Fact Check: Iran War Claims, Oil Prices, and Nobel Prize Misinformation in Debate

the president there saying that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, not least because he's about to settle a war in

Iran, a war he helped start. Well, in fact, that he did start. So, so just help square that circle for us. Yeah, I

mean I think Lewis it's a good question because the president you know campaigned on the idea of not starting

any new wars but this war started 47 years ago first of all and and secondly you know the the regime was building

1100 ballistic missiles a month and so the longer that we waited the more dangerous the world became. Um, the fact

that the the idea that the regime would have a nuclear weapon andor thousands of ballistic missiles to to

hold the region and the world hostage was was pretty outrageous. So, he sacrificed a lot of political capital

and we're seeing it now in the polls. We're seeing it, you know, we could see it in November. So, he was willing to do

that and I think the world's a better place for it because they don't have it. They do not have a nuclear weapon and

hopefully never will. Well, except except that Congress itself concluded that the Iranians had realistically

speaking given up on their nuclear ambitions or at least were many years away from it. The president himself said

that he'd obliterated the what remained of Iranian nuclear capability in that huge strike that we saw last year.

That's true. And now we know of course that I mean whether or not they've got a nuclear weapon if we're thinking about

Iranian power. Isn't it true to isn't it true to say that in many ways the Iranian government is more powerful than

it was before because they've got something better than a nuclear weapon. They've showed to the whole world they

can basically choke global energy prices and the global economy via the straight of Hum.

>> No. Well, that might have been the case for maybe a week in April or May, whenever that was, when they when they

did become quite the nuisance in the straight and for there was there was a time where the straight was not having

uh shipping go through, but but really we we the US control the straight of homes right now. So, the straight is

open. The the the regime does not have the capabilities that they did 6 months ago. That's that's for sure. So, we've

wiped out, you know, 90% of their missile capabilities. We've eliminated the Navy, eliminated the the Air Force.

So, there's so many there's a long list of reasons why the regime does not have the power that they used to have.

They're not the threat that they used to be. They're still a nuisance, by the way. I'll fully admit that. So, you

still have a risk premium attached to energy prices, but it's $100 a barrel. you know, the the you know, oil was over

$100 a barrel for 189 days during the the Obama years. There were it was over um $100 a barrel 87 times in the Biden

years. It's been over and yes, it's been over $100 a barrel 30 or 40 times in the in the Trump term. So um zero times in

Trump 1.0, I know of course but so look I mean a little context I think is is important but but the and yes we thought

we eliminated the nuclear capability uh back in June of 25 but it we didn't eliminate their aspirations for the

nuclear program and before before we launched this conflict last uh you know earlier this year they had 450 programs

of you in the United States in control do you agree >> if the United States is fully in control

of the straight Then why is shipping at a fraction of what it was before the war started? And

secondly, why is it necessary? Why is it necessary for your president to sign a deal importing oil from a butcher, a

bloody butcher in the in the Kremlin who has to this every single day killing innocent Ukrainians?

>> Yeah. Two two parts. Uh, first of all, on the on the straight, you're right, there's a fraction, but it's 13 million

barrels a day going through as opposed to 17 million a day before the conflict. However, the 3 million day difference,

Lewis, is Iran. Okay. So, Iran's oil is not going through. They are shipping zero millions. It's just zero. So, so

yeah, it's down slightly, but it's not a fraction. I mean, I unless you think a fraction is 80%. So again, the the oil

that's that's moving through is the the only difference is that we've we've basically put an embargo on Iranian oil.

So that's a good thing. Um, as far as the you know, the the fact that there's still a risk premium, you know, that's

unfortunate and and we're trying to to reduce that issue and I think we've done a good job in the straight. That's for

sure. Um, but we still haven't done such a good job. Again, I it feels sometimes in these conversations like a sort of

slightly parallel reality. warris shipping insurance rates through the straight of form have surged to nearly

