:00] Elizabeth's death, there's been a lot going on with a new prime minister and very recently released a new budget that has stirred up a lot of controversy, so why didn't you take over Ryan? 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so we wanted to do feature on this just because the UK is obviously going through a rough time on top of a series of other rough times where, because frankly the last 10, 15 years they've been on a downward trend compared to the Blair and Gordon Brown, or even early David Cameron years. They've lagged behind in terms of productivity, even relative to France, their former mortal enemy and Germany. 

Anita Kellogg: I guess you have to say that Brexit, some of the frustrations that led to Brexit came out of this, but it's only sped up the economic problems.

Ryan Kellogg: Definitely. Yeah, definitely this. [00:26:00] Dissatisfaction falling behind the continental peers and then essentially blaming, the EU and its oppressive regulatory structure and all the things, holding back British greatness and being able to, reclaim the glory, the freewheeling trading empire of your, and all the lies that basically were told around Brexit, including, all the threats against the NHS that the eu, so their beloved healthcare national healthcare program.

So, all of this culminated in, David Cameron making the now famously strategic blunder of offering up for popular referendum, the Brexit vote, and then every crank and far right nutball who would later become. Kind of a precursor to the Trumpian movement led to this very populist driven, low voter turnout and narrow approval of exiting the European Union. [00:27:00] 

All of this took a long time to execute and basically have fractured at least two conservative governments. Now, during this whole time, the Tories have been power, but they've gone through now four prime ministers during the last 10, 12 years, and they were eventually able to exit. But the place that the UK is in, following Brexit, following.

Already before that, the general decline in productivity and growth following Covid, and now on top of it, the impacts of the Russia, Ukraine, war, and the inflationary spiral, particularly around energy that's happening. It's a dire time. So, 70% of British believe the country is in decline, and that includes 60% of conservatives of Tori.

So, an extraordinarily high number for the party that's in power, which is very pessimistic about the direction that the government is going. Now, of course, the last Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, ultimately [00:28:00] undone, despite his charisma, inability to slip out of things. It was really this combination of party gate where essentially; they were called out during Covid for holding this kind of raucous parties and Downing Street with the majority of the members of his government involved.

Anita Kellogg: And this was going on while he was having, strict mask policies 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. yeah. It was like Gavin Newsom's oh my gosh, experience at the French restaurant, but on steroids. 

Anita Kellogg: Those two things are so incomparable. It's ridiculous. It's the hypocrisy of it. Okay, but going to eat at a restaurant is nowhere near hosting government parties. At the government fights, right? Yeah. I It's not like they were offsite having a party, like they were like, oh, we're going to have a government party at this hotel or whatever. Now someone goes to private business and has dinner or at a wedding or something like that.

Ryan Kellogg: Oh yeah. It's ridiculous. Yeah. Sorry. Nevertheless, along kind of similar veins but amped up and [00:29:00] then, there were other scandals involved including, one of his own ministers. I think, oh no, the chief deputy whip was involved in sexual harassment, so you defended them and basically all of this dysfunction, all of these dramas led to his own ministers resigning at unprecedented pace that ultimately led to his downfall.

And interestingly, reading this, and the reason the conservatives have been such a successful political party historically, is the fact they're willing to boot their unpopular leaders prior to a general election. So that's how they preserve, I 

Anita Kellogg: Thought it was because labor is really incompetent.

Ryan Kellogg: 

That too. Lately that's been the story.  I'm pretty sure. I'm not sure that extends historically, but during at least the modern period. But anyway, so it's this willingness to pivot midway through an administration. Kick out the current leader and then, hold this electorate of party [00:30:00] leaders who elect a new head of government and then a new direction to go in.

So, the conservatives carried this out. Liz Truss won the support and barely, I think the lowest level of any of the recent four that have gone through that process of the select prior to general election. But what's interesting about her is she is the. Most dedicated in a while to a kind of a smaller government.

That right tradition. And I wrote down in my notes that she's the Alex P. Keaton of Prime Ministers. And for those I didn't, 

Anita Kellogg: that was supposed to be my joke that Oh really? I'm stole. 

Ryan Kellogg: Sorry. Go ahead. 

Anita Kellogg: Tell you. No, it's okay. I don’t know if that was a joke. I was just going to comment that was like the funniest line I've seen in a long time.

