---
author: TVO Today
date: '2026-01-20'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd5V4bfEk6g
speaker: TVO Today
tags:
  - trump-foreign-policy
  - international-alliances
  - canada-foreign-policy
  - iran-protests
  - geopolitical-risk
title: 特朗普的国际棋局：加拿大如何应对地缘政治风暴与伊朗危机
summary: 本文深入分析了美国总统特朗普近期在国际事务中的激进策略，包括对盟友征收关税以及对格陵兰的潜在行动，探讨了其对历史联盟造成的压力。同时，文章聚焦加拿大如何在这种不确定性中寻求平衡，通过外交手段、加强北极存在及拓展国际伙伴关系（如与中国）来维护国家利益。此外，还审视了伊朗国内的抗议活动及其引发的地缘政治风险，以及美国潜在干预的复杂性。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: geopolitics
area: geopolitics
project: []
people: []
companies_orgs:
  - NATO
products_models: []
media_books: []
status: evergreen
---
### 特朗普的贸易战阴影：盟友关系承压

本期节目聚焦于美国总统唐纳德·特朗普近期一系列激进的外交政策举措，这些举措不仅挑战了既有的国际秩序，也给美国的传统盟友关系带来了前所未有的压力。特朗普政府宣布将对八个反对美国控制格陵兰的盟友国征收10%的关税，并威胁若在六月前无行动则将税率提高至25%。此举立即引发了广泛担忧，加拿大总理马克·卡尼对此表示关切，强调支持各国的主权和领土完整，并指出格陵兰的未来应由其自身及丹麦决定。

专家们普遍认为，特朗普的行为模式已进入一种“升级螺旋”，其行为日趋恶劣，且“无论你认为现状有多糟，明天只会更糟”。一年前，这样的威胁或许会令人难以置信，但如今，这种不可预测性已成为常态。尽管如此，欧洲盟友的回应显示出一定的韧性，他们正认真对待此事，并开始派遣象征性但具有信号意义的部队前往格陵兰，以表明抵抗的态度，不愿屈服于霸凌。这被视为一种“力量即是特朗普唯一理解的语言”的策略，期望以此传递明确信息。然而，美国对盟友公开威胁采取军事行动，这在冷战后是罕见的，也令一些分析人士感到震惊，认为这似乎并不服务于美国的国家利益。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

Hey,
 I'm
 Jan.
 If
 you've
 been
 watching,


you
 know
 that
 we
 have
 been
 building
 a


whole
 new
 show.
 Every
 episode,
 we
 tackle


a
 topic
 from
 different
 angles
 and
 give


you
 space
 to
 process
 the
 stories
 behind


the
 headlines.
 And
 also,
 we
 have
 been


building
 a
 whole
 new
 studio.
 For
 the


past
 few
 months,
 people
 have
 been


digging
 up
 the
 floors,
 putting
 up
 walls,


putting
 in
 new
 furniture.
 I'm
 excited
 to


say
 that
 the
 moment
 has
 finally
 arrived.


Welcome
 to
 our
 new
 home.
 Welcome
 to
 the


rundown.


President
 Donald
 Trump
 recently


announced
 he'll
 introduce
 a
 10%
 tariff


on
 eight
 allies
 who
 are
 opposed
 to
 US


control
 of
 Greenland.
 He
 threatened
 that


the
 tariff
 would
 rise
 to
 25%
 if
 there's


no
 action
 by
 June.
 In
 response,
 Prime


Minister
 Mark
 Carney
 said
 the
 following.


We're
 concerned
 about
 this
 escalation.


We
 will
 always
 support
 sovereignty
 and


territorial
 integrity
 of
 countries


wherever
 their
 geographic
 location
 is.


Decisions
 about
 the
 future
 of
 Greenland


are
 for
 Greenland
 and
 Denmark
 to
 decide.


Trump
 is
 clearly
 not
 on
 the
 same
 page.


So,
 what
 role
 can
 and
 should
 Canada
 play


here?
 How
 can
 we
 protect
 our
 historical


alliances
 when
 our
 allies
 are
 so


dramatically
 at
 odds?
 I
 got
 insight
 from


Carrie
 Buck,
 former
 Canadian
 ambassador


to
 NATO,
 Global
 Mail
 columnist
 Andrew


Coin,
 and
 Seva
 Ganitki,
 an
 associate


professor
 of
 political
 science
 at
 the


University
 of
 Toronto.


I
 appreciate
 all
 three
 of
 you
 for


joining
 to
 unpack
 all
 of
 these


headlines.
 I
 want
 to
 start
 with
 a
 sort


of
 quick
 reaction.
 If
 I
 was
 to
 ask
 you
 a


month
 ago,
 how
 would
 you
 react
 if


someone
 told
 you
 that
 a
 bunch
 of
 NATO


countries
 were
 going
 to
 send
 troops
 uh


to
 Greenland
 uh
 to
 deter
 Trump's
 threats


to
 invade
 it
 or
 that
 he
 would
 threaten


them
 with
 tariffs?
 Andrew,
 what
 would


you
 say?


>> A
 month
 ago,
 I'm
 not
 sure
 I
 would
 have


been
 that
 surprised.
 He's
 been
 on
 an


escalatory
 spiral
 for
 some
 time.
 His


behavior's
 been
 getting
 worse
 and
 worse


and
 worse.
 And
 the
 best
 rule
 of
 thumb
 is


whatever
 you
 think
 it
 it's
 as
 bad
 as
 it


can
 get
 now,
 it's
 going
 to
 get
 worse


tomorrow.
 So,
 a
 year
 ago,
 if
 you'd
 asked


me,
 I
 would
 have
 said,
 "Oh,
 come
 on.
 Not


even
 Trump's
 that
 crazy."
 Uh,
 but
 we've


been
 watching
 over
 the
 last
 year
 how


much
 worse
 it's
 be
 it's
 becoming.


>> Zeba,
 was
 this
 on
 your
 bingo
 card?


>> Well,
 I
 agree
 with
 Andrew
 that
 uh
 this


is
 something
 he's
 been
 escalating


towards.
 So,
 a
 month
 ago,
 I
 wouldn't


have
 been
 as
 surprised.
 Maybe
 even
 a


year
 ago,
 I
 wouldn't
 be
 as
 surprised.


