WW3 DEBATE: “We’re On the Brink of Global Collapse”

1. 0:00 – 9:52

   Is America the Biggest Threat to Global Peace?

   1. CWChris Williamson0:00

      Hello, friends. I'm bringing a brand new live show across the UK and Ireland this October. It's stories, psychology, audience Q&As, and whatever happens when thousands of over thinkers voluntarily leave the house and end up in the same room together. I'd love to see you there. The last tour completely sold out, so make sure that you snag tickets now using the link in the description or heading to chriswilliamson.live. Dublin's already sold out. Loads of venues are limited. Tickets are very limited, so get yours now. Chriswilliamson.live. There's a lot to pay attention to right now, given how many global conflicts are happening, shifting political powers, populist uprisings. What do you think is the biggest threat to global peace at the moment?

   2. RPRobert Pape0:39

      Uh, the biggest threat to global peace we're about to see in our midterm elections. It's the internal divisions in the United States. Uh, those internal divisions have been building for the last five years. They've been normalizing political violence in the United States. Uh, they've led to the rise of leaders in the United States that find the use of political violence increasingly normal. That's how we got to the Iran war. And so that, um, uh, a lot of the specifics that we see, Chris, around the world, uh, I think it's very important to understand, um, that there is a hub. Uh, the United States is the most important, the most powerful country on the planet, and what happens internally in the United States can have ripple effects around the world. And so I think it's really important to, uh, not just talk about all the other issues, but to see the United States is at the center of many, maybe not all, but many of those issues.

   3. CWChris Williamson1:36

      Hmm.

   4. RPRobert Pape1:36

      And what's happening internally in the United States, this is increasingly becoming a house divided.

   5. CWChris Williamson1:43

      What do you think?

   6. JXJiang Xueqin1:44

      I think the United States right now is the greatest threat to global peace because for the past 30 years, Pax Americana has been dominant. And now with the rise of other powers, United States refuses to cede its global hegemony, and this is why we're seeing conflicts all around the world, specifically in the Middle East.

   7. GFGeorge Friedman2:03

      I don't see a global conflict coming. Many regional conflicts are coming because the global system is restructuring itself. There is not really a global system at this point as there was during the European imperial age or during the period of, uh, after World, World War II, Cold. So rather than looking at a confrontation like nuclear war between the United States and Russia, we're looking at various smaller elements. Sometimes the United States gets involved. But as to the international conflict, I lived through the 1970s. It was intense in the United States, but it was intense over a very small war.

   8. CWChris Williamson2:47

      Hmm.

   9. GFGeorge Friedman2:47

      So the idea that there's a global system at this point, it's emerging. But because it's not emerged yet, many of the wars are going to be regional.

   10. CWChris Williamson2:56

       Right. So you still see, is it right in thinking that Ukraine, Iran, whatever happens, Taiwan, China, that these things are separate conflicts rather than part of a single global conflict?

   11. RPRobert Pape3:08

       Well, I think that we may, the three of us, disagree about whether or not there will be a World War III, a true unified global war. I just wanna point out that right now we're experiencing multiple regional conflicts. They are linked in some ways, but together they are wrecking the global economy.

   12. CWChris Williamson3:29

       Hmm.

   13. RPRobert Pape3:30

       They're having a major effect on the global economy of what's happening in Russia with the, the Russia-Ukraine war, what's happening in, in the Iran, uh, conflict. And if we had a conflict with Taiwan and China on top of that, even if those remain three separate arenas, Chris, uh, we might be heading to something far worse than the 1930s depression, so, for the world. So, uh, this would have blowback effects on Africa even though they wouldn't even be involved. So we can usefully talk about whether we should expect a true World War III-

   14. CWChris Williamson4:09

       Mm-hmm

   15. RPRobert Pape4:09

       ... uh, scenario, but we are already seeing global consequences, um, in ways we haven't seen since World War II. We did not see these global consequences in the Vietnam War, for example. Uh, we did not see these global consequences with the two, what we called Forever Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan. We're seeing them now, and that, even if it doesn't become army on army, Chinese army on American ar- that kind of force on force, this is already in- amazingly consequential for our lives.

   16. CWChris Williamson4:45

       Hmm.

   17. JXJiang Xueqin4:46

       I think what's really important to appreciate is that, yes, these conflicts are regional, but there's a power orchestrating these conflicts, and that is the United States. So, um, it is United States that unilaterally, without any reason, decided to attack Iran, which started the war in the Middle East, which is right now threatening to destroy the global economy. The war in Ukraine can also be bla- be blamed on the United States because, um, um, at the onset of the war in 2020, uh, sor- 2022, uh, Putin and Zel- Zelensky would have come to an agreement, but Boris Johnson flew into Kiev and convinced Zelensky to fight this war. Right now in, um, in Southeast Asia, United States is withdrawing, but we're seeing Japan being remilitarized, and we can imagine that Japan is being supported by the United States. In fact, if you look at the National Defense Strategy, which was published by the Pentagon, uh, earlier this year, it calls for the United States withdrawing from the global stage and creating balance of power in, in each different region, Europe, um, the Middle East, and, uh, uh, Southeast Asia. So you can make the argument that the United States is intent on maintaining its global hegemony, but it recognizes that it doesn't have the military power, the political will to control the entire world as it did in Pax Americana. So it is, um, basically offloading its responsibilities to its regional allies-

   18. CWChris Williamson6:10

       Hmm

   19. JXJiang Xueqin6:10

       ... NATO in Europe, uh, Israel and the GCC in the Middle East, and Japan in, uh, Southeast Asia.

   20. RPRobert Pape6:16

       See, I agree with about 70% of what he's saying. I, I believe-

   21. CWChris Williamson6:21

       That's pretty good.

   22. RPRobert Pape6:21

       Well, I think-

   23. CWChris Williamson6:22

       Thank you

   24. RPRobert Pape6:22

       ... you're really on it. And, um, I think that the parts I really agree with are that American decisions have been at the taproot of both of these wars, the war with Russia and Ukraine and, uh, the Iran war that we're experiencing right now. Where I may disagree is I think that they're very much, um, a function of, uh, decisions and decision-makers that have been evolving given our internal divisions in our country. I think that we shouldn't look at this as simply a product of a global cycle of empires. I think we need to see that for the last 10 years, we have seen, in 10 years, not just two years-

   25. CWChris Williamson7:08

       Hmm

   26. RPRobert Pape7:08

       ... an incredible rise of political violence in the United States. That is being driven, Chris, by major social changes inside of the United States, the shift from, uh, a white majority democracy to a white minority democracy for the first time in our 250-year history, the shift of, uh, massive wealth to the top 1% over the last several decades. These are having amazing consequences inside of our, uh, government. It's producing a set of priorities and leaders which are very different. So we are now seeing leaders that find political violence normal, and what-- this is what you see with, uh, President Trump, uh, both in his first term and now increasingly in his second term, and also some by, uh, Democratic leaders. You're also seeing, because of these internal problems, Chris, I think, uh, not sufficient attention to the consequences of these global decisions. So I don't believe that we have, uh, s- over the last 10 years devoted the amount of attention to the consequences of, uh, issues with Russia and Ukraine, issues with Iran. Uh, I think that... And I think that because I've advised every White House from 2001 to 2024. I know something about this degree, uh, of, of attention, and I am, um, uh, overall, uh, observing not no attention. I think that's not quite right, and, and I don't mean that they're, they're, they're truly, uh, trivial, but nonetheless, um, the, uh, uh, the idea that we would, uh, continue to support NATO expansion and, and, uh, um, uh, make, um, Ukraine a much, much stronger country even after Putin, uh, takes Crimea in 2014 without serious attention to the consequences.

   27. CWChris Williamson9:14

       Hmm.

   28. RPRobert Pape9:14

       I think this is, this is-- Uh, there, there's just not-- There's, there's too much w-we need to see. As we're becoming internally absorbed, we're having-- we have less cognitive space for the thing that I often do, strategy in the rest of the world, and that lack of cognitive space has not just been a function of one president. I think it's been a function of multiple presidents, and I think that's really what, uh-- Maybe it's not a disagreement. It's what I would say, uh, maybe an extension or I would add to what you're saying.

   29. CWChris Williamson9:47

       I guess people keep debating whether America's losing its grip as a world superpower.

2. 9:52 – 23:22

   Will America Still Be a Superpower in 20 Years?

   1. CWChris Williamson9:52

      20 years from now, do you think America is relatively stronger or weaker than it is now?

   2. GFGeorge Friedman9:56

      I would say it's not losing it. It's wanting to lose it. The past 80 years was not been a happy time for the United States. For the United States, the fundamental principle is command of the sea from long time. Keeping them away from the Atlantic ports was essential in this. This draw-- drew us into creating NATO, creating a economic system based on Bretton Woods and all these other things that put tremendous pressure on the American economy. Even recently, we had to bail out the Japanese in a way. So what I see the United States is doing, okay, and these things are not gracefully done ever, is pulling back from its vulnerability to the world, not engaging it. Now, the world is not seeing it that way because various things happened. Okay? One, the Cold War ended in Ukraine. The Russian army could not take Ukraine after five years. This is not a military threat. So now the Cold War is obsolete, and the idea is that so the American re- desire, you know, is to dis-- uh, was predictable, was to disengage to the extent possible. But what the Am- Americans are doing is not increasing their power around the world. It's trying to remove its vulnerability from the world, and the world feels betrayed.

   3. CWChris Williamson11:26

      Hmm.

   4. GFGeorge Friedman11:26

      So the United States is no longer doing it. It no longer wants a role it had for the past 80 years.

   5. CWChris Williamson11:34

      Hmm.

   6. RPRobert Pape11:34

      But if we look out 20 years, Chris, and you ask the question, well, right now we're 26% of the world's GDP. China's 17% of the world's GDP. So we still are number one, at least in terms of the numbers and, uh... But if we look out 20 years, China has a tremendous advantage going forward, but it's not just the slope of the curve. Um, a big thing is happening, Chris, and it's been happening for the last 20 years, which is we are losing the next industrial advance, the next economic revolution, and we're losing it to China, and we're not even noticing it very much, Chris. So in June of 2025, while we were bombing Fordow, I spent two weeks in China touring China's advanced industries. Uh, this was in, uh, Beijing, um, and this was in Wuhan. This was in Hangzhou. This was in Shenzhen. Uh, most people go to China. First of all, they stopped going after COVID, and most people who went tend to go to Beijing and Shanghai.

   7. CWChris Williamson12:35

      Hmm.

   8. RPRobert Pape12:35

      I wanna see the actual advanced industries on the shop floor.

   9. GFGeorge Friedman12:39

      From, from my point of view, China's in a terrifically difficult position economically.

   10. RPRobert Pape12:44

       Well, let's, let me just explain. You can challenge it, George, but let me explain what I mean. What I saw on that two-week trip, I thought I was gonna go and look at sort of Alibaba, see how they were a little bit ahead of different... I came away with a completely different impression. It was the most important tri- I've been-- I was in China in 1979, so I had some experience here. What I saw was not just uplifting of individual companies, Chris, uplifting whole cities. Wuhan, whole cities. So not just the advanced sector, the healthcare sector, the construction sector. Uh, when you look at what's happening in the cities, we're, we're, we're getting 10% of the idea of what's happening inside of China in The New York Times and in the media.

   11. GFGeorge Friedman13:32

       Yeah.

   12. RPRobert Pape13:32

       Uh, February, I wanna organize a trip to go back to China, Chris, if you wanna come.

   13. GFGeorge Friedman13:38

       Mm-hmm.

   14. RPRobert Pape13:38

       I think you'd find this really interesting because it's what's... So I was born in Erie, Pennsylvania. I went to the University of Pittsburgh in the Rust Belt. That's a... If you go from Chicago to, say, Pittsburgh, that's about-- and down to St. Louis, that's about 50 million people, give or take. Well, that's about the half-moon crescent from Wuhan to Shenzhen. Not identical, but pretty close, as, as, as you know that area.

   15. GFGeorge Friedman14:03

       It's a huge country.

   16. RPRobert Pape14:03

       Ver- it's a huge country.

   17. GFGeorge Friedman14:04

       Yeah.

   18. RPRobert Pape14:04

       But that crescent we're talking about, what China has done, and literally in about, uh, 10 or 12 years, it has some roots in the '90s, is they have uplifted those en- that entire 50 million people, Chris. They integrate. Why are they ahead? They're not just building companies. Their universities are tightly producing the BAs, the MAs, the PhDs. Why can't we produce more Patriot missiles right now? Why can't we just have an Operation Warp Speed? We don't have the workers to do that because we're not integrating-

   19. GFGeorge Friedman14:43

       Mm

   20. RPRobert Pape14:43

       ... the advanced workforce with the advanced-- with also advanced healthcare, and by the way, advanced driver's license.

