Speaker 1: Live on Sky News.
Speaker 2: This is Sharry Good evening Donald Trump's triumph at NATO
Speaker 2: as the Albanezy government left out in the cold. Shadow
Speaker 2: Defense Minister Angus Taylor will join me live to reveal
Speaker 2: how much he thinks we should be spending on our
Speaker 2: military Wall Street is scrambling after socialist influencer ma'm darney
Speaker 2: won the Democratic primary in New York. I'll discuss the
Speaker 2: fallout with John Lee and Howard Melbourne's street sweeper won
Speaker 2: a landmark case after he was sacked for objecting to
Speaker 2: the Welcome to Country, Plus the mysterious case of the
Speaker 2: missing Supreme Leader. Where is Iran's Iotola Kamani hiding. I'll
Speaker 2: speak with human rights lawyer Arsenalstrowsky later on the show,
Speaker 2: but first tonight, Donald Trump has wrapped up a successful
Speaker 2: whirlwind visit to NATO. And while the world is talking
Speaker 2: about the NATO gen or secretary calling him daddy, and
Speaker 2: we'll get to that in a moment. The substance of
Speaker 2: the meeting was deeply significant. It was a broad commitment
Speaker 2: from Europeans to lift defense spending to five percent of GDP,
Speaker 2: such as the precarious position of global security that NATO
Speaker 2: has reached this commitment. Zelenski's presence at NATO in a
Speaker 2: suit no less underscored the grave threat that the access
Speaker 2: of evil poses to democracy, and the talks took place
Speaker 2: in the shadow of America joining Israel to destroy Iran's
Speaker 2: nuclear sites. The lesson is that peace cannot be taken
Speaker 2: for granted. Protecting our sovereignty and guarding against aggressive enemies
Speaker 2: takes work. It takes a rigorous defense of our values
Speaker 2: and ensuring we invest in our military. NATO agreeing to
Speaker 2: increase defense spending to five percent under Article five the
Speaker 2: Collective Defense Treaty was a watershed moment.
Speaker 3: I've been asking them to go up to five percent
Speaker 3: for a number of years and they're going up to
Speaker 3: five percent. That's a big from two percent, and a
Speaker 3: lot of people didn't even prepare the two percent, So
Speaker 3: I think it's going to be a very big news.
Speaker 3: NATO is going to become very strong with US.
Speaker 4: NATAL leaders agreed on the the Hague Defense Investment Plan
Speaker 4: and this will fuel a quantum leap in our collective defense.
Speaker 2: Now, while Australia isn't part of NATO, we are on
Speaker 2: the front line of an aggressive China and the expectation
Speaker 2: is that Albin Ezy should be pulling his weight as well.
Speaker 2: It's only Australia and Spain failing to get on board
Speaker 2: with a serious commitment to defense. And listen to how
Speaker 2: Trump threatened Spain if it doesn't come to the table.
Speaker 5: Of course, you know on a Spain.
Speaker 2: Are you satisfied with today?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 6: I think Spain's terrible what they've done.
Speaker 2: No, I do.
Speaker 6: They're the only country that won't pay the full up.
Speaker 6: They want to stay at two percent. I think it's terrible.
Speaker 6: And you know, they're doing very well. The economy is
Speaker 6: very well, and that economy could be blown right out
Speaker 6: of the water with something bad happening. You know, Spain
Speaker 6: is the only country that are you from Spain? Good congratulations.
Speaker 6: You're the only country that is not paying. I don't
Speaker 6: know what the problem is, it's I think it's too bad.
Speaker 2: So we'll make it up.
Speaker 6: You know what we're going to do. We're negotiating with
Speaker 6: Spain on a trade deal. We're going to make them
Speaker 6: pay twice as much. And I'm actually serious about that.
Speaker 2: And like Spain, Australia also only spans two percent of
Speaker 2: our GDP on defense, so This would likely be how
Speaker 2: Trump speaks to alban Easy if he ever bothers to
Speaker 2: meet with him. Now, at the very same time that
Speaker 2: the NATO summit was taking place in the Netherlands, Treasurer
Speaker 2: Jim Chalmers once again ruled out increase to defense spending.
Speaker 7: We are actually already very substantially increasing our investment in defense.
Speaker 7: We've found room in tight budgets for an extra eleven
Speaker 7: billion dollars over the forward estimates and around fifty seven
Speaker 7: and a half billion dollars over the course of the
Speaker 7: next decade.
Speaker 2: And Defense Minister Richard Miles, who actually was at NATO
Speaker 2: and yet he would only promise to assess and review
Speaker 2: Australia's needs going forward.
Speaker 8: We've gone through our own process of assessing our strategic landscape,
Speaker 8: assessing the threats that exist there and the kind of
Speaker 8: defense force we need to build in order to meet
Speaker 8: those threats, to meet the strategic moment, and will continue
Speaker 8: to assess what our needs are going forward.
Speaker 2: A whole lot of waffle and no firm commitments there now.
Speaker 2: The Albanezy government insists it needs to be aligned with
Speaker 2: international partners when it comes to climb change and foreign policy.
Speaker 2: It's a point Albanezi has made over and over to
Speaker 2: justify the rush to renewables.
Speaker 9: Both Australia and Canada also share views about climate change.
Speaker 9: Focus on going forward, including meeting our net zero targets,
Speaker 9: how we can collaborate on the net zero transition. Our
Speaker 9: national interest lies with continuing to take action on climate change,
Speaker 9: including through international accords.
Speaker 2: So apparently being aligned with the international community is vital
Speaker 2: when it comes to climate action, but apparently not for
Speaker 2: defense spending. And this at a time when several international
Speaker 2: leaders now admit they're unlikely to meet their net zero targets.
Speaker 2: It's embarrassing how Australia is so completely out of step
Speaker 2: on defense. We're investing just two percent of GDP while
Speaker 2: Europe is now at five percent. And by the way,
Speaker 2: the five percent is comprised of three and a half
Speaker 2: percent on defense and an extra one and a half
Speaker 2: percent on defense related infrastructure. And this is all within
Speaker 2: ten years. The Trump administration has only asked for our
Speaker 2: commitment to lift to three and a half percent, not five.
