These conversations aren't always easy,

but nonetheless, they are important. So,

every single year, Professor Ian Bremer,

who's one of the world's leading

political scientists, produces this risk

report, and it highlights the top 10

biggest risks that everybody should be

thinking about. And today, he's going to

talk to me about the three that matter

the most. So, he predicts that a US

political revolution is on its way. the

US has become the biggest driver of

geopolitical uncertainty in the world

and in my view Trump will fail.

>> And he also says that the other thing

everybody needs to be talking about and

aware of is what's really playing out

with AI behind the scenes.

>> They created a model which is so

powerful that they couldn't release it

because it would have been an immediate

systemic risk to the global economy and

our security and artificial intelligence

is eating its users. and we can talk

about that.

>> And lastly, I want to end on a point of

optimism. Can we take this craziness and

turn it into a utopia with realistic

solutions?

This is super interesting to me. My team

given me this report to show me how many

of you that watch this show subscribe.

And some of you have told us according

to this that you are unsubscribed from

the channel randomly. So, favor to ask

all of you. Please could you check right

now if you've hit the subscribe button

if you are a regular viewer of the show

and you like what we do here. We're

approaching quite a significant landmark

on this show in terms of a subscriber

number. So, if there was one simple free

thing that you could do to help us, my

team, everyone here to keep this show

free, to keep it improving year over

year and week over week, it is just to

hit that subscribe button and to double

check if you've hit it. Only thing I'll

ever ask of you. Do we have a deal? If

you do it, I'll tell you what I'll do.

I'll make sure every single week, every

single month, we fight harder and harder

and harder and harder to bring you the

guests and conversations that you want

to hear. I've stayed true to that

promise since the very beginning of the

Dio and I will not let you down. Please

help us. Really appreciate it. Let's get

on with the show.

Ian Bremer, what is this document that I

have in front of me here?

>> This is our top risk report. We put it

out at the beginning of every year. try

to help people around the world

understand the risk environment

globally.

>> So for the last 30 years your firm has

been trying to understand the world to

help make better decisions based on the

big picture of what's happening

geopolitically.

>> Yeah.

>> And every year your firm releases this

top risk report.

>> The 2026 one appears to be pretty

prophetic because a lot of things that

you list as the top risks are playing

out before our eyes. For anyone that

hasn't read this report, what are the

most important subjects? You wrote this

in January. We're now sat here in April,

I believe.

>> What are the most important subjects of

the top 10 risks that you think we

should talk about today? I think that

there are three that are really big. Um,

the first is that the United States has

become the biggest driver of risk, the

biggest driver of geopolitical

uncertainty in the world. And we see

that with the tariffs. We see that with

Venezuela. We see it with Greenland. We

see it with Iran. I mean, if there was

that level of uncertainty in a smaller

political system, and that happens all

the time, we wouldn't care as much

because the global impact would not

matter. But everyone out there is

affected by even small changes in the

United States. Suddenly, big changes in

the United States. The Americans are

saying, "We no longer want to play by

the rules that we set up historically.

We don't want the free trade system that

we put together. We don't want to be the

global policeman that is paying for the

collective security. We don't want the

open borders that used to welcome so

many people from around the world. We

want a very different set of rules. It's

the American system is not being

challenged by the Chinese saying we

don't want the Americans themselves and

the leadership are saying we refuse to

be the leader that we used to be.

>> So that's number one. Yeah, that is

number one.

>> And this is a critical risk.

>> That is a critical risk. That's but it's

the most important without any question.

>> And again, I say critical in terms of it

is happening right now. It is

overwhelmingly likely. It's

overdetermined. Um and the impact is

massive. So there's no way you could

look at the geopolitical order today and

not say this is the most important thing

that is not just driving headlines but

that's creating real movement in how the

global economy works, how global

politics works, global security,

everything is driven by this change.

>> And what's the second one?

>> The second one is the big question of

how the second most powerful country in

the world is responding to all of that.

Now we in the top risks piece talked

about overpowered. Overpowered being the

global energy dynamic. How China has

been working to build the most effective

electric vehicles all over the world at

scale and the batteries all over the

world at scale and the critical minerals

in rare earths for decades now. not just

having access so they can exploit them,

but also so that they can reprocess

them.

>> For anyone that doesn't know what

critical minerals are,

>> Yeah.

>> and how important they are to our

everyday lives, could you give us some

color there?

>> Sure. We're talking about all of these

things that you take out of the ground,

whether it's lithium, antimony,

>> which is in all these devices,

>> in every device, in your car battery,

it's in your missile systems and your

advanced weaponry that keeps you safe at

home or allows you to go to war against

somebody. I mean, you can't have an

advanced economy without critical

minerals and rare earths. and and the

Chinese have been investing at scale

globally in that capability for decades

now, thinking long term. And a lot of

the rest of us have not been thinking

long term. We're like just in time,

globalization. How do we make the most

money now for our next quarterly return?

And that reality is making China not a

better economy today, but it's setting

them up for a much stronger long-term

trajectory. So, as a risk, you're going

to ask me to do this. It is not as

critical as the US political revolution

because this is focusing on 2026 and

China is playing out over a longer

period of time. But it is absolutely

severe because the Chinese understand

that long-term

as countries are saying the Americans

are less predictable and we're more

vulnerable to their sudden changes in

decisions. Many more countries are

saying well we want to hedge and do more

with the Chinese and those decisions

really matter. If this continues, if

this direction of travel continues, what

happens next in terms of global order,

in terms of the Middle East, in terms of

all of these things we've talked about,

>> Trump will fail. Um, and and I think

that the level of policy incompetence

and unwillingness to take on expertise

is ensuring that it will fail. He's

quite unpopular on so many issues right

now. He's going to lose in a big way in

the midterms coming up in November. And

that will make him look like a lame

duck. and Republicans will start to

think about their own futures as opposed

to holding on to this 80-year-old guy.

Having said that, we will not have

resolved these underlying challenges for

average Americans. So, there will still

be a demand for a political revolution

in the United States. The question will

be will the next person that comes and

captures that are they going to be

focused on themselves or focused on the

country? Right? that Trump actually

identified the symptoms and was able to

benefit as a political entrepreneur

twice from getting elected in free and

fair elections. Right. Mostly the

reality is a future person. We we're in

New York right now. Zoran Mdani, a

democratic socialist, is the mayor of

New York City, which is like the capital

of global capitalism and finance in the

world. What does that tell you? That

tells you that there's still a demand

for something very different. And we

don't know is it going to come from the

left or the right, but we know that that

level of uncertainty is growing. And

it's not just growing in the United

States. It's growing in the global

order. Because if the Americans are no

longer willing to act as the global

leader, but no one else is capable of

filling those shoes, you don't have a G7

or a G20 where governments come together

and agree on the rules of the road. You

have a G0, an absence of global

leadership, where people, the powerful,

make the rules that are useful to them

and the weak have to accept that, have

to find a way to live under that. That

that's where we're heading. There was a

Yale poll in April 2026 that said Camala

Harris is leading the overall Democratic

field with 20% narrowly edging out Gavin

Newsome at 19% and Pete Bhajed at 14%

with AOC at 13%.

Means literally nothing to me. You know,

I think it was Jim Carville, the great

um Democratic political strategist that

was talking about November. He said,

"You know what the Democrats need to do?

