FRANCE24 — broadcast
20261105 020000 UTC
514 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:15] Hello and welcome to Face to Face on France 24. Our
[00:00:19] guest is Barack, former Prime
[00:00:22] Minister of Israel. He joins us from Tel Aviv. Thank you very much, Mr. Barak,
[00:00:26] for being with us.
[00:00:28] Thank you. The election results are in.
[00:00:32] The coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came
[00:00:35] first with 53 seats, 15 fewer
[00:00:39] than in the previous formation in the Knesset. The opposition platform
[00:00:42] led by former Chief of Staff Gady Eisenkott won
[00:00:46] 48 seats, and two Arab lists won
[00:00:49] 19 seats, a record. The election was
[00:00:53] largely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu, who is
[00:00:56] still supported by a good number of
[00:01:01] Israelis. What do you think? How do you explain
[00:01:02] this?
[00:01:05] First, I would like to comment on the election
[00:01:09] results. In the current
[00:01:12] government, Netanyahu has the
[00:01:15] support of 68 members of the Knesset.
[00:01:19] 52 members are against him. This time, it's
[00:01:23] the opposite.
[00:01:26] He has 67 members against him, and
[00:01:29] only 53 in his favor. If
[00:01:32] we compare these results to a French system, it's
[00:01:36] Eisenkott who would have
[00:01:39] won.
[00:01:41] It's only if we ignore, for one reason or another,
[00:01:45] the Arab parties
[00:01:48] that Netanyahu can win. But these are Israeli
[00:01:51] citizens. They have the right to vote.
[00:01:55] The Declaration of Independence promises them
[00:01:58] representation in all
[00:02:02] institutions according to their size in the
[00:02:04] country. So this presentation is
[00:02:07] misleading. Netanyahu did not win. He lost, and by
[00:02:11] a large margin. But on the other hand, the change bloc led by
[00:02:14] Eisenkott won.
[00:02:17] But Netanyahu managed to delegitimize the Arab
[00:02:21] vote. If he were
[00:02:23] think the cost of living, which was therefore the cost of logical, with his past position, he could have taken
[00:02:27] it seriously, but no.
[00:02:30] Let's think about what Netanyahu would have done if it had been the
[00:02:34] opposite. Mansour Abbas, who heads the
[00:02:37] small Arab party of 8
[00:02:40] deputies, said that
[00:02:44] a major impact on everyone and then it Netanyahu had invited him three times to his
[00:02:46] residence in the past to
[00:02:49] convince him to forge an alliance with
[00:02:52] him. I have known Netanyahu for a very long time,
[00:02:56] for decades.
[00:02:58] that's published by I'll tell you one thing.
[00:03:02] Today,
[00:03:04] Netanyahu could immediately invite Mansour Abbas, offer
[00:03:08] How Evangelical Far-Right him the post of Minister of the Interior in a
[00:03:11] government or accede to his demands. He
[00:03:15] could invite the leader of the other party, Ahmed
[00:03:18] Tibi, make him Minister of
[00:03:20] Health,
[00:03:24] and he would completely ignore the reproaches that could be made to
[00:03:27] him, the same reproaches he is making to Eisenkott right
[00:03:31] now. But this is in full contradiction with his pre-election
[00:03:34] promises.
[00:03:37] If someone reproached Netanyahu for not keeping his
[00:03:41] promises,
[00:03:43] he would have said, "But that's the difference between you and me, between me, Netanyahu, and you,
[00:03:47] the opposition. You only talk about equality,
[00:03:51] talk about integrating Arabs into
[00:03:54] Israeli politics, but I do
[00:03:57] it. I act." And he would not have the slightest
[00:04:00] cognitive dissonance. He only does what
[00:04:03] suits him, and Eisenkott should do the same
[00:04:06] thing. Yes, but the problem is
[00:04:10] that Eisenkott himself and his allies,
[00:04:13] except the leader
[00:04:17] question of the of the Democratic Party, Mr. Golan, have declared: "We will not
[00:04:21] form a coalition with the
[00:04:24] Arab parties." So what to do? Change his mind
[00:04:27] or simply stick to his initial
[00:04:30] position? But of course he can change
[00:04:34] his mind. It's even in Israeli
[00:04:38] jumped on this theme by culture.