   21. GFGeorge Friedman14:51

       China's cities is not China. The rural areas of China are profoundly important. It is the second largest economy in the world. In terms of per capita income, it's 71st. The fundamental problem that China has is it cannot consume the products it produces. Right now, Xi, just a few weeks ago, announced a plan to make more c- demands possible in the rural regions, which are very different from the coastal regions. And so when we look at China, we look at a country that has an economy too much, too large for it to consume. It is dependent on exports, with the United States being the largest importer of Chinese goods.

   22. RPRobert Pape15:37

       Mm-hmm.

   23. GFGeorge Friedman15:38

       So when you take a look at China, and you take a look at how the, the summits are evolving and what's happening there, we see very-- I see a very different China from you. I see the cities in marvelous shape, the, the coastal areas and South China, but that's not the majority of China. The Chinese still have the rural area where Mao Zedong went to raise the, a rebel army on the Long March and brought it back, and that's what it did. Now, when you look at it from a mechanical point of view on a global basis, it is the second largest economy. When you look at it, its ability to sustain itself, it heavily depends on exports. And one of the things that-

   24. RPRobert Pape16:23

       'Cause it can't consume what it produces

   25. GFGeorge Friedman16:25

       ... It can't. It can't possibly. It has tr- tremendous capabilities, but its per capita income is very low. So you, you see a situation emerging, as emerged several times before, particularly with the United States. United States was a China-

   26. RPRobert Pape16:43

       Mm-hmm

   27. GFGeorge Friedman16:43

       ... of the 19th century. That is to say, first, the Civil War took place. After that, industrial rising that heavily depended on exports to Europe. So when you take a look at the, the relationship between the economic issues and the political issues and so on and so forth, the nature of the United States is to simultaneously have deep divisions and be able somehow to manage it, okay? So when I look at these events, and I lived through the '70s, but it is this loathing of various passions. If you were not anti-war and went into university, you did not come out of that university frequently. So I'm not so impressed by the tensions within the United States.

   28. RPRobert Pape17:35

       Mm.

   29. GFGeorge Friedman17:35

       I don't know of a period where they weren't there. We survived the Civil War, which [chuckles] was really a g- a g- big discussion, okay?

   30. RPRobert Pape17:43

       Mm.
3. 23:22 – 32:21

   What Does America’s Relationship With China Look Like?

   1. RPRobert Pape23:22

      So let me just respond in this way. I had exactly their image 10 years ago, exactly their image. So I first went to China in 1979. Then I didn't go back until 2012, 10 trips from 2012 to 2015. Then I went back in 2025. In t- even as late as 2015, I had exactly their image. Here's what happened in this trip, and this is what really are the core things that I'm seeing. Um, number one, the Alibaba, BYD, Xiaomi, I didn't just go and look at the shop floors. I met with their executives. They showed me their growth plans. Um, it's not just that they have been spurting up since COVID, so all this building massively development since, since COVID.

   2. CWChris Williamson24:14

      Yeah.

   3. RPRobert Pape24:14

      It's that since 2017, essentially the Trump tariffs that were first put on China in 2017 by President Trump, there's been a dramatic, uh, emphasis to disengage the, uh, development of the next generation of industries from Chi- from America. So you can't buy the cutting edge BYD vehicles here in the United States. Uh, you can't buy the next level Teslas of Xiaomi here in the United States, and they're not trying to sell them here. Also, the whole issue with Walmart and, um, so for- that's the last generation of what's occurring. They showed me their growth models. They are still s- export-oriented, but they're not export-oriented to Europe and they're not export-oriented to the United States, although they take a little crumbs on the, on the edges. It is built around Asia. They showed me their growth models they're really counting on are in Asia. Now, true, in the short term here, there's some problems with the Iran war and of course Asia. So we talked about that with the actual top VPs, the exact, the top executives, and they explained to me that the bottom line is the more the United States gets sucked into a quagmire with Iran, yes, they will run into some short-term problems, but just like COVID, when they came out of those problems or the supply chain problem in COVID, they jettisoned ahead. They thought they were likely going to get ahead. And if you look at the numbers of what the BYD production has been this year in 2026-

   4. GFGeorge Friedman25:48

      Hmm

   5. RPRobert Pape25:48

      ... uh, what the numbers of Xiaomi has been, uh, the numbers at least we can see, uh, they're not as good as they were hoping, but they're about at the same level as the last year. So China's not collapsing.

   6. GFGeorge Friedman25:59

      The Chinese growth rate is down to a little over 4%. It was previously 5%, and its greatest price was a 15% growth rate at one point.

   7. RPRobert Pape26:07

      And I'm saying this is the wrong measure. This would be like measuring America's growth rate without noticing electrification in the 1880s, which starts in this really small way. America has been great because since 1880, we have led every technological revolution since 1880. The AI revolution that we're right- going through right now, we hope we're going to come out ahead. The stock market's certainly betting on that. I'm telling you, what I saw in China, it's not just about DeepSeek and Alibaba. They're building the core infrastructure to be able to beat us.

   8. GFGeorge Friedman26:48

      A- a- and I mean, let me ask you this question.

   9. RPRobert Pape26:50

      Yeah.

   10. GFGeorge Friedman26:50

       Um, so right now, Japan is remi- remilitarizing v- rapidly.

   11. RPRobert Pape26:54

       Yes.

   12. GFGeorge Friedman26:55

       And it's building an alliance with India, the Philippines, and Australia, the Quad, right?

   13. RPRobert Pape27:00

       Mm-hmm.

   14. GFGeorge Friedman27:00

       It seems to me, in the long term, the intention is to embargo China, to cut off supply chains-

   15. RPRobert Pape27:05

       Mm-hmm

   16. GFGeorge Friedman27:05

       ... for-

   17. RPRobert Pape27:06

       With In- with India coming into it, Indonesia coming into it, and so on and so forth.

   18. GFGeorge Friedman27:10

       That's right.

   19. RPRobert Pape27:10

       So from Japan all the way to India, there is at sea a blockade.

   20. GFGeorge Friedman27:15

       That's right. So what is China's response to, to this possible embargo?

   21. RPRobert Pape27:19

       So as I look out here, um, first of all, if you're quite right that there's a military possible consequence here, um, I think President Xi's question to Trump was exactly the right question, which was, um, "Are you, President Trump, gonna fight here if there's a conflict between China and Taiwan?" And President Trump said he wouldn't answer that question. Because if you, uh, yes, you have the Quad moving forward, but if you take out the United States from that equation, as I think we are heading in that direction, then this is just a very different competition between, um, uh, the Quad and China. They might fight. They might decide to fight, just the Quad and China, but, uh... And both will go down some, but this is not a sure winner for the Quad over China. So I think this would be a very different... And notice, this is not China provoking the war.

   22. GFGeorge Friedman28:16

       That's right.

   23. RPRobert Pape28:16

       This is, this is outsiders attacking China. And what is, what did Mao, what, what happened with Mao? This was a, a gigantic revolution inside of China to foreign conquest. So this is not th- talk about unifying China [laughs] .

   24. GFGeorge Friedman28:30

       If I could, the Taiwan situation has profoundly changed. Inside of Taiwan, the population is divided almost down the middle, with the KMT, the Kuomintang, which should 17, in favor of reuniting with China in some sort of way. That's about half the population. The other half the population is very much opposed to it. F- from the Chinese point of view, Taiwan was a very great danger because between Japan and the Philippines, Taiwan was a blocking force.

   25. RPRobert Pape29:06

       The first island chain.

   26. GFGeorge Friedman29:07

       Hmm?

   27. RPRobert Pape29:07

       The first island chain.

   28. GFGeorge Friedman29:08

       Yeah.

   29. RPRobert Pape29:08

       Yeah.

   30. GFGeorge Friedman29:09

       It's the first island chain, that they want Taiwan opened, okay? United States does not have a fundamental interest on Taiwan. So the idea is we see that Xi is coming to the United States, and he has said this week, "We're going to reach many great agreements in the United States." One of the forecasts I had was that this year China and the United States would come to a fundamental understanding with each other. Why? China must have that understanding. The United States is not a trivial partner, okay? It is the number one trading partner, and it is the only military threat to China. Therefore, accommodation is rational for China, and these talks have been taking place. So what I'm seeing in China is a tremendous amount of instability in the political system. The economic system is moving ahead properly. But China has a fundamental problem because, as I said, it must have a decent relationship with the United States, and the United States has said to it, "We cannot be dependent on China for its imports if it is also possible to go to war with us." That happened to us during the Arab oil embargo. [laughs] We were dependent on the Arabs. The Israelis went to war, and they cut an embargo. It was a disaster in 1970s. So if we are too dependent on a country with whom we have hostile relations-
4. 32:21 – 37:16

   Who Will Be the Biggest Superpower in 20 Years?

   1. RPRobert Pape32:21

      yes.

   2. CWChris Williamson32:21

      Given where we're at at the moment, looking into your cr- respective crystal balls, which country do you think is the most powerful in the world in 20 years' time?

   3. JXJiang Xueqin32:30

      The United States is the only global power. China's a regional power. It cannot push force into the Atlantic and so on.

   4. CWChris Williamson32:37

      Okay.

   5. JXJiang Xueqin32:37

      We can. So we're reaching a world that's very different. That doesn't mean that the United States is in decline, okay? Certainly, I agree with you on many of these things, but I don't think it's fundamental to the position of the United States. It is the United States occupy the position in the world which costs it a great deal in many different dimensions, and a backing off from that reduces tensions within the United States and so on.

   6. CWChris Williamson33:05

      It's, uh, I was thinking that there would be some sort of seesaw, probably between China and the US, but maybe there was another player that I, I hadn't thought about. Uh, it sounds like both are in some form of mild decline.

   7. RPRobert Pape33:16

      Uh, they, they're in flux. So my position is it's up to our leaders who's gonna be number one in 2020. There's three dimensions of global power I would look at. Dimension number one is, uh, the country's GDP is a fraction of world product. Right now, we're 26%, China's 17, but if you look forward here, this could easily flip-flop in 20 years. Uh, the second is allies. How many friends do you have in the world? Well, look at what's happened with the tariffs. Look at what's happening with, uh, Canada right now today. What is happening is in the middle of this gigantic war that we're having with, [laughs] with, with, uh, Iran, we are deciding to alienate, uh, friends. Well, who's likely to pick up those friends? [laughs]

   8. CWChris Williamson34:04

      Hmm.

   9. RPRobert Pape34:04

      It's going to be China. And then issue, uh, number three is our technological base, our growth. If the world economy goes over a cliff with our $40 trillion in debt, I think the idea that we're going to invest our way out of this in the AI-

   10. CWChris Williamson34:19

       [laughs]

   11. RPRobert Pape34:19

       I've, I've just... Look, maybe that will all work out, Chris, okay? And we're gonna be fine with $40 trillion-

   12. CWChris Williamson34:25

       I'm laughing my way through the apocalypse. I don't know about you.

   13. RPRobert Pape34:27

       Well, well, I'm just trying to explain.

   14. CWChris Williamson34:28

       [laughs]

   15. RPRobert Pape34:28

       These are the problems-

   16. JXJiang Xueqin34:29

       I want to-

   17. RPRobert Pape34:30

       ... I'm worried about

   18. JXJiang Xueqin34:31

       So I want to-

   19. CWChris Williamson34:31

       Just one second. Let's hear, let's hear from Professor Jiang.

   20. JXJiang Xueqin34:33

       Yeah. So, um, I think that these past 30, 40, 40 years of Pax Americana have been unique in human history. Never before have we had, we had a power that could span the entire globe, that had a g- f- for the first time, we had a global reserve currency. Um, never before, um, had one nation been able to dictate the global economy. So I think Pax Americana has been unique in human history, and I think we're reverting back to the mean, which is more regional dominance.

   21. CWChris Williamson35:01

       Hmm.

   22. JXJiang Xueqin35:01

       Um, so the way that I examine how nation states, um, thrive or die is using three basic criteria, which is gonna be very different from yours. But first I look at energy. Basically, how hardworking are the people? Second thing is openness, which is how open are people to change? How, how are they, how much are they willing to absorb new ideas? And the third is cohesion, which is how much do they value their own neighbor? If you use, if you, uh, if you actually use these three metrics, okay, energy, uh, openness, and cohesion, you find that in each region, one nation will dominate above all else. So in East Asia, it will not be China that dominates, it will be Japan that dominates. It will be in, uh, in Europe, it will either be Germany or Poland, one of the two. Um, Germany is more powerful, but Poland is more cohesive. And, and y- you can tell me next week what, what, what, what you find. It's, it's more dynamic by far. Absolutely. Absolutely And it's more in danger, it seems, and that's, that's their power. 'Cause it's more energetic. Energy. That's right. And then in, in North America, it's, it's the United States by far. United States is so dominant that it, United States could, like, keep on electing Donald Trump for the next year.