Speaker 2: This should be an easily achievable commitment for Australia, especially
Speaker 2: over a ten year period, Yet the Prime Minister refuses
Speaker 2: to do this all while wasting billions of dollars paying
Speaker 2: off student hex debt, on the exploding NDIS, and sending
Speaker 2: millions to Gaza. Alban Ezy's refusal to increase our defense
Speaker 2: budget is stubborn, and we're already seeing the consequences of
Speaker 2: being at odds with the international community. The President counseled
Speaker 2: his meeting with Albenzi with an no phone call to
Speaker 2: compensate like he had with other world leaders, and the
Speaker 2: United States didn't inform Australia before the strikes against Iran
Speaker 2: despite our role in the Five Eyes community. Albanesi's left
Speaker 2: wing ideology and refusal to increase defense spending means that
Speaker 2: we now could even risk losing orcus now. Albinizi already
Speaker 2: had a reputation internationally for his center left woke government,
Speaker 2: but now his reputation is sliding into irrelevance. He was
Speaker 2: too scared to attend NATO and risk being left out
Speaker 2: in the cold by Trump on a second occasion, and
Speaker 2: that's what would have happened. But this is all self
Speaker 2: inflicted and it's a direct result of the hostile foreign
Speaker 2: policy he and Petti Wong have pursued to Australia's own detriment.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: I've been making this point for a long time now
Speaker 2: that even the Biden administration was disappointed in Albanesi and
Speaker 2: Wong's foreign policy. But now the sequences of this government's
Speaker 2: actions are so obvious that they can't be ignored. Former
Speaker 2: Labor State Secretary Cameron Milner, our regular guest. He wrote
Speaker 2: in The Nightly this week that Australia, under Wong and
Speaker 2: Albanezi continually wants to pick our enemies over our allies.
Speaker 2: He says Albanese and his government are now a serious
Speaker 2: threat to Orcus and our role as a trusted partner
Speaker 2: of world superpowers. And The Australian's Foreign editor Greg Sheridan
Speaker 2: put it well when he wrote that it's difficult to
Speaker 2: think of a time when Australia has been so inconsequential,
Speaker 2: so powerless, so much without influence, so incapable of affecting
Speaker 2: its own destiny or anyone else's, as we have become
Speaker 2: under the Albanesi government. And Sheridan writes that it's just
Speaker 2: as well Alberzi didn't go to NATO. He says, imagine
Speaker 2: trying to get an appointment with Trump so you can
Speaker 2: whine about tariffs while all this is happening, And what
Speaker 2: about the embarrassment that NATO now wants member states to
Speaker 2: spend three and a half percent of GDP on defense
Speaker 2: while we can't spend a pitiful two percent, He says,
Speaker 2: nobody's saying could argue that the Albanese government is responding
Speaker 2: effectively to the strategic challenges we face. So, while the
Speaker 2: frosty relationship between Australia and the United States continues, it's
Speaker 2: a new dawn for the Europeans and the president. The
Speaker 2: NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutter has been fawning over Trump,
Speaker 2: with the President publishing the private text message he sent
Speaker 2: him before the summit, and in it Mark said, you
Speaker 2: are flying into another big success in the Hague this evening.
Speaker 2: It was not easy, but we've got them all signed
Speaker 2: onto five percent. Donald, you have driven us to a
Speaker 2: really important moment for American and Europe and the world.
Speaker 2: You will achieve something no American president in debat could
Speaker 2: get done. Europe is going to pay in a big
Speaker 2: way as they should, and it will be your win.
Speaker 2: And that's very true. No other president, as much as
Speaker 2: they tried, could get this sort of five percent commitment
Speaker 2: to defense at NATO. Now, unsurprisingly, Trump loved that message
Speaker 2: private message, and he shared it on truth social This
Speaker 2: seems to be becoming a trend, Trump sharing private correspondence publicly.
Speaker 2: We presume he didn't ask for permission. Then, as we
Speaker 2: saw last night, Mark was equally taken with Trump at
Speaker 2: the NATO press conference. He's a Dutch politician. He's been
Speaker 2: in the role that NATO since last October. He seems
Speaker 2: quite eccentric and fun and everybody has been captivated by
Speaker 2: the moment. He described Trump as daddy.
Speaker 3: They've got a big fight, like two kids at a
Speaker 3: school yard. You know, they fight like hell, you can't
Speaker 3: stop them.
Speaker 10: Let him fight for about two three minutes.
Speaker 6: Then it's easy to staff up.
Speaker 4: And then Debby has sometimes do strong language.
Speaker 2: It was a joke, of course, but it's unusual language
Speaker 2: for senior diplomat and the situation became even more surreal
Speaker 2: when the President was asked about the comment at the
Speaker 2: official NATO press conference. Mark Britter, the NATO chief, who
Speaker 2: is your friend? He called you daddy earlier? Do you
Speaker 2: regard your NATO allies as kind of children?
Speaker 4: No, he likes me.
Speaker 2: I think he likes me.
Speaker 10: If he doesn't, I'll let you know.
Speaker 2: I'll come back and I'll hit him hard. Okay, he did,
Speaker 2: he did it.
Speaker 6: Very affectionate.
Speaker 11: Daddy, here, my daddy.
Speaker 2: That was a lighthearted moment during a pretty long forty
Speaker 2: five minute press conference where Trump took questions from dozens
Speaker 2: of international journalists, and he had an emotional moment with
Speaker 2: BBC Ukraine correspondent Marislava Petza.
Speaker 11: BBC News Ukrainian.
Speaker 6: Where are you from.
Speaker 2: I'm from Ukraine.
Speaker 11: So my question to you is whether or not the
Speaker 11: US is ready to sell anti air missile systems Patriot
Speaker 11: to Ukraine. We know that Russia has been pound in
Speaker 11: Ukraine really heavily. Right now, you're living yourself now and
Speaker 11: you my husband is there and I.
Speaker 6: Can see you very you know, it's amazing.
Speaker 11: And me with the kids. I'm in also actually because
Speaker 11: he wanted me to be.
Speaker 6: Your husband, the soldier.
Speaker 2: Now he's there now.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Well that's rough stuff, right, that's tough, and you're
Speaker 6: living here and you're a reporter.
Speaker 2: I am good.
Speaker 6: So let me just tell you. They do want to
Speaker 6: have the anti missile missiles, okay, as they call them,
Speaker 6: the Patriots, and we're going to see if we can
Speaker 6: make some available.
Speaker 2: Isn't that amazing that Trump actually took the time to
Speaker 2: ask about her husband and her family, where she lives,
Speaker 2: in her job. He showed empathy and curiosity, and it
Speaker 2: was genuine, seemed genuine. It's rare for a politician to
Speaker 2: do that, to be genuinely interested in other people, not
Speaker 2: just themselves. It was a beautiful and heartwarming interaction. And
Speaker 2: so it was that NATO survived Trump. The war in
Speaker 2: Iran is over for the meantime, and Albinizi wakes up
Speaker 2: to a new reality where Trump isn't a villain of
Speaker 2: the international community and it's Albanezi who's the one shunned
Speaker 2: and out of favor. All right, big show coming up,
Speaker 2: But now let's bring in shadow Defense Minister Angus Taylor, Angus,
Speaker 2: thank you very much for your time. Now, if you
Speaker 2: were the defense minister, would you agree to lift our
Speaker 2: defense spend to three and a half percent of GDP
Speaker 2: within ten years?