10% of the vessel's total value. And so that takes that adds roughly $3 million from $3 million to $10 million per

tanker per trip. So if the US is in such control over what's going on in the straight if Trump had achieved all of

his objectives, why don't the insurance markets agree with you? >> Those are those are two different

questions. I I said that there's still a risk premium attached to oil prices. That's that's something that we have to

address. It's still in the context of past supply shocks. It's it's a rounding error. Okay. So, we're still, you know,

again, everybody was talking about $150 a barrel, $200 a barrel. That never happened. So, in in the context of where

oil prices were during the Biden and Obama administrations, it's still as good or better. Okay. So, but to your

other question, yeah, that's that's risk premium is still there because they are still a nuisance. they can fire the

occasional missile or the occasional drone to a commercial vessel. That's kept insurance prices up. That's kept

other shipping costs associated with transiting through the straight. It's kept that up. So, you know, look, I'm

not saying that this is perfect, but right now we have we're managing the straight. We are and we we've eliminated

the the capability of firing ballistic missiles and developing ballistic missiles. You have you have to look at

this in perspective of the alternative. Are you let's let's look at the question a slightly different way. Are you proud

of your president and your government that you have a president right now who when you have an ongoing war in Europe

which has been the biggest threat to European security for for decades that he's calling on the democratically

elected president of the country that's been invaded to resign and not the autocratic despotic butcher that is

Vladimir Putin. Yeah, there's I hear these questions a lot, you know, like if you're if you're

pro, you know, peace or if you're if you're not like 100%, you know, be behind the war the way it's being

fought, then you're a Putin sympathizer. I'm surely not a Putin sympathizer. I assure you. And and the president

seems to be >> well, you know, he he's trying to work something out and he's trying to to

achieve some sort of arrangement to stop the war. you know, I can't really blame him for that. But um but and if allout

victory by Ukraine was a possibility, you know, I think the president would be all for it. But we know that's not

really happening. >> Actually, the Russians are on the retreat at the moment, Greg, and your

president has just thrown them a lifeline. So, congrats to him. >> Well, not not necessarily. Look, the

Europeans bought $22 billion worth of Russian oil in 2025. Okay. And >> we haven't called on Zilinski to resign,

>> but we also and then they also contributed$ 188 billion. So, I get it. To the Ukraine. Why would he call on

Zalinski to resign the democratically elected wartime leader as opposed to Vladimir Putin who has killed thousands

of Ukrainian civilians unnecessarily in a war that your own president acknowledges is pointless?

>> Well, I don't I don't know that that there there's like a you know, he he was making a deliberate choice choosing for

Zilinski to resign and not Putin. He knows he's smart enough to know Putin is not going to resign. That's impossible.

It's not a democracy. It's a dictatorship, >> right? So, so because he's not going to

resign, he calls on the guy who was democratically elected to do so. Like, why? No. No American president would do

that. >> I know exactly why he did it. Because Zilinsky raised his hand and started and

was complaining about the the request to release some diesel from Russian storage depots. Yeah, he's probably irritated

that your president is literally handing the Russian dictator a lifeline at precisely the moment the Ukrainians are

on the advance by giving Putin exactly what he wants, which is a legitimacy and b foreign currency. So yeah, he's

probably quite annoyed. >> I'm not sure it's a lifeline. I mean, I know when President Biden insisted that

Zilinski did not fire not only on on Russian refineries, but any Russian energy assets, that was

>> they're in a war for survival. They're trying to defend their country. >> No, no. which I think is great, but I

was disappointed that nobody really mentioned much about Biden saying that um back in 2022 and 2023. So, um look, I

think >> I don't remember Biden calling on Zalinski to resign. Biden stood

shoulderto-shoulder with Zilinski because Biden knew this was a fight for democracy about which apparently Trump

doesn't care >> and and told him that there'd be no US support if he fired on Russian energy

assets. Why? Because Biden wanted to keep energy prices down for his midterm election. So, you know, let's let's, you

know, let's not be let's be clear that, you know, the the presidents during midterm elections want energy prices

down. That's the reason. And by the way, the the Europeans have continued to buy Russian energy. They're not as vocal

about that. You you don't hear Mcronone calling for for Zilinski to resign. I admit that. But that's because Zilinski

was complaining. Why wasn't he I guess he was complaining when the Russians I mean when the Europeans were buying

Russian energy but they continue to buy Russian energy and to this day they are they're buying it either directly or

through India or other intermediaries. It's really shameless. So the president's transparent about it.