[00:04:41] question of What I said is probably rather socialist candidate from a little too detailed for the French
[00:04:44] viewer, but if Netanyahu had been in the same situation as
[00:04:48] congratulate the new governor-elect of Eisenkott, he would not have hesitated for a second to go back on his
[00:04:51] promises. In fact, for the past 4 or 5 years,
[00:04:55] there have been many elections,
[00:04:58] too many in Israel, but... each time, he changed
[00:05:01] his mind. Once I was asked to
[00:05:05] define in one sentence the difference between Eisenkott and
[00:05:08] Netanyahu, two men I have known for decades.
[00:05:12] I said Eisenkott cannot lie. He is
[00:05:16] physically incapable of it. He will start to
[00:05:19] sweat, to stammer. Netanyahu, on the other
[00:05:22] hand, cannot tell the truth. He lies as he
[00:05:26] breathes. He doesn't pay at restaurants when he
[00:05:29] goes there. He changes his political position all the
[00:05:32] time.
[00:05:35] You need to know who your rival is. If
[00:05:39] it's Netanyahu, promises don't matter.
[00:05:43] Go back on your promises, as Netanyahu would have
[00:05:47] done.
[00:05:50] Mr. Barak, we have heard allegations
[00:05:53] of potential foreign funding for
[00:05:57] Arab parties. An investigation has been launched by the Shin Bet.
[00:06:01] Qatar has been accused, but strongly rejects
[00:06:04] these accusations. The electoral commission
[00:06:08] also, but the Netanyahu camp argues that this proves that
[00:06:11] the election was rigged.
[00:06:17] That's a very good question.
[00:06:20] But what good can the Qataris do, who have active
[00:06:24] agents working for them, who are
[00:06:27] paid within Netanyahu's inner circle of
[00:06:30] collaborators, who work
[00:06:33] during a war, and during this time
[00:06:37] are paid by Qatar?
[00:06:41] They take secret
[00:06:44] information from Israel and leak
[00:06:47] it to Bild, the German newspaper, to
[00:06:50] influence the perception of Netanyahu,
[00:06:53] of Israel, of their behavior, and of Qatar compared to other countries like
[00:06:57] Egypt.
[00:07:00] So why would he want to help Netanyahu's
[00:07:03] opponents? The most
[00:07:06] probable explanation could be
[00:07:09] this: because he has a contradiction.
[00:07:43] Arab participation,
[00:07:46] he can say that the election was
[00:07:48] rigged. On the other
[00:07:50] hand,
[00:07:54] he can blame others. In
[00:07:58] Israel, this is called
[00:07:59] Cartargate.
[00:08:03] Netanyahu has his closest collaborators working
[00:08:07] for the enemy, but he can say no,
[00:08:10] no. "They don't work
[00:08:14] for me. They are undoubtedly involved at all
[00:08:17] levels of Israeli politics to disrupt the situation, but these
[00:08:21] are fake news.
[00:08:25] The real suspect
[00:08:28] should be Netanyahu's collaborators and government."
[00:08:32] Several reports warned that Netanyahu might attack Iran just before
[00:08:36] the election. This could also happen
[00:08:39] after the American midterm elections. Is it...
[00:08:51] When I started answering interviews in
[00:08:53] Israel,
[00:08:55] I said that Netanyahu is a desperate, trapped
[00:08:59] animal. He is ready to do anything to stay in
[00:09:02] power,
[00:09:05] to overcome the criticism against him. I raised
[00:09:08] the idea that Netanyahu would even be willing
[00:09:12] to go to war at the time of
[00:09:15] the elections to prevent the creation of a new government
[00:09:19] and remain in government until the next elections in the summer
[00:09:22] of 2027. Israeli journalists ridiculed
[00:09:26] this idea. They told me how can you dare to think
[00:09:30] that, but now everyone is talking about it.
[00:09:33] Netanyahu is ready to do
[00:09:34] it.
[00:09:37] It has nothing to do with Israeli national
[00:09:40] interest or the fight against the Iranian nuclear
[00:09:43] program. There is not the slightest
[00:09:46] information making an
[00:09:50] attack against Iran immediate,
[00:09:53] necessary.