What
 I'm
 sort
 of
 pleasantly
 surprised
 at


is
 that
 the
 Europeans
 are
 taking
 this


seriously.
 And,
 you
 know,
 they're


sending
 troops.
 These
 are
 symbolic


numbers,
 but
 at
 the
 same
 time,
 it's


sending
 a
 message
 that
 we
 will
 stand
 up


to
 this.
 Uh
 we're
 not
 going
 to
 be


bullied.
 We
 have
 the
 political
 strength,


and
 strength
 is
 the
 only
 language
 Trump


understands.
 So
 hopefully
 that
 sends
 the


message
 that
 he
 needs
 to
 hear.


>> Gary,


>> uh
 I'm
 shocked,
 but
 not
 surprised.
 Uh


Trump
 has
 indeed
 gone
 on
 about


Greenland,
 but
 Greenland's
 also
 been
 uh


part
 of
 the
 security
 kind
 of


architecture
 of
 the
 US
 since
 the
 Cold


War.
 Um,
 but
 I'm
 shocked
 because
 this
 is


the
 first
 time
 the
 US
 has
 openly


threatened
 a
 military
 action
 against
 an


ally
 since
 well
 before
 uh
 the
 war.
 So
 an


odd
 direction
 that
 doesn't
 serve
 US


interests
 at
 all.
 Yes,
 the
 Europeans


have
 responded
 in
 a
 way.
 This
 is
 a


previously
 planned
 exercise
 and
 the
 main


message
 is
 to
 Russia.
 Uh
 but
 ancillary


messages
 to
 the
 US
 as
 well
 that
 NATO's


got
 this.
</details>

### 加拿大如何应对：联盟、制衡与多元化

面对特朗普政府的激进策略和国际关系的动荡，加拿大正处于一个复杂的外交十字路口。专家们强调，加拿大的首要任务是捍卫国家主权平等、国家边界不可侵犯以及原住民的自决权等原则，并传递国际法至关重要的信息。这意味着美国应通过北约（NATO）和国防条约等现有机制解决问题，而非考虑入侵格陵兰，因为此类行为会削弱北约和美国的自身利益。

关于是否应派遣军队，专家们存在讨论。一些人认为，鉴于欧洲盟友已采取行动，加拿大也应加入，以表明团结和力量。他们指出，在特朗普看来，“武力是唯一语言”，而过去的安抚、奉承和贿赂均未奏效。因此，派遣部队被视为一种必要的“跨越界线”的信号，不仅是对美国，也是对俄罗斯的警示。然而，也有观点认为，派遣军队可能被视为挑衅，且加拿大目前在卡尼总理访华后可能处于较为脆弱的时期。更稳妥的策略是“缓慢而稳健”地推进，加强在北极的军事存在和监视能力，以此表明认真态度，同时避免直接冲突。

在处理与特朗普政府的关系时，一种生动的比喻是“在森林里遇到一头野熊，要慢慢后退并保持眼神接触，否则他会视之为软弱”。因此，加拿大需要采取一种既能展现实力又不至于过度激怒对方的外交策略。这包括保持冷静、使用不具挑衅性的语言，但同时传递明确信息：加拿大不会被欺负，并且拥有多种选择和能力来维护自身利益。这与加拿大总理近期访华的举动相呼应，旨在“分散投资组合”，减少对单一国家的过度依赖。

专家们普遍认为，加拿大需要“对冲”其外交风险，寻求与中国、欧盟等其他国家建立更紧密的关系，以应对美国不可预测的外交政策。这并非反美，而是基本的风险管理。然而，挑战在于如何在分散关系的同时，避免过度依赖中国，并防止特朗普将此视为“侮辱”而施加更大压力。加拿大需要“在两者之间走钢丝”，既要展现实力和选项，又不至于引发不必要的摩擦。此外，加拿大应加强与北约等现有盟友的联系，并发展新的联盟，以应对未来可能出现的危机。在北极地区，加拿大需要加大军事和民事安全投入，以宣示主权并防范潜在的外部干预，包括来自美国的“不请自来的帮助”。最终，加拿大外交政策的成功将取决于其判断力、领导力以及在复杂局势中维护原则与利益的能力。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

>> Should
 uh
 Canada
 be
 sending
 in
 troops?


>> First
 question
 is
 should
 anybody
 and


clearly
 yes.
 the
 Europeans
 need
 to
 uh


this
 is
 crossing
 all
 kinds
 of
 lines
 not


just
 visav
 in
 the
 United
 States,
 but
 also


they've
 got
 to
 be
 keeping
 one
 eye
 on


Russia
 as
 well.
 So
 as
 we
 said
 force
 is


the
 only
 language
 Trump
 understands
 they


tried
 appeasement
 and
 flattery
 and


bribery
 and
 none
 of
 those
 have
 worked.


So
 if
 the
 Europeans
 are
 going
 to
 be


sending
 troops
 there
 I
 think
 the


question
 is
 should
 Canada
 I
 think
 it
 has


to
 be
 yes.
 We
 need
 allies
 at
 this
 point


in
 time
 more
 than
 we
 ever
 have.
 Uh
 we've


not
 always
 been
 a
 good
 responsible
 ally.


We
 really
 need
 to
 step
 up
 and
 be
 a


responsible
 ally
 now.
 Uh,
 so
 if
 they're


sending
 troops,
 we
 have
 to
 as
 well.


>> Can
 we
 clarify
 how
 many
 troops
 are
 we


talking
 about
 at
 this
 moment?
 We're


We're
 talking
 handful.


>> Yeah,
 exactly.
 They
 are.
 I
 think
 it
 was


said
 there's
 some
 it's
 a
 symbolic
 force.


It's
 what
 they
 call
 a
 trip
 wire.
 Um,
 but


we'll
 see.
 It
 may
 go
 into
 a
 larger


force.
 The
 point
 is
 they
 want
 to
 make
 it


clear
 to
 Trump.
 This
 is
 not
 going
 to
 be,


you
 know,
 rolling
 in
 and
 taking
 out


Nicholas
 Maduro.
 If
 you're
 doing
 this,


you're
 you're
 facing
 military


consequences
 potentially,
 but
 certainly


you're
 facing
 all
 kinds
 of
 other


consequences
 in
 terms
 of
 trade
 policy,


in
 terms
 of
 um
 closing
 US
 bases,
 etc.,


etc.


>> Z
 um
 well,
 Carney
 is
 kind
 of
 an


impossible
 situation
 here.
 He
 has
 to


slowly
 distance
 himself
 from
 the
 US,
 but


still
 kind
 of
 maintain
 a
 pleasant
 facade


towards
 Trump.
 That's
 right.