Speaker 12: Well, Shari, thanks for having me, and we absolutely need
Speaker 12: to increase our defense expenditure, and of course during the
Speaker 12: election campaign we're now going to at least three percent
Speaker 12: and we've recommitted to that, and we need to do
Speaker 12: that because we're living in a dangerous and uncertain time
Speaker 12: where authoritarian regimes are flexing their muscles, whether it's in Russia,
Speaker 12: whether it's Iran directly attacking Israel or through proxies of course,
Speaker 12: or whether it's the military build up from the Chinese
Speaker 12: Communist Party, and all of these things mean, in the
Speaker 12: words of the Prime Minister Shari, that we are facing
Speaker 12: the most uncertain time since Second World War and we
Speaker 12: need to take appropriate action. Two percent of GDP is
Speaker 12: simply not enough. The government's Zone Defense Strategic Review is
Speaker 12: not properly funded. We need to make sure our submarines
Speaker 12: are properly funded. We need to manufacture missiles here in Australia.
Speaker 12: We need to have investment in drone and anti drone
Speaker 12: technology in the northern facilities that are so crucial at
Speaker 12: this time in our p part of the world. All
Speaker 12: of this needs investment. It's not getting the investment it deserves,
Speaker 12: and that's why we need to increase defense spending.
Speaker 2: So you just said they're three percent, Pete hagseth Out
Speaker 2: the Shangrilai Dialogue put forward a figure of three and
Speaker 2: a half percent. Is that something that you agree that
Speaker 2: we do need to commit to and just remembering this
Speaker 2: is a ten year window.
Speaker 12: Well, of course three is a lot closer to three
Speaker 12: and a half than two is. And the real problem
Speaker 12: we've got to the moment is we're just way short
Speaker 12: of the mark Shari. There's no question about that for
Speaker 12: what we need to do. And as I say, the
Speaker 12: government's own plan is not properly funded. So I mean
Speaker 12: it's there and very clear that there needs to be
Speaker 12: significant additional funding, and it's because we are facing this
Speaker 12: uncertain time and the places that need the investment are
Speaker 12: pretty clear. What's also clear is we need to make
Speaker 12: sure that every dollar is invested well, Shari, and I
Speaker 12: don't think all of the money invested into historically has
Speaker 12: been invested as well as it needs to be, and
Speaker 12: that's got to be a part of the focus as well.
Speaker 2: I mean, we've seen war played out in real time Russia,
Speaker 2: Ukraine as well in Iran, and we don't have the
Speaker 2: sort of anywhere near the sort of military equipment that
Speaker 2: is being used routinely, drones being the most mean and
Speaker 2: relatively inexpensive, we just don't have that capability automated drones.
Speaker 12: Yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right. I mean the drones is
Speaker 12: a good example, and counter drone technology, of course, we're
Speaker 12: seeing extraordinary advances on that in the Ukraine War. We
Speaker 12: also saw it from Israel with extraordinary use of technology
Speaker 12: by Israel in Iran very effective, and we've got to
Speaker 12: learn from this. We've got to move much faster, we've
Speaker 12: got to be way more agile, we've got to focus
Speaker 12: on delivery, not just retric and we've got to make
Speaker 12: sure that we are ultimately in control of our own
Speaker 12: sovereignty shari A line. This are incredibly important. They are
Speaker 12: unbelievably important. But you get good alliances because you're focused
Speaker 12: on your own sovereignty and that means we've got to
Speaker 12: manufacture our own missiles, for instance. So this is incredibly
Speaker 12: important at a time like now, and it needs to
Speaker 12: be a sharp focused for the government, and it.
Speaker 2: Isn't Sadly, do you think Albanzi is trashing our alliance
Speaker 2: with the United States, Well.
Speaker 12: I think it's in real trouble. I mean, it's clear
Speaker 12: this review of Orcas is proceeding at a time when
Speaker 12: we haven't even managed to get a meeting between the
Speaker 12: Prime Minister and the President. He seems more willing to
Speaker 12: get a meeting with the president of China than the
Speaker 12: president of the United States. And yet this is our
Speaker 12: key strategic ally, the United States, of course, So look
Speaker 12: that prime minister needs to get his gear together, that
Speaker 12: it needs to get focused on the right things here
Speaker 12: and most importantly needs to get a meeting with the
Speaker 12: president and needs to get defense spending up.
Speaker 2: Indeed, and in fact, you know, Albanesi could have a
Speaker 2: fourth meeting with Chinese President Hijinping before he even has
Speaker 2: his first one with Trump, who won the election in
Speaker 2: November nearly eight months ago. It's extraordinary. Now Albanize failed
Speaker 2: to come out and support America's strikes on Iran's nuclear
Speaker 2: facilities on Sunday. Should he have done this straightway in
Speaker 2: support of.
Speaker 12: Our ally, Yes, absolutely, I mean this was the right
Speaker 12: thing for the United States to do. Israel was entirely
Speaker 12: entitled to take action against Iran because there's an ongoing
Speaker 12: existential threat for Israel created by Iran, and not just
Speaker 12: through direct attacks but through proxies of course over a
Speaker 12: long period of time. And so it was well within
Speaker 12: the rights of Israel to do what it did, and
Speaker 12: absolutely appropriate for the United States to support it, and
Speaker 12: I think the United States has played a very deft
Speaker 12: hand in the approach it's taken on this. So yes, Albanize,
Speaker 12: he should have supported he didn't mean. What worries me here,
Speaker 12: Shari is that there seems to be an anti US
Speaker 12: alliance sentiment coming from Albanesi and others in the government,
Speaker 12: and I think that is very dangerous At a time
Speaker 12: like this, these autocratic regimes are flexing their muscles. Democracies
Speaker 12: and open societies like ours need to band together, and
Speaker 12: we need to work together, and that's the only way
Speaker 12: we're going to make sure that we're safe in a
Speaker 12: difficult time.
Speaker 2: Absolutely so refreshing to hear some common sense there now.
Speaker 2: Just on another topic, there's been debate about quotas today.