They need to all get on a plane and go

to Turks and Caos until after the

election. Say nothing. be absent. Just

do not be and allow it's it's like um

you know the SunSu it's like when your

when your opponent is making mistakes

stay out of their way.

>> When you say the election, do you mean

the midterm election?

>> Midterm election. Yeah. Yeah. So for now

there there's nothing happening except

Trump and the reaction to Trump. Then

after that we have a two-year long god

god help us uh election in the United

States. billions of dollars will be

spent and people will have far too much

information about far too many of these

people. Then we can have a conversation.

It is too early to talk about 2028 right

now.

>> I have to ask you then what on earth is

going on?

>> I wonder when we're going to get there.

We got this big map in front of us here.

We haven't even touched the Middle East.

We literally haven't touched it.

>> What is going on? Like really take me

back to the beginning. What did Trump

think was going to happen? How is this

linked to Venezuela? Why would he do

this after saying that he was the

president that was going to stop all the

wars? What is the big picture here?

>> And literally one of the eight wars that

he said that he had stopped was with

Iran.

>> This was not what he was voted in on.

>> He was voted in, he ended the war in

Afghanistan. I mean, he cut the deal

with the Taliban. Was it a great deal?

Yeah, for the Taliban it was pretty

good. But it got the Americans out. 20

years, a trillion dollars fought on the

backs of the Afghan people and of

Americans, not wealthy Americans, not

people like Trump that could find a way

out of service, but poor Americans

>> and Europeans.

>> Yeah. And Europeans who fought side by

side with the Americans when the

Americans asked them to. almost all of

them sending troops and many of them

wounded and dying in the same numbers,

the same percentages, just as courageous

as the Americans were, right? So,

Americans wanted an end to that.

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, what the

hell are you guys doing? We're not

benefiting that. Stop it. Trump stopped

it. So, why did he do this?

>> Why did he do this?

>> Why did he do this? I think there are

three reasons why he did it. I'll take

you through. First reason you said

Venezuela, not on this map. Shouldn't be

relevant to this map. Turns out it's

relevant to this map. Trump had plans to

take out Maduro.

He's got a lot of people inside his

administration that see this guy as a

real problem. And by the way, a problem

for the region. 8 million Venezuelan

refugees destabilizing the region. Lots

of drug export destabilizing the region.

So he had been planning to do something.

>> Was it also linked to oil? it was

relevant. They have the world's largest

oil reserves. It is going to take far

more years than Trump will be in office

to make that meaningful. So, it sounds

good from a branding perspective and

you're going to see a few hundred

thousand more barrels a day, but it's

it's going to be years. If you saw that

um testimony by the CEO of Exxon Mobile

who said, you know, Venezuela is not

investable today and Trump was angry at

him and all the other energy CEOs like,

"Thank you for saying that. We're not

saying anything like him. Look at him.

Look at him. Not much courage among

those CEOs publicly. So the oil is a

great headline for Trump. It doesn't

matter much for Trump's presidency as we

know.

>> Just to get some color on that. Is that

because they just can't they have to

build up lots of infrastructure to be

able to extract it?

>> Oh yeah. And and because all their

engineers are gone, most of them in the

oil patch up in Canada, which has

similar uh geology to it because they've

destroyed so much of their

infrastructure. It's broken down because

the governance structure isn't there

yet. They don't have people that are

capable of actually ensuring that there

will be contracts that you would follow

through on engage in people that still

have huge lawsuits that need to be

resolved. Right? So all of this stuff

but to get to your I don't want to lose

sight of your why did Trump do this in

Iran. So the first point is beginning of

the year Trump goes in to Venezuela,

right? It is the most successful

military operation you can possibly

imagine. Not a single American

serviceman or woman is killed. They go

in, they take Maduro out. They don't

kill him. They don't injure him. They

bring him to a jail in Brooklyn, right

here in New York. Out of burrow, but

still counts. New York City, right?

Extraordinary. And he's facing justice.

And meanwhile, Deli Rodriguez, right?

Suddenly, vice president becomes acting

president. It's like, "Sir, we want to

work with you guys. We don't want any of

that." Right? And so, you've got a new

government that is has a different

trajectory, but it's basically the same

regime. And they say, "Whatever you

want, we will work on. You want we'll

open our oil sector. We'll open our

mining sector. We'll have better rags.

We'll we'll we'll try to improve the

economy for the average Venezuelan. I

mean, they're starting to become

popular. In another year, if they had

elections in Venezuela, it is not

inconceivable that she would win in a

democratic election, which is like blows

your mind, right? Whole bunch, hundreds

of political prisoners, they've

released. I talked to leaders all over

South America. They all think this was a

success. This is enormously popular

among the populations in those countries

because they care about security. That's

what they've been voting on. Their

elections have been about the economy

and local security and Venezuela has

been a problem for them, right? I mean,

they're exporting people causing crime.

Colombia, Peru, Brazil, this Chile,

right? This has been a serious issue.

Trump Trump is hugely feeling great,

successful, and now he's like, I can do

that in Iran. I can do it even bigger.

That's the first reason. That's the I

said three reasons. That's the first

reason. Second reason, this is not

Trump's first rodeo with the Iranians.

In his first presidency, the Iranians

were engaging in strikes against the

Americans directly and with proxies, uh,

bases in Iraq, other places also were

taking on strikes against the biggest

refinery in the world in Saudi Arabia.

Those drone strikes, you may remember,

the Saudis and the Amiradis were telling

the Americans, when are you going to do

something? we need to take some action.

Trump didn't want to do anything.

They're getting angry, right? Finally,

the end of his presidency, he orders,

pretty bold move, the assassination of

this incredibly charismatic military

leader, Kasamsulammani, the head of the

Kuds force as it was called in Iran. And

Iran was so angry and they were going to

destroy the United States. Death to

America. What do they actually do?

Nothing. And then last June,

Iranians are developing their ballistic

missiles. They're developing their

nuclear enrichment in radian enrichment.

They're like stockpiling at higher

levels 60% and the Israelis want to go

in. Trump's providing intelligence. He

doesn't want to go. Kind of dangerous.

The Israelis go in. It's enormously

popular. It's going well. Succeeding.

Trump's like, I want a part of that.

That's successful. So, he joins in.

Second time Israel took casualties about

100 killed I think in the course of that

12-day war. The United States Iran

talked big did not hit the Americans.

They threw some missiles at that Alade

base in Qatar, the biggest US base. They

warned the Americans through Iraq before

the missiles were launched. So it was

very clear the Iranians didn't want any

part of that fight. So Trump is thinking

to himself, "This is going to be awesome

cuz I'm going to go in. I'm going to

pull Venezuela in Iran. And I know they

don't want to fight me. I kill the

Supreme Leader, 86 years old. He's going

to die anyway. He's not that popular

among the Iranian, the Islamic

Revolutionary Guards Corps, the IRGC,

because they're the ones that really run

the country. I'm going to have this huge

military force that shows what I'm

capable of doing. Then the rest of the

Iranian leadership, they're going to

want to work with me just like they did

in Venezuela. That was reason number

two. And then the most important reason,

the most important reason is that unlike

Trump's first term where he had people

around him that were patriotic first and

foremost to the country and when they

had disagreements with Trump, they let

him know and they leaked and they also

um were willing occasionally to do what

they could to undermine an incompetent

decision that would hurt the country.

And we saw that whether it was with Mike

Pompeo or or or Mad Dog Mattis, right?