[00:09:56] Nothing prevents us from delaying any
[00:10:00] decision by 2 to 6
[00:10:02] weeks, until a new
[00:10:06] responsible government, not
[00:10:09] biased by personal interests, comes to power,
[00:10:13] motivated only by the interest of the nation, and
[00:10:16] decides if it is necessary or not. Furthermore,
[00:10:19] Netanyahu says
[00:10:21] now that he can change the regime.
[00:10:25] Probably, the previous attacks last
[00:10:29] February had precisely that
[00:10:31] objective: a 40-day attack to change the Iranian
[00:10:35] regime, within the new
[00:10:38] framework described by
[00:10:42] Trump. And now Trump says, after the
[00:10:45] midterms, that he will help Israel in a very
[00:10:49] brief campaign to overthrow the regime. But that's
[00:10:53] ridiculous. Produced in Vietnam, in
[00:10:56] Iraq, in Afghanistan, or wherever
[00:11:00] else in the world. This reflects the
[00:11:03] illusions of people who need it for their political interests. It has
[00:11:06] nothing to do with reality. And Netanyahu is playing this game
[00:11:10] fully. He says: there could be a
[00:11:13] miscalculation on the part of the Iranians. The
[00:11:17] Iranians are fierce rivals and not
[00:11:20] stupid. They fully understand that
[00:11:23] any war against Israel and the
[00:11:27] United States benefits
[00:11:30] Netanyahu. He can
[00:11:33] delay the formation of a new
[00:11:36] government, and it also helps
[00:11:40] Trump. The Iranians have no
[00:11:44] interest in starting a war. Any
[00:11:47] statement by Netanyahu
[00:11:50] saying that he has information that could make
[00:11:53] one believe that the Iranians
[00:11:57] are planning something, these are fake news. It has nothing to do with
[00:12:00] reality. Mr. Barak, thank you very much for answering France
[00:12:04] 24's questions, and thank you for following this edition of Face
[00:12:08] to Face on our channels.
[00:12:23] Well, in the debate, it's a... blue wave in the American Congress, a
[00:12:26] "blu-nami," as the American
[00:12:29] press writes. Democrats have taken control of the House of Representatives, but
[00:12:33] also the Senate. Trump accepted the election
[00:12:36] results, while also stating on his Truth Social network
[00:12:40] that Republicans would have won if his own name had been on the
[00:12:43] ballot. So what lessons can be drawn from these midterms? Is it a protest
[00:12:47] vote against Trump, a vote of support for Democrats? And if so, which
[00:12:50] Democrats are we talking about, the progressive wing or the centrists? And then
[00:12:54] what are the consequences for Trump's policy? We're going to
[00:12:58] talk about it with our guests. I'm pleased to have Tristan Cabelo by my side.
[00:13:01] Good evening. Good evening. Historian of the United States, welcome. Author of "The
[00:13:04] Victory of Zoran Mamdani in New York, a Laboratory for
[00:13:08] the Left" published by
[00:13:11] from you is Lor Mandville. Good evening. Good evening. Senior reporter
[00:13:14] for Le Figaro, author. You also have a book, Lor: "The
[00:13:18] Rebels of the West, from Trump to Zemmour, What's Really Happening," and
[00:13:23] L'Observatoire. Hélène Kounce, good evening. Thank
[00:13:26] you for being here. Professor of Finance at INSEEC Paris, author
[00:13:29] of "American Taliban,
[00:13:33] Fundamentalists Shape Today's United States," and that's also
[00:13:36] published by Pacific Publishing. We have with
[00:13:40] us tonight Will McGrew, journalist, editor-in-chief of Tele
[00:13:43] Louisiana. Good evening, and you are live from Washington with us tonight.
[00:13:47] So, good evening. Before
[00:13:50] starting this show, we're going to watch first, uh,
[00:13:54] what... We're in the House of Representatives, this blue wave
[00:13:57] for now, so it's 238 Democratic seats, but
[00:14:00] it's evolving because it's not over yet.