Ryan Kellogg: 

Oh yeah. It stood out. 

Anita Kellogg: oh, just when I was reading about it, her, one of the things that was appealing to people about her is her optimism. Like even though most these people see their [00:31:00] country in decline, believe it, in decline, they want a leader here comes across as optimistic.

And every time I've seen her, not much, but I have seen her, and she does just get, give off that air. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And what I mean was that why, because I know you commented before, you know you weren't seeing the Thatcher. I don't associate Thatcher with the sunny personality. The 

Anita Kellogg: reason why No. Oh, okay.

Wasn't with that spending. Because we're going to talk about the tax cuts in the budget. But she increased spending too. She didn't decrease any government spending. 

Ryan Kellogg: That's true. Yeah. Because she's up against it. She's up against the wall. 

Anita Kellogg: So, feels more like today's Republicans who, yeah, they had a great big tax cut too, that they didn't pay for and didn't cut government either.

Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: And that's the whole Yeah. And I know the small government, think the small government is essentially you are starving the. It's fine if you keep spinning. That was, but you're my whole ideas you build. Yeah. That's what Reagan did. You build the idea of creating the small government [00:32:00] is that you create such large deficits that the interest because of the payment forces you to eventually, 

Anita Kellogg: but the small government, the government would cutting the government not just tax 

Ryan Kellogg: cuts.

No. How do tax cuts, because you forced the market forces the government to shrink in size permanently because it's only paying interest payments by the, it's a back, it's a backhanded way. No, or backdoor way. Yeah. No, this is accepted. This is why nobody had an issue with Reagan's big deficits during the eighties.

One was the idea of yeah, supply side economics and trickle down and you'll just grow your weight. That's which is what Truss. But the other side of it, and the reason that Grover Norquist and others are willing to go along with it is if you cut the revenue to the government enough eventually will have such unsustainable debts that the market will force it to have discipline and change in size 

Anita Kellogg: Or it allows you not have to make unpopular decisions.

Because everybody loves tax cuts, and everybody loves continued government spending. So, you get to [00:33:00] have your cake and eat it. 

Ryan Kellogg: short term, and then you're forced by the market to make unpopular decisions and be like, I'm sorry we just 

Anita Kellogg: I believe you want a smaller government when you cut the government.

Ryan Kellogg: I think she's ultimately constrained. What's interesting about her position, because we're jumping ahead a little bit, is the fact that. Her own policies are in contradiction to at least the last two or three prime ministers within her own party. So, everybody, including what we saw with Trump and what you alluded to, there's no small government republicanism anymore. There's just the big spending, big government. They've embraced the state. It's just different elements of the state and the government. They 

Anita Kellogg: that they our government, but they don't. They say, they still say it. Like I still hear my parents say it.

Ryan Kellogg: your parents say they barely even Yeah, that's, yeah. What our parents say. But leadership, but the tax has given up Tax. Tax. Okay. So, they've given up, talk about deficits. They've given up, talk on all of that. They're not even pretending they grow their way out. It's, they don't care anymore.

Because they noticed not, it's not a vote winning issue. 

Anita Kellogg: So [00:34:00] they didn't associate the tax cuts with smaller government? No, they did back in the day. I'm saying, but they don't now back prior to, they 

Ryan Kellogg: didn't during Trump. Oh, during, yeah. No. Trump was the full right. Big government. That was the emergence of big government.

But that didn't exist before Trump.  

Anita Kellogg: But I don't see now in this new era that tax cuts equate to smaller government. 

Ryan Kellogg: No. This is retro. This is going back to Reagan. That, and I'm saying she does not Thatcher, but it goes back to Reagan. I think that's why it's used to describe 

Anita Kellogg: them a differently, the policy has moved on past then.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, exactly. And you can, that's why the markets reacted the way that they 

Anita Kellogg: So, we had to talk about the budget. Do you want to go straight to that?

Ryan Kellogg: Let's go straight to that

Anita Kellogg: All right so this is why we're talking. This actually happened a few weeks ago, and one of the things when I was following the election a little bit, I guess that's what you call it, is that she had bigger promises.

She made bigger promises than the other candidate. And one of the critiques is how is she going to pay for it? And apparently, she decided that they were going to just have [00:35:00] more barring to pay for it. Which sounds like the current Republican party. 