All of these people who were much more

independent, strong actors. This time

around, Trump has some really good

adviserss, people like Marco Rubio and

uh Scott Besson. He also has some

staggeringly incompetent adviserss like

Pete Hegath for example. But what they

all share is that they are first and

foremost loyal to the president and they

will not tell him. They won't push back.

And what he hears from them is shaded

towards how brilliant he is. And that

makes him think that he will be more

successful even when the military thinks

this is a horrible idea. And we just saw

this with the reporting from the head of

the joint chiefs, Dan Kaine, who clearly

thinks that this is a really bad idea

and understands that the military um

scenarios are super dangerous and that

the Iranians will be able to shut down

the straight. And every military in the

US for the last 20, 30 years has gamed

out how the Iranians could shut down the

straight in a major conflict. And Trump

hears very little of that and he's

taking away. I'm incredible. I'm

confident I'm going to make this happen.

Those are the reasons he went in.

>> And so he thought it would be take out

the Supreme Leader, then they'll

negotiate. We'll get a better deal.

We'll have a political system there or

political leader there that is obedient

to us.

>> Yep. It'll be and it'll be maybe it

won't be a day, but it's not going to be

a month.

>> And what actually happened?

>> That did not happen. What actually

happened is um the Americans took out

well the Israelis took out the supreme

leader and also took out a lot of the

military leadership that the Americans

had been speaking to which is why Trump

came out and he said well a lot of the

guys were talking to are dead now so we

don't really know who to work with. He

said that in the not even if it's true

and it was you don't want the president

saying that right he has no filter. Um

so which is which is one of the more

interesting things about this

presidency. What happened is the Iranian

leadership was taken out. The response

was immediately what they call this

mosaic situation uh where they

decentralized the um military decision-m

to local commanders because they were

worried that the high level commanders

if they were on cell phones, if they

were engaging with other commanders, the

Israelis would know where they were and

they'd be able to assassinate them. So

then suddenly the Iranians were taking

shots at other at Gulf states at

critical infrastructure and stopping

transit from the straight.

>> This is one of the questions I had is in

several interviews that Trump has done

he alludes to the fact that he thinks

he's talking to the right people. Do you

really believe I know there was a

meeting recently in Pakistan where they

sent JD Vance in to negotiate with Iran.

Do you think anyone is running Iran at

the moment? Is there leadership in Iran?

Is it possible to negotiate and control

all of these dispersed forces

um at the moment?

>> First, the honest answer is it's

impossible to know because this is right

now the the the internal decision-m of

Iran is extremely buttoned up. Um and it

they ain't talking to anyone uh about

that.

>> But it's very easy to assess two things.

first um that their ability to make

centralized decision plans and implement

them is real. So when their biggest gas

field is hit and they say we're going to

hit you back in return, they are able to

implement on that in short order. So

we've seen a number of occasions in the

last five weeks where Iran has gone from

statement made by the foreign ministry

and by spokespeople to action taken by

local commander in Iran which implies

that there is a centralized structure.

We also see toll taking on the strait by

individuals that are being ordered by

the central Iranian government to do

that. They're not operating by

themselves. So in that regard, the fact

that the Iranians showed up in Islamabad

in Pakistan with significant leadership

with the foreign minister, also the

speaker of the parliament, but also a

team of experts who had briefs on

negotiating on a number of different

points on the street and on ballistic

missiles and on support of proxy actors

and on the nuclear issue which proved

the most divisive in those 21 hours of

talks.

shows that this regime is still very

much functioning despite all of the

Israeli and the American efforts to say

that, you know, they've done all this

incredible damage. This regime is still

very much in place

>> and they couldn't get a deal. So Trump

announced that he's going to block the

strait of Humuz himself

>> just hours ago. I think that that is

also overstated.

You have 21 hours of talks led by the

vice president of the United States. I

assure you if these talks were a

disaster, they don't last 24 hours. Two

or three and then they're out. 21 hours

means very substantive conversations on

the entire range of topics that were of

importance to the Americans and the

Iranians. Trump did not get the outcome

he wanted. Ultimately, I'm not super

surprised because the Iranians feel like

they have more leverage right now than

the United States thinks they do. And

this frustrates Trump immensely. And so

at the end, remember he's he's calling

and talking with Vance more than 10

times over the course of this entire

conversation. It's a they're they're in

regular contact. At that point, Trump

says, "Okay, I'm blockading the street."

But just before markets open on Monday,

you also see reporting that, well, these

talks that were a disaster, we're we're

going to engage in further talks. So

maybe it wasn't such a disaster. Maybe

what's really going on here is Trump

wants to show that he still has more

leverage to use against the Iranians

because he's lost a lot of his leverage.

He gave a speech to the American people,

one speech so far about Iran. Prime time

speech. In that speech, he said, "War's

almost over. Two to three weeks, Max.

We're done. If I'm the Iranians and I

hear that, I'm like, great. The

Americans can't take this pain anymore.

They can't take it." He keeps saying,

"Straits, not my problem. Straits, let

them take care of it." I hear that I'm

the Iranians. Great. He can't take this

economic pain. He knows he doesn't have

a military solution. So, it's not that

the Iranians are only hearing for Trump,

I'm going to destroy your civilization.

They're seeing what he's actually doing.

>> And he seems to change his mind a lot or

not follow through on some of the

threats that he makes.

>> Right. Of course.

>> And then they also will be aware that

he's becoming increasingly unpopular

>> on this issue specifically. on this

issue

>> on this issue specifically. He is

underwater just like he was on Greenland

where he eventually completely did a

180. He was going to put tariffs on all

the Europeans that supported Denmark. He

had to take Greenland. Those things went

away.

>> So you're sat there. You're going

Trump's own people are pressurizing him

to get the hell out of here.

>> He's unpopular day by day. It's hurting

his economy. Correct. His midterms

elections that are coming up. He's going

to be severely hurt and he's going to

lose power in that regard. So actually

the Iranian leaders, I mean they might

be incentivized just to wait it out.

>> That's right. Because they don't think

they have to wait it out for months.

>> It's a democracy. So he's going to be

unelected at some point in a couple

years.

>> They saw China. China did this right

last year, Liberation Day as Trump

called it where he puts tariffs on all

these countries. He puts these high

tariffs on China. They hit back. He does

it again. They hit back again. He's

like, "I'm going to do export controls."

I said, "Well, we're going to shut down

your critical minerals." Suddenly CEOs

are going to Mara Lago. They say you got

to deal with the Iranians or or we're

going to shut down our factory lines. In

red states, Trump has to back down.

Right? So they've we've already seen

that when a country has leverage over

Trump and they can hit him, he has the

most strong military in the world, but

he also has a glass jaw. He can't take a

hit the way that unelected

non-democracies can. The Chinese and now

the Iranians over the Strait. So what

Trump is doing with announcing the

blockade, and by the way, he hasn't

broken the ceasefire. So even though a

blockade is an act of war, he still

hasn't said, "Okay, you guys have to

start hitting the Iranians again right

now." So he this is still deescalated

compared to a week ago. A week ago, this

looked much more dangerous than it looks

today. He's saying to the Iranians, hey,

I'm willing to cut off your source of

funds. I'm willing to stop you from

exporting oil and making money off of

it. same Trump that suspended those

sanctions on Iran because he wanted to

keep the prices down. So that's that's

what's happening right here.