>> It's
 kind
 of
 like,
 you
 know,
 you
 meet
 a


wild
 bear
 in
 the
 woods,
 you
 back
 away


slowly,
 but
 maintain
 eye
 contact
 or


he'll
 take
 that
 as
 weakness.
 So,
 as
 far


as
 sending
 troops,
 I
 don't
 know.
 I
 don't


know
 if
 it
 might
 be
 seen
 as
 a


provocation
 or
 if
 it
 would
 be
 helpful.


Uh,
 clearly
 there
 has
 to
 be
 something


more
 than
 saying
 nothing.
 Um,
 so,
 uh,
 I


think
 the
 the
 thing
 to
 do
 for
 Canada
 is


to
 keep
 strengthening,
 uh,
 military


presence
 in
 the
 Arctics
 sort
 of
 slowly


and
 patiently
 and
 increase
 surveillance


capabilities
 so
 that
 if
 US
 complains,


they
 can
 say,
 "Look,
 we
 are
 taking
 this


seriously."
 Uh,
 and
 I
 think
 that's
 the


the
 safe
 but
 boring
 way
 to
 go
 forward.


>> Carrie,
 I'll
 get
 you
 to
 add
 on
 that.
 If


it's
 not
 troops,
 what
 should
 Canada
 be


doing?


>> Well,
 I
 think
 the
 thing
 right
 now
 is
 to


deescalate
 uh
 deescalate
 with
 Trump,
 but


also
 to
 double
 down
 in
 the
 Arctic,
 as


Sea
 said,
 and
 to
 double
 down
 on
 uh


reinforcing
 the
 principles
 behind
 NATO.


So,
 to
 deescalate,
 uh
 I
 think
 sending


Canada
 sending
 troops
 this
 week
 would
 be


a
 mistake.
 Um
 we're
 vulnerable
 this
 week


after
 Carney's
 trip
 to
 China
 and
 waiting


to
 see
 how
 Trump
 reacts.
 So
 far,
 the


reaction's
 been
 fairly
 positive,
 but


we're
 more
 vulnerable
 right
 now.
 Uh,
 I


think
 slow
 and
 steady
 is
 the
 order
 of


the
 day.
 So,
 diplomacy
 centered
 around


NATO,
 centered
 around
 Arctic,
 and
 when


we
 do
 more
 in
 the
 Arctic,
 anchor
 it
 in


NATO
 because,
 as
 Andrew
 said,
 we
 need


allies
 to
 do
 anything
 and
 it's
 an


important
 political
 signal
 right
 now,


too.


>> Andrew,
 I'll
 get
 you
 take
 the
 word


diplomacy
 is
 thrown
 around,
 but
 we're


dealing
 with
 Trump
 here.
 So,
 if
 it's
 not


troops,
 what
 is
 it?
 Well,
 it's
 got
 to


be,
 if
 you're
 talking
 about
 Canada's


interest,
 it's
 got
 to
 be
 diplomacy.


Plus,
 we
 just
 being
 nice
 to
 Trump,
 uh,


is
 not
 going
 to
 do
 it.
 Just,
 you
 know,


talk
 softly,
 etc.
 We
 have
 to
 show
 that


we
 have
 allies.
 We
 have
 to
 show
 that
 we


have
 options.
 That's
 part
 of
 the
 point


of
 the
 China
 trip.
 We've
 got
 to
 show


that
 we're
 not
 to
 be
 messed
 with,
 that


we
 we
 we
 will
 be
 the
 porcupine,
 that
 if


you
 try
 to
 play
 with
 us,
 you're
 going
 to


get
 stung.
 Um,
 these
 all
 have
 to
 be
 part


of
 the
 P.
 You
 can
 wrap
 it
 in
 a
 cool,


calm
 demeanor.
 You
 can
 wrap
 it
 in


unprovocative
 language,
 but
 this
 the


message
 behind
 the
 scenes
 has
 got
 to
 be


sent
 is
 we're
 not
 going
 to
 be
 pushed


around
 as
 we
 have
 options.
 We
 have


abilities
 to
 make
 that
 point.


>> All
 right,
 Seb
 Greenland
 aside,
 uh
 the


recent
 arrest
 of
 President
 Maduro
 and


Venezuela.
 To
 what
 extent
 could
 it


embolden
 the
 Trump
 administration,
 Trump


himself
 to
 intervene
 in
 other
 countries?


We've
 heard
 a
 number
 of
 countries
 been


listed,
 Colombia,
 Mexico,
 Cuba,
 and
 of


course,
 Canada.
 What
 is
 this?
 What
 is


the
 message
 sent
 here?


>> Well,
 the
 the
 Madura
 operation
 was


designed
 to
 be
 quick
 and
 easy
 sort
 of,


right?
 Literally
 fly
 in,
 grab
 the
 guy


and
 his
 wife
 and
 fly
 out.
 Uh
 no


occupation,
 no
 no
 American
 casualties,


no
 American
 boots
 on
 the
 ground.
 That


seems
 to
 be
 the
 template
 that
 uh
 Trump


prefers.
 Keep
 it
 to
 a
 single
 news
 cycle.


Uh
 don't
 get
 bogged
 down
 in
 in
 something


that
 has
 where
 he
 has
 to
 spend
 political


capital.
 Uh
 so
 yes,
 we
 could
 see


something
 similar
 with
 maybe
 Cuba
 uh
 uh


some
 kind
 of
 leadership
 decapitation
 or


Colombia
 under
 the
 pretext
 of
 uh


fighting
 drug
 trafficking
 or
 something


like
 that.
 Uh
 but
 a
 real
 occupation


requires
 political
 stamina
 and
 frankly
 I


don't
 think
 the
 administration
 has
 the


attention
 span
 for
 something
 like
 that.


>> Uh
 Trump
 wants
 again
 wins
 that
 fit
 in
 a


in
 in
 a
 single
 news
 cycle.


>> Gary,


>> well
 Trump's
 definitely
 got
 the
 wind
 in


his
 sales.
 He
 sees
 using
 the
 military
 as


a
 uh
 tool
 to
 achieve
 some
 uh
 immediate


transactional
 benefits.
 Um
 he
 sees
 that


as
 a
 good
 thing.
 The
 problem
 is
 that


there's
 no
 one
 in
 his
 administration


that
 thinks
 through
 the
 second
 and
 third


order
 effects.


>> So
 even
 in
 V
 Venezuela,
 what
 was
 a
 short


sharp
 operation


um
 you
 know
 think
 through
 what's
 going


to
 happen
 over
 the
 medium
 term
 in


Venezuela
 and
 is
 that
 going
 to
 be
 in
 the


interest
 of
 the
 US.
 It's
 not
 clear
 that


it
 is.
 So,
 it's
 a
 conundrum
 because


there's
 no
 one
 left
 in
 the


administration
 who
 will
 tell
 Trump
 when


he's
 going
 in
 the
 wrong
 direction.