Ryan Kellogg: The idea and theory supply side is that by cutting taxes, you're going to unleash all the animal spirits of the free market and of growth.

That's why they target in particular. So how the budget breaks down is first, there's the basically political necessity you spend in 65 billion over the next six months to protect consumers from high energy bills. So that's increased spending. Increased spending, boom. You're doing that, but here are the, that's the temporary measure, but then the permanent measures are okay.

For the middle class, the average, Joe Schmo working in the UK, they get a 1% tax cut. So, income tax goes from 20% to 19%, but for the big earners, The people working in the city in finance tax cut from 45% to 40%. I assume this is all graduated marginal taxes like the US system. But I don't know that for a fact.

And then they also ended the cap on banker bonuses. I don't know why the government's exactly [00:36:00] involved in this in the first place, but I could see why a free marketer would want to remove any sort of caps. And I get also the driver, the city. So, their Wall Street has been bleeding out jobs since Brexit.

They've been losing jobs to the continent. Cause they're not, that's cause of Brexit. So can you keep more of those offices if you don't constrain 

Anita Kellogg: the bonuses? Not when it's no longer makes sense to be the global financial capital. People, we've been saying this before Brexit.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. But I feel like this is a measure in order to try to keep those funds well 

Anita Kellogg: and their bankers in there. The resulting decrease in currency valuation then also than undercuts keeping more bankers in London. 

Ryan Kellogg: Certainly not getting paid in pounds. Yeah, you're right. They're definitely taking pay cuts if they travel abroad and go outside, let alone, yeah.

Any, 

Anita Kellogg: I think it seriously undercuts 

Ryan Kellogg: any of that. So probably a desperate measure. And then keeping the corporate tax rate, essentially, they had planned, because they currently have the lowest corporate tax rate and the G 20 at 19%, there were plans from Boris [00:37:00] Johnson's government to increase it to 25%, but they basically have scrapped that as well.

So, you have all the spending and then you have a loss of revenue. So, when this was all announced by the new chancellor, it was just, it landed like a ton of bricks, in the market. Huge collapse and the exchange rate to the point where it looks like the pound and the dollar will have parody for the first time since I think the 1970s when they were going through so many economic issues and the yield on all of their bonds have shot up a lot because again, there's this concern that the British, I could be able to pay, service their debt.

Anita Kellogg: Yes, they're doing a lot of extra borrowing because of Right. Both their, the sort of what we call like a trade deficit, but also in terms of the, then their fiscal deficit where the government is spending more than it's taking in. Yep. She does seem to buy into some of the trickledown economics that all our problems are going to be [00:38:00] solved because we're it's also focused on growth.

Yeah. But that has been disproven. It was just funny to read the Economist just be so like livid about all these things because the economist is the economist to say, really, this is reckless. Isn't really, it's conservative. They are so critical of Democrat spending in the US and everything and, oh, where did I put this down?

And they were just like livid about these tax cuts and the increased budget deficit. One thing we didn't talk about is the inflationary pressure, right, so you cut taxes that only adds more money to the. and the problem then is that it creates greater inflation, right? You don't want to focus on G D P growth during, when you have such high inflation and inflation's even worse of a problem in the UK than it is in the US.

Ryan Kellogg: are we're on the continent. It's a good 4% above like us 

Anita Kellogg: Frances, right? So, they have a very serious inflation. So, then you increase money into the economy, which then people buy more stuff and that [00:39:00] increases prices. And the price that, the whole idea is that wages aren't keeping up with, that, you're losing power purchasing.

It's really the, one of the absolute things you do not want to do in inflation to counter inflation is what the US is doing. And why I say we risk a recession because it's hard to get it right. You are actually decreasing growth because you're de you want decreasing spending, so you get prices under control, right?

Yeah. And then you focus on economic growth. Yeah. But the US has had tremendous economic growth during this inflationary period, right? It's been pretty good. 

Ryan Kellogg: We are in a recession we've had, had two quarters of negative that's why I lost my bet. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean. Yeah. Okay. Yep. True. Coming out covid and that's what caused inflation. Yeah. Part of the problem of inflation. Every, all this inflation has been, but particularly in Europe, a lot of it has come from energy prices.