Speaker 2: Susan Lee has said she's open to them. You have
Speaker 2: said you don't support them. But the key point is
Speaker 2: having more women in politics, and there are now fewer
Speaker 2: women in Shadow Cabinet under Susan Lee than there were
Speaker 2: under Peter Dutton. Were you, Angus Taylor shocked to see
Speaker 2: your colleagues Jane Hume, Sarah Henderson just sent it ow
Speaker 2: bagmper Price and Claire Chandler dumped from Shadow cabinet.
Speaker 12: Well, of course, that's an extraordinary group of very capable
Speaker 12: women who I worked very closely with in the last
Speaker 12: term of government, in many cases before that last term
Speaker 12: of parliament sorry, and in many cases before that when
Speaker 12: we were in government as well. And yeah, it was
Speaker 12: disappointing not to see them in the cabinet. I am
Speaker 12: confident they will all play an important role in public
Speaker 12: life in the coming months and years, and we need
Speaker 12: more women like them, Shari and I certainly hope and
Speaker 12: encourage all of them and others to get on with it,
Speaker 12: because we need women exactly like them.
Speaker 2: You'd have them back if you became leader in the future.
Speaker 12: I'm not going to speculate on that. My focus is
Speaker 12: on defense and becoming the Defense minister, that's the goal.
Speaker 12: But what I would say is there an extraordinary group
Speaker 12: of very capable women and we need more like them.
Speaker 2: Indeed, all right, Angus Taylor, I really appreciate your time tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Don't you wish the actual Defense
Speaker 2: minister spoke like that? What we hear from miles and
Speaker 2: is not even the worst of them. Pennywong and Alban Easy,
Speaker 2: It's extraordinary. This is our government. Now. Victorian Liberals have
Speaker 2: launched an eleventh hour legal bid this afternoon to block
Speaker 2: the one point five to five million dollar loan they
Speaker 2: lent to former leader John Persuto to pay off his
Speaker 2: debts to Moridemi, but clearly the movers divided the party.
Speaker 2: Former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett defended pursuito and the loan,
Speaker 2: writing in The Australian Today that settling the case quickly
Speaker 2: was in the party's best interests to resolve and put
Speaker 2: this matter behind them in order to deliver on their
Speaker 2: primary function, which is to be an effective opposition. Well,
Speaker 2: I'd say their primary function is to try and win government.
Speaker 2: If they can do that, if they can get their
Speaker 2: act together. Let's bring in tonight's panel WA Liberal leader
Speaker 2: Basil Zemplus and Stein New's host Taylor Bond. Welcome to
Speaker 2: you both. Now, Basil, the legal bill obviously needs to
Speaker 2: be paid. The question is whether the Liberals should be
Speaker 2: footing the bill for John Pursuto when it's very unlikely
Speaker 2: they would have done this if it had been my
Speaker 2: redeeming's debt.
Speaker 10: What do you think possibly, yes, and then I accept
Speaker 10: that point of view. What we do know is is
Speaker 10: that more redeeming is owed an amount of money. She
Speaker 10: should be paid that amount of money in full, as
Speaker 10: it has been ruled by the courts. What's also then
Speaker 10: important is that a by election is avoided. That's very
Speaker 10: important for the Liberal Party in Victoria. And then, as
Speaker 10: we've just heard, and as we've heard you phrase it
Speaker 10: in a slightly different way, the Victorian opposition should get
Speaker 10: on with its job of holding the Labor government to
Speaker 10: account and trying to win the next election. They are
Speaker 10: the three priorities and those three things should happen, and
Speaker 10: happen as quickly as possible.
Speaker 2: I mean, Caleb, every time we think this matter is over,
Speaker 2: there's another step. Now there's this challenge to the Liberal
Speaker 2: Party lending of loaning John Persuto the money. What do
Speaker 2: you think should happen here?
Speaker 1: Well, artfully dodged the Abasil, well done, and moving from
Speaker 1: their journalism to politics, you've fitted in really well set
Speaker 1: more complicated than the Liberal partner.
Speaker 2: I guess cayleb.
Speaker 1: Basil can take it, because I'll be feeling for you
Speaker 1: next week.
Speaker 2: I'll give it to it. And I should say that
Speaker 2: normally Matt canavans here, but he's got a busted tire,
Speaker 2: he said, a photograph of the tire to prove it.
Speaker 2: So it's not an execution. We're likely to have Caleb
Speaker 2: on the desk tonight. That's already.
Speaker 1: It's friendly fire, which we enjoy him.
Speaker 2: But it's a little more.
Speaker 1: Complicated than Jeff Kennett made it sound in his column
Speaker 1: today in The Australian, because he's essentially saying it should
Speaker 1: be the same as if you're a minister of the
Speaker 1: Crown and you come into some legal trouble that would
Speaker 1: be covered by the public, of course, the taxpayer. And
Speaker 1: he's saying that Pursuto was doing his job in the
Speaker 1: course of his duties as an office bearer in the
Speaker 1: Liberal Party, and so the Liberal Party should indemnify him,
Speaker 1: except for the fact that my redeeming offered to settle
Speaker 1: this matter, and it was Pursuito himself who elected not
Speaker 1: to settle and to carry this on eventually to court,
Speaker 1: So that wasn't a decision of the Liberal Party. If
Speaker 1: he was being indemnified by the Liberal Party, the party
Speaker 1: should have been given the option to pay to settle
Speaker 1: all the way, all the way back then before all
Speaker 1: of this happened. The reason the Liberal Party is now
Speaker 1: on the hook for this money. Is because of a
Speaker 1: decision that John Pursuito made, after decisions he made as
Speaker 1: an office bearer for the Liberal Party, he put himself
Speaker 1: in this position. And I don't see why the members
Speaker 1: of the Liberal Party should have to stump up money
Speaker 1: for this loan that no one really quite knows how
Speaker 1: it's going to work. It's a thirty year loan on
Speaker 1: commercial interest of about six percent to go and raise
Speaker 1: money to try and pay it off.
Speaker 2: And not just members but donors, people who've worked hard
Speaker 2: then given their money to try and beat the Alan
Speaker 2: government and the Andrews government before it. So a lot
Speaker 2: of questions over this now fineance. Minister Icadi Gallagher admitted
Speaker 2: on ABC radio this morning that the Albanezy government actually
Speaker 2: checked the legality of Trump's strikes and Iran's nuclear facilities.
Speaker 2: Have a listen. Has advice been sought as to whether
Speaker 2: these military actions are legal under international law?
Speaker 8: Look, obviously advice has been sought by you know, I
Speaker 8: mean in government.
Speaker 7: As we're working through some of these issues, we get
Speaker 7: a whole lot of advice across the government.
Speaker 2: Basil it gets worse and worse. Their support was late,
Speaker 2: it was lackluster, given through gritted tweet teeth twenty four
Speaker 2: hours after the factor, now we hear they had to
Speaker 2: check whether it was legal first. This says everything we
Speaker 2: need to know about this left wing government, doesn't it.