Second
 problem
 created
 for
 the
 American


military.
 You
 know,
 the
 Washington


treaty,
 the
 NATO
 treaty
 is
 the
 law
 of


the
 land
 in
 the
 US.
 So,
 if
 they
 were
 to


move
 militarily
 on
 Greenland,
 they're


violating
 American
 law
 as
 well
 as
 the


Washington
 treaty.
 How
 does
 that
 place


American
 military?
 Are
 they
 going
 to


obey
 those
 illegal
 orders?
 It's
 a
 really


hard
 place
 to
 put
 people
 in.


>> It
 It's
 been
 troubling
 because
 so
 far
 um


lower
 ranking
 officers
 have
 been
 obeying


illegal
 orders.
 The
 stuff
 in
 the


Caribbean,
 for
 example,


>> uh
 but
 invading
 Greenland,
 others
 have


made
 the
 point
 um
 all
 of
 the
 members
 of


the
 Joint
 Chiefs
 of
 Staff
 would
 have
 to


resign
 morally
 and
 legally
 uh
 in
 the


face
 of
 that
 kind
 of
 command.
 Whether


they
 will
 or
 not
 uh
 remains
 to
 be
 seen


if
 it
 comes
 to
 that
 u
 but
 you
 know


there's
 a
 tendency
 we
 always
 have
 to


guard
 against
 a
 tendency
 to
 ascribe


normaly
 to
 Trump
 to
 ascribe
 normal


motives
 normal
 assessments
 uh
 he's
 out


of
 his
 mind
 uh
 and
 he's
 surrounded
 by


people
 who
 are
 not
 clinically
 out
 of


their
 mind
 but
 are
 fanatics
 uh
 uh
 and


and
 cannot
 be
 assessed
 so
 yes
 he's
 he
 he


goes
 in
 for
 military
 operations
 that
 are


theatrical
 that
 look
 good
 on
 TV


>> and
 and
 usually
 I
 say
 with
 if
 you're


talking
 about
 any
 other
 leader,
 oh
 come


on,
 that's
 not
 how
 the
 world
 works.
 With


this,
 you
 have
 to
 really
 look
 at
 it


through
 that
 kind
 of
 lens.


>> Sea
 in
 in
 light
 of
 all
 of
 this,
 how


vulnerable
 to
 annexation
 is
 Canada's


Arctic
 region?


>> Well,
 Canada
 right
 now,
 I
 think,
 is


still
 in
 a
 different
 category
 than
 even


Greenland.
 And
 in
 fact,
 uh
 there
 was
 uh


some
 White
 House
 uh
 staffers
 said
 just


yesterday
 that
 when
 it
 comes
 to


conversations
 inside
 the
 Oval
 Office,
 uh


there's
 no
 talk
 of
 purchasing
 anything.


There's
 no
 talk
 of
 invading
 anything


Canadian
 related.
 Uh
 but
 that
 doesn't


mean
 things
 can't
 change
 obviously.
 Uh


it
 doesn't
 mean
 Canada
 can't
 relax
 that


there's
 still
 you
 know
 continuing


economic
 diplomatic
 pressure.
 There's


still
 the
 possibility
 of
 that.
 Uh
 so
 the


threat
 is
 not
 so
 much
 you
 know
 tanks


rolling
 over
 the
 borders
 but
 you
 know


that
 does
 not
 mean
 that
 there's
 no


threat
 and
 it's
 something
 that
 Canada


should
 must
 continue
 to
 take
 seriously.


Absolutely.
 Carrie.


>> Yeah.
 There's
 no
 immediate
 military


threat
 in
 our
 Arctic
 from
 anyone


primarily
 because
 the
 operating


environment
 makes
 it
 too
 hard.
 But


that's
 not
 a
 static
 thing.
 And
 with


melting
 of
 sea
 ice,
 um
 that
 will
 change


over
 time.
 There
 are
 number
 of
 points
 of


vulnerability
 for
 Canada.
 The
 Northwest


Passage
 and
 contested
 views
 of
 who
 owns


that.
 Uh
 I
 could
 see
 Trump
 wanting
 to


own
 that.
 Um
 and
 we
 also
 haven't
 done


enough
 traditionally
 the
 last
 few


decades
 in
 the
 Arctic.
 So,
 as
 Seb
 said


earlier,
 we
 really
 need
 to
 double
 down


and
 increase
 our
 uh
 military
 and


civilian
 security
 uh
 apparatus
 in
 the


Arctic.
 So,
 we
 project
 Canadian


sovereignty
 and
 send
 a
 message
 to
 uh


adversaries
 that
 we've
 got
 this,
 but


also
 it's
 like
 defense
 against
 help,


unwanted
 help
 from
 the
 US.
 And
 that's


really
 important.


>> All
 right,
 we
 talked
 about
 this
 a
 little


bit.
 um
 sort
 of
 that
 tight
 rope
 uh
 that


Canada
 has
 to
 sort
 of
 walk
 between
 being


a
 good
 NATO
 ally,
 an
 honorable
 player
 on


the
 world
 stage,
 but
 not
 damaging
 sort


of
 the
 already
 touchy
 relationship
 with


the
 US.
 How
 do
 we
 do
 that?


>> I
 I'm
 not
 sure
 that
 we
 can
 avoid
 quote


unquote
 damaging
 the
 relationship.
 The


relationship
 has
 been
 damaged.
 When


you've
 got
 the
 president
 of
 the
 United


States
 talking
 about
 annexing
 Canada,


>> you're
 not
 in
 normal
 times,


>> right?
 Um
 uh
 so
 I
 I
 think
 the
 two
 are


actually
 linked
 is
 by
 being
 a


responsible
 ally
 to
 other
 countries
 we


are
 sending
 the
 right
 signal
 to
 the


United
 States.
 We
 don't
 have
 to
 be


aggressive
 about
 it.
 We
 don't
 have
 to
 be


belligerent
 about
 it
 but
 we
 can
 be
 firm


about
 it.
 Um
 and
 that
 is
 as
 I
 say
 it's


been
 said
 already
 that
 that
 is
 really


the
 only
 language
 uh
 that
 he


understands.
 Um,
 but
 patiently
 promoting


our
 interests,
 making
 it
 clear
 that
 that


uh
 that
 we're
 not
 simply
 going
 to
 roll


over.
 The
 minute
 you
 send
 that
 signal,


thinking
 you're
 going
 to
 get
 short-term


relief,
 you're
 just
 buying
 yourself
 more


long-term
 pain.