   23. CWChris Williamson36:11

       It could face plant its way through the next few decades and still win. [laughs]

   24. JXJiang Xueqin36:14

       Unfortunately, unfortunately, that is the case in the United States. And then in the Middle East, I believe it is Israel that is most dominant.

   25. CWChris Williamson36:20

       In other news, have you ever noticed how some websites make it ridiculously easy to buy while some feel infinitely harder?

   26. RPRobert Pape36:27

       Back in my day, I had to walk 10 miles to the local store.

   27. CWChris Williamson36:30

       Aren't you younger than me?

   28. RPRobert Pape36:31

       Yeah, but my dad got a DUI.

   29. CWChris Williamson36:34

       Anyway, the reality is most businesses just Get the website wrong, and if your setup is messy, you lose a ton of sales, which is why I'm such a massive fan of Shopify. They power 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, including brands like Gymshark, Skims, Alo, and Neutonic. Because when it comes to converting browsers into buyers, they are best in class. Their checkout's 36% better on average compared to other platforms, and with Shop Pay can boost conversions by 50%. So upgrade your business and get the exact same checkout that we use at Neutonic with Shopify. You can sign up for a free trial period by going to the link in the description below or heading to shopify.com/modernwisdom. That's shopify.com/modernwisdom.

5. 37:16 – 42:45

   Is America Heading for Civil Unrest?

   1. CWChris Williamson37:17

      Interesting on, uh, the US' ability to put its, both of its feet in its mouth and continue to be-

   2. RPRobert Pape37:22

      Yeah

   3. CWChris Williamson37:22

      ... a preeminent power.

   4. RPRobert Pape37:23

      Yeah.

   5. CWChris Williamson37:24

      Does that help to smooth over some cracks and inefficiencies and instabilities inside of America? The momentum, just the sheer size of it means that there can be, uh, issues bubbling below the surface that don't get seen for a little while, and then eventually the sort of lid gets blown up. Obviously, you're talking about civil unrest. I don't know how likely you think civil unrest-

   6. RPRobert Pape37:45

      I think-

   7. CWChris Williamson37:45

      ... proper civil unrest is going to be due to this.

   8. RPRobert Pape37:47

      So, um, [lip smacks] I have coming out, Chris, a, a book called Our Own Worst Enemies: America-

   9. CWChris Williamson37:53

      Congratulations

   10. RPRobert Pape37:53

       ... in the Age of Violent Populism. Uh, it's pre-order now on Amazon. It'll be available in just a couple weeks to be in your mailbox. Um, and I've spent five years studying this problem because my work on political violence, what I do, Chris, is I look at where is the biggest threat to America, the biggest threat. So it changes from time to time. And what I started to see after the George Floyd protests, which were, uh, mostly peaceful, but what does mostly peaceful mean with the George Floyd protests when 28 million are protesting and 7% are riots [chuckles] and political violence? That's millions of people who are unrest. Um, and then also in January 6th, this is the first time in our history that we've had a violent mob supported by the President of the United States to try to, uh, stop the constitutional process of changing presidential power in the United States. Then we've had the rise of, uh, political assassinations and assassination attempts. Uh, I could go on and on. This is, I would say, um, akin to the 1960s. I agree, we've had some periods of violent populism before. The book covers that. But what's different is it's on both the right and the left.

   11. CWChris Williamson39:06

       Mm.

   12. RPRobert Pape39:06

       The number one fact today is tens of millions of Americans on each side, I don't mean total, each side of the political spectrum, support political violence for the goals that they also support. That's why you're getting, uh, support for very aggressive ICE tactics that, uh, against Democratic protesters, even after ICE kills those Democratic protesters.

   13. GFGeorge Friedman39:29

       I would argue that this is not the first time it happened. We had a civil war. In that civil war, we ripped ourselves apart and then came together again. There's a strangeness in the United States. Most countries that have had that kind of civil war could not accommodate itself again. We are historically, when we take a look at these various periods in history, at each other's throats. It is one of the dimensions of the United States, which is based on the fact that we're an invented country, invented not only in the sense that the Constitution was invented, but that the population was invented. There was no... Other nations have histories of culture and so on. We constantly came together. So one of the things that the United States is very good at from the founding is being deeply divided, because as John Adams said, one-third of the people were for the revolution, one p- third of people were against the revolution, one-third of the people didn't care.

   14. CWChris Williamson40:30

       Mm.

   15. GFGeorge Friedman40:30

       That was his, his reading. So I see the divisions in a very different way than you do.

   16. RPRobert Pape40:35

       Well, well, I don't think it's good enough-

   17. GFGeorge Friedman40:37

       I see this as the norm

   18. RPRobert Pape40:37

       ... to say that we survived the Civil War because 600,000 people died in the Civil War. So let's just be clear. We are $40 trillion in debt. The idea that, sure, we'll just have a civil war and no problem, we'll get out of this just fine-

   19. GFGeorge Friedman40:51

       Nations-

   20. RPRobert Pape40:52

       ... this is the showing how he... We've got to go to the Civil War standard [chuckles] to, to say we can survive a civil war.

   21. GFGeorge Friedman40:58

       No.

   22. RPRobert Pape40:59

       No, we will not be able to be-

   23. GFGeorge Friedman41:00

       No

   24. RPRobert Pape41:00

       ... anything white. We won't even be a regional power. [chuckles]

   25. GFGeorge Friedman41:03

       I disagree profoundly. There's a cultural nature. China has a culture. It has a history. It has an evolution. Britain has a history and so on, okay?

   26. CWChris Williamson41:13

       Thank you.

   27. GFGeorge Friedman41:14

       When you take a look at-

   28. CWChris Williamson41:15

       Or used to. [laughs]

   29. GFGeorge Friedman41:16

       Well-

   30. CWChris Williamson41:17

       [laughs]
6. 42:45 – 47:57

   The Rise of Violent Populism

   1. CWChris Williamson42:45

      Do you think America is a country permanently in strife internally, or is the, something unique about the modern-

   2. RPRobert Pape42:51

      Well, well, let me-

   3. CWChris Williamson42:52

      No-

   4. RPRobert Pape42:52

      Let me also be clear. My book is explaining we're not heading to civil war. We are heading to violent populism, and we're in the middle of violent populism.

   5. CWChris Williamson43:01

      Can you explain what the difference is, please?

   6. RPRobert Pape43:03

      Yes. Civil war is where you have armies going toe-to-toe. Truly we're... This is, um, battle after battle. So we start to see the movies on civil war.

   7. CWChris Williamson43:12

      Yep.

   8. RPRobert Pape43:12

      These are, I think, the, uh, extreme, uh, scenarios. And we can talk about extreme scenarios. I hope we would never get there. So I don't find them acceptable.

   9. CWChris Williamson43:22

      Hmm.

   10. RPRobert Pape43:22

       But I don't think that's really what our future is. Um, I think our future is more, we're more in danger of becoming Turkey, for example, where because we have normalized political violence, it starts to become normal for the president to absorb more and more powers under the presidency. Uh, and then also to sort of hide things. So this isn't just happening with President Trump. During, um, President Biden's presidency, uh, we had open borders, essentially. We had 10 million plus come into the country, and yet this was all, the image was, oh, no, there's nothing happening at the border. It's literally not happening. Uh, and that was, um, uh, by a Democratic president. So what I'm trying to point out, Chris, is that we're in a world where because political violence is becoming normal and, and George is finding it, well, sure, it's just okay, it's just another day in America, this is what I'm tell- this is what the book's about. It's about how political violence has become normal for tens of millions of Americans for the first time since the 1960s.

   11. CWChris Williamson44:28

       Hmm.

   12. RPRobert Pape44:29

       And this has consequences because it's on both the right and the left, and we're coming to an election. And this midterms, we already have, um, and I was just on many podcasts, we have people who are, who are, who are terrified that President Trump is gonna seize ballot boxes. Now, why would they be terrified of that? Because President Trump said he was gonna do that in February. [laughs]

   13. CWChris Williamson44:52

       [laughs]

   14. RPRobert Pape44:52

       And so, so this isn't just coming out of nowhere.

   15. CWChris Williamson44:55

       Hmm.

   16. RPRobert Pape44:55

       And, and my, and when I'm on those podcasts, I'm trying to say, "Yes, that may happen, but we will hold ourselves together and here's how we're gonna do it."

   17. CWChris Williamson45:02

       Hmm.

   18. RPRobert Pape45:03

       So I'm not trying to tell you we're heading to civil war. I'm also not trying to tell you civil war would just be fine. What I am trying to tell you is, uh, the way you're going to see, um, [lip smack] uh, powers absorbed by the federal government, uh, things like use of martial law and so forth, is because political violence has become normalized.

   19. CWChris Williamson45:25

       It's the normalization which is the difference on your point.

   20. RPRobert Pape45:27

       And it creates-

   21. CWChris Williamson45:27

       What, what's your perspective on internal strife in America?

   22. JXJiang Xueqin45:30

       Right. So I think, like, the best historical analogy for the United States right now is the Roman Empire. And the critical turning point, uh, for the Roman Empire is, uh, maybe 150 BCE, and this is the Third Punic War. This is before the Third Punic War starts between Carthage and Rome. At this point, Carthage is basically, um, destroyed, and it's just an ec- economic center. It's no longer a military power. And there's a huge debate in the Roman Senate about what to do with Carthage. Uh, Cato the Elder demanded the destruction of Carthage, um, because Carthage would always be a threat to Rome otherwise.

   23. CWChris Williamson46:06

       Yep.

   24. JXJiang Xueqin46:06

       Everyone else was like, "No, guys, we cannot destroy Carthage because if we destroy Carthage, what will happen is we will have no external enemy, and we will start to tear ourselves apart."

   25. CWChris Williamson46:17

       Hmm.

   26. JXJiang Xueqin46:17

       Cato the Elder won, and they destroyed Carthage in the Third Punic War, and then right a- what, what happens afterwards? Complete civil strife. And after the civil war starts, right, with, um, starting with, um, um, um, uh, um, it, it, it starts about 100, 100 BCE, um, some- some- something called the Social War. But it never really stops. It, it, so Social War then leads to the rise of, uh, Julius Caesar, which then leads, leads to the rise of Augus- Augustus Caesar, which then leads to all sorts of wars. So that's the problem with the United States. The United States is probably the most violent country on this planet, like, by far. There are more, there are more guns per capita. There are more guns than people, and, like, America's the only nation to play football. Am, am I, am I correct to say, um, only Americans play football?

   27. CWChris Williamson47:02

       Yeah.

   28. JXJiang Xueqin47:02

       Um, so American, Americans have this tremendous energy-

   29. CWChris Williamson47:06

       Hang on. Hang on. You're gonna have to draw the parallel between-

   30. JXJiang Xueqin47:09

       [laughs]
7. 47:57 – 57:09

   Is Internal Violence in America Inevitable?

   1. JXJiang Xueqin47:57

      But I, I do think that right now at this point, uh, domestic violence is almost unavoidable.

   2. CWChris Williamson48:03

      Well, really? Why?

   3. JXJiang Xueqin48:06

      Um, if you just... Uh, I mean, like, and, and you can, you can agree or disagree, but I think there are certain trends that, that are in place that make in- internal, um, violence, um, unavoidable. So the first is just the wealth inequality, the financialization of society.

   4. RPRobert Pape48:22

      This is what I was talking about.

   5. JXJiang Xueqin48:23

      That's one trend. But another major trend, um, is, um, the gerontocracy, the baby boomers. So what's happened is that, um, baby, ba- baby boomers, and s- I apologize to, to both of you, but the baby boomers have monopolized political power, economic wealth, and social status. And if you're a young person-

   6. GFGeorge Friedman48:46

      You have absolutely no opportunity. [laughs] Um, you know, so, um, James B. Calhoun in the 1960s, he ran a very successful experiment called the Rat Utopia Experiment. He basically put rats in a paradise where there'd be no, um, um, p- predators, free food every day. And all that happened was the rats just turned against each other and killed each other. And the reason why is young men, especially young men, they strive for social status. If you don't give them social status, if they're not able to climb the so- social hier- hierarchy and find recognition and status, they turn violent. And, and, and this is just human nature.

   7. RPRobert Pape49:23

      So we tried to get at this. So this, this book, uh, that I'm coming out with, it's not, um... [smacks lips] It's a product of this five years of research that we've been doing at the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago. Uh, 20 national surveys. This is where all that millions of dollars... So, and why we did all that was to try to answer some of the why questions. So we asked questions such as, how worried are you you won't be as prosperous as your parents? That kinda gets at the wealth inequality and the social mobility.

   8. GFGeorge Friedman49:55

      Mm.

   9. RPRobert Pape49:55

      Well, we didn't just find out the general answer to that. We wanted to know, did that make you more likely to support violence, political violence? And it turns out the more you think you won't be as prosperous as your parents, the more you support political violence on the right and on the left.

   10. GFGeorge Friedman50:14

       Wow.