So, the C is [00:40:00] look, you got this is some kind of ideology, but this is not empirical. You guys are denying evidence. You're denying reality of how this actually works. So, you're going to make inflation worse when you decrease the value of your currency. That also makes inflation worse because now it's costs more to buy overseas items.

So, you're going to continuously see rising prices for anything that's imported into the country. Which is usually a significant, which 

Ryan Kellogg: is pretty significant for the UK. Yeah, in terms of what they're importing in. So, it on top of, whatever damage is done by Brexit, because most of this is going to be imports from the EU.

Anita Kellogg: So, this could do really serious harm to an economy that's already struggling. 

Ryan Kellogg: But on the positive side, great time for an American tourist to go to the UK. 

Anita Kellogg: I was telling you before I went to APSA, was at this talk and he was talking about British attitudes on China and how they changed, how quickly they changed.

But before he got to the talk, he was like looking at us and he's [00:41:00] like, why are you all not in the UK right now? And he was like, it's so cheap now. Like you guys should all be there buying up stuff. So, and of course, which 

Ryan Kellogg: I guess that could help the economy. So too, a small sector of it, could benefit from increased tourism coming in, taking advantage of a cheap pound and whatever.

British exports are going to be a lot more affordable, so those industries will benefit 

Anita Kellogg: but that doesn't help your problems of inflation. You just don't do this when you have inflationary pressure. Yeah. All these things may look different in a different light if you are just like struggling economic growth and you didn't have inflation, but inflation.

That's why it's so tricky to deal with. And one thing why you have, you almost always have recessions coming out of interest rate increases is because the whole point is to slow down spending. Yeah. You don't increase spending when you have inflation. Yeah. 

Ryan Kellogg: Just overall this is just bizarre.

One, the [00:42:00] contradictions within the own party, in terms of policy, and then two, to be so ideologically fixed that you pursue a policy that could have all of these potential damaging impacts. I don't know if part of it the timeframe is is the fact that they don't have to face a general election till 2025, which I was surprised by.

I still don't understand the timing of all of these systems. And then of course, they can call an election early if they think the timing is favorable to the party. 

Anita Kellogg: It's not going to be favorable before 2025, so I,

Ryan Kellogg: I don't think there's Yeah, but they have a long runway, so maybe you can be reckless 

Anita Kellogg: and

What I don't understand is the chancellor, chancellor, the one who controls the budget, who propose this, he has a PhD in economics. This defies. I just want to say like someone put it in our head that you just focus on G D P growth numbers and that tells you everything about an economy, which every economist will tell you it does not.

And you can have high G d P growth without, with [00:43:00] having really negative consequences. It's definitely not the measure of economic success or how well your economy is doing. It can be, but it's not solely and some, but someone has just got it into her head that's the economy. If it's going well, the economy is doing well, like that's it.

There are no other considerations, inflation or any other problem. But the person in charge of the budget has the PhD in 

Ryan Kellogg: economics a chance. Yeah, and I've read some articles, I can't recall all the details, but the impression is that yeah, he is pretty unorthodox. He's the most educated chancellor since Gordon Brown, but yeah, he is unorthodox and not consistent and sweating.

I guess 

Anita Kellogg: that means just getting a PhD in a subject doesn't mean that you are actually. 

Ryan Kellogg: Shocking. 

Anita Kellogg: Yes. I know. Sometimes we do equate it. I'm like, what? But I guess they're definitely people who get PhDs and subjects and then are not very smart about them. But it's just the economist is this is crazy.

Reckless and [00:44:00] crazy. And you are gambling, not even gambling. You are pursuing a policy that all evidence says is going to be a disaster. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So, it's a mystery. It'll be interesting to see how markets behave. If that continues in that direction, if that, forces them into a course correction.

Any sort of 

Anita Kellogg: signals, what kind of course correction. It's really hard to take back in tax you this 

Ryan Kellogg: policy. Yeah. You, I know this is who has ever done that? Yeah. Okay now my mind's getting a little blown. All this policy, does it require a vote? I get the heck they have majority within parliament, but can she just dictate.

Is that the way, is that the way this works, they can dictate budgetary policy directly without further approval from the Parliament? 

Anita Kellogg: If it went to vote, they would have the votes. 