>> Iran also, again, I'm trying to put

myself in the the mind of, you know, the

incentive structure of the Iranian

leaders. They can't let it be seen or

known that dropping bombs on us made us

pander to you. Because if they set that

precedence, then for the next couple of

decades, every American leader is going

to know, okay, if you want Iran to play

ball, all you do is take out their

leadership, you drop loads of bombs on

everything they have, and then they come

and negotiate with you and give up their

nuclear weapons and everything else. So,

I imagine there's an element of an

Iranians now going, if we buckle here,

then for the rest of time, America are

going to repeat this playbook.

>> I I hear what you're saying. I I would

put it slightly differently. I I think

that after the 12-day war last June, the

Iranians understood that their deterrent

capacity had failed. They were incapable

of preventing the Americans and the

Israelis from hitting them and their

proxies whenever they wanted. We've

talked a lot about Iran. We haven't

talked at all about Lebanon. There's

another war going on in Lebanon right

now. The Israelis are hitting the

Lebanese very hard. There's over a

million displaced people in the last

several weeks.

>> Why? Why? What? What is this war?

>> Well, Hezbollah, which is um a terrorist

organization uh as recognized by Israel

and the United States, though not

everybody, continues to have the ability

to engage in strikes against Israel.

Nowhere close to the strength of the

Israeli military. But le the Lebanese

government promised to disarm them. They

have not done that. And so Hezbollah has

been able to continue to engage in

missile strikes, relatively small

numbers of missile strikes into the

north of Israel where Israeli citizens

live. There was a period of time after

the October 7th um attacks by Hamas

where over a 100,000 Israelis had to

evacuate from their homes and their

schools and the rest for like a year

because Hezbollah was making their lives

hell. Right? So what Israel is now doing

is they're going to take territory about

5 to 7 kilometers of Lebanese land.

They're going to occupy it as a buffer

zone to protect those Israeli civilians

from Hezbollah being able to hit them

with their weapons. That is the

intention here. And so what Iran

understands is that their ability to

deter Israel from hitting Hezbollah,

Hezbollah at the beginning in October

7th, Hezbollah was the most powerful

non-state military in the world. No one

else was close. And today, Hezbollah has

shown that their leadership gets

targeted and destroyed, assassinated

across the board by the Israelis, that

their military is incapable, their

critical infrastructure can be

disrupted, and that Israel can also hit

Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, and no

one can do anything and return to

Israel.

>> There's lots of chaos going on in the

world right now.

>> Yes. Was there a way to have avoided all

of this? Was there something that

someone could have done further upstream

to avoid all this chaos that we're

seeing now in the Middle East? Like what

was the first domino that fell

>> in Iran?

You do have an enormously repressive

regime that has the ability um to take

action against their own people in a in

in a incredibly brutal way as we saw

play out in January.

>> And it's also a regime that does not

respect the right of Israel to exist.

It's also a regime that has been sending

weapons and money and military advice to

other revolutionary actors around the

region, undermining security in Yemen,

undermining security um in Iraq,

undermining security in Syria. So, I

mean, the fact that at the core of the

Middle East, you have a revolutionary

regime that was exporting instability

and violence is a serious problem.

That's number one. Number two, Israel.

America's top ally in the region.

America first. But Trump still gives

billions of dollars every year to

Israel, even as he's cut off military

aid and support for almost everyone,

including for Ukraine. Right. This

country is very capable of now attacking

all of its enemies and creating outcomes

that it wants whether or not it creates

instability in those countries. We've

seen that in Gaza and the West Bank,

right? I mean reality is Israel is

continuing to take more and more

territory in the West Bank and no one

can do anything about it. They hit

Lebanon really hard. No one can respond

to that. So that is creating a reality

where Israel is able to determine

outcomes and even attack Iran directly

with the United States. They felt very

confident about taking that on and that

there would not be backlash that would

undermine Israel's own political

survival. It wasn't an existential risk

to Israel and even if Iran developed

nukes which is everyone wants to prevent

from happening but Israel has their own

nukes right I mean they have like a 100

plus so those are two fundamental

drivers of of conflict and instability

in the region one aligned with the

United States one a revolutionary

theocracy there have been very positive

developments in this region very

positive developments first of all Syria

Assad was a brutal dictator that was

overthrown by his own people and his own

military would not support and fight for

him and the Russians proved that they

couldn't support him in a significant

way. And so now you have an opportunity

for Syria to become a representative

government that can engage with others

around the region and more broadly.

That's a positive. You've got Saudi

Arabia and the UAE and Qatar that are

engaging in transformative domestic

policies to attract investment from all

over the world to build experiences that

everyone would want to travel and engage

in to create work opportunities that are

far better remunerated than anything

that foreign labor could get in their

own home countries allowing them to

bring money home. And in the case of

Saudi Arabia specifically, they're

taking 35 million people. Half of that

economy used to be closed to women and

now they're bringing women into the

economy. They're actually not just

educating them, but they're giving them

opportunities in every area of

employment. That is one of the most

extraordinary stories in the world today

in terms of change and governance and

that continues. Then final point here is

that in the context of this Iran war we

do and in the context of a United States

which is doing less global leadership

there are questions of how these

countries that are aligned with the US

want to ensure their own futures. And so

we see increasingly two different blocks

that are starting to form. You've got

the United Arab Emirates together with

Israel. You remember the Abraham Accords

which was Trump's big foreign policy

success in his first term where he got

these countries the UAE and others to

recognize Israel and and start doing a

lot more tourism and you know business

and technology transfers and the rest.

So UAE, Israel, the United States and

India are increasingly aligning on

national security and technology and

they're becoming more of a international

block

based on this region. At the same time,

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan long worked

together on defense are now much more

public about an alliance. Pakistan is

nuclear, Saudi Arabia is not, but

Pakistan would provide them nuclear

weapons if they really wanted it. That's

absolutely something to think about.

They are increasingly becoming a

regional defense quad. Four countries

together with Turkey and Egypt. Big

countries, big populations aligning more

diplomatically and on defense calling

for a regional security architecture in

the region, but that would not be easily

aligned with the UAE, America, Israel,

and with India. So that is also a

significant tension. And in the context

of all of that, 95 million people in

Iran whose military has been

substantially degraded, whose economy

and industry have been substantially

degraded and who were already running

their economy into the ground before the

war happened. These guys aren't winners.

They're survivors,

right? They have influence over the

strait, but they're not winning. And

this is dangerous long term.

>> Your firm makes a lot of predictions. So

I I wanted to ask you to help me try and

look forward as to how this conflict

might end. Um we're in a position now

where it seems that the US aren't going

to give up the demand to Iran that they

cease to develop and pursue nuclear

enrichment. It appears that Iran have

said that they want the right and they

believe they have the right, they said

this before this conflict started to

enrich uranium and to have nuclear power

plants and all these kinds of things. So

how does this end? Like Trump's now he's

blockaded the straight off news.

>> Um we're in another standoff.

>> Cease fires in place.

>> The ceasefires in place which I think he

said was 14 days

>> and we're now probably what got 9 10

days left of that.

>> Yeah.

>> He's thinking a lot about his legacy. He

can't be reelected. He talks sometimes

about, you know, winning the peace prize

and want wanting to be on a Mount

Rushmore of presidents and all this. So

he he can't just leave. If he just

leaves, then Iran carry on with their

enrichment program. It goes down in

history almost like a Bush failure,

geopolitical failure. He can't just

leave. He has to be seen to win. But

also Iran can't let him be seen to win.

