And you mentioned there would be foreign policy implications here.

Lindsey Graham's philosophy when it came to foreign policy was that you should intervene.

You should not be America first and defensive.

You should be reaching out, intervening in the world because it's a lot cheaper, it's a lot smarter to reach out and intervene early on and confront your enemies than let them get stronger and confront you at home.

Lindsey Graham had just been on a trip to Kyiv on Friday night.

He'd been speaking to the press and explaining how in his support for Volodymyr Zelenskyy and for the Ukrainian government, that is something that he'd been very principled on throughout the period of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and had actually held the line against Trump, saying that the US should keep supporting Ukraine.

And Graham had been rather pleased that he believed he was about to get a package of economic sanctions supported by Donald Trump against Russia and so had come back to the US firmly believing that this is a chance to turn the screws on Vladimir Putin.

More than keeping that seat, though, what do you think that the loss of Lindsey Graham means for the Republicans?

Looking at those names on there, what would you take away from the range of authors on that list?

There's a lot you could say about the trajectory of prehistory and the way it filters through down into culture.

The reason we're starting in the 19th century is because this is the great age of fossil discovery.

and piecing together the kind of long, joy history of the planet.

And I think you're probably right.

I think Jules Verne is one of the earliest examples of a dinosaur fiction.

But then through the 20th century and up to the 21st century, there's a fundamental problem, which is that from quite early on, people came to understand that dinosaurs and human beings had never coexisted on the planet.

I mean, is she a fantasy author with dragons that...

What about the countries that might be drawn in whether they want to be or not?

As much as those European countries, for example, were wary of getting involved at the start, they know because they have so many of their people who live or work or visit the Gulf that they will get drawn into this war in some way, whether they like it or not.

So we've seen that the French, for example, are going to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean to be closer to this region.

The British are sending a naval ship, HMS Dragon, to Cyprus.

Cyprus has already been the target of an Iranian attempted strike in recent days.

So we will increasingly see naval assets, but also military bases, those ones that they were reluctant to lend at the beginning, are now going to be used by the Americans, initially for so-called defensive purposes.

But I think increasingly we'll see many of the NATO allies and other allies of the Americans getting drawn into this too.

What happens next?

What about the countries that might be drawn in whether they want to be or not?

not?As much as those European countries, for example, were wary of getting involved at the start, they know because they have so many of their people who live or work or visit the Gulf that they will get drawn into this war in some way, whether they like it or not.

So we've seen that the French, for example, are going to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean to be closer to this region.

The British are sending a naval ship, HMS Dragon, to Cyprus.

Cyprus has already been the target of an Iranian attempted strike in recent days.

So we will increasingly see naval assets, but also military bases, those ones that they were reluctant to lend at the beginning are now gonna be used by the Americans, initially for so-called defensive purposes.

But I think increasingly we'll see many of the NATO allies and other allies of the Americans getting drawn into this too.

What happens next?