Funding for To The Contrary provided by: This week on To The Contrary: We really need to understand this critical moment we're at right now, which is the movement of combat troops to the region.

We are in a very dangerous position regarding foreign policy in terms of instability in the Middle East.

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to To The Contrary a discussion of news and social trend from a variety of perspectives.

American foreign policy is in first ever crisis of its kind, as is American progress on issues affecting women and persons of color.

Traditional alliances with Europe are fraying as Washington upends all kinds of long term ties with allies, including European countries or NATO members; China, Russia and Iran.

With us to discuss this are Kimberly St.

Julian Vernon, an historian at the University of Pennsylvania and foreign policy expert, and Linda Robinson, a Senior Fellow for Women and Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Welcome to you both.

So, just so you know, I've been traveling globally since the 80s and 90s covering women's issues.

And at one point we were the world leader, even though we had never had a woman presiden and some smaller countries had at that point.

We were the world leader on women's rights.

What is—what impact is President Trump and all he's doing in term of waging war on Iran, in terms of all his other foreign policy choices, in terms of steering the country away from diversity, equity and inclusion, what is that doing to our status, if we still have it, as the world's leader on women's rights and diversity, and let's start with you.

Thank you for raising this critical question.

And I might start just by noting that the United States right now is firmly in the middle of the pack globally in terms of our own representation for women.

28% is the global figure.

We are there.

We've never exceeded that.

And of course, we've never had a woman president, where many other countries have.

So I think it's important to note that it's, while historically we have been funding and supporting women's rights, we'v had our own challenges at home.

But of course, since the advent of the second Trump administration, there have been a number of executive orders and funding cut that have dramatically reduced, really almost removed the suppor we've had for both family planning and reproductive rights, but also support for democracy and support for women in these emerging democracies.

So that is the critical issue.

We've just finished the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which is a global gathering at the United Nations in New York, a two week event.

The United States was the only country to vote against the agree conclusions of this gathering, which was organized around the issu of expanding access to justice and ending legal discrimination, where women only enjoy two thirds of the lega rights of men around the world.

So our withdrawal from the UN women organization, our aid cuts up to 90% in some cases has been catastrophic.

I absolutely agree, and I think in terms of foreign policy, we also have to recognize that women and girls and children are often bearing the brunt of these cuts, particularly with U.S.

aid.

I've seen some pretty scar reports about increasing levels and numbers of child marriages, particularly for young girls, because their schools that were funded by US aid are closing down, particularly Rohingya girls.

So I think we have to kind of understand when the United State steps back from the world stage in terms that being the stand point in the standard for promoting girls and women's rights, it allows those groups and parties that are against women's rights who don't want women to get beyond the kitchen, to take cover under that and to promote that as well.

And I think we're definitel seeing that on the world stage.

And even among my students, they've started to notice these trends on TikTok and other social media pages from around the world.

So I think it's that we're at a critical juncture here.

So if we're not the leader that we were 20, 30 years ago on women's rights issues, who is?

Is anybody emerging to take our place?

Or are all countries just kind of shrugging their shoulders and saying, as long as, Trump is president of the United States and he is clearly not in favor of diversity, equity and inclusion, why should we bother to advance women's rights?

Well, I would say that there is an important warning sign in tha some of the European countries like the UK, have stepped back at the level of aid they've been supplying, so they have been reassessing their own aid picture.

Norway is undergoing— Aid, meaning—?

Explain what you mean by aid, aid to whom and for what?

Yes, assistance to women and girls within a context of a broader step back.

Of course, we've had here in the US the dismantling of the U.S.

Agenc for International Development, which affects, of course, support for people, humanitarian and development aid, as well as democracy aid across the board, but particularly, aid for women and girls.

But let me directly answer your point with regard to who's leading.

It's always been the Nordic countries that have been in the forefront and they continue to be in the forefront.

Although certainly I've been at UN conferences on women and development, and we were a much bigger footprint there, and used to be a much bigge leader, issues wise, than those countries in terms of, you know, gettin other countries to step forward and position themselves in favor of women's rights.

And I noticed too, that one, one of President Trump's favorite targets is Cuba, because it is a communist country.

And there is a program for Cuba which has an excellent medical education system, has been sending doctor all over the southern hemisphere to help particularly poor countries get medical aid to their people.

And the only country leader who has stood up and said I'm continuing this, is Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico.

What does all this tell us about who's going to continue supporting women's rights and women's advancement?