>> Greg the um 2026 Nobel Peace Prize winner which was of course announced this week. Nav Ple. Um, her biggest

achievement is widely considered to be helping establish that rape can constitute genocide. Donald Trump is

irritated that she got it and he wasn't awarded the prize. What What has Donald Trump done in his political career in

terms of his contribution to humanity which can rival that? Well, I think look, I give her credit

especially for the work she did, you know, working against apartheite two generations ago and so there was

probably a moment where she would have been worthy, but this time around she's basically gotten a Nobel Peace Prize for

hating Israel. I'm not sure that's that really merits, you know, some award. So, I think the president has

>> Well, Greg, let me stop you right there, Greg, because just because a lot of listeners, Trump's right about one

thing. A lot of the listeners and viewers won't have heard of of this lady who has had an eminent career, but is

largely unknown in this country. Let's give us some. You say she's got a Nobel Peace Prize for hating Israel. Maybe,

let me put a different idea to you. Maybe it's because, as I say, she's helped establish an international law

that rape can constitute genocide. Maybe it's because she was the first non-white female judge of the High Court of South

Africa. Maybe it's because she's defended anti-apartid activists in South Africa. Maybe it's because she

prosecuted war crimes in Myanmar. And maybe it's because she judged war crimes in Rwanda and has investigated war

crimes in occupied Palestine. Donald Trump has started a war in Iran, kidnapped a Venezuelan leader, and

that's just this year. Come on, you can't seriously believe that she is less deserving than Trump.

>> Well, I think if you looked at some of those past accomplishments, then sure, then I could I could you could make that

argument. I mean, you know, I'm not sure I'd want to be in the same company as as a lot of Nobel Peace Prize winners, but

but I think that the fact that >> Mandela, David Trimble, >> Winston Church,

>> yeah, but there's so many others that you wouldn't want to be in the company. And I'm I'm thinking Arafat might be

one. He was a terrorist. Um, you know, and I think even even some of the US winners that that, you know, shouldn't

be, you know, were not necessarily worthy. But that's okay. I mean, >> what's Okay, but okay. Well, put this

put it this way, Greg. What's Trump done better than the list that I just gave you?

>> Well, you know, he he has been involved in reducing conflict in the world and and if if you want to point to the one

time where he's actually used Connecticut, >> threatened to invade Greenland and then

invaded Iran. >> Yeah, I think that the threat in Greenland is laughable, but uh

>> I know I'm just saying that I'm just saying someone if you're giving someone a peace prize, right? What you probably

don't do is give it to a guy who literally threatens war even if he doesn't go through with it. Do you know

what I mean? Like war and peace are in my head quite in congruent concepts. >> Yeah. I mean there's there's also the

peace through strength argument and I think he's executed that pretty well. I mean

>> the for Reagan and Thatcher never got a Nobel Peace Prize. So look, I I I never expected him to get it. Okay, so let's

be clear. The Norwegians were never going to give Trump the um the Nobel Peace Prize. But I do think more

recently if you look at current events which I think it's it's awarded annually you have to look at what she has done

recently and that's basically >> I don't think it does actually quite work that way G. I think it is a life

it's kind of a lifetime thing. I don't think they just go well hey you know you were you were you were instrumental in

in helping you bring down apartheid South Africa but girl what you done recently.

>> Yeah maybe that maybe if you look at it it should it should be a net award. Maybe that's the case. If that's the

case then you're right. But if you look at what she's done in the last few years, you know, elevating Hamas and

criticizing hating Israel, you know, I think it's a travesty to give it to her. And so, you know, she's basically argued

that, you know, that the terrorists that committed the the October 7th massacre um were somewhat justified and those

defending against that are the terrorists or genocide. I mean, it's absurd. And so, I think, you know, for

that reason alone, I don't think she was worthy. But if you want to look at I guess the net net like oh she's been

really bad recently but she was really good for a long time. Okay. >> Just finally just finally Greg um do you

think a civilized country can stream public executions? >> Yeah that's a tough one. I I don't like

the idea of it. Um you know we've seen too many public executions lately. You know we've seen you know Daniel Pearl

Pearl get beheaded. We've seen Charlie Kirk publicly executed um last year in in uh in Utah. You know, I think I I

don't like it. I surely won't watch it myself, but I understand that we we want to use this as a deterrent. Um if you

argue that that could create a martyr out of this lunatic that that shot his own his own comrades, um you know, that

there might be an argument there. Although I don't think I think that the Islamic jihad is going to they're going

to do their best to generate, you know, new jihadists no matter what we do. And so if this if it proves to be a

deterrent, great. Um executions. If they don't live stream it, they'll still have 250 people witnessing it. Um including

the family of of some of the some of the uh brave men and women who lost their lives at Fort Hood. So I, you know, I I

don't I don't particularly think it's uh something I will watch. That's for sure. >> But uh I don't I didn't watch the you

know the killing of Henry Noak either even though it was broadcast constantly. So um you know I I think it's I think

it's sad that that it took 17 years for this to happen. I mean, the military tribunal should have done it in two

weeks.