Speaker 10: Certainly late and certainly lackluster. Really, it was almost embarrassing.
Speaker 10: It was as though they were very new parliamentarians having
Speaker 10: to check with the Media office, what are the talking
Speaker 10: points before we can go out and endorse this action
Speaker 10: that had been endorsed of one of our strongest and
Speaker 10: most steadfast allies, and check that it is okay to
Speaker 10: say we support what they have done, even though universally
Speaker 10: the other allies of the United States had done just that.
Speaker 10: And it tells you something about the instincts, the political
Speaker 10: and otherwise instincts of this labor government federally. It was appalling,
Speaker 10: It was late, it was slow, It was embarrassing.
Speaker 2: No, absolutely completely agree, Caleb, I mean surely, I mean
Speaker 2: this is just absurd. When you can't accept that destroying
Speaker 2: a nuclear site is the right thing to do straight away,
Speaker 2: You've got to go get your bureaucrats to look up
Speaker 2: if it's legal, as I said on your program last week,
Speaker 2: and I've repeated again on the channel throughout this week.
Speaker 1: I feel like the government has holed themselves up in
Speaker 1: this position where we know where they've stood on the
Speaker 1: war in Gaza, and so now they've convinced themselves that
Speaker 1: there is nothing that can possibly done by Israel or
Speaker 1: anything that's Israel adjacent that could be a good idea,
Speaker 1: i e. Wiping out nuclear armory in Iran. So they've
Speaker 1: sort of decided they have to be so ideologically pure
Speaker 1: on this matter that obviously good things that the rest
Speaker 1: of the West that isn't bad.
Speaker 2: I ran good, Well.
Speaker 1: Yes, I know. It is so preposterous, isn't it The
Speaker 1: fact that they couldn't just come out and say it
Speaker 1: straight away on Sunday and then to say, oh, well
Speaker 1: we put out a statement, sir. I mean a government
Speaker 1: spokesman putting out a statement is not the same as
Speaker 1: the Prime minister saying, yes, what happened today was good
Speaker 1: for the world. It seems pretty simple.
Speaker 2: No, it does. Indeed. Now I just want to end
Speaker 2: on this debate about quotas. Now, Basil, you're obviously the
Speaker 2: liberal leader in way. Susan Lee has said she'd leave
Speaker 2: it up to the state divisions to decide whether or
Speaker 2: not they should have quotas to get more women into politics.
Speaker 2: I mean, you'd probably just like more of any Liberals
Speaker 2: to join to get into parliament, doesn't matter their gender.
Speaker 2: But nonetheless, what do you think about quotas?
Speaker 10: Well, only seventeen of us here in the West Australian
Speaker 10: Parliament after the most recent state election back in March.
Speaker 10: But of those seventeen only for women. And the facts
Speaker 10: are the facts, that is not enough women and the
Speaker 10: Parliament of Western Australia, the Liberal Party that I lead,
Speaker 10: does not have enough women. We have not appealed to
Speaker 10: women enough in the community. And also you could say
Speaker 10: the same thing about our appeal to younger voters. Now
Speaker 10: I understand, as has been said by Simon Birmingham and others,
Speaker 10: that quotas are unliberal like. However, sometimes you're going to
Speaker 10: need a circuit breaker to get those numbers advanced. So
Speaker 10: whether it is quotas or some other drastic measures to
Speaker 10: move things along to get us to a point of
Speaker 10: close to or better towards equilibrium, everything should be on
Speaker 10: the table. And that's my position, everything whatever it is
Speaker 10: that gets us there, because we need to represent the
Speaker 10: community that we seek to serve with the same numbers
Speaker 10: that are in that community, in the makeup of that community.
Speaker 2: Really interesting because you know, if we have this debate
Speaker 2: about quotas, probably the official Liberal party position would be
Speaker 2: that there aren't quotas, and yet in reality there have
Speaker 2: been we know it, many of the Liberal preselections before
Speaker 2: the last federal election, Caleb, they weren't pre selecting men.
Speaker 2: A lot of the seat said no, we need a woman,
Speaker 2: we need a woman to run against a teal. So
Speaker 2: in effect, there is a quota system.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I suppose there always has been in some
Speaker 1: way or another on various different factors. But the point
Speaker 1: should not be we need a woman. It should be
Speaker 1: primarily we need the best person for the job. But
Speaker 1: if you want to get more women into politics, as
Speaker 1: Basil points out, the party's probably not done enough to
Speaker 1: appeal to women. So saying oh, we'll have a quota,
Speaker 1: it doesn't fix that problem. It simply shoehorns people into
Speaker 1: positions so you can make it look like you fix
Speaker 1: the problem. You haven't fixed the problem. If the root
Speaker 1: issue is you haven't appealed to women enough, we'll fix
Speaker 1: that issue. Start getting on the phone to competent, capable,
Speaker 1: higher ranking women in this country that we would like
Speaker 1: to see in politics, and saying I want you to
Speaker 1: come and run for pre selection because you can't tell
Speaker 1: me that the pre selectors of the Liberal Party, the
Speaker 1: members of the Liberal Party are opposed to having women
Speaker 1: as candidates. They're not.
Speaker 2: They just have to be the best.
Speaker 1: People for the job. If you can get good women
Speaker 1: to run, you'll get good women in parliament.
Speaker 2: And there was actually probably I don't have the exact
Speaker 2: figures to hand, but there were a lot of women
Speaker 2: who were running for the Liberal Party. They just voters
Speaker 2: didn't vote them in, I mean, and it was an
Speaker 2: agenda thing. Voters didn't vote many Liberals in it all.
Speaker 2: So there lies the problem. Calebon, Basil Zamplers and Basil,
Speaker 2: you better watch out next Thursday, because Caleb's filling in
Speaker 2: for me next week.
Speaker 11: I will, I will say out.
Speaker 10: I was going to say, I can't get Mat Canavan
Speaker 10: back here quickly enough tonight, will.
Speaker 1: I will say, having been the bad copy, it will
Speaker 1: be the good cop and say I love your tie.
Speaker 2: To I love your tithes. Well, I never noticed men's ties,
Speaker 2: and I've been looking at yours. It is excellent. It
Speaker 2: even looks like there's some Greek letters in that alphabet.
Speaker 2: Is that is that true?
Speaker 3: Spot on?
Speaker 2: Well done, cherry.
Speaker 10: It is the Greek alphabet who, of course said the
Speaker 10: Greek said the home of democracy. So how appropriate, right, I've.