[00:14:03] 230, 228 Democratic seats, sorry, for
[00:14:07] 139 Republicans. And in the Senate,
[00:14:10] you'll see the map because it's very telling, two senators
[00:14:13] per state in the United States. You have 54
[00:14:16] Democratic seats. It's really this blue wave: Texas,
[00:14:20] Kansas, Michigan, South Carolina, North Carolina, Iowa, Maine,
[00:14:24] Ohio. And then there are two states left, Mississippi and Alaska, in
[00:14:27] which we are still waiting for the results. And
[00:14:30] then you see this map. His name is
[00:14:34] John Hossof in Georgia, Abdul El Sayed in Michigan,
[00:14:37] James Talarico in Texas, Annie Andrews,
[00:14:41] Democratic Senator from South Carolina. We're going to listen to a
[00:14:44] collection of their
[00:14:46] speeches.
[00:14:54] Hello!
[00:15:01] Thank you, Georgia. You did
[00:15:05] it.
[00:15:09] Let me be the first to publicly
[00:15:13] the state of
[00:15:14] Georgia.
[00:15:20] They may have been trying to draw attention to my name and my faith,
[00:15:23] but neither my name nor my faith prevents you from paying
[00:15:27] for your gas, from doing your shopping, or from seeing a
[00:15:29] doctor. So to all the children who followed this last
[00:15:33] month, and to all the parents who struggled to explain
[00:15:37] why the president openly mocked someone because of their
[00:15:40] name or their way of praying, tell them one
[00:15:43] thing: the bad guys lost. Tell them
[00:15:47] that together, by fighting for a greater cause, we
[00:15:50] won.
[00:15:55] We just proved that all the money in the world is no
[00:15:58] match for the people of
[00:15:59] Texas.
[00:16:07] Yes. We have just demonstrated that a politics of division is no
[00:16:10] match for a politics based on love.
[00:16:24] I believe we have just made history.
[00:16:37] South, you showed the nation what you are
[00:16:41] capable of.
[00:16:46] You showed the nation that in this era of partisan
[00:16:50] division, of vitriol and
[00:16:52] insults,
[00:16:55] in a politics dominated by billionaires and special
[00:16:59] interest groups in Washington, that we will not
[00:17:03] bow down.
[00:17:07] You can feel how moved she was, this new Democratic Senator from
[00:17:11] South Carolina, Annie Andrews, whom we are discovering a little
[00:17:14] in Europe.
[00:17:17] Were you expecting such a blue wave? Absolutely not. I
[00:17:21] was rather pessimistic. I feared
[00:17:24] that it would really be marginal, within the margins
[00:17:27] of error, and that Trump was extremely
[00:17:30] virulent. But the wave was such that even
[00:17:33] Trump backed down in the face of it. So what we see there in the Democratic
[00:17:37] party is a factory for personalities and
[00:17:40] profiles, and we are still reassured that tomorrow the next generation is
[00:17:44] there. The next generation is there, that's what we can see, in any case, very
[00:17:47] different profiles. Tristan Cabello, who wrote a book about the mayor of New York, Zoran
[00:17:51] Mamdani, well, ultimately the closest to Zoran Mamdani would be Abdul
[00:17:54] Sayyad, the senator from Michigan. But the others,
[00:17:58] frankly, John Talarico in Texas, that's more of a centrist line,
[00:18:01] Annie Andrews too in South Carolina, so very diverse
[00:18:05] indeed these profiles and... rather younger too.
[00:18:09] Yeah, it's a political renewal and a renewal
[00:18:12] of generations too, so a political renewal. They are all still aligned on
[00:18:16] this cost of living issue. So it's the big problem in the US, and these
[00:18:20] economic and social issues, there you go. Uh, less on identity issues, they rather campaigned
[00:18:24] on economic and social issues. They have answers that are a little
[00:18:27] different though depending on the socialists and the
[00:18:30] centrists, and uh, it's a generational renewal, and it's also the
[00:18:34] big return, you know, of DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion.