Ryan Kellogg: Would they? We already talked about the splits within the party and institution, like the economists calling it reckless.

I can't think that they would have the votes within their own party. I don't know. 

Anita Kellogg: The Economist made it sound like it was a Sure, yeah. That's why I'm 

Ryan Kellogg: thinking that they have much greater power in leeway since it is a legislative body that [00:45:00] they're ahead of, we're 

Anita Kellogg: talking about because we don't know anything about parliamentary.

Ryan Kellogg: We’re just ignorant. Somebody can at us, but I mean they, budgetary policy, but obviously, yeah, would be embarrassing to change back policy after two weeks getting hammered in the market. But if it creates a condition of a currency crisis where some other sort of pending crisis, maybe it takes six months of this in a reversal.

Anita Kellogg: But I did see Why am I blanking on his name? 

Ryan Kellogg: No but Larry Summers did come out and basically said the UK is like a developing country.  

Anita Kellogg: That was a stupid article. I think Larry Summers just says things to get attention because he just said 

Ryan Kellogg: that he's on he's on top of the world.

Anita Kellogg: Because he called, I know he called inflation. So, Paul Krugman was tweeting about, he didn't see how this could possibly lead to a currency crisis. And then he went in detail and explained it, but basically, okay. No, that's interesting. Yeah. So, he thought that was a mistake

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. So, the whole, oh the UK is going to need [00:46:00] to get Bill billed out by the I M F. Not going to happen. So that was ridiculous.

Anita Kellogg: Okay. So, I would not worry about it to that extent, but it will create, oh, I mean I would expect that you'd see an increase in the inflation rate and other perpetuating.

Yeah. So, I've just never heard of a government, not up to the technical details. I'll have to look this up now cause now I'm curious, but I don't Nova government that reversed its own policies. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. The same party person, its own policy. 

Anita Kellogg: Right. Which is the whole, they'd have to vote, I think to reverse these.

They would have to; she would have to lose power. 

Ryan Kellogg: it could happen the way that things have been going. It could happen. It could, but it seems, 

Anita Kellogg: yeah. So, I guess we'll see.

Ryan Kellogg: see. We'll keep it up. Update on runway, the January, 

Anita Kellogg: 2025. Yes. Best fascinating use that is we're going to go onto our final topic, which is the protests that have broken out all around Iran.

These are the most significant protests, at least since 2019, although some have said since 2009, they've been [00:47:00] very widespread. They erupted after a 22-year-old woman was found dead in the custody of the morality police. And she had been arrested because she was showing some hair violating the full, wearing proper of the hijab mandate that Iran has, I think, and they're not unique, have this police that go around and if you're hijab is the most controversial in Iran, but you know your skirt length and things like this.

Ryan Kellogg: Only police, like alcohol usage and other things that go against 

Anita Kellogg: Islamic law. And I remember weeding a memoir like 20 years ago, and it's well known. I think that the morality police can be very abusive. And so anyway, so her deaths sparked all this outrage and has led to these larger protests.

Of course, the kindling has been there for many different reasons. So, one, I think. The context to this that I hadn't known previously is, During the previous president, the more [00:48:00] moderate Rohini, he'd actually discouraged the morality piece from enforcing the rules on his job. So, it's always been a popular act among young people to show a little bit of hair, right?

That's a little rebellion that young people tend to. In fact, one of the notable things as protest as many are across the world, being led by Generation Z and very, this is definitely by the young people, led by young people, young women. So, the current president has taken a much more hard-line position.

This was interesting when I read it, is that he seems to understand about the discontent that this would create and had in the election process suggested he would end patrolling women's attire. So, it's interesting that he ended up taking a more hard-line position.

And then this was just echoed by the complaints over the years, the corruption in [00:49:00] government, the mismanagement of the economy, which of course is being hit really hard by US sanctions inept handling a covid and widespread political repression. And I think there's a lot to talk about here, but one really important aspect of this is that it's not primarily about religion.

So, it might sound like it is, it might sound like, oh, this is rebelling against the interpretation of Islam. But in fact, even. People who strongly support the strict interpretation of Islam do not in majority support this type of mandatory hijab wearing. So, it's not even really about the religious discourse, it's about the politics over and control over women's bodies and you see this sort of then resonate with other people in the country who feel oppressed by the government.