So So how what happens? I think unlike

almost anybody else you can imagine, if

he decided that he wanted to end this,

he could end this. He could just leave

and he would say, "I won." He's already

said this in different ways. I don't

even care about the nukes because we've

already intumeded them. They're under

all this rubble. We've got satellite

coverage. If the Iranians try to get at

them, we can hit them back. He's already

said that there's already a regime

change. It's already new people. We can

work. We can talk with these people. He

already said the strait isn't his

problem, right? But of course, he's also

said different things sometimes in the

same tweet. Right. So he he's picking

and choosing. But what I'm suggesting to

you is that Trump has already moved

towards deescalation.

>> You're spot on when you say he's set the

stage to back out.

>> To back out.

>> We won. Regime change. Straight is not

my problem. We have our own oil. Blah

blah blah blah blah. But then

>> if you don't open that straight, I'm

going to end civilization.

>> Yeah.

>> So which was which didn't seem to fit.

It seemed like he was setting the stage

to back out. And then suddenly the

civilization tweet, I'm going to bum

bomb your bridges and your nuclear power

plants. Which suddenly made me think,

okay, so maybe he does really care.

>> And wasn't plausible, by the way. I

mean, there was no chance that he was

actually going to do all that that

evening.

>> So why didn't he just back out?

>> Well, I do not want to be Trump's

psychologist, right? It is very clear

that he is impulsive and that he does

not have much impulse control. Nor does

he create around him mechanisms that

create impulse control that enforce

impulse control. He's on his phone all

the time. He watches the media

relentlessly. People engage with him

from all over the world on his cell

phone and he has recency bias. The thing

he heard and saw last, he frequently

focuses on.

>> But he also watches the markets. He

seems obsessed with the stock stock

market.

>> That's why so many of the announcements

he makes are right before or right after

the market opens. And obviously there's

been a lot of insider trading concerns

around that too. And people there's he's

concerned about personal enrichment and

people around him making billions of

dollars. That plays in too. I I wish it

didn't. It's it's horrible to talk

about. But you can't avoid that topic.

What happens? You want to know what

happens? I don't have a crystal ball. No

one does. But where I think this could

be going on the basis of that, the most

likely outcome is that the ceasefire is

eventually extended. That we have those

talks that were 21 hours that were

substantive. There'll be more talks.

Maybe not with the vice president, but

there'll be more talks. They'll become

more substantive. and that eventually I

expect that the Iranians are more likely

to give on the nuclear issue and on

enrichment

if they're able to maintain a privileged

position on transit through the straight

because that will help provide them with

money and with security. They get a

level of deterrence if everybody knows

these guys could shut down the straight

in the future. That helps them. They

never had nukes. They weren't going to

get nukes. If they got nukes, they were

going to get blown up. Like everyone

knew that they were two weeks away if

they had access to the material and they

reprocessed the nuclear grade and they

weren't stopped by the Americans and the

Israelis. That's a lot of ifands, right?

So, but here they've got influence over

the strait. They have it. They've used

it. They're using it. They're making

money. Trump does not have a military

plan to hit them back. So, I think that

is the most likely outcome. If that is

the case, then over time the Iranians

will cut more deals with more countries

to get more oil out. And meanwhile,

there will be after the ceasefire is in

place and strong, then the Europeans and

other countries, the Indians, other

countries will come in and they will

start escorting ships to create a more

secure environment in the strait itself.

That is the good scenario or it's the

less bad scenario because all of this

should have been avoided. I want to make

sure I'm clear on this scenario. You're

saying that they'll concede on the

nuclear point Iran potentially

>> at least somewhat. I think they will

compromise on the nuclear point,

>> but in turn they'll get more control

over the straight. Yes.

>> And what does that mean? That they'll be

able to decide who goes through there.

They'll get a toll. Oh, they'll get

>> they'll be able to charge. And by the

way, you could define them charging the

toll as part of the reconstruction money

that they're going to need for the war

that they just

>> reparations for.

>> I mean, they'll call it reparations. No

one else will call it reparations, but

that's fine. I think that is the good

scenario again, the less bad scenario,

and I would say it is more likely than

not. There is another scenario, right?

And the other scenario is that

everything that Trump has been saying is

because he doesn't yet have a military

plan. Over the last days with all this

ceasefire, there's still this new

aircraft strike group that is motoring

its way over to the Gulf. You got

thousands more American troops that are

heading into position, ground troops,

right? They're going to have almost

15,000 total that will be deployed by

Trump since this war started. They're

going to be there in the next 2 weeks.

Once Trump has them there, he can use

them. And there are lots of things he

might use them on. He keeps saying, I

keep seeing him go back. Before I was

talking about all the ways he was

saying, we don't need to defend the

strait. We don't need the nuclear. we

can hit them. But he also has been

saying we should take the oil.

>> I've heard him say this on a number of

occasions. I've also seen him say if

just the American people were a little

more patient, we can take the oil. What

does he mean by taking the oil? That's

not a block. B blockade isn't taking the

oil. Blockade is stopping the Iranians

from getting the oil out. Take the oil

is control the export facility on Car

Island. Right. And and explain this for

for anyone that doesn't know what Car

Island is and the significance of it in

the oil situation.

>> This is this is a comparatively small

island. It's about half the size of

Manhattan.

>> It's not incredibly fortified or

defended. Um and it's very close to the

Iranian shore and it is uh responsible

for 90% of the export of Iranian oil.

sentcom the central command say that you

can take Car Island with 12 to 15,000

men relatively comfortably.

>> So where is Car Island on here?

>> Yeah. So Car Island is right about here.

It's not in the straight itself, but it

is this is it's right off of the Iranian

coast and and we're talking about 90% of

Iranian oil export comes out through

there. So if the Americans take it,

obviously very easy for the Iranians to

be engaged in strikes against them, but

the Iranians will not be able to get any

oil out. So suddenly the Americans have

far more leverage over the Iranian

economy, right? In a very direct way, in

a very targeted way. And that is the way

that you take the oil.

>> Could Trump take the actually take it

out of this region somehow? Is there

like another passage through that

doesn't involve Okay, so he could just

stop the oil.

>> He could stop the oil. Okay.

>> But again, if he has control of Carg,

the oil coming out of CarG, if you want

to have bring it to market, the only

ones that could do it would then be the

Americans. Now, the Iranians at that

point could still disrupt the strait.

And there are other conversations, there

other military plans about how you might

be able to take coastal regions, raids

on the territory that would take out

more ballistic missile sites, go after

their drones. All of this takes more

troops. All this takes more casualties,

but would also give you more capacity to

eventually enforce a navigable straight

with escorts, which right now you can't

do. Right now, the Iranians can prevent

you from getting any ships out if they

wish to. I I think that the likelihood

that Trump is ultimately going to make

that order is well below 50%. I think

that the worst scenario is not the more

likely one because he understands how

unpopular it will be. But it does mean

that he's going to have to sell a pretty

ugly pig with lipstick on it.

>> Mhm.

>> It means that because this was the

problem Trump has is he can't blame

anyone else for this.

>> Yeah.

>> He's the decider. Like he did it. I

mean, he's got his secretaries in the

cabinet. They're all saying, "Well, the

war, it's up to Trump. He's got the war

goals. It'll be over when he says it.

It's all about Trump. He can blame NATO

for not want to join him. They're

joining him. It was his war of choice.

and he's never been responsible directly

for an economic downturn. I mean, the

the pandemic wasn't his fault, right?