>> Okay,
 Seb.


>> Yeah,
 I
 mean,
 I
 agree.
 Canada
 has
 to


hedge
 given
 the
 situation
 and
 uh
 try
 to


seek
 closer
 relationships
 with
 other


countries,
 whether
 it's
 China
 or
 the
 EU


or
 maybe
 India
 down
 the
 road.
 Um,
 you


know,
 Carne
 comes
 from
 the
 finance


world,
 so
 he
 knows
 if
 your
 if
 your


biggest
 stock
 is
 tanking,
 the
 stock


being
 the
 Canadian-American


relationship,
 you
 have
 to
 diversify
 your


portfolio.
 You
 don't
 need
 to
 be
 in


finance
 to
 know
 that.
 Uh,
 so
 Canada
 and


other
 countries
 too
 will
 will
 continue


to
 try
 to
 become
 less
 dependent
 on
 the


US
 given
 the
 continuing
 unpredictability


of
 Trump's
 foreign
 policy,
 that's
 not


going
 away
 in
 the
 short
 term.
 So,
 in


that
 sense,
 Canada's
 strategy,
 I
 think,


is
 the
 right
 one.


>> All
 right,
 we'll
 get
 to
 China.
 just
 uh
 I


want
 to
 get
 curious
 on
 uh
 being
 sure


balancing
 that
 tight


>> sure
 diversify
 our
 trade
 and
 economic


relationships
 but
 at
 the
 same
 time
 don't


do
 it
 as
 a
 one-off
 set
 of
 transactions


because
 then
 you
 fall
 into
 a
 Trump
 trap


behaving
 like
 Trump


>> well
 you
 need
 alliances


you
 need
 allies
 who
 will
 come
 if
 you
 get


into
 trouble
 for
 instance
 in
 the
 Arctic


or
 on
 you
 know
 trading
 relationships
 and


tariffs
 and
 in
 order
 to
 do
 that
 you
 have


to
 uh
 reinforce
 some
 of
 those
 tables


where
 we
 already
 have
 allies
 like
 NATO


and
 parts
 of
 the
 UN,
 I'd
 say,
 um,
 and


build
 new
 alliances
 with
 countries
 that


are
 natural
 allies,
 but
 we've
 let
 lieow,


like
 Mexico
 and
 South
 Korea,
 and
 they're


doing
 some
 of
 that.
 So,
 build
 that
 up
 so


you've
 got
 friends
 when
 something
 bad


hits
 the
 fan.
 Um,
 and
 at
 the
 same
 time,


you
 know,
 geography
 matters
 and
 it's


inescapable
 for
 us.
 And
 they're
 always


going
 to
 be
 a
 big
 trading
 relationship.


They're
 always
 going
 to
 be
 a
 big


security
 partner.
 The
 US
 is.
 So
 there


are
 parts
 of
 the
 US
 system
 that
 I
 hope


are
 waking
 up
 to
 the
 uh
 outrageous


position
 that
 Trump's
 taking
 on


Greenland.


>> Greenland
 has
 served
 a
 a
 valuable


purpose
 in
 that
 it
 has
 I
 think
 woken


people
 up
 and
 it
 is
 I
 think
 forced
 some


people
 to
 work
 and
 move
 together.


>> Where
 Trump
 succeeds
 is
 when
 he
 can
 keep


people
 isolated
 and
 pick
 them
 off
 and


play
 them
 off
 against
 each
 other.


whether
 you're
 talking
 domestic
 politics


or
 internationally
 and
 both
 domestically


and
 internationally
 there
 is
 I
 think
 a


growing
 cohesion
 still
 a
 long
 way
 to
 go


perhaps
 but
 a
 growing
 cohesion
 of
 of


realizing
 that
 we
 have
 to
 all
 you
 know


as
 Ben
 Ben
 Franklin
 said
 hang
 together


or
 we'll
 all
 hang
 separately


>> there
 we
 go
 uh
 let's
 talk
 a
 little
 bit


about
 uh
 the
 diversification
 of
 our


trade
 prime
 minister
 Carney
 of
 course
 uh


was
 just
 in
 China
 to
 reset
 our


relationships
 there
 step
 in
 the
 right


direction
 I
 assume


>> depending
 on
 how
 big
 a
 step
 uh
 you
 the


the
 value
 in
 it.
 The
 validity
 is


reducing
 your
 dependence
 on
 the
 United


States,
 which
 is
 a
 matter
 not
 so
 much


now
 of
 the
 of
 economics
 but
 of
 national


security.
 We
 cannot
 be
 so
 dependent
 on


them
 they
 can
 use
 that
 against
 us.
 But


we
 don't
 want
 to
 fall
 into
 the
 equal
 and


opposite
 trap
 of
 becoming
 overly


dependent
 on
 China
 because
 China
 will


certainly
 use
 against
 us.
 So
 we
 want
 to


have
 some
 equipoise
 balancing
 off


against
 each
 other
 having
 other
 players


as
 well.
 India
 was
 mentioned,
 Europe
 of


course.
 Uh
 so
 as
 long
 as
 it's
 that
 as


long
 as
 we
 don't
 we're
 not
 rushing
 into


the
 arms
 of
 China
 but
 simply
 trying
 to


prudently
 diversify
 our
 portfolio
 then
 I


think
 it's
 a
 good
 a
 step
 in
 the
 right


direction.


>> Sema


>> um
 yeah
 so
 I
 don't
 know
 if
 if
 if
 it's


right
 to
 call
 it
 the
 right
 step
 or
 the


wrong
 step.
 It's
 sort
 of
 a
 necessary


step
 at
 this
 point
 uh
 given
 the


situation
 that
 comes
 with
 with
 its
 own


costs
 as
 already
 been
 mentioned.
 Uh
 but


Canada's
 overleveraged
 on
 relationship


with
 the
 US.
 I
 think
 that's
 that's
 fair


to
 say.
 And
 so
 reaching
 out
 to
 China
 is


not
 anti-Americanism.
 That's
 just
 basic


risk
 management
 at
 this
 point.
 I
 think


uh
 now
 the
 problem
 for
 for
 Carney
 and


for
 Canada
 is
 that
 you
 don't
 want
 to
 get


into
 this
 spiral
 where
 you
 hedge
 away


from
 America
 and
 Trump
 sees
 that
 as
 an


insult
 and
 puts
 more
 pressure
 which


forces
 Canada
 to
 hedge
 more.
 That's
 not


a
 sustainable
 spiral,
 not
 not
 a


sustainable
 cycle.
 Uh
 so
 Carney
 has
 to


keep
 threading
 that
 needle
 basically
 of


uh
 you
 know
 diversify
 enough
 to
 have


options
 and
 to
 show
 that
 we
 have
 options


but
 not
 so
 much
 that
 it
 becomes
 a
 source


of
 grievance
 for
 Trump
 who
 is


essentially
 driven
 by
 grievances


personal
 grievances
 for
 his
 foreign


policy.