Yes.

Well, Claudia Sheinbaum is the first woma president of Mexico, I think is— and being looked at as a standard bearer for the region, of course, there have been other women presidents and prime ministers in the region.

The fact that she recently came out and said, no, we're going to keep the Cuban doctors coming to Mexico, and they're vital for health care in the poorest states of our country, I think was a good stake in the ground to put.

But there's also a long runnin problem of femicide in Mexico.

And I know that women in Mexico are looking at her to take that on as well.

I was pleasantly surprised to see President Sheinbaum stuck with the Cuban doctors program, and she made a good point.

Cuban doctors have been critical to the Mexican health care infrastructure, especially during Covid.

So she'd be hurting her own population to take away these Cuban doctors because of American pressure.

So I think when we think about women leadership, we're going to have to look to women leaders to continue to protect the interests of girls and women because it's not DEI to them.

It's life or death for many of these women and their country.

Now, Presiden Trump likes to—I've heard him, if I've heard him say it once, I've heard him say it ten or more times, that he resolved eight wars.

Is that accurate?

And if so, which ones?

It depends on the war.

I've seen some interesting maps.

Usually he likes to take credit for Armenia and Azerbaijan.

There's also credit for Israel-Palestine, which is still going on.

So yeah, it depends on the da what war he's taking credit for.

He doesn't seem to be wanting to take much credit for the current war that's going on in Iran.

Yes.

I'd like to call out the situation in Gaza, where there is particularly acute humanitarian level of suffering, and there have been over 70,000 deaths over the course of that war.

The ceasefire is not being observed, and we don't really have a clear path forward in terms of the next phase that was announced to begin, which would be both the demilitarization of Hamas, but also critically, a great flow of humanitarian aid in as well as the beginning of reconstruction.

So I think this is very serious to be claiming to have solved wars when there is so much destruction and suffering coming on.

And now I know we'll get to talking about the Iran and Lebanese situation, but we're actually through our military actions, causing an expansion of the humanitarian suffering at this point in the world.

And Kim, was it a mistake for us to, quote unquote, get in bed with Israel in its war with Gaza, with the Palestinians.

Is this something that you think could eventually help America become stronger?

Or is it a dead end situation where we're stuck in a war of attrition?

The Iranians have been preparing for a war of attrition for a long time.

Trump keeps talking about peace negotiations that the Iranians are saying are not happening.

Does this mean we're going to be stuck fighting this war and losing more peopl as more Americans, become boots on the ground, so to speak, in that area of the world?

And is there going to continue to be abuse of Palestinians who are being killed by Israel for no apparent reason?

It is an incredibly, I think, the example that liturgist gave with what we've seen from the so-called Gaza ceasefire, where we still have thousands of people who are in humanitarian crisis, they are struggling to get food and health care in Gaza.

And Israel repeatedly violates the cease fire.

So that is the preceden of what a cease fire looks like.

What makes us think that a cease fire with Iran is going to be any different?

And I think that's how the regime in Tehran is also thinking about this situation where cease fir doesn't really mean a cease fire for the person who's being invaded.

And so I think we have to also think about— there are very kind of fungible ends and means of Israel when it comes to Gaza.

The signposts and the goalposts are always moving, and we see similar behavior with how Israel and America are dealing with Iran.

And so we have a very dangerous precedent in the Middle East of open ended wars, of wars of attritio that are destroying the people in Iran and in Gaza.

But also there is no foreseen end.

What does it mean to destroy Iran's military capability?

We don't know what that means.

And the administration often doesn't know what that means.

And so we have the increasin number of troops we have moving towards the Strait of Hormuz, possibly taking Kharg island.

If we think about this from the perspective of Iranians this is an existential threat.

The Iranian state sees this as either they will destroy us or we have to defend ourselves.

And the best way for Iran to do this is as you said: a war of attrition, something they've been preparing for since 79, and we see it working for them.

We are in a very dangerous position regarding foreign policy in terms of instability in the Middle East, not only for security concerns for the United States, but we have a humanitarian crisis in Gaza that is very much threatening to spill over in Lebanon and Iran.

And we've also, at the same time as the United States, completely pulled bac from our humanitarian promises.

And Id love both your thoughts on exactly why we got into this war in the first place?

If I may say so, Israel has a president who's o trial for all kinds of charges.

It seems to m what's keeping him out of jail is his ability to keep himself in office.