   11. RPRobert Pape50:14

       It's a wedge. It drives both sides up. We also asked... Remember I mentioned the second social change, we're transitioning from a white majority democracy to a white minority democracy? Well, other countries in the world, this has played a huge role in political violence. That's why Lebanon, for instance, has had so much political violence over the years, over the decades.

   12. GFGeorge Friedman50:34

       Mm.

   13. RPRobert Pape50:34

       Well, this is not unique to America, but it's happening for us now, Chris, for the first time. And so we ask the question, if you... Are you, uh, happy with the transition to a white minority democracy, or are you unhappy and wanna reverse it? And what do we find? If you wanna reverse it, you are far more likely to support political violence on right-wing issues. If you want to keep it going, you're more likely to support political violence on left-wing issues.

   14. GFGeorge Friedman51:03

       Mm.

   15. RPRobert Pape51:03

       These are not happening in isolation. They're not just swirling around, and gee, it's kinda random why we're having a, this rise of violent populism now. There are actual reasons, and they overlap with some of what Jiang's talking about, but we're able to get to the data to see, well, let's do some tests here and see, can we really see it in the data? And the answer is yes, and this is why, um... So, uh, I... It's, it's been very worrisome, Chris, for some time. So a year ago, I published a big op-ed, June 2025, in The New York Times. I was explaining this data in this op-ed, and I was warning, we're on the brink of major political violence.

   16. GFGeorge Friedman51:44

       Mm.

   17. RPRobert Pape51:44

       And what happens? The Charlie Kirk assassination happens. What happens? We get the rise of Operation Midway Blitz and then Metro Blitz. And that wasn't the first time, Chris. So a year before that, this data was showing a rise of anger to the point of violence against President Trump. This was in June 2024. So I brought it to our National Sheriffs' Association, so I'm connected with these. So remember, advised White Houses, et cetera.

   18. GFGeorge Friedman52:12

       Yep.

   19. RPRobert Pape52:13

       And I warned them that there's a non-trivial possibility that we're gonna see a ser- a, a, a assassination attempt against President Trump.

   20. GFGeorge Friedman52:21

       When did you say this?

   21. RPRobert Pape52:22

       This was the last week of June 2024.

   22. GFGeorge Friedman52:26

       Ooh.

   23. RPRobert Pape52:26

       Now, they listened. I just wanna say, Chris, they listened, and guess what happened on July 13th at f- And then what happened in my phone is it blew up [laughs] because suddenly people were-

   24. GFGeorge Friedman52:40

       Mystic Mac came through. Yeah

   25. RPRobert Pape52:42

       ... "Let's get that data. What was that data?"

   26. GFGeorge Friedman52:42

       I thought, I thought it literally blew up, but yeah, yeah. [laughs]

   27. RPRobert Pape52:43

       Well, no, no, it did literally. But what I'm trying to say is, Chris, this is... So just as my 20 years of modeling of the Iran war has led to some predictions about what might come in advance, we haven't... Well, but, uh, that's of course been well known in this, at this point. This is not the first time. My work has been studying, um, political violence-

   28. GFGeorge Friedman53:04

       Uh-huh

   29. RPRobert Pape53:04

       ... not just in the rear view mirror, but with an eye toward giving real decision makers, whether it's chief of staff of the Air Force, West Wing of the White House, uh, the FBI, um, for, uh, s- I call it strategic intelligence. It's not tactical intelligence. It's where things are heading to see where probabilities of events in the future are shifting.

   30. GFGeorge Friedman53:28

       But-
8. 57:09 – 59:36

   What the 1960s Teach Us About Civil Unrest

   1. RPRobert Pape57:10

      So I would just say two quick points. Number one is, I want it on the record, I am not pro civil war. [laughs]

   2. CWChris Williamson57:16

      That's, that's the accelerationist argument.

   3. RPRobert Pape57:18

      Number two-

   4. CWChris Williamson57:18

      Just wanna be, just wanna be clear.

   5. GFGeorge Friedman57:18

      Burn it down.

   6. RPRobert Pape57:19

      Just wanna make sure I'm, I'm on the record.

   7. CWChris Williamson57:20

      Okay. Well, well, well you-

   8. RPRobert Pape57:21

      Number two.

   9. CWChris Williamson57:21

      Yeah.

   10. RPRobert Pape57:21

       No, hold it. Number two, more s- more, more seriously. So the point of the research of the book isn't just to give histories of the '60s, it's why did the violence in the '60s end?

   11. CWChris Williamson57:30

       Mm.

   12. RPRobert Pape57:31

       It ends for real reasons. It's not just we burn ourselves out. There were two drivers to the 1960s political violence. They're driven on social change. Change number one was we had a massive shift in migration of Blacks to the, the North and the Midwest that were, that were not getting political representation. That was underneath the Black riots, Malcolm X, the Ballot or the Bullet. In the... By the mid-1970s, you start to have the Black Caucus. You actually get some Black... Now, it's not as good as it should be. I'm not trying to say it's perfect, but this is one of the big reasons why that violence comes down. There's a second r- driver of violence in the 1960s. It's the Vietnam War, the anti-war movement, conscription. What ends? It's not just the Vietnam War ends, Chris. Conscription ended. We end, in 1973, conscription. So I never had to be conscripted, [laughs] okay? Uh-

   13. CWChris Williamson58:26

       Something structural has changed then.

   14. RPRobert Pape58:28

       And that took the steam out of the anti-war movement. As soon as the... That, that's what ended the Weathermen, the Weather Underground. That's what ended those, uh... that, that violent protests here. Both of those issues end. So my point is, we can actually look today at the social causes, and I can tell you, we're likely to have this violent populism for another 10 years. It's not just a-

   15. CWChris Williamson58:53

       You think that there's another decade of this?

   16. RPRobert Pape58:55

       Yes, because of the social changes. We can-

   17. CWChris Williamson58:58

       Okay

   18. RPRobert Pape58:58

       ... we talk about those shifts, Chris.

   19. GFGeorge Friedman58:59

       Then I ask you the question-

   20. RPRobert Pape59:00

       Yeah

   21. GFGeorge Friedman59:00

       ... how does it end this time?

   22. RPRobert Pape59:02

       This is up to us.

   23. GFGeorge Friedman59:03

       Well-

   24. RPRobert Pape59:04

       And that's my point. My point is that this is not all in historical inevitability, and we shouldn't just throw the dice to the wind. We should understand what's happening to us so that we can make more intelligent decisions going forward.

   25. CWChris Williamson59:19

       Mm.

   26. RPRobert Pape59:19

       It's not just a prediction of doom and gloom, it's things are going in a bad direction. Let's take that seriously, and then let's do something to offset it. That's been my wor- world with mostly, uh, foreign policy elites for the last 30 years. I'm now trying to do that with the public.

9. 59:36 – 1:12:22

   Would Trump Really Invade Greenland or Canada?

   1. RPRobert Pape59:36

      So-

   2. CWChris Williamson59:36

      Jiang, you reckon there's gonna be internal strife for the next 10 years?

   3. JXJiang Xueqin59:40

      Right. So, um, back to the young man problem. So right now, there's a very popular phrase called hypergamy. Uh, I'm not sure if, if you know the f- what hypergamy means.

   4. CWChris Williamson59:50

      I don't. I don't.

   5. JXJiang Xueqin59:50

      You know what it means. [laughs] I'm not sure-

   6. CWChris Williamson59:51

      Why are you looking at me as hypergamy?

   7. JXJiang Xueqin59:53

      [laughs] This is why I come out-

   8. CWChris Williamson59:53

      Are you saying that's because I'm a high-value male?

   9. JXJiang Xueqin59:55

      That's right. That's right.

   10. CWChris Williamson59:56

       Is that why?

   11. JXJiang Xueqin59:56

       Yes.

   12. CWChris Williamson59:56

       Yeah, yeah, yeah.

   13. JXJiang Xueqin59:57

       Yeah.

   14. CWChris Williamson59:57

       Yeah, yeah, yeah.

   15. JXJiang Xueqin59:57

       So, so the problem is that the majority of me- young men are not able to find a suitable mate. Uh, because one way to-

   16. CWChris Williamson1:00:06

       Yeah

   17. JXJiang Xueqin1:00:06

       ... reduce, um, p- men, young men's-

   18. CWChris Williamson1:00:10

       [laughs]

   19. JXJiang Xueqin1:00:10

       ... like, violent tendencies is to get married and have children-

   20. CWChris Williamson1:00:13

       [laughs]

   21. JXJiang Xueqin1:00:13

       ... and then become productive members of society. But if, like, you know, the majority of young men cannot get married, then what's a solution? Well, you send them off to war, right? So, um, there are two possibilities ahead for the United States. Um, how do you deal with these millions of young men who cannot get laid, basically? Well, you send them off, send them off to war to die. But if you did that, if you had conscription, it's possible they, they would just rather fight you, okay? So another solution is to colonize, uh, North and South America, to turn the entire Western Hemisphere into a US colony. And they're doing that already with Venezuela. They'll probably do that with Canada. They're talk, talking about Greenland. Uh, ri-

   22. CWChris Williamson1:00:55

       Do you think that realistically America would try and colonize Canada, Greenland, and Venezuela? Not just, uh, oh, we're gonna take a couple of leaders here and s- have soft power. They would actually try to do that.

   23. JXJiang Xueqin1:01:08

       Yes, I do, because there's no one to stop, uh, the United States from doing this Why, why wouldn't the United States just take Alberta? What's stopping the United States from just taking Alberta and, and the parts of-

   24. CWChris Williamson1:01:17

       Is that not law? Is that not, like-

   25. JXJiang Xueqin1:01:18

       Canada has what army again?

   26. RPRobert Pape1:01:20

       Yeah, yeah. The reason he's saying Alberta is that's where the oil is.

   27. JXJiang Xueqin1:01:24

       Yeah.

   28. RPRobert Pape1:01:24

       So one of the things, so this is-

   29. JXJiang Xueqin1:01:26

       I mean, Alberta just wanna leave Canada

   30. RPRobert Pape1:01:26

       ... this is something I was-
10. 1:12:22 – 1:21:17

    How Serious Is the Iran War?

    1. CWChris Williamson1:12:22

       How big-

    2. GFGeorge Friedman1:12:22

       So my-

    3. CWChris Williamson1:12:22

       How big of a deal is the Iran war?

    4. RPRobert Pape1:12:24

       Well, well, y- oh, it's a, it's, it is the biggest deal since going up against Germany in World War II. So Iran is the most difficult challenge we've had since Germany in World War II. So let me give a different window into this. So I've been modeling the bombing of Iran for 20 years, and in the modeling of the bombing of Iran, I started to do this in 2005, and here's where I partly agree with George. Um, I do this in 2005 because once it is known that Iran is enriching uranium, that's when the military planning of going against Iran really jacks up. And I know, 'cause I was teaching for the Air Force in the '90s. I had a lot of experience.

    5. CWChris Williamson1:13:02

       Mm.

    6. RPRobert Pape1:13:02

       So from '79 to about 2002, we have political tensions. Yes, we occasionally do a war game, but after 2002 and '3, things get much more serious.

    7. CWChris Williamson1:13:12

       Mm.

    8. RPRobert Pape1:13:13

       I start to model the bombing of Iran in 2005, and I did it every year for 20 years. I did this in my classes at the University of Chicago. And what I'm do-- I lay out the target set. I lay out what, uh... There was all changes, of course. The target set changes. Fordow comes on. We get, um, uh, the MOABs. So, so we get, we get the different technology changes and so forth. But the big thing that, uh, the modeling always showed is that w- uh, once we, meaning America, bombed the Fordow facility, which only we could do because the Israelis didn't have the large precision ordinance to be able to do it. Once we did that- We would be 90% likely to destroy the centrifuge industrial, uh, the, the, the enrichment capability of the, uh, facility of Fordow, but we would have virtually no knowledge of whether we destroyed the 60%-enriched uranium, the actual fissile material.

    9. JXJiang Xueqin1:14:14

       Hmm.

    10. RPRobert Pape1:14:14

        And that's critical, Chris. Because building a bomb is a piece of cake once you have the enriched material. Most people don't know that. I also teach my students how to build a bomb, so, so, like, take them through the soup to nuts so they really understand. It's the fissile material. [smacks lips] And then the modeling, and this is what I told my class, and I have the slides and so, and so forth, and I put them on my Substack. And I said then what would happen is if we bomb Fordow, then a year or two later, we would do regime change bombing. Not just come back and bomb in general, we would literally do regime change bombing. And why would you do regime change bombing? Back to your que- just kind of link and connect all the dots. It's because you would become, once you bomb Fordow, you couldn't track for-- with high confidence the dispersal of that fissile material.

    11. JXJiang Xueqin1:15:05

        Hmm.