But on Twitter I, which I just browse every once in a while, but it was just interesting to see this [00:50:00] discussion and how it was linked to the politics, the United States, about the abortion ban. And again, So there's a stupid debate. I always think sometimes it gets, I do admit that people go over the top on political correctness, or I refuse to call it woke.

I just hate that term so much I refuse. But for some reason there was some controversy about white women supporting the protests and Iran, but counterargument to them was that they were complicit in allowing these abortion bans the government to control women's bodies in this way. I don't know how those are mutually exclusive things, but somehow, I don't know.

That was just a discourse that I saw some, but people were also talking about it in the context of women fighting to wear the hijab in France. So, I just think this, and the French politics are very confusing because you can't wear like a Catholic cross in public. It is understandable why people feel something that's core of their [00:51:00] identity anyway.

It's a complicated battle in France, but just the politics of control over women and it's a scary type of control, right? When you allow the government to have a say in what you wear and how you wear it and or your medical condition, right? People being afraid to abort babies when the women's life is endangered, but she's not at risk of death and doctors not knowing how that interpretation

I think it should continue to prompt this conversation. Of course, that's already going on, but it's certainly definitely related to that discourse. One thing I thought was interesting is there was like a lot of coverage in the papers about it, but when I went to look at my podcast to see any of the international news on it, outside of US perspective, I didn't find anything.

I found a brief story in the Global News podcast, which is similar to the BBC. It's a British, there really was not a lot of discussion about this and I found that. I was just [00:52:00] curious. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I think it’s probably people waiting to see is this a real movement? And I think every, everything that you said, another thing that stood out was, this woman, 22-year-old woman, she was from ethnic minority.

She's Kurd. And Kurds have always been framed by the Iranian government as they are in the Iraqi government and Syrian government as these rebellious rousers that can't be trusted. So, the fact that you had such wide scale support, because these protests are occurring in 50 different cities throughout Iran.

And then to your point, it's not just women, it's other people that have felt, oppressed or it's about this political abusive power. So, I don't know if that this lack of coverage is either because there's a lot of things going on in the world, or if we're just so beat down since the air of spring.

That 

Anita Kellogg: be, so that's what I think. That's what I wrote down Spring. Spring effect or, and then didn't say it. Yeah. Is a part of me thinks that we've seen Yeah. That we're just, [00:53:00] these things squashed, the airs springing. Yeah. Had no positive outcome. Yeah. In the long term. Yeah. Yeah. The last government that had turned Democratic now has an authoritarian.

So, I think there's that. I think there is a sense, oh, these protests never go anywhere. And so, I think there's some debate over how significant, but I do think they tell us a lot about what is going on in Iranian society and the kind of turmoil that point that they're at to the current president.

I think he's only been in term for a couple of years, and his power base being the IOA being very ill, so they're, going to be replaced soon. Yeah. And the politics of who is going to replace him. Of course. Ah. See, I don't know how to say his name is one candidate and I forget the other candidate, but I think his last name is also Kini.

So, there's a lot of politics at play. In one of the articles, I think this was maybe in Foreign Policy, that the suggestion that government have to give on this in terms of having more power, power over a society. Iran has definitely had a lot more [00:54:00] crackdown since 2019, and that's part of leading to oppression, the sense of oppression.

 That people are rebelling against, considering that this is not, this is this type of policy that has varying degrees of enforcement since 1979 when it went into effect, that it might be something good for the government to give in on doing so in a way that saves face is pretty easy because then you just have to de-emphasize, Enforcement of it.

But because, but the thing is he's not, if you want to succeed the Alito, maybe this is not the best moment in being lax on the morality release. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And it certainly hasn't been the direction they've gone. I think what, 36 people are dead, because of the government backlash.

And I know they've brought in people more conservatives from the countryside and rural areas as counter protestors. 

Anita Kellogg: Also, the fact is that you're seeing these in more rural areas. So yeah. Cause this is widespread. It's not just, yeah. And, and part of the understanding from what I've read [00:55:00] in books and such, that a lot of, especially the more elite class before 1979, were very secular.