>> Sure.


>> Um
 so
 Canada
 was
 the
 first
 of


Washington's
 allies
 to
 reach
 out
 in
 this


kind
 of
 structured
 way
 to
 put
 the


relationship
 with
 China
 back
 on
 some


kind
 of
 footing.
 So
 I
 think
 that's
 an


important
 message
 to
 the
 US.
 I
 agree


that
 the
 pragmatic
 areas
 that
 the
 PM
 and


the
 government
 has
 picked
 out
 to


cooperate
 with
 China
 make
 a
 lot
 of
 sense


right
 now.
 The
 challenge
 will
 be
 keeping


it
 in
 that
 box.
 And
 I'm
 not
 convinced


that
 China
 has
 the
 same
 understanding
 of


what
 the
 limits
 and
 the
 guard
 rails
 are


for
 that
 relationship.
 And
 you
 know
 the


China
 that
 interfered
 in
 domestic


affairs
 prior
 to
 the
 deal
 is
 the
 same


China
 that
 will
 do
 it
 afterwards.


The
 good
 thing
 is
 that
 there'll
 be
 a
 lot


more
 channels
 to
 talk
 to
 China
 about


these
 worries.
 Um,
 but
 the
 difficult


thing
 to
 manage
 is
 that
 we've
 got
 more


invested
 now
 and
 they're
 bigger
 than
 us.


>> And
 so
 it'll
 be
 really
 hard
 um
 pushing


back
 when
 China
 wants
 to
 do
 something


that's
 not
 in
 Canada's
 interest.


>> Okay,
 early
 days.
 We
 have
 a
 minute
 left.


I
 have
 one
 question
 for
 all
 of
 you.
 Um,


out
 of
 10,
 how
 would
 you
 uh
 rate
 Canada?


And
 it's
 uh
 foreign
 policy
 right
 now.


Seb,


>> oh,
 it's
 very
 hard
 for
 me
 to
 reduce
 that


to
 a
 number.
 I
 I
 mean,
 I
 grade
 my


students
 papers,
 so
 maybe
 I
 should


>> That's
 why
 I
 go
 to
 you
 first.


>> Yeah.
 Uh
 I
 mean,
 it's
 it
 Canada
 right


now
 is
 being
 very
 pragmatic
 and
 not


being
 sort
 of
 splashy
 rhetorically,


which
 is
 the
 right
 thing.
 It's
 doing


what
 it
 should
 be
 doing.
 I
 I'm
 not
 sure


I
 can
 put
 a
 number
 on
 that,
 but
 I
 that


that's
 my
 evaluation.


>> Ken,


>> uh
 I
 think
 they're
 doing
 a
 really
 good


job
 at
 threading
 a
 needle.
 Um


the
 challenge
 right
 now
 is
 that
 there


are
 some
 principles
 that
 are
 important


and
 in
 Canada's
 interests
 that
 haven't


been
 spoken
 about
 a
 lot.
 Uh
 sovereign


equality,
 uh
 democracy,


um
 and
 those
 kind
 of
 values
 that
 get
 us


the
 allies
 we
 need,
 um
 and
 that
 are


really
 compelling.
 So
 that's
 an
 area


where
 I'd
 give
 them
 maybe
 a
 six
 out
 of


10,
 but
 on
 the
 rest
 of
 it,
 I'd
 give
 them


an
 eight
 and
 a
 half
 out
 of
 10.
 Sure.


>> Sure.


>> Principles
 and
 values
 are
 very


important,
 but
 we're
 also
 faced
 with
 a


series
 of
 judgment
 calls.
 There's
 no


kind
 of,


>> you
 know,
 out
 of
 the
 box
 policy
 that
 you


can
 enact
 here
 that
 will
 solve
 this.


When
 you're
 dealing
 with
 a
 one-off,
 a


one-of-a-kind
 like
 Trump,
 uh,
 who
 just


does
 not
 react
 the
 way
 any
 normal
 world


leader
 does.
 Uh,
 I
 would
 I
 would
 cut
 a


lot
 of
 slack
 to
 anybody
 who
 is
 in
 the


prime
 minister's
 job.
 But
 it
 really


places
 a
 premium
 on
 judgment
 uh,
 and
 and


and
 leadership.
 And
 that's
 that's
 really


what
 how
 we're
 going
 to
 assess
 him
 going


forward
 and
 of
 course
 weighing
 him


against
 other
 potential
 leaders
 in
 that


regard.


>> And
 that's
 unfortunately
 where
 we're


going to
 leave
 it.
 I'm
 sure
 we
 will
 have


this
 conversation
 at
 another
 time.


Andrew
 SA
 Carrie,
 thank
 you
 so
 much.


Really
 appreciate
 it.


>> Very
 good.


>> Thank
 you.
</details>

### 伊朗危机与地缘政治：干预的风险与代价

近期，伊朗爆发了自1979年革命以来最严重的抗议活动，民众因 dire 经济状况走上街头，呼吁推翻伊斯兰共和国政府。然而，政权对此做出了 brutal 的镇压，据报道已造成数千人死亡。在此背景下，美国总统特朗普承诺援助抗议者，并暗示军事行动的可能性。节目采访了多伦多都会大学的讲师 Moral Karimi，他出生于伊朗，对当地局势有深入了解。讨论聚焦于美国干预是否会帮助或伤害伊朗的抗议事业，加拿大政府应采取何种行动，以及在加拿大的伊朗裔社群如何应对。

在加拿大的伊朗裔社群普遍感到 tense，他们担忧远在家乡的亲人。由于通信线路受阻，许多只能通过电话单向联系，交流往往是简短而充满恐惧的。有家庭报告称在抗议活动中失去了10名成员，并描述了“血洗”场景，呼吁国际社会援助。在此期间，流亡的伊朗王储 **礼萨·帕拉维**（Reza Pahlavi）的声音也引起关注。他阐述了推翻伊朗神权政府后的愿景，包括不寻求核武器、打击贩毒以及立即承认以色列。一些专家指出，这些愿景恰好是特朗普政府乐于听到的，因为帕拉维已在很大程度上与以色列右翼和美国右翼结盟，这些群体是其恢复君主制的潜在支持者。