    12. RPRobert Pape1:15:06

        And we know, we have civilian satellites, um, showing that a couple days before we bomb Fordow, stuff's coming out of Fordow. We have civilian satellites showing that Esfahan, another site in February of this year, a month before we do the bombing, uh, Iran is digging stuff out. We think that maybe they moved the stuff from Fordow to Esfahan, and now they're digging it out. So this issue of a nuclear weapon, I think is really quite serious. Uh, now Israel, I think, is playing a role, but I, in my mi- I think it's secondary because they have been arguing to do this for every year for 20 years. What make the difference here, I believe, was the concern that we couldn't track the fissile material. [smacks lips] And that's still going on to this day. That's why we're worried about Pickax Mountain, very specif- So what all that means, Chris, is we're in an escalation trap. The trap didn't just start with killing the leader on February 28th. It starts with the bombing of Fordow.

    13. JXJiang Xueqin1:16:10

        Mm-hmm.

    14. RPRobert Pape1:16:10

        And that's the stages I published literally several days before we, uh, killed the leader. I-- Escalation trap, I laid out the stages of what would come, would kill the leader. The-

    15. JXJiang Xueqin1:16:20

        Is it following your predictive game plan thus far?

    16. RPRobert Pape1:16:23

        Yes, and that's what's so scary about this. It's-- And what I'm really concerned about is we are coming now to a, a serious stage of the escalation trap that's going to start next week and the following week. So I've been laying out on my Substack, The Escalation Trap, the nightmare scenario for how this is going to escalate to get worse. And that nightmare scenario, which I started laying out in July, was the rise of gas prices in the United States. Well, I don't know if you've been [laughs] tracking it, but in Chicago, they're going up. And what that is doing and, and what this is doing is it creates the opportunity for Iran to really, uh, close and try to shut down Hormuz. Why? So that they can try to damage Trump politically in the midterms to irrevocably destroy his presidency. And why is-- And what did I say that was going to do? That was going to energize the Trump administration to start fighting back. And what is to-- what are we gonna see literally tomorrow with Scott Bessent is D-Day, okay? Now, it's an economic D-Day, but that economic D-Day is, uh, Iran's already talking about further escalation here. If Iran escalates, are we really just gonna sit back and say, "Oh, sure, we're gonna..." No, there's a real danger. We're in the spiral phase of the escalation trap. [smacks lips] As those gas prices went up, this created a window of maximum leverage for Iran. They're using that maximum leverage to wreck Trump's presidency f- in the-- for the midterms. And I think that what President Trump is doing is trying to figure a way to, it's not just how to deal with Iran now. It's what does he do to show he is gonna do something as Iran is really doing great damage to our economy and his presidency?

    17. JXJiang Xueqin1:18:20

        We're, we're seeing the collapse of the global economy because for the past 30, 40 years, there's a very simple deal that governed the world, which is that the United States would provide protection to the GCC and to Japan. In return, Japan and the GCC would buy US Treasuries, and that was the deal that made the American economy so vibrant. The GCC now is being destroyed by this war, and because Japan gets most of its oil from the GCC, the Japanese yen is weakening, which means that these two regions of the world that provided most of the world's liquidity, especially to the United States, they can no longer do so. So what Scott Bessent is worried about is, um, um, J- the GCC and Japan can't buy US Treasuries, and so ri-- and so what that means is United States cannot refinance its $40 trillion debt. This is, this is the apocalypse. This is cat- a catastrophe. This is not just a short war.

    18. GFGeorge Friedman1:19:17

        We should also take a look at the other side, what Iran is experiencing, what is happening in Iran. This is not simply the United States. There's a significant split happening in Iran. A speech the other day made by a major leader said, "Look, our people are starving. We cannot continue this war." Okay? The Artesh is there, which is the s- secular army. So in other words, look at this war not just from our side and the consequences to us. See the paint, uh, pain on the other side, okay? So we assume that the IRGC is super powerful, can continue to do anything it wants, has no resistance. We forget that there was about 20,000 people killed in an uprising before the war Okay? That division is not gone

    19. JXJiang Xueqin1:20:08

        Iran has been under sanctions for the past 50 years. It's a poor place. People are used to being poor. Are Americans gonna put up with $10, $10 g- gallon gas prices?

    20. CWChris Williamson1:20:17

        If you're gonna spend an hour in the gym, you might as well look hot and feel comfortable while you're doing it. And honestly, who wants to be in the background of a TikToker's highlight reel dressed like a chump? Gymshark makes some of the best men's and women's training gear on the planet, and something that I realized a few years ago is that when you actually like what you're wearing in the gym, you show up differently, you train harder, you stay longer, and get way more high fives. The hybrid shorts are my go-to. They are the perfect length, super lightweight, easy to wash and dry, and their sleeveless T-shirts are what I've trained in every day for basically the last decade. They're the ideal fit, they're breathable, they hold their shape perfectly. No more looking like Adam Sandler's your stylist. Basically, everything they make is unbelievably well-designed. You already know about them. They're high quality. You get 30 days of free returns globally with global shipping and a 10% discount sitewide. So get that 10% discount by going to the link in the description below or heading to gym.sh/modernwisdom and using the code MODERNWISDOM10 at checkout. That's gym.sh/modernwisdom and MODERNWISDOM10 at checkout.

11. 1:21:17 – 1:31:12

    Can Economic Pressure Actually Win a War?

    1. RPRobert Pape1:21:17

       So for 30 years, I've been studying air power, economic sanctions, blockades. Um, I've, uh, focused on American political violence. So again, it's the intersection of these military to, uh, action and politics. Uh, one thing that's very important to know in advance of what Scott Besson is about to tell us is since World War I, not going back before World War I, since World War I, even heavy economic pressure alone, I mean alone without other military force-

    2. GFGeorge Friedman1:21:50

       Hmm

    3. RPRobert Pape1:21:51

       ... has never won a major war. Never won a major war. All I want, and this is gonna... there's gonna be a big Substack tomorrow as I put this out, all I want is I want the reporters at that news conference to ask a very simple question. So the British blockade on Germany in World War I did not defeat Germany, even though it killed over 700,000 Ger- uh, German civilians, and we still had to have ground power to end that conflict. So the economic sanctions on Japan before World War I and then during... or World War II, and then during World War II itself, did not stop us from bombing, uh, its cities using the atomic bomb, and then also Russian entry into the war with ground forces. That's how we defeated, uh, Japan. Uh, if we look at Iraq from 1990 to 2003, um, it was our American military that kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, and once Saddam was out of Kuwait from '91 to 2003, we had fif- we had sanctions that crushed the Iraqi economy by 50% each year-

    4. GFGeorge Friedman1:22:58

       Hmm

    5. RPRobert Pape1:22:58

       ... for all those years, and what did we have to do? 150,000. You see? You get my point. John?

    6. CWChris Williamson1:23:03

       Every time you speak, I feel like I'm treading on eggshells. I'm like, I don't want to know what comes next.

    7. RPRobert Pape1:23:08

       Well, now you-

    8. CWChris Williamson1:23:08

       I don't want to know what comes next

    9. RPRobert Pape1:23:09

       ... now you feel, now you see what it was like when I taught for the Air Force, because see, I'm-

    10. CWChris Williamson1:23:12

        Fucking awful [laughs] .

    11. RPRobert Pape1:23:13

        That's how they described it, the prison of Pape.

    12. GFGeorge Friedman1:23:16

        So, uh, he gets you in the data so you can't get out. So we see Iran as a completely united country, no factions and so on and so forth, okay? That's obviously a delusion, because there are always factions and so on and so forth. So I'm not saying that it's economic force, but there were great divisions that we saw before. Those divisions are still there in some ways. So the question is not just the economic consequences, but also the fact that it's very rare to have a country that is totally united in this way, and this is not the country like that.

    13. RPRobert Pape1:23:53

        So, so George, the external force is bringing those divisions closer together.

    14. GFGeorge Friedman1:23:58

        As it is.

    15. RPRobert Pape1:23:59

        They're not breaking them apart.

    16. GFGeorge Friedman1:24:00

        I di- I profoundly disagree. They can sometimes push them together. Sometimes I say, as we did in the Vietnam War-

    17. RPRobert Pape1:24:07

        Again, all I say is what's the case since World War I? All I need is one case.

    18. GFGeorge Friedman1:24:13

        One case?

    19. RPRobert Pape1:24:13

        One case where our external pressure, uh, our economic pressure, where we've had... And again, I just gave you, uh, four. You can have another five.

    20. GFGeorge Friedman1:24:22

        I, I'm not... I just particularly said I have no meaning economic pressure. I'm ta- talking about the inherent differences within this vast country.

    21. CWChris Williamson1:24:32

        Why does that matter?

    22. GFGeorge Friedman1:24:33

        It matters because when the attacks start to happen and the pain starts to rise, they become more powerful in the sense that others look at them and say, "You were right. This was not the government we should have." So, uh, we-

    23. CWChris Williamson1:24:48

        Did they not already try and uprise before-

    24. GFGeorge Friedman1:24:51

        Of course

    25. CWChris Williamson1:24:51

        ... and that didn't work?

    26. GFGeorge Friedman1:24:51

        Of course. No, they killed them all.

    27. CWChris Williamson1:24:53

        [laughs]

    28. GFGeorge Friedman1:24:54

        Now under these circumstances-

    29. CWChris Williamson1:24:55

        Is that gonna stop?

    30. GFGeorge Friedman1:24:57

        Well, this is the fundamental question, okay? How do we-
12. 1:31:12 – 1:45:23

    Is the Iran War Becoming a Forever War?

    1. JXJiang Xueqin1:31:12

       What do you think is the likely outcome of the Iran war?

    2. RPRobert Pape1:31:15

       It doesn't end. It, what's gonna happen is eventually the Ukraine war and the Iran war merge. Already we're seeing that, uh, after Zelenskyy, uh, bombed an Iranian cargo ship in the Caspian Sea, and Iranian, and Zelenskyy was very proud of this. Like, you, you see, um, I can do this for, for the Americans. So, um, it is very likely that all the world powers are brought, are brought in. China is brought into the war. Russia is brought into the war. Um-

    3. JXJiang Xueqin1:31:41

       This sounds a lot like the World War III that we said wasn't gonna happen at the top of this episode.

    4. GFGeorge Friedman1:31:45

       [laughs] Except it's not a world. So it's, it, I, I didn't say that.

    5. JXJiang Xueqin1:31:47

       I mean, it's a later-

    6. RPRobert Pape1:31:48

       Did, did I say that?

    7. JXJiang Xueqin1:31:49

       No, no. You did, you did.

    8. RPRobert Pape1:31:49

       No, no, he, no, he, no, he actually thinks World War III is, is kind of coming quickly.

    9. JXJiang Xueqin1:31:54

       Okay.

    10. RPRobert Pape1:31:54

        Here's where my, here's where I would, uh... So I see the trends that Jiang is saying. I don't want to disagree with the trends. I think January of this year is going to be a focal point moment.

    11. JXJiang Xueqin1:32:05

        January of next year.

    12. RPRobert Pape1:32:06

        Of next year. I mean, January 2027 will be a focal point moment where all the actors, the United States, China, Iran, have a chance to reset. Now, where they go, here's what I... But why January?

    13. GFGeorge Friedman1:32:21

        Keep, go back to what I just said, which is Iran has a strategy for the US midterms. It sees the oil inventories running down. It sees its period of maximum pressure. The opportunity here is, uh, to destroy Trump's presidency politically, not to knock him out of office, but so that he is the lamest of lame ducks. Well, will that happen or not? We'll know a quite a bit in the first week in January. Now, we won't necessarily know 100%, but we'll know a lot of information.

    14. RPRobert Pape1:32:55

        Mm.

    15. GFGeorge Friedman1:32:55

        And I believe what's going to happen is once we get to the first week in January, everybody will be recalibrating for a post-Trump world now, or a future Trump world.

    16. RPRobert Pape1:33:08

        How do you feel-

    17. GFGeorge Friedman1:33:09

        You know, I... Yeah.

    18. RPRobert Pape1:33:09

        How do you feel about this?

    19. JXJiang Xueqin1:33:10

        Look, look, the problem is we're trying to see this from an economic lens, and the reason why the MOU fell apart is Israel refused to abide by the terms. One of the major terms of the MOU signed between the United States and I- and Iran is that all terms, all peace terms that apply to Iran would also apply to Iran's allies, especially Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that required Israel to withdraw its forces from Southern Lebanon. Israel refused to do so, and Israel has only accelerated its attacks on Hezbollah. So we think that it's entirely between, um, United States and Iran, but Israel has a lot of options. And right now, for whatever reason, we can discuss this, Israel is choosing to, um, escalate the war. And w- and, uh, also the Houthis have been brought in, and the thing about the Houthis is that they are religious fanatics. They are, they are, they are a very poor people, they live in mountains, and they're not afraid to die. And n- right now they're fighting this war against Saudi Arabia, so Saudi Arabia Aramco facilities are being hit. The, um, the other strait, uh, in the Middle East, the, the Bab el-Mandab strait, has been closed by, by the Houthis. So we're seeing this war escalate, and again, we're trying to see this from economic lens, but if you, if you look at what the Houthis are, Houthis are doing, if you look at the, what the IRDC and the Israelis are doing, I would say this is almost like a religious war. It's a crusade. It's an eschatological, uh, war.