Speaker 4: Just come out of parliament.
Speaker 2: There you go, all right, basil zembliskated bone. Great to
Speaker 2: see you. All right, Still to come the landmark court
Speaker 2: case where a council worker one after being sacked for
Speaker 2: refusing to say the welcome to country. I'll get into
Speaker 2: that and more with the Daily Telegraphs James Willis. Plus
Speaker 2: what the latest intelligence says about whether Iran's nuclear sites
Speaker 2: were in fact destroyed. That's next welcome back. Well, there's
Speaker 2: intense debate about the level of damage done to Iran's
Speaker 2: nuclear program. The CIA today says it does have credible
Speaker 2: intelligence that the nuclear program was severely damaged by the bombs,
Speaker 2: and CIA director John Ratcliffe said their report includes new
Speaker 2: intel from a historically reliable and accurate source method that
Speaker 2: several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have
Speaker 2: to be rebuilt over the course of years. To discuss
Speaker 2: joining me now as senior fellow at the Hudson Institute,
Speaker 2: John Lee, John, great to see you again.
Speaker 13: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Now you what's your assessment of this intelligence? We've obviously
Speaker 2: seen conflicting reports. The Defense Intelligence Agency had a leaked
Speaker 2: report with an anti Trump journalist who said that the
Speaker 2: sites were just damaged. Where do you think the truth lies?
Speaker 13: Well, the fact is we don't know. A lot of
Speaker 13: it will come from satellite photos, some of it will
Speaker 13: come from signals, intelligence chatter in terms of what Iranians
Speaker 13: are saying, and some of it will come from sources
Speaker 13: on the ground that are informants. But until the inspectors
Speaker 13: go in and actually have a look, we won't really
Speaker 13: know for sure. So I think intelligence speak, you can
Speaker 13: say it's credible, but you wouldn't say it's high confidence.
Speaker 13: And the second thing I'd say is that we still
Speaker 13: have to find out what happened to the plutonium, this
Speaker 13: highly enriched sixty percent plutonium, because even if you destroyed
Speaker 13: those facilities, the second part of it is what has
Speaker 13: happened to that four hundred kilograms of plutonium?
Speaker 2: And when some officials have been asked about this, and
Speaker 2: I know Rubio and others have made the point, I
Speaker 2: think the ambassador as well. My Kakibir has made the
Speaker 2: point that the conversion facilities were destroyed, So even if
Speaker 2: that survived, and we don't know if it has, but
Speaker 2: the conversion facilities have been destroyed, so there's nothing that
Speaker 2: could be done with it. Is that accurate?
Speaker 13: Well, I mean technically it's accurate, but we need to
Speaker 13: confirm the conversion facilities were destroyed. But the second element
Speaker 13: is are there external players who may assist the Iranians
Speaker 13: in making use of this plutonium? So the point story
Speaker 13: remains that we can't really feel fully secure that Iran
Speaker 13: won't you foreseeable future, have access to a nuclear device,
Speaker 13: even a crude one, until we know where that plutonium is.
Speaker 2: It's interesting that defense intelligence report from CNN and the
Speaker 2: Washington Post that went global yesterday was actually a low
Speaker 2: level assessment from one particular in an agency that was inconclusive,
Speaker 2: and it looks like it was misquoted in the report.
Speaker 2: The journalist who published it is young, but has been
Speaker 2: behind a lot of other anti Trump stories throughout her
Speaker 2: career as well, So this looks like anti Trump stories
Speaker 2: that were later proven to be wrong, I should say,
Speaker 2: like Russia Gate. So this looks like it was a
Speaker 2: part as an attack.
Speaker 13: Unfortunately, in the American media environment now you have to
Speaker 13: look at the media outlet to make a judgment, to
Speaker 13: make a judgment about how reliable or what the motivation
Speaker 13: might be. Unfortunately, I've spent all the time in the
Speaker 13: United States. Unfortunately outlets like CNN President Trump is actually correct.
Speaker 13: Outlets like seen in New York Times, perhaps even a
Speaker 13: Washington Post, once very credible August outlets, are now very politicized.
Speaker 13: So when I see a supposed leak that early coming
Speaker 13: just to these outlets, I was immediately quite suspicious.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then you look at the journalist to her history,
Speaker 2: and it makes human more suspicious. I mean, we need
Speaker 2: to know the truth. The world needs to know the
Speaker 2: truth whether those sites were completely obliterated or how much
Speaker 2: damage was done. So hopefully we will get that in
Speaker 2: the passage of time.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 13: And look, the reason why all these matters is because
Speaker 13: the Uranians have been smashed, but their capacity has been smashed.
Speaker 13: The intent hasn't changed. They still want a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 13: they still want to threaten Israel, they still want to
Speaker 13: threaten the Arab neighbors, and they still want a hegemony
Speaker 13: over the Middle East, so until we can be absolutely
Speaker 13: clear they cannot get a nuclear weapon. I personally don't
Speaker 13: think President Trump should relax sanctions against Uranians or he
Speaker 13: should use that as something to force the Uranians to
Speaker 13: allow inspectors to clarify what has actually happened.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that access to the IAEA. Do you agree that
Speaker 2: this has been a very triumphant period for the president?
Speaker 2: I mean the successful strikes on Iran, this agreement at
Speaker 2: NATO today historic, the five percent on both of those matters.
Speaker 2: No other president was able to achieve this despite their
Speaker 2: stated desire.
Speaker 13: Look, that's correct. I know a lot of people say
Speaker 13: that the NATO General Secretary scene rather fawning or President Trump,
Speaker 13: but he was actually correct. President Trump has achieved what
Speaker 13: other presidents said they wanted to do, that is to
Speaker 13: raise NATO defense spending in Europe, but failed to do so.
Speaker 13: On the Iran issue, Trump took risk, There is no
Speaker 13: doubt about that.
Speaker 14: Look.
Speaker 13: I would actually like to give far more credit to
Speaker 13: the Israelis than Trump likes to do. They cleared the
Speaker 13: way for Trump to do that. But nevertheless, there are
Speaker 13: many presidents who I don't think would have done what
Speaker 13: Trump did in terms of taking out the facilities or
Speaker 13: using those bombs. When you take risk, it's high risk,
Speaker 13: it's high reward.
Speaker 2: Just very quickly, we're out of time, but you do
Speaker 2: spend a lot of time in Washington. You're at the
Speaker 2: Hudson Institute, which is US based. Is the alban Ezy
Speaker 2: government increasingly irrelevant?