然而，对帕拉维的定位存在疑虑。他时而声称自己仅是“激励人心的领导者”或“过渡领导者”，时而又表现出更具长期领导者的抱负，甚至提及未来可能通过投票决定。这种不确定性使得信任变得困难，尤其是在回顾伊朗近代历史中，类似 **阿亚图拉·霍梅尼**（Ayatollah Khomeini）这样的宗教领袖，在革命前后的言辞也曾模糊其政治角色，最终掌握了巨大的权力。专家们认为，即使政权垮台，过渡政府也拥有制定未来宪法和政府结构的权力，其作用远不止于简单的“领导过渡”。

特朗普本人也似乎在煽动伊朗的抗议者，并承诺“援助正在路上”，甚至在社交媒体上使用“让伊朗再次伟大”（Make Iran Great Again）的口号。然而，伊朗已警告称，任何攻击其最高领袖的行为都将构成宣战。分析认为，特朗普的特点是“不一致”，他寻求“速胜”。目前，格陵兰似乎是其关注点，而伊朗局势则是一个“极其难以吞咽的苦果”。与伊拉克和阿富汗的经验相比，伊朗在军事和政治制度上更为强大，其国内反对力量也更具组织性，特朗普缺乏明确的“终局计划”。

对于在伊朗的约3000名加拿大公民和永久居民，由于加拿大与伊朗断交已久，其援助能力受到限制。但加拿大仍可通过与在伊朗设有使领馆的盟友进行“后门渠道”外交，尝试协助公民撤离，并试图缓和以色列和美国对伊朗构成的威胁。专家们普遍认为，伊朗的抗议运动是一场“马拉松”，而非“短跑”，其争取民主和尊严的斗争已持续一个半世纪，不会轻易放弃。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

>> And
 that's
 unfortunately
 where
 we're


going to
 leave
 it.
 I'm
 sure
 we
 will
 have


this
 conversation
 at
 another
 time.


Andrew
 SA
 Carrie,
 thank
 you
 so
 much.


Really
 appreciate
 it.


>> Very
 good.


>> Thank
 you.


>> Since
 late
 December,
 Iranians
 have
 been


taking
 to
 the
 streets
 protesting
 dire


economic
 conditions
 and
 calling
 for
 an


end
 to
 the
 Islamic
 Republic
 government.


The
 regime
 has
 responded
 with
 brutal


crackdowns,
 reportedly
 killing


thousands.
 US
 President
 Donald
 Trump
 has


pledged
 to
 help
 the
 protesters,
 and


military
 action
 seems
 to
 be
 a
 real


possibility.
 I
 sat
 down
 with
 Moral


Karimi,
 a
 faculty
 lecturer
 at
 the


Toronto
 Metropolitan
 University,
 who
 was


born
 in
 Iran
 soon
 after
 the
 1979


revolution.
 We
 talked
 about
 whether
 US


intervention
 could
 help
 or
 hurt
 the


cause,
 what
 our
 own
 government
 should
 be


doing,
 and
 how
 Iranians
 in
 Canada
 are


coping.


Things
 are
 things
 are
 obviously
 tense
 uh


when
 we
 talk
 about
 Iran
 right
 now.
 Can


you
 give
 us
 a
 sense
 of
 the
 toll
 on
 the


Iranian
 community
 here
 in
 Canada?


Obviously
 not
 a
 monolith
 uh
 but
 can
 you


give
 some
 stories?
 What
 are
 we
 hearing?


Are
 people
 uh
 trying
 to
 get
 in
 touch


with
 family?
 What
 is
 that?
 What
 are
 the


conversations
 you're
 hearing?


>> Well,
 the
 community,
 as
 you
 said,
 is
 is


quite
 tense.
 that
 they're
 worried
 about


loved
 ones
 back
 home
 as
 the
 um
 lines
 of


communication
 are
 slowly
 being


reestablished
 and
 most
 of
 the
 time
 it's


only
 phone
 and
 it's
 only
 one
 way
 they


can
 uh
 connect
 with
 uh
 loved
 ones.
 Often


times
 they're
 horror
 stories
 of
 uh
 very


short
 conversations.
 Uh
 sometimes
 the


news
 is
 I
 talk
 to
 my
 dad
 or
 my
 mom
 or
 my


cousin
 and


yesterday
 I
 read
 a
 family
 has
 lost
 10


members.


>> Mhm.


>> Um
 in
 the
 protest
 um
 and
 or
 uh
 you
 know


we're
 all
 good
 but
 there
 is
 a
 blood


bath.
 We've
 seen
 things
 that
 we
 can


never
 forget
 and
 we
 need
 the


international
 community
 to
 help
 us.
 One


of
 the
 voices
 that
 has
 sort
 of
 come
 up


through
 through
 this
 conversation
 but


through
 the
 headlines
 is
 actually
 exiled


crown
 uh
 Prince
 Raza
 Palavi.
 He's


outlined
 his
 aspirations
 if
 the
 Iran


theocracy
 was
 to
 be
 toppled.
 What's
 on


his
 what's
 on
 the
 top
 of
 his
 list?


>> Well,
 your
 guess
 is
 almost
 as
 good
 as


mine,
 Jan.
 It's
 over
 the
 years
 um
 Raza


Palvi
 has
 flip-flopped
 uh
 from
 uh
 I'm


just
 an
 inspirational
 leader
 to
 um
 I'm


the
 crown
 prince
 to
 I
 can
 um
 I
 I
 can


only
 lead
 I
 would
 only
 lead
 the


transition
 to
 sometimes
 even
 you
 know


people
 will
 vote
 and
 we'll
 find
 out.
 So


we're
 not
 sure
 exactly
 his
 latest


iteration
 is
 that
 um
 I
 am
 going
 to
 lead


this
 um
 uprising
 and
 uh
 however
 um
 we


don't
 it's
 unclear
 where
 he
 got
 his


mandate
 from
 or
 whom
 he
 got
 it
 from.


>> The
 exiled
 crown
 prince
 Raza
 Palavi
 has


has
 mentioned
 that
 uh
 he
 does
 not
 want
 a


pursuit
 of
 nuclear
 weapons.
 He
 wants
 to


confront
 drug
 trafficking,
 an
 immediate


uh
 recognition
 of
 the
 state
 of
 Israel.


Some
 experts
 have
 pointed
 out
 that
 the


exiled
 crown
 prince's
 aspirations
 are


exactly
 what
 Donald
 Trump
 wants
 to
 hear.


Your
 thoughts?