This is an economic downturn with oil

prices shooting up, gas is over four

bucks a gallon, diesel's over five,

inflation's ticking up, food prices are

going up, he's wildly underwater on

affordability, and he is completely

responsible for it. No one else is

responsible. And zooming out even

further, when we think about this on a

global scale, you've got Russia, who are

at war with the Ukraine, that seems to

have just completely vanished from the

news cycle, by the way.

>> It has not in in Europe, I promise you,

but in the United States, they're

talking a lot less about it. It's true.

In Poland, this is a very big issue. In

the Baltics, it is a very big issue.

>> And then you've got China who must be

laughing because it looks like the

United States are just sort of

selfharming themselves.

>> Yep. And then you've got Europe, which

is the last power, who seem to now just

be sort of colluding with themselves and

getting together and saying, "Listen,

you know, we're not going to help the US

anymore." I mean, we I grew up through

all these little conflicts and wars, and

the UK always seemed to come to the US.

Yeah.

>> And for the first time ever, I'm

watching the UK go, "Actually, no, you

do this yourself.

>> I'm going to meet with Macron in France,

and we're going to we're going to uh

huddle and um go it alone."

>> What is that big picture? And which part

of that big picture is most pertinent to

talk about? Yeah, China is the most

pertinent because it's the most

powerful. Russia is the easiest to deal

with. Um, which is that for the

Russians, they don't have um much that

they produce that's manufactured. They

don't have very good technology, right?

They're they're relying more on the

Chinese.

>> They've got oil there, haven't they?

>> That they manufacture. They've got oil,

they've got gas, they've got fertilizer,

right? All the things with the prices

have just spiked through the roof.

That's what the Russians have. That's

where their power is. And so they are

making so much more money. Their economy

was really getting squeezed with all the

sanctions. Now they're getting so much

more for everything that they actually

sell. And the Americans have reduced

sanctions like they did on Iran against

Russia because Trump cares about the

markets as you say. So Russia's in a

better position for that reason. And

they're in a better position because all

the weapons the Americans have been

selling to the Europeans to get to

Ukraine, America now needs to get to the

Middle East. So the the Ukrainians are

going to have a harder time defending

their cities against Russian ballistic

missiles, against Russian drones. So

this clearly means that Putin will be

much much less interested in a

ceasefire, which let's face it, he

wasn't really very interested in to

begin with. Trump at the beginning of

this term promised he would end this

war. He was hugely frustrated. He goes

to Israel to announce the Gaza

ceasefire. It's a big win. the Knesset,

the Israeli parliament, their standing

ovation. He's like, you know, I thought

I was going to get the Russia war done

and I failed it. They haven't been able

to do that. I got this one instead. Like

Trump never brings up his own failures.

But this really bothers him. So here

you've got yet more ability for the

Russians to say, "We're going to

persist." And it makes it more likely

that Trump will eventually do a deal

with the Russians over the heads of the

Europeans. So that's that's the Russia

issue kind of in a little box. Now

Europe, we already talked about how

Europe is having its problems

economically. It doesn't have the

productivity. It doesn't have the

growth.

>> What What did Europe do wrong in your

view? Like how did I'm a European, I

guess. I was born in Botswana in Africa,

but I moved to the UK when I was young,

so I guess I'm I'm British. Um,

>> what did the country do wrong? because

the country was so strong and powerful

and respected when I was younger and I

love Britain. But it appears on a global

stage that that perception has changed.

The US are talking to us like a lap dog.

>> Yeah.

>> At Davos, I saw the talks. They're like,

"You need to get your together and

be stronger and stop being so woke blah

blah blah blah."

>> Yeah. Well, first, the the Americans

talking to the Europeans that way has a

lot more to do with the change in

administration. Okay. I don't think any

other Democratic or Republican president

would do what Trump is doing to his

closest allies. I think that's more

unique. But but it is certainly true

that over the last 30 years, there have

been two really big geopolitical shifts.

Right? The United States has shifted its

orientation, but not geopolitical power.

But in terms of power shift, you've got

the rise of China and the global south,

India in particular after China, but

China is the biggest piece of that. And

then you have the decline of American

allies.

Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea.

These are countries most of which are

contracting demographically, right?

They're countries most of which that

have much flatter growth and much more

reduced productivity than the United

States. They've not been investing in

their own defense. They've not been

investing in their own technology. So

what you see is an asymmetry. At the

same time that the Americans are saying

we're not interested in the rest of the

world. We don't want to do all this

stuff. Want don't want to fight the

wars. Don't want free trade. You're also

seeing a reality where those countries

don't bring as much to the table in a

conversation with the United States. So

the the so-called draggy plan, the

800page plan by the former central bank

head in Europe, the ECB, Mario Draghy,

they called him Super Mario. He had this

competitiveness report that all of these

things that the Europeans needed to do

and he would say the Brits as well to to

address that to build entrepreneurship

to spend in ways that would actually

bring a return long-term to like invest

in new technologies to reduce red tape.

The plan is there. But unlike the United

States, unlike China, Europe is not a

country. Europe is 27 countries in the

EU and the United Kingdom which decided

for Brexit. It's a lot harder when you

don't have scale. It's just harder. And

when you have elections every, you know,

sort of couple every few years, it's

just more challenging. You can't do the

sort of stuff that the UAE or the Saudis

or the Singaporeans or the Chinese can

do at scale long term. So, as a

consequence, what did Europe do wrong?

Europe focused, Europe believed that the

world after the wall came down in 1989,

after the Soviet Union collapsed in

1991, they believed that the world was

just going to be peaceful, that everyone

was going to have a system like the

Europeans did. So, they didn't need to

invest in invest in defense. And it was

okay if they didn't invest in lots of

technology because they had friends that

they could work with and maybe their

growth wouldn't be as big, but their

quality of life would be so high. And

they were completely wrong. China did

not. They got wealthier, but they didn't

suddenly align with the United States

and Europe. China didn't become a free

market economy. China didn't become a

democracy. China is a consolidated

dictatorship under Xihinping with no

term limits and with control of the

economy, state control of the economy.

And that that's a not an easy

environment for the Europeans to be

comfortable being non-competitive.

>> A lot of this come down to energy and

productivity.

>> The cost of energy,

>> the cost of energy. So a lot of these

countries decided to carry on drilling

oil and pursuing nuclear and a lot of

the European countries decided to go for

net zero where they tried to focus more

on sort of sustainable energy sources

>> whereas China didn't seem to give a

quite frankly the US didn't really seem

to care much um and then also on this

point of entrepreneurship and innovation

these the US and China have both really

aggressively pursued entrepreneurship

and innovation and new technologies

whereas one could make the case that the

European environment has been less

friendly ly to new technologies and

innovation.

>> So the the Chinese, you said the Chinese

didn't really give a Not true. The

Chinese have invested in everything. So

the Chinese know that they still need

lots of dirty coal in order to power um

their industry, but they also have

invested like nobody else in green

technologies at scale,

>> solar and things like that.

>> Solar and wind and their their car

companies are the electric vehicle

leaders in the world. and batteries that

are the best batteries, the most

efficient batteries at scale in the

world and all of the the the materials,

the raw materials that go into producing

those. The Chinese have invested in this

for decades now. And nuclear, right?