Speaker 13: It hasn't been raised. And the anytime, YEO, when the
Speaker 13: easy government is raised is in a defense spending issue,
Speaker 13: which you've spoken about previously in your programs. The point
Speaker 13: is Australia is not raised as a can do nation
Speaker 13: right now. Australia is raised as a laggard. And the
Speaker 13: question I generally get to the extent that Albanezi government
Speaker 13: and Australias raises, what is actually going on in your country?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Indeed, what is going on in our country? Can
Speaker 2: someone answer that? John Lee, thank you very much for
Speaker 2: your time. Thank you now still to come around, Supreme Leader.
Speaker 2: Just as we've been on air, he's broken his silence
Speaker 2: after a week in hiding. Will tell you what he said.
Speaker 2: Plus Donald Trump's new nickname and the Welcome to Country debate.
Speaker 2: James Willis would join me on the desk to discuss
Speaker 2: all of that and more after this quick break. All right,
Speaker 2: plenty more news today, so let's get straight into it
Speaker 2: with the Daily Telegraphs James Willis, James, great to see
Speaker 2: you again.
Speaker 4: Hello.
Speaker 2: Now, this is a big story. This Melbourne street sweeper
Speaker 2: has won his unfair dismissal case after a notoriously left
Speaker 2: wing council fired him when he objected to saying the
Speaker 2: welcome to country before a weekly toolbox meeting. Now, James,
Speaker 2: this is going to raise interesting dilemmas for politically correct organizations.
Speaker 2: You know, can they order someone to say the welcome
Speaker 2: to country according to this ruling?
Speaker 9: No?
Speaker 5: Absolutely, And the first thing on the unfair dismissal decision,
Speaker 5: Sorry shery, early knock one.
Speaker 2: As they said in Regularlygue.
Speaker 5: There's a story that's come out in the last half
Speaker 5: an hour that the council claimed that this worker had
Speaker 5: done his online training modules, including the racism one, but
Speaker 5: it turns out his boss had done them for them.
Speaker 5: He was playing golf at the time, and the council
Speaker 5: tried to argue in this case that he had done
Speaker 5: the racism module and the other workplace modules, they were
Speaker 5: completed by his boss, who was sick of getting the
Speaker 5: illerse case. No, the same case. This is the same case,
Speaker 5: so exactly yes, and he was basically the council tried
Speaker 5: to argue that he knew about the racism training and
Speaker 5: everything else, complete fabrication. It is one of the worst
Speaker 5: unfair dismissial cases we've seen. But it's another example of
Speaker 5: what we've seen with Welcome to Country, which is when
Speaker 5: it's done well, when it's done at the appropriate occasion,
Speaker 5: it can be a fantastic part of an event, and
Speaker 5: I think sporting events would be one key example of that.
Speaker 5: But when you've got workplaces that have ten workers in
Speaker 5: the room, I hear stories all the time about zoom
Speaker 5: meetings where someone does an acknowledgment of country before they start.
Speaker 5: People are so frozen about what to do now that
Speaker 5: they just feel like they should do it anyway. And ultimately,
Speaker 5: we're not improving the lives of Indigenous people. We're not
Speaker 5: closing the gap. People think it's a box ticking exercise,
Speaker 5: and there are people starting to get fed up with it,
Speaker 5: which is what this worker did. He stood up for himself.
Speaker 5: He got sacked about what he knew about workplace training,
Speaker 5: and there's now grounds for him to be returned to
Speaker 5: his job, and that's what he wants. Remarkably, he wants
Speaker 5: to go back to.
Speaker 2: The council exactly. But I think it should be a
Speaker 2: reflection on councils more generally. They're getting into all this ideology,
Speaker 2: even foreign policy councils. Just take away the rubbish, clean
Speaker 2: the streets, do your job and stop with all the ideology.
Speaker 2: It's just not their job.
Speaker 5: Why do they have to be passing votes on the
Speaker 5: Middle East and standing out for Gaza and all that
Speaker 5: sort of stuff them in for God's sakes, while raising
Speaker 5: rates at the same time.
Speaker 2: It's just insulting not paying them for that. Now, James,
Speaker 2: you've written a concerning piece about the ad of control
Speaker 2: black market and you've done an interview with a global
Speaker 2: tobacco executive who said that Australia is alongside the South
Speaker 2: Africa and Malaysia as having the highest illicit market in
Speaker 2: the world.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Is this a direct result of the Albanese government's
Speaker 2: tax policy?
Speaker 5: Well, it is firstly, but it's the result of the
Speaker 5: tax policy that goes back probably fifteen years in this country,
Speaker 5: where the exercise is been allowed to just spiral, reaching
Speaker 5: a high of sixteen billion dollars for tax pays in
Speaker 5: twenty nineteen twenty twenty now literally less than half of that.
Speaker 2: Look, it was a.
Speaker 5: Tricky interview to do because people go, why would you
Speaker 5: interview someone from big tobacco. We know that product unequivocally
Speaker 5: does kill people. But when you have a black market
Speaker 5: that is estimated to be more than half of the
Speaker 5: Australian cigarettes and vapes that are sold across this country, well,
Speaker 5: it's better in my view to be talking to the
Speaker 5: devil that you know, rather than the illicit market, which
Speaker 5: is the criminal gangs. And so basically we're in a
Speaker 5: situation now where yes, the exercise is too high, it's tanked,
Speaker 5: it's not earning the money it should for tax pays.
Speaker 5: But also it's the local enforcement and by the day,
Speaker 5: there is a growing argument here Sharry for the police
Speaker 5: to be getting involved in this. I'm not saying load
Speaker 5: the police up, but it's that day to day compliance.
Speaker 5: In the same way we saw with tattoo parlors, we
Speaker 5: see with firearms. There's certain things that police can check
Speaker 5: licenses and there's an argument to say that should happen
Speaker 5: here as well.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 2: And we know that the new Southernwised Premier Chris Mins
Speaker 2: has been very vocal on this, calling for the federal
Speaker 2: government to make changes as well, which they're refusing to do. Now,
Speaker 2: just finally, I want to come back to the topic
Speaker 2: of the week. It's been. You know, Donald Trump has
Speaker 2: dominated the news agenda every day this week. There was
Speaker 2: first the strikes in Iran, then he was swearing at
Speaker 2: Israel and Iran. Now at NATO. It's not so much
Speaker 2: the five percent of GDP, although I've covered that heavily tonight,
Speaker 2: but the fact that the NATO Secretary General described him
Speaker 2: as daddy. That's had the whole world talking. I mean,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is in the prime of his presidency at
Speaker 2: the moment, it's before the midterms. He seems to be
Speaker 2: taking it all in his stride. He's doing quite well.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think some people need to pull their heads
Speaker 5: in with their criticism of Donald Trump. It's blind hatred
Speaker 5: and it's driven by things that he said previously, things
Speaker 5: that he's done, and if they're going to continue like
Speaker 5: that for the next three years, going to look very
Speaker 5: very silly. Look, that comment in isolation is a bit unfortunate,
Speaker 5: but you would have seen the whole clip the daddy King,
Speaker 5: but you know correct, and Donald Trump had said two
Speaker 5: kids that were fighting, and then he said it as
Speaker 5: a result. But all the left wing meetia is focusing
Speaker 5: on the daddy Trump as kind of him being the
Speaker 5: sort of.