[00:18:38] They all have very different identities. There's a new one, there's a gay
[00:18:42] senator, there's uh, Elsayed who is Arab
[00:18:45] Muslim, there's a governor in New Mexico who
[00:18:49] is a Native American. So there you go, it's also the return of
[00:18:52] diversity in the United States, which had been a
[00:18:55] little swept under the rug during the first two years of
[00:18:58] Trump. There you go, programmatic renewal and also renewal of identities. So
[00:19:02] Mandeville, James Talarico, for him specifically, is the teacher-
[00:19:05] seminarian, the one who won in Texas, Texas which hadn't had a
[00:19:09] Democratic senator for 38 years. And he
[00:19:13] indeed has a line, what is it? We could say he's
[00:19:16] a kind of young Carter, that would be somewhat accurate, we would find a bit of that
[00:19:19] line there. Yes, indeed, with a side
[00:19:22] of putting family and faith
[00:19:26] first, very,
[00:19:29] I wouldn't say peace and love, but indeed, love your
[00:19:32] neighbor, so a desire to
[00:19:35] represent politics
[00:19:38] of simple people against, in fact, a form of oligarchy, against a
[00:19:42] form of corruption of power, of violence. We heard
[00:19:45] this theme a lot, corruption of power, and it's
[00:19:49] true that it found an important echo because there's also the whole
[00:19:55] aristocracy of money that Tocqueville talked about and which really
[00:19:58] seems well established in the American landscape.
[00:20:01] So a kind of recourse, and it's true that, for example, in Texas, he had
[00:20:05] at the same time all this mobility
[00:20:08] against data centers, against artificial intelligence, it was
[00:20:12] picked up, Democrats really
[00:20:16] linking it to the
[00:20:19] oligarchy, and it's also a failure for Elon Musk who personally funded
[00:20:23] the campaign in Texas against Talarico,
[00:20:27] 200 million dollars just in Texas, yes, yes, but it's true
[00:20:30] that the profiles are very, very diverse and it
[00:20:34] shows, I think it still needs to be emphasized because we've said so many times that... American
[00:20:38] democracy was in peril and that it was disappearing,
[00:20:41] that there was a risk of dictatorship. People very
[00:20:45] well known, like, for example, Bob Kagan, a
[00:20:48] Republican anti-Trumpist,
[00:20:52] already painted the picture of a
[00:20:54] fascist dictatorship installed in the
[00:20:57] United States. And finally, this country shows that it
[00:21:01] is capable of, in a certain way, blowing the
[00:21:05] whistle on the beginning of the Trump era, I would say, and
[00:21:08] of proposing a form of
[00:21:12] alternation to, how can I say, balance
[00:21:15] things out a little. I would still say that, uh, this
[00:21:18] diversity of the Democratic Party that we see appearing
[00:21:21] uh hides in any case, yes, hides
[00:21:25] the fact that it is a party where there are
[00:21:29] many disagreements, where there is an enormous
[00:21:32] uncertainty about the line that will emerge. And so that will be the
[00:21:35] big challenge now for the next two years, which is
[00:21:39] whether exactly, whether the Democrats will be able
[00:21:43] to put together a candidate and a
[00:21:46] path, precisely, a unifying
[00:21:49] path for America. Will McGrew, you who
[00:21:52] are editor-in-chief of TeleLouisiana, so you are in Washington, you know these southern
[00:21:56] states very well, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South
[00:22:00] Carolina. Were you also very surprised by this blue
[00:22:03] wave, particularly in these states?
[00:22:07] Yes, of course, because we know that there are some states that are
[00:22:11] divisive states that have a
[00:22:14] possibility of a Democrat or a Republican winning, but
[00:22:17] it wasn't all those states and so... we thought at first that it
[00:22:21] was going to be a question of Georgia or North Carolina and
[00:22:25] finally it was a question of South Carolina and even Mississippi and
[00:22:28] even Louisiana it's really shocking
[00:22:32] that it was very close in
[00:22:34] fact the Democrat lost but it was
[00:22:37] really just by two points two percentage points which was really striking
[00:22:41] because the Democrats did not invest in that at all
[00:22:44] and I think that shows the way for the future in these southern states for the
[00:22:48] Democrats.
[00:22:52] Uh, yes, but also
[00:22:55] the regime that was being born,
[00:22:58] uh, from my point of view, you know, Project
[00:23:01] 2025 was largely completed, right?