While the while the Europeans have, with

the exception of France, France is, you

know, has heavy nuclear and that's

helped them in this crisis, most of the

Europeans have turned away from nuclear,

the Europeans have not done an allforall

approach. The Europeans have done a

let's lean into green but let's make

other technologies more challenging

including nuclear which should be seen

as a green technology. So yeah there's

no question that that has inhibited

growth in Europe. The United States has

been on again off again. You've got one

administration that's leaning into

green, the next one that's not when

America should be doing America today is

the world's leading oil producer by a

long margin and fracking natural gas as

well by a long margin doing incredible

work there. Yet the United States is

actively undermining the ability to also

produce clean technologies for energy.

Texas produces more sustainable energy

than any other state in the United

States. Red Texas. So I mean it's not

like this is these energy technologies

are not Republican or Democrat. They are

at scale becoming cheaper. You need all

of them. And so the Europeans made a

mistake in not recognizing that you need

everything.

>> Everybody says that the United States is

the world's leading superpower and that

has been the case. You know hard to

argue against that for a long time. Is

that set to change? Is China set to

become the world's leading superpower?

not soon.

Um but the trae the present trajectory

if it continues

clearly would challenge America's

dominant position clearly. I mean the US

has the dollar is the global reserve

currency right now. Nothing else is

close. And transacting in the dollar is

a huge advantage for the Americans who

can continue to print money with

reckless abandon and run massive

deficits and have lower interest rates

as a consequence. China does not have a

convertible currency. They don't have

rule of law. If they opened their

currency to become convertible, there'd

be massive capital flight and political

instability. That's what they worry

about. So, they don't compete with the

US there. China's military is still a

fraction of the capabilities of the US.

They're watching what's happening in

Venezuela, in Iran. They don't have that

capacity. They're not close. They're

building their nuclear weapons out.

They're building their conventional

weapons out. They have never fought a

naval war. They have It's decades since

they fought a ground war. U they're not

capable of doing these things.

>> So, is there any concern with China?

>> Yes.

>> What is that concern? The concern with

China is that the most the world

changing new technologies out there, the

Chinese are investing at scale and the

Chinese are now either at parody or

ahead of the Americans and everyone else

by a long margin in many of the core

technologies that matter most in the

world.

>> And what does that potentially mean that

is worth paying attention to? Why does

that matter?

>> It means that they can set the rules.

They can set the standards. They can

sell the products that you need them.

that if they determine that they're

going to shut you off, you're dead,

right? I mean, think about what

happened. The Europeans were so

dependent on Russia for gas and for oil.

And the Russians invade Ukraine, they

want to shut it down, and it destroys

the European economy. The Americans are

doing just fine. The Americans are

building and get so many of their

semiconductors from TSMC in Taiwan. I'm

sure you've talked about that before in

your show. Well, what happens if China

decides that they want to cut that off?

If they have that capacity, the

Americans are really screwed. So you

don't want to be in a position where one

country, an adversarial country that you

don't trust, have a good relationship

with suddenly produces all this stuff

that you desperately need or your

economy will fall apart. And yet that is

the the the the trajectory where

president if China if China had

elections coming up in November, I'd be

worried, right? Because, you know, you

can just imagine a situation where the

Chinese being more short-term would say,

"Well, look, the Americans are

distracted with Iran and the Europeans

are distracted with Ukraine. Now is our

time for Taiwan because we really want

to get like all that support. So, let's

jin it up." Chinese aren't doing short-

term at all. They're doing long-term.

The Chinese are thinking for 10 years

down the road, 20 years down the road,

and they're investing that way. They're

taking very little risk. They're making

no regret moves to set themselves up

long term while the Americans are doing

all this short-term stuff, all this

electoral cycle stuff. That's the worry.

If the the Americans the biggest danger

to the United States, not China, it's

America. It's America getting in its own

way and not investing in having the best

products, the most competitiveness, the

most attractive place to study, the most

attractive place to live, the most

attractive place to work. This has had

probably the single biggest impact on my

office. Of all the products that I've

tried that have given me productivity

gains or cognitive boosts, I would say

that exogenous ketones are in the top

three most pivotal things that have

given me massive productivity gain. It's

some Stanford graduates that have been

able to basically bottle up the effect

you get from being in a ketogenic diet

in a small shot that you can take that

makes you feel incredibly focused and

gives your brain an incredible source of

energy. And the clinical studies that

have been done on exogenous ketones have

absolutely blown my mind. I reached out

to them. I became a coiner in the

company. I became an investor in the

company. And so it's with great pride

that I can tell you that this exists. If

you haven't tried these shots, go to

ketone.com/stephven

for 30% off your subscription order, and

you'll also get a free gift with your

second shipment. I still buy my ketone

shots predominantly online. But

thankfully, I can now grab them at

Target whenever I drive past them here

in the United States as well, because

we're now stocked in Target, where your

first shot is completely free. I'm 100%

more productive using this app despite

spending 50% less time typing. And that

might confuse you, but let me explain,

which is exactly why I invested in

Whisper Flow. They're also one of our

sponsors on this podcast. Whisper Flow

turns your speech into text, so you can

send it in any app or device at any

time. And I promise you, it doesn't seem

to ever make mistakes. This is the most

accurate voice dictation I have ever

used after a decade of trying to get one

to work. Not only does it save me a ton

of time, it also corrects your speech if

you change your mind mid-sentence before

turning it into text on the device. I

love it and I know my team loves it too

because when I posted it in our Slack

channel asking if anybody wanted a pro

version, half the office said yes and

they had it within an hour which tells

me everything. This is the tool you and

your team need to speed yourselves up

and to capture those important ideas so

that they don't disappear. Head over to

whisperflow.ai/stephven

to download it now. That's wispr

lw.ai/stephven.

you um did a TED talk two years ago in

June. It was published in June 14th,

2023 and it's done tens of millions of

views on YouTube. It is titled the next

global superpower is not who you think.

Yeah.

>> And I was looking at the comment section

earlier and the some of the top comments

are you called it a year ago and you

were 100% right. There's another one

here saying hello writing to you from a

year in the future. I have some bad news

about 2025.

You were right. What were you right

about?

>> I was I guess what they're saying I this

you and I have been talking about the US

and China and traditional geopolitics.

What I was saying is that increasingly

the world is moving beyond geopolitics

and that the most important new global

leaders aren't countries, they're

technology companies that are writing

their own rules. I was looking how the

Russian invasion of Ukraine that that

war started not on the 24th of February

but the 23rd of February when Microsoft

found out about all of the cyber strikes

that were hitting Ukraine and made the

US government and the Ukrainian

government aware of it. I look at Elon

Musk and providing Starlink. If it

wasn't for that, I'm not sure that the

Ukrainian government was going to be

able to fight these guys on the ground.

They wouldn't have been able to

communicate. Silinski might be gone.

These are companies. The US government

at that point was scared about sending

all the military support, but the

companies were making a big difference.

Now I see that these new AI tools like

we saw with Anthropic and Mythos.

>> For anyone that doesn't know, Anthropic

released a new AI model, which they say

is so capable that it presents the world

with a really fundamental security risk

to all of our technology. They say in

their report that in testing this new

model, this new um type of AI could find

security vulnerabilities in lots of

different applications and software

applications that we use. So essentially

it posed a cyber security risk. It could

hack

>> a lot of banks and

>> critical infrastructure, your power

grid, water systems, anything with

software. and and not just like the

things that a hacker could get to, but

every bug that could be exploited. So,

it's so powerful that they couldn't

release it because it would have been an

immediate systemic risk to the global

economy and our security.