, right? Yeah. And so, in some sense, the attention over the job is certainly something that's been. Present in society since it was mandated to be wearing it. And that's why it's also been as simple of rebellion for young women and such. There's obviously a lot of, okay, so it's the rural areas that were more religious and that have been the power base and the support of the religious elites in the country. So, I think there's just a lot of fact that even the very religious people do not approve of the morality. Police being so strict is telling, but while we talk about that, it seems natural to talk about the Iran nuclear deal or the lack of it. And this is kept popping up on the radar.

I will see occasionally tweet by, I follow all these arms control people and stuff that, oh, we're very close to a deal. And then it never happens. And then I see tweets like, [00:56:00] oh, the window is closed for a deal. The consequences of which seem really bad, but it's worth asking. And something that.

We've alluded to what is the current state of a deal, and apparently this is topical now because Iran on Thursday said it saw no point in reviving the 2015 nuclear Pact without guarantees for two things that the US would not withdraw again, and that the UN inspectors closed probes, Tehran’s Tomic program on some unexplained traces of uranium found at three UN declared sites in Iran.

That's been going on for years. So, the problem is Biden has no authority and cannot possibly say that the next president will uphold the terms of any agreement. It's also pretty ridiculous to say that, oh one, the US doesn't, or Europe doesn't control the IAEA, which is a UN program, but also, they're not going to say, oh, stop this investigation.

So, they're asking these final two points are things that. that [00:57:00] there's really no way of satisfying. So that's why Europe and Biden have said, really the ball is in Tehran's court because they're the only ones you know who can make this final decision. The problem has always been, and everyone's always known in trying to negotiate this, is that there's never going to be a way to guarantee, it hurts us credibility, not just on a nuclear deal, but on a whole range of, any agreement that the US tries to secure in the future.

The thing I thought was interesting is this is more of a political agreement or understanding and it's not a binding treaty, international treaty. And so that's what, if you broke a treaty like that, then that would be a violation of international law. So that's how people like Trump got away with just breaking in 2015.

And 

Ryan Kellogg: correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't a treaty require senate approval? Also. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: This is also why it's not, right? Yeah. Yeah. Trump, when he left the 2015 agreement, his [00:58:00] idea was that maximum economic pressure would collapse the nuclear regime, the ability to be able to progress but instead, Iran did the opposite and rapidly progressed its program and increasing the knowledge it has of building nuclear weapons. It's going to this process where they need much less enrichment material, which makes it faster. And as well as they have increased their stockpiles of uranium enrichment and other aspects that were postponed, that would've held back Iran's program for at least 15 years.

So now when you try to have an agreement, you already have. that as the present situation where they're much more advanced right than they were in 2015, and you can't really turn back the clock on that. I thought it was interesting that this article, and this was foreign policy and I didn't see a source for it, [00:59:00] but it was saying by the end of 2022 I ran would be a de facto threshold nuclear state, meaning that it would have the key ingredients in the technology to make a nuclear weapon without confirming that it has indeed made a nuclear weapon.

So, it's not the greatest deal. It's slightly worse than the one in 2015. So why should anyone support it? Because it goes back to the opposite is always the worst, right? The opposite is that you have Iran with nuclear weapons, and why do you want a bad actor already having nuclear weapons? I love this statement because this really captures my feelings, is that this is the foreign policy article.

It is at its very best an instrumental set of arrangements, perhaps analogous to an arms control accord, to constrain Iran's nuclear program in order to both prevent an Israel Iran competition that would trigger a regional war and make the US military strike against [01:00:00] Iran unnecessary. So basically, we're trying a two-for, we're trying to avoid a war between Israel and Iran, which would make the US a party too, right?

Yep. 

Ryan Kellogg: So that's, yeah, that's what it's always come down to, 

Anita Kellogg: right? We are trying to do this, if the any agreement can prevent that from happening, then you have to pursue that agreement, right? So that's why it's important. But without being able to guarantee any changes, I don't know 

Ryan Kellogg: The likelihood of that coming to fruition, which means sometimes down the line, probably in the next five years, There's the very high likelihood of a military confrontation. Yes. Which is terrible because nobody as will settle for them being a nuclear power.  