Speaker 2: Boss, which is ridiculous. Look, what he has.
Speaker 5: Achieved in a short space of time is incredible, and
Speaker 5: I think these live updates are so unique, the way
Speaker 5: that he's sort of discussing what's happening with military and
Speaker 5: with his action on these things. But look, I think
Speaker 5: it's very, very silly to mock him and to say
Speaker 5: that he's not up to this job. What he can
Speaker 5: achieve in this space would be completely beyond what Joe
Speaker 5: Biden was capable of doing.
Speaker 2: A lot of these leaders.
Speaker 5: They need someone tough to stand up to them, to
Speaker 5: stand up and say I'm the boss, and he's done
Speaker 5: that in spade so far.
Speaker 2: Well, that's true. I mean, the diplomacy style is highly unorthodox,
Speaker 2: and it's sometimes uncomfortable to watch when you know, when
Speaker 2: he criticized Israel just after joining them in this formidable partnership,
Speaker 2: and then the next day he goes back and says
Speaker 2: he's proud of them. The swearing the live commentary on truth,
Speaker 2: social calling reporters scum that kind of language, even if
Speaker 2: they are, you know, objectionable or publishing things out of context.
Speaker 2: You know, it is so difficult for the president of
Speaker 2: the free world. But as you say, what he's actually
Speaker 2: achieved here, the five percent commitment from NATO countries. You
Speaker 2: know Obama would have loved to achieve that, Joe Biden
Speaker 2: would have loved to achieve that. None of them could
Speaker 2: get that serious defense commitment. And when you look at
Speaker 2: the world at the moment and the precarious situation wherein
Speaker 2: how emboldened the so called access of evil is. You know,
Speaker 2: we need that sort of commitment to defense. We're not
Speaker 2: getting it from our government.
Speaker 5: And I'm loving by the way the press conferences midair
Speaker 5: on Air Force One. I think they are hilarious when
Speaker 5: he's sort of talking through the shutter and taking a
Speaker 5: few questions and then going away. But look, he is
Speaker 5: the complete opposite of every president, every politician we've most
Speaker 5: probably ever seen.
Speaker 2: It's refreshing.
Speaker 5: And the problem is this hatred of him blurs people's opinions.
Speaker 5: But what he will be able to do in this
Speaker 5: space in terms of national security and world safety will
Speaker 5: be significant, I think in the next three years and.
Speaker 2: Already has all right, James Will, it's great to see you,
Speaker 2: good to see you. All right, coming up around, Supreme
Speaker 2: Leader breaks his silence. That's after the break. Welcome back,
Speaker 2: and let's bring in now international human rights lawyer Arson
Speaker 2: Ostrovsky Arson. The Supreme Leader Ali Kamani has not been
Speaker 2: heard from for nearly two weeks, and then just in
Speaker 2: the past hour he's uploaded a series of social media posts.
Speaker 2: What's he saying?
Speaker 14: Well, thank you chef for having me on. Look, it's
Speaker 14: been two weeks since we heard from Iatola has been
Speaker 14: missing an action much like the Iran's nuclear weapon sites.
Speaker 14: And he took him two weeks. Say something now, and
Speaker 14: he proceeded with a tire rate about how how the
Speaker 14: Iranian regime delta crushing defeat to the zionistentity and that
Speaker 14: it was a glorious victory. That, of course, is utterly delusional.
Speaker 14: It perhaps symbolic of someone who may himself have had
Speaker 14: a concussion during the during the blows in the last
Speaker 14: two weeks. The reality is that Iran under his leadership
Speaker 14: suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Israel. And
Speaker 14: with the support crucial support of the United States, the
Speaker 14: nuclear sites were obliterated. As the White House themselves said
Speaker 14: just the other day, Israel had total control of the
Speaker 14: Iranian airspace. The Runian military chiefs of staff leadership were
Speaker 14: taken out at will, one by one, and even the
Speaker 14: Iranian terror proxy's masses bullers, I mean, you had the hooties.
Speaker 14: They all failed to come to the Ruanian regime's rescue,
Speaker 14: which was really quite and embarrassing for the Iola. At
Speaker 14: the end of the day, this was no crushing defeat
Speaker 14: at all for Israel. On the contrary, this was a
Speaker 14: devastating victory for Israel, for the free world, for the Nates.
Speaker 14: That really just exposed that Iran as the paper tiger
Speaker 14: that it really is.
Speaker 2: Indeed, and of course he's always going to present this
Speaker 2: to the Iranians, and many of them don't have independent media.
Speaker 2: And now President Trump stepped in to defend his lady
Speaker 2: Prime Minister Benjamin Nettanna, who in a glowing social media
Speaker 2: post this morning, and he described Nadiya, who is a
Speaker 2: warrior like perhaps no other warrior in the history of
Speaker 2: Israel arsen why did he need to do this?
Speaker 14: Look, that's a good question. The President and Promise and Sienna,
Speaker 14: who enjoy a very close relationship and they have for
Speaker 14: many years, that's no secret. And the President has been
Speaker 14: very happy with Israel's conduct and the Prime Minister's conduct
Speaker 14: throughout this campaign, and we saw that obviously with America's
Speaker 14: entry with the B two bombers as well. And I
Speaker 14: think despite some colorful language perhaps one way to express
Speaker 14: it by the President a few days ago, he's really
Speaker 14: been consistent his support for his role for the Prime minister.
Speaker 14: And again just yesterday at the NATO meeting in Europe.
Speaker 14: Why he said what he said here, that's a good question.
Speaker 14: The President is not short of a legal drumons perhaps
Speaker 14: is looking at do a favor for as a friend,
Speaker 14: but I don't know if it'll make any your knows
Speaker 14: already support the Prime minis right.
Speaker 2: Got to go Aarsen. Great to see you as always,
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Now I'm off next week on holidays.
Speaker 2: Let's hope World War three does an unfold and I
Speaker 2: shouldn't joke about that, but I'll see you the week after.
Speaker 2: Just off next week, back the week after. Here's Paul
Speaker 2: Murray