>> And do you believe them? I say this

because I heard some people debating

whether this was marketing talk for them

as a company to say, "Look, look how

powerful we are that we're not going to

release this model because it's it's

going to cause that much harm." or do

you think they are being responsible?

>> It is inconceivable to me that a company

that is this capable of raising money

and this capable of talking to the

markets is not going to have a

communication strategy that is fully

aligned with that.

>> So of course there's marketing here,

>> but this was a real risk. When you have

Jerome Powell, the chief of the Fed, and

Scott Bessent, the Secretary of

Treasury, looking at this and

immediately calling an urgent meeting of

all the CEOs of the banks, saying, "We

have to deploy this internally." And you

have JP Morgan, Jamie Diamond, is by far

the best at cyber security in terms of

the big banks and the big US

institutions and considers this a five

alarm fire. I I take this very

seriously. Mhm.

>> I think this is actually a big deal that

also happens to be useful for anthropics

marketing, not least because Anthropic

had just been in a big fight with the

defense department and the US defense

department saying we don't want these

anthropic guys because like they're not

they're woke, right? I mean, they don't

they refuse to let us use and deploy

their AI in our targeting or our

surveillance. So, we're going to take

them out of our system. Well, turns out

you can't afford to take these guys

completely out of your system because

what they're doing is too important for

American national security. So, the

timing is convenient from that

perspective. But this risk is real and

it's real because it needs to be

deployed immediately to find these bugs

and to patch them before other people

have those tools because other people

will have these tools in very short

order.

>> And so on the scale of risks that we

have in front of us here, critical,

severe,

>> yep, also severe. Okay,

>> again would be critical if we were

talking about two years out because

we're talking about this year and it's

already April. It just happened. I would

say severe, but my god, underappreciated

because the amount of attention this

gets on headlines

>> compared to Iran or Venezuela compared

to China is still tiny.

>> And is that because of unemployment

because AI is going to take our jobs or

is it something else? Is it the nuclear?

What is it? No, I mean if if what I just

mentioned with anthropic, like if

suddenly your systems are hackable by

anyone that has access to this tool,

your markets are going to go down. Your

banks aren't going to work. Your data is

going to be stolen. You know, your your

imagine if the Russians have that

capacity, what they would do with it. If

the Iranians today had that capacity,

what they would do with it, they will.

the these AI tools are are becoming

available to anyone with a laptop or a

cell phone. So I mean suddenly in the

same way that the war in Russia Ukraine,

Russia is much bigger than Ukraine and

yet in the last 3 months Ukraine has

actually taken territory back from

Russia. How is that possible? Technology

drones, right? They have become the most

capable drone producer in the world at

scale. so much that when the Iranians

were attacked by the United States and

they counter hit, what did the Americans

do? They called Zalinski, remember the

guy that didn't say thank you in the

White House, and they said, "Could we

have your help with your drone

technologies in figuring out how we

combat Iran for our Gulf allies?" So

technology is changing the world so

fast, and it turns out that the biggest

way it's changing our security and the

economy is AI. on this point of AI. I

actually was watching a video this

morning before you arrived, which I I

thought I'd show you because um it's

quite it's quite dystopian, but what

you'll see in this video is true and

it's happening around the world and I

don't think anybody has any ideas. This

is the video. I'll play it for those of

you that are looking at the screen at

the moment. Can you tell what's going on

in this video

from watching it?

It looks to me um like uh they're uh the

work that they are doing is being uh

monitored real time. Um presumably by

some external source. Um you're going to

suggest to me that the external source

that's monitoring them is not a human

being but is artificial intelligence.

>> Yes. Kind of. What's happening is a

company has paid these Indian workers to

wear cameras on their heads

>> to watch their hands.

>> Yeah.

>> To train the AI so that the AI can do

that job in the future

>> to remove the workers from those jobs.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah.

>> So it's kind of like sitting on the

branch of a tree and you yourself

cutting the There's this meme I'll throw

up on the screen. It's of a guy sat on

the branch of a tree and he's cutting

the branch himself. And what you're

seeing here is because the AI companies

and the robotics companies need real

world data of these jobs being done,

they're now asking the workers in the

factories to record themselves doing it

so that they can replace them.

>> Yeah.

>> It's um I laugh because it's slightly

terrifying. It's slightly terrifying and

yet it's also slightly empowering

depending on what we decide to do with

the wealth that comes from this because

let's face it, most human beings do not

want that work to be what

self-actualizes them.

>> What kind of political system do you

need or social system do you need in

such a world where a lot of the work

that we do today is being done by these

intelligent machines and a huge amount

of people don't have work? I was saying

to you before we started recording, a

friend of mine called me the other day

and he had had a conversation with one

of the most successful technologists in

the world that everybody knows and he

said next year is the year where the

unemployment because of AI really will

take hold and people are going to get

increasingly

annoyed. They also said that they think

the Democrats, even though I think this

person might be Republican, they think

the Democrats are going to win the

election because the impact of AI is

going to be so severe next year in terms

of employ unemployment that people are

going to associate the Republicans with

being the pro AAI party. And I saw

another report last week saying that AI

is now less popular than ICE in the

United States. And just as a podcaster

who has conversations about this, I know

people are are not happy. I know they're

not happy. I see it in the comment

section in part because we don't see it

flowing down and making people's lives

better. We see major corporations

getting richer.

>> And so the funny thing that video you

showed me, most people in the global

south are very excited, enthusiastic

about AI because they think it's going

to give them tools to improve their

human capital, to improve their

opportunities. China, the Chinese are

very excited about AI because they think

that it's going to make their lives

better. Mhm.

>> The Americans, the Europeans are not.

They worry that this is actually going

to undermine their jobs, particularly

their white collar jobs,

>> uh their knowledge worker jobs. And and

what I think is going to happen

politically, I I I don't agree that

we're going to see massive unemployment

in the US next year. I think there's

going to be much more friction. And most

CEOs don't want to get rid of a lot of

their workers unless they have to. So

unless there's a major economic downturn

that gives them that excuse, I think

it's going to take a lot longer. And I

also think that social mobilization long

shoreman in the United States like said

no AI, you're going to protect our jobs.

And they were willing to actually

demonstrate. They mobilized and it kept

AI out. There'll be a lot of like, you

know, resistance that will slow this

process down. But what I do think is

going to happen, I think you'll see it

politically. I was talking to uh someone

I know um reasonably well uh a senator,

US senator who was saying uh can't talk

right now and prochecknology person pro

business person centrist right someone

you and I would recognize as such say I

can't talk about data centers I've never

seen people my constituents so upset

about an issue as they do about data

centers

>> AI data centers

>> AI they said that no jobs energy prices

going up water prices going up. Zoning

looks horrible in their neighborhoods.

They're growing like topsy. Huge amount

of investment. Everyone hates these

things. I I mean Trump in the United

States won on the back of a lot of men

who many of whom had good jobs and were

making good money, but they didn't

necessarily have advanced degrees.

>> And they felt like the world was moving

away from them. They saw robotics and

automation on their factory lines. They

saw free trade and jobs going to much

poorer, much, you know, less expensive

labor around the world, China

especially, but India, other countries.

They said they saw immigrants coming in,

but you're not taking care of me and my

family, so why am I letting that happen?

You see this in Europe, too. This is the

Nigel Farage movement. Like lots of

stuff, right? They voted Trump in not