[00:23:04] It was about 70% completed, so the people who were alarmed
[00:23:08] by the pace of dismantling institutions,
[00:23:12] uh, by Trump, well, they were perhaps not wrong. But what is
[00:23:15] very positive in this Democratic wave is that
[00:23:19] there is a common thread, which is decency. I think they all
[00:23:23] have at heart to be a bit of a return to decent
[00:23:25] politicians who perhaps respect
[00:23:29] the law a little more, or in any case, or perhaps even perfectly, who
[00:23:33] consider themselves exemplary in these matters, on the one
[00:23:36] hand. And then they have public service at heart,
[00:23:40] because the enormous mistake with Donald Trump is that we
[00:23:43] have the MAGA people who said, since he was a
[00:23:46] successful businessman, he would bring his skills
[00:23:50] to government. But absolutely not. What he does is that he used
[00:23:54] it, he brought his skills only for himself and his own, and that
[00:23:58] makes his pact of 2.2 billion dollars. And it is at this
[00:24:01] moment that we begin to create corruption, and he
[00:24:04] serves himself. There you go, corruption. We heard it a lot during the
[00:24:08] campaign. Most Democrats, whether centrist or further
[00:24:12] left, said: "We will fight against this corruption." We
[00:24:15] even talked about "crook Donald Trump" during the campaign. So Donald Trump, who
[00:24:19] has... reacted, he does not contest this election result. He immediately
[00:24:23] stated on his Truth Social network that Republicans would
[00:24:27] have won if his own name had been on the ballot. That's what
[00:24:30] he said. But in any case, he didn't really create
[00:24:34] confusion, he didn't want to throw mud on
[00:24:38] this result. Tristan Cabello, that too was perhaps a surprise. Yes,
[00:24:42] it was a surprise. Well, it reminds me a lot of Zoran Mamdani's election. When
[00:24:46] Zoran Mamdani was elected uh the mayor of New York, we had
[00:24:49] thought obviously that Donald
[00:24:53] Trump would send the National Guard,
[00:24:57] ICE, stop federal funds, etc. It didn't happen like
[00:25:00] that at all. It actually went quite well with Zoran Mamdani. Yes,
[00:25:04] it surprisingly went quite well. They met at Zoran
[00:25:07] Mamdani's house, they met at the White House.
[00:25:11] Well, it went quite well. And I just wanted to bounce back on what
[00:25:14] the person in Washington was saying: we also need to
[00:25:18] focus on the defeats, because... the defeats, they are, they are
[00:25:22] actually quite minor. We see, for example, Angie
[00:25:24] Nixon in Florida, a
[00:25:30] the left wing of the party, losing by two points. That's still
[00:25:33] incredible to lose by two points in Florida. Even the
[00:25:37] governor of Florida, for that matter, wins by very
[00:25:39] little. It's a, there you go, in very
[00:25:42] disputed districts, districts that have been
[00:25:45] redrawn. For example, the districts of Tennessee,
[00:25:48] in the, which have been redrawn by Jerry
[00:25:52] Mandering. Someone like Justin Pierson, who was one of the Justice
[00:25:55] Democrats, someone rather from the left of the party, there too he
[00:25:59] loses by 1 % in a
[00:26:01] constituency which was completely redrawn so that he would lose. So how do you
[00:26:05] explain it? Is it precisely anti-Trump?