Anita Kellogg: Basically, yes. So, Israel, Iran, we've just talked about all the reasons why Israel will not tolerate it, and then if Israel won't tolerate it, then the United States definitely gets involved. [01:01:00] And you have this incredibly scary, destabilizing war. Everyone is still praying that somehow, that somehow this deal works out that eventually we can get to deal, even if it's only by some sort of miracle, because it's too scary to think about the alternative. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Surely Iran sees that unless they really think that they can continue the program or get enough of a stockpile to.

before a military strike on them. But surely, it's better in the regime's interest to go along this path, get economic relief 

Anita Kellogg: in some way. But if it's not temporary last time the relief was temporary. Yeah. Yeah. It's the 

Ryan Kellogg: permanence of it. It doesn't, it goes back down to the permanence and what promises that you ask to make, 

Anita Kellogg: it doesn't help your economy if you get are great because of Trump.

Yeah. So, if now they're promising you, oh you have a relief of sanctions for at least two years. That's not a, that's not a really, that's a long-term solution. Yeah. That's not going to really substantially help your, that's a good point. And this idea is [01:02:00] that they already have enough material, and they have the know-how.

It's just that they haven't actually made a weapon. Yeah. They 

Ryan Kellogg: have to go through the process of testing it too, right? I mean, It's the arrival stage, they've successfully tested 

Anita Kellogg: a nuclear weapon. But it's not so much that Israel can prevent them from having either the knowledge or the material to make a bomb at this point.

Ryan Kellogg: I think the idea would be to wipe out existing stockpiles of the material. That's what you're targeting in these facilities, right? 

Anita Kellogg: Get rid of the entire stockpile. I'm sure it's not just sitting in one place, 

Ryan Kellogg: I don’t know, I don't know. But I do feel like Israeli intelligence is pretty good in that arena.

I'm so different. But yeah it, it definitely leads to full on military 

Anita Kellogg: conflict, which I just cannot imagine how bad that would be. It's as scary as the thought of Russia using a nuclear weapon. 

Ryan Kellogg: The, I think the idea, to be fair, it's not equivalent because they, Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons in this scenario.

Iran at best would have a small handful [01:03:00] less than North Korea has. North Korea is like 20 now, 

Anita Kellogg: I guess you're right. But it would be another war in the Middle East if we were us. But not on the scale of Iraq. It would be 

Ryan Kellogg: No. Pretty much bigger. Yeah. Yeah. Be full on regional war. 

Anita Kellogg: Iraq messed up the whole region.

Previous things had messed up the region. Iraq, yeah. Created a huge mess. A war with Iran. Power vacuum. Yeah. Allowing for ISIS. Yeah. And all kinds of, so a war with Iran, you just would have a multiple multitude of effects from what we've seen in Iraq, Iran is real fun. Energy markets too.

isn't much bigger, wealthy, 

Ryan Kellogg: no real fun inflation. 

Anita Kellogg: So, anything needs to be done to avoid that because that would be very bad. Unfortunately, politically, people don't seem to understand. There's, I think one of the reasons why I'm critical, I think Republicans sometimes think that, oh, it would be very easy for Israel to take out the military capacity, and there'd be no further consequences.

I think, 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah, it is highly risky and to act I think [01:04:00] any sort of conventional fight between conventional forces that Iran will get destroyed. don't think they have a chance, but I don't think they would fight that. It would be a, they would stick with asymmetrical warfare and if it is limited to a strike, and then how effect, there's just a lot of questions around it, but I think there is, yeah, probably greater confidence than warranted and being able to do essentially what Israel did with Iraq and the eighties and just eliminate the think of a program.

Anita Kellogg: There's no way it would work. That simply wouldn't think so perception that it, it would, yeah. Yeah. There's just no way. I wouldn't think so. No. Yeah. Did you have any other comments? 

Ryan Kellogg: I think that's an episode. 

Anita Kellogg: I think that brings us to the end of this episode of Kellogg's Global Politics.

You can visit our website at www.kelloggsglobalpolitics.com and follow us on Twitter @GlobalKellogg or me @arkellog, 

Ryan Kellogg: and you can reach us by email. So anita@kelloggsglobalpolitics.com and myself, [01:05:00] ryan@kelloggsglobalpolitics.com. And as always, please see the show notes for all the articles we discussed in this episode and leave a rating and review on your favorite podcast provider.

Anita Kellogg: Thanks everyone. Thanks. Bye.