    20. RPRobert Pape1:34:41

        Mm, mm.

    21. GFGeorge Friedman1:34:41

        But there's a other dimension we have to see, the alliance between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. Now, if you take a look at a map, are all around them, these countries. Saudi Arabia has no use for Iran. The, the Turks are seeking to evolve themselves into a major point, scaring the Israelis to death, and Pakistan itself is evolving dramatically in this war at a very sophisticated state. So when you take a look at the situation in Iran, let's not just talk about the bombing and everything, but the geopolitical development. Now, today there was a story, I don't know if it's true or not, that Iran is going to be asked to join this coalition. In other words, submit. Whether they do it or not, whether this is an a- actual offer or anything, I have no idea, but it was there. But this created a new structure in the Middle East, this alliance, a very different one with a very powerful country. Israel is terrified of Turkey because they know they do-

    22. RPRobert Pape1:35:52

        No it's not. [laughs]

    23. GFGeorge Friedman1:35:53

        It is bombed. [laughs]

    24. RPRobert Pape1:35:54

        They just, they just bombed Turkey.

    25. JXJiang Xueqin1:35:55

        Turkish officials in, in Syria.

    26. GFGeorge Friedman1:35:57

        By Mi- yes, and that was part of it, because this is a country they cannot defeat. They've only fought countries along their borders, and they were able for, since the founding of Israel, to hold those borders. The Turkish army is three times as large as the Israeli army. And while I don't believe that the Turks really have any desire to fight them, the Israeli, shall we say, society is built around a commitment to the belief that they're going to try to destroy us. There is a built-in paranoia. So when this ends, you know, this problem ends a little bit, they bomb, uh, S- Syria. They then tell the American ambassador they didn't bomb Syria. Then they say, "Turkey is our greatest fear." Built into Israel by na- by history is a paranoia. Who is my greatest enemy? I have one. Now they're facing for the first time an enemy that they cannot, because of both geography and military capability, defeat. All right? Now, when Rundstedt was asked what to do after the Battle of Bulge, he said, "Make peace, you fools." And this is the situation that Israel is in. It's an internal crisis. It has reached a point where its military capability is not enough.

    27. RPRobert Pape1:37:37

        So the reason I think the midterms are a decisive threshold-

    28. GFGeorge Friedman1:37:42

        And I agree

    29. RPRobert Pape1:37:42

        ... not just a minor threshold, is it will determine whether the Democrats control Congress. If the Democrats control Congress, which is still an if, but we'll know in January, there is going to be two things that are gonna happen, and we see this in the Democratic policies already. Number one is there'll be tremendous pressure to literally end the Iran war. So we saw this in 1974 by Congress. Congress has not played much of a role in foreign policy. The last time it got involved was '74 with Vietnam to truly constrain the executive. There'll be a battle about this, of course, but number one is the Democrats wanting to shut down this, and that would stop it from becoming a forever war.

    30. GFGeorge Friedman1:38:26

        Wh- wh- which took-
13. 1:45:23 – 2:03:21

    Why Did Trump Bomb Fordow?

    1. RPRobert Pape1:45:23

       idea.

    2. RPRobert Pape1:45:23

       Was, was your question about why to do the bombing in the first place, though?

    3. RPRobert Pape1:45:26

       Yeah, yeah. So, so, so I want to present-

    4. RPRobert Pape1:45:26

       Take a step back from it.

    5. RPRobert Pape1:45:27

       Yeah, yeah. I, I, I want to present another theory, okay? Besides your modeling.

    6. RPRobert Pape1:45:31

       No, please.

    7. RPRobert Pape1:45:32

       Well so, 1996, uh, is a Clean Break memo.

    8. RPRobert Pape1:45:35

       Yes.

    9. RPRobert Pape1:45:36

       Right?

    10. RPRobert Pape1:45:36

        Yeah.

    11. RPRobert Pape1:45:36

        And you, you probably know the p- people who wrote that, right?

    12. RPRobert Pape1:45:38

        Very... No, Paul Wolfowitz-

    13. RPRobert Pape1:45:40

        Richard Perle, Douglas Feith

    14. RPRobert Pape1:45:40

        ... very... Paul, Paul Wolfowitz from my department, Jiang.

    15. RPRobert Pape1:45:43

        Okay. All right.

    16. RPRobert Pape1:45:43

        '71 PhD, University of Chicago.

    17. RPRobert Pape1:45:45

        Okay. So-

    18. RPRobert Pape1:45:45

        So I know these people pretty well. [laughs]

    19. RPRobert Pape1:45:46

        So, so just for s- for, for some context-

    20. RPRobert Pape1:45:48

        For the idiot in the room. Thank you

    21. RPRobert Pape1:45:49

        ... yeah, yeah. The Clean Break memo was, uh, a proposal to Ben- Benjamin Netanyahu, and the argument is that n- that Israel, um, under Netanyahu, should withdraw from the peace lo- from the, sorry, from, from the Oslo Peace Accords. Because, um, in order to assure peace in the Middle East, Israel had to be strong. It ha- it ha- it had to conduct regime change in Iraq and Syria. Also, um, Israel needed to be self-sufficient, economically and militarily. It needed to ba- basically stop being dependent on United States. In o- if you want to resolve the Palestinian issue, then you beat the crap out of them. Ra- rather than try to compromise and give them land, that would just make them more greedy. Instead, you, um, you, uh, establish peaceful strength. Tho- that- those were the exact terms, peaceful strength, okay? So that's the 1996 Clean Break memo. Why that's important is if you look at the Clean Break memo and you look at today, they basically implemented every single point of the Clean Break memo, right? Every single point. That's number one. Number two is what's interesting is the people responsible for the Clean Break memo, Richard Perle, um, Douglas Feith, went on to work in the Bush administration, and they were, along with Paul Wolfowitz, your friend, the architects-

    22. RPRobert Pape1:47:03

        No, not friend.

    23. RPRobert Pape1:47:03

        Okay, sorry, sorry.

    24. RPRobert Pape1:47:04

        No, no, no, no.

    25. RPRobert Pape1:47:04

        Right.

    26. RPRobert Pape1:47:04

        That's going too far. [laughs] Paulie.

    27. RPRobert Pape1:47:06

        But the three of them, okay, the three of them in the Pentagon, were the architects of the Iraq War, right? And then, uh, n- after 9/11, Wesley Clark appears on stage with Amy Goodman, and, uh, Amy Goodman, Amy Goodman is like, "What's the plan?" And Wesley Clark is like, "We're gonna go after seven nations in five years," and these seven nations include Iraq, uh, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, uh, Sudan, Somalia, and there's one more, Iran. So if I'm just looking at it from, like, a, like, top-down, um, bird's-eye view, I would say that this was a- was always the plan, um, ever since the 1996 Clean Break memo, to attack Iran eventually, because they've been saying this for the past, uh, 30 years. And so isn't that a good reason to attack Iran?

    28. RPRobert Pape1:48:01

        So I-

    29. RPRobert Pape1:48:01

        Because that was always the plan

    30. RPRobert Pape1:48:02

        ... so let me, first of all, number one, I a- I agree with your characterization of the Clean Break, Clean Break plan. Number two, I agree it was a plan. Um, what I see from 2005 on, um, and I, uh, was working with the, uh, Bush administration about how to essentially calm down the Iraq War. So I had many, many interactions here with the Bush administration because, um, I was warning before we did Iraq that we would touch off the largest suicide terrorist campaign in modern times. Uh, we did invade Iraq. We did touch off the largest suicide terrorist campaign in modern times. And who started my center at the University of Chicago? The Chicago Project used to be on suicide terrorism. It was actually the Bush administration. Think about that for a moment, because suddenly somebody made a unique prediction, none other terrorism expert was predicting that, and I gave it directly to Paul Wolfowitz here. He was... Did Iraq anyway, it touched it off anyway. And so now suddenly I'm engaging with, uh, with them. Um, we never in- put an army in a certain African country. Think Somalia. That was a possibility. That did not happen. Certain things that did not happen also are important to know. So one of the things that happened during this period after the, um, uh, the Iraq War became a disaster, is all that influence by Wolfowitz left, uh, Feith left, um, Perle left, and it's because it became widely understood what the real dangers were of going into Iran. Much... I mean, Iraq was already a problem, but Iran is a much bigger... I said the biggest challenge since Germany in World War II.
14. 2:03:21 – 2:11:13

    Is Israel at the Centre of the Iran War?

    1. GFGeorge Friedman2:03:21

       Israel.

    2. RPRobert Pape2:03:21

       Right. So one thing

    3. JXJiang Xueqin2:03:23

       Uh, that people don't appreciate, appreciate about the Greater Israel Project is the major impediment to that thing is actually the US military. Because the US military provides balance of power in-

    4. RPRobert Pape2:03:34

       Mm-hmm

    5. JXJiang Xueqin2:03:34

       ... the Middle East.

    6. RPRobert Pape2:03:35

       Mm-hmm.

    7. JXJiang Xueqin2:03:35

       The US military provides, uh, protection to the GCC. So if Israel were to become the dominant nation, it would need a way to remove the United States from the equation, right? And this Iran war is, it's, it, it is a solution to this problem because if the, if the Americans send in ground troops, which is part of the escalation trap-

    8. RPRobert Pape2:03:55

       Yeah, yeah, yeah

    9. JXJiang Xueqin2:03:56

       ... [laughs] then there's, then the United States would probably lose this war, and the United States would be forced to withdraw back into the Western Hemisphere.

    10. CWChris Williamson2:04:03

        Hang on. Are you saying that Israel managed to convince Trump to go into Iran to do the bomb, which then gets into the escalation trap, which means that you need to put boots on the ground, which means that America ultimately loses, which means that America then has to withdraw to make room for Israel?

    11. JXJiang Xueqin2:04:19

        I do not know if this was intentional.

    12. CWChris Williamson2:04:21

        [laughs]

    13. JXJiang Xueqin2:04:21

        I don't know if this was planned.

    14. RPRobert Pape2:04:23

        [laughs]

    15. JXJiang Xueqin2:04:23

        But it's turning out this way. But one of the-

    16. RPRobert Pape2:04:25

        But if you're right, Jiang

    17. JXJiang Xueqin2:04:26

        ... one of the problems-

    18. RPRobert Pape2:04:27

        If you're right, then, and I, I did a piece on my Professor Pape Substack on this, what will happen if America truly, truly withdraws is a much smaller Israel.

    19. JXJiang Xueqin2:04:39

        I think it really, yeah.

    20. RPRobert Pape2:04:39

        It becomes a nuclear Sparta. It doesn't quite get wiped off the map-

    21. JXJiang Xueqin2:04:42

        You, you have to understand-

    22. RPRobert Pape2:04:43

        ... but a much smaller-

    23. JXJiang Xueqin2:04:44

        ... how weak Israel is

    24. RPRobert Pape2:04:45

        ... Yeah. Israel is much weaker.

    25. JXJiang Xueqin2:04:46

        What if Israel took over CENTCOM? What if all of America's military apparatus, okay, the planes, the troops, all then, uh, became under the control of Israel? Which is happening right now, right? Because you have de-bes- de- debasification right now in the Middle East, which means that all these, um, planes, all, all this weaponry is now forced to go to Israel because it's the only safe space for-

    26. RPRobert Pape2:05:12

        Under that hypothetical, I agree with you. But what you see with, let's take the Democratic Party and about a third of the Republican Party, is they're not having that. So what you see is, as that, e- exactly your scenario, by the way, is one of the big reasons why there's been so much anger against Israel. So there's two actors, or two, two actors that are getting blamed for this war in Iran, which is wrecking the world's economy. It's number one, President Trump, and number two, it's Israel.

    27. JXJiang Xueqin2:05:43

        [laughs]

    28. RPRobert Pape2:05:43

        And both of those are in deep trouble as we go forward.

    29. JXJiang Xueqin2:05:47

        Yeah. I-

    30. RPRobert Pape2:05:47

        And the Israel's in trouble with the American public. Israel is losing the American public in droves.
15. 2:11:13 – 2:22:43

    Why Does Israel Have So Much Influence Over the US?

    1. CWChris Williamson2:11:13

       Why is it that Israel's got so much influence over the US?