Did he pressure Trump t help them because they're both, you know, on the criminal edge of their societies?

And did he pressure America to get involved because—not because Israel really needs this war or benefits from this war, but because it benefits him by keeping him out of prison?

Well, as Kimberly pointed out, there have been a lot of shifting explanations for why the Trump administration took on this wa that is now almost a month old.

And I think that it's alarming.

And you heard some Republican coming out after the closed door briefing on the Hill saying they needed more answers.

And they're very concerned that more information isn't being laid out about the cost of this.

The path ahead, the decision points and, of course, the central question you pose, why are we doing this and why now?

And the missile, development program, the intelligence agencies have said they weren't— there was not a clear trigger for intercontinental missile development.

The nuclear program wasn't really even mentioned, though.

I want to stress, that is a concern.

And Americans share that there's a very large majority, that do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and a clear understanding of the further instabilit this would cause in the region.

But I think that we really need to understand this critical moment we're at right now, which is the movement of combat troops to the region.

Two marine expeditionary units are on the way there.

One brigade of the 82nd airborne.

The game changes entirely once we put boots on the ground, and there are shifting explanations for why those might be used.

But once you are on the ground, that becomes a real trap.

It's very hard to achiev military objectives, given the significant firepower and mass that Iran retains.

And it is, I think, imperative that people understand that tipping point, because once you have troops on the ground, then it's harder to say, okay we'll make a deal, well leave and there's all of this talk right now that maybe a deal will come.

But I spent years as a reporter and researcher in the so-called long wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan.

And I can't emphasiz how much we are at the absolute tipping point.

The humanitarian cost is already mounting.

There are 3 million internally displaced in Iran.

We haven't even mentioned that Israel is taking this opportunity to hit very hard against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

And a million people there have been displaced.

And we just are on a really rapidly spiraling conflict here where U.S.

troops have already been killed, who are in some of the surrounding countries, were trading fire in Iraq.

I'm concerne that Americans, while they—63% in the latest polls—disapprove of the course we are on.

But I think some of the details, it's not gaining enough attention, I think, and there is a need, I think even as oil gas prices here at home are rocketing, for people to understand, we're at a tipping point if there isn't enough pressure brought to bear to return to a diplomatic path to solv the very real security concerns.

I want to switch topics within the rubric of what we've been talking about, but let's talk about things like tariffs and how that's changing American's purchasing habits and travel.

How is travel starting with the complete mess we've had at so many— not all the airports, but many of the airports.

Will that go away now that DHS is sending ICE agents to airports?

Will it go away for other reasons?

And should Americans star thinking about postponing trips that they were planning to take overseas?

So from what I've been seeing, ICE hasn't actually contributed to making things better to the airports they've been, they've been sent off to including Bush Intercontinental Airport, my local airport, which also had been on international news because of the 4 to 5 hour long TSA lines, but they're not contributing to helping the lines.

Lines have gotten longer since ICE showed up, but there have been increases in kind of travel anxiety.

Do people want to be around ICE?

But also, what's the point of getting to the airport if you got to get there eight hours early to try to make your flight?

So there's a lot of flying anxiety.

But like you said, it's not all airports, including Hobby Airport.

The other big Eastern airport is not having reports of massive lines, but I think Americans should b aware of these kind of issues.

But also they have to think back to when we talk about travel in this security situation that we're in right now, where we have high tariffs so prices are higher, but also airlines have been announcin that they're raising the cost of tickets because of issues with Iran and the oil crisis.

So you have a lot of different problems converging right now onto the American consumer.

And so I know many people who are reconsidering trips altogether because theyre either going to be too expensive, you might not have enough time, but they're also worried about acts of domestic or international terrorism.

The tariffs certainly did impose a tax on consumers who have to pay more for any imported goods.

And the chaoti nature of that policy, I think, affects American business, much—many of whom depend on certainty and constancy in U.S.

policy.

But now the war, and the rocketing price of gas and oil is really, I think, affecting pocketbook considerations.

45% in this latest round of polls are extremely concerned about the future rising prices of gas.

And so all this puts pressure on the American budget I would say more than pressure.

It's going to put a lot of families into a mode of canceling any expenditures, that they can in order to make their budgets.

And I think that's really, 66% disapprove how the president's handling the cost of living issues, which we've shown time and again, this is the major issue.

And we're coming up on, o course, the midterm elections.