>> Sounds
 well,
 he
 is
 aligned.
 He
 has


largely
 aligned
 himself
 with
 the
 Israeli


right
 and
 the
 American
 right.
 the
 two


groups
 that
 uh
 have
 the
 most
 potential


to
 support
 him
 to
 uh
 reinstate
 monarchy


or
 lead
 Iran.
 Which
 brings
 me
 to
 my


previous
 point
 of
 um
 it
 is
 difficult
 to


to
 trust
 a
 figure
 that
 on
 the
 one
 hand,


excuse
 me,
 um
 states
 that
 um
 he
 is
 only


the
 uh
 wants
 to
 be
 the
 um
 transitional


leader
 and
 on
 the
 other
 hand
 the
 points


that
 he
 puts
 forward
 are
 more
 uh
 likely


uh
 they're
 they're
 the
 the
 aspirations


of
 a
 leader
 of
 a
 long-term
 leader
 and


And
 let
 me
 remind
 you
 that
 we
 in
 the


recent
 history
 we've
 had
 a
 very
 similar


figure
 figure
 called
 Ayati.
 And
 I've


studied
 and
 I've
 and
 I
 discuss
 in
 my


book
 uh
 the
 rhetoric
 of
 Ayati
 both
 prior


to
 the
 79
 revolution
 and
 after
 and


that's
 exactly
 what
 he
 talks
 about.
 I'm


just
 a
 spiritual
 leader.
 I'm
 just
 a


clergy.
 uh
 people
 want
 me
 to
 lead
 this


this
 this
 movement
 now
 and
 once
 I
 go


home
 and
 the
 revolution
 is
 victorious


I'm
 going
 to
 back
 go
 back
 to
 the


seminaries
 and
 um
 you
 know
 not


be
 involved
 in
 politics
 and
 we
 also
 know


transition
 governments
 have
 immense


powers
 and
 this
 is
 all
 assuming
 that
 the


regime
 will
 fall
 which
 is
 unlikely.
 um


they're
 the
 ones
 who
 um
 for
 example
 put


together
 a
 um
 a
 group
 of
 people,
 a


coalition
 um
 to
 write
 the
 future


constitution.
 They're
 the
 ones
 who


decide
 what
 the
 structures
 um
 and


institutions
 of
 the
 future
 government


are
 going
 to
 be.
 So
 it's
 not
 just
 a


simple
 um
 leading
 the
 transition.
 It
 it


doesn't
 stop
 there.
 Donald
 Trump
 has


some
 say
 egged
 on
 protesters
 uh
 in
 Iran


and
 has
 said
 help
 is
 on
 the
 way.
 In
 one


of
 his
 social
 media
 posts,
 he
 even
 uh


wrote
 mega
 m
 i
 ga
 make
 Iran
 great
 again


of
 course
 reference
 to
 MAGA
 make
 America


great
 again.
 Iran
 has
 warned
 that
 any


attack
 on
 the
 country's
 supreme
 leader


would
 be
 a
 declaration
 of
 war.
 How
 do


you
 see
 this
 all
 playing
 out
 where


things
 are
 changing
 so
 quickly?
 Uh


what's
 what
 happens
 next?


>> Well,
 I
 think
 we
 can
 agree
 that
 the
 only


consistent
 thing
 about
 Donald
 Trump
 is


that
 he's
 inconsistent.


However,
 Trump,
 I
 think
 what
 we
 know
 of


him
 is
 he
 is
 he
 looks
 for
 quick
 wins


>> and
 right
 now
 that
 quick
 win
 seems
 to
 be


Greenland.
 His
 focus
 is
 on
 that.
 Iran
 is


going
 to
 be
 an
 extremely
 tough
 pill
 to


swallow
 for
 him.
 To
 the
 west
 of
 Iran,


there
 is
 Iraq
 and
 we
 all
 know
 what


happened
 there
 once
 US
 invaded.
 And
 to


the
 to
 east
 of
 Iran
 is
 Afghanistan.


Still
 same
 story.
 And
 and
 uh
 Iran
 is


much
 stronger
 in
 terms
 of
 its
 military


and
 and
 political
 institutions
 um
 and


the
 opposition
 as
 those
 two.
 So,
 it's


not
 an
 easy.
 He
 doesn't
 have
 an
 endgame


in
 Iran.


>> So,
 there
 are
 at least
 3,000
 Canadian


citizens
 and
 permanent
 residents
 in
 Iran


at
 the
 moment.
 As
 we
 know,
 Canada
 and


Iran
 do
 not
 have
 any
 diplomatic


relations
 in
 more
 than
 a
 decade
 or
 so.


What
 does
 how
 does
 this
 limit
 what


Canada
 can
 do
 for
 those
 who
 are
 there?


>> I
 think
 um
 Canada
 actually
 can
 play
 a


significant
 role.
 we
 can
 uh
 back
 channel


through
 the
 diplomatic
 means
 with
 our


allies
 who
 do
 have
 um
 um
 embassies
 and


consulates
 in
 Iran
 um
 and
 kind
 of
 try
 to


get
 our
 citizens
 out
 and
 also
 try
 to


deescalate
 these
 threats
 that
 Israel
 and


the
 United
 States
 pose
 on
 Iran,
 the


threats
 of
 bombings
 and
 you
 know


invasion
 which
 just
 escalate
 the
 crisis


more.
 very
 quickly.
 A
 couple
 seconds


left,
 but
 uh
 want
 to
 hopefully
 leave
 on


some
 hope
 uh
 with
 where
 we
 are
 right


now,
 but
 uh
 how
 are
 you
 watching
 this


and
 and
 what
 do
 you
 hope
 uh
 comes
 as
 a


resolution?


>> Well,
 this
 is
 a
 marathon,
 not
 a
 sprint.


This
 is
 clearly
 a
 devastating
 setback
 uh


for
 the
 people
 of
 Iran
 and
 their


aspirations,
 but
 they've
 been
 doing
 this


for
 over
 a
 century
 and
 a
 half.
 We're


adept
 at
 fighting
 and
 this
 quest
 for


democracy
 in
 dignity
 is
 clearly
 not


going
 anywhere.


>> Well,
 thank
 you
 so
 much.
 Really


appreciate
 it.


>> Thank
 you
 for
 having
 me.


>> We
 want
 this
 show
 to
 be
 for
 you
 and
 the


things
 that
 matter
 to
 you.
 What
 do
 you


want
 us
 to
 cover
 and
 dig
 into?
 Let
 us


know
 by
 going
 to
 tbbo.org/runddown


feedback
 or
 leave
 us
 a
 comment
 on


YouTube.
 Until
 then,
 see
 you
 tomorrow.
</details>