    2. RPRobert Pape2:11:16

       Oh, money. It's, it's money. It's APAC. This is in "The Israel Lobby," John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt's book. They lay it out. Um, and it's fu- fundamentally, it's a very simple story, which is that although anybody can give money to elections, it's a, it's a free and open process, it just turns out, if you look at all the data, uh, that Jews as a group give more money than any other group per capita. And as a group-

    3. GFGeorge Friedman2:11:43

       There is a-

    4. RPRobert Pape2:11:44

       ... overall, about a third of all money in elections is coming from, uh, Jewish Americans

    5. GFGeorge Friedman2:11:48

       There is a very different reason. During the Cold War, the Soviets had relations with Syria, had re- relations with Egypt, and so on. The Cold War was fought there as well. When the Arabs have attacked Israel in 1973, okay? It was with Soviet weapons, Soviet training, many cases Soviet tactics imposed. Israel at that point was one of the few countries that was pro-American, and who had a strategic point that it could undermine Egypt, it could undermine these things. So remember, ever since the Suez Crisis, the Soviets had gotten involved in it. The Cold War is over now. These are not relevant to this thing. But it's not simply money or something like that. Well, that was there too. But that when the Cold War, you take a look at the situation that the Russians had, and the amount of influence they had even in Lebanon and so on and so forth, this, destabilizing, it was deeply involved in the region, and the United States didn't have very firm allies in it. It had Iran as an ally, had Israel as an ally, and they were players.

    6. RPRobert Pape2:13:04

       So-

    7. GFGeorge Friedman2:13:04

       So they were-- So that ap- that situation is obsolete. The Soviets are no longer there, and so it's irrelevant.

    8. JXJiang Xueqin2:13:12

       So to answer your question, why Israel has so much power, there's an alliance between Zionist capital, um, um, basically APAC, as well as, um, Christian evangelicals, uh, which is about a quarter of the population. Among these Christian evangelicals, um, maybe a minority are Christian Zionists, uh, which b- and they believe that, um, Israel is God's plan to save the world. So Israel has, has to be, has to be protected at all costs, okay? So you have this massive alliance between, um, Zionist capital, and then you have these fanatical Christian evangelicals. Um, so one of the most powerful, um, organizations in the United States is something called Christians, Christians United for Israel, run by someone named John Hagee, and about seven million members. And all they care about is Israel. So if you're a congressman and you say anything bad about Israel, you have, like, millions of people literally calling you up every single day bitching at you, like literally. Um, these are the people who are funding, uh, the West Bank settlement settlers, and they are the main cause of friction between, uh, the Israelis and the Arabs, um, because these West Bank settlers are just complete nutsos. They're, they're, they're, they're crazy. Um, so, um, you say that, okay, in November, the Israel lobby will, will be tau- taught a lesson, but if you got, like, this alliance in place, right, between Zionist capital, and we're ta- we're talking, like, a lot of money, right? They put in, like, $30 million to defeat Thomas Massie in Kentucky. They put in $70 million to, to defeat, um, Abdul El-Sayed in, in Michigan. That's a lot of money for a primary, right? They have almost have access to unlimited capital. Then you have someone like, um, [lip smacks] Laurin David Ellison, who, who's able to buy up CBS News and install Barry Weiss. So this alliance is almost unprecedented in American politics, so I don't see how just disgust with Israel can, um, um- uh, negate the power of, of the Israeli lobby

    9. RPRobert Pape2:15:18

       Well, well, you're seeing that, um, Jewish, uh, representatives running for Congress are losing right and left

    10. JXJiang Xueqin2:15:25

        Zionists

    11. RPRobert Pape2:15:25

        And also that, uh, Zi- so it's not just whether they are Jews running for the American Congress, whether they are the Christian Zionists running for the Congress. And, uh, one of the big things that's, um, underneath that is that there is a large movement, um, among the right. So most of the, the evangelicals are on the right. They're, they're not on the left. They're not Democrats. They're, they're conservatives. Uh, th- many of the folks supporting, say, Tucker Carlson, uh, Joe Kent has run for office several times. Um, they are, uh, folks that are extremely unhappy with the role of Israel in driving the foreign wars as they see it. Uh, I see it as a secondary factor. They agree with you, Jiang, that it's a number one factor, and what they're doing is they're voting the bums out. They're literally voting the bums out-

    12. JXJiang Xueqin2:16:14

        Mm

    13. RPRobert Pape2:16:15

        ... and replacing them with new people who they think, um, are going to zero out the money for Israel.

    14. JXJiang Xueqin2:16:21

        The problem-

    15. RPRobert Pape2:16:22

        And I think they're gonna hold those people to account.

    16. JXJiang Xueqin2:16:24

        The problem-

    17. RPRobert Pape2:16:24

        They want the Israel's money to be zeroed out

    18. JXJiang Xueqin2:16:26

        ... the problem with Israel, and that is not, you know, not realizing that the primary use of Israel is obsolete. Syria does not have Russian bases, Soviet bases. Egypt is not a Soviet power pot- potentially blocking the Suez Canal and so on and so forth. So Israel was once a vital asset for the United States under the circumstances. Truly, as long as Israel has money, it's a vital asset for the United States.

    19. GFGeorge Friedman2:16:54

        No, the answer is a lot of countries have far more money than Israel does.

    20. JXJiang Xueqin2:16:58

        Can they put it into American politics as easily as Israel can?

    21. GFGeorge Friedman2:17:02

        If that was the only thing that was doing it, the pr- uh, that'd be true. On the other hand, if you go back to the Cold War and how desperate it was, the relationship between the US and Israel doesn't, isn't based on money, and nobody challenges it, because the Soviets are so powerful there.

    22. RPRobert Pape2:17:22

        The, the, the reason this is happening now, this anger against Israel, is not just it's another forever war. It's because this is the war that's hurting the American pocketbook in a serious way. If you go back since 1991, uh, and you can even go back further, but if, if listeners would just go back to 1991 and call up on Google and say, "Give me a chart of annual GDP growth or decline in the United States since 1991 to today," they're gonna see some great patterns. They're gonna see, number one, GDP growth goes down during the 19- 2007, say, housing crisis, COVID, but it does not go down during the, uh, Gulf War in '91. It does not go down in Kosovo. It does not go down in 2003 when we invade Iraq. It does not go down during the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This war is different, and the reason it's different is not just it's another war in a long period of time. It's different because this is the war that Americans are feeling it in their pocketbook for real.

    23. JXJiang Xueqin2:18:29

        So, so if, if it is the case that the American public is turning against Israel, and I certainly hope so, how did Thomas Massie, who was one of the, um, most ardent anti-Israel voices in Congress-

    24. RPRobert Pape2:18:42

        Oh, Trump. Trump went after him in a big way. You got the... So Trump, Trump targeted Massie w- and he targeted Marjorie Taylor Greene. He targeted Massie. And when you're targeted by Trump, and we know this most from Marjorie Taylor Greene, this means assassination attempts against you and your kids and your families. So this isn't just a small, uh, this isn't just a political targeting we're talking about.

    25. JXJiang Xueqin2:19:06

        So, so let's summarize what, what you're saying. Number one is you believe money has a significant impact on American politics.

    26. RPRobert Pape2:19:14

        Oh, yeah.

    27. JXJiang Xueqin2:19:14

        And Zionists have a lot of money to spend.

    28. RPRobert Pape2:19:17

        Yeah.

    29. JXJiang Xueqin2:19:17

        Okay, that's number one.

    30. RPRobert Pape2:19:18

        Yeah.
16. 2:22:43 – 2:30:37

    How Can Trump Win the Iran War?

    1. GFGeorge Friedman2:22:43

       it's really hard-

    2. RPRobert Pape2:22:43

       How long would it have to go on for? If it goes on for another year, would you say it's the biggest crisis?

    3. GFGeorge Friedman2:22:47

       I, I, I have no way to see it because I don't know the consequences, nor do I know how to forethethought or what will happen to the Straits of Hormuz and so on. So if they were in the Straits of Hormuz and so on, if they were secured and the war went on, it might have one path. This is another path.

    4. RPRobert Pape2:23:04

       But Trump-

    5. GFGeorge Friedman2:23:05

       It become-

    6. RPRobert Pape2:23:05

       Don't you see, George, that Trump's effort to end the war quickly with a victory for Trump-

    7. GFGeorge Friedman2:23:11

       I, I-

    8. RPRobert Pape2:23:11

       ... is what is likely to create the Pyrrhic victory-

    9. GFGeorge Friedman2:23:14

       The a-

    10. RPRobert Pape2:23:14

        ... that's gonna go on and on?

    11. GFGeorge Friedman2:23:16

        The answer is I probably agree with you, but I'm not certain because I'm not certain about how Iran is evolving. So I agree with you certainly that if this war continues, the consequences will be massive. I also agree with you that Trump will have a great deal of difficulty ending it on his own terms. But there's a variable there that we have to take seriously, the internal capabilities of Iran.

    12. RPRobert Pape2:23:45

        But we do have to put some probabilities between now and November, which is, what, 75 days? I think between now and November to expect Iran to implode, which is possible. I wouldn't, I would say possible, but I wouldn't even give it a 10% chance between now and November.

    13. GFGeorge Friedman2:24:03

        I think they're using the election to try to force Trump into a position that he has to end it even by making massive concessions.

    14. RPRobert Pape2:24:11

        We, we agree.

    15. GFGeorge Friedman2:24:12

        Okay.

    16. RPRobert Pape2:24:12

        There we agree. The question-

    17. CWChris Williamson2:24:13

        So the likelihood of Trump voluntarily ending it

    18. RPRobert Pape2:24:16

        Well, I think this, it, without-

    19. GFGeorge Friedman2:24:17

        0%

    20. RPRobert Pape2:24:17

        ... more f- How, right?

    21. GFGeorge Friedman2:24:20

        0%.

    22. RPRobert Pape2:24:20

        0%.

    23. GFGeorge Friedman2:24:21

        There's no way.

    24. RPRobert Pape2:24:21

        0%. Yeah.

    25. GFGeorge Friedman2:24:21

        There's no way.

    26. RPRobert Pape2:24:21

        I think that what you're seeing is the opposite. He, he is more likely to use force or, and it's starting with economic force, to get a symbolic victory, and I don't think Iran is gonna play their part. Iran is just not willing to give him the victory that he can w- yeah, they're giving him the middle finger.

    27. GFGeorge Friedman2:24:38

        So in the same way that we say Trump doesn't have the power to do these things, we have to take a look at power of Iran as well. So one of the things that Trump wants is to end the war and not be a crippled president above all else.

    28. RPRobert Pape2:24:55

        Yep.

    29. GFGeorge Friedman2:24:57

        I- Iranians seem to be operating, trying to push it out. Now, come October, he can't, the president cannot make a deal. That'll-- They're trying to force him into a position negotiation, and they're succeeding because he understands he's gonna lose power if he continues this. So now we ask the question psychologically that I can't answer. Does Trump care more about remaining powerful as president or more about beating the Iranians because he started the war and he wanted to be successful? I have no idea which way he goes. But the Iranians I think are sophisticated and are using it and using the election as a bargaining chip.

    30. RPRobert Pape2:25:41

        If Trump wants to win this war and bring world peace and prosperity, he, he needs to do two things, okay? If he does these two things, I guarantee you this war will e- this war will end, the United States will come out on top, and these two things are, one, give $2 trillion to Iran. $2 trillion to Iran.
17. 2:30:37 – 2:32:18

    Is Trump Really Willing to Leave NATO?

    1. RPRobert Pape2:30:37

       you get less of it.

    2. CWChris Williamson2:30:38

       Do you think Trump's really serious about pulling out of NATO?

    3. RPRobert Pape2:30:41

       Oh, I don't think it even... I, I think NATO's already dead in terms of the key element of NATO, Chris.

    4. CWChris Williamson2:30:47

       But is it not symbolic to do that?

    5. RPRobert Pape2:30:49

       It's not about that. NATO at its core is not just a political alliance. What's in Article 5 is that once Article 5 is declared, a US general, there's no other decision, it's a US general, SACEUR, who commands all the NATO troops, not just US troops, all the NATO troops, the British troops, the German troops, France not in NATO for this reason, and that is what NATO is. NATO is a unified, it's, it's a war-fighting unified alliance where you decide in advance the Americans call the shots for everybody.

    6. CWChris Williamson2:31:28

       Mm-hmm.

    7. RPRobert Pape2:31:29

       Who's gonna be, in Europe, is gonna, after what they've been through, who's gonna let America run British troops? Do you-

    8. GFGeorge Friedman2:31:36

       But you should also remember that the Americans don't wanna be exposed there. Always in, when you're looking at Trump, okay? And he was serious about these forever wars, that he clumsily, stupidly got involved in one is true, but he hit a, a fundamental principle of the United States. We did not want to be involved in these wars, these endless wars that we lost. It never helped.

    9. JXJiang Xueqin2:32:02

       There, there's actually a much simpler reason. Trump really hates the Europeans. He hates the Europeans much more than he hates the Iranians.