And I think the, there are many reasons not to be conducting a policy with this degree of use of military force and threats around the world.

But I think the hope of many is that this real pocketbook issue is going to affect people.

In terms of travel safety, I should note, we had many, many Americans stranded in the Middle East because the State Department wasn't doing anything to help people get out of the region.

And we— Couldnt, really.

It couldn't do— I have a friend whose son was, and I believe still is in Saudi Arabia.

They can't get them out of there.

The problem is, people's lives are beginning to be directly affected in many realms that are directly affecting their affordability issues and safety if you can't travel around the world.

I will add, and this—I don't want to seem alarmist, but we do— Iran has been a master of asymmetric warfare, and they have cells throughout the world.

And there was recently a notic put out by the State Department asking all embassies to report i about their security situation.

So I think that the threat level is going up around the world.

When do you both think we're going to start seeing more of this impact the US economy?

There was already a story in The New York Times this week about how all President Trump's statement about immigration, he's clearly not a fan of immigration or mass immigration or of immigrants, for that matter.

And it's—we'r losing population like crazy in a lot of places that had large immigrant populations.

What's that going to do to the economy?

Tens of thousands of fewer workers out there earning money, paying taxes?

When are we going to start to feel it economically?

We are already are starting to feel it.

I think we can see it in rising produce costs.

And because we've seen ICE focusing on farms that are hiring immigrant workers and they're afraid to go t work, or they're being deported.

So we've seen produce increase throughout the past few months.

But also I think particularly in states, their construction economies really depend on immigrant labor.

We're going to start to see those costs go up as well.

They're already going up because of the tariffs, thing like lumber and steel and tin.

Those prices have gone up because of tariffs and now we're also seeing the increase in pricing because labor costs have gone up, because there are fewer workers available for those kinds of jobs, particularly in places like Texas, where immigrant labor is ofte the basis of the construction, the construction economy.

And I think we have to... Americans have to start putting these puzzle pieces together.

We can't analyze these things all separately.

The war with Ira is causing oil prices to go up.

USPS has just announced it's going to start its first ever fuel surcharge for shipping because of increasing fuel prices.

Our food prices are going up.

These are all connected and we have to kind of marry domestic and foreign policy together in our minds to really understand the huge impact that these policies are having on Americans every day.

From the food you eat to the gas prices you pay, you're being impacted by these policies.

And let's end on this note, which is, since we're not— sinc we may not be the world leader we have been for 80 years or s since the end of World War II, and everybod seems to have doubts about that.

Who is?

Who's going to take over?

Is it going to be China?

Is it going to be Russia?

Even though there are all kinds of rumors of coup attempts being formed, possibly in Russia, against Putin?

Who's the next world leader?

Well, in economic terms and likely military terms, if they consider continue their trajectory, China is obviousl the rising power in the world.

But I would also like to sa I call attention to Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister's call in Davos for the middle powers to come together.

And, you know, it's really the coalition of democracies around the world that have bee working together minus the U.S.

if we continue on thi trajectory and frankly, the EU, European Union is the third largest economy in the world.

Japan, Australia, you have many countries that I would say middle powers kind of diminishes their clout if they do come together.

And I think that is something that gives me some heart, but also the fact that the US has done a lot of damage to its standing, and many do not trust us now.

And the fact they're looking at our shaky implementation of the rule of law and constitutional rights, they're wondering if this is a step change.

But the US still has its constitution, its courts, its voters.

So I would like to also hold out the possibility that we could make a U-turn from this path.

And I want to be one of those voices saying people still have the power.

I'm a student and a historian of the Soviet Union, and so I think change is definitely possible.

But I also think if we look at Russia, we can see our future if we don't turn things around, where you have kind of this growin and festering authoritarianism and like as you mentioned with the possible coup in Russia because of restrictions on the internet, many Russians just say this is just one more thing the government's doing.

So they don't think they're going to react.

So I think we have to really tie in to that American spirit of believing in liberty and democracy and remember that government is supposed to work for the people.

As long as we remember that, I think we can definitely turn it around, but we should look at places like Hungary and Russia to see our future if we don't remember those, you know, our founding principles.

All right.

Well, thank you both.

This has bee a very enlightening discussion.

That's it for this edition of To The Contrary.

Let's keep talking on social media, including X, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website.

The address is on the scree and whether you agree or think, to the contrary, see you next time.

Funding for To The Contrary provided by: You're watching PBS.