[00:26:08] Was it "we don't choose Trump" or was it, on the contrary, an adherence to
[00:26:12] a new potential economic policy of
[00:26:15] perhaps increasing taxes on public services, more
[00:26:18] important because well, the cost of living, it's both. He had a
[00:26:22] rejection that was quite frank and quite massive but he also
[00:26:25] had a certain appeal for a
[00:26:29] program, which is a bit ambivalent, it must be said. Because the
[00:26:33] centrists and the and the people on the left do not
[00:26:37] agree on the program, they agree on the observations, they don't agree on the
[00:26:40] program and so in the 2 years to come, as you said, I think we will need to
[00:26:44] bring clarification in this Democratic
[00:26:47] party which no longer knows very well whether it's sailing
[00:26:51] right or left. Yes, but then how will he be in Congress, this party, all these
[00:26:55] Democrats, so what room for maneuver will they
[00:26:59] have before coming back to that, right? Precisely because I just want to hear about
[00:27:02] Jelly Vance's reaction, so it was a few moments ago that he said the reason for the
[00:27:06] defeat is the war against Iran. So there we see, and he's the first
[00:27:10] to have said it. Now Donald Trump apparently just said it
[00:27:13] as well because he he has a speech from the American president,
[00:27:17] but Lormandville immediately felt it nonetheless that
[00:27:20] he distinguished himself, he who was against this war in Iran, Jelly
[00:27:24] Vance, and he immediately put this war on,
[00:27:28] explaining that it's because of this war that ultimately he suffered such a setback against
[00:27:31] against. But exactly, because it allows him, indeed, in a way
[00:27:35] to exonerate himself, and
[00:27:38] it must be said that he is right because this is the conjunctural aspect,
[00:27:42] I would say, of the explanation that we must give, which is that, uh,
[00:27:46] we must not forget that in January, still, when you
[00:27:49] listened to the political experts on American
[00:27:53] domestic policy, they told you that the Republicans were
[00:27:56] set to win these midterm elections. They had
[00:28:00] uh, a card that was in their favor in January, in the month of
[00:28:03] January, that is, before the war. Yes, but after the gerrymandering too,
[00:28:07] before the war, but after,
[00:28:10] after the gerrymander, but anyway, it was
[00:28:13] the war that completely changed the situation, that is, its impact on
[00:28:17] inflation, exactly, I think the economic aspect is absolutely
[00:28:20] central, well, it's said by all the observers who were on the ground, I
[00:28:26] gasoline, which for Americans is something sacred because
[00:28:30] you have to understand that American civilization is the
[00:28:33] civilization of the car, the middle classes,
[00:28:36] working class,
[00:28:38] on the contrary, upper class and so on, everyone uses their car and so
[00:28:42] it had
[00:28:46] greatly increased the price of consumer goods
[00:28:50] and so Americans said to themselves, "But he's
[00:28:53] betraying us, he's campaigning both on the fact that he wouldn't go into
[00:28:57] distant and incomprehensible
[00:29:00] wars and also that he would take care of bringing
[00:29:04] uh, well, of bringing prices down to reasonable levels since he
[00:29:08] criticized Biden's prices. So it's true that suddenly these two
[00:29:11] issues appeared as central issues. I think I think there
[00:29:15] was something else with the war, it's perceived as
[00:29:18] being profoundly immoral and we are
[00:29:22] almost, there are many Americans who are very understanding
[00:29:26] and feel sorry for the Iranians
[00:29:29] so we don't defend this war from a strategic point of view.
[00:29:33] Militarily, economically, it visibly squandered a large part
[00:29:36] of our military stocks, it compromised other parts of the world, so
[00:29:40] it was a dismal failure from every point of view, and it really highlighted
[00:29:44] the capacity of a country at the end of the world that we know little about to
[00:29:47] really stand up to the United States and rather well get out of it and there you have it
[00:29:50] Trump acknowledges it just now that the war in Iran
[00:29:53] explains this
[00:29:57] defeat, but he's not against the war in Iran, that is to say
[00:30:01] despite everything if the war... and I think the American people, I'm a bit in disagreement
[00:30:05] with you, it's that I think that if he had succeeded, so to speak,
[00:30:08] that is, if the war
[00:30:10] had
[00:30:13] had lasted a few weeks and they had overcome
[00:30:16] this system, no one would have found anything
[00:30:20] to complain about the fact that he intervened. Yes, but all the military experts he
[00:30:24] didn't listen to told him that there was no way. You
[00:30:28] know, we had experts, we had people who
[00:30:31] spoke Farsi. We had people who were experts in Persian
[00:30:35] civilization and they let these people go, they said no, we don't need experts,
[00:30:39] but look at the result when amateurs do it. So what's interesting, since we're talking
[00:30:42] about these Democrats and their differences, is that they will sit from
[00:30:46] January, both the deputies and the senators. Hakeem
[00:30:49] Jeffries, so the
[00:30:53] of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, he spoke,
[00:30:56] he will also become the first Speaker of the House.