Iran deal confusion, Starmer out, Colombia’s rightward shift, and UK anti-migration anger

So there is a bunch of things going on, some of which are clear and some of which are not.

Basically, the Iranian regime and the US are out there promoting kind of vastly different interpretations of what has been agreed upon.

But as of this weekend, they've made a lot of committees, which as you know, Bron, I have no time for process or committees, so I do not think that this is a step forward at all.

But the idea here is that they have sixty days to work out the tenets of some sort of longer-standing deal or agreement, and that Iran wants more than ever to have this promise, which of course the Trump administration can't deliver because it's not very good with promises.

But they want a promise that this war will not restart, right? Everybody else who is kind of horrified by the current agreements that the US has made, who wanted a deal at all costs, at all costs.

You know, there was real desperation on the part of the US in order to get this.

They are happy to say, "Oh, fine, fine, fine.

We're not going to do anything.

Just give us these little bitty things so we can go back and say that it's been a success." And so Iran has no incentive to give up anything and is not giving up anything.

As a result, they're, as we mentioned before, about to get a ton of money.

This deal, again, is not really worth the paper it's printed on, if it's printed at all, because it does not include the actual main players here, being Israel and Iran's arrangement about security within the Israeli realm.

But also it doesn't include a lot from the Gulf who have been thrown under the bus at this, in this way.

So the US just wants to walk away from it, right? Which means that everybody else then has to live with it and, and isn't a party to the deal, so why would they? But I'll, I'll say something there that's important, which is that everybody's claiming that Israel is the reason that this isn't going well.

But two things that are important, which is that no one's considered Lebanon in this, right? Lebanon is not Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is not Lebanon.

And the idea that this is being written so that a terrorist group, right, the world's largest militia can be protected is a pretty outlandish thing to actually acknowledge, which is why no one's bothering to acknowledge it.

And instead they're saying, "Oh, Israel's being terrible, and it's, it's violating a peace agreement that it's not party to." And in fact, there's been several ceasefires between Hezbollah and Israel which have been violated by both parties.

So when you say the US just wanna walk away, couldn't they just walk away? The problem is now I-Iran hasn't had any direct contact with the States where they are.

Right.

If the States just kind of pack their bags, and there was conversation about this slightly earlier on, wasn't there, when, when Trump came forward and said, "You know, this isn't our problem.

We don't, we don't need the strait at all.

That's up to you." You know, like, they are at such a distance that if this keeps going round in circles, they could just leave them to it, couldn't they?

I suppose they could.

Every single administration in the US has tried to leave the Middle East.

There are other concerns beyond the kind of global policeman role that Trump is trying to claim instigated his interest in Iran.