    10. GFGeorge Friedman2:32:08

        [laughs]

    11. JXJiang Xueqin2:32:08

        He blames... No, I'm serious. He blames the Europeans for his 2020 election loss. He thinks that Obama conspired with the Europeans to defeat him. That's, that's why he wants out of

18. 2:32:18 – 2:36:03

    Could Britain Become a Global Power Again?

    1. JXJiang Xueqin2:32:18

       NATO.

    2. CWChris Williamson2:32:18

       Hmm. I'd, I'd, I'd be doing a patriotic disservice if I didn't bring it up. Is the UK ever seriously gonna be considered in discussions of world powers moving forward again?

    3. RPRobert Pape2:32:27

       Well, if you... So I look at percentages of a country's world product compared to world product. If you look at the UK in 1990, that was around 6 to 6.5% of world GDP. What is it today? Just under 4%. So what's happened since 1990? So again, I track power with some key metrics that we can observe, and in 1990, America was 26% of world's GDP, China was 2%-

    4. CWChris Williamson2:32:55

       Wow

    5. RPRobert Pape2:32:56

       ... uh, and the Europeans varied from about 5 to 7%, Germany the highest. You look today, and America's flat at 26, China's up from 2 to 17, and what's happened to all those Europeans? They're down by a third or more. Who's the sucker here? So people say we've been uncle s- this is my, one of my complaints against, uh, this argument that America's Uncle Sucker. No, we played the Europeans here, not the other way around.

    6. CWChris Williamson2:33:25

       Mm.

    7. RPRobert Pape2:33:26

       And Japan, so this is why I don't worry about, Japan was, um, over 10% of world's GDP at that point. Where are they today? 4%. 4%. So if you just... This is all World Bank numbers. People listening-

    8. CWChris Williamson2:33:41

       Yeah

    9. RPRobert Pape2:33:41

       ... can go and Google it. You will see that we have been enorminate, in- inordinately privileged by this period called the Cold War, which this war-

    10. CWChris Williamson2:33:51

        At the expense of the British

    11. RPRobert Pape2:33:52

        ... is ending at the expense of other countries.

    12. GFGeorge Friedman2:33:55

        One, one of the things you should point out, however, is Japan responded by massively increasing its military power. So it did not simply look at us At the United States and say, "Where are you going?" It took action, and China now worries a great deal about Japan. The Europeans thought it was an immoral act, improper to wanna pull back and depend on them. The American point of view was the EU is larger than China economically. There is no possible reason why we should be the primary defender of Europe. That was a fundamental reason for many years, but why now? So I don't think this should be put into the Trump load. I think with or without Trump, this questioning of wh- whether or not we should remain exposed in NATO and what NATO should evolve into would've been put on the table by any president at this point. The China example is very much what Europe should've done. We pulled back from that. The Japanese created a much, is creating a much greater force along with the Australians and along with the Vietnamese, who are now involved in that too. So many things are happening. So I think there are limits to what we can blame Trump for.

    13. CWChris Williamson2:35:23

        We mentioned this earlier on-

    14. RPRobert Pape2:35:24

        Well, I wasn't really blaming Trump.

    15. GFGeorge Friedman2:35:26

        Well, but, but-

    16. RPRobert Pape2:35:26

        Just to be clear, I was just showing the hole in the argument.

    17. GFGeorge Friedman2:35:29

        No, I understand that.

    18. RPRobert Pape2:35:29

        [laughs]

    19. GFGeorge Friedman2:35:30

        I'm simply saying that there's a very reasonable redefinition of Europe after Ukraine defeated, essentially-

    20. RPRobert Pape2:35:40

        Yeah

    21. GFGeorge Friedman2:35:40

        ... Russia.

    22. CWChris Williamson2:35:41

        We, uh, we mentioned this earlier on, changing demographics, specifically in China-

    23. GFGeorge Friedman2:35:45

        Yeah

    24. CWChris Williamson2:35:45

        ... but this is happening globally. Looks like global population's gonna peak 2100, something like that. Maybe we'll-

    25. RPRobert Pape2:35:50

        And weight decline is happening-

    26. CWChris Williamson2:35:52

        We'll, we'll-

    27. RPRobert Pape2:35:52

        ... not just in the United States, but in Europe as well. This will also-

    28. CWChris Williamson2:35:55

        Kiss the bottom of-

    29. RPRobert Pape2:35:56

        Yeah

    30. CWChris Williamson2:35:56

        ... 10 billion maybe.
19. 2:36:03 – 2:41:31

    How Population Collapse Could Reshape Geopolitics

    1. CWChris Williamson2:36:03

       When it comes to you guys planning out how you think about the future geopolitically, how much of a, uh, curve ball is the potential changing demographics?

    2. GFGeorge Friedman2:36:15

       Mm.

    3. CWChris Williamson2:36:15

       Obviously we've got AI and robotics and automation coming in at the same time, but what it seems like China's doing is basically trying to speed run using humans to build robots so that the robots can replace the humans once the humans have fucked off. What, how do you think about global population decline playing into your models moving forward?

    4. JXJiang Xueqin2:36:34

       So this war in the Middle East, um, people don't really appreciate the, uh, geopolitical consequences. So right now we're about 8 billion people, but if you talk to economists they'll tell you that the Earth by itself can only support about 2 billion people. The, the way we, we get around this is with fertilizer, right? So Middle East is important not just because it provides cheap energy, but also provides a lot of fertilizer, um, to the world. Uh, I can't remember the exact number, maybe a quarter to a third of the world's fertilizer. So if a quarter to a third of the world's fertilizer goes offline for a year, then you're gonna have millions of people starve to death. Um, so there's no way we- we- we'll reach 9 billion people. Uh, you will see massive starvation throughout Africa at some point.

    5. CWChris Williamson2:37:19

       How can you think this is gonna happen? You don't think that-

    6. JXJiang Xueqin2:37:21

       Oh, oh, oh, it, it... I, I think it's baked in already.

    7. RPRobert Pape2:37:23

       So I, I agree maybe for a slightly different, um, angle on this, which is, so I think about power, balance of power. You're hearing me come at everything from a balance of power perspective. That's why I sometimes agree, disagree with the other. But from the balance of power, what's happening? America was preeminent from 1991 until this war. America's being knocked back because for the first time since '91 a state beat America. Just think about that. And everybody's learning that lesson, that America can be beaten. Well, that means America's global influence, that, we call it the world empire, you can call it American hegemony, this is now fading fast. What's going to replace it, we could say it's multipolarity. I think it's gonna be more fragmented than that. I think you're gonna see, I, you might even call it a emerging anarchy that's going to occur. And under those conditions here, this is because the states that used to be under, uh, America's protection, they're not under America's protection. Before you're talking, we're talking about Japan building force. And notice we're not saying Japan getting America to come and help it, we're talking about Japan on its own. Many states around the c- around the world are thinking this way. That's what I mean by an emerging anarchy. It's not really quite a multipolar world.

    8. GFGeorge Friedman2:38:47

       Yeah.

    9. RPRobert Pape2:38:47

       It's more fragmented than that.

    10. CWChris Williamson2:38:48

        Who, who would be the poles or who would be-

    11. GFGeorge Friedman2:38:50

        It'll, it'll, it'll be a center. US and China have aligning interests fundamentally, and we are seeing the diplomatic process playing out. I think it will succeed with an understanding, okay? But at the same time, China is not the Soviet Union. It doesn't occupy countries. It uses economic influence in those countries, investment and so on and so forth. So it's a very different country. Not too different from the United States in the way it operates as well, although the US ops, United States actually operates with more military power, okay?

    12. RPRobert Pape2:39:27

        But, but in this emerging anarchy, you will see greater, uh, incentives for nuclear proliferation-

    13. GFGeorge Friedman2:39:33

        Mm-hmm

    14. RPRobert Pape2:39:33

        ... for example. With greater incentive, and you already saw that with Saudi, uh, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Uh, you will see this, um, uh, these incentives start to spread as a result of this war. What will also happen as a result of the incentives for proliferation is concerns about preventive wars, preemptive wars to stop that. So we've worried about for some time Poland might start to think about going nuclear. People are, are, you know, already noticing Putin has been focusing on Poland. Why would Putin focus on Poland?

    15. GFGeorge Friedman2:40:08

        I, I'm, I'm going to Poland next week to meet the president.

    16. RPRobert Pape2:40:10

        Ah, there you go.

    17. GFGeorge Friedman2:40:11

        Have a speech there.

    18. CWChris Williamson2:40:11

        Ask him if he's got any nukes.

    19. RPRobert Pape2:40:13

        [laughs]

    20. GFGeorge Friedman2:40:13

        The, the answer is Poland is the eastern front of Europe. It cannot trust the western front because it's the alliance of the willing. Okay? And with that statement, that shows it. Poland is evolving dramatically, and it has the capability and is discussing becoming a nuclear power.

    21. RPRobert Pape2:40:34

        There you go.

    22. GFGeorge Friedman2:40:34

        So the question of... 'Cause when I talk to them, I con- constantly hear back, you know, "We're not counting on the United States. We have 10,000 troops there, but we're not counting on the United States." So it's evolving dramatically, and it's going to be looking at that. So I agree with you that the need to have nuclear weapons, okay, or the supposed need for to have nuclear weapons will create. But at the same time, I see the economic alliance between the United States and China, and I think that's going to happen, is gonna create a strange pull between the two because they have very similar interests, okay?

    23. RPRobert Pape2:41:17

        I don't disagree with you. I don't disagree with Jiang. What I'm saying is we're moving to a more war-prone world.

    24. JXJiang Xueqin2:41:25

        Yep.

    25. GFGeorge Friedman2:41:26

        Well, the world-

    26. JXJiang Xueqin2:41:27

        Well, the-

    27. GFGeorge Friedman2:41:27

        ... world is fairly full of war for a while

    28. JXJiang Xueqin2:41:29

        It... But this is about to get

20. 2:41:31 – 2:52:28

    Are We Living in a Quasi-Anarchist World?

    1. JXJiang Xueqin2:41:31

       much worse.

    2. CWChris Williamson2:41:31

       What are the places that you're keeping an eye on with regards to conflicts that aren't just going to expand from existing ones now?

    3. JXJiang Xueqin2:41:37

       North Korea. North Korea's the big one.

    4. CWChris Williamson2:41:41

       Why?

    5. JXJiang Xueqin2:41:42

       If I, if I'm North Korea and I'm, you know, I'm poor, but I've got nuclear weapons [laughs] and Japan, China, South Korea are all distracted-

    6. CWChris Williamson2:41:51

       Yeah

    7. JXJiang Xueqin2:41:51

       ... why don't I just extort everyone, right? Why don't, why don't I just, like, you know, hold a gun to everyone's head and like just say, "Pay up or I'll just blow you all up"?

    8. GFGeorge Friedman2:41:59

       China itself has tensions with North Korea.

    9. JXJiang Xueqin2:42:01

       That's right.

    10. GFGeorge Friedman2:42:02

        Okay.

    11. CWChris Williamson2:42:02

        Why is it, why is it the case this, uh, whatever you wanna call it, global quasi-anarchist world, why? Why, why is that happening?

    12. RPRobert Pape2:42:11

        Because we have lived under a certain amount of stability from 1991 when the Cold War ended, the Soviet Union, that Cold War conflict receded.

    13. CWChris Williamson2:42:23

        Mm.

    14. RPRobert Pape2:42:23

        It was immediately followed by the first Gulf War, which showed America could easily beat Iraq, which was a power trying to control-

    15. CWChris Williamson2:42:33

        It's-

    16. RPRobert Pape2:42:33

        ... the world's economy through oil

    17. CWChris Williamson2:42:34

        Now people know that Daddy can't look after everybody.

    18. RPRobert Pape2:42:36

        Daddy can't take care of you anymore. Daddy's either too old, a baby boomer, so maybe, you know, the baby-

    19. JXJiang Xueqin2:42:41

        Well [laughs]

    20. RPRobert Pape2:42:41

        ... too old. Daddy's too old.

    21. CWChris Williamson2:42:42

        And he's not got the sauce anymore.

    22. RPRobert Pape2:42:44

        Too feeble.

    23. GFGeorge Friedman2:42:44

        And I'll just-

    24. RPRobert Pape2:42:44

        And he doesn't have all his marbles. [laughs]

    25. CWChris Williamson2:42:46

        Yeah.

    26. GFGeorge Friedman2:42:46

        And I'll also assert the other thing, the United States doesn't want that role. So it's not only they can't do it, it doesn't want to do it.

    27. CWChris Williamson2:42:54

        So it's, it's strange to think that you can have a, a globe with a bunch of different nation states, individual count- countries who are competing with each other and sometimes in tension with each other, but you still kind of need somebody in charge.

    28. RPRobert Pape2:43:07

        Yeah.

    29. CWChris Williamson2:43:07

        And now there's nobody in charge.

    30. JXJiang Xueqin2:43:09

        So, so-

Episode duration